Remember how polling used to be?
April 8th, 2008
Why you cannot make comparisons with the run up to 1997
The above is reproduced from Anthony Wells’s excellent UK Polling Report site and shows the polls in the final month before the 1997 general election which Labour won with a margin of 13%.
Just compare the above figures with the final shares of CON 31.4%: LAB 44.4%: LD 17.2%
I refer back to this because time and time again you will read or hear commentators and politicians say that Labour was doing much much better in the run-up to 1997. Yes they were but polling was different in those days and the Labour share was repeatedly over-stated by what turned out to be very big margins by all but one of the firms.
The exception, as can be seen from the above, was ICM which then and now had the system of past vote weighting to ensure politically balanced samples.
Since 1997 polling has changed dramatically. Firms have come and gone and now four out of the five regular pollsters carrying out monthly surveys have followed the ICM lead and use some system to make sure their samples are politically representative. The other one, Ipsos-MORI, now reports headline figures based on those “certain to vote”. Then it didn’t.
Blair in 1997 went on to win a massive landslide with 44% of the vote. He was helped by a lot of tactical voting driven by a big desire to get the Tories out.
I don’t think pre 1997 conditions exist in the UK at the moment and my best guess is still that the Tories will be short of a majority. But comparing polling between now and then is totally misleading.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
O/t, on the subject yesterday of governing party recovery from mid-term blues in the polls, what was the consensus in the end that instead of “governing party recoveries”, it was actually always a “Tory party recovery” - i.e. the golden rule is the Conservative party will increase its showing towards the tail-end of a parliament, irrespective of whether it is in government or opposition? There was an analysis on this some weeks ago, wasn’t there? If true then there is only upside still to come for Cameron leading up to 2009 / 2010.
Mike, just to clarify what you’re saying, you say that “comparing polls between now and then is totally misleading”, but you also give an opinion about the situation now versus the situation then - that the Tories are likely to be short of an overall majority.
Do you mean that comparing them _directly_ is misleading, but you can make a useful comparison if you adjust the results of the pre-1997 polls to account for the old polls’ duff methodologies? Or are you saying we should just forget about what the old polls said and get all our information from other factors (media coverage, conversations in pubs, local elections results, etc etc)?
my best guess is still that the Tories will be short of a majority
It is difficult to see how The Gold Trader’s government can recover. Rather than being hated to the extent the Conservatives were, I think this government is despised.
Come election time, its difficult to see how Labour can energise the troops. In the key marginals, its likely that Tories will just fight harder.
[1] Indeed, that point of view has much to commend it. It’s probably a GOTV thing. It’s very hard to see Labour running an effective campaign whenever the election’s called - people will say: what are you going to do with a fourth term?
Actually, I think Cameron has a unique opportunity - the decline of class and the rise of race/religion as identifiers mean that in the next Parliament I expect polls to centre around a 40:20:20:20 position (in England) for the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Hard Right (UKIP/BNP). There isn’t a single Labour politician born in the 1960s or 1970s who looks in the least like leadership material.
Talking of UKIP, I see the BBC has a page on their Mayoral candidate. Fair enough - but will they give the BNP one too? And if not, why not - the racists have as much support in the polls as UKIP. If so, it’ll be interesting to see the reaction of the mainstream parties.
Of course, one sure sign of a likely Tory majority would be a by-election win like Dudley West, South East Staffs or Wirral South.
And the Conservatives were winning by-elections during 1974-1979.
5 - There were by-elections to win during that time.
3. In terms of the Conservatives winning an overall majority, the ‘key marginals’ aren’t marginal. They are the seats about 120th to 140th down the list of Conservative targets and have majorities way into the thousands.
There are two ways of defining marginal seats. One is those with small majorities; the other is those seats that determine who wins the election. On the first definition, the marginals are all seats that are fairly critical to Labour (they will determin whether they have a workable majority or not), but are not tremendously important to the Conservatives, except as individual seats. On the second definition, there are a lot of other seats for the Tory candidates to get through first.
On Mike’s main point, while I agree with him that the polls are not directly comparable, I do think that they are still useful in identifying the trend movement in people’s intentions. Labour probably peaked in about 1995 (iirc, the local election projected national vote share from the May elections bears this out), after which there was a modest Tory recovery. To pick up Anatole’s post at [1], I’m not sure there’s too much evidence to support that theory. The problem is that in all four parliaments from 1979-97, the Conservatives attracted a great deal of unpopularity through policies; in 1997-2001 and 2001-5 the leadership in the first half of the parliaments was pretty ineffective, giving Labour something of a free run. The last comparable situations where there was a Labour government and an effective Conservative opposition were 1966-70 and 1974-9: both a long time ago with a different political landscape. The alignment of the political and economic cycles will also be an important factor in whether there’s a recovery or not. FWIW, I think there will be a small recovery to Labour, though I don’t think that the Conservative lead has peaked yet.
OT - sorry!
Got a call asking for money from Cowley Street yesterday.
The woman had a spiel saying that the party “had had a very good start to the year.”
Now I don’t think things are too bad, but even unbiased me would struggle to spin the LD start to the year as very good.
8. “Now I don’t think things are too bad, but even unbiased me would struggle to spin the LD start to the year as very good” - you haven’t seen the rest of it yet!
7. Seats 120 to 140 on the Conservative target list are mostly seats that have been held by the Conservatives in the fairly recent past, though. It’s like the 1980s in reverse where the Tories were holding all sorts of seats with seemingly big majorities, but which were, in reality, marginal seats.
[7][10] The other factor is that in 2005 Labour’s share of the vote was far lower than the Tories obtained at any election between 1979 and 1992 inclusive.
House price data much more negative than expected… I’m afraid we are going to have a devastating recession/depression.
9 - Trust you’re making a unique personal contribution to their morale - how’s the campaign in Bradford going?
My water tells me that Populus and ICM are the two pollsters most generious to the LD’s and I imagine there will be a few jitters that two polls in quick succession have shown falls albeit within the margin of error. I’m skeptical that Clegg over type stuff feeds into public conciousness that quickly. Its also difficult to see why the Euro fiasco should give us a poll bounce from extra cover age but clegg over dents us.
Much more ominious in my view is the planted story about the uncounted postal ballots. Complete bollocks of course but the fact that an MP is prepared to stand it up with a Bush?gore quote this early in his leadership is scary.
As for the poll. Well I continue to plough my lonely furrow that this is quite good for labour. they seem to have recovered from the bombing budget and its all in the head game. When you look at a 6% tory lead you think “We can turn that round”. When its 16% panic just sets in and it becomes self fulfilling.
Thats said the jackie ashley article in yesterdays guardian hit home with me.
12. House prices down 2.5% in one month according to Halifax.
It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that Labour are rapidly approaching the same degree of failure that dogged the last Conservative government in their final years.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
14 I wouldn’t be too optimistic - added to Ashley’s column Rachel Sylvester has a column on the internal loss of discipline within the Government. There were two quotes I liked:
“A Cabinet minister was equally damning: “It’s all about politics and not about making the country better.” - there’s a lot of truth there, Brown & co seem too focussed on the polls and re-launches of Gordon rather than re-launches of the Government. Perhaps it’s the weakness of the Cabinet but everything in PR terms seems to be about Gordon.
The other line I just enjoyed “after one recent Cabinet meeting, Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls during a row about who was responsible for youth crime. The Justice Secretary… fuming that he had never been spoken to so rudely by a colleague in public and that he was not going to put up with it.” Oh, that Jack had thrown that punch.
17 left out the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/08/do0802.xml
15 So, in the shape of Northern Rock, the British taxpayer bought a massive housing loan portfolio, pretty much right at the top of the housing market. Chalk up that winner next to the sale of our gold right at the bottom of the market and Gordon looks to be an excellent indicator of what not do and when not do it.
19 I should probably have added on to that list “when not to bottle calling an election….”
The cabinet look to be in disarray, which is not surprising. Brown hogs the limelight, making nearly every announcement and fielding all the questions. He wants to take all the credit, he wants to be the one seen as doing things. That plus his cabinet is a rag bag bunch of no marks and idiots, who seem to hate each other more than the tories.
20. On the other hand Blair seems to have handed over the torch with perfect timing.
The house price data really is dire. If it continues at this rate then we will see a fall of 25% within one year.
13. OK so far. I saw my opponent’s election leaflet yesterday, complete with barcharts and ‘only the Tories and Lib Dems can win here’, together with the comment that a vote for the BNP or Greens could let the Tories in. Now, apart from the fact that neither the BNP or Greens are standing (which they wouldn’t have known when they had the leaflet printed, but still - snigger), I’m a little suprised that they’re so openly chasing BNP votes.
On the doorstep, things seem pretty similar to last year, though I’ve not come across so much antipathy to Labour (and Brown especially) before - but then my ward doesn’t have much in the way of a Labour vote, so perhaps that’s not too surprising.
Like other posters, I can’t see where a Labour recovery is going to come from, and I think the most likely scenario for the next Parliament is a workable, but not huge, Tory majority. But it’s entirely possible that there could be a Labour wipeout, if the recession is worse than feared, if our overstretched armed forces break down completely or if some other doomesday event takes place. Just don’t expect Gordon to fight cleanly if it looks like this is going to happen. He might change the electoral system or stuff ballot boxes through postal voting or find other ways to play dirty.
I think a large Tory majority of 100+ is likelier than Labour being the largest party, despite the hugely distorted electoral system. We really must address some of the obvious distortions if we win, e.g. the massive imbalances in the sizes of seats and basing the redrawing of boundaries on present, not projected, populations.
The labour govt in general, and its leadership in particular, is widely scorned and derided.
However, there is still great affection for the labour party itself. ‘Vote labour’ is a much more attractive proposition than ‘vote for Gordon’. The govt hasn’t the time or the ability to actually make things better.
But they have plenty of time to change that key aspect of their offering. I’m sure they will at some stage, and when they do, their polling will improve markedly.
The cabinet is an interesting one. You have to ask if perhaps one last through of the Dice would be to bring back Blunkett,Clarke,Reid,Byers and Milburn.
I heard Ed Milliband being savaged on Radio 2 yesterday. radio 2 for gods sake and just wondered if things would be better for them if they had some heavy artillary for the studios. Is there a single cabinet minister other than straw or perhaps david Milliband who has the independent stature to stand up to Gordon? Its really bad for any government not to have these kinds of figures.
One big difference now is the mess the Labour Party in Scotland has got itself into. In the past few decades, any projection of election results on a UK basis could start from Labour having a huge and reliable majority in Scotland. The excellent political footwork shown by the SNP in Holyrood (helped by the unbelievable cackhandedness of Wendy Alexander) has changed the domestic Scottish political climate, with Labour’s constant mantra that the sky would fall if the SNP won being shown to be laughable.
Brown, Darling and their cohorts representing Scotland in Westminster have behaved with all the sure-footed delicacy and intelligence towards Scotland that they have shown to such good effect in UK politics, and which have led the English to regard them with such unstinting admiration and awed respect. They see their colleagues in the Labour Party in Scotland as very junior idiots who had better jump when the big boys in London tell them to.
If I were betting on the outcome of the next GE, I would not base my strategy on an analysis of the UK polls alone. Scotland really could upset the Labour applecart next time.
The other interesting counter factual is what the situation would be like if Blair was still in the Commons. Doubtless the fantasies about a restoration would be in full swing now.
[24] The “hugely distorted electoral system” - if that’s what it is - comes about simply because of differential turn-out in safe Labour and safe Tory seats. Basing boundaries on projections is already possible - I’ll be voting in a seat that only exists because that was done (wrongly in my view, the new housing is being occupied by non-citizens in the main). In any case, it will only alter a small number of seats.
The only fix to give you what you want would be to base boundaries on votes cast, not eligible voters. If that’s what you mean, please offer a justification. The argument amounts to, you don’t use your vote so we’re going to reduce its value. By that logic I can come round to your house and cart off anything in it you haven’t used for a while.
28 - Indeed that looks like a shrewd move on his part and helpful to Labour. I think Labour have big problems because the news cycles are feeding in on themselves. We have had a run of bad polls for them and on past evidence their local election score will be down on even the most pessimistic poll. That will feed into the cycle of negativity.
28 Anyone know (from articles, published diaries?) whether Blair wanted to get out of the Commons immediately he resigned as PM (to start raking in the millions) - or did Gordon insist that Blair resigned his seat for a clean break?
31 - Blair had spent 15 years not doing what Gordon wanted, why was he suddenly going to start last year?
27 - the public are comparing the Salmond administration and the Brown administration and they appear to think Brown’s is a shambles. This is what I have been getting during canvassing in the past two weekends.
17 - Having just read the article you reference I find that there is one quote in it that is unutterably abominable “Don’t worry, these white people don’t really understand what we have to go through.” This is a Cabinet minister speaking in terms that are frankly borderline racist.
Not sure about this new website politicshome. Not a fan of the black background or the name - surely shome mishtake?
Go Jack Go ! I predict a KO in the 3rd..
“I am reliably informed that, after one recent Cabinet meeting, Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls during a row about who was responsible for youth crime.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/08/do0802.xml
Right I’m off to help build a liberal society aka fill soome pot holes and block and inappropriate dormer window application. However my final point is this and deliberately provocative. If Labour really is in the state that this thead suggests why are they down 3 to 5% only from the last GE in every major opinion poll? Apart from the budget anti bounce there vote seems remarkably stubbon and won’t fall beneath 30% odd. Grim me thinks but not meltdown.
29 You could have STV with a fixed quota per member rather than constituency… would soon get the turnout up.
Your argument doesn’t really hold up then… you would still have a vote whenver you chose to use it.
… though I agree that Tories talking about unfairness in the voting system is an abomination against god and man… when it is only unfairness to the Tories and not anyone else they really care about.
37. Well what did they poll last may in % terms ? They’ll be very lucky to poll 25% in May.
37 - I think the Labour vote share shouldn’t be viewed in isolation, yes it is only down a touch on the last election but the difference is that the Conservative share is 8-10 points up and the Liberal shares are 3-4 down. That changes the electoral geography, and possibly in ways that we cannot model.
10 - fair point, but the problem for the Tories is not their national position, it’s the ground war.
According to Anthony Wells Gloucester is the seat the Tories must win (assuming everything else more marginal is won below it). By most accounts it’s now pretty safely in the Labour column. And of course there are the Tauntons and Westmorelands which are almost certain to stay Lib Dem meaning that the Tories have to go beyond the Gloucesters to have an overall majority of just one.
It’s why the smart money is still on a hung parliament - now with the Tories as the largest party most likely. But it only takes Labour to pull back a few points for them to be favourites to be largest party. However, I do think now that there is no way that Labour can come back enough to win any sort of majority - which makes the dynamic interesting.
Good summing up of the position Mike.
24
Not seeing where the recovery will come from, doesn’t mean it won’t come. Why things change, is always difficult to understand, what causes change, even more difficult: Events dear boy events!
The mathematician David Ruelle, explains it by telling this story.
The little devil presumably having nothing else to do decides one day to upset your life. The devil does this by altering the motion of a single electron in the atmosphere. But you don’t notice. Not yet. After a minute, the structure of turbulence in the air has changed. You still don’t notice that anything is amiss. But after a couple of weeks, the change has taken on much larger proportions, and while you are having a picnic lunch with someone rather important, the skies open and a hail-storm begins.
Now you notice what the little devil has achieved. Actually, she wanted to kill you in a plane crash but I talked her out of it.
41,42. So Gordon support drops before the impending property price crash and recession ? What will it be like afterwards ? No more boom and bust ?
33.”27 - the public are comparing the Salmond administration and the Brown administration and they appear to think Brown’s is a shambles. This is what I have been getting during canvassing in the past two weekends.”
Marcia, are you getting a sense that Brown is turning into a real liability for Labour? I am getting two messages, he is disliked and regarded as simple not being up to the job of PM.
41.
Gloucster eh ?
Halifax said the worst falls were in the West Midlands (down 5 per cent) and Wales, down 4.7 per cent, prices in the South East were unchanged and areas such as Greater London, East Anglia and the East Midlands still growing.
41 - By whose account?
Has anybody mentioned the poll in this morning’s Metro:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=137255&in_page_id=34
To answer the question on TB: my understanding from a close friend is that he’d been struck by the undignified pattern of past leaders hanging about to make life difficult for the next one (even if they say nothing, they’re described as a ‘brooding presence’), and didn’t want to go there. The clue was his final conference speech - ‘Take my advice, don’t take it, it’s up to you - but wherever I am in the world, I’l be with you’, with the clear implication that it was likely to be somewhere other than Westminster.
On the Labour core vote, it’s stil there, all right (cf. my canvassing the other day), but the 36% last time was already much-reduced and we only won because the Tory vote was historically low too. So we haven’t lost swathes of 2005 voters, but the Tories can win if they mop up lots of LDs. Hence the venom regularly directed by Tories at LD leaders and activists: you’re getting in the way, you pesky blighters.
Skimming the debate on climate change on last night’s thread - what’s the longest that anyone has debated seanT without being called a liar?
17 - James Burdett - “Having just read the article you reference I find that there is one quote in it that is unutterably abominable “Don’t worry, these white people don’t really understand what we have to go through.” This is a Cabinet minister speaking in terms that are frankly borderline racist.”
Borderline?
47 - Isn’t it more a survey than a poll? Plus if it is Metro readers have they weeded out readers who are not voters in the Mayoral election?
47: It’s odd - they’ve ?deliberately? excluded anyone over 44 from the poll, which suggests a voodoo poll (prompted phone-in). The sample would be pro-Livingstone but the voodoo nature, if it is, would in the current climate be pro-Johnson. I’d treat it with caution.
49 - Fair point but I didn’t want to overly antagonise people….
17.Ted, I wonder who leaked that story to Rachel Sylvester?
28.When Blair used the words “clunking fist” to describe Gordon Brown some thought it a compliment. A bit like that final words of good luck to his party….
Morning all
I don’t always agree with Mike’s analysis but this morning I think he’s pretty close. I’ve always followed the ICM poll with more interest than the others though even ICM is prone to the odd outlier or rogue and the trend is always more important than the detail.
Down two, up one - matters little in the scheme of things but a trend is significant and no one can deny the Conservatives have enjoyed an upward trend and now enjoy sustained poll ratings above 40% which they failed to achieve for many years.
Some compare the current situation to 1995-97 or 1978-79 or even 1968-70 but I don’t think you can pattern match politics any more than weather charts and while the punter tries to use some “form” to get a selection, this isn’t the 3.30 at Lingfield so a different approach is needed.
Those who talk of 100+ Tory majorities are, in my view, way off the mark. I think the most likely outcomes at present are in order:
1) Conservatives just short of an overall majority (less than five)
2) Conservatives with small overall majority (1-20)
3) Conservatives with larger overall majority (20-40)
4) Labour largest party.
The electoral boundaries keep Labour from a 1997-style meltdown and even in 1983 Foot got over 200 seats so Labour 250, LDs 25, Others 30 leaves (using my poor maths) Tories with around 340 so that’s an overall majority of about 35 and that for me is the best case scenario for Cameron.
I think the ultimate question here is whether voters will take the view that a Cameron Government will simply do the same things better. I detect no appetite for Thatcherite radicalism and to be fair Cameron isn’t offering that. He is offering better management of the same things and given the lamentable performance of the current administration, that may well be enough.
It will also help hugely if expectations are kept low as I suspect Cameron will find areas such as the public finances in a much worse state than is generally believed (and if they aren’t Osborne will say they are and use it as a crutch when his policies begin to unravel)
OT, lots of bad news for McCain today.
Ex-Congressman Bob Barr running for the Libertarian Party nomination. Given the dedicated support Ron Paul got, it’s not hard to imagine this guy doing a right-wing Nader and taking a few % away from the Republicans
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13009
Meanwhile, from a new book about McCain, things like this:
At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you [NSFW word rhyming with 'bunt'].”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
Dan at 41 - £25 at evens says Tories win Gloucester at next GE - bet void if there is a change in the electoral system.
37 Yes, currently the polls show that Labour retains 9 out 10 of those that voted for Blair in 2005. But I do believe that maks a umber of concenrs for Labour which are stillonly formulating with the electorate:
- selling Brown to the voters at the next election is a mighty challenge - he is personally unappealling and politically inept. Its going to be like marketing the Trabant - the inelegant, poisonous relic of a by-gone age - up against an Alfa Romeo - outwardly very shiny and sleek (but with niggling concerns about how they used to fall apart).
- there is no message for Labour to project except “keep out the baby-eating Tories!!”
- Labour might bang on about for a three week campaign about how wonderful the national economy looks when compared to that of Zimbabwe, but they are ignoring “the personal economy”. For many voters their personal economy is deteriorating fast and hard. Pay rises are very low, yet personal inflation is near double figures. Credit is getting tougher to access. And their personal wealth is falling - a 2.5% fall in property values in a month. If you have a 75% mortgage, you just lost 10% of the equity in your house. In a month. A couple of months like that and people start feeling very poor very fast. ANd then they don’t love Labour no more.
- I don’t think anyone is yet factoring in the almost overnight changes in the mortgage market that have taken away the chance of property ownership from a swathe of aspirational young voters. They are now going to have to save a deposit of at least £10,000 to get on the property ladder. Either that or oblige their parents to dip into their shrinking savings.
- Come the next election, no-one under 31 will have voted in a Conservative Government. What does Labour have to offer them? As far as they can see, the baby-eaters are Labour - a party of the failing economy and illegal wars and taxing the poor and robbing them of their dreams. Cameron’s Conservatives can look a very attractive alternative to them - after all, they haven’t hurt them like Labour has.
As dusk starts to fall, Labour’s chickens, having spent all day in the fields, are now slowly wending their way back to the chicken house, intent on roosting….
even ICM has two polls listed taken three days apart in April, one for the Guardian and one for the Observer, and they differ in the Labour lead by a massive 12%.
It seems poll volatility isn’t just confined to nowadays.
When thinking about how bad things could be for Gordon, it’s often said that even Michael Foot got over 200 seats implying Gordo must do lots better. But in 1983 the Alliance only got 23 seats and the SNP 2 I think. Both the Libdems and SNP will surely do much better next time than in 1983 which makes it harder for Gordon. Even if Gordon is ‘better’ than Foot he has more realistic competitors for seats. The Tories may not romp home but I can see things being grisly for Labour.
43, Its not the house price situation that should cause concern as it wasn`t long ago The Mail, Express were shouting, how high they were and everyone was saying their children could not afford to get on to the ladder.
So a correction will be welcome in this regard.
The main problem will be the first time buyers having access to the market if lenders will only lend 80-90%.
However the upside for me is seeing and end to all those part-timers on TV,buying houses, then spending way over on them,on re-furbishments, but getting out ok because of the rise in prices.
Now they will have to be effective business people, in the real world with correct costings.
The end to the Sarah Beeny type of programming.
Also one will be able to get tradesman at a realistic quote/ rate for the job.
re 33 are there any Scottish elections this year?
From Paul Linford’s blog (his column in the Newcastle Journal):
“After the serial catastrophes of last autumn, it was always the case that the first six months of this year would be make-or-break for Mr Brown’s premiership.
We waited for Mr Brown to set out his “vision,” but it never happened. We waited for him to demonstrate that his government had some higher purpose than simply staying in power, but that never really happened either.
As a result, the default perception of his administration has become one of burnt-out incompetence and drift leading inevitably towards terminal decline and defeat.
If that perception is not to become permanently fixed in the public’s mind, the fightback really must start here.”
Something to raise seant’s blood pressure, I should think!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/08/humanrights.constitution
47. It’s in line with what we already know.
The evidence that Boris will win is overwhelming.
I’ve already reached the conclusion that anyone who isn’t backing Boris for 1st May on the betting markets is, frankly, an idiot.
57. I think you need to add another factor to your equation.
100% mortgages are gone - finished. Soon it will be 80-85% max.
Someone with a £200k mortgage of 80%plus (after house prices have dropped) will not be able to remortgage at a discount rate as previously (eg 4.99%) and will have to pay the SVR of 7.4%.
Theire monthly payment will go up from £1180 to £1480 - thats £370 a month extra.
Doesn’t take Norman Lamont to work out what happens next with that scenario panning out all over the country.
the spectator article pinpointed Luton South as the key seat. Thoughts on that one?
On the house price thing, thank the Lord! perhaps now Channel4 will have to make programmes, that don’t have the word, ‘House’ in the title. I’m sick, sick sick, about buying houses abroad, painting ‘em, location location location f***ing location, houses in the country, houses in the f***ing town., getting your foot on the f***ing ladder etc etc etc.Smug gits showing of their properties. Its for f***king living in! not for living for! geddit.
63 The author is right to a point, but seems to think that there was ever a difference between the rights of the individual as a consumer (capitalism), the rights of the individual as a citizen (democracy) or the rights of the individual to choose his moral precepts (emotivism).
They are one and the same, because they always were one and the same.
Whether you think they are a good thing (SeanT) or a bad thing (me), to try and say we want the political and moral ones, but not the economic is just silly.
Remember how polling used to be ….
Indeed I do, back during the 1922 election I was working as a cub reporter for the highly influential and dynamic political magazine, ‘The Scottish Conservative Country Gentleman & Capercaillie Breeders Weekly’. Tasked as I was with obtaining an opinion poll I used all the latest technology - candidate stools, the finest tea leaves, a massive crystal ball and a distinctly odd feeling in my water.
The poll result - a projected national sweep of seats for the Friends of the Kaiser Party !!!!
The magazine and I parted company …. anyway I never took to using a turkey baster on the capercaillie !!
Jack W is 105.
48. Fair point on TB but they now report sources close to him in X anyway! So he cannot win. I do think he made the right decision to go though as when Brown gets defeated Blair cannot be blamed - the next time Blair meets Brown he (Blair) would be able to smile in a telling way at Brown!
TB is head and shoulders above Brown, I listened to his speech in London the other day on the TV. Come back Tony all is forgiven!!! Unfortunatly for you Brown is really third rate in comparison to Blair. Unfortunatly for the country as well!
Re; 57 - I’m sure after that the Daily Mail will be snapping you up, Mark.
Not sure I agree with all of it. As others have said, the house price fall isn’t universal. Some areas are suffering, others less so. I look here if I want to see property prices falling;
http://www.propertysnake.co.uk/
Even there, in my area, there’s nothing that’s dropped more than one or two percent and that may be because of an over-ambitious asking price.
Second point, negative equity doesn’t matter if you’re not going to move for a while. House prices will recover - an increasing population will see to that. Of course, it may be bad news for some for a while but many who had been staring down the barrel of negative equity in 1992 were coining it in ten years later.
On the wider issue - if people have to save more to get on the property ladder, is that such a bad thing ? We have got where we are (arguably) because banks weren’t cautious enough about borrowing. We all know people who lied about their income on a mortgage application form but no one cared. Philosophically, if saving becomes necessary, we might see less binge drinking as the young might have to save more - just a thought
As for the under-30s, well, it’s often fashionable to be anti the current order and I’m not surprised the Tories have recruited so many “bright young things” to their colours. The true test of political activism is to stick around when things get difficult and we’ll see how many of today’s wild-eyed and wild-spoken Tory activists are still about when the Cameron Government hits its mid-term trough and the luck (and the media) desert it.
Stuart D if you’re around - you asked yesterday about whether the NHS pay rise extended to Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon has released a press release about it.
67, I am afraid the shortage of housing in the UK and the planning regulations, will make sure these programmes are only a temporary respite.
This isn`t 92, the demand for affordable housing is there, not for flats though.
Thats where builders/speculaters and buy to letters will get hurt.
You always know when the housing market is slowing,when the big builders offer part exchange
67.
It is times like this i am glad i did not get in on the house buying act in the last 2-3 years. Properties are not selling and we have not seen the worst yet either. The lenders obviously sense negative equity coming a la 100% mortgages being withdrawn. It is deeper than organisations not having the funds due tot he credit crunch - it is institutions shielding themselves from potentially bad lending. It would not surprise me to see Loan to Value ratio’s paired back to 80-85% before it gets better.
All of this meanwhile has multiplier affects throughout the economy.
Interesting debate on ’swingback’ over the last few days. One thing that has been missing though is the economic angle. I haven’t looked carefully at the numbers but I suspect a lot of the apparent ’swingback’ reflects shifts in economic conditions - the Tory ‘recovery’ from 1995-1997 may well be an example, as it coincided with a shift from fairly depressed conditions to very solid growth.
As such, ’swingback’ may be little more than a statistical artefact, rather than some kind of enduring mean reversion tendency in public opinion. And with government power to manipulate the economy greatly reduced since the independence of the Bank of England, ’swingback’ may well be a thing of the past.
55) Edmund in Tokyo re “lots of bad news for McCain”
1)The NSFW “news” of which you speak is 16 years old.
2) The Libertarian party scored a massive 0.34% of the vote in 2004 and don’t assume Libertarian votes won’t be drawn from both parties - eg not a factor that moves the needle.
73. This isn`t 92, the demand for affordable housing is there, not for flats though.
Do you think this is why Brown wants further immigration - to artificially inflate house prices? This has long been my thought as to why Labour have wanted high unchecked immigration and the reason why Labour bitterly oppose curbing immigration. Labour have used Immigration like pyrimide selling - Brown realises once the pyrimide stops being added to the whole chain collapses.
Although the Conservatives polled marginally more votes in England than Labour, they finished with far fewer MPs. According to Anthony Wells on the new boundaries it would have been 210 Conservative, 273 Labour, 48 Liberal and 2 Other.
The question is whether there is a “permanent” bias within the existing boundaries that will only unwind with a complete redrawing starting from first principles or if there is some form of “tactical” voting, due in part to 6% Others on average, which could unwind or even go into reverse at the next election.
The Conservatives need to win approaching 325 of these English seats to gain an overall majority - a gain of some 115 - with a small number coming from Scotland and Wales. The answer may well lie in the current distribution of votes within each constituency.
Taking the percentage of the poll achieved by Conservative and Labour in 2005 on the revised boundaries we have the number of seats:
Con Lab
Under 10% 12 16
10% to 20% 86 75
20% to 25% 38 46
Total under 25% 136 137
Conservative and Labour had essentially the same number of seats where they polled under 25% of the vote, unsurprisingly none of which produced an MP for them. This is also a quarter of all the English constituencies.
Con Con Lab Lab
seats MPs seats MPs
25% to 30% 45 - 51 -
30% to 35% 76 1 38 2
35% to 40% 69 12 44 22
Total 25% to 40% 190 13 133 24
On the basis of the 2005 election, a party needs to poll over 35% of the vote to start to have any effective chance of winning the seat. The Conservatives have some 60 more seats than Labour hovering around this threshold.
Con Con Lab Lab
seats MPs seats MPs
40% to 45% 63 53 70 56
45% to 50% 51 51 48 48
50% to 55% 11 11 61 61
Total over 40% 207 197 263 249
Hence there was almost 100% chance of winning the seat by polling more than 43% of the vote.
So what will happen at the next election if the Conservatives are polling say 42% of the vote nationally. This will translate into some 45% or 46% in England, an increase of 10% over 2005.
How will this be distributed? It is highly unlikely that each and every seat will gain 8%, with some of the inner city constituencies seeing the Conservative share of the vote even falling for a variety of reasons. It is probable that the 10% overall increase in share would translate into something like a 30% improvement in share within the critical band of seats where the party polled between 25% and 45% last time.
This would see almost all of the seats that had polled 35% or more in 2005 move into the 45% plus giving a base of around 275 seats. In addition, most of the 76 seats in the 30% to 35% band will move up a band resulting in a propability of 80% of them (60) changing hands. Thus without the much lower probabilty of the Conservatives winning a few in the 25% to 30% band, they have achieved the requirement to gain an overall majority.
Such an analysis is based on an average movement of votes across all constituencies. This will not happen in practice and not only in the seats currently held by the Lib Dem. But for every seat that underperforms the average there will be one that overperforms.
My conclusion from the detailed work that is summarised above is that the Conservatives have a better chance of gaining an overall majority if they are polling slightly above 40% than many believe.
It also shows that contrary to the suggestion of some, the Conservatives did not poll heavily in their own seats relative to Labour, but the reverse with Labour having many more seats with a share of the vote over 55%. Whether the Conservative will poll over 40% next time is another question.
59 - Is n’t it the case that Labour have more seats that they could never lose than the Tories have ie there is a number below which they cannot fall however badly they do in an election? The same applies to the Tories but they have fewer such seats.
74
I’m a hypocrite ‘cos I did it, we all did. I was living in Godalming during the last big crash, and saw the damage it did to many people.
As an investment, you can’t criticise it, but looking back what a loss of freedom, 30 years servicing a debt, terrified of losing your job, can’t go anywhere can’t do anything, always putting your hand in your pocket, you do wonder if there isn’t a better way.
Markets have too correct, if they didn’t, a tulip bulb would cost you a million pounds!!
Kids pester power at work in the US elections :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08kids.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
77,Martin,
My father runs a Limited Building Company in and around York.
He has done very well since the mid nineties.
So can only tell you about the situation here.
The housing market is still quite strong, many house sales going through, not flats,prices fairly stable.
However York has a big public sector ,( tourism, the weak pound will help there).
2 Universites, the growth in foreign national students especially chinese is large factor as is the growth of the University itself.
Also many people wish to live in York and work in leeds etc.
So as I say in York, I believe the housing market will correct, but not severley.
80. Well if you did well out of it that’s great!
Property is a funny investment though - it always swwms to be the one that ruins everyone though! The next downturn after this one will probably be shares again!
80
Not that well! I sold up, stuffed some of the money away,(rainy day) used the rest to get the kids through Uni., gave them some.
Because of my wife’s job, now have a life time lease on a bungelow, in a village, where the locals have been priced out. To by a cottage here would cost you a minimum (this is true, well up until today anyway) £400,000 or thereabouts. Its a very sad situation.
Re: 77 - Martin, the reason immigration won’t be curbed is far simpler. The capitalist system is predicated on the free movement of capital and labour. As long as there is cheap labour available, businesses will use it to make money.
If we stopped the flow of labour, we would all suffer through inflation on one hand and the loss of jobs as global businesses went elsewhere. The social and cultural consequences of immigration are irrelevant to business and to the workings of capitalism. If labour is available, it will be hired as cheaply as possible in order to maximise profits.
This is also why big business and its lobbyists are so opposed to global warming because capitalism also relies on cheap energy and consumption. If people stop consuming because they fear the environmental consequences, the capitalist system suffers.
I rarely make predictions, but in accordance the Jack W method of tea leaves and feelings in my water, I am coming to the view that Labour’s troubles are now too deep for it to turn matters around for 2010. Most damagingly of all, the discipline is going. I cannot see Labour as the largest party after the next election.
The only question then is how well the Tories will do. In seats where the Tories are second to Labour, even a distant second, I see them doing very well indeed, especially below the Severn/Wash line. Where the Tories are second to the Lib Dems, unless Nick Clegg starts improving his game radically I expect far more Lib Dem seats to fall to the Tories than seems to be conventional wisdom on here - I do not see how incumbent MPs, no matter how diligent, defying political gravity en masse.
Where the interest comes is in seats where the Tories are clearly third. Given that the mood is anti-Labour rather than pro-Tory, I suspect the Tories will not pick up many of those seats, if any. I expect the SNP to do well in Scotland for this reason, and the Lib Dems may take a few seats off Labour in such constituencies in England and Wales.
All this leads me to believe that the Tories will not have a massive majority, and I agree with Mr Smithson’s best guess that they will fall just short.
84. Does that mean your wife works for one of the aristocratic estates? How that must rankle with you, if it’s true…
Builders and property shares take a pounding
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/ticker/winnerslosers/default.stm
82. As i said before multiplier effects take time to work there way through - the 100% mortgages etc are mainly for 1st time buyers - this explains the Flats market. The people who then move on from Flats with some equity then want to go into houses - if the bottom run has been taken away/ fallen away / ceased to function - you will not get an upward movement in the next type of property upwards.
I don’t doubt what you say is happening now or recently but these things take time to work through. They always do and they tend to move violently one way and then the other. The nature of the beast i am afraid.
I could sight relatives who are looking for houses in other areas of the country or friends who i know to have knocked huge amounts off the asking price for a sale. It is not that cut and dried as you think. Leeds and Manchester are due for a terrible property crash particularly in the Flats sector.
10 Sean Fear - very good point - it is these seats (in reverse) that are crucial and buggar up UNS calculations.
Betting recommendations
All Corals
Back No Overall Majority 20 points 7/4
Back Tory Majority 1-25 3 points 8/1
Back Tory Majority 26-50 2 points 9/1
86 - “Most damagingly of all, the discipline is going. I cannot see Labour as the largest party after the next election.”
I’m of the opinion that Labour’s troubles will get worse should they lose the next election, and if anything the Tories will increase their support after that.
Firstly, there’s nobody obvious to take over from Brown who wouldn’t be tainted with their current problems.
Secondly, do Labour actually know why they’re currently so unpopular? They’ll have to search their soul if they lose (even if it’s only a HP) and that’s a hard thing to do. Especially for a party that is certainly signs of “we know best”.
And never underestimate what a defeat does to a political party that has got so used to being in power. Especially if all that’s left is your core vote.
Even now I sense that there’s still a bit of fear in some quarters that DC et al will somehow revert back to 90s style Toryism. That will go after about a couple of years if that, just as Labour did by about 1998/99.
92 - I agree with all of that.
86 With a unifying political vision (Thatcher / Blair) governments succeed. With a managerial vision (Callaghan, Major, Brown), governments tend to fail.
I’d put Wilson v.1 in the former camp incidentally, because of Woy’s home affairs agenda. Wilson v.2 couldn’t manage its way out of a paper bag
The caveat has the be the sheer size of the gap in seats.
65, 71 - I’ve said before that in the past ten years espcially, many people have treated the rising value of their property as a second income stream. Unwisely. They are now having to support their earlier high living from just one income stream - which at 2% rises in a high personal-inflation world is not going to do the job.
Previously we had a scenario in the eighties-nineties where the Tories got hammered because a lot of people lost their jobs. We are now in a somewhat weirder world, where primary employment is still high but many people are effectively losing their “second job” - ie the access to the equity in their homes. Be interesting to see if people blame themselves for being profligate or their Government for not protecting them from themselves. I’d suggest Labour is about to get a nasty introduction to the Blame Culture.
Stodge, on people having to save a deposit to get on the property ladder - I agree. But I’m not sure those affected necessarily will. Anyway, until property prices bottom, who is going to want to save for ages to scrape together £10,000 towards a deposit, only to see all that hard work disappear through falling house prices. It was easier when you could get a 100% a mortgage and hand the keys back to the Building Society if it all went tits up - but it is a different game if the first money at risk is yours.
I’d suggest that you are right in saying most people just won’t move home. They will sit tight and ride out the falls. Paper gains and paper losses. If everyone does the same, then property falls will be mitigated because of such tight supply. Mr Market Forces rides to the rescue again.
re 378 why do they need to win 325 English seats? Even the most pessimistic Tory would say that they’d get into double figures in Wales and Scotland I would have said.
89,Martin , I would agree with that assesmement especially the flats in Leeds & Manchester were over priced in an over inflated market.
A realistic market is required, and I hope the correction is not as fatalistic as some predict.
I am confident it wo`nt be.
In some ways, in the long run, it could improve the economy, in helping end the stigma of renting.
Which could improve peoples job and life chances.
Re Luton South said to be the critical seat. A recent new resident is Sean Fear who strikes me as a highly effective activist
Benedict Brogan on More Boris merchandise…
The final paragraph is interesting. “The campaign needs to keep up this pace. Camp Boris worries about reports of a thumping poll lead. Their private polling is not so positive, and they don’t want potential supporters to think it’s in the bag. The race is much tighter than people realise.” ??
92. I agree things look bad for Labour if they lose. But I think you have to look at what is causig disunity. It has been the whole Blair/Brown rivalry.
Blair should never have had dinner at Granita. It was totally unnecessary. The Blairites may be criticising Gordon somewhat, but basically because they want to see more raical reforms. The Brownites on the other hand, seem like a bunch of careerist s*ds. I can’t think of a single one of them I like. They have deliberately factionalised the Party which could destroy Labour for a generation after Gord’ goes.
It’s ironic that whilst Blair was said to have little interest in his Party’s history, whereas Brown has Labour in the blood, it is the latter who could well end up destroying the Party for the sake of his own personal ambition. He is the biggest fake in British politics.
Re: 92 - I would certainly agree that Labour will need a period to reassess and re-evaluate once out of office, that’s the natural order of things. Whether that process takes five years, ten or twenty depends on Labour and other factors outside their control.
As for the Conservatives, there seems an almost naive optimism among some of the activists on here that once in Government everything will be fine and we will all live happily ever after.
The incoming Conservative Governments of both 1970 and 1979 were in serious trouble within two years. There is no reason why that won’t happen to Cameron and conversely no certainty it will. The economic outlook won’t change because we have a new Government and nor will any of the other huge social, cultural and international challenges.
96. Don’t forget if Sinn Fein do pretty well, that could reduce the opposition by 5-10 seats. A total of 10 in Scotland and Wales and perhaps 310 in England?
95 what do you think will be the effects of the buy to let factor? in 1990-1992 we didnt have 1000’s of people owning multiple properties leveraged to the hilt. property markets only ever collapse when their is a forced seller. in the 1990’s the banks were the forced sellers as unemployed handed back the keys….. will BTL turn out to be the forced sellers this time?
if economic activity slows, rental demand softens and mortgage costs increase substantially how long will these investors hold onto loss making properties?
The problem is that the slightest fall in house prices tends to trigger a vicious circle. I’ve been thinking of becoming a first-time buyer, but would I buy in the current climate? Why would I - I’ll wait till next year - after all, prices aren’t exactly going to go up. And that’s not to mention the difficulties of getting a mortgage.
101. Once more the Conservatives are going to have to clean up the current fess up. We are in dangerous times now. So many things could go badly wrong, that we could be heading for something that would make all post war recessions look like tea parties, or we could be lucky, and all we suffer is sluggish growth for a year or so.
Both situations could easily occurr. The problem is, the Government, like the rest of the population are debted up to the eyeballs pissing away equity when times were good.
41 None of those three seems out of reach for the Conservatives to me.
66 Luton North is actually the better prospect, from a Conservative viewpoint, despite having a slightly higher Labour majority than South. I’d only expect North to fall though, if the Conservatives were heading up to 350 or so seats.
102 and a lot of the BTL investments have been based on, not the rental income from the properties, but the massive inflation in the properties themselves.
This has meant that rents have not gone up at the same ratio that house prices have gone up. It might be possible to say that BTL without double digit house price incerases is not sustainable on a purely rental income basis.
A lot of doom mongering on here this morning. “Doomed, I say we’re all doomed” Question is whether it’s accurate or not?
62. Double Carpet’s post quoting Paul Linford is telling. If Paul Linford is this critical of the current leadership then Labour really are in big trouble.
79. Richard. This looks interesting. Haven’t quite got it and I will read it again. Intuitively I feel that if the Tories get say 42% and Labour 30% then they will do better in seat terms than most of the modelling suggests. I cannot justify this and would be interested to see if anyone else supports your analysis.
103. “if economic activity slows, rental demand softens …”
But won’t rental demand increase as people can’t afford to buy?
Interesting article, Mike, and reinforces the old political truism that the message only starts to get through just as you are beginning to die with the boredom of repeating it.
If you need evidence of a pisspoor government thrashing around after it has totally lost the will to live, take this from Denham’s speech on higher education, as reported by the BBC, describing how Labour is giving advice to children on getting into university:
“For example, taking double science GCSE rather than three separate sciences can make it harder to do a pure science subject or medicine. [Ya reckon?]
The Department for Children, Schools and Families is going to pilot ways of getting children even in primary schools to think about what they might subsequently wish to do.” [If they've got time after the sex education lessons and Britishness initiatives.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7335439.stm
And he’s meant to be one of the brighter lights in New Labour.
101.”As for the Conservatives, there seems an almost naive optimism among some of the activists on here that once in Government everything will be fine and we will all live happily ever after.”
I don’t agree Stoodge, I think that there might be some naive optimism in the face of the mammoth electoral task ahead to achieve a Conservative majority. But I also believe that many activists are much more realistic about the challenges that will be faced by a Conservative government, after the Blair years I simple *hope* that we can manage things more competently…..
98 thanks Mike as ever. Sean Fear, did you read the Spectator article on Experian? Luton South is considered by CCHQ to be the tipping point seat. A Tory victory is entirely in your hands. No pressure, mind
107. A fair bit of BTL demand comes from overseas as well. Sterling’s recent sharp depreciation will have left those investors nursing some serious losses - most will not have hedged.
105. Yes, but it’s only recently that the Tories have started to talk about debt. Up until a few months ago the choice was between higher public spending from Labour against tax cuts from the Tories.
Cameron can talk all he likes about repairing the roof when the sun was shining, but at the time, his Party showed little interest in the rising levels of personal debt, which he probably thought were good for consumer spending.
91. Great spot! Just invested quite a nice lump on each!
109 if economic conditions in the economy slow then there will be less demand for everything including rents.
106 Carlisle is target seat 93 and has been held by Labour since the 1960s….. a 4000 notional majority will be hard to shift though…
104, John on the other hand cash is king!
Anyone with this facility will clean up driving a hard bargain in buying property at the right price.
If you have the access to a mortgage, go and put in very low offer.
In some areas they won`t throw you out of the office, like they would have done a year ago.
Do`nt follow the herd.
46, 57 et al
I’m relaxed about whether Gloucester or Luton South is the one that represents the majority for the Conservatives. Luton South is considerably less winnable and with 25%+ ethnic minority (including 20% muslim) it will be very difficult for the Tories to win. Details from Anthony Wells here:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/lutonsouth
The logistical effort required to win seats this far down the list is huge and unless there is a 97 style tide in your favour very difficult. Yes they can be won, but most likely at the expense of easier pickings further up the list.
That’s why unless there is total Labour meltdown (1983 style) I still think Labour will be harder to shift than some of the more excitable Tories on here believe.
100 St John “Double Carpet’s post quoting Paul Linford is telling. If Paul Linford is this critical of the current leadership then Labour really are in big trouble.”
Is it just my wishful thinking, or have Labour entered a death spiral? It’s not just this article or that giving bad Labour coverage, although Rachel Sylvester’s piece with Jack Straw threatening to punch Ed Balls is a doolally.
Rather it’s that for the last few weeks I haven’t been able to find a single *positive* article about the government anywhere - literally. A few anti-Boris, anti-Tory ones, but nothing positive about this government. Anywhere.
And if nobody will write them up on the plus side, nobody at all, how can they recover?
The journalist Nick Cohen (iirc) came on to the site before the bottled election and predicted that if Brown deceived the lobby and didn’t go for it, he’d get a taste of what it was like for John Major, 93-97, from the media. Is that the most accurate prediction ever made on this website?
112.Right Sean, you are now carrying the Conservative torch at the next GE, don’t for god’s sake drop it.
114.Frank, not true, the Conservatives have been very concerned. They have been banging on about the level of personal and public debt for years. No one was listening.
118 - But how low is a very low offer? 10% below asking price? At the current rate of house price falls that discount would be wiped out in less than 5 months.
96. They need 325 to get overall majority but say 10 more to get a working majority of some 20 overall - these as you say will likely come from Wales and Scotland. SF is a complicating factor but if they do not take their seats then it reduces the Conservative hurdle a little bit. Don’t know the politics but is it out of the question they could take up their seats in Westminster if that would give them a powerful lever.
123 - Yes, it’s out of the question that SF would take up their seats whatever the parliamentary mathematics.
IA @ 29,
“By that logic I can come round to your house and cart off anything in it you haven’t used for a while”: Or, as this government has proposed, “go round to your bank and cart off any money you haven’t used for a while”
123. But, remember, the SNP do not vote on English only matters, so the bar for a ‘working majority’ on most issues - health, education, social services, policing, etc. is even lower.