How many parliamentary seats will Labour hold on 9th June?

[tzijlstra 11]

I have been pondering on this,do you think the tories will have more chance of ousting angela smith than UKIP in our constituency.Im prepared to vote tactically as well to get rid of her.

 

In that constituency it seems a chance at least. In her old constituency (where I am) there is no chance of anybody other than Labour. Which is sad.

[blake 10]

Back in 1992 the old Sheffield Hillsborough was the most marginal of Sheffield's parliamentary seats. Paddy Ashdown and other senior Liberals even bothered to come up and campaign during the run-up to the election there, and totally ignoring Hallam.

 

In the event Jackson, Smith's predecessor, retained it for Labour by a few thousand. It's worth remembering that even in 1992, only five years before the Tories lost Hallam, to the Liberals, nobody considered Hallam a marginal.

[L00b 441]

This election, in common with others around the globe, will be an unpredictable beast.

That's because the Labour Leadership is demonstrably clueless.

 

Theresa May argued on TV and in public that if Labour didn't vote for the GE it would be because they are running scared and, after objecting to everything they didn't want to put their money where their mouth was, knowing that Corbyn would want to show her to be wrong, regardless of what is best for his party. Corbyn took the bait just as she expected him to.

 

What Corbyn should have done, was say that "now was not the time" for the election, restate what May had said about it on multiple occasions and quote her, quote the reasons for the Fixed Term Parliament Act, say how it would get in the way of the Brexit deal that she claimed was so important, use her own words against her, and accuse her of political game-playing and lying to the public in what is a power grab at the expense of the country, Brexit and honest politics.

 

If May really wanted to have an election, then she'd have to engineer a vote of no confidence in herself, which Corbyn could then point to as being another way of trying to get around the rules of the Fix Term Parliament Act, yet another example of political game-playing, showing that she cannot be trusted on her word and that she will lie and do anything for power, closing with arguing that Labour would not be part of it and would not play games and risk a good deal for Brexit.

 

In the No Confidence vote, if Labour and the other parties abstained from voting, saying that they are not going to be part of this political game-playing, which means that she would need to get a large number of her own MP's to vote against her to force an election and, for every single time May says that Labour MPs have no confidence in Corbyn, Corbyn could easily negate that by reeling out how many of them voted no confidence in her.

 

Instead, now May has Corbyn on the ropes, because he is, as always, hopeless. Principled, well-meaning, [cough]honest as the day is long[/cough]. But politically inept.

 

[EDIT: alternatively, as I have long suspected, he really is a Tory mole ]

Edited April 21, 2017 by L00b

[banjodeano 31]

That's because the Labour Leadership is demonstrably clueless.

 

Theresa May argued on TV and in public that if Labour didn't vote for the GE it would be because they are running scared and, after objecting to everything they didn't want to put their money where their mouth was, knowing that Corbyn would want to show her to be wrong, regardless of what is best for his party. Corbyn took the bait just as she expected him to.

 

What Corbyn should have done, was say that "now was not the time" for the election, restate what May had said about it on multiple occasions and quote her, quote the reasons for the Fixed Term Parliament Act, say how it would get in the way of the Brexit deal that she claimed was so important, use her own words against her, and accuse her of political game-playing and lying to the public in what is a power grab at the expense of the country, Brexit and honest politics.

 

If May really wanted to have an election, then she'd have to engineer a vote of no confidence in herself, which Corbyn could then point to as being another way of trying to get around the rules of the Fix Term Parliament Act, yet another example of political game-playing, showing that she cannot be trusted on her word and that she will lie and do anything for power, closing with arguing that Labour would not be part of it and would not play games and risk a good deal for Brexit.

 

In the No Confidence vote, if Labour and the other parties abstained from voting, saying that they are not going to be part of this political game-playing, which means that she would need to get a large number of her own MP's to vote against her to force an election and, for every single time May says that Labour MPs have no confidence in Corbyn, Corbyn could easily negate that by reeling out how many of them voted no confidence in her.

 

Instead, now May has Corbyn on the ropes, because he is, as always, hopeless. Principled, well-meaning, [cough]honest as the day is long[/cough]. But politically inept.

 

[EDIT: alternatively, as I have long suspected, he really is a Tory mole ]

Nice story Bro:thumbsup:

[Obelix 11]

why should it? the members have chosen to take the party in a new direction, why should the Blairites not allow the course to be changed, the last time i looked it said they were a democratic party.

I noticed the day after May declared an election, one of Labours own MP's said he would not back Corbyn, how does that help the party? some of the Blairites want the party to get destroyed at the election, then they can say "look Corbyn is unelectable", even tho they are the ones making him unelectable

 

They dont need to do anything Corbyn makes himself unelectable all on his own. He doesnt need any outside help to do that

[hobinfoot 25]

A country needs both a strong government and opposition. Labour at this moment in time cannot provide either one. I've seen a number of Labour MP's on TV in the last couple of days and you can tell they think it's going to be bad. I think Labour will lose around 50 seats but it wouldn't surprise me if it's more.

[El Cid 221]

The bookmakers seem to think Labour are most likely to hold on to around 150 seats.

[geared 321]

150? thats a total pasting they have 232 at the moment.

[Anna B 1,417]

A country needs both a strong government and opposition. Labour at this moment in time cannot provide either one. I've seen a number of Labour MP's on TV in the last couple of days and you can tell they think it's going to be bad. I think Labour will lose around 50 seats but it wouldn't surprise me if it's more.

 

I agree the country needs a strong opposition, which is exactly what Blairite Labour wasn't.

It was just 'Tory light.' There was barely any discernible difference between the two main parties; both run by the Oxbridge elite, with friends in all the right places making them a target for vested interests and corruption. (Just how has Tony Blair made his millions?) They were very much all part of the Establishment.

 

Love it or hate it, Corbyn's Labour is the real opposition, as he says, it's the Establishment vs the People, and he is very much of the people. And in this day and age of Corporate greed, it's the people who need representation.

[Obelix 11]

Love it or hate it, Corbyn's Labour is the real opposition, as he says, it's the Establishment vs the People, and he is very much of the people. And in this day and age of Corporate greed, it's the people who need representation.

 

Really - you mean someone who's never done a real job at all apart from politics (unlike most people), who lived in an old manor house on the Duke of Sutherlands bit of patch (really of the people that...) then attended a proper upper class prep school (like everyone else did dahling) went to a grammar school (unlike most people) - apbout the only thing of the people was that he failed to do spiffingly well in his A-levels.... then went on to support the IRA (because that's so of the people supporting terrorists) and then rebel against the Establishment that he was so very much part of...

[hobinfoot 25]

I agree the country needs a strong opposition, which is exactly what Blairite Labour wasn't.

It was just 'Tory light.' There was barely any discernible difference between the two main parties; both run by the Oxbridge elite, with friends in all the right places making them a target for vested interests and corruption. (Just how has Tony Blair made his millions?) They were very much all part of the Establishment.

 

Love it or hate it, Corbyn's Labour is the real opposition, as he says, it's the Establishment vs the People, and he is very much of the people. And in this day and age of Corporate greed, it's the people who need representation.

 

I thought the "people" were represented by their MP's. I'd love to know what the Establishment really means. And if it's so bad why do the people never seem in a hurry to change it?

[El Cid 221]

150? thats a total pasting they have 232 at the moment.

 

Very few have a good word to say about Labour, some are even defecting to other parties.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-89171/Labour-MP-defects-Lib-Dems.html

 

http://www.libdems.org.uk/7000_labour_members_quit_party_as_senior_councillor_defects_to_lib_dems

 

---------- Post added 21-04-2017 at 12:03 ----------

 

It was just 'Tory light.' There was barely any discernible difference between the two main parties; both run by the Oxbridge elite, with friends in all the right places making them a target for vested interests and corruption. (Just how has Tony Blair made his millions?) They were very much all part of the Establishment.

 

Love it or hate it, Corbyn's Labour is the real opposition, as he says, it's the Establishment vs the People, and he is very much of the people. And in this day and age of Corporate greed, it's the people who need representation.

 

The Greens should be the party for you.