ICM: Great for Ming but more questions about Gordon?
January 23rd, 2007
The Guardian’s pollster has the Lib Dems going up five points
The monthly ICM survey for the Guardian which has been going continuously for nearly a quarter of a century records a sharp jump for the Lib Dems and shows that the Labour deficit would be bigger if Gordon Brown was leader.
The main vote shares are with changes on December - CON 37% (-3): LAB 31% (-1): LD 23% (+5).
When the second question was asked - how would you vote if it was Cameron’s Tories up against Brown’s Labour and Ming’s Lib Dems - the respondents said: CON 39%: LAB 31%. The online edition of the paper does not record the Lib Dem share.
On a technical note ICM’s turnout filter is applied to the headline figures but not the “named leader” question. Also ICM’s “spiral of silence adjustment” is made to former and not the latter. The result is that the two sets of figures cannot be compared directly and Labour’s relative position with Brown named is probably worse. More detailed comparisons should be possible when the full data is published.Please see comment 52 by Nick Sparrow - head of ICM
I regard the response to the named leader question as highly significant and led the story here on the Populus poll a fortnight ago which showed, for the first time in a year from any pollster, Labour’s position in relation to the Tories being better with the Chancellor in charge.
Given that the ICM survey took place at the end of Brown’s high profile week in India and in the immediate aftermath of the Turner arrest his party’s deficit should surely have been smaller and not bigger when this question was put?
In addition ICM found that a total of 30% of those interviewed said their view of Brown had become worse over the past year, compared with 17% who said it had improved. When the same question was asked about Cameron with 25% said their opinion of him had improved in the last year against 14% who say it has gone down.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I find it not at all surprising that support for both Labour and the Tories should have fallen. Both parties have leaders who are worse than useless.
But their supporting spokesmen are also complete and utter wallies. Look at these comments, taken from today´s Guardian:
Edward Garnier, the Tories’ prisons minister, said: “Once again, the Liberal Democrats show that they are soft on crime and soft on the criminals that make people’s lives a misery.”
Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister, said: “If the Lib Dems really want to be taken seriously on crime they should start by admitting they were wrong to oppose Labour’s tough and necessary measures on crime and drop their policies which would result in offenders escaping justice.”
Soft on crime? Soft on criminals? One of the proposals in the Lib Dems´ We Can Cut Crime campaign is that life sentences ought to mean life sentences - for life. Consequently the mandatory so-called “life sentences” (defined by the Labour politicians) lose their tough-looking label, and instead have clearly established number so years to be served, decided by the judge responsible. And those criminals who are too dangerous ever to set free do have to face a real life sentence.
This isn´t “soft”. It is quite clear that the Labour and Tory spokesmen just trot out their usual verbiage without having the faintest idea of what the Lib Dems are saying. They really ought to do their homework properly before spouting off their usual nonsense.
Until they do so, it seems to me that Labour and the Tories will continue to sink in the opinion polls.
Labour has been hovering around 32% and now begin the journey below 30%. When Labour descended to 26% under Micheal Foot, it could always rely on True Socilalists like myself. This time it should go lower.
Starving Senior Citizens is unlikely to be a vote winner. Neither is Defence cuts during time of War.
seems to me that Starving a Senior Citizen to death is at best Failing in Duty of Care and at worse Murder. If it turns out to be authorised by Government, that is a whole other kettle of fish.
Welcome relief for Campbell; I feel the pressure of weak polls was beginning to mount, so this will be more than welcome. Same old for the Tories, Labour and Gordon, I guess. Admittedly 3% is quite a drop for Cameron but I think he’d take 37%.
I agree with the comment on NuLab heading below 30%. They are unelectable in my opinion, public have already decided that. The question is why the Liberal so strong, are any politicians reading this, its because they have popular policies like life meaning life and most of all ANTI-WAR. When will Cameron get the joke on this one? If an election was called in the next year LibDems would be the biggest winner as Cameron is too Bliarlike for voters, they want honesty in politics and Ming is the only one of the 3 you would even begin to believe.
Blair under pressure to announce resignation timetable before local elections.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2177974.ece
Would that really help Labour, if opinion polls show that when Brown is named as Labour leader, the gap with the Tories is bigger?
4 - the poll was taken before today so wouldn’t have included the LibDem’s new stance on crime. Also, the war is nearly 4 years old so I doubt the 5% boost would have all of a sudden have come from that. Events in Iraq haven’t changed so much over the last week to account for a 5% boost. Not to mention they’re at approximately the level they were at the General Election last year when the war was a major issue so it’s not as though they are advancing.
Furthermore, Cameron, whatever your personal opinions on him has boosted the Tories. As far as the LibDems being the winners in an election. They’re barely up on the general election according to this poll; the Tories are up 4%.
And to do the old Peter Snow thing (”Just a bit of fun!”) Baxter gives 289/263/66, which is “well hung”.
It seems odd that the Conservatives are so quiet on the Saudi Bribes issue. Looks like a bit of an open goal there, so why aren’t they scoring?
And to do the old Peter Snow thing (”Just a bit of fun!”) Baxter gives 289/263/66, which is “well hung”.
It seems odd that the Conservatives are so quiet on the Saudi Bribes issue. Looks like a bit of an open goal there, so why aren’t they scoring?
I thought “spiral of silence” was working against Labour now, so it does not follow that the Brown figures would be worse if it was applied.
8 - because they’re split over the decision?
Just as interesting vis a vis tactical voting. Are there any figures on second preferences particularly for Liberal Democrats. Thinking about all those Labour-Con marginals.
re 9. That’s right - the spiral of silence is working against Labour and ICM make an adjustment on their headline figures but not on their named leader responses. That’s is more than offset by the lack of a turnout filter on the latter. In November, when ICM last asked the named leader question, the “Brown deficit” would have been 1.5% bigger taking both factors into account.
So if this poll is following the same pattern then Brown is being flattered.
One of the things Campbell & the Lib Dems got a lot of coverage for in the run up to this poll was attacking Labour over the dropping of the Saudia Arabia arms deal corruption investigation. Perhaps this will increase this disquiet in Tory ranks about David Camerons’ decision to say nothing on the issue?
I could wish the drop to have been a bit smaller for us but we’ll take 37%. I hope to go back up to 38% next month.
Yes the Saudi arms deal - the hot topic on the lips of Joe Pubic - i’d like to see a poll of the Uk public to test their knowledge of the case - I’d say
2/4: We’re going to need a new category for you: Creatures of the Morning. Getting excited over a 1% change in the Labour vote is a bit silly, and I’d say the same if it were up instead of down. If we want to play spin, I’d argue that having virtually no change and remaining within 4% of the GE figure is pretty good for a poll taken during the events of last weekend.
5: Peter Kilfoyle and Alan Simpson critical of TB! He’ll be gutted.
Some more serious comment: A great poll for the LDs. I’d guess it mostly based on Labour voters switching to them during the Ruth Turner arrest story, since the allleged defects of LibDem fund-raising have been less well-publicised than those of the other parties. The interest rate rise can’t have been helpful for GB’s rating and I would guess is the main reason for the differential (I think we all agree that it conceals both Lib->Lab and Lab->Con movement), though it remains modest compared with past polls. The movement on issues is in both directions and the Tories can’t really say they’ve made much progress recently.
I second Punter’s point about tactical voting. I’d expect many of the Lab->Lib switchers still to prefer Lab to Con, and that they will be mostly retrievable in Lab-Con marginals.
The fact that most Lab/Lib voters prefer Lab to Con should concern you though Nick. What, for example, is the LD vote in Broxtowe? If Liberals gain it will mostly be at Labour expense. A small Liberal increase in seats like Battersea, Hastings, Corby, maybe Broxtowe, sees the Tories win. As Sean Fear has said a few times, the Conservatives need a robust LibDem party to take votes from Labour.
Dennis Canavan will stand down at next Holyrood election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/6289637.stm
His seat was the safest one in the Scottish Parliament IIRC
Have to say - well I don’t, but will
- that Mr. Mark Senior should be quietly purring. He has consistently argued that voting intentions opinion have been stable for several months now, and this poll vindicates that opinion.
I know nuffink about the mathematical intricacies of MoE etc, but isn’t a plausible explanation that December’s LibDem figure was unduly low, and this is a kind of statistical ‘correction’, with both polls for all three parties well within the MoE.
19 that is the suggestion of Tim Montgomerie at ConHome, too - last month understated a bit, perhaps this month overstates a bit - all well within MoE - and I find it persuasive. I just don’t think the public cares much about the Saudi deal. LDs have not been in the news.
Is the Tory silence over the Saudi deal perhaps something to do with one of their major donors having brokered it originally?
Just wondering …
20 - Oh no! If ConAsylum.UKIPtroll are saying that, I unambiguously withdraw
17 Commentator
Be careful of generalisation on this - some seats - you give Hastings as an example - may have Tories as second currently, but also have a historically strong Lib Dem vote. In these seats it is quite possible to see Lib Dems reverse the process of going from 2nd to 3rd, and in certain cases take the seat from current 3rd place.
19. Yep he will be thrilled that an opinion poll has finally come out which does not massively understate the Lib Dem vote.
23. Tim, I think it’s unlikely that the Libdems (in the current political climate) will take Hastings from third place.
In terms of gains from third place, I would loke at Pendle and Warrington South. Third, but not far behind and continuing to grow in local elections (and so getting a bigger local base)
19 Thankyou John O , exactly correct , everyone got excited last month at a December poll with LibDems at the bottom end of the expected range at 18% and this poll is perhaps a little high at 23% with the actual figure steady circa 21% as it has been for some months . Interesting too how quite a number of pbcom entries have fallen at the first fence on the question as to what would be the highest LibDem % be in an ICM poll this year .
Lib Dems on 23%? Phew. What a relief; much more of the kind of polling we’ve been seeing and I really did worry that Ming might get his P45 before the next election.
27. Is it not sad that you count on Ming cocking up rather than your own policy free zone of a leader to win it for you Marcus.
No matter who is leader me thinks Torbay will stay Lib Dem.
Holy cow! I didnt see that one coming! Good result for the Libs…
27. Yeah, anything in the twenties is ok and to be heading towards the mid-twenties is very good for Ming.
The question is, how sustainable is it? The Lib Dems have benefitted from two stories - cash for honours and the Saudi deal - that present difficulties for the Conservatives to make too much headway on at the moment. That won’t always be the case, although if the Tory treasury team’s response to the way Gordon Brown’s allowed inflation to get back into the system is anything to go by, the Lib Dems can expect a freer run than they should have on other issues too.
As for Gordon, he can take comfort from the fact that he’s being compared against someone against whom he’s (theoretically) not competing. Pretty much no matter how poor his figures get, he’ll still become PM - and in any case, as long as he doesn’t change his style in the next few months, his ratings shouldn’t change significantly anyway.
O/T - it is of course oscar nomination day. I’ve been mentioning this for a while, but politically, the interest has to be in the Best Documentary category, which ought to be nailed on for An Inconveniant Truth (subtitle: Al Gore II - this time it’s environmental). His price for the nomination has drifted outwards in the last few weeks and it might be time to have another look at him.
30.”it is of course oscar nomination day. ”
at what are they announced?
21 - re; Tories silence on Saudi corruption scandal.
Not to mention that the original deal being investigated took place on their watch.
Humble pie time, as one of those who though Ming’s positions was untenable, grovelling sorry, although this could be a Darlington byelection moment. Poor old Marcus he must be wondering if the trip to Torbay was worth it, should have stayed in Windsor Marcus, the beers better, not a decent pint in the whole of Torbay, good scrumpy in the Council Club Paignton(tip always ask for rough, only tourists call it scrumpy) if they know you. Good article by Max Hastings in today’s Guardian, with the ring of very sad truth about it. On the polls, lets be honest, if after the terrible battering Labour have had over the last six months, they are only 6 points behind, they must be relieved, as for the GB reading, supposition a pointless question, we won’t know how voters will respond until he’s in NO10.
18. Andrea
He had the biggest majority of any constituency MSP! 10,000.
Falkirk West is now going to be a fascinating contest. Result 2003:
1. Ind (Canavan) 14,703 (56% +1%)
2. SNP 4,703 (18% nc)
3. Lab 4,589 (17% -2%)
4. Con 1,657 (6% nc)
5. LD 748 (3% nc)
The ranks of the “Independents” and “Others” is going to dwindle to next to nothing this year, after their big advances in 2003.
So can someone explain why have the Lib Dems gone up so much?
31. 1330GMT (or 1430CET for you).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6288227.stm
Nice of them to quote the odds, for those who are interested in the betting.
These poll figures show some of the problems our industry faces in reporting polling figures. ICM have been champions of the past vote / likelihood to vote weighting system, and in many ways have been largely successful. However, the Liberal Democrat figures for the last 2 months show the dangers in polling terms of this technique. As the Guardian article points out, the Lib Dem figure has changed largely because of ‘likelihood’ to vote - a weighting that can have a significant effect based partially on the whim of the respondent at that particular juncture.
The real point that I have tried to make before is that the raison d’etre of opinion polls has subtly changed in recent years, and in ways that have downsides as well as upsides. Opinion pollsters have become more and more concerned with measuring the predictive outcome of an election, as opposed to the levels of political support. It is for this reason that the numbers of filters and weightings are needed to try and distil a figure.
However, we have lost sight of the other point. Measuring levels of political support. The problem with this is that they are so low at the moment, with approximately 45-55% of people actually indicating some level of interest in a particular party, that newspapers are not interested in the true underlying ’support’ score - which is probably on this ICM poll somewhere in the region of Lab 16 Con 16 LD 12 Others 5. ‘Would not vote’ probably has the highest level of support of any of the ‘parties’. The effect of these low levels of support have on voting figures could well be enormous. 1% (of the whole sample) less people saying that they vote LD for example(i.e. 10 people) and 1% less saying that they are only 3 out 10 likely to vote could have much larger implications on their score - and vice versa.
My feeling is that the BPC rules are not stringent enough. I believe that Telephone Polling Companies should report the entire base data to see the raw levels of support. It would change perceptions of polls and politicians both of which are looking through one focus only.
Just one poll, blah blah blah- but given that this has been a pretty rough couple of weeks, 1% drop not so terrible. Good result for LDs, but the lack of any clear reason why (No By-election win, little coverage, no policy breakthrough..) makes me wonder if it’s an outlier. Counter argument to that could be that increased salience of Iraq has haloed LDs.
Given that Cameron had only just arrived on the political scene a year ago, the “opinion” question neither suprises nor informs. If 25% of the populace have improved their opinion of Cameron and 37% support the Conservatives what conclusions are we supposed to arrive at?
30. Agree with Al Gore- especially with Hillary not looking so nailed on, he might make a good outside bet if he decides to run.
34. Stuart. In a normal year, I think that Labour should win it quite comfortable. The SNP run Labour close in the 2000 byelection when Canavan stood down from Westminster, but Labour won easily the Wesminster contest in 2001 and 2005. However SNP is expected to perform better in Holyrood elections than in Westminster one and they’re fielding a list MSP in FW.
Anyway I suppose that Labour should be considered the favourite, but if they mess things up during the campaign, well, the contest can be open.
Reading the BBC piece about his retirement, I wasn’t aware of all those tragedies in his family (he lost a son in 1989, then another son is ill and a third son died last December. No wonder that he wants to spend time with his young son now)
that Max Hastings article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1996549,00.html
sad but true
36. Thanks David
Can I call a reality check on the Saudi situation.
Labour are in government and the Tories have a real prospect of being in government in the foreseeable future and that changes how they deal with issues. Unlike the Libdems they both will have to live with what they say now about foreign governments.
The Saudi deal is worth more than 17 billion and perhaps 20,000 jobs are dependent upon it directly and many more indirectly, from engineering to training, corner shops to local builders. Saudi Arabia can, as it is an autocracy, spend its money at the ruling family’s whim.
The French already have a team in Riyadh making it plain that they can do the same deal with their kit and without all this silliness about laws and morality. They are the Saudi’s real friends. They will go so far as to do everything in English so there is a seamless training system from Al Yamamah part one. The French have done this successfully elsewhere and taken business from us.
Many of the jobs at risk in the UK are in fairly tightly fought areas of the electoral battlefield. So politicians will tread carefully on that score.
And if in or supporting government they will be doubly careful about the economic and human cost of losing this deal.
If I were the LibDems I would recall the fate of the ‘ethical foreign policy’ that this current government started out with. When dealing with powerful foreign governments an attempt to enforce our version of moral behaviour on our friends or customers can soon mean that we can deal with no-one at all. Make sure our people play by our rules but don’t try to impose our rules on our customers.
We have to live in a real world where we can earn our living. If we don’t then we will soon find we are in a Robin Cook position of either having no-one to talk to or being seen for the hypocrites we will have had to become.
Thanks for the article Mike. I won’t comment on the Brown figures to much until you get thhe full results as an onweighted poll is “problematic”.
Good news for the Lib Dems for sure, and a little dissappointing for us Conservatives.
The only silver lining would be taking *cough* Mark Senior’s view and saying that recent polls have all been consistent with no underlying change, just sampling error!
28 Big Mak “Is it not sad that you count on Ming cocking up rather than your own policy free zone of a leader to win it for you Marcus.”
Surely if you look at the figures you might also conclude that the Lib dems are counting on Gordon Brown cocking up rather than any positive mood for Menzies Campbell.
The point is that Labour are losing support as all Governments do eventually, some of it comes to us -some of it goes to the Lib dems and some of it stays at home.
I am happy as Larry with Mings performance; long may he reign.
18 & 34
First Minister Jack McConnell had the 2nd-biggest majority out of the 73 FPTP MSPs in 2003, in Motherwell & Wishaw: 9,259 over the SNP in 2nd place.
But Paul Martin (Labour) had the highest % of the vote (59.03%) in his Glasgow Springburn constituency.
The MSP who managed to win a FPTP seat with the lowest share of the vote was Jeremy Purvis of the Liberal Democrats, who managed to sneak in in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Laudedale on only 26.96% of the vote, giving him a majority of just 538 over Christine Grahame of the SNP.
Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is the most marginal seat, with the SNP requiring a swing of just 0.17% to gain it from the Tories.
Re 1, Tressage, I have not read the LD policy, but heard about it, (could you provide a link?).
It seemed OK to me, the only issue being the political one of not having “life” sentences for all murders. (It should be noted that life does always mean life in the sense that if you are out you are permanently on parole until dead).
I have to laugh on McNulty’s comments though. The LD’s are soft because they did not support our lates crack pot scheme! Why not try having a litle basic competence yourself old chap!
Mark Senior: Agree the underlying Lib level is probably 21% ish, but in the runup to local elections this could be being stimuled by incresed Focus leaflet activity and exposure “under the radar”. I also think there will be a slight drift back to Lib from ‘Others’ over the next months.
Graham: But in the era of low turnouts, measuring differential turnout becomes vital in predicting the result. We know that elections can produce different results without anyone changing their minds, when different parties’ supporters have different turnouts due to enthusiasm.
Rent-a-Quote: “{…} all this silliness about laws and morality”. Yeh, what rot those two ideas have proved to be over the centuries! Away with that tosh, and lets get back to pure Realpolitik without legal and moral interferance! I love that the Tories havent really changed
This is a good poll for the Lib Dems BUT we shouldn’t get overexcited about it.
Polls do go up and down for a variety of reasons - that weeks news, where the sample is from, the weather etc. - and movement of a few points up or down should be expected.
My view remains the same - none of the main parties have much to be cheering abour right now and any of them could gain or lose a large chunk of support by the next election.
Good poll overall I feel, what has been noticeable over the past few weeks has been the higher profile of Clegg (and Lembit!?!), I also anticipate a point or two gain every time Reid sticks his head up above the parapet again.
Still, the underlying percentage is probably around 21% but these little things can have a gradual effect.
42 Yes let’s sell arms to anybody and use bribes and payola to smooth the way . Who cares who we sell to as long as it keeps people employed at home especially as they will get further employment making more weapons in the future to fight the same people we are selling arms to now as we did with Saddam Hussein . If some British servicemen get killed in the process by weapons we sold the future enemy it doesn’t matter as long as jobs are safeguarded now .
Isnt it interesting, the different reaction of Libs to Cons when a poll comes out? Whether high or low, Libs tend to be suspicious of the poll and put their trust in their feeling from the street. Cons jump up and down for a high poll, announcing that the march to Downing St has started; while attacking Cameron at every low poll.
PS Could it be the Lembit exposure? I joke not…
The vote intention question with named leaders (Brown, Cameron and Campbell) is treated in exactly the same way as the main vote intention question, i.e with a turnout filter and adjustments for don’t know. This has always been the case and will continue to be so.
LibDems share with Ming named as leader is 19%
“Libs tend to be suspicious of the poll and put their trust in their feeling from the street.” Ha ha ha.
You must have misread posts 3,7,23,26,28,33 & 35.
Marcus: No, I just re-read those posts, and there isnt any hysteria in them.
I would say 28. and 33. are pretty hysterical.
51. Where are the Tories knocking Cameron?
I’d like to be even higher than 37%, but it’s still a good figure. I expect to go up next month.
54. “Poor old Marcus he must be wondering if the trip to Torbay was worth it, should have stayed in Windsor Marcus”
“In these seats it is quite possible to see Lib Dems reverse the process of going from 2nd to 3rd, and in certain cases take the seat from current 3rd place.”
“Baxter gives 289/263/66, which is “well hung”.”
MBoy. I am not arguing that polling companies should not do this, but just be more transparent – the overall figures are based on about 500 replies – a nominal CI of +/- 4.5% rather than +/-3%. If the LD support is 19% say, it can be as high as 23.5 or as low as 14.5%. But more than that those figures are affected by other factors, such as ‘willingness to vote’ (which might be more dependent on mood) and memory. I am merely arguing that seeing the underlying base of the poll would allow us to better judge whether there has been a ‘real’ movement of opinion re political support or whether they are subject to the vagaries of sampling theory.
57. The bizarre reference to scrumpy/rough cider particularly caught my eye.
57:
a) I dont think you will win Torbay
b) Pendle and Warrington South
c) Not far off the current spread betting market
Hardly hysterical.
PS Colstone is not a LD supporter at all anyway!
A couple of things that strike me about opinion polls but which rarely get mentioned is the degree to which they pose a different question to that facing electors on polling day.
When asked ‘who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow’ you are really asking, which party would you like to see in govt.
Forgetting for a moment the whole ‘give the govt a knock’ ‘register your dissapproval with the govt even if you still intend to vote for them’ approach, there are still several problems readers face in using them:
1) Every gets the chance to nominate any party - so anyone can say, for example, Green - even if the Greens never actually stand in their constituency. So the ‘others’ vote is always potentially likely to be higher than in a real election.
2) There’s no tactical voting in opinion polls. So all the voters who vote against, say, the Tories state a preference for their preferred party, and not necessarily the one they would vote for in an actual general election - this is especially critical in polls of marginals, where without second preference questions being asked, you really do get skewed figures.
Given the tactical vote is approx 4% of the votes cast, and especially critical in the marginals for actual seats won, whilst the votes for ‘others’ might be 2-3% lower than polls predict, this leaves considerable variations between what any poll might say and what it actually means for voting day - despite the polling companies trying to take all such ponderables into account!
FAO Anthony King - following our exchanges about party turnout on an earlier thread, I have now found the figures that back up my assertion that Labour votes fell most heavily in safe seats where voters could safely turn to alternatives, and less so in marginals. I can post the reference if you are still interested
re 52. I have amended the main article in line with Nick Sparrow’s comment.
I take the point about MoE, but plenty of posters put the boot into the Lib Dems when they have been at the bottom end of the range, so it seems only fair to point out that the “movement” is Conservative to Lib Dem.
Despite Marcus’ complacency, I find that plenty of Conservatives are not too happy with Cameron: “PR smoothy”, “Flannel merchant” are amongst the comments most of us have heard- and worse besides. The steady drip of folk leaving for UKIP is not comforting to the activists either.
So, as the poll says, still plenty to play for. Lembit or no Lembit…
Oh cheeky
This poll for me shows a growing public apathy to the main two political parties.
Just as in 2004 I think there is another window of opportunity emerging for the LD’s. With a Labour succession that is hardly setting the pulses rising, a Cameron Tory party whose only public policy of any note appears to be scrap targets in the NHS, the time will be right to bring back Chaz.
The British public loves a comeback- if the Ld’s time Chaz’s political comeback for another 18 months or so, but ensure that he keeps up a good profile, I believe the main party vote is soft enough to propel the LD’s national share to 30% that could sustain itself into an election. I believe a 3 way tie in relation to vote share could well be a possibility if the LD’s play the right strategy.
47 Mboy please read the post you attack again. I am referring to the French attitude to trade not my attitude or any UK party’s attitude.
We have laws that must be obeyed in our jurisdiction, but we cannot force our customers to follow the same laws. We can encourage but not coerce. Coercion never yet created a customer.
Tyson: Interesting coming from a Labour supporter! I’d say it is likely the LDs will come above Labour in the May elections in vote share; but I dont think that could be sustained into a GE unless there was a confluence of “events”. It would need the Labour handover to be badly botched, and for some Tory MPs to defect to UKIP, and for a LD Westminster by-election victory. Probability: ~10% I’d say.
MBoy, the most ‘hysterical’ post this morning is your own. I am still in hysterics from your suggestion that this poll boost is a result of dear Lembits leg-over a cheeky girl.
I mean the reason it’s funny is that I think it’s probably true.
67.”I’d say it is likely the LDs will come above Labour in the May elections in vote share;”
If they don’t outpoll Labour next May, it’ll be a disappointing round of locals for them.
69 Don’t quite agree with that statement , Andrea , if Scotland locals are included , Labour may just stay ahead .
70. Mark, I was thinking without Scotland. And I was also thinking at the “projected national %”, not at the real total vote casted
71 - OK Andrea though I am a bit dubious of the ” projected national % ” figures . I prefer the real total votes and the 2003 figures are there on the plymouth uni site to compare this year’s with .
Mboy- the LD’s should easily outpoll Labour this may. I am talking about something different. I believe the Tory vote in the high 30’s is soft. Labour is moving down to its core (about 30%- more or less the same as the Tory core, the LD core is around 15%), so one of a number things could happen;
the soft Tory vote stays where it is- unlikely but possible;
the soft Tory voters drifts into others
the soft Tory vote drifts into one of the other main parties
Charles Kennedy is one of the true heavyweights in British politics- he has recognition value, and a perceived high integrity value. I think a Chaz return could eat into the soft support of the Tories and Labour and bring back some of the people drifting to the others. Chaz’s time was not right in 2005, but a rehabilitated Chaz in 2009/10 could raise the platform for the LD’s.
I say this as a tribal Labour supporter, but as someone who would genuinely like to see PR in the UK.
Re 73, Tyson, You forgot option 4, the Soft Conservative vote hardens and more “soft” votes come on board.
“Charles Kennedy is one of the true heavyweights in British politics”
It’s the way yoy tell ‘em!
(That said people do know who he is, which is more than can be said of Ming!)
72. ok, Mark. Fair enough
72. Comparing the real votes totals between 2003 and 2007 is fair enough to a degree, although the change in polling system in Scotland means they’re not wholly comparable. I’d be with Andrea on this, and regard the projected national share as the best guide - and also that the Lib Dems will probably outpoll Labour on that measure. Won’t they’ll just about have to, if they’re to make any net gains, given the relative 2003 scores?
Mike Smithson
With Ming named as Leader LD share is only 19%. But Ming IS leader, and LD share is 23%. Does this mean that “named as leader” difference is less important than you suppose?
76 Yes to make net gains this year they will have to outpoll Labour in England but not necessarily if Scotland is included . The 2003 figures for England were Lab 27.0% LibDem 26.1% but including Scotland Lab 27.9% LibDem 24.2% .
Not quite sure the ‘Great for Ming’ tag line is really too justified tbh…
Interesting points by Graham and Pimpernel on interpreting polls. As an MP I’m least concerned about shifts in certainty to vote, since they seem most affected by whatever is in this week’s news, and hopeless at predicting whether people will actually vote at the next GE. Next least is shifts on the Lab-Lib axis: in Broxtowe at least this is very much the same poll of voters, and in a close election I would be hopeful of getting most of them. Lab-Con and Lib-Con shifts are the worrying ones. Conversely gains from Con are much more significant than gains from LibDems.
To reply to commentator specifically: the LDs got 16% in the last election in Broxtowe, up just 1.4% despite my support for the Iraq war and vocal campaigning for ID cards. They focused on the County Council election (no posters for the GE candidate at all), one of their candidates openly suggested to voters that they could vote for me at the GE while supporting him locally, and several LD councillors told me privately they were voting for me themselves. There is a Lab-Lib coalition on the council and the parties generally have quite good relations, with a few exceptions. Numerous 2005 Libdem voters told me that they would vote Labour next time if a Tory gain looked more likely, especially if Gordon Brown was leader. So I agree with commentator that a LibDem surge at Labour’s expense would hand the seat to the Tories, but at present I don’t think it will happen, and suspect the position in other marginals may be similar. In the same way, where there is a high-profile Tory assault on a LibDem seat, Labour voters will tend to rally round the LibDem, as we saw in North Norfolk.
Tactical voting draws on perhaps a more significant benefit from incumbency than the obvious advantages in profile - since most people think their local MPs are nicer than the popular image of politicians, they are more willing to vote tactically to keep them.
Typo: “same pool of voters” not “same poll”
Nick P - thanks for letting us know that in your neck of the woods, as in many other places, the local Lib Dems are basically a Labour front organisation.
Hardly, Yellow Peril - they compete strongly with us at council level. But it’s pretty civilised, like most things in Broxtowe politics - come to that, a prominent Tory councillor was privately described by his Labour opponent as “more Labour than I am”… I can’t think of a single councillor of any party in the constituency that I actually dislike, though I’ve had a few spats with some.
80 - That’s very interesting, but is it still as true today following the rehabilitation of the Conservatives? I’m a “floating voter” who is naturally closest to the LibDems but voted Labour in ‘97 despite already despising Blair. I would even have considered voting Labour in a Lab/Con marginal in ‘05 (admittedly not for an pro-war Labour candidate) to keep Howard out. I would not vote tactically against the Conservatives now. I am not atypical amongst people I know on this.
Regardless of how real or superficial Cameron’s changes to the Conservatives, I suspect that anti-Tory tactical voting will be greatly reduced in the next GE (unless they “lurch” back to the right, of course).
WRT local elections, the thing that bothers me is the way that the figure for “Others” is reduced to well below its actual figure for the purpose of the projections. Minor parties and independents won 16% in London, and 16% in the Mets in May 2006, yet for some reason this was reduced down to 9% for the BBC projection of national vote share.
FWIW, I think that the Lib Dems are very likely to poll above Labour in both absolute and projected terms this May.
re 77. I think the “named leader” question reminds respondents that Cameron is the the Tory leader and that is why we see the boost. The Cameron brand is much more popular than the Tory one.
So what happens with the named leader question, I suggest, is that part of the Lib Dem vote goes to the Tories when respondents are reminded that he is the leader.
Once the Labour leadership is sorted we will no longer get these named leader questions so this little boost will not be measured. The factor will still be there.
85 including or excluding Scotland - Sean ?
82 There I was foolishly thinking we were not going to get one of your inane sarcastic posts today .
85. I’ve never really thought about this before, but what is it that the national vote share projection is projecting? Is it how people would have voted had there been local elections nationwide, or is it a general election equivalent? That might be significant in any reduction in the share for Others.
87 Even including Scotland Mark (although I’d expect Labour to retain first place in Scottish local elections).
88 A good question, to which I don’t know the answer. They can’t just be taking local election vote shares (in which case, the figure for Others would be much higher), so I assume they must redistribute some of the votes for “Others” to the main parties. They do treat it as a general election, as they then use their swingometer to show which seats would fall on the basis of such national vote shares - a completely artificial exercise IMO.
Do people think that the parties will be able to put up reasonably full slates of candidates in May? As with “Others”, the existence or otherwise of a candidate to vote for will affect the total number of votes cast for each party, and I have noticed that a few by-elections have not been contested by all the main parties. Any sign of disillusionment amongst existing councillors and an inability to replace them?
85, Sean, can it depend on what sample of wards did they use?
I suppose that they can have not included wards with strong indies and various residents association not to create troubles with the % of main 3 parties
88. For what is worth, Rallings and Thrasher estimations are “estimated share of the vote in all authorities had the elections been held Great Britain wide”
Coldstone is primarily a cynic.
The LD vote in Torbay (from memory I’m sure I’ll be corrected if wrong) shrunk due to an against the trend rise in the Labour vote. This was due to a strong local candidate running for Labour on a Torbay Nationalist platfrom. Resentment against incomers, by locals is never far below the surface in Torbay! When I visit to see relatives/friends, I’m hardly into my second pint of ‘rough’ before the moans start, second homes/house prices/low wages etc. sometimes I think I’ve never left.
89. Sean Fear “I’d expect Labour to retain first place in Scottish local elections”
In terms of seats, or votes, or both? Why? On what do you base that opinion?
87: I had always assumed that “yellow peril” was a collection of anti LD posters, rather thana single person.
89: I think the “national projected share” is useful as a comparison to previous national projected shares.
91 Well, it would be nice if they did show which wards they use. If they exclude wards with big independent/residents’ votes, then it certainly makes the exercise an artificial one, although as MBoy says, it is useful to compare different years (assuming the same wards are used).
93 The only recent poll I’ve seen places Labour 6% ahead in local election voting shares.
Surprise no-one picked up on the l-less Public at 15…
Also at 15, YouGov are conducting a survey on the Saudi arms deal so there sould be some results out on that.
66, Rent-a-quote: “We have laws that must be obeyed in our jurisdiction, but we cannot force our customers to follow the same laws. We can encourage but not coerce. Coercion never yet created a customer.”
If they’re being corrupt we shouldn’t deal with them. Simple as that. We shouldn’t deal with the Saudi government in any way as far as I’m concerned.
95. BBC used 700 wards and Rollings and Thrasher 1900 wards, but I’ve no clue on which wards they used
90. Augustus, I suppose that there’ll be some authorities where not all main parties will field a full slates of candidates. However I suppose they’ll have candidates in the majority of authorities up for election.
IIRC in 2003 the Libdems fielded 0 candidates in the whole Bolsover district…will they find at least 1 candidate this year?!
For punters, there’s little to get excited about in this poll. Those who are betting on a Hung Parliament will be happiest. Anything which confirms the LD share is holding up increases its likelihood. In fact if you subscribe to the Crosby thesis, the current poll makes it appear almost inevitable.
92. Without going too far into a boring-to-most dissection of the Torbay vote the Lib Dem share went down and *everyone* else’s share went up.
There were several reasons including, I admit, a relatively negative campaign by myself highlighting Lib Dem run councils (dismal) record.
Labour benefited the most because in the 2001 election there had been a fantastic Lib Dem campaign that had squeezed every Labour vote going.
Re 92, Coldstone, your post shows some very real concerns that people have in rural areas as well as “nice” coastal towns.
there is little well paid employment for the “masses” because the transport links are not up to the job. Similar problems seem to exist in Weymouth. I proposed building a road all the way accross Dorset. I suspect middle class NIMBIES are against it.
(See:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/09/week-in-weymouth.html)
64.”Despite Marcus’ complacency, I find that plenty of Conservatives are not too happy with Cameron: “PR smoothy”, “Flannel merchant” are amongst the comments most of us have heard- and worse besides. The steady drip of folk leaving for UKIP is not comforting to the activists either.”
I disagree. I think that since the removal of IDS a lot of activists are fed up with the same vocal minority/usual suspects effectively trying to steer the ship in their direction at any cost.
These people are leaving because they are not able to wield the same power/damage they have achieved in the past. There really is a feeling of unity about the shadow cabinet which I have not seen for many years. The defections to UKIP in fact show that the party really is changing and that is more worrying for Labour and the Libdems.
Agree with you Benedict, Weymouth is desperate for a good road in/out the situation there now is appalling. Jobs are being lost, New Look etc. We should all be concerned for the environment, but it has to be balanced. Must be in place before the Olympics!
Nick Palmer, I accept that happened last time, but I think you will find that one of Labour’s problems is that last time, the Tories were widely disliked and LD voters - more than activists, the voters - were prepared to vote tactically just to keep them out. This time, much of that ‘hated Tory’ thing has evaporated, and you will recall the ICM poll showing most Tories’ second pref is also LD. Plus as we see on the “issues” part of this poll, Tories lead Labour on the environment, a key LibDem issue.
So I would not rule out at all a LibDem surge in Broxtowe as they take away their lent votes and vote for themselves. I think that will happen elsewhere too.
No need to respond, I do not expect you to do anything other than express perfect confidence in your own seat, nor will I take silence as agreeing with my view!
I also appreciate your remarks about not disliking the Tory councillors. There are very, very few politicians I dislike even if I disagree with them. George Galloway would be a rare exception. Nigel Farage another rare exception.
On these figures, Wells gives L-280, C-280, LD-59, or if you throw the SDLP(sans Belfast South) and Blaenau Gwent into the Labour column L-283, C-280, LD-59.
re 98. My understanding of the Rod Crosby thesis and the operation of the Kalman filter would be to regard the Lib Dem showing in the poll as “noise” and ignore it completely.
103 Apologies if I am wrong Commentator but I had thought that you were one of those arguing that a close contest at the next GE would lead to an even stronger squeeze on LibDem voters in marginal seats such as Broxtowe .
90 In 2003 in the English shire districts Conservatives contested 88% of the wards 80% of the seats , Labour 63% of wards 59% of seats and LibDems 65% of wards 57.5% of seats . I would expect the Conservative and LibDem figures to be higher this year .
Re 102, Coldstone, During the 80’s the Conservatives had a plan for a “Folkston to Honiton bypass” which with a few links to the M25, and M5 would have done the job. It got shelved though.
Right now in Weymouth, you are either in a “proffession” or you serve burgers/work in a bar etc. (Well it is not quite that bad, but is not good). So all the locals seem to be able to go hang. I think that is wrong.
105 Not sure about that, Mike.
Rod, would you care to comment? I thought the higher the LD vote, the greater the %age probability of an HP.
103 I am not sure that the “hate Tory” thing has disappeared. Perhaps it has been joined by a “hate Labour” or “hate politics” factor.
As for tactical voting. I think there is still a strong links between Labour and LD voters, especially Labour voters supporting the LDs to keep the tories out. Events of the past ten years have done virtually nothing to dent that and may have even have strengthened it. will still be a factor next time. So I expect LDs to hold more seats than the swing will predict.
106, I don’t think so, although I could be wrong. A close contest usually sees a squeeze. I don’t actually think the GE will be that close, and I also think the LDs will make gains at Lab’s expense in May.
I’m telling you, I don’t think LibDems will want to do anything other than see how well they can do for themselves. Esp if they have a young vital leader by the GE like Clegg.
ptp, I think (hope!) Mike is just being mischievous..
You are quite right, as the LD vote increases the hp “band” widens, as does the “Kingmakers” band. See the first graph.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/16/rod-crosby-is-a-hung-parliament-97-likely/
A 6% Tory lead gives the maximum likelihood of a hp, pretty close to a 100% chance.
David Herdson(who mentioned it earlier). I think Al Gore’s documentary has not been nodded
112. Good showing from the Brits in the Oscar nominations.
110 Commentator - “A close contest usually sees a squeeze.”
Yes it does but as a punter you have to be on the watch for when the conventional wisdom does not apply. I’ve said before that there is no reason to suppose that a tight contest must produce a squeeze. It could even work the other way round. If voters have a low level of commitment to the two main parties, they may be more inclined to vote for a third party - voting in effect for an HP.
I’m not saying this will happen. I’m just pointing out there is no logical reason why it can’t.
We won’t know until very much nearer the GE.
113. I think Dreamgirls was considered one of the frontrunners for Best Picture and it ended up not getting the nod. So the race is wide open.
Roger fancied a bet on Withaker and Mirrer to win. I think he can be right. I think Mirren’s strongest opponent is Streep.
ops, I misread the list…An Incovenient Truth is in:
“Best documentary feature
DELIVER US FROM EVIL
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS
JESUS CAMP
MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY
O/T - I have a tip for this evening.
Traps 1 & 4 in a reverse forecast in the 11th race (9.55pm) at Walthamstow.
114.PtP, IIRC in the 92′ GE both the main parties saw a increased vote share? I think that a close contest will draw some of the apathy vote out, if they think they have a say in the outcome. The Libdems could poll more votes but end up losing seats if turnout is up.
PtP,
I expect Labour to get a kicking, LDs to take from Labour and lose to Tories. A strong LibDem vote will help my party and I think there are areas we can work with them - civil liberties and the environment.
112. The Beeb’s got it listed in the summary (although that category hadn’t been included at the time of your post).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6290905.stm
117. No, the Tory vote was lower than in ‘87, ‘83 or ‘79. The LDs fell back, but that could be attributable to the merger problems that had dogged them through the parliament. Even so they had a net loss of only 2 seats.
What’s different this time is that, if the polls stay similar to the way they are now, a majority will be realistically out of reach for either main party. If this message is plugged by commentators and pundits, the electorate may turn to the LDs as a counterweight to instability.
119. yes, David, it’s a my mistake. I mis-read from Oscar website (which was very slow to download, probably because of the huge traffic).
I listed his contenders at 155. An Incovenient Truth also got a best original song nod (”I Need to Wake Up”)
118 You could be right, Commentator, although what you expect is to me only one of a number of plausible scenarios.
As for ‘working with them [LDs]’, it depends how successful DC is in redirecting his Party. If he is, he should have no trouble appealing to people like me who are socially liberal but more right wing on matters of economic policy.
120.”If this message is plugged by commentators and pundits, the electorate may turn to the LDs as a counterweight to instability.”
Rod, I think the majority of voter’s don’t like hung parliaments and I suspect that is one of the causes of growing disenchantment with Holyrood.
I also think that you could overplay the Libdems role as kingmaker and end up losing them votes.
I hear the Bob Piper row is about to erupt again.
*cough* see my blog for more
124. Maybe we can also start the Benedict White row after your insult to Snowflake last week….
123 - “I think the majority of voter’s don’t like hung parliaments”
Out of curiosity what do you base this hunch on - or is it just a hunch? English voters wont look at the problems in Holyrood and decide they dont want it, they wont know about the problems of Holyrood. I suspect that they are just as likely to look at it and go - Hmm… a major party having it’s wings clipped by the Libs, now that’s a sensible idea. (I do realise that my hunch is just that, and based on no facts whatsoever, so anything you have as evidence either way would be appreciated, I’m just pointing out that you can view the same thing through different tinted spectacles
)
I think the reason this poll has been good for the LDs is that sleaze in Labour ranks also plays badly for the Conservatives, in that it awakens people’s memories and general feelings about the party in that respect.
Cameron may be trying to rehabilitate the party on a number of fronts, but he hasn’t yet got rid of the sleaze label. Indeed, the opposite, since he projects a distinct air of cronyism.
What is he going to do for sleaze that’s the equivalent of hug-a-hoodie?
123 Chris D - “Voter’s don’t like hung parliaments”
It’s a bit presumptuous to speak for ‘the voters’, isn’t it Chris? You might be right but as a punter, I wouldn’t bet the house on it.
In fact I’m more inclined to agree with Lennon at 126 who puts it rather well.
126. The only example we’ve seen since the war was in 1974. The evidence is inconclusive, but the facts are as follows. The Liberals weren’t really squeezed, and the swing between Con and Lab was minimal, at just -0.74%. A second hung parliament was thus only narrowly avoided.
The fact is, if a similar scenario played out today, with similar shifts as occurred between the two elections of 1974, it is unlikely that the second election would produce a majority that the first had failed to provide. Food for thought?
126. The only example we’ve seen since the war was in 1974. The evidence is inconclusive, but the facts are as follows. The Liberals weren’t really squeezed, and the swing between Con and Lab was minimal, at just -0.74%. A second hung parliament was thus only narrowly avoided.
The fact is, if a similar scenario played out today, with similar shifts as occurred between the two elections of 1974, it is unlikely that the second election would produce a majority that the first had failed to provide. Food for thought?
126. The only example we’ve seen since the war was in 1974. The evidence is inconclusive, but the facts are as follows. The Liberals weren’t really squeezed, and the swing between Con and Lab was minimal, at just -0.74%. A second hung parliament was thus only narrowly avoided.
The fact is, if a similar scenario played out today, with similar shifts as occurred between the two elections of 1974, it is unlikely that the second election would produce a majority that the first had failed to provide.
126. The only example we’ve seen since the war was in 1974. The evidence is inconclusive, but the facts are as follows. The Liberals weren’t really squeezed, and the swing between Con and Lab was minimal, at just -0.74%. A second hung parliament was thus only narrowly avoided.
129,130 -
So Rod is Andrea? And there was I thinking that Andrea had enough posts of his own not to bother creating other identities… 
130.-132. Has Andrea’s true identity been revealed??
sorry, something weird happened there…
very weird. somehow Andrea’s name AND email were pasted into my browser! Security breach there Mike, I think!
128.”It’s a bit presumptuous to speak for ‘the voters’, isn’t it Chris?”
PtP, come up and live under a coalition and you will see what I mean. There is something unedifying at the sight of Labour and the Libdems passing the buck to which ever party happens to hold that brief in the executive. Ask the the SNP voter’s about their vote placing them in 2nd place, but having the party that trailed them in the coalition.