Any comparison to Hague and Howard is at best dubious at worst disingenuous - the Conservative party was highly unpopular and still is.
Let's just deal with that bit first. Comparing the relative popularity of Opposition Leaders is disingenuous? Don't be ridiculous. And also, the Conservative party wasn't unpopular, at this stage before the 2001 election it was polling 35% - within a couple of points of Labour's inflated (see my final point) current average.
It would appear that the Labour Party is more popular than the leader and that any leader unpopularity is factored in already - also no irony whatsoever
In which case, if "it's all built in" why is Ed all but wetting himself over his problems surrounding his image? Answer: because the majority of the population only interact with politics once every five years and they've yet to form their view. And any fule kno what will happen when they see Miliband. Of course it's not all built in, nowhere near.
Look at electoral calculus and you will see what the Tory chances are.
Electoral calculus is a very useful site. Unfortunately its current results are based on current polling and only the most wildly optimistic Labour supporters believe that those levels of polling will be sustained.
One final point. Labour results are currently inflated by a huge number of people who have turned their backs on the Lib-Dems. Will they continue to turn their backs, knowing that to do so will hand victory over the Tories in a number of marginals? Will they ****. and as a result, the Labour vote will take another tumble.
Let's just deal with that bit first. Comparing the relative popularity of Opposition Leaders is disingenuous? Don't be ridiculous. And also, the Conservative party wasn't unpopular, at this stage before the 2001 election it was polling 35% - within a couple of points of Labour's inflated (see my final point) current average.
In which case, if "it's all built in" why is Ed all but wetting himself over his problems surrounding his image? Answer: because the majority of the population only interact with politics once every five years and they've yet to form their view. And any fule kno what will happen when they see Miliband. Of course it's not all built in, nowhere near.
Electoral calculus is a very useful site. Unfortunately its current results are based on current polling and only the most wildly optimistic Labour supporters believe that those levels of polling will be sustained.
One final point. Labour results are currently inflated by a huge number of people who have turned their backs on the Lib-Dems. Will they continue to turn their backs, knowing that to do so will hand victory over the Tories in a number of marginals? Will they ****. and as a result, the Labour vote will take another tumble.
Oh my goodness you have a very high opinion of your own views and to dismiss mine the way you have done is ridiculous - to quote your rather crude argument. I am beginning to think that you are grasping at straws. Nothing you say has any more strength than what I say but you seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom in this context. I fear you are going to be let down. I also think you underestimate Ed Miliband.
And I bet you a shilling on the side that Labour will form the next government. And Labour will poll around 35% as will the Tories.
Remember also that Labour lost a lot of voters in 2005 to the Libdems mainly because of the Iraq war - there is no reason why those who have returned to Labour will not remain and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I think that is why Labour will win or be the biggest party.
And there is no need for the bad language - or implied bad language - it only weakens any point you might be trying to make.
Oh my goodness you have a very high opinion of your own views and to dismiss mine the way you have done is ridiculous - to quote your rather crude argument. I am beginning to think that you are grasping at straws. Nothing you say has any more strength than what I say but you seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom in this context. I fear you are going to be let down. I also think you underestimate Ed Miliband.
How about addressing the issues I raised instead of generalising away personally? You could try by justifying - as opposed to just saying - why comparing the relative popularity of leaders of the opposition is disingenuous, and not ridiculous.
How about addressing the issues I raised instead of generalising away personally? You could try by justifying - as opposed to just saying - why comparing the relative popularity of leaders of the opposition is disingenuous, and not ridiculous.
Do you think it would have made any difference in 2001 and 2005 who the leader of the opposition was? I do not and I thought that point was clear - if not well it should be now. Neither Hague nor Smith nor Howard had a hope because their party was toxic and they were up against Blair.
Now Milband is not regarded all that favourably but he is not up against anyone remotely like Blair nor is the party toxic. Does that address the point sufficiently for you to at least recognise what I am suggesting even if you do not agree with me? If not then there is nothing else I can say.
One final point. Labour results are currently inflated by a huge number of people who have turned their backs on the Lib-Dems. Will they continue to turn their backs, knowing that to do so will hand victory over the Tories in a number of marginals? Will they ****. and as a result, the Labour vote will take another tumble.
The left of centre crew are rather used to tactical voting. In the Lib Dem seats where the Tories are second there will be some holding of the nose and Lib Dem voting going on but that's thirty seats out of over 600. That will have a minimal impact on Labour vote share but a disproportionate impact on the Tories hopes of increasing their seats at Lib Dem expense.
Do you think it would have made any difference in 2001 and 2005 who the leader of the opposition was? I do not and I thought that point was clear - if not well it should be now. Neither Hague nor Smith nor Howard had a hope because their party was toxic and they were up against Blair.
I've already told you that the party wasn't toxic, at this same stage before the 2001 election the Tories were less than 2% behind where Labour are now. are you saying that Labour are unpopular now? Of course not - in which case neither were the Tories.
As for being up against Blair - Blair's numbers went negative within 2 years of becoming PM and Cameron is line with Blair now. So that argument doesn't stack up either.
Now Miliband is not regarded all that favourably but he is not up against anyone remotely like Blair nor is the party toxic.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. All three points.
1) "Miliband is not regarded all that favourably" is a massive understatement.
2) He's coming up against someone who's ratings are very similar to Blair at this stage
3) Four years after they left office, the polls are still showing the public holding the Labour Party responsible for the problems in the UK economy. Of course they're toxic.
The left of centre crew are rather used to tactical voting. In the Lib Dem seats where the Tories are second there will be some holding of the nose and Lib Dem voting going on but that's thirty seats out of over 600. That will have a minimal impact on Labour vote share but a disproportionate impact on the Tories hopes of increasing their seats at Lib Dem expense.
Ta. I think it will be more as the votes will also go in near-marginals, and much will depend on whatever signals Clegg sends out pre-election, but let's see.
The sad fact is that David Tee cannot accept that the Conservatives are not popular in this country - outside their core vote.
Neither are Labour either which makes it an interesting election in terms of the result.
He is also mistaken in the idea that people make their decision in the run-up to the election. The majority of the people voting have already made their choice - only something major will make them change and I do not see it happening in the next ten months. A lot are in safe seats where it makes no difference either way. The marginal seats will decide the make up of the new government and that is where the pollster should concentrate their efforts.
there is nothing that Labour are doing now or in the past that is in any way a problem.
I think I just saw Snow White riding on Bambi's back, on the way to see the Wicked Witch Of The West, who is apparently taking therapy for her anger issues and trying to make more friends.
I think I just saw Snow White riding on Bambi's back, on the way to see the Wicked Witch Of The West, who is apparently taking therapy for her anger issues and trying to make more friends.
What I was saying is that the Conservatives are responsible for their own current situation, that it is nothing to do with Labour.
The Conservatives for decades have reduced provision for most of the country, so most of the country does not like them.
The Conservatives have ceased to try and help people "get on", to concentrate instead on helping an elite and the business elite who have already "made it"
The Conservatives have frequently gone beyond that which was necessary and behaved in a vindictive way, the so-called "bedroom tax" comes to mind here.
Labour are ahead in the polls, but it's the Conservatives doing.
The sad fact is that David Tee cannot accept that the Conservatives are not popular in this country - outside their core vote.
Neither are Labour either which makes it an interesting election in terms of the result.
I've never said that but since you raise it - no. I don't believe it and I don't believe it of Labour either. Parties don't magically go in a heartbeat from having core vote to unpopularity. There are floating voters (estimated at up to 30% of all voters) who happily switch between parties.
He is also mistaken in the idea that people make their decision in the run-up to the election. The majority of the people voting have already made their choice - only something major will make them change and I do not see it happening in the next ten months. A lot are in safe seats where it makes no difference either way. The marginal seats will decide the make up of the new government and that is where the pollster should concentrate their efforts.
Yes, the majority have but as is always the case, it's those that haven't (we're back to floating voters) that will decide the outcome of the next election.
1997 was Labour's biggest win wasn't it. A total landslide I recall.
Yes it was - but what happened to those voters in 2001? - 3m+ deserted Labour. There is a huge number of people who have not voted in elections since then - there is a great unknown as to who they will vote for.
He is also mistaken in the idea that people make their decision in the run-up to the election. The majority of the people voting have already made their choice .
I don't think they have - look at the number of people who voted in the 2010 election compared with the late 1990's. There is something like 3-4m people who opted out of the elections. Nobody if they were really honest knows who they would vote for. In 1992 many voted conservative - netting John Major over 14m votes. In 1997 around 3m voted for Tony Blair - many because they thought Labour should get a chance, not so much out loyalty for Blair.
Who are they going to vote for in 2015 if they vote at all?
People this is supposed to be a thread about opinion polls not another tedious LabCon debate. Osborne and Balls both attend Bilderberg events together - in reality there is no real fundamental difference between the two.
Lord Ashcroft is about to release another poll it seems - of less marginal marginals.
The IMF forecast just this today, 3.2% growth, outstripping all other world economies.
I don't know what you think talking patently easily disproveable nonsense does to ease Labour's pain. It's hardly a hard fact to check up on.
Oh yes, the IMF has also acknowledged they got their nonsense doom 'n gloom predictions about Osborne's austerity measures wrong. In economic credibility terms, it doesn't get much better than this for the Tories.
A year before RBS went into meltdown the IMF praised the British economy as being the "goldilocks" economy of the world. I'm not sure that IMF praise is worth all that much these days.
But if you want to talk economic performance, the Britain is the last major economy to breach 2008 GDP - FACT.
The deficit is more than DOUBLE what Osborne predicted in his 2010 budget- FACT.
By 2015 Osborne will have borrowed £200 billion more than even the most pessimistic borrowing forecast and even the Labour borrowing forecast in 2010 - FACT.
Britain lost its Triple A credit rating, which Osborne himself said was the measure we should use to judge him as chancellor in 2010- FACT.
Our annual 3.2% GDP growth and rapidly falling unemployment is not being reflected in the Government's tax and borrowing receipts. This is of massive concern, because every Government since time began has relied on the economic upswing to eliminate at least part of its deficit. If that isn't happening this time it creates a huge black hole in Government finances and raises the question as to whether there is actually a recovery in real economy at all?
What an infantile remark. Dispassionately, there is plainly a chance, probably more than that. The opposition is nowhere near as far ahead as it needs to be.
.
With only three exceptions, 1959, 1983 and 1987 no other post 1945 Tory Government's could have secured a majority with just one seat in Scotland. Every Tory Government bar those three has had a majority equal to or smaller than the number of seats they won in Scotland.
Show me the evidence that the Tories are going to make a big comeback in Scotland and are far enough ahead of Labour in England to make gains and then, only then, will I accept there is chance of a Tory majority come 2015.
BTW at every election including and since 1992 and even 2010 Labour have won more marginal seats than uniform national swing would have suggested, this is why a Tory majority is generally thought to require them to be 10% ahead on polling day.
Ukip voters will make Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Labour claims
Ed Miliband will become prime minister if Ukip wins more than nine per cent of the vote in next year’s general election, Labour advisers have calculated.
Mr Miliband’s strategists have calculated that a significant vote for the Eurosceptic party will cost the Conservatives enough seats to put Labour in office, The Telegraph has learnt.
A year before RBS went into meltdown the IMF praised the British economy as being the "goldilocks" economy of the world. I'm not sure that IMF praise is worth all that much these days.
But if you want to talk economic performance, the Britain is the last major economy to breach 2008 GDP - FACT.
The deficit is more than DOUBLE what Osborne predicted in his 2010 budget- FACT.
By 2015 Osborne will have borrowed £200 billion more than even the most pessimistic borrowing forecast and even the Labour borrowing forecast in 2010 - FACT.
Britain lost its Triple A credit rating, which Osborne himself said was the measure we should use to judge him as chancellor in 2010- FACT.
Our annual 3.2% GDP growth and rapidly falling unemployment is not being reflected in the Government's tax and borrowing receipts. This is of massive concern, because every Government since time began has relied on the economic upswing to eliminate at least part of its deficit. If that isn't happening this time it creates a huge black hole in Government finances and raises the question as to whether there is actually a recovery in real economy at all?
SSSSSHHH, 'they' don't DO facts, they only believe what the beloved leader tells them to believe, and anything other than that is thought crime,
I've already told you that the party wasn't toxic, at this same stage before the 2001 election the Tories were less than 2% behind where Labour are now. are you saying that Labour are unpopular now? Of course not - in which case neither were the Tories.
As for being up against Blair - Blair's numbers went negative within 2 years of becoming PM and Cameron is line with Blair now. So that argument doesn't stack up either.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. All three points.
1) "Miliband is not regarded all that favourably" is a massive understatement.
2) He's coming up against someone who's ratings are very similar to Blair at this stage
3) Four years after they left office, the polls are still showing the public holding the Labour Party responsible for the problems in the UK economy. Of course they're toxic.
David - because you have already told me does not mean you were right. And your wrong ,wrong thing again reflects your partisanship. Of course I accept that Cameron's ratings are higher but to suggest that he is similar to Blair in the context of elections is nonsense. We are talking about winning elections are we not? I think Blair might have even won in 2010 - that is how good this guy was at fighting elections. Milband is not up against anyone remotely as impressive as that - by the way do no think that I am a great Blair fan as I am not really but the guy was an impressive campaigner. We have seen Cameron fight an election - and he could not even win that one - we have yet to see what Miliband can do.
How on earth can Labour be toxic if they are ahead in the polls? Or do you mean they are less toxic than the Tories? I might just be prepared to accept that. What you have had explained to you by me and others is that the Tory party is not that popular and in some areas simply hated - I know it can be difficult to accept that the party you support is not liked but there it is. I cannot see how they can achieve an OM and I do not believe they will even be the biggest party. These are not generalisations plucked out of nowhere but based on my perceptions of how this government is perceived and the opinion polling over the past three years.
Ukip voters will make Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Labour claims
Ed Miliband will become prime minister if Ukip wins more than nine per cent of the vote in next year’s general election, Labour advisers have calculated.
Mr Miliband’s strategists have calculated that a significant vote for the Eurosceptic party will cost the Conservatives enough seats to put Labour in office, The Telegraph has learnt.
Some of the Ashcroft polls now show UKIP is taking more votes off Labour than the Tories - and UKIP won a by election in Milibands local Doncaster area last Thursday. And this story is of course in the Torygraph - so they have an agenda.
If you want to vote UKIP or Green or Respect do so - cos whether it's Lab or Con next May nothing much will change for the better.
But again we are not discussing actual opinion polls are we - perhaps we need a general forum for election strategy. Polls is the point of this thread!
Speaking of other parties, if we have the lowest turnout for a GE since 1918, it might benefit the smaller parties and throw out some unexpected results.
Then again, there is the voting system that may counter the voting turnout.
Yes a clutch of interesting polls yesterday. The 39% in Yougov is high but not implausible given the recent spate of 38s there have been.There is another poll form Ashcroft with a 2% lead, a Comres, I think, showing the Tories on 27% - ouch and in London there is a poll giving Labour a 10% lead.
The Tory spin merchants on here are going to tell us
that Labour is still not doing well enough and should be a zillion points head and they will still be deluding themselves next May when the Tories do not win the GE.
Yes a clutch of interesting polls yesterday. The 39% in Yougov is high but not implausible given the recent spate of 38s there have been.There is another poll form Ashcroft with a 2% lead, a Comres, I think, showing the Tories on 27% - ouch and in London there is a poll giving Labour a 10% lead.
The Tory spin merchants on here are going to tell us
that Labour is still not doing well enough and should be a zillion points head and they will still be deluding themselves next May when the Tories do not win the GE.
Yes the Tories are on their lowest score ever in the Comres phone poll - not to be confused with the Comres online polls which give different results.
Comments
Let's just deal with that bit first. Comparing the relative popularity of Opposition Leaders is disingenuous? Don't be ridiculous. And also, the Conservative party wasn't unpopular, at this stage before the 2001 election it was polling 35% - within a couple of points of Labour's inflated (see my final point) current average.
In which case, if "it's all built in" why is Ed all but wetting himself over his problems surrounding his image? Answer: because the majority of the population only interact with politics once every five years and they've yet to form their view. And any fule kno what will happen when they see Miliband. Of course it's not all built in, nowhere near.
Electoral calculus is a very useful site. Unfortunately its current results are based on current polling and only the most wildly optimistic Labour supporters believe that those levels of polling will be sustained.
One final point. Labour results are currently inflated by a huge number of people who have turned their backs on the Lib-Dems. Will they continue to turn their backs, knowing that to do so will hand victory over the Tories in a number of marginals? Will they ****. and as a result, the Labour vote will take another tumble.
1997 was Labour's biggest win wasn't it. A total landslide I recall.
Oh my goodness you have a very high opinion of your own views and to dismiss mine the way you have done is ridiculous - to quote your rather crude argument. I am beginning to think that you are grasping at straws. Nothing you say has any more strength than what I say but you seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom in this context. I fear you are going to be let down. I also think you underestimate Ed Miliband.
And I bet you a shilling on the side that Labour will form the next government. And Labour will poll around 35% as will the Tories.
Remember also that Labour lost a lot of voters in 2005 to the Libdems mainly because of the Iraq war - there is no reason why those who have returned to Labour will not remain and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I think that is why Labour will win or be the biggest party.
And there is no need for the bad language - or implied bad language - it only weakens any point you might be trying to make.
How about addressing the issues I raised instead of generalising away personally? You could try by justifying - as opposed to just saying - why comparing the relative popularity of leaders of the opposition is disingenuous, and not ridiculous.
Do you think it would have made any difference in 2001 and 2005 who the leader of the opposition was? I do not and I thought that point was clear - if not well it should be now. Neither Hague nor Smith nor Howard had a hope because their party was toxic and they were up against Blair.
Now Milband is not regarded all that favourably but he is not up against anyone remotely like Blair nor is the party toxic. Does that address the point sufficiently for you to at least recognise what I am suggesting even if you do not agree with me? If not then there is nothing else I can say.
The left of centre crew are rather used to tactical voting. In the Lib Dem seats where the Tories are second there will be some holding of the nose and Lib Dem voting going on but that's thirty seats out of over 600. That will have a minimal impact on Labour vote share but a disproportionate impact on the Tories hopes of increasing their seats at Lib Dem expense.
I've already told you that the party wasn't toxic, at this same stage before the 2001 election the Tories were less than 2% behind where Labour are now. are you saying that Labour are unpopular now? Of course not - in which case neither were the Tories.
As for being up against Blair - Blair's numbers went negative within 2 years of becoming PM and Cameron is line with Blair now. So that argument doesn't stack up either.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. All three points.
1) "Miliband is not regarded all that favourably" is a massive understatement.
2) He's coming up against someone who's ratings are very similar to Blair at this stage
3) Four years after they left office, the polls are still showing the public holding the Labour Party responsible for the problems in the UK economy. Of course they're toxic.
Ta. I think it will be more as the votes will also go in near-marginals, and much will depend on whatever signals Clegg sends out pre-election, but let's see.
Neither are Labour either which makes it an interesting election in terms of the result.
He is also mistaken in the idea that people make their decision in the run-up to the election. The majority of the people voting have already made their choice - only something major will make them change and I do not see it happening in the next ten months. A lot are in safe seats where it makes no difference either way. The marginal seats will decide the make up of the new government and that is where the pollster should concentrate their efforts.
I think I just saw Snow White riding on Bambi's back, on the way to see the Wicked Witch Of The West, who is apparently taking therapy for her anger issues and trying to make more friends.
What I was saying is that the Conservatives are responsible for their own current situation, that it is nothing to do with Labour.
The Conservatives for decades have reduced provision for most of the country, so most of the country does not like them.
The Conservatives have ceased to try and help people "get on", to concentrate instead on helping an elite and the business elite who have already "made it"
The Conservatives have frequently gone beyond that which was necessary and behaved in a vindictive way, the so-called "bedroom tax" comes to mind here.
Labour are ahead in the polls, but it's the Conservatives doing.
I've never said that but since you raise it - no. I don't believe it and I don't believe it of Labour either. Parties don't magically go in a heartbeat from having core vote to unpopularity. There are floating voters (estimated at up to 30% of all voters) who happily switch between parties.
Yes, the majority have but as is always the case, it's those that haven't (we're back to floating voters) that will decide the outcome of the next election.
Yes it was - but what happened to those voters in 2001? - 3m+ deserted Labour. There is a huge number of people who have not voted in elections since then - there is a great unknown as to who they will vote for.
I don't think they have - look at the number of people who voted in the 2010 election compared with the late 1990's. There is something like 3-4m people who opted out of the elections. Nobody if they were really honest knows who they would vote for. In 1992 many voted conservative - netting John Major over 14m votes. In 1997 around 3m voted for Tony Blair - many because they thought Labour should get a chance, not so much out loyalty for Blair.
Who are they going to vote for in 2015 if they vote at all?
Lord Ashcroft is about to release another poll it seems - of less marginal marginals.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/07/27/it-looks-as-though-lord-ashcroft-could-be-polling-the-slightly-less-marginal-lab-con-battlegrounds/
A year before RBS went into meltdown the IMF praised the British economy as being the "goldilocks" economy of the world. I'm not sure that IMF praise is worth all that much these days.
But if you want to talk economic performance, the Britain is the last major economy to breach 2008 GDP - FACT.
The deficit is more than DOUBLE what Osborne predicted in his 2010 budget- FACT.
By 2015 Osborne will have borrowed £200 billion more than even the most pessimistic borrowing forecast and even the Labour borrowing forecast in 2010 - FACT.
Britain lost its Triple A credit rating, which Osborne himself said was the measure we should use to judge him as chancellor in 2010- FACT.
Our annual 3.2% GDP growth and rapidly falling unemployment is not being reflected in the Government's tax and borrowing receipts. This is of massive concern, because every Government since time began has relied on the economic upswing to eliminate at least part of its deficit. If that isn't happening this time it creates a huge black hole in Government finances and raises the question as to whether there is actually a recovery in real economy at all?
With only three exceptions, 1959, 1983 and 1987 no other post 1945 Tory Government's could have secured a majority with just one seat in Scotland. Every Tory Government bar those three has had a majority equal to or smaller than the number of seats they won in Scotland.
Show me the evidence that the Tories are going to make a big comeback in Scotland and are far enough ahead of Labour in England to make gains and then, only then, will I accept there is chance of a Tory majority come 2015.
BTW at every election including and since 1992 and even 2010 Labour have won more marginal seats than uniform national swing would have suggested, this is why a Tory majority is generally thought to require them to be 10% ahead on polling day.
Ed Miliband will become prime minister if Ukip wins more than nine per cent of the vote in next year’s general election, Labour advisers have calculated.
Mr Miliband’s strategists have calculated that a significant vote for the Eurosceptic party will cost the Conservatives enough seats to put Labour in office, The Telegraph has learnt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10994493/Ukip-voters-will-make-Ed-Miliband-Prime-Minister-Labour-claims.html
Don't vote UKIP.
SSSSSHHH, 'they' don't DO facts, they only believe what the beloved leader tells them to believe, and anything other than that is thought crime,
David - because you have already told me does not mean you were right. And your wrong ,wrong thing again reflects your partisanship. Of course I accept that Cameron's ratings are higher but to suggest that he is similar to Blair in the context of elections is nonsense. We are talking about winning elections are we not? I think Blair might have even won in 2010 - that is how good this guy was at fighting elections. Milband is not up against anyone remotely as impressive as that - by the way do no think that I am a great Blair fan as I am not really but the guy was an impressive campaigner. We have seen Cameron fight an election - and he could not even win that one - we have yet to see what Miliband can do.
How on earth can Labour be toxic if they are ahead in the polls? Or do you mean they are less toxic than the Tories? I might just be prepared to accept that. What you have had explained to you by me and others is that the Tory party is not that popular and in some areas simply hated - I know it can be difficult to accept that the party you support is not liked but there it is. I cannot see how they can achieve an OM and I do not believe they will even be the biggest party. These are not generalisations plucked out of nowhere but based on my perceptions of how this government is perceived and the opinion polling over the past three years.
Some of the Ashcroft polls now show UKIP is taking more votes off Labour than the Tories - and UKIP won a by election in Milibands local Doncaster area last Thursday. And this story is of course in the Torygraph - so they have an agenda.
If you want to vote UKIP or Green or Respect do so - cos whether it's Lab or Con next May nothing much will change for the better.
But again we are not discussing actual opinion polls are we - perhaps we need a general forum for election strategy. Polls is the point of this thread!
CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
:kitty:
Then again, there is the voting system that may counter the voting turnout.
Yes a clutch of interesting polls yesterday. The 39% in Yougov is high but not implausible given the recent spate of 38s there have been.There is another poll form Ashcroft with a 2% lead, a Comres, I think, showing the Tories on 27% - ouch and in London there is a poll giving Labour a 10% lead.
The Tory spin merchants on here are going to tell us
that Labour is still not doing well enough and should be a zillion points head and they will still be deluding themselves next May when the Tories do not win the GE.
Yes the Tories are on their lowest score ever in the Comres phone poll - not to be confused with the Comres online polls which give different results.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/07/28/the-tories-drop-to-their-lowest-point-ever-in-a-comres-phone-poll-in-tonights-survey-for-the-indy/
Lab 33
Con 27
UKIP 17
LDs 8
Green 7