Sentences with phrase «actually vote labour»

Less easy to actually vote Labour when most did not trust the party on the economy and it was led by someone who few believed to be prime ministerial.

«Muslim business owners and professionals who, if they were white Anglo - Saxon Protestants (WASPs) would be expected to vote Conservative but who actually vote Labour despite their wealth and socially conservative attitudes.»

I'd personally feel extremely unhappy if he didn't, in the same way that I always felt uncomfortable in the Blair years, huge majorities but only 2/5 of the electorate had actually voted Labour, less than in 1983 the nadir of Labour's misfortunes..

Not exact matches

Embarrassingly, Labour's vote tally was actually lower than the total number of local members claimed by the party.

All of this means that Cameron finds himself in a fairly tricky position, having to rely on mobilising Remain votes from large numbers of people who voted against him last May while hoping that the leader of the Labour Party will actually stand up and make a direct and unequivocal plea for voters to keep Britain in the EU.

Forcing Labour and the SNP to actually physically go ahead and vote together while the issue was still undecided would be entirely in keeping with the party's approach.

It is an example of a European party with hard left policies winning votes, and comparisons with UK Labour underline just how radical Podemos actually is.

Labour is likely to vote against the amendment, meaning the chances of the government actually being defeated is negligible.

So you could argue that the current system is actually biased against Labour, and therefore PR will actually disadvantage Labour even more unless rates of voter registration are improved and compulsory voting introduced.

As a rule, they had a bad night: BNP leader Nick Griffin actually managed to decrease his party's share of the vote in Barking, while Esther Rantzen proved little more than a sideshow in the Luton South Labour - Tory struggle.

We found some tentative evidence to suggest Labour voters had been less likely to actually vote than predicted but, even if this was the case, the effect would have been very modest.

If, say, the Labour Party won a majority vote in June, would they try to withdraw or backtrack on Article 50 (how they would do attempt it, or even if it's actually possible is another question).

Only 25 % of the voting public supported the Tories, which has been conflated as a massive victory over Labour, in reality it means that the majority of people see through Tory duplicity but do not yet understand what is actually happening around them, that is where we need to focus on.

I actually voted for Balls in the previous leadership election in 2010, largely on the basis of his original stance on Labour's fiscal and economic record in Government.

For all these reasons, I think AV is actually a very good voting system and I would put the referendum result down to several things — an ineffective Yes campaign (if you typed AV into Google, they didn't even come up on the first page of results), lies and smears spread by the No campaign, the association with Nick Clegg, the split in Labour over AV and finally, and not insignificantly, the fact that the Electoral Commission sent leaflets to every household containing an overly complex explanation that made AV look more complex than the insides of a nuclear reactor.

The threshold is 10 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs, a higher level than those who actually voted for Corbyn in 2015.

Much of his success will depend on how many young people who say they will vote Labour actually turn up and do so.

Quite apart from the fact that proportional representation is * fair *, and therefore a far better starting point for a Parliament that is responsive to the will of the people, the difference between Caroline and most Labour or Conservative MPs is that she is trying to ensure that a referendum on voting reform actually offers a meaningful choice.

01:55 - So this is where we leave it for the morning - an impressive hold for Labour, who actually managed to increase their share of the vote.

Ronnie Campbell has been around for three decades and presumably has a personal vote he can call on - the idea of the Tories actually winning such a heartland Labour seat seems absurd.

While it is undoubtedly true that the Irak War lost Labour many votes, it should be remembered that we actually won the 2005 election (when the war's principal British advocate was still party leader).

I don't put much store in opinion polls, but if true it would only indicate roughly what you would expect to happen at this point in the parliament - 32 % isn't that much lower than Labour got in the 2005 General Election and all it would suggest is that the Liberal Democrats are having a reversal - tactical voting could see them holding onto many of their current seats, indeed it is even possible that if they got 17 % of the vote that if it focused in an area that they could actually end up with more seats, where the switches in support are occuring is crucial - if they are focused then if the Conservative Party were to get 39 % then it might still result in them getting fewer seats than Labour or in extremis winning a 150 seat majority or so?

I have no doubt that the Conservative Party will make major gains in votes and seats in the next 10 years that will build to their return to power ultimately, but they are a long way off actually winning a majority and it has to be said that a Hung Parliament now looks more improbable than at any time since 2001, demographic factors are working against the Conservative Party as well - Labour seats mostly are held with far lower turnouts which is partly why Labour can get fewer votes than the Conservatives and end up with an overall majority and far more seats than the Conservative Party.

This invaluable research showed voting intentions in the seats that actually matter at a level implying a 84 seat majority for Labour.

The useless official campaign run by Johnson was a key cause of the failure to pull out more Labour votes, although as election guru John Curtice has told us Labour actually did quite well here.

People do actually want to vote Labour here.

If you look at the cross-tabulation with how people actually voted though, considerably more people told Populus they had voted Tory to stop Labour winning than voted Labour to stop the Conservatives winning (however some people were obviously confused by the question — 32 said they voted tactically against Labour, but voted Labour).

Plus we hear from both sides of Labour's EU debate with MPs Alan Johnson and Graham Stringer; and Alan Renwick from the UCL's Constitution Unit explains what a vote for Brexit would actually mean

Despite the fact that even David Miliband estimated that there were no more than ten Labour backbenchers who actually believed in the war, enough ignored their constituents» wishes and any residual principals and voted «yes», simultaneously saving Blair's skin and condemning the Iraqis to years of carnage and chaos.

In Westminster the coalition's secret talks, backbench mutterings and Labour suspicions are set to continue all the way up to the vote which may, or may not, actually happen.

It was actually 62 % of labour voters voted to remain, and the labour vote, in 2015 was made up of many people who'd voted Libdem, or greens in 2010, labour having lost several of its supporters who'd voted for us in 2010 when Gordon was leader, and many who'd voted labour since the 60's, not voting for us for the first time, but the fact was, with our Scittish and inner London, Manchester, Liverpool vote, voting for us so heavily, ball areas called our heartlands, and Scotland aside, areas we increased our votes in, at the last election, without catching those swing seats, meant that many of our traditional areas Sunderland & Wales saw our core vote, massively vote leave,

At the last election she actually increased Labour's share of the vote by six per cent.

But actually this was a good result for all sorts of parties: Ukip, the Greens and Labour also saw increases in their vote share — at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, whose vote collapsed by 23.1 %.

The proportion of Labour voters who say they will actually vote is down 2 points to 49 %.

What I am pondering is how many Labour members were voting Corbyn in order to send a message about Labour staying true to its roots and principles rather than actually wanting him as leader, might they recoil at the thought of him actually winning?

My two preferred explanations are that people who did not vote claim they did (and tend to claim they voted Labour) and that Labour supporters who voted tactically for the Liberal Democrats in their own particular constituency claim they voted for the party that they actually supported, rather than the party they voted for.

Whether it could be successful enough to actually retain or win seats and have a long term future is an entirely different matter — FPTP does not forgive smaller parties without concentrated support, the anti-Conservative vote is already split and the most pro-remain areas tend to be held by Labour.

(Indeed, it is often overlooked that Labour actually increased its share of the vote in Scotland in 2010) warning about the potential threat to state pensions if Scotland votes for independence.

Comparatively few Labour MPs actually voted for the Lib Dem motion but an awful lot of people sat on their hands as a way of showing their determination to finish this issue.»

While it is certainly true that far more people vote for third, fourth and other parties nowadays than in the mid-20th century, some of the numbers suggest that the amount of «nottle» MPs (not Tories and not Labour) may stay the same or actually decline at the next election.

For all the complexity of our current politics, the truth is actually quite simple: the only way to be sure of getting a Labour government is to vote Labour.

Aides say the vote is a symbolic endorsing of the policy but accept it does not necessarily make the party more or less committed to it - reflecting the limited influence which the Labour conference actually has on policy decisions.

Historically Labour have actually tended to do worse, not better, in the regional vote, so the pattern here is somewhat unusual — looking at the data it seems to be because people who would vote Green or SSP in the regional vote are more likely to vote SNP in the constituency vote.

It's Nice Ed's coming back he was at stoke after all, Ed dropped the triangulation line that Blair liked, funny as he actually appealed to both Daivd Owen, Maurice Glasman and Tony benn in 2010 ′ but the triangulation of middle / working class votes has gone that it's not even Left / Right anymore, and the dozen or so policies that unite ex Labour voters who vote Libdem, and the ones who vote Ukip can be summed up in, ignore Soctland and Northern Ireland politics concentrate on the economy, Defence, freedom of speech and women's rights,

That would fairly make labour the most eurosceptic, and thus you would be actually endorsing other rpo EU withdrawal parties to split the tory vote.

Robert regarding your view that labour cold win with 35 %, yes, but we won in 1974 ′ with 37 % and I believe Callaghan actually got a few more votes in 79 ′ than 74 although the percentage was the me, the point was that the 74 manifesto was so far from what the public felt, that the following election lots of liberals or stay at home voters came out and the Tories would get 13 + million for the next f our.

But nearly all types of voter overwhelmingly picked Jeremy Corbyn in the online survey for Election Data, which asked 1,019 Labour backers how they had actually voted.

If we had known that, say, the majority of second preference votes had been for Labour where first preference votes had been for the Green Party, the Lib Dems or the Nationalists, this would have made a coalition involving Labour far more likely, making the coalition a much better reflection of what people actually wanted.

In many southern areas, the Labour vote actually fell, with the party losing seats in London.

The reason for the difference is most likely tactical considerations — people answer Labour to a normal voting intention question because that's the party they really support, but know that they happen to live in a seat where Labour could never win, so actually vote Liberal Democrat.