Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:01:05 GMT
I'm struggling to think of a way to express my confidence without appearing complacent to our opponents. Obviously there's no point in trying. I did say getting an overall majority would be a tall order.  I still think it is out of the question. If nothing spectacular happens between now and the GE except for a reasonable performence by UKIP next year, then there will be a squeeze on UKIP and LibDems as the nation tends to polarize towards the majors. But incumbency for the LibDems and efficient spread of activity may still return them a similar slate of numbers (bit down). UKIP likely to see perhaps 30% squeeze and very few seats or none. But even at that level the damage to Conservative chances in 60-75 seats are manifest. One-time die-hard Conservatives like me are so pissed off by Cameron and the modernisers that we will do our best to sink him by maximum below the water damage. There are a lot of us and we are very angry and we shall not revert under any circumstances. That is the stark new feature for 2015. We are not afeared of a Labour win. It is personal. We want his guts. Like you as I do, if you were really a die-hard conservative you would never ever want labour to win, never-mind vote for them. I'm to the right of Cameron too, but its Ed Milibands guts I want. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:02:20 GMT
Usual parochial reminder chaps, there is an elephant in the room. The September 2014 referendum will throw all this up in the air. It can't really hurt the tories whatever the result. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,915
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 16, 2013 11:14:41 GMT
Usual parochial reminder chaps, there is an elephant in the room. The September 2014 referendum will throw all this up in the air. It can't really hurt the tories whatever the result. Except that going into a General Election with a leader who has secured a place in history as the PM who lost the union is maybe not the greatest advantage to the Tories  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:17:28 GMT
It can't really hurt the tories whatever the result. Except that going into a General Election with a leader who has secured a place in history as the PM who lost the union is maybe not the greatest advantage to the Tories Well yes, but we could jettison the Lib Dems straight away (which would be fun) and without Scotland, it would be very very difficult for labour to get a majority. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 11:21:12 GMT
The result will either be decisive but not a landslide or a landslide. Well what are your forecasts for 2014 then boogie? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 11:32:12 GMT
I still think it is out of the question. If nothing spectacular happens between now and the GE except for a reasonable performence by UKIP next year, then there will be a squeeze on UKIP and LibDems as the nation tends to polarize towards the majors. But incumbency for the LibDems and efficient spread of activity may still return them a similar slate of numbers (bit down). UKIP likely to see perhaps 30% squeeze and very few seats or none. But even at that level the damage to Conservative chances in 60-75 seats are manifest. One-time die-hard Conservatives like me are so pissed off by Cameron and the modernisers that we will do our best to sink him by maximum below the water damage. There are a lot of us and we are very angry and we shall not revert under any circumstances. That is the stark new feature for 2015. We are not afeared of a Labour win. It is personal. We want his guts. Like you as I do, if you were really a die-hard conservative you would never ever want labour to win, never-mind vote for them. I'm to the right of Cameron too, but its Ed Milibands guts I want. Thanks for the 'like'. It is mutual. I thought and felt the same for decades. Denying Labour was the whole of the game. But since the fall of Maggie I have seen an increasingly rudderless and gutless party lurch from policy to policy and to traduce most of the values that mattered to me. I think they have been very weak on fighting our corner in the EU and on Immigration, stupid over military adventures in Balkans and Middle East, mad over Green policies and Foreign Aid, hesitant and confused over economic policy (to be polite!) and crass over the Lords, boundaries, same sex marriage, Scotland and voting reform. What is there to like or respect or to vote for? You just offer the negative 'It is better than having Ed' which is true to a small point only, and far from enough to dissuade me from viscerally wishing damage and harm on the people who have harmed the party I loved and worked for for 4-decades. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,915
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 16, 2013 11:36:38 GMT
Except that going into a General Election with a leader who has secured a place in history as the PM who lost the union is maybe not the greatest advantage to the Tories Well yes, but we could jettison the Lib Dems straight away (which would be fun) and without Scotland, it would be very very difficult for labour to get a majority. Difficult, but not impossible. Without Scotland Labour would need 79 gains for a majority. Skipping over the 5 Scottish seats in the way, that takes them to 84 on their target list - Ilford North, requiring a 5.8% swing (roughly a 4.5% lead in the polls, they're maybe not quite there in the polls at the moment if Scotland is factored out). There are also 4 English and Welsh LD seats on higher swings that Labour might fancy their chances in (Redcar, Cardiff Central, Cambridge and Hornsey & wood Green) which means Labour might only need to get down to Stafford on their target list on a slightly lower (5.5%) swing. So yes a majority without Scotland is more difficult for Labour, but it's certainly achievable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 11:40:33 GMT
Like you as I do, if you were really a die-hard conservative you would never ever want labour to win, never-mind vote for them. I'm to the right of Cameron too, but its Ed Milibands guts I want. Thanks for the 'like'. It is mutual. I thought and felt the same for decades. Denying Labour was the whole of the game. But since the fall of Maggie I have seen an increasingly rudderless and gutless party lurch from policy to policy and to traduce most of the values that mattered to me. I think they have been very weak on fighting our corner in the EU and on Immigration, stupid over military adventures in Balkans and Middle East, mad over Green policies and Foreign Aid, hesitant and confused over economic policy (to be polite!) and crass over the Lords, boundaries, same sex marriage, Scotland and voting reform. What is there to like or respect or to vote for? You just offer the negative 'It is better than having Ed' which is true to a small point only, and far from enough to dissuade me from viscerally wishing damage and harm on the people who have harmed the party I loved and worked for for 4-decades. Aside from Lords, boundaries, same sex marriage and voting reform I agree. The only chance of getting a Thatcherite PM is still through the tory party, not UKIP, and UKIPs interventions make this harder for two reasons. A) The "centre" of the tory party moves leftwards if the right leave. B) Its harder to win elections. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 16, 2013 11:45:55 GMT
Without Scotland, Labour would have had 314 out 587 seats in 2005, a majority of 41. Granted, there are a fair few seats we won that year that don't look likely to fall in 2015 (the north Kent marginals being the best examples), but there are also a smaller number of seats which we lost that year (mostly over Iraq and fees) where we're more likely than not to win in 2015.
So even without Scotland, the evidence suggests a 3% lead (on the UK's current boundaries) would allow us to get a narrow majority or to be so close to it as to be a necessary part of any viable coalition. That's more difficult than what we need now, but not very difficult.
Indeed, there's even an argument that our vote distribution has got even more efficient since 2005, since in that year we were still getting 27% of the vote in places like Bury St Edmunds, whereas in 2015 I'd not be surprised to see us perform risibly in 90% of the seats where we don't expect to win.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 16, 2013 11:53:16 GMT
Depends how you define "risibly" - our vote should improve on 2010 a bit even in hopeless seats (I would be surprised at 2% again in Westmorland, for instance)
But yes, it does look like we will do better in marginals - proof the "ground war" does, after all, matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 11:57:35 GMT
Without Scotland, Labour would have had 314 out 587 seats in 2005, a majority of 41. Granted, there are a fair few seats we won that year that don't look likely to fall in 2015 (the north Kent marginals being the best examples), but there are also a smaller number of seats which we lost that year (mostly over Iraq and fees) where we're more likely than not to win in 2015. So even without Scotland, the evidence suggests a 3% lead (on the UK's current boundaries) would allow us to get a narrow majority or to be so close to it as to be a necessary part of any viable coalition. That's more difficult than what we need now, but not very difficult. Indeed, there's even an argument that our vote distribution has got even more efficient since 2005, since in that year we were still getting 27% of the vote in places like Bury St Edmunds, whereas in 2015 I'd not be surprised to see us perform risibly in 90% of the seats where we don't expect to win. Tell me. Why is it 'Labour Vote Efficiency' in the South and West but 'Utter Collapse of Tory Support in the Urban North'? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 12:00:43 GMT
Well what are your forecasts for 2014 then boogie? It will rain a lot. When things are going against you, for no good or fair reason, they just seem to keep going against you. Think the "Back to Basics" campaign of John Major. One comedy sex scandal after another. Over the cycle, the luck evens out, and the SNP have never had any bad luck. No money scandals, no sex scandals. No boorish drunken outrages. It gave the impression they were somehow better but I know them personally, they are no better and no worse, so they have a reservoir of untapped bad luck waiting to burst. Then it will rain. When the polling, the doorsteps, the phone calls, the by elections, all begin to point to a life wasted and a nation betrayed by its own people, the frustration and dismay will be awesome. Men who always liked a drink will rely on it more. Those who had to bite their tongue will find it harder to do so. Those who used to secretively turn to sex will do so, but perhaps with more desperation. This will create media blips which will cause more angst and more trip ups, and more media stories. The hope of long successful honourable careers will diminish and some will defect to the job market but somebody somewhere will try to make a fast buck through connections before the chance is lost. Windows of Quisling parties will get tanned in, cars with Better Together stickers will be vandalised, BT street stalls will be jostled and verballed, and every event will make the hope of a late turn in the vote diminish. Its going to rain. Yes, go along with all of that. Resulting in what as regards the effect on the right in Britain at large? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 12:01:36 GMT
Depends how you define "risibly" - our vote should improve on 2010 a bit even in hopeless seats (I would be surprised at 2% again in Westmorland, for instance) But yes, it does look like we will do better in marginals - proof the "ground war" does, after all, matter? Or that the message you portray matters more in the seats we have to win that say leafy Surrey ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 12:03:47 GMT
Without Scotland, Labour would have had 314 out 587 seats in 2005, a majority of 41. Granted, there are a fair few seats we won that year that don't look likely to fall in 2015 (the north Kent marginals being the best examples), but there are also a smaller number of seats which we lost that year (mostly over Iraq and fees) where we're more likely than not to win in 2015. So even without Scotland, the evidence suggests a 3% lead (on the UK's current boundaries) would allow us to get a narrow majority or to be so close to it as to be a necessary part of any viable coalition. That's more difficult than what we need now, but not very difficult. Indeed, there's even an argument that our vote distribution has got even more efficient since 2005, since in that year we were still getting 27% of the vote in places like Bury St Edmunds, whereas in 2015 I'd not be surprised to see us perform risibly in 90% of the seats where we don't expect to win. Tell me. Why is it 'Labour Vote Efficiency' in the South and West but 'Utter Collapse of Tory Support in the Urban North'? Because the marginal seats and on the edge of Urban areas and in them. Look at Birmingham, they did not win a single one of their targets and all stayed Labour. Can you really say you can win an overall majority based just on core areas ? Therefore in these areas you need to be vote 'efficent' yes no point the Tories worrying about Liverpool but they have seats in the NW they can win. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 12:06:38 GMT
You win on 'just core areas' ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 16, 2013 12:12:02 GMT
Thanks for the 'like'. It is mutual. I thought and felt the same for decades. Denying Labour was the whole of the game. But since the fall of Maggie I have seen an increasingly rudderless and gutless party lurch from policy to policy and to traduce most of the values that mattered to me. I think they have been very weak on fighting our corner in the EU and on Immigration, stupid over military adventures in Balkans and Middle East, mad over Green policies and Foreign Aid, hesitant and confused over economic policy (to be polite!) and crass over the Lords, boundaries, same sex marriage, Scotland and voting reform. What is there to like or respect or to vote for? You just offer the negative 'It is better than having Ed' which is true to a small point only, and far from enough to dissuade me from viscerally wishing damage and harm on the people who have harmed the party I loved and worked for for 4-decades. Aside from Lords, boundaries, same sex marriage and voting reform I agree. The only chance of getting a Thatcherite PM is still through the tory party, not UKIP, and UKIPs interventions make this harder for two reasons. A) The "centre" of the tory party moves leftwards if the right leave. B) Its harder to win elections. Then get rid of the Cameroons, offer an immediate referendum (and campaign FOR an Out vote) and we shall rush back to embrace you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 12:22:03 GMT
You win on 'just core areas' ian. no you can not ... how do you work that one out ? |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Oct 16, 2013 20:42:30 GMT
I think it depends on the word core. If a party absolutely ignores 40% of seats that may not hit its ability to win an election. I would personally not define that as core, Think an apple. is it perhaps 10% or less that gets thrown away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 20:52:38 GMT
I take core to mean the 200 odd seats the Tories and Labour each will never lose, a Barnsley or a Witney for example, or for you guys say a Yeovil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 22:14:34 GMT
I take core to mean the 200 odd seats the Tories and Labour each will never lose, a Barnsley or a Witney for example, or for you guys say a Yeovil. Im afraid we did rather worse than that in 1997 and 2001. |
|
