Hmm, nothing is forever. Depends on how well they are viewed to have done in Scotland in 5 years time, and 10 years time and any consequences good or bad on any influence they have had. Look at the Libdems and what a difference 5 years has made essentially over one minor policy c*ck-up and doing what was democratically voted for by the electorate. Looks like the SNP's turn to learn from their mistakes...

They've been the party of government here for 8 years now and their support has only grown. The fact that they've done such a good job at that is part of what is behind the SNP surge.

The resident polling "expert" confidently predicted that UKIP would get 19%

LOL. Which expert was this?!

There's no way that UKIP will be getting more than about 13 or 14% IMO. They will get maybe 100 second places, but only about 4 seats.

 

God bless FPTP. *.*

LOL. Which expert was this?!

 

 

I don't know. I flick between channels all day long.

LOL. Which expert was this?!

 

 

I don't know. I flick between channels all day long.

God bless FPTP. *.*

NO

NO

 

I think the results on May 8th will be the final death knell for it anyway.

I think the results on May 8th will be the final death knell for it anyway.

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas so Labour and the Tories will always try to keep FPTP.

Well, half the Labour Party did support AV. And First Past The Post will be a big reason for the annihilation in Scotland if the SNP end up with around 95% of the seats on 45-50% of the vote.

So is it true the Tories have made the break through in the last few days, I'm like Danny think the Tories will push ahead!

Well, we just had a new plot wrinkle with ComRes (previously one of the Tories' best pollsters) putting Tories and Labour tied on 35%, with Labour up 3 from the last one.

Hanging in there, fingers crossed!

 

Took next Friday off work so it'll be an all nighter for me :)

I've been up all night for every election since 1979, so this will be no different. I even saw some of the October 1974 election night. In 1979, there was a short break in coverage, which meant I did get a little sleep. In 1983, I was at the count (for the Southwark seats), so I missed most of the results programme.

Ive saw the 64, 74 and 79 ones on bbc parliament and watched the 97 ne partially and the others from then fully!

That is slightly misleading. The candidates were not named in the poll, as per Ashcroft's standard method. Effectively, both constituencies are a dead heat.

They were, however, asked to think about their own constituency. There's not many people in Hallam who don't know that Clegg is their MP.

They were, however, asked to think about their own constituency. There's not many people in Hallam who don't know that Clegg is their MP.

The jury is still out on whether that questioning is sufficient. If they were asked for their general preference before being asked the constituency question, that (in my view) would be more reliable.

I still don't think the "thinking about your constituency specifically" question is going to be accurate. Obviously Lib Dem MPs are very good at being "champions locally" and getting dog mess cleared off the roads and whathaveyou, and some people will be voting for them on that basis, but there's no way that EVERYONE is going to be thinking first and foremost about who they think is best for the constituency rather than who they want in government. Imo, it's not much different to asking a loaded question like "thinking about which party you most trust on immigration, who would you vote for?" or "thinking about which party you most trust on the NHS, who would you vote for?"

 

I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.

The jury is still out on whether that questioning is sufficient. If they were asked for their general preference before being asked the constituency question, that (in my view) would be more reliable.

They are.

 

I still don't think the "thinking about your constituency specifically" question is going to be accurate. Obviously Lib Dem MPs are very good at being "champions locally" and getting dog mess cleared off the roads and whathaveyou, and some people will be voting for them on that basis, but there's no way that EVERYONE is going to be thinking first and foremost about who they think is best for the constituency rather than who they want in government. Imo, it's not much different to asking a loaded question like "thinking about which party you most trust on immigration, who would you vote for?" or "thinking about which party you most trust on the NHS, who would you vote for?"

 

I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.

It's a little different to that given that the local candidate is the one who's going to be on the ballot paper when they actually go and vote. Clegg is known by 99% of the constituency (barring the senile and students who think they're in Central, which is a mistake the Greens have also somehow made in student halls) but I'm not sure which way his name will push people. There's still a significant pro-Clegg feeling in wealthier areas.

I still don't think the "thinking about your constituency specifically" question is going to be accurate. Obviously Lib Dem MPs are very good at being "champions locally" and getting dog mess cleared off the roads and whathaveyou, and some people will be voting for them on that basis, but there's no way that EVERYONE is going to be thinking first and foremost about who they think is best for the constituency rather than who they want in government. Imo, it's not much different to asking a loaded question like "thinking about which party you most trust on immigration, who would you vote for?" or "thinking about which party you most trust on the NHS, who would you vote for?"

 

I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.

The difference is that your ballot paper doesn't ask you 'thinking about immigration, which party would you vote for?'. It's rare that people will say which *person* they're voting for - apart from for Lib Dem constituencies.

 

The phenomenon of incumbency effects for Lib Dems is *really* well documented - the question isn't 'will people vote on a local basis in an election where they're choosing a government?' (we know that a lot will), but 'how will the Lib Dem incumbencies stand up to the collapse of their national reputation?'.

So is it true the Tories have made the break through in the last few days, I'm like Danny think the Tories will push ahead!

 

I do too. I think they'll have quite a few more seats than Labour and may even get a small majority. Look at how many undecideds there are according to the Mail today. They may decide, "better the devil you know". I think Cameron will stay in No.10. :(