UKPollingReport

Does this point to a Labour standstill or small decline?

In the week before Christmas Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report put forward the theory that Labour’s standing in the polls was closely linked with how optimistic the public were about the economy or the level of consumer confidence.

He argued that Labour’s low point in the early summer coincided with the low points on the Ipsos-MORI Economic Optimism Index and the Nationwide Building Society Consumer Confidence Index.

Thus while the world economic storm was dominating the headlines in the September - November 2008 period these two indices were actually seeing sharp rises which coincided with the Brown bounce.

The argument was that people felt things were getting better inspired, possibly, by a sense that the situation was under control. Also, of course, motorists and mortgage payers were seeing sharp reductions in their costs.

Well now comes the real test for the thesis. The latest Nationwide consumer confidence numbers are out and show a dip as seen in the chart above. Will this be reflected in the January voting intention surveys?

We shouldn’t have too long to wait. Fieldwork for the January Populus survey for the Times starts on Friday and continues over the weekend and we might also see one or two polls in the Sunday papers. The Sunday Times YouGov poll often comes out at this stage in the month and there might just be ComRes and ICM as well.

If this does stand up then the theory promises to be a great tool for gamblers - particularly those betting on the general election markets. (William Hill’s wide range of UK political prices are generally available daytime only)

For if you can predict with a level of confidence that it’s getting better or worse for the government then it might be wise to bet before the voting intention polling numbers come out.

The trouble is, of course, that the bookies read PB as well and if the Wells thesis is correct then they will be soon adjusting their prices in line with these two indices.

Is the school providing the 2009 betting movers?

After the last thread on Ken Clarke’s possible return to a front-bench position it’s quite striking to note how many of the potential 2009 political betting “movers” were all educated at the same school - Nottingham High.

Yesterday I put £50 on another ex-pupil, Ed Balls, at 16/1 in Ladbroke’s Chancellor on New Year’s Eve 2009 market. Clearly Darling looks set to stay the course but in the current economic storm then the chances of a move here must be high.

And Balls, of course, played a key role supporting Brown at the treasury in the period up to him becoming an MP in 2005. The two are said to be very close and if it is a case of “move over Darling” then surely Balls is in with a big chance, That 16/1 looks tasty.

Also in the running on the Ladbrokes market is Ken Clarke himself at 28/1. To win three things need to happen: a 2009 general election; a victory for the Tories; and for Cameron to have moved Osborne on. I’m not so sure that these pre-conditions can be met.

But Clarke’s return, if that is indeed what happens, could provide what political gamblers all love - a Westminster by-election in his Rushcliffe seat. For if Clarke is going to shadow Peter Mandelson then how is he going to do it effectively in the commons - Mandy is now, of course, a Lord. An elevation to the upper house for Ken with the consequential vacancy could possibly be on the cards.

Another possible 2009 by-election could involve our third prominent Nottingham High old boy - Geoff Hoon. He’s being strongly tipped as Britain’s next EU commissioner and if that happens there would be a by-election in his Ashfield seat. This would not be the first time that Ashfield has had to have an election because its sitting MP has taken a Brussels job. In 1977 the Tories pulled off a big victory there. Could the same repeat itself in 2009?

With a swing the size of what happened in Crewe & Nantwich in May 2008 that could be just possible. But my sense is that after Glenrothes the Labour by-election machine is in a better state and this might not be as easy.

A final ex-Nottingham High boy who is in the betting is Ed Davey. He’s down with William Hill’s as the 7/1 third favourite to succeed Nick Clegg as Lib Dem leader.

Would not appointing him now seem like a defeat?

As the Daily Mail is reporting this morning David Cameron “..did not rule out an audacious move to appoint Mr Clarke to the Shadow Cabinet when asked about the possibility for the first time yesterday.”

Certainly the speculation about a return of the 68 year old ex-Chancellor has been allowed to continue for more than a week and if it doesn’t happen then it could appear as though the leader has given in to shadow cabinet members and others who are reported to be strongly opposed. The Telegraph is talking about a “Shadow cabinet revolt”.

This, of course, comes on top of the fight before Christmas when the Tory leader had to withdraw plans to stop his top team having outside interests - something that might prove problematical in the run-up to the general election.

The main problem with Clarke, of course, goes back to his pro-EU views which almost certainly cost him the leadership in the past. The appointment now could open up some of those splits once again. Clarke is also one of the few leading Tories who was opposed to the Iraq war - an element that has added to the mistrust.

The main benefit is that Clarke is a “big beast” who comes over effectively on TV and in the media. He would add much needed fire-power to a front-bench team that is not very well known. He could play a key role in getting the party message out on the economy - something that Osborne sometimes appears to be struggling with - which in itself could create a problem. This would no doubt be spun as a defeat for the shadow chancellor.

Clarke would also seem to be the ideal person to go up against Labour’s “come-back kid”, Peter Mandelson, and a return would really spice up politics in the run-up to the general election. One issue that hasn’t been raised is whether Clarke would have to go to the House of Lords.

Cameron might be quite pleased at the way the Mail is reporting it - which is in sharp contrast to the Telegraph report which is full of negatives. Certainly you can see the latter, which threw everything it could against Clarke in the 2001 leadership contest, being none too happy.

Would a bit more frankness help his position?

It’s inevitable, I suppose, given the total cock-up in Labour’s communications ahead of the election that never was in October 2007, that Brown is going to be pressed about the date whenever he submits himself to an interview.

This came up in the latest Andrew Marr interview and it will come up time and time again. So why doesn’t he make an effort to sound convincing?

For perhaps the most damaging feature of the October 2007 debacle was his refusal to accept that the apparent change of mind had anything to do with the opinion polls. He just looked shifty and Cameron exploited that brilliantly.

Surely everybody would accept that a Prime Minister who believes that what he/she is doing is good for the country will want to continue in the role and for the party to be re-elected. And as we near the end of the fourth year of a parliament there’s bound to be increasing speculation and, of course, he/she will be scrutinising every new poll for possible indications.

So why not just say so in so many terms? Why get into the form of words and contortions that seemed to afflict Brown yesterday? It simply doesn’t make sense.

This, of course, is going to explode if a voting intention survey from one of the mainstream pollsters has Labour equal or even ahead. Brown Central needs to get its thinking cap on.

General election betting