Labour’s ICM lead now 5%
August 27th, 2007
The Tories up a point on a fortnight ago
It’s multi-Gordons once again this morning but only half the number that accompanied the last poll, YouGov’s 10% lead, and one less than when the pollster, ICM, last carried out a survey two weeks ago.
The fieldwork for the firm’s August survey for the Guardian finished four days ago on Thursday so is already a little out of date. It won’t have been affected by the Liverpool shooting which has been dominating the headlines. These are the headline figures compared with the last poll from the firm two weeks earlier - CON 34%(+1): LAB 39%(nc): LD 18%(nc).
The one point decline in the lead is only marginal but the current 5% compares with the 7% margin that the pollster was reporting five weeks ago which will give some comfort to the Tories. I was expecting a Labour lead of about 4% so Brown’s party is in a slightly better position than I thought they it be doing at this stage. The Lib Dems will be pleased to be maintaining their 18% in contrast to drops from other pollsters.
As can be seen the headline over Julian Glover’s report is “Poll warning to Brown over October election gamble”. Certainly 5% does not provide the safety margin that the Brown camp would be looking for and as I’ve argued before Brown is not going to go to the country unless there’s a very good prospect that he’ll be returned with a majority bigger than what Blair secured in May 2005. Anything less would look less like an endorsement by the electorate and more like a partial rejection.
One key finding that might dampen the “election now” hawks is that 55% of those surveyed felt it was “time for change”. In the September 2006 poll the firm found 70% agreeing with the statement. So some movement there but that 55% number still looks pretty high.
Glover’s Guardian piece highlights the very different swings that seem to be taking place in the regions with Labour doing disproportionately better in the North. But the samples from these regional segments are too small to draw significant conclusions.
My betting. This poll will not persuade me to be either a buyer or seller of Labour seats on the commons spread markets. My main position is on how many weeks Gordon will serve as PM before the election. I’m a buyer at 80 weeks from last June and I’ll remain one.
Spreading false information. On Saturday night a poster calling himself “tipster” published detailed figures which he said was a leak from the Guardian poll. They showed an 8% Labour lead and this has proved to be a spoof. This is not acceptable on a betting site and he has now been banned from posting.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Good. Taken before the crime stories, during the hospital list bad pr, Tories up, Tory lead on NHS and crime.
Oct election Gord? Go for it.
Last night, some people were getting very excited about regional differences. However, I did notice this sentence int eh Guardian article:
“The research compares data from all ICM polls carried out during the 2005 general election with all ICM polls carried out since Mr Brown became Labour leader in late June.”
In other words, the figures for party support now are considerably distorted by including polls taken when Brown was 10 points ahead. The real figure for “now” surely shows Labour doing not quite so well as Julian Glover suggests.
What are the regional figures?
2 No they only did that for their regional calculations, which may make them stronger than Mr S says. Any case ICM has never shown GB ten points ahead. Only the Lib Dems will be annihilated YouGov does that
The poll doesn’t take account of the Rhy Jones murder so we’ll have to see how later polls reflect the fall out from that tragedy(although the Tories are already ahead on law and order) . However, I notice Labour doing badly on the NHS as a greater threat than the Tories. Defending hospital unit closures is a nightmare, even if they can be justified on occasion. I also notice Labour barely ahead on the economy which may reflect concerns about world stock markets etc.
It’s difficult to assess fully the Tories’ ’summer heat on Labour’ campaign at the moment. However, even what appeared a bad start on the NHS seems to have drawn blood with bad publicity about closures trumping embarrassment about inaccurate lists. At the very least DC looks to have stopped the rot and Andy Coulson is starting to show his worth. Closing the October option is the strategy. The Tories have made a decent start.
Incidentally on Regional sub-sets I would be extremely cautious; the sample sizes are too small and I’m not sure they’re even represented as properly weighted by ICM. One small crumb for the LDs. If they are doing badly in the South, they usually surge somewhat during a campaign as Labour gets squeezed in the LD/Con marginals. However, 18% from their best pollster is not good. The two Party squeeze looks very much on….
4 I think the Guardian argues that they based their Regional analysis on a longer timeframe and series of polls rather thhan just the subset from this one. In theory that should make it more credible albeit with a large caveat. Regarding the Lib Dems let us wait and see. If they’re doing that much better in the north, can they squeeze Tories and others in Lib/Lab Seats…..
Hopefully Mike won’t mind me mentioning that there’s a very good analysis of this poll over at http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
The Guardian headline is just trying to grab attention. I think Labour will be pretty happy with this poll to be honest, and I detect a bit of disappointment in Tory circles on it. There was some hope that the parties would be neck and neck.
ICM has been the poll somewhat, ‘friendlier’ to the Tories, the movement is very small, and in polling terms statistically insignificant, so its really no change.
On the Tory leads on the NHS/crime, people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the government on these issues, it does not mean they will vote against them,’come the day.’ The Tories, would really have to convince the voters that they will do better, don’t think they are there yet.
As I posted last night: floods,foot and mouth,stock market collapse, all Brown’s fault of course, none of it stuck! If gun crime doesn’t remove Labour’s lead, what will?
8 Yes I see the point about aggregating regional figures for all post GB coronation polls. It does solve the sample size problem but it doesn’t solve the lack of weighting, as Anthony Wells points out.
Loved this from the Guardian’s poll analysis.
The analysis suggests the Tories are slipping further behind Labour among people aged 25-65.
Not much left after that!
7 If you read carefully Mr S points out polling was over before Gun crime came to dominate the news
It gets even better, in the editorial they refer to the ‘Yorkshire tones of David Davis’ doesn’t he come from Tooting? ‘Eh when I t’were a lad I would walk from Tooting Common t’Purley Way, with ‘aht shoes, just to buy a ‘Ovis, tell that to kids today, they’d just laugh at yer’
Obviously the Guardian has been taken over by aliens.
9 Yes I spotted that - but it is the Gruniad after all
Apparently born in York but brought up in Tooting, can’t say I’ve noticed Yorkshire tones.
8 The regional figures vary wildly from poll to poll ( because these subsets are not weighted ) . The Sunday Mirror poll for example had Lab 42 Con 40 LibDem 10 in the Midlands , the July Guardian poll had Lab 32 Con 35 LibDem 20 . The June Guardian poll had LibDems at 23% in the Midlands and only 14% in the South which is frankly not credible .
Higher or similar Lib Dem rating to what some polls were giving them 2-3 weeks before the 2005 General.
Hard to believe Labour as high as 39% when you look at the recent local government by-elections.
The figures indicate/confirm a probable overall trend from Conservative to Labour but no more than that. That can switch back.
Test must be a masochist to call for a General Election in this situation.
Agree with most of the comments here and although the Labour position is welcomely stable I really don’t think an October election is likely.
It might be worth some discussion on what the LibDems can do about the possible national squeeze that seems to be developing - ideally getting beyond the usual exchanges (”Ha ha, you’re gonna be crushed!” “No, we’re doing fine!”).
The Guardian was too facile to take the debatable regional subsample and extrapolate into LibDem seat losses, and if there was an election tomorrow I think they’d do OK in their own seats. But if there’s a perception that there will be a two-horse race and neither Brown nor Cameron are really hated (both generally true at the moment), the LDs should probably assume the need for a defensive election where they concentrate resources on consolidating earlier gains.
The classic problem is how far to be equidistant. If they virulently attack either rival they’ll lose their voters’ tactical support in LD seats. ukpaul urges them to be vigorously anti-Labour, because he is, but most of their Southern seats depend on Labour voters feeling friendly to them. Moreover, a lot of LibDem voters just don’t like the party being virulent - they support it precisely because it’s usually not.
Perhaps their best USP is being ‘the serious alternative’. There will be a chunk of voters who are bored with Labour but think the Tories all marketing and no substance, and both the other parties’ campaigns against each other will feed those views, but neither can be said to be a really vicious attack that will deter tactical voters. It also plays to the strengths of LD MPs who work hard locally - you can see we’re serious, look at Fred who knocks himself out for you. Finally, it plays to the strength of Ming, who does serious more than he does anything else.
That could work. But they really need to recognise that a major squeeze is likely and concentrate accordingly, or there could be quite a cull.
Grumpy Old Man @ 9. WATCH IT. You note that “The analysis suggests the Tories are slipping further behind Labour among people aged 25-65.Not much left after that!”
Yes there are - the over-65s - shown last week to be the top web users. I don’t know how old you are Grumpy Old Man but you’ll find us old ones are much more interested in politics than the rest and much more likely, as Mr. S would note, to vote. We are also as a group growing larger by the day and are becoming an increasing proportion of the electorate - so don’t dismiss us.
I have been a lurker here for some some but have never been brave enough to post. Your comment, Grumpy Old Man, finally provoked me. You will be hearing from me again.
14.Interesting. I think a net Lib Dem loss v Tories all but inevitable. If it happened in 2005 it is highly likely with Cameron. Whether that is bearable say small single figure seat loss or something higher will depend on Tory progress. Assuming 2009+ election the Lib Dem task is to offset this with gains from Labour and perhaps the odd shock gain against the grain from the Tories (hello James Gray?). It is with Labour I think the Lib Dem opportunity will come. Not necessarily in the front rank seats eg Oldham East where Labour are on guard, or even Oxford East where Tatchell may bail them out but in a particular type of seat. The sort where they came 2nd for the first time in 2005, which have always had decent Tory votes 20% but where the Tories never really threatened even in their glory days of the early 80’s. This sort of seat is there if a)they can make the anti Labour vote coalesce and b) if the local Labour Party is complacent as in many they are as they never had a real competitor before. Trying to change the mindset of local parties from a safe seat mode to one you suddenly have to work for can be very difficult.
In addition I struggle to see where Labour gain back seats from the Lib Dems unless you count Brent East/Brent Central. The impressive Willie Rennie showed his mettle in May when he helped a Lib Dem MSP to Edinburgh in what was not overall a good night for Scots Lib Dems. Leech has a University seat that once gained is next to impossible to get back from them until the MP gets his pension. On the others?
Overall I think they will drop vote%. But obviously where it drops will be key. If they can contain it more to the Surry Heaths and the Rhonndas more than the Rochdales and Tauntons they can still beat UNS
17
God there’s more than one of us, (sob) I was beginning to feel all alone, welcome!
Guardian claims the change in the figures to be Lab +1, Con +2, Lib -2. The figures for the regional variations are interesting if the samples are big enough to be useful, suggesting that Labour is doing well enough in all parts of England and especially well north of the watford gap. The downside is the scotish figures clearly this must be a concern. The position of the liberals seems much as expected ( non partisans aside ) ie many labour inclined voters abstained or voted liberal in 2005 as an anti blair statement and are likely to return to voting labour next time which puts many lib seats in peril. It also causes problems for the tories as a number of what appear to be Lab / Con mariginals are in fact the result of votes transfering between lab & libs. A perfect example is Portsmouth North, which by some schemes was a nominal tory win last time, closer examination shows the tory vote steady at approx 37% - 38% since 1997 but with a big swing to the libs last time. An unwinding of this would allow lab to get say 42% - 43% and still win even if the tories put on 3%-4%.
16, Agreed Uk Paul always wants Lib dems to be vigrously anti Labour because he is.
Reminds me of Robin Cook`s comment in the alistair campbell diaries regarding John Reid. ` The man can start a fight in a paper bag`
Even on issues he agrees with like PR for elections in scotland, scotland council elections, wales , europe he don`t think he would want Labour voters to be friendly to Lib dems even if it helped their cause.
20? Portsmouth North was a Labour hold. BTW Where are the figures for each region
22 Anthony Wells claims in his nominal figures for the new boundaries that this would have been won by the tories, though Thrasher and Rallings have it down as a very narrow lab win. An analysis of the regional figures are in the article in the guardian, it will be interesting to see the details when ICM publish them ( I believe they should do this in the next 24hrs )
23 Yes I agree. We only have a hazy picture from the Guardian. Someone had SNP on ten seats. Wales shall be interesting
Labour voters in certain Southern constituencies, are tactical, this means that the Libdems, will do better than their headline figures suggest. A classic is Mid Dorset and North Poole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_Dorset_and_North_Poole
Note the decline in the Labour vote and the rise in the Libdem vote, Iraq might have been a factor, but tactical voting is more likely. Labour voters who move/retire into the seat have a tendency to switch to Libdem to keep the Tory out.
25,
Its a waste of time in Rydale North Yorkshire.
In safe seats you might as well vote for what your first choice is.
Thats why PR is essential to stop apathy, for the millions who might as well not bother, in seats which never change at general elections on the present system.
26 True but what was once safe may not be so now in some places see 18
Re PR err no. The same applied in 1992. Heavy turnout why? Because outcome in doubt. For the last three it hasn’t. Not saying it’ll be back to 1992, but if it looks close going into the Campaign, the turnout will spike. You watch
According to Anthony, the regional pseudo-poll shows Labour gaining seats in London. Hmm…
There is an issue for the pollsters here. The one thing everyone agrees on is that there won’t be a UNS next time, and regional polling, if it can be done well, could be a very marketable product. This would seem to be, on the face of it, an opportunity for YouGov, whose cost-per-head is presumably lower than that of the face-to-facers or telephone pollsters. I couldn’t get into Anthony’s comments thread just now, but I’ll try to repost this note over there in case he can no longer face the spleen this place generates these days…
27. Not if news at ten carry a dodgy poll suggesting a Labour landslide it won’t.
28
So no sign of the, ‘Boris effect.’
29 I rather think it’d take more than one Lol
31. It was rather more than one last time, wasn’t it?
28. Labour did not do at all well in London in 2005 so it is not inconceivable that Lab could improve on it position in London next time.
After having made my first ever posting here an hour ago here is my second and it’s on topic. This poll is not good for any of the parties. Labour are seeing their lead drop ever so slightly; the Conservatives must have hoped to me making some progress now their beloved David is back from holiday; and the Lib Dem remain stuck at their current level even though their biggest vote repellent, Menzies Campbell, has been nowhere to be seen.
Even old fogeys like me don’t want the country to be run by one of our generation. Campbell ought to retire and enjoy his remaining years. It is just painful to watch him and I did vote Lib Dem last time. Brown looks a total phony even more so than Blair. What a ridiculous thing for him to try to pretend he supports England at soccer and the crowds at Wembley were right to boo him last week. I do think there are too many Scots running our country.
As for the boy Dave heaven help us! What a mistake he has been as we saw with the hospital closure fiasco last week.
The only politician of any party who talks sense any more is David Davis. If he was leading the Tories they would get my vote.
27,
Agreed in some places.
But if the politicians only concentrate on the marginals, and who can blame them on the present system.
You shouldn`t be surprised when people ask why should I bother in the super safe seats which never change hands.
Every vote should matter and count, to the percentage gained by each party.
Why should a conservative voter who beliefs in their polices vote tacticaly, in for example Barnsley, the same applies in reverse for a Labour voter in Richmond North yorkshire.
I wonder if Brown might actually rule out an early GE fairly soon. The longer he leaves his options open on this, the harder it becomes for him to explain why he has eventually decided to play it long.
Because he has so far failed to rule out an early GE then when he eventually does it will be correctly interpreted by the media as evidence that he didn’t feel confident of winning. This in turn could lead to further erosion of his poll lead.
But he’s had the Party on alert for a bit, StJohn. It would be inconsistent to publicly rule out an election.
He’s enjoying the best of all worlds at the moment. He doesn’t have to go but could if, surprisingly, the poll leads went into double figures. Meanewhile, the other Parties have to stay on alert too, just in case he does.
He just has to stay quiet and let the others fret. Easy peasy.
33 - But which “London” will they improve in?
I’d suggest some improvement in London is likely, but at the same time I think Labour’s also vulnerable in other areas of London – for example in places like Ealing Central&Action, Battersea and Hammersmith Labour will be at risk, while in places like Bethnal Green, Brent Central and Islington there is evidence to suggest they could recover a great deal on their performance in ’05… and that’s before we get onto the contests between the LibDems and Conservatives or the handful of three way marginals.
I think is important to know where Labour’s improvement in London were to come from, because if (as the decline in LibDem support suggests) it’s coming in areas were they are traditionally strong but saw big swings to the LibDems over Iraq/Tuition Fees etc… then its less helpful, than if these were swings in the Labour/Conservative marginals (although a decline in the LibDem vote here would help Labour – although the rise in the Conservative vote in London that the poll suggests might off set that in these type of seats).
As I say, an improvement for Labour in London is likely IMHO – but it could manifest itself in any number of ways, what this poll (take with a grain of salt because of the size of regional samples) seems to suggest is the swing back to Labour is coming from the LibDems and is happening at the same time as a much smaller swing to the Conservatives – likely to help in Islington, Greenwich and Brent but not so much in Putney, Battersea or Hammersmith.
O/T Sarkozy, an example for Brown?
Resisting the “time for a change” feeling among voters is really hard and will certaninly be a major factor in the next British GE.
Brown might want to look to what’s happening in France: Sarkozy has replaced a man from the same party (Chirac) that served 12 years as president; his government (as Brown’s) is largely composed of members of the former governments (or high-ranking official of the party that is in power since 2002).
Yet Sarkozy has managed to impose the theme of a “rupture from the past” especially through very harsh criticism of Chirac anf de Villepin. In the TNS Sofres poll published this morning (for his first 100 days), the feeling of “rupture” was supported by a large majority : 83% feel a rupture in the style of the presidency and, more important, 69% feel a rupture about policies.
This feeling is a very important asset for Sarkozy and explains his amazingly good polls for a person that inspired a lot of hatred on the left. This morning’s poll gives:
Do you have a positive or a negative view of Sarkozy’s action since his election :
Positive 71 % (very positive 15%, rather positive 56%)
Negative 25%
Don’t know 4% (rather negative 17%, very negative 8%)
Thus, my point about Brown is this: I think he should put more focus on his differences with Blair and not hesitate to say it himself. I think a withdrawal from Iraq would be the best time for such a move, giving him the opportunity to explain at lentgh how he is going to correct some of Blair’s errors.
37. Peter, “he’s enjoying the best of all worlds at the moment”.
I think the gloss is rubbing off this Doctor Pangloss and future polls will confirm this.
Wait until the next poll which will reflect the publics revulsion at the most recent child shooting (previously dismissed by Labour as only happening in black communities) and the open insult to Mrs Lawrence with the Chindamo situation.
It is now clear to all that Labour has stacked the judicial system against the victim and has prioritised the rights of criminals.
I think the ground war is going to have a significant impact next time round. The Tories have raised a lot of money and they’ve learnt to spend it well. If well-written leaflets go through doors in target seats every couple of months till the election - paid delivery rather than volunteers, as it’s outside election time - they will be able to make big gains in those seats. It’s how Michael Howard gained 30 seats without making progress in the polls. Before the tactic was dreampt up, the Lib Dems did better than their polls suggested. I think next time it may be Tories gaining in marginals against Lib Dems, and unless Labour manage to raise a lot of money to do the same, against Labour too. Obviously that won’t outweigh a big poll swing one way or another, but it may well make the difference of 30 seats again.
Nick’s suggestion that the Lib Dems should campaign defensively is interesting. It’s really not their style! I was amazed how upbeat and gung-ho they were in their targetting strategy when I thought the strategic situation looked bleak. There’s a feeling that once an MP has been elected, if they’re any good they’ll hold their seat, and party resources need to be on the gains. After all, the Lib Dems are pretty unlikely ever to push into second or first place in a national election anyway. If they sometimes campaign on the assumption that it’s going to be tough, they miss chances if things later turn in their favour.
An interesting post Silver Surfer and welcome. I agree with nearly everything you’ve said including-surprisingly-an admiration for David Davis. I heard him on the radio and really wondered what must have been going through the Tory members heads to have elected that glittering empty shell that now leads them.
Talking of which I wonder why it is that a site like this that notices the nuances of a shock Resident candidate’s third place in Seven Mile Bottom hasn’t commented on the biggest political change of the last two weeks-’Dave’s makeover’?
Gone are the tie-less jacket-less coloured shirts and in their place starched white shirts sober ties and plain grey suits jacket always worn. No more heir to breezy Blair but serious politician for the Brown era. The good news for Cameron is that no ones noticed. The bad news is that the ‘Dave The Chameleon’ team have almost too much material!
re 36 & 37. I think that StJohn has got a point here. Allowing the speculation to continue and then pull back from it could be shown as weakness, especially if the polls start to edge back a bit.
I’ve often harboured doubts about Brown as the great strategist which was reinforced by his 2007 budget speech tax reduction that wasn’t. It looked too clever by half and was quickly exposed. The short-term game of teasing everybody with the prospect of an early election might just bite back.
I’ve just heard a recording of the Lib Dems so called rising star, Nick Clegg on the Today programme this morning. There were fourteen separate errs….his presentation is pretty awful and on this count alone he should not be leader.
He had a good argument on the economic benefits of immigration - why didn’t he have the confidence to take it to its logical conclusion?
39. Sarkozy is in a stronger position to argue there’s been a ‘rupture’. He quit Chirac’s government was it a year or two before? And he did that specifically so he could argue he was a change. Whereas Brown was Chancellor the whole time. What’s more, our system makes it harder for someone to distance themselves from an incumbent in their own party. I think it’s to do with the fact that presidential elections are formally about individuals rather than parties, and my impression is that even informally, commentators and voters assess individuals to a greater extent and parties to a lesser extent. Also the fixed term is important. If Brown had resigned, he would have been seen as trying to bring Blair down immediately, so he couldn’t resign for a year and slag him off from the back benches.
Nevertheless of course you’re right Chris. He could choose to explicitly disagree with Blair on a number of things, to criticise. You may well be right that it’d be a good idea.
40 Sure, I expect the lead to dwindle slowly until the Parties are running about level. We should be into the Conference season by then, and Politics proper will resume.
44. Yes Mike this was the point I was seeking to make which you have expressed far more succinctly. I also had in mind his budget tactic which quickly rebounded on him.
Relentless pressure from the Murdoch media over Europe.
A Sun editorial today, and an unusually large news feature on the Labour EU rebellion:
http://tinyurl.com/37wsa6
The gist of the leader is that Brown is a fraud, who has betrayed our trust. This follows an especially scathing Sunday Times editorial yesterday making basically the same accusation, only with longer words.
This is the summer silly season, when everyone is meant to have forgotten obscure stories like this.
Brown faces a real fight - it will only get worse from here, unless he grants that vote. Silly man should just accept the inevitable now.
39 Chris from Paris You’re absolutely right although, as the twin architect of new Labour, it’s much harder for Brown.
On another subject how are the Socialists doing? Strauss-Kahn is off to the IMF so presumably the battle for the Socialist crown will be between Sego and Delanoe? When will the decision be taken? After the municipal elections?
42: A Tory leaflet every two months in marginals? Is anyone seeing anything remotely like this? We’ve had one in Broxtowe since the 2005 election (not counting the little In Touch thingies from Tory councillors in a few wards). They manage a good effort in leaflets at elections because they get help from other constituencies (fair enough, so do we) but anything they’re doing at the moment is not visible to the naked eye.
I agree that the LD troops are really only geared for attack, but it’s a weakness in any army if they only have one mode. It’s problematic unless they’re on a general upswing - in 2005 they took a ward off us that they’d been targeting, but absent-mindedly lost their Mayor’s ward to us.
Occasional crossword clue number 3.
As it’s a bank holiday here’s another clue.
British leader was a dry General. (6)
Nick P - Not virulently anti-labour, virulently anti-government (a distinction I often make myself but I don’t think it gets picked up by others most of teh time). As the lib dcem vote tends to the anti-establishment that’s no great problem.
I also think that lib dem MPs will tend to hold on to seats so there is less of a polling problem with current figures and that you don’t win over voters from a government by being nice about it. It is much easier to be nice to another opposition party however as you are seen as wanting the same goal.
A Tory leaflet every two months in marginals??? We are going more than that in Norwich South
Trouble is that we are not typical!
How do the Lib Dems intend to react to these recent findings. At the moment they have no identity, so do they go more to the left to win back the London voters going to Labour or more to the right to get the voters going Tory in the South West.
Adding up the totals for the 3 main parties gives a total of 91%.
Do I assume that 9% of those polled are undecided or will vote for minority parties?
Or worse still a “hung parliament” after the next General Election.
The mind boggles,where do we go from here?
Hats off to the TUC. Three more bank holidays? Cracking idea. Get on board DC before Gordon does.
This poll is good for Labour. Although it was taken before the bike shooting, it shows that the natural decline (as opposed to specific issues) is only 1% over this time, rather than the 2-3% others suggest. I imagine the next poll will be a few points further down, but this is because of events, which have an effect thats here one day and gone the next. However, the gun crime problems will also contribute to a longer term mindset than Labour are poor on social breakdown, so it might cause the natural decline to be a bit faster from that point.
45- Off Centre
Sarkozy stayed in government until the beginning of march 2007, two months before the election.
49- Blue Moon
Concerning the socialists, they will hold their annual conference (called “summer university” in french parties)next weekend.
They’re in complete disarray and their main activity is either to comment sarkozy’s holidays or to publish books accusing each other about their recent defeat.
The game is not very clear but Royal seems to have lost the support of very important party apparatchiks that “made” her candidacy last year (Francois Rebsamen, Julien Dray and the maverick Montebourg).
Delanoé is popular in Paris and will most probably be reelected mayor next year. However I think his national appeal is still very limited, because he is VERY parisian and French people love to hate parisians (judging them horribly arrogant). The fact that he is our most well-known gay politician is not a factor even if this protets him of some criticism. The fact that he will be 62 at the next election is a more important factor, meaning that he would certainly experience heavy opposition from the ambitious forty-something that think that their time has come. It would be a kind of Ming campbell’s choice over Huhne or Clegg…
Actually the 40 somethings (Valls, Montebourg, Peillon, Hamon) or “young lions” (nickname invented by Arnaud Montebourg to express their ambition against “elephants”, tradional socialçist barons) are probably the best asset of the party. I think promoting one of them would be the best move but I think the old guard is not ready yet. Too many older wannabe leaders are still thinking they can make it : Delanoé, Royal, Hollande, Fabius, Ayrault…
I will report here after the conerence if you like.
48, Seant you Murdoch and Union barons on the same side fighting for democracy, if the devil in the detail could cast his net so wide.
Anyways can`t see the PM requesting a referendum just to satisfy people who in reality just want to leave altogether.
However if you all got together in a room, it would be good publicity for the opposite view.
Chris from Paris. Yes please. I’m surprised you think that Hollande or Fabius are still in the running. What has prompted the erosion of Royal’s support, well apart from her poor performance in the election! I see that Liberation also seems to be against her but she still has a reasonable level of support among the militants( judging by the polls) even if it has diminished…
54. Theres very little that the Lib-Dems can actually do about this. I don’t believe Ming is specifically responsible for the Lib’s polling troubles. Whats happening is simply that voters are being attracted back to Labour and the Conservatives for the first time since 1992. The Lib’s are a protest party, and they do well when the public fall out with the two main parties. When both the main parties are doing well, the Lib’s vote falls. Cameron has brought back a lot of Liberal Tories, who left in the 90’s. Blairs departure has brought back a lot of Labour supporters that left after the Iraq invasion. I do not believe any Lib-Dem leader could really change this, and if they get rid of Ming so soon after dumping Kennedy, they lose even more credability.
The best thing for the Lib’s, in my view, is to try and tie Gordon Brown into the whole Iraq thing. Blair may have took us into war, but Brown allowed it to happen. If his accolites had rebeled Blair would have been beaten in the Commons vote. As Chancellor, he payed for the war. Now as PM, he is delaying the pull-out. Iraq was and remains the Lib’s strongest card - Though because Brown has been so clever (cowardly?) its very difficult to actually pin any responsibility for the war on to him.
Even by playing the Iraq Card, I doubt that will be enough for the Liberals. The election will be classic Tory V Labour stuff, with the Libs pushed on to the sidelines.
Like Mike, I would have expected a Labour lead of c.4%. The underlying figures, however, aren’t bad for the Conservatives, and recent events should probably shade Labour’s support down a bit further.
Looking at regional sub-samples is also risky, for the reasons stated. That said, I think it is entirely plausible that Labour should be doing better in the North, Midlands, and left-leaning London, but worse in the South, compared to 2005. On balance, that benefits the Conservatives, because of the large number of Southern marginal seats, but obviously works against the possibility of their winning an overall majority, when Northern seats have to be gained.
58 But Sarko also moved jobs frequently and had a maverick image, plus although no one doubts the personal animus between him and Chirac no one doubted they had serious policy differences as well. With Blair and Brown it was personal pure and simple.
38 see 18 Could they do as in 1997 and drop national% while gaining seats possibly
Nick Clegg was poor yesterday. A pity because I thought he was the Lib Dem’s best shot. There’s just something angry and opportunistic about him. Particularly the anger. The best Lib Dems avoid sounding angry which is why they’re liked.
It’s pretty obvious that whatever minute fluctuations the polls show there is little doubt that the Tories CANT win the next election. Their ‘brand’ was shot to pieces by Thatcher and though Major got the blame none of it was his. He just picked up the dying beast for one last charge.
Someone said to me the other day “I don’t like Brown. I mean I wont vote Conservative……” and that’s the problem. There are just too many people ‘wont vote Conservative’. That’s what happens when a brand is shot. They need to change their name and do it quickly. In the meantime Brown knows they wont win in ‘09 so better a guaranteed seven years than a guaranteed five.
Having said all what I just said about the Liberal position, I should just add that the one crumb of comfort is that a Hung Parliament still looks highly likely to me, come the next election. So, despite everything, the Lib’s could well hold the balance of power, and who knows, they might even get some sort of PR out of the coalition deal with Labour?
60- Blue Moon
Fabius is not any more in the running for the presidency but still wants to pull the strings and has a strong and faithful team at every level in the party.
Hollande is unpopular now among other MPs and leaders of the party. But he still is quite popular in the grassroots of the party, spending a lot of time touring local branches of the party. He is also a good public speaker, often quite funny and has much more substance than Royal ever had. I think he plans to install a weak leader of the party and try to come back as presidential candidate in the coming years.
Royal has lost a lot of support after an interview in June where she admitted that she did not believe in two of her crucial campaign promises (minimum wage at 1500 euros a month and generalization of the 35hour workweek). In the party, her apparent attempt of a coup (when her supporters tried to impose an immediate choice of a candidate for the 2012 election) just after the legislative election earned her a lot of anger from party barons, even among her former supporters.
Many tacticians of the party are distancing themselves without openly attacking her, just in case…
Mike, interesting take on the poll. That said the Guardian take on the poll is interesting. My take on the poll is of course on my blog.
Re Grumpy old man “It gets even better, in the editorial they refer to the ‘Yorkshire tones of David Davis’ doesn’t he come from Tooting? ‘Eh when I t’were a lad I would walk from Tooting Common t’Purley Way, with ‘aht shoes, just to buy a ‘Ovis, tell that to kids today, they’d just laugh at yer’
Obviously the Guardian has been taken over by aliens. ”
No, the Guardian just does sloppy journalism like most of the rest of the press.
64. So certain are you? I believe anything could happen at the coming election. 2009/2010 is a long time away and anything could happen. We might even be in a recession by then, who knows?
John Prescott anouncing his retirement early to allow selection of new candidate in Hull, in case of an October election?
Sean Fear
If one oversimplifies the key question is who is squeezing the LD vote best in the two Party marginals? If you believe the regional sub sets it looks like Labour is doing so in at least parts of the Midlands, the North and London. In the South are the Tories picking up LD votes in LD held seats and/or safe Tory seats or are they are picking up more than Labour in places like Crawley and Portsmouth North?
The LD vote went up slightly in the South in a number of marginals in 2005 costing Labour seats. Will a reduction in that vote help Labour hold on in the South or are there LD voters in the Southern marginals who voted LD in 2001 and 2005 who are now being tempted by DC?
Whatever, there doesn’t seem to be too much two way trade between Labour and the Conservatives at the moment so it’s down to squeezing the LDs and trying to motivate 2005 abstainers.
64 I think it unlikely the Conservatives will win an overall majority at the next election, but I would regard it as highly likely that they will be level-pegging (in terms of vote share) with Labour.
“We might even be in a recession by then, who knows?”
The last UK recession was ‘90-’92. It led to Majors huge and unexpected victory in ‘92. If anything is guaranteed to make the British public stay with what they have it’ll be a financial crisis. Would you want Cameron/Osborne at the helm in one of those?
39 (suggested big break with the past for Gord by announcing a withdrawal from Iraq)
I think there’s an understanding that that won’t be announced until after the General’s report on the triumph (not) of the surge. Does anyone know how soon that report is due? Would it allow time for an early-to-mid October election to be announced? I’m sure that for Brown to announce a withdrawal would give him a surge of sorts, never mind whether it’s spun as “the Iraqi security forces there are capable of bla bla bla”. Maybe this is a major part of the big plan. Certainly it looks like the UK contingent will be withdrawn sooner rather than later. In any case, all the UK troops are doing is trying to stay alive (source: UK Army Generals).
70 I think that DC is popular amongst a type of Lib Dem voter, who is affluent, professional, and living in the South, who would probably have voted Conservative (in Parliamentary elections, at least) from 1979-92. So, I think 2 of the Lib Dems’ 5 SW London seats must now be very vulnerable to the Conservatives, plus 2 or 3 in Hampshire, and 3 or 4 in the South West. At the same time, it also helps the Conservatives to retain seats like St. Alban’s or Guildford.
I find it hard to imagine the Conservatives losing more than a couple of seats in the South, albeit they could well “lose” several more of their notional seats. I think that some of the swing back to the Lib Dems, in such places as Southgate, or St. Alban’s was due to the unwind of anti-Conservative tactical voting, and I don’t see that altering next time.
72 It’s hard to know what the impact of a recession would be politically. In the short term, in 1990-92, it may have helped the Conservatives. In the long term, it proved devastating. Seats like Southgate, Finchley, Ilford North, Brent North, Hendon, just wouldn’t have even come into play in 1997, without the impact of the nineties recession.
74 Do you have a view on 18. Will we see a rise in Tory tactical voting. Tories in the sort of seats referred to would likely be sorely tempted you think
71 If they’re only level pegging in vote share Labour will be well ahead in seat totals
76 It would be logical for Conservatives to vote that way, as it would diminish Labour’s chances of winning an overall majority. Whether they will is something I have no way of knowing.
“but I would regard it as highly likely that they will be level-pegging (in terms of vote share) with Labour”
I would imagine that is a by-product of being a Conservative activist. If the Conservatives couldn’t achieve this in 2005 when (apart from a poor leader) they had the perfect storm. I can’t imagine another time when so many potential Labour voters-or just anti Tory ones- will be prepared to commit hara kiri on a single issue.
77 Well yes but on the broader point do you think CLPs with suddenly reduced 2005 majorities will struggle to adapt to the mindset that they need to work the seat again for the first time in decades and hence could flip more easily than seats like Oldham East where they are much used to fighting harder
Re 36, Stjohn, “Because he has so far failed to rule out an early GE then when he eventually does it will be correctly interpreted by the media as evidence that he didn’t feel confident of winning. This in turn could lead to further erosion of his poll lead.”
Yes. Interesting.
The point I’m making about recessions is simply; People assume they know whats going to happen in 2-3 years time, based on the evidence they see today. Thats fine if something is static, but for something fluid like politics, its flawed. Nobody knows what events may transpire between now and the next election and how those events will impact on the political scene. Sure, you can have an educated guess, but nobody knows for certain what will happen.
79: I personally think that’s quite likely to happen. At local level, a lot of Labour councillors who were swept in on the 1990s collapse of Tory support found it extremely difficult to adapt to fighting a defensive battle once the national advantages receded. Parliamentary fighting tends to be savvier and to have more national support, but at least some MPs will find it difficult to get their local parties in gear, especially as activist levels will still be historically low.
‘Someone had SNP on ten seats.’
If you’re going to say that, you have to name the four they’re going to gain.
re 78. I think Howard completely screwed it for the Tories by going for the core right vote with the “are you thinking what we are thinking strategy”. This was a disgrace and alienated the liberalish centre ground voters who had been so well courted by Blair in 1997 and 2001. If the Cameron leadership can make inroads into this centre grouping then Sean Fear’s prediction of the Tories come out as winners on votes looks a reasonable possibility.
The Cameron strategy is absolute correct - the question is whether his party will let him sustain it. If the poll deficits are down in the 3-5% range by party conference time he should be OK.
There is another little facet which will impact on the conference season - how well will the Lib Dems do? Traditionally the party has had good poll boosts round conference time and this could be at the expense of Labour. My guess, however, is that it will be an awful conference for the party with every little comment by Clegg and Huhne being seen as bids for the leadership with Ming having to rebut questions about his own position time and time again.
Re 44, Mike Smithson, Interesting comments re Nick Clegg. I assume he is not your favourite?
“He had a good argument on the economic benefits of immigration - why didn’t he have the confidence to take it to its logical conclusion?”
The problem is this, that immigration may help the economy but not the individuals already living here. Although the net wealth of the resident does rise ever so slightly, the cost base is growing massively leaving the individual feel poorer.
The voters perception of how the economy is going will not be on statistics but on how much money they have in their pockets and job prospects.
78 Roger - on your earlier post; a large amount of the Brown bounce has been relief at seeing the end of Blair ands with him Hewitt, Reid & co, Brown being the change. What the events of the last few days have shown is that it’s the same - Jack “I was misled” Straw wrong-footed again and complacently repeating the spin of statistics to show there is no problem it’s just perception, Jacqui Smith announcing a war on guns which turns out to be an amnesty, sorry it’s no it’s not an amnesty, its just a headline grabbing initiative and Macavity’s not there.
Just imagine the relief when Brown and the rest are gone….
GoM/coldstone says Tories were blaming Brown for Floods/F&M/credit crash - no we weren’t. We were saying that Brown had cut the budget for flood relief, that the Government hadn’t implemented a report into lab safety at the site that allowed F&M to escape, that Brown has managed the UK economy such that a recession will really hurt because he’s running a big deficit at time of economic growth. He claims to be the greatest Chancellor since perhaps Joseph managed the Egyptian economy but Joseph at least recognised that in the 7 years of plenty you should plan for the 7 years of drought.
86. I didn’t know Keith Joseph had managed the Egyptian economy.
Lib Dems are in a difficult position as they know Ming Campbell isn’t going to do anything for them, yet they don’t want to come across as unloyal like the Tories did when they changed their leader every couple of years. Regrettably they’re stuck in a position where they just have to write off the next couple years and hope they don’t sustain too much damage.
87
84 - The tories were starting to do decently in polls in 2005 but then the Aussie guy (the name escapes me) came in and said that they needed to talk about immigration and so on at the expense of anything else. The result? Tory poll figures fell and didn’t recover (the final figures were better but that is more likely to be polling methodology problems).
84 Do you agree with my Strategic assessment of the Lib Dem situation at 18. WRT To Howard. I think Mr Smithson he could no other. He had no time to change perceptions of the Tories only 18 months, and even had he he could not do it himself. All he could do was try and turn the shambles he inherited from IDS into some kind of electoral fighting force and try and build a platform for his successor. That he recognised your long term strategy is I think shown by his promotion of Cameron. I just cannot see how it was politically possible for Howard especially with the refusal of the Ultras to see sense even more entrenched to do what Cameron has done in 2005-2007 in 2003-2005
another german bank goes belly-up a result of the credit crunch. barclays had to sieze collateral from off balance sheet vehicles of sachsen LB. property prices falling in US and all over Europe as the mortgage markets blow up. but dont worrry it wont happen in the UK………….
re 91. Yes I broadly agree with your assessment at 18. Cameron has gone down well with a certain segment of LD supporters, if not members and activists. The question is whether this will be sustained. Certainly the detail from the post-June 27th polls seems to indicate that some of it has.
You’ll recall the data I have put up a couple of times on the transfer effect based on what polling respondents said they did in 2005. The Tories continue to get a reasonable slice of LDs and not to lose many in the other direction. UKIP and the right wing are almost totally irrelevant.
A main factor behind the recent polls, and no doubt in today’s ICM survey, is a drop in the proportion of Tories saying they are “certain to vote”. This compared with a big increase for Labour on this measure.
If the Tories start becoming a little more certain and Labour voters a little less then Brown’s poll lead will start to fall off.
84 and 93 I think the Cameron strategy is good for making a reasonable net gain in terms of seats, but most certainly not a strategy that will deliver an overall majority. The sort of voters I was referring to are quite numerous in a number of Southern constituencies, but not very numerous as a proportion of the population as a whole. This poll bears out that there are some parts of the country where this strategy goes down like a cup of cold sick.
Still, if Cameron can get the seat totals to something like Labour 310, Conservative 250 at the next election, then he has a good chance of seeing the government implode afterwards.
There was an interesting feature on The Westminster Hour yesterday evening about constituency boundaries and how they inherently favour Labour, because there’s been a significant population movement from Labour stronghold constituencies to Tory ones in the last few years (hence, fewer votes are needed to win a Labour seat than a Tory one). One political scientist who was interviewed suggested that even if the Tories had a 10-point lead, they’d struggle to win a Parliamentary majority. If true, then Brown’s slight poll dip shouldn’t deter him from calling an election soon.
What I find puzzling is the extent of the hostility to Cameron on this forum. This seems to be based on (i) the fact that he comes from a wealthy background and went to Eton, and (ii) his emphasis on the environment and social policy thus far. On point 1, I think it’s worth pointing out that because he is very wealthy in his own right, Cameron is less likely to be motivated by money and power than someone who’s worked their way up from the bottom or the middle. He’s very rich and has connections to the levers of power anyway. I’m not trying to suggest that he’s in politics for purely altruistic reasons, but I do know that I’d prefer someone like him to someone like Brown, who loathes self-sufficiency with all chips in McDonald’s on his shoulder, and wants to make us all obedient supplicants to the state, or someone like Prescott who sees politics as nothing more than an excuse to enjoy perks and freebies. On the second, Cameron knows that there are a large number of swing voters who believe the crap about global warming, receive significant income from tax credits, subconsciously regard the welfare state as a holy grail and have been subjected to a decade of propaganda to the effect that everything Thatcher did was pure evil. So he’s GOT to tread very carefully if he’s going to have any hope of winning an election. In an ideal world, I’d like to see public sector waste slimmed down, taxes reduced, the political power of the EU and Scotland reduced, immigration brought within sensible limits, violent criminals locked up for a very long time and murderers strung up. Cameron knows what the Labour spin machine would do to him if he supported any of these publicly … which is NOT to say that a future Conservative government won’t start moving in that direction. He also knows that campaigning this way lost the Tories the ‘01 and ‘05 elections
78 I’d have thought it’s a fairly safe prediction (events permitting, of course).
Popping in and out, apologies for rambling over old ground.
To use a football analogy, we’re just starting the season. The pre-season campaign came in with a new manager (Brown) and one that still has to deal with stroppy team players who think it’s their right to play for Man Utd (Cameron)
Be interesting to see next polls, when the things like hospital closures and shootings actually do start to sink in with the general public (I work on the theory that polls change about a week after big political news leaves Westminster, not a day or so)
This bit caught my eye in the Guardian today:
“If Labour support dropped by two points in the course of an election campaign, and Conservative support rose, Mr Brown would be returned to Downing Street with a majority of little over 10 seats. That would leave him vulnerable to rebellions by leftwing Labour MPs.”
OK, it doesn’t say how much Tory support must rise, but the worst thing that Brown needs is for him to call the election, then the next opinion poll says “Labour support drops by two points”. Today’s Guardian spin might make him think twice.
As for London being left-leaning (as said above), depends whereabouts. Places like Southwark, Lambeth, Tooting, Ealing Southall, parts of East London etc are as red as they come. Places like Brent North, Finchley, bits of Hendon, Sutton, Richmond (all possible Tory gains) etc are most certainly not.
If Labour’s support has gone up in the former but not the latter, they’re in trouble in London as well - remember there was a large enough sea of blue in London as well last council elections, and they seem a decent enough indicator of how a seat will eventually go.
I would think that the worst is over for Cameron for now, a light seems to have finally come on amongst many Tories that living in 2001 again might be wearing thin. Coulson seems to be making a little bit of difference and already the apparent love for Brown isn’t quite so apparent.
Interesting times…
97 Andy Coulson certainly seems to be running a much tighter ship than his predecessors.
91 IMO Michael Howard played an extremely weak hand fairly well.
StJohn - Your clues are getting easier.
It’s Gordon.
There was an interesting feature on The Westminster Hour yesterday evening about constituency boundaries and how they inherently favour Labour, because there’s been a significant population movement from Labour stronghold constituencies to Tory ones in the last few years (hence, fewer votes are needed to win a Labour seat than a Tory one).
Arguably, this isn’t as bad a problem as it was in the early post-war years, when greater net urban outflows due to suburban development, in addition to the long-term losses causes by the effects of bombing and housing redvelopment, produced some tiny seats - even in 1979, you had some seats in cities like Liverpool and Glasgow with electorates in the 19,000-30,000 range, while some Conservative seats had electorates approaching 100,000 (this was even worse before 1950, particularly in swollen suburban seats like Hendon). Leaving aside the special case of the Isle of Wight, we don’t have anything like those disparities now.
Yet another important factor in Labour’s ability to secure seats in a low national vote share is the notable disparity in turnout in safe Labour seats. This is probably a bigger factor in the disparity than population movement, in my opinion.
Although I don’t see GB going for an Oct/Nov GE, the odds on Betfair continue to narrow, last matched at 4.1-1. Even a 4% poll lead would see Labour’s majority increased and there must be that nagging doubt in GB’s mind that once that honeymoon surge has gone, he might never again enjoy a lead in the polls.
Securing a new 5 year term now, on his own terms, must be tempting - but it’s simply not going to happen.
Didn’t one of the Labour-supporting Sunday tabloids have a front page splash yesterday on a 25 October poll (I’ve been unable to locate which one on Google to read the piece), although it has not affected the betting markets to any extent.
102/3 It’s not going to happen on these polls, PfP. They’re too ephemeral. If, however, we get some ‘plus-ten’ leads after the resumption of normal politics in Sept/Oct, then there’s a real possibility.
It’s a very big ‘if’ though, and the current odds on a 2007 GE are definitely a lay.
103 - It was “The People” pfp, and it was a complete nonsense article which used as its main “evidence” for an Oct poll the fact that Electoral Calculus said that Labour would win a landslide.
Incidentally, on an Oct poll. What is the shortest time before an election has been unnecessarily called, for a Govt with an overall majority?
I guess maybe Baldwin in the 20s.
104 “If, however, we get some ‘plus-ten’ leads after the resumption of normal politics in Sept/Oct”
PtP - I very much doubt that. My guess is that you will never again see leads of this magnitude during a Brown Government. In the recent competition here, it was surprising to see how many posters, including a number of Labour supporters, who thought Labour’s lead would disappear entirely before the end of 2007 (my own guess was well into ‘08). Should they be proved right, Gordon may well rue the day that he didn’t just go for it.
Size doesn’t matter, stability does! If the lead holds steady at about 5% over the next month, then the pressure to go for a GE will increase. Stable polls indicate, bedrock support, voters have made up their minds. If the next set of polls show little change, it means the government has ridden out the gun crime storm. October the 25th will start to look good.
One comment, on the Tory lead on the NHS,(from memory) Labour had a huge lead on the NHS throughout the eighties,( about the only thing they did have a lead on) it did them no good at all.
Very interesting piece today from Larry Elliot, the sensible-if-lefty economics editor of the Guardian. He writes on happiness, GDP growth and British politics. Here’s his conclusion:
“Although it’s hard to detect a link between growth and overall levels of wellbeing, the evidence is that stable family life, being married, financial security, health, having religious faith and feelings of living in a cohesive community where people can be trusted, all contribute to happiness.
If the Conservatives were capable of joined-up thinking there is a policy agenda in the making here, for while many on the left are attracted by the idea that money isn’t everything, they may have more of a problem with some of the possible remedies for unhappiness.”
Quite so. Lefties don’t like to talk about it, but the way to make people happier, the evidence shows, is to encourage marriage, discourage single parenting, clamp down on immigration, promote religion and the church, and stop harrassing everyone with taxes and silly laws, and get tough on proper criminals. Nice trad Tory policies.
Cameron For Happiness! Hooray!
108 - The NHS was way down in the public’s list of priorities in the eighties. Compare in 1997 when Health and Education were regularly top.
109
Hmmm how much of that do ‘feckless libertarians’ believe in?
109 If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck …..
Sean, are you sure you are not a Tory?
95, 101. Re population movement - the 2006 Boundary Commission report shows that the rate of change is slowing down.
The new Parliamentary boundaries are based on 2000 electorates. But even if they were based on 2006 only 3 Metropolitan areas would each lose one seat (likely Labour) and only 3 or 4 counties would each gain one seat (likely Conservative).
The new boundaries have gone out of date much more slowly between 2000 and 2006 than the last set of boundaries went out of date between 1991 and 2000 (and they were of course made much worse as they were still used in the 2005 election).
I’m not sure of the reason for this but presumably it is mainly due to increased inner city redevelopment rather than building on green field sites.
100. British leader was a dry General.(6)
Peter, it’s not Gordon. I will post the answer about 6 pm if no one has solved it.
OT. Forthcoming Australian election. It’s looking even more certain that Labor will win it. Two polls in the last couple of days:
1. Galaxy, which have previously come up with ‘results’ more favourable to the Coalition, now have it 57:43 to Labor(previous month, 54:46)
2. A survey which asked about whether their minds were made up. 77% said yes, of which 56% said Labor, only 34% Coalition (a large proportion of the balance will be Green). That suggests that Labor already have 43% in the bag, with another few percent from Green preferences already decided. And with 23% still to fight for, can they lose?
It’s highly unlikely. There’s discussion and more on pollbludger.com, an Aussie site.
110
extract from an interview given by Mrs T to TVAM in 1989.
Source the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
Interviewer
You mention the NHS. That has remained a problem area for you and for the Conservatives in general. It looks as if your anniversary may well be marked by the loss of the Vale of Glamorgan, we will have to wait and see.[fo 3]
Prime Minister
Do not be too pessimistic, I hope we shall win the Vale of Glamorgan.
Interviewer
On the NHS, this view which is often suggested that you have said that the NHS is safe in Conservative hands, and yet in opinion polls your rating again on the NHS is always quite poor. What is the problem?
114 If not Gordon’s, it must be Bombay, sorry I meant Bambi.
93 Thanks. Do you think the Lib Dem strategy is adequate to exploit the opportunistic seats opened by 2005. These seats may only be open for one election. if the Labour majority in them climbs again that could be it for a generation. I had thought Clegg Pre-Harrogate was working on hoovering up the Tory vote in places like Norwich South by going strong on ID cards etc Now they seem rudderless
94 So? That’s what David Davis is there for. Cameron plays the nice sunny good cop for the South, Davis the Northern Grit for north of Birmingham. Why else you think Cameron is now giving him free rein
In seat selection Prezza Junior looks like going head to head with Chris Leslie. Which would the Liberal Democrats prefer you think
117. Nope.
99 I totally agree. I think too many in your Party already forget how Howard slogged it out in the trenches instead of sloping off, and then rescued you at a point when and I think here we may differ, but I concur with Stodge that ifyou could not have been numerically overtaken by the Lib Dems you could have been so weakened as to forget about power for at least another three or four elections after
110
116
Oh and in case your interested, this was the result of the Vale of Glamorgan by election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_of_Glamorgan_by-election,_1989
Yasmin Qureshi has been selected as the Labour candidate for Bolton South East (30%+ Lab majority; Labour still leading in 2006/7 locals).
She stood in Brent East in 2005 when she was very, very anti-war…she practically accused LDs to be pro war
Re 87, StJohn, “86. I didn’t know Keith Joseph had managed the Egyptian economy.”
You are right, he is confusing him with JackW who lies about his age and formerly advised the Pharo’s
Or perhaps he was talking bout the man with the coat?