UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[YL]

Why are 2001 and 2005 omitted from that graph?

Because it's to do with Conservative governments and Labour was in power then. Labour's 2010 'swingback' is there for reference in red.

Not so.  I've just found the link and the justification for excluding 2001 and 2005 is that the government wasn't trailing.  (Which is pretty dodgy: if you exclude those two for having a government lead there are serious questions about cases like 1997 where there was an enormous opposition lead.)

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, since there hasn't been much cross over support this parliament between Lab and Con and most of the protest vote hasn't gone to Lab, surely the 'swingback' this time will be UKIP/Greens/SNP coming home?

[Phony Moderate]

Well, since there hasn't been much cross over support this parliament between Lab and Con and most of the protest vote hasn't gone to Lab, surely the 'swingback' this time will be UKIP/Greens/SNP coming home?

Yes, and the main reason for the wipeout of the Labour lead over the past few months appears to be a leaking of Labour support to those three parties. If those voters come home, then for the most part the said home will not be the Conservative Party.

Best case scenario for both Labour and the Tories in the PV is a 5% win imo. The Tories need a disasterous Miliband campaign and to win back some UKIPers to achieve theirs and Labour needs to claw back Greens/UKIP/SNP defectors (coupled with at least a decent campaign) for theirs.

[ChrisDR68]

Yes, and the main reason for the wipeout of the Labour lead over the past few months appears to be a leaking of Labour support to those three parties. If those voters come home, then for the most part the said home will not be the Conservative Party.

Best case scenario for both Labour and the Tories in the PV is a 5% win imo. The Tories need a disasterous Miliband campaign and to win back some UKIPers to achieve theirs and Labour needs to claw back Greens/UKIP/SNP defectors (coupled with at least a decent campaign) for theirs.

Does anyone on this forum have confidence that he'll have a good election campaign personally?

My intuition tells me the more the public sees and hears him during the campaign the less they'll like him. That's what several Labour shadow cabinet members were fearful of a couple months ago which is why they were causing all that kerfuffle at the time.

[Insula Dei]

Yes, and the main reason for the wipeout of the Labour lead over the past few months appears to be a leaking of Labour support to those three parties. If those voters come home, then for the most part the said home will not be the Conservative Party.

Best case scenario for both Labour and the Tories in the PV is a 5% win imo. The Tories need a disasterous Miliband campaign and to win back some UKIPers to achieve theirs and Labour needs to claw back Greens/UKIP/SNP defectors (coupled with at least a decent campaign) for theirs.

Does anyone on this forum have confidence that he'll have a good election campaign personally?

My intuition tells me the more the public sees and hears him during the campaign the less they'll like him. That's what several Labour shadow cabinet members were fearful of a couple months ago which is why they were causing all that kerfuffle at the time.

To be absolutely fair, Miliband being exposed to a lot of straightforward media attention can hardly be worse than him being constantly mocked for looking weird and having a slightly funny voice. At least he will get to make his case directly to the electorate. Close scrutiny might actually benefit his approval ratings.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, remember the only time Romney ever seemed to be in a remotely good position in 2012 was after the first debate where he actually broke out of the pre-conceived image that formed of him.

Milliband has to be Romney (a comparison I never thought I'd make)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Miliband is quite good at PMQs and didn't embarrass himself in the debates for Labour leader. It shouldn't be assumed that he'd struggle at the format.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LOL

[afleitch]

LOL

Standing for FUKP. Love it.

[doktorb]

Miliband is quite good at PMQs and didn't embarrass himself in the debates for Labour leader. It shouldn't be assumed that he'd struggle at the format.

Oh give over.

[You kip if you want to...]

Miliband is quite good at PMQs and didn't embarrass himself in the debates for Labour leader. It shouldn't be assumed that he'd struggle at the format.

Oh give over.

He's right though. Part of the reason Ed's campaign in 2010 gained any momentum at all was his hustings performances. He's been doing Q&As none stop for nearly 3 years now and it's a format that really works for him.

Put it this way, if Number 10 were so confident about Ed being the Tory's secret weapon, surely Cameron would be jumping at the chance to debate Ed, just as he jumped at the chance to get front-and-centre with Gordon Brown 5 years ago.

Ed's not the best at PMQs, but he's got a massive talent of getting under Cameron's skin and drawing out the bully boy in the PM. If he can do that in front of 20 million viewers...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Another breakaway party from the Tories.

[politicus]

Another breakaway party from the Tories.

Justice for Men and Boys (And the Women Who Love Them) .. Memphis should start an American branch.

“To call yourself a feminist should be no more acceptable than calling yourself a fascist”

[EPG]

The problem for Miliband in a campaign is definitely not the formal, rehearsed, or set-piece events, but rather the constant spontaneous engagement with people.

[Famous Mortimer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11339580/The-last-five-years-in-politics-in-Peep-Show-quotes.html

[Insula Dei]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11339580/The-last-five-years-in-politics-in-Peep-Show-quotes.html

Misses a fairly obvious trick in not including the 'I'm just following orders, like Vince Cable' line.

[Lurker]

Why are 2001 and 2005 omitted from that graph?

Because it's to do with Conservative governments and Labour was in power then. Labour's 2010 'swingback' is there for reference in red.

Not so.  I've just found the link and the justification for excluding 2001 and 2005 is that the government wasn't trailing.  (Which is pretty dodgy: if you exclude those two for having a government lead there are serious questions about cases like 1997 where there was an enormous opposition lead.)

To make their reasoning even more suspect, didn't the government actually lead at the equivalent point for both the 1983 and 1987 elections as well? Not to be conspiratorial, but it seems pretty obvious why 2001 and 2005 were excluded from this "model".

[You kip if you want to...]

I don't think we'll have a big shift in VI now until the debates (if they happen).

[Phony Moderate]

Regarding one-on-one situations, Brown was hardly a master at it (aside from the obvious 'Bigotgate', he completely ignored a question from a voter by dashing into his car very early on in the previous campaign) but the polls didn't detect a major effect from it. The UK isn't Canada; the only major polling event during campaigns has always almost been merely a moderate surge in centre party support.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And we have a MORI: Labour 34, Con 33, UKIP 11, LDem 8, Green 8

This would be with MORI's usual 100% certs only; not sure what the other figures are.

[Silent Hunter]

LOL

Is it time to raise the deposit to £1000? I'm starting to think so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To bankrupt the LibDems? Excellent idea.

(Al Murray would, of course, have no problem finding an extra £500 to burn).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Setting the scene, so to speak. Percentage majorities in the West Midlands last time round.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

East Midlands.

[Clyde1998]

Have you got a map for Scotland?