http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change

But looking at the video clip on the BBC website, he doesn’t seem to be saying that at all. Instead, he speaks of the party with the “strongest mandate”, and says “the votes of the British people should determine what happens”. If that means the party with the larger share of the vote, that’s very different, of course. Unfortunately Andrew Marr didn’t press him for clarity on the point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8372838.stm

Best to wait for trends in more polls (from all the top organisations), over the next couple of months.

The quickest way to stop a hung parliament from happening is to talk about it a lot.

I’ve argued for some time that the poll shifts we are seeing are due to PTV and this poll seems to demonstrate that, though I’d have to reserve judgement until I see the detailed figures.

Which all goes to show that while I still think the Tories will come ‘first’ I still have money on a hung parliament. It’s a bet I’ve had on for two years and I’m very happy with it!

Precisely, only ICM hasn’t changed its methodology.

If someone who’s read them and properly evaluated the information (e.g. not just jumped on phrases taken out of context to prove their point) wants to write something for LDV, I’m sure it would be considered for publication.

In the 1997 General Election, Labour polled 12.5% ahead of the Tories.

In an article on this subject in the UK’s Daily Telegraph (Note 1) mention is made of John Daly. It says QUOTE: One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: “In an odd way this is cheering news.” UNQUOTE. This alleged E-mail is presented more fully elsewhere (Note 2).

It is important to remain sceptical about the validity of this “leak” of information and await the results of a thorough investigation. (Is the Herald doing something along these lines?). Despite this, there is a saying “there’s no smoke without fire”. It is interesting to see that there appeared to be an exchange of E-mails between John Daly and Phil Jones back in 2001 (Note 3). This item starts with QUOTE: After several requests by visitors to this website for details of the two emails which were sent by Phil Jones of CRU, demanding withdrawal of the articles about recent errors in CRU hemispheric temperatures, the following exchange of emails was made via a very large CC (110 addressees), with both of Jones’ emails signed in his official capacity as professor at CRU. UNQUOTE. It is followed by an apparent exchange of E-mails between John Daly and Phil Jones.

I leave you to read them and draw your own conclusions. While you’re at it, have a read of the comments at Wattsupwiththat (Note 2). There are some interesting comments about that site favoured by supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, Realclimate.

NOTES:
The links originally provided here can be found at Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s blog (http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P4470/) comment # 4481.

Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnos(cep)tic

You will have Mike Smithson on your case if you aren’t careful! Yes the polls showed that, and they were nearly all wrong and subsequently changed methodology so that direct comparisons are impossible.

The point about Labour’s lead being consistently larger in 1996/1997 is also questionable, as by common consent most of the pollsters were systematically overestimating Labour support at that time.

Mind you, it is interesting that the “swingometer” on Anthony Wells’s website projects from these figures Nick Clegg’s “dream scenario”, in which (despite losing 17 seats) the Lib Dems would be in a position to give either Labour or the Tories a Commons majority.