Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

9:00 am - April 27th 2010

by Lee Griffin    

      Share on Tumblr

Wondering why the Tory party decided yesterday to unveil the “Labservative” copycat campaign, “The Hung Parliament Party“?

Perhaps you’re wondering why the party of the “Great Ignored”, the “Big Society”, and of course “Change” is now spending it’s time fear-mongering about the Liberal Democrats and electoral reform?

The reason is simple… the Tory support around the country is collapsing, and in some regions it is actually getting worse than it was in 2005. And, of course, it’s all down to the Liberal Democrats.

First up, prime yourself with this polling data (carried out by YouGov for PoliticsHome) for the governmental regions from 11th-18th of April. Note that this means the majority of the fieldwork took place before the first Leaders’ debate. Below is the breakdown, all figures are changes in the public support compared to the 2005 election…

Region Con Lab Lib Nat Other
Scotland +1 0 -3 2 0
Wales +5 -1 -3 -3 +3
North East +5 -8 +1 +2
North West +5 -8 +1 +2
Yorkshire and the Humber +4 -10 +4 +2
East Midlands +4 -7 +1 +2
West Midlands +4 -8 +4 0
East of England +2 -5 +3 +1
London +7 -6 0 -1
South East +5 -5 0 +2
South West 0 -3 +2 0

The analysis for this is fairly simple; Labour are losing out, the Tories are taking the gains, and there is a definite improvement nationwide for “Other” candidates (the exception being Plaid in Wales). So far so very much over-reported.

So how much difference does a week make?

Check out the results for the same regional style poll, but from the 19th-24th April. Again, figures are changes from the public support in 2005. change from previous week is in (brackets).

Region Con Lab Lib Nat Other
Scotland -2 (-3) -3 (-3) +2 (5) +3 (1) -1 (-1)
Wales +5 (0) -10 (-9) +8 (11) -5 (-2) +1 (-2)
North East 0 (-5) -14 (-6) +12 (+11) +5 (+3)
North West 0 (-5) -10 (-2) +9 (+8) 1 (-1)
Yorkshire and the Humber -1 (-5) -12 (-2) +11 (+7) 0 (-2)
East Midlands -1 (-5) -10 (-3) +11 (+10) 1 (-1)
West Midlands +3(-1) -11 (-3) +8 (+4) -2 (-2)
East of England 0 (-2) -10 (-5) +8 (+5) +1 (0)
London +4 (-3) -8 (-2) +6 (+6) -1 (0)
South East +1(-4) -7 (-2) +6 (+6) 1 (-1)
South West -2 (-2) -7 (-4) +9 (+7) 0 (0)

It’s a complete change with the Lib Dems taking share away from Labour, but also clearly away from the Tories. In fact the situation is now so bad for the Tories that out of the 11 regions here they are polling either no better or worse than 2005 in 8 of them.

The only regions they are improved in are London, the West Midlands and the South East.

The Great Britain total itself taken from all these regions stands at Con 33 (-4), Lab 28 (-3) Lib 30 (+6) Other 9 (0); so as you can see it is entirely in line with polls that have been marginally back and forth for the last half a week.

Yet it is the regional data that makes it interesting.

In the South West, an area traditionally Tory that was supposed to make huge gains after local election victories is starting to slip away from them; all the good work they have done up until the election campaign in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber has been completely reversed in just one week of the public realising the Lib Dems are present and willing.

But perhaps most shockingly is the state of the South East, not entirely made up of the locations ripe for the traditional immigrant bashing, it is still a Tory strong hold polling 46% of the region’s support, but this is now only 1% better off for the Tories than it was in 2005, easily within the Margin of Error.

Could it be that not only the scandal of expenses, but that (unfortunately) specific Lib Dem policy on moving immigration to different regions may be the cause of this lack of improvement?

Unlike most areas where Lib Dem shares are increased slightly more by Labour losses on last weeks polling than the losses made by the Tories, the South East is moving more significantly from the Tories to Lib Dems than from Labour.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  

About the author
Lee is a 20 something web developer from Cornwall now residing in Bristol since completing his degree at the lesser university. He has strange dreams, a big appetite, a small flat, and when not forcing his views on the world he is probably eating a cookie. Lee blogs independently from party colours at Program your own mind.
· Other posts by

Story Filed Under: Blog ,Elections2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

One point to note re Conservative ‘collapse’ in support’. Recent Mori polling in marginals noted that the change in Labour and Tory numbers was partly due to a change in the overall numbers of people now prepared to vote, and deciding to vote Liberal. Overall Lab/Tory overall numbers havn’t changed much but the Liberal vote had increased the size of the pie, with the two main parties slices looking proportionately smaller. Note the following article

‘This is a very different conclusion to that reached by Ipsos MORI’s Helen Coombs last week. Ipsos MORI carried out a marginals poll for Reuters in the 57 marginal constituencies where the Conservatives need a swing of between five and nine percent from Labour to win. In those seats, the swing from Labour to Conservative is five per cent, not four per cent, but more importantly the reason support for the Conservatives has declined since the first debate – this poll was carried out before the second – is because the number of people saying they’re likely to vote has increased, thereby decreasing the Tory share as a percentage of the overall sample, not because Conservative voters have been switching to the Lib Dems.

“This is giving us a new angle from most of the recent national polls, which imply that the recent Liberal Democrat surge has been more damaging to the Conservatives than to Labour,” said Helen Coombs, Ipsos MORI’s deputy head of political research. “This poll finds that this is not the case and that if the Conservatives are losing votes disproportionately to the Liberal Democrats it is not happening in the constituencies where it would do most danger to their chance of winning seats from Labour.”’..

The Tories aren’t losing a lot of votes, that much is true, they’re mainly retaining a strong position due to the collapse in Labour support. But these two regional polls show unequivocally that the Tory support that had increased at the start of the campaign has now been reversed. Whether votes have lowered since 2005 isn’t really being questioned, it’s that the gains Tories have built up over years of detoxification have been undone in a week of fair election coverage.

IMObservation, the Tory core vote is pretty core, and will only ever lose people to the right at this stage. Mind you, IMO, the Tory core vote is also overwhelmingly over 40, so give us another thirty years or so and things should improve radically for UK progressives.

The Labour core vote has been steadily collapsing for decades, following the fall in the percentage of the population employed in primary or secondary industry.

No-one since WWI has been able to calculate the size of the LibDem core vote, because our system has encouraged tactical voting against the party one actually supports, in order to avoid the party one fears most.

I have a theory about the current swing. I think that a lot of it is not LibDems converting from other philosophies, it’s people who’ve been liberal for years decloaking.

Good work, Lee.

Again, it’s so telling that after 13 years of a tired government, the biggest economic downturn in decades, the expenses scandal, press hostility, an uncharismatic unelected leader/PM, the Iraq fiasco, (etc etc) the Tories just cannot make any tangible gains.

The nation may be sick and tired of Labour and Gordon Brown but i think it’s quite clear that there’s very little appetite for a Conservative government.

I’ve read elsewhere the Core vote is more like 30%, which we can take from the 1997 election result. 40 seems very high!

I’d agree with your last sentence though. The polling on “would you vote Lib Dem if…” tends to show that there is a general undercurrent of a portion of the UK to want to vote Lib Dem but fear being irrelevant if they do so.

Lee: when I said ‘over 40’ I meant in age. The core Tory vote, as opposed to clothespeg voters those who might vote Tory to piss off Labour, are overwhelmingly in the generation born prior to 1970. That generation can remember getting personal, tangible advantage from a Tory government. No-one in my generation can remember that: all the advantages redistributed during Thatcher’s rule went to people 20 years older than us, who still own them.

IMObs, the Tory core vote is more or less 30% of those who vote; in this I seem to agree with virtually everyone else 🙂 I suspect that it may be less than 30% of those who vote after this election, though, because I suspect that the main ongoing effect of 2010 will be to re-engage a large chunk of those under 40 with politics.

People over 40 formed their political opinions either in the 1970s or the 1980s. Back then, people were used to governments which at least tried to govern in the interests of the electorate, regardless of which party they were from.

No-one under 40 has ever seen actual politics in Britain. They have only known Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown. All four of those regimes were: sleazy, corrupt, desperate to cling on to power by manipulating both constituency boundaries and election timings, incompetent at managing the economy, involved in strategic wars and (ultimately) discredited.

And the two generations currently between 40 and 80 are the largest two generations of Britons ever. One of the reasons for youth disenchantment that I don’t see talked about much is demographics at its simplest. For the last 25 years, at every election, the youth vote has looked at the Baby Boomers and realised that they could all, every one of them, vote and still lose, because there are so many less of them. So they don’t bother. My generation and the one behind mine were disenfranchised purely by demographic inevitability; our votes just didn’t matter, the loyalties of the 1970s would still determine every single fecking election.

Finally, 20 years after the Berlin Wall fell, if you add up the surviving liberals from the previous two generations with the overwhelming liberalism of those under 40, it looks like we might beat the demographic counterweight which pulls the public perception of politics in Britain far to the right of where the Overton window actually is.

7. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

I’d agree with your last sentence though. The polling on “would you vote Lib Dem if…” tends to show that there is a general undercurrent of a portion of the UK to want to vote Lib Dem but fear being irrelevant if they do so.

I understand 50% would vote Lib Dem, if they thought they had a chance of winning.

Fair enough John, my misunderstanding! Interesting viewpoint on it all, cheers 🙂

Given the current UK Polling Report puts the parties on 33:27:30, I await the follow-up to this article:

“Labour support has collapsed nationally to its lowest level since 1918”

You can see for yourself Tim, Labour support has clearly also collapsed…but that was always part of the narrative. It’s not a surprise. What wasn’t expected was for the Tories to be doing no better than 2005.

It’s not a surprise

I am genuinely, honestly surprised that Labour are polling regularly in the mid-20s. I had always assumed that they would be around the 30 mark.

I am, of course, also surprised that the Tories have fallen so far back! I hadn’t guessed at the sort of Cleggasm that we’ve seen. Like most amazing sudden bursts in popularity, I suspect that the hangover will be pretty heavy. But it look more and more as though this is going to happen after the election.

12. Gaf the Horse

Tory number of votes since 1979:

1979 – 13,697,923 44%
1983 – 13,012,316 42%
1987 – 13,760,935 42%
1992 – 14,093,007 42%
1997 – 9,600,943 31%
2001 – 8,357,615 32%
2005 – 8,772,598 32%

As you can see since 1997 the Tories have pretty much reverted to their core vote of around 8-9 million people. These are the sort of people who like the anti-Europe, anti-immigration sort of message that they pushed in 2001 and 2005 so successfully 🙂

So this is why Cameron has tried so hard to de-toxify the brand. He knows that the right wing rhetoric so beloved of the party faithful just doesn’t play with the wider population, (this might seem to go against the general anti-Europe, anti-immigrant feel that you get in the UK as a whole, but I wonder how much of this is a small number of people talking about it all the time in the press, whereas people generally are more worried about the economy).

Unfortunately for him the only reason his vote share was looking good was the amount of people who weren’t going to vote or were “don’t knows”. The second someone different stands up and is noticed, bang, all the don’t knows go that way he’s back to his core voters again. What he should have done here is to stand his ground and stick to his original message, he could probably have still managed to get at least close to a majority, but the Tories being what they are they revert to form and start shouting loudly about the very things that have turned people off them in the first place.

The great news for all of us liberals and socialists is that this core vote is dying off. I mean, did you see the last Tory conference? It looked like a George A. Romero film! “Tories of the living dead” maybe?

Just my opinion of course. Would be interested to know what sort of percentage the vote numbers above are based on the electorate at the time, the % there are of people who actually voted. The only figure I was able to find for the size of the electorate was for 1992, 43M.

13. Gaf the Horse

Forgot to add, look at the figures above. John Major was more popular than Thatcher ever was. Unless I made a mistake when I copied the figures, who’d have though that eh?

14. Mike Killingworth

[13] Well, it depends what you look at. 14 is a bigger number than 13, and 44 is a bigger number than 42. But I doubt if even George Osborne expects his party to top ten million votes this time, no matter what the turnout, so it is fair to say that the detoxification has failed. And, as has been said, most of the activists wanted to fight on Michael Howard’s 2005 manifesto or something to the right of that.

The least unlikely outcome is a Cameron minority government, which will have to cut government expenditure by about 4% a year in real terms to bring the debt back to manageable proportions. Since efficiency savings are hardly likely to exceed 1% a year in real terms, that implies the “savage” cuts Nick Clegg wants to see in front-line services.

If Cameron has any sense he’ll commission lots of polls to find out which cuts swing voters find least unpalatable, and make those – irrespective of any logic or lack of it. And as others here have already noticed, the demographic power of the bay boomers will tell. Fees for sixth form education, for example, will probably come before withdrawing Freedom Passes from well-to-do pensioners.

I am genuinely, honestly surprised that Labour are polling regularly in the mid-20s

The Libdems have taken a lot of the tactical and annoyed lefties vote.

The Libdems have taken a lot of the tactical and annoyed lefties vote.

I thought they’d done that in 2005 – the Iraq war and all that. Certainly everyone was saying that the reason that Labour polled so poorly was that the left had deserted them.

17. Gaf the Horse

@14 I was talking, (very tongue in cheek), about the number of people voting. It is interesting however, when Major is seen as a big failure, and Thatcher very important, (either good or bad depending on your viewpoint), that he did pick up pretty much the same amount of votes as his predecessor, at last on his first go anyway. I bet Gordon is wishing he could say the same ….

Tim, the LDs partially took it in 2005, but not all of it. Some of it held their noses, some of it looked at the Tories, running on a bring out the base core votes strategy and voted tactically Labour anyway, some of it continued to support a decent local MP (definitely the case in the constituency I now live in). Some of it simply stayed at home.

Like me. I didn’t vote in 2005, not actually because I didn’t want to, but because my council messed up my registration; but I wasn’t motivated enough to fight it. In 2001, I voted Labour, in 1997, different consituency, I voted LD.

If I’d lived where I live now in 2005, I’d have voted for my standing down MP, who’s notionally Labour, but was one of the Iraq rebels (and one of the ID card rebels, and one of the post office rebels, and, well, pick a rebellion).

I think a lot of people underestimate the strength of a personal vote for a decent MP; on aggregate, nationally, it balances out, but if her vote in this constituency had followed national trend since 1997, she’d have lost her seat last time.

I think, overall, that JQP is right; for a long long time, Liberal leaders were saying that they appealed to “the new type of people” (I think it was Grimond who first said it, it’s on YouTube somewhere I think). But many of us new types were voting tactically against the bastard Tories and for, to be fair, a fairly liberal policy platform in 97 and 2001. There wasn’t much between Blair and Ashdown’s platform in the 97 election, unlike now where there’s a massive difference.

Tactical unwind has accelerated, and combined with a new, potential, swing; that of non-voting to voting. Sunny’s been right on this, the most important individual thing to do, come polling day, is get out the vote.

Lee; excellent analysis, really glad someone’s got the time to do this and do it well, nice to see where the vote surge is coming. Especially big where I live (Yorksher) and where I’m from (the SW). On those figures, both my current seat and where I grew up turn yellow next week.

The former I was expecting, the latter? Looks like when I said on Twitter Totnes wouldn’t fall, I might’ve been wrong.

And someday I’ll learn to tick that box underneath.

Oh, Gaf, yes, you’re completely correct, John Major’s Conservatives were, electorally, the most popular party ever in terms of votes cast. That’s fairly well known in the dry academic circles, completely ignored by the heartland Tories, who can only count seats won, and don’t understand electoral arithmetic at all.

It probably helped that it was going to be a very close election, the outcome was unknown with a hung parliament predicted, and he ran a blindingly good campaign; I was 17, studied it while it was ongoing at school, and restudied it at 25 as part of my degree.

Duverger’s Law applied in force in 1992, Duverger’s Corollary explained Thatcher’s apparent strength in the 1980s.

Close election, unknown result, predicted hung parliament. Sound familiar?

Turnout’s going to be up, way up, this time.

Cheers MatGB, it’s also been covered by the UKPollingReport site a bit (was a bit miffed to see it posted just before I’d finished doing this!) but is to be expected and good that it’s getting out there.

Lib Dems are definitely hitting the South West, Yorkshire and London. There’s about 50-70 seats with a likely extremely close result (less than 1000 votes in it if current polls are accurate), which would probably see a net move of a further 20-30 seats to the Lib Dems with a concerted effort.

However the Tories are also very close to picking up any of those seats lost to the Lib Dems from Labour if they get some more support as well, so I’d actually see the main fight now for the last week being between Labour and Tory to stem the Labour descent.

@ 6 John Q. Publican

I was born in 1954 and cannot ‘remember getting personal, tangible advantage from a Tory government’ (and I live in a council flat which I have not bought).

The first election I can remember was 1964 and people were glad to be shot ‘arisocratic Tories who smelt of the grouse moor’ and who had given us ’13 wasted years’ (sounds kinda familiar).

Heath, though regarded as moderate now (& who considered himself to the left of Blair), was detested at the time and his first two years in power he pursued policies not dissimilar to Thatcher’s – the “Selsdon Man” policies – till his 1972 U-turn. When he took on the NUM in the first 1974 general election asking ‘Who Governs Britain? the electorate replied “not you mate”.

My parents lived through a depression, a world war and an age of austerity and rationing, but their generation still supplied us with the welfare state and the NHS.

It was the ‘nanny state’ that supplied Thatcher with her education, if she’d been born 10 years earlier we’d probably never have heard of her.

Then having benefited from all this state provision the baby boomers decided they didn’t fancy paying for it any more (though not allbaby boomers, not me for a start). So we started all this “rolling back the state”.

IMO David Willetts has balls of brass writing ‘The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children’s Future with his thesis that: ‘the big generation of boomers has concentrated wealth, adopted a hegemonic position over national culture and failed to attend to the needs of the future. They have, in effect, broken the inter-generational ­contract’ not because it is necessarilly false (though I have plenty criticisms, baby boomers were no worse than ­previous generations, including those born between 1900 and 1920).

No, Willets has balls of brass because who first encouraged rolling back the state, individualism, low tax, ‘greed is good’ policies that frittered away the next generation’s wealth? The Thatcher government. And who was one of the leading Thatcherite idealogues? Step forward ‘Two Brains’ Willetts.

I won’t be voting at this election. I used to hold me nose and always vote Labour, but not since Blair took over, (including when they were in opposition). I never had any illusions about Blair and New Labour so I can’t be called a ‘disillusioned former Labour voter’. I have no one left to vote for.

During the ’60s and ’70s counter-culture era ‘Oz’ editor Richard Neville always encouraged a very sceptical alternatiive-left to vote Labour in general elections. He used to justify this by saying “there is very little space between the Labour and the Conservative parties, but what space there is is the space we live in”.

There is no space there any more,

Just to sound a note of caution on the “Tory vote is old and dying off” narrative.

It’s likely not as simple as that. This assumes voting patterns of people are fixed at a young age. Over decades that is likely not the case. The “over 40s Tory vote” could as much be an artefact of “richer people vote more Tory, as you get older you get richer” effect as of voting preferences fixed in the 1970s.

I.e. You could look at a Tory conference today, note they are all old and predict them dying off….. Ony to look back in 2030 and see an identically sized Tory vote, still all over 40 as the “old guard” who died off are replaced with all the 2010 “young voters” who got older and more Tory !! No doubt leading some to predict it’ll all be over by 2050 when they have died off, ad infinitum.

The party of “lower taxes on the rich” are ALWAYS going to have an old vote as many more 50 year olds are rich than 18 year olds….. And the party of “services for the poor paid for with higher taxation on high earners” are always going to have more support among the still young and low earning than the older rich.

This is not to say the effect is entiely inoperative…… Just that it’s likely to be far less decisive than the “counting the blue rinses at conference” method is likely to lead you to believe.

Captain Swing:

Afaict, you’ve just proved my point. Your only two options cited are Labour (who you don’t trust, rightly) and the Tories (who you don’t trust, rightly). But you don’t even once consider the LibDems, and there’s a very large amount of living space between their policies and those of the red and blue teams. Your voting analysis is intrinsically tribal, and it sees only the tribes who vied for power in the 1970s.

Those of us who have come to political awareness since 1985 have seen Labour and the Tories as having very little space between them, and the Liberal Democrats as being the only party that offers any hope at all.


I completely concur that i was only citing one of the factors. The tribal Labour vote has exactly the same problem; I fully expect the Labour party to cease to be electorally relevant at all. The Tories, I suspect, will never drop much below 10% of the vote, regardless.

Much of Labour’s core vote, like Gillian Duffy, are socially violently right wing but support Labour because they are old enough to have been employed prior to the breaking of the Unions. Anyone who wasn’t has very little reason to vote Labour except tactics to avoid the Tories.

I completely concur that the other reason older people vote Tory is that older people have all the money, but there’s more to it than just the natural process of earning over a lifetime. We’re talking about two quite specific generations here, who happened to cover the period when Britain went post-industrial.

The Baby Boomers were born to a generation large chunks of which died young, due to war damage or relatively poor medical care. Many, many of the Boomers inherited assets young, thus distributing wealth into a younger generation, giving people young enough to have energy and vision the wealth to be entrepreneurs. They also had a very positive labour market to develop careers in, and a lot of dead mens shoes to fill, which helped redistribute both assets and power across the generations.

Very, very few of their own generation have died young in Britain, because we didn’t fight the Vietnam war and relatively few people died in the Falklands. Even less of the generation below the Boomers, those who are the parents of the cohort that are leaving University now, have died young, because medical care keeps improving and because both alcohol and tobacco useage are much less embedded.

Add to that the pulling up of the ladder behind Thatcher’s new middle class, ending the culture of upward mobility which existed for everyone born prior to 1970, and you have an unusual concentration of both wealth and asset power, and an overwhelming dominance at the ballot-box, stuck to the hands of perhaps six cohorts of people. And, most importantly: power and wealth were shifted into their hands quite young, and have been retained for an unprecedented number of decades without significant redistribution.

As a result, for most of their adult lives, the public discourse has been that of their generation’s concerns. Only by pandering to that one demographic could anyone win an election. his is simply not true for anyone born after 1970; for all of our lives, the public discourse has only been of interest to our parents. Alix Mortimer pointed this out after the first debate; Lab and Con answered a question from a student about education as if it had been a question from a parent or a teacher. #iagreewith Nick answered as if it was about the students.

Many of those born between 1945 and 1970 have come to see the matter of Britain as their private preserve; they have overwhelmingly come to see political dominance as their natural right. The sense of embedded privilege represented by a politician saying on national television, “Of course, people who are 20 now will have to work much longer but it’s not fair to expect today’s fifty-year-olds to do so” is quite disgusting.

Those two generations are overwhelmingly tribal voters, for whom both Labour and the Tories have pandered throughout heir working lifetimes, and who have been subject to 40 or 50 years of propaganda telling them a Liberal vote is a wasted vote. Finally, there are enough of us coming up behind them that we’ve managed to make even a dent in an election. Even so, we still can’t win it; give us another 10 years.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Boris Watch

    RT @libcon Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels < likely more *voters* though, if turnout goes up

  2. Carl Legge

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels >>> Interesting stuff!

  3. Kevin Arscott

    RT @andrewspooner: RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  4. jimbobthomas

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  5. Andy Sutherland

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  6. Max

    @libcon Tory share collapse nationlly to 2005 levl >> most accurate of party share projectn since Tory vote isn't split

  7. Rachel Smith

    RT @Niaccurshi: Lib Dem support urges as Tory vote collapses to 2005 levels or below in 8 of 11 regions. #ukelectio …

  8. Jenni Jackson

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  9. sciamachy

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  10. Beauchamp74

    @Conservatives We are heading for #libdemmajority the Tory vote has collapsed #clegg #pleasetellmewhy

  11. Beauchamp74

    Tory vote has collapsed #ukelection

  12. Sarah Raphael

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  13. Tom Sheppard

    I'm Reading: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels: Wondering why the Tory party decided yesterday …

  14. Laura Evans

    RT @Thomas_Butcher: @Conservatives We are heading for #libdemmajority the Tory vote has collapsed #clegg #pleasetel …

  15. Liberal Conspiracy

    Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  16. Chris Wiggin

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  17. joey coco

    RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  18. Gareth Winchester

    RT @libcon Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels #ge2010 #ukelection

  19. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  20. Me Myself and I

    And Labour to lowest ever #change RT @jimbobthomas: RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  21. Cosmodaddy » Blog Archive » Heckler Abused by Tories

    […] is the party whose support is in freefall. ‘Change’ isn’t playing. The ‘Big Society’ isn’t playing. The […]

  22. Beauchamp74

    Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels #clegg #cameron @dailypolitics @bbc

  23. Max

    @libcon Tory share collapse nationlly to 2005 levl >> whereas Labour could improve by 6th May as Clegg veneer cracks

  24. Beauchamp74

    Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels @iaindale

  25. Lee Griffin

    Lib Dem support urges as Tory vote collapses to 2005 levels or below in 8 of 11 regions. #ukelection #nickcleggsfault

  26. Beauchamp74

    #libdemmajority Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels #clegg

  27. Laura Evans

    RT @Thomas_Butcher: #libdemmajority Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels #clegg

  28. Leon Green

    RT @libcon Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels <-fascinating reading…

  29. Keir Lumsden

    RT @jenni_jackson: RT @libcon: Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels

  30. Sarah Hurson

    RT @Thomas_Butcher: #libdemmajority Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels #clegg

  31. Sarah Hurson

    RT @Thomas_Butcher: @Conservatives We are heading for #libdemmajority the Tory vote has collapsed #clegg #pleasetellmewhy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.