UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[Blair]

My prediction is

Torie : 397
Labour : 121
Lib Dem: 60(they come 2nd in popular vote )
SNP: 54
UKIP:11
Others :7

This would be more seats than the Liberals got in 2010; and would require them to win not only 20 odd seats off the tories, but also about 30 off Labour.

Besides UKIP are not getting 11

[Blair]

I think  Corbyn logic for staying on  if LAB gets beaten badly is superficially that he has been in charge for two years and that is too short to judge leadership performance.

But I think at a deeper level I suspect he has a particular view of electoral history.  He mostly likely views election cycles as mostly fixed.  Meaning once an incumbent party has been in charge enough political debt, contradictions, and internal conflict  build up to the point that they will be beaten at the polls regardless of the opposition.  So in his mind Tony Blair or New Labor was not necessary to win in 1997.  A LAB party led by Corbyn or Foot for example would have won in 1997 as well, perhaps will a smaller majority. So in his mind, losing in 2017, perhaps badly, and losing in 2022 is par for the course.  As long as he or someone from the Far Left is in charge of LAB by 2027 when the CON government has been charge long enough then his agenda can be implemented under a Far Left LAB government.  In fact losing badly in 2017 would be a feature and not a bug.  Losing all marginal LAB seats would mean that PLP will lean even more Left making even easier for Corbyn's successor to be from the Far Left.

One can agree or disagree with Corbyn's view of electoral cycle history but I suspect this how he feels.  There are data to back up his view.  Trump's 2016 victory would be evidence of this view.  I very flawed candidate was able to win based on the anti-incumbency effect of a party being in power for 8 years and an open seat.

Only other alternative is that  Corbyn is actually a deep double agenda working for the CON party.

Partly true- Corbyn doesn't believe that the 'cycle' will eventually lead to a socialist election victory (as Al noted Labour go through very long, violent opposition spells), but rather that the best way to continue the cause is wait until conference to try and change the rules.

As many Corbynites have briefed there is a danger of Tom Watson sitting on the leadership until Autumn, bringing back the old electoral college and then giving the crown to Yvette. Lots of my labour friends have been talking about Yvette as the next leader. She's the type of person who always appealed to the Labor HQ types.

It seems likely Chukka would run against her- and ironically could do it from the left on a couple of issues.

[Blair]

Tories now trumpeting the 'Coalition of Chaos' line again. Either their private polling is showing a closer election than the public polling or they are worried about being hurt by low turnout.

Ftr, there was a report a few weeks ago of Tory private polling showing that about 25 seats could be lost to the Lib Dems.

Someone who I'm friends with at uni (my one token tory friend) who is interning on the North-West campaign says that they did Ashcroft polling (the constituency level one) in the South east was not looking good- but they're targeting seats with less than an 8k majority.

I'd still say that the Lib Dems could easily get 20 seats- in 2015 the polls overestimated their seats, and ignored their vote count, but this time they may only get 3-4% higher but could triple their seats.

On an unrelated note Dawn Butlers radio 4 interview was one of the more awful I've heard- and Mike Kane on sky news was just as terrible

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304

[Blair]

The two big problems for labour is that I've had more emails/messages from people in the party about who we'll support after June in a leadership race, and who will get nominated in my safe seat (to help the balance of the PLP)

The other big problem is the complete lack of talent; I know people say it doesn't really matter but the people Labour are sending around the TV studios/radio 4 are absolutely awful. It's currently just been a cycle of Dianne Abbott, Emily Thornberry, Dawn Butler and John Mcdonnell.

You need good surrogates to the do the hours of media clips

[Blair]

It seems that there are two parallel LAB campaigns.  Corbyn will tour districts the party needs to win to gain a majority in Parliament, while party’s headquarter,who control party funds and Corbyn as a liability, plan the defense of seats with majorities of 5K votes or more, conceding LAB seats with majorities of 5K or less as lost.

I was reading to get a majority we need to win David Davis' seat of Monmouth which has a 11,000 majority.

It's going to be a defensive campaign; the only relatively good thing is that we may save some seats with low majorities, like Ilford North, which is Wes Streetings seat, as he's a very good local MP but we could easily lose seats with a 8k+, especially if there's a high leave vote.

Basically as we know- national swing won't represent itself the same way in every seat, and we're going to get some very weird results

[Blair]

in order for Labour to get a majority of 1 they'd need a uniform swing around the levels that Blair got in 1997

I think it's fair to say that using Scotland ended up bad for Labour

How? Wouldn't a hung parliament most likely lead to a Labour-SNP government?

Forcing a hung parliament shouldn't be hard (let's forget about the polling for a second).

The quirk of our system is that you don't need a Labour-SNP government (e.g SNP having cabinet posts) but you'd rather just say to the SNP that they should support the government on confidence votes+budget+Queens Speech in exchange for some changes.

An interesting change is that a lot of 'unionist' voters are now voting in a bloc in Scotland more so than in 2015 (or so I've read)

So we could have a lot of Labour/Liberals voting for Tories in certain seats, and so on.

[Blair]

The LibDems have just nominated an unrepentant racist at Bradford East.

Is that the same guy who use to be their MP?

[Blair]

I mean the Greens offered us the pact- and as a condition asked for us to stand down a sitting MP in Bristol East (who's name I can't spell off the top of my head) for the green Candidate.

The Greens have very little to gain from a pact beyond keeping their Brighton Seat

[Blair]

Notorious fruitloop LibDem ex- MP John Hemming is standing again against notorious rent a gob Jess Phillips.

The man who has had 26 affairs according to his own wife

[Blair]

Is there any indication Corbyn actually want to win, or even have a good enough result so as to gain seats? Or is he basically the death wish personified?

Well he's visiting target seats but no...

He never wanted to run for the leadership in 2015, he then never expected to win, and then wanted to leave last summer during the no-confidence vote. He'd 'apparently' given a retirement date to his inner circle, and it was expected he'd leave after conference this autumn, or at the latest stay until 2018-2019.

I mean ideally the PLP would have replaced him with Yvette Cooper/Hilary Benn, and turned a landslide into a moderate loss.

As Barnes and Al also say, it really needs to be screamed that Theresa May really isn't a good politician. She's absolutely awful off-script, and has a horrible work attitude (something like 6 staff members have quit downing street) and there's tons of horror stories from her time in the Home Office.

However by being Home Secretary for 6 years, along with a robotic bore on Brexit she's managed to appear 'competent'. The big problem for the tories is that there is no PM in waiting

 

[Blair]

However by being Home Secretary for 6 years, along with a robotic bore on Brexit she's managed to appear 'competent'. The big problem for the tories is that there is no PM in waiting 

If/when May finally becomes unpopular Ruth Davidson may become to her premiership what Boris Johnson was to much of Cameron's.

I'm just looking at a list of the current cabinet members and I'd forgotten how atrocious it is. Has-beens, fruitcakes, nonentities, incompetents. Just awful.

I'm surprised that Ruth Davidson isn't going for a seat, although the moment she got into parliament every move would be seen through the leadership prism; so it may suit her to wait until 2020.

I only worked out how bad it was after talking to a Tory friend of mine who pointed out that the two leading contenders are Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond who, and I quote 'has a problem with the gays'.

[Blair]

As I said earlier it's because no voters are beginning to vote as 'unionist' voters. The SNP got 56 seats with 50% of the vote in 2015.

Labour are heading towards the levels of Pasok in Scotland. Much like Brexit we have absolutely no stance on independence

[Blair]

Interesting developments on Marr and other sunday shows this morning.

Corbyn questioned over pressing the nuclear button, and drone strikes, and gave well the same answer he's been giving for the last 2 years. He ignited the old labour war over Trident by saying it may not be in the manifesto; every 2-3 months we seem to have this battle, and LOTO then remembers that not only is it policy from conference, but virtually the entire Labour family supports it.

Paul Nutall says he may not stand in the election- which is hilarious.

[Blair]

Tim Farron is continuing to dig himself into a hole over whether gay sex is a sin. 

[Blair]

question: isn't there some sort of Fairness Doctrine type thing that requires tv/radio to give equal time to May supporters and Corbyn supporters or something to that effect? and/or maybe equal positive coverage of both for the duration of the campaign?

If so I think Corbyn might get an unexpected (if small) bump in the polls on account of receiving positive news coverage for once

Yep- I can't remember the formal name but the coverage has to be equal. It was laughable during the referendum as Remain would have Admirals/Generals etc come out in favour, and Leave get equal coverage for some far right Academic (the same applies on the far left; like TUSC getting a Party Political broadcast in 2015) but I'm a biased hack

[Blair]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-trade-unions-safe-vacant-labour-seats-carve-up-deal-tom-watson_uk_58ffb9dce4b0073d3e7a21c5?

For those who care about internal Labour Politics... this is probably best for all factions, and from my rough math doesn't radically alter the PLP. Good to see that Ellie Reeves could become my local MP

[Blair]

YouGov:
Con - 45% (-3)
Lab - 29% (+4)
Lib - 10% (-2)
UKIP - 7% (+2)
Oth - 9% (+1)

Gap narrowed by seven points since last week.

Could be just a regression to the mean but from afar it seems like Labour has been focusing on rolling out policy initiatives that should be popular each day of the campaign (more bank holidays, NHS staff pay raises) while May has been less active. So while the poll is still awful for Labour, I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some real movement.

As an aside, I'm disappointed in the decisions being made by the NEC in divvying up the retirees safe seats. High-profile Corbynites were passed over in Hull West today. Parachuting in left-faction members into safe seats was (imo) the best chance to ensure a left candidate reaches the ballot in the next leadership race, since I'm sure that there will be no moderates lending nominations like in 2015. As an aside, I imagine that the fear of Corbyn-friendly replacements was one of the reasons that there were so few Labour retirements this time around.

Yes- moderates like Harriet Harman, Margret Hodge etc where going to stand down in 2020 but have stood just for that reason. People in the PLP are pissed at Alan Johnson for stepping down (and for not standing for the leadership in 2010/2014/2015)

The Corbynites (and I mean those directly from the leaders office) would need to win every single selection to have a 100% chance of getting on the ballot. What is happening is that the unions (Unite/Unison/GMB) are dividing up the seats between them- which is leading to generally hackish, and lack luster people getting safe seats. Besides the Corbynites being picked where crap

For what it's worth Progress (and the actual blairites, of which they are about 30 in the PLP) are likely to do just as badly as the Corbynites.

TL;DR: Like all things in Labour when the unions work together on a cause they generally get it

[Blair]

The only thing I know about Bob Marshall-Andrews is that my soon to be retired MP Jim Dowd punched him in 2007

[Blair]

Paul Nuttall will contest a yet to be revealed seat.

Hearing it's either Stoke (lol), Leigh (even more lol) or Hartlepool

Problem is that while Labour's policies test well, the popularity of Corbyn is just that bad. In fact, there was a poll that found said policies actually were less popular when people were told they were Labour policies.

Saw it described on twitter as 'do you like having sex?... 'Yes'... 'do you want to have sex with that old man?... 'no'

It's worth noting IIRC that in the 80's Labour policies generally won in the opinion polls

[Blair]

I assume its polling done by Gina Millers group, or some other well funded anti-brexit group. Labour won't stand aside though; namely because said anti-brexit group has just as good a claim to run against Kate Hoey (a lab MP) in Vauxhall

Is there a consensus on here that the Conservatives under PM Theresa May are on the brink of their own version of the 1997 general election?

Eh I'm a tad bias but it's not 1997 in it's feeling. Blair remodeled the party in 1997 (and hence the dominance New Labour had over the party machine for the next 13 years) yet May (and her own brand of conservatism) isn't that popular within the conservative party.

1997 was in a sense a good bookmark for British Politics (as 1945/1979 was) but 2017 doesn't have that same feeling to it.

[Blair]

I assume its polling done by Gina Millers group, or some other well funded anti-brexit group. Labour won't stand aside though; namely because said anti-brexit group has just as good a claim to run against Kate Hoey (a lab MP) in Vauxhall

Is there a consensus on here that the Conservatives under PM Theresa May are on the brink of their own version of the 1997 general election?

Eh I'm a tad bias but it's not 1997 in it's feeling. Blair remodeled the party in 1997 (and hence the dominance New Labour had over the party machine for the next 13 years) yet May (and her own brand of conservatism) isn't that popular within the conservative party.

1997 was in a sense a good bookmark for British Politics (as 1945/1979 was) but 2017 doesn't have that same feeling to it.

Is there a particular wing/faction May is part of? Is she unpopular with the Liam Fox's of this world or the David Camerons of that old world?

No; I'm not sure what the new MP's will be like (the 2010 intake was very eurosceptic) but the current party doesn't really love her. Sure if she gets a 150 seat majority they'll keep quiet, but she doesn't have a core group of 50-60 MPs and a handful group of ministers (something Blair/Brown/Cameron had)

She's more unpopular with the Cameron wing; and that will only get worse with Brexit imo

[Blair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTWm0s7ZwDY

[Blair]

Felt sorry for Dianne- she usually comes out with utter sh**t, but the problem this time was she had a meltdown afterwards! It managed to break through as well- as I saw non-political types talking about it on facebook.

Labour's big problem is that we only have about 5 people in the cabinet who can do media appearances.

Tories have got a new poster out today; I'll try and find the image, but it's nothing too shocking

[Blair]

Was it you Al (or did I read in in the New Statesmen) that she's like Baldwin in that she could go from being a very popular PM who wins a big election mandate (Baldwin in '35) and then 4/5 years later is considered a national failure, who was being heckled in the street...

Also the idea that 'Brussels' want Theresa May to lose is laughable; because even if Jeremy Corbyn was  devout europhile (spoiler his voting record is much more anti-EU than May) he'd be a pain for the EU to deal with.

[Blair]

The irony is that we're finding that when people work out Corbyn won't win they're more likely to vote Labour; the message in our marginal london seats is 'May is going to win, vote for Wes or Neil, because they'll kick up a fuss, rather than just vote for the government''.

Labour have had a good campaign; but I really can't see how they're getting 29%. With such low ratings for Corbyn on both leadership and Economic competence, combined with what we saw in Copeland, and the entire malaise around Labour it seems too high.

Worth noting that if the tories do get 45-47% Labour could still lose up to 70-80 seats