Slugger Poll: Who do you think will be the next UK Prime Minister?

As the UK election campaign kicks off in earnest, will ‘Call me Dave’ keep his feet under the number 10 kitchen table, or will ‘Red Ed’ seize the reins of power? If there is a hung parliament which parties votes will decide the next PM? Vote below then let us know your thoughts in the comments.

This poll is just a bit of fun, it is not intended to to be statistically valid.


  • Pete

    Labour plus SNP will outnumber any arrangement Cameron can come up with.

    So it’ll be Miliband.

  • Cue Bono

    And it is that very thought that will send English voters in their droves to the Torys. That and a very strong desire not to send the economy back down the toilet. Cameron stays in No 10.

  • the rich get richer

    The Tories expect the establishment and media to deliver the election for them.

    They are probably correct

  • Cue Bono

    The Tories expect Ed Milliband to deliver the election for them. Undoubtably when he does his supporters will blame the establishment and media.

  • james

    The economy being the main concern right now, I’d say the years of reckless abandon under Blair should keep Labour out for at least another term.

  • kalista63

    Well, Gideon just made a total mess of himself on Channel 4 news. Seriously worth watching it, if you missed it.

  • Ernekid

    The quirky nature of electoral boundaries means that Labour are likely to win more seats even if they poll at similar levels to the Tories. A minority Labour govt dependent on the SNP is the likeliest Outcome.

  • Ernekid

    The global financial crisis wasn’t Labours fault. And Cameron and Osborne was calling for less regulation for the City of London right up till things went tits up in 2008. Sure Blair and Brown failed to tackle the reckless finance and banking industry but it’s absurd to claim that a Hague or Howard government would have done anything different if they were elected in 2001 or 2005.

  • james

    No, I think it is somewhat audacious for anyone to claim they know exactly how a hypothetical government that we didn’t have would have acted. Certainly with such precision as you are putting on it. The Labour government were prey to circumstances, but within those had freedom to react. Not all countries were equally affected. Take Canada, for instance, which came out of it in pretty good order. I think it makes more sense to be critical of Labour for what they did do than the Tories for what they might have done.

  • Pete

    I would prefer Cameron, but the opinion polls unfortunately don’t show what you suggest.

  • Ernekid

    Brown managed to deal with a massive crisis pretty successfully, his methods used to stop the UK economy collapsing due to the banks going tits up worked and were copied across the world. Darlings plan had the UK achieving sustainable growth by 2010.

    When the Tories got in Osborne managedkilled any growth that started under Darling for 3 years by stripping demand out of the economy through austerity. He eventually got the economy going by abandoning his original plans and basing all growth on an unsustainable housing bubble in the South East, a weak Eurozone and low oil prices.

    Osborne has failed to achieve every economic target he originally set himself in 2010. The only thing he has successfully managed to do is convince his base that the economic crisis was caused by labour rather than the rogue financial sector. He’s made the economic debate about problems of public debt when it really should be about the problems of growing private debt.

  • chrisjones2

    Brown (and Milliband) managed to create with a massive crisis pretty successfully in the fits place

    Darlings plan had the UK achieving sustainable growth by 2010 bit his colleagues were desperate to spend spend spend even more

    When the Tories got in Osborne managedkilled any growth that started under Darling for 3 years by stripping demand out of the economy through austerity …utter tripe.

    The only thing he has successfully managed to do is convince his base that the economic crisis was caused by labour …which is true

  • Cue Bono

    We’ve been here before in 92 when the polls suggested a hung parliament. That was after thirteen years of Tory power and a long recession. Not forgetting the poll tax. The result was a Tory win with 42.8% of the vote. When it comes down to it people know that Labour cannot be trusted on the economy. They have proven that every time they have been in power and the Tories always have to come along and clean up the mess. Balls and Milliband were up to their necks in the disastrous Brown government and the voters know that.

    Therefore my money is on a conservative government, but possibly one relying on LD/DUP votes.

  • Catcher in the Rye

    Yes, because most people old enough to vote remember that there were no recessions, crashes or meltdowns between 1979 and 1997.

  • Catcher in the Rye

    Dude, there’s so much wrong in this it’s hard to know where to start.

    The idea that people trust the Tories and not Labour on the economy went out the window on Black Wednesday, which as I remarked above most of us probably remember. Had the Tories successfully reduced the deficit, and had they delivered a bit more of a boom earlier on, I could buy your argument. But I’m afraid not. And I don’t think the UK public do either, as in 2010 they categorically did not chose the Tories to repair the damage.

    Secondly, in 1992 there was clear blue water between Labour and the Tories. Now people aren’t sure; I know I can’t tell you what the difference between Labour and the Tories is in practical terms, only in terms of what their emphasis is, and as a consequence, both are being challenged on their flanks by the Greens and UKIP.

    UKIP won’t win many seats but they’ll almost certainly cause the Tories to lose some. Add the SNP landslide in Scotland to that and you have the makings of a very unstable government no matter who reaches over the line.

  • Catcher in the Rye

    I rather suspect that his supporters will want his head on a plate. That’ll be first order of business on May 8th if he loses.

  • Cue Bono

    One or two minor points. When the Tories took over from a Labour government in 1979 they took over a mess. When Labour took over from the Tories in 97 they took over a booming economy. When the Tories took over from Labour in 2010 they took over a mess. The economy is now vastly improving and it is doing so under a Tory government. That is what the the UK public will remember.

    The clear blue water between the Tories and Labour now is that the Tories want to put the country’s finances back into good order and pay off our debts. Labour want to buy off their voter base by borrowing vast amounts of money.

    Think of it like running your own house. If you are the sort of person who believes in pissing it all up against the wall on your credit card in the hope that you’ll be able to pay it off some day then support Labour. If you are the sort of person who believes in living within your means then vote conservative.

  • Cue Bono

    They will have to do what their Union paymasters tell them. If the Labour party had ignored Len McCluskey and chose David Milliband as their leader they would be going into the next government. Instead they lurched off to the left because they need the Union money.

  • Dullahan

    Canada fared better than most because its banking system is structurally more stable and more tightly regulated than that of the US or UK.

    Considering that similar regulatory safeguards were removed under Thatcher and Major in the UK, it’s not particularly audacious to point out that neither Howard nor Hague (both Thatcherites) would have addressed this lack of regulation and oversight.

  • Cue Bono

    Osborne has created one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. The much maligned FG government in the south has created the fastest growing economy in Europe. France which has a left wing socialist government, which Milliband lauded, is floundering as is oil rich, but socialist, Venezuala. It doesn’t take the brains of an Archbishop to see which economic philosophy works and which doesn’t.

  • notimetoshine

    Labour didn’t cause the financial crisis.They may have not taken measures to counter balance the size of Britain’s banking sector, but the crunch of 07 was caused by subprime lending originating in the US.

    I’m no labour apologist but I feel that rhetoric gets in the way of fact when discussing this.

  • BetsyGray

    I second that…!

  • BetsyGray

    What about the election after May 7th……there might be another within twelve months methinks…?….any takers on that one…?

  • 23×7

    Ah ye old economy credit card argument that confirms a persons grasp of economic matters is pretty limited.

  • kalista63

    Seems tha bathe BBC has it down that the DUP are part of the Tory government as a given

  • Cue Bono

    Well when a country borrows beyond its means the interest on its repayments go up as its credit status goes down. Just like with a credit card that hasn’t been paid back on time. If you need some examples of what that looks like just pick a country with a socialist government and do a bit of googling.

  • GUBU

    Doubtful, particularly if Mr Salmond has anything to do with it. Which is what you anticipate, judging by your post above.

    Mr Salmond has already suggested that a hypothetical Miliband administration, already dependent on SNP support to carry legislation, could be pinned to the wall even further by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which would mean that it would have to spend a full term negotiating its legislation through Parliament.

  • 23×7

    If the SNP torpedo a future Labour govt and let the Tories back in they’ll suffer. It’ll be in the interest of both the SNP and Labour to make it work.

  • 23×7

    Yes the Tories have pressed the nasty button pretty early in the campaign. Suggests to me that either they’ve run out of ideas or their own polling is showing them doing pretty badly. Probably both.

  • 23×7

    Yes it would be much better if they got their funding from city spivs and tax evaders.

  • Cue Bono

    The conservatives have done more to curb tax evasion than Labour ever did.

  • Cue Bono

    The polls show that the UK public are vastly in favour of welfare reform. They are sick of paying billions of pounds of their tax out to people who make the lifestyle choice of living on the dole.

  • GUBU

    You misunderstand both my post and Mr Salmond’s intentions, I would suggest.

    He sees richer pickings to be had from a government which cannot seek its own mandate through an early election. The perceived weakness of a Labour government will remain an electoral asset to the SNP in its campaign to appropriate Labour’s traditional vote. At the end of the day, the SNP have no long term interest in Labour’s electoral fortunes because their aim is to engineer Scotland’s exit from the UK.

    I generally don’t make predictions, but I’ll hazard one: that the only
    parties to benefit from a minority Miliband administration will be the
    SNP, in the short term, and the Tories, in the longer term.

    In this scenario, the potential risk lies entirely with Mr Miliband. Indeed, the legacy of one term in office (not in power) for him may well turn out to be a generation out of it for his party.

  • Cue Bono

    If Labour make the SNP look good in Scotland then they will be finshed there themselves, so it is not as simple a picture as you paint. The SNP could take thirty plus seats off labour. UKIP may take between two and four off the conservatives. The SNP doing well increases the chance of a conservative government which in turn will make the SNP suffer next time around.

  • 23×7

    “He sees richer pickings to be had from a government which cannot seek its own mandate through an early election.”

    Sorry but that’s stating the bleeding obvious. All parties seek leverage.

    I think your prediction is incorrect. Actually the big losers could be the SNP. Labour will benefit if they deliver a successful govt in tandem with the SNP. A more left wing govt (Labour and SNP) in Westminster will diminish separatist fever in Scotland and strengthen the union. The smallest party in a coalition always suffers.

    As for the Tories. They can’t poll much above 34% and haven’t won an election in decades. That’s not going to change.

  • Mirrorballman

    You seem to accept the Southern polls in relation to SF share of the vote dropping but don’t accept the accuracy of the UK polls in relation to the GE……Funny that……

  • Cue Bono

    The incumbent party tends to do better in actual elections than the polls beforehand suggest. Therefore the SF drop in support is likely to be even worse than is being forecast.

  • Cue Bono

    In March 92 the Tories were polling at 35%. They went onto win the general election in April of that year with 42.8% of the vote.

  • GUBU

    Sometimes the bleeding obvious needs to be stated.

    Sorry, but I think that the assumptions you make here are predicated largely on your own wishful thinking as much as anything else.

    Firstly, you ignore the fact that Scotland is now clearly on a different political trajectory from the rest of the UK – and I say that as a ‘unionist’.

    The assertion that a ‘more left wing’ government will somehow soothe the fevered brow of Scottish nationalism blithely ignores the fact that, for an increasing number of Scots, every election will now in effect be a referendum on independence in all but name. Whatever short term benefits the SNP get from Westminster will not distract them from the goal to eventually have nothing to do with Westminster altogether – and despite defeat last September that goal now looks more attainable than at any point in my lifetime.

    As for the smallest party in a coalition always being punished – perhaps true if there was going to be a coalition, but that’s already been ruled out by both parties, and the SNP will present themselves at Westminster as nothing less than the representatives of the Scottish national interest, not bit part players. It’s also irrelevant if the vast majority of voters in a general election don’t see that party on their ballot paper – only voters in Scotland will have the chance to judge the SNP. Voters in England will only be able to punish Labour if they are disatisfied. And they now have a much broader range of alternatives to choose from.

    Which brings me to your last point. The Tories are to all intents and purposes an English party. As a result, they may well be better placed than Labour to seize the opportunities offered by the new political dynamic which might emerge after the next Parliament – whether that be through eventual Scottish independence, or further devolution towards Full Fiscal Autonomy, or a more thorough going federal solution.

  • eireanne

    The incumbency effect in the UK is relatively weak overall.
    It appears to be linked more to party than individual candidate and has been greatly reduced by the 5-year fixed term parliament.
    People are no longer surprised by “snap” elections at unpredictable times when they might (I stress might) have tended to vote for the incumbent, particularly as losing candidates were unlikely to stand agaiin

  • Cue Bono

    We are talking about the ROI.

  • 23×7

    The reason you believe Scotland to be on a different political trajectory from the rest of the UK is in large part because the Scottish are being governed by UK parties they didn’t vote for.

    The devolution question has been settled now for 7 years or so. Plenty of time for a socialist Labour government that actually reflects the wishes of the Scottish people to make a come back.

    Coalition, pact, partnership or whatever is formed the SNP will suffer if their actions lead to another tory govt being foisted on Scotland.

    Finally the SNP has had almost 2 years of non stop publicity. Its hardly a surprise they are doing well. Perhaps they’ve peaked.

  • GUBU

    Perhaps they have.

    But again, that could be just more wishful thinking on your part.

  • 23×7

    Actually it’s you that is indulging in the fantasy that Scotland is on some unstoppable course towards independence. You cannot deny that the rise of Scottish nationalism has been facilitated by the current structure of the UK government. Address this and the desire for independence will subside.

  • GUBU

    Read my last sentence again – without moving your lips this time.

    At no point did I suggest that independence was inevitable. I simply pointed out that as a political objective it appeared more attainable than at any point in my lifetime, and reminded you that this objective – and not propping up its political opponents in office – is the overriding goal of the SNP as a party.

    I would argue that it’s not who has been in power, but the devolution settlement itself which has exerted a centrifugal force in British politics. It has localised political interests, and it is the failure to recognize and respond to this which has damaged the Scottish Labour Party. It is now also potentially creating a new political dynamic at Westminster.

    Northern Ireland, with its panoply of local parties, used to be seen as an aberration in the context of British politics. In due course it may become something of the norm, and it is how this plays out over the next few years that interests me. It evidently does not interest you, but there you go.

    Finally, to arrest Scottish nationalism, what you need is a comprehensive reimagining of the devolution settlement – and one that encompasses the whole of the UK – not just a change in who occupies No.10, which is what you seem to believe.

    That holds possibilities – and dangers – for people in Northern Ireland as much as anywhere else.

  • 23×7

    >>At no point did I suggest that independence was inevitable<<

    Apart from here; "Firstly, you ignore the fact that Scotland is now clearly on a different political trajectory from the rest of the UK – and I say that as a 'unionist'."

    Yet again you state the bleeding obvious in that independence is the overriding goal of the SNP. No one is voting SNP in the next election for independence. That issue was settled, for the time being, last year. They are voting SNP to get the best deal for the Scottish people during the next govt. They no longer feel Labour can deliver this.

    The lib dems failed to understand that their voters at the last election were not voting for a tory govt. As a result they've been crucified. The SNP will be or should be well aware of this.

  • mac tire

    The Conservatives also borrowed more in their recent stint than Labour did. No need to Google Socialist governments. Just Google George Osbourne.

  • GUBU

    At least you’re now offering an argument rather than just repeating your original assertions.

    A different political trajectory does not equate to independence – as I said at the end of my post, there are other scenarios which might unfold. Read my last sentence – yet again.

    I think, however, that you’ll find a strong correlation between increased support for the SNP at this election and those voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum last September. For many of those people the issue is clearly not settled, and the terms of political debate – in Scotland – are therefore changed, perhaps not forever but certainly for the time being.

    Every election will therefore in some way be a referendum manqué until such time this issue is addressed in a way that decisively shifts the balance in the terms of debate again. Scottish Labour – and the Labour Party as a whole – show no signs of having come to terms with this (nor have you); that is why they now find themselves in their current predicament. The SNP will exploit this to their own advantage, and it won’t be in the interests of the union.

    Which brings me back to my original point. There are more risks in this scenario for Mr Miliband – and the Labour Party – than there are for others. Hopefully, he is not as complacent as you are about how being dependent on Mr Salmond’s support for five years might play out.

  • 23×7

    Stating that every election is some sort of proxy referendum is quite simply nonsense. You seem to consider the Scottish electorate as some sort of unsophisticated mass. Despite a correlation I think they can tell the difference between a referendum and a UK parliamentary election.

    You’ve drunk the right wing koolaid on the SNP’s potential behavior in parliament. MP’s representing the wishes of their constituents/electorate. Who’d have thought.

    As to the risks for Miliband and Labour (which you haven’t clarified). How do you think Labour would be regarded if they turned down an opportunity to govern (with the SNP) and handed the ball over to the tories for another 5 years to complete their destruction of the public sector? Partnership with the SNP is a no brainer as the alternatives are much worse.

  • GUBU

    Right wing koolaid? Can you get this from the Maine man?

    If you listened to SNP voters – particularly recent converts – you would realise that whilst they can indeed tell the difference between the formats they see both votes as a means to the same end – which is the point I was making. Not so much unsophicated as committed.

    As for Mr Salmond, his capacity for making mischief is well known, and has been reflected in his recent media interviews. The SNP can best maintain their electoral momentum by holding Mr Miliband’s feet to the fire and keeping them there.

    As for the risks? Step over the still prostrate body of Scottish Labour Party to shake hands on a deal with Nichola Sturgeon, and you have consigned part of your own party to the dustbin of history as the dominant electoral force in Scotland, which in turn narrows the future UK electoral arithmetic for Labour. Why would anyone who has abandoned Labour return to the fold (as you suggest they will) when they can have a ‘better’ deal now – and eventual independence – from the SNP?

    And how, in the longer term, how does an electoral arrangement between a ‘national’ political party and a ‘nationalist’ political party potentially play out with voters in England over five years? Nobody really knows, but we could be about to find out.

    So, what looks like a no brainer on 8 May might prove to be something rather more different in the longer term.

    Now, enough already. Enjoy the rest of your day.

  • Reader

    Different bloke…

  • mac tire

    Indeed, Reader. Apologies. I was thinking of a different eejit with a similar surname – Ozzy.

  • Catcher in the Rye

    When Labour took over from the Tories in 97 they took over a booming economy.

    Given that the Tories oversaw three recessions, a massive hike in interest rates and a massive spike in the number of people who were unemployed, it’s a bit rich to give them credit for the Major years when they took a break from generally wrecking everything.

    When the Tories took over from Labour in 2010 they took over a mess. The economy is now vastly improving and it is doing so under a Tory government.

    Can you point to any actual Tory policies that have caused this recovery ? They didn’t even fulfil their own obligation to cut back the deficit – under their control the deficit has ballooned to a level not seen since the 1960s.

    The stuttering recovery that we are seeing is fairly simple. It’s a consequence of a return to stability in the global financial markets and the Tory policy of borrowing massive amounts of money to fund public spending.

    Labour want to buy off their voter base by borrowing vast amounts of money.

    Under the Conservatives borrowing has increased rom £0.91 trillion to £1.3 trillion and have used it to fund tax cuts mostly to the wealthy. Who’s buying voters ?

    If you are the sort of person who believes in living within your means then vote conservative.

    Why is it that the right wing parties (Tory, GOP) seem to be able to increase borrowing by massive amounts and persuade people like yourself that they’re doing no such thing ?

  • Catcher in the Rye

    just pick a country with a socialist government and do a bit of googling.

    I did a bit of Googling.

    Under the Tories the UK has the worst level of borrowing of any EU country with the exceptions of Greece and Ireland. (90%).

    Norway, Sweden – socialist countries – borrow 30% of GDP.

    Want to rephrase ?

  • Catcher in the Rye

    Like what ?

  • Cue Bono

    Not at all. I suggest you google a little bit more deeply into both of those countries and have a closer look at their own unique problems.

  • Cue Bono

    “Can you point to any actual Tory policies that have caused this recovery ?”

    Yes. Chopping the bloated public sector and welfare reforms. Milliband confidently predicted that every public sector job lost would cause the loss of two private sector jobs and that unemployent would rocket. In fact the loss of every public sector job was offset by the creation of five private sector jobs and unemployent has plummetted. Yorkshire alone created more new private sector jobs than all of socialist France. Do you think the UK public haven’t noticed these things?

  • Cue Bono

    Like legislation.

  • Cue Bono

    The Conservatives are busy cleaning up Labour’s mess which they inherited. Labour left a note saying that there was no money left. God only knows how much they would have borrowed if they had got into power in 2010, but if they were going to be as anti austerity as they now claim to be it would have had to be considerably more than the conservatives have borrowed. At least the Tories are building an economy capable of paying off the debts.

  • mac tire

    Well, we know that Labour would have kept borrowing, just like they did for the 13 years they were in power.
    Strange that it only took the Tories 3 years to borrow more than Labour did in those 13 years.
    Your assertions that the “Conservatives are busy cleaning up Labour’s mess” and Labour “would have borrowed [more] if they had got into power in 2010” were the same excuses the Tories came out with in 2013 to deflect from these facts.
    The Tories have been the low spending, high borrowing party.

  • Cue Bono

    Labour didn’t need to borrow so much in the thirteen years of terror because they had inherited a booming economy from the Tories. They also managed to sell off a large wadge of the gold reserve when gold was at a historic low. They blew our money in a manner similar to a drunken sailor who has just docked in Bangkok with six months pay. Milliband and Balls were at the very heart of that.

  • Barneyt

    I know the US ran with the subprime trading but wasnt the financial instrument cooked up in the City of London and exported?

  • Barneyt

    Labour were on course for a win in 92, until Kinnocks premature triumphaslism turned the voters in Majors direction.

  • Cue Bono

    I think it was a it more complicated than that. Kinnock just did not look like he was Prime Minister material tripping over himself on Brighton beach etc. The same can be said about Milliband. A man who can’t even manage to eat a bacon sandwich without looking like something from a cartoon.

  • Barneyt

    I am not sure you are the right person to comment on this, as your points are highly tendentious. Your determination to promote the Tory cause is clouding things from what I can see.

    When Labour took power in 97, they inherited debt, substantial debt. This triggered Browns infamous frugal economy (“the tight wily scot”). They spent very little, when many were calling for spend. Their first term was very conservative indeed however the debt was cleared.

    Labour then went on to borrow in subsequent terms, something that all governments do. Many exercise borrowing and repayment a) because its there to avail of b) it makes the economic world go around and c) it improves credit ratings.

    So, we can sit here and promote one side over the other, with massive blinded bias, but proper analysis will show that both Tory and Labour have both saved and spent in their time and they will do so again. There is little to differentiate between the parties, however you stand a better chance of both society and the middleworking class people (the majority) gaining consideration under a Labour government, in my opinion.

  • Barneyt

    But they were sitting behind Labour with days to go…and labour were favourites to win…until as I said, Kinnock scared the horses.

  • Barneyt

    I would side with the outcome predicted on this blog, however I can see the SNPLabour coalition being as effective as a FFSF government in the ROI. Two close but at the same time, would have sufficient angst between them, and I could see a melt down. Often parties from different extremes can coexist better, as they know instinctively which ground to steer clear of.

    I dont think there will be the revolution that has been anticipated. Come the day, I do believe labour will suffer from the little England bolt-hole mentality and I can see Cameron taking the leading role once more. Who will be kingmaker? Not entirely convinced he’ll need one. I think many analysts have got this one wrong and England will swarm to the Tory’s. Yikes! Better the Devil you know I feel.

  • Pasty2012

    Why is the Tory campaign all about telling people What the Labour Party left behind 5 years ago and still trying to blame Labour for the World Recession, when the truth was that the Conservative Party were demanding that regulation on the banks should have been reduced prior to the recession occurring. On top of that the Tory’s attacks on the SNP all but stating that Scottish People have no right to return the MP of their choice if that MP is not a member of the NO Vote Camp.
    The Scottish people have the best Win Win situation ever. By voting for the SNP the people of Scotland who would have voted for Labour would still have their MP supporting the Labour Party in Westminster, but would have the added strength of having an MP who will demand more for Scotland and will be in a position to get extra for them.