Over the last week we’ve had no fewer than five YouGov polls showing the Conservative lead shrinking to only six points, but apart from a 7 point lead from ICM we haven’t had much from other pollsters to see if they are picking up the same trend – Angus Reid tend to show very different Labour figures anyway, and we have no recent historical trend data from Harris to compare.

Tomorrow’s Telegraph however carries the figures from a new Ipsos-MORI poll that shows a very similar lead to YouGov. The topline figures are CON 37%(-3), LAB 32%(nc), LDEM 19%(+3). We have to go all the way back to December 2008 to find a Tory lead as low as five points.

The poll was conducted between Friday and Monday last weekend.


278 Responses to “Ipsos MORI show lowest Tory lead since 2008”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Jason

    As hard as you can try, I don’t think it’s believable to try and pin every G13 country in the world having a record budget deficit on to Labour.

    It’s really clutching at straws. And is not very believable.

    Barclays could not buy Lehmanns as their share holders actually voted it down. The FSA discouraged Barclays from doing the deal, as it was potentially diasterous for the company. See Llloyds trying to buy out struggling banks as an example.

    What’s more, it makes no differerence whatsoever, as Barclays only agreed to buy “good debt”. Which was a tiny slice of it. For Lehman to have been saved, the US tax payer would have had to have also have bought the “bad debt”. As in bail it out.

    Not only could Lehmanns not find a buyer for the good debt in the UK or US, but Obama refused to buy the bad debt as well. Meaning it fell.

    I’d really concentrate on trying to sure up tory economic policy, rather than trying to spread mistruths

  2. @John

    Don’t forget the TT total tool

  3. Astonished by recent polls. Could it be that the voters simply are in denial about the national debt, and will not support party promising immediate cuts. Also Fri will see GDP downgraded…and 1st qtr 2010 is predicted to be -0.6% at best, largely due to the snow and rising costs ie fuel.

  4. This poll doesn’t really change anything. Although my WMA doesn’t show this because of the rolling effect, it looks as if the CLead dropped to 6 around the 19th and has been constant for the last 5 days.

    On paper the 2-week WMA trend is very worrying for the Tories (dropped by 4.5 points with an R2 of .91) but they are good at holding their nerve (remember the “election that never was”) and are convinced that Brown will lose the campaign. They also think that the blatant lies Brown & co tell will come back to bite them. We shall see…

  5. Quincel – I was also finding this rather odd. Have the Tories done something wrong that I have missed? Are there any obvious reasons for this drop in support? It is pretty enormous given the time scale and, unless there was a catastrophic defining event that I missed, it suggests that the electorate is rather volatile.

  6. p.s. It would be interesting to also have error bounds on the projection – such as ‘conservatives 19 short of an overall majority, plus or minus x’ – some sort of confidence interval would be useful, because this looks volatile.

  7. I keep putting the same view, and it seems to be more convincing by the day. If I were a Tory, I’d listen very carefully:

    It’s not enough to trash GB

    Labour were nowhere near as unpopular as a mid-third-term dis-satisfaction seemed to show and now that thoughts are crystallising, I re-iterate they will become less unpopular (not more popular! lol) by the day.

    @ Trevorsden – Here’s food for thought “How do you cut a 90 billion structural ldeficit”? Well, one way is to wait quietly while RBS and Lloyds recover, help them become profitable again and watch their share price head north. Wait til you’ve made a 90 billion profit and sell them! OK, I oversimplify, but GIVING THEM AWAY AT A LOSS to voters is the most astounding thing I heard all week.
    We often try to dumb the electorate down, but they really aren’t that stupid. stunts like these are what give a point here and a point there in the polls.

    @ Philip J – Labour have obviously moved to around 33 albeit only in the last week or so, It wasn’t long ago we were saying the Tories would be fine if they didn’t fall below 40. I can see nothing but (broadly) Tories losing 2-3 points, Labour gaining them.

  8. In 2005 Labour scored a win with 35.3%, while the Tories were 3points behind on 32.3% and LD’s were on 22%.

    So as we approach a likely polling date, despite all the economic horrors, bullygate, broken Britain and £Millions spent by Cameron they’ve managed to take down Labour’s previous support by 3%.

    The Tories have ran out of steam. The public are smarter than the so-called geniuses of Hilton, Coulson et al and realise that being anti-Brown is not enough.

    It’s now getting too late to get any message on policy out and already the public perceive the Tories as drifting back to Nasty Party territory.

  9. @QUINCEL

    “Is it just me, or is this moving too fast? 7 days ago we were talking about the lead averaging 8 or 9, now it’s down to 5. There hasn’t been a catastrophic Tory disaster in that time, so why have the Tories dropped as much as 3 points in a week, that’s not right.”

    Quite possibly the lead rane 14-21 days ago overstated the Tories and the current lead range is more accurate.

    There has been no ‘big event’: in simple terms, the Tories have mis stepped and mis stated and U turned for two months now- not an attractive proposition; plus voters minds are being concentrated by everyone saying its only 12 weeks to go/ only 11 weeks to go/ only 10 weeks to go. Voters are begining to think about thier vote seriously. Plus Labour have ridden through various attempts at personality politifcs to thow them off balance and have seem relatively competent since HH. Plus the economic news has been less bad and in some areas (only some) good.

    The times are more worrying for Tory supporters than they are for anyone else that one thing is clear.

    Tory supporters biggest mistake (and plenty on here- judging by comments over the weeks- make it) is that they got to utterly hate the Brown administration *so* much that it completely blinded them.

    They got to the point where they just could not envisage the ‘vast court of public opinion’ doing anything but agree with them: they “cannot believe that Labour are at this level of support” and closing.

    Its not a new phenomenon: its the same thing Scargill, Benn and the Trots used to say about Thatcher.

  10. @sue marsh. You are confusing deficit with debt. Something too many people are doing at the moment. Debt is how much we owe and while it is very high is still within the realms of manageability. The structural deficit means that every year we are spending in round nos. £100 billion more than we take in. Yes you might get a good return for the bank shares but that would only work once. You still have £100billion per year hole!

    It is clear the Tories are not popular. I live in Surrey, their heartland and I detect no warmth for Cameron and co. Indeed amongst the Tory activists there are many who despise him. Many constituencies are really peed off that thay have had primaries and A listers foisted on them.

    Having said that my crystal ball says a small Tory majority, giving leverage to the mavericks, making Cameron rely on Unionists and Lib Dems for some votes. They will be horribly unpopular (because of having to cut) and we’ll all be back here again in 2012 for an October election. lol

  11. This is the final para of a piece by Flockers on pb

    “However, if you are prepared to look through the weighting, the basic unweighted responses of people polled by YouGov still point to a commanding Conservative lead.”

    The article & it’s implications need a reply here.

  12. @neil A – “In a way I think the Tories really ought to be refighting their 2005 election campaign. Those “we want to cut red tape and let teachers/policemen get on with their job” messages were just what the doctor ordered, but there was no way the Tories could break through back then.”

    I’ve been saying this to anyone who would listen for years. They’ve been fighting the last election since 1997. As I said at the time, in many ways I always thought they would have been better off electing David Davis rather than Cameron, although to be fair I think Davis would have struggled to portray a change message quite as well. However, given that I don’t believe the changes are particularly deep or material, I don’t think that’s an issue. If the Tories had spent four years banging away at Davis’s agenda as you say, the financial crisis would be playing perfectly for them and they wouldn’t be open to charges of opportunism and lack of clarity.

    The reported conclusion of the meeting of Cameron’s big four advisers is to remain in the ‘get Brown’ mode. That is a mistake. I suspect there will be some revelations forthcoming, certainly about Coulson, but also about Cameron, who had a reputation for lying and mendacity when he was at carlton TV, and if they persist in personalising the campaign and people see the negativity coming from them, rather than Labour, many voters will switch off.

    For Labour – still the worry that the 32/33% level is a barrier. They have to try to get towards 35% nationally to counter the marginals effect, and so far there is no sign of the big breakthrough. The two critical points will be where will the ‘liberal surge’ come from – they always increase during the campaign proper, and if they take from Tories it gets very close. Second key point – turnover. This poll is of ‘certain to vote’ – I haven’t checked the tables to see what effect a broader turnout might have, but it will be critical.

  13. Is that the same ‘PB’ that attaches such importance to AR polls and is ConHome’s favourite election polling website..

    A reply?

    Its seems to me- in the face of the facts of almost three months of a narrowing lead (a trend that has clearly accelerated in the last 2 weeks)- a little bit like like spin that is optimistic for the conservatives. I would not guess as to why they feel it necessary to write this sort of stuff as the facts of recent months (and indeed weeks) rather speak for themselves.

    It also ignores the ongoing discussion here about the potential impact of TV.

  14. BTW – stand by for the revised GDP figures today. Industrial investment sharply down – could be back into recession – but manufacturing output well up – could put the headline number up. The Chancellor already knows the number, but it’s going to be a key moment.

  15. @Colin – presumably the likelihood to vote data suggests Labour’s support is firmer? This would fit with the general theme of weakening Tory support, and I would intuitively expect movements in polls to go through progressive stages, where supporters become less enthusiastic first before finally switching?

  16. @ALEC

    “The reported conclusion of the meeting of Cameron’s big four advisers is to remain in the ‘get Brown’ mode. That is a mistake”

    “For Labour – still the worry that the 32/33% level is a barrier. They have to try to get towards 35% nationally to counter the marginals effect”

    Agree on both.

    The Tories have to get positive if they are not to fall to their floor at the election. Despite my enjoyment at recent weeks trends I still- for the moment- feel that Labour will do well to get past 33 and the Tories will not fall below 37. Though I do think anti-blue TV and other unpredictable local phenomena will mean the national swing is not replicated in seat tallies: that’s my antidote to those here convinced the seat tallies will be more favourable to the Tories than national swing indicates due to fabled marginals.

    I will adjust my mind on that ‘marginal thang’ when we have figures on marginals from YG, ICM, MORI and CR.

  17. Colin,

    Well my response would probably be, and its a guess, that Yougov apply some kind of similarity filter where by even if they don’t weigh by previous vote they know pretty well what the profile of a Tory voter is.

    So if when they sample the poll has to many people who by job, home post code and income would fit the Tory profile they drop it.

    I am not sure that is really what they do but I can see the logic for a panel based internet polling.

    In both Iran and Venezuela the West got the initial presidential elections wrong because they paid not enough attention to the crowd on the street and too much to people on the net.

    As I say I am not sure just how YouGov do it but I suspect they put a lot of effort into getting the demographic profile right and they think that that is the way to get round false recall.

    In a way they might think that the are better at telling who is a Tory than the people they poll are and if they are getting responses from too many. It may even be that the methods they use to stop people skewing their polls are the same as those they use for weighting.

    But as ever I might be way off beam.

    Peter.

  18. 2 points.
    Kudos to Alec who said all along that once the voters start looking through ‘tactical’ Dave they would not like what the see.
    Secondly, when Labour was doing mid 20s or lower they were hated by few former supporters, it was more disappointment people had.
    The clear dividing lines have brought back on board traditional supporters – it may be hard for them to add much more though unless Dave and George keep helping
    Conventional wisdon is Governments lose Elections. I recall Anthony saying that whilst the opposition had to have some credibility the bar was low, Is Dave failing to reach that low bar perhaps?

  19. @ Rob – “Tory supporters biggest mistake (and plenty on here- judging by comments over the weeks- make it) is that they got to utterly hate the Brown administration *so* much that it completely blinded them.”

    Exactly, totally agree. They are mystified and it IS blinding them in my opinion.
    A (Tory) website sprang up the other day full of “failures” of Labour. Problem was they were either untrue or based on discredited stats. The Tories I know truly believe them and this is another problem. There is plenty they could be criticising Labour on, but certain areas of the press have done such a good job of convincing them Labour have failed at EVERYTHING, they can’t understand what voter might vote FOR.

    “Know your enemy” – isn’t that what they say?

  20. RICHARD – “The rich wanted to get even richer and did all in their power to entice the peasants ” — who was regulating the system when all this was going on? Banks like Northern Rock were giving 125% mortgages.

    Banks were creating these special vehicles to repackage mortgages, banks were borrowing on the wholesale markets. Where was the regulation – who created the regulation system.

    The point is when the banks are making profits and the barrow boys are making bonuses – the govt was raking it in in taxes (and even then still running up deficits). We were running up deficits even in the ‘good years’- thats the structural deficit we need to cut. Browns debt.

    Its not the absurd bankers fault. And lets be clear its not a question of the poor paying, its simply the need to cut the spending we cannot afford.
    Why should you or anybody assume that somehow the ‘poor’ are going to be victimised. BTW its the tories not labour complaining about bonuses – the tories saying they should be paid in shares not cash.

    Liam Byrne in an interview said that all these cuts could be made without pain. Which begs the question as to why the money was spent in the first place. But thats is indeed the point. Govt needs to find better ways to do things a more economical way to govern. But we cannot get away from the need to cut 90 billion from expenditure.

    The polls would seem to indicate the country does not want to face up to that; they hint that say public service workers do not want a wage freeze, but this is just whats happening in the private sector where pay freezes and short time working (not some magic wand from Gordon) are keeping unemployment down for now. If we do not get the nations finances in order soon then that unemployment will rise again.

  21. A lot of the Labour support on here are really counting their chickens a little too soon I think.

    The opposition is ahead with just a few weeks to go. They have been ahead for ‘years’ and there is no sign in the polls that the government can push up beyond it’s core vote.

    It’s not as if its neck and neck (like 1992-the comparison many seem to be making)! Labour are unpopular and the daily ups and downs of the polls mean nothing if they are still less popular.

    The Tories will win. They will win with a clear majority. Put your house on it.

  22. I think there has been a certain amount of complacency in the Conservative camp. Perhaps the massive leads of the last two years led them to believe this would be a lot easier than it really is.

    The Conservative campaign seems to be missing the target every time they do something.

    It’s starting to look like 1992 all over again.

  23. @Trevorsden – But NO-ONE called for further regulation (excpet probably Vince Cable, he got everything right!! lol) – we can’t now say “Aha, evil Brown let them run riot” when it was perceived wisdom WORLDWIDE that markets were efficient.

    Did you have any thoughts on my comment about the deficit and bank shares by the way?

    Finally, the fact savings are up enormously since the credit crunch show people DO understand the level of the crisis and I know the Tories think GB is totally discredited on the economy, but this could be the problem, the public and.the rest of the world don’t. It could be argued that we stayed in recession a little longer than some other countries BECAUSE people were saving rather than spending their way out of it.

  24. David – we ae not paying Camerons mortgage.

    Camerons house, his home, is in London and we do not pay for that.
    We do contribute £25K a year to the upkeep of a home in his constituency in Witney. (like lots of MPs)

    In the interests of being factual I should point out that Brown rents out his London flat and has two grace and favour homes (one paid by the taxpayer) and we the taxpayer DO pay for his real home which happens to be in his constituency.

  25. @trevorsden – interesting argument by Martin Wolf in the FT today in which he says both side on the economic debate could be right. There is a need to cut the structural deficit, which could be anything from 5 – 9% of GDP, but to do this within one parliament would be devastating. The solution could be to do this while offsetting the impact with increased spending via investment and tax cuts targetted at improving long term growth – this after all is what will cure the debt problem long after the cuts have stopped.

    @Jim Jam – thanks for the mention. I’m beginning to think about my GE prediction. It’s a little early yet, but one of my options (still subject to revision) is a Brown majority of 5 – 10 seats. Just a little nervous about this one until I see what other dirt there remains to be flung.

  26. GDP revised up to .3% That’s either “it’s working, don’t cut now”, or “now we’re out of it, it’s time to cut” depending where you stand.

    I don’t often scrolll back, but I’m John TT to distinguish from other common Johns and an occasional John T, so, Jason – nice one, but wrong target.

  27. Growth figures out: it’s BETTER than first reported: 0.3% instead of 0.1%. How will the polling react to this?

  28. @Trevorsden “mortgage”

    I agree but Cameron had no need to buy such an expensive house and load the mortgage on the public. It was a matter of life style at the publics expense. He could have set an example. it was his choice.

  29. Alec – most viewpoints have some merit, that’s why it’s so closed-minded to appreciate only one side.

    You can entertain an idea without agreeing with it, and you’re even allowed to modify or change your views too

  30. Sue Marsh – “How do you cut a 90 billion structural ldeficit”? Well, one way is to wait quietly while RBS and Lloyds recover, help them become profitable again and watch their share price head north. Wait til you’ve made a 90 billion profit and sell them”

    A classic example of totally missing the point.
    First we do not have the time to wait until RBS etc recover – we are spending that 90 billion now and every year.

    Second – Even if what you say made sense that 90 billion would only cover 1 year. The deficit is being spent every year and every year we do not pay it back we continue to pay increasing interest on it. Its rising to 60 billion a year, 2ce the defence budget.

    Third – The 90 billion is a structural deficit – ie it is not being covered by tax revenues over the time of the economic cycle.

    Fourth – even when we had 3% growth (created by borrowing and immigration) under Brown we still ran deficits (this is related to the points above) – the issue being that even a return to growth this year or next or whenever will not cover this spending.

    Fifth – The Treasury and the BoE point out that 5% of productive capacity has been lost to the economy so the tax revenues are not there anyway to support the level of spending we had in the past.

    Your attitude is simple proof of what I say – the public are running scared of facing reality.

  31. Colin –

    I haven’t read the whole thing, but that final sentence alone rings a whole lot of alarm bells. “Looking through weightings” implies that unweighted figures are useful… they are not (hell, imagine how rude we we all be if a poll came out without any demographic weighting)

    To quote from my FAQ on weighting

    Don’t fall in love with “raw” figures. Polls are weighted for a reason, to make them representative. The unweighted figures in tables are not some pure unsullied figures that let us see what the real picture is before evil pollsters manipulate them: they are figures from a sample of unknown demographics that may be wildly unrepresentative.

  32. I think the reason the polls have narrowed is that enough Labour supporters believe some or all of:
    * Gordon has saved the country from recession
    * There will be no cuts to front line services under Labour
    * The Tories would wreck the economy
    * Labour is united under Gordon’s leadership

    The Duke of Wellington, on being accosted as “Mr Smith, I believe” replied “Sir, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything”

  33. Percy Homes — Cameron was quite entitled to spend the 25K allowance. We can argue whether this allowance is right or not – I think the peripatetic existence of an MP justifies it – but the fact is Cameron is not paying for his real home thanks to the taxpayer. Brown is. As was Jacqui Smith.

    I do think your attitude is an example of why the main parties are not higher in the polls and why there is a high level of ‘others’ – there is a distinct unwillingness to commit to the main parties as a result of the expenses scandal, with the LDs coming out best – as there are fewer of them to expose (still does not stop them accepting stolen money as a donation though).

    And PS
    if Sue Marsh believes that the ‘stats’ on Labour are ‘discredited’ then she is as one eyed as the people she complains about.

  34. Trevorsden – the loss of 5% comes from the drop in revenues throughThe City I’m sure we agree.

    While it would have been great to have foreseen that crash and had £200bn spare to see out the storm, the fact is we didn’t.

    Now, not many people are suggesting we make up the difference and cure the cancer by selling the patient’s bed.

    Reality is that a slower recovery process is going to hurt less in the short and short-medium term than a 1981-type round of cuts. Longer term, you’re as right as Howe was, but the price isn’t generally seen as worth paying (according to my reading of the narrowing polls)

  35. Why, I wonder, has the Telegraph dropped YouGov, or is this a one off?

  36. NBEALE
    It’s not a matter of saving the country from recession, its GB’s efforts to mitigate the effects of the recession. Few doubt that the much criticised car scrappage scheme to take one example saved productive capacity and jobs in the UK. Idea borrrowed from Europe of course
    Everyone knows there will be cuts
    The Tories may indeed wreak havoc on the economy
    It’s all about perceptions

  37. @Trevorsden

    ” the public are running scared of facing reality.”

    Quite possibly. It would appear there is polling evidence to suggest many people don’t believe extensive cuts are necessary.

    Perhaps they are even more scared of giving Osborne free reign to cut until the pips are in shreds.

    Saying you will make extensive and deep cuts, more than Labour but without saying how much more, is bound to scare people. Where is the limit? Can you imagine Osborne exercising restraint in government?

    The Tories “austerity Britain” message was never going to succeed (Turkeys do not vote for Christmas), especially while persisting with the IHT cut which just looks crazy in the current context, sending out entirely the wrong message (cuts for the masses, tax breaks for the wealthy).

    The only way a “deep cuts now” message could succeed is if the bottom fell out of the UK economy, UK credit ratings are downgraded across the board and the UK was unable to borrow any more money. In other words, it is bankrupt. Only then might the electorate be persuaded that the alternative is worse.

    However, at the moment, the market looks happier to persist with ongoing stimulus before tackling the deficit.

  38. @Trevorsden – Fair points every one. My mistake, I read quickly and saw “deficit” not “structural deficit”.

    However,

    “And PS
    if Sue Marsh believes that the ’stats’ on Labour are ‘discredited’ then she is as one eyed as the people she complains about.”

    I did refer to a particular website, not ALL stats!!! I won’t post a link as we’re already WAY O/T but it WAS discredited and was simply my way of backing up what I said about Tories not being able to see ANY of the good done by Labour and believing half truths, or demonising Labour too much.

    I don’t believe I’ve complained about ANYONE either, just debated why I believe the gap is narrowing.

  39. “the loss of 5% comes from the drop in revenues throughThe City I’m sure we agree.”

    No we don’t John TT

    We will recover – thats inevitable, though at the moment its very very slow (The EU are saying 0.75 growth this year) – but even after that there is still a 90 billion structural deficit which recovery will not cover and that has to be reduced.

    The reduction in productive capacity comes from the mass of companies going bankrupt. It will take several years for the productive capacity to recover. Its nothing to do with bank profits.

    Also quite a bit of the increase in GDP came from immigration, more people create more GDP, that why GDP per head has declined since 2005. As immigrants return to Poland that notional capacity diminishes as well.

  40. NBeale – some of what you say might be true, but I think the reason is that the Tories have overplayed the negative card, at the expense of propounding positive policies. Those policies they have announced in some cases haven’t gone down well, especially those announced by George Osborne who really hasn’t acquitted himself well given the apparently favourable circumstances. The election has got closer in time, and voters are deciding whether they really want the Tories in office. In many cases people who are extremely disappointed in – or even actually dislike – the Labour government are, however reluctantly, concluding that they have to return to Labour to prevent such an outcome, even if they told themselves they never would again. Also Brown’s performance has become more combative, without generally him being seen as Mr Nasty, the bullying allegations notwithstanding. If the Tories want to win, they have to give a positive reason for the electorate to vote for them. Cameron understood this when he won the leadership but seems to have forgotten now. Things obviously CAN be turned round by the Conservatives but at present their tactics are all wrong.

  41. Anthony:-

    Thank you.

    It would be helpfull ( well to me anyway!) if you could put up a piece on “What’s changed” in the YouGov Polls-which groups & demographics have changed most etc.

    The change has been dramatic .Arguably it is altering the conduct of the GE debate itself.( It’s certainly altering the debate here ;-) )

    One expects the parties to understand what is happening, from their private research.
    But we don’t have access to that here.

    NBEALE

    Yes-I think that’s about it as far as I can see.
    Though I might quibble with “Labour supporters”.

    There seem to be no great enthusiasm’s visible in these poll results-I think people are voting to retain their jobs-and making a judgement about who will be most likely to save it.

    The “Deficit” is just a word. Reducing it is someone elses problem-until it affects “me”.

    And the effects won’t be known till after the GE because neither Cons nor Lab will prepare a Departmental Spending Review till after it.

    So you have to choose now on who you think will make all of this just go away without it affecting you.

    And Labour are winning that “argument”.

    The Cons attempt to paint a picture of the sort of society they want to see is being drowned out by Labour’s very effective -“Tory cuts-Bad / Labour cuts-Good)

  42. Jason –

    @John

    Don’t forget the TT total tool

    Is that really totally appropriate? I merely ask

  43. Barnaby – i don’t mind, but actually that “John” was certainly not me anyway,and I think a flying visitor, so the shot missed its target . Trolls can’t always be snipped out, especially a t that time of night.

  44. @Anthony,

    i think Flockers on PB appears to be confused as to why the effect of the weighting has been progressively greater over time between last May and now.

    Presumably that is because the sample is now demographically different than it was then (progressively more past Tory voters, or at least demographics that suggest increased propensity to vote Tory).

    However, I think he was expecting a more natural sample variance in the demographics, that would mean the effect of the weighting would be more consistent over time.

    How do YouGov do their sampling? Is it randomly from the panel, then weight the responders? Or do they not even bother to sample randomly, given that the numbers will be weighted in any case?

    Is this change if the effect of the weightings just a factor of what demographic is responding to the polls?

  45. @ Trevorsden – I also said “There is plenty they could be criticising Labour on,”

    And made other points about saving and the fact that no-one called for more regulation

    @ Chippy – quite right, sorry about that

  46. Trevorsden – i’m surprised!
    Of course there is cyclical churn of companies going bust, but the Crash-Bang-Crunch took a chunk out of the city that isn’t coming back.

  47. Anthony,

    At a tangent, but on a thread a couple of weeks back you mentioned you were considering an article on UNS and how it had performed at previous elections.
    Regard this as a note of interest tin such an article, and a gentle reminder! :-)

  48. Colin – I’ve checked up now, the last time YouGov changed their target weights on party ID was around about April 2009.

    Labour and None went down a point, Conservatives and Lib Dems went up one.

  49. Statto – haven’t forgotten, it is a work in progress. :)

  50. @ Trevorsden

    “How do you eradicate a £90 billion structural deficit then?”

    Soak the rich?

    @ Jason

    “Next October there will be a referendum to change the voting system which will leave the tories with 25 fewer seats and labour with 25 more seats. Add in the massive immigration and it is hard to see Labour ever out of power again.”

    Is this really the case? I thought that the new system would help the lib dem but not Labour too much?

    “UK is now a permanent one party system forever.”
    “Gordon Brown could be the PM for the next 15 years with the way the system is set up.”

    ………..*stops taking Jason seriously*

    @ Craig

    “it could be 92 again but with an opposition win this time.”

    So just like ‘92 but with a completely different result!

    @ Amber Star

    “Everybody’s vote counts” ……… ish. I live in Vauxhall, there is no point is voting anything other than Labour!

1 2 3 4 5 6