Blair in trouble with women - ICM Poll
March 12th, 2005-
But good news for Charles Kennedy
Women voters have turned against Tony Blair according to an ICM poll for tomorrow’s News of the World. The main points:-
Female voters are particularly important in determining elections as they tend to switch more between parties. Blair successfully wooed them as a personable, honest family man when he swept to power in 1997.
Change in women’s views of the most popular party leader compared with 2001
Tony Blair 30% (-13%)
Michael Howard 21% (+5% on Hague’s rating)
Charles Kennedy 24% (+12%)
There is no information in the news agency reports of the poll about the voting intention of those in the survey. ICM interviewed 542 women aged 18 and over on March 9 and 10.
© Mike Smithson 2005
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m surprised he’s that popular with women!
Unless you have figures other than those you’ve given in your headline “Blair in trouble with women” bears little relation to the statistics you’ve posted. If it’s accurate to say Blair is in trouble with women it’s hard to know how you would describe Michael Howard’s relationship when he’s 33% more unpopular.
Perhaps you were referring to the article by Matthew Parris who wrote to-day “Tony Blair meanwhile makes deranged speeches about repairing his marriage with the British people, no doubt hoping to get his leg over just one more time on May 5th”
However Matthew Parris
28% honesty is very poor. Wonder how many women compared to men, who think he’s dishonest, would actually vote for him.
Roger 2. The headline is valid. Last time his popularity rating was 43% - now it’s 30%. Last time Blair had a lead of 43-16 over Hague with Kennedy on 12. This time he’s just 6% above Kennedy and 9 above Howard.
The only numbers I’ve got are from the agency report. I much prefer to look at the pollster’s data and then do an article. Alas it desn’t work like that.
“The only success he scored was on Europe where 52% said the PM had brought closer links.”
I don’t think you can assume they saw that as a good thing.
BV 5. Fair point. When these come out I try to get them posted on the site as soon as possible because I know a lot of users are looking in on Saturday nights for news of any polls. The agency report was timed at 7.42 pm - I published here at 8.02 pm.
And what’s the “good news for Charlie Kennedy”?
……That he’s even more in trouble with women than Blair?
Mike, you do admirably at updating the site so quickly! I certainly didn’t mean you ought to spend days polishing every article - that isn’t what blogging’s about.
Only joking Mike. Just sometimes I think you might be a Lib/Dem supporter!
Oh come on. We all know Mike’s a Tory
At least that’s all he’s been accused of in the past, not least by our resident MP!
9. You guessed - though I’m not a great fan of my “leader” particularly after he missed that crucial vote on the terror bill. If there had been a defeat in the Commons the last two weeks would have been totally different.
Alex I would be a Tory but for their policies on immigration, law & order, the EU, taxation and the NHS….& IDS supported the war.
Did the
not appear on your computer Mike? You must have noticed the people unable to comprehend trying to be dispassionate when betting, believing your threads ‘talking up the Tories’ amount actually equate towards you wanting them to win?
Alex 13. I get great pleasure calling things right whichever party it is. Just at the moment Labour is down a bit and the Tories and LDs have the potential of moving up. I still regret letting my own personal feelings getting in the way of making a dispassionate judgement on Kerry-Bush
Mike at 12; my own instincts are Tory in some respects (especially on law and order). But I’m deterred from supporting them on three grounds:
Firstly, their stance on immigration (my wife is an immigrant)
Secondly, the limp populism of some of their views (as a teacher, I’m mystified about all the so-called “political correctness” that MH alleges I’m imparting to my pupils)
Thirdly, as a non-driver, I’m concerned that Tory transport policy seems to be written from behind a steering wheel.
Tory posters are welcome to try to convince me that I’m wrong!
#15 - I’m just out of the secondary education system. Not once was the British Empire ever taught in lessons. I think this is the kind of PC that MH is talking about, that pupils are not being taught proper British history, as an exmaple.
Roger, we usually get on - but I think you are being a bit disingenuous on this. That is a fantastic result for a Lib Dem leader. Traditionally the Lib Dems have been rather bad at appealing to women (which is strange considering their ‘cuddly’ image). For a Lib Dem leader to be fighting on equal terms with the other 2 is very interesting.
What is also notable, and I think that Mike might agree with me, is that it shows the underlying power that the war actually has on this election. It was the war that sucked women away from TB, and it was the war that catapulted the Lib Dem’s poll ratings into the 20s.
16 Rob - if you’re interested in the history of the British Empire I suggest you visit your local library - try and select a cross section of books to get a balanced opinion. The one by Niall Fergusson has a revisionist streak to it (revisionist in the “its not all a bad thing” way). Tories would laud such behaviour as being self-help rather than relying on the nanny state (education)
15- I think the ‘political correctness’ is more about things like ‘admissions policies ‘ , ’school discipline’ , ‘all must win prizes’ etc rather than what is being taught.
Graham - I have anecdotal support for the LDs attracting more women position from my constituency work today.
15 - John -having no winners or losers in school sports really sets kids up for the outside world.Nottinghamshire County Council will only give equal prizes so as not to create a “competition” with winners & losers.
Steve. I hope that you didn’t tell Helen
Vino. My son has a very competitive sports day - and he’s only 6. I think that you may well get most of your info about schools from the Daily Mail.
I didn’t Know you lived in Nottinghamshire Graham!
And I can assure you that the behaviour of the parents is rather more raucous than it was the last time I was at Highbury, but slightly politer than Fratton Park (but that’s naval towns for you!)
# 18 - I’m entirley self-taught when it comes to British History, absolutley no thanks to the nanny-state!
22 The truth is more prosaic, Graham - the information comes from surveys
21 - Vino, which party controls Nottinghamshire?
Sorry alex. I was commenting on the wider point. I was just trying to point out that my personal experience with the current school system isn’t that much of a characature. In fact in most fundamental ways it all seems pretty much the same - exceot the only computer I ever saw at school was when I was fifteen and it needed an ignition key to start it. Now they have rooms full of them.
26 - and presumably in typing too, Rob
29 - Well I am just about to go out, being a typical student, so any mistakes made are a cause of the intoxificating nature of the alcohol! :p
28 - Graham, I trust you’re staying away from Over There. That’s more education in the style of the School of Hard Knocks
I also heard some very interesting stuff about the HoC which I will share via email
Sorry I meant caricature - I don’t know where that spelling came from - probably the education I didn’t receive during the 1980’s.
27 - Labour
28 - Maybe Graham. But then Vino probably knows more about where he lives than the Daily Mail
I am now intrigued (is there an ‘intrigued’ emoticon)
30 - a cause of or caused by?
PS I’m only jealous coz you’re off out and I’m contemplating a QNI …
27 - Tabman - LABOUR since I think 1979 - if the County Elections on 5th May are held on their own then the Tories will retake control - since the City got it’s independence in 1998 they don’t return any councillors.
33 - Alex, exactly. I was also trying to recall Vino’s stated political preference. Apparently he “came out” last weekend!
Graham - don’t be, I’m sure it’ll be old news to you!
36 - so presumably you approve then Vino?
Graham - 23 - “I think that you may well get most of your info about schools from the Daily Mail.” Why do you think and say that?
Maybe Vino is one of the Lab -> Con waverers in Broxtowe Nick was mentioning earlier!
38 - Tabman - of course.
Steve. I did have a nose around the ‘trenches’. Romford has taken an unexpected turn. Rozza’s gay support seems to be growing. Haven’t had a peak at any of the other points of interest though. It all seems a bit slow. I think all the Conservatives are off at the conference and the Lib Dems can’t be bothered to go there without a fight. It is a strange old place - like an existential novel
41 - and of their competition policy?
Graham - Over There reminds me a bit of the sketch in “The Holy Grail” where John Cleese’s knight says “Its only a flesh wound …”
Interpret that as you will …
40 - alex - toyed with the idea for some time but finally rejected it,however I do think MH is doing a good job for the Tories unlike CK.(for the LD’s)
43 - mmmm?
Vino. I suppose it came across as a bit trite, and not a serious critique of education. Education is important, and physical education is very important, but I don’t think debate on education shold b reduced to that kind of ‘it’s all gone wrong since they stopped doing ….’ type argument (regularly employed by the Daily Mail). Schools are complicated places doing a very complicated job. My experience of having a child at school at the moment, and having done a major 3 year study of services to Devon schools is that in many ways they are succeding and in other ways they are still struggling. But one area that I haven’t found a huge problem (either professionally or personally) round here with uncompetitive sports.
45 lol - I think Nick thought he’d definitely captured you. Sounds like he’s going to have to do some extra canvassing
“15 - John -having no winners or losers in school sports really sets kids up for the outside world. Nottinghamshire County Council will only give equal prizes so as not to create a “competition” with winners & losers.
Comment by Vino — 12/3/2005 @ 9:55 pm”
Perhaps I misinterpreted the above, but I thought you were in disagreement with such (Labour-originated) policiy.
Come back here - I’ll suck you to death
Sorry that was in response to Steve - not a completely insane rant.
50 - I’m surprised that got past the spam filter
Perhaps you should repost on Romford.
48 - alex - “I think Nick thought he’d definitely captured you”.He has.If I don’t vote Labour I won’t vote at all.I cannot vote Tory for the botched scorched earth rail privatisation and being from Nottinghamshire the coal closures.
I appear to be Spam filter resistant. I could write anything, anywhere, pretending to be anyone
53 what about the Political Correctness in local government?
49 - Tabman - I am but it doesn’t worry me.
54 Perhaps they’ll introduce it to Westminster - all parties get equal seats and are deemed to have won.
They’ll compromise Tabman. All parties get equal share of the vote, but Labour win
Alex - that’s called FPTP
55 “what about the Political Correctness in local government”
What political correctness is this?
PS - if you don’t believe me, try Baxter on 30/30/30
Vino - you raised it in the first place, not me - see 49.
That was my point Tabman
It’ll be a “Blair compromise”, where the opposition parties are duped into accepting the status quo.
62 - O no I didn’t - it was post 15 - blame him.
I think that Baxter loses its ‘reliability’ on those kind of figures though. A three way even split would probably involve some pretty serious shifts in voting patterns which wouldn’t fit into the mathematical model used. That is just a guess of course.
Agreed Graham. Which is what makes this election so potentially unpredictable given the minimum possibility of a Lab->Lib shift during the campaign (even assuming the tories make little progress).
Alex. No sign of Tory progress in the polls so far
Which brings me back to the thread start. Has anyone looked at whether the Lib Dems have made any progress in any other underlying areas? The impression I have is that they have made progress in most areas except perhaps ‘the economy’ and perhaps ‘crime’. This would imply that their vote maybe more ’solid’ than previously. Anyone care to cast some light on this?
66 posts, nearly all of them off-topic - is this a record? It’s triking that the NoW didn’t publish party preference, since it’s difficult to believe that the question wasn’t asked. Perhaps the results were less se…er…the filter wouldn’t let me say that, I suppose…exciting.
I tried a couple of times to bring it back to the subject Nick - credit where credit’s due surely
62 - Tabman - back to the topic then - with your knowledge of Nottinghamshire do you not think that the Lib Dem strongholds in the County are in “twee”places such as Southwell(pronounced Suth-ell but not by locals).Why is this?
My feeling is that Lyton Crosby is turning this campaign into more of a Presidential-style campaign with the two main parties battling it out and Tony Blair and Michael Howard with a higher profile. Under these circumstances the LibDems will find it increasingly difficult to find a voice and will likely be squeezed out by the major parties. I think the choice at the end of the day will largely be one between Tony Blair and Michael Howard.
I really do think the Lynton Crosby approach is an honest one. It is about humanising politics, connecting to people through real people, whereas Blair has been about slick soundbites and spinning facts and statistics to portray his government in the best possible light.
Although Blair’s strategy has been a huge success in the past, I don’t think it makes the emotional connection of the Crosby method, especially when trust has been lost. Howard is looking more human and on the side of the people and Blair is looking very superficial to all those who have seen through him. Meanwhile, Beckett, Hain and Reid sound like the new Nasty Party. It is as if the roles of the parties have reversed. If this election is decided by the campaign, I don’t think Labour would win.
I don’t think Michael Howard comes across particularly well on TV. He reminds people too much of Ann Widdecombe’s “something of the night about him” comments too much.
Rob, 16, I left secondary education twelve years ago (under a Conservative government!), and despite taking both GCSE and A Level history, I can’t remember a single lesson about the British Empire. Tudors and Stuarts? Yes. Colonisation of Africa? No.
# 74 - Well that was my idea of what PC might be, avoiding the content that may offend certain groups of people. I’m not sure the exact details of their proposals.
Have you guys seen the new System 3 poll?
“A new System Three opinion poll published today shows that Scottish Labour is on course to retain their huge lead over every other political party north of the Border Commissioned by the SNP, the February snapshot reveals that 46% (+4) of voters in Scotland would opt for Tony Blair’s party in the event of general election being held tomorrow.
The Nationalists are in second place, on 23% (+1), which is up on their 2001 performance and would probably be enough to return their five MPs to Westminster. David McLetchie’s Conservatives polled 16% (+1), with the LibDems trailing in fourth with 13% (-2). The Scottish Socialist Party only attracted 1% of all respondents.”
Printz. I think that you will find that all the evidence is that negative campaigning is very effective. The process is known in the trade as ‘push me pull you’. The first part of the strategy is to paint a caricature of the opposition that is unappealing, then you offer a rosier vision of yourself to contrast. The problem for Howard is that he already had an image with which to hang this on. The ‘pull you’ will probably come with the budget this week (interesting article in the Observer by Andrew Rawnsley).
Whlst I agree with Dave that the Howard campaign want a presidential one that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will / is working or that it will harm the Lib Dems in the long run. The most interesting figures in the NotW poll are that Kennedy leads Howard by a statistically significant margin with regards to women. The line that may come back to haunt them may well be getting Anne Robinson to say he was a bit of a womaniser - it was an attempt to try and show him as having ’s*x appeal’, but actually may reinforce his ’something of the night’ image.
The other problem for thi strategy is that a challenger can rarely show himself as more presidential than the incumbent - as Neil Kinnock found to his cost.
The nasty party thing is interesting - with both Lab and the Cons vying over the tougher, nastier vote, they both seemed to have left an opening for the LDs to exploit their ‘cuddly’ image, which may well explain the NotW poll figures.
Richard System 3 almost allways overstate Labour and the SNP and understate the Tories (in every single election from 1979 onwards) and the Lib Dems.You can have a look at the Scottish Politics site for further details.
Another poll by Scottish Opinion had Labour at 38% (down 10) Lib Dems at 23% (up 11) and the Tories on 15% (down 3), not sure what the nats got though. Neither of these organisations have a great track record of getting the outcone of Scottish Elections right so both should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Further to the point above the SNP were on 16%. However Scottish Opinion only polled 504 people. Even Dr Peter Lynch commentating on the poll in the Sunday Mail (the paper that commisioned the poll) said he didn’t expect these levels of support to br repeated at a general election.
I saw the Scottish polls too. As Peter Snow would say it’s only a bit of fun but if you average the two you get:
Lab = 41
SNP = 20
Lib Dem = 18
Con = 16
Which sounds about right bearing in mind the national polls. Scotland really is a one and three half party system and I guess any of the three could come second - it’s a bit like the race for third in the SPL
BTW ayone knw the sample size for the System 3 poll?
80 - yes, Scotland has an even more interesting pattern of contests. Across the country as a whole it is Labour well ahead with the other thre main parties fighting it out for second. But in many individual seats it is still a question of who is best placed to beat the Tories. One of the interesting developments is how effective the lib Dems have been of late in converting their support into seats which the SNP and the Tories have failed to do. The Lib Dems are targeting very hard in Scotland (hold nine, gain up to five) and could well see this trend develop further. It is harder to see where any significant number of SNP or Tory gains will come from.
Hard to see if you are a Liberal perhaps. The Liberals gained one FPTP seat in 2003 and very nearly lost Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. The Tories gained 3 and the Nationalists 2. SNP gains could come in Dundee East, Western Isles and Ochil and South Perthshire. Tory gains could come in Angus, Dumfries & Galloway, Dumfriesshire, Moray and Perth and I know this will upset Liberals but Edinburgh South remains a possibility. As I’ve said all along the Tories in Scotland should pick up at least 3 seats.
And if the Tories are running at 15-16% in system 3 polls then we can probably excpect to do significantly better come the actual election.
In Scotland I expect the Tories to at least (notionally) gain Dumfries & Galloway from Labour and probably Angus from the Nats. If they campaign well, they also have a very good chance in Perth & North Perthshire. I think the rest of possible Tory gains are to hard to predict at this stage. It will largely depend on how well the Tories campaign and where the LibDems fit into everything.
Based on the last Scottish election results you would expect them to hold seats like Argyll & Bute and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, although if Crosby manages to keep them out of the limelight for a long time, they may struggle to hold their position in this election, especially if the Tories are able to lift their share of the vote.
The results in the real swinging seats in Scotland like Edinburgh South West, East Renfrewshire and Stirling remain up for grabs although Labour is definantly favoured at this stage.
If things go well for the LibDems I would expect them to gain at least Edinburgh South and Aberdeen South. Then you have got the more marginal seats like East Dunbartonshire and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey. The problem for the LibDems in these seats is that they really need to Tory vote to stay the same or go backwards to win the seats. If say 5% Labour voters switch to the Tories rather than the LibDems it will be extremely difficult for them and could make the difference ina lot of seats this election.
It seems the St albans Lib/Dems know more than the rest of us. The latest Lib/Dem leaflet says “On May 5th ,you can elect a new St Albans MP: Michael Green. Any legal eagle know if that means he has started his election expenses then?
re : 84
Under the new leglisation, no. A candidate’s election expenses does not start until the notice of poll. Under previous election law, it is possible, but would be for an election petition to decide. Anyone who goes down that road needs their head examining. All the evidence shows that at the following by election, the candidate who won at the election wins with a higher majority - Winchester is a classic example.
The question about election expenses is an interesting one, and one that is relevant to the campaigns that many candidates are currently running. After the last General Election the Government rewrote the rules, but typically did not think though the consequences of what they were doing.
As a result, NO candidate can start their election expenses until Blair visits the Queen to disolve Parliament. - Even if they ask voters to vote for them - This has removed what used to be a huge advantage for sitting MPs. It has allowed many PPCs to campaign agresively since their selection in ways that woud have been illegal 5 years ago. Watch out for some interesting stories after polling day of canidates who used this loophole to undertake massive targetted campaigns before Parliament was dissolved.
[86] It sounds to me as though the Government knew exactly what it was doing when it re-wrote the rules :).
We must be fairly close by now to knowing which seats are “open” in Yankee parlance. It will be an interesting part of the inquest to compare the swing in such seats with the rest…
surely what is more than interesting here, is that the Lib Dem Candidate in St Albans is asking electors to vote for him/her on 5th May 2005. How does he/she know that is the date of the election?
Election Law is even more daft now, as candidates now have to delcare every single penny spent at commercial terms. For example, if you are a candidate in say the centre of Manchester, with its high rents, you have to put down the commercial rent, even though the Party may own the premises and pays no rent to itself.
Previously a nominal sum would have been delcared of say £100 a week.
It would not be so bad if the government had increased the levels of maximum permitted expenditure to take this into account - but it did not.
The same is true of staff costs - lots of negotiations are going on with MPs staff on what they can and cannot do and what goes in the return of election expenses.
Yes, but the point about the Lib Dem in St Albans is that by putting out “vote for me” leaflets now, they are not an election expense - despite the fact that no voter will know the difference between a vote for me leaflet that goes out now and one that goes out in a couple of weeks.
Sorry - Also - I Don’t agree that the Government thought this through. The new law is a gift for challengers and that clearly isn’t good news for Labour MPs in marginal seats.
to 89 - my point on this one, is how does he know the date. Either he has foresight or will have egg on his face.
He’s taking a punt - maybe he hedged himself on Betfair!
Like me Jon 92. As I’ve said on another thread I’m changing jobs and have arranged to have a couple of months off before starting the new one so I can spend even more time working on the site. An election after May 5th would really mess me about.
Ben knows this and I’m sure he’s passed it on to Tony
Re Women so what was this poll Mr Smitheson reported a while back giving MH a 48-30 Asset v Liability ration among women while Blair was a liability, if so many people here say Blair trumps him among women.
The last ICM poll asked people if they thought each party leader was an asset/liability to his party. That’s a different question from asking who you want as PM.
That said, whereas, if ICM is correct, Blair was massively more popular than other party leaders in 2001, now he is only slightly more so.
Isn’t it estimated that if women had not won the vote, there would have been a more or less continous Labour Government since 1945.
RE 96 I think it’s been shown in the absence of women the Tories would have wone just one election in the entire 20th Century, even Chrchill said he’d always have wanted women to have the vote if he’d only realised in the first place quite how many of them were going to vote for him.
No wonder the Trad Unions were never in favour!
Very un-PC thought - women say they don’t like nasty peepl and they love cuddly teddy bears but in the they all vote for Clinton
free slotmachine Who can refute a sneer?