Will Blair get his Bagdhad bounce?
January 31st, 2005
-
But why aren’t the markets moving in his direction?
After the success of yesterday’s elections in Iraq can Tony Blair now draw a line under the war and its aftermath and start to relish in what some have described as his “Bagdhad Bounce”?
For if there had been any doubt at all about whether he will be returned with another huge majority it has been over his decision to take the country into the war without UN sanction and against huge opposition both within his party and throughout the country.
The war and its associated issues like the Andrew Gilligan interview, the Kelly suicide and the Hutton and Butler inquiries have taken their toll on the Prime Minister, particularly on the level of trust he enjoys from the British public. Labour has hardly been out of the 30s in the opinion polls and the only consolation the party has had is that the Tories have been doing even worse.
Can we expect Labour to climb into the comfortable poll positions that they had at this time before the last election - or is there still a worry for Tony Blair?
Will the fact that Iraq is now on the road to democracy secure, for certain, an unprecedented Labour third term with a huge majority?
So far the markets have been unimpressed. In spite of yesterday’s three new opinion polls all showing Labour well ahead and the news from Iraq the moves on the spread-betting markets have been in the opposite direction. It’s the Tory price, not Labour’s that has progressed today - something that we did not predict and cannot explain.
Latest IG Index spread prices: LAB 355-362 (nc): CON 190-197 (+1): LDs 70-74 (nc)
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I am not sure if he will get a bounce as such, but it certainly should at least stabilise labour in the polls. At most any bounce he gets will worth about 2 points in the polls. Too much trust has gone from TB for him to get back to 01 levels. Remember also that as we have seen that the insurgents (terrorists) have not laid down their weapons yet.
You Can’t Explain the seats? Its easy. The tories are lovely
Presumably the explanation is that people have being laying money on the Tories today and the spread has shifted due to that. As regards the election, the phoney war, is drifting along a bit. I would expect some major policy announcements this week, but we do not seem to have had any yet. This week might be a good week for the Lib Dems to go on something and try and pick up some headlines.
I expect the Tories to come up with some stuff on law and order probably next week, to hammer home there tough guy message. Labour I think is looking to respond to immigration debate, with some proposals soon.
Andrew
I agree, the immediate success of the Iraqi Elections should solidify Blair’s and Labour’s position some what and firm up some of the Party’s weaker support on the “soft left” but any bounce will no doubt be small however I would expect such a bounce to be pretty solid and not transitory.
Everything in Iraq now turns on the Shiites’ making overtures to the Sunnis who largely boycotted the election but account for 20% of the population. On this front it looks very positive right now with most of the big Shiite parties already making clear their keenness to reach out to the Sunni population. If this happens the backing from the Tribal Leader’s for the insurgents and indeed large parts of the Sunni population may well dry up and that will go a long way towards fashioning a more stable Iraq.
That said while any improvement for Blair in the polls will be minimal (most of the damage is already done and won’t be undone anytime soon) it should be pretty robust as I have argued.
Off the topic, seeing all the Iraqis queuing up to vote in defiance of threats and intimidation was really stirring stuff IMHO, makes you think that after all the bloody mess we might finally gain something from this war that was worth fighting for.
The Lib Dems have a big policy announcement coming out later this week I am lead to believe…
Ben - all becomes clear - you’ve been doing a spot of canvassing in Basra SW?
He could at least have found an internet cafe…
‘ . . something that we did not predict and cannot explain . . ‘: no ‘explanation’ (i.e. just-so story) is needed for a change of 0.5 % in an indicator, which is itself derived from a handful (? how many: does anyone know?) new bets placed since yesterday. Anyone who comes to this site looking for true (i.e empirically verifiable by experiment) causal explanations of what is going on is seriously deluded. The chat on this site, interesting as it occasionally is, is part of the phenomenon to be explained.
Mike
Can you get away from comments that “Labour are well ahead” - they aren’t. In 97 and 01 they were but this time they have at worst no lead (1% being within the margin of error) and at best a small lead. Since in previous elections a commanding Labour poll lead was reduced considerably by polling day the whole thing could go very wrong for them.
To say Labour are well ahead on the recent polls is plain wrong!
Christo - 8 Normally a spate of polls like the ones on Sunday affects the spread price. It causes more people to bet and usually the money goes in the direction of the polls. This time it didn’t - it went in the other direction. I follow these markets very closely and I was expecting them to react in ways they have before. As it was the balance of money going seemed to be on the Tories which took me by surprise.
On reflection I think that the markets over-reacted two weeks ago to the Robert Jackson defection and the Populus Poll in marginal seats. We are now seeing it righting itself.
Rik 9 - all the polls are reporting Labour leads ranging from 1% on YouGov to 8% with CR. The average lead, based on Martin Baxter’s poll of polls, is just under 5%. I’ve got doubts about some of those numbers but I’m just reporting what’s there and the term “well ahead” for an average 5% lead seems a reasonable statement.
Mike - I don’t usually agree with Rik but on the ’strength’ of the current labour lead in the polls I do think a comparison with Jan 2001 bears consideration. An average of all nine polls (unweighted by number of those interviewed) in that month had Tory 32.3%, Labour 48.6%, Lib Dem 13.7%, Others 5.6%. The picture from this January’s polls shows the Tories down marginally 0.4% (sorry Rik) at 32.0%, Labour down 11% at 37.6%, Lib Dems up 7.7% at 21.4% and others up 3.7% at 9.3%. The real unknown seems to me to be how successful or otherwise the Lib Dems will be in repeating their 5.8% swing from Labour between the Jan 2001 polls and the G.E. The strength of any Tory imporovement in seats is, as has been said before, likely to come more from the swing from Lab to Lib Dem than on any real improvement in their own performance.
Another similar movement over the last four years can be seen from the latest Mori’s student poll. Lib Dem 34% (up 11), Lab 28% (down 8), Tory 19%(down 5), Green 12% (up 5) and Others 7% (down 2).
How did a smilimng face appear when I entered 8?
Clive. Thanks for using the kind of analysis of which I approve. I would like to know, however, what anyone on the site thinks is the tipping point between the Tories benefitting from a Lib Dem boost and the Lib Dems benefitting? My feeling is that it is lower than people imagine. But the calculators all have it very high. It all comes down to concentration of votes doesn’t it?
The LibDems could really be the key to Labour’s success or otherwise. The Tories are finding some of their “deserters” from ‘97 & ‘01 who at last are coming back. They are not fully convinced that MH is the right person for PM but on a local basis will support candidates with a personality. The LibDems are very effective at using local issues and despite the comments of one LD poster to this site last week the Tories have learnt a few things from them since being in opposition. Now that the Iraq first round of elections has taken place with further elections towards the end of the year will the anti-war support the LD’s have enjoyed start to evaporate? As Mike has mentioned in the main item turnout will make or break Labour.
Think Ben is right.
Labour pretty much cannot poll the same as 2001 but may stabilise at a level just below it. The war will probably cost it 2-3%.
Unless people either lose trust in its ability to govern or are persuaded of a better alternative that is unlikely to change.
I imagine the LDs will keep any war boost given that no-one really thinks the mayhem in Iraq will stop - not least the loss of 10 our servicemen’s lives. With any luck Bush and co will start burbling about Iran and remind everyone what a great plan Iraq was.
The other thing about the war is that it has persuaded many tribal Labour voters to give the LDs a closer look, and generally they have not disliked what they have seen, though of course I still think there is plenty of room for improvement.
“With any luck Bush and co will start burbling about Iran and remind everyone what a great plan Iraq was.”
That sounds very oppertunist. Are you really saying that you would want them to plan a war in iran, which may kill more civillians, just so the Lib Dems can gain a few votes?
On the doorstep (I am a PPC) the movement is clearcut. War is a reason for already disillusioned labour voters to switch to LD which is why Kennedy plays it so hard. It is a non-issue amongst lapsed Tories; and therefore doesn’t help to keep them voting LD. Since the war is the LD’s main campaign platform at the moment poll support for LD’s is all coming from Labour held seats. On all the other currently running big issues (crime, drinking, immigration, Europe, terrorism) Lib dems are stuck with policies seriously out of tune with majority opinion in Tory targets like mine (ex Tory seats won by Lib Dems in 97).
One thing easily overlooked is that there doesn’t have to be an election in May! If the polls were to turn down for Labour or there was some sort of political scandal that threatened their re-election, then Blair can simply carry on until June 2006.
Of course, there would be drawbacks in putting the election off; opposition parties and the press would accuse him of being afraid. But it still remains an option under our curious system which gives the sitting Prime Minister a free hand in when to call an election (provided it is every 5 years).
No I want them to talk about it remind people here of the folly of military adventurism so that it can be avoided.
I note that the war fans tend to claim that it was all about saving civilian lives in the long term anyway (now WMD is gone). No doubt the same will be said of Iran - I just disagree with it that’s all.
Marcus - I note your blog claims LDs are in coaltion with Labour in Wales. I don’t think that is correct. Yours is a very interesting contest though…
It isn’t that curious in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is completely apolitical to allow the PM to choose the date of the election. If it were for a fixed term you would have the possibility of the Queen intervening in a political manner in the event of say, a government losing its majority, or there being a hung parliament. At least this way the Queen’s role is just a bit of pantomime beyond politics.
I think we also need to remember that the Iraqi elections are not on the front pages today- we are seeing pictures of a shot down/crashed plane (we don’t know yet) with 10 soldiers killed- the worst UK total since the war began. It was the top news story yesterday evening too. I think that that will develop as a big story, and the elections have been quickly forgotten. I don’t think peoples views on the war will change much.
Recently, somebody mentioned the “So now who do we vote for?” site, which seems to have some affinity to the Dump Blair movement. It seems that this site is gong to become increasingly interesting. Today it says:
Open forum and new constituencies on the way
“1.2.05/ In response to the dozens of e-mails we’ve received in the last 5 days:
1)An open forum for postings on any election/politics-related subject will be up within the next week. You’ll have to register to participate.
2)Lots more constituency data will be posted between now and the election: the next chunk(s) will include Wallasey, Battersea, Falmouth, Stroud, Leicester South etc. etc. You can, of course, e-mail with any other pressing suggestions.”
Something else to look forward to… However shall we find time to get any work done?
I am very surprised that no one has spoken of how ill Tony Blair looks. His skin has developed a pale yellow tone, while his eyes and face look gaunt. Is this related to his heart?
John 24 - another interesting one for you is http://www.tacticalvoter.net There was also another great site in 2001: http://www.electionprediction.org
I think that the internet is the great unseen weapon of the next election. We are already seeing the impact in polling (YouGov). I also argued when Harris’ original article came out that there is great scope for an email chain letter campaign to influence tactical voting on a massive scale.
My hunch is that this would play against the Tories; on average their supporters are older and on average less likely to be technically literate (depsite the “silver surfers”). Thoughts?
John
What the actual address for that “So now who do we vote for?” site?
Tabman - a theory not borne out by contributors to this site however
John - careful, ben will get the thought police to shut it down
http://www.sonowwhodowevotefor.net
Andy - I did say *on average* …
Hmmm 286 votes, 50% for Respect. Must be a slow day in the Galloway office.
Historically the Lib Dems great weakness (although very occasionally a strength)was that there were few who could identify distinctive Lib Dem policies. The fact that the Tories backed Labour on the Iraq war left the Lib Dems with a distinctive policy position. This is now being followed up with ID cards, where again the Lib Dems look distinctive. Partly as a result, there has been a closer examination of the party than usual, and several other “Liberal” positions have been identified by commentators. This, I think, is what lies at the root of their higher position in the polls.
The key question that others on this thread have identified is does this rise in support represent something more than previous “surges” (Oh no! I surged too soon! c. Spitting Image 1987)? To be honest it is the key question of this coming election. On the door steps I have had a terrific reception- a positive response to the Liberal Democrats that this cynical, hoary old canvasser has never seen.
It is fair to say that I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but evidence there is nevertheless. There is far greater goodwill towards the Liberal Democrats across the board- I have found this when campaigning in a seat which we hold and also one where we are a very distant third. So the increase in the Lib Dem vote can be felt on the ground, and everyone out there (except possibly Rik !) is feeling it. The real question is how strong and how localised this surge (hmm hmm) is. During the days of the Alliance the vote was higher than the current 20-21%, but far fewer seats were won. The Lib Dem’s targeting obviously works. Clearly the Tories are trying to do something similar- but by concentrating on such a narrow front, they really risk being smothered elsewhere- it is a very high risk strategy indeed. This is especially true because the Tories have already been outflanked to a degree on the policy front- by David Blunkett on law and order for example. Perhaps more critically, being on the government side on the war and libertarian issues such as ID cards gives Charles Kennedy the freedom to declare that the Lib Dems are the real opposition- and indeed on these issues the only opposition. We know that historically the greater publicity of the campaign traditionally works in favour of the Liberal Democrats- if these distinctive positions prove popular- as some in the media now predict- the bounce could be stronger than usual. So Lib Dem optimism yes, and maybe unjustified as yet, but watch this space. We know we will make progress, we just don’t know how much.
Iraq is a pretty important electoral issue; ID cards aren’t.
re: 32, I might have said that, but I keep finding that the punters actually raise the issue, admittedly as part of the House Arrest/Guantanamo civil liberties debate. ID cards are surprisingly unpopular and as the costs and the inconvenience (and utter uselessness)of the measure becomes clearer, I think it could be the next poll tax.
Re 31 and 33. I dont find anyone raising ID Cards or Iraq on the doorsteps. What they have been raising (before MHs announcement) is Crime, Immigration and the local Lib Dem Council’s stupidities! Could it be just because I am a Tory canvasser?
Re 34- Well Rik, I do think you guys missed an open goal here, but I am happy about that
The Conservative ID card policy is one that I fundamentally disagree with. However it is not enough to make me vote Lib Dem. Anyone who agrees with every policy that a Political Party has, hook, line and sinker, is either a liar, a fool, or can’t think for themselves.
IMO, ID cards is an issue that a large number of internet users/political activists care about, but which has very limited resonance with the public.
I would be amazed if more than 20,000 people were to switch from their party because of its stance on ID cards at the election.
36 - I agree wholeheartedly.
The poll tax took a while to get going too… it was not until the bill came due that it became a live issue (The Tories very foolishly ignored the reaction in Scotland). When you have to get the photos, the proof of ID, pay the (quite large) fee- THEN you will see ID martyrs and some real response. Even still, already, it is clear that those punters who have thought about don’t like it- “from the government that gave you an illegal war and a nanny state”. Of course I do not expect commited Tories to move on this issue, but we are reminding the uncommitted that the Tories are for it…
James at 31: As discussed in other threads, I think it’s a strategic error to think that opposing ID cards will win many votes - support for the cards was the major theme of my November newsletter and has generated more positive response than almost anything else I’ve done. I’ve yet to hear from a single constituent who is voting against me because of them.
No doubt we shan’t persuade each other on that. But your post implies that there has been a recent improvement in the LibDem position as a result of adding ID cards as a well-known LibDem issue. Looking at the site’s list of polls since Jan 04, it seems basically unchanged at around 20-22%, apart from little bounces now and then which then subside. The LibDems clearly made progress in 2003 over the war, but has anything much happened to their position since?
Nick
Perhaps I should mention that I’m a previous Labour voter considering the Lib Dems in part due to ID cards.
Re: 40, Hi Nick, (I do not want to be an ID card bore (but…))I think that the point I am making is that opposition to ID cards is actually marking the Lib Dems out as having something quite distinctive to say. To an extent the current situation on the issue is not the point- this IS a sleeper issue, but has the potential to be something more.
I do not intend to imply that ID cards, per se, are adding to the Lib Dem vote, I think that it is obvious that is not the case- at least so far. However the Liberal Democrats now occupy exclusively libertarian ground on a pretty wide range of issues. I think that this is important- we have always had a problem defining the party with any clarity against yourselves and the Tories. Where we did have distinctive policies -such as the independence of the Central Bank- it was relatively easy for Tory or Labour to take these polices, especially the day after being elected :-). The failure of the Tories to oppose what I am sorry but I think will be a disastrous policy finally allows us to fight on some exclusive ground. Remember, Nick, there was quite a head of steam initially supporting the Poll tax too.
I think the fact that the Lib Dems can set out a coherrent package of Liberal civil Liberties arguments about why house arrest-ID cards-one sided extradition treaties with the US etc. are a bad thing opens up clear differences between the Liberal Democrats on the one hand and Labour and the Conservatives on the other. I think that it is this that is making us more interesting, not only to the chattering classes but others too- I spent 20 minutes listening to a diatribe on Saturday about this, and while you cannot judge an issue by one canvassed nutter, I still left a motivated new member behind (ex-Tory in a seat we hold over them, so all to the good). I am not too surprised to find little response in Broxtowe so far, but I am sure you are watching like a hawk!
I think that ID cards will prove to be a fairly expensive waste of time, but I don’t see them as a big issue in reality. Obviously, some people think they’ll solve illegal immigration, and others see them as creating a police state, but I don’t think either view is close to being correct.
42 - James 0 - I attended a public meeting on ID cards last friday and to be quite honest Nick Palmer won the arguement - the civil liberties view as put forward by the Lib Dems (& Tory)did not go down well with the majority of the people present.
They were concerned about the amount of fraud taking place in the NHS & Benefit System and if the ID card helped to make the country safer then there was no problem in accepting them.
44 I don’t think that is James’s point. His point is that it makes the LDs distinctive which it does. You may agree or disagree with ID cards but it does make the LDs distinctive out of the 3 main parties.
Vino,
Remind how ID cards combat non identity based benefit fraud again?
Bullseye [46] reminds me of the many conversations I’ve had about all sorts of topics, in which I’ve said “I’d support X if I thought it would work” and discovered that the other person wasn’t interested in X at all, but only in whether I shared or respected their prejudices. People want to believe there’s a quick fix for fraud - you don’t make friends by reminding them that it might rain during their holidays