Snap General Election called

[Digby]

Have we had any update from the Tories on what they're going to do about the West Lothian question? One assume they'll kick their objections into the long grass and pretend there's no change to their position, and they'll likely be correct that before they said that people would be assuming politicians are lying hypocritical bastards, and after they say that people will think politicians are lying hypocritical bastards

Right now under EVEL the Tories would lose both their Scottish MPs and the DUP

Edit- though the SNP wouldn't be able to vote against them either

[Sandydragon]

The ex-kippers seemed to be pretty convinced Brexit was a done deal so returned to their native party- so ironically, May did too good a job with them.

Mostly. In all the chaos. the Tories did take a few seats off Labour. Stoke on Trent south for example which is now Blue for the first time. Huge Brexit majority around here and in my area of Stoke North, the Labour MP Ruth Smeeth only got returned with a majority of 2K. These seats are generally consider safe ones for Labour.

cool, but pretty much May's play for the Labour Leave constituencies was an epic fail. By contrast Jezza's pitch to the youth paid off spectacularly, and indeed attracted many from the 25-65 bracket too!

I think who ever devised the Tory strategy got a bit carried away. There is talk of MPs in so called safe seats being sent to fight in Labour safe seats. That's fine provided the opportunity is realistic and your own seat is ultra secure - which was wrong on both counts. May would have been better shoring up her own voters and targeting a reduced number of Labour seats which were more likely to swing.

However, I don't think there was much that could be done to counter the dire campaigning and lack of any hopeful message.

[Banquo]

Mostly. In all the chaos. the Tories did take a few seats off Labour. Stoke on Trent south for example which is now Blue for the first time. Huge Brexit majority around here and in my area of Stoke North, the Labour MP Ruth Smeeth only got returned with a majority of 2K. These seats are generally consider safe ones for Labour.

cool, but pretty much May's play for the Labour Leave constituencies was an epic fail. By contrast Jezza's pitch to the youth paid off spectacularly, and indeed attracted many from the 25-65 bracket too!

I think who ever devised the Tory strategy got a bit carried away. There is talk of MPs in so called safe seats being sent to fight in Labour safe seats. That's fine provided the opportunity is realistic and your own seat is ultra secure - which was wrong on both counts. May would have been better shoring up her own voters and targeting a reduced number of Labour seats which were more likely to swing.

However, I don't think there was much that could be done to counter the dire campaigning and lack of any hopeful message.

true the Labour Leave plan should have been the icing on the cake; they dropped the cake.

In another news, queens speech delayed, Brexit kick off ditto likely, and NHS has suffered a massive drop off in nursing applications from the EU; pound continues to drop (inflation here we come)..........Project Fear may well be looked back on as Project Over-Optimistic

[Mellsblue]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

[Banquo]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

I was referring to naturally Labour voting ex-kippers, and specifically oop north, where it manifestly (haha) failed- and the focus on these seats on the ground cost them. They grew share with Tory kippers and a few labour kippers; Labour got the yoof, the Labour kippers in higher numbers than predicted, and some disaffected Tories (who May drove away). But it was all tight, I agree- last time round, most cards fell the tory way where they dropped.

the number was something like 280 votes short iirc.

[Mellsblue]

There is talk of MPs in so called safe seats being sent to fight in Labour safe seats.

However, I don't think there was much that could be done to counter the dire campaigning and lack of any hopeful message.

I know the first bit to be true. CCHQ had their modelling all wrong - as I posted on the eve of the election, they expected to gain enough seats to put them north of a 50 majority. This is partly through lack of time to do the back ground work and partly because they treated it as a normal election, run along the normally policy lines and with the usual voting patterns. Which it patently was not.

The second bit is spot on.

[Banquo]

There is talk of MPs in so called safe seats being sent to fight in Labour safe seats.

However, I don't think there was much that could be done to counter the dire campaigning and lack of any hopeful message.

I know the first bit to be true. CCHQ had their modelling all wrong - as I posted on the eve of the election, they expected to gain enough seats to put them north of a 50 majority. This is partly through lack of time to do the back ground work and partly because they treated it as a normal election, run along the normally policy lines and with the usual voting patterns. Which it patently was not.

The second bit is spot on.

Ashcroft looks a mug and wasted his time on that local polling- he was still calling 50+ majority at 9pm on Thursday!!

[Mellsblue]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

I was referring to naturally Labour voting ex-kippers, and specifically oop north, where it manifestly (haha) failed- and the focus on these seats on the ground cost them. I think the number was something like 280 votes short tbh.

Even up north it worked to an extent. Places such as Sunderland (I think, there is so much info going round I'm getting confused) actually swang towards May, just not by enough for it work in similar but more marginal seats. When the Newcastle and Sunderland constituencies declared those results showed the exit polls to be wrong and May to have a majority.

As for votes required for a majority you could well be correct (I think 4,500 may be to increase her majority). It does, though, show how close it was. The difference was students and hardcore Remainers in London.

[Mellsblue]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

I was referring to naturally Labour voting ex-kippers, and specifically oop north, where it manifestly (haha) failed- and the focus on these seats on the ground cost them. They grew share with Tory kippers and a few labour kippers; Labour got the yoof, the Labour kippers in higher numbers than predicted, and some disaffected Tories (who May drove away). But it was all tight, I agree- last time round, most cards fell the tory way where they dropped.

the number was something like 280 votes short iirc.

Back to your old, underhand editing tricks again I see.

[Banquo]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

I was referring to naturally Labour voting ex-kippers, and specifically oop north, where it manifestly (haha) failed- and the focus on these seats on the ground cost them. They grew share with Tory kippers and a few labour kippers; Labour got the yoof, the Labour kippers in higher numbers than predicted, and some disaffected Tories (who May drove away). But it was all tight, I agree- last time round, most cards fell the tory way where they dropped.

the number was something like 280 votes short iirc.

Back to your old, underhand editing tricks again I see.

too quick to finish as normal for you . My point was they focused hard on delivering a load of northern marginals, which they didn't get (albeit with a small swing, because the ex Labour kippers didn't go in the numbers they expected), and took their eye off the back door, as well as being generally shyte. Brexit was basically seen as history by an awful lot of leave voters imo, and so they didn't feel the need to rely on tough Theresa to sort it out.

[Mellsblue]

I was referring to naturally Labour voting ex-kippers, and specifically oop north, where it manifestly (haha) failed- and the focus on these seats on the ground cost them. They grew share with Tory kippers and a few labour kippers; Labour got the yoof, the Labour kippers in higher numbers than predicted, and some disaffected Tories (who May drove away). But it was all tight, I agree- last time round, most cards fell the tory way where they dropped.

the number was something like 280 votes short iirc.

Back to your old, underhand editing tricks again I see.

too quick to finish as normal for you . My point was they focused hard on delivering a load of northern marginals, which they didn't get (albeit with a small swing, because the ex Labour kippers didn't go in the numbers they expected), and took their eye off the back door, as well as being generally shyte. Brexit was basically seen as history by an awful lot of leave voters imo, and so they didn't feel the need to rely on tough Theresa to sort it out.

Yep, all true. It was a **** up. Me trying to say it was a success of sorts is like Labour supporters claiming they won. However you look at it they didn't achieve their aim.

[Peat]

Have we had any update from the Tories on what they're going to do about the West Lothian question? One assume they'll kick their objections into the long grass and pretend there's no change to their position, and they'll likely be correct that before they said that people would be assuming politicians are lying hypocritical bastards, and after they say that people will think politicians are lying hypocritical bastards

Right now under EVEL the Tories would lose both their Scottish MPs and the DUP

Edit- though the SNP wouldn't be able to vote against them either

Think the Tories would have a stronger majority once you subtract all the Celts so no need for them to backpedal there.

[Banquo]

Have we had any update from the Tories on what they're going to do about the West Lothian question? One assume they'll kick their objections into the long grass and pretend there's no change to their position, and they'll likely be correct that before they said that people would be assuming politicians are lying hypocritical bastards, and after they say that people will think politicians are lying hypocritical bastards

Right now under EVEL the Tories would lose both their Scottish MPs and the DUP

Edit- though the SNP wouldn't be able to vote against them either

Think the Tories would have a stronger majority once you subtract all the Celts so no need for them to backpedal there.

got Lions tour written all over it

[canta_brian]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

Fair few close calls the other way as well. My constituency had a 2500 odd tory majority cut to just 31. (labour). Amber Rudd's constituency just kept recounting until the ended up on a number where she had more votes (still don't know how recounts work), and there must be a few others.

[Banquo]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

Fair few close calls the other way as well. My constituency had a 2500 odd tory majority cut to just 31. (labour). Amber Rudd's constituency just kept recounting until the ended up on a number where she had more votes (still don't know how recounts work), and there must be a few others.

I saw it was 2200 ish votes stopped Corbyn being able to be a minority leader, and c 300 votes cost May an overall majority. Some interesting stuff on the student vote too- Canterbury and Sheffield, and possibly even Cambridge being significant contributors to wins....Mayor of Canterbury saying should only get a vote based on permanent residence, but he would!

[Mellsblue]

I think May's plan for working age, working class UKIPpers did work, as can be seen in a few Conservative gains, some very close calls and the swings in predominantly working class Leave constituencies. The problem is she pissed off the retired UKIPpers whilst Corbyn promised to keep paying the well off amongst them money they don't need. Plus the yoof vote, obviously.
Remember, the Conservatives increased their vote share, just not as much as Labour. I read somewhere that the Conservatives were 4,500ish votes from forming a majority such were the number of close calls. Most of these were Labour held constituencies targeted by May's policies for 'JAMS'.

Don't take this as me defending May. She has royally ****ed up.

As an aside, if someone can explain to me how the hell Goldsmith regained Richmond Park I'd much obliged.

Fair few close calls the other way as well. My constituency had a 2500 odd tory majority cut to just 31. (labour). Amber Rudd's constituency just kept recounting until the ended up on a number where she had more votes (still don't know how recounts work), and there must be a few others.

Yep. It was incredibly close both ways in quite a few constituencies. It was a very strange election in many, many ways. Politics students will be studying it for many a year.

[Banquo]

Meanwhile...someone was talking sense during the election

[Sandydragon]

So, today the Times is alleging that there are moves to get Ruth Davison into a position where she could be party leader.

Meanwhile, there are cross bench discussions on Brexit taking place under the radar. In all seriousness, if there are enough moderate MPs who agree to a softer form of Brexit and the crazies on both sides can be kept contained, then a hung parliament might not be such a disaster.

[Banquo]

So, today the Times is alleging that there are moves to get Ruth Davison into a position where she could be party leader.

Meanwhile, there are cross bench discussions on Brexit taking place under the radar. In all seriousness, if there are enough moderate MPs who agree to a softer form of Brexit and the crazies on both sides can be kept contained, then a hung parliament might not be such a disaster.

.....and see UKIP reappear quick sharp. Farage would love it (establishment conspires to thwart the will of the people blah blah). Cross party consensus outside of the govt would likely kill May/Davis too (huzza). Don't get me wrong, anything that de-brexit's brexit is desirable, but is it palatable to the 52%?

Interesting times. Not good times.

[Banquo]

By the by, anyone know about how the checks and balances around voting work; I wasn't asked for any form of ID, just address and street number. Both my children were on the same list that was checked for me, yet I know they both had postal votes as well (in my son's case, he got three! but used only one). Seemed sloppy, and open to fraudulent voting if you wanted to.

[Zhivago]

By the by, anyone know about how the checks and balances around voting work; I wasn't asked for any form of ID, just address and street number. Both my children were on the same list that was checked for me, yet I know they both had postal votes as well (in my son's case, he got three! but used only one). Seemed sloppy, and open to fraudulent voting if you wanted to.

My colleagues here in NL were appalled when I mentioned that we don't need ID to vote in the UK. Makes is look like a banana republic.

[jared_7]

Before visiting Number 10, Mrs Foster met her 10 MPs for a photocall in Westminster.
"The future's bright", she said - prompting one of them, Ian Paisley junior to respond: "The future's orange"

This is going to end well.

[Sandydragon]

By the by, anyone know about how the checks and balances around voting work; I wasn't asked for any form of ID, just address and street number. Both my children were on the same list that was checked for me, yet I know they both had postal votes as well (in my son's case, he got three! but used only one). Seemed sloppy, and open to fraudulent voting if you wanted to.

My colleagues here in NL were appalled when I mentioned that we don't need ID to vote in the UK. Makes is look like a banana republic.

You are not
Legally obliged to carry ID on this country. Civil
Liberties and all that.

[Sandydragon]

So, today the Times is alleging that there are moves to get Ruth Davison into a position where she could be party leader.

Meanwhile, there are cross bench discussions on Brexit taking place under the radar. In all seriousness, if there are enough moderate MPs who agree to a softer form of Brexit and the crazies on both sides can be kept contained, then a hung parliament might not be such a disaster.

.....and see UKIP reappear quick sharp. Farage would love it (establishment conspires to thwart the will of the people blah blah). Cross party consensus outside of the govt would likely kill May/Davis too (huzza). Don't get me wrong, anything that de-brexit's brexit is desirable, but is it palatable to the 52%?

Interesting times. Not good times.

And here is the conundrum. How many of those who voted to leave would be happy to stay in the single market?

[Mellsblue]

Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.