About me
Archive
About me

Swing Update

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 14 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 14 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 14 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

Today’s swing figure:

» 2.27% swing to the Conservatives «

The new month, and four new polls, haven’t done much to boost the Conservative cause. Having said that, two of the four new polls do have Labour’s lead reduced to just three points: The YouGov/Sunday Times and MORI/Observer polls are both on 36/33. The others are a little wider: ICM/Sunday Telegraph and Communicate/Sindie are both on 39/31.

It’s worth noting, though, that the latter two conducted their fieldwork earlier, both completing the bulk of their work before Lord Goldsmith’s full legal advice made it into the papers – so perhaps that’s having a bigger impact than I’d thought, which could make this coming week rather more interesting, what with today’s revalations of a document that apparently shows Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began. However, as with all things in elections, the actual document doesn’t quite live up to that billing, though it still seems pretty damning.

What’s certainly clear is that Downing Street’s claim that it contains ‘nothing new’ is – erm – a lie. And, apparently, Tony Blair claims the opposition on focusing on Iraq to distract from UK issues. Well here’s a home issue to get his teeth into: Before being elected in 1997, Mr Blair promised a referendum on electoral reform. Where is it? And doesn’t this just highlight the level to which trust is a problem in this election, and thus underline why Iraq is so crucially important? Surely we should be focusing on the most important duties of a Prime Minister, like committing troops to war?

How am I doing on my own promises? Well, not much better than Mr Blair. This time last week, I said that if the Tories hadn’t built on their position, then they were doomed. Well, their polling figure has fallen, but I’m still not ready to make a prediction because I’m not quite sure how these latest revalations will play out. I’m still pretty certain that Labour will win, most likely with just about a 100 majority (as I’ve said before), but I’m too much of a wimp to say for sure as of yet.

This 554th post was filed under: Election 2005.

Some recently published posts

What I’ve been reading this month / September 2019, 6 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / August 2019, 7 minutes long

A flying visit to Copenhagen / July 2019, 9 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / June 2019, 6 minutes long

Reflecting on my first ten years as a doctor / June 2019, 8 minutes long

Some random old posts

Man charged over Kilroy ‘attack’ / January 2005, 1 minute long

Dodgy domains / October 2005, 1 minute long

Some thoughts on print newspapers / April 2019, 5 minutes long

Review: The Battle of $9.99 by Andrew Richard Albanese / January 2014, 3 minutes long

Dead man walking / October 2013, Less than a minute long

sjhoward v21.0 released today / April 2006, Less than a minute long


Comments and responses

No comments or responses to this post have been published yet.

Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.