RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:The polls are narrowing. Labour are now routinely above 30% while, the Tory lead is slipping.

And yet.....there are dire warnings of Labour losing anything from 50 to 90 seats, some of them that could be described as safe.

Labour cannot poll 32-35% and still lose that number of seats so what on earth is happening?

I'm not completely sure, but I suspect regional and local factors will come into play. Some areas will see big swings, while others wont. Some good local MP's will hang on while the odd safe looking seat will change hands.

What is pretty much a certainty is that the Tories will win and will increase their majority. Its just a matter of by how many.

It can be true. Our electoral system is all about vote distribution. It may well be that in Liverpool and Manchester and London the Labour vote is increasing, but they already have enough votes to win those seats. People who previously said they'd never vote for Corbyn are no doubt looking at the potential for a massive Conservative majority and taking fright. I'd expect in previous polling some solid Labour supporters were saying that they would vote for someone else in the hope they might get a chance of leader.

Also I think Labour have run a pretty effective campaign right out of the Lynton Crosbie/GOP playbook: identify a "them" that you are against, then say that only you can nullify "them" and promise literally anything that you can for those who are not "them" in the full knowledge that you won't do half of it.

Digby wrote:Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP

Actually the best case scenario is that she gets a stonking majority so she can ignore the right wing of her party and go with her instincts which are (hopefully) nowhere near as mental. It seems to me that she's currently following what logic there is to the Brexit decision because the braying mentalists can call her a traitor and get rid if she doesn't. On the orbs hand if she wins the sort of majority that they haven't seen in 3 decades and will have some actual room for negotiation.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP

Actually the best case scenario is that she gets a stonking majority so she can ignore the right wing of her party and go with her instincts which are (hopefully) nowhere near as mental. It seems to me that she's currently following what logic there is to the Brexit decision because the braying mentalists can call her a traitor and get rid if she doesn't. On the orbs hand if she wins the sort of majority that they haven't seen in 3 decades and will have some actual room for negotiation.

It's a nice thought. Though so far the only time I've been pro May was during the Conservative leadership campaign, other than that I can't say I really take to her, and I wouldn't much trust her in advance.

Tories sliding in the polls, Labour gaining slightly, step forward Lynton Crosby, this is going to get nasty very quickly

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Best case scenario at this point is May's lead increases to less than 30 seats and she'd not be able to wholly ignore the pro-European element of the PCP

Actually the best case scenario is that she gets a stonking majority so she can ignore the right wing of her party and go with her instincts which are (hopefully) nowhere near as mental. It seems to me that she's currently following what logic there is to the Brexit decision because the braying mentalists can call her a traitor and get rid if she doesn't. On the orbs hand if she wins the sort of majority that they haven't seen in 3 decades and will have some actual room for negotiation.

Agreed. If the Labour Party could be trusted to elect a semi decent leader following the election then even a smaller majority might not matter so much. But in lieu of that, she needs to be able to ignore the right of her party which will otherwise call the shots to a large degree.

Recent polls notwithstanding, she will still increase her majority by a fair whack. Any issue caused by the manifesto, which has been very honest on stating that not all pensioners need the same help, will be blown over by polling day and I very much expect this to be zmay vs a Corbyn in the last fortnight.

In fact reading about the IRA story today regarding Corbyn and Abbot, it's obviously to see where this is going and some Tory strategists won't be too upset by the narrowing of the polls as it will focus attentions hopefully turn out the voters.

Turn out is vital this election. The Tories need narrow polls to turn out the ukippers and the leave vote. Labour need the New Labour voters to hold their noses and vote Corbyn and for enough other parties to lend their votes to make it competitive

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Also I think Labour have run a pretty effective campaign right out of the Lynton Crosbie/GOP playbook: identify a "them" that you are against, then say that only you can nullify "them" and promise literally anything that you can for those who are not "them" in the full knowledge that you won't do half of it.

That is true of every political party in the entire world. What's your point..?.

May was being quizzed by Andrew Neil this evening, he did give a nudge or two but basically she refused to answer questions, and in fairness saying nothing does seem more than enough to take a win

Unless you are willing to throw vast sums of money at everyone you are best keeping your mouth shut. We really do live at the lowest of political times. Sensationalism trumps (no pun intended) logic and sensible policy, it seems.

Mellsblue wrote:Unless you are willing to throw vast sums of money at everyone you are best keeping your mouth shut. We really do live at the lowest of political times. Sensationalism trumps (no pun intended) logic and sensible policy, it seems.

This.

If you have no chance of winning then promise everyone, bar the rich, the world and you will pick up some votes along the way.

Neil had asked her to square her own statements that she needed to be in charge of Brexit as Corbyn was a weak negotiator and we couldn't fail in that 'do deal would mean dire circumstances' and also her statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' which she didn't even try to answer other than to say Labour wanted to borrow and she was more trustworthy, invited to then say what the dire circumstances might be she went with Labour want to borrow and she's more trustworthy

Digby wrote:Neil had asked her to square her own statements that she needed to be in charge of Brexit as Corbyn was a weak negotiator and we couldn't fail in that 'do deal would mean dire circumstances' and also her statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' which she didn't even try to answer other than to say Labour wanted to borrow and she was more trustworthy, invited to then say what the dire circumstances might be she went with Labour want to borrow and she's more trustworthy

She's pitiful.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Neil had asked her to square her own statements that she needed to be in charge of Brexit as Corbyn was a weak negotiator and we couldn't fail in that 'do deal would mean dire circumstances' and also her statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' which she didn't even try to answer other than to say Labour wanted to borrow and she was more trustworthy, invited to then say what the dire circumstances might be she went with Labour want to borrow and she's more trustworthy

She's pitiful.

And still good enough to easily beat the IRA supporting Corbyn

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Neil had asked her to square her own statements that she needed to be in charge of Brexit as Corbyn was a weak negotiator and we couldn't fail in that 'do deal would mean dire circumstances' and also her statement that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' which she didn't even try to answer other than to say Labour wanted to borrow and she was more trustworthy, invited to then say what the dire circumstances might be she went with Labour want to borrow and she's more trustworthy

She's pitiful.

And still good enough to easily beat the IRA supporting Corbyn

In the current circumstances, I bet most labour MPs are dreading what words will come out of Dear Leaders mouth next.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
She's pitiful.

And still good enough to easily beat the IRA supporting Corbyn

In the current circumstances, I bet most labour MPs are dreading what words will come out of Dear Leaders mouth next.

I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
And still good enough to easily beat the IRA supporting Corbyn

In the current circumstances, I bet most labour MPs are dreading what words will come out of Dear Leaders mouth next.

I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

So, we're believing the polls now?

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
In the current circumstances, I bet most labour MPs are dreading what words will come out of Dear Leaders mouth next.

I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

So, we're believing the polls now?

They are biased to Tories, doesn't mean I can't compare Labour present to Labour past.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

So, we're believing the polls now?

They are biased to Tories, doesn't mean I can't compare Labour present to Labour past.

You've made that assertion before without any evidence, so let's see how it stacks up historically.
2005 General Election
Polls leading up to the election show a Labour lead ranging from 2% to 14%. Result, Labour win by 3%, so polls wrongly favoured Labour. 2010 General Election
Polls leading up to the election show a Conservative lead ranging from 1% to 10%, with most in the range 5% to 9%. Result, Conservatives win by 7.2%, so polls fairly close to the mark. 2015 General Election
Polls leading up to the election show a Conservative lead/lag varying from -3% to +6% with most falling in the range -1% to +2%. Result Conservatives win by 6.6%, so polls strongly favoured Labour.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
And still good enough to easily beat the IRA supporting Corbyn

In the current circumstances, I bet most labour MPs are dreading what words will come out of Dear Leaders mouth next.

I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

Really? After a few days of Coryn and Abbots IRA links under the spotlight, do you think that his perceived support for terrorist groups in the past isn't going to dominate the next set of interviews?

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I don't think so. Labour are at the same level Labour were in 2005.Higher than ed

So, we're believing the polls now?

They are biased to Tories, doesn't mean I can't compare Labour present to Labour past.

In 2015 they were biased to Labour. And I use the term bias loosely as I don't think that there is a deliberate bias in the pollsters.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: So, we're believing the polls now?

They are biased to Tories, doesn't mean I can't compare Labour present to Labour past.

In 2015 they were biased to Labour. And I use the term bias loosely as I don't think that there is a deliberate bias in the pollsters.

and in 2005.

You're right. It's not a deliberate bias. It's poor methodology.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They are biased to Tories, doesn't mean I can't compare Labour present to Labour past.

In 2015 they were biased to Labour. And I use the term bias loosely as I don't think that there is a deliberate bias in the pollsters.

and in 2005.

You're right. It's not a deliberate bias. It's poor methodology.

Partly. And some people don't like to admit that they are voting Tory.

Sandydragon wrote: Partly. And some people don't like to admit that they are voting Tory.

This always makes me giggle. It just raises so many questions.

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Partly. And some people don't like to admit that they are voting Tory.

This always makes me giggle. It just raises so many questions.

Probably as they have to deal with self-righteous idiots like you - a person who brought politics on to a thread about the bombing in Manchester. People who've lost such a grip on reality that they think all Conservative voters are heartless, right wing bastards. People who think it's perfectly OK to (cleverly?) call people cunt because it rhymes with their surname. People who think it's ok to throw bricks through office windows. I've had to deal with it myself - all Conservatives are heartless bastards - and it ain't fun. However, it is quite fun sitting down with those who will listen, explaining your position, explaining your volunteer work, your fundraising work and your charitable giving, and them realising that just because you believe that privitisation in some sectors is good and that continually throwing money at problems won't solve said problems that actually you aren't a bastard at all.