The thing that interests there is that the majority of the seats changing hands appear to be into the Liberal Democrats. I counted 15 of 120 seats turning Lib Dem, compared to just 12 gains for the Tories.
Could it be that we are underestimating the lib dems?
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
I’ve got a horrible feeling I’ll end up calling this GE wrong however I bet and end up making a painful loss!
Best I can do is keep an open mind and be wary of the wide risk intervals until, well, the last day really.
If the Lib Dems end up a slew of SW and SE "shire" seats, there is no way on God's green earth they can stick Corbyn in ?
Swinson has already promised not to stick Corbyn in.
Has she actually said she will always VONC Corbyn?
My interpretation is she wont give any supply and confidence and of course wont join a coalition with him, but that is different to stopping him being PM.
Either way its easy to promise beforehand,but if faced with one way to stop Brexit she'll do what she must, even at the cost of the party later - unless Brexit is not the big deal she thinks.
Perhaps she should say she will die in a ditch rather than stick Corbyn in. People would believe her then.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Events didn't change though. Lib Dems were never going to form a majority and they knew that.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
Just 50%?
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
I wonder if this is going to be analogous to the February 1974 election (another snap poll held in winter) which saw the Conservatives and Labour both lose vote share from the previous election when they had dominated.
The Liberals saw their vote share increase strongly but in terms of seats the advance was much more modest with strong second places the order of the day. Some numbskull on here opined earlier the LDs weren't very good at targeting - yeah, right.
The question or the next five weeks is whether strong second places will be converted to gains. I expect many seats to show only a modest (if any) improvement in LD vote share and a few to show strong improvement.
Tories' average polling lead is 11% (last six polls on wiki).
At this stage in 2017 it was 18.5%.
Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
Tis true, although us horseracing fans are fond of pointing out that past form is the best guide to future performance. Horses, however, are not politicians.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
I think the challenge of the polls is that they expect a 9 year incumbent government, against a foe they have faced and written off before, and being squeezed by minor parties, to come up with enough compensatory and still more gains for a majority.
Despite the polling, that is not an immediately obvious banker in any normal circumstances.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
Just 50%?
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
Just 50%?
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
If we’re clever and free of confirmation bias we should be able to read the campaign much better as it progresses.
The week following the manifesto release will be a time of high tension.
The education secretary has found some money and is trying to prevent disappointment of cancelled events in schools in run up to Christmas, does anyone think the attacks on him for doing this are a little unfair?
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
Just as in everyday life you would expect people to keep a promise even if they didn't sign it.
And if they blatantly broke it immediately it suited to do otherwise, you wouldn't trust them again, would you?
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
Just 50%?
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
Well fill your boots then Philip!
I've been burnt too much in the past to gamble heavily on anything. I bought Tory seats on a spread index in 2009 - put me off for life betting on spread markets and 'filling my boots up' on anything!
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
You, apparently, if you think that makes any difference.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
As potential junior coalition partners they could have said that tuition fees was the most totemic issue for them and they could never sign an agreement that meant increasing tuition fees.
Instead they made a referendum on changing the voting system their totemic issue.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
Just 50%?
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
Well fill your boots then Philip!
I've been burnt too much in the past to gamble heavily on anything. I bought Tory seats on a spread index in 2009 - put me off for life betting on spread markets and 'filling my boots up' on anything!
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
Just as in everyday life you would expect people to keep a promise even if they didn't sign it.
And if they blatantly broke it immediately it suited to do otherwise, you wouldn't trust them again, would you?
If you didn't understood how politics works you wouldn't.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
As potential junior coalition partners they could have said that tuition fees was the most totemic issue for them and they could never sign an agreement that meant increasing tuition fees.
As they had made the promise, what they needed to do was reserve the right to vote against any increase as they had promised. If I remember correctly, the coalition agreement allowed them to abstain, but most of them didn't avail themselves of that provision.
Of course, they also had the option of not signing the promise in the first place. But having signed it, of course they should have honoured it.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
As potential junior coalition partners they could have said that tuition fees was the most totemic issue for them and they could never sign an agreement that meant increasing tuition fees.
Instead they made a referendum on changing the voting system their totemic issue.
Yes they were likely drunk on power. Not a sniff of it for decades and then in government. Not surprised they were overwhelmed. But they were junior partners and hence had to cut their cloth.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
You, apparently, if you think that makes any difference.
So talk me through how "keeping their promise" would have worked?
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
National.vote share doent count..ask UKIP or the SNP
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
The markets believe Johnson has approximately a 43% chance of winning a majority.
Strange given his current average polling lead is about 13%, the same as Blair achieved in 1997 when he won a 179 seat majority.
That's my feeling too, Andy. Punters appear to be factoring in imponderables such as tactical voting, campaign 'events', regional variations and the like. You can see where they're coming from, but they're overegging it imo, and I would have ConMaj at 50% myself.
But it's a wildly unpredictable election and this Punter's pennies are remaining in the pocket.
I’ve got a horrible feeling I’ll end up calling this GE wrong however I bet and end up making a painful loss!
Best I can do is keep an open mind and be wary of the wide risk intervals until, well, the last day really.
One factor is that there are a number of imponderables and scenarios. Only one of them is a Tory victory; several of them entail a Tory non victory. Hence the odds. I think this is wrong and the Tories have an approximate 60% chance.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
It's certainly possible Survation are correct. The Tories have gone from 27-32-34 in the past 3 polls so you would expect the numbers to settle in the mid to high 30s. It's just really hard to see the Tories polling as low as 34% when you'd think the combined Tory + BXP share will be anything from 46-52%.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
Just as in everyday life you would expect people to keep a promise even if they didn't sign it.
And if they blatantly broke it immediately it suited to do otherwise, you wouldn't trust them again, would you?
If you didn't understood how politics works you wouldn't.
I said in everyday life. Do you have a reading difficulty or something?
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
A seat that has been trending Labour for about 30 years. It's becoming more like a Nottingham seat rather than a suburban constituency.
I campaigned there in 2005 with Anna Soubry and the local Tories seemed to think it was one of those freak seats that Labour could only win in Landslide years and would revert safely back to the blue column before too long... guess it hasn't turned out that way, huh?
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
It's swinging away from the Tories demographically so it's harder than it looks on paper. The Tories could easily win a majority without winning Gedling.
If Nick Palmer had been selected in Gedling instead of Broxtowe he'd probably still be in the House of Commons, even though Gedling wasn't a better prospect for Labour than Broxtowe in 1997.
1983 results:
Broxtowe: Con 53.5%, Lib 25.2%, Lab 21.3% Gedling: Con 54.1%, SDP 25.0%, Lab 20.6%.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
As junior coalition partner? Who is the stupid one here?
You, apparently, if you think that makes any difference.
So talk me through how "keeping their promise" would have worked?
For God's sake. Get a friend to explain what keeping a promise means if you don't know.
If the Lib Dems end up a slew of SW and SE "shire" seats, there is no way on God's green earth they can stick Corbyn in ?
Swinson has already promised not to stick Corbyn in.
Swinson has promised not to put in the Tories, or Labour as they currently stand. This means there is a wide range of results in which so far as you can see, no government is possible. That is, any result in which isn't one of these: Tory outright win, Labour ditto, Labour + SNP win. The chances of such a result must be in the region of 30+%. I think the LDs owe its voters a line on what outcomes it actually envisages, and what is actually possible (as opposed to what isn't) because the remain voters - half the nation or so - need to know.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
The current Lib Dems are (mercifully) a different beast to the Clegg-era party. The idea of Clegg and the loathsome Danny Alexander entering an electoral pact with the "watermelon" Greens is implausible.
Labour in particular needs to be careful about constantly revisiting the sins of others' forefathers, given their in-recent-memory enthusiasm for illegal wars.
I don't believe any promise made by a politician. But as an elector, and former Lib Dem member and worker, I think that particular broken promise is the worst in recent British political history.
Not going to disagree with that - I also left the Lib Dems during the coalition years.
But "broke a promise on tuition fees" ranks significantly in my book behind "unnecessarily invaded two countries and killed thousands" and "trashed the British polity by calling an unnecessary referendum in the hope of fixing unfixable internal party issues". YMMV of course.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
Betfair Exchange is an exchange bookie. It gives buy/sell prices. So take the midpoint price. The midpoint price is 2.31.
That means for every pound you put in, you get £2.31 back (ish). That implies a probability of 1/2.31 which equals 0.432, which is usually rendered as "the probability is 43.2%"
If Betfair was a fixed-odds bookie (and the similarly-named Betfair Sportsbook is such) then it would display those odds differently using the fractional format: in this case 1.31/1, or nearly 4/3. In this case the formula will be slightly different, specifically 1/ (1.31+1), which again gives a probability of 0.432.
@AndyJS was referring to the fact that although the polls give a high prob of a Con overall majority, the probability implied by the betting odds is strangely lower
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
Any reason you only use Survation polls?
The model doesn't just use headline vote shares, and so it would get quite data intensive and time consuming to try to pull a load of numbers from loads of different polls at once. Since I am using only one poll I am using Survation since they were the top performer among conventional pollsters in 2017.
Just realized that Scotland, Wales and NI are all playing the second of their double header euro qualifiers on that night, with England playing (and presumably) qualifying two nights earlier - I wonder if Boris will be able to resist a snarky or condescending comment?
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
Which bit of being the junior member of a coalition is tricky to understand?
Are you too stupid to understand the meaning of "signed promise"?
Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?
Ludicrous.
So back to my question. What would you rather they had done?
Kept their signed promise.
Just as in everyday life you would expect people to keep a promise even if they didn't sign it.
And if they blatantly broke it immediately it suited to do otherwise, you wouldn't trust them again, would you?
If you didn't understood how politics works you wouldn't.
I said in everyday life. Do you have a reading difficulty or something?
I am not talking about everyday life I am talking about the Lib Dems' pledge on tuition fees.
I have no difficulty reading but it seems that you completely misunderstand how politics works. A junior coalition partner has to make compromises in order to achieve in their mind a greater goal.
The Lib Dems in the coalition should never have agreed to the increase in student fees . They could have said we can’t find agreement on this so it has to be kicked into the long grass. Would the Tories really have collapsed the coalition over this .
I don’t think though it should be constantly held against them . That was nearly ten years ago , time to move on.
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
If we had a fair electoral system it wouldn't be necessary, but, unlike every other country in Europe, we don't.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Survation has consistently had higher Labour vote shares and slightly lower Conservative ones than mean and median averages of other pollsters, since as long as I can remember them being a polling company.
Doesn't mean they are wrong - I think they were close to, or were the top pollster for the 2017 election. But they were pretty woeful in the Euro's if I recall correctly.
Tories' average polling lead is 11% (last six polls on wiki).
At this stage in 2017 it was 18.5%.
Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
In 2017 Labour pulled off a sustained rise between now and polling day. In short, we shall see...
In 2017 the gap really only began to reduce noticeably from 3 weeks before the election. Until 22 days out the Tory rolling average lead was consistently in the 16 to 19% range.
24 days out it was 18% then it reduced to reach 4.7% by 2 days out (although the final eve of polling polls gave an average of a 8% Tory lead). We've still got two weeks to go before we reach the equivalent '3 weeks before the election' point.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
Betfair Exchange is an exchange bookie. It gives buy/sell prices. So take the midpoint price. The midpoint price is 2.31.
That means for every pound you put in, you get £2.31 back (ish). That implies a probability of 1/2.31 which equals 0.432, which is usually rendered as "the probability is 43.2%"
If Betfair was a fixed-odds bookie (and the similarly-named Betfair Sportsbook is such) then it would display those odds differently using the fractional format: in this case 1.31/1, or nearly 4/3. In this case the formula will be slightly different, specifically 1/ (1.31+1), which again gives a probability of 0.432.
@AndyJS was referring to the fact that although the polls give a high prob of a Con overall majority, the probability implied by the betting odds is strangely lower
I think it's people being hyper-cautious after what happened in 2017. That could be a smart move, or alternatively it might end up being a case of generals fighting the last war. We'll see what happens.
If the Lib Dems end up a slew of SW and SE "shire" seats, there is no way on God's green earth they can stick Corbyn in ?
Swinson has already promised not to stick Corbyn in.
Swinson has promised not to put in the Tories, or Labour as they currently stand. This means there is a wide range of results in which so far as you can see, no government is possible. That is, any result in which isn't one of these: Tory outright win, Labour ditto, Labour + SNP win. The chances of such a result must be in the region of 30+%. I think the LDs owe its voters a line on what outcomes it actually envisages, and what is actually possible (as opposed to what isn't) because the remain voters - half the nation or so - need to know.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
The current Lib Dems are (mercifully) a different beast to the Clegg-era party. The idea of Clegg and the loathsome Danny Alexander entering an electoral pact with the "watermelon" Greens is implausible.
Labour in particular needs to be careful about constantly revisiting the sins of others' forefathers, given their in-recent-memory enthusiasm for illegal wars.
I don't believe any promise made by a politician. But as an elector, and former Lib Dem member and worker, I think that particular broken promise is the worst in recent British political history.
You clearly have some deep issues with Nick Clegg.
What does it have to do with the current election ?
The Greens should be ideally placed to surge in this campaign. Politics has changed remarkably in their favour since 2017, and they should be able to clean up disaffected soft-Left/socialist votes. Particularly with younger voters.
However, due to their idiotically dogmatic beliefs against leadership they are very likely to miss the open goal.
The Greens are an economically illiterate bunch of pseudo intellectuals who think that chasing rainbows will lead the country to a better place. Ah wait a minute is that Labour I'm referring to? Or maybe the Conservatives?
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
Can you translate that for those of us who do not bet - thank you
Betfair Exchange is an exchange bookie. It gives buy/sell prices. So take the midpoint price. The midpoint price is 2.31.
That means for every pound you put in, you get £2.31 back (ish). That implies a probability of 1/2.31 which equals 0.432, which is usually rendered as "the probability is 43.2%"
If Betfair was a fixed-odds bookie (and the similarly-named Betfair Sportsbook is such) then it would display those odds differently using the fractional format: in this case 1.31/1, or nearly 4/3. In this case the formula will be slightly different, specifically 1/ (1.31+1), which again gives a probability of 0.432.
@AndyJS was referring to the fact that although the polls give a high prob of a Con overall majority, the probability implied by the betting odds is strangely lower
You are all so kind explaining the details of betting, though I have never bet, I do find it interesting. Thank you for taking the time to explain it
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Would you have considered voting for them otherwise ?
If you are so concerned about the 'disenfranchising' of voters like this, then campaign in favour of PR. Otherwise, you are also concern trolling.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
According to AndyJS it has been moving away from the Tories for 30 years.
It is a suburb of Nottingham. There may be seats with similar sized Labour majorities the Tories take easily.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
I would be very surprised if the Tories won Gedling. The local MP Vernon Coaker is well liked and has been MP since the landslide of 1997.
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Would you have considered voting for them otherwise ?
If you are so concerned about the 'disenfranchising' of voters like this, then campaign in favour of PR. Otherwise, you are also concern trolling.
No I do not do trolling. I live in Wales and have lived with Plaid for decades.
They are not remotely comparable to the SNP but a party standing for independence alongside one for the union will not go down well in Welsh Wales
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
Target seat 57 I think, certainly not a must win but clearly the Brexit Party are hindering efforts and will require some squeezing. Survation is however comfortably the Tories worst pollster.
But my model runs off Survation's national polls so this perhaps points to Tory underperformance in the kind of seats they need to be winning.
According to AndyJS it has been moving away from the Tories for 30 years.
It is a suburb of Nottingham. There may be seats with similar sized Labour majorities the Tories take easily.
Other seats in the area have been moving in the other direction, like Sherwood, Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Erewash, Amber Valley.
For instance Sherwood was Labour in 1992, whereas Gedling was safely Conservative. Andrew Mitchell was the Tory MP for Gedling at that time, (the current Sutton Coldfield MP).
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
The pact encourages LDs to vote Plaid in Ynys Mon and Arfon to defeat/hold off Labour.
I trust then that Plaid won't be looking to Labour supporters to switch to them in Ceredigion in order to hold off the LDs.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The optimistic view however is that one the B deed has been done (and yes I know the withdrawal agreement is just the start of the process) the population will start to coalesce around more centerish parties and policies.
Bojo himself was seen as a liberal modernising conservative before Brexit, although I except that he has a fair few lunatics around him.
Another reason why I suspect the Lib Dems might do a whole lot better next time than this.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The country needs a centre-left social democratic party as the main opposition, but the problem is even if Labour do very badly on 12th December they may choose another Corbyn type leader instead of learning the lessons of the election.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The country needs a centre-left social democratic party as the main opposition, but the problem is even if Labour do very badly on 12th December they may choose another Corbyn type leader instead of learning the lessons of the election.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
Would Labour survive another hard left leader without splitting. The likes of the two you mention and others like Jess Phillips would surely not wish to sit out another 1-2 terms waiting for something to come up.
If the Lib Dems end up a slew of SW and SE "shire" seats, there is no way on God's green earth they can stick Corbyn in ?
Swinson has already promised not to stick Corbyn in.
Swinson has promised not to put in the Tories, or Labour as they currently stand. This means there is a wide range of results in which so far as you can see, no government is possible. That is, any result in which isn't one of these: Tory outright win, Labour ditto, Labour + SNP win. The chances of such a result must be in the region of 30+%. I think the LDs owe its voters a line on what outcomes it actually envisages, and what is actually possible (as opposed to what isn't) because the remain voters - half the nation or so - need to know.
Seriously - in 2010 the Lib Dems not only gave their voters a line, but every candidate personally signed a written promise about how they would vote on a particular issue. Within days of the election nearly all the Lib Dem MPs had decided to ignore it.
That was the consequence of going into a coalition, a coalition which they have now said they won't countenance. So the prospect of doing an anti-manifesto deal doesn't arise.
Swinson's position on Corbyn is excellent. It allows her some room to work with Labour if they get rid of him. Of course Labour will say that they refuse to be pushed around like that, but they will of course have to get rid of Corbyn eventually anyway if they ever want to get into power again.
What is apparent is of the Labour seats most likely to fall there are a lot of non descript and forgettable Labour names with relatively short incumbencies.
Almost all the big hitters are in safe as houses inner city seats. Dennis Skinner wouldn't count as a Portillo moment (though it would be very symbolic for Corbyn). Tories will have mixed emotions about ousting Caroline Flint, while Miliband and Cooper are probably out of reach even on a barnstorming night.
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Would you have considered voting for them otherwise ?
If you are so concerned about the 'disenfranchising' of voters like this, then campaign in favour of PR. Otherwise, you are also concern trolling.
No I do not do trolling. I live in Wales and have lived with Plaid for decades.
They are not remotely comparable to the SNP but a party standing for independence alongside one for the union will not go down well in Welsh Wales
It is a very simple matter; under FPTP, such a pact increases their chances of winning given seats. For the supporters of their opponents to complain about it is simply bad faith argument. And when those parties are strongly in favour of PR, which would avoid such hard choices, and the party you support is strongly against PR, then your argument is utterly in bad faith.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
I would be very surprised if the Tories won Gedling. The local MP Vernon Coaker is well liked and has been MP since the landslide of 1997.
But it is just the kind of seat the Tories are targeting - strong leave vote, industrial decline, former mining district "left behind". Baxter forecasts a 12% tory majority so if Labour are holding on, and bearing in mind also the constituency polls in Esher and Wokingham, the Tories are going to do much less well than the national polls suggest.
The Greens should be ideally placed to surge in this campaign. Politics has changed remarkably in their favour since 2017, and they should be able to clean up disaffected soft-Left/socialist votes. Particularly with younger voters.
However, due to their idiotically dogmatic beliefs against leadership they are very likely to miss the open goal.
The leadership belief thing you refer to is out of date. Greens have a joint leadership - man and woman. No worse than a job share in any modern business. Lucas is obviously the leader in HoC and would be PM in a Green majority win.
Most voters want to know who will be PM if a party wins.
He has done very well as well. He followed the Nick Palmer model of concentrating on being a good constituency MP with only minor ministerial roles and it has allowed him to build up a considerable personal vote.
Not someone I would vote for because of his politics but undeniably been a good representative for his constituents.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The country needs a centre-left social democratic party as the main opposition, but the problem is even if Labour do very badly on 12th December they may choose another Corbyn type leader instead of learning the lessons of the election.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
Would Labour survive another hard left leader without splitting. The likes of the two you mention and others like Jess Phillips would surely not wish to sit out another 1-2 terms waiting for something to come up.
I think Labour has to split. There is no point in it not splitting now that the far-left has made it unelectable.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The country needs a centre-left social democratic party as the main opposition, but the problem is even if Labour do very badly on 12th December they may choose another Corbyn type leader instead of learning the lessons of the election.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
Would Labour survive another hard left leader without splitting. The likes of the two you mention and others like Jess Phillips would surely not wish to sit out another 1-2 terms waiting for something to come up.
I think Labour has to split. There is no point in it not splitting now that the far-left has made it unelectable.
It's fairly conceivable to see them splitting and then running some kind of alliance with the lib dems in future. Much like that Change UK mob only more successful.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
I would be very surprised if the Tories won Gedling. The local MP Vernon Coaker is well liked and has been MP since the landslide of 1997.
But it is just the kind of seat the Tories are targeting - strong leave vote, industrial decline, former mining district "left behind". Baxter forecasts a 12% tory majority so if Labour are holding on, and bearing in mind also the constituency polls in Esher and Wokingham, the Tories are going to do much less well than the national polls suggest.
Clearly that will depend on the BP vote since they are currently polling 12% in the constituency.
The really depressing thing about this election is that it will only be another marker in the spiral downwards. When people realise they have given a majority to a liar, but that there is no alternative because Labour are unelectable the anger in the country is only going to rise. If you think it's nasty now, just you wait.
The country needs a centre-left social democratic party as the main opposition, but the problem is even if Labour do very badly on 12th December they may choose another Corbyn type leader instead of learning the lessons of the election.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
Would Labour survive another hard left leader without splitting. The likes of the two you mention and others like Jess Phillips would surely not wish to sit out another 1-2 terms waiting for something to come up.
I think Labour has to split. There is no point in it not splitting now that the far-left has made it unelectable.
It's fairly conceivable to see them splitting and then running some kind of alliance with the lib dems in future. Much like that Change UK mob only more successful.
It (I still think it’s a big if) Labour is hammered then before panicking, I’d hope the sane MPs do a headcount of who survived. The residual PLP might be good to rebuild.
That is interesting. My model has it as a Labour hold, but *much* closer than this. I have never heard of Gedling (my dataset tells me it is in Nottinghamshire). But I assume the Tories will have to win in a whole lot of places I've never heard of in order to win a majority.
I would be very surprised if the Tories won Gedling. The local MP Vernon Coaker is well liked and has been MP since the landslide of 1997.
But it is just the kind of seat the Tories are targeting - strong leave vote, industrial decline, former mining district "left behind". Baxter forecasts a 12% tory majority so if Labour are holding on, and bearing in mind also the constituency polls in Esher and Wokingham, the Tories are going to do much less well than the national polls suggest.
Coaker is a popular MP locally iirc. See Richard's comment down the thread.
If the LDs stand down in too many seats it'll start to affect their national vote share.
It is a dumb stupid idiotic policy for a party that wishes to be considered a Major Party, It is very simple, Major Parties don't stand aside for other parties. Every vote counts, as you point out, to National Vote Share. That is important.
Sounds like concern trolling to me.
It most certainly is stupid for Plaid.
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Would you have considered voting for them otherwise ?
If you are so concerned about the 'disenfranchising' of voters like this, then campaign in favour of PR. Otherwise, you are also concern trolling.
No I do not do trolling. I live in Wales and have lived with Plaid for decades.
They are not remotely comparable to the SNP but a party standing for independence alongside one for the union will not go down well in Welsh Wales
In case you don't get the point about disenfranchisement:
Today marks the launch of a new cross-party agreement on electoral reform, of which Plaid Cymru is a founding signatory.
I join a broad array of political parties – the Lib Dems, the Green Party, the SNP, the Brexit Party – and MPs from across the spectrum in signing the “Good Systems Agreement” brokered by campaign group Make Votes Matter. This is the first time such an agreement has ever been made in the UK.
There is little that such a list of parties all have in common with one another, but we all share the belief that the First Past the Post system cannot adequately represent a diverse, modern electorate – nor can we rely upon it to deliver responsible, representative government.
The agreement sets out the principles that we believe a new voting system should deliver. Some of these are fundamentally incompatible with the archaic First Past the Post system used for Westminster elections. For example, we believe that seats in the House of Commons should match the votes cast in a general election.
Under the current system, a smaller party can win a significant number of votes, but still end up with no MPs if they fail to have a high enough concentration of votes in any one constituency. This system is designed for a two-party political system that has outlived its usefulness for modern politics....
Comments
Best I can do is keep an open mind and be wary of the wide risk intervals until, well, the last day really.
Maybe they've had second thoughts!
I can't think of any time previously where 13% poll lead would lead to just a 50% chance of a majority. I feel people may again be putting too much emphasis on what happened last time.
The Liberals saw their vote share increase strongly but in terms of seats the advance was much more modest with strong second places the order of the day. Some numbskull on here opined earlier the LDs weren't very good at targeting - yeah, right.
The question or the next five weeks is whether strong second places will be converted to gains. I expect many seats to show only a modest (if any) improvement in LD vote share and a few to show strong improvement.
They don't lie, for a start.
Why not play it straight and point out that someone who claims to be a Thatcherite is promising Ed Balls first budget?
Well, even that leaves me open to balls and Milliband saying they never suggested anything with that much borrowing.
Despite the polling, that is not an immediately obvious banker in any normal circumstances.
The week following the manifesto release will be a time of high tension.
Boris also needs to turn up.
And if they blatantly broke it immediately it suited to do otherwise, you wouldn't trust them again, would you?
Instead they made a referendum on changing the voting system their totemic issue.
Anna Soubry's Lying 'Leaver' is Remain Campaigning Lib Dem https://t.co/TfLvlNoJ0r https://t.co/CMHND2QfRF
Of course, they also had the option of not signing the promise in the first place. But having signed it, of course they should have honoured it.
Few areas of the UK voted overwhelmingly for either Leave or Remain
BY ROBERT FORD AND PHILIP COWLEY"
https://unherd.com/2019/11/how-much-has-brexit-divided-britain/
I campaigned there in 2005 with Anna Soubry and the local Tories seemed to think it was one of those freak seats that Labour could only win in Landslide years and would revert safely back to the blue column before too long... guess it hasn't turned out that way, huh?
On the plus side, I got to meet Ken Clarke.
If Nick Palmer had been selected in Gedling instead of Broxtowe he'd probably still be in the House of Commons, even though Gedling wasn't a better prospect for Labour than Broxtowe in 1997.
1983 results:
Broxtowe: Con 53.5%, Lib 25.2%, Lab 21.3%
Gedling: Con 54.1%, SDP 25.0%, Lab 20.6%.
But "broke a promise on tuition fees" ranks significantly in my book behind "unnecessarily invaded two countries and killed thousands" and "trashed the British polity by calling an unnecessary referendum in the hope of fixing unfixable internal party issues". YMMV of course.
That means for every pound you put in, you get £2.31 back (ish). That implies a probability of 1/2.31 which equals 0.432, which is usually rendered as "the probability is 43.2%"
If Betfair was a fixed-odds bookie (and the similarly-named Betfair Sportsbook is such) then it would display those odds differently using the fractional format: in this case 1.31/1, or nearly 4/3. In this case the formula will be slightly different, specifically 1/ (1.31+1), which again gives a probability of 0.432.
@AndyJS was referring to the fact that although the polls give a high prob of a Con overall majority, the probability implied by the betting odds is strangely lower
The party of Wales disenfranchising their suppporters in individual seats removes their raison d'etre
Nice people
I have no difficulty reading but it seems that you completely misunderstand how politics works. A junior coalition partner has to make compromises in order to achieve in their mind a greater goal.
I don’t think though it should be constantly held against them . That was nearly ten years ago , time to move on.
Doesn't mean they are wrong - I think they were close to, or were the top pollster for the 2017 election. But they were pretty woeful in the Euro's if I recall correctly.
24 days out it was 18% then it reduced to reach 4.7% by 2 days out (although the final eve of polling polls gave an average of a 8% Tory lead). We've still got two weeks to go before we reach the equivalent '3 weeks before the election' point.
Still history never repeats itself...
What does it have to do with the current election ?
Ah wait a minute is that Labour I'm referring to?
Or maybe the Conservatives?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/07/general-election-sajid-javid-and-john-mcdonnell-come-out-fighting-on-economy-live-news?page=with:block-5dc447b38f08c2d1f80db884#block-5dc447b38f08c2d1f80db884
If you are so concerned about the 'disenfranchising' of voters like this, then campaign in favour of PR.
Otherwise, you are also concern trolling.
It was a heck of a ride whilst he got away with it.
It is a suburb of Nottingham. There may be seats with similar sized Labour majorities the Tories take easily.
They are not remotely comparable to the SNP but a party standing for independence alongside one for the union will not go down well in Welsh Wales
For instance Sherwood was Labour in 1992, whereas Gedling was safely Conservative. Andrew Mitchell was the Tory MP for Gedling at that time, (the current Sutton Coldfield MP).
It didn't get any better for the young lady being interviewed.
I trust then that Plaid won't be looking to Labour supporters to switch to them in Ceredigion in order to hold off the LDs.
Bojo himself was seen as a liberal modernising conservative before Brexit, although I except that he has a fair few lunatics around him.
Another reason why I suspect the Lib Dems might do a whole lot better next time than this.
I have no doubt that Labour would be heading for government at the moment if someone like Yvette Cooper or Lisa Nandy was leading the party.
Unite to Remain is quite a strong message , there’s also likely to be more media attention on those seats .
Swinson's position on Corbyn is excellent. It allows her some room to work with Labour if they get rid of him. Of course Labour will say that they refuse to be pushed around like that, but they will of course have to get rid of Corbyn eventually anyway if they ever want to get into power again.
Vernon Coaker has been the Labour candidate in Gedling at every election since 1987.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedling_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Almost all the big hitters are in safe as houses inner city seats. Dennis Skinner wouldn't count as a Portillo moment (though it would be very symbolic for Corbyn). Tories will have mixed emotions about ousting Caroline Flint, while Miliband and Cooper are probably out of reach even on a barnstorming night.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1192456676940496896
For the supporters of their opponents to complain about it is simply bad faith argument.
And when those parties are strongly in favour of PR, which would avoid such hard choices, and the party you support is strongly against PR, then your argument is utterly in bad faith.
Most voters want to know who will be PM if a party wins.
Not someone I would vote for because of his politics but undeniably been a good representative for his constituents.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1192466234761252865
Today marks the launch of a new cross-party agreement on electoral reform, of which Plaid Cymru is a founding signatory.
I join a broad array of political parties – the Lib Dems, the Green Party, the SNP, the Brexit Party – and MPs from across the spectrum in signing the “Good Systems Agreement” brokered by campaign group Make Votes Matter. This is the first time such an agreement has ever been made in the UK.
There is little that such a list of parties all have in common with one another, but we all share the belief that the First Past the Post system cannot adequately represent a diverse, modern electorate – nor can we rely upon it to deliver responsible, representative government.
The agreement sets out the principles that we believe a new voting system should deliver. Some of these are fundamentally incompatible with the archaic First Past the Post system used for Westminster elections. For example, we believe that seats in the House of Commons should match the votes cast in a general election.
Under the current system, a smaller party can win a significant number of votes, but still end up with no MPs if they fail to have a high enough concentration of votes in any one constituency. This system is designed for a two-party political system that has outlived its usefulness for modern politics....
(Liz Saville Roberts)