As usual for a Monday we have three GB polls today – Populus, Ashcroft and YouGov. In a election campaign that has so far seen polls that are virtually static these were awaited in the hope they’d shed some light on the impact of the Paxman interviews last week. In the two post-Paxman polls at the weekend YouGov had shown a larger Labour lead than usual, but ComRes had shown a larger Conservative lead than usual. The question was whether today’s polls would shed any light on whether there was any movement, or just normal sampling error.

Populus’s twice-weekly poll has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 4% (tabs). Populus have typically been showing a small Labour lead in their polls over the last few weeks, so this is more Tory than their average poll, but well within the normal margin of error.

Lord Ashcroft’s weekly poll has topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 10%, GRN 7% (tabs). This is a small shift towards the Conservatives since Ashcroft’s poll last week, but a two point lead is very much in line with the average of his recent polls, so is nothing to suggest any real movement.

YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5% – back to more typical figures of neck-and-neck.

Looking at the five polls conducted since the Paxman debate, things are starting to look much more like “no change” that a Labour or Conservative boost – there is a bit of movement in either direction, but no clear consistent trend. The seven way debate this week may have more impact, if it’s not just a complete mess.

Note however, that a lack of change in voting intention figures doesn’t necessarily means the interviews last week had no impact at all. YouGov’s weekend poll also saw a significant improvement in Ed Miliband’s ratings and this was echoed in Lord Ashcroft’s poll today. While David Cameron still led on most measures, his lead over Miliband had dropped across the board since Ashcroft last asked in February: Cameron’s lead on representing Britain abroad was down 8 points to 28, on making the right decisions when they are unpopular down 6 points to 23, on having a clear idea of what he wants to acheive down 8 to 19, on leading a team down 6 to 30, on doing the job of Prime Minister down 5 to 26. Miliband’s lead on understanding ordinary people rose 8 points to 12. Of course it would be wrong to necessarily put this down to the interviews, there were signs of improvements in Miliband’s ratings in polls before last week, but it does look as if he’s narrowing Cameron’s advantage.

Meanwhile there were also Wales and London polls out today. The latest Welsh YouGov poll for ITV and Cardiff University has topline figures of CON 25%(nc), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 5%(nc), Plaid 11%(+1) UKIP 14%(nc), GRN 5%(-1) – Roger Scully’s analysis here. A new ComRes London poll for ITV London has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 46%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 9%, GRN 4% (tabs).

Note that despite what you may be seeing on Twitter, there is NOT a new ComRes Scottish poll – it’s just people getting excited over a small sub-sample of 70 spitting out the sort of strange and outlandish results that are inevitable with small sub-samples of 70 people.

369 Responses to “Monday polling round-up”

1 2 3 4 8
  1. Catoswyn

    Funnily enough con/greens seem to be more strongly negatively correlated than lab/greens. Counter intuitive but I guess intuition goes out of the window this election.

  2. @Chris in Cardiff
    Perhaps because it was purely factual and unbiased. Or if I’m wrong, perhaps AW’s gone to bed?

    “In layman’s terms, what I was trying to say that for the Tories to move into a position where they can win the election, they need to put on votes at Labour’s expense.”

    With so many smaller parties, perhaps it makes direct switches between the big two less likely? e.g. a disgruntled Lab our voter might go to Green or UKIP in England, or SNP in Scotland rather than Tory?

  3. I can also get 293 seats with CON on 37% and LAB on 35%, with UKIP at almost 10%

    That’s 1 or 2 seats short of the majority I think

  4. @RAF

    Surely if Labour want a majority they need to squeeze every vote available? In some seats Labour plus Green would come in first.

  5. @Alan

    Weird correlations. That’s why I read this site though. It points out the counter-intuitive reality rather than what seems ‘obvious’. Who are these green Conservatives?

  6. Catoswyn

    It seems the trend might be a “protest vs non protest vote”, there might be disaffected Tories, dallying with a non UKIP protest vote and coming back once Natalie Bennett got on TV. Probably thought the greens were harmless, bless em.

    Very much the story of the year so far is UKIP/greens coming back to the big 2 in much more equal numbers than might be expected.

  7. @Spearmint

    I found the Yougov turnout tracker for the 2010 election

    and there doesn’t really seem to be much difference between Cons, Lab or Lib Dem there.

    Final poll
    10/10 likely to vote
    All 73%
    Cons 83%
    Lab 80%
    LD 77%

    9/10 likely to vote
    All 9%
    Cons 8%
    Lab 9%
    LD 12%

    < 5/10 likely to vote
    All 11%
    Cons 2%
    Lab 4%
    LD 4%

    That doesn't really reflect the large changes in turnout by demographic as per that Ipsos Mori post, so does suggest there must be some inherit turnout filter built in already, or may be part of the reason why Yougov underestimated the Tories by 2% in their final poll in 2010.

  8. @Omni

    Not sure what your point about 1951 GE result is, but, as was discussed here the other day it was actually better for the Conservatives than the headlines suggest as they were in a formal alliance with the National Liberals so their actual total was 321.

    The ‘Liberals’ had only 6 MPs and sat on the opposition benches.

  9. @Omni
    ” It would be almost impossible for DC to hold onto power if Labour reaches 35%.”
    It plugged this into the May2015 seat calculator
    CON: 35%
    LAB: 35%
    LDEM: 8%
    UKIP: 11.83%
    And I took the SNP down to 40% in Scotland
    I got Tories on 282 seats, Labour on 271 seats.
    Is the calculator missing something – why is 35% the magic number?”

    35+35+8+11+40 = 129 %

  10. @Bramley

    I think @Omni said ‘40% in Scotland’, which would be much less GB wide and therefore fit within the 100%.

  11. @alan
    “Very much the story of the year so far is UKIP/greens coming back to the big 2 in much more equal numbers than might be expected.”

    Yep. Even Kippers/Greens who feel anti-establishment and angry with the main parties may very well walk into the polling booth, and decide keeping the Tories/Labour out is more important than wasting a vote. Only people who *truly* believe “they’re all the same” have no reason to return to the Big 2. I reckon many who make that claim actually dislike one party more than the other, else they’re so disaffected they won’t bother voting


    It looked kind of like this election if the Big 2 increase by another couple of %, just without the SNP. I wasn’t making a real point though, just sharing the result

    “35+35+8+11+40 = 129 %”

    I had the SNP on 40% in Scotland, which is like 3% in GB. The May2015 seat calculator has a separate Scotland column which you can edit.

    “Unlike Labour but like the Greens the SNP oppose Nuclear power.”
    Oh, so it’s not just the Greens, the SNP don’t appreciate the essential benefits of Thorium either? One despairs…

  13. Assiduosity

    Its all a bit confusing because the 40% was mentioned after the list s/he had made.

    In my post, the quote is verbatim.

  14. Is it the case that the vulnerability of the LibDem vote arises from the lack of a defining USP for the party? If you hate the EU, and there are quite a lot that do, then UKIP is your choice and you are likely to stick with them. You see your vote this time as building a base for next time, part of a great anti-EU journey. Likewise the Greens, the natural home of the environmentalist. And the SNP, who have an obvious single message.

    I’m not sure that the LDs have a similar defining principle that can shore up their core vote.

    Where they are not the incumbents, their vote is going to all but disappear. Hundreds of lost deposits.

    Even when Jo Grimond was down to 6 seats, he still carried the torch of old-fashioned liberalism. I doubt Clegg is carrying anything very much, except a lot of baggage.

    The decline of the LibDems, which might be irreversible, could be the big story of this election. They will fear another election in less than six months more than anyone.

  15. I do find the claim that a labour voter who stuck with his/her party throughout 2014 and 2015 so far would suddenly say, well I would Tories, a bit strange. But I don’t say it’s impossible.

    There are two overlooked factors. DKs are not demographically representative, so a lot of unexpected things may come from there. Secondly, I think (in spite of the Conservatives not gaining OM in 2010, VI of 2010 as a filter for today is dubious.

    Unless smaller parties are Comletely squeezed out, the results will be highly differential (e.g. While I don’t particularly like my MP, it wouldn’t make me vote Greens, while to the North-East from here (a few miles), there will be people who would want to punish Labour (in spite of a more likeable MP) and vote Greens (it’s the Liverpool constituency that the LibDems thought winnable in 2010). It will stay Labour but with a lot of Green votes wasted (of the national VI).

  16. @Catoswyn

    ‘Who are these green Conservatives?’

    Nimbys, surely.

  17. @millie

    Yes I agree, they suffer from a lack of definition. If you look at their campaign material they’re actually defining themselves *relative* to Labour and the Tories. “We’ll cut less than them, but borrow less than them”. Pragmatic but ultimately weak message.

    I’ve mentioned previously that they could make a big deal out of being pro-EU and build some identity like that, i.e. become the Anti-UKIP, but Labour are now taking that ground for themselves.

  18. On the Nimby thing, is there any polling on Conservative views on fracking, and does it change if the question is about fracking in their own back yard, as opposed to the wilds of the North where only dragons live?

  19. @Omnishambles

    I’d suggest that 1951 doesn’t look very much like 2015 at all the Conservatives (and allies) were on 48% of the popular vote and Labour 48.8%. Not much for the other parties to share between them.

    I know you’re optimistic for the prospects of the big two, particularly the Conservatives, but I doubt even you are that optimistic!


    Yes I agree, they suffer from a lack of definition.”


    They suffer from a lack of an ability to define themselves post-capitulation, ‘cos cred is sadly lacking. They could announce a cure for cancer and it probably wouldn’t make much difference…

  21. @assiduosity

    Heh, yes you’re right, it is a tad extreme. Not the best election I could have chosen.

  22. Regarding Nimbys, I always thought that UKIP missed a trick. Having secured a number of council seats by opposing HS2, the chance was there for them to oppose the concreting of England. Instead they joined the ‘we must build more houses’ consensus.

    A ticket comprising anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-HS2, and anti the destruction of England’s green and pleasant land would have been pretty effective.

  23. Lazlo

    There are such people as disengaged voters who literally haven’t seen anything in the whole of 2014/15 and are only now looking at the arguments.

    A lot of people don’t think about politics for all but the last week of the campaign, their vote counts just as much and they are allowed to change it.

  24. @Millie

    I agree entirely with your sentiment regarding the LibDems.

    The Liberals used to stand for electoral and constitutional reform, centrist economics, socially tolerant attitudes and internationalism.

    One might have thought there was still some mileage in such a position, particularly with the union – according to polls – once more on the brink, an EU referendum a distinct possibility, and – again according to the recent ESRC findings – an electorate moving to the centre ground economically.

    However, the present incarnation of that party seems happy only to define itself as what it is not rather than what it is, which isn’t necessarily a record for success (unless your facing the FN in a French second round election).

  25. @ Alan

    I know this, and I know some of them. It was a purely methodological comment on VI. There’s a mile difference between people and how we try to capture their generalised opinion (the latter being a standardised sample – there is no reason to believe, unless there’s a major issue, that a “standardised opinion member” would make the transition between L-C and C-L).

  26. Re: the Lib Dems, here’s some interesting news

    First two paragraphs:

    “Liberal Democrats are preparing to exact a steep price to allow the Conservatives a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, the Financial Times has learnt. The Lib Dems’ conditions are expected to include allowing EU nationals living in the UK to vote in the ballot.

    Nick Clegg, the party leader, on Monday refused to rule out backing a 2017 referendum, as promised by David Cameron, who started the general election campaign on Monday with what could be his final audience with the Queen as prime minister. “

  27. @Omnishambles

    re: Lib Dems

    They could always try liberalism.

    They are going to end up with a handful of MPs, who have been elected primarily to keep one of the big two parties out. This is not a sustainable political creed. I think they are probably doomed, and I would not be surprised to see splits and/or defections to reflect this. It will no doubt start with a leadership contest. Probably very soon after May 7.

  28. @Omni

    Yes. I noticed that Clegg had refused to rule out agreeing to a referendum, which again might be seen to diminish the party’s pro-European USP, especially as Labour are casting themselves in this role.

    Allowing EU nationals to vote in the referendum might be seen by some as an attempt to skew the ballot and invalidate it in their eyes…. perhaps leading to them rejecting the outcome if it didn’t go their way.

    Another not-so-settled constitutional issue following a referendum.

  29. Lazlo

    Depends how crudely you divide the electorate.

    If you portray everyone as a rabidly fanatical member of a party, then no there’s no explaining it.

    If you have a group who are tossing coins (the ultimate floating voter) it explains it but is entirely unhelpful to the campaign manager.

  30. I notice that the IFS have struck again and that the Conservative’s key charge against Labour this morning that they would increase taxes on every household by £3,000 has seemingly been quietly dropped, either by the party itself or the right of centre press, who fail to report it.

    I think it’s interesting that the IFS have attained this position of near unquestioned and unquestionable authority that a few words from them – they said that:

    ‘There is little value in bandying around numbers which suggest either party would increase taxes by an average of £3,000 for each working household. We don’t know what they will do after the election. But neither of the two main parties has said anything to suggest that is what they are planning.’

    Can apparently alter a campaign strategy in few hours, perhaps they will prove to be a real factor on VI, by shaping the tenure of the debate… and yet I wonder how many people are aware of them, what they do or how they are funded.

  31. @assiduosity

    It wasn’t really removed by IMF decree, the IMF simply explained the crazy reasoning behind the claim and compared it to what Labour said. They’re only this critical when the parties are perilously close to making up numbers and flinging them around. The £3000 thing was bull.

    The IMF also pointed out that Labour haven’t explained their fiscal strategy. While the Conservatives are much clearer (but still vague on specific cuts), that’s no excuse to go around inventing numbers

  32. Ok substitute IFS for IMF.

    And with that typo I think it’s time for me to stop posting

  33. On turnout

    I was uguvved today and was not asked about LTV. My guess is that they know I voted last time (and in locals and euros and mayors) so they can assess my LTV based on some evidence without asking for my flaky assessment of my own LTV.
    There was a CVI question after the SVI question, which I don’t remember them asking before.

    Having spent the evening phoning voters thought to be supporters of my party in this Lab/Con marginal I was struck that several said rather unconvincingly that they were DKs. In every case bar one, following a bit of chatter, I formed a strong impression that they would revert to previous vote and I was getting a don’t take me for granted message. Not sure whether they would say DK to a pollster – my guess is some would, and some would be more honest.

    Tory/Greens – some greenish types would surely have been swayed by ‘greenest gov ever’, got disillusioned then returned to nurse, for fear…

  34. Alan

    Funnily enough con/greens seem to be more strongly negatively correlated than lab/greens. Counter intuitive but I guess intuition goes out of the window this election.

    All together now children: “Correlation is not causation”.

    Two things are probably happening here and possibly interacting. The first thing is time. The Greens may be losing vote share for one set of reasons over a period and the Conservatives may be gaining vote share for a completely different set of reasons over the same period at the same sort of rate.

    The second thing to remember is that polling is not a zero-sum game, even though it looks as if it is. Quoted percentages exclude not just those who won’t vote but those who intend to but don’t know how. And the number of these can vary tremendously and voters who stop or start supporting one Party may may well join or depart their numbers rather than not move to another one. With an election fast approaching these processes may speed up as people think more about politics.

  35. Anthony

    According to your Advanced Swingometer map:

    Greenwich and Woolwich

    2010 results
    CON 43.1%
    LAB 33.2%
    LDEM 14.4%
    OTH 9.3%

    Shurely shome mishtake

    (Yes I should have spotted it years ago, but it’s never too late and I don’t go through it twice a day on the train).

  36. I seem to remember noticing that the Advanced Swingometer has always had Great Yarmouth wrong as well.

  37. Carfrew

    On the NIMBY thing, is there any polling on Conservative views on fracking, and does it change if the question is about fracking in their own back yard, as opposed to the wilds of the North where only dragons live?

    Yes from January this year:

    From what you have seen or heard about the issue, do you think Britain should or should not start extracting shale gas?

    Should 35% (Con 56%)

    Should not 41% (Con 25%)

    Would you support or oppose fracking in your
    local area? If it was within a mile or two of your home

    Support 20% (Con 33%) [-15 (-22)]

    Oppose 58% (Con 46%) [+17 (+21)]

    So Tories are not only NIMBYs they’re bigger NIMBYs than the general population.

  38. James Baillie

    I seem to remember noticing that the Advanced Swingometer has always had Great Yarmouth wrong as well

    You’ve solved it. Those actually are the figures for Great Yarmouth:

    applied to the wrong constituency (which is next alphabetically)

    and the still incorrect Great Yarmouth figures:

    CON 30.5%
    LAB 32.7%
    LDEM 22.4%
    OTH 14.3%

    actually apply to Great Grimsby (which is also wrong)

  39. So after the 2001 British Columbia election I did an assesment of Green Party candidates running or not running in a constituency.

    In 72 Seats where there was a Green Party candidate running:

    Liberal (conseravtive/liberal) 56.8%
    NDP (Labour) 21.8%
    Green 13.4%
    Unity (social conservatiive) 3.1%
    BC Marijuana 3%
    Other 1.9%

    In the 7 seats where there was no Green candidate:

    Liberal 68.2%
    NDP 19%
    BCM 5.5%
    Unity 4.4%
    Other 2.8%

    Thus in the absence of a Green candidate in 2001 the non- NDP vote increases from 64.9% to 80.9%, while the NDP vote shrinks from 21.8% to 19%.

    Further in the 72 seats where a Green candidate was running the turnout was 71.1%, whereas in the 7 where there was none the turnout was 69.3%. A 1.8% voter turnout differential, which I primarily believe is as a result of electoral engagement of youth.

    Fast forward to 2013, twelve years later, and in the 61 seats where Green was running the voter values were as follows:

    Liberal 42.9%
    NDP 40.5%
    Green 11.1%
    Conservative Party (social conservative) 3.9%
    Other 1.6%

    Then look at the 24 seats where there was no Green Party candidate:

    Liberal 47.5%
    NDP 37.5%
    Other 7.8%
    CP 7.2%

    Once again, and over a much larger number of constituencies, the non-NDP voter value incrreases from 48.4% to 62.5% and the NDP value declines from 40.5% to 37.5% – a 3 point differential, up slightly from 2.8% in 2001.

    Once again I am going to say that pollsters who start “monkeying” around with turnout based on weighting various parties differently due to reference to historical turnout, are going to do the general public a disservice, just like pollsters who are weighting to 2010 voter values.

    In this election it is highly probable, given the increase in Green Party membership that, Green Party voters are likely to be more motivated to vote than in any other election and that the same level of motivation might exist for UKIP, SNP and Plaid Cymru voters.

    I did not study the turnout differential for 2013, but based on the increase in turnout for the one federal seat in British Columbia that elected a Green in 2011, I have no reason to believe that a similar turnout value differential as existed in 2001 would be found for 2013.

    Further based on a refinement of Obama campaign social media techniques, used by Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, I believe it is now very possible to increase youth voter turnout, as did Nenshi’s election team when they drove overall voter turnout in Calgary from 33% to 53% in 2010.

    Thus in campaigns in the UK in 2015 where there is a high level of youth involvement, and the knowledge of use of social media in GOTV activities, pollsters assessments will be completely out of whack with the realities of what might and will happen.

    In the fall of 2014 I was able to expereince and observe first hand the delivery of the first time youth vote to the polls, using the minimal of voter id information that is required in traditional foot canvass campaigns.

    Again the “proof of the pudding will be in the eating” come May 8th, but I supsect the SNP and others on the Yes campaign in Scotland and some on the No side are very familiar with social media GOTV strategies.

  40. “who are these Green conservatives?”

    People with a friend who knows a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales, surely?

    “Looking at the five polls conducted since the Paxman debate, things are starting to look much more like “no change” that a Labour or Conservative boost – there is a bit of movement in either direction, but no clear consistent trend.”

    Following the edict that we should follow one poll over a sustained period of polling, Lab’s YouGov 36, 35-ish polling, might suggest a movement which could with a little more nudging look suspiciously like a trend. It may not be the gap with Con that is decisive, but the harnessed upward trend of the two main parties, one of which has the psephological Arc of the Covernant.

  41. @omnishambles

    A more powerful “wrecking amendment” of the EU referendum would be for the Lib Dems to pick up the SNP idea of requiring majorities in each nation. If Labour got behind that as well it would be quite difficult for the Tories to resist it in parliament.

  42. One interesting thing in the YouGov poll today is that the UK Government approval rating has ticked up to -10 (38 – 48). The trend in the last week is a gradual improvement from -14 to -10. Sunday’s poll looks like an outlier because its approval number was -16.

    I think the significance of this number is that it raises the ceiling for possible Tory support. Not sure it helps the Lib Dems much because even half of their remaining supporters disapprove! Another point is that a significant minority of UKIP VI approves of the government.

  43. @John Pilgrim

    Following the edict that we should follow one poll over a sustained period of polling, Lab’s YouGov 36, 35-ish polling, might suggest a movement which could with a little more nudging look suspiciously like a trend. It may not be the gap with Con that is decisive, but the harnessed upward trend of the two main parties, one of which has the psephological Arc of the Covernant.

    Labour and the Conservatives are trending upwards already.

    The evidence is already there…..

  44. Latest yougov shows improvements across the piece for tories in ratings on policy areas and general economic record.Some for labour but not as big.

    Scottish crossbreak Snp 45 labour 26.
    England and wales Tory37 lab 36

    Massive gender difference

    Men tory lead 38-30

    Women labour lead 40-32

    16 per cent women dont know.

  45. Women was 40-33

  46. 07052015

    “16 per cent women dont know.”

    On almost any poll on anything, far more women as men will respond with the “Don’t Know” option.

    There has been much speculation on the reasons for this phenomenon, ranging from “women are simply less opinionated than men” to it being a learned behaviour – as here

  47. Roger Mexico

    Once you invent a time machine so we can start running some double blind trials let me know will ya?

    Polling is about inferential statistics, which still has a use. After we are all here talking about inferential statistics. Very few people talk about causation here. (I certainly haven’t and if you think I have here, try telling me which is the dependent and which is the independent variable in what I have said.)

    Yes people can drop out of voting as opposed to moving to another party and there are expected negative correlations expected with that however the correlations are significantly stronger than one would expect for people dropping out. The fact that these correlations were measured for the same pollster means the wnv will be handled the same way and so reduce the chance that house effects are what causes the correlation.

    Yes there might be some confounding variable that is creating this effect, however comparing the Con/Green correlation to the Lab/Green correlation does seem to be close enough in terms of data that the stronger correlation for Con/Green is curious enough to be thought about rather than dismissed.

    If there was some underlying reason we should be seeing that same sorts of correlation between Lab/Green further reinforced by Lab/Green switchers.

    The other curiosity is the positive correlation between Lab/Con where if there was zero trends we’d expect to see a very strong negative correlation due to sampling. This is being overwhelmed by the flows from UKIP/Green to Lab/Con. This year we are seeing much more of a battle between Lab+Con and UKIP+Green than we are between Con and Lab. Whether that will continue through the election campaign remains to be seen.

  48. FWIW,

    I think much of the increase in Con+Lab has come from the low hanging squeeze available to both from the UKIP and Green plus a certain amount of 2010 DK firming up.

    Of course there is churn but this returning VI was for the most part the share lot last year.
    Like many I thought that the Euro-poll and a few weeks after would be the high point for both the Greens and the UKIP. However, the 2 By-elections (esp Carwell’s) plus the referendum and EM’s conference non-performance seem to give further impetus.

    I do think there is a little more soft Green and the UKIP support to drift back, although the ‘debate’ on Thursday may slow or even reverse this process for a week or 2 depending on the narrative that emerges.
    Once this ‘soft’ 4% or so (Green+the UKIP) has gone largely to Lab+Con with a bit to LD and possibly Nats, taking a slice of the last 10% of the UKIP and 3% of Green will be the tough part.
    Even then, it is only in the Lab/Con and to an extent LD/Con marginals that this squeeze campaign will be in full flow.

    Scotland different of course.

  49. Old nat

    Yes labours demographics dont help its cause..Hence the pink van and the womens manifesto to come.

    Whilst I can see camerons alpha male macho stuff influencing soft labour male voters ,I would think it turns women off.

    If he says calm down dear to nicola,leanne or natalie on thursday that would be interesting.

    Whilst the women dont knows will probably abstain, given the labour lead amongst women they need to make a special effort .The progressive alliance female leadership might help also.

    Things seem to be moving underneath VI.Milibands ratings and tory policy ratings suggest 36-36 wouldnt be out of the question after easter as ukip and the greens fall away.

    It seems very possible that the largest party will be decided by scotland -big gordie needs all the 38 days left imo .JM needs two good debates.Snp and labour into the thirties would make it interesting.

  50. Per Yougov; Tories improving across all policy areas. Cameron I think will surprise in the larger debate; he’s seeing improvements in peoples perceptions of his governments success.

1 2 3 4 8