Labour down 2 points with ICM
January 8th, 2005-
Is the Brown/Blair split costing votes?
Labour has slipped 2% in the first poll of 2005 which also shows that more people want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister than Tony Blair. This brings ICM back into the line with the other pollsters who have all shown Labour slipping back a little since November.
By way of comparison the average Labour share with ICM in 2000, the year before the last General Election, was 48%. Tomorrow’s poll shows that the party’s rating is down between a quarter and a fifth. The big bonus for Labour is that the Tories continue to flat-line but the Lib Dems are well up.
The last ICM poll had the party Labour back at 40% for the first time since the famous Andrew Gilligan broadcast in May 2003 and was against the overall trend.
The main party shares in tomorrow’s ICM poll are:- LAB 38 (-2): CON 31 (N/C): LD 21 (N/C)
-
If this fall is followed by other polls - the next should be from Populus on Tuesday - then it will reinforce the view that the much publicised Brown-Blair split could cost the party dearly at the election.
Some 27% of people want the Chancellor to be the next Prime Minister – 1% more than want Mr Blair to stay in the job. The poll comes amid renewed speculation over Mr Brown’s ambition to take over from Mr Blair and renewed betting activity on him moving out of Number 10 by the end of the year.
The ICM poll for tomorrow’s News of the World found just 14% wanted Tory leader Michael Howard as the next Prime Minister, compared to 15% who wanted Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. And 50% of voters said former Home Secretary David Blunkett should be brought back into the Government after the General Election.
Latest General Election spread betting prices from Spreadfair.
LAB 352-355: CON 193-197: LD 71-71.5: SNP 5-6: PC 3.8-5: UKIP 0.5-1.1
Spreadfair pays Politicalbetting a commission on each account opened through the site and this is starting to help me defray some of our growing costs. We are nowhere near break-even and if you do want to open an account please do it through the link above or in our links section on the right.
Mike Smithson.
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike
Couldn’t disagree more with your explanation for the dip (as pretty insignificant one at that especially when both the Conservatives and the LDs remain static). Most people have not picked up on the press’s latest coverage of the “TBGB’s” instead the boost for Brown has come from the suddenly much higher profile the disaster of the Indonesian Tsunami has afforded him and has allowed him to be seen in a very good light (ditto Hillary Benn, but pollsters don’t bother with relatively junior members of the cabinet sadly).
In short it’s been a difficult week with the Tsunami and the frankly unfair criticism of Blair, the boost for Brown is more to do with his higher profile than with any case of the “TBGB’s”, if it was the case that Labour had suffered a 2 point drop because of Brown-Blair feuding I doubt Brown would emerge with an enhanced reputation, so talk of “feuds” is by the by quite frankly, this ever so slight shift in the polls seems to only reflect 1.)fluctuations firmly within the MOE and 2.) The impact of the Tsunami and Blair’s reaction.
As a Lib Dem I am inclined to point out the results about Howard/Kennedy/Blair/Brown. I have always thought that Kennedy lead in the personality stakes for obvious reasons- but with only 14% of the public (according to ICM) wanting Howard as the next leader- over half of tories don’t want Howard as the next PM- he just isn’t connecting to the voters, or has a serious popularity problem. Just under a third of Lib Dems don’t want Kennedy.
The added together Blair/Brown total is 54%. That is a large cross-over from the other parties. It just shows that the other parties have no-one as high profile and leadership worthy as Labour.
Just to say the above was me- as with Tabman- the computer made me anonymous!
Hypothetical questions of this type don’t tell us very much.
In March 2003 ICM had the LD’s at 24%, tomorrow’s poll has them at 21%. This is a drop of 12.5% in support for a party that prides itself on being described as the anti-war party. When will the Lib –Dems accept that this policy has cost them votes.
Where is the Lab to LD trend that a few commentators perceive? Or that many voters appear to want a reduced Blair majority or a hung parliament?
If this poll is correct then not only Howard will go after the next GE but Kennedy as well.
I agree Sean, the “who would you rather have as PM?” question is the best example of opinion poll answers costing nothing to give. Beyond the level of satisfaction with the current PM (for which you might as well ask a direct approval question), it doesn’t seem to me to test much more than name recognition of the others.
Vino - it hasn’t actually cost them anything yet. It is plausible to argue that in March 2003 their anti-war agenda had increased their exposure; presently the war is not such an issue and exposure is not as great.
Your premise is predicated on UNS - if that doesn’t apply then you get widely varying seat numbers for only small changes in % support. Kennedy will be judged on the progress (or lack of it) he makes in seat numbers at the next GE, as will Howard.
Vino- it has won them a by-election, and on the streets where I am in a Lib Dem marginal it is po[pular and has split the local Labour party and brought many of their votes over to us. I don’t know about nationwide (although last March was a time when the Iraq debate was at its highest- so i am not surprised by a 3% fall) but I disagree it has harmed the party. For most people (including those who voted LD in our good council elections) the Iraq stance is the only issue people know the stance of the party on.
Vino
In March 2003, the war was high on many people’s agenda, and the LibDems were getting a lot of (good) publicity and reaction because of their policy.
There are other things on people’s minds right now, but if and when they are reminded, they’ll respond as they did before
Interesting Telegraph article today.
Ben - I think your loyalty to the New Labour cause is absolutely commendable - it is a pity that from a huge range of reports in the papers today that Gordon Brown does not seem to have the same approach. You ought to read the Telegraph piece which fits in with what my own contacts tell me. It is highly damaging and you are deceiving yourself if you really believe what you wrote in comment 1.
This is from the article referred to in the previous comment.
The Prime Minister systematically and repeatedly misled Gordon Brown about plans to resign last year, The Telegraph can reveal.
An explosive new book, Brown’s Britain, demonstrates that for more than six months from the end of 2003 Tony Blair repeatedly assured the Chancellor that he would quit in the autumn of 2004 but, in the end, cynically betrayed his oldest political friend and most powerful Cabinet colleague.
Gordon Brown denies that he reneged on his side of the bargain. The scale of the duplicity has caused the relationship between the two most powerful men in British politics “to degenerate into one based on mutual animosity and contempt”.
While Mr Brown and his allies put the blame for the breakdown of the partnership on Mr Blair’s treachery, allies of the Prime Minister accuse Mr Brown of disloyalty and of seeking to destabilise Mr Blair so that he could become Prime Minister himself.
Its interesting to read this story in line with Nick P’s assertion that at less rarified levels of the party there isn’t the perception of this rift between the two.
In pointing out that a Brown premiership would now be masrkedly diferent than a Blair one, I can see that having an effect on the electorate in that whilst energising more of Labour’s core vote, it may well lose them votes in the Tory/Lab marginals (the much vaunted C1/2s). Suddenly, charges of “vote Blair get Brown” become more ominous looking.
As an aside, is it a requisite that Tory Iains (Dale & Lindley) must have the extra ‘i’?
Tabman - you neglect the greatest Iain of them all surely - or has already been airbrushed out!
That’s IDS syndrome at work
To be fair, I was refering solely to our contributors, but the law does hold there too.
Mike at 13: note that the Telegraph article is plugging a book by one of their journalists!
Labour lead a mere 7% instead of 9% after a fortnight of press garbage about Blair on holiday and supposed splits, and a mere 54% favouring either Blair or Brown as PM? This is ‘costing the party dear’? I’ll take it!
Nick
Nick - One of the least endearing features of New Labour is that when under attack it does not deal with the issue but responds by seeking to smear the messenger. It sounds clever - a bit too clever by half.
The information from my contacts in this area - which might even be better than your ones’ Nick - are in accordance with the story. Given general polling over-statemnt of Labour a 2% differential could be hugely significant. In fact if the ICM poll is as accurate as the one that was published in the Evening Standard on the Tuesday before the last election then the Tories are in the lead and the Lib Dems have a tenth more votes
# 15 - Labour aren’t leading by 7%, when you take into account that Labour is usually overestimated in the polls. Remember when you were leading by 30%-40% after the election in ‘97. It goes to show how your support has decreased over the past 8 years.
“In fact if the ICM poll is as accurate as the one that was published in the Evening Standard on the Tuesday before the last election then the Tories are in the lead and the Lib Dems have a tenth more votes”
And if its as accurate as their final poll for the Guardian its spot on! Touché
Can we just put some perspective on this, Labour are down 2 points after a week of rather unfair attacks on Blair for not getting back to the UK in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, at the same time the LDs and the Tories have remained static.
If the issue of the Leadership “splits” where hurting Labour would it not have hurt rather than helped Brown while at the same time helping both the Tories and the LDs,
Mike it has to said that you have of late been trying very hard to argue that the most sensationalist storylines about the “TBGBs” are the most accurate ones and that further more such a divide is comparable with the splits in the Conservative Party in the 1990s, your mistake on both counts. As a said above if Labour was being damaged by this and if the voters where even paying attention (as I say it has become so much more background noise) Labour would be a hell of a lot further down on Decembers’ poll ratings that 2 pionts (firmly within the MOE).
I’m sorry but your argument that there is a huge personal rift between Brown and Blair which is damaging the standing of the Labour Party is just not backed up by the facts, sensationalist stories by the Telegraph are all well and good but on the same level just because its in a paper or in a new book does not make it true “The Blairs and their Court - Francis Beckett and David Hencke” being a prime example… yes I’m sure there is tension and yes Brown probably thinks its about time he got the top job but the number of times you here “the relationship between Blair and Brown has collapsed” stretches credulity to such an extent that even you must see it Mike!
Also where is your evidence that the public is even picking up on the coverage of splits or it bothered by them? And where is your evidence that it is the “split stories” and not the “Blair’s Tsunami Misstep” that has lead to this -2 points in ICM’s poll?
Mike, I see that the Sunday Times Atticus column has covered the site’s election competition. Nice one.
John O - thanks for that. The Atticus column in the Sunday Times states this morning..
Gamblers are predicting a Labour majority of 63 at the next election. Voters’ views have been collected by PoliticalBetting.Com, a political website, whose founder Mike Smithson says: “The top prediction so far is 130. The worst predicted result for Labour is being 22 MPs short of an overall majority.” There’s bad news, too, for Tory Theresa May: most gamblers say she’ll lose her Maidenhead seat.
The Brown - Blair gossip, is just that. I am sure both men can’t stand the sight of eachother, but that has been the case since 1995. It has not stopped them working together over the last 10 years to model the Labour party into a party of Government. I think those people outside of the Labour forget one thing. New Labour is as much a creation of Browns as Blairs.
Both men have a vested interest in maintaining the “peace” within the party. TB because he wants an historic 3rd term anf GB because he wants a working majority to defend in 2009. As Nick P said somewhile ago, much of the gossip in Westminster is from people on the fringes who want to feel important.
The public had paid no attention to the over the last 10 years and I don’t think they attach much weight to it now.
As for the Tory line Vote Blair get Brown - I still argue that this will be counter productive as that line will shore up the Labour core vote and halt the drift to Lib Dems by those who opposed Blairs Iraq policy.
Anon above - what’s Brown’s line on the war? And ID Cards?
Mike at 16 - that’s exactly how the legal system works: it doesn’t address the veracity or not of the issue but seeks to undermine the credibility of the person delivering the argument. And the former profession of Straw and Blair (to name but two)?
Yes indeed, TS - if I were UKIP I’d have a policy of barring lawayers from standing for Parliament!
Re 22. Browns line on the War was - let Blair get on with it !! Not sure on ID cards, although he has voted for them, but I guess thats towing the line. The price tag may put him off when he gets into Number 10
Anon - my thinking was that unless Brown explicitly states that he’s against both, it would be easy for the LDs to say “new leader no difference” and continue the drift. He’s unlikely to do that IMHO.
Ben at 18 - as this BBC piece points out (and it may be the source of Mke’s info), the truth of the matter is now largely irrelavent. THe perception now is that there is a huge rift between Brown and Blair and all media articles will be viewed through that particular prism. This will run and run right up to 5/5/05, so it will be interesting to see if it has any effect on the election date.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4159145.stm
re 27. I think there is a personality clash but not a a rift in policy terms. I think the electorate have discounted the personality clash years ago. This will only become serious in political terms if there becomes a policy rift as a result.
Steve
This is not a new development the press has always presented the relationship between Blair and Brown as at best poor and at worst down right hostile and it has never had a great impact, this new story about “splits” is just like all those that have been reported for nearly eight years now and for most people the are so much “background noise” that can be ignored as in the past… it won’t have an impact.
That said the Tsunami and Blair’s reaction when viewed in contrast to Brown’s has IMHO had the effect of boosting the Chancellor and hurting (if temporality) the PM.
If I were Labour, I’d be pretty depressed about the polling results. ICM and CR show them down since last time - and Populus and YouGov are hardly going to be much better. The public finances don’t allow for a “giveaway” Budget and what have they got left with the pseudo-George W Bush “security moms” agenda - it just doesn’t translate this side of the pond. As for the Conservatives’ poll position, a large number of Conservative voters can’t wait to get to the polling station to (metaphorically) slap Blair’s cheesy grin off his face - whereas many Labour voters will probably prefer washing their hair or taking the DVD back to the rental store rather than voting for Blair again. Finally, Dan - Iain Dale is most definitely NOT toast. Norman Lamb is - if anything - toast on the coast - which is why the LDs are now (wrongly) talking up South Norfolk…….
If I were Labour, I’d be pretty depressed about the polling results. ICM and CR show them down since last time - and Populus and YouGov are hardly going to be much better. The public finances don’t allow for a “giveaway” Budget and what have they got left with the pseudo-George W Bush “security moms” agenda - it just doesn’t translate this side of the pond. As for the Conservatives’ poll position, a large number of Conservative voters can’t wait to get to the polling station to (metaphorically) slap Blair’s cheesy grin off his face - whereas many Labour voters will probably prefer washing their hair or taking the DVD back to the rental store rather than voting for Blair again. Finally, Dan - Iain Dale is most definitely NOT toast. Norman Lamb is - if anything - toast on the coast - which is why the LDs are now (wrongly) talking up South Norfolk…….
Sarah
Yes a drop of two points is so darn depressing, such a fall isn’t even outside of the MOE what is more its in repose to a fairly rough week, at the same time the Conservatives continue to flatline in the polls.
I’m sure the average Tory voter (rare breed that they are) “can’t wait to get to the polling station to (metaphorically) slap Blair’s cheesy grin off his face” that said didn’t they feel the same back in 2001, I guess Prime Minister Hague would know.
Tory voters will be more inclined to vote, not only because they are out of power but also because they are generally older than Labour voters and as a result more likely to turnout anyway, the same of course was true in 2001. Labour turnout will be pretty much the same as in 2001, Labour will however suffer from some abstentions and defections to the LDs and indeed some of the fringe leftwing parties.
But this does not take away from the fact that Labour’s lead (even if slightly inflated, though not as greatly as some may like to think) leaves the Conservatives little better than they where four years ago.
As for Norfolk North personally I agree that Dale has an excellent chance and Norman Lamb is very vulnerable, such is the case in a handful of Liberal Democrat held seats where the Tories are in a close second place… but on the national level while I’d anticipate Tory gains of 20-30 seats anyone looking for Labour to get an electoral drubbing will IMHO be sadly disappointed.
re: brown on ID cards.
According to press tittle tattle Brown argued against ID cards in cabinet on grounds of cost vs benefit. He’s certainly not thrown the weight of the treasury behind it hence the reason for the cost of an ID card. As it is a policy associated with Blair, I think he’d be quite happy for people to see it as some kind of “identity tax”.
Ben - I think the Conservatives ARE a little better than they where four years ago. The poll differences between now and then are huge. The average ICM rating for Labour in 2000 was 48%. In 2004 it was 36.9%. The Tory figure in 2000 was 32.5 while in 2004 it was within 0.25%. So the Labour lead is down 11%.
The idea of the Tories standing still but gaining is quite hard to comprehend. This feature from an Oxford LD councillor is quite good on the subject. http://www.stephentall.org.uk/articles/2.html
Ben - I’m afraid you’re not facing up to the fact that 2005 is NOT 2001. However you sneer at “older” Tory voters, it doesn’t matter - they’ll stay loyal.(and by the way, you’re losing the 18-24 age group due to tuition fees, etc). Iraq is not - per se - that important, but it is a HUGE metaphor for trust - or lack of it in Labour. Secondly, as you must know, many fair minded voters said as they went to vote in 2001, “Well, the Tories had 18 years, this lot have only had 4 - I’ll give them another term…..” That slack has well and truly evaporated in the last four years.
Thanks for the plug, Mike (34).
I have no doubt the Tory vote will hold up overall. But, as ever, the average will conceal real discrepancies. If the LDs are successful in squeezing the Tories in seats where they are currently second to Lab (my local, Oxford East, is but one example) it stands to reason they must do better than average in other seats (if only by default) to maintain their vote share.
I suspect Sarah (35) is right in warning of the danger of judging 2005 by 2001 standards. It was precisely because 1997 was viewed through the eyes of Major’s victory in ’92 that no-one actually thought Blair would get a landslide. (I won a sweepstake at university predicting a 147 majority: no-one else thought it would get above 100, and plenty plumped for a Tory win.) The tactical vote came out of nowhere: it *might* disappear just as quickly.
Sarah
“Ben - I’m afraid you’re not facing up to the fact that 2005 is NOT 2001. However you sneer at “older” Tory voters, it doesn’t matter - they’ll stay loyal.”
No 2005 is not 2001, its 2005 (surprisingly), history does not and will not repeat it self, the 1997 and 2001 campaigns where different if similar in their end result and 2005 will also be a different campaign all together. Yes the Tory vote will come out and vote just as they did in 2001 but it doesn’t gain the Conservatives a single vote, a lower turnout might accentuate their importance but in all likelihood turnout will be slightly up on 2001 which was such a foregone conclusion.
Unlike 2001 or even 1997, this election will be very fragmented in some urban seats with large Muslim populations, the small number of LD/Lab marginals and in the “GMW Seats” there will be big swing to and strong challenges from the LDs. Else where the Tories will go head to head with Labour in marginal seats and as in 2001 Labour will poor resources and “troops” into these seats to defend them and while bound to perform worse than in 2001 they will as a rule outperform their national numbers in these marginal seats.
“and by the way, you’re losing the 18-24 age group due to tuition fees, etc”
Quite frankly who cares about the student vote? (as they are the only people in the 18-24 age group who are strongly opposed to top-up fees etc…) hardly any will vote anyway, there was much talk about the student vote hurting Labour in 2001, they didn’t vote and take it from me students are even more apathetic now than back in 2001! At the same time polls of the entire 18-24 group show Labour beating both the LDs and CON by a very wide margin, I will try and find the figures for that.
“Iraq is not - per se - that important, but it is a HUGE metaphor for trust - or lack of it in Labour.”
And yet Blair still beats Howard when voters are asked who they trust more, yes the issue of trust has hurt Blair and by extension Labour but the issue of trust does not play to the Conservatives’ strengths with most voters still seeing the Tories as “worse than Labour” and associate them with a record as a “sleazy, incompetent, ineffective and divided government” and Michael Howard as leader only reinforces this perception for many voters. The issue of trust helps the LDs as rightly or wrongly most people perceive the LDs as trustworthy if some what too idealistic and impractical. Confronted with this choice some voters will just give up and not vote but most will vote Labour, not enthusiastically and not in as large numbers as in 1997 or 2001 but rather in the same way voters voted Tory in 1987 and 1992, because while many voters may see Labour as “sly” and may feel “letdown” they also see Labour as competent and reliable which is something neither the Tories or the LDs are viewed as.
Mike at 16: The 40% poll rating was our best for years, and 38% is fine too after two weeks of hostile coverage. If the Populous result is similar, that’s fine, but given the continued drip of critical press comment I wouldn’t be too surprised to see another point or two off. I do think the site, like parts of the press, is consistently over-selling the significance of things which polls subsequently suggest don’t make very much difference, perhaps subconsciously for the same reason - you want to make us read it?
I really have trouble getting interested in the Blair/Brown who-promised-what-when stuff and, more important, I think the public does too. I suspect they feel vaguely irritated, but that’s their normal state of mind when eyeing politicians…
Nick
Tuition fees will work against Labour - but the idea that there are thousands of angry students ready to kick Blair out is ludicrous. Where tuition fees will really hurt the government is in the votes of (mostly) middle-class parents with children in their early and mid-teens.
Mike – 34 –May I draw your attention to my post dated 2/1/05 comment 49 under the headline “Is UKIP a spent force without this man” then go to the site you high- lite in comment 34 on the 8/1/05 under “Labour down 2 points with ICM”
You will then see what I can only define as typical spin altering figures until they suit your view point.
Stephen Tall’s assumptions are clearly flawed.
To 38 - Nick. The December ICM 40% for Labour was not, as you state “Our best for years”. I get furious when I see such a casual approach to the facts. It was your best since May 2003. The following are the annual average ICM ratings for Labour excluding the two months of the petrol crisis in 2000.
2000 48%
2001 46%
2002 42.5%
2003 38.75%
2004 36.9%
The critical thing with polls is whether there is a trend or not. What are the other pollsters showing? If Populus, which should be out tomorrow, also has a slip then a pattern starts to emerge.
Mike at 41: Thank you for the correction: not “the best for years” but “the best for one year and 8 months”. I don’t think it changes the argument. The underlying position for a long time was (I’d better add “to the best of my recollection” to avoid sending your blood pressure up) that Labour and the Tories were virtually level, with Labour 2-3% ahead in the polls. In recent months, that’s modestly changed, with Labour now typically about 5% ahead. In the ICM poll before last, after some relatively good coverage, they were 8% ahead. In the latest one, after some relatively bad coverage, it’s 6%. These figures continue to suggest a modest hardening of the Labour lead over recent months, coupled with as a marginal softening over the holiday. Nothing dramatic, but also not a sudden trend downwards. Politicians get too manic-depressive about these things.
Nick
Vino (40) – I’m not too sure if you mean ‘flawed’, or simply that you disagree with my assumptions! There is the world of difference. They are, of course, simplified as any model has to be which seeks to illustrate only one variable. One assumption is that the number of Labour voters will drop by 10% cf 2001 – is that really so flawed?
The second assumption is that 15% of 2001 Labour voters vote Lib Dem in 2005, I was working on my GE prediction figures of Lab = 35% and LD = 23.5%, which works out at a uniform Lab->LD swing of c.5.25%. Now in my worked St Albans example, the Lab->LD swing is 8.5%. Which, I accept is generous… but flawed? I’m not so sure.
My rule of thumb, leaving aside models, statistics etc, is to compare the two election results: could it happen? I would argue that the St Albans figures in my article are well within the boundaries of possibility.
Stephen - 43 - your swing of Lab-LD OF 8.5% is extremely generous,and also saying the Tory vote would stay the same in a reduced poll is a moot point,however the general tact I agree with.