UK General Election - May 7th 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:17:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Election - May 7th 2015
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 75
Author Topic: UK General Election - May 7th 2015  (Read 275003 times)
joevsimp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 482


Political Matrix
E: -5.95, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #300 on: July 26, 2014, 09:21:08 AM »
« edited: July 26, 2014, 04:02:59 PM by joevsimp »



Yes it's still very striking how you can go on a half hour drive and instinctively know whether you're in a Labour or Tory area. Inner cities just feel like Labour strongholds. When you go through many leafy suburban towns you can't imagine anything other than a large Tory majority.

Having said that the class divide is quite a bit less stark than when I was growing up in the 70's and it seems to be gradually lessening with time.


then again you get towns like Reading where both seats (east and west) are Tory-held but the centre and south of town feel very old Labour, like this gem of late 80s municipal loony leftism (not meant as an insult btw, just couldn't think of a better way to put it)

Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #301 on: July 26, 2014, 10:52:16 AM »
« Edited: July 26, 2014, 10:55:06 AM by YL »

Reading is a classic case of a "sandwich" electoral map, with the core of the town split between two seats which both contain areas outside the town proper.  I'm pretty sure if there were a single Reading seat it would be Labour.  In Reading East the problems with the 1997-2005 MP (who got deselected) may also have affected Labour's recent performance.

The bits of West Berkshire district in Reading West are particularly Tory.  However, the 2007 result in one of the wards, Calcot, suggests that sometimes deed polls may be a good idea for council candidates.

Brian Bedwell (C) 1507
Peter Argyle (C) 1354    
Manohar Gopal (C) 1254    
Edmund Savage (Ind) 531
Glenn Dennis (Lab) 504
Chris Day (LD) 311
Gina Houghton (LD)   282    
Jacob Sanders (Grn) 270
Mark Thatcher (LD) 197

(from Andrew Teale's website)    
 

Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #302 on: July 26, 2014, 06:48:24 PM »

Some more thoughts on EdM/DavidM.

The funny thing about the whole "David would've been PM-in-waiting, Ed isn't" is that one of the things that brought the last minute swing to Ed in the leadership election was the perception that David was too wonky and cold and too geeky and robotic, to the point where many thought he'd never connect with voters. Seeing this, the Ed camp launched the 'Ed Speaks Human' meme (which was quickly forgotten by the press as soon as the result was announced, of course) in an indirect attack on David's (in)ability to connect with people.

I doubt it had much effect within the unions or the membership caucuses, but I'm sure undecided MPs will have taken that argument into account considering many had (apparently) been on the receiving end of David's... coldness. And of course, 1 MP/MEP is worth thousands of union/members votes under the Labour electoral college.

If you watch some of a David speech, then some of an Ed speech, the only real difference in terms of charisma/presentation (whatever you want to call it) is Ed's lisp.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #303 on: July 26, 2014, 06:59:09 PM »

What did for David Miliband was the failure of certain unpopular supporters of his to keep shtum.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #304 on: July 27, 2014, 06:28:55 AM »

From John Rentoul in his Independent blog:

The Kinnock Comparison

The point of the Newark by-election for Ed Miliband, however, is that Labour was nowhere. The relevant comparisons for Labour are the Monmouth by-election in May 1991, won from the Conservatives by Huw Edwards for Labour, and Langbaurgh in November 1991, taken from the Tories by Ashok Kumar, Labour.

Those were before Neil Kinnock went on to lose the general election in April 1992.

Last Sunday I asked if in Miliband Labour has got its Kinnock back. Actually, it is not even doing that well.

Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #305 on: July 27, 2014, 06:38:02 AM »

Does that mean that Miliband's future son/daughter-in-law will become President of the European Council?
Logged
EPG
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 992
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #306 on: July 27, 2014, 07:06:28 AM »

Does that mean that Miliband's future son/daughter-in-law will become President of the European Council?

He already has a high-powered relative who'd love it...
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #307 on: July 27, 2014, 12:22:31 PM »

From John Rentoul in his Independent blog:

The Kinnock Comparison

The point of the Newark by-election for Ed Miliband, however, is that Labour was nowhere. The relevant comparisons for Labour are the Monmouth by-election in May 1991, won from the Conservatives by Huw Edwards for Labour, and Langbaurgh in November 1991, taken from the Tories by Ashok Kumar, Labour.

Those were before Neil Kinnock went on to lose the general election in April 1992.

Last Sunday I asked if in Miliband Labour has got its Kinnock back. Actually, it is not even doing that well.



Neil Kinnock didn't have Nigel Farage to deal with though.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #308 on: July 27, 2014, 02:34:42 PM »

The thing about the Miliband concern trolling is that it's so incredibly boring. You'd expect something like this to at least be interesting, but it's not.
Logged
FredLindq
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #309 on: July 27, 2014, 04:08:57 PM »

Have I missled something. Is not Labour leasing in the polls?! And does not the Tories need like a nine point lead to get its own majority? And what about this fact, will not the boundaries change in order to be more representative?
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #310 on: July 27, 2014, 04:23:47 PM »

Have I missled something. Is not Labour leasing in the polls?! And does not the Tories need like a nine point lead to get its own majority? And what about this fact, will not the boundaries change in order to be more representative?

No, you're right, but there are a lot of people (particularly those in the Conservative supporting media, as well as vehement opponents of Miliband within the Labour party) who think that somehow the Conservatives will magic up a second term utilising a combination of Ed Miliband's seeming lack of credibility and the slow but steady recovery. This analysis conveniently ignores the steep obstacles to this as you outlined above. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (of course, I'm not expert but whatever), Labour have done a pretty p*** poor job in opposition, and certainly appear to be making things more difficult for themselves. However, despite the now incessant negative coverage of Labour (particularly centred upon Miliband and his advisors), Labour still maintain a small but relatively solid lead of 3-5 points in the polls. I won't rule out a Conservative victory next year; but I wouldn't bet anything on it unless something big swings the polls in the favour of the Conservatives.
Logged
FredLindq
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #311 on: July 28, 2014, 02:34:08 AM »

Thanks! (As you can se My spellchecker is making fun out off me).

What about a boundary change?! Not even Labour can think that the current system is fair?!
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #312 on: July 28, 2014, 03:42:12 AM »

Thanks! (As you can se My spellchecker is making fun out off me).

What about a boundary change?! Not even Labour can think that the current system is fair?!

Let's not forget than new boundaries were made for the 2010 election. A new map under current rules wouldn't change much. Labour vote is just better distributed (a Conservative majority is bigger in a safe seat than Labour in its own seats, especially considering how turnout is lower in cities than rural areas. I've also heard people saying than Labour ground game was better in swing ridings. You know, under FPTP, the election isn't really national, it's in the swing seat. It doesn't matter if you win a safe seat by 10k or 15k votes, you must win in swing seats. It's not proportionnal, it's FPTP and expectations aren't the same.
 
Conservatives tried, but it was voted down. Labour said they opposed the reduction in seats (from 650 to 600) and Liberal Democrats weren't liking the proposal map (it was apparently quite bad for them). And there was few other issues (going from a 10% deviation to a 5% one, which caused unlogical seats, because the commission had no leeway) and the insistance of the English commission to not split wards (commission just added whole wards until they had the right number, even if it was linking two random areas, cutting senselessly a city or the horrible "Mersey Bank", which had wards on both sides of the Mersey estuary, even if nobody would consider those areas to be linked and the fact there is no way to cross the river in that area!").

Liberal Democrats and Labour voted to postpone the boundary change. New process will begin in 2015, for new boundaries in 2018.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #313 on: July 28, 2014, 06:50:27 AM »

Boundary change will always be bad for the LibDems because of the nature of their targeting strategy.

I think Clegg's seat became a LibDem-leaning marginal which would, quite easily, go to Labour because of wards that would've been taken in from Penistone, where the Libs don't have a ground game.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #314 on: July 28, 2014, 01:22:02 PM »

Using the data published by Electoral Calculus as to how similar the new proposed seat was to the old, I came up with the following alternative General Election 2010

Conservatives 296 seats
Labour 234 seats
Liberal Democrats 47 seats
Democratic Unionists 6 seats
Scottish Nationalists 6 seats
Sinn Fein 6 seats
SDLP 2 seats
Plaid Cymru 1 seat
Alliance 1 seat
Northern Ireland Independents 1 seat
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #315 on: July 28, 2014, 01:45:33 PM »

Have I missled something. Is not Labour leasing in the polls?! And does not the Tories need like a nine point lead to get its own majority? And what about this fact, will not the boundaries change in order to be more representative?

No, you're right, but there are a lot of people (particularly those in the Conservative supporting media, as well as vehement opponents of Miliband within the Labour party) who think that somehow the Conservatives will magic up a second term utilising a combination of Ed Miliband's seeming lack of credibility and the slow but steady recovery.

The promised EU-Referendum is was the third Tory-hope.

The thought that a referendum pledge would stop UKIP in it's tracks ended a long time ago now.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #316 on: July 28, 2014, 02:33:36 PM »

The first 600-proposal was indeed bad for LD, I don't know, how the Tories wanted to come through with it in Parliament. The second version then was - what coincidence! - clearly better for the LDs.

I thought the Lib Dems voted against the new boundaries because Cameron failed to get his fellow Tories to accept House Of Lords reform. 
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #317 on: July 28, 2014, 03:27:54 PM »

The first 600-proposal was indeed bad for LD, I don't know, how the Tories wanted to come through with it in Parliament. The second version then was - what coincidence! - clearly better for the LDs.

I thought the Lib Dems voted against the new boundaries because Cameron failed to get his fellow Tories to accept House Of Lords reform. 

That was their public reason, and I don't doubt it was part of it, but I suspect the realisation that the new boundaries were likely to be troublesome for them, and for their leader in particular, may have had something to do with it too.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #318 on: July 28, 2014, 04:04:09 PM »

The Tories on their lowest ever with ComRes tonight at 27%.

Terrible news for Ed Miliband.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #319 on: July 28, 2014, 04:17:30 PM »

The Tories on their lowest ever with ComRes tonight at 27%.

Terrible news for Ed Miliband.

But UKIP at 17 and Greens at 7 isn't believable.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #320 on: July 29, 2014, 04:43:58 AM »

Even since the UKIP surge in 2013, I have become convinced that the next election will see the following vote shares:

Conservatives 30%
Labour 30%
UKIP 20%
Liberal Democrats 10%
Greens 5%
Others 5%

According to Electoral Calculus, that would result in a House of Commons with: Labour 317, Conservatives 274, Liberal Democrats 29, SNP 7, Plaid 3, Greens 1, Northern Ireland 18
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #321 on: July 29, 2014, 02:31:22 PM »

Even since the UKIP surge in 2013, I have become convinced that the next election will see the following vote shares:

Conservatives 30%
Labour 30%
UKIP 20%
Liberal Democrats 10%
Greens 5%
Others 5%

According to Electoral Calculus, that would result in a House of Commons with: Labour 317, Conservatives 274, Liberal Democrats 29, SNP 7, Plaid 3, Greens 1, Northern Ireland 18

UNS will be even more irrelevant this time round. I think UKIP could get more than 10 if that was the vote share.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #322 on: July 29, 2014, 03:13:51 PM »

The Tories on their lowest ever with ComRes tonight at 27%.

Terrible news for Ed Miliband.

But UKIP at 17 and Greens at 7 isn't believable.

This poll has the combined Lab and Con share on only 60%.  For comparison YouGov this morning made it 72% (and the last six YouGov polls have all had it above 70%) and most other polls (barring a couple of polls in the rather volatile Ashcroft series) have had it at least in the mid-60s.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #323 on: July 29, 2014, 06:32:09 PM »

UNS will be even more irrelevant this time round.

Said people just before every single General Election since 1970...
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #324 on: July 29, 2014, 08:59:23 PM »

Even since the UKIP surge in 2013, I have become convinced that the next election will see the following vote shares:

Conservatives 30%
Labour 30%
UKIP 20%
Liberal Democrats 10%
Greens 5%
Others 5%

According to Electoral Calculus, that would result in a House of Commons with: Labour 317, Conservatives 274, Liberal Democrats 29, SNP 7, Plaid 3, Greens 1, Northern Ireland 18

UNS will be even more irrelevant this time round. I think UKIP could get more than 10 if that was the vote share.

What seats would UKIP possibly win, other than Farage's?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 75  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.