Brown boost continues in three new polls
Posted on July 22nd, 2007 by Anthony Wells
I’m on holiday at the moment, with an intermittent internet connecton so blogging will be slow over the next week. Two new polls in the Sunday papers both show Labour leads pretty consistent with the last ICM poll – YouGov in the Sunday Times has CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 15%, MORI in the Observer has CON 35%, LAB 41%, LDEM 15%.
UPDATE – Make that three. ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian has a similar Labour lead – CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 20%.
Filed under: MORI, Voting Intention, YouGov
More people think now that Gordon Brown’s best interest would be to set an election date in October (the 25th according to some tabloid). Some others think that Brown is well known for being risk-averse, so he won’t take the chance…
A few percentage points on Labour’s baseline 30% would have been a boost. Several polls breaking the significant 40% barrier look like more of a return to 1994-2007 (or at the very least 2005) levels of support. Underlying figures on leadership etc are even better for Brown. The perception of division and failiure towards Cameron’s Conservatives may from the events of the past week become cumulative and feed their decline in the polls.
Should have read 1994-1997
Both polls show Lib-Dem support at a relatively low level. Is this because previously anti-Blair voters are returning to the Labour fold now that they are no longer waiting for Gordo? And yet, the Lib-Dems did well in the two recent by-elections.Did the Tories in those two polls lose support to the Lib-Dems? Clearly there is some volatility in the electorate at the present time. We may have to wait until after the recess when matters may have settled down for a more stable political outlook. David Cameron is saying he will stand firm. Is he wise to do so? Party conferences will surely yield some fascinating interchanges. We shall have to be patient.
This shows the Conservative Party under David Cameron under trouble!
Looks Labour doing well so far and could win an early election!
Given the publicity and media support for a ‘new’ story, a Brown Bounce was to be expected. However, these polls, and the underlying questions regarding leadership qualities suggest very bad news for the Conservatives. It may be that Brown has captured the public mood with a serious, no frills approach to politics, while Cameron’s ‘Heir to Blair’ tag is making the mistake of fighting the last election, not the next one. Whatever Tory high command may say, the by elections are a disaster for an aspiring party of government, and it’s striking how quickly public and media sentiment has turned against Cameron. This may indicate the recent Tory lead was based more an a desire to kick Blair, rather than change government, although when asked previously about a Brown leadership the Tory lead went up – what’s going on?
Perhaps we are seeing a shift of public perception – Cameron promised, but failed to deliver a coherent strategy and is stuck in a PR mindset. That worked against Blair, but Brown needs a different approach. The risk for the Tories is that this is now established in the public mindset, (and we can be sure that Labour/Lib Dems will play the ‘Sham Cam’ card for all it’s worth), and once that happens it’s very hard for an opposition party to change. Remember Neil Kinnock and the ‘Welsh Windbag’ jibe? That haunted Labour and set the tone for a fourth election defeat in 1992.
I think that the “David Camerons Conservatives” on the ballot paper did him no good, maybe He was thinking about the fact that when the alternate leaders were mentioned in past polls, i.e. Cameron and Brown (as the probable new Labour leader), then Conservative support went up, this seems to show this was a silly idea and may haunt Cameron for some time.
The main argument I can think of for Brown not going for an early election is the fact that even if he wins such an election he will then have a maximum of only 6 years as prime minister, unless he manages to win a 5th election victory for Labour which must surely be unlikely. I would think that he would like to be PM for a bit longer than that; probably he’d like to be there for at least 8 years, longer than John Major.
Andy Stidwill, I tend not to agree with you, not about the timing of the next general election, I think Gordon will wait for maybe 6 months, see how the polls are going and then decide when to call an election.
I can see no reason, at present, given the state of the Tories and Libdems, why Gordon Brown Can’t win another 3 electins and then hand over to someone like Ed Balls.
Interesting that Neil Kinnock is mentioned here because I’ve seen in several other places comparisons of Kinnock to David Cameron. Basically well-meaning but politically not very effective.
At this rate New Labour could well be in power for a long time. Just keep centrist, recycle leaders when the public get tired of them, hope nothing goes too wrong. All the opposition can offer is a change – but would it be change for the better? “Hmmm.” I wonder where democracy stands in such a scenario.
I think the chances of Labour winning 5 elections in a row are very low; voters understand that it’s important to change the goverment at least once every 20 years. Otherwise, the country would start to resemble a one-party state.
Or the voters may decide – as they did under the long period of Social Democrat rule in Sweden – that stability under a centre left progressive government is preferable to change?
I can’t see a good government being kicked out for a bad opposition just because we reach 20 years!
”Andy Stidwill
I think the chances of Labour winning 5 elections in a row are very low; voters understand that it’s important to change the goverment at least once every 20 years. ”
Nope, sorry. The vast majority of the electorate does not care about this, ever. it’s only the nerds like us who would see this as important. The electorate is far more immediate and selfish in its concerns.
I think what would prevent the current government being in power forever is mistakes and unforseen events. And of course if the electorate has a viable alternative.
Gary: ‘I think that the “David Camerons Conservatives” on the ballot paper did him no good’
In both ES and Sedgefield the Tory share of the vote held up (in fact rose slightly) which if memory serves hasn’t happened since the Preston by election in 2000.
Hmmm, a few good polls for Brown and we’re already talking about a one-party state! Didn’t they used to say that about the Tories?
Whilst democracy can replace bad governments with alternate ones (at general elections), it can also encourage the government to do the right thing because they fear being hoofed out? and, unlike in real one-party states, the public has plenty of opportunity to show its displeasure via opinion polls, by-elections, local elections, devolved parliaments and assemblies, and even an elected mayor in the capital.
There are other reasons why 5 successive Labour victories are unlikely:
The Tories polled most votes in England in 2005, which comprises about 85% of the population of the UK, a proportion which is rising all the time. Areas where Labour are most strong, such as Scotland, Wales, and the North East, are experiencing either static or negative population growth.
The South East, which is experiencing the fastest growth, recorded the following result in 2005:
CON: 45%
LD: 25%
LAB: 24%
Only the votes of those declining regions enabled Labour to win a 3rd victory in 2005 with a measily 36% of the vote. I can’t see them winning a 5th.
The last time the Conservative vote held up in a by-election was actually Blaenau Gwent, but obviously that was something of an unusual case, since they started in fifth place and only got about 12 votes. Prior to that it was Cheadle (a straight Lib Dem/Conservative race where Labour were about as popular as the Tories in Gwent, hence they were no going to lose out to a third party). The last time they held their own in a by-election in a Labour held seat where had started out second was Tottenham.
Jack/Andy/etc – Party’s don’t stay in forever because of “time for a change”. Every government, no matter how wonderful, annoys people over time. There are very few policies or decisions a government can make that don’t annoy someone. After a while people think it’s time for a change – sometimes of course that desire is cancelled out because the opposition is so scary or useless the public aren’t confident enough to opt for change (that’s what probably happened in 92, people thought it was time for a change, but were still scared of a Labour government…then realised a couple of months down the line that, no – they really HAD wanted a change and now they were stuck with the Tories for 5 years). If a government is to stay in power beyond 3 or 4 terms it needs to renew itself in office to address the inevitable desire for change – a prime opportunity is a change of leader. We’ll see in the future to what extent it has worked.
It is interesting that it has been suggested that the Lib dems have done well. I would be interested to see some comparisons with the two recent by-elections with their previous performances. I understand (from the BBC – no phone in involved) that ealing was the first time they haven’t won a by-election from second place since 1066. It seems to me that they are in trouble as even the high profile of a by-election isn’t leading to a dramatic swing – remember they were always considered the party of the by-election. Coupled with the may local elections it seems they have run out of steam.
Realistically a 5th win is unlikely but it is certainly possible, Sweeden has been mentioned already, Japan had democratic elections from 1945 but the LDP was in power for almost all of it the “change” has been changes of LDP leaders.
Brown is actually marginally older than Blair so assuming he goes in 2009, and wins is it realistic for him to be going for a third term in 2013 or would they be handing over to the next generation around the time of the Olympics?
The Tories will have a good argument of “time for a change” but some of the long term investment in public services by then will either be seen as having been worth it, or being seen as a waste of resources if after 15 years NHS, and Transport is not seen as dramatically better. That will probably be more of an issue than the time for a change debate, and of course who can predict what will have happened on the rest of the planet by then.
Hillary Clinton will be starting her second term, Iraq hopefully will be at peace, but who could have predicted in 1987 what would have changed by 1993.
Yes, finally there is a ‘time for a change’ but that is in no way the primary cause of how people vote; it is an argument used by the swinging intelligent voter (a miniscule part of the electorate, but one loved by the chattering Westminster classes who love to believe in it as it magnifies their importance). That’s why if we are going for cliches ‘governments lose elections’; oppositions don’t win them. People didn’t vote for Blair the first time- they voted against a stale govt. They also found no reason to vote against Blair the 2nd time (he didn’t win the electorate, just hadn’t done enough to annoy them). The 3rd time they voted Labour in despite Blair (as the tories were still rubbish; because that’s as valid a reason for the Brown bounce as any).
The primary voting position of the electorate is personal as shown by the emotional but hugely financially successful tabloid press; it’s hip pocket nerve and scare stories about how we need to jail everyone for life as we are all being robbed in our homes which win elections. And how all immigrants (or do I mean asylum seekers or foreigners) are evil? Or perhaps this argument has been deliberately not clarified by all political parties? Surely this is why the mad tory rednecks are now out to get Cameron because he’s not going back to the slash and burn policies of the past tory govts. He’s actually going to the centre where the people who change their votes actually live(and, for fun, let’s all get cross with the evil EU which is undeniably worse than Satan- this has to be true I read it in the tabloids).
And yes, I’m in a slightly cynical mood tonight
“In both ES and Sedgefield the Tory share of the vote held up (in fact rose slightly) which if memory serves hasn’t happened since the Preston by election in 2000.”
Quite, but shouldn’t the main opposition party be winning by elections? Both the Tories in the 74-79 parliament, and Labour in the 92-97 parliament overturned large majorites to take seats from the governing party.The Tories are hailing holding their vote share as a success.It isn’t.
“It is interesting that it has been suggested that the Lib dems have done well. I would be interested to see some comparisons with the two recent by-elections with their previous performances”
in terms of the swing to the LDs it was very modest by usual by election standards. Their usual by election trick is to pull off a swing of 20%+
I agree with Brian Swift. The Tories are defending their performances in the two by-elections because their vote rose by 0.2% and 0.9%. That’s pretty scant progress by anyone’s standards compared to the huge swings the Tories had in 1974-79 and Labour in 1992-97.
I seem to remember a bye-election I think before the 1987 election, it was the largest swing to Labour for over 50 years, something crazy like 25 or 30% (I can’t remember exactly), yet guess who won the 1987 election?
Keith –
Hammersmith and Fulham 1986, Con to Lab swing was something like 11%
Brecon and Radnor 1985, Con to Lab swing was about 15% (although the Libs won)
or are you thinking of Mid Staffordshire in 1989 (21.3% swing)
see here
(apologies if I’ve worked the swings out wrong)
I don’t think a few polls mean that much. I wonder how much Labour voters will like Brown’s very puritan and authoritarian style ( apparently he’s now decided he thinks pubs are open too long). However it’s clear that Cameron is in real trouble with his party – definitely not a good time for him to be in Africa. Really with Brown it’s events dear boy events – doesn’t seem as if flood defence was his top subject at school.
I read that someone got shot in the head trying to enforce the smoking ban – certainly if Brown can’t enforce his many laws he definitely won’t win the election. Even dear old Maggie found that out after the Poll Tax riot.
My non-political view is that it probably doesn’t matter who wins the next election – I think Tony Blair picked a good time to leave. The natives are getting restless.
Jack,
Cynical, lyrical – or in vino veritas ?
Whatever, you are quite right that the average voter approaches the ballot box with selfish rather than altruistic principles. This is probably why throughout the 80s people repeatedly told pollsters they were happy to pay more in tax to fund “good causes” but then voted for the low tax party. Labour only became a “credible” alternative when it pledged “not to increase tax” – which Gordon Brown has probably convinced himself is a promise they honoured.
Once the pocket has been protected, people tend to focus on “gut” issues – which include asylum/immigration and the EU.
The danger for Brown is that if he refuses to allow a referendum on the EU this could rebound as one of those gut issues where he will be seen to have reneged on a promise.
Despite the short-term gain Brown is seeing in the polls, theer are still pitfalls ahead, and if the economy suffers he will be trouble. Even if things remain relatively stable, as others have noted – including Wolf – the natives may be getting restless.
Whatever his faults, I suspect that Cameron will do better in a gut issues election.
Perhaps Brown will cut and run, but as yet I doubt it.
Reading the Guardian online there are some subsidary polls along with the main voting intention poll. One of these was
“Among Conservative voters, 42% say they like the party but dislike Mr Cameron. Only 3% answer the other way around. Just over half (52%) say they like both party and leader”
That’s pretty serious for Mr Cameron.
More significantly “21% of voters say their opinion of Gordon Brown has improved in the last month, against only 8% who say it has fallen. 21% of voters say their opinion of Cameron has dropped. Almost one in four Tory voters say their view of Mr Brown has gone up since he took over – and in total nine out of ten voters say their view has either gone up or stayed the same. 60% of Labour voters think he is offering new policies and 63% a new style of government. 49% of voters say he represents a change in leadership style and 43% think he has changed policy direction.”
When we had local elections here, where I live, the Conservative literatureb was mainly about David Cameron.
Where the main opponent, mainly a local Independent, attacked on local issues, they improved their position. The other Parties did not. I suspect that the Cameron effect is wearing off and they must get down to swing hearts and minds.
Just accept that Labour are in power forever. I accepted this years ago.
Not convinced that the EU referendum is an issue for the average voter; hardly ‘hip-pocket nerve, what’s happening in my street, crime, nasty migrants taking jobs, do I have a job, can my children get a house land’ although everything against the EU is beloved by the Daily Mail. (And it wasn’t in vino veritas by the way; hadn’t had a drop (that night)). Actually the EU referendum is dead in the water if you consider tabloids over the last month or so. Equally there is no reason for Brown to offer it and all the tories seem is powerless when they demand something and don’t get it; it’s not an issue that people are screaming about on the streets. Hardly a poll tax, at most a niggle for the little englanders…
I think there is a new poll in Friday’s telegraph that shows labour 9 points ahead.
If I were Brown I’d be calling an election for October with just 3 weeks notice like Thatcher once did – just after the conference! It would leave the Tories with a real problem and would maximise Labour support and would probably be the worst time for the Tories. I can see the Libs doing pretty well in an October/Autumn election too.
I wonder if it will happen! It would produce interesting polling results for sure!
Jack,
No, the EU is definitely not a hip-pocket issue. My point was that if the pocket looks safe either way, then the voter turns to gut issues. The EU is a matter for the heart not the head, and that is a difficulty for Brown.
I disagree that there is no reason for Brown to offer a referendum – other than the obvious one that he might (would?) lose it. The Labour manifesto of 2005 included a refendum pledge. Denying one now is a clear reversal of an election promise. That is a dangerous thing for any governing party to do.
On the other hand I agree that there is little point in Cameron publicly demanding a referendum until such time as the treaty comes to Parliament for ratification. However, at that point he can justifiably demand one, and there is every possibility that the treaty would not get through Parliament without a referendum. Even if Brown arm-twisted his own party to refuse one in the Commons, it will get added in the Lords.
In fact, trying to win an election before putting the EU treaty to Parliament is probably the strongest argument for a snap election – though of course it would not be presented that way. But of course, Brown would then be facing a combined opposition committed to holding a referendum (not just Tories but also LDs and, I believe SNP / PC too) leaving him looking isolated – and reinforcing the negative control-freak impressions he has recently done well to shake off.
Back in the spring, regular commentators on this site all agreed that the polls would be in a form of suspended animation until Brown became PM, and that there would then be a “Brown Bounce”. It will not be until autumn that we know for sure how robust or permanent the bounce will be – though Brown has indeed got off to a far better start than most expected.
Of course if Brown does go for an autumn election, that will produce some real fireworks – and give the polling industry a boost too.
Gordon… seems to be reinventing the wheel, his policies are the same as 97 and has had more time and influence as part of the so called new labour to have been able to complete his promises..after all he has been in government for the past 10yrs not a Blair poodle (is he a poodle in disguise)and not the rottweiler he proclaims to be.. instead of just waffle and new labour rhetoric…I feel that the English residence of the UK will see through him and send him back to Scotland were he heralds from… we can then have a sensible and coherent government the conservatives
Please let’s send all these Scots packing back to Scotland soon.
This is England and we need an English PM who is looking after England, the English people, and all English interests.
Scotland has its own Parliament now, Wales has its own Assembly, and Northern Ireland once again has its Assembly, therefore it follows England should have its own Parliament apart from Westminster which is the British Parliament. The Westminster Parliament must be converted to an all English Parliament which concerns itself with England and English interests only.
The time has come – actually, it’s well past the time, for all four nations of the UK to go their separate ways for the benefit of each but mainly for the benefit of England. The three other countries, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have become millstones round the neck of Mother England.
Mother England must cut the cords and start taking care of herself, her own people, and her own interests.
The three ‘children’, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland must be kicked out of the nest and fend for themselves. Time to grow up! If they manage to do so, great! If not, don’t come crying to Mother England as we don’t want to know.
Another matter of priority is to send that foreign German false ‘royal’ family packing back to the Fatherland. The only ones who are permitted to remain are TRH, Princes William and Harry as they are TRUE, GENUINE, BRITISH/ENGLISH ROYALTY thanks to their mum, HRH, Princess Diana, The One and Only True Princess of Wales who is the TRUE, GENUINE ROYAL as a result of her vast DIRECT ROYAL lineage and heritage. Prince William will be the first TRUE, GENUINE ROYAL BRITISH/ENGLISH monarch in well over 300 years thanks to his mum’s heritage. Long live King William V. Long may he reign over us. God save King William V!