Comments on: London poll – the post mortem

By: Robert Waller

Robert Waller — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:23:04 +0000

If the Conservatives win Crewe and Nantwich, especially against Tamsin Dunwoody, who will get a symapthy vote – “win it for the Gwypper”! – it will be a triumph and their best byelection result for about 30 years; which isn’t saying much, though.
Remember all their hammerings before the 1983, 1987 and 1992 victories! Byelections are very odd animals, and say even less about subsequent general elections than May locals do, with their millions of votes all over the country.
More relvantly, my economic sources say it now looks like 2009 will be bad too, with some likely recovery in 2010. This may reduce Labour’s losses then – but it may also be too late for Brown personally.
A new Labour leader is likely to produce some honeymoon effect, at least in the short term (autumn 2007!, Major), but it will not necessarily save them.
I would finally point out that I what I do give a very reasonable chance to is a Cameron minority government. This could happen even if Labour remained narrowly the largest party, as they would then have ‘lost’, and the C would be on a charge. It’s always been the overall majority I’ve been so unsure about.

By: Nick Keene

Nick Keene — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:56:13 +0000

Robert Waller
Greetings from Auld Reekie.Dinna craik.Bide Awee.Let the tow gang wi’ the bucket. In other words lets see what happens in Crewe and Nantwich…..

By: Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:06:14 +0000

JJB – Those are the Rallings and Thrasher national equivalent vote figures, not the BBC ones. They normally differ slightly.

Fluffy – the point of the national equivalent vote is to iron out the differences between the mainly metropolitan rounds and the mainly district rounds of local elections, so if they are doing their job they should be comparable.

By: Fluffy Thoughts (E.D.P.)

Fluffy Thoughts (E.D.P.) — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:53:33 +0000

Joe James,

Are we treating electoral-cycles like-with-like. The current polls are heavily focused upon the metropolitan areas. I would hazard a guess that 1990 and 1995 were not such.

Point being Labour should poll highly in these elections (as Anthony mentioned). One fears for New Labour in the Euro-elections next year when the anti-EU vote turns out. Judicial review pending of-course!

By: Joe James Broughton

Joe James Broughton — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:35:17 +0000

Actually, I thought 1990 was only 40 for Labour – although reported at 42 on the overnight BBC program.
In 1995, they were saying 48, but it got reigned back a bit I think – 47.
I do think, though, it seems to be possible for a government to take an even worse hammering than in the 1990s and not in truth be quite as unpopular as government’s then.
Labour only got 29% in May 2000, below the supposedly fatal 31% for the Tories in the 1993 County Council elections – but perhaps those were worse because of the way the votes stacked up against them.

Anyway, whatever slight differences either way, I think the true position is the Tories are better placed than Labour was in 1990 – but we’re not in 1995 territory – it’s still more open than that.

By: Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:27:02 +0000

In 1990 it was CON 33%, LAB 44%, LD 17%
In 1995 it was CON 25%, LAB 47%, LD 23%

By: Andy D

Andy D — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:32:49 +0000

Does anyone know what was the projected share of the vote for the three main parties in the 1990 and 1995 local elections?

By: Joe James Broughton

Joe James Broughton — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:03:25 +0000

I am encouraged by the gains in the north. I think this argument that we can’t take nearly enough of those seats may – may – be laid to rest.
Some of us have added up the votes in marginals and there have been some pretty strong swings even since 2007.

By: Joe James Broughton

Joe James Broughton — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:59:17 +0000

I think the true underlying position of the parties is that the Tories are in better shape than Labour was in 1990 – but not where Labour was in 1995.

By: Robert Waller

Robert Waller — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:24:30 +0000

Nick Keene.
I also have not returned to this site after the debate about what chance the Conservatives have of an overall majority. If I remember correctly, it was I who started this exchange by having the temerity to give my own personal opinion that this was around 15%.
I am in no sense a Labour supporter.
Then you took exception to this and went after MY ‘hide’, claiming that you couldn’t believe how I could say such a thing, and even suggesting my reputation was tarnished when I (or another commentator of the same name!) had predicted Labour would win the 1970 election (when I was 14!!).
I am not cognisant of whether any partisans subsequently joined in to criticise your right to have another opinion.
I would point out that Professor John Curtice (who is probably the most respected psephologist academically) said on Saturday that he had thought before last week’s results that he had believed the Conservatives had “no chance” of winning (I presume an overall majority), but now he believed it was possible. John Curtice is also to my knowledge not a Labour supporter.

In fact, these results, which were excellent for Cameron and the Conservatives and dire for Brown and Labour, do not in themselves say anything very much about the putative result of a general election in, say, 2010. It is still a mountain for the Tories to climb given the swing required and the bias in the system to Labour. They do clearly have a chance of an overall majority and a pretty good cance of being the largest party, and of forming a government. But I’m sure they will no be taking anthing for granted yet, and the May 2008 results do not clinch any argument that they will win an overall majority.
I don’t think predictions have anything really do do with how strong or weak one’s own political argument is. I’m not interested in having a political argument!