Likelihood of various British coalitions after the next election.

[Ben.]

I would say the range will be between a Tory majority of  around 60 to a Labour majority of around 20.

I think you're underestimating the potential for a Conservative landslide at the next election, it's possible there could be a Conservative majority of 150+.

That's not to say it's set in stone... as Al says we're a very long way off from the GE and any number of things could happen; the Tory lead could extend, Labour could recover, things could remain pretty static, heck! the LibDems could stage a stunning revival and sweep all before them... but that's just silly

[afleitch]

I would say the range will be between a Tory majority of  around 60 to a Labour majority of around 20.

I think you're underestimating the potential for a Conservative landslide at the next election, it's possible there could be a Conservative majority of 150+.

That's not to say it's set in stone... as Al says we're a very long way off from the GE and any number of things could happen; the Tory lead could extend, Labour could recover, things could remain pretty static, heck! the LibDems could stage a stunning revival and sweep all before them... but that's just silly

As I've said before the electorate are able to behave in such a way they get the 'result' they want irregardless of general swing.

With regards the Tories, a majority of 100+ at present to me is probably more likely than a hung parliament.

[Rural Radical]

I would say the range will be between a Tory majority of  around 60 to a Labour majority of around 20.

I think you're underestimating the potential for a Conservative landslide at the next election, it's possible there could be a Conservative majority of 150+.

That's not to say it's set in stone... as Al says we're a very long way off from the GE and any number of things could happen; the Tory lead could extend, Labour could recover, things could remain pretty static, heck! the LibDems could stage a stunning revival and sweep all before them... but that's just silly

Maybe I am. However:

1. The conservatives still dont have 200 Mps at the moment.
2. It will be impossible for them to replicate what happened in Crewe & Nantwich across the country.
3. The Conservatives start from a lower base than Labour did going in to 1997 (Which is the most similar scenario).
4. There is a stronger Lib Dem force than ever before.
5. The Labour vote share is likely to increase (from where it is now) between now and the election.
6. I have to put a range in, and thre is a small chance that abour could win.

A couple of questions (Open to anyone):
How does Labour compare to?
1. How do they compare to Labour at this time in 1977?
2. How do they compare to the Conservatives at this time in 1995?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour and Conservative governments are sufficiently different (ie; are elected for different reasons, are defeated for different reasons and are voted for and supported by broadly different groups of people) that you can't really compare that sort of thing and hope to learn much. But the government is in a better position now than the Wilson government was in 1967-1969 (though the room for recovery isn't so great). Hard to call whether it's in a better position than the Callaghan government was; some things are obviously better, others obviously worse. It's obviously not in as good a position as the Attlee government was in the late '40's through to 1951 (ie; the position of the Attlee government as it actually was and not the position of it according to contemporaries...) and it's (lol) obviously in a better position than the 1929-1931 government...

Anyway. 'tis summertime now. For now all speculation is silly, all rumours probably wrong, all leaks dubious, all polls, surveys, focus group reports and whatever... inherently dodgy. And this will remain true until Conferenceland ends.

So, for now, everyone should relax. Or reflect. Or both. A few months of both be a good thing, all told.

[Rural Radical]

Labour and Conservative governments are sufficiently different (ie; are elected for different reasons, are defeated for different reasons and are voted for and supported by broadly different groups of people) that you can't really compare that sort of thing and hope to learn much. But the government is in a better position now than the Wilson government was in 1967-1969 (though the room for recovery isn't so great). Hard to call whether it's in a better position than the Callaghan government was; some things are obviously better, others obviously worse. It's obviously not in as good a position as the Attlee government was in the late '40's through to 1951 (ie; the position of the Attlee government as it actually was and not the position of it according to contemporaries...) and it's (lol) obviously in a better position than the 1929-1931 government...

Anyway. 'tis summertime now. For now all speculation is silly, all rumours probably wrong, all leaks dubious, all polls, surveys, focus group reports and whatever... inherently dodgy. And this will remain true until Conferenceland ends.

So, for now, everyone should relax. Or reflect. Or both. A few months of both be a good thing, all told.

The local government position of The Wilson & Callaghan Governments was worse than it is now.

The Conservatives had a majority on Merseyside County Council in 1977 IIRC, which wouldnt happen now.

[afleitch]

A couple of questions (Open to anyone):
How does Labour compare to?
1. How do they compare to the Conservatives at this time in 1977?

To continue a thread from pb.com if we exclude all polls with discarded and discredited methodology (which is basically everything but ICM) we find that in July 1995 ICM recorded the following

LAB 47%
CON 32%
LIB 17%
OTH 3%

July 2008 ICM has

CON 43%
LAB 28%
LIB 19%
OTH 10%

So a 15% Labour lead in 1995 and a 15% Tory lead in 2008

Between that point and the election. The Tories never polled higher than 34% (excluding a 37% share in the infamous rogue poll of April 1997) or lower than 26%

John Majors personal rating (again we have to look at ICM with this as they were the only ones who regularly asked the question) hit it's lowest point with just 24% holding a positive opinion of his leadership. This then rose towards the end of his premiership. Only YouGov have polled this since March this year and in June the same figure for Brown was 16%

Yes it's ''only polls and all polls are speculative blah blah blah blah..wait and see...two years to go'' as we are constantly (and rightfully) told but there is some relevance here.

Labour supporters who think the last two years of the Major government was the pits of the earth when it came to popularity don't quite like being reminded that they have probably sunk below this. The difference for Major in 1995 is that economy had had 2 years of solid economic growth with a further two to come.

[Dan the Roman]

There is also the issue of vote distribution. The Tories may be drawing the same percentage of support as Labour was in 1995, but there are still large swathes of the country where they are completely uncompetitive. This means they are likely racking up useless margins in their strongholds, and the southeast marginals rather than where they need the votes. They will likely win anyway, but I think even if they get the same vote breakdowns, they will end up with far less seats than Labour would.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Considering that latest opinion polls, the most recent being a YouGov Poll taken yesterday shows the Conservative's leading Prime Minister Brown's ailing Labour Party by 19 points, it's fair to say at this point in time, despite an Election not due in the United Kingdom until June 3, 2010 at the latest, that David Cameron's Conservatives will not a need help from  other parties to hold majority in the Commons.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even ICM isn't directly comparable; they change their methodology on a fairly regular basis (including at least two fairly important tweaks this year IIRC) which is probably why there overall record has been less awful than the norm. In any case, if my copy of the Butler-Kavanagh is right, then ICM actually managed to underestimate the Labour lead in '97 (although IIRC (yeah, it's not in front of me right now) it was due to overpolling the Tories rather than underpolling Labour; ICM were actually the Tories private polling company at the time and this was back when the entire polling industry was even more unethical than it is now).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is deeply misleading as he always retained a certain curious personal popularity. He was never the most unpopular member of his government or even close to it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are wrong anyway as the nadir of the Major government was largely earlier than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just about possible in terms of width and extent, but certainly not in depth. If that makes sense. But I'll repeat that comparing Labour and Tory governments in that respect is probably a mistake. Better comparisions are with late 66-69 and 75-79.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the economic growth of the mid '90's mattered not a jot as no one associated it even slightly with the government. That is why Black Wednesday was so damaging to the Major Tories; not because it brought forward (and greatly extended) the inevitable midterm blues, but because it totally destroyed their credibility on economic issues.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is also the issue of vote distribution. The Tories may be drawing the same percentage of support as Labour was in 1995, but there are still large swathes of the country where they are completely uncompetitive. This means they are likely racking up useless margins in their strongholds, and the southeast marginals rather than where they need the votes. They will likely win anyway, but I think even if they get the same vote breakdowns, they will end up with far less seats than Labour would.

To illustrate this; in 1983 the Tories won 188 more seats than Labour. In 1997, Labour won 253 more seats than the Tories. The popular vote gap between the two parties was bigger in 1983 than 1997. And in 1992 the Tories won the popular vote by about 8pts but won a majority of just 21 seats (which, with off the back of three terms of grudges, passed-over promotions and sackings, isn't workable. As Major discovered).

[afleitch]

Except that the economic growth of the mid '90's mattered not a jot as no one associated it even slightly with the government. That is why Black Wednesday was so damaging to the Major Tories; not because it brought forward (and greatly extended) the inevitable midterm blues, but because it totally destroyed their credibility on economic issues.

Which is partly the point I was making and is also the reason why the government has chosen to dub the current crisis a 'world problem.' Which is on the whole correct. Mr Lamont tried to do the same thing post Black Wednesday and on the whole he was correct in terms that the global economic climate was not good. But no one believed him. Stressing the point that Mr Smith and many in the Labour Party were more rapturous proponents of ERM than most Tories isn't worth the effort. Nor is stressing that Black Wednesday in retrospect was not so 'black' for the economy providing us with stronger economic growth in the years that followed than the 'Eurozone' at all is also irrelevant.

It is natural for the electorate to blame the government and for the opposition to coax them into it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From what I know, I can't find much to seriously disagree with there.

Boo!

[Rural Radical]

A couple of questions (Open to anyone):
How does Labour compare to?
1. How do they compare to the Conservatives at this time in 1977?

To continue a thread from pb.com if we exclude all polls with discarded and discredited methodology (which is basically everything but ICM) we find that in July 1995 ICM recorded the following

LAB 47%
CON 32%
LIB 17%
OTH 3%

July 2008 ICM has

CON 43%
LAB 28%
LIB 19%
OTH 10%

So a 15% Labour lead in 1995 and a 15% Tory lead in 2008

Between that point and the election. The Tories never polled higher than 34% (excluding a 37% share in the infamous rogue poll of April 1997) or lower than 26%

John Majors personal rating (again we have to look at ICM with this as they were the only ones who regularly asked the question) hit it's lowest point with just 24% holding a positive opinion of his leadership. This then rose towards the end of his premiership. Only YouGov have polled this since March this year and in June the same figure for Brown was 16%

Yes it's ''only polls and all polls are speculative blah blah blah blah..wait and see...two years to go'' as we are constantly (and rightfully) told but there is some relevance here.

Labour supporters who think the last two years of the Major government was the pits of the earth when it came to popularity don't quite like being reminded that they have probably sunk below this. The difference for Major in 1995 is that economy had had 2 years of solid economic growth with a further two to come.

Thanks for this.

We dont like to be reimned of it (as Labour supporters) but we are aware of it.