<?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: New Populus Poll</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176</link>
	<description>Opinion polling and political analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:05:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H-J</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/comment-page-3#comment-583751</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H-J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2176#comment-583751</guid>
		<description>James,

I for one would be happy to have over-estimated new Labour&#039;s will to succeed.

The most prominent evidence of the instinct you mention is the role Mandelson has played in supporting Brown. This shows that the architects of New Labour have made one of two calculations:

a - Brown is the best leader Labour has to offer, and they have nothing to gain be changing leader; or

b - the next election is well and truly lost, and the best hope for New Labour is to control rebuilding of the Labour party in the aftermath. Mandy&#039;s unelected position means that he can manage this process without the tedium of having to fight to retain his own seat.

Take your choice, but if I were a supporter of traditional Labour, I would be very worried indeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James,</p>
<p>I for one would be happy to have over-estimated new Labour&#8217;s will to succeed.</p>
<p>The most prominent evidence of the instinct you mention is the role Mandelson has played in supporting Brown. This shows that the architects of New Labour have made one of two calculations:</p>
<p>a &#8211; Brown is the best leader Labour has to offer, and they have nothing to gain be changing leader; or</p>
<p>b &#8211; the next election is well and truly lost, and the best hope for New Labour is to control rebuilding of the Labour party in the aftermath. Mandy&#8217;s unelected position means that he can manage this process without the tedium of having to fight to retain his own seat.</p>
<p>Take your choice, but if I were a supporter of traditional Labour, I would be very worried indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gray</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/comment-page-3#comment-583720</link>
		<dc:creator>Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2176#comment-583720</guid>
		<description>Although I&#039;m not going to argue the 1997 election, I would note that the 1945 election was also a Tory blowout swinging to a Labour blowout after a 10-year gap in elections (and a major war).  Thus I think 1945 needs to be set aside due to those extraordinary conditions (I would say the same thing about 1918, too, if it were relevant).

As to the &#039;79 situation, that was also following a &quot;majority that wasn&#039;t&quot; in many regards.  Callaghan&#039;s majority was remarkably slim at the outset, such that by 1979 he was in a largely unsustainable minority situation against a candidate who had trailed him for most of the previous four years.  Thatcher only generated a landslide in 1983 due to Labour blowing apart, and don&#039;t forget how much of a comeback that was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I&#8217;m not going to argue the 1997 election, I would note that the 1945 election was also a Tory blowout swinging to a Labour blowout after a 10-year gap in elections (and a major war).  Thus I think 1945 needs to be set aside due to those extraordinary conditions (I would say the same thing about 1918, too, if it were relevant).</p>
<p>As to the &#8217;79 situation, that was also following a &#8220;majority that wasn&#8217;t&#8221; in many regards.  Callaghan&#8217;s majority was remarkably slim at the outset, such that by 1979 he was in a largely unsustainable minority situation against a candidate who had trailed him for most of the previous four years.  Thatcher only generated a landslide in 1983 due to Labour blowing apart, and don&#8217;t forget how much of a comeback that was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete B</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/comment-page-3#comment-583658</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2176#comment-583658</guid>
		<description>Gin - interesting poll.  I would suggest that this is more in line with what most people on here were expecting.  Presumably Others are 18% which is still high.

I wonder how many were excluded because they weren&#039;t likely to vote?  I think that that is a factor which is sometimes overlooked.  It&#039;s not just a question of one party gaining votes from another, but also how successful they are at engaging more apathetic voters.  

It would be useful if the headline figures were accompanied by an estimated turnout (based on the particular polling company&#039;s assumptions - i.e. some only include those who say they are &#039;certain to vote&#039;).  This would give us a better basis for comparison.

For instance, if the guesstimated turnout for this poll was 60%, and the next poll gives a distribution of 37/27/18 on a guesstimated turnout of 70%, we could be fairly sure that the change was caused by Labour galvanising their apathetic core voters rather than any drop in Tory support.

What do others think of this idea?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gin &#8211; interesting poll.  I would suggest that this is more in line with what most people on here were expecting.  Presumably Others are 18% which is still high.</p>
<p>I wonder how many were excluded because they weren&#8217;t likely to vote?  I think that that is a factor which is sometimes overlooked.  It&#8217;s not just a question of one party gaining votes from another, but also how successful they are at engaging more apathetic voters.  </p>
<p>It would be useful if the headline figures were accompanied by an estimated turnout (based on the particular polling company&#8217;s assumptions &#8211; i.e. some only include those who say they are &#8216;certain to vote&#8217;).  This would give us a better basis for comparison.</p>
<p>For instance, if the guesstimated turnout for this poll was 60%, and the next poll gives a distribution of 37/27/18 on a guesstimated turnout of 70%, we could be fairly sure that the change was caused by Labour galvanising their apathetic core voters rather than any drop in Tory support.</p>
<p>What do others think of this idea?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GIN</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/comment-page-3#comment-583657</link>
		<dc:creator>GIN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2176#comment-583657</guid>
		<description>Repoted on PB a new YouGov/Sunday Times poll with headline figures of; 40/24/18</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Repoted on PB a new YouGov/Sunday Times poll with headline figures of; 40/24/18</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Thurston</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2176/comment-page-3#comment-583656</link>
		<dc:creator>James Thurston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2176#comment-583656</guid>
		<description>Sorry....

&quot;However I believe that Tony Blair gave it the instinct that will achieve it….

To overestimate New Labour would be foolish in the extreme….&quot;



....my arrogance got the better of me...  ha ha.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry&#8230;.</p>
<p>&#8220;However I believe that Tony Blair gave it the instinct that will achieve it….</p>
<p>To overestimate New Labour would be foolish in the extreme….&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8230;.my arrogance got the better of me&#8230;  ha ha&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

