It was - but I don't think that was accompanied by any actual polling data.

The grey area seems to be whether any polls cannot be published on polling day or only exit polls based on the way people have actually cast their votes.

I imagine that any newspapers publishing this MORI poll on Thursday will argue that it's legitimate as the fieldwork and publication would have technically occurred before the polls opened.

But newspapers aren't taken off the shelves at 7am, are they?

Except Labour didn't win a majority either, there was only 4 seats and 0.25% vote share in it. For all the whining on this forum about boundaries by the Tories the fact remains the Tories are the only party to actually win a majority but lose the popular vote.

The funny thing is at the 1951 election the reason Labour lost was the due to outcome in Scotland, if Scotland had followed England they would have won a third election. That is the only reason the Conservatives are still in this election.

All those facts prove is that electoral demographics are not static and ebb and flow over time and if the polls are even half right about Scotland then there will be a natural correction anyway not by gerrymandering boundaries or social cleansing of urban marginals but by votes in ballot boxes.

It was just a reason to its readers why The Sun were hoping for a Conservative win in 1992. There was no polling data.

It could be a case of MORI publishing before the poll opens but no one reporting it due to polling laws! Seems daft having a poll on the day itself when it cannot be scrutinised (except on here... unless the moderators get twitchy about the legalities of it).

No party has a majority mandate on less than 50% of the vote.

Tory and Labour supporters should stop their whining and thank their lucky stars that the system favours them.

It is completely ridiculous for any party to assume they have the will of the people, when not only do they fail to gain a majority of the vote, but they also fail to gain a majority of the seats in a system specifically set up to ensure that one or other of them always does.

The rules on general election coverage on polling day only relate to UK broadcast media (i.e. TV and radio). The papers, including online, can do what they want- including covering that MORI opinion poll.

I thought it was the case that all the other polls that come out on the Wednesday, are actually covered on the respective morning papers on the Thursday, and MORI's poll comes out in the Standard in London on the evening?

This is how it has been for a long time isn't it?

Ipsos Mori had a poll on election in 2015 apparently, and from what I saw on twitter they predicted a Tory majority and they got that wrong

Opinion polls do not predict seats.

The MORI poll which was published by the Standard in 2010 got the Tory and Labour shares more or less spot on... they overstated the LD vote share but all the polls did.

MORI also conducted the exit poll, which does predict seats, and that poll was also spot on give or take a few.

MORI's poll on Thursday, given past form is likely to be pretty accurate. I would also trust Populus, YouGov and ICM... the others not so much, as they don't have so much of a proven track record.

Speaking of which Populus poll today, Labour and Tories level pegging

Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak

Clegg warns there'd be 2nd election before Christmas if Lib Dems aren't part of coalition

He does seem to be making a lot of demands lately and, even thought I'll probably still vote Lib Dem, it's beginning to get on my nerves.

There could be a 2nd election before Christmas if they DO form part of a coalition.

Let's look at this scenario:

Labour on 262 seats and LibDems on 28 seats: 290 seats. Plus SNP support (which could and probably would prove toxic for Labour if they do deals or are seen to be giving in to them) plus Plaid Cymru plus Green = 337 approx.

Take out of the equation around 4 Sinn Fein and a speaker = 5seats.

So opposition would be 318. How on earth would you get anything passed if the Tories in opposition voted against and the LD's and/or the SNP abstained?

Yes, I know my figures are hyperthetical and subject to a lot of variance, but any scenario is going to be tight considering the main parties are pretty tight. Especially as the Tories are still predicted to be the party with the most seats.

It will be interesting to see if this is 1992 revisited.

Just as a reminder the final polls from the 5 main polling companies showed an average LAB lead of 1%. The actual CON lead was 7.5%. Those polls understated CON support by 3.6% and overstated Labour support by 5%.

Even the exit polls got it wrong in 1992. The BBC/NOP exit poll interviewed 14,000 people in 100 constituencies and showed a 5.5% swing to Labour when revealed at 10pm. The actual swing was 2% to Labour.

Even though the pollsters have changed their methodologies since 1992 could that happen again even if not to the same extent? Consider that as recently as last year's Euro elections the final polls from the six main pollsters overstated Labour by 1.6% and understated CON by 1.7% as against the final result (based on lower voting shares than at this General Election). Repeat that this week and a 1% CON average lead in the pre-election polls becomes a 5.5% lead on the night. The difference between a 3% swing to Labour and a 1% swing.

Fascinating to see how it plays out.

There could well be a second election, even with the LDs in government. From what I've just seen Clegg say on TV, I really doubt he's going in any arrangement that includes the DUP and UKIP.

The 1992 scenario is feasible, for different reasons though.

There has been a slow but steady drift from UKIP to Conservative in the polls lately, and it's just possible this could become a last-minute flood. By 'flood' I'm only thinking of maybe 3-4%, but it would be enough.

Thing is though this could well go the other way and this would hand Miliband significant sway.

There has been a lot of talk about 'shy Kippers' and 'shy Tories' of late, but I would still not discount the possibility of a shy LD effect -- I think there will be quite a number of voters who may hold their nose on Thursday and vote LD again. Again, not many, but very possibly enough to push their share to 12%.

Vince Cable is demanding the same number of Ministerial seats as before and wont settle for less.

LDs are making a lot of demands because they have to persuade their party to join a coalition. If the deal isn't good enough, it won't happen.

Do you get the feeling, that the LD think that they are going to be part of the next
government, whoever else wins ?

To which Andrew Neil quipped on Twitter 'so that's every Lib Dem MP then...'

What happened to Lib Dem support for proportional representation- I make it that you lose half your seats you should lose half your ministers?

I think they are lining themselves up to stitch the Conservatives up... and why shouldn't they?

The Tories don't have a right to LD support... I think the LDs are quite right to say that if you want our support we'll gouge your eyes out, and if you're not happy with that then you can get stuffed -- see what happens when you try to go it alone.

This idea that the LDs will just roll over on Friday is absurd. They are served better in opposition than a small number agreeing to everything a (much more Right-wing dominated) Tory party come up with, without significant returns.

The LibDems don't wish to go with the Conservatives it seems, but if the Conservatives have the most seats what excuse can they use?

Obviously the Conservatives are the excuse, "they just won't be reasonable" sez LibDem spokesperson Blah Blahman

Ashcroft National Poll - 5 May

CON 32 (-4)
LAB 30 (-)
LD 11 (+2)
UKIP 12 (+1)
Green 7 (-)

One interesting titbit from the focus groups this week:-

"One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be."