Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s hard won Scots Tory gains at GE2017 look set t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s hard won Scots Tory gains at GE2017 look set to evaporate at an early general election
One thing that is looking increasingly likely at the next election is that a lot more seats are going to change hands than usual. BJohnson’s party will be looking to make gains in Leave areas to offset likely losses to the resurgent LDs and in Scotland the SNP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That was reinforced by the Ashcroft poll showing Jo Swinson more popular than both Boris and Corbyn with Scottish voters but Ruth Davidson even more popular than Swinson with Scots
It would be great to know what impact that has on voting intent as I suspect it's different (and worse) to the values there.
But not as well as the strongly pro-Remain SNP - so that leaves the Lib Dems potentially fishing in the Remain-Unionist corner of the pool - not the most extensive of expanses of water and one where Con have nearly half the voters. How is a strong Pro-Remain message going to get them?
Unfortunately Lord Ashcroft does not give us a breakdown of LibDem 2017 voters (another rather small pool), but what we can see among the three traditional parties is what proportion of their 2017 vote they are hanging on to:
Con: 71
Lab: 56
SNP: 88
Green voters are coming from Labour (30) and SNP (34), Lib Dems spread pretty evenly (Con 26, Lab 32, SNP 20) while the Brexit Party are overwhelmingly Tory (Con 35, Lab 12, SNP 8).
So that suggests that while the SNP clearly remain head & shoulders above the rest, there is a degree of stickiness to the SCon vote, and leakage has gone to the Brexit party, which as we have seen in other polling may have peaked.
Looking at Remain/Leave voters - mean certainty to vote is:
Con: 14 / 46
Lab: 27 / 15
SNP: 54 / 28
LibD: 34 / 16
BXT: 4 / 39
Grn: 33 / 13
A majority of Remain voters support the SNP, while SCon clearly leads among Leave voters
So the LibDems are up against the Greens and SNP for the Remain vote (well behind the SNP, parity with the Greens) and Scon is up against the Brexit Party, which they lead, for the Leave Vote. I know who I'd rather be up against.
And finally, while the traditional parties are pretty broad churches by social grade, the LibDems skew upscale and the Greens skew heavily upscale, while the Brexit party skews downscale.
Con: 25 / 23
Lab: 25 / 22
SNP: 45 / 44
LibD: 34 / 21
BXT: 13 / 18
Grn: 33 / 13
In the unlikely event every Brexit Party voter voted Tory there would actually be a 1.5% swing from the SNP to the Tories, the Tories would hold all their Scottish seats and gain 5 Scottish seats from the SNP
"Positive Mean"
Johnson / Davidson: 24 / 36
Corbyn / Leonard: 22 / 22
Swinson / Rennie: 31 / 22
Labour's leaders are equally useless rated, while Ruth has a 'home team' advantage, not enjoyed by her Lib Dem counterpart.
For comparison:
Sturgeon: 45
Farage: 18
Farage's bottom of the table rating again raises questions over the robustness of the BXP vote.
And I suspect a lot of that Brexit vote would never vote Tory and a bit of that Tory vote won’t vote for a Tory party with a formal relationship to Farage
1. Mr Palmer's thought-provoking piece earlier today deserves more consideration. Assuming that we do Leave without a Deal on 31st Oct and reasonably shortly afterwards Johnson manages to finagle an election, what will the various parties manifestoes look like?
2. The nearer we come to an election the more the Brexit Party's manifesto will be looked at, and, I suggest the likelier many of those who say "Voting Brexit, we gotter come out' are going have doubts about what else may happen with a significant number of Brexit MP's. UKIP MEP's behaviour doesn't give cause for much confidence.
3. England need to have a careful think about how they approach Test cricket, in the long as well as the short term.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
Any sort of talk of "Remain alliance" type deals and pacts is going to fall apart when it gets to Scotland.
Similarly,.the relatively poor score for the Tories reflects to an extent how negatively non-Tories view them. This might mean they win fewer tactical pro-Union votes, but it means you would expect them to score lower in a question like this rather than standard voting intention. And how much difference does it make that people who won't vote Tory *really* won't vote Tory? Tactical voting is not so important when the SNP are so dominant.
But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people
If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do
In the same way he wants no backstop but doesn't even have a proposal for an alternative. I'm not a fan of the backstop but having no preferred option is just daft.
“But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”
Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.
By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.
Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.
Taking the Median positive rating:
Sturgeon: 50
Johnson: 3
Swinson: 25
Corbyn: 9
Farage: 2
Davidson: 26
Leonard: 10
Rennie: 25
But effectively we are saying the same thing - the Queen won’t chose just anyone. But if someone has the majority support of the Commons it doesn’t matter what Boris does.
The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.
Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
And possibly a far better one than trying to fight an election in the middle of a No Deal Brexit - though naturally in that circumstance they would attempt to blame those who VONC’d them.
The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
But the current U.K. government isn’t recommending it. Therefore it becomes a proposal from the EU.
This is a position we found ourselves in many times during my career in industrial relations. After months of negotiation, a negotiated agreement is rejected by the union’s committee.
Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.
The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.
If this doesn’t work there is a crisis (one such led to Alan Johnson entering politics, but that’s another story) and loss of trust between the parties, which is hard to rebuild. Hence in sensible negotiations both sides try to avoid getting into such situations.
Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.
The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
And he is hoping win a significant plurality of the vote in an English electorate divided among three, perhaps four parties
The position will potentially be different if we acquire a PM with different red lines. But as things stand, No Deal is obviously the outcome.
But if there is no willingness to move on THE issue then there’s no much point in spending time. Maybe if there were other outstanding issues you could get a give and take going and end up with someone willing to compromise, but here there isn’t.
In your analogy it’s like the union negotiators saying “we like your deal on the whole but the executive rejected it because of point A. Unless you can help us here we can’t get it through”. Management is then responding “this is the deal we negotiated and we are not willing to change it”. That’s going to end up with a strike.
Just as in my industrial relations scenario any differences amongst the union side were resolved by putting the deal to a ballot of members, with any dissenting reps free to campaign on the no side.
Perhaps what we need is a "Deal versus no deal" referendum...
You wouldn’t go to your members and say “this deal or we go back to the old terms”. It would be “this deal or strike”
The very survival of the UK is now dependent on forces beyond the control of the "cast of Fraggle Rock presided over by the Honey Monster" which currently forms the government.
Well played Tories ! You utterly contemptible ***** !
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
The Government don't really want no deal.
Remainers argue that they refuse to accept that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but refuse to follow the logic of that argument through (given that it seems increasingly unlikely that they can prevent no deal)
The EU argue against any deal without a backstop and a hard border in Ireland, even though no deal means a hard border in Ireland (don't get me started on the rather absurd position that post Brexit talks, after a no deal exit, must retain the backstop as a precondition, when the whole point of the backstop is to prevent a newly created hard border in the event that a satisfactory trade deal cannot be negotiated).
About the only people who can look the electorate in the face are those who genuinely desire no deal and are working towards it, or those who voted for the deal but are trying to avert no deal given its rejection.
Nicola Sturgeon has said that her conversations with Theresa May during her time as prime minister were “pretty soul destroying”.
Scotland’s First Minister, speaking at an Edinburgh Fringe Festival event with Iain Dale on Monday, said that Mrs May would always stick to a prepared script and suggested that even light-hearted moments could become awkward.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
Anyhow I have done what I have accused others of and led the Brexit discussion off into some analogy. Best stop.
It certainly gave me a mental image of Netanyahu and Patel that I'm sure I didn't need.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/08/05/is-it-too-late-to-stop-a-no-deal-brexit/
Basically matches the pb non-bonkers-person consensus from previous threads but also has lots of extra detail.
Worse, they have power to the Brexit Party's mantra of betrayal, which would have helped them in the Euros.
But as always with leavers, we're seeing: "It's all someone else's fault!"
The Executive and the Legislature have different roles.
Essentially the voters said “do this”
The Executive came up with a detailed proposal
Parliament rejected it and have since offered no alternative
There are only 3 options
1. Ratify the WA
2. Sack the executive and replace them with someone that will revoke or extend
3. Leave with No Deal
“Instructing the Executive to do X” isn’t and shouldn’t be a thing. It’s the job of the executive to do what it thinks is right. If parliament disagrees they replace the executive. Every few years the voters get to cast judgement on their representatives’ actions.
The ERG were, and are, in denial of reality.
While it’s entirely reasonable to criticise the opposition (and Labour in particular, given their policy convolutions, and nominal support for some sort of undefined Brexit), there was at least a logical basis for their opposition.
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Most MPs are pro-EU. These MPs have voted successively to leave the EU and against the deal. They're now upset that we're on course to leave with no deal.
The difference between them and the ERG is that the ERG is voting for what it wants and is glad it's getting it. The pro-EU bloc are voting for something they think is terrible and are horrified that their actions have consequences diametrically opposed to their desires.
Where the Lib Dems don’t stand their votes would go to Con and Lab.
The Greens don’t contest Westminster elections (they only stood in 3 out of 59 seats last time), but even in those 3 seats, if they didn’t stand, their votes would go SNP, Lab and LD, in that order.
Scotland is not England.
It isn’t Wales either.
And bloody hell to the gap between him and Gasly in Spa. Can't say it's undeserved, but Verstappen's 8 for the win, and Gasly is 126.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
I'm looking forward to a trip to Sutton Hoo again.
Labour put party before country.