For the benefit of readers of this Forum, Michael just posted on SE23.com that the BBC shows the notional percentages for 2005 in 'Lewisham West & Penge' as follows:
Labour 46.3%
Lib Dems 27.1%
Conservatives 21.6%
Others 5%
Parliamentary Elections - a fight for 2nd place?
Interestingly UK Polling Report gives slightly different percentages.
Labour: 18105 (46.4%)
Conservative: 9341 (23.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 9261 (23.7%)
Other: 2307 (5.9%)
Majority: 8764 (22.5%)
The page with the calculation method is at http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat ... standpenge
Either way it is fair to say that this is a safe Labour constuency.
Labour: 18105 (46.4%)
Conservative: 9341 (23.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 9261 (23.7%)
Other: 2307 (5.9%)
Majority: 8764 (22.5%)
The page with the calculation method is at http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat ... standpenge
Either way it is fair to say that this is a safe Labour constuency.
I believe that the Press Association / BBC estimates are generally considered more accurate.
[quote=Press Association]Election experts Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher have conducted a survey for the Press Association, BBC, ITN and Sky News showing how the changed constituencies might have voted had the boundary alterations been in force last time.[/quote]
http://election.pressassociation.com/co ... ncies.html
However, it is all a little hypothetical due to the boundary changes.
[quote=Press Association]Election experts Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher have conducted a survey for the Press Association, BBC, ITN and Sky News showing how the changed constituencies might have voted had the boundary alterations been in force last time.[/quote]
http://election.pressassociation.com/co ... ncies.html
However, it is all a little hypothetical due to the boundary changes.
Chazza:
You wrote
It's many years since I've voted for any party with much enthusiasm - and I do rather miss the excitement I seemed to remember as a child from the 1960s and 70s, when every other house seemed to have election posters up. So - the decline of mass membership organisations is a fact; what do those of us who believe in democracy do about it?
One thing not to do is to give up on voting - that way you let in serious loonies. For me, another thing not to do - but this is for those in government - is work up various gimmicks to increase participation, such as the deeply misguided efforts of the current government to make postal voting easier - see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 406575.stm
But I do sympathise with your feelings, which is why I want to see electoral reform. So, as you vote, witnessing thereby to your commitment to democracy, you might also consider how this gesture - otherwise maybe largely pointless - might signal a desire for electoral reform.
You wrote
I disagree - neither your vote or mine is worthless, even if they're not realistically going to make much of a difference at this election. Most obviously, whether Lib Dems or Conservatives come second here - and in other safe Labour constituencies across the country - will signal something about what voters want. And anyway - if you had felt able to vote Labour, why would that have made your vote this time worth anything more?since I shan't be voting Labour ever again as long as I live, I guess my vote is worth jack all.
It's many years since I've voted for any party with much enthusiasm - and I do rather miss the excitement I seemed to remember as a child from the 1960s and 70s, when every other house seemed to have election posters up. So - the decline of mass membership organisations is a fact; what do those of us who believe in democracy do about it?
One thing not to do is to give up on voting - that way you let in serious loonies. For me, another thing not to do - but this is for those in government - is work up various gimmicks to increase participation, such as the deeply misguided efforts of the current government to make postal voting easier - see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 406575.stm
But I do sympathise with your feelings, which is why I want to see electoral reform. So, as you vote, witnessing thereby to your commitment to democracy, you might also consider how this gesture - otherwise maybe largely pointless - might signal a desire for electoral reform.
electoralcalculusPstaveley wrote:The UK Polling Report used the 2005 votes in each Ward and using the methodogly shown recalculared what the voting would have been. I would be interested to know why you feel that the Press Association is more accurate since I do not know what method they used.
shows a proper breakdown by ward and provides nominal results of 45%,28%,22% - much closer to the PA rather than UK Polling Report.
politicalbetting comes down clearly in favour of the Press Association:
Mike Smithson wrote:For the future on PB my intention is stick with the official PA list. This will be the one that the media will use and should avoid confusion.
UK Polling Report acknowledges that
The Press Association report was put together by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher on behalf of the Press Association, BBC, ITN and Sky News. On balance this should be as free of political bias as possible and is regarded as the 'official' notional results.As of February 2007 the only complete detailed estimates are available from Martin Baxter and Rallings & Thrasher.
I have not been able to find the details of the Rallings & Thrasher calculations (nor have I found details of the methodology for UK Polling Report) but if it is good enough for BBC, PA, Sky, ITN, and Political Betting, then I am inclined to accept this as the 'offical' notional results. If you wish to believe other statistics you are more than welcome.
if, lets say only 40% of the population bother to vote, and only 40% of those vote labour and they get in - that implies that only 16% of the population voted for the party that currently governs the country!
This I find intollerable, and something that so many people don't care about. my personal opinion is that we have the right to vote, and we should exercise that right, and if we don't like any candidate, we should at least turn up to express our displeasure, by spoiling our ballot, otherwise the vote counters won't know the difference between an apathetic vote who doesn't care, and someone who does care, but decided not to turn up.
I've said before, in the Metro, that we should be fined £50 for not voting. it's not like it's difficult is it? They open at 7am, close at 10pm, they accept postal votes. it's not like we don't know that it's happening, it's on the telly, in the papers, on the internet, we get leaflets - there are very few excuses for not voting. we can get fined for not filling in the sensus forms every ten years - this is little different. It works ok in Australia.
What would also help is a 'no suitable candidate' vote selection available.
back on topic, if everyone who didn't vote, voted (60% in the above example) someone else would be much more likely to win.
if all those people who won't bother voting, because they think it's already a done deal, voted - that would be a proper democracy. You see it happen on reality tv shows, when the hot favourite gets booted off, basicaly through lack of public votes, because the public think that person is safe, and doesn't need the votes, and lots of people vote for the underdog.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS! PLEASE USE IT WISELY!
This I find intollerable, and something that so many people don't care about. my personal opinion is that we have the right to vote, and we should exercise that right, and if we don't like any candidate, we should at least turn up to express our displeasure, by spoiling our ballot, otherwise the vote counters won't know the difference between an apathetic vote who doesn't care, and someone who does care, but decided not to turn up.
I've said before, in the Metro, that we should be fined £50 for not voting. it's not like it's difficult is it? They open at 7am, close at 10pm, they accept postal votes. it's not like we don't know that it's happening, it's on the telly, in the papers, on the internet, we get leaflets - there are very few excuses for not voting. we can get fined for not filling in the sensus forms every ten years - this is little different. It works ok in Australia.
What would also help is a 'no suitable candidate' vote selection available.
back on topic, if everyone who didn't vote, voted (60% in the above example) someone else would be much more likely to win.
if all those people who won't bother voting, because they think it's already a done deal, voted - that would be a proper democracy. You see it happen on reality tv shows, when the hot favourite gets booted off, basicaly through lack of public votes, because the public think that person is safe, and doesn't need the votes, and lots of people vote for the underdog.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS! PLEASE USE IT WISELY!
I wish to echo JRobinson's comments. Please vote (even if not for UKIP 
)
I do not think that the first passed the post system really works, it means that a very low percentage of people decide who forms the Government which cannot be democratic.
Added to that the expenses row and the breaking of election promises by both parties it is hardly surprising that voters feel disenfranchised.
Of course what I would say is vote for a party that wants to change the electoral system (such as UKIP) to show the new Government that their is a groundswell of opinion for that reform.
Peter Staveley
)I do not think that the first passed the post system really works, it means that a very low percentage of people decide who forms the Government which cannot be democratic.
Added to that the expenses row and the breaking of election promises by both parties it is hardly surprising that voters feel disenfranchised.
Of course what I would say is vote for a party that wants to change the electoral system (such as UKIP) to show the new Government that their is a groundswell of opinion for that reform.
Peter Staveley
With the LibDem surge in full effect bookies have adjusted their prices to:
Labour 2/5
Cons 10/1
LibDem 3/1
Nick Long 125/1
Greens 125/1
While that may give the impression that there has been a load of money for Alex Feakes it is probably more the case that bookies have changed their prices across all constituencies to reflect post TV debate opnion polls.
The LibDems claim in their current leaflet that "The 6th may is likely to see Alex Feakes elected as local MP" is a tad optmistic for now.
Labour 2/5
Cons 10/1
LibDem 3/1
Nick Long 125/1
Greens 125/1
While that may give the impression that there has been a load of money for Alex Feakes it is probably more the case that bookies have changed their prices across all constituencies to reflect post TV debate opnion polls.
The LibDems claim in their current leaflet that "The 6th may is likely to see Alex Feakes elected as local MP" is a tad optmistic for now.