Talk Elections

The latest Populus poll (The Times) Tuesday 7:

Labour 32% (no change)
Conservative 30% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 26% (+2)
Others 12%

I expect UKIP to be doing pretty well among that 12%

Dave

According to Populus UKIP where only at 2% in that poll.

It seems as though it a blip though as for UKIP to be on 2% the Conservatives would have to be higher than 30% and the Liberal Democrats are shown as doing far better than in any other poll at 26%! While generally they where polling at around 20-22% after the bump from the Leicester win had faded.

The last few polls suggest that Labour has recovered from its massive slump in the spring (strange thing is that in the winter they where polling back at 40%! Even after Iraq) and that the Liberal bounce from Leicester South has been rather short lived…


Populus (Sep 7th , the one you mention from the “Times”)

Labour: 32% (nc) Conservative: 30% (-2) Liberal Democrats: 26% (+2)    

Mori (Aug 16th)

Labour: 36% (+4) Conservatives: 32% (+1) Liberal Democrats: 21% (-3)

ICM (Aug 15th)

Labour: 36% (+1) Conservatives: 33% (+3) Liberal Democrats: 22% (-3)

Populus (Aug 1st )

Labour: 32% (-1) Conservatives: 32% (+3) Liberal Democrats: 24% (nc)  
 
You Gov (Jul 28th )

Labour: 34% (+1) Conservatives: 33% (nc) Liberal Democrats 23% (+1)


…By Christmas, I would imagine Labour will be polling 36-38%, Conservatives 33-36% and the LibDems 20-23%.... but that’s only a hunch.  

Here's hoping no party gets a majority in Parliament, because it may possibly force a deal leading to proportional representation.

Very, very unlikely

Why do you Brits insist on the FPTP system ::) ;)

Because ;)

Because it allows each area to have its own representative who can reflects the concerns and aspirations that are unique to that area, that other wise would be neglected by party’s having to focus on the national as a whole rather than a seat by seat FPTP system, in addition PR makes politicians more distant from those they represent as you have no obvious representative of you local problems or issues to whom to call on to raise the issue.

But the national legislative is meant to address national concerns; with their votes people are supposed to indicate the direction the country should take as a whole.


If part of the country would find itself neglected in any way then it would be an ideal market for support of other parties and with proportional representation there would be much less disincentive against voting for smaller parties out of fear of "wasting one's vote".

This overlooks the case in which "your" representative isn't yours at all, because you didn't vote for him or her.

There are many different types of proportional representation, some better than others; if you're that enamored with geographical concerns, take a look at the systems in use by Germany and New-Zealand.

Personally, I think people should be free to vote their conscience without fear of wasting or misdirecting their votes. Whether their considerations are geographically related or otherwise should be THEIR choice.

Should Kerry win come November 2,  support for Labour may be even higher. Commentators are divided on who he would prefer to win.

Still, sitting on the fence is the only way for him to play the waiting game and too right too!

The Labour Party still feels more of an affinity with the Democrats than the Republicans.

Dave

If the election was held today, I think Labour would win about 35% of the vote... exactly what the Tories and LibDems will get I'm not sure...

I’d agree, but anti-Tory tactical voting looks like unwinding a great deal and that could really hurt Labour MPs in marginal seats, at the same time Labour will also be hurt by anti-Labour tactical voting. While Labour would get around 35% if the election where held now, their majority could be massively reduced thanks the less anti-Tory tactical voting and more anti-Labour tactical voting.

Thankfully by May next year Labour should be polling around 37-38%. The Conservatives will probably consolidate their base but make very little head way overall and gain around 34%, at the same time the Liberals will probably pickup disaffected Labour and Conservative supporters and gain around 21% of the vote but will find it very hard to expand beyond that in a general election.

Tactical voting is over-rated... last election was supposed to see loads of it; the only sucessfull cases that can't be put down to other factors are Billy Bragg's anti-Tory crusade in Dorset (2 out of the 3 targeted Tories went down... the other one (Letwin) barely scraped back in... not a bad kill ratio) and Ludlow, along with some suburban seats that voted tactically in 1997.


Anti-Labour tactical voting in the London 'burbs seems likely... and in a few middle class seats elsewhere, but other than that I don't see much anti-Labour tactical voting.
It'll cost us 10-20 (some of which we shouldn't really be holding anyway)


Possible... I think the Tories *could* fall under 30% if they run a bad campaign and/or give "The Vulcan" too much exposure...

I understand that if Labour and the Tories were tied on 37% - Labour would win c.100 more seats.

It's a wonder the Tories aren't clammering for electoral reform.

Dave

I understand that if Labour and the Tories were tied on 37%, Labour would win about 100 more seats. It's a wonder the Tories aren't clammering for reform.

I think come a General Election Labour will be around 38%, Conservatives 34% - the Lib Dems will be down several points.

Dave

Labour's inbuilt-majority is a result of class polarisation

This is because the Tories are fighting two corners, the LD in rural areas and Labour in the urban areas. This costs them heavily in terms of seats.