Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM: The Tories would be on 40 pc three ahead of LAB if Mag

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM: The Tories would be on 40 pc three ahead of LAB if Maggie was leader

Pie chart showing ICM finding of how people would vote if Maggie was leader twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited April 2013
    So on the net ratings, Ed Miliband is doing worse than George Osborne.

    So George leading the welfare debate sees his ratings improve and the Tories improve.

    More George please?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Cabinet meetings would need to be conducted with a ouija board.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    antifrank said:

    Cabinet meetings would need to be conducted with a ouija board.

    Didn't Nancy Reagan use a ouija board to determine her husband's Presidential schedule?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    LDs on 11 - like two yellow lines ? I should imagine rEd will ignore this.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    What was Mike saying about the effect of the Conservatives tacking right on LD voters?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    I'm surprised Mrs T converts LDs. Is there nothing she can't do? :-)
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    ICM: The Tories would be on 40 pc three ahead of LAB if Maggie was leader

    She's dead.

    No need to dog-whistle the kippers, tim.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Did Ed not get a score in the Fatch's heir poll ? Even Gordo got 3%...
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Good that ICM also seeing a UKIP growth trend. Perfect timing for an election. :-)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It is noteworthy that the Labour vote is pretty much unchanged with this hypothetical change of leader. It suggests that the Labour vote is quite settled - and that both the Lib Dems and UKIP are vulnerable to losses of enthusiasm.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Kim Il-sung is the Eternal President of North Korea although he died in 1994:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    What goes on in peoples minds when they merrily list the state knows best Gordon Brown as heir to Thatcher?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    But how high would they be polling if Churchill were still their leader?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Morris_Dancer said:

    But how high would they be polling if Churchill were still their leader?

    Poorly.

    Churchill was a double turncoat.

    The Lib Dems would hate him.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Will Farage be pleased or gutted with his 3% ?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    antifrank said:

    It is noteworthy that the Labour vote is pretty much unchanged with this hypothetical change of leader. It suggests that the Labour vote is quite settled - and that both the Lib Dems and UKIP are vulnerable to losses of enthusiasm.

    If you take it at face value it also suggests that the problem the Conservatives face at the moment is a problem with their leadership.

    Dangerous for party unity for the idea that their problems would be solved if only they had a different leader to be established.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    All this poll tells us is that nothing has changed - all movements well within the margin of error so nothing to get too excited about.

    The equivalent monthly poll in April 2009 had the Conservatives on 40%, Labour on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 19% so that's an 8% swing from Conservative to Labour. That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Norm said:

    What goes on in peoples minds when they merrily list the state knows best Gordon Brown as heir to Thatcher?

    Thought it was "who has the same hair as Mrs Thatcher" ?


  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Norm said:

    What goes on in peoples minds when they merrily list the state knows best Gordon Brown as heir to Thatcher?

    My first instinct is that they are knowingly trolling you.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    anotherDave said:

    I'm surprised Mrs T converts LDs. Is there nothing she can't do? :-)

    She always was superhuman. I would suspect the good Lord will be quaking in his boots right now.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    New ICM phone poll sees CON 32+1: LAB 38-1: LD 15nc: Ukip 9+2 - which is the biggest share yet from the firm..
    Tea party tories and Osbrowne banging on about welfare is going splendidly.

    For UKIP.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    edited April 2013
    So Labour are 12% lower with ICM than they were two years before the 1992 election and the Tories are exactly the same at 32%
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    Gerry_Mander said:

    anotherDave said:

    I'm surprised Mrs T converts LDs. Is there nothing she can't do? :-)

    She always was superhuman. I would suspect the good Lord will be quaking in his boots right now.
    I understand she has asked God for a meeting immediately after St Peter lets her in.

    God will respond only after taking advice from Ted Heath..
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    AveryLP said:



    I understand she has asked God for an appointment immediately after St Peter lets her in.

    God will respond after consulting Ted Heath..

    Of course the devil wouldn't let her in. She would have shut all the furnaces by now ;-)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    OT well maybe, but what is the geogrphic sparead ? If 40% is based on piling up votes in Surrey it wouldn't win a majority.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Rexel56 said:

    So Labour are 12% lower with ICM than they were two years before the 1992 election and the Tories are exactly the same at 32%

    That 35% Labour are aiming for is looking more ambitious every day.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    It is noteworthy that the Labour vote is pretty much unchanged with this hypothetical change of leader. It suggests that the Labour vote is quite settled - and that both the Lib Dems and UKIP are vulnerable to losses of enthusiasm.

    Unless CCHQ have found a very good book of spells, I think Mrs Thatcher has permanently retired from politics.

    I wouldn't of thought the LDs had any enthusiasm left to lose. You encourage me!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    SeanT's latest piece for the Telegraph

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100212162/the-developing-world-has-turned-thatcherite-no-wonder-its-overtaking-us/
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    TGOHF said:

    Rexel56 said:

    So Labour are 12% lower with ICM than they were two years before the 1992 election and the Tories are exactly the same at 32%

    That 35% Labour are aiming for is looking more ambitious every day.
    The downward trend for Labour on the chart accompanying the last thread does seem to be accelerating.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    stodge said:

    All this poll tells us is that nothing has changed - all movements well within the margin of error so nothing to get too excited about.

    The equivalent monthly poll in April 2009 had the Conservatives on 40%, Labour on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 19% so that's an 8% swing from Conservative to Labour. That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting.

    Hi Stodge , no it didn't . The actual vote shares in the 2009 locals were Con 43 LD 24 Lab 14 , your figures are the notional national projected figures .

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    OblitusSumMe said:

    antifrank said:

    It is noteworthy that the Labour vote is pretty much unchanged with this hypothetical change of leader. It suggests that the Labour vote is quite settled - and that both the Lib Dems and UKIP are vulnerable to losses of enthusiasm.

    If you take it at face value it also suggests that the problem the Conservatives face at the moment is a problem with their leadership.

    Dangerous for party unity for the idea that their problems would be solved if only they had a different leader to be established.
    The leadership's strategy is, as I understand it, designed to attract LDs. That Mrs Thatcher is preferable over Mr Cameron to LDs should provoke a re-think. I don't think it will, but it should.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Cat Invades Pitch :^ )

    http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/video/cat-invades-pitch-dutch-league-122950978.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,736
    As antifrank observes, it shows the Labour vote is pretty immune to a more Thatcherite approach - if they don't respond to this leading question putting Maggie herself in charge, it's unlikely they'd respond to Dave doing Thatcher karaoke.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Millsy said:

    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament

    Not sure that works. This is the first coalition government we have had since the war, so it's a bit tricky to say what any party "should" be on.

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    SouthamObserver said:

    Millsy said:

    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament

    Not sure that works. This is the first coalition government we have had since the war, so it's a bit tricky to say what any party "should" be on.

    Hmmm.... coalition = one mainstream party in opposition and yet Labour are 10% lower than two years before the 1997 election and the Tories are up 3%. A bit tricky I agree, but surely one would expect the non-coalition party to be performing better at this stage and certainly not be running this far below par.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Put up money ? What for a? rEds parking fine ?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2013
    In the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, at half past ten tomorrow:
    Before Mr Justice Tugendhat
    Unrobed
    Application Notice: IHJ/13/0155 The Lord McAlpine of West Green v Bercow
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,776
    Don't believe it, I'm afraid. With the greatest respect, if Mrs T was leader, she'd be making herself unpopular somehow. She wouldn't be afraid of going against the focus-groups.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    SouthamObserver said:

    Millsy said:

    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament

    Not sure that works. This is the first coalition government we have had since the war, so it's a bit tricky to say what any party "should" be on.

    Well I don't underestimate the balancing act Labour must perform, particularly so soon after a big defeat, but a sensible centrist party would be able to pick up disgruntled left-wing Tories as well as former Lib Dems.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    It's not surprising to see a UKIP>Con shift when a rotting corpse is named Tory leader.

    It is surprising to see the Lib Dem>Con shift. Perhaps hints at just how Rightwing many remaining Lib Dems are.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited April 2013
    @tim

    This is true - but Labour had a booming economy and Blair. Cameron is no Blair but he's at least keeping the blues in the 30s, which will be good if it lasts until late 2014.

    And Labour won't poll in the high 30s come 2015.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    edited April 2013
    carl said:

    It's not surprising to see a UKIP>Con shift when a rotting corpse is named Tory leader.

    It is surprising to see the Lib Dem>Con shift. Perhaps hints at just how Rightwing many remaining Lib Dems are.

    EDIT: (misunderstanding)
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Millsy said:

    @tim

    Cameron is no Blair but he's at least keeping the blues in the 30s, which will be good if it lasts until late 2014.

    .

    Are you kidding? The Tories are bobbing around their core vote. Donkey in a blue rosette territory. IDS was polling around 30 when Labour were in the 40s and 50s.

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Millsy said:

    @tim

    This is true - but Labour had a booming economy and Blair. Cameron is no Blair but he's at least keeping the blues in the 30s, which will be good if it lasts until late 2014.

    And Labour won't poll in the high 30s come 2015.

    Millsy, tim is usually an astute analyst and draws reasoned conclusions from the evidence before him. On this occasion, however, he seems to be in denial over the Labour VI figures.

    That Labour is 12 and 10% points lower than the same point in the two electoral cycles when they were most recently in opposition, not the sole opposition party and facing a working class Tory leader simply doesn't compute for tim.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    carl said:

    Millsy said:

    @tim

    Cameron is no Blair but he's at least keeping the blues in the 30s, which will be good if it lasts until late 2014.

    .

    Are you kidding? The Tories are bobbing around their core vote. Donkey in a blue rosette territory. IDS was polling around 30 when Labour were in the 40s and 50s.

    It's not great, but not bad either bearing in mind they're a governing party and relative to Labour
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    tim said:

    @Rexel56

    The first period you're talking about the Tories dumped their leader.
    The second period Labour won a 177 seat landslide.

    Why you're comparing those two is beyond me.

    As I said, in denial.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Article of the year so far by Janan Ganesh in the FT:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03412914-a5b8-11e2-9b77-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QWXkhWDa

    "Nothing has done more to poison the Conservative party’s bond with ordinary voters in recent decades than its reputation as a defender of entrenched wealth. By background and temperament, senior Tories are more at home in Davos than with small, scrappy entrepreneurs. Voters can smell this intimacy with elites; in an anti-establishment age, it is toxic. The Conservatives cannot win elections as the party of bankers and utility fat-cats.

    The party’s future lies in a popular capitalism that aggressively backs the consumer and the entrepreneur over the cartel and the state. Tories must be pro-market, not pro-business."

    "The Conservatives cannot assume that anti-corporatism is a cause that belongs unambiguously to the right. On the surface, Ed Miliband is a union-backed Labour party leader flirting unwisely with worker representation on company boards and other ideas evocative of the 1970s. But he is also readier than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown ever were to acknowledge that markets sometimes result in monopoly, that bigness in economic life can harm consumers individually and the system as a whole. If there is to be a capitalism of the little guy, he will challenge the Tories for ownership of the idea."
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    C/L/LD/Ukip

    ICM April 2012
    ICM April 2013

    33/41/15/3
    32/38/15/9

    Averages since and including April 2012
    32/40/14/6
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Rexel56 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Millsy said:

    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament

    Not sure that works. This is the first coalition government we have had since the war, so it's a bit tricky to say what any party "should" be on.

    Hmmm.... coalition = one mainstream party in opposition and yet Labour are 10% lower than two years before the 1997 election and the Tories are up 3%. A bit tricky I agree, but surely one would expect the non-coalition party to be performing better at this stage and certainly not be running this far below par.

    Why? ICM have a unique way of redistributing won't say or don't remember responses, which may not work for coalitions, or which may work brilliantly. We have no idea, because there is nothing to compare against.

    If you are saying that Labour is less popular than it was in 1995 and the Tories are more popular, then I agree. But that means very little. Labour does not need to win a landslide and the Tories have to be several points in front of Labour to have a chance of winning in 2015.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I'm off for a couple of days to near Brugge TSE will be running the show.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    antifrank said:

    Article of the year so far by Janan Ganesh in the FT:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03412914-a5b8-11e2-9b77-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QWXkhWDa

    Good article.

    It's baffling why the Tories insist on being the party of big business and the super-rich. Trickle-down was discredited last century.

    Is it really beyond them to start building a modern one-nation (yuck) style Tory party, that looks after the little guy, the striver, the business start up, rather than the media mogul, the millionaire, the CEO of a monopoly?

    Personally I suspect a lot of it is down to the ongoing Thatcher addiction amongst the Tory Party. They can't let go of her or her ways.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    The most important news of today.

    Abba's Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus are set to write an anthem for this year's Eurovision Song Contest, organisers have announced.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22152995
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The most important news of today.

    Abba's Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus are set to write an anthem for this year's Eurovision Song Contest, organisers have announced.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22152995

    Mamma Mia!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    So, even Queen Margaret would not be able to give the Tories an absolute majority !

    So, there is no hope then.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    UKIP voters are fruitcakes and necrophiliacs.

    Yeh! We like eating into choice Con/Lab/Lib bodies. :)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT:
    AveryLP said:

    British businesses show support for Dave's plan to renegotiate powers from the EU, as revealed by British Chambers of Commerce survey.

    A high proportion of UK companies want a renegotiation of Britain's membership in the EU, with certain powers returned to Westminster.

    Of the 4,000 companies surveyed, 64% said that transferring power back to Britain would have positive effect on businesses in the UK.

    11% said they felt it would have a negative impact, 14% no impact, while the rest were unsure.

    A number of respondents identified employment law as the area they felt would most benefit from being brought back to London.

    AveryLP again peddling 'fools gold'. Cammo has promised a referendum on Europe IF he wins the next GE in 2015; IF he is still leader of the Tories; IF he doesn't renege on his promise and IF he is even alive. A week is a long time in politics as Thatchers death attests. How long in time is a full two years into the future?

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    MikeSmithson said:

    I'm off for a couple of days to near Brugge TSE will be running the show.

    Will you be going with Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson?

    :)

    Hope to see you on Friday at DD's.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    There is something to compare ICM's methodology with - their past record.

    Without the adjustment you highlight they would not have been the top pollster in 2010 when everybody was understating Labour.

    Populus and Survation also use this approach.

    ComRes have something similar asking the DKs "which party you most associate with" and adding 100% of the responses to the voting totals.
    SouthamObserver said:

    Rexel56 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Millsy said:

    Move 5 from Ukip to Labour and you get what they should be on that this point in the parliament

    Not sure that works. This is the first coalition government we have had since the war, so it's a bit tricky to say what any party "should" be on.

    Hmmm.... coalition = one mainstream party in opposition and yet Labour are 10% lower than two years before the 1997 election and the Tories are up 3%. A bit tricky I agree, but surely one would expect the non-coalition party to be performing better at this stage and certainly not be running this far below par.

    Why? ICM have a unique way of redistributing won't say or don't remember responses, which may not work for coalitions, or which may work brilliantly. We have no idea, because there is nothing to compare against.

    If you are saying that Labour is less popular than it was in 1995 and the Tories are more popular, then I agree. But that means very little. Labour does not need to win a landslide and the Tories have to be several points in front of Labour to have a chance of winning in 2015.

  • Peter_2Peter_2 Posts: 146
    MikeK said:

    FPT:



    AveryLP again peddling 'fools gold'. Cammo has promised a referendum on Europe IF he wins the next GE in 2015; IF he is still leader of the Tories; IF he doesn't renege on his promise and IF he is even alive. A week is a long time in politics as Thatchers death attests. How long in time is a full two years into the future?

    Especialy with soggy toilet paper guarantee Dave.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2013
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="MarkSenior"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="stodge">All this poll tells us is that nothing has changed - all movements well within the margin of error so nothing to get too excited about.

    The equivalent monthly poll in April 2009 had the Conservatives on 40%, Labour on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 19% so that's an 8% swing from Conservative to Labour. That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting.
    </blockquote>

    Hi Stodge , no it didn't . The actual vote shares in the 2009 locals were Con 43 LD 24 Lab 14 , your figures are the notional national projected figures .

    </blockquote>

    @stodge

    "That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting."

    This would mean something like a 10% swing to Labour from CON if current national polls are reflected on 2nd May.

    It does still mean about a 4% swing from LD to CON.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    ICM/The Sunil (Maggie Remix):

    Government 51% (!!!)
    Labour 37%
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    Ed has at least found something he's good at. The next Labour manifesto could be full of moving tributes to dead Tory prime ministers, Ed could read them out on the tv debates as well. Alternatively he could stick with a blank 200 page document with 'NO to everything,YES to nothing', written in big letters on the front.

    What were the LSE students doing in North Korea by the way? Libya not good enough for them anymore? Maybe they were teaching the psycho fatboy how to screw up his country even more than it is already.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    LOL! All this Maggie polling is getting increasingly silly isn't it?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    edited April 2013
    I didn't realise that ICM only had the Tories 12% behind in November 1990, though. Hardly a disasterous position was it?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited April 2013
    Unless they are being pedantically chronological, I assume the 3% declaring Brown to be Thatcher's heir are usually denied the use of sharp cutlery for their own good?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    GIN1138 said:

    I didn't realise that ICM only had the Tories 12% behind in November 1990, though. Hardly a disasterous position was it?

    With six months to go from a probable general election ? Or, a year ? I know Major called it in April 1992 but that was unusual.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    GIN1138 said:

    LOL! All this Maggie polling is getting increasingly silly isn't it?

    At last! I agree with GIN on something. :^)

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,908
    Interesting to hear Ed Milliband on BBC News supporting the principle of regionalising benefit rates.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2013
    carl said:

    antifrank said:

    Article of the year so far by Janan Ganesh in the FT:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03412914-a5b8-11e2-9b77-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QWXkhWDa

    Good article.

    It's baffling why the Tories insist on being the party of big business and the super-rich. Trickle-down was discredited last century.

    Is it really beyond them to start building a modern one-nation (yuck) style Tory party, that looks after the little guy, the striver, the business start up, rather than the media mogul, the millionaire, the CEO of a monopoly?

    Personally I suspect a lot of it is down to the ongoing Thatcher addiction amongst the Tory Party. They can't let go of her or her ways.
    So you didn't read the article then.
    "What Thatcher really destroyed was corporatism, the clunky co-stewardship of the economy by government, trade unions and industrial nabobs.

    Freeing the UK of postwar corporatism was the great achievement of the 1980s. The work of seeing off its latest incarnation, which cloys and stultifies in its own way, falls to Thatcher’s children."
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    JohnLilburne said:

    Interesting to hear Ed Milliband on BBC News supporting the principle of regionalising benefit rates.

    Tis but a small step to regional pay rates from there, but I won't hold my breath.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Massive fall in oil price. Lowest since last July. Hopefully will feed through to pumps soon. If so, good news.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/commodities/143908/twelve_month.stm
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    surbiton said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I didn't realise that ICM only had the Tories 12% behind in November 1990, though. Hardly a disasterous position was it?

    With six months to go from a probable general election ? Or, a year ? I know Major called it in April 1992 but that was unusual.
    When you look at Anthony Wells graph, swingback was already steadily occuring from Labour's 87-92 high point (Feb 1990) by November 1990.

    Did getting rid of Maggie really make that much difference? It looks to me as though it just increased a trend that was already well under way?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    If you want a laugh,watch this ;-)

    Have I got news for you on Friday with Brian Blessed = lol

    The part in which I keep laughing at,starts at 08.47 = lol

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ry872/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_45_Episode_2/
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Link to BBC local elections webpage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21828547

    Links to council websites.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    Whooooppps...

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Maybe it's time for another look at the Labour targets:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE&om=true&richtext=false#gid=0
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    surbiton said:

    MarkSenior said:

    stodge said:

    All this poll tells us is that nothing has changed - all movements well within the margin of error so nothing to get too excited about.

    The equivalent monthly poll in April 2009 had the Conservatives on 40%, Labour on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 19% so that's an 8% swing from Conservative to Labour. That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting.

    Hi Stodge , no it didn't . The actual vote shares in the 2009 locals were Con 43 LD 24 Lab 14 , your figures are the notional national projected figures .

    @stodge

    "That produced 38% for the Tories, 28% for the Lib Dems and 23% for Labour in the following month's voting."

    This would mean something like a 10% swing to Labour from CON if current national polls are reflected on 2nd May.

    It does still mean about a 4% swing from LD to CON.


    Mark raises the fair point that the County Council elections are taking place in largely Conservative-dominated areas (many urban areas, including London, have no elections). It may well be that it becomes even more precarious to extrapolate party performance at these elections into General Election predictions.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    o/t Explosion at finish line of Boston marathon
    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-04-15/explosion-at-boston-marathon/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Anyone watching Panorama tonight?

    8:30pm, BBC1.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,198
    Letter in the Telegraph today: My late father, Sir Giles Shaw, recounted a story about the first ballot of the 1990 Conservative Party leadership contest, which I believe has remained untold to this day.

    As treasurer of the 1922 Committee, he presided over the voting in Committee Room 11. At 5pm, the chairman, Cranley Onslow, ordered the door to be shut and counting to begin. After several recounts, the committee realised to its horror that it was missing 12 ballot papers.

    My father, one of the smallest members of the House, noticed several ballots that had fallen under the table. Committee members went on hands and knees in a frantic search. The atmosphere of mild panic grew more tense with mysterious loud bleeps from Sir Bernard Braine, whose two hearing aids objected in shrill tones to the change in altitude.

    Outside the room, the world’s media and MPs were growing impatient. Eventually the committee found the missing ballots: two were for Thatcher, 10 for Heseltine.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    WTF re. Boston.

    My younger brother is living there, I hope he isn't mixed up in it. (Apologies for being nepotistic for a moment).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,198
    Clearly largely irrelevant now that the great lady has passed on, but interesting that even now she still wipes the floor with everyone else! However, I think it is largely nostaligia than anything else, but it does show the Tories can still win if they get back the UKIP vote!
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    ICM describe it as the "Fantasy Thatcher Effect" and I think "fantasy" is right. As Sean points out in The Telegraph, there is a straw-man Thatcher used for ridicule by parts of the political left and another for worship by parts of the right. The image of Thatcher in the public consciousness is quite different to how she actually would be (picking our new PM from a year of her premiership). Interesting, but not very useful.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    The Boston situation looks bad from the pictures.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22160691

    I hope everyone's okay. It seems rather pointless to say much more or speculate at this stage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    JosiasJessop said:

    The Boston situation looks bad from the pictures.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22160691

    I hope everyone's okay. It seems rather pointless to say much more or speculate at this stage.

    Three reported dead.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    CBS have a photo of one of the explosions

    http://www.cbsnews.com/
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    edited April 2013
    Looks as if it might be a bomb in hotel.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Thatcher again ?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    MikeL said:

    Massive fall in oil price. Lowest since last July. Hopefully will feed through to pumps soon. If so, good news.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/commodities/143908/twelve_month.stm

    Be pretty bad news for Scottish public finances

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,736
    edited April 2013
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The most important news of today.

    Abba's Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus are set to write an anthem for this year's Eurovision Song Contest, organisers have announced.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22152995

    ...and a new Agnetha song (in the same link)! Lyrics a bit limited, I have to say, but nice to hear the voice again.

    O/T: Back in Parliament today, lobbying MPs over this:
    http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/from-the-day-job/
    I picked up a briefing from the Parliamentary research office. Is it generally known that support for councils is being cut by 33% by 2015 (compared with 8% for central government spending predictions)? I wonder if county candidates realise just how rough it's gonig to be.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Got message from my brother saying he's okay. Bit of good news from a personal perspective. He was north of the river.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,198
    Vince Cable attacks One Direction
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9995208/Vince-Cable-says-he-didnt-mean-to-attack-One-Direction-after-branding-their-pay-immoral.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    HYUFD said:

    Vince Cable attacks One Direction
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9995208/Vince-Cable-says-he-didnt-mean-to-attack-One-Direction-after-branding-their-pay-immoral.html

    Blimey, some of One Direction's fans, make Twilight fans look normal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,198
    Nick Palmer - Savage indictment of Pickles I am afraid, drawn to the 'Star Chamber' rather than fighting for his department! In any case, if there is genuine localism, councils should be able to raise more revenue themselves, and put up council tax, without Whitehall interference!
  • Lucian_FletcherLucian_Fletcher Posts: 793
    Let's hope this isn't as bad as it looks. But it does look rather bad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,198
    Bernhard Ingham - If Thatcher had not succeeded, Britain would be like Russia
    http://playpolitical.typepad.com/uk_conservative/2013/04/watch-bernard-ingham-if-thatcher-hadnt-succeeded-britain-would-be-like-russia.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    edited April 2013
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    The Boston situation looks bad from the pictures.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22160691

    I hope everyone's okay. It seems rather pointless to say much more or speculate at this stage.

    Three reported dead.
    We're watching the BBC coverage. I think they should be slightly more careful about using some of the footage, especially pre-watershed. The same goes for the other broadcasters.

    SeanT: don't make an ass of yourself. You may be right, but we don't know. It could be homegrown terrorists - America's produced enough of those in the past, or any number of other groups or individuals.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025