YouGov conducts polls every day and with only days remaining until the general election, trends in voting intention data are still broadly where they were at the start of the campaign and the start of the year: the two main parties are neck and neck, and neither has anything like the share they need to win a majority.
There is little doubt that the issue of housing is shaping up to play an important role in deciding the result of the election; 27% of the population choose it as one of their three most important issues facing the country, up from 19% at the start of 2015.
Nearly one in eight voters says he or she would be more likely to vote for a party that prioritised house building. And among young people and those in London, the issue of housing is given even greater importance.
In response, the main parties have all proposed a range of policies that have met with variable levels of support. For example, Labour’s so-called mansion tax is supported by nearly two-thirds of voters, but in contrast only a quarter support the Conservatives’ re-introduction of Right-to-Buy.
However, which party “wins” the 2015 general election (that is, which party leader becomes prime minister) may very well be the direct result not of any aspect of public opinion, but instead may be the culmination of protracted negotiations. So let us speculate on how those negotiations might play out in numerical terms.
Imagine if the Conservatives won 290 seats (more than they probably would on current share) and Labour won 270 (slightly fewer than predictions suggest). If the Lib Dems managed 30 (perhaps an ambitious target) then they might be able to get the old band back together again and continue on with the Conservatives, even though they technically fall short of the 326 needed for a majority. Would it be sensible, practical, or even remotely realistic to call upon the support of a maximum of, say, five UKIP MPs to take things over the top? What if UKIP won only three seats? Or one?
And what if the Lib Dems managed only 25 and the Conservatives achieved just 285? (Both results are more realistic). If they could also ensure the support of five MPs from UKIP they still fall short. Even with around eight Democratic Unionists it looks difficult numerically – and that is before you even consider the political practicalities of some sort of quadripartite arrangement.
On the other side of the House, in this imagined scenario you have Labour on 270. Though they have already ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP, 35, 40 or even more MPs from north of the border could see Ed Miliband on the way to Downing Street, if not necessarily all the way through the front door. Further support from 25 or 30 of Labour’s ideological bedfellows the Lib Dems, and Labour gets beyond the 326 needed – albeit not convincingly.
But in the absence of a formal coalition deal between Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems, would David Cameron just hand over the keys to Downing Street? Constitutionally speaking it is the Tories, as the incumbents, who get the “first go” at forming a government.
With many more votes and 20 more seats in this imagined scenario, the Tories could claim the plurality of public opinion to be on their side and therefore refuse to just relinquish power to another minority party that similarly lacks the stability of a coalition.
Along with public opinion, a Conservative minority government might even claim to be acting “in the national interest” by maintaining the unity and defence of the realm through neutralising both the separatist desires of the SNP and their wish to abandon Trident.
Sitting things out could bring an initially sceptical public around. Or it could send public opinion in the opposite direction.
Whatever happens it is likely that although public opinion will play some part, the result will be determined by a combination of numbers, negotiations, personalities and, ultimately, politics.
Imagine.
Joe Twyman is head of political and social research at YouGov. He was a speaker at EG’s London Question Time debate on 29 April. To listen to a podcast, click here. Read tweets from the debate at #EGQT. Follow Joe on twitter @joetwyman
