2.
Lab Share – 26
Con Share – 39
LD Share – 25

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 38
Borris 1st Pref – 37
Brian 1st Pref – 9

2. What do you think will be the Lib Dems’, Labour and Tory national projected share of the vote? (Again, as stated by the BBC website at 5pm on 2nd May)?our share of the vote percentage wise will remain the same +/-1%

3. What do you think will be the percentage of first preferences won by the three main candidates for London mayor? Boris 45%, Ken 37%, Brian 14%

2. Con – 42
Lab – 26
Lib Dem – 28

3. Boris – 43
Brian – 10
Ken. – 40

2.
Lab Share – 25
Con Share – 41
LD Share – 25

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 32
Borris 1st Pref – 35
Brian 1st Pref – 16

2.
Lab Share – 25%
Con Share – 43%
LD Share – 17%

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 40
Borris 1st Pref -48
Brian 1st Pref 6

The LibDems have fought a totally inactive campaign under their ineffectual new leader. Who is he?

Net Loss of 100

2. What do you think will be the Lib Dems’, Labour and Tory national projected share of the vote? (Again, as stated by the BBC website at 5pm on 2nd May)?

Con 44% Lib Dem 24% Lab 20%

3. What do you think will be the percentage of first preferences won by the three main candidates for London mayor?

Johnson 36%, Livingstone 33%, Paddick 15%

2.
Lab Share – 26%
Con Share – 42%
LD Share – 24%

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 37%
Boris 1st Pref – 39%
Brian 1st Pref – 15%

2.Con 40
Lib 25
Lab 24

3.Ken 40
Boris 39
Brian 10

Lib Dem Net change – PLUS 110

2.

Lab 26%
LD 26%
Con 34%

3.

Ken 35%
Boris 37%
Brian 11%

But I wouldn’t bet on it!

2.
Lab Share – 22%
Con Share – 40%
LD Share – 21%

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 38%
Borris 1st Pref – 38%
Brian 1st Pref – 11%

2.
Lab Share – 25%
Con Share – 40%
LD Share – 26%

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 34%
Borris 1st Pref – 32%
Brian 1st Pref – 12%

I’m not a Londoner either so i should clarify that my rather sweeping statement about the Hughes camapaign was based on external observation rather than on the ground experience. However I remain of the view that the ken?Boris combined first preference figures remain to high. When people get there ballot paper and see the choice the others figure will increase.

As for 2004 you are spot on. I was reelected in 2004 and the situation was so bad my majority ended up being over the Green party rather than Labour. The great mistake the party has made is assuming that the Iraq effect is a permenet feature rather than a nice windfall. I suspect a modest net loss of seats, double rather than treble figures is realistic.

2.
Lab Share – 28
Con Share – 42
LD Share – 19

3.
Ken 1st Pref – 39
Boris 1st Pref – 41
Brian 1st Pref – 15

2.
Lab – 25
Con – 39
Lib – 24

3.
Ken – 35
Boris – 36
Brian – 17

Hard to tell whether those are dashes or minus signs though

I’m not a Londoner so I haven’t seen much of the campaign there itself, but my inclination is that Simon Hughes had a high profile to begin with but that, much as he has many talents, Brian Paddick hasn’t done enough to insert himself into the debate between Boris and Ken. From our experience in 2007 in Scotland, despite being in good heart and well-organised, we lost ground to the SNP because it was perceived to be a two-way battle between them and Labour, and I think the London mayor race may be going the same way.

The overall tone of the thread may be gloomy, but as you note it’s pretty consistent. Assuming we’ll make sweeping gains just doesn’t seem to chime with reaction on the ground. As for predictions of losses, remember that in many cases the same seats were being fought in 2004, when we had in Charles Kennedy a leader who was popular and had half a clue what he was doing politically, whereas no serious observer could now claim that either of these factors now applies.

1. nearly everyone predicting net losses

2. bit of a split on wether or not we’ll come third in the vote share

3. almost everyone predicting lower vote share for brian than simon got in 2004 despite whats transparently a much better camapign and candidate. HMM.

2. Lab share 26%
Con share 41%
Lib share 23%

3. Ken 38%
Boris 37%
Brian 13%