politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tories can keep their losses to LAB down to fewer th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tories can keep their losses to LAB down to fewer than 38 seats then they should come out with most seats
Given the political and betting importance of which party wins most seats I’ve been looking at the maths to try to get a broad figure of what would be a CON victory on seats or a CON defeat. I’ve made several assumptions that clearly will impact on the equation.
Comments
-
First ..... again!0
-
God dammit Peter!! Sniping me again!0
-
You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!0
-
Real early in the morning?peter_from_putney said:You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!
0 -
For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.peter_from_putney said:You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!
0 -
Cheeky. Trying to start a bidding war?MikeSmithson said:
For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.peter_from_putney said:You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!
0 -
But it's the thrill of the chase Mike .... even your own son has become caught up with it before now!MikeSmithson said:
For a suitable donation to the site I could arrange for you to win every day.peter_from_putney said:You got to get up early earlier in the morning to catch this one!
0 -
Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?0 -
We have RAF Mount Pleasant there now, with a wing of Typhoons based there and a couple of thousand men including substantial anti-aircraft assets. This means a) it would be a lot harder to take than before, and b) attacking a British base would probably be considered an act of war.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?0 -
What a wonderful wind-up by the Tory right and Murdoch's Minions. Obvious subtext: Cammo's no Iron Lady!peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
0 -
Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?0 -
And preumably Argentinas weapons could hit us at 45 minutes notice.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Just because parliament is dissolved it dosen't mean there isn't a government.
Jackanory la la, Jackanory......Propaganda la la Propaganda...
0 -
Test0
-
Ah. The post counter has stalled, I see.0
-
And started again. Truly weird.0
-
Bye bye Squeaker Goodbye..
Whatever happens to the squeaker, MPs in the next parliament will need to be very fit as they will be attending a lot of long all day and late night parliamentary sesssions if the next election is as close as is being made out. About as much fun as Stalingrad for them.
I forecast a lot of by elections as MPs die or resign under the pressure if the opinion polls are correct.0 -
Largely Argentinian propaganda to make a bit of a fizz in their press and distract the population from the failing economy and the fumbling government I would think. We haven't sent load of men down there from what I read, its more just a reaction to their changed posture letting them know we are keeping an eye on things and warning them to be sensible, and because if their posture changed and we did nothing, and things subsequently went sour the government here would get it in the neck for having not taken appropriate action.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
And preumably Argentinas weapons could hit us at 45 minutes notice.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Just because parliament is dissolved it dosen't mean there isn't a government.
Jackanory la la, Jackanory......Propaganda la la Propaganda...
(But yes, I dare say an Argentine Mirage could get from Tandil airbase to Stanley in about 45 minutes)0 -
The obvious subtext is don't back Hammond as next Tory leader if the spotlight is to be shone on the depleted state of our armed forces.Innocent_Abroad said:
What a wonderful wind-up by the Tory right and Murdoch's Minions. Obvious subtext: Cammo's no Iron Lady!peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?0 -
For example, the four Typhoons are probably sufficient to defeat the entire Argentine Air Force.Sean_F said:
Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?0 -
On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).0
-
For now.. Incidentally, I note the Conservatives have now added "Defence" as a policy area to their campaign video portfolio on youtube.Sean_F said:
Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Fallon doesn't say much over and above the £160bn equipment budget, commitment to renew Trident and attacking Labour for their £38bn black hole, though.0 -
2010:
Lab 32.4 + 1.5 = 33.9%
Con 35.2 -1.5 = 33.7%
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/13/david-herdson-says-lab-most-votes-con-most-seats-is-a-good-bet-at-66-1/
Is it still value at 20/1?0 -
In 1992 Labour made 36 net gains from the Conservatives, which on these assumptions would put Labour just four seats behind. I expect a more complete Labour wipeout in Scotland, so that would increase the margin somewhat.0
-
Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.0
-
No worries. We're an aid superpower.Casino_Royale said:
For now.. Incidentally, I note the Conservatives have now added "Defence" as a policy area to their campaign video portfolio on youtube.Sean_F said:
Fortunately, Argentina has run down its armed forces even more than we have.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Fallon doesn't say much over and above the £160bn equipment budget, commitment to renew Trident and attacking Labour for their £38bn black hole, though.0 -
Lab swing in England is around 4.5%.
Overall swing doesn't really matter as pretty much all Con-Lab marginals are in England.
I agree with Mike that Lab losses to SNP will be 30 or possibly less.
0 -
Currently, the swing to Labour in England is about 4%.Casino_Royale said:On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).
0 -
The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.0
-
It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.
So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.
My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.0 -
LAB 1.58OblitusSumMe said:Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.
CON 2.22
in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO0 -
What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne. 0
-
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while0 -
I agree it is incredible value but the safer bet is still probably Ed as next PM. For all practical purposes this seems to eliminate the Scotland effect given the current position of the SNP.bigjohnowls said:
LAB 1.58OblitusSumMe said:Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.
CON 2.22
in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO0 -
A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.DavidL said:It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.
So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.
My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.
0 -
Which ones?Innocent_Abroad said:The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.
Or do you mean net England gains in which case you are wrong0 -
Is the Tory candidate in B&B straight? Will he remain so?Indigo said:What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian
Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.
0 -
UKIP will probably get a big vote, but it will be safe Conservative.Indigo said:What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian
Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.0 -
I'm pretty confident the Tories will clock 35-36% on the day. The question is where Labour will drop out.Sean_F said:
Currently, the swing to Labour in England is about 4%.Casino_Royale said:On topic, I've reached exactly the same conclusion as OGH. Although I think on assumption (1) Conservatives will do slightly better, enough to overcome the deficit within assumption (3).
If I had to make a forecast, I'd say around 32%. I also think the Conservatives will gain more from the Liberal Democrats than they.0 -
Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.Charles said:
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while0 -
Outside the major cities, university towns and where public sector graduates congregate (schools) virtually no one reads the Guardian.Indigo said:What's the feeling on Bexhill and Battle ? Strong Tory seat, but second place LDs are going to be obliterated, and Kippers didn't stand there in 2010. Legendarily strong senior citizens vote, but its another fading resort town which the kippers do well in. Tories should walk it, but it depends how many people in Bexhill read the Guardian
Presumably on a similar basis the Tories should take Eastbourne.0 -
Good morning all and delighted to see OGH has based a thread on what I have been saying for weeks, look at the target seats and the projections. With Labour hoping at best to get 39 out of its top 50 Tory targets, it will fall some way short of largest party status.
Don't forget about seats the Tories are likely to snatch from Labour for all manner of local reasons.
Some thoughts for the day.
Notwithstanding all the expert opinion on here to the contrary, the Coalition government has gone the full 5 year course.
Cameron and Clegg did not do a Blair/Brown, even Cable remained inside the tent to the very end.
It is SLAB not SCon we are talking about getting wiped out.
In 1992 it was the 11 SCon MPs which gave John Major his overall majority of 21.0 -
Which ones?Innocent_Abroad said:The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England.
0 -
I agree that should be an issue but as Mike has pointed out there is precious little evidence for it in the polling. If anything the polling indicates Labour outperforming their average in the marginals. That may change of course.Sean_F said:
A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.DavidL said:It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.
So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.
My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.0 -
Surely if Bercow realises that he has lost the confidence of the largest party in the HoC he should do the decent thing and walk away. Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.
Lindsey Hoyle the Labour man would be a much better speaker. I get the impression he is very well liked by the Coalition benches.0 -
I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?0 -
That has been backed right in to 2.20 in last couple of days and I have taken a fair bit of profit in recent times.DavidL said:
I agree it is incredible value but the safer bet is still probably Ed as next PM. For all practical purposes this seems to eliminate the Scotland effect given the current position of the SNP.bigjohnowls said:
LAB 1.58OblitusSumMe said:Incidentally, the 38th Conservative seat on Labour's target list is Croydon Central.
CON 2.22
in Croydon Central and yet Lab most seats is still 3.15 incredible value IMO
I think the 3.15 will eventually move to about 2.50 at least so more profit to come on that (I hope)
0 -
Yes, its nonsense for their media, we didn't have any AH-64 last time either.DavidL said:
Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.Charles said:
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while0 -
Another thought for the day, the Government has lost very few seats during the length of Parliament. I reckon Corby, Claction and Rochester are the only ones. Have I missed any out?0
-
There may not have been much polling evidence for it in March 2010, (in relation to those elected in 2005) but it happened. But, maybe that tranche of MP s was exceptionally hard-working.DavidL said:
I agree that should be an issue but as Mike has pointed out there is precious little evidence for it in the polling. If anything the polling indicates Labour outperforming their average in the marginals. That may change of course.Sean_F said:
A further issue is whether Tory MPs first elected in 2010 have built up any personal following. In general, those who were elected in 2005 did so.DavidL said:It has looked increasingly possible in recent polling that the Tories will match their 2010 share of the vote. Barring a disaster in the campaign they really should. So the question is whether Ed can improve the Labour share by 6% from Brown's nadir. Again, given the red Liberal movement he really should. If he is doing worse then Labour has lost some of its 2010 supposed core vote.
So if the requirement is a 3% swing Labour will probably be the largest party. I still think, however, that they will need more than that. Many of the red Liberals will be in seats that don't help Labour because they have no chance. A 36% share for the Tories will be differently distributed from 2010 because of the UKIP factor. Whilst the Labour vote will still be more efficient than the Tories (because of the lower turnout in safe Labour seats compared to Tory ones) the gap will be less, especially with the Scotland effect where the Labour vote may well go from super efficient to highly inefficient in one step.
My expectation at the moment remains something closer to 50 Labour gains in England making them the largest party but Mike is right, it is on a knife edge.0 -
Back to the '50s looks about right:
"UKIP more likely than the population as a whole to support the death penalty (75% to 48%), consider young people do not have enough respect for British values (86% to 66%), and believe that people who want to have children should get married (46% to 23%)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-320551100 -
Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.
True enough. But how would he and Sally possibly cope without the very considerable tax free grace & favour perks?0 -
NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-320579480 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
0 -
If we could get them there, in terrain without even significant tree cover, the only rational response would be surrender.Indigo said:
Yes, its nonsense for their media, we didn't have any AH-64 last time either.DavidL said:
Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.Charles said:
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while0 -
Looking at the papers,both the Daily Mail and Times starting to hedge their bets by reporting more Con negative news in recent days.0
-
Ties in with my posts for last 12 monthsSMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948
TBH most PB Tories have refused to believe instead favouring Wales Tourettes.0 -
A agree, but I thought we'd withdrawn the standard destroyer that patrols the south atlantic? So don't know if we would be there in time to intercept an invasion fleetDavidL said:
Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.Charles said:
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while0 -
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?0 -
Massive SNP -> UKIP swing in Scotland I see from the latest Yougov 0
-
OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.SMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948
0 -
It would be interesting to learn whether today's motion for the post -GE election of the Speaker is some form of personal vendetta against Bercow by William Hague on his last day in office or whether it is a cunning plan, dreamed up in the inner sanctum of CCHQ?0
-
Trust in the good sense of the British people.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Vote with your heart0 -
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
0 -
Judging by the survey, those viewpoints seem pretty mainstream among the population as a whole.logical_song said:Back to the '50s looks about right:
"UKIP more likely than the population as a whole to support the death penalty (75% to 48%), consider young people do not have enough respect for British values (86% to 66%), and believe that people who want to have children should get married (46% to 23%)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-320551100 -
This might helppeter_from_putney said:Cameron and Miliband will both guarantee him the Peerage automatically accorded to a former Speaker.
True enough. But how would he and Sally possibly cope without the very considerable tax free grace & favour perks?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/13/commons-speaker-keep-1m-pension0 -
@faisalislam: ..so oct 2011 report did recommend House decide on a secret ballot over a contested Speaker reelection: vote today. http://t.co/RzmWd2uWkjpeter_from_putney said:It would be interesting to learn whether today's motion for the post -GE election of the Speaker is some form of personal vendetta against Bercow by William Hague on his last day in office or whether it is a cunning plan, dreamed up in the inner sanctum of CCHQ?
0 -
Birmingham threatened with new crime wave.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11492144/New-bank-rules-send-HSBC-north-to-Birmingham.html0 -
Have the coalition done a good job ?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Have Labour presented a wonderful prospectus for govt ?
Does Ed look like a PM in waiting ?
Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..0 -
Easterross: " Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way."
Precisely the point emphasised by OGH very recently, only the other way around of course!0 -
73% overall satisfaction in April 2010 and A&E also down since 2010 according to Kings FundSean_F said:
OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.SMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948
0 -
Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?Gadfly said:Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
Is there a straw I see to clutch?
The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.0 -
80 seats are you mad 40 gives EICIPMTGOHF said:
Have the coalition done a good job ?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Have Labour presented a wonderful prospectus for govt ?
Does Ed look like a PM in waiting ?
Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..0 -
I don't think anyone an say with assurance this far out, but the obvious place to start - from a betting POV - are the ones with majorities under, say, 2,000 - where the sitting MP is standing down and the new Labour candidate isn't local. The information is all on the Internet, it just needs someone (not mebigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
) to dig it out...
0 -
I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.TGOHF said:Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..0 -
The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.
Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP0 -
Well both innocent abroad and Easteross seem to think Lab to Con gains but have so far failed to name which seats they think will go blue0
-
BJO ...... Snap!0
-
I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.Pulpstar said:
The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.
Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP0 -
There more fun part is what damage is La kirchner doing to Argentine US relations.Charles said:
A agree, but I thought we'd withdrawn the standard destroyer that patrols the south atlantic? So don't know if we would be there in time to intercept an invasion fleetDavidL said:
Plus the ease with which the Argentinian navy, such as it is, could be dispatched by one of our modern destroyers. This threatens leaving troops got onshore with rapid and serious resupply problems engaged in a battle. It is nonsense really.Charles said:
Disagree - I think given the iconic nature of the Falklands and the dynamics of the election that all parties would support a vigorous response. Con can't not with UKIP on their flank & I suspect it would be disastrous for Ed Miliband to haver.peter_from_putney said:Off Topic but potentially important -
Sun Politics: A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary.
Is Argentina planning such an attack once Parliament has been dissolved, i.e. when the UK is at its most impotent in terms of being in a position to respond in any meaningful way?
Not that we would be in any position to mount a task force on anything like the scale that was put in place by the Thatcher Government in 1982. Instead passive resistance would presumably be the order of the day, coupled with unworkable sanctions.
Lots of huffing and puffing but probably game over to all intents and purposes.
And what would be the implications for the imminent General Election?
Additionally, I think we have much more in the way of defence (a squadron of planes plus a decent helping of Marines) based on the island so they will be able to keep anyone at bay for a while
Currently she's traded Chinese ambitions on Taiwan and Russian ambitions in the Crimea for their support on the Falklands. Can't see hat being a sustainable position with the White House.0 -
There ain't too many more, I've looked and would be backing the Tories if there were.bigjohnowls said:
I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.Pulpstar said:
The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.
Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP0 -
BBC journalism
Ross Hawkins@rosschawkins·2m2 minutes ago
Boris Johnson has arrived in Downing St. His bike reclining unlocked on the railings as if to the manor born pic.twitter.com/TpJmcjbtTG0 -
Never thought anywhere near 80.peter_from_putney said:
I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.TGOHF said:Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..
40 would be EICIPM IMO0 -
OKC: The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD”
I see you're in optimistic mode this morning!0 -
Interesting peter.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Betfair makes it about a 37% chance Con seats will fall between 276-300.
If you think there's a higher than 63% chance that it will fall outside of this band, you can lay @ ~2.80 -
Perhaps Easteross and or Innocent Abroad could enlighten us.Pulpstar said:
There ain't too many more, I've looked and would be backing the Tories if there were.bigjohnowls said:
I reckon Respect has a chance in Halifax so potentially Con could come through the middle.Pulpstar said:
The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.
Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP
0 -
OK, to get the ball rolling....bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Halifax
Southampton Itchen
Bootle
0 -
Like I said ....Snap!bigjohnowls said:
Never thought anywhere near 80.peter_from_putney said:
I suspect that if you wired BJO up to a lie detector he'd be going for around half that number of wins for the Red Team.TGOHF said:Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Yet BJO etc are expecting 80 seats in England to switch Blue to Red.,..
40 would be EICIPM IMO0 -
On my analysis, the Lib Dem seat spread is a mile wide but an inch deep.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
Could range from 17 to 33 seats. I have them at 25 seats.0 -
"Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?"
An interesting question.
How about ones where [1] a longstanding MP is stepping down, [2] demographic changes are slowly making the seat more Tory in any case, and [3] the opponent is well established and has come close to winning the seat before.
Gower in Wales has [1] Martin Caton stepping down;[2] it is a Labour seat since 1918, but the majority is now down to 2,638 having decreased steadily from a high water mark of 20,000 in the sixties, the industrial areas in the North of the seat are depopulating, and the South is gentrifying [3] the Tory opponent Byron Davies has fought the seat before and in the Welsh Assembly elections came within a few hundred of taking the seat. He is a fairly visible list AM for the area.
Even in a big victory -- some seat always buck the trend.0 -
Worth noting that if Labour get 40 seats it well represent a total failure of the CCHQ 40-40 strategy - and by extension Lynton Crosby.
And if Labour get 40 plus seats off the Tories, it will mean that the market towns of England have taken Ed to their hearts.....0 -
I have bet against my team for solace. So if Eastleigh or Yeovil fall then at least I can afford to drown my sorrows!OldKingCole said:
Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?Gadfly said:Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
Is there a straw I see to clutch?
The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.
0 -
This would be the same left-leaning Kings Fund that said the NHS was the best in the world at counting paper-clips and sorting out the filing, but never mind about minor details like patient outcomes and mortality ?bigjohnowls said:
73% overall satisfaction in April 2010 and A&E also down since 2010 according to Kings FundSean_F said:
OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.SMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-320579480 -
CCHQ think Gower is worth a punt....YBarddCwsc said:"Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?"
An interesting question.
How about ones where [1] a longstanding MP is stepping down, [2] demographic changes are slowly making the seat more Tory in any case, and [3] the opponent is well established and has come close to winning the seat before.
Gower in Wales has [1] Martin Caton stepping down;[2] it is a Labour seat since 1918, but the majority is now down to 2,638 having decreased steadily from a high water mark of 20,000 in the sixties, the industrial areas in the North of the seat are depopulating, and the South is gentrifying [3] the Tory opponent Byron Davies has fought the seat before and in the Welsh Assembly elections came within a few hundred of taking the seat. He is a fairly visible list AM for the area.
Even in a big victory -- some seat always buck the trend.
0 -
It's a typical BBC left-wing spin on the figures. The NHS is PERFORMING a lot better than the 1990s, however the DECLINE in the performance (first differential) is the worst since the 1990s.Sean_F said:
OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.SMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948
Graphs also show the increase in consultants and reduction in managers (other staffing remaining relatively steady) and that until this year there was a £400 - £500 million surplus in NHS funding.
No doubt if the NHS was still improving the BBC would be reporting that the rate of improvement was slowing down.0 -
Birmingham Northfield is still my ultimate fantasy. I got on at 12/1.Pulpstar said:
The ones possible are Itchen, Halifax and Dumfries/Galloway.bigjohnowls said:
Which seats are Labour going to lose to the Tories?Easterross said:
I don't understand why more PBers don't see Labour ending up with fewer MPs than in 2010 as a serious possibility. If the SNP does as well as expected, Labour in England and Wales starts from around 210-220 seats. Each seat Labour loses to the Tories matches one going the other way.peter_from_putney said:I have this niggling suspicion that the Tories will fare either considerably better or considerably worse than the "experts" and indeed the betting markets are suggesting.
Numerically, I see them winning either >300 seats as currently predicted by JackW or <275 seats as suggested by OGH ...... the problem is I can't decide which, not helped by the fact that the head says one thing, the heart says another!
Similar in a way to the number of seats won by the LibDems ...... will it be <20 or >30 or maybe somewhere in between?
They are all odds against mind and any seat loss is probably 6-4 right now.
Halifax (7-2/3-10);
Itchen (4-7;2-1)
DG (5-4 Labour; 9-2 Con) / 6-4 SNP
Tories won the locals last year with a stable vote share, Labour leeched a mass of voters to UKIP and they have a good hardworking candidate. It's also a 40:40 target.
I think it could be under the radar, and close.0 -
I think a surprise LAB gain might be High Peak if LAB activists there are to be believed
LAB 2.26 but according to aforesaid activists on a knife edge.
DYOR Activists do not always have their fingers on the pulse.0 -
I've tried to, John. But these things are very hard to call - who would've expected the Tories to take Winchester last time. I expect the swing to the Tories not to start until perhaps 10 days before polling, and maybe most of it to occur in the last 24 hours. I certainly don't expect the pollsters to pick it up. A large part of it will be differential turnout by age (oldies high, under 30s low) so perhaps one could also look at Labour seats with majorities below 4k or 5k where the electorate is disproportionately grey and/or fewer than average pubic sector workers/pensioners.0
-
I reckon the Lib Dems could win 10% or so, given extra coverage in the campaign.OldKingCole said:
Is there a small upward trend in the LD vote?Gadfly said:Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
Is there a straw I see to clutch?
The saddest prospect for me, as an ex-LD activist, in watching the resulkts expecting to be watching for an LD “HOLD” rather than hoping/expecting to see LD “GAIN” flashing up.
0 -
Only a fool cannot see a decline in clinical performance and finances of Hospitals since 2010weejonnie said:
It's a typical BBC left-wing spin on the figures. The NHS is PERFORMING a lot better than the 1990s, however the DECLINE in the performance (first differential) is the worst since the 1990s.Sean_F said:
OTOH, satisfaction with the NHS runs at 65%, and satisfaction with A & E has improved.SMukesh said:NHS back to the 1990`s,the last time when the Tories were in power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948
Graphs also show the increase in consultants and reduction in managers (other staffing remaining relatively steady) and that until this year there was a £400 - £500 million surplus in NHS funding.
No doubt if the NHS was still improving the BBC would be reporting that the rate of improvement was slowing down.
0 -
ThanksInnocent_Abroad said:I've tried to, John. But these things are very hard to call - who would've expected the Tories to take Winchester last time. I expect the swing to the Tories not to start until perhaps 10 days before polling, and maybe most of it to occur in the last 24 hours. I certainly don't expect the pollsters to pick it up. A large part of it will be differential turnout by age (oldies high, under 30s low) so perhaps one could also look at Labour seats with majorities below 4k or 5k where the electorate is disproportionately grey and/or fewer than average pubic sector workers/pensioners.
0
