politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mark Pack on the major event that could yet derail this electi

Pulpstar said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.

If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?

I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.

I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.

Whilst the idea is very psephologically pure, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be a coalition of the above two camps.
If we were under a pure PR system as in the Netherlands then we'd have the above two parties (D66 Democrats), (VVD Liberals) - but it'd be extremely counterproductive under FPTP so won't happen.
Similiarly Labour would be in a far worse state if it was to split into the Corbynista/Moderate tendencies explicitly.

I'm sure I'm over-egging it by saying it should be the first stage.

Electorally under FPTP, the logical strategic threat to May's Conservatives would come from a party that could appeal to, for want of a better term, Remainia. Not necessarily on a pro-European platform, but one that spoke to their overall cultural and economic interests. I'm not convinced that SDP2 would be that party.

Scott_P said:

@AndrewSparrow: Some 72% of voters think Conservatives will win a majority, poll suggests - 1/3 think May will get +100 majority - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/02/general-election-2017-hard-brexit-nick-clegg-politics-live?page=with:block-59087948e4b06585062d971b#block-59087948e4b06585062d971b

Anyone in favour of getting some of the 28% onto Betfair?

There's 1.11 available to lay on the majority, and 1.06 to lay on Con Most Seats, we need more people to bet against the Tories!

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

A proper liberal party, that was economically conservative and socially liberal, might well appeal to me. The Lib Dems, alas, are utterly in love with the EU, which is something of a deal-breaker.

Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

@AndrewSparrow: Some 72% of voters think Conservatives will win a majority, poll suggests - 1/3 think May will get +100 majority - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/02/general-election-2017-hard-brexit-nick-clegg-politics-live?page=with:block-59087948e4b06585062d971b#block-59087948e4b06585062d971b

Anyone in favour of getting some of the 28% onto Betfair?

There's 1.11 available to lay on the majority, and 1.06 to lay on Con Most Seats, we need more people to bet against the Tories!

Here's my favourite bet in the related markets to that thus far (PM after election)

Lay (Bet Against)
Jeremy Corbyn 9.20 £100.00 £920.00

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

BannedInParis said:

Scott_P said:

@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

that'll do, pig, that'll do.

If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.

They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.

Agreed.

Mr. Patrick, hmm. Weren't you meant to be founding the Patrick Party?

Any PB views on Lewes in Sussex. Was Tory forever. Then went LibDem. Then Tory again. Now a Tory / LD marginal?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Patrick, hmm. Weren't you meant to be founding the Patrick Party?

I think the Partick Party policies and what I just said are one and the same! (I was toying with adding a nuke France policy - but on balance decided against it. Possibly to TSE's chagrin).

chestnut said:

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

BannedInParis said:

Scott_P said:

@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

that'll do, pig, that'll do.

If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.

They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.

If enough people vote Labour it throws Jezza a life jacket.

What level does Labour's vote need to fall to for his position to become untenable?

Well good question - but it does presuppose that Jezza and team have the capability to structure a defence against being sacked. Now of course who knows what the Lab membership thinks or will think, but that is to assign to him a degree of competence he has to date failed to show.

Patrick said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

A proper liberal party, that was economically conservative and socially liberal, might well appeal to me. The Lib Dems, alas, are utterly in love with the EU, which is something of a deal-breaker.

Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.

Sounds pretty good.

Mark Pack and many other left wing / Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the (left wing) MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?

PaulM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.

If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?

I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.

I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.

Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.

There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.

Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?

Yes and it nearly worked. But the SDP failed to reach the tipping point of actually overtaking Labour and after Foot lost Labour elected Kinnock who took on Militant.

If Labour elects a Kinnock type figure this year a split is pointless. If they elect someone like McDonnell or Corbyn stays on then a split may work.

TOPPING said:

Baskerville said:

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

BannedInParis said:

Scott_P said:

@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

that'll do, pig, that'll do.

If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.

They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.

According to the Guardian's report of the ICM poll:
"Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party."
The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.

Yikes and that is asking the 28% that question? That is extraordinary if so.

Tories need to hammer away at the "only your vote can stop Corbyn" message.

Guardian trying to get Chip-gate going...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/theresa-may-awkwardly-eating-chips-could-be-2017s-bacon-sandwich

Essexman said:

Mark Pack and many other Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the left wing MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?

Because it's a Westminster Village story that can't be compressed into five words.

That, and the fact that whatever happens in the investigation, the election choice will still be between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.

Ed Conwy SKY News fantastic economice expert has tried to cost Labours 10 000 police officers - if its 300 million as is being claimed then according to Ed there will be no wage increases for any police for next five years . Taking wage incresases costs and inflation into the mix the true figure would be around £350 million

marke09 said:

Ed Conwy SKY News fantastic economice expert has tried to cost Labours 10 000 police officers - if its 300 million as is being claimed then according to Ed there will be no wage increases for any police for next five years . Taking wage incresases costs and inflation into the mix the true figure would be around £350 million

Does that include the £18,000 to train and equip each officer?

Mr. Patrick, the irony is that had we had a referendum on Lisbon, it would've not only acted as a pressure valve/line in the sand, it would've prevented our departure as Article 50 wouldn't exist.

Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?

Patrick said:

The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.

In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

PaulM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.

If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?

I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.

I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.

Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.

There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.

Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?

The "beware the SDP" line is overused, in my view. It's taken as proof that a realignment can't work, but is rather based on the flawed position that everything that happened in history was bound to happen based on some underlying logic of the universe.

The SDP nearly did work. But enough moderate MPs (the young Blair for example) correctly believed the Labour Party hadn't reached the tipping point and could be saved; the leadership of the SDP weren't in the end united or strong enough; and the Falklands War ruined their 1983 narrative. None of that was inevitable, nor would it necessarily be repeated (although it might).

I'd also note that the proposed mechanism (or the rumoured one that does the rounds anyway) isn't like the Alliance's odd separate-but-together concept, and coupons for SDP or Liberal candidates in seats. It's a straight off Centre Party from day one.

You make some good points on this, though of course the perception it would be the same as before can be self fulfilling.

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

Labour still far too high for comfort...

Some might say the Tory share is Strong and Stable.


My coat?

Disraeli will fetch your coat for you, since he beat you to it (4:14pm)

I'll be in good company.

surbiton said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

My current prediction for the LibDems:

HOLDS
Ceredigion
Sheffield Hallam
Orkney & Shetland
Westmorland & Lonsdale

LOSSES
Southport (to Cons)
Carshalton (to Cons)
North Norfolk (to Cons)
Richmond Park (to Cons)
Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)

GAINS
Twickenham (from Cons)
Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons)
Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons)
East Dunbartonshire (from SNP)
Edinburgh West (from SNP)

Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.

Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.

My assumption with Bermondsey is that Simon Hughes super-maxed out his 30-year personal vote in 2015 -- even when the previous MP is standing in future elections, the personal vote tends to drift away as people forget exactly what they'd done for the area when they were MP.

I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.

I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.

Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.

I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.

The Bermondsey MP did sign the Corbyn nomination papers...

surbiton said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

My current prediction for the LibDems:

HOLDS
Ceredigion
Sheffield Hallam
Orkney & Shetland
Westmorland & Lonsdale

LOSSES
Southport (to Cons)
Carshalton (to Cons)
North Norfolk (to Cons)
Richmond Park (to Cons)
Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)

GAINS
Twickenham (from Cons)
Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons)
Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons)
East Dunbartonshire (from SNP)
Edinburgh West (from SNP)

Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.

Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.

My assumption with Bermondsey is that Simon Hughes super-maxed out his 30-year personal vote in 2015 -- even when the previous MP is standing in future elections, the personal vote tends to drift away as people forget exactly what they'd done for the area when they were MP.

I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.

I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.

Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.

I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.

I think Simon stands a reasonable chance. He is immensely popular in the seat, and has met almost everyone over his many years in office. There will be a remorse factor after his shock defeat less than two years ago. The new Labour MP is a moderate remainer-type but won't have been able to dig himself in that much during twenty three months, particularly with all the goings-on inside Labour. The Labour candidate will struggle with his past opposition to Corbyn. And the LibDems can target a lot of help on the seat whereas Labour has seats to defend all over the place. dYOR.

There are a few problems with this story, not just the article above but the whole way it has run - but also with this article in that some important considerations just dont seem to be there. 1. It is possible that the CPS will prosecute but they also have to consider the likelihood of getting a successful prosecution. The issue about tge Electoral Commission having a solid basis for a national fine is a bit of a red herring on that and indeed may push further the other way because that has indicated where liability lay and it has found liability with party HQ. Now unless there is smoking gun evidence that both the agents and the MPS were intentionally complicit then what we still have is their claim that they had clear advice from CCO that these were national expenses. 2. The decision then has to be whether or not to prosecute both MPs and agents or just agents. 3. The result may be fines not necessarily prison as has been talked up. 4. The Electoral Commission could have recommended that elections were rerun raising questions about whether or not the results were affected. 5. The CPS may be wary of politicised criminal cases especially after recent experience of celebrity cases and also those with longer memories may remember the cash for peers stuff of a few years back. 6. The story if it does get traction, could play a number of ways including a massive swing against the Tories to one of the other main parties or to a protest movement outside the mainstream. It may already be the case that those who see the Tories as tainted are already accounted for though it may make them more likely to turn out for other parties. There is also the possibility that this will be seen as an other establishment attempt to thwart Brexit noting point 5 above and so it may even play well for some Tory candidates. It may end up primarily having a localised effect so some MPS may lose their seats but not affect the national campaign. 7. It may still not get traction based on a recommendation to prosecute given that a decision to investigate and even to fine has not seemingly got far. The real hit would be if these cases actually got to court with significant public scrutiny of Tory election practices and this may also include additional context relating to the behaviour of those involved and the internal party investigation re alleged bullying. So potentially a big impact at that point. I suspect the Conservatives game played scenarios as part of the decision to go ahead.

Pagan said:

williamglenn said:

Patrick said:

The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.

In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.

the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't

If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.

walterw said:

'Farron just feels incredibly lightweight and trite.'


Lightweight just about sums him up,a student union leader that has immatured with age.
What a mistake not to have chosen Norman Lamb who at least had a modicum of gravitas.

While not wholly unfair, I wonder if you're making the mistake of thinking that the LDs are a party aspiring to government. As far as I can see, they're not. They're looking to stabilise and, if they're honest, drift up. Farron's seems to be quite a good fit within those parameters.

Where that strategy's come dramatically unstuck is (a) that as a result of Corbyn, the centre left has opened for them and (b) the GEs three years earlier than anticipated. Oddly, perhaps, Farron doesn't seem willing to aggressively exploit the opportunity at (a) and, perhaps because of (b) doesn't appear to have anything other than his one club to reach for.

notme said:

IanB2 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

2 points on topic:

1) The standard of proof for the CPS is going to be much higher than that used by the Electoral Commission
2) The risk of political blowback to the CPS is enormous, particularly if there are acquittals. Therefore, I would only expect charges in the most clear cut cases. Certainly not anything like 30.

3) As the practice seems prevalent in a number of parties, I expect the prosecutions will include individuals from more than one party to avoid accusations of bias.

AIUI only the individual cases concerning the high spending by Tories were sufficiently serious to refer to the CPS.

All the debate about the outcome, disqualifications, by-elections etc. is missing the point, and I agree with others that these outcomes are very unlikely anyway.

All that matters is the potential for one day's negative headlines about the Tories, in the event that the CPS decides to progress some of the cases. This is by no means certain, however, and I take Mark's frequent writing about the matter as an attempt to influence the debate and atmosphere rather than an objective prediction of what is likely to happen.

This is absolutely and utterly not the case. I only know of one referred to cps and their total expenditure was below the maximum with or without the expenditure assigned to the national campaign.

I believe the CPS has fourteen cases on its desk already.

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.

If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?

I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.

I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.

Whilst the idea is very psephologically pure, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be a coalition of the above two camps.
If we were under a pure PR system as in the Netherlands then we'd have the above two parties (D66 Democrats), (VVD Liberals) - but it'd be extremely counterproductive under FPTP so won't happen.
Similiarly Labour would be in a far worse state if it was to split into the Corbynista/Moderate tendencies explicitly.

I'm sure I'm over-egging it by saying it should be the first stage.

Electorally under FPTP, the logical strategic threat to May's Conservatives would come from a party that could appeal to, for want of a better term, Remainia. Not necessarily on a pro-European platform, but one that spoke to their overall cultural and economic interests. I'm not convinced that SDP2 would be that party.

The lesson this election may teach us is that Remainers might have preferred to stay within the EU, think the decision is wrong, and are even angry about it, but, not enough to make them switch their vote*.

It's like the CND or the end of the Empire. Passions ran high for a minority on both, but most people simply cared about getting on with their day-to-day lives.

(*Incidentally, I think that applies to the Union as well - the fallacy of the SNP position in Scotland is similar to that of the Liberal Democrats in England)

Pong said:

david_herdson said:

If this is anything, it's nothing more than an accounting fiddle.

Do you think what the tories did was acceptable?

No, they ballsed up on this one big time. That doesn't mean it is anywhere close to the largest political scandal ever.

Completely Off-topic. Anyone know why BBC news articles "most read" now only shows links to 28 April?

They seem out-of-date. Or is it just me?

Eg, scroll down on this article, and look at the list of Most Popular:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693

FrancisUrquhart said:

glw said:

TOPPING said:

Baskerville said:

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

BannedInParis said:

Scott_P said:

@britainelects: Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)

that'll do, pig, that'll do.

If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.

They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.

According to the Guardian's report of the ICM poll:
"Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party."
The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.

Yikes and that is asking the 28% that question? That is extraordinary if so.

Tories need to hammer away at the "only your vote can stop Corbyn" message.

Possibly next to some quotes about the IRA...only your vote can stop this man being PM....

And a follow up...McIRA....with the same slogan.

In fact you could have a different poster /ad every day, with the same slogan.

I think that would be counter-productive. Jezza's past friendships have to be handled very carefully (I'm not saying there isn't an effective attack there).

It wouldn't take much for the attack line to be seen as playing politics with peoples' lives - those lost during the IRA campaign.

surbiton said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

My current prediction for the LibDems:

HOLDS
Ceredigion
Sheffield Hallam
Orkney & Shetland
Westmorland & Lonsdale

LOSSES
Southport (to Cons)
Carshalton (to Cons)
North Norfolk (to Cons)
Richmond Park (to Cons)
Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)

GAINS
Twickenham (from Cons)
Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons)
Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons)
East Dunbartonshire (from SNP)
Edinburgh West (from SNP)

Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.

Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.

My assumption with Bermondsey is that Simon Hughes super-maxed out his 30-year personal vote in 2015 -- even when the previous MP is standing in future elections, the personal vote tends to drift away as people forget exactly what they'd done for the area when they were MP.

I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.

I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.

Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.

I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.

Bermondsey seems very winnable to me.

MikeL said:

Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?

Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.

For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.

Pagan said:

williamglenn said:

Pagan said:

williamglenn said:

Patrick said:

The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.

In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.

the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't

If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.

Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15

Heath's whole argument leading up to the referendum was that the Community was about moving beyond the nation state. This was from a prime-time TV debate the Saturday before the vote:

What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.

Did Rinka die in vain?

Bunnies shall go to Paris!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

RobD said:

Pong said:

david_herdson said:

If this is anything, it's nothing more than an accounting fiddle.

Do you think what the tories did was acceptable?

No, they ballsed up on this one big time. That doesn't mean it is anywhere close to the largest political scandal ever.

That was Paul Nuttall saying he lived in a house that he was moving into the next day wasn't it?

kle4 said:

MikeL said:

Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?

Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.

For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.

Memories are short and it's a sad fact that one of the worst human beings that ever lived is now seen by the public (in the West, anyway) as rather comical.

Edit: I did mean Stalin, not John McDonnell!

MikeL said:

Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?

Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.

Nowhere near as entertaining

Mr. Topping, thought we were only discussing frisky scandals.

If we're discussing backstabbing wretches, King John must be up there too.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Patrick, the more the EU tightened its grip, the more British support slipped through its fingers.

https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/859434712598798336/photo/1


Non Story

kle4 said:

MikeL said:

Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?

Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.

For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.

Our willingness to call out Stalin for his terrible crimes is forever hampered by our wartime alliance with him and by the fact that without him WWII might well not have been won.

TGOHF said:

Y0kel said:

Looking at all these polls the story of the election so far is that the Lib Dems can't crack an egg never mind a major breakthrough with the voters so far.

They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.

We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.

Their refusal to accept the referendum result is stifling their recovery.

They accept it, and want us in the single market and a second referendum. It is a perfectly coherent strategy but they sadly have lost credibility since the coalition and I can't see them getting it back. They are being treated as inferior goods.

Patrick said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Patrick, the irony is that had we had a referendum on Lisbon, it would've not only acted as a pressure valve/line in the sand, it would've prevented our departure as Article 50 wouldn't exist.

Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?

Erm...if we'd had referendums on Maastricht and Lisbon there:
1. Would have been no new treaties coz we'd block 'em
2. Unless the EO offered formally a 2-speed EU
3. In which case we'd be trading but outside politics
4. And not talking about Brexit
5. The dumb fuckers

If we'd had a referendum on Maastricht it would have been won by Yes, and given that Thatcher would have likely been actively campaigning for No, would have provided the cathartic public defeat that the party denied her and drained the poison that infected the Eurosceptic right ever since.

Brom said:

MarkHopkins said:

Completely Off-topic. Anyone know why BBC news articles "most read" now only shows links to 28 April?

They seem out-of-date. Or is it just me?

Eg, scroll down on this article, and look at the list of most read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693

you'll be pleased to know thats a website glitch and due to be fixed in the next 24 hours.

Thanks.