Is Cameron boosting the Labour vote as well?
July 27th, 2006
-
What’s Ming’s party’s role in the Cameron-Brown world?
The July ICM poll in the Guardian did match its billing - it was full of surprises for all three parties. The Tory 39% equalling their highest share from the pollster in 13 years; Labour maintaining their 35% in spite of everything and the Lib Dem 17% being their lowest ICM figure since before the Iraq War.
Until now all the focus has been on David Cameron attracting Lib Dem supporters and this is the standard explanation for the figures? But is it more complicated than that? Is the rise of Cameron reinforcing Labour as well? This poll seems to suggest that it is.
-
For the first time in a decade and a half there is just the prospect of a Tory General Election win and it is this that might be keeping Labour stable and squeezing the Lib Dems.
For the decade and a half upto Cameron’s election it was easy for anti-Tory voters to consider voting Lib Dem because because such a move posed no risk. Major/Hague/IDS/Howard’s party did not present a real electoral threat. Thus the Lib Dems did well last time in spite of the massive Labour onsluaght in the final week suggesting that Lib Dem switchers could let Michael Howard in.
-
That assertion might have sounded implausible in 2005 but with the Tories nearly at 40% then it certainly resonates today and is one factor I believe, that is underpinning the Labour share.
So there is a twin challenge facing the Lib Dems: the party has to stop further seepage of its Tory leaning supporters going to Cameron and it has to find a way of persuading anti-Tory factions to stay on board - a task that might be even tougher when Tony Blair has moved on.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m not *too* worried by this finding - we can afford to ‘tick along’ at this level for a while - but the Lib Dems need to roll out the publicity on their attractive tax policy platform and up the ante elsewhere too.
If you are correct, Mike, that a rise in Tory credibility reinforces the resolve of Labour supporters - and I think there may be something in that - the plus side is that it has also tended to enhance the propensity for tactical voting on a local level.
The Lib Dems are past masters of pushing a squeeze message in local constituency campaigns - and if Labour voters are really worried about Cameron, it makes it easier to squeeze them.
Are opinion polls a significant cost in the budgets of mainstream news media? If not, and (what may be a rather bigger “if”) they want the “reflected glory” of having the best pollster, I am surprised that no one is seeking to upstage ICM and the Grauniad.
In particular, there would seem to be a gap in the market for a respectable series of regional polls.
My other thought is the correspondence of by-elections and opinion polls. I get the sense that the latter are providing Cameron with better, and Campbell worse, news than the former. I wonder if, historically, these have tended to deviate from each other in the first half of a Parliament and only come into alignment later, when the opinion poll question seems more salient to respondents. I suggest this only because it seems intuitively plausible - others will doubtless know much more than I do.
1 - I think the LibDems might have a bit of a credibility problem in advancing a ‘tax-cutting’ policy. People will instinctively ask “what’s the catch”.
re 1 & 3. One of the problem about the Lib Dem tax cuts is that they involve ending the principle that pensions should be treated as deferred income for higher rate tax-payers. So people would be paying tax on the contributions they make into a scheme and then pay tax on the income they get when they retire.
This is an area that even Gordon Brown has not entered. Pensions are highly sensitive particularly with the end of many final salary schemes and I think that Ming ought to be ultra sensitive about going into this dangerous area.
For many, particularly those on under £100k, the pension move is much more punitive than the former higher rate at 50% policy.
People will instinctively ask “what’s the catch?”….
…and they won’t have to look very far to find it
I still think that an important figure that is still being ignored is the implied turnout - The data for this poll does not seem to be available, but previous ICM polls show turnout in the region of 55% of those who could be bothered to do the poll in the first place.
All three parties are not putting their best faces forward at the moment. Assuming that turnout soars back to 60% at the next GE then these polls may not mean much.
Mike: I think your concern about higher rate pensions relief is over-egged for the following reasons:
1) It won’t add to the ‘pensions crisis’ - that arises almost entirely amongst basic rate tax payers, not higher rate payers (and remember that the Lib Dems’ plans would increase the higher rate threshold to £50k in any case).
2) 40p pensions relief has far less behavioural impact on pensions contributions than relief at basic rate. That’s because basic rate relief is provided at source (effectively ‘grossing up’ the contribution) whereas higher rate relief is claimed after the event, in tax returns.
3) There is no inherent reason why pensions relief should be given at the higher rate. Indeed we do not give tax relief (at all) for ordinary savings (unless sat in an ISA) so why should pension contributions necessarily be different?
Taking 2-3 million people out of income tax altogether - and over a million out of higher rate tax - is a far more significant story.
More generally I expect the Lib Dems to be very clear that it isn’t a ’something for nothing’ package, hence explaining the changes particularly to Green Taxes - but the package overall to have a lot of appeal as it is genuinely Fairer, Simpler & Greener.
I think this should be worrying for all three parties, but mostly for the LibDems. No doubt Labour will take comfort from the 35% but their now consistent failure to tackle Cameron needs addressing. The lipstick on a pig stuff will fail as will the estate agent stuff too. Cameron must be wondering what he has to do to get the party about 40% and then stay there. The LibDems, having had a run of good coverage about their tax proposals and a week or two showing Sir Ming doing what he does best (looking statesman-like over a big international crisis) should not be on 17%. I know, I know, cue LibDems comparing themselves to this stage after the 1951 general election or whatever … but we all know that Sir Ming is not delivering and if the party is about to break the mould of British politics it won’t be done on 17%. He needs a consistent 20%+.
There was some discussion on the previous string where Lib Dem posters said they weren’t too concerned about a drop in the poll as the figures would increase towards the election as they usually do (or something similar). As this contradicts Mike’s point about elections concentrating voters’ minds between the two main parties, I thought I’d check out the figures. I’ve not had time to compile averages using the full data, so I’ve used highest and lowest poll ratings for each period:
0-1 yrs after election: Min 14.4 Max 19.6
1-2 yrs after election: Min 17.0 Max 23.2
2-3 yrs after election: Min 16.8 Max 24.0
3-4 yrs after election: Min 15.0 Max 22.6
4-5 yrs after election: Min 13.0 Max 20.5
In other words, the Lib Dem share of the vote tends to go up in mid-term and fall off towards an election. If this trend is indicative of a behavioural attitude then the Lib Dems have a problem as it would imply a General Election score around 15%
Pension contributions aren’t taxed because the tax is taken when the pension is paid out.
re 7. ..Taking 2-3 million people out of income tax altogether - and over a million out of higher rate tax - is a far more significant story. - except for the losers.
After being in a company scheme that went bust and after seeing a private pension reduced to a fraction of what I paid in because the pension firm got into trouble I am devoting a large proportion of my salary into buying extra pension. The Lib Dem proposal would cost me in cash about £4600 a year.
David Herdson - I’m not sure your stats reveal what they claim. Remember that this includes the distortative effect of various fluctuations in the parties composition eg the formation of the SDP, the implosion post merger etc. I think you’d have to look on an election-by-election basis (& factor out those kinds of structural changes) to get a better feel.
OTOH I think if you look at every election since at least 1992, the Lib Dem poll rating at the start of the 4-6 week ‘campaign propoer’ has understated their actual vote share by 3 or 4%. The Lib Dems undoubtedly benefit from being much more in the news when the rules on media balance kick in.
IF your hypothesis is correct, Mike, that Lib Dems are being squeezed in the way you suggest, it adds more fuel to those of us in the party who argue for a genuinely different alternative. One of the key messages which was very successful under Charles Kennedy, was that we were not in the game of “choosing coalition partners”. We have seen from the income tax proposals (which we did not need to have until the report of the Tax Commission), and we know from the history, that there is unlikely to be the same level of “difference” presented to the public under the current leadership.
Ian C wrote: “Pension contributions aren’t taxed because the tax is taken when the pension is paid out.”
But you can’t say the same for ordinary savings. If I save £1000 now, it’s out of taxed income & I get no tax relief. If I buy an annuity in 10 years time, my income from that annuity will be fully taxable then. Why should the treatment for pensions be any different?
Similarly, if I die, then the £1,000 + interest (which has been taxed when earned as well) goes into my estate and is potentially subject to inheritance tax, so it gets taxed again.
It’s a myth to believe that pensions are somehow a unique example where there might be double taxation - it happens all the time.
To argue it yet another way, when I’m a pensioner, will my pension be bringing me in >£50k per annum at today’s prices (the Lib Dem higher rate threshold)? It’s pretty unlikely. If it isn’t, then why should I be getting higher rate relief now, when I will only be taxed on the pension at the basic rate?
OTOH if my pension is >£50k at today’s prices (and you’d need a v large pension pot to achieve that at current annuity rates), perhaps it’s only fair that I shouldn’t have had higher rate relief too?
Hopefully all that goes to demonstrate that there isn’t one clear ‘right’ answer on whether/how tax relief should be granted for pension contributions
35% must be Labour’s core vote. So for the Tories to make progress they’ll have to take even more Lib Dem votes. So an ideal opportunity for the Lib Dems to go head to head with the new muesli eating Tory Party. And with a little more passion on issues like the Middle East there’s no reason why the Lib Dems shouldn’t score well. And the Tories are always prone to civil war……
……..The future could be bright…it could be Orange
12. Yes, the Lib Dems ‘put on’ share during each of the last four elections comparing their actual vote with opinion poll share (although they lost 4% in 1987).
I agree that there are special factors in each parliament, but these are so complex that it would be impossible to strip out. By using a set of data over more than 20 years, this should help to average out the results (the E+4/5 only contains two values though - 1991/2 and 1996/7, so should be treated with a bit more caution. Even so, it fits the trend nicely).
On the two specific points you raise, the formation of the SDP has no effect on the stats as the data series starts in 1984. This does put a question mark over the first year as 1983/4 is missing, but even if included the figures would be lower than for E+1/2. The post-merger slump works against trend, so you could argue that Lib Dems ‘naturally’ gain an even higher boost mid-term.
I think Oxonion is right. neither averages nor .minima’ and ‘maxima’ are particularly useful when the three party position at each GE has varied so much at the different elections.
What is more relevent is the position on the ‘curve’ of each 4 year period. As I recall it there is normally a downswing after general Elections for Lib Dems, which has sometimes coincided with European Elections which have not been so good in outcome.
Tim13 - but the tax proposals *are* different - the Lib Dems will be the only party proposing to cut the basic rate of income tax & take people out of tax altogether!
14 - “But you can’t say the same for ordinary savings. If I save £1000 now, it’s out of taxed income & I get no tax relief. If I buy an annuity in 10 years time, my income from that annuity will be fully taxable then. Why should the treatment for pensions be any different?”
Not true. If you buy an annuity with money from another source than a pension, you get a “purchased life annuity”. This means that an element of your annuity will not be taxed, and the rest will. How much is untaxed will depend on your age / life expectancy at the time you buy the annuity, and the reason it is not taxed is that it is deemed to be a return of the capital invested in the annuity, whereas the taxed part is deemed to be investment return.
re 9. Thanks for your figures but if you are using any historical poll data other than ICM for pre 2001 then it is suspect. ICM is the only pollster from that period to be still polling to day using the same methodology.
And only use ICM historical poll data from the ICM web-site. Some figures on Mori “all polls” table do not tie in with what ICM reported at the time.
GB could suffer from the harm he has done to the pensions of those who work in the private sector, whose savings are worth less than £94,000.
Of all the people who applaud GB for his chancellorship, I reckon there about none who have had their pensions damaged by him.
15 - 35% is way above Labour’s core vote. Labour’s internal polling analysis gives it a core vote of only about 30%.
Mike @ 11: if it costs you £4600, then that means you’re putting in £25k+ per annum into your pension scheme.
If that’s the case, you are presumably earning >£50k. You would however benefit from the Lib Dem plan to increase the higher rate threshold to £50k, saving you something like £2-3000 (depending on whether the £50k is inclusive or exclusive of personal allowance).
You, like the vast majority of people, would also benefit from the reduction of the 10p band to nil (saving you another £200ish). You’d further benefit from the increase in the NIC threshold (don’t have numbers for this).
Without knowing any of your personal deatils, it looks like you might be a bit down overall, but not nearly as much as the £4600. You can’t look at the pension change in isolation, without also taking into account the income tax benefits.
18 Different from how the other 2 parties look now, but identifiably “Tory” insofar as cuts in Basic Rate, and raising threshold of Higher Rate. Lib Dems risk losing a key part of their support, and will not make compensating gains among those who were thinking of floating back to Tory anyway. The reality, I’m afraid.
Yes, alex was gently teasing me last night about my reporting a trickle back of support that I’d not mentioned losing, but this misunderstood what I was saying - the trickle is of people who didn’t vote Labour in 2005 but did in 1997/2001, and it seems entirely attributable to the belief that there is a serious Tory challenge coming up. Despite all my efforts last year to warn that the seat was at risk, there were still quite a few people who thought I’d win comfortably so they might as well vote Green or LibDem. None of them are happy with Labour, some outspokenly unhappy. But some of them are starting to rally round. This is a phenomenon unlikely to be happening outside marginals, so it may be that we’re several per cent below the GE in safe or hopeless seats but doing slightly better in perceived marginals.
In reply to andrea’s query - MPs are expected to confirm their intentions by September, then we go through the usual process in the following months. (So far as I know, nobody is planning to oppose my reselection.)
Oxonian’s argument for the proposed LD tax changes is intellectually coherent, but it’s a fact of British political life that any major change with winners and losers will get he losers highlighted in the media. I think in the current position it’s quite dangerous for the LDs to propose anything which can be presented as a big hit on the middle classes.
BTW, can anyone summarise the YouGov poll findings? I get a blank screen when I click on the Telegraph’s story.
I wonder whether voters would really vote for a Tory government if the question stopped being hypothetical? Their rehabillitation isn’t complete and no-one really believes that it is. Rather like Labour in ‘92.
The polls in the 80’s and 90’s would give Labour huge leads scoring well into the 40% or 50%. The Tories never touch 40%. My guess is that 60% is the core anti-Tory vote and until they really change their identity including their name they wont win,
25.”In reply to andrea’s query - MPs are expected to confirm their intentions by September, then we go through the usual process in the following months. (So far as I know, nobody is planning to oppose my reselection.)”
Thanks Nick. I think it’s moving faster this time than last time. IIEC in the previous Parliament it was done in 2003. So I was expecting 2007.
20. The figures are derived from the link to the ICM table on this site.
Nick. To summarize the Yougov Middle East war poll the results are almost identical to the ICM ones yesterday. 3/4 anti American, UK to close to US etc.
I think we can only judge the merits of LD pension proposals if we see a lot more of the tax issues explained by them:-
As I have said before, I am looking for:-
-Integration of income tax and employee NI contributions (therefore overall basic rate income tax c (22+11-2= 31%)
-Flat rate tax relief on pension contributions of about 30% for all (non, basic and higher rate)
-Flat rate tax on pension income of say 22%. (Not many pensions are taxed at higher rate anyway so not really much of a bung to the rich).
-Simplification of income tax - no starting rate of 10%.
I’d also like to see reform of stamp duty to make it properly progressive. I’d also have no objection to it increasing as it is very low in this country compared to other countries - like France.
Inheritance tax should also be scrapped - it is a tax on the ill-advised. The Law Society and every IFA in the land would be up in arms as IHT planning is a big money spinner. But IHT is now quite a money spinner for the Treasury so this may be hard.
It was always unfair that higher rate taxpayers could get tax relief at the marginal rate. A standard rate taxpayer investing £2,000 would get 400 contribution from the government whereas a higher rate taxpayer investing £20,000 would get an £8,000. Why?
I’ve been saying this all along that with the rise of the Conservatives, we now have a return to two party politics.
But would they listen…
32 - Very valid point, and it seems wrong especially when it is the basic rate taxpayers who need to be incentivised to save for retirement, but the system supposes, that the higher rate taxpayer will be taxed more when the pension is drawn. This ain’t necessarily so, as he may be a basic rate payer post retirement.
But take the higher rate tax payer who also pays at higher rate in retirement. What’s the point in a pension that relieves at basic rate when you contribute, but taxes you at higher rate when you draw it.
We need more from these LD proposals. In isolation they will not work.
Having now blundered to almost Roger-esque proportions in the ICM prediction (:P), we all have a second chance tomorrow with YouGov. I really was surprised by the ICM Labour and LibDem figures. Any “confirmation” by YouGov would indeed seem to indicate that, for the present at least, neither sleaze nor Lebanon is benefiting the third party.
IIRC, one of the most recent YouGov polls did place the Conservatives at 40%. Wonder whether this will happen again - if it does, I shall claim a 0.0124% credit.
33 - what is your definition of two party politics?
I must confess to still being puzzled by the main feature of this latest and other recent polls and that is the resilience of Labour support compared to their support at the last GE . It would appear that no amount of bad news seems to affect their opinion poll rating to any significant extent and yet in terms of the voters opinion on Tony Blair and government in general and on handling of various issues there has been a significant rise in those expressing disapproval . In real elections both local and national this disapproval is clear ( albeit on lower turnout ) and yet we seem to be expected to believe that at a GE all these people would still vote for a government they disapprove of . Maybe this is so but I am dubious . I can easily accept that with better government management Labour support would recover support but not that that support had not gone away at all .
On a slightly different topic ICM show support for the minor parties drifting down and yet apart from UKIP and SSP the evidence is that this is not so particularly for SNP Plaid Greens and BNP . Again this contradicts the voting in real elections .
36- Politics involving two parties.
34. The Lib Dem proposals on pensions are trying to follow historical best practice to some extent, by eliminating tax shelters to fund lower tax rates. And to be fair, there is no doubt that the present unusually favourable tax treatment that pensions get causes some inefficiencies - lots of people contribute relatively blindly to pensions purely because of the tax advantages.
But the political problems these proposals cause are very significant. Firstly, with the public already uneasy about the prospects for their future pensions, anything which seems to be raising the taxation of pensions looks unwise. Secondly, the same mistake is being made here as with LIT - the creation of quite a substantial minority of significant losers. Many of these losers will also be in demographic groups the Lib Dems need to keep on board.
34. It only taxes at the higher rate as it does for those who havent retired. In other words only when the pension and other earnings for the retired person are over £35000 ish.
JohnO. The shame of getting all three parties moving in the wrong direction was only alleviated by knowing I was in such distinguished company!
38 - we had enough of this yesterday. Do you have anything to say at all, or do you just come out with Dalek-type slogans? At least make the effort to say something interesting, analytical or perceptive, rather than endlessly spewing out the same line.
37 Many people tend to vote against things rather than for things. If you were anti Tory/Cameron, who would you naturally say you’d vote for.
I get the feeling that the Anti-Tory vote is still there despite what people say on pb.com and it could well be a factor in the next GE.
38 - If two party politics has returned, and the Tories can still only get 39%, they’re in line for the biggest election defeat in history.
39. I’m not sure people mind being ‘losers’ if they think the ols scheme was unfair. As it was with miras and higher rate taxpayers some years ago.
41. SBS - if you want all the posters on the site to say ’something interesting, analytical or perceptive’ you could start crossing off a lot of names.
“As it was with miras and higher rate taxpayers some years ago.” - yes, that was daft, and even the Tories scrapped that - in 1987?
40 -
Nice one…
45 - true, Fred, but not you.
41 SBS. DC often trots out the “two party politics” line to wind up the Lib Dems.
However in one sense he is correct, in most of the country the fight is two party, just that the two parties vary. There are probably only around two dozen seats in the UK that might reasonably be called 3 way fights and outwith England I’m unaware of a genuine 4 way dust up.
SBS at 9:24,
Have you seen the Bow group simplification of taxes proposal by Mark Wadsworth:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/files/bow_group_keep_it_simple.pdf
The proposal for a variant of Land Value Taxation is the only one that anyone seems to have focussed on, but integration of income tax and NI, flat tax relief on pension contributions, simplification of income tax, scrapping of inheritance tax are in there, amongst others (sich as Basic Cash Benefits, increased Child benefit, further assistance with Nursery places and others)
I’m beginning to think that for a third party to benefit from something like the Lebanon they have to forget about nuance and start shouting. I just heard Alex salmond talking about US bombs passing through Prestwick airport. By the time he’d finished “Cluster bombs killing Mothers… pregnant women …..babies….blown to pieces….limbs buried under rubble….” you’d have been excused for thinking Margaret Beckett was herself responsible for a genocide
Let me tell you what will happen. The Tories will lose the GE and then all bets will be off and you’ll have to wait and see what happens in the next parliament, in other words they might lose again the next time round.
You tories all assume that if you lose this time it’ll be “one more heave”. Nope. You might STILL be a dead party walking
Truth. The rules of the site include at least a minimal explanation of why something is about to happen unless your name is Commentator or DC!.
46. Yes but MIRAS was gradually phased out in a tax reform process that also included significant cuts in income tax rates, so that the ‘losers’ were substantially cushioned. It also happened during a period of rapidly rising house prices, again softening the blow somewhat.
50. The Bow Group proposals have the same weakness as the Lib Dem proposals on pensions taxation - creating a substantial group of big losers. This is going to be a problem for all these attempts to switch around the tax burden while maintaining a very high level of public expenditure. Tax reforms work best in a context of buoyant economic conditions and restrained spending growth which allows the overall tax burden to fall, as was the case in the latter part of the 1980s.
There is a credible theory that stay-at-home Labour voters will return to the ballot box if there is a belief that a Tory victory is possible. In effect, it is postulated that there will be tactical voting against the Tories in the marginals.
This overlooks something pretty important. DC is working very hard to make the Tories un-nasty, while Labour are starting to asquire the aura of nastiness. Depending on how far these processes progess, we could see the exact opposite effect. IF (very big if) DC can continue to project cuddliness, then the tactical voting in the marginals that happened in 2001 and 2005 could unwind. If that happens, then there will a higher than average swing to the Tories in the marginals. In that case, Labour marginals are far more at risk than currently perceived, and the Tories could win an overall majority with a much lower national swing than Baxter et al predict.
If we want to predict the result of the next GE, it would be extremely useful if a polling company could start tracking some measure of how threatening DC’s Tories are seen by voters. If voters start to find the Tories un-scary, then both Brown and the Libdems have got a big problem.
49 - The old Inverness seat used to be a 4 way marginal. Back in 1987 (or 1992?) it was won with about 26% of the vote, and all 4 main parties within 2000 votes. Doesn’t seem to be the case now though, with new boundaries.
56. 1992. LD 26%, Lab 25.2%, SNP 24.7%, Con 22.6%
56/57 Jeremy/Andrea. Inverness Result 1992 :
Lib Dem .. 13,258
Lab …… 12,800
SNP …… 12,562
Con …… 11,517
Green …. 756
58. I prefer %.
41- SBS slightly harsh on DC. To be fair he has been saying this for some time, and Mike’s analysis supports DC’s take. These are worrying times for the LD’s. They need to plan to counteract the Brown takeover (in the knowledge now that the Lab vote is pretty resilient), and deal effectively with the Cameron threat.
The squeeze is on for national vote share, but as we all know once LD’s get in they are blinking difficult to get rid of. Bit like a cold I’ve been trying to shake all summer!!!
Where are all these new Tory supporters? I am sure there must be a regional bias towards the Tories in parts of england. We have no polling evidence from Wales however a rough breakdown of local government by-elections since September 2005 (using the aldc figures) gives the four parties:
Plaid 3643
Labour 2600
Con 3070
LD 1350
This is from 11 contests in different parts of the country. However there is a heavy bias towards Tory (inclined) areas for some reason. That said they are hardly sweeping all before them at a time when Labour are doing really badly.
Oxonian above really makes me laugh when he says the new Lib dem tax policies are fairer and greener. Greener yes fairer no. A person on full time minimum wage would get a tax cut of £7.50 a week to pay the extra green taxes and the further increase in costs of living associated. A person on £50,000 get £60 a week. What possible “green” justification is there for this. Furthermore the LIb dems have stated how they will fund the massive extra costs to education, local government, and the NHS.
Lets hope they put these policies through at their september conference:)
Two party squeeze on the lib dems. labour to possibly increase national vote share on 2005 but still lose seats (although remaining the largest party)….
now who on here has been saying that in the past….;-)
I think there’s an element of ‘the worse it gets for the government/Blair, the better it gets for Labour’ in Labour’s ratings. Minds are so firmly focused on Blair going that anything that seems to hasten that date gives Labour a bounce.
[50] Many thanks for the link, Andy. Whatever the merits of his other ideas, Wadsworth’s proposals in respect of Housing Benefit - which admittedly is a dreadful mess with even super-efficient Tory Westminster only able to process applications from self-employed tenants at the rate of one a week - seem ill-thought out.
[38] Would you favour changes to electoral law to bring us towards the American practice of discouraging third-party candidates?
Mark - when you have a look at the detail of the Green tax proposals (eg the Aircraft Tax) I think you’ll be surprised to see that they have been carefully tailored to ensure they don’t have a disproportionate impact on the poorest (nor indeed middle incomes).
For example the Aircraft Tax (and scrapping of air passenger duty) will tax inefficient use of aircraft space eg business and first class travel, whereas budget carriers will do relatively well out of it.
55. ‘Labour are starting to asquire the aura of nastiness.’
Are they, though? For all Prescott’s doings, Hewitt’s stupidity etc. I think there may be a feeling/hope amongst Labour stay-at-homes that Blair is the source of the poisoning of their party, and that once he’s gone the party will become what it was before…they just can’t believe that the whole of the party can be morally down the tubes.
64- better still create a one party state, and no need for all this wasted time specualting about opinion polls!!
Great stuff oxonian on the aircraft tax. Now tell me will the £7.50 a week I get be enough to pay the extra fuel bills and extra costs of goods and services which inevitably result from green taxes? If it will what is the green justification for giving a tax cut worth £60 a week to people on £50,000 a year?
I have read all the details of the Lib dem policy as I have copies of the relevant documents. The “taking millions” out of income tax altogether is just spin for Focus leaflets. Please please support these policies at your conference
64. Housing benefit should have been scrapped years ago, with other cash benefits raised to compensate. It is not only an administrative mess and prone to fraud, but also a serious distortion of the rental market.
The excellent Roger is right in two important respects. He thinks that there is still a vague feeling of distaste for the tories, and they wouldn’t win a GE in 2006, whatever the polls show.
And secondly, he also claims (again, probably accurately) that it takes 3/5 years to rebuild a political brand.
But as a guide to the political aroma at the next GE, there is more scope for tory optimism.
There is an element of wind up in my posts but that is more than matched by an element of truth and accurate predictions!
Nick P’s trickle of supporters coming back is evidence of the new polarisation of British Politics which has come about because of the great David Cameron, the Governments chickens coming home to roost,plus a weak third party.(in that order)
65. How will the aircraft tax work on cargo flights? These are the real growth areas now that everything single thing we buy is made by a 10 year old partially sighted Chinese girl chained to a workbench.
53 Roger- “The Strange Death of Tory England” gives you all the analysis you need.
Britain is just a different country now, it really needs a different centre right party that is not so identified with elitist white male, south/middle England, blood sports, big business, and other sectional white heterosexual interests. The Tory brand now is only capable of winning an election through an implosion in New Lab and LD support (another heave scenario). This is sad because I and many others would genuinely like to see a dynamic centre right, libertarian, inclusive party start to generate an exciting policy agenda, and actually win an election through its ideas.
[72] Simon says every single thing we buy is made by a 10 year old partially sighted Chinese girl chained to a workbench - thank goodness she doesn’t need any sleep!
[69] Surely, Fred, the distortion is caused by the below-market rents in the first place? (Or maybe social landlords in your neck of the woods charge market rents…)
Belinda Oaten has finally forgiven Mark. Now she loves him again and she finds it very annoying!
http://icealing.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17457848&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=wife-forgives-oaten-for–errors–name_page.html
Morning all :). Disappointing poll for the LDs of course but ICM has been known to throw in the old outlier or two and while I agree generally with Mike that it is the most consistently reliable of the polls, it’s best with trends.
As for the Conservatives, 39% is a good rating of course though as Rik has wisely pointed out, it’s not an election-winning figure by any means. Historically, a 4% lead over the main opposition party is far too small (in April 1990, Labour led by 24 points and still lost two years later.)
There’s a long way still to go of course but the Tories can afford to enjoy a summer break with a smile on their faces. As for the LDs, concern, yes, panic no.
74. It was the distortion of the private rented sector that I was thinking of.
71 Dc- would like to know what criteria you place on Cameron’s greatness? What has he done in his life that deserves such an accolade? Lamont’s and Howard’s lackey perhaps? The Carlton Communications media job, or writing the 2005 manifesto. Perhaps jettisoning principles depending on the news agenda merits greatness, or being born from such a wealthy and priviliged family automatically provides greatness. Education at Eton, and membership of the ultra elitist, ya boo Bullingdon Club at Oxford-great things in peoples eyes. Lots of partying, drug taking- no doubt great to do at the time, but whether they bestow greatness I doubt. Perhaps his longevity as an MP makes him a great Parliamentarian?
Sometimes DC you do say the silliest things!!!
78. I see the immune globulin injection hasn’t kicked in yet…
4 Surely that depends which bit of your income you make your pension contribution out of.
The current system assumes that you pay it out of the bit of your income that is taxed at 40%. No logical reason for that though.
As others have said, why should we provide the largest pension subsidies to those who need subsidising least?
37. Mark Senior: “I must confess to still being puzzled by the main feature of this latest and other recent polls and that is the resilience of Labour support compared to their support at the last GE . It would appear that no amount of bad news seems to affect their opinion poll rating”
It’s the economy. It’s accelerating again. Twenty-somethings probably think it was always thus, but anyone older understands how unusual this period is in British history, and they don’t want to jeopardise it and take a risk on an unknown. The economy is why people voted Labour in 2005 despite Iraq (and proves that Alastair Campbell was right to make Gordon Brown such a feature of the campaign). It’s the reason people are sticking now. Labour voters are pragmatists.
The Tories make a big play of cuddliness - but people can’t live on cuddliness. And quite a few are aware of the dangers of taking things for granted - you only have to look at the American election of 2000, when people fell for compasionate conservatism and assumed the good times and surpluses painstakingly built up by the Clinton administration would “automatically” continue. There is nothing automatic about it. If you change the management, you risk ruining things.
As for Tony Blair - yes he irritates most of the population, but equally everyone knows he is going. Which draws the sting. If people thought he’d be going on and on, then there’d probably be more restlessness.
30 Roger “UK to close to US etc”
Will the last one on the boat to Bushland turn out the lights?
I see Norman tebbit in the ‘Spectator’ is attacking Chameweon for alienating traditional Tories. Since Tebbit is still a party member, presumably there are quite a few in the DC camp who are telling their ‘boss’: “Must try harder!”
79.Noted- just the farcical suggestion of the great Cameron led to a sudden and uncontrolled fit of hysteria.
83. Seems to be a recurring problem though, doesn’t it? we should have kept the quarantine laws after all.
The current system assumes that you pay it out of the bit of your income that is taxed at 40%. No logical reason for that though.
Quite agree, as long as you can choose to have the income emerging taxed at the same rate. That isn’t part of the policy though.
As others have said, why should we provide the largest pension subsidies to those who need subsidising least?
Because the alternative is that these people arrange their affairs so that the mirage of the apparent present subsidies drops away, by, for example, deferring receipt of part of their pay until after retirement. The figures for the extent of tax subsidies being bandied around are a gross distortion. They would only be true if all the proceeds of pensions were tax-free. They aren’t.
81 I could accept that it is the economy if it were reflected in evidence other than opinion poll GE voting intention but it is not . All other evidence in local elections and polls on government approval ratings show that is not the case . As I said why should people say the government is doing a bad job and then in the next breath say they will vote for them . It defies logic - I don’t profess to know the answer to my own question but it is more complex than just saying it is the economy .
81 about right. Aside from a disastrous foreign policy (but more global and largely led by the US), in the UK continuous economic growth, sustained investment in public services (more doctors, teachers, police), decreasing crime, sustained high employment and reduced numbers of families living in poverty, increased per capita wealth etc… all the things that a healthy economy and commitment to public services brings.
Hmmmm?? I wonder why the Lab vote is holding up.
85. Very good point. Additionally, it seems very likely that other tax shelters would be employed to receive part of the income now stuffed into pension funds. So the gross ‘receipts’ pencilled in by these proposals are almost certainly a significant overestimate of what would actually be yielded.
The spam filter ate my take on the poll last night so I’ll try again.
Before that, I make no apology for repeating what I said during the lib dem leadership battle - the person who wins *Must* target the labour vote, it is that vote which may peel away if not nurtured and policies designed to appeal to labour voters are necessary in order to keep a high poll level. I fear that this has not happened and this is why, as Mike says, a high tory vote means a higher labour vote at the expense of lib dems. It need not be that way and those in the lib dem hierarchy need to get real about it.
Secondly, Roger (right again!) says that Ming is not shouting loud enough about Lebanon. This is the chance, this is it, the defining moment which reminds labour voters why they can’t vote labour again. Forget going for Blair, go for the whole shebang, attack Beckett, attack Brown, attack anyone you can remotely implicate. Salmond is good at it and he’s doing a good job for the SNP at the moment.
Finally, that way of keeping those labour voters. Some labour apparactchik laid bare the tactics on here a few days ago, they are happy with 35% as they can win, unlike other parties, on the current system.
They are targeting that 5% or so above their core vote ruthlessly and there are a few factors which need to be mercilessly followed to reverse that - 1) please the public sector voters, they count electorally, 2) tempt Scottish labour voters with the prospect of greater Scottish power (this, by necessity, involves having a weaker union), 3) don’t bother with grandiose alternative economic strategies, attack the reality of how people have lost out under labour and, especially, that section who still vote labour, 4) expose the ‘rule by fear’ of new labour regarding terrorists, immigrants etc. Again this has to be dirty and involves breaking things to the tabloids which show how the ‘war on terror/people who are destroying your livelihood’ is actually grossly inflated. This is the most difficult as it relies on the press and Murdoch isn’t likely to agree, so attack him as well. Find your real enemy and make it stick, create a symbolic bogey figure that differs from the new labour immigrant/terrorist bogey figure.
I see that Alexander tried to use the tactic I suggested against Cameron just after he was elected, to say that he had changed but his party hadn’t. Too late now though as I also said that the previous tactics would negate that one if it was attempted. How can you attack Cameron now? On policies, that’s all, and he’s being very canny by giving few specifics until he has to. Labour missed their chance with Cameron but lib dems have not, as yet, missed their chance to injure labour and not just put the disposable Blair out of his misery.
Mark - v much doubt you’ve seen all the papers on the Lib Dem Tax Commission proposals, seeing as they haven’t yet been published!
If however you have, which specific enviro taxation policy can you point to that supposedly has this massive impact on the poorest?
On another subject, seeing Israel has taken yesterday’s Roman farce as a green light for an extended war against Lebanon, is anyone taking bets on how long it will be before another country/entity joins the fight against Israel?
I don’t want yesterday to be the diplomatic disaster which precedes a major conflict but they certainly prepared the ground for it perfectly.
Pensions - sure it would be ‘neat’ to have a single rate of tax on pension income but it’s by no means essential.
In fact by raising the higher rate threshold to GBP50,000 the vast majority of pensions would then be taxable at the basic rate. For those with pensions greater than GBP50k per annum (at today’s prices) I have no objection to them bearing a higher tax burden.
89. “the person who wins *Must* target the labour vote” I agree with you Paul, but how many of the libdems MP’s have seats in traditional tory heartlands? The next GE might make it more difficult for them to target Labour while retaining the seats they already have.
93 - There are very few lib dem seats with no labour vote. Especially in a lib dem/tory marginal a labour vote is a disaster for the lib dem candidate. It is a fallacy that you win a marginal by targetting your main opposition’s policies, you win it by creating a coalition of those who are not your main opposition.
I don’t suppose anyone has figures on lib dem seats where labour support is below 10%
94- “I don’t suppose anyone has figures on lib dem seats where labour support is below 10%”
Cheadle (8.8% in GE, lost deposit in the byelection)
North Devon (9%)
Harrogate & Knaresborough (8.5%)
Lewes (9%)
North Norfolk (9.2%)
Richmond Park (9.3%)
Romsey (8.8%)
Westmorland (7.6%)
Winchester (7.8%)
91 - count me in! International brigade, anyone?
Lewes, Harrogate & Knaresborough, Romsey and Winchester the Lab vote went up in 2005.
85 Forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears for those heading for a pension large enough to pay higher rate income tax!
Obviously boundary changes confuse things somewhat but these are seats that I’d consider marginal which would be vulnerable to a labour revival (the figure is the current labour vote)
Richmond Park 9.3
Devon N 9.0
Cheadle 8.8
Romsey 8.8
Winchester 7.8
Westmorland & L 7.6
With these not far behind
Southport 12.8
Taunton 12.0
Cornwall N 11.9
Sutton & Cheam 11.8
Dorset Mid 11.6
Cheltenham 11.4
Cornwall SE 11.4
Teignbridge 11.4
Somerton & Frome 10.8
Hereford 10.2
This isn’t even beginning to look at the large number of seats where labour are in second place and close enough to unseat a lib dem.
91 - “how long it will be before another country/entity joins the fight against Israel?”
Who did you have in mind? Of the countries in the area, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq are solidly pro-American. That only really leaves Syria, and I would have thought the last thing that the Syrian government would want would be war with Israel, with almost unlimited American backing. They only need to look at the Ba’athist regime in Iraq to see what would probably happen to them.
86 Mark. I wonder if the solid Labour poll rating, despite all their travails, has an element of Labour inclined voters already discounting Blairs departure and preparing for politics without him. I would also agree that there is an element of “the economy stupid” about the figures.
So on balance the polling trend presently is Conservatives in the high 30’s, Labour in the mid 30’s and the Lib Dems in the high teens. Plently of traction for all parties. One other factor this ICM was polled before the Lebanon became the lead in the news. The next YouGov may tell a different story.
00 - Hizbollah is not Lebanon for example, but across the middle east there are people with access to weapons in various organised groups who would be very happy to attack Israel. What better time to do so when it is fighting on at least two fronts already.
Frankly if I was a country asked by Israel to be a peace keeping force in South Lebanon I’d tell them where to get off, They have a tendency to shoot at and bomb anyone non aligned. If they want a buffer zone let them keep it and police it.
Given that a senior Israeli has just announced that they consider anyone currently residing in South Lebanon as being a terrorist you can see which way this is heading and it isn’t anywhere pretty.
99. The problem in seats like those ukpaul is that the Labour vote has already been squeezed very hard - so continuing to target it may reap very little reward. Indeed, where the residual Labour vote might go if ’squeezed’ becomes more unpredictable as the residuum becomes ever smaller. So the incumbent Lib Dem MPs are probably right in thinking the biggest risk is not a Labour revival but Lib Dem votes drifting to the Tories.
03 - It is not those who remain that are important for the lib dems, it is the current lib dem voters who start to think ‘well I may as well vote labour instead’ that need to be targeted. I recall a poll after the last election which showed that four or five times as many lib dem voters were likely to switch to labour as they were to the tories. This is the real challenge and trying to peel away voters with tory friendly policies is just not going to work.
49 - Jack at Holyrood, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is as close as you’ll get to a four way marginal. Vote shares are quite close to Inverness etc IIRC.
Why is the Labour vote holding up? Because people don’t change their minds. Partly because they don’t like to admit that they might have been wrong, and partly because they don’t think about politics much. We’re unusually well-informed about politics here - yet how many regular posters on here are supporting a different party now to what they were a year ago? And if we aren’t changing our minds, how many of the casual observers will be?
As Jack says earlier, most seats are two-party battles - and especially were those parties are Labour and Conservative (the largest chunk of them) very few people change from one party to the other. More often they will not vote, or vote for a party with no chance of winning - and this is rarely decisive.
The usual reason for political change is demographic and generational - which is why London seems so much more volatile than (say) West Cumberland.
(N.B. please note I have little actual evidence for this last point, it just seems right - please feel free to shoot down with any evidence you might have.)
Just found that poll, it referred to identification rather than who you might switch to but the import is the same.
Lib dem voters 2005 - How do you define yourself?
35% Lib Dem
22% Labour
6% Conservative
4%
Whoops, sent to soon. Should finish -
4% Others
32% None
2% Don’t Know
The implication is clear, keeping labour voters onside is much more important than appealing to tory voters.
07 - 08 - that’s interesting Paul. 35% Lib Dem seems very low, and 32% none seems very high. Are there comparable figures from other parties.
The other interpretation, of course, is that the growth opportunities for the LDs are in voters who consider themselves Conservative.
09 - That particular question is on page 5.
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/RMW050101017_1.pdf
106 - Your observation about peebee regulars vs the ‘average’ voter in fixed party allegiances is very interesting. How many (poor sad things
) are we here - I’d guess about 60 or so. In the last few months, indeed days, we have seen two public change of allegiance, namely Ben from Lab to Con, and Roger from Lab to LibDem. SeanT appears hovering close to the Tory precipice, and Jack….oh, Jack is the canvasser’s worst nightmare ;). There are surely others.
So, I guess you’re broadly right, but maybe not as clear-cut as first might seem.
Fascinating, Paul. I’m particularly interested in the questions on the last page asking people to identify which wing of the party they sit in. It rather defies the popular wisdom that most Labour party members see themselves as new Labour (though this is what Nick P’s been telling us for saome time).
105 Max. Good spot Max.
PS Alastair Matlock and I have high hopes of recruiting Andrea to Conservative Future.
12 - Don’t forget that this was a survey of voters and not members. The sample of three and a half thousand is pretty impressive in any case, and there should, therefore, be a small MoE.
114- But you have to be under 30 so must be very unlikely?
111 John O. “Jack is the canvasser’s worst nightmare
.
Actually I’m rarely canvassed !! … In Scotland you’d be mad to trek miles up a partly made road and in Harpenden Constituency either my reputation goes before me or more likely even the most intrepid of canvasser is put of by a combination of large electric gates and an artful Jack Russell terrier who regards interlopers as a two legged light snack !!
110 - Interesting poll would be good to see what would come out a year later and with Cameron and Ming in place.
Worrying that so few Lib Dems identify themselves as such while the other two parties are around the 70% mark.
Seems the party still has an image problem, a “what or who are you?” problem.
I understand this, they just do not push policies enough, and they are not vigorous nor bold enough to stick their necks out and if they have to piss some people off.
I think as a Lib Dem voter better that than being a bunch of bland no bodies that the public cannot identify with.
106 - I don’t know why people would be puzzled about the Labour vote. Shock horror, but perhaps it’s got something to do with a large chunk of the UK electorate being broadly social democratic in their politics, and despite all the let downs and deliberate two fingers to this group from Blair - Labour remains the most obvious party to vote for - especially with a new electoral threat from the conservatives.
[114] John O - you’re au fait with Bluetooth technology? Or has Blueclaw made it obsolete
?
120 -
Sadly, Colgate with Extra Fresh Whitening Gel has had no effect. Rather disconcerting
Lib Dem donor faces jail :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5219958.stm
107. I see that the poll was taken on line on polling day. Because of the relative size of the part y memberships and possibly the level of activism within those parties it may be reasonable to assume that any Lib Dem Voters who would identify themselves as Lib Dem would like myself have not been near their computer at any point on May 5 last year.
It’s quite easy to explain the difference between these poll results and the much poorer Labour performance in all elections (of late).
These are people being asked ‘who they would vote for, who they support’. A lot of these people will be onetime Labour voters who’ve now gone off the party - coz of Iraq, deportees, immigration, crime, tax credits, NHS, Prescott, Jowell, Mandelson, etc. But when these onetime Labour supporters are asked ‘who will you vote for next/who do you support?’ that puts them on the spot. They dislike New Labour, and yet… saying “Tory” is a bit beyond them. Likewise saying “I’m Lib Dem!” sounds too dramatic, a serious commitment to a weird third party. Like saying “I’m bisexual”, after years of being straight. Saying “I don’t support anyone” comes across as apathetic and uncaring, which these people aren’t, either.
So these people mutter and shrug and sigh and say “Oh, Labour I suppose, can I get on with my shopping now?” And so Labour gets another opinion poll vote.
But this is tacit and abstract support. These people are not keen on Labour. Not at all. When it comes to elections - local, European, the next G/E - many of do not vote Labour and will not vote Labour and quite possibly shall never again vote Labour. Many will abstain, as they have already. So Labour’s actual vote is, I believe, considerably down on these opinion polls - as we see in actual elections.
I suspect Labour’s G/E vote, if an G/E were held tomorrow, is running nearer 30%, or even below; certainly not 35%. Labour should be worried.
121 John O. Bloody hell !! A Tory with his own teeth !! …… we are indeed honoured to have you on the site.
23 - I think it’s much more likely that lib dem voters are less dogmatic than those of other parties. I take that poll as being a very good representation.
And it’s not “reasonable to assume” at all, I’m really flummoxed as to the spin you are attempting with that!!
Activists are a small minority you know and you shouldn’t base anything on what they would like. Listen to the voters instead and that’s what this poll does.
16. DC, I’m under 30! How old do you think I’m?!
Personally I feel that there is a false dichotomy between “core” and “floating” voters.
The implication is that there is a “real” situation of about Con 30%, Lab 30%, LD 15%, Others 5% and “Floating” 20%, with the parties fighting over the floaters (Horrible image there …)
Rather, I’d see it more as “core”, “sticky” and “float”, with there being gradations within those.
We all know what a “core” voter is as well as a “floating” voter - a “sticky” voter is one who is attached to a party but may be detached - midway between “core” and “floating”. My mother is one such - she voted Tory at every election until 1997 (well, since she was old enough to vote, anyway
), but Labour since. The thing is, as she is a “sticky” voter rather than a “floating” voter, it takes more effort to detach her and get her back.
Effectively, a floating voter has little inertia. A sticky voter has considerable inertia and a core voter has colossal inertia.
What we’re seeing is the sticky voters that Blair won over are resisting being peeled back off of the Labour vote. The Conservative sticky voters were effectively shocked off of the Conservative vote in the aftermath of Black Wednesday, which supplied much of the impulse needed to overcome their inertia, and New Labour skilfully hoovered them up.
The test will be if the sticky voters will succumb to being pulled off of the Labour vote over a prolonged period in the absence of a political/economic shock of the magnitude of Black Wednesday - foreign affairs issues aren’t enough - in isolation - to do it. They may be enough if there are sufficient other issues to build up the pressure or the pressure is sustained for a long enough period. And once they are won over to a new alleigance - well, they stick around.
The Beeb catches up with the ICM/Guardian poll :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5220510.stm
UK Paul. I notice in all your posts an assumption that the ends that you wish for must be universally shared. So logically every Tory or Lib Dem voter shouldn’t compete with each other but should vote tactically to get rid of Labour. Unfortunately this ignores the large number of Lib Dems who would prefer a Labour government to a Tory one and those Tories who might prefer a Labour government to a Lib Dem one!
It’s very unlikely that any other country will enter the Israeli/Lebanon war. What is likely though and much more dangerous for the Middle East is the possibility of revolution/ civil war spreading from Lebanon to Saudi Arabi, Jordan, and even Egypt. Then the Middle East and Israel will really be in trouble.
30 - I don’t assume it Roger but It’d be silly for me to equivocate regarding my own feelings. It is labour potential voters that the lib dems are in danger of losing and, in order to maximise seats, any lib dem should address that fact whether they prefer labour (quite a proportion of labour voters as the poll I linked to showed) or the tories. I wouldn’t want fewer lib dem MPs just to spite another party.
On the Middle East you are correct in that no other country will enter the fray. There are, however, plenty of factions and elements of governments in various countries in the region who will be quite prepared to do so.
I though this was very funny from the end of SeanT’s last post;
“I suspect Labour’s G/E vote, if an G/E were held tomorrow, is running nearer 30%, or even below; certainly not 35%. Labour should be worried”.
So eat your heart out ICM!!!!
F*** politics. Pakistan 118-9. Yes, FOR NINE.
Yay.
133. All out for 119!
33 - Should have waited a couple of minutes… 119 All Out
(Why, oh Why did I put money on Pakistan…