UK General Election - May 7th 2015 (The Official Campaign Thread)

[Torie]

If these are accurate...

They aren't. Polling companies are not good at demographic fine detail* and the ABCDE system is notoriously poor as a measurement of class (or any other social division for that matter). The Tories had some strikingly good results in some middle class areas in 2010 (particularly in the Home Counties) and also some rather unimpressive ones in some other places.

_{*And have only got worse since they started to mess around with sample data to get the 'right' results.}

Accurate or not, it would not surprise me if class based voting in Britain is declining. It certainly has in the US. I mean, after all, both Labor and the Dems focus most of their efforts on appealing to the middle class, no?  Marx is dead.

[Torie]

Accurate or not, it would not surprise me if class based voting in Britain is declining. It certainly has in the US. I mean, after all, both Labor and the Dems focus most of their efforts on appealing to the middle class, no?

"Middle class" has a different meaning in the US and UK.  In the US, pretty much everybody who isn't Bill Gates or homeless is considered "middle class." 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The British Labour Party, unlike the socialist parties of the continent, was never Marxist.  But I guess to you Fabianism and Marxism are indistinguishable. 

Well I understand the Labor party believes (believed) in free and fair elections, and not some dictatorship of the working class. I just meant viewing the world through a working class lens, and having a special affiliation with them. It was not meant to be a precise analytical statement. It was a suggestion that the Labor Party has become more bourgeoise in its perspectives - more attuned to the liberal gentry.

[Torie]

An important article here from the Grauniad on different methods of polling this election and their accuracy.

En fin: I don't even know what is going on any more.

One can speculate about different polling methods all day long, but the ICM poll showed a five point move to the Tories from their last poll, presumably using the same polling methods. Odds are some of the move is just statistical noise within the margin of error.

[Torie]

ICM are sounding a little embarrassed by the poll and are briefing that maybe people shouldn't be reading too much into it. Which is unusually contrite for any polling company, but outright shocking for one as congenitally bullish as ICM.

Yes, the polling company itself said the sample was a tad Tory bloated. Any sense as to whether or not the Green voters give a damn whether they tank Labor or not?  One of the guessing games is how much UKIP voters tactically vote Tory versus Green's tactically voting Labor. The movement to the Tories in this last poll as noted in the article is mostly about the Green vote going up, and the UKIP vote going down. The suggests that the Green voters don't care much if they let Cameron keep the keys to 10 Downing Street.

[Torie]

Red racing horses has a seat by seat analysis of the election prospects for all the constituencies outside of England, including a bunch of pretty maps. You guys might enjoy evaluating how much you agree with its analysis. While the site is partisan, I find the hosts' political handicapping pretty "fair and balanced."

[Torie]

Just why on God's green earth would Labor want to form a government that is at the mercy of the SNP? Just asking.

[Torie]

If the UK had elections like Atlasia, with rank order voting by constituency, who do you think would have the better chance of winning? It seems as if it might be as close as the present state of affairs. Is there any chat about doing it that way, rather than the proportional system? The present system seem to reward the informed (the clever tactical voters), and punish the ignorant (who just throw their vote away).

[Torie]

England should have a referendum as to whether they want Scotland to remain in the UK. The situation at this point, strikes me as kind of ludicrous. It really does not matter much really. It is not as if one needs a union to have a larger trade zone or for the common defense. So what is the point? And what was the justification for Scotland having too many seats in Parliament again?  And why are they voting on bills that have no impact on them locally? Isn't that like taxation without representation [responsibility for the consequences]?

[Torie]

[Torie]

Anyone have a summary of the polls?

UKPollingreport and Wikipedia are both good at listing all the polls.

But because a summary summary is useful sometimes, here's one. Let's take the 25th of April as our starting point, because why ever not. Polls conducted since that date have shown Labour between 36% and 30% with almost all being either at the middle or the top of that range with the Tories at between 36% and 31% with most being towards the middle of that range. The figures for the LibDems are between 11% and 7%, but actually almost all polls have them on 9% or 8%. There is more variety regarding the other parties: UKIP's range is between 17% and 10% and the Greens is between 3% and 8%.

I know nothing about much of this, but given all the press and polls on this election, and how skin tight it is as to which coalition might assume power explicitly or implicitly (the latter being the SNP-Labor thing), I would be shocked if there is not a ton of tactical voting which might mess up the percentages some, and projected seat totals by a bunch, with the advantage going to the Tories (the UKIP percentages go way down), and then the Lib Dems (each party helping each other where Labor is the competitor). It strikes me as a highly unusual election.

[Torie]

Full figures for the ICM Hallam poll: Clegg (LD) 42, Coppard (Lab) 35, Walker (Con) 12, Jenkins (UKIP) 7, Garbutt (Green) 3, Other 2.

There are a number of possible reasons for the differences from the Ashcroft poll (which are, as the headline suggests, maybe Con down, LD up).  As well as the naming of candidates (the Lib Dems' favoured reason) note that the sample size is only 500, and that ICM's turnout and don't know adjustments seem to have made more difference than Ashcroft's (it was a tie without them), and who knows who was getting a better constituency sample.

ICM does, unfortunately, suggest that Clegg may be getting enough Tories to vote for him to save him.  Tories on 12% in Hallam would have seemed incredible 20 years ago.

Someone I think posted this poll above, and the link said that 48% of the Tory vote was going to Clegg for tactical reasons.

[Torie]

If not for the RISE OF THE SNP this would have been an incredibly boring election. It's just been tied the whole time. Even the third parties haven't really moved at all. At least election night should be fun though.

If not for the rise of the SNP it would be boring, because Labour would stand a good chance at getting a majority.

No, but Labor would be in a much better position to try to fashion a government with the Lib Dems, with the most seats and all. I mean, how many seats is Labor slated to lose in Scotland?  25 or something like that?

[Torie]

Is Boris Johnson really to the right of Cameron politically, or viewed as such? He seems an odd vehicle to me for a right wing cleansing of Tory wets from influence in the wake of a defeat.

[Torie]

Do these polls have regional cross-tabs at all that give any sense at all just how uniform the swing will be outside of Scotland, which is doing its own thing?

[Torie]

Here is one thing that does not seem to be happening and I am not sure why. The numbers do not seem to be there for a Labor-LD coalition, but they might be there for another Tory-LD coalition. Most of the more left wing LD voters have already decamped to Labor presumably because they were unhappy with the coalition. So in seats where the Tories and Labor are close, and the LD out of the hunt, but have enough of a vote share to clearly hold the balance of power, why would not the remaining LD voters (presumably more right wing anyway), vote for the Tory to increase the chance of another Tory-LD coalition, which is the only way that the LD has a chance to remain in the power picture? I am not sure how many seats are in this category, but it must be around 15-20 seats or so anyway, isn't it? Anyway, it does not seem to be happening, at least not per the Ashcroft constituency polls. Is there any chance it may happen however more than the polls predict, given where the lay of the overall political landscape has finally ended up?

The SNP has really screwed Labor, and badly, hasn't it?

[Torie]

With some exceptions, anyone still intending to vote for the LibDems by this point is either a) a genepool Liberal determined to stick with the party until the bitter end (as it indeed it may be), or b) sufficiently enamoured by their local LibDem candidate that they have decided to vote for them despite everything.

Unless, they think like me, and plot and scheme, and now having seen the final numbers, make the appropriate move on the chessboard.

[Torie]

@YouGov: Final YouGov Nowcast: Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, UKIP 1, SNP 51

The outcome that allows the SNP to force another election at any time of their choosing, assuming that the Tories go along with it. Not good.

[Torie]

I think Al is saying that all the Lib Dems who would do that have done that by now. That's why they're at 8%.

Oh, I would not make this decision myself as a loyal LD until this point in time. So I am just musing as to whether there might be some final movement here. There are also a few seats apparently where the UKIP vote is putting the Labor candidate on top, defeating the Tory incumbent. They might be less likely to move, as they might want to teach the Tories a lesson that their priorities need to be less ignored, and so don't mind putting Labor in.

[Torie]

In case of a hung parliament, does the Queen get to have any actual influence on the next government?

Not really from what I have read. Not any more.

[Torie]

In case of a hung parliament, does the Queen get to have any actual influence on the next government?

Not really from what I have read. Not any more.

Constitutionally nothing has changed. If the parliament is truly hung, she very well may.

Ok, but if whomever she puts in is not what a majority of parliament want, because they don't like anything, even if just based on some tacit understanding - thus the "truly hung parliament," then wouldn't they just force another election ASAP?

[Torie]

@YouGov: Final YouGov Nowcast: Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, UKIP 1, SNP 51

The outcome that allows the SNP to force another election at any time of their choosing, assuming that the Tories go along with it. Not good.

It's needs a 2/3s majority to dissolve Parliament now - under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act.

That's option 1. I was thinking of option 2, which does not require a two thirds vote (copy and pasted from the BBC site):

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act - passed by the Lib Dems and Conservatives to make their coalition less likely to collapse - has set the date of the next election in May 2020.
An election can only be held before that date if:

1. Two-thirds of MPs vote for it. In practice, that would mean it would need to be supported by both Labour and the Conservatives

2. A motion of "no confidence" in the government is passed by a simple majority of MPs. An election must then be called within 14 days unless a new government can win a confidence vote before that period is up

[Torie]

The most frustrating thing about this campaign is not the consistently tied polling leading us to have no idea what will happen tomorrow, but rather Torie's habitual misspelling of the word 'Labour'.

The American spelling is shorter, and well, I'm American. Sensitive chap aren't you?

[Torie]

The most frustrating thing about this campaign is not the consistently tied polling leading us to have no idea what will happen tomorrow, but rather Torie's habitual misspelling of the word 'Labour'.

It adds color to the thread.

Where have you been?  Working the hustings for the "traitorous" SNP?

[Torie]

The most frustrating thing about this campaign is not the consistently tied polling leading us to have no idea what will happen tomorrow, but rather Torie's habitual misspelling of the word 'Labour'.

The American spelling is shorter, and well, I'm American. Sensitive chap aren't you?

As are about half the posters in this thread.  But hey, I'm sorry your fingers don't have the energy to make a pit-stop half-way between the 'o' and 'r' keys.  Old age must suck.

You're absolutely right about the old age bit at least. Joe, just do it, and do it all, while you can. The years go by fast!

[Torie]

The sad thing for Labour, and the LD's even more so, is that if Labour were doing just a tad better, than the numbers would be there for a Labour-LD coalition, and the LD's could at once 1) shed the impression among some that they are just Tory wolves in sheep's clothing by joining a Labour government, and 2) get the more leftist half of their agenda enacted, and thereby by oscillating between the two parties, get their whole agenda enacted as if they had had a majority all along, albeit with legislation moving at a very slow pace. That is why it seems to me, Labour falling in the polls just a bit short, gives the Tories a path to power, and an incentive for LD voters in some places to vote Tory, while just the opposite would be the case otherwise, with LD voters having a huge incentive to get rid of the Tories wherever they could.  

In other news, unless I fantasized it all, suddenly the Ashcroft poll has Clegg in trouble again (two points behind Labour), as if the previous poll did not exist. It's amazing the poor man has not turned to hard drugs, to make all the pain to seemingly go away.

I sort of like power moving back and forth between the two parties, with the LD's as a break myself. It gives a chance for each side to test out their claims in the real world. I think that is healthy, given a brake mechanism. Moreover, I see little real difference between Labour and the Tories at this point really. The differences at least vis a vis the American context, seem like rounding error.