News of the World - Poll of marginal seats

LabourOutlook Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:42:07 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The NOTW will publish a poll tomorrow of public opinion in marginal seats



Full details aren't available yet, but the following findings are confirmed:

Named as important issues when deciding how to vote:

NHS - 51%
Law and order & criminal justice - 50%
Schools and education - 40%
Tax - 36%
The economy - 33%
The environment - 23%
Local issues - 19%
Foreign Affairs/Europe - 16%

 

More on the rest of the individual questions at LabourOutlook.com > > >

 

Edit: There is also a Telegraph-ICM poll which shows Labour 10 points behind. See here 



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
News of the World - Poll of marginal seats | 36 comments (36 topical)

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#1)

by rwendland on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:00 PM GMT

Looking at the detail of the NOTW poll, a few things struck me:

  • 18-34 year olds though Brown best as PM, 35+ Cameron
  • LibDem favoured Brown a bit more than Cameron
  • 65+ are either slow on the uptake or an ungrateful lot, as the recent big increase in their tax allowances and better free bus passes hasn't translated into liking Labour yet in those policy areas!
Voting at 16, and possibly AV, wouldn't do much harm.


Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#2)

by lastword on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:14:29 AM GMT

Yes to votes at 16 and PR.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#4)

by otware on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM GMT

We should have votes at 16. I also believe we should use instant runoff voting (single-seat STV) for the Commons and the regional list system for a reformed upper house - speaking of which, what is happening with Lords reform?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#5)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM GMT

Having run single-seat STV elections before now - I have to say they're pretty complex and I don't think we need to be giving people more reasons to feel detached from the political process.  I think maybe bringing some preferential element (AV, I guess) isn't a bad idea (to tackle 'lesser evilism'), but it should be in its simplest form.

Regional lists for the upper house is a good idea (all elected).


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#6)

by otware on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM GMT

Wait....AV is what I meant I think. I've forgotten AS Gov't & Politics already!


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#7)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM GMT

If you learnt about it at AS it will be AV!  :o)


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#8)

by otware on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:04:52 PM GMT

I think we did both actually, but yeah AV is what I mean :s. Now we do US mostly with a bit of comparative US/UK.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#9)

by doctordunc on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM GMT

AQA?  Looking forward to the synoptic paper?  (Sorry I teach it, you see!)


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#10)

by otware on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM GMT

Ah no Edexcel.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#11)

by Prbo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:24:59 AM GMT

So, the Labour view is that we should change the electoral system to include people from 16 as that's what would keep them in power?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#12)

by rwendland on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM GMT

Sorry, I was being flippant above. I'd need quite a lot of convincing to back AV myself - I worry that it is a centre ground only recipe.

I do support voting at 16 to encourage politcal interest. So what that some of them will be politically unsophisticated, a lot of older voters are just the same, and we don't deny 90+ year olds a vote because a lot of them may be quite out of touch. 


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#13)

by Prbo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM GMT

Fair enough...

Agree on the unsophistication point, but including 16 & 17 year olds will do absolutely nothing to reinvigorate democracy.  It'll just mean even lower turnout figures. 

Why all this talk about electoral reform, anyway?  What's wrong with what we have at the moment?  If people aren't voting, maybe it's something to do with what the parties are saying, not the electorate...?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#14)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM GMT

Why all this talk about electoral reform, anyway?  What's wrong with what we have at the moment?

It's grossly unfair and gives a permanent advantage to the Conservative party given the left-liberal votes get split between Labour and the LibDems. Not to mention the House of Lords is extremely conservative (small 'c'). So it's no wonder Tories don't want to change anything.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#15)

by Prbo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM GMT

permanent advantage to the Conservative party given the left-liberal votes get split between Labour and the LibDems

Sorry NM, I don't quite follow.  That's not the fault of the electoral system - that's the make-up and policies of the parties.  You can't blame the existence of the Lib Dems on the electoral system.

My understanding is that the electoral system is biased towards Labour, to that extent that the Tories would need an almost double-digit victory in a general election simply to get a majority of one.  That hardly seems fair and proportional.  If we had PR, then the Tories would have far more seats than at present (particularly with 18 point leads in the polls)

And given that the Lords aren't elected (quite rightly, in my opinion), electoral reform can't strictly take place, can it?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#16)

by otware on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM GMT

Actually the tories would hardly do any better. It so happens that over recent elections their share of thes seats has been pretty similar to their share of the votes!


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#17)

by madasafish on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM GMT

2005 election facts :
Labour won an overall majority of 66 seats, or 55.1 per cent of seats, with 35.2 per



[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#18)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:36:47 PM GMT

My understanding is that the electoral system is biased towards Labour, to that extent that the Tories would need an almost double-digit victory in a general election simply to get a majority of one. 

The system is biased towards the most popular party. When the Tories are popular, they benefit most and when we are popular, it benefits us most.

And given that the Lords aren't elected (quite rightly, in my opinion), electoral reform can't strictly take place, can it?

Quite right. It doesn't need democratic reform, it just needs democracy.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#19)

by otware on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:32:05 PM GMT

FPTP benefits the most popular party massively, especially at the expense of the Liberals + minor parties. In 2005 the Tories won 30.7% of the seats with 32.3% of thd vote - not too bad.

And given that the Lords aren't elected (quite rightly, in my opinion), electoral reform can't strictly take place, can it? 

NN, are you opposed to Lords reform or for it? :s 

2 words: Bloody Pedant!


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#21)

by otware on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM GMT

Whooops the structure of my post went crazy. The pedant comment was directed at Prbo.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#26)

by Prbo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:54:33 AM GMT

Thanks for clearing that up NM.  What's your preferred method instead of FPTP?  I believe any element of PR complicates things hugely, and won't actually deliver any tangible benefits.  What do you think?

On the House of Lords, got to disagree, but no surprise there.  Having a competing mandate, with yet more 'politicians' is the last thing this country needs.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM GMT

Surely one could argue that the Lords are politicians too? Also there's about 750 of them if I remember correctly and I would imagine any elected chamber would have far fewer politicians in it.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Alternative Vote introduced in the Commons because I think most people would prefer to have one-party governments rather than endless coalitions with the LibDems holding the balance of power. Also it continues the one MP-one constituency link. But I'd say the alternative vote is fairer than FPTP given that people can be free to vote for a minority party but still play a role in deciding which of the main parties will win the seat - so it essentially eliminates tactical voting. The number of MP's could probably be cut be quite a few as well.

As for the upper chamber, I'd like to see the House of Lords replaced by a Senate (given that it won't just be Lords who sit in it) and this to be elected by regional PR (the same as the European elections). Maybe a third could be elected at each general election?

This system allows one-party governments like the current situation but means the government can't ram legislation through Parliament without having to work with other parties in the Senate.

Obviously you disagree with the Lords reform, but what about the AV for the Commons?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#31)

by Prbo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM GMT

to be perfectly honest, I'd never taken much of a look at how it works.  But having just looked it up, I can see why you think it's a good idea.  I'd probably need to be persuaded more, but on the face of it, it looks sensible. 

The only thing I'd be uncomfortable with is having to rank the candidates.  If I only want to vote for one candidate, I don't really want to have to rank the others.

That aside, it looks like it has merit, certainly.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#34)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:28 AM GMT

In most AV systems around the world you only rank as many candidates as you want to. The ones you don't rank would just be classed as joint bottom on your list for counting purposes.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#32)

by otware on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM GMT

Interesting idea about using the American system of electing 1/3 of the senate every general election. I do question whether that is actually necessary though, it might make it to complicated and certainly would resist change - something that the American system is very good at and I don't think is a good thing. Certainly elections though the regional list system though. 

I'm not convinced that a name change would be required either - what's the harm in calling in the House of Lords? 


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#35)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:42:38 AM GMT

Presumably if we democratise the upper chamber then not only will non-Lords be sitting in the chamber, but presumably Lords will be allowed to be elected to the Commons as well.

The name 'House of Lords' might not really be practical after that and since the fundamental make-up of it will change, it is effectively a completely new chamber from the House of Lords.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:43:22 AM GMT

...just to point out, Canada has a House of Commons and a Senate too.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#20)

by doctordunc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:49:36 PM GMT

I'm not convinced AV would make a massive difference to election results.  I think it's principle function is to make people feel better about tactical voting...  Not sure that's worth changing the system for, but I've no objection to it.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#22)

by otware on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:16:34 PM GMT

So do you forsee the use of the regional list system for the Lords, and the continuation of the present electoral system for the Commons?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#23)

by doctordunc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:38 PM GMT

Yes.  Although I'd like something like the Swedish version of Party-List for the 'Lords' (where you can 'write in' candidates if you don't like the order that the party has for the list). 

I wouldn't have an objection to AV for the Commons - but I would take a lot of persuading to go for any sort of hybrid system. 


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#24)

by otware on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:10:08 AM GMT

I used to be very much in favour of AMS, but after learning some more about our political system I reckon it is probably good not to tinker with the Commons too much.

One thing I've always wondered though - what would be the implications for the Parliament Act if the Lords was elected? As no party could have a majority in the Lords, surely nothing would ever get done unless they allowed the Commons to overrule, which would undermine the greater democracy of the Lords...


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:01:51 AM GMT

The government of the day would have to work with members of rival parties in the new upper chamber to build a majority to get legislation through. This is better than having strict coalitions however as the government (which would probably have a majority in the Commons) would be able to work with different parties in the upper chamber for different bills.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#27)

by otware on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:16:35 PM GMT

That's fine in theory...but in the case of gridlock, what would happen? Currently the government invokes the Parliament Act and away we go, but how can that be used if the Lords are more democratic than the Commons?


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#28)

by doctordunc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM GMT

You just give the 'Lords' (whatever we end up calling it!) a specific constitutional role.  I don't see any particular reason for it to stop being essentially a 'delaying' chamber.  It is likely to be less strictly party-political than the commons, and will have time to scrutinise legislation in detail and possibly bring in good amendments, etc.  In the case of gridlock however, you could simply have it written into the constitutional legislation (and perhaps into a codified constitution if we're going that way?) that the Commons has precedence.  Or indeed we could come up with some other solution to potential gridlock if we desired.  But some manner of Parliament (Amendment) Act 2008 is the solution. 


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#30)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM GMT

But other countries manage to cope with passing legislation through two chambers by working across party lines.

If there's a deadlock and the upper chamber refuses to pass it, then the government simply has to admit defeat and hope to do better in the upper chamber elections next time around!


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#33)

by otware on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM GMT

Certainly it can be done, my point is simply that it would have quite large constitutional repurcussion and that these need to be assessed.

Of course we could find a way to make the Lords work, it would just require some form of renewed role for them which, as docdunc said, is tied up in arguments for and against a written constitution.


[ Parent ]

Re: News of the World - Poll of marginal seats (#3)

by treborc on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM GMT

SLow on the uptake, better shoot anyone over 30 then.


News of the World - Poll of marginal seats | 36 comments (36 topical)