Tories up 3% in a week
January 28th, 2005
- UKIP’s decline and immigration give Howard a boost
Punters who have been backing the Tories on the spread-betting markets in the past few days have been vindicated by the latest YouGov poll in the Telegraph has the party 3% up on last Sunday. The figures are: LAB 35% (+1): CON 34 (+3): LD 22 (-3): OTH 9 (-1)
Interestingly the change has come from the Lib Dems and not Labour which has gone up.
-
It might be that part of the Lib Dem totals in recent weeks have included a segment of voters who are just opposed to Tony Blair and will move to the party that seems most likely to defeat him. That looks dangerous for Labour.
This is the first survey since the Tories unveiled their plans on immigration. The total for others is less than 10% which is down from the 13% it rose to when UKIP came on the scene at the Euro Elections. A year ago “others” was at 6-7%. We don’t have a breakdown from the latest survey but it’s clear that the UKIP split with Robert Kilroy-Silk has had a huge impact on the public’s perception of that party as an electoral force.
- When tested in real elections YouGov’s record is by far the most accurate pollster only over-stating Labour and understating the Tories by one or two points. Given this Michael Howard’s party is at worst level-pegging and is probably slightly ahead of Labour.
In spite of this Howard still has a mountain to climb for the Tories to win most seats or even win an overall majority. Britain’s electoral geography is so much in Labour’s favour that on a uniform national swing Tony Blair could hold onto power even if Labour is 2-3% less than the Tories in the popular vote. Although Lib Dem targeting and tactical vote rewind could see Labour with disproportionate losses above the national swing the party stays in a very strong position.
Our call this week to buy the Tories at 192 seats looks good. It is hard to see the party getting less than 200 seats and it could do a lot better.
UPDATE. The Tory price has risen again on IG Index This morning’s spreads are:- LAB 355-362 (-1): CON 188-195 (+2): LDs 71-75 which means that the Tory spread is uo five seats in three days. We think that there is still value in the price. Just putting the YouGov shares into the Martin Baxter’s universal national swing calculator gives a total of 207 seats.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
THis is a good result in a poll for a change and is better than I had anticipated. However, as I said before I want to see a couple of others before rushing to judgement! If this trend does continue in other polls the election is far more open than the Lib Dem or Labour posters on here would have us believe. The movements behind the headline figures could make significant differences to seat numbers gained and Labour should look to their laurels.
Silly bet time: on Betfair, you can get 8.2 on Labour having the second most seats, against 7.8 for Conservatives having the most seats. Now, unless you think the Labour party will go first to third, is clearly the wrong way round.
This poll looks like a re-adjustment from an exageration of the LibDem vote in the last You Gov poll. It brings YouGov back into line with other pollsters on the LD level 21-22%.
The Tories may well go up a point or 2 based on their core vote strategy (crime, Europe & immigration). I certainly expect them to have a better differential turnout than Labour, but I cant see them extending that to the other sections of the electorate that they need to win over unless they can make headway on the economy.
The key question remains how many votes the LibDems will take from Labour, and what seats they take them in. We all know that if the LDs make big jumps amoung GMW, Muslims & white working class in places where they are 3rd & the Tories are a close second to Labour then we are looking at a string of Tory gains. However, that could easily be combined with an equivalent growth in support in Tory seats where the LDs are second to the Tories, which would pull Howard back under the symbolic 200 seat marker.
Sadly this & other polls don’t tell us that & we are straight back to Andy Cooke’s analysis.
The level of change and slight polarisation is what I’d anticipated from the poll taken at the height of the debate over the immigration proposals. It’s worth reading the detailed results at the Telegraph site, but briefly, the reaction to the proposals is 42 strongly pro, 24 weakly pro, and 28 strongly or weakly against. However, 58-36 think Howard is only making the proposal to win votes, not because he believes in them. They also ask about the economy and tax-and-spend, where the general view is that Labour is better at the economy (33-28) and that taxes will go up whoever wins. Asked about the Government’s plans on licensing and citizenship ceremonies, respondents are mildly in favour of both (note that other polls on licensing give a different result - it depends on how the question is phrased). Finally, the usual questions on leaders give Blair 32, Howard 21 and Kennedy 14. I’ve nothing against Charles but I think that objectively the LibDems are being held back by his rather subdued profile.
I think these figures make it fairly clear why the Conservatives aren’t profiting quite as much from their populist stance on immigration as some posters thought they might - people are a bit cynical about their motives and don’t think much of their leadership and economic policies. This is why I expect the 1% Labour lead to drift up again to its ‘normal’ YouGov position of a few % ahead, and I’d guess the next telephone poll will put it at 5% or so. The reason the LibDems have dropped a bit may be that the hardcore anti-Tory vote, who are more motivated by wanting to keep the Tories out than anything else, tend to react to high-profile Tory activity by rallying round Labour as the more prominent opponent. This isn’t necessarily the case in every seat (see the Richmond result last night) and I wonder if one hidden effect of the week has been to strengthen previously fading Lib-Lab mutual willingness give tactical support? (To avoid confusion let’s call this tactical rewind and the opposite tactical unwind)
A quibble: I’m not sure why Mike concludes from the 1% fall in the “Others” rating that it’s “clear” that Kilroy has had a “huge” impact on the public view of UKIP? I think that the Tory immigration move will have picked up some BNP support and a bit of UKIP too (the other movements, I guess, will be a bit of Lab to Con and a bit more LibDem to Lab, for the above reasons), but the core UKIP vote is simply people who really strongly dislike the EU, and that is not a volatile stance affected by the coming and going of egotists. I’d guess that core is around 2.5% nationally.
Nick
As a matter of interest, I would like to ask a question to those posters with a greater knowledge of opinion polling than I.
To what degree can we compare an opinion poll by the same polling company but published in a different newspaper? Would it be fairer to compare this poll with last months YouGov poll in the Telegraph?
Lab 35
Con 32
LDem 21
It seems to me that pollsters who produce 2 different sets of polls each month have a sizeable variation between the 2.
You have to take your hat off to Crosby (if it is him behind the immigration strategy). He recognised that the Tories were losing any momentum they had in the ‘pre campaign’ and has had to move to gain some traction. This seems to have had some success.
The interesting thing is now whether they can maintain this. The rumour was on the various news progs last night was that the Govt. have kept their ‘powder dry’ on this issue. It is interesting to watch Labour at the moment, who appear to be much less ‘electioneering’ than the Conservatives. The question is - have Labour been caught off guard or are they playing a canny waiting game? The problem for us observers is that these phoney wars seem to drag on so long - at least with football it is all over in 90 minutes!
Andy S-
Generally yes, you can compare. There are two caveats though. Firstly, make sure they are using the same methodology. This is normally the case, there seem to be very slight differences between ICM’s polls for the Guardian and their Omnibus polls, which other papers sometimes commission, but the differences probably aren’t large enough to prevent valid comparisons. There was a time though when MORI were conducting both phone polls and face-to-face polls - it would not be valid to compare these. (Equally, that YouGov poll that Mike did that didn’t prompt by party name, it wouldn’t be valid to compare that with a normal YouGov poll).
Secondly, bear in mind that the one-off polls, particularly in the tabloids, are normally commissioned because the papers expect there to be a story behind them. For that reason they are often outliers.
As far as I am aware, the YouGov polls for the Telegraph and the Sunday Times were carried out using identical methodology.
Anthony,
Thanks for the above explanation.
Thanks Anthony - but the danger is when there’s a rogue in the system (as the Sunday Times one appears to be) then we should take it out of the equation. The Telegraph are claiming the changes in vote share are Lab (-), Con (+2), Lib Dem (+1) thers (-3) - which intuitively seems more correct than Mike’s Lab (+1), Con (+3), Lib Dem (-3), which suggests that Lab have benefitted from their policy being savaged!
Dan at 9: There’s a danger in over-interpreting very small differences - I honestly don’t think there is any real difference at all between Labour on no change and Labour on +1. The only vaguely interesting difference is that the comparison with last week appears to show a LibDem drop and some polarisation, which I argued in an earlier post is a corollary of the radical-sounding Tory proposal.
A strategic Tory difficulty is that they want to mobilise their core vote while sending the rest of the electorate to sleep, and while this is easy to attempt with direct mail, it’s hard for them to know what to do with the national media. Saying nothing is not a viable long-term strategy, so the choice is Letwinesque caution (we’ll cut a few taxes, can’t tell you which yet) and Howardish radicalism (we’ll bin every direct asylum application, however justified). A professional rather than a partisan view is that they would be well-advised to decide on one or the other and stick to it.
Nick
Nick at 4; I think that although Charles Kennedy personal ratings are low that this has little efffect on people voting because they do not expect the LD’s to form the next government whichever way they vote. Swing voters vote LD because they are protesting aggaisnt the other two or because they like the local effort. However if they were ever to make it to second place then they would need aleader with muich better ratings.
Can I ask about margin of error?
It looks to me like Sunday’s poll was right at the top of the Liberal Democrat’s margin (25%, rather than about 22%)
We probably need to see more polls before we can tell whether this is a genuine trend for the Tories or merely the high point of their margin 34% over their actual unchanged 31%.
By the wayt, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1460062,00.html for an interesting survey on voting intentions (over a 6-month period) broken down by which paper people read. The overall figures give a 4% Labour lead, so roughly comparable with current polls. Labour has lost significant ground in the Mirror and Sun as well as people who don’t read a paper at all (the latter is the group that has swung most to the LibDems!). Tories haven’t changed much anywhere. LibDems appear to have declined sharply among Independent readers, but I think this has to be a misprint. The most evenly-divided readerships are at the Sun, Express, and Times.
I must say I think that people who read the Express every day and still vote Labour have the backbone of Napoleon’s Imperial Guard. If I got all my news from the Express, suicide would be the only
way out.
Nick
Dan - like Nick says, 1% is competely meaningless. Polls are rounded so it could be the difference between 34.4999% and 34.5% - and that’s without considering the margin of error!
I’m wary of automatically saying a poll is a rogue as well. My personal opinion is actually the same as yours, I think the Lib Dem 25% was a rogue poll too, but it isn’t a certainly. Perhaps this one is!
Richard. YouGov have a large sample of 2000 or so. This should give them a MoE of 2%ish. However, one thing that should be noted is that they use a panel. As this ceases for it to be considered in statistical terms as a ‘random sample’ MoE should only be considered a guide. It is worth saying at this point that in the US YouGov overstated the Dems by 1% and understated the GOP by 3% on a 3500 sample 3 days out. Is this a weakness of panels.
Polls are about trends - The Tories were static in the polls and their tough immigration line has given them a bounce - how big it is and how long it lasts is still the question - i.e. The LD ‘war bounce’ is still in force to some extent. If this Tory bounce lasts as long the election will be exciting. If not it will be dull.
Thanks Antony - I said at the time I thought the 25% for the Lib Dems was significantly out of kilter with other polls at the time. And you’re right to say that any poll could be random - what we need is to see some more polls before claiming any single poll as a trend.
My view is that unless the Tories can keep the immigration issue going for the next four months (highly unlikely) then there ratings will slip back (if indeed they have slipped out of) into the 31-33% box as discussion leads onto health, edukashun and the economy etc.
I actually thought the most interesting figures from the You Gov poll were the questions about which party would cut tax. A majority thought both Labour and the Tories would put up taxes regardless of any promises not to (although a lot more thought Labour would), but it appears that this is not a deal breaker as a majority thought public services needed more cash.
It seems going against the ‘tax and spend’ agenda is a vote loser at the moment.
Can we accuse Mike of pro-Tory spin with that headline?
Nick - Yasmin A-B and Johann Hari have between them test the patienc of even the most committed LD Indyphile. Fortunatley there’s always Bruce Andeson to keep us on the straight and narrow.
Steve. No - it is pro Mike spin, because he has an agenda of trying to say that a bet on the Tories is sensible because the phone polls are always mean and nasty to them (is that right Mike :-)). If the next phone poll shows the Tories drop again - he’ll be back to saying that phone polls are rubbish and only YouGov have it right. We can all spin this to fit our theories. Which is the rogue poll and who are the rogue pollsters? Mike’s chosen his horse and he’s going to back it all the way.
Nick (13) - as I’m sure you know well there’s a huge difference between buying a paper and getting your news from it. I mean, I only but the Friday Grauniad for the jazz reviews…
Do we know if this is the result of the second YouGov poll that Mike responded to, i.e. the one where respondents typed in the party name instead of selecting from a list?
I thought the LibDem result from the previous YouGov poll was a little out of line, but perhaps the different methodology would explain part of the drop back here?
I buy the Guardian from time to time to reassure myself that the metropolitan liberal élite are still living in a different world from the rest of us
Graham 18. My calls are based on what I think are the best bets and so far they have proved to be pretty good. In JUne I said buy the Lib Dems at 58 and in October I said take your profit at 72.
My call on Wednesday to buy the Tories is based on my assessment that the price is too low and will rise. So far I’ve been proved right. If the Tory price goes up too high I’ve say take your profit and get out.
Seven weeks ago I predicted that the Labour price would rise. Those who took my advice could have got out at the start of this week and make a profit. At that time I advised against betting on the tories because, as has turned out, the price would fall.
There is no agenda here except profit.
Nick @ 13 - if you wanted a mid market paper as a Labour supporter what would you read? The Mail????
..and Graham. If the phone polls were any good at getting the Tory-Labour split right I would say follow them. Alas the record is one of failure when tested against real votes.
Mike. You are a wise man and in understanding the vagueries of the betting market I feel you have few equals. I was really trying to defend you from Tabman’s underlying accusation that you were trying to drive the markets by talking up the Tories, whereas my feeling is that at a sub-conscious level you really want to be proved right over this polling issue (not that I have a qualification in psychology at all). I know how you feel - I really want to be proved right over my insane theory that the Tories are on the verge of collapse - but if this YouGov poll is a sign of things to come I may end up being proved very wrong! On the other hand - this could be the ‘rogue’.
I was at university with Johann Hari and the Indy’s decision to employ him lost them this reader…
Don’t blame you…
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2004/12/29/punters-unimpressed-by-early-election-talk/
(posts 56 and 57)
Graham 25 - my point was more of a subtle dig at some of the more exciteable Tory commentators about the LDs on 25% thread.
Nick (13) - what’s interesting about the MORI figures for newspaper readers’ political allegiance is that, while it does bear out this site’s thesis that GMWs are pretty pissed-off with Labour, the biggest drops in support are among Sun/Mirror readers. Ie, the heartland voters.
Sorry Tabman. I understand now.
Johann Hari isn’t very popular with readers on this site, is he? He also managed to offend quite a few people with some stupid comments about Northern Ireland on his website, in which he argued that the security forces and IRA were both terrorist organisations.
I think all political commentators have moments when they speak out their bottoms. The only columnist I regularly enjoy is Simon Hoggart in the Grauniad - and only because he is consistently funny. But ultimately if you are paid to write your thoughts down all the time - you’re bound to talk crap eventually. No-one pays us at all and we all talk crap at one point or another
What do people think about the Academic pundits, particularly those who are made to stay up late doing election broadcasts? I trust Prof. John Curtice, and R&T, but I particularly enjoy Prof. Anthony King from Essex University. I am not sure what his views are now, but 10-15 years ago he seemed to thoroughly enjoy any discomfort suffered by the Labour Party.
I think that John Curtice and Anthony King are both excellent. I do know where Anthony King’s sympathies lie, but you certainly wouldn’t guess from his severely objective analysis.
33 & 34 -agreed. However I think BOb WOrcester is losing the plot. He seems to have “an agenda” and I laughed when he predicted on US Polling Night that Kerry had won. I was delighted to see how wrong he was!
Graham 32 As well as Simon Hoggart do you like any other of Kimberley’s lovers?
DR.Having not met any of Kimberly’s lovers I wouldn’t know. How many has she had? All I know is that none of her children are mine and I won’t see her in court!!
Rik @ 35 I once heard Bob Worcester interviewed on the radio, and he freely confessed to being a “Yellow Dog Democrat”, as in put a yellow dog on the Dem ticket and he would still vote for it.
Thanks Graham 32. I am a Lib Dem and I used to get attacked all the time here for allegedly “pushing the party”. Maybe sometimes I try to compensate in other directions. However I do take some pride in my spread-betting calls and my BUY CON move this was the first unequivocal comment I’ve made on this.
What’s pushed the price up is not me but broader market sentiment prompted by the immigration annoucement.
My personal view on this is one of total opposition and I loathe the racist undertone.
“Too Much Politics” Says Politician.
This story in the Guardian might provoke a few (intemperate) comments. Nick Raynsford has just mooted the possibility that there might be too much party politics in local government.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/localgovernment/story/0,9061,1400709,00.html
I agree Mike. However, the question is whether it will last. I think the real campaign will start after Sunday. If the Iraq elections go ‘well’, Labour will move - if they go badly, the Lib Dems will. Iraq is still the real battleground for this election if you ask me - The economy is quiet enough for Labour to defend its record (7 years sustained growth), Labour will cover immigration - leaving Iraq as the only major political cleavage in the country. Wars change elections - they always have and they always will.
Graham 41 - I could not agree more. WArs have always changed political outcomes in some form. Look at 1945 with Atlee; Eden going after Suez; the Falklands boost for the Tories and its consequences for the alliance…& now Iraq.
It might not be the first thing peope think of but it’s totally altered the political landscape. I feel about Blair in this respect like I feel about the Tories over immigration.
Although on the surface, this poll appears to be good news for the Tories, if I was them I would be deeply worried by some of the underlying numbers.
First of all, most people (58-36) think Howard is only making the immigration proposals to win votes, not because he believes in them.
Allied to the general cynicism about Tory tax cut promises, this suggests that Tony Blair’s jibes about Howard’s “opportunism” are getting home. People might like what he says in theory but they don’t think he is sincere.
Secondly, on the economy, the general view is that Labour is better at managing the economy (33-28).
Thirdly, the question about who would make the best PM gives Blair a comfortable lead (32-21).
It seems to me that these last two issues are going to be crucial to how people vote and, at the moment, Labour lead on both counts.
In purely strategic terms the Tories did the right thing, then. They probably recognise the same thing - so needed to get their boost in before the debate went onto issues that are not their strongest suit
John at 43 - All the poll findings are better than in 2001 - on Leadership, issues and managing the economy - and they’re worse for Labour on trust, in particular. Given that Labour led hugely on managing the economy in 2001 - and still polled 42% -
John at 43 - All the poll findings are better for the Tories than in 2001 - on Leadership, issues and managing the economy - and they’re worse for Labour on trust, in particular. Given that Labour led hugely on managing the economy in 2001 - and still polled 42% - I think that Labour should be at least as or more worried than both other main parties - given historic differential turnout.
Graham at 44: It is too early to tell if the Tories have done the right thing strategically. If they gain momentum from this week and stay at the 33% level, then yes it has worked.
But if they fall back to 31% in the next couple of polls (which, we should remember, use the methods not as favourable to them) then they will more likely look like a flash in the pan. In fact, to borrow Nick’s terminology, if they’ve played their joker and it does not advance them, then the story may become “Tories going backwards” which could be very damaging for them. They can hardly launch the immigration policy again.
Yes. Anon @ 47. can I just lay claim to the ‘joker’ terminology
Is this really what YouGov is saying?
Liberal Democrat GAINS
Aberdeen South
Birmingham Yardley
Blaydon
Bournemouth East
Bridgwater
Bristol West
Cambridge
Cardiff Central
Ceredigion
Colne Valley
Dorset North
Dorset West
Eastbourne
Edinburgh South
Falmouth and Camborne
Folkestone and Hythe
Haltemprice and Howden
Harborough
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey
Isle of Wight
Leeds North West
Maidenhead
Moray
New Forest East
Norfolk South
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Orpington
Rochdale
Ryedale
Surrey South West
Sussex Mid
Taunton
Tiverton and Honiton
Totnes
Wantage
Wells
Westbury
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Wiltshire North
Wokingham
Worcestershire West
The Scots Tories enjoyed a gathering in Edinburgh last night where they hosted the Press for some gentle banter. Apart from the usual chat between PPC’s about their respective campaigns (and the buoyant mood they were all enjoying) this site was extolled for its excellent links,information and generally good manners across the political spectrum. Perhaps that might help the Tory price!
No its not.
No its not. Electoral Calulus shows the lib dems gaining under 10 seats on the yougov figures.
If wars have always changed the election outcome, why was Churchill thrashed in 1945.
Thanks McHack - 50 - for that report. It’s always good to get feed-back and I like the point on good manners - a tribute to us all.
Whether this will have an impact on the Tory price I doubt it.
Re 49:
Actual prediction from Electoral Calculus:
Assuming accuracy, Con 34/Lab35/LD22 gives Con 207, Lab 352, LD 57 (Lab Maj 58)
Assuming Mike’s contention that even YouGov understates Con/Overstates Lab, and trying Con 35/Lab34/LD22 (+1 Con, -1 Lab) would give Con 232, Lab 327, LD 56 (Lab maj 8). This is with no Tactical Voting unwind. If it unwound by one-eighth (Tac Voting was 7/8 as prevalent as in 2001), it would give (at the latter figures) Con 250, Lab 310, LD 55 (Hung parliament).
This illustrates the volatility of the situation at such low polling levels for the big two, as well as the sensitivity to the accuracy of the polls, as Mike has been saying (as well as underlining the potentially major effect of tac vote unwind/rewind/etc.)
Personal view: It’s a bugger to call this one. One party has to break away for a clearer picture. It could be anything from a seriously hung parliament to a huge Labour majority the way it stands at the moment. One for your instincts, maybe.
Re: my post at 55. The smiley afeter “Lab maj” is supposed to be an “8″ - it suffered smilification.
Re: 53 - Churchill and the Tories were smashed out of sight in 1945 PRECISELY because of the War! Social mobility and mass mobilisation caused people to examine what they were fighting for, and it was certainly not the “old order.” Britain during the early 1940’s was the most “socialist” that our society has ever been, in the sense that all sorts of activity were directed by the State - they even rationed food according to need! It has been said that the 1945 General Election was the only Battle Honour ever won by the Army Education Corps.
I have to say that Labour’s latest election posters (reproduced on Guido Fawkes site) don’t seem terribly wise to me.
Augustus 57 - the Armed Forces also became extremely meritocratic. Many people received the equivalent of a Polytechnic or University education being trained for the high-tech war being fought. Furthermore, “natural selection” caused by the war meant that social class had much less bearing than had ever been the case before.
My father tells a story about the Manager of the bank where he worked (in the 60s - the manager was a clerk pre-war) being a Major in the Artillery, and his orderly room sergreant was a peer who was one of the directors of the bank. Given the context of the 1930s that is incredible social mobility.
This proces of course began in WWI but the new officer class were very much aware that they wer e”temporary gentlemen”.
There are two key points to be made about the 1945 election in Britain, one was the rising socialism (road to serfdom by Hayek) in the country helped to foster by the radical new ideas of Keynes and Beveridge, which said that government could operate in a completely different way to how it been envisioned in the past when ever labour accepted the market economy. The other is that the Tories were getting punished partly for the war which you could argue that Chamberlain had led us into too, but also for the horrific depression in the 1930s. There were also this immense feeling of solidarity during the war, that of course had strong links to labour’s communitarian attitudes. A number of life long Tory voters in that election (such as my grandfather) voted for labour for the first and only time in there lives.
Hmmm I don’t the two posters are particularly clever on labour’s part. Eerily reminscent of TB’s demon eyes in 97. The second one with Letwin and Howard as pigs has a potential anti-semitic undertone (though to be fair I think there were just going on the pigs might fly pun). As for the first one, I think it is in bad taste and I would be surprised if labour publishes it.
They are unwise, I think. I have to point out to Guido though that they aren’t a huge secret scoop; they were posted by a Labour councillor on Tuesday:
http://www.20six.co.uk/trackback/ft2fsysph93c
Oops, try here:
http://www.20six.co.uk/weblogCategory/e214uzm263jm?d=25.1.2005
Andy at 23: Er…um…well, my secretary, who is a party member from way back, reads the Mail for the lifestyle stuff. The Mail has IMHO become somewhat less rabid recently, probably because the Express has occupied the mad-dog niche: the Mail is now only about as Tory as the Telegraph, rather than as Tory as Central Office.
Stephen at 29: yes, this is a continuation of the de-classing of politics: more Labour ABC1s, more Tory C2DEs. I suspect this will continue, and if that’s correct then the type of seat that is marginal will start to change. Some of the strongest Labour I meet are my no means classic supporters - they’re middle-class voters who switched in 1997 over the economy and because they liked Tony Blair. Typical of the latter was one voter who said, not entirely flatteringly, “You lot said you’d sort out the economy, put more money into public services, and otherwise do nothing very drastic. That’s about what’s happened, so why would I change?” This group, apart from the hard-core loyalist vote, is where Tony Blair has strongest personal support.
Nick
I think the Tories peak is only temporary. People are less anti-immigrant than most pollsters give them credit for. After all in every poll a clear majority of them are anti-immigrant, pro death penalty and anti-europe but care to tell me what happened in the 2001 general election when Hague ran a campaign on these issues? BTW 60, if you are who I think you are how’s D.U.S these days?
Andrew and Sean. I don’t think from a purely marketing point of view that they are that bad. They convey a negative message very clearly and simply. I think the comparison with demon eyes is wrong. I think they are more in line with ‘Double Whammy’ in 92.
65- Hague ran an anti Europe campaign in 2001, but not anti-immigrant and certainly not pro-death penalty! And there is a considerable difference between being anti-uncontrolled immigration and anti-immigrant.
66 - I think they will be seen as anti-semitic. I am certain that this was not the intention, but I think there is a great danger for Labour that the press will pick up on this and they will backfire enormously.
Andy at 23: Er…um…well, my secretary, who is a party member from way back, reads the Mail for the lifestyle stuff. The Mail has IMHO become somewhat less rabid recently, probably because the Express has occupied the mad-dog niche: the Mail is now only about as Tory as the Telegraph, rather than as Tory as Central Office.
Stephen at 29: yes, this is a continuation of the de-classing of politics: more Labour ABC1s, more Tory C2DEs. I suspect this will continue, and if that’s correct then the type of seat that is marginal will start to change. Some of the strongest Labour I meet are my no means classic supporters - they’re middle-class voters who switched in 1997 over the economy and because they liked Tony Blair. Typical of the latter was one voter who said, not entirely flatteringly, “You lot said you’d sort out the economy, put more money into public services, and otherwise do nothing very drastic. That’s about what’s happened, so why would I change?” This group, apart from the hard-core loyalist vote, is where Tony Blair has strongest personal support.
Nick
As I believe I have said before, as an EX-pollster, pundit and past and current political better, I think that the headline voting intention figures of an individual poll are barely worth discussing over 3 months before the election.
I have always paid more attention not only to general trends but to other polling questions, which I consider better predictors of what will happen, if that is what you are interested in.
Therefore of more interest than a “1% Labour lead” is that this YouGov poll sugests a 5% lead on “which party could handle economic difficulties better”, and 12% on “which party do you think is more likely to keep Britain’s economy strong”, which is the most useful question in the survey. Trust in the Labour government has plummeted, but it is still 2% ahead of the Tory figure. the best PM question is not as useful as many including in the media like to think, but still Blair is 11% ahead of Howard.
All indicators suggest a Labour lead and it is interesting that 65% believe that taxes would go up under the Tories, despite recent publicity (76% under Labour).
Two other points about this poll. People are still asking the daft question about whether taxes should be cut or more money spent on public services - the ‘are you a heartless bastard’ question. This uncosted formulation has always told us precidely nothing. Finally, comparing with Gallup four years ago, who used a completely different methodology and heavily over-estimated Labour’s vote share (at least in the very low 2001 turnout)is barely valid.
Interesting Comments Nick. So judging by that do you think we might eventually end up in a US system, where effectively the managerial middle classess and the well educated support the Democrats alongside the poor and ethnic minorities (though interestingly this is no longer the case amongst the hispanics) whereas the the rich, the lower middle class, aspirant working class and the social conservatives become the bedrocks of the conservatives support. Personally I think this is quite likely though for different reasons than in the US.
Agree with 67 - I’m sure they were no more intended to be anti-Semitic than the “demon eyes” poster (which, actually, I’d say was worse) was intended to be specifically hurtful to Blair as a committed Christian, but it would have been better Labour didn’t produce them.
Re David 67. Sorry. I don’t understand why it’s anti-semitic. can anyone explain?
a) the flying pigs poster: to be associated with a pig in that way would be very insulting to a devout Orthodox Jew (though I would imagine less provocative to a Liberal Jew like Howard).
b) the “hypnotist” one: this is less concrete but it does tie into a lineage of Fagin-type stereotyped portrayals.
And the other “flying pig” is Oliver Letwrin. The story is the main feature in to-day’s London Evening Standard.
Graham - 72 - superimposing the heads of probably the two most prominent jewish politicians in the country onto the bodies of pigs could be seen by some as - just a tad - insensitive!
I’m not sure. If people here were arguing that the Tories immigration policies aren’t the race card I think that this is a bit more tenuous. But maybe I’m being naive.
I am a new addition to PB.C, and very much enjoy the chat threads; maybe this has been said before, and with the greatest respect to Nick, but the frequency of his contributions makes me believe that Paxman’s assertion in ‘Political Animal’ (which I am reading at the moment) that MPs are hideously underemployed seems to have an air of truth about it!
RE Graham: Maybe, but stunts like this will see labour cede the moral high ground on issues such as asylum and immigration.
67, Surely that is a huge indictment of the press in this country that a poster, in no way designed to be anti-semitic, would be labelled as such!
77 You may be right, Christo, but as a fairly recent newcomer to the site myself it seems to me that Nick is one of the more thoughtful contributers, as well as (surprisingly) being one of the less overtly partisan. Maybe he is working full time because he is thinking full time.
(And that’s the last time I will ever get close to paying a compliment to one of the Heralds of the Red Dawn!)
Maybe Nick’s strategy what with the popularity of the site now amongst politicians, is that finally one of the whips might log on and spot his thoughtful contributions and grant him ministerial office, which is not a bad thought considering how the Commons is paid little attention too.
And the idea that the hypnotist one is playing up to ‘Fagin-type stereotypes’ is even more nonsensical: how many people in the street, if they say that poster, are going to think of ‘Oliver’? Letwin, maybe. Twist, I don’t think so. If the Tories/Tory Press were to make anti-semitism claims over these two posters, it is they who should carry the shame of bringing MH’s judaism into political debate, not those who thought up the posters.
79 - agreed, but it would be. And Labour wouldn’t be the first to be caught out like this. I remember the Canadian Tories being caught out with a poster which appeared to mock the facial deformity of the then opposition leader. It didn’t, and was never intended to, but once the press ran with the story, no-one believed them. That was the year they went from a majority government down to 2 seats!
My thoughts on YouGov for what it’s worth: No floating voter ever willingly signs up to a politics website. They are for the committed and the fanatics.
That’s not to say a few lefty Labour supporters who hate the Bush/Blair closeness might not try to give Blair a bloody nose and vote elsewhere. Or that a few Tories who want to encouage Mr Howard to go “further” might not flirt with UKIP. But apart from those few the overwhelming majority are tribally partizan and committed.
I don’t believe there are any genuine floating voters on YouGov’s books. Not “Floating” as in see which way the wind is blowing and vote!
I joined YouGov’s panel near the beginning about three years ago and through their informal polling and letters I have watched their customer profile shift “rightwards”.
When you join they ask who you voted for at the last election and which newspaper you read. I know of at least one person who falsely claimed to have voted Labour at the last election so that when he appeared to change sides it would look better for the Tories. And I would be amazed if he was alone. I myself have rung the changes so my profile doesn’t become too predictable!
I joined because I saw a Yougov poll in the Guardian. These days the only place you see them is the Telegraph, the Mail and the Sunday Times.
So how do they get near the mark? The answer is that they have done so at only two elections. On both occassions a Labour win was so predictable that many Labour supporters just didn’t take the trouble. I know several who said to me they would have voted if there had been a possibility that the Tories might get back in.
My prediction? That Yougov are going to come badly unstuck at an election very soon. And that will be the end of YouGov.
The ES poll can only manage a 50/50 split on whether the posters are anti-semitic (usually their on-line polls are dominated by Tories, to such an extent that they predicted a Norris victory). On the other hand it may help Labour in a strange way. Along the lines of - the posters arn’t actually widely perceived as being anti-semitic but they do get a lot of profile for the anti-Hoawrd message.
This may have come up before, but can anyone explain where UKelect get their 20% tactical voting figure from?
…But the story is great publicity for Andrew Mennear, PPC for Finchley and Golders Green (whom I know). He only needs a 4% swing in the seat which still has a substantial Jewish proportion.
More Local Government by-election results have just been posted on the Guardian website. See http://politics.guardian.co.uk/byelections/story/0,11043,1400960,00.html
for more details. Also has some comparisons with previous contests.
Grauniad reporting yesterday’s clutch of by-elections (if this hasn’t already been posted elesewhere)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/byelections/story/0,11043,1400960,00.html
.. its on Guardian Unlimited - Politics setion, news headlines if this link doesnt come over
aggregate vote Con 38, Lab 28 LD 26!! But LD win in Richmond (as reported last night) and good second in Sidmouth
Snap!
I know that pigs are not eaten by religious Jews but I don’t believe that gives them a pathological aversion to them in circumstances other than cooking!
I imagine they might baulk at a pig head transplant though. I know I would.
But seriously I wonder if Labour isn’t beginning to get itself a reputation for arrogance and dirty fighting, a bit like the Tories had for sleaze once. I can imagine a world where the voters tired of it rather badly.
It seems to me that since after the 1992 election, Labour’s campaigning has been driven by the determination never to be hammered again like they were in that campaign, and to get their shot in first accordingly. I tend to agree with Jon that since the Kelly affair it is becoming a liability.
…Which leaves open the question whether the re-emergence of Alastair Campbell as a key election strategist will prove seriously counter-productive. If anyone embodies the personification of abusive arrogance in this government, he does.
It’s a surprisingly common misconception that people who are Jewish or Muslim don’t like pigs. As countless rabbis and imams point out it’s simply that they don’t eat them - there is nothing in Judaism or Islam that says that pigs are inherently evil - just that they are dirty and shouldn’t be eaten. Most of this stuff is pretty much as absurd as saying that vegetarians don’t like animals because they don’t eat them.
RE 94 I don’t think the return of Alastair Campbell will really harm labour. He is not a fool, AC, do not expect him to do much public work but instead he will undoubtedely work hard behind the scenes. He left working for TB knowing that he was becoming a burden on the new labour government. TB is much more clever now about how he uses people like Campbell and Mandelson, using them a lot in private, taking their advice, but ensuring they do not get put down the public’s throat.
Personally speaking, I think many people on this website underestimate the strength of the Labour campaign and over-rate the campaigning abilities of the other parties.
There is lots of talk about targeted campaigns by good PPC’s for both Tory and Lib Dems but little mention of effective campaigning by Labour. From what I have seen in the few London marginals I’ve been in, Labour is campaigning hard - maybe harder than the Tories.
Don’t forget that after eight years of Government all the above and below the line figures in the YouGov poll still favoured Labour over the Tories - even on trust I think.
Anonymous - you obviously haven’t seen a post from Ben!!
Tories are surging on the seat markets - now 193-200 on SI (can’t see IG as my computer hates their website). I think we have seen the low - if the Tories do get there again though it probably means they are going lower.
Re Andy Cooke 55. his view that this election “is a bugger to call” accords completely with my own view. With the two main parties in the 30s and big swings to and from the LDs we could see Labour getting 380 seats or just 300 on very small shifts and regional variations. Do you trust YouGov?; will there be tactical unwind?; are the pollsters getting it right? There are too many variables.
My own betting strategy is to trade in short-term opinion shifts rather than the ultimate outcome.
Re 98 - Ben is probably working hard on the election at the moment - hence his absence from the site. Perhaps the relative dearth of Labour posters at the moment is very telling - they are working on the campaign while we are discussing it.
I hope he doesn’t know something I don’t! I pride myself on my knowledge of local Labour activists and their ‘doings’ throughout the seat.
Labour and Tory activity seems to be patchy in their marginal and target seats against the Lib Dems. In some seats they are clearly working very hard, but in others where I would expect to see activity there is very little. A lot of Tory literature is still very ineffective. They really don’t seem to know how to respond to Lib Dem campaigning or how to mount effective campaigns against sitting Lib Dem MPs in most places. Labour seem to have collapsed in several Lib Dem v Labour marginals.
Which Lib Dem/Lab marginals has the Labour vote collapsed in do you think?
My experience is that Labour, perhaps more quietly, are running quite a targeted campaign. I have never seen so many targeted mailshots done/planned by Labour before.
Re.f 103 I agree that most Tory campaigns appears ineffectual and out-of-touch compared to both Labour and the LDs. My friend shsowed me a Tory leaflet from the next door marginal seat where it looks like it was written in the 1950s. Full of popmpous shots of Tory PPC with various of the great ‘n’ good. However in my constituency the Tory campaign is excellent and really works hard to get to grips with the issues that people do talk about down the local. It may help that the Tory PPC lives locally but I think he is the exception here, not the rule. Too many Tory campaigns are still too poor.
It seems the pig has hit the fan for Labour… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4217009.stm
Was the Yougov poll taken before or after Labour’s announcement about internment without trial for terrorist suspects ?
And was this an attempt by Labour to “triangulate” the Tories ?
The issues of terrorism and asylum often get conflated, wrongly, in certain quarters.
re 108: they probably used it as an excuse to look tough compared to the tories, but it originated from the house of lords and the EU moaning about the human rights of some terrorist suspects. Charles Clarke had to make an annoucement about it quickly. It appears to be more a case of circumstances than one-upmanship in this case.
Jon W. - quite a lot of the seats with high asian and or student and or middle class Labour vote like Watford, Oxford East, Hornsey and Islington. Generally where the local Labour Party used to have these types as the activists base. I am less familira with other regions but hear similar stories from parts of Brum, north west etc, also Cardiff, Edinburgh, Aberdeen. Many former active Labour members seem to have at least dropped out of activism if not membership in such places.
AISB - Individual polls are meaningless. The last one was clearly over optimistic for the LDs. This one might equally be so for the Tories. Trends and averages are what count.
Ia lso believe that the next General Election will be like no other before. There will be no UNS. The swing in each seat will match no other e.g. There is a good chance that the Tories will gain Selby on a good swing from Lab to them whilst losing H&H on a good swing from them to the LDs.
Neil at 110 - Watford is not a Lib/Lab marginal!
Interesting Story in the Times today, where they have gone to visit 3 key seats for the next election (Bethnal Green and Bow, Windsor and Birmingham Hall Green). I think it is the first time we have had proper constituency reports this year. Judging by the pieces they seem to think Oona King will hold on in BG and Bow (as GG is not popular amongst the white voters), Labour will hold in Birmingham Hall Green and that Windsor could be interesting. Comments please.
Andrew, the issue in Bethnal Green and Bow isn’t whether Galloway can win. He won’t. It is whether he can divert sufficient Labour voters away to let the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats in. On current trends in the East End it looks like the Conservatives are the more likely beneficiaries.
Andrew, I am always instintively suspicious of anything by Tom Baldwin and his piece on Hall Green (didn’t see any other by-line) didn’t dispel doubts on that score. But HG needs a 10% swing and I can’t believe that will happen. My instinct that these constituency profiles by outside journalists spending a couple of days max in the constituency don’t really add much to the sum of electoral knowledge.
Funny choice of constituencies. I think George Galloway has a good chance of winning personally. Can’t really see the Tories winning there either. I believe OK will be either 1st or second, Tories 2-4, respect and LDs could be anywhere.
Iain Lindley @ 112 - Want a small side bet on that?
Andrew @ 113 - Hall Green is probably a decent Labour hold, but it will depend on turnout. The Tories have continued to decline in the area, even in a bad year they haven’t been able to get 3 councillors home in Billesley which should have been easy for them. The seat is ripe for a deposit holding BNP vote and they have been quite active. LDs will rise very slightly in the seat, but nothing to affect the result - mainly due to votes in Hall Green ward which is now fairly solidly LibDem and demographic change. The new Birmingham Hall Green proposed by the Boundary Commission will be a different kettle of fish.
RE 116: Personally I disagree with you about GG. I believe most voters, even on the left think that he went too far in his criticisms of the war. To use a historical parrallel consider General Douglas McArthur in America, who was sacked as a general for advocating bombing China (including the use of some nukes I think). He had a massive media profile due to his believes and a strong following amongst certain sections in society, but was unable to get anywhere in politics as for all his followers, the moderates/Independents could never bring themselves to support someone with views as extreme as that. In short GG is too extreme to win BG and Bow.
What an irony that Hari should say that about Northern Ireland. One of the reasons I don’t join in the general lionising of Michael Moore is (inter alia) his NORAID like fatuities re. Northern Ireland (which can be found in Stupid White Men). His account of the difficulties with the peace process is ridiculous, saying it was all caused by David Trimble insisting on the Provos giving up every bullet before agreeing to go back into government with them. Utter nonsense - Trimble went back into government while PIRA was decomissioning very slowly (or not at all), and while it was engaging in criminal activities such as smuggling and punishment beatings. Oh, and he also said that British troops keep Catholics under the thumb - when Sinn Fein and the SDLP were both represented in the devolved institutions (including a Catholic Deputy First Minister, first Seamus Mallon, then Mark Durkan) this is ridiculous
Interesting story today in the Telegraph about William Hague, which has now been picked up by the BBC Website. Apart from saying he nevers want to be the leader of the party again (unsurprising), he basically admits he finds politics pretty boring and is very unlikely to ever return to the Frontbench. This striks me as rather disappointing, that he is reluctant to serve the party again, as men such as Clarke, Dorrell, Gummer, Portillo have also done (all ex cabinet ministers). How are the Tories meant to get back into Government when former cabinet ministers refuse to serve in opposition. Is the problem of a little known shadow cabinet hampering Howard’s attempts to make the party seen as a party of government? I’m sure for example that IDS (a decent man for all his faults) will return to the frontbench sometime after the next election.
For those like Hague and Portillo who no longer have the ‘fire in their bellies’, I can understand their unwillingness to be involved in the front line, and they probably wouldn’t be particularly successful anyway. “Been there, done that” is perfectly legitimate even for politicians! I AM disappointed in Clarke’s attitude; his performance on this week’s Question Time was yet another reminder of how the Party needs his ervices. But Gummer and Dorrell? I think the ‘baggage’ they carried from the late 1980s and 1990s would more than outweigh the benefits they would bring. Dorrell was almost unkown when he was actually a Cabinet Minister while Gum Gum….
But even if they no longer have the fires in their bellies should be sitting as Conservative MPs in Parliament? Also doesn’t it look bad that a lot of senior Tory MPs effectively are using Parliament as a Second Career to the money they make in the business/legal world. I don’t mind MP’s having second jobs, it is just that it seems Tory MP’s have third jobs, and too often don’t pull there weight.
re 121. I really want John Selwyn Gummer to do something because for months I’ve been waiting to use on the site that picture of him feeding a burger to his child at the height of the BSE crisis.
Agree with 122 100%, and with 123 10,000%! Oh, go on Mike, do it anyway…you can then get us Tories screeching at your deplorable “partisanship”…
Vaguely related question to Conservatives - how many Conservative MPs defeated in 97 have since returned to the Commons? We’ve come up with 5 (Michael Portillo, Jacqui Lait, Robert Spink, Derek Conway and Greg Knight) but there are probably more.
Alastair Burt, Charles Hendry, Andrew Mitchell
At the next election there could be a few more. Malcolm Rifkind is the only one selected for a safe seat. David Evenett is fighting his old seat Bexleyheath and Crayford for a third time having lost in 97 (he is tipped to win on Baxter). David Martin in Bristol West (a 3 way marginal)
Andrew, thanks for settling that argument. Its surprisingly few really. Is it policy or just a desire for new blood at local association level?
No Lord Freeman after 97 (put in charge of CCO for a while, decreed that ex MP’s basically if they wanted to fight again, had to fight their old seats). Unsuprisingly few took up the offer. He was also right in thinking the Tories needed new faces. Seeing members of John Major’s government coming back in would not have set the right tone.
Interestingly as well in the Sunday Times today (best paper around), a Tory MP (Jonathan Sayeed) has been found to have been charging American tourists for visits to the House of Commons. This is interesting for two reasons, one is that he is likely to be deselected as Michael Trend was in Windsor (for fidding housing benefits). It is also interesting as the Tories now have a policy like labour of imposing 3 person shortlists on any seat that needs to select a candidate. Prepare for the first all women shortlist I suspect. Fortunately though the Tories are likely to hold as the scourge of the sleazy, the Lib Dems are well in third place.
Is this Lord Freeman, Roger Freeman, Cabinet Minister who was defeated at Kettering in 1997? I wonder what he’s doing now.
Yes, he’s the same guy. No doubt he has got some sort of cushy number in the private sector. He was though one of the better ministers in Major’s Government according to Gyles Brandreth.
Aye, bit too much of a smoothy for my tastes (incidentally, Brandreth’s ‘Breaking The code’ is simply wonderful in cataloging the sheer utter ghastliness of the 1992-97 govt). Fortuntaely, Sayeed had an 8,000 majority in Mid Beds. Serves him right for defeating Tony Benn back in 83!
Re. 133, I agree (though a close runner up is Hywel Williams’ Guilty Men, all the more credible for Williams’ unflattering portrait of his boss, John Redwood).
Re. 26, 27 and 31, I knew Hari’s recent period of good behaviour (or half-decent columns) was too good to be true.
Tony King was one of the few pundits (alongside David Sanders) to predict a Tory victory in 92. His political sympathies (fairly centrist) are indicated in the foreword to ‘SDP: The Birth, Life, and Death of the Social Democratic Party’ (he and his co-author, Crewe, would have voted for Hattersley in Birmingham Sparkbrook, Nigel Forman in Carshalton & Wallington, and so on - the book was published in 95). Having corresponded with Prof King re. the 97 result, he strikes me as refreshingly down to earth (whereas some academics are - as an academic cousin of mine admits - appallingly big-headed).
But surely the jump from Hattersley is a pretty big one to make?!
Sorry, meant Hattersley to Forman!
112 Iain - It wasn’t in 2001. But it is a Lib/Lab marginal now ! I was there yesterday leafletting a very, very well-heeled area where the LDs have won the council election the last 2 years leaving 1 forlorn tory in that ward. I’m now predicting an LD gain by c.1,000 with the Tories dropping to around 15%.
130 I was the LD candidate against Sayeed in 1997. Very safe Torys eat but extremely small number of Tory activists e.g. couldn’t fill their allotted spaces at the count
RE 137: Perhaps you should stand again on an anti-sleaze platform. To be fair, I am sure he will be deselected by his local party (who are unhappy with him anyway) and CCO. Interesting question is that under the new selection rules in the run up to the election, CCO will impose a 3 person shortlist on the seat. There could be an all female shortlist or some very prominent names as it is an ideal seat, with a large Tory majority and the Lib Dems in 3rd place and in the South East.
Re. 135, you’d certainly think so. I can’t stand Hattersley’s politics as a member of the Labour Party (particularly his infatuation with comprehensive schools - I went to one, and while I know I fared better there than I would have under the eleven plus, I still believe that comprehensive schools only