Exit poll says Labour will only have a 66 seat majority

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The tories will be delighted if that holds up.
If it is correct does that mean Michael Howard has a very real chance of being prime minister in 4/5 years time?

Will Blair see out his full 3rd term as promised?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4513605.stm

― Political Newshound, Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I doubt a 68 year old Howard will be there in 4 years' time, esp. if the Tories do not actually add much to their national share of the vote this time - though, sadly, it seems possible they might a little.

Very unpredictable terrain ahead. All that can be said is that Labour will win a majority and it won't be a good night for Blair, compared with certain expectations.

― Tom May (Tom May), Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Blair was never going to see out a full third term anyway. He'll be gone within a year. (That's assuming a Labour majority of about 50, rather than 66, if it's worse than that he could be gone sooner).

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I've said it before: Blair will do *everything he can* to hang on until he beats Maggie's tenure record.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Blair will hang on as long as possible.
Who knows if his supporters will stab brown in the back as well.
Howard will still be tory leader and i'd say slight fave for next election.
A very worrying night for anyone who doesn't want a tory prime minister next time.

Of course you cant always trust these polls. It could be much better or even much worse.

Apparently the swing to the tories in marginal seats is 1% higher than the national swing. Which if true could see the labour majority cut more.

But its all a case of wait and see. remember the opinion polls in '92.

― Political Newshound, Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

It was hilarious to read the papers this morning, all jumping to (1 am print deadlines) the wrong conclusion. Labour's majority is reduced but they're still about 160 seats ahead of the Tories so in real terms all this "give Blair a kicking" stuff has not worked.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 6 May 2005 05:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Only 66 seat majority? Howard favourite for next election? Dude, step away from the crack-pipe.

Irrespective of my feelings towards the shambling Frankenstein ghost of the Labour party, any previous Labour PM would kill for that size majority. Howard will be gone by the next party conference, tops. It'll all be hilariously bloody and unpleasant. Are you on the Tories' street team?

― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 07:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, national share of the vote at 33% DESPITE the incredibly bad 36% share for the winning party. The Tories are gaining about 1% per election: this is atrocious given how much Blair has alienated his own supporters. That said I think Howard's future depends entirely on what happens with the Blair 'handover'.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 6 May 2005 07:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Heck, by the next election, Iraq will have faded, the govt quite possibly will be more popular than now.

And Gordon (or someone else) will be handed leadership just before the next election.

Shall I start a new thread about Election 2009?

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 6 May 2005 07:40 (twenty-one years ago)

But with the next election, you need to factor in two things:

1) Brown does not appeal to Middle England, which has been the basis of Labour's electoral success.
2) Possible economic downturn and consequences of that.

― AdrianB (AdrianB), Friday, 6 May 2005 07:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Does Brown appeal less to middle England than Blair now...? I am unconvinced that there would be a significant difference. He at least doesn't have the much discussed 'trust problem'.

― Tom May (Tom May), Saturday, 7 May 2005 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's certainly debatable that the previously assumed Middle England perception of Brown as Evil Tax-Grabbing is true any more. I reckon half of the reason for Labour's comfortable survival on Thursday was that they don't especially rely on the Blair Brand. The middle class swing voters are prob'ly fairly savvy to the idea that their taxes will rise pretty much equally under Labour or the Tories, but voting Labour still feels nicer.

Half-formed summary: Labour don't treat the middle class any differently to the Tories, nowadays, but Labour smile wider while they're kicking the poor.

― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 May 2005 00:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I've just found out that a second cousin of mine stood for Labour in Hampshire. He didn't get in, which is hardly surprising as it was a safe Tory seat. I'm surprised he hasn't found a safer one to stand in yet, because he must be fairly big in the local party down there; he used to be Mayor of Southampton.

― caitlin (caitlin), Sunday, 8 May 2005 07:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Marcello OTM, a deeply unpopular labour PM wins a third term after one of the most devisive wars in living memory. Frankly I'm amazed they did as well as they did I was fully expecting the tories and in particular the lib-dems to do much, much better.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Sunday, 8 May 2005 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, Labour's majority *has* been significantly reduced, and Blair *is* a complete liability within his own party. The point is that the Tories are so much worse and the LibDems aren't yet a credible enough opposition. I see that there is already divisiveness within the Labour ranks calling for Blair to stand down. That didn't take long did it?

Blair may not have been given a comprehensive kicking at election time but his cards are marked. I think Gordon Brown will be PM by the end of the year.

― Ben Mott (Ben Mott), Sunday, 8 May 2005 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

"good for labour bad for blair" is the catch-all summary surely?

the majority reduction is signif largely cz it actually brings the currents of intra-party opinion back into play: labour's unprecedentedly vast majorities of 92/97 allowed for "presidential" government; no longer

66 is a huge amount to play w.compared eg to the single figures callaghan was plagued by

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 8 May 2005 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

All parties get nasty when a leadership election's in the offing. Labour have got the taste for winning now, and killed the old Crazy Socialists Will Tax You To The Hilt And Enforce Compulsory Lesbianism image. Every time the Tories have tried to hit them with that stuff, it hasn't registered. I can't see a road back for the Tories, with the possible exception of Portillo, and I don't think they're capable of making him leader.

As I strolled down the street on Friday with a big grin on my face I reflected that, much as I hate Blair and much as it will prob'ly be impossible for me to ever vote Labour again, I will never ever get tired of seeing the Tories take a beating. That shit never gets old.

― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 May 2005 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

If all the ten MPs who have come out and criticised Blair stood down, went up for re-election as independents and won, the majority would immediately be cut to 47.

It's just a shame that even Robin Cook and Glenda Jackson don't have the balls.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

on what issues james? this split would only occur when tories and lib dems and labour rebels (and all other indies) all agreed with one another against the govt - but RC and GJ are more likely to differ from the tories than blair is on almost anything i can think of (maybe certain constitutional issues? but even then the govt if it wz smart could easily split its opposing coalition)

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd be a rubbish MP, I'd always want an end of aisle seat, I hate sitting in the middle of a row.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

you should be the speaker jel!

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

with the possible exception of Portillo, and I don't think they're capable of making him leader

Damn right, he's not an MP anymore. Not that he'd swap the comfort of a media career for the pain of leading the Tories now.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Sunday, 8 May 2005 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

bah why does no one seem merit in my "portillo's long game" theory (= he is first politician to bypass the hustings and achieve PM-ship via a reality TV show) (working title: hell's cabinet)?

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 8 May 2005 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

the table of total votes in yesterday's papers was interesting, seeing how it translated into seats:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2005/stateofparties/0,15991,,00.html

Labour
35.2% = 356 seats

Conservative
32.3% = 197 seats

Liberal Democrat
22.0% = 62 seats

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 9 May 2005 08:10 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.