UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Example of why the Lord Ashcroft model is almost certainly junk

Poll of Northeast voters:
Labour 42.6%
Conservative 32.9%

How the Northeast actually voted:
Labour 46.8%
Conservative 25.3%

There are massive sampling issues here. I doubt that they can be resolved easily as it is most likely a case of Labour voters not wanting to respond to surveys. This could mean that they won't be voting or are shy Tories but it could also mean that they are shy Labour voters.

[Blair]

The only reason David miliband came close in 2010 was the rules that gave a ridiculous amount of power to the moderate PLP, which has been scraped in favour of one member one vote. So yes the blairties are irrelevant and lack grassroots support. I mean ok he did win Labour Party members but he lost affiliated members which make up a much larger number than Labour Party members and im pretty sure they count as the grassroot.

It didn't give a ridiculous amount- it gave it equal weighting, which considering that MPs in both parties have [almost always picked the right leader, (with the exception of Hague in 1997) is actually a rather modest proposal.

The left fixed in the leadership election in 2010 and succeeded, whilst the moderates tried it in 2016 and failed.

As someone who has worked for leadership campaigns I can assure you that affiliated members are absolutely worthless now, but have just been cancelled out by the 'new' members. Of course I'd argue the true grassroots of the party e.g those who actually doorknock, run for councils, etc are actually relatively in the centre of the party (hence why Sadiq and Tom won in 2015)

[bore]

Possibly the weirdest development in British politics over the last few years, and there is a lot of competition, is the recasting of David Miliband as the reincarnation of Jesus, Lincoln and Martin Luther King all rolled up into one, rather than the nice but wet blanket charisma vacumn that he actually was.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most Labour members - and note that the membership is not and never has been stable; people drift in and out, always have done - are not particularly closely aligned to this or that faction. And what is true for members applies double - quadruple perhaps even - for voters...

[Phony Moderate]

Possibly the weirdest development in British politics over the last few years, and there is a lot of competition, is the recasting of David Miliband as the reincarnation of Jesus, Lincoln and Martin Luther King all rolled up into one, rather than the nice but wet blanket charisma vacumn that he actually was.

FBM, as in Flawless Beautiful Miliband.

[PoliticalShelter]

Possibly the weirdest development in British politics over the last few years, and there is a lot of competition, is the recasting of David Miliband as the reincarnation of Jesus, Lincoln and Martin Luther King all rolled up into one, rather than the nice but wet blanket charisma vacumn that he actually was.

FBM, as in Flawless Beautiful Miliband.

I think the basic assumption with David is basically "As the new leader of the blairites he must have all of Tony's political talents and electoral success!" Liz Kendall sought of tried to do a similar thing as well.

[PoliticalShelter]

The only reason David miliband came close in 2010 was the rules that gave a ridiculous amount of power to the moderate PLP, which has been scraped in favour of one member one vote. So yes the blairties are irrelevant and lack grassroots support. I mean ok he did win Labour Party members but he lost affiliated members which make up a much larger number than Labour Party members and im pretty sure they count as the grassroot.

It didn't give a ridiculous amount- it gave it equal weighting, which considering that MPs in both parties have [almost always picked the right leader, (with the exception of Hague in 1997) is actually a rather modest proposal.

The left fixed in the leadership election in 2010 and succeeded, whilst the moderates tried it in 2016 and failed.

As someone who has worked for leadership campaigns I can assure you that affiliated members are absolutely worthless now, but have just been cancelled out by the 'new' members. Of course I'd argue the true grassroots of the party e.g those who actually doorknock, run for councils, etc are actually relatively in the centre of the party (hence why Sadiq and Tom won in 2015)

Having labour MPs vote be worth 600 times more than a party member is not partcularly fair, and if the justification is "labour MPs know best" is not a healthy way to run a political party and really isn't true (unless you believe that David miliband is as wonderful as the press thinks).

Edit: found out about the union envelope thing so ignore that section

[Blair]

Having labour MPs vote be worth 600 times more than a party member is not partcularly fair, and if the justification is "labour MPs know best" is not a healthy way to run a political party and really isn't true (unless you believe that David miliband is as wonderful as the press thinks).

Also the idea that the left cheated in 2010 is only true in the extent that the moderates were about win after losing the membership vote by almost 30,000. The only argument of course is that affiliated members somehow don't count, but then as someone said the labour membership is not particularly stable anyway and changes quite frequently. (And it's silly to think they shouldn't have a say anyway)

edit: I don't even know what I'm arguing about anymore. All the factions in the party use dirty tricks+David Miliband was more popular in 2010, and we'd be less likely to be in this mess if he had become leader

[parochial boy]

I think the major difference that David Milliband might have made compared to Ed is that he would have argued against the Tory "Labour spending created the recession" fiction; whereas Ed just kind of rolled over and let the Tories dictate what "competent" economic management was supposed to be.

[afleitch]

Meanwhile in Scotland

[PoliticalShelter]

I think the major difference that David Milliband might have made compared to Ed is that he would have argued against the Tory "Labour spending created the recession" fiction; whereas Ed just kind of rolled over and let the Tories dictate what "competent" economic management was supposed to be.

Not really, if anything David's blairite instinct would of been to try and eliminate it as an contentious issue between the two parties or possibly go further and try to outdo the Tories, to try to impress swing voters.

[afleitch]

Problem is Labour would rather have the Tories rule until the sun expands than have a Blairite lead them to victory.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Problem is Labour would rather have the Tories rule until the sun expands than have a Blairite lead them to victory.

Which is how they should feel, considering Blair led them to war. You have to be certain your leaders have the proper morals.

[Devout Centrist]

As contentious as the Iraq war was, I find it funny that its aftermath still impacts British political discourse, but it rarely comes up in America.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

As contentious as the Iraq war was, I find it funny that its aftermath still impacts British political discourse, but it rarely comes up in America.

Kind of tanked Jeb!

[Maxwell]

As contentious as the Iraq war was, I find it funny that its aftermath still impacts British political discourse, but it rarely comes up in America.

Kind of tanked Jeb!

Jeb! kind of tanked Jeb!. I mean I see your point in that the GOP voters wished to rid themselves of being connected at the hip to that policy, but still.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

YouGov: Con 49, Labour 31, LDem 9, UKIP 3, Others ??
ComRes: Con 48, Labour 30, LDem 10, UKIP 5, SNP 4, Greens 3
Opinium: Con 47, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 5, SNP 5 Greens 2
ORB: Con 46, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 7, Others ??

[Frodo]

YouGov: Con 49, Labour 31, LDem 9, UKIP 3, Others ??
ComRes: Con 48, Labour 30, LDem 10, UKIP 5, SNP 4, Greens 3
Opinium: Con 47, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 5, SNP 5 Greens 2
ORB: Con 46, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 7, Others ??

At which point can we confidently predict Conservatives winning a minimum of 400 seats in the House of Commons?  The percentages presented here seem to suggest that would be the outcome. 

[jaichind]

YouGov: Con 49, Labour 31, LDem 9, UKIP 3, Others ??
ComRes: Con 48, Labour 30, LDem 10, UKIP 5, SNP 4, Greens 3
Opinium: Con 47, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 5, SNP 5 Greens 2
ORB: Con 46, Labour 32, LDem 8, UKIP 7, Others ??

At which point can we confidently predict Conservatives winning a minimum of 400 seats in the House of Commons?  The percentages presented here seem to suggest that would be the outcome. 

Actually, if LAB vote gets up to 31%-32% then all things equal I think CON will miss, by a small margin, getting above 400 seats.  Most recent polls seems to indicate that getting to 31% GB vote share (and even beating 2015 GB vote share) seems within reach for LAB.

[Vosem]

I don't think it would be accurate at all to say that Iraq has faded from American political discourse; the distinction between Hillary's AYE vote and Bernie's NAY vote (and Obama's activism against the decision) was a key part of the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primary campaigns. There is perhaps a different perspective since in the US Hillary thumped Bernie pretty decisively while Corbyn won easily in the UK.

The right has to a large extent moved on (it certainly didn't help Jeb, but it seems hard to say that it was what sunk him, since most of the candidates were on record having either supported it in that era or simply hadn't entered politics yet), and this seems to be the case in the UK as well as the US: I didn't see the Iraq war being a factor in May v. Leadsom, or in Trump v. Cruz.

[thumb21]

Chances the Tories break 50%?

I mean they are almost there already and may be underrepresented in the polls because they don't account for the fact that UKIP isn't running in loads of constituencies and those votes will mostly go Conservative.

[jaichind]

It seems at the rate we are going UKIP's vote share in 2017 might be barely larger than 2010 even though that is more of a function of  running a lot less candidates in 2017 than 2010.

[jaichind]

Jeb! kind of tanked Jeb!. I mean I see your point in that the GOP voters wished to rid themselves of being connected at the hip to that policy, but still.

For sure.  That was one of the main reasons I did not back Jeb Bush in the GOP primaries in 2016 and backed Rubio instead.  It was not even Jeb Bush's position on Iraq which was ambiguous but more of a matter of him being linked to his brother.  In theory on the other side the neocon vote should have go to Jeb Bush but did not seems to have taken place.

[Vosem]

It seems at the rate we are going UKIP's vote share in 2017 might be barely larger than 2010 even though that is more of a function of  running a lot less candidates in 2017 than 2010.

Will be interesting if the collapse is across-the-board or if UKIP can establish a LibDem-style niche, holding up their vote in a few stronghold seats (their three most obvious targets being Thurrock, Hartlepool, and Boston & Skegness).

[Barnes]

The thing is, though, those Lib Dem areas are, in many cases, areas which had extended support for the Liberals stretching back to the 19th century. Voting Liberal is really rather generational, just like paying homage to the household gods.