The pollster’s view of his poll
July 27th, 2004
-
Andrew Cooper, head of Populus, posted this comment last night about his latest 30-28-28 poll. We thought it should be given a wider platform.
Don’t look at the micro-movements - concentrate on the big picture. The next election result is not going to be 30-28-28; if the election had happened over the weekend when we polled the result wouldn’t have been 30-28-28. People are by and large aware of the context in which they’re being asked.
The most telling number in the poll - as in all recent polls - was the sum of ‘others’. They were 6.7% in 2001. Lately they have been in the range of 12-16%. It is highly unlikely they will be anywhere near that when the issue is the immediate and real one of who people want to govern them (with however many caveats they may have about each of the main parties). The story of politics now is this measure (and that unknowable part of the swelling of the Lib Dem share which is a function of the same thing) of how many people BOTH want to vote against the government of the day AND refuse to let the main opposition party be the object of their protest.
It is true that the headline numbers of the polls are as bad or worse for Labour than for the Tories but historical context surely puts that in a different context: it has long been the pattern in British politics for governments to fall far behind in mid-term polls (and to reach a stage where they are incapable of defending any seat at all in a by-election) and then to win. The defining feature of our current politics is that the Tory Party isn’t seen even as something that people can back even in a mid-term poll - let alone a by-election!
The most telling Populus poll question (which I hadn’t expected to be remotely as revealing when drafting it) shows (from memory - forgive me if this isn’t quite right) that roughly three quarters of voters are ‘disappointed in the Labour government overrall’ but that roughly two-thirds nonetheless would rather keep this government than have a Tory one. S That political mood is not one in which the Tories are going to gain many (if any) seats. I bet you know loads of people who bitterly grumble about the government. But I also bet you don’t know anyone who has positively switched back to the Tories.
The story of the Parliament is big swing from Labour to Lib Dem and tiny swing from Labour to Tory. For as long as we need to add in a net swing from Tory to UKIP the bottom line effect is unavoidable. I don’t bet on seats but if I did I’d stay away from Lib Dems (just too unpredictable with multi-swing factors) and look at Labour & Tories. It is said that Philip Gould - who knows at least as much as anyone else about the way people in this country think about politics - has privately briefed the Cabinet that Labour are on course (other things being equal) for another majority of over 100. Everything I see says he’s probably right - which must make current odds very appetising for the brave.
Andrew’s point that ” it has long been the pattern in British politics for governments to fall far behind in mid-term polls (and to reach a stage where they are incapable of defending any seat at all in a by-election) and then to win. is certainly true for the Tories. But there’s no experience of this with Labour. They always fall back before elections.
MessageSpace Advertising
Labour didn\’t win in 1970 or 1979, but they certainly recovered a good deal of the support they had lost in mid-term. To that extent, Andrew Cooper\’s point is valid.
There are many ways in which current politics is unprecedented; the big support for \”others\” noted by Andrew Cooper; the fact that the governing party has come third in local elections; the huge poll lead enjoyed by Labour consistently from 1993 to 2003; the fact that Conservatives and Labour between them won less than 50% of the vote in the European elections.
All of this suggests to me that past precedent may not be that helpful in making a prediction.
To a certain extent I agree - we are in uncharted territory. But there are still some educated guesses we can make. The others (and particularly European focussed parties UKIP and to some extent the Greens) will poll less than their current ratings in a General Election. The Lib Dems are enjoying a post Leicester bounce and are likely to see their poll ratings fall back (by how much is debatable with another by-election in the offing). The Government is likely to come back from their position now - particularly as the war recedes in political importance (probably not until after the US presidential election).
Psephologically we know the odds are stacked against the Tories and Labour only have to poll in the mid 30s to be pretty much guaranteed a majority.
When you add these factors together you get a vote share in the order of Labour high 30s, Tories low 30s and Lib Dems low 20s. Another big win for Labour, with Tories less than 200 and the Lib Dems picking up some modest gains (probably pretty evenly from both parties).
What are the factors that could change this?
Major party splits or mass defections or leadership election - pretty unlikely in my view.
US Presidential election victory for the Democrats and an opening of the files on Iraq intelligence etc - in my view a Dem victory is possible (but how much would they want to embarrass Tony over the war? - unlikely)
UKIP victory in Hartlepool - possible but likely effect is to take share from the Tories (and Lib Dems to lesser extent)
Major down-turn in economy - unlikely that the effects will be seen in the short turn (although substantial interest rate rises could hurt Labour)
Bearing all this in mind - although we are in uncharted water - I think Andrew Cooper\’s view is pretty much spot on.
I think that a Kerry victory would be unabashed good news for Blair politically and a Bush victory could be a disaster.
Why would that be, Alex?
A Bush defeat would mean that every leader who had supported the War had gone on to electoral defeat - apart from Tony Blair. The question would be - would he go to? The BBC are not going to let this one go.
If Bush wins it is also bad for Blair because the Preseident would be seen as an albatross on his back.
Blair won in 2001 on a much reduced majority of votes but nobody noticed. If he wins a big majority of seats with, say, 35% of the vote then the whole legitimacy of his Government would repeatedly be questioned. The House of Lords would be very obstructive - the courts would be difficult. Blair would have been seen to have got away with it again.
The Tories are already preparing the ground for this. The Lib Dems would be willing fellow travellers.
This would not be like 1951 where the Tories at least had 48% of the vote even if Labour had a few hundred thousand more
Not every leader - John Howard is still hanging on in there as an actively pro-war leader in Australia and the polls look as if they are moving in his direction after a rocky patch.
The Worldwide trend seems to be to bash incumbents generally, rather than just to bash pro-War incumbents. The Canadian Liberals lost their overall majority recently, and Chirac and Schroder are both in trouble.
Fair point. I forget about Howard.
If Bush wins it will mean Blair will face constant questioning whenever someone somewhere in the administration says that America should invade Iran, Syria, North Korea (insert rogue state here). He would constantly have to state what a great leader George Bush is, how we must stick close to America - the usual stuff. He can just about get away with it with his backbenches at the moment, who are prepared to hold fire because they are all praying that Kerry wins in November and things will be back to normal.
Suggesting that Kerry winning would harm Blair by indicating that pro-war leaders will fall is facile. Every country is different, and in America there is nowhere else for anti-warriors to turn, so Kerry doesn\’t have to do the contortions that eg. Michael Howard has had to go through to try and pick up some anti-war vote, despite his record of voting in favour. Anyway I think the issue is trust and competence, not the war directly.
Anyway I think it is clear that one of the main planks of Blair\’s foreign policy throughout his time in Government has been to stick close to the US, regardless of the Presidency\’s political hue. He would have no trouble aligning with Kerry (and Kerry would be happy to have him - Blair is still popular in the US as shown by John Edwards\’ praise of him), especially as he is actually preaching a message far more in tune with Blair\’s true feelings. (read Blair\’s speech to the US congress - \”it is easier to win wars acting alone, but easier to win the aftermath acting with others\” [paraphrasing] - about as close as you are going to get to criticism of the US administration\’s attitude)
Kerry will calm the backbenches down (they will be less frightened of being dragged into another foreign adventure against their will), and by demonstrating friendship with him Blair will be able to reduce a lot of the anti-Americanism which has helped reduce his (as a perceived American proxy) popularity.
One shouldnt forget that the Labour vote collapsed in by-elections in their first term too.
Leeds C 6361 (25766 1n 1997)
Wigan 9641 (30043)
Hamilton S 7172 (21709)
Tottenham 8785 (26121)
Although their opinion poll rating didn\’t villan.
In the first term the general pattern was Labour doing badly in elections, but the opinion polls stubbornly refusing to reflect that. I find it quite interesting that what is happening now is that their opinion poll ratings are also poor now - could this suggest that many of their erstwhile supporters are lost to the party forever? (or at least while Blair is in power).
It was also interesting during 2000 how badly Labour were doing in council by-elections and how well the Tories and Lib Dems were progressing. See http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/gains00.htm
Yet the poll ratings stayed very high and, as we saw at the General Election, these were probably a better guide because turnouts are so much higher.
What\’s unusual are the low Labour ratings now. Have people been lost for good? Have they \”fallen out love\” as Alan Watkins described it at the weekend? Where will they go - certainly not many to the Tories. It\’s a fascinating scenario and reinforced by the news on the big decline in party membership to its lowest level for 71 years.
Alex - I\’m not denying that Labour has lost support (as per the opinion polls) - just pointing out that recent by-elections dont really tell us anything on that score. They are good for the LibDems and bad for the Tories, but they dont prove anything either way about the level of Labours support. 2/3rds to 3/4ters of Labour voters stayed at home, but thet did before 2001 too.
The big question, as you say, is how many of those missing voters will stir themselves for a General Election. You cant deduce that from by-election results and Andrew Cooper evidently doesnt believe that you can deduce it from the current opinion polls either.
\”The next election result is not going to be 30-28-28; if the election had happened over the weekend when we polled the result wouldn’t have been 30-28-28\”.
Which is honest of him, but doesnt get us much further!
In response to Mike\’s comment at 12 it is interesting to see the differences in Labour\’s poll ratings now and four years ago (which had been pretty immovable with Labour in the high forties/early 50s since about 1994). My view then was that they seriously overestimated Labour\’s share for two reasons - the one identified by pollsters and because of the almost complete dissapearance of the Lib Dems from people\’s (and the media\’s) radar. The pollsters got the Tory share pretty much spot on and consistently over-estimated Labour and underestimated the Lib Dems by about 5% points. When presented with the \’who you will vote for\’ question without the context of a campaign then people will answer \’Labour\’ when they are not Tory in these circumstances. Once you had the campaign - with balanced air time and the local voting dynamics become more widely known - the Lib Dem share went up and Labour\’s went down.
The interesting question is - with the Lib Dems higher profile due to their stance on the war - will they benefit similarly next time? I\’m not so sure - in 1987 when the Alliance had a similar profile its share fell through the campaign.
It seems to be widely understood and agreed that Labour\’s extra govt spending on health and education represents very poor value for money. Nobody believes a word Tony Blair says, and nobody trusts him. He has no support from died-in-the-wool labour voters. Nobody knows what his philosophy is, or what he stands for. Apart from the fact that there seems to be no enthusism for Howard\’s tories, why is he a shoe-in for the next election?
I think that there is one factor which most pollsters underestimate, and therefore do not ask quite the right question. There is a considerable number of people(voters) who respect one thing alone–stregnth. Sure, if forced to think about specific issues, Blair scores poorly. But that is not what the majority of people who are employees worry about when they come to vote. They are unsurprised when their guv\’nor proves to be neither honest nor trustworthy. They are relaxed when he seems to be feathering his own nest–its what they are trying to do anyway. (Similarly, when Mrs Thathcher was accused of helping her son with a business deal, the chattering classes were appalled. The man-in-the-street would have been amazed if she hadn\’t given him a \’leg up\’). Obvious stregnth and a visible impression of who was in charge was a key part of her
electoral success as well.
Will Blair be able to get away with this for ever? Clearly not, as at some point an employee gets fed up and would like a change. An although command and stregnth are good and even arrogance is tolerated, smugness is not.
So why do I think that the pollsters under-weight this point? It is because they haven\’t been employees themselves, and don\’t empathise with them on this score.
Are there any dangers to Blair at the next election? I can think of only one. If he lost the support of the Sun, I\’d be a big seller of labour seats at nearly any price. If he were guaranteed their backing, I\’d would disagree with this site\’s reccommendation to sell Labour seats at 346. I have a vague feeling that the Sun\’s enthusism for Blair may be a bit flaky, but that could be wishful thinking….
Some interesting points David - particularly about strength - which are backed up by some of the recent polling - Blair is seen as strong, efficient, in control etc.
As for the Sun - I think the relationship works the other way round - the Sun backs winners. As soon as Blair looks a certain loser they will switch. But they will keep plugging away on their agenda (which includes undermining things and people they don\’t like).
To Dan - 14 - the Lib Dems position as the only party to have opposed the war will continue to give them a good profile, particuarly on the BBC and the mainstream broadcasters which have to balance everything. Whenever anything comes up there is a Lib Dem person to comment. Spokesman like Menzies Campbell are getting a huge amount of coverage compared with earlier days. This has the effect of keeping the party in the public eye in a way that did not happen before. And the more they are in the public eye those surveyed in polls remember them thus reinforcing the whole process.
The BBC also seem intent on keeping the war issue there and Blair is going to find it hard to \”draw a line\” under it.
Mike, I can see Iraq doing some damage to Labour, in University seats, as you have already identified, and in some seats with large Muslim populations. Do you think the issue will resonate beyond such places though?
Very interesting points, David. A number of issues which matter enormously to the political class don\’t bother the public very much.
One other issue that should be explored is that from the end of the Second World War till the start of the nineties, an opposition could rely on economic problems making the government of the day unpopular. During much of this period, we had sterling crises, balance of payments crises, strikes, high unemployment, high inflation, and relative economic decline. It was terribly easy to pin the blame for this on the government of the day. Now it is a good deal harder for an opposition to make headway, I should think,although Canadian experience suggests that a strong economy does not benefit the ruling party forever.
I too find it difficult to believe in a liberal break through - the accepted view is that voters tend to return to the two main parties - in fact Lib Dems ratings have recently tended to improve in general election campaigns. With poll ratigs below 20% this didnt make nuch difference but with poll rastings of 25% or over then the electoral system will cause a amssive change in seats - the tipping point will ahve been reached - There is no enthusiasm for Labour out there (based on S leicester campaigning) and not much for Tories
Sorry about typos!!
The standard explanation for the Liberal\’s polling poorly mid-term is that their public profile is dramatically reduced. They naturally get boosts around the time of Party conferences, Local elections and by-elections which fall back as they recede from the picture again. However their status as main opposition party against the war has contributed to raising their profile and maintaining it, to the extent that the polls are probably reflecting support above that which could be expected in a General Election (assuming we can rely on historical precedents).
qsnimvxo…
xqwoiiisw vaeteuicnm ixlkgxx kueodguynq …