October Populus poll
A new Populus poll for the Times has topline voting intentions of CON 38%(+2), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 12%(-3). The poll was conducted between Friday and Sunday, and the vast majority of the fieldwork was conducted before Gordon Brown announced there would not be an early election, so unfortunately it doesn’t shed any light on how people have reacted to the non-election.
Labour are just ahead in this poll, but like YouGov’s at the weekend it shows both the main parties up in the high 30s and low 40s, with the Lib Dems way down. We’ve come to expect lower levels of Liberal Democrat support in YouGov polls, figures this low in one of the phone pollsters are something new.
There is also a shift in the overwhelming advantage Labour had on economic competence in a crisis last month – at the height of the Northern Rock crisis 56% of people said they would trust Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling rather than David Cameron and George Osborne come economic troubles, against only 18% the other way round. The figures have now shifted to 43% preferring Brown/Darling and 28% prefering Cameron/Osborne. Still a big gap, but it’s also a big shift. For the really interesting figures though we’ll have to wait for some polls conducted after the non-election announcement.
Filed under: Populus, Voting Intention
Is it not also worth also pointing out that this polls fieldwork was taken when the media was lauding Cameron as deliving the speach of his life and when polls in the press where pointing to polls showing Conservative leads???
T Jones, that is factually false.
Talk in the press was of a narrowing of Labour’s lead – the first poll with a Tory lead came out on Sunday so the fieldwork for this was before that was announced.
Interesting poll, good improvement but it already feels “old” as Anthony says because its before the most recent news about the non-election.
With this one now out, any idea when the next one will be out now?
I’ve looked at Populus’ scores in the archive. Only once in the last two years have the Conservatives polled higher than this 38%- on one occasion in 2006, when they had 39%. So it seems Populus tends to give the smallest Conservative percentages generally- all the other main polling companies have had at least a few Tory scores of 40%+ in the last couple of years.
This seems to be pretty well spot-on with the Weighted Moving Average (37.5:39.3:13.1) but as noted it was taken before the Bottling. But is the you.gov poll in fact more up-to-date because the fieldwork takes fewer days? It certainly feels like “old news”. However overall Populus seems no more erratic than the others (Std 2.3 mean error 0.2 vs std 2.4 mean error 0.1 for the polls as a whole)
This is an excellent poll for both the main parties. Labour must be pleased to be on the 40% mark despite Brown’s recent difficulties. As far as the Lib Dems are concerned, Nick Clegg must be getting very excited now.
Crisis time for the LDs. The thing is I’m not sure a change of leader will have that much of an impact, we are back to two party politics in the eyes of the media and LD press releases will be given as many column inches as Peter Andre’s chest wax.
Very quick change again here, but to be expected, once again Labour in the lead. Labour still on 40% or more, once again there does not seem to be any drop in Labours support, could they be stuck in 40 or more from now to 2009? I think it looks as if the Tories have had a boost not from Camerons speech but more from the tax cut promised.
I will not feel confident of a sustainable Tory improvement until votes are moving from Labour, rather than from LDs. A change to Clegg would give them a boost-and at present that would probably be from Conservative.
There is encouragement in the Conservative improvement in “competency” ratings.They need to be hammering the manifest “managerial” failures of Labour as well as their own policies.
Brown’s terrible misjudged ( yes hindsight is a wonderfull thing!) splitting of the BoE oversight role off to FSA, and the abject failure of the new system in the Northern Rock affair has not been highlighted enough.
THe Times Business Editor suggests 10 question today for the Treasury Select Committee-I hope they get asked.
THe consensus on the Polls seems to be that “it’s IHT relief what done it”. Labour’s response to that today will be fascinating to watch.Given the apparent groundswell of public support, will a continued attack on the validity of the Non-Dom revenue resonate with voters?…it amounts to 0.6% of total government spending! How could an error in such a figure amount to a “risk of economic instability”?-it’s the equivalent of a Dome & a couple of failed IT systems.
I feel strongly that managerial incompetence is the card Conservatives should be playing much more strongly.
Colin – bit biased for me,that one, but, while I agree that “waste of money” is the best line Caameron can take, it doesn’t make sense for him to draw attention to “misjudgements” re Northern Rock. The need for better regulation is a Labour vote-winner, not a Tory one.
The debate on IHT will be an interesting one – we haven’t heard yet what underpins Labour’s threshold raising, or whether they plan to raise it to something higher than £325k (was £250k until a few years ago).
Colin,
Both main parties are taking voters from the Lib Dems. I am though impressed (and surprised) that Labour’s vote is holding up.
This poll demonstrates what should be apparent by now. That the polls are extremely volatile and are heavily affected by whichever party leader gets good face time on the news. Cameron is once again having to struggle to get more than his customary 10 second soundbite and Brown, if he has any sense, will revert to serious, solid and safe pronouncements on real issues such as Iraq and the CSR and get on with the real business of governing. I firmly expect Labour to recover a small lead in the short term.
That does not mean however that we are back to where we are before the conference season. Brown has taken a hit as to his judgment and he is also now acutely aware that any poll lead he has is necessarily fragile until such time as the British public form a decisive view on Brown and Cameron. Cameron is painfully aware of the same point having led comfortably for many months on the back of a largely uncritical press. At the moment the jury is very much out in that Brown is a new PM and Cameron has only just started coming out with policies.
By May 2009 it is extremely unlikely that we will be talking about IHT, Iraq and the election that never was. I expect that by that time, even the issue of the EU treaty will be resolved one way or another. By May 2009 we will be talking about the parties’ policies and “events” neither of which can be predicted with any certainty.
Ralph
… I am though impressed (and surprised) that Labour’s vote is holding up…
I’m not; Labour actually has not done anything wrong, they have, though, been outflanked by the hip pocket nerve otherwise called the Inheritance tax. I expect to see action on that today.
And I remain firm in the belief that the idea of ‘bedrock party members’ (as in ‘I’m party X’ no matter what) has dropped solidly since the 1960s but I suspect is now in freefall. Why? With both parties fighting for the centreground can the normal person see any meaningful difference between them? Hence the immediate poll reaction to hip-pocket nerve politics.
Well, we will see if it does hold up after the so-called bottling. This poll doesn’t really tell us anything new, other than the flurry of polls after Cameron’s speech were correct and there has been a major Tory recovery.
Re: Expenditure and ‘black holes’. I simply think the Tories need to say that ID cards cost £15BN, the failed NHS computer system which needed to be replaced cost several billion, the millenium Dome cost over a billion, the Olympics is going to cost £10 Billion with that figure rising all the time. So compared to these, £3.5 billion is not an ammount which is going to endanger economic stability, and will (easily) be generated by relatively modest economic growth. I think the Tories are being rather unintelligent in not countering this line of attack, as it can be done so with a quite simple argument voters should be able to understand. The Tories are not making enough of an attempt to attack this percieved Labour advantage on financial management in my opinion.
Jack,
‘Labour actually has not done anything wrong’, lets agree to disagree on that.
On ‘bedrock’ support for the Tories and Labour it is circa 32%. As for the Lib Dems I would guess at 16% but as the polls underestimate Lib Dem support it is hard to tell. These figures have been static for over a decade.
Arnie;
an excellent overview of the current situation in my opinion.The polls are as solid as mud and it may take some time for the voters to form a solid opinion of which party is best placed to get their vote.
Ralph:
Lib Dem bedrock vote, in my opinion and experience as a political activist, is somewhat lower than 16%-possibly as low as 7%.They poll far more than their core vote because they are experts at ’squeezing’ votes to ‘keep out’ other parties. Nothing wrong with that I may add.
In terms of some of the comments on what the Tories should attack on, opposition parties need to be careful. For example, I don’t think Cameron’s ‘broken society’ line is very productive – it’s a negative, frightening message, and many people may think that ’society was alot more broken when your lot was last in power’.
As with Luke’s line about the cost of the Olympics – everyone wants to see the Olympics become a big success, and to use this as a stick to beat a government risks alienating people who want to see a great sporting event. One of the trademarks of the Tories in recent years has been to constantly talk of impending recession, crises, and general doom.
Unless voters feel that a) there is a real crisis, and b) the Tories have the tools to deal with it, this type of attack will portray them as impotent hysterics. Opposition is more difficult than government in many ways, and attacks have to be more nuanced. To date I don’t see much evidence that the Tories have grasped this.
The Olympics was supposed to cost £2Billion originally, now it’s £10 Billion already! I don’t think its unpatriotic or doom-mongering to point out the discrepency! The Olympics is a bit of a sacred cow, but I don’t think public opinion is particularly pro-olympics at present, what with that Logo and all the rest of it and the spiralling budget.
I disagree that attacks like the broken society are without potency, although I do not happen to like them- I believe society is broken, but this has been an inevitable (and ultmatly worthwhile) price for the freedom we have gained since the 1960s. In general, it’s simply a matter of waiting until the incumbant government is so unpopular that people believe ‘time for a change’ is better than ’sticking with the devil you know’. I think its impossible for an opposition to demonstrate they have the tools to do anything! Even if they announce a popular policy, the Government will simply say it is unfunded and them do it themselves in a few months.
Dragging you back to safety, does anyone know whether incumbent governments of host nations enjoy a lift in the polls as a result per se of hosting the Olympics? Little data will be forthcoming from next year’s I suppose!
One thing i do agree with whole heartedly, is that the Cons are far less adept at slinging mud or highlighting erors whereas Lab are experts. “sums don’t add up”, “economy at risk”. Say it enough times and it sticks.
Alistair Darling will today implement “Bowns vision”, no doubt pinched tory policy on IHT and stampt duty, paid for by taxing private equity funds.
They will likely implememt the tory IHT policy and then try and destroy tory credibibiity with the 3.5 bill non-dom claims. The Tories, as discussed need more than just good policy they need to go on the offensive and highlight shortcomings, as they see it. This last week is the first time in years that has seen Labour being hit with a stick by the Cons, it’s always been the other way around.
A party of opposition needs to oppose the government and not be a government wipping boy.
If Brown signs up to the EU reform treaty, he will not recover. the Murdoch press will switch sides completly and the polls with it.
Adam 8
I confess I’m currently having a spot of fun on Iain Dale’s diary. When I came back here, I thought I was still there. It’s just too contentious, and makes little sense, evemn if one wanted to contend it here.
What is contetious John T and “makes little sense”. the fact the cons are not adept at all out attack. or the EUreform treaty statement?.
Whether or not the opposition is a whipping boy is neither here nor there when it comes to the polls. Has it really always been the other way round anyway? “say it enough times and it sticks” – well true of anything, even the truth, but you’re using it to peddle
your view that it has no merit. “Pinched”? How neutral is that? “more than just good policy” In whose eyes “good”? 38% of those polled? I could go on, but I’m not here for a blargument about policies!
Another great result from the Tories in this latest POLL – showing an increase of 2% for the Tories from the last Populus POLL .
As mentioned above – a more accurate POLL will be the next ones after Labour’s disasterous week in politics .
My prediction is neck and neck POLLING for Labour and Conservatives for the next few weeks tll about Christmas time when the Labour postion will drop back to the mid to low 30’s and the Tories will remain high 30’s and the Liberals will make a comeback to about the mid teens .
This will all come about as the media look into everything Brown says and does with great scrutiny .
Even today we see Brown taking on board the Tory policies from the conference – ho hum !!
What i would be interested to know, Adam 8, is whther you think it would be better tactics for Osborne / cameron to welcome threshold increases by darling, while hinting that they were triggered by Osborne’s speech, or whether it will play better to carry on “hitting them with a stick” I get the impression that the Tory revival would be more emphatic if they hadn’t been so strident about “spin” and Brown’s “behaviour” – drawing attention to those things gets the argument onto ground which is more or less neutral as far as poll data goes. Apologies if my criticisms were too strong
As far as the EU Reform Treaty goes, if Murdoch did switch sides over it, he’d probably switch back if it turned out that Labour’s chances in a general election hadn’t been damaged. That’s only my view, and i respect yours!
BTW I haven’t seen this Poll anywhere on the Timesonline website?
no offense taken John, firstly I am genuinely of no political persuassion as a matter of course and have been in favour of and voted for both major parties at differing times. I guess you may be right about Murdoch, he will back the winning horse, but “it was the sun wot won it” is probably true and if Brown does go against the Labour manifesto pledge I think they will give him a very tough time, which will transpose into the opinion polls. I would suggest that you and most on a site like this have some political savvy and can see beyond the point scoring and party lines, There will however be a lot of the tabloid readers with not much connection to the political process and will swallow what is being told to them in the Murduch media, this could cause irreperable damage, in my opinion.
I think it would be wise for Cameron/Osbourne to welcome the changes if they are genuine and of course they will highlight the fact it was their policy proposal. “pinched” i would think is fair and objective, both parties do it if it’s popular, and one could not defend a position that this is a Labour idea, it is being adopted, and rightly so, because it’s popular and therefore is “pinched” from the tories. I don’t suggest that the sums do always add up, we all now politics is often based more on perception than fact. But I just think that Labour are far better at destroying Tory perception, no matter how factual, and the tories do not go after Labour to the same extent.
“Apologies if my critisms were too strong”
If only politicians had that attitude!
It’s not there (yet). It was on page 8 of the paper, with an article by Peter Riddell, who heade it with the shift in opinions as to Brown/Darling versus Cameron/Osborne to be trusted to run the economy.
There always seems to be a small percentage of Labour voters who think Cameron/Osborne are better, and a small number of Tory voters who believe Brown/Darling are better. Is this a by-product of the weighting procedures, or are there really Labour voters who want Tory economics, and the other way round? Or are the policies so similar, taht it doesn’t matter?
Adam 8 – If they did have that attitude, they’d probably disappear. Never Apologise is written in their collective rule book, presumably because to apologise loses more votes than it gains. The stakes aren’t quite so high for me, thank goodness, and I’d go further – I come onto sites like this hoping to “pinch” arguments that I can use to stir things up with my mates!
Tabloid readers might well be able to understand the difference between a Constitution and a Treaty, in terms of concept. The Constitutuion is certainly dead, but its contents live on in much less scary vehicle. That’s fact, not opinion, and Brown’s ability to “handbag” attempts to rub out our red lines should define the debate. His problem is that the argument could run and run over the other reform treaty parties’ (France, Germany etc) possible erosion over time of those red lines.
I thought I would change the subject! Past talk in these pages has often focused on the electoral disadvantage the Tories are now apparantly under as if this was a new occurance and how they need to be 10 points ahead in the polls to even get a working majority. So I thought I would do a little research into the number of times since 1900 that the party getting the most votes has ended up with fewer seats than an opponent. Well it has happened FIVE times since 1906 with the Conservatives losing out in four of them, twice to the Liberals and twice to Labour. The election which perhaps sticks out the most happened in January 1910 when the Tories got 3.3% more of the votes than the Liberals but ended up with 2 fewer seats.In the 2 cases-1929 and 1974- where the third party got sizeable votes clearly this was the main reason behind the lopsided result but in the other instances the third party was a negligible factor.So there is no common denominator other than the fact that the Tories have been there before rather too often for their comfort. However to suggest that they need to be 10 points in front does not seem to be born out by history and the election calculators which rely soley on a uniform swing are probably no guide to what will happen in an election. Past performance of all three main parties in those constituencies with few boundary or profile changes must come into the reckoning as much as the mathematical swing required to unseat the incumbant. The Tories clearly have to be 4 points in front of Labour to get a mjority but how much further than that the bar should be set is indeed the 64,000 dollar question.
Intersting perspective Nick. Maybe the time has come to set agreeable boundaries to all parties that would better reflect the overall points advantage. Though no party in power would approve. I believe the point was made on another thread, that Labour will likely need a strong Scottish vote to maintain its advantage and with the SNP rising in voter popularity, that could be a key point. I also think the LD’s with their current leader will play more into the hands with the 2 majors as the polls suggest.
Thanks Nick!
I hope any polls out this week-end will be doing the field-work after to-day’s budget announcements (and replies). It’s somewhat frustrating to see one where the research has straddled an announcement.
Are constituencies that remain the same generally regarded as more indicative than those which change their make-up enough to be reviewed? I’d have thought the opposite, that changing communities would contain less rigidity and therefore be more sensitive to political movements
Well it seems that the eye catching measures from the Chancellor’s announcement are that the IHT threshold for couples will be raised to £600,000 and that corporation tax will be cut by 2 points to 28%. Nothing on stamp duty. Non-doms and private equity firms will be reviewed also.
The Tories will (rightly) portray this as some clothes stealing although I suspect the IHT change was one that Labour were planning on springing today in any event in advance of the ghost election. The difficulty for Cameron is that he has little option but to run the line that he welcomes these reforms but that they were his ideas. Of course by the time the next election comes, these will be non issues which is precisely what the government hoped to achieve.
I agree entirely with the poster who said that polling should be done after this review so that we can assess its impact. I suspect that (for once) Mike R will be right in one respect and that Labour will have a small to medium lead in the short term.
IHT threshold to be raised, non-domiciles to be targeted and flights to be taxed instead of passengers. What a bunch of exciting and original ideas to be implemented by Labour (!)
Wonder whether yet another flagrant grab of Tory policy will have an impact on the polls?
The one surprise measure in the package is probably the most significant. Capital Gains Tax will now be levied at a flat rate of 18% with no taper relief. While this represents bad news for private equity bosses, it is very good news for individuals owning property and stocks who currently pay 40% CGT.
This proposal ought to get some attention from the media but I just wonder in the current febrile atmosphere whether it will go through under the radar.
Well, I am not really surprised by this announcement and who would be. Perhaps the public don’t really care who does the things they want, they just want them done – a substantial and long-overdue rebalancing of the tax system for a start.
Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. However, the non-domicile issue is going to wider consultation no doubt as to ascertain its feasibility and practicality. Do the ‘gains’ trump any potential ‘losses’? It’s important to establish that before moving ahead on it.
I actually think the government had been looking at IHT long before Osborne’s proposals came to fruition. The same with the non-domicile thing. Brown, seemingly, considered this as far back as 1995 when Shadow Chancellor.
As I’ve stated I have misgivings about taxing non-domiciles since I’m concerned it could pose wider economic risks. I feel much the same re-private equity; though most will agree they are too lightly taxed. Economic stability means more to me than tax-cut giveaways here or tax-hikes there.
As for the tax on planes, this irks me since the cost will, ultimately, fall on passengers not the airlines. Still, there seems to be something of a tri-partisan consensus here. Not enough of that in British politics.
As I have argued before, thenext election will see an end to anti-Tory tactical voting, and a beginning of anti-labour tactical voting. Thus, I expect some of the bias that began in 1997 to even out. I also expect Labour may do better in places where it does not need to, which may also adversely effect their seats-to-votes ratio.
This 10 point stuff is just nonsence, I think about 4 or 5 will be enough.
Luke,
Were the Tory ‘malcontents’, despite a sugar-coated party conference, to jump out of their tree again to the point of destabilising Cameron, I’d be very surprised if their fortunes didn’t slide. Of course, if they remain disciplined then they should hold their own and then some.
Of course, much will depend on what happens with the Lib Dems. Does Ming stay or does he go? The Lib Dems will certainly benefit from some Labour tactical voting, where Labour doesn’t have a chance. They won’t be polling as low as 12% on the day. I don’t think the UK will be returning to two-party politics any time soon despite what the polls are suggesting right now.
I suspect the fall-out from Iraq hit a max on Labour in 2005. Labour will, of course, be judged on its performance as it was in 2001 and 2005.
Philip Thompson – The fieldwork was between Friday and Sunday,the first poll with a Conservative lead was Sunday,therefore some of the fieldwork would have been done with the Conservatives in the lead in the polls….or was the last bit of fieldwork at 03:45 on the Sunday morning before the papers hit the street?
Why is it that the Coservatives are not pollimg more positively? We are right in what is usually described as the mid-term blues for governments and the best they can do is scarcely more than ocasionally keep level. The govermment has had a bad press and has had a number of crises to deal with which would normally help an opposition into a healthy lead. It is often said that elections are won some considerable time before polling day. Can the Conservatives recover or are they doomed to many more years in opposition? Should they be offering more right wing policies? Perhaps the wiser, more perspicacious contributors to this site can give Mr Cameron and his colleagues some advice?
Arnie-”Well it seems that the eye catching measures from the Chancellor’s announcement are that the IHT threshold for couples will be raised to £600,000″
Actually there is no “couples ” IHT allowance now.
IHT bands currently relate to individual estates.
KPMG have said “This change, although likely to grab headlines, is in practice only giving to most people what they already have,” At present, couples can take out a zero-rate Discretionary Trust which in practise pools their inheritance tax allowances. Only those who have not availed themselves of this would be helped by today’s announcement. Yet Brown estimates this will cost him £1.4 billion-it probably won’t-but then the Tories plan probably wouldn’t have cost £3bn either !
Arnie:-
“corporation tax will be cut by 2 points to 28%.”
This was already announced by Brown in last years Budget-as was a 2% increase for small businesses which Darling didn’t remind us of today.Given removal of CGT taper relief , many genuine, long-term family businesses will see their tax rate almost double when they come to sell up.The CGT measures announced today are good news for some individuals, but in trying to get at the private equity sector , this very blunt instrument will cause great collateral damage in a very important sector of the UK economy which is getting a pasting from Labour.
I don’t doubt things could go wrong for the Tories easily. It will only take one bad poll- they’re an unruly rabble. But they do respect ability to win above all else, which is a lesson the Labour party have also learned.
Certain individuals continue to devise posts which are entirely informed by their own political bias. Whilst this may occasionally be vaguely entertaining I thought that this biard was meant to be for reasonably objective discussion. There are a number of rational explanations of recent events one of which is that the effect of ramping up an election has been to flush out a few Tory populist policies and then deal with them in a very prompt fashion…..and that’s politics. Now, is that being objective or not?
David – Couldn’t agree with you more.I believe it to be a good political tactics , as upto a couple of weeks ago no one knew what policies they had.At least they now have something to scrutinise and critisise.Short term pain for long term gain?
John H:-
“Should they be offering more right wing policies?”
I,m not sure what you mean by that term-but no-absolutely not.
What they must do is what they thought they were about to do in a GE Prospectus-tell the public at large-repeatedly-about the philosophy, intent & practical effect of all the policy areas covered in Cameron’s speech.:-The effect & practice of handing more control of the NHS back to practitioners, The effect of academic streaming in schools, and the freeing up of school management & ownership, THe meaning of “broken society” to those inner city & town communities crushed by drugs & violent crime, and proposed solutions, The effect of Tory policy on immigration….indeed the very role and purpose of The State in a modern free enterprise economy.
The public currently is being treated like children in a sweet shop-by all political parties. The minutae of the smaller budgetary numbers are being used in a sort of bizarre version of a tv gameshow. And the whole thing is often presented in a way which seeks to confuse & conseal.
It’s time for this appalling Ballsite approach to politics to stop.
Lets get back to real political philosophies & let the people choose.
I would welcome some serious political debate -on tv & in the press.-but don’t expect for one minute we will get it.
…and of course I would welcome a proper explanation of Labour’s current political philosophy -just what is Gordon’s “Vision” for the country & how will it effect us all.
We’ll never get a TV debate I wouldn’t think, simply because both sides feel they must have something to gain. Blair has refused in recent elections because he knew he simply had it to lose. I fully expect Cameron to challenge Brown to one, but he won’t agree. And judging by Mr. Brown’s performance at dispatch box, he’d be wise not to.
The press reaction seems to be that Darling has ’stolen’ Tory clothes- it’s pretty hostile. I guess Labour are prepared to take a short term hit to blunt these trump cards unveiled by the Tories.
Luke,
That it is. Any one would think the Labour government had increased the IHT threshold to £1m, which they have NOT. Surprising as it may seem the Tories don’t have a monopoly on policies fiscal.
I’d be surprised if the government hadn’t been looking at IHT and other areas of taxation for some time. Personally, I wouldn’t have gone as far on IHT as they, seemingly, have. It’s not as though every single estate pays it as it stood; in fact, far from it. I have misgivings as to whether non-domiciles should be ‘taxed’ at all. As for the ‘plane tax’, we seem to have a ‘tri-partisan’ consensus now.
Right Dave, its all a pure coincidence that Darling has decided to (1) Reform IHT (2) Tax non-domiciles (3) Tax flights not passengers. Purely unrelated to these being popular Tory policies.
I think there’s bow a big difference in IHT policies – the Toy’s is to have a threshold of £1m for single people (and couples who aren’t clever enough to hire a financial advisor), and a threshold of £2m for couples who are clever enough. Labour’s is to keep current thresholds the same, but to make it unnecessary to be clever by changing the rules so that one’s £300k allowance can be transferred to a surviving partner, and it’s backdated to cover those who have lost partners already. Presumably, that transfer can happen on a serial basis so that (without being too gruesome) a widow(er) who remarries would effectively have £600k allowance in the new partnership.
Arguments over who said what first are a bit silly. Aren’t we crying out for right to be done? It would be big of GB to give credit for the Flight tax to Cameron, but as long as policies are not written on the back of a fag packet, who cares?(and I’m assuming Treasury documents could prove how long the IHT changes have been in the making, if anyone were interested)
Sorry, should that be Ming Campbell to be credited with the Flight tax idea?
We now know why Brown let speculation about an early election grow. I have always said that there will not be an election till 2009, I now think it will be in 2008 (maybe). On inheritance tax I think the Tory policy and Labour policy are too different to have been copied. On flight tax, both Labour and the Tories stole that from the LibDems. And on non-domiciles, Labour have said for a few years they would do something, yesterday Labour rejected the Tory plans (which I have heard the Tories stole from the Observer).
I think these last few days will be good for Labour, bad for the Tories and much as they have been for the LibDems (I feel sorry for them as they are the only ones who can claim that their idea was stolen).
I don’t take such a forgiving view. Even if Labour were always going to do these things (which I struggle to accept even a partisan believes) they’ve announced them a few days after they were announced by the Tories and are being accused of stealing them from all quarters of the press. In that case, it was pretty silly politics to announce all of them just like this.
I think it’s naked politics, and there will be a short term price to pay in terms of popularity. Simply stealing your opponents policies will not be seen as strong leadership or anything resembling a ‘vision’.
With regard to the charge of Labour stealing policies, the issue here is timing. I have no doubt that Labour were planning to raise the threshold for IHT but they have only themselves to blame for the perception that they stole the idea. They forced the Tories to come forward with their proposals by ramping up the election talk and then Brown felt the need to spike their guns now rather than waiting till the Budget in March. His timing was purely political even though I do not think he stole the policy (not least because his proposal is markedly different to the Tories and is hardly novel).
In response to Colin’s point about the threshold change being illusory because couples presently can get some tax advice and set up a trust to double their allowance, I agree that couples “could” do that right now. However given that most people are incapable of renewing the mortgage deal when their discounted deal runs out, I very much doubt that anything more than a small minority of couples have actually sought and acted on such tax advice. The attraction of Labour’s proposal is that it confers a benefit on all couples regardless of how clever and well advised they are which is to be welcomed.
If there is a criticism to be made of the IHT proposals it is that they do not help divorced or single people and I am actually uncomfortable about that. It was only two weeks ago that Brown criticised the Tories for favouring married couples over single people and I thought he was right then and wrong now.
The other charges of stealing ideas are a little woolly. The taxation of flights rather than passengers was a Lib Dem idea so the Tories can have no complaint there. With regard to non-doms, Labour have said they will consult before deciding what charge to impose unlike the Tories who have rushed out a promise to charge all non-doms with a flat fee regardless of income. The Labour consultation proposal is sensible as no-one at present has any idea what revenue can be achieved and what the effect may be of charging non-doms.
The Tories proposed change on stamp duty has not been followed by Labour in any respect and with regard to CGT, Labour have suggested a radical proposal which the Tories have not touched on.
The Tories have had their fun and would now be best advised to analyse and challenge the proposals that they believe to be wrong particularly the CGT reform. Their performance on the news last night was nothing more than crowing and the public is never attracted by that sort of behaviour. By contrast the Lib Dems spent some time homing in on the increased borrowing revealed by Darling and the Tories should do the same if they want to be treated seriously.
Brown’s calculation of course is that he can ride out the abuse in the short term and in the long term he has spiked the one sliver of appeal that Cameron has managed to generate in the past 6 months. Cameron must now work out what his detailed vision is much as Brown must also. Both leader’s speeches were strong on general sentiment but very weak on the specifics as to how it might be achieved. Will Cameron dare to propose public service reform before the next election? I think that will be the big question going forward and the one that might separate the parties come polling day.
Labour has not
With regard to the charge of Labour stealing policies, the issue here is timing. I have no doubt that Labour were planning to raise the threshold for IHT but they have only themselves to blame for the perception that they stole the idea. They forced the Tories to come forward with their proposals by ramping up the election talk and then Brown felt the need to spike their guns now rather than waiting till the Budget in March. His timing was purely political even though I do not think he stole the policy (not least because his proposal is markedly different to the Tories and is hardly novel).
In response to Colin’s point about the threshold change being illusory because couples presently can get some tax advice and set up a trust to double their allowance, I agree that couples “could” do that right now. However given that most people are incapable of renewing the mortgage deal when their discounted deal runs out, I very much doubt that anything more than a small minority of couples have actually sought and acted on such tax advice. The attraction of Labour’s proposal is that it confers a benefit on all couples regardless of how clever and well advised they are which is to be welcomed.
If there is a criticism to be made of the IHT proposals it is that they do not help divorced or single people and I am actually uncomfortable about that. It was only two weeks ago that Brown criticised the Tories for favouring married couples over single people and I thought he was right then and wrong now.
The other charges of stealing ideas are a little woolly. The taxation of flights rather than passengers was a Lib Dem idea so the Tories can have no complaint there. With regard to non-doms, Labour have said they will consult before deciding what charge to impose unlike the Tories who have rushed out a promise to charge all non-doms with a flat fee regardless of income. The Labour consultation proposal is sensible as no-one at present has any idea what revenue can be achieved and what the effect may be of charging non-doms.
The Tories proposed change on stamp duty has not been followed by Labour in any respect and with regard to CGT, Labour have suggested a radical proposal which the Tories have not touched on.
The Tories have had their fun and would now be best advised to analyse and challenge the proposals that they believe to be wrong particularly the CGT reform. Their performance on the news last night was nothing more than crowing and the public is never attracted by that sort of behaviour. By contrast the Lib Dems spent some time homing in on the increased borrowing revealed by Darling and the Tories should do the same if they want to be treated seriously.
Brown’s calculation of course is that he can ride out the abuse in the short term and in the long term he has spiked the one sliver of appeal that Cameron has managed to generate in the past 6 months. Cameron must now work out what his detailed vision is much as Brown must also. Both leader’s speeches were strong on general sentiment but very weak on the specifics as to how it might be achieved. Will Cameron dare to propose public service reform before the next election? I think that will be the big question going forward and the one that might separate the parties come polling day.
So, Luke, is the Government not allowed to come up with policies on issues that the opposition parties have talked about? Surely that would be daft? Darling’s IHT policy might well have been whipped up over-night, but it’s totally different from Osborne’s, and the issues deserve a debate more worthy than the playground nonsense. (Not accusiing you of that level, but Osborne won’t gain anything from it)
Arnie, I think we hit the button at the same time – in the interests of balance, i think Osborne’s proposal was not necessarily rushed , and Cameron’s appeal is more than a sliver! , but with you on the need for debate about specifics – eminently winnable debate from both sides.
Do you think that the IHT proposalsby Osborne, and their dramatic effect on the polls will entice the Tories to develop more tax-cutting ideas, and thereby create “clear blue water”?
On a similar subject, I’ve just read somewhere else that the Maastrich rules prevent a new Government from departing from their predecessor’s spendin for two years, which explains why Brown stuck to Ken Clarke’s, and why Osborne has said he’ll stick to Darling’s. They have no option. Is that the case, does anyone know? If so, the debate over Europe could reach further than the Reform Treaty.
Thanks John. I was being a little bit cheeky but my reference to a sliver was more directed towards policy differences. At the moment the Tories have yet to develop any hard policies to back up the warm words on mending society and making public spending more effective. If those policies come they could be a real vote winner or a disaster if people feel they are an attempt to break the underlying principle of the NHS for instance. My feel is that Cameron will continue to make the noises but not commit to any reform that might scare the voters.
As for tax cuts, Cameron is very constrained by the public finances. I suspect he has gone as far as he can on personal taxation and that he may suggest some corporation tax changes. Cameron is smart enough to know that the main reason the Tories are out of power is that Labour have been the party who are more trusted to run the economy for the past 10 years. He cannot undermine the Tories’ credibility by offering uncosted tax cuts and given that he has committed to match Labour’s spending plans, his only option would be to identify nebulous efficiency savings. Hague and Howard both tried and failed with that policy.
My feel is that Cameron’s best hope is that the economy goes downhill and that Brown loses the public’s trust on financial matters. Cameron will then present himself as a face of change and a safe pair of hands. However the electoral arithmetic makes it difficult for him to win an outright majority unless he can really energise the public in the way that Blair did and I can’t see him doing that without proposing real changes to the way public money is spent (and I doubt that he will grasp that nettle).
I think for the next couple of months both parties will see how recent events shake out and affect the polls and then decide their strategy for 2008. The EU treaty will be the next fight and my suspicion is that Brown is hoping that he is rescued by another country holding and losing a referendum. If not he will have to argue that his red lines have been breached and get out that way which would be very messy.
Arnie-I think you will find that Cameron’s speech is replete with a less centralised approach to the management of Public Services-In Health & Education-but also in areas like tackling the drug related effects on society.
Claims of economic competence are beginning to look a little threadbare from this government.Borrowing- consistently mis- forecast by Brown when Chancellor, has yet again risen. THe error is over £10billion this time -indeed the “investment” in NHS which now continues at the expense of almost all other departments, is now borrowed. THis in direct contravention of the famous “golden rules” and Gordon’s famously flexible “economic cycle” seems now totally abandoned.
While playing games with the fringe elements of personal taxation may make for amusing political jousting, it is the vast sums of money which have been poured into unreformed public services which are the important elements of our economy.And it is the massive size of the public sector created by this government which will topple Brown off his podium if economic growth falls below forecast. THe economy has been sustained by a mountain of State & Private Debt-Vince Cable rightly warns that here lies significant risk as both State & private borrowers reign in their largesse.
And as the pinch on funding works through to Local Authorities, and Council Tax rises of 5% plus again emerge one wonders how people will take to Mr Brown’s continued crowing about economic competence?
A quick scan of the papers this morning would indicate that Brown is losing his economic competency credentials very fast. The Independent , Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, and THe FT-all of whom have been supporters in the past make interesting reading today.
Cameron should major on this-and as you suggest-explain that there is a different way of managing The States activities.
Judging by this morning’s PMQs we are in for a two year de-facto election campaign.
Roll on the next Polls!
I think something very fundamental has happened here, and I’m not sure to what extent thas has been grasped.
For 10 years there has been an understanding between the Government and the electorate that the public’s money was being invested into the public services and that tax cuts meant less for public services.
The huge swing behind the IHT proposals suggest to me that this consesus has ended and that the public are growing tired of waiting for public service improvements and fee;l spent up and ready for their money back.
I believe a brave Tory push on a return to bigger tax cuts at the expense of some public service investment could be a vote winner, and Labour have clearly spotted the ending of this good will by jumping on the IHT bandwagon.
It’s a fascinating poker game at the moment and will be interesting to see which way Cameron jumps.
“I think these last few days will be good for Labour, bad for the Tories”
Garry gatter, time will tell but I think the indicators contradict your statement. I was astounded when reading the comments section on various Labour sympathising newspaper websites and more specifically on the supposedly neutral bbc website about the “so called” election climb down and policy plagirism claims.
Over 1800 comments on bbc and of the first 200 or so I read less than 10 thought Brown had either planned this all along or approved of his handling of it. The overwhelming concensus was one that is damaging to Brown with many in Scotland sharing the view and saying they will vote for cameron, even those saying they are lifelong labour voters who will now switch allegience.
Will their memories last that long when a raft of new political issus make this a distant memory? A lot will happen in between.
The conservatives will now keep trying to instill in the public conciousness the “perception” that Brown is a dittehering, weak, bottler with no vision. None of us know if he really is or the real truth behind all this, but we all form opinions based on our own perception.
The conservatives will likley withold policy until the election, citing yesterday.
It will be left to Brown to try and reverse the past few days and to clearly demonstrate his vision in practise. Its his to lose or win.
The economic indicators from the city are less than yesterdays forecast, he has taken a big gamble.
Opposition parties rarely win elections, governing parties lose them.
Voters often vote to keep them in or chuck them out.
It certainly will be intersting from our warm and comfy sideline seats, can’t wait for the polls.
Colin,
Should the economy stay on track and not run into serious difficulties then there is going to be be a lot of egg on faces. Yes, I accept, under the circumstances, it is prudent to lower forecasts since it’s difficult to conceive that there won’t be consequences of the “credit crunch” on the international economy.
The OECD has already said that interest rates may need to fall to boost the economy and the IMF has warned of a global slowdown in economic growth. The B of E, however, won’t cut rates until they are convinced that inflation (its litmus test re-economic stability)is on target.
Should the UK plc sail into choppy waters the government will be judged on how effective, as to minimise any wider societal trauma, it stears it through.
Adam 8, in contrast I’ve been on Right-leaning websites enghaing in a bit of “sheep-worrying”, and the noise from those is that the “traditional” tories want “traditional tory” policies back. I hope there are more policy announcements, as that will mean more polls from data-hungry newspapers.
the BBC website is plagued with lunatics in my view, and I’m sure the different parties have members logging in all day to queer the pitch. I don’t know how Nick Robinson copes.
A fascinating article in The Times today by Alice Miles which identifies the “geography” of Labour’s spending spree.
Public spending as a share of GDP has risen from 40.6% to 44.1% since 1997-higher than any EU/OECD country-but the regional variations are enormous:-
N. Ireland 70.5% ( I hasten to say-very understandable!)
Wales 64.3%
North East-63.0%
Scotland-55.6%
North West-54.0%
London & SE.33%
East-38.3%
South West42%
The gaps are widening , not shrinking.
Parts of the country have economies which begin to look like the old Soviet Union. Even China today has a larger private sector than some parts of UK-and these areas are in “The North”
So whilst voters in The North might welcome this State patronage, perhaps The South may come to resent it?
If this situation is factored in to the lists of “Target Seats” for both Labour & Conservative which are given on this website-can any conclusions be drawn about how these regional economic trends might impact regional voting trends, and indeed the outcome of a General Election?
Wow! I live in the South, and I don’t know anyone who resents people from other regions receiving the benefits “big government”. That’s only my narrow circle, but I’d be surprised if resentment over high taxes took on a geographical slant. Very interesting figures though!
Anthony,
Given the excitement of the last few days (including todays PMQ’s), when are the next polls due? (opinion polls obviously…)
I am both fascinated and appalled by those figures, but I am not going to embark on a rant about them.
In responce to the so-called theivery by the Government, I think it’s perfectly acceptible to adopt opposition policies in a strict governmental sense, but can be dodgy politics. In this case, I don’t see what harm it would have done to say that ‘Even Tories have good ideas sometimes- but we’re going to improve them!’ rather than pretending all these proposals, announced within days of them getting huge media coverage after the Conservative conference, were ‘always going to happen now anyway’. That is about as believable as saying that the decision to not hold the election had nothing to do with opinion polls.
I think the Government are playing a dnagerous game here- the gap between rhetoric and reality is getting very large now, and I don’t believe anyone believes these policies would have been anounced anyway, or that the election cancellation had nothing to do with opinion polls. The media coverage reflects this fact- take the Guardian’s coverage, for instance.
With regards the so called definite disastrous downturn in the economy. A Conservative leader has twice tabled questions in the Commons in the last 10 years which included the words”the forthcoming recession”.
As I have said more than once,for all these quaters of growth we have had….the disaster seems a long time coming.
Your ‘average voter’ doesn’t read BBC blogs or any one else’s blogs for that matter very much if at all and gets a sort of diluted impression of political events from newspaper and news headlines. They don’t watch Nick Robinson pontificating on Newsnight or webcasts of BBC News 24 when PMQs is one (and one wonders what happens to the BBC 5 Live listening figures over Wednesday lunchtimes?) People have some idea that there’s some working class lads ‘made good’ amongst Labour’s higher echelons and that some of Cameron’s most senior colleagues are, as he is, old Etonians from rich and privileged backgrounds and that influences them too. Most people don’t care who thought of a policy first and most people don’t get very excited about elections or possible elections and in the end most people (if they do vote) will go for whoever they trust most to maintain their standard of living. Did Kinnock lose in 92 because he overdid it at Sheffield or because the Sun’s headline about the last person to leave the country tutning the lights off which reinforced a feeling that Labour wasn’t to be trusted running the economy (and that was 16 years after Healey’s IMF debacle in 76).
Colin has made a very interesting post.
Unfortunately, it explains part of the Tories’ problem about taking enough marginal seats across the country.
I can envisage a situation where they do well and maybe even reach 40/41 per cent [although not if it was held now], but they wouldn’t get it efficiently.
I suspect West Yorkshire has become much more public sector dominated, and is part of the reason why they are struggling in about 10-12 vital seats there.
I was very struck by Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East. This is not traditionally a safe Labour seat, but a marginal, won under John Major in 1992. It is a mixture of Council estates, suburbs, and rural communities. The share of public sector GDP rose from around 37% in 1997 to around 60% at the time of the 2005 General Election, when despite a fall in the Labour vote, they still had an 8,000 majority.
Joe James, I remain sceptical about whether people think about their share of state spending when they vote, but I suspect like eveeryone here, the motivation behind a decison to vote a certain way, especially among those who change their minds, is a fascinating subject. It’s a pity that polling organisations can’t devise a reasonable way of divining such a nebulous process of thought, but I don’t think it’s their place to even try.
David Botwell, I seem to remember a poll(or survey) of Sun Readers after the”Sun wot won it ” headline, which revealed that a majority of Sun readers had voted Labour! Clearly not uniformly, but I’ve never forgotten reading that in 1992.
Adam 8, I know what you mean, when I get a bit depressed when reading the comments in the “left” Guardian (where they love to attack Brown) I like to read the comments in the “right” Telegraph (where they love to attack Cameron).
John T
Maybe even more of the Sun Readers would have voted Labour in 92 if it hadn’t been for that infamous headline!
The aggregate figures from MORI’s polls in 1992 showed that 45% of Sun readers voted Tory, 36% voted Labour and 15% voted Lib Dem, so Sun readers did indeed lean to the Tories.
What gives the lie to the “it was the Sun what won it” claim though is if you look at the swing amongst different newspaper readers in the last week of the campaign (the Sun’s headline was based on the claim that Sun readers had swung to the Tories in the last week or so), the largest swing to the Conservatives was actually amongst Mirror readers, whose coverage obviously didn’t feature Kinnock’s head in a lightbulb and so on.
Thanks for that Anthony, just goes to prove there aint nought queer as folk hey?
I dare say yesterdays CSR and PBR was watered down and Labour would have had a lot more giveaways if they had gone to the country.
When are the next polls out Anthony?
Anthony, I’m indebted, my memory was playing tricks on me, I must have remembered the oddity of Mirror readers crossing to the Tories or something!
John T
If one is not a political anorak and work as a Public Sector cohesion liasion officer for 60k and you fear you might lose your job if there’s a Tory government it makes it more likely one will vote Labour or perhaps Lib Dem.
Joe James Broughton – a very good point, and when “savings” are talked about, it is really “reductions in headcount” that is in the offing. The quickest way to spend money is by creating jobs and increrasing wages, the converse is true, and it remains to be seen whether that will play on the minds of public sector people when deciding how to vote.
Having accepted that, I still don’t think that people think about their regions proportion of national spending – it’s just too academic a set of figures. I don’t believe London and South East are more likely to vote Tory because the figure there is the lowest, it’s more likely because of the more traditional dividers, like “Big Govt vs Individual Responsibility” or perceptions of success/failure over Crime, the NHS and Economy(I am poersuadable, though, as the idea that the figures encapsulate the differences is one I hadn’t considered!)
THat is exactly what I had in mind Jo James. People vote for lots of things-but personal financial security must be well up the list.
So if you live in an area where most jobs are provided by the taxpayer, you are not likely to vote for a reduction in the size of state bureaucracy.ie you become reliant upon the State for your living and long term security comes from continued state employment.
Conversely if you live in an area with a vibrant private sector, and good employment prospects you perhaps are more attuned to competing for jobs, changing jobs and ensuring that your efforts at work contribute to your employers long term viability.Your focus is perhaps on competition and things like low taxes. And low taxes are more likely if the State is spending less of your money.
So the North South political divide in UK might be -at least in part-a function of the prevalence of a State provided job market.
Todays Times is full of fascinating thoughts.
THe pre-budget numbers appear to include a £400m swipe at State 2 pension !-THe CGT tax change aids second home owners & buy to let speculators (!!), whilst hitting small business entrepeneurs.Will the ranks of Labour MPs who sat silently listening to their Chancellor dole money out to middle class property owners start to think about Lib DEms as a more comfortable left wing home?
And the very interesting point made up thread by Davwas is picked up by a couple of writers-how much longer will people put up with higher & higher taxes to feed the ever open maw of an un-reconstructed NHS?. Indeed will the other public sector entities-and unions-see the slowing down of State largesse as a “cut”-and protest accordingly.
THe 2008/2009 Council Tax outcomes are going to be very very interesting!-and Lib DEms have a policy on that.
THe Electoral Calculus website currently “predicts” a Labour majority of 54. If you feed in -just for a laugh!-Con38/Lab/30/LD 25-you get Cons 10 short of a majority…just a thought.
Colin, whether or not the NHS is an “ever-open maw”, it employs far more people than it would under a Conservative Government. The question is, do people link Government “waste” with Government “job creation”? I don’t think they do. “where has all the money gone?” isn’t often answered with “to employ more people”, but I wonder who would gain if the point were made effectively? I’m in the private sector, but I’m happy for the tax I pay to be paid to employ other people, it enables the economy to grow. The question is a little wider than that, of course, because the intention behind the “waste of money” question is to find the added value. Is it worth it? Is the NHS improving?
If the answer to that is yes, the regionality of the tax expenditure recedes.
Anthony
Very interested comment on the impact of tabloids during the 1992 election although the media attention given to the Sun headline might have had an impact on some voters more generally because it was a very memorable expression! I wonder what the voting breakdown of Sun readers has been in more recent elections?
My comment has dissapeared,anyone know why?
JohnT-you’re certainly right about NHS staff numbers!-they are in a league of their own.-Largest emloyer in the developed world-1.4m employees-outnumbering both the private & public workforce of Germany’s healthcare sector-a country with 25% more people than UK, and better health outcomes.
I disagree with your asertion that employment of people in the public sector “makes the economy grow”. It has the reverse effect in fact.
Colin – I wasn’t trying to say anything more than “more people in work = more money spent on goods/housing = increases in growth” We can argue about whether employment by the state leads to better growth than private sector employments, but that wasn’t my point.
And I’d rather not argue about that here (not least because I might lose!)
JohnT-I understand.
The debate about the nature & extent of State activities, & the best options for managing them isn’t one for here as you rightly say.
But it really ought to be one that the politicians engage in-if they could only bring themselves to do so in a civilised fashion!
With regard to political bias of newspaper readers ; 1995 survey
Sun; other 5%, Liberal 11% Conservative 23%, Labour 61%
Telegraph– 3, 15, 52, 30
Guardian– 3,10, 6, 80
Mori 1995 survey quoted p242 Newspaper Power by Jeremy Tunstall.
Does make me question whther Sun readers ever read the front couple of pages..
On another issue concerning whether one should view IHT as something very significant or a ‘one-off’–I go with the one off idea. It’s pretty obvious that if you are taxed once when you earn it why should you be 2nd taxed? It’s an obvious inequity which appealed to no-one. Once it got into everyone’s faces it had to be dealt with (Wasn’t there an independent Senator elected in Australia in the early 1970s on just this issue? That meant it got abolished in Australia pdq after that happened.)
jack, we’re straying a little herre, but it’s an obvious statement but not a fact. The house price increase has not been taxed (it’s house-price inflation that has brought this about) VAT is a more obvious double-tax, but all taxed money is re-taxed as it circulates.(My wages are taxed, but are paid out of taxed profits, which are in turn made because my companies customers paid taxed money for services, money they earned from taxed companies, etc, etc) The iniquity of IHT may or may not be justified, but not by reference to “double tax”
Jack – thnks for the reminder, that must have been the survey I remembered. Thinking about IHT “double tax” there may be an argument for saying it’s wrong to tax gifts among the family, and I suspect the accusations of iniquity come from that.
Jack
Thanks for the 1995 poll information.
Be interesting to see the newspaper readership figures now. Amazing that so few Guardian readers were Liberal and there appears to have been a big switch amongst Sun readers from 1992 which may well mean that some Sun readers do read the front pages given the way the Sun changed position between 1992 and 1995.
Disappearing Comments – if you’ve left a comment and it isn’t here, then either it’s waiting in the moderation queue (shouldn’t take long, I check it a couple of times a day and if you’ve been posting a long time and follow the comments policy your comments go straight up) or your comment didn’t abide by the comments policy and got blocked.
The comments policy in detail is below, but in short discussion here should be in the spirit of non-partisanship. Everyone slips up now and again, I don’t check every post and if you are a political anorak then you’ve got political views that are going to show through. As long as it’s all good natured we can live with that. Generally speaking though, try and keep discussion non-partisan – if you are writing a post saying that politican B is an idiot or policy A is downright silly, then ask yourself if it’s really the right place. Is it adding anything to discussion, or just dragging it towards “my party is better than yours, na, na, na”?
I don’t like moderating and try not to do it, but one posts stat getting partisan it becomes a viscious circle because everyone wants to respond to refute X or defend Y and soon it is the same sort of bearpit as every other comments section. If you’ve made a comment that you didn’t intend to be partisan that got blocked, then try again using more objective language (or ponder whether it was really an objective post in the first place).
Anthony: Apologies for asking again, but do you know when the next poll(s) are scheduled?
Also would it be possible to have written down somewhere for reference what the ’standard’ schedule is for the release dates of them? If there is one?
For what it’s worth, the quality of posting on here has improved immeasurably in recent weeks. Although that could be down to poor Anthony spending his day weeding out the rants!
I enjoy the fact that there is a political element to the discussion surrounding the polls and I find it very helpful to hear opposing (Tory leaning) views that are well considered, respectful and honestly made (Colin, Philip Thompson and Lukw to name but a few). It gives you some faith in human nature when compared to some of the unintelligible vitriol and bile you see on the BBC Politics or newspaper blogs which actually I find quite depressing.
I think its partly because you have to be a real anorak to visit this site and actually care about the subject matter enough to be interested in what people of all political hues have to say.
I come here to restore my spirits, and go to Iain Dale to dance with the wolves!(don’t follow me there, though, it can be fun but it’s rarely worth it!)
Philip – no idea, I’d be very surprised if several papers didn’t commission polls to see what the reaction to the non-election is.
The regular timetable is Populus on the first Tuesday of the month, YouGov on the last Friday of the month. ICM moves about a bit, but is normally on a Tuesday late in the month. MORI is mid month but it depends who pays the money what day it pops up on. ComRes seems to have mysteriously vanished.
There are semi-regular polls by YouGov and ICM in the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph respectively, but they seem to vary which weekend (I think the Sunday Times is offically the second weekend of the month, but it moves).
‘Double tax’– I think it’s because the actual individual (or the estate, so in effect the individual) pays the tax which makes it a one off issue. Do I care if the company which employs me pays tax and I pay tax? Well, I do but I don’t think the person on the street would. It is also the emotionality of the 2nd taxation time; yep, the government kicks me when I have died. These elements are why I think IHT is a unique tax and why people respond to it as an issue. Now it has become an issue of ’should the really wealthy be exempted / you nicked my idea’ it has been kicked into the normal play area of politics and I think will be far less emotionally interesting to the average person.
And with regard to newspaper readership and power the book makes an interesting observation which has even more strength today–let’s not forget that daily readership of newspapers is dying. This may help explain why, even given a particular newspaper’s attitudes it will have less effect than say 20 years ago when daily reading was given. The book also points out which parts of the paers are most read;and TV program details are tops by a decent way. Only then the news.
I don’t know if the reaction to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement from those of my friends who usually support Labour is at all typical. Indeed I am sure GaryG will swiftly tell me that they are most assuredly an unrepresentative lot and that everyone down at his local Labour club is positively ecstatic that the government has decided to raise the threshold of the IHT tax for married couples. However I would sum up the reaction of my left of centre pals as being a mixture of amusement, irritation and exasperation not necessarily in that order.The Chancellor may well have shot the Tories fox but has the ricochet inflicted wounds on his own side?
Jack -
I’m with you on the emotionality issue, and it’snot nice to rob the dead, even if robbing a dead rich person might be more attractive than robbing a dead medium wealthy one!
I find the media issue a fascinating one, I doubt the breakdown of support for Guardian/Telegraph readers will move to much for the major parties. Though the Sun really has the ability to be the difference between a small majority on either side. and Murdoch’s backing is very signifcant.
From the BBC website.
“Despite its predominantly frivolous content, the Sun also acquired significant political influence, thanks to its penetration of the all-important C2 voters (the skilled working class).
It took political reporting and comment seriously, and at the General Election of 1979, it helped Margaret Thatcher sweep the Conservatives to power.
The Sun hadn’t always been Conservative. It proclaimed no allegiance, preferring to describe itself simply as ‘radical’.
In the 1970 election it had supported the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.
When he lost unexpectedly, it switched its support to his Tory successor Ted Heath, later losing faith with both sides.
But in Mrs Thatcher it found a true radical, backing her to the hilt as she vowed to take on the trade unions.
It was Larry Lamb who came up with the headline ‘Winter of Discontent’ to sum up the strikes that dogged the Labour Government and on polling day in 1979 the Sun came out firmly for the Tories.
Lamb was rewarded with a knighthood in the New Year Honours List.
In the Thatcherite 80s, the paper struck a harsher, more belligerent note.
In the 1992 election campaign, the Sun ruthlessly ridiculed the Labour leader Neil Kinnock and McKenzie later claimed it was the “the Sun wot won it” for John Major.
During the Falklands War the paper backed Thatcher
Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell decided that if Labour were ever to win, they must at least neutralise the paper. They succeeded beyond their hopes, winning its backing both in 1997 leading to a landslide victory and again in 2001.
It backed Blair on Iraq but remains fervently anti-Europe, and can’t bring itself to love the new Tory leadership yet”.
for Nick Keene
I suspect ricocheted wounds heal quickly. A week is a long time in politics to restate a cliche. Another truism; ‘a storm in a tea-cup’. We may all enjoy elections because we are a sad group of people but in two weeks this will certainly be irrelevant in the street.
I think the damage to Brown could well be terminal. He was supposed to be strong, masterly, invincible, his enemies cringed before him. Now ministers are publicly criticising him and Blairites are openly rejoicing, and all the press except the Mirror has turned on him. What’s actually needed now is forgiveness and humility on all sides. But I’m not holding my breath…
One thing to remember is that Basildon in 1992 was not typical of what happened in the marginals in that election. The average swing in the marginals was 4% (which is why John Major almost lost his majority), but the swing in Basildon was only 1%.
Another point is regarding the low figure of public spending of 33% in London & SE: I wonder how much of this low figure is down to having so many American owned and other foreign owned businesses / banks in the City of London and Canary Wharf?
Anthony – This is the first time I have ever posted on here but obviously it is ok to say “Another great result from the Tories in this latest POLL” or “Wonder whether yet another flagrant grab of Tory policy will have an impact on the polls?” isn’t too partisan whilst asking why David Cameron,who said he would never go down the Punch and Judy style of PMQ’s in the commons,then went child like and personal.
“Get in your car,get the palace and call an election”.Yes this may impress some people in a playground but to me this type of comment by someone who wants to be PM drags politics further in to the gutter.,,,,and I was edited for posting this????
Nick Keene, I would not be seen dead at my local Labour party club, if there is one, or any other parties club. How did you guess that I was a Labour supporter?
Inheritance tax is not something I think about much, I know it always comes top or near the top of hated taxes. I always think that as long as everyone pays the same taxes (a bit more tax if you have a bit more money) then the system is ok, both parties raise and lower taxes (yes the Tories too, VAT, council tax and the fuel escalator were their inventions).
But how will the recent changes play out there in poll land? We won’t know until we get the next poll, which we are all waiting for with bated breath!
I think the Tory boost will have gone by the next poll, I am assuming that all the talk about Labour shooting the Tory foxes will play out well or be neutral for Labour. The Libdems I think will get back some of their voters from the Tories, not because of anything the LibDems have done but just because of the end of the conference season and people drifting back to their ‘old’ parties.
Anthony, as a side issue, is there any chance of having a search engine on here? I understand Google do a good one for blogs. As another side issue I am never sure whether I should refer to you as Anthony or Anthony Wells when I post a question to you on here, it will just make me feel a lot more comfortable knowing which is correct.
Gary,
Poll out tonight on Sky News attirubted to The Sun giving Tories a 3% lead. C 41% L 38% LD 11%. What effect will this have on Ming?
Gary, just heard the same on BBC News 24. Cons still 3 points ahead.
Maybe more importantly they referred to personal approval ratings. I didn’t here the exact numbers but to the question “who would make the best PM” Brown, who had a lead of cameron of 41 points has had that slashed to 16 points.
Tide turning? or extended temporary blip?
I think it was an Ipsos-MORI poll but have not been able to track it down, the Sky news and Sun sites are not easy to navigate.
Peter Franklin -
The reference to the POLLS is sometimes used as a bit of a fig-leaf, I agree, but when I re-read a partisan post before submitting it, the simple process of adding that “proviso” I find does more than just softens the messsage. I find the interest is augmented by trying to make an intelligent observation while concealing your allegiance. I’m probably not the best at it,or at tolerating naked partisanship,but generally people get away with sailing close to the wind, and the rigour does help the debate. Please don’t go away!
Adam 8, could be the tide turning but I am not convinced, need to see when the poll was taken (am assuming a phone poll taken over the last 2 days). during the bad press over the non election. But yes good news for the Tories, bad news for the LibDems and as I have said before, not bad news for Labour (yet) who are still in the high 30s, when they go down to 36 or less then I will be worried..
Peter Franklin, I agree with John T, this site is one of the best around. I have tried to post on the Guido Fawkes site (a pro Tory blog), there you will find yourself insulted in the most nasty ways possible and then have your comments removed!
We do all get partisan but in a very friendly way and we all have a common interest in learning about the latest polling and also about polling methods as well. And of course its always interesting to hear other commentators interpretation of the latest poll.
Yes-Sky just reported Ipsos-MORI as 41/38/11
The last by them was 28th Sept at 34/41/16-
so movement is Con +7 Lab -3 LD -5
Again have to acknowledge Labour vote holding up quite well.
Put into Electoral Calculus this gives Lab majority 18….and LDs with total loss of seats!!
I can hardly believe these Lib Dem figures recently ?
The swingcalculator gives Labour 316, Tories 295 and LibDems 18. We must take all polls with a pinch of salt and Seat Calculators with a bigger pinch of salt.
interesting point from the Electoral Calculus site; at the last election the estimates entered by site visitors was averaged out, the result, the average thus calulated was closer to the real election result than the last pre election polls taken by the pollsters!
Yours was borderline in hindsight – at least compared to some of the swivel-eyed rants about Gordon Brown that didn’t get through today. What I said above though, if it doesn’t get through, ponder why it might have come across as party-partisan even if you intended it not to be…eg.
Partisan comment – “Do you not think it looked rather child-like and back to the immature politics at the ballot box he said he would never lower himself down to. I was actually expecting him to blow a gooseberry at one stage and say ‘come and have a go if you think your hard enough’. Not something a PM in waiting should be saying,it was quite rediculous.”
Non-partisan – “There’s a potential that attacking Gordon Brown as being a phony might backfire on David Cameron, he made a big fuss about not doing Punch and Judy politics and now the TV clips are of him doing just that. It might end up damaging him more than Brown”
Don’t make the point from a partisan viewpoint, and certainly don’t do it in a way that invites respones from a partisan direction. It IS perfectly valid to discuss whether or not being seen as mean-spirited and triumphal might backfire on David Cameron with the public here, it is NOT the place to discuss whether or not David Cameron *is* being mean-spirited and triumphal or whether he actually is behaving in the way a PM should.
Gary – the Google box was too long and buggered up my sidebar
, I’ll have another go at some point! (And just Anthony will do!)
Anthony – Point has been taken.
A third poll putting the Lib Dems on 11% would surely mean the end of Ming’s leadership, but they’ll probably wait until the beginning of January to get rid of him, like they did with Charlie Kennedy.
I can’t quite believe the LibDem figure – it’s almost as though the debate has polarised so much around Cameron/Brown that they are simply suffering from a lack of attention. When they recover (if?), are they more likely to draw points from the Tories or Labour? Just in terms of the big polls, not the marginals, or their own “safer” seats. I suspect more LD supporters have gone to the tory lower-tax agenda (chimes with theirs) , and perhaps the “Blair’s gone” feeling has cooled as well. The Labour 38% looks consistent, but I’m actually looking forward to a return to normality – the “poll-commissioning budgets” must be running low surely?
I dare say a few old labour defectors may have gone to the LD’s under Blair and have since returned. I also believe that while the polls may be indicative of where ones personal allegience/vote may lie, in an election their may be many that will not vote for their party of choice. That being a Con in Scotland, in a seat where they don’t have a hope of winning may vote for LD to prevent Labour, conversley a Lab supporter in a 2 way LD/Con seat fight will likely vote LD to stop the Cons. either way the LD’s pick up seats. Simon Hughes on Question ghis evening also made the point that when there is an election there polling rises as they are given a fair bit of media coverage, which to be fair is fairly bias towards Lab/Con. I wonder what % of media covergae is given to each of the parties?
I would guess Lab 60 Con 37 LD 3
which maybe another good reason.
Anthony,
another site-related question, if one of us spots an interesting poll somewhere, do we wait for you to post it up here or shall we mention it in the comments section of a previous poll where it might get a bit lost?
Now it’s time for the no-spin bottom-line?
1. Did Gordon Brown definitely say that he intended to call a general election or didn’t he?
No spin answer: NO.
2. Did Alastair Darlng increase the IHT threshold to £1m?
No spin answer: NO (raising it to £1m is the Tory policy)
3. Did Alastair Darlinng say that ALL non-domiciles would be subject to a flat tax of £25,000?
No spin answer: NO (that is the Tory policy)
4.. Did Alastair Darling propose a ‘flight tax’ on airlines?
No spin answer: YES
I have very personal [indeed, partisan] opinions on all four points but here is not the place.
Dave, I do hope that means you’re a Lib Dem!
Keith – post it here, in the most recent thread! (Though do make sure its a proper poll, no Sky news press the red button polls on newspaper phone ins or I shall mock you mercilessly to within an inch of your life
)
I read a poll where 1000 near-to-death individuals were asked their thoughts on IHT.
20% pro Labour
20% pro Tory
60% don’t know/no response
1% Urgh (These were discounted as probable double-votes, from either side of the mortal divide.
Bring it on, Anthony!
ps , Sorry, I’m a little light-headed after a visit to Iain Dale’s site, but at least I posted it here, out of the way.
John T,
Me a Lib Dem? No
Dave It’s obvious which side of the fence you sit, the way you expertly try and defend a position.
Here is a reality check
Did Gordon Brown allow election speculation to rise and rise in the hope the polling would allow him to go to the country.
spin answer: NO. real answer yes.
Would Gordon Brown have gone to the country
if he new he could win a 100 seat majority.
Spin answer No. real answer yes.
Have promised to make announcements to the house first and then making a phony statement on troop withdrawels in Con party conference, was it deliberate?
Spin Answer No. Real Answer Yes
2. Did Alastair Darlng increase have any plans to say anything about IHT in the CSR until the Con announcement and the realisation their is votes in it.
spin answer: Yes all along real answer No.
3. Having said they would tax Non Doms in 1994 and then done nothing, was it all chance that after the Con proposal, Labour followed suit immediately.
spin answer: NO of course not. Real answer Yes
4. Did Alastair Darling propose a ‘flight tax’ on airlines?
spin answer: YES real answer No
Is Gordon Brown Vision to abandon Social democracy and just implement Popular Tory ideas.
Spin answer No. real answer Yes
I have very personal [indeed, partisan] opinions on all points. Here is an alternative perspective to your very Partisan comments. As Anthony warned if you are that Partisan, you will incite response.
Anthony,
Still no sign of the SNP poll on the YouGov polls section.
I thought that as the SNP had released some of the results to the press, that under the guidelines, it would appear on the YouGov site.
It may just be late, but I’d have thought it would be up by now.
Peter.
After several polls with LDs not even making the teens, the speculation about Ming’s future has started in the media – not just amongst we anoraks.
However, my own (objecive) view is that their low rating is not in fact a reflection on Ming but a side effect of the current Lab/Con competitiveness. Historically, LDs have always picked up a few points during the campaign, generally more from Labour than Con. In 1997 and 2001 they also gained significantly from anti-tory tactical voting. Ironically, given that, their best ever result in 2005 (in terms of seats won) was driven by anti-labour swings due to Iraq, and they actually made net losses to Con.
With Conservatives resurgent – even if not yet heading for overall majority, the LDs are very likely to lose many seats taken from Con in 1997 or since – possibly as many as 40. The real issue for the party however, is whether they can hold the seats they took off labour in 2005, let alone win more, if Labour share falls back to mid 30s.
Changing the leader may give them some media coverage, but will not impact the underlying logic, so could actually rebound on them. There is also a potential hostage to fortune should they select Chris Huhne, since his seat is not exactly secure (maj
Oops, lost a bit there..
Huhne’s majority in Eastleigh is in 100s, so he is very vulnerable, and even the higher profile of leadership may not save him – especially as he would not be able to devote the time to his own seat which such a marginal needs – ask Chris Patten !
It would be better for LDs to sit tight and hope for a recovery in polls by May, when they nomally do better in council elections than their Westminster poll ratings. If however they suffer serious losses in councils/seats, then it may be time to change down a generation since Ming will appear very old by 2010.
On the other hand, dumping Ming in advance of the Council elections would smack of panic, and may not save enough councillors, leaving the new leader off to a bad start.
The LibDems are not only being squeezed by the competition by the big two, but also ideologically.
Firstly both Brown and Cameron have been cherry picking LibDem ideas, and secondly by pitching for each others core support both have been appealing to LibDems supporters even if they are not the primary target.
Thus we have Brown Talking about constitutional reform while Cameron is opposing ID cards.
None of this has been helped by the debates within the LibDems which over the last year has seen them turn away from a 50% higher tax band and increased tax thresholds, to help the lowest paid, to a 4% cut in the basic rate, which doesn’t help the lowest paid at all.
While the LibDems did well for two parliaments portraying themselves as the party of principle they now seem to be opposed to those very principles.
In trying to be different from Labour and the Tories I think they have actually come across as confused, sort of we stand for not being either of them and if they pinch our policies then we will change policy.
Peter.