politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forgot the overall GE2017 main party vote totals – it is CON &
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forgot the overall GE2017 main party vote totals – it is CON & LAB’s relationship with each other that matters
Just a month to the day after the extraordinary general election many Tories, particularly those still loyal to the woman who caused their electoral disaster, continue to point to the overall 13.6m CON votes that were chalked up as though that had some great meaning.
Comments
-
Thirst.0
-
Blatantly off topic but so what. Been wandering around #prideinlondon. Nearly got run over by Owen Jones on his bike...0
-
Death by Owen Jones bike...RochdalePioneers said:Blatantly off topic but so what. Been wandering around #prideinlondon. Nearly got run over by Owen Jones on his bike...
What a way to go...0 -
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 19870
-
Shouldn't he be in Durham listening to The Dear Leader?GIN1138 said:
Death by Owen Jones bike...RochdalePioneers said:Blatantly off topic but so what. Been wandering around #prideinlondon. Nearly got run over by Owen Jones on his bike...
What a way to go...0 -
-
The big difference with 2010 was that only 67% voted for the big two. A lead of 7% put the Conservatives 48 ahead of Labour. This time, a lead of 2.5% put them 56 ahead. If the SNP continue to be squeezed, then a lead of 1% may be enough for a small majority, while a lead of 7% might produce a landslide.0
-
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
The LibDems irrelevant to Mike's thread-header?MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
Yes, the country's doomed - do you have to sound so cheerful about it?MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
You've prompted my annual joke:rottenborough said:
Shouldn't he be in Durham listening to The Dear Leader?GIN1138 said:
Death by Owen Jones bike...RochdalePioneers said:Blatantly off topic but so what. Been wandering around #prideinlondon. Nearly got run over by Owen Jones on his bike...
What a way to go...
Two retired miners sat on the beach in Benidorm...
'You know what day it is today? Durham Miners’ Gala.'
'They've got a decent day for it!'0 -
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.0 -
TSE has turned into a bit of a "one trick pony" hasn't he?HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"0 -
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.0 -
Of the 2017 vote, 'only' 83% or so went to the two main parties. Admittedly up from 67%, as Mike says.
That means that under PR, other parties still deserve ~70 seats more than they actually won. Tories should have ~270, Labour 260 out of 650.
Enough on the centre/left for Lab/Lib.Dem/Green/SNP to form a fragile coalition. Leave would probably mean negotiate custom terms on a par with Norway or Switzerland. These two countries, remember, have never been 'in' but aren't as far 'out' as the govt. of 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' want the UK to be.
Arlene Foster would still be an obscure N.Ireland MP with a dodgy record on the misuse of public money.0 -
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Sadly soCarlottaVance said:
TSE has turned into a bit of a "one trick pony" hasn't he?HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"0 -
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Sad but true , rubbish is too generous a word to describe her .HYUFD said:
Sadly soCarlottaVance said:
TSE has turned into a bit of a "one trick pony" hasn't he?HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"0 -
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.0 -
Mike's headerCarlottaVance said:
TSE has turned into a bit of a "one trick pony" hasn't he?HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"
0 -
If we had PR, people might vote differently. Lab/Lib/Green/SNP might not have a majority between them.rural_voter said:Of the 2017 vote, 'only' 83% or so went to the two main parties. Admittedly up from 67%, as Mike says.
That means that under PR, other parties still deserve ~70 seats more than they actually won. Tories should have ~270, Labour 260 out of 650.
Enough on the centre/left for Lab/Lib.Dem/Green/SNP to form a fragile coalition. Leave would probably mean negotiate custom terms on a par with Norway or Switzerland. These two countries, remember, have never been 'in' but aren't as far 'out' as the govt. of 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' want the UK to be.
Arlene Foster would still be an obscure N.Ireland MP with a dodgy record on the misuse of public money.0 -
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.0 -
FPT: Mr. John, that is unsurprising, yet despicable all the same.
F1: surprised that match bets are up but not the classified markets (to be, or not to be. The under/over is up already).0 -
Too many people got their fingers burnt with unemployment and repossessions, then. Economic pain now comes in the form of slow/no growth in real wages, which is far less dramatic.MarkSenior said:
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.0 -
It's not all about the economy though. To get a landslide or a super-landslide event like 1997 it has to be a "perfect storm" and leadership is an important factor in that.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.0 -
I disagree with the bit about it attributing to the overall increase in votes. In pure vote share, the Conservatives saw a number in the 40s. That's something we haven't seen since the early 1990s. It is true UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP all declined. That happened substantially due to the strong performance of the big two.
What was most noticeable this election was the generational split. Labour won the young overwhelmingly. The Conservatives the elderly overwhelmingly. That means both sides have a lot to lose if the other side eats into their respective age group, or if their respective age group fails to turn out.
If the Conservatives manage to make homeowning a feasible prospect for young people, they could do that. They should do that by building houses, reducing low skilled immigration, and creating a new savings account that allows people to save for a home from their pre-tax, pre-student loan salary. Perhaps they could also modify the student loan system, rename it a graduate tax, and make people feel less anxious about all that 'debt'.
I'm not sure what Labour can do to eat into the old vote. At least not with an unreconstructed socialist that wants to take us back to the 1970s.0 -
It is a truism that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them, and divided governments do particularly badly.MarkSenior said:
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Brexit would have to be a conspicuous and immediate sucess and May a titan in order to win. Politics are especially febrile at the moment, so anything can happen, but on current form Lab will have a 2005 sized majority at least. Cable was always languid when younger so cannot see my party doing better than tread water.0 -
I didn't even know Owen Jones was gay until the other day, as no-one ever mentions it. I bet in lots of countries such a polemical figure on the left would see all sorts of homophobic insults. I'm glad homophobia is so limited in mainstream British culture.RochdalePioneers said:Blatantly off topic but so what. Been wandering around #prideinlondon. Nearly got run over by Owen Jones on his bike...
0 -
May won't be leading the Tories after Brexit... That's another big unknown about how things shake out in 2020-2022.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a truism that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them, and divided governments do particularly badly.MarkSenior said:
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Brexit would have to be a conspicuous and immediate sucess and May a titan in order to win. Politics are especially febrile at the moment, so anything can happen, but on current form Lab will have a 2005 sized majority at least. Cable was always languid when younger so cannot see my party doing better than tread water.
Isn't the idea to swap Vince for Swinson before the election as well?0 -
Labour are benefitting from the honeymoon after the media acted like they won the election. It will not last. They are also benefitting from the party keeping a lid on dissent in recent months. That is something the anti-May brigade should learn from. Of course, that assumes they care more about conservative governance than they do about settling personal grievances.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a truism that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them, and divided governments do particularly badly.MarkSenior said:
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Brexit would have to be a conspicuous and immediate sucess and May a titan in order to win. Politics are especially febrile at the moment, so anything can happen, but on current form Lab will have a 2005 sized majority at least. Cable was always languid when younger so cannot see my party doing better than tread water.0 -
Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
I am expecting a 2019 election, but if Swinson wants the leadership for next election she should stand nowGIN1138 said:
May won't be leading the Tories after Brexit... That's another big unknown about how things shake out in 2020-2022.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a truism that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them, and divided governments do particularly badly.MarkSenior said:
A recovery in the economy at the end of the 1992-1997 Parliament did not save the Conservatives then from too many earlier bad memories .Sean_F said:
That depends how the economy performs over that period.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Brexit would have to be a conspicuous and immediate sucess and May a titan in order to win. Politics are especially febrile at the moment, so anything can happen, but on current form Lab will have a 2005 sized majority at least. Cable was always languid when younger so cannot see my party doing better than tread water.
Isn't the idea to swap Vince for Swinson before the election as well?0 -
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
Many former Conservatives felt completely betrayed by their party in the mid-nineties. That converted a defeat into a landslide. It cost the party many of its strongholds in London (for good, or at any rate turned into marginal seats) and in the Provinces (largely regained, often with massive majorities). I think it would require something similar to generate a landslide, as opposed to a bog standard defeat.GIN1138 said:
It's not all about the economy though. To get a landslide or a super-landslide event like 1997 it has to be a "perfect storm" and leadership is an important factor in that.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.0 -
The most striking thing about Mike's graph in the lead, is that the party in government's share always goes down, every time.0
-
The 97 landslide was as much due to stay at home Tories as New Labour, but I think Corbyn has the Zeitgeist with his left wing populism as much as Blair did in the 90's, but it is very different Zeitgeist.Sean_F said:
Many former Conservatives felt completely betrayed by their party in the mid-nineties. That converted a defeat into a landslide. It cost the party many of its strongholds in London (for good, or at any rate turned into marginal seats) and in the Provinces (largely regained, often with massive majorities). I think it would require something similar to generate a landslide, as opposed to a bog standard defeat.GIN1138 said:
It's not all about the economy though. To get a landslide or a super-landslide event like 1997 it has to be a "perfect storm" and leadership is an important factor in that.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.0 -
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
After 4 years in the White House and representing the US in international summits, Ivanka will not be a non-politician.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
I do like it when people say this will be the last time x happens. Everything goes in cycles, and Trump really was a 3rd party candidate, with a 3rd party cycle of 52 years. Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election, just as there was substantial 3rd party candidates in the 1964, 1912, 1860 and 1808 elections.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
F1: quite surprised those markets still aren't up.
If they're not up soon I might have to finish off and post the pre-race ramble tomorrow morning instead.0 -
A lot of suburban Republicans voted Clinton for President but GOP down ballot. It's why she won the popular vote and why there was a swing towards her in Texas, California and Georgia where the white populations are more likely to have college degrees.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
Running Trump's daughter might take out some of the fear of voting for the Republican Presidential candidate for Suburban voters.0 -
I don't see why: money (Bloomberg) and family (Clinton, Bush) seem to be as important as political background. If the argument is that Trump is so ghastly that he will scare the electorate off non-politicians, that cuts both ways: a non-political candidate should be able to say, OK, I am a non-politico like Trump, but here are 101 ways in which he is ghastly but I am not.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...0 -
It's your money, but not a bet for me.williamglenn said:
After 4 years in the White House and representing the US in international summits, Ivanka will not be a non-politician.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
The lack of administrative and legislative understanding of someone from outside the political world is going to kill the non politician President as a concept.
Populist politics tends to burn itself out quickly after assuming power, as its simplistic errors accumulate. It is why Jezza will only win one term, before an astute but more conventional approach for the following election.
0 -
F1: got some potential bets in mind, but given the nature of the circuit I want to see the not to be classified odds.
I'm off now, and will check again tomorrow to see if they're up. So, the pre-race ramble should be up tomorrow morning.0 -
You might just as well argue that Labour with 40% of the vote has a solid block of anti-Conservative voters, and provided they keep most of those they could win, and never forget that Blair won in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
No - obviously Mike Smithson is right that the most important thing is the difference between the vote shares of the main parties, not the absolute values.0 -
"Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election"hunchman said:
I do like it when people say this will be the last time x happens. Everything goes in cycles, and Trump really was a 3rd party candidate, with a 3rd party cycle of 52 years. Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election, just as there was substantial 3rd party candidates in the 1964, 1912, 1860 and 1808 elections.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
There will almost certainly be a somebody. How successful will that somebody be, though?
Are you saying you can use statistics to prove they're more likely to be successful than the somebody in 2064, or 2072?
I don't understand how that's possible.0 -
My working assumption is that the Conservatives will be down to between 230-260 seats if they are defeated at the next election, not sub-200.Sean_F said:
Many former Conservatives felt completely betrayed by their party in the mid-nineties. That converted a defeat into a landslide. It cost the party many of its strongholds in London (for good, or at any rate turned into marginal seats) and in the Provinces (largely regained, often with massive majorities). I think it would require something similar to generate a landslide, as opposed to a bog standard defeat.GIN1138 said:
It's not all about the economy though. To get a landslide or a super-landslide event like 1997 it has to be a "perfect storm" and leadership is an important factor in that.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that the country is a mood to award anybody a landslide.MarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.0 -
The collapse in the Lib Dem vote means a lot of seats that were marginal or semi-marginal from 1992-2010 now have enormous Tory leads.Casino_Royale said:
My working assumption is that the Conservatives will be down to between 230-260 seats if they are defeated at the next election, not sub-200.Sean_F said:
Many former Conservatives felt completely betrayed by their party in the mid-nineties. That converted a defeat into a landslide. It cost the party many of its strongholds in London (for good, or at any rate turned into marginal seats) and in the Provinces (largely regained, often with massive majorities). I think it would require something similar to generate a landslide, as opposed to a bog standard defeat.GIN1138 said:
It's not all about the economy though. To get a landslide or a super-landslide event like 1997 it has to be a "perfect storm" and leadership is an important factor in that.MarkSenior said:
I agree that at this time there is no mood for a landslide but come 2022 the desire to punish the Conservatives for economic failure will be overwhelming .GIN1138 said:
There's no evidence that theMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
Of course that might change by 2022... But I suspect if Labour does win it won't be with a landslide. More likely it will be a minority Labour government - Possibly allowing the Lib-Dems to try and bring some moderation to Jezza and Johnny Mac.
Look at the difference between Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair.
I think all three would have win the 1997 general election but would Neil Kinnock really have achieved the same majority as Blair?
If Kinnock had been leading Labour in 1997 I think the Lab majority would probably have been under 50 seats.
John Smith would probably have gotten over 50 seats but fewer than 100.
The idea that Corbyn can cut through the kind of seats that Blair won in 97 is pretty far-fetched.
Of course if Corbyn goes and someone else takes over we'll have to revise but at this stage Coryn is far too divisive (toxic) with large swathes of the electorate to even consider a landslide for Labour.0 -
It's a hunch.Pong said:
"Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election"hunchman said:
I do like it when people say this will be the last time x happens. Everything goes in cycles, and Trump really was a 3rd party candidate, with a 3rd party cycle of 52 years. Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election, just as there was substantial 3rd party candidates in the 1964, 1912, 1860 and 1808 elections.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
There will almost certainly be a somebody. How successful will that somebody be, though?
Are you saying you can use statistics to prove they're more likely to be successful than the somebody in 2064, or 2072?
I don't understand how that's possible.0 -
The difference between 1992 and 2005 and 2017 is the complete collapse of the LD vote. In 1992 Kinnock was able to squeeze about 4% of the 22% the SDP got in 1987 even while he barely touched the Tory vote, now Corbyn has almost squeezed the LD vote as far as it will go, especially now a social democratic heavyweight like Vince Cable is about to take the LD leadership. In 2005 the Lab + LD combined vote was 58% and the Tory vote only 32%. In 2017 the Lab +LD combined vote was 47% and the Tory vote 42%. So yes I repeat voteshare does indeed matterChris said:
You might just as well argue that Labour with 40% of the vote has a solid block of anti-Conservative voters, and provided they keep most of those they could win, and never forget that Blair won in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
No - obviously Mike Smithson is right that the most important thing is the difference between the vote shares of the main parties, not the absolute values.0 -
From 1987 to 1992 Kinnock gradually built a huge poll lead over the Tories but Major still beat him in 1992 by getting out the 1987 anti Kinnock Tory vote once againIanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
May won 42%, the highest Tory voteshare for 30 years, while it may have been less than she and the party wanted on no grounds could it be described as 'rubbish' other than by a partisan LD like you. What did your party score by the way? Oh yes a titanic 7%!!MarkSenior said:
Sad but true , rubbish is too generous a word to describe her .HYUFD said:
Sadly soCarlottaVance said:
TSE has turned into a bit of a "one trick pony" hasn't he?HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
"Ignore the voters- May is rubbish"0 -
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
That was exactly my point, for crying out loud!HYUFD said:
The difference between 1992 and 2005 and 2017 is the complete collapse of the LD vote.Chris said:
You might just as well argue that Labour with 40% of the vote has a solid block of anti-Conservative voters, and provided they keep most of those they could win, and never forget that Blair won in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
No - obviously Mike Smithson is right that the most important thing is the difference between the vote shares of the main parties, not the absolute values.
I'm saying the absolute vote shares are meaningless, because the minor party votes have changed. You were the one who made a comparison with 1992 - remember?0 -
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
I don't see how anyone can be remotely confident of any predictions at the moment. My reading is that there is an energised minority for Corbyn . Ther is also a committed anti-Corbyn minority, probably larger than the first. Outside of those two poles there appears to be a lot of volatility and it is stating the bleedin' obvious that big issues are in play. Both major parties are fractured on policy and ideology, the splits are possibly even more fundamental in Labour that the Tories. New forms of political engagement and campaigning are also making themselves felt. Perhaps the fog will clear soon, perhaps not.0
-
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
Yes and in 1992 as I said Kinnock's gains came almost entirely from the LDs, there are few LDs left for Corbyn to squeeze and the 2015 UKIP vote has already been squeezed to the bone by both the Tories and LabourChris said:
That was exactly my point, for crying out loud!HYUFD said:
The difference between 1992 and 2005 and 2017 is the complete collapse of the LD vote.Chris said:
You might just as well argue that Labour with 40% of the vote has a solid block of anti-Conservative voters, and provided they keep most of those they could win, and never forget that Blair won in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
No - obviously Mike Smithson is right that the most important thing is the difference between the vote shares of the main parties, not the absolute values.
I'm saying the absolute vote shares are meaningless, because the minor party votes have changed. You were the one who made a comparison with 1992 - remember?0 -
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Gosh. We'll have to mark you down as a plato-style floating voter!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Who gave you that idea? The Tories still held on to a lot of their Remainers, and about half of the rest are soft Brexiters. So I'd say that hard Brexiters are probably in a minority among Tory voters.HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
I do fear a disorderly exit is now quite likely. Those who say that there is "no majority" for it miss the point. A50 is now activated as a part of both domestic and EU law. Unless legislation is passed to change this the EU treaties will be disapplied after March 2019, deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
I could be tempted by a new alliance that ditches the hard left (Corbyn) and the hard right. See Yvette Cooper talking sound sense on violent intimidation from the left on MP's todaySandyRentool said:
Gosh. We'll have to mark you down as a plato-style floating voter!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
If you haven't lost money on one of hunchman's hunches you've not been initiated into PB. He makes Gypsy Rosa Lee look like Deep BluePong said:
"Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election"hunchman said:
I do like it when people say this will be the last time x happens. Everything goes in cycles, and Trump really was a 3rd party candidate, with a 3rd party cycle of 52 years. Somebody will likely come along in the POTUS 2068 election, just as there was substantial 3rd party candidates in the 1964, 1912, 1860 and 1808 elections.foxinsoxuk said:
I think the Donald will be the last non politician to win POTUS. The next President will almost certainly be either Pence, or a current Senator/Governor.rottenborough said:
Zuckerberg will put paid to that!!!Scott_P said:Hmmm
@RupertMyers: Trump is going to conclude that he can't win re-election and instead run his daughter to be first female president.
125/1 right now...
There will almost certainly be a somebody. How successful will that somebody be, though?
Are you saying you can use statistics to prove they're more likely to be successful than the somebody in 2064, or 2072?
I don't understand how that's possible.0 -
Any unreasonable demand from the EU will be a very big moment. Can you imagine Corbyn or anyone else saying that they will pay a ransom demand of upto 100 billion. Electoral suicidePeterC said:
I do fear a disorderly exit is now quite likely. Those who say that there is "no majority" for it miss the point. A50 is now activated as a part of both domestic and EU law. Unless legislation is passed to change this the EU treaties will be disapplied after March 2019, deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
Was there an expenses scandal in the 90s? 'Tory sleaze' at the time was all about things like cash for questions, arms to Iraq and various sex scandals.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Sadly, I suspect you're right - what a bloody mess!PeterC said:
I do fear a disorderly exit is now quite likely. Those who say that there is "no majority" for it miss the point. A50 is now activated as a part of both domestic and EU law. Unless legislation is passed to change this the EU treaties will be disapplied after March 2019, deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
Blair was the Macron of his dayBenpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
You're right WilliamGlenn - I have got that wrong!williamglenn said:
Was there an expenses scandal in the 90s? 'Tory sleaze' at the time was all about things like cash for questions, arms to Iraq and various sex scandals.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
0 -
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
Yes, agreed, there are definitely parallels.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Blair was the Macron of his dayBenpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
0 -
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.williamglenn said:
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this0 -
I believe you said you could vote for Chuka last week? In my view he could still be Labour's Blair to Corbyn's KinnockBig_G_NorthWales said:
I could be tempted by a new alliance that ditches the hard left (Corbyn) and the hard right. See Yvette Cooper talking sound sense on violent intimidation from the left on MP's todaySandyRentool said:
Gosh. We'll have to mark you down as a plato-style floating voter!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anywayBenpointer said:
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
No way. Every post referendum poll has shown a big majority of Tory voters want to leave the single market and end free movement, those who were hard-core Remainers and committed soft Brexiteers defected to the LDs and Labour at the last general election or stayed at home. Coupled with the over 50% of 2015 UKIP voters who voted Tory in 2017 the vast majority of Tories voted for a hard BrexitDadge said:
Who gave you that idea? The Tories still held on to a lot of their Remainers, and about half of the rest are soft Brexiters. So I'd say that hard Brexiters are probably in a minority among Tory voters.HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
-
I would vote for Chuka before Corbyn - Indeed I would vote for almost anyone who is not involved with momentumHYUFD said:
I believe you said you could vote for Chuka last week? In my view he could still be Labour's Blair to Corbyn's KinnockBig_G_NorthWales said:
I could be tempted by a new alliance that ditches the hard left (Corbyn) and the hard right. See Yvette Cooper talking sound sense on violent intimidation from the left on MP's todaySandyRentool said:
Gosh. We'll have to mark you down as a plato-style floating voter!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
That is absolutely correct. Such a position would be proof that the EU was not serious about negotiating anything; we would have the choice to REMAIN or crash out altogether.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any unreasonable demand from the EU will be a very big moment. Can you imagine Corbyn or anyone else saying that they will pay a ransom demand of upto 100 billion. Electoral suicidePeterC said:
I do fear a disorderly exit is now quite likely. Those who say that there is "no majority" for it miss the point. A50 is now activated as a part of both domestic and EU law. Unless legislation is passed to change this the EU treaties will be disapplied after March 2019, deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EUIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
0 -
Well, maybe you're right.HYUFD said:
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?0 -
EMF done some pretty decent tracks tbfBig_G_NorthWales said:
Blair was the Macron of his dayBenpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
I am not saying he can but the fact that like Kinnock most voters have already rejected his programme dies not exactly mean they will rush to endorse him at the second time of asking eitherBenpointer said:
Well, maybe you're right.HYUFD said:
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?0 -
Very sensibleBig_G_NorthWales said:
I would vote for Chuka before Corbyn - Indeed I would vote for almost anyone who is not involved with momentumHYUFD said:
I believe you said you could vote for Chuka last week? In my view he could still be Labour's Blair to Corbyn's KinnockBig_G_NorthWales said:
I could be tempted by a new alliance that ditches the hard left (Corbyn) and the hard right. See Yvette Cooper talking sound sense on violent intimidation from the left on MP's todaySandyRentool said:
Gosh. We'll have to mark you down as a plato-style floating voter!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-20 -
I've updated the chart above to go back to GE19700
-
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.Benpointer said:
Well, maybe you're right.HYUFD said:
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.Benpointer said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideMarkSenior said:
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign0 -
In other words you're guessingHYUFD said:
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anywayBenpointer said:
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
No two successive GEs follow the same dynamic. I think that May thought that 2017 would be 2015 on steroids! In fact it most resembled the vanity election of Feb 1974.Benpointer said:
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.HYUFD said:
Well, maybe you're right.Benpointer said:
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.Big_G_NorthWales said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.HYUFD said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEMarkSenior said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairHYUFD said:
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .MarkSenior said:
Corbyn has taken exactly the same approach to Brexit as the Tories and the current Tory vote has already endorsed May's Brexit stance. Corbyn has a far higher anti vote than Blair and economic forecasts are pretty good for the UK economy compared to the dire forecasts before the EU referendum of some on the Remain sideHYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/18/imf-ratchets-up-uk-economic-growth-forecast-to-2
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign0 -
PeterC said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Except she won most seats unlike Heath. Heath wanted a mandate to defeat the unions, May wanted a mandate for hard BrexitBenpointer said:
No two successive GEs follow the same dynamic. I think that May thought that 2017 would be 2015 on steroids! In fact it most resembled the vanity election of Feb 1974.HYUFD said:
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.Benpointer said:
Well, maybe you're right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.HYUFD said:
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.MarkSenior said:
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GEHYUFD said:
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was BlairMarkSenior said:
Corbyn has taken in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign-1 -
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit. Though as you point out it was austerity and tuition fees and the Dementia Tax which Corbyn capitalised on, on Brexit his view was little different to May's, it was the LDs who campaigned on a soft Brexit platform, they made no real headway in seats and lost voteshareBenpointer said:
In other words you're guessingHYUFD said:
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anywayBenpointer said:
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest0 -
-
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitHYUFD said:
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard BrexitBenpointer said:
In other words you're guessingHYUFD said:
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anywayBenpointer said:
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest0 -
They sound rather sanctimonious on the 4 freedoms, ignoring the fact Germany put transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011 unlike the UKScott_P said:0 -
And how many of those who back hard Brexit think they will get the 'exact same benefits' as the single market because the EU will be forced into accommodating us?Benpointer said:
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitHYUFD said:
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard BrexitBenpointer said:
In other words you're guessingHYUFD said:
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anywayBenpointer said:
How do you know that??HYUFD said:
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard BrexitIanB2 said:
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....Dadge said:
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.IanB2 said:
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.HYUFD said:While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest0 -
The transitional period cut both ways. The accession states also put controls on free movement of capital in some sectors to allow their economies to adjust, but once a transition is complete it cannot be undone.HYUFD said:
They sound rather sanctimonious on the 4 freedoms, ignoring the fact Germany put transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011 unlike the UKScott_P said:0
