politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Branding the Tories totally around Theresa has made it easier
Comments
-
There's a good chance Labour could lose overall control of Durham.0
-
But the swing in Copeland was 7%, so on this basis the Tories would lose that seat? Can't help thinking I've misunderstood what the numbers mean, but it doesn't make sense to me.Philip_Thompson said:
2.5% swing to the government from a majority winning election could lead to a landslide. Lib Dems could be picking back up none of the above protest votes from UKIP where it doesn't matter to the result of the seat.TudorRose said:
And are they effectively saying there is a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con since 2015; if so this is not landslide territory? And where are all these LibDem votes coming from - they've lost seats?PaulM said:
How do these national vote projections handle the fact that there are no elections in London ?Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.0 -
There often isn't a big correlation between the projected share in local elections and the next general election. In 1983 the Tories were only 6% ahead in the May locals and won the general election in June by 16%. (It was 6% not 3%).SeanT said:Don't understand. The swing to the Tories is much less than expected, but the Tories are at the high end of expectation in terms of seats won?
Better distribution? And will this extend to the GE?
https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/0 -
I should also have added 1970!Anorak said:
Cheers. Impressive knowledge.justin124 said:
Yes -in 1959/1960 /1961 / 1982/1983 /1987.Anorak said:
Have mid-term locals ever shown a swing toward the government before?Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.0 -
The BBC figure isn't the National Equivalent Vote share, its just the percentage of all votes cast in this years council elections?SeanT said:Don't understand. The swing to the Tories is much less than expected, but the Tories are at the high end of expectation in terms of seats won?
Better distribution? And will this extend to the GE?0 -
Edinburgh Zoo is going to have to import a lot of Pandas by June 8th.0
-
SNP lose their majority on Dundee City Council, the area returned the highest Yes vote in the 2014 referendum0
-
In "Independence City" - surely not?Scott_P said:@MichaelCraig96: SNP LOSE MAJORITY ON DUNDEE COUNCIL BY ONE - Tories win 2 seats in final ward
@britainelects0 -
The Liberal Democrats always outperform in local elections.Icarus said:The Liberal Democrat 18% is very encouraging for the General election. There are 5 weeks to go (5 X a long time)
In that time Labour will continue to collapse - their candidates denouncing JC will not help.
The Tories will continue to ask for a blank cheque, the Liberals will look like the only alternative and should pick up support in winnable seats.
Their impact on June 8th is likely to be very modest indeed.0 -
My reading of these results is:Black_Rook said:
Theory (borrowed, not my own): Conservative figure is their floor, Labour and Lib Dem their ceiling (and in truth, if the Liberal Democrats get anywhere close of 18% at the General Election I'd be utterly astonished.)Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.
Anyway, regardless of the fact that local elections and general elections are clean different things, the raw figures help their narrative. They make the Coalition of Chaos look plausible.
Oh, and Tory win in Tees Valley mayoral race just confirmed.
1. The Tories remain well on course for their landslide. Teeside, Scotland, and West Mids are all ominous. Their task now is to talk these results DOWN in order not to let the feeling grow that it's a foregone conclusion... although it's not clear they can seriously keep a lid on it, and it may harm the "Coalition of Chaos" line as it's hard to take seriously.
2. Labour have dug in in a handful of places (some interesting results in Cardiff and Norwich for example). There may be some betting value in some selected seats. But basically they are taking a pasting even in elections where the question is NOT Corbyn v May. I cannot see how they can really hope to go above 30% where that is (part of) the question.
3. The Lib Dems have a momentum problem. They wanted a nice story out of this, and haven't got it. BUT... their position looks stronger in most of their targets - there may be a few quietly content Parliamentary candidates, even if HQ is frustrated today.
4. UKIP are ****ed. Start spending your winnings on the generous zero seats bets which were available in April.0 -
Essentially they are estimating a swing from the areas that voted and then applying it as a UNS to those areas that didn't. Given the widely speculated potential differences between London (and other big cities) and elsewhere, this introduces a further possible error. Labour and/or the LibDems may very well do better in terms of swing in London, for example.PaulM said:
How do these national vote projections handle the fact that there are no elections in London ?Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.0 -
-
So the cast iron rule for betting purposes is to add 13% to their lead in the locals. Sorted.AndyJS said:
There often isn't a big correlation between the projected share in local elections and the next general election. In 1983 the Tories were only 6% ahead in the May locals and won the general election in June by 16%. (It was 6% not 3%).SeanT said:Don't understand. The swing to the Tories is much less than expected, but the Tories are at the high end of expectation in terms of seats won?
Better distribution? And will this extend to the GE?
https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/
[joke]0 -
The 7% vote share increase gives the LDs the vital nugget to claim momentum. It's clearly a disappointing night, but if the vote share increase had been minimal there would have been no good news at all to take home from this. The 7% gives them a lifeline, we can expect to hear a lot about it from Farron in the coming days.0
-
At the 1983 locals, Labour's projected share was 34.5%. They got 28.3% at the GE 4 weeks later.0
-
Labour is effectively becoming a regional party for London, Merseyside and the Welsh Valleys0
-
The history of robotics will relate that "Diane" was a grand joke to settle a bet by a couple of engineers, that one couldn't pass off a random number generator as a human.....Disraeli said:I think that we are going to have to invent a new numbering system to work alongside "binary" and "base-10" called "Base-Abbott"
0 -
How did that Indyref2 gambit go then, Nicky?0
-
...0
-
Beeb now reporting results from Norfolk. The Conservative vote has been growing much faster than that of the Lib Dems, BUT it is reported that a modest Lib Dem surge has been taking place in North Norfolk. Better news than I originally thought for Norman Lamb.
In Scotland, the Tories are thus far up by nearly 100 seats, Lib Dems treading water, Labour doing badly but SNP also experiencing a slight net reversal. Would fit the pattern of a gradual return to the 1970s/1980s electoral map of Scotland, but with the SNP taking the place of Labour as the dominant party in the central belt, whilst the Tories and Lib Dems carve up the rural areas. Still a long way to go on that front, mind you.0 -
GIN1138 said:
That's OK... Bad but not catastrophic enough for Jezza to be ousted at the eleventh hour...Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.
Perfect positioning for the Tories....0 -
just saw the solihull result in west midlands. that's a paddling.0
-
@OliverCooper: All 23 @ScotTories candidates that stood in Aberdeenshire have been elected. Amazing result!0
-
Impossible - there are 70 something seats to declare and labour only need 36 of themSean_F said:There's a good chance Labour could lose overall control of Durham.
https://twitter.com/DurhamCouncil/status/8604859282546606080 -
She's consolidated the unionists around the Tories and ensured that when the inevitable retoxification happens, independence will win. All going to plan.Mortimer said:How did that Indyref2 gambit go then, Nicky?
0 -
True, but I slightly struggle with how to interpret these results compared with most local elections. They have been swamped with coverage of the national picture, and in the places that matter with GE campaigning. I agree the "true" LD figure is probably lower, but my pure intuition would be 14%-ish.Black_Rook said:
The Liberal Democrats always outperform in local elections.Icarus said:The Liberal Democrat 18% is very encouraging for the General election. There are 5 weeks to go (5 X a long time)
In that time Labour will continue to collapse - their candidates denouncing JC will not help.
The Tories will continue to ask for a blank cheque, the Liberals will look like the only alternative and should pick up support in winnable seats.
Their impact on June 8th is likely to be very modest indeed.
There aren't many close equivalents. The 1983 and 1987 elections were hot on the heels of locals, but weren't actually called until after they had concluded I think. In the former, the Alliance outperformed their local result by a few %, and in the latter underperformed by a similar amount. But, as I say, I think the comparison is imperfect.0 -
First declaration in Northamptonshire . Clover Hill - Conservatives win with more than double Labour share..0
-
-
Meanwhile, in La France, good news for (most) PB punters....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-idUSKBN18014H0 -
True, but most of it will be wasted votes improving poor third places into better third places.Paristonda said:The 7% vote share increase gives the LDs the vital nugget to claim momentum. It's clearly a disappointing night, but if the vote share increase had been minimal there would have been no good news at all to take home from this. The 7% gives them a lifeline, we can expect to hear a lot about it from Farron in the coming days.
The absolute key in the LibDem target seats is winning back the anti-Tory tactical votes that put them over the top in so many Tory seats before 2015. The political environment looks hopeful for that, particularly if there is a fear about a big majority - whether they have the resources to make it happen is another matter.0 -
Arguably the most astonishing result of these elections.marke09 said:SNP lose their majority on Dundee City Council, the area returned the highest Yes vote in the 2014 referendum
0 -
In 1997 the tories were hammered in the general election, the leader duly resigned and the party was at its lowest ebb. From that point, with pretty much every election, local, European and general, the tories started moving in the right direct, albeit slowly, and after 13 years, they were back in power.
Seven years on from Labour losing power in 2010, Labour are still going backwards and the rate they are going backwards is accelerating. It's possible 2017 will not be the floor if Corbyn doesn't leave. If it takes Labour as long to recover from their lowest point as it did the tories, we could be looking at the tories being in power in to the 2030's0 -
I disagreeIcarus said:The Liberal Democrat 18% is very encouraging for the General election. There are 5 weeks to go (5 X a long time)
In that time Labour will continue to collapse - their candidates denouncing JC will not help.
The Tories will continue to ask for a blank cheque, the Liberals will look like the only alternative and should pick up support in winnable seats.
The LD always tend to get there base vote out and in the main do better on lower turnouts. Therefore I cant see this really extrapolating into seats.
0 -
On (2) the lesson for me there is that Corbynism appeals in the places you'd expect it to: areas with well-educated, upper-middle class Leftists like Cardiff, Norwich, Oxford and London.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
My reading of these results is:Black_Rook said:
Theory (borrowed, not my own): Conservative figure is their floor, Labour and Lib Dem their ceiling (and in truth, if the Liberal Democrats get anywhere close of 18% at the General Election I'd be utterly astonished.)Black_Rook said:BBC announces projected national share of the vote:
Con 38% (+3)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 18% (+7)
Ukip 5% (-8)
Other 12% (0)
Changes since 2015.
Anyway, regardless of the fact that local elections and general elections are clean different things, the raw figures help their narrative. They make the Coalition of Chaos look plausible.
Oh, and Tory win in Tees Valley mayoral race just confirmed.
1. The Tories remain well on course for their landslide. Teeside, Scotland, and West Mids are all ominous. Their task now is to talk these results DOWN in order not to let the feeling grow that it's a foregone conclusion... although it's not clear they can seriously keep a lid on it, and it may harm the "Coalition of Chaos" line as it's hard to take seriously.
2. Labour have dug in in a handful of places (some interesting results in Cardiff and Norwich for example). There may be some betting value in some selected seats. But basically they are taking a pasting even in elections where the question is NOT Corbyn v May. I cannot see how they can really hope to go above 30% where that is (part of) the question.
3. The Lib Dems have a momentum problem. They wanted a nice story out of this, and haven't got it. BUT... their position looks stronger in most of their targets - there may be a few quietly content Parliamentary candidates, even if HQ is frustrated today.
4. UKIP are ****ed. Start spending your winnings on the generous zero seats bets which were available in April.
Otherwise, Labour are falling back on their cultural bedrock in places like Merseyside and the Welsh Valleys, where folk memory is both strong and long.0 -
Fisher's prediction of -315 seems mighty close to the current tally of -275 ...0
-
-
The LibDems added 7% to their 2013 local election performance, so the logical thing would be to add 7 to their 2013 opinion poll ratings. I haven't checked but guess these would have been down in the 7-8% range, which gives a projected VI for the General of 14-15%, which looks credible.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
True, but I slightly struggle with how to interpret these results compared with most local elections. They have been swamped with coverage of the national picture, and in the places that matter with GE campaigning. I agree the "true" LD figure is probably lower, but my pure intuition would be 14%-ish.Black_Rook said:
The Liberal Democrats always outperform in local elections.Icarus said:The Liberal Democrat 18% is very encouraging for the General election. There are 5 weeks to go (5 X a long time)
In that time Labour will continue to collapse - their candidates denouncing JC will not help.
The Tories will continue to ask for a blank cheque, the Liberals will look like the only alternative and should pick up support in winnable seats.
Their impact on June 8th is likely to be very modest indeed.
There aren't many close equivalents. The 1983 and 1987 elections were hot on the heels of locals, but weren't actually called until after they had concluded I think. In the former, the Alliance outperformed their local result by a few %, and in the latter underperformed by a similar amount. But, as I say, I think the comparison is imperfect.0 -
'Old' Labour, 'Real' Labour or 'True' Labour or whatever the Corbyns of this world want to call them were last in power in 1979. Nearly everybody who is old enough to actually remember is voting against them.Schards said:In 1997 the tories were hammered in the general election, the leader duly resigned and the party was at its lowest ebb. From that point, with pretty much every election, local, European and general, the tories started moving in the right direct, albeit slowly, and after 13 years, they were back in power.
Seven years on from Labour losing power in 2010, Labour are still going backwards and the rate they are going backwards is accelerating. It's possible 2017 will not be the floor if Corbyn doesn't leave. If it takes Labour as long to recover from their lowest point as it did the tories, we could be looking at the tories being in power in to the 2030's
0 -
Only the psephologically ignorant will cling to that. It is firmly established that the LibDems outperform at local elections in relation to parliamentary elections. Very unlikely they will do better than 12%/13% on June 8th.Paristonda said:The 7% vote share increase gives the LDs the vital nugget to claim momentum. It's clearly a disappointing night, but if the vote share increase had been minimal there would have been no good news at all to take home from this. The 7% gives them a lifeline, we can expect to hear a lot about it from Farron in the coming days.
0 -
*at some polling stations - at ours we weren't told this. Shocking that this has happened at all though - mis-training the staff on the key point about the ballot.AndyJS said:Some people on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that in the West Midlands mayoral election they were told by the officials that they had to vote for a second preference when in fact they don't.
0 -
I'd say more like 140-170.SeanT said:
Yes, it all depends how much this election mirrors the GE (being so close)Sean_F said:
An 11% lead for a governing party in local elections is huge. It's far better than the Conservatives achieved in 1983 or 1987.SeanT said:Don't understand. The swing to the Tories is much less than expected, but the Tories are at the high end of expectation in terms of seats won?
Better distribution? And will this extend to the GE?
My guess is that lots of people who didn't vote last night will certainly come out in June - to make sure Corbyn loses.
I still predict a Tory maj or 80-100. Landslide, but not annihilation for Labour.0 -
I have already bet on the bearish side on LD prospects. In Leics the LDs are now more clearly the opposition. It is not so much the LDs falling back as holding steady, the UKIP to Tory swing is a dwarfing our modest progress.HurstLlama said:
Thanks, Doc, I am glad you have had some personal successes. However, the fact remains that in terms of seats, at least, the Lib Dems seem, so far, to have gone backwards. Not quite the launch pad for the GE that some on here were predicting.foxinsoxuk said:
The seats that I was campaigning in at the weekend have gone yellow, including the one of the PPC for Bosworth. Leics has a very nice map online:HurstLlama said:I may be getting it all wrong but the biggie on these elections is the Lib Dem dog that doesn't seem to have barked.
It would seem from RobD's excellent spreadsheet that that the LIb Dems are still net losers. That wasn't supposed to happen was it? Where does this leave the idea that they were to improve dramatically at the GE?
https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/about-the-council/how-the-council-works/elections/election-2017/447
I think I had better get the bus up to the local town again tomorrow and see about getting a few quid on Lib Dems <11 seats at the GE.</p>
I am pleased that now Sheringham is the only blue speck in Norman Lamb's constituency, and even there it was close. I expect him to win the seat.
http://elections.norfolk.gov.uk
My float is now all staked, except a bit with Ladbrokes, so I have to wait for the French Presidential election to payout, before more bargain hunting.
0 -
Well, one problem for the Lib Dems is that no one will be hearing a lot about anything from Farron, because they're getting only minor party coverage now. (Though come to think of it, people not hearing from Farron may not be an altogether bad thing for them.)Paristonda said:The 7% vote share increase gives the LDs the vital nugget to claim momentum. It's clearly a disappointing night, but if the vote share increase had been minimal there would have been no good news at all to take home from this. The 7% gives them a lifeline, we can expect to hear a lot about it from Farron in the coming days.
But in any case, it's going to be very difficult for them to claim momentum on the basis of a questionable comparison of two theoretical projections of vote share, if the headline figure is a net loss of councillors.0 -
@C_GBrown1: Overrriding feeling from the @AngusCouncil election is that #SNP know they have taken a real skelping. #Election170
-
That did strike me, and the ominous parallel is that the local elections don't really ask who you want to be PM. When that question was asked with the Thatcher/Foot mismatch a few weeks later, it clearly got worse for Labour.AndyJS said:At the 1983 locals, Labour's projected share was 34.5%. They got 28.3% at the GE 4 weeks later.
They also did worse in 1987 than the immediately preceding locals with a slightly more even (but still disadvantageous) Thatcher/Kinnock choice.0 -
Not so . Labour are currently down 130 seats in England - less than half Fisher's forecast for close of play.BannedInParis said:Fisher's prediction of -315 seems mighty close to the current tally of -275 ...
-1 -
Some of these results are the equivalent of a Labour mayor being elected for Hampshire, and running close in Surrey.Schards said:In 1997 the tories were hammered in the general election, the leader duly resigned and the party was at its lowest ebb. From that point, with pretty much every election, local, European and general, the tories started moving in the right direct, albeit slowly, and after 13 years, they were back in power.
Seven years on from Labour losing power in 2010, Labour are still going backwards and the rate they are going backwards is accelerating. It's possible 2017 will not be the floor if Corbyn doesn't leave. If it takes Labour as long to recover from their lowest point as it did the tories, we could be looking at the tories being in power in to the 2030's
They really, really aren't very good for them.0 -
@holyroodmandy: @RuthDavidsonMSP right to point out that to compare council election result to look forward to #GE17 you should look at 1st preferences.
OK
@Kenny_young: If I have done my adding up right, SNP have done dreadfully badly in Midlothian vote. 10,038 first prefs? They got 24,000 at General Elex.0 -
0
-
@BBCPhilipSim: We're at the stage where the SNP need to start winning 3 seats in 4-member wards to get a majority, and they haven't managed that in one yet0
-
Voting for a Labour councillor doesn't put Corybn in No. 10, voting for a Labour MP might. So it's an entirely different proposition, and one that surely has to produce worse results for Labour.SirNorfolkPassmore said:That did strike me, and the ominous parallel is that the local elections don't really ask who you want to be PM. When that question was asked with the Thatcher/Foot mismatch a few weeks later, it clearly got worse for Labour.
0 -
Sporting are up and running again with their Total Party Seats spreads, where they have the Tories at a mid-spread price of 405, equivalent to a whopping majority of 160 no less, with Labour on 148 seats. Spreadex are quoting the same numbers for the two main parties.
0 -
Some thoughts on the Tees Valley result. I haven't been part of Sue Jeffrey's campaign, but the view from all the activists I have spoken to is that the key Tory pledge - to nationalise Durham Tees Valley Airport - resonated with voters frustrated at the inability to resurrect the airport from run down by Peel Holdings.
That never in a million years will Mayor Houchen have the permission from his own party or the money or the authority to even approach Peel Holdings - who will say no anyway - doesn't matter. The Tories won a shock election on a platform of nationalisation. Whereas the Labour campaign was more bread and butter and clearly didn't get anyone that bothered.
Anyway. I have a Stockton South campaign plan to tear up...0 -
The multi faceted delusion continues apace, I see.williamglenn said:
She's consolidated the unionists around the Tories and ensured that when the inevitable retoxification happens, independence will win. All going to plan.Mortimer said:How did that Indyref2 gambit go then, Nicky?
0 -
No - that 7% increase was compared with 2015, not 2013. According to Wikipedia the 2013 figure was 14%, so an increase of only 4 points.IanB2 said:
The LibDems added 7% to their 2013 local election performance, so the logical thing would be to add 7 to their 2013 opinion poll ratings. I haven't checked but guess these would have been down in the 7-8% range, which gives a projected VI for the General of 14-15%, which looks credible.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
True, but I slightly struggle with how to interpret these results compared with most local elections. They have been swamped with coverage of the national picture, and in the places that matter with GE campaigning. I agree the "true" LD figure is probably lower, but my pure intuition would be 14%-ish.Black_Rook said:
The Liberal Democrats always outperform in local elections.Icarus said:The Liberal Democrat 18% is very encouraging for the General election. There are 5 weeks to go (5 X a long time)
In that time Labour will continue to collapse - their candidates denouncing JC will not help.
The Tories will continue to ask for a blank cheque, the Liberals will look like the only alternative and should pick up support in winnable seats.
Their impact on June 8th is likely to be very modest indeed.
There aren't many close equivalents. The 1983 and 1987 elections were hot on the heels of locals, but weren't actually called until after they had concluded I think. In the former, the Alliance outperformed their local result by a few %, and in the latter underperformed by a similar amount. But, as I say, I think the comparison is imperfect.0 -
@theousherwood: Lib Dem source from WM campaign gets in touch to say that if it does come down to Beverley Nielson's vote, most will go to Andy Street.0
-
The North London Hammer & Sickle Front has never been in power nationally. One can scarcely imagine what Harold Wilson or James Callaghan would've made of the current shower of shite that passes for the Labour Party high command.chestnut said:
'Old' Labour, 'Real' Labour or 'True' Labour or whatever the Corbyns of this world want to call them were last in power in 1979. Nearly everybody who is old enough to actually remember is voting against them.Schards said:In 1997 the tories were hammered in the general election, the leader duly resigned and the party was at its lowest ebb. From that point, with pretty much every election, local, European and general, the tories started moving in the right direct, albeit slowly, and after 13 years, they were back in power.
Seven years on from Labour losing power in 2010, Labour are still going backwards and the rate they are going backwards is accelerating. It's possible 2017 will not be the floor if Corbyn doesn't leave. If it takes Labour as long to recover from their lowest point as it did the tories, we could be looking at the tories being in power in to the 2030's0 -
She's lulled the Scottish Conservatives into a true sense of security.williamglenn said:
She's consolidated the unionists around the Tories and ensured that when the inevitable retoxification happens, independence will win. All going to plan.Mortimer said:How did that Indyref2 gambit go then, Nicky?
0 -
I've seen quite a few local results where Labour has just held onto a seat because of a popular local councillor. That's less likely to happen at a general election.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That did strike me, and the ominous parallel is that the local elections don't really ask who you want to be PM. When that question was asked with the Thatcher/Foot mismatch a few weeks later, it clearly got worse for Labour.AndyJS said:At the 1983 locals, Labour's projected share was 34.5%. They got 28.3% at the GE 4 weeks later.
They also did worse in 1987 than the immediately preceding locals with a slightly more even (but still disadvantageous) Thatcher/Kinnock choice.0 -
After all the fuss about Surrey the Tories actually increased their vote and number of seats. Lib Dems were the minor losers.0
-
-
It is shocking. It could affect the result of the West Midlands mayoral election if it's very close.Dadge said:
*at some polling stations - at ours we weren't told this. Shocking that this has happened at all though - mis-training the staff on the key point about the ballot.AndyJS said:Some people on the VoteUK forum seem to be saying that in the West Midlands mayoral election they were told by the officials that they had to vote for a second preference when in fact they don't.
0 -
It is the size of her majority which will make it easier for her to weather the storms on her backbenches when she makes major concessions on Brexit. It's not the leave/remain mix per se.rural_voter said:
I can't see how she can improve the strength of the pro-Remain position in the HoC by going for a landslide. The net change in England and Wales will probably be to replace 30-50 or so mainly Remain Labour MPs by 30-50 Tory MPs of whom 45% will be Leavers. Some, good grief, might turn out to be like Bone or Cash.Barnesian said:Where will the Kippers go when Mrs May uses her huge majority to support the EU concessions she is going to make to ensure a soft landing for Brexit in the national interest?
Will there be a resurgent UKIP party? It will be too late to do anything about the large Tory majority for the next five years.
The 45% figure is based on the stated views of the existing parliamentary party as of May 2016 when Tory MPs were split 55/45% for Remain. This split excludes MPs who refused to disclose which way they'd vote, e.g. Jesse Norman.
With a majority of 12 in theory it would only take six Bones and Cashes to vote against her. With a majority of say 150 it would take 75 backbenchers to vote against her proposal for a very soft Brexit for which she will get some support from the opposition as well. It puts her in a much stronger position for a soft Brexit if that is where her heart really is, in the national interest.
We'll soon see. The litmus test is what happens to Fox. If he is fired, my scenario is probably correct.0 -
Nope she has replaced the hapless SLAB with a real unionist opposition while tactical unionist voting, especially in Edinburgh, has ensured SLAB and the SLDs still also have a presence where they are better placed to take on the SNPwilliamglenn said:
She's consolidated the unionists around the Tories and ensured that when the inevitable retoxification happens, independence will win. All going to plan.Mortimer said:How did that Indyref2 gambit go then, Nicky?
0 -
If the higher Labour vote was because of personal votes for local councillors (which are almost always more significant than personal votes for MPs), it wouldn't make any difference whether people knew a general election was coming or not.justin124 said:
But there was no expectation of a general election when people voted in 1983 - unlike 1987.AndyJS said:At the 1983 locals, Labour's projected share was 34.5%. They got 28.3% at the GE 4 weeks later.
0 -
With the UKIP vote third and heavily for Street I think he has done it thenScott_P said:@theousherwood: Lib Dem source from WM campaign gets in touch to say that if it does come down to Beverley Nielson's vote, most will go to Andy Street.
0 -
Twitter reveals that a Scottish Conservative candidate has won a seat representing Ravenscraig - former home of the steel plant killed off by the Great Satan with her Handbag of Doom.
It would appear that the electoral advantage of screaming "Evil Tories!" is at last beginning to wane up North.0 -
Hmmm. Spin and Spreadex have increased their spreads on Tory seats from 4 to 6.0
-
I think we are looking at 100+ landslide for May and Robertson losing his seat in ScotlandSeanT said:
Yes, it all depends how much this election mirrors the GE (being so close)Sean_F said:
An 11% lead for a governing party in local elections is huge. It's far better than the Conservatives achieved in 1983 or 1987.SeanT said:Don't understand. The swing to the Tories is much less than expected, but the Tories are at the high end of expectation in terms of seats won?
Better distribution? And will this extend to the GE?
My guess is that lots of people who didn't vote last night will certainly come out in June - to make sure Corbyn loses.
I still predict a Tory maj or 80-100. Landslide, but not annihilation for Labour.0 -
When the tories were getting 30 odd % in the polls and elections,I mentioned to get back over 40% was to give a referendum and get out of the EU.
In other words,the EU was holding the tory vote back.0 -
I think we were assuming too much UKIP - TORY switch and not enough UKIP-LABOUR switch (at least in the Locals) - that may very well change in the General Election itself.SeanT said:
Yeah, that prediction was wrong. If Fisher has been referring to the UK he'd be right, but he wasn't (at least on that pb threader)justin124 said:
Not so . Labour are currently down 130 seats in England - less than half Fisher's forecast for close of play.BannedInParis said:Fisher's prediction of -315 seems mighty close to the current tally of -275 ...
0 -
Hurrah, JohnO has been elected in Surrey.0
-
I suspect Fox may be allowed to wither on the vine. Otherwise you may well be close to the mark. any Brexit scuppering will in fact, be down to the intransigence of the Eurocrats.Barnesian said:
It is the size of her majority which will make it easier for her to weather the storms on her backbenches when she makes major concessions on Brexit. It's not the leave/remain mix per se.rural_voter said:
I can't see how she can improve the strength of the pro-Remain position in the HoC by going for a landslide. The net change in England and Wales will probably be to replace 30-50 or so mainly Remain Labour MPs by 30-50 Tory MPs of whom 45% will be Leavers. Some, good grief, might turn out to be like Bone or Cash.Barnesian said:Where will the Kippers go when Mrs May uses her huge majority to support the EU concessions she is going to make to ensure a soft landing for Brexit in the national interest?
Will there be a resurgent UKIP party? It will be too late to do anything about the large Tory majority for the next five years.
The 45% figure is based on the stated views of the existing parliamentary party as of May 2016 when Tory MPs were split 55/45% for Remain. This split excludes MPs who refused to disclose which way they'd vote, e.g. Jesse Norman.
With a majority of 12 in theory it would only take six Bones and Cashes to vote against her. With a majority of say 150 it would take 75 backbenchers to vote against her proposal for a very soft Brexit for which she will get some support from the opposition as well. It puts her in a much stronger position for a soft Brexit if that is where her heart really is, in the national interest.
We'll soon see. The litmus test is what happens to Fox. If he is fired, my scenario is probably correct.0 -
yeah, mea culpa on that - tweet clearly says England only.SeanT said:
Yeah, that prediction was wrong. If Fisher has been referring to the UK he'd be right, but he wasn't (at least on that pb threader)justin124 said:
Not so . Labour are currently down 130 seats in England - less than half Fisher's forecast for close of play.BannedInParis said:Fisher's prediction of -315 seems mighty close to the current tally of -275 ...
0 -
While the debate got the PB Blackshirts salivating, in France the reaction is that Macron was far better.Peter_the_Punter said:Meanwhile, in La France, good news for (most) PB punters....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-idUSKBN18014H
Le Pen on 35-40 looks value at 2.16, but with the way polls are moving I think good to cover 30-35% too. Undecideds will not break to Le Pen IMO.
-1 -
-
Correlation vs Causation.Tykejohnno said:When the tories were getting 30 odd % in the polls and elections,I mentioned to get back over 40% was to give a referendum and get out of the EU.
In other words,the EU was holding the tory vote back.
There are other factors, e.g. who is the Labour leader.0 -
'Jeremy Corbyn has blamed unique circumstances for the challeninging results in the local elections'.
.....And I'd thought it was 'cos he was crap.0 -
Also posted upthread, but yes, remarkableBlack_Rook said:Twitter reveals that a Scottish Conservative candidate has won a seat representing Ravenscraig - former home of the steel plant killed off by the Great Satan with her Handbag of Doom.
It would appear that the electoral advantage of screaming "Evil Tories!" is at last beginning to wane up North.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Hopkins, I was just thinking of that very thing, although it's a great slur on Grand Moff Tarkin.0 -
@davieclegg: Lib Dems doing well in east dunbartonshire. Could spell trouble for John Nicolson too.0
-
You miss the fact that the local council has granted planning permission on the airport site to the point that it can't really expand....RochdalePioneers said:Some thoughts on the Tees Valley result. I haven't been part of Sue Jeffrey's campaign, but the view from all the activists I have spoken to is that the key Tory pledge - to nationalise Durham Tees Valley Airport - resonated with voters frustrated at the inability to resurrect the airport from run down by Peel Holdings.
That never in a million years will Mayor Houchen have the permission from his own party or the money or the authority to even approach Peel Holdings - who will say no anyway - doesn't matter. The Tories won a shock election on a platform of nationalisation. Whereas the Labour campaign was more bread and butter and clearly didn't get anyone that bothered.
Anyway. I have a Stockton South campaign plan to tear up...
I don't think Nationalisation was the purpose of the Tory campaign the purpose was to show that the airport is required (if only for the reason that I'm currently using it weekly)..0 -
-
Question for the Lib Dems on here.
So far Kent CC has six Liberal Democrat and one "Liberal Democrat Focus Team" councillors elected.
What's the difference?0 -
Yes, but uniquely crap, so he's basically right.Roger said:'Jeremy Corbyn has blamed unique circumstances for the challeninging results in the local elections'.
.....And I'd thought it was 'cos he was crap.
0 -
After 8 seats in Northamptonshire, declared Conservatives gain 2 seats0
-
WM counting too slow.0
-
465 and counting. I though Labour losses had been projected at c 150??Scott_P said:0 -
Bit daft of news networks to be live at the Liverpool mayoral count (where the result has never been in doubt) and miss the big story in the Tees Valley (which is obviously a far more marginal area).
Also, Farron spinning like a Jenny!
0 -
-
Unlike you, Andy, I can't quote an obvious example but on general principles I would say there are some Councils where irrespective of Party color the electorate appreciate their councillors do a good job and that is reflected in the vote.AndyJS said:
I've seen quite a few local results where Labour has just held onto a seat because of a popular local councillor. That's less likely to happen at a general election.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
That did strike me, and the ominous parallel is that the local elections don't really ask who you want to be PM. When that question was asked with the Thatcher/Foot mismatch a few weeks later, it clearly got worse for Labour.AndyJS said:At the 1983 locals, Labour's projected share was 34.5%. They got 28.3% at the GE 4 weeks later.
They also did worse in 1987 than the immediately preceding locals with a slightly more even (but still disadvantageous) Thatcher/Kinnock choice.
That scenario isn't likely to play out at a GE. My instinct is that it will be like a referendum on Corbyn, and that the results will be worse for Labour than they have been today.
Could be wrong, of course, and there is always the slim possibility he will resign, but that's the way I see it. (I'm not punting much on this election but naturally the punts I am having reflect this view.)0 -
What matters is the bar charts showing who is 'winning here'.Chris said:
Well, one problem for the Lib Dems is that no one will be hearing a lot about anything from Farron, because they're getting only minor party coverage now. (Though come to think of it, people not hearing from Farron may not be an altogether bad thing for them.)Paristonda said:The 7% vote share increase gives the LDs the vital nugget to claim momentum. It's clearly a disappointing night, but if the vote share increase had been minimal there would have been no good news at all to take home from this. The 7% gives them a lifeline, we can expect to hear a lot about it from Farron in the coming days.
But in any case, it's going to be very difficult for them to claim momentum on the basis of a questionable comparison of two theoretical projections of vote share, if the headline figure is a net loss of councillors.
Nobody will be frightened of a Lab/SNP government this time.0 -
Doesn't match up with the Tories winning mayoral elections in Tees Valley, Bristol, possibly West Midlands.SeanT said:The PNV on the locals, Baxtered, gives a Tory majority of.... 22.
Which would be pretty disastrous for her. An election that barely changed anything.
Clearly I reckon she will do better than that, but a moment of warning for Tories.0 -
The Focus Team leaflets are on cheaper paper.Carolus_Rex said:Question for the Lib Dems on here.
So far Kent CC has six Liberal Democrat and one "Liberal Democrat Focus Team" councillors elected.
What's the difference?0
