Who are the candidates and who's got your vote?

[Bowden Guy]

I will stick with the forecast/prediction/ guess I made some time ago......

Lib Dems 40%
Conservatives 37%
UKIP 15%
Labour 8%

[moorendman]

Pleased I manage to stimulate some debate, I still believe that there could be a shock here. It is predicated on the growth of the. Labour vote and that is entirely due to the candidate and his campaign. I find it difficult to accept that all his efforts, particularly in engaging younger voters with social media will only result in an increase of 700 votes as some of my rival forecasters are suggesting. 

[simonesaffron]

I don't actually think that there has been much to choose between the candidates. They've all been able and some have been better/worse at some things than others.

I'll be surprised (no actually amazed) if moorendman's predictions are accurate, don't give up the day job moorend. However as you're sticking you head above the proverbial, here is my humble attempt at forecast.

Libdem 17,000

Conservatives 16,000

Labour 6,000

UKIP 3,500

Green 1,000

The narrowest of victories by Conservatives wouldn't surprise me.   

[wheels]

Particularly as there has been little or no Labour campaign and a Labour candidate who seemed more interested in pushing his own religious beliefs rather than anything else.

[Dave]

For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000

I think your analysis is skewed..... I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.

I'm with Howard there.  Moorendman has been very brave in his prediction, but the idea that the Lib Dem vote might be halved compared with 2010, and the Labour vote doubled, thereby pushing the Lib Dems into third place, stretches credibility to breaking point!   (Wishful  thinking there, moorendman?  )

So as moorendman has put his neck on the block, so will I.  Here goes:

Lib Dem   17,000
Conservative 15,500
Labour 6,500
UKIP 3,000
Green 1,000

[amazon]

Agree. If William Wragg is to win he'll just sneak it. The visibility of labour posters / signs has increased massively compared to all previous elections in living memory.

That doesn't mean anything my neibour has labour posters up but he's voting lib dem .

[HWL1973]

For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000

I think your analysis is skewed a little. Whilst Michael Taylor has run a very very good campaign, I really don't see him picking up an additional 3000 votes. In the parlance of Game of Thrones "it is known" that Labour can't win in Hazel Grove [currently] so to avoid a Conservative win, people will, albeit reluctantly in some cases, stick with the LibDems. I really don't see them losing 3000 votes to Labour or the Conservatives, although there will definitely be some movement. I do think that UKIP will pick up a small number of votes, most probably from William Wragg and I'm not sure you're figured that in. The Greens may pick up a protest vote and that will probably also come from LibDem voters.

My prediction is that it's too close to call but if I really REALLY had to, then I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.

Agree. If William Wragg is to win he'll just sneak it. The visibility of labour posters / signs has increased massively compared to all previous elections in living memory.

[wheels]

I suppose that shows how different people have different views of what democracy is. To me, the whole point of an election is to choose the man or woman who has views closest to that of the voter. That person may be a member of a political party, but it is the individuals views that matter. I don't want someone who will be able to say "I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all".  If the candidate says "I thing this is right" and then changes to saying "actually I thing it is wrong" simply because the party leadership changes policies, that is not democracy as I understand it.

We clearly disagree in fact I think what you are suggesting is very very anti democratic. Voting for things you don't support seems to me to be the very nature of democracy. You will have had the debate within your party group and the group will have reached a collective decision. Democracy then requires that you support the the group line whatever your own views. The groups view will have been arrived at taking into account the philosophy of the wider party's platform that you were elected on.

What I don't think is  at all democratic is a bunch of individuals who claim to make their own mind up but in fact can be blown about like the wind and are subject to bulling by individuals or groups or residents with the loudest voice or the most money.

[Howard]

Here is my own personal forecast of the result in Hazel Grove. It mirrors the poll results above:

https://mellorview.wordpress.com

I would also like to express my admiration for all the candidates for the commitment and determination they have shown in this campaign.

For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000

I think your analysis is skewed. Whilst Michael Taylor has run a very very good campaign, I really don't see him picking up an additional 3000 votes. In the parlance of Game of Thrones "it is known" that Labour can't win in Hazel Grove [currently] so to avoid a Conservative win, people will, albeit reluctantly in some cases, stick with the LibDems. I can't see any way at all the Labour will get more votes in Hazel Grove than the Libdems, although there will definitely be some movement. I do think that UKIP will pick up a small number of votes, most probably from William Wragg and I'm not sure you're figured that in. The Greens may pick up a protest vote and that will probably also come from LibDem voters.

My prediction is that it's too close to call but there is no way the LibDems will lose by 6000 voyes to the Conservatives. That would be a swing of EPIC proportions, probably about 35% if my mental maths is correct. If I really REALLY had to, then I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.

[Condate]

I could not disagree more what your advocating is fundamentally anti democratic. I don't want an MP who makes their own mind up about each issue that seems to me to be receipt for confusion and for those with the loudest voice and most money being able to influence members. I want a member who follows a party line, is bound by the whips of the party I voted for, so I know exactly what I am getting when I vote..

I suppose that shows how different people have different views of what democracy is. To me, the whole point of an election is to choose the man or woman who has views closest to that of the voter. That person may be a member of a political party, but it is the individual's views that matter. I don't want someone who will be able to say "I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all".  If the candidate says "I thing this is right" and then changes to saying "actually I thing it is wrong" simply because the party leadership changes policies, that is not democracy as I understand it.

[moorendman]

Here is my own personal forecast of the result in Hazel Grove. It mirrors the poll results above:

https://mellorview.wordpress.com

I would also like to express my admiration for all the candidates for the commitment and determination they have shown in this campaign.

[wheels]

I could not disagree more what your advocating is fundamentally anti democratic. I don't want an MP who makes their own mind up about each issue that seems to me to be receipt for confusion and for those with the loudest voice and most money being able to influence members. I want a member who follows a party line, is bound by the whips of the party I voted for, so I know exactly what I am getting when I vote..

[Condate]

It should be an easy decision. Darran Palmer comes across as the best candidate, but William Wragg has the best chance of beating the awful Lisa Smart. I suppose in the end, tactical voting is not really sensible, but the thought of another Liberal Democrat as our MP is horrible.

 

[Condate]

Well you'd better get ready to fume all over again, Prestbury, because in any coalition negotiation (and everyone expects we will have them again) there is a bargaining process, and both parties end up sacrificing bits of their manifesto. It's naive to expect otherwise, I'm afraid.

That's why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic. Every MP should vote on each issue as they believe to be right and anything which takes away their ability to do that makes a mockery of the election process.

[Dave]

I will admit that at the election in 2010 I voted Lib Dems for the sitting MP who had done some good work in the constituency but I am still fuming at him being instrumental in selling us down the river by being one of the senior negotiaters in propping up the Conservatives in a hung parliament along with the LD's reneging on their manifesto to gain power.

Well you'd better get ready to fume all over again, Prestbury, because in any coalition negotiation (and everyone expects we will have them again) there is a bargaining process, and both parties end up sacrificing bits of their manifesto. It's naive to expect otherwise, I'm afraid.