It is interesting that there doesn’t have to be much change in the percentage of votes for the three main parties (Lab +1, Lib Dem +1, Cons -2) from the current WMA for the Conservatives to go from a majority of 64 to being short of an overall majority by 3. This obviously assumes that ‘Others’ will remain around 20% which seems pretty unlikely.

However does a fall in the ‘Others’ support necessarily mean a rise in Conservative support at the expense of Labour and the Liberal Democrats? If so, why?

Those amongst you who cite a “feeling” seem to me to have not come to terms with the idea that Labour may be over.

Likewise, I’m yet to meet anyone who’s mad keen to vote for the Tories – even tactically! Same goes for the lib dems.
They’re tired of all three and want a change from all three!
Tory is still a dirty word in many places; Lib Dems are still regarded as a party for minorities, and Labour as incompetent nest-feathering control-freaks.

The general vibe seems to be that all the main three are a wasted vote… that the pervading vibe is don’t bother voting, or vote for a minor party if you can be bothered.

I reckon (give or take a couple of percent):

Tory 35%
Labour 25%
Lib Dem 15%
Others 25%

out of a turnout of about 45%…

The New Labour project is simply running out of steam, ambition and well if you draw the policies between both Labour and Tory, these no real ideological difference between the two so some Middle England voters will look at this and think well who am i going to trust more to keep taxation low, cut spending, repay the debt etc. They both might aim to do that but the Tories will be seem to have the ‘record’ to show to get them voters.

I believe it wont be until Labour re-invent itself from the structure of it’s party which even I admit is far from being democratic and representative to party members and also a change in policy and direction. Labour has simply no new policies to base itself with and it might be until Labour starts using ‘green’ policies, restoring it’s old labour ethos in terms in putting social justice and equality through the distrubtion of wealth etc. til it starts seeing itself as electable.

But yeah, at the moment their is such a anti-labour government in politics, the public are just tired with Labour and want change so they will see the Tories as that change. Again, i agree with Joe that come the election people who say they would vote green, lib dem will be told by the Labour propaganda machine during the election about the ‘bad-old’ tory years which is now becoming rather cliche and just old now even as a supporter. If the Lib Dem go below 20 i think it will start a chain reaction of lib dem voters who will hit home the idea that the lib dems are just simply a wasted vote and not creditable party to become a serious party.

So yeah, in general Labour <35, Tories 40(ish), Lib Dems <19 thats how i see the election results.

I have been slightly revising my Labour figures down, however, from about 33% towards 30-32%.

I would hope the Conservatives go slightly above 40, as I want them to win.
Your LD and Others figure looks about right aswell. I actually think if Labour recovers some voters who are anti Tory and worried, whilst simulaneously the Tories do well, then the LD figure could logically fall below the 17.2 of 1997.

But there do seem to be a certain number of voters who go LD when Labour’s figures go very low, and it is actually in the Conservatives interest that Labour stays higher, as it’s bad for the Tories if the credibility of the LDs is raised.

Lab 34%
Con 40%
LD 18%
Others 9%

I don’t really have an argument to pitch this but just my instict but my argument for this is because come the general election campaign and this is only if David Cameron keeps on splashing out policies which I believe is rather short-beer tbh with the British public, the election excitment will all get under way they will be a lot of media coverage about the policies, record etc. and looking at it Labour will seem to pick up some dillisuioned voters who feel more attached in terms of policies with Labour which will give them enough to hold itself as a creditable opersition but not enough to stop the conservatives becoming the largest party. Like i said I have no argument just a guess really. It’s what i would put with the bookies.

Current polls (and Euro/CC election results) suggest that the Con/Lab lead in England will be greater than that.

One can argue with the distribution of seats, but even if we assumed that Lab only lost c100 seats to retain 180, and reduce Cons to 315, they would still end up with a higher votes/MP ratio at c39k vs c29k.

(Note that this would leave Cons requiring at least 10 seats in Scotland and Wales to have an overall majority).

In summary, FPTP may amplify the parliamenatry majority of the winning party, but it rarely delivers the “wrong” winner based on underlying result.

Please do not blame Scotland for the UK having a Lab government. This is an oft-touted myth but it is rubbish.

There have been only three occasions when Labour had a majority at Westminster without holding a majority of seats in England: 1950; 1964 and October 1974.

In 1950, Lab had an overall majority of 17, but was behind Cons in England. However, they were fractionally ahead in terms of votes (both at 48.8%). While Lab did have a majority of seats in Scotland (37/71), their lead over Con was just 6 and would not have given them a majority in Westminster. This was achieved on the back of a large lead in Wales.

In both 1964 and 1974 the overall Lab majority was just 3. Moreover, in Oct 1974 Lab actually won more votes in England than Cons despite winning fewer seats.

In each of 1997, 2001 and 2005 Lab won a majority of the seats in England (as well as in Scotland and Wales).

The real difference in 2005 as compared to 1997 and 2001 was that although Lab won 286 seats to 194 Con (LD 46, 2 others) in 2005, it did so with fewer 65k votes than Cons gained (C = 35.7%, Lab 35.5%).
Average votes in England per MP in 2005 were:

Lab: 8.050m / 286 = 28,148
Con: 8.115m / 194 = 41,830
LD: 5.201m / 47 = 110,660

This is where the discussion about Labour bias in the system comes from. Personally, I suspect that this may unwind rather fiercely next time, and we could see Lab lose a greater share of seats than votes to leave it behind Cons not just in votes and seats, but also with a higher vote/MP.

My guess (and it is only that) is that England will pan out at around:

Lab: 7 m votes – 125 seats = c56k votes/MP
Con: 9.5m votes – 370 seats = c26k votes / MP
LD: 5 m votes / 35 seats = c143k votes/MP

We may even see Lab lose its majority in terms of seats in both Scotland and Wales – though that is a far cry from saying that Cons will win most seats, still less a majority, in either. But even if Lab do retain majorities in Scoltand and/or Wales, it will certainly not be on the scales seen in the past. That will be crucial to giving Cons democratic legitimacy across the entire UK (including NI where Cons will have at least 1 seat – possibly 3-4).

I tend to agree with you about the turnout,i believe there is a underlying anger building against Labour.

That dosn’t mean that all those angry voters will vote for the Conservatives,but as you say they don’t have to.

The fact that the Tory’s took Wales in the locals was astonishing,massive jubilation in the Conservative Party was real as they had no idea that would happen.

People forget ,England did not vote Labour in 2005,Scotland gave us a 3rd term labour Government,the writing was on the wall in 2005 in England ,Labour just refused to read it.

As for David’s point,i disagree totally,FPTP has given the UK stable Government,1979-2009 just two different Governments,if the system did not work we would not of had that.

Compare the UK system with PR in Italy,i believe they have had some 50 Governments since WW2.

FPTP system is not perfect,but neither is Democracy itself,it is however the best system we have.

The point about Scotland voting Labour for the last 50 yrs,makes me indecisive on Scottish independence,i am a Conservative Unionist,however i am now & always have been first English.

I know if the Scots went their own way,the Conservatives could really banish Socialism from England in 10-20 yrs,and i tell you that appeals to me very much.

Your comment is very interesting and enlightening.

Blair won fewer votes than Thatcher. And, of course, in the 18 year interval the number of those eligible to vote must have increased by at least one million.

Although I think it is fair to say that the Tories must take most of the blame for this. Luring people into self-indulgent indivdualism leading to the inevitable boom and bust, mired in sleeze, obsessed and divided over Britain’s place in Europe many lost faith in the Tories.

Blair offered a ray of new hope. But partly due to the often at times truly pathetic opposition of the Tories New Labour gradually lost touch with reality to the extent that they are now so far up their own arse they have become completely detached from the common person in this country. It is like they are playing a SIM computer game with souless characters and a rubbishy A.I. But reality will be calling soon on the day they must finally allow the people to have an election.

For the first time the Tories are providing Labour with decent opposition. And I’m confident that the Tories will reap the benefits of this in terms of increasing the number of their votes significantly.

However, it could easily be that the fall in the Labour vote will be so great that overall the turnout will be lower. It depends on the level of passion and determination to see Labour booted out. It also depends on who is leading Labour at the next election. Both of these are uncertain at present.