Labour up 1% in the PB.C General Election Index
November 27th, 2005
-
YouGov and pensions row fail to dampen markets
Punters on the “which party will win most General Election seats” markets are taking a slightly more optimistic view of Labour’s chances in spite of the YouGov poll showing a 6% drop in the party’s lead and the ongoing row over pensions policy.
PB.C’s weekly index is based on the best betting odds available on Labour and is presented in terms of implied probability of it securing most seats at the next election. This morning it stands at 58.5%.
The findings of Friday’s YouGov poll in the Telegraph which had a majority of those surveyed saying that the Tories General Election chances have improved do not seem to have impressed the punters who are prepared to put money into this long-term market.
It should be noted that the betting is on which party will secure most seats - not on whether Labour will get a majority. Given that many experts reckon that the Tories need to be several points ahead on votes just to be level on seats it is, perhaps, surprising that the index is so low.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The pensions row as it stands is unlikely to damage Labour since to the average voter it is all pretty abstract and a long way off, and in any case the Tories have no vote-winning counter proposals at the moment.
There are two things more likely to damage Labour if they are not careful. One is flu jabs. Most people will know (or know of) people who are eligible for the jab and if large numbers start to be turned away by empty-handed GPs, that will make Labour look incompetent on one of its core issues.
The other is FOBTs — roulette machines in betting shops. Recently permitted, these machines are proving hugely attractive (if not addictive) to many people (including women) who would not previously have been seen dead in betting shops. They are contributing hundreds of millions of pounds to bookmakers’ annual profits, which is money being sucked out of the mainstream economy (since it goes not circulated further — it is not like retail spending where most of the money is passed to wholesalers and on to manufacturers). Leaving aside any personal debt issues, it artificially depresses the economy and particularly the high street.
It is possible (at a slight stretch, admittedly) to see these as analogous to events that contributed to the Tories’ defeat in 1997.
MORI’s new poll for the Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,1651923,00.html
-Lab 42, Con 32, Libdem 19
-57% dissatisfied with the government, 33% satisfied.
-37% satisfied with Blair; 55% unhappy with his personal efforts; minus 18%
- 35% dissatisfied with Gordon, 49 per cent satisfied; a positive score of 14 points
-top issues: Iraq and terrorism (41%), crime (34%), NHS (29), pensions in 6th place
The report on the MORI poll doesn’t say whether it is “All those naming a party” or “All those certain to vote”. The latter tends to be more accurate in predicting election shares. On the October MORI political monitor, those figures were:
(All naming a party)
Lab 43, Con 30, LD 21
Labour lead 13%
(All those certain to vote)
Lab 40, Con 34, LD 21
Labour lead 6%
So if it’s the former, then the Tories have closed the gap by 3%. If it’s the latter, Labour have pulled away by 4%.
We’ll find out when MORI put the November data up on their website.
2. Their headline figures are usually “All those certain to vote” results.
It appears to be ‘certain to vote’, since Worcester’s article in the Observer discussing it says Labour’s share is up 2%, fitting Andy’s latter figures in post 2. 42% is Labour’s highest poll share for some time, I think, and the Tory 32% back in their normal range. Note that the fieldwork is a few days old - 17th to 22nd, I think - so the YouGov poll is probably a day or two more recent. But I don’t think anything special happened last week to cause a major shift, so perhaps the old panel vs phone discrepancy is re-emerging? Anyway, the 2% swing since the previous comparable poll is mildly encouraging.
The underlying figures show the electorate collectively in disgruntled though not furious mood, which tallies with my impression (and they were like that before and during the election too: they just thought we were the better option on offer, and for the moment probably still do).
It’s usually better to be talked about than not, even when it’s controversial, so we do better when the press are criticising our energy or pension plans than when they’re talking about Cameron arguing with Davis (though I think the public and even Tory members now feel their leadership election has been going on forever). Conversely, a defeat for the Government doesn’t gain votes for it, even if people and the press mostly sympathise with the Government’s view - there was no bounce over the 90-day issue, probably because the ‘Government in disarray’ impression overlaid the issue itself.
Interesting fortnight coming up: the energy review launch, the pension review launch, the Pre-Budget Report, the Tory leadership result (and no doubt new Shadow Cabinet). Lots of fixes for us politics junkies!
1,
Surprised at Browns positive figures, with all the publicity regarding pensions.
Looks like labour will get a real bounce in the polls when he takes over from Blair.
Maybe they prefer a change to Brown, a diligent form of government, rather than the heir to Blair, Cameron.
Have the tories picked the right leader at the wrong time.
5.”Surprised at Browns positive figures, with all the publicity regarding pensions.”
As Nick Palmer pointed out, the fieldwork is 17th to 22nd, so before the pensions discussions.
Btw, Simon Hughes has declared he’s ready to go to jail rather than carry an ID card.
Last week I was so irritated by Mr Blair that when asked by Yougov to complete one of there political surveys I didn’t bother, thinking I would register as an abstention. Anthony kindly informed me that in fact I had made no difference. To have registered as a Labour leaning abstention I would have had to fill in the survey and not declared ‘Labour’ as my preference. If I was asked over the phone or in person I would have felt obliged to say ‘Labour’. On the internet it’s much easier to register your ‘feeling’ at that moment and as Mori itself found a lot of Labour supporters are really p…..ed off with Mr B at the moment.
What I’m really wondering is whether internet polls are more likely to register day to day moods whereas a phone poll or one in person is more likely to get to the underlying intention? Of course at election time these become one and the same.
Roger 7. That’s a very interesting point about the difference between internet and interview polling. When you are being questioned by an interviewer my guess is that you do not want to sound inconsistent. When filling in a YouGov survey - and I’ve now been banned by Peter Kellner so I have not done this for months - you might well register temporary mood changes. Maybe this was why YouGov had the very high UKIP figures ahead of the Euro elections in June 2004?.
The problem with phone surveys is getting samples that are not heavily biased towards Labour. When you make thousands of unsolicited randomised phone calls you invariably end up with many more Labour supporters amongst the one in six of those called who the pollster can talk to.
7
Roger,
When do you think the best time would be for Labour general election prospects for Brown to take over.
I thought it would be later on the parliament so Brown gets the honeymoon period of the change from Blair, and the comparison with Cameron will be stark.
8.”The problem with phone surveys is getting samples that are not heavily biased towards Labour. When you make thousands of unsolicited randomised phone calls you invariably end up with many more Labour supporters amongst the one in six of those called who the pollster can talk to. ”
The rate of reply to a survey is usually not uniform among the whole population. Some groups of people have an higher replay rate than others groups.
These top line figures are no more valuable than the Yougov figures that appeared to show a Tory bounce. A 10% Labour lead has all the credibility of the pre-election Mori poll on 3rd May which also had Labour ahead by 10%. But in truth I suspect the headline figures are again basically static if you assume the normal MoE.
The other figures are more likely to be indicative of something useful as they are questions about the here and now and not about the distant unfathomable future.
The relatively high net dissatisfied figures for the government and Blair are quite marked and the three top issues are no surprise either. Pensions may well gallop up the league with Council tax on its heels in the next few weeks.
There is no surprise in the positive approval for Brown. But once he has to move out into the open on his own that may well change. His cackhandedness over the pension report does not bode well for him when Blair no longer provides cover ( and when Blair may be taking pot shots from the side lines).
7- On a related point, I think the Tories have made a tactical error by having a leadership election this early into the new parliament. By 2009 - if he isn’t booted out in the meantime, Cameron will be pretty stale as a leader, and Brown - despite having been CotE for donkeys, will seem like a newer and fresher choice.
For this reason alone, it seems better sense for Labour to wait till late 2007 / early 2008 for their leadership change - and that’s where my - admittedly not market moving amount- moneys been placed quite a while ago.
I might have agreed with you a year ago dez but since then Mr Blair has gone from hero to zero and despite everything Mr Browns stature has continued to grow. I now believe that he will be a fine PM and his solid reliability fits in with the zeitgeist of the country at the moment. So to answer your question probably sooner rather than later. Late 2006 would be my choice. If Cameron does well against Blair then let Brown take over. If he does badly then Brown will crush him. I have great hopes for Brown. I think he’ll change things for the better even more than Blair did.
Pimpernel at 12. I don’t agree that the Tories have made a mistake choosing Cameron now because he will seem stale by the next election. They have a mountain to climb and it’s going to take him all his four years to get the brand looking electable again (if indeed he can). My own guess is that if he does turn out to have the popular appeal of Blair in ‘94 AND Labour screw up badly it will still take till 2013 before we COULD see another Tory government. They are just starting from such a low base. Much lower than Labour in were in ‘92 ‘93 or ‘94
[9][12] My first thought was to agree with the point being made, but on reflection I doubt the advantage is there - the taunt of “daren’t even have a leadership election yet” and the third party threat probably mean that no defeated leader of either Labour or Conservatives can do other than resign more or less straight away. In recent years, only Kinnock has had a second chance - partly for the same reason that Hilary Armstrong is still Government Chief Whip to-day, and partly because Steel and Owen were too busy loathing each other to do any work on turning votes into seats.
13,
Roger,
I have had a bet for ages that Blair would stand down on May 1st 2007, ten years after the election victory.
From time to time I have thought he would go earlier or later, now fairly confident that will be the date.
On the Brown point I hope you are right.He will surprise us all I believe with some quick bold changes.
As he did when he took everyone by surprise when first getting in the treasury, and making the Bank of England independent.
Also Mike/Andrea, our canvass returns show a disproportionally higher amount of Conservative voters with TPS.
17. Andy, what is TPS?
I’m no psephological expert, but those are some rum results up there. A huge amount of dissatisfaction with the government, yet people still ready in their droves to vote Labour. Shurely shome mishtake?
At the last election I got a sense of wide mistrust and dislike of Labour, which was vindicated at the polls. They got the lowest share of the vote for a winning party ever recorded (or thereabouts). The trouble for the Tories was that nobody liked them either.
This is about to change, one feels. Straws in the wind and all that. The CBI has just announced that Labour have lost the confidence of business. The economy is going south, bigtime - slower growth than France, 21st out of 25 in the OECD tables. Unemployment edging up. Pensions nightmare. Crime is perceived to be worsening. Iraq, iraq, iraq. 90 day detention lost labour the liberal vote; they are about to compound that error with ID cards. Add in a divided party and a looming european crisis (the rebate, a revival of the Constitution - I think a climactic and belated confrontation with our European ‘destiny’ will arise in the next two or three years) and you finally have a recipe for Labour implosion.
And this time, the Tories may well be able to reap the rewards - with a likeable new leader. In other words, those polls look to me like a levee about to break: at the moment the river is still flowing, the government sails on - but when the breach is made the disaster will come swiftly. One hopes.
18 - It stops you from receiving telemarketing calls Andrea.
20. Oh, thanks Max. I didn’t know such a thing existed
Mori’s wasn’t a telephone poll but face to face.
19,
Do not think a likeable leader will be enough,even though its a big improvement on the last one.
As for disaster surely nobody wants that.
The real chance for a new conservative is the perception that the Labour party is not fit to govern as it is been stopped from reforming anything due to its hard left.
Then if this continues even with the change to Brown, many will decide to shift party allegiance from new labour to whoever looks like been able to provide that centrist reforms.
23. When I meant ‘disaster’ I didn’t mean a disaster for the country - plagues of frogs, widespread scurvy, etc. What I meant was disaster for Labour - which is long overdue and much deserved. This is the most venal, self-serving, incompetent, two-faced, narcissistic, dangerous, pig-headed, hectoring and frankly neurotic government since, erm, the Tories under Major.
Time to go, Hewitt, Milburn, Mandelson, Johnson, Byers, Falconer, Kelly… We need a clean slate. Moreover, I’m sure Novembers weren’t this cold under Maggie.
sean,
Cheers I take your point.Didnt want a disaster for uk.
[24] What a splendid bunch of adjectives! Precisely which government in the world to-day (or yesterday) isn’t self-serving? It’s a bit like saying that cars have wheels…
“Time to go, Hewitt, Milburn, Mandelson, Johnson, Byers, Falconer, Kelly… We need a clean slate.”
Not sure what some of them (leaving Mandelson aside for a moment) have done to be considered “the most venal, self-serving, incompetent, two-faced, narcissistic, dangerous, pig-headed, hectoring and frankly neurotic….. “
9 - Brown’s best chance is to take over as soon as possible. Being kept as chancellor is holding him as a hostage to fortune, it is also splitting the labour party and (as polls show) this is now being noticed. With a demob happy Blair pushing through his ideological ‘babies’ and leaving close to an election, Brown would be forced to fight on the Blair legacy and with the disgruntlement from the public and his party that that entails.
With 30-36 months as leader he would be able to (he would presume) show the change from Blair and show the results he has achieved, any problems economically could have taken place after his chancellorship and he would have had time to improve his image.
I also think that many are wary about changing leader before an election - just what are they trying to hide? There was a widespread feeling that the electorate were conned by this in 1992 and I think that an opposition could make great play of that were they to leave it to a year or eighteen months before the election.
re 17. Does anybody know if pollsters have to follow the TPS list?
My understanding is that their auromated calling software takes listed residential numbers and then randomises the last digit to make a call. I did not think that there was a TPS filter. Maybe I’m wrong.
If the TPS filter is used - and millions of people now have it - then you have a very distorted representation of the population as a whole. Thus ICM etc ought to make clear that their universe consists of that section of the population that do not mind enough about getting junk phone calls to spend five minutes blocking them for good.
26. Well that’s kinda my point, in a way. To use a timely analogy, all governments are like nuclear power stations: they start off shiny and new and exciting and they give off loads of useful energy; then they slowly decay, and bits fall off, then they start to leak, dangerously, and finally you are left with bits of radioactive garbage, like Peter Mandelson, that are damn hard to get rid of, and that should really be buried under granite for 10,000 years. That’s when you have to decommission them, and build a new one.
No government is immume from this, certainly not this one - which I think is an unusually dreary and mediocre government, full of sad, silly, politically correct, careerist middlebrow lawyers, or worse. I think it is directly comparable with the Major administration for directionless naffness.
I’m sure a new Tory government would succumb to the same decay, but we’d have a few years of useful energy at first.
Andrew, only someone who lives outside the UK could fail to find Patricia Hewitt hectoring, neurotic, and narcissistic!
AndreA, not AndreW!
13. It’s the economy, Roger. Brown can get away with being deeply unattractive and Scottish while the economy can still be spun as being in good shape. I notice that Merril Lynch is predicting that the Treasury will issue 65bn worth of gilts next year. Smashing the record for borrowing held by… er… Norman Lamont. Cuts in the sanctified schools and effing hosptials or tax rises are clearly unthinkable until Brown is PM, so piling on the borrowing is the only option. I think he’s flipped Prudence over and done her dry.
30.”Andrew, only someone who lives outside the UK could fail to find Patricia Hewitt hectoring, neurotic, and narcissistic! ”
I actually like her. She reminds me of Theresa May anyway, so even a change of government won’t probably improve the situation
Clearly a more encouraging result for Labour than the YouGov poll (the fieldwork for which is probably slightly more recent), but the underlying trends must be causing them some concern. Having said that, voting intentions four years before the next general election mean very little.
34 Mi Lord Matlock.
35. Good afternoon, Jack.
34. These polls mean very little at the moment. The first poll I’ll have any interest in will be 100 days into the Cameron leadership.
P.S Back on the thorny issue of the Noble Lord, looks like Cameron wants to block the membership attempts.
37 - Woody. Cameron said this morning that Archer’s membership application should ‘go through the normal process’ which reads to me like leaving it up to the local party to decide whether or not to accept it. Unless there has been something added to this that I have not heard as yet.
34/35 AHM. Sorry a severe case of digitalise !!
It’s always highly tempting to prognosticate !! especially after giving the All Blacks a thrashing !!!!!!! However these numbers for the Labour party are pretty solid. Let us not forget in the late 80’s and early 90’s that Labour enjoyed very healthy leads in the polls only for such leads to evaporate by polling day quicker than the truth through Lord Archers lips …. or may I say sadly, peerages for Beaconsfields finest !!
Cameron’s Tories need to be in the early/mid forties before the blue bunting should be unfurled over Conservative clubs in Glasgow Central.
39. Jack, I will concede that the wheels have not yet come off this government, but if you look at the internal trends in both today’s MORI and Friday’s YouGov (satisfaction figures, competence on various issues) it’s clear that things are heading south for them.
Of course it is much too early for champagne and canapes at CCHQ, but I think that the atmosphere is certainly becoming more hospitable to us all the time, and we haven’t even got our dynamnic, young new leader officially in place yet. I’m very optimistc!
As for my peerage, I’ve been waiting for decades as it is! I daresay a few more years won’t kill me.
32- Yes the economy is important, but I don’t understand the doom and gloom about it that some people on here show. Of course no-one can predict what the next 4 years will bring and economic crisis are usually not forseen but I don’t see a massive political problem given current trends. The economy is still growing, albeit below trend. Unemployment although slightly higher than a year ago is still very low with record levels of employment suggesting more people coming into the labour force. Inflation and interest rates are both still at historically low levels. Headlines that inflation have hit a 7 year high at the massive level of 2.5% show how successfully the Bank of England has been at controlling inflation. The only real problem is government borrowing. However a number of points on this.
1. The issue is not salient to most people. If unemployment goes up massively, or we go into recession, or interest rates and inflation rise people get angry. If govt borrowing rises from 1 to 3 percent of GDP few people care. Only if it starts having knock on effects on things like confidence of the markets/ interest rates do people start to care.
2. Public borrowing is still low by international standards, and as the US has shown huge deficit spending is not incompatible with a growing economy. It is only the self imposed golden rule which is putting Brown under pressure.
3. Brown seems to be likely to meet the golden rule over this cycle (1997-2006). Given that this cycle lasted 9 years Brown could easily set the next to last a similar length, ending in 2015 well into the next parliament, or even the parliament after next. Thus to meet his golden rule he merely needs to slow the rate of growth of public spending in the next spending review, as the report in the Sunday Times indicates today.
The economy is not perfect but it is doing ok and according to the last OECD report is a ‘paragon of stability’. If this continues and it is a big if I think the public is likely to tend to stick with the man and the party they know and who has a decent record than gamble on an unknown quantity but much could change over the next 4 years.
37./38. Cameron would be mad to entertain that charlatan Archer in any form. All he does is remind the great unsoaped of the very worst aspects of the fag end of the Major years and tarnish the Conservative brand. Archer knows this, while not conventionally intelligent, he has a species of low animal cunning and is merely generating publicity for his new ‘book’ and damaging the Conservative party in the process. The fact that he is prepared to inflict such damage for his own personal gain should send all right thinking people for cliches involving leopards.
I think the Archer issue has been done to death. The prospect of spending another afternoon and evening debating this trivial question is thoroughly unappetising.
40 AHM. Trends are indeed useful straws in the wind. But wind can be a frightful affliction. And the voters will have not only to find the Gordon Brown government wanting, but also that the shiny new penny that is Cameron has the mettle for the office of Prime Minister, and has a competent team around him and Tory policies on the economy and public services that may be trusted. On those scores the Tories are still found wanting. Hence the glaring disparity between the Blair figures and the Labour numbers.
All to play for though !! ….. even peerages !!
43. AHM, check your mail box.
44 - We still have a lot of work to do, you are quite right Jack. But we are finally (finally!!!) heading in the right direction and beginning to get a bit of traction. The red leather benches beckon! Perhaps even the Woolsack!!
43. I wish it was the man himself not just the issue.
45 - Andrea. Thanks for your message. I’ve just sent my reply.
44. I notice we are, to some extent, projecting our hopes on to analysis of events. The NuLab types have mostly given up on Blair but firmly believe that Brown shits perfumed cotton wool while the ModCons are convinced that Cameron is a combination of Tony Blair, JFK and Jonathon Ross. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it’s all about peoples perception of the economy. Good = Brown premiership. Bad = Brown is backbench MP for Haggis on the Reekie or wherever.
49 - That’s probably about right.
49 Simon. What a fragrant turn of phrase !! … but the essential analysis is broadly accurate.
50 AHM. There we go - agreeing again !! Are you sure you’re a scion of the Campbells ??
50. And the natural conclusion is that the Conservatives should fiercely and without surcease attack GB on the economy for the next four years. There’s plenty of material there but it needs to be couched in terms such that Kirk off Coronation St. could understand it. Let’s start with why he sold half of Britain’s gold reserve at the bottom of the market…
52. Quite positive Jack. I’m not honour bound to disagree with absolutely everything you say, you know. Unless you’re a MacDonald, of course - then it’s claymores at 20 paces!!
41. Very cogent post! But the gilt is flaking off the vaunted Golden Rule. First we had road repairs mysteriously reclassified as investment and then when he was still in the crap the ‘economic cycle’ was conveniently redefined and extended. The Golden Rule means whatever Gordon wants it to mean. It is therefore a useless measure of performance.
55. Yes I agree the golden rule is pointless, it was only introduced in 97 by Brown to calm the financial markets and show that Labour could be trusted to run the economy. My point is that it would be politically damaging for Brown to break his golden rule, and he has now made sure he won’t. It is a useless measure of performance but it has been one of the main criticisms of him. As I said people essentially don’t really care if the govt is borrowing as long as their mortgage repayments are low, the cost of things are steady, disposable income is rising and they’ve got a job. At the moment on all these measures of performance the economy is going well.
It will indeed be ‘the Economy stupid’ hich determines the next election. In particular, pensions. the number of people I know who do not think it worth bothering to save up for ‘offical’ pensions is massive among the ‘middle earners’ - in particular they are looking at ways of ‘officailly’ transferring their capital assets at 55 and getting onto a public/social housing ladder, hoping to live frugally as pensioners (from 67!) wit the odd top-up from their earning kids.
Trouble with the Tories as ‘opposition’, of course, is that they are the least likely Party to make the present generation of earners pay properly (and fairly across income-bands) for social pension provision. Will the Lib Dems dare?
56. Can’t disagree with any of that. Most voters view of public finances is about as sophisticated as my dog’s view of my mortgage. He doesn’t care about it as long as he gets his Chum twice a day. The MPC is going to have be leant on to keep IRs down as increased mortgage payments will rapidly shift perceptions in a Southerly direction.
57. I assume ‘pay properly’ is Newspeak for ‘tax increase’? In which case no party is going to contemplate it. I think the ModCons are more likely to face down the trots in Unison over the ludicrous public sector liabilities which would help.
44,
I dont think Brown does that.
However, can`t see the economy going that bad, too let Cameron be a shoe in at the next GE.
Even the most, I will never vote anything else conservative, must privatley wonder if Cameron is heir apparent to Blair.
And if he is, will the floating voters want it, or prefer GB, a pure scotsman with proven experience.
[55] It seems to me that there’s always some wretched economic fetish or other - the “golden rule” has simply supplanted the money supply (which also had more than one definition) and long long ago. when I was scraping a 3rd in economics “everybody knew” that all you had to do to create the earthly paradise was to float the £…
29 Certainly the political parties have to abide by TPS. I’d be very surprised if the pollsters didn’t.
61 Some of us remember when fixed exchange rates and maintaining the parity if the pound at US$ 2.80 was essential for a sound economy along with a positive balance of payments . It is always difficult to know which of today’s mantras are false
Phone pollsters do NOT have to follow the TPS rules - the TPS prevents only sales and marketing calls, it doesn’t apply to market research.
Details of how the TPS applies to market research are on the Market Research Society’s webpage here:-
http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/tps.htm
“or prefer GB, a pure scotsman”
I am not sure how being a ‘pure scotsman’ is meant to appeal to vast swathes of the country.
O/T but amused (amazed) by the odds being quoted on the next Russian president on the ticker. Medvedev @13/8 would be a great lay. The one golden rule of Russian politics is that power remains proximate - the closer you are to power the more chance you have of keeping it. Medvedev used to have daily access to Putin; now he may see him once a month. Odds are far too tight for Ivanov as well - he has too many enemies and there may yet be a stink over his son killing an OAP. The best odds would be on ‘none of the above’ - the 2nd golden rule seems to be appointing successors too weak to act against you/your clan until you have made a clean getaway.
[65] You prefer your Scotsmen impure, then, Sophia?
67. Impure Scotsmen and Innocent Abroad !!
Surely you can’t be one and the same.
67 - As impure as possible.
65,
Sophia why not?
I know my limitations, Jack… si jeunesse savait, si veillesse pouvait
Re. 20, until he got TPS, a friend of mine resorted to ‘If I want double glazing, I’ll f**ing well ask for it!’
On the other hand, it doesn’t protect against the dreaded random digit dialling from Florida (in case anyone didn’t know already, the trick is never to press 9).
Interesting item on Sky news about perceptions of the Conservative party. They portrayed “Conservative man” as an elderley Colonel Blimp with whiskers which was a composite built up from a Yougov poll asking for peoples perceptions of a ‘Conservative’. They then put him against different backgrounds while discussing what they could do to rejuvenate the brand. A branding expert concluded that nothing could be done to make it look less out of date and out of fashion and that changing their corporate identity and name was a waste of time. He suggested their best bet was to emphasize their core values and try to sell themselves on those. Reminding people of their links to the past and ex-leaders such as Churchill. New policies at this stage were a waste of time because the brand made them unpalatable!
Gordon Browns job might be easier than some on here think.
71 Innocent Abroad. “… si jeunesse savait, si veillesse pouvait ”
Oh you poor fellow !! ….. However not a sentiment my lad Kinkell will fear for !
73,
Churchill was more socially aware than some of the recent past conservative politicians, he supported a minimum wage in one part of his career, he was also a Liberal MP at one stage I believe.
So combined with been a great war time leader and not afraid to stand virtually alone against his own party, then head up a coalition, might not be a bad choice for new conservatives to remind people of his politics.
73. I wonder if he said the same about the Labour party in the 80’s. I don’t think much to these marketing experts to be honest. Most of the ones I’ve come across tend not to have a grip on reality.
He (Churchill) also shared Charlie K’s liking for a dram or two!
77 - yes but Churchill was a great leader!
77,
and a smoke.
How is Churchill´s record as Home Secretary in a Liberal Government currently rated ?
The idea you cannot turn a brand around is ridiculous. However changing the Tory brand will take time and effort. Also the key to a Tory recovery, other than a downturn in labour’s fortunes, is not so much changing their brand as making people feel that they can trust them again. The Tories can get elected provided there is a combination of a renewal of trust in them (which is not the same as a rejuvenated brand) and a downturn in the government’s fortunes. The best parrallel is John Smith who would have won in 1997, but restored trust in labour, even though the brand did not really change.
Obviously the economy is important but it’s not as simple as economy does well = labour win, economy does badly = tory win. If you look at the polling handling of the economy has dropped in saliency. People are used to low interest rates, unemployment and inflation, and I don’t think Labour got as much credit for the economy at the last election as they might have expected to. Therefore if the economy does well it does not automatically follow that labour will win, as people may view other issues as more important. Similarly if it does badly the saliency of the economy as an issue will rise. The public then have to choose who they think can deal with the problems and they may decide to go with a govt. with a good record over an unknown quantity. As I say the economy is probably the most important electoral factor but it’s not the only one, and its not as simplicitic as some people make out.
75 - disagree totally, Churchill by the time of his “greatness” was about the least friendly type of toff to the common man one could imagine, sah
73. When was this on Sky News?
Re: 78 - Ah, Rik, I always love it when Tories like you sing the praises of Churchill. Apart from the fact that he was no Conservative but a Liberal Unionist, he led the Party to one of its biggest electoral defeats - that said, winning 213 seats in 1945 stacks up pretty well against 165, 166 and 198 in the last three contests, doesn’t it ?
Yes, he led the Tories to victory in 1951 but a lot of the rebranding of the Conservative Party in the years after 1945 wasn’t down to him but to men like Thorneycroft, Eccles, Butler and even a young Ted Heath. These men recognised that the Tories, if they were ever to get back into office, needed to accept the Beveridge reforms and the nationalisations of the Attlee Government.
Finally, Churchill led a National Government from 1940-45, NOT a Tory Government. The wartime Government included such well-known “Tories” as Nye Bevan, Ernest Bevin and Attlee. History rightly praises Churchill as a war leader but he always recognised that the wartime Cabinet was a team. Churchill was opposed in May 1940 by many traditional Conservatives including supporters of Chamberlain.
74 - Sounds like a load of codswallop to me. Doubtless you are adding your own bilious spin as well.
86 - Stodge, are you saying that the Tories have no right to claim Churchil as one of our own, and he was always just a Liberal in Tory clothing?
I suppose you’ll be claiming Margaret Thatcher next…
88 AHM. Stodge has a point. Churchill was almost deselected in the late Thirties and branded a dangerous rebel. …..a veritable Clair Short of his day !!
Then of course there’s that dangerous handbag swinging socialist from Finchley !!
89.”AHM. Stodge has a point. Churchill was almost deselected in the late Thirties and branded a dangerous rebel. …..a veritable Clair Short of his day !!”
but was he required to write letters to the Chief Whip like our poor Clare Short who just wants to save a couple of trees?
Re: 88 - Not at all, Matlock. I’m merely putting a different historical context on WSC. He was the leader of the Conservative Party and was a Conservative Prime Minister. My point is I don’t think he was a natural conservative - he belonged to the Liberal Unionist tradition. I was also reminding Mr Willis that the wartime administration was a National Coalition not a Conservative Government. One might argue that the administrations of Chamberlain and Baldwin brought the country to the brink of disaster with their unwillingness to heed Churchill’s warnings. In fact, so keen were the Conservatives on Churchill that there was a serious attempt to deselect him from his seat in 1939.
Of course, so keen were the Conservatives on Margaret Thatcher that they deposed her in October 1990 despite her winning three elections.
90 Andrea. Knowing Churchill, to express rebellion he’d probably stub out a cigar on the Chief Whip’s arse or thrust an empty malt bottle up said Whips rectum ! ……. Hilary Armstrong beware
89 - Sorry Jack, I think you’ve got this one wrong. Churchill was first elected as a Tory in 1900, he left the Tories largely due to personality conflicts, and after a stint with the Liberals, he famously re-ratted. When he reached Number 10 for the first time, he did so as a Tory albeit at the head of a National Government. The second time he did so as a Tory at the head of a Tory Government. His relationship with the Liberals was just a dalliance. His real political love was the Conservative Party.
65 Thanks, Anthony.
92. Jack, hopefully Clare Short is not reading us….for the sake of Hilary Armstrong!
93 AHM. I don’t vary from you greatly, just that until his wartime heroics Churchill was distusted by many in the party, indeed in May 1940 Lord Halifax was favoured to take over from Chamberlain by the Tories, and indeed by the King and Queen.
Notwithstanding it would be churlish not to place WSC firmly in the blue column ….. although I’m sure some Lib Dems will construst some infallable bar chart to prove the opposite !!
91 - Thanks for clarifying Stodge. I don’t agree that he was a National Liberal by tradition (nor, I suspect, would he if he were in a position to answer), but I suppose it would be selfish of the Conservative Party not to share the great man with the rest of the electorate. He wore the right colour rosette, anyway. ;o)
95 Andrea. Beats the hell out of writing letters !! ….. I may opt for said measures when dealing with local government jobsworths … it would certainly gain their undivided attention !!
96 - He was distrusted largely due to his floor crossing, though not by everyone in the Tory Party - Baldwin did make him Chancellor in 1924. The King and Queen weren’t keen on him in 1940 because he had championed Edward VIII during the abdication crisis, not because of his politics.
98. Jack, you’ve already mentioned Halifax, another place where postal offices should have been busy in recent years
It should also be pointed out that it was not only a large element of the Tory Party that were sceptical of Churchill’s warnings about Germany in the mid 30s. I don’t recall WSC getting a great deal of support from the Liberals or Labour on the matter either.
99/101 AHM. It wasn’t just the abdication that tainted the relaionship between the King and Queen with WSC. The royals regarded WSC as unpredictable and not entirely trustworthy. The King in his diary on accepting Chamberlains resignation stated :
” … I of course, suggested Halifax ….. I thought H was the obvious man …. ”
Some days latter the King wrote to WSC to dissaude him from appointing Lord Beaverbrook from the cabinet :
“… I wonder if you would reconsider your intention of selecting Lord Beaverbrook for this post ..” (Air Ministry)
Churchill demured. Even when WSC left office the royal family acted badly toward WSC - Offering WSC a dukedom, only after they knew he would refuse the honour.
101.
AHM, very true, and the vast majority of the public too.
Who for understanable reasons did not want to hear about the possiblity of another war, so close to such a horrific world war just twenty years earlier.
He certainly was a visionary in that respect.
102 - Jack, I’ll concede that there may have been other doubts in the King’s mind in 1940, but I do think the big block was Churchill’s support for his brother and Mrs Simpson. It is well known that by the end of the war that WSC and the King had become close friends and that Elizabeth II always had a deep and abiding respect for Churchill, routinely describing him as ‘my favourite.’ I don’t see how being the last commoner to be offered a hereditary Dukedom can be construed as a snub. Churchill only refused because he wanted to die as Winston Churchill, though he did accept his KG.
104 AHM. I think the “royals” actions in respect of the WSC dukedom were shoddy. They simply didn’t want to bestow the honour. The Garter was the barest minimum …. no baronetcy !! Even Mr. Maggie got that !!
BTW. Another startling Scottish sporting triumph to report as Andy Murray leads us to a crushing 4.5/2.5 victory over England in the inaugral Aberdeen Cup !!!!
He is in my opinion due to the timing and the events, the greatest leader of the last century.
It would be churlish for anyone to criticise any conservatives for counting him as one of their own.
106 dez. Agreed.
105 - I must be missing something here, Jack, Churchill was offered the Dukedom of London. He declined it because he didn’t want to leave the Commons and wanted to die as Winston Churchill, not because of the timing of the offer, at least not to my knowledge. The point being that if Churchill had wanted the title, it would have been his for the taking. On the subject of lesser honours, being a KG is rather more prestigious than being a baronet anyway.
108 AHM. The point is that the honour was only offered because the palace knew for certain from his private secretary that WSC would decline. Ironically WSC was so taken by the Queen, when she made the “offer” at his resignation audience that he nearly changed his mind !
109 - Come along now, Jack. Apparently a decision had been taken by that time that Dukedoms were to be reserved for Royals, but it’s not as though she’d have reneged had Churchill accepted!
108/109 AHM. Anyway Alistair I must away to my bed otherwise Mrs Jack W will certainly confer on me a KG - a Kick up the Goolies !!
G’Nite ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.
109.
It would be nice to know Jack if she succeded in changing any other Prime Ministers mind over things substantial over the years.
85 Simon It was on Sky on Friday I think, just before the debate and was meant as a wooden spoon piece to generate interest. The advice of the brand consultant was not as reported above. Rather he said, in the context of the report, that the Tory brand was the oldest political brand in the country and that rebranding would be fairly pointless as an exercise of itself, that the Tory values were what made the party and those values need to be made apparent and, the corollary seemed to be, that would demonstrate and enhance the brand.
It was a bit of an odd package overall, as if they had cobbled together several ideas and then cut them to the bone and tacked them together. They never really explained why they used the white haired moustachioed chap that looked slightly too upright not to be military.
113. Typical 24 hour news station stuff then. I was thinking, he couldn’t be that good a marketing man if he thought the tory brand was forever downward.
Good to see Roger getting back to type. His partiality hasn’t been as vigorous lately.
114. A pinch of salt doesn’t do for Roger does it? You need a bucket full of the stuff.
114 115 To be fair to anyone watching it was a rather confused piece of work and the consultant and the narrator’s views were not always clearly distinguishable. I would have never understood it except that I had the unfortunate experience of having watched it twice. It was badly edited and poorly conceived.
67. Three counter-arguments against Medvedev:
1. Gone out of the blocks too fast. Two years is a long, long time in Russia and his “младо-реформатор” rhetoric could wear thin before then.
2. Too young - this matters in Russia.
3. No significant background in Military or KGB/FSB
91 - “My point is I don’t think he was a natural conservative - he belonged to the Liberal Unionist tradition.”
In the literal sense, no - he went to Belfast in 1914 and spoke vigorously in favour of Home Rule. “Liberal Imperialist” might be about right - emerging in his other cause in the 1930s, opposition to more autonomy for India.
AHM, Woody and B2W. Thanks B2W for your (partial) support against the doubters! I reported it as accurately as I could. I probably made two mistakes which might have given a misleading picture but both were done by accident. Firstly I called the composite “Conservative man” Colonel Blimp. That implies he was stupidit which is not what the program intended. B2W has it better when he calls him elderly and military. ‘A tweedy sort of grey haired colonel type’ would have been better. My second mistake was to give the impression that the image could never be re-built. I didn’t intend this but re-reading my post this is the impression I’ve given. As B2W says it wasn’t too easy to follow but my understanding was that the party should go back to basics and sell themselves on their history and try to build from there. It’s a basic advertising rule that changing perceptions takes forever but building on them is much easier. That’s probably what he was saying.
Mrs Churchill was always a Liberal, and I think influential in Churchill’s support for Violet Bonham-Carter (in any case, an old friend) in colne valley in the 1950s.
Churchill did all sorts of things in poltics: nationalied the port of London, sent troops in against miners, raised a private army, proposed the Dardanelles disaster (costing my grandfather an eye) stood as a Conservative, a Liberal, a Constitutonalist and the a Conservative again.
His big speeches on rearmament in the 1930s were made on Liberal supply days. His circle of close friends included some very dodgy characters. I don´t think one could say that he is a typical Conservative, dispite the latter attribute.
Roger’s point on the difficulty of re-branding Conservatism is interesting inthat most recent Leaders of the Tories have had a go at re-branding before falling back on a core vote strategy. I think this reflects the realities of the situation.
designer-handbag…
…
wholesale-apparel…
…
wcwnhry…
uhvblkoyy rkyuhibyre xobefhlhw wzqyiymf …