Predictions for UK elections

[Casualbets]

My predictions (at the moment - I won't finalise until Tuesday or Wednesday) are as follows :

LAB 35% 360
CONS 33% 185
LDS 23% 70

The LAB and LDS seat nums are bang on with the Spreadbetting firms, with the Conservatives going slightly lower...

According to my System, the Tory support has been falling away steadily during the campaign - at the start of the campaign they were pegging for 235-240 seats, a week later the polls were suggesting 210 or so, a week ago 200 and now on the latest polls 185. I think the decision to allow Howard directly attack Blair (instead of keeping the negative campaign detached from the party leadership) is partly to blame, and the LibDems are the principal beneficiaries.

[BarryW]

My predictions (at the moment - I won't finalise until Tuesday or Wednesday) are as follows :

LAB 35% 360
CONS 33% 185
LDS 23% 70

???
Strange totals here. If Labour falls to 35%, just 2 ahead of the Conservatives, then the will be over 200 seats.

The Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20-21% - but they will probably increase their seats.
Which is extraordinary because their leader is a drunk, and they want to raise taxes.

The fact that 60% of the British public would between them vote for a liar (Blair) a drunk (Kennedy) and higher taxes (Lib Dems openly, Labour in secret) suggests that the Brits are to be doomed by their own stupidity.

[qtman]

My predictions (at the moment - I won't finalise until Tuesday or Wednesday) are as follows :

LAB 35% 360
CONS 33% 185
LDS 23% 70

???
Strange totals here. If Labour falls to 35%, just 2 ahead of the Conservatives, then the will be over 200 seats.

The Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20-21% - but they will probably increase their seats.
Which is extraordinary because their leader is a drunk, and they want to raise taxes.

The fact that 60% of the British public would between them vote for a liar (Blair) a drunk (Kennedy) and higher taxes (Lib Dems openly, Labour in secret) suggests that the Brits are to be doomed by their own stupidity.

And the 30% who plan to vote for a politician whose only claim to fame is the Poll Tax are perfectly sane and logical?

[DOD]

The Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20-21% - but they will probably increase their seats.
Which is extraordinary because their leader is a drunk, and they want to raise taxes.

The fact that 60% of the British public would between them vote for a liar (Blair) a drunk (Kennedy) and higher taxes (Lib Dems openly, Labour in secret) suggests that the Brits are to be doomed by their own stupidity.

This is outrageous Barry! Charles Kennedy is one of the few people in British politics with true integrity. He also doesn't take himself too seriously. His personal drinking habits are (or at least should be) none of your business. As for raising taxes, this has to be done to provide for better public services. My political analysis should come with a health warning as I am arguing from a hard left perspective, but similarly yours also requires a health warning as economically you are arguing from a hard right perspective.

[smiffy]

The fact that 60% of the British public would between them vote for a liar (Blair) a drunk (Kennedy) and higher taxes (Lib Dems openly, Labour in secret) suggests that the Brits are to be doomed by their own stupidity.

Doesn't it suggest something about the Conservatives as well? Or is it just that anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with BarryW's bizarre worldview is automatically "stupid"?

[BarryW]

His personal drinking habits are (or at least should be) none of your business

It most certainly is when it affects ability to lead!

As for raising taxes, this has to be done to provide for better public services

Taxes have increased sharply under Labour - and this has made no discernable impact in improving the health services.

Bear in mind: Labour's no.1 selling point in 2001 was to provide "world-class health services" - a task that the have failed at abysmally, despite these tax hikes which you say are so vital

[Trefor]

My predictions (at the moment - I won't finalise until Tuesday or Wednesday) are as follows :

LAB 35% 360
CONS 33% 185
LDS 23% 70

???
Strange totals here. If Labour falls to 35%, just 2 ahead of the Conservatives, then the will be over 200 seats.

The Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20-21% - but they will probably increase their seats.
Which is extraordinary because their leader is a drunk, and they want to raise taxes.

The fact that 60% of the British public would between them vote for a liar (Blair) a drunk (Kennedy) and higher taxes (Lib Dems openly, Labour in secret) suggests that the Brits are to be doomed by their own stupidity.

And the 30% who plan to vote for a politician whose only claim to fame is the Poll Tax are perfectly sane and logical?

If there was no swing in tactical voting from 01, Barry would be fairly close to it: Baxter's analysis would put it at Labour 364, Tory 194 & Lib Dems 58.

Labour could actually get fewer votes than the Tories & yet hammer them in terms of seats gained.

My own view would be that Barry's percentages are fairly close to the mark (Lib Dems to get a bit more than 23% though), but that there will be a good deal of tactical voting against Labour. I expect them to get well under 350 (& have bet good money on it).

[Casualbets]

My predictions (at the moment - I won't finalise until Tuesday or Wednesday) are as follows :

LAB 35% 360
CONS 33% 185
LDS 23% 70

???
Strange totals here. If Labour falls to 35%, just 2 ahead of the Conservatives, then the will be over 200 seats.

The Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20-21% - but they will probably increase their seats

The problem for the Tories is that the LibDems are the main beneficiaries of the fall in Labour support - in this scenario the thirty or so Tory gains from Labour are offset by about 10 or so LibDem gains from the Tories. The LibDems have been picking up support slowly but surely throughout the campaign - at the start they looked like they might pick up five seats, now it's more in the order of 20.

[BarryW]

The LibDems have been picking up support slowly but surely throughout the campaign - at the start they looked like they might pick up five seats, now it's more in the order of 20.

The Lib Dems always pick up support as the campaign goes on, because in the years between an election most voters are oblivious to their existence.

An election gives far more publicity to their motley crew of nutjob MPs and an opportunity to peddle their pathetic policies, that they just don't get during a Parliament.
This Parliament was different, however, in that they got lots of publicity from their anti-Iraq stance. The fact that this has only garnered them only a 1-2% increase on their 2001 result says a lot about what sane people think of their other policies.

Even though Lib Dem poll ratings rise during an election, they often get 2-3% less on the day, as voters in most constituencies realise that a vote for them is a wasted vote (i. a straight Tory v Labour contest) and, hence, switch back to the main parties.
The Liberals are on 21-23% in the polls; but i can't see them getting more than 20% on the day, considering the fierce Labour v Tory fight that is going on in around 100 marginal seats.

Kennedy said, proudly, in a speech yesterday:
"I can say with confidence, that after this election the Conservatives will not form the nxt government of this country"
To uproarious applause from Lib Dem members

Anyone see an irony in this ?? That Kennedy's only realistic aim seems to be to keep Labour in power - the same government that began the dreaded campaig in Iraq ?!

This bears a remarkable resemblance to Henry HAughton's pathetic plans for the Labour party here - ie. keep FF in power at all costs!

[BarryW]

Labour have been running around all week condemning the Conservatives' negative campaign. What the spineless media is afraid to point out is that LAbour's campaign has hardly been sweetness and light either.

They criticise Howard's direct attack on Blair's character, and all run for smelling-salts, such was their horror at it all. They seem very quick to forget their own savagely personal atacks on Howard before and during the campaign.

That withered hag Margaret Beckett, and John "Victor Meldrew" Reid (the scotsman who is Health Secretary for England and Wales!) made three speeches between them the week the election was called attacking Howard directly and questioning his fitness to lead.
"Opportunist" is a tag they've put on him time and again. For New Labour to accuse anyone else of opportunism is vomit-inducing hypocrisy!

They also unveiled posters comparing Howard to Fagin from Oliver Twist, and ones depicting Howard and Oliver Letwin as flying pigs - an astonishingly offensive ploy, considering that both men are Jewish.
Labour alsofamously put Mrs. Thatcher's hairdo on Willaim Hagues head.

Their election slogan is "Britain is working: Don't let the Tories wreck it again". Fantastically positive campaigning.........

Labour's website today says: "Tory threat to economic stability"
In Labour's usual scaremongering style, it also says: "If one in ten Labour voters don't vote - the Tories win!"

For a demonstration of how this last claim is a downright lie, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 505413.stm

Conservatives mounting a negative campaign ?!
Well - it seems they learned it from the masters.........