Not a particularly good idea, though, and really tough on the local candidate and supporters.
The “local” candidate is a relatively young (and presumably up-and-coming) member of Labour’s equalities team, no doubt sent to Clacton to get a taste of candidacy before being given a more winnable seat somewhere else in the country next time. I doubt he minds one way or the other.
That was the case with Stephen Twigg in 97. I think he was as surprised as everyone else when he beat Portillo
I was reacting to the implication that the candidate himself might be upset at being put on a bus rather than being allowed to campaign in his constituency. Personally I doubt he cares much at all for Clacton, or indeed had ever even been there before being assigned to the seat a month or so ago.
Or maybe it is easier for people who come from more socialist countries in the “global South” (I’m never comfortable using that term) and who aren’t political dissidents or wealthier people who are strongly anti socialist to immigrate to the UK than it is to the US (it was very hard for people from India or China to immigrate to the US even before Trump)?
There was a lot of immigration of all classes of people from Commonwealth countries into the UK (which I presume is germane given the topic of the thread).
Something I've been meaning to ask is whether any news sources attempt to analyze the voting patterns of different demographic groups (race, ethnicity, gender, income, level of education, religious identity/level of religious practice, etc.) I see some general discussion along the lines of "this constituency has become more competitive for Labour as it has become more multiethnic" or "this constituency is full of affluent Remainers who used to vote Tory but now might vote LibDem", etc., but I never seem to see opinion polling or exit polling that says "this percent of...black voters/single women/voters without a university degree/voters who pray daily or attend religious services at least once a week...intend to vote for or say they voted for this party". The news in the US is full of this kind of opinion polling. I know it's harder to do at the constituency level, which is where is matters for a parliamentary election, but it just feels like a lot of the political analysis is only based on the party vote distribution from the last election and opinion polling of the general public in a constituency, rather than on breaking voters down into demographics. Is this true? Or am I just not looking at the news sources that have this kind of analysis?
As I was saying, the data is all collected. This on YouGov's twitter feed today:
If the Lib Dems were second on seats, then surely that would imply so many Lab seats that they could provide an Opposition from their own benches - completely swamping the other parties separately or together.
Perhaps it is as well that such a distorted Commons is extremely improbable; perhaps it is alarming that it is not actually impossible.
If the Lib Dems were second on seats, then surely that would imply so many Lab seats that they could provide an Opposition from their own benches - completely swamping the other parties separately or together.
Perhaps it is as well that such a distorted Commons is extremely improbable; perhaps it is alarming that it is not actually impossible.
It's not that improbable. There's a decent chance of 60-100 Conservative seats and 40-80 LibDems. You'll note how those two ranges overlap.
If the Lib Dems were second on seats, then surely that would imply so many Lab seats that they could provide an Opposition from their own benches - completely swamping the other parties separately or together.
Perhaps it is as well that such a distorted Commons is extremely improbable; perhaps it is alarming that it is not actually impossible.
Labour backbenchers are going to struggle to get a seat for PMQs
You may consider this in bad taste, but what about the alcohol-fuelled suggestion of a friend that we take pity on our friends across the Pond and send them two UK party leaders as alternatives for the shammbling dotards they have on offer - say Farage and Gavin Robinson?
You may consider this in bad taste, but what about the alcohol-fuelled suggestion of a friend that we take pity on our friends across the Pond and send them two UK party leaders as alternatives for the shammbling dotards they have on offer - say Farage and Gavin Robinson?
They can have Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar too, give them a selection to choose from. Kate Forbes would fit in well too.
I think Count Binface (leader - and possibly sole member - of the Count Binface Party) might well give even Trump pause for thought, but I'd be sorry to lose him:
I think Count Binface (leader - and possibly sole member - of the Count Binface Party) might well give even Trump pause for thought, but I'd be sorry to lose him:
I think Count Binface (leader - and possibly sole member - of the Count Binface Party) might well give even Trump pause for thought, but I'd be sorry to lose him:
On the Conservative side I think their current tactic of "don't let Labour get too large a majority" is dumb. Surely it's much more likely to discourage their own core supporters - "maybe it's not worth voting after all - even our own leadership has given up!"
On the Conservative side I think their current tactic of "don't let Labour get too large a majority" is dumb. Surely it's much more likely to discourage their own core supporters - "maybe it's not worth voting after all - even our own leadership has given up!"
I love how they've invented the idea of a "supermajority" - which simply doesn't exist in the UK - out of thin air.
But we live in strange times. No-one will win this election - the question is only how badly the Tories will lose it.
On the Conservative side I think their current tactic of "don't let Labour get too large a majority" is dumb. Surely it's much more likely to discourage their own core supporters - "maybe it's not worth voting after all - even our own leadership has given up!"
Conservative supporters do look at the same polls as all other supporters
I was trying to explain elections to Hatchling #1 this morning. He got a bit upset and said he didn’t want me to go. Confused me for a while, until it clicked that he thought I was going to go and be the new government, and he wanted me to stay with him instead 😂❤️
As I've mentioned before, we live in an area that would normally be a safe Tory seat (20% + swing needed). Current polling suggests it's very competitive.
That might explain the initial lack of leaflets that has since picked up. So far a couple from the Tories, one from LibDems, one from Labour and one from Reform.
Today, I did the school pick-up and got to meet the Labour candidate. In our village, that's quite a statement in itself.
It was nice to be able to tell her that I've already voted for her. I also told to her to make sure they fix the NHS...
AFZ
The Conservative candidate held a meeting in the village this evening. According to a poster on the village FB group, six people
I was trying to explain elections to Hatchling #1 this morning. He got a bit upset and said he didn’t want me to go. Confused me for a while, until it clicked that he thought I was going to go and be the new government, and he wanted me to stay with him instead 😂❤️
At the 2017 election TQTastic-let#1 was deeply disappointed by the polling station, which he had insisted on coming to, because he thought there was going to be a boat there. A vote proved to be not nearly so interesting.
My Northern Ireland prediction - DUP will lose votes over Donaldson scandal but not seats since SF already have all the ones they're likely to get. If they do drop one or two I expect beneficiaries to be Doug Beattie's UUP rather than Alliance.
It may be my natural pessimism, but I still think the Conservatives will get 125-149. I've gone for 148, but on reflection, I'd reduce that to 143. Sadly, I still think a very large raft of the don't- knows and I-haven't-decided-yets are really I'm-voting-Conservative-but-I'm-too-embarrassed-to-admit-it-to-a-stranger-with-a-clipboard. I think the smaller parties will mop up 100-125, mainly Lib-Dems, c65, SNP c22, NI assorted 18, with Plaid 4, Green 2, Reform 3 and Speaker 1. Labour + Co-Op the rest. I don't think any Independents or the even-more-fringe-parties, Galloway etc will win any seats.
That's nothing like as bad a result for the outgoing lot as is being widely predicted or that they deserve, but it's still a pretty bad result. It's quite a lot worse than Labour in 1983 - another time when a party did a lot better than it deserved -, a bit worse than Labour in 1935 and the Conservatives in 1997 but better than the rump Labour Party got in 1931.
The fact that everybody is arguing about this in terms of how badly the outgoing lot will lose rather than how well Labour will win, confirms what I've always said, which is that in my life time, when power has changed hands, it has always been because the electorate has got fed up with the administration. In my lifetime, nobody has ever won an election, not in 1997, not in 1979, not in 1964 or any of the flip-flops between then and 1979, not in 1951 and certainly not in 2010 or 2015.
The commentariat has been bemoaning that there's a lack of enthusiasm for either the Labour Party or Sir Kier as though that's something novel, and fantastically different from New Labour and Tony Blair in 1997. That's rubbish, a rosy memory created from hindsight. There was a huge and immediate sense of relief the next day once the result was known, but away from the commentariat, there was no sense of public excitement or enthusiasm beforehand.
It may be my natural pessimism, but I still think the Conservatives will get 125-149. I've gone for 148, but on reflection, I'd reduce that to 143. Sadly, I still think a very large raft of the don't- knows and I-haven't-decided-yets are really I'm-voting-Conservative-but-I'm-too-embarrassed-to-admit-it-to-a-stranger-with-a-clipboard. I think the smaller parties will mop up 100-125, mainly Lib-Dems, c65, SNP c22, NI assorted 18, with Plaid 4, Green 2, Reform 3 and Speaker 1. Labour + Co-Op the rest. I don't think any Independents or the even-more-fringe-parties, Galloway etc will win any seats.
Broadly agree, though I think the SNP might be squeezed sub-20.
It's a bit strange that the prospect of the Tories losing a mere 200 odd seats and Labour getting a huge majority leaves me feeling slightly depressed at what could have been. And Reform getting 10+ is unutterably awful. Exit polls aren't infallible of course, but they've generally been quite accurate for the last few elections.
Since the Reform vote is spread out, that suggests a pretty high vote share for them to take them up to 13 seats. Pundits are assuming that the vast majority of these votes are coming from the Conservatives but I am not at all convinced this is the case. I bet some of those Reform seats are in Northern seats that you might expect to be Labour.
Comments
That was the case with Stephen Twigg in 97. I think he was as surprised as everyone else when he beat Portillo
I was reacting to the implication that the candidate himself might be upset at being put on a bus rather than being allowed to campaign in his constituency. Personally I doubt he cares much at all for Clacton, or indeed had ever even been there before being assigned to the seat a month or so ago.
As I was saying, the data is all collected. This on YouGov's twitter feed today:
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1806705295084663042?t=hoE4xo0dy_hJvszoTg2OrQ&s=19
Just not routinely discussed in contrast to the US.
AFZ
https://x.com/IanDunt/status/1806677499503366494?t=Cau099WCV4m6LQQLzuHA7g&s=19
Sherry drinkers are a bunch of Tories...
Perhaps it is as well that such a distorted Commons is extremely improbable; perhaps it is alarming that it is not actually impossible.
It's not that improbable. There's a decent chance of 60-100 Conservative seats and 40-80 LibDems. You'll note how those two ranges overlap.
Labour backbenchers are going to struggle to get a seat for PMQs
They can have Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar too, give them a selection to choose from. Kate Forbes would fit in well too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Binface
Joe Biden would be amused, I think, as he seems to have a fairly good sense of humour...
I agree about his sense of humour. He thinks he should be the US President untill 2029
Well, given what the alternative is at the moment, he ain't wrong.
Mind you, one Sunak may well be moving across the said Pond quite soon.
He was notoriously sacked for making up a story he was too bone-idle to cover properly, only to turn up as a columnist elsewhere.
He'd easily make a career in the US as a media personality and clown. We wouldn't hear the end of it.
I love how they've invented the idea of a "supermajority" - which simply doesn't exist in the UK - out of thin air.
But we live in strange times. No-one will win this election - the question is only how badly the Tories will lose it.
Conservative supporters do look at the same polls as all other supporters
Amen.
The Conservative candidate held a meeting in the village this evening. According to a poster on the village FB group, six people
I'd vote for you.
150-174 - 6%
125-149 - 24%
100-124 - 35%
75 - 99 - 24%
50 - 74 - 11%
Nobody thought they would get 175 seats or more. Equally no-one went for fewer than 50.
If anyone gets it 100% spot on, I'll let you know.
If anyone else wants to play, it's still open:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CNZFXCG
AFZ
The "Express" said, "Vote Tory".
The "Mail" said, "Vote Farage".
The "Sun" said, "It's time for change".
But the best IMO was the "Daily Star": https://tinyurl.com/yfm2yek7
That's nothing like as bad a result for the outgoing lot as is being widely predicted or that they deserve, but it's still a pretty bad result. It's quite a lot worse than Labour in 1983 - another time when a party did a lot better than it deserved -, a bit worse than Labour in 1935 and the Conservatives in 1997 but better than the rump Labour Party got in 1931.
The fact that everybody is arguing about this in terms of how badly the outgoing lot will lose rather than how well Labour will win, confirms what I've always said, which is that in my life time, when power has changed hands, it has always been because the electorate has got fed up with the administration. In my lifetime, nobody has ever won an election, not in 1997, not in 1979, not in 1964 or any of the flip-flops between then and 1979, not in 1951 and certainly not in 2010 or 2015.
The commentariat has been bemoaning that there's a lack of enthusiasm for either the Labour Party or Sir Kier as though that's something novel, and fantastically different from New Labour and Tony Blair in 1997. That's rubbish, a rosy memory created from hindsight. There was a huge and immediate sense of relief the next day once the result was known, but away from the commentariat, there was no sense of public excitement or enthusiasm beforehand.
Broadly agree, though I think the SNP might be squeezed sub-20.
This is priceless! I always go to the Daily Star for sensible news and comment.
Look a bit closer.
(Link may not work tomorrow as I think it’s to the current days front page)
And far too many seats for the Fash.
Rats, sorry, that word should probaby have been in Hell...
Has that been confirmed yet?
Yep. Hideous. Pretty clearly from the tories but still awful.