UK Politics: Electioneering

[ljkeane]

The BBC think the SNP are going to lose 22 seats but are only predicting Labour will pick up one seat in Scotland. That's not ideal.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Is there any up-and-coming politician in Labour now that would do any better than Corbyn? Because last time I seem to remember that there wasn't and that's why he got elected in the first place.

 

Depends what you mean by up-and-coming. Starmer seems to be a reasonably strong candidate: he worked in the CPS under the Coalition and seemed to be well-respected by all sides, to the point of getting a knighthood, and he avoided getting involved in the leadership crisis last time out on the basis he wanted more experience as an MP (despite a very lengthy career in the law, he was only elected in 2015) and then a Shadow Cabinet member. He's also been pretty strong as the Shadow Brexit Minister. He doesn't seem to have pissed off either the left or right in Labour.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

I know a couple of Lib Dems and they were optimistic about doubling their seat count, so gaining 6 doesn't seem too odd to me.

Of course they were. People need to believe in what they're doing, or they wouldn't do it. But the national polls until now have shown the Lib Dem vote getting squeezed, so tactical voting is the only way they could increase their representation.

As for Corbyn, he benefits from low expectations. If he's done OK, he can stay on. The rest of the party will have no appetite for another inevitable defeat in a leadership contest, and his own wing have no credible alternatives to replace him. So the job's his if he still wants it.

May might be in real trouble though. She can't hope to make a minority government work in the face of Brexit negotiations, but she also can't go into coalition with the Lib Dems, also because of Brexit.

Fewer seats for the SNP will mean a second indyref will be delayed but not cancelled. The Scottish Parliament already voted in favour of having one: to go back on that would require an earth-shattering defeat, or a big shift in UK policy on Brexit.

[Maltaran]

Yvette Cooper has got pretty short odds for next Labour leadet

[Slick Mongoose]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Of course they were. People need to believe in what they're doing, or they wouldn't do it. But the national polls until now have shown the Lib Dem vote getting squeezed, so tactical voting is the only way they could increase their representation.

That's how they've always worked really, targetting very specific constituencies,

[Slick Mongoose]

12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

We will crush the mackems.

Good prediction.

[Philokles]

Sunderland shouldn't have got David Moyes to run their count.

[Datepalm]

Wait did Newcastle actually pull off this stunning upset?

[Slick Mongoose]

Newcastle has a smaller swing to Labour than the exit poll suggested.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

How long before there are offical numbers?

[Slick Mongoose]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How long before there are offical numbers?

The first constituency has just reported (Newcastle Central).

 

[Fragile Bird]

What's the latest exit poll say?

[Datepalm]

Sunderland's Lib Dem candidate is about 16, by the look of it.

[Slick Mongoose]

Sunderland reports, another smaller swing to Labour than the exit poll suggested.

On this evidence the conservatives may keep a small majority.

[Lordsteve666]

1 minute ago, Datepalm said:

Sunderland's Lib Dem candidate is about 16, by the look of it.

I thought that too! Seemed like was out past his bedtime!

[Slick Mongoose]

3 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

Sunderland's Lib Dem candidate is about 16, by the look of it.

It often happens in seats where a party has no chance of doing well. Last time the Labour candidate for Bath was 19.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

What's the latest exit poll say?

 

There's only one, I think. The exit poll is far, far more accurate than any of the pre-voting polls, but it can still be (slightly) wrong.

Based on the two seats declared so far, the Tories are gaining at UKIP's expense but UKIP's vote has not collapsed as catastrophically as expected. That might split several seats and deliver Labour a few victories. However, the swing to Labour expected in those two seats from the exit poll has not materialised so far.

Although basing 650 results out of 2 is stupid. Give it a couple of hours and more of a pattern will emerge.

[Datepalm]

From the Newcastle-Sunderland 2 seat sample, yes, there's a substantial Tory gain vs. a smaller Labour gain, but most of that Tory gain has to be coming from the UKIP crashing - less from a swing of Labour to Tory. If I'm looking at it optimistically, Labour might be picking up more votes from the higher turnout, whereas the right-wing party are more splitting the same voters in a different way.

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thanks for telling me what I do or do not think. You are the most psychic poster here. 

I don't read the daily mail or any newspaper, as I am more aware of the bollocks they spew as well. Their lies and loyalties are so obvious that they are not even worth talking about. However my Facebook feed is jam packed full of people who assume they are 'good' and ' righteous' by telling everyone who votes Tory that they are evil or that May is a witch or some other childish simplistic nonsense. 

Both tactics are equally bad and offputting. 

Not exactly a basis for a voting choice though. I would think you vote 1) on the basis of the quality of the candidates in your electorate, 2) on the basis of the set of policies put forward by the candidates' parties. there might be a 3), 4), and 5), but none of them should be that some supporters of a political party are aresholes, because that applies across the board and has no bearing on whether the elected reps or their policies are good or bad.

[denstorebog]

In hindsight, this is either going to go down as a reasonable statement or as one of the funniest election night tweets in a long time.