politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How a CON majority moved from a 31% chance to victory – the GE
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How a CON majority moved from a 31% chance to victory – the GE2019 betting timeline
Before we move on from looking at GE19 I thought it might be useful, as with previous big political events like the referendum, to put up the betting chart.
Comments
-
first?0
-
Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.0 -
There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.0
-
Yup - the nonsense of London as the UK writ very large indeed.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
0 -
Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.0 -
One thing I have learned through costly experience is not to place bets during the day of a general election. I remember at G2001 when all the indications during the morning was that turnout would be very low - this proved to be accurate and it finished below 60%. My mistake was to assume that the Tories would be the beneficiary & I bought CON seats.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
0 -
It hovered around 1.4 for most of the past couple of weeks, even as the final polls came in and it was clear there was a 10-point lead. I piled n sat back on the day and waited for the exit poll - much less nerve-wracking than chasing the price overnight, although probably not as profitable as chasing the price correctly.JamesP said:
Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.0 -
In theory Boris was the ideal right wing populist to answer for the left wing populism of Corbyn.
But people were too cautious, my self included, because of the memories of 2017.
On election day it was obvious that something was going on outside of London, there was silence beyond the M25 from Labour campaigners.3 -
I wasn't certain about the result , because polls in 2017 had got it in many cases disastrously wrong.. They adjusted their data collected in a much better fashion this time.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
What I did know was that wherever I travelled , Corbyn was loathed but nearly everyone I chatted to, The "unbiased" press further muddied the waters because even through they knew what was going on, they could not say.
The one thing I do recall was a vox pop on the BBC WATO where 6 of the 8 if they had to choose were going to vote Tory(in fact for BORIS). I found that strong evidence and that the song "There's only one Jeremy Corbyn " song was still true, but in a different way. He was loathed.
How much he was loathed together with the unrealistic policies came out in the results.0 -
"It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.
I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)0 -
Good evening, everyone.
As others have said, a very interesting graph.0 -
Indeed, the Tories gained 0 net seats in London but gained 48 seats net nationwidefelix said:
Yup - the nonsense of London as the UK writ very large indeed.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
1 -
It is interesting to look at some of the things going on in other EU countries at the moment and ask what the view would be if they were happening here.
0 -
From here (North Notts) I very firmly heard both Brexit and Corbyn.Stocky said:
"It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.
I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)
Example: Gloria on GMB
https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6116976775001/Labour-De-Piero-says-party-betrayed-life-long-voters0 -
These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.1
-
Wheres droppin well btw?MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.0 -
Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...TheGreenMachine said:
Wheres droppin well btw?MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing0 -
Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.MattW said:
Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...TheGreenMachine said:
Wheres droppin well btw?MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing0 -
But in other Brexit strong areas the Brexit party took most of the labour fall, here the Labour share plummeted and went mainly straight Tory. The tells me it's more than just brexitStocky said:
"It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.
I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)0 -
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
0 -
Saw mate at weekend, born and bred north east, solid working class.
Said how up to exit poll, twas tad concerned about the result. He said, if only I'd asked him. He said all his normally 100% Labour family, friends, indeed anyone he knew, all backed Boris.
All thought Boris would give things a go, they were completely hacked off waiting to Brexit and all hated Corbyn.
Suspect those 3 points are replicated all over the place.
If Boris does make a go of it, they ain't going back to Labour.1 -
Yes I'm sure someone on here said they got that price. I took 1.53 which I thought was a good bet and i dont normally play that market. It just felt like the madness of crowds moving the price.JamesP said:
Still scared me silly though. 1.67 was the highest point on the day if I recall correctly.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
Never ever following the betting odds on the day again.0 -
From my own Northern family members - though they were generally already not Labour - the Corbyn Labour Party were seen as Negative Nationalists from London. The CLP had defined themselves as anti everything that locals liked - they *like* being British. The final push was the explicit move to hatred of the WWC - the final hate was for the voters themselves. What a pitch! - "We hate everything you like. We hate you."nunu2 said:
But in other Brexit strong areas the Brexit party took most of the labour fall, here the Labour share plummeted and went mainly straight Tory. The tells me it's more than just brexitStocky said:
"It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory"MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
I live in the E Mids. It really was largely about Brexit - a frustration with parliament and a strong desire to end free movement.
I don`t think they were "looking for an excuse". Reasons were much stronger than that - many people still underestimate the hatred that is out there for the EU. (I don`t agree, but there you go.)0 -
From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.
Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.
Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable.
Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at
Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?
I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.
Elsewhere?0 -
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png0 -
Yup. If only the Labour party were listening. But they aren't.Banterman said:Saw mate at weekend, born and bred north east, solid working class.
Said how up to exit poll, twas tad concerned about the result. He said, if only I'd asked him. He said all his normally 100% Labour family, friends, indeed anyone he knew, all backed Boris.
All thought Boris would give things a go, they were completely hacked off waiting to Brexit and all hated Corbyn.
Suspect those 3 points are replicated all over the place.
If Boris does make a go of it, they ain't going back to Labour.
0 -
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?0 -
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?0 -
And it can't be long before 'send 'em back' makes a return to the political discourse. There are certainly elements that would love to utilize the slogan and they've been given a splendid mechanism to do so if they convince that it is 'The Will of The People'.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?1 -
Well let's just suspend our disbelief and consider the hypothesis that the typical leaver in a traditional Labour seat does not have an awful lot in common in motivation with a typical leaver posting on this forum... And certainly not somebody who was a remainer until a few weeks before polling day. Although that doesn't mean that it's all about immigration either - there are i would think other factors at play.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?0 -
It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?1 -
Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.
Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.
1 -
And the fact the Govt did not recruit enough doctors, nurses, teachers and the associated infrastructure to cope. These people got offered a migration impact fund.Malmesbury said:
It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?0 -
Really - could it be true that while Immigration is the core reason, a different reason is used because the Immigration is seen to be "racist".Philip_Thompson said:
Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.
Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.
After all the issue with immigration is never with your nice neighbour it's always the foreigners you don't know / meet.1 -
Think it was supposed to be Brixton.paulyork64 said:There was that weird correction mid afternoon on Election day. Based on little more than a queue of young adults in Battersea as far as I could tell.
0 -
Three of the ten 1981 hunger strikers were INLA.TheGreenMachine said:
Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.MattW said:
Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...TheGreenMachine said:
Wheres droppin well btw?MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing0 -
I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.Malmesbury said:
It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?2 -
That is correct, I would have said the same thing.eek said:
Really - could it be true that while Immigration is the core reason, a different reason is used because the Immigration is seen to be "racist".Philip_Thompson said:
Disagreed. That word cloud is very flawed. Basically immigration is one word that anyone meaning that subject uses, the other being arguably borders.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
OTOH there are many synonyms there - sovereignty, control, laws, democracy, decisions, freedom etc which means the words appear smaller depending upon which word gets chosen.
Data shows that sovereignty/control was a bigger reason than immigration.
After all the issue with immigration is never with your nice neighbour it's always the foreigners you don't know / meet.0 -
I'm aware of this, that's correct.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Three of the ten 1981 hunger strikers were INLA.TheGreenMachine said:
Yes that's why I haven't heard about it as the IRA done more and perhaps got more media coverage.MattW said:
Correction: It was INLA not the IRA. My friend's elder brother was fortunately on the loo...TheGreenMachine said:
Wheres droppin well btw?MattW said:Second
Good chart, Mike.
>Nunu
>Just astonishing some of the Tory majorities in the East Midlands ex >coalfields.
>It's like the voters there were looking for an excuse to go wholesale >from Labour to Tory.
I'm quite interested in the role of the military in this.
Even though I am not from a military family, I still had a brother of a schoolfriend who was in the Droppin Well when the IRA murdered 17 people.
Friends of Terrorists are not Friends of Military Recruitment areas. Corbyn's known history as such will not have helped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing0 -
0 -
If immigration is the main / a joint main driver of LeaveThenLabToCon, the question then becomes WHY immigration did not cause the same backlash in Manchester Sheffield etc. (never mind London for now) - here are four options:
1. Self-sorting by attitudes to foreigners
2. Self-sorting by economic vulnerability to immigration - perhaps including socio-economic category, or industry of employment
3. Something intrinsic to education or inherited family attitudes in Northern towns that doesn't exist in Manchester Sheffield etc. (seems very unlikely!)
4. Larger, thus more impactful realised numbers of evidently non-British people in small towns than in Manchester Sheffield etc. (seems very unlikely - but I could be wrong!)0 -
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/12080606998444687370 -
The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.EPG said:
I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.Malmesbury said:
It's more about priorities. Labour made it clear that they love immigrants much more than the WWC. The WWC have shown little or no sign of not liking immigrants in general - what they dislike is the lack of integration, the idea that the immigrants are special or better than them and the apparent absence of quality control.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.EPG said:
Leave is about immigration, but immigration is really about stocks rather than flows; people care more about the folks they see than the utilisation rates of airports. If Boris reduces the number of visible non-British minorities, he will win next time because he will have turned the Tories into the keep-them-out party.nunu2 said:
I mean this seems pretty loud and clear.kinabalu said:
Were they driven more by economics or by identity? What Johnson needs to offer is different depending on the answer to this.alex_ said:These lost voters are not going back to Labour imo. If the Tories let them down then they will look rightwards. That is the scary thing, and something to consider when people say that Johnson needs to pivot towards a soft Brexit.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
EDIT If not, God knows? Farage again?
Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?
0 -
If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?Malmesbury said:
The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.EPG said:
I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.
Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?
Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.2 -
tl'dr If it wasn't the case that "the elite" collectively decided to allow gangs of mainly or entirely Muslim men to abuse children, then any connection between a particular event like the scandal in Rotherham and voting patterns becomes a subject of rhetoric, that may rely on pre-existing attitudes toward the protagonists, or simply on what media tell people to believe if you're a cynic.0
-
To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.FF43 said:
Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/12080606998444687370 -
Exactly. This was Ref2 under FPTP with the Leave vote united. Once Johnson managed that it was only a question of how big the majority would be. Corbyn was important but secondary. He cost at most 25 seats.FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/12080606998444687370 -
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
Surely there must be polling evidence to address, if not resolve, the question of whether attitudes to immigration are positive among Remain/Leave voters.0
-
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=200 -
Oh is that all? What a trooper he is.kinabalu said:
Exactly. This was Ref2 under FPTP with the Leave vote united. Once Johnson managed that it was only a question of how big the majority would be. Corbyn was important but secondary. He cost at most 25 seats.FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/12080606998444687372 -
I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=201 -
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.EPG said:
If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?Malmesbury said:
The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.EPG said:
I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.
Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?
Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.0 -
Rotherham and All The Other Cases is an unspoken driver of Brexit and the dying of Labour. There is a quiet but intense rage out there, you see it in odd outburst and strange encounters.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.EPG said:
If we are being literal, Rotherham did not involve a literal choice by teachers' unions, and immigration was not literally "used quite deliberately" to drive down wages in quite enough numbers to explain Brexit, was it?Malmesbury said:
The progressive ruling class AKA The Blob etc. has made it's views clear on "protected groups" vs WWC on a number of occasions. Rotheram comes to mind - they made a literal choice there.EPG said:
I think this is possible, but under-determined in the absence of sources, and the Labour bit in particular is party-political tendentious, nobody said "I like non-British people better than Andy from Stoke". The WWC have voted for Brexit because they want less immigration. Integration could simply mean the immigrants are too non-British, i.e. are immigrants, and quality could simply mean the immigrants are seen as bad, i.e. people don't like them. So we are going in circles as long as the immigrants are foreigners.
Immigration was used, quite deliberately, to drive down low and semi-skilled wages. Exactly in the manner that Australian Unions campaigned against when the modern Australian immigration laws were created. Why should the low and semi-skilled indigenous rush to applaud such actions?
Your use of the phrase "The Blob" itself highlights a problematic aspect of the argument that we have to drill down into: Conservative advisors and a friendly media like to propagate arguments that sympathetic potential voters are under attack, perhaps even literal attack, by people who are similar to the Labour Party, because this rhetoric has crippled support for left parties among white people in other English-speaking countries before it happened in the UK. It's a problematic aspect because that rhetoric always goes hand-in-hand with racial appeals and is broadcast at white voters, so even if this is the true mechanism, it can't be used to dispose of the question of attitudes toward foreigners. But in any case it means it's a question, at least in part, of what makes rhetoric effective, rather than what literally happened.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
Not helped by the fact stories are STILL emerging: Sheffield today, for instance.0 -
New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.
1 -
Leave 52%Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Remain 48%
-1 -
Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.0 -
And all that about constructed narratives of Rotherham is before we even get to the fact that Brexit and Brexit-ness are largely associated with about eastern European migration rather than Muslim-majority.0
-
I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.EPG said:
Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.0 -
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
Refreshingly to the point I felt.Philip_Thompson said:New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.
0 -
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
0 -
Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?Malmesbury said:
I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.EPG said:
Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.0 -
You've swapped sides again, haven't you...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Leave 52%Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Remain 48%
0 -
It was a binary choice. If Pol Pot (thought it made a change from Hitler) took one side, that shouldn't make anyone automatically take the other side if they were satisfied they'd made their choice for the right reasons. It would be weak-minded in the extreme.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
LolPhilip_Thompson said:New Thread? Not exactly PB's normal standard.
0 -
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.1 -
Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.RobD said:
I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=200 -
Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.EPG said:
Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?Malmesbury said:
I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.EPG said:
Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.
Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.
0 -
It's an advertiser's model, and very effectiveglw said:
Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.RobD said:
I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.
Proven to work.0 -
The swing in the north of the East Midlands/bottom of rural south Yorkshire was so big that all the historically Labour constituencies here aren't even in the game next time round. The closest for Labour is Don Valley with 4% swing needed and target 45MattW said:From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.
Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.
Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable.
Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at
Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?
I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.
Elsewhere?1 -
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.Byronic said:
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.0 -
But why would social sciences use ranges that advertisers use? They don't have equal ranges, or equal populations, so it seems like a bloody stupid way of divvying up data, particularly if you are going to turn it into a chart that shows the ranges side by side implying some sort of equality for comparison.Byronic said:
It's an advertiser's model, and very effectiveglw said:
Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.RobD said:
I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.
Proven to work.0 -
That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reactionPhilip_Thompson said:
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.Byronic said:
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?
I don't believe you.
Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist
0 -
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
And yet I think we'd both agree it was not JUST Rotherham, but that there is ALSO strong resentment about immigration generally (noting that Rotherham is not particularly an immigration story, though it is a race story).Malmesbury said:
Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.EPG said:
Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?Malmesbury said:
I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.EPG said:
Apparently is far from literally, and "the entire state structure decided from the top down" is more a figurative statement than either an apparent or literal one, unless Blair/Brown/Cameron all gave the orders. I'm not writing this to be pedantic but simply to highlight that people construct part of the narrative, and the question really is why they choose to construct the narrative that way. There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.
Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.0 -
The poster was designed and used specifically to further the leave campaign.Luckyguy1983 said:
It was a binary choice. If Pol Pot (thought it made a change from Hitler) took one side, that shouldn't make anyone automatically take the other side if they were satisfied they'd made their choice for the right reasons. It would be weak-minded in the extreme.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
I presume the pollsters and psephs imagine that political tastes diverge and evolve by age as do tastes in ice cream, music, trouser leg, female haircuts, etcglw said:
But why would social sciences use ranges that advertisers use? They don't have equal ranges, or equal populations, so it seems like a bloody stupid way of divvying up data, particularly if you are going to turn it into a chart that shows the ranges side by side implying some sort of equality for comparison.Byronic said:
It's an advertiser's model, and very effectiveglw said:
Can anyone explain why these age ranges are used? There must be a reason, but to me they look positively designed to be misleading.RobD said:
I really wish they used equal sized age bins for this.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060731935076360?s=20FF43 said:To clarify. Social class is no longer a significant determinant of how you vote and hasn't been since the 2005 election. In this case you would expect constituencies that were solidly Labour to become marginals and the same for solid Conservative seats. The reason why many more Labour seats flipped in this election than Conservative ones is that the Tory vote is a bit more than the Labour vote everywhere. Labour has to win votes across the board, to get back into power. rather than targeting particular types of voters.
FF43 said:Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system:
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060771659386880?s=20
Young people 18-24 have an energy and curiosity denied everyone else, they are the market everyone wants, because they drive big change and new fashions. People over 55 are entirely set in their ways. Etc.
Proven to work.
They may be right. Also maybe just laziness
0 -
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.0 -
The resentment is not so much about immigration itself - at least among the WWC I know personally - but the perception that integration is not happening, equality before the law is not being applied and that "low end" jobs are being targeted. Ultimately they don't believe that any of this will change...EPG said:
And yet I think we'd both agree it was not JUST Rotherham, but that there is ALSO strong resentment about immigration generally (noting that Rotherham is not particularly an immigration story, though it is a race story).Malmesbury said:
Sigh, The point I was making was that a huge pyramid of public officials (from the police to the Cabinet Room) made a choice. A choice which has resulted in the demolition of the belief that they will act fairly when choosing between between groups.EPG said:
Right, so it's not the entire state apparatus. In many countries, the response to such a cover-up would be to punish officials and a number of MPs. In the UK, it seems to justify a bundle of attitudes toward Eastern European foreigners. There is a huge step of rhetorical justification in between that is interesting, isn't there?Malmesbury said:
I suggest you read up the various court cases (and major investigations) - local social services, police and their reporting pyramid knew what was happening and acted according to set of behaviours. This knowledge reached the level of front bench MPs. The concern at every level, expressed in writing, was to prevent the "issue" becomes public.EPG said:
:Malmesbury said:
Rotherham occurred because the entire state structure responsible decided from the top down that one outcome was better than the other. A choice was made - apparently all the way to the heights of government.
The choice was fundamental to the beliefs of those involved.
As to the use of immigration to hold down wages - read some of the statements from business and politicians from the Blair era.
:
There's a competing narrative that doesn't involve "the entire state structure" including Tony Blair, the Army, ONS, NHS, and HM Revenue and Customs, and this one is literally more true, but then it's interesting to know WHY people want to believe the other narrative of universal condemnation, and is it because someone with money tells them to believe it.
Actually holding the officials in question to account would be nice - it would indeed, as you suggest, have gone someway to undoing the damage.
Trust is a funny thing. Takes a long time to build. Can be blown away in a single minute. Demanding it as a moral right is foolish.0 -
This should not be a political matter...GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.2 -
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.Gallowgate said:
This should not be a political matter...GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.0 -
No it wasn't, it was used as part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign.TOPPING said:
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Not that it makes any difference. Brexit is not a cause, it is a view on a binary issue.
If there was a referendum on whether we should have the Death Penalty and an unofficial anti-Death Penalty group made a vile poster would that make me wrong for still voting against us having the Death Penalty? Should every anti-Death Penalty voter be scorned because one unofficial anti-Death Penalty group was repugnant?0 -
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.TOPPING said:
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.1 -
Chill, and ignore their taunts, which are born of desolate defeatPhilip_Thompson said:
No it wasn't, it was used as part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign.TOPPING said:
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Not that it makes any difference. Brexit is not a cause, it is a view on a binary issue.
If there was a referendum on whether we should have the Death Penalty and an unofficial anti-Death Penalty group made a vile poster would that make me wrong for still voting against us having the Death Penalty? Should every anti-Death Penalty voter be scorned because one unofficial anti-Death Penalty group was repugnant?
So some Brexiteers were worried about immigration in an unevolved way, who cares. Most ultra Remainers are c*nts, Also they are surprisingly stupid, which is why they lost. And would, I think, have lost again.0 -
-
How can changing the number of MPs realistically ever be a non-political matter?RobD said:
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.Gallowgate said:
This should not be a political matter...GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.0 -
The English Democrats and UKIP backed "Yes" in the AV Referendum in 2011. The BNP, however, supported FPTP.Richard_Tyndall said:
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.TOPPING said:
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!viewcode said:
You've swapped sides again, haven't you...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Leave 52%Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Remain 48%0 -
Hmm a bit apples and chalk there Richard.Richard_Tyndall said:
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.TOPPING said:
It was used as part of the leave campaign.Philip_Thompson said:
Not my cause.TOPPING said:
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.Philip_Thompson said:
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.0 -
Oh, yes, forgot to mention, yesterday did the Guide Bridge to Stockport train (just one round-trip on Saturdays), and on Friday did the new West Midlands Metro extension from New Street ("Grand Central") to Birmingham Library. No overhead wires on the extension, trams run on batteries, and I think it'll be the case on the further extension to Edgbaston due to open next year.
Also saw on Saturday that the new Metrolink extension to Trafford Centre is to all intents and purposes finished, at least at the Media City end. 15th April I believe is the slated start date.0 -
Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!RobD said:
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.Gallowgate said:
This should not be a political matter...GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.0 -
O/T Another low day in the 2019-20 Spurs season.... the 'performance' on the pitch and the racist idiots in the crowd (couldn't hear them my end but disgusting to hear what's been reported)0
-
Hence "again"Sunil_Prasannan said:
Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!viewcode said:
You've swapped sides again, haven't you...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Leave 52%Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Remain 48%0 -
But we only got one vote!viewcode said:
Hence "again"Sunil_Prasannan said:
Whaddaya mean? I voted Leave in 2016!viewcode said:
You've swapped sides again, haven't you...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Leave 52%Mango said:
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
That poster, FFS.
Remain 48%0 -
I always finding it amusing that when Edward IV banned football, he did so on the grounds that archery practise was preferable.Scrapheap_as_was said:O/T Another low day in the 2019-20 Spurs season.... the 'performance' on the pitch and the racist idiots in the crowd (couldn't hear them my end but disgusting to hear what's been reported)
Due to a collision in my hashtables, I am now picturing Millwall fans practising with G36s behind the church at Sutton Courtney....0 -
Agreed.GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
The other issue I have with the boundary commission is that right now we have seats that vary in size from 25,000 to 100,000. That's a ridiculously broad spread.
But the proposal to have seats being just +/- 2.5% is equally too tight. It means that there can be little recognition of natural geographic boundaries. You end up with seats that contain a bit of three different towns just to make everything fit such a narrow spread.
Better to recognise natural boundaries and make the range +/- 10%. It would mean that the range of constituency sizes was dramatically reduced, while avoiding splitting natural boundaries up too much.0 -
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!RobD said:
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.Gallowgate said:
This should not be a political matter...GarethoftheVale2 said:Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
Lab - lose 29 seats
LD - lose 4 seats
SNP - lose 1 seat
Plaid lose - 2 seats
DUP - lose 1 seat
This would give a Con majority of 104.
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy.
2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.1
