Tories will do better.....

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I think they will do slightly better than expected, the anti-foxhunting and cancer lotto have to be getting on some peoples nerves, you brits come tell me where im wrong

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Yes, because we all know the single biggest issue in British politics is foxhunting. Everyone votes on that, and crumpet reform.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think they will do slightly better than expected, the anti-foxhunting and cancer lotto have to be getting on some peoples nerves, you brits come tell me where im wrong

The cancer lotto isn't playing too well with me at the moment

Dave

[Vasall des Midas]

What's cancer lotto?

Fox hunting is way overplayed. 90% don't care really one way or another, at least not enough to let it affect their vote in any way whatsoever (though the one third of the remainder that is opposed to the ban may be strategically well placed to make the difference in some rural marginals).

[Peter]

Foxhunting will be enough of an issue to possibly make a difference in about 5 to 10 seats; Its not really going to do too much to the average swing I feel.

If the Tories try to fight the election on healthcare then good luck to them; I honestly don't believe that either party can make a less of a mess of the NHS than it presently is, though if they've got some sane proposals I'll have a look at them.

[KEmperor]

What is the cancer lotto?  Sounds barbaric.

[Peter]

What is the cancer lotto?  Sounds barbaric.

Its a reference to the fact that different health authorities offer varying standards of treatment for cancer. Thus its a "lottery" as to what sort of treatment you get if you develop cancer depending on where you live.

BBC article

[Democratic Hawk]

What is the cancer lotto?  Sounds barbaric.

Basically, the Commons Public Account Committee are critical in that patients in Northern England are twice as likely to die from cancer as patients in parts of the south

The Conservative Chairman Edward Leigh said:

"It is simply unacceptable that there are postcode lotteries for prescription of anti-cancer drugs, waiting times for scans and even chemotherapy treatments. The Department of Health (DoH) and the NHS need to identify exactly where there are such inequities, understand the reasons behind them, and address them without delay."

Dave

[Sibboleth]

The fact that people in Northern England are a) Poorer and b) More likely to drink and/or smoke* is usually "forgotton" by the media... the fact that in the '80's money was (disgustingly) taken from the poor to give to the rich as far as healthcare goes really hasn't helped either.

There's been a problem with cancer treatment etc. for years... I can say from experiance with two relatives that it's less of a problem than it used to be.

The chances of the Tories being so stupid as to base their campaign around their (very unpopular) free markety ideas are remote (unless they like the idea of polling less than 30% of the PV...)

*There's a very interesting pattern in the North East actually: Men are less likely to smoke than average but more likely to drink too much, while women are less likely to drink too much and more likely to smoke.

[Jake]

The fact that people in Northern England are a) Poorer and b) More likely to drink and/or smoke* is usually "forgotton" by the media... the fact that in the '80's money was (disgustingly) taken from the poor to give to the rich as far as healthcare goes really hasn't helped either.

There's been a problem with cancer treatment etc. for years... I can say from experiance with two relatives that it's less of a problem than it used to be.

The chances of the Tories being so stupid as to base their campaign around their (very unpopular) free markety ideas are remote (unless they like the idea of polling less than 30% of the PV...)

*There's a very interesting pattern in the North East actually: Men are less likely to smoke than average but more likely to drink too much, while women are less likely to drink too much and more likely to smoke.

If they get cancer from smoking they should be excluded from any sane health care system.  Why should taxpayers pay for another's stupid choice?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Yes, because we all know the single biggest issue in British politics is foxhunting. Everyone votes on that, and crumpet reform.

Godammit alcon it will make difference enough! you can look the cancer lotto up too and actually contribute

[The Man From G.O.P.]

So far no one has said that they wont do better than expected.......

[Vasall des Midas]

Depends what you define as "expected".
Better than some people, including here, are predicting: No, they won't. Fox hunting, for one, is already factored in in all these things, and overestimated as well. And the Tories don't have anything to hope for anywhere in Northern England except possibly the more affluent parts of West Yorkshire.
Better than polls show, better than I expect them to (as good as Silent Hunter predicts, for example...): Distinctly possible, but frankly unlikely.

[afleitch]

I predict a rather more skewed result than the polls are showing. First of all we have people embarrased to admit voting Tory. Secondly we have the Lib Dems currently on around 20% who always pick up support during the campaign. Then we have the smaller parties dont be suprised if we end up with a result something like this:

Labour             32.0
Conservative   32.0
Lib Dem           24.0
UKIP                  4.5
Nats                  2.0
Respect             1.5
BNP                   1.0
Others               3.0

If you look at a graph of voting intentions the Liberal Democrats 'mirror' Labour- i.e When Labour go down the Lib Dems go up. The 'Others' column which usually only registers about 4% but in reality is closer to 8% come election time is now at about 10% and could rise further stil. lThe Tories seem to be picking whats left.

[Vasall des Midas]

The others column ends up at 8% on election day because it includes Northern Ireland then.
UKIP is much too high; Nats are possibly too low, I'm not sure.

[Vasall des Midas]

Even that scenario - which I consider highly unlikely unless turnout in the Labour heartland drops do negative levels - would result in a Labour majority. Using a uniform swing (but there wouldn't be one, the actual result would be more favorable to Labour) the Battlemap produces Labour 331, Tories 208, LD 76, others 31, for a Labour majority of 16.
Adjusting (as they tell you to) for your higher estimate of Others, you get Labour 335, Tories 213, LD 67, others 31, for a Labour majority of 24.

[Ben.]

I predict a rather more skewed result than the polls are showing. First of all we have people embarrased to admit voting Tory. Secondly we have the Lib Dems currently on around 20% who always pick up support during the campaign. Then we have the smaller parties dont be suprised if we end up with a result something like this:

Labour             32.0
Conservative   32.0
Lib Dem           24.0
UKIP                  4.5
Nats                  2.0
Respect             1.5
BNP                   1.0
Others               3.0

If you look at a graph of voting intentions the Liberal Democrats 'mirror' Labour- i.e When Labour go down the Lib Dems go up. The 'Others' column which usually only registers about 4% but in reality is closer to 8% come election time is now at about 10% and could rise further stil. lThe Tories seem to be picking whats left.

These days people are far more reluctant to come out as Labour voters than in the heady days of 1997 or 2001.

The over statement of Labour this time around will be less, that said 36-38% is what I'm expecting with the Tories perhaps marginally down on their 2001 showing 31-33% and the LDs at 22-24%.

UKIP will do very badly outside of the SouthWest, and Respect will do very well and run close to Labour in Bethnal Green and come in strongly in nearby seats as well as saving their deposits in other urban seats with large muslim populations.

[Vasall des Midas]

Even that scenario - which I consider highly unlikely unless turnout in the Labour heartland drops do negative levels - would result in a Labour majority. Using a uniform swing (but there wouldn't be one, the actual result would be more favorable to Labour) the Battlemap produces Labour 331, Tories 208, LD 76, others 31, for a Labour majority of 16.
Adjusting (as they tell you to) for your higher estimate of Others, you get Labour 335, Tories 213, LD 67, others 31, for a Labour majority of 24.

I messed up on the math in the adjusted thingy actually. That's the Lab 33 - Tory 33 category. I should have gone to the Lab 34 - Tory 34 category (with again a slightly larger majority, needless to say.)

[Sibboleth]

I wrote a long post on this thread yesterday... damn you "connection problems"!!!!!!!!!!

Er... anyways...

1. After (and in somes cases during) the 2001 Election, most polling firms fiddled with their methodology to over-represent AB class voters in the South East in an attempt to avoid under-representing the Tory vote.
Interestingly, evidence from the 2003 Welsh election indicates that Labour might be being under-represented in most polls.
We'll only find out in May though...

2. The LibDems rising during the campaign is far from being an iron rule: it did happen in '97 and '01, but in '83, '87 and '92 the Alliance/LibDems actually fell during the campaign.
This seems to be due to media exposure.

[London Man]

New You Gov poll:
Con 34 (+3)
Lab 35 (-1)
LD 22 (-3)

YouGov seems to favour the Tories, but the comparison is to last week. Has Howard's immigration policy had an effect?

[Sibboleth]

New You Gov poll:
Con 34 (+3)
Lab 35 (-1)
LD 22 (-3)

YouGov seems to favour the Tories, but the comparison is to last week. Has Howard's immigration policy had an effect?

What paper was that published in? The Torygraph by any chance?

If we assume that AnyThingYouWantGuv is a legit firm and doesn't just make up numbers (hah!) their alledged methodology has a serious bias against Labour (it's an internet poll. How many people in DE class have the internet? Exactly...)

[Umengus]

help gordon! help!

[scorpiogurl]

If they get cancer from smoking they should be excluded from any sane health care system.  Why should taxpayers pay for another's stupid choice?

Don't you mean insane system?

On that basis, we would refuse to treat people with cancer who drink and eat too much!!! Both obesity and excessive alcohol consumption are aetiological factors for cancer. Do you propose we exclude them?

I agree that public health education should warn people of the dangers of smoking, but really to refuse them treatment would be the sign of a rather immature, socially unaware society!!!

[scorpiogurl]

The Conservative Chairman Edward Leigh said:

"It is simply unacceptable that there are postcode lotteries for prescription of anti-cancer drugs, waiting times for scans and even chemotherapy treatments. The Department of Health (DoH) and the NHS need to identify exactly where there are such inequities, understand the reasons behind them, and address them without delay."

Dave

Sorry to hear about your personal cancer issues!!

True there are post code lotteries, but as someone who works in NHS cancer services, I can tell all of you that since 1997, the labour government has pumped more money into the service than the conservatives probably did in the last 10 years of their tenure in office. In my hospital alone we are receiving a brand new CT scanner and new radiotherapy equipment to treat a range of cancers.

The real issue in cancer care, yet again probably the media misleading the general public, does not necessarily concern the latest availability of drugs, but lack of diagnostic equipment and qualified specialist surgeons and oncologists.

Anyone who knows anything about cancer care will know that to cure, it needs to be caught early. These very expensive drugs are in the main palliative in nature, involved in extending life by 3, 6 months whatever......in my opinion money is much better directed at early diagnosis, expert surgeons and oncologists and health education if mortality rates are to continue to fall.

I am not belittling palliative care......but I sometimes get the impression the general public think they are being deprived from the "holy grail"

[scorpiogurl]

I think the tories will do better in rural areas because of the fox hunting issue. They may well do better in the South East and South West than previously too.

But with regards to the West and East Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and North East.......can't really see that happening!!!

Rural Wales and Scotland may provide some crumbs of comfort........but from a very low base.

In my opinion the Tory party is unelectable at the moment!