The election of a majority Conservative government means that the Parliamentary boundary review will presumably go ahead on the rules passed under the last government, but delayed by the Liberal Democrats (the review that was started in the last Parliament was abandoned before it was completed after the law was changed). There is no need for the government to pass any laws to implement this, it will start up automatically early next year once electorate numbers are available, though Parliament will still have to vote to implement the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations, and with a small majority that is not necessarily a given – last time round there were a couple of Tory MPs who said they were going to vote against the new boundaries, and the government doesn’t have much of a majority to begin with.

Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.

Of course, this is not necessarily a good guide to what the new review this Parliament will produce – electorate numbers will have changed since 2010 and given some of the discussion after the abandoned review I suspect the English Commission may be a little more open to splitting wards so the proposed changes are less disruptive (something that requires only a change of mindset, not a change of rules!), but we shall see.

1,050 Responses to “What the election would have looked like on the new boundaries”

1 16 17 18 19 20 21
  1. @LASZLO
    I expect that we will be reading on this board, a lot of stuff about Tory lies regarding the state of the UK economy under the last Labour government. However, I am bound to say that Labours pitch about Tory plans for the NHS, usually delivered by a left wing comedian in the party politicals, was beyond politics. It was just invented terror tactics.

  2. Labour seems to be moving to task 3 on Worden’s tasks (adjust to the environment in which the social democratic message died).

    However, judging PK’s and others’ view of what has happened, the polling industry is still between task 1 (accept the reality that you were wrong) and task 2 (work through the pain that it caused).

  3. TOH
    “The other significant factor to me was that voters saw a clear strategy from the Tories……”The Long Term Economic Plan””

    Sorry to ask, but can you spell it out for me (as spelled out in the Tory manifesto and the campaign)?
    If it was for everyone to have an allotment, I might have voted for it.

  4. Quite unbelievable. There’s a Scottish company from whom I regularly buy supply (about 2-3 weeks). I haven’t done it for a couple of months as circumstances changed, and I didn’t need their goods.

    I got a phone call from them just now asking me why Imhaven’t ordered anything, and then, in spite of my explanations, I was asked if it was a result of the election campaign and the ways in which Scotland was portrayed … I reassured them as much as I could, and told them that I would have an order with them in a week or so …

    That was really strange, and I sincerely hope that it is just that.


    I’m not a Tory, so not for me to spell out in detail.

    I think that the voters probably had little clue what it was but they did know the Tories had a plan which is my point. I don’t think they thought Labour had a plan.

    As is often said it’s how voters perceive things, not necessarily how they actually are the matter in elections.


    But something, something austerity. Something, something Tories. Something, something project fear

    There is a bit of a roll-back going on with public comments, the most telling of which was this article in the national by George Kerevan: “For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide.” (see:

    The powers at be within the SNP know that FFA isn’t good for Scotland, but I don’t think the regular man or woman in the street is going to give two hoots if it is quietly shelved as most people didn’t really understand it. I think most bought into the message of a stronger voice for Scotland.

    What I can’t reconcile is if anyone other than Murphy could have landed FFA on the SNP – my gut is no, since Davidson and Rennie both failed too.

  7. Skpiing through this page of comments

    1)Assuming Scotland is given full fiscal independence, when they increase public spending in such a reckless manner as proposed, will rUK be expected to bail them out because they are still technically in the UK?

    2) How would the BoE set two interest rates? Using the same interest rate for such polar oposites would not work; or would Scotland just follow the rUK interest rate and have to factor that in.

    I honestly wish Scotland just voted for independence. Such few people are so vocal it’s becoming old, and boring. I used to defend their place in the Union, but after the last few weeks I honestly could no longer care.

  8. According to Labour 20000 have joined the party since Thursday night. 12000 of them are under 35.
    New Shadow cabinet been announced. Only changes are where Labour needed to replace people due to defeats last week.

  9. BM11

    Similar reports of increase in LD membership, and huge jump in SNP after losing indyref.

    If the Tories want to boost membership they need to lose something.

    Ah I’ve got it. They plan to lose the EU ref to gain members. ;-)

  10. Good day folks, hope everyone has recovered from their celebratory/commiseratory weekend hangovers. (Actually, I didn’t have a drink on Thursday night and pulled an all-nighter, but felt on Saturday like I’d drunk the HoC wine cellars dry!). I have some thoughts, hopefully not partisan or too long.

    Firstly, the Conservatives have to be congratulated, having defied the polls and wisdom of the crowds. I have concerns about some aspects of the next Parliament, but I’ll get back to that later. For all of those on UKPR who were involved in their campaign, well done. Despite the fact that us political types often disagree about things, we have to accept the democratic system in which the election is run, and the Tories did exactly what they had to do!

    So, to the polls. Hmmmm. No matter how you try to polish them up, they were wrong. All of them. Some weeks ago, I had expressed my concerns about the weightings that were being used – primarily by Survation, as it happens. Interestingly, if you take their final poll and use the “correct” SEG weighting (that everyone else uses), the Conservatives would have had a two-point lead (34-32). Even with that weighting, there was an implicit assumption that ABC1 voters were only a little bit more likely to vote than C2DE – I find that assertion to be highly improbable, and in my view, is probably the main reason why the polls were wrong. The systematic error can easily arise – people who are willing to respond to an online or phone poll about political voting intention are much more interested in politics than the average person.

    How can opinion polls be improved? Perhaps the weighting should be more toward the demographics that actually voted last time out. It’s also clear that regional polling, weighted to the demographics of each region rather than national weighting, would give a much better insight. When I performed my weighted swing calculations, there was always the issue that the London crossbreaks and the London-only polling differed significantly – properly weighted polling in the Midlands would have given the Conservatives a clear lead for the last several months. Maybe instead of daily or almost-daily national VIs, a weekly national/regional poll would be more reliable, even at a “snapshot” level.

    So to the parties and to the next parliament.

    For the Conservatives, it was undoubtedly a great night. The decapitation strategy against the Lib Dems worked perfectly, and the defence of marginals against Labour was very successful. They have a majority, albeit a small one, and there is the possibility of implementing wide-range reforms, primarily welfare and constitutional reforms. The Tory manifesto, on the other hand, offered a large amount of effectively unfunded promises on health, taxation and pensions. Despite the proclamations during the campaign, economic growth has been exceptionally weak during the last five years, particularly when measured (as it should be) as GDP/capita. Productivity in manufacturing is very low, and tax revenues have also remained low. Merely cutting expenditure is not going to lead to a budget surplus, as the Budget implicitly assuming an increase in revenue from an improving economy – it is not clear, given far from optimum conditions with the UK’s trading partners, that economic growth is a given. The constitutional questions with Scotland and the EU must also be resolved in the next five years – there is plenty of scope for the Conservatives to engage in pointless blood-letting on both issues, and Cameron will need to use a fair modicum of diplomacy to keep his backbenchers satisfied (IMO, the leader of the HoC and the Chief Whip may be the two most important characters in the forthcoming Parliament).

    Labour next. They lost, and lost badly. Some primal scream behaviour is to be expected over the next while, but five years of self-flagellation will not provide a route back into government. For me, the big problem was not Ed M, or even Ed B. The problem was the lack of a coherent message. During the campaign, they said lots of “nice” things, but the commitments appeared to be a bit underbaked. It’s all well and good to say that we’re for working families, against ZHC etc etc., but there was a defensive fear about the campaign that was a bit bewildering. I don’t really believe that only governments lose elections, the opposition has to offer something to wavering voters so that they feel “safe” to vote for them. Labour’s challenge now is to regain confidence of a relatively broad range of people – starting from a 30-31% vote share, this is not as challenging as it might seem.

    For the LibDems, the election was a disaster, made even worse by their collapse in the local elections. There is definitely room for a socially liberal party in England and Wales at least, but they have a long road. It’s easy to look back at tuition fees as the point at which everything went wrong, but I’m not sure there was ever going to be a circumstance in which they didn’t get a kicking at this election. If I were the next leader (which is unlikely), I would be aiming at the kind of voter that the Greens should have targeted this time – socially liberal, very secular, strong awareness of local issues.

    UKIP will be disappointed with only one seat, but in terms of their vote share, they will be happy to have laid foundations for the future. Personally, I think Nigel Farage should allow someone else to have a go at the leadership – the “one-man band” feel of the party is ok when they are effectively a protest vote, but in the long-run, it appears that the WWC, socially conservative, euro-sceptic demographic will be more fruitful. Along this line, Suzanne Evans or Paul Nuttall may be able to chime better with this group of voters.

    There’s nothing to be said about the SNP – they won and won big! They got their vote out, campaigned hard, and delicately trampled over everything in their way. Their challenge is to be as effective in opposition in Westminster as they have been in government in Holyrood. For the Greens, the limitations of their policies were painfully exposed – considering the potentially enormous number of dissatisfied LOC LibDems, and the uncertainty of the Labour leadership, the Greens should really have targeted 6-7% of the vote. It’s not good enough to say that they were squeezed and that they would do better under a different electoral system, the painful fact is that they ran a fairly underwhelming campaign with many half-baked and contradictory policy announcements (the reduction of copyrights killed off their support amongst artistic types), and even with a largely free run on the left in England, only picked up around 2000 votes per candidate. A progressive pact with Plaid and the SNP may help them – but apart from the ever impressive Caroline Lucas, there was a dearth of leadership.

    I realise now that this is an incredibly long post! Sorry for putting you all through my thesis, but I hope that there’s at least a semblance of truth in it!

  11. BM11

    “New Shadow cabinet been announced. Only changes are where Labour needed to replace people due to defeats last week”

    No point in an interim leader doing anything more that fill the gaps. Reshuffling is a job for the new leader.

  12. “Labour membership has risen by 20,000 since last Thursday, party says.”

  13. @mrnameless,

    They said this in 2010…


    I think that is an excellent summary.

    I read Chuka’s Guardian article this morning, and what struck me was that I think that it was Ed Miliband was trying to get at through the campaign. Ivan Lewis’s comments that the One Nation Labour idea was a good one is also correct in my view.

    If the Blairites can get over their union bashing and public sector bashing, Labour could have a way forward.

  15. Don’t bet on Chuka being odds on. The unions could yet force in Burnham, who will be the darling of the left.

  16. Rich

    If you are going to keep up with the partisan stuff, at least make it accurate partisan stuff.

  17. @Richard:
    That spreadsheet is just what I was looking for. Thank you!

  18. One man/woman one vote will make a big difference this time for the leadership election. I think they should take their time, let the candidates show they have what it takes over the next 3 months or so.

    Rushing it serves no great purpose, nothing much will happen in Parliament for the next 4 months.

  19. Martin

    I can see the line now.
    “We want FFA. Scotland deserves FFA. But this Tory Govt hasn’t given us remotely suitable terms. So we can’t accept what is on offer.”

    If independence does come, Scotland WILL find out that the line that you can have fiscal autonomy as a junior partner of a currency union is a myth. But by then, of course, indeoendence will have come.

    This is a line that Labour should have been hammering. Scotland on its own can have the Pound, or it can have fiscal independence from England. One or the other. It can’t have both. If you want the Pound AND less Austerity, the only option you have is to stay together and have a less-austere Govt at Westminster. None of that is politically slanted opinion. It is basic economic truth.

  20. I still see that there is talk about “locking out other parties” through fiddling the system. If it was that easy, Britain would have become a one party state a long time ago.

    Just look at Holyrood. In a mature democracy, the will of the people always finds a way.

    Politicians should concentrate on building support instead of stupid Oxford Union style game playing.

  21. @Hawthorn,

    Please quite with the sour grapes. We had 3 years on here of you and the likes hammering the Cons and UKIP with back handed sly insults. I am mainly pointing out, that Burnham will almost certainly be the candidate pushed by the Unions, if you think I am wrong, explain why rather than insulting. EM had the same benefit of a recommendation against his name to all Union members, so they WILL be recommending a candidate. If you think it will be a Blairite, then you dont follow politics very closely.

  22. RICH

    Of course the unions will have their candidate, but the rules have changed. Even last time, Ed only just won.

  23. Did anyone else on here contribute to Lord Ashcroft’s follow-up poll?

    I filled in a survey just before the election and then later on the day just before the exit poll. It was done by Populus.

  24. Ok, but I really thought this might go back to an open forum after the election result, but it’s very quickly reverted to type, which is 75% polling discussion and 25% digs at the Tories masquerading as polling discussion. It’s fine to say it will be really tricky for the Tories with a small majority and Europe being a big issue, but if you dare to say it will be difficult for Labour getting the right leader, or getting the balance of left/right correct, you are immediately labelled as partisan. This was the big problem with the forum for a lot of the last few years. Even long posts praised by people, are often chok full of how difficult it will be for the Tories with everybody back patting each other on the point.

    Labour lost this election in part due to social media brow beating of voters who were so scared to say they supported Tory, that they waited for the safety of the polling booth, this site touches on this very theme, only in a much more subtle way.

    yes I’ll signing off for a bit…

  25. @Hawthorn

    The rules are OMOV with union member’s vote the same value as a member of the Labour party. With low LP membership and far more members in the affiliated unions than in the Labour party, the unions will have more say than under the previous system.

    A LP member can confirm but this is the new rules as I remember them

  26. Hawthorn

    I agree, the systematic “locking out” of one party or another is nonsense. A broad view of the last hundred years of British political history is that the equilibrium is somewhere a little right of centre (but only a little). Extended periods of rightward movement are followed by a correction in the opposite direction, and vice versa.

    Gaming the system will not move the equilibrium, and over a few electoral cycles voting patterns will just adjust to take it into account.

  27. COUPER2802

    The union member has to be an affiliated supporter. Union members are not mindless sheep anyway.

    It is also on alternative vote, which tends to favour the centre candidate.

  28. @Louiswalshvotesgreen

    Excellent summary


    “It’s not a question of Scotland being rich or poor.”


    True, but if you’re an activist wanting to distract attention from an advantage SNP may enjoy in making dubious promises, which is what Rich was on about, maybe it’s easier to misrepresent and play the victim.

    And not just in terms of taking offense at “too poor”, but why not up the ante and throw in stuff about ” wee” and “stupid” too, for a wholesale escalation over stuff that wasn’t said or implied.

  30. @ Unicorn

    Thanks for the critique, I am having major computer problems right now and need to get back to Canada to fix them.

    That said I will observe right now that UKIP at 14.1% was not squeezed during the campaign period and that on more than one occasion I said that I was unclear how many seats their vote would translate into. I am unsure at this time how many UKIP marginals there are and how close they are, but note they now control Thanet Council as follows:

    UKIP 33
    Conservative 18
    Labour 4
    Independent 1

    Those who see England as simply a continuing Labour/Conservative battleground are failing to acknowledge that only 72% of voters supported those two parties and that nearly 1:5 did not support the traditional three either. There was a swing, in England, away from the traditional parties of about 4%.

    I will be really interested to see how many deposits the Greens lost versus the LD and note that LD lost another 376 councillors versus UKIP gaining another 176 and that despite losses the Greens have gained 10 overall as well.

    Before I respond further to your appropriate critique I want to look at the numbers first.

  31. My review of where I think the parties stand:
    Conservative. Having been the front man for a successful election campaign, Cameron is in a very strong position to drive his agenda forward, at least in the short term. That is all going to change though when it comes to the EU referendum. He has a group of backbenchers who are viscerally opposed to the EU and will consider it a betrayal when he recommends acceptance of whatever concessions he manages to wring out of Angela Merkel. The smartest move he can make is to announce a resignation date after winning the referendum and leave it to whoever comes along next (probably Boris) to sort out the split in the party.
    Labour. Obviously they need a move to the centre to have any chance in 2020 but their problems are deeper than that. We seem to have entered an era where tax rises are not acceptable except at the margins. I’ve always had the view that the Tories will tax a bit less while Labour will spend a bit more on public services. If Tory tax cuts can’t be reversed then the only way that Labour can spend a bit more is to rely on economic growth. The problem with that model is that there will always be a recession somewhere around the corner and public spending is much easier to ramp up than it is to cut. That argues for a middle of the road Labour Party getting elected from time to time when the economic outlook is sunny but little possibility of emerging as a regular party of government.
    LibDem. Due to the lack of a reliable base they have a real problem. Their unique selling point has always been that they are not the Tory Party or the Labour Party. LibDem activists may point to their policy program but how many of their voters ever really look at it? At this stage you really have to question the point of the party. Their only hope of ever achieving anything is as part of a coalition but, as soon as they go into coalition they lose their USP. That’s the real conundrum that the party has to solve and I can’t see how they can.
    UKIP. Their future can go one of two ways. They may be able to build on their second places in to achieve a reasonable representation in Parliament in 2020. But, in how many of those constituencies were they anywhere close to winning without a swing of SNPesque proportions? The other way thing may go is for them to be caught by the “a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote” argument that dogged the LibDems for so long. If they don’t break through in 2020 they will go the way of the SDP. The EU referendum may save them but that is also a double-edged sword. Having lost the referendum (which I’m sure they will) what can they campaign on other than immigration?
    SNP. They won big but only by using a message that a vote for them isn’t a vote for independence. They will obviously do very well in the 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament but they have the problem that their membership is going to get disillusioned pretty quickly if no referendum on independence is on the table. Nicola Sturgeon is a shrewd enough politician to know that another referendum failure would be a crushing blow for nationalism and you only have to look at Quebec to see the likely consequences. So she is going to have to do a maintain a very delicate balancing act between not quite promising a referendum but not quite ruling it out either. I can’t see that as being a sustainable position in the medium term.

  32. After days of silence and sulking – I asked my wife, who had always voted labour, why she voted tory this timed and a major reason was Miliband. She said she simply could never see him as a PM and that view never wavered or changed in the past 5 years – she said she would have voted for Blair and maybe David M but never Ed. I asked about some specific policies but this never cut through from Miliband, she had no mass conversion for Cameron but saw him as credible. I personally really liked Ed but labour has to look beyond its introvert appeals if labour is to win in 2020.

  33. @RICH

    “It’s fine to say it will be really tricky for the Tories with a small majority and Europe being a big issue, but if you dare to say it will be difficult for Labour getting the right leader, or getting the balance of left/right correct, you are immediately labelled as partisan.”


    Well, thing is Rich, on this board people debate things at length, research stuff in some detail, so if for example, you start making claims about Labour and the deficit most know to be untrue, you may cop some flak.

    Not that I think it’s necessarily partisan, just a lack of checking, buying press lines over deficit etc.

    If it keeps happening, peeps may start suspecting a pattern…

    In debates on here, if I cite stuff on deficits, inflation rates whatever, I usually try and check, otherwise someone is liable to pull me up on it.

    And one doesn’t wanna waste peeps time with needless errors…

  34. RICH
    They said this in 2010…

    What’s your reason to disbelieve this? Do you have any evidence? I can believe that – I know personally 10, unprompted, new members join since the election

  35. @Rich

    But also, activists abound, so you may also at times get misrepresented, eg over the SNP thing earlier. For which one needs anti-misrepresentation strategies!!

  36. @smithy,

    I am.meant to be signing off for a bit

  37. But I will say I think there will be a bounce back affect for Lab and Libs.

    My fiancé voted Liberal and I think is contemplating joining them properly as feels there needs to be a Liberal voice with the Cons in power. Or perhaps she is sick of my views, I don’t know! lol

  38. Rich
    “Don’t bet on Chuka being odds on. The unions could yet force in Burnham, who will be the darling of the left.”

    Not sure how they would do that. EM changed the rules so it really is 1 member 1 vote. No more union or MP block vote.

    Just watched Lammy on DP. Looks a very capable guy but is focused on the London Mayor job, not leadership.

  39. One of the big projection errors in this election has been the serious overestimate by all formal models of the LibDem seat tally. (I hope to return to other errors in later posts).

    It has long been evident that modellers were struggling with LD seat projections. In long post back in November (listed at 5.32pm on Nov 25th) I used regression analyses to argue that application of the UNS model was giving misleading impressions about how the different parties were faring. In particular, I posted evidence that the LibDems were displaying not a uniform decline but something closer to a proportional drop. At the time quite a few people were using uniform swing assumptions and so I pointed out that LibDem performance might turn out to be far worse than was then expected.

    My regression analysis was based on (then) recent batches of Ashcroft constituency polls. The independent variable was the 2010 LibDem vote share in each seat and the dependent variable was the (standard) VI in the Ashcroft poll. The best-fitting equation was:

    Current LD VI in each constituency = 0.47 x (2010 LD % vote) – 3%

    In other words, the equation suggested that, in the absence of swingback, the share was being reduced to 47% of the 2010 vote, with a further 3% being lopped off after that. Applying the formula across the board made the unrealistic prediction that no seats at all would be held by the LibDems.

    Given that we now have the actual results, I thought it would be interesting to look at the equations for 2015 LD vote share as a function of 2010 share.

    Plots indicated that there were two distinct subsets of data: one covering seats previously held by LibDems or where they were in contention and another for the also-ran seats. Because of this I ran separate analyses for the top 60 seats (based on 2010 shares) and for the remaining constituencies.

    For the ‘other’ constituencies the formula was broadly similar to the one above – viz:

    2015 vote share in constituency = 0.39 x (2010 vote share) – 2.76

    For these seats, my November equations would have provided a fairly accurate set of VI projections. (The proportional drop was slightly greater than indicated at the time).

    For the top 60 seats, the picture was slightly different:

    2015 vote share = 0.38 x (2010 share) + 17.1

    That is, these seats showed a similar proportional drop. But this was compensated for by a roughly 20% “in contention” boost in each seat.

    In an ideal world the models would have been tracking these changes. Interestingly, the Electoral Calculus Strong Transition Model (also borrowed by May2015) has properties that should have been able to achieve this. It is an algorithm that reduces the degree of damage in a constituency where s party starts with s strong presence. On April 3rd their projection was for 12 LD seats on a vote share of 7.9%. Unfortunately, just before the election – and apparently unsupported by the polls – they had pushed the share up to 10.1% and so overestimated the seat count by a factor of 100%.

    Other models made what turns out to be a blunder of instead making heavy use of the Ashcroft CVI measure. It has since emerged that this measure grossly overestimated the level of LibDem support.

    With suitable adjustments it can only be hoped that the next generation of models will be able to do a better job of handling these transformations.

  40. @Rich

    Lol Rich, are funding arrangements in Scotland not lighting her candle?

    (Coups and Amber seem to like it though)…

  41. @Rich

    There are plenty of Labour supporters on this site who are naturally disappointed at the result of the election, with the flawed opinion polls leading many to believe that a hung parliament was the most likely result. Labour as a party have to decide whether a left-leaning approach or a more centre-right approach is likely to bring long-term reward. It’s not something to be rushed into, particularly since there are a number of potential candidates for the leadership.

    People pointing out the difficulties of being in Government are reflecting the fact that in the last parliament, the Conservative backbenchers were a lively bunch, and with major constitutional changes planned for the next few years, there’s a big chance of some rebellious activity (not that I necessarily think that’s a bad thing, a bit of independence from the party line is a great thing in parliament).

    This site has a tremendous reputation for its non-partisan discussion. It is inevitable that sometimes the discussion of opinion polling spills over into discussion of policy and the broader political environment. Moreover, if you look back to the archive before the 2010 election, you’ll find plenty of criticism of the government of the day. This in a sense is inevitable, an opposition can only oppose, the government make decisions, the impact of which is subsequently reflected in the polls.

    On your final point on social media, I think you’re being more than a touch sensitive, if not entirely belligerent! Social media (and sometimes your very own exhortations) rather tend to fall into the “write-before-thinking” category of communication. It may well be true that Labour supporters, being considerably younger than most of the old crusts (!) around here, are a vocal group on the social media networks. However, if you think 140 characters of illiterate ramblings are enough to convince a million voters to change their minds in the ballot box, then you must have a rather negative view on the intellect of those voters who have put Cameron back into power!

  42. The unions through can increase their members more especially as Labour Supporters can vote for a very small fee I believe without becoming members. Anyone joining now can vote according several Labour Mp’s on twitter.

  43. “Labour lost this election in part due to social media brow beating of voters who were so scared to say they supported Tory, that they waited for the safety of the polling booth…”

    I must say I wonder whether there is a significant truth in this. My wife’s facebook feed before the election was full of vague acquaintances ranting about the evil Tories and she didn’t feel like offering a moderating view let alone an opposing view (in fact the rants have worsened since). Similarly the Yes voters in the indyref convinced themselves they’d win because there were so few No posters, but the majority had just gone quiet for a bit. How on earth are the pollsters supposed to get people to tell the truth to strangers when they can’t bring themselves to tell the truth to friends and neighbours?

    Also was just wondering in hindsight about the story that EM did the Brand interview because of poor postal vote scores. Might Labour have actually known how badly they were doing after all?

  44. @bm11

    “The unions through can increase their members more especially as Labour Supporters can vote for a very small fee I believe without becoming members. Anyone joining now can vote according several Labour Mp’s on twitter.”

    You may just have identified where a lot of the new members are coming from. People being encouraged to sign up to have a vote in the leadership electiom

  45. @Carfew

    And all the unionist wrt to the GE you lost, your arguments lost so find other less offensive arguments because the continual denigration of Scotland isn’t working.

  46. @Thomas

    I was thinking about that story, but it said the Scottish postal votes were good for Labour – so can’t be true

  47. The Labour Unhinged story is still nonsense.

    No-one, not even the Tories, though that the Tories would win. I don’t think the Brand interview was a way of winning over middle England voters either, but a way of going for the disengaged younger vote.

    It kind of sums up Miliband. He had an idea of Labour needed to do, but just couldn’t execute it properly.

  48. The Tory lead over Labour – at 6.6% – is actually 1% less than Major achieved in 1992.This is despite Labour’s collapse in Scotland and poor performance in Wales. Had the England Con to Lab swing been typical throughout GB I suspect the Tory national lead would have been circa 5% – a clear margin but far from overwhelming.

  49. @Thomas,

    Thanks for backing me up! I have a few friends who are on the more far left, and some of the feeds I get are incredibly aggressive and offensive, so yes, if people are scared to offer differing views to ‘friends’, then clearly to strangers and pollsters the issue will be exacerbated. England is a country where people don’t like being bullied to have to accept others political points of view, and social media is a pretty bad platform for this.

    Not saying it’s all the issue, but I believe this added to the issue.

  50. @COUPER

    “And all the unionist wrt to the GE you lost, your arguments lost so find other less offensive arguments because the continual denigration of Scotland isn’t working.”


    Lol Coups, it’s impossible not to offend you unless agreeing with everything you say, because you said previously that to just disagree with you you take as a personal insult!!

    And if peeps take issue with SNP campaign tactics, that is not “denigrating Scotland” either. That’s just a line they feed activists…

1 16 17 18 19 20 21