YouGov shows Tories increasing their lead
June 26th, 2006-
And it’s 44-38 on a straight Cameron-Brown choice
A new YouGov poll in today’s Daily Telegraph has the following with changes on four weeks ago: CON 39 (+1): LAB 32 (nc): LD 17 (+1).
When asked which they would prefer a Cameron-led Tory party or a Brown-led Labour the Tories win 44-38. This compares with a 45-36 lead when asked to choose between a Cameron-led Tory party and a Blair-led Labour.
- Although these were not voting intention questions but a forced choice they should bring some comfort to the Brown camp. The problem is that when voting intention question with named party leaders are asked then the polls that have carried out surveys show the Labour deficit increasing
This survey should not be confused with what ICM and Populus have been doing on the same issue. Forced question do not tell you how people will vote.
The Lib Dems will be pleased that there has been a small recovery from the pollster that has been consistently giving them the worst ratings.
The Tories will be pleased about the resilience of their lead which is now quite substantial.
Labour will be pleased that at least there is the prospect of something better with a new leader.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Sorry Mike - is the Cameron-Browen lead 44-36 or 44-38? You quote both figures.
I can’t make up my mind about Cameron. Some times I find him indescribably fake and struggle to listen to him. Other times he seems like that very rare animal, a reasonable un-selfish Tory politician. An example of the former is when he starts taking up ‘populist’ issues’ like the ‘Convention on human rights’ which makes him sound saccarin sickly. Very much like Blair at his worst.
I think you’ve got the figures wrong Mike. You say they are CON 39 (+1): LAB 32 (nc): LD 17 (nc), but the last YouGov poll in the Telegraph was 38 / 32 / 16 (published 26 May) - ie Lib Dems are up too.
Corrections I’ve corrected the figures in the story. I was trying to write this while on the train!!
Perhaps you could change the words toom Mike?
“The Lib Dems will be pleased that there has been no further falling back from the pollster that has been consistently giving them the worst ratings.”
This Lib Dem is pleased that a second poll has recorded a modest strengthening in Lib Dem support (following ICM which also showed Lib Dems up one). Obviously this is a small increase and and just two polls -but at least they are moving in the right direction.
Weekend reports from Bromley and Blaenau please.
Mike- I disagree that there is a prospect of something better for Labour with a new leader. There may be slightly higher polling numbers for Labour but I believe the Conservatives will also poll higher without Blair at the helm.
There is enough Libdem and Others vote to squeeze as opinions become polarised due to the return of two party politics.
I can forsee a Yougov poll of 42-35-15-8 within three months of a new Labour leader.
re 5. Corrected.
8 - “return of two party politics”
Dazz … you don’t get it, do you?
T H E O L D D A Y S A R E O V E R.
Did you hear your man blustering on “Today” this morning?
7 Wishful thinking, Darren.
It would be most interesting to hear views on the potential impact of the “others” percentage in these polls which according to Anthony Well’s site remain “historically high”.
11 - Since last December Yougov have been giving Lib Dem figures around 3-4% lower than other pollsters and Others figures 3-4% higher . Yougov seem to be hoping that this effect will fade away or disappear as quickly as it occurred .
11 - jp, a much more interesting question than DC’s laughable assertion about “two party politics”.
Having seen at first hand the local effect of a single issue recently, I think all political parties have their work cut out.
As the Lib Dems harden around a set of coherent policies, then elements of their traditional protest vote will disappear and will either go into the DNV column, or possible flirt with other parties (most noticeably the Greens).
I think this is good for us in the medium to long term, although in the short term it might mean that there is a slight dip in our fortunes.
Thus doesn’t just affect the Lib Dems, of course. Cameron is trying to build a broad coalition, but its shallow; furthermore he is clearly antagonising some elements in his party (europhiles, eurosceptics, moral certaintists … ). Labour have the same problem as their travailles with the BNP at the locals indicate.
Its trite to say that all parties are coalitions, but I think these are in flux as the established parties cast around to understnad how to stop the haemoraging of their support.
9 and 10. Oh how the truth hurts eh boys? The future’s bright but it ain’t orange or yellow.
11- Yes the Others are historically high but with the return of two party politics (I enjoy saying that!) they are there to be squeezed and I expect they will be.
11 - The Others (and I don’t mean Lost
) - This is usually quite a dispirate group, and can probably be split 2 or 3 ways;
Firstly, Green party; they did well in the locals, and particularly in London appear to have lost the Lib Dems a fair few seats by appealing to a similiar type of voter. They are likely to harm the Libs much less in a General Election due to lack of candidates, and it would perhaps be best for both if the Green party targeted a few carefully selected seats, rather than trying to field candidates whereever possible.
Secondly, BNP; probably still quite a large proportion of the other vote - and I would expect to be found in clumps rather than across the country. I’m not sure that this vote particularly affects the outcome - either you vote BNP or you vote for no-one would be my feeling, but I don’t know how true this actually is.
Thirdly, UKIP; potentially getting a slight pick-up with the Bromley By-Election, but also potentially picking up people on the fringe of the Tory party (if Simon Heffer is a good example - vis-a-vis Mikes piece a few days ago).
Overall - I would expect the Other vote to be reduced at the General Election (simply due to lack of candidates to vote for if nothing else) but in time for the level in polls to continue upwards as people want to be more specific about the policies they vote for - ie Tory, but Eurosceptic - say you’re voting UKIP. Lib Dem, but concerned that the Orange Bookers are taking over - say you’re Green.
14 Don’t know what your evidence is for a return to two party politics and would be interested to see it but all the evidence so far this parliament is that the vote share of the Labour and Conservative parties combined is continuing to decline .
I think that “Others” are on an upward trend (even if they don’t manage 12% between them at the next election). The Greens stand a good chance of winning a Parliamentary seat in Brighton next time round - and they should certainly concentrate their efforts on that.
The BNP will probably continue to gain council seats, and should get a higher vote per candidate at the next general election than at the last one - and perhaps achieve a couple of second places.
Respect plainly have considerable support among Muslim voters, and they stand a good chance of winning an extra seat in Birmingham.
And UKIP aren’t going to disappear, particularly if they get a respectable vote in Bromley on Thursday (which seems likely).
16 - Mark, precisely. I for one am going to engage with people who can hold a balanced discussion, not engage in peurile “wind-ups”. If Darren wants to live in his true-blue fantasy world, let him.
14 - the much-vaunted return of 2-party politics, eh?
Here are the combined, average general election vote shares in the last half-century:
1950s: Con/Lab 92%, Lib Dem/Other 8%
1960s: Con/Lab 89%, Lib Dem/Other 11%
1970s: Con/Lab 80%, Lib Dem/Other 20%
1980s: Con/Lab 72%, Lib Dem/Other 28%
1990s: Con/Lab 75%, Lib Dem/Other 25%
2000s: Con/Lab 70%, Lib Dem/Other 30%
Sorry, DC, but not even your initial-namesake is going to turn this tide.
Does anyone have the figures for swing in past elections to hand?
20 - Ben, have you worked out why you’re a Conservative yet when we share the same values?
21. I thought you were going to avoid puerile wind ups?
A trend confirmed by most recent opinion polls Stephen. While MORI gives a combined Conservative/Labour vote of 75%, the other three give 69-71%.
6 - Bromley report as follows:
Spent a good chunk of Sunday canvassing for Ben Abbotts. The streets we were in were typical outer London Edwardian/Victorian suburbia - the sort of places that vote solidly Lib Dem in SW London.
Although people were very friendly - they were clearly voting Conservative in large numbers. Now I’m not convinced there has necessarily been a London wide swing against the Lib Dems to the Tories - but in Bromley they seem to be getting the sort of support from the right demographics - young professional families to suggest they are doing very well. The interesting thing is that this level of support was not replicated in the SW London Lib/Con battle grounds in the local elections so I suspect that it is a Bromley thing.
I wouldn’t like to speculate on the size of the Tory majority as turnout is more likely to be at 45-50% range, but their vote share should be at least 55%.
Interestingly there was no sign of Rennard in the Lib Dem HQ - a sure sign that the campaign is going through the motions - rather than a serious challenge. But there is no doubt the Lib Dems are the main challengers.
UKIP activity seemed to be restricted to Nigel Farage driving around the area in a convertable Rolls Royce toking from a large cigar!
(Although they appear to have spent a lot of money on billboards).
22 - no, its a genuine question; go and have a look at the article on his blog. I read through it, looked at his five criteria for why he’s a Conservative, thought “I believe in all of those but I’m a Liberal - so that is not sufficient to make one a Conservative.” Hence I’m trying to establish why when we believe the same things he’s a Conservative and I’m not.
As to why I’m a Liberal - its to do with the “freedom from” as well as “freedom to” argument; in other words I set a higher store on social justice and diffusion of power than most Conservatives.
RE 21, Perhaps it has to do with me not liking things so liberal that your party was in favour of the free trade of things like slaves. Or maybe universal primary education, or stopping people sending children down the mines, all Conservative policies frequently bitterely opposed by the Liberals…
That said there are slightly more up to date reasons and I will be writing an updated article soon…..
24 - Dan, what would you reckon a good % for us would be, then?
Stephen Tall at 19. Real two party politics hasn’t existed since the 1920’s.
Much of the reason for an increase in the ‘others’ vote you quote is not the Lib Dems but the increasing success of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.
I would suggest that the relevant point in your figures occurred during the 1970’s when the main two parties dropped below 80% of the vote.
Since then, with a few blips either way, there has been little change.
I don’t expect a return to ‘two party politics’ because I don’t believe it ever existed. I think a squeeze for minority parties including the Lib Dems is highly likely if, as I expect, Cameron continues to grow support and Labour are boosted by a new leader.
And the polls agree.
26 - come off it, Ben - if we’re going to start rehashing old policies what about the Corn Laws, which led to mass starvation whilst the landlords got rich? Or opposition Home Rule for Ireland which was shamefully stoked up by Conservative politicians?
I’m talking about philosophical underpinnings of political alleigance. As i said, your 5 reasons for being a Conservative are not sufficient, shared as they are by most Liberal Democrats and not a few Labour supporters too, I would imagine.
I suspect that DC’s remark re. two-party politics is less to do with vote share than with seats gained and lost. The historically high ‘others’ figure for instance isn’t going to translate into many seats.
The Lib Dem vote share of course is dificult to translate into the number of seats they would actually gain or lose but if these vote shares were to be proven accurate they would in all probability lose a few seats at least. What scale of losses would indicate a return to two-party politics I’m not altogether sure.
UKIP say that they will lauch an election petition if Bob Neill wins on Thursday, on the basis of his incorrect declaration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/ntory226.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixuknews.html
19-Stephen. I would put good money on the next GE combined Con/Lab vote share being 75% or maybe even slightly higher.
It will be a two party race and that will really focus the mind of the electorate. Yes it was about 69% last year but the result was not really in question.
Next time we will be electing either a Conservative or a Labour Government and votes will flood back to the big two.
17 - What is a respectable showing for UKIP in Bromley? I don’t understand why some posters keep mentioning UKIP as if it takes many votes off the Conservatives (or any other party) - the truth is that they rarely get over 10% of the vote and usually only when turnout is low.
For Bromley, if they get less than 10% with a high profile candidate like they got - they are hopeless and are not a big concern - to treat them as such undermines anyone who wants to be taken seriously. The party is like damaged goods, to treat them as if they are the party they were before they started to factionalise with Kilroy Silk et al is to be far too kind to them.
I foresee a return to two party politics - the Tories and the Lib Dems.
Mike Smithson
28 - Marcus, it’s true 2-party politics (under UMF) was an historical blip, but it did of course exist in the 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the ’60s.
As for “not much of it is the Lib Dems” - simply not true. Sure, the nationalist parties are significant within Wales and Scotland, but as a proportion of the UK they are pretty minor. The Liberals/Alliance/Lib Dems make up most of the ‘Others’ in the figures I quoted.
However, I agree with those who reckon other ‘Others’ (Green, Ukip, Respect etc) will pick up more support in the years to come, especially now Lib Dems are increasingly regarded as a mainstream party.
33 c.10% and beating Labour into fourth place.
17, 33 - Another reason for believing the combined vote share of the main two parties will rise next time is the prospect of a hung parliament.
Don’t care what some people say on here, the public will do almost anything to avoid a ‘NOC’ parliament.
27 - Anything above 25% would show good progress (and moving into a clear second place).
The reason why I think the Tory performance won’t be the 65%+ some of the more excitable posters have suggested is that with the large number of candidates and the fact that it is clearly a shoo in - normally Tory votes will be spread among the various others or stay at home.
60% for the Tories is the sort of benchmark they need to get to be on track for the largest party at the general election - anything above that suggests that a sea change in public opinion has occured (and Tory overall majority).
Anything around 50% is a solid result for the Tories - but suggests they need to do more. 45% or less and the Tory strategy under Cameron would be called into question.
34- I could live with that Mike!
What could be interesting would be if the Libdems were to ever to decide to disband. The orange bookers and the modern wing could come to us with the left leaning side joining Labour. It could be a moderating influence on both parties.
33 - I was in Bromley over the weekend and UKIP are certainly putting the effort in. In one patch I was in - a bit of Mottingham - there were more UKIP posters than Tory.
Most of our traditional support seems strong although there were a lot of negative comments about the choice of candidate. I don’t think picking someone from Tower Hamlets was a good idea and Bob has got his decision wrong on the GLA seat. This has not gone down well.
The Limp Dems are putting some effort in and are doing well in parts of the constituency. I saw a few posters up for them in Bromley Common and Plaistow(?). They did seem to have quite a few people out on Saturday.
I think it will be disappointing if we don’t get 55% or so.
I think some people have rather unrealistic expectations and Dan is (through the voice of seeming reasonable) trying to set up a “Tories in crisis” scenario.
I said some time ago that i expect that we will get under 50% of the vote. I have no problems with that as long as we win.
It being a by-election; there being a strong UKIP challenge; the Lib Dems trying hard ‘below the radar’ tactics - the conditions are there for a Tory win with a reduced majority. Having said all that, the Tory vote does seem to be holding up well and I would expect a confortable win with a reduced majority.
What impact does this have for a future GE? NONE
If we have a by-election in a Labour seat with a couple of thousand majority then it would be significant if the Tories couldnt win. But in B&C we will win and the result will be forgotten in about a week.
RE 29, Tabman, I will let you know when I have written my next installment…
29. If we are on the subject of ‘mass starvation’, the Liberals’ extreme free market policies during the Irish famine in the 1840s will I am afraid take some beating.
Re minor parties, would not their main impact be their potential for damaging the Con/Lab/Lib vote & allowing what would otherwise be the second place candidate to win?
31. I think the Telegraph story is a bit weak as it doesn’t really explain the whole business of the declaration Bob Neill signed (I’ve given a bit more background here).
The UKIP legal challenge is interesting; if they do challenge it successfully, presumably there would be a fresh by-election? If so, who would voters blame? UKIP for the challenge, or Bob Neill for falsely declaring his eligibility to stand?
39 You are living in fantasy land DC what have/are you smoking . Thinking of or wishing for a return to 2 party politics is not evidence so what is your evidence ?
41 - Rik we agree!
I think the Tories will win with a reduced majority too - but that’s mainly about turnout.
That’s why I’ve suggested the Tory share is important - and if Cameron is being propelled into Downing Street then an increase in share is not unexpected (if you look at the results Labour were getting in the 92-97 Parliament then increasing your share in by-election defences is expected).
Anything less than 45% is demonstrably a bad result for the Tories and suggests their recovery is ‘brittle’.
If I was a Tory I’d be expecting 55-60% in the current circumstances of narrow but sustained opinion poll leads.
Re 45, Your article does not appear to add anything to what we knew over the weekend. In particular we do not know what is actualy in the declaration thet Bob Neil actually signed. Now the wording of that would be interesting as he is either in the right or wrong, or there is a little wriggle room.
44- exactly! but just take out the Lib as it’s two party politics now. That is why the others have peaked due to the risk they have of an outcome that those lending them a vote would not want to see.
I don’t wish to kick the Libdems while they are down so I will admit this: there will be seats where it will be Libdem or Con/Lab. In those seats the motivation will be to elect who is best placed to stop Con or Lab. I suspect this will apply more in Labour/Lib areas rather than Con/Lib areas as there will be more Con voters wanting to stop Labour than Lab voters wanting to stop the Conservatives.
43. …and you might also be interested to know that the Liberals’ desire to abolish the Corn Laws wasn’t really driven by ideas of ’social justice’…rather it was the result of manufacturing interests arguing that cheaper food would allow them to hold down their workers’ wages. Your chippy assumptions about the Tories and Liberals in the 19th are I am afraid quite anachronistic.
DC – How can you possibly argue that the Lib Dem’s are down? Haven’t you noticed the huge boost that Ming’s relaunch has given them?
Dan says: “Interestingly there was no sign of Rennard in the Lib Dem HQ - a sure sign that the campaign is going through the motions - rather than a serious challenge. But there is no doubt the Lib Dems are the main challengers.”
I am afraid you can’t have been looking very hard Dan.
Anyone in Miso in the town centre last night will have seen him. Or those in the HQ for the weekly Sunday evening meeting with locals.
Or there when I was going through literature content with him on Saturday….. I could go on.
Sorry Dan, but maybe you didn’t peep in every corner or office!
Duncan Borrowman
National Campaigns Officer
Liberal Democrats
51. The (understandable) sarcasm aside, I do fear that the made up story of the dinner tray and ‘Come Dancing’ is eerily reminiscent of the toe curling attempts at image building William Hague tried.
51- What relaunch? ah.. good joke Max.
46- Mark. I don’t dispute past voting numbers but I maintain that for the next GE the combined vote share of the Libdems and the others will drop significantly.
I would say circ 25% as opposed to 31% last time. Do you really thing that the trend has not peaked? (at least for the time being). Would you predict 35% for Lib and Others next time?
Bromley - a win is a win an this seat will be safe Con at the next GE.
Example 1. Swing required to win the next election 5%; swing in by-election 10% = good result.
Example 2. Swing required to win the next election 10%; swing in by-election 5% = BAD result.
Kapiche?
Re Bromley and Betfair - what is the wording of the Betfair market on Bromley? - the Tories look like free money, but if there is a legal challenge and it’s in the courts for months / another by-election then the time-value makes it much less appealing. Any thoughts?
Interested to see how the others vote splits again in this poll, I tend to think that the SNP are going to be increasing their share and, with a lot of talk about green issues, that the greens will be securing a fair proportion.
The figure is historically high and all the perceptions of the rest have to be changed in light of that. Of course a high others vote makes the outcome more unpredictable but that’s all part of the fun!
56 - Rod that is nonsense and you know it. Margaret Thatcher regulary experience big swings against her in by-elections and yet went on to win GEs. There is almost no linkage between by-election results and GE results as most LDs could testify.
However, I wont deny that every Tory would love to see big swings in our favour. But in a seat like B&C that we hold there is unlikely to be a swing in our favour. The interesting results will be the respective positions of Lab, UKIP and LD. The LDs need to show that they can perform well in Tory heartland and UKIP will want something that boosts their credibility. Lab will want to hang on to second or a close third place.
Jamie at 55 is absolutely right. A win is a win. If we were behind in the polls and struggling then a poor result in B&C could be dangerous for DC. As it is, with the polls showing a solid lead, any win is ok.
59 Is this real concern that the Tories are about to have a poor result or are you just trying to manage our expectations? The latter I suspect, although I would prefer the former…
So after the much heralded announcement of the Lib Dems new tax policy linked to their environment policy they get an increase of 1% in the YouGov poll to reach 17%!
This must be one of the few occassions when a party leader’s first 100 days has gone from a honeymoon to a wake,maybe IDS was the same, can’t remember the numbers.
Rik 59. To paraphrase a certain Texan Senator: “I knew Margaret Thatcher . .. . and your boy is no Margaret Thatcher.” !
But 46 Mark, beware, it used to be the case that Tories were all greedy and kept things to themselves. The DC postings at 32 and 39 show that when it comes to sharing out the chemicals, at least, the party bigwigs are becoming dangerously far more Liberal. Presumably this is the new Cameron policy (on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in months with no ‘R’s in them)?
As I recall it the last time there was meant to be a significant ‘national’ squeeze on the Lib Dems the Party increased seat numbers significantly. I would suggest that the most significant squeezes continue to operate at a local constituency or council level. This may affect Conservatives in a number of areas, even if their ‘national’ poll standing improves.
59. Short memory and confused?
Margaret Thatcher was in GOVERNMENT, for Chrissakes, when she had the big swings against….Show me the big swings against between 1975-79. Hint… Walsall N 1976 22.5% swing TO THE friggin’ TORIES. Ashfield 1977 20.7% swing TO THE TORIES…etc, etc…
Swing to the Tories 1979 General Election????? —>>>>>>5.2%….
So, by extension 2006. Bromley swing to the Tories 1%, 2%, 3%?, 4%?
2009 The boy wonder sweeps into Downing St… NOT
59/60etc For the past few months, LD and Labour posters have kept on saying that the increase in Tory support in the polls is a hardening of support in already safe areas. (If you look back at the post 12 on the last thread Mark Senior made a typical comment in this vein.)
With that in mind, surely a slightly reduced majority in Bromley would be very disquieting for Lab and LD supporters. If Tory support is not to be piling up in safe seats, then where do you think voters are switching sides???
61: I don’t think any Lib Dem expected a fifteen point leap in the polls after one policy announcement. These are opening moves in a long-term strategy (not the headline-grabbing flummery so beloved of Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron), and I believe in time the rewards will be enormous.
62
‘ As I recall it the last time there was meant to be a significant ‘national’ squeeze on the Lib Dems the Party increased seat numbers significantly. I would suggest that the most significant squeezes continue to operate at a local constituency or council level. This may affect Conservatives in a number of areas, even if their ‘national’ poll standing improves.’
Yes, it certainly did last month,Tories + 300 seats, Lib Dems +1.
65. But…’in the long term, we are all dead’ and I fear this applies much better to politics than to its original subject (economics).
“A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said that only the death of a monarch could halt a by-election once it had been called.”
So if the queen gets food poisoning from eating too much chocolate at the Kids party at the weekend - All bets are off.
What else stops if the Queen drops dead!
63 - Calm down, dearie, it’s only a discussion forum. Why do you always have to shout?
Anyway, apart from a big swing in Bromsgrove in 1971 (I think), Labour’s by-election record against the Tories in the 1970-74 Parliament was distinctly mediocre, and against the Liberals was frightful and a loss to the SNP to boot. But didn’t stop the little man from returning to No 10 as leader of the largest party, did it?
63 - Rod - you are confusing being in govt with being the defender of the seat. In seats that are held with a good majority it is hard to have a further swing to you, whether you are in govt or opposition. In a seat like B&C last fought in a GE with few candidates it would be quite an achievement to get a swing TO us when there are so many other minor candidates who will each take a % or two of the vote, PLUS there is a serious UKIP campaign. So in answer to Peter at 60, this is not some expectation of a “poor result” but a realistic assessment of the likely outcome. I am starting to think that certain LD posters are in the business of ramping up the target for the Tories to reach, to a level which will be almost impossible to attain in the climate of this by-election. However, the big story to come out of this election might end up being the stalling of the infamous LD by-election machine!
68 Opposition to the Euro will stop.
53 made up story Fred ? who said so ? - oh yes Iain Dale a really reliable source not of facts about Lib Dems .
54 Yes you can maintain that that is your opinion Darren but have not given one shred of evidence that there is anything to back it up with facts . Current evidence from opinion polls and last month’s local elections show that disenchantment with the mainstream parties is stronger than ever before .
68. It used to be the case parliament was dissolved on the death of a monarch too. I think 1837 was the last time…lucky for Labour this convention has lapsed.
Aside form all this discussion of the (frankly not very interesting) Bromley by-election, has anyone heard anything about Blaenau Gwent? From the little I’ve seen, the feeling seems to be that Labour are ahead in the Westminster seat, but Peter Law’s seems to be marginally favourite for the Assembly, however both seem pretty close.
74 - That should have read “Peter Laws’ widow”, obviously
Rik at 70 - I’m trying to be realistic here about sensible benchmarks for the Tories at B&C.
You are right that it is more difficult to get a positive swing towards you in seats you already hold - even when the government is as unpopular as the current one.
But by way of comparison there were 7 by-elections in Labour held seats in the 92-97 Parliament in England in 5 of them Labour’s vote rose.
The two seats closest to the Tory share in B&C were Barking and Dagenham - Labour polled 51.6% in Barking in 1992 and 52.3% in Dagenham.
Labour’s vote share in the by-elections rose to 72.1% in Barking and 72.0% in Dagenham.
70 Rik . In the 1974-79 Parliament , the Conservatives regularly achievd big increases in their votes in their safe seats despite a proliferation of minor candidates even in those days - see for example Bournemouth East 1977 plus 11.7% Saffron Walden 1977 plus 11.0% Carshalton 1976 plus 6.3%
72
‘Current evidence from opinion polls and last month’s local elections show that disenchantment with the mainstream parties is stronger than ever before .’
by Mark Senior June 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
So why did the Lib Dems do so badly and the Tories so well ???
[12:22pm] Ah, the days when Carshalton was a safe Tory seat… ‘fess up, Mark, you can’t resist winding up our Rik any more than I can
[12:05pm] Not a convention, Fred - the law was changed (presumably in one of the Reform Acts, someone will know which one
)
78. Richard, the Lib Dems did NOT do badly!! haven’t you been reading this site?? It was a fanastic set of results given one poll showed them on 13% and all the bad publicity they had, and er…
Hmmmm, why do I get the feeling that there’s a certain amount of ramping going on here ;-). In the end of the day it would appear the Lib Dems are already conceding Bromley to the Tories, and unless Bob Neill holds the seat with a greatly reduced majority, I doubt there will be any repercussions at all, no matter how much the Lib Dems on here squawk about it.
78 The Lib Dems did not do so badly in that they did not lose seats overall . Partly I think because they are also regarded as a mainstream party by many voters , protest votes went in increasing numbers this year to Greens and BNP and to a smaller extent Respect . The increase in Green support in London cost the Lib Dems 20-25 gains and nationwide 80-100 gains and increased BNP support cost the Conservatives possibly 50 gains .
81 Think the repercussions are more likely to come from UKIP rather than the Lib Dems . It is strange though how Conservatives on here look on a false nomination declaration as inconsequential when it is done by one of their members . If it had been a Lib Dem candidate Rik and Iain Dale would have been foaming at the mouth .
Tabman, just thought I would let you know I have added another article to my blog, but as yet have not dealt with why I am not a Liberal.
72-Mark. But you are referring to Labour. By any measure the Conservatives are doing well. Much Libdem ’support’ is disenfranchised Labour voters.
They will react to the Conservatives doing well by going back to the Labour Party. Previous Conservative supporters who drifted to the Libdems will see the Conservatives as the only way to stop Labour.
Result: vote share in the big two goes up.
The squeeze is on!
19. Stephen,
I’m really glad you posted those figures - I’ve been banging on about this 50 year trend on here for ages.
Despite wishful thinking it’s pretty obvious that the LibDems are not imploding, juat as it’s obvious the Tories under Cameron have finally escaped their 30-33% box. Current LD opinion poll ratings are about 20%, while others are hovering around the 10% mark. This effectively creates a blocking minority at elections when the two larger parties have roughly equal support.
26 Benedict
mmmm…I think you might have to find slightly more comtemporary criticism of liberals than supporting the slave trade - which of course was abolished in the British Empire over 50 before the Liberal Party was founded!
Anyhow, I liked your blog & agree with Tabman that you are essentially a liberal. That’s no great surprise given the shattering of the Liberal Party in the 1920’s created a liberal diaspora across the political spectrum - one that has been prevented from returning home in large part due to an electoral system that forces political parties to become unweildy and often contradictory coalitions of interest.
BTW I’ve finally worked out how to let anyone post on my blog - thanks for pointing out the restriction. Anyone else feeel free to visit & comment.
http://www.bullseye-liberaldissenter.blogspot.com/
82 It will be interesting to see the results next year when a conservatives will be defending a much greater number of authorities than this year. Results in Richmond will not give them great confidence in this (but of course a lot can happen by then: there is a good chance that a new Labour leader will be enjoying a honeymoon with the electorate).
77 - Exactly…although we won’t really know what happens in Bromley but Tory party members on here are admitting they don’t expect 60% which seems to me to say they don’t mind a hung parliament but they know they can’t win the next GE outright.
Having said that, Thatcher has an easier task than Cameron, simply because she didn’t need as many seats as the Tories need now to win. Do Tories on here really think they can win 125 seats or so just for a majority of one? To be in with a chance, they need opinion poll leads like the one today not just for a few months but for a few years!
Of course Bromley is going to stay Conservative.
And, given how things are going so swimmingly for the Conservatives, or so we have been informed by Tory contributors to PB in the past few months - 70% is the least that they should be expecting!
82 - There is no evidence to support the assertion that the BNP cost the Tories ‘50 seats’. In many of the areas where the BNP did very well the turnout was up substantially - there is far more evidence to indicate that those who voted for the BNP just wouldn’t have voted. The BNP costs all the mainstream parties votes but mainly from Labour and the Tories. On the Greens costing the Lib Dems seats - yes there is evidence for that.
57 - Yes - looks like free money. And the same oddds looked like free money when they were attached to Labour in Dunfermline
80
‘Richard, the Lib Dems did NOT do badly!! haven’t you been reading this site?? It was a fanastic set of results given one poll showed them on 13% and all the bad publicity they had, and er…’
by Yellow Puerile June 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
First line of your sentence says the Lib Dems did not do badly and one line later on they had a fantastic set of results!
So which one is it?
A very unpopular government,a new Lib Dem leader in his honeymoon period,thousands of seats up for grabbs and the Lib Dems gain 1 seat!
Are you kidding or just trying to believe your own spin?
90 - I disagree Luke , if you would like to email me on markseniorcoins@msn.com , I will respond to you in detail with substantive evidence .
82 and 90.
I find myself agreeing with Mark regarding the BNP but you need to throw in UKIP as well to show how many seats were not won by the Conservatives due to protest votes going to those two parties.
90
I would have thought that the evidence from last month, in places like Barking & Dagenham was that the BNP was taking votes from Labour, as Tories and Lib Dems had at best a marginal presence in this constituency.
83 - And yet if it was Ben Abbotts who was to have a supposedly ‘false’ nomination declaration no doubt you would be on here defending him claiming he’d done nothing wrong.
87 - “Results in Richmond won’t give them confidence”. I don’t think anyone was surprised by the Richmond result Peter, and quite frankly if you think that one council should form the basis of your predictions for next year then you are making yourself look quite stupid.
95 But this was not true in West Yorkshire and Lancashire for example .
96 But I don’t have to defend Ben Abbotts for a false nomination paper but you do with your candidate .
92. Richard - (80) was supposed to be a spoof post..I thought the ‘err..’ bit at the end might have been a slight giveaway.
96. Arguing with some of the more swivel-eyed Lib Dems on here is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish.
The trouble is that every Lib Dem gain is remarkable and noteworthy because they make such a fuss about them; and they stand out because the Lib dems gain so few.
Richmond was one high point in a dismal local election night for the Liberal Democrats, I suppose we will just have to get used to being told that it’s the ‘launch pad’ for the Lib dems charge to No 10.
Again.
OT. The Scottish Fingerprint Service scandal rumbles on bringing nothing but discredit the the Lab/Lib Dem executive :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5114456.stm
99. ‘wrestle with a jellyfish’….I like that Marcus!
Don’t know if it has been mentioned anywhere else, but I watched the BG by-election debate between the AM and MP candidates on BBC 2 Wales yesterday- my thoughts (after discussing them with a local Labour guy):
-There was lots of applause for Trish Law, a little for Labour, and none really for anyone else, except the superb Plaid candidate for Westminster, who was by the far the most impressive (I don’t say that like Cymrumark does as a Plaid member). Get him a winnable seat soon!
-People were clear not content with the status quo. The race seems to have turned into a ‘who can offer us more’ fight, with Labour claiming that an opposition MP will not have any power. Person after person said that their job was lost, or they have had to move away for work, or the services and infrastructure is poor. If Labour win, it will be through gritted teeth for sure.
-Lots of jeers for the Labour guy. They did a good job in contradicting Labour policy. The Assembly Labour candidate said he wanted more funding for ambulances, but when it was pointed out that he was saying that his own party were underfunding it, he said that was incorrect, before agreeing with it. The Labour Parliamentary candidate said he was against the police force merger and trident. Thus we had the opposition line that he was going against his own party manifesto.
-I sense that Trish is far more popular than Dai. Labour are going mad to win this- 4 offices I was told by a Plaid elected official, and £100k + spent.
Election night will be VERY interesting and unpredictable.
[sorry for poor spelling and grammar 102- writing quickly]
99 Marcus. Not that the Tories have been lacking in “launch pad” stakes in recent years. However the whole process was undermined by Nick Soames thinking it was a Tory lunch pud !!
A final throw on Bromley
Con 51%
Lib 22%
UKIP 14%
Lab 10%
Oth 3%
Absolute majority reduced from lower turnout ,%majority unchanged.
Roger H
96 - I think Peter was suggesting that incumbent parties generally did badly in the locals and that the more seats/councils we have to defend the worse we will do.
That may have been true in Enfield and Richmond but in other places Barnet & Bromley for instance the incumbent party actually did better than than last time.
96 My point is that the conservativies control many council, but that very few of these were up for election last year. Richmond is an extreme example, but all parties did worse where they were defending. so 2007 will provide a better test (unless some is patient enough to to disaggregate the 2006 results by party control)
104 - Jack, I was allowed to stay up late last night only in the hope that I might be able to put a face to a name on a certain latex trip down TV memory lane ;). The ditties were fab, though others claimed the credit, notably an insufferably smug little Hisplop. But of the putative star attraction, appearance was there none
106 - Not bad in Barnet, particulalry seeing as before the locals the Conservative group was intent on war with itself.
But by Peter’s definition, don’t the Lib Dems themselves have more seats to defend in 2007, than 06?
02 - That’s very interesting. I can certainly see a situation where Labour win the Westminster seat but lose the Assembly one. Presumably Trish Law is likely to have a personal vote which the independent candidate for the Westminster seat won’t. I suspect that the fact that there are two elections at the same time will also help her – Labour voters will be able to vote for her whilst still casting a vote for Labour in the other seat.
Ironically, I imagine the Westminster seat is probably the one Labour would be least unhappy to lose.
So far, it looks like the Cameron strategy appears to be working. Hey, he’s cuddly! He’s harmless! He’s a centrist Tory you can vote for! Now all he has to do is pull a Bill Clinton for the next three years, wandering around with a big smile on his face and hugging everybody. (…but maybe I’m being too cynical…)
106 That´s it, Max. (Havering too showed Tory gains - anyone know the full story there?)
109 More Councils ? Yes I think so - and these include some traditionally Tory areas won in 2003 - I am not arguing that it is all bad news for you…
108 John O. Hang on ….. I’m trying to scramble out of the darkness in this bushel.
In truth the last four days have been a haze of horseflesh, feathers, champagne and single malt …… God, it’s a hard life …. and then my desolate offspring tells the world I’ve an Italian mistress !! …. Heck it must have been a great four days.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s best to ignore anyone giving any prediction unless it’s where they would or have put their money. I rather think that some, if asked to back up their emotional bleating with hard earned cash, would back down very quickly!
I still stick to - CON around 50%, LD 25-30%, the rest picking up the pieces with UKIP pushing labour close and maybe even overtaking.
109-.VftSW. If Tony Blair and Ming-ids Campbell are still party leaders by next May then the local elections of 2007 could be the last nail in the coffin for both of them.
I think Blair may stand down this summer with Ming-ids going after the locals next year after a net loss of Libdem seats.
100. JackW, Can you see this scandal ever ending while we have so many conflicting “experts” involved?
116 Chris D. You can get a “paid expert” on virtually any issue. However the balance of scientific evidence in this case is so overwhelming against the utterly discredited Scottish Fingerprint Service as to be embarrassing.
In the end the SFS will be disbanded and replaced. The bigger question is whether the political involvement in this case will come to light. Don’t hold your breath.
107. They were defending 57 councils in May, out of 176 up for election. Of these 53 were retained, 4 lost. Net seats rose by 48 in councils defended - seats were lost in 15 councils (45 in total, o/w 16 in Richmond) and gained or no change in the other 42 (93 in total o/w 9 in Bromley).
Next year’s elections will be a much better test of the relative Con/Lib Dem position..this year’s featured a lot more Con-Lab contests.
88 - We are admitting no such thing! Why dont people argue on the basis of what others have said rather than on what they WISH we might have said. I think we will get under 50% in B&C but have said that the implications for the GE are ZERO. I do think we can win the next GE and the two things are in no way linked.
83 - Mark - I have never been known to foam at the mouth!
82 - the LD losses in Sutton were nothing to do with Greens, who stood fewer candidates than last time round (2202). The Tory gains were due to very large increases in Conservative support in many wards. This rather casts doubts on the whole of your assertion.
99 - Marcus - exactly!
117. I agree JackW, I think that the whole handling of this affair has been one political “balls up” after another, they just don’t seem to want to stop digging until they have buried themselves.
“and then my desolate offspring tells the world I’ve an Italian mistress !! ….” It certainly made me curious enough to ask which PB.com regular was his dad.
119 - “I think we will get under 50% in B&C” - Rik expects disaster in Bromley. Why on earth will you do worse than the GE!
If you cannot get more than half the vote in Bromley then why aren’t you thinking seriously about PR. With the two largest parties struggling to get past 35% of the votes cast over the country then the unfairness of a minority party running the government must be concerning Honest Dave
119 - Interesting Rik - care to say how much under 50% the Tories will get - 40% or maybe 35%?
If that’s the case why has your campaign gone backwards? And although you are right it tells us nothing about the next General Elections - the trends are important (as they are in polls and local government elections).
When Labour in opposition and heading for government they usualy increased their vote at by-elections they were defending - sometimes by up to 20% points.
The Tories should be looking at 55-60% share of the vote in B&C to confirm the progress they are making in the polls and in local government elections. This isn’t just my view - Conservative posters on this site agree.
115: If Tony Blair and Ming-ids Campbell…
May I ask why you are conflating Sir Menzies Campbell and Iain Duncan Smith? The former is one of the most experienced and respected politicians in the country; the latter, a boss-eyed, right-wing nonentity with an intellect so low even his opponents found it an embarrassment.
119 - Your logic defeats me Rik probably because you do not show any . What has seats lost to your party in Sutton have to do with for example a seat not gained from Labour in say Leeds because of an increase in the Green vote . I agree with Marcus also , it is hard to debate with Conservatives who think another defeat in Sutton and 20 plus years in opposition is a triumph for the Conservatives .
Another example from 1978 safe Conservative seat Epsom Con plus 9.5% ( others were also plus 7.1% ) and you seriously think you cannot do as well as that now .
123. IDS is many things, but ‘one of the most experienced and respected politicians in the country’ is surely going a bit far.
And to call poor old Sir Ming “boss-eyed” is a bit mean, even for an Orange Booker like you.
Just because he is a self proclaimed ‘left wing politician to (his) core’ is no reason to be rude to him.
123 - So what has Sir Menzies Campbell actually run? By definition, he has never held Ministerial office, nor has he managed a business. He entered Parliament 4 years after his precessor. He is undoubtedly a successful and learned QC but honestly that that does not make him “one of the most experienced or respected politicians in the country”
123-Or Tk. I was being kind to Ming. IDS had good local election results when leader. I like Ming. Long may he continue as Libdem Leader.
122-Dan. I will be very happy with anything over 50% when one considers it is a by election and lots of other candidates. Remember the winning margin percentage is a better indicater. That will be around 30%.
However well we do, it will be spinned as not enough. If it were 99% some would want to know why it was not 100!
121 and 122 - Icarus - please dont misquote - I know you are a LD but there is no need to exaggerate!
Rik does NOT expect disaster in Bromley. Rik expects the Tories to win!
As I have patiently explained several times now (and all but the average LD understands) since it is a by-election and there are many candidates, and since UKIP will take a respectable share of the vote, the Tory share will be down slightly. I would expect 45-50% as reasonable. That certainly would not lead me to conclude that we should have PR!
124 - Mark the point is that you seem to think that Green progress undermined the poor Lib Dems. Your statement was “The increase in Green support in London cost the Lib Dems 20-25 gains” - i pointed out that in the London Borough of Sutton (where the LDs lost most seats) the Greens had nothing to do with it. It was an increase in Conservative vote that did for the LDs in many seats. Once again I point out that in Sutton and Cheam we WON the election, with a majority of the Councillors.
126 the 100 and 200 metres, John O…
129 -
Very nice one…liked that a lot!
For PJ (who knows is interested). The no is ahead in the Italian referendum and it seems with a comfortable margin.
130 you set it up very nicely
132 - I did rather, but would the distance been in metres back in 1964 or whenever, rather than good old fashioned yards?
Con 51.1% Lab 22.2% Lib Dem 20.3% UKIP 3.2% Green 3.2% - Just to remind everyone that was the GE result in Bromley.
Lots of labour voters will stay at home a) because they are unhappy with the party. b) Because there is no need to “support the party” - no government to elect. c) No chance here
So if 5% of the electorate who voted Labour last time (a quarter of the Labour GE vote) don’t turn out, then Tory share goes up to 53.7%.
Anything less than 60% would suggest that Dave is not yet a certainty for No 10. But I agree that By-elections are not a good guide to a general election still almost 4 years away.
129- Is he ok for around ten to twenty five seconds then but starts to wilt over any longer period?
126: Ming’s sagacity and gravitas are admired by people from across the political spectrum. Ming is so highly thought of that John Major, when PM, offered him a seat on the cabinet. That’s not bad for someone with no experience of running anything. (Ming, of course, told him where to get off.) I also agree with Peter Obourne writing in the London Evening Standard a few months back that a Ming-led Lib Dems would prove ‘lethal’ to the Tories across a swathe of seats.
132 - The Olympics were started by Monsieur Coubertin so I think they have always been metric.
131 - Andrea, I see on Reuters or AP that the exit poll (by Sky) shows the margin of defeat to be 52-48. Is that what you are hearing too? Sounds a bit close to comfort bearing in mind the general election polling fiasco
134- Earlier we were talking about combined Con/Lab vote share generally in elections.
I would like to turn that around with Bromley and ask who on here thinks the combined LAB/LIB voteshare on Thursday will be greater than the combined 42.5% of last year?
Didn’t expect you to consider PR Rik, but your Mr Cameron, he is trying to get the message over that Cameron’s Tories are different and fair. I heard John Humphreys this morning trying to get him to admit that he actually had a policy on anything - Answer for Mr Cameron: “I dont, I am going to get some consitutional experts and lawyers to make one for me!”
Watch this space for Cameron to back PR - may take 2 or 3 years though.
136 - “Sagacity and Gravitas”, Charles Dickens couldn’t have put it better
. A seat ON the Cabinet: the mind boggles 
139 - Would have thought 32.5% would be more like it (25% Lib Dem 7.5% Labour)
99 Marcus is clearly right.
The Lib Dems gaining Richmond from the Tories was not typical. Nor was the Lib Dems gaining South Lakeland from the Tories.
Much more typical were all those councils the Tories gained from the Lib Dems …
… perhaps Marcus could provide a list of these?
137 - I thought the Athenians took that honour?!
128 Rik , debating with you is like communicating with the deaf and blind . What has Sutton to do with a seat not gained from Labour in Harringey say because of Green intervention . Your colleague Sean Fear has stated exactly the same as I have on this point .
139 - Not me Darren but so what - what is the point of your question ?
128 - Rik - I can understand the logic that there might be a small siphoning off of share of vote to minor parties in a by-election given the lower turnout.
This factor would also hit Labour and the Lib Dems. So you still, presumably, expect the Conservatives to win by a similar or larger pecentage margin than in the general, even if the actual percentage slips a little?