<?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: ICM/NotW and would UKIP cost the Conservative 50 seats?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325</link>
	<description>Opinion polling and political analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:16:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John B Dick</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/comment-page-2#comment-590523</link>
		<dc:creator>John B Dick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2325#comment-590523</guid>
		<description>Pete B &amp; OLDNAT

If your parents had been Glasgow University graduates and burgesses of the city they would have had three votes in local elections and it would take half a day to vote in three different places</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete B &amp; OLDNAT</p>
<p>If your parents had been Glasgow University graduates and burgesses of the city they would have had three votes in local elections and it would take half a day to vote in three different places</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wolf</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/comment-page-2#comment-590466</link>
		<dc:creator>wolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2325#comment-590466</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think UKIP will be significant in the next election. But it is a place for disgrumtled Tory activists to go , and I suspect there will be a lot of those in the bear future</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think UKIP will be significant in the next election. But it is a place for disgrumtled Tory activists to go , and I suspect there will be a lot of those in the bear future</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete B</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/comment-page-2#comment-590448</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2325#comment-590448</guid>
		<description>In all discussions of turnout, don&#039;t forget the effect of everyone now potentially having a postal vote.  Was this available in 2005? I can&#039;t remember.  Also, there has been widespread abuse of postal voting in those elections where it has been widely used.  I believe that the procedures have been tightened up slightly, but will it be enough to prevent widespread fraud?

From memory, although I believe that  both Lab and Con have been implicated in postal voting fraud, I think that the majority of cases have been by Labour.  This could affect the number of votes and seats that various parties will achieve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In all discussions of turnout, don&#8217;t forget the effect of everyone now potentially having a postal vote.  Was this available in 2005? I can&#8217;t remember.  Also, there has been widespread abuse of postal voting in those elections where it has been widely used.  I believe that the procedures have been tightened up slightly, but will it be enough to prevent widespread fraud?</p>
<p>From memory, although I believe that  both Lab and Con have been implicated in postal voting fraud, I think that the majority of cases have been by Labour.  This could affect the number of votes and seats that various parties will achieve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip JW</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/comment-page-2#comment-590447</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip JW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2325#comment-590447</guid>
		<description>At present Labour seem set to achieve at most 27 to 28%. This is a quarter down on what they got last time. Therefore, based on the same level of turnout, we should expect Labour to gain at most 7.5 million votes.

There is evidence from every kind of poll: voting intention, local, euro and by-elections that point to the possibility that Labour could end up gaining as low as 6 million votes.

A tactical swing to the Lib Dems from those wishing to boot out Labour and minimize a Tory landslide may push their vote up to 6 million.

But I think the Tories are likely to get at least 9.5 million votes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At present Labour seem set to achieve at most 27 to 28%. This is a quarter down on what they got last time. Therefore, based on the same level of turnout, we should expect Labour to gain at most 7.5 million votes.</p>
<p>There is evidence from every kind of poll: voting intention, local, euro and by-elections that point to the possibility that Labour could end up gaining as low as 6 million votes.</p>
<p>A tactical swing to the Lib Dems from those wishing to boot out Labour and minimize a Tory landslide may push their vote up to 6 million.</p>
<p>But I think the Tories are likely to get at least 9.5 million votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe James B</title>
		<link>http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2325/comment-page-2#comment-590446</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe James B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2325#comment-590446</guid>
		<description>Likely scenario (slightly revised but not much).
Not certain - could change either way.

May 2010
Electorate  45,482,229
Turnout    65.3%   29,699,917

           UK share%   GB share %     votes       GB % +/-
Con       40.2%         41.2%       11,939,366     +7.8%
Lab        30.9%         31.6%         9,177,274     -4.7%
LD          16.9%        17.3%          5,019,286    -5.4%
Oths       12.0%          9.9%          2,940,292     +2.3%

Swing 6.3% from Lab to Con</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Likely scenario (slightly revised but not much).<br />
Not certain &#8211; could change either way.</p>
<p>May 2010<br />
Electorate  45,482,229<br />
Turnout    65.3%   29,699,917</p>
<p>           UK share%   GB share %     votes       GB % +/-<br />
Con       40.2%         41.2%       11,939,366     +7.8%<br />
Lab        30.9%         31.6%         9,177,274     -4.7%<br />
LD          16.9%        17.3%          5,019,286    -5.4%<br />
Oths       12.0%          9.9%          2,940,292     +2.3%</p>
<p>Swing 6.3% from Lab to Con</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

