Comments on: +++ Exclusive general election prediction: too close to call

By: steven baker

steven baker — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:09:04 +0000

Some interesting scenarios have been suggested and predicted based on polls. But if the Liberal Democrats perform well in many of the new seats where the previous sitting member was implicated in the expenses scandal then the result might even baffle the pollsters.From what I have seen this is an election that will be more issue based than ever before with the emphasis on the unemployed,the pensioners and the lower paid working people who will genuinely want to know what the parties can offer them in these precarious times. The character and integrity of the new candidates will come in for serious scrutiny and some of the old party allegiances might be shelved in favour of who can offer the better policies for those affected by recession more so than ever before.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:13:58 +0000

The scenario envisaged would be as tricky for Libs as could be. An unpopular government still has most seats, but more votes for the Conservatives. Clegg et al should make it clear that the only possible strategy under the present system is to engage first with the party with most seats, but to add that the system and the minority government would lack convincing authority.

Clegg has to repeatedly set out key principles (which he and others have done to some extent) otherwise the damage will be severe.

Clegg has a major weakness as leader in that he does not have a recognisable specialist issue. I am sorry that he has not taken up electoral reform with more vigour, in fact at times he appears embarrassed to mention it. He really has to take up the running otherwise in such an event he will be swamped by a cacophony of competing voices and for the Libs an important opportunity will be muffed.

By: Politics Summary: Tuesday, February 9th | Left Foot Forward

Politics Summary: Tuesday, February 9th | Left Foot Forward — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:06:35 +0000

[...] system, the election result depends on only “250,000 voters in marginal seats”. A Liberal Democrat Voice analysis of the latest polls predicts a hung parliament with Labour the largest party on 299 seats [...]

By: Malcolm Todd

Malcolm Todd — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:48:18 +0000

“Will everybody who claims that Al Gore should have been presient in 2000 come out to insist that the Tories be allowed to form a government?”

The basis for that claim was that there was considerable evidence of corruption and partisanship in the conduct of the election in Florida, which gave Bush his constitutional victory. The fact that Gore won more votes overall gave a greater moral strength to the case, but it was not the basis on which Bush’s election was widely considered illegitimate.

“Frankly, if there is a situation where one party wins more seats with fewer votes then it serves them both right for supporting such a daft electoral system with such tenacity for 90 years. It did happen once before, in 1950 or 1951″

It was 1951 – the last time a party (the Tories) won a majority despite having fewer votes than the main opposition. But in fact, the situation you describe – one party winning more seats with fewer votes – happened much more recently, In Feb 1974. (In fact, I think it also happened way back in 1929.) Although Labour didn’t get a majority then, and had only four more seats than the Tories, they were rather meekly ushered into power. The situation would be different in 2010 if we saw a similar outcome: a government party that loses a large majority is arguably in a weaker position to claim a mandate than an opposition that doesn’t quite gain a majority. But there’s no wealth of precedents.

By: Robert C

Robert C — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:05:14 +0000

This is the worst possible scenario in terms of dilemmas for the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would have the moral right to try to form a government in terms of share of vote, but the system artificially makes Labour the largest party and so the natural first potential partner to form a government in practical terms. The muddier the waters like this, the more the potential for the Tory and Labour spin masters to cause mischief.

Nick Clegg needs to do some advance positioning on this one – warning about the danger of the Tories or Labour trying to play the same infantile old politics of grabbing power, refusing to negotiate to form a coalition government and engaging in deliberate wrecking tactics.

By: tony hill

tony hill — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:43:22 +0000

Tom – unless there was widespread evidence that Labour won by corruption and cheatiing I don’t think the two scenarios would be quite the same. Frankly, if there is a situation where one party wins more seats with fewer votes then it serves them both right for supporting such a daft electoral system with such tenacity for 90 years. It did happen once before, in 1950 or 1951 (I don’t have my reference books with me).

By: Tom Papworth

Tom Papworth — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:23:42 +0000

“Conservative lead of 6% but Labour largest party…”

Will everybody who claims that Al Gore should have been presient in 2000 come out to insist that the Tories be allowed to form a government?

By: Andrew Suffield

Andrew Suffield — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:56:42 +0000

Labour was polling around 30% when they won the *last* election. It’s not exactly news that our electoral system is broken.

By: Nigel Ashton

Nigel Ashton — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:44:44 +0000

As we are now three months from the election, assuming May 6th, surely the predicition should now be ‘frozen’.

By: Iain Roberts

Iain Roberts — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:28:37 +0000

An interesting comment on our electoral system if a party hovering around 30% in the polls can end up as the largest party, just short of half the seats – a reminder of how much the in-built bias in the distribution of seats currently helps Labour. First Past the Post – it’s Great!