murali_s said:

Sandpit said:

Nick Longworth: To the sensible candidates in the Labour Party, quit next week.
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/labour-not-corbyn

Good advice, but Labour lack balls (not Ed!) as we have seen from recent history!

Maybe the thought of losing their own jobs will focus minds?

But seriously, what on Earth are the sensible left supposed to do, we need an Opposition which isn't being provided, and right now it looks like Corbyn's going nowhere even in the teeth of a landslide.

So it's either a challenge done properly, a bunch of defections or a new party. Good luck, whichever they choose. If they have the balls (not Ed) to actually do it.

surbiton said:

Has someone solved the BBC NEV [ or what ever it is called ] ?

38 + 27 + 15 [LD ? ] + 5 [ UKIP ] + 5 SNP . Who are the others ? It cannot be IND or PC. There are very few IND in the general election.

AIUI the way they do it is that they ignore Nats and Ulster - or rather, they lump them together in a black box called "others" but don't try to forecast them in detail, not least because in most years there's no elections in Scotland/Wales/NI. They concentrate on trying to translate Con/Lab/LD/UKIP local votes into the final result of a GE, based on past correlations, even when they're only voting in England. So for instance, even in years where independents get 10% of the local vote, that's "translated" into only 1 or two seats in Westminster. Obviously that's because very few independents ever have the organisation to win a Westminster seat but the model doesn't need to know that, it just needs to know that independent votes seldom translate to Westminster.

There's a bit of explanation here :
https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/

Looking at the strategy of the labour party for the election the following thought bubbles to the top of my head.

We hear the abandonment of sub 5000 majorities.

We assume this implies focusing resources on the 5000 to 10000 majority band.

Will those in the party office distribute resources equally, or will defending MPs who are moderates be treated better than Corbynites?

Can the party organisation have an influence on the make up of the party in the next Parliament by directing resources?

KentRising said:

The Tories are accepting into their ranks people who are socially conservative already: the WWC. Where they previously differed was on economics and the welfare state: but now May can beat the Brexit drum and reassure them she is 'one of us'. So it's sort of a good fit.

I think a lot of the switchers are going to get a taste for voting blue and will keep doing so.

This has the feel of similar realignments that have happened in US politics - the South deserting the Dems and turning to the GOP, and now the WWC in the Rust Belt doing likewise. I don't know how far that has happened with white catholics yet, but if they are still Dem, that is the next bloc I would expect to cross the divide.

I agree, this realignment of the British WWC with a Centrist (on economic issues) Tory party has the feel of something that can become permanent, but not if taken for granted.

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

I'm sure this has already been pointed out but in Scotland:

SNP lose MSPs
SNP lose councillors

and soon SNP lose MPs.

Except SNP had 425 councllors in 2012 and they have 431 today, so...

Boundary changes and all that.

You're down this year.

And an especially disappointing result in North Ayrshire - I fear for the wellbeing of Malcolm's turnips.