Tim Worstall

Eppur Si Muove

Not sure if my Italian’s quite right there but it seems suitable for this new poll:

Support for Labour has dropped since early April by six points to 30
per cent, equal to the lowest in any poll since 1992. By contrast, the
Tories are up four points at 38 per cent, opening up the widest gap
between the parties in 14 years. The Liberal Democrats are down one
point at 20 per cent.

I’m not 100% certain I’ve got this rght either, but if that were a general election result it still wouldn’t mean a Tory majority, would it?

In

3 responses

  1. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    Not under Uniform National Swing, but it is my opinion that it would make sense to assume that the swing back to the Tories would be more pronounced in 1997 Labour gains and thus that they would do it on these numbers. I’ll fire up the old “Adjusted Regional Swing Estimate” model some day soon and give it a go.

    Reply
  2. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I’m not even sure on a uniform swing as there have been boundary changes and so on. Here on last time’s figures suggests they’d almost get a majority under that scenario, so I suspect they would.
    http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050407-it_doesnt_matter_how_you_vote_
    either_way_your_planet_is_doomed.html
    The Times article says up front that the feuding between Brown and Blair is to blame, then only gives evidence that it’s Blair’s leadershp.

    Reply
  3. The Remittance Man Avatar
    The Remittance Man

    According to Iain Dale, who refers to ElectoralCalculus, 38% would leave the Tories about 15 seats short of a majority, but the largest single party in the house.
    The 41% Tory share quoted when the Brown/Cameron/Cambell vote is assessed would give the Tories a 60 seat majority.
    RM

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading