politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour holding up better in London where there are fewer UKIP

Pulpstar said:

Serious effort ought to be put into 4 seats in the capital by the Lib Dems

Carshalton, Twickenham, Richmond, Bermondsey.

Adventures into Vauxhall won't help in those seats, though obviously there is a message that could help in say Bermondsey.

I would be surprised if they hold Carshalton as there's a big UKIP vote for the Tories to hoover up, and Heathrow is much less of an issue there.

Richmond and Twickenham are both Heathrow seats, and both heavily Remain. I think they are more likely to hold at least one of these than Carshalton.

Patrick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Indeed it's non-zero. The likelihood is 0.00000000001%

Nah, there's probably a 5% chance that it doesn't happen pre-2020.

paulyork64 said:

peter_from_putney said:

***** BETTING POST *****

Ladbrokes have at last been tempted to offer a meaningful number of individual constituencies about 2 full weeks after the opposition and frankly too late to represent any meaningful degree of value - but I guess that is sort of the idea from their viewpoint!

One exception I feel is their offer of 11/10 against the Tories winning Batley & Spen which was considered very marginal in 2015 but where the Blue Team's high hopes were thwarted by UKIP's mega 18% share of the vote which is likely to be heavily squeezed in the Tories' favour on 8 June. For the record Baxter gives the Tories a 56% chance of winning, compared with a 42% chance for Labour ...... not bad for an odds against shot!
As ever, DYOR.

I've looked at Batley and Spen a couple of times. Every number crunching I do says it's a Con gain. But I wonder if there could be a local Jo Cox effect here. thoughts anyone?

The Tory candidate is Dr Ann Myatt who stood against Tim Farron in 2015. A VERY safe pair of hands in a constituency with such a delicate history.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

PaulM said:

I'm sceptical that the UKIP vote in seats like Batley will be heavily squuezed in the Tories' favour, as I'm unconvinved that the UKIPers there were ever Tory in the first place.

But that's the whole "gateway drug" argument - that it doesn't matter where the Kippers came from (and I agree it was multiple sources) the fact is they've unwound to the Cons.

It's hard to argue with the "gateway drug" hypothesis, either statistically or anecdotally. I'd like to do so... but the evidence is what it is.

My problem with the gateway drug hypothesis (and I appreciate it might be different in the South where there is argualbly less tribalism) is that there are a large number of people who know one thing viscerally and that is they are not Tories. They might not be happy with Labour on immigration, Europe, Diane Abbot etc and can be persuaded into breaking ranks with Labour. Put putting that "X" next to Conservative is a step too far. If there was evidence that they were voting for Tory councillors that would be something.
The leave referendum provided people of this mind a chance to vote what they think without having to vote Tory, (and in fact voting against what a Tory prime minister wanted).
Anecdotally my extended family in South Lancashire will never vote Conservative for anything ever. It would rightly or wrongly feel like a betrayal. Most of them voted Brexit though.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

PaulM said:

I'm sceptical that the UKIP vote in seats like Batley will be heavily squuezed in the Tories' favour, as I'm unconvinved that the UKIPers there were ever Tory in the first place.

But that's the whole "gateway drug" argument - that it doesn't matter where the Kippers came from (and I agree it was multiple sources) the fact is they've unwound to the Cons.

It's hard to argue with the "gateway drug" hypothesis, either statistically or anecdotally. I'd like to do so... but the evidence is what it is.

agree that in aggregate they have unwound to the Tories. Just suspect that the unwind in say Someerset is different to the unwind in Labour heartlands.

Patrick said:

rcs1000 said:

Patrick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Indeed it's non-zero. The likelihood is 0.00000000001%

Nah, there's probably a 5% chance that it doesn't happen pre-2020.

Hmmm...1 in 20? This is an opinion rather than a scientific thing so not alot of point in arguing just how low the chances are.
I guess it will hinge on the real world effect of No Deal / WTO. Armegeddon or a blip or nothing at all. For me it would have to be total armageddon on steroids with people forced into eating their pets to be worth getting subsumed into an anti-democratic superstate that hates us. But WTO / 5% tariff on washing machines? Meh.

More likely the EU and Mrs May agree to extend the 2 year period; possible even if (maybe especially if) things are going well. Feels like a higher chance than Gotterdammerung by WTO.

Blue_rog said:

eek said:

Being that I'm sat in Helsinki have we covered Labour's magic money tree and Education yet...

Nice airport

Expensive airport

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

I hate to break it to you, but fox hunting really does exist.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/862284776258113536

lol

Being a ref is a good second job.

It's the kind of interesting, transparent and socially useful second job that voters want their MP to have.

https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/862308437740445696

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/862308437740445696

Small profit for Hills then.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

+1. Killing for fun is just sick.

DavidL said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

+1. Killing for fun is just sick.

But killing in the name is a Christmas number one

Patrick said:

Off topic: An 11 year-old girl has died tragically in a water ride accident. Seems she STOOD UP to change seats with a friend when the boat bumped and knocked her into the water. WTF? How can that be possible? I recently took my 12 year-old daughter to Chessington. Every ride had us strapped in like bondage fans. Physically impossible to get up/out. How can a bumpy water ride not have the riders strapped in? They sit there holding a central ring. That can't be safe surely - as we now know the hard way. Water ride re-design / law changes coming any moment now I guess.

I'd rather not be strapped into a ride like that. The possibility is remote but if the ring flips I'd like to be able to swim out rather than be stuck drowning underwater.

timmo said:

Blue_rog said:

eek said:

Being that I'm sat in Helsinki have we covered Labour's magic money tree and Education yet...

Nice airport

Expensive airport

I rarely spend long enough in the airport to care about food prices - from memory it's not that bad - Munich Terminal 1 is more expensive and a utter dump. Munich T2 is great...

As for CDG....

stuartrc said:

Continuing my thoughts on Vauxhall; I have bought my place there 10 years ago and the amount of gentrification/claphamisation in the last three years is very noteable. Whether its enough to push the tory candiate in - I doubt.

Currently the tory is at 7s, at 10s I might have a cheeky punt.

DO tories even have any councillors in the seat? Hoey is safe as houses.

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

PaulM said:

I'm sceptical that the UKIP vote in seats like Batley will be heavily squuezed in the Tories' favour, as I'm unconvinved that the UKIPers there were ever Tory in the first place.

But that's the whole "gateway drug" argument - that it doesn't matter where the Kippers came from (and I agree it was multiple sources) the fact is they've unwound to the Cons.

It's hard to argue with the "gateway drug" hypothesis, either statistically or anecdotally. I'd like to do so... but the evidence is what it is.

I think this is why the PMs strategy is so clever. She is tying the 52% to her on the proviso that she will enact their will. In addition remainers like myself who accept the result and want the referendum result observed and enacted also.

She is being aided and abetted by the Euro fanaticism of the lib dems, and the frankly inept pronouncements by Jeremy Corbyn who position yesterday was incomprehensible, but namely wouldn't guarantee that we will exit.

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/862314529249783808

DavidL said:

Is 3 lost deposits not enough?

The SNP are worried about the Greens splitting their vote in 56 other constituencies...

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

If they report back that it's futile then the demand will be Leave Now, rather than keep on negotiating (and if there's one thing the EU is good at, it's keeping meetings going, so it's highly unlikely that it'd ever reach that stage anyway).

As for them "giv[ing] chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU", there is more chance of Jeremy Corbyn advocating the privatisation of the NHS while tap-dancing of Karl Marx's grave, singing "Tomorrow belongs to me".

david_herdson said:

Typo said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

Ditto.

May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.

It is going to be a free vote though. Most MPs represent urban constituencies and I wouldn't have thought that the chance of a repeal going through are very high, even with a Tory majority of 150+.

Why bring it up as an issue? Surely she has the rural wealthy vote locked up?
Or is it just that she'd rather the campaign focused on a total non issue to most people - the equivalent of time wasting in a football match when you're 3-0 up....

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

DavidL said:

Is 3 lost deposits not enough?

The SNP are worried about the Greens splitting their vote in 56 other constituencies...

Yes I get that and their little helpers have once more obliged. I really don't know why they bother pretending they are a separate party. I mean if Patrick Harvey was in the SNP Alex Salmond and Pete Wishart would have some decent competition for most annoying men in the party.

We're in a FPTP voting system.

What seats ARE the Greens stanind in ?

I assume North & Leith...

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/862314529249783808

Reminds me of my grandfather's saying - "some folk are too lazy to lake*".

*Yorkshire for play

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

No - for good or ill the Conservatives are now bound to Brexit. Fox and Davis are totally convinced of its merits and will not accept under any circumstances it is going to be damaging to the UK. Boris might change his mind. But who takes Boris seriously?

Patrick said:

Typo said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

Ditto.

May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.

I suspect it's a Lynton Crosby thing that stinks to those who have a strong view but may actually help her electorally:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/how-the-hunting-community-could-boost-theresa-mays-campaign/
It always serves well to remember that a majority of people are not metropolitan liberals and may have non-progressive views in larger numbers than progressives think possible.

Remember one of Crosby's golden rules. People rarely vote based on a single policy, it is more about a feeling of what that leader or party represent. Hence when May is doing I'm tough on the EU, tough on the causes of the EU, strong and stable, etc, rather than any real policy stuff, while pointing at Jezza and saying nonsensical all the time.

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

Typo said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

Ditto.

May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.

It is going to be a free vote though. Most MPs represent urban constituencies and I wouldn't have thought that the chance of a repeal going through are very high, even with a Tory majority of 150+.

Why bring it up as an issue? Surely she has the rural wealthy vote locked up?
Or is it just that she'd rather the campaign focused on a total non issue to most people - the equivalent of time wasting in a football match when you're 3-0 up....

While I don't agree with Theresa May on this I've found the opposition very juvenile. She was asked a question, she answered it. Hooray! An opinion! A straight answer!

But then come the daft attacks. Why are you prioritising foxes over foodbanks*? Hasn't it been settled? Isn't this playing to your core people rather than the swing voters?

She just answered a straight question. Good for her.

(*Insert pet issue to taste)

Patrick said:

felix said:

Patrick said:

Pulpstar said:

Patrick said:

Off topic: An 11 year-old girl has died tragically in a water ride accident. Seems she STOOD UP to change seats with a friend when the boat bumped and knocked her into the water. WTF? How can that be possible? I recently took my 12 year-old daughter to Chessington. Every ride had us strapped in like bondage fans. Physically impossible to get up/out. How can a bumpy water ride not have the riders strapped in? They sit there holding a central ring. That can't be safe surely - as we now know the hard way. Water ride re-design / law changes coming any moment now I guess.

I'd rather not be strapped into a ride like that. The possibility is remote but if the ring flips I'd like to be able to swim out rather than be stuck drowning underwater.

Which then makes water rides inherently unsafe. They come in two varieties:
1. Wild rides in a giant ring. Bumpy, splashy.
2. Tame rides along a 'river' follwed by a lift and plunge into splash pool / runout
Any ride that doesn't strap in is sooner or later going to suffer a stupid / immature / drunk rider standing up at the wrong moment and placing themselves in grave physical danger. If rollercoasters are safe enough (with wheels/ runners preventing any chance of comning off the rail) then water rides can be made safe enough that the chance of overturning is essentially zero. Relying on the common sense of Joe Public not to kill himself seems a bad way to go.

It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.

Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.

I'm sorry but as tragic as this incident was if we follow your logic to its conclusion we'd need to eliminate streets and cars and all sorts of other areas of life where fatal accidents can and do happen. If this was a child that had stepped in front of a bus we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This is tragic, maybe more can be learnt about how to tell riders the importance of following safety instructions like stay seated during the ride. But to eliminate rides like this due to one tragedy after many decades is not necessary.

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

Typo said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

Ditto.

May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.

It is going to be a free vote though. Most MPs represent urban constituencies and I wouldn't have thought that the chance of a repeal going through are very high, even with a Tory majority of 150+.

Why bring it up as an issue? Surely she has the rural wealthy vote locked up?
Or is it just that she'd rather the campaign focused on a total non issue to most people - the equivalent of time wasting in a football match when you're 3-0 up....

I've not seen how it was brought up. If she (or some CCHQ grid) did it then it's utterly nuts. I'd assume that it was a question put to her.

All the same, I don't think it's time-wasting at 3-0 up as showboating. It's unnecessarily risky and of no electoral advantage at all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same. We have a hunt just up the road, but don't allow them on our land (modest though it is).

We have a fox den in the top field. Lovely to see cubs gambolling about.

Our neighbour lost his chickens one night. All two dozen. But it wasn't a fox. It was a stoat, that had gnawed its way in. Good luck hunting stoats on horseback!

SouthamObserver said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

If you weren't so complacent about Brexit you'd see that being on the Leave side of the debate will be toxic in the next political cycle.

So you have now accepted that it's happening?

There's still a non-zero chance that it won't happen. If things go south Theresa May could be tempted to go for a second referendum next summer.

Even if the EU could get round the fact that there's no 'back in again' provision within the TEU, if May tried to advocate a second referendum and an 'In' vote in it, she'd be No Confidenced within a week.

The scenario depends on a particular strand of opinion within the Tory party changing its mind when faced with the reality of our position on leaving. If Johnson, Fox and Davis all report back that it's all futile and give chapter on verse on how weak our position would be outside the EU, they may gave a change of heart.

No - for good or ill the Conservatives are now bound to Brexit. Fox and Davis are totally convinced of its merits and will not accept under any circumstances it is going to be damaging to the UK. Boris might change his mind. But who takes Boris seriously?

At long last ... a question to which the answer is "Boris Johnson".

Jason said:

Baskerville said:

I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote.
Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?

An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.

Then why bother wasting any more ?

This argument is one that was used by the pro hunt brigade but its just as good to use now by the antis. A waste of parliamentary time imo to change the law.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Here it comes....

Labour hints that it will pledge to abolish university tuition fees

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/labour-hints-that-it-will-pledge-to-abolish-university-tuition-fees

The magic money tree is getting one hell of a shaking....

Or the definition of rich who get hit with the tax rises just going to get reduced....

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same. We have a hunt just up the road, but don't allow them on our land (modest though it is).

We have a fox den in the top field. Lovely to see cubs gambolling about.

Our neighbour lost his chickens one night. All two dozen. But it wasn't a fox. It was a stoat, that had gnawed its way in. Good luck hunting stoats on horseback!

Naught but WEASEL words

Jason said:

Baskerville said:

I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote.
Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?

An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.

I agree although Halal and Kosher do not have the "fun" element.

I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e