More Sunday polling

A final chunk of polling from the weekend – the YouGov tables should be up on the website shortly, but looking at what is available on the Sunday Times website the latest YouGov AV polling has YES on 45%, NO on 55%. This is tighter than the recently polling we’ve seen, which has tended to show the NO lead in the high teens, but I’ll repeat the caveat I added to my Scottish post a few minutes ago that we should always be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single poll (besides, there are four days to go, and the polls are showing NO leads between 10 points and 20+ points – the game appears to be over).

Secondly, the Leicester South by-election seems to have been rather forgotten about due to all the other elections on the same day, but we do have a poll on it in the Independent on Sunday from Survation. Topline figures there, with changes from the 2010 result in Leicester South, are CON 20%(-1), LAB 61%(+15), LDEM 14%(-13), UKIP 5%(+3) – not much change for the Conservatives but the Lib Dem vote fracturing towards Labour, much in line with the national picture.

Thirdly, it’s not really a poll but it’s the best guide we have to the locals – Rallings and Thrasher’s latest local government projections based on their model using local by-election data has the Conservatives on 35%(down 5 from 2007), Labour on 38% (up 12 from 2007) and the Lib Dems on 17% (down 7 from 2007). This would equate to a Labour gain of around 1300 council seats, with the Conservatives losing just shy of 1000 and the Lib Dems losing around 400.


288 Responses to “More Sunday polling”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. @Alec

    “– it’s about the insidious cherry picking of only those statistics that suit a case, the ignoring of contrary evidence, the extrapolation from the cherry picked data of a theory that is presented as fact and the apparent indignation when someone points these things out.”

    I bow to your superior eloquence and articulacy. I couldn’t have put it better!!

  2. How many “don’t knows but certain to vote” left at this stage regarding AV I wonder?

    Just as some people don’t vote on principle, for others voting is a habit.

    I’m thinking that arguments directed at Labour swing voters by those advocting a change (not necessarily from the Yes campaign as such) have become a little more cogent in the closing stages.

  3. @Billy Bob,

    I would never deliberately not vote. It’s far too important for that. So I will definitely put a “Yes” or a “No” on that ballot next week. I just don’t know which yet. Probably a “Yes” I would imagine, but I really don’t know.

  4. @Neil A

    Well that’s two!

    I was thinking more in terms of opinion polls – some of which have been showing Yes+No=100% recently. ;)

  5. “How many “don’t knows but certain to vote” left at this stage regarding AV I wonder?”

    A surprisiingly large number I suspect.
    I’m one and I know a good few other people who haven’t yet decided but always vote.

    “I’m thinking that arguments directed at Labour swing voters by those advocting a change (not necessarily from the Yes campaign as such) have become a little more cogent in the closing stages.”

    Well.. I think both campaigns have been atrocious to be honest but I do detect a more focused approach in the closing stages. One which does seem to be centred on Labour swing voters rather than the guff about cost, the BNP or AV making MPs less corrupt or lazy.

    Not that the Mandelson/Huhne strategy of bash the Tories has had any impact on me personally but it seems to have got traction in some Labour strongholds if the narrowing of the polling isn’t a blip.

  6. Alec,

    I contend Labour’s lead is narrowing.
    I contend the Tories are stabilising.

    Over 11 separate posts you disagree.

    You do so eloquently.

    Guess what?

    You’re correct.

    My humblest apologies for being incorrect.

  7. Lots of stuff on Libya. So I’m sorry just to pick up one post but here it is anyway:

    “Regarding NATO, I have said that within international law, they cannot mount a one-sided intervention. The UN charter is quite clear on this – they should be neutral. I do not believe that they should be making ground attacks, but if they are – under international law – they should be attacking all heavy weaponry that poses a ‘clear & present danger’ to civilians, regardless of which side is using it.”

    Frankly the whole UN mandate is preposterous.
    In Ivory Coast they had the same mandate and just used it to intervene on one side in a decisive way and specifically targetted the leadership of one side, with the flimsiest of pretexts given it was the side that was being supported that was doing the majority of killing, ethnic cleansing and raping. Meanwhile there is no intervention in Syria or Congo to name but two who far more clearly need such an intervention. What a joke.

    I look forward to a poll on the standing of the UN itself, I imagine its pretty low right now in the UK.

  8. The current polling leads for Labour are as follows..

    YG 5%
    MORI 0%
    ICM 2%
    Com R 4%
    Populus 4%
    Angus Reid 11%
    Opinium 0%

    The Labour Party currently enjoys a 3.7% lead with the 7 main polling companies.

    I am in no way suggesting that Labour’s lead was ever higher.

    Heaven forbid.

  9. I’d get a myself a Lawyer Alec before it’s too late. ;-)

  10. @Mick,

    As a Tory voter who is about 50.01% convinced to vote “Yes”, I have to say I am not finding the “Vote Yes ‘Cos It Will F**k Up Those F**king Tories” campaign particularly persuasive. If I end up voting “No” it will be because my mild annoyance outstrips my very mild conviction that any change is better than no change.

  11. Mick,

    I am cheered to see you have settled into UKPR well.

  12. @Eoin

    “I am cheered to see you have settled into UKPR well.”

    If you’re cheered I’m cheered. Three cheers for UKPR. :-D

    @NEIL A

    ” I have to say I am not finding the “Vote Yes ‘Cos It Will F**k Up Those F**king Tories” campaign particularly persuasive.”

    It’s not winning me over either but I suspect you aren’t it’s target and nor am I.

    If I end up voting yes or no it will be in spite of the appalling campaigning on both sides which makes it tempting to spoil the ballot.

    I’ll likely do some more reading before Thursday on AV and it’s effects local and wider to see if the anomolies and unfairness it throws up are any worse or lesser than FPTPs.

    It’s a choice of least worse option from the worst campaign I can remember.
    Whatever the result the biggest loser will be any future refernda after this.

  13. @Mick Park

    “If I end up voting yes or no it will be in spite of the appalling campaigning on both sides which makes it tempting to spoil the ballot.”

    I don’t think you’re going to get any arguments from people on this site, that the entire campaign has been utterly dreadful, on both sides. Irrespective of the result of this particular referendum, it’s pretty much decided me absolutely that any move to more frequent referenda would be a very, very, very bad idea. How can we take seriously a result that is ‘informed’ by debate of such a poor quality?

  14. @ROBIN

    “it’s pretty much decided me absolutely that any move to more frequent referenda would be a very, very, very bad idea.”

    I can’t disagree.
    I think there are always going to be some things of such importance that they should always be put to referenda but any moves for the more American style proposition type frequent referenda on lots of smaller issues seem to be dead in the water now which is probably for the best.

  15. Robin

    “it’s pretty much decided me absolutely that any move to more frequent referenda would be a very, very, very bad idea”

    Equally, we should maybe abandon elections if in one campaign, the arguments from each side are dire.

    Referendums on issues that have not previously engaged the public on an issue that even its advocates are luke warm are undoubtedly a bad idea. This referendum was particularly stupid.

    However, it was interesting on the BBC Scottish Leaders’ Debate tonight, to hear the Unionist parties arguing that Scots shouldn’t have a referendum on our constitutional future because “there are more important issues”. Yet these same parties are engaged in a meaningless referendum on a minimal change to the voting system for one part of UK elections.

  16. @ Colin

    BY the way, NATO is an agent of the UN. Its actions are mandated by UNSCR 1973.
    —————————————————-
    NATO are acting under the auspices of UNSR 1973. NATO is under the command & control of its member states.

    NATO is not under the command & control of the UN nor acting on behalf of the UN, which is what ‘agency’ means. NATO is certainly not an agent of the UN.

  17. Amber

    “NATO is not under the command & control of the UN nor acting on behalf of the UN, which is what ‘agency’ means. NATO is certainly not an agent of the UN.”

    Absolutely. Indeed, isn’t it the case that Russia or China could also decide to mount a military involvement in Libya to protect the civilian population under the terms of UNSCR 1973?

    A UN resolution simply allows member states to act in accordance with the terms of that resolution.

  18. oldnat

    “This referendum was particularly stupid.”

    Born from stupidity and shabby compromise it rose to the dizzy heights of incompetence, personal catfights and huge public indifference.

    It would be grossly unfair to think all referenda are of such poor quality as the one Clegg and Cameron cooked up. Those who ‘masterminded’ the campaigns as well as those who dreamed it up in the first place deserve a good kick up the backside after this.

    Sadly whichever side wins will get feted as brilliant political tactitions and public relations wizards despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  19. @ Old Nat

    A UN resolution simply allows member states to act in accordance with the terms of that resolution.
    ———————————————-
    That is, indeed, the legal position.

  20. Mick Park

    “those who dreamed it up in the first place deserve a good kick up the backside after this.”

    That’s Annabel Goldie’s area of expertise (according to her). Mind you, when she also said in tonight’s debate that she would have the other leaders “by the short and curlies” that she fully understood what the term refers to!

  21. Correction

    Mind you, when she also said in tonight’s debate that she would have the other leaders “by the short and curlies”I’m not convinced that she fully understood what the term refers to!

    Too late at night!

  22. @ Pete B

    “Weren’t the Tories virtually wiped out in Canada a few years ago?”

    In 1993, the Progressive Conservative Party, which at that time held a majority, was defeated for reelection and reduced down to 2 seats. One caveat though is that in that election, the western Canada based right wing Reform Party won about 52 seats, taking them overwhelmingly from the Progressive Conservatives. The Reform Party ran in other ridings outside western Canada (Canadian for “constituency”) and I imagine that would have split the conservative vote. And also in Quebec, the Bloc Quebec appeared for the first time and was formed by a number of former Progressive Conservative MPs. I think about a decade ago, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party merged into a new Conservative Party (who I’ve heard reffered to as “Tories”).

    Imagine if in 1997 in the UK, The Tories had still lost 174 seats but about 74 of them were lost to UKIP instead of to Labour and the Lib Dems.

  23. Just for notice there should be 3 Welsh polls out this week.

    Monday (Today!)- Yougov for S4C/ITV Wales revealed on Y Byd Ar Bedwar
    Wednesday- Yougov eve of poll survey for ITV Wales.

    Unknown- The Western Mails election week poll. My guess would be Wednesday also.

    Intresting Times

  24. oldnat

    “That’s Annabel Goldie’s area of expertise (according to her).”

    Was it met by roars of approving silence ? ;-)
    She plays that card too often and she’ll always come off as slightly batty. The kind of batty that confuses scruff of the neck with pubic hairs.

  25. **BIG NEWS ALERT**

    Osama Bin Laden is dead!

  26. @ Old Nat

    “That’s Annabel Goldie’s area of expertise (according to her). Mind you, when she also said in tonight’s debate that she would have the other leaders “by the short and curlies” that she fully understood what the term refers to!”

    Yeah, that’s a little bit weird.

  27. @ Mick Park

    “Osama Bin Laden is dead!”

    Thank you for bringing this up. I had no idea what was going on. I just turned on my tv, I am hearing that U.S. forces killed him and has his body. Apparently, President Obama is about to give a speech on this.

    I am feeling a strange sense of relief about this in that I feel relieved about this and glad about this but also I feel some fear. I don’t think this means the end of terrorism or the threat of Muslim extremism in the world. And it won’t mean the end of war in Afghanistan.

  28. News about Bin Laden; a big boost for President Obama’s re-election campaign?
    8-)

  29. @ Amber Star

    “News about Bin Laden; a big boost for President Obama’s re-election campaign?”

    I don’t know. I mean I’m trying to resist making a partisan point here. If it boosts Obama’s approval ratings, it would likely be temporary. Afterall, the election is well over a year away. I think if Warren Buffett is right and unemployment is at 7% at the end of next year, that may be a bigger reelection boost.

    Obama has to be careful with whatever he says. He can’t declare victory, he can’t push a depressing meme either.

  30. “I don’t think this means the end of terrorism or the threat of Muslim extremism in the world. And it won’t mean the end of war in Afghanistan.”

    Nope, but it’s a full stop for the American people and for 9/11.
    Lest anyone get the wrong idea I still think it would have been better for him to be brought to trial for his crimes against humanity.

    I still don’t approve of assassinating state leaders and I don’t think the UN or anyone else will be changing their minds about the legality of that even in he light of this.
    And Bin Laden wasn’t a state leader he was a terrorist.
    If a proven terrorist gets killed while conducting and planning terrorist activities I will shed no tears.

  31. “a big boost for President Obama’s re-election campaign?”

    Hard to see how he isn’t a shoo in now.
    America wanted Bin Laden dead. Obama delivered.
    It isn’t a partisan point because had Bush or a Republican been in power when this occured I’d have said the exact same thing.

  32. @ Mick Park

    “Nope, but it’s a full stop for the American people and for 9/11.
    Lest anyone get the wrong idea I still think it would have been better for him to be brought to trial for his crimes against humanity.

    I still don’t approve of assassinating state leaders and I don’t think the UN or anyone else will be changing their minds about the legality of that even in he light of this.
    And Bin Laden wasn’t a state leader he was a terrorist.
    If a proven terrorist gets killed while conducting and planning terrorist activities I will shed no tears.”

    This may sound counterintuitive.
    1. I am a believer in the fullest defense of constitutional rights and fair trials before an impartial judiciary.
    2. I do not believe in assasinating foreign leaders.

    Notwithstanding that, I am thrilled that Bin Laden has been killed and not captured. I could go on forever about why but needless to say, I am glad that we did not have to deal with the logistics of a trial for the man. I’m relieved that he’s dead, I’m relieved that we have his body, I’m relieved that he was killed by special forces and not an unmanned drone, and I’m relieved we won’t have to have a trial for him.

  33. @ Mick Park

    “Hard to see how he isn’t a shoo in now.
    America wanted Bin Laden dead. Obama delivered.”

    Bush was a shoo in for reelection back in the fall of 1991 because of the Iraq War victory. It doesn’t guarantee Obama anything.

    Obama did deliver. That’s for sure. I’m getting chills during his speech. “Justice has been done.”

  34. SocalLiberal

    “because of the Iraq War victory”

    I’m assuming that’s ironic. Had Bush delivered a stable Demcracy and returned the troops before election he would have been a shoo in.

    “It doesn’t guarantee Obama anything.”

    On that I agree.
    I’m just saying that barring something unforseen it’s hard to see how he isn’t going to be the firm favourite to win.
    They are cheering outside the Whitehouse and as you mention..

    “I’m getting chills during his speech. “Justice has been done.”

    He nailed that speech. Absof**kinglutely nailed it.
    Nervy at the beginning but he said what exactly they wanted to hear in exactly the right tone.

    That was the most important speech he’s ever made and he delivered.

  35. @ Mick Park

    “They are cheering outside the Whitehouse and as you mention..”

    Yeah but those people are going to vote for him anyway. I remember standing out there on Election Night 08′. I wound up leaving because I felt claustrophobic. But still an amazing victory (probably freaked out Dubya).

    “I’m assuming that’s ironic. Had Bush delivered a stable Demcracy and returned the troops before election he would have been a shoo in.”

    He didn’t go in to establish a democracy. He went in and led an international force that quickly dispatched Iraqi forces and demonstrated the United State’s continuing military dominance. The troops were home. It wasn’t an issue. But at that time, he was seen as unbeatable (except by James Carville).

    “He nailed that speech. Absof**kinglutely nailed it.
    Nervy at the beginning but he said what exactly they wanted to hear in exactly the right tone.”

    Agreed. Better than “the President’s Speech” he was joking about last night.

    “That was the most important speech he’s ever made and he delivered.”

    Quite possibly.

  36. It’s easy to forget how many people Bin Laden killed prior to the 9/11 attacks. It’s also easy to forget how Dubya royally f**ked up on this. We were extremely close to capturing Bin Laden in 2001 or 2002 at Tora Bora. We could have and should have pursued him right then and there. But we didn’t. Instead Dubya took his eye off the ball and launched us into Iraq stupidity. An act that did far more to help Bin Laden boost the number of recruits.

  37. “Yeah but those people are going to vote for him anyway”

    Possibly but they looked like a pretty varied cross section to me and they certainly won’t be the only ones celebrating in America right now and in the morning. I doubt they will all just be Democrats.

    “He went in and led an international force that quickly dispatched Iraqi forces and demonstrated the United State’s continuing military dominance”

    I don’t remember that as being the justification for Iraq and if it was a show of dominance it backfired soon enough as the quagmire sucked everyone and everything into it.

    But if your point was after they went in and took out the remains of Saddam’s Army fairly quickly and after ‘Liberating’ Bagdad things looked rosy for Bush to those who weren’t warning of imminent doom then I agree.
    He was a war leader President who had ‘conquered’ Iraq.
    I do remember the US News Networks gushing over him and predicting an victory in the election.

    Difference is it wasn’t that hard to find those who saw the massive downside to Iraq and were warning that it couldn’t last. I don’t see an obvious downside to this but I do think that the immediate afterglow will not last forever. He’ll still have to fight to win the election but his life and the election just got a whole lot easier.

  38. @ Mick Park

    “Possibly but they looked like a pretty varied cross section to me and they certainly won’t be the only ones celebrating in America right now and in the morning. I doubt they will all just be Democrats.”

    Most are GW students and citizens of D.C. Though I’m sure some tourists from the Hay Adams, the Willard, Hilton, and other nearby hotels went out to celebrate too. I think there will be more celebrating tommorow. A “varied cross section” of people are inevitably Democrats.

    “I don’t remember that as being the justification for Iraq and if it was a show of dominance it backfired soon enough as the quagmire sucked everyone and everything into it.

    But if your point was after they went in and took out the remains of Saddam’s Army fairly quickly and after ‘Liberating’ Bagdad things looked rosy for Bush to those who weren’t warning of imminent doom then I agree.
    He was a war leader President who had ‘conquered’ Iraq.
    I do remember the US News Networks gushing over him and predicting an victory in the election.”

    I think you misread what I wrote. I’m not talking about Dubya, I’m talking about his dad (who was a terrible president but far better than his son). We didn’t go into Iraq in 1991. We did not “liberate” Baghdad. Dubya’s dad, for all his faults, absolutely knew better. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991 and annexed it for himself. He did it to gain extra coast line for his country and to add even more oil into his oil reserves. An international coalition, led by the United States, intervened by way of a UN police action. And under the leadership of Norman Schwarzkof and Colin Powell, U.S. forces went in, defeated Saddam’s forces in quick fashion and liberated Kuwait. People fearful of another Vietnam were unhappy about it (and many were cynical because of the oil). Instead, U.S. forces were triumphant.

    Bush looked great, his approval ratings were 91%. No prominent Democrat would run against him. Notwithstanding the recession at the time, most political pundits decalred he was “unbeatable” and most Democrats agreed. Turns out he wasn’t.

    Dubya, on the other hand, should have been defeated in 2004 but wasn’t because (1) Kerry ran a lousy campaign, (2) many people were reluctant to trade horses midstream, and (3) a lot of people hadn’t had their adjustable rate subprime mortgages turn on them yet.

  39. @ Mick Park

    “Difference is it wasn’t that hard to find those who saw the massive downside to Iraq and were warning that it couldn’t last. I don’t see an obvious downside to this but I do think that the immediate afterglow will not last forever. He’ll still have to fight to win the election but his life and the election just got a whole lot easier.”

    I’m going to wear my Obama 08′ t-shirt tommorow. Just to celebrate a little bit (plus I don’t have any American flag clothing). But I think that while this will definitely boost his approval ratings in the short term, it doesn’t guarantee him reelection.

    An incumbent is usually the favorite to win reelection. But if times are tough, it can get tricky. People will say they’re angry at Obama because he’s not appointing judges to Article III benches quickly enough or failing to pass significant legislation or not being an effective world leader or not following through on campaign promises for cleaner government…..blah blah blah. That’s a bunch of crap. To the contrary, for a guy who never bothered to learn the rules of the Senate, he’s passed an incredible amount of far reaching and monumental legislation. His presence on the world stage has been nothing short of incredible. He’s not appointing judges quickly enough but of those he is appointing (and so few get confirmed because of Republican obstructionism), they are high quality. And in the areas where an executive can make change without Congressional approval, Obama’s been making a great deal of positive changes towards clean government and environmental protection. My feeling about him is that he did need and still often does need on-the-job training. But once he gets that training, he is nothing short of incredible.

    The truth is, his popularity has fallen because of (1) high unemployment, (2) anxiety over low economic growth, and (3) high gas prices. That’s what people care about. Now, the fact that Bin Laden has been killed does partially take away the “Obama hasn’t done anything” meme. But ultimately, economic factors will have to continue improving for Obama to win reelection.

    He’s a favorite to win for sure (especially given his woeful opposition) but nothing is guaranteed in politics.

  40. Big question –
    Will this also affect polling in the UK?

  41. Now this is what I call a voodoo poll!

    Scottish Sun: ‘The psychiX poll’

    “Well, Alex is a Capricorn, and with a strong Cancerian influence in his chart he cares deeply about Scotland.
    In astrology, Scotland is ruled by this sign, so he naturally wants what he believes is best for the country he loves. And the Scottish people tune into this.
    The great transformer Pluto has also crashed into his sign, so he is aware that change is coming.
    This planet will hit a sensitive part of his chart in February 2012, causing the demolition of old ways of working. In their place will be something startlingly different.
    Freedom-loving Jupiter and liberty planet Uranus strongly influence his political beliefs. Therefore, it’s no wonder that he continues to bang the drum for independence.
    This man hates to see anything or anyone stifled or down at heel.”

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/scotlandfeatures/frankpilkington/3559033/The-Oracle-Scot-Suns-spooky-trio-seek-politicians-who-are-on-the-side-of-the-angels.html#ixzz1LAzfV4d7

  42. Robin

    ” How can we take seriously a result that is ‘informed’ by debate of such a poor quality?”

    Agreed. It has brought out the very worst in our political class.

    Pity they couldn’t have been excluded from the campaign-along with the ludicrously patronising & shallow contributions of people like Eddie Izzard-who would singlehandedly have persuaded me to vote No, if I had been undecided.

    On Bin Laden-Justice done. Congratulations to your countrymen SoCal for sticking to this for a decade.

    But it won’t end the problem of extremist islamic terorism. Sadly UK seems to be a hotbed of radicalisation of young men. I don’t know why.

  43. Amber

    “A UN resolution simply allows member states to act in accordance with the terms of that resolution.”

    THat is what I meant by “agent”-ie not acting on their own behalf , but on behalf of the UN-like the military of any country which is enforcing a UN resolution.

    But since the word clearly causes you a problem , I’m happy to call it something else.

    We both understand where the authority for action rests.

  44. @eoin – “I contend Labour’s lead is narrowing.
    I contend the Tories are stabilising.
    Over 11 separate posts you disagree.”

    I’m afraid that’s typical of the rather childish approach you take to debate when someone raises a valid point with you. I did not question the fact that the Tory vote is stagnant, nor have I denied the lead has narrowed over a certain time frame.

    I raised an objection to your apparent view that there has been a steady decline over a three month period, citing clear evidence from all YouGov polls that the lead increased in March and decreased in April.

    I raised objections to you production of evidence in previous posts that somehow things were going well for the Tories and their chances of a win in 2015 were improving.

    I raised objections to your highly selective and misleading use of polling statistics.

    For example, you chose a single 2 day period to select the only time YouGov had shown an 11% lead and used this as your starting point to try to make the point that there had been a big fall in the lead. This was the polls of the 10th and 11th March. You then used a Comres poll with a convenient 9% lead from 30th January (outside your selected 3 month period, incidentally) and ignored the Comres poll lead of 3% that occured at the same time as the YouGov 11% leads on 10th March. This is the poll I used to show an increasing lead.

    For ICM you’ve gone back to January 23rd for the 4% lead, again outside the period you were discussing, ignoring their polls on 20th Feb (2% lead) and 24th March (1% Tory lead).

    You also excluded polling companies that showed the reverse of your case. That’s pretty shoddy analysis in my view.

    Anyone who knows the remotest thing about analysing time series statistics knows that to analyse trends, all data has to be normalised to the same time period. You made fundamental errors in you data selection, a habit that I have criticised you for on many occasions previously.

    When I selected the data for my alternative analysis I was deliberately being obtuse and making the same errors as you did to try to make the point, but you just don’t seem to get it.

    I’m tempted to say ‘you’re no statistician’, but after your performance the other night I think we owe the lawyers another day off. Suffice to say, when you provide detailed statistics on an area where I have no experience and do not have the time or inclination to research for myself, by dint of your track record in those areas that I am aware of, I refuse to give any credence whatsoever to the data you supply and mentally file it under ‘potentially worse than useless’.

    I’m genuinely surprised by this, as I would have thought that academic researchers would hold statistical analysis in much higher regard.

  45. The YES compaign seem to be mobilising the anti-Tory vote. If they succeed in making a YES vote an anti-Tory vote I think they’ll win.

    Specially as NO thinks it has won…and we might see low turnouts especially in Tory heartlands.

    Very interesting times. Would a win for YES see some major fault-lines appear in the Cameron Government?

  46. Must say I’m disappointed at the news that Osama BL has been killed. I would have favoured capture, trial and conviction if that were possible.

    I’ve never been in favour of the death penalty, partly due to moral reasons but also because I want to see more appropriate punishment. A very lengthy prison term holds out the possibility of some kind of personal redemption but if not, is a far more alarming punishment than a quick and painless release from this world, in my view.

  47. @Nick Poole – I think the Yes campaign seems to have got people talking. Picking up a few pointers from people I know I would very tentatively suggest that undecideds are breaking to the Yes team and there will be a number of people not planning to vote now swinging behind yes, although this is not in the least bit scientific.

    If they are going to stand any chance of winning they need to develop some level of excitement and I think the Lib Dems and Peter Mandelson last weekend have just begun to do that.

  48. @DaveM – thanks for your note from Sunderland – very interesting.

    One of the things I like about this site at election times is that there are real canvassers giving honest assessments of what they find on the streets, as opposed to the party machines who can’t be trusted and the journalists who wouldn’t recognise real people if they bit them on the backside.

    Anyone who regularly canvasses (of all parties) has my admiration. You people are the backbone of democracy and deserve a lot of respect.

  49. Alec,

    You said
    1. “The bottom line is that the current polling situation is undoubtedly one that sees the Tories in really quite deep trouble,”
    2. “I’d never predict a GE result this far out, but my suspicion is that Cameron will find it very difficult to garner enough support to gain a majority in 2015.”
    3. “Using only YouGov for a straightforward comparison, the current lead of +5/+6% has been pretty stable and is towards the top of the range we have seen over the last six months or so.”
    4. “If anything, if you go back more than around 10 weeks or so, you can argue that there has been a general increase in the lead.”
    I say,

    1. The last 61 polls do not show the Tories in deep trouble but stabilising
    2. I say you often accuse me of linking polling trends to future results but in point 2 you did so yourself
    3. I say that is incorrect, it was 6.90% its now 6% with YG
    4. I say that’s significantly incorrect there has most emphatically not been a general increase. If anything it has tailed off and as I argued ‘slightly narrowed’.

    As for this polling data. A) I did not link the Tory score to 2015. B) My focus was mostly on the Red/Yellow combined score. C) Whilst it may be fear true that I am vigilant against a Tory recovery and potential success in 2015, as a member of Labour I am ever fearful of having to spend 5 more years on the opposition benches. Thus, I would contend that my habit of interpreting blue results with one eye on 2015 is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps as a Green Party supporter the last matter concerns you less which makes it more difficult for you to empathise with that outlook.

    ps. I see you are back to name calling. Please desist.

  50. @Nick Poole – “Would a win for YES see some major fault-lines appear in the Cameron Government?”

    How major?

    Some discussion on the previous page (3) of this thread about one scenario – a David Davis leadership bid and an attempt to derail the legisation with an early GE (likely/unlikely?).

1 2 3 4 5 6