A new ComRes poll for Tuesday’s Independent has headline voting intention figures, with changes from last month, of CON 40% (-1), LAB 27% (-6), LDEM 18%(+2) and Others 14%.

The 13 point Conservative lead is the largest recorded for almost twenty years; in the unlikely event that such a whopping swing occured in a uniform fashion at a general election it would produce a Tory majority of 58. It is worth remembering however that ComRes do tend to have the most favourable weighting for the Conservatives (and for ‘others’) so we should expect them to report larger leads than companies like YouGov and ICM.

The changes in the topline figures match the general trends we’ve seen elsewhere. Labour are down sharply, the Liberal Democrats are up, benefiting either from the publicity of their leadership election or through Labour’s misfortune, the Conservative vote is down very slightly – the same as we saw with BPIX, rather than the sharp drop we saw with ICM. My instinct is that the ICM poll may be a rogue, that the actual picture is that the Conservatives are steady-ish, Labour are down significantly but the Lib Dems (and others) are the beneficaries of their troubles – that is just my own personal judgement through. We’ve still got YouGov to come this week, Populus early next week and an Ipsos MORI poll at some unspecified point, so we shouldn’t have a lack of polls to make judgements on.


108 Responses to “Tories 13 points ahead in ComRes poll”

1 2 3
  1. For those that are gleeful at the Conservative 13% lead,the same party was 13% behind a only few months ago.

    Don’t count your turkeys before Christmas arrives.

  2. True that this could all change again, but the biggest lead since 1988 (when Thatcher was PM) reinforces that tis the season to be jolly …

  3. I agree with Anthony’s analysis; nonetheless I’m a little baffled that the Conservatives are not benefiting at all from Labour’s decline.

  4. What will it take for the Conservatives to get into the mid-forties? Will Cameron’s speech to the CBI make a difference?

  5. I am shocked that Labour on 27% that is extremely Bad news for Gordon Brown this shows they have lost total trust of the Child Benefits Fiasco and Northern Rock mess.

    The Conservatives on 40% pretty good and the Other Parties such SNP and BNP and The Greens are doing well on Labour’s Expense.

    But Cameron must be worried not breaking into the 45% barrier that he knows could win the Next Election if less than 45% then a Hung Parliament is more likely!

    BNP doing well on Immigration issues.

    SNP must be leading in Scotland now for Westminster Opinion Poll on ComRes Independent Tuesday 27-11-07 Poll.

    If Gordon Brown carries a vote of less than 30% then he is heading for big defeat to Conservatives or Hung Parliament possible Coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

    The Lib Dems on 18% is very good.

    Not quite there 21% on Saturday though.

  6. The Tories don’t need 45% to win an election- these uniform swing stats are misleading. I believe a 13 point Tory lead would given thema mjority of more like 120 if it transpired, rather than 58- less that Labour got in 2005 for being all of 3 points ahead.

    I am also surprised to see the Tories not climbing into the mid forties at time ssuch as this. It may simply be that the potential conservatiuve vote (i..e the maximun they could realsitically poll) is lower than Labour’s.

  7. Funny how I recall the last couple of years people posting how the Tories needed 40% to win an election – now that its almost taken for granted that we’re on 40 the goalpost has moved to 45%

    I don’t think Cameron will be concerned at all if the figure stays at the 40-42% region this month while Labour falls: Cameron appears to be staying out of the news completely at the moment and Tory rises in the polls follow his dominating media appearances.

    The plan appears to be to just let Labour’s continual implosion be the story, no need to divert from it with Cameron speaking.

    Once the news of all these Labour problems is broken and beginning to pass I expect Cameron will then step in himself and we could then see 45% Tory figures.

    If this is the strategy as I suspect then its a sound one, playing the long game.

    ————

    I do want to see the Scotland break in the polls. Yes all the caveats on their accuracy apply, and it is very difficult for the SNP to start winning Westminster seats, but there must be some sort of tipping point at which they start to fall? Any idea Peter or anyone else what that is?

  8. Luke, the point is that governments usually climb from mid-term and principal oppositions lose ground. So while you’re correct that the Tories don’t need 45% to win, they need 45% in mid-term to cushion their likely loss when people actually start thinking about choosing the government.

    You are probably right about the Conservatives’ ceiling; this is interesting though because it does suggest there has been a long-term realignment since 1992 because, of course, prior to 1997 the Tories could win 43% in general elections routinely.

    I agree with you, incidentally, that a Tory lead of 13% or so would produce a “winner’s bonus” under FPTP and their majority would be huge.

    On the other hand, the seemingly widening divide between Conservative fortunes in the North and South of the country could actually produce the opposite: an even smaller Tory majority than a uniform swing would suggest, with loads of 20,000 majorities in the home counties and missing out on key marginals in the north west.

  9. PS good to see some new names posting here in recent days, welcome :-)

  10. Adam: That is often said, but hasn’t been demonstrated as being true. When we had a Conservative government the Tories gained from the mid-term and Labour lost. So far in the previous two terms of this Labour government, the Tories gained from the mid-term and Labour lost.

    Based on the last 2 decades of polls the story is not one of government’s recovering, but simply of the Tories recovering – whether in government or opposition.

    But that’s the past, what happens in the future is anyone’s guess. As has been shown again recently, “a weeks a long time in politics” and we’re likely 2.5 years from the next election. Anyone claiming with certainty where we’ll be come 2010 is a mug.

    I don’t see any evidence of a ceiling. Until recently people talked of a Tory ceiling of 33%, not that long ago Tories were celebrating regular leads with the Tory figure being in the high 30’s. The Tory figure now is better than it was pre-Brown and has been at this level for about 2 months. 2 months of data does not demonstrate a ceiling.

    Just because the polls haven’t yet hit 45% doesn’t mean they won’t. They could of course equally go back down to 35%. If you’d asked any Tory 2 years ago if they’d be happy with 40-42%, I’m sure they’d have said yes.

  11. Weighted Moving Average 40:32:16 C lead 8 (well 7.6) which is almost an all-time high. And this poll is before the Abrahams/Watt fiasco. ComRes is the most erratic of the pollsters, with a Standard Deviation of 3.6 and a tendency to overstate C leads by about 1 point. I said last week we’d see polls like this and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the WMA get to 42:28:18. How Labour under Brown will react to a prolonged period of being over 10 points behind in the polls remains to be seen…

  12. Interesting times. I would be surprised if this poll lead is repeated in the other polls, but it’s not impossible. As discussed above, the Tory position is fascinating. I think this and the polls during the autumn (remeber slumping Tory support in September?) are showing that Cameron has not done what he needs to do. He has been in place for approaching 2 years and has not established himself as the natural party of choice for disenchanted voters – compare that to Rudd’s performance in Australia. This should really worry the Tories. Waiting for the government to implode is a very dangerous game, epsecially now there is a third party waiting in the wings in a way we haven’t had for most of the last century.

  13. Comres uses a very tory-favourable weighting system. In the middle of the Brown Bounce, they had Labour on 3 points ahead, where YouGov and others had them 7-9 points ahead.

    And as a note, there is a swing back to the Government, almost always. In 1999/2000 Labour was about 5 points ahead in regular opinion polls and slipped behind once or twice. Then went on to win another landslide.

  14. Anthony , a technical point , some months ago we discussed a slight change in the Populus questions that reduced their Others vote by a couple of % , can you point me in the direction of the thread on which we talked about it .

  15. Anthony, is it possible that the complicated past vote weightings can work against the Conservatives in the case of a Labour collapse, or is that just nonsense?

    I suspect probably the latter, but i’m just seeing if their is some sort of explanation like this for the large rise in “others”, with no rise (even a fall!) in the Conservative share.

  16. Shan, what are you talking about? In 1999 there wasn’t even a single poll that gave Labour a less than double digit poll lead. At this stage of the Parliamentary cycle that time (Nov 1999) MORI was giving Labour a 30 point Labour lead. The next Gallup poll gave a 26 point Labour lead and the next ICM poll gave a 19 point Labour lead.

    Compare that to an actual election result in 2001 of a 9% Lab lead.

    In 2000 the polls reported a double digit labour lead at almost all times excluding the fuel crisis and all but 1 polls gave a double-digit Lab lead in 2001 (1 by ICM in March solely giving the right result of 9%). Not a single poll in 2001 underestimated the governments lead.

    Clearly if you exclude the blip of the fuel crisis the government did not recover in that Parliament.

  17. I think it is a mistake for newspapers to immediately commission a phone poll the moment a government mishap occurs. Voters need time to digest the details and arrive at their own conclusions before deciding if the incident concerned justifies changing their voting intentions.Contrary to general belief voters are not sheep who allow themselves to be guided into a pen by the media. It is obvious that the government will pay a political price for the woes which currently beset it but we have yet to see how the various problems play out. If the Revenue & Customs discs are found,if Virgin rescue Northern Rock, if the Head of the Taliban says he only wishes his men had British army equipment and if the Labour party donate all the money from Abrahams to the Little Sisters of Mercy in Calcutta then all may not be lost……

  18. Adam – re: the Tories not benefiting. It’s possible that there is churn beneath the surface. Theoretically they could be benefiting, but having it cancelled out by movement from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems thanks to the publicity of their leadership contest.

    Mark – that’ll be here.

    Alex – I guess the sort of scenario you are thinking of is if people suddenly get embarrassed to admit ever voting Labour, the proportion of people saying they voted Labour in the raw samples would plummet. Using ICM, Populus and ComRes’s methdology the pollster would assume they’ve just got a skewed sample and would weight what Labour past-voters they did have up to the normal level. Hence they’d end up with a sample that actually contained far more former Labour voters, which could obviously damage the Conservative share of the vote.

    It’s this scenario that lies behind Ipsos MORI’s decision not to use past vote weighting. ICM and Populus do not believe that there is any evidence of sudden changes in recalled vote like that above, that in reality recalled vote changes very gradually and their methods are designed to reflect that (YouGov, incidentally, don’t have the problem because they use a panel – they collected the data they weight by back in May 2005 and recorded it then, so there is no possibility of it changing in response to events).

    Philip – indeed, in the last two Parliaments the traditional pattern of the government falling behind in the opinion polls and then recovering didn’t really happen. In 1997-2001, if you exclude the wholly exceptional incident of the fuel strike there was no government recovery. In 2001-2005 there were times when the Conservatives popped ahead for a week or two, but realistically there was no great recovery from the levels mid-term.

  19. I agree with Philip’s comment about Cameron’s lack of visibility and have made – and come across – other bloggers making the same point.

    Cameron’s presence boosted Tory ratings even after a dreadful Tory summer and against the background of a much stronger opponent. Equally., the 42/43s were reached in/after the Conference season when he was in the news AND against a stronger Labour.
    There has been a theory doing the rounds on the Tory blogs that CCHQ have deliberately monitered Cameron’s in/out of the news and its effect on their vote. So far all indications are that it has a positive effect.
    Cameron is in it for the long haul and, as he said in relation to PMQs ” You have to vary the bowling”

    Adam
    I give you a quote from the Inde:
    “The Tories have slipped among 18-24 year olds but they are otherwise ahead of Labour across all age bands, social groups and regions – except Scotland – including Labour’s traditional heartland in the North.”
    We will see on what they base that statement when/if more details emerge.

  20. Thanks Anthony, that’s exactly what i was thinking. Mori’s forthcoming poll could be very illuminating.

    The Tory share just seems very strange. Even if you accept the “ceiling” theory that there is a limit to their support within the population, one would have expected their share to have gone up due simply to the overall sample becoming smaller (i would be very surprised if certainty to vote figures among Labour supporters hadn’t dropped quite significantly).

  21. SNP up 40% to 29% Lab for Scotland. I know it is a very, very small sample and that this must be taken with a huge pinch of salt but according to electoral calculus that would put the SNP on 41 seats to Labours 11. As a nationalist (albeit in wales were the swing was not so good) this is a huge step forward. At the least you have to assume that Labour and the SNP are now neck and neck in Scotland for Westminster.

  22. A couple of points on the ComRes figures, mostly regarding Scotland.

    Firstly If you look at the LibDem supporter voting intentions it is still the most fluid with only 70% solid ( Labour 78%, Tory 92%, SNP 89%). What struck me as significant was that of the remaining 30%, 17% go Tory and only 3% Labour.

    The SNP may well benefit from the 10% to others and there is a significant link in the SNP/LibDem vote ( although the figure is only 16, all who say they would vote other than SNP are Libdem, all be it only 2 people).

    In Scotland in general we have headline figures of;

    Labour 29%, Tory 16%, LibDem 16%, Others 39% of which the SNP is about 37% ( although that figure may be a bit high).

    If we assume that ComRes does put the Tories and Others high then things might not be so bad for Labour in Scotland and 16% must be seen as a very good result for the LibDems.

    I’d still put the SNP ahead, but again given the size of Labour majorities in Scotland I wouldn’t expect a landslide of seats even with a 5 point lead.

    It’s also worth noting the Scottish figures in the very first table. Who you voted for at westminster in 2005 are down as;

    Labour 24%, Tory 6%, LibDem 9%, Other 26% Other options 35%.

    That would give very approximate headline figures, stripping out don’t knows, didn’t vote extra, of;

    Labour 37%, Tory 9%, LibDem 14%, Others 40% ( with about 35% SNP).

    This, with the exception of the Labour figure, bares no relation to the actual result of;

    Labour 39%, Tory 16% LibDem 23%, SNP 18% Others 4%.

    I think it is almost certainly the case that a majority of those responding here must be mixing up Holyrood 2007 with Westminsters 2005.

    Peter.

  23. Shan,

    While I have my issues with ComRes could you explain, rather than just announce, how ‘Comres uses a very tory-favourable weighting system’?

  24. I can’t help thinking that the volatility of the polls is a reflection of that fact that there seem to be no significant policy differences between Labour and the Tories. Policy initiatives from either side tend to look like one-off headline-grabbing gimmicks rather than root-and-branch changes. Is it a wonder that the polls go up and down along with media stories?

  25. Ralph: That part is true, at least in recent months ComRes has been the most favourable pollster to the Tories which has been put down to differences in its weighting system.

  26. I think we have to go back to the 87-92 parliament to put this in perspective. The period 1992-2006 in relationship to the overall pattern of the polls for the past 50 years has been unusual. I would be very surprised if there isn’t some swing back to Labour over the next two years (assuming that there aren’t a continuous stream of ‘cock-ups’ on the part of the government) and the law of averages would indicate that the Tories are likely to suffer from some unexpected ‘events’ over the next two years as well. There’ll be no election before October 2009 and if there’s some economic upswing then i wouldn’t be surprised if Brown waited until April 2010. Just a thought, but if things continue to go badly for Brown, the Labour Party will begin to wonder whether Brown is basically loser especially if Milliband continues to impress and we may then have a rerun of 1957 and the Eden fiasco in terms of a change of leadership close to an election?

  27. My guess is that there is still some residual distrust of the Conservatives, so that when the government cocks up/shows itself to be sleazy, it reminds people of 1992-97, and this shows itself in swings from Labour to the Lib Dems and Others, rather than to the Conservatives.

    WRT vote share, I don’t doubt the Conservatives would win a three figure majority is this were repeated at a general election. Labour’s success is built on two things (a) rock solid support in about 200 seats, which enables them to survive massive defeats like 1983 and 1987 (b) huge anti-Conservative tactical voting which built up between 1992-2001, and only diminished a little in 2005 (so that Conservative candidates have to win a higher vote share than Labour candidates to get elected).

    The first wouldn’t be affected by a landslide Tory lead, but it’s probably that anti-Conservative tactical voting would disappear completely with such an outcome.

  28. The SNP tipping-point is at about 33% of the vote. Labour seats start to fall like ninepins above this level. As a rough rule of thumb, for every 2% rise in the SNP vote above their 2005 score of 18%, only 1 extra seat is gained, until they reach 33%, when thereafter every 1% rise in the vote gains the SNP another 3 seats. All to do with the evenness of the SNP vote distribution.

  29. So if this poll is accurate, the tipping point in Scotland has been reached?

  30. Philip,

    Producing polls that are favourabe to the Tories doesn’t mean that ‘Comres uses a very tory-favourable weighting system’.

    Sean,

    With Cameron is the anti-Conservative tactical voting still that large an issue?

  31. When you contemplate the probability that we are facing over two years before a General Election, you have to stand back a bit from this flurry of Polls.Nick Keene makes a good point about polling after every “incident”. It is all becoming a little frenetic.

    As a Conservative I am pleased to see caution being urged. Sally’s point about the long haul is well made & I have no doubt that Cameron & his team are aware of it.He has demonstrated that he can attract both attention and support when he needs to.He doesn’t need to at present.

    If it turns out that any Cabinet member was aware of the illegal nature of the Abrahams donations, after Straw has said they didn’t that will take them into “sleaze” territory in a very serious way.Other than that I still think the economy poses the biggest threat to GB next year.

    I don’t see Labour ditching Brown before a GE.They have no one of stature or substance left. To me Milliband is an unimpressive lightweight who is already over promoted.Brown is a consumate politician and if he can stop the drip drip of “incompetence” he can still fight back.

    At a recent ( and very funny) Bill Bailey gig I went to with my children/grandchildren, Brown was the subject of uncomplementary jokes along with Bush/Cheney/Blair.They all got cheers & claps from an audience of 2000 or so students etc.. A similar and very uncomplementary joke about Cameron was met with silence.This may or may not be significant as an expression of political viewpoint-but when they stop listening and start laughing, I think a politician has problems.

    If Cameron has any sense he will try to make people like NewsElephant more aware of real differences with Labour.By which I mean the role of central government, it’s limitations, and it’s alternatives.

  32. Easily reached, the poll would give something like
    Con 2
    LD 11
    Lab 22
    SNP 24

    I say “something-like” because about a dozen seats would be 3 or 4 way marginals and a dozen others on a knife edge.
    The FPTP electoral system becomes very unstable when an evenly distributed party passes through the magic 33% barrier.

    The SNP have of course ridden high in polls before, but not quite delivered in a Westminster election. The best they did was in Oct 1974, with 30% of the vote, not enough to make the big breakthrough….

  33. Ralph – no, but they do happen to have a weighting system that has been more favourable to the Tories, though at present the difference isn’t huge.

    These are simplified figures, in reality there are also differences in how didn’t votes, don’t knows and so on are weighted, but just for illustrative purposes, in their last poll ComRes weighted past vote to CON 30%, LAB 36%, LDEM 20%, OTH 13%; ICM weighted it to CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 22%, OTH 7%; Populus weighted it to CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 21%, OTH 8%.

    ComRes’s target weights are based on a rolling average of 4 polls, compared to ICM’s on a rolling average of 20 and Populus’s on a rolling average of 10. This means that ComRes’s target weights will be more variable than their rivals. A couple of months back ComRes’s figures were working out to be the equivalent of somethine like CON 31%, LAB 34% – far better for the Tories than ICM or Populus.

  34. Ralph, IMHO, we shall see anti-Conservative tactical voting unravel quite sharply at the next election.

  35. Philip – you can of course argue that Labour won’t recover from their mid-term slump based on the last two electoral cycles. But I think it’s unwise to do so because the last two electoral cycles have been abnormal.

    In both 1997-2001 and (to a somewhat lesser extent) 2001-2005 Labour didn’t really suffer from a mid-term slump. The Conservative implosion between 1992 and 1997 was of such magnitude that, in effect, it’s taken 10 (or, you could argue 15) years for “business as usual” to return.

    It’s now clear that Labour started to lose their inoculation against the effects of political gravity in late 2003 when Iraq started going wrong and has gradually eroded – not erratically (other than the so-called Brown bounce), but in a relatively steady manner.

    Whether that decline continues, or whether there comes a point where things balance out is, I guess, what we’re arguing over: but my starting point is that there is only so much elasticity in the system: it is wholly unlikely Labour will poll 27% or (if your position is correct) lower in 2009/10 – I personally doubt they can poll worse than 32% in a general election – so the odds are that there will be recovery, and that some of that recovery will come from the Tories.

    It remains very hard to see a Conservative overall majority on less than 40% of the vote; hence I maintain (and have been consistent in this if you’d like to check) that you need more than that to stand a chance of winning.

    Equally, there is still some residual antagonism to the Conservatives being back in power even as people have had enough of Labour, and when and if the Tories overcome that problem 45%+ may well become achievable.

  36. To truly signal a new era, and the end of New Labour, the Conservatives need to be hitting 45 by the polls next week.

    If the labour funding scandal, in addition to everything else doesn’t shift the 1997 Labour voter back to the Tories something is going wrong (or maybe the polls are wrong?)

    It should also be noted that the Conservatives, while not directly gaining from Labour woes, are sustaining a vote share above 40% in the polls, despite a resurgent Lib Dem vote. If post the Lib Dem leadership election, thier vote falls again – that will only serve to benefir the Conservatives

  37. I specifically did not argue that Labour wouldn’t recover based on the past, in fact I said that the past is the past and that anything can happen now.

    Labour polled 30.8% in 1987 and 27.6% in 1983, so polling

  38. Use of a less than symbol chopped off the rest of the message.

    Labour polled 30.8% in 1987 and 27.6% in 1983, so polling less than 32% is indeed possible. It has already happened in an era where politics was more tribal and the party differences were bigger (so with higher loyalties than today).

  39. The following graph is instructive. The Blue area is Tory majority territory, the Red Labour majority, White is Hung Parliament. Based on a 5-poll running average since the last election, the Tories have never pushed into Overall Majority territory. If one looks carefully at significant events, one could also hypothesise that people are naturally inclined to Labour. Cameron’s election, despite all the hype, barely pushed Tory prospects into the region of depriving Labour of a majority, before slipping back into the Red. “Cash for honours” (and the simultaneous Prescott scandal) turned that around dramatically, but the Tories never quite got into the Blue region. The resignation of Blair had people literally flocking back to Labour, and it is the recent disasters that have propelled the Tories back into the White (Hung Parliament) area. The Tories are aiming for the Blue again, but if they fail to convincingly reach it in the next 6 months, history says they won’t get a majority at the next election. A Hung Parliament is still odds-on…
    http://www.titanictown.plus.com/polls.jpg

  40. I’m as likely as anyone to be swung back, Owen, but the “sleaze” badge then adhered because of a whole series of revelations, over what seemed like a number of years . It was interesting to hear Vince Cable this morning refer to the funding scandal as part of new Labour sleaze, along with in his words, “Tony’s Blair’s cash for questions before”. The interviewer didn’t correct him!

    I wonder how many examples there need to be before they can be conflated, blurred and merged into a badge that sticks as well as in 1997. While Ashcroft remains in Belize, I doubt whether there’s much mileage in this one for Cameron (though there may be movement on party funding now).

    The conference season snap polls clearly spooked Brown – he might have had wind of the cd-rom problem too – I expect he’s now quite pleased to still have three budgets and two queen’s speeches before he has to go to the polls for real.

  41. It depends Rod. There is another interpretation that could be put on that graph. ie. a tale of consistent Conservative improvement with the “peaks” of each cycle consistently higher. The Inter-regnum and early months of Brown’s leadership can be looked at as a simple blip.

    Incidentally the above is consistent with what you would expect from the Conservative’s “decontamination strategy”.

  42. With respect Philip, you’re not arguing that the past is past, because you cited the lack of Labour recovery in 2001 and 2005 from mid-term to justify your assertion that it’s nonsense that the Tories need to be on more than 40% to win an overall majority.

    So either precedent is valid (my view); in which case 40% isn’t enough – or it isn’t and all you’re basing your argument on is a personal bias towards the Conservatives.

    And yes, I’m well aware of Labour’s shares in 1983 and 1987; but for precisely the same reasons the Tories can’t seem to surpass 40/41%, Labour is unlikely to fall below 32% – aside from which Labour was fundamentally weaker and less credible in 1983 and 1987.

  43. AW – Any more information about the BPIX poll?

  44. Rod. It is a widely believed Myth that a C lead of anything less than 9.5% would be a hung parliament. I know that in theory the very rigged boundaries have this effect, but in practice democracy in the UK just doesn’t work like this, and there never has been and will never be a situation where a party with a lead of over 5% doesn’t get an overall majority.

    However mark my words, Labour will be below 30% and the Conservatives above 40% by the end of Jan at the latest, on a Weighted Moving Average.

  45. Tipster – nope, I’ve put out feelers, and none is coming.

  46. NBeale – How are the boundaries rigged? I thought the boundary commission was independent. The re-drawing of them may well favour one side or another, as may the discrepencies in absolute numbers of constituents, but i’ve never heard of the boundary commission’s integrity being called into question.

  47. NBeale. Tosh. The probability of a HP has been steadily increasing for 30 years owing to the decline in the number of marginals and the tripling in the number of MPs who are neither Lab or Con. Please do some research…..

  48. I am not convinced that the old model of oppositions being miles ahead in the mid term and thenlosing lots of support back to the government come the election is that accurate anymore. The only real president we have for this is the Labour leads in the 80s up to 82. In all the elections with the Tories in opposition, they’ve done better in the election than the polls suggest, which seems to contradict this idea.

    My own view is that the this model of oppsoitins being miles ahead and then sharply dipping is only really accurate when there is a Conservative Government and a Labour opposition.

  49. You miss the real point about the 5% margin. If it was say, a hung parliament with a 5-8% Tory lead over Labour. We would still have a Conservative government with an overwhelming majority of actual votes over its main opposition. In a 3 or so party system.

    Seats are only one important thing, but by gaining far and away the majority of the popular vote, is still a large democratic mandate in any country.

    In effect its the same as any other type of Conservative government. The cabinet would be all Conservatives and the prime minister would be David Cameron.

    What sort of opposition would there be to blocking reforming or new government legislation when it has just been soundly out voted by the general population?

    My guess is not enough to stop David Cameron improving things enough to safely call an election a year later and win.

  50. Whata shocker – my predictions are certainly happening faster than i thought – all helped along by daily “Brown” and his cohorts bungling and exciting the media .

    There is NO comeback for Labour NOW – the damage has been done – even if there were any Conservative mishaps in the next 2 years – this autumn / winter will not be forgotten by the voters .

    As for posters on here saying that Cameron has not been in the media – i wonder where they have been looking – everytime i turn the TV on there he is / he has been touring the country – expecially into Labour strongholds like the North East where i live – he has had a very positive response to his visits here .

    I was going to comment on some posters statements on here – but there are far too many inaccurate ones looking for a reason for the Labour drop in the POLLS by blaming the Tories – Brown is creating his own downfall – and it makes for great political times – i look forward daily to hearing what else will come out into the open – FUN TIMES AHEAD !!

1 2 3