Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories get 3pc closer in the ComRes phone poll for the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories get 3pc closer in the ComRes phone poll for the Indy
The monthly phone poll by ComRes for the Indy is just out and has the Tories up 4 on the very low 28% recorded in October. This move is greater than the margin of error .
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Labour lead up to 8: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%
Not really, the Tories went down 5% last time, and Labour didn't get any benefit from that.
It's a correction to last month's poll, which was an outlier
Why are the Sun tweeting their poll early tonight? It's not great for their lot.
Progressives 50%
Tory/UKIP 44%
Populus - 5%
ComRes - 5%
YouGov - 8%
Average - 6%
YouGov average for last week - ie 5 polls up to Sunday - 6.6%.
Overall very stable position - Lab lead is 6% to 7%.
Progressives 46%
Tory/UKIP 43%
FPT
R0berts said:
» show previous quotes
It was indeed! In a way, its good that Tories have revealed their true colours and that all that Cameron PR was just PR guff. The world is back in equilibrium, and the Tories are unelectable again!
In all honesty, it sometimes feels like a lot of the Tories want to be a lot more right wing but their leadership doesn't think it will work and so fight that impression, a lot of LDs (or former LDs anyway) wanted to be a lot more left wing but the leadership wanted to pretend there was an even split between left and right in the party and so fought the impression, whereas most of Labour is closer to the centre now, and the leadership has to fight the impression it is not more left wing. So none of the leaderships seem hugely representative of their base, or totally honest in how they present to the public. It's just a bigger problem for the Tories, particularly as they openly admit to being toxic (which just reinforces the idea for a new generation - if even they keep saying they are, of course it is perpetuated)
A bit of Tory / UKIP bouncing.
Both long standing and settled features of polling, both of which need to change big time or Ed Miliband is PM.
This one's funny at the end.
"A report, entitled London’s Poverty Profile, says that despite the economic recovery, the capital still has a higher proportion of impoverished residents than anywhere else in the country with 2.1 million people affected over the past three years."
"It says the causes include the spread of low pay, which has seen the numbers paid below the living wage rise to 600,000, 40 per cent higher than five years ago"
"It stresses that the situation can be reversed if the methods used to transform London’s education system are replicated."
The low-paid all take jobs as private tutors?
Having checked the progress of the booking online, it appears not to have been booked at all.
How should I vote on that question if polled without giving a misleading impression? "Protect" sounds like a positive thing when actually it is horribly negative.
Cameron will tinker at the edges of reform and Miliband will pursue policies resulting once again in patients drinking water from vases to stay alive.
I don't want anyone to "protect" the NHS. I think it's an unreformable shambles and needs breaking up and privatisation and an insurance-based solution.
I guess if asked that question I should duck out with a feeble "Don't Know" just to avoid getting misrepresented in the result?
I can't say I agree with it at all unless they want to go the whole way and nationalize money lending
I mean, it took the local steel plant going belly up in Redcar and Cleveland, making hundreds upon hundreds redundant and angry, to break the Labour grip in that constituency (25+% swing to the LDs), is that the only thing that can break such a political grip? After all, apparently even when people in the north or other labour heartlands support Tory policies they won't vote for the party en masse regardless, but why? If Labour are the ones who look out for those areas, did they not do enough to redress the imbalance? Maybe things really did get better under Labour, and those areas are not as bleak as gloomy economic pictures would suggest, but the accepted political narrative is that London and the rest of the South still always benefit more, with a widening gap often claimed too.
So have those areas improved significantly, just not as much as the already richer areas so it only seems like there's been no benefit to the support of Labour?
Eh, I find it hard to figure out, mostly because out here in the Tory shires anyone not a Tory votes LD instead, so I never run into any Labour supporters to ask their thoughts on the matter, and the lack of Labour support seems as arbitrary as the overabundance of it in other areas.
Tribalism is just stupid, whichever party it is focused on, especially when both main parties fight over the centre ground rather than rigidly stick to some supposed central ideology to define them, using those ideologies as convenient set dressing only.
2. In some places they know Labour is indifferent but they think Tories actively want to harm them - so it's a logical choice, or would be if Labour didn't want to actively harm them as well.
3. Broke people get more nurse-clingy so the poorer people get the more nurse-clingy they get.
4. various others
The Tories generally do more for the rich and powerful than the alternatives, and the rich and powerful aren't thick, they have recognised this and tended to support the Tories.
Don't over-analyse it, it aint rocket science!
Exactly the same reason the Tory shires vote to have Tory Governments.
For those who don't know him Nick Boles is:
Son of a knight
Educated at Winchester
Oxford PPE
Harvard
Westminster councillor (West End ward)
Flatshared with Michael Gove
Thinktank wonker
Dismal performance in winnable constituency in 2005
Given safe seat in 2010
I wonder if he's ever thought of helping the Conservative party with its image as 'party of the rich' by facking off and letting a self-made local person be MP for Grantham & Stamford ?
Apropos of nothing, spoke to a financial adviser the other day, and he suggested we'd both need to work until we died, which was a surprisingly frank assessment I have to say. On the upside, since I have no dependents he agreed I didn't have to give much of a sh*t about leaving behind any debts.
Here are the full tables:
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Independent_Political_Poll_26th_November_2013.pdf
Let me draw your attention to two rather significant points, which oddly enough the Indy write-up fails to highlight:
a) Question 6: "Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements ...
The present Government has a better record on the NHS than the previous Labour Government". The options offered are Agree, Disagree, Don't know. Note the lack of an 'About the same' option, so any one who thinks the record is much the same is pushed into the 'Disagree' column. In fact, as (to be fair) the Indy write-up does grudgingly mention, the difference between trust in Cameron and Miliband on the NHS is remarkably small, given that this is an issue on which traditionally Labour have had a big lead. I'd suggest this indicates the exact opposite of what the Indy claim: that attempts by ministers to blame Labour for the problems in the NHS are actually succeeding reasonably well, inasmuch as they seem to be largely neutralising an issue which is usually a problem for them.
b) The question on whether the Conservative Party 'only represents interests of the rich' is about as leading a question as you could ask for, and yet the split is only 51%/42%. Not bad for a question inviting a raspberry in mid-term. I wonder what the response would have been in, say, 2006 about the Labour government? Or what it would be now if they asked whether Labour 'only represents interests of the public sector and the unions'?
Lab lead is now 6% (was 8% at the last update which was 11 days ago).
So no significant change but possibly very slight move to Con.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Describe how the Catholic Church's teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et Spes, Familiaris Consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today? What formation is given to our people on the Church's teaching on family life?
Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100247501/pope-franciss-modern-life-survey-is-a-monumental-waste-of-time-heres-a-taster/
Actually that was probably always true, it just wasn't as obvious.
Cameron: +44
Miliband: +31
Great job on a traditional Labour strength Ed!
Not at all surprising. I'm amazed that the Tories can't understand the concept known to every advertiser that the more publicity you give to a product the more you benefit the market leader. To take market share off the market leader is very difficult and in the particular circumstances of the UK about as easy as selling sand to the Libyans
I'm absolutely certain that one of the reasons for Labour's widening poll lead is that Hunt is never off air.
Had a Swiss group tonight with two unexpected reactions (to me anyway). On the downside they said their London youth hostel was incredibly filthy - "I've been in cleaner hostels in Africa", said one girl. On the upside they asked how we'd solved the problem of football hooliganism. They went to the Chelsea game last night and were bemused by the absence of police, netting airport-style scanners, etc. Apparently trouble at footie is routine in Switzerland now and people talk enviously of how the wise British solved the problem by, er, making everyone sit down. People even drink beer at matches and they don't fight, said one chap enviously.
Is that right? A long time since I went to a match, but now they mention it I've not heard of many fights lately.
So how did they allow the rich to get richer while still reducing the poverty of the poorest via increased welfare handouts ?
By impoverishing those in the middle and forcing them into welfare dependency (which also has the effect of creating more voters dependent upon big government).
£100bn+ more debt each and every year is required to keep this impoverishment hidden.
Admittedly the tv seems to show it's just ordinary people, so the theory doesn't work out, although seriously, were prices massively cheap in the 80s? If I ever went to a match I wouldn't want to fight given I'd paid so much to get in to watch the damn thing.
Great success story, football hooliganism. I was told in school they used to rank clubs by hooligan activity in the papers, and it just made them try and compete against each in hooligan terms even more. Days long past it seems.
Are Shire Tories just thick? Is it dependency? Is it "coz Dad and Grandad voted Tory"? I can't understand!
I'd guess the football demographic have changed from young working class males to middle age, middle class. Possibly this is the result of the high ticket prices.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/88881/the_guardian_tuesday_26th_november_2013.html
Grauniad blames green subsidies cuts, and I'm sure Ed's price freeze had nothing to do with it....
Labour found plenty of taxpayers money to keep the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin in luxury for life and to subsidise the profits of Chinese tat factories.
It was all the more enjoyable to know that some of that taxpayers money Labour was handing out to its banker mates was from money we'd paid over every month.
http://www.dwelle.co.uk/
Look, if I vote for a party you don't like, it will never look rational to you. Start from there and work forwards, slowly.
It was those workers a couple of steps further down the ladder who were already getting poorer before the recession.
G Nev wrote about it earlier this month
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2485471/Next-generation-danger-priced-game-Gary-Neville-column.html
For that kind of money, there are better options.
http://www.barnhaus.org
If anyone is remotely interested I'll do some work on it, but I'm too knackered now.
I'd kind of understand having questions like this ('Gaudium et Spes'? 'Post-conciliar Magisterium'?) if it was directed at priests and other RCC staff but apparently it's not; the survey asks people to say in what capacity they are completing it, with the second (of many) options being 'lay person'. Maybe I'm grossly underestimating the theological knowledge of practising RCCs...
Tory Governments always wreck public services that Tory voters in the Shires rely on directly and indirectly, yet those middle class Southern people insist in self harming. Weird.
Come on, put some effort in!
The priests have said go online to fill in the answers. Few will bother.
What's the point of having bishops (i.e. Apostolic Successors) in an apostolic church if they are relying on the laity to do the theological work?
Why can't you simplify the questions?
These questions were not devised by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales but by the Ordinary Council of the Synod during their last meeting with the Holy Father. Any comments about the questions are best directed to the Synod Secretariat.
The address is:
Via della Conciliazione
34 – 00120 Vatican City
Email: synodus@synod.va
https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/405128136498491392
Unfortunately the cost of the site in the SE of England would be over £200,000.
No one remembers Bartoli winning Wimbledon this year.
I suggest that knowledge of individual winners and sports pesonalities is not a competence required for the ministers job. Good judgement is what's needed in ministers and the ability to know what are the right questions to ask of their civil servants.