politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Electoral Calculus projection has CON 15 seats ahead ev
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Electoral Calculus projection has CON 15 seats ahead even on a 0.5% lower average vote share
The latest seat prediction from Electoral Calculus another reminder to LAB that the system now works in favour of the Tories. CON average vote share 0.5% behind but with clear lead on seatshttps://t.co/VmVdusO6wz pic.twitter.com/QsV9I7FkL0
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Corbyn becomes PM on these numbers.
281 + 37 + 4 +1 (SNP,Plaid and the Greens will never support the Tories at Westminster) = 323.
Add in Sinn Fein abstention (Worth another 3.5 to both left and right blocks), and 326.5 is achieved.
Corbyn is definitely PM here.
Nothing new. In 2005, Labour had a tiny lead and a majority of 60.
I suspect Prime Minister Corbyn will initiate reform, sans a plebiscite.
In 1979 the SNP voted with the Tories to oust a Labour government, and helped usher in eleven years of Thatcher and 18 years of Tory rule.
In 1979 the SNP were to Thatcher what the Lib Dems were to Dave in 2010
There's precedent, had Michael Foot won in 1983 he would have overturned the result of the 1975 referendum with a manifesto commitment.
You can make more of a case for the Lib Dems propping up the Tories, it is marginally more likely than the Nats (Ex DU & UUP) but still highly unlikely. The biggest favour the Lib Dems might give the Tories is abstaining on a Labour QS.
The same voters stupidly want to renationalise the railways.
Emily Thornberry is wrong, we need to restrict the franchise, not widen it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42910051
I am presuming his legal representation didn't come up with that story, because if they did I worry for anybody else they are going to attempt to defend who might not be quite so guilty.
While the Cons may be benefiting most from FPTP, Labour and the SNP are also winners. The LDs, Greens and UKIP are losers.
Rather than change the voting system, PM Corbyn would be wiser to change the boundary review to be based on total population instead of electorate.
There are major system issues - Welsh seats are significantly underpopulated, for example.
- a sizable Tory rebellion
- official Tory abstention
- SNP support (plus no opposition from Plaid and Green)
- SNP and DUP abstentions and support from pretty much everywhere else
- Total or near-unanimity among Labour MPs
That's just not going to happen time after time after time.
The 14 Lib Dem votes are quite important here.
And if the Tories were ultra-smart, throw in extra powers for the Welsh assembly. That would ensure Plaid Cymru support.
Would Plaid really support the Tories
The SNP/PC and Labour are in direct opposition in many seats.
The Tories and Plaid Cymru do share the same goal. They both want to reduce the influence of the Welsh MPs at Westminster. The former for narrow electoral reasons, the latter because they want the decisions taken in Wales.
https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/958837013754601473
Con+DUP=305
Lab+Plaid+Green=286
The swing vote is the SNP's - if they abstained or opposed Lab on a measure, then Lab loses; if they back Lab, then Lab wins, irrespective of what the LDs or Hermon does. Only if Plaid and Lucas desert Labour, or the DUP desert the Tories, do the LD votes become important (or if there are rebels from either big party).
I am guessing he must have his own business or on the rock'n'roll, but I doubt any employer is going to have him.
If yoou want evidence, look around you.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/881644726168039424
I don't think we need to go into another more detail...we don't want Dox'ing going on.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/959102845856501762
https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/959043091801010176
Bet the Civil Service have said 'don't send them out - they'll upset Brussels'......
If I want to read tweets by virtue signalling loud mouths I'll head to twitter.
I've done it myself but it perhaps is becoming overused. Perhaps the text of the tweet is ok - but the whole pishy visuals are meh.
If the boundaries favour the Tories how do we explain the fact that 36% voted Labour and they got a majority of 66, and in 2010 36% got the Tories no majority at all?
And how is the point answered that if Labour seats are mainly in big cities, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP.
I refer to an article in Labour's New Statesman in 2015 which admits that the current boundaries are indeed a partial -but not total explanation -for Labour's electoral advantage. Labour does get more MPs for the same percentage of the vote than the Tories.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labours-electoral-advantage-isnt-mainly-due-boundaries
Labour council leader Clare Kober's decision to quit Haringey, citing bullying and sexism, made headlines this week.
Clare was certainly much more popular with the party's top brass in 2011. Following the Tottenham riots, she welcomed then-Labour leader Ed Miliband to the area, to show him some of the devastation.
Ed and his party disembarked the tube at Seven Sisters to be met by Kober and council dignitaries. Immediately Ed started to look around, wide-eyed, and empathised with them about the terrible post-riot wasteland he was confronted by.
The council leaders had to quietly tell him he hadn't yet got to the scene of the riots. All he could see was... well, Tottenham.
Equality demands it.
http://survation.com/new-scottish-voting-intention-survation-daily-record/
Newcastle-under-lyme ?
https://twitter.com/prospect_uk/status/959119383942647808
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-42906852
Frozen food giant Birds Eye has pulled a fish finger advert over concerns raised by County Durham safety campaigners.
The TV advert featured a man and boy jumping into the sea with a voiceover declaring: "Captain Birds Eye loves the simple things, like jumping into cold water on a hot day with his grandson."
A campaign group set up after the death of a 14-year-old boy from cold water shock called the advert inappropriate.
The firm agreed to amend it.
But I repeat my question: what will Labour do if it loses a fourth general election in a row? Labour constantly changed its leader 1979-97 and only returned to power after it had purged Militant -the equivalent then of Momentum. Or will Corbyn do a lap of self congratulatory honour, announce that he will carry on into his 80s and the members decide that it is the voters and not they who are at fault.?
Quoting GR2005 no longer relevant.
Think of of it this way: when the Labour Party got back into power in 1997, how many of it MPs dated back to the last Labour administration? I reckon it would be fewer than 20. How many Labour MPs today were in the House in 2010. The majority of them. Change happens when people change. And the Labour Party of 2018 hasn't really changed from the one of 2010.
And another thing... the Labour Party ran on a "hard left" platform in 1983, and didn't get that centrist in 1987. The electorate punished them for it, and they ended up with pretty derisory numbers of seats.
If the Labour Party of 2022 loses the election with 280 seats, that's a very different outcome to if they lose it with 180 seats. In the former case, "one more heave" will likely be the mantra; in the latter, we're likely to see more radical change.