This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LD 9%. Full tables are here.

The tables also include some questions on long term care for the elderly (the answers are unsurprising… people tend to think that wealthier people should pay for their own care, but bridle at the idea of making them sell their homes. They tend to support a higher level of assets than the current £23,000 when means testing), and on Olympic tickets. 23% think the distribution of tickets was fair, 23% unfair. 34% would have preferred if they’d been sold on a first-come-first-served basis, compared to 31% who think the ballot system was the best way of distributing them.

I’ll be back on the site properly from tomorrow.


250 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 37, LAB 42, LDEM 9”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. Phil

    Actually Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian either. He was just a fussy eater.

    lordtory

    According to Wikipedia “[Miliband] arose as a prominent member of the New Left movement in Britain, which was critical of established Stalinist governments in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc”

    Sorry I’m in smartass mode tonight. :)

  2. I’ve just returned from a few days in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, and there’s no better place to make informed judgements on the twin evils of Nazism and Stalinism, both creeds that had little or nothing to do with left or right politics as we know it and everything to do with the exercise and maintenance of totalitarian power. My wife and I visited a museum that the Estonians had created after obtaining their full independence in 1991 which was given over to the Soviet and Nazi occupations that they had endured from 1939 to 1991.

    I was left with a mixture of impressions and feelings. Their brief period of independence before the Second World War was snuffed out by the Ribbentropp and Molotov Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression agreement, effectively paving the way for Stalin to move into Estonia and the Baltic states at the beginning of the war. Then, when the Red Army re-took the state on their march to Berlin in 1944, the Estonians felt badly let down by the Americans and British who, when the war ended, allowed Stalin to subjugate Eastern Europe and assimilate all the states therein to the Soviet Union. The period from 1945 to the end of Stalin’s reign was a KGB imposed hell for the citizens of Estonia with thousands of dissidents being deported to Siberia, most never to return. The country was “Russificated” too, losing much, but not all, of it’s ancient heritage and identity. Thankfully, they’re a proud and liberated nation now, although I got the impression from my visit to the museum that there is a guilty legacy from the Nazi occupation of 1941-44 when 1000 Estonian Jews were murdered (3000 escaped to the safe haven of the Soviet Union). I think this guilt stems from an acceptance that some Estonians had collaborated with the Nazis and assisted them in their ghastly genocidal deeds.

    Like all these things, history is a nuanced and complicated concept that doesn’t lend itself to doctrinaire and retrospective self-righteousness.

  3. Projection for Portuguese GE (exit poll + partial results, difference from last GE 2009)
    PSD (center-right) 40 (+11)
    CDS (right) 12 (+1_
    So, Center-right has OM, Pedro Passos Coelho is the new PM and that is that.
    PS (socialist) 28 (-9)
    CDU (Comm. + Green) 8 (=)
    BE (Rad. Left 6 (-4)
    So, the strong opposition of minor left parties to the terms of the bailout plan did not do them any good. Clear defeat for PS, but not historical law.
    So, good and bad Sundays succeed one another like a Scottish shower: Victory for center-left in first round of mayoral election in Italy (15/5), landslide victory for center-right in Spanish regional election (22/5), absolute triumph for Italian center-left in runoff (29/5) and now this.
    OK, I was prepared for this, I have read the polls, plus my ex-stepdaughter, who is Portuguese, sent me an e-mail this morning where she called me dad twice (instead of by my first name, which she usually does) AND it was written in French instead of Portuguese which I speak very well, so she ought to be desperate and mad at the other members of her family there, who are all right-wingers!
    Coragem, Lisa, on a vu d’autres!!

  4. @LordTory. No, my comment is not supposed to be partisan. I observe simply that the current polling numbers cannot continue forever because that would imply a paradox. This is a website for discussing polling numbers, you know.

    I suggest two possible scenarios: a) the economy is perceived to be turning up, in which case the state of the economy figures will improve drastically, or b) the perception that things are bad will continue, in which case the percentage of Conservative supporters that approve of the government handling of the economy is going to fall a long way.

    Either way there is going to be a very significant change in the opinion polls when this happens, but most particularly affecting Conservative support one way or the other.

    Finally, I was inviting opinions about other scenarios…

  5. crossbat11

    There is a similar museum in Riga, which tells the same sorry story in Latvia.

  6. @ John Murphy

    “Surely that is an accurate summation of the true position….Labour is doing relatively well merely by being the only anti-government party on the bloc….and this is really what the local elections told us too….”

    I agree. I agree with most of your opinion actually but I emphasize agreement here.

  7. @OldNat

    “There is a similar museum in Riga, which tells the same sorry story in Latvia.”

    The Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have tragic histories and it is one of the great stories of the last 20 years that they have regained their freedom and independence. I haven’t been to Riga but I’m sure you’re right in what you say about it’s parallels with Tallinn. I must say that I was struck by the friendliness of the people I met and the delight and pride they had in sharing their history and cultural heritage with their visitors. I wish we could have stayed longer.

    They were also extremely pleased to be members of the EEC. Not an Estonian version of Nigel Farage in sight!!

  8. @ Amber Star

    “Inappropriate clothing for kids, David Cameron is pandering to mumsnet.”

    Yeah, it is basically pandering. And it’s pointless. But unfortuantely I see it quite frequently. I mean, what business is it of the government to tell parents how to dress their kids? And what’s the point?

    @ Roger Mexico

    My new family dog is a vegetarian (I was able to bond with her as a result).

    “Sorry I’m in smartass mode tonight.”

    I’m a smartass like all the time. :)

  9. @ Crossbat

    “The Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have tragic histories and it is one of the great stories of the last 20 years that they have regained their freedom and independence. I haven’t been to Riga but I’m sure you’re right in what you say about it’s parallels with Tallinn. I must say that I was struck by the friendliness of the people I met and the delight and pride they had in sharing their history and cultural heritage with their visitors. I wish we could have stayed longer.”

    Never been to the Baltic states (though I may have some ancestors from there though I’m not sure) but I am familiar with the tragic story of those nations. I am heartened though by their rebirth along with the rebirth of several of the former Warsaw Pact nations. These nations are precisely why I still think there’s a role for NATO.

  10. Hal

    ‘I suggest two possible scenarios: a) the economy is perceived to be turning up, in which case the state of the economy figures will improve drastically, or b) the perception that things are bad will continue, in which case the percentage of Conservative supporters that approve of the government handling of the economy is going to fall a long way.’

    I suspect that the Tories will retain the majority of support they currently have; this is because 35-38% of the population believe, rightly or wrongly, that the state sector is too large and that those in the state sector have too much of the cake. Therefore action to address this whether or not it helps the economy will meet with their approval. Likewise there is a significant % that will support Labour for the opposite reason.

    The question is will the Tories be able to find an extra 6% for the election e.g reach about 42%. In my view this is possible because either the economy will improve or the government will boost the economy perhaps through the income raised by selling its share of the banking sector, before 2015. In addition, it will claim that it needs two terms, in the same way as Labour claimed in 2001.

  11. @Hal – ” …how long will it take to resolve?”

    We (or the media) need a simplistic narrative. There was a big banking collapse – astronomical numbers and confusing credit swap derrivative thingys… but recession (return of boom and bust) we understand, therefore Brown has feet of clay.

    Since the election many people have been happy to run with ‘Labour bankrupted the country’, so long as Darling’s fragile recovery persisted.

    As yet we await a *post election narrative* that goes beyond ‘we had no choice/there is no alternative’. With many of the business leaders who placed their faith in Osborne before the election becoming uneasy, he can either make changes to the ‘everything is now in place to restore the nation’s finances’ framework, or press on regardless.

  12. An academic study in tomorrow’s “Guardian” confirms what was blindingly obvious to several of us here but not apparently to Nick Clegg:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/05/boundary-review-liberal-democrat-seats

    “Tory plans to redraw electoral map could hit Lib Dem seats hardest.

    Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit, a research group working from Liverpool University, has devised a model of the new map based on the guidelines set out by the legislation behind the reforms. In his version, the Tories would lose 16 seats – 5.2% of their total; Labour would lose 17 – 6.6%; and the Liberal Democrats a crippling 14 – 24.6%. Ministers including Norman Baker, Sarah Teather, Andrew Stunell and Grant Shapps would be among those most vulnerable.

    Baston said: “The Liberal Democrats are likely to lose out more than the other main parties because their seats are yellow islands in a sea of red or blue; changing the boundaries is more likely to bring in hostile territories, their majorities tend to be smaller than Labour or Conservative MPs and their Lib Dems trade a lot on incumbency and constituency service. That is disrupted by a boundary review.” “

  13. @CROSSBAT

    “Like all these things, history is a nuanced and complicated concept that doesn’t lend itself to doctrinaire and retrospective self-righteousness.”

    Something you and your friends would do well to remember.

  14. Re: care for the elderly.

    I’ve heard many people in their 60s and 70s say that they intend to downsize a lot – or even sell up and rent – so that they can get rid of their assets and have a good retirement.

    As a younger person (28), if I’m ever lucky enough to own my own house, which I seriously doubt, I’d make sure that I sold it (or downsized significantly) before I reached 70, so that I could use the money to have fun. The have to provide you with care legally anyway. Life’s too short, and asset accumulation ain’t worth it if someone else is going to get their mits on it!

  15. Grant Shapps?????? I really dont think so. The study is a load of cobblers as it (Or at least I expect it will) assumes people will vote the same way in a Tory/Lab marginal as in a Tory/Liberal or Labour/Liberal marginal

  16. I guess my generation is very different from the older one anyway. We are used to having what we want, and people make us feel like we should have it. If I’m honest, I’m no different really from my peers.

    For this reason, social care will become a massive problem in the future, Tomorrow’s old people won’t be like the current bunch – to proud to ask for help, or suffer in the cold. I suppose it’s a good think, in many respects, that my generation is so selfish, because it means we won’t put up with the same hardships aa previous generation have/continue to do. But it will make social care and the provision of benefits I.e. the welfare state much, much more expensive x number of years down the line.

  17. Excuse my typos – am using my iPad!

  18. @Lord Tory

    “Something you and your friends would do well to remember.”

    Are you still here? I thought we were overdue a respite and then a return with a new name. When Lord Tory expires, as he surely must, can I suggest “The Sword of Truth” as a new moniker? You’ll remember that this was a memorable quote from that old Tory jailbird Jonathan Aitken who, I’m sure, was, and continues to be, a constant source of inspiration for you and your friends. His definition of the truth, however, was a difficult and troubling one. The good Lord Archer had similar difficulties, although not, of course, when he was Chairman of the Conservative Party! lol

  19. Re: polls,

    As I expected, the polls have widened slightly again. I knew there’d narrow in the lead up to the elections. They always do. If elections were held 2 weeks from now, I’d expect the 4-5 Labour lead to disappear to 0-3 like before. I think, like others have said, it may remain relatively static for a while, until we hear some good or bad economic (or other) news.

  20. Phil

    You beat me to it. I pointed out a few weeks ago that the Lib Dems will lose loads of seats, with new constituences being used at the next election. My prediction is that if they lose a third of their 2010 vote to Labour, is that without Tories voting for them tactically in large numbers, they will be down to less than 20 seats.

  21. Re: constituencies.

    I don’t think anyone really knows until they are officially released. I think we would reasonably expect the Tories to make some net gain relative to Labour, but the question is whether it will be in any way significant. I don’t think anyone knows, as is evidenced by some academic forecasts suggesting that Labour would suffer most, and, others such as this one, which forecast the Libs as the biggest losers.

    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see!

  22. @ Phil

    Tory plans to redraw electoral map could hit Lib Dem seats hardest.
    ——————————————-
    It’s nice when the experts agree with me. Ages ago, I created a complicated model that estimated the impact of voters being pushed from one constituency to another.

    I think Anthony may have done a similar exercise in a different way. And we both came to the conclusion: LibDems could be hard hit because their seats are often little yellow islands surrounded by either a red or blue sea. Push any of the red or blue into many Dem seat & they’ll likely lose them.

    When the Dems enthusiastically endorsed the change (albeit with the concession that they keep 2 safe* seats in Scotland), I was really surprised. I guess they believed that AV would overcome any boundary change disadvantage. Oops.

    * And Old Nat can chip in about the safety or otherwise of those seats. ;-)

  23. @ Phil

    BTW, if anybody can be bothered raking back through the archives, they’ll find that at the time most people – not Anthony – were saying Labour could lose 40 of the 50 seats, my conclusion was very similar to the numbers you have quoted – although I was a seat or two easier on the Tories/ harder on Labour.
    8-)

  24. @ Phil,

    Honestly, I’m blowing my own trumpet but I put a lot of work into the model I built. To see a similar exercise by an academic which reaches similar conclusions to mine & uses the same language to describe it; it is actually quite gratfying for an amateur like myself.

    So my thanks to all who read my self-congratulatory comments without thinking: Oh, get over yourself.
    :-)

  25. I really hesitated to go into it, but I could not resist it at the end.

    OK. Both Estonia and Latvia were busy to create a picture that were useful to sell for being in the EU (as to the oppression – there was armed uprising in Estonia till 1956 – the supression of it was milder than went on in Northen Ireland.)

    Please Crossbath don’t come with the twin evil… Estonia’s citizenship law is identical with Nazi Germany – for the shame of the EU that accepted it. Both Estonia and Latvia erected monuments for the SS. Both countries Waffen SS regiments were busy with murdering Belorus farmers. England was happy to receive them as they fought with some sort of tyranny, and hopefully for the World Word III against the Soviet Union. The UK allowed lots of Displaced People to settle in the UK, among them Estonian, Latvian, Ukrainina fascists.

    In laws of both countries many British people who fought the nazi Germany would be arrested and tried – of course, it would not happen as both countries are just fantasies. They are today less independent than they were as republics of the Soviet Union. But instead of the guns, the weapon is the dollar, which is better I suppose.

  26. Anyone have any links or articles about exactly which seats are predicted to be removed? That is, which 600 seats will remain, and what the deducted 50 will be merged into? I’d like to examine each seat on a seat-by-seat basis, which I can’t do with this data.

  27. Yes the effect on the LD’s is going to be a double whammy. On a vote share of 9-10% things get quite fiddly to predict seat numbers and a lot depends on vote concentration (ie getting them in the right place).
    If you’re on 30%+ that’s nowhere near such a problem.
    With fewer MP’s there’s automatically less to win, and thus on average you need more votes to get one of them.

    Under my back-of-an-envelope calculation, they could end up with 10-15 seats next time. Or worse. Just snipping off the wrong areas in a constituency and adding them to a neighbour will lose them seats, and in the neighbouring seats, the extra probably won’t get them a replacement.

    Next question is which vulture will gobble up all those lost seats? mmm, this is going to be another interesting election like 2011.

  28. @ Henry

    “the state sector is too large and that those in the state sector have too much of the cake”

    or that people think that the state sector did not save us from the recession, so…

  29. @ Jim Jam

    “whichever child took ownership became the main carer for their elderly parents. In this way the house ‘ asset’ paid for their care in old age. ”

    In traditional societies the youngest son inherited the house partly for having the longest possible stability, partly for exactly the purpose that you mention. In all “clan societies”, we know of, this was the rule.

  30. @AS

    “I knew there’d narrow in the lead up to the elections. They always do.”

    Except that’s not what happened at all. The polls were rock solid right up until polling day, and it was only *afterwards* that they narrowed. Labour took a 1 point hit which they’ve largely recovered (I haven’t checked, but I suspect it’s specifically related to Scotland); LDs have taken a 0.5 point hit, which doesn’t seem to be coming back. And the Tories gained 1.5% which they are currently holding onto – probably mainly UKIP sympathisers – a classic boost from being seen (in the media at least) as having done well in the elections.

  31. Amber

    Orkney & Shetland, I suspect, will still be LD after the 2015 GE.

    I wouldn’t like to bet on any others, as it will often be down to personality and loyalty to any individuals who decide to go through a selection process and stand again.

    Ming will be too old. I’m sure he’ll stand down.

    Charlie Kennedy could win any Highland seat (whatever party he stood for) – but would he have the stomach for the fight?

    In Pictland/Dalriada (i like the old names!) the anti-Con/anti-Lab vote will be SNP, I think.

    In the Central Belt, former LD seats will be swallowed up by Labour (in most cases).

    Only the Borders might return another LD, I’d have thought.

  32. Amber

    Of course the truth is none of us really know until we see the new boundaries. Even then we won’t really know – remember how the mostly minor changes before the last election produced some some seats where the experts disagreed who the notional holder was.

    However I think a lot of us on the site would agree that (a) the gains will be nothing like the Tories expect (b) the Lib Dems will suffer even more (though, to misquote Dorothy Parker, how could anyone tell?) (c) practically every seat will be affected in unforeseeable ways and therefore (d) it won’t be worth all the hassle, even for the Tories.

    I’m surprised the commissions are publishing so early – effectively allowing two years for the subsequent rows. Of course the problem is that one you make numerical equality the be all and end all there become a lot of different ways to arrive at the same solution. In particular, because the new system has been ‘sold’ as equalising numbers there may be complaints about sticking to existing LA boundaries, when a tweak could make things more equal. Also subsequent changes in electorates relative to last December will be seized on as a injustice. I don’t envy the Commissioners their job.

    Of course we will then have a game of 650-member musical chairs as current MPs/PPCs chase after 600 seats, especially, as with such a clear-out last time, few MPs are expected to be retiring and nearly everyone will be affected. The bloodiest battles are always within Parties.

    Shall we get t-shirts made saying ‘Told Yer So’. Or maybe ‘Remember Procustes‘ :twisted:

  33. Roger Mexico

    “Shall we get t-shirts made saying ‘Told Yer So’.”

    Amber would need a much shorter slogan to avoid it being wrapped around her sylph like form.

    The Scots “Telt Ye” would fit better. :-)

  34. Oops. It is of course :

    ‘Remember Procrustes‘ :oops:

  35. Roger Mexico

    That was a simple typo. You shifted the “r” from Procrustes and stuck it onto the end of “Ye”.

    It’s a terrible thing to have shifting “Rs”. :-)

  36. @ Roger Mexico

    I’m surprised the commissions are publishing so early – effectively allowing two years for the subsequent rows.
    ———————————————–
    Aye. Perhaps it’s because there’s to be no ‘appeals’; they are buying popcorn in anticipation of being merely amused spectators when the inevitable rows kick off.
    ;-)

  37. Amber

    Any theories as to why the Scots, Welsh and Irish Commissions will publish weeks later than the English Commission?

  38. @ Roger M

    Of course the truth is none of us really know until we see the new boundaries.
    —————————————–
    Aye, but it’s nice to be potentially ‘wrong’ in the company of professional academics rather than being ‘wrong’ all by myself. ;-)

  39. @ Old Nat

    Any theories as to why the Scots, Welsh and Irish Commissions will publish weeks later than the English Commission?
    ——————————————————-
    My theory, they have taken cognisance of the devolved boundaries… or maybe they just have comparatively fewer resources. Do you have a theory?
    8-)

  40. Amber

    That each Commission covers a “devolved” area or the rump :-)
    should make no difference as to timing.

    Could it be that the non-English Commissions just want to save themselves some grief, by allowing the crap to descend on the largest one first?

  41. @ Amber, Roger, and Old Nat

    It’s so funny that you guys are doing boundaries right now at the same time redistricting is being done (Just saw California’s new non-partisan map published….at least a first draft subject to changes.) I like it thus far. Republicans pushed for the passage of this new non-partisan redistricting and the new redistrictng seems to increase the number of Democratic leaning seats by at least 5 (if not more).

    There’s one Congresswoman who I adore, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), who may be in some trouble with her district being cut up. But it might have to be put back together due to the VRA. :)

    Are your boundary commissions non-partisan in makeup or are they controlled by whichever party is in power?

  42. Good Morning,
    Interesting stuff on here today.
    On the Boundary commission, the Tories could surely not betray their allies could they?

    On the Baltic peoples and the eastern europeans generally, are people aware of Churchill’s deals with Stalin?

    Great, disgraceful betrayals

  43. LordTory
    “You approve of state “support” so much and yet you see any rules from the state (a Tory state) as retrograde.”

    ‘Support’ and ‘rules’ are not necessarily the same thing. But the former requires the latter of course.

    I find it mildly amusing that Lab were and are criticised as being too restrictive of liberties yet here it seems we have a Con giov tht will impose something simialr. (I note a gov announcement is due today.)

    “Would that all parents did know how best to bring up their children, a trip to ASDA will show that is not the case.”

    As a Tory you obviously know personally and collectively what is right for the rest of the population. What next, the way people walk, talk or behave as a a suitable target for setting appropriate standards?

    “The trendy view to scrap school uniform has now been backtracked, uniform can give kids pride in their school.
    Wearing that uniform in the manner it was intended, is also enforceable by the school. Why do you feel any form of discipline is retrograde ?”

    What is your point here?

  44. Amberstar @6.06pm yesterday
    Good post. You articulated my view far better than I did!

  45. @SoCalLiberal

    Our Boundary Commissions are non-partisan, but generally speaking favour the Conservatives, as the population trend in the UK tends to be out of the cities into the country, which means city constituencies (usually Labour) have to be altered to include more voters (making it comparatively harder for Labour to win), and that rural constituencies (usually Conservative) have to be altered to include less voters (making it comparatively easier for Conservative to win).

    It’s not always been like that, and in the ’80s I seem to remember it was the other way round, as people were moving in to the cities rather than out, but that’s how it has worked for the past decade or so.

    So, no party has choice over seat boundaries, but they can affect the number of seats via legislative changes, as well as the strictness of variance (so 5% either way of a 76,000 electorate, rather than 10% either way). That’s, roughly speaking, why the Tories decided to pass this through – initial estimates showed Labour losing 25 seats, the Conservatives losing 15, and the Liberal Democrats losing 10 as a result of the seat changes, would have given the Conservatives almost a notional majority at the next election (just 8 seats short), and additionally made them notionally bigger than Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, so there would be no need for coalition – minority government would be a semi-viable option . Of course, that’s a somewhat cynical approach, and I’m sure there are a great many Tories who honestly wanted a smaller, more efficient House of Commons, but I think it is safe to say that it was a large source of motivation.

    However, the earlier estimates seem to have been mistaken, and it is turning out that the Conservatives and Labour look to be losing roughly equal amounts of seats – which means there’s no tangible benefits (well, democratic fairness, perhaps, but I’m not sure that’s the first thing at the forefront of the minds of many MPs), so Conservative backbenchers are getting very unhappy, and the Lib Dems are absolutely seething because this would decimate them – in fact, as decimate is only 10%, it’d be even worse. Seeing as Labour will do anything it can to raise complaints about this, I think we could see some very serious rebellions arising on the matter when it comes for review in 2013. Could be a very major milestone in Coalition relations.

  46. @SoCalLiberal

    Our Boundary Commissions are non-partisan, but generally speaking favour the Conservatives, as the population trend in the UK tends to be out of the cities into the country, which means city constituencies (usually Labour) have to be altered to include more voters (making it comparatively harder for Labour to win), and that rural constituencies (usually Conservative) have to be altered to include less voters (making it comparatively easier for Conservative to win).

    It’s not always been like that, and in the ’80s I seem to remember it was the other way round, as people were moving in to the cities rather than out, but that’s how it has worked for the past decade or so.

    So, no party has choice over seat boundaries, but they can affect the number of seats via legislative changes, as well as the strictness of variance (so 5% either way of a 76,000 electorate, rather than 10% either way). That’s, roughly speaking, why the Tories decided to pass this through – initial estimates showed Labour losing 25 seats, the Conservatives losing 15, and the Liberal Democrats losing 10 as a result of the seat changes, would have given the Conservatives almost a notional majority at the next election (just 8 seats short), and additionally made them notionally bigger than Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, so there would be no need for coalition – minority government would be a semi-viable option . Of course, that’s a somewhat cynical approach, and I’m sure there are a great many Tories who honestly wanted a smaller, more efficient House of Commons, but I think it is safe to say that it was a large source of motivation.

    However, the earlier estimates seem to have been mistaken, and it is turning out that the Conservatives and Labour look to be losing roughly equal amounts of seats – which means there’s no tangible benefits (well, democratic fairness, perhaps, but I’m not sure that’s the first thing at the forefront of the minds of many MPs), so Conservative backbenchers are getting very unhappy, and the Lib Dems are absolutely seething because this would decimate them – in fact, as decimate is only 10%, it’d be even worse. Seeing as Labour will do anything it can to raise complaints about this, I think we could see some very serious rebellions arising on the matter when it comes for review in 2013. Could be a very major milestone in Coalition relations.

  47. @Robin,

    I respectfully disagree. Labour were regularly recording 6-10 point leads (more generally) until a month before the elections. These then turned into 0-3% with ICM and Mori (and other pollsters). Yougov changed more gradually and proved more stubborn, but finally caved in just before the election with 2%.

    As for the boundary changes, every academic report seems
    to forecast something totally different. I don’t think anyone knows what the effects will be at this stage!

  48. It would be truly ironic that the boundaries review leads to this devastating reduction in LD MPs and the equal impact on Cons and Lab MPs.

    No LD member will be happy with this, surely? Just a further nail (if it were needed) in NC’s coffin I suggest.

    And the Cons won’t be happy with the forecast of the number of MP losses for their party and Lab. DC will be disliked by more in his party, I suggest, too.

    One aspect of bounndary reviews…I recall that one of the reasons why Lab seem comparatively to achieve better results than the Cons in a GE with the same level of VI is attributable to the spread of Lab votes. A small increase in votes for Lab produces a comparatively larger increase in seats won. Does a reduction in numbers of eligible voters in constituencies outside the cities accentuate this effect?

  49. If the election results were 37/42/9, as the polls roughly speaking seem to suggest, under the 600 seat system, then the Lib Dems would be wiped out. Ceredigion in Wales is bound to be partially fused with Llanelli and Carmarthen, which if I have the wards right would result in it returning Labour at 9%, Yeovil could just about become Conservative if it takes some of the Dorset constituencies like has been discussed, Sheffield Hallam would be almost certain to take in some of the rest of Sheffield, and Twickenham doesn’t look too safe either.

    That could leave the Lib Dems with about 5 seats.

  50. I am (almost) ashamed to admit that these new projections of the revised boundaries and numbers have me laughing my proverbial off.

1 2 3 4 5