Labour move to within 1% with Populus
October 10th, 2006-
But Labour’s deficit is 8% with Brown/Cameron named as leaders
The first fully post-conference season poll to be carried out, that for Populus in the Times this morning, has Labour moving to within just one point of the Tories. The shares with changes on the last Populus poll a month ago are: CON 36% (nc): LAB 35% (+3): LD 18% (-2).
In the same October survey in 2005 which took place after the Tory conference in Blackpool had been dominating the news Labour had a 10% lead - so over the past year there’s been an 11% turnaround in the comparative positions of the main two parties.
But even with such a massive change in Tory fortunes Labour would still be returned with an overall majoriy if Britain voted in these proportions at a General Election.
The Tories will take comfort that they still have a big lead when the question was “If the choice at the next election is between Labour led by Gordon Brown, the Conservatives led by David Cameron and the Liberal Democrats led by Ming Campbell, which party would you vote for?”. The voting intention figures were CON 42% (nc): LAB 34% (+1): LD 15% (-1). with changes relating to when the same question was asked last month.
The fact that the Tories receive a substantial boost if Cameron is named in a voting intention question is a phenomenon that has been recorded in every poll that has asked this since the new leader came in.
I have long argued that the best way for Labour and the Lib Dems to deal with Cameron is never ever to mention his name. Attacking him just reinforces the link between the leader and his party which gives the Tories a boost.
There will be delight in the Brown camp that the Chancellor was scoring better than either Alan Johnson or John Reid when the same question was asked but with their names replacing Brown’s as Labour leader. The Johnson figures were CON 41%: LAB 33%: LD 16% while those with Reid named were CON 40%: LAB 30%: LD 19%.
I like the way that the Lib Dems get the biggest boost if Reid is named as leader. These poll findings, surely, will add further nails in the coffins of Reid and Johnson’s leadership chances.
Today’s poll must surely reinforce Brown’s position as the hot favourite to succeed Tony Blair. There is simply nobody else about who can make any difference.
The latest betting prices have Brown at 0.54/1 on Betfair. That look great value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
my concern as a labour supporter is that last time we got this close (i seem to remember being a couple of points behind in march/april) we ballsed up big time, ie prescott etc etc.
Hopefully we wont do so again and we can peg back cameron to such a position that any honeymoon a new leader gets will put us back in the lead, something which will be invaluable in terms of a moral boost.
All in all, i am happy with this, although from a party point of view we really do need to hit cameron a few times. Over the next few years i think we will see a convergence of camerons ratings and the tories. If camerons personal ratings sink to the tories current ratings ( as a party they’re still not liked) we win the next election with a majority. If the tory party goes up and gets the same responses as cameron does now then we will have a real fight on our hands.
for me whichever way this inevitable convergence goes will decide the result of the next general election. But all in all i am happy with this position.
It gives one renewed faith in politics to see that the floridly illiberal Reid sheds support to the Liberal Democrats. It could even give some hope of bringing the politics back into politics.
I’m pretty happy with that poll too.
The hypothetical questions about how people would vote with different leaders are ‘a bit of fun’ but - as discussed on this forum numerous times - aren’t hugely reliable.
However the overall figures are pretty encouraging - just 1% behind mid-term is really a pretty comfortable position for any Government to be in.
Overall, I think Mike’s conclusion is spot on: it has to be Gordon. There’s no one else in his league.
On Mike’s other point about ‘how to deal with Cameron’, I must respectfully disagree.
I think the strategy needs to be to tackle Cameron head-on and bring him down to the level of his party.
So far we’ve scarcely laid a glove on him - but that’s because we haven’t really tried. My impression is that we’ve been a little complacent - we haven’t really gone for the jugular (though god knows there’s plenty of ammunition). We need to make a start - no more Mr Nice Guy
re 3. How on earth do you know that the “named leader” questions are “highly unreliable”? It might suit your view of the situation not to want to believe them but there is no reason to suggest that these questions are any more or less reliable than other polling questions.
All the Brownites loved it in 2004 when similar questions showed that their man would do substantially better than Blair. Now it’s not showing that and you try to rubbish them.
I think the key thing is that if you link the Tory leader and his party in a voting intention question you get a big boost. This has happened so often now without any exceptions that I think there is something there.
In a General Election situation then there will be no doubt that people will be being invited to vote for Cameron’s Conservatives. That will be the proposition that will be hammered home, if the Tories are sensible, day after day - bulletin after bulletin.
If you think that there will be no effect then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Spartacus is right. But it is difficult to run a campaign saying “their leader is a dishonest hypocritical toe rag from whom, if he told you the time, you would turn away and look for your watch”, when your own party is led by erm………..
Meanwhile, back on planet Murdoch, we have Blunkett and Campbell (no relation!) vieing for sympathy on the tabloid pages as they struggle towards the relegation end in the narcissists’ Championship. “Pass the sick bag Alice”, as John Junor used to say.
I was greatly impressed by Bashir Assad on the box last night being interviewed by John Simpson. What I mean by that is that if you placed this rather pragmatic and intelligent North London eye surgeon in charge of the US and Bush in charge of Syria I know which would worry me the most.
Assad also stated clearly that he was prepared to co-exist with a state of Israel. Not exactly the rhetoric of those who have attacked North Korea consistently over the past five years and have through bloody-minded ignorance/diplomatic incompetence pushed them and the Iranians relentlessly to try to gain er…. the same kind of coercive bullying capability that their accusers themselves already have.
5 mike, i think the ‘named leader’ questions are indeed highly unreliable with anyone who hasn’t got very high name recognition already. They only give a ‘present snapshot’ of the electorate’s view today and to some extent reflect the same phenomenom which you get with Lib Dems normally consistently under-polling between election campaigns. Who knows what John Reid could do if projected onto the British public by decent(sic, very sic) spin-doctors. He could end up more popular than Mussolini in his heyday. With a lot of the same baggage which might make some Old Labour souls want to fast-forward to the lamppost stage.
I’m glad to see you been converted to the belief that Brown will win easily Mike - what prompted that?
re 8. The polls - particularly today’s one showing Johnson and Reid nowhere.
I’ve long argued that the main threat to Brown would come if the polls showed that Labour would do substantially better against the Tories with another leader. That has not happened and it is hard, post Labour conference, to see how a challenger could get any momentum behind a bid.
My positions are always flexible.
Any new leader of the Labour Party will see a boost for Labour in the polls. It’s the nature of the beast.
It’s whether that boost can be maintained during an election period.
Even Howard had a mini-micro boost!
It’s an encouraging poll - the total change since the GE is a swing to the Tories of less than 2% (all of it consisting of a small LD->Con shift), which given the events of the last year is pretty feeble. I suspect the lead will continue to bounce around in the 1-5% range for a while, mainly as people shift between Lab and LD. Both major parties have a shot in their lockers - the Tories have their policies to come, and we have the new leader plus new policies. Neither hypothetical poll questions nor analysis really tell us what the impact of these will be.
As regulars here know I’ve always thought GB was a shoo-in for the succession, though gamblers will probably find a short-term opportunity if and when a challenger actually appears. Another point is that an early handover in Q1 2007 is looking even more unlikely. The argument used to be that we were doing terribly under TB so had to switch soon to avoid disaster in the May elections and we’d then do much better. If polls continue on these lines, that argument simply evaporates.
As for Cameron, we’ve basically taken the view that we needed to wait for him to define himself so we’d have something concrete to criticise. Now that even friendly commentators like Matthew Parris are saying he’s in danger of being seen as an amiable puffball, I suspect that the other parties will seek to assist that trend.
Mike, if I read the poll correctly with Johnson the gap between Labour and the Tories is the same as with Brown. A well run campaign could easily get him in to a position where he could challenge (frankly challenging for the deputy leadership is pointless given the number of potential contenders). Reid has no backing in the party but Johnson might have. His problem, as with all the other potential contenders, is that he is scared to try. Even if he failed to win, with a well run campaign he could make his name, so in my view he has very little to loose.
The assertion at 12 that Reid has no support in the party is unfounded - for instance about 2/3 of Scottish MPs are likely to back him over Brown if he runs.
9. but Mike, I am sure you can go back far enough to see polls where Cameron would not have got 10 per cent of davis’ support. Cameron who?
Both Cameron and Johnson appear to have inherited the education portfolio (did no harm to the milk snatcher did it?)due to ‘accidents’ by their predeccessors (one lost an election, one lost his prophylactics). But Johnnson has, as yet, no ‘force’ or ‘wealth’ behind him and appears a bit timid. Still the best product (with the right marketing) I think.
Reidite,
You may well be right that in the very polarised world of Scottish politics quite a few MPs (surely not 2/3s though) would back Reid, but I am not sure that would be true of English MPs or English members of the party. I think the best way to look at it is that Reid polarises opinion, which puts a ceiling on his support, but Johnson does not polarise opinion (a few union leaders dislike him but these days that won’t count for much) so he has all to play for.
Another tiny window into the psyche of David Cameron. Having suggested taking the NHS out of politics-an idea Brown received huge publicly for a few weeks ago- he petulantly claimed it was his idea first.
He was obviously angry that Brown had thought of such an eye catching gimmick that he claimed it as his own. The beginning of a gaping Achilles heel methinks!
As for the hypothetical leadership questions; It would be interesting to ask which way people would vote had David Davis in charge of the Tories? My guess is they’d lose 10 points which obviously wouldn’t have been the case.
11 Nick , the fallacy with your argument is that in the real polls when people have to get off their backsides and go out to vote Labour is still doing very badly . A small improvement in the last couple of weeks council byelections but that is compared to the position in May and compared to the GE you are performing nowhere near the 35% opinion poll figures .
The Brown/Cameron voting intention figures are pretty useless . Significant figures will not emerge until GB has taken over as PM and the public will begin to judge him on how he performs and looks then and the general state of the economy then .
Not a single poster predicted the Populus poll correctly.
The nearest was Jack W who had 36,34,18.
11 Comparison with the GE shows that the losers have been the Lib Dems with a drop of 4 points. I cannot understand why the Lib dems are so complacent about Cameron.
His game plan is very clear- when he calls himself a Liberal Conservative it is not an accident When he gets near to policy it is stealing the Lib Dem clothes - green policies,simple rincome tax, NHS localism etc.
It is no use saying he has no policies- the vaccuum will be filled and with policies which will be close to those of the Lib Dems but which will be associated with the Tories because they are the main opposition.
The game plan is to weaken the Lib Dem between now and the Locals,erode the Local election base and then sqeeze them between 2007 and 2009 ,with hopefully the odd defection so that it is clearly a two horse race and then cosy up around election time to get the tactical vote in Lab / Con marginals.
Time for the Lib Dems to wake up, taking them down to the mid teens in the polls is the first step to power for the Tories
Roger H
Usual stuff 3 years to go blah blah
The problem for the Tories is obvious Cameron nice guy would vote for him, be the perfect leader for NuLabour, switch parties David you’ll romp home. But voting for Cameron would mean voting for the Tories and thats the rub. Millions of voters would vote for DC, but won’t vote for the Tories. Which is why despite it all NuLabour are still favourites to win next time, as we stand at the present, but events could change all that. Have I left myself with enough get out clauses, so I won’t look like a total arse if events prove me wrong?
re 17. Why Mark? On what basis do you say they are useless? It is just like saying that ICM polls are useless because they include the main party names in the voting intention question. The result is that the Lib Dems get bigger shares.
Cameron’s failure against a lame duck premier to have a lead of more than 1% is surely worrying for the Tories. I would like to see the predicted turnout figures on any poll, but assume that they will be awful.
Disappointed that the Lib Dems are not making more noise but lets wait for a byelection or two!
21.”Disappointed that the Lib Dems are not making more noise but lets wait for a byelection or two! ”
And if no MPs die, what will happen to your lot?
20 Mike they are useless because at this moment GB is not PM and it is how he performs as PM and the state of the economy at that time that will influence how people will vote at the next GE . They will not vote at the GE as to how they feel when he was C of E . If he performs badly then the figures may turn out to be true but if he is perceived as doing a good job they will be way out .
They are ‘useless’ because they don’t compare like with like. Cameron IS party leader. With Brown you are being invited to IMAGINE him as party leader. Most people are not sufficiently interested to excercise that sort of imagination.
Death and taxes Andrea! Hear a goodly proportion of Italian politicians need drugs to get them through the day.
Interesting poll figures Mike. It does seem like Labour have had a psot conference bounce. I would be interested to see how long it lasts.
It is also interesting to look at how the parties compare to the same time in the last parliament as per yesterdays discussion. The key thing is you say teh Cameron has moved from a 10% deficet to positive numbers. Much done, still much more to do.
An idea of the absurdity of these hypothetical polls comes from Yougov before the Tory leadership. In a contest between a Tory party led by Davis and a Labour party led by Brown. Labour win by 44% to 30%. When Davis is then compared to Cameron he beats him 2 to 1!
I accept that 36% has become a ‘bad’ poll for us, yet we are still in the lead. What a difference a year makes.
Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. Labour are losing vote share and there seems no magic solution round the corner. All the polling indications are that with Brown at the helm Labour lose even more support yet they seem hell bent on electing him anyway.
Attention,
Would you like to make at least 1.5K to 3.5K per day just for returning
phone calls?
If you have a phone and can return calls you are fully qualified.
Speak with us - 888-701-3877
Thanks Alot,
Antwan Edwardsd
I think your getting a little excitable here red roses, this is one poll in isolation, I noticed there was a different view given to the poll 3/4 days ago which showed a 6% tory lead!
doesn’t populus tend to show a more favourable showing for labour compared to the others normally anyway!!
The marvellous thing about polls, is that activists supporters will always look for good news even in the bad. If there is a ‘bounce’, then surely the Tories as the last in the conference season, should be still benefiting from the bounce effect. To repeat ad nauseum which ever way you look at it, the Tories should be doing better than this. Please anyone don’t come out with the ‘when real people vote, the ………..(fill in your party) we do much better etc. remember William Hague saying the same thing about the European elections. If at this stage of the game, the main opposition party does not have a substantial lead, then its going to take a political cataclysm to give it one, ERM disaster type.
30. Indeed - the great news from this poll is that the public regard all the putative Labour leaders with almost equal distaste, and the Blair Tories are set to return to the Conservatives in droves next time.
18 Roger. “The nearest was Jack W who had 36,35,18.”
Prize please …. Cash or bankers draft … no cheques or books !!
…………
As I indicated last night this is a pre conference “as you were poll”, perhaps with Labour helped by the veil issue. Of course in this period of the Blair twighlight zone we really are treading water on the long term politcal front.
Tories may be disappointed that the their decent lead has slipped to nought but in the context of long term trends their reversal of Labours perenial lead is significant. The Labour rating remains stubbornly high for anti government supporters and the Lib Dems are still struggling to make any progress against the governments travails.
Cameron’s ratings are strong yet the elephant in his state room is the all piss and wind figure that Nick P highlights. Although this is hardly surprising as the Tory programme for government might so far be described as the Dawn French Manifesto - Rampant tax on Chocolate Oranges.
Still, all the play for …… now Mike, where’s my Tatton prize money ??
Tyneside be ready…Dinky is coming (it seems he took the task seriously)
http://www.alanduncan.org.uk/newsitems/newsitem0129.html
All policies should pass the “Tyneside Test”
He wants to gain councillors in Newcastle and Gateshead, gaining the control of North Tyneside Council and gaining Tynemouth at the next GE
And is Newcastle nightlife so good as he claims?
Interesting if you go back to the Tories just before their leadership election. With Howard (or no-one) leading the Tories;
Conservatives 32-Labour-37-Lib Dem-21
With Gordon leading Labour and Clark leading the Tories;
Conservatives 31-Labour-42-Lib Dem-17
With Gordon leading Labour and Davis leading the Tories;
Conservatives 30-Labour-44-Lib Dem-18
Doesn’t this result look remarkably like to-days hypothetical poll and isn’t it likely to be equally wrong?
re 20 & 24. You miss my point. This has little or nothing to do with Brown. The striking feature is that when you put Cameron’s name into a voting intention question every single one of the fourteen surveys where this has been done since last December have given the Tories a boost. Now I think that that is highly significant and one, when the times comes, I will be prepared to wager a lot of money on.
It is just like the boost that ICM find for the Lib Dems because they name the main parties in their voting intention question. What you say in the question affects the answer.
20. Mike - the problem from a market research point of view is that it is yet another hypothetical situation (potential different party leaders) placed upon another (if there were a general election tomorrow, or however it is phrased), so I would agree with all those saying the responses with hypothetical leaders, though maybe interesting, are not particularly valid.
In research and polling it is hard enough to get people to answer truthfully/correctly about real situations, let alone when there are several hypotheticals placed on top of each other.
36. well, I suppose the Libdems won’t do Focus leaflets with “XX is David Cameron’s Conservative Party candidate” headlines.
26 I am not sure that Cameron has really “done” anything that contributed to this turnaround.
It is my firm opinion that the possibiity of a Tory lead has been there since well before the 2005 election. It just need the Tories to elect a leader who appeared to be a member of the human race to unlock this potential.
The other interesting thing about the Tory polls compared to to-days Labour leadership polls is that the party choosing their new leader doesn’t shift very much. The shift in the parties not having the leadership election. In other words “if you had to choose from the party you are not going to vote for who would you choose?”
32,
I wouldnt be so sure.
The main thing Blair did on domestic policy was for centrist voters to feel safe, to vote for,where their heart was.
They wanted a centrist government, with some social justice, minimum wage, rights for workers to balance, the excess of the market.
This coming from the right wing of the Labour Party was believeable.
The problem for Cameron is do they believe this will continue from the Conservative Party.
35. Those poll results suggest that GB has gone from being a net positive for his party to a net negative - hardly surprising given recent events. Dire news for Labour.
This poll tells you nothing about a General Election three years away.
What it may tell us is that there really is a Blair effect, as Labour poll consistently higher until a different Labour leader is mentioned.
If I were a Labour supporter I would be asking why so many Trade Union leaders and MPs are so determined to get rid of him. After him the deluge? That what this and so many other polls do show.
43.”What it may tell us is that there really is a Blair effect, as Labour poll consistently higher until a different Labour leader is mentioned”
In July Populus asked the normal question and they got a 2% Con lead, then they asked the question prompting for the names of Cameron/Blair/Ming and they got a 7% lead. So in Populus polls Labour usually polls higher when no leaders (Blair included) are mentioned.
PM your optimism does you credit, it may be whistling in the dark who knows, with three years to go who can really tell. I’ve always thought, that when someone joins a political party, at the foot of the form in big bold type there should be written, ‘Warning when you sign this form, you will live in a state of unreality, you will reject evidence that proves everything you believe is wrong, and talk and write utter gibberish due to that belief,’
45. It is also quite possible to write gibberish on a regular basis even if you are not a member of a political party
46 Ah but thats a choice its not mandatory!
Yes, yes very interesting, but not very “real” - when someone goes into the polling both it will be Tory candidate name (conservative party) - not (conservative party, you know with that nice david cameron as leader).
Questions prompting by name are highly manufactured.
I really can’t see how the tories will receive an immediate 5% boost in the polls when Labour finally changes leader - wishful thinking my tory and lib dem friends…wishful thinking.
It is interesting watching the wriggling by the likes of roger at 23 and Mark Senior at 27 when a poll gives results they dont like.
Mike Smithson is hardly a rabid Conservative supporter. From what I have seen he comments dispassionately on the evidence before him.
All the evidence suggests that Cameron’s name being mentioned boosts Conservative support. During a General Election campaign this effect is likely to be even more pronounced as news items focus on the leaders of the parties. I would hazard a guess that this will be good for the Conservatives, bad for the Lib Dems and neutral to bad for Labour.
When ever there is a poll out so many people rubbish it on the basis of how far the election is away etc…..
Well, it is true that polls ask hypothetical questions, like if there were an election tomorrow… which way would you vote?
That is because it is the only sort of question you can ask.
Polls give useful snapshots as a parliament goes on. Nothing more and nothing less. They are also useful.
37. Some of the scientific types on here exasperate me. “it is hard enough to get people to answer truthfully/correctly about real situations, let alone when there are several hypotheticals placed on top of each other.”
Polling is not a science; it is wholly and totally subjective snapshot of the way public opinion stands at any given moment in time.
Mike is right, the interesting part of most polls is not the headlines but the underlying movements bewteen polls and the contrast in some of the details.
At this moment in time most polls suggest:
The public are uncertain about where the Conservatives are going, and aren’t sure about the partys apparent conversion just yet. But they like Cameron and *hope* that he will make the party a viable alternative Government.
The public are fed up with a Government that they believe is in disarray. They liked Blair but he’s let them down; but they don’t like Gordon Brown much either.
The public feel uncertain about the Lib Dems, like the Conservatives, because the leader has changed but his message and direction is still not very clear to them.
PM,
If you are so certain that centrist voters will return because of the Cameron effect, this will be your weakness.
Many were never Conservatives, but the fear of a Labour Government, percieved as always ruining the economy, endless strikes, high inflation from the seventies, was always a risk too far, so they voted accordingly.
Whatever you say this, will not be the case in 2010, and any victory, will be hard won, and not taking anything as a given, such as statements like” Blair tories set to return in droves to the Conservatives next time.”
Would be a helpful mindset.
36 What I find implausible is the finding that the Conservatives and Labour between them would win 75/76% of the vote with Gordon Brown vs David Cameron.
I see absolutely no evidence at all that, at the next election, their combined vote share will be higher than 2005’s 69%.
I almost agree with Marcus. It’s possible to argue in circles indefinitely, but objectively the position is that people are moderately cheesed off with the Government, not comnvinced by the Opposition, and quite like Cameron. It’s likely that Cameron’s rating and the Conservatives’ rating will converge over time: either people will think they’ve become similart to what they like about Cameron, or they’ll feel he’s ineffiective.
The elephant in the room, though, is the almost complete failure of the Tories to establish a substantial lead after 10 months of solidly helpful coverage. Before the conferences, some Tory posters here were predicting a 10-point Tory lead afterwards. Their difficulty is that there appears to be a resilient Labour core vote over 30%, so they really need to get over 40% to get sight of possible victory, and that means raiding the LibDems (or chasing the will-of-the-wisp “Others”). Polls suggest that LibDems still on balance prefer a Labour government to a Conservative one, so Cameron is trying to change that by seeming as centrist as possible.
Mark Senior: Labour is doing very badly in Scottish by-elections; in the rest of the country the record is much more mixed. Council by-elections are more than anything else a measure of differential turnout, and there have been very good reasons why Labour turnout has been depressed. That could be a factor in three years’ time, but it’s one of the factors most likely to vary over time.
Benedict I am not questioning the accuracy of the polls, I fully accept that a lot of hard work goes into producing them. You are I deduce from some of your posts, a trained scientist/engineer obviously degree level, probably higher. You know better than anyone the pitfalls in making judgements based on faulty information. The political situation is obviously in a state of flux, it would be foolish in the extreme, to make a prediction on the next GE based on what the polls are telling us now. If I had to make a prediction, something I would be very reluctant to do, but if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to, then given the information I have to work on, I would have to say, the Labour Party would be largest party, how much I couldn’t say, (bang)
Evidence+Analysis=Conclusion to many people (political activists) start off with the conclusion they want, then twist the evidence to support it! The empirical tradition has made the western world number one, we must apply it to all aspects of our lives!
54 Labour’s still down by 0.5% on average, in seats that were fought in May. However, the Conservatives have also fallen back since May.
RE 54 Nick Palmer, yesterdays thread discussed how Labour were doing at the same relative point in the 1992-1997 parliament. They were about the same. In that sense we are doing well enough, though we do need to do better.
You are right that the Cameron and Conservative poll numbers will merge. We hope at the high end you the low. That is all that can be said about that.
RE 55. Coldstone, if what you are saying is that all this discussion of polling amounts to useless speculation then you are right. However many here enjoy that all the same
The big question raised by this poll is: Are we all now completely scr*wed?
Has politics degenerated to the point where it doesn’t matter all that much what your policies are, or how effective/experienced you are as a manager.
All it matters is how nice you appear to be?
You wouldn’t run a business on this basis, let alone a government. Is this what Blair and Cameron get - that the others don’t. If it’s true we’re in big, big trouble.
I prefer to think that there is something more substantial behind the Tory improvement in 2006 - but I am no longer sure.
“Interesting poll figures Mike. It does seem like Labour have had a psot conference bounce. I would be interested to see how long it lasts.”
Benedict 26 - I see no Labour bounce, rather a Tory slump.
49 - too true!
51 - Marcus it is a point I have made before and you are absolutely right. Polls are a snapshot but they do give a useful indication of which way the political winds are blowing.
But I will reiterate what i have said repeatedly that a series of polls over a full cycle is a better indication than any single poll.
51. Marcus - I’m sorry I exasperate you.
I think any pollster would be quite disturbed at your assertion that ‘Polling is not a science; it is wholly and totally subjective…’.
This is not the case.
All pollsters go to great length to ensure that the samples they select for their surveys are as representative as possible. A great deal of thought goes into the construction of weights, not to mention questionnaire design, interviewer training and so on. This is all in an attempt to get meaningful and valid responses from the general public, which is not as easy as it seems.
If it were that subjective, no one would bother going to those lengths just to find 1,000 people willing to give a response.
You and others are free to interpret polls as you please - I’m just trying to aid that discussion by giving my view of the validity of the research in the first place.
Re 59 Icarus, You say Tamato I say tomato…
61 - cyberkarst - Marcus is right. Polling is not a science, it is a skillful and approximate art. Hence the margin of error.
59 - If no change is a slump, then I am ecstatic! how do you get a Tory slump Icarus?
What we might be seeing is not voter volatility, but a sensible reaction to the present situation, combined with some apathy.
Blair and Cameron are both centre-right leaders who support the NHS. Both are family men with charm. One went to Eton, the other to the Scottish Eton. They have near indistinguishable views on tax, education, nuclear weapons, global warming, faith schools etc etc.
Unsurprisingly, the voters find it hard to distinguish between the two, so they vote for them in equal measure.
Replace Blair with Brown (or Reid or Johnson) and the voters suddenly get more decisive. They are notably suspicious of these new guys. So Cameron wins by a mile.
Labour dismiss these findings at their peril. They are sacking a leader who exerts a hold over the plurality of voters, and replacing him with inferior alternatives.
Moreover, Labour are almost certain to put Brown in Blair’s place. And Labour can’t argue that Brown is an unknown quantity that the voters will learn to love. The voters know Brown, and what they see they don’t like.
The lesson here is go for Milliband, maybe.
64. Whoops. That last comment was by me. The anonymity was unintentional!
63 Rik W. “..how do you get a Tory slump ..?”
1. Put John Redwood in front of the cameras.
2. Adopt Asil Nadir as Tory PPC for Sutton.
3. Get Marcus to chair Tories for a Republic.
4. Nick Soames to chair the Conservative Feed Africa Campaign.
5. Boris Johnstone to get a No1 haircut.
64 seanT. I prefer … One went to Fettes, the other to the English Fettes.
Eton is sooooooo Tory Frontbench!
“How do you make a Tory slump?”
I thought they just stabbed each other in the back?
“5. Boris Johnstone to get a No1 haircut.”
and adopt Jimmy Savill sunglasses!
67 Jack W.
So that is fettening up for the slaughter?
66 - interesting scenario!!!
54. et al. Can we possibly have a moritorium on the use of the hackneyed phrase ‘the elephant in the room is…’ and on variations on it, please.
70 Rik W. You could swop Rik and become a fugitive from PB in Northern Cyprus. Exiled for crimes against polling methodology !
69 zebidee. Awful
Actually the movement (hardly a slump) is from Liberal Democrat to Labour. However that is, for fairly obvious reasons, likely to be ignored by many contributers to this site.
The bit that we have missed in all this analysis is what interests me the most.
I think we would all agree that the biggest criticism of Cameron is the chorus of voices saying ‘yeah, nice guy, but what where’s the meat, what are the policies?”.
This itself is fascinating change which no-one seems to have noticed. For years we have been belting out policy after policy and no-one has been interested; two thirds of the electorate cared not one jot what our policies were - they weren’t going to vote Conservative whatever we said.
Look at the change. Now, all of a sudden, it *matters* what the Tories are going to stand for; what their policies are going to be because people want a viable alternative to choose from.
They may -in the end- still not choose us, that much is self evident from the polls. But what is very different to any other time that I have been involved in politics is that a majority of the public care who we are and what we would do; and are clamouring for more detail; which I am glad we are not going to be rushed into revealing.
There is a very important warning there for both Labour and the Lib Dems and fortunately (for us) neither of them show any signs at all that they have seen it.
71 Begging Letter. A pedant writes …. May we not “Can we ..”
RE 74, Yes Marcus I totaly agree. Further more most people liked our policies last time around, they just did not like us. So when wo do issue policies it will be interesting to see how they work in the polls.
64 Interesting Post Sean.
Why Milliband?
Benedict - On a serious note both Labour and Conservative parties on only just over a third of those who say they will vote.
I could understand that for a tired, clapped out, party in its third term, with the DPM, and Blunkett sex stories and the loans for peerages scandal. But for the “main” opposition party with a shiney new leader to be there as well….
74 Marcus. The reasoning is simple. The previous 3 Tory leaders were so awful and Blair almost untouchable that we all knew the Tories would not be elected. So who cared if the Tories proposed slaughtering the first born of all asylum seekers !!
Now the Tories have a leader who appears of this world and so the second stage is…. are the policies any cop ? Answer … Well the Vicar of Dibley ain’t impressed, but the rest of us await with barely baited breath. But we ain’t goner wait forever ….. hint !!!
seanT - I think you have it the wrnog way round. The with leaders question says virtually nothing about Labour/Brown, but says a lot about the Tories/Cameron [+LibDems]
It says that the residual distrust and dislike of the Tories is still there, but that [for some reason incomprehensible to me] quite a lot of people trust/like Cameron, more than any other British politician.
This is absolute dynamite, as it means that Cameron has the potential to undo the anti-Tory tactical voting that costs them about a dozen seats, and possibly even turn it on its head for a net gain of ~20 seats, even with static vote share. It also leaves Labour’s recent election strategy rather threadbare, since a slogan of “vote for us, or you’ll get the Tories” would hardly be effective. As the Tories, demon eyes poster flop showed, fear/dislik e cannot be created on demand.
I share Jonathan’s pessimism about what this means for Western democracy as a political system, it’s not a good sign.
The battle then, is whether Cameron is identified *as* a Tory, or the Tories are identified *with* Cameron.
Whither Labour? They have absented themselves from the field of battle since Blair is unable to accept that his time has passed and that Labour can only regain a sense of purpose and direction once he has left. Whether they will be able to do so, is, of course, uncertain, but it is certain that it can’t happen whilst Blair hangs grimly on.
79. Jack W - Like a good pint of Guinness, the best things come to those who wait….
Benedict 76 Re Tory Policies
LAST TIME ——>NEXT TIME
Cut Taxes——->Keep Taxes high
Privatise NHS—->Support NHS
Tuition fees——> More Tuition Fees
Back to Thatcherism——>She was a silly old bat
Get out of Europe group——–>Not sure what to do about Europe
Re 78, Icarus if you look at ICm for the same period in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament we are in a comparable position to where Labour were.
I agree it could be better, but in May 2005 apart from our core vote we were just hated. It takes time to fix that.
74 - that’s a very good point Marcus, I hadn’t quite thought of it in that way. I suspect (without any evidence save for a gut feeling)that a fairly large number of people are listening and hoping that Dave gives them good enough reasons to vote Tory. Although that could be wishful thinking on my part.
82 - I dont think so!!!
This would be nearer the mark:
LAST TIME ——>NEXT TIME
Cut Taxes by small amount ——-> Share the proceed of growth (ie cut taxes by small amounts)
Support NHS with help for those going private —->Support NHS (details to follow)
No Tuition fees——> Tuition Fees may have to stay
Respect Thatcherism but times have changed ——> Times have changed
In Europe not Run by Europe & Stay in EPP / No Euro ——–> Leave EPP / No to Euro
81 Marcus. Some time soon we better have a Tory “Happy Hour” …. no binge drinking in the aisles though Marcus !
Wonderful Rik - sorry if I was wrong, I thought you were in favour of tuition fees last time - otherwise you make my point. Love the “details to follow” comment.
enjoy
BUSH: So what’s the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, the Taliban has cut out the heroin production in Afghanistan, and we need that gas pipeline. Iraq has $17 trillion worth of oil, and if we’re going to completely control the Middle East and protect Israel for the Zionists, we’re going to have to take out Iran. We’ll get either side of them and be able to squeeze them out. Then we’ll control the major source of the earth’s oil. We can set what ever price we want, and use $US as the exchange currency. That’s the only way we will be able to dig ourselves out of the shit we’re in.
BUSH: I don’t understand
CHENEY: That’s alright George, no-one expects you to. You just get up and make the speeches.
BUSH: So how do we do it?
CHENEY: Well, the American people are jaded and complacent. They feel so safe and secure in their two dimensional consumer illusion that they don’t even realize we are in unpayable trade debt to China. We need to scare the living shit out of them, create a new enemy, because they’re not scared of the Russians anymore. We need a new Pearl Harbor, and it needs to be as dramatic as possible, like a Hollywood movie, you know, like that “Independence Day.” We know that when we scare the crap out of them, they huddle together in fear and are ready to attack whoever we tell ‘em to. In one day, we’ll get ‘em to hate an entire race or religion. Since they don’t really know anything other than what we tell them, they’ll be ready to back us in whatever we choose to do. You know, like in Nazi Germany.
BUSH: Well, what if we just plant a few bombs like we did in Oklahoma City?
CHENEY: This is why we don’t give you any real power George…you think too small. No, the American people will just go back to sleep. It needs to be spectacular, and terrifying. We need to make them feel like they are under attack.
WOLFOWITZ: Shalom. Larry Silverstein just called. The deal on the WTC just went through. He managed to pick it up by only spending $14 million of his own money. Got a 99 year lease! The Port Authority are so happy to get rid of those asbestos filled white elephants, they’ve been losing money hand over fist for years. Can’t imagine why a crafty old fox like Silverstein would want to buy them, they’re a liability. Mind you, if anything were to happen to them, like, you know, a terrorist attack, he’d score a bundle on the insurance claims, and then he could make a nice new urban redevelopment plan, maybe without the asbestos this time!
CHENEY: Oh yeah, sorry Paul, I meant to tell you about that. I’ve already talked to Larry. We’re gonna drop ‘em. Its gonna be a great show.
RUMSFELD: Where do you want me to put all these military explosives you guys ordered? ******, there’s enough here to take down three buildings!
CHENEY: We’ve organized a power down at the WTC. There’ll be no security in the buildings, I believe one of your family members has taken care of that George?
BUSH: Huh? I’m hungry…
CHENEY: Thanks for that George. Anyway, I’ve taken over the control of shoot down orders for NORAD, so they won’t be able to spoil our little plan. Do we have the drones ready Donny?
RUMSFELD: They’ve been ready since the early 70’s, Dick.
CHENEY: Excellent. Any news on Saddam?
RUMSFELD: Yeah, that prick. He promised me he wouldn’t change the oil currency, but it looks like he’s trading out the back door to Russia in Euro.
CHENEY: OK, we’ve gotta move fast. We’re losing money everyday that the Taliban is cutting out our smack production, and now we’re losing money on that exchange rate from Saddam. We should start complaining in the press about that shit that Saddam did to the Kurds 15 years ago, you know, make it sound like we suddenly give a ******.
RUMSFELD: I’ll give Rupert and the guys at GE a call. It’ll be all over Fox and NBC tonight.
CHENEY: Make sure they don’t mention that we sold the chemical weapons technology to Saddam, that won’t look to good.
RUMSFELD: I’m on it, Dick.
CHENEY: So George, have you heard from Osama lately?
BUSH: Yeah, his cousin is playing golf with Jeb tomorrow.
CHENEY: So he’s cool with the whole patsy thing?
BUSH: Sure, as long as we pretend we can’t find him. So are we gonna blow up some stuff?
CHENEY: Yes, George.
GEORGE: Cool…can I watch?
CHENEY: Well, you can watch the replay, but we need you to pretend that you spend part of your day reading to school children, surrounded by people of various races and cultures, you know, a cross section of American culture. We need a photo op. Have you been practising your surprised but assured look?
BUSH: Yup….look…
CHENEY: OK George, you keep practising.
BUSH: Is it lunch time yet?
Icarus 82 -everyone can play that game:
Lib Dems
Last time ———– Next time
50% on top earners ———- income tax cuts
Less prison —————– prison works
Yeah baby we love Europe —- EU - not working
Big business bad ———— Big business good
We love Kennedy ————- Kennedy is an evil drunk
77. Jonathan, I think the voters are giving clear signals that they still like Blair, but they are not so keen on this older generation of other Labour pols - Johnson, Reid, Brown. They all get low 30s, doesn’t matter who it is; while Cameron shoots up by comparison. The findings are stark, I’m surprised people like Roger dismiss them.
Without Blair, Labour are just much less sellable, at least by the older generation. Ergo they need to go for someone younger, someone fresher, someone able to put a nice charming smile on the redistributive face. The only possible candidate is Milliband.
I agree, by the way, that there is something depressing in all this. It seems the future will be parties with smoothie centrist leaders, able to dilute the beliefs of their followers, in the eyes of the public. Hmm.
If seant is now becoming a centrist Cameron supporter.
I know its time to look at Cameron a bit more closer, before he gets my vote.
As people like that do`nt believe in centrist policies at home.
If he gets elected one of us will be severley disapointed, so either Cameron is bullsh**ting me or duping right wing Conservatives.
Think on past form he will stick with Seant or at least his party will.
88. Interesting mix of economic illiteracy, anti-semitism and cliched conspiracy theories. Perhaps you should compare notes with David Icke.
Benedict 83. But in September 1994 those who told ICM that they were certain to vote were 65% (of those prepared to be polled) -70% if you include the “9s”. In September 2006 the comparable figures are 52% and 57%.
The real battle is to convince the non voters that it matters a damn who you vote for. I dont think Cameron’s “Look at me I’m just like Mr Blair” is helping on this score.
Marcus Can I ask one simple question, did you believe that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and if not why not?
90. I’m still puzzled - if Blair is/was such a vote-winner, why were Labour MPs so reluctant to feature him in their literature at the general election?
Re 93, Icarus we are not yet two years into this parliament so you are picking the wrong numbers. You should be looking at October 1993.
96. If I look at September 1993, I see a 11% lead for Labour, then down to 3 for October and 4 for November and then up to 11% again in December.
Must say I’m rather miffed at this Gordon Brown fellow. Only yesterday myself and my good friend the adorable snowflake were congratulating the chap on his prudent, responsible, scorched-earth approach to the public finances, then only today he goes and blows a frightful wedge on tax cuts for Tom, Dick and Harry in Her Majesty’s armed forces, if you please:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6036309.stm
Cheeky blighter! Who’s going to pay for this extravagance, that’s what I want to know. They should get you and me in charge of the nation’s purse strings, eh snowflake?
We’d show the buggers how it’s done.
49 You seem to have the wrong impression , I do quite like polls that show Conservative support stagnant and declining from the peak they reached a few months ago and that the Cameron conference boost lasted 1 or 2 days at most . The strange comments seem to come from Conservatives who say good poll when they are 6% in the lead and good poll when the lead is 2 % . The realisation that they are facing a 4th election defeat in a row seems to have addled their brains .
ICM didnt show likely propensity to vote in 1993. Are the non voters constant? Or are previous Labour supporters deciding to stay at home, whilst slightly fewer of the non voters might just give Cameron a chance.
100. In October 1993, the Absolutely certain to vote were 62%, Absolutely 18%, Possibly you would not vote 6%, Certain not to vote 10%
94. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - In Mandela’s own words: “At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.
It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe…the Government had left us no other choice.”
I am quite ignorant of South African politics and rely very much on historical heresay for my opinion but in my view Mandela was to South Africa what the French Resistance was to Hitler.
I expect Osama Bin Laden might say the same thing of Al Quiada, though. Thats the problem, isn’t it. Where do you draw the line?
94 More interesting, coldstone, would be an answer to the question of whether or not the ‘allied’ undercover servicemen in WW2, who went to Norway to destroy heavy water plant and were quite prepared to coldly and deliberately see substantial ‘our side’ civilian casualties when they did so ‘for the greater good’, were ‘terrorists’.
And then of course there were the dreadful ‘terrorists’ who ‘executed’ Heidrich in Prague, doing a great disservice to ‘peaceful’(sic) law enforcement(sic) by the reigning power, leading to the almost inevitablelisdice reprisals. I believe those responsible were labelled ‘terrorsts’ which was also a common term in Vichy France for ‘Resistance’ saboteurs.
Do you think they were terrorists, Zebidee?
Strictly speaking, I suppose they were, although their sabotgage was a legitimate part of the war effort, IMO.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, the assasination of Heydrich was a mistake.
102. Mandela deserves enormous credit for the way he repudiated confrontation and revanchisme after his release and instead embraced reconciliation. This IMHO makes debates about his earlier record largely irrelevant.
But for what its worth it, is impossible to understand the dynamics of change in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s without looking at the global background. An ANC which had close links to Moscow was of course viewed with intense suspicion in the West in the 1970s and 1980s. But the end of the Cold War made the ANC’s bolted on ideology redundant and pulled the rug from under the apartheid regime as well. Mandela and De Klerk both had the sense to see this and react accordingly.
[89] the only one of these things that is actually true is:
Last Time >>> Next time
increase income tax >>> cut Income tax
As far as the Tories are concerned:
Cut taxes unsustainably >>> wiffle about tax unsustainably.
How long before Marcus accepts that his party has moved to the left of the Lib Dems?
106. Quite right - I expect we will soon see Cameron sharing a platform with Trotskyists and Islamic fundamentalists, just like the previous Lib Dem leader did.
105 - yes I think that’s spot on.
Guido has an interesting update on teh cash/loans for peerages bit on one Tony Blair.
See:
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/
107,
Surely not he will need to keep his Neo-con friends on board especially after 2008.
109. You can get 17.5 on betfair for a Q4 departure for Blair. Very tempting odds.
I’ve just read Marcus’s piece on Mandela, I think the word convoluted is probably the best description. The get out clause was, ‘I’m ignorant on South African politics’ obviously a future Foreign Minister in a Cameron led government. The reason I asked that question, is I think it sums up the way the Tory Party is trying to rewrite its own history. Now I know Torbay well Marcus, I know a lot of Tories in Torbay, I din’t know one of them that didn’t support the apartheid regime, I didn’t know one of them from Brixham to Babbacombe who wasn’t a racist or homophobic, I know cos’ I argued with them often enough. I’m not blaming Tories on this, all political parties do it, the EU for instance has been a classic ‘for’ when in government, ‘against’ when in opposition. But there is something particularly hypocritical about the Mandela thing, knowing that most Tories haven’t suddenly changed their mind, the FCS T shirt ‘Hang Nelson Mandela’ being worn with such pride at the time.
112. Speaking of parties rewriting their own history, I wonder what happened to all those communist fellow travellers who used to dominate the Labour activist base twenty or thirty years ago?
You remember? The ones who used to praise the Soviet Union for its ‘abolition of unemployment and inflation’…and supported the Soviet occupation of Central and Eastern Europe…and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan…and lauded Mugabe as a saintlike figure…
Well apart from the last two, you can leave me out. When it comes to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan we were on the wrong side. I would have taken the same position as Winston Churchill in 1941, I recognised that fundementalist Islam was a much greater threat to us than the Soviet Union ever was. The Russians were winning that war, the Hind helicopter was having a devestating effect on the Islamic fundementalists, it was the decision of Thatcher to send blowpipe missiles and then to persuede Regan to send the stinger that turned the tide. That decision gave the fundementalists the upperhand, and handed to them their biggest victory since ‘Hattin’, a victory for which we have paid a bitter price.
In June 1941 the communist mp Willy Gallagher chided Winston Churchill as to how he a life time anti-communist could take GB into an alliance with Stalin, Churchill replied, ‘I can assure the honourable member, that if Hitler were to invade hell, I would come to this house to make a statement in favour of the Devil,’ right on Winnie!
Training and supporting the Taliban was the biggest mistake the west ever made.
Not sure if 88 was supposed to be funny?
Anyway I think this is..
Q:Why don’t Republican Congressmen use bookmarks?
A: Because they prefer to bend over the pages.
‘Training and supporting the Taliban was the biggest mistake the west ever made’
I might put the appeasement of Hitler a touch higher.
I did that one yesterday, you owe me royalties of £1000,00
ask benedict
112 - Sounds like you’re a Tory ’stalker’
lurking in the shadows waiting to accost a blue-rinsed matron on her way back from Evensong. An ASBO is way too good for you.
I seem to remember that was someone called Neville Chamberlain, now what party was he the leader of?
117 Sorry picked it up elsewhere!
112 Rarely have I read such a biased load of offensive tosh.
I have been in the Conservative Party since 1997 and I have only ever met one Conservative activist who supported aparthied and he left the party in 1998 to join UKIP.
Your posts would be taken more seriously if you didn’t litter them with such stupid statements as “I know Torbay well Marcus, I know a lot of Tories in Torbay, I din’t know one of them that didn’t support the apartheid regime, I didn’t know one of them from Brixham to Babbacombe who wasn’t a racist or homophobic..”
Do you really imagine that *you* know the Torbay party better than I do? Are you really expecting anyone to believe such a daft statement? - I am the candidate who works with them all the time!
For a kick off, the Conservative directly elected Mayor was chosen almost unanimously - and they certainly wouldn’t have done that if they were even slightly homophobic, would they?
Try to accept that one of the reasons parties change (and they do) is because their members change; not because of some cynical PR ploy.
Only about 60% of the activists in my party locally were active when I got there in 2003; the rest are all new people; and it’s changing daily.
116 - Lets wait and see shall we.
121 - “Only about 60% of the activists in my party locally were active when I got there in 2003; the rest are all new people; and it’s changing daily.”
Good to see the turnover of people is the same as the turnover of old policy…just make sure they look new and everyone will love us…just let the sunshine in, can you feel it yet?
118 John O. Poor Matlock will be interested to be described as “a blue-rinsed matron on her way back from Evensong.”
Clearly the operation went well and Matlock is now “A Lady”. .. great frock !!
116. Invading Iraq under a false pretext, and failing to prepare for the post-war chaos, thus ensuring carnage and despair and feelings of homicidal revenge against the west, was also a ‘bit of a boo-boo’.
RE 117, Coldstone, What one did you do yesterday?
124.”Clearly the operation went well and Matlock is now “A Lady”.”
It’s to please Francis Maude.
I knew very few Tories who supported apartheid in the 80s. Most however, opposed sanctions against South Africa. If that makes one a supporter of apartheid, then by analogy, opposing US sanctions against Cuba makes one a communist.
O/T but Orange have reinstated Inigo Wilson. Roger will be disappointed.
Coldstone You ask a non-question. Nelson Mandela was part of a terrorist group until he thought it all through on Robben Island and plotted a new path. I am a big fan of his, a man traveling a long and hard journey with a very, very successful end in the transition in South Africa.
Anyone can blow up trains or planes as ‘resistence’ but only the truly great can seek reconciliation with the repressive regime that cost him so much of his life. And then create a new nation binding all those together, however imperfectly.
You have swallowed the leftwing fiction and not thought about or understand the real story. And that is a pity as it is a very uplifting one for democrats.
At his trial the police could not produce the gun they claimed he had and that was a key factor in him avoiding the hangman. Do you know what happened recently?
124. “Clearly the operation went well and Matlock is now “A Lady”. .. great frock !!” JackW I know we seem to be entering the political version of the twilight zone but somethings are beyond imagination…