cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Deltapoll
Jun 17, 2024 18:00:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by cogload on Jun 17, 2024 18:00:13 GMT
Effin hell...
|
|
|
|
Deltapoll
Jun 17, 2024 18:13:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by jamesdoyle on Jun 17, 2024 18:13:40 GMT
You're going to have to start believing me. It's happening.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Post by cogload on Jun 17, 2024 18:18:12 GMT
You're going to have to start believing me. It's happening. I cannot for the life of me see the Tories below 125 seats. I just can't. Although that in itself would be a historic kicking, some of the mad and crazy seat numbers flying around is just ramping... |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jun 17, 2024 18:24:54 GMT
You're going to have to start believing me. It's happening. I cannot for the life of me see the Tories below 125 seats. I just can't. Although that in itself would be a historic kicking, some of the mad and crazy seat numbers flying around is just ramping... It goes against my entire political, indeed entire adult life.. But the evidence is right there in the polling and it is not getting better for them, not is Reform fading. FPTP has turned against the Cons, and they're being herded over the cliff edge in front of our eyes. I think theyve f**ked themselves by going so big for so long on the immigration and antiwoke stuff. That was fine while Labour were the enemy: no matter how rubbish the Cons are, they could always argue Labour would be worse (and I've seen this exact argument from Cons a lot over the past few weeks). But when there is a party promising more on those issues, and a party that can point to how rubbish the Cons have been without getting a finger pointed back at.them, what are voters who inclined that way going to do? This is going to be an epochal election. Buckle up. |
|
|
|
Post by willpower3 on Jun 17, 2024 18:29:56 GMT
You're going to have to start believing me. It's happening. I cannot for the life of me see the Tories below 125 seats. I just can't. Although that in itself would be a historic kicking, some of the mad and crazy seat numbers flying around is just ramping... How many seats did you predict your party would get in 2015? Or what was the minimum in terms of believability? |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Post by cogload on Jun 17, 2024 18:34:49 GMT
I cannot for the life of me see the Tories below 125 seats. I just can't. Although that in itself would be a historic kicking, some of the mad and crazy seat numbers flying around is just ramping... How many seats did you predict your party would get in 2015? Or what was the minimum in terms of believability? I can't recall tbh - I have been re reading some of the historic threads in the LD room so as not to get my hopes up... |
|
|
|
Post by beesknees on Jun 17, 2024 18:45:29 GMT
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by graham on Jun 17, 2024 18:49:49 GMT
If these polls are correct, Labour is poised to win many seats from 3rd place - and 4th place in Scotland - regardless of what tactical voting websites are saying. Only the more politically aware are likely to be tuned into the idea of tactical voting, and the much higher turnout we see at a GE compared with local elections and parliamentary by elections is likely to overwhelmingly consist of people who go along with the tide. Tactical voting would have much more relevance in a close election or a contest where we appeared to be looking at very modest swings, but that does not seem to be where we are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 17, 2024 19:14:24 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but also Epsom & Ewell for example. They seem to think that the LDs can only win if they target a seat, and that's probably broadly correct, and have noted that there are seats where that party starts in second but is not seriously targetting. What I don't expect to see is Labour winning from third in a seat they are not targetting, but the Lib Dems or possibly Greens are. Many voters vote tactically in their constituencies even if the overall outcome is not in doubt - they will say something like "Labour never wins here" and in some cases they will go for the "wrong" tactical vote as my friend in Weston-super-Mare would have done if I hadn't alerted her to the current situation there (perhaps she might have seen a leaflet as well, but she might not have paid as much attention to a leaflet as to a personal message).
|
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 17, 2024 19:42:23 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but also Epsom & Ewell for example. They seem to think that the LDs can only win if they target a seat, and that's probably broadly correct, and have noted that there are seats where that party starts in second but is not seriously targetting. What I don't expect to see is Labour winning from third in a seat they are not targetting, but the Lib Dems or possibly Greens are. Many voters vote tactically in their constituencies even if the overall outcome is not in doubt - they will say something like "Labour never wins here" and in some cases they will go for the "wrong" tactical vote as my friend in Weston-super-Mare would have done if I hadn't alerted her to the current situation there (perhaps she might have seen a leaflet as well, but she might not have paid as much attention to a leaflet as to a personal message). Lib Dems seem very active in Epsom & Ewell |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,931
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 17, 2024 19:45:51 GMT
I know it's electoral calculus and so should not be treated with anything other than scorn, but one of the 4 Reform gains they have is Rochdale... |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by graham on Jun 17, 2024 20:19:43 GMT
I know it's electoral calculus and so should not be treated with anything other than scorn, but one of the 4 Reform gains they have is Rochdale... Well Reform did so well at the Rochdale by election a few months ago! |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jun 17, 2024 20:21:44 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but also Epsom & Ewell for example. They seem to think that the LDs can only win if they target a seat, and that's probably broadly correct, and have noted that there are seats where that party starts in second but is not seriously targetting. What I don't expect to see is Labour winning from third in a seat they are not targetting, but the Lib Dems or possibly Greens are. Many voters vote tactically in their constituencies even if the overall outcome is not in doubt - they will say something like "Labour never wins here" and in some cases they will go for the "wrong" tactical vote as my friend in Weston-super-Mare would have done if I hadn't alerted her to the current situation there (perhaps she might have seen a leaflet as well, but she might not have paid as much attention to a leaflet as to a personal message). I do tend to agree with you batman - but I have been saying this for a while. The 'default' anti-Con vote is Labour, and in the absence of anything else to indicate what they should do, most voters wanting to vote the Tories out will vote red. In some places, people will see that a LibDem vote is the best choice, but they may need the push of contact from the LibDems (or Green). So thre could be many seats where Labour isn't the 'best' choice, and as a result the Torys will escape because the anti-Tory vote will be spread over multiple parties. I have seen it mentioned that the LibDems had a target list of 50, and that there were second in 96 seats. The first tells me that they had the resources to run 50 campaigns. The second tells me that they could expand that list significantly - *if* they have the resources. And I would expect that a good chunk of that second 50 would be the ones where the Cons would hang on due to no single party making their case as the sensible anti-Con vote. So I think - and have been saying for a while - that the Cons are on for a hiding, and the difference between that being awful and catastrophic hinges on how far down their target list the LiBbDems can go. I think Labour are in a position to push them sub-100, but it needs the LibDems to push them sub-50. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 17, 2024 20:44:05 GMT
I know it's electoral calculus and so should not be treated with anything other than scorn, but one of the 4 Reform gains they have is Rochdale... Reform wont win there of course, but if they somehow did, that would mean in the last 20 years the good burghers of Rochdale would have been represented by: Labour Lib Dems Independent (Danczuk) Workers Party Reform Wonder if any other constituency has had representation from so many different parties in such a comparatively short time span?! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 17, 2024 20:47:35 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster Not on the new boundaries we don't. Incidentally the Lib Dem candidate in Two Cities is going round insisting it's between Labour and Lib Dem. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by graham on Jun 17, 2024 20:48:52 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but also Epsom & Ewell for example. They seem to think that the LDs can only win if they target a seat, and that's probably broadly correct, and have noted that there are seats where that party starts in second but is not seriously targetting. What I don't expect to see is Labour winning from third in a seat they are not targetting, but the Lib Dems or possibly Greens are. Many voters vote tactically in their constituencies even if the overall outcome is not in doubt - they will say something like "Labour never wins here" and in some cases they will go for the "wrong" tactical vote as my friend in Weston-super-Mare would have done if I hadn't alerted her to the current situation there (perhaps she might have seen a leaflet as well, but she might not have paid as much attention to a leaflet as to a personal message). There are seats which Labour is not officially 'targetting' but where it is still seriously campaigning. I refer again to Didcot & Wantage and South Cambridgeshire. In the former seat, the CLP chairman is former MP - Nick Palmer, who is clearly not standing aside for the LDs and campaigning very hard - despite the seat not being an official 'target' seat. Back in 1997 Labour won many seats which were nowhere near the party's target list - Newark - Norfolk NW - Shipley - Sittingbourne & Sheppey - Hastings & Rye -Wimbledon - Romford - Upminster. On the basis of earlier results Hastings& Rye might well have been a LD target as was Conway in Wales , yet Labour won both from 3rd place. From memory there were two seats which Labour failed to win in 1997 due to Labour-inclined voters being persuaded to vote LD tactically - Brecon & Radnor and Carshalton and Wallington. The former was likely to be a consequence of the surprise Tory gain there in 1992 by a very narrow margin enabling the LDs to claim that Labour votes had cost them the seat that year. Thereafter, Labour voters supported the LDs on a massive scale - though that may well unwind this year with more favourable boundaries.. In Carshalton , for some reason Labour failed to recover its former strength in a seat where the party had been hopeful of unseating Robert Carr in 1974 but subsequently lost second place to the Alliance in 1983.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,350
|
Post by graham on Jun 17, 2024 20:56:17 GMT
Even the tactical voting website agrees with you graham. They are suggesting a Labour vote even in some constituencies where the party starts in third - not just the obvious ones such as Cities of London & Westminster and Finchley & Golders Green, but also Epsom & Ewell for example. They seem to think that the LDs can only win if they target a seat, and that's probably broadly correct, and have noted that there are seats where that party starts in second but is not seriously targetting. What I don't expect to see is Labour winning from third in a seat they are not targetting, but the Lib Dems or possibly Greens are. Many voters vote tactically in their constituencies even if the overall outcome is not in doubt - they will say something like "Labour never wins here" and in some cases they will go for the "wrong" tactical vote as my friend in Weston-super-Mare would have done if I hadn't alerted her to the current situation there (perhaps she might have seen a leaflet as well, but she might not have paid as much attention to a leaflet as to a personal message). I do tend to agree with you batman - but I have been saying this for a while. The 'default' anti-Con vote is Labour, and in the absence of anything else to indicate what they should do, most voters wanting to vote the Tories out will vote red. In some places, people will see that a LibDem vote is the best choice, but they may need the push of contact from the LibDems (or Green). So thre could be many seats where Labour isn't the 'best' choice, and as a result the Torys will escape because the anti-Tory vote will be spread over multiple parties. I have seen it mentioned that the LibDems had a target list of 50, and that there were second in 96 seats. The first tells me that they had the resources to run 50 campaigns. The second tells me that they could expand that list significantly - *if* they have the resources. And I would expect that a good chunk of that second 50 would be the ones where the Cons would hang on due to no single party making their case as the sensible anti-Con vote. So I think - and have been saying for a while - that the Cons are on for a hiding, and the difference between that being awful and catastrophic hinges on how far down their target list the LiBbDems can go. I think Labour are in a position to push them sub-100, but it needs the LibDems to push them sub-50. There are still a significant number of Labour voters resistant to voting LD on any basis - tactical or otherwise. The 'Tory Little Helper' label still has resonance - particularly in a GE context where Labour appears very likely to perform well. Even at Locall Elections there are many voters who switch between Labour and Green who will not consider the LDs at all. That was not true pre-2010. |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 17, 2024 21:40:19 GMT
You're going to have to start believing me. It's happening. I think it is happening. I've been saying for a while that a LD opposition is possible. It would take the Tories to drop below 21% and Labour to hold up. At the time, it looked possible but not likely. The Tories have dropped below 21% but Labour have dropped a bit too, so we're not quite there yet, but it won't take more from here to happen. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,833
|
Post by iang on Jun 24, 2024 17:05:53 GMT
Just been polled - teacher poll for Deltapoll
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 24, 2024 17:05:55 GMT
|
|
