How Many Seats Will Labour Lose This Week?

[Dead Cat Bounce]

My guess is in excess of 300.

Tony Blair will have to throw in the towel then.

Any other guesses?

[MarkG]

Dunno, but the only NuLab activist I know thinks they're going to get slaughtered.

[CrashConnoisseur]

437

[gilf]

437.

To be honest given what happened in the last general election I don't think they will lose that many. Rather than using their vote to protest people simply won't turn up.

[underpressuretobuy]

My guess is in excess of 300.

Tony Blair will have to throw in the towel then.

Any other guesses?

There are certainly rumours that Labour could easily lose that many across the country because some people were claiming they would lose 200 seats in London alone.

I don't agree though, there isn't as much angry feeling towards Labour as is being made out, this isn't the same situation that the Conservative party were in in 1997.

I would suggest that it is possible Labour could lose 70-90 seats in London and maybe 100-150 across the country. Not a huge change then but it would still cause Labour problems.

[underpressuretobuy]

Labour have now lost 106 seats across the country with London still to declare.

[underpressuretobuy]

From Nick Robinson's weblog

The Tories have lost a seat on the length of a pencil!

After three recounts in Wheathampstead in St Albans, the Lib Dems and the Tories both had 1132. The result was decided by whoever picked the longest pencil - and the Lib Dems picked a longer one, taking it from the Tories.

But they won Crawley won on the strength of picking an envelope.

And that's democracy for you!

[Perfectionist]

You are joking right ?? WTF !!

[cockrobin]

There are certainly rumours that Labour could easily lose that many across the country because some people were claiming they would lose 200 seats in London alone.

I don't agree though, there isn't as much angry feeling towards Labour as is being made out, this isn't the same situation that the Conservative party were in in 1997.

I would suggest that it is possible Labour could lose 70-90 seats in London and maybe 100-150 across the country. Not a huge change then but it would still cause Labour problems.

It seems you were wrong.

[CrashConnoisseur]

Despite only losing 319 councillors, they lost control of 18 councils -- two more than predicted...

'Labour braced for heavy blow and 400 losses in local elections' [Thursday May 4th.]:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/localelecti...1766928,00.html

Labour expects to lose 400 councillors and control of 15-16 councils across England in local elections today.

The figures are significantly worse than officials had suggested only a week ago. A net loss of 400 seats -- with 4,361 seats up for grabs -- would represent a grievous blow and take the number of Labour councillors nationally down to around 6,000, the lowest figure since the 1980s.

From Nick Robinson's weblog

.....

And that's democracy for you!

One can only hope that last comment was ironic.

A democratic election would count voter's second choice votes to determine which candidate had the most support.

[Rain'ard]

It seems you were wrong.

Not as wrong as:

Dead Cat Bounce and

Jeff Ross

In fact in mathematically he was the closest to the actual 200 losses

[New Darker Law]

Not as wrong as:

Dead Cat Bounce and

Jeff Ross

In fact in mathematically he was the closest to the actual 200 losses

Er Jeff Ross was virtually spot on with his over 300 prediction given that they actually lost 319 councillors.

NDL

[CrashConnoisseur]

Er Jeff Ross was virtually spot on with his over 300 prediction given that they actually lost 319 councillors. [NDL]

It was the OP, Dead Cat Bounce, who predicted "in excess of 300". I predicted 437 (largely based on the various newspaper predictions, as cited above).

[Rain'ard]

Very Sorry, Gentlemen. Some how I was under the impression that there were only 200 seats lost. Congratulations, for being spot on.

Must pay attention.

Regards

Foxy;

[cockrobin]

Not as wrong as:

Dead Cat Bounce and

Jeff Ross

In fact in mathematically he was the closest to the actual 200 losses

I was actually refering to the comment:

I don't agree though, there isn't as much angry feeling towards Labour as is being made out, this isn't the same situation that the Conservative party were in in 1997.

I don't know many people are not angry towards Labour.

[Rain'ard]

Yes, I completely misunderstood your post, embarrassingly. As for, `how many people are not angry with the Labour party’. Didn’t we discuss this on an earlier thread? Elizabeth and Libitina certainly knew something and justifiably were unanimous about it.

[Dames]

Well after watching GB with Andrew Marr this morning I'm of the opinion that he will make a perfectly good PM.

Why?

He managed the whole interview without answering a single question he was asked , all talk and no substance , class.

Dames

[CrashConnoisseur]

He managed the whole interview without answering a single question he was asked , all talk and no substance , class. [Dames]

He's had years of practice.