Opinion Poll Bonanza!

[afleitch]

ICM for The Guardian

LAB  37 Down 3
CON 34 Up 2
LIB   21 Up 1

NOP for The Independent- Can't get figures but Lab lead down to 3% from 5%

Populus for The Times

LAB  37 Down 2
CON 35 Up 3
LIB   19 Down 1

MORI for the Financial Times

LAB  35 Down 3
CON 39 Up 2
LIB   21 No Change

A tight race indeed.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Woo-hoo!  The Tories are rocking!  It appears they are beginning to peak at just the right time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The MORI poll you've got up is "all certain to vote". Their normal poll is: Lab 38, Con 33, LD 23. So if we put both MORI polls together ('cos I don't trust either on their own)...

Lab: 38 to 35
Con: 39 to 33
LD: 23 to 21

The NOP poll is:

Lab: 36
Con: 33
LD: 21

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most changes are well within the MoE and generally fit into the current pattern. Having said that there does seem to have been a slight shift towards the Tories (at the expense of both parties) but they still aren't polling where they were mid term and even the MORI certain poll gives Labour a lead in seats with uniform swing.

My guess for a majority is somewhere between 80 and 60

[Gustaf]

Roughly how much of a nation-wide margin does Tories need to win the election? It's quite much isn't it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Roughly how much of a nation-wide margin does Tories need to win the election? It's quite much isn't it?

To win an overall majority of one it's something like 8pts (might be 9... not entirely sure)...
To give an example of how hard it is for the Tories to win a majority if Labour hasn't collapsed, in 1992 the Tories won a tiny majority but lead the PV by a wide margin. If very few votes had switched in a handful of constituencies, Labour could have won and been behind in the PV by something like 7pts...

Reason for this is increased regional polarisation, something that began with Harold Wilson's narrow win in '64 (when Labour failed to win a load of traditional margins in the South, but won previously safe Tory seats in the North), and the fact that turnout in middle class areas is (nowadays) always higher than more working class areas.
The results look distorted and to a certain extent they are, but not as much as it looks so to speak.

[Umengus]

undemocratic system.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes and no. Yes in that PV and Seat numbers are never, ever close to each other, no in that each vote counts more, results are more local and there's less chance of dodgy backroom coalition deals.

Depends how you look at it really. Personally I prefer the Aussie system

[Democratic Hawk]

Roughly how much of a nation-wide margin does Tories need to win the election? It's quite much isn't it?

Look at it this way on www.electoralcalculus.co.uk, I used the following hypothetical voting percentages in an attempt to answer your question:

Conservative 41.5% - 324 seats; Labour 32% - 244 seats; and Lib Dems 20% - 47 seats and Others 31 seats

Conservative overall majority of 2 with a 9.5% lead in the PV; however, I haven't taken account of any tactical voting

On the other hand, the Tories need only to about 1.5% ahead of Labour to, theoretically, deprive Labour of its overall majority; however, Labour would easily remain the largest single party. The Tories would need to be about 5.5% above Labour nationally to become the largest party

Dave