There’s lots of talk at the moment about the electoral “system being bust” and “no longer fit for purpose”. What is being pointed to are possible disparities between national aggregate vote shares and the total of MPs each party ends up with on Friday morning.
Comments
The argument about whether our electoral system is broken is really over. The debate is surely what replaces it.
If so today is about ICM. If the tories are to have any chance of having the most seats it will need to show a lead of at least 5, tactical voting or no.
I see the Mail have produced a tactical voting guide. Should cheer up Nick Palmer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html
Any poll which will give England [ or E&W ], Scotland separately.
The Survation England only poll has clearly helped Labour because of UKIP [ 17% ???? ]
Why? Because at the Euros in 2014 (excepting YouGov), and in all the recent European elections, internet pollsters have tended to overstate insurgent parties, and phone pollsters to understate them. In the UK in 2015 there is a similar pattern emerging, with internet pollsters giving UKIP an average of 3 or 4% more than the phone pollsters.
That gives us a 13% GB number for UKIP, which is probably 14% in England. And which probably means 4-5 seats for UKIP, unless there is tactical voting against them.
I think you've just provoked the gods of Nattery Surby.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm
The Labour figure may look high ! But remember Labour won 353 seats with 35% in 2005. So, if the polls stay in the 33-35% range and take 35 seats or so away from Labour [ Scotland ], Labour largest party is still likely.
Having said that, I thought in the England only Survation [ below ], the UKIP percentage is too high, in my opinion. That has hurt the Tory numbers.
I understand that there might be another final final ComRes and that other firms are trying to squeeze extra surveys
I've no idea about ICM poll publication time.
But I still have reservations as to the consequences for seats. Maybe it is just my old wounds as a supporter of the Alliance. My expectation is that their vote will be too evenly distributed to break through for the most part. I would still think 2-3 seats.
People who won't admit to being Labour in polite company because it means they are voting for Ed.
But those who did not put in something when Labour most seats was at 6 might regret that.
What we need is a constitutional convention to look at the entire UK-wide settlement, including the voting system. The chances of getting one are close to zero. There are too many interests on all sides only to willing to put party before country. And that could well lead to the break-up of the UK.
The damage UKIP does is different. It takes away enough votes away from the Tories and will let Labour in. I would say it would be almost 20 seats !
If done crudely, plugging Comres (figures remarkably close to latest ICM, who got closest last time, again not to say they will this time) I come up with a UNS of Con 304, Lab 300, Lib 16.
However, because UNS takes no account of the SNP surge, that's clearly not likely to happen. So let's assume that Labour lose 35 seats in Scotland, which is probably at the optimistic end for them. That leaves them on 265, with the SNP on 41. In other words, because of a considerable churn, Labour and the Tories pretty much stand still.
Now immediately we have a problem. Even assuming Clegg hangs on in Sheffield Hallam, with that result he would surely have to resign. They also have no deputy leader as Malcolm Bruce is leaving. I'm not sure what the rules are for succession - I am guessing that either the senior members would appoint an interim leader (surely Cable) or the Party President (Farron) would take charge. Both would doubtless rule out a formal coalition with the Conservatives.
However, even if we add up Lib+Lab+SNP - a group which (the SNP apart) would hardly have a democratic mandate - we don't get to 323 (we fall one short). Indeed, such a group would only be a fraction ahead of Con/DUP (assume 9-10). At that point, the remaining odds and sods come into play: PC, Greens surely for Labour, which adds on four votes, any UKIP MPs likely for Con. As a result, we end up with pretty much a dead heat and quite possibly some votes going through on Bercow's say-so. In an official confidence motion or on the Queen's speech, he is obliged to support the government because if the House has not specifically said it has no confidence in the government, technically that means it does have confidence. So getting the chance to form that government becomes absolutely crucial. Would Labour be able to do it? Candidly, the numbers are against them. Add one point to the Tories and knock one off Labour, which is unlikely but not implausible, and it becomes near-impossible.
Or, the Lib Dems could look at the maths and admit that C and S with the Tories, however unpalatable to the survivors, makes arithmetical sense and should therefore be allowed for a couple of years while they try to rebuild their own activist base in preparation for another election.
Which means it is not surprising that there are rumours flooding around that Labour are panicking about their prospects. It would not however explain their apparently giving up in some low-hanging marginals (e.g. Northampton and Ipswich). That strikes me as something more than arithmetic in play.
@NickPalmer said:
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or what?
--------
It's a boxed set, Nick. Worth every penny and a solace for those that don't make it tomorrow.
Sometimes ruling castes are prepared to set aside self-interest in the face of a greater danger, but it's rare.
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 72 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.
Last day before Judgement Day and all that...................
I am not a Cameron fan, but can see why he was needed.
Because of the SNP phenomenon, Scotland calculations has to be done separately. There is no other way out.
Please note when I use separate polls for the 3 countries, I am not using unweighted subsets. These are proper weighted polls in their own right.
Mahoosive tactical unionist voting in the privacy of the ballot box and then people saying they voted for their preferred party
A collapse of the Green vote, and people saying they voted Green as they'd have liked to have done - to Labour's benefit
See above but collapse of UKIP to Con.
1. A proportional voting system (e.g STV) would limit the extent of the SNP success, which FPTP exaggerates.
2. The avoidance of a referendum on leaving the European Union would be a good thing, since Scotland is very much in favour of remaining in the EU.
So, if you are in favour of the union, you should hope for a Miliband victory. He is against leaving the EU and theoretically at least in favour of electoral reform.
So far,only 1 point Labour online lead vs 2 and 3 point Tory phone poll lead.
I will go for between 0-2 point Con lead on the night.
Daily Mail tactical guide - Seems judging by the comments people hate being told what to do !
If I had been Clegg, I would be a lot more forceful from early on in highlighting the benefits of the Coalition and suggesting a continuation would be his preferred option.
I don't see anything in UKIP's platform that would have repelled Mrs T.
I generally hate polling day. It's boring as the TV/radio talk about everything else instead. Then there's the hiatus between 10pm and about 2am when it's all talking head speculation...
Con 277,Lab 267,Lib Dem 29,SNP 52.
He is also only predicting 10 Con gains from Lib Dem.
My feeling is that it will be quite a lot.
He defeated two Conservative campaigns led from the right. He may well have relished a further one.
And while Farage is an admirer of Maggie, I am not at all convinced that she would reciprocate. Maggie was a tribal Tory and would have hated splitters, she highly valued loyalty.
777 minutes
Greens send stuff about nationalisation, more state control, vote for what you believe in as if I wanted to back throwbacks to the '70s. Their candidate rides a bloody tricycle/rickshaw round Clifton and thinks this is cool forward looking stuff.
Had more leaflets focussed on 20 somethings who may be studying at Uni Bristol or UWE, but says something about a weak database or analysis. Left Unity & Independent leaflest arrived yesterday, but vote had been posted.
I don't want the Greens to hold the seat, nor do I want Labour, so should I have voted Con when the candidate has been busy campaigning for Chris Skidmore in Kingswood, or did I hold my nose vote for a LD or just spoil the ballot paper?
https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/595846631624421376
If The Witcher 3 came out a fortnight earlier, I could've just played that for six hours and occasionally flicked onto electoral coverage. Oh well
Five years ago we were told by a Scottish PBer that Darling had given up hope in Edinburgh SW - he won by over 8000 votes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32595003
Vote for the party whose policies you are most aligned to. Sometimes the simple solution is the correct one.
Largely fine in the South, more showery further north but nothing too horrendous.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn361.gif
Following my lunchtime chat yesterday with a Conservative source I shall be tapping into the LibDem team later this morning and I'll report back this afternoon.
Obviously that's assuming they didn't bollocks it up and vote Lib in a Lab/Con marginal, which quite a few tactical voters did...