<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A look back at the polls: November</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html</link>
	<description>Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:55:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: David Morton</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-73345</link>
		<dc:creator>David Morton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-73345</guid>
		<description>Tommorows Telegraph

You Gov
Con 42 up 1
Lab 35 n/c
LD  14 Down 1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tommorows Telegraph</p>
<p>You Gov<br />
Con 42 up 1<br />
Lab 35 n/c<br />
LD  14 Down 1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-73130</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-73130</guid>
		<description>The polls are coming thick and fast now. Here&#039;s another from MORI:
CON 39%(-2)
LAB 35%(-1)
LDEM 15%(+4)

Changes are since the last MORI poll, released 2 days ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The polls are coming thick and fast now. Here&#8217;s another from MORI:<br />
CON 39%(-2)<br />
LAB 35%(-1)<br />
LDEM 15%(+4)</p>
<p>Changes are since the last MORI poll, released 2 days ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-73072</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-73072</guid>
		<description>I think that ICM rating of 19% is just about at the median of all the ICM ratings for the Lib Dems over the last year. Obviously that&#039;s a lot better than being at or near 2-3 year lows as MORI and ComRes would indicate, but it&#039;s not a spectacular improvement either.

And obviously the difference between 11% (MORI) and 19% (ICM) is beyond the theoretical statistical error. I still think all the reweighting and normalisation that goes on is more likely to account for the disagreements between the pollsters than differences in the phrasing of the questions. Who knows which is closest to the truth? 

I think all we can sensibly do is look at each result in relation to previous results from the same pollster, but even that gives mixed messages at the moment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that ICM rating of 19% is just about at the median of all the ICM ratings for the Lib Dems over the last year. Obviously that&#8217;s a lot better than being at or near 2-3 year lows as MORI and ComRes would indicate, but it&#8217;s not a spectacular improvement either.</p>
<p>And obviously the difference between 11% (MORI) and 19% (ICM) is beyond the theoretical statistical error. I still think all the reweighting and normalisation that goes on is more likely to account for the disagreements between the pollsters than differences in the phrasing of the questions. Who knows which is closest to the truth? </p>
<p>I think all we can sensibly do is look at each result in relation to previous results from the same pollster, but even that gives mixed messages at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Morton</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-73059</link>
		<dc:creator>David Morton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-73059</guid>
		<description>I think ICM is the most accurate in that for a number of reasons it seems to simulate some of the campaign boost that we get out of &quot;Equal Air Time&quot;. My instinct is to say its a better predictor of results where as some of the lower scores are more accurate in real time. I have already seen one blog post pointing out that if you add on our campaign boost of 3% to 19% then we are back at 2005 general election levels and so everything is alright. I think thats a bit foolish.

I note with interest that 19% was the extant ICM rating on the day nick took office. It seems to summarise the evidence of the whole year. No sign of any great collapse but absolutely no progress either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think ICM is the most accurate in that for a number of reasons it seems to simulate some of the campaign boost that we get out of &#8220;Equal Air Time&#8221;. My instinct is to say its a better predictor of results where as some of the lower scores are more accurate in real time. I have already seen one blog post pointing out that if you add on our campaign boost of 3% to 19% then we are back at 2005 general election levels and so everything is alright. I think thats a bit foolish.</p>
<p>I note with interest that 19% was the extant ICM rating on the day nick took office. It seems to summarise the evidence of the whole year. No sign of any great collapse but absolutely no progress either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-73023</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-73023</guid>
		<description>ICM poll for the Guardian:
CON 38% (-7)
LAB 33% (+3)
LDEM 19% (+1)

Chenges are since the last IC poll 2-3 weeks ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ICM poll for the Guardian:<br />
CON 38% (-7)<br />
LAB 33% (+3)<br />
LDEM 19% (+1)</p>
<p>Chenges are since the last IC poll 2-3 weeks ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72923</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72923</guid>
		<description>Just out of curiosity, I looked at the rersults of opinion polls in the fortnight before the 2005 general election. The average Lib Dem ratings for each pollster were as follows:

ComRes 20.5
ICM 21
Populus 21
BPIX 21.5
MORI 22.5
YouGov 23.6

Those figures hardly support the ideas that ICM is the most and MORI the least accurate in evaluating Lib Dem support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just out of curiosity, I looked at the rersults of opinion polls in the fortnight before the 2005 general election. The average Lib Dem ratings for each pollster were as follows:</p>
<p>ComRes 20.5<br />
ICM 21<br />
Populus 21<br />
BPIX 21.5<br />
MORI 22.5<br />
YouGov 23.6</p>
<p>Those figures hardly support the ideas that ICM is the most and MORI the least accurate in evaluating Lib Dem support.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oranjepan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72918</link>
		<dc:creator>Oranjepan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72918</guid>
		<description>CCF,
I have plenty to say, but when you keep arguing that the glass is half-empty I feel obliged to point out that this is only one perspective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CCF,<br />
I have plenty to say, but when you keep arguing that the glass is half-empty I feel obliged to point out that this is only one perspective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72917</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72917</guid>
		<description>Oranjepan

So you really _don&#039;t_ have anything to say apart from &lt;i&gt;&quot;everything’s going to be all right&quot;&lt;/i&gt;?

&quot;Mori are habitually the worst pollster for us LibDems because of the screwy weightings they apply to the pure numbers.&quot;

Of course all the pollsters differ, and it doesn&#039;t surprise me that people tend to prefer the ones that are most favourable to the Lib Dems. But as I pointed out, this equals the worst Lib Dem rating &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;by MORI&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; since 2005. Just as the latest ComRes equals the worst Lib Dem rating ever recorded by that company - with the single exception of 12% last month.

According to other companies the Lib Dems aren&#039;t doing quite as badly as that. But these polling figures are not at all good, and I can&#039;t see any point in pretending otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oranjepan</p>
<p>So you really _don&#8217;t_ have anything to say apart from <i>&#8220;everything’s going to be all right&#8221;</i>?</p>
<p>&#8220;Mori are habitually the worst pollster for us LibDems because of the screwy weightings they apply to the pure numbers.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course all the pollsters differ, and it doesn&#8217;t surprise me that people tend to prefer the ones that are most favourable to the Lib Dems. But as I pointed out, this equals the worst Lib Dem rating <i><b>by MORI</b></i> since 2005. Just as the latest ComRes equals the worst Lib Dem rating ever recorded by that company &#8211; with the single exception of 12% last month.</p>
<p>According to other companies the Lib Dems aren&#8217;t doing quite as badly as that. But these polling figures are not at all good, and I can&#8217;t see any point in pretending otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orajepan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72916</link>
		<dc:creator>Orajepan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72916</guid>
		<description>CCF,
Mori are habitually the worst pollster for us LibDems because of the screwy weightings they apply to the pure numbers. 

There is no need to take their results seriously when they always underestimate the level of our support, so accounting for this underestimation (by at least a couple of points) and adding it to the potential margin for error we can see our poll rating as holding steady.

I really don&#039;t understand why you are so keen to be a merchant of doom.

Can I give you a pinch of salt for Christmas?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CCF,<br />
Mori are habitually the worst pollster for us LibDems because of the screwy weightings they apply to the pure numbers. </p>
<p>There is no need to take their results seriously when they always underestimate the level of our support, so accounting for this underestimation (by at least a couple of points) and adding it to the potential margin for error we can see our poll rating as holding steady.</p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t understand why you are so keen to be a merchant of doom.</p>
<p>Can I give you a pinch of salt for Christmas?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72914</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72914</guid>
		<description>&quot;nice to see you’re not obsessing or being selective!&quot;

For your information - in case you&#039;re interested in information, which I doubt - I generally post the results of any polls I see, unless someone else gets there first, as David Morton did on another thread for the last two. 

And, incidentally, of those two the ComRes poll was also pretty awful. That company tends to produce favourable ratings for the party, and 14% would have been their lowest for nearly two years - if it hadn&#039;t been for the 12% rating they produced last month.

Now, do you have any comment on the subject of the thread, apart from the usual &lt;i&gt;&quot;Nick Clegg has a secret plan and everything&#039;s going to be all right&quot;&lt;/i&gt; guff?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;nice to see you’re not obsessing or being selective!&#8221;</p>
<p>For your information &#8211; in case you&#8217;re interested in information, which I doubt &#8211; I generally post the results of any polls I see, unless someone else gets there first, as David Morton did on another thread for the last two. </p>
<p>And, incidentally, of those two the ComRes poll was also pretty awful. That company tends to produce favourable ratings for the party, and 14% would have been their lowest for nearly two years &#8211; if it hadn&#8217;t been for the 12% rating they produced last month.</p>
<p>Now, do you have any comment on the subject of the thread, apart from the usual <i>&#8220;Nick Clegg has a secret plan and everything&#8217;s going to be all right&#8221;</i> guff?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72913</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72913</guid>
		<description>&quot;I think ICM is the gold standard when it comes to Lib Dem polling. It tends to give the party higher but more accurate scores than other pollsters.&quot;

Higher, certainly, but I&#039;m not convinced we can know which of the pollsters is evaluating Lib Dem support most accurately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think ICM is the gold standard when it comes to Lib Dem polling. It tends to give the party higher but more accurate scores than other pollsters.&#8221;</p>
<p>Higher, certainly, but I&#8217;m not convinced we can know which of the pollsters is evaluating Lib Dem support most accurately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orajepan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72911</link>
		<dc:creator>Orajepan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72911</guid>
		<description>CCF,
nice to see you&#039;re not obsessing or being selective!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CCF,<br />
nice to see you&#8217;re not obsessing or being selective!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Morton</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72909</link>
		<dc:creator>David Morton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72909</guid>
		<description>There will be a Guardian ICM early this week almost certainly out tonight in advance of the Tuesday addition. I think ICM is the gold standard when it comes to Lib Dem polling. It tends to give the party higher but more accurate scores than other pollsters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There will be a Guardian ICM early this week almost certainly out tonight in advance of the Tuesday addition. I think ICM is the gold standard when it comes to Lib Dem polling. It tends to give the party higher but more accurate scores than other pollsters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72907</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72907</guid>
		<description>On a uniform swing projection, that would leave the Lib Dems with just 13 seats, unable to give either Labour or the Conservatives a majority.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On a uniform swing projection, that would leave the Lib Dems with just 13 seats, unable to give either Labour or the Conservatives a majority.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72906</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72906</guid>
		<description>Ipsos-Mori poll for the Mirror:
CON 41% (-2)
LAB 36% (+4)
LDEM 11% (-4)

Changes are since the last Ipsos-Mori poll at the end of November.

After a few polls showing (apparently) a slight recovery in the Lib Dem rating, this is another appalling one. It equals the worst rating recorded by Ipsos-Mori (or anyone else) since the last general election, shortly before Ming Campbell was dumped, in October 2007.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ipsos-Mori poll for the Mirror:<br />
CON 41% (-2)<br />
LAB 36% (+4)<br />
LDEM 11% (-4)</p>
<p>Changes are since the last Ipsos-Mori poll at the end of November.</p>
<p>After a few polls showing (apparently) a slight recovery in the Lib Dem rating, this is another appalling one. It equals the worst rating recorded by Ipsos-Mori (or anyone else) since the last general election, shortly before Ming Campbell was dumped, in October 2007.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-72362</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-72362</guid>
		<description>Poll by Populus for the Times:
CON 39% (-2)
LAB 35% (-)
LDEM 17% (+1)

Changes are since the last Populus poll about a month ago. 

Again on a uniform swing projection this would make Labour the largest party in the Commons. And again this indicates that the Lib Dems have improved by a few points since reaching a nadir a month or two ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Poll by Populus for the Times:<br />
CON 39% (-2)<br />
LAB 35% (-)<br />
LDEM 17% (+1)</p>
<p>Changes are since the last Populus poll about a month ago. </p>
<p>Again on a uniform swing projection this would make Labour the largest party in the Commons. And again this indicates that the Lib Dems have improved by a few points since reaching a nadir a month or two ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Morton</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-71707</link>
		<dc:creator>David Morton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-71707</guid>
		<description>Stephen is right to expres all of the ambiguity over polling and also the ICM/Non ICM divergence at the moment. However lets just look at the broad trend of the LD voice average over the last year. 16% last December including all of the coverage around the leadership election and new leader. Slowly climbing to 18% over a few months and then steadily downwards till 15% now.

If the glass is half full then the party seems to have a remarkably stable core vote at about the 16% mark plus what ever boost a GE campaign will give us ( which usually happens rather than always...)

If the glass is have empty then the party has gone absolutely no where and arguably a point backwards over the last year. has nothing happened over the last year that an opposition party could have exploited.  If we can&#039;t progress in the current climate then when will we ? It also begs the question as to whether there has been any benefit what so ever from the panicy executions of two federal leaders since the last elections.

My sumary would be &quot;reason to panic? No. reason for soul searching ? Yes. &quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen is right to expres all of the ambiguity over polling and also the ICM/Non ICM divergence at the moment. However lets just look at the broad trend of the LD voice average over the last year. 16% last December including all of the coverage around the leadership election and new leader. Slowly climbing to 18% over a few months and then steadily downwards till 15% now.</p>
<p>If the glass is half full then the party seems to have a remarkably stable core vote at about the 16% mark plus what ever boost a GE campaign will give us ( which usually happens rather than always&#8230;)</p>
<p>If the glass is have empty then the party has gone absolutely no where and arguably a point backwards over the last year. has nothing happened over the last year that an opposition party could have exploited.  If we can&#8217;t progress in the current climate then when will we ? It also begs the question as to whether there has been any benefit what so ever from the panicy executions of two federal leaders since the last elections.</p>
<p>My sumary would be &#8220;reason to panic? No. reason for soul searching ? Yes. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-71676</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-71676</guid>
		<description>What I was going to say was how funny it was to see all the Tories on politicalbetting.com running round like headless chickens in response to this. It &lt;b&gt;must&lt;/b&gt; be wrong, because ... [any reason will do]

Anthony Wells on ukpollingreport.co.uk commented sensibly that &lt;i&gt;&quot;We won’t know for sure until we see some other polls ...&quot;&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I was going to say was how funny it was to see all the Tories on politicalbetting.com running round like headless chickens in response to this. It <b>must</b> be wrong, because &#8230; [any reason will do]</p>
<p>Anthony Wells on ukpollingreport.co.uk commented sensibly that <i>&#8220;We won’t know for sure until we see some other polls &#8230;&#8221;</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clegg's Candid Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-71675</link>
		<dc:creator>Clegg's Candid Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-71675</guid>
		<description>[Apparently I posted this in the wrong thread earlier.]

A dramatically different poll by ComRes for the Independent:
CON 37% (-6)
LAB 36% (+4)
LDEM 17% (+5)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3540298/Tories-lead-over-Labour-cut-to-one-point.html

Just when it appeared the Tories had regained a double-digit lead after the pre-budget report, this would indicate (on a uniform swing assumption) Labour just 3 seats short of an overall majority.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Apparently I posted this in the wrong thread earlier.]</p>
<p>A dramatically different poll by ComRes for the Independent:<br />
CON 37% (-6)<br />
LAB 36% (+4)<br />
LDEM 17% (+5)<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3540298/Tories-lead-over-Labour-cut-to-one-point.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3540298/Tories-lead-over-Labour-cut-to-one-point.html</a></p>
<p>Just when it appeared the Tories had regained a double-digit lead after the pre-budget report, this would indicate (on a uniform swing assumption) Labour just 3 seats short of an overall majority.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Stockley</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/a-look-back-at-the-polls-november-2-6559.html#comment-71625</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Stockley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=6559#comment-71625</guid>
		<description>UK Polling Report says that we are running at an average of 16%.  

That seems a bit low to me, especially given the other parties&#039; woes right now.

Why do you think we are not doing better?

Has anyone found our economic narrative?

See

(http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-is-liberal-democrat-economic.html)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UK Polling Report says that we are running at an average of 16%.  </p>
<p>That seems a bit low to me, especially given the other parties&#8217; woes right now.</p>
<p>Why do you think we are not doing better?</p>
<p>Has anyone found our economic narrative?</p>
<p>See</p>
<p>(<a href="http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-is-liberal-democrat-economic.html" rel="nofollow">http://neilstockley.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-is-liberal-democrat-economic.html</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

