politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON moves to 9% lead in first GE2020 poll.

john_zims said:

@TSE

'We were told that Labour were massively outworking the Tories in Cornwall.'

By IOS.

They were spartan warriors they were counetd all the difference in all the seats they won. How many were there ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cheers, I find those Cornwall results odd.

We were told that Labour were massively outworking the Tories in Cornwall.

Don't think the Cons would be TOOO unhappy about Labour working hard in Cornwall...

The Tories gained St Ives despite a drop in share of 0.7%.

Ed's corpse is not even cold, the EdStone not in place...

@JohnRentoul: Crowded at the Obs tonight: @stellacreasy also has an article http://t.co/oOng2dvpol

@rosschawkins: John Mann's not on team Chuka https://t.co/gGq0bB8AVf

AndyJS said:

Cornwall changes:

Con +2.15%
Lab +3.65%
LD -19.36%
UKIP +8.93%
Greens +4.58%
MK +0.01%

Despite what we were told about Cornwall, it seems to be unenthusiastic for the kippers. They did much better in Sunderland.

RobD said:

john_zims said:

@TSE

'We were told that Labour were massively outworking the Tories in Cornwall.'

By IOS.

Anyone heard from IOS recently?

I would not begrudge any Labour partisan who called it wrong from avoiding triumph Tories for a bit.

I called it spectacularly wrong and did not and have never voted Tory, but as I'm not Labour either I think people can forgive that prognostic ineptitude.

Please will somone tell me about Bercow

NoEasyDay said:

Please will somone tell me about Bercow

The Mail are saying his wife cheated on him with his cousin.

Jack thanks for your great work, hope you return quickly in full good health.

JonCisBack said:

O/T and apols if this has been posted before, but interesting, and relevant to the Camborne and Redruth figures I just posted I think (Camborne has a School of Mines which is basically a Mining University)

Labour seats are almost all in former mining areas.

http://i.imgur.com/hvJ6DuE.jpg

It's not really that enthusiastic at all either. Support is seeping here to UKIP, and the CONs are holding steady. Engel should have increased her majority here in NE Derbyshire with the collapse of the liberals, it's now under 2000 from 10000 in 2005.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

john_zims said:

@TSE

'We were told that Labour were massively outworking the Tories in Cornwall.'

By IOS.

Anyone heard from IOS recently?

I would not begrudge any Labour partisan who called it wrong from avoiding triumph Tories for a bit.

I called it spectacularly wrong and did not and have never voted Tory, but as I'm not Labour either I think people can forgive that prognostic ineptitude.

That's fair, us PB Tories have been quite rampant these past few days.

MikeL said:

Remember how many times we were told Con needed a lead of 10% or 11% for a majority.

Well, they got a majority with a GB lead of 6.6%.

Then consider this. If Lab had remained unchanged in Scotland, the Con GB lead would have only been 5%. And they would still have got a majority.

The whole electoral geography has changed. But it should also be noted that the next Boundary review won't help Con nearly as much as people think - because the old boundaries are becoming fairer again between Con and Lab due to London being the fastest growing area of the UK plus other inner city regeneration - which contributed to the majority happening this time with a much lower lead than many thought was necessary.

Apparently for the first time the Tory vote become more 'efficient', as it were, which turns things on its head if true.

Last statto moment for me tonight:

As far as I can see the largest tory majority (a whisker shy of 30K) was in NE Hampshire, for the guy who was threatened with being shot by the UKIP candidate if he ever became PM! A Mr Jayawardena

I wonder if he got some sympathy votes from other parties' supporters in the face of yet more evidence of UKIP racism? This seat is not exactly a marginal...

kle4 said:

Slackbladder said:

Well this is the start of a clear campaign to ditch Bercow.

Technically the vote to change the rules on election of a Speaker was probably the start.

Could that vote now be re-run?

Oh dear. I just started reading Stella's article, so you don't have to...

This feels as heartbreaking as 1992, as lethal as 1979 and as shocking as 1983.

as lethal as 1979

Tell us, Stella, what were you up to in 1979?

Stella Judith Creasy MP[1] (born 5 April 1977

This feels as lethal as it did when you were 2 years old?

Yup, she'll be great. Sorry Andy, I am switching to TeamStella™

The_Apocalypse said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

@rosschawkins: John Mann's not on team Chuka https://t.co/gGq0bB8AVf

No Civil war in the labour party....

(when actually it's what they really really need and it'll do them good)

John Mann is so right in his assessment of Umunna. If Labour elect him as their leader, then they are fools.

Agreed... Umunna isnt the guy,

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Does anyone have the

1) GB Wide share of the vote

2) How well did Labour do in Cornwall in terms of increase in share of the vote

Ta

GB shares:

Con: 37.78%
Lab: 31.18%
UKIP: 12.88%
LD: 8.06%
SNP: 4.85%
Greens: 3.84%
PC: 0.61%
Others: 0.80%

The 38-31 Tory lead was only actually 6.6% when you look at the data tables.

Thank you kle4

I despise him. But take no pleasure in that?

JackW said:

Good Evening PBers

Some months ago I privately advised Mike & Robert Smithson that I would, in the near future, for health reasons have to leave PB for an indeterminate period.

That time has come.

Should I recover I would hope to return in due course, alternatively an appropriate announcement will be placed on the site.

In the recent parlance of PB :

JWWNBCIHRTPB - JackW Will Never Be Crap If He Returns To Political Betting.

All the best, Jack, get well soon!

And congratulations on having such a wonderful ARSE!

Jack, darling, you're SO MoneySupermarket!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ643U7ccpM

Wonder if Toby Perkins is a future potential LAB leader he is head and shoulders above most

bigjohnowls said:

Wonder if Toby Perkins is a future potential LAB leader he is head and shoulders above most

Who???

Slackbladder said:

bigjohnowls said:

Wonder if Toby Perkins is a future potential LAB leader he is head and shoulders above most

Who???

MP for Chesterfield

SO Rubbish, Chuka said 'he did not come into politics to tax people' and has said the 50% tax rate is only temporary and is in many ways a Blairite, the fact most voters think the Tories represent mainly the wealthy is backed by all the polls, they just trusted them more with economy than Miliband and Balls

AnotherRichard Chuka actually studied in the north for 3 years at Manchester University

kle4 said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.

People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.

It's a completely bogus argument.

I'd actually agree. I don't question the legitimacy of this government as while I don't like FPTP to do so would question the legitimacy of most of our recent past governments, but we cannot just add the Tory+UKIP scores together; people doing that with Lab+LD+the rest as some sort of automatic anti-Tory alliance really annoyed me in 2010, and there will be Kippers, former Tory or former Labour, who will feel the same. People for for parties for a variety of reasons, and even if the party position was one which aligns with the Tories on this, it cannot be assumed all their voters would back that.

Why can't we question the legitimacy of government when it is below 50% or at least 45%?

There hasn't been a majority government in the UK since the 1930s and the last time it was close to 50% was 1951. In one of the 60s elections the Tories had 48% to Labours 44% and lost. It is a broken system.

Ask the Libs how many people TRULY vote for their Local Candidate. It seems virtually none. People vote for a Party because what the parties do actually matters and makes a difference to their quality of live and standard of living. Yet for nearly ONE HUNDRED years we have had the Tyranny of the Minority.

No, it's not just a question of legitimacy, it's a question of democracy. The voting system of the UK is not fit for purpose and now more than ever.

What a tall story! Labour forced to deny claims Miliband 'stood on a box' when pictured next to 6ft 6in MP
The Labour leader is over 6ft tall but is dwarfed by MP Toby Perkins


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2977991/What-tall-story-Labour-forced-deny-claims-Miliband-stood-box-pictured-6ft-6in-MP.html#ixzz3ZgA7Imlb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Wonder if Toby Perkins is a future potential LAB leader he is head and shoulders above most

I'm a Tory for Chuka.

Tristram Hunt is the dream candidate though, surely ?

Yes and no.

He's a historian, and I don't want historians getting a bad name.

Though, I might use this picture for all Tristram Hunt related threads

http://d2jkk5z9de9jwi.cloudfront.net/content/uploads/2015/02/THunt-800x500.jpg

kle4 said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

scotslass said:

Oops

Sorry I misread the tables yet again. The final figure was SNP 66 PER CENT , TORY 13.6, LABOUR 11.6 LIBERAL 2.7.

Only a sub sample but the way of the world and of Scotland.

Why would anyone in Scotland vote Labour again unless you are a die hard Loyalist? And Loyalism has been dying off for years.

With a similar view toward the LDs I imagine, do you imagine the future for Scotland is for the SNP vs the loyalist rump of the Tories to be the way of things, rather than SNP vs SLAB?

The Tories aren't a West Central Scotland party. Tories are Unionists not Loyalists (in the Scottish sectarian sense).

Even in West Central Scotland, the Tory vote isn't a sectarian vote, at most you have the 90 minute bigots like Murdo Fraser (which whom I have sung The Sash at Scottish Tory Conference) but it is very much a politically Unionist and not sectarian Loyalist party,.

I see. And do you see the future fight as being one between principally the SNP and Tories, rather than SNP and SLAB, or are the Tories essentially stuck on what they've got? Depending on how soon independence occurs, obviously.

At Holyrood it will be SNP vs Green vs Tory. At Westminster SNP vs Tory assuming that Westminster elections continue.

It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing.
These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill.
Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.

Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?

Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.

The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.

If anyone can find a video of the Derby North declaration I'd love to watch it. Thanks.

@nigel4england

'Out posting leaflets for 2020.

Don't you realize Labour have upped their ground game.'

He's been given a special leafleting assignment in Glasgow.

A Tory majority this GE is doubly bad for Labour in terms of the next leader. Firstly, it is yet another 5 years where they have a minimal intake of fresh faces, but also secondly it ensures the passage of the boundary changes which means that the new intake of MPs in 2020 will be even smaller as the non retiring ones will be shuffled so that there will probably only be a few new MPs in the safe seats - meaning that the bland, boring and useless current lot (don't forget unelectable) are likely to remain prominent for quite some time.

AndyJS said:

Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:

In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.

One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.

Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?

Lammy for me. Done good for the glorious Tottenham hotspurs.
Also said to me the other day dont believe the marginals are different...thats bollocks.

Chuka gets one vote...

@PeterMannionMP: I've said it before, but you have to admire Chuka Umunna for the superiority of his skincare regimen. #Labourleadership #GE2015

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

@rosschawkins: John Mann's not on team Chuka https://t.co/gGq0bB8AVf

No Civil war in the labour party....

(when actually it's what they really really need and it'll do them good)

This is nothing.

Wait till the SLAB civil war kicks off (the phoney war has already begun, Neil Findlay resigned from cabinet, Unions calling for Murphy's head).

#JimMustStay

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.

People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.

It's a completely bogus argument.

If we had PR, the Conservatives would have about 240 seats, and UKIP about 90. That's a right wing majority.

PR shifts the vote, depending on the system. The idea of 240 Tory seats or anything CLOSE to that is risible under PR. Even under AMS.

So too is the idea of ~ 200 Labour MPs though, Greens would be higher at their expense. So would UKIP probably !

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.

People keebogus argument.

I'd actually athat.

Why can't we question the legitimacy of government when it is below 50% or at least 45%?

There hasn't been a majority government in the UK since the 1930s and the last time it was close to 50% was 1951. In one of the 60s elections the Tories had 48% to Labours 44% and lost. It is a broken system.

Ask the Libs how many people TRULY vote for their Local Candidate. It seems virtually none. People vote for a Party because what the parties do actually matters and makes a difference to their quality of live and standard of living. Yet for nearly ONE HUNDRED years we have had the Tyranny of the Minority.

No, it's not just a question of legitimacy, it's a question of democracy. The voting system of the UK is not fit for purpose and now more than ever.

You appear to be incapable of remembering what I said just earlier today multiple times that I don't like FPTP and that your opinion on the legitimacy of a party getting a majority on less than 50% seems sound, and incapable of understanding the point I have made repeatedly about that being reasonable. Clearly I am very poor at explaining myself, even though it seemed perfectly obvious to me the distinction I was making, which was this:

Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself

Is that clear now? I'll try again.

Many people complaining about the system now are being hypocrites and so should shut up. You do not appear to be a hypocrite on this issue, so there's no problem

Now? I'll go again.

Hypocrites unhappy with Tories, not system, just pretending its the system

@glw

'Britain's smuggest man.
Mrs. Balls.
Burnham.
A bloke called Tristram.
Jarvis who's only merit seems to be a military career, which to be fair does make him better than most of the other options..'

-A Savile Row socialist.

-A New Labour relic

-Andy Mid Staffs

-A posh public schoolboy

-Jarvis ?

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.

Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?

Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.

The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.

I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

RobD said:

scotslass said:

Apologies I misread and exagerated the SNP total. They only have 60.2 per cent on Survation sub sample not 62 per cent!


SNP 60.2% : Lab 12.6% : Con 12.2% : LD 3.9% : UKIP 3.7% : Grn 1.6%

I was promised a Tory surge

Mundell would still hang on. Like a effing limpet that man.

The Tories had best hope he doesn't decide to retire - your guys ran him close, and they won't want to risk losing whatever incumbency bonus he has.

A Labout vote of 7718 on the 7th May 2015 says that in 2020 (if there are still Scottish elections for Westminster) that Mundell is gone.

Hey, it wasn't me who described the man as a limpet, you may well be right, one should think it would be hard for the Tories to move forwards or Labour go backwards in 2020, but who can say, this election was weird enough.

I think that SLAB might have got in early with the "vote for us to get out the Tories with Lib Dem style "Winning Here" leaflets and broken bar charts. That probably actually secured some of their vote who went SNP everywhere and ONLY because it was a Tory holding the seat.

Effectively Mundell survives because 7718 anti Tories were persuaded that Labour were the best chance to get rid of him and weren't engaged enough to know this was bullshit. There's no Loyalist vote there, no hardcore NI style proddy Unionists. Mundell is toast.

IF and it remains a huge IF there is a 2020 Westminster election in Scotland.

840 Greens, 798 majority. £15 @ 2.66

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Labour now have 96 seats out of 96 on Manchester council.

Labour's problem is piling up huge majorities in places they hold..

that used to be the Tory problem

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.

People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.

It's a completely bogus argument.

If we had PR, the Conservatives would have about 240 seats, and UKIP about 90. That's a right wing majority.

PR shifts the vote, depending on the system. The idea of 240 Tory seats or anything CLOSE to that is risible under PR. Even under AMS.

So too is the idea of ~ 200 Labour MPs though, Greens would be higher at their expense. So would UKIP probably !

Did you see my PM?

Nope haven't got one from you...

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.

Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?

Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.

The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.

Whilst lots of MPs weren't there. Andrew Rawnsley put it well. Tories are always moaning about Bercow being biased. Ask them for examples and they suddenly go quiet. Cameron is a narrow minded bully who doesn't being stood up to. Like many PMs before him I'm sure he'd prefer a patsy as Speaker.

Slackbladder said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

@rosschawkins: John Mann's not on team Chuka https://t.co/gGq0bB8AVf

No Civil war in the labour party....

(when actually it's what they really really need and it'll do them good)

John Mann is so right in his assessment of Umunna. If Labour elect him as their leader, then they are fools.

Agreed... Umunna isnt the guy,

No-one in Labour is "the guy".

Labour cannot offer the answer.

They fundamentally do not understand how politics works. Now, having said that, they did get 13 years in power thanks to Blair's nonsense. But it could have been forever. they just bottled it.

Social Democracy is a perfectly viable political model. It also creates long term stable government and society. The problem with Labour is they had leaders who wanted Socialism and when that was rejected they went for Liberalism. They never stood for Social Democracy.

The model isn't hard to work out, instead of aiming for a 35% tax take, you have a 40% tax take, you have very strict and very interfering social services, you have extremely generous benefits and you have higher taxes. It works. It might not be what you want, but the idea that it fails is utter nonsense in the face of successful long term Social Democratic countries.

Labour don't stand for this, when they should. They don;t have a clue how to create an offer to the public and STICK with it thorugh 2 or 3 or 4 electoral defeats. Because once you create a Social Democracy, very few people don't want it. Some never will, some will be scared of it. but if Labour had gone for Social Democracy and stuck with it, they would have won in 97 and never looked back, never built the debt (because you balance the budget based on social needs) and provided an alternative.

Labour cannot offer this, they are too full of career politicials desperate for power and who have no interest in message or policy. It is failed party, it needs to die along with the Liberals (who aren;t Liberal) and UKIP who offer nothing.

In reality the Tories won by default. And will likely win again. By default.

FrankBooth said:

Tories are always moaning about Bercow being biased. Ask them for examples and they suddenly go quiet.

He completely scuppered the EAW vote by announcing it wasn't a vote before the Home Secretary explained it.

EDIT: Actually, he only tried to scupper it. It went through despite his best efforts. He gave it a good shot though.