politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Should the Lib Dems treat the 2015 election as their Rorke’

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited June 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Should the Lib Dems treat the 2015 election as their Rorke’s Drift

If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,625
    edited June 2014
    Zeros, not Zulus?

    Oh, first!
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Disagree, once lembit and huhne take over, there'll be thousands of ' em!
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2014
    Yes, Newark would have been a complete waste of effort for the LibDems. For 2015, they need to put all their effort into defending their thirty or so most vulnerable seats. Maybe they should even give up on the most vulnerable of those, it depends on local campaigning strength.
  • Options
    Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Has Lembit found a seat to contest yet?
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Anyone know where I can find 2014 local election data for LD seats? And preferably the 2010 LE data too?
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    And VC's all round (Vanquished Cleggite)?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2014
    (Checks betting slips) They should certainly give up on Redcar!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,625
    I wonder if Redcar will even be one of the seats that the LibDems try to defend. Or have they sacrificed the seat to focus efforts in Berwick?
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    Has Lembit found a seat to contest yet?

    preferably Fermanagh and South Tyrone...
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT
    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited June 2014
    "the fact the Lib Dems have started to do this a year before the election leads me to believe they’ll do better than currently anticipated."

    They've just lost another 300 councillor seats, and 10 MEP seats. There will have been a loss of income tied to that.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    To answer the question, yes, they probably should. However, it's worth remembering that the only reasons that they were able to hold out were superior training, discipline and technology. But at what point does an army cease to be an army and become a bunch of isolated, if allied, individual units?
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2014
    RodCrosby said:

    Anyone know where I can find 2014 local election data for LD seats? And preferably the 2010 LE data too?

    Stamped Addressed Envelope to M. Senior, Esq. of Worthing, West Sussex should do it Sir Roderick.

    As long as you don't have difficulties with the concept of data sharing, that is.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    AveryLP said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
    Pitiful spinning
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    OK, which of these is going to be their firewall seat (i.e. the first on the list they'll hold)?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/

    I'd hazard a guess at Eastbourne, which I think will be tougher ask for the Tories than some of the seats requiring a bigger swing.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    My last outstanding bet with a PBer is with Isam about the Lib Dems beating UKIP in their share of the vote. Thought it was a no brainer at the time but I am a bit twitchy now.

    I suspect that the Lib Dems will (as usual) be a bootstrap operation with most of the effort coming locally from their councillor base (much diminished) and volunteers. That makes focussing on 30 seats pretty unrealistic. Are those in NE Fife really going to conclude this is hopeless and pop up to Inverness to help Danny? Not a chance.

    The Lib Dem campaign will therefore have greater similarities to the Somme than Rorkes' Drift. Everyone will fight for their own bit of trench and go over the top into the machine guns. God help them because Lib Dem HQ won't.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    Newark was the LDs' third consecutive lost deposit at a Westminster by-election.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    david_herdson said:

    To answer the question, yes, they probably should. However, it's worth remembering that the only reasons that they were able to hold out were superior training, discipline and technology. But at what point does an army cease to be an army and become a bunch of isolated, if allied, individual units?

    When it is commanded by Major-General Clegg and the ADC to Brigadier Cable, his officer commanding the South West London division, is one Major Oakeshotte.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    P3 underway. Sharapova quite selfishly won the first set.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    isam said:

    AveryLP said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
    Pitiful spinning
    No, Sam.

    Pitiful sinning.

  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Newark was the LDs' third consecutive lost deposit at a Westminster by-election.

    Comrade Sunilsky.

    The first two being the Lords Rennard and Oakeshotte?

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The disabled lady might have found it easier walking if she was not wearing stilletto heels....
    AveryLP said:

    isam said:

    AveryLP said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
    Pitiful spinning
    No, Sam.

    Pitiful sinning.

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    edited June 2014
    The "average" score for the LDs at by-elections this Parliament (that means the simple average of all 16 by-election %-ages) is only 9.6%.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,951
    edited June 2014
    isam said:

    AveryLP said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
    Pitiful spinning
    Do remember Isam that Avery has already admitted he has no interest in facts, just politics. He will happily twist anything, no matter how outrageous, to achieve his aims.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, which of these is going to be their firewall seat (i.e. the first on the list they'll hold)?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/

    I'd hazard a guess at Eastbourne, which I think will be tougher ask for the Tories than some of the seats requiring a bigger swing.

    I think the first seven are definitely gone.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Perhaps they were to puncture the bubble, Dr. Sox?
    foxinsoxuk said:

    The disabled lady might have found it easier walking if she was not wearing stilletto heels....

    AveryLP said:

    isam said:

    AveryLP said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    fitalass said:

    The Independent - Newark by-election: Does Nigel Farage have a woman problem?

    If the papers are to be believed he doesn't seem to have any woman problem at all - except perhaps his wife when he gets home.
    Unfortunately they are not. Those stories about him "holding hands" in Malta when he was helping a disabled lady on crutches really did represent the lowest of the low of the anti UKIP smearing.
    The next day's front page was "Farage:I wont help the disabled again"
    And the following day's front page was: "Are you sure, Nigel?"

    http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
    Pitiful spinning
    No, Sam.

    Pitiful sinning.

  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Newark was the LDs' third consecutive lost deposit at a Westminster by-election.

    And therein lies the danger of the Zulu strategy: not so much the lost deposit but the risk of severe embarrassment that comes with such low scores. It's one thing finishing sixth (or eighth, as in Rotherham), but the moment the SDP was finished was when they finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party. To be beaten by a genuine joke candidate is the sort of thing that it becomes very difficult to live down, especially if it's symptomatic of a barrenness of support across much of the country. It's notable that the local by-election that saw the Lib Dems beaten by the Elvis Bus Pass gets references in the national press. Were something similar to happen in a Westminster seat, those unsympathetic to the Lib Dems would happily draw it into the narrative at every opportunity.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    What I think this thread highlights (other than most of the good jokes misapplying quotes from the film were made yesterday) is that the window for a hung Parliament might be considerably smaller in the next Parliament than in the current one.

    We still have the northern Irish, the nationalists and possibly a green but how many Lib Dems should be added to that? The total seats held by tories and Labour combined are likely to increase (unless UKIP do something amazing) probably by at least 15, more likely 20. Those betting on a hung Parliament should reflect on that.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    F1: Horner should be fined every time he starts an answer with "Yeah, no."
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,787
    david_herdson said:

    To answer the question, yes, they probably should. However, it's worth remembering that the only reasons that they were able to hold out were superior training, discipline and technology. But at what point does an army cease to be an army and become a bunch of isolated, if allied, individual units?

    But if one is comparing the LDs to the British Army at the time of Rorke's Drift, the British Army was already a bunch of isolated units by the time the Zulus came over the Buffalo River - thanks to disastrous decisions by their command and their partial destruction at Isandhlwana (filmed in the later prequel Zulu Dawn, of course). The Rorke's Drift bunch were a remnant left to die by other British units and stragglers.

    The Zulu training and discipline were not to be sneezed at, either: quite the opposite. The message I got from the book was that it was command decisions by the Zulu subordinate commanders that were the key mistake leading to their defeat - but a very close run thing. It was the outstanding initiative on a local level by Chard and Bromhead and their men, above all in preparing their position the moment they learnt the Zulus were coming, that saved their own bacon.

    I can see that the LDs might survive in RD-like outposts like the Northern Isles, but the question is perhaps whether Mr Clegg is allowed to emulate Lord Chelmsford and come back to a final victory after such a defeat.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    edited June 2014
    I don't think the Lib Dems have any choice but to concentrate on their 57 seats. And then, avoid being a party of government in the next Parliament.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    david_herdson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Newark was the LDs' third consecutive lost deposit at a Westminster by-election.

    And therein lies the danger of the Zulu strategy: not so much the lost deposit but the risk of severe embarrassment that comes with such low scores. It's one thing finishing sixth (or eighth, as in Rotherham), but the moment the SDP was finished was when they finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party. To be beaten by a genuine joke candidate is the sort of thing that it becomes very difficult to live down, especially if it's symptomatic of a barrenness of support across much of the country. It's notable that the local by-election that saw the Lib Dems beaten by the Elvis Bus Pass gets references in the national press. Were something similar to happen in a Westminster seat, those unsympathetic to the Lib Dems would happily draw it into the narrative at every opportunity.
    David.

    What Newark really told us is that every party but one is being beaten by a "genuine joke candidate".

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    edited June 2014
    The "average" score for the four main parties at GB by-elections this Parliament (that means the simple average of all 16 by-election %-ages): 

    Lab    47.7
    Con    16.1
    UKIP   11.9
    LD      9.6
    Other  14.7
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?

    I think the problem is that the share could remain relatively high and the sears fall like nine pins, or the share could collapse like a dynamited tower block and the number of seats hold up. I'm wondering if it will be the middle option though share holds up ok so 14-18% but seat losses slightly more than anticipated. Who knows?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    The "average" score for the four main parties at GB by-elections this Parliament (that means the simple average of all 16 by-election %-ages):


    Lab    47.7
    Con    16.1
    UKIP   11.9
    LD      9.6
    Other  14.7
    Its the average change and swing that matters.
    That should be CON down 10, Labour up 7, LD down 11 and UKIP up 10 and a swing of about 8.5 to LAB from CON.
    If you count the by elections since the UKIP surge in Eastleigh those numbers are CON -11, LAB +1, LD -16, UKIP+21 for a swing of 6 to LAB from CON.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    The "average" score for the four main parties at GB by-elections this Parliament (that means the simple average of all 16 by-election %-ages):


    Lab    47.7
    Con    16.1
    UKIP   11.9
    LD      9.6
    Other  14.7
    Comrade

    Can you take the 2010 share of those 16 constituencies to the total 2010 GE vote and then apply it as a weight to the by election shares?

  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,240
    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?

    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?


    National % share is irrelevant - they will either get a majority in any given seat of they won't. A 2% national share with those voters concentrated in a score of seats is better for winning seats than 15% spread everywhere.

    In a multi-party system national %, UNS etc matters far less.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    The danger with this is that if the Conservatives and Labour know that the Lib Dems are no threat to them anywhere, they can concentrate on winning seats off the Lib Dems.
  • Options
    rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    Seats not share is the right strategy.The Lib Dems face swings against then to Con,Lab,UKIP the Greens and the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales.

    However the number of hold swill depend on the final swing figures at the GE particularly tp the Cons who are the second placed party in the majority of LD seats.
    I am a bit more optimistic about the final national share..Ironically the Lib Dems are less visible
    as a junior coalition partner than they were in the last a pariament as a strong opposition party.

    As we get nearer to the next GE there will be clear Lib Dem publicity particular if the messages on achievements and policy for the future focus on a few simple and strong messages.

    As UKIP shares fall back in the next few months (barring any sensational by election results ) I would expect Lib Dem vote share to overtake UKIP, This will happen first on ICM the gold standard in GE shares.

    I would expect a final LIb Dem share of around 15%.The critical factor for seat loss will then the Tory share going into the GE.




  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    ToryJim said:

    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?

    I think the problem is that the share could remain relatively high and the sears fall like nine pins, or the share could collapse like a dynamited tower block and the number of seats hold up. I'm wondering if it will be the middle option though share holds up ok so 14-18% but seat losses slightly more than anticipated. Who knows?
    Well it takes time for a major change in seats to occur from a national collapse.
    It took the Liberals 20 years after they collapsed totally in 1931 to be almost non existent.
    Their vote share fell from 24 to 7 and remained in a band of 7-9% but their number of seats fell gradually from 59 to 32, then 21, then 12 and finnally 9 before they gave way to nothingness in 1951.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    ToryJim said:

    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?

    I think the problem is that the share could remain relatively high and the sears fall like nine pins, or the share could collapse like a dynamited tower block and the number of seats hold up. I'm wondering if it will be the middle option though share holds up ok so 14-18% but seat losses slightly more than anticipated. Who knows?
    Historically, the old Liberals were down on 14% in 1979 but won 11 seats. In Oct 1974 they got 18% and won 13. Things started to change in 1997 when the LibDems got 17% and won 46 seats, compared with 18% and 20 seats in 1992.

    Trend here:
    http://t.co/BpexFKU1lZ
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Carnyx said:

    david_herdson said:

    To answer the question, yes, they probably should. However, it's worth remembering that the only reasons that they were able to hold out were superior training, discipline and technology. But at what point does an army cease to be an army and become a bunch of isolated, if allied, individual units?

    But if one is comparing the LDs to the British Army at the time of Rorke's Drift, the British Army was already a bunch of isolated units by the time the Zulus came over the Buffalo River - thanks to disastrous decisions by their command and their partial destruction at Isandhlwana (filmed in the later prequel Zulu Dawn, of course). The Rorke's Drift bunch were a remnant left to die by other British units and stragglers.

    The Zulu training and discipline were not to be sneezed at, either: quite the opposite. The message I got from the book was that it was command decisions by the Zulu subordinate commanders that were the key mistake leading to their defeat - but a very close run thing. It was the outstanding initiative on a local level by Chard and Bromhead and their men, above all in preparing their position the moment they learnt the Zulus were coming, that saved their own bacon.

    I can see that the LDs might survive in RD-like outposts like the Northern Isles, but the question is perhaps whether Mr Clegg is allowed to emulate Lord Chelmsford and come back to a final victory after such a defeat.

    I'd agree with all that. I suppose the question is whether in effect the Lib Dems are *already* in Zulu mode, and if so, which outposts have they already abandoned? Do they intend to seriously defend all their current seats or are they only putting up token efforts in the most marginal ones where there are others nearby where local resource could be marshalled instead and the line held?

    But as you say, Rorke's Drift was a close run thing and if we are to draw an analogy, I think you're right to point to the criticality of the middle command, which in the current case is the constituency-level resourcing and decision making.

    The one big difference, of course, is that the Lib Dems are something of a sideshow to the main battle, which is between the Conservatives and Labour (one of several sideshows, it has to be said, with nationalists in Wales and Scotland, and other minor parties too). Maybe TSE should find something Lawrence of Arabia-ish to depict that aspect?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I believe the LD will have a repeat of the 1930's ahead of them.
    They just dont have a purpose anymore, just like then, if you are a Liberal you vote Conservative, if you're a lefty you vote Labour and if you want to protest there is UKIP.
  • Options
    stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,779
    "STJOHN" on True Story to win the Derby.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Herdson, The Lib Dems could be Numidia in the Second Punic War (even works with the left/right split between Syphax and Massinissa).
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    F1: Mercedes surprisingly not that good on the supersoft.

    Massa going very nicely.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    FPT
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    We have the EDL riff raff descending on Stevenage this afternoon
    *face palm*
    http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2014-06-07/hertfordshire-town-prepares-for-edl-march/

    Stevenage doesn't seem like fertile ground for the EDL or am I missing something.
    Must say I was surprised to see that they were marching there too.
    Although anywhere else in Herts would be even less fertile with possible exception of Borehamwood.
    The grooming gangs didn't go away.

    The political and media class have simply gone back to ignoring it.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    The reason for voting Lib Dem is if on economic issues you are on the right and on welfare issues you are on the left.

    Of course this concept is hard for many (93%) of the poorly educated Uk population to undestand. Hence Lib Dem voters have the highest IQ of all the parties. :)
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    david_herdson said:

    Carnyx said:

    david_herdson said:

    To answer the question, yes, they probably should. However, it's worth remembering that the only reasons that they were able to hold out were superior training, discipline and technology. But at what point does an army cease to be an army and become a bunch of isolated, if allied, individual units?

    But if one is comparing the LDs to the British Army at the time of Rorke's Drift, the British Army was already a bunch of isolated units by the time the Zulus came over the Buffalo River - thanks to disastrous decisions by their command and their partial destruction at Isandhlwana (filmed in the later prequel Zulu Dawn, of course). The Rorke's Drift bunch were a remnant left to die by other British units and stragglers.

    The Zulu training and discipline were not to be sneezed at, either: quite the opposite. The message I got from the book was that it was command decisions by the Zulu subordinate commanders that were the key mistake leading to their defeat - but a very close run thing. It was the outstanding initiative on a local level by Chard and Bromhead and their men, above all in preparing their position the moment they learnt the Zulus were coming, that saved their own bacon.

    I can see that the LDs might survive in RD-like outposts like the Northern Isles, but the question is perhaps whether Mr Clegg is allowed to emulate Lord Chelmsford and come back to a final victory after such a defeat.

    I'd agree with all that. I suppose the question is whether in effect the Lib Dems are *already* in Zulu mode, and if so, which outposts have they already abandoned? Do they intend to seriously defend all their current seats or are they only putting up token efforts in the most marginal ones where there are others nearby where local resource could be marshalled instead and the line held?

    But as you say, Rorke's Drift was a close run thing and if we are to draw an analogy, I think you're right to point to the criticality of the middle command, which in the current case is the constituency-level resourcing and decision making.

    The one big difference, of course, is that the Lib Dems are something of a sideshow to the main battle, which is between the Conservatives and Labour (one of several sideshows, it has to be said, with nationalists in Wales and Scotland, and other minor parties too). Maybe TSE should find something Lawrence of Arabia-ish to depict that aspect?
    Since they think for years now that they will get 40 seats regardless of opinion polls, then that should be Cheadle.
    If they look at opinion polls, then it's Sheffield Hallam.
    If they have a serious strategy, then any seat battle with the conservatives will do.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    F1: session's over. A few ideas for potential bets, but I'll have to see what the odds are like. I think qualifying's at 6pm.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Intriguing development in South Africa

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/10883462/South-African-president-Jacob-Zuma-admitted-to-hospital.html
  • Options
    Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    MrJones said:

    FPT

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    We have the EDL riff raff descending on Stevenage this afternoon
    *face palm*
    http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2014-06-07/hertfordshire-town-prepares-for-edl-march/

    Stevenage doesn't seem like fertile ground for the EDL or am I missing something.
    Must say I was surprised to see that they were marching there too.
    Although anywhere else in Herts would be even less fertile with possible exception of Borehamwood.
    The grooming gangs didn't go away.

    The political and media class have simply gone back to ignoring it.
    Grooming gangs in Stevenage?
    I certainly hadn't heard that was going on there. Linky?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    Looking at the list of Lib Dem seats, everything from Southport upwards (20 seats) looks secure to me. The other 37 seats are potentially vulnerable, but the Party could surely expect to hold around half of them. That's a big improvement from the Eighties and Nineties. 35-40 , Lib Dems, 18 from NI, 14 or so Nationalists, 1 Green, 1 Respect, a couple of UKIP, would make a hung Parliament very likely.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?

    Speedy said:

    How low does the LD national vote share has to go before they lose all but 2 of their seats?


    National % share is irrelevant - they will either get a majority in any given seat of they won't. A 2% national share with those voters concentrated in a score of seats is better for winning seats than 15% spread everywhere.

    In a multi-party system national %, UNS etc matters far less.

    Nah. If they dropped to 2% (and stood everywhere), they'd lose pretty much the lot. They only way they could win just 2% of the national vote and return a decent number of seats is to not stand in most, rather like the SNP. But then that'd be a false figure, rather like the Liberals' scores in the 1950s, when they had a national share of about that level but a per constituency contested share some way into double figures.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    David_Evershed said:

    The reason for voting Lib Dem is if on economic issues you are on the right and on welfare issues you are on the left.

    Of course this concept is hard for many (93%) of the poorly educated Uk population to undestand. Hence Lib Dem voters have the highest IQ of all the parties. :)

    Hmmm, not many anymore, since people put either the economy or their own welfare as a priority but rarely both at times of hardship.
    As for the IQ, the LD proved it when they committed electoral suicide again by going in coalition (the first time was supporting the first Labour government).
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    The Liberals won 71 seats in total, in 1931, but split 3 ways, between Samuel, Simon, and Lloyd-George.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Still waiting for the markets to get going...
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    By going all Cabley and moany from the start, the LDs are getting no benefit from the economic recovery.

    its all their own fault.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Sean_F said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    The Liberals won 71 seats in total, in 1931, but split 3 ways, between Samuel, Simon, and Lloyd-George.

    Yes I was just looking at the official party under Samuel
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I quite agree.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sean_F said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    The Liberals won 71 seats in total, in 1931, but split 3 ways, between Samuel, Simon, and Lloyd-George.

    I count only the clear cut Liberals that standed on their own, not the National Liberals or the Independent Liberals.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Huzzah after a terrible Oaks, Kingston Hill won me £5 net profit on the Derby.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,787
    Speedy said:

    David_Evershed said:

    The reason for voting Lib Dem is if on economic issues you are on the right and on welfare issues you are on the left.

    Of course this concept is hard for many (93%) of the poorly educated Uk population to undestand. Hence Lib Dem voters have the highest IQ of all the parties. :)

    Hmmm, not many anymore, since people put either the economy or their own welfare as a priority but rarely both at times of hardship.
    As for the IQ, the LD proved it when they committed electoral suicide again by going in coalition (the first time was supporting the first Labour government).
    There was of course a third time, when the LDs went into coalition with Labour in the Scottish pmt, though I would have thought that goes to support your argument!



  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    I think the LD plan is the same, get 0 votes in most of the country and plead for support from their coalition partners.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    The most startling figure from the period 1918-31 is that 303 seats elected a Liberal MP at least once, but only 20 did so in every election. By the end, the Liberals were dependent on electoral pacts (mostly with Conservatives) for survival.

  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sean_F said:

    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    The most startling figure from the period 1918-31 is that 303 seats elected a Liberal MP at least once, but only 20 did so in every election. By the end, the Liberals were dependent on electoral pacts (mostly with Conservatives) for survival.

    The National Liberals were supported by the Tories and merged with them in the end, that's why you shouldn't count them as members of the Liberal party.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    Speedy said:

    Sean_F said:

    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    The most startling figure from the period 1918-31 is that 303 seats elected a Liberal MP at least once, but only 20 did so in every election. By the end, the Liberals were dependent on electoral pacts (mostly with Conservatives) for survival.

    The National Liberals were supported by the Tories and merged with them in the end, that's why you shouldn't count them as members of the Liberal party.
    Eventually. The Simonites still thought of themselves as Liberals, in 1931.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, which of these is going to be their firewall seat (i.e. the first on the list they'll hold)?
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/
    I'd hazard a guess at Eastbourne, which I think will be tougher ask for the Tories than some of the seats requiring a bigger swing.

    There are seats on that list with 7,000 majorities that the LDs will have to be diverting resources to hold. Did they have to fight as hard in 97,01, 05 or 10? Do they have enough resources to defend all 57? They are circa £1m in debt with no large incomes to borrow against and lost incomes of 90% of MEPs, 50% of cllrs and >40% of members.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    F1: here's my pre-qualifying piece:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/canada-pre-qualifying.html

    No tip, just some idle musing on the changing pecking order.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited June 2014
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, which of these is going to be their firewall seat (i.e. the first on the list they'll hold)?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/

    I'd hazard a guess at Eastbourne, which I think will be tougher ask for the Tories than some of the seats requiring a bigger swing.

    I don't think it will follow majority size as the blocs that made up the Lib vote in different places are very different.

    Their core is middle class public sector so prosperous Lib vs Con seats dominated by that should be safest but it depends on what the RedLibs do in those seats. I think in the end they will still vote Lib at the GE to stop Con whatever they say now but not certain e.g. Richmond at the locals.

    (This may vary depending on how close or far they are to the overwhelming demographic change the political class are engineering i.e. urban prosperous going Con and more rural prosperous staying Lib).

    In some less prosperous urban Lab vs Lib seats a bit of their vote in the south and a lot up north was median income floating voters who floated between Lab and Lib instead of Lab and Con for various anti-Con reasons. Those people are much closer to Ukip and only needed it to get big enough to make it a worthwhile option.

    In other less prosperous urban Lab vs Lib seats the Lib vote relied on Lab voters who had switched for anti-Iraq and RedLib reasons and those votes went with the coalition.

    In the SW rural seats the Lib vote was partially an anti-westminster vote who are also probably closer to Ukip or don't like the coalition or both. I also wouldn't discount the EU's plan to flood large parts of the SW to meet the EU's biodiversity target.

    So in order of most safe

    1) rural leafy Lib vs Con seats with a lot of public sector ABs not effected by the demographic transformation yet

    2) urban leafy Lib vs Con seats with a lot of public sector ABs starting to be effected by the demographic transformation (to Con maybe)

    3) urban non-leafy Lib vs Lab seats where the median income floating voter vote was key (Lab or Ukip)

    4) rural non-leafy Lib vs Con seats where the anti-Westminster vote was key (to Con or Ukip)

    5) urban non-leafy Lib vs Lab seats where the anti-Irag vote was key (to Lab)

    imo
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    TSE writes "they could use their base of seats from 2015 onwards to rebuild."

    Re-build into what? The deserts of Liverpool and Manchester etc? Telling swathes of activists "you do not matter" in their local areas will destroy the ability of the LDs to come back.

    It is of course a position made worse by attempting to be seen as an opposition to the coalition whilst asking for votes to help form another coalition.... This Janus stratagy helped get them so far but was fatally flawed.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Blimey the Reverend Otto Witt certainly knows how to boost morale amongst the troops. ..!

    Is he related to the honourable Lord of Seagrove Bay?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sean_F said:

    Speedy said:

    Sean_F said:

    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    The most startling figure from the period 1918-31 is that 303 seats elected a Liberal MP at least once, but only 20 did so in every election. By the end, the Liberals were dependent on electoral pacts (mostly with Conservatives) for survival.

    The National Liberals were supported by the Tories and merged with them in the end, that's why you shouldn't count them as members of the Liberal party.
    Eventually. The Simonites still thought of themselves as Liberals, in 1931.
    Leaders don't matter what they think of them selves in elections, it's the voters opinion that matters.
    Most of the 1929 liberal vote voted conservative anyway in that election or supported joint National Liberal candidates.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    New book claims Hitler died in S America aged 95 and pictures him with a black girlfriend he used to hide his Fascist past
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545770/New-book-claims-THIS-picture-proves-Hitler-escaped-Berlin-bunker-died-South-America-1984-aged-95.html
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    TGOHF said:

    By going all Cabley and moany from the start, the LDs are getting no benefit from the economic recovery.
    its all their own fault.

    Yes, to spend years advocating coalition and then undermining it when you join one is madness.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Talking of the 1931 GE, the Labour winner of Broxtowe that year just wouldn't survive in the modern political environment.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    TSE writes "they could use their base of seats from 2015 onwards to rebuild."

    Re-build into what? The deserts of Liverpool and Manchester etc? Telling swathes of activists "you do not matter" in their local areas will destroy the ability of the LDs to come back.

    It is of course a position made worse by attempting to be seen as an opposition to the coalition whilst asking for votes to help form another coalition.... This Janus stratagy helped get them so far but was fatally flawed.

    They will follow into the steps of their Liberal predecessors, a decline in the number of seats will result in a further decline in votes with less seats won as the next step, even if they manage to keep themselves at the 7-10% range they will still lose seats election after election.
    The process from 1931 to 1950 is an indication, 1931: 7% 33 seats, 35:7% 21 seats, 45: 9% 12 seats, 50: 9% 9 seats.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    @HYUFD‌
    Hmm I think that is what I would call a novel and interesting theory.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    OT EU Official van Rompuy spokesman denying the claim that Juncker is withdrawing, which originally seemed to come from an anonymous person on his staff:
    http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/jean-claude-juncker/wie-lange-haelt-juncker-noch-durch-36301054.bild.html
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2014
    HYUFD said:

    New book claims Hitler died in S America aged 95 and pictures him with a black girlfriend he used to hide his Fascist past
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545770/New-book-claims-THIS-picture-proves-Hitler-escaped-Berlin-bunker-died-South-America-1984-aged-95.html

    You can't see the face on that photo, but the real revelation is this:
    "relative of Hitler living in Israel" !!!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    Sajid Javid seems to be making a good start as culture secretary, in a speech this week calling for higher starting salaries for entrants into the arts to help those from poorer backgrounds, more funding for regional arts, and more philanthropy from London's billionaires
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10881748/Sajid-Javids-first-keynote-speech-as-Culture-Secretary-I-like-Star-Trek.-I-like-U2.html
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    The LDs are almost certain to lose all their urban seats, with the possible exceptions of Hallam and Southwark, as left-wing LD voters switch en masse to Labour. However, while they will lose most of the seats they won from the Tories from 1997-2010, they should be able to hold 20-30 seats the won in 1987 and 1992 if they focus their resources on their heartlands in the South West and Celtic fringe. UKIP I think could actually pick up Thanet South where they have topped the poll at council and euro elections and if they run the high profile and Man of Kent Farage in a race without an incumbent. The Greens managed to do the same in Brighton when they ran the high profile Caroline Lucas in an area Greens had won council seats and a significant percentage of the vote
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    edited June 2014
    Speedy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Speedy said:

    Sean_F said:

    david_herdson said:

    ToryJim said:

    @Speedy‌
    1931 is interesting as the Liberals were defending 59 seats and a 23.6% share which isn't massively dissimilar to now. They dropped to 6.5% but retained 33 seats. Of course I'd love the other feature of that election to hold as well and Labour to lose 200 seats to the Tories ;)

    True, but it should be noted that the (Samuelite) LIberals only contested 112 of the 600 or so GB seats, so their 'per constituency' share was well over 30%. Also, as both the Samuelite and Simonite Liberals were supporters of the National Government, I'd be pretty sure that the figures were further distorted by a lack of various opponents they'd normally have faced.
    The most startling figure from the period 1918-31 is that 303 seats elected a Liberal MP at least once, but only 20 did so in every election. By the end, the Liberals were dependent on electoral pacts (mostly with Conservatives) for survival.

    The National Liberals were supported by the Tories and merged with them in the end, that's why you shouldn't count them as members of the Liberal party.
    Eventually. The Simonites still thought of themselves as Liberals, in 1931.
    Leaders don't matter what they think of them selves in elections, it's the voters opinion that matters.
    Most of the 1929 liberal vote voted conservative anyway in that election or supported joint National Liberal candidates.
    You touch on an interesting point. As Labour rose, so the voters came to regard the Liberals as indistinguishable from the Conservatives. Ireland, Disestablishment, Temperance ceased to be important political issues, compared to economics and class conflict.

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,822
    Taxi for the Lib-Dems!
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    A sensible thread by TSE destroyed by inane comments from many who have little knowledge of politics and even less of the Lib Dems
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,775
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    TSE writes "they could use their base of seats from 2015 onwards to rebuild."

    Re-build into what? The deserts of Liverpool and Manchester etc? Telling swathes of activists "you do not matter" in their local areas will destroy the ability of the LDs to come back.

    Yes, it does seem tricky. They do need to desperately defend those seats they can hold onto, but realistically that is not many and is accepting being cast out of most of the country, including places with incumbent MPs. OK, whether they do that or not they will still probably lose such places, so perhaps it makes sense to focus on 31-40 only, but the casual use of rebuild understates the level of the task for them after 2015, as since you say so many places will be electoral deserts for them, and in the aftermath of 2015 are not likely to be amenable to a LD rise anytime soon either, so any rebuilding effort is likely to take several parliaments at least.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    HYUFD said:

    New book claims Hitler died in S America aged 95 and pictures him with a black girlfriend he used to hide his Fascist past
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545770/New-book-claims-THIS-picture-proves-Hitler-escaped-Berlin-bunker-died-South-America-1984-aged-95.html

    ears twice as big
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    edited June 2014
    MarkSenior said:

    A sensible thread by TSE destroyed by inane comments from many who have little knowledge of politics and even less of the Lib Dems

    It's a rubbish analogy*. In the 1890s the British Empire was the largest empire in history. In what way are the LDs the British Empire?


    * [second thoughts and a quick glance in TSE's direction] No offence!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    HYUFD said:

    The LDs are almost certain to lose all their urban seats, with the possible exceptions of Hallam and Southwark, as left-wing LD voters switch en masse to Labour. However, while they will lose most of the seats they won from the Tories from 1997-2010, they should be able to hold 20-30 seats the won in 1987 and 1992 if they focus their resources on their heartlands in the South West and Celtic fringe. UKIP I think could actually pick up Thanet South where they have topped the poll at council and euro elections and if they run the high profile and Man of Kent Farage in a race without an incumbent. The Greens managed to do the same in Brighton when they ran the high profile Caroline Lucas in an area Greens had won council seats and a significant percentage of the vote

    Twickenham, Bath, Leeds NW, Southport, Birmingham Yardley, Hazel Grove, Carshalton, look secure to me, along with Hallam and Southwark.

    Brent Central, Manchester Withington, Redcar, Burnley, Solihull, are surely write-offs.

    Sutton and Cheam, Kingston, Cheadle, Bradford East, Portsmouth South, Torbay, Eastbourne, Bristol West, Cardiff Central, Edinburgh West should all e pretty tight..

  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,091
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    (Checks betting slips) They should certainly give up on Redcar!

    Which would achieve what though ?

    The nearest LibDem constituencies to Redcar are Leeds NW, Westmoreland and Berwick.

    Are the Redcar LibDems to be told to campaign in the others ? Leeds NW and Westmoreland should be safe, Berwick is likely to be lost in any case.

    At least in Redcar the LibDems can actually show something that they've achieved in government.

    On a wider point writing off seats already LibDem or where the LibDems have been strong previously will make it harder for the LibDems to rebuild.

    Eagles is wrong saying that this would only be for one electoral cycle. If they lose by 10,000+ votes rather than 2-3,000 the LibDems will need several electoral cycles to rebuild, in many places they could disappear forever.

  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    MarkSenior said:

    A sensible thread by TSE destroyed by inane comments from many who have little knowledge of politics and even less of the Lib Dems

    Mark..for once I totally agree with you.

    For me the interesting bit next year will be how the incumbent LD MPs campaign. They will probably campaign almost like a group of I dependants rathèr than using the. LD brand as they can sell themselves as individuals standing up for constituents. If however they start to us Clegg in literature or the. Lib Dem mantra it could become counter productive for them.
    It will also be in their interests in the SW London seats to hope that turnout is low as they will get their core vote out better than the Tory's. If the. Tories become motivated to vote,which they didn't in the locals,then incumbents could be in a spot of bother.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    MarkSenior said:

    A sensible thread by TSE destroyed by inane comments from many who have little knowledge of politics and even less of the Lib Dems

    Yes on PB everyone knows that losing all credibilty, your deposits at 50% of by elections and throwing away your principles is a postive for the Lib Dems

    Where as winning a national election and seeing your vote share increase almost 600% is bad news for UKIP
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited June 2014
    After being an utter tit on This Week's election coverage, Chris Bryant excelling himself again - he seems to think the number of MPs who died in WW2 was a political 'scoring' by the Tories...reflects more on him surely???

    This was their tweet:

    Con. History Group‏@ConHistGrp·1 hr
    MT @DanKellyEsq: it appears that of the 24 MPs killed in action in WWII, 21 were Conservatives.
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited June 2014
    Chris Bryant‏@ChrisBryantMP·59 mins
    I can't believe the @conhistgrp are trying to make political capital out of MPs killed in WWII. No sense of decency sometimes.

    Con. History Group‏@ConHistGrp·33 mins
    .@ChrisBryantMP We really aren't: just retweeting a point we didn't know and found interesting. They fought and died for us all.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    another_richard said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    (Checks betting slips) They should certainly give up on Redcar!

    Which would achieve what though ?

    The nearest LibDem constituencies to Redcar are Leeds NW, Westmoreland and Berwick.

    Are the Redcar LibDems to be told to campaign in the others ? Leeds NW and Westmoreland should be safe, Berwick is likely to be lost in any case.

    At least in Redcar the LibDems can actually show something that they've achieved in government.

    On a wider point writing off seats already LibDem or where the LibDems have been strong previously will make it harder for the LibDems to rebuild.

    Eagles is wrong saying that this would only be for one electoral cycle. If they lose by 10,000+ votes rather than 2-3,000 the LibDems will need several electoral cycles to rebuild, in many places they could disappear forever.

    The worst recent bad result for the Lib Dems/Liberals was in the 1979 GE . Many said then that they would never recover , the reality was that the recovery started almost immediately even prior to the formation of the SDP , see the results of the early by elections of the 1979-83 Parliament .
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    ToryJim That is one way of looking at it.

    Speedy Indeed, though does not say if they are Jewish

    Mr jones I think he has more claim to be a relative of Prince Charles
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    MarkSenior said:

    another_richard said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    (Checks betting slips) They should certainly give up on Redcar!



    Which would achieve what though ?

    The nearest LibDem constituencies to Redcar are Leeds NW, Westmoreland and Berwick.

    Are the Redcar LibDems to be told to campaign in the others ? Leeds NW and Westmoreland should be safe, Berwick is likely to be lost in any case.

    At least in Redcar the LibDems can actually show something that they've achieved in government.

    On a wider point writing off seats already LibDem or where the LibDems have been strong previously will make it harder for the LibDems to rebuild.

    Eagles is wrong saying that this would only be for one electoral cycle. If they lose by 10,000+ votes rather than 2-3,000 the LibDems will need several electoral cycles to rebuild, in many places they could disappear forever.

    The worst recent bad result for the Lib Dems/Liberals was in the 1979 GE . Many said then that they would never recover , the reality was that the recovery started almost immediately even prior to the formation of the SDP , see the results of the early by elections of the 1979-83 Parliament .
    Do you think Davey might be in a spot of bother in Kingston?
This discussion has been closed.