Because of how current governments recover ground leading into elections , with the CON’s polling recently on the same % as Lab or 1% down , bare in mind the average swing towards current government in polls leading up to the election is 2.7%. So 7 ish months away from Election I think its a fair prediction that the CON’s will recover at least 1% leading into the election (thats only a 0.5% swing from current polling figures).
Edit: Sorry didn’t make this clear, thats a 2.7% swing in the last 12 months of polls leading up to the election. Thats a historical average based on previous UK general elections.
But that three percent is approximately the advantage that labour has in the unreformed English constituencies.
They have a 3% lead yes , a 1.5% swing would make that even , a further 0.5% swing would result in a 1% CON lead. I think its extremely likely that the Conservatives will have more votes than Labour , although I think its a coin toss as to who has the most seats.
Add in an incredibly unpopular leader of the opposition and I suspect the 2.7% average swing is skirting on the low side of predictions. Of course this election is unlike previous elections. More parties are seriously contesting seats. However, past election models do not bode well for Labour. The main unknown being how much these past election models are still relevant to the 2015 election.
Agree with you on all the points made. My own personal view is that the Conservatives will lead Labour by 1-3% on election day ( my own personal view is around 2.5%). I also think that Labours collapse in Scotland means that either party managing to get a majority is extremely unlikely , not impossible but very very unlikely. Like I said earlier I think if you offered either party 310 seats right now they would both snap your hand off within a second. I think the likely scenario at this time is the Tory’s having more seats than Labour by anywhere from 1-20 but being short of a majority by at least 20.
Two points:
[ol]
[li] Europe is not one of the public’s main concerns, but immigration is. In fact, it’s the number one concern according to some polls and the topic of Europe and immigration are inextricably linked. It’s not really much of a stretch to suggest that the majority of British public ill-will to the EU is related to immigration and the free movement of labour.[/li][li] Several polls have indicated that a majority would vote to leave the EU. Some recent polls have put support for the EU at the highest in a few years, but even there the message is pretty mixed, with the majority of voters wishing to see no further European integration.[/li][/ol]
UKIP has repeatedly failed to conform to predictions of its imminent death and irrelevance. I may not like the party, but the idea that they’re going to be confined to a few seats in the East of England is ridiculous. They came within 2% of beating Labour in one of their safer seats in Greater Manchester without much of a campaign. Mark Reckless’ seat in Kent is #262 on UKIP’s list of target seats for the next election and yet he is 15 points clear of his nearest rival, a Tory. Carswell routed his opposition, racking up an impressive win even accounting for the incumbency factor. Your own link above to the UK-Elect polling predictions has them winning seats in Cornwall and the West Midlands. This is also the first third party in a century to win a national election (European elections). They aren’t going anywhere.
You are right. They are not going anywhere. They will not get more than 20to 30seats in May, probably fewer. The British electorate has a history of landslide by elections to the opposition or centre party, followed by return to the fold in the general election. At the last election the LibDems had 23% of the votes and less than 9% of the seats. I cannot see UKIP doing any better than that, and they do not have any real concentration of votes and history of representation that the LibDems do.
I have seen no sensible prediction of seats that give them more than 30seats.
Can someone clarify what happens in the case of no overall majority. I recall, and Wikipedia agrees with me, that the current government is given the first chance to form a new government even if they have less seats that a different party (as long as there’s no single party with a majority). Wikipedia also says this has happened in the past. But it just doesn’t seem very fair.
The projection from Pjen’s link above is:
Labour 291 (+33)
Conservative 265 (-39)
SNP 38 (+32)
Liberal Democrat 23 (-34)
UKIP 9 (+8)
In this case it would be up to David Cameron to try and form a government first – which they could do as a minority government with support from the Lib Dems and other unionists which would give them just enough to overcome the Labor vote as long as they could at least persuade the SNP to abstain for the Queen’s Speech and Budget votes.
If that came to pass, what would the public reaction be? Would Cameron try it? Would the Lib Dems support them again?
David Cameron would haver the right to try to form a Government as he remains Prime Minister even though Parliament has been prorogued and reelected- he remains Prime Minister until he resigns or loses a vote of confidence. He would probably remain as Prime Minister pro tem whatever happens until another Government is formed.
In the case above he would need to plan for a minority Government which would require some support from UKIP and the Unionist NI parties but would also require agreement from the LibDems and SNP to not oppose in a vote of confidence- he would need a coalition agreement from the former and an understanding from the latter parties that he would be allowed to govern. If that was not forthcoming, Miliband would be offered to opportunity to form a Government and he would need either a coalition or agreement involving LibDems, SNP and other minor parties.
If neither party could form a Government either David Cameron would continue as Prime Minister but unable to introduce any contentious legislation- just enabling the country to continue functioning.
It is possible that there could be an earthquake with a National Government being formed resulting in a final split of the Conservative Party as happened with the Liberals last century. The Government would require an interim Prime Minister tasked with maintaining the status quo (including European Membership- which would be supported by all except UKIP and the Tory splitters.
It might well lead to increased devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and an effective federal government dealing with Foreign and Defence policy and defence of the currency,and the devolved administrations dealing with matters on which England differs from the smaller nations.
Ah, OK. I understand. Thanks for the detailed response – it’s certainly going to be interesting come May, but that’s still half a year away … anything could happen.
The Tories have taken the lead in the latest Ashcroft National Poll, with Con 30%, Lab 29%, Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 16%, Green 6%. Both Conservative and Liberal Democrat polling numbers have recovered somewhat. For Labour, even more shocking is this:
(Bolding mine.)
45% of Labour voters don’t want the Labour leader as Prime Minister of the UK!
These numbers are truly horrific for Labour, hung parliament is an absolute certainty.
First off , I believe that projection is very very kind to Labour. I’d be very suprised if they managed to win 26 more seats than the Conservatives, if Labour do win more seats it will be by a much tighter margin, their collapse in Scotland means that they are going to have to gain so many seats in England to have the most seats (and I think we can all agree now that they have minimal chance of forming a majority).
The interesting thing with your example projections there is that on them numbers it could well be that the Conservatives have more votes in terms of % than Labour, which means they could use that to say that they had the mandate to govern. If however they had less votes and less seats than Labour (very unlikely that Labour will have a higher % of votes than the Conservatives) then Labour would probably be able to form a government by doing a deal with someone, my reasoning here is that parties will not want to be seen to be doing a deal with the party that lost the election as it would make them look bad going against the british vote.
Just a side note as well to any gamblers out there looking at the election, Conservatives to win the most seats at odds of evens or better is absolutely superb IMO.
My example assumes that Labour will get almost the same vote or somewhat more or less than the Conservatives. With their natural advantage in under sized urban constituencies on England, this would win an extra ten to twenty seats in England on an equal poll.
It is quite likely given new Scottish projections that Labour will recover considerably fewer Scottish votes than previously assumed.
Agree regarding Scotland. I think its extremely likely that Labour will be at least 1% behind the CONs on election day in terms of vote % , my own personal belief is that both parties will be slightly under or slightly over 300 seats , I think things like electoral calculus etc. or things like that where you input the % of the vote and they project a vote for you will be out of sink for this election as they don’t cater properly for UKIP or the SNP votes which could be massive in this election. I think the % of the vote is easier to call than the number of seats and I retain the belief that the Conservatives will win more votes but who wins the most seats is very uncertain at this time, I’d say its a coin flip with the CON’s having the very slight edge (I’d of been certain of Labour winning the most seats but there demise in Scotland has lead me to believe this is very much a neck and neck race).
Labour have decided to make things interesting. Milliband’s weaknesses have been obvious since he was elected. Nevertheless, the party have stuck with him until now, 6 months before the election, when they start making noises about replacing him. And when I say making noises, I don’t mean a public challenge by senior figures who have a successor in mind. I mean off-the-record mutterings by non-frontbenchers. The net effect of which is to further undermine Milliband - and the rest of the frontbench - in the eyes of the public without actually solving the problem.
“If 'twere done when 'tis done, 'twere well it were done quickly” guys. This is political coup 101. Give him the whisky and the loaded revolver, install the successor, announce a new (ish) programme for government and go full-throated for victory. Or accept that Milliband is priced in to the poll results, rally behind him and give the footsoldiers some confidence as you chase the core vote and the disenchanted 2010 Lib Dems. Fucking around 6 months before the election just makes the whole party look a) divided, b) weak and c) incapable of making a decision. None of which really helps your election chances.
I’m extremely confident after today of 2 things, 1.) Labour will definitely not form a majority government in 2015 2.) Conservatives are favorites to have more seats.
I expect the conservatives to win the popular vote 35% - 31% just enough to give them around 15 more seats when you factor in Labours demise in scotland. I think some Labour MP’s are so scared that a Miliband-Balls government would scare there voters away for 10+ years that they actually don’t even want to win this election.
Do Labour even want to win the next election? I’m not sure. It looks like any next government is going to have to continue cutting and reducing public services, and maybe increase taxes. From Labour’s point of view it would be far better to allow the Tories to carry on doing what Tories do and then sweep back into power when they’ve sorted the economic disaster that was the last Labour government.