Next UK General Election thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:48:26 AM
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)
  Next UK General Election thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Next UK General Election thread  (Read 21515 times)
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2017, 07:02:32 PM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2017, 08:09:27 PM »

Forgive my ignorance, but what's the most likely way for Corbyn to stop May from forming a new government? Without the DUP, he can't vote down the Queen's Speech no?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2017, 08:14:48 PM »

Seems the Tories now want to seek a formal coalition with the DUP. But the DUP won't negotiate on Sundays.

Hahaha of course

ROFL
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2017, 09:14:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tweet by Richard Burgeon MP.

Good to see Labour returning to post-war mass-membership it held throughout the 40's to 70's. Should help with campaigning and funds for the next GE.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2017, 09:17:22 PM »

Does the review of the parliamentary constituencies still have to be approved by Parliament, and if so, will the results of this election prevent that from happening?

The Boundary Commissions are due to put forward proposals in September 2018. Before the new boundaries can be put into law, Parliament will have to approve them. If the changes are rejected, then the existing boundaries will continue in force.

Given that only the Conservative Party is reasonably happy with a 600 seat House of Commons, it must be quite possible but not certain that the results of the boundary review will be rejected.
This was the key fact that I was considering. Going from 651 to 600 means with certainty that 51 incumbents will be out of a job, without taking into account any changes in boundaries.

Britain would be better off going to continuous redistribution like in Australia. Seats could be formally apportioned to the regions in England, and possibly in Scotland, so that the change of one seat in 500 (0.2%) does not trigger an England-wide review. If the number of seats for a region changes, do a new review for that area.

If a constituency is more than 10% from the mean for a region, then adjust that constituency and other as necessary. If a significant share of constituencies in a region are more than 5% from the mean for a region, then do a region-wide redistribution.

Wasn't there an issue with how voter registration was being changed (from household to individual) before. Has that settled out?
Logged
Kringla Heimsins
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2017, 09:30:28 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tweet by Richard Burgeon MP.

Good to see Labour returning to post-war mass-membership it held throughout the 40's to 70's. Should help with campaigning and funds for the next GE.

Wow. This makes it the biggest mass party in Europe by far. How do one join the Labour? All the parties I know have paid membership.


Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2017, 09:59:09 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tweet by Richard Burgeon MP.

Good to see Labour returning to post-war mass-membership it held throughout the 40's to 70's. Should help with campaigning and funds for the next GE.

Wow. This makes it the biggest mass party in Europe by far. How do one join the Labour? All the parties I know have paid membership.


Well it's no doubt changed a little since I joined 6-7 years ago but you just go to the website and apply online. They then send you out a pack, with a membership card, and keep you posted if there's any elections/materials produced (and royally spam your email). It's about £50 p/y direct debit, but I think it's halved for those not in employment (you can choose what you like, I guess, but I can't imagine many people would bother signing up in the first place if they weren't prepared to pay £50 towards the party).
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2017, 12:00:55 AM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)

IT'S HAPPENING
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2017, 12:30:56 AM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)

Congratulations, May, you've become Ted Heath 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2017, 01:02:25 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tweet by Richard Burgeon MP.

Good to see Labour returning to post-war mass-membership it held throughout the 40's to 70's. Should help with campaigning and funds for the next GE.

Wow. This makes it the biggest mass party in Europe by far. How do one join the Labour? All the parties I know have paid membership.


Well it's no doubt changed a little since I joined 6-7 years ago but you just go to the website and apply online. They then send you out a pack, with a membership card, and keep you posted if there's any elections/materials produced (and royally spam your email). It's about £50 p/y direct debit, but I think it's halved for those not in employment (you can choose what you like, I guess, but I can't imagine many people would bother signing up in the first place if they weren't prepared to pay £50 towards the party).

You know, 50.8 million dollars/year isn't that bad of an income. It's a shame that US parties don't really charge token membership fees like that. It would be difficult to introduce, and would require significant reforms to outreach, voting, and even the character of what parties precisely are in the United States. But I wonder if cultivating this sort of a committed, grassroots core of people isn't a thing worth looking into.
Logged
Njall
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,019
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2017, 01:15:07 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tweet by Richard Burgeon MP.

Good to see Labour returning to post-war mass-membership it held throughout the 40's to 70's. Should help with campaigning and funds for the next GE.

Wow. This makes it the biggest mass party in Europe by far. How do one join the Labour? All the parties I know have paid membership.


Well it's no doubt changed a little since I joined 6-7 years ago but you just go to the website and apply online. They then send you out a pack, with a membership card, and keep you posted if there's any elections/materials produced (and royally spam your email). It's about £50 p/y direct debit, but I think it's halved for those not in employment (you can choose what you like, I guess, but I can't imagine many people would bother signing up in the first place if they weren't prepared to pay £50 towards the party).

You know, 50.8 million dollars/year isn't that bad of an income. It's a shame that US parties don't really charge token membership fees like that. It would be difficult to introduce, and would require significant reforms to outreach, voting, and even the character of what parties precisely are in the United States. But I wonder if cultivating this sort of a committed, grassroots core of people isn't a thing worth looking into.

I know this is taking things a little off-topic, but interestingly, Canada seems to (kind of) be moving more towards the American way of doing things, with the federal Liberals having eliminated their membership fee at their last convention. In the recent CPC leadership race, Michael Chong was advocating a public political party registration system that also would have operated without membership fees.

Keep in mind, most Canadian party memberships are only about $10 or $20 per year. The Conservatives tried to raise theirs from $15 to $25 somewhat recently, but that attracted a backlash from enough people that they cancelled the increase.
Logged
adma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2017, 02:30:43 AM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)

Congratulations, May, you've become Ted Heath 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Though may I offer don't-count-your-chickens advice--Labour could just as well get too cocky and blow it in the other direction, and I'm not even saying so from an anti-Labour standpoint.  Heck, even with a seat plurality *they* could fall short of a majority, and here we go again, *three* elections triggered within the space of a year or so...
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2017, 02:51:25 AM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)

Congratulations, May, you've become Ted Heath 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Though may I offer don't-count-your-chickens advice--Labour could just as well get too cocky and blow it in the other direction, and I'm not even saying so from an anti-Labour standpoint.  Heck, even with a seat plurality *they* could fall short of a majority, and here we go again, *three* elections triggered within the space of a year or so...

Yeah. Labour *cannot* be the ones to call the next election. Plain and simple. I'm not fully aware of the mechanics of calling an election without a Government or a no-confidence vote, but Corbyn and Labour simply can't risk being perceived as opportunistic and inflicting ~another~ election on the UK public.

After all, that was what poisoned May's campaign from the very start this time around.
Logged
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2017, 06:12:59 AM »

This is what could happen if that first poll was to (somehow) happen:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/2017?CON=39&LAB=45&LD=7
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2017, 07:35:48 AM »

https://www.ft.com/content/f8b09872-4d2e-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43 Nick Clegg wrote an opinion piece on the Financial Times on what May needs to do to recover
Logged
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2017, 10:29:47 AM »

Voting intention:
SURVATION
10/06/2017

LAB 45 (+5)
CON 39 (-2)
LIB 7 (-1)
SNP 3 (-1)
UKIP 3 (+1)
OTH 3 (-1)

On leadership:
YOUGOV
09/06/2017 - 10/06/2017

MAY 39 (-4)
CORBYN 39 (+9)

Congratulations, May, you've become Ted Heath 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Though may I offer don't-count-your-chickens advice--Labour could just as well get too cocky and blow it in the other direction, and I'm not even saying so from an anti-Labour standpoint.  Heck, even with a seat plurality *they* could fall short of a majority, and here we go again, *three* elections triggered within the space of a year or so...

Yeah. Labour *cannot* be the ones to call the next election. Plain and simple. I'm not fully aware of the mechanics of calling an election without a Government or a no-confidence vote, but Corbyn and Labour simply can't risk being perceived as opportunistic and inflicting ~another~ election on the UK public.

After all, that was what poisoned May's campaign from the very start this time around.

The constitutional position is relatively clear. Theresa May is and continues to be Prime Minister until she either resigns or the House of Commons demonstrates it has no confidence in her.

If Mrs. May thinks she can command a majority in the House, which she could with the support of the 10 DUP MPs as well as her own party, then she will form a government and present a Queen's speech (which sets out the proposed government legislative programme). If the House passes the usual motion in favour of the Queen's speech then the May government has demonstrated that it has the confidence of the House.

If the House rejects the government programme or passes an opposition amendment, Mrs May would, under the traditional constitutional conventions, have had to either advise another dissolution or resign. Normally, either way, the Leader of the Opposition would be asked if he could form a ministry with the confidence of the House and if so would be appointed Prime Minister.  Of course if the new Prime Minister proved over optimistic, he would then have to ask for a dissolution, which would probably be granted as no viable government could be formed in the present House.

Under the current fixed term legislation, a government defeated on the Queen's speech might either resign immediately or wait for the prescribed formal procedure to be followed.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2017, 02:37:18 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2017, 02:46:46 PM by Solitude Without a Window »


According to this, Labour needs a 0.77-point lead in order to catch up the Tories in terms of seats (with a uniform swing of 1.59). That's bad, but not too bad.

They need a 7.22-point lead to win an absolute majority. Tories only need a 3.29-point lead. Now THAT is bad.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2017, 03:36:40 PM »


According to this, Labour needs a 0.77-point lead in order to catch up the Tories in terms of seats (with a uniform swing of 1.59). That's bad, but not too bad.

They need a 7.22-point lead to win an absolute majority. Tories only need a 3.29-point lead. Now THAT is bad.
2 things that could mitigate this problem:
1) A Lab almost-majority is probably more stable than a Con almost-majority. SNP, Plaid, LD, Green will certainly be bigger and probably more cooperative than DUP/UKIP.
2) A large swing to Labour is likely to produce more seats than uniform swing would suggest. It happened this time (Labour's vote was more efficient than often predicted), and their Liverpool/North London vote shares are pretty much at their ceiling; the swing would have to be from elsewhere.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2017, 07:28:32 PM »

Well it's no doubt changed a little since I joined 6-7 years ago but you just go to the website and apply online. They then send you out a pack, with a membership card, and keep you posted if there's any elections/materials produced (and royally spam your email). It's about £50 p/y direct debit, but I think it's halved for those not in employment (you can choose what you like, I guess, but I can't imagine many people would bother signing up in the first place if they weren't prepared to pay £50 towards the party).
You know, 50.8 million dollars/year isn't that bad of an income. It's a shame that US parties don't really charge token membership fees like that. It would be difficult to introduce, and would require significant reforms to outreach, voting, and even the character of what parties precisely are in the United States. But I wonder if cultivating this sort of a committed, grassroots core of people isn't a thing worth looking into.
In the US, because of government recognition of party members and government-run primaries, any sort of fee begins to look an awful lot like a poll tax.

Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2017, 05:04:13 AM »


According to this, Labour needs a 0.77-point lead in order to catch up the Tories in terms of seats (with a uniform swing of 1.59). That's bad, but not too bad.

They need a 7.22-point lead to win an absolute majority. Tories only need a 3.29-point lead. Now THAT is bad.
2 things that could mitigate this problem:
1) A Lab almost-majority is probably more stable than a Con almost-majority. SNP, Plaid, LD, Green will certainly be bigger and probably more cooperative than DUP/UKIP.
2) A large swing to Labour is likely to produce more seats than uniform swing would suggest. It happened this time (Labour's vote was more efficient than often predicted), and their Liverpool/North London vote shares are pretty much at their ceiling; the swing would have to be from elsewhere.

So I would be wary of saying the SNP or Plaid would be more stable partners than the DUP. There is a real danger atm in the talk of a "Progressive Alliance" in which the SNP/LD totals are de facto thrown into a Labour pile. All of those parties are highly divisive at the moment, and if Labour is explicitly running on a coalition with the SNP next time that influences the dynamics of the election, both in Scotland and England, much as the very fact Corbyn is running for PM does.

Labour probably wins an election tomorrow or next week. But there is zero chance of that occurring. The coalition Labour won is far less coherent than that the Tories managed on Thursday, and it seems more likely to see a retreat in London Remain high income areas or low-income leave areas than advances in both simultanously.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2017, 05:18:01 AM »


According to this, Labour needs a 0.77-point lead in order to catch up the Tories in terms of seats (with a uniform swing of 1.59). That's bad, but not too bad.

They need a 7.22-point lead to win an absolute majority. Tories only need a 3.29-point lead. Now THAT is bad.

To be fair, iirc before this election they needed a 7 point lead to get a plurality, and a 12 point lead! to get a majority.

So those numbers are actually an improvement
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2017, 06:38:03 PM »

I'm interested to see how Corbyn himself interprets the election results. The impression I've gotten from here and elsewhere is that one of the reason Labour had such a successful campaign is that Corbyn allowed himself to be sidelined, with the party instead focusing the campaign on their manifesto. After the success and acclaim he's gotten since the election, will Corbyn be as willing to keep out of the limelight in the next one? And if he does take a greater role in the next election, which groups of voters and seats might be most effected by his decision?
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2017, 06:48:48 PM »

I'm interested to see how Corbyn himself interprets the election results. The impression I've gotten from here and elsewhere is that one of the reason Labour had such a successful campaign is that Corbyn allowed himself to be sidelined, with the party instead focusing the campaign on their manifesto. After the success and acclaim he's gotten since the election, will Corbyn be as willing to keep out of the limelight in the next one? And if he does take a greater role in the next election, which groups of voters and seats might be most effected by his decision?

That's not really that true. Labour certainly for their part attempted to make the campaign about their policy platform - undoubtedly their most attractive area (especially when compared to the Tories). However Tory strategy was to make it about personality and refocus the campaign on May vs Corbyn, and expose Corbyn - something Labour couldn't really avoid. But when Corbyn started beating May on her turf - consistently outperforming her in debates etc that was just as important to the success of the Labour campaign.
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2017, 12:02:45 AM »

On another general election this autumn:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 38%
(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 Jun)
It's too big of a gamble to both Tories and Labour, I think we'll see 18 months of this government then an election-referendum on the EU deal
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2017, 12:03:39 AM »

I'm interested to see how Corbyn himself interprets the election results. The impression I've gotten from here and elsewhere is that one of the reason Labour had such a successful campaign is that Corbyn allowed himself to be sidelined, with the party instead focusing the campaign on their manifesto. After the success and acclaim he's gotten since the election, will Corbyn be as willing to keep out of the limelight in the next one? And if he does take a greater role in the next election, which groups of voters and seats might be most effected by his decision?

I'm not sure I agree that Corbyn allowed himself to be sidelined. I think he gave some concessions on some things, but then he really did manage to give some genuinely good performances in debates and interviews (especially in contrast with May). I think they also let him run the Pseudo-Sanders campaign he wanted to run rather than a passionless Miliband/Brown campaign.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  
« 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 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.