ComRes and YouGov both had post-Corbyn polls in the Indy on Sunday/Sunday Mirror and Sunday Times respectively. Tabs are here – Comres, YouGov.

ComRes had topline voting intention figures of CON 42% (+2), LAB 30%(+1), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 13%(nc), GRN 3%(-1). Changes are since their August poll and show no obvious impact from Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader.

YouGov had topline figures of CON 39%, LAB 31%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 16%, GRN 3%. YouGov haven’t released voting intention figures since May, but as you can see, the gap between Labour and the Conservatives is barely changed from the election (the difference between the 12 point Tory lead in ComRes and the 8 point Tory lead in YouGov will be at least partially because ComRes have adopted their new socio-economic turnout model, which weights down younger and poorer voters who are historically less likely to vote. YouGov are still reviewing their methods post-election).

YouGov included some more questions about early attitudes towards Jeremy Corbyn. Most people don’t think he has much chance of being Prime Minister (only 14% think it’s likely), but beyond that attitudes are currently quite evenly divided. 30% think he’s strong enough to be a good leader, 41% think he is not.

36% of people agree with the description that Corbyn has dangerous and unworkable views and would be a threat to the economy and national security, but 32% agree with the description that he’s a man of integrity & principle who has caught the mood of people disillusioned by politics. 7% don’t agree with either, 6% agree with both (which is fair enough – one could be a decent and principled man with unworkable and dangerous views!).

YouGov also asked about a list of policies that have been supported by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in the past, announced by Corbyn or floated as possible Labour policies. Again, they found a mixed bag. Some, like withdrawal from NATO, negotiating over the Falklands and abolishing the benefit cap are extremely unpopular, but other things like a higher top rate of tax, rent controls and nationalising the utility companies meet with wide public approval.

The rest of ComRes’s poll had bank of favourable/unfavourable opinion questions on leading politicians. Boris Johnson had the most favourable net score of those asked about with plus 8, followed by David Cameron on minus 7, Theresa May (minus 11), Vince Cable (minus 14), George Osborne (minus 17), Jeremy Corbyn (minus 18), Nicola Sturgeon (minus 19), Nick Clegg (minus 27).

Tom Watson actually had a comparatively good score – minus 8 – but on a low number of responses (71% said don’t know or no opinion), Tim Farron and John McDonnell got similarly high don’t knows, though more negative scores. At this stage, the public simply aren’t familiar enough with them to hold any strong positive or negative opinions.

UPDATE: I missed a third national GB poll, Opinium for the Observer. They had topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 32%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14%. Opinium also included a best PM question (Cameron 41%, Corbyn 22%) and had some figures on whether Labour under Corbyn could win that were a little more optimistic for them – 32% think Labour could definitely or probably win under Corbyn, 55% though they probably or definitely could not. Tabs are here.


345 Responses to “Latest ComRes and YouGov polls”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  1. Mr Nameless

    I’m not a fan of DC so your comments do not apply to me at least.

    I was already engaged when I went to University so I just worked hard with our future in mind. Looking back now I would not change a thing, “wild oats” have and had no appeal to me.

  2. Lol, well you say that ToH, but would you rather have EB or Labour’s new Shadow Chancellor?

  3. @ ToH

    Ed B wasn’t a good shadow chancellor; he was too obsessed with the existing structures which made it impossible for Ed Miliband’s vision of a productive economy to be developed. The electorate ended up with TINA when 2015 should have been an opportunity to make an informed choice about the UK economy.

    Nor did the SNP or Greens give the electorate a properly developed vision of an alternative economy. Anti-austerity, without a clear road map for future prosperity, was thin economic gruel.

    Let’s hope that some real economic alternatives get an airing during the EU referendum & in the run up to 2020.

  4. CARFREW

    Neither actually looked or look like becoming Chancellor but as far as Shadow Chancellor’s go J McD is probably even better value for the Tories.

    Amber Star

    No sign of any credible alternative so far.

  5. @Amber Star

    I agree with you about the consequences of TINA for Labour, and before the post election inside accounts came out would have agreed with you about Ed Balls too.

    However, what has been published since suggests that it was Miliband who was uncomfortable with Ed Balls’ early “too far, too fast” line and insisted that Labour had to into line publically with the Conservative austerity plans, rather than emphasise differences with them. He also overrode Ed Balls political nous which was to go cold on HS2 in order to realise a large sum for alternative investment in Labour’s priorities and would have defused the “where’s the money coming from” argument. Even then, despite the IFS suggesting that Labour’s published plans gave them room to virtually halt a further squeeze on public spending. It was Miliband who chose in the final week of the campaign to emphasise that Labour would undertake no more borrowing than the Conservatives, an act of utter folly in my view.

  6. If yougov and most other pollsters haven’t changed their methodology then how can we trust they are correct on VI now?

  7. @Statty

    Don’t worry about the Mars bar thing. TBH I only seem to hear Scots peeps mention it. And the French call those of us over the Channel from them Les Roast Beefs!! But then the French get called the cheese-eating surrender thing…

  8. @Amber Star

    If we’re to build up an economy it has to start small scale. It would be wonderful if all these soon-to-be redundant middle managers at Edinburgh could develop businesses. Marketing via the internet seems to be what’s needed. Edinburgh has millions of visitors to events like the Tattoo and Fringe – who are they , what do they want from Edinburgh, what can you sell them ? Can you develop manufacturing in Edinburgh to sell goods around the world? China has recently told Macau that it has to stop reliance on old-fashioned tourism and develop modern manufacturing.

  9. @ TOH

    Apparently hypocrisy only exists on the right of the political spectrum :-)

    After the kicking JC has recieved this week I must admit to slight smile of schedenfraude this morning.

    If that makes me a hypocrite then I can do nothing other than plead guilty, and claim in mitigation that hypocrasy is a natural human trait that very few people are able to resist. :-)

  10. I’m trying to imagine how YouGov are going to phrase the inevitable opinion question for this new development…

  11. @ToH

    “Neither actually looked or look like becoming Chancellor but as far as Shadow Chancellor’s go J McD is probably even better value for the Tories.”

    -‘——–

    But what if Tories, perhaps through no fault of their own, were to suffer some unforeseen crisis of ERM proportions, ushering in a Labour government?

  12. TOH

    Yes-and “The English” of course .

  13. @ Phil Haines

    Thanks; that’s useful – it seems that neither of the Eds wants to defend Labour’s economic policy for 2015. It will be interesting to see whether that opens up the economic space to new thinking going forward!

  14. @ Wolf

    The UK is woefully slow in developing ‘close-to-the-customer’ manufacturing. I take your point about local manufacturing for the tourist industry but the UK is also too slow to respond to e.g. the rise in UK car assembly. Most of the components being assembled are imported but they could be manufactured here.

  15. I have to go do some work now; I’ll respond to any other @AmberStar points as soon as possible. :-)

  16. I scanned through the Daily Mail in the hotel lounge (just making it clear I didn’t buy it) I don’t think it’ll harm Cameron too much, we all knew he was rich, privileged and a member of the Bullington club, and initiation rituals are the stuff of folklore. Next page was a picture of Corbyn in a waterproof onsie looking old and poor – that’s how the press manipulate

  17. Colin

    Of course! :-)

  18. PHIL HAINES

    @” It was Miliband who chose in the final week of the campaign to emphasise that Labour would undertake no more borrowing than the Conservatives, an act of utter folly in my view.”.

    Hmmm-but putting aside your view-or mine-is there any polling evidence that it was. ?

    By the way-Labour’s policy did not eschew” more borrowing”-the commitment to balance the budget/remove the deficit extended only to “current expenditure” . They said they would borrow for capital expenditure.

  19. COUPER 2802

    @”I scanned through the Daily Mail in the hotel lounge (just making it clear I didn’t buy it)”

    Do you say that about other ( ahem) embarrassingly attractive publications ? :-) :-) :-)

  20. @Jayblanc

    On the subject of wording, given Nick Clegg’s comments today I’ve been wondering how the next Scottish referendum question would be worded in the event that the UK votes to become independent from the EU and that’s used as the excuse for a rerun.

    Something along the lines of “Should Scots live within an independent country” perhaps? Yes being the answer that rejects secession.

  21. CARFREW

    In the event of a further major crash, which is quite possible given the stateof the World economies I would expect the Tories to get in with an increased majority. If the crash was clearly due to their own economic incompetence, and we did get a Labour government with JC as PM, them I would suggest that poverty would become widespread except for the very rich and senior members of the Party and Trade Unions. All jus IMO of course :-)

  22. KENTALIEN

    “and claim in mitigation that hypocrasy is a natural human trait that very few people are able to resist. :-)”

    Agreed :-)

  23. @Colin

    That’s right regarding the issue of current borrowing, but my point was that having come up with that difference Labour chose to ignore it in their campaign, and positively emphasise the similarities with Conservatives plans, Miliband’s final TV interview being very much a case in point.

    On the question of polling evidence, it’s of limited use here.

    There’s a bit of polling evidence that I recall which showed a majority against a further period of austerity (i.e. they either didn’t accept austerity in the first place or at least felt it had gone far enough). That I think informed the Conservative decision to come up lots of dubiously costed spending commitments of their own late in the campaign.

    But the problem in polling terms is what might have happened in terms of shifting opinion if Labour had given emphasis to an alternative economic approach, rather than effectively throwing in the towel and allowing the Conservatives to frame the entire economic debate with considerable success.

  24. PHIL HAINES

    So there is no evidence that Labour would have won by proposing ” an alternative economic approach” ( whatever that means) is there?

    The polls should help you over the next five years-such an approach is now being proposed. I suspect you won’t have to wait too long :-)

  25. @Phil Haines

    If the SNP relationship caused so many problems for Labour how many more is their relationship with Corbyn going to cause.

    The SNP MPs are very happy about Corbyn’s election because they have a lot of policies in common, the thinking is that they can form a strong opposition to the Tories.

    I don’t share that optimism as I think Corbyn will be forced to back Trident, Benefit Cap and so on. But regardless the SNP will try to work with him and he has probably more in common with the SNP MPS than his own back benchers.

  26. @FuntyP

    – “You’re comparing a man who will have been a moderately successful chancellor for nearly 10 years”

    Yes, I was a bit bewildered by @Pete B’s line here. I thought he was refering to Brown for a moment.

  27. @Statgeek – “In fact sometimes England & Wales news is mis-represented as UK news, such as E&W NHS stories.”

    Interesting observation, but against the backdrop of claim and counter claim regarding partisanship in Anglo Scots affairs, it’s worth bearing in mind that many pro independence Scots, both on UKPR and formally within the SNP, regularly tell us that due to various funding issues etc, NHS E&W is inextricably linked to NHS Scotland.

    I’m afraid you can’t tell us on the one hand that NHS E&W stories are not relevant to Scotland while also claiming that what happens in NHS E&W affects Scotland.

    There are issues regarding news coverage on the main UK bulletins, but Scotland gets a fair share of subsidiary programmes, and the nature of the nationalist approach appears to claim that very few issues are ‘English Only’ affairs, so presumably they must be happy that such issues take prominence on UK news bulletins.

  28. @Isaac:

    Trying to assess whether VI polls are “correct” is likely to be futile given that we only get corroborating data infrequently at elections and each election is different.

    However that doesn’t mean opinion polls are not valuable in providing useful information to analysts who are able to interpret the results IMPARTIALLY in the context of current and historical trends.

    Before the last election this site was mostly an echo chamber of people telling each other what they wanted to hear. However, a number of the heads of polling firms openly stated that they suspected their polls were underestimating the Tory position relative to Labour.

    I don’t know what the “real” VI is but we can make some reasonable assumptions e.g. there has been little or no significant Corbyn bounce. Also it appears the Conservatives are significantly ahead. If those contributing to the discussion prior to the last election are still on this site they will no doubt rationalise that there is a “shy Corbyn factor” as they were rationalising a “shy Miliband” effect.

    One can see a logic to that ressoning but historical evidence suggests it never works that way round.

  29. I think people should be nice to @Coups tonight – it all seemed to get a birt shirty last night.

    On the more substantive polling related issue of the role of the SNP story in moving English votes and the debate over the BES findings, I do think some realism is needed.

    As some posters pointed out, both Labour and tories felt that this was a big issue during the campaign. Canvassers have reported this being raised in marginals unprompted. The media was swamped with the story for large chunks of the campaign, and it would therefore be surprising if it didn’t have an impact on votes at some level.

    I haven’t seen the BES report, so I am posting in ignorance, but three thoughts cross my mind about reconciling the BES findings with the commonly held sense that this the big story of the campaign.

    Firstly, are people reluctant to tell pollsters that they see Scots as a threat? Intuitively I would think this is possible, but I don’t know how this is tested by the BES in their questions. Perhaps people don’t like to admit that they are prejudiced against the SNP and admit that this influenced their vote? Having said that, the experience of canvassers suggests that this was a common unprompted response, so maybe this is a red herring?

    Secondly, I wonder whether the impact was less direct. If voters felt Labour couldn’t provide a strong government as a minority, this could have been caused by the rise of the SNP purely by dint of numbers (Labour not getting a majority) making Labour seem an ineffective choice, without actually being driven by anti Scottish sentiment. In this way voters could still claim not to have been influenced by the SNP surge, but still alter their votes as a result of the numerical consequences of that surge.

    Finally, we know the polls were wrong. They were probably wrong for a long time. This means that while the SNP surge story was a big story in the election, perhaps it didn’t shift votes as such, but reinforced those already decided, but where the real polling position had been distorted by false polls.

    In this scenario, Labour could still argue that the SNP story had the effect of crowding out everything else and preventing them from making headway, but this could be consistent with the BES findings that it didn’t make many people change their votes.

    Not at all sure, but when the sun sets tonight and the blues come out into the moonlight, let’s all be civil and pleasant.

  30. @Isaac

    We can’t – though after the election all polls were re-weighted to the 2015 result, which may have got rid of some of the error. It is also worth saying that polls at the GE were out enough (a 3% swing) to make a big difference to the result but not by an enormous margin in the grand scheme of things. They can still give us a good rough assessment of the situation, even if we can’t trust the detail.

  31. @Alec

    You’re being so kind I wish I could wthdraw my last post. Please people just ignore it. (and don’t say you always do)

    I’ll focus on the non-partisan discussion of polls .

  32. The worst effect of the polling mistake is that there was little scrutiny was given to the policies a Tory Government would implement because no-one other than TOH and a few others believed there would be a Tory government.

    I remember one commentator on the TV saying that some of the Tory policies were bargaining chips to be discarded in the event of a coalition.

    The focus was on what a Labour coalition government would mean and their coalition partners rather than the Tory policies. This meant that Labour was constantly on the back foot.

    The incorrect polling probably helped the Tories more than anyhing

  33. Huh, moderated twice. Looks like p-i-g is now on the blacklist.

    Either that or Anthony is assuming that as an anarchist I’d have some naughty things to say and am provisionally on the naughty step – which I would term an outrageous abuse and discrimination were it not highly accurate

  34. Ah, no wait it’s because I used the term for that moment when the PM dodges questions. Curses and that’s an integral part of the joke!

  35. @Guest

    I have no issue with Sturgeon being polled anywhere. Taking the polling and using the results as some UK-wide contest is not exactly appropriate for politicians that campaign within set areas of the UK. That’s the point.

  36. @Alec

    “I’m afraid you can’t tell us on the one hand that NHS E&W stories are not relevant to Scotland while also claiming that what happens in NHS E&W affects Scotland. “

    I was referring to stories in the media where they portray some failings in the NHS in England & Wales, but report as an NHS UK article.

    The NHS funding issue is relevant, but that’s a different subject entirely.

  37. @ Hawthorn

    It’s clear that according to the media only a pensioner aged bicyclist vegetarian is an issue, a PM, a Chancellor with (hopefully) past habits, a Benefit secretary with somewhat odd views about the reality (I looked it up in DSM-V – it just came out), continuing expenses fiddling MPs, and alike are not.

    Anyway we have to wait for the conference to get “news”.

  38. @ Roger Mexico

    Thanks on Greece.

    Because of the oddities of the Greek registration system, rural populations really have to make an effort to vote, so the UK adage of oldies flocking to the voting booths is more complicated there.

    It is also clear that a lot of the lefties who didn’t like what Tsipras did, instead of staying home or voting for alternatives, held their noses. (Compare the last opinion poll, and the outcome for KKE and the breakaway lot).

  39. @ Roger Mexico

    My response on Greece went into moderation.

    One thing that I didn’t put in the moderated post. Two days before the elections, I talked to a friend in Greece (Athens). He was in a pub with people having similar beliefs as I have. They asked my opinion. As I’m not affected, I only put questions to them over Skype. It went on for about 40 minutes, and I learnt a lot. Eventually they made a vote and agreed to vote for Syriza, even though very unwillingly. I don’t know how common it was, but seems to have had an effect (there were about 13 of them – this is guess).

  40. Laszlo

    From what you say, I guess tactical voting is not a UK-only phenomenon.

  41. @Colin

    Another way of interpreting your point is that there is no definitive evidence that Labour could not have done much better by proposing an alternative economic approach to the Conservative narrative that they chose to parrot. So I still agree with you I’m afraid.

    One of those alternatives might have been full blown Corbynomics. Another might just have been to play up rather than try and hide their actual points of difference with the Conservative approach to the PSBR.

  42. @Alex

    “I haven’t seen the BES report so I am posting in ignorance”

    You don’t need to. I looked and there is nothing in it beyond what has already been quoted here, in terms of the published wording in the report. Pretty thin gruel to set against all the other post election analysis, especially for those of us who experienced the campaign in the marginals at first hand.

  43. PHIL

    They fought the campaign they thought would win-they lost.

    The Party ( but not the MPs) has decided that they need a more left wing offer next time. It has installed the leader they perceive will make it.

    End of story-till 2020…………………or possibly earlier than that :-)

  44. From Patrick Wintour’s post election insider piece in June:

    “Labour’s focus groups were still finding that Tory attacks on Miliband’s leadership had not had the intended effect. But in mid-April, the Conservatives finally found a charge that stuck: the threat of the SNP. With the polls unanimously pointing to a hung parliament, the SNP provided a more vivid way to play on fears about Miliband’s leadership and Labour’s economic record. “If the polls had reflected reality, it would have been a totally different campaign,” one of Miliband’s close advisers said. “The agenda would have been about a second Tory term” – and what that might mean for the NHS, Europe, tax credits and Scotland. Instead, it turned into a referendum on the risks of a minority Labour government. This had long been Douglas Alexander’s worst fear.

    Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger. One close adviser admitted that he was initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”

    Miliband had first ruled out a coalition with the SNP on 16 March, but it was not until 26 April that he also ruled out a confidence and supply agreement between the two parties. Even then, the question refused to go away. Shadow ministers were being asked whether there would be implicit understandings between the two parties, or whether they would even speak to SNP MPs in the corridors of Westminster. The party’s focus groups also showed that voters did not believe Miliband’s denials, since they did not think he would ever spurn the chance to be prime minister.

    Fixation with the aftermath of the election soon began to drown out everything else. Labour’s announcements on key issues, such as the NHS, were falling flat. “We were getting inside-page leads and number three or four on the broadcasts,” one adviser said.

    Ed Balls was particularly frustrated that none of his attacks on Tory cuts were gaining traction. “We tried really hard to change the subject, but the SNP just led the news day in and day out,” said a shadow treasury adviser. “If it was not David Cameron or George Osborne saying it, there was Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond or Nick Clegg – all using the same lines. There was no doubt in our mind that the party of the union and the party of separation were deliberately echoing each other’s lines.”

    Labour was so desperate that on 22 April, Lucy Powell, the campaign chair, wrote to the BBC’s director of news, James Harding, to complain about the broadcaster’s coverage. In an email obtained by the Guardian, she alleged:

    “Your bulletins and output have become disproportionately focused on the SNP and Tory claims that Labour would enter into a deal which would damage the rest of the UK … We strongly object not only to the scale of your coverage but also the apparent abandonment of any basic news values, with so much reporting now becoming extremely repetitive.

    “The BBC’s relentless focus on Scotland is potentially of huge political benefit not only to the SNP but also to the Conservative party. Indeed, it is becoming apparent that this has become the main Tory message in this election and you have regularly shown images from their posters and advertising designed to reinforce this attack. But the BBC has a responsibility not only to reflect what the Conservatives are saying but also to reflect on it.

    “For instance, if the BBC has ever asked David Cameron and his colleagues why they are spending most of the energy talking up the SNP, I have missed it … The BBC includes growing amounts of commentary in its news bulletins. But you have barely ever reflected our view – and that of many commentators from across the political spectrum – that the Conservatives want the SNP to win seats from Labour in Scotland because that represents their best chance of remaining in Downing Street.”

    * * *
    Ahead of a major foreign policy speech at Chatham House thinktank in London on 24 April, the tension in the team over how to respond to the SNP issue came to a head. Douglas Alexander wanted Miliband to use the speech to confront Cameron over the SNP. Others saw the occasion as an opportunity to condemn the war in Iraq and reiterate the break with New Labour. By one account, Alexander was furious, declaring that “the party had to stop fighting the 2010 election and start fighting the 2015 election”.

    Alastair Campbell – who was increasingly involved in the final weeks of the campaign, even attending meetings with Miliband’s inner circle – wrote a punchy “one nation” speech for Chatham House. “Taking Britain to the edge of Europe and firing the flames of Scottish Nationalism, as Cameron did the morning after the referendum, are desperate acts of survival,” the speech was to have said. “He is a man that cares more about a few more years in power than a few hundred years of a union that has served our country and served the world so well.”

    Alexander thought it would work. Others feared it would simply provide another day of media headlines about the SNP. But Baldwin thought it was essential to tackle the issue. “The strategic justification was obvious,” he said. “We had to lance the boil. Walking down Whitehall naked assaulting random passersby would have been better than having another day on whether we would do a deal with the SNP. It was murdering us. We knew it was murdering us because we could not get another story up. But we blinked and chose not to do it.”

    Another aide explained why the Campbell speech was axed: “The rival view was that our vulnerability on English nationalism was really very severe and anything that sounded like we were defending the Scots would be music to the Tories’ ears, and just make the problem worse. So the two arguments cancelled each other out.”

    On 30 April, Miliband went even further in attempting to distance Labour from the SNP. On BBC Question Time that evening, he stated that if a deal with the SNP was what stood between him and Downing Street, “then so be it. I’m not going to give in to SNP demands – whether that is on Trident or on the deficit.” But by then it was surely too late.

  45. Apart from Juncker’s icebreaker when he receives Cameron at the next summit, and one of Corbyn’s questions crowd sourced from the widest possible population this week, I actually think that Corbyn is in trouble – the PLP is a major issue, and dealing with it requires a different mentality from what he has. But people can learn.

  46. @Phil

    It’s been my view that one of the largest contributions to Labour’s poor performance was the constant briefing against their own leader by “moderate Blairites” still disgruntled over the leadership election. There’s a difference between rocking the boat, and drilling holes in the bottom. And this has clearly led to Blairites being strongly rejected in the leadership contest.

    Followed strongly with the SNP effect, including “There’s a case to be made for voting Green”.

    All compounded of course by misleading polls that allowed the Blairites to feel complacent that they were merely setting themselves up to win a leadership election during a Labour led coalition. Their behaviour during the recent leadership election betrays how fundamentally they had misjudged the situation.

  47. Jayblanc

    The problem (which seems to be acknowledged by some in the Blairite camp) is that so many people were parachuted into safe seats that they never had to fight to be elected or to campaign properly. If you had such a smooth career progression then complacency is a serious risk.

  48. When will you update your basic GB Swingometer please AW?! @europeanhigh

  49. The ORB tables have finally been published. Remember the headline ‘A third of SNP voters more likely to vote :Labour with Corbyn as leader’

    Unusually the only options given were:

    Strongly Agree
    Agree
    Disagree
    Strongly Disagree

    So 37% of SNP voters agreed (10% strongly)
    AND 63% of SNP voters disagreed (33% strongly)

    This is a problem with polls it takes so long for the tables to go up the spin is spun.

  50. PHIL HAINES

    A very interesting post on the devastating effect of the SNP threat on the result of the election, but I think you are almost totally wrong.

    The election was decided 3-4 years out when it was clear that EM was perceived by the voters as an unsuitable candidate for Prime Minister, and Labour were clearly not trusted to run an economy. Those two factors above all else enabled me and a small number of other commentators to correctly forecast the result as a small Tory majority.

    In my view all the SNP thread did was to cheer up Tory Central Office and to give them a new target for propoganda, and at the same time depress Labour. Since then it has also been used as an excuse as to why Labour lost. Until Labour are seen as fit to run the economy at least as well as the Tories, and with a leader who is creditable I do not see them winning again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7