To add 3/4 seats whilst losing half a percentage point, in an election that saw the re-alignment of politics into 2 parties for the first time in a generation is rather impressive in my mind, and gives a strong base to build off.

 

So if they drop another 7% they'll be in a position to form an overall majority? :rolleyes:

 

 

If anyone is interested, you can find the full results for all constituencies here :

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7979

 

I'll crunch them into a more readable format later.

 

And here they are : https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ix6zvcdtf2olmm/E...02017.xlsx?dl=0

Here's a thought to ponder - the Tories were just 50 votes short of a technical majority...

 

Seat Win Maj 2nd

Perth and Perthshire North SNP 21 Con

Kensington Lab 20 Con

Dudley North Lab 22 Con

Newcastle-under-Lyme Lab 30 Con

 

So, to change the result would have taken 11 +11 + 12+ 16 =50 votes

 

That would have given them 322 seats, and with only 643 HoC seats being taken up (Sinn Fein (7) not taking up theirs), that would have given the Tories an effective majority of one...

 

[NB, a further 25 votes switched would have given then 'Crewe & Nantwich' too.]

By the same measure, the Tories' majority in 1992 was by fewer than 1,000 votes.

By the same measure, the Tories' majority in 1992 was by fewer than 1,000 votes.

 

Any by-elections in this parliament are going to be especially interesting, especially if they are in Tory-held marginals...

 

Any by-elections in this parliament are going to be especially interesting, especially if they are in Tory-held marginals...

With the current mood the Tories would be worried about a by-election anywhere.

South Thanet could be the first (maj 6,387). Court date for Craig Mackinlay is 4th July by the way!

With the current mood the Tories would be worried about a by-election anywhere.

 

Well, perhaps not in Liverpool, Glasgow, or the Welsh valleys. :lol:

 

South Thanet could be the first (maj 6,387). Court date for Craig Mackinlay is 4th July by the way!

 

One of the consequences of a conviction would be the election result in question being voided - but that election result has been superceded anyway, so how would that work? :unsure:

 

Presumably they couldn't strike down the 2017 result, as that's not the one alleged offences happened in.

 

Clearly Labour would be favourite to win any resultant by-election, though.

 

***********************

 

Here is a relevant website re disqualification of MP's : http://www.iasplanner.com/civilservices/ia...e-of-parliament

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by vidcapper

Just been doing some rough calculations.

 

The Tories would have needed just another 0.5% swing to have a majority, while Labour would have need 3.7% more.

Going well for Theresa et. al

 

Sky News' Northern Ireland correspondent describes Theresa May's apparently botched deal with the DUP as "a quite extraordinary debacle"

 

DUP have "been surprised at the [low]level of negotiating experience" in May's government.

 

Good job they're not in charge of negotiating one of the most important deals post-1945.

Say what you want about the DUP (I've said many things), but after nearly 20 years in the Northern Irish Assembly they've learned a thing or two about negotiating things for their benefit. If Theresa May is out of her depth with THEM...

At this point we have to remind ourselves that the same Tory party managed to negotiate a full-blown coalition agreement in a few days just seven years ago. Of course part of that was because civil servants had been quietly working on it in the election campaign, but it's still extraordinary that the politicians responsible for that have been swept aside for such a miserable bunch of non-entities.

one might be tempted to suggest that the more capable sane Tories were by definition Remainers, cautious, thoughtful, analytical. The Mouth-frothing Brexiteers are, IMHO, illogical, idiotic, highly biased and self-promoting deluded fools. As, for example, David Davis found on his first day on the job, after 12 months of "preparation", and everything went exactly as sane Remoaners said it would all along.

 

Deluded, dumb, or liars. Take your pick.

one might be tempted to suggest that the more capable sane Tories were by definition Remainers, cautious, thoughtful, analytical. The Mouth-frothing Brexiteers are, IMHO, illogical, idiotic, highly biased and self-promoting deluded fools.

 

You *might* be tempted to say that - but only if you completely misunderstood why people really voted Leave...

You *might* be tempted to say that - but only if you completely misunderstood why people really voted Leave...

I was talking about the useless shower who after 12 months still have nothing to put forward to the EU. Everything they claimed about being strong and stable has been shown to be disorganised and bluster bullshit. Hillary Benn pulled thicky Davis apart months ago and he is still floundering out of his depth the intellect of a gnat with learning problems.

 

Feel free to offer examples of how prepared they are. Like trumps health care plan everything is hidden. You were fooled and like everyone who voted leave are forced to defend numpties which just makes overly defensive leavers look desperate.

 

I want facts not fantasy.

I was talking about the useless shower who after 12 months still have nothing to put forward to the EU. Everything they claimed about being strong and stable has been shown to be disorganised and bluster bullshit. Hillary Benn pulled thicky Davis apart months ago and he is still floundering out of his depth the intellect of a gnat with learning problems.

 

Feel free to offer examples of how prepared they are. Like trumps health care plan everything is hidden. You were fooled and like everyone who voted leave are forced to defend numpties which just makes overly defensive leavers look desperate.

 

I want facts not fantasy.

 

How about this one : On June 23rd 2016 the electorate voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Whatever the reasons for that choice, genuine or spurious, the *fact* of it does not change.

 

The mandate to Leave cannot be rescinded, at least in a manner that most voters would accept, other than by another referendum to reverse it.

Edited June 22, 20178 yr by vidcapper

It was an advisory referendum. Non-binding. Government didn't have to do shit with it. Especially as a 51.8v48.2 is not a decisive victory, the government has ignored referenda in the past (eg the 70's referendum on home rule for Scotland which had a lot more provisions and safeguards against a narrow win than this one despite having a fraction of the impact)

It was an advisory referendum. Non-binding. Government didn't have to do shit with it. Especially as a 51.8v48.2 is not a decisive victory, the government has ignored referenda in the past (eg the 70's referendum on home rule for Scotland which had a lot more provisions and safeguards against a narrow win than this one despite having a fraction of the impact)

 

The Scotland one was not ignored - it failed by the pre-arranged criteria. The Brexit one had no such preconditions!

 

Besides, the government's own leaflet said : 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

How about this one : On June 23rd 2016 the electorate voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Whatever the reasons for that choice, genuine or spurious, the *fact* of it does not change.

 

The mandate to Leave cannot be rescinded, at least in a manner that most voters would accept, other than by another referendum to reverse it.

And the voters clearly underlined their lack of faith in a useless tory cabinet ooh 2 weeks ago.

 

Your comment is not giving an example. Its stating an off point fact we are all familar with in an attempt to change the subject while trying to avoid appearing as if you have no examples to offer.

Oh look, the Tories are being accused of cheating again

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-insi...ion-call-centre

Conseratives and DUP have agreed a deal. This should mean the Queen's Speech goes through parliament without much trouble on Wednesday/Thursday when MPs are to vote on it (unless some conservatives go against it).

 

Things that have been said/agreed upon:

 

The Triple lock and winter fuel payments will remain unchanged

There'll be an extra £1 billion in funding for Northern Ireland over the next two years - to be spent on infrastructure, health and education.

The DUP will support the Tories on all Brexit and security legislation

The UK's 2% Nato defence spending target will continue to be met

Cash support for farmers will remain at current levels until the next election

Both parties to adhere to commitments in Good Friday Agreement

No Irish border poll without "consent of the people"

 

 

Link

 

Quite surprised at the deal - it doesn't seem anywhere near as extreme as I thought it'd be (the DUP holding the tories for randsom). It's quite sketchy though given the Good Friday Agreement and the fact there's no "magic money tree" but an extra £1 billion has been found for NI. Some are calling for the extra spending commitments in Northern Ireland to be replicated in Wales/Scotland as well. The deal is to last the duration of parliament, but how long parliament will last is another question.

 

 

 

Yes, "the duration of the parliament" is one of those phrases that means what you want it to mean :lol: