Populus snap PBR poll

I’ve been busy today, so have only just had time to catch up with the Populus snap poll of 500 on the PBR in this morning’s Times.

Almost all of the individual measures in the PBR received strong support – 78% supported the bankers bonus tax, 61% the capping if public sector pay rises and even the rise in NI was supported by 51%. The only exception was the cap on contributions to public sector pensions, supported by only 38%. Labour’s message that cuts should not be too early seems to be approved of – 59% agreed with the statement that cuts “should not be made until the economic recovery is much stronger”. The Conservative lead on being the party most trusted to cut spending in way that do not harm the public services has also evaporated.

This all looks positive for Labour, but the poll also showed Cameron and Osborne extending their lead as the team most trusted to run the economy – they now lead Brown & Darling by 46% to 32%. There was also very little faith that the Chancellor’s measures would be enough to deal with the countries problems – only 12% thought so, 39% thought not and 48% didn’t know (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, I’m sure even Alistair Darling would claim that the PBR solved everything and there was no more work to do!)

However, I’d add a couple of caveats to reading too much into this poll. Firstly budgets (and presumably pre-budget reports!) are more than the sum of their parts. Back in April Populus did a similar snap poll straight after the budget, and also found strong approval for most of the measures within it. However, when voting intention polls finally turned up they showed Labour sharply down. Secondly, as I said in the comments yesterday, there is such a thing as polls that are too quick – realistically many respondents to this poll would have answered before they saw the full media reaction to the PBR, so opinions would still have been in flux.

Hopefully we’ll get some voting intention polls over the weekend.


50 Responses to “Populus snap PBR poll”

  1. I think there’s a slow burn that occurs in response to budget measures.

    Straight after the reduction of IT to 20% and scrapping of the 10% band, the resposnse was relatively neutral (I myself have always wondered at the counter-intuitive failure to raise thresholds at the bottom , but hey-ho). The polls only reflected that disastrous move a good year later when the losers became apparent.

    Obviously some policies have an immediate effect (20p rise in pensions was it in 200?).

    Labour’s Class-War strategy depends on persuading people that the Conservative £2m IHT threshold really does only benefit the wealthiest,3%, and crucially that a good 90% + of the population have absolutely no chance whatsoever of joining the 3%.

    I don’t want to start an argument and I appreciate the alternative view that IHT is widely regarded as Unfair – I’m just suggesting that that particular policy could become a bit of a pain to have to defend over the next months.

    Because of the slow-burn effect.

    Please don’t pick me up on whether the IHT is right or wrong – we all know what we think – but I’d be interested to hear any other examples of policies having a slow-burn effect on opinion.

  2. I agree this Populus poll is too soon to be a judgement on the PBR. There were however some real polls yesterday – local elections which in some cases show some big swings away from the Tories. Some of the local elections were in marginal parliamentary seats too which the Tories need to win.

    The Populus poll and these real polls are too soon to reflect the PBR at all in my opinion, but interesting results from an impartial point of view. For anyone interested the results were:

    St Helens Ward, Hastings BC. Con hold. Con 609 (40.7%, -17.7), Lab 550 (36.7%, +12.5), LD 210 (14.0%, -3.2), BNP 93 (6.2%, +6.2), Eng Dem 36 (2.4%, +2.4). Swing of 15.1% from Con to Lab since 2008

    Tavistock South Ward, West Devon BC. LD gain from Con. LD 523 (45.8%, +30), Con 450 (39.4%, +6.2), Ind 170 (14.9%, -36.1). Swing of 11.9% from Con to LD since 2007.

    Queens Park Ward, LB Westminster. Lab hold. Lab 814 (62.6%. +10.6), Con 211 (16.2%, -14.4), Green 152 (11.7%, +11.7), LD 123 (9.5%, -7.9). Swing of 12.5% from Con to Lab since 2006

    Wyke Regis Ward, Weymouth & Portland BC. Lab gain from Con. Lab 579 (40.1%, +3.9), Con 486 (33.7%, -30.1), LD 268 (18.6%, +18.6), Citizens 111 (7.7%, +7.7). Swing of 17% from Con to Lab since 2008

    Kingsbrook Ward, Bedford UA. LD hold. LD 660 (49.3%, +3), Lab 370 (27.7%, +3.6), Con 150 (11.2%, -9.2), Ind 85 (6.4%, +6.4), Ind 73 (5.5%, +5.5). Swing of 0.3% from LD to Lab since May this year

    Bearsden South Ward, East Dunbartonshire Council. LD gain from Con. First preferences: LD 1770 (36.4%, +10), Con 1499 (30.8%, +6.4), SNP 972 (20%, +0.9), Lab 626 (12.9%, -6.4). Swing of 1.8% from Con to LD since 2007

    Hope I’m allowed to put those results on here -if not sorry! :)

  3. Any polls coming out over the next week or so may prove to be good indicators of the GE.

    The main thing that Labour might be hoping for is that people are too busy preparing for Christmas to really have noticed. However, the media have given it a lot of coverage, much of which has brought out the negative aspects of budget report. We shall see hopefully soon.

  4. All the findings seem logical the deficit needs addressing therefore raising taxes, limiting public sector rises seem logical.
    No one likes the thought of a smaller pension so that chimes too.
    Add a little bit of the envy factor for bankers bonuses.
    and it seems what you’d expect. It can all be action in the right direction and yet still not enough ! which is why Cameron and George stretch their lead on economic confidence.

  5. Not sure a dispute between Brown and Darling has helped. Brown as ever makes his subordinate look a fool.

  6. @RICHARD (Cheshire) – I would discount the local vots as a PBR response – the same pattern has been apparent for some time, and is not linked to recent events.

    On the PBR effect itself, the Budget was bad for Labour, but largely due to the shock of the borrowing numbers – it was the first time these were officially recognised and it changed the whole debate in people’s minds. The PBR wasn’t so shocking in that sense, although still just as bad. If the measures are viewed positively it might not be so bad for Labour, especially if there is a general sense that a squeeze is coming regardless.

  7. I don’t think we can read too much into recent Labour gains at council election results, no more so than we could the Tory gains at the 1997 county council elections. They have little bearing on general election prospects.

    There’s only so far a major political party can slump mid-term before the pendulum swings the other way. 2008 was Labour’s worst year since 1968 and they are bound to be doing slightly better in 2009.

  8. @John TT

    Slow burn….Poll tax was the ultimate. Only when it was actually introduced did the trouble start and from memory it took two years from introduction to riots. Although the left wing propanganda that it brought Mrs T down is nonsense that was high interest rates and europe that did that.

  9. Interesting that all the local elections quoted above showed a swing against the incumbent. Perhaps this trend will continue at the GE.

  10. Would not the “slow burn” factor above be related to people needing to go through their personal accounts, assuming they have such things, and work out what they might lose or gain?

    as for Brown/Darling: Darling always seemed a glove puppet for Brown. Not Darlings fault.

  11. The initial straight reporting of what a chancellor says in a budget or pre-budget is nearly always positive. It’s the analysis over the next few days that makes it or breaks it. For example, the idea that bankers will have their bonuses halved sounded smashing – but now it is obvious that this will only affect banks managed by total morons (and most banks only employ the total morons in loans or trading).

  12. Honestly I don’t feel that the PBR will have any great effect on the polls over the next few weeks nor will the budget have any great effect on the result of the GE. It was not an excercise in cowardice, but in the same vein it was not a corageous move. Overall, the PBR points to a broadly neutral budget – generally won’t have any great effect on most people.

    The increase in NI is realtively small; the tax on bankers’ bonuses is populist but only a small amount of revenue will be brought in; capping public sector pay from 2011, an inevitability. Overall the effects this year on the general population and public services will be slight.

    Labour have won the argument in terms of deferring cuts, but they have nothing to gain in terms of polling; there’s no money in the pot to give away. In any case people still doubt whether Labour can rein in spending in the future to the extent that will be needed – after-all, Brown made constant changes to his golden rule until Darling had to abandon it completely.

    Labour aren’t givving much away about the years up to 2013 and where savings/cuts will lie but nore is Osborne. If DC wants to gain the high ground he really needs to kick Osborne up the arse and make him reveal what his intentions are vis-vis the public finances and as such gain the trust of waverers who would vote Tory but aren’t sure so they’ll vote Lib Dem or stay home. The Tories are forgetting that it is they who have everything to lose.

  13. Off topic.

    Forgive my lack of experience showing here but, is there any logical reason why AR’s last poll has not been included in voting tables here. Surely if the last two instances of AR’s polls are included in the figures, this latest one, albeit somewhat straying from expected values, should, along with all other polls, be included.

    To not include it, intentionally, to me, gives a definite partisan approach, something this blog is exceptionally good at controlling, usually.

    If I missed a post in the previous AR thread explaining this, my apologies

    Just a thought.

  14. The comments about the slow burn reactions to the budget are really very pertinent. Brown and Darling seem to bury nasties in their budgets like no previous chancellors ever have. So, initial reaction to the budget might be favourable but as the details are examined things look very different.

    Hence, child allowance rises in election year are to be followed by cuts in the following year. Pension rises announced don’t cover all aspects of pensions. In this regard it seems that Labour cannnot kill off their old spinning instincts which is not surprising since the vipers in chief Mandelson and Campbell are so central to Government once again.

    Aside from the press reaction it also takes a while for business to react. If you take the bond makrets alone it is a big thumbs down. This will make it harder for future governments to borrow money. Part of a scorched earth policy perhaps???

    And of course there is the media. To be fair to Labour they do have the printed press stacked against them although broadcast media is still much more balanced. However, the coverage since the budget has not been good and the story regarding whether the PM over ruled the chancellor serves to remind the public that Brown is loathed by just about every peron who has ever worked with him and that briefing and counter briefing continues at the heart of government just as it did under Blair.

    And here’s another factor, Blair’s recent admission that he would have gone to war in Iraq regardless will also impact upon the polls. The lingering worries that the public had that they were lied to over the war has now been confirmed by the man who did it. This might make it more difficult to assess the extent to which the budget itself affects the polls.

    My prediction is that the Tories’ lead will begin to open up again. If it doesn’t I would expect Brown to go for an early election in March rather than the expected one in May.

  15. @ BarryP – “Surely if the last two instances of AR’s polls are included in the figures, this latest one, albeit somewhat straying from expected values, should, along with all other polls, be included.”

    The figures are for voting intentions. Unless I’m missing something, this latest poll focuses on immediate reaction to the PBR and doesn’t include any voting intention question. Therefore it can’t be included on the voting intention table.

  16. James,

    Barry’s referring to the AR voting intention poll on the previous thread. The one with the big Tory lead. Lots of people said that it should be excluded as a rogue but Anthony himself said it shouldn’t.

  17. @ Neil (and Barry) – sorry, I assumed that “this one” referred to the poll topping this thread. My mistake.

    In that case, I agree with Barry. The Ipsos poll that dramatically reduced the Tory lead to just 6 points was included so I don’t see why the AR shouldn’t be. So long as the pollsters are using methodologies, they have to be considered legitimate even if they sometimes return surprising results. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Is a 15 point lead “acceptable” but not a 17 point one? A 9 point lead but not a 6 point one? What if it’s 8 points? Etc. The only criteria for exclusion surely has to be poor methodology, not results.

  18. using SOUND methodologies

    I need more coffee I’m obviously not even up to posting comments online today, nevermind the complicated power-tool tasks that await me downstairs.

  19. @James Ludlow

    “The Ipsos poll that dramatically reduced the Tory lead to just 6 points was included so I don’t see why the AR shouldn’t be.”

    Indeed. I would like to think Anthony will include the poll in all fairness

  20. The problem with budgets for Labour is that many may agree with the overall strategy but the Brown budgets in his last years as chancellor were often beleived to be different in effect from their trumpeted outcome…the 10% rate being the crowning glory!

    This seems to me to be the slow burn issue at the core of the election…many may feel that we were in a sense lucky to have Brown as PM when the financial crisis hit; in time he may even get credit for it once he’s gone, but Brown is not a fresh start and I suspect that is the reason Labour will struggle to win the election….will the assassins gather on the idea of January? I very much doubt it.

  21. Sorry mean Ides of January!

  22. The ides of March: I like the idea of Brown as Julius Caesar and Mandelson as Cassius; I can just about imagine Cameron and Osborne as the victorious Mark Antony and Octavius, but where is the Labour party’s Brutus who, even if he led them to defeat, but would at least do so with honour?

  23. ‘@JOHN TT
    I believe your “slow burn” theory is correct and falls in line with Anthonys analysis of Populus PBR snap. Its just to soon for any real judgement from the people. The obvious petrol, fags, beer
    and OA pensions excepted. The “stealth” items of course may take years to unravel. As an ex member of the pensions industry, it has never ceased to amaze me how Gordon Browns initial raid on advanced corporation tax, which had a huge and detrimental impact on pensions of all types, has never been fully understood by its victims. Nor have the Tories ever made a big enough issue of the matter. To prove your point beautifully, all this was 12 years ago.

  24. @RICHARDW
    I MPO they are more often than not like the cast of Up Pompei
    than Julius Caesar.

  25. No, no, no

    Given where they have led us all to I think it’s case of

    “Carry on up the Khyber…..”

  26. A Frankie Howerd make-over for Brown? Now that would be a game-changer!

    What he and all the Romans referred to above was a talent for oratory, and an ability to seem to be benevolent. Brown’s performance in those areas has improved slightly lately, but he’s a long way to go if he really is as difficult to work with as some comments suggest.

    If the “slow-burn” theory is right, then a GE will be easier to win by the side that manages to speed up the realisation of how the other sides measures would hurt.

  27. I think we’ve also got to concede that the PBR impacts, slow burn or immediate, have to be put against the general situation, what people believe is necessary regardless of who is power, and what the Tories would do. In many ways these make it easier for Labour, as it isn’t a simple matter of saying ‘look what they’ve done, we would be much better’. In terms of pain, the Tories have already created the impression that they would give us more and quicker pain for the sake of an easier future. The other point about slow burn issues is that they could work the other way. The bankers tax, for example, was minor in cash raising terms, but Brown is now reaping some better headlines as France will now copy his move, Germany is sympathetic, and Brown is leading on calls for a Tobin Tax to fund the climate change costs. We’ll have to wait and see, but it will be fascinating to see what impact, if any, the PBR has had.

  28. I have a hunch that the recent closing in the polls will not be reflective of the result at the General Election.

    My statistics lecturers always warned that after looking at the results, ask yourself the question, “Does it make sense”? In this instance, does it make sense that after burdeoning the country with a generation of debt that Labour should be just 8 points behind the Conservatives?

    Personally I think that the narrowing is largely down to the Conservatives ‘keeping their powder dry’. They’ve got a war chest ready for the election, but they are not yet showing their hand – instead they are just listening and watching as Labour provide an insight into their plans (more spending and class war).

    Labour has created its Reichsfeinde, the bankers, and while it is not surprising to see the Conservatives failing to defend the bankers at the moment, I think it is just a matter of time before the press and public start asking who was meant to be regulating those bankers and who created the regulation system. Afterall, one bank failure is the failure of the bank, but the collapse of the wider system is the failure of the regulators (the government). Any why didn’t the government regulate appropriately? Because like the bankers they were also creaming off their share, in tax, to support their own political ambitions.

    Labour know they can not defend theor performance over the past decade – hence their eagerness to talk about the future. The Conservatives know this, and their strtategy will ensure that everyone in the country is reminded of why there are ‘tough choices’ ahead.

    Once the Conservatives start spending, electioneering, returning focus to how the country has got to where it is, I believe that the polls will shift. Labour will not, however, suffer a total collapse. They have significant support from a large section of society that lives off the state, have cleverly created a bloated public sector – turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas. Just a hunch.

  29. @TONY M
    I could not agree more with your assessment Tony. The other issue which keeps the Tories circumspect about their proposals is Labours propensity to steal any popular ideas.

    @ John TT
    My contention that petrol, drink and OAPensions were settled by the PBR is already blown out of the water. The Independent reports that it is only the basic state pension that will receive the 2.5 % increase. For the first time any additional pension EG SERPS, ect will not count. This was not made clear by the Chancellor at announcement. A non – Tory newspaper, the “Indy”
    is already saying “stealth pension cover up hits pensioners”.
    One can imagine the Telegraph, Mail ect making it sound very unappealing. A QUICK BURNER.

  30. @Tony M – I suspect you’re guilty of wishful thinking to a degree. Although I don’t discount the possibility that the lead may widen, you assume voters will see the issues you see and think like you. Labour leaning people might equally say any questions over bank regulation can get thrown back to the Tories, as they have done, as the party that started it all and never once said that we needed to tighten up on regulation of City activity. You’re also falling into the trap of assuming that voters decide on the basis of assigning blame for past mistakes. Labour was guilty of this throughout much of the 18 year Tory rule, assuming that voters were bound to punish the Tories for all their sins. In fact, many voters were not ready to trust Labour and were rather looking forward to decide who would be best to deal with bad situations, and it wasn’t Labour, despite 3m unemployed etc. The recent narrowing of the polls is all about whether Cameron and Osborne are trustworthy – this is why the Lisbon affair damaged them, as it punctured Cameron’s carefully crafted image of someone who spole the truth. Overnight, in the minds of some people, he returned to being just another politician, using clever words to duck out of clearly held comittments. I would also caution against Labour being unable to defend their record either. They have a pretty good record of improvement in many areas of public services (don’t all shout – I know it’s not perfect, but try to remember what hospitals were like in 1997. In 1983 I was given an out patients appointment for a non invasive treatment for a wart on my hand – 7 years and 9 months after I visited my GP. I missed the appointment, but by then the wart had cleared itself up anyway). Labour are in a hole, but don’t assume everyone else will there alongside you, shovel in hand ready to bury them.

  31. @Tony M

    It might be argued that the problem with Labour after 1992 was it ceased to believe in its own clear critique of what financial deregulation would do to the economy. The 79-97 govt seemed quite happy to manipulate interest rates for political gain and easy advantage. The debt of the early 90s hit records previoulsy unseen. The unemplyment figures were massaged into a permanent ‘sickness’ underclass.

    Without being partisan both New Labour and the new democcrats in the USA beleived in the financial restructuring that had taken place in the 1980s had changed the ‘rules’. Whether or not Brown’s regulation was subsequently sufficient is neither here nor there because the systemic trouble in the financial system was all to do with leveraging in the USA and other banking ststems based upon trading ‘bonds’ based upon dodgy ‘mortgages’ issued in the USA as AAA assets.

    It may be that the UK structural deficit – approx 30bn was left too long and should have been dealt with at the beginning of the last Parliament but that would not have changed the scale of what was needed to solve the banking collapse. The alternative to this was tried in the late 1930s and again by Thatcher/ Howe in 1981 which was to raise taxes and cut spending at the height of a recession. On neither occasion was that a happy outcome.

    It may be that this is in fact the election to lose as whoever wins it will not be thanked in five years time.

    And whilst much has as with most governments not been done that well or might have been done better, the spending on infrastructure in the UK including in the NHS and Education and Railways will still be there 25 years from now and arguably has not yet had a fully beneficial impact on the UK.

    Logically, Labour has achieved more than its likely to be given credit for as in many ways the change of political culture changed under Thatcher was of long term benefit.

    Finally this debt business is overstated as an issue. In every major period of high debt in the UK since 1914 it was paid off more quickly than anyone said it would or could possibly be by the’experts’ at the height of the recession. Even the debt from 1939-45 had been eliminated by the late 1950s. And in the interim the Uk had created free education to 16-18 and the NHS and natoinalised most of the ‘old’ industries – about a two party consensus.

    Electorates are notoriously fickle, ungrateful and selfish: it makes politics in democracies so much more intersting.

    I doubt if the conservatives had won the last election we’d be looking at a very different situation now…anymore than Labour in 97 was hugely different from the previous administration.

    Its not to minimise part politics its just that one can overstate the impacts.

    And if the UK can’t borrow to finance its debt it will be a damn sight more dangerous to the world financial system than taking out a Labour government it could pull down the whole system which is why it will not be allowed to happen.

  32. Assuming that the Tories win the next election its plausible that over 5 years that unemployment will be brought below 2 million.

    This will be critical to the Tories chances of winning the next election and in particular the acceptability of raising the retirement age. Unemployment amongst young people must come down significantly.

  33. @ALEC
    To avoid being party political let me put it this way.
    You sound like a man saying to his very frightened distraught
    wife and family, “look, I know I hav’nt been perfect, but look at this house since we moved in 12 years ago. Its got a new kitchen that cost £15,000, a new on suite, £ 12,000, a resurfaced drive £7000, a beautiful conservatory £22,000 and our car is only 18 months old and cost £24,000.”
    The wife says, ” yes Alec but you earn £40,000 per year, I earn £10,000 per year, we have two kids at school and we owe £325,000. Our house is worth £375,000 maybe if we are lucky and we cannot afford the mortgage payments. One more problem like I loose my job and we are ruined”.
    The very fact of spending money like tomorrow has been cancelled has brought us to this very very serious position, which Labour will be held responsible for.

    By the way, I have no memory of ghastly suffering in the 80s and 90s which Labour supporters continually allude to.

  34. @Barry P

    I’m sure AR will be included in due course, probably along with the next batch of polls due tonight.

  35. The 2.5% pension increase has been revealed not to be 2.5% after all.

    This is the kind of blunder I have been expecting from Labour which almost certainly will damage their GE prospects.

  36. @ PHILLIP JW
    See my post to John TT @ 12.51 ON THIS SUBJECT.

  37. KH – the main reason why the outlook is still stable is that our assets are worth a lot more than you say.

    Like most memories, time alters perception. No-one who voted Labour in 1997 remembered ghastly pain in the late 70’s to the extent that it prevented them voting.

    Anyway, it’s getting too partisan again.

  38. I think the PBR will benefit Labour in the polls over the next few months.

    Comparison of a 1% rise with the massive cuts made in Ireland will change the minds of public sector workers who were thinking about voting Tory.

    I also think that the deficit reduction legislation has had a calming effect on those who worry about the national debt.

    If there is an improvement in the employment figures, Labour’s poll ratings will be within a point or two of the Tories. Employment is the number I’ll be watching as an indicator of where the polls will go.

  39. @ Alec

    Tony has said though that he does not expect a total wipeout for Labour. I was thinking exactly the same and made the comment a couple of weeks ago that we have heard little from the Tories by way of attacks on Labour which has probably helped to close the lead a little.

    I am guessing that once the new year begins we will see the opening salvo of what I am hoping will be a shock & awe campaign by the Tories. It certainly needs to be.

    Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum any party, (be it Labour, Conservatives, Liberal or whoever )which increases a country’s deficit by £1 trillion (£16,000+ per head) needs to be brought well and truly to account. It is breathtaking recklessness on a gargantuan scale.

  40. @ Richard (Cheshire)

    Thanks for posting the local election results. I’m hearing there have been further gains for Labour (one seat was a win back from the BNP)

    Normally, I too would dismiss local council elections as irrelevant but I think they are significant this time around.

    Cuts in budgets often have greatest impact at local level. I think these results could be tangible evidence that the voters aren’t convinced that the Conservatives will fairly distribute the pain of spending cuts. Reflection of this at national level could cost the Tories a point or two.

    It now seems to be the Conservatives who have lost momentum.

  41. Angus Reids polling is second to You Gov with Ladbrokes to be the pollster to correctly predict the election result. As for unemployment what will happen when christmas temp jobs finish .There are only so many training courses this government can create with no jobs at the end its a magic roundabout until the money runs out.

  42. @MARK R
    Amber Star was/is the biggest apologist for Gordon Brown on the Guardian cif. Brown is a great man, a great leader and a great economic manager. He is also Scottish as is Amber Star.
    There is however none of the fair mindedness we expect from our usual contributors from Scotland.

  43. @ King Harold

    Ah, the same old King Harold as on Cif. I have commented on polling & supported my comments with reasons; many will disagree with me.

    You, on the other hand, are not commenting on polls or debating. As usual, you reduce the debate to personalities. Why is that?

  44. @King Harald

    All I can say is that Scotland are welcome to have the great man back. I dont want him. Personally I dont think the results from Scotland will make a blind bit of differnce to the outcome of the next election

  45. @ Craig & Mark

    I agree that improving employment prospects is a tough task, especially following Christmas when there is a tendency for things to get worse.

    That’s why I believe the employment figures will have a significant effect on the next round of polls. Regardless of any party loyalties I may have, a significant rise in unemployment will not bode well for Labour.

  46. @Statto

    Job done. Thank you AW. Can’t wait for next batch of polls, these should, I think, put to bed any idiosyncrasies in the last few, shall we say, rogue polls. Possibly the kiss of death saying that, they may generate more opinions. Lovely stuff.

  47. I’ve pruned several comments – because you recognise someone from Comment is Free, it doesn’t mean you should immediately descend to Comment is Free levels! ;)

    Comment policy is linked to above, but the short version could probable be “Any comment that would look in place on Comment is Free (or Guido’s site), really isn’t going to fit in round here.”

  48. Barry P
    What are you expecting Barry? A follow on from AR looking good for Dave, or more of the Tory scrape hung parliament stuff.
    I bet if we get ComRes and another, one will say Tory lead 6%
    and one will say Tory lead 15 %.

  49. @King Harold

    Expecting nothing other than good methodology. Is there anything else?

  50. Labour should be optimistic on two counts.Firstly the local election results,a real poll. Secondly the fact that on some polls the party is reaching 30% or more.Comments on this site can be very partisan despite claims to the contrary.King Harold it is ‘site’ not ‘sight.’