politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How is history going to judge Mr. Corbyn?
Options
Comments
-
The campaign of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron says it has been the target of a "massive hacking attack" after a trove of documents was released online.
"The leaked files were obtained several weeks ago by hacking personal and professional email accounts of several officials of the movement," it said in a statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39827244
I wonder if we will see anything similar in our GE?0 -
Lib Dems not winning there?nunu said:Can someone tell me how on earth did Andy Street manage to get 36,000 votes out of Solihul when the tory candidate in the 2015 General election only got less then 27,000 votes?!??? With much higher turnout. They seemed to have squeezed the life out of the lib dems there as it went from 14,000 at the GE to less then 4,000 yesterday.
What the actual feck?0 -
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.
0 -
Must be a larger counting area given the low turnout.nunu said:Can someone tell me how on earth did Andy Street manage to get 36,000 votes out of Solihul when the tory candidate in the 2015 General election only got less then 27,000 votes?!??? With much higher turnout. They seemed to have squeezed the life out of the lib dems there as it went from 14,000 at the GE to less then 4,000 yesterday.
What the actual feck?0 -
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
For the umpteenth time we have a UK Parliament not a GB one, even if the nature of NI politics and the different parties means it has different pollsjustin124 said:
That is UK - not the GB figures provided by pollsters!HYUFD said:
No, 27.6%justin124 said:
Foot actually got 28.3%.HYUFD said:
In 1983 Foot got 27%, Corbyn's total today....27%foxinsoxuk said:
In 1983 the Lab vote was very inefficient. In 83 Maggie decreased her vote share from 79 but substantially increased her majority.HYUFD said:
Indeed, in the 1987 locals Thatcher got 38% but she got 43% in the general election a month later and a majority of 102 while the SDP fell from about 28% to 22%Pulpstar said:
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....HYUFD said:
Not one general uk/peter_from_putney said:
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.peter_from_putney said:
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide.surbiton said:The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads.
Should you do likewise DYOR.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/theresa-may-closing-in-on-100-seat-commons-majority-general-election-local-elections-suggest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_19830 -
Since we are giving up membership of the single market anyway not really and as I said the Swiss already have local job offer preference arrangementswilliamglenn said:
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.williamglenn said:
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
But it is not what pollsters measure! Nor does it relate to the NEV given by the BBC and Rallings & Thrasher!HYUFD said:
For the umpteenth time we have a UK Parliament not a GB one, even if the nature of NI politics and the different parties means it has different pollsjustin124 said:
That is UK - not the GB figures provided by pollsters!HYUFD said:
No, 27.6%justin124 said:
Foot actually got 28.3%.HYUFD said:
In 1983 Foot got 27%, Corbyn's total today....27%foxinsoxuk said:
In 1983 the Lab vote was very inefficient. In 83 Maggie decreased her vote share from 79 but substantially increased her majority.HYUFD said:
Indeed, in the 1987 locals Thatcher got 38% but she got 43% in the general election a month later and a majority of 102 while the SDP fell from about 28% to 22%Pulpstar said:
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....HYUFD said:
Not one general uk/peter_from_putney said:
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.peter_from_putney said:
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide.surbiton said:The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads.
Should you do likewise DYOR.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/theresa-may-closing-in-on-100-seat-commons-majority-general-election-local-elections-suggest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_19830 -
The devil is in the detail of what the 'plus' means.BenedictWhite said:
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.williamglenn said:
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
Very late to the party, and perhaps giving JC more credit and intelligence than he deserved but perhaps he didn't think he'd get to 2020.justin124 said:
That would make sense if his party was 3% - 5% adrift in the polls - it makes no sense at all when trailing by over 20%! What on earth did he have to lose?
We've all talked about leadership challengers, and how another might be mounted again in 2018. JC would also be 71 in 2020. That's pretty old by modern standards for head of government for the first time.
He probably thought it's now or never.
0 -
I think both will stay SNP on balance. However, I couldn't help but notice that both Peterhead and Fraserburgh - the two main towns in Banff and Buchan and by no means particularly Conservative friendly - now both have Conservative councillors elected at the first stage - both being towns that voted 'Yes' and 'Leave', and neither of which had Conservative councillors previously. Banff and Buchan as a whole is thought to have voted 'Leave' reasonably convincingly, and it's the sort of old fashioned, socially conservative, old-style SNP constituency that might be alienated by the Central Belt focus of the SNP eventually. I should say that I don't think it will turn blue this time though.DavidL said:
East Renfrewshire is pretty much up there with the top 4. It would be a surprise if it didn't fall now. In Banff and Buchan the SNP got 60% last time around. Surely a stretch too far. In Gordon I think the Tories will do well to come second.
East Renfrewshire is a constituency that I think will turn blue but on a less impressive swing than some other places, given that it underperformed for the Conservatives last year, and also rather reminds me of those other suburban English constituencies on the verge of large conurbations which have been moving away from the Tories over the last few decades.
0 -
Quite. If they think that it means they can have what we voted out of they can get lost,williamglenn said:
The devil is in the detail of what the 'plus' means.BenedictWhite said:
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.williamglenn said:
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?TheValiant said:
Very late to the party, and perhaps giving JC more credit and intelligence than he deserved but perhaps he didn't think he'd get to 2020.justin124 said:
That would make sense if his party was 3% - 5% adrift in the polls - it makes no sense at all when trailing by over 20%! What on earth did he have to lose?
We've all talked about leadership challengers, and how another might be mounted again in 2018. JC would also be 71 in 2020. That's pretty old by modern standards for head of government for the first time.
He probably thought it's now or never.0 -
On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.0
-
The Parliamentary seats the BBC and Rallings and Thrasher calculated from today's NEV included NI seatsjustin124 said:
But it is not what pollsters measure! Nor does it relate to the NEV given by the BBC and Rallings & Thrasher!HYUFD said:
For the umpteenth time we havedifferent pollsjustin124 said:
That is UK - not the GB figures provided by pollsters!HYUFD said:
No, 27.6/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983justin124 said:
Foot actually got 28.3%.HYUFD said:
In 1983 Foot got 27%, Corbyn's total today....27%foxinsoxuk said:
In 1983 the Lab vote was very inefficient. In 83 Maggie decreased her vote share from 79 but substantially increased her majority.HYUFD said:
Indeed, in the 1987 locals Thatcher got 38% but she got 43% in the general election a month later and a majority of 102 while the SDP fell from about 28% to 22%Pulpstar said:
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....HYUFD said:
Not one general uk/peter_from_putney said:
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.peter_from_putney said:
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide.surbiton said:The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads.
Should you do likewise DYOR.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/theresa-may-closing-in-on-100-seat-commons-majority-general-election-local-elections-suggest0 -
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the HanoveriansDougie said:On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
0 -
Indeed, and while in England there were some Hanoverian Tories, the vast majority of Tories in Scotland were Jacobites or Jacobite-sympathisers.HYUFD said:
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the HanoveriansDougie said:On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
EDIT: And it would of course be remiss of me not to point out that James II = James VII!
0 -
Of Scotland yes, goodnightDougie said:
Indeed, and while in England there were some Hanoverian Tories, the vast majority of Tories in Scotland were Jacobites or Jacobite-sympathisers.HYUFD said:
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the HanoveriansDougie said:On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
EDIT: And it would of course be remiss of me not to point out that James II = James VII!0 -
The job of Leader of the Opposition is to oppose and form a government in waiting. I mean, failed LotO don't look at themselves and think they will be a failure. Did Kinnock think he'd lose in both 1987 and 1992 and therefore just not run? Of course he didn't.justin124 said:
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?
Corbyn thinks he can win, but doesn't want to wait till 2020. He'll be over 70 and fighting off leadership challenges for the next three years. TMay gave him a golden opportunity to fight and fight now. He may even be perceptive enough to know he'll lose - but you know, retirement after 35 years building up an MPs pension awaits - and those marches won't march themselves.......
0 -
You mean like the EU wanting their citizens on the UK to have superior rights to UK citizens in the UK?williamglenn said:
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.CarlottaVance said:
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?williamglenn said:
Tomato, tomato.MTimT said:
It is in the Single Market.williamglenn said:
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.MTimT said:
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.BenedictWhite said:
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.MTimT said:
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.BenedictWhite said:
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.0 -
Yes, he rather reminds me of a joke from my childhood about the Orangemen's calendar.TheValiant said:
The job of Leader of the Opposition is to oppose and form a government in waiting. I mean, failed LotO don't look at themselves and think they will be a failure. Did Kinnock think he'd lose in both 1987 and 1992 and therefore just not run? Of course he didn't.justin124 said:
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?
Corbyn thinks he can win, but doesn't want to wait till 2020. He'll be over 70 and fighting off leadership challenges for the next three years. TMay gave him a golden opportunity to fight and fight now. He may even be perceptive enough to know he'll lose - but you know, retirement after 35 years building up an MPs pension awaits - and those marches won't march themselves.......
January, February, March, March, March...0 -
You have to conclude that Matthew Parris isn't a Tory any more - after all no one could in all honesty describe Theresa May as some form of right wing ogre. It is Mr. Parris whose views have shifted and not those of the Conservative party. Perhaps it would be better all round if he were to find a different political home.AndyJS said:"My party’s triumphant and yet I feel fearful
Matthew Parris
The collapse of Ukip has benefited the Tories but the jingoistic red-white-and-blue stuff will rebound on them in the long term"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/my-party-s-triumphant-and-yet-i-feel-fearful-3qlpzdz8b0 -
Solihull constituency is only 50% of Solihull council area. The other 50% is the Meriden seat represented by Caroline Spelman, which is basically the semi-rural area between B'ham and Coventry.nunu said:Can someone tell me how on earth did Andy Street manage to get 36,000 votes out of Solihul when the tory candidate in the 2015 General election only got less then 27,000 votes?!??? With much higher turnout. They seemed to have squeezed the life out of the lib dems there as it went from 14,000 at the GE to less then 4,000 yesterday.
What the actual feck?0 -
The church sticking their beaks into the GE again..sound like Corbyn fans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-398223550 -
Although the Lib Dems increased its share of the vote, where they were up against the Conservatives, the Conservatives must have gained even more (from UKIP?) for Lib Dems to have lost a net 41 seats.0
-
New thread.>>>0
-
In medicine, the natural order is generally diagnosis, treatment and then a prognosis. The Labour party haven't agreed on the first yet.
The diagnosis is an inoperable tumour - one Jeremy Corbyn. There may be other minor ailments but they are irrelevant to life expectancy. However, the labour Party members are in denial still. It's the fault of the media, the Blairites, the idiot electors. Change them and all is well.
Jezza will go nowhere until the members reach the correct diagnosis or the patient dies. Prognosis - not good0 -
Not according to the BBC!HYUFD said:
The Parliamentary seats the BBC and Rallings and Thrasher calculated from today's NEV included NI seatsjustin124 said:
But it is not what pollsters measure! Nor does it relate to the NEV given by the BBC and Rallings & Thrasher!HYUFD said:
For the umpteenth time we havedifferent pollsjustin124 said:
That is UK - not the GB figures provided by pollsters!HYUFD said:
No, 27.6/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983justin124 said:
Foot actually got 28.3%.HYUFD said:
In 1983 Foot got 27%, Corbyn's total today....27%foxinsoxuk said:
In 1983 the Lab vote was very inefficient. In 83 Maggie decreased her vote share from 79 but substantially increased her majority.HYUFD said:
Indeed, in the 1987 locals Thatcher got 38% but she got 43% in the general election a month later and a majority of 102 while the SDP fell from about 28% to 22%Pulpstar said:
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....HYUFD said:
Not one general uk/peter_from_putney said:
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.peter_from_putney said:
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of j.surbiton said:The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/theresa-may-closing-in-on-100-seat-commons-majority-general-election-local-elections-suggest0
This discussion has been closed.