politicalbetting.com

Are Labour’s chances as bad as the media is suggesting?

This weekend hundreds and maybe thousands of activists from the main parties will be heading to Crewe and Nantwich for a big couple of days of campaigning ahead of the critical by election a week on Thursday.

The weather’s good, the constituency’s road and rail links are excellent and, most of all, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have each got something to prove in this key test of public opinion during a very difficult time for the government.

Already several of those who have been flocking to the south Cheshire towns have been giving us their impressions on the PB comments threads. If you are amongst the campaigners please let us know so we can build up a picture of what is happening on the ground.

On the face of it this should be an easy one for Cameron’s Conservatives. Last week’s local election, the London outcome and the latest YouGov poll all point to support shedding away from the governing party throughout the country. If it’s happening nationally then surely the same must be being experienced in C&N?

The most important factor for a party defending is the extent to which it can get its support out and the signs nationally suggest that this might be very hard for Labour. Even in Sedgefield last July at the start of Gordon Brown’s media honeymoon the Labour candidate saw his party’s vote drop by 14%. Labour supporters have bad record of turning out in elections when the government of the country is not at stake.

Even when they are starting from third place, like here, the Lib Dems always have the potential to pull off a shock. Could they start appealing to Labour supporters that the only way of stopping a Tory victory is by switching to them?

So even if you have never posted here before please share with us your experiences. Let’s see if we can get a good picture of what is going on. Many thanks.

Latest by election betting.

Mike Smithson

Was this behind the worst ICM ratings for three months?

This morning’s ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph is good news for the Conservatives, good news for Labour but bad news for the Lib Dems. These are the shares with comparisons on the last ICM survey just a fortnight ago - CON 43%(+1): LAB 32%(+3): LD 18%(-3). The comparisons in the previous post were with the last ICM survey in the paper in early January.

The pollster’s methodology is usually the most friendly to the Lib Dems of all the firms and has been the only one to rate them at 20% or more since Clegg came in. Today’s 18% is a blow and is the first time since in early January that the party has slipped back into the teens.

Of course this might just be one survey and poll watchers will be looking carefully at the April Populus survey in the Times which should be out on Tuesday. Last time the firm had the Lib Dems on 19% - will that, like ICM show a drop?

For the real damage from the “no more than 30 partners” admission is that it shows Clegg to be naive and perhaps a bit too ready to talk about things that most people regard as being private.

The following was in the New Statesman last October, when Clegg was fighting for the leadership and features comment by the shadow minister for culture, Ed Vaizey after spending six gruelling days with Clegg trekking to the Arctic: “Nick’s a lovely guy but he’s terribly vain. For the entire trip he harped on about how he was number one in a Sky poll of ‘Most Fanciable MPs’ and that I was only number nine. We shared an igloo and the intimate, bonding evening chat was based on how good-looking he is. I was referred to only by my fanciability ranking of number nine“

My guess is that the interviewer, Piers Morgan, was aware of Nick’s readiness to talk about these areas when he led the questioning in this direction?

Mike Smithson

Will the week’s media spotlight have produced a higher LD share?

Here’s a ballsy prediction that could fall flat on its face - the Populus poll for March that should be due out this evening will not show a reduction for the Lib Dems but will have the party holding its own or moving forward.

On the face of it this would appear counter-intuitive given some of the savagings Nick Clegg has had to endure over the past few days following the revolt by a sizeable proportion of his MPs over his EU referendum vote strategy in the Commons. Because the party had the chance to seriously embarrass the government but didn’t it was inevitable that spotlight was on them.

My guess is that the level of media coverage that Clegg’s party commanded rather than what they actually did or didn’t do will be reflected in the survey.

The reason, of course, is that in normal times Britain’s third party finds it difficult getting its voice heard and can go for long periods receiving only the most minimal media attention. So when voters are called at random by the polling companies the party is at the back of their minds when they are asked how they would vote. This weekend’s Populus survey could have been different.

This is the same thinking behind my theory that Tory poll shares are directly correlated to the amount of coverage the party, and particularly the leader, have commanded in the days leading up to the fieldwork. This is irrespective of whether the stories are good or bad.

This last weekend - Populus fieldwork usually start on Friday and runs through till Sunday - things will have been different. Although much of the coverage for Clegg’s party has not been flattering at least voters will have been reminded of their existence and that what their MPs do in parliament can be important.

The issue of Europe, as discussed earlier in the week, is of almost no significance except to very minor groups of Euroloons on both sides of the argument who feel very passionately.

A month ago Populus had CON 40%: LAB 31%: LD 17%.

Mike Smithson

Was the LD survey designed to give the result the leadership wanted?

My general suspicion of ALL privately commissioned polls has been reinforced by two surveys in the past 24 hours which relate to the big vote in the Commons tomorrow over whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

This is an issue where the Lib Dem group of MPs could be decisive and the polls relate directly to them. One commissioned by the party from MORI was of voters as a whole - the other from a pro-referendum group was restricted to Lib Dem voters from 2005. The outcomes are remarkably different and this comes down to the way the questions were put. The LD paid for MORI poll asked two questions:-

The second sentence of Question 2 makes me very uneasy. Franky it stinks because it’s formatted as a forced choice - a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty OR on Britain’s membership of the EU altogether. The answer “both” was not put as an option although the pollster recorded the views of those who said this.

So amongst Lib Dem voters alone 30% wanted a referendum on the treaty, 37% wanted one on membership and just 7% said both - findings that are being trumpeted by the party to claim that there is widespread public support for its position of just wanting the “in or out” referendum.

That would have been fine except that within an hour or so the pro-referendum group Iwantareferendum produced an ICM poll giving a completely different picture. To the question “Do you think that voters in Britain should decide, in a referendum, whether or not to ratify the EU treaty, or should MPs in Parliament decide?” 67% of LD voters said “voters should decide in a referendum” against 30% who said “MPs should decide in Parliament”.

On the type of referendum 25% agreed with the Nick Clegg view that “We should have a one question referendum on simply being in or out of the European Union” while 70% agreed that “We should have a two question referendum: one question on simply being in or out of the European Union and then another question on whether or not to sign up to the new treaty”.

The difference between the two polls is that the LibDem funded one did not give the express option of both possible referendums - the ICM one did. For my money the latter gives a better representation of opinion.

The division between the two polls could be crucial today ahead of tomorrow’s vote. There are reports that Clegg is facing a rebellion amongst part of his parliamentary party who want to vote with the Tories. The polls discussed here could play a part in that debate.

Mike Smithson

How big a risk is Nick Clegg taking?

You don’t have to spend much time ploughing through the comments on PBC to work out that the most ferocious attacks on the Tories are not from Labour supporters but from Lib Dems. Those who work for the party in areas where the Conservatives are their main opponents are usually the most vocal - and this is reciprocated.

So how are these Lib Dem supporters going to view the statements today by their new leader, Nick Clegg, in the Financial Times saying his party “could” support a minority Conservative government after the next election.

This is getting onto tricky territory and, clearly, Clegg is using his honeymoon period to get controversial ideas out early. It’s much harder to oppose a leader in his first six months than later. Certainly his predecessor, Ming Campbell, ran into serious trouble eleven months ago when at a conference in Harrogate he gave the strong impression that there could be no deals with the Tories.

Of course Clegg attaches conditions to his comments but as the FT notes, these are fairly similar to what Cameron was saying on the weekend before Clegg’s election.

The real problem is on the ground in both opposition parties. The most highly contested seats at the next election, bearing in mind what happened last time, will be CON>LD and LD>CON marginals. Turnout will be much higher than where Labour is in contention or defending and there will be a lot more activity.

The crazy thing from both Cameron’s and Clegg’s point of view is that such fights will have zero impact on whether Labour retains its majority or not. It’s Labour seats where the battle-ground will be not the side-show of LD-Tory contests.

My sense is that Clegg is being quite smart politically. The sentiments he has expressed might make it easier to defend Lib Dem incumbents who are facing a strong Tory challenge.

Mike Smithson

Will he be able to cope with the Vince Cable comparisons?

The first PMQs after the Christmas recess is at noon and will be the first occasion when the young new Lib Dem leader gets his chance to put two questions to the Prime Minister.

After yesterday’s 3% boost in the Lib Dem share with Populus Clegg must be feeling that bit more confident.

No one will be aware more than him what happened exactly two years ago when his predecessor, Ming Campbell, did his first PMQs in the first session of 2006. A wounding heckle about Ming needing to “declare an interest” over his age by the late Eric Forth brought laughter from all sides and left the acting leader floundering.

Clegg’s task today has not been made any easier by the way that the stand-in leader, Vince Cable has emerged as such a dominant commons figure particularly in the way he has been able to poke fun at Gordon. But without in anyway undermining Vince’s performance’s he has had an easier ride. There’s been no need for the other parties to knock him down because he was only temporary.

That won’t be the same with Nick Clegg for both the Tory and Labour thug elements having a real interest in inflicting early damage. Whatever they say the success or failure of Clegg’s party will have a big impact on the next election.

The voters that all three main parties are scrapping over occupy the part of the political spectrum where the Lib Dems have most appeal. Labour wants back the supporters who switched in 2005 and the Tories want to hold onto to those Lib Dems who have been attracted by Cameron.

Make no mistake PMQs are important for all the party leaders. In normal times the government has such a control of the news agenda that this weekly ritual can often be the only occasion that the opposition parties can get heard.

My guess is that Clegg will survive OK this lunch-time. He’s not one to leave things to chance and will have been working hard at game-playing and preparing some aces for Gordon.

Live streaming should be available here on the BBC Parliament homepage.

Mike Smithson