Our latest General Election Prediction
December 8th, 2004
-
Labour move up a bit
Following the Populus Poll in the Times yesterday we need to change our General Election prediction which seeks to deal with the over-statement of Labour support that has been a characteristic of the polls for nearly half a century - a factor that is being featured in a BBC radio series with Peter Snow.
The extraordinary impact of the weighting changes at Populus serve to illustrate what a dangerous area polling has now become. Our first prediction used the Populus November figures showing LAB 34: CON 33: LD 22. Yesterday Populus told us that if their new changes had been applied to that poll then the shares would have been LAB 37 (+3) : CON 31 (-2) : LD 21 (-1).
These are massive variations and could make a huge difference on the General Election spread betting markets - so punters beware.
The Politicalbetting formula to deal with what we see as the systemic over-statement of Labour is to take the average of the lowest two poll shares for the party and then deduct 1.5%. For the Tories we take the average of the top two shares and add on 1% and for the LDs we take average the top two figures and add on 0.5%. Our adjustments are in line with what actually happened at the 2001 General Election.
The latest calculation produces the following: LAB 34.5%: CON 34.5%: LD 23%..
Converting this into Commons seats we take the Martin Baxter uniform national swing figure and then switch 12 seats from Labour to the LDs for special targeting and 14 seats from Labour to the Tories to deal with tactical vote unwind. The produces LAB 318: CON 228: LD 70 seats.
-
If we are wrong about the pollsters over-stating Labour we promise to swallow humble pie on May 6 2005.
The spread markets are unchanged at LAB 345-353: CON 200 - 208: LD 71-75
MessageSpace Advertising
The politicalbetting system still looks rather like making a system to fit your views rather. I don\’t see any basis for 12 Lib Dem from Labour due to targeting. It has never happened before and the Liberal Democrats are yet to prove they can hold Leicester South or Brent East. Also I am still not sure how much tactical unwind will work. I\’m sure it will not an extent but I just don\’t think the extent will be as big as suggested. Then I also don\’t agree that the Lib Dem fiure is overstated at the moment and I don\’t agree that Labour is that much over-stated. If I was going to place a bet I would still bet on a Labour majority of 70-100 with most of the losses going to the Tories. I would also bet on virtually all lib Dem gains coming from Tories and on two Labour gains from Lib Dem (Leicester and Brent).
It your money Steve - you bet. But check out first the \”form\” of the pollsters on which this is based. When they stop over-stating Labour I\’ll stop attacking them.
I think Leicester and Brent East were a bit of a red herring - you have to remember these were won from third and a tiny vote share. LD\’s lost Christchurch to the Tories in 97 but still hoovered up 20-odd seats where they had genuine strength. Having said that there probably won\’t be tens of gains from Labour as targeting has meant LDs are mostly too far behind in the Labour areas.
On the basis of the London Assembly reaults, I\’d say Sarah Teather has a good chance of holding Brent East, if she can build up a high profile for the right reasons. If she can, then she stands a good chance of going on to win the new Hampstead and Kilburn seat which will be created after the election.
The two recent local by-elections in Leicester South, OTOH, suggest the Lib Dems will struggle there.
Steve 2\’s point on LD gains from the Tories is well made, Mike you must realise that your formula should make some accommodation for LD gains from the Tories and not simply LD gains from Labour, as the former is likely to be far more significant than the latter…
…while improvements for the LDs in some Labour seats are perfectly possible and indeed likely LD gains from Labour are likely to number only a handful of seats rather than the 14 you suggest while LD gains from the Conservatives could well be in the 10-15 range.
As for Brent and Leicester… god knows… but Leicester looks good, I can\’t say I know enough about Brent to say although Teather is far more credible and effective than Gill however despite this the higher turnout at the general election and a relatively effective labour team (from the national party rather than the local party) will mean that the contest will probably be close… but at the moment I’m unsure how it will play out.
Ben - my formula assumes that Tory-LDs changes above the UNS will balance themselves out.
My predictions for LD gains from Labour
Aberdeen S
East Dunbartonshire
Cardiff Central
Oldham E & Saddleworth
Rochdale
Birmingham Yardley
Bristol W
Cambridge
Brent E (hold from by-election)
Hornsey & Wood Green
That\’s 10 gains - I suspect that Leicester S will go back to Labour, and that there will be surprisingly close races in
Inverness & bits
Newcastle C
Manchester Withington
Islington S
Birmingham Sparkbrook & smallheath
You\’ll note all of these seats are either heavily GMW, big student or large ethnic (Asian)votes & have strong active local LibDem parties - I should also have added Watford as a seat which I expect to be a close run thing.
Mike - to clarify, you think that net LD gains from Tories are already covered under UNS, so targeting will only affect Labour-held seats where the swing required is too big for a UNS model to register?
Falmouth & Cambourne (three-way with Tories split locally over candidate) and Oxford East could also, I believe, be added to the list of possible upsets, as could Norwich South (I know that will irritate certain contributors but I still haven\’t heard any real evidence for the supposed Tory surge - either LD or Tory need about a 10% swing and one councillor and some \”ooh, they\’ve put out an In Touch or two\” just isn\’t enough of a basis).
Incidentally, I think Bullseye is right to stick with \”surprisingly close\” for his last six (and my three additionals). I do not think, on balance, these will go as they would require so much more than any seriously feasible national swing (a few percent extra is fine - but ten or more?).
Bullseye, you could add Nottingham S to that list as it has all the above except perhpas the strong local party, but it must be reasonable as there are LD councillors within the seat. Also, the E Mids had a very high UKIP vote so there may be someeffect there. Admitedly less likely to pull votes from Labour but you never know.
I’d quibble with you over Brent, Cambridge and Birmingham Sparkbrook & Smallheath and I’d add Durham City as a possible LD pickup along with Newcastle central but I think both will stay Labour.
Cambridge is not the LD certainty that some think it will be, the local authority covers a much large area than the constituency and so the fact that it is run by the LD leads many people to assume they are very strong within the seat but I disagree and there is an active Labour MP who these days has plenty of time on her hands
Brent will be close, but Teather will have problems, then again Labour will have problems, but Teather works hard, but so does the new labour candidate, but… to tell the truth I just think it will be tight
I actually think Falmouth and Islington are a better bet than some on the list…. but that\’s what makes a market.
Well, I still have this feeling that this is going to be an election in which the Lib Dems do well in terms of votes, but not seats.
What interests me about Mike\’s analysis is what the fall-out is likely to be, if Labour and Tory get the same popular vote yet Labour parlay that into 90 more seats. Particularly if it deprives Blair of an overall majority!
Surely we are facing an election like 1992, where the campaign will be decisive, rather than like the last two, where it didn\’t matter…
Won\’t happen. If the Lib Dems get a lot of votes, they will also get (for them) a lot of seats. The last time the then Alliance got well over 20% of the vote ie 1983, their vote was spread thinly across the country. Now they have concentrated their votes in distinct areas / target seats. If it looks like they are going to do well, then strategically their campaigns people will surely encourage their workers to go to target seats even more, if the non-runners are going to look after themselves.
Hmm not sure about the list above…..Inverness etc will be a three way fight including the SNP….also think Colne Valley should be in there….strong local lib tradition reasonable local party, low threshold for victory 35% ish also a small muslim population in one part of the seat…….
Nottingham south someone is having a laugh…if the LIbs had a decent candidate Loughborough could be interesting…..lots of students and a modest muslim population….might become a three way….
Somebody mentioned Watford……again strong local Lib dem party partly run by Cllr Ian Sharpe who is a top quality campaigner…..and they Have the elected Mayor of course……..
Leeds NW is a bit of a dark horse in potential LD wins from Labour. LD\’s cam third in 2001 after an abyssmal campaign with a poor candidate. A strong anti-Labour sntiment in the latest locals and about 15 or so of the ward councillors LD. Strong local party and activists and incumbent MP retiring this time round could make for interesting fight.
I\’m sorry but the LD bias is running at an all time high here. Nottingham South is an absolute no-hoper for the Libs, as is Norwich South. Rochdale, Yardley and Bristol are fair game. Hornsey eventually but not this time around. Cardiff maybe - Cambridge they\’ll have a go at but no chance. Watford?!? Nearly choked on my hob-nob. They may have a mayor there but no chance at the MP.
To IA about the fall out from such a result a lot depends on which party tops the popular vote.
If the Tories just do it but are 90 seats behind do not expect Michael Howard to be quiet.
Labour really has to get its vote out in its heartlands.
Watford watch: Have just looked up the Tory candidate - Ali Miraj, a young, asian DJ… hmmmm, LDs blasted out of the water then!
Anyone elese laughing as loud as me about Oona King…..she is on Yahoo quoted as saying a Labour MEP offered her £10k to sleep with him……you can understand her refusing given that the same guy could not use a telephone….I am sure lots of women MPs get this sort of non-sense but I find it hard to feel soory for OOna….
Its odd how you take a strong dislike to someone you have never met….I pity the people of that seat having to choose between her and Galloway….I would vote for Galloway as his victory would annoy Labour the most…but really you have to feel sorry for the constituents
Graham, IA\’s point has some validity to it. There\’s a case to be made that the LDs have maxed out their vote in their heartlands and will do well to retain the seats they have. Conversely, if they run a good campaign they could well take votes from Labour, but in seats where the Labour majority is so big it would not enable them to take the seat, or else would let the Tory through the middle. But the good campaign would have less effect in their target seats because these are already blitzed on a regular basis by having local activists.
I hope I\’m wrong …
Could Mike explain how the Conservatives are going to get 34.5% of the vote?. In 97 they got 30.5%, and in 31.5%, the increase mainly due to diffentials in the low turnout. Since 2001, most of the real poll movement has been going back and forth between the Lab / Lib Dems, with the Cons trundling along the middle. There is no evidence, that younger voters are turning to the Tories, and those who came of age in the early mid 90\’s are still viscerally against the Tories, and coming to the age when they are more likely to be bothered. Seeing as they have to find a 3% increase in their vote for th 34.5% they have to be winning people over. Where are they coming from?
Mike - I can\’t see Howard being able to make too much capital out of a situation where they win the popular vote but are 80-90 seats short. They support FPTP and that\’s the sort of perversity the situation can throw up. If you can\’t stand the heat …
Presumably (since he\’s taking them from the opinion polls) Mike\’s share\’s are for Great Britain, not the UK as a whole, so the comparative figure for the Tories in 2001 is 32.7%.
Graham - I\’m sure you know from your own family connections that if county elections are on there will be virtually no movement of activists - what gains from the Tories do you expect?
Steve T But maybe Howard is replaced by someone more progressive….
Steve T But maybe Howard is replaced by someone more progressive….
What family is that Jon? I\’m just a Market researcher!
Graham, here\’s nothing at all implausible about the Conservatives increasing their vote share by 1.8% overall. In fact, if the general election were to mirror local elections over the past three years, with the Conservatives up a little, and Labour down considerably, it would be quite likely.
Can\’t imagine…..
Jon - your comment implies that a more progressive leader would embrace PR (flaw #1 - who are the progressive leadership candidates who support PR?). The dilemma for a new leader would be that accepting PR writes off their chances of ever governing again in isolation, and that would only happen if they accepted that their support was too geographically diffuse to ever challenge under FPTP which I can\’t see happenning until they\’ve had defeat number 5.
Mike\’s formula is suspect. From April 4th 2001 the av polling for the Conservatives was 30.5 - 1.8 shy of their final total. But for the Lib Dems it was 14.25 - 4.5 short of their total (including them coming close in the final week or two). That is off 40 polls. It was not until May (during the campaign) that they went over 14% in the polls. Surely your formula is based on an eve of poll poll.
I\’ve used what inside knowledge I have of the LibDems to come up with the list - & it is (I hope) completely shorn of partisan puff.
I left off the 3 seats where there is a potential for the LibDems to come from 3rd Leeds NW, Colne Valley & Falmouth & Cambourne because I doubt that they will. I know Leeds NW & I dont think the local party is capable yet of running the kind of campaign it needs to to win. In Falmouth there\’s a great young local candidate, but I\’m doubtful she will be able to pull it off in 1 go. I don\’t know Colne Valley so I\’ll leave that 1 aside.
watford is a real chance - so choke away if you must. so is Cambridge - the issue there is not LibDem running the Council bu that they need a 10% swing to take the seat - having jumped up from 3rd place with an 8.6% swing in 2001. Don\’t rule out B\’ham Smallheath - on paper it looks hopeless but the Labour party there is in real trouble - its a majority Asian seat - there is long-term alienation against Labour over their failure to select an Asian candidate to replace Hattersley. The LDs win both the Asian & white local seats by a mile.
I just don\’t know enough about Durham City to hazard a prediction there but given that such a staunch Labour man as Ben is putting it in the mix then I take it seriously.
Finally I\’d be astonished if we made any headway in Nottingham.
Graham - the vote shares we use, like most of the pollsters, are GB and not UK - Northern Ireland is simply not included. In 2001 it was LAB 42: CON 32.7: LD 18.8.
I was taking the final polls of 2001 not all the campaign where the LDs improve, like they usually do, quite considerably.
The hapless William Hague increased the Tory share by 1.3% in 2001 - a fact not picked up by any of the pollsters except Rasmussen which used interviewer-free methodology. Howard just has to increase by 1.8% on top of that to get to the figure currently coming out of my formula.
All I\’ve done is produce an equation based on the failings of the pollsters last time.
Point about the GB figures accepted (I incorporated that in my last message!). You haven\’t dealt with the second problem. Your formula is based on an eve of poll poll, which has the Lib Dems on 18%. However, their polling figures for the 2 months before 2001, were 14.25% average. We are roughly 5 months away from an election now. We don\’t know whether the Lib Dem vote has maxed or whether they will receive a similar 4.5% surge during the campaign. The Cons av on the other hand fell slightly over the campaign period (although it was a little wild). I am arguing therefore that your formula, could be equally based on a pre-campaign set of polls, rather than an eve of poll poll. It would see a slightly lower addition to the Conservatives and a higher one to the Lib Dems.
My formula is a value judgement - nothing more and nothing less - and I\’ve put my head above the parapet to make it. Perhaps Graham can explain why the pollsters - the recidivist Labour over-staters - are not going to do again it next time.
Bullseye… I hope I never become a spinner for the LD\’s but I really fancy us in F and C after years of failure. There is a massive LD machine in Cornwall and tonnes of publicity. The candidate is genuinely local, knows what she is talking about and photogenic which helps. The incumbent being Labour obviously suits, and the Tories are honestly in a mess as anyone who reads the press will know.
I often have severe reservations about the kind of campaign LDs run and whether it really suits the area but I have no reason to believe anything is wrong there either… so I would give as high as 35% chance to win with Tories less than 10%.
They (we) probably will do it again. When you ask people their opinions and they tell you, as a researcher, your job is to report what they have said. If you try and put too many fixes and adjustments in it, you are just as likely to get it wrong as if you don\’t (see my complaints about Gallup\’s alchemy re Bush / Kerry). But that doesn\’t alter the fact that you are basing your prediction on a poll 5 months from a GE, not eve of poll. Just as the pattern is for an over statement of Labour in polls, there is also a pattern of the Libs getting a surge pre election. If you argue that the polls must be overstating Lab because of history, then you also have to do the same for the Lib Dems, else the formula is wrong! So what I am saying is have a formula by all means, but don\’t pick and choose your history.
Graham - I agree completely on the LD numbers and maybe I need to look at that. What I\’ve produced is a formula which gets updated as new polls come out just as Martin Baxter has a formula based on a poll of polls and the uniform national swing. I know Martin is working on a variation that brings in tactical voting unwind. When he has done that I will use it and abandon my crude 14 seat estimate.
If Rasmussen start polling in the UK I\’ll use their Tory figure without adjustment because of their stunning accuracy last time.
My LD gains from Labour figures are my guess based on my personal knowledge and the very informed posts on the site of people like Bullseye. That total might vary with further information.
Surely differential turnout will be the big problem. I cannot see real enthusiasm for Labour (unless Blair goes before the Election)which will lower their vote but not increase anyone else\’s, except possibly UKIP. Whether either Lib dems or Tories will manage to raise any enthusiasm in their campaigns is unknowable.
I would have thought that the Lib Dems have the confidence and street fighting ability to do it. The Tories may just convince themselves that with their new Australian and targeted junk mail they are on to a winner but think they may have left it a bit late - Tory confidence at Leic. S turned out to be misplaced.
1) What Tory confidence at Leicester South
2) I just don\’t see the LD\’s doing it. I think they will quickly suffer from the law of diminishing returns as their activist base is still too small across the country. Also I think that the activist, especially new activist, desire to \’punish Blair\’ is at odds with what will gain them most seats. I still think that many more Lib Dem voters would rather see a Labour MP compared to a Tory MP. And I think that line will still wash with a large proportion of the electorate. Also I think that Lib Dem voters tend to have quite a high turnout in elections that other party voter, especially Labour, don\’t bother with.
Icarus - if 2001 is anything to go by, turnout was low in safe seats. Perversely that could help LDs and Cons, if their vote holds up or increases via targetting and Lab vote collapses because of lack of enthusiasm and misperception that the incumebnt is safe. Look at what happened in the by-elections on circa 40% T/Os
Two Steves, opposing points of view
Sorry, Mike. I didn\’t mean to get so insistent. I have a theory, based on our own polling combined with looking at history. In the South West, a key area for the Conservatives, there are signs that they are struggling here, partly due to the UKIP vote in Devon, Cornwall and parts of Dorset and Somerset. And partly because, this election sees the Lib Dems coming from a higher base than ever before, both in terms of polls and seats. The received wisdom on this site seems to be that they may have reached their top / may increase a little. An alternative theory is that a they have a bigger bandwagon to roll in a campaign. If it is the latter, combined with a hardening in their stronghold, then it may be possible for them to push up both their share and seats to vote ratio at the same time. I know that this is controversial, but this election could see a dramatic change in voting patterns.
Graham - interesting theory. I recall in 1997 driving through the country and being struck by the political posters of all shades, and the converse lack in 2001. Would the \”band-wagon\” effect be generated by high levels of local incumbency couples with media attention this generates, plus high-levels of activism and visual effect of posters, leaflets etc creating a virtuous circle? The \”Lib Dems CAN win here! Look at your neighbouring constituency\” effect?
actually in the 80s the Alliance had poll rating as high as LIb Dems now prior to the 87 election…..sadly the national campaign was rubbish and the local campaigns not quite strong enough ….I suspect that the next election will be a re-run of 87 …
Graham, apart from your opinion surveys, are there any real signs that the Conservatives are struggling in the South West?
You have placed the Conservatives on 27%, with UKIP on 5%. Even if all of the extra UKIP vote were to come from the Conservatives, that puts the combined Conservative/UKIP vote share 9% down on the 2001 general election.
I can\’t see any evidence from national opinion polls for such a decline in the centre-right vote, nor do I see any evidence of it in either local elections in the South West, nor in the European elections in the same area.
I think the low turnout is likely to occur in all labour seats not just the safe ones - there is really no enthusiasm in the party (activists or past voters) for Blair and Iraq. I dont see this changing by May. The question is whether this diferential turnout is properly collected by the how likely are you to vote question that pollster use? Perhaps Mike\’s adjustments are enough but think the labour negative factor should be quite a bit higher.
Labour are defending a very high base. Unless we have a 1997-style result (and the government are not *that* unpopular) I can\’t see their majority going in one election.
Sean. You are right to an extent. But the Ukip vote in Devon and Cornwall is very high - in our last poll, which I will try to get up on Thursday, they are polling @ 6% in Devon and 9% in Cornwall. This doesn\’t seem to be affecting the Lib Dem voting intention in GE\’s compared to the affect on the Cons. In addition, Labour are, like the national polls getting higher poll results than GE voting. Further east (Wilts / Dorset) the Conservative vote appears to be holding up, and UKIP is nowhere. Not being an anorak - I don\’t know about local election results (I know - they are important guides!). I will say at this point, I am not partisan - I am a researcher. My opinions are based on looking at the figures and patterns and other researchers and psephologists opinions. I just have a pet theory that the voting map has changed to favour the Lib Dems more than in the past. I only say this because I seem to be pleasing the Lib Dems and annoying the Conservatives (namely Sean). I know I may be wrong - I just want all you betting people out there who want to make a lot of money to take a wild bet on a high Lib Dem seat figure!
Graham, your survey is the only one this year that has placed Labour 3% above its general election figure. Currently, national opinion polls are placing Labour 4-5% below their figure at the last election. I appreciate that one region can move in a totally different way from the rest of the country (viz the huge swing to Labour in Scotland in 1987) but I would expect to see that being reflected in local elections and the Euro election.
WRT UKIP, 6% in Devon is only 2% up on their 2001 figure, and 9% in Cornwall is 4.5% up on their 2001, so those figures would not in themselves explain such a big drop in the Conservative vote share.
Sean. I accept what you are saying. But we ask the questions the same as any other polling organisation. We weight them for age and gender the same. We filter the voting intention the same as others. I don\’t add an exotic weighting for \’quiet tories\’ or \’silent majorities\’ or any one else. My figures this time are considtent with October, with Labour going up and Libs going down in accordance with National polls. The figures are the figures - what can I say
I think people who are anti-war should be very careful before they predict that it will affect the votes of huge numbers of people. Do you know where is comes in the list of voting priorities - 10th! Behind health, education, crime, immigration, jobs, the economy……People forget that on those issues Labour are still doing rather well. The great British public still vote first on their pocket, second on their services and Iraq / other foreign policy issues will come some way down the line. I know that recent by-electon trends have been against Labour but as the old adage goes - the only vote that matters is a vote that counts. As far as Joe Bloggs voter is concerned by-elections, local elections, european elections etc are basically glorified opinion polls. The Conservatives quite happily lost them throughout the 80\’s without worrying too much. I\’m not saying Labour won\’t lose large numbers or seats or that the LD\’s won\’t gain large numbers of seats. What I am saying is that the only evidence to show it at the moment is \’creative\’.
Directly, it probably only affects the votes of 2-3% of the population. Indirectly, it reinforces doubts about the trustworthiness and competence of the government. However, unless our army takes massive casualties in Iraq, I don\’t see the issue destroying the government on its own.
I agree that the issues you list will be more significant. I would caution though that Health is the only issue on which Labour now holds a very big lead among the public. Among the other issues, Labour\’s lead is either small, or (eg crime, immigration) the Conservatives are in the lead.
“I’m sorry but the LD bias is running at an all time high here.” – Steve2
Hmmm… it does seem some people are getting a little over excited about LD prospects… that said there are a number of Labour seats that are vulnerable to the LDs, such as…
Durham City: Steinberg is retiring and LD control the council, but the majority is 10,000+ and the old mining villages are rock solid labour and have historically outvoted the city, that said those villages are sadly not what they once where and so their impact will be weaker than in the past but I expect Labour to hold the seat comfortably as they did the city council, despite the majority of Steinberg’s personal vote dissipating.
Islington South: Chris Smith is of course retiring [sheds tear…sniffle] and the LD have a very strong active team in the seat, that said I was surprised when I was there to also see a well organised and active local labour party, all those damn guardian types who have jumped ship I guess, so its far from a sure thing and with a 7,000 majority it will be tough for the LDs but as I say they more than capable of pulling it off, but Labour’s local party is very active.
Bristol West: Don’t know much about this seat, over the last few contests a three way marginal with a Labour majority of 4,400 majority, Bristol City Council is held by Labour over the LDs, I would have though being the wealthier bit of the city that Bristol West however has the greater number of LD and Tory councillors so that will be of great use to the LDs, while the other Labour MPs will no doubt pitch in I would expect the LDs to take the seat but as with Yardley it won’t be some automatic win, it will take plenty of hard work but I have no reason to think that the LDs won’t put in that hard work.
Cardiff Central: An urban seat with plenty of GMW and middle class voters which the LDs control very solidly from the perspective of local government so this is very probably a LD gain.
Oldham E & Saddleworth: A marginal Labour seat that the LDs would dearly like to take, I have no idea other than that, don’t know the council make up or anything about either of the party’s candidates or the general state of either party’s, no doubt with that kind of majority if targeted it could well swing to the LDs but to be fair I know nothing about the seat or the area.
Birmingham Yardley: Morris is stepping down and with her goes what personal vote she had built up and Hemmings is standing and while he has some baggage he also has a small personal following that will be useful, Labour will be content I would have thought to concentrate on beefing up Byrne’s majority in Hodge Hill, which he looks very like doing significantly, that said I would not expect anything astonishing in Yardley but a LD win is defiantly a probability but the degree of the win will be interesting to watch.
Cambridge: LDs hopes here are IMHO grossly overstated, the council while heavily under LD control also includes wards which are outside of the Cambridge City Constituency its self and so the confidence of some LDs is overstated, also the local MP is vocally anti war and a good campaigner with a solid campaign team behind her, never ever read much into the student vote IMHO, their lazy and useless and generally (with a few vocal expectations) completely apathetic, that said with the gleaming spires of Cambridge they are no doubt more active but not that much. Personally I think the Seat will stay Labour who’s 10,000+ majority will be hard, very hard, to surmount in just one contest and against an MP who will defend it fiercely.
Hornsey & Wood Green: Don’t know much about the seat, I have to admit that I have spoken with the proprietor of the old “feather brain” site about the seat and there will no doubt be plenty of mud thrown at the LD candidate who to be fair leaves her self wide open to, wouldn’t rule them out and despite my personal dislike of the candidate she has a fair chance but as with a number of these seats it is a 10,000+ majority, in a by-election sure but this is a general election! And Barbra Roche (another person I don’t have a great deal of time for) will no doubt hold the seat… but don’t forget that Mrs Featherstone does have literally oodles of cash to throw at this
, these days the LDs and the Conservatives battle for the role as challenger but the state of the Tory party north of the Fosse Way is such that they will probably be lucky if they stem the tactical votes of their own supporters going to the LDs however the seat has been held by Jim Cousins for a long time and he has built up a 10,000+ majority so barring a huge LD surge I think he’ll get back in however expect lots of Tory voters and GMW to swing to the LDs either because of tactical concerns or disgruntlement with the Labour government…but as with Durham a likely Labour hold despite the provability of plenty of LD attention.
as far as the new seats or even the existing seats and their relative marginality etc… are concerned.
Newcastle Central: Misleading name, the seat is not really that central but more western and traditionally was a marginal conservative seat, yep once upon a time there was such as thing as the conservative and unionist society this far north in fact it may shock you to know they once held Sheffield Hallam as a matter of course
…not all of these will fall to the LDs but the Labour seats that do switch to the LDs will come from this list, not counting Scotland where I know the square route of f*** all
Brent East and Leicester South will be interesting however I’d argue that Labour have a good chance of retaking Leicester South but it is far more doubtful that they will retake Brent East, although it will be close IMHO as a good campaign team is working there and there is a good and very active candidate.
As for Nottingham South, Norwich South, Watford and so on… NO. None of these will be anything but Labour, the potential for a Tory win in Watford is there but I doubt it unless there is a Conservative surge or a very strong LD vote which lets the Tories come through the middle. Nottingham South is held by Tony Benn’s protégé Alan Simpson and despite this he is a very decent guy and good local MP, even if politically I think of him as a little eccentric, but that’s by the by, Nottingham is run by a Labour council with a very healthy majority thanks lots of work maintaining it popularity through a program of regeneration add to this Simpson won his seat in 1992 from the Conservatives (who had won it in “83”), and now has a majority nearly 10,000 with the LDs in a very distant third so he’s going to be very solidly in place for some time to come. Norwich South however much some dislike Charles Clark Labours base on the predominantly white estates is very secure and his main challenge from the Left will probably come from the Greens who are very strong in Norwich and even more so on the UEA campus, the LDs will no doubt split any protest vote with an energetic challenge from a Green candidate who is a masters student at UEA but I’d expect the Tories to come second and Clark to no doubt maintain a majority less than his current 8,800 but still the right side of 5,000.
sorry that should have been … conservative and unionist party not society
there are other typos but who cares?
To 43 - the Tories put a huge amount of effort into Leicester South with teams of MPs coming in every day. This helped because their vote only slipped a very small amount on the 2001 General election.
I know the LDs were quite worried at one stsage about the stubborness of Tories in deciding not to switch to back a winner who could beat Labour.
Whilst we seem to be on a Lib Dem theme I thought I might give you my views on their Scottish Targets:
Inverness & Nairn: Notionally Labour have a majority of only around 1000. Despite this I reckon they might hold on as the local MP is extremely popular and Highland politics is very much centered on personality rather than party.
Aberdeen South: The new seat is a bit safer for Labour and they have a good MP in Anne Begg. It will be really close but I think Labour may sneak it despite the good Lib Dem result in 2003.
East Dumbartonshire: Best chance of a Liberal gain in Scotland. They are very strong locally and look to have a good candidate I reckon they will take this one.
Edinburgh South: I live in this constituency and have seen little Liberal Activity. Allthough I did get a \’Focus\’ newsletter with a dodgy bar chart displaying the result of the old constituency telling me that Edinburgh South is a \’Two-Horse\’ race despite the new boundaries making it a three way fight(how do the Lib Dem\’s get away with this overt dishonesty)? Tories have a good candidate who has been active locally and could pull off a win. To be honest though anything would be better than Nigel Griffiths.
As for any further advances I can\’t really see it. They didn\’t make the forecasted sweeping gains in 2003 and actually fell back behind the Tories. They also have a tiny membership which will prevent them from campaigning strongly in much of Scotland. At best they can hope to add one or two seats.
[img] http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/genusmap.php?year=2004&ev_c=1&ev_p=1&AL=2;9;5&AK=1;3;5&AZ=1;10;5&AR=1;6;5&CA=1;55;5&CO=1;9;5&CT=1;7;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;5&FL=1;27;5&GA=1;15;5&HI=1;4;5&ID=1;4;5&IL=1;21;5&IN=1;11;5&IA=1;7;5&KS=1;6;5&KY=1;8;5&LA=1;9;5&MD=1;10;5&MA=1;12;5&MI=1;17;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=1;11;5&MT=1;3;5&NV=1;5;5&NH=1;4;5&NJ=1;15;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;31;5&NC=1;15;5&ND=1;3;5&OH=1;20;5&OK=1;7;5&OR=1;7;5&PA=1;21;5&RI=1;4;5&SC=1;8;5&SD=1;3;5&TN=1;11;5&TX=1;34;5&UT=2;5;5&VT=1;3;5&VA=1;13;5&WA=1;11;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=1;10;5&WY=1;3;5&ME=1;2;5&ME1=1;1;5&ME2=1;1;5&NE=1;2;5&NE1=1;1;5&NE2=1;1;5&NE3=1;1;5 [/img]
Evan Bayh/ Bill Richardson (DEM) : 518 EV
Roy Moore/ Alan Keyes : 20 EV
Hmm… I’ll drink to that, oh the coattails
BlueDog after BlueDog, it would be the remaking of the Democratic Party… ah well I can dream.
Sorry… that was somthing completly differant, could you delete it Mike this was what i meant to post…
Mike, true the conservatives did put a great deal of effort into Leicester South, their literature was also by far the best produced our own by far the worst
That said Gill is a poor MP, sorry to be blunt and no doubt a few folks will hammer me for that but unlike Teather he is both invisible within the constituency and the only mentions he gets in the press are usually negative.
Also the Conservatives within Leicester are working very hard at undermining the old liberal strongholds in the more prosperous areas of the city such as Knighton while solidifying their hold in areas such as Evington and Ayleston (never understood why Ayleston was so conservative really… but there we go, turnout I guess).
The Labour Party is also, despite the who-har over taking control of council actually do ok, the press the new council has generated has almost all been good and operations in Leicester South continue to do well.
It won’t be a walk over and the contest will be tough but the situation looks quite positive.
On the subject of why Graham\’s polling might be finding higher Labour votes than 2001 in the south western region, may I suggest that this is because (as I have written in a couple of previous comments) you find people answering on the basis of national preferences until quite shortly before the election. There is undoubtedly a large Labour tactical vote for the LDs in the West, so this may well be a case of the famous \’unwind\’, which will probably be wound again at the General Election itself!
By the way, I would be interested to know if the suggestion that there will be an unwind of Lib Dem preference for Labour over the Conservatives is anything more than speculation or wishful thinking. We heard about this expected effect before the last election, but the academic studies showed that tactical voting actually slightly increased between 1997 and 2001. Any formula assuming a tactical unwind should therefore be adopted with caution. I would expect the next election to show a rather uniform swing pattern, as usual.
On individual seats, unlike polling, I am still very much \’in the business\’ (declare interest, The Almanac of British Politics, Routledge, 7th ed 2002, co-authored with Byron Criddle).
I would think the LD best chances of gains from Labour are: Cardiff Central, Birmingham Yardley, Oldham East/Saddleworth, Aberdeen South, Dunbartons E, Edinburgh South, Oxford East and perhaps Bristol West, Cambridge and Falmouth and Camborne. My guess would be achievement of about half of these, ie about four or five in all. There may be some gains from the Conservatives but I would also expect Tory regains in seats like Guildford, Cheadle, Devon West/Torridge,…local LD contacts tell me they were expecting tighter contets than last time in Devon N and Southport … overall there may be little in the way of an LD advance and I have just sold substantially at 70 - although I should say that this is partly a hedge as I would be happy to see the party get a higher figure, not because of political preference but because I do well out of, and enjoy, parliaments which are closer to being hung!
I\’m not sure that explanation really helps Robert. If the seemingly large Labour vote is due to go back to the Lib Dems once people \’remember\’ about tactical voting, that still doesn\’t address the issue of why the Tories are doing so seemingly badly in the SW, in defiance of the national polls. If they are doing badly (relative to 2001) in places like the SW where one would have thought if anything they should be doing well, and they are doing badly as expected in places like the North and inner cities, it does beg the question of where on earth they doing so fantastically well that they are staying above 30% in the polls?
Point taken, Alex. I would have thought that the location of the UKIP vote is relevant; the European elections suggested that the South West is one of their stronger areas, as do Graham\’s polls, I believe. Local election evidence seems to suggest a recovery in the Home Counties and South East (the most populous region by some way; remember that fewer than 10% of seats are in the SW).
And who says they are doing fantastically well in the national polls?
Robert, Oxford East will not go LibDem ditto Nottingham South, Norwich South and Woking IMHO.
And Robert - how do you explain the Populus poll a couple of months ago in Thanet South - Jonathan Aitken\’s old seat who, of course, has since been in prison and was wanting to stand there for UKIP.
This had the following with comparisons to the vote shares at the ‘01 GE.
LAB 31 (-14.7) CON 30 (-11.1), LD 18 (+8.6), UKIP 16 (+14.1), OTH 5 (+2.5)
Not only does this show the impact of UKIP if Aitken had stood it shows a huge revival - back to 1992 levels for the LDs. The tactical voting LDs who went with Labour to get rid of Aitken are there in the poll going back to their normal allegiance.
This is the best evidence for tactical vote unwind and shows the impact.
I don\’t think anyone is suggesting that the Tories are doing fantastically well in the national polls
Living in Oxford I agree with Ben about Oxford East. The LDs will get a good result but no more.
He\’s answered that Mike. People don\’t decide to vote tactically until they \’remember\’ (usually after a great deal of prompting by whichever party will benefit) about it shortly before the election.
Of course it could be a double edged sword for Labour next election. \’Reminding\’ people about tactical voting in Lab/Con seats might have the opposite of the desired effect.
Every so often the LD\’s commentators/supporters on the site seem to have a voting frenzy trying to outdo each other in the number of seats the LD\’s will take at the GE.
May I remind you of what some of the same commentators said on the 2/11/04
\”clearly points to a Kerry win - or is this wishful thinking\”
\”..Kerry will win…what more proof do you need\”
\”I predict a Kerry win\”
\”..signs are encouraging(for a Kerry win)\”
\”stellar turnout bodes well for the dems\”
\”its reasonably conceivable for Kerry to sweep the midwest\”
\”the only real diaster is if he wins Florida and Ohio and still loses which seems very unlikely\”
Some of the above comments 1-71 seems based on what the commentator would like to happen - have you forgotten the Euro results?- LD\’s in 4th place-fickle people voters.
Vino - it was not just here that people were being bullish about Kerry on the evening of November 2nd. For me I got out of my long Kerry position by laying the Democrat at 2/5 late in the evening when the first exist polls were coming out. I ended up losing nothing.
As to the LDs on June 10 - they came second in the local elections held at the same time on the same day with Labour coming third - the first time a governing party had ended in such a position. The Euro result was CON 26.7: LAB 22.6: UKIP 16.1: LIBD 14.9: GRN 6.3. Of the three main parties the LDs was the only one to increase its share. Needless to say that Populus had Labour at 25-26% and YouGov at 24% - yet further cases of Labour over-statement in the polls.
Re Robert Waller: As I think I have said before, the Lib Dems can win seats with huge swings if the organisation on the ground is good. Even in safe seats, the Lib Dems have lost seats because of an awful local campaign. Unlike the very national campaigns of the other parties, the Lib Dems can vary greatly.
I take issue with Cheadle- I may be wrong but I think that Patsy Calton is very hard working, and has a high profile- I believe she has knocked on every door in the constituency since 2001. That\’s quite an achievement.
Also Guildford has a good MP.
Torridge could go- change of MP. Apparently John Burnett is quite a rebel on Europe, and is basically seen as an independent. I read a report on the 2001 campaign- people said they were voting for John Burnett, not the Lib Dems.
I think the Lib Dems are looking at 65-70 seats.
And back to the Euro Election that Vino raised - for every TEN people that Populus said would vote Labour NINE actually did do.
AND for every NINE people that YouGov said would vote Lib Dem TEN actually did do.
Mike - As you have said previously beware people spinning and using one set of polls to justify their views(its good fun though)
On 10/6 LD\’s lost control of 4 councils whilst Tories gained 13 - depends how you want to spin.
What you cannot deny is in the Euro elections 16,500,000 people voted with under 2,500,00 voting LD who finished in fourth place.
I have no allegiance to any party - being a not typical floating voter.
Mike, I have referred to that Thanet South poll before. As I said, I have taken many constituency polls, and you absolutely cannot use them as evidence of tactical unwind yet. In a series in Cheltenham in 1987, for example, Harris had Labour at 20-25 % until a couple of weeks before the poll - then, down to under 10% as respondents switched to Richard Holme for the Liberals. In fact, with the anomalous (and now defunct) suggestion of an Aitken candidature I felt then and still do that that poll showed precisely nothing.
On Oxford East, thanks to your correspondents, who are not disagreeing with my assessment. I did say my guess was that only half of my list would fall, and it was in the second half. I believe Andrew Smith will win again.
This is not good news for the Liberal Democrats. I have recently done some research (not published yet) which suggests that the LDs have their best chance of advancing at Labour\’s expense in seats with a high academic and professional presence, partly due to opposition to the Iraq war. This would affect seats such as Oxford East, Cambridge, Norwich South and Bristol West, as well as Islington South/Finsbury and Hornsey/Wood Green - the MOSAIC \’urban intelligence\’ group, to use Experian\’s categorisation. If they are not going to win these from Labour, I would suggest they\’ll gain very few on that front.
There is less chance of LD success in more working class Labour constituencies such as those in Newcastle upon Tyne, or Rochdale.
I would be very interested to hear from this well-informed forum of which Conservative seats are believed to be most vulnerable to the Lib Dems and why. I accept that some will be picked up - they always are, the Norfolk North factor, and I can\’t always wheedle the best tips out of Chris Rennard!
I\’ve been wondering. Is there any historical case of a party losing a bye-election then winning the seat in the following general election. With only 500-odd votes to be gained, and a big respect vote, is there a chance of Birmignham Hodge Hill changing hands in the GE?
I\’m not sure there is, but id be interested to know if anyone is aware of any historical prescedent.
Mike - I feel that you (and other LD commentors)fail to understand the reasons why people vote UKIP.Europe has not much to do with it.Kilroy-Silk has every thing to do with it.He represents views that a lot of people agree with in particular on crime and immigration.
If K-S becomes leader UKIP will poll 18%-20% - if not UKIP will poll 2%-5%.
Thanet South - Aitken was considered to be one of K-S \”boys\” at the time of the poll hence the 16% - now he would only poll at most 5%.
How many seats can the LibDems really win from Labour?
In my GE prediction last week I said 5. Perhaps looking at it in more detail that was a little low, but I\’m struggling to get to the figures the LibDems on here are talking about.
There are 4 obvious targets in England and Wales which only require a \”normal\” swing (Cardiff C, Oldham E/S,Bristol W and Bham Yardley). By normal swing I mean 5% or less. In practice parties seldom get all their obvious targets. Something goes wrong somewhere. Those seats were after all LibDem targets last time too and Labour extended their lead in 3 of the 4. But for the sake of argument say all those 4 go to the LibDems.
Go on down the list and Rochdale needs a 7.2% swing, Cambridge 10.1%, Blaydon 11.6%, Hornsey/Wd Gn 12.1%, Islington S 12.9%, Oxford E 13.0%. The LibDems are capable of winning them but already you are at the level of swing needed where you cant take it as a given. They\’ll have to work hard for their victories and, whatever the pre-match rhetoric, would be delighted to win 3 of the 6.
But where are the others? As has been said the problem for the LibDems is that they are so far behind Labour in many of the inner-city seats that have been mentioned. I have every respect for LibDem targetting but it is asking a lot (too much IMO) for them to get swings of 16%, 17%, 18% in a string of seats. 17% is a massive swing in any election - at the top end of the swings Labour achieved against the Conservatives in 1997. You would need a lot of factors all to come together at the same time. I\’m sure the LibDems will improve their position in those seats but I have not yet heard any reason to think they will sweep the board in them. To get 14 extra LibDem gains from Labour as per Mikes formula the LibDems need an AVERAGE swing of over 17% across the \”new targets\” like Manchester Withington, etc, etc.
Then there is a small group of special cases where the LibDems did well in the Euros and hope to come through from 3rd place like Watford and Pendle which are impossible to call, but I would argue that a LibDem surge at the expense of Labour would be most likely to result in a Conservative victory.
Some interesting comments here (and nice to see some partisan comments from non-Lib Dems other than Ben and Sean!).
It seems to me that once again the thread has turned into a discussion of potential Lib Dem gains from Labour.
My view is simple - there is no point in talking about swings or percentage majorities - you need to look at actual votes. There\’s been a number of posters saying Labour majorities in these seats are 20+% - which is right. But the numerical majorities are often smaller than more \’marginal\’ Lib Dem/Tory seats due to much lower turnouts. When general election turnouts are in the late 30s and early 40s% then votes cast at a local election become a much better indicator of the general election result.
For what it\’s worth my analysis (based on some local knowledge and mainly hunch) of likely Lib Dem gains at the next election are as follows:
Certainties
Watford
Hornsey and Wood Green
Brent South
Cardiff Central
Birmingham Yardley
Possibles (ie about half of these will come in)
East Dunbartonshire
Aberdeen South
Cambridge
Bristol West
Rochdale
Leicester South
Blaydon (the most winnable Lib Dem seat in the NE)
Inverness etc
Cambridge
Islington South
Longshots (ie one or two of these will come in)
Hull North
Leeds NW
Manchester Withington
Liverpool Something
Norwich South
Newcastle Central
City of Durham
Islington North
Sheffield Something
Seats where the Lib Dems will crash and burn
Edinburgh South (poor Lib Dem candidate)
Oldham E and Saddleworth (poor Lib Dem candidate)
I\’m sure there are others in the long shot catgory which will all be based on low turnouts and high Lib Dem activity. In my view there are a mximum of 10 Lib Dem gains from Labour. Anything above five is a good result for them.
They will also lose some seats to the Tories (and gain some) - my view at the moment is that it will be pretty evens, but the Lib Dems winning a handful more than they will lose, but that will depend on the relative strengths of the parties on polling day not now.
Apart from Weston super Mare it\’s difficult to see certain Tory gains from Lib Dems but I suspect they will swap a hadful of seats in the west Country like last time. The interesting test of Tory progress will be if they make inroads in the truly suburban seats like Cheadle, Guildford, Hazel Grove, Eastleigh, Romsey, Colchester etc.
I\’m not convinced that the Tories are likely to win more than a couple of these sort of seats - local by-elections don\’t suggest they are making the sort of inroads into Lib Dem votes that will see large scale victories in this sort of seat.
Dan, while I have little feel for how these things are playing out on the ground there are a couple of predictions of yours that just make my mind boggle.
How can Watford and Brent South(!) be certainties. Watford may be a possibility, but the LibDems will likely suffer there (as in Oxford and Norwich) from a strong Green vote, splitting the anti-war/anyone but the big two vote.
Boateng received 73.3% in Brent South in 2001. By any standards it would be a phenomenal upset were he to lose it.
Islington North, I know you\’ve only placed as a longshot, but Corbyn is a very popular local MP, and unlike it\’s neighbours in Hornsey and Islington S, doesn\’t have that many GMW voters. I can\’t conceive of that falling either.
Not to say it wouldn\’t be fantastic were you to be right, but there does seem to be a lot of wishful thinking involved.
I take the point about votes not percentages but surely that applies to the challenger too. The LibDem vote totals in the recent by-elections were, IIRC, a lot less than in the Romsey by-election for example.
thomasj - I cant think of a by-election near-miss that has turned into a GE victory in recent years, but doubtless someone will correct me!
Robert - I think there are still LibDem gains to be had from the Conservatives, places like Bournemouth East or Wantage where the Cons held on in 97 with a bare 40% of the vote but where the opposition was split.
Kit - look at every local election in Watford since Dorothy Thornhill won the elected mayorality - the Greens are irrelevant (as are every other party than the Mayor\’s). The fact that the Tories have selected an Asian candidate is irrelevant (and probably unhelpful to their cause in this particular seat) - sorry Max.
Did I say Brent South - I mean of course East - unlike Ben I am entirely confident that Sarah Teather will win (in GE terms). The London/Euro elections suggested a big Lib Dem vote in her patch.
You may well be right about Corbyn - but Islington North is by far the most middle clas (and Guardian reading) part of the borough - I can\’t see him losing partly for that reason - but there are now just nine Labour councillors in the whole of Islington - an electoral and organisational fact that can\’t be denied (even by Ben).
There is Chesterfield (a bit delayed)…
Villan -84 - you seem to imply that if a Tory has less than 50% of the vote then a tactical squeeze is all that\’s necessary to dislodge them.If winning seats were only that simple.
Following up on Ben´s assessment of the prospects of Lib Dem gains from Labour, I would be more impressed by his judgement if there were either more empirical data (recognising that there sometimes is a bit) or alternatively some theoretical backing (I think never).
Taking as an example the case of Bristol West, this is traditionaly a Tory seat where the Lib Dems/Liberals come second. It therefore came as a surprise when in 1997 the Labour candidate not only overtook the Lib Dems, but actually took the seat.
At the last election in 2001, the Lib Dems regained second place, relegating the Tories to third place - this, despite the urging of the Tactical Voting campaign.
At the last local elections, in 2003, of the eleven wards in the Bristol West constituency, the Tories took two seats and the Lib Dems the other nine, including seats in the two wards which are now shared with Labour. Current distribution of councillors in Bristol West (if I have calculated correctly) is: Labour 2, Tory 4, Lib Dem 16.
This seems to indicate that the Lib Dem organisation is in good shape, while the Labour and Tory organisations are a bit ramshackle.
Despie ben´s assertions, Bristol City Council is currently No Overall Control, after years of Labour domination - can anybody remember since when?
But the Lib Dem gained wards in other Bristol constituencies as well. I doubt very much that the defending Labour MPs in Bristol East and Bristol South (!!!) will feel greatly inclined to divert much in the way of resources to helping out in Bristol West.
So Ben´s doubts about the strength of the Lib Dem challenge in Bristol West (and indeed Dan´s) seem - unless something strange happens - to be somewhat misplaced. Nothing is certain, of course, but I would certainly rate it much higher for the Lib Dems than a 50-50 chance.
Robert,
Potential LibDem gains from the Tories:
Probables:
Haltemprice & Howden
Isle of Wight
Maidenhead
Orpington
Surrey SW
Taunton
Wells
Westmoreland & Lonsdale
Potentials:
Dorset West
Totnes
Westbury
Wiltshire North
Longshots:
Bournemouth East
Devon East
Dorset North
Eastbourne
Folkestone & Hythe
Harborough
Mid Sussex
New Forest East
Norfolk South
Ryedale
Salisbury
Tiverton & Honiton
Woking
Wokingham
Worcestershire West
As you can see I think that the LibDems will takeabout the same number of seats from Labour as they will from the Tories.
In terms of Tory gains from the LibDems
Weston
Newbury
Cornwall SE
Devon East
Hereford
I can\’t see the suburban recovery they need except potentially in Richmond ( though Cheadle is ofcourse vulnerable - but I don\’t know what Patsy Calton\’s profile is really like localy though I\’m told she is a very stong campaigner.)
Kramer seems like a candidate with pretty good middle class appeal in Richmond - I would think that\’s a LD hold.
Dan (point 81) I think you mean Brent East not Brent South Boetang is not going to lose anything… also Hornsey and Wood Green is far from a certainty with a 10,000+ majority and a LD candidate who’s only advantage seems to be oodles of cash the LDs are a long way from taking the seat and while I’d say its possible I doubt it and the idea of Watford as a certainty is just silly. Back to Brent East having been speaking with the Labour team assigned to the area it will be very very close and again calling it a certainty is very premature indeed.
Some of you long shots are just beyond credulity… Hull North! Sheffield anything! (save Hallem) Norwich South! Any seat in Liverpool, Leeds or Manchester! Not one will go LD the only possibilities from the longshot list are Durham and Newcastle but even there I’ve already argued why Labour will no doubt hold both… and for the record I’ll repost my thoughts on these seats…
Durham City: Steinberg is retiring and LD control the council, but the majority is 10,000+ and the old mining villages are rock solid labour and have historically outvoted the city, that said those villages are sadly not what they once where and so their impact will be weaker than in the past but I expect Labour to hold the seat comfortably as they did the city council, despite the majority of Steinberg’s personal vote dissipating.
Islington South: Chris Smith is of course retiring [sheds tear…sniffle] and the LD have a very strong active team in the seat, that said I was surprised when I was there to also see a well organised and active local labour party, all those damn guardian types who have jumped ship I guess, so its far from a sure thing and with a 7,000 majority it will be tough for the LDs but as I say they more than capable of pulling it off, but Labour’s local party is very active.
Bristol West: Don’t know much about this seat, over the last few contests a three way marginal with a Labour majority of 4,400 majority, Bristol City Council is held by Labour over the LDs, I would have though being the wealthier bit of the city that Bristol West however has the greater number of LD and Tory councillors so that will be of great use to the LDs, while the other Labour MPs will no doubt pitch in I would expect the LDs to take the seat but as with Yardley it won’t be some automatic win, it will take plenty of hard work but I have no reason to think that the LDs won’t put in that hard work.
Cardiff Central: An urban seat with plenty of GMW and middle class voters which the LDs control very solidly from the perspective of local government so this is very probably a LD gain.
Oldham E & Saddleworth: A marginal Labour seat that the LDs would dearly like to take, I have no idea other than that, don’t know the council make up or anything about either of the party’s candidates or the general state of either party’s, no doubt with that kind of majority if targeted it could well swing to the LDs but to be fair I know nothing about the seat or the area.
Birmingham Yardley: Morris is stepping down and with her goes what personal vote she had built up and Hemmings is standing and while he has some baggage he also has a small personal following that will be useful, Labour will be content I would have thought to concentrate on beefing up Byrne’s majority in Hodge Hill, which he looks very like doing significantly, that said I would not expect anything astonishing in Yardley but a LD win is defiantly a probability but the degree of the win will be interesting to watch.
Cambridge: LDs hopes here are IMHO grossly overstated, the council while heavily under LD control also includes wards which are outside of the Cambridge City Constituency its self and so the confidence of some LDs is overstated, also the local MP is vocally anti war and a good campaigner with a solid campaign team behind her, never ever read much into the student vote IMHO, their lazy and useless and generally (with a few vocal expectations) completely apathetic, that said with the gleaming spires of Cambridge they are no doubt more active but not that much. Personally I think the Seat will stay Labour who’s 10,000+ majority will be hard, very hard, to surmount in just one contest and against an MP who will defend it fiercely.
Hornsey & Wood Green: Don’t know much about the seat, I have to admit that I have spoken with the proprietor of the old “feather brain” site about the seat and there will no doubt be plenty of mud thrown at the LD candidate who to be fair leaves her self wide open to, wouldn’t rule them out and despite my personal dislike of the candidate she has a fair chance but as with a number of these seats it is a 10,000+ majority, in a by-election sure but this is a general election! And Barbra Roche (another person I don’t have a great deal of time for) will no doubt hold the seat… but don’t forget that Mrs Featherstone does have literally oodles of cash to throw at this
Newcastle Central: Misleading name, the seat is not really that central but more western and traditionally was a marginal conservative seat, yep once upon a time there was such as thing as the conservative and unionist party this far north in fact it may shock you to know they once held Sheffield Hallam as a matter of course , these days the LDs and the Conservatives battle for the role as challenger but the state of the Tory party north of the Fosse Way is such that they will probably be lucky if they stem the tactical votes of their own supporters going to the LDs however the seat has been held by Jim Cousins for a long time and he has built up a 10,000+ majority so barring a huge LD surge I think he’ll get back in however expect lots of Tory voters and GMW to swing to the LDs either because of tactical concerns or disgruntlement with the Labour government…but as with Durham a likely Labour hold despite the provability of plenty of LD attention.
…not all of these will fall to the LDs but the Labour seats that do switch to the LDs will come from this list, not counting Scotland where I know the square route of f*** all as far as the new seats or even the existing seats and their relative marginality etc… are concerned.
Brent East and Leicester South will be interesting however I’d argue that Labour have a good chance of retaking Leicester South but it is far more doubtful that they will retake Brent East, although it will be close IMHO as a good campaign team is working there and there is a good and very active candidate.
As for Nottingham South, Norwich South, Watford and so on… NO. None of these will be anything but Labour, the potential for a Tory win in Watford is there but I doubt it unless there is a Conservative surge or a very strong LD vote which lets the Tories come through the middle. Nottingham South is held by Tony Benn’s protégé Alan Simpson and despite this he is a very decent guy and good local MP, even if politically I think of him as a little eccentric, but that’s by the by, Nottingham is run by a Labour council with a very healthy majority thanks lots of work maintaining it popularity through a program of regeneration add to this Simpson won his seat in 1992 from the Conservatives (who had won it in “83”), and now has a majority nearly 10,000 with the LDs in a very distant third so he’s going to be very solidly in place for some time to come. Norwich South however much some dislike Charles Clark Labours base on the predominantly white estates is very secure and his main challenge from the Left will probably come from the Greens who are very strong in Norwich and even more so on the UEA campus, the LDs will no doubt split any protest vote with an energetic challenge from a Green candidate who is a masters student at UEA but I’d expect the Tories to come second and Clark to no doubt maintain a majority less than his current 8,800 but still the right side of 5,000.
…some of the scenarios some LDs are rosy to say the least bordering on the fantastical, it seems that some folks are just interested in try to convince everyone that a vast swath of Labour strongholds are destined to fall to a the LDs, no matter what the facts.
John, I think Bristol West will fall to the LDs but nothing is automatic and it will take hard work I don’t doubt that will be forthcoming ditto Brum Yardley… the Labour Partys in the seat won’t just let the seats fall there will actually be a campaign that is all I am saying, despite this I would be surprised where Yardley, Bristol West and Cardiff central not to fall to the LDs and I would also be surprised if more than 3 other seats fell to the LDs the openings are just not there… I’m getting the sense that on the morning of the 6th May 2005 there are going to be a lot of disappointed posters on this board if this is the state of their optimism.
Ben,
Most of your seat list is reasonable but your wrong about Hornsey - the LD candidate is very strong - she is personally responsible for reveving a morbund local party, yes injecting cash but also with an incredible populist political ear which has seen her group make massive gains on the Council.
She jumped from a very poor 3rd place last time on a 13% swing - there\’s still a nig Lab majority as you say but with a Tory collapse, a large GMW vote, and a good ethniic mix - I predict she will cause the big LD upset on the night.
In Cambridge again the key is NOT the Council but the last GE performance when the party leapfrogged the Tories - Cambridge is a perfect seat for tactical voting - with Labour having alienated so much of the academic & GMW vote - this will be very close either way but I again think the LDs will pick it up
Hornsey and Wood Green is a place I wouldn’t mind if both the LD and the Labour candidate lost… expect that would mean a Tory win
as I say its possible but I’m not an expert on the seat I think Labour will hold onto it, but as you say a big upset is possible.
Cambridge I am pretty sure will stay Labour, but the Labour majority is going to be way down from the 10,000+ of 2001, tactical voting by Tories will be interesting to see.
I\’ve been away from the site - been a lot of interesting stuff in the last few hours. I\’d like to correct the poster who criticised my comment about \”The only real disaster being if Kerry won Ohio and Florida and then lost.\” That statement was talking about a soft arbitrage trade and was in fact proven completely correct - if Kerry had won both these states he would have been president and my bet would have made a profit, as it did in all other possibly scenarios. This is a site about betting after all. You should have read it carefully before jumping to conclusions.
Yes Jon - I remember discussing that with you on election night and you were quite right.
OTOH, I think I was the person who made the comment about stellar turnout. I was wrong, but I\’m not an LD commentator!
I am very sceptical of tactical voting by Tories in the Lib Dems favour we didn\’t really see it in the by-elections so I can\’t see it happening in the general election to any degree.
A few thoughts on the West Country seats - Weston does seem ropy for the LDs though I have no idea what the support for the MP is like. There is poison seeping out of Torbay as the LD council embarks on a programme of political suicide. This affects Torbay though Adrian Sanders is popular, Teignbridge where LD faces a slightly odd Tory candidate who replaces another Tory who fell out with the Devon party, and Totnes.
Devon East is among the safest Tory seats in the country. It used to have a MRL councillor until he accepted the inevitable and joined the Tories. Its MP visits Devon to ride with the Mid-Devon Hunt more than he does to visit his constituents - and he will still be re-elected. If the LibDems were to take this the Tories would be reduced to less than 50 seats.
Tiverton and Honiton has a very active LD candidate - he could cut the majority of Angela Browing or possibly win though there has been a slaughter of LD councillors in recent years. This seat is mainly the \”rural poor\” and probably will be LD one day.
Devon W and Torridge - there is comfortable anti-EU majority here. John Burnett is a very conservative Liberal and makes much of his rural views and Euroscepticism. His replacement is a LD Europhile who is extremely impressive, far better than most of the LD candidates described here as being good. It won\’t matter and barring a major shock he will lose if the Tories do it right.
Cornwall. All LD holds and a substantial chance of gaining the mining seat with a far better candidate and help from other parts of Cornwall.
West Dorset - a poor LD performance in council elections makes this an uphill fight. If Letwin goes I expect May and Davies will be long gone.
There was a comment on one of yesterday\’s threads about LD bias. I think that is unfair - a lot of LDs (self included) contribute to this site but its clear its their opinon. We\’ve had a lot about potential LD gains (and losses :)) - would any of our regular \”big party\” contributors want to share their thoughts on Tory gains form Labour/LDs, or even Labour gains from Tories? IIRC Labour are targetting some of the Tory marginals.
SC - what\’s MRL please?
Monster Raving Loony (took me a while!)
In my opinion the Lib Dems will find it difficult to win Orpington.
Their best chance was in 2001 when the Conservatives were more worried about losing next-door Beckenham to Labour (their majority there was just 1,200 and the national polls wrongly suggested an even better performance for Labour than in 1997). As a result the Conservative campaign in Orpington was ha