<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tories 11 points ahead in first post-Boris poll</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199</link>
	<description>Opinion polling and political analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:02:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe James Broughton</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/comment-page-1#comment-394905</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe James Broughton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 22:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=1199#comment-394905</guid>
		<description>As for the Lib Dems, they were still putting out tid bits on Friday 2nd May that the London Mayoral counts had them running at 15%. Even I thought they&#039;d get 13%, but they ended with a derisory vote - less than 10% and just 13% in the South West division.

Lib Dems don&#039;t always do better than the polls. In 1992 they crept back up to around 20-21% as they kept insisting they were still as strong as the Alliance in the 1980s - but they were squeezed at the end - 18%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As for the Lib Dems, they were still putting out tid bits on Friday 2nd May that the London Mayoral counts had them running at 15%. Even I thought they&#8217;d get 13%, but they ended with a derisory vote &#8211; less than 10% and just 13% in the South West division.</p>
<p>Lib Dems don&#8217;t always do better than the polls. In 1992 they crept back up to around 20-21% as they kept insisting they were still as strong as the Alliance in the 1980s &#8211; but they were squeezed at the end &#8211; 18%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe James Broughton</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/comment-page-1#comment-394902</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe James Broughton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 22:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=1199#comment-394902</guid>
		<description>Perhaps. I found those lower turnouts in safe Labour seats surprising in 1997 - surely you&#039;d want to go out and vote for the first Labour government since 1979. But Labour appears to have done quite well turning out in the marginal/ex Tory areas in 1997. But low turnouts in 1997 were nothing compared to the collapse in 2001.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps. I found those lower turnouts in safe Labour seats surprising in 1997 &#8211; surely you&#8217;d want to go out and vote for the first Labour government since 1979. But Labour appears to have done quite well turning out in the marginal/ex Tory areas in 1997. But low turnouts in 1997 were nothing compared to the collapse in 2001.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Stidwill</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/comment-page-1#comment-394821</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Stidwill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 21:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=1199#comment-394821</guid>
		<description>The Tories probably would have dipped below 30% in 1997 if the turnout hadn&#039;t fallen sharply from 78% to 71%. If you look at a lot of safe Labour seats in 1997, their total vote was down slightly in a surprising number of instances - not just down on 1992 but even on 1987 in some cases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Tories probably would have dipped below 30% in 1997 if the turnout hadn&#8217;t fallen sharply from 78% to 71%. If you look at a lot of safe Labour seats in 1997, their total vote was down slightly in a surprising number of instances &#8211; not just down on 1992 but even on 1987 in some cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe James Broughton</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/comment-page-1#comment-393779</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe James Broughton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=1199#comment-393779</guid>
		<description>There was a poll showing 61 Lab to 18.5 Con in 1995.

But Gallup used to provide those huge leads. They changed their methods and went over to telephone at the end of 1996 - the equivalent poll started to produce leads of about 51-33, but not before delivering a final wipeout prediction Xmas present for the Tories - 61-22.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a poll showing 61 Lab to 18.5 Con in 1995.</p>
<p>But Gallup used to provide those huge leads. They changed their methods and went over to telephone at the end of 1996 &#8211; the equivalent poll started to produce leads of about 51-33, but not before delivering a final wipeout prediction Xmas present for the Tories &#8211; 61-22.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Senior</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1199/comment-page-1#comment-393768</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Senior</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 23:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=1199#comment-393768</guid>
		<description>Sally , You have not made a serious reply to my request for the withdrawal of your factually incorrect and libellous comments on PB , as they were made on this board I would have hoped that you would do so here .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sally , You have not made a serious reply to my request for the withdrawal of your factually incorrect and libellous comments on PB , as they were made on this board I would have hoped that you would do so here .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

