Tories increase their YouGov lead by a point
March 1st, 2008
But voters think the Speaker, Michael Martin, should resign
The February survey by YouGov for the Daily Telegraph this morning suggests that public opinion is remaining pretty stable with hardly any movement on the last poll from the firm ten days ago. The figures with changes on the last survey from the poll ten days ago are: CON 40% (nc): LAB 33% (-1): LD 16% (nc)
The figures mean that in every singly YouGov survey since Brown’s October U-turn over the general election the Conservatives have had a share of 40% or above.
One other good measure of opinion that YouGov Telegraph polls always include is the the pollster’s forced choice question when respondents are asked whether they would prefer a Cameron-led Tory government or a Brown-led Labour one. This is now at Cameron’s Tories 44% - Brown’s Labour 36%.
There’s bad news for the Speaker, Michael Martin, in the poll. By 55% to 15% those questioned thought he was abusing the system of allowances and by 45% to 28% it was felt that he should resign.
A few more surveys like this could land Martin in trouble. His is a role where there has to be public confidence and if that is fading then it could put him under greater pressure. It could also impact on Brown and the many MPs, particularly Labour ones, who are giving him their backing. That is starting to look like a bad call.
The poll, however, found a plit of 37%-37% when asked if they thought that a significant number of MPs claimed expenses improperly.
In terms of betting there’s not a lot in the surveys that’s going to change anything. Most interest at the moment is focussed on the US and with, of course, the Ken-Boris clash now less than two months away.
The Telegraph has decided that this is a “bad news for Dave poll”. Quite why is not clear but maybe that is the narrative it wants to follow at the moment. Why not just report that little has changed?
MessageSpace Advertising
Found a plit? First to post!
Mike The piece in the Telegraph makes it quite clear why “it is bad news for Dave” (Think it is by Anthony King -though not actually credited)
Last bit of the article says:
“David Cameron continues to make no vivid impression. The proportion reckoning he is “proving a good leader”, which stood at 47 per cent shortly before Christmas has now fallen to 39 per cent. Almost as many, 37 per cent, reckon he is not proving a success. Only just over a third of voters, 37 per cent, believe the Tories in power would do a better job than Labour, with almost as large a proportion, 30 per cent, doubting they would make much difference.
When people do contemplate David Cameron’s party, large numbers take a more benign view than they did in the past, but even more see it only as a blur; 67 per cent of voters say “it is hard to know what a Conservative government under David Cameron would actually be like”.
As things stand, the Conservatives may well be the largest party in the next Parliament, but the prospect of an overall majority still seems to elude them.”
The polls most important message, is that there is no sign of a Labour collapse. As the Torygraph, (can we still call it that?) points out, with all the disasters the government has had recently, Labour should be at rock bottom, it in fact has only lost 2/3% since the GE.
It is amazing, that both the Tory cheerleaders, Mail/Telegraph, two papers that once gave unflinching support to the Tories are now so lukewarm.
Heffer is his usual supportive self.
http://tinyurl.com/3ymcej
A good start to the day, the gap gets bigger and from Mike an ode to “Professor” Stanley Unwin.
“The figures mean that in every singly YouGov survey….. ”
Deep joy.
http://www.bigbadugly.com/StanleyUnwinIndex.htm
re 2 & 3. YouGov does not have a turnout filter or weighting. The pollster with the most fierce formula, ComRes, has had Labour on 30% in every survey since November.
The great challenge for Labour is that is has more people broadly aligning themselves with the party but they are much less likely to vote.
6
Mike what is the effect of high turnout in a General Election? This cannot be factored into Electoral Calculus as far as I am aware Suppose turnout was 70+%, Who would it favour ?
I only mention high turnout ass I suspect the campaign is going to get dirty from hereon in. Note Ms Blears yesterday.
Where there has been a collapse is in “Labour is best to run the economy”, down from 49% at the election to 29%, with the Tories now ahead. And I can’t really see the UK economy shaking off the doldrums anytime soon because there is just so much debt to be paid back. The huge budget deficit Darling has inherited will give him nothing to play with. I think people are waking up to the fact that Brown was never the brilliant chancellor he has been portrayed. He was just lucky.
So no feel-good factor, a desire for change and a credible alternative. Not a good mix for Labour.
And if Labour backers think not going below 30% is a comfort have a look at the 1983 figures in this:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml
Looks like Brown is the new Foot
What credible alternative? - Certainly, on the polling evidence, not Cameron.
re 9 Then how do you explain the forced choice question Icarus? Cameron 44% - Brown 36%.
I see that Boris is now favourite for the Mayor on the Sporting Index spread market.
8
Is that the disasterous Michael Foot? The same Michael Foot who when he led the Labour Party to defeat, still managed to get 12 more seats than the Tories managed under the, ‘highly successful’ Michael Howard.
The situation is somewhat different today, the two main parties are not getting anything like the sort of support they once did. The increase in the ‘others’ has been quite marked since the early eighties.
For a political party in its third term, with all the problems that brings, these sort of figures are not disasterous, not comfortable, but compared to how things could be, certainly not disasterous.
The forced choice question is a false one, Mike (10). I strongly dislike both Cameron and Brown, though for different reasons. So, if I were “forced” to make a choice, I would merely be signalling which one I happened to dislike slightly less that particular week.
And yet our Tory cheerleaders here interpret such answers as support for them…. It is, I think, naughty of you to encourage them, Mike.
re 13. I agree with you - that it is a false one but is a good measure of tactical voting.
I can never understand why all the Lib Dems on here always focus on Cameron but never look at Brown. Indeed Icarus often appears like the PM’s biggest cheer leader. I don’t get it.
Has anybody else noticed that the withdrawal of Harry from Afghanistan coincides suspiciously with the the sudden re-appearance of Andrew Strauss in the England cricket team ? Another press cover-up ?
If Labour continue to sit at 30-33% then surely they are at their core vote?
This poll, to me, looks surprising, because its unsurprising. Very much steady as she goes, for the Conservatives and Labour sitting down in the low 30’s, where they have been languishing for months now.
As far as people not knowing what the Conservatives stand for, I’m not surprised. Cameron is still to set out a clear agenda. But with Gordon Brown today hinting that an election will not take place until 2010, the Tories have plenty of time. Whats the point of peaking too early, when the current term can run until June 2010? And anyway, producing policies now would give Labour the chance to pinch the best ones.
And as for people like Simon Heffer, I think they are just bitter and twisted human beings. Because David Cameron has rightly changed the direction of the Tory Party, they find themselves and their extreme views, out of touch with the party and the British people. After three straight election defeat’s, did these cretins honestly think the Con’s could just mearilly go along, unchanged, baning on about Europe and single mothers and asylum seakers and how terrible the country is?
This so called “bad poll” looks entirely manufactured to me, so that it can induce some sort of crisis and force Cameron to adopt a more right wing position. He should ignore those calling for him to move to the right and stick to his guns. He may rub people like Heffer up the wrong way, but for the first time since 1992, the Conservatives are enjoying sustained vote shares of 40%, and that a perfectly good position to build on as we move towards the election. The last thing the Tories or the country needs, is the sight of David Cameron giving into these miserable, po-faced right wing commentators and shifting off to the right again.
They may very well be a delayed”Brown Bounce”after his Spring conference.
Speaking of”bounces”I am on my way to the Emirates where I hear only good things about the “Arsenal” bounce,with apologies to any Aston Villa fans here.
Nick Clegg has been making a speech, according to the BBC:
‘LIB Dem leader Nick Clegg yesterday called for more powers for the British parliament.
In a speech to the Lib Dems spring conference in Aviemore, he demanded “real subsidiarity”.
He said: “Poll after poll show Britons don’t want to leave the European Union but they don’t want things to stagnate either.
“They want a better deal on the way they are governed.”
He said Britain needed more control over the country’s coastline and seas.
Clegg’s call for more powers echoes similar demands from Labour leader Wendy Alexander.”
Ohno, sorry, scrap that. I’ve just misread the piece and accidentally replaced with word Scotland with Britain.
Silly me. Duhh. When it comes to England and the British Clegg paradoxically actually wants as much power taken AWAY from us a possible, and handed to Brussels, and he wants to do this without even consulting us in a referendum. That’s because they are “liberal democrats” who believe in devolving power to the people.
Right. Yep. Gotcha.
A cynic might say that there is a certain inconsistency in the Lib Dem position. A fair minded observer might say that Nick Clegg is a vile, slimy, poisonous, hypocritical little sea-slug of a man.
12 - Coldstone, the Alliance polled 26% in 1983 but Lib Dems and all others combined are only getting 23% now. Labour are rock bottom, only kept where they are by tribal Labour voters.
And I think of Howard as nothing short of a total disaster. With Labour on the ropes in 2005 he only managed to poll so badly by opting for a nasty right wing manifesto lost up its own backside of euroscepticism. The Tory Michael Foot.
I know having just been involved with fighting a local byelection in Sutton last week how difficult it is to get the Tory vote out at present.
Lib Dems almost beat us by getting personal and getting all their vote out.
It will only start to change when eceonomic conditions worsen.We know there is a lag between cause and effect and this will most certainly be the case with the credit crunch.
We live in a Lib Dem constituency and there seems to be no sign of Clegg having done any damage in fact it looks as though it has slightly reinvigorated the LDs on the ground.
!8 did you Dominic Lawson’s column in the Independent? Thought you might have helped him write it
http://tinyurl.com/2xfwk2
Who said?
“The real reason, of course, why the Government does not want to hold a referendum is the fear that it may lose.”
Government had “allowed the Europhobes to shift the argument away from the constitution itself and onto shriller claims about the democratic legitimacy of the whole EU.”
“By forcing the phobes to argue on the substance of the text, a referendum would expose the hollow hysteria of their polemic.”
Nick Clegg in 2004 on why it was necessary to have a referendum on the Constitution and, from what he said, not on membership of the EU.
13. Mike the answer is simple - most active Lib Dems are chippy left wingers who would far rather have an utterly dysfunctional Labour government than a Tory one. Genuine centrists are a minority.
That much is obvious from a casual read of this site. It’s puzzling that you, a long-time Lib Dem, are surprised by this. Perhaps things are different in Bedfordshire.
Of course DC provides a ‘credible alternative’ to labour. As leader, he has been reasonable and adequate. Sure, not dizzy praise. That wouldn’t be good enough against a TB. But against GB?
A 7 point lead is decent, but clearly there’s a long way to go. The Rock’s implosion or success could swing things hugely, as could the results of police investigations into a number of senior Labour figures.
I think Brown’s tendency to think things over too much and then panic when he realises he has to make a decision imminently (see the non-election, the swiftly and poorly rewritten budget etc) means that he’s at a disadvantage. His presence over the last decade also means he cannot shrug off any longterm mistakes, particularly of the economic type.
However, Cameron has to try and add substance to the generally positive approach he has. If Clegg’s amazing political contortionism over the EU (three-line whip: if you vote either way I’ll send you to bed with no supper!) is an accurate forerunner of his entire leadership he’ll not do very well at the next General Election, particularly as it’s reckoned to be very close and the Lib Dems could get squeezed.
22-I think you have encapsulated that well.
On the doorstep there is still a lot of the “I would never vote Tory
I can never forgive Maggie” brigade from the LDs.
It is almost religious in its zeal especially in the 50-60 age group.
They are still incentivised to do anything to keep the Tories out
21, hahaha. To quote IDS “he’s got more positions than the karma sutra”.
19
A tribal vote, is still a vote!
If the Tory lead is 9% and the “forced question” gives them a lead of 8% I’m blowed if I can see what new information the latter gives us. Might as well point to the fact that the Tories are on 40% but only 37% think they’ll do better than Labour.
I’ve been a longstanding sceptic of this kind of entrails-reading. Sampling error and all that.
Nor do I think that the Tories (or anyone else) have got a bagful of wizard policies they’re going to reveal four months before the General Election. A major reason for Labour’s failure has been that their social policies, particularly in edication and health, will only show results in a 10-15 year time frame - because it’s acknowledged on all sides that the deep-seated nature of the issues being addressed means it will take that long for anyone to know if they’ve worked or not - which is no good for an electoral cycle of 4-5 years. Hence the constant tinkering, which destroys any hope the policies had in the first place. Why a Tory government should be able to resist similarly tinkering I’ve no idea.
Generally, and allowing for the Tories’ three aces (more money, more troops for the ground war, and the historical fact that they always increase their share of the vote in a campaign) I’d say my Apocalyptic Scenario is still in good shape. Just to remind you all of the definition again - that Labour will lose more seats next time than it did in 1983.
It may also be worth recalling that the last time an unpopular government faced an unconvincing opposition - in February 1974 - third parties did well. Dunno what the spread position on LibDem seats is, but if it’s below 45 (or even 50) I’d say it was a “buy”.
I think Cameron will be pleased enough with this poll. I also think that the result of the POTUS election will have a major bearing on the outcome of the next uk GE. If it’s Obama then the mood for change here could be close to overwhelmingly against Brown and Labour. All Cameron may have to do is to appear fresh and reasonable to win.
Cameron’s best strategy from now on is to be Mr Nice Guy. He has successfully exposed Brown’s weaknesses at PMQS but has himself come over as a jeering bully at times. He needs to shed that image. I am still expecting a Tory majority at the next election and expect it to be in 2010. Anyone able to confirm GIN’s post from last night’s thread re Newsnight’s suggestion that Brown will be announcing his programme up until 2010?
17. Herbert. I hope the only bounce you see today is the ball bouncing at the back of the Arsenal goali’s net.
Not quite, Timmo (25). I could quite easily hear myself saying the “I would never vote Tory.
I can never forgive Maggie” to any Tory canvasser who happened to call round. I never have voted Tory and think I never will.
Ditto Labour. Substituting Blair for Maggie, of course.
But you are interpreting such a comment as a pro-Labour stance. It isn’t. Of course Liberal Democrats are “incentivised to keeping Tories out of office”. That is what we are for. We are also incentivised to keeping Labour out of office. That is what we are for as well.
And taking up Mike’s point at 14, I do my best to be fair to all party leaders when first they come in. I listen to what they say and see what they try to do. For me, Cameron lasted only a few days, while Brown lasted as many weeks. I now hapily detest both of them.
New special at ladbrokes. Clinton to quite the race this week?
2/1 Yes
1/3 No
More Tuesday specials to follow including correct score state betting.
MODERATION NOTE I switched on auto moderation a couple of days ago so that only those posts where the server recognised the details would get straight through.
I do this when we are attacked by spammers, astro-turfers and nutters. I’ve now switched it off and unblocked 13 posts.
24 IMO the public can’t get worked up over yet another data loss, yet another immigration debacle, yet another undeclared loan, yet another example of misleading spin. They have discounted these in their views and accepted Brown’s government isn’t up to much. It would take another perfect storm like last week of April last year - Clarke faces calls to resign, Hewitt barracked on NHS, Prescott bonking - to shake out a few more. Labour support isn’t at core but peeling another layer of support off becomes harder and harder.
I’ve more hope that Clegg will not lead a great Lib Dem revival - he’s not been very sure-footed, the walk-out was risible and he hasn’t established himself in public mind as quickly as he should have done. Perhaps the Lib Dems should have paid more attention to his bad campaign for leader as pointer in their selection.
27 - well yes and if Brown stays in the centre it’s unlikely to drop much further. I’d also like to speculate that the most the Tories could hope for is 43/44% and if their polling understates their support, as seems a reasonable assumption, then I’d reckon we are in for two years of almost identical polls week after week.
Labour’s core vote is lower than 30%.
However, Labour has a plan. By turning Britain into corrupt banana republic, they can drive decent conservative voters out while giving free British passports to foreigners.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23445648-details/Immigrants+are+given+taxpayer-funded+translators+to+help+them+get+a+UK+passport/article.do
It is all part of Labour’s plan
New Ohio, Texas tracker poll results from Zogby (taken 27th Feb).
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1458
Ohio now neck and neck post Obama improving more than Clinton;
Ohio - Democrats
Clinton 45% (from 44% previous day)
Obama 45% (from 42%)
Gravel 1% (1%)
Someone else 3% (5%)
Not sure 6% (9%)
In my opinion, given a number of post Ohio debate polls are out and are close but the movement is toward Obama in Ohio, Obama should be small favourite to take the state - 1.9 perhaps? Obama is outspending Clinton 2:1 in Ohio pre-primary on TV ad space.
19. Labour is no-where near core vote. It still has plenty of votes from (1) public sector payroll, (2) non-ideologically inclined who are happy with how the economy has gone, even if they’re less confident about how it will go, and (3) tactical ‘keep the Tories out’.
Any or all of these could move against them. The public sector, under low wage rises, is already not the solid block it has been; the ‘feel good’ votes will slip away if the economy grinds to a halt - not an inevitability by any means, but certainly possible; the tactical vote could move against them as it did in the ’80s (and a crude reading suggests it’s already moving that way, using the forced choice question, though the increase in share is so small as to make the margin of error huge by comparison).
Personally, I think the true core vote for Labour is about 20%, with the Tories core at about 25%. The Lib Dems is probably around 10%. However, to get down to these levels, you’d need all sorts of factors combining, such as very popular alternatives. Labour’s core vote is lower than the Tories as the Lib Dems offer a centre-left alternative for which there isn’t an equivalent centre-right alternative.
32. Intriguing - could we occasionally see a sample of the posts from ‘nutters’, for entertainment’s sake?
14 “I can never understand why all the Lib Dems on here always focus on Cameron but never look at Brown. Indeed Icarus often appears like the PM’s biggest cheer leader. I don’t get it.”
Labour shills?
38 - see 35
[37] Out of idle curiosity, David, would you care to paint the picture in which the Lib Dems are reduced to their “core vote” of 10%?
40. Hmmm, but given that posts from that source are allowed through habitually, I was thinking there must be some really funny stuff trapped in the filter…
A story both depressing and entertaining by turns.
Russian officials are being instructed to ensure not only that Medvedev gets a certain % of the vote, but that the turnout is appropriately ‘high’, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/wmoscow229.xml
May I be one of the first to welcome Mike Smithson’s new polling organization, as noted at the end of the last thread :
“Rule of Thumb Polling”
Already fevered speculation around the worlds media that Mike’s THUMB and my ARSE will come together cannot as yet be confirmed. Although surely such a union will ensure a completely impartial offerings. Our company mottto shall be :
“Thumb in Bum, Mind in Neutral”
MORI, ICM, Zogby, YouGov eat your heart out !!!!!!!!
The reason this is a good poll for DC is that although the lead has stalled in recent months we remain on a plateau that is high enough to suppress internal debate about the tone of modern Conservative party.
As long as we stay touch and go on being the largest party come 2010 (irrespective of whether it’s big enough to form a majority Govt)he’s fireproof.
Ho-hum.
[14] [39] Well, Cameron did rather put his tanks on the Lib Dems lawn from the get go- And several Lib Dem MPs face their biggest chalenge from the Conservative corner, so you can hardly blame the Lib Dems for concentrating their minds a little more on the Tory threat than the Labour one.
[38] - Possibly post [18] this thread?
38 Before anyone else gets in Harry - happy to oblige !
Regards
TB
37
When I worked in the public sector, 75% of the people I worked with were classic Daily Mail reading Tory voters. They went off ‘Tory’ due too privitization. Funny! they even started joining the union, not that there was much point.
Those people are probably the 50/60 year olds that a previous poster referred to.
44) Jack W. That’s not a pleasant image.
What’s your view on the correct OH dem primary price right now?
41. Ming Campbell as leader, combined with much more popular Labour Party (eg, under Blair 1995-2002)?
The Lib Dems need relevance and/or niceness. If someone else is doing niceness, the Lib Dems suffer. If they do not offer a distinctive alternative, they suffer.
Btw, I could have used the post-merger low of 5% as the true ‘core’, but those circumstances were so exceptional that I ignored it (it was also nearly two decades ago and politics has moved on).
46. More pratfalls from Clegg like those we have seen in the last week and some of those MPs may well decide ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ is the best option.
“And I think of Howard as nothing short of a total disaster. With Labour on the ropes in 2005 he only managed to poll so badly by opting for a nasty right wing manifesto lost up its own backside of euroscepticism. The Tory Michael Foot.”
I totally disagree. Michael Howard took over a shambles, and brought the Conservatives back into the game. A net gain of 33 seats was creditable. What’s more, seats that were being lost by 3-4,000 in 2001, were lost by a few hundred in 2005, which gave the party hope.
I think it’s clear in the above as long as there is breath in Heffer’s body Cameron will get not comfort from the Telegraph. TBH even if Cameron got an overall majority the Telegraph would probably be fulminating that it wasn’t bigger than Blair’s 1997 win
52
I think the Iraq war lost Labour more seats than Howard gained.
52, Howard not only did a good job in the 2 years he had after IDS, he was also wise enough to realise he couldn’t deliver election victory next time and bowed out.
52 Yes and he also promoted Cameron and did everything to boost him. For that alone your Party owes him massively. But on seats you’re quite right the targetting means that now although Labour held a good majority a grear number are in prime below 3,000 territory. Perhaps some can compare the Governments Westminster majority with the number of slender constituency majorities to previous Governments by way of comparison to see how vulnerable Labour is
[41] Nice try, but I’m not convinced. I think both Labour and Tory would have to be well thought of and that’s the one thing we can rule out!
31 Shadsy, I can’t yet see the 2/1 from Ladbrokes against Clinton quitting next week to which you refer - I’d like some of that!
29 stjohn - I felt guilty about having sold my Villa spread bet bet mid-week so I’ve rather bravely backed them to win today at 6.2/1 and 6.6/1 that there will be a five (at least) goal fest.
49 PC. I’d be a little more circumspect on Ohio than Texas. The latters demographics, the polling, hybrid voting, early voting trends, Clinton camp whining all indicate that Texas has gone.
Ohio is more complex. However if the polls understate Obama as recent contests have shown, then Ohio will fall too. I just feel Ohio may be closer that recent contests. I wouldn’t rule out a two all draw on Tuesday. Clinton edges Ohio and Rhode Island and Obama bags Texas and Vermont. However the essential dynamic of the race hasn’t changed - It’s about delegates !!
37 “Labour is no-where near core vote. It still has plenty of votes from (1) public sector payroll, (2) non-ideologically inclined who are happy with how the economy has gone, even if they’re less confident about how it will go, and (3) tactical ‘keep the Tories out’.”
1 - surely the Tories will always be more likely to cut public spending/outsource state functions. This should keep this vote solid for Labour
2 - yes, this is where Lab could lose a few but I really don’t see an economic slump on the horizon, more a sustained slowdown that will feel like a recession compared with the economic frothiness of the last 15 years.
3 - well if you are an anti Tory tribalist, why would this change? I think these are the only people for whom the “dont vote for that toff Cameron” message will work
I still reckon that a centrist Labour party should never fear polling 20% David.
44. Jack W. Mike may talk a lot of ROT at times but we haven’t even been exposed to hot air from your own esteemed organ since your return.
52, I agree was surprised the smirking Howard did so well.
The other night he couln`t still answer straight questions to an ex colleague Michael Portillo on BBC four`s programme regarding Margaret Thatcher.
Whilst I thought the other grandees interviewed came across as very candid.
58. It’s under Clinton Specials, detached from the rest of the US markets.
58. Peter. Good luck with your first bet. If Villa win 1-4 you will collect on both!
My wife Kate and a friend of her’s are having a party this evening to celebrate their birthdays. We sent an invitation to Martin O’Neill to attend. He hasn’t replied. I can only conclude this means he will be coming. He would hardly confirm his appearance for fear of the press turning up.
62 You shouldn’t be surprised given the interviewer. I’m surprised MH agreed to it. The two men weren’t exactly great mates recently
61 stjohn. My ARSE will be tendering its’ full range of products next week !! ….. Bigger, Better and Bursting with insightful anal-ysis !! …. Yum, Yum From My Bum.
I couldn’t stand Michael Howard when he was an active politician. Since his retirement from the frontline I rather warm to him. Similarly both Norman Tebbitt and Tony Benn. I’m sure they are all loveable grandpas!
63 Thanks Shadsy, I’ve now found it - I was looking under “US Election” - I guess the the outcome of this bet pretty much hangs on Ohio, assuming Texas is already lost for Hillary. Lose both and she’s toast. Since Ohio is around evens money for both candidates, your 2-1 on her quitting looks pretty good to me.
This will, ‘test’ the American belief in free trade!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272358.stm
64 stjohn - I’m inclined to agree with you, I’m sure he would have let you know were he not intending to join the party. Under the circumstances, it’s probably just as well I decided to decline your wife’s kind invitation as he probably wouldn’t have appreciated my recent loss of faith in the Villa to progress beyond 64 points.
62Punter
I was not aware of that.
I realised Hague and Portillo clashed, and he agreed.
The person of note missing was Major, be intresting to know why he refused.
I think the fact the Tories are regularly producing 7-10 point leads across all pollsters is made all the more remarkable given the fact that DC’s media profile (and that of the party) is lukewarm at best. At some stage papers like the Sun, the Mail and the Telegraph will need to decide whether they will support the Tories at the next election or not - clearly that day is not upon us yet. The Mail and the Telegraph have little choice in the matter - they would lose readership if they did not support the Conservatives in the next election. They might not be as enthusiastic as they would be about a Thatcherite party. The Sun, as we know, will read the runes and back the likely winner. It is too early to make that call, but another year of polls like this and there will be pressure to move away from its present neutral position.
The Times is already pro-Cameron (just), while the Indy and the Guardian cannot muster as much anti-Tory venom as usual with DC at the helm, nor do they feel entirley comfortable supporting an aus=thoritarian Brown government. I get the feeling they will naval gaze into a Tory victory and then argue the case for a more left-liberal Labour party in opposition.
So the printed media is likely to become more favourable for DC and the Tories, in my view. If I am right, we might see those 7-8 point leads stretch still further.
Home Computer had to go into computer hospital so will be without for a week at home . As Timmo points out in an earlier post , Yougov shows Conservatives support strong at 40% and Lib Dems down at 16% . In the real world much of that Conservative support is froth and does not translate into real support at the ballot box and LibDem support is firm . This all points to ICM figures being closer to the actuality than Yougov and Comres .
All the indications are that the voters are not enthused by any political party and turnout is more likely to go down at the next GE than increase .
Just seen the 7 Daves and I think this is a good poll..YouGov doesnt weight by intention and Dave is still at 40% despite all the Lab and LabDemers saying how poor the handling of NR was by Cameron and Osbourne and how it would play out well for McBroon and the Lab Demers. That was clearly rubbish but I think all the Lefties were spinning so hard they made the mistake of believing their own guff. NR and the slow down in the economy of course will continue to expose the reality of Brown’s now obviously illusionary economic competence
72. Well you kepp thinking that if it gives you comfort..bless.
I read the D Telegraph. I agree Heffer comes over as a twisted old man. The Telegraph’s politics are always late in coming to any position and it still grits its teeth when it talks about Iraq - which it strongly supported despite publishing evidence showing - if looked at carefully that the WMD claims were spurious.
I think the electoral position of the country is still in a state of flux and there is lots more bad news to come - for Labour.
1. Government spending. There is no doubt a big squeeze on pay and jobs ongoing. The 12,000 jobs to go at Job Centres is only the start.I would estimate 300-400,000 jobs by 2010.
2. Benefits. The Government will HAVE to cut benefits. Big style. They are unaffordable long term. As it is doing too little too late, it will have to come as a big shock cut probably 2010. (I would say Sickness benefit - up to 1 million claimanats to lose all claims)
3. Defence Spending/wars. Iraq is a disaster we know. Afghanistan is ditto. They are costing £ billions . When we withdraw from both and achieve nothing, the electorate should ask searching questions. On top, the Defence spending Capital programmes: new subs, planes, helicopters, nukes, aircraft carriers.. is unaffordable. Soemthing will have to be chopped. Given the normal incompetence, I expect after a waste of 50% of program spend…in 2009.
4. Immigration/terror. We are imo bound to have abig clamp down on immigration and several new scandals .
Individually none by themselves are killers. All together they will target Labour’s own supporters. Labour have pissed off the business community, now is the time of their own.
As for the EC, who cares? No-one except the nutters and ranters. They should realise they are like broken records and get a life. Then perhaps they would be listened to. Heffer and his ilk don’t have the intellect to see that.
70 So MH agreed as well. But he may have found it harder to chat mately with MP than another interviewer. AS for Major Portillo was one of the ‘bastards’. Portillo was caught setting up the Phone lines in 1995 Portillo……ad infinitum
75. I agree entirely..I am increasingly convinced that Dave’s 40% is a base rather than a ceiling and he is just at the start of a more positive and optimistic stage of his strategy and rather than Broon recovering the closer he gets to an election he is actually still on the way down. My instinct is that Labour’s core is the high 20’s given Broon’s gerry mandering of the last ten years.
I think if he was being honest Davey C would admit that given where he was last summer he is actually much, much further ahead in his general election strategy than he would have originally planned. Certainly he is in a strong enough to ignore the morons like Hitchens/heffer and co.
72. Alternatively, Mark, you could take the opportunity provided by your computer’s lay-off, to work out whether any purpose is served, to man or beast, by your posting any more boringly obvious or tediously partisan bilge?
Just an idea. We can all do with a break now and again.
‘All the indications are that the voters are not enthused by any political party and turnout is more likely to go down at the next GE than increase’ What’s your bet on turnout then? For the last three elections it has been foregone Govt win. Next time most people think only two option either close race or heavy foregone opposition win (quite unlikely). Both will hugely motivate extra voters. I think you’re way out if you think turnout will not increase. To what degree is open
[75] 1. Government spending. There is no doubt a big squeeze on pay and jobs ongoing. The 12,000 jobs to go at Job Centres is only the start.I would estimate 300-400,000 jobs by 2010.
2. Benefits. The Government will HAVE to cut benefits. Big style. They are unaffordable long term. As it is doing too little too late, it will have to come as a big shock cut probably 2010. (I would say Sickness benefit - up to 1 million claimanats to lose all claims)
That would imply a 1931-style crash: such measures could only be implemented by a Government of National Unity - a partisan administration that went down that road would certainly test David Herdson’s core vote hypothesis…
A downbeat report on Labour’s Spring Conference in the Guardian
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/03/labour_conference_begins_in_gl.html
“MPs, special advisers and even the grassroots supporters are surprisingly pessimistic about the party’s prospects. Privately, many express serious concerns that Gordon Brown isn’t doing better.”
Delegates are apparently hoping for “a rabble-rousing performance” - from Gordon?
See he’s going to re-announce the 3 million homes. To achieve this means 250,000 a year for next 12 years. Last year had 175,000 completions, the highest in 18 years, but starts were down to 170,000. In practical terms it is becoming less and less achievable the more times it’s re-announced. Harold Macmillan did manage to get 300,000 council houses a year for three years but don’t think that’s in the plans.
78 Well sean , it is true that I do not consider my opinions as of great a value to the world as you do . You seem to think that we hang on your every Eorophobic ranting and feel that you can’t go to Bangkok or India wothout locating an internet cafe to spew them out .
82. Heh. A provoked Lib Dem. I have done my good deed for the day. I am the boyscout of pb.com.
77 “I am increasingly convinced that Dave’s 40% is a base rather than a ceiling”
Agree. I certainly think that his attaining 44% is achievable at the next GE.
Why does Clegg keep doing this?
’set his party the task of doubling its current tally of 12 Scottish MPs within six years’
72, hehehehe. Lib Dem says:
Tory polling values are inflated and frothy. True value is much lower.
And then says, for the same poll:
Lib Dem values are 100% accurate, and firmer than uranium.
As a Conservative-leaning chap, I believe that the Tory vote is undervalued by about 30 points. Further, the Lib Dem vote is comprised entirely of self-conscious people who want to look nice. Cameron will win a 500 seat majority at the next election. It’s certain!
*rolls eyes*
re 72. Mark - You might be right on YouGov but why is ICM likely to be more accurate than ComRes? As Anthony Wells points out the latest poll from the firm has past vote weighting figures that are almost exactly the same as those used by ICM in its last survey.
Without any evidence you cannot really assert that “In the real world much of that Conservative support is froth and does not translate into real support at the ballot box and LibDem support is firm”
I still remember 1992.
[81] Thanks, Ted. This comment, from “Councillor” seems worth repeating (I’ve edited it down a bit):
When I received all the promotional material urging me to attend I wondered who exactly would want to go to this non-event.
To give up a weekend and spend a fortune on train fares and accommodation and listen to Jack Straw? No thank you! I might get arrested as a terrorist for heckling.
And anyway what’s the point? The Labour Party is on its knees.
Blair and Brown between them have managed to alienate every part of the Labour movement that existed at or before 1997…
If Blair and Brown deliberately had set out to neutralise the Labour Party and render it bankrupt and bereft of support for a generation then they could not have done a better job.
In my own constituency the CLP is barely quorate for GC meetings because, of the rapidly diminishing membership no one can be bothered to attend. Branches are falling apart. And if there is an important meeting anywhere, I can recite the names of the eight or ten ‘faithful few’ who will be there and make up the majority of attendees.
Why? It has been abundantly apparent to activists - the people who plod the streets and do the actual work - that the Party was bought by a few ’special’ lobby groups. The Government’s foreign policy was changed to pursue the interests of other states.
As a result we have been finessed by an imaginary threat into two unwinnable wars; crystalising a propaganda term ‘War on Terror’ into the creation of an ever encroaching police state.
At home, taxation has been so manipulated that the only folks that pay for the circus are the ‘middle classes’ (a term I dislike) whilst the very richest pay nothing or a derisory sum…
I confidently predict an even lower turnout next election at which Labour support evaporates and the Tories get in with less votes than they got when they lost the last election…
And they can book the post election Labour Conference in a telephone box in Aberystwyth.
I’ll be interested to see how many Peebies rush to post that “Councillor” is talkig out of a nether orifice…
Some more fun -
Number of States Won on Tuesday - Correct Score Betting
Obama 4-0 3/1
Obama 3-1 6/4
Draw 2-2 11/4
Clinton 3-1 7/1
Clinton 4-0 20/1
Texas Result will be based on the winner of the overall delegate count from both primary and caucus voting as declared by CNN.
and to 87 - Remember “A rogue poll is one that produces numbers that you don’t agree with”.
Interesting that after DC’s makeover following Brown’s accession- colourful open necked shirts and floppy hairstyle replaced by sober grey suit white shirt and scraped back hair-he has introduced makeover mark 11. Has anyone noticed how his very very plummy accent has become just a plummy one? It’s a tribute to modern research that problems can be identified and sorted out so quickly.
This poll is interesting in that it confirms that no one really knows what the Tories stand for. I suppose you could say the same about Labour except they’ll be judged on their record not promises. When Cameron shows his hand expect things to become more competitive.
O/T Ladbrokes Clinton Special (possibly a bit late - pc problems this morning)
Shadsy has stuck up 2/1 Clinton to quit the race by the end of the week. I’m on.
He also has odds on the number of States won by Obama and Hillary on Tuesday. 3/1 the clean sweep looks interesing.
Finally, he also reports that in the Eurovision Song Contest, there’s been money for The Turkey! In fact….they’re gobbling it up!!!!!
89 Oops…I see I am well late.
Pologies. Bloody puter.
89 - I cannot see Obama losing Vermont, and if all the polls are correct in giving him a popular vote lead in Texas - given the way that the system is geared towards Obama (part caucus, delegates allocated by not by population but by strength of Dem vote in 2004/06 thus overweighting Afican Americans), I’d be sure he’ll get 2 states on Thursday.
The only polls I’ve seen on Rhode Island have Hillary quite clearly ahead, so really it depends what you think will happen in Ohio. I suspect Hillary will edge it, and that makes 11/4 on a 2-2 draw pretty good money - esp when similar to the price for an Obama 4-0 win.
87 Mike I think you are misquoting Anthony re Comres past voteweightings , I think his reference to them being identical to ICM on the Conservative weighting not Labour/LibDem or Others .
There was a suggestion the other night that ‘Bolted Horse’ might be ‘Rik W’. Though Rik had his idiosyncrasies he wasn’t an out and out nut-job so I suggest those Rik watchers look elsewhere.
20. Interesting point - it certainly does seem that way. Any real reason why other than ‘real’ Tories loathing for Cameron?
88. Similarly - though there is much more widespread loathing among the general public for Brown.
These posts together go a fair way to explain the current polling. Low turnouts all round
94 Morus anything to report? I hope to hear things myself today
re 91. Why should parties stand for anything? The purpose of policies is simply to differentiate themselves from their opponents. So Gord pushes forward with an extended detention without trial period only to put the Tories and Lib Dems on the spot. It’s all a game. Nobody actually believes in anything apart from wanting to see their allegiance, and within that their own career, prosper.
Does anybody know anything about the forthcoming Maltese General Election? I’m trying to find some polling data.
O/T Oakeshott’s bill in the HoL re tax status of members had its first reading on Wednesday. Also the Govt answer on the question of ‘domicile’ was interesting (and confirms HMRC advice): “Domicile is a general law concept which broadly equates to where a person’s permanent home is—the place where they intend to live and remain permanently.” They would not disclose how many members of the HoL or HoC claim non-domicile (’don’t comment on individual cases’- but that wasn’t the question). I wonder how many of our legislators do not consider the UK “the place where they intend to live and remain permanently.”
Clinton campaign manager now saying Obama needs to win all next Tuesday’s contests to “make progress”!
http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7950130
Meeting up with some of the Taffia today, so will report back forthwith! Must be honest that most of the talk will be around how we will win the Grand Slam, rather than Plaid Cymru electoral strategy, but I’ll see what I can glean!!
100 - It’s looking fairly close in Malta, but I think the Labour Party should eek out a lead in the popular vote. I’ll ask the family (they are from Malta)…
“a rabble-rousing performance”
Didn’t we get that last time with ‘british jobs for…’ and ‘immorality’…what’s on the block this time around, for heaven’s sake?
‘ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer’, perhaps?
102, anyone remember Mohammed Saheed Sahif? He was the Iraqi Minister for Information.
“We are beating the Americans!”
Roger - if we look back to October the Conservative polling rose immediately they announced just one policy from their putative Spring 2008 Manifesto. So judged on Labour’s record (and tired mediocrities on its front benches) and voters responses last October perhaps the next election will become less competitive as it approaches?
Gordon has become the “Speak My Weight” of British Politics, limited vocabulary (It is right I make these hard long term tough choices, making this pledge, stability of the economy our first concern, stronger together weaker apart), limited vision (not a personal allusion) limited attraction. Will that change in next 24 months? Up until recently I thought the next election was Gordon’s to lose, now I’m increasingly of the opinion it’s Cameron’s.
98 - Punter, sorry first part of post 103 was a response to you!
102 - Unbelievable!!
Is that the man better known as Comical Ali?
Just phoned Ladbeokes re: the score on Tuesday - they advise that they have ‘taken a trading decision’ and will only accept a max of £50 on the market. I think 2-2 is the value bet at 3.75
108, yep.
107 The same with me. In between I imagine I will hear a few titbits like you. After your last splutter see 85. Clegg now want to double Scottish MPs in six years!
91. I do agree with you Roger that teh results on what the Conservative stand for are very interesting..but I honestly see upside in that for Cameron rather than downside. He is already at 40% but still keeping his powder dry..for different reasons you and others (including the Telegraph, Conservative home) probably hope those policies when they undoubtedly do come will be more right wing..
However, everything DC has done has shown he is not returning there and however the Telegraph spin it, a solid 40% poll level enables him to continue on that strategy..
99……Because the press will insist and that’s when oppositions unravel. Remember all that stuff with Zak Goldsmith? The great environmentalist was forced to explain how it would convert into a policy and Dave was left looking like a laughing stock. Imminent elections have ways of smoking out the bullshit.
Interesting divergence between the BBCi headline on Spring Conference “Brown fires up Labour activists” and the first sentence of the report “Gordon Brown has attempted to breathe fire into the belly of Labour activists” - which sounds the more likely?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7272295.stm
113, imminent non-elections too:p
99. Mike. If you ever had any youthful idealism it’s no longer in evidence!
As a point of clarification, my post at 61 refers to you talking a lot of “ROT” at times. ROT of course is Rule Of Thumb polling.
115.
:) 
106. Ted. I was thinking yesterday how irritating I find Brown and how Cameron-when you ignore his sidekick Osborne-isn’t too bad. I even got to thinking that maybe a Tory government would be a change and they couldn’t be as bad as last time and Labour really were stale and reactionary……
….and just as I was sinking into this fuzzy state I switched on the radio and there was Peter Lilley talking about EEC treachery.
My Judas moment was over!
Some of McCain’s supporters are not-very-nice people, but he is seemingly reluctant to disavow them altogether.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
116. St John. Was that clarification incase Martin Day should start posting?
Key clauses of Oakeshott’s bill:
A Member of the House of Lords is deemed to be resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom and in no other country for taxation purposes.
A member of the House of Lords may make the following declaration in writing to the chairman of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Lord Speaker within three months of the commencement of this Act— “I am a member of the House of Lords. I am not content to be deemed to be resident and ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom and in no other country for taxation purposes. I have therefore applied to take leave of absence for life from the House of Lords.”
If this goes through, it will be but a short step to extending it to donations to political parties…..in addition to the current requirement that someone be on the Electoral roll.
120. Is there some reason you are posting under your full name now?
If it’s to try to con other posters into reading instead of skimming your contributions, I confess it worked - for one post.
The moral of the story is don’t reject the advances of a Hereditary Tory Peer!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3462808.ece
122. My Computer had a fit!
Ohio Dem Primary-
Obama 50 (+2.6) last and Clinton 50.5 (-2.3) last - essentially now tied on Intrade as America wakes up..
http://tinyurl.com/3xm8w6
120. Roger. Listening to Mike talking ROT is much more illuminating than to some posters even when on top of their game.
My view is the media have failed to understand the effect of the Northern Rock issue. Those who still support Labour at the moment are not going to switch away because Gordon Brown has nationalised a bank, the effect of Northern Rock will I believe prove to be that those that have already moved from Labour to Conservative, will be harder for Grodon Brown to win back in the longer term as a result of an issue like Northern Rock. An issue like this hardens the Tories new 40% area of support, rather than winning new converts at this point.
126 Is ROT now an official PB acronym? It’s certainly a useful shorthand for ‘man down the pub said’ anecdotes, but I’m not sure it means quite the same.
The best moment of any poll discussion is seeing the partisans shot down by Mike referring to the bits of the poll that they are blind to.
As for the expectations game, it’s pointless, just look at Clinton saying now that Obama must win all the states on Tuesday or he’s in trouble. Huh?
A few of us posted last week that the current and stable figure is about 40/33, this is just further proof amid the statistical noise.
Given the recent analysis on this site that the Conservatives tend to increase their share of the vote at an election compared with mid-term polls, with the reverse being the case for Labour, the Daily Telegraph poll looks good enough for Cameron’s purpose. It suggests a polling day lead of around (at least?) 10% over Labour in 2009 or 2010.
Clegg isn’t impressive as Lib Dem leader at present, and Cameron appears to have seen him off.
Labour’s unpopularity is forcing Brown to put his detailed policies on display in the short term, and Cameron can afford to keep his powder dry at the moment.
It’s symptomatic of Labour’s problems that it hasn’t really got the point over recent spat on NHS funding. Lansley’s comments essentially stated the obvious, that funding will have to increase in real terms over the next decade or two to cope with increased life expectancy and increasingly expensive treatments. The real challenge for Labour is to say whether they will match the Conservatives long-term funding plans.
My ever controversial British polling projections are now up.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/british-polling-projections-hung-parliament-3/
By one of the Republican weblogs have now put up an ‘edited’ version of Hillary’s 3am advert. I don’t generally like to link to Republican websites (because they usally remind me how much I disagree with most Republicans on anything but Iraq) but I think it really improves the logic of Hillary’s ad.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/hillarys_new_ad
118 Peter Lilley will be as distant from the Conservative Government that I’m (sort of, nearly convinced, might happen) expecting in 2010 as Roy Hattersley was from Blair’s (both, for reasons I find hard to fathom, were deputy leaders).
Just think Tub o’Lard would have been Home Secretary and Deputy Leader in a Labour Government in 1992, while Gerald Kaufmann represented the UK as Foreign Secretary - such horrors never happened fortunately,( though the alternative didn’t much better remembering Mellor, Lamont, Hurd etc )
129. Clinton’s new angle: that Obama has to win all the states or he’s “slipping” is surely the last desperate spin from a dying campaign.
They don’t actually believe it… do they? Or at least they don’t actually expect us to believe it? Do they?
Could she actually be preparing to soldier on, even if she loses Texas or Ohio, or only narrowly scrapes home in one or t’other?!
I imagine most Dems will be praying she calls it a day. And imagine that Gore and Dean are right now preparing the “smothering” pillow, in case the witch refuses to go quietly to the stake.
128. Peter. ROT is very precisely defined as per Mike. See below.
“My “rule of thumb” puts the Tories on 40%, Labour on 32% and the LDs on 17%. This is based on taking the second best result for the Tories and Lib Dems from the last surveys of the five main pollsters and taking the second worst figure for Labour.”
by Mike Smithson March 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am
134 Ah, I am most grateful StJohn.
In that case I propose MIP [Man In Pub] for all references to the man or women to whom I spoke recently and whose opinions I value greatly despite the fact that everybody here on site is bound to regard them as utterly unreliable.
The Lib Dems still seem to have one foot in the grave despite despatching Skeleton for that calimity Clegg.
To my mind this is a consolidation period in public opinion and seems to have the three parties coellising around the same percentage of the vote as in other recent polls - other than within the margin of error. If this is reflected in the elections this year it will be interesting to see the effects of differentiated turnout and the palpable lack of headway in the LD’s and Labour party vote given they both have *new* leaders.
Mind you that will not stop some *unbalanced* LD’s claiming they have a moral victory even if they get wipped out or suffer another humiliation like last year!
133 I’m quite expecting her team to pronounce a Rhode Island win as sign she’s the newest Comeback Kid and Hillary’s wagons are on the road again aiming for victory in Denver, having lost against overwhelming spend and dirty tricks in Texas
132. They might still get Lilley to sing a song to keep the Blue rinse spirits up!
135. The MIP is a very good person to guage opinion from particularly if taken in random samples in excess of one! The only probblem with MIP is the more you drink the more you pretend to agree with them!!!
:lol: 
…….Even if they talk complete fVcking Sh1t.
135 Not forgetting WIS (Woman in shop/street), CIO (Colleagues on Office) or POT (Person/s on Train)
Did consider Person in Street or Shop, PISS, but didn’t want to lower the tone
60 the disposable moniker piechucker is anoth