Six weeks to go

Here are this week’s polls:

Opinium/Observer (19/3) – CON 36%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, GRN 6%
YouGov/S Times (20/2) – CON 33%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
Survation/MoS (21/3) – CON 30%, LAB 34%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 17%, GRN 3%
Populus(22/3) – CON 31%, LAB 33%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%
Ashcroft (22/3) – CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%
ComRes/Mail (22/3) – CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 7%
YouGov/Times (23/3) – CON 34%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5%
YouGov/Sun (23/3) – CON 34%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
YouGov/Sun (24/3) – CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Survation/Mirror (25/3) – CON 32%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 18%, GRN 4%
YouGov/Sun (25/3) – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
Panelbase (26/3) – CON 34%, LAB 34%, LDEM 5%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%
YouGov/Sun (26/3) – CON 36%, LAB 34%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%
Populus (26/3) – CON 31%, LAB 33%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%

It’s been a busy week in terms of voting intention polls – ComRes have now moved to weekly polling for the Daily Mail, Survation did two ones (one for the Mail on Sunday and one for the Mirror) and we got the first UK poll from Panelbase. Five of the polls showed dead heats between Labour and the Conservatives, there were three Tory leads and six Labour leads. The bigger picture remains one of the two main parties being neck-and-neck, but there have been slightly more Labour leads than Tory ones in recent polls, so the UKPR polling average this week has Labour one point ahead – CON 33%(nc), LAB 34%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 14%(nc), GRN 5%(-1).

Scottish and London polls

ICM had new Scottish and London polls out this week. In Scotland they found Westminster voting intentions of CON 14%(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 6%(nc), SNP 43%(nc), UKIP 7%(nc), GRN 3%(-1), changes are from their previous Scottish poll in December. At 16 points ICM show a slightly smaller SNP lead than some other companies, but there is no significant change from their previous poll, suggesting its something methodological rather than a narrowing of the SNP lead.

This morning ICM had a London poll for the Guardian. Voting intentions for that were CON 32%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 9%, GRN 8%. That represents a four point swing from Conservative to Labour since the general election – the equivalent of a one point Labour lead in national polls – so again suggests that the swing in London is much the same as in the rest of the country.

Week 12

  • David Cameron ruled out standing for a third term as Prime Minister. Unusual not because of the content – if he wins he was widely expected to stand down at some point after the European referendum anyway – but because he said it, out loud, to a journalist. In terms of public opinion 55% of people said Cameron was right to rule out a third term, 18% wrong. A majority of supporters of all parties – including Tory voters – thought it was the right thing to do. 21% of people said it made them think better of Cameron, 9% worse of him, but for the majority of people it made no difference to how they viewed him.
  • The final PMQs of the Parliament was dominated by exchanges on ruling out tax rises. Asked before Cameron ruled out a VAT rise and Ed Balls ruled out a National Insurance rise, at the start of the week YouGov found 43% of people expected tax to go up if Labour won, 29% expect it to go up if the Conservatives win. Under a Labour government, 43% expected income tax to rise, 41% expected fuel duty to rise, 39% expected national insurance to rise… but only 22% expected VAT to go up. Under a Tory government 34% expected fuel duty to rise, 31% expected VAT to rise, 29% expected NI to rise and 25% expected income tax to rise.
  • The debate debate finally came to an end with an agreement to have four events: a Paxman interrogation of Miliband and Cameron; a seven-way debate between Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Farage, Uncle Tom Cobley and all; a debate between the five opposition parties and a Question Time special with Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, one after the other. The Paxman interrogation took place last night. An ICM poll straight after the debate found people thought Cameron came out better than Miliband by 54% to 46% – we will have to wait until the weekend to see if it has any impact upon either voting intentions or perceptions of the leaders. Over the last five years Cameron has consistently had better ratings than Miliband, so in many ways a performance that’s pretty even has the potential to help Miliband far more than Cameron. As ever, time will tell.
  • The physical mechanics of the general election have started to kick in. Yesterday Parliament was prorogued, on Monday it will be dissolved and the writ issued and we’ll be off. The start of the formal campaign means various bits of regulation kick in, including the broadcasting restrictions requiring coverage of the main parties and spending limits upon the parties.

Projections

The latest forecasts from Election Forecast, May 2015, Elections Etc and the Guardian are below (the Polling Observatory team are doing fortnightly predictions, so nothing new from them this week). Three of the models continue to show the Conservatives with just a few more seats than Labour, but Steve Fisher’s prediction from Elections Etc now has them 35 ahead of Labour. This is due to a methodology change rather than a move in opinion – Steve’s model for predicting the vote shares in England & Wales remains unchanged, but he’s no longer assuming such a big drop in SNP support in Scotland, and has rejigged how he translates projected votes into seats based on Ashcroft and YouGov polling (it’s explained in more detail here.

Elections Etc – Hung Parliament, CON 296(+12), LAB 261(-17), LD 21(nc), SNP 47(+6), UKIP 5(+2)
Election Forecast – Hung Parliament, CON 283(-1), LAB 280(+2), LD 26(+1), SNP 38(-2), UKIP 1(nc)
May 2015 – Hung Parliament, CON 273(-4), LAB 271(+3), LD 24(nc), SNP 55(nc), UKIP 5(+2)
Guardian – Hung Parliament, CON 277(nc), LAB 269(+1), LD 25(nc), SNP 53(-1), UKIP 4(nc)


367 Responses to “Six weeks to go”

1 2 3 4 5 6 8
  1. The problem with capping profits [snip]

    [As ever, can we please not get into debating whether govt or opposition policies are any good or not – AW ]

  2. @Anthony W

    “Over the last five years Cameron has consistently had better ratings than Miliband, so in many ways a performance that’s pretty even has the potential to help Miliband far more than Cameron. As ever, time will tell.”

    Summed up neatly, I think. I’m not overly sure that the Channel 4 programme will have much effect on the polls, but in so far as it might, Miliband seems to be the only likely beneficiary for the very reasons you postulate. The key audience in terms of shifting votes were those still undecided, obviously. For the people who loathe either man, and I might have spotted one or two of them on UKPR over the last few days (:-)), the debate only served to reinforce ingrained prejudice. In that sense, many of us have got a particular dog in the fight and the tendency to cheer-lead for our man, rather than judge dispassionately, is difficult to overcome.

    Accordingly, we have to consider the significant number of people who have no strong views either way about the two men and who could well have been seeing them, at length, for the first time. The polling, and anecdotal, evidence points to Miliband pleasantly surprising people rather more than Cameron did. He had a lower bar to clear than Cameron and, only had to perform half decently to surpass the expectations the public had of him, but maybe we shouldn’t underestimate the potential good Miliband might have done himself the other night.

    No game-changer, but Labour might be slowly neutralising one of the Tories key election strategies; the Miliband electability factor. If Miliband can continue to chip away at that over the next five weeks or so, it then allows him to move on to more favourable political terrain for both him and his party.

    There’s maybe another element to all this too and that’s morale and confidence within the respective parties. I’ve spoken to quite a few Labour people who were dreading the Channel 4 programme and who both were surprised and delighted by Miliband’s performance. They feared Cameron would drub him.

  3. CROSSBAT11

    ” game-changer, but Labour might be slowly neutralising one of the Tories key election strategies; the Miliband electability factor. If Miliband can continue to chip away at that over the next five weeks or so, it then allows him to move on to more favourable political terrain for both him and his party.”

    The alternative view might be that people will begin to think more and more of this as an Ed v Dave contest, the more they do so the more the different impressions of the two men weigh in peoples minds. That would count against the one with the lower rating, namely Ed, and might outweigh the effect you articulate.

    I believe tonight’s polls should see if there is any benefit for Labour from the C4/Sky debate.

  4. Judging by the amount and quality of the leaflets I’ve seen Labour are not short of money Where is it all coming from ?

  5. @JTE

    If the LibDems retain a reasonable number of seats in May, largely as a result of ABT tactical voting, would they seriously consider entering into another coalition with the Conservatives or even offering C&S?

    Perhaps they would if they take account of the views of voters who stay loyal to the LibDems. A detailed analysis of this has recently been provided by an illuminating BES paper by Ed Fieldhouse.

    Rather remarkably, this analysis shows that of 2010 LD voters, a larger number are now supporting Labour than the cohort that is staying with the LibDem. The Red Dems have long since moved elsewhere.

    In his piece, Fieldhouse also states:

    Our data confirms that those who deserted the party since 2010 have a much more negative view of the Conservatives than those who stayed loyal (or the electorate as a whole).

    Given this, it seems likely that the 2015 LD voters will be relatively positively disposed to the Tories, and so wouldn’t have any qualms about agreeing to another formal or informal coalition.

    It is a difference question whether the surviving LD MPs take the same view. I have seen suggestions that the Orange Bookers may be more likely to lose their seats. But I don’t know whether this is true. If more of the left-leaning MPs survive and if the leadership changes then the answer to your question could well be different. If the LibDems find themselves in a kingmaker role we could have a fascinating scenario in which the MPs opt to provide at least tacit support for a Labour administration while the general membership show a keen preference for going the other way.

  6. @ Wolf

    Judging by the amount and quality of the leaflets I’ve seen Labour are not short of money Where is it all coming from ?

    The electoral commission publishes lists of Party donors on their website.

  7. Howard
    Tonight’s polls will be interesting. I suppose the things to look for, after the interviews on c4, will be any changes in the leaders ratings as well as the headline VI.
    On propensity to vote. Will You Gov just use a likelyhood to vote question or will they down weight younger age groups who are historically less likely to turn out.

  8. @AMBER

    All commercial enterprises operate on a risk versus reward basis. If the reward is capped it follows that the risk must be too or no-one would tender. We are then into guaranteed profit territory where all the risk is then transferred back to the taxpayer.

  9. JTE
    I would suspect based on “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ..(choose your own expletives)” there won’t be much support for them [LD after 2nd Con coalition] at the next election which could come much sooner than 2020

    I tend to agree with your point re the LDs, but why do you expect another UK GE before 2020?

    The current forecasts suggest a Lab minority with C&S from the progressive alliance as most likely. If their “majority” is wafer thin it could certainly erode quickly with a few by-elections, but so long as it reaches double digits I would expect it to survive. In some ways, Lab may even prefer it to be smaller so that it could “dare” its C&S supporters to vote it down on policies perceived to be right of centre.

    OTOH, if Con with DUP/UKIP C&S do have a majority [as one of the forecasters suggests may be possible] then I could see relations becoming somewhat bitter should Con behave over the EU referendum in anything like the way they did over the AV referendum.

  10. @Old Nat
    ‘Rowatt Research Institute’

    Blimey, that brings back memories.

    I used to walk past there every day, en route to school !

  11. @AmberStar

    I’m in the most Tory bit of the Jim’s seat so I expect it’s some clever micro targeting sending me the “I’m the incumbent, No mention of Labour” leaflet.

    Barrhead, Neilston and Thornliebank probably get a Red Clydeside version of the leaflet promising renationalisation of the means of production!

    I can almost understand not saying Labour on the leaflet but I was more surprised really that there was no mention of Jim being leader.

    Seems to me the least you’d expect is to get some preferential treatment in your area from being represented by the boss. Usually leaders tend to outpoll their parties. Thinking of Ian Gray in 2011 for example. If you don’t mention that in your leaflets that seems to me to be losing out on that potential bounce.

  12. Wolf – I think one area where Labour have a genuine advantage over the Tories is in the ‘fit and able’ foot soldier count so it makes sense for Labour to utilise its’ lower financial resources on leafleting and canvassing.

    Tories will do leaflets but their financial muscle tends to show more in Bill-Board visibility (and newspaper ads), not just the amount but having more prime locations in marginal seats.

    I recall that before FTPA the buying up of bill-board space was a sign of a GE call being imminent.

  13. @ RMJ

    All commercial enterprises operate on a risk versus reward basis. If the reward is capped it follows that the risk must be too or no-one would tender. We are then into guaranteed profit territory where all the risk is then transferred back to the taxpayer.

    I’d think that Labour believes the risk to the company is capped.

  14. My apologies Anthony. I hoped I was posting in an acceptable 3rd Party, quasi-factual way about a policy, rather than saying whether it was good or bad. I appreciate that distinction can be a very slim one.

  15. BARBAZENZERO.
    Good Afternoon from a wet beach house here in Bournemouth.
    Your mention of a Progressive Alliance’ is very interesting; many Historians believe that the 1910-1914 arrangements of a radical Liberal Party, a small Labour Party (TUC pressure group really) and Redmond’s Irish Party could have governed for a long time if it had not been for the Great War.

  16. @Amber

    Many thanks for the efforts, but alas it’s not solution. The charts’ default size is fine. It seems that they changed in size on the changeover (gremlins).

    I’m going to tinker with vba for a bit to see if I can solve the thing. Failing that, it’s a manual resize.

  17. @ Statgeek

    That’s a pity. At the very least, I am with you in spirit… I know how annoying it is having to redo XL stuff & it’s always difficult to judge between writing VBA for a ‘one-time’ issue or just working through the thing manually.

  18. @Unicorn

    Given that so many RedDems have switched to more left wing parties, it’s probably reasonable to assume a lot of their remaining supporters are Orange Bookers and might prefer another coalition with the Conservatives.

    However I was thinking more of the many LofC voters who wouldn’t vote LD by choice but give them their support purely because the LDs, at least up until now, have been the only possible challengers to the Conservatives. I live in the south west of England where this is often the situation. Many such people, though appalled by the coalition decision, will hold their nose and still vote LD this time but I can’t imagine them doing so again in a repeat scenario. A split LofC vote will of course only benefit the Conservatives but vote LD get a Tory government would have little appeal.

    The LDs would indeed be in a very precarious position if their Orange Booker supporters were to follow the example of the RedDems and switch allegiance should their leadership opt to support Lab and the lost left didn’t return.

  19. Red meat speech from the prime minister at the Tory spring conference.

    Very personal at Miliband -its him or me.Labour bunch of useless hypocritical socialists.

    Next week will be feisty .

    I see Ms Sturgeon has pointed out Lord Salmond is just a member ,she is the Leader.

  20. Colin I just want to applaud the nonpartisan tone of your recent posts. It’s almost as though you have an editor????
    On the NHS announcements I’m not sure those voters who don’t approve of private involvement are going to be in favour of what was suggested or not, so I’m not sure I understand which dogs it was blown at?
    There’s not a great deal of public understanding of risk/reward either, although all sides seem to be advising the voters not to “risk” five years of misrule by the others!

  21. Bounce could be what the respective campaigns get out of the debates. I just received my invitation to buy a “Hell, Yes” T-shirt.

  22. My smiley came out as 4 question marks

  23. Sorry cameron also said Labour were holier than thou,sneering and hopeless but not useless.

  24. @ Northumbrian Scot

    Seems to me the least you’d expect is to get some preferential treatment in your area from being represented by the boss.

    Sure – but in Jim’s case it just raises questions about which parliament he’ll be ‘the boss’ in.

  25. Latest Election Forecast figures updated today. Changes are from yesterday and 15th March in that order.

    Con 286 +3 =
    Lab 277 -3 +4
    SNP 39 +1 -3
    LibDem 25 -1 -1

    Con recovery?? I really don’t understand how or why these forecasts move about even though they describe their methodology on the site.

  26. @Barbazenzero

    While I would be very much in favour of a progressive alliance government, it would be a very new experience for the UK. Five years is a long time and I would have little confidence that such an arrangement, protecting a tiny majority with all the different agendas at play, could go the distance. I would have every confidence that such an alliance could block a Tory goverment hence an early election.

  27. Just one example of how the polls are being used to manipulate the electorate:

    Daily Mail 25/03 headline:
    “Tories and Labour neck and neck as Ukip support slips: Parties level on 35% as backing for Farage falls to lowest level since 2013 on just 10%.”

    This was based on the 22/03 ComRes/Mail poll which showed the UKIP % at a suspiciously low level. On the same day another poll showed UKIP at 18%!

    I conclude the anti UKIP MSM could be using suspect (rigged?) polls to deceive the electorate.

  28. @Simon

    You need to distinguish between polling and reporting of polling.

  29. @ Simon

    The polls are NOT rigged.
    The MSM do cherry pick which they report & how they report them but they can’t rig the polls.

    There’s no point coming to a polling site unless you are going to read Anthony’s articles about how polling methods differ; & also have a think about Anthony’s personal campaign to improve the way in which the MSM writes about polls.

  30. Very true @Amber

    I guess Jim doesn’t really want to highlight the whole

    “Vote for me as an MP but I’m off to Holyrood in a year anyway” message.

    The leaflet doesn’t go into his future plans at all although there are quite a lot of pictures of Ken MacIntosh as well so maybe a straight swap in 12 months is the plan?

  31. @ Colin

    Indeed there many unknown in the 5% profit (margin?).

    But it’s a pretty strong PR – saying that private companies use to be profiteering on the sick (via budgetary redistribution), but we are coming down on them (interest is low, so 5% is high). Difficult match it really.

    While the problems with the announcement are easy to demonstrate, you can’t sell them in an election campaign.

    1) how do you calculate margins? (There are models used in the NHS, but due to the culling, there won’t be much manpower to check them). But in an election campaign it doesn’t matter – the price is above the cost
    2) somebody would have to deliver the service, and if the private firms don’t do it for 5%, the reason could be not only greed, but economic consideration. So cost could be high (particularly because of the need for capacity). I don’t think you can sell opportunity cost concepts in an election campaign
    3) outsourcing from the NHS is actually meaningful as capacity planning is quasi impossible, so the NHS transfers the related risk to subcontractors. This argument cannot match: It’s the people’s NHS.
    4) and so forth.

    The real alternative would be guaranteed service levels, but the conservatives are very reluctant to make the promise (there are actually problems here as well, but it’s too long. Just to indicate: check what has happened when TB gave the policy order to reduce cancer survival rates). Labour doesn’t have to be bothered by this.

    The more the news is about the NHS (and care in the community related policies) the less chance the Conservatives have (the 7-day NHS is a good policy (sorry Anthony, but it is – there’s plenty of evidence and no counter-evidence for it), but won’t convince the skeptics and the medical profession, that wants 30 billion.

  32. Pete B

    Chances are it’s noise.

    Current VI is calculated as a smoothed weighted average. As the more outliery type polls move through the system this moves this weighted average just a little.

    I think you are getting too hung up over the movement of a couple of seats well within the MOE.

    A ripple of 0.2% or so will lead to a few seats changing hands on a probabilistic basis (so not specifying a single seat that change but the cumulative effect of all those 0.2% across all marginals), it’s only if this moved significantly in one direction can we attribute it to a signal of something happening over and above the model prediction.

  33. Sorry: increase cancer survival rates

  34. Just as a point of information,how many people discussing the NHS contractor profit policy of the Labour Party, are aware of the ‘cap and collar’ agreements made with the rail franchise companies? If not, perhaps worth boning up on those.

  35. CHRISLANE1945
    Good Afternoon from a wet beach house here in Bournemouth.

    In my junior school years, when my dad was an engineer at ROF Poole, I lived just over the border from you in Lilliput, long before Dorset annexed the land of trolley buses East of County Gates. Looks pretty wet over the harbour too, judging by the webcam, so I probably wouldn’t be out sailing today if still there.

    Your mention of a Progressive Alliance’ is very interesting; many Historians believe that the 1910-1914 arrangements of a radical Liberal Party, a small Labour Party (TUC pressure group really) and Redmond’s Irish Party could have governed for a long time if it had not been for the Great War.

    Quite so, and although Carson & Co were always going to do their utmost to defeat Irish home rule, had the Scottish home rule bill become law perhaps Ulster fears would have been mollified somewhat, allowing the Irish transition to be a peaceful one. A pity, perhaps, that the law on female succession wasn’t passed before 1840.

  36. @ Northumbrian Scot

    It has just dawned on me (I’m slow today!) – the leaflet which you received will be Jim reporting as a constituency MP; I think you’re not allowed to actively promote your Party on those reports.

  37. @ BristolianHoward

    A bit different – that was tied to the revenue (and under shooting and overshooting the planned revenue). It had to be revenue tied (whether it was the right thing to do or not), because of the huge fixed cost element.

    Labour wants to tie this to profit (margin?)

  38. A discussion point, maybe, but looking at the latest UKPR rolling average, based as it is on the 14 polls conducted over the last seven days, would you normally expect to see the opposition party edging ahead at this stage in the electoral cycle if the governing party was firmly on course to be re-elected?

    Shouldn’t the momentum and movement be going in the opposite direction if the all the various models and forecasts are to come true?

  39. JTE
    Five years is a long time and I would have little confidence that such an arrangement, protecting a tiny majority with all the different agendas at play, could go the distance. I would have every confidence that such an alliance could block a Tory goverment hence an early election.

    My own preference would be in line with yours, which seems quite probable today but may well prove not to be viable come VE Day, when we’ll know the results.

    How long it lasts will depend on numbers and whether the press anti-SNP line [except, oddly, for the Scottish Sun] is believed in the light of what a Labour minority government can do in the first few months. If that comes to pass and proves popular, by-elections won’t be a worry. It’s hard to think of any circumstances where the SNP would bring it down before the 2016 GE, and PC/SDLP will probably be in the same boat.

  40. Alan
    Thanks, and you’re quite right. 2 or 3 seats movement is negligible.

  41. Amber Star

    How do you know some of the polls are not rigged?

  42. @Amber et al

    I’ve hit a wall with the vba code. I can make the thing work with charts where the chart is an object within a worksheet, but not where the chart is it’s own ‘chart sheet’ (the latter achieved by F11, and is what I use).

    Here’s the ‘chart within worksheet’ code:

    Sub ProgramChartObjects()
    Dim cht
    Set cht = ActiveSheet.ChartObjects(1)
    cht.Activate
    cht.Height = Application.CentimetersToPoints(16.86)
    cht.Width = Application.CentimetersToPoints(25.84)
    End Sub

    I think it’s all about the calling and activating of the chart sheet, and I think it might not be possibel, as I get:

    “Run-time error ‘1004’:
    Application-defined or object-defined error”

    @Anthony

    I appreciate it’s not really the forum for this, so if I don’t get a solution by 6pm, I’ll forgot it. :))

  43. JOHNTT

    @” It’s almost as though you have an editor????”

    I don’t understand what you mean by that. -not that it matters.

    Re “dogs” -I suggest those for whom the key word “privatisation” evokes an emotional response informed by political ideology. A sub group might be postulated for whom fear of adverse health consequences might be engendered by use of the key word.

    I agree with your last para. It is why I was so appalled by the Paxman/ Burley charade the other evening. A macho Paxo reprising his “lets make this person look stupid” act , and the vacuous Burley were an insult to the viewing public & no help at all in your ( & my) quest for “understanding”.

    Andrew Neil is the only person capable ( imo) of the sort of examination which would produce such a useful thing in advance of our voting. No wonder he was no where to be seen.

  44. @Simon

    This is not really the place for bringing forward unproven conpiracy theories.

    This site has people from all backgrounds and political allegancies who get involved.

    There are a fair chunk of people here who have a much better grasp of psephology than what I have observed exists among Journalists and Politicians.

    I have not seen, or seen presented any evidence of such claims that has any credibility.

    This site for the discussion of polls, not conspiracy theories.

  45. @ Statgeek

    I think it may be as simple as substituting ChartSheet or ChartSheets where you have ChartObjects.

  46. LASZLO

    Thanks.

    As I said- the “policy” isn’t meant to elicit an intellectual analysis. It certainly isn’t attached to a description of the relevant accounting conventions required to make it meaningful. :-)

    Sadly I am inclined to agree with your last para-though Cons can , if they try hard enough, counteract the problem.

    Repeating myself, this could be done by saying loudly & often :-

    * We are politicians. We don’t understand how to run health services. Our job is to ensure good outcomes for voters.
    * We have appointed a Health Management specialist to run NHS England. He has reported on what is needed over the next Parliament-we accept it & will fund it.

    Of course-the latter promise would have to be hedged by some timescale outline , in order to gel with the Public Finances plan.

    But people understand if you explain these things I think. At least this would prompt a discussion about priorities in Public Spending-and that is something any politician should constantly encourage.

  47. Just wondering if the Tory focus on Dave vs Ed is as wise as it sounds?

    Dave has just been heckled on immigration at the conference today, by one of his own,[] Power tarnishes [], as Paxman was getting at on Thursday.

    Meanwhile, Ed is apparently not as carp as we thought he was, possibly benefiting unexpectedly (by some) from the glare of publicity.

    I’m getting the feeling that Cameron will find his many past promises thrown back at him throughout this campaign, and I’m a sensing some fragility in brand Cameron, even as the ‘Hell Yeah’ T shirts are being printed.

    Perhaps this campaign will come down to the leaders, but maybe not in the way we originally thought?

  48. Which polls are due tonight ?

  49. @ Statgeek

    When I use VBA to add a chart sheet instead of a chart object:

    Sub AddChartSheet ()
    Dim Cht As Chart
    etc.

    So it might work for you.

  50. @Colin – that’s a sensible suggestion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8