Irrespective of what happens on Thursday, there will be some form of Labour leadership election soon. Tom Watson standing down as Deputy Leader (and MP) alone ensures that. If Corbyn does well enough to retain the leadership then the contest to be his deputy becomes a contest to be heir-apparent; if not, we get the full-blown leadership contest more-or-less straight away.
I think that is where we will get to...probably a substantial majority for the blue team (maybe 60+ or so). But who knows?
If this happens though, I suspect the losing teams will have to go through a rethink before (or during) their leadership elections. Brexit will suddenly be a fact, not an opinion, for example. Adaptation to a "new normal" will be highly traumatic for Labour and, especially, the LibDems, but maybe cathartic too in ways that are hard to predict.
There is no reason to suppose that the trauma of another defeat won't result in anger amongst the Labour membership at rejection by the electorate, followed by a doubling down on Left principles and a further lurch towards socialism. They're hardly going to say to themselves "Oh, we were obviously wrong, let's tack towards the muddy middle ground again and try to win over some Tory voters." That's how a pragmatic political movement might choose to operate, but today's Labour Party ain't pragmatic.
The argument @david_herdson advances therefore appears sound. As to whether it is premature to be discussing the subject, it might be argued thus - but the site needs content and there's only so much that can be said about this election campaign! Unless and until the polling evidence tells us something new, it looks distinctly as if the electorate made up its mind about a fortnight ago and nothing much has changed since.
For a presidential nominee not to be able to talk about your record because they're under NDA seems kind of bad, doesn't it? Trump can just make up what he likes and Mayor Pete is contractually forbidden from defending himself...
a) repeal of the FTPA
b) updated and equal constituencies
c) requiring ID to vote
d) stopping postal vote harvesting
e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
f) making it easier for expats to vote
g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights
Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
What do people think of this analysis?
To me, he is over-egging the comparisons with 2017, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part. And he does seem to assume that the 2019 polling data is directly comparable to the 2017 polling data, i.e. that the polling companies have made no adjustments to their models to correct for their failings in 2017, so - in his view - they are just as likely to be wrong in the same direction and to the same degree as in 2017.
This truism always makes me yawn, so I feel bad in using it but what I'm getting at is that, were they to lose, I think "Brexit is now a fact" will be a big, new factor
Labour's reponse to this (embrace it, embrace it and apologise for having messed about on it, double down and go for Rejoin, declare the referendum/2017/2019 votes invalid & press for armed insurrection etc?) will probably matter more, initially, than the chromosome set of the next leader.
My guess is that we’ll see a Starmer v Long Bailey contest - and that it will be pretty close. However, given Labour members always make the worst choice available Long Bailey is likely to win.
Rory claimed the story had been planted in the Telegraph by our own fantasist-in-chief.
It's certainly a different story for the secessionist Celtic nationalist parties, and possibly for the Lib Dems if they really do elect to double down and adopt Rejoin as policy, but the big two (trade talks notwithstanding) will move on to other things.
I would expect the turnout of the young to rise, relatively (I.e. as a proportion of the overall turnout) this time, which will help both opposition parties. But I am not feeling the surge of enthusiasm that would suggest a youth quake is on the horizon.
The only surge that can really stop the Tories now is a big rise in Lab/LD tactical voting, in the right direction in the right places.
Meanwhile the Russians are doing their best to drop Labour in it?
How many is that now?!
Hmmm. A week from now we might be talking about the tory leadership. I just wonder ...
Nor is there any reason to suppose that the Conservatives need to increase their vote share relative to 2017 in order to win outright. All that may be necessary is for Labour's to go backwards, which is what the headline VI numbers (which have now been reasonably stable across all pollsters for nearly a fortnight) would suggest. And that's without taking into account the possibility that the Tory vote could be becoming more efficient - shipping some Remain voters in Southern safe seats, whilst holding steady or gaining in the Labour Leave constituencies and in their Scottish defences.
Especially if they end up representing a new batch of depopulating northern towns!
It was easier for Bozo, as he only had one policy to remember in the first place.
June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance
June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority
You may also have missed @Cyclefree's header, Protecting our Democracy
Very interesting indeed, I would say.
The whole system is broken in any event; some foibles with the boundaries are the least of its problems.
Labour ahead in Canterbury ?
I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.
I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
The Tory high command will not be particularly pleased with yesterday's debate, because of some of the very similar data that's emerging as last time.
But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
If you're really bothered about people having too many rights or something then have them promise that they're not registered to vote anywhere else, it wouldn't be totally enforceable but it would be as water-proof of the rest of the system.
Now that's something for which there are good arguments. For example, if we had a chip card to access benefits, to register for tax, to act as a driving licence, to use NHS services or to register when visiting government buildings, that could work, as long as we also had the right to inspect the government database and see who had been looking at our information.
But there is a fundamental flaw in this logic, and that is the British hate ID cards (leaving aside the fact such safeguards as I outline would be utterly alien to our secretive and suspicious government). So this is actually a policy any sensible Labour MP should start emphasising.
Of course, that would lead to the awkward point that Corbyn's policies more or less require them as well...
I am not expecting to migrate abroad myself. Even if Brexit is a shitshow, my job and pension are some of the safest in existence, not least now that I can take early retirement if either are threatened.
Only 10/1 with Ladbrokes that Swinson will become PM during her leadership...
But as result after result matched the YouGov MRP people should have wised up faster.
It is perhaps also noteworthy that it is very difficult to have a quick election on such rules.
But by then, Rejoin might be. Oh, and what is that sound of knife-grinding I hear in the background? The longevity of her leadership might require a prayer that Chuka loses....
Which ones in particular do you object to?
Though you could put forward similar arguments, the US typically grants more latitude for ‘free speech’.
That comfortable majority means that there will be somewhat fewer Labour MPs and quite possibly a different mix too. There will be 1 Scot who is so far from being a Corbynite that they had a real go at unseating him. There will be quite a number of casualties in northern England and the Midlands leaving a PLP that is even more dominated by London and other Inner City types. I think that the PLP will prove to be more Corbynite after his departure than it has been throughout his reign.
I agree with David that this is not likely to make Starmer's job any easier. A majority along the lines I am suggesting would also mean that any successor will have quite a period in which to learn the job as we are much more likely to have an extended Parliament of at least 4 years notwithstanding the repeal of the FTPA. This makes the relative inexperience of some of the candidates less of an issue.
Labour should be in a very strong position by 2024. But to win they need to present credible economic policies, sort out the anti-Semitism mess and actually have a position on the important issues of the day. It's going to be a long haul and I see nothing like the Blair/Brown combo to achieve it.
Maybe they can build a statue to Corbyn in Canterbury after all
The Tories’ surprise giveaway for the final weekend is a World Cup bid.
Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.
The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.