Tory lead cut to 6% in poll ..
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
I'm a bit cautious about that, that report/poll (on first glance, anyway) seems to emphasise the Labour lead among those already professing themselves certain to vote.
The 'not sure whether or not they'll viote yet' people -- a significant group -- is surely all still to play for territory?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
I think that's right. This election feels very different from most. It's a very tough polling job this time around. Lots of local situations which will be tough to predict, and still an awful lot of independent candidacies to be announced. There's a lot of "tribal" voters who will be looking to punish the incumbent, and an awful lot of people who don't normally bother voting looking to express their anger.
Gonna be an interesting few months.
The BBC poll of polls http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8280050.stm
Has the Tories on 33% with Labour and the Libdems on 29% each
Says to me that Clegg won the leadership debate and Cameron lost it. The Tories must wonder wtf thy have to do
Has the Tories on 33% with Labour and the Libdems on 29% each
Says to me that Clegg won the leadership debate and Cameron lost it. The Tories must wonder wtf thy have to do
Just talking to people I know about this and who will probably vote for the three mainstream parties, I think that there are a lot of people who have still to make up their minds.
It's clear that Clegg's performance in the debate has produced a real shift in the polls, however. It'll be interesting to see if, in the next two, that continues. I think he could do well in the international affairs debate, where there is clear ground between the LibDems and the other parties.
It's clear that Clegg's performance in the debate has produced a real shift in the polls, however. It'll be interesting to see if, in the next two, that continues. I think he could do well in the international affairs debate, where there is clear ground between the LibDems and the other parties.
lib dems on 33% according to tonights Yougov.
tory 32%
labour 26%
that would give
tory 244 seats
labour 241
lib dem 135
if this happens, proportional representation is inevitable.
there will be a public/media clamour for it given the ridiculous outcome the above would be, and the lib dems would be in a position to demand it of their coalition partner. it couldn't be ignored.
interesting days ahead...
tory 32%
labour 26%
that would give
tory 244 seats
labour 241
lib dem 135
if this happens, proportional representation is inevitable.
there will be a public/media clamour for it given the ridiculous outcome the above would be, and the lib dems would be in a position to demand it of their coalition partner. it couldn't be ignored.
interesting days ahead...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Jesus, would you all calm down!
It won't happen.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've never seen so many neutral observers running around trying to make something they're reporting on happen. Expect the Guardian and independent, smelling their own shit on the wind, to come out for the lib-dems this next week or whenever they feel is tactically best. It's transparent.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
"We are in uncharted territory" if i read this one more time. Except for the elections in 83 and 87 of course. OOh
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Fuck off back to your constituencies and prepare to start all over again.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
What I don't understand is why commentators aren't pointing out how fucking risible the Lib Dems are. The nonentity Clegg and the overrated Cable are the best, astonishingly, that they have. Their housing spokesperson is Lembit Opik, a man who abandoned his fiancee for a cheeky girl and whose main public policy preoccupation is the threat of killer asteroids. There's no-one in the parliamentary party better deserving than Lembit of this front bench role. The idea that these loonies, libertarians, weirdos and single-issue obsessives could form a government is absurd. That's the actual story. But the craven press, instead, think that just because the general public liked Clegg on the telly it might be sensible to say nice things about them.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Why, if the LibDems got 33% would they end up with far fewer of the actual seats?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think you do understand why.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
For my money, what we need isn't a new politics, it's a new electorate. Oh, that they had but one head.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Because that's how the FPTP system works. Come on, you know all this.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well, I started to understand why the tories needed a greater than 7% lead over labour to be sure that they had a majority - mu understanding was that this was because most labour seats were city ones with fewer voters in eah seat. While most tory seats were country with greater numbers of voters.
But I am not sure that makes sense anyhow.
But as regards the LibDems I am not sure no!
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
I really like the lib dems... 
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The lib dem vote if spread uniformly across the country won't change anything - it'll win lib/con and lib/lab marginals, it'll win their handful of existing seats - it won't win lab or tory seats, as it won't be 30+% across all seats - that's became a total red herring. Almost every govt ever has a minority of he popular vote.
I can't believe the amount of breathless utter idiocy being talked about this right now (not by you WW).
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I had a couple of Lib Dems around this evening: not for the general, for locals. I did mention the generals though (in the context of "yeah I might vote for you lot for the council but not in the general") and they were utterly enthused with prospects. They were saying they'd had massively increased interest, and that for the first time people were thinking that the Lib Dems weren't just another party tacked on at the end, they were being seen as having their own policies! for the first time!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's like 1932/3
The interesting/good thing about the polls is that the libdems seem to be picking more support from tories than they are from labour. Hw this plays out on the day in the marginals that count is another question but a majority tory government is looking less and less likely. Or have I got this wrong?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nope, that's how i read it too. Most lib-dem target seats are tory.
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
I hope there's a hung parliament, with vince cable as chancellor.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
That's very, very unlikely. Clegg as home secretary, yes. A secondary party at number 11, no.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You want a neo-liberal free-marketeer back at #10?
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
when you consider the other options: alistair darling or the utterly useless osborne, yes. his economics policies are a bit right wing for my liking... but at least he sounds like he knows what he's talking about and comes across as more genuine.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
A neo-liberal free-marketeer or a neo-liberal free-marketeer or a neo-liberal free-marketeer.
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
a neo liberal free marketeer who knows something about economics, or a neo liberal free marketeer who doesn't have a fucking clue?
watching osborne on 'ask the chancellor' made me cringe... he seemed completely clueless!
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Who knows about neo-liberal free-market economics.
Similar threads
