The Luton result I believe occured in a relatively affluent area on the fringe of town that into which a significant BME asian population has now migrated from within Luton. So I think it's a combination of affluent remainers and BME support being relatively loyal to Labour.
The Crawley result I think presages what could happen in traditional areas of Labour support in the Midlands and North as well as some Leave-inclined pockets in the South, at least those where BME support is not a particularly significant element of the Labour vote.
This is a tricky one, he certainly has a point. We should get to a world where if someone wants to dress up as anyone else for fancy dress that is fine, regardless of race or gender.
Dressing up as someone particular feels very different to dressing up as a generic black/chinese/arabic/white/etc person if you are not of that race.
Note: Labour held this seat, with respectable majorities, until 2015. Amazing to remember how far and how fast they have fallen.
Aberdeen south I've got as the 5th seat on the Tory Scottish firewall, and well immolated at that. They'd need I think about 22% generally in Scotland to hold it
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
I thought we were told that everyone alive during WW2 voted remain. Wouldn't they be the oldest people?
Yes. My Grandad, who was a member of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, voted Remain in 2016, and he died in November 2017. So that's one vote lost to the Remain tally.
My daughter is monitoring the political situation in the hope that any new vote is delayed until after her imminent 18th birthday. She had an opportunity to meet her local [Labour] MP, and has been partially won over. So that will be one more vote against the forces of Leaverism.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
Just a reminder - 67% of the electorate was Leave or Don't Care.
Yes. The point being that (roughly) only 1/3rd is going to grump about not getting their preferred outcome.
So all this talk of the entire UK population rising up in outrage with their pitchforks and torches is, frankly, tripe.
And a fair chunk of that third weren't really that bothered either way but were asked to vote, so voted. On here we're political obsessives with strong opinions on Brexit. Most of the country was never really that bothered.
A fair chunk of that 'not really bothered' group might prefer to have the winning outcome implemented (whichever outcome had won) but they'll not be picking up pitchforks.
I'm not opining on the rights and wrongs, just that neither revoke nor no deal would lead to immediate mass outrage. The longer term effects of no deal might do so, but the response would be most likely just be to give the (ir)responsible government a good kicking at the next election.
I voted Leave but it was a close run thing. I would like a Europe with the freedoms but without the regulations and the spending. That sort of Brexit was probably never likely to happen. I also questioned whether the government would f*** it up, scepticism that as it has turned out, was justified. So paradoxically I would now prefer to Remain, as anything like May's deal isn't worth paying for.
(If Remain had told me how many big trade deals the EU had in the pipeline I might have voted to stay in. But Remain told itself we are all racists and xenopgobes, so didn't bother)
Yep, the remain campaign was terrible. I thought so at the time (remember discussing it with a leaver family member) although I still thought remain would scrape through.
Leave campaign was also bad on quality of debate, but it was simple and effective.
Hardly surprising as one was the Borough council seat and the other the County council seat held by the same person who has died. ie they cover pretty much the same area
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
Statistically so.
ABC1, more educated, less obese, less likely to smoke, even change their underwear more often*.
Even at the same age, life expectancy for Remainers is likely to be longer than Leavers.
But Remainers die too... the "1m (Leavers) are dead" line is gross in more ways than one
Certainly so, but differential mortality and the demographics of Leave voting have actuairlly shifted the balance of the country.
How many have changed their mind is also interesting, the problem of finding voters willing to admit voting Leave in 2016 being problematic for most pollsters.
For months and months I thought a roughly 60/40 Remain win was almost certain. As someone above said, they could've talked about big deals in the EU pipeline. Instead their cunning plan was to say "It's not £350m a week we send to the year. It's only £200m or so."
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
I thought we were told that everyone alive during WW2 voted remain. Wouldn't they be the oldest people?
Yes. My Grandad, who was a member of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, voted Remain in 2016, and he died in November 2017. So that's one vote lost to the Remain tally.
My daughter is monitoring the political situation in the hope that any new vote is delayed until after her imminent 18th birthday. She had an opportunity to meet her local [Labour] MP, and has been partially won over. So that will be one more vote against the forces of Leaverism.
huh???
Lab isn't a remain party. It is a god knows let's wait and see if it's leave it's leave party.
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
Statistically so.
ABC1, more educated, less obese, less likely to smoke, even change their underwear more often*.
Even at the same age, life expectancy for Remainers is likely to be longer than Leavers.
But Remainers die too... the "1m (Leavers) are dead" line is gross in more ways than one
Certainly so, but differential mortality and the demographics of Leave voting have actuairlly shifted the balance of the country.
How many have changed their mind is also interesting, the problem of finding voters willing to admit voting Leave in 2016 being problematic for most pollsters.
Maybe so, maybe not. The problem Remainers seem to have is they only count the converts to their cause and the deaths of the other side
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Vonc passes, Corbyn spends 12 of the 14 days pork barreling to get enough to pass a VOC He gets stymied by the indies and change in the vote. In a Huff he fails to support anyone else. Election. Labour utterly humiliated by the electorate. Corbyn retires to his marrows. Nation rejoices
Esher and Walton (Con May 23,298; Dominic Raab MP)
Con 1/5 LD 3/1 Lab 50/1 Bxp 100/1
(Shadsy)
I'd put money on the LDs if I were a betting man (I know, I am on the wrong site...).
My model has it as Con hold, but very narrowly. Raab's hard core Leaverdom should help him squeeze the BXP vote but equally Lab voters could go LD on a decapitation strategy.
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
I thought we were told that everyone alive during WW2 voted remain. Wouldn't they be the oldest people?
Yes. My Grandad, who was a member of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, voted Remain in 2016, and he died in November 2017. So that's one vote lost to the Remain tally.
My daughter is monitoring the political situation in the hope that any new vote is delayed until after her imminent 18th birthday. She had an opportunity to meet her local [Labour] MP, and has been partially won over. So that will be one more vote against the forces of Leaverism.
huh???
Lab isn't a remain party. It is a god knows let's wait and see if it's leave it's leave party.
Well there's the difference between the local MP and the national party, and a whole host of other hairs that I could split to define her vote, if it is for Labour, as being a vote against Leave, but I've seen this argument played out so often between my Dad and step-mother that I will not replay it here.
This is a tricky one, he certainly has a point. We should get to a world where if someone wants to dress up as anyone else for fancy dress that is fine, regardless of race or gender.
Dressing up as someone particular feels very different to dressing up as a generic black/chinese/arabic/white/etc person if you are not of that race.
I’d have thought a politician doing James Brown would have worn mundane suits, sported a rictus grin, left his mouth half open when he stopped speaking, and slagged off voters behind their backs for expressing views on immigration, while listening to the arctic monkeys
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
Statistically so.
ABC1, more educated, less obese, less likely to smoke, even change their underwear more often*.
Even at the same age, life expectancy for Remainers is likely to be longer than Leavers.
But Remainers die too... the "1m (Leavers) are dead" line is gross in more ways than one
Certainly so, but differential mortality and the demographics of Leave voting have actuairlly shifted the balance of the country.
How many have changed their mind is also interesting, the problem of finding voters willing to admit voting Leave in 2016 being problematic for most pollsters.
Maybe so, maybe not. The problem Remainers seem to have is they only count the converts to their cause and the deaths of the other side
I agree. The only way to be certain of what current opinion is is to repeat the vote, and see whether the slight Leave majority has dissipated over the 40 months.
I wouldn't bet on constituencies until we have the faintest idea what the backdrop to the next general election is going to look like. There's no particular reason to assume that the next general election is going to be any time soon.
It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Thats a risk people are going to have to live with. There will be calls for Brexit by hook or by crook going on for the next decade, regardless of the result of a GE, or the result of a second reference.
(anyone which thinks that a second referendum and a vote to remain will be the end of the matter is being naive)
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
Statistically so.
ABC1, more educated, less obese, less likely to smoke, even change their underwear more often*.
Even at the same age, life expectancy for Remainers is likely to be longer than Leavers.
But Remainers die too... the "1m (Leavers) are dead" line is gross in more ways than one
Certainly so, but differential mortality and the demographics of Leave voting have actuairlly shifted the balance of the country.
How many have changed their mind is also interesting, the problem of finding voters willing to admit voting Leave in 2016 being problematic for most pollsters.
Maybe so, maybe not. The problem Remainers seem to have is they only count the converts to their cause and the deaths of the other side
I agree. The only way to be certain of what current opinion is is to repeat the vote, and see whether the slight Leave majority has dissipated over the 40 months.
Yes, that would be the way to find out. Not that bothered though
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
Just a reminder - 67% of the electorate was Leave or Don't Care.
Yes. The point being that (roughly) only 1/3rd is going to grump about not getting their preferred outcome.
So all this talk of the entire UK population rising up in outrage with their pitchforks and torches is, frankly, tripe.
How do you know, Bev? No one in Britain has ever just cancelled a referendum before, probably because it's insane, but hey, what do I know ... [snip!]
I am counting on human nature combined with the British psyche. Most people are lazy and will offer opinions, solutions, etc by the thousand, but ask them to do something that requires getting off their backside and all of a sudden nobody has the time to get involved. The country is full of armchair experts, but pitifully short on doers.
TBF, the key things in most peoples' lives are jobs, family and the weekend so we will protest the usual British way with grumbling and contempt for politics.
Quite. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me they have given up following the news because its all about Brexit and its incredibly tedious. These people do not much care about the outcome, they just want it to go away. I doubt they would do more than raise an eyebrow if we revoked or left with no deal unless there was a direct effect on them. Which would only be the case if we left with no deal.
I would accept EEA if it was "The Deal". Technically it is Leave even if it does make HYFUD foam at the mouth;)
It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Thats a risk people are going to have to live with. There will be calls for Brexit by hook or by crook going on for the next decade, regardless of the result of a GE, or the result of a second reference.
(anyone which thinks that a second referendum and a vote to remain will be the end of the matter is being naive)
Sadly, neither will any form of brexit. There will be the same battle to rejoin, especially in Labour and the Lib Dems.
Yeah, tories have had to suffer through similar for decades.
I didn't hear a peep when the shoe was on the other foot.
Indeed. All those people telling you that your Beemer was a year out of date, and that it was such a pity Jocasta needed extra tuition for her History of Art Baccalaureate. Thoughts and prayers sir, thoughts and prayers...
“Legendary womaniser unattractive to women, say data scientists”
I would suggest that the qualities required to achieve one-night stands are very different to the qualities required for women’s support at the ballot box. The Venn diagram overlap is likely to be non-existent.
I wouldn't bet on constituencies until we have the faintest idea what the backdrop to the next general election is going to look like. There's no particular reason to assume that the next general election is going to be any time soon.
Fortunately for Shadsy’s pension fund, not everyone thinks like you.
Ok I'm going to have a go at the Scot Tory prospects and what they would need to hold some, or any of their seats. I'm working on the assumption that if the Tories get the following % in Scotland, they can try and hold as follows (I expect labour to be wiped out bar Ed south and LDs to hold 4 and toss up in Fife, so this is where I see betting interest)
16% - hold Berwickshire 18% - Mundell holds 20% - hold Aberdeenshire 22% - hold Banff 23% - hold Aberdeen South Any higher and they have chances of holding Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Angus and Moray and taking Perth
Preposterous. The Lib Dems could win in a deeply polarised election, where they get 35% of the vote, and the Leave vote of 45% is divided each way between Tories and BXP.
That wouldn't say ANYTHING about the changed mood of the nation. It would be status quo ante.
And now imagine the Lib Dems try and force through their Revoke, with 45% of the country bitterly opposed, and filled with righteous (and justified) anger.
It's a fucking nightmare and you know it's a fucking nightmare and yet you blithely accept it. Again, you are as pig-headed and witless as the gammoniest UKIP MEP.
You are getting more potty by the hour.
Whilst people keep banging on about the 17.4m who will not accept accept Revoke, we hear little about the 17m who would accept it and the 16m or so who could not be bothered to vote in 2016.
Just a reminder - 65% of the electorate was Remain or Don't Care.
1m of them are dead for a start.
Remainers never die either, now! They truly are ze master race
Plus fine singing voices and buttocks to die for. It's not just the mind, y'know...
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Most interesting aspect of both the Luton and Ipswich results yesterday was the rise in the Lib Dem percentage ie 12% and 10%, in seats where they were way behind, fourth place in Ipswich, have occurred since May of this year, that is quite dramatic.
The Ipswich seat had been LD held from 2003 - 2010. Last night they were 30% behind Labour.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
And they want to calm the situation? Any funny busines like that will just ram up tensions.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Highly unlikely such a conglomerate could hold together long enough to enact that law and, if they did, for any 16 and 17 year olds to register in time for this vote Changing from FPTP impossible unless they firm a full term coalition, theres no time to arrange things on a different system, if moving to STV, theres probably no chance of the boundary review being ready for 2022
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
I don't think that either could happen until the next parliament.
The FPTP change would be a significant constitutional change which, at minimum, would require a clear position in a manifesto at an GE or a referendum.
I don't know the 2017 manifesto positions of lowering the voter age though.
Ok I'm going to have a go at the Scot Tory prospects and what they would need to hold some, or any of their seats. I'm working on the assumption that if the Tories get the following % in Scotland, they can try and hold as follows (I expect labour to be wiped out bar Ed south and LDs to hold 4 and toss up in Fife, so this is where I see betting interest)
16% - hold Berwickshire 18% - Mundell holds 20% - hold Aberdeenshire 22% - hold Banff 23% - hold Aberdeen South Any higher and they have chances of holding Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Angus and Moray and taking Perth
I expect them to poll between 15 and 20%
I’ve not done the homework, but looks reasonable at first sight. The question mark is how reliable are UNS models going to be? In England: probably not very. In Scotland: probably more useful.
If the SCons manage to stay in the high teens they will be effing ecstatic.
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Can ChangeUK and Nick Boles be persuaded? How many of the ex-Tories who had the Whip withdrawn might support Corbyn - or abstain. Bebb and Clarke are possibilities - maybe Greening too now that she is standing down?
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Time to check what was in the various manifestos at GE2017? You'd think the Lords would take a dim view.
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Can ChangeUK and Nick Boles be persuaded? How many of the ex-Tories who had the Whip withdrawn might support Corbyn - or abstain. Bebb and Clarke are possibilities - maybe Greening too now that she is standing down.
If you've looked at any of the coverage from the HoC over the last few days most of them are still sitting on the government benches. I don't think even KC would vote for Corbyn
Ok I'm going to have a go at the Scot Tory prospects and what they would need to hold some, or any of their seats. I'm working on the assumption that if the Tories get the following % in Scotland, they can try and hold as follows (I expect labour to be wiped out bar Ed south and LDs to hold 4 and toss up in Fife, so this is where I see betting interest)
16% - hold Berwickshire 18% - Mundell holds 20% - hold Aberdeenshire 22% - hold Banff 23% - hold Aberdeen South Any higher and they have chances of holding Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Angus and Moray and taking Perth
I expect them to poll between 15 and 20%
I’ve not done the homework, but looks reasonable at first sight. The question mark is how reliable are UNS models going to be? In England: probably not very. In Scotland: probably more useful.
If the SCons manage to stay in the high teens they will be effing ecstatic.
I'm assuming a much less bombastic BXP than polling suggests. I think as 'the opposition' in Scotland they ought to retain minimum 15% support but there to 20 seems right if the BXP bomb as I suspect
I'd be amazed if they lose berwickshire, I'd be dumbfounded if they hold more than 3
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Those changes, in my opinion, would be wholly unacceptable without a referendum.
It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Thats a risk people are going to have to live with. There will be calls for Brexit by hook or by crook going on for the next decade, regardless of the result of a GE, or the result of a second reference.
(anyone which thinks that a second referendum and a vote to remain will be the end of the matter is being naive)
Sadly, neither will any form of brexit. There will be the same battle to rejoin, especially in Labour and the Lib Dems.
There will either be decades of painful readjustment from a no deal, or else "not a proper brexit / rule taking without rule making why not rejoin" from a soft brexit.
The Telegraph's antisemitic dog-whistling of Soros still paying dividends, it seems.
I'm waiting for the usual suspects from "Progress" to blame Corbyn and his supporters.
The whole right wing narrative about Soros - Nazi Collaborator and Global Schemer - is deeply unpleasant and anti semitic and the same people who trot this out will be the first to condemn labour on anti semitism but right wing prejudice seems to be rarely tackled. See Tory Party institutionalised hatred of Muslims as an example.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Those changes, in my opinion, would be wholly unacceptable without a referendum.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Those changes, in my opinion, would be wholly unacceptable without a referendum.
Well we know how the lib dems feel about that.
I mean, if it is the will of parliament. It would be inflammatory, but no more inflammatory than what Johnson has done, and it would certainly be legal, unlike the actions of the PM.
Changing from FPTP impossible unless they firm a full term coalition, theres no time to arrange things on a different system, if moving to STV, theres probably no chance of the boundary review being ready for 2022
I'm not advocating this, but if you wanted to change to STV in a hurry you could do so without a full boundary review by simply grouping existing seats together as an interim measure until a full boundary review was completed.
Changing from FPTP impossible unless they firm a full term coalition, theres no time to arrange things on a different system, if moving to STV, theres probably no chance of the boundary review being ready for 2022
I'm not advocating this, but if you wanted to change to STV in a hurry you could do so without a full boundary review by simply grouping existing seats together as an interim measure until a full boundary review was completed.
I mean, extending the franchise to residents and 16 year olds would probably be enough to make any GE less easy for Tories to win. And once the franchise is extended, it is always hard to reel it back in. It's hard to win votes on removing the right to vote from people who have the vote.
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Can ChangeUK and Nick Boles be persuaded? How many of the ex-Tories who had the Whip withdrawn might support Corbyn - or abstain. Bebb and Clarke are possibilities - maybe Greening too now that she is standing down?
Luciana and Chuka would never support him even if the Lds did, of the indies Austin is a definite no, Mann would vote no, change would vote no, see Gapes excoriating tweets about him, Lady Hermon is a no, Kate Hoey may abstain and Frank Field almost certainly a no. The non change ex change indies are a no except possibly Heidi Allen. The ex t8ries would at best abstain. He hasn't got the numbers other indies also likely to be no
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Can ChangeUK and Nick Boles be persuaded? How many of the ex-Tories who had the Whip withdrawn might support Corbyn - or abstain. Bebb and Clarke are possibilities - maybe Greening too now that she is standing down?
Luciana and Chuka would never support him even if the Lds did, of the indies Austin is a definite no, Mann would vote no, change would vote no, see Gapes excoriating tweets about him, Lady Hermon is a no, Kate Hoey may abstain and Frank Field almost certainly a no. The non change ex change indies are a no except possibly Heidi Allen. The ex t8ries would at best abstain. He hasn't got the numbers other indies also likely to be no
Bebb and Clarke have indicated - whilst still Tory MPs - that they might vote forCorbyn. Berger and Umunna would surely be bound now by the LD Whip. Not impossible that a dozen ex-Tory MPs would abstain.
Farage's weaponising of immigration and a broad anti-multiracialism to raise Europe from the bottom of public concerns to the top between 2012 and 2014 has worked better than he could ever possibly have imagined.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Votes at 16 - unless you are at private school.
That would bring 2 policy initiatives together quite neatly.
That's stating the obvious isn't it. The problem is Jo Swinson won't go for Jeremy Corbyn (and neither will any of the Tory independents) but Jeremy Corbyn won't go for anyone but himself. It also doesn't do much to prevent a no-deal at the end of January from a (potential) Tory majority.
Can ChangeUK and Nick Boles be persuaded? How many of the ex-Tories who had the Whip withdrawn might support Corbyn - or abstain. Bebb and Clarke are possibilities - maybe Greening too now that she is standing down?
Luciana and Chuka would never support him even if the Lds did, of the indies Austin is a definite no, Mann would vote no, change would vote no, see Gapes excoriating tweets about him, Lady Hermon is a no, Kate Hoey may abstain and Frank Field almost certainly a no. The non change ex change indies are a no except possibly Heidi Allen. The ex t8ries would at best abstain. He hasn't got the numbers other indies also likely to be no
Bebb and Clarke have indicated - whilst still Tory MPs - that they might vote forCorbyn. Berger and Umunna would surely be bound now by the LD Whip. Not impossible that a dozen ex-Tory MPs would abstain.
Lab plus ld (in the wholly unlikely scenario Chuka and Berger vote for someone they detest) plus plaid plus Lucas plus SNP = 305, add Bebb and Clarke 307 minus mann 306
Tories plus DUP plus change = 303. Add in hermon, Austin, Lewis, mann, elphicke = 308. He needs active support from indies, most of whom despise him
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
You can't go on operations at that age.
Still you are not a child (imo). You are generally capable of independent living.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
You can't go on operations at that age.
Being in the Army would put you somewhere that is a legitimate military target in any conflict, though, wouldn't it?
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
You can't go on operations at that age.
Still you are not a child (imo). You are generally capable of independent living.
The UN definition of a child is under 18. It was and is very relevant when dealing with actual child soldiers and the problems thereof.
Ok I'm going to have a go at the Scot Tory prospects and what they would need to hold some, or any of their seats. I'm working on the assumption that if the Tories get the following % in Scotland, they can try and hold as follows (I expect labour to be wiped out bar Ed south and LDs to hold 4 and toss up in Fife, so this is where I see betting interest)
16% - hold Berwickshire 18% - Mundell holds 20% - hold Aberdeenshire 22% - hold Banff 23% - hold Aberdeen South Any higher and they have chances of holding Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Angus and Moray and taking Perth
I expect them to poll between 15 and 20%
Does this assumes an unchanged SNP vote? IMO, the crucial measure is the SNP lead over SCon - anything over 14% starts a steady stream of seats falling, but extinction (except for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) needs an lead of 25% or more.
By the way, has anyone discussed the possibility that a LAB, LD, SNP supported temporary government might change electoral law in their favour before calling an election? Like lowering voter age or (much less likely) changing from FPTP to something that neutralises the vote-splitting problem that LD and Lab have right now?
Labour would go for the former not the latter.
16 and 17 year olds are, now, legally children so extending the franchise to them would be problematic.
That is crazy considering you can join the army at 16. Perhaps someone will take the MoD to court for encouraging child soldiers!
You can't go on operations at that age.
Being in the Army would put you somewhere that is a legitimate military target in any conflict, though, wouldn't it?
Not allowed in a war zone at that age whatever you are actually doing.
Comments
The Crawley result I think presages what could happen in traditional areas of Labour support in the Midlands and North as well as some Leave-inclined pockets in the South, at least those where BME support is not a particularly significant element of the Labour vote.
SNP 2/5 (from 1/2)
Con 7/4
LD 25/1
Lab 100/1
(Shadsy)
Note: Labour held this seat, with respectable majorities, until 2015. Amazing to remember how far and how fast they have fallen.
Lib Dem increase +100%
Con Increase + 16%
Lab increase - 25%
Only LibDems can win here
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1177518398458097664?s=20
Dressing up as someone particular feels very different to dressing up as a generic black/chinese/arabic/white/etc person if you are not of that race.
Doncaster North (Lab Maj 14,024; Ed Miliband MP)
Lab 1/5
Con 4/1
Bxp 8/1
LD 50/1
(Shadsy)
Esher and Walton (Con May 23,298; Dominic Raab MP)
Con 1/5
LD 3/1
Lab 50/1
Bxp 100/1
(Shadsy)
My daughter is monitoring the political situation in the hope that any new vote is delayed until after her imminent 18th birthday. She had an opportunity to meet her local [Labour] MP, and has been partially won over. So that will be one more vote against the forces of Leaverism.
Leave campaign was also bad on quality of debate, but it was simple and effective.
How many have changed their mind is also interesting, the problem of finding voters willing to admit voting Leave in 2016 being problematic for most pollsters.
The Remain campaign was astoundingly incompetent.
For months and months I thought a roughly 60/40 Remain win was almost certain. As someone above said, they could've talked about big deals in the EU pipeline. Instead their cunning plan was to say "It's not £350m a week we send to the year. It's only £200m or so."
Lab isn't a remain party. It is a god knows let's wait and see if it's leave it's leave party.
https://democracy.crawley.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=36
He gets stymied by the indies and change in the vote. In a Huff he fails to support anyone else.
Election. Labour utterly humiliated by the electorate.
Corbyn retires to his marrows.
Nation rejoices
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1177481719739375621
My model has it as Con hold, but very narrowly. Raab's hard core Leaverdom should help him squeeze the BXP vote but equally Lab voters could go LD on a decapitation strategy.
(anyone which thinks that a second referendum and a vote to remain will be the end of the matter is being naive)
She was a nasty toe rag from Day One.
DAVID BLUNKETT: Why I despair at my party throwing a lit match on the oil of immigration under Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7510205/DAVID-BLUNKETT-despair-party-throwing-lit-match-oil-immigration.html
16% - hold Berwickshire
18% - Mundell holds
20% - hold Aberdeenshire
22% - hold Banff
23% - hold Aberdeen South
Any higher and they have chances of holding Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Angus and Moray and taking Perth
I expect them to poll between 15 and 20%
The compromise position they could come up with might be wildly different to splitting the difference between a hard and soft Brexit.
Changing from FPTP impossible unless they firm a full term coalition, theres no time to arrange things on a different system, if moving to STV, theres probably no chance of the boundary review being ready for 2022
The FPTP change would be a significant constitutional change which, at minimum, would require a clear position in a manifesto at an GE or a referendum.
I don't know the 2017 manifesto positions of lowering the voter age though.
If the SCons manage to stay in the high teens they will be effing ecstatic.
I'd be amazed if they lose berwickshire, I'd be dumbfounded if they hold more than 3
The whole right wing narrative about Soros - Nazi Collaborator and Global Schemer - is deeply unpleasant and anti semitic and the same people who trot this out will be the first to condemn labour on anti semitism but right wing prejudice seems to be rarely tackled. See Tory Party institutionalised hatred of Muslims as an example.
I suspect she might choose Westminster, to help Chuka.....
https://twitter.com/timeandthehour/status/1177525111206928384
As a leaver I abhor racism I don't wish to be associated with the left and the Labour parties hatred of Jews and "Soros".
That would bring 2 policy initiatives together quite neatly.
About 15 minutes late with this scoop
Tories plus DUP plus change = 303. Add in hermon, Austin, Lewis, mann, elphicke = 308. He needs active support from indies, most of whom despise him