UK Election 2010

[afleitch]

Nick Robinson is claiming that he was been told that there is no chance of an election on the 25th of October.

After that speech I would think that would be the case.

[Democratic Hawk]

Nick Robinson is claiming that he was been told that there is no chance of an election on the 25th of October.

After that speech I would think that would be the case.

I loved the tone of the speech; the fact that Brown DIDN'T 'go to town' on 'Call me Dave' and 'I is Ming'

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Not too long ago we had this:



A mere courtesy invitation from the incumbent PM to a former PM, which she duly accepted; though of course, not everyone saw it in quite the light I did

And now we have this:

Tebbit hits out at Tories and names Brown as Thatcher's natural heir

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2532459.ece

Meanwhile, a snap poll undertaken by You Gov for C4 News following Brown's maiden speech as PM to the Labour Party Conference gives us this:

LAB 44% (+5); CON 33% (n/c); LD 13% (-3)

And Bournemouth is apparently abuzz with talk of Conservative defections

Ratings boost for Brown as defection talk rattles Tories

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2007/story/0,,2177106,00.html

The Conservative chief whip, Patrick McLoughlin, seemingly, swinging into action to prevent any such from happening

Dave

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I posted a thread in the other area before seeing this... any chance Cameron doesn't even make it to the election, whenever it is?

[Democratic Hawk]

I posted a thread in the other area before seeing this... any chance Cameron doesn't even make it to the election, whenever it is?

I don't think so. Although many rank-and-file Conservative voters seem far from happy with Cameron, I'd guess the parliamentary party and party members are, for the most part, behind him

Of course, many Labour voters were unhappy with Blair; Iraq never played well with many activists and, along with other reasons, we haemorrhaged members as a consequence

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Meanwhile, a snap poll undertaken by You Gov for C4 News following Brown's maiden speech as PM to the Labour Party Conference gives us this:

LAB 44% (+5); CON 33% (n/c); LD 13% (-3)

The usual conference bounce; probably doesn't mean much (though yeah... it is nice to see). Some of the internals look a little strange as well (to be expected from a poll done just after a leader's speech).

The poll also asked a question about when people want the next election to be;

2007: 29%
2008: 39%
2009: 9%
2010: 9%

[afleitch]

I don't think so. Although many rank-and-file Conservative voters seem far from happy with Cameron, I'd guess the parliamentary party and party members are, for the most part, behind him

That's true. Despite the media plugging any contest as between 'Brown and Cameron', Conservative members and most voters I have too add, tend to understand that any election is between 'Labour and Conservative.'

The polls reflect that too, particularly the YouGov Poll which showed a negligable change in Conservative support (it's been fairly steady) but a sharp decline in the Lib Dem vote to, probably unrealisitic levels. Going into each poll in depth, Labours support stems from the fact more people say they are going to vote than last time. If you look at the support of those who voted in 2005, you tend to find very few direct Con to Lab switchers.

Browns speech was designed to appeal to conservative orientated voters (creaming off most of the Tories 2005 manifesto for example ) but, on first instance, appears not to have attracted them with the Lib Dems taking, again i'll point out, an unrealistic battering. The Tories also suffer from a high 'others' tally, including the continuing 'protest poll' with people saying they will vote UKIP (I doubt UKIP will scratch above 2% in any election) but realistically wont.

Finally, having a November election after the clocks change (where it will be getting dark around 6) is potentially damaging. In 2005, IIRC the Tories led Labour in the BBC/ITV exit poll right through the day until the rush hour. If the rush hour is dark, and the weather potentially drab only the most hardened voters could be inclined to turnout.

[Harry Hayfield]

This question of darkness is getting quite interesting I must say. As you seem to have access to past exit polls by time could you e-mail me with the exit polls (by time) for as many elections as you have and I'll collerate them by daylight hours and see if there's a trend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Finally, having a November election after the clocks change (where it will be getting dark around 6) is potentially damaging. In 2005, IIRC the Tories led Labour in the BBC/ITV exit poll right through the day until the rush hour. If the rush hour is dark, and the weather potentially drab only the most hardened voters could be inclined to turnout.

Labour voting hours have been after 5pm or so since the 1920's at least (and maybe earlier). It's the main reason why I don't think an autumn election ('cos late October isn't much better than early November) is especially likely, though I suspect that we'll see some stunts next week even if no election is called (for instance; the P.M might have a little chat with the Queen and let the media know about it beforehand... Harold Wilson did this in 1965).

[The Man From G.O.P.]

BBC seems to have had their coffee (or a strong tea) this morning, after letting it die down a bit there's a fresh story about both Labour and the Conservatives reguarding a snap poll, what's up with that?

[afleitch]

BBC seems to have had their coffee (or a strong tea) this morning, after letting it die down a bit there's a fresh story about both Labour and the Conservatives reguarding a snap poll, what's up with that?

It's the 'Westminster Village' they want an election and salivate when fed any information that might suggest their will be one. Labour's helping; after all it helps unsettle the Tories (teasing is an old political game afterall) but it seems the public are not too keen on an election right now. I think they will get irritated if an announcement of an election (or not) is not made soon and rightly so. It can be tolerated during silly season, but not when parliament comes back from the break when the business of government should be attended to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

These rumours will continue until an election is actually called. Btw, I suspect that there will be a snap election, but it doesn't look especially likely to be this year (though it's still a hell of a lot more likely than it seemed a few months ago).

[Rural Radical]

Is till favour next May to tie in with the locals.

[afleitch]

Finally, having a November election after the clocks change (where it will be getting dark around 6) is potentially damaging. In 2005, IIRC the Tories led Labour in the BBC/ITV exit poll right through the day until the rush hour. If the rush hour is dark, and the weather potentially drab only the most hardened voters could be inclined to turnout.

Labour voting hours have been after 5pm or so since the 1920's at least (and maybe earlier). It's the main reason why I don't think an autumn election ('cos late October isn't much better than early November) is especially likely, though I suspect that we'll see some stunts next week even if no election is called (for instance; the P.M might have a little chat with the Queen and let the media know about it beforehand... Harold Wilson did this in 1965).

I'm also assuming that Labour does well in the 7am to 9am 'off to work' vote, times which will also be fairly dark. I'm only assuming as I was advised to do my own meet and greet on May 3rd during the day between 9 and 5 as it would be most 'effective' (not that these sorts of things really are; you're just thanking the clerks and making them the odd cuppa)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are rumours that Jack Dromey is to be parachuted into a Black Country seat.

[afleitch]

It was said Gordon was paying close attention to todays council by-elections. They won't make for good reading in the morning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was said Gordon was paying close attention to todays council by-elections. They won't make for good reading in the morning.

Some will, some won't. Overall the results (those that I've seen anyway) aren't bad, more something of a mixed bag, though if he is as obsessed with local by-elections as is now claimed, the results might make him wary of an autumn election as they indicate a great deal of volatility.

[afleitch]

Curiously for the BBC, the by-elections make the Politics News page on the website. Based on the results the Tories would have a 6.2% national lead

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Based on the results the Tories would have a 6.2% national lead

Which is:

a) quite a bit lower than was the norm until recent weeks

b) utterly meaningless (well, almost) and of questionable accuracy

One thing to note; from the results I've seen this week, the results are good for Labour in traditional working class areas (Labour polled just shy of 80% in Aylsham; centre of the old Kent coalfield), mixed in more mixed areas and quite poor in middle class ones.

Btw, I'll start up a new local by-elections thread if thee likes. Will probably have a list of all gains and losses going back to the beginning of the month, or perhaps the previous one.

[Harry Hayfield]

Curiously for the BBC, the by-elections make the Politics News page on the website. Based on the results the Tories would have a 6.2% national lead

I would however observe the following. If you look at all the local by-elections over the last month (including that lot that the BBC are looking at) you get the following:

Conservatives polled 14,264 in all, of which 11,087 were in three party battles winning 6 seats (-5 on the seats won when last elected)
Labour polled 19,453 in all, of which 13,949 were in three party battles winning 18 seats (+6 on the seats won when last elected)
Liberal Democrats polled 12,286 in all, of which 11,189 were in three party battles winning 4 seats (-1 on the seats won when last elected)
Independents polled 2,610 in all, of which 1,847 were in three party battles winning 1 seat (Unchanged on the seats won when last elected)

Then when you allow for the change between a local election and a general election, you get the following vote shares: Con 24% Lab 44% Lib Dem 21%

[Democratic Hawk]

Curiously for the BBC, the by-elections make the Politics News page on the website. Based on the results the Tories would have a 6.2% national lead

I would however observe the following. If you look at all the local by-elections over the last month (including that lot that the BBC are looking at) you get the following:

Conservatives polled 14,264 in all, of which 11,087 were in three party battles winning 6 seats (-5 on the seats won when last elected)
Labour polled 19,453 in all, of which 13,949 were in three party battles winning 18 seats (+6 on the seats won when last elected)
Liberal Democrats polled 12,286 in all, of which 11,189 were in three party battles winning 4 seats (-1 on the seats won when last elected)
Independents polled 2,610 in all, of which 1,847 were in three party battles winning 1 seat (Unchanged on the seats won when last elected)

Then when you allow for the change between a local election and a general election, you get the following vote shares: Con 24% Lab 44% Lib Dem 21%

Apparently, Peter Kellner’s done an analysis on Thursday's by-election results (Sept 27) and compared to last time they apparently show a swing to Labour and are much better results for the government compared to by-elections just before the last general election

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Not too long ago we had this:

What's happened to Gordon Brown and Baroness Thatcher?

[Democratic Hawk]

Two new polls:

Populus/The Times, completed 27 Sep (changes on Populus, The Times, 2 Sep):

LAB 41% (+4) / CON 31% (-5) / LDEM 17% (-1)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2554211.ece

YouGov/Daily Telegraph, completed 21 Sep (changes on YouGov, The Daily Telegraph, 21 Sep):

LAB 43% (+4) / CON 32% (-1) / LDEM 15% (-1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=M0AHWXW54RK0LQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/29/npoll129.xml

Full results http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/29/npoll429.xml

Note: Changes on YouGov/C4 news immediately post-Brown's speech are LAB -1; CON -1 and LDEM +2

Dave

[Ben.]

Two new polls:

Populus/The Times, completed 27 Sep (changes on Populus, The Times, 2 Sep):

LAB 41% (+4) / CON 31% (-5) / LDEM 17% (-1)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2554211.ece

YouGov/Daily Telegraph, completed 21 Sep (changes on YouGov, The Daily Telegraph, 21 Sep):

LAB 43% (+4) / CON 32% (-1) / LDEM 15% (-1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=M0AHWXW54RK0LQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/29/npoll129.xml

Full results http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/29/npoll429.xml

Note: Changes on YouGov/C4 news immediately post-Brown's speech are LAB -1; CON -1 and LDEM +2

Dave

Labour boost from the conference of 4-5% then... solid, although IIRC both IDS and Howard got bigger boosts from their conferences in '03 and '04 (of they didn't last ).

A lot of pressure on DC at conference (IMHO there was always going to be), his biggest disadvantage must be that we wont know what impact the Conservative conference has until this time next week.

[Harry Hayfield]

From what I have heard, the general suggestion appears to be that Brown has decided to go for it, the only question remains the timing. According to British law there must be 17 working days from the announcement of a dissolution to the actual polling day (which has to be on a Thursday). These are the options that seem to be under discussion

Annoucement made: October 1st, Election Date: October 25th
Pros: Prevents the Conservative Party from holding their conference
Cons: Doesn't play well with the sense of "fair play"

Annoucement made: October 5th, Election Date: November 1st
Pros: Allows time to see if there is a Con bounce following their conference
Cons: Doesn't allow time for major statements on Iraq and spending

Announcement made: October 10th, Election Date: November 8th
Pros: Allows time for major policy statements and for reaction to be guaged by polls
Cons: The hour will have gone back and sunset in Scotland (a Labour heartland) is between 4.20pm and 4.35pm GMT