Tory lead drops to 5%...... Hung parliament?

chucky

Pete111 wrote: »

Really? People are genuinely p*ssed off with Labour and this time the Tories offer a realistic alternative (unlike the last few times)

most definitely but they're not too impressed with the Tory option that has been provided. it's pretty reasonable to think that if the Tories had any substance about them they should be wiping the floor with Brown and Co.

unfortunately i don't think they have it in them or or maybe just maybe people aren't that p*ssed off enough (yet) with labour to force themselves to vote tory

ninky_2

did anyone else see the article on george osborne in the standard recently. i almost puked in the tube carriage.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809744-the-liberal-lives-of-the-teflon-osborne-family.do

Sir_Humphrey

ninky wrote: »

did anyone else see the article on george osborne in the standard recently. i almost puked in the tube carriage.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809744-the-liberal-lives-of-the-teflon-osborne-family.do

If Osborne was a popular figure with newspaper hacks, that story would not have appeared in the papers. [EDIT: to clarify the story the link refers to]

I have a fairly good political grapevine. From what I have heard (independent of what I read in the papers) Gordon Brown shouts at his staff, Brian Mawhinney I have yet to hear a good word about, Alistair Darling is a nice chap and George Osborne is pretty obnoxious and not up to the job. Please note moderators that this is what I have heard - I do not vouch for their truth!

I could go on, but English libel laws prevent me from report some things which I am confident are true but which I could not make stand up in court!

blueboy43

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Well....

1. The Tories do need to win a record number of seats for a majority of 1
2. Their vote is spread thinly - which is why a uniform national swing sees them short of a majority even with a 7% or so poll lead
3. The Tory poll lead is collapsing - 45% lower than it was a month ago. The questions asked in these polls show people's belief in their competence is also sliding
4. There are 656 seperate elections all on the same day, which means the national number of votes cast is irrelevant
5. Cameron has wedded himself to first past the post despite the bias against them it produces

I'm struggling - which of the above is 100% wrong? Specifically

2 contradicts with 4.

My gut feeling is that the Uniform National Swing will be less relevant. The Tories have spent about 2 years focusing all their efforts on the top 100 marginal seats.
They have miles more money & even the Guardian is sticking the knife into Brown.
Obviously I would expect Sky news to heavily favour the tories as well.

Living in a Labour / Lib Dem marginal it is noticable how motivated the challenging Lib Dems are compared with the complacent local Labour party. I appreciate that the Libs Dems can be very effective in individual seats but if the Tories can do anything similar they will win most of those marginals.

blueboy43

chucky wrote: »

unfortunately the turn out of voters will be very low - I wouldn't be surprised if it was all time low

this probably doesn't suit the tories

Traditionally a low turn out did suit the Tories. How motivated can Labour voters be ?

I have always voter Labour in GE's. Just could not do it this time for many reasons.

Kohoutek

It's obvious Osborne will not go before the election because Cameron just wants a sidekick, not an experienced politician that would potentially stand up to him. Apparently if Brown wins this election he will replace Darling with Ed Balls (like Brown, another advocate of profligate, tax and spend government) so maybe even with Osborne as Chancellor the alternative is worse.

It's a shame David Davis didn't win the leadership election. The Tories took the easy option by electing an Tony Blair lookalike. Davis' combination of a working class background and sensible right-wing policies would do well in this election and take away the 'toff' card from Labour.

torontoboy45

ninky wrote: »

did anyone else see the article on george osborne in the standard recently. i almost puked in the tube carriage.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809744-the-liberal-lives-of-the-teflon-osborne-family.do

puke you should. what a nauseating little article. well worthy of a OBN.
as disgusted as I am with nu-lab I'll never bring myself to vote tory while this rabble control the party.

some time back will self wrote a half-decent article about the state of the con party in which he decried the arrogance of the bullingdon boy inner circle and denounced the 'entitlement' of power mindset at the top of the party.

should they win ,it'll be more of the same: influential positions parcelled out to their good friends with open cheque books.
and The Man Who Bought The Conservative Party - our old non-dom mate lord ashcroft - will be first in line.

so all I can do is study the form of the minority parties.

Charterhouse

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Well....

1. The Tories do need to win a record number of seats for a majority of 1
2. Their vote is spread thinly - which is why a uniform national swing sees them short of a majority even with a 7% or so poll lead
3. The Tory poll lead is collapsing - 45% lower than it was a month ago. The questions asked in these polls show people's belief in their competence is also sliding
4. There are 656 seperate elections all on the same day, which means the national number of votes cast is irrelevant
5. Cameron has wedded himself to first past the post despite the bias against them it produces

I'm struggling - which of the above is 100% wrong? Specifically

1. Is irrelevant - a majority is a majority. Some pollsters think they will still achieve a landslide of Blair-esque proportions. I disagree, but we shall see.
2. Also irrelevant if the swing in the marginals is well in excess of the national swing as many pollsters and surveys have shown. The national swing and those stupid uniform swingometers really do not tell the tale - the national swing is actually relatively small - it has probably been zero in Scotland but that does not matter to the Tories.
3. Not really, just the weighted numbers have collapsed. The actual underlying numbers (the REAL numbers) haven't shifted by as much.
4. Yeah, it's called an election....
5. There isn't really that much of a bias. It's way overblown. The polls tend to overfavour Labour by far more than the actual election does.

Don't get me wrong, we are getting closer to Hung Parliament territory, but with what is likely to be a low turnout, my money is still on the Tories surprising.

aelitaman

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If Osborne was a popular figure with newspaper hacks, that story would not have appeared in the papers.

I have a fairly good political grapevine. From what I have heard (independent of what I read in the papers) Gordon Brown shouts at his staff, Brian Mawhinney I have yet to hear a good word about, Alistair Darling is a nice chap and George Osborne is pretty obnoxious and not up to the job. Please note moderators that this is what I have heard - I do not vouch for their truth!

I could go on, but English libel laws prevent me from report some things which I am confident are true but which I could not make stand up in court!

Sir Micheal White, lover of all things Nu Labour, thinks George Osbourne is a throughly nice chap and up to the job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/feb/26/michael-white-in-defence-of-george-osborne

Sir_Humphrey

aelitaman wrote: »

Sir Micheal White, lover of all things Nu Labour, thinks George Osbourne is a throughly nice chap and up to the job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/feb/26/michael-white-in-defence-of-george-osborne

The "obnoxious/not up to the job" is what my source tells me is what a lot of Tories think of him.

You forget; in politics your worst enemies are on your own side!

I also hear that the Tories have been soiling themselves over the Gordon Brown interview with Piers "Morgan" Moron, and are not very happy with how 2010 is going.

Disclaimer; the above paragraph is from a reliable, but uncorroborated source - I am not Andrew Rawnsley! LOL