ICM puts Brown’s Labour 5% ahead of Cameron’s Tories
October 22nd, 2005-
But Cameron 15% ahead amongst “floating voters”
In spite of all the Tory publicity of recent weeks Labour is still on target for a comfortable fourth General Election victory according to ICM in the Guardian this morning - a view backed by the betting markets where Labour is the 0.63/1 favourite.
In the coming weeks we expect more polls like this and we might see surveys showing the Tories ahead on General Election voting intention. The issue will be whether this can be sustained.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the developments in the Tory party have happened very quickly and we will get a clearer view of their impact in a week or so. Just fifteen days ago David Davis was still the favourite. Only three weeks ago the Cameron price on IG’s Binary bet market was 5-9.
Best betting exchange prices; Cameron 0.17/1: Davis 5.4
Best bookmaker prices; Cameron 1/10: Davis 11/2:
IG’s Binary spread-market. Cameron 82-90: Davis 10-18
ROUND 2 PREDICTION COMPETITION.
Paul Maggs reports. Following the second MPs’ vote and the elimination of Liam Fox, there is a three-way tie between Gary Barford (post 1), Clarke Ken (10), and Alex Williams (35), all of whom were just 4 votes out overall. The next best predictions were from Alasdair (57) with 5 and James M (23) with 6.
Adding together the results for rounds 1 and 2, the best combined score is Round 1 winner Stephen Thomas with 14, followed by Tabman and Ben with 16, and James M and Andrew M with 18.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
After a month of unremittingly favourable publicity (since most observers agree that the drugs issue hasn’t done Cameron any harm), this shows the steepness of the mountain that the Conservatives need to climb. The current position is (as I’ve sensed in my daily work) much the same as the election; with Cameron and Brown it would be apparently slightly worse for the Tories.
This can and will change. The Tories have one more round of excellent publicity to come, when/if Cameron wins the leadership. After that it will get more difficult, and Cameron will not be quite such a fresh new face in 2009. Labour has its equivalent bout of intensive coverage to come when/if Brown is elected leader.
Without wanting to stir up complacency, I think this is a reasonably un-worrying starting position for Labour, and if the Tories are depending on an economic slump, as David R has suggested, they’ll probably be disappointed: the economic outlook in 3 years is likely to be healthier than now, since we appear to be currently near the bottom of the cycle.
The Lib Dems’ score is certainly underrated by questions like “Who would you vote for if Brown and Cameron led the big parties?” But I think they should be worrying that they don’t have any particular ‘big moment’ to look forward to. A large chunk of their voters are often motivated by a distaste for the other parties, and with Brown and Cameron both newish I’m not sure that will play in a big way next time.
The Guardian’s headline was pure spin. But then again the Guardian is the newspapers who wrote that Merkel defeated Schroeder in the TV debate, so their accurancy is
It would be interesting to see how many “floating voters” they found. To have a 15% lead among floating voters, but being 5% behind overall, it must be the floating voters aren’t many.
Perhaps Sean Fear can help me with this one.
Obviously, putting your vote up for sale in a public election is illegal and e-Bay rightly won’t have anything to do with it. But this is a private members’ election and so presumably the legal objection doesn’t apply. I hope - for their sake - that the Tories have a rule automatically expelling members who seek financial inducement to cast their vote - it’s not too hard to imagine some libertarian student member trying it on…
Of course, if they do have such a rule, it would prevent a member who was genuinely indifferent between the candidates from realising an asset, and so indicate that the Tories only back economic liberalism when it suits them…
We have not seen the detailed poll data yet and I want to find out what the impact of all this will be on the Lib Dems. Looking at the numbers there was an aggregate 69% supported Labour or the Tories on the GE voting intention - but that aggregate rises to 81% when the Brown & Cameron options are put. What happens to the 12%? If this is coming from the Lib Dems then they are losing half their support.
5. Even if they % of vote goes down, the situation in terms of seats could not be so tragic.
I suppose Labour gained voters from the Libdems could come from Lab heartlands where they’ve a swing against this year (seats like Birmingham Ladywood, the two Hackney seats,…).
5. then the libdems have been off the media radar in the recent weeks. The media talked only about Cameron and the tories in the last few weeks!
Innocent, I’ve no idea. Rick W might know.
9 Mike, this Poll like every other Poll at this stage of the cycle (in particular) is (IMHO) a total waste of time.
If and when people have seen either Cameron or Davis and Brown (possibly) in action they will quite likely hold completely different views from the ones they are being seduced into by todays transient mood music.
Polls already - my life !
It’s purely hypothetical, but a result along the lines of Lab 43%, Con 38%, LD 14% would reduce the Lib Dems to 3 seats (in reality I imagine they’d hold about 20 in that situation).
Mike. I think that these hypothetical polls are just nonsense. You may as well ask “If Chelsea wore Red and moved to Manchester, would you support them more or less?” People don’t really know, so they don’t know how to answer - but when we do polling we are forcing people to answer - so they do - but it may not be what they mean at all.
I would stick with the headline figure on ICM, which to be fair isn’t that great for the Tories. After a month of unchallenged media attention they haven’t dented either of the other two partie significantly.
[8] On reflection, I imagine that all parties have a rule about “bringing the Party into disrepute” or some such general phrase…
10. They would become as a Scottish party.
Their 6 top majorties are all in Scotland.
1 - Nick, what makes you say that we ‘appear to be currently near the bottom of the cycle’. Wishing it doesn’t necessarily make it so.
These polls are meaningless. Who knows whether people will take to Brown/other against Cameron/Davis over a 3/4 years cycle. Absolutely meaningless. I’m interested that Nick thinks we’re at the bottom of the economic cycle. What do you think will happen over the few 3 or 4 years?
As Graham pointed out the current scores suggest that the Lib Dems haven’t been significantly dented by all the unremitting publicity for the Tories. Perhaps their vote is a lot tougher than these polls suggest. And perhaps they won’t just disappear in a puff of smoke like the old cozy two want to happen.
Perhaps this poll really shows that the Tories are still incredibly weak because they have had a tiny shift despite monopolising the headlines. In two years time after boredom with Cameron has set in they may easily be back to flatlining in the 32-34 area.
Can anyone really see Labour adding much new support or gaining seats in 2009? After 3 terms, every party of Govt is starting to run out of steam, and the economy now appears to be going badly wrong- if we don’t start to improve, the laughing boy of Europe, France, could beat our growth figures.
The Govt have ID cards, the 90-day lockup plan and more besides which will, IMHO, stop much switch over of the Labour defectors back from the LDs and will give the LDs some publicity- and soon enough the public will realise that Gordon will do exactly the same as Tony is doing. I think the problem for the LDs in their tory marginals is much more serious, but anything could happen- we haven’t seven seen cameron at PMQs yet!
BTW, has anyone mentioned by-elections from this thursday; mixed week for tories, with a net loss I think (?) so no great bounce from the contest just yet.
Generally speaking polls are “meaningless” if they don’t support your position and are “of significance” if they do.
In this contest the only polls to really take note of are the YouGov surveys of paid-up Tory members. If the move to Cameron falters in one of these surveys it would be seized on by Team Davis and might have an impact.
16 Paul, even though I find your tone a scintilla too parochially defensive/aggresive in favour of your Party, I do think you hit on some fair points.
As someone who doesn’t buy Cameron being a panacea for the Conservatives but rather a desperate staking of the ranch on one spin of the wheel,I can see no reason why the LD’s would disappear either (if only!)
You do seem to have a solid ‘core’ of @ 18% now, and I don’t see why that should begin to disappear, especially as any you do lose to the blues is more than likely to be topped up by increasingly disaffected reds.
Thats why I think Tim @ 18 flags up a very valid point about your weakness in LD/Cons marginals (particularly in the home Counties).
I think it is fair to say at this point that you are going to be very hard pressed to make any progress at ‘our’ expense for this reason.
As you correctly say, we are still flatlining at @32/34% though incorrectly add the subjective that it shows we are “still incredibly weak” which we’re not, we picked up thirty mumble seats in May and are revovering steadily.
Even though I don’t think these polls are worth a candle, I do though
agree with your observation that given the amount of free publicity that we’ve had recently, it’s something of a suprise that nothing appears to have changed.
All goes to underline that it’s still Nulab’s to lose, that Michael Howard didn’t do such a back job back in May, and that our desperate ‘Hail Mary’ of a gamble with the inexperienced new boy is a one of immense proportions that isn’t even needed.
18. Although they give an indication, I just can’t see how a poll asking if you would support a leader, who’s not even yet been elected, in 3 years can be seized upon by some to suggest e.g Brown would blow Cameron/Davis out of the water or vice versa. If a week is a long time in politics, then 3 or 4 years is a thousand lifetimes.
I too think the Lib Dems are pretty secure on c.20% or so, although the nature of that 20% could change. I think that Cameron as leader would pull back quite a lot of soft Tories in the South and rural areas who’ve been willing to vote Lib Dem. But there’s no reason why the Lib Dems shouldn’t continue to make inroads into Labour’s vote in places like Manchester and Liverpool.
I don’t expect an economic collapse in the next 3 years. What I do expect is continued gradual decline, as tax rises, and continued regulation, take their toll. Our economic performance has looked good by comparison with the Eurozone over the past few years, but that’s a pretty soft target. I expect that our economic performance will be no better than that of the Eurozone in three years’ time.
4 - I wonder if there is something buried away in the 1980s trade union statutes about conduct in private organisations’ ballots.
Woody 19. Yes the new boy is a gamble but much less of one than Davis who has yet to comprehend that the first quality a political leader needs is the ability to communicate. Yes one speech was bad but so are almost all his other public utterances. He badly needs an elocution coach.
He also needs to build up support based on his personal qualities and not on fear. How much did the activities of Derek Conway harm him when MPs were able to cast a secret ballot?
Tory Boy & Sean Fear. Thank you for your reasoned responses. I accept that ‘incredibly weak’ may be a bit of an overstatement. However, I was (deliberately) maybe mixing up the Tory position vis a vis Labour and the fly in the ointment to both that is the Lib Dems. There is no doubt that both Lab and Con would love the Lib Dems to go away - it would make things tactically and philosophically simpler for them. There has been a great deal of that sort of wishful thinking around here.
Although I can see a danger for the Lib Dems in some of the rural areas - I don’t buy the argument that it is all a lost cause and that people in rural areas have all been sitting around waiting for the Tories to get their act together again. On a small, unscientific sample of the blokes I play five a side football with (all professionals of the sort the Tories need to win back in droves) in a small Devon town, only one of the ten expressed a ‘well if they can get their act together, I could think about them’. Two were apathetic (an did not vote at the last election). One is the local Labour candidate in every council election. And six said that they would carry on voting Lib Dem.
Devon is more Tory than Cornwall or Somerset.
Nick @ 1. assumes status quo for the next 4 years - Events! 2009 is a long time away, we are experiencing an econimic downturn which could go either way, who knows what could be around the corner.
a number of polls in the last week had a Cameron Tory party polling similarly. In reality the public have little perception of what a Cameron Tory party will stand for and do before the next election and in my (slightly biased) opinion when the policies are fleshed out there is huge potential to regain support from “the centre ground” as this poll shows with its 15% lead among floating voters.
21. I think Labour could win back voters from the Libdems in their heartlands with a new leader. That wouldn’t necessarly be a tragic thing in terms of seats for teh Libdems. I would expect to continue to do well in Yardley, but to lose votes in Ladywood; to do better in Islington South than in Islinton North.
Then maybe I’m completely wrong!
I think that Cornwall is pretty secure for the Lib Dems. We’re only talking about winning people back at the margins, but that would be enough in several Lib Dem-held seats.
Personally, I think the Tory position in the South West was flattered by the collapse of the old Liberal Party. For whatever reason, plenty of ex-Liberals were unwilling to transfer their support to Labour, unlike in places like South Wales, the East End, or the North East.
I don’t think the South West was ever tribally Conservative in the way that the Home Counties are.
Cameron will lose votes for the Tories to the Lib Dems if he sticks to Tuition Fees.
Its fair to say we have had good publicity in the last few weeks but as I said yesterday we have no leader, no policy commitments and no idea who’s going to be in the Shadow Cabinet. Under those circumstances I’m not surprised we’re still behind. But the 38% figure for DC is a lot better than we achieved for a while.
23. I wasn’t actually aarguing between Davis or Cameron just that these polls about what people will do in 3 years time if someone has this job and someone has that job are fairly meaningless and only done to provide lazy newspaper journalists with something to write about. Reagrding the new leader, I can live easily with either.
29. ” we have no leader, no policy commitments and no idea who’s going to be in the Shadow Cabinet”
I realized it yesterday night. Here during leadership contests candidates have to present a motion about their vision for the party (a sort of mini manifesto). I suppose that the candidates’ speeches during the contest are the UK equivalent.
24 Fair play Paul…
Straight question, not crowing .. What do you put Torbay down to during the week please ?
Regards
30.” I wasn’t actually aarguing between Davis or Cameron just that these polls about what people will do in 3 years time if someone has this job and someone has that job are fairly meaningless ”
Actually I think that the polls are asking what people would do NOW.
33. But there isn’t an election now so they are effectively asking what they will do in 3 or 4 years time.
33 - Andrea - I think I found someone who has a job that would be perfect for you. I was speaking to a friend of a friend last night who works as an adviser to the shadow transport secretary - your beloved Hunky Duncky!
24 and others. You miss the point about the threat to the Lib dems. If you go on any of the election predictors and key in any sort of Tory revival of 5 points or more the Lib dems get obliterated, regardless of who actually wins the next election. Labour on anywhere from 34 to 40% makes little difference to the Lib dem tally, and Tories rising above about 37% of the popular vote equals a meltdown of Lib dem seats. If, and I now asy ti with muuch more caution after the 2005 electio; but if we Conservatives do finally adopt a political stance that is more acceptable to younger, more moderate voters and see our poll ratings rise to the kind of mid term levels we need (in the order of 40% or more) then the Lib dems are in serious trouble in all the seats they gained in 1997 and 2001; and their dilemmna is whether to try and fight us to keep them or to turn left and fight Labour in some of their vulnerable city centre seats, especially in the Midlands. As ever, the Lib dems I know are prevaricating over this and saying that they cand do both. I hope they strick to this misplaced idea because if they do, they will lose out both ways and end up back in the 1980’s seat-wise.
35. I saw Dinky walking along Blackpool beach with a friend. I immediately thought of Andrea. Also when Matthew Parris mentioned his ‘lodger’
I should point out that a mid term poll rating over 40% means a final election poll score of 37-38%; five points above current levels. We are looking for a ten point gain mid-term.
34. The assumption of some here is that Cameron will destroy Gordon just for being Cameron. This poll show that Gordon has chances to defeat Cameron’s tory party. Then in 3 years everything could happen, but Brown has not already lost like someone is wishful thinking.
35. Max, I would love to work in a Parliament: all those rumours, gossip,…….
Tell that friend to keep his hands away from Dinky!
37.”Also when Matthew Parris mentioned his ‘lodger’ ”
why have you thought about me when Parris mentioned his lodger?
39 - I think his girlfriend will probably see to that!
I definately don’t automatically think that DC will beat GB - it’s a massive up hill struggle. But I think at least he has a chance which is more than can be said for Hague, IDS and MH.
1-Your comments about the economy really look like wishful thinking.
Prior to GB’s grwoth forecast of 3 / 3.5% for this year being cut to 1.8% there was already an £ 11 billion black hole to fill,which is unlikely to be filled by additional borrowing as this is already at record levels. So we can expect even bigger tax rises than those required to fill the original £ 11 billion gap + plus additional tax shortfall due to economic growth slow down.
What is your estimate of the tax shortfall caused by reduction of growth from 3/3.5% to 1.8%?
The dramatic reduction in the growth figures confirm that the high street spending boom fuelled by the property boom is well & truly over.
So we have a current situation of record personal debt,double digit increases in Utility bills,many individuals moving onto new higher rate mortgages,council tax continuing to increase plus a round of big tax increases next year to fill the £11 billion plus black hole.
So who will take over & provide the growth that the consumer has for the past 8 years? As it is clear that consumer disposable income will be severerly squeezed over the next few years.
41. well, yes, I agree he has a chance.
Some weeks ago we’re talking about MPs with bad hairstyles (and the woman from Colne Valley with the Sun King wig was the front runner). I think I could have found a candidate for second place:
Karen Buck from Regent’s Park & Kensington North
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/mpdb/img/47401.jpg
Andrea.43
You have to go a long way to beat fabricants mop, and believe me it looks ten times more amusing at close hand! http://pictures.dehavilland.co.uk/live/photo2739.JPG
what do people think of davis’s plans to cut 7p of the basic rate of income tax, down from 22 to 15 thats pretty radical.
ps if ive understood his position wrong then i apologise but its in todays guardian
Pessimistic comments on the economy are, I fear, spot on. There’s a fascinating graph in today’s Times which shows UK growth since 97-98. Essentially it’s been on a gentle downward incline - the highs have been getting less high, the economic lows have been getting lower. To be fair, New Labour have avoided outright recession (which the Tories signally failed to do.. but then they were in power for 18 years), but there’s no question that Brown’s ‘golden touch’ is now being seriously queried.
All those stealth taxes, business regulations, all that red tape from Brussels, all that money wasted on non-improving public services (British kids 24th out of 28 in OECD educational attainment league? WTF? where have my taxes gone?), plus a house price bubble that’s burst, oil prices going haywire, the cock-up over private pensions leading to feelings of insecurity..
Some of this is bad economic management by Brown, some just dumb bad luck, but that’s life. Before Labour were smart and lucky (inheriting good economic circumstances, playing them well etc), now it seems they are neither.
So, to answer Nick Palmer’s point, yes we are at a low stage of the economic cycle, yes things might feel better in two or three years… but even if they go improve, they won’t - I predict - feel better enough. Compared to prevous good times, growth of 2-2.5%, at very best, is going to feel sluggish. Add that to general and widespread disenchantment with Labour deceit, pomposity and spin - plus crime and immigration - and a Tory victory seems very possible.
I’m no psephologist like some of you guys, but I don’t understand the Labour complacency on this site. They’ve had it incredibly easy for eight years, with no opposition to speak of. Looks like that’s about to change. The British electoral system is, moreover, still organised such that minorish swings can produce wildly different results. Last election, Labour’s vote was the lowest for a winning party that anyone can remember. If they lose 10-20% more, who abstain or whatever, and the Tories gain 5-10% - well, then, bingo. Tory government.
Call me Mr Brightside if you like!
24-Whilst there is obviously a long way to go until 2009 & the Liberals could get a boost if they replace CK & drop some of their unpopular policies.
Their biggest danger is if in 2009 people are tired of Labour & want a change of government,if & its a big if the Tories have got their act together then the Liberals could be badly squeezed.
With a few exceptions at the last election vutually all their gains have come from the Tories & if the voters want a replacement for Labour what would the point be in voting Liberal?
Regarding Camerons comments on tuition fees- that could be his first weak issue-particularly in trying win over young voters at uni. Expect that on every LD focus leaflet (next to the dodgy bar graph), in uni seats with the tories to beat or squeeze. . There are not many Tory uni seats around the UK, but in seats like Guildford, running a pro-fees agenda will be a perfect GOTV issue for the LDs.
27-Sean, what would be the effect for the Tories in Cornwall in particular & elsewhere in the south east if there were a collapse of the UKIP vote at the next election.
I seem to remember some commentator mentioning that UKIP had cost the Tories approx. 20 seats at this year’s election.
48.”There are not many Tory uni seats around the UK”
Does anyone have the full list of seats with the biggest student population? I’ve only the top 10 and I would be interest to see there’re some marginals with a decent student populations.
im sorry but tutition fees are much more of an issue amongst the parents sending there kids to uni than the kids themselves. If people think the lib dems are going to get lots of mileage in the future form this issue then they are wrong. The plain fact is that in an ideal world then there would no fee’s but if you want a quality education with universities that can compeate internationally it is neccessary. whats more the new system should actually reduce the hardship on students as you dont pay anything up front and only begin to repay your fee’s when earning as an adult.
camerons decision is in my opinion a smart move. not supporting them in the past was a disaster for the tories as it made them look like they were band waggon jumping to professionals and won them probally not one single student vote in the country.
49.”I seem to remember some commentator mentioning that UKIP had cost the Tories approx. 20 seats at this year’s election”
UKIP costed the tories 20 seats only if you think all UKIP voters are former tories.
Then I suppose the UKIP effect could have been balanced by the seats Labour lost thanks to good performances by the Greens (and even here not all Greens voters are probably former Labourites).
labour lost about 150 seats because of teh lib dems!!
The real test for the DC-led Tories would be a by-election where they are in a reasonable second place but with the Lib Dems breathing down their necks. A seat where Labour had 42% in May to the Tories’ 30%, the LDs 24% and others 6%.
Without wishing ill on anybody such a contest would be really interesting. If Cameron’s Tories can’t break the party’s by-election famine then they can kiss goodbye to any idea of power in 2009/10
My guess would be that UKIP cost us c.12 seats on May 5th. I think that overall, UKIP took more votes away from the Tories than from anyone else, although I think in Devon and Cornwall a lot of their supporters come from the Lib Dems.
I don’t think UKIP will collapse. What I think could be useful for the Conservatives would be to offer UKIP a clear run in a couple of constituencies in Devon and Cornwall (say St. Ives and Plymouth Devonport), in return for their standing down in several marginal seats elswhere.
54. A seat like Conwy?
Lab 37.1%
Con 27.9%
Libdem 20%
PC 11.1%
Well I just want to say how delighted I am that I came quite high up in the prediction competition - these results follow from my strong showing in my first General Election competition back in May.
However I will not be resting on my laurels and will commence training now for the election in 2009 and even the local council elections if such a competition exists!
Congratulations to the winners.
56. Yes those sorts of numbers would be spot on. Without, of course, wishing ill on the incumbent of Conwy or anywhere else.
The seat which I contested for the Lib Dems in 1992 - Bedford - would be ideal. Lab 44%: Con 33%: LD 20%. In this case, I should add, I would hope that the seat become vacant because the incumbent, Pat Hall, was offered an official job that would force his resignation.
54 - I reckon the closest seats to that (Lab 42, Con 30, LD 24) are:
1. Plymouth Sutton
2. Northampton N
3. Ealing, Acton & Shepherd’s Bush
4. Luton S
5. Brentford & Isleworth
6. Warrington S
7. Wirral S
8. Southampton Test
9. Ipswich
10. Bedford
So you know which Labour MPs to campaign for peerages for.
Max - what is going on? Burley has left Hearts.
I was telling my mate who is a season ticket holder, that while this Romanov involvement is alright now it might go badly wrong in the future.
Surely he cannot have been sacked?!
54,it would be fascinating to see a by-election in a few months in a South-East Labour marginal,held by 10% or less;thinking back,when Mrs.Thatcher had held power for 9 years,the 1988 Kensington by- election yielded a swing of 5.4%(Dudley Fishburn narrowly held on for the Tories-so a govt defeat would be a return to the normal laws of gravity of politics,as it were.
The three main areas of marginals are London,with its outer ring of New Towns,the Midlands and Lancashire/Yorkshire mill towns;whilst I can quite readily see DC doing very well in the south-east generally,how would he fare in the slightly earthier Midlands/North-I recall reading that when Mrs.T became Tory leader in 1975,Sir Ian Gilmour,a patrician Tory wet warned against the party ‘retreating behind its privet hedge’-in other word,DC’s perceived poshness could be a real turn-off the further north you go-perhaps in the instance of a DC leadership,he would do well to have DD,who is perceived as a bit of a ‘bruiser’,in a prominent Cabinet shadow role(his holding an East Riding seat could enamour northern floating voters)Thoughts?
51- I think it is naive to think that the Lib Dems made little milage out of their opposition to tuition and top up fees. I know a good few students who yes, may have voted LD anyway as they were seen as the eco/left party, but joined the fight against tuition fees and campaigned with us because of it.
Look at LD uni focuses and LDYS literature that was handed out. Strong emphasis on tuition fees. People like Stephen Williams used it in Bristol West with great success, as did Greg Mulholland. Sure- some students are for fees, but in many institutions where there is little interest in politics- asking if they want a huge debt after uni or want to vote scrap it is almost always a vote winner. We became the ‘anti-fees’ party- along with the war one of our only strong, well-known (and liked) stances.
PS: Didn’t Con Future run a anti-fees campaign at the GE- it was certainly on their website. What a U-turn they may have to make!
Sean Fear at 55: Um, I’m a bit surprised that an obviously experienced party member would think it conceivable that the Tories would give UKIP a clear run anywhere, any more than Labour would leave a seat or two to Respect. Pigs would fly first.
Economy: Regardless of the policies of the government in power, there is a fairly regular cycle: the leading indicator that shows trends is normally interest rates (which have just started to come down), followed by inventories (which build up when businesses anticipate expansion, and fall when they expect recession). Unemployment is a trailing indicator, tending to improve some time after interest rates fall and get worse some time after they rise. I’d expect interest rates to continue to fall and the economy to start expanding briskly next year after a lacklustre 12 months - this is also essentially the prediction of most forecasters.
There are always good and bad points in any economic position and it would go beyond the scope of pb.com to go into them all here. My point was just the general one that waiting for an economic slump to turn the electorate to the Tories is probably not going to be fruitful this time round.
Cynic is of course right that anything can happen in 3 years! We can only extrapolate from the facts as we have them now. When we have new facts, we can have a better shot at it. (I always liked Cardinal ?Newman?’s comment, on being accused of inconsistency: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”)
I’m not saying it’s at all likely, Nick, but not a bad idea IMO. Back in the Fifties, Conservatives occasionally gave the Liberals a clear run, in return for not having Liberal candidates elsewhere.
[59] I’m sure there’s one or two would like an embassy, preferably somewhere warm
[63] I thought your quote was Keynes - I don’t think the facts about the Catholic Church changing was what led Newman to Rome
63 - “(I always liked Cardinal ?Newman?’s comment, on being accused of inconsistency: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”)”
Keynes, wasn’t it?
I think it was Tory Boy - or maybe Sean Fear who asked about an explanation about Torbay. It was interesting to watch local news last night as they (the BBC - who down here are much more ‘right’ in their spin) were questioning the legitimacy of the vote (their term - not mine). They pointed out that the turnout was incredibly low considering the hoohah (is that how you spell that word) about the referendum, and that there was obvious confusion over the way the voting worked, with a great many of the ballots not filled out properly.
I am not a resident of Torbay, but my understanding of politics down there is that it is ‘idiosyncratic’ to say the least. There have been at least four wipeouts of the Council’s governing party down there that I can remember, with both parties taking more than their fair share of criticism of a town that is really not really big enough to have a unitary council, and has had a history of internal problems and low morale amongst officers.
From what I know - and as I say it isn’t very much - the LDs were actually reasonably pleased with their finishing position, which was nowhere near the humiliation that some were expecting. All in all the mayoral position in a town like Torquay could be the proverbial poisoned chalice if Bye cannot turn things around, or has to make unpopular decisions.
Re Max and his hopes of a massive squeeze on the Lib Dems. Of course that is not beyond the realms of possibility, but the history of the Liberal / Alliance / Lib Dem fortunes after WWII would seem to indicate that such a squeeze is getting harder to achieve not easier. The LD’s relative strength, resources and profile is far better now than before and I still believe it is wishful thinking of both the other parties to pretend that the LDs have merely ‘borrowed’ those votes on some sort of short term loan. My point earlier was that supposition type questions may show a squeeze of LD voters (presumably when asked in a certain way) but that ‘who would you vote for’ questions show that the LDs have not suffered any particular squeeze post May, despite a ‘poor’ (in media terms conference) and the domination of the headlines for the Tories subsequently. That doesn’t mean that I, or any other LD would be complacent about the support of the party, or that there isn’t danger for us - merely that at the moment supposition that Cameron would lead to some catastrophic collapse seems to be based more on wishful thinking at the moment.
50 - they are, with % of student vote:
1. Leeds NW - 25.8% (LD gain from Lab)
2. Cardiff Central - 25.6% (LD gain from Lab)
3. Cambridge - 25.4% (LD gain from Lab)
4. Nottingham South - 25.3% (Con gain from Lab)
5. Manchester, Gorton - 24.1% (Lab hold)
6. Sheffield Central - 22.6% (Lab hold)
7. Liverpool Riverside - 22.5% (Lab hold)
8. Bristol West - 20.9% (LD gain from Lab)
9. Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central - 20.6% (Lab hold)
10. Sheffield Hallam - 18.4% (LD hold)
69,Sorry to have to pick fault,but Nottingham South was certainly held by Labour’s Alan Simpson:wink:
70 - correct - sorry slip of the finger on the keyboard!!
69. Rik, thanks, even if I already knew the top 10 (I took them from the Commons website). do you know the rest of the list (especially position from 11 to 20)?
59. A by election in Hampstead and Highgate could be interesting too.
To free the seat without wishing hill to Glenda (considering her age), I’ve a scenario: she could be deselected, then she gets angry, she resigns in protest forcing a by-election.
70. Alan Simpson rebelled to many times and now Rik considers him an opposition MP
The odds on Brown being next Labour leader have drifted significantly - now in the region of 1.5 (ie “only” 67% chance).
It looks like people think that if Cameron wins Labour will be more inclined to move to the next generation too.
The Betfair market is very illiquid and very little money has actually been bet on them but the 2nd and 3rd favourites are now David Milliband and Alan Johnson.
72 - sorry I dont - although I imagine Reading East (Cons gain from Lab) would be amongst them!
63. Well that all sounds OK if it happens like that but I’m not so sure it will. You say interest rates are falling but we’ve only seen 1 quarter rate cut and with inflation above target at the moment, I don’t see them coming down in a hurry in the short term. Neither it would seem does Phillip Green considering he’s chosen this time to borrow money to pay that Billion pound dividend.
63.”I’m a bit surprised that an obviously experienced party member would think it conceivable that the Tories would give UKIP a clear run anywhere, any more than Labour would leave a seat or two to Respect. Pigs would fly first. ”
It would be an intelligent move. I would leave Brighron Pavillion to teh Greens if they won’t stand everywhere else in the country and openly say to vote for Labour.
Mike - just a correction to your orginal article and an answer to where those Lib Dem supporters have gone!
The figures comparing a Brown leadership to a Cameron/Davis leadership aren’t shares of the vote (or indeed voting intention at all) they were who respondents would prefer as PM.
The CON 33, LAB 36, LD 22 was a normal voting intention question, but the questions with Gordon Brown vs Cameron or Davis were a forced choice (i.e. people were not given the choice of saying Charlie Kennedy or someone else), and specifically asked who they thought would be the best PM, not who they would vote for. Obviously who the party leader is affects voting intention, but it isn’t the only factor. There was a fair proportion of people who thought that Gordon Brown would make a better Prime Minister, but nevertheless told ICM they were *certain* to vote Conservative.
Full tables are here anyway -
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/10/21/OctICMpoll.pdf
Further to Paul Lloyd’s @ 68: Even if the LibDems are badly squeezed and lose a quarter of their vote, they’ll still have a greater vote share than in 1997, when they won 46 seats. Max and Marcus Wood, among many others on all sides, are using Martin Baxter’s machine in the wrong way; if 1997 showed anything, it was that UNS is a thing of the past. It would be necessary to show not that Con voters have ‘returned’, but that they had done so consistently in the right areas; something which conspicuously didn’t happen in 2005. If people turn out to vote *against* Lab, will they vote Con? There’s the rub, however young and lovely the party leader is. (No contempt here: Blair not Kinnock, and Kennedy not Ashdown, probably made a contribution — but not all or even most of the difference.)
As usual Anthony Wells site is worth reading as are his posts ( see above). The point he makes about the success drivers is important and reflect my concerns about our less than stalwart MPs:
A large majority (69%) of people thought that David Cameron was not too young to be Prime Minister, and 74% thought that the British public would not be reluctant to vote for a Prime Minister who went to Eton.
The poll did, however, provide a useful reminder of the limits to the importance of the leader. Asked whether the identity of the Tory party leader or the party’s policies were more important in making a voting decision, only 12% said the leader, while 80% said the policies. The questions is a bit of a simplification - firstly saying that one sagely considers the parties’ policies is obviously a more ’socially acceptable’ answer than saying one votes for the nicest chap, and equally most pollsters (not least MORI themselves) will tell you that there is a third important factor, the overall image of a party, which is itself influenced by the leader’s image and the party policies. All the same, it’s worth remembering that who the leaders of the parties are is only a small part of the story.
http://www.yougov.com/interactive/blogIntro.asp?jID=3&sID=4&kID=http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php
36 Sorry if I was “missing the point” Marcus.
I’ hope you’re right but simply don’t see the “obvious” scenario you are painting.
Where is it written the Labour will ground @ 34% ?
Anthony 78. Thanks for that - one of the problems of trying to comment on a survey without seeing all the data.
I like the figure that when faced with the choice for PM of Brown or Cameron a total 20% of Labour supporters said they preferred Cameron. What will Andrea say about that?
82 …and 23% of Conservative voters said they preferred Brown to Cameron.
Mike [82] - as you know there’s lots of “turn and churn” between elections and if two or more parties have different leaders I’d assume there’d be more than at other times. What we don’t know is how many of the perverse tendency (Labour for Cameron, Tories for Brown) are people who voted last time, if there are any significant demographic factors etc. What is odd about Anthony’s findings is that people say that policies are overwhelmingly more important than the leader’s personality, yet other polls have suggested that Tory policies in themselves are more popular than the Party (and by extension, its leader’s personality). I sense that at least some respondents gave what they thought was the “kosher” answer.
51 and 62- As has been pointed out top up fees are an issue for 2 groups-students and teachers. In terms of students the Lib Dems certainly got milage out of the tuition fees issue but I don’t think the tories did. The overall image of the LDs made students more likely to vote for them than the tories. Students clearly made a difference in a few seats, although other factors were at work for example in Leeds NW tories voting LD tactically hurt labour, and helped the LDs. However the effect among parents is much more difficult to tell because they are not concentrated in certain areas but distributed across the country.
82.”What will Andrea say about that? ”
I’ll pardon them! They don’t know what they’re doing
Then they cancel each other with the 23% tories who prefers Brown over Cameron.
Btw, Lord Heseltine is supporting Cameron and Ken suggested that Tory MPs are out of touch with real voters.
84.”
I sense that at least some respondents gave what they thought was the “kosher” answer. ”
The social desirability of teh answers could have some effects in those questions.
Mike your support for DC is clearly not going unnoticed. PB.com is now listed on the Cameron website. See http://www.cameroncampaign.org/lookwhostalking.html
re 88. Well the Cameron site is also listing as “Support for David Cameron - look who’s taling” the BBC Politics Show, Bloomberg, Conservativehome as well as Annthony Wells’s UKPolling Report
88 -
… That raises fundamental existential questions about our beloved moderator and we his loyal and most dutiful subjects.
“Not in my name”, sayeth some, “Don’t post, it only encourages him”, quoth others
90. When I started visiting this site, I thought he was a New Labourite in love with Blair.
91 - But now you are older and wiser… :)….Time for shopping
Actually, that link has been in place on Cameron’s site for some time now. I noticed it over a week ago.
92. John O, I’m older, but not sure I’m wiser………..
94 - Obviously, as you aren’t a Tory yet…
95. I think I won’t never become wiser in that sense
96 - Never say never!
91. Andrea - how on earth did you get the idea that I was a new Labourite “in love with Blair”?
I’m a Lib Dem out of love - or to be more accurate never having loved - Charles Kennedy. I dislike Gordon Brown’s control freakery and lack of humour and find it amazing that someone so devoid of speaking skills as David Davis can have got so far in the Tory leadership race. My idea of hell is a General Election in which these three are the leaders of the main parties.
97. I think there’re as many chances as:
a) Jeremy Corbyn starting to back the government
b) Ann Widdecombe getting married Michael Howard in Las Vegas
c) Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley holding a civil ceremony in Bromley
d) Theresa May saying the tories are actually good
but maybe you’re right. Never say never!
99 -
I take your point. The chances of my coming round to your political point of view are roughly the same. Vive le difference!
98. I think that when I started to visit this site, the first couples of articles where about how great Blair is compared to all others. So I got that impressions, then I realized that you were a Libdem who dislikes Charlie and Gordon (you’re able to describe almost all events as a bad sign for Gordon
98 - Mike: Your antipathy for CK is well known, but I can’t recall you ever telling us who you would actually like to replace him? (You may have done, but my memory isn’t what it used to be.)
Speaking as a partisan Conservative I’m happy to see him go on for a long time to come!
100- A H Matlock, I’m still trying to understand which point @99 is the most traumatic: Adams/Pasiley or Widdy/Howard.
With lots of efforts you could try to move toward my point of views. You could start lobbying your MP to sign the Early Day Motion to include GLBT people in the Equality bill. Just not to let John Bercow as the only Tory who signed it
101.”first couples of articles where about how ”
what the hell did I write?
It should be “were”, not where! I should be ashamed of myself
Point c), without question. The image it conjures up is enough to flip one’s biscuits.
105. but I was worried about the chances of Widddy and Howard produing an heir! With the science developments, it couldn’t be excluded…………..
While attempting to look at Manchester Withington on the BBC news election map I accidentally hit on Hazel Grove. Labour (in third admittedly) actually managed to increase their vote there at the election, while both the LDs and Tories fell back. Does anyone know why?
64,77: Yes, I’m in favour of this sort of intelligent response to FPTP too. I made extensive use of tacticalvoter.net in my campaign, the next best thing, and in the spirit of it kept Norman Lamb regularly briefed on what Iain Dale was saying on the Other Side.
But the parties won’t tolerate this sort of thing nowadays, unfortunately - they believe that it rots the fabric of their long-term national support if they don’t give everyone a chance to vote for them at every election. Martin Bell was the only recent exception.
Andrea, when I first came to the site, I was so struck by Mike Smithson’s apparent antipathy to Blair (which I gradually realised was more specifically antipathy to the Iraq war and all its architects) that I thought Mike was a Tory!
Further to 107. I just had a look at previous results - the Labour vote was just over 10% in 1992, and went up 4% in 2001. I guess it might be down to demographic change? Anyone with local knowledge?
Re AH 102. There are 62 Lib Dem MPs - I guess any of the other 61.
Anyone know who’s on the dreadful Morgan and Plattell programme tonight?
110 -
:lol: 
107. Labour actually increased its % of votes in some Libdems/Cons seats, not only in Hazel Grove.
111. I believe that it is The Most Honourable The Marquess of Lothian.
Mike. Your antipathy towards CK is all very amusing, but the reality is that the public at large don’t tend to share your view. His approval ratings at the last election were far higher than either of the other two leaders and he steered his party to their best result since WWII.
Which leads me to ask you - are you a better judge of politicians than the general public, or are they a better judge than you? If it is the latter - well I bow to your superior abilities, and will campaign hard for the system for choosing Liberal Democrat leaders to be determined by pb.c editorials. OTOH, it turns out that it is the general public, I shall retain my sceptical position on Cameron after the lecture you gave me on why he was such a good performer.
Sorry for the sarcasm Mike - but I think you can be a bit ‘one eyed’ about Charlie, a politician who has been much underrated (his performance during by-election campaigns being an example of how effective he can be).
Paul - CK might be popular in the polls “as a good bloke” but there’s nothing to support the idea that he is seen a credible alternative Prime Minister.
Many I talk to in the party are just waiting for the day when CK gets out. This is a very common topic amongst the party’s MPs at Westminster and, indeed, CK had to warn about the “whispering campaign” against him in June.
The only thing that keeps him there is that currently there is no obvious replacement and as a party we are far less ruthless than the Tories with leaders who do not perform - and CK did not perform against the Tories who had net gains against us.
Re Hazel Grove, I would imagine that in most “safe” Lib Dem seats, many of the activists went off to help elsewhere (in this case, Cheadle and Withington). So the Lib Dem vote went down a bit in Hazel Grove, and up in the other two. Result, three Lib Dem MPs instead of two…. Very intelligent of them, if this was, indeed, was did happen….
60 - James - I’ve not got a clue whats going on but there should be an announcment soon. Was at the game today and we still won and played well but it was a weird atmosphere. There is a rumour that the Forces of Darkness (Rangers) could be behind it. Its been a very emotional day - I’m still numb!
117. “I would imagine that in most “safe” Lib Dem seats, many of the activists went off to help elsewhere (in this case, Cheadle and Withington). So the Lib Dem vote went down a bit in Hazel Grove”
I would imagine that Labour activits were elsewhere too.
With regards to the general debate about the qualities of a(prospective)party leader,and the polling evidence showing policy is more important than presentation(no doubt to Alaistair Campbell’s chagrin:wink:),it should be remembered that,during the 1979 election campaign,whilst the Tories had a solid lead,polling found that James Callaghan was still the most popular party leader;on that occasion,policy clearly won the day(council house sales,restriction on the unions)-another point worth recalling is even after the winter of discontent the Labour vote only fell by 2.4% on 1979-whilst obviously we can’t foretell,if there is a modest economic slowdown in the next 6-9 months,it could not happen at a better point in the election-economic cycle from the government’s point of view-I await with interest
I think the whispering campaign was more to do with a group on the ‘right’ of the party who are trying to bypass the activists and push their agenda than necessarily about CK’s leadership.
My point goes to them to though. I think it is great that the Lib Dems are ambitious enough to want more - there was a time when I despaired that the party I was in seemed satisfied with 40 odd MPs as if we had achieved something great, and now we are all dissatisfied with 62. That shows we are gaining in ambition. My point wasn’t to say that CK is the B all and end all of what we should want - but that he deserves more respect than you give him. He has twice seen his seat numbers go up at GEs when many have said ‘this is the high water mark’, and Kennedy isn’t up to it, etc. etc. I am not a CK cheerleader, I am just trying to be objective, whereas I fear that you are somewhat prejudiced against him.
Of course we can all say ‘we might have done better with X or Y’, or ‘he is only leader by default’, but in politics we can only measure success by comparison of real events. Real events show that Charles Kennedy has led the LDs to their two best election results since the early part of the 20th Century - so he must have done something right somewhere or when along the line.
116 Respect as ever Mr S
I meant ‘Labour vote fell 2.4% on 1974′-oops! Spent quite a bit of time on the Baxter votes-seats extropolator;allowing for 10,11 more Tories and 7 or 8 less Labour MPs,it seems around a 4% swing Lab-Con,with the Lib Dems dropping to 18%,is around the point at which the Conseravtives would be the largest party in a hung parliament(a 4% swing from this May’s election would mean a Tory lead of 5%-to win an overall majority,it seems like a 5.5%swing(Tory lead 8%),so it is certainly a psephological mountain to climb-I do hope the Tories grant DC ‘2 innings’,as to not do so would not be cricket,if you’ll pardon the pun!
120. Patrick, if you could put spaces in after punctuation marks it would be a great help. The lack of them makes your posts difficult to read and distracts from the content of what you are trying to say.
124,I stand corrected:no doubt my English teacher (I went to state grammar in the 1980s) would share your disapproval:wink:
116 Whimsical from TB HQ.
Just had the misfortune of watching “What Kid’s really think on TV”
Talking of boys making an effort to impress girls, Ian Wright asked a 10 year old (as verbatim as possible - slight copyright apologies in advance):
But if you had a girlfriend wouldn’t you make and effort to smarten yourself up for her in case someone else came along and nicked her off of you.
Reply from the 10 y/o : No, because if she liked me she wouldn’t care what I looked like anyway
Out of the mouths of babes and young children …………
126.”Talking of boys making an effort to impress girls, Ian Wright asked a 10 year old”
The MP for Hartlepool?
127. no, this Ian Wright (the one in the red shirt): http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40164000/jpg/_40164587_parlourwright.jpg
127. An ex footballer who thinks he can present programmes. I find him extremely annoying but I’m sure people will disagree with me.
118 - Max - I was at Old Trafford today and heard the news walking in. Very strange, complete surprise. Let us know what happens.
130 - Left by mutual consent and confidentiality clauses all round so we might never know. The latest rumour is that he had contacts with a guy from Aston Villa. Also it was widely rumoured he doesn’t get on with the owner Vladimir Romanov. Otmar Hitzveld is said to be in the running for the job. Its a bit of a worry but we were good again today.
It’s a whole lot more stressful than the Tory leadership contest!
re 121. If CK can claim the credit for the overall gains of 2005 he can also accept the responsibility for the failure to make progress against the Tories and, indeed, to see us lose seats to them. It was CK in September 2004, remember, who declared that the objective was “to replace the Tories as the main party of opposition”.
Well in terms of his stated objective he failed - but nobody held him to account. There was collective amnesia about this at the Blackpool conference. I said at the time that the objective was dumb because it was not achievable.
132 - Mike, out of interest who would you prefer as leader. I tend to agree with Paul that he has done a decent job in getting the party up to 60+ seats and don’t see someone who could take over as an immediate replacement.
116. “CK did not perform against the Tories who had net gains against us”.
But Mike, it was an absolute necessity that the Lib Dems repositioned themselves, and proved themselves to be a threat to Labour. If the LDs simply concentrated on the Tory marginals then Labour just gets a free ride in Government for the next 20 years. I think that, prior to 2005, 1983 was the last time the LDs/Alliance defeated a sitting Labour MP.
134 Chesterfield was a Lib Dem gain from Labour in 2001. Before that you have to go back to the Greenwich by-election just before the 1987 general election for an SDP gain from Labour.
133. I’ve always been a Simon Hughes fan but I think he is getting too old now. Ed Davey looks very promising and I think that Vince Cable would be a good stop-gap if that was required.
A lot depends on how well Cameron does. If the bubble bursts fairly quickly then CK is safe. But I can see Cameron’s style appealing to many of the Tories who went Lib Dem from 1987 onwards taking the blue route again. In that case Davey would be a good alternative.
133 The LDs should go for Nick Clegg in a couple of years. he’s already been an MEP so he’s no political neophyte. Instead you’ll overlook him as too young/new etc and keep CK for fear of Simon Hughes. As a result you’re headed for a sharp squeeze from Brown and DC.
125-’I went to a state Grammar’
Is there any other type of Grammar school? a private Grammar?
138 - yup, Manchester Grammar is private, for example.
138 - A lot of former State Grammar schools went private when the Comprehensive movement was fashionable. Only some sensible COnservative local authorities fought to keep their excellent Grammar schools and therefore keep the “leg up” for less well off intel