The Conservative Party. The party of individual responsibility, treating people like adults and holding them to account for their own decisions.
"It's not my fault! A big European stole it an' ran away!" - Theresa May, aged 60 3/4.
Tell me that's a spoof. Theresa May called the "Brexit Means Brexit" election on instructions from Brussels.
But if it was on Juncker's advice that she did this why say in the speech when she called the vote that the EU was deliberately interfering in our election and making threats?
'Theresa May accuses EU of trying to 'deliberately' interfere in election'
YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister
He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
Give it a week, he will be.
I think the only person capable of stopping the Corbyn juggernaut heading into number 10 is Ruth Davidson, and even then I have my doubts.
I think Cameron's and May's antics in playing politics with elections has well and truly fucked the Tories for a generation......and laid the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution...
A "generation" implies, what 20-25 years? Corbyn and the extreme left won't be in power that long. They might make two terms though (10 years) I assume term one will be fairly modest (by their standards) term two they'll let rip with very extreme marxism (they won't be able to help themselves) and will be out after their second term.
Still 10 years of extreme left wing ideology will do immense damage...
OK...but it's going to be a long time before the Tories look capable of winning a GE......from 1993-2007 they were out of the game....
they will be behind the polls in my opinion for a similar amount of time unless they go for Davidson...
Nah. It will only take 1 term of Corbynomics and the Left will be so discredited it will take another 40 years for them to get back into power just like last time (Blair was not left wing) .
I think a decade (two terms) is more likely. My hunch is that in the first term Jezza and Johnny Mac would be fairly reasonable (by their standards) but if they got a second term they would go crazy and would be out at any subsequent election.
Nah. The Momentum lot behind them would not allow them to be sensible in the first term. They are symptomatic of the problems with our population today. They have been infantilised and demand instant gratification. That is the problem behind the whole Momentum movement. They are big kids who want all the sweeties but want someone else to pay for them.
So the voters don't like either option they gave the parties when they voted for a hung parliament
The question is also misleading. For there to be a coalition with Labour it has to include the support of the DUP. As it stands no viable majority exists without the support of the DUP (and that is not me advocating such an agreement by either the Tories or Labour. I most certainly am not)
This is an excellent post although "it has to include the support of the DUP" is slightly wrong. You can surely have a minority coalition government!
But yes, realistically, a "rainbow coalition" would have to include less cute and fluffy colours of the rainbow. Not sure how clear this is to the average voter - all those Corbynistas tweeting their confusion today about why Corbyn isn't in Number 10 certainly didn't understand this point. If a more reality-based question had been put in front of people (and they'd read all the way through to the "and the DUP" bit of the rainbow!) I do wonder if the responses would change. Perhaps they'd assume that the DUP role would be diluted if all the other parties were involved too.
(I'm also less than convinced that the people in that poll who supported the rainbow idea, have put serious thought into how all the different factions would get along to agree on stuff, when even the Labour party alone is having difficulties with its whipping operations!)
Does anyone really believe Lab are on 45%!!!!!!!!!!
A slightly different question is "who does it matter to, that Lab are on 45%?"
Improved poll ratings render Corbyn impervious to another leadership challenge from the PLP ... but they clearly aren't about to launch one. The election result has seen to that already.
Rubbish poll ratings render May unlikely to seek a Brexit negotiation postponement (which the EU would likely be amenable to) and launch a second snap GE ... but she clearly isn't about to anyway. The election result has seen to that already.
Might it encourage May to step down? Analysis of new information, and responding to it, doesn't really seem to be her "thing". Besides, with Timothy and Hill gone, who will do her thinking for her? (I'm channeling TSE in this paragraph. More seriously, she seems committed to the job, at least for now, even if she ultimately has a changeover period in mind in the next few months.)
Might it embolden a challenger to May? Will her cabinet or parliamentary party use it as a big stick to beat her with, to get her to hand over sooner? To me this seems the most important practical implication of new polling results. But we have just seen how an exercise in over-eager response to opinion polls can work out with somewhat sub-optimal results. Moreover, whoever takes over now is facing such a difficult task that their honeymoon is likely to be exceptionally brief - no matter what telegenic talisman the Tories can muster, provided Labour avoid another self-imposed implosion I'd expect any new leader to trail Corbyn in the polls in short order.
The last paragraph suggests that Mr Meeks had a good point in his thread about the advantages of May staying on a while.
If Boris took the leadership on a scrap dementia tax, restore free school lunches, fudged Brexit platform I think he would get a poll bounce, not to landslide territory but enough for a majority
Well my morning thread has been written, if you're Theresa May or a friend/fan of her, you might want to give it a miss.
Do fans exist? If she enters formal coalition with DUP or gives them very much I would struggle to support the Tories. Surely she's been told now that the DUP are not the UUP. She seemed confused earlier
The UUP would have been much much much better for the Tories. Unfortunately not an option, as there are none
You really don't have to remind me! I struggled to drive home.
But the DUP position is much weaker than people realise. They cannot fight another election. They hold three seats in Belfast and will want to keep them for five years. Another election in October will if I'm right give SF that position. They have to avoid overplaying their hand.
The DUP won 1 seat from the UUP and 1 from the SDLP, it did not gain any from SF, SF gains also came from the UUP and SDLP, not the DUP. The DUP currently have 10 seats and SF 8 so even if SF gained a seat from the DUP in Belfast they would only tie them not become the largest party in NI
... we will be a long way from the fiscally prudent early years of the last Labour government under Blair and Brown when Labour really could count on big poll leads for a full 5 year term and guaranteed re election
"Big leads for the full 5 years" is overegging it if you mean continuous leads. As early as 2000 the Tories very briefly took the lead, during the fuel crisis. That was admittedly a one-off, but the polls did close in a lot during the second term, and post-Iraq the lead swung back-and-forth.
If Boris took the leadership on a scrap dementia tax, restore free school lunches, fudged Brexit platform I think he would get a poll bounce, not to landslide territory but enough for a majority
Would he risk dragging the country to the election booths again on the back of a temporary honeymoon poll boost, though?
So the voters don't like either option they gave the parties when they voted for a hung parliament
The question is also misleading. For there to be a coalition with Labour it has to include the support of the DUP. As it stands no viable majority exists without the support of the DUP (and that is not me advocating such an agreement by either the Tories or Labour. I most certainly am not)
This is an excellent post although "it has to include the support of the DUP" is slightly wrong. You can surely have a minority coalition government!
But yes, realistically, a "rainbow coalition" would have to include less cute and fluffy colours of the rainbow. Not sure how clear this is to the average voter - all those Corbynistas tweeting their confusion today about why Corbyn isn't in Number 10 certainly didn't understand this point. If a more reality-based question had been put in front of people (and they'd read all the way through to the "and the DUP" bit of the rainbow!) I do wonder if the responses would change. Perhaps they'd assume that the DUP role would be diluted if all the other parties were involved too.
(I'm also less than convinced that the people in that poll who supported the rainbow idea, have put serious thought into how all the different factions would get along to agree on stuff, when even the Labour party alone is having difficulties with its whipping operations!)
You can have a minority coalition but if the DUP abstain then the Tories alone have the ability to defeat any coalition Queens Speech as long as Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
The Tories are on 318. The DUP on 10 Sinn Fein are on 8
That means all the other parties combined can only muster 314 seats.
Basically if the DUP don't actively support a Left Coalition QS then the Tories can vote it down.
So the voters don't like either option they gave the parties when they voted for a hung parliament
The question is also misleading. For there to be a coalition with Labour it has to include the support of the DUP. As it stands no viable majority exists without the support of the DUP (and that is not me advocating such an agreement by either the Tories or Labour. I most certainly am not)
This is an excellent post although "it has to include the support of the DUP" is slightly wrong. You can surely have a minority coalition government!
But yes, realistically, a "rainbow coalition" would have to include less cute and fluffy colours of the rainbow. Not sure how clear this is to the average voter - all those Corbynistas tweeting their confusion today about why Corbyn isn't in Number 10 certainly didn't understand this point. If a more reality-based question had been put in front of people (and they'd read all the way through to the "and the DUP" bit of the rainbow!) I do wonder if the responses would change. Perhaps they'd assume that the DUP role would be diluted if all the other parties were involved too.
(I'm also less than convinced that the people in that poll who supported the rainbow idea, have put serious thought into how all the different factions would get along to agree on stuff, when even the Labour party alone is having difficulties with its whipping operations!)
You can have a minority coalition but if the DUP abstain then the Tories alone have the ability to defeat any coalition Queens Speech as long as Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
The Tories are on 318. The DUP on 10 Sinn Fein are on 8
That means all the other parties combined can only muster 314 seats.
Basically if the DUP don't actively support a Left Coalition QS then the Tories can vote it down.
Sorry, yes, I agree with this*. I should have been more explicit. You can have a minority coalition government, in which respect the poll was not misleading. But it would be reliant on C&S from the DUP (or the Tories, which is perhaps about as realistic!).
*EDIT: with the fact that some measure of DUP support would be needed, not with the seat numbers!
Well my morning thread has been written, if you're Theresa May or a friend/fan of her, you might want to give it a miss.
Do fans exist? If she enters formal coalition with DUP or gives them very much I would struggle to support the Tories. Surely she's been told now that the DUP are not the UUP. She seemed confused earlier
The UUP would have been much much much better for the Tories. Unfortunately not an option, as there are none
You really don't have to remind me! I struggled to drive home.
But the DUP position is much weaker than people realise. They cannot fight another election. They hold three seats in Belfast and will want to keep them for five years. Another election in October will if I'm right give SF that position. They have to avoid overplaying their hand.
The DUP won 1 seat from the UUP and 1 from the SDLP, it did not gain any from SF, SF gains also came from the UUP and SDLP, not the DUP. The DUP currently have 10 seats and SF 8 so even if SF gained a seat from the DUP in Belfast they would only tie them not become the largest party in NI
SF actually have 7.
There is one Independent in Northern Ireland - Sylvia Hermon.
I'm not sure what her views are - whether she would prefer Con or Lab.
So the voters don't like either option they gave the parties when they voted for a hung parliament
The question is also misleading. For there to be a coalition with Labour it has to include the support of the DUP. As it stands no viable majority exists without the support of the DUP (and that is not me advocating such an agreement by either the Tories or Labour. I most certainly am not)
This is an excellent post although "it has to include the support of the DUP" is slightly wrong. You can surely have a minority coalition government!
But yes, realistically, a "rainbow coalition" would have to include less cute and fluffy colours of the rainbow. Not sure how clear this is to the average voter - all those Corbynistas tweeting their confusion today about why Corbyn isn't in Number 10 certainly didn't understand this point. If a more reality-based question had been put in front of people (and they'd read all the way through to the "and the DUP" bit of the rainbow!) I do wonder if the responses would change. Perhaps they'd assume that the DUP role would be diluted if all the other parties were involved too.
(I'm also less than convinced that the people in that poll who supported the rainbow idea, have put serious thought into how all the different factions would get along to agree on stuff, when even the Labour party alone is having difficulties with its whipping operations!)
You can have a minority coalition but if the DUP abstain then the Tories alone have the ability to defeat any coalition Queens Speech as long as Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
The Tories are on 318. The DUP on 10 Sinn Fein are on 8
That means all the other parties combined can only muster 314 seats.
Basically if the DUP don't actively support a Left Coalition QS then the Tories can vote it down.
Boris has the highest rating for would make a good leader but Ruth Davidson has the only positive net score but I think she will stay at Holyrood, Boris also has the second highest negative after Gove but if he promised to dump the dementia tax etc and take a less rigid stance on Brexit that could change. Otherwise we risk the most leftwing government in our history and Brexit all at the same time, which would be a national disaster
These things can change though - as Jez has proved. I think Davis would be the best of the actual available options.
Any new leader has to fight an election though, they can't limp on without trying for their own mandate. So in that situation the tories will only go with those who have proven electoral campaigning success, more important right now than being a good PM. So Boris it is.
These things can change though - as Jez has proved. I think Davis would be the best of the actual available options.
I think hypothetical "who would be the best leader" questions are of very limited value.
I also think there are strong merits to Davis, particularly given that he knows a lot (seems very up on his brief) about the most important thing he will have to deliver.
(I have a soft spot for Davis in general, do wonder how different the country would be today if he'd beaten Cameron to the leadership! I do wonder if he is temperamentally unsuited to being PM. Hopefully he has grown out of stunts.)
Who would the LDs prefer in Downing Street - Con or Lab under Corbyn.
Does the Cable article hint that if Con start losing by-elections then LD might stop the Con Govt falling.
Clearly they wouldn't go into coalition or similar. But if they prefer Con to Corbyn and if they think Corbyn would win a GE then maybe they might do something - eg like abstaining on a confidence vote.
If Boris took the leadership on a scrap dementia tax, restore free school lunches, fudged Brexit platform I think he would get a poll bounce, not to landslide territory but enough for a majority
Would he risk dragging the country to the election booths again on the back of a temporary honeymoon poll boost, though?
He would only do so if polls (including Survation now obviously) showed him getting a 5-10% poll lead which would give a Tory majority but if they did he would call an election in October having won the Tory leadership and become PM in September and aim for a majority which would free the Tories from reliance on the DUP.
The Conservative Party. The party of individual responsibility, treating people like adults and holding them to account for their own decisions.
"It's not my fault! A big European stole it an' ran away!" - Theresa May, aged 60 3/4.
Tell me that's a spoof. Theresa May called the "Brexit Means Brexit" election on instructions from Brussels.
But if it was on Juncker's advice that she did this why say in the speech when she called the vote that the EU was deliberately interfering in our election and making threats?
'Theresa May accuses EU of trying to 'deliberately' interfere in election'
They are only asking the obvious ones. Where is Patel for example?
Lib Dems would love Priti to be in charge I suspect !
Bouncing from May to Priti sounds very much like doubling down on a mistake to me.
Someone out of left-field who I have heard only good things about the talent of: Kwasi Kwarteng. But"then, what would be the point polling for out-of-left-field figures? The public have no idea who most of them are. David Davis, as Brexit minister, occupies one of the most important jobs in this country, yet the fairly bland figures suggest that recognition of him is minimal.
I do think it is likely to go to someone experienced and reasonably prominent, partly so they can command some respect from MPs, and partly because it will need to be someone who can confidently navigate very difficult waters. "No time for a novice", as they say...
Who would the LDs prefer in Downing Street - Con or Lab under Corbyn.
Does the Cable article hint that if Con start losing by-elections then LD might stop the Con Govt falling.
Clearly they wouldn't go into coalition or similar. But if they prefer Con to Corbyn and if they think Corbyn would win a GE then maybe they might do something - eg like abstaining on a confidence vote.
I honestly don't know what Vince is playing at here, the Tories have alot of rope to hang themselves with the DUP shennanigans right now - best to play a wait and see game for the Lib Dems I think. Vince is just a meddler. Can't imagine Farron is happy with him chuntering away - Vince, you're a retread not the party leader !
... we will be a long way from the fiscally prudent early years of the last Labour government under Blair and Brown when Labour really could count on big poll leads for a full 5 year term and guaranteed re election
"Big leads for the full 5 years" is overegging it if you mean continuous leads. As early as 2000 the Tories very briefly took the lead, during the fuel crisis. That was admittedly a one-off, but the polls did close in a lot during the second term, and post-Iraq the lead swung back-and-forth.
I was talking 1997-2001 when New Labour had large leads over Hague's Tories for almost all the 4 year term apart from the fuel crisis and won a landslide re election. After a few months of Corbynomics taking place at the same time as Brexit the UK would risk becoming a basketcase and whoever led the Tories would likely build a poll lead sooner rather than later but the damage would take a long time to repair even if Corbyn could be beaten after only 1 term
Noise and given 20% of the country are hardline Leavers and only 10% of the country hardline Remainers like you it is not happening, the same poll has voters opposing a second referendum by a large majority, it makes fudged Brexit more likely not no Brexit
Of course polls of all voters in the 2015 and 2016 Labour leadership campaigns all gave Corbyn a big net negative rating and he still increased Labour's voteshare and number of MPs in the general election, notably like Boris he had a reasonably high positive rating just the negative rating for Corbyn was even higher, again much like Boris
Well my morning thread has been written, if you're Theresa May or a friend/fan of her, you might want to give it a miss.
Do fans exist? If she enters formal coalition with DUP or gives them very much I would struggle to support the Tories. Surely she's been told now that the DUP are not the UUP. She seemed confused earlier
The UUP would have been much much much better for the Tories. Unfortunately not an option, as there are none
You really don't have to remind me! I struggled to drive home.
But the DUP position is much weaker than people realise. They cannot fight another election. They hold three seats in Belfast and will want to keep them for five years. Another election in October will if I'm right give SF that position. They have to avoid overplaying their hand.
The DUP won 1 seat from the UUP and 1 from the SDLP, it did not gain any from SF, SF gains also came from the UUP and SDLP, not the DUP. The DUP currently have 10 seats and SF 8 so even if SF gained a seat from the DUP in Belfast they would only tie them not become the largest party in NI
SF actually have 7.
There is one Independent in Northern Ireland - Sylvia Hermon.
I'm not sure what her views are - whether she would prefer Con or Lab.
She's broadly pro-Labour rather than pro-Conservative; that's why she became an Independent in the first place (she disagreed with the Conservative/UUP electoral pact).
Well my morning thread has been written, if you're Theresa May or a friend/fan of her, you might want to give it a miss.
Do fans exist? If she enters formal coalition with DUP or gives them very much I would struggle to support the Tories. Surely she's been told now that the DUP are not the UUP. She seemed confused earlier
The UUP would have been much much much better for the Tories. Unfortunately not an option, as there are none
You really don't have to remind me! I struggled to drive home.
But the DUP position is much weaker than people realise. They cannot fight another election. They hold three seats in Belfast and will want to keep them for five years. Another election in October will if I'm right give SF that position. They have to avoid overplaying their hand.
The DUP won 1 seat from the UUP and 1 from the SDLP, it did not gain any from SF, SF gains also came from the UUP and SDLP, not the DUP. The DUP currently have 10 seats and SF 8 so even if SF gained a seat from the DUP in Belfast they would only tie them not become the largest party in NI
SF actually have 7.
There is one Independent in Northern Ireland - Sylvia Hermon.
I'm not sure what her views are - whether she would prefer Con or Lab.
New Labour I think. Not Conservative anyway. Although as the spouse of the former RUC chief, she may find Corbyn a step too far and has said as much.
2010, Labour with Gordon Brown: 258 seats and 29.7% of the GB vote. 2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister
He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
Give it a week, he will be.
I think the only person capable of stopping the Corbyn juggernaut heading into number 10 is Ruth Davidson, and even then I have my doubts.
I think Cameron's and May's antics in playing politics with elections has well and truly fucked the Tories for a generation......and laid the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution...
So lets get this straight, you think that democracy has been ill served by Conservative PMs going to the country to ask their opinion either in referendums or a GEs, including one that created a stable Coalition for five years during the UKs toughest economic period in decades? And that in doing so they were simple playing politics rather than serving democracy, and that will now somehow lay the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution? Especially after the last Blair/Brown Government's antics over the EU and their stewardship of the economy led to a decade of austerity..... Okay....
In the last seven years we have had three referendums that have asked the UK their opinion our voting system and membership of the EU, and one that saw Scotland voting on the issue of Independence. That is not playing poltiics, that is a hell of a lot more democracy than we got served up throughout the last Labour Government with its majorities!
Well my morning thread has been written, if you're Theresa May or a friend/fan of her, you might want to give it a miss.
Do fans exist? If she enters formal coalition with DUP or gives them very much I would struggle to support the Tories. Surely she's been told now that the DUP are not the UUP. She seemed confused earlier
The UUP would have been much much much better for the Tories. Unfortunately not an option, as there are none
You really don't have to remind me! I struggled to drive home.
But the DUP position is much weaker than people realise. They cannot fight another election. They hold three seats in Belfast and will want to keep them for five years. Another election in October will if I'm right give SF that position. They have to avoid overplaying their hand.
The DUP won 1 seat from the UUP and 1 from the SDLP, it did not gain any from SF, SF gains also came from the UUP and SDLP, not the DUP. The DUP currently have 10 seats and SF 8 so even if SF gained a seat from the DUP in Belfast they would only tie them not become the largest party in NI
SF actually have 7.
There is one Independent in Northern Ireland - Sylvia Hermon.
I'm not sure what her views are - whether she would prefer Con or Lab.
New Labour I think. Not Conservative anyway. Although as the spouse of the former RUC chief, she may find Corbyn a step too far and has said as much.
The Survation result shows a confused and restive public - May should resign but we don't like any of the alternatives, we don't want a DUP-Tory pact but we don't want a progressive alliance either. We want Labour in power but we don't want another general election.
This is why there won't be another general election this year. Nobody knows what the public will do.
More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.
The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
Several of the diehard Remainer Tory MPs don't appreciate that their party is now irretrievably tied to Brexit. If they fail to deliver it, the party will split and face utter collapse.
Hopefully they will realise this.
You just don't get it, the Conservative party was always about more than the EU or Brexit, that was UKIP and look at the state it is now in! These issues may have dominated politics over the last few decades, but the Conservative party and its main purpose as a centre right political party have dominated the UK political landscape for a hell of a lot longer! Any idea that the party will now split after the short term antics of Carswell and Reckless proved how pointless a gesture that is in the longer term is for the birds!
2010, Labour with Gordon Brown: 258 seats and 29.7% of the GB vote. 2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
I think that is misleading, because Labour had all the seats in Scotland in 2010. The other thing is that compared to 2010 Labour would need a higher vote to keep their seats given the Tory improvement since then.
Looking at England only, it would be as follows 2010 Brown 28.1% 191 seats 2017 Corbyn 41.9% 227 seats
In 2010, Labour had 42 MPs elected in England with less than 40% of the vote In 2017 I believe the only English Labour MP with less than 40% of the vote was Sheffield Hallam
The Survation result shows a confused and restive public - May should resign but we don't like any of the alternatives, we don't want a DUP-Tory pact but we don't want a progressive alliance either. We want Labour in power but we don't want another general election.
This is why there won't be another general election this year. Nobody knows what the public will do.
You could be right.
Momentum is very important - it's obviously all against Con at the moment as May messed up so badly.
But consider this - when the GE 2015 Exit poll came out it had Con 316 seats - and every Con supporter was delighted - because it was above expectations. And I bet every Con supporter was confident Con would be in Government.
Well now Con has 318 seats - so why shouldn't they be in Government now?
The first thing they have to do is get through the first 3 months by when everyone will have calmed down and adjusted to the new situation. And that really only means getting through about 5 weeks as Parliament will go on holiday in mid July.
Once things settle down they may well be able to find a way forward.
And given what Cable has said and what the LDs think of Corbyn I would strongly consider improving relations with the LDs - with a view to working more co-operatively with them as this Parliament proceeds.
2010, Labour with Gordon Brown: 258 seats and 29.7% of the GB vote. 2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
I think that is misleading, because Labour had all the seats in Scotland in 2010. The other thing is that compared to 2010 Labour would need a higher vote to keep their seats given the Tory improvement since then.
Looking at England only, it would be as follows 2010 Brown 28.1% 191 seats 2017 Corbyn 41.9% 227 seats
In 2010, Labour had 42 MPs elected in England with less than 40% of the vote In 2017 I believe the only English Labour MP with less than 40% of the vote was Sheffield Hallam
Conversely, 50 English Labour candidates got over 40% and lost to a Tory, including 12 who got more than 45% In 2010, clearing 40% was enough to get elected for all but 4 Labour candidates.
2010, Labour with Gordon Brown: 258 seats and 29.7% of the GB vote. 2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
I think that is misleading, because Labour had all the seats in Scotland in 2010. The other thing is that compared to 2010 Labour would need a higher vote to keep their seats given the Tory improvement since then.
Looking at England only, it would be as follows 2010 Brown 28.1% 191 seats 2017 Corbyn 41.9% 227 seats
In 2010, Labour had 42 MPs elected in England with less than 40% of the vote In 2017 I believe the only English Labour MP with less than 40% of the vote was Sheffield Hallam
Tories= c.14Million/318 seats=42,979 votes per constituency
Labour c.13million votes/262 seats=49,141 votes per constituency.
~6,000 more votes per constituency to elect a labour MP. but labour were on the cusp of taking dozens more seats including 20 from the SNP. Labour's vote isn't really more inefficient, not massively so.
2010, Labour with Gordon Brown: 258 seats and 29.7% of the GB vote. 2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
Comments
But yes, realistically, a "rainbow coalition" would have to include less cute and fluffy colours of the rainbow. Not sure how clear this is to the average voter - all those Corbynistas tweeting their confusion today about why Corbyn isn't in Number 10 certainly didn't understand this point. If a more reality-based question had been put in front of people (and they'd read all the way through to the "and the DUP" bit of the rainbow!) I do wonder if the responses would change. Perhaps they'd assume that the DUP role would be diluted if all the other parties were involved too.
(I'm also less than convinced that the people in that poll who supported the rainbow idea, have put serious thought into how all the different factions would get along to agree on stuff, when even the Labour party alone is having difficulties with its whipping operations!)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1997-2001
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
"Big leads for the full 5 years" is overegging it if you mean continuous leads. As early as 2000 the Tories very briefly took the lead, during the fuel crisis. That was admittedly a one-off, but the polls did close in a lot during the second term, and post-Iraq the lead swung back-and-forth.
The Tories are on 318.
The DUP on 10
Sinn Fein are on 8
That means all the other parties combined can only muster 314 seats.
Basically if the DUP don't actively support a Left Coalition QS then the Tories can vote it down.
*EDIT: with the fact that some measure of DUP support would be needed, not with the seat numbers!
There is one Independent in Northern Ireland - Sylvia Hermon.
I'm not sure what her views are - whether she would prefer Con or Lab.
So the Coalition of Chaos can only muster 315.
I also think there are strong merits to Davis, particularly given that he knows a lot (seems very up on his brief) about the most important thing he will have to deliver.
(I have a soft spot for Davis in general, do wonder how different the country would be today if he'd beaten Cameron to the leadership! I do wonder if he is temperamentally unsuited to being PM. Hopefully he has grown out of stunts.)
Does the Cable article hint that if Con start losing by-elections then LD might stop the Con Govt falling.
Clearly they wouldn't go into coalition or similar. But if they prefer Con to Corbyn and if they think Corbyn would win a GE then maybe they might do something - eg like abstaining on a confidence vote.
Someone out of left-field who I have heard only good things about the talent of: Kwasi Kwarteng. But"then, what would be the point polling for out-of-left-field figures? The public have no idea who most of them are. David Davis, as Brexit minister, occupies one of the most important jobs in this country, yet the fairly bland figures suggest that recognition of him is minimal.
I do think it is likely to go to someone experienced and reasonably prominent, partly so they can command some respect from MPs, and partly because it will need to be someone who can confidently navigate very difficult waters. "No time for a novice", as they say...
Vince is just a meddler. Can't imagine Farron is happy with him chuntering away - Vince, you're a retread not the party leader !
He probably doesn't care about Brexit either way.
If he became PM he would ditch all the unpopular policies in the Con Manifesto and that would certainly give him a decent chance of winning a GE.
NOT A COALITION OF CHAOS
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/status/873682026116907013
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/emergency-politics-podcast-the-u-k-election/?ex_cid=navlink
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/i-could-never-back-labour-if-corbyn-was-its-leader-says-hermon-35783622.html
2017, Labour with Jeremy Corbyn: 262 seats and 41.0% of the GB vote.
Just 4 extra seats in 2017 despite being 11.3 percentage points higher than 2010. Pretty strong evidence that Labour is piling up votes in safe seats now compared to a couple of elections ago. The same boundaries as well.
In the last seven years we have had three referendums that have asked the UK their opinion our voting system and membership of the EU, and one that saw Scotland voting on the issue of Independence. That is not playing poltiics, that is a hell of a lot more democracy than we got served up throughout the last Labour Government with its majorities!
So maybe just a chance she wouldn't vote to bring down a Con Minority Govt but who knows.
This is why there won't be another general election this year. Nobody knows what the public will do.
Looking at England only, it would be as follows
2010 Brown 28.1% 191 seats
2017 Corbyn 41.9% 227 seats
In 2010, Labour had 42 MPs elected in England with less than 40% of the vote
In 2017 I believe the only English Labour MP with less than 40% of the vote was Sheffield Hallam
Momentum is very important - it's obviously all against Con at the moment as May messed up so badly.
But consider this - when the GE 2015 Exit poll came out it had Con 316 seats - and every Con supporter was delighted - because it was above expectations. And I bet every Con supporter was confident Con would be in Government.
Well now Con has 318 seats - so why shouldn't they be in Government now?
The first thing they have to do is get through the first 3 months by when everyone will have calmed down and adjusted to the new situation. And that really only means getting through about 5 weeks as Parliament will go on holiday in mid July.
Once things settle down they may well be able to find a way forward.
And given what Cable has said and what the LDs think of Corbyn I would strongly consider improving relations with the LDs - with a view to working more co-operatively with them as this Parliament proceeds.
In 2010, clearing 40% was enough to get elected for all but 4 Labour candidates.
Labour c.13million votes/262 seats=49,141 votes per constituency.
~6,000 more votes per constituency to elect a labour MP. but labour were on the cusp of taking dozens more seats including 20 from the SNP. Labour's vote isn't really more inefficient, not massively so.
England only
2010 Tory vote 9.9m 39.6% 298 seats
2017 Tory vote 12.4m 45.6% 297 seats
In 40% of the English seats where they stood a candidate, UKIP beat the LibDems