How many of these polls are what called now casts rather than forecasts is how many ask if the election had been on the day the poll was carried out rather than how they were planning on voting in the election - so most polls are just mood music
Opinion Polls Discussion Thread (Part 3)
105 of 378
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“So, you don't share the opinion that this hung parliament era is just a periodical blip and that come 2020 a majority single Government will return?0”
“So, you don't share the opinion that this hung parliament era is just a periodical blip and that come 2020 a majority single Government will return?0”
Only if the smaller parties wither away and the LibDems remain a rump party. Otherwise, multi-party governments are here to stay.
Quote:
“What are the party leanings? Left or right or both? Because if we did have to get used to European style Governments, then all parties are going to have to grow testicles and work with parties you might not like. But it will take several years or decades for that to happen because the LibDem supporters are still throwing their toys out of the pram that they joined a Tory coalition.”
“What are the party leanings? Left or right or both? Because if we did have to get used to European style Governments, then all parties are going to have to grow testicles and work with parties you might not like. But it will take several years or decades for that to happen because the LibDem supporters are still throwing their toys out of the pram that they joined a Tory coalition.”
They might have to swallow their pride, just as some do within the European Parliament 9where they align themselves in groups contain some really divisive parties)
Be interesting to see what happens to UKIP after 2017 if we get the referendum and the gov gets to grips with controlling immigration
Originally Posted by jjne:
“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%.”
“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%.”
That's what I love about this election - someone posts evidence of a supposed trend and then we have a poll that comes out within minutes contradicting it!
Tories down 4 and UKIP up.
No doubt like buses another poll will come along soon which contradicts this!
Here are the detailed Ashcroft numbers - if you believe the raw data Labour are beating the Tories amongst pensioners and UKIP have half both the Tory and Labour vote which after weighting becomes only one third of their support. The LDs also get weighted up a lot from 7 per cent on the raw data to 11 per cent. Is this fact or guesswork?
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-cont...ata-tables.pdf
Originally Posted by Ellie_Arbuckle:
“The left wing media are making it perfectly clear its the party who can command a majority by any means that is the largest party and is therefor expected to form a government. As per the constitution.
Its the right wing media who aren't saying any of this because it doesn't suit their agenda.”
“The left wing media are making it perfectly clear its the party who can command a majority by any means that is the largest party and is therefor expected to form a government. As per the constitution.
Its the right wing media who aren't saying any of this because it doesn't suit their agenda.”
Please provide a link to this "constitution" to which you refer or the backing for the claim the left wing media you refer to make. The only formal document I know that addresses the issue beyond convention is the "Cabinet Manual" which states an existing government "is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command (the confidence of the House of Commons) and there is a clear alternative." But "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new parliament has met to see if it can command that confidence".
Moreover commanding the confidence of the Commons is not purely a matter of arithmetic as to relevant party numbers in the Commons as you think - it requires actually being outvoted on a motion of confidence. Opposition parties could abstain on such a vote, however unlikely you might think that - eg an opposition party might not feel they had the legitimacy to form an alternative government even if technically they might in theory have the numbers, so they abstain rather than vote the government down. Again unlikely but possible.
Originally Posted by paulschapman:
“They seem to have gone to the smaller parties (UKIP, Green) and the Nationalist (SNP etc)”
“They seem to have gone to the smaller parties (UKIP, Green) and the Nationalist (SNP etc)”
Currently 80% of Fleet Street back the Tories including the The Sun and Daily Mail. Who's backing UKIP......just the Daily Express. Strange that this appears to have no effect on polling.....where's the impact?
Is Fleet Street now a political irrelevance or are the pollsters feeding us inferior results?
So is it right that a 5%+ swing from Con to Lab in England will see Miliband as PM regardless of the SNP - but anything less, Dave gets first go.
Originally Posted by heiker:
“Is Fleet Street now a political irrelevance or are the pollsters feeding us inferior results?”
“Is Fleet Street now a political irrelevance or are the pollsters feeding us inferior results?”
People can now fact check for themselves online and don't have to rely on the spin or outright lies that the press have peddled for years. If this election had been in the mid 80's and with the amount of mud The Tory Press are throwing at Miliband we would be looking at a Tory Landslide instead of the probable Tory Minority Government.
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“So is it right that a 5%+ swing from Con to Lab in England will see Miliband as PM regardless of the SNP - but anything less, Dave gets first go.”
“So is it right that a 5%+ swing from Con to Lab in England will see Miliband as PM regardless of the SNP - but anything less, Dave gets first go.”
Dave gets first go regardless in a hung parliament situation, but if theres a 5% swing from CON to LAB across the marginals Ed Miliband would almost certainly become PM as they'd make very big gains.
Most people don't read newspapers, and indeed with the revelations surrounding the press in 2011, I'd suggest there is now public cynicism around the press. I'd have thought 2010 showed that the influence of the newspapers had started to wane as the Tories went from 20 point leads in 2008-09, the Brown government going into self-destruct mode, huge press endorsement for the Tories, and despite that still not gaining an overall majority.
Originally Posted by heiker:
“Currently 80% of Fleet Street back the Tories including the The Sun and Daily Mail. Who's backing UKIP......just the Daily Express. Strange that this appears to have no effect on polling.....where's the impact?
Is Fleet Street now a political irrelevance or are the pollsters feeding us inferior results?”
“Currently 80% of Fleet Street back the Tories including the The Sun and Daily Mail. Who's backing UKIP......just the Daily Express. Strange that this appears to have no effect on polling.....where's the impact?
Is Fleet Street now a political irrelevance or are the pollsters feeding us inferior results?”
I think the influence of newspapers is on the wane. All they really do when they back a party is appeal to readers who would already vote for that party. Well, perhaps there are some floating voters who are influenced but, in the main, their articles and headlines only confirm a reader's bias rather than challenging it. It's propaganda rather than balanced commentary.
Originally Posted by marke09:
“Be interesting to see what happens to UKIP after 2017 if we get the referendum and the gov gets to grips with controlling immigration”
“Be interesting to see what happens to UKIP after 2017 if we get the referendum and the gov gets to grips with controlling immigration”
If we leave EU they've said it will be job done. And the government cannot control immigration until we leave the EU.
Originally Posted by heiker:
“But.....why don't the current polls reflect these facts?”
“But.....why don't the current polls reflect these facts?”
Show me de' cash!!
Labour promises to splurge money. Many people don't give a toss where it comes from. You can't blame for their ignorance.
Originally Posted by Radiomike:
“Moreover commanding the confidence of the Commons is not purely a matter of arithmetic as to relevant party numbers in the Commons as you think - it requires actually being outvoted on a motion of confidence. Opposition parties could abstain on such a vote, however unlikely you might think that - eg an opposition party might not feel they had the legitimacy to form an alternative government even if technically they might in theory have the numbers, so they abstain rather than vote the government down. Again unlikely but possible.”
“Moreover commanding the confidence of the Commons is not purely a matter of arithmetic as to relevant party numbers in the Commons as you think - it requires actually being outvoted on a motion of confidence. Opposition parties could abstain on such a vote, however unlikely you might think that - eg an opposition party might not feel they had the legitimacy to form an alternative government even if technically they might in theory have the numbers, so they abstain rather than vote the government down. Again unlikely but possible.”
There is of course the real possibility of Labour actually allowing The Tories to govern as a minority Government - at least for now. It would strengthen Labour as they would be detached from the SNP conundrum, but weaken The Tories as they tore themselves apart from the inside. Calling a vote of no confidence in a year from now when Labour were likely to win an outright majority, and getting the left wing opposition to vote with them would be far easier for Labour than it would be for The Tories to try and bring the left alliance down.
Originally Posted by MattXfactor:
“Dave gets first go regardless in a hung parliament situation, but if theres a 5% swing from CON to LAB across the marginals Ed Miliband would almost certainly become PM as they'd make very big gains.”
“Dave gets first go regardless in a hung parliament situation, but if theres a 5% swing from CON to LAB across the marginals Ed Miliband would almost certainly become PM as they'd make very big gains.”
A 5% uniform swing would give Labour a net gain of 19 seats even if they lost every seat in Scotland and didn't gain any seats from the Lib Dems, PC and the Greens.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“There is of course the real possibility of Labour actually allowing The Tories to govern as a minority Government - at least for now. It would strengthen Labour as they would be detached from the SNP conumdrum, but weaken The Tories as they tore themselves apart from the inside. Calling a vote of no confidence in a year from now when Labour were likely to win an outright majority, and getting the left wing opposition to vote with them would be far easier for Labour than it would be for The Tories to try and bring the left alliance down.”
“There is of course the real possibility of Labour actually allowing The Tories to govern as a minority Government - at least for now. It would strengthen Labour as they would be detached from the SNP conumdrum, but weaken The Tories as they tore themselves apart from the inside. Calling a vote of no confidence in a year from now when Labour were likely to win an outright majority, and getting the left wing opposition to vote with them would be far easier for Labour than it would be for The Tories to try and bring the left alliance down.”
It will ultimately come down to numbers - who has the most seats, the gap in seats between the two main parties irrespective of who has the most, how near each can get to or past the magic 323 with their anticipated partners (official or otherwise), and how desperate either of the main two parties is to hang on to or seize power whatever the legitimacy argument that might apply in any particular circumstances.
The legitimacy argument comes more into play the bigger the gap between the two main parties and the nearer the larger one gets to 323 with or without partners. The closer the main two parties in seats the more it is a matter of who can put together any form of arrangement that passes 323.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“There is of course the real possibility of Labour actually allowing The Tories to govern as a minority Government - at least for now. It would strengthen Labour as they would be detached from the SNP conundrum, but weaken The Tories as they tore themselves apart from the inside. Calling a vote of no confidence in a year from now when Labour were likely to win an outright majority, and getting the left wing opposition to vote with them would be far easier for Labour than it would be for The Tories to try and bring the left alliance down.”
“There is of course the real possibility of Labour actually allowing The Tories to govern as a minority Government - at least for now. It would strengthen Labour as they would be detached from the SNP conundrum, but weaken The Tories as they tore themselves apart from the inside. Calling a vote of no confidence in a year from now when Labour were likely to win an outright majority, and getting the left wing opposition to vote with them would be far easier for Labour than it would be for The Tories to try and bring the left alliance down.”
It would I agree solve alot of labour's PR problems.
Alternatively the Tories might do the same regarding labour and let the left wing alliance pull itself apart trying to please so many different stand points and views.
Choose whether or not there is a FFTP system the populous at large just don't get that and would potentially view a labour Gvt propped up by the various nationalists (which are unelectable in most UK countries) which command (if the polls are to be believed) only around 40% of the vote between them (not factoring in Lib Dems) lacking in legitimacy. Might be the best option for labour to sit this one out for a year.
Either way its going to be a mess and not resolved imho by an early 2nd election, unless the Tories can convince the UKIP voters that they are wasting their vote before any such 2nd election.
Originally Posted by Radiomike:
“It will ultimately come down to numbers - who has the most seats, the gap in seats between the two main parties irrespective of who has the most, how near each can get to or past the magic 323 with their anticipated partners (official or otherwise), and how desperate either of the main two parties is to hang on to or seize power whatever the legitimacy argument that might apply in any particular circumstances.
The legitimacy argument comes more into play the bigger the gap between the two main parties and the nearer the larger one gets to 323 with or without partners. The closer the main two parties in seats the more it is a matter of who can put together any form of arrangement that passes 323.”
“It will ultimately come down to numbers - who has the most seats, the gap in seats between the two main parties irrespective of who has the most, how near each can get to or past the magic 323 with their anticipated partners (official or otherwise), and how desperate either of the main two parties is to hang on to or seize power whatever the legitimacy argument that might apply in any particular circumstances.
The legitimacy argument comes more into play the bigger the gap between the two main parties and the nearer the larger one gets to 323 with or without partners. The closer the main two parties in seats the more it is a matter of who can put together any form of arrangement that passes 323.”
I agree. Whoever it is though it isn't imho going to last very long. At this point I can't see anything other than a labour Gvt supported most probably by Lib Dems and the nationalists. If they do get the Lib Dems on board then they will be seen as more legitimate by the populous at large than without them given they are a UK wide party and would bring the vote spread to 50% of votes cast.
Originally Posted by Radiomike:
“It will ultimately come down to numbers - who has the most seats, the gap in seats between the two main parties irrespective of who has the most, how near each can get to or past the magic 323 with their anticipated partners (official or otherwise), and how desperate either of the main two parties is to hang on to or seize power whatever the legitimacy argument that might apply in any particular circumstances.
The legitimacy argument comes more into play the bigger the gap between the two main parties and the nearer the larger one gets to 323 with or without partners. The closer the main two parties in seats the more it is a matter of who can put together any form of arrangement that passes 323.”
“It will ultimately come down to numbers - who has the most seats, the gap in seats between the two main parties irrespective of who has the most, how near each can get to or past the magic 323 with their anticipated partners (official or otherwise), and how desperate either of the main two parties is to hang on to or seize power whatever the legitimacy argument that might apply in any particular circumstances.
The legitimacy argument comes more into play the bigger the gap between the two main parties and the nearer the larger one gets to 323 with or without partners. The closer the main two parties in seats the more it is a matter of who can put together any form of arrangement that passes 323.”
Another factor, not that I haven't taken your points onboard, because I have, and I do agree with them, is that in a year from now, Labours chances of gaining a majority will be greatly enhanced because the SNP will be focusing on the Scottish election so if The Tories fall next spring and an election is called, the SNP will be far less of a threat as Labour can focus on regaining its English marginals and maybe a bit of headway in Scotland due to their not "going to bed with the SNP" a year previous. All things are worthy of consideration.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-labour-losing
Further evidence that their appears to be some jitters at Labour HQ
Further evidence that their appears to be some jitters at Labour HQ
if labour cant get more than a third of the vote how can they claim a mandate with a coalition that gets say 40 %. the last coalition with the tories and lib dems got almost 60% backing from the public vote.
Originally Posted by MattN:
“http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-labour-losing
Further evidence that their appears to be some jitters at Labour HQ”
“http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-labour-losing
Further evidence that their appears to be some jitters at Labour HQ”
Today's Ashcroft Polls say otherwise.
Originally Posted by Jakobjoe:
“if labour cant get more than a third of the vote how can they claim a mandate with a coalition that gets say 40 %. the last coalition with the tories and lib dems got almost 60% backing from the public vote.”
“if labour cant get more than a third of the vote how can they claim a mandate with a coalition that gets say 40 %. the last coalition with the tories and lib dems got almost 60% backing from the public vote.”
How many of those who Voted LibDem would have changed their vote if they had known their part would prop up The Tories for 5 years?
Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect:
“The ability to regroup and revive their dismal political fortunes.”
“The ability to regroup and revive their dismal political fortunes.”
Exactly, they're much better off playing the recovery game.
105 of 378
