What do we make of Newsnight’s Kennedy v Ming poll?
July 21st, 2006-
Do “budget” non-voting intention surveys tell us anything?
So far we haven’t covered the ICM poll findings that were presented to Ming Campbell in a 25 minute feature on Newsnight on Wednesday evening. The most cruel figures from the new leader’s point of view was a comparison with his predecessor, Charles Kennedy. By 53-26 those surveyed preferred the old leader to the new.
Comparing which of the three presumed party leaders at the next election “had the qualities needed to be Prime Minister” the poll split Cameron 41: Brown 37: Campbell 24. On policy areas Labour were be seen as the strongest party on the economy, the Tories on crime and the Lib Dems, by a small margin on the environment.
We have not seen the full data yet but I assume that these were “bolted on” questions to one of ICM omnibus surveys where the samples are not adjusted to be politically representative. Such surveys are most popular with producers who have small budgets. In proper voting intention polls ICM ask how people voted last time and weight their findings in line with the answers.
-
As a result I only rate these numbers as “vaguely interesting” and certainly they did not provide the substance to make the point that Newsnight was trying to establish.
If ICM had found, using a politically weighted sample adjusting for turnout, that people would be more likely to vote Lib Dem with Kennedy as leader then you have an interesting finding. But this wasn’t that sort of poll.
When presented with the data Ming responded by observing that at this stage in Kennedy’s leadership the Lib Dems were polling at 12% compared with the 17-19% now. Quite rightly Ming was pointing to voting intention figures but he was wrongly advised about how the Lib Dems were performing in the months after Kennedy succession.
The only valid comparison is with the only pollster from 1999 that’s still carrying out surveys in the same way, ICM, which was reporting party shares of 17%, not 12%, four months after Kennedy’s election.
The next ICM poll that really matters will be the July survey for the Guardian which should be out early next week.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I don’t see the point Mike? Emperor Ming is not as good as Kennedy? So tell me something I don’t know! At the end of the day the YouGov Daily Tracker shows that David Cameron is by far the most popular party leader, and the Conservatives are ahead in the polls, although not by enough to win (yet)! The Lib Dems remain a distant hope in third, and as the decision comes between a corrupted fourth term Labour Government, or a new Camerons Conservative government, I think we’ll see the return of two party politics…!
No but seriously, what does this show? We already know that for Lib Dems their support isn’t related to the leadership (or policies) in the way that the other two parties have been. So lack of leadership by Grandpa Ming doesn’t really matter in this context. Where it would matter is if he messed around with Cowley Street and did something unthinkable like sacked Rennard (please, give me hope!) as that would seriously damage the party.
To be honest, I feel kind of wrong talking about the leader of another party like this. I didn’t like it when we’d elected IDS as leader, so I doubt Lib Dems like it now they have their own.
The only problem with the whole of your spin, Ben, is that Chameron is becoming increasingly less popular - and this is not surprising, when you consider that he is a politician with no policies. It follows, then, that you Tories are not on the way up, and even less on the road to victory. People I speak to greatly prefer Ming´s substance over Chameron´s style, because even that is false.
I think, retrospectively, that your Tories made a great mistake in not going for Davis - you were totally led astray by the Luntz spin operation, and now you are paying the price.
I wonder how the Lib Dems’ new tax cut plans will affect their support figures?
There is no doubt that if people were asked if they would prefer Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron as leader of the Conservatives a surprisingly high % would say yes .
I watched Newsnight and the programme with interest.
My initial thoughts were:-
-what were the figures re Thatcher and Major in the months and years after the coup
-many people would recognise Kennedy’s name before Campbell, I have met people recently who think CK is the leader, still!
-considering the battering he has taken in the Commons 24% was pretty high for prime ministerial qualities
-he did much much, better than I might have expected, stood his ground well, and took Martha on, and in the end seemed to
overcome her approach - may bode well for him in the TV one to one panel situation at a General Election, which he says is next year!
-think the programme will have helped him strengthen his position within the party
-the audience, where did they come from, at one point I thought they were all Lib Dems asking questions, judging by how well he appeared to have responded, and their calm acceptance of his answers.
-totally confused over the alleged crime policy. MC seemed to present a much softer line than the introduction made out. Must read up on this
-most people vote for the presentation of the party as they perceive it to be, not really the leader. That is where the Conservatives may still have problems, people are more confused than a few months ago, probably explains why they are not at 45%+, which is what I would have expected by now. Mind you the next poll may show that, who knows.
2. Reading this, I was tempted to pen a parody of the Lib Dems’ various attempts to dismiss bad polls or election results - of the sort Mark amused us with a couple of days ago. But I have decided not to - I cannot produce anything funnier than the real thing.
re 5. On your final point we now live in a period where polls are much more stable and more accurate. The techniques pioneered by ICM to ensure politically balanced samples are used by almost all of the other pollsters so you should not expect the wild fluctuations of yesteryear.
I’m also becoming convinced that there is much less movement in public opinion than people think. That’s why the challenge for the Tories is so great.
I’m doing an analysis on this for publication during a quiet period in the summer.
Looking at an opinion poll on leader approval at this stage is a somewhat less accurate way of foretelling the next general election resulting than consulting my esteemed Almanack.
The Derby may be won by a three-year old. The next prime minister may be male. There may be some weather in November.
I don’t think we can argue with the poll and watching newsnight it was easy to see why. I’d forgotten Charles because of the grubby manner of his passing but watching Ming it was easy to look back and compare the two. And Charles certainly had something that Ming doesn’t have. But if the Libs ever wanted to become a serious mainstream party they have a better chance now than they ever had before. Ming seems to be setting them up with serious policies which Charles was unable to do
To every thing, turn turn turn,
There is a season, turn turn,turn,
A time to roll over and lick the nether regions of the Israeli government….
A time to do it again ‘cos Goeorge Bush says so, Yo!!!
Funnily enough, the Arab-Palestine-Lebanon-Israeli issue is probably one where Ming Cambell is likely to be a sounder and better performer than Charles Kennedy.
Campbell -v- Kennedy. Well, at least we can agree that it is a two horse race……
‘Ming Campbell is IDS with a Scottish accent.’ Feedback from a now ex Lib Dem voter during the May local elections.
‘Ming Campbell is IDS with a Scottish accent.’
Comparing politicians is difficult. i always though Blair towered over Kennedy as a politician in a way that he doesn’t and couldn’t with Ming. Yet according to the poll twice as many preferred Charles to Ming. i wonder what the score would have been if Charles had replaced Ming in the “Qualities to be Prime Minister”?
Local byelection:
The result for Stratford District is:
Priscilla Jean Cook (Liberal Democrat) 804 votes
Laura Susan Main (Conservative) 897 votes elected
John Murray Ritchie (Labour) 197 votes
Turnout 35.9%
The result for Warwickshire County Council is:
David William Johnston (Liberal Democrat) 776 votes
Laura Susan Main (Conservative) 1112 votes elected
John Murray Ritchie (Labour) 227 votes
Turnout: 35.7%
Con holds in both cases
4 - Mark that wouldn’t really be comparing like with like. Surely the question would be who do you prefer David Cameron or Michael Howard.
Of course the really shocking finding from this poll is that David Cameron polled 0% ( a fact conveniently over looked by the usual Tory spinners) . Proof - if any more were needed - that the honeymoon is over and the Conservative party membership has made a terrible mistake.
I may be wrong, but I never recall Kennedy polling as much as 24% for “had the qualities needed to be Prime Minister”. This figure is shockingly high.
Can anybody find some data on this?
MS thinks that there is less movement in public opinion than there used to be [7]. There is no evidence for that. It is accurate to point out that opinion polls show fewer wild swings than before, but that is not the same.
One party will ’smell’ right at the next GE, and that one will win.
Re 7 Absolutely, which is why the challenge facing DC is to constantly repeat the mantra that the Conservatives have changed because until floating voters start to listen and even consider voting Con there is little chance of a major breakthrough and a return to Government. The chaalenge for the LD’s is the relevance problem. General Election’s are about choosing a Governmentnd the problem for the LD’s is that in too many Constituencies ( where the Tories have a chance) voters know that voting LD will not bring about a change of Government.
MACCLESFIELD HURDSFIELD WARD
LD 500
Labour 178
Con 82
Ind 53
Green 45
Turnout 25.29%
LD hold
18 N Tory - your presumption is that in many constituencies where the Tories have a chance potential LD voters WANT to brng about a change of government - in my area (safish Tory seat) the message we (LD) will be banging home to the remaining Lab voters is that voting for us will NOT bring about a change of government - indeed by having an extra LD MP it makes it harder to have a change in government
You seem to assume that many Lab voters have suddenly switched to wanting to see a Tory government - that is certainly not my experience on the ground here in Poole
19. It’s funny. Last may 858 people voted in that ward, yesterday 858 people voted.
Libdems are up, Labour down, the tories collapsed and the Greens didn’t contest the seat last time
In Warwickshire CC, the tories are up, the LDs down and Labour up
15. Max - that was a very creditable effort to do what I thought wasn’t possible.
The May result in Macclesfield was LibDem 455 Lab 211 Con 192
Re Stratford the Conservative was unopposed in May perhaps a LibDem nomination error . I had thought the boundaries for the Districy and County seats were identical but it appears not .
By PA Elections Editor
Tories have taken overall control of Dover District Council in Kent after a landslide double by-election victory.
Candidates Sue Chandler and Jane Sheridan won two seats at Little Stour and Ashstone, defending one and gaining the other from the Liberal Democrats.
There was a net 17.6% swing from the Lib Dems to the Tories.
Like Ben Redsell I dont think the popularity of the Ld leader has as much impact on Ld support as the popularity of the Con or Lab Leader has on their parties.
I can understand from Ld posters here why Kennedy had to go but I also think that there is an element of “go back to your constituencuies…” mania that the LD’s are historically prone too from time to time.
That if only a new leader or direction was chosen then 100-150 mps would follow.
If we are to return to three party politics I can only see it as a slow and gradual process, The Ld’s have done well but from a low base it does not follow that sucess will continue at the same rate.
Fights over whether the Leadership is effective enough to me seem intertwined with this
In a curious way I’d argue that a big issue for the Ld’s since Kennedy has been dealing with the destabilising effects of sucesss and rapid growth on the dynamics of the party. In a ten year period how many new Mps have they gained proportionate to their size, 30 % ? 50 % ?
In 2005 they gained something like 10 seats,compared to the main parties nothing but proprtionaly a lot, especially when you bear in mind what sort of numbers are needed for a vote of no confidence.
Kennedy I felt was doing a very difficult job in holding together the various strands and ambitions within his Parliamentary party when suddenly he had to deal with another 20%- Its a very destabilising influence, imagine if Cameron doesnt win the next election but gains 20% more seats.
The other difficult issue for LD leaders is why/when they resign?
Con and Lab leaders are expected to win or lose a GE and this provides clear pressure and timing. A lD leader could continue to improve his parties standing for 15 years without getting any closer to power.
Maybe Kennedy got it too early and leaving him would have blocked too many careers.
I agree with Mike on both the ICM poll on Ming and on movements of public opinion. On the former, I think it’s mostly name recognition. Most people know CK and think him quite a good fellow with a bit of a drink problem, but hey, there are worse things. They don’t really know Ming yet.
On public opinion, it depends what one defines as large movements, but if we take the rough average to be something like Con 38 Lab 33 LD 21, that’s a 3.5% swing to the Tories since the last election. That’s no big deal, especially as it mostly seems down to varied determination to vote (which changes a good deal over time) rather than actual switching of preference. What has clearly changed is that people take a more jaundiced view of the Government than a year ago (though many were not wildly keen on us then either, the floating voters merely decided we were the lesser evil). Since that hasn’t yet been reflected in a surge of enthusiasm for anyone else, the polls remain sluggish. It’s perfectly possible that the Government will improve its reputation (e.g. stop scoring own goals, or after a change of leadership) or that the Tories or LibDems will start to strike peoople as convincing. We’ll see. But for now Mike is perfectly correct - there is no big shift of people from one party to another.
Those by-elections look mildly discouraging for the Tories, but all the usual caveats apply.
PS While I was posting that, the Dover result came up, which is gobviousaly good for the Tories. So scratch the last line!
LibDem Gain from Con in New Forest DC Totton West
LibDem 535 Con 498 Lab 79 - 2003 2 seats Con 455/403 LibDem 417/414
Is it worth noting that Brown is doing quite well in this poll. The only one who isn’t actually a leader.
If (big if) he becomes leader surely he can expect his ratings to get higher as people accept him in the leadership role.
I have been informed that Conservatives have held one, and gained one,in Dover, which gives them control of the council.
Hartlepool has just started counting.
27 Nick P. “…. gobviosaly good …”
Well we know some Tories have a mouth on them Nick, but I think that’s a bit unkind !!
Comfortable Con hold in Chichester West Wittering Con 868 Ind 330 LibDem 139 BNP 123 Lab 48 - 2003 result Con 938/843 LibDem 346/285 UKIP 325 Lab 107/81 Green 93
re 29. I disagree completely. Brown is doing appallingly in this poll particularly because there was no past vote weighting to ensure a balanced sample.
All the evidence is that when you make random phone calls, as in a poll, and ask how people voted last time you will get 45% saying they went with Labour.
Bridport, in Dorset, had a Town Council election yesterday
The result was
Lib Dem 484
Tory 455
Lib Dem hold. The Lib Dem was a first-time candidate; the Tory was an ex-mayor, who had been on the council for 19 years (often as a Lib Dem!) Both parties pulled out all the stops (including Oliver Letwin MP), and got a turn-out of 33%
One notable feature was that the Postal Vote turnout was 62%.
32 Yet again, UKIP fail to contest an election in a place where they have coniderable support.
“Comparing which of the three presumed party leaders at the next election “had the qualities needed to be Prime Minister” the poll split Cameron 41: Brown 37: Campbell 24.”
Can I point out that the total is 102?
36 Andrea. If it had been 103 I’d have understood !!
Jack W is ……
36 - Not sure how they’ve done that… I could easily say that Brown and Campbell both have the qualities needed I suppose, but then I’d expect a noticeably greater than 100 total.
36 - quite possible with rounding:
Cameron 40.66: Brown 37.67: Campbell 24.67 = total of 100
Campbell is actually looking more “prime ministerial” (24%) in this poll that his party’s poll rating (c. 18%). I know Kennedy was popular and had high approval ratings, but I don’t think he ever looked remotely like prime minister material, but I’d like to see his past polls on this issue.
sorry
my sums on the totals are wrong…
OT. BBC reporting that growth rate up to 2.6%, the highest for 2 years.
34. But what you fail to mention was that the Tory candidate in Bridport was actually a defector from the Lib Dems…and before that from Labour! this was his first effort at getting elected as a Tory. The seat being contested was previously held by a very long serving Lib Dem councillor…they would have been very upset to lose it.
39. They could have left the exact numbers. If they round and end up with a more than 100% total, it just look weird.
Today is the 12 years old anniversary of Blair election as Labour leader….and of Prezza election as deputy.
“re 29. I disagree completely. Brown is doing appallingly in this poll particularly because there was no past vote weighting to ensure a balanced sample”
With my new neutral hat on it’s difficult to see how someone who isn’t currently a leader could have done much better. Anyway mike try joining me and Green2Win in leaving your prejudices behind. It makes punditry much more fun.
Yes SBS but in your example it would be reported as 41:38:25 = 104 because 40.66+37.67+24.67 = 103!!
45 - Indeed… with rounding you can get from 100 to 101, but you shouldn’t be able to get to 102 with only 3 rounded numbers being summed.
Sorry 44 should read Beige2Win
Delighted that Andrea’s “anti Lib Dem mood” has lifted.
OT Thoughts whilst listening to Today about our Middle East Policy 50 years ago.
Eden, the undisputed master of foreign affairs, long time crown prince to Churchill especially in the Middle East takes over the throne and comes a cropper over foreign affairs.
Brown, master of the nation’s finances,long term etc…., will he have a financial crisis to contend with? Will he be another Eden?
I see Israel are preparing to invade southern Lebanon. I have no idea what the solution is but this doesnt seem to help.
[37] Anyone else noticed that while the rest of us have had birthdays in the last twelve months, you-know-who hasn’t
?
The £1000 punter on the “Blair will be arrested bet” was Kelvin MacKenzie - former editor of the Sun.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006330580,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=TheSun:News
46. yes, to round at 41/37/24 they should have at least 40.51%, 36.51% and 23.51%…which is more than 100%.
48. yes, Icarus, it’s faiding away…for the moment
50. why did they have to put a naked woman in the article?
52 - It’s the Sun… isn’t that excuse enough for them?
7. Mike stated “…we now live in a period where polls are much more stable and more accurate.” Intrigued.
More stable, perhaps … but more accurate? What is the evidence for this?
A couple of questions to which I have long wanted to know the answer are: what is the error on a poll percentage figure? And how is it calculated?
Most scientists would argue that a measurement is valueless without its error estimate.
35 - UKIP’s attitude is odd; perhaps they simply lack the resources in the area. The BNP also stood in a bye in Chichester West about a year ago, and are obviously seeking to build a base there.
54 - Most political polls have a sample size of a shade over 1000 people which gives a Margin of Error of 3%.
There is to be a byelection in Harrow Harrow Weald ward where one of the newly elected Conservative candidates has sadly died . The Conservatives took control in May helped by gaining the 3 seats in this ward from the Lib Dems . In a move to blunt a Lib Dem campaign , they have called the byelection even before the funeral for August 24th when many voters will be away on holiday .
The Newsnight poll is pretty meaningless. To compare a leader who has fought two general elections (with all the publicity that entails for them) with someone who’s had just six months in the job is always going to reflect badly on the ‘newbie’ (however experienced he is).
I don’t beleive the question was ever asked on the Ashdown/Kenedy change over but the following ICM figures show a clear phenomenon of uncertainty about the new leader.
Ashdown: Satisfied / Dissatisfied
Mar 99 = 53 / 18
Apr 99 = 55 / 18
May 99 = 52 / 20
Jun 99 = 53 / 16
Jul 99 = 55 / 16
Kennedy: Satisfied / Dissatisfied
Aug 99 = 21 / 10
Sep 99 = 24 / 11
Oct 99 = 23 / 13
Nov 99 = 28 / 11
Dec 99 = 29 / 15
I’d bet that if the question ‘who do you prefer’ was asked it would have generated a similar response.
I’m not arguing that everything however is rosy. Ming’s ratings are significantly lower than his predecessors and having a leader with overall negative ratings doesn’t help - but it may not hinder in the same way as it does for Labour and Tories (as posters above have pointed out). But there is evidence that Ming is growing into the job - the best PM question is highly significant. While I don’t think he’ll ever be a figure that people will find likeable and warm - I think people will respect him.
There’s an old adage that in politics it is better to be respected than liked. I wonder whether the Cameroonies will take note?
I think this must be a multi-answer question - “which of these have prime ministerial qualities” rather than a single choice “which one would make the best PM”. After all, you would expect a fair number to say “none of them” and the Don’t Knows are not usually excluded from the results this kind of question.
I have just spoken to a friend in Beirut who tells me the irony is that most Christians (like himself) were more sympathetic to the Israelis than they were to Hizbollah. This has now changed of course and he suspects that despite the appearance of things the Isrealis might be making their first major miscalculation for a long time.
In reply to my offer of help he replied “prayers”…….which unfortunately I don’t do.
Anna?
39. Wasn’t Kennedy down to about 11% before Christmas 2005? I can’t remember the exact figure, but there was a major dip.
58 - Dan, I agree 100% with your sound analysis
50 - there are two possible outcomes of prolonged Israeli action in Lebanon.
1/ Lebanese of all faiths become increasingly supportive of Hizbollah, seeing them as the guardians of the Phoenicians (as the Lebanese like to think of themselves) against a nation they feel is out to destroy them. Surely, this is not a good outcome.
2/ Lebanon fractures totally by religion. We could then get either a Balkan, or Iraqi scenario - but with Maronite, Druze, Sunni and Shiites - 4 factions. A worse outcome.
33 “Appallingly bad” is rather the strong.
BTW “All the evidence is that when you make random phone calls, as in a poll, and ask how people voted last time you will get 45% saying they went with Labour.”
Does this hold true in 2006?
Anyway, surely this is at least cancelled out by the fact he ISN’T leader, which will totally determine people attitudes to him. he will get a lot more acceptance and respect if (big if) he makes it.
IMO he’s still doing quite well.
57 - Good planning; the LDs have suffered enormously in Harrow, and local Conservatives are obviously determined to leave them no way back. Harrow Weald supplied the entire LD contingent of councillors in the 2002 nominations debacle; they were swept out in May, leaving the LDs with only one councillor.
The Dover result was not actually too much of a surprise. The former LD councillor had a very strong personal vote and it was unlikely to be held. Although the Labour Party will now lose influence (without actually losing a seat) the Tories were in effect running the council anyway so no change on the ground. This shouldn’t have too much of a dent on Gwyn Prosser’s MP majority. (I hope not as his a nice bloke who I once stood against!)
65 a good try but we will see whether it works or not . Mind imagine the Tory faux outrage if Lib Dems had started campaigning before the funeral . I hear the new Conservative controlled council have already upset lots of voters over refuse collection .
re polling stability. ICM carried out 26 surveys for the Guardian between June 2003 and the May 2005 General Election. On the Tory share
1 poll had the party at 35%
4 polls had the party at 34%
11 polls had the party at 33%
5 polls had the party at 32%
3 polls had the party at 31%
2 polls had the party at 30%
In the election itself the Tory share was 33%.
For 37% of respondants to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the qualities needed to be Prime minister after nine years in post is phenominal however you look at it and certainly unprecedented.
25 - Interesting post from Crossland, but I would make a couple of comments.
“I also think that there is an element of “go back to your constituencuies…” mania that the LD’s are historically prone too from time to time. That if only a new leader or direction was chosen then 100-150 mps would follow.” I don’t think the facts really bear this out. Until the events of this Spring there hadn’t been a Liberal / Lib Dem leader removed by the Party since Thorpe in the 1970s - indeed in all that time I can’t remember any serious talk of any leadership challenge, even when Steel was very unpopular with many activists in the mid 80s. One thing that Lib Dems have NOT done over the last 30 years is fall for the idea that we can sweep to success simply by changing leaders.
As far as “new directions” are concerned, I’m also struggling to think of many examples. Obviously, individual policies have changed over time in response to events, but the idea of the Party deciding to go in a completely “new direction” isn’t something I can really remember.
The question of the destabilising effect of large percentage increases in the number of MPs is an interesting one, and it’s possible that there may be some truth in it. It’s worth remembering, however, that the Lib Dems are far less dominated by their MPs than the other 2 main parties. Many (perhaps most) of the new MPs at the last few elections have been people who were already senior figures within the Party, who the Leader would have been dealing with on a regular basis anyway.
As far as the question of why / when Lib Dem Leaders resign, the short answer is that generally they don’t, they simply carry on until they want to retire. That was certainly the case with Ashdown and Steel (and if you go back far enough, Grimond). The only exceptions were Thorpe and Kennedy, who went as a result of personal issues becoming public. I would guess that a fairly long serving Leader might be more inclined to consider retirement if the Party had made significant losses at a General Election, but there’s certainly no “one bad result and you’re out” attitude which seems to have become normal with the Conservatives in recent years.
According to YouGov, more people (18%) thought Tony Blair had an attractive personality in December 2005 than Charles Kennedy (17%). (Cameron rated 23%). The important thing, of course, is that people now remember when they did give him high ratings - when he was perceived to be doing better as a leader?
This shows the initial problems in the personality stakes CK had in taking over from Ashdown:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/vote-intention-reports/party-leader-attributes.asp
69 With perhaps the exception of Ken Clarke, since Sunny Jim no serious long term chancellor has done as well as getting into the next PM role.
For some reason it’s a totally different job. You have to appear to be more serious and clever than a PM, which goes against the common touch that a PM needs.
As Kevin L says at 59, I think it was three separate questions (or a tick all that apply) rather than a question that asked people to pick just one of the three politicians.
70 - Surely, Steel would have found it difficult to stay on as leader after the merger, as it would look a little too much like a Liberal takeover?
73. in this case it would be interesting to see how many replied “no” and how many “don’t know”
There is a big perception problem with Ming Campbell; no fault of his own, but he looks much older than he is; in all the campaign photops in LD News he is surrounded by youthful people and it highlights the generational difference. He is better in studio interviews where there is make up and no youthful backdrop.
Maybe he would sit better in a tory setting where the average age is more than is higher.
He scores well on gravitas and respect but not on inspiration, warmth and enthusiasm. In PMQs his backbenchers often come over with more likeability and often sharper,than the leader.
As I keep saying the parliamentary party got us into this mess by chucking Charles precipitously before they had groomed a credible leader.
Cllr.(generationally challenged)Beth
Let’s compare like with like……
I wonder how many respondents would think George Osborne had the qualities needed to be Prime minister? Perhaps under 2%? Or Vince Cable? Many more than Osborne I’d imagine.
76. How long do you think the Lib dems could have limped on for after charles announced he was an unreformed alcoholic? The press wouldn’t have left him alone.
77. Bring on that poll!
77. At the time of the last budget debate, John McDonnell was outlining the Campaign Group “shadow” budget. At one point fellow Campaign Grouper David Taylor addressed McDonnell as “second shadow Chancellor”…..who was the first Shadow Chancellor in his opinion? Osborne or Cable?
re 77. During the Tory leadership contest Michael Portillo argued that if the party was to skip a generation it should go for Osborne - not Cameron. I think Osborne’s problem - like Nick Clegg - is his squeaky voice which it is hard to take seriously. But it was Osborne’s strategy that screwed Labour on the Education Bill and I see Osborne hand behind the only English MPs voting on English matters move.
I always thought that Vince Cable would have been a better bet for the Lib Dems than Ming and I was not impressed by the latter’s Newsnight performance. All this “I gave up being a high Court judge” for the party did not go down well at all and made him look arrogant. But in his favour he has made serious changes in the way the party operates and that will bring its rewards.
The £1000 punter on the “Blair will be arrested bet” was Kelvin MacKenzie - former editor of the Sun.
On yesterday’s thread it was reported that the Max bet was £50?
81. Michael’s judgement as sound as always…
74 - Yes, actually that’s probably true. My guess is that he would probably have been thinking of standing down around then anyway though, given the fact he’d been leader for about 10 years by then.
58 - Dan has got it about right. I’m sure it was similar at the Steel/Ashdown changeover as well. It takes a long time for third party leaders to build their profile.
59 - That is certainly how it was put across on Newsnight.
81. ? Nick Clegg doesn’t have a squeaky voice.
In about 1990, most people did not even know the name of the third party. That includes activists. The PPBs referred to “The Democrats”. Most of the public probably assumed it was run by David Owen. Ashdown took about 3 years to be widely recognised.
87. Dozens of people canvassed in this part of the world at the GE thought Ashdown was still Lib Dem leader, with quite a few references to voting for ‘Paddy’s lot’. Oddly one old chap thought he was the Tory leader and was determined to vote ‘Liberal’ as a result…
Re: 76 - Afternoon all
As an LD member and supporter of CK, I was unnerved by the manner of his departure. That said, it has become evident from what I have heard from far more senior colleagues that the CK leadership had all but collapsed. True, we were apparently floating along on a cloud of general warmth toward CK but political parties can’t just function on the apparent goodwill toward the leader (as the Conservatives will find out).
In terms of policy direction and, if nothing else, plain ordinary thinking, we were going nowhere under CK. The insinuations about CK’s alcohol problems would, in time, have broken out of the Westminster goldfish bowl and however much voters might have liked or even sympathised with CK, it just wouldn’t have worked.
As parties are wont to do, the successor chosen is the personality opposite of the predecessor (note the contrast between Howard and Cameron, Major and Thatcher and even Smith and Kinnock). In choosing Menzies (and I didn’t vote for him), the Party made a conscious move away from the “chatshow Charlie” image. We felt we needed gravitas and Menzies has it in spades. What he didn’t and arguably doesn’t have is charisma or rapport and the early PMQ debacle was a huge blow.
That said, Menzies remains a commanding figure especially on foreign policy issues where he completely outshines Margaret Beckett (has she said ANYTHING about events in the Middle East ?) or Liam Fox. In areas such as policy thought and the actual day-to-day running of the Party machine, he has taken us several steps forward and Bromley was an example of that direction.
Menzies will never have the rapport with voters that Cameron has at present but we are electing a Prime Minister not the next host of GMTV or Strictly Come Dancing so while warmth and rapport are important, the ability to project a measured and expert persona is far more important.
I put Cameron along with CK and Neil Kinnock in that they work well with people but will not be seen as having the authority to cut it at the highest level. Mrs Thatcher had that authority, Blair has it too whatever people may think of him. Does Menzies have it ? To be honest, I think he does.
Again, the question is what kind of Prime Minister will the nation want ? If they want someone friendly who will make them feel superficially good about themselves and life, Cameron will be the man. Occasionally, though, Prime Ministers need to be more than the “nice bloke next door” - they need to exude an authority which, to be honest, may make them seem unattractive and distant but will also exude the capability to take the tough decisions. Mrs Thatcher in 1979 filled that bill perfectly and retained a political authority and hegemony despite being widely disliked.
OT but Labour refuses to allow a full independent enquiry into Precott.
Instead of just calling for one, the Tories should make a public promise to put such matters in the hands of an independent body (perhaps a cross-party cttee) when they reach government.
It would be a big winner.
Hartlepool Park Ward Conservative hold on very low turnout
Con 468 UKIP 208 Lab 121 LibDem 99 BNP 68 No Desc 51 - Result in May Con 863 UKIP 450 LibDem 236 Lab 222
89.”he completely outshines Margaret Beckett (has she said ANYTHING about events in the Middle East ?) ”
yes, yesterday there was a bedate about it in the Commons.
87 - Of course for a fair while around then we weren’t the third party - we were behind the Greens in the polls. I have an idea there might have even been the odd poll showing us behind David Owen’s “continuing” SDP (though I suspect most of the public didn’t actually understand the difference).
32 - There’s really a place called West Wittering?
93. Yes. Nice beach there.
“Dozens of people canvassed in this part of the world at the GE thought Ashdown was still Lib Dem leader, with quite a few references to voting for ‘Paddy’s lot’”
I recall an anecdote relayed by Phil Cowley about a candidate in Oxford West & Abingdon in 1997 who was informed by a voter that she wouldn’t be supporting him because “I always vote for that nice Mr Neave”, oblivious to the fact that he had been murdered almost 20 years ago.
MORI July 1989
http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml
Lib Dem 4% SDP 4% Greens 8%.
“I have an idea there might have even been the odd poll showing us behind David Owen’s “continuing” SDP”
There was a MORI one in December 88, and a couple more with the SLD (or whatever it was that week) level with the SDP. I think the nadir was July 1989 in joint 4th place with the SDP on 4%, and the Greens in third place on 8%.
95. Ouch…that one takes some beating.
97. Is there still a ‘Continuity SDP’?
98 - not sure about the continuity SDP, but there was an SDP candidate in the Neath(?) by-election several months after David Owen had finally decommissioned them. IIRC, he looked like Gerald Kaufmann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_%28UK%2C_1990%29
Yes, there is a contiuity SDP.
98 - Yes - it’s registered with the Electoral Commission. It has a couple of councillors in Neath, on Richmondshire DC and on Bridlington TC.
98 Possibly but I expect Andrea will have answered before I type in the link to their last set of accounts http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/SocialDemocraticParty_18985-14050_E_N_S_W_.PDF
This is more for Sean Fear’s commentary but posted in current thread.
Date now set for Elmbridge BC by-election in Walton (on Thames) Central ward, 24 August.
A large pensioner vote in an affluent Surrey town centre/riverside ward with big development issues. It has been returning Residents / amenity councillors since 1980 (the deceased cllr. serving continuously). Walton Society also won the wider County seat in 2005.
The last Tory victory here was c.1991 but they did make 4-5 gains from Residents in neighbouring wards in May and took minority control of the council, with John O in the Cabinet.
May 2006 result : Walton Society 926 Con 555 LD 157 Lab 126
2004 : W Soc 824 Con 590 LD 121 Lab 117 Green 89
101. 102. Many thanks!
Sounds as if they are about the same size as the Northern Tories
70,Good points you make about my LD generalisations
Would you argue then that post Ashdown what has happend in the LD’s is a new development for Liberals ?
To refine things I suppose im putting forward the idea that the ” we are within 2 parliaments of power” belief that surfaces when the LD’s do well is fundamentally unrealistic.
When the hoped for breakthrough doesn’t come then the steady progress or standing still looks dissapointing and people start to look for explanations - generally Leadership and Policy would be the chief ones.
What fascinates me is how ’systemic’ the position of the parties is and how they organise themselves accordingly. For example while the LD’s strive to create an identity of their own their ‘position’ makes them the natural home for ‘protest votes’.
Harvesting the protest vote is clearly useful in terms of gaining seats but also creates a limit to further progress, at some point it creates diminishing returns.You can only give it up when you are in a strong enough position organisationaly.
These two conflicting currents will also be reflected in the membership and to some extent at MP level and account for two LD stereotypes the ‘civilising protector of liberty’ and the ‘unstable Maverick oddball’.
Im curious about whether the recent sucess of the LD’s ( past 20 years) means that a critical mass has been reached . Kennedy’s style seemed to be to hold the contradictions and as long as the progress seemed large enough no one was too bothered .
Like Kinnock in Lab he was the man to take the party to within grasp of the next stage but no further.
103 - Fred, Thanks. Perfect description of the ward.
105. Pardon!! Hope no one is being Sizest
105 Talking about smaller parties , there are some strange ones registered with the Electoral Commission . Adam Lyal’s Witchery Tour Party sounds fun , less so Church of the militant Elvis based in Nottingham . Tigers eye is intriguing and the Fat Cat Party has a membership of 2 . My favourite though is The Doom Is Nigh Party which fortunately seems to be dormant .
109… and The Idle Toad Party does surprisingly well around the Preston Area!
109. Don’t forget the “No Candidate Deserves my Vote!” party!
110. Does anyone know the origins of the Idle Toad group?
111. As I frequently point out the ” Stay at Home ” Party is the real winner of most elections. Just about every local election and in recent times it wins in most Constituencies too!
Does anyone else think that Charles Clarke taking the “anti-nuclear New Labour reformer” role gives him an ideal “Stop Gordon” position for the leadership among the soft left?
Clareke would seem to be more interested in the “renewal” idea than Brown. Brown may be the roadblock to reform, but while Tony Blair stays he is the roadblock to renewal.
112. According to Wikipedia, their name is taken from a newsletter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idle_Toad
113. Not a single MP got the backing of more than half of his electorate (not the actual voters, but the potential voters). And just 2 (Gerry Adams and Christ Bryant) polled more than 40% of the total constituents.
Surely no one thinks Charles Clarke has any appeal whatsoever to the voters?
112. The Idle Toad Party have 4 Councillors on South Ribble Council. How active they are is of course another matter!
109 - Mark, Adam Lyal runs a tour round supposedly haunted parts of Edinburgh. I went on one and (despite not seeing any ghosts!) had a great time.
He even had an election web-site last time round:
http://www.adamlyal.com/parliament/index.htm
Although I have a sneeking suspicion he’s only in it for the cheap publicity!
The Idle Toad Party Leader represents Ribble South Rural East on Lancashire County Council here is a bit from his own Biog:
“I am a journalist. I joined the Lancashire Evening Telegraph in Blackburn as a reporter in 1961 and later became a sub-editor. In 1965 I moved to The Daily Telegraph in Manchester as a sub-editor and in 1966 I joined the Guardian, better and more properly known as the Manchester Guardian. For 10 years I was a sub-editor, working first on foreign and then on home, and in1 976 I became a reporter. I retired from the Guardian in 1996.
I was first elected to Lancashire County Council in 1981 as a Labour Party candidate and was vice-chairman of Lancashire Education Committee until 1989, when I became chairman of the Library & Leisure Committee. I held that position for eight years. In 1996 my Labour Party membership was withheld by party bosses. In May 2005 I was re-elected for my seventh successive term of office on Lancashire County Council.”
81 Mike S Campbell is an insider from the power centres of Edinburgh. His K and his legal career have all suggested that he is an influence peddlar behind the scenes politician and not a pubic performer.
Nothing wrong with that but this style, the problem he has recognising England’s individuality and nationhood and his Young Mr Grace image on the box are the reasons he will have to be replaced sooner than later.
After all the attacks on him have not really started yet in the political mainstream. A few hit and run raids caused by his own weak performance, but nothing sustained.
Going on the Newsnight and PMQ’s a GE campaign will provide greater exposure and soon see him complaining of being misunderstood and misrepresented, and thereby assure everyone that their perceptions were right in the first place.
You can see it in your minds eye as you read this, can’t you?
Of course he may well top this off by telling us again that he could have been a judge ( sigh!) and will continue to weep for his lost Jaguar flagging that he is a trimmer blown around by fashion. The tax and crime policies will be counter spun to confirm his policies are there to serve his ambition, and so severely damage, if not end, the LibDem anti-politics gambit.
The press and the other parties will not engage only Cable about taxes but, as usual, the party leader. And what will the LibDem leader do when Paxo has a go on the economic platform? Behave as he did on Newsnight and admit that the new tax package generates three times more revenue and is much more redistributive than the 50% top rate proposal and his environmental taxes will fall on the poor as well as the rich.
Or will he default to talk about the Middle East or about how Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast must stick ever closer together and say, as he did on Newsnight, that he is not going to be judged by London based commentators (his emphasis)? He gave one hostage to fortune after another and one will come back at him: ‘we don’t need more prisons’ we must ‘take out of prisons those that do not deserve to be there’. Shades of Charles Clarke.
I think Brown may well develop his ‘Britishness’ theme and try the patriot card in 2010 to neutralize the WLQ and hide the deteriorating economic situation and distract us from Labour sleaze.
We are at war, whether we like it or not. Will you put the country in Campbell’s hands, even in coalition, at any time, let alone in the middle of a war? Give us the majority we need to keep the Tories out and the LibDems from weakening the strong government you deserve.
The squeeze is on.
BY ELECTION RESULTS 20TH JULY 2006
Warwickshire CC, Wellesbourne
Con 1112 (52.6 +3.0)
LD D Johnston 776 (36.7 –6.0)
Lab 227 (10.7 +10.7), Green [0.0 –7.7]
Majority 336. Turnout 35.6. Con hold. Last fought 2005.
Hartlepool UA, Park
Con 468 (46.1 –2.6)
UKIP 208 (20.5 –4.9)
Lab 121 (12.0 –0.5)
LD S Bruce 99 (9.7 –3.6)
BNP 68 (6.7 +6.7)
Ind 51 (5.0 +5.0)
Majority 260. Turnout 21.0. Con hold. Last fought 2006.
Chichester DC, West Wittering
Con 868 (57.5 +5.6)
Ind 330 (21.9 +21.9)
LD R Tilbury 139 (9.2 –9.9)
BNP 123 (8.1 +8.1)
Lab 48 (3.2 –2.7)
UKIP [0.0 –18.0]
Majority 538. Turnout 37.5. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Conwy, Llandrillo-yn-Rhos
PC 957 (47.0 +36.7)
Con 861 (42.2 +12.6)
Lab 221 (10.8 –2.4)
Ind [0.0 –26.4]. Ind [0.0 –26.4]
Majority 96. PC gain Ind. Last fought 2004.
Dover DC, Little Stour & Ashstone
Con 892 748 (66.6 +29.2)
LD B Curtis and S Smith 336 254 (25.1 –2.9)
Lab 111 110 (8.3 +0.9)
Ind [0.0 –27.2]
Turnout 24.26. Con hold, Con gain LD. Last fought 2003.
Macclesfield BC, Hurdsfield
LD C Tomlinson 500 (58.2 +5.2)
Lab 178 (20.7 –3.9)
Con 82 (9.6 –12.8)
Ind 53 (6.2 +6.2)
Green 45 (5.2 +5.2)
Majority 322. Turnout 25.19. LD hold. Last fought 2006.
New Forest DC, Totton West
LD L Harris 535 (48.1 +0.3)
Con 498 (44.8 –7.4)
Lab 79 (7.1 +7.1)
Majority 37. Turnout 28.45. LD gain Con. Last fought 2003.
Stratford on Avon DC, Wellesbourne
Con 897 (47.2)
LD P Cook 804 (42.4)
Lab 197 (10.4)
Majority 93. Turnout 35.92. Con hold. Last fought unopposed 2006.
Bridport TC, Bridport North
LD R Kayes 484 (51.5)
Con 455 (48.5)
Majority 29. Turnout 32.5. LD hold.
RESULTS:
Chichester District - West Wittering: C868, Ind 330, Lib Dem 139, BNP 123, Lab 48. (May 2003 - Two seats C 938, 843, Lib Dem 346, Ukip 325, Lib Dem 285, Lab 107, Green 93, Lab 81). C hold. Swing 7.5% Lib Dem to C.
Conwy County Borough - Llandrillo yn Rhos: Plaid Cymru 957, C 861, Lab 221. (May 2003 - Four seats C 1110, Ind 989, 960, 882, C 834, Lib Dem 770, Lab 497, Plaid Cymru 386; March 3 2005 by-election - C 720, Plaid Cymru 351, Lib Dem 317, Lab 175, Ind 169, Ind 152, Ind 131). Plaid Cymru gain from Ind. Swing 9.5% C to Plaid Cymru.
Dover District - Little Stour and Ashstone: Two seats C 892, 748, Lib Dem 336, 254, Lab 111, 110. (May 2003 - Three seats: C 977, Lib Dem 732, C 718, Ind 709, C 678, Lib Dem 584, 540, Lab 193, 191, 159). C gain one seat from Lib Dem and hold one seat. Swing 17.6% Lib Dem to C.
Macclesfield District - Hurdsfield: Lib Dem 500, Lab 178, C 82, Ind 53, Green 45. (May 2006 - Lib Dem 455, Lab 211, C 192). Lib Dem hold. Swing 4.6% Lab to Lib Dem.
New Forest District - Totton West: Lib Dem 535, C 498, Lab 79. (May 2003 - C 456, Lib Dem 417, 414, C 403). Lib Dem gain from C. Swing 2.4% C to Lib Dem.
Stratford-upon-Avon District - Wellesbourne: C 897, Lib Dem 804, Lab 197. (May 2006 - C unopposed). C hold.
Warwickshire County - Wellesbourne: C 1112, Lib Dem 776, Lab 227. (May 2005 - C 2056, Lib Dem 1772, Green 321). C hold. Swing 4.5% Lib Dem to C.
Hartlepool Borough - Park: C 468, Ukip 208, Lab 121, Lib Dem 99, BNP 68, No description 51. (May 2006 - C 863, Ukip 450, Lib Dem 236, Lab 222). C hold. Swing 1.1% Ukip to C.
121 Blue2Win. “The squeeze is on.”
On your credibility after that post !!
I think the site might be pleased if gave us several hundred words on Tory policies and value thereof, rather than the latest verbiage from Central Office on Ming.
sage said, “I think, retrospectively, that your Tories made a great mistake in not going for Davis - you were totally led astray by the Luntz spin operation, and now you are paying the price.”
Sage,
Can you honestly believe that this is the case? - David Cameron has transformed the Conservative party and continues to do so. Davis would have made a fine choice of leader of course, but it would be a more tried and tested (e.g - three lost elections) kind of style.
He is an inspiration to many activists and candidates as well, instilling a new vigour from the ground up that we are moving forward with purpose.
Some of our older members and those firmly to the right of the party would have been happier to elect Davis, but what does that mean? - Happy to continue (however hard we tried) to alienate or be perceived not to represent large swathes of the electorate and be therefore seen as out of touch, old and the ’same old Tories’.
Cameron has new, fresh and impressive policy ideas steadily being developed and discussed. Take the ‘hoodies’. Put simply, away from the Labour and press spin, he is suggesting that we all make efforts to address and understand the tackle the causes of anti-social behaviour / youth crime and to look to work with younger members of our communities to that goal. Anyone got a problem with that? and if so, why?
This fits perfectly within the core value that the Conservative has always held by being relied upon to be tough on law and order when in government while showing that it isn’t always one solution to a problem.
His move to offer a credible stance on green issues is the same. Cameron may get lampooned by many (including some with his party) - but the polls tell the real story.
Sir Ming, to his credit, is trying to do the same in terms of Lib Dem tax policies. The problem is that although I am biased, the Liberals are seen as a quirky bunch that people can support in the knowledge that they won’t be winning an election anytime this decade or the next. Their policies can also reflect that realisation. Locally, in many areas they are successful (at getting elected). Nationally, they have a huge mountain of credibility to climb.
Everyone knows the Conservatives are more than capable of forming the next government.
There’s a huge difference.
Cheers,
Matt.
Jack W, maybe Blue2Win is on to something? Perhaps the next election will be led by three party leaders each of whom is regarded as in some way “handicapped” if not exactly weak? In the past, the increasing Presidential style of UK politics has required a strong party leader (e.g. Thorpe, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair) and party leaders who were perceived as weak (Kinnock, Steel, Hague, perhaps Heath) were punished.
An election with three leaders who are less popular than their parties could be more interesting than usual.
123 - 3 words on Cameron tory policies - ” We have none ” .
120. Fool
120. ” We are at war, whether we like it or not.”
Blue2win is apparently at war with himself. Which side of the Phillips/Chameweon firefight he is on, no doubt he will work out in his own time.
So who would we prefer as PM Blue2win?. The berk who’s dragged us dishonestly into increasingly hostile and fatality-ridden actions which have massively fueled the recruitment of new enemies of the UK - or the ‘new green’ cheerleader for the same berk’s actions at the time who suddenly develops convenent amnesia for his acctions when it suits?
Look at baby Brown:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/07/21/gordon372.jpg
JK Rowling already went to see the new baby
Ah, Jack, look at your emails, but it’s not urgent
Can I seriously ask the many LD regulars here,
What is the point of being a LD?
At local level you have the chance to make changes. I see that. At national level you know you do not. You know you will never be a government. You have never made it anywhere close to being the Opposition.
Really, if you want to effect change, can I ask why you don’t join either Lab or C and work for change from within a party that has a chance of making it happen?
I as a Tory can see so much in common with Orange Book LibDems that I just wonder why they do not join us and press for the environmental agenda and the social justice agenda within a Tory party committed to it.
Why waste your life in politics being a protest vote, at nationak level at least. Don’t you want to change things?
I ask b/c I have been so long in agreement with mike S about so much and cannot see what stops him joining the Cameron revolution in our party that looks to bridge so many gaps.
129 What an adorable little boy, I bet you are ashamed of that ‘Satanus’ comment now Sean Fear.
130. “I as a Tory can see so much in common with Orange Book LibDems that I just wonder why they do not join us and press for the environmental agenda and the social justice agenda within a Tory party committed to it”
Where were you when Michael Howard was leader? Campaigning for Labour or the Lib Dems.
“An election with three leaders who are less popular than their parties could be more interesting than usual.”
Is that technically possible?
Re: 130 - Afternoon all
Commentator, I’m an LD because I believe in the fundamental principles that the LDs hold dear. Unlike many Tories, I’m not in politics solely for the acquisition and preservation of power. Much of what I have seen and heard from Tories on here and especially since the 2005 GE stems from a desperate urge/desire to get back to power. I fully believe there are Tories who would sell their souls for a working majority at Westminster.
I parted company with Conservatives a long time ago. I was repelled by much of the racial and sexual prejudices and bigotry that passed for common parlance among Tories. I was appalled by your Party’s shift on Europe which seemed less driven by principle than by a desire to appease the populist media. It was scarcely credible to read the bile heaped on respected senior people like Chris Patten, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke whose sole “crime” seemed to be a recognition that reforming the EU was the way forward rather than the obstructionist hostility that characterised most of the later phases of the Thatcher/Major era. The virtual collapse of Britain’s negotiations with the EU from 1995-97 did this country untold damage. To see Margaret Thatcher railing against Europe was strange considering her prominent role in the 1975 referendum.
Finally, the “democratic centralism” of the Thatcher/Major years has done much to destroy the very local democracy and political activity that is the bedrock of a mature political society and culture, a culture once recognised and encouraged by an older, more sensible Conservative Party. The removal of powers from both Shire and Metropolitan authorities and their concentration in Whitehall was predicated on political vindictiveness and revenge. The weasel words about returning power to the people doesn’t of course mean returning accountability and decision-making to locally-elected authorities but at best the empowerment of a non-accountable voluntary sector which simply does not have the capacity that most local councils have.
Add to that botched privatisations predicated not on improving the lot of the consumer but to line the pockets of shareholders and the slavish adherence to American foreign policy and you might begin to understand why, although you and people like you might think we are somehow on the wavelength, we are poles apart.
Finally, I’m not alone in thinking that Cameron, while sounding reasonable and sensible, is a trojan horse for the neo-Cons who have taken over the Tory Party and are seeking to make it a British version of the Republican Party.
125 Augustus. I think not. As far as Cameron and Campbell are concerned I doubt the voter will view them as “handicapped”. The unusual feature of the present ratings is their unsettled nature. In broad terms voters usually take around 6 months to form a settled view. Cameron’s ratings are all over the shop, whilst from a low base Ming shows a modest improvement, whilst the 24% rating for best PM is both greater than the party rating and a much higher PM rating than the “popular” CK ever enjoyed.
We’ll just have to wait for Brown as PM for a fuller picture. In any case I don’t regard any of the 3 as weak.
…………………
129 Andrea. Your e-mail of 2 days ago went straight into the “fraudulent” box !!
…. however the new one OK !!
134 Well said.
Went to a Tory public meeting for a laugh way back in pre-Cameron 2005. Once I had got over the smell of Steradent and stale urine. I was shocked to see the “I want my country back brigade” in full force waving copies of the EU constitution complaing about this that and the other.
Conclusion
Cameron is doing a really, really fantastic job as the front man.
But not a serious choice…
135. Jack, the new account sends emails from Con website directly into the “not desirable emails” box