politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON voters give Dave a net 24% lead over Boris on whose EU

FrancisUrquhart said:

Details of wittingdale story are up & it doesn't live up to the headline at all.

The funniest bit for me is he told he initially he was an arms dealer...of all the fake professions to choose...could go for anything..pilot, doctor, businessman...nah darling I flog guns..

Makes you wonder if the pressure of hacked off forced a story for a front page,even if it comes to nothing.

Hacked off will be pleased that that a newspaper upsetting the secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tykejohnno said:

Brexit have a big hitter.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/721443285798141959

Botham is also a serial shagger/adulterer.

What did I say about Leavers being colossal perverts?

It's a sad day when TSE of this parish condemns a man who simply tups lots of briffit as a "colossal pervert".

Clearly you haven't boffed anyone but your dowdy wife since about 1998. And I doubt you've troubled her since the advent of the Millennium Dome.

You, sir, are a LOSER.

I suggest you get your sense of humour checked.

Well, likewise.

Ah

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.

I thought Labour led by 2% in contested seats in 2011. Or are you referring to polling?

Now if the mail had run this story about Steve Coogan I wonder what hacked off would say?

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tykejohnno said:

Brexit have a big hitter.

htps://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/721443285798141959

Labour linked to terrorists...just another normal headline these days for labour.

Why the coy phrasing 'Labour London hopeful linked to terrorist'? Seems like 'Sadiq Khan linked to terrorist' is more powerful and makes the same point. So I presume it's bollocks .

No doubt the latest "link" is that Sadiq Khan once SCANDALOUSLY went to a railway station just a few days after some woman who was the wife of an ISIL-sympathiser who once posted a stupid comment on Twitter.

TheScreamingEagles said:

John Whittingdale putting the 'sex' into Essex. I suggest he might get his bottom spanked for his actions, oh wait.

TheScreamingEagles said:

John Whittingdale putting the 'sex' into Essex. I suggest he might get his bottom spanked for his actions, oh wait.

I expect that he will be disciplined by the whips.

alex. said:

The photograph at Chequers is likely to anger Mr Cameron, who bans mobile phones at Cabinet meetings, partly for security reasons

MoS giving a wide definition to the phrase "Cabinet meeting". Spin doctor in the middle might be in trouble though - he's definitely on his phone I think.

Since when has definition of cabinet meeting = garden party? All that is missing is Eric pickles tending the BBQ wearing an apron with a naked lady on the front.

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex. said:

The photograph at Chequers is likely to anger Mr Cameron, who bans mobile phones at Cabinet meetings, partly for security reasons

MoS giving a wide definition to the phrase "Cabinet meeting". Spin doctor in the middle might be in trouble though - he's definitely on his phone I think.

Since when has definition of cabinet meeting = garden party? All that is missing is Eric pickles tending the BBQ wearing an apron with a naked lady on the front.

It looks as if Patrick McLoughlin rumbled him though.

ydoethur said:

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

Why? This is the first year of the General Election cycle, just like 2011 was. And literally every government without exception since the 1970s has done better in their first set of local elections in the the electoral cycle than in the second set.

When was the last time the Opposition did not do better than the government?

2011. And before that, 2002, 1998, 1988, 1984.

It is actually more common than not that governments win the first set of local elections just a year after a General Election win, because there is always atleast a bit of a honeymoon effect lingering.

Decided Leave is no more likely to win the referendum than Jeremy Corbyn was to win the Labour leadership, the Tories were to secure a majority or Trump was to lead the GOP nomination.

Tykejohnno said:

Dan the man having a good EU Ref campaign.

Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP
In February, all these ministers were threatening to leave the EU over a trivial benefits tweak. Now it'd be a disaster? Come of it, chaps.

It's bollocks, but it works because Fear is visceral: it causes a fight or flight emotional reaction in our brainstem, it's automatic, it's reflexive, and it's not logical. Hell, even I instinctively wince when I read the scare stories.

To realise it's bollocks, you have to engage the neocortex to apply logic, and rationality, to overcome the brainstem: to hoodwink those inconsistencies, and realise you're being played.

Most ordinary people find that too much work. Remain know this.

But we must do everything we can not to let them win.

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Details of wittingdale story are up & it doesn't live up to the headline at all.

The funniest bit for me is he told he initially he was an arms dealer...of all the fake professions to choose...could go for anything..pilot, doctor, businessman...nah darling I flog guns..

It gives that alluring hint of danger and adventure, even if it is conducted by middle aged men in suits at the top end.

It has recently and belatedly come to my attention that saying I am a "thriller writer" attracts women, in a way that saying I am a "novelist" or "journalist" does not.

There's just something about it which exudes a silly and entirely bogus glamour, nonetheless effective. THRILLER WRITER. Like I am Ian Fleming, sitting in Goldeneye, with an extra dash of James Bond himself, ordering Martinis.

It works. For good or ill, it works. Even if I am the very same middle aged idiot, sitting, lonely and dishevelled, at the very same laptop, wondering when I am allowed another Nespresso.

I imagine exactly the same process attaches to "arms dealer" over "MP" or even "Cabinet Minister".

I'd have thought 'travel journalist' might have more cache than just plain old journalist - Mr local politics reporter can only hope to impress with how they once bumped into a Cabinet Minister as they left the lavatory, not regale the young and starry eyed with tales of exotic travels in Bhutan and Cambodia or whatever.

Danny565 said:

ydoethur said:

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

Why? This is the first year of the General Election cycle, just like 2011 was. And literally every government without exception since the 1970s has done better in their first set of local elections in the the electoral cycle than in the second set.

When was the last time the Opposition did not do better than the government?

2011. And before that, 2002, 1998, 1988, 1984.

It is actually more common than not that governments win the first set of local elections just a year after a General Election win, because there is always atleast a bit of a honeymoon effect lingering.

You mean 2011 where Laboir won more votes and gained 857 seats to the Tories' 86? Plus winning a majority in Wales? I'll give you Scotland. That set of 2011 elections?

It was only the way the councils fell and Labour's low starting base that meant they technically came second. At the moment, Corbyn would surely be very happy with a similar performance.

Jonathan said:

PS Is it time we took the opportunity to declare whether or not we have had a relationship with John Whittingdale.

I have been screwed by Mandelson, Cable, Gove and Morgan.

I am still waiting for Whittingdale to join the procession.

Danny565 said:

ydoethur said:

Danny565 said:

ydoethur said:

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

Why? This is the first year of the General Election cycle, just like 2011 was. And literally every government without exception since the 1970s has done better in their first set of local elections in the the electoral cycle than in the second set.

When was the last time the Opposition did not do better than the government?

2011. And before that, 2002, 1998, 1988, 1984.

It is actually more common than not that governments win the first set of local elections just a year after a General Election win, because there is always atleast a bit of a honeymoon effect lingering.

You mean 2011 where Laboir won more votes and gained 857 seats to the Tories' 86? Plus winning a majority in Wales? I'll give you Scotland. That set of 2011 elections?

It was only the way the councils fell and Labour's low starting base that meant they technically came second. At the moment, Corbyn would surely be very happy with a similar performance.

No - I mean the 2011 set of local elections where the Conservatives beat Labour in the popular vote (38% to 37%).

Council seats gained or lost are COMPLETELY irrelevant in gauging trends, when the comparative council elections are being fought at completely different stages in the electoral cycle. As an example, the Conservatives made gains in the 1997 local elections, on the very same day that they got wiped out in the General Election.

Rallings and Thrasher have said it is better to compare the 2016 results/NESV to the 2012 results/NESV not 2011.

I think they know what they are talking about.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

alex. said:

RobD said:

Tykejohnno said:

twitter.com/suttonnick/status/721437372672524288

"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.

Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...

He should not be sending photos along an insecure connection to a third party from a secure location with vital material on the table.

At the very least, it was stupid. At worst, it was criminally negligent. Either way, if true he should go.

To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.

Both are Leavers, no great loss to the Cabinet nor the Tory party.

Now that's what you call trolling.

"No great loss to the Cabinet OR the Tory Party"

Your GRAMMAR is APPALLING!

Nah it's fine

YOU ONLY USE "NOR" IF YOU USE "NEITHER".

For example:

Neither Mike NOR TSE are LEAVERS.

Not necessarily. I think both the following are correct (note the comma placement):

"no great loss to the Cabinet or the Tory party."
"no great loss to the Cabinet, nor to the Tory party."

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Decided Leave is no more likely to win the referendum than Jeremy Corbyn was to win the Labour leadership, the Tories were to secure a majority or Trump was to lead the GOP nomination.

This is true. I still expect Remain to win clearly, BUT it's perfectly possible Leave could win via a totally different and unexpected route.

Like Labour voting much more strongly for Leave, when Remain's back is turned focussing on exploiting Tory loyalty to David Cameron and ABC1 fear of change in the home counties, for example.

The best thing for Leave to happen is for the polls to start showing hefty Remain leads.

If the result is in the bag, I suspect there'll be a level of complacency among Remain voters, and they wont turn out.

If the polls show it neck and neck, they will come out.

The higher the turnout is better for Remain is my call.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rallings and Thrasher have said it is better to compare the 2016 results/NESV to the 2012 results/NESV not 2011.

I think they know what they are talking about.

No, they're talking about a completely different thing - they said it is better to compare 2016 to 2012 in terms of projecting seat gains and losses for this year's council election.

They did not say it was better to project trends for the next General Election by comparing 2016 to 2012, because that would be contradicting ALL the evidence which shows first-year and second-year local elections are completely different kettle of fish.

TheScreamingEagles said:

John Whittingdale putting the 'sex' into Essex. I suggest he might get his bottom spanked for his actions, oh wait.

Mr Eagles. You'll appreciate this. Today, I drove past a nearby High School's playing fields - Seneca Valley High in Germantown, MD. Their football (US) team is called none other than "The Screamin' Eagles"

http://www.maxpreps.com/high-schools/seneca-valley-screamin-eagles-(germantown,md)/football/home.htm

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

PS Is it time we took the opportunity to declare whether or not we have had a relationship with John Whittingdale.

I have been screwed by Mandelson, Cable, Gove and Morgan.

I am still waiting for Whittingdale to join the procession.

The story in the Guardian says whittingdale may have been screwed by 10 downing st ;-)

This from the article -

On the other side, some Tory Leavers have lost all trust in Downing Street. Last week some suggested that stale revelations about John Whittingdale’s private life came to light conveniently soon after the culture secretary declared for Vote Leave.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rallings and Thrasher have said it is better to compare the 2016 results/NESV to the 2012 results/NESV not 2011.

I think they know what they are talking about.

No, they're talking about a completely different thing - they said it is better to compare 2016 to 2012 in terms of projecting seat gains and losses for this year's council election.

They did not say it was better to project trends for the next General Election by comparing 2016 to 2012, because that would be contradicting ALL the evidence which shows first-year and second-year local elections are completely different kettle of fish.

I've read their briefing note, that's exactly what they said.

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

Agree.

MikeL said:

Does anyone have details of the Sunday Times article re "Whittingdale in cash raid on BBC"?

It's not up on their website yet

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rallings and Thrasher have said it is better to compare the 2016 results/NESV to the 2012 results/NESV not 2011.

I think they know what they are talking about.

No, they're talking about a completely different thing - they said it is better to compare 2016 to 2012 in terms of projecting seat gains and losses for this year's council election.

They did not say it was better to project trends for the next General Election by comparing 2016 to 2012, because that would be contradicting ALL the evidence which shows first-year and second-year local elections are completely different kettle of fish.

I've read their briefing note, that's exactly what they said.

So in 2019, Labour would make big gains in the council elections EVEN IF they came about 5% behind the Tories in the popular vote - simply because they would have improved on the 7% deficit when those council seats were last fought on the 2015 General Election day.

In that scenario, would you say Labour were on course to win the General Election simply because they'd made "gains" on paper, and ignore the fact they had come miles behind the government in the popular vote in a mid-term year? I'm pretty sure the answer is no Labour would only have made those gains because of the quirk of the 4-year local election cycle clashing with the 5-year General Election cycle.

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

While I too want to Leave, I would not begrudge Remainers feeling a little aggrieved that if Leave win they are expected to shut up forevermore, decision made, but if Remain win the fight is still on as far as Leaver's are concerned, even though whatever happens the Tory party will have been split on the issue.

Still, that seems inevitable when the sides are irreconcilable, and it seems an unwritten rule that those advocating changing the status quo (or what is being presented as status quo in this case) are not going to go away even if they lose.

It's also doubly inevitable as Leavers have been laying the groundwork for how the referendum campaign would be conducted unfairly for years now, so even if Remain wins they've prepared justification for carrying on anyway.

MarkHopkins said:

Boy, some one really wants to get Wittingdale.

Is it because he's a Leaver?

Bit difficult to see where the agenda is as it is being done by pro Brexit papers

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.

You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.

I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.

Jonathan said:

Decided Leave is no more likely to win the referendum than Jeremy Corbyn was to win the Labour leadership, the Tories were to secure a majority or Trump was to lead the GOP nomination.

Good point. Most of the EU-ref talk on PB is either wishful thinking or expression of worst fears. No one has a clue really.

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.

You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.

I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.

What a rude post.

I write what I think, and say what I think. And will continue to do so thank you very much.

Trying to read the Sunday Times screenshot:

Looks as if Whittingdale may order BBC to sell its 50% stake in UKTV.

What would happen to proceeds? If they go back to the Government that's a big deal!

MikeL said:

Trying to read the Sunday Times screenshot:

Looks as if Whittingdale may order BBC to sell its 50% stake in UKTV.

What would happen to proceeds? If they go back to the Government that's a big deal!

Interesting...I always thought it was a bit of a strange arrangement.

Casino_Royale said:

But the only way these splits end is if we Leave. Otherwise it never ends. Ever.

Because an electoral record of every seriously Eurosceptic platform being hammered in general elections plus two referendums 40 years apart resulting in Remain wouldn't persuade Tory Eurosceptics that they should fight other battles?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

The very nature of the EU cannot be closed down for good even if remain win. It is going to go from crisis to crisis until new alliances are formed and the UK need to attend with a very strong eurosceptic presence and a desire to build strong ties with similar minded governments

I absolutely agree that a new European institutional framework is needed.

We should play a positive part in building this, and politically stabilising the continent.

But from outside the EU.

Casino_Royale said:

"The light-hearted Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has staged its first legally recognised wedding."

"Members of the church profess the belief that the world was created by an airborne spaghetti and meatballs-based being and humans evolved from pirates."

"New Zealand officials last month designated the religion as an officially-recognised faith, allowing Wellington-based Pastafarian Karen Martyn the legal right to conduct marriages."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36062126

Ramen!

His noodly appendage be praised.

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

How dare you presume to contradict what the country "wants" if it chooses to Remain.

You are also taking abject and arrant nonsense in what will follow within the party after such a result. Restoring unity will be paramount.

I'm sorry but you are verging on the deranged these last few days. Take some time away - a week or so - and revert to your sensible self.

What a rude post.

I write what I think, and say what I think. And will continue to do so thank you very much.

Your attack on Josias Jessop a couple of days ago was amongst the most disgusting and repulsive that has demeaned this site for a very long time. You are doubtless proud of it.

No, there was no attack. And I would never be proud of attacking anyone.

You clearly don't know me.

Danny565 said:

ydoethur said:

Turns out the Tories did get very slightly more votes in 2011, so I'll concede that part. In every other way, it was a much better result for Labour than they'll get under Jez.

Lol at "in every other way". There is no RELEVANT way of measuring who does better in elections apart from WHO GETS MORE VOTES!

Please tell Clement Attlee about that rousing success he had in 1951. He seemed to think he was defeated despite getting more votes. Or Heath in 1974.

A success for Labour would be substantial gains and taking seats back in the swing areas of the West Midlands and South. A bad result is a net loss of seats and a mass piling up of votes in London where they don't matter.

And now Carter has finally stopped shilly -shallying I can go to bed. I wonder if Stephen Hendry is enjoying a certain schadenfreude in the commentary box? Wouldn't put it past him.

EDIT - dammit, spoke too soon.

Going to be interesting to hear what hacked off think about the wittingdale story...

ydoethur said:

A success for Labour would be substantial gains and taking seats back in the swing areas of the West Midlands and South. A bad result is a net loss of seats and a mass piling up of votes in London where they don't matter.

A net loss of seats would not suggest anything about a "mass piling up of votes" anywhere. It would simply suggest that a government still basking in a (slight) honeymoon in 2016, will have done better than a governement which really was at the peak of mid-term blues in 2012 - i.e. the same trend as EVERY election cycle in modern times.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

The very nature of the EU cannot be closed down for good even if remain win. It is going to go from crisis to crisis until new alliances are formed and the UK need to attend with a very strong eurosceptic presence and a desire to build strong ties with similar minded governments

I absolutely agree that a new European institutional framework is needed.

We should play a positive part in building this, and politically stabilising the continent.

But from outside the EU.

Really it has to happen either way. If remain win it cannot be status quo, fundamental changes will have to happen and circumstances will play a big role in the short term, the migration crisis, the German and French elections in 2017, and the possibility of other Countries demanding their own referendums. If we do not leave it does not mean that we just acquiesce to the 'hated' eurocrats

AndyJS said:

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

Why? This is the first year of the General Election cycle, just like 2011 was. And literally every government without exception since the 1970s has done better in their first set of local elections in the the electoral cycle than in the second set.

Because in most cases the same candidates are contesting this year's elections as in 2012.

Sure, but in terms of predicting the next General Election, the relevant point of comparison is with the first year of the last electoral cycle (2011), not the second year (2012).

The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").

Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

The very nature of the EU cannot be closed down for good even if remain win. It is going to go from crisis to crisis until new alliances are formed and the UK need to attend with a very strong eurosceptic presence and a desire to build strong ties with similar minded governments

I absolutely agree that a new European institutional framework is needed.

We should play a positive part in building this, and politically stabilising the continent.

But from outside the EU.

Just as Churchill wanted

alex. said:

The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").

Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.

Fifty likes. Top post.

foxinsoxuk said:

http://www.greatbritishpolitics.co.uk/magazine.html

I got Harold Wilson. Sounds about right. Which Labour leader are you?

Result: Clement Attlee

You love the NHS, but you also love Trident! You're clearly Labour's original era-defining moderate, filled with contradictions.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tykejohnno said:

EU referendum: a tricky time for David Cameron to be banging on about Europe
Mark Wallace

With Conservative party history littered with loud alarms and splits, the Panama Papers did nothing to help the remain campaign’s greatest asset

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/16/eu-referendum-not-an-ideal-start-for-david-cameron

I think we all know exactly what is going to happen if Remain win.

Remainers in the Conservative Party will try and use the result to close down the EU debate for good, and put Leavers back in their box. And they will do it pompously, condescendingly and totally without tact - whilst sneering and insulting them - barely able to contain their glee.

It won't work. It will merely add fuel to the flames. The faction will firm up, and fester.

But Leave won't go away. Leavers are just too big a part of both the Party and the country. And the country clearly *wants* to Leave, it'll just be reluctantly scared into voting Remain, this time, because the Establishment holds all the cards, and is playing them utterly ruthlessly.

They should remember this.

The very nature of the EU cannot be closed down for good even if remain win. It is going to go from crisis to crisis until new alliances are formed and the UK need to attend with a very strong eurosceptic presence and a desire to build strong ties with similar minded governments

I absolutely agree that a new European institutional framework is needed.

We should play a positive part in building this, and politically stabilising the continent.

But from outside the EU.

Really it has to happen either way. If remain win it cannot be status quo, fundamental changes will have to happen and circumstances will play a big role in the short term, the migration crisis, the German and French elections in 2017, and the possibility of other Countries demanding their own referendums. If we do not leave it does not mean that we just acquiesce to the 'hated' eurocrats

We will if we do not have a strong Eurosceptic leader. The EU have big plans for after the referendum, whether it be huge increases to the budget or the creation of an energy union.

alex. said:

The split in the Conservative Party is not between Leavers and "ardent pro-Europeans". It is between those who take the view that elevating the EU above all other issues is the route to electoral disaster and those who don't. The whole point of holding the referendum was a final attempt to close this split by passing the decision to the electorate and take it out of the equation for General Election politics (whilst spiking the argument that "the country didn't vote in 1973 for what we have today").

Euro-sceptics will not be expected to shut up after the referendum if Remain win. Not least because (contrary to the impression that Leavers like to create) many remain supporters are Euro-sceptics. For good or ill, Conservative Governments will continue to deal with Europe from a Euro-sceptical viewpoint. But they will not be expected to make a noise in such a way that works against party unity and wider electoral success.

Excellent post

Danny565 said:

ydoethur said:

A success for Labour would be substantial gains and taking seats back in the swing areas of the West Midlands and South. A bad result is a net loss of seats and a mass piling up of votes in London where they don't matter.

A net loss of seats would not suggest anything about a "mass piling up of votes" anywhere. It would simply suggest that a government still basking in a (slight) honeymoon in 2016, will have done better than a governement which really was at the peak of mid-term blues in 2012 - i.e. the same trend as EVERY election cycle in modern times.

Danny, you really need some lessons in geography. Also politics and history.

Alternatively, since you have show in the past you are not ignorant of any of those subjects, some lessons in objectivity.

The Conservatives are running a divided, controversial and incompetent government on an extremely narrow mandate. Labour are facing so many open goals on tax credits, Europe, welfare, schooling and devolution, that a halfway competent opposition would be nudging 50% in the polls, as Blair, Cameron and even Jenkins did. They would also make big nationwide gains in local elections.

The fact is however that Labour are not doing any of those things, and it is looking as though their only good news of the night will be in London. Unfortunately for Labour, London is not vital to the outcome of the next election. The Midlands are, ad Labour are slipping back round here from what was a less than stellar performance even in 2012.

What is utterly baffling to me is that the likes of you and NPXMP who are both clearly very bright cannot see this.

Have a nice weekend.


EDIT - PS. Read that LSE link. It makes exactly the point you were disputing - that a government that outperforms the opposition is invariably re-elected, making these elections really important for Labour to win.

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

justin124 said:

AndyJS said:

At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.

No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.

Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.

I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.

Sorry but that seems like a pretty transparent attempt at spinning the potential results and vote share comparisons.

Stop it, Justin and Danny know better than Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings.

Do you have a link to them saying that comparing 2012 to 2016 is relevant in terms of predicting the next General Election?

I'll dig out their working papers tomorrow evening when I get back to Manchester

'I don't think so, for the reason that there are only a minuscule number of ideological pro-Europeans in Britain. Europhilia is not romantic or sentimental. If Leave loses, their voters will nurse a sense of grievance, which will surivive because the possibility remains (however remote) of another referendum where they might theoretically prevail.'

I didn't mean it in quite the way you assume. I was thinking of Jacobitism as it was seen through (most) English eyes by the 18th C i.e. an eccentric, foreign-inspired danger to national security.