Sentences with phrase «do at the next election»

The actual numbers give mixed support for the idea that local elections tell us how well a party will do at the next election.

These figures suggest that local election can give us a general idea of how well a party will do at the next election, but one that is only a rough estimate at best.

This could tell us a great deal, particularly about how well UKIP might do at the next election.

No one (including myself) has changed their opinion on how well or badly Labour is doing or will do at the next election.

If you look at where the lost Liberal Democrat support has gone (and I'm looking now at standard polls asking how people would vote tomorrow), the biggest chunks have gone straight over to Labour, or are saying they don't know what they'd do at the next election.

Not exact matches

This post is in response to the following excellent comment from Stephen Moore, the man who will trounce Ralph Goodale in the next federal election (or at least do better than I did): April 2007 testimony before the parliamentary committee on International Trade saw Industry Canada, DFAIT reps and others stress the importance of the -LSB-...]

It's also possible that Harper, himself, could pull the plug on his minority administration at some point before the next fixed election date — just as he did in September — although such a move would make an utter mockery of Harper's own, now - tarnished, fixed - election law.

Next year has the mid-term elections at the end of the year, so it may be that they won't do that much before the end of the year.

He might be able to make a new Conservative Party out of the failures of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and he might be able to get the folks who don't want to vote Wildrosie to vote for his party candidates at the next provincial election.

Even Jim Flahertyâ $ ™ s â $ œWe Donâ $ ™ t Pick Winnersâ $ Conservatives were under pressure in this budget to do something for the auto industry. The fact that at least a dozen swing ridings in southwestern Ontario could determine the outcome of the next election might have something to do with their sensitivity to the continuing industrial destruction being -LSB-...]

The market isn't pricing in a delay in tax reform, and if we get a delay, can we even get it done at all with midterm elections next year?

We don't want his pipeline in BC and at the next election we won't have him here as we give him the boot.

There was a reason why the founding fathers put kept religion out of our government and now it seems we are being asked to» pick the Christian» in this next years election — we are not picking the leader of a church here people, we picking someone to be the most influential, most powerful person on the earth... do we want someone who has our best interests at heart or someone who will time and again try to change the US laws to reflect his own personal beliefs?

Honestly, I don't believe the next elections at Fifa will change a lot.

«At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who've given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn't raise student fees, and then did so - the most blatant lie in recent political history.

It's been nearly a month since the general election season officially kicked off and so, far at least, there has been little airing from either candidate as to what they would do for the next four years.

This amendment would scrap the boundary changes for this parliament, doing away with David Cameron's chance of an extra 20 MPs at the next general election.

They won't be able to do this at the next general election.

What I don't really see is how the Labour party holding three pilots in this Parliament, or even selecting all of its candidates in some form of primary at the next election or the time after would make any really significant difference to arguments for or against first - past - the - post, the Alternative Vote, AV +, AMS, STV and various hybrids thereof.

Instead of mucking in with the multifarious resistance movement - which, as you rightly state here, does not require universal agreement in order to progress, that sort of Leninist thinking is weedkiller to the grassroots - Labour is already positioning itself for the next election, terrified of doing anything at all which might upset the few swing voters in key marginal seats that the party has repositioned itself towards over the past twenty years.

You are going to be thrashed at the next election, presuming Brown doesn't pull the CCA on us.

Using the right techniques local elections can give us a pretty good indication of how well parties might do at the next national election.

Some may argue that Labour can afford to lose some support in its heartlands so long as it does well where it needs to win seats at the next general election.

Some MPs and Party members fear that David Cameron doesn't really want progress on this front at all, because he's hoping for a joint Coalition front at the next election, and therefore a joint manifesto with the Liberal Democrats.

Channel 4 picked up on my research to argue that Labour hasn't done enough to win the next election, whilst the BBC's Nick Robinson wondered whether this election might be more than a case of the usual «mid-term blues» and a signal to an increasingly unpopular government that they will be kicked out at the next election.

A quick reminder: Art of Political Campaigning two - day training event is coming up next week Put on by our friends at Campaigns & Elections magazine, it's an in - depth exploration of practical political topics, with sessions delivered by people who do this work every day.

If the Liberal Democrats lose the seat it suggests that they will seriously struggle at the next general election (as those who don't understand the drawbacks of Universal National Swing are already fond of predicting).

«Any business that had done that would be looking very hard now at both its strategy and its management to see how we get some of that back - because otherwise we're going to lose a large number of seats at the next election.»

But to get an overall majority at the next election, the Tory vote is going to have to do more than just hold firm.

Research in marginal seats by Politics Home in August 2008 and September 2009, for example, found a significant boost for the Lib Dems in the follow - up question «And thinking specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency at the next general election?»

Project Blueprint, launched in May 2011, aimed to examine the state of the Conservative voting coalition and to help identify what the party needed to do to achieve an overall majority at the next election.

«Announce a General Election, give us access to ALL the books at the Treasury and THEN we will tell you our policy for the next parliament, until you do this, we maintain we can not commit to any specific pledge.»

That Labour faces anihilation at the next election if it does not radically change course.

But in those seats where it came second in the by - election (as UKIP has done in Eastleigh), it went on to lose almost half its vote share at the next general election.

If we don't ask why, then we risk losing a fourth time at the next general election.»

Do you think EVERY Tory member in your region should be able to rank ALL MEP candidates at the next European elections?

They have broken down the answers for all respondents and, more importantly, for the group of people who said they might consider voting Conservative at the next election, but didn't vote conservative in 2005.

If UKIP can do so remarkably well in Eastleigh then they can do it anywhere — at the next by - election and even a general election.

Always good to hear the likelihood that Labour will be ousted at the next election is increasing as PoliticsHome suggests, but I hope that we do not turn out to be the same lack of substance and abundance of spin that Blair / Brown brought to the table.

The more seats a party or grouping has, the more chance it has of forming a government - with 198 seats out of 646 the Conservative Party could only form a government if significant numbers of other MP's decided to back them, as happened in 1924 when there was a situation that the Conservatives didn't want to form a coalition with either other main party and equally the Liberals didn't want a coalition with Labour and the Liberals and Conservatives saw it as an opportunity to allow Labour into government but in a situation in which legislation was still reliant on Liberal and Conservative votes and they could be brought down at the most suitable time, supposing the notional gains were accurate and in the improbable event of the next election going exactly the same way in terms of votes then 214 out of 650 is 32.93 % of seats compared to at 198 out of 646 seats - 30.65 % of seats and the Conservative Party would then be 14 seats closer towards a total neccessary to form a government allowing for the greater number of seats, on the one hand the Conservatives need Labour to fail but equally they need to succeed themselves given that the Liberal Democrats appear likely to oppose anyone forming a government who does not embark on a serious programme to introduce PR, in addition PC & SNP would expect moves towards Independence for Scotland and Wales, the SDLP will be likely to back Labour and equally UKIP would want a committment to withdraw from Europe and anyway will be likely to be in small numbers if any, pretty much that leaves cutting a deal with the DUP which would only add the backing of an extra 10 - 13 MP's.

The Upper House is lobbying heaven, and comparing the Mercer scandal with the one in the Lords demonstrates perfectly why that is: while Mercer has effectively been kicked out of his party and is having to make assurances he will not stand at the next general election, what's happening to the trio of peers accused of doing pretty much the same thing?

And if they do assent to a referendum on STV or something similar, then at the next election (to be held sooner rather than later?)

I suppose at the next election Labour could say: «Yes we did want it dropped in 2013 but it is now 2015 and so it should be kept - the time to drop it has passed.»

«I have today told the executive committee of my local party that I do not wish to be the candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde at the next general election.

«Doing so is not impossible: in my research, very few ruled out voting Labour again even at the next election (though most thought it very unlikely that they would be persuaded in time).

Speaking in Somerset yesterday, David Cameron said: «It's a simple and straight choice, at your county council and at the next election, between the blue team who want to keep getting the deficit down, who want to keep reforming immigration and welfare to make it fair, or you have the red team who put the deficit up and who don't care if our immigration and welfare system works at all.»

Mr Salter, who is standing down as MP for Reading West at the next election, says he commutes to and from Reading most days and therefore does not need a second home.

Lord Ashcroft has repeated the same sort of large marginals poll that PoliticsHome did in 2008 and 2009, looking at the clusters of key marginal seats that will provide the battleground for the next general election.

Does anyone know anyone under the age of 60 who is going to vote Tory at the next election — or at least admits to it?

Gordon Brown will probably try at the next election what Bush did successfully when he got re-elected and try to use defence and secuurity as a means to frighten the people into re-electing Labour.