Tories back to 3% lead with ICM
February 21st, 2006
-
Labour drops two points to the Lib Dems
The February ICM survey for the Guardian, which was one of the key points in the PB.C prediction competition, has CON 37%(nc): LAB 34%(-2): LD 21%(+2).
So the Conservative lead over Labour returns to where it was at the start of the year and the Lib Dems go back to the share they had before Charles Kennedy resigned.
What seems to be happening is that the Tories have moved up 4-5 points in almost all the polls under their new leader and this is being sustained. The actual position in relation to Labour is determined by how the aggregate Lab-Lib Dem total splits. This is a solid 54-55% and if the Lib Dems are up then the Tory lead is greater and if it is down then Labour is in the lead.
The next poll should be the February YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph. In recent months the internet pollster has recorded much lower Lib Dem shares than ICM. Thus in the last survey the Tories were on 37% - the same as today’s ICM figure - but the Lib Dem were down at 15% resulting in a Labour share of 39%.
The General Election betting, which we have not looked at for a while, has Labour at 0.91/1, and the Tories at 1.12/1.
The 2006 PBC competion entries are listed here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This is obviously an encouraging poll for we LibDems but it is just one poll after a by-election win as well. I suspect we are more realsitically in the high teens now and expect that’s what the new polls taken collectively will tell us.
What this poll does do is illustrate how hollow claims are that the LDs are about to disappear. As has been said before the Leadership announcement will effectively draw a line under our recent troubles.
The other striking thing is that although the Tories are doing welll in the middle of the Cameron honeymoon with labour struggling against its own backbenchers they rae still nowhere the 40+ they need for an outright majority.
Running these through Baxter gives (with no tactical voting):
Con: 255
Lab: 311
Lib: 48
As Mike says, the Tories are sustaining a position around 4-5 points higher than their previous pre GE box, but still far away from even being the largest party.
I note I predicted a 4% Tory lead for Feb!
Bullseye. I think we are higher than that - YouGov was wrong and way out of line - all though the desire to see it as the ‘benchmark’ meant that it got reported that way. The lowest other poll I saw was 16%, and apart from that have been in the ‘high teens’.
1: BUT it still makes your long-avowed aim to usurp the Tories as the opposition look as much of a pipe-dream as it ever was.
4. Facts like that won’t stop the spinning I’m afraid. Actually these polls tell us very little about what will happen to the Lib Dems down the road - that will depend so much on regional and sub-regional variations in shifts in party support. It would be quite possible for the Lib Dems to get 20% next time while still shedding 10-20 seats to the Tories, if they lose votes in the South while getting more from Labour in the North. This is actually a very likely scenario in my view. Perhaps then the Lib Dems will have a new policy goal of replacing Labour. Or possibly they will accept that their position as a dustbin for protest votes is a permanent one.
What is there in the various polling companies’ methodologies that might explain the disparity in LD vote share figures?
5. You say that these polls tell us very little about how the LDs will do in the longer term? True - everything changes - we know that. Surely it’s contradictory to predict that their position “as a dustbin for protest votes” is permanent?
I’m interested if anyone has a credible critique of YouGov’s methodology which explains how they might be under-reporting likely LD performance. And more particularly how this might affect the leadership election survey work that they’ve done.
Fred, Fred, 20-21% with appropriate and unpublicized targetting could give them more than at present. They may lose a few to the Cons, but this sort of poll, would give them as many, if not more gains against Labour. This website seems to some, to be just a Con/Lib argument, this is one small piece in the jig saw, there is a Labour party involved in all this, somewhere. What happens to them is what will determine the next election, and that will probably be in the hands of, “events”, that none of us can foretell.
I guess Fred you live in the South West or something like that,I may be wrong, but would suggest, it’s the North, the large Cities and Towns, Scotland that will decide the result, not even Marcus and Torbay.
re 6. There is a whole article there. YouGov do not factor in the likelihood of respondents voting - almost all the other pollsters do.
ICM & Populus have a “spiral of silence” calculation that adds half of the don’t know total in line with people’s declaration of what they did last time.
All but MORI of the pollsters have different weightings based on past vote or party identifier.
Was there a question on Brown v Cameron ect.
8. Yes I do live in the SW, but in fact I am not entirely in disagreement with you. I think the Lib Dems may well win more seats from Labour in the North next time - precisely because they are an effective repository for left wing protest votes (and these votes I suspect will grow rather than diminish in the years ahead, Brown or no Brown).
But in the South I suspect voters are going to be voting more directly for a change of government and that means quite a lot of potential Lib Dem seat losses. If we go back to a badly split and tactically dysfunctional left wing vote like we had in the 1980s, this is good news for the Tories.
If history is a guide these levels of support could translate into Con 38% Lab 25% Libdem 30% at the localsin May.
I will not trust polls until they count “the will not vote” party. I can see people becoming disillusioned with Labour and even with the Liberal Democrats during January - but these supporters have not yet actually moved to another party.
If there was a General Election tomorrow I think turnout would be way down - to the Tories advantage. But this poll doesn’t tell us what will happen in 3 or 4 years time.
Re 13. Agreed, but there may have been a bigger shift in ‘voters’ sentiment than the polls are picking up. Also demographics will increasingly have an impact. By the next election circa 20-30% of the electorate will only have experienced a Labour government.
Quite a good result for us Lib Dems. But polls are just polls and of course don’t tell us much about what will happen in the future. Still given the meltdown predictions of a few weeks ago…
All parties attract protest votes, Fred. What were “the ten days to save the Euro”/”Are you thinking…” campaigns about after all?
[11] Fred wrote if we go back to a badly split and tactically dysfunctional left wing vote like we had in the 1980s, this is good news for the Tories - as opposed to a widely split and tactically functional “left wing” - well, compared to Fred we’re almost all left wing - vote, I suppose.
This “rosy scenario” also supposes that Cameron’s repositioning and recommissioning efforts will not create a space on the right for populist nuisances of the UKIP/Kilroy type… I remain to be convinced.
…AND JULIAN H IS CLEAN THROUGH WITH JUST THE ‘KEEPER TO BEAT… AND THERE IT IS, THE EQUALISER!
Yes, friends, I predicted a 3 point Tory lead in February’s ICM. As Alan Partridge would say - “Back of the net!”.
Sorry, the mature conversation can resume now…
16. Where was the Labour equivalent, and if there isn’t one, why would you suppose the right to be more predisposed towards a split than the left? If anything the opposite is true.
Quite amused by this poll. All that talk from Tories about a return to two party politics, and Lib Dem vote heading “south of 13%”.
At 12, Fencesitter said “If history is a guide these levels of support could translate into Con 38% Lab 25% Libdem 30% at the locals in May.”
Personally, those figures seem wrong to me (Lab too low, Lib Dems too high) but IF you are right, does that take Labour into a “Meltdown Scenario”? How low does it have to get before Labour starts to loose massively, even in their urban strongholds?
I agree with the sentiments at 16. I think there’ll be a big vacuum on the right of the political spectrum which will need filling. I’m not convinced that traditional conservative Tories are ready to sacrifice their beliefs for ‘touchy-feely’ policies in an attempt to get them back into power.
16. Well you are obviously inclined to believe recent polls showing Lib Dem support holding up - but the same polls show zero sign of any shift of support to UKIP, the BNP or anyone else on the fringe right.
P.S why do Lib Dems get so annoyed when described as ‘left-wing’? if you propose left wing policies then you cannot expect anything else. Polling evidence suggests the Lib Dems are now seen as furthest left of the three main parties, and the growth areas of Lib Dem support are among students, muslims and ageing pacifist/luvvie lefties. If the cap fits…..
Can’t get into the ICM website, but what were the Lib Dem showings in Feb 1998 and Feb 2002 - equivalent times after last two general elections? About 15 or 16% I guess.
Obviously a good poll for the Tories. Lib Dems had perhaps been appeared for a meltdown in the locals, but it looks as if this will now not happen. I’d guess 28% in the locals is a reasonable target, with the aim of beating Labour.
[22] I was mentally projecting forward to a lot near the next General Election
I am “not now nor have I ever been” a Lib Dem - I think there are a fair few Peebies whom Fred would regard as “left wing” and I as “right wing” - accepting always that these terms are very much shorthand.
[24] In the first line, for “near” read “nearer”
David R @ 4,
I like many LibDem posters argued that the Tories were finished IF they refused to return to the centre ground and continued with the core strategy. Disappointed though I was to have my advice taken I am not surprised that it has a beneficial effect on the Tories poll ratings.
Fred @ 5
20% & 50 seats in a hung Parliament, which sounds a very pluasible outcome for us at the next election really doesn’t look so bad to me.
My personal view, posted here on may occasions is that we have entrered a period of 2 1/2 party politics, where the LD effectively have a blocking minority. I expect our vote will wax and wane a little, but broadly think we now have a 20% base.
There was an opportunity to replace the Tories in the last Parliament but that effectively closed in 2003 when they dumped IDS, and consolidated under Michael Howard. Cameron has now broken out of the 13 year long prison of 30-33% poll ratings. However, I think it is as foolish to predict the demise of the LibDems as it is to suggest we are now likely to replace the Tories.
[21] - I’m not convinced that traditional conservative Tories are ready to sacrifice their beliefs for ‘touchy-feely’ policies in an attempt to get them back into power.
After 10 years of nuLabour??! Maybe they’re not so keen on the direction Cameroon is taking the Tories, but come polling day, they’ll vote for him in droves just to get rid of Blair/Brown!
Fred @ 22,
Are you being serious? Are you leftwing because David Cameron is now ‘liberal Conservative’ who loves gays, the environment and public spending?
All parties are coalitions, I am an Orange Booker myself, and you would have to try very hard indeed to characterise many of my views as ‘leftwing’.
At 27 I should have said ‘none of the three leadership contenders have laid out a clear road map or plan’
So, it is very clearly not in our interests to see the Lib Dems collapse then.
Re: 13
I have all the figures at home. However, I do know that MORI showed Labour more than 10% ahead of the Tories in April 2002, 1998, 1994 (and I believe in 1990 as well). ICM showed lower Labour leads if I remember correctly - but still substantial margins.
In other words, at the start of the equivalent 3 or 4 local election campaigns Labour had a massive opinion poll lead. This factor alone suggests significant Cons gains in London this May (Hammersmith, Croydon etc) and perhaps Labour loss of control in heartlands such as Wigan.
In each case, Mark, Labour’s poll lead was hugely overstated.
Local by-elections in the run up to May are usually a better guide to the likely outcome of each round of local elections.
I think a real problem for the Tories is that there is a key generation that grew up in the 80’s that is never going to support them in the way that the post-war baby boomers did. The legacy of Thatcherism is a 15-year generation that is 60% anti-Tory and who will be a key electoral constituency for the next 30-40 years.
The Liberals are second to Labour in more seats than they are second to the Tories. At the next election Labour will be going down and the Tories up, the anti-war vote has given LibDems a foothold in new interest groups.
They have to realise their best bet for growth is at the expense of the ideologically shattered Labour party. If the New Labour project is not yet complete then the Liberals have a remarkable opportunity, I just don’t think they are smart enough to see it.
For local elections, the issue is less the opinion poll figures as such but differential turnout. Cameroon is trying to persuade supporters of other parties that it is not important to turn out and vote against the tories. Who can tell whether this will work? and it surely brings with it the risk that his supporters will be somewhat less motivated to turn out and vote for the tories.
26. & 28. Let’s dispense with the Aunt Sallys shall we? I am not predicting the demise of the Lib Dems nor have I done so in the recent past. Look back a few weeks ago during l’affaire Oaten and you will see that, whilst I had a good gloat, all I predicted was that the Lib Dems would lose seats to the Tories at the next GE. But this view based mostly on what has happened in the Conservative party.
The Lib Dems will continue to endure because there is a large space for protest votes. But this space is increasingly on the left because we have had a long period of Labour government. This is what the Orange Book tendency don’t seem to understand. Their vision of turning the Lib Dems into some kind of Pro-Euro Conservative Party is hopelessly out of kilter with political reality. There is no market for this kind of party, and nor is there for some kind of exhumed version of Edwardian Liberalism. An ‘ideologically consistent’ Lib Dem party will get fewer votes and fewer seats than the populist Kennedy version.
As a protest party you have to be prepared to shift your positioning with the changing tide - Ashdown did this quite well, appealing to soft Tories, Kennedy also, appealing to disgruntled far left voters. The tide is going to go out further for Labour, and is does so the Lib Dems have an opportunity, but by continuing Kennedy’s successful appeal to the left not ditching it.
“The legacy of Thatcherism is a 15-year generation that is 60% anti-Tory”
That’s in political, not policy terms. Thatcher’s real legacy includes the acceptance of new public management, the cut-backs in military TU rule, a consensus on liberal economics and the impossibility of an Old Labour government winning a GE.
For thse interested IG Index Lib Dem market is open again.
For those with steel balls you can now buy Ming at 38 (Chris is 64 and Simon
So £5 staked would win £310 when Ming wins or cost £190 if he lost.
I did not call myself Icarus for nothing!!!
34 - true,but of the 50 seats requiring the smallest swing to become Lib Dem 28 are currently Tory.
33 - possibly, but there is a well-attested tendency for people to move rightwards as they get older.
Anthony Wells once pointed out that the Tories came third among the 18-34 age group in October 1974; yet 32 years on, that group is now much more likely to vote Conservative.
38 I seem to have done a smiley when what I wanted to say was -Simon is at 8
39 - but the Lib Dems have probably mopped up all the voters they’re ever going to get in seats like North and West Dorset, Totnes, Wells etc. Labour seats offer much more potential future growth for them.
39 - … And I recall that about 2/3 of the sitting Lib Dem MPs will be more threated by a Conservative candidate than a Labour candidate.
33. This is a meaningless point. In the 1980s 56-57% of the voters didn’t vote Conservative but that didn’t matter because the left wing vote was badly split. You could also say that 70% of the voters were anti-Labour in the 1980s but that didn’t stop them winning in 1997,2001 and 2005. The anti-Conservative tactical voting of 1997 and 2001 is starting to crumble, as the 2005 GE results clearly show, and this process has further to run - another reason why seat projections based on UNS are increasingly unhelpful.
“The legacy of Thatcherism is a 15-year generation that is 60% anti-Tory”
This understates the antipathy to The Tory Party as brand -(though Jullian H may be correct about the adoption of Conservative policies by New Labour) - the Conservative brand is as popular as MK Dons are in Wimbledon - I would have said it was of the order of 85% of the under 35 age group are anti-Tory.
40 But I think that cohort is significantly more likely to have voted Lib Dem in 2005 than the equivalent cohort was to vote Liberal in 1974. (I don’t have the figures to hand though).
40/45 In any age group one of the best indicators of voting preference is income. As people progress up their career ladder and start earning higher taxes, their self-interest skews rightward and makes them more likely to vote centre-right.
In addition I think that people who were teenagers in the 80s may have some anti-Tory bias, but those who were children and are now at uni don’t seem to have the same problem in my experience… which is why conservative associations in a lot of UK universities are growing, notably at LSE…
http://www.lsesu.com/main/societies/list/Political/Conservative
43. Yes this the dilemma for the Lib Dems in a nutshell. Most of their growth in seats in the last decade has been at the expense of the Tories. So sitting MPs obviously need to appeal to soft Tories to hang on. In addition, the anti-Conservative mentality of the Lib Dems also means they want more gains from the Tories.
But the prospects for making net further gains from the Tories are drying up, while the prospects of making gains from Labour are rising. So the Lib Dems need to risk losing seats like Cheltenham to make gains in e.g. Newcastle. Unless they do this they risk losing the ex-Tory seats anyway because of Conservative repositioning while failing to take their opportunity in Labour-held seats.
Back to betting - £190 “invested” on Ming on Betfair would produce at least £360 profit. (compared to £310 on IG)
47. Are you at LSE?
48: Simple solution: appear centre right when fighting the Tory seats; appear centre left for the Labour ones. I can’t believe the Lib Dems haven’t thought of that before!
I would have said it was of the order of 85% of the under 35 age group are anti-Tory.
by Icarus February 21st, 2006 at 10:29 am
Based on what ?
45. Re: the brand - I wouldn’t go quite that far. After all, the Tories have a 3 point lead whilst MK Dons are bottom of the third division.
Anyway, we’re soon to re-brand under the “Conservalite” banner. Haven’t you been keeping up with Jack W’s news?
45 - however anyone between 18-26 now didn’t vote when the Cons were last in power.
48 This assumes that ideological space is one-dimensional - that parties can only mve left or right in economic terms and that any such move loses either left (Labour) voters or right (Tory) voters. As soon as you recoginise that voters rate parties on other axes (liberty-authority, nationalist-internationalist, centralist-decentralist, etc) your argument looks shaky. And Cheltenham is not a place with a natural “right wing” majority.
50 No, Oxford. I know a grad student at St Cross who was very involved in building up LSE Conservatives a few years ago… He’s a really encouraging guy to talk to!
More or less impossible, I would have thought, to credibly predict tory gains at lib dem expense at the next general election when we don’t even know who their leader will be.
A 2pt shift this far out from a General Election is pretty meaningless; what’s interesting is that ICM are quite consistently showing notably different Labour and LibDem figures to some other pollsters, which would seem to indicate that they’re polling an electorate that is more white collar and better educated (or just more Southern?) than the other pollsters. It’ll be interesting to see who’s right, but o/c we won’t find that out for another four years or so.
As far as local elections go; national polls are pretty meaningless; the pattern of local by-elections is much more useful… and the overall pattern has been *very* interesting these past few months (there seems to be a distinct whiff of regional polarisation).
Anyone looking for a more in-depth debate about this year’s local elections can now head for the Vote 2006 discussion forum: http://www.vote-2006.co.uk
56. Ah, what a shame, I was going to suggest we could “do” lunch - I could have told you all about our Milanese friend.
Have attended the United Soviet State of UCL myself, I find it hard to be so confident about Conservative support in Universities - however, I do know there are figures to support the increase.
*Should read “Having attended…”
For info - just got polled by YouGov - voting intention question had all main parties, but more detailed questions were still a straight Brown/Cameron choice.
60 “I could have told you all about our Milanese friend.” !?! Wouldn’t want to spoil my imaginings they are extremely colourful
Fred @ 36
An interesting analysis which you have posted before. But as before based on a fundamental misunderstanding of who the voters are who have swung from Labour to the Libdems.
While it is certainly true that the last election saw an increase in the LibDems GMW (Guardian Man & Woman) vote that doesn’t explain why it was we won seats seats that had voted Tory in the 1980’s & 90’s, then for NuLab in 97 & 01. The truth is that although we picked up a large share of the Muslim vote & the student vote, a key determinant in our result was increasing our support among the kind of centre-right urban voter that has been the key swing vote between labour & the Tories since the 1970’s.
These are the lost urban Tories in seats like Hornsey & Manchester Central. It is these people who would be attracted by the Orange Book/Tough Liberalism kind of policies I support and it is these kind of voters who will be key to gaining us seats from Labour in places like Oldham, Durham, Liverpool & London. Your mistake is to assume that winning seats from labour is dependent on winning over ‘core Labour’ leftwing votes, when in reality our success at a local level & now at a Parliamentary level is dependent on building local coaltions of skilled manual & lower middle class professionals - the sought of people who used to vote Tory, as well as chipping away at other voter groups such as students & Muslim voters.
48 - This dilemma is put forward by those outside and inside the Lib Dems. It is essentially based on a fallacy. The seats where the Lib Dems are second to Labour (and the ones they won in May from Labour) are generally middle class type seats where centre ground voters abandoned the Tories in the late 80s and early 90s for Blair and to some extent Kinnock earlier on. On the whole, these are not massively left wing areas and they are not to be won from the left.
Fred (I think, may have been somebody else) mentioned Muslim voters as an example of those the Lib Dems have/should win over. Some Muslims are left wing, but very many are not - strong family units, entrepreneurship, religious schools, providing support through charity rather than state provision are values which are quite strongly associated with that group (although you can easily over-generalise and there is huge variety within the group). Yes that group has traditionally voted Labour, but that probably has more to do with a negative perception of the Tory Party rather than staunch socialist values.
The way to pick up the Labour seats that the Lib Dems came close in last time is to pick up the support of people who voted Thatcher (or toyed with it and went for Woy/Owen/Steel) before going to Blair by way of either Major or Kinnock. It is not by picking up the left-wing fringes who are either too tribal to defect despite loathing New Labour, or will stay at home or will vote Respect (or whatever form they take in a few years).
Happily that is also the right strategy for holding on to Tory seats and possibly making a handful of gains from them. I do not hold out huge hopes of sweeping advances from the Tories but seats with a couple of thousand majority are always vulnerable to a good campaign and a good candidate, particularly if there is a local issue or the MP is retiring.
64 - Great minds think alike. As do we.
45. “I would have said it was of the order of 85% of the under 35 age group are anti-Tory.”
According to the latest Populus poll, their unweighted figures showed 23% of the 18-24 cohort supporting the Tories and 30% of the 25-34 group. I suggest your anecdotal guesswork may have missed some shy Tories, Icarus.
59 - Is this the sucessor to Vote 2005?
67. Sorry, those figures were weighted but unadjusted for refusers/don’t knows. (Populus 3-5 Feb poll for Times)
48 - However, is it more important for the Lib Dems to keep the seats they already got or to venture them in order to try to win some seats they can’t be sure of?
At 68, Andrew wrote “59 - Is this the sucessor to Vote 2005?”
I hope not! Vote 2005 turned into a zoo.
James @ 65/66
Been doing some actual work & only just read your post. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
40-Sean Fear
‘Anthony Wells once pointed out that the Tories came third among the 18-34 age group in October 1974; yet 32 years on, that group is now much more likely to vote Conservative.’
Particularly as many in this age group (32 years on) will have had their pensions trashed by Gordon Brown.
It isn’t a “successor” to Vote 2005 as such, but obviously the concepts are similar. Vote 2006 is registration-required and I hope to keep a better rein on the more unsavoury elements that appeared on the 2005 site.
64, 65 - And perhaps the Northern Labour seats could be more easily won, if the Lib Dems could squeeze the Tory vote?
Incidentially, it has been suggested here, here and here that a similar unspoken coalition to that of Lib Dems and Labour which defeated the Conservatives in 1997, would this time be built between Lib Dems and Tories in order to bring down Labour.
60/63. Anna/Julian. and you don’t know what Lord Matlock wrote me yesterday night! The topic was “christian gilrs”!
What I find interesting about this [and other recent polls] is that the total Labour and Tory vote shares are back above 70% [71% here], from 67.7% at the general election. Given that it is unlikely that the centrist [in public] Cameron has pulled votes from UKIP, it suggests that Labour is attracting some votes in response to the greater perceived threat of Cameron.
There doesn’t seem to be a sense of opposition to Labour coalescing around the Tories, rather there are still people who’d rather have Labour than the Tories if they didn’t vote Labour last time.
75 - I’ve long believed that the government that replaces Labour would be a liberal one, what I’ve not been so clear about is whther it will have Liberal Democrats in it or whther David cameron’s liberal Conservatives could manage to pull something off themselves.
Increasingly I’m convinced that the next election will produce a hung Parliament, which will make it obvious to thinking people in both parties that New Labour’s dismal record has created a lot of common ground for us.
One of the more depressing aspects of the LD leadership election has for me been the claims by all 3 contenders that they would not co-operate with other parties in the event of a hung Parliament. While I can understand their playing to the LibDem gallery durng a leadership contest
I still I think this is wrong headed. If as I believe is very likely Labour lose their majority next time I hope to see increased co-operation & good will between the LibDems & the Tories. However I still think it unlikely that the Parliamentary arithmetic will allow for a full coalition, I just don’t see the Tories being the largest party. None-the-less people like Francis Maude, Alan Duncan, Vince Cable & David Laws are clearly not a million miles from each other in views and I would hope common-sense will prevail between our the parties.
65. This seems to me a very complacent analysis. Firstly it seems to fly in the face of the evidence that the attraction of voter groups like Muslims and students rested wholly on populist left wing campaigns on Iraq and student fees.
Secondly I think it fails to recognise that the demographics of some of the Northern and Midland seats have changed hugely since they were Tory held 20-30 years ago (e.g Leicester Sth, Oldham W).
Thirdly it is just not true that most recent Liberal advances have been in recently Tory held seats. The Tories won only two seats in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle even in 1983. When was Durham last a Tory seat? or Blaydon? or Glasgow N? or Dunfermline? Some of the earlier Northern Lib Dem advances were certainly in more middle class seats but things have gone some way beyond that now. To crack the next layer of seats you will have to appeal to core Labour voters who will probably not think much of ‘tough liberalism’ but rather want their left wing grievances addressed
I don’t think there is anything like enough common ground between the Conservatives and Lib Dems to form a coalition (despite David Cameron’s claim that we are in full agreement with you over Iraq and the environment.)
Both parties have an interest in tactical co-operation to maximise gains from Labour.
I agree that a hung Parliament is quite likely next time round.
“…populist left wing campaigns on Iraq…”
Interestingly in the United States perhaps the most vocal opponents of the war were the libertarians, who hardly can be called “left wing”, at least in respect of economic policies. Indeed, one of their concerns (though surely not the only one), what would be the effects of the war to the taxes. So actually whether opposing war is a left wing campaign, depends on the point of view.
But if you label opposing the war in Iraq as “populist left wing campaign”, that means that the Tories have drifted to left wing populism as well, as Cameron stated in the eve of the Dunfermline by-election that his party now agrees with the Lib Dems on Iraq.
sorry, I didn’t know if I’ve to laugh or to cry, but read Gorgeous George’s latest gem:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-542.html
Cameron doesn`t agree with Lib Dems on Iraq, just that we are where we are scenario, so lets deal with it.
However he is trying to neutralize the issue, and hope anti war voters, will consider voting Liberal Conservative, as he desperatley needs them.
There is no princible here, just as there was`nt with Lib Dems over Kosovo, where there was also no UN resolution.
79 - There is nothing left wing about opposition to war in Iraq. It was a cause espoused by a number of Conservative MPs and which many more probably now regret not espousing. Seeking to avoid getting embroiled in wars is absolutely not a preserve of the left. On student fees, opposition was a policy which was shared with Michael Howard at the time of the last election.
I accept that demographics have changed - they always do - but you are completely wrong to see it as being one big tide to the left. These seats have changed in various different ways - cities like Leeds where we picked up a seat in May have been boom towns in recent years for example (if one accepts that people are less likely to favour radical left wing solutions as they get richer which is a simplification but has some truth in it). It is simply not right that these seats have lost the people who made them Tory leaning at one time - they in fact contain very many of the same people or at least types of people.
You give some examples of some seats which we might hope to pick up which have not been Tory in recent times. These are rather selective and I suspect such seats are in the minority but even then, many of them had strong Tory and Alliance votes. Some have special reasons for sticking with Labour. Seats in areas hit by pit closures and deindustrialisation generally were hardly likely to go Tory even in 1983 or 1987 but that does not mean they are irredeemably left-ist, simply that specific things were done to upset voters there.
It is odd to call me “complacent” on this. People like Bullseye and myself worry about the approach to policy in recent years precisely because it has too often failed to pursue the Orange Book style strategy we broadly advocate. It is hardly complacent to express concerns about that direction of drift. Surely if you disagree, “wrong” would be the appropriate word.
Finally, I hope you don’t mind me saying that I suspect you are a bluffer, Fred. I suspect you know as well as Bullseye and me that a move to the left is a sure way of losing seats to your party without picking them up from Labour. But maybe I am oversetimating your guile!
“Cameron doesn`t agree with Lib Dems on Iraq, just that we are where we are scenario, so lets deal with it. However he is trying to neutralize the issue, and hope anti war voters, will consider voting Liberal Conservative, as he desperatley needs them.”
So if that isn’t populism, what is?
78. I think the prospect of a post-election deal with the Tories would badly impact the Lib Dems’ chances in some of the new target seats I mentioned in my earlier post.
81. Yes it was possible to oppose the Iraq war from an isolationist-style right wing perspective. But that wasn’t the angle the Lib Dems used, was it?
85,
Common sense for a politican, who want to be, and is going to be the Pm after next.
Opposing Tuition fees left wing??
I keep hearing from politicians of the right such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Digby Jones, about how important to the country training and education are and then they seem to draw the conclusion that in order to pay for education you should penalise the students.
If education is that important then the country should invest in education - just as we ‘happily’ pay for defence (and offence).
79.”Thirdly it is just not true that most recent Liberal advances have been in recently Tory held seats. ”
well, some of their gains were tory seats in the 80s: Falmouth and Caborbne, Cambridge, Hornsey, Manchester Whitington (just 1983), Leeds North West (until 1997), Yardley and Bristol West (until 1997).
Some LDs (usually Bullseye) used it to justify that the switchers weren’t leftwing.
I think the picture is more complicated. The Libdems gained previosly tories voters in the late 90’s during tory’s collapse. Then I think they got some leftwing voters from Labour too in the last couple of years (not just centrist Labour voters).
You mean that if the Lib Dems oppose the war in Iraq, when most people are for, that is left wing populism, but if Tories do the same, when most people are against the war, that’s just common sense?
88.”Opposing Tuition fees left wing??”
Jeremy Corbyn would tell you: yes, they’re against socialist values!
re 77. Another explanation is that Labour’s shares have not increased at all but that the pollsters are up to their old habit of over-stating the party’s shares. Remember - there has not been a case in modern times of an opinion poll under-stating Labour when tested against real results.
90 was in response to 87.
Cameron, will not mention a post election deal with the Lib Dems, even if there was a chance of this happening.
As he knows this would be seen as heresy,by many traditional conservatives and labour supporters.
Thus making them vote for conviction rather than tacticaly, and hurting his chance of power.
He is too clever too fall into this trap, unlike Kinnock, when he got side tracked into discussing PR in the last week of a close fought 92 GE campaign.
For those that stood up and proclaimed last week that the West Lothian question wasnt in Conservative sights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4736106.stm
52 Tory Boy - sorry this has taken so long (ICM site slow and had to do a little real work)-
Based on ICM poll at the time of last election.
Of 371 18 - 34 year olds asked, 40 said they would vote Conservative.
that is 10.7%. My 85% wouldn’t vote for the Conservative brand was too generous to you!
90,
Yes if Cameron can or try to neutralize the issue, and let voters be able to vote Liberal Conservative.
He is saying we are where we are, we agree what should be done now.
However if the media and the public let him get away with his absolute support for the initial Iraq invasion, we will see.
I think they will , absolutley.
But most voters do not define themselves as either strongly left wing or right wing. Those who do see themselves as being at any distance from the centre are relatively rare (there is a noticeable group of Labour voters who difine themselves as “very right wing” incidentally).
Tory campaigns in recent years have not stressed support for free market policies but for “nationalist” issues (keeping the pound, keeping out asylum seekers, etc). My guess is that this is where they will end up next election too. It is a strategy that protects many of their seats and givesthem some hopes of gains from Labour. It also gives them most favourable press coverage. I prefer the idea of Tories trying to look a bit “liberal” because I think that will pay off for us Lib Dems and because it will move political debate in a progressive direction.
89 Also Cardiff Central
ICM February 2002 has Con 30, Lab 47, LD 18.
So you might expect 2006 locals to be Labour 20, LD 27, con 38
So you can expect Conservatives to make big gains from labour and small gains from lib dems, and Lib Dems to make small gains from Labour. However
a) the sort of voters who are switching between parties is clearly far more important than the aggregates.
b) a lot of these seats actuall last came up in 2004. Compared to then the Tories are doing about 4% better now and labour about 4% worse, with LDs virtually unchanged.
[95] So William Hague has ruled himself out of any future Tory leadership contest, being clearly full of “ideological baggage from the past”, to say nothing of his being “compromised by failure in government” - appoint that man Shadow Foreign Secretary forthwith
97 - My understanding of “populism” is precisely that that you are saying anything to get votes, even if you really don’t mean it.
“However he is trying to neutralize the issue, and hope anti war voters, will consider voting Liberal Conservative, as he desperatley needs them”
The best way of neutralising the issue is not to talk about it. The Dunfermline result suggests that the public don’t find this argument at all convincing.
100. Hardly news - the cons would never go back to Hague.
101 - No, no, no. I have had this explained to me by numerous Tories on this site and now realise that what you describe is “populism” is actually “the brilliant political strategy of our next PM but one”.
“Populism” has now been redefined as “anything that anyone other than Dave does which turns out not to be electoral suicide”. I hope that clears up any confusion.
Icarus @ 96 - MORI estimates that 27% of 18-34 year olds voted Conservative last year. That covers several surveys rather than just one.
Whilst the fact that only 40 out of 371 18 -34 year olds support the Tories is good news, in fairness I should point out that only 47 supported the Lib Dems and 64 Labour with 16 others - so total voting was only 45% - we all have a problem!
Sean your figs are of those who vote.
I wonder if this poll signals the beginning of ABL. Anyone but Labour. Over the last few weeks Gordon Brown has had a higher profile but labours figures have gone down.
Does anyone think that the higher gas prices have had an impact on the polls?
“gas prices”? Do you mean petrol prices?
84 - With the student vote I would expect labour to continue to do worse, simple because having been in govt so long they have almost become the party of the establishment. I can’t see the student vote turning significantly to the tories which only leaves the lib dems. However the last election saw a spike in their vote due to Iraq and top up fees, which won’t be as big an issue next time, and I’d expect to see a drop in student turnout. However in the general scheme of things the student vote is pretty insignificant, affecting only a few seats.
84 - I think university seats, and/or seats with large numbers of middle class public sector workers in them moved a long way leftwards from the early eighties onwards (eg the Conservatives lost Hornsey on the GLC as far back as 1981, when they were only 2% behind Labour in London); this benefitted Labour to begin with, and explains their gains in places like Manchester Withington and Edinburgh, in 1987, and Cambridge and Hornsey in 1992; and then Bristol West and Leeds NW in 1997. That leftward shift has now propelled them into the Lib Dem camp.
Fred: “The Lib Dems will continue to endure because there is a large space for protest votes.”
Must be a very large space indeed since, as far as I can see, all Cameron is trying to say at the moment is: “Protest against Blairism not delivering enough to you right now - vote Blair lite.”
No comment:
Robin Harris, ex-speechwriter and member of Lady Thatcher’s No 10 policy unit, will accuse Mr Cameron of a “potentially disastrous” strategy.
In the next edition of left-of-centre Prospect magazine, Mr Harris says: “He should be having sleepless nights.”
He says it is a “huge risk” to assume that core Tory support will remain whatever policies are adopted.
109 - I assume AnnaK was referring to the 22% domestic gas price increase announced by British Gas the other day, rather than the American for petrol. I doubt it will have had an impact because it is yet to feed through to bills so people won’t have noticed and even if they have they are unlikely to blame the government for the price increase in itself - although the government will have to make some decisions as to how to support pensioners and less well off people going forward.
92 - Mike - Agreed but surely the main reason for all the adjustments that the pollsters make to the raw survey figures is to remove the bias in overstating Labour support . Surely we can assume they will get this right at some stage though the danger is we could end up with an over-correction and the published polls all understate Labour support .
[114] Not everyone buys their gas from British Gas - you Orange Bookers should know that
- the point is that wholesalers are facing a tripling of the price - what I’d like to know, before I write my 2006/07 personal budget spreadsheet, is what %age of the retail gas price is for the wholesale product, and how much is profit, Transco fees etc…
Robin Harris - the times they are a changin’ - get with the programme. In Prospect - the journal of Hampstead handwringers.
Is the LibDem market settled now? Looks like the canvass returns are fixing the market.
No Guido - the money is fixing the market - If they went on canvass returns Ming would be favourite.
114. Bad news for the Treasury though. Every £100 to the gas suppliers equals a loss of £12.50, hell of a lot more if you buy gas to keep warm instead of ‘gas’ for your car!
118. Why arn’t all the people in the Ming campaign betting at moment - are they that much poorer than the Huhnies !
re 115. I think that the polls are getting much better. One thing that really messed them up was that a Labour 10/10 certain to vote is worth less than a non-Labour one. Some polls before May 5th sought to factor this differential in.
The actual voting intention questions are getting more sophisticated which is shown in the increasing number of “won’t vote” responses coming through.
121 Yes Mike again I agree that the adjustments seem to be working to some extent , although recently Yougov seem to be over estimating Labour support at the expense of Lib Dems . There is still the danger that something will change and the reasons for the adjustments lessen which will lead to Labour support being understated in the published poll figures .
56. You know Tom Packer then …
[16] What I serve up for for breakfast Roger Knapman enjoys at lunch-time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4732794.stm
A pedant writes the link is to an unreliable pseudo-socialist news source. Patriots & people who really understand their economic theories should take their pills before clicking on it…
120 - We are until early March!!
125. Icarus - is that when Chris Huhne’s sun rises high in the sky and you get a sticky problem ?
Re 113 Robin Harris was firmly ‘One Of Us’ as Mrs Thatcher herelf would say - i.e a leading member of her inner circle and is still, I think, a leading light in the Thatcher Foundation.
Like Lords Tebbit and Parkinson he pops up regularily to criticise any Conservative leader who fails to adopt any and every policy position taken by the Great One; forgetting as they tend to that the policies that they applied in 1986 with great success are just a tad out of date today.
If he is getting jittery then Cameron is well and truly on track.
Caneron will be delighted that an old fart like Harris is sticking the boot in - albeit in a sly and personal way if this morning’s Today programme is anything to go by. It’s the same old tax cuts, crime, immigration nonsense that has seen us go down to 3 big defeats. These people are frozen in 1987. I think Michael Gove comprehensively monstered him……
116 - you can see the wholesale price hour by hour here:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/Data/EDR/After/OC46.htm
The “SAP” column is a fair measure of the price for short-term gas trading. What you can’t tell, of course, is how much of their gas the retail companies have bought up long-term and probably at lower prices.
124: I like that Knapman soundbite - New Labour and Blue Labour. I wonder if he’s copyrighted it?
Latest blogging on the leadership campaign is here btw.
131. is “Camaign” the slang version of “campaign”?
It is dialect, Andrea
133. from Kettering, Peter? “Winin her!”
Bloody hell - large move towards Ming on IG - they opened today at buy 38 (after being closed all yesterday and most of the weekend and are now at 46.
Has someone been steaming open the ballot envelopes?
111 - A friend of mine did a long-term analysis of political change by constituency from 1955 until the 1990s. The biggest swings to Labour were in seaside resorts and university areas, and to some extent in metropolitan liberal middle class areas generally. In a seaside constituency where a university appeared from nowhere (i.e. Brighton Pavilion) the swing was astronomical.
One thing I find a bit odd is that group of constituencies (e.g. Rossendale, Bury North) which were marginal in 1945 and have been so consistently ever since despite massive industrial and social change. They swung a bit to the Conservatives, relatively, around 1970 and then stopped. They have always been relatively working class with high levels of owner occupation.
From memory, the constituencies that swung most to the right were in outer east London and Essex and ex-mining areas now evolving into suburbs, of which there are many in the East Midlands (Ilkeston/ Amber Valley, South Derbyshire, Leics NW). But some of these have been relatively kind to Labour in the last couple of elections.
Ketteringaccio…
Thanks Lewis. I imagine the bulk of East Anglia has moved to the Right (relatively speaking) since 1955.
123 Correctimundo! How do you know Pakman?
did anyone else attend the Manchester LibDem leadership hustings last night?
good event with all seats taken (500) and about 100 standing in the aisles. The performances were up to standard, and the concensus was, basically, there in the responses to the half-dozen or so questions that were taken.
what I found especially interesting was the body language of the two other contenders when their colleague was delivering his speech (15 minutes each, but I think that Saj Karim’s watch stopped during Mings delivery). Ming was attentive; Chris looked, well I’ve tried to find the right word all day and failed, as if he was “above” listening to all of this again; and Simon, dear Simon, looked tired!
Saw lots of friends, many/most of whom have already committed, and didn’t get any sense of a “road to Damascus” moment. (Perhaps that should be a road to Bagdad moment!!)
Still think/hope/expect that Ming will win (and back in Cumbria before the witching hour.
………..almost forgot……..
£2000 (thereabout) collected in the buckets, and 100 Focus leaflets delivered (no, only joking about the leaflets!)
141 So they managed to double their funds for the local elections in Greater Manchester? Impressive!
138 - True, Sean. Rural East Anglia used to be very good ground for Labour but now of course no longer. The Labour vote in some of them eroded in the 1960s and then collapsed in the 1970s, as in Norfolk SW and Norfolk N. One of Labour’s only gains in 1955 was Norfolk SW!
140.”and Simon, dear Simon, looked tired!”
Anna, what have you done to Simon to make him look tired!?
1923 produced some incredibly odd results also, Lewis. Labour actually gained Maldon!
136 - It’s very interesting that the former mining seats in South and East Derbyshire that you identify (Amber Valley / Ilkeston, South Derbyshire) have moved to the Tories over the past 50 years but the former mining seats in North Derbyshire have not (Chesterfield, Bolsover, NE Derbyshire). Also the mining seats just across the border in Nottinghamshire remain very Labour (having moved a bit Tory in the 1980s and moved sharply back again) - Ashfield, Mansfield, Bassetlaw, Sherwood
136-Curious that this phenomenom apepars both siodes of the Pennines. There seem to be a clutch of fairly marginal constituencies in West Yorkshire too, which seem to have exibited a lower than average swing to Labour in 1997 and years hence.
I suppose it would depend whether these ex-mining seats become suburban (as Lewis says) or remain depressed.
Sherwood’s an odd constituency as it combines being ex-mining with a very high proportion of the workforce employed in agriculture.
Nothing too odd about Labour gaining Maldon in 1923, there was an agricultural Labour vote and the seat was a hot bed of lefties and remember it returned Tom Driberg from 1942 through to the mid 1950’s.
137. Some of the West Yourkshire marginals also had a large than average swing back to the tories in 2001 (Wakefield, Halifax, Elmet)
Sean I think you are right there. Amber Valley includes some affluent northern suburbs of Derby which probably are the source of most of the Tory vote - ditto Erewash and South Derbyshire.
North East Derbyshire includes some leafy suburbs of Sheffield but, evidenced by Sheffield Hallam, these areas are likely to lean more Lib Dem than Tory these days.
I think the more Tory part of Sherwood is