How ICM made a 17% drop in Labour support into just 1%
April 18th, 2005
-
Do you believe the pollster’s mathematics?
FACT: For their Mirror survey published this morning 341 people told ICM that they had voted Labour last time. Yet only 291 said that they were planning to vote for the party on May 5th – a decline of about a sixth
YET the headline figure that was published was that Labour would get 41% - just one percent down on what the party got four years ago.
SO the opinion poll that has been driving the betting markets is based on ICM methodology that turns 17% into 1%.
With the Tories it worked the other way. Nearly a fifth more people told the pollster that they were voting for Michael Howard’s party than said they voted Conservative last time. Yet the headline figure from ICM had them with an increase of just over 1%.
With the Liberal Democrats the difference was even more marked. The number who told the pollster that they were supporting Charles Kennedy’s party was over a quarter than the number who said they voted this way last time. Yet ICM only put the headline figure up 1%.
-
All this is based on ICM’s view that people do not tell the truth when asked how they voted four years ago. To deal with this they have a complex equation which weights towards Labour and away from the Lib Dems and the Tories.
Are ICM right or are ICM wrong? We’ll know on May 6th.
In the meantime there might be good value in the betting markets. In 2001, in common with all other pollsters, ICM overstated Labour.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
if i do my own maths properly, that means that people are saying to ICM : L 35 C 38.5 LD 22.5 which looks to me a more credible outcome than 41/33/20 …
Astonishing! Thanks for posting this Mike - it explains a lot.
Mike,Are you saying that ICM is a phoney and that we shouldn’t take notice of them,or indeed all telephone and ‘face to face’ polls,because I believe that they all weight in a similar fashion????
So now all opinion polls according to Mike are rubbish, papers having spent loads of money on these polls are getting a duff load of information and we are actually going to get a tory govt on May 6th. Mike seems to hava a ‘thing’ for non-telephone polls, I think he has an agenda.
I have always thought that trying to account for “ashamed supporters” was a total sham. Let us not forget that it used to inflate the Tory figures, when everyone was profoundly ashamed to admit support for John Major.
Let’s adopt the more honest US approach: tell us the true findings, and then let us decide on their verity and value.
ICM should hang their heads in shame. I am truly taken aback by this - not something that a hardened political activist can say very often!
Maybe this explains Labours success in the polls rather more convincingly than that the pollsters are all fools or knaves!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1462292,00.html
butchjoe,I agree with you that Mike may have an agenda.It could be that he simply wants to be controversial.It is a fact that people do not recall accurately how they voted previously.e.g.I think it is ICM that published a figure of 55% declaring that they voted Labour in the 2001 election.
If this is their finding then they must correct to allow for this obvious descrepancy
5. As i understand it, this isn’t quite the ‘ashamed supporter’ syndrome we hear about - rather it’s the ‘Manchester United syndrome’, where more people claim to have supported the winning team (Labour) in the last cupfinal (GE). Is that right Mike?
What I’m deeply curious to know is how the pollsters arrive at the idea that voters do this, and just how they weight for it. Any ideas?
If the pollsters have got this wrong…
Forgive me for posting this twice, but I just put it on the other thread and it seems very relevant.
After the debacle of 1992, ICM’s GE performance has been pretty good: in the last three Guardian polls of the campaign in
1997
ICM OVERSTATED THE TORIES by an average of 2.27
UNDERSTATED LABOUR by an average of 0.8%
OVERSTATED LIBDEMS by an average of 0.4%
2001
UNDERSTATED CONSERVATIVES by an average of 0.7%
OVERSTATED LABOUR by an average of 3.3%
UNDERSTATED LIBDEMS by an average of 1.5%
However, in 2001 their final poll was correct to 1% or less for each party, and in 1997 their biggest error was overstatement for the Conservatives. I don’t see why they should have suddenly started getting it so wrong.
Stuart. What this thread misses out is that if you ask any section of the public how they voted at the last election the sample will always be overwhelmingly Labour. Much more so than was actually the case. So there are two possibilities. Firstly that voters remembered wrongly which way they voted last time or secondly that most Tory voters hide between elections and only come out on polling day. ICM suspect the former but if you think the latter then go gambling!
Mike In fairness the markets are not being particularly influenced by this poll. The You Gov poll today equates to a 92 majority-20 more than the middle of the current IG index. The ICM Mirror poll would equate to something like 150. My previous post on this seems to have got wiped but although I don’t believe for one minute that ICM are anywhere near right it’s in their commercial interest to try their best to be accurate. They’re not idiots who are programmed to get it wrong. You described them not so long ago as the’gold standard’ pollsters. Why not get all the pollsters to answer detailed questions on this site on their methodology and why they do what they do. In your opinion should any adjustment have been made to those figures and if so what would you suggest ICM do?
To 4 BJ. Yes I do have an agenda. I think it important that people are aware how opinion polls operate and the basis on which their figures are produced. The more understanding of this the better. So much of our political debate in the UK is framed by the polls yet there is very little examination of how the figures are produced.
I do think that ICM are right to take into account false recall when they deal with the past voting question. The point I’m making is that the headline figures are based on the way they deal with this. They might be completely right and we’ll know on May 6th.
Mike.I have just run Baxter with your corrected ICM numbers.The Labour seat position is now less that 300.Please advise::Should I take a sell position on Labour seats at 357???
The walls are closing in on Mike. He’s going to have no room for manoeuvre soon!
Do people honestly forget what they voted for last time? I find that very hard to believe.
Chrisco 9. ICM had two final polls in 2001 both starting on the same day. The first, for ther Standard, had the larger sample and reported a 17% Labour lead. The second in the Guardian had an 11% one.
Perhaps small “c” and big “C” conservatives are just that much more reticent - unwilling to cooperate with pollsters. Therefore, a sample may appear demagraphically balanced when in fact it isn’t.
Ray 13. Do as I have Ray - put your money into the turnout spread.
Well it is a little confusing if “the gold standard” suddenly stops being so!
Thanks Mike.Just a gentle wind up.
“ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,332 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3rd June, 2001. Interviews were conducted across the country, with a boost in London so that the total number of London interviews was 502. The results have been weighted to the profile of all adults, with London boost interviews downweighted into the correct national profile.”
Could this London boosting have had anything to do with the result?
21 was for 16.
ICM full data (use the link to the PDF doc on each ICM poll on their web site to see this) shows that C1’s and C2’s are difficult to find using phone polling, so they “weight” to correct this low base number upwards.
The question with this is:- is the low base of C1’s caused by some kind of artifact of phone polling? Does it meen C1’s (and to a lesser extent C2’s are hiding from phone pollsters?)
CLI and/or answering machines can be used to screen out pollsters, so are C1’s more likely to do this because they lack AB’s nannies or DE free time???
The ICM marginal poll in particular triggered my “that can’t be right” sense… any comments??
The played-with ICM figures seem to be the polling equivalent of Sunny Delight. So many additives its hard to fine the core ingredient.
I have also just checked, and the average I have given in post 9 includes the Evening Standard poll.
I have no sense of this election at all. Most of the Tory canvassers say things are going particularly well. Some left wing journalists are saying Labour are having difficulties. Nick who I think we all respect seems to be suggesting something close to 2001. Michael Howard seems to be a problem. But so does Tony Blair. Until we have something better we can only look at the polls……
26, Still I have Labour at 80 -100 seat Maj, I can feel it in my water, which is a good thing looking at theis thread
Roger - 26 I completely agree with you - I cannot make it out either.
Populus - Lab 40 Con 31
Mori - Lab 40 Con 32
ICM - Lab 41 Con 33
A clear trend is developing Lab up LD up Con down
Will the Tories hold their nerve or will the panic set in, judging by the laughable Willetts/Osborne Press Conference this afternoon the latter already has….
If there is a trend towards Labour it has been caused by the Tories’ poor manifesto and their “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” campaign. Nothing is better designed to increase the Labour turn-out and provide waverers with a good reason to vote.
The Tory party should learn to communicate with the public in a non-insulting way.
26. Roger, if the swing is not uniform they could all be right.
It could be possible that Nick we’ll have the same result of 2001 (he seems a pretty active MP, so he could have a better than average swing). it could be possible that tory canvassers you know are right too (before 2001 if someone would have asked Romford tories canvassers about the situation, he could have thought that Labour was heading for a defeat).
In your humble opinion 29.
Is it possible to place bets on how many Conservative ideas will be pinched by the next Labour Gov.(if) I have often heard the Conservative Party referred to as Labour’s think tank!
It highlights the point that pollsters should place the raw data next to the adjusted data. This election is strange though. The Tories can’t win, but I’m not sure I am confident of what labour’s majority (if they have a majority) will be until polling day.
A couple of days ago I coined the phrase “Zogbyitis” for polls that tweak their raw data so much the original poll disappears under weightings and interpretation.
There seems reason to believe ICM have caught the condition in a big way.
“Populus - Lab 40 Con 31″
is the new Populus one?
35 - Populus and Mori out tomorrow
BTW apparently CK in the newsnight interview has said he wants to stay on as leader after this election to fight the next one.
Forget the polls. Nobody at Labour HQ takes them seriously. It’s a close election, but I’m still predicting a comfortable Labour majority in the region of 60 seats, assuming turnout of 60% or more, from anecdotal evidence and private polling.
As I’ve said before, Tories will do better in London and essex/kent. Million dollar question is what becomes of the Liberal Democrats. I think their campaign has been uninspired and poor and Kennedy seems to becoming more flakey with each day. Terrible against Paxman earlier.
It doesn’t really matter what a handful of people living in a few select wealthy suburbs in the south of England think is going to happen in the election; in the real world Conservative canvassers that I speak to are having good returns and are confident of doing much better than the polls suggest. All those C1s and C2s - you know the people who actually work for a living rather than just talk about it - can no longer afford the Labour Party.
31, Ask any canvaser and they will always tell you they are heading for victory, had Labour around tonight, Local MP none the less,
Mike, I think you have commented before that, whilst poll figures may not be entirely accurate as regards the level of support for the parties, what they can do is indicate a trend. At the moment, the trend seems to be Labour + LD support increasing and Tory support static (or falling).
My own feeling is that the most significant event of the campaign so far may be TB’s announcement (when launching Labour’s manifesto) that this would be his last election. Disgruntled voters now know for certain that within 4 years (and probably earlier), TB will be history. They don’t need to vote Tory to get rid of him.
David Clark in today’s “Guardian” (who has argued previously for anti-Labour tactical voting to reduce Blair’s majority) is now saying that, with a Brownite succession ensured, disillusioned ex-Labour voters should come back to the fold.
If I was a Labour candidate in a dicy marginal, I’d be stressing this to voters on the doorstep and plastering Gordon Brown’s face over my election leaflets. “Vote Blair, get Brown”, to quote an (abandoned) Tory election poster!
I do think we have to be a bit wary of labour moving up in the polls ostensibly because of a greater determination to vote among their supporters. It’s not difficult to vote. It must be remembered that a large number of people are not not voting to make some sort of point. It’s just come polling day they simply can’t be bothered. And no matter how much ‘enthusiasm’ they profess to have in advance, come polling day they once again will find some spurious reason to fail to make it to the ballot box again.
Polls right or wrong, they may be in percentage terms but they are indicating a trend Labour + Con - for all we know they might be right I doubt it my self, but us wonks do live in bubble of frantic politics, most of the population don’t give a stuff about politics
To 40 & 41. JB you sre right - the trend in some polls at least is towards Labour and that I believe. But what is the base starting point? Everybody seems to forget here what a rotten time Labour had on June 10 last year - the last time we had national elections. Pushed to third place in the locals when the Tories got 38% and finishing up with a mere 22% in the Euros.
On the turnout question I think there is evidence to show that a Labour 10/10 is not worth as much as a Lib Dem or Tory 10/10 - yet they are all counted the same by the pollsters.
33 & 34. To be very fair to ICM they do publish all the raw and adjusted data. It was because of this that I was able to find the figures for the article. The problem with the polls was well put by Nick Cohen in the Observer the Sunday before last. The media simply does not give them the same level of scrutiny that they give to other key political developments. So it’s left to nerds like me to go data mining
44, But Iraq was a big issue then, which it is not in this Election
Not forgetting the 500 lb gorilla in the corner …
Roughly 25% of people do not vote for their party of first choice (roughly split 50/50 between straight TV and ‘my vote doesn’t make a difference so I won’t bother this time’)
Polls tend to measure the party of principle…come voting day… who knows!
Re: 45 The main parties may not be talking about it but the war issue is still in the minds of many voters
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1462198,00.html
Or even
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1462198,00.html
47, But the kind of voter whoes mind it is on, will they be right or left, I suspect that they are to the left, not saying they are going to all vote laboutr but can you see them voting Tory?
if only the country could see the lib dems as they truely are…paxman makes mincemeat of kennedy but bbc decide to show it opposite coronation st……..dumbing down means blair wins again and kennedy escapes for most of the election with a free ride
RE 49 They have other choices including the don’t vote party. That can still damage Labour in some seats I assume
50, That’s the way it is, do you think even without competition the public would want to watch in any great numbers?
Do we have any confirmation of 29?
50, They should include some sort of phone in quiz with a cash prize that would get the viewing figures up. Handing out a free scratch card at polling stations would work wonders for turnout come to that.
53. the only thing I found about the new Populus poll is this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1575245,00.html
55. Thanks I like to see it confirmed. If populus, MORI, ICM and Communicate have Lab over 40 it must be considered a noteworthy trend even if the phone/f2f pollsters are overestimating labour - presumably they’re not overstating more so there must have been an increase even if its from a much lower base than pollsters suggest…
It depends which version of mori is 40 32
Was the MORI poll certain to vote?
56. The Labour increase could also have come from a greater professed determination to vote, not a swing in voting intention. As discussed earlier in the tread, this could prove flakey.
Sky normally update their polls fairly quickly and there is nothing yet regarding a new MORI or Populus poll !
Really interesting comments about the validity of the different polls. My experience is that the most accurate poll is the one carried out privately for the Labour Party. Believe me when I say I don’t know what it is predicting for 5 May, but I do know that Tony and Gordon look pretty relaxed and not about to press the panic button. I suspect they have a pretty good idea of how much they think they will win by and that they will be able to live with it for another four years. By the way I ought to come clean - I am Sky Bet’s Political Consultant. As I am the ‘enemy’ I will understand it if you don’t want me to ever again sully the pages of politicalbetting.com.
Regards To All
59. You have to remember though that at a lot of people are already filling out their postal voting forms - so any trend now will still have an effect on the final result, even if the trend dissipates towards the end of the campaign.
61, If you are who you say you are sully on!
61, Who does the private polling, and has anyone seen any of them after the event?
BGR [54] - wasn’t there a suggestion from somewhere that you should be given a voucher worth perhaps £5 or £10, redeemable against Council tax, when you voted?
I don’t know whether it’s too early to mention it but Michael Howard’s campaign has been inexplicable. Having picked out his most photogenic lieutenants Osborne, Cameron etc) and hidden his others (Redwood) he has behaved as though he’s a one man party. Why?
66, He is the only one people know, but I don’t think they remember him otherwise he would be toast now
65 seems vaguely familiar. I prefer the prize idea myself, cheaper
Here we are in Reading East, a ‘target’ seat for a Conservative majority, and no canvassing so far from any of the parties (just some crumby leaflets). Is the fight purely restricted to denying Labour a (big) majority?
69. strange, considering the troubles on Labour Party in Reading East I expected tories to try harder and possibly making a better than average swing.
Seeing the number of PV cast, are any of the polling firms going to produce any figures for those who have already voted?
Somebody should ask them to?
Did I hear that Gorgeous George is intending take legal action to try to have PV declared invalid? (Presumably his team haven’t many of those ’sorted’).
Andrew @ 69, Don’t forget that Reading West had an electorate of 74,600 in 2001 (and is presumably larger still), so the chances of a canvassing visitation - while you’re actually in the house/flat - is statistically remote! I was offered a glass of sherry this evening by a delightful constituent: I may canvass there again!
Tony Blair defending sedgfield - a possible world Portillo moment - Paddy Power offered 1-3 on just a decrease in Blairs majority - difficult to get 30 % return in the stockmarket over 2 weeks so looks like a gift . The real action should be in TB to lose - who will give a price in size ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
0740 Are the bookies predictions a better guide to election results than opinion polls? The chairman of internet pollster YouGov, Peter Kellner and the government’s adviser on betting, Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams discuss.
PS Ooops, of course I meant Reading East - should have had that glass!
66. Perhaps the Lib Dem “decapitation” plan is keeping some of his front bench team in their home constituencies ?
71- If GG will succeed to halt PV, what will happen?
Could the election be delayed?
71. I get the impression that the best Galloway hopes for is a separate count- that is the impression I felt he gave on Radio 4s PM programme.
I am hearing anecdotal evidence suggesting the Tories are quite pleased with their efforts nationally re: PV, particularly in target marginals, they might yet spring some major surprises?
69 - Depends where you are Andrew. No party does or can, canvass everywhere! We target our efforts. I know Reading East Tories are out every night canvassing.
Mike - has a mistake been made on Betting Odds - General Election - George Galloway Votes.It says
0-75000 6/4
7500-10000 6/4
10000 + 15/8
Surely the first should be 0 - 7500 or have I read it wrong?
62 - Postal Votes. Now I am know that some think that the result is already declared, but it is impossible that postal vote ballot papers are already being completed. Nominations dont close until 4 pm tomorrow - so it would be impossible to print the ballot papers till then. I believe you will find that most Returning Officers will not be sending out the first batch until Friday. So u can expect them to hit the mat on Saturday.
Maybe there are some County Council ones already delivered, but I doubt it.
71 - it would be illegal for returning officers to announce postal vote turnout at this election. Such information can only be given at all postal vote elections.
This getting harder to fathom. Surely those MORI figures cannot be certain to vote?
It is pretty clear the Tories have gone backwards; and it’s explicable given Howard plus blunders (manifesto, nastiness, tax and spend). But not sure why Lab is still going forward - don’t recall any posts to that effect on here. Perhaps just a lag in the firming up of the Lab vote, as some are slower than others to catch on to ‘Howard could be PM’?
PVs are not issued until Friday 22 April in our patch.
‘Only’ 291 out of 341? Strikes me as a lot higher than some earlier reports. Almost cast iron certainty many of the other 50 did not vote.
71 - The only way any candidate could get ANY postal votes made invalid would be thorugh an election petition, as was the case in Birmingham.
Back to the thread - I cannot believe that the number of votes cast for Labour this time will be more than in 2001. About a sixth lower sounds about right! The problem is what will be the turnout. The lack of enthusiasm for Howard and (I am afraid CK’s rather lack lustre efforts) may make 59% seem high.
BTW whether CK is good or not may make less difference than might be expected. Believe it or not I find voters enthused by Tuition Fees, Tax on over £100k earners and Local Income Tax!
Ref 74:::I posted on an earlier thread today that Prof Leighton Vaughn Williams is the subject of an interesting article in this weeks Economist.He is convinced that the spread betting market is a better guide to the election result than the polls,quoting U.S.A and Australia as recent examples.i.e.The market was always pionting to the winner..He believes that Labour will achieve a majority of 60.
Mike is right on this and I merely add to my comments yesterday. To me it’s clear these polls are duff, worse than that a whole load of tactically voters will vote on the basis of the duff polls and send Labour a far more severe message than they intended. Any methodology that seeks to draw straight lines on from the mood in 1997 are crazy. What happened in 1997 was that a large chunk of the electorate learned HOW to use their vote to bring about a result they wanted ie instead of voting for their normal preference. Watering down the clearly expressed VIs of people now will end up in a huge mess. Or so thinks I.
Sky now reporting Mori at 40 to 32 and Populus at 40 to 31. Sky had been using Mori at 39 to 35 which was a certain to vote figure so I assume, but cannot confirm, that 40 to 32 is also a certain to vote figure.
I’m feeling a bit over-exposed on my Lib Dem position. Ck hasn’t been that impressive recently, and the postal votes are making me nervous. Plus there seems to be something in the canvass returns. I’m looking for some Tory bankers on the seats markets to cover my losses. Any reccomendations?
Question on Tactical voting. The LibDem seats spread seems to assume that there will be tactical voting in both Con-LibDem and Lab-LibDem marginals. Presumably for the LibDems to make substantial gains there would need to be even more of a squeeze on the third party than in 2001 or 1997. Is there any evidence that this is actually happening ? How far can a third party vote be squeezed ? Are there really that many people out that who didn’t vote tactically last time but might now ? Also how squishy is the Tory vote in Lib-Lab marginals? Surely anyone who voted Tory last time is hardly going to switch now ?
David Kendrick - “Seeing the number of PV cast, are any of the polling firms going to produce any figures for those who have already voted?”
Not unless they enjoy being prosecuted they won’t - it counts as an exit poll and it’s illegal to publish it until after the polls close. After the Times published polling figures for areas where there was compulsory postal voting in the European Elections they were referred to the CPS. In the event, the CPS did not take further action and the Electoral Commission referred the issue to the British Polling Council. They have issued guidance stating that pollsters can include people with postal votes in their samples, but they are not allowed to publish separate figures for people with postal votes.
Here is the link to the MORI poll. Among all respondents, it’s 41/31/21 so the 8 point lead at 40 to 32 IS certain to vote figures. Not great for the Tories.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cd25bb68-b049-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html
MORI’s figures are certain to vote - their website has the latest details on their general election webpage
MORI’s figures are certain to vote - their website has the latest details on their general election webpage
MORI and Populus polls are lagging I think. Duff.
91 - Paul M, it’s generally accepted that you don’t get squeeze below 10%, plus Conservatives wouldn’t vote for us in a month of Sundays. The evidence seems to be that they’re pulling votes away from us now.
Details about Populus
http://www.itnews.it/risorse/EuroNews,Zj0xMjAyOTE0
Howard in last position when asked voters who impressed the most so far in the campaign. Kennedy leading between swing voters (Howard in last place also between them).
Also a 5 point lead for Labour in the Independent which I assume is NOP, down 1% from last week’s 6% lead.
Can you be a bit more specific re: canvass returns Tabman. Is this in the last few days ?
I am not sure whether this is certain to vote or not.
MORI’s poll adds to recent signs that Labour has established a firm lead. It puts Labour on 41 points, the Conservatives on 31 and the Liberal Democrats on 21 among all voters naming a party.
Among all voters naming a party suggests it is not.
This confirmation of Populus and MORI makes Austin Powers in msg. 29 very well informed and about 2 hours ahead of the media embargo. I feared we were being ramped again!!
nop poll - lab 37 (-1), con 32(u/c), lib 21 (u/c)
Addition to 100
I think the poll is not certain to vote. Thanks to a link to an italian site. I read this.
The poll also showed that Conservative supporters are still more likely than Labour supporters to say they are certain to vote, by 72 to 63 per cent. This advantage makes Labour’s lead two points lower than it would otherwise be. The poll implies a turnout of 63 per cent, up from 59 per cent four years ago.
90 + 97 - Tabman - is that really you?Whats the name of the book shop near your place of work?
latest you gov poll for daily telegraph puts Labour a single poing ahead of the Tories.
102. the NOP Poll is not that bad for the conservatives.
Vino - Foleys. Yes, it is me.
these polls are all up and down and the only 1 i think is right is You Gov.
97. According to Richard Willis’ canvassing in S&C, there are so many switchers from Lab to Con, the Labour vote must be heading for well below 10%.
Also bear in mind that there were a large number of abstainers (mostly non-Tories) in 2001. One of them voting for the Lib Dems (in a Con/LD marginal) is as good as a Labour switcher.
About NOP Polls:
http://icessex.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15416635&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=brown-could-boost-labour-victory-name_page.html
With Brown as leader Labour will poll 11% higher: 23% of Libdems will switch and 16% of tories too!
Re 91 on how far can the 3rd vote be squeezed.
My view as a tactical voter in 2001 is that it has lost its shine for a lot of people. I moved from Labour to Lim Dem to try an oust the Tory. But the Tory vote held firm and a good campaign by them lead to an increased maj. So do I vote tactically this time? My view is that the Lid dems can’t win the seat and that the Labour vote has been squeezed as far as it can go. Thus I shall be swing back to Labour.
I’m sure that for many Labour Tactical voters they will be thinking the same in those constituencies where the Lib Dems did not win in 2001. Where it paid dividends I would have thought that the tactical vote would stay firm. Look at Dorset to se how my old mate Billy Bragg is still pushing the anti-tory line.
On the basis of the above, I don’t see any Lib Dem gains from Tory this election, but they will hold on to what they have got.
107 - Tabman - sorry to doubt you,but the tone of your posts seem down which I do not associate with you.
Alan
The same is happening in Welwyn Hatfield as i have been canvassing in that area.
Labour voters are switching to Conservatives.
110 With Brown as leader Labour will poll 11% higher: 23% of Libdems will switch and 16% of tories too!
Andrea, it is well known that if u ask a hypothetical question, the result will always be different than if it was not the case. As people know that Gordon Brown is not the Leader, he will always score more.
Then to You Gov poll - sorry but with all this yo yoing about it just made me laugh !
109 - I would have to agree now that Labour are heading for less than 10%. Having just canvassed a Council estate type area tonight I have advised my neighbour candidate to do some test canvassing in his less good areas. We had another great night with posters given out and a big increase in our pledge totals. I will have a poster in the newsagent on the estate and an 8′ x 4′ poster going up shortly right on the main road! I had 8 canvassers with me tonight who were amazed at how good the reaction was. We hardly found a Lib Dem all night and there were NO repeat NO, Lib Dem posters anywhere on the estate. There are now at least 20 of mine up!!!
112 - some impressive Clarke boards out in Rushcliffe. A lot of don’t knows during canvassing, which seems to be shorthand for not you (so expereinced canvassers tell me). Plus, having been through the 80s I know how effective the Tory machine can be
I got sweopt away in a tide of optimism and over-egged my LD position. I need to balance it with something and from what I’m hearing a few TOry bankers would be good.
113 - Darren, if that is the case (and I dont disbelieve u), explain the polls ????????????? Because I cant
“As people know that Gordon Brown is not the Leader, he will always score more”
I don’t think that if Clare Short will led Labour, she will score more.
There were also a lot of Tory abstainers in 2001. Getting them back on board could be crucial in a lot of marginal seats. The classic example is Guildford where the Tory vote went down by just over 4000 and the Lib Dem vote only rose a couple of hundred.
Ste
At the last election we the tories in welwyn hatfield actually did better than the national vote.
Our candidate has been working the constituancy for the last 3 years.
Ste
Also u can tell when out canvassing if you are being told the truth about the way people intend voting.
I was in a strong Labour area in welhat and even there people are either not voting or switching from labour to conservative.
Its funny that in SW London the council estates (or rather the bought up one’s which most are) are often good territory for the Tories. In Wandsworth they amazingly manage to have councillors (by fairly comfortable margins) all over the Alton estate, a lot of which probably isn’t bought up.
122 - why is that funny?
A Lib Dem canvasser in Richmond Park tonight told me they were hoping that UKIP were going to have an impact on the Tory vote. Not a statement which suggested huge confidence.
UKIP could hit the Tory vote in Twickenham where a popular ex Tory councillor is standing, but v.unlikely in Richmond. UKIP will poll less than a 1000 and by no means all of that will be Tory.
41,31,21 is very interesting- grim reading for CCO
BTW I have come to the conclusion that the “marginal poll” by ICM is fairly cludge-y- with only an average of 30 respondents per seat, I think the margin of error is too large for meaningful data. Looking at larger data sets: In one marginal seat I have been into, there has been an over 5% swing Con-Lib Dem. In another the swing is much larger. So in answer to [91], yes there is still some squishiness in the Tory vote- reason is MH and the fact that so many of his front bench have to defend their seats so tightly emphasises his personality.
Could do with a new Scottish poll - if the Tories are really doing as badly as the polls suggest my sell on the SNP isn’t looking good.
23: ICM full data (use the link to the PDF doc on each ICM poll on their web site to see this) shows that C1’s and C2’s are difficult to find using phone polling, so they “weight” to correct this low base number upwards.
Good news for Lynton then as it’s C1/C2s where the Conservatives are doing best.
121 - I note what u say, and know that to be the case, but still tell me why the polls are the way they are. Soon the public will say that they dont believe them
Dave at 73: I think it’s more likely that Tony Blair will be kidnapped by aliens than defeated in Sedgfield. In fact I think you’ll find that in a few years he’ll retire ‘not out’, without ever having lost a major vote in General Elections, his own seat, Parliament or the European referendum (if the French don’t torpedo it first).
Paul M at 91: I think there is scope for new TVs where a seat wasn’t very close last time but has become so. However, the polls so far have tended to suggest a mild tendency for Labour to strengthen rather than weaken in places where they’re third, presumably the mirror image of tactical unwind, making the LibDem decapitation strategy hard to achieve.
There is as always a fair number of people switching back and forth anyway, sometimes for bizarre reasons. I had a Tory->Labour switcher tonight because she works in Sainsbury and I paid at her checkout last week (so…?), and a Labour->Tory switcher because he’s unhappy that I’ve not stopped his neighbour banging the door (er…). A more serious reason why the Tories are losing some votes is the perception that their programme is a grumble-sheet rather than a serious plan for government: this irritates some of the Daily Telegraph type Tories.
Ste
People are already telling me they don’t believe the polls.
Andy
In your area are you targeting just v5,6,8 & 9’s in voter vault?
Nick - he can’t be “not out” … he lost Beaconsfield didn’t he?
Whether these polls are right or wrong might not matter. The effect will be to sap Conservative morale and possibly lead to internal feuding. It might be difficult to keep the lid on if activists think their work is being wasted on a useless campaign. How long will Maurice Saatchi and Lynton Crosby work to-gether for example? There was a program on Channel 4 about how Maggie started using advertising and focus groups in ‘79 but the others didn’t catch up till ‘87. And to this day there isn’t any better political advertising than the stuff the Saatchi brothers did for the Tories in the ’80’s
Darren - I am agent for a majority Labour seat so we are spending most of our time helping in target seats. Something that’s never really happened before. The campaign here is 100% about winning council seats in 2006
131 - Darren I would have thought that with annual electon in WH you have infomation on more than 60% of the electorate, whcih would mean that u would not need to use voter vault.
125 - that’s what i thought and why i got the impression of a lack of confidence - seemed a bit like straw clutching.
O/T - has anyone noticed a considerable difference in the way the media are covering this election compared to 2001. It may be related to the party strategies but aside from the news conferences there seems to be very little contact with the politicians and the campaign on the ground at all.
130 - not to mention leading Labour to third place in last year’s Euros with the lowest share of the vote this side of Ramsey MacDonald…
130 - That would depend on whether you count his by-election defeat, in 1981 I think, before winning Sedgefield in the 1983 general election.
Tabman [116] - what do you mean by Tory bankers? Individual seats? I thought there was a market on Conservative gains in London which might meet your needs… there’s a thread on the Other Side which might help too (it’s in “General Discussion”)…
I do not think there is A Yougov Telegraph poll tomorrow. Not covered on Sky review of the papers or on their poll tracker
133. “possibly lead to internal feuding” “How long will Maurice Saatchi and Lynton Crosby work to-gether for example?”
They could stay together for 3 weeks. If Blair and Brown managed to stay together for all these years, Saatchi and Crosby could stay for 3 weeks.
After the election (if the polls are right), it’ll be fun to see the conservatives internal debate.
IA - yes individual seats. Thanks, I had a look but one poster is quoting Orpington as a dead cert and a possible loss!
phillip
it is politicalnews.co.uk
u can get 1-8 on Tories taking welwyn hatfield from labour
Blair took another thrashing at the hands on Nick Robinson tonight, this time with regard to Mr Howard smugly signing the Labour petition- very effective. Any electoral advantage gained?
133. Interestingly on that point Martha Kearny on newsnight just mentioned ’senior conservatives’ in tomorrow’s paper complaining about the immigration strategy…
Seems to be valid. Con 36% Lab 35% LD 23% Other 6%
Source: YouGov / Daily Telegraph
Methodology: Online interviews to 1,483 British adults, conducted from Apr. 14 to Apr. 16, 2005. No margin of error was provided.
Oh hang on, misread Apr. 16, thought it said 18. Oops!
115 - Richard, can you point me to a bookie who’ll offer odds on you winning in S&C? ‘Cos I can’t see it on the markets anywhere. That’s going to be one hell of a swing if you can pull it off. Or maybe you’re just kidding yourself?
132, 138: True!
In looking at the polls, note that Populus is supposed (according to our guru Wells, who I reckon understands these things as well as any of us) to be relatively helpful to the Tories, while NOP is spuposed to be better for Labour. What I think is causing the crossover (apart from random variation) is the hardening of Labour determination to vote, which will be having other indirect effects on false recall etc.
The hardening is certainly real: it is partly due to the general increase in interest as the election approaches, partly to that helpful poll a few weeks back that showed the Tories 5% ahead, but mainly reaction to the Tory campaign: I’ve lost count of how many voters have told me “I was hesitating because of Iraq, but Howard has made me remember what they’re like”. Had a lifelong LibDem offer to cancel her holiday tonight to stay at home to vote Labour for the first time - part personal vote, part “we must stop the barbarians”. (Fortunately she can still get a PV!)
The question is whether part 2 of Palmer’s Paradox will now kick in and the determination will weaken if the Tories are seen to be hopelessly behind. I think it will, a bit, but on the whole people now know what they plan to do.
Posters seem a matter of local strategy - there are no window posters whatever in Broxtowe for the other Parliamentary candidates (compared with numerous Labour ones), so far as I know, and that certainly doesn’t reflect an absence of support for them. I think that parties tend to judge that if they can’t be competitive in a poster war it’s better not to fight it at all. Or perhaps they’ll try to come with a coordinated late rush - we’ll see.
To hear Nick talk there will be no swing to the Tories. To hear Richard talk the LDs will be lucky to get a third of the vote in Sutton and Cheam. Then we had a Lib Dem saying that the Tory vote was squishy and that there was a 5% swing to Lib Dems in Tory seats. Enough guys! This is serious candidateitis. As things stand Labour will lose quite a few seats to the Tories including Welwyn but there’s no sign of the sort of swing which would cause a hung Parliament. Remember that Blair won’t get much more than a third of the vote. On a 60% turnout that means he’ll get a comfortable majority with around 20% of the electorate. A heck of a lot of people may be sick of Blair but not many need to continue voting for him to win the election. As for the pollsters I think we should recognize their difficulties. People do forget who they voted for last time so you need to adjust but how and how much? There is a problem of shy Labour voters according to most pollsters but shy Tory voters according to You Gov. Finally there’s the crucial question of differential turnout which is crucial. Mike says Labour 10s aren’t as certain as Tory tens. Really? And if so how do you take account of it. The point is the raw figures aren’t accurate but noone has a clue which are the right adjustments. In the light of all this I will continue to look at how contests are shaping up locally in as much as I can get the relevant information.
The one opinion poll where one can make comparisons over a long period is MORI’s “all those naming a party” poll.
For the record - at at this stage in previous campaigns the Labour lead was
1992 - 3%
1997 - 17%
2001 - 26%
On the vexed question of how well are the Tories really doing, which seems to be the main bone of contention at themoment, the corresponding percentages were
1992 - 38%
1997 - 32/34% (depending on which poll you choose)
2001 - 28%
Those figures should be seen as “who do you support” and includes armchair fans.
Figures for other parties/ previous years at
http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml#1986
If I was a Tory, I would seize on the point that each time the real result was much more favourable to the Conservatives.
If I was Labour/LibDem, I would be hoping that the Conservative switchers on canvass returns were just in comparison with the exceptionally low point of 2001, and not yet enough to bring them back to 1997 levels of support.
Tabman [142] - if you’re looking at those seats where the Tories are favourites, I think Labour have written off Hornchurch, Bexleyheath & Crayford and Enfield North; also Hammersmith & Fulham where the sitting MP pulled out for health reasons last month; most people think the Tories will win Ilford North and I would add Croydon Central, in both of these Labour rely on the “council estate” vote which seems to be their Achilles heel.
146. Both Guardian and Times are running grumbling Tory complain at Howard headlines - but then they would wouldn’t they…?
149 - I dont know of one (sadly)! But who last time would have given great odds on Romford being taken, or Taunton. I honestly dont yet know if there will be enough of a swing to win the seat. It LOOKS like it and the returns are very good. But it is quite possible to get a very good swing and still not quite take the seat. I am not so naive as to go to bed each night assuming victory. But I do honestly believe that there is something significant happening here and it is reflected in other Lib Dem seats in this area.
As I indicated before I have on good authority that the Lib Dems are now calling in resource to defend Richmond. An informant locally also tells me that the Libs here are struggling with a lack of deliverers (as I said on here some time ago when I found paid for dleiverers being used).
We have canvass returns back to 1999 at least to compare to, so I know where swings are happening. Plus I have conducted a rolling survey since I was selected and it is interesting to see the movement in the last 18 months. As recently as 6 months ago there was no sign of a swing at all. Now it is very noticeable.
Tabman - “The first door I knocked on, I was told to burn in hell. I felt things could only get better after that ”
Quote by
Lucille Nicholson, Tory candidate in Easington, Co Durham, where Labour is defending a 21,949 majority .
[130] Well Nick, one Labour mate did suggest to me once that Tony Blair HAD been kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a Tory Doppleganger..
Think you are right though- this Victor Meldrew stuff of Howard’s has not played well with quite a few Daily Telegraph types (I got a blazered Rotarian switching over the weekend- “That bloody man Howard is the absolute end”)
Quick update. For no good reason (other than a hunch of mine from having been reading this site) we canvassed a !very! run down housing association estate tonight that none of us have ever canvassed before.
There were two surprises. 1) Labour vote is totally divided - either very strong or non-existant, i.e. voters here have either decided they will stick with Labour through anything or they have deserted them and seem to have bypassed the Lib dems and come directly to us and 2) the reason is over tax, and not -as I was anticipating- immigration.
Don’t get me wrong, we were still very much the minority party in this area but it’s the low level of support for Lib dems that is -for me- reassuring, suggesting that they won’t be tactical voting in large numbers.
We have a significant number of voters in an area I would have guessed we would have had none.
We are going to blitz the area for the rest of the week and see if it sustains.
Nick. Could almost agree with your remarks on Blair’s holding his bat - except that you think he will win the European Referendum? Duh? How so? How can he possibly win this? When the vote will give everyone a chance to kick him without letting the Tories in? When two thirds of the electorate are ideologically opposed? Whenmost of the press will be viscerally against? Do you know something I don’t? Or are you just whistling in the dark. If you are, I must say it’s a very quiet whistle, and it’s very dark…
So all the polls are wrong now are they? - MH is actually sweeping to power on the back of overwhelming popularity.
I think the spin factor has gone into overdrive tonight. Although a constant refrain of Mike S (seized on by many on the site) is that ‘it is in the polls DNA to overstate Labour’. A constant refrain could have been that ‘the polls are normally about right with the Tories’, but have usually understated the Liberal Democrats.
The underlying figures for the Tories are awful. Michael Howard is not popular, they are behind on key issues, the haven’t convinced people that their tax plans are workable. The only area where they appear to be scoring well is immigration - but this does not appear to be the ‘clincher’.
Polls are rarely ‘bang on’ - but they are not designed to be (anyone who knows anything about sampling theory knows that they cannot be), but they do show trends. And the trends aren’t looking good for the Conservative Party.
143 Is this correct I wonder? The poll in Mondays Telegraph had sample taken up to 17/4. The poll you are reporting for the Telegraph tomorrow has sample ending on 16/4.
A lot of the “story from the street” comments on here are starting to smell pretty fishy. It’s clear this has become an important forum for anecdotal reading, and that means canvass stories here are unlikely to be 100% honest.
I very much hope that on May 6th our regulars will come back here to explain how they were so wrong - because they cant all be right…
143 161 Figures and sample size are sam for the YouGov poll in S Times.
162 - I really do resent the constant insinuations on here that “canvassing stories are fishy”. WHat possible benefit do you think we gain from taking the trouble to post on here? If you really do persist with this line of attack I will just carry on merrily getting posters up, finding new pledges at the rate I have, and not bother the readers of this august site with my experiences. YOu are living in fantasy land if you think that Marcus and I can be bothered to invent canvassing stories together and post them on here.
But if you chose to dream on and meanwhile we gain support - so be it!
Will someone look at my post at 80 and please tell me if the bookmakers have made a mistake? Thanks
164 Someone will be eating humble pie on 6/5/05
P.S TO 165 - are the bookies saying they will pay 6/4 on GG getting 0 - 75,000 votes?
162. I post on this site because I find it an interesting forum to discuss the election with others from mine and opposing political parties.
I have said before (and I say it all the time to friends)- never ask the candidate how they are doing! All candidates (myself included) can’t help but imagine we are on a sure bet to win. None of the candidates try and pretend otherwise, the only difference between us and anyone else is that we are knocking on doors and meeting real voters all day every day. Yes, they lie to us, they deceive us and they evade us - but so have they always.
What I try and report is interesting variables and things that change - it’s for you to decide if they are useful but I have never -repeat - never said anything ‘fishy’ and, to be honest, I resent your suggestion.
164 - for what it is worth, Richard’s findings on the doorstep fall in line with other constituencies in the London Area.
An earlier post here suggested that Labour had given up in Hornchurch, Hammersmith and Fulham and Enfield North.
what Richard and Marcus both have in common is unpopular local Liberal controlled Councils.
Maybe it’s important not to examine the entrails of this election on an hour-by-hour basis as many of us seem to be doing. To get a broader perspective we might usefully examine the spread mid-points since 1st March, where we find the following ranges:
Labour 349-359, Conservative 195-205, Lib Dem 65-70.
Although the current spreads favour Labour at the top end of the range and Conservatives and Lib Dems at the bottom end, I cannot see the final result being much outside these “extremes”.
If we keep it simple we’ll be able to see the wood for the trees. I think this is actually a fairly straightforward election to predict.
“Fishy”, Mark (162)? How can you say such a thing? You know that Tories always tell the truth 100%, don´t they?
So both in Sutton & Cheam and in Torbay, the former Council estates are going ovewhelmingly Tory, and putting up Tory posters to boot…. And former Lib Dem voter are falling on their knees and begging forgiveness for past sins… And UKIP and BNP are being hounded out of the pubs with hoots of derision… And all because the populace has been convinced that Michael Howard is right……
Quite what he is right about, I am not quite sure, but we all have to fall in behind the Leader.. and give our votes to Marcus and to Rik… who, after all have sacrificed thousands of pounds of their income - they tell us - to become Tory candidates.
Surely they are both set to become front bench ministers within a few weeks….
How can you fail to believe them?
John 13 at 171 your post does not do this site justice, you are being rude.
Had you had the manners to read my post you would have read this”Don’t get me wrong, we were still very much the minority party in this area but it’s the low level of support for Lib dems that is -for me- reassuring, suggesting that they won’t be tactical voting in large numbers.
We have a significant number of voters in an area I would have guessed we would have had none…”
If you want to resort to purile sarcasm there’s a home for you my friend, its called The Other Side.
John13 rather than posting childish nonsense why dont you come down to Sutton and Cheam and lets play “spot the Lib Dem poster” in some of the areas I have described? Then I could drive you through the areas where we outnumber the Lib posters 20 to one.
I could also take you out canvassing one evening! Who knows what such a dose of reality might teach you!
173 I love it when Tories get upset.
Just listened to BBC news (radio 4) 3 opimiom polls all with bad news for the Tories - and suggestions that the Tories are concerned that Howard’s negative campaigning is not working.
Of course am sure it is different in S+C and Torbay!!!!
I enjoy reading the posts of the PPC’s on this thread. If they’re being over optimistic who can blame them? That’s how they see it. And I actually think they could all be right. I’m getting the feeling that Labour’s doing well outside of London and Tories are doing well around London and the Lib Dems are slipping.
175 - yes it is, in much the same way it is in most of London.
It has just occured to me, the only Labour Parliamentary candidate on here is Nick Palmer (I will accept I could be wrong). If they are on here, they are keeping quiet about how their campaign is going
But the strength of this site is the ability to conduct robust debate and exchange information on outcomes for betting, political or simple edification purposes, but WITHOUT personal invective, gloating or abuse. This is Mike and Robert Smithson’s unique achievement and one that the overhwhelming majority of posters from all perspectives appreciate as the ethos of the site. We lose that and pb.com will degenerate into rent-a-rant, and that would be sad.
I personally don’t want to get into arguments with any particular candidate about what is happening in their own patch - I am not a campaigner and have little or no on the ground knowledge of the seats in question. However, it seems strange to me that a particular seat would be bucking the national trend to any sizable degree. If we look at the polls now - which are suggesting that the Tory vote is not sizably higher than 2001, but the LD vote is 3%-4% higher, then it would not be logical to assume that it will be collapsing to any degree in those seats.
Of course, there are always some seats that buck the trend - but they tend to be few and far between.
176 - Roger - agree with you,Lib Dems I think are upset with the performance of CK who has been dire so far - I think he will be the first Party Leader to fall on his sword after the GE.
Vino. Try this. It’s a bit dull but the headline says it all.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1462318,00.html
179 - Graham it is a fair point - but do not exclude the possibility that there are significant regional differences that are being masked by national polls.
176 - Roger - yup - I agree - it is clear from their steady rise in recent polls that the Lib Dems are slipping badly. They are only 6% up compared to the same point in the campaign last time. Shocking.
180 - Vino - spot on - lots of my Lib Dem friends are appalled that CK’s leadership has brought us the best poll ratings for 20 years and that he is by far and away the most popular party leader. How we keep the clamour for him to go out of the headlines is beyond me.
130 There was a report of flashing lights heading for Sedgefield after crossing the coast at Hartlepool but an observer discounted a visit from aliens and said it was only a monkey in a suit running away from John Prescott. Mr Prescott was not immediately available for comment but did offer to come out later for a punch up.
Agree with you Rik about the regional differences - that’s why we run a regional opinion poll. If our last poll was right the LDs are 2% up on the last election in the South West, whereas the Tories are .5% down - which would mean Marcus’ seat would be seriously bucking the trend. Now living in Devon - I know the vagueries of Torbay, (the Council goes from one extreme to the other for example) but I also know that Adrian Sanders is personally popular.
Like I said before - I really don’t want to get into personal arguments, or individual seat predictions - it isn’t my job - but I still fail to see how the vote of the party that is up in the polls compared to last time is likely to lose seats to the Party that is standing still (I believe that it happened once in the 1890s).
185 - Graham I cannot comment on the SW but I do believe that in London the Conservatives are significantly up on 2001. THere is some evidence for my optimism in the detail YouGov were publishing before the campaign started.
183 - Neil - agree with you that the Lib Dems are up but think where you could have been with a better Leader ,afterall you are the anti-war party.
181 - Roger - link didn’t work but went on website - Peter Preston spot on.
Was out in Derby today, saw no Labour signs at all in derby south except an odd tiny sticker on a phone box saying “such and such union for labour”. There were a lot of yellow diamonds for the lib dem candidate, lucy something, but a lot had been sprayed with black spray paint. There were also lots of big tory billboards in the derby north seat, which is on their target list for derbyshire, which seem to be taking up the newspaper headline theme from their cinema advert. Also got a canvass from West Derbyshire MP today and our tory county councillor candidate, although i have to admit his literature is awful, looks very ‘Thatched’.
The MORI poll in the Standard last week seemed to indicate the LDs were the party that had improved the most in London, Rik - but that was only one poll.
Vino. I think that it is interesting as a bystander that Charlie Kennedy is getting more flak from his opponents than other Liberal leaders have received. From the sidelines, I interpret it as annoyance that Kennedy’s vaguely ‘anti-political’ style is going down pretty well with ordinary voters and that opponents find that irritating. Perhaps I’m wrong - I’ve heard both arguments.
What did people make of Michael Howard on Dimbleby just now? I thought he came across rather well, despite a rather hostile audience.
151 Blue moon you hit the nail again. One point though. I don’t think that YouGov adjust for the SoS either way.
Peter Kellner says on their site:
“So although NOP and MORI appeared to produce similar adjusted and unadjusted figures last week, the reasons for their adjustments were completely different. We at YouGov believe that the main errors at the last three elections were caused by a combination of pro-Labour sampling bias and interviewer effects (which do not apply to our online survey techniques). Our samples are designed to be politically, as well as demographically, representative; but we do not currently adjust for turnout.”
http://www.yougov.com/archives/bes_kelMain.asp?aId=1915&sID=2&wID=0&UID=
Indeed and Rik’s stories about the Lib Dems pulling people into Richmond Park because its vulnerable is lockslob too.
RP is going to be one of very many seats that disproves the theory that you can’t squeeze Labour’s vote to less than 10%. The Labour inclined voters I’ve spoken to showed no sign of ‘hardening’ as Nick Palmer suggested - they were pretty much unanimous in tactically voting for Susan Kramer. If Labour drop to 6% then it will be impossible for Marco Forgoneconclusion to win - as the Lib Dems will poll well into the 50%s (and there is little eveidence of much LD to Tory swing). Incidentally Richmond Park and Sutton and Cheam have almost identical voting shares.
A more interesting seat market would be on lost deposits - because it’s highly likely that Labour will lose some in places like SW London.
190 - Graham - As you know I’ve no great love for the Lib Dems but CK on Newsnight was I think very poor,and I sorry but the Lib Dems should be doing a lot better.I still think they will lose seats to the Tories in the South West and fail to take many seats off Labour and yes I’m betting on it.
191. I instinctively don’t like Howard, but I do see him as an intelligent and effective communicator and this largely came through in that programme. When challenged by a member of the audience that his tack on asylum and immigration might appeal to racists, he made an error in attacking the integrity of the questioner; did he forget that in attacking a voter he might alienate other voters even more than he does already? As someone who will NEVER vote Conservative, I have been impressed with his ability to clearly delivery the message, and his withering digs at Blair. An impressive, if loathsome, performer who appears to skillfully rebutt pretty much anything without falling over and looking stupid.
191 Dimbleby tonight rather showed his bias and why he is not in the front rank of interviewers. He tried to do a Paxo but hasn’t got the charm or talent. When the audience tried to show their approval D tried to close them down and cover with another hostile question. Michael Howard won by keeping his patience with the silliness.
Compare that to Paxo and Charles Kennedy on Newsnight. Paxo was only half his alligator self but 90% the interrupts were legitimate. CK looked wet and when he said he would stay on for the next election I inwardly groaned for the LibDems. When asked about his health and has he cut down on the fags and booze he said he had cut down of the fags.
He fumbled Iraq and said he would pull out at the end of the UN mandate whatever an Iraqi government asked of us. He again had no idea of the effect of the local income tax on middle England and didn’t know his own website had a calculator that Paxo was quoting.
Even the now usual attempt to turn the questions to ‘ the little one’ were well dealt with effortlessly by Paxo. PM material: not CK he lost a lot of votes with that one (and the video will be out there for those that missed it). Time for CK to spend more time with the little one soon.
.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4457741.stm
I look forward to the Paxo Howard return match.
I bet Diblebore treats the Dear Labour Leader like delicate China.
194. CK came over as angry and irritated, but I don’t think that is too bad. I tend to side with anyone who gets annoyed with the arrogant and pompous Paxman.
Vino - Well spotted but the bookmakers wouldnt pay up on a manifest error.
Villan - why not ? I was tempted to put £100,000 on to see what they would say!
So the polls are all wrong Vino? Or the Lib Dems will increase their vote outside of the seats they hold, but collapse in the ones they hold? Sorry, but I think your hatred is getting in the way of some sensible betting.
Your assertion, for example, that the LDs will lose seats in the SW. I have only two sources of info - our poll - which has the LDs up on their previous performance, and my eyes. I had to drive into Newton Abbot today - the main urban area in the Teignbridge constituency - currently LD. In the rural parts on the way - there was a poster battle between the UKIP and Tories in the fields. In Newton Abbot though I didn’t see a single Tory poster - but a fair few LD ones. like a lot of these mixed seats - whoever wins NAbbot and Teignmouth will win the seat, and there wasn’t much evidence that the Tories were making inroads.
Similarly, I drove through much of South East Cornwall the other day. Again no noticeable signage for the Tories, loads for the LDs. Even in ‘rock solid’ Tory East Devon, I saw more orange posters than Tory ones.
It doesn’t seem to me that the LDs are going to lose much ground around here.
As for the Paxo interview. I think it was open to interpretation, like all these things. Paxo did his thing of asking a question, and then not letting the person answer it. But appart from that I don’t think it was either enlightening or damaging.
All in all - it makes no sense to me from where I am sitting to suppose that the LDs, who have the most popular leader and are well ahead of their previous position, to say they are going to do worse than last time. But perhaps I am naive?
200 - Graham - no I’m not saying the polls are wrong at all,I think the Tory strategy of hi-liting the differences between them and the Lib Dems in immigration,crime and gypsies/travellers will work,if it doesn’t then my betting strategy will fail.
132 - You’re absolutely right he lost Beaconsfield, and I’m here to tell the tale, having been at the count for that byelection.
Those were heady days!
Vino - they just dont! Its in their small print somewhere.
Didn’t watch the Howard piece. Only prob is how many people watch a politics programme at 11.10 at night. If ITV were taking this seriously they would have had MH on earlier in the evening. While politicians are not great during elections, in many ways the media is just the same. With an election coming up interviews and questions with party leaders should be on prime time tv not at 11.10 at night.
Re:204 I agree with this wholeheartedly. ITV has dumbed-down to such an extent, that is it worthwile for them to do politics anymore? It is pathetic and if the turnout is lower than last time then the media should shoulder much of the blame as well as politicians.
Re:201 That will only work if a.) the electorate rates those issues (particularily the gypsie/travellers one) highly enough to determine how they vote and b.) whether they believe the Tories are trustworthy enough to do as they say they will do!
52 bbc has public service remit and guaranteed income meaning it doesn’t have to chase ratings, several million more people would have watched the interview….and the bbc would get the gratitude of politicians needing the oxygen of publicity….bbc news decides to lead on labours health agenda rather than torys new pension plan which had labour scrambling earlier….post-hutton bbc running scared.
200 Graham If you don’t think the Paxo CK interview was damaging just what scale of damage can you accept? As a man that claims to lead the ‘real alternative’ to Labour he came across as giving voters no alternative but to look elsewhere. If this had been Michael Howard the LibDems writing on this site would have been talking about meltdown and wipe-out looming for a party with a leader without credibility. After all this is not the first time he has stumbled over the vital issue of LibDems tax proposals. The last time ‘the little one’ was used as a defence. It can’t be done again and again as he stumbles through a half remembered script.
I wouldn’t put money on the result of your poll from what I have read in your posts. LibDems up 2% and Tories down 0.5%. Not even one half of a total margin of error separates the parties so the result could be diametrically opposite to what you hope it means. The Tories could be up by 3.5%.
I would be interested in more data though. I could well be wrong I know . What was the sample? And the spread? Were the parties prompted by name? What adjustments were made to the raw scores? The usual stuff.
For fun:
Telegraph letter 18 January 2005 - Many thanks to the Telegraph Crossword (Jan 14). The realisation that “Aha, Prescott” is an anagram of “catastrophe” explains so much that has happened in the past seven and a half years.
These latest polls aren’t going to help get the Labour vote out.
I would like to know how a polling company calculates the “conspiracy of silence” and decides to add a couple of points to the Labour Lead.
Why does one polling organisation choose a sample of 56% saying they voted Labour last time and another poller takes a midway point between those who say they did and the actual 42%?
157: [130] Well Nick, one Labour mate did suggest to me once that Tony Blair HAD been kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a Tory Doppleganger..
A far more likely explanation was provided by Doctor Who this week - the entire Labour front bench actually ARE aliens! Indeed a lot of recent policy decisions would seem to confirm this interpretation. If this Stalinist bunch get re-elected, I shall certainly go and hide behind my sofa.
181 - “The trouble with Charlie is that he doesn’t look or sound like a commander of men” - i.e. he’s just like an ordinary member of the public, which is why the public like and sympathise with him. It seems to me that political professionals are terrible at judging the public reaction to leaders, interviews etc., which is why they never understood the popularity of Ronald Reagan. Quite frankly, the sort of cheap debating skills that score points in the House of Commons repel most people.
56 - almost certainly. MORI for example has the Conservatives up 4% since January among all voters, and Labour down 2%, and Labour’s lead among all of MORI’s voters has dropped fractionally since last week. But far more Labour voters now say they’re “Certain to Vote” than either in January or last week. We’ll see if that actually happens on polling day.
That should have been a response to 59 rather than 56.
WRT 47, I believe that canvassers are identifying very strong support for Respect in East and West Ham, as well as Bethnal Green.
Tim. I think you have a point. On the Radio 5 news program this morning they said that Michael Howard’s performance with Dimbleby hadn’t gone down well with (their sample?) because he sounded too “Lawyerly”
212. So true!
Blue2win. You are not the first Tory on this site to question the validity of our polls. Marketing Means are the only members of the British Polling Council in the South West. As such we have to abide by the stringent rules of the Council. Those who have been on the site for some time - including the Tories - are well aware that we interview 1000 people across the region. The rest you can see on our website. In other words - it is as legitimate a poll as any mentioned here.
Of course - within the MOE it could be the other way around - but you will notice that the trends it shows are the same as the national polls.
200 - Graham. You’re position is of course perfectly logical, but seems to fail to take into account somewhat the history of the Liberal vote. Looking at past election results you see that the Golden rule is that the Liberal seat result really bares little relationship to their share of the vote. When they are fighting an essentially local campaign (a “byelection in every seat”) they tend to make very good ‘use’ of their vote, when they are fighting nationally, which inevitably spreads their vote more evenly, the results are less good. (Their performance also tends to be related, naturally on how the Tories do, although this is complicated in this election by the extent to which the Tories are using the “local campaign” strategy themselves). Yes the LibDems are higher in the polls than at previous elections, but most people believe this to have come from former natural Labour supporters, and inevitably these are mainly found in Labour seats.
Exhibit A - the 1983 general election.
The “third party” (the Alliance) gives a massive boost to the Liberals by bringing them a large amount of support concentrated mainly from ex-Labour supporters in ex-Labour seats. The Liberal share of the vote in 1979 was about 14-15%, in 1983 the Alliance got about 27%. The net gain was 2 seats. Indeed the “Liberal” part of the Alliance more than doubled their %votes per seat share (because they only stood in less than half the seats) and yet themselves lost a seat, despite only a 2% rise in the Tory vote.
The reasons for success or failure for the third party, more than for any other party, cannot be ascertained by a simple examination of the polls.
212 - I don’t think it was a coincidence that the Tories seemed to lose momentum in the polls in the aftermath of the last Prime Ministers questions before parliament was dissolved.
Graham, I remember I expressed scepticism when you were recording Conservative scores of 30% or so last year. Do you think there has been a movement to the Conservatives since then (your survey now shows 38%) or do you think you were picking up too few Conservatives previously?
205 - yes, and the BBC has dumbed down just as much. Has anyone seen the lunchtime Andrew Neil Politics show? As are the main news bulletins, it’s just embarrassingly shallow and superficial. Why isn’t the organisation transmitting serious analysis from the able people they have like Andrew Marr? He seems to get 30 seconds on the main news programmes and that’s it.
222 - it has been a growing trend in recent years for virtually every political announcement to be reported as if it is only being announced for political gain. They tell us who the announcement is targeted at, why they will apparently respond to it, and how many votes will it bring. Rarely is the ‘real world’ effect of the policy discussed. The most obvious example of this every year is the budget, which suits Gordon Brown because he gets loads of positive free publicity for every “extra £10 targeted at hard-working families, spread over a 50 year period” without it actually being pointed out that it doesn’t cost anything because it isn’t worth anything!
You don’t get “clashes of ideas” anymore because the media have decreed they don’t exist. There’s just political strategies.
O/T - did anyone see that excellent (shock horror!) programme on the BBc last night about the possible effects of marketing techniques on apathy in the political process? Two particular interesting bits - the comments about how Thatcher actively targeted natural Labour supporters, such as the wives of Union members - there are some echoes of this now; one senses that (contrary to popular perception) there is a growing movement within the Conservative Party to target tax cuts at lower income earners (who obviously are hit the hardest by taxes) but they just haven’t had the courage to go through with it (”waste of time”, “they’ll never vote for us” etc etc). And secondly that John Major was too moral for his own good. He should have allowed them to run that Faust PEB!
195 - Attacking the integrity of the person asking a question or making a statement is exactly what the legal system does. Howard was a barrister, was he not, so I guess its second nature.
We’re pulling our troops back to defend our council campaign here - things not looking good.
208, 221 - by all means attack Graham’s conclusions, but do not question his data. As he’s stated, he is a member of the BPC and has to abide by their rules. All the findings (raw and adjusted) are available on his website http://www.marketingmeans.co.uk
Furthermore, its not in his interest to “doctor” the results, as patently they would end up being wildly innacurate and he would lose business.
225 - What seat are you in Tabman and are the weak canvass returns a change of trend in recent days ?
The raft of polls published yesterday appear to show a strong movement in favour of the government, with Labour’s “certain to vote” figures also improving. And yet…Political Betting is not convinced, and neither (yet) are the markets. The percepti…
These ICM figures are staggering. Can understand Shaving off a point here a point there, rounding down half a point to iron the Wrinkles etc, but i never expected something like that. Do they think the Nation is collectively lying to them and they must adjust for it. What is going on?
What is going on in my opinion is that the more people see of Michael Howard the more people say they’ll vote Labour. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not what he’s saying which quite a few commentators say is popular it’s just him.
224 - alex I saw the programme and thought it excellent although they showed it on C4 not the BBC in my region !!!
Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast Roger. I was actually looking for a sensible contribution on ICM’S methodology.
alex at 224. Yes it was fascinating. I didn’t agree with all their conclusions. For example they thought ‘Kinnock the Movie’ lost the Labour party votes. I doubt this. I thought it gave Kinnock a gravitas that up untill then he lacked. What lost him the election was the fear of tax and ‘better the devil you know’.
What came across was the idea that you could only use marketing/advertising to reinforce a message and not to create a new one. Something MH would do well to take on board. And finally I was amused by your suggestion of Mr Major being too “moral”!
p. Exactly. If you can’t find anything wrong with the polls maybe it’s time to think the unthinkable….They might be correct!
Grr Roger I’m not partisan. Can you take your Partisan hat off any time? I just want toknow ICM’s logic in what they do. Can understand adjustments of a few % but for the Lib Dems to have a quatermore saying they’ll vote for them this time but only be bumped up 1% in the headline figures is one heck of a discrepancy and i wanted to know why.
These opinion polls seem a bit to good for labour to me. I think they’ll win but not with a massive landslide.
I heard something a while ago about an american now working for the labour party being involved in dodgy oppinion polls. Has anyone else heard this?
Steve, I wasn’t criticising Graham. I’m just curious about why Marketing Means should show such a shift.
237 - apologies Sean, I kow Graham is very hurt if people question his professional integrity. Why not drop him an email - its on his website.
236. Ithin you’re referring to Mr Penn.
He was criticized when he put out an exit poll about Venezuela Presidential Referendum before voting was over and predicting a Chavez
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/23/nblair23.xml
“Ithin ”
it should be “I think”.
Interesting article about older people more willing to switch to the tories (according to Mori)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=az7hmgAxjRes&refer=europe
Which marginal seats have a large proportion of older people?
I think Hove has a large number of older people, am I right?
In 2001 the result was: LAB 41% CON 32% LD18% OTHER9%
Now, after Iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals, etc. Labour MUST be lower. The Tories can’t go any lower, and have picked up in the last few months, policies are popular if not the Party, so should do better. LibDems have picked up alot of support, doing much better.
So I can’t see how the Populous, Mori, and ICM polls can be right giving Labour a mere 1% less than 2001 after everything, and putting the Tories on the same as 2001 (or in Populous’ case 1%lower). YouGov’s LAB 37% CON 34% LD 23% or BPIXs LAB 36% CON 33% LD 22% seems much more likely.
My last post is also on the more recent article thread
I think Conservative voters are more confident to state their support now than in 2001 and 1997, both as the unpopularity of previous Tory governments fades in peoples’ memories and because of the dog whistle antics this year. I think Tory support is still underrepresented in the polls, but by less than in the last three general elections.
Where the polls are getting it wrong IMHO is that it is simply not factoring in enough those voters who are just not going to vote for Blair. These people are just not going to turn out, especially when Labour is shown as ahead in the polls.
Re 242 Jon I actually agree with your conclusion. BUT there is this mistaken idea that Lab vote MUST be down a fair bit which is a reflection of just looking at the negatives for LAb. On the other hand, lots of LAb supporters (more than other parties) did not vote in 2001, so chance of a better turnout in closer race is there. Secondly, don’t forget economy and public services - avoiding recession for one term is good but not spectacular; managing it for eight years when most western economies have suffered at some point takes some doing and is widely recognised. On services, the 2 year spending freeze after ‘97 resulted in only modest improvements by 2001. The objective evidence is much better this time, though I accept perceptions are lagging this a good deal.
Andrea @ 241: (Perhaps already answered) Yes, all the south coast except Southampton/Portsmouth has a high proportion of retired people, even Brighton; but sorry, I haven’t any figures. Try census 2001 in google and search about a bit.
247. thanks. I suspected it, looking at the 2001 results the coast (especially the south east) is almost all blue.
If you examine the pols in aggregate and since the election started they seem to be showing an increase in support for Labour and the Tories at a standstill. This could mean that support for Labour is increasing or that the methdology of these polls has suddenly changed. The only other explanation is that Labour support is blipping at the moment for some unexplaind reason.
My own beleif is that LAbour voters who were previosuly going to abstain are changing their minds. If this is true then Labour have momentum on their side. Can this be reversed or, as per Robert Waller, was this always going to happen and there are no late swings?
I might also add that I have anecdotal evidence of people I know deciding to back Labour in the last 2 days when they have previously said they would vote Green. This is driven by Michael Howard.
249. I think it’s that Labour voters are now more likely to vote. if you see MORI raw figures labour lead is not changed a lot, it’s the likelihood to vote of Labour supporters which has increased.
252 - p - Yes, the pollsters are working on the assumption they cant trust peoples answers. They got burnt when they did take people at their word after all.
I dont know if they have got their adjustments right or wrong. Nobody does. But the central point is that lots of people who claim to have voted Labour 4 years ago in fact didnt. So you have to do some sort of adjustment.
JonG - on Labour MUST be lower than 4 years ago. Thats what I said about the Tories throughout the 1980’s! Their polls went down between elections, they lost by-elections, but come election-time they all voted Conservative again (or at least anti Labour).
Labour has annoyed its own supporters more than Mrs Thatcher did hers so I dont think all the disillusioned Labour voters will come back but as Martin Smith says that may be offset by the fact that lots of Labour voters stayed at home in 2001 when the Conservatives were no threat.