Jump to content

OPINION POLLS III · Yay, democracy!

Brett-Butler
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

I very much doubt that anyone will get a majority. Too many seats, outside of scotland, would need to change hands and most seats just don't.
  • Replies 580
  • Views 29.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

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. :(

And which Labour seats do you think the Conservatives will gain to get a majority exactly? While losing none to Labour or UKIP and being limited to about 15 Lib Dem gains on a good night?

I think they will take the lib dem seats in the south and west and will hold their ground in the midlands etc due to the snp threat the tories have went on about so much in the past 2 weeks. They will get near 290-300 seats - but will that be enough to get their Queens Speech through?! (in terms of support from elesewhere)

Edited by steve201

That depends entirely on how many seats you have the other parties on in that scenario.

 

At a guess, you've got the Tories taking 15 or so seats off the Lib Dems (which would be a good night for them). That implies the Tories are losing about 25-30 seats to Labour. Let's say the SNP are taking 30-35 off Labour too, and Labour are taking 15 off the Lib Dems, and the SNP are taking 10 off the Lib Dems. Let's give 2 Tory seats to UKIP. (This is all rough maths by the way, based on what we've got here)

 

Tories 291

Labour 267

SNP 47

LD 17

UKIP 3

PC 3

GR 1

 

NI (DUP 9, SDLP 3, SF 5, Sylv 1)

 

In that scenario, the Tories would probably whip up some kind of moral authority to govern, but the numbers don't really add up. Labour + SDLP (who already take the Labour whip so this isn't the extra hassle it looks) + SNP adds up to more than Con + LD (317 > 308), so the Tories would need to get the DUP on board just to equal that, plus UKIP, and it would still only add up to 320. It really is all at the margins.

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?'.

 

The ballot paper also doesn't tell you specifically to "think about your constituency", after previously asking who you'd generally vote for (thus, arguably, encouraging a different answer for the second question).

 

With the exception of MPs who were first elected in 2010, the incumbency effects will already be baked into the 2010 results (which is why Eastbourne and/or Cambridge might be saved on smallish swings). Otherwise, there's no reason at all to think the swing in their seats will be lower than the national average, because the strong reputations of individual MPs will ALREADY be reflected in their starting points. In 2010 itself, even LibDem seats generally swung with the national trend apart from first-time incumbents.

Edited by Danny

The second question is surely closer to the actual ballot paper though, given it has the names there. We've got years of election experience demonstrating that Lib Dem candidates can sway a big shift from national voting preferences, tripping up countless confident predictions of 'oh, well, people vote nationally in a general election don't they?'. People are more than happy to lend votes tactically if they know their preferred party doesn't stand a chance locally *and* they think the MP does a good job.
And which Labour seats do you think the Conservatives will gain to get a majority exactly? While losing none to Labour or UKIP and being limited to about 15 Lib Dem gains on a good night?

 

The Tories are probably on for 20+ gains from the Lib Dems IMO, and I could see them picking up a handful of Labour seats in the Midlands or somewhere if Labour leak some votes to UKIP. It's touch and go if the Tories get a majority but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see them do it.

Edited by Danny

The Tories are probably on for 20+ gains from the Lib Dems IMO, and I could see them picking up a handful of Labour seats in the Midlands or somewhere if Labour leak some votes to UKIP. It's touch and go if the Tories get a majority but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see them do it.

Which seats would they be taking from Labour though? Because there hasn't been a single constituency poll which has shown them anywhere near picking up a seat from Labour in their targets - even the Tories' internal echoes (there was an article in the Staggers recently) have pretty much given up on getting any more than one or two, if *that*.

 

Not to mention that 20 Tory gains from the Lib Dems would have the Lib Dems losing pretty much *every* seat where the Tories came second last time (if we're discounting Sheffield Hallam, Cambridge and the Scottish seats). That includes the four South West London seats where the Tories have given up and diverted all resources to Croydon Central (and includes seats where the Lib Dems have been twenty points ahead in Ashcroft polling). That includes Colchester, where Bob Russell is basically a local icon. That includes Eastleigh, where even a by-election couldn't get the Lib Dems out. That includes Thornbury and Yate, and Eastbourne, where the Lib Dems have been twenty points ahead in polling. That includes Westmoreland and Lonsdale.

 

They could lose one or two of those. But there is no way in hell the Lib Dems are losing all of those - twenty Lib Dem losses to the Tories is really, really, really bloody unlikely.

Aren't Tory voters, i.e the more conservative lot, more likely to vote UKIP anyway? Hence why Call ME Dave didn't want a debate with only 4 parties as he knew he'd lose votes to them so wanted more Left Wing parties for Labour to lose votes to as well.
Aren't Tory voters, i.e the more conservative lot, more likely to vote UKIP anyway? Hence why Call ME Dave didn't want a debate with only 4 parties as he knew he'd lose votes to them so wanted more Left Wing parties for Labour to lose votes to as well.

The UKIP vote's getting squeezed the closer it gets to election day. It's more a case of how many votes UKIP have picked up over the Parliament from the Tories stay UKIP rather than how many the Tories lose to UKIP.

I'll take part of that back - I've had a check and there are more potential Lib Dem-Tory battles than I thought (I really need to set up a spreadsheet), but I still can't see the Tories making it all the way to twenty...

 

(this isn't totally sourced for each one but most results are based on Ashcroft polls, and he's done all but three/four of the safest)

 

# / Maj / Maj as % of turnout / Seat / MP

  1. 00175 / 00.32 / Solihull / Lorely Burt
  2. 00269 / 00.57 / Dorset Mid & Poole North / Annette Brooke (stepping down)
  3. 00800 / 01.43 / Wells / Tessa Munt
  4. 01312 / 02.78 / St Austell & Newquay / Stephen Gilbert
  5. 01817 / 03.00 / Somerton & Frome / David Heath (stepping down)
  6. 01608 / 03.31 / Sutton & Cheam / Paul Burstow
  7. 01719 / 03.74 / St Ives / Andrew George
  8. 02470 / 04.72 / Chippenham / Duncan Hames [Ashcroft 11/14, Tory 15pt lead]
  9. 03272 / 06.23 / Cheadle / Mark Hunter [Ashcroft 10/14, LD 4pt lead]
  10. 02981 / 06.36 / North Cornwall / Dan Rogerson
  11. 03435 / 06.59 / Eastbourne / Stephen Lloyd
  12. 03993 / 06.87 / Taunton Deane / Jeremy Browne (stepping down)
  13. 02690 / 07.00 / Berwick-upon-Tweed / Alan Beith (stepping down) [Ashcroft 08/14, Tory 3pt lead]
  14. 03864 / 07.20 / Eastleigh / Mike Thornton [Ashcroft 08/14, 15pt LD lead]
  15. 04078 / 08.29 / Torbay / Adrian Sanders
  16. 04920 / 09.32 / Cheltenham / Martin Horwood [Ashcroft 11/14, 8pt LD lead]
  17. 03747 / 09.65 / Brecon & Radnorshire / Roger Williams
  18. 05821 / 11.34 / North Devon / Nick Harvey
  19. 05260 / 11.46 / Carshalton & Wallington / Tom Brake [Ashcroft 11/14, LD 20 pt lead]
  20. 05675 / 11.58 / Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk / Michael Moore [three-way marginal w/ SNP]
  21. 05200 / 12.60 / Portsmouth South / Mike Hancock (deselected) [local pervert/behind in polls]
  22. 07560 / 13.24 / Kingston & Surbiton / Ed Davey
  23. 06024 / 13.77 / Southport / John Pugh [Ashcroft 13pt lead]
  24. 07116 / 14.76 / Thornbury & Yate / Steve Webb
  25. 06982 / 15.13 / Colchester / Bob Russell [Ashcroft 11/14, 14pt LD lead]
  26. 06371 / 15.18 / Hazel Grove / Andrew Stunell (stepping down) [Ashcroft 11/14, 6pt LD lead]
  27. 07647 / 15.27 / Lewes / Norman Baker [Ashcroft 8pt lead]
  28. 12140 / 20.33 / Twickenham / Vince Cable
  29. 13036 / 22.81 / Yeovil / David Laws
  30. 11626 / 23.41 / Norfolk North / Norman Lamb
  31. 12264 / 23.82 / Westmorland & Lonsdale / Tim Farron
  32. 11883 / 25.24 / Bath / Don Foster (stepping down)
basically lost already

in balance but leaning Tory gain

in balance

in balance but leaning LD hold

safe

That includes Eastleigh, where even a by-election couldn't get the Lib Dems out.

 

What do you mean *even* a by-election?! By-elections are their forte since they can usually be focussed purely on who they want representing the local area and sorting out all the little problems. But I still stand by that a general election is going to have a lot more minds focussed on the national picture (not all minds, admittedly), since people would that who they choose as their MP really could affect who makes the government, whereas a by-election wouldn't. There's ALWAYS been a pattern of Lib Dems performing better in local elections and by-elections, which is what I think tbh Ashcroft's constituency-specific polling reflects.

Edited by Danny

Hancock is still standing as an Independent in Portsmouth South though and is quite popular as a constituency MP so that one could be a funny one (He says, clinging onto any hope of it not going blue).
What do you mean *even* a by-election?! By-elections are their forte since they can usually be focussed purely on who they want representing the local area and sorting out all the little problems. But I still stand by that a general election is going to have a lot more minds focussed on the national picture (not all minds, admittedly), since people would that who they choose as their MP really could affect who makes the government, whereas a by-election wouldn't. There's ALWAYS been a pattern of Lib Dems performing better in local elections and by-elections, which is what I think tbh Ashcroft's constituency-specific polling reflects.

Eh?! By-elections are normally the ultimate message of 'bugger off' to the government - by the token of the Lib Dems losing all respect nationally to the degree it erodes their incumbency totally, a by-election would be the perfect opportunity to send a message to the Lib Dems. Hence why they've collapsed in basically every by-election where they weren't already embedded.

 

(And on not all minds - that still doesn't deal with the tactical voting argument. Hence the collapse in national voting intentions for whichever party doesn't stand a chance in the seat when transferred to Q2)

 

You don't even seem to be making that argument though - you seem to be making the argument that incumbency effect for parties other than the Tories and Labour doesn't at all exist in general elections. I don't think you'd find a single political scientist *or* pollster who'd agree with you on that!

Hancock is still standing as an Independent in Portsmouth South though and is quite popular as a constituency MP so that one could be a funny one (He says, clinging onto any hope of it not going blue).

Well the Lib Dems may be the traditional party of oddball perverts, but even then I doubt that was much of the appeal for local MPs. He might save his deposit but there's pretty much no chance of him holding the seat as a disgraced independent.

I don't see the Libdems holding a Tory government in power if they can't make a majority on their own, and the logic of voters switching from Libdem to Tory is bizarre given they would presumably not have been in favour of Tory policies and now suddenly are (as opposed to the other party thats been jointly in power toning them down).

 

Another Tory coalition for Libdems would kill them off entirely, I would imagine they would prefer to sit it out and watch others try to manage if Labour remain opposed to the Libdems. Even a handy block of 20 MP's could influence policy in a close call while letting someone else get the blame for unpopular policies......

Russell Brand has just gone and endorsed Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion. That's her seat lost then.

She does have the support of David Attenborough and Joanna Lumley though.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.