A NEW poll has found that the Conservatives would become Westminster’s third party behind the SNP in a snap election. A poll of 28,000 people for The Telegraph found that if there were an imminent General Election then the Tories would be left with fewer seats than the SNP.
This would mean that SNP Leader, Stephen Flynn would become the leader of the opposition. The figures, from pollsters Find Out Now and Electoral Calculus, report Labour winning 49 per cent of the vote while the Tories would win just 23 per cent.
The style of polling used means results could be calculated in individual seats. The SNP would win 50 MPs according to results while the Tories would have just 45, down from 365.
Meanwhile, the new polling forecast that Labour would gain 306 seats, taking its total number of MPs to a record 509 out of 650 available.
Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats would more than double their number of MPs from 11 to 23 while Plaid Cymru and the Greens would be unchanged at four MPs and one respectively.
The polling was carried out from January 27 to February 5.
On a seat-by-seat basis, 15 Cabinet ministers would lose their seats including Rishi Sunak, Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as well as ex-chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.
Chief executive of Find Out Now Chris Holbrook told the newspaper that the forecasts made “shocking reading for Conservatives”'
Martin Baxter, chief executive of Electoral Calculus, added: “The Conservatives have been far behind in the polls for the last four months, with little sign of improvement.
Granmarderby10
Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.
Sad to say this but within a very short period of time in 1997, Tony Blair proved this.
They had won with a landslide victory as I and everyone else it seemed (but the Tories) knew would happen.
I was jubilant at first but soon I began to worry about the new governments inability to tolerate criticism and protest.
I can’t help thinking you’ve mixed Tony Blair up with Boris Johnson.
Why are the polls shocking. Make total sense in the circumstances.
No mix up Casdon, Boris Johnson has been no better than he should be, and he definitely fulfilled all my expectations of a conservative prime minister, and my expectations for him were low as you can go.😁
I would like that no party has an overall majority, if this were to be the case our elected representatives would have to work together.
On the other hand a hung parliament can also lead to nothing being voted through and in that case scenario the U.K. would continue in uncertainty.
This is why we need a sensible form of proportional representation. The current FPTP system leads to very damaging see-saw politics.
So right Fleupepper
But we have had PR forums with little interest from the supporters of FPTP.
The Tories like it because they have been able to run the country like a dictatorship since the 2019 election where most voters voted against them but they got an 80 seat majority in the HOC.
The Labour Party supporters like FPTP because they think they can do the same at the next General Election
None of them are democrats.
In a democracy a government can only be elected by a majority of voters - not a minority.
The only two European countries which are not democracies because they still use FPTP are the UK and Belarus.
Shameful!
Varian I have to agree. It may be the only way to stop the boom- bust, chop-change policies that have been detrimental to our NHS and Education systems to name but two of the “victims” of FPTP.
I heard a news item that suggested we had a number of bedblockers as mps. Mps who had sat for a long time and had no new ideas. What we need, apparently is an injection of younger more energetic representatives.
On the other hand, it’s also been suggested that candidates are being put off even standing for selection as the job of an mp is seen as being too hard.
Not only is there a danger to life, there’s also a public scrutiny of ministers which may act as a disincentive to potential candidates. Why bother? It’s a media circus.
10% swing to Labour in Lancashire by-election.
They retain their seat but get a huge swing.
Whitewavemark2 the turnout on Thursday in Lancashire was 31.3 percent. In 2019 for the general election it was 72 percent.
According to the Guardian.
Hardly an enflamed endorsement for either party?
I am surprised at the lack of questioning that has gone on about this article. This was a Poll carried out by People Polling for GB News. Don't those facts and the fact that the Torygraph - the great supporter of the 'Right' - is splashing what appear to be headlines that say how very, very well Labour is doing and how very, very well they are likely to do in an election, make you ask why?
I don't doubt the polling People Polling carried out, but they describe themselves as providing "services that enable clients to tap into public opinion in novel and systematic ways." This extrapolation was certainly novel. But you have to ask what use it is other than frightening some people off moving back to Labour because they may end up with another massive majority.
This all seems to me to be about managing their voters and nothing at all about the real situation.
Daisy Anne The turn out for West Lancashire 2023 election was 22,639. The smallest turnout in its history.
What is the real situation?
Why is anyone shocked by this? For the first time in many years I will NOT be voting Conservative at the next election, and many of my family and friends feel the same. I won't be voting for Labour either, but they remain odds on to achieve a landslide victory next time around. A combination of sleaze, corruption and downright dishonesty over the last few years have seen the Party I used to support terminally diminished. Frankly, all that Labour need to do now is to make as little noise as possible, to sit on their hands, and to wait for the keys to Number 10 to fall into their lap, courtesy of team Boris/Truss/Sunak/Zahawi et al. Depressing.
The Lib-dems are taking scalps as well. Well done! Lib Dem’s
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 50% (+4)
CON: 21% (-1)
LDM: 7% (-2)
RFM: 7% (=)
GRN: 6% (-1)
SNP: 4% (-1)
ronib
I heard a news item that suggested we had a number of bedblockers as mps. Mps who had sat for a long time and had no new ideas. What we need, apparently is an injection of younger more energetic representatives.
On the other hand, it’s also been suggested that candidates are being put off even standing for selection as the job of an mp is seen as being too hard.
Not only is there a danger to life, there’s also a public scrutiny of ministers which may act as a disincentive to potential candidates. Why bother? It’s a media circus.
I’ve looked at the age profile of MPs just now, and the argument doesn’t stack up.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-commons-trends-the-age-of-mps/
I don’t think that if there are blockers it’s related to their age, because the average age of MPs is only around 50 - it’s more related to the fact that they can serve an indefinite number of terms as an MP once appointed.
Casdon the argument I heard was that the average age for new mps should be around 40 years. At moment it’s 50 years.
What we need are MPs with a modicum of intelligence. Age is immaterial.
I wouldn't trust any poll sponsored by GB News or the Wail or the Sun or any group with an axe to grind. It's too easy to skew the questions and be selective of the participants. Online polls clearly exclude those not online. The only polls that really count are the private ones sponsored by the main political parties and they stay private, like their focus groups, for good reason.
Battledown in Yorkshire has gone to the Lib Dem’s for the first time - -ever!
Whitewavemark2
What we need are MPs with a modicum of intelligence. Age is immaterial.
We’ve managed without very intelligent mps so far!
Younger bright people do see the world in a more energetic way . 50 ish is reaching retirement age in some professions.
ronib
Casdon the argument I heard was that the average age for new mps should be around 40 years. At moment it’s 50 years.
That’s not correct though ronib, because if the average age of all MPs is 50, how can they have an average age of 50 when they are first elected? The age profile was on the attachment I posted, there are already plenty of MPs who are under 50, and very few over 70.
I think is the real issue
ronib
Casdon the argument I heard was that the average age for new mps should be around 40 years. At moment it’s 50 years.
What basis was that "argument" made on, ronib?
Whitewavemark2
10% swing to Labour in Lancashire by-election.
They retain their seat but get a huge swing.
I know we all delight in confirmation bias and that is just what this article seems to be. However, we should not allow our reasoning to be overwhelmed by our joy.
I have, at this exact moment in time, no reason to believe the Tory party will not be out in the next election. But I would still ask the question, Why was this article in this paper and what is their aim in it being there in such a hyped manner. I really do not think it was to help the Labour Party win, not do I think it was on a whim, with no intention.
Read the Daily Mail piece DaisyAnne, they are not biased to Labour (as if).
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11735381/Tory-woe-Labour-sails-victory-West-Lancashire-election.html
What are your own suggested answers to the questions you posed?
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
