UK General Election Date Announced

[Harry Hayfield]

A report in this morning's Western Mail has a quote from Hazel Blears saying that "we are in for the long haul" regarding the next general election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does this suggest that we are in a general election campaign (in all but name) and that when we do get the actual date it will result in an ever lower turnout than 2001 (59%) because everyone will be bored rigid?

[Joe Republic]

The title of this thread is misleading.  I came here to find out a specific diary date for the election, and found out that it's "probably some time in 2010".

Anyway, IIRC, didn't the Major government wait until the last possible date for calling their final election?  It's funny sometimes how history repeats itself.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, it sounds as if Brown had just called a snap election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Eh, this just looks like meaningless speculation. Even the Blears remark says little.

Anyway, IIRC, didn't the Major government wait until the last possible date for calling their final election?  It's funny sometimes how history repeats itself.

More or less. And he called his first election late as well. Callaghan also tried that (and would have had not the SNP and Liberals been so stupid/suicidal), as did that Home in '64 and Attlee in '50. There's no evidence that doing so costs the Government any additional support, interestingly enough (while there's *some* evidence that the reverse is true of snap elections. Was certainly true in 1974 anyway).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the economic malaise can reasonably attributed to the global economy rather than anything the government has done or not done, why would the state of the economy be an issue? (As opposed to what the government does in response to the economy that is.) Or do British voters suffer under the delusion that Britain is still the centre of the world economy?

[afleitch]

There certainly won't be a snap election anytime soon. A post budget poll has the Tories 16 points clear

[minionofmidas]

Do British voters suffer under the delusion that Britain is still the centre of the world economy?

Not the general voter, but the chattering classes do to a certain extent.

[Verily]

There was also a poll today showing the Conservatives 16% ahead. Looked like an outlier to me simply because there doesn't appear to be a reason for the massive shift (from about a 5-point lead recently), but worth mentioning. Of course, even a 16% lead is nothing compared to the sorts of leads Labour was racking up in 1995.

[afleitch]

There was also a poll today showing the Conservatives 16% ahead. Looked like an outlier to me simply because there doesn't appear to be a reason for the massive shift (from about a 5-point lead recently), but worth mentioning. Of course, even a 16% lead is nothing compared to the sorts of leads Labour was racking up in 1995.

There are two polls out tomorrow.

YouGov have Labour 6 down and the Tories 3 up.
ICM have Labour down 3 and the Tories 3 up.

The reason? The Budget. And possibly the lingering thoughts after the Treaty vote (which by themselves didn't shift the polls)

EDIT: The Yougov figures give the Tories their largest raw lead for 20 years.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The reason? The Budget. And possibly the lingering thoughts after the Treaty vote (which by themselves didn't shift the polls)

Eh, the one looks like a certain outlier and should be ignored. The other one looks *irritatingly* credible though and I can't think of a way to happily dismiss it while not being a total hack. Ah well.

[afleitch]

The reason? The Budget. And possibly the lingering thoughts after the Treaty vote (which by themselves didn't shift the polls)

Eh, the one looks like a certain outlier and should be ignored. The other one looks *irritatingly* credible though and I can't think of a way to happily dismiss it while not being a total hack. Ah well.

I'm glad you can admit that

The plus 3 for the Tories in both polls is consistent. So too is the minus 3 for Labour as a result. The minus 6 in YouGov is due to the 'others' taking a leap and Labour will spring up a few points next time round.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The plus 3 for the Tories in both polls is consistent. So too is the minus 3 for Labour as a result.

The significant thing isn't so much the number but that it's a high (wrong word but it'll have to do) enough number to probably be more than a statistical blip. Tempting to say "wait and see" for other polls, but that's silly as most of the other companies just use ICM's data and mess around with it (slight exaggeration).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thing to remember about YouGov (and I think this is why they produce weird results more often than the rest) is that they don't really measure public opinion, but the opinion of a fundamentally unrepresentative (and not just in terms of demography, but in terms of interest) section of the public. O/c they then do all sorts of things to make the final numbers look more realistic, but I think the unrepresentative nature of the people they ask sometimes slips through anyway, especially if opinion (and/or interest level) amongst the people in their panel about something is very strong, or if the people from the underepresented groups are politically (or elseways) unrepresentative. O/c they'll never have to worry about fixing that until they get a General Election badly wrong.

Eh. I know what I meant to say anyway.

[afleitch]

O/c they'll never have to worry about fixing that until they get a General Election badly wrong.

Unfortunately YouGov have a good (though small track record) Leicester Uni had them down as the most consistently accurate pollster in the 2005 campaign (with ComRes and Populus as the worst) and followed on from its consistency in 2001. So YouGov will be ultimately be trusted as the pollster by many on the basis of that. Barring changes in methodology it is difficult to think of a scenario where it will get things seriously wrong.

[Harry Hayfield]

You Gov polls since Election 2005

(Name of pollster, Date of poll, Con, Lab, Lib Dem, Others)

YouGov   May 28, 2005   31   38   23   8 YouGov   July 2, 2005   33   38   20   9 YouGov   July 30, 2005   31   40   21   8 YouGov   August 26, 2005   33   40   20   7 YouGov   September 11, 2005   32   37   21   10 YouGov   October 1, 2005   32   40   20   8 YouGov   October 30, 2005   32   40   19   9 YouGov   November 26, 2005   35   37   20   8 YouGov   December 8, 2005   36   36   18   10 YouGov   December 10, 2005   37   36   18   9 YouGov   December 17, 2005   38   36   18   8 YouGov   January 28, 2006   39   40   13   8 YouGov   February 12, 2006   37   39   15   9 YouGov   February 24, 2006   38   36   18   8 YouGov   March 19, 2006   38   35   19   8 YouGov   March 31, 2006   36   36   18   10 YouGov   April 22, 2006   33   35   17   15 YouGov   April 30, 2006   35   32   18   15 YouGov   May 11, 2006   37   31   17   15 YouGov   May 27, 2006   38   32   16   14 YouGov   June 25, 2006   39   32   17   12 YouGov   June 30, 2006   39   33   18   10 YouGov   July 28, 2006   38   33   18   11 YouGov   August 26, 2006   38   31   18   13 YouGov   September 9, 2006   40   32   17   11 YouGov   September 16, 2006   38   31   18   13 YouGov   September 24, 2006   37   33   18   12 YouGov   September 24, 2006   38   31   18   13 YouGov   October 1, 2006   36   36   16   12 YouGov   October 28, 2006   39   32   16   13 YouGov   December 2, 2006   37   32   16   15 YouGov   December 22, 2006   37   33   17   13 YouGov   December 24, 2006   37   32   15   16 YouGov   January 29, 2007   38   31   18   13 YouGov   February 11, 2007   37   32   18   13 YouGov   February 23, 2007   37   32   17   14 YouGov   March 18, 2007   38   32   16   14 YouGov   March 23, 2007   39   31   16   14 YouGov   March 30, 2007   39   32   17   12 YouGov   April 8, 2007   39   31   16   14 YouGov   April 27, 2007   37   32   18   13 YouGov   May 8, 2007   37   32   16   15 YouGov   May 13, 2007   38   34   15   13 YouGov   May 26, 2007   39   33   15   13 YouGov   June 17, 2007   37   35   14   14 YouGov   June 27, 2007   37   36   12   15 YouGov   June 30, 2007   35   38   15   12 YouGov   July 21, 2007   33   40   15   12 YouGov   July 27, 2007   32   41   16   11 YouGov   August 12, 2007   32   42   14   12 YouGov   August 31, 2007   33   41   14   12 YouGov   September 2, 2007   35   38   15   12 YouGov   September 15, 2007   36   39   15   10 YouGov   September 16, 2007   34   39   15   12 YouGov   September 22, 2007   33   39   16   12 YouGov   September 25, 2007   33   44   13   10 YouGov   September 28, 2007   32   43   15   10 YouGov   October 4, 2007   36   40   13   11 YouGov   October 7, 2007   41   38   11   10 YouGov   October 26, 2007   41   38   11   10 YouGov   November 17, 2007   41   35   13   11 YouGov   November 22, 2007   41   32   14   13 YouGov   November 30, 2007   43   32   14   11 YouGov   December 16, 2007   45   32   14   9 YouGov   December 21, 2007   43   31   16   10 YouGov   December 30, 2007   40   35   15   10 YouGov   January 14, 2008   43   33   14   10 YouGov   January 26, 2008   41   33   16   10 YouGov   February 17, 2008   41   32   16   11 YouGov   February 22, 2008   40   34   16   10 YouGov   March 1, 2008   40   33   16   11 YouGov   March 15, 2008   43   27   16   14

[Robespierre's Jaw]

For a moment Conor was getting excited about an early UK Poll. Only for his excitement to be diminished .

Prime Minister Brown would be stupid to call an Election now, especially if Polls have him and his Labour Government trailing the Tories, led by David Cameron by 16 points, which in turn is a 25 year low. Now all we need is the Falklands and Michael Foot to be leading the Labour Party so it will just be like 1983. What joy

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Is there any chance Brown doesn't survive until the next election?

[minionofmidas]

Is there any chance Brown doesn't survive until the next election?

No.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Is there any chance Brown doesn't survive until the next election?

No.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The BNP has a better chance of electing someone into Parliament than Gordon Brown going before the next Election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would take a factional war to force him out and no one (sane) wants that. After all, 'tis better to maybe lose one election than to lose at least two, maybe as many as four. I like to think that that lesson of the '50's has been learned, even if it took the '80's to teach it...

[Joe Republic]

When was the last time a major party leader lost his seat?

[afleitch]

New ICM poll.

Con 42 (+2)
Lab 29 (-2)
Lib 21 (+1)

Some consistency with the changes in the other two polls. Good news after YouGov gave Boris a 12% lead in London and the SNP increased their lead over Labour in Scotland.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When was the last time a major party leader lost his seat?

Depends what you mean by major party. But for the three governing parties of the 20th century:

1. the last Liberal leader to lose his seat was Archibald Sinclair in 1945.

2. the last Labour leader to lose his seat was Arthur Henderson in 1931. Henderson (a great man) never did have much luck when it came to holding onto his seat for long. I can give you details if you want...

3. the last Conservative leader to lose his seat was Arthur Balfour in 1906 (he was back in the Commons within weeks though).

Former leaders to lose their seats when they've ceased to be leader have included a dog-lover and a bloody Judas.

All three major party leaders have nice big majorities.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

When was the last time a major party leader lost his seat?

Depends what you mean by major party. But for the three governing parties of the 20th century:

1. the last Liberal leader to lose his seat was Archibald Sinclair in 1945.

2. the last Labour leader to lose his seat was Arthur Henderson in 1931. Henderson (a great man) never did have much luck when it came to holding onto his seat for long. I can give you details if you want...

3. the last Conservative leader to lose his seat was Arthur Balfour in 1906 (he was back in the Commons within weeks though).

Former leaders to lose their seats when they've ceased to be leader have included a dog-lover and a bloody Judas.

All three major party leaders have nice big majorities.

Is Clegg's the most vulnerable? Electoral Calculus has him losing it in most numbers I put in (with out really fiddling with it though)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is Clegg's the most vulnerable?[quote]

Yes (of course). But even he be safe; 20% majorities don't usually vanish into thin air.

[afleitch]

Yes (of course). But even he be safe; 20% majorities don't usually vanish into thin air.

I'm sure that Michael Portillo once thought that too

I don't think Hallam will flip, but never say never.

It's too early to say what strategy the Lib Dems will pursue. I can't see them increasing their seat tally, they may be able to get a few scalps from Labour, but they are in significant danger in the south and south-east.

The problem with the swingometer, is that it reflects the political landscape of Blair and Howard/IDS. The Conservatives (and this is with my hack helmet firmly off) today are different. Some seats that should look good for them won't (unless we're talking about a big win) and some seats that should be out of play will be winnable.

Bear in mind that despite his late unpopularity, many people voted 'for Blair' and not for Labour. The middle class coalition he brought to Labour has effectively been lost. They haven't moved en masse to the Tories, but they will not be so willing to vote for Labour next time particularly if we face an economic downturn. Recent polling is more gloomy for Labour because the C2's and DE's have also shifted away from them. Remember that Thatcher got her strong wins in '83 and '87 because she took a substantial share of the 'working class' vote which she had to do because the Alliance were polling strongly in more 'conservative' demographic groups.

A simple analysis is that the voters she won over in 1979, which pushed her to victory were flaking off to the Alliance in 1983. She had to win them over but also extend her appeal below that group in order to win. In 1987, the working class vote began to drift back to Labour and was broadly complete by 1992. However she regained most of her '79 devotees by 1987, again complete by 1992 so the Tories held onto their support (and their vote share) However Blair won that group hands down in 1997. He won them again, perhaps more strongly in 2001. In 2005 however they began to drift, mostly to the Lib Dems but Labour still won them. Now, at present Cameron is winning over them and he wants to win with them. These '79ers' are not specifically the same voter, but more of the same type of voter, however the core 79ers still turnout. Back then they were young babyboom couples starting families. They were working class in the sense that their parents were, but they were starting out in clerical and service work. By 1997 they were mortgage owners with teenagers and now in 2008 they are fairly financially secure, often now sprightly grandparents or with kids in their 20's. They are the same voters with shared experiences but now different concerns.

Cameron, in that regard is the 'heir to Blair.' He is constructing a victory by attempting to win over the voters that delivered Blair his three landslides. He is also appealing to those both 'above and below' in crude class terms. 'Above' he's after the fairly wealthy social liberals who are relatively uninterested in and unaffected by economic issues (though perhaps thats now changing) who were pretty much converted to the Lib Dems by Kennedy but can be won back and 'below' he's 'dog-whistling' to the same lower middle and working class voters Howard targeted on issues such as crime and Europe, but doing so differently hence his 'breakdown Britain' package.