YouGov has Labour still below 30%
March 28th, 2008
New poll suggests that Cameron is heading for a 100 seat majority
The above graphic, reproduced from the seat calculator on Anthony Wells’s UK Polling Report site, shows what happens when you key in the projected vote shares from today’s March YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph.
The survey paints the same broad picture that we’ve seen in all the post-budget polls - very bad news for Labour.
When nearly a fortnight ago poll by the firm for the Sunday Times had Labour on 27% trailing a massive sixteen points behind the Tories there was a widespread assumption that this was a rogue or an outlier. This view changed a couple of days later when ICM in the Guardian put Cameron’s party on 42% with a thirteen point lead on Labour.
Today in the first post-Easter poll there has been a small improvement for Brown’s party but they are still below 30% and the Tories are maintaining their 43% share. These are the figures with comparisons on the last survey from the firm: CON 43% (nc): LAB 29% (+2): LD 17% (+1)
To YouGov’s regular forced choice question of whether respondents would prefer a Labour government under Brown or a Tory one under Cameron the split was 47% - 35% in the Tories favour. This is the highest level it has been for Cameron.
All of this adds credence to the view that there has been step change in public opinion during March. Something happened with the budget to affect the overall view of Labour.
Unlike with the Sunday Times which permits the simultaneous publication of the detailed data alongside the poll itself we will probably have to wait until after the weekend before we see elements like the regional spreads and age distributions. What could be central here is the break down of the London data which might give a further pointer to the Mayoral election - less than four weeks off.
The Telegraph is leading on the poll which could influence punters on the commons seat spread markets. The overnight figures from Sporting Index show a massive variation from the Anthony Wells projections. The firm has CON 308-314: LAB 262-268: LD 44-47 seats. My guess is that there will be a movement upwards in the Tory spread - a few notches closer to the 325 level which in a general election would see Cameron securing a majority.
Other General Election betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Why are the bookies (and thus presumably the punters) seemingly stubbornly keeping the Tory spread so far below what the polls and seat predictors have been saying for the last few months?
re 1. The bookies respond to the markets. If punters start piling cash onto the Tories then the prices will change.
When you are risking hundreds, or maybe even thousands, on this form of betting you are ultra-cautious and my guess is that it will take a few more polls from different firms before the Tory spread goes above the magic 325 mark.
2 I understand the idea of being cautious, but I’m curious why punters view the notion of these current levels as being cautious.
If the average lay bet is at the moment 308 seats and the result is as this poll suggests 375 then presumably 67 times the stake will be lost. That sounds quite a hefty loss to be playing with, when the polls are as this says. Or am I misunderstanding how spread betting works?
Why is it ‘cautious’ to err so far against what the polls are suggesting? It seems to me that the market is better that these current run of polls are wrong by 60+ seats, the error could just as equally be the other way so why is this cautious?
IMO the spreads are being realistic; I was shocked when I came back last week from a fortnight out of touch with Pb.com, UK media while on business in India to find the Conservative leads were in double figures again - when I left in early March it seemed settled at around 40:33:18. It’s now very likely two years before the GE and while Brown’s government isn’t IMHO likely to get above mid 30’s in 2010 it doesn’t have yet the odour of failure that Major’s had in 95/96. A GE result near these polling figures would be a 1997 like reversal.
Maybe it could be true if local elections and EU elections imbed a narrative of Labour failure and the difficult credit/economic conditions this and next year bite, but a hung parliament is still the most likely outcome.
… market is betting* that this* current run of polls is* wrong by 60+ seats …
5 As Charles Clarke pointed out a few thousand votes in 30 or so constituencies would have lost Labour it’s majority in 2005 - so +/- 60 seats is well within margin of error of polls
I am currently a buyer of Tory seats at an average of about 304. On seeing this poll I did not rush in to extend my position even though I know that the levels will move upwards. The polling has been too volatile.
I want to see another “conventional pollster” - one that doesn’t use the internet - before moving.
O/T but good advice from Simon Carr to Gordon Brown
“That’s the trouble with a moral compass; they’re useless for getting you where you need to go. He needs to upgrade to a moral SatNav. “Make a U-turn. Now.”
4 The problem with Brown relying on ‘going long’ as he is stuck now, is that there is every probability that a long run of election defeats will become the narrative between now and then. So much so that it might be easy to take it for granted and not realise it.
We are a month from this years general elections and if the current polls do measure the current mood then the local election results will be damning for Labour, while London will fall to the Conservatives - very symbolic for the London-based media. There isn’t much time for Labour to turn anything around for this.
Then we have a year and a month until the next big set of polls, the European Elections in 2009. Is there anyone here with any reason to believe these will provide good news for Labour? They haven’t even in good years. Then just another year until we have to have the General Election.
You’re right that Labour is actually in a rather benign situation at the moment. There isn’t an air of death around them, and there isn’t major infighting. There aren’t bitter, public, recriminations and fighting. Yet despite this, we already have Labour below 30%
If this figure does stay at this level until May, then following the elections its likely to get exaggerated even further. The air of death could start to settle, wise MPs could look to sharpen their CVs for new employment and the fighting could start. If Labour polls this level now, what will it be if that sequence of events happens?
Labour do indeed have two years to make the situation better for themselves, but they also have 2 years to make it worse and for the ‘inevitability’ of change to set into the public’s mindset. The problem New Labour could face is also where will its ‘bedrock’ of support be. The left isn’t enthused or happy, the middle classes are abandoning it, the business community is looking to the future.
The market at the moment is betting that the polls are dramatically wrong. Yet the situation could still get much worse for Labour and if it does then might not the polls get even further wrong. The currently ‘cautious’ bets could end up as 100+ seat losses.
Just a further 2 point variance puts the Tories on 45% and over 400 seats according to the Anthony Wells calculator. 46/26/18 = 414/178/29 seats.
Unless you think there is something around the corner to improve the situation dramatically for Labour, then the Tory buy represents major value.
2nd para - month from this years local* elections. That’s enough late night posting for me.
PS not a gambler so not put the money where my mouth is (aside from my fun better with PtP) but that’s my 2p worth anyway.
The funny thing is that Michael Crick was busy pontificating about how the tories were doomed because they needed to be in double figure leads just days before they started to do just that.
Is Crick our best mainstream negative indicator? Whatever he says, wait for the opposite?
And O/T in a ‘that figures’ sort of way -
“White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.”
That figures.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407
11 Before I try to overcome my bodyclock which believes its 8:30 in the morning and try to get back to sleep - I had a look over weekend at the Rev Wright sermons on You Tube and I can understand why Obama has lost the aura he had of somehow being above the inter-racial wars of the late 20th century. Wright, however you argue the case, uses racist language, its always about white v black, he sees any black in government particularly Powell and Rice as being “uncle Toms”, and it’s discomforting stuff. It chimes with Michelle Obama’s comments about at last being proud of the USA. Obama’s speech was great but it didn’t but it skirted this issue.
Obama’s message has been about moving on from the politics of difference but his wife and pastor make this look like empty rhetoric, they tie him back to positive discrimination, to victim politics, to Farakkhan and friends. As a result his rhetoric sounds less real, his attraction falls.
The poll ratings are probably mainly about the economy. Prices are rising faster than incomes. People who have been scraping by are now faced with higher interest charges.
Since hardly anyone knows what is the Conservatives’ programme, the figures are most likely not a positive indication for Cameron and friends, and could easily swing back when (or if) the economy picks up again.
ukpaul @ 11 re different views of Obama. Funny things, facts.
Opposing groups often inhabit different worlds, with their own facts.
Last time round: The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealitiesOct04rpt.pdf
One side knew Iraq had WMDs, was tied to 9/11, and so on.
Advocates of US-style partisan broadcast news should take heed.
What is more interesting, incidentally, is that Bush supporters were often wrong about their own man’s position on various issues.
Maybe this is the new politics. We assume that because an issue is raised, my candidate takes the same view as me, even though he never says as much. In London, we know Ken introduced the congestion charge, so Boris must want to abolish it, mustn’t he? Boris said crime is too high, so he must be planning to expand the Met, mustn’t he? Obama/Clinton is the same colour/sex as me, so will surely lead us to the glorious uplands.
In the words of our next Prime Minister: let sunshine win the day!
5 Philip et al
The spread markets have to reflect both the projected outcome and the potential volatility. To look at it another way, even if the polls currently reflecting 375 Tory seats were precisely accurate, you still wouldn’t get the price moving to 375, because at that price there would not be any buyers, reason being that the upside would be negligble and the downside considerable. Thatcher in 1983 only got 397 seats so why would you ever buy at 375 ? How much better could it be for the Tories ?
That being the case the Tory seat spread markets will likely be considerably below the seat predictor levels for a good while yet.
11
“White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; ”
I take that means they don’t think ‘affirmative action’, anti-white racism, is OK?
Do you have any numbers for the ratio in support among Black Democrats Clinton:Obama? Or their associated opinions?
More insomnia.
I agree with Philip Thompson, my Apocalyptic Scenario is looking more plausible daily. Remember, even in 1983 Labour only lost 120 seats and then took 14 years to regain power. A result of the sort the polls are indicating will complete the destruction of the Labour Party. Class politics are dead. Those of you who want to rejoice at that will reap a bitter harvest as politics become more and more about marketing at best, race at worst. I expect English polls throughout the period 2010-2020 to average out at Tory 40%, Labour, Lib Dem and far right (UKIP/BNP) 20% each. In other words, the next Tory government will have no effective opposition - Cameron will have a freedom of action Thatcher and Blair could only dream of.
John L at [14] makes a good point too. Many people suppose that because they like the look of (i.e. project fantasies onto) a politician, be it Thatcher, Blair, Cameron or even Boris Johnson, that politician shares their political views. Marketing, in political terms, is all about suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of a new ARSE poll of polls that comprises ICM, Populus, YouGov, CR and MORI that gives :
Con 40.4% .. Lab 31.8% .. LibDem 18% .. Others 9.8%.
The PISSED Wells/Baxter Index with added SOAMES weighting shows :
Con 312 seats .. Lab 260 .. LibDem 47 .. Others 31.
Con 14 seats short of a majority.
……………………..
Sources :
WIND ….. Whimsical Independent News Division.
JNN …… Jacobite News Network.
ARSE ….. Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
could easily swing back when (or if) the economy picks up again.
Don’t forget that by 1997, the economy was doing really well. However relatively fresh memories of recession, repossessions & job losses meant that the electorate wanted to punish the Conservative government.
If the economic wobbles are short lived, a recovery is possible (though improbable) we only have a maximum two years though and Gold Trader Gordon is going to have to get really lucky.
Another good poll for the Conservative party, and grim reading for Labour. I suspect that Labour wouldn’t fall below 30% if the election was actually held imminently. I think the seat predictor is interesting however I would have thought that a majority of 100 would be pushing things and that a majority of nearer 30-50 would be more likely even on these figures. That in itself would be a staggering result. I also think that the Lib Dem seat figure would be at the outside of where I would be pitching them. I doubt they will lose half of their seats, I could see them losing 20 though and being around the 40 mark.
20
Gordon isnt a lucky PM, he was a VERY lucky chancellor for 7/10 yrs, He has had all the luck he is going to get. Its a one way ticket now. Getting lost at the Windsor bash is just a small example of bad luck, can’t see this changing at all.. Two more years of Brown… Given Wendy’s possible faux pas yesterday, what are the betting markets saying about the date of the next Gen Election, it must be odds on May 2010 surely?
I suppose the government will be relieved that they seem to have bottomed out on about 29%, although things could get worse.
The economy, events etc will not always work in a governments favour, the longer in power the more likely it will be that, ‘things’ will turn against you.
Having said that, those posters who think two years is a short time, that there isn’t enough time to recover are wrong, (someone has to say it) ‘A week is a long time in politics’ and if a week is a long time, two years is a ‘bloody’ long time.
Cameron’s conversion to socialism is now complete.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b5f03c6-fc38-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html
Whither the free market.
23 - I really don’t see how you draw your conclusion at all.
24
Its simple! Blair got into power by convincing everyone he wasn’t a socialist, Cameron is trying to get into power by convincing everyone he is.
Cameron is the heir not to Blair, but to Macmillan a typical paternalistic socialist.
From the last thread “Outside London, Stevenage must be just about the strongest Labour voting area in the entire S.E., does anyone know why this should be?”
It’s the one new town that has remained loyal to Labour, at least in local elections. It’s an extremely close-knit community, and Labour seem to have very deep roots in the local population. From 1979 to 1997, the Parliamentary seat was held by the Conservatives, partly because it contained a lot of outlying areas that aren’t part of Stevenage, but partly, like all new towns, the voters judged the Conservative government to be working in their interests. But that never filtered down to local elections.
A good poll for Conservatives and progress for Cleggie , 17% for LibDems is as high as Yougov were giving this time last year . The reason of course that the spread markets do not reflect these massive Conservativw leads is that it is mid term and the next election is 2 years away . There is time for an unpopular government to recover especially when the voters are not enamoured particularly with the opposition parties either . The council byelections last night did not see any rush by voters to go out and vote Conservative , in fact the Conservative vote fell in all the contests safe Conservative and safe Labour .
25 Cameron is Ted Heath Mk2.
Great Poll for the Tories BTW Hats off to them.
The problem with these figures for Lib Dem seats is which ones? When you look at the seats, the MPs and their personalities and personal votes, I find it hard to get to more than a dozen potential losses.
Also, if Labour are in meltdown, surely the LDs will pick up a dozen or so seats from them?
If the LDs, who always go up once they get the attention of a GE come and stay at 20%, not far away from 17% and roughly where they are in ICM, I find it difficult to see them going down.
We can now say with confidence that the budget bombed.
How well Labour handles any bad news on the 1st May will determine how fit to fight the next GE. If losing London and several councils provokes a bout of infighting, then Labour will lose the next GE. As it is today, they still have time to recover.
When is the next ICM or Comres poll?
In terms of what Jonathan?
Politically, Cameron is to the right of Heath.
O/T Spitting Image (now called Headcases) is about to make a return to ITV on Sunday 6th April - should be good for a laugh if the Sarkozy as Mr Boombastic trailer is anything to by.
TOL link to the article ishere
Sorry link incorrect, not enough coffee yet TOL link
Labour’s best hope is that the fears over the future economic downturn have been overplayed. Many people have a dire set of expectations for their own personal circumstances in coming months and years - and these are now being reflected in the polling figures. The LibDems aren’t getting the benefit they would in the past - mostly because they haven’t sold the idea that they have any alternative strategy. So the Tories are getting a level of straight Labour -> Conservative switchers which we haven’t seen since Thatcher. That is a huge achievement for Cameron - but there are reasons for the markets to be cautious that the economy/the LibDems could yet adversely impact his current favourable convergence.
But will the economic woes be less than is feared? Will people resume the feel-good factor? I have my doubts. Many of the aspirational class that Blair peeled away from the Tories have done well for a decade based on two income streams - their salary and their property. Whilst salaries have been inching up by a couple of % a year, that didn’t matter when they could dip into the tens of thousands they were unlocking for cars/holidays/home extensions through remortgaging. But we have now had 5 months of falling house prices and a credit crunch hitting their ability to tap into that second income stream. So imagine it as people losing their “second job”. Combine that with 2% pay rises and real personal rates of inflation nearer to 8% or 10% - then you have people who are experiencing a sudden and significant drop in their living standard from that they had under Blair. Whether fair or not, Brown will bear the pain for that drop.
There is no way that those people can recapture what they have had for the past decade or more - certainly not by June 2010. It will be these people - Mondeo Man, Worcester Woman or The New Poor, however you want to tag them - that are lost to Labour. With them go Labour’s chances of retaining power.
27 - It is interesting how Labour supporters continually cling to this line that “Labour can recover because the polls at present only reflect the unpopularity of the govt and not any particular enthusiasm for the Conservatives”.
Leaving aside for a moment, the point that removing unpopular Govts is the fundamental argument deployed in favour of FPTP, and there is no requirement for the Opposition to demonstrate anything other than an ability to take over and not do worse, why is this automatically a message of hope?
At least if the polls were showing both (Lab unpopularity and enthusiasm for Conservatives) then there would be a case for arguing that the lead had peaked, an argument that is fundamental to all the lines about “clawback” etc so often employed on this site.
But only Labour unpopularity? That creates more scope for Conservative advances (probably once the population finally determines that Labour is doomed and transfers their thoughts to the Conservatives), and also less scope for Labour recovery (because there is little mistaken ‘enthusiasm’ for the Conservatives to be lost.)
35 Alex, I think your idea that the electorate have only made half the journey - away from Labour but not yet towards the Tories - is a very good reading of the current position. There is scope for Cameron to make that further advance. We have an electorate which has far less tribal attachment than it did have - and so is capable of far bigger swings than we were used to prior to 1997. Maybe wholesale clear-outs of MP’s will be a feature of future elections.
29 - Then again if the LibDems stand still (and 20% would actually represent a fall in the party’s share of the vote) and the Conservatives increase their share of the vote by over 10% then there will be a lot of pressure on LibDem MPs in the LibDem/Tory marginals.
That said, of course the usual caveats apply to working out the number of LibDem MPs in proportion to the party’s share of the vote nationally - personal vote, tactical voting etc… but these factors can only go so far in staving off a national trend.
As it is, i think there’s likley to be some ‘churn’ in terms of seats won and lost by the LibDems (I think the party stands to gain a handful of seats from Labour and perhaps the Conservatives) but overall I think there’s likley to be not insignificant net losses by the party to both the Conservatives and the SNP.
30 I remain unconvinced that the May council results will be that bad for Labour overall . The 2004 results for them were very poor and not reflected in the opinion polls at the time . It is still feasible that they will gain a small number of seats and councils from the Conservatives this year .
Labour’s core support is dwindling but it hasn’t disappeared. They won’t go much below this level, but a couple of problems for the Conservatives could really see Labour start to chip away at a possible working majority.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
36 In theory, hung Parliaments should become more common, as the number of MPs who aren’t affiliated to Conservative or Labour increases. In practice, if it’s become more common for the winner to get a big lead, this won’t happen.
17. Class politics aren’t quite dead. By and large, poor areas vote Labour, even if rich areas aren’t as Conservative as they used to be.
I agree that race (and religion) are likely to be increasingly important political factors in years to come.
32 - well if that’s the standard I’m not going to watch it - rubbish!
The Daily Mash on the Nationwide’s mortgage policy.
http://tinyurl.com/3d5ucw
41
I’m not to sure on that one sean, I think we can be misled by the amount of noise that certain people and groups make about race and religion. Those that make the loudest noise are noticed, it doesn’t mean they are representative.
‘Respect’ for instance, its had its 15 minutes of fame, where goes it now?
Another big Tory lead, another sub-30 score for Labour. I wonder whether those who called the last poll like this a few weeks ago ‘an outlier’ will reassess their views? You know who you are
.
On the seat projections, I think the markets have it closer than the seat predictors. Lib Dems to lose half their MPs? SNP/PC to make no gains? Getting on for 400 Tory MPs? I doubt any of those outcomes will come to pass. That said, Mike, who as we know likes to bet on short term movements, is almost certainly right to expect an upward shift in the Tory spread and the consequent downward movement in the other two parties’.
Some Lib Dems will certainly be very vulnerable to this kind of political landscape, as some Labour MPs are, but as a breed, Lib Dems have a strong ability to withstand the tide washing against them and while I could see 15-20 losses on these figures, more than 30 seems out of the question.
Interesting posts about whether the Tories have come close to peaking yet. It could go either way - as is rightly said, there isn’t the positive enthusiasm for Cameron’s Conservatives now that there was for Blair’s Labour in 1995/6. That said, when has there been that enthusiasm for the Conservative Party? Labour’s position was the exception, rather than the Conservative one now.
There may not be an enthusiasm for the tories, but after 11 years of labour government, and bad news story after bad news story people will go out and vote for a change. This government is becoming more and more like the tories have been saying it is over the last few months, dithery, incompetant, riddled with spin and a complete lack of empathy with the people. The 2.5% inflation claim being a major one, nobody believes it, but the government thinks that if they keep repeating it people will accept it. Brown is seen as being the anti-charismatic leader of a failing government.
26 The other thing about Stevenage is that the local council are quite good - they’re not loony lefties but proper old fashioned Labour (give or take the odd Nuclear free zone). Their general competence is recognised and makes it unlikely that any opposition will make much progress.
The reason the spread mkts have not moved that much is because they are operating like the option markets in financials.
The more certain it looks like a 2010 election the more time decay there is in the price.
Volatility also has to be taken into account but that looks to be stabilising with these 4 polls in a row.
I would expect,if things stay as they are,for the Conservative seat price to increase by about 1 a week over the short term.
27 Mark Senior points out yet again and again…. his view that the council by elections do not indicate any willingness to vote Conservative.
The record/CD is stuck on this one. Mark Senior wrote a year ago on March 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
“35 Well some of the polls are certainly wrong. ICM & Yougov disagree so consistently that they cannot both be correct but we cannot know which if either are giving a truer picture . Local council byelections do give us a clue see last night’s results for example but I well understand Conservatives not liking what they see there.”
5 weeks later the Conservatives went on to gain 900 council seats and the Lib Dems lost 300.
44 The conundrum is still unresolved as to whether the LibDem figure is at 16/17% as per Yougov or 20/21% as per ICM . If the former then LibDem losses are highly likely , if the latter it is all to play for with a possible rise in support in a GE campaign .
This has been a magnificent thread.Largely on topic and no tribal nonesense.
It seems to me that the thing to do betting-wise is to find the best way of getting with the Tories.
Here are the alternatives.
Buy CON Seats at 312 on Spreadfair.Lay NOM at 2.68 and LAB OVERALL at 4.4 on Betfair.The alternative is to Back a CON OVERALL at 2.52.
Back CON MOST SEATS at 1.69 or Lay LAB MOST SEATS at 2.52 on Betfair.
Take advantage of any better prices with the bookies.
My own marked preference has been to take the safe option of Backing CON most Seats at 1.7 and Laying LAB most seats at 2.52.
I still retain ‘tribal loyalty’ to No Overall Majority’
44. The “enthusiasm” for Labour in 97 outside its core is almost entirely a myth. The primary driver was that people had had enough of the Conservatives. The same dynamic as now in reverse.
Pictures of Labour party supporters cheering outside Downing Street is hardly reflective of the majority of floaters.
In fact the scale of the victory was because lots of Conservatives stayed home and tactical voting by ABTT.
I knew lots of people relieved the Tories were gone but no one misting up because Blair was here.
The spread markets reflect the poll of polls (Jack W version) pretty well. Are they a good predictor at this stage? I would think it unlikely. Something will happen before 2010.
This will not help Kens reelection strategy.
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2
Does anyone think Bob Crow is working for Boris?
49. You’re right about the absolute shares, but there is another factor. I think it’s at least as much about where the Lib Dem votes are and their nature. In 1997 and 2001, and to a lesser extent, 2005, there was a tactical anti-Tory vote in seats now held by the Lib Dems, from floating voters and Labour supporters who saw their party as unable to win, as well as natural Lib Dems.
In those seats, the anti-Tory vote is likely to be much lower both because of the absolute level of Conservative support and because of the way the forced choice question is predicting the anti-X vote to split.
38 - I think it is massively unlikely that a party that has underperformed its national opinion poll standing in local elections for a number of years is suddenly going to outperform this year. It might be less of an underperformance but I still suspect that Labour will still be severl points off there aggregate poll rating which I suspect would put them in the low to mid 20’s on current figures. Conservatives have outperformed their rating by 3% or so in recent sets of local elections so could suggest a voteshare in the mid-40’s on May 1st. I really don’t see Labour doing any better than pretty badly.
48. LOL!
49 - I would point out that rises and falls in vote share for the third party often don’t mean a great deal. From 1987-1992 the third party vote share went from 23% to 18% and seat tally dropped 5. From 1992-1997 vote share went from 18% to 17% and seats went from 18 to 46. It is all to do with concentration of votes, it is feasible that the LibDem vote share could drop substantially with little movement in seats, or the voteshare could hold up and the seat tally go south.
We also have to remeber that it comes down to resource on the ground.
The Lib Dems have done well in recent local by elections because they can concentrate all their resource into one area.When it becomes a number of wards or seats they dramatically lose their impact .Coupled with the Tory vote only coming out for proper elections rather than by-elections and you then get a double whammy.
The LDs are suffering as much on the ground in terms of troops as the other 2 parties.
51. Quite correct. The Sat. after the election was announced Newsnight did a spot poll. 70+% said they were entirely unconvinced by Blair and Labour but they couldn’t possibly be worse than the Major lot had been since sept. ‘92. The scale of victory was greatly down to abstentions, I was one of ‘em. Since then, I’ve had to put up with the likes of Polly Toynbee banging on about how we voted for Blair because we’re all naturally left. Oh, dear!
55. That right James. Labour, in all the years they have been in power, have not polled above their average opinion poll rating at local or european elections. If Labour are in around 29% in the polls (we’ll need more polls to confirm that) then I would say the best they can hope for on May 1st will be 25% and they could poll even lower. I think theres a very realistic possibility that they will be behind the Lib-Dems in national share. Conservatives should be somewhere around 43% or perhaps a bit more.
The question is how all this will resolve itself in terms of seats?
51. I can recall a lot of people in 1997 saying they ‘didn’t want anyone to win’. Most were normally mildly Tory inclined, quite a few finally voted Labour.
55 The actual vote share Labour achieved in the 2004 locals was 28.4% , bearing in mind that half the seats contested were in Labour’s strongest areas the Met districts and some unitaries that would match your expectation of a Labour performance this year in the mid to low 20’s . In 2004 the Labour share in the shire districts was just 21.8% .
I can’t recall seeing many Tory posters in windows or on billboards as I drove through vast swathes of usually very safe Tory seats in the SE, nor did I notice Lab posters up in their place.
With respect to the topic, is there a book open on how long it takes the BBC to notice that this poll isn’t favourable to Mr Bean?
Why did the last budget produce the “step change” in polling when it did not appear remarkable, one way or the other ? I may be naive but I think Cameron finally came up with a sound bite that crystallized Tory criticisms of Brown’s handling of the economy and got through to the public at large, ie. “he didn’t mend the roof when the sun was shining”.
54. But if Labour are unpopular, surely Lab/Lib Dem ‘floaters’ are more likely to vote Lib Dem, not less?
Blimey. If the polls continue like this for a while longer then 12-17% leads will seem normal. It could, bizarrely, prove bad for the Tories if Brown is persuaded to leave and they replace him with someone halfway competent who gets a honeymoon and doesn’t bottle a snap election.
However, I reckon Brown would never go, and if he doesn’t a Tory victory (or at least largest party in a hung Parliament) looks ever more likely.
I would say there is very little enthusiasm for party politics in this country, except for Scotland where the SNP has galvanised its supporters.
You only have to look at party membership, the Conservatives (always very successful in attracting members) 3 million in 1955. I remember reading that Reggie Maudlin when he became MP for Barnet, (?) his local party had 12,000 members.
When Heath won in ‘70 the Tories still had 2 million members. That membership I’m sure was the reason Heath won against the odds.
I was living in Croydon in a Lab/Con marginal held by Labour. The Conservative Party HQ was at the end of the road, in a large Victorian house with an enormous garden. Three days before polling , (with the polls still showing Wilson on course for victory) I was walking passed, there in the garden were rows of Tory ladies sitting on benches being addressed by the PPC. He looked like Montgomery, pointing at a large map on a blackboard, the look of battle was in their eyes, I knew then that Heath would win.
There is almost a weary acceptance of voting now, a feeling that it has to be done, ‘cos no one can think of anything better.
62. Mark, what was Labour average opinion poll rating in March/April 2004 before they went on to poll 28% in the 2004 locals?
62 - Yes, but at that stage they were still polling around 40% IIRC, now they are down at 29% but lets be generous and say 30% for roundness. Now I don’t expect them to drop 10% in real votes but 4% would not be beyond the bounds of possibility which would give an overall tally of just shy of 25%.
68 around 35/36% but clearly in the seats up for election it would have been a bit higher than this .
44 David Herdson- now that Peter the Punter is on his hols it appears that you have taken the mantle of pbCOM’s most sensible poster. Always readable, and very thoughtful posts.
65. True, but as most of the recent Lib Dem gains are in Tory / Lib Dem seats, the number of Lab/LD waverers is greatly exceeded by the number of Con/LD waverers and the number of genuinely floating voters who will tend to go with the best of the three (or second best if the worst looks like they might win and the incentive to keep the worst out is greater than the incentive to see the best elected).
Central probabilistic forecast (YouGov)
Con 357
Lab 211
LD 37
Nats 24 (assumes SNP +15%)
Oth 3
NI 13 (SF abstain)
Con majority 69
6-poll rolling average
Con 323
Lab 241
LD 44
Nats 21
Oth 3
NI 13
Con majority of 1
67- coldstone- politics is so sanitised nowadays- we have Labour trying to appeal to the populist base that won Thatcher her elections, we have the Tories trying to appeal to the urbane lot in a bid to look nicer, and the LD’s trying to elect a leader who doesn’t look like he is going to drop dead of old age or fall over drunk.
No one stands for anything other than self interest. Little wonder people are turned off it. I am.
The only fun for political junkies like ourselves is to go on a site like this and slag each other off. Of course whilst pocketing some cash through betting.
I must say though that since I have started betting without sentiment I am considerably better off than when I bet on outcomes that I wished for.
O/T Interesting poll from the Economist about differing attitudes in the US & UK:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/FullPollData.pdf
While there are many similarities, some differences emerge: (UK:US)
* Free Trade is good: 52:31
* Believe in God: 39:80
* Sinners go to Hell: 16:54
* Origin of earth explained by Theory of Evolution: 63:30
* Origin of Earth explained by bible: 10:40
* Sex between unmarried people - a sin: 5:33
* Sex between unmarried people - perfectly acceptable: 71:34
* Homosexuality a sin: 13:40
Interestingly, while religion clearly informs the beliefs of many more in the US than the UK, when that is reflected into practical things, the differences are much less than might be expected. For example, on civil partnerships between homosexual couples the vote in favour is 66:55, on abortion while in the US the general trend is more restrictive, those in favour of an absolute ban are small minorities in both (3:12).
73
Rolling polls.. do they really mean anything as all polling organisations use different methodologies????
74
Bet with your head never with your heart.
For those of u who didn’t see the link to David Selbourne’s piece in the Spectator.
http://tinyurl.com/37qrjd
Sums up the present situation perfectly.
The resounding success of the Sarkozy visit will not, of itself, do anything to move the polls. But it is a sign that Brown can still get it right - note the blanket coverage in most papers. At the local election campaign launch on Tuesday he was relaxed and confident. It is too early to write off Mr Broon.
76 - Assuming that he is rolling different organisations. He could be rolling the last 6 YouGov polls.
29: According to Baxter the 35 Liberal Democrats are (no tactical voting)
Argyll and Bute CON gain from LIB : Alan Reid
Bath CON gain from LIB : Don Foster
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk CON gain from LIB : Michael Moore
Brecon and Radnorshire CON gain from LIB : Roger Williams
Camborne and Redruth CON gain from LIB : Julia Goldsworthy
Carshalton and Wallington CON gain from LIB : Tom Brake
Ceredigion NAT gain from LIB : Mark Williams
Cheadle CON gain from LIB : Patsy Calton
Cheltenham CON gain from LIB : Martin Horwood
Chippenham CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Colchester CON gain from LIB : Bob Russell
Cornwall North CON gain from LIB : Dan Rogerson
Cornwall South East CON gain from LIB : Colin Breed
Devon North CON gain from LIB : Nick Harvey
Devon West and Torridge CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Eastleigh CON gain from LIB : Christopher Huhne
Guildford CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Hampstead and Kilburn CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
Hereford and South Herefordshire CON gain from LIB : Paul Keetch
Newton Abbot CON gain from LIB : Richard Younger-Ross
Oxford West and Abingdon CON gain from LIB : Evan Harris
Portsmouth South CON gain from LIB : Mike Hancock
Richmond Park CON gain from LIB : Susan Kramer
Romsey and Southampton North CON gain from LIB : Sandra Gidley
Sheffield Hallam CON gain from LIB : Nick Clegg
Solihull CON gain from LIB : Lorely Burt
Somerton and Frome CON gain from LIB : David Heath
Southport CON gain from LIB : John Pugh
St Austell and Newquay CON gain from LIB : Unknown (new seat)
Sutton and Cheam CON gain from LIB : Paul Burstow
Taunton Deane CON gain from LIB : Jeremy Browne
Torbay CON gain from LIB : Adrian Sanders
Truro and Falmouth CON gain from LIB : Matthew Taylor
Westmorland and Lonsdale CON gain from LIB : Tim Farron
York Outer CON gain from LIB : Unknown (changed seat)
and of course for good measure
Broxtowe CON gain from LAB : Nick Palmer
Look at this desperate spin from Paul Dacre!
“However, Labour ministers are taking comfort from the Conservatives apparently stalling - the party’s 43 per cent is the same as two weeks ago.
It raises doubts about Mr Cameron’s ability to achieve poll ratings in the mid-40s and above.
Strategists are acutely aware that in the years before Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide victory, Labour regularly recorded double-digit poll leads and were sometimes ahead by more than 20 points.
Mr Cameron will attempt to extend his lead starting with today’s speech, in which he will say Mr Brown’s decade-long tenure ath the Treasury has left the economy ‘in no fit state for the 21st century’. “
81, hahaha. Stalling at 43%, with the principle opponents on 29% is hardly a situation to be worried about. I bet Cameron would love it if the situation completely stalling and the polls not budging an inch.
73 Rod, please would you confirm how many seats you are allocating to the SNP in your table since the total “Nats” tally of 24 looks massive compared with Anthony Wells’ projection for “Others” of just 11, based on this latest poll.
77- I lost heavily on sego in France- over 50% of my winnings altogether in political betting. Ouchh.
O/T- how much do people here think is eventually going to be matched on the next president market in betfair? This is going to be huge- dwarfing any other political market. It is already closing on 1.5m- my feelings are that it could go over 25 mill (the Democrat candidate market is already over 2.5m).
There is alot of money to be made there- no wonder this site is so fixed on it.
81. thats just desperate spinning, trying to make a terrible situation look slightly better by comparing it to something that happened over a decade ago.
79
Last 6 you gov
2008
March 25-27 Daily Telegraph 29 43 17 11 -14
March 13-14 Sunday Times 27 43 16 13 -16
February 25-27 Daily Telegraph 33 40 16 11 -7
February 18-20 Economist 34 40 16 10 -6
February 14-15 Sunday Times 32 41 16 11 -9
January 21-23 Daily Telegraph 33 41 16 10 -8
my limited arithmertic makes this 41.33 31.33 16.16
Electoral calculus says
National Prediction: CON majority 34
Party 2005 Votes 2005 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 33.24% 208 41.33% 342
LAB 36.21% 347 31.33% 250
LIB 22.65% 66 16.16% 27
So I think Rod is using other polls
86 - I suspect that Rod is doing the maths himself rather than relying on someone else. I could of course be wrong.
re 73 and 76. There is a big debate over whether you can lump the poll findings of one organisation with another and produce figures that are meaningful.
Firstly each pollsters asks different questions in a different order. The wording can make a huge difference as has been found if you include or do not include the party names in the question.
Secondly polls are taken over different time periods - and currently only two firms have carried out surveys since the budget.
Thirdly the polls process likelihood to vote differently. YouGov pay no attention to this, MORI only include 100% certains while ComRes, Populus and ICM have very different approaches.
Fourthly all but one of the firm adjusts to ensure a politically balanced sample but the approaches and mathematical approaches are different in each case.
Fifthly the firms have different ways of dealing with those who refuse or say they don’t know. In one recent survey this saw a 3% differential in the Labour deficit.
I think that the poll of polls concept is like taking 100 apples, 100 oranges, 100 bananas and 100 lemons, weighing them all and then dividing by 400 to determine the average weight of fruit.
Is it possible for Labour to do much worse in the locals than last time? Are they at the lowest point yet where upwards is the only way to go? Seems to me that they will regard any improvement on ground zero as ‘massive gains for labour’ (bbc newspeak)
84 Tyson - the amount wagered on the US Presidential market will very largely depend on both how close and how volatile it becomes. That’s why, so far, the Clinton vs Obama contest has attracted far more money than the Presidential contest itself.
Tyson 74. Very interesting. Are you willing to share with us what you really believe(i.e. what you bet on) as opposed to your posts on site?
89 - Until they get no votes and no seats then it is always theoretically possible to do worse. In the same way that until you get all the votes and all the seats it is theoretically possible to do better.
HF 48.Congratulations. At last someone has nailed Mark Senior.Wonder how he will weasel out of that one? Probably,no comment.
90-Peter- when the Democrat and Republican markets close alot of punters will be putting their money on the next president market. And this market is going to be influenced by a huge amount of sentiment, and daily contradictory opinion polls. Just look at the spread we have on opinion polls at the minute.
Interesting reading the hopeful interpretation of these figures from various Lib Dems on here this morning.
Liberal Democrats seem to think that 17% (a reduction in support of a fifth since the last election) 100 days after having appointed a ‘young and hopeful’ leader is OK.
Put it in context; their relative loss of support is more than Labour under Brown and more than Conservatives under IDS.
89/92
The weather will play its part. I can’t remember what it was like last time? It it chucks it down on May 1st, Labour voters are more likely to stay at home, so if it was a beautiful day last time, it might be significant
96 - Urban myth alert.
75 - There are some interesting results there. Some highlights for me were:
1. “what is more important in a PM/President (as appropriate to country)?” UK split 50/39 for experience over character, US split 63/28 in the opposite direction.
2. “Will the next election have much impact on you personally?” 79% of Americans said some or a lot of impact, and only 46% of Britons.
3. Admiration of successful business leaders was slightly higher in the UK and fractionally fewer people thought big businesses were ripping them off. The UK was also significantly more relaxed about free trade and globalisation.
91- the obvious ones on here really- comfortably up on Boris, Obama versus Hillary (and Obama long), and Tory most seats- all betfair (and less obvious Berlusconi). More than outweighing any losses on sego, and all against what I want to happen.
Berlusconi is at 1.2- maybe not much value though now, but I got him at 1.4/5’s for some time.
96 - we’re comparing with 2004 aren’t we? Seem to remember May 1st 2004 was pretty rainy. Cheered up at the weekend though. Shorts weather, it was.
95
So tell us Marcus who are you challenging in Torbay?
What you’ve goot to hope is that the Labour vote, (which I think went up last time) doesn’t switch to the Libdems, to keep you out.
Are Labour running the same candidate, he actually ran on a ‘Torbay Nationalist’ ticket didn’t he? Well you’ll always get people there, to vote against the incomers.
‘Bluddy feriners cummin down ‘ere’ A feriner being anyone who originates from East of Newton Abbott, and if you come from the wrong side of the Tamar, gawd ‘elp you!!
100 - May 1st 2004 was a Saturday, election day was the 6th.
102 - Actually come to think of it, you’re right. I’ve got no idea what the weather was doing the following week.
[88] Mike, in the example you give that is not only a perefctly good way to find the average weight of fruit - it’s the only way!
The problems only arise when you don’t have the same number of each kind of fruit (or pollster) or you’ve forgotten that there are also plums and peaches (other polling methodologies which no one currently happens to use).
99- actually when I was betting mostly on Obama I wanted Hillary, now I am an Obama man, so it is nice to back an outcome I am rooting for.
76. Combining forecasts, on average, is better that not doing so. As Laplace said in 1818 “In combining the results …one can obtain a result whose probability law of error will be more rapidly decreasing.”
The best way to do this is probably using the Kalman filter, but it’s a bit of a ball-breaker in terms of work. A rolling average is a rough and ready way of showing the trend.
To turn the question around, as I’ve said before, it’s madness to leap on any single poll, since it can be proved there is a 75% chance of it being wrong…
83. PfP, bog-standard Baxter or Wells produce nonsense because they ignore any change in the Nats vote. The SNP have been polling consistently in the mid 30%s for a while now - that’s up about 17% on 2005. If that materialises in a GE *a lot* of Labour seats will fall. I’m being cautious and saying +15%. The 24 Nats seats on the YouGov poll would be
SNP 19 (+13)
PC 5 (+2)
although the Scottish result in particular is highly sensitive to small changes in the relative SNP/Labour vote at these levels. As with any evenly-spread party under FPTP, the lift-off point in seats is around 33% of the vote, and that’s where the SNP seem to be….
101. I actually anticipate quite a big switch from Labour to Lib Dem in Torbay as you suggest.
The challenge for us is and always has been nothing to do with what happens between Lib Dem and Labour, and everything to do with motivating the very large number of Tory voters here who simply didn’t vote in the last few elections.
We use a marked register (we if people voted; but not who they voted for) and current polling returns show that three in ten of the voters currently saying they will vote for me are people who didn’t vote at all in 2001 or 2005.
To put it simply, if they don’t vote again in 2010 I am sunk. If they do, I win.
re 63 well to scotch your favourite topic off Labour BBC bias, the midnight news on Radio 4 this morning has already mentioned the poll as being not very government-friendly, specifically the comments about the economy.
106 Many thanks Rod.
[30] - “If losing London and several councils provokes a bout of infighting, then Labour will lose the next GE. As it is today, they still have time to recover.”
If? All the indications are that the Blairites will let loose a broadside absolving themselves of blame befor the results are known. With respect to London the infighting is already beginning (see a recent thread by Mike).
Labour certainly do have time to recover, but that would require a change in direction and approach. As things stand Brown continues to make his situation worse and not better.
re 102 weren’t the 2004 locals transferred to June to coincide with the Euro elections?
There is a big debate over whether you can lump the poll findings of one organisation with another and produce figures that are meaningful.
Surely combining the results of different polls that each have their own “problems” is a good way to eliminate the weakness in each of the methods.
Quite a good attempt at spin, Marcus (95), but the figures you start from are rather old. So not entirely effective.
I have just returned from a short holiday in Torbay. I don’t know what the Tory organisation there is like, of course, but in political terms (policies and their implementation), the Tories are losing heavily. The Tory Mayor and the Tory Council are a disaster.
78. What… you mean McBroon barely visible in the reporting, getting lost and having the michael taken out of him by the queen and even the BBC taking the michael out of him this morning for looking like a goon when trying to kiss a clearly unwilling Carla Bruni…
Yes a resounding success..
107
Very honest Marcus, I applaud you!!
I think your right, when I t’were lad it was Torybay, Sir Frederick Bennett was always home and dry. If you’d told me then that the Tories would lose it, I would have handed you a ticket to Starcross, (the local mental home) it was not even considered.
It just shows, what we were discussing earlier, how fluid things are now, and nothing and I mean, ‘nothing’ can be taken for granted.
re 102 yes, having checked, election day in 2004 was 10th June. In which case it was a nice day in London, dry, partially cloudy and temperature between 18-23 degC
111 - I think that’s right. IIRC I voted for the mayor, the assembly and the local council all on the same day. I was warm and sunny in London from dawn to dusk.
108. When I posted the point, there was no indication that the poll existed on the BBC UK News or Politics webpages.
111 - Indeed you are right. Damn my memory is not what it was!
114
I dont think Joe Public has been taken in by being love bombed by the French!
[51] - “The “enthusiasm” for Labour in 97 outside its core is almost entirely a myth.”
Really? In the ICM Guardian polls after the 1997 general election, Labour recorded >60% for two months, did not dip down below 50% until January 1998, and still managed to record a figure of 51% in May 1999.
Naively, I read that as “enthusiasm for Labout outside its core”.
Relief at the defenestration of the Tories does not explain why the Lib Dems dipped to 10% in late 1997.
It’s easy at this remove to be revisionist about it, but I certainly think there was something there that went beyond booting the other lot out. I don’t think Cameron is there yet, though he doesn’t need to be to win.
Other signs would be the number of seats that Labour won from third place - simply turfing the Tories out would have seen those seats go to the Lib Dems, but that wasn’t always the case.
121 - Yes but we can only see trends properly in hindsight. One wonders what we will be saying 10 years hence. There are probably all sorts of things that are happening that will be ‘obvious’ once we have the results of the next election and 10 years of chewing over it like cows at the cud.
Mayor Update. Ladbrokes today took a £5000 bet on Boris at 4/9.
We are now -
2/5 Boris
15/8 Ken
[121] Something there? Yes, Blair’s response to Princess Di’s death.
80: Seems that the predictor may be a bit out because of the uniform swing thing. Sheffield Hallam has no chance of falling to the tories at the next election (with Nick Clegg being party leader and the tories virtually wiped out of sheffield).
Also, one of the two seats the lib dems gained from the tories in 2005 (Westmorland) may well stay that way with an increased majority as the lib dems have a big base around the lakeland area, whereas Solihull was probably just a blip and is more likely to go back to being Tory.
Mike, and others, notwthstanding the caveats you mention, there is overwhelming evidence, backed up by statistical theory, that it is better to combine forecasts than not…
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/01/combining_forec.html
http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~clemen/bio/Published%20Papers/13.CombiningReview-Clemen-IJOF-89.pdf
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/Combining%20Methods-Pollyvote.pdf
113. How much canvassing did you do there Tressage? - We canvass at least once weekly so I imagine I have just a slightly better idea of local public opinion on the ground than you do.
So far we know that support has risen significantly since we won the council last May.
“Really? In the ICM Guardian polls after the 1997 general election, Labour recorded >60% for two months, did not dip down below 50% until January 1998, and still managed to record a figure of 51% in May 1999.”
The polls after a general election are notorious for being inaccurate and wild, I doubt very much that 51% would have voted for labour in 1999, although I certainly agree with the main thrust of your argument that labour did stretch beyong it’s core vote, and did so quite considerably until 2005, when the gap closed. From what the opinion polls are saying now, labour is not getting much of the extra vote, and is relying on it’s core voters. I cannot see labour getting any worse in vote share because of this.
I was part of the YouGov sample for this poll. One of the questions was about what I think will happen to house prices in my area over the next year - up, down, the same or don’t know. I was quite annoyed that I wasn’t allowed to register “I don’t care, as I have no plans to move for several years yet”. I’m sure this is true of most people, most of the time - but failing to allow people to register this gives a misleading impression about “confidence”.
Many Lib Dem supporters on here appear to be engaging in wishful thinking. Most of their seats and opportunities are in competition with the Conservatives. If Conservative support is up by a third nationally, I fail to understand why Lib Dem outposts should be able to defy the rising tide any more successfully than sandcastles can. As the Lib Dems have accumulated more seats, their abilities to concentrate resources to defend those seats at a general election must surely be impaired. There appears to be a presumption that somehow Lib Dem voters never switch to supporting the Tories, even though that was very often where they once came from.
While I take the point that the uniform swing indicator doesn’t take account of events north of the border, I’m not sure that dramatically alters events for the Lib Dems, whose polling there appears to be even worse than in England. While uniform swing indicators may be wrong in detail, I doubt that they are too far away in terms of numbers of seats if the election results were as currently polled. For what it’s worth, I do expect a Lib Dem revival before the election, and if there isn’t, Nick Clegg fully deserves to lose his seat. Even with such a revival, however, the Lib Dems have their work cut out to retain their current numbers of seats against a resurgent Tory party.
OT - The hugely controversial Gert Wilders film on Islamism is now all over the internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrCsTMokTU
Judge for yourself. Personally, I think it’s basically fair, if unashamedly emotive.
Agree with Rod that there is validity in combining poll results with different methodoligies. Given enough methodoligies - even if none of them are accurate - as long as they are all inaccurate in randomly different ways then averaging them can produce a statistically “correct” answer.
If all polls have the same systematic error, then the average of them will be the true value plus the systematic error. Therefore, it is actually better if the polls have utterly different systematic errors, because they wont reinforce, and can hopefully be averaged out.