The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 13, 2018 9:54:43 GMT
Just a year since a GE is arguably a more important yardstick.
And until recently at least May's reputation has been protected by a compliant media (not least the totally neutered BBC)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 10:41:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 10:41:30 GMT
Just a year since a GE is arguably a more important yardstick. And until recently at least May's reputation has been protected by a compliant media (not least the totally neutered BBC) Why? 8 years in opposition is more significant. Or to put it another way, 13 years since Labour won a GE.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 10:55:11 GMT
Post by The Bishop on Jul 13, 2018 10:55:11 GMT
Even the knackered Labour government unconvincingly re-elected in 2005 had some sort of honeymoon afterwards. And I note you ignored my comment about the media - Marr's recent "interview" with the PM was widely compared (even by some very anti-Corbyn people) with the servility seen in the old Eastern bloc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 10:59:56 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 10:59:56 GMT
Even the knackered Labour government unconvincingly re-elected in 2005 had some sort of honeymoon afterwards. And I note you ignored my comment about the media - Marr's recent "interview" with the PM was widely compared (even by some very anti-Corbyn people) with the servility seen in the old Eastern bloc. I didn't ignore your comment - having not paid attention to the media much lately I didn't feel qualified to challenge you - I'm sure you're right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 11:02:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 11:02:01 GMT
When you think about it, the Tories are very lucky that the only person keeping them in largest party position is Ruth Davidson.
Even if Labour did have a 2% lead nationally, I'm confident that all but 1 of the current Scottish Conservative MPs would be returned, and further still that the party would gain a couple of seats north of the border.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 11:39:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 11:39:25 GMT
When you think about it, the Tories are very lucky that the only person keeping them in largest party position is Ruth Davidson. Even if Labour did have a 2% lead nationally, I'm confident that all but 1 of the current Scottish Conservative MPs would be returned, and further still that the party would gain a couple of seats north of the border. There is very little doubt that if Labour were 2% ahead nationally it would be the largest party at Westminster. You're probably more or less correct about the Tory position in Scotland (though the SNP seem to be having a bit of a second wind at the moment, and would be very close to taking Gordon & probably some other Tory seats) ; however, while almost all of Labour's seats there are vulnerable, none is genuinely vulnerable to the Tories, only to the SNP. A swing of over 2% as seen in the YouGov poll (it would almost certainly be slightly larger in England & Wales, since the Tories are doing relatively well in Scotland) would net at least 29 Tory seats in England & Wales and Labour would not lose seats to any party other than the SNP (with the likely exception of Sheffield Hallam with its special circumstances). An extrapolation of the results of the YouGov poll Britain-wide would see Labour with about 8-10 more parliamentary seats than the Conservatives, more if there is a larger swing in England & Wales than in Scotland. The better position the Tories enjoy in Scotland is neutral vis a vis them & Labour, since no Scottish Tory seat is genuinely vulnerable to Labour, and vice versa also applies. A strict application of the YouGov figures suggests that Labour would lose 4 of its Scottish seats to the SNP but would hold on to 3 (East Lothian, Coatbridge C & B and of course Edinburgh South which is now looking very safe) with no other seats being lost to any other party. Yes you're right. Though I'm confident Gordon would most likely stay blue because of further LD tactical voting and the loss of Salmond (assuming Salmond doesn't stand, which is granted, a big assumption). Labour would probably emerge as the largest party though I doubt the swings would be uniform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 12:23:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 12:23:52 GMT
Problem is we've no idea where the SNPs resurgence is taking place. I was talking to a friend whose from Edinburgh and he says the SNP have spent alot of time in the central belt which part of the reason for theur decline in rural Scotland.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Jul 13, 2018 14:16:00 GMT
A 2% lead after 8 years in opposition and 2 years of the most disastrous PM since the war - nothing to celebrate. The most disastrous PM since the war sailed off into the sunset on 24 June 2016 rather than deal with the consequences of his actions.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 14:24:46 GMT
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 13, 2018 14:24:46 GMT
Highest score for UKIP in any poll since before last year's GE. I'd be surprised if most of the other polls don't show UKIP on 6% or thereabouts.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 14:24:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by mondialito on Jul 13, 2018 14:24:53 GMT
A 2% lead after 8 years in opposition and 2 years of the most disastrous PM since the war - nothing to celebrate. The most disastrous PM since the war sailed off into the sunset on 24 June 2016 rather than deal with the consequences of his actions. Which war?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,441
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 14:31:16 GMT
YL likes this
Post by Crimson King on Jul 13, 2018 14:31:16 GMT
napoleonic
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,371
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jul 13, 2018 14:40:02 GMT
Highest score for UKIP in any poll since before last year's GE. I'd be surprised if most of the other polls don't show UKIP on 6% or thereabouts. But what that actually means if they don't re-discover the organisation/membership to stand more than a handful of candidates is another question.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 21:59:16 GMT
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 13, 2018 21:59:16 GMT
American Revolutionary. Let's just say that Lord North's handling of the rebellion there was a veritable train wreck (if trains had existed back then)...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 22:50:24 GMT
Post by greenchristian on Jul 13, 2018 22:50:24 GMT
American Revolutionary. Let's just say that Lord North's handling of the rebellion there was a veritable train wreck (if trains had existed back then)... Which is why CK said Napoleonic. North's rule lasted several years after we lost the 13 colonies.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 23:04:36 GMT
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 13, 2018 23:04:36 GMT
American Revolutionary. Let's just say that Lord North's handling of the rebellion there was a veritable train wreck (if trains had existed back then)... Which is why CK said Napoleonic. North's rule lasted several years after we lost the 13 colonies. Despite the de facto cessation of military action in 1781, we didn't formally concede until we signed the Treaty of Paris in late 1783, more than a year after North left office. On that alone I'd say it still counts...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 13, 2018 23:35:24 GMT
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 13, 2018 23:35:24 GMT
Despite the de facto cessation of military action in 1781, we didn't formally concede until we signed the Treaty of Paris in late 1783, more than a year after North left office. On that alone I'd say it still counts... 1784. The US Congress of the Confederation ratified the Treaty on 14 Jan 1784 and British ratification was completed on 9 April 1784. the Treaty came into effect on 12 May 1784 Ok, now I think we're just nitpicking. At that point I'd say the ratification was a mere formality, and I would argue it was the signing of treaty where it was made absolutely plain and clear that Great Britain had irrevocably lost the 13 colonies. And that will be my last word on this particular thread digression*. * But will gladly discuss in a more appropriate thread elsewhere...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 14, 2018 7:34:57 GMT
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 14, 2018 7:34:57 GMT
Which is why CK said Napoleonic. North's rule lasted several years after we lost the 13 colonies. Despite the de facto cessation of military action in 1781, we didn't formally concede until we signed the Treaty of Paris in late 1783, more than a year after North left office. On that alone I'd say it still counts... Was there not some confrontation (and perhaps naval action) in the Caribbean after Yorktown? Often forgotten that the War did not end with total British collapse since the West Indian colonies and Canada were retained. I can't remember what yougov said about it though, I should think North's approval rating went through the floor.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 14, 2018 13:21:56 GMT
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 14, 2018 13:21:56 GMT
Was there not some confrontation (and perhaps naval action) in the Caribbean after Yorktown? Often forgotten that the War did not end with total British collapse since the West Indian colonies and Canada were retained. I can't remember what yougov said about it though, I should think North's approval rating went through the floor. There were several "Battles" or skirmishes after Yorktown, but the Siege of Fort Henry in West Virginia on 11-13 September 1782 was probably the last. The Battle of the Combahee River on 27 August 1782 in South Carolina was the last British victory of the war. On resorting to Wikipedia I find that what I was vaguely remembering was the Battle of Saintes in April 1782, a major British victory over the Franco-Spanish fleet which prevented a Bourbon conquest of Jamaica. Wikipedia says this: Not my period, but I think US mythology misses the extent to which the War was won and lost on France, Spain and the Dutch getting payback for the previous century; the decisive victory isn't Yorktown, and the Americans played no part - it was Chesapeake Bay where the French achieved naval superiority in the Atlantic which necessarily meant game over for Britain and made surrender at Yorktown inevitable - it was a siege, not a battle. Also in hindsight we take it as given that the West Indies were British but in a Britain v USA/France/Spain/Netherlands war there was no reason why the West Indian slave plantations should not have ended up as either States of the USA or French etc colonies; ditto Canada, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,170
|
YouGov
Jul 17, 2018 21:26:24 GMT
Post by Jack on Jul 17, 2018 21:26:24 GMT
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 17, 2018 21:39:32 GMT
Post by tonygreaves on Jul 17, 2018 21:39:32 GMT
A pity Labour don't (yet) support a second referendum.
|
|