What the snap polls tell us
Now the dust has settled where are we with the polls? There were three polls last night, two of conducted in the day since David Cameron gave his conference address, one with fieldwork straddling the poll. All three showed a significant jump in Conservative support, up 4 points in Yougov’s poll, 5 points in both ICM’s and Populus’s. Labour fell to various degrees in all the polls, but remained in a strong position in the high 30s. The Labour lead, which given most seats are a Con vs Lab battle is relevant in projecting figures onto an election result, varied between a 4 point Labour lead from YouGov and a dead heat in ICM.
These polls were all done very quickly. YouGov’s poll had around 1700 responses rather than the normal 2000, ICM had 1008…eventually. Populus had only 800 people, and 40% of those would have been interviewed before Cameron’s speech. These are smaller samples than usual, making them less precise, and there are some drawbacks for very swift polls – normally if people aren’t in when phone pollsters ring them up they can keep on ringing them back to avoid non-contact bias. With a turnaround this fast there is limited opportunity for this. Sample size and fieldwork period are by-the-by a bit though – the real question mark is because the polls were so swiftly after the Conservative conference when they were dominating the media coverage.
The Conservatives will have got a conference boost, and this is largely what is reflected in this poll. The question is whether it lasts. It is likely some or all of the boost is just due to publicity, that it will fade away once Cameron is no longer dominating the news agenda. That is far from inevitable though, anything can happen – if a corner has been turned then the direction of travel could continue in the Conservatives’ favour, if the boost is policy based it may last. The media narrative this morning seems to be one of Gordon Brown on the back foot, hesitating over an election in the face of a Tory resurgence… a tide that may continue to help the Conservatives.
Looking at the underlying figures in the three polls, there is a significant increase in David Cameron’s ratings, and the first signs of a significant fall in Gordon Brown’s. 38% of people told Populus David Cameron had what it took to be a good PM (up from 30% last week), YouGov found Cameron’s net rating for being in touch or out of touch rose from -41 last week to -21 this week, while Brown’s fell from +10 to -2. Cameron’s net rating on whether he is doing a good or bad job rose from -27 last week to -3 this week. Asked about Gordon Brown’s troop announcement in Iraq 42% of people said they thought it was a cynical pre-election stunt, 33% thought his trip to Iraq was motivated by more legitimate reasons.
These are snap polls and we can’t really judge the big picture yet. It’s important to note that, while Cameron’s ratings have improved, he is still viewed far less positively than Brown. Opinions do seem to be shifting though. There should be at least 3 more polls over the weekend, plus the full results of the Populus poll whose fieldwork is still continuing, which will give us a better idea of what’s going on and let us see what voting intentions are when people are asked without Cameron’s speech still ringing in their ears.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Channel 4 have been very quick in publishing the data tables for their YouGov poll.
It shows that the 4% Labour lead was based on more people saying that they would vote Conservative than said that they would vote Labour.
How do YouGov weight their polls? The weighted breakdown by party identification seems to show that they think that about a third of voters identify with the Labour Party, compared with fewer than a quarter for the Conservatives. Is this borne out by research?
I notice that when one looks at the max and min % for various things (ie. Labour, Tory, Libdem, Don’t know, combined Labour and Tory vote etc…) it always seems to have a spread of 7%. Does this indicate that there are 7% of voters who are moving around between parties and don’t knows (including others)?
Well I think its all in the weighting to be honest…. Looking at ICM’s numbers of unweighted gives very little difference in terms of %’s.
Talking of 7%, last year’s Labour conference speech by Blair led to the YouGov/Telegraph lead for the Tories being reduced from 7% (22nd Sep 2006) to 0 % (29th Sep – published 2 days after Blair’s speech). The next YouGov/Telegrah poll was publish “9th Oct 06, and showed the Tory lead back up to 7%.
Whoever those 7% are, they’re consistent!
Sorry, that should say”29th Oct” not “9th
For what it’s worth, my view of this is as follows:
First, polls taken immediately after a conference speech and/or widespread coverage of one political party are largely meaningless
Second, poll bounces in such surveys tend to come far more from that party’s base becoming temporarily much more energised; rather than fluid swings between parties
Third, anyone who believes that Gordon Brown has been basing his decision to call an election solely on the basis of his own post-speech bounce and the hope that David Cameron would bomb is, quite frankly, crazy: whatever you think of Brown he will have decided to go on far wider, deeper evidence and analysis (plus the Ed Balls line that this may be as good as it gets)
Fourth, because top-line opinion poll data is so unstable, the second-tier information like leadership, trust and competence are actually becoming more significant. Again, I suspect Brown’s advisors are playing up the significance of these figures ahead of vote shares on the basis that in the privacy of the polling booth, a lot of soft Conservatives will choose strong leadership over youth and passion. Not saying they’re right or wrong to do so – just that there’s a decent likelihood that’s what he’s being advised.
Fifth, another factor I think inherent in the current Tory bounce is that it’s a Cameron bounce, not a Tory bounce: focus groups and polls continue to show Cameron still outpaces his Party in terms of popularity, so whenever Cameron, as opposed to Tories are on TV, the Conservative share is likely to improve.
Sixth and finally, I think this is going to be the worst election for the centre party since 1979 and I still think more Lib Dem voters split for Labour tactically than Conservative – maybe if Cameron had had longer that would not be the case, but that, coupled with the likely disenfranchisement of 2006/7 University students at their former halls addresses likely tips back a few of the 2005 LD pickups from Labour.
I should have said that I only looked at polls from when Brown became PM.
Comparing the two “Post Speech” polls (26th-28th Sept, 3rd-4th Oct), the Scottish stastics make interesting reading.
Sample sizes are 193 and 156 respectively so they are small with voting intentions of;
Sept, Lab 37, SNP 30, Tory 15, LibDem 13.
Oct , Lab 38, SNP 35, Tory 14, LibDem 9.
On the face of it it looks like Camerons speech helped the SNP more than anyone else, with a +5% swing.
Ironically Labour are also up +1, so if anything it hurt the Tories in Scotland, as they are also -1. The Libdems seem to be getting squeezed ever harder, but as I have pointed out before because there are 4 parties in Scotland proportionally the squeeze is probably the same.
In the others catagory the Greens have gone down and the BNP up, but the numbers are really small so I’d have problems with that.
ICM just give North not scotland although there breakdown of the “Other” catagory gives the SNP 36% of all “other” votes.
Populus has a weighted sample of only 95, which when filtered for “Certain to Vote” drops to only 53, which means it should be taken with more salt than Siberia.
Voting shares on an election tommorrow, of those certain to vote are;
Lab 49%, SNP 29%, Conservative, 7%, LibDem 10%.
I personally think that 29% is more realistic for the SNP, and 49% to high for Labour. I also don’t think the Tories will drop in to single figures or the LibDems go as low as10%.( but of course I’d like to see both)
What does all this tell us…… That we badly need the Sunday Herald or the Scotland on Sunday to commission a proper poll of Scottish oppinion.
If they do someone else will have to do the coverage here as I am off to Toronto for a week Sunday Lunchtime.
Peter.
Cllr Peter Cairns (SNP)
Looking at the figures you have just quoted made me think of effects that tactical voting could have in Scotland.
Recently Guido’s blog ran a story about the possibilty of Alex Salmond running against Gordon Brown in his seat to capitalise on the SNPs popularity since May and de-capitate his greatest enemy. It also got me thinking how vulnerable Labour could be to tactical voting by tory and lib dems in Scotland.
Surely Salmond could not hope to suceed in such an aim! I am very skeptical about the morality of these ‘decapitation’ style strategies.
Would Tories in Scotland ever tactially vote SNP? That is an important point.
I have decided to reveal myself now I have become a regular
The Pre Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Revew next week will mean plenty of publiciy for the Government – and if and election is called there will be no opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the small print.
Alex won’t be standing in any seaty, and even if a celebrity candidate in Dumfermline might be fun or mischief, it isn’t going to happen.
The odds are way against it because it can both backfire if you get beat and you probably would because by and large constituents in elections tend to take a dim view of politicains using them to score points.
Other than a huge local issue like a hospital closure or a situation like Bell v the Hamiltons, these thinks are best left well alone.
Even with the caveats of sample size, I think that there is clearly some evidence that the SNP is benefitting from Tories wanting anyone but labour and LibDems hoping for a hung parliament.
However the actual opportunities for turning those votes in to seats are actually very few.
Peter.
These figures still show an overall Labour lead after a good week for the Tories – and Labour still win even if the polls are level as in the ICM poll. Cameron needs an 8-10% lead for a majority in Parliament. The Lib Dems will hold more of their seats – mainly in Lib Dem/Tory marginals like the south west – that their poll rating indicates.
I suspect that the Labour figures of 38-40% – those certain to vote – will be bolstered by a hardening of those Labour supporters less certain to vote. What they need for their “certainty to vote” to firm up is a sense that the election may be close and that there is the threat of a Tory government – which these polls provide.
I think these latest 3 polls are not that important. The polls which really matter are the next batch which might come out on or before next Tuesday. If they show Brown well ahead, I think he’ll call the election.
The media always focus on the gap between parties for the headline story, but the more interesting story is what is happening to each party’s share separately.
There is an increased Tory share – mainly at the expense of the Lib Dems – from their core in the low 30s, which must be encouraging but is no more than the conference boost you’d expect. This looks like the top end of the range of expectations for the Tories, unless you believe there is an as-yet untapped source of Tory support.
Labour’s share remains high, around the 38-40 mark, despite the Tory conference and negative publicity over Iraq/troop withdrawals.
For what it’s worth the weighted average of the three polls is: Lab 39.2%, Con 36.6% Lib Dems 14.3%. Putting these numbers into your swing calculator Andrew gives a Labour majority of 60. Should the Tories really be getting that excited?
To Adam at 12:13–
Calling the LibDems the ‘centre party’ is absolutely bonkers. Watch last night’s Question Time if you have a chance — Ming was a falling off the left end of the debate table all night. Of course the party could, could move toward the centre if Nick Clegg or one of the other orangebookers gets hold of things…
Maybe these polls will help Brown. I agree with the last 3 postings that these polls are not too bad for Labour, but how about this. On Tuesday, Brown says the country needs certainty, an election is called for. The polls are close, but strong leadership means tough decisions…Watch his ratings shoot up?
@Warren: I believe those figures only hold true on a uniform swing. Rumour has it (we still don’t have data) that the Tories are polling better in key marginals than they are nationally. Having the two main parties level pegging may result in either of them having a (small) majority, depending on how the marginals break.
@Alec: perfectly true, as long as it looks like Brown taking a courageous risk, rather than calling an election because everyone had forced him into it. The former looks brave, the latter spineless.
I still think it’s interesting that we’re ten years into this government, and the Opposition is not ahead in the polls, nor does its leader (for all his recent gains) currently out-perform the Prime Minister. This doesn’t mean Cameron will lose, of course, but my money’s still on a hung parliament being the Tories’ best chance.
These opinions polls are behaving with more volatility than at any time since the 1985/1986, when all three main parties had a turn at being in first place.
The Tories must be glad that their conference came after Labour’s!
Derek @ 4.05pm – well, thanks for that and I don’t disagree with you about their politics at the moment (except that in Tory seats they pretend to be to the right of the Tories), but there are very few who would share your view that they are not the successor to the Liberal Party of 1979.
I agree the Lib Dems will be the biggest losers in a snap poll, with seats being lost to both main parties.
@Adam I know many Lib Dems who have defected to the Tories in recent years, mainly because the Libs have become too left wing, whilst the Tories have moved nearer the centre ground.
I am surprised the Populus poll was published with only a sample size of 800 . Robert Worcester has said it is against BPC rules to publish a poll with voting attentions with a sample size less than 1,000 .
Anthony, anyone
Benedict Brogan is saying that there will be a very large poll of marginal seats in one of the Sundays ( News of the World?) and that this will be a decision maker for GB. Does anyone remember how accurate the marginal seats polls were in 2005? I seem to remember that Channel Four did a regular series.
I agree that the Populus poll was a bit dodgy with a sample of only 800. They’re obviously bending the rules in order to fit in with what the newspapers want, which in this case was a poll as soon as possible after the Tory party conference.
Bluemoon – The News of the World will apparently have an ICM poll and they have done polls of groups of marginal seats in the past (several times in fact) – if I get time I’ll look at how accurate they’ve been in the past when I report on the new one.
One point that’s not been mentioned so far and has been overlooked is that Brown has weedled out of the Tories their main election sweetener – the inheritence tax.
I am surprised the Tories fell for it but the pressure was kept up without the need to declare an election or to deny it. Remember Brown all along has said that all he is doing is getting on with running the country and would not speculate about an election either way no matter how hard the media pushed him.
The Tories got themselves into a panic and have rushed out their two big election ideas that of course will now not have the effect they would have had if they were announced during an election campaign. The effect of these announcements will wear off, particularly if the tax grab from the Non Doms is seen as having a big black hole in it!
I understand that Cameron and Osborne decided to announce their two main policy proposals during the conference – I think it shows poor judgement – a potential big boost during an election campaign has now been lost.
There are 2 other tax proposals I am led to believe, one to cut corporation tax and one to give married couples with children tax cuts effectively worth £3billion. Now these proposals, if true, will be paid for by ‘Green’ taxes. The green tax’s include, yes you’ve guessed it a return to what the Tories would have done had they remained in power in ‘97 – VAT on gas and electricity up from 5% to 17.5%, a bigger tax on airlines – so thats a stealth tax – rather than be honest with the public and say this is how much we are going to tax your airline ticket, they will tax the airline and then it will just look like the airline tickets got more expensive! I would call that Spin! Finally, if you drive a ‘nice’ car, you will pay for it! I can’t see that giving them an election bounce like the IT would have done.
Now these proposals were designed to give the Tories a boost DURING an election. It would have worked! Where is the judgement in announcing it all now, so as to play into the hands of Brown so that he can counteract it and attempt to discredit it. A double whammy backfired!
All Brown needs to do now is say that private residences will be exempt from I.T up to £1million in value – that won’t cost anything like £3billion – and all those floating voters in the marginals down South who live in the dearer properties will come running back to the dog whistle again!
The Tories need someone else other than Osborne to head their election strategy or they are heading for the rocks.
Regarding an election, Brown would have to be a very brave leader to call it now – I just wonder if that would work for him though. If it were me I’d be saying no chance , let’s wait and do what Thatcher (who, incidentally, was obsessed with opinion polls) used to do – call it when she thought she was most likely to win! Nothing wrong with that!
The Tories will not be suggesting VAT on Gas and electricity at 17.5% I can assure you!
blue moon, don’t forget it was the Tories that gave us vat at 8% then 17.5%.
I remember a few days before the last election there were polls taken in Finchley and Shipley. They correctly predicted that the result in both seats was very close (which wasn’t that difficult to predict really), but unfortunately they got the result the wrong way round, saying that Labour would narrowly hold Shipley but would lose Finchley by a small margin.
“For what it’s worth the weighted average of the three polls is: Lab 39.2%, Con 36.6% Lib Dems 14.3%. Putting these numbers into your swing calculator Andrew gives a Labour majority of 60.”
Which is probably what I’d predict the likely result of a November election to be-perhaps both main parties a point lower with the LDs on 19%.What amazes me is the way the whole debate is being framed, if Brown doesn’t increase Labour’s current majority it’ll be seen as a defeat. The Tory majority fell by 40 seats in 1987 and a further 80 seats in 1992, I don’t recall the Tories ‘losing’ either election, factually or morally.
The Lib Dems probably wouldnt do as bad as most of these polls suggest. The will probably gain support through the publicity they will get in a campaign. Furthermore they will probably hold a lot seats purely on the basis of figting a good local campaign and also incumbency. But they will probably have big reductions in their vote shares in the seats they dont fight in any serious way which is probably the vast vast majority of seats.
I would be surprised if they ended up with less than 45-50 seats even if there vote share goes down drastically.
Word has it the Cameron Comeback is dipping – some new polls due out over the weekend might make interesting reading
Word where Richard? the local pub? or is it mere speculation/wishful thinking from the red side of the devide.
Did you see question time, hardly a clap at anyhtink Labours Ruth Kelly said and general derision at all things Labour.
I will await to see if the gossip from the Red Lion turns into fact!
forecastuk.org.uk is reporting that Gordon has a meeting with the queen scheduled for Tuesday evening, can anyone substantiate this claim?
Yes, Oliver he has, and has for a wee while. Its a schedule, just in case he does go for it, which I doubt. Wouldn’t read to much into that. Its the Polls in the Marginals that will decide.
Oliver
The PM is supposed to have a meeting with the Queen every week (usually tuesday evening) when Parliament is sitting. This is not unusual. Remember it is her government. She can, if she wishes, refuse Brown’s wish for a general election if it is not in the best interests of the country. Or indeed if happens to be in a bad mood that day.
Richard (Wilmslow)
I read on another blog that the headline polling figures to be released tommorow are actually strenthening Cameron’s posistion. Any reports are just speculation at the moment as final calculations have probably not been completed yet. Expect more accurate figures to start being leaked early this evening.
Anyway far more important and far more accuarate will be the private polling from the marginals. Labour probably have these figures now. The BBC and Sky are speculating the Cameron is far stronger here. They are usually quite accurate.
It now seems that most of the more respected and informed journalists now believe there will not now be a November election. Brown should stop listening to the young turks (Ed Balls and Doug Alexander) and listen more to the wise heads in his party. They have done a lot of damage to Brown personally, Labour and the political system over the last month.
Richard (W)et all – Thought I would give you chaps the info first just like the Channel 4 poll.
Labours lead has increased again according to initial findings for this weekends polls,
Will obviously try and get the exact figures hours before they are published to keep you chaps in front of the rest.
I would like to point out these are the initial finding and it could change.
As I’ve said before, these polls should really start making regional breakdowns a priority, especially if an election is on the cards.
Labour’s increase in support since June could be based superfluously in seats they already hold, while there is a big swing to the Tories in the south and a big swing to the SNP in Scotland.
Richard (Wilmslow)
Taxing the plane-which the Conservatives plan to do -rather than the passenger which Labour have done, is neither a stealth tax nor spin. It results from the logical conclusion that the plane pollutes , however many passengers there are in it. It is for the airline to distribute the tax penalty to it’s passengers on the basis of their payload averages.The result of this sensible approach will hopefully be be what any green tax should achieve-less per capita pollution-in this case either more passengers per flight, or a reduction in the explosion of air travel at a few quid per trip
let’s not lambast uncle Richard to much, his opinion is his own, will the country share it and, more importantly, can Brown spin it.
“Labour’s increase in support since June could be based superfluously in seats they already hold”
Which would be the perfect scenario for a comfortable Labour election win.Brown will call and election, or not, based on Labour’s private polling in target seats.While the media polls give a rough guide, and plenty of entertainment, they are not going to be the basis for Brown’s decision.
I do believe T Jones was also predicting the last round of polls would show an increased Labour lead, so I am somewhat cynical of such predictions.
The fact of the matter is, that even if the polls do change again, the stupid ‘dye is cast, Camerson is doomed’ argument peddled by quite a few Labour partisans has been shown to be the pile of refuse knew it quite blatantly was. In fact, it would be further evidence of the volitility of them. Public opinion is not settled, all is still up for grabs, and anything could happen in an election campaign.
A poster last night pointed out that the previous Tory Government introduced 17.5% VAT on gas and electricity. The implication was that David Cameron was just about to promise to reintroduce the rate. My conclusion is precisely the Opposite. David was a treasury adviser at the time; he remembers how unpopular it was, particularly with pensioners.
It ai’nt gonna happen.
Can I gently suggest to T Jones that he shouldn’t post unsubstantiated gossip about the weekend polls on this site or on any other public site. Iain Dale did the same and got his fingers burned on Thursday doing the same.
Why shouldn’t he? He pointed out that these are initial findings and that the figures may change.
Adam,
The Labour Party as pretty much the centre party of contemporary British politics, economically and socially, although it does take a more ‘hawkish’ stance on national security. It’s a ‘Third Way’ progressive party, of a gradualist, rather than a radical, hue, which is why I’m comfortable with it.
The so-called ’surveillance state’ is largely a responsible response to events. Some argue that this erodes civil liberties; I, on the other hand, see it has enhancing them from those who seek to 1) undermine and 2) destory civil society as we know it. Needs must. With due respect to Benjamin Franklin, our times are very different from his. I know this is going to sound too much of a cliche but there is a very fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties.
I was expecting a Conservative boost in the polls and given a good conference, it shouldn’t come as much a surprise to any one. The shift seems to be coming from Lib Dems, rather than Labour, which indicates the party could face meltdown. It would seem that the Conservatives, feeling more reassured by Cameron and the conference at large, are firming up on their certainty to vote. Pleasing to those ‘Blue Harpies’ down on the ‘Torygraph’ who were berating Cameron for being too ‘liberal’, even ’socialist’. Even Labour cannot, in all fairness, be called that any more let alone Cameron.
I’m still hoping that ‘progressives’ would vote tactically enough to stop the Conservatives gaining too much ground. Cameron is the, proverbial, lipstick on the same old pig from where I’m sitting; though in some respects more libertarian than authoritarian these days.
The Lib Dems will benefit from Labour tactical voting in seats where Lib Dems are 1) vulnerable and 2) where Labour doesn’t have a wing or a prayer, which is why they will fair n better than the polls are suggesting. It’s in the Lib Dems best interests to hammer Conservatives rather than Labour come an election. Since Labour came to power in 1997, they’ve made steady election gains for a third party. A resurgent Conservative Party doesn’t bode well for their prospects, I’d say.
I shouldn’t set much store by Question Time audiences or Any Questions radio audiences. I well remember the lack of applause before the 87 GE and Mrs T. went on to get a three figure majority; similar reactions in 2001 before TB’s 160 plus majority. Isn’t the use of ’stealth’ a misnomer with regard to taxes? The dictionary defines stealth as ’secret’ or ‘unobtrusive’ yet we all know about them.
Colin,
The costs of taxing the plane will, ultimately, be passed onto passengers. I don’t like ‘green taxes’ that will, ultimately, be passed onto consumers. Better to give tax breaks for business and research to pursue more environmentally-friendly alternatives
.
Blue Moon,
My mother, a pensioner, doesn’t trust the Tories on energy VAT. People will judge the Tories on their past record, as much as Labour on its current.
As for any one speculating on up-coming polls. DON’T!
Brian Swift
“For what it’s worth the weighted average of the three polls is: Lab 39.2%, Con 36.6% Lib Dems 14.3%. Putting these numbers into your swing calculator Andrew gives a Labour majority of 60.”
Which is probably what I’d predict the likely result of a November election to be-perhaps both main parties a point lower with the LDs on 19%.What amazes me is the way the whole debate is being framed, if Brown doesn’t increase Labour’s current majority it’ll be seen as a defeat. The Tory majority fell by 40 seats in 1987 and a further 80 seats in 1992, I don’t recall the Tories ‘losing’ either election, factually or morally.
Brian – you mentioned that the Tories in ‘87 lost seats and then again in 1992. Of course this wasn’t seen as a loss because no-one expected them to hold the majority they got in 1983. Labour had only one way to go after that election and that was to improve. If Labour get a smaller majority now it will be a bad result because the election is not necessary whereas the others were 4-5 years after the previous election.
It may be true that Labour has flushed out a couple of Tory policies which would have been good to announce in an election campaign but when you are entering a conference 7-11% behind then you need to do something. Also announcing now will have achieved something if the election is postponed to 2009 because Gordon Brown will no longer be new, Labour will have been in power 12 years so “Time for a change” will resonate more then than now. The Tories can also continue to use their superior financial strength to build up support in the marginals.
Dave Hawk I wouldn’t dream of arguing that your mother has a perfect right to vote Labour because of 1993 Tory tax proposals if that’s how she feels. I’m simply disputing a previous poster’s suggestion that Daivd Cameron is just about to make the same mistake again and propose VAT on fuel at 17.5%. He won’t do it.
“Labour’s increase in support since June could be based superfluously in seats they already hold”
I meant to say Labour heartlands (ie. seats that Labour held into in 1983) – although their prospects are probably best in their own marginals in the urban north of England.
Nick Robinson has stated on his blog that “Rumour has it that the poll of marginal constituencies which has been carried out for tomorrow’s News of the World by ICM shows a significant Tory lead. Surely they will have to confirm soon that there will be no snap election…”.
I had also heard this from another source who also said Labour may still have a small lead in the headline numbers. It is the marginals that really count though. It is no good for Brown if he is increasing his support in constituencies he is going to win anyway.
I guess thay will have a meeting tommorow to come up with a good excuse for the fiasco of the last month.
Conservativehome are saying Brown is about to pre-record an interview with Adrew Marr stating why there will not be an election.
Now Sky are reporting the election is off.
Now BBC are doing the same.
When I saw Derek Wyatt (Lab MP for Sittingbourne) on Newsnight a couple of days ago, he looked and sounded pretty brassed-off at the idea of an election, and since that moment I thought Brown would call it off.
Speculating by making predictions from guesswork is one thing, claiming to have insider information is not good, its not clever and anyone leaking it from an organisation would surely be fired if caught.
As for taxing the whole flight versus taxing passengers, it is the only legitimate “green” tax. Taxing passengers alone like current flight duty does is just a money-making sham, it has no bearing at all on pollution.
If an EasyJet fight which is completely full flies with 400 passengers paying £10 duty each that’s a nice £4k straight to HM Treasury. If a BA flight which is half empty flies the same route it may get just say £2k tax to the Treasury. Are we seriously to believe that a half-full plane emits half the pollution? The present duty system does nothing to reduce or even target emissions, its just revenue raising. A seat flown on the most fuel efficient plane pays the same duty as one on the most inefficient. Again its nothing to do with pollution, just revenue.
Changing the system to be linked to real emissions, via taxing the whole plane not just passengers, and linking it to emissions and efficiency, would put a real economic incentive in place to reduce emissions. To encourage less flights which are more full and to encourage developments into more efficient models.
Most planes are not flown full. Especially the ones other than the cheaper budget airlines.
Dave Hawk
Yes of course the cost of taxing the plane will be passed on to customers.That is the point of the excercise! We have to wind down our use of fossil fuels pronto.They’re a declining resource & probably contributing to global warming.
The Stern report-commissioned by GB-stated that this will not happen until carbon is priced . That’s what consumers respond to. We’ll all have to get used to it. THe best approach to date IMHO is Carbon Cap & Trade-operating in EU as ETS-and now being adopted in USA at state level-notably in California.
It imposes a cap on upstream( producer) emissions & makes them pay for breaches. THis will drive the low/no carbon technical innovation you quite rightly urge , because consumers of high carbon content/high price products & services will demand cheaper alternatives & so high carbon using suppliers will see their costs rise & business lost to technically innovative competitors.
However ETS is slow in being introduced & it’s not yet rolled out to aviation.THe Conservatives want to speed this up and stop issuing carbon permits free-they want an auction. THis fixes the carbon price in producer costs and provides “green” revenue for governments to redistribute.
Until this gets sorted ,green taxes which identify & increase carbon price to the consumer are a good move-provided they are ring fenced for re-distribution as the Conservatives pledge-and not used as a general revenue raiser as Gordon did with APT.
Stern’s plea for a pricing of Carbon gels with the Conservative philosophy of customer choice. I don’t believe that central edicts from Whitehall about technical innovation, and tax breaks with your money & mine are the answer.
Dave Hawk-I Googled for an update on ETS-EU have agree to include aviation by 2010-but carbon permits to be only partially auctioned…and get this :-
“The EC proposal sought to exempt government flights from the scheme, but the parliament’s environment committee members deleted the exemption because “governments ought to be setting an example.”"
The sooner someone insists that these unelected jobsworths in Brussels get on and do something useful, rather than dreaming of a bigger desk in The United States of Europe the better.
And Dave could be the man to do it.
Colin,
I don’t like EU jobsworths any more than you do but my concern is that Cameron would only have the UK tooting on the fringe. I don’t agree with his pledge to remove Conservative MEPs from the EPP. That will accomplish little.
Brown’s the man for Britain on the international stage. I look forward to the day when Prime Minister Brown and President Hillary Clinton (most likely to be the Democratic nominee) providing effective global leadership on a range of global issues.
… but there are no guarantees on that alas.
Dave Hawk, you bias to party lines is commendable.Labour till you die, no doubt. But as you like to say “your sums don’t add up”.
“The state of the country when the tories left”. It was the Tories who took this nationalised, militant unionised, “sick man of Europe” into the modern era under Maggie. Yes they made economic mistakes, exchange rate mechanism et al, and yes they had problems with sleaze when they were rightly booted out. But Brown Inherited an economy that had grown since 1993, he has then presided over it with some aplomb, but he has sold all our Gold, decimated the pension funds and allowed personal debt to esculate to dangerous levels. We have all enjoyed the prosperity of living on credit, but very soon the bubble will burst.
If you want to talk about leaving the country in a real state cast your mind back to 1979.