politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Consolation for Theresa – in spite of the Tory turmoil LAB isn’t pulling away
We get so few voting polls these days that any new one is something of an event and today we had ICM for the Guardian which once again has the two main parties level pegging.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
Consider it an early Xmas present Mrs May. Although it's hard to see a recession and fractious Brexit negotiation leading to the Tories pulling away either. It'll be interesting to see if a decent deal is reached and if that mollifies some of the currently despondent Tories.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
One comment I've heard several times in relation to child rape cases, involving Muslim men, is that while these are bad, they should be "punished by the community" rather than through the criminal justice system. Which translates as, they should be swept under the carpet.
That represents a very huge difference in outlook between Conservatives and these communities.
No one is suggesting that the Conservatives win over individuals who believe that though. There are many minorities (such as myself) who don’t believe those things. For a start not all minorities believe in a specific kind of interpretation of the Muslim faith.
But the Conservatives are going to have win over more minorities in the future if they want to win, that’s the reality.
I'll refer to another point raised by @Nick C earlier. It does not relate specifically to ethnic minorities, but it does does relate to values.
He said some young people simply view support for Brexit as being a sign of bad character. They hate the idea of Britain espoused by a book like Our Island Story which they identify with the Conservatives.
Now, I don't see how any right wing party worth its name could appeal to such voters, unless they radically alter their opinions. Some voters are unreachable..
If I’m really being honest, I haven’t read/am not familiar with Our Island Story, so I can’t talk about that. But ethnic minorities/young people are unreachable for the Conservatives then the Conservatives have big issues in the future.
Many of them are widely travelled at a young age and think of themselves as European as much as British.
If that were genuinely true, the nation state would be in a far weaker position all over Europe than it is. I very much believe some people feel that way, and more say they feel that way, but nationalism would be dead if many young people felt no attachment to their country of origin that was not matched or exceeded by a wider sense of european community. And while the young were much more pro that community that others, millions still were not, and can we equate being pro that community to necessarily equating thinking themselves as much european as british? Plenty of people say the feel English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish while also being British, but not all who do place those two positions as equal (some much more strongly the former than the latter, personally I prioritise the latter).
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If they revert to four Belfast seats, then the DUP will probably support it.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
Has it not? There must have been provisional proposals out already, surely?
At this point I just tend to assume anything difficult will not get through.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government, but that's a different issue.
I look forward to parties reversing their positions on criticising concessions made/cash provided for support deals.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
Has it not? There must have been provisional proposals out already, surely?
At this point I just tend to assume anything difficult will not get through.
The provisional proposals were very good for Sinn Fein. Belfast would go from 3:1 DUP to 2:1 SF. Other changes would make Upper Bann very marginal and convert East Londonderry into an SF seat.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
I did say big assumptions. Which is unfortunate, as I really wanted the ridiculous situation in my own constituency sorted (you have 'villages' which are contiguous with a town, and in the same community area, in a different parliamentary constituency - which I'm sure isn't unique but riles me up).
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Bet it wouldn't lose a vote 299 to nil though
Depends what it was for
No Cornyn Govt would ever treat Parliament with such contempt. Although to me it has set an interesting precedent that could be very handy.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Bet it wouldn't lose a vote 299 to nil though
Depends what it was for
No Corbyn Govt would ever treat Parliament with such contempt.
That's awfully optimistic- I'll defer to a historian, but I'd have though a lesson of history is, where they think they can get away with it, all governments eventually treat parliament with contempt. It gets in their way after all.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
Isn't that a bit of a red herring whilstever SF doesn't take its seats?
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
Has it not? There must have been provisional proposals out already, surely?
At this point I just tend to assume anything difficult will not get through.
The provisional proposals were very good for Sinn Fein. Belfast would go from 3:1 DUP to 2:1 SF. Other changes would make Upper Bann very marginal and convert East Londonderry into an SF seat.
The other point to bear in mind is the seat reduction from 650 to 600... That means quite a few MPs in 'safe seats' are at risk. Several of those will abstain or vote against, possibly under the guise of 'principle' (e.g. North Dorset shouldn't be merged with part of Wiltshire https://www.ndca.org.uk/news/parliamentary-boundary-changes)
I’m not stating that the Conservative party should appeal to those who ‘do not have the values of the majority’. Where the hell I have said that? This is what I say when I disagree with your framing. I’ve said the Conservatives need to improve with ethnic minorities - and you’ve taken that and interpreted to ‘how far should the Conservative party go to appeal to those who don’t share British values?’ Don’t you see how that statement implies that appealing to minorities means automatically having to appeal to anti-British values? Don’t you see how that statement implies that there are no minorities with the values of the majority in general, so that means that the Conservative party would somehow have to go against the values of the majority to appeal to them?
Can’t you see that? Why assume that when it is said the Conservative party needed to improve with ethnic minorities that meant appealing to those who believe in gender segregation? The Conservative party has more ethnic minority MPs than it did prior to Cameron’s leadership: surely, that should demonstrate to you that ‘appeal to ethnic minorities’ does not mean appeal to misogynists? Especially given that you are talking to a mixed woman right now, who on this blog site had long written posts against misogyny, homophobia etc.
Doesn't sound from the DUP submission to the initial consultation that they are close to agreeing with it so long as some minor stuff happens.
This submission does not accept both the underlying precepts of the Commission’s Provisional Recommendations and the out-workings that flow from it. The Commission needs to revisit both its broad approach and its detailed proposals. The DUP has consistently criticised the present legislation as much more likely to produce poor boundaries and the Commission’s proposals appear to have gone out of their way to fulfil our concerns. The end result of this flawed approach is an unnecessary level of change and constituencies that make statistical sense but very little else.
While we appreciate it is not a consideration of the Commission, we must state that the proposals would produce an unrepresentative political result that would have the potential to have far reaching and negative political consequences for the constitutional stability of Northern Ireland
Given one of the main concerns is not supposed to be a consideration of the Commission, and the others involve fundamental problems with underlying precepts and approach which apparently were not taken on board previously, it seems fair to conclude they will not budge unless the boundaries are majorly different when they are next published.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
I did say big assumptions. Which is unfortunate, as I really wanted the ridiculous situation in my own constituency sorted (you have 'villages' which are contiguous with a town, and in the same community area, in a different parliamentary constituency - which I'm sure isn't unique but riles me up).
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
Isn't that a bit of a red herring whilstever SF doesn't take its seats?
No, because it still would mean less DUP guys and girls in jobs. What's the incentive for them to support that?
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
It would be the weakest government since the war, even Cameron in 2010 and May in 2017 needed only 1 party supporting the Tories for a majority, Corbyn would likely need at least 2, probably the SNP and LDs.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
Bet it wouldn't lose a vote 299 to nil though
Depends what it was for
No Cornyn Govt would ever treat Parliament with such contempt. Although to me it has set an interesting precedent that could be very handy.
A Corbyn government would do whatever it could to get a Corbyn agenda through and whatever deals it needed to do with other parties to achieve it.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
I did say big assumptions. Which is unfortunate, as I really wanted the ridiculous situation in my own constituency sorted (you have 'villages' which are contiguous with a town, and in the same community area, in a different parliamentary constituency - which I'm sure isn't unique but riles me up).
That is in fact the seat created by the redrawing of the one I live in, with the larger portion of it merging with Dorset. Apparently we were only a few thousand electors short of not needing to lose a seat in Wiltshire.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Or anyone to stay in government if it is merely a 1% swing! The LD/CON coalition may have made it look pretty easy, but the terrible polling position for the LDs always gave them incentive not to abandon ship, but a three-way? One of the groups would probably feel like taking a gamble at some point.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
Isn't that a bit of a red herring whilstever SF doesn't take its seats?
No, because it still would mean less DUP guys and girls in jobs. What's the incentive for them to support that?
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
Tut tut!
The DUP got more votes than SF!
The proposed Boundary changes would give the DUP huge, useless, majorities, and SF small, useful ones.
The challenge for the DUP is to deliver as much pork as they can to NI ahead of the next election. Which is the primry reason why they won't want to crash this Govt. The more tonnage of pork, the greater their status as heroes back home....
And after all that has been said, Labour aren't going to be giving them any deal to stay inside the tent. Because that would make them hypocrites....
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
I did say big assumptions. Which is unfortunate, as I really wanted the ridiculous situation in my own constituency sorted (you have 'villages' which are contiguous with a town, and in the same community area, in a different parliamentary constituency - which I'm sure isn't unique but riles me up).
That is in fact the seat created by the redrawing of the one I live in, with the larger portion of it merging with Dorset. Apparently we were only a few thousand electors short of not needing to lose a seat in Wiltshire.
It's not something that particularly gets me worked up. So long as I can vote somewhere and I have confidence the constituencies are all boradly the same size I don't care whether I'm voting in 'North Dorset' or 'Shaftesbury and Warminster'.
But the current MPs seem to care (quelle surprise!) and I suspect up and down the country quite a few 'at risk' Tories will end up absenting themselves during a key vote, due to 'pressing constituency matters', leaving the opposition parties free to defeat the new proposals. (That's assuming it ever gets near a vote.)
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
So making some big assumptions, if they went through, and if Labour can improve a bit, but not get away (like current polling, for what that is worth), then the Tories would have a decent shot of being largest party under those boundaries as with the current ones.
The boundary changes are not going through this side of a GE - no way.
That is in fact the seat created by the redrawing of the one I live in, with the larger portion of it merging with Dorset. Apparently we were only a few thousand electors short of not needing to lose a seat in Wiltshire.
It's not something that particularly gets me worked up. So long as I can vote somewhere and I have confidence the constituencies are all boradly the same size I don't care whether I'm voting in 'North Dorset' or 'Shaftesbury and Warminster'.
But the current MPs seem to care (quelle surprise!) and I suspect up and down the country quite a few 'at risk' Tories will end up absenting themselves during a key vote, due to 'pressing constituency matters', leaving the opposition parties free to defeat the new proposals. (That's assuming it ever gets near a vote.)
Unless it is unavoidable I suspect it won't, for that very reason.
On cross county seats, I don't mind them, housing market areas, functional economic market areas, these things go across ancient administrative boundaries and local authorities are required to work with each other on such things as a result, so while in the absence of compelling reason I'd want them to try to stick to such boundaries, it doesn't bother me if they do not. Splitting up contiguous areas (except in cities, obviously) does annoy though, since those are not essentially arbitrary lines on maps.
I am a big supporter of Corbyn, but even I realise that 42% is probably a glass ceiling for him, because of the personal animosity a large wedge of the electorate has for him. I think he will realise that before the next election and also realise that with a new leader, chosen and supported by him, a left leaning Labour Party would easily win the next election.
He didn't set out to be leader and he always said it was more about creating a movement. He has boosted membership to such an extent that a left wing leader will be elected by the membership and given that leader an excellent base to push on from. I think he will put Party before any personal ambition he might have to become PM, when the time comes.
Academics are the frightened deers of the employment world. Sure, sometimes that car really is coming right for them, but other times they are jumping at nothing.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
Plenty of examples to the contrary as well. See Joe Clark.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
Wilson thought the same in October 1974 after failing to win a majority in February and ended up with a majority of just 3.
I am a big supporter of Corbyn, but even I realise that 42% is probably a glass ceiling for him, because of the personal animosity a large wedge of the electorate has for him. I think he will realise that before the next election and also realise that with a new leader, chosen and supported by him, a left leaning Labour Party would easily win the next election.
He didn't set out to be leader and he always said it was more about creating a movement. He has boosted membership to such an extent that a left wing leader will be elected by the membership and given that leader an excellent base to push on from. I think he will put Party before any personal ambition he might have to become PM, when the time comes.
A leader with his approval, and without the drawbacks which at least had some effect (on me for one), would probably get a workable majority at the least unless the Tories pull a Brexit hat out of the bag, as it were.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
True, but the LDs are now pretty much down to their base who presumably accepted what being a junior partner is like in a coalition. So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
Wilson thought the same in October 1974 after failing to win a majority in February and ended up with a majority of 3.
I am a big supporter of Corbyn, but even I realise that 42% is probably a glass ceiling for him, because of the personal animosity a large wedge of the electorate has for him. I think he will realise that before the next election and also realise that with a new leader, chosen and supported by him, a left leaning Labour Party would easily win the next election.
He didn't set out to be leader and he always said it was more about creating a movement. He has boosted membership to such an extent that a left wing leader will be elected by the membership and given that leader an excellent base to push on from. I think he will put Party before any personal ambition he might have to become PM, when the time comes.
I wouldn't underestimate the egomania that can take hold of even the humblest man. Let's not forget, this is a man who addressed an adoring crowd to a rockstar's welcome at Glastonbury this year and confidently stated he would be PM by the end of the year... not to mention hearing his name chanted wherever he goes.
Corbyn strikes me as the kind of person who is very quietly smug that his moment has come at last. FWIW, I think a more palatable leader would have stormed home to victory on Labour's 2017 manifesto. But as the last two years have proven, Corbyn isn't going anywhere any time soon..
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
True, but the LDs are now pretty much down to their base who presumably accepted what being a junior partner is like in a coalition. So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
Well you'd think, but they went down in 2017! Great showings in Scotland with a much more concentrated vote and some good targeting in other areas have kind of covered up what a terrible situation they could well be in - as I've noted before, in this south western region they have now not even been the second place, 'anyone but Tory' vote since 2010, it could be 12 years by the time of the next election, and they lost out in most of the towns where many of their county seats were too in May this year. SNP or SLAB recovery effect, and not many fertile areas to target elsewhere, and they would be wise to be wary of being labour's eager helpers. Particularly as unlike the Coalition they'd probably be on so few seats they wouldn't get anywhere near as many high profile ministers, if any.
I see the DUP are arguing the reduction to three Belfast seats is based on a misinterpretation of the law, using a rule not applicable in NI. That will be an interesting one if the Commission agrees.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
True, but the LDs are now pretty much down to their base who presumably accepted what being a junior partner is like in a coalition. So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
Well you'd think, but they went down in 2017! Great showings in Scotland with a much more concentrated vote and some good targeting in other areas have kind of covered up what a terrible situation they could well be in - as I've noted before, in this south western region they have now not even been the second place, 'anyone but Tory' vote since 2010, it could be 12 years by the time of the next election, and they lost out in most of the towns where many of their county seats were too in May this year. SNP or SLAB recovery effect, and not many fertile areas to target elsewhere, and they would be wise to be wary of being labour's eager helpers. Particularly as unlike the Coalition they'd probably be on so few seats they wouldn't get anywhere near as many high profile ministers, if any.
It would probably be a confidence and supply deal. You’re right though: there aren’t many places where the LDs have significant majorities. Farron’s seat will probably go Tory next time.
One good idea Labour have had the last couple of manifestos is a Constitutional Convention to look at a tranche of issues, although it is always a bit odd as that is suggested, but obviously they then state a preference for specific solutions in advance of said convention. If they were to recommend PR, the LDs would probably suffer a lot to get it.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
Isn't that a bit of a red herring whilstever SF doesn't take its seats?
No, because it still would mean less DUP guys and girls in jobs. What's the incentive for them to support that?
Worse: it would make SF a bigger party than the DUP, despite the DUP getting 25% more votes.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
Wilson thought the same in October 1974 after failing to win a majority in February and ended up with a majority of 3.
So it worked then.
As OGH will no doubt confirm a majority of 3 is not defined as a working majority even if it is a technical one.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
Tut tut!
The DUP got more votes than SF!
The proposed Boundary changes would give the DUP huge, useless, majorities, and SF small, useful ones.
Part of the problem with the boundary commission was the requirement of excessively tight contituency sizes. Yes, we all agree that the current situation where the largest constituency is FIVE times bigger than the smallest is wrong.
But surely it would be better to have constituencies which represented a coherent group of people rather than trying to make them all exactly the same size. I'd have 65,000 +/- 10,000 and try and fit in with existing town and county boundaries, which would allow the boundary commission a little more leeway to respect geography and history.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
If Corbyn is going to be the PM that would be the least worst way I suppose.
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
It would be very possible that such an outcome would result in a swift second election "give us the tools to do the job" etc.
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
Wilson thought the same in October 1974 after failing to win a majority in February and ended up with a majority of 3.
So it worked then.
As OGH will no doubt confirm a majority of 3 is not defined as a working majority even if it is a technical one.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but even though the plan was not as successful as hoped, it still moved in the right direction, that's something.
Trump continued to talk about a number of different subjects, including earning former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight's endorsement, the fact that his hair was real, and that his decision to run for president was "not something that I really wanted to do."
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
Tut tut!
The DUP got more votes than SF!
The proposed Boundary changes would give the DUP huge, useless, majorities, and SF small, useful ones.
Part of the problem with the boundary commission was the requirement of excessively tight contituency sizes. Yes, we all agree that the current situation where the largest constituency is FIVE times bigger than the smallest is wrong.
But surely it would be better to have constituencies which represented a coherent group of people rather than trying to make them all exactly the same size. I'd have 65,000 +/- 10,000 and try and fit in with existing town and county boundaries, which would allow the boundary commission a little more leeway to respect geography and history.
Robert am I on for £10 at 20s on a by-election in Sheffield Hallam?
It would buy you 1/4 a bottle of local California wine I would imagine.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
True, but the LDs are now pretty much down to their base who presumably accepted what being a junior partner is like in a coalition. So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
Well you'd think, but they went down in 2017! Great showings in Scotland with a much more concentrated vote and some good targeting in other areas have kind of covered up what a terrible situation they could well be in - as I've noted before, in this south western region they have now not even been the second place, 'anyone but Tory' vote since 2010, it could be 12 years by the time of the next election, and they lost out in most of the towns where many of their county seats were too in May this year. SNP or SLAB recovery effect, and not many fertile areas to target elsewhere, and they would be wise to be wary of being labour's eager helpers. Particularly as unlike the Coalition they'd probably be on so few seats they wouldn't get anywhere near as many high profile ministers, if any.
People forget that Corbyn essentially only needs to gain about 10 seats off the Tories to become PM, if you assume all the other parties stay the same. In other words, only a third of the gains he made from the Tories this time.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
Yes. A 1% swing to Labour would already make it hard for the Tories to stay in government.
Though Labour would be reliant on SNP and LD support.
I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, it would constrain Corbyn’s more extreme instincts for a start.
Both of them better make sure they can sell that to their electorate though - as the LDs made the same argument, and the public gave a resounding opinion of how well a job they thought they did reining in the Tories. They either said they did terribly, or they considered the Tories weren't so bad after all (at least in LD held seats).
True, but the LDs are now pretty much down to their base who presumably accepted what being a junior partner is like in a coalition. So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
Well you'd think, but they went down in 2017! Great showings in Scotland with a much more concentrated vote and some good targeting in other areas have kind of covered up what a terrible situation they could well be in - as I've noted before, in this south western region they have now not even been the second place, 'anyone but Tory' vote since 2010, it could be 12 years by the time of the next election, and they lost out in most of the towns where many of their county seats were too in May this year. SNP or SLAB recovery effect, and not many fertile areas to target elsewhere, and they would be wise to be wary of being labour's eager helpers. Particularly as unlike the Coalition they'd probably be on so few seats they wouldn't get anywhere near as many high profile ministers, if any.
Based on the 1% swing to Labour since June suggested by ICM Labour would gain 22 seats in a general election tomorrow, 14 from the Tories, 7 from the SNP and 1 from PC. That would take them to 284 seats.
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
If the boundary review is accepted, the Tories would start on 307 seats out of 600.
A majority yes, though that is a big if.
I think the Tories will vote for it. The question is what the DUP will do, and the Northern Ireland review hasn't been published yet so we can't know.
If the Tories can get it adjusted so the DUP are at least level pegging with SF they might support it.
You mean by calling on the services of Mr Gerry Mander?
Tut tut!
The DUP got more votes than SF!
The proposed Boundary changes would give the DUP huge, useless, majorities, and SF small, useful ones.
Part of the problem with the boundary commission was the requirement of excessively tight contituency sizes. Yes, we all agree that the current situation where the largest constituency is FIVE times bigger than the smallest is wrong.
But surely it would be better to have constituencies which represented a coherent group of people rather than trying to make them all exactly the same size. I'd have 65,000 +/- 10,000 and try and fit in with existing town and county boundaries, which would allow the boundary commission a little more leeway to respect geography and history.
Robert am I on for £10 at 20s on a by-election in Sheffield Hallam?
It would buy you 1/4 a bottle of local California wine I would imagine.
Trump continued to talk about a number of different subjects, including earning former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight's endorsement, the fact that his hair was real, and that his decision to run for president was "not something that I really wanted to do."
Comments
However the Tories would still be the largest party on 303 seats, therefore Labour would need support from both the SNP and PC and the LDs on a confidence and supply basis to form a minority government.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
How wrong was it at GE 2017 again
In this ICM poll Corbyn has a 10% lead over May.
That's enough to knock a few points off the Tories and add a couple of points to Labour.
What takes longer. LAB GE win or Sheffield Wednesday promotion to Premier League?
I'm sure that will go well - have faith in Philip!!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9951
May had no swingback, she achieved swingaway!
The Tories are also unlikely to be pushing another manifesto debacle like the one including the dementia tax but will go on the attack on tax etc.
Oh how we laughed How is Kaboom Boon still getting paid for such crap.
ICM did correctly predict Leave would win the EU referendum though, even Survation did not do that.
It might not be a very "strong and stable" government in that scenario, but that's a different issue.
At this point I just tend to assume anything difficult will not get through.
It is perfectly possible to imagine, say Davis succeeding May as PM, winning most seats at the general election but lacking enough support even with the DUP for a majority, Corbyn then doing a deal with the SNP and LDs to lead a minority government and Boris taking over as opposition leader with the Tories still on around 300 seats.
ICM completely underestimated Jezza just like you
FPT:
@Cyclefree
I’m not stating that the Conservative party should appeal to those who ‘do not have the values of the majority’. Where the hell I have said that? This is what I say when I disagree with your framing. I’ve said the Conservatives need to improve with ethnic minorities - and you’ve taken that and interpreted to ‘how far should the Conservative party go to appeal to those who don’t share British values?’ Don’t you see how that statement implies that appealing to minorities means automatically having to appeal to anti-British values? Don’t you see how that statement implies that there are no minorities with the values of the majority in general, so that means that the Conservative party would somehow have to go against the values of the majority to appeal to them?
Can’t you see that? Why assume that when it is said the Conservative party needed to improve with ethnic minorities that meant appealing to those who believe in gender segregation? The Conservative party has more ethnic minority MPs than it did prior to Cameron’s leadership: surely, that should demonstrate to you that ‘appeal to ethnic minorities’ does not mean appeal to misogynists? Especially given that you are talking to a mixed woman right now, who on this blog site had long written posts against misogyny, homophobia etc.
This submission does not accept both the underlying precepts of the Commission’s
Provisional Recommendations and the out-workings that flow from it. The Commission
needs to revisit both its broad approach and its detailed proposals. The DUP has
consistently criticised the present legislation as much more likely to produce poor
boundaries and the Commission’s proposals appear to have gone out of their way to fulfil
our concerns. The end result of this flawed approach is an unnecessary level of change and
constituencies that make statistical sense but very little else.
While we appreciate it is not a consideration of the Commission, we must state that the
proposals would produce an unrepresentative political result that would have the potential
to have far reaching and negative political consequences for the constitutional stability of
Northern Ireland
Given one of the main concerns is not supposed to be a consideration of the Commission, and the others involve fundamental problems with underlying precepts and approach which apparently were not taken on board previously, it seems fair to conclude they will not budge unless the boundaries are majorly different when they are next published.
https://www.boundarycommission.org.uk/sites/boundarycommission.org.uk/files/media-files/Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).PDF
https://www.ndca.org.uk/news/parliamentary-boundary-changes
Tut tut!
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/922945919271755776
Though it would also mean the Tories would effectively have the role of opposition all to themselves which would be a help if the government soon became unpopular, they would receive all the protest votes.
And after all that has been said, Labour aren't going to be giving them any deal to stay inside the tent. Because that would make them hypocrites....
Oh.
But the current MPs seem to care (quelle surprise!) and I suspect up and down the country quite a few 'at risk' Tories will end up absenting themselves during a key vote, due to 'pressing constituency matters', leaving the opposition parties free to defeat the new proposals. (That's assuming it ever gets near a vote.)
Corbyn majority in his honeymoon.
On cross county seats, I don't mind them, housing market areas, functional economic market areas, these things go across ancient administrative boundaries and local authorities are required to work with each other on such things as a result, so while in the absence of compelling reason I'd want them to try to stick to such boundaries, it doesn't bother me if they do not. Splitting up contiguous areas (except in cities, obviously) does annoy though, since those are not essentially arbitrary lines on maps.
He didn't set out to be leader and he always said it was more about creating a movement. He has boosted membership to such an extent that a left wing leader will be elected by the membership and given that leader an excellent base to push on from. I think he will put Party before any personal ambition he might have to become PM, when the time comes.
So I don’t think they have that many voters left to lose....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/lawmaker-asks-facebook-for-detail-on-brexit-related-russian-ads
Corbyn strikes me as the kind of person who is very quietly smug that his moment has come at last. FWIW, I think a more palatable leader would have stormed home to victory on Labour's 2017 manifesto. But as the last two years have proven, Corbyn isn't going anywhere any time soon..
But surely it would be better to have constituencies which represented a coherent group of people rather than trying to make them all exactly the same size. I'd have 65,000 +/- 10,000 and try and fit in with existing town and county boundaries, which would allow the boundary commission a little more leeway to respect geography and history.
Ian Paisley's article here shows how detached they are from the realities of the negotiations.
http://brexitcentral.com/dublin-denial-brexit-irish-politicians-new-strategy/
You've been hearing me say it's a rigged system, but now I don't say it anymore because I won. It's true. Now I don't care
Albeit that was in relation to the primary system, which is a confusing mess for both parties.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-gop-rigged-but-i-dont-care-because-i-won/article/2590545
Incidentally, I do love the summary on that page:
Trump continued to talk about a number of different subjects, including earning former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight's endorsement, the fact that his hair was real, and that his decision to run for president was "not something that I really wanted to do."
It would buy you 1/4 a bottle of local California wine I would imagine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/10/24/cambridge-university-caves-student-demands-decolonise-english/
We don’t want to do Plato on a philosophy course cos he was white and it’s all racialist.