politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Curtice on the exit poll

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.

When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

Still beating England though...

Evening all

Loosely on topic, a question for those more expert than me (all of you, potentially) about the order of declaration and how it interacts with target seat lists.

As we see above, the exit polls are going to tell us that Lab/Con are roughly tied - despite our more excitable brethren comparing EdHenge to the Sheffield moment we can safely assuming that Ed's astounding erection will have more effect on their solitary sex lives than the consciousness of the electorate. Might be Con +3, might be Lab +1, but basically dead heat. And nobody really knows how that plays out in 4-party politics (5 if you include the LDs out of pity) so there won't be a seat forecast worth much.

So what happens to the betting markets between 11pm and 3am depends a lot on the order of declaration. If, let's say, Labour targets between 80 and 100 go red then it's going to take some serious balls to hold onto a big Conservative largest party position. If the blues defend a top 10 target or even nick one of their targets from Labour, then EICIPM isn't staying favourite for long... and so on.

Where you could see some real action is in the Labour majority market. Of course nobody thinks it'll happen - but if there's early data that makes it look like it actually could, then the 110 on Betfair might be 25, or 10 pretty quickly. IIRC you could get about 25 on Ken when the polls closed in London, and after 80pc of declarations the price came in to 2 or 3. That was an over-reaction, because although it was clearly closer than the market was predicting, you could analyse the undeclared and conclude that Boris was safe.

But what it seems to show is that a) the market easily writes off Labour outsiders to excessively long odds and b) it's prone to panic and bring them back in too short because plenty of players don't have a good enough grasp of the meaning of the data that becomes available during the declaration process to remain confident in their positions.

Could this happen again? Has anyone spent one of their many bored moments lining up target seats against declaration times and seeing if there's a chronological bias towards one party's key targets/defences? (And, I'm tempted to add, anyone want to take on any of my position on a Labour majority...?)

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Itwasrigged said:

Flightpath1 said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.

Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?

It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.

Can anyone pinpoint the first really significant declaration we will be getting, a tight marginal or something?

The first Scottish one from anywhere will be pretty interesting.

I am hoping it will be Kirkcaldy but it will probably be one of the West Central Belt seats
I cant remember who was first to call last time.

Kirkcaldy was first Scottish seat to be called in 2010.
Kingswood was first marginal to be called.

Kirkcaldy was the sixth Scottish seat to be declared in 2010. Rutherglen was the first.

Pulpstar said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

England have as much chance of winning this test as David Cameron does of winning the election.

192 should be well defendable with the 1,2,3 innings scores.

Same as Ed getting to his 270 or so winning post is my read ^^;

144/4

Polruan said:

Evening all

Loosely on topic, a question for those more expert than me (all of you, potentially) about the order of declaration and how it interacts with target seat lists.

As we see above, the exit polls are going to tell us that Lab/Con are roughly tied - despite our more excitable brethren comparing EdHenge to the Sheffield moment we can safely assuming that Ed's astounding erection will have more effect on their solitary sex lives than the consciousness of the electorate. Might be Con +3, might be Lab +1, but basically dead heat. And nobody really knows how that plays out in 4-party politics (5 if you include the LDs out of pity) so there won't be a seat forecast worth much.

So what happens to the betting markets between 11pm and 3am depends a lot on the order of declaration. If, let's say, Labour targets between 80 and 100 go red then it's going to take some serious balls to hold onto a big Conservative largest party position. If the blues defend a top 10 target or even nick one of their targets from Labour, then EICIPM isn't staying favourite for long... and so on.

Where you could see some real action is in the Labour majority market. Of course nobody thinks it'll happen - but if there's early data that makes it look like it actually could, then the 110 on Betfair might be 25, or 10 pretty quickly. IIRC you could get about 25 on Ken when the polls closed in London, and after 80pc of declarations the price came in to 2 or 3. That was an over-reaction, because although it was clearly closer than the market was predicting, you could analyse the undeclared and conclude that Boris was safe.

But what it seems to show is that a) the market easily writes off Labour outsiders to excessively long odds and b) it's prone to panic and bring them back in too short because plenty of players don't have a good enough grasp of the meaning of the data that becomes available during the declaration process to remain confident in their positions.

Could this happen again? Has anyone spent one of their many bored moments lining up target seats against declaration times and seeing if there's a chronological bias towards one party's key targets/defences? (And, I'm tempted to add, anyone want to take on any of my position on a Labour majority...?)

2010 declarations and running totals:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f6PlK5ig7p1I9aqfMzV6AMBKKX8TPvEuqoPakoX2W_M/edit

2015 targets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iE8RU4rVmDmtRhjo1Ws3Om3IjrmgUVSbcW-tO7cY-RE/edit#gid=0

Scott_P said:

@SamCoatesTimes: So in tomorrow's Times, we speak to a range of Labour MPs about the prospect of only being able to get EM into No10 with SNP MPs...

@SamCoatesTimes: We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

I think there have been some signs in the last week, including Miliband comments on the Question Time show that Labour could refuse to go into power with the SNP in favour of a second election.

@SouthamObserver

'And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.'

What an incredible revelation.

@AndyJS

Thanks for those. Haven't quite worked out how best to stick the data together but I'll share anything interesting I find.

kle4 said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.

When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

Still beating England though...

England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.

I lived in Australia as an English "pome" schoolboy in the 90s. The Ashes were always a humiliation.

For the Windies I think you need to go back to the 80s as to when they were last at their prime.

Peter Kellner on 5Live says Lib Dems may hold 3 seats in Scotland...Tories in 1% lead for second day in a row

kle4 said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

On balance, I much prefer New Zealand to Australia. I'm afraid I'd also like to see the Windies win this test.

137-4 represents a poor bowling effort imo.

Surely, it's more that the English batting was abysmal. Cricket needs the West Indies to win again. We need their bowlers to be ferocious, their batsmen to build winning innings. It will help our game immensely. And in cricket, cricket is what matters most.

When were the West Indies actually decent? 20 years ago? They've been second rate for a long, long time.

Still beating England though...

England have at least had some peaks since then. I don't get mad at them no matter how poorly they do, as I grew up watching them in the 90s, so it's just a return to that form which, eventually, will come to an end.

Yes, absolutely, England and Wales have had some decent turns over that period. The West Indies just haven't. They're currently around the level of Bangladesh without the good 1 day performances. I wonder if it's time for the Windies to dissolve into nations and gain both some national pride and get a decent inter island competition (assuming that doesnt exist already).

Cyclefree said:

Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

Don't quite see the connection between equality for all before the law and segregated seats. Are you saying separate schools for boys and girls are against the principle of equality? I'm a libertarian and my take is that people should do as they wish. If one person was forced to sit somewhere they did not want to be, there would be grounds for discussion. But if there is no "victim," there is no case.

bigjohnowls said:

True though

I can see why the Tories are throwing stones over the idea of putting manifesto pledges on display, given the many they haven't kept

Shall we talk about Labours' record on manifesto pledges..........

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because Ed is Crap.

I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Back in to 5.5 but still

Why?

Front page of the Sun says YouGov is Con 34 Lab 33

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEHGBjrWAAIUNNo.jpg

Are people thinking that Labour might win Glasgow North East?

I'm wondering if that Ashcroft poll showing a Labour lead was a rogue, because I THINK that seat voted very heavily "Yes" (I think it roughly corresponds with Glasgow Springburh and Glasgow Provan, which both went 57% Yes).

AndyJS said:

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Itwasrigged said:

Flightpath1 said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.

Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?

It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.

Can anyone pinpoint the first really significant declaration we will be getting, a tight marginal or something?

The first Scottish one from anywhere will be pretty interesting.

I am hoping it will be Kirkcaldy but it will probably be one of the West Central Belt seats
I cant remember who was first to call last time.

Kirkcaldy was first Scottish seat to be called in 2010.
Kingswood was first marginal to be called.

Kirkcaldy was the sixth Scottish seat to be declared in 2010. Rutherglen was the first.

I bow to your encyclopedia.

kle4 said:

john_zims said:

@Scott_P

'Two nuggets from Indy's @DavidAxelrod interview: 1. Air wars win elections not ground wars, 2. He's going back to Chicago before Thursday.'

IOS will be gutted after telling us for the past two years about Labour's superior ground war.

I'd have thought air wars were more significant in the States when you can bombard the populace with endless campaign ads.

What is new here in Britain is the various videos the parties have placed on Youtube, unrestricted by requirements of balance or even truthfulness. The question is whether any voters ever get to see them, presumably after being prompted by Twitter or Facebook. I'm no expert but my impression is, as people used to say during the space race, that the Tories' American political consultants have done a better job than Labour's American political consultants.

Cyclefree said:

Coming to this a bit late but segregation at a Labour party political meeting is an utter disgrace and one reason (more important in my mind than bits of stone) why Labour are unfit to be the government.

No party which is willing to abandon its alleged principles of equality for all before the law in pursuit of votes from the most reactionary and illiberal of voters is fit to be in government in my view.

As far as I can see, the people present are essentially part of a club, in which they are free to participate or not. The rules of that club appear to include segregated seating. Labour are trying to reach out to all of the electorate, including members of that club, and unless the rules of that club are illegal then it could be considered a bit rude to treat its members as pariahs to be excluded from the political debate (well, unless they're also SNP members).

Think of the slippery slope argument... if we object to this, then cabinet ministers could start insisting on bringing female colleagues to back-channel policy negotiations in all-male private members clubs.

TheScreamingEagles said:

From Sam Coates of the Times

We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

There are some Labour MPs who think Ed M can find any way at all of being PM, that's fine. It wd be his duty / there r European precedents

Others think political cost of SNP backing wd be so high - both in England and Scotland - that Ed M shouldn't do it if too far behind Tories

Tory spin alert. If Tories stay in power, they'll have to deal with SNP as well.

Danny565 said:

Are people thinking that Labour might win Glasgow North East?

I'm wondering if that Ashcroft poll showing a Labour lead was a rogue, because I THINK that seat voted very heavily "Yes" (I think it roughly corresponds with Glasgow Springburh and Glasgow Provan, which both went 57% Yes).

Yes, the idea Willie Bain will be an MP on May 8th is pretty bizarre.

If for no other reason than it's Willie Bain.

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because Ed is Crap.

I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.

Why is EICIPM odds on?

Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.

bigjohnowls said:

steve_garner said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because it's not going to happen.

OK I see not worth a bet then

just wondered

Seems a very reasonable bet to me. The true odds can be nothing like 5/1 with most of the polls showing the two main parties neck and neck.

Dadge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From Sam Coates of the Times

We find some Labour folk - even frontbenchers - harbour doubts about the legitimacy of coming 2nd in seats & votes but going into No10

There are some Labour MPs who think Ed M can find any way at all of being PM, that's fine. It wd be his duty / there r European precedents

Others think political cost of SNP backing wd be so high - both in England and Scotland - that Ed M shouldn't do it if too far behind Tories

Tory spin alert. If Tories stay in power, they'll have to deal with SNP as well.

Yeah, but when Ed speaks to the SNP on a bill-by-bill basis it's a constitutional outrage; it's only when a Tory minority government negotiates with other parties in the house in order to pursue a legislative programme that it's the normal operation of the British constitution. It's a tricky distinction to pin down, a little like some irregular verbs, but it's basically because the Tories have more votes, or more seats, or failing both of those, more newspapers.

kle4 said:

Unintentionally

Diane Abbott told him which way to vote.

Mind you, good practise for Nicola...

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Freggles said:

What's frustrating is that if it weren't for the largely unforeseen SNP surge (hat tip to Antifrank and others) we would be headed for a small Labour majority, or at worst a Lab-Lib coalition.The wisdom of a lot of commentators who have said Ed can't win would be seriously called into question. But the fact is in the fight against the Tories he's doing much better than they all said.

"Largely unforeseen"?

*cough*

As I said on this site, four days BEFORE the indyref - "following a narrow NO vote the SNP will benefit from a huge sympathy vote at the next GE, as patriotic Scots voters say a guilty sorry for voting NO"

It was quite foreseeable. I foresaw it. Apparently DavidL did, too.

You also foresaw a Yes win.

and a No win and a Yes win and a No win ........................

Greek GDP, Mark, Greek GDP.

You forgot Mark assuring us there would be no recession.

Fewer than 100,000 votes in a handful of marginal constituencies - mostly currently held by the Liberal Democrats - are the key to a Conservative victory in this week’s election, David Cameron's advisers believe.

The Conservatives have a list of 23 target seats, disclosed for the first time, which strategists are focusing their efforts on in the final days before the vote.

The list includes the Liberal Democrat seats of Eastbourne, Bath, Chippenham and Cheadle. Vince Cable's Twickenham constituency and Ed Davey's Kingston and Surbiton seat are also on the internal Tory hit list.

Lib Dem sources have conceded that the party’s support of a mansion tax on expensive properties is reducing support in affluent London suburbs - and Mr Clegg is expected to campaign in these areas today in a bid to avert the "decapitation" of some of the party's most high-profile figures.

Just one Labour seat - Halifax - is required as a Conservative "gain" on election night although the plan requires Mr Cameron to hold current Tory constituencies amid growing Labour optimism that they will drive the governing party out in some areas.

http://bit.ly/1zq5AAp

Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%

@kevinleebennett: #EdStone creator revealed! http://t.co/pinKuZgehd

YouGov

CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 33% (-)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 9% (+1)
GRN - 5% (-)

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/the_topspin/status/594975746772307968

Early and mid 90's English cricket returns,God help us when jimmy Anderson retires,our bowling looks ordinary.

GIN1138 said:

Sun Politics @SunPolitics · now
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%

YouGov beats the Windies by one minute!

Shame that there's only three Tests, I hate 1-1 draws in a Test series.

@MattChorley: Not saying #edstone backfired but Tory fundraising emails have the subject "An 8ft-tall stone tablet?!" And "We're not making this up"

oldpolitics said:

Scott_P said:

@GrahamEardley: @BBCWestminHour panel discuss if the #EdStone is the Gillian Duffy moment of the #GE2015 campaign & what Lab donors will think of it?

What's the relevance at this stage of what Labour donors think of it? We're past the point where marginal extra funds raised can be usefully deployed in this campaign...

Marginal for this election, no. But if there's another election soon, would you donate knowing that instead of leaflets and posters, your money was going to be spent on the leader's own headstone?

kle4 said:

Blueberry said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

Balls: Pudsey
Reeves: Pudsey
Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
Harriet: Stevenage
Umunna: Croydon Central
Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
Twigg: Cannock Chase
Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
Sheerman: Dewsbury
Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
John Cryer: Ilford North
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
Dromey: Halesowen
Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
Creasy: Enfield North

Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

General Secretary: Brentford

Newham CLPs: Ilford North
Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?

Surely not - is it just easy to get to or en route to several other places?

I suppose so, but with contact time running out, you'd think they'd get somewhere more marginal.

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Labour Most Seats best price is currently 5.6 with Betfair which equates to just less than 4.4/1 net of commission in old money. Good value though, nonetheless.

acf2310 said:

Final Ashcroft National Poll is this Tuesday. The good Lord just replied to my Tweet...

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/594958392919236611

He'll be polling over a Bank Holiday then, which doesn't seem ideal.

Blueberry said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

Balls: Pudsey
Reeves: Pudsey
Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
Harriet: Stevenage
Umunna: Croydon Central
Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
Twigg: Cannock Chase
Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
Sheerman: Dewsbury
Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
John Cryer: Ilford North
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
Dromey: Halesowen
Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
Creasy: Enfield North

Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

General Secretary: Brentford

Newham CLPs: Ilford North
Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?

Il ford North target 83
Pudsey target 26
Ealing Central target 56


Suggests they're going for biggest party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because Ed is Crap.

I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.

there's plenty of room on the obelisk to add "Ed was Crap" on there after thursday....

surbiton said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

YouGov

CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 33% (-)
UKIP - 12% (-1)
LDEM - 9% (+1)
GRN - 5% (-)

A trend develops!

That's right. EICIPM.

That trend hasn't developed, it's, well, been set in stone for quite some time, barring some kind of rogue bulldozer from the other lot. No, this is the trend of potentially Tories most seats.

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con

Current price 6.0

Why?

Because Ed is Crap.

I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.

Why is EICIPM odds on?

Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.

I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.

Not really. It's because the Tories have no plausible allies. The LibDems who they're busy decapitating? The SNP who they're portraying as thieves and who are bound by party policy not to support them? Unless one thinks they could polevault to a majority themselves, it's hard to see any way that Cameron can stay in office.

Polruan said:

You do understand that political parties represent a range of views rather than unanimity on all issues, right? If the same person is screaming about single-sex clubs, and campaigning for votes in single-sex clubs, well, they're clearly a bit of a moron (and let's face it, Labour isn't the first or last political party to accept a quota of morons). On the other hand, if different people in a party value equality and religious freedom, and come to different answers about how you deal with the collision of those two principles, that doesn't seem particularly scandalous. I kind of assumed that most grown ups were used to dealing with incompatible priorities and trying to make sense of the boundary where they interfere with one another. And let's face it, when you add the priority of getting elected, it gets quite tricky...

You are just embarrassing yourself now.

Face it, Labour held a rally where they left their principles at the door to accommodate a group of people who have a very backward and incompatible view of how men and women are not to be treated equally.

You are the one who brought up, well its a bit like a club, and would be rude to get involved in their affairs. It was official Labour policy to do so. It was official Labour policy to try and outlaw exactly the kind of situation where..

"affect mixed-sex clubs where women have lower membership status than men. "

Blueberry said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

Balls: Pudsey
Reeves: Pudsey
Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
Harriet: Stevenage
Umunna: Croydon Central
Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
Twigg: Cannock Chase
Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
Sheerman: Dewsbury
Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
John Cryer: Ilford North
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
Dromey: Halesowen
Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
Creasy: Enfield North

Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

General Secretary: Brentford

Newham CLPs: Ilford North
Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?

How many of the Tory 23 targets have top Tories visited today?

Or are they on the back foot?

"A trend develops!"

Not really. There was a Sun on Sunday poll last night putting Labour 1% ahead.

Blueberry said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

who has been where today on labourdoorstp, updated version

Balls: Pudsey
Reeves: Pudsey
Burnham: Great Yarmouth, Ipswich,
Harriet: Stevenage
Umunna: Croydon Central
Khan along with BAME Labour: Harrow East, Ealing Central, Hampstead
Twigg: Cannock Chase
Perkins (Chesterfield): Stroud, Kingswood
Abbott: Harrow East, Hamsptead, Ealing Central
Lammy: Enfield Southgate, Edmonton
Sheerman: Dewsbury
Malthotra (Feltham): Ealing Central
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East): Gloucester
John Cryer: Ilford North
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green): Hampstead
Caerphilly MP and AM: Vale of Glamorgan
Dromey: Halesowen
Darling: Newton Mearns (wherever it is)
Creasy: Enfield North

Justine Miliband: Thurrock, Ilford North, Finchley, Ealing Central

Jack McConnell: Cumbernauld & Co, Stirling, Fife (a few days ago they dragged out even Helen Liddell)

John Middleton from Emmerdale: Pudsey

General Secretary: Brentford

Newham CLPs: Ilford North
Leicester University Labour Club: Northampton North
Unison GenSec: Cardiff Central

Amazed so many are in Hampstead. Suggests they're seriously on the back foot?

Or that it has the most Labour members anywhere in London and being seen there is useful in any, you know, votes that may be happening in the near future.

Tissue_Price said:

Front page of Times is big news. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, back Con Minority.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/594980032927379458

What are the odds that the Times have just made this up? Which senior Labour MPs would say these things to the Times?