Poll: Blair Retains Electoral Lead

[Khephra]

LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party maintains a healthy lead over the opposition six months before elections widely expected in May, a poll released Saturday suggests.

Labour was supported by 42 percent of respondents to the poll conducted for the Independent on Sunday newspaper, with 31 percent supporting the main opposition Conservative Party and 20 percent favoring Liberal Democrats.

A similar poll a month ago put Labour's support at 39 percent, with the Tories at 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats at 17 percent.

The results are bad news for Conservative leader Michael Howard, who has failed to close the gap on Labour despite widespread voter dissatisfaction over Britain's participation in the Iraq war and occupation.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-britain-blair-poll,0,433983.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

[TaleWgnDg]

1. Good. Great news. n/t

[leesa]

18. They ARE doing such a swell job! Especially the war criminal, Tony.

[TaleWgnDg]

24. and your suggestion for an alternative would be? . . .

hellooooooooooooooooooooo?

[Minstrel Boy]

27. That no credible alternatives exist should be a cause for despair,

not rejoicing.

Not only is Blair a war criminal, but his "third way" has stripped Labour of its leftist heritage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Quite a lot of us would like the Lib Dems

ie a party who was against invading Iraq, and who would raise income tax on the rich a bit to pay for free university tuition and care for the elderly.

Alternatively, especially for those long-running Labour members who are outraged at their party being hijacked by a right winger, we could have the Labour party led by someone who isn't a warmonger - Robin Cook, for instance.

[juajen]

2. Who counts their votes? Are they into evoting yet?

[LSdemocrat]

3. Simple pen and paper ballots, hand counted

[Nihil]

30. Not everywhere

Electronic voting is accepted in some places already.
Watch for this to grow in coverage.

Blair is an arse but he's smart enough to watch what happens elsewhere
and take notes of what works.

[zann725]

23. Who's conducting the 'polls?" Are they 'accurate?'

If Mr. Blair, who chums around with Shrub, has polls (particularly 'exit polls') which say he's Winning, then probably he'll lose. This of course based on the U.S. polls which predicted one winner, but reversed in 'election results.' And let us not forget the Ukraine's similar polling 'flip-flop.'

In summary, Mr. Blair better start losing now, so he can win later. Wouldn't want a recount.

Mr. Blair should also start 'losing' those pesky Impeachment papers. Definitely NOT a crowd-pleaser.:)

[GingerSnaps]

4. They started sitting our election up in advance

Looks like England is going to be getting Tony Blair again whether they like it or not. There is one thing different about Americans and the British. They won't put up with a rigged election.

[autorank]

5. Every time I think I can't get more pissed off at the British, they

give me yet another reason. I hope that the rest of the world puts them in tandem with us. This forever dispels the myth that the British are somehow our smart cousins. I did note that the Liberals and Torries have a combined 51% of the vote so maybe I should calm down. I hope those two parties form a coalition and send Tony to the Hague.

[LSdemocrat]

7. Umm . . . the Tories are also pro-Iraq war and as right-wing as the Repugs

[autorank]

8. You have an awesome first three letters of our screen name!

Actually, on social/domestic issues the Torries are more liberal than our Democrats. After Thatcher supposedly gutted the British welfare system, it was still more extensive than anything we have.

However, you're right, they were pro-war. I'm thinking of an alliance of convenience to punish Blair and extricate Britain from Iraq. There won't be many new adventures in the future that the British will join. This is just a hope. I'm so sick of Blair's obnoxious accent and twit persona.

[daleo]

6. Much as I hate Blair, British voters do have a problem

The Tories would be even more for the war than Blair is, I have no doubt. I don't know about the Liberal Democrats. Blair abandoned Labour principles (at least as far as the Iraq invasion goes), but Labour voters can't easily abandon him or the party, without getting something worse.

[autorank]

9. They can change leaders...at any time. Labour is corrupt!!!

[daleo]

10. True, it is up to the party. n/t

[rjbcar27]

11. Problem is, there's no alternative to Labour.

No sane person would vote for the Tories, and I'm not convinced by the Lib Dems although I do like many of their senior people.

[gomezcat]

12. rjbcar27 is dead right on this one

The Tories are anti immigrant,quietly racist, pro tax cuts for the rich, pro privatisation, anti civil rights and are very much for the blinkered little Englander. I agree that they are actually pro war but pretending not to be at the moment. They distance themselves from Bush and his cronies more out of political expediency than anything. The Lib Dems are a possible for my vote this time.

[Briar]

13. Unfortunately

"The Tories are anti immigrant,quietly racist, pro tax cuts for the rich, pro privatisation, anti civil rights"

this also describes New Labour! And the Liberals are beginning to promote policies which would be attractive to refugees from both Conservative and New Labour parties - none of which attract me!

[T_i_B]

14. And we must not forget...

...that as Blair already has a landslide majority, he is governing from a pretty much impregnable position already. To expect anyone to win 180 seats off Labour is to ask a heck of a tall order.

[420inTN]

26. Is Blair a MP, or just selected by the controlling party/coalition?

Is the Prime Minister a member of Parliament, or someone selected by the controlling party/coalition of Parliament? If he is a MP, what are his chances of losing his district, forcing Labour to select someone else? If not, what are his chances of facing a Vote of Confidence after the elections?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. He's an MP in a very safe seat

Last election, he got 64.9% of the vote; the Conservative who came 2nd got 20%. It's a very 'traditional Labour' constituency, but I don't think they would get rid of him.

His chances of being chucked out by Labour MPs are nil, at the moment. Too many of them are (a) worryingly like him (b) willing to kowtow to anyone with power (yes, OK, that's being 'worryingly like him').

Only if he has a major falling out with Gordon Brown might the Labour MPs see someone else they can attach themselves to.

It looks as if the Lib Dem vote goes up, and Labour goes down, whenever news stories keep the lies that he told to take Britain into the Iraq invasion in the headlines for a few weeks (like a report), but if that isn't in the news constantly, some people forget, and the Labour vote goes back up. The Conservative vote stays at about 30% whatever happens. Even at the peak of the Lib Dems, when all 3 parties are almost equal in votes, the distribution of the voters around the country mean that Labour will probably get a majority in Parliament, albeit a small one. This latest poll gives them a comfortable majority.

[420inTN]

33. What's the distribution of seats in Parliament?

Any chance that Labour will lose the majority of the seats, or that a majority coalition could be formed by the other parties?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Not much chance

There's a site called Electoral Calculus that predicts how the seats will be won based on the overall swing in votes in the country, and applying it to each constituency. It currently shows Labour 391 out of 646 seats for the next election. You can put in your own figures. Even if the vote split was 30-30-30 between the 30 largest parties (the other 10 going to nationalist etc. parties), then seat split is Labour 327, Con 198, Lib Dem 90.

At the moment, Labour holds nearly all the city seats, and a lot of those with mid-size towns in Wales, the midlands and north of England, and Scotland. The Tories hold most of the town seats in the south of England, and some rural seats elsewhere. The Lib Dems have pockets of regional support - the south west of England, the north of Scotland, and to a certain extent the Welsh and Scottish borders (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/pol_map.stm).

The Lib Dem vote is too spread out for them to win many constituencies. The Tory non-urban vote in the south of England is solid for them, but they are too far behind in the midlands and north of England (and London) for them to win back many seats. They need 'middle England' to develop a hatred for Labour, rather than just a distaste for what Blair did in Iraq, to get large amounts of them back. Until then, any protest vote will get split, rather than concentrated to remove Labour members.

People are relatively comfortable, and Blair looks as competent as the alternatives, so many people are willing to overlook the lies and illegal invasion of Iraq (British foreign policy hasn't been particularly ethical in history, so why should we start now?). The Labour rhetoric is toned down now, so they think there's less chance of Blair supporting Bush in his next war. I'm not convinced of that myself. I think Blair will do as he's told again, just with a lower profile, now that he's realised it won't secure him an admired place in history.

[420inTN]

35. Wow. Thanks for the info. n/t

[w4rma]

31. YES THERE IS. Liberal Democrats are the alternative. (nt)

[D-Notice]

15. This could be interesting...

The Sunday Mirror claims thar Karl Rove's gonna help the Tories out with their election campaign!

If true how will Bliar feel knowing that his ally's campaign manager is helping out his opponents?

[T_i_B]

16. Rove will have his work cut out

if he wants the Tories in. This story from the Independent should give people an idea of how bad it is for the Tory party at present.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=587576

Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats now provide more effective opposition to the Government than Michael Howard, according to a poll for The Independent on Sunday.

The poll, which shows the Conservatives trailing Labour by 11 percentage points - the widest margin since May 2003 - will make dismal reading for Mr Howard. It suggests that the Tories are performing less well than in the final days of Iain Duncan Smith, replaced by Mr Howard a year ago this month. In Mr Duncan Smith's last month as leader, Labour enjoyed an average lead in the polls of five points.

On taking the fight to the Government, Mr Howard has been outdone by Mr Kennedy. Asked if "Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats are a more effective opposition than Mr Howard and the Tories", 44 per cent agree and 41 per cent disagree.

The poll, carried out by Communicate Research on Wednesday and Thursday last week, makes clear that Mr Howard is failing to appeal to young people and that his attacks on Labour miss the mark. A key finding is that one-third of Conservative voters think the party would do better if William Hague returned to the leadership. Asked whether Mr Hague would be a "better leader of the Conservative Party" than Mr Howard, 35 per cent of Tory voters agreed. Only a bare majority of Tory voters, 45 per cent, disagreed.

[AP]

21. People don't realize it, but Rove has been helping them for the past 4 yrs

Blair has been playing great defense though.

[BlueManDude]

17. I support Blair. What will dumping him for the Tories prove?

[leesa]

19. Why would you support a war criminal?

[AP]

22. The parts of Iraq controlled by UK are much more peaceful than parts US

controls.

It's possible that the UK is actually saving lives that would have been lost had the US been in control of the entire nation.

[w4rma]

37. Bull. It's likely Bush wouldn't have had the balls to go into Iraq at all

without Blair. And if he did, it's likely that Democrats would have defeated Bush at the polls in both 2002 and 2004.

[BlueManDude]

25. I support Blair because US GOPers would love to see him lose

although they profess to love Blair, US conservatives would consider it such a delicious irony if his support for Bush ended up ushering in a right wing Tory gov't in Britain.

[LakeCohoon]

36. War Criminal...?

Link to indictment...court, etc.

[w4rma]

32. Dump him for the LibDems. (nt)

[orpupilofnature57]

20. Like U S you need more liberal democrats,read (hard to be a democrat)

Its in DU'S ARTICLE ARCHIVE for september 2004.