Opinium

[The Bishop]

Tony Greaves actually rated Steel and Thorpe?

[carlton43]

Apr 21, 2024 11:53:55 GMT The Bishop said:

Tony Greaves actually rated Steel and Thorpe?

Steele was Bantam-weight but I suppose Thorpe was more Cruiser-weight!

[gwynthegriff]

Apr 21, 2024 11:53:55 GMT The Bishop said:

Tony Greaves actually rated Steel and Thorpe?

Thorpe was before my time but his relationship with Steel was, as I recollect, lukewarm.

[The Bishop]

Back in the 1980s Liberal News was one of the periodicals stocked by the local library and TG had a regular column there (on the back page IIRC)

And yes, that would certainly be my somewhat vague recollection from those days.

[Pete Whitehead]

It was a good source of local byelection results before we had places like this

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The first systematic monitoring of local byelection results appears to have been in late 1981 when the SDP was first contesting elections, and there was no other hard evidence of how it would do at the ballot box. The SDP's newsletter reported on them. New Society also kept a list at around this time and Tribune also used to monitor local byelections in the 1980s.

[Raddy]

Apr 21, 2024 11:36:18 GMT The Bishop said:

At the moment the LibDems are becalmed (they must be pretty keen for a Hazel Grove byelection to actually happen!) but it is still very plausible that the increased coverage and publicity means they increase their support during the actual election campaign - if so, a national vote share similar to 2019 is surely possible. And if so, they could hardly fail to gain significantly even in the highly unlikely event they *weren't* targeting any better than last time.

It maybe shouldn't be presumed that any such uptick in support would just come from Labour voters either....

Becalmed, that's very generous.

They are invisible, and you only have to look at LibDemVoice to realise why. Nothing more than the same small group of people, talking to themselves, seemingly obsessed with their own narrow issues, and completely uncaring to the wider concerns of the country. The conversations on the blog make watching paint drying an exciting pastime.

[finsobruce]

Apr 21, 2024 13:33:44 GMT Raddy said:

Apr 21, 2024 11:36:18 GMT The Bishop said:

At the moment the LibDems are becalmed (they must be pretty keen for a Hazel Grove byelection to actually happen!) but it is still very plausible that the increased coverage and publicity means they increase their support during the actual election campaign - if so, a national vote share similar to 2019 is surely possible. And if so, they could hardly fail to gain significantly even in the highly unlikely event they *weren't* targeting any better than last time.

It maybe shouldn't be presumed that any such uptick in support would just come from Labour voters either....

Becalmed, that's very generous.

They are invisible, and you only have to look at LibDemVoice to realise why. Nothing more than the same small group of people, talking to themselves, seemingly obsessed with their own narrow issues, and completely uncaring to the wider concerns of the country. The conversations on the blog make watching paint drying an exciting pastime.

Judging the success of any political party by the posts on their internal blog seems just a tad ridiculous.

[hullenedge]

The Guardian provided some decent coverage for local by-election results back in the early 80s (plus the articles in The Observer dating back to the 60s). We had a copy in the Common Room so easy to monitor on a weekly basis. Two 1982 clippings pre-Falklands:-

[Pete Whitehead]

Apr 21, 2024 15:59:31 GMT hullenedge said:

The Guardian provided some decent coverage for local by-election results back in the early 80s (plus the articles in The Observer dating back to the 60s). We had a copy in the Common Room so easy to monitor on a weekly basis. Two 1982 clippings pre-Falklands:-

There'll be some grumbling here that they only provide the %s

[CatholicLeft]

Apr 21, 2024 12:12:05 GMT The Bishop said:

Back in the 1980s Liberal News was one of the periodicals stocked by the local library and TG had a regular column there (on the back page IIRC)

And yes, that would certainly be my somewhat vague recollection from those days.

I remember the Labour Weekly had local byelection results. I still have the last ever copy somewhere.

[islington]

Apr 21, 2024 9:00:08 GMT hengog said:

It must be almost as frustrating being a Liberal Democrat at the moment as it is being a conservative! With the government as unpopular as it is and with a deeply uninspiring Labour Party,  they must feel that if they only had the kind of leadership they always enjoyed when times were far more difficult for them ! Instead- Ed Davey and…..assorted nonentities.
But not quite as frustrating I must concede. I was with some old colleagues at a dinner the other day. This being very much the old ‘Education establishment’ I was in a small minority , possibly of one, among a gathering of the Left( I can imagine their writhing embarrassment this morning at Starmers latest crude appeal to the ‘ traditional Tory voter’ by his pretended flag waving enthusiasm for StGeorges day! ). Some simply loathed him , some had some pale admiration for his political instincts and ruthlessness, none were fans! Most lamented that once again that when the wheel of fortune offered the opportunity for a Labour government, the party was in the hands of its right wing. I was struck afresh how fragile the Labour coalition is in reality, bound together solely by a desire to hold it together to win the election. In which at least they show more gumption than the Conservatives to be sure.

Has it ever crossed their minds, do you think, that the former state of affairs might be contingent in any way on the latter?

[islington]

Apr 21, 2024 6:08:50 GMT John Chanin said:

I think there is too much excited talk about Liberal Democrat gains given the low polling figures - struggling to reach 10%. People aren't going to have a damascene conversion to tactical voting once a date is set for the General Election. It's like 2015, when there was widespread argument that the Liberal vote would hold up in the seats they held, despite some basic arithmetic showing this would require zero or negative votes in most of the country.

My guess is that the Liberal Democrats will remain under 20 seats, with many present hopes dashed, as the Conservatives hold seats on a low share of the vote, with a significant rise in Labour and Reform votes.

For my money I think this is probably right.

The only thing I'd add is that I can see Labour surprising people (including themselves) by jumping from third to first in a number of so-called 'Blue Wall' seats in the shires. I have a small bet on that Labour will make more 'Blue Wall' gains than the Lib Dems. (I expect the Lib Dems to pick up a few but not many.)

[iain]

Apr 21, 2024 19:51:36 GMT islington said:

Apr 21, 2024 6:08:50 GMT John Chanin said:

I think there is too much excited talk about Liberal Democrat gains given the low polling figures - struggling to reach 10%. People aren't going to have a damascene conversion to tactical voting once a date is set for the General Election. It's like 2015, when there was widespread argument that the Liberal vote would hold up in the seats they held, despite some basic arithmetic showing this would require zero or negative votes in most of the country.

My guess is that the Liberal Democrats will remain under 20 seats, with many present hopes dashed, as the Conservatives hold seats on a low share of the vote, with a significant rise in Labour and Reform votes.

For my money I think this is probably right.

The only thing I'd add is that I can see Labour surprising people (including themselves) by jumping from third to first in a number of so-called 'Blue Wall' seats in the shires. I have a small bet on that Labour will make more 'Blue Wall' gains than the Lib Dems. (I expect the Lib Dems to pick up a few but not many.)

What constitutes the 'blue wall' for the purposes of your bet?

FWIW I'd be surprised if we remain under 20 seats - 25-30 (20-35 with a bit more uncertainty) feels about right given the expected scale of the Conservative collapse.

[michaelarden]

Apr 21, 2024 19:51:36 GMT islington said:

Apr 21, 2024 6:08:50 GMT John Chanin said:

I think there is too much excited talk about Liberal Democrat gains given the low polling figures - struggling to reach 10%. People aren't going to have a damascene conversion to tactical voting once a date is set for the General Election. It's like 2015, when there was widespread argument that the Liberal vote would hold up in the seats they held, despite some basic arithmetic showing this would require zero or negative votes in most of the country.

My guess is that the Liberal Democrats will remain under 20 seats, with many present hopes dashed, as the Conservatives hold seats on a low share of the vote, with a significant rise in Labour and Reform votes.

For my money I think this is probably right.

The only thing I'd add is that I can see Labour surprising people (including themselves) by jumping from third to first in a number of so-called 'Blue Wall' seats in the shires. I have a small bet on that Labour will make more 'Blue Wall' gains than the Lib Dems. (I expect the Lib Dems to pick up a few but not many.)

I agree - unless the Lib Dems can get up to 13-15%  then making substantial gains would be exceedingly hard. A share of 9-10% equates to approx 3m votes nationwide - winning say 50 seats would mean around 1.2 million votes in just those seats (25,000 votes to win a single seat). There just isn't enough votes to go round at this level. 

If they end up polling not far off the 17% they got in 1997 (4.5+ million votes), then they of course would make major gains. But with Reform (and thee Greens to a lesser extent) all polling more strongly than 2019 along with a major squeeze from Labour to get the Tories out - it's going to be tough for them to break out.


  

[islington]

Apr 21, 2024 19:59:22 GMT iain said:

Apr 21, 2024 19:51:36 GMT islington said:

For my money I think this is probably right.

The only thing I'd add is that I can see Labour surprising people (including themselves) by jumping from third to first in a number of so-called 'Blue Wall' seats in the shires. I have a small bet on that Labour will make more 'Blue Wall' gains than the Lib Dems. (I expect the Lib Dems to pick up a few but not many.)

What constitutes the 'blue wall' for the purposes of your bet?

FWIW I'd be surprised if we remain under 20 seats - 25-30 (20-35 with a bit more uncertainty) feels about right given the expected scale of the Conservative collapse.

The seat must be (i) in the SW, SE or E region; (ii) a 'CC' not a 'BC'; (iii) a Tory win in 2019 after allowing for boundary changes (subsequent byelections are ignored).

It's a crude and debatable definition but this is only for the purposes of a small-stake bet between myself and a Lib Dem friend.

The Lib Dems polled 11.6% in 2019 and won 11 seats. Current polling suggests they will get a smaller share this time, even if we ignore the possibility that they will get squeezed as the GE approaches (as they did in 2017 and 2019). They may chalk up the odd gain but I'll be surprised if they win as many as 20 seats in all.

I know you probably find this a disappointing forecast but if it turns out I've got it wrong, think of the pleasure you'll be able to take from telling me so.

Edited to add: The post by michaelarden , which crossed with mine, makes the same point much better than I did.

[iain]

Apr 21, 2024 20:20:40 GMT islington said:

Apr 21, 2024 19:59:22 GMT iain said:

What constitutes the 'blue wall' for the purposes of your bet?

FWIW I'd be surprised if we remain under 20 seats - 25-30 (20-35 with a bit more uncertainty) feels about right given the expected scale of the Conservative collapse.

The seat must be (i) in the SW, SE or E region; (ii) a 'CC' not a 'BC'; (iii) a Tory win in 2019 after allowing for boundary changes (subsequent byelections are ignored).

It's a crude and debatable definition but this is only for the purposes of a small-stake bet between myself and a Lib Dem friend.

The Lib Dems polled 11.6% in 2019 and won 11 seats. Current polling suggests they will get a smaller share this time, even if we ignore the possibility that they will get squeezed as the GE approaches (as they did in 2017 and 2019). They may chalk up the odd gain but I'll be surprised if they win as many as 20 seats in all.

I know you probably find this a disappointing forecast but if it turns out I've got it wrong, think of the pleasure you'll be able to take from telling me so.

Edited to add: The post by michaelarden , which crossed with mine, makes the same point much better than I did.

It is possible we'll be squeezed in a GE campaign of course, but in 2017 and 2019 we were slightly inflated mid-term due to Brexit, and pre-2015 we tended to up our voteshare during campaigns due to more equal coverage / tactical voting. Given the circumstances of this parliament, I'd guess the Lib Dem share will increase, following the historical norm. In 1997 (where of course the Lib Dems went backwards in voteshare), which seems a fairly generous comparison for the Conservatives, the narrowest Tory hold over the Lib Dems was Wells, which needed a 5.8% swing. There are 12 Conservative-held seats with a smaller margin than that over the Lib Dems, and, as I say, a 1997-style swing would mark a substantial Tory recovery from their current poll ratings.

My guess is that neither the Lib Dems nor Labour will gain many 'blue wall' seats according to your definition, but I don't have a great handle on county vs borough constituencies so can't comment with any great certainty.

[hengog]

Apr 21, 2024 19:41:10 GMT islington said:

Apr 21, 2024 9:00:08 GMT hengog said:

It must be almost as frustrating being a Liberal Democrat at the moment as it is being a conservative! With the government as unpopular as it is and with a deeply uninspiring Labour Party,  they must feel that if they only had the kind of leadership they always enjoyed when times were far more difficult for them ! Instead- Ed Davey and…..assorted nonentities.
But not quite as frustrating I must concede. I was with some old colleagues at a dinner the other day. This being very much the old ‘Education establishment’ I was in a small minority , possibly of one, among a gathering of the Left( I can imagine their writhing embarrassment this morning at Starmers latest crude appeal to the ‘ traditional Tory voter’ by his pretended flag waving enthusiasm for StGeorges day! ). Some simply loathed him , some had some pale admiration for his political instincts and ruthlessness, none were fans! Most lamented that once again that when the wheel of fortune offered the opportunity for a Labour government, the party was in the hands of its right wing. I was struck afresh how fragile the Labour coalition is in reality, bound together solely by a desire to hold it together to win the election. In which at least they show more gumption than the Conservatives to be sure.

Has it ever crossed their minds, do you think, that the former state of affairs might be contingent in any way on the latter?

To be fair , I’d say that yes it has, but they do have a point, I think. Labour surely didn’t really need Blair / Brown to defeat a tired and worn out government: John Smith would surely have done so, had he lived - and we may never have seen ‘new Labour’. I don’t think anyone was suggesting Jeremy Corbyn would sweep to power now, but that a more credible candidate from left of centre could do so.

[matureleft]

Apr 21, 2024 21:19:31 GMT hengog said:

Apr 21, 2024 19:41:10 GMT islington said:

Has it ever crossed their minds, do you think, that the former state of affairs might be contingent in any way on the latter?

To be fair , I’d say that yes it has, but they do have a point, I think. Labour surely didn’t really need Blair / Brown to defeat a tired and worn out government: John Smith would surely have done so, had he lived - and we may never have seen ‘new Labour’. I don’t think anyone was suggesting Jeremy Corbyn would sweep to power now, but that a more credible candidate from left of centre could do so.

I’m not clear what your friends felt the genuine policy options were with such a damaged economy and severely depleted resources? Yes, there’s gesture stuff but the chance to pour money into public services really isn’t there.

This will be more like 1974 than 1997 should Labour win. Some foolish acts by the previous government plus external circumstances drive decisions. In 1997 Clarke had done a fair job at repairing the damage from the early 1990s. Hunt hasn’t had the time and some of the strategic fundamentals remain out of bounds - attempting to get a smoother relationship with our main export markets for a start. 

[The Bishop]

Apparently their latest effort shows Sunak's approval falling to its lowest ever level.