politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium sees Labour’s support fall to lowest level since 20
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium sees Labour’s support fall to lowest level since 2010 election
LAB down to just 33% in tonight's Opinium poll for the Observer – the lowest level since GE2010. CON 1% behind
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Liverpool will not will the Premier League, this is City and Chelsea's to lose x 1,000,000
Is there a cure for squirrels catching PB?
Ah, well.........onward and err....onward.
Or perhaps more accurately, someone opened the oven door on Labour's..... It ain't gonna be pretty when it is presented to the voters.
Con 265
Lab 272
LD 26
UKIP 58
Con-UKIP coalition?
I suspect that they will poll more than 2010, but not more than 6% and most of that will be in safe Tory seats where it makes little difference.
Making the running? Not at present. And that is despite their best election for votes being just weeks away.
And is the consensus that it is now too late to unseat Ed Miliband?
Oh, no. Surely, him getting slung out of Parliament in 97 was actually a lucky escape for the Conservatives. An odious little man with no bottom, as his subsequent conduct demonstrated. If he hadn't had that period out of Parliament enough Conservatives would have been fooled and he could have become leader and maybe obtained high office.
Changing leader would not help much. The problem is the lacklustre front bench, which needs a thorough clean out.
If the delightful Liz Kendall was leader they would be more popular than Kate Bush tickets.
Such a shame Basil now associated mostly with a disgruntled hotelier and partly with a cheeky fox. Basil the Macedonian was one of the more competent Byzantine emperors, and Basil II (the last of the Macedonian dynasty) was, after an initial defeat, an arse-kicker of tremendous proportions (although he did utterly cock up the succession by not having any wives or children).
Labour has seen a pretty gradual but consistent decline, and UKIP have remained around the same high level since the step change halfway through.
UKIP won't get many seats - perhaps not even any. Suppose though they get 10, and the LDs whatever - both of them would prefer to be in coalition with the Tories (the devil you know for the LDs). I rather hanker after the Tories getting a majority, but if they don't then the middle ground is pretty happy country for them.
Post an independence defeat what will the SNP do. They won't be keen on Labour.
Narrow polls become very tough for Ed.
I'm convinced now that Boris will return, and although I hope it'll be a two-term Cameron handing over to an elderly ex-London-major I'm pretty sure that he'll be front and centre for the job one day.
Opinium 2 April 2013: Con 28%, Lab 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2013
Compared to today's poll, the only changes greater than MoE are Con (+4) and Lab (-5).
@Casino_Royale wrote :
"JackW - I've just seen your posts on this on the last thread. This is not the point. You and I are answering different questions. Yes, Labour last achieved a majority government in Oct 74.
My point was when Labour last *returned* to power *with* a majority. That is to say, when did they last take control of the government - from the Conservatives, following a general election - with a majority government.
They did not do so in Feb 74, but did form a minority government. Therefore, the answer to that question (when did Labour last take power from the Conservatives, with a majority government, before 1997) is 1964, which is how I answered it in the first place."
...........................................................................................................
I apologize to PBers for returning to this point.
C_R - You have moved the goalposts (copyright Compouter2). You originally said :
"The last time Labour returned to power (sans Blair) with a majority was um 1964."
That is patently incorrect. My assertion that it was Oct 74 is correct.
You have now added take power from the Conservatives with a majority which is a different matter.
I think that we may well have seen peak UKIP, just as we have seen peak Labour for this parliament.
On topic, no crossover yet, but it would be silly to deny it is not an encouraging number for Tory supporters, who have been getting increasingly desperate. It they can keep Labour in sight for awhile, perhaps we can eventually begin to think credibly about them edging it on number of votes, if not seats. For now I'll stick with a Labour win.
They are polling at the same level now that they were last year, so they're showing the same signs of reaching last May's local election 22% result.
Betting PostAnd don't forget to read my pre-race piece on Malaysia, with the extremely exciting tip to back Hulkenberg to be top 6 at 2.5:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/malaysia-pre-race.html
"I suspect that they will poll more than 2010, but not more than 6% and most of that will be in safe Tory seats where it makes little difference."
Is that a prediction that UKIP will score less than 6&% of the vote in 2015? If it is I feel I have to ask the good Doctor if he is prepared to put his money where his prediction is.
What about it, Doc, a modest wager, say twenty quid to a favourite charity? If UKIP get less than 6% of the vote at the 2015 general election I'll give £20 to your nominated charity. If they score 6% or more you give £20 to the RNLI. Just to make it interesting we cold have a bottle of single malt on the side.
The Tory vote has gone up. This is unlikely to be Lab to Tory movement, more likely to be Kippers moving to Tory. I think that we have seen peak kipper GE polling.
I can't see Ed being too despondent.
He could always relaunch his energy price freeze proposals.
Or up the pressure on Waitrose's unfair trade in coffee and newspapers.
Or suggest we re-nationalise the railways.
Or something.
People have been talking about UKIP having peaked for the last 12 months. Their membership is still increasing. They're still placing third on aggregate council by-election votes.
This alteration to Jade Dernbach's Wikipedia page has tickled me
pic.twitter.com/eA7TKoDfHk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
It's as anachronistic as describing the Normans as Frenchmen, or Constantine the Great as a Yorkshireman.
Edit: If I had, it would have been a lot more uncomplimentary.
He's so crap, you could mistake him for Ed Miliband or a Carthaginian Military leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#2014
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
When I wrote, "The last time Labour returned to power (sans Blair) with a majority.." I meant Labour returning to office, following a period of not being in office. When I wrote this it read to me, pretty obviously, that that would be as a result of a general election in which Labour won power from a previous administration.
In Feb 1974, Ted Heath failed to win. He remained in office for a few days, trying to form a coalition with the Liberal leader Thorpe. That failed. Harold Wilson then became Prime Minister of a *minority* Labour government - in other words, Labour returned to power following the Feb 1974 election.
Wilson was in office for several months before he called a second election, in October 1974, where he secured a (very small) overall majority. Therefore, he did not "return" to power with a majority in October 1974, because he was already in power (as PM) for several months beforehand with a minority.
I accept that 1974 was the last election (before Blair's landslide in 1997) when Labour won a majority at a general election. I do not accept that it was the last time that Labour returned to power *with* a majority. I do not move away from my original point that IMHO this was at the 1964 general election (it wasn't in 1966, for the same reasons) unless you have facts that can prove me wrong to the contrary.
I do accept I could have written it more clearly and unambiguously. That was a poor choice of words on my part. For example, you may have read, "return to power" as meaning any dissolution of parliament by a Labour administration which, having held power beforehand, went on to retain it after the subsequent general election. However, that is not what I meant.
If you feel the need to post on this again and claim some sort of victory based on your preferred interpretation of my original post, then so be it. But it would be rather unbecoming of you. I bow to your knowledge of all matters psephological on here, but I would prefer if we could discuss the substance of points on here, rather than how they may have been expressed.
Although I have picked up a bottle at the Ben Nevis distillery of a recreation ca 1914 malt, it's meant to be Peary and sublime.
David Jack @DJack_Journo 2m
Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
So near and yet so far. And the consequences if it comes are deeply unpredictable for Labour. Serious but unpredictable.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mark-menzies--resigns-government-3300512
The obsessions of the true believer should not be mistaken for fact either.
Polls with the Tories ahead may cause Labour to ditch Ed.
This budget has shifted votes, the 2015 General Election campaign begins with the 2015 budget.
"We've got to get Ed out NOW to even have a prayer at the next election.
David could back and dethrone his brother in a powerful and potent coup-sde-famille which would thrill the voters and mark him as ruthless and unstoppable.
Let's do it this week"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/labour-support-falls-lowest-2010-observer-opinium-opinion-poll
The Normans took Sicily, as well as England, and stirred up rather a bit of trouble in the Balkans (I forget the name precisely, something like the Great Company, a sizeable band of rogues that caused the Byzantines some sleepless nights).