More from the Sunday Times YouGov poll
The full tables from YouGov’s Sunday Times poll are now up on the Sunday Times website. It leaves us in no doubt why Gordon Brown chose not to go to the country, the headline figures showing a Conservative lead of 3 points would resulted in Brown losing his majority, but YouGov do not factor in likelihood to vote which it’s generally thought you have been a big factor in a November poll. The detailled tables have breaks of only those certain to vote, which would have produced shares of CON 45%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%. These are not realistic figures, the turnout filter too tight, but it does show how a low winter turnout could have made the situation even worse for Brown.
Gordon Brown’s net rating on whether he is doing a good job as Prime Minister has dropped to plus 30 from plus 39 last time it was asked. David Cameron’s is transformed, up to plus 20 from minus 15.
Showed a list of words and asked which ones applied to David Cameron and Gordon Brown, Brown still has a more positive all round image. 40% think he is strong, 37% decisive, 40% think he sticks to what he believes in. The only measures where Cameron outscores Brown are Charismatic (34% compared to Brown’s 7%) and ‘in touch with the concerns of ordinary people’ (23% compared to Brown’s 20%).
It remains to be seen how perceptions of Brown change in the light of his decision not to call an election and the vicious reception it has recieved in the press. 43% of respondents told YouGov that they thought it would be a sign of weakness if Brown didn’t call an election but, as we’ve seen before, people are not necessarily very good at predicting how they’ll react to events in the future.
THe other questions give a picture of the parties as pretty evenly matched - Brown is seen as more trustworthy than Cameron, Cameron has a more optmistic and forward-looking vision for Britain, the Conservatives are seen as both likely to do more to support the family and more to raise peoples quality of life by marginally more people than Labour.
66% of respondens thought the Conservative’s plans to raise the threshhold for inheritance tax was a good policy, 79% approved of their plans to take most first time buyers out of stamp duty. Combined they have once again put the Conservatives as the preferred party on taxation - along with the traditional Tory issues of crime and immigration they also again lead on Europe, with Labour remaining ahead elsewhere.
The tax pledges are not an unadulterated success for the Tories though, 32% of people think their sums don’t add up, with only 22% confident that they all square. Despite the fact that the Conservatives have not pledged to reduce the overall tax burden - the pledges were based on extra taxes elsewhere - 27% of people think that a Conservative government would mean lower taxes than a Labour government. 13% think a Conservative government would mean higher taxes.
Filed under: YouGov
Who are the 13% who think that a Tory government would mean higher taxes than a Labour one, that’s bizarre.
Major changes in a week, the public is quite volatile at the moment. After yesterday and today’s press I think that Brown’s reputation for “strength” might take a hit next time. Any idea when the next polls will be?
45/36/9 would be a remarkable topline voting figure, I thought one pollster does filter exclusively those who say certain to vote? Recall a few for the FT before the last election. Would be interesting to see the reaction if they gave this then.
Anthony,
Did YouGov look at the effect of Brown’s jolly to Basra in the midst of the Tory conference?
Anthony: Any way to confirm this poll. This is a copied post from PB.com post #177 in the “Bottler Brown” thread.
“O/T Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but the Scottish NOTW was given details of a YouGov poll commisioned by the SNP on voting intensions for Westminter.
Labour - 42%
SNP - 27%
Tories - 18%
Lib Dems - 11%”
If Cllr Cairns is reading this, how happy or not would the SNP be on these figures? What would it mean in a Westminster election?
This just shows considerable volatility - which isn’t really news.
Philip - Ipsos MORI’s topline figures use exclusively those who are 10/10 certain to vote (and I’ll check the Scotland figures on Monday).
Ralph - not in this poll, but it was asked about in the YouGov/Channel 4 poll after Cameron’s speech. 42% thought it was a cynical stunt, 33% thought it was motivated by making sure he took the right decisions for the country.
Yes, it all seems volatile. Of course, it comes as no surprise the Conservatives are leading on crime, immigration, taxation and moved ahead of Labour on Europe once more; it’s understandable that Labour leads on everything else.
The thing is crime and immigration are, as of now, seem to be higher in the public consciousness and thus, likely to carry the most electoral saliency. This gives the Conservatives, following their successful conference, a slight edge, overall. They robustly addressed these issues.
The challenge for Labour is to address these issues in government robustly enough to secure tangible results that the electorate can plainly see by time the next general election comes around. Labour must tread cautiously on taxation too. Many people don’t object to increased taxation when they see value for money, it’s when they don’t see it, that’s where they object.
I’ve already emphasised my misgivings re-Tory IHT proposals and I won’t reiterate that.
As for Europe, …how long is a piece of string? I’m not even going there.
Well I’ve Done It !! My predictions - though ridiculed for 3 months on here have come true - there is a Tory majority of 6% / 3% / 1% by the end of the first week of October and Brown will not call an election !!
So all the ticking clocks can stop now .
I have to agree with other contributors - the Liberal vote of now as low as 9% is not going to reflect in a general election - more like 16% to 17% . On a personal level i would love the Liberal vote to disintegrate as a payback for all the years their followers have abused the electoral system by using tactical voting and coalitions with the Labour Party - what comes around goes around !!
44% is an amazing figure from ICM - not seen in the whole of David Cameron’s leadership - 45% share compared to Labour on 36% of those who will actually vote as per above on the YouGov POLL.
The way the media has finally turned on Brown and talking of Cameron in a more favourable way will keep the POLLS fairly firmly in the Tories favour for a while - until unfortunately Brown will spin a few things to get his ratings back - but the fact as Anthony points out in his breakdown above more Tories showed a willingness to vote - that too is a terrible indictment of Brown and the Labour Party at the moment .
Perhaps the most serious problem is that the qualities that Brown was trying to project, and apparently still succeeding in the you.gov poll, were “strong” and “decisive”. He is now looking weak and indecisive (this is slightly unfair, I think he is probably strong and indecisive) and as people factor that into their thinking about him there could well be further re-adjustment. The Weighted Moving Average is 37:39:13 but by their very nature WMAs will lag in responding to big changes in opinion. For example the previous you.gov poll was apparently over-estimating the C lead by 3% but if we now look at the average of 5 the polls that straddle it (which is of course only possible when 2 more polls have been published) it is now seen to have been pretty well spot on. My guess is that the C support will consistently be above 40 by Christmas, and Labour will be in the low 30s. We shall see.
Personally I wonder if the non-election story will be half as significant as some people are suggesting (hoping).
My contact with the general (not particularly interested in politics) public suggested that a winter election would have been unpopular. I think Brown will be perfectly capable of convincing people that he has the best interests of the country at heart.
It is also amazing that someone who has never even mentioned the ‘e’ word could be so pilloried for not then having an election. This is not to claim that the thought never even crossed his mind, clearly it did, and I think it would have been a mistake even before the polls shifted so dramatically.
As for the Tories, well it was an excellent week, and whatever the subsequent investigation of the Non-dom policy’s financial strength it certainly had the desired effect of an immediate jolt to the polls.
Having been out canvassing yesterday it was clear to me that the Tory plans on IHT was a significant factor and Brown’s visit to Basra wasn’t.
I expect to see a Tory lead in the polls lasting through to Xmas, but after that it will come back to the key issues that governments and oppositions are always judged on, namely the strength of the Government’s performance, and the economy, unless the new policies chosen in haste by the Tories unravel spectacularly in which case the Labour lead will return much quicker than before.
The other interesting factor is whether the Lib Dems will now feel sufficiently relaxed about the distance of an election to axe Ming, I wouldn’t put any money on him leading the LD’s into the next election at all.
Interesting post NBeale.
My own view is that the volatility is a function of the punters looking for someone they can trust.
Trust in Blair steadily seeped away for reasons we know about & there was enormous goodwill for Brown as an Honest/Unflash/Prudent/Son of The Manse etc etc.which left Cameron in the wilderness for a while. Events were happening & Brown looked like a steady, honest custodian of the public good.
The big question is how much this image has been dented. At worst he can now look Dishonest/Calculating/Imprudent as a result of recent events. I noticed that Adam Boulton today-presented by Jaqui Smith with the “Gordon took firm action on three crises” line started to ask well what action actually? And we now know that Foot & Mouth resulted from underfunded/ineffective maintenance in a State Lab, and that the failure of BoE to detect Northern Rock’s problems was because Gordon took their Banking surveilance roll away & gave it to FSA who failed in that task.
I must say that the Marr interview did not look like Gordon being honest.And I wonder , given the huge support for the Tories Stamp Duty & IHT proposals whether the impending( signaled by Brown & Darling today) attempt to say they can’t add up will resonate with voters.Might the latter not say-actually we don’t care-just get it done & find the money by stopping some of the Government waste.
Conversely if Labour try to emulate these policies will voters say-OK no need to leave Labour-or will they say well you should have thought of it yourself after 10 years?
Intrigued by your projected low 30’s for Labour. THe two 6/10 polls average C40/L38/LD12-which compared with 2005GE has LD losing 10-3 to Labour & 7 to Cons!
So presumably a fall in Labour from here would be back to LD?
Is this really what might happen-LDs losing to Cons & Labour about to lose to Lib Dems?
Throughout March the WMA was 39:31:18 it’s now 37:39:13. LD is on a steady downtrend but even if they stabilise at 13 we could still see 44:32:13. If Lab moves significantly below 30 and stays there (which I think is possible though not very probable, at least in the next 6 months) then people in Labour will be asking the “unthinkable” - “we didn’t elect Gordon, so …”
Philip - bizarre is a word that applies to many of the answers in the polls in my view, but if asked (and I wasn’t) I would probably been part of that 13%, given that taxes seem to always go up under every government, and therefore the next Tory Government would raise taxes to a point higher than the current (Labour)one. Not perverse thinking, just a little cynical maybe. (GB did actually cut the basic rate from 22% to 20%, and the interim demised 10% rate was his)
In the short term, these bright new tax policies in favour of the relatively wealthy have clearly worked, even in the opinions of the not so wealthy(I think that’s bizarre!), which just shows how wrong I was to keeping suggesting Cameron should steer clear of policy making. I can’t see Labour going under 30% until a real economic downturn, as the personal insults won’t stick, but I do wonder at whose expense a LibDem recovery would be. Surely they haven’t done so badly to warrant such a declkne?
The Lib Dems is an interesting conundrum. I agree they have done litle wrong and Sir Ming seems a decent enough guy. I guess it would boil down to wether the electorate (surveyed in the opinion polls) are more inclined to vote in a general election, for a local candidate/local issues, or national party of government. If its the latter then you really have only 2 choices. Labour or Con, you either support one or you tactically vote for the other, to remove the government or stop the tories. Either way the Lib Dems, don’t really feature, except for the party die hards. Which may be about the level their polling suggests.
I always thought a more moderate leader of the Tories would cause the Lib Dems problems. There is a certain kind of well-heeled middle class voter who might support a one nation conservative party but not a Thatcherite one- their alternative being Lib Dem.
I think that is part of the squeeze on the Lib Dems. They are squeezed by Labour on the other side as some of their natural supporters who deserted them in 2005 return to the fold now they have a new leader.
If they’re gonna stab Ming though, the time to do it is now as Brown is ruling out an election for at least another 14 months…
Judging by comments about their Party conference they’re having problems with an ageing membership.
Suspect the Green Party has taken a lot of peotential younger activists.
I used to hold a lot of respect for Sir Menzies, but not any more. Even after the “Ming the Merciless” jibe I still respected him, if your own leader has a problem then dealing with it yourself may be necessary.
My problem with him now is how almost sycophantic at times he has been to Brown. That has really turned me off him. I think if this has filtered into the general consciousness then it could have really affected things: Why vote for a fake Labour party that will support it, when you can vote for the real deal?
The main problem though is simply that neither major party is really disliked at the moment, for the first time in decades basically. So now the main raison d’etre of the LD’s is vanishing. The possibility here is that if serious damage has happened to Brown then this could see a boost in the LD support. But I suspect Ming would be well advised to avoid being seen as being too much in Brown’s pocket again. Even if he’s not, the perception has been made by many and perceptions as good as reality sometimes when it comes to polling.
Anthony - Am I right in pointing out that your graph is pointing out the parties are neck and neck?
Plus a big hello to all those posters who went missing for a few weeks.You must have all gone to Behindinthepollsville.
When are the next set of polls due out Anthony?
Interesting idea Philip, that LibDem support is so sensitive to the “protest” vote. I think I voted LibDem in 1987, but not because of their policies. Their proposed 4%cut in income tax is more fake Tory than fake Labour, but LibDem policies have always been dismissed by all sides as irrelevant (because they won’t get in…)
I think you’re right to say there’s no party that’s reviled, but a desire to stir up revulsion might explain Ming’s continued attacks on GB over Iraq, an issue which drew much support from Labour to LibDem.
Anthony, you say “79% approved of their plans to take most first-time buyers out of stamp duty” I’m sure that couldn’t have been how the question was framed, but it’s interesting that certain things very quickly become regarded as unarguable facts so quickly. (Do most first-time buyers pay stamp-duty? Apologies if they do, but £125k buys a lot of flat in most places) Same with the plans to remove 9m families from IHT (though the actual words used by DC are “…from the THREAT of IHT”. I guess anyone can feel threatened!
Interesting thoughts on the LD position. Judging by the polls they’ve lost some suport to Labour, but mostly to the Tories. This is where they did great favours to labour in the last three elections. I suspect one of Brown’s calculations was to delay in order to give the LDs space and time to change leaders - Nick Clegg is the clear favourite, and he would certainly increase their appeal in the southern LD/Tory battleground. In this scenario I would expect Cameron to struggle to put together anything like enough seats for a government. I’m not sure if its accurate, but even on the NoTW poll results BBC is stating Labour would have 60 more seats than the Tories - any government would take that result mid term if it was true.
Unless the LDs implode completely, and even if they do, I still see the long term position for the Conservatives as being very, very difficult. They are frozen out of Scotland completely, and I seriously doubt they will ever mount a recovery north of the border. Cameron is not playing well in the North of England, and if the LDs have any success in holding even some of their southern seats, (and they are traditionally good at holding what they’ve got, even in the face of poor national polls), I genuinely think it is very hard to see where the Tories will win enough seats to form a majority. Unless there is a major recession or Labour doesn’t just shoot themselves in the foot, but hacks both legs off below the knee, I just don’t see the electoral landscape giving the Tories anything like enough to form a stable majority government.
Nothing stays the same for ever, but I still think it could be a long time until we see a Conservative PM in number 10.
I will be interested to see how things develop this week. So far Cameron has taken every opportunity to gloat over Gordon’s misfortune and I think that is fair in the short term. Brown will now try to return to substantive policy with his statements on Iraq and the CSR and Cameron would be best advised to respond substantively. There is only so long that the public (and the press) will wait before they become quickly unimpressed with crowing. Cameron has had uncritical media coverage for a week and he knows as well as Brown now does that the media will switch tack quicker than a floating voter in Basildon in order to keep the political narrative interesting.
I think Cameron knows that there will shortly be a big counter offensive against his tax plans which he needs to be ready for. Indeed his interview with Andrew Marr was fairly weak on the issue of whether he could be sure that the non-doms would yield the £3.1 bn he needs to fund his tax cut (in short, he said that he believed his figures would turn out to be right).
A week is a long time in politics and the current Tory lead of 1% and 3% is a great deal less than the lead they held when Blair was nearing the end. It is considered significant because it demonstrates significan volatility which suggests, in my view, that the public’s votes are very much up for grabs.
Finally, a polling question for Anthony and anyone else who cares to comment. During the most critical period for polling in years, is it not strange that Com Res seem to have disappeared up their own rear end?
Alec,
While the Tories might not be doing well in certain areas the same is true for Labour in others. Whole sections of the country don’t have Labour controlled councils, and large areas don’t have any Labour councillers.
As for Scotland the Tories can govern without it, Labour can’t.
The whole of the period from the time Gordon Brown entered 10 Downing Street up until now has been unreal almost bizarre but that time is over and normality can be expected to takeover with the polls now at last settling down.Each party has plenty to think about:
Labour-It’s traditional supporters were energised by the arrival of a PM they felt instinctively was well sort of old Labour -for the blue collar working man and all that.More youthful Labour supporters including contributors to this site however then got carried away unwittingly conveying a unpleasant sense of complacancy even arrogance about the result of any early election. Was it Neil Kinnock who recently claimed that they would “grind the Tories into the dust forever”? Oh dear.
The Conservatives have had their best party conference in decades but they must finally realise that loyalty to Cameron cannot waver every time there is a wobble in the opinion polls and they really must grasp the issue of Iraq and say emphatically that they will bring the boys home immediately they gain office.
The Lib Dems as I have forecast would happen many times have found themselves squeezed between the ‘two ugly sisters’.It has now reached the stage where they can do little to stop it and should instead embark on a damage limitation exercise to retain as many of their seats as possible whenever the election comes and so avoid a meltdown. This they can still do through a combination of hard constituancy work and the sturdy tenacity with which Lib Dem MP’s tend to hold onto their seats anyway.
However the impending arrival of less convivial economic times and thus the likely dilution of the current feel good factor which above all keeps governments in power may make other factors somewhat academic.In such a scenario it becomes extremely difficult for the governing party to persuade its core vote to turn out on the day whereas the opposition can more easily persuade their supporters ‘to teach the other side a lesson’. I suspect that as we get nearer 2008 we will begin to reach the ‘tipping point’ here beyond which recovery for the government becones ever harder if not impossible. We shall see if I am right.
Nick,
I don’t think the Tories can rely on poor economic conditions - essentialy this has been their strategy since 97 - assuming Labour would blow it, and they assumed Brown would do the same in June. They didn’t, and as a result the ‘wait for a crisis’ policy has not given them the swift return to power they rather arrogantly expected.
Yes, next year growth is likely to slow, and there may indeed be worse ahead. But the next election in 2009 (?) may well be held against a backdrop of improving economic indicators and continued positive views of Labours economic stewardship. Even if the economic prospects are poor, this doesn’t necessarily hand it to the Tories. We go back to the underlying poll finding of competence and trust. In troubled times people are less prepared for risk, and unless Cameron’s underlying ratings outstrip Brown, tough times will help Labour as the ’steady as she goes’ vote. This is what kept Thatcher in power, against a background of alternate recessions and inflationary booms.
My point on the geography of the polls still stands. Unless the Tories can regain some of the support from the regions they enjoyed in the 80s they will struggle. On Ralph’s point about the Tories being able to govern without Scotland - I don’t think they can - look at the seats that gave Major their last majority. They don’t need many Scottish MPs, but they have to some, and don’t forget that Cameron is still a massive 125 or so seats from majority government. From memory Kinnock achieved a post war record swing of around 4% in 92, but it wasn’t enough. This level of record swing would not be enough for Cameron today, and although the polls seem to swing much more rapidly now than in the past, I don’t see evidence of greater voltility yet in actual GE voting. This is why Cameron is so keen to bar Scottish MPs from voting on English issues. It’s not a point of democratic principle - if it was, he would include the Ulster MPs also, but they just so happen to be largely Unionist and possibly vital to the Tories in a tight parliament.
Politics are more interesting now, but governments hold all the aces - like it or not I’d still lay odds for another Labour term.
Alec
Even if the economic indicators are more positive in 2009-and who can say?- I doubt if any fresh feelgood factor will have fed through by then or even by 2010. And I am not predicting a crisis-far from it.Not even ‘troubled times’ just as I said LESS convivial times. What I am predicting is that factors such as the taxation burden,the impact of the reduction in the annual increase of expenditure on public services and a nagging feeling that the government figures on inflation simply don’t match up to the growing cost of living as people actually experience it will together continue to add to the general air of dissatisfaction and a feeling-already evident in my consituency- that it is time for a change. If we were indeed lurching towards any sort of crisis come an election then yes I can see your point because that might dissuade voters that they should not change horses in mid stream. But it won’t be like that.People right now are not worried or in a panic but they are grumbling and the grumbles will get louder and louder. Slowdown Yes- Recession No.
Nick - you could be right - who knows?
I am always reminded however of the hordes of people interviewed at during the Thatcher years who kept saying how they voted Tory last time and were digusted and would never vote for them again, and Hey Presto - voted them back in again at the next GE. For the last fortnight the polls have been making the news, not measuring it - I don’t actually think they mean a great deal in real terms just yet, and are not a good indicator of actual public opinion.
Alec,
I agree with most of your analysis, but would point out that the national swing to Labour in 92 was less than 2.5% - though significantly higher in the marginals so reducing the Tory majority to 21 despite a lead of 7.6% in the popular vote.Somewhat surprised at your suggestion that this was a post war record at that date since much bigger swing occured to the Tories in 83,79,70 and 50 - and to Labour in 64 and 66!
Graham - I stand corrected. I think the point is that really big swings in GEs are rare, and Cameron will need a big swing if he is to form a government.
I don’t believe voters will, to any great extent, vote tactically simply in order to keep the Tories out in the next GE. I actually think it may begin to operate slightly against Labour. For that reason, I expect the electoral bias to even itself out a bit in the next election as the atti-tory tactical alliance unravels, and an anti-labour one begins to replace it.
Re- poor economic conditions. The Conservatives were re-elected in 1) 1983 and 2) 1992, following recessions because:
1) Labour was very unfit for purpose as a credible alternative. The party was in the throws of a ‘civil war’ with many on the right of the party having bolted to form the SDP. Not to mention Mrs Thatcher was riding the ‘White Swan’ that was victory in the Falklands.
2) Labour, despite making considerable progress on 1987, wasn’t quite perceiveed as being there yet despite what the polls were suggesting.
It would be wise not to think there will be some fall-out on the economoy from the “credit crunch”; but I’m optimistic the government can steer the good ship UK plc through any choppy waters should they lie ahead; preferably, without too much socio-economic trauma.
Economic stability matters to Labour now more than anything else because they understand that without it the party would face difficulty in fulfilling many of its wider objectives. Labour in government isn’t of a radical essence, it takes a more incremental approach in realising its objectives. I think that is why on certain measures it hasn’t lived up to its expectations. Lofty ideals are one thing, achieving them is quite another.
Labour MUST address voters concerns, especially on immigration, crime and taxation. Voters want to see value for their money.
I’m sounding like an sympathetic but ‘wavering’ editorial these days.
Yes the polls are volatile, but of the 37 polls since Brown became PM only one poll has shown Labour with less than 37% and only 3 polls have shown the Tories with over 36% (and those after the Tory conference). Mike Richardson you are a naughty boy, your prediction only came true after you changed your prediction.
Dave Hawk - Non-radical efforts will not lose an election for Labour, so you’re correct. I actually thought about the SNP governing in Scotland while reading your last post - their re-election depends on competent stewardship rather than the exercise of the radical silent N in their title!
I seem to remember tempting tax-cuts and interest-rate cuts (the chancellor was in control of rates then) in the months leading up to elections. The Tories had two four-year terms, followed by two five-year terms, - I think I’m right in thinking their poll rating only went up for a couple of months before their victories. I can already hear the accusations of clothes-stealing!
It now seems we are heading towards a period where there are no more landslide victories, no more 100+ majorities for a few years. I don’t think Labour can do it again, even if they win in 2009 they will have only a smallish majority (say, no more than 40 or 50) and for David Cameron or whoever else leading the Conservatives to get a landslide victory in a notional election in 2009 he’d need an enormous swing 10 or 12%. Some sort of coalition government is now on the cards (from recent polls, anyway) but it could be that the LibDems don’t have enough seats to be involved.
Dave hawk says labour MUST address immigration crime and taxation(I would add education and health).Dave, they have had 10 YEARS.From beginning,they said these were priorities and failed with all of them at enormous cost in taxation.How long do they need?cant fool all the people all the time,the penny will drop at some point.Perhaps delaying the GE was NOT a good idea.
A direct Con/Lab swing would require just a tiny swing to rob Labour of their majority and an enormous swing to give the Con’s one. So it would imply coalition next time.
However if there were a collapse of the LDs then it would require a bigger swing to remove Labour’s majority and a smaller one to give the Tories one.
Trevor Kevanagh (The Sun)has just announced on PM that there is a poll out tomorrow which wipes out the Conservarive lead. Can this be true? If so, the political scene IS getting exciting!
What the contributors on here and the media fail to see that the drop in Browns lead in the POLLS actually started on the POLLS released 2 days after Browns conference ended with on a 7% lead - before the Tory conference even started !! This is important because everyone is saying that the appalling trip to Iraq , the talk of an elction , George Osborne’s speech and the Cameron speach started the ball rolling - i believe that the speech by Brown was analysed and seen through by the media and the public in general - the excellent united conference by the Tories just helped to reinforce and continue the drop in the POLLS for Brown .
Also don’t forget that it was only 4 weeks ago that the Tories were neck and neck with Labour without any party conferences - I believe that this is definately the end of Brown’s honeymoon period - especially as he has offended the media with the private meeting with Andrew Marr .
John,
I gather there will be a Populus poll due in tomorrow’s Times [source Mike Smithson of politicalbetting), so that could be it? He thinks around 45% of those surveyed will have been polled post-Brown’s announcement.
Lets not forget that in all the polls (but one) since Brown became leader, Labour have achieved 37% or more, while the Tories have only achieved over 37% in three of those polls, and they were just after or during the Tory Conference. On current trends I expect the Tories to get somewhere around 33% and Labour around 39%.
We’ll see. I think Labour will stay behind the Tories for a while now. I can’t see any reason for their position to improve in the next few months. Fact is, the Tories have given themselves a chance, and it didn’t look that way a week ago.
I would imagine that the next few polls will see increased Conservative leads, but if Mr. Kavanagh is saying otherwise perhaps I am wrong.
It’s difficult to see where an increased lead for the Tories will come from apart from directly from Labour’s support, which has been a respectable 37-38 for a while (apart fromthe snap poll after GB’s speech).
Words/accusations like appalling and failure don’t seem to make a difference to Labour’s poll ratings (not saying if I think they are appalling failures) Even the “waste of tax” accusation hasn’t dented Labour’s POLL rating (thought I’d go with you there Mike Richardson!) and the media’s disgust at the “spin” isn’t reflected either. I heard Eddie Mair virtually spit the word at Des Browne to-day. No-one’s going to go from Labour to Tory because of “spin”. They all do it, even (good) journalists with their leading questions
To a certain extent the polls have become the story, and inadvertently distorted themselves by dint of their prominence and frequency. I’m sure journalists love reporting them, as they are all experts on the mechanics of political manoeuvring, and it lets them off having to create researched pieces on the issues of the day. It’s much easier to say “Tories ahead on immigration, so what’s Brown going to do to win the public over?Lurches anyone” than to put in a report for grown-ups that goes into the details of immigration and its socio-economic effects.
John H - Where did Kavanagh state this?
A fall in the Tory lead in this period would be very odd.
Yes, it would be highly counter-intuitive. I’m not even sure I could think of a highly partisan explanation for that- other than, I suppose ‘The public belive that Gordon has rejected that opportunistic snap election and decided instead to impliment his ‘vision’.
I cannot help falling off my chair laughing when I hear Brown’s explanation of why he didn’t call an election. Even the most diehard Labour partisans must wince when he says it has nothing to do with the polls and is off simply because he suddenly decided his ‘vision’ is more important at the precise same time as the bad poll figures came out. Even if we believed this explanation, he took a jolly long time to make up his mind, didn’t he?
Luke speaking of Spin - watch it on here.If for instance the poll shows a drop in the Conservative support from the polls this weekend,certain posters on here will point to the fact that the Conservative percentage has risen from the last time Populus(If it is actually Populus) actually polled and vice versa.It is of great humour to see people using the “last publicised poll/last poll by the pollster” argument to their favoured parties advantage.
When they both scenarios are negative,,,,well they do what they have done for the last few weeks and not post.
All good fun when the polls are so volatile.
Not so sure why people would be so surprised if the Tory lead disappeared in this next poll. Of course, this rumour could be wrong, but if it is correct it would confirm suspicions that the recent big poll shifts had more to do with general exposure of two good party conferences and less to do with people making seriously considered long term decisions. The real question is how polls would behave over a longer period (or a real election campaign) when coverage is more even.
I learned a big lesson in the democratic process some years ago when I was speaking to a woman who said she didn’t pay much attention to politics but she really liked John Prescott and Norman Tebbit - work that one out! The way people respond to pollsters is probably not very logical, so we shouldn’t be too surprised when apparently illogical results are obtained.
T. Jones.
Trevor K. made the comment on Radio 4’s PM at about 5.50pm.
Very interesting, if true. Perhaps the solid Labour lead over the last three months will be harder to shift than a successful week in Blackpool can manage. There are also serious concerns about the Conservatives ability to fund their proposed tax cuts. DC seemed less than certain on the AM Show.
Labour 40%
Conservative 38%
Times/Populus
A Times Populus to-morrow puts Labour back in the lead. The honeymoon probably isn’t over just yet - yes the public are irrational, Kinnock’s red hair maybe did for him, as David Steel’s spitting image puppet did for him, but as Noel Caward once said, “it’s human nature, son”.
Lukw - Brown did concede that he had consulted with advisers and looked at the polls (though almost imperceptibly!) during his deliberations. He also allowed that he could have put us out of our misery earlier, but I get the feeling the voters like journalists even less than politicians, and some will actually have felt sorry for Brown to-day. Really, all the bitchery about his “exclusive” interview with Andrew Marr! As if the public give a candied fig what hurt they feel!
Spelt Coward wrong, I’m ashamed
Okay, the Times Populus poll interviewed four fifths of its 1000 or so respondants before the announcement that there wasn’t going to be an election and subsequent media coverage. It is Lab 40 Con 38 and LibDem 12. These are broadly in line with the other polls after the Tory Conference, which were 4 points behind, 3 points behind, level, and 3 points ahead. I shall be more interested to see some polls whose fieldwork is conducted from Sunday onwards.
Luke W - As I said just after the Labour Conference, if there weren’t to be an election,(admittedly I thought it was nailed on)the polls that matter will be the ones that appear after the conference season. Namely the next two weekends. By which time there is no chance of an election anyway.
The big winners amongst all of this are the Pollsters who currently are being inundated by the different papers for their fieldwork.
I agree, but the one thing we can conclude with certainty is that public opinion is extremely voliile at the moment and is apt to large sea changes when someone has a good stint in front of the camera. It is when the polls stabilise- if they stabilise - that we get an idea of the new political landscape- although we have already learned that an erratic and volitile public opinion will probably form a backdrop to it.
GARY GATTER :-
I am not a naughty boy at all - just a minor adjustment 2 weeks ago to include the 1st week of October / but i still maintained over the whole 3 months that there would be no election before 2010 .
I think your prediction skills are not as good as mine Gary with all due respect - if you think that the POLLS will shift back to 33% Tory and 39% Labour / I predict very similar POLLING for both parties around the high 30’s for a couple of weeks - by Christmas Labour will be flagging as the media lay into them on every policy they come up with . NOTE MY PREDICTIONS .
You have to take into consideration the underlying question from the last POLL - where it gave the Tories 45% to Labour’s 36% of those who will actually vote / there is a growing tide of people who really do think it’s time for a change .
The Labour pop song “Things Can Only Get Better” certainl was’nt true - let’s see how realistic the Conservative pop song becomes over the next 2 years - “You Can Get It , If You Really Want”
All the current POLLS and the share of them that are going to Labour and the Tories are straight off the back of the Liberals - something has to give shortly . Many of those Liberal %’s will drift back and forward - meaning very little till an actual election .
If I was either main party i would’nt pay too much attention to them until you see the changes coming directly from one to the other - which has’nt happened yet - it’s all off the back of the Liberals
How about, “You don’t always get what you want”?