Labour back ahead with ComRes
A ComRes poll in the Independent has headline voting intention figures, with changes from their last poll, of CON 34%(-2), LAB 37%(+1), LDEM 15%(nc). Like YouGov yesterday it shows a widening of the Labour lead (or in this case, a re-establishment of it). While the changes in YouGov’s poll alone weren’t enough to be confident that anything had changed, the addition of this poll begins to suggest a pattern of labour widening their lead once again.
Unfortunately the poll was conducted on Monday and Tuesday last week, so is actually older than the weekend’s YouGov poll and considerably prior to Northern Rock’s difficulties. We await the first poll to give us any real idea of what political impact, if any, the economic wobbles of the last couple of days has had.
Note that in the Independent’s coverage of the poll they say that, if repeated at a general election on a uniform swing, these figures would reduce the Lib Dems to 13 seats. This is wrong: the Independent’s figures are based on the Electoral Calculus calculator which uses a modified proportional swing, on a uniform swing these results would produce a House of Commons with 229 for the Conservatives, 353 seats for Labour and 39 seats for the Liberal Democrats.
Filed under: Communicate, Voting Intention
So it appears that if an election were called now – subject to the impact of Northern Rock – the result would be essentially the same as 2005. However it seems that the government are damping down October speculation. That makes sense. Why call a GE only two and half years into a parliament unless you appear to be set for a resounding victory.
Paul…because you think it might only get worse!
I don’t think Brown will call an election this year (at least, not without a much larger lead than he’s got at the moment) but the argument in favour of it would not necesarily be that he’d increase his majority, but that he’d do better now than he would do by waiting a year or two
but Anthony, GB would be accused of cutting and running – I don’t think the lead is anywhere near big enough to risk the suspicion that he was frightened of what was going to come out in the next couple of years if he went now.
Who would he be accused of cutting and running by Paul: the Tories – who demanded an early general election; or the Lib Dems – who demanded an early general election?
As if anyone outside Westminster pays any attention to these boring, irrelevant partisan point scoring routines anyway – any more than blaming Brown for Northern Rock makes the Tories look anything other than cynically opportunist.
Brown should go to the country in the first week of November. He won’t, but he should; and as this is the harshest of the pollsters for Labour (and the most erratic) I don’t think this poll does anything to re-frame this discussion one way or the other.
Adam – with the changes in methodology ComRes should be far more consistent now. Overtime I’d expect them to be much less volatile – slightly more so than Populus, ICM and YouGov, but less so than MORI, or than they themselves used to be.
That said, I would indeed normally expect them to produce the best scores for the Conservatives relative to Labour (though not overall, since they produce very high figures for ‘others’, depressing everyone else’s share) though that said, the “Brown boost” seems to have upset all our assumptions about the house effect of each pollster’s methodology – in the past Populus always produced much better figures for Labour than YouGov did…not so lately.
I am disenchanted with all parties. Whoever gets in, will make no difference to the English people. We are always going to have “jam tomorrow”.
I have just read in todays Mail that immigrants are claiming Benefit for the children they have left behind in their home country. I thought I must have misread the article. How can Gordon Brown justify this, when there are English Children and English Pensioners living on the bread line?
Is it a ‘Brown boost’ or a ‘removal of Bliar’ recovery? I know the impact is the same but the idea that people positively disliked Blair need to be considered; for example I argue that Labour won the last election despite Blair, not because of him. With his removal is Labour merely going back to its recent ‘normal’ percentages rather than a positive swing to Brown?
Obviously it’s hard to tell – voting intention questions aren’t followed up with the question “Why?” (and people wouldn’t necessary know!). My guess is actually that it’s more a positive reaction to Brown than the absence of a negative reaction to Blair (though no doubt there must be some degree of both). It fits better with the figures showing that Brown has a positive approval rating, but that the government’s approval rating, while recovering slightly, is still strongly negative.
Brown isn’t a neutral, merely an absence of effect replacing the strong negative of Blair. Brown is a positive and presumably he must be cancelling out the negative of the government as a whole.
Could this now be described as a Double Bounce???
The sight of queues around the block of people withdrawing cash (however wrong-headed they might be) , frays the nerves enough to want Brown to put off an election until at least next year. This is his first real challenge, and if he and Darling can steer the economy through to calmer waters next year, then his government be rewarded in the polls. The last thing he should want (as the architect of Britain’s economic performance over the last ten years) is the frenzy of a General Election campaign. Whatever party the voters favour, all voters want a stable economy, and would not forgive Brown if his calling an early election increased the level uncertainty. Of course he’d be accused of cutting and running, but then he’ll be accused of freezing like a frightened rabbit if he doesn’t. The voters won’t be bothered with with either accusation.
The two recent polls are entirely consistent in that they show a Labour improvement of a couple of points on the last time that the two pollsters undertook a survey. All this demonstrates is that the public are unsurprisingly swayed in the short term by headlines and the degree to which the party leaders have air time on the news.
There is a great deal of attention being given to the Northern Rock situation and how this might affect the polls. While it may have an effect this week, it will have evaporated from people’s minds a few weeks later. The only way that I see this damaging Brown in the medium to long term is if there are now a succession of economic events which herald a broader downturn. While each side will suggest what they want to happen, they would be best advised to await events.
I consider an Autumn election unlikely but not out of the question. As Anthony pointed out, the equation is not so much whether Brown can be sure of a whopping majority but whether he thinks that he will poll better now than in a year’s time. My personal view is that things can only get worse for him and while there is a risk, he would be best advised to go to the country if the polls continue to show that he has a lead of 3-5 points. My suspicion however is that Brown’s conservatism will stop him taking that chance.
So on this level of polling Labour would end up with much the same number of seats (and a majority of around 60) with the Tories gaining 30 or so at the expense of the Lib Dems?
PMs have gone to the country on much worse predictions than this – and perhaps long periods of very large majorities have made us forget that post-WW2 a majority of 60 seats is an extremely healthy one which many governments would have given their right arms for.
Arnie
i agree, awaiting events is surely the only option for Labour’s opponents. It will be very tempting to use the conferences to blame Brown’s policies for economic disaster, but there is none – yet. If they attack him on the economy, and it turns out that disaster is averted, they will only lose credibility. So far, Brown has been a “lucky general” Elections tend to be lost rather than won, so there’s no point sticking the neck out. The question “what would you do now?” is a lot harder for Cameron and Campbell to answer than “what would you have done then?” Just wait and see.
Where it not for the novelty of having a new Prime Minister-only our fourth in 28 years-there is no reason to suppose that the opinion polls would be showing anything other than the trends portrayed as recently as last June and which had in the form of a Tory lead persisted for 18 months before that. The Labour lead is soft-it could easily collapse and revert right back to where it was the moment Brown called an election and voters focused on the choice in front of them rather than indulging in the very British trait of allowing a newcomer a period of grace. Neither the ComRes poll nor that from YouGov would tempt me if I were Brown to take such a gamble and with a financial crisis in full swing he would be barking mad to do so
The real issue for Brown is the gap between polls and actual results.
In 2005 the poll of polls predicted Labour 37.6%, Tories 32% and Lib Dems 22.6%. The results were Tory 33% (+1), Labour 36% (-1.6), and Lib Dem 23% (+0.4).
If that pattern was repeated based on the ComRes poll the election results would be Tory 35%, Labour 35.4%, Lib Dem 15.4%. If you put those results through Anthony’s doohickey you get a tiny (and probably unworkable) Labour majority.
“Where it not for the novelty of having a new Prime Minister-only our fourth in 28 years-there is no reason to suppose that the opinion polls would be showing anything other than the trends portrayed as recently as last June and which had in the form of a Tory lead persisted for 18 months before that. The Labour lead is soft-it could easily collapse and revert right back to where it was the moment Brown called an election and voters focused on the choice in front of them rather than indulging in the very British trait of allowing a newcomer a period of grace.”
That’s a very interesting insight Nick – I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say that before.
I think the British people, as a rule, are kind and forgiving to a newcomer and quite merciless after the ‘newness’ has worn off. This is certainly what happened with Cameron.
The Tory lead for 18 months meant something, and I need to see another 6 months of Labour leads to be comvinced that Labour are heading towards a 4th victory.
The scenario of the Tories suddenly moving ahead upon an election announcement as Nick suggests wouldn’t be unprecedented. It happened at the 1970 general election when Edward Heath won a surprise victory, after Labour had been 12% ahead.
It is a logical theory too. For the Tories to be anything less than 3% ahead in the popular vote at the next election would be breaking the “electoral cycle” for the first time since the coming of universal adult suffrage.
I think that most people are pretty sceptical about all politicians. Brown has now got some real problems. If the present bank situation goes wrong I think he may not see out the year. If he can solve it I think he,ll trash Cameron whenever the next election is.News that Alliance and Leicester shares fell by a third in half an hour can’t be good news. Some economic sites are suggesting that Darling’s decision to guarantee Northern Rock deposits is the equivalent of Norman Lamont’s 15% bank rate.
Anthony , I note on the Yougov website , they have published a poll on COnference Issues for the LibDem Treasury Team .
TONY JONES :-
My postings seem not to appear – maybe this one will
TONY JONES :-
I wrote the other day that your ticking clock is still appreciated and i stand by my forecast in the POLLS of a Tory lead by the end of September – watch and wait
If Brown were the political genius he thinks he is he’d make Ken Clarke an offer.
I am trying to work out which party has the most partisans on here. I thought it was the Tories to start with, but quite a few Labour guys have been appearing recently.
One of the things I like best about this site is non-partisan discussions by politicos.
It will be interesting to see if this Northen Rock thing damages Labour. Now, I know Black Wednesday was a complete horlicks but the public opinion swing after it was quite remarkable, as was the lasting damage the Tories sustained on economic credibility. Even though – by most neutral accounts – they ran the economy pretty well from then on to 1997, the public would not change their view. Whatever your view on the Tories and the economy, I’m sure you’d agree the size, scale, and endurance of the swing against the Tories after Black Wednesday was one of the most remarkable shifts in British public opinion there has ever been.
I think, sometimes in politics, the public can sometimes turn extremely violently and perceptions can be permanently altered- it needs a trigger. I’m not suggesting this will be it for Labour, but I do think it is possible that in a few years down the line with economic pessimism gorwing (quite steeply, according to polls) something like this may happen, and their will be a monumental public recoil against the government.
It may sound fancifal, but that is what happened to the tories, and I see no reason why any Government couldn’t be vulnerable to something similar.
Lukw – all the parties have too many partisans on. The thing you like best is specifically what the comments here are intended for. Look like I’m going to have to do some stricter moderation for a while.
Lukw: Black Wednesday and its effects on future polls and events is really quite remarkable. I am admittedly partisan, but I genuinely and firmly believe the economy was transformed for the better between 1979-1997. Yet the Tories left with their reputation in tatters.
All 3 parties had believed in the ERM, yet its failure left just the Tory government and the party taking the blame.
I do think this has lessons for the future. I don’t believe the blame or loss of credibility was at all fair, but life’s not fair and we need to accept that. But I also think it points to an important lesson for oppositions: opposing for oppositions sake is silly, but what can work to your advantage is turning past events and not having to manage future ones.
Heralding doom over Northern Rock etc would be foolhardy for the opposition, but if events here or elsewhere were to turn sour and get worse then afterwards it could be used to advantage. If they were to say something now it could easily blow up in their face.
Many people are wanting Cameron to offer “hostages to fortune” by making concrete policy pledges now, but I think what Blair and Labour did so well was to turn what had happened against Major, not pledge on what they would do instead.
“You should/shouldn’t have done this” is far easier after the fact to say than “we will do this” before it – and is often more powerful.
Anthony -
Philip Thompson repeats almost verbatim the point I made above, and yet (I can reveal) doesn’t vote the same way as I do. Although the discussions sometimes wander away from the point and into partisan debate, some of the exchanges are quite enlightening, so as long as discussion is intelligent and ,modderate, I hope you won’t need to moderate too much.
John, as light a touch as I possibly can. The overwhelming majority of people (including you and Philip) post in the spirit of the site and will see their posts sail through as usual.
Philip Thompson,
I am pretty much with you in this.
Although I am anything but a Tory, tactically, I think Camerons best hope is to mirror the SNP strategy of “It’s Time”, making the case that Labour have had long enough and it’s time to give the Tories a chance.
I’ve said it before, but I think a big mistake that the Tories made was not blaming Thatcher for the ERM disaster as she took them in pretty much without discussing it with major, her Chancellor, or the EU.
It wouldn’t really have been fair to dump all the blame on her, but as Nixon said it would give them deniability, and as you said lifes not fair…
It’s quite right that everyone at the time backed the ERM, and I seem to remember Labour MP’s jeering the Tories when entry was announced because they felt that it was a Tory U-turn and an adoption of a Labour policy.
It’s odd to think what would have happened if Major had lost and John Smith had lost the nations foreign reserves, or had had to devalue. Probably no Blair and a Ken Clarke Government.
Browns defence against the Tories (but not against the LibDems as they have at least been warning on debt) should be well you haven’t been complaining about the banks, and oddly enough if Cameron had warned about debt or Bank lending the right of his own party would probably have attacked him.
We’ll know a lot more by Sunday as I suspect that with the Government raising the stakes by guarenteeing all deposits at the NR, at least some of the Sundays will be commissioning polls on the crisis.
Hopefully they will probably ask;
1) Who’s to blame ( NR, BoE, FSA, Brown, Speculators, Banks, public).
Has it made you more or less likely to vote for.
2) Were people right to remove money,
3) Has it effected the credibility of ( Brown, Labour, Cameron, Banks, BOE, FSA).
4) Should there be tighter lending restrcitions on Banks or Individuals.
5) Will it/Should it effect the amount banks are willing to lend home buyers.
6) Do you think property prices will be effected by the credit squeeze.
7) How do you think it will effect your household.
9) Who do you think would best run the economy.
The answers to these type of questions in the days before the two main Party conferences (the NR has had the adverse effect of knocking the poor LibDem’s conference out of the news when they of all the parties needed a conference boost, and probabyhad the most to say about it) could well set the agenda for the political debate for the autumn and in to the winter.
It could be a classic example of the power of polls to crystalise the national mood and alter the political climate.
Peter.
Peter
I often wonder what would/wouldn’t have happened if the Tories had got back in in 1997, but I don’t want to open that can of worms here!
It’s clear that the public is very sensitive to debate when it comes to their own money, and for that reason alone, the “it’s the economy, stupid” brigade will feel vindicated.
Some of the comments from the queues shed light on the responsibilities of the media (and I include polling organisations in that) So much reporting concentrates on perception rather than fact, as though the existence of a company depends on public perception of its performance, rather than on its actual performance. That troubles me. As a tiny example, I understand certain wealthy individuals have been depositing large sums in new Northern Rock accounts in the last two days, and trying without much success to publicise that in an effort to restore confidence. It’s only a rumour I’ve heard, and I wonder how many such deposits would have to happen before they made the headlines?
Anthony,
I hear that YouGov did a poll for the COOP. Have those results been released?
My belief is that should Gordon Brown now call an election it is possible that he would not be returned to Parliament as there is a ground swell towards the SNP.
The SNP are basically doing a good job and their latest agreement with the LibDems on action over the unfair council tax will only increase their support.
Peter: I agree that Northern Rock has knocked away coverage of the Lib-Dem Conference but I’m not certain whether that is so bad for them, that as you say “they of all needed it”. At least from Campbell’s perspective.
There does seem to be a lot of the Tories under IDS in the Lib-Dems under Campbell and I would not be surprised if this years Conference hadn’t turned out as disastrously as one of the “quiet man’s” conferences.
I read in an article recently that Campbell said (I believe at the Conference) that “age is an issue, but I won’t have a go at the youth and inexperience of my opponents”. That may have worked for Reagan seeking re-election but I just had to roll my eyes at him trying that line. If it had reached the national news properly then along with everything else I think he would have been a national joke.
Its a rather sad end for someone who had (unlike IDS) a rather distinguished career before becoming leader.
OTOH the Lib-Dems may need the negative coverage in order to force them to change leaders in order to get a boost in the polls before the next election, like Howard did for the Tories.
Ralph -
They have, any they are here here.
Nothing particularly interesting, though I would like to try that last question with a different sample and ask them which of a list of named companies they would trust to deal with their customers fairly – BT, Tesco, Marks and Sparks, Waitrose, Cadbury, the Co-op, John Lewis, the Post Office, Nationwide, Natwest, etc. I suspect in reality ownership structure pretty much pales into insignificance as a factor as to whether people trust a particular brand and you wouldn’t get an obvious pattern.
Could you get that added into your BrandIndex survey?
Will the Lady in Red be the next defection to Labour?
Revenge is a dish best served cold — 17 Years!!!
Tomorrows Guardian/ICM poll;
Labour 40 Conservative 32 Liberals 20.
Cameron’s personal ratings more unpopular than Ming.
Cameron’s policy reviews seem to be an absolute disaster for him. Re turns in attitude would you say the same thing happened to Jim Callaghan when he went away on holiday when the winter of discontent occurred in 1979? Foreign trips when English people are suffering seem to be an absolute no-no.
it’s all getting rather exciting! An 8 point Labour lead from ICM must be very tempting for Gordon. He will need to balance the risk of losing – the voters do seem very volatile these days – with the fear of missing his opportunity to win and ending up like Callaghan