U.K General Election 2005

[??????????]

I'd vote for whoever the BNP candidate is. hehe

Do you realise what the BNP stand for? Apart from the obvious (extreme racism and anti-semetism), they're economically pretty far left.

I know I was kidding.

[patrick1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would largely agree with this prediction. However there are 2 close constituencies which I would call differently, at this early stage.

South Antrim - Predict UUP , Burnside on the hardline side of the UUP should be able to hold on.

Foyle - Predict SF, Once Hume goes so will a very large chunk of his vote.

Therefore I see NI as going: DUP 7; SF 6; UUP 4; SDLP 1.

It is of course probably reckless to predict anything at this stage, given the current discussions underway and their potential outcomes.

One final point, it is irksome to read of Ulster as Ulster = Northern Ireland. It does not. I am from that part of Ulster within the Republic. A small point maybe, but one which I feel the need to Express.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you on the Foyle- I think S.F. will probably pick this up. Do you live in Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan???  I agree with you on use of term Ulster.  I just got lazy and was using as shorthand. There are nine counties in the province not six.  The election should be interesting and a lot could change.  It would be strange to see the S.D.L.P. wind up with only one seat.  Is Mark Durkin running the party aground? 

[Silent Hunter]

Latest ICM/Guardian poll:
Labour 38
Conservative 30
Lib Dem 22

That's enough for a Labour majority of 128. I don't think we'll get that though.

For more on the poll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1354816,00.html

[Ben.]

Latest ICM/Guardian poll:
Labour 38
Conservative 30
Lib Dem 22

That's enough for a Labour majority of 128. I don't think we'll get that though.

For more on the poll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1354816,00.html

Political betting.com (English site) has overstated it, but there are a number of seats where you will have to factor in people not voting tactically against labour exactly, as few will vote Tory tactically, but voting LD and potentially acting as spoilers, that said this will not necessarily come from voters who switched from LD to Labour in 1997 and as many of these may be satisfied that Labour is no longer the overtly leftwing party they shunned in 1992 and 1987, instead some on the left and a significant section of the Muslim community will no doubt vote LD but this will only effect a small number of marginal seats as many of these voters will be voting in safe labour seats where they may reduce the Labour majority by a noticeable amount (Michael Meacher and Jack Straw’s results will give good indications of how significant this swing will be) but while this will depress Labour seat total on a score of around 38-40% Labour should still be returned with a majority of around 100, for Blair and the Labour leadership it is essential that they gain a majority above 40 or so, otherwise the hard left “socialist campaign group” will be able to cause a great deal of trouble for the government’s program.

Something I read a little while ago, described how Labour where contemplating targeting the ultra marginal Tory seats, with a message based on economic competency and a tough stance on crime. This coupled with the Liberal Democrat targeting of a significant number of marginal conservative seats (in addition to a smaller number of Labour seats) could cause real trouble for the Tories. That said they will still increase their seat net total by a modest margin and Howard will no doubt remain as leader because there simply is no one else.                     

[jimrtex]

Is a 2005 election a given?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is a 2005 election a given?

All but

[jimrtex]

Is a 2005 election a given?

All but

What is Blair's reasoning?

[Ben.]

Is a 2005 election a given?

All but

What is Blair's reasoning?

If waited any longer he’d be accused of “cutting and running”, also in Spring 2005 Britain takes over a number of international presidencies (EU and G8?) while the economy is likely to best off then rather than later and Labour voters are traditionally very easily put off by bad weather so Labour governments usually do best in the Spring or the Summer.       

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is a 2005 election a given?

All but

What is Blair's reasoning?

Nice big poll lead, Tories in turmoil, Hartlepool seems to have dented the LD's.

[Silent Hunter]

Nice Guardian editorial:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1356543,00.html

[Silent Hunter]

With apologies to J.J., here I go with my rules of British elections.

1. If a party starts talking about a large number of undecideds that could all go their way, they won't and that party is going to lose big time.
2. The grey vote affects the colour of the whole country.
3. More people will read about the Party Political Broadcasts than watch them.

Some things for US election watchers:
1. Avoid the papers like the plague, they will be as biased as Michael Moore.
2. You won't see it, but British TV will be sure to be extra fair to the point of delaying soap opera episodes if they're a bit too political.


Al, if the election's 5 May, when does Blair have to do the dissolution? My calculations say 11 April.