Conservatives open up a lead in new ICM poll
An ICM poll for tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph puts the Conservatives back into a commanding position. Conducted on the 10th and 11th October it is the first standard poll with fieldwork carried out over several days since the announcement that there would not be an election this year. The topline figures, with changes from ICM’s previous poll conducted straight after David Cameron’s speech, are CON 43%(+5), LAB 36%(-2), LDEM 14%(-2).
The 43% recorded by the Conservatives is their highest figure since July 1992. On a uniform swing it would put the Conservatives tantalisingly close to an overall majority with 320 seats in the Commons. 14% is the lowest figure ICM have given the Liberal Democrats since 2001. ICM normally give the Lib Dems a higher level of support than other pollsters and, with the party recording perillously low scores of around 11% and 12% in other companies polls ICM has been a ray of comfort. With even ICM showing them down by almost 10 points on their 2005 election support the murmurs around Sir Menzies Campbell’s position that have begun in the last week are probably going to continue.
Far from peaking after their conference, this poll suggests the Conservatives have continued to improve their position and Labour have continued to fall, hardly a surprise after the embarrassment Gordon Brown suffered in having to announce there would not be an election and the torrid week the government have had in the media. What remains to be seen is whether this is still just the short term result of a bad period for the government and some positive coverage for the Conservatives, a temporary Tory lead that will fade away again, or whether there really has been a sea change in the last few weeks.
The government’s inheritance tax proposals certainly don’t appear to have given them any short term boost (though of course, strategically their intent was probably more to rob the Conservatives of something they could have campaigned on long term, rather than give the government an immediate boost). Asked what they would prefer out of retaining the present £300k limit, adopting the £600k limit for couples, adopting a £1m limit for all, or scrapping it entirely the government’s policy was the first choice of only 16% of people. 39% of people opted for the Conservative policy.
Last month Populus asked some questions on whether people trusted Gordon Brown and Alister Darling on the economy more than they trusted David Cameron and George Osborne and found a huge majority for Brown and Darling. ICM asked people to compare the two sets of leaders in this poll, and found the Brown/Darling lead down to 11 points (47% to 36%). The questions aren’t directly comparable, Populus spoke about economic crisis, rather than just the economy, and we know people say they trust Brown in a crisis, but all the same the Labour lead on the economy is still looking somewhat weaker than before.
Finally, the poll also asked about the EU treaty – there is still overwhelming support for a referendum (66% to 12%) and people would vote against it if there were one (by 47% to 29%). However, if there actually was a referendum it seems very likely that supporters would try and cast the argument as being about whether we wanted to be in the EU at all, and when asked about that a majority of people (56%) still think we should be, with 38% saying we should leave.
UPDATE: There is also a new BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday. Topline voting intention figures, with changes from last week’s poll, are CON 41%(+2), LAB 37%(-1), LDEM 11%(-1).
UPDATE 2: Sky news is insisting on reporting this as the biggest Tory lead for 15 years. It isn’t. It is the biggest Tory level of support for 15 years, it is the biggest Tory lead in an ICM poll since…er…March.
Filed under: BPIX, ICM, Voting Intention
WOW! Fantastic Conservative lead that. Bound to panic Labour!
And on time one arrives…evening GIN.Still think they should get rid of Osbourne as he is too lightweight????
Funny that, no sooner had I posted on the last poll about the LD problem, when along comes another poll proving the point.
However, I still think LDs should hold their nerve and keep their leader – at least until May.
The Tory share in this poll is significant, and not just because it is the highest rating for years.
In his campaign for the leadership Cameron set himself a target of achieving 43% (an improvement of 10% on the 2005 result). He will no doubt be opening a bottle f bubbly for having done so within two yars of becoming leader.
It will be interesting to see what headline accompanies this poll. I thought the Sun’s “Tory surge” on Friday was a little over-blown given that the lead they reported was well within the margin of error. A 9% lead on the other hand confirms that the Brown bounce is over.
They can’t get rid of Osborne now, although all he did was announce popular polcieis. I still think he seems too young, especially next to Cameron.
This kind of lead is about what I would exepct right now. I think it is the maximun that Labour can fall behind without starting to get a bit worried. The actualy Tory figure sin teh last few polls have been very high, but Labour support has also held up quite well so they aren’t a mile ahead.
Time, I think, for Brown to tell us about the ‘vision’ he had that convinvced him to cancel the election so he could enact it.
Paul H – Totally agree,polls are all over the place.Still won’t know where they will settle for at least a month or two.How can you have Labour ahead in the marginals whilst having the Conservatives way ahead on the National poll.Did find it rather humorous that the Telegraph hid away the one about Labour ahead in the marginals but has made the national one front page headline.
Anyway all these posters on here who said Osbourne was too lightweight and needs replacing as fickle as ….well as fickle as floating voters at the moment.
Paul H-j It’s 7% lead.The 9% lead comes next week.
T Jones, Clearly, whatever Cammy and Ozzy are doing is working, so for them, it should be; More of the same. Including keeping George Osborne who HAS earned his place at the top of the team.
Cammy and OZZY…I think you may have been on the Gin.:D.
The pollsters must be delighted,I’ve never seen so many polls appear at one time,General Election time excluded.
Keep up the good work,it’s very entertaining.
The inheritance tax poll question remains biased, I think. It should talk in terms of marginal payments, i.e. “pay inheritance tax on the amount over £300k, £600k, or £1,000k”. It gives the impression (widely and wrongly held, that you pay it on all the amount, like stamp duty).
On Europe the government should call a referendum on EU membership so we can see where we all stand.
Luke,
At the risk of being purged, I don’t believe the vision thing. Talk about spin.
In a democracy, if one has a vision for change, one should put it to the people for their approval BEFORE implementing it, not going ahead and hoping they like it enough to keep you in power.
IOW – if Brown really does have a vision, then that is an argument for having an election now, not in two years, so I fear you may be waiting awhile to see that vision explained.
I think theres a danger a majority would vote NO, if the held a referendum to pull out. The public would be angry at being forced into an all or nothing position, from a government that promised them a referendum on the treaty. There is a danger that anger could manifest itself into a NO vote, IMO.
Mathew – With you on the Euro question.Nation should be asked,you either accept the EU with the treaty or we pull out.Take it or leave it.This is going to drag on and on with every change or introduction of a new country and we wil get more and more Sun and Telegraph petitions.Murdoch will keep slanting his papers and the argument will be drown in his own agenda.(I do know that the Telegraph is not Murdoch owned but has followed suit in another stupid internet petition about the treaty).
Paul, I agree on the “vision” thing. It just sounds like an excuse for bottling the election to me.
As far as Labour’s lead holding up well in recent polls goes, you have to remember that polls do not move instantaneously after “events” “Events” actually take a little while to filter through into the publics mood (this is something the media forgets all the time) And its quite possible that only now are we seeing the full extent of last weeks non election announcement and Labour stealing Tory policy, playing out into the polls. I wouldn’t at all rule out Labours support dropping further into the low 30’s over the next couple of weeks.
Gin – The government promised a referendum on a Constitution.Sorry for trying to cloud the issue with facts.
Labour must, somehow, channel its collective energies in ensuring that this is as bad as it gets. Boxing themselves in on the EU Treaty was foolish. Yes, I know its not exactly the same as the EU Constitution, on which they pledged a referendum in 2005, but they are not winning that argument; an argument, which, sadly, is being undermined by pro-Treaty European leaders.
Even if it was ever to emerge that a Treasury mole leaked government proposals re-IHT and non-domiciles, which enabled Osborne to launch something of a pre-emptive strike, given the torid time Labour has had in the press (even sadly, elements of the progressive press), I’m not even sure it would make a blind bit of difference.
The real irony is, however, that Gordon Brown never actually said there was going to be a general election, only to break his word. Nor did Alastair Darling increase the IHT threshold to £1m (that’s the Tory policy); nor did he propose that all non-domiciles would be taxed £25,000 (that’s the Tory policy). As for the ‘flight tax’, he shouldn’t have even gone there. The cost of this will, ultimately, fall on passengers and many of them will be far from happy about it. That should be have left for the Tories and Lib Dems to articulate. The environment is important, but to some more than others.
CGT should have been left as it was; with a distinct ‘new’ tax at 18% should have been levied on private equity, assuming that this would not have breached transnational rules. I’m not an expert on tax law.
Labour must hold its nerve and not panic, especially now that the Tories seem to have got their act together.
43% Tory hasn’t been reached since July 1992 – before the honyemoon wilted with the ongoing recession, and crashed to an end on Black Wednesday in September of the same year.
Tories have hit 41 in several polls in 2006/2007, and 40 in the 2006/2007 local elections.
Plus Michael Howard scored 40 a few times in 2004, before things went backwards again over the autumn of 2004.
If Tories can stay around 41-43%, and ruthlessly target marginal seats, they could probably pick up all the seats needed for a small but working overall majority. But it will need a huge amount of work, with a very disciplined plan.
Dave Hawk – Don’t worry.Remember who the opposition is.Unity is their achiles heel.Go back three weeks and they were wanted Osbourne out.Bookmakers wee opening a book on who the next Conservative leader would be and William Hague was asked on live TV if he wanted the job.He declined.
Give it a few months and it will return to the norm.I’ts not a matter of holding Labours nerve it’s just a matter of waiting for the Conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot again and fall apart.Even Micheal Howard reached 40%.The economy keeps growing,the eternal downturn that the Conservatives have predicted since 1997 has never happened and on the issues that count the public still trust Brown more than Cameron.
It will all come good in the end.
Meanwhile, BPIX in the Mail On Sunday reports CON 41% and LAB 37%.
-41% favour the Tories IHT policy and 31% Labour’s.
-33% say opinion of Brown has gone down; 32% say opinion of Cameron has gone up.
-66% want EU Reform Treaty referendum. 44% would vote against it; 18% for.
Anthony,
I don’t know whether this is possible but on the specific pollster ‘boards’ could the sample number be included?
Thanks,
Dave
Dave Hawk come on mate, I respect your right to form your own political opinions but
“The real irony is, however, that Gordon Brown never actually said there was going to be a general election, only to break his word. Nor did Alastair Darling increase the IHT threshold to £1m (that’s the Tory policy); nor did he propose that all non-domiciles would be taxed £25,000 (that’s the Tory policy). ”
seriously come on my friend.
Labour MINISTERS were briefing the press about an election, Brown always seems to do his bidding through others. You say Gordon Brown never said there was going to be an election. True? But answer honestly. Where did the elction come from. The press, the Tories or from Labour ministers.
Yes your policy on IHT and Non doms is slightly different, but you are supposed to be social democrats making the argument for why we should pay IHT to help the underprivaleged. Do you believe there would have been any mention of either IHT or Non doms if the tories hadn’t announced it and it proved to be popular?.
What you are doing is what the Labour party are perceived to be doing, playing with words that people see straight through, as is reflected in these polls. I think these polls are more to do with what Labour are perceieved to have done/said, than anything the tories have done.
I thought Labour stood for social democracy, not populist fake Tory tax cutters. Whats with Browns constant blue ties, next it will be a blue dress, handbag and a maggie wig.
The latest poll shows Labour back at the support it got in 2005 and that was really a low point (even though they won the election) because some Labour voters drifted to the Lib Dems because of Iraq and a desire to kick Tony Blair. When Tony Blair left and the reduction of Iraq as an issue the Labour vote should have (and did) increased at the expense of the Lib Dems – this has been seen with the Lib Dems in the 15-18% range until recently (down from 22% in 2005). So Labour has squandered the gains made by changing leader and reducing troops in Iraq (as well the reduction of the tuition fee issue). The Lib Dem vote has always been soft, made up of Tories who shifted alligence in 1997 and Labour votes who shifted their vote in 2005. That process has unravelled somewhat so they are much nearer to their core vote of 10-12%. Cameron was correct when elected leader to target ex Tories who vote Lib Dems because there are around 30 seats in the south, SW London, SW England that were Tory up until 1997 then changed to Lib Dems. These 30 seats are vital for him to reach the target of 13 gains to get a majority.
Before we all get too excited about these polls, it may be worth noting that the vote for others has dropped significantly to just 7%. That is unlikely to happen in a G.E and playing the devils advocate, I would say you can knock a good 4% of the Tory figure in this poll if there were a G.E.
The electorate are certainly a volatile lot and I think the true figures between the Tories and Labour will be more like level pegging at the moment with the libs likely to get 18% or so if there were to be an election.
The fact is that people are miffed at the fact there is to be no election so they are annoyed with Brown. It will all blow over – after all how many of you are going to be leaving more than 600k to your nearest and dearest and how many of your children are earning 64K a year needed to get a mortgage if they are paying 250k for their starter home – not many I think
Up the blues and enjoy it while it lasts
RICHARD :-
Why would you knock 4% off the Tory POLL for the others and not off the Socialists ? Bit biased and wishful thinking there .
It’s a bit blinkered if you think that that the only reason there is a surge in Tory popularity is purely down to the inheritance tax – you must have missed a lot of the news recently and the continuous gaffs by Brown and his team and their “Vision” ?
Adam,
I don’t think the Conservative Party has a monopoly on ‘tax’ as an issue any more than Labour does on ‘public services’.
Labour is, constitutionally, a democratic socialist party, but, in practice, pretty much a ‘Third Way’ party of an incrementalist, rather than radical, hue.
Getting back to tax, I have strong misgivings about Darling’s let alone Osborne’s proposals re-IHT, non-doms and ‘flight tax’, as well changes to CGT.
1. IHT and non-doms.
Firstly, Labour should have focused on tearing Osborne’s proposals apart. I’m sure it’s the hype that went along with it, which explains why it has resonated so highly in the public consciousness. If I didn’t know better, I’d have thought that Osborne’s proposals were tantamount to a great big fat whopping cash-in-the-hand tax cut for the masses, which, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth. It is not something that affects the vast majority of estates and, therefore, people.
My criticism of Osborne’s proposals were founded whether 1) taxing non-domiciles could have a wider detrimental impact on the wider economy and 2) what if the monies could not be obtained from non-domiciles to afford this, then on whom would the burden fall? Yes, you’ve got it, the vast majority of us who’s estates are not worth £300,000.
I can’t speak with any certainty when Darling’s own proposals had been finalised but I guess that the PRB is put together over weeks rather than days, so they may well have been in place before Osbourne announced his.
Darling has not taken on board Osborne’s proposals re-IHT or non-domiciles.
Personally, an increase in the threshold to £450,000 and indexing it year on year thereafter to the average rise in house values so as not to encatch more in the net would have sufficed when you consider that it’s this which has put IHT beyond the very wealthy.
Secondly, as I’ve said earlier, I have strong reservations as to whether non-doms should be taxed at all in case of any wider detrimental impact on the economy. I reacted this way to Osborne’s proposals so I’m not changing tack because of Darling’s. However, on balance, I think his proposals are more realistic.
2. CGT.
I definitely have strong reservations on changes to this one. I can understand the rationale behind targetting private equity but think were it possible (i.e. not in breach of any transnational law) then a distinct new tax of 18% in respect of private equity should have been proposed, while leaving the taper relief on CGT as it stood for others. Again I have concerns about any detrimental impact on the economy, as to these changes to CGT.
3. ‘Flight tax’. Don’t like this one bit whether levied on the airlines or passengers since we all know upon who the costs will fall and it isn’t the former. I wouldn’t have increased air passenger duty either. Most people pay enough tax without having to pay this.
But the bottom-line is that in setting taxes and wider fiscal policy is that economic stability must never be compromised (even if it means not implementing ‘ideals’) because if that happens we are ALL potential LOSERS.
As for being a social democrat, I’m probably more of a Christian Democrat but perceive Labour as being less to the left, than the Conservatives are to the right.
No surprises here. The WMA is now 40:38:12 but this is a lagging indicator, and the average of 5 polls shows that the IpsosMORI/Sun poll on the 10th (41:38:11) which was apparently overestimating the C lead by 4 points (compared to the WMA) was in fact spot-on. I still think we’re going to see C getting above 45 and Lab getting below 32. It’s too early to write off Brown completely – with a GE probably in 09 almost anything can happen – but those who thought that after 10 years in Govt Brown would not fundamentally change certainly seem right at the moment. Yesterday’s lead editorial in the FT seems about right.
PS The Petition now has 13,118 signatures, rising steadily, and is now the 14th most popular.
Richard, I fail to see why you should knock 4% off the Tories and add it to Others. I actually argued in the last polls thread that it is odd that Others are not getting squeezed, in a competitive 2 party contest less people should waste their vote on an Other party. In an environment like 2005 where we know who’s going to win, voting for Others ‘costs’ less.
Besides, even were Others to increase I don’t see at all why it should be at the expense of just the Tories.
I still think that we’ll have a 2010 election, always have done. Brown won’t take the risk in 2009. Inactivity may be more of a risk than activity sometimes, but I’ve seen nothing in Brown’s history to ever show that he’ll follow through and act dangerously like that.
36% is very bad for Labour, I must admit I didn’t think they would drop this low. Unless Labour come out fighting soon then this drift will continue. I think that’s what Lord Falconer is now saying and if that happens I think that the Tory lead will soon vanish.
Which “Labour” Gary?
Old Labour, or New Labour or New New Labour which Brown hasn’t quite got round to defining yet.
According to The Times there seems to be a feeling amongst Blair & his old mates that Gordon is an empty vessel-bit of a change from a Clunking Fist isn’t it?
They say that the electorate are very unforgiving of political parties who quarrel & can’t make up their minds what they stand for.
Brown should have a word with Major, Hague, IDS, & Howard-they could give him some good advice right now.
This bears a striking resemblance to the 1979 general election result (C 43.9%, Lab 36.9% and L 13.8%).
I still have a theory that rather than taking 4% off the Tories’ share and adding it to “others” as Richard suggests, we ought to be adding about 3% to the Tory lead to give us an idea of what is going on in the marginals rather than going on the implications of uniform swings.
The phrase ‘they want me to get on with the job’ is becoming almost seminal to Mr. Brown at present, and Mr. Campbell. ‘Get on wiht the job’ is often a phrase applauded by audiences even if it is used as an excuse for taking democratic power away from people.
36% isn’t so bad for labour if the LibDems recover and take points from the Conservatives, and that is possible if they get a new leader.
On UHT, it seems to be working for the Conservtiver’s popularity like the minimum wage worked for labour. Those who aren’t affected (ie from the other end of the wealth spectrum) still think it’s fair and therefore supposrt it. This is a major change of mind for me ( I trust that’s allowed?!)
When I said UHT, you know I meant IHT, and may I just add that a triumphal tone isn’t going to get any Labour voters swinging to the Tories!
It’s all great fun.
At the last three elections “others” received 8%, 7% and 7% of the vote in Great Britain. The idea that they would automatically go up to a natural level of 11% or 12% at a general election is somewhat unusual, 7% or 8% is exactly the level of support we’d expect them to get.
UHT? Yes, the real new conservative weapon is revealed- Ultra Heat Treated Milk!
The really interesting thing here is where have the 2005 Liberals gone and is this a temporary or permanent change. There are a number of fairly obvious scenarios:
1. the increase in the Tory vote compared with 2005 is primarily ex Liberals switching with the Labour vote holding–if this were the case it poses an interesting dilemma for the Liberals who have a distinct left of centre image at the moment
2. the increase in the Tory vote compared with 2005 represents quite alot of ex-Labour and a minority of ex-Liberals with the majority of the ex-Liberals switching to Labour….this just reinforces the dilemma for the Liberals.
Anthony, can you enlighten us on this from a detailed examination of the latest poll data?
Whatever the pattern I think the result of the next election could well revolve around how the Liberals deal with what looks like a definite trend rather than voter volatility. Given that they are unlikely to get an ‘Iraq bounce’ at the next election, do the Liberals concentrate on their rural and suburban strongholds or continue beavering away at the inner urban footholds they achieved last time or is this simply a ‘Ming’ problem which a new charismatic leader (have they got anyone other than Charlie?) could overcome?
Interesting times!
Richard suggests ‘you can knock a good 4% of the Tory figure in this poll if there were a G.E.’
The problem with that being is that the Tories, at least in the last two elections, performed better than the polls suggested while Labour performed worse (eg in 2005 it was Tory +1, Labour -1.6, and Lib Dem +0.4).
I think the Lib Dem level is too low but that’s ecause BOTH main party is over represented.
Dave, point well made. the IHT does only affect a small proportion of the population, but it is being widely embraced because people think IHT is unfair, regardless of their means. It was the same for Labours praise worth minimum wage, how many middle england professinals will it really affect, hardly any, but it is a fair policyand therefore widely embraced. As for Labour trying to rip up the proposals in the usual “sums don’t add up” or “cuts to public services”, this often inaccurate fear tactic needs to be countered by the tories, economically it doesn’t add up. Labour is borrowing heaviliy to fund spending, most public services, whilst admittedly receiving increased spending are not sufficiently reformed, and whilst Labour will always attribute tax cuts with public service cuts, it can be clearly proven, as in Ireland/Australia that often tax cuts can lead to a higher overall tax take and increase money available for public services. Tax cuts means cuts to public spending is pigeon economics aimed as a fear tactic to less astute. It works, but the tories need to prove that is inaccurate. because it will be Labours weapon of choice once more.
Adam 8, The point was mine, not Dave’s. I changed my mind, not my name!
I think you’re right about lowering rates leading to increases in take – the lowerin to 40% of IR, I think had that effect.
The clever bit is knowing which taxes to cut, and to what extent. I don’t know the answer, but if they can find more ingenious savings like charging foreigners, I’d want them to relieve the burden at the bottom thresholds (20% and 40%)
I don’t think many Tories want a return to the “trickle-down” theory (it led to “trickle-away practices!) of expecting omni-beneficial growth increases as a result of dramatic tax cuts at the top-end.
Cutting services means cutting jobs, effectively, so there’s a fine line to balance on there too.
I think that the IHT question would probably be badly framed for a sample of fiscal/political anoraks. On the wording of the question a preference for replacing IHT with an accession tax or subsuming it within a comprehensive capital tax might result in the respondent choosing the “scrap it” option even though he felt that inherited wealth should be taxed no less heavily than it currently is.
In the actual sample this is probably not a serious worry, but it should probably be taken as a health warning on reading too much into the breakdown of these figures across political parties.
John Hutton, the Business and Enterprise Secretary, quoted today in The Guardian as saying : “The key challenge for us – and Gordon has rightly identified this – it’s a vision thing. What we have got to do now is set out our vision for the next 10 years.”
…The Guardian says that later Mr Hutton’s aides insisted he was entirely supportive of the Prime Minister and he was not suggesting Mr Brown lacked vision. “It’s about the nitty-gritty of knuckling down in the next few months,” one said. “It’s not about any lack of a huge vision”
So -a case of blurred Vision then ?
More seriously I thought the normal sequence of events was:-
1-Explain Vision to voters.
2-Hold Election
3-Await verdict of voters.
..something seems to have changed!
I don’t doubtBrown has some sort of idea/vision of what he sees as the future direction. Was it the only reason though he avoided going to the country? As the Blairites have said “let’s see it” then.
“Some sort of Vision” is no good.
Unless he can stop the totally incredible combination of sniping at Conservative values whilst nicking their policies, and start to explain what his big ideas are he will indeed begin to look look like an empty vessel.
Cameron has done it, and with great panache-Wisconsin style welfare reform, Swedish style education reform, devolved power in the NHS, Local accountability for the Police , Tax reductions, and a real agenda for tackling Social breakdown etc.
It’s up to Brown now-personally I think he will struggle-he is a Finance Director-not a Chief Executive.His instincts are centralised control by him & a trusted cotery. That may have worked at The Treasury-but you can’t play at being PM like that.
The welter of unintended consequences from Darlings statement, which has outraged the Business & Enterprise Community has all the hall marks of Brown on it. He turned a Strategic medium term National Finance Plan into a Tactical short term political maneuver-and to hell with the consequences.That was not a vote winner in the Business constituency.
One of the things I grudgingly liked about Blair was his ability to deflect attacks with a self-deprecating humour. I think now that he could do this because he never took any of it too seriously-it was all a bit of theatre & he loved it.
Brown can’t do that.He takes it very seriously and is in danger of looking & sounding like everyone’s grumpy old uncle.
But boy is he dangerous-like a cornered bear-and Cameron must stay on his toes.
If the Conservatives can sustain a ten pointish lead in the polls through the next eighteen months it must surely sap the moral of troops being led by such a dour man?
“Sky news is insisting on reporting this as the biggest Tory lead for 15 years. It isn’t. It is the biggest Tory level of support for 15 years, it is the biggest Tory lead in an ICM poll since…er…March.”
That would have been Gallup in October 1987, when the Tories were 21 points ahead of Labour (a post-election bounce).
Less than 3 weeks ago there was a poll showing Labour 13% ahead of the Tories; now we have a poll showing the Tories 7 points ahead of Labour. At the time of the Labour lead most people (including myself) seemed to think it was a bit rouge, I think this one will turn out to be the same. I do think we need a few weeks for things to calm down.
Yes, Gary, given the volatility in the polls it is going to take a few weeks to see if it calms down in one party’s favour or the other. Labour have, of course, had a pretty abysmal fortnight and they’ll be hoping that this ICM poll is as bad as it gets.
Labour can no longer rely on Cameron being undermined from within by his own party, however. For him, his conference has largely been mission accomplished in that he has come out of it with a restored sense of trust and confidence from among the Tory ‘malcontents’ and ‘doubters’.
Brown must somehow, someway restore confidence and trust in him. It is vital that Labour doesn’t, itself, descend into chaos.
This kind of Tory lead may be pretty soft, given recent volatility, just as much of the Brown ‘bounce’, seemingly, was; but then it may not be. It’s too early to tell; but I imagine Conservative supporters are certainly more upbeat than many Labour supporters must be feeling right now.
Can Labour arrest any long-term decline? I’m sure it can but only if it has the collective will to do so. Voters don’t have much confidence in a House divided within itself. Both Labour and the Conservatives have endured enough internal trials and tribulations, over the years, to be fully aware of that by now.
Dave – I agree with your comments but the dangers of Labour division are starting to show. See Blair’s and Lord Falconers comments in the Times today. The Blairites had to endure Brownite sniping for years and are now getting some revenge. I expect this to continue if drift is allowed to happen. Brown has to quickly counter the view that the “vision” thing is absent – there is a danger of being shown as intellectually empty after 10 years in power if all you can do is copy Lib Dem and Tory policies. The next few months will be crucial as to whether this view of a lack of vision becomes a firm public view. As the Tories have found out adverse public perceptions can take years to correct.
Up until recently I’ve been saying Cameron’s tactic of trying to be “nice” was a stupid idea. If people care most about green issues or the NHS they’ll vote for the parties who’ve always believed in those things.
I’m now starting to realise what a brilliant tactic it was. Cameron until recently wasn’t winning many votes but he has been improving the image of the party. Now when he talks about more traditional Tory ideas like cutting taxes and immigration people are free to switch over without feeling any guilt about voting for the “nasty” party in a way they couldn’t with Howard or his predecessors.
For the first time I’m starting to think Cameron just might be our next PM. Gulp!
Yes, there is sense in what Steven Wheeler says. Immigration, Europe, low Tax etc have always been popular issues but polling in the past has found that when asked ‘do you agree x should be done about y?’ people have said yes but when asked ‘do you agree with the Conservative party that x should be done about y?’ then people have often said no.
Cameron has made the Conservative brand pallitable, and thus it no longer drags down support for eternally popular conservative issues.
Steven,
“For the first time I’m starting to think Cameron just might be our next PM. Gulp!”
Shudders
Steven and Dave too early with the gulps and shudders, if things are looking bad then it means 3 years to the next election; but do remember it is only one poll, the latest BPIX has a 4% Tory lead, down by 3% 2 days after the ICM poll. Labour have had a very bad two weeks, in the press, lets see what next weeks polls bring. I am assuming that there will be polls next week, the media seems to be as excited about new polls as we are.
Guy,
“The next few months will be crucial as to whether this view of a lack of vision becomes a firm public view. As the Tories have found out adverse public perceptions can take years to correct.”
I agree. Gordon has been keen to set himself as a ‘change’ politician with his ‘vision’; and he must follow through on that. Words aren’t enough, especially when you are in government; indeed, that is the very advantage Labour has. Labour CAN do, the Opposition paries CAN’T. That said, he can’t disregard the 2005 Manifesto on which the Labour Party, not he or Tony, was re-elected on.
Furthermore, at the next general election, Labour won’t be able to campaign on “We are not the Conservatives” and expect it resonate well because it won’t. Linking David Cameron with Norman Lamont and the ERM isn’t going to work so long after 1992. When the election comes, voters will be concerned with here and now not so much there and then.
I don’t know what the wider consequences of the ‘credit crunch’ will be, but the consensus is that economic growth will slow and the housing market may slump. The question is, how well will Labour stear the good ship UK through ‘rough waters’ should they come?
BTW, ‘credit crunch’ or not, I’m still being bombarded from various wanting to lend me money. In fact, with the post dispute, all being well resolved, I’m expecting a deluge of that kind of thing once they work their way through the backlog.
The other thing is that New Labour are steadily pinching or appearing to pinch all the Conservatives ideas. What’s left to attack? Tax cuts are ok now it seems. That’s helping the Conservatives too. And what is also helping is the trust issue. Who do people trust to deliver on their promises? (whether they are actually achievable or not is another matter!)
Keith,
Perhaps we’re having something of a ‘convergence’ between the Conservatives and Labour. There seems to be nothing sacred to either party any more.
I think Browns quite blatant attempt to steal Tory clothes right after the election has spectacularly backfired.
By announcing what most people see as his version of other peoples policies he has been viewed by the elctorate of using exactly the type of spin he said he would avoid.
Add to that a speach at the Labour Conference which was all rhetoric and recycled phraseswhich was widely reported to lack policy initiatives or a unifying theme and he seems to have created the impression that he is interested primarily in retaining power rather than doing anythibg with it.
Although most of the focus has been on his version of Osbornes cut in IHT, he has probably upset a lot of LibDems by nicking the Flights tax.
An assumption made here in a number of posts is that a Libdem recovery will favour Brown and hurt Cameron, but we should at least consider that it could be the other way round, and that some of the “orange Book” LibDems might start to argue that Cameron might be a better partner than Brown.
A softening on the LibDem support for Labour as a prefered partner might well do something to reverse the current fall in there support. If nothing else it wouldget them some attention for something other than Ming’s leadership.
Peter.
Peter.
And nor should there be given that one governs and the other aspires to govern the country. They will, of course, tweak about with this and that, here and there.
Peter,
To have done so in the Pre-Budget Statement has backfired. As to whether Labour’s plans were already on the way before Osborne announced his, I don’t know. I have reservations re-IHT, non-doms, ‘flight tax’ proposals whether from Darling, Osborne or Cable and changes made to CGT by Darling.
There is nothing that couldn’t have waited until the Budget proper.
Peter I think you’re right. But I think the Lib-Dems are in the most awkward of situations. They face a real possibility of the next election being a hung parliament and potentially a grasp at power as the deciding balance.
But they also face potentially losing upto 2-thirds of their MPs, quite realistically. They tripled their MPs in 1992 and a reversal of that does appear to be on the cards right now.
They have spent years being all things to all people and I think that is coming home to roost now as they have a core ultimately of being nothing to almost anyone. They need to decide what they’re there for soon and act accordingly, otherwise they risk getting badly beaten.
I think the Orange Bookers had the right idea, I think the window of opportunity is closing though.
Well if things carry on moving as quickly as they are a present the next PM could even be the only elected leader of the Labour Party – step forward Harriet Harman!
A poll which shows that the respondents perceive Brown as “stronger” than Cameron implies to me that there is still a lot of air to come out of the Brown Balloon.
Peter:-
“… he seems to have created the impression that he is interested primarily in retaining power rather than doing anything with it.”
I agree and I think it is at the heart of his current problems.
Peter:-
“… some of the “orange Book” LibDems might start to argue that Cameron might be a better partner than Brown.”
Yes indeed. I have thought for some time that David Laws & Vince Cable ( a man for whom I have a very high regard) could sit very comfortably in David Cameron’s Conservative Party -and both make a considerable contribution to it.
Clearly the swinging polls have caused a great deal of excitment but they don’t seem to be reflected in local election results at present. With a GE election expected to be 18 months away they are largely academic – it will be interesting to see where they are when we enter the new year and in May/June after budget changes have settled down.
Paul, I agree, it is all so very exciting, I cannot remember a mid election term that had so much interest in the political process. It’s more akin to eastenders, than the governance of the worlds 4th largest economy.
Apart from Browns obvious back-firing episodes, troop withdrawel, election back down (nothing to do with polls), then stealing Tory clothes. He also stuck to the plan of bring the CSR and PBR on the same day. these were supposed to be seminal Labour moments of exciting the electorate with their ideas. Because all the headlines were deeming it the “magpie” budget, it seems (confirmed by some Labour ministers) that the policy cupboard is now thread bare at a time when Brown is being pressed on all sides to reveal his “vision”. They should have held either the PBR or CSR for a later date. Eggs and baskets come to mind.
In realtion tot he Lib Dem conundrum, it may well be the historical evidence that increased Lib dem support favours Lab over Con, but I have a feeling that the resurgent party of Cllr Peter Cairns north of the broder is going to have a big say in the next GE. Labour need a strong showing in Scotland to win,and the SNP are now a real viable alternative who will be happy to bag a few seats at the expense of Labour.Conservatives in 3rd/4th place seats could be well advised to vote SNP or LD.
Anthony,are there any viewing figures for PMQ? Labour seems always to do badly in PMQ(Thatcher v Kinnoch,Hague v Blair,Cameron v BROWN??).Perhaps Labour policies are too easy to attack and difficult to defend(eg tax and spend badly).But perhaps we are the only ones watching.
Colin,
Hague versus Blair? I wouldn’t say TB did badly and you seem to have forgotten Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard (not that I blame you :p).
I think PMQ’s do affect pulic opinion a bit. Not many people watch them but it does filter down through the press and bad perfomances do get punished (IDS and possibly Ning).
Gordon’s not done too well so far. But how many have we had so far? 3? Plenty of time left! (*crosses fingers*)
Steven,I watched Hague v Blair on many occasions and Hague almost always came out best(this is
NOT a partisan view.The problem with Hague arose when people were actually watching.
Reports on the BBC confirm that Vince Cable has stated that Ming’s job is under discussion although he expects that Ming will “probably” decide to stay. I may be wrong but this sounds very much as if Ming is about to throw himself upon his sword. Irrespective of the polls that have followed the Tory recovery, the LibDems have suffered ever since Brown became leader. I did not expect the LibDems to move in this way but it seems as if the kaleidoscope may be shaken one more time in this extraordinary political episode. My feel is that if either Huhne or Clegg become leader that will damage Cameron slightly more than Brown if (big if) the LibDems re-establish themselves as a serious party in the South.
As for Labour, they would be well advised to hold their nerve. After a terrible fortnight they should take heart that their worst poll is 36% which is a great deal better than Blair was polling earlier this year. The underlying evidence in the polls demonstrates that the public still prefer Brown as leader to Cameron and Cameron has yet to bring forward the policies to meet the rhetoric of his conference speech (i.e. reform of the NHS, reform of education, tougher welfare policies) which is, quite literally, always easier said than done.
Let us not be fooled here, the Tories have staged a remarkable recovery and for now the media are giving them good press but there is an awful lot of political narrative to unfold that may bode well or ill for Brown and Cameron starting with the EU treaty this week.
Re: PMQs
Hague had a reputation for doing well, although I have to say I thought he and Blair were quite evenly matched. Hague had very little amunition though, and nobody was listening to the Conservatives at that point.
Howard and Blair I found to be entertaining battles which were again flairly even. Blair vs. IDS was not even.
However, I DO NOT agree with peoplw who say PMQs doesn’t matter. I don’t think it makes much difference if things are fairly even (as they often are) but if one leader is seen to have soundly defeated the other, it can make for some very embarassing news stories. Look at what happoened last Wednesday to Mr. Brown- that proves that there is more at stake in PMQs merely than Parliamentary morale.
Brown vs Cameron has been quite one sided so far. In my opinion what Brown needs to do is to play defensively and cautiously, and accept that his opponent is better than him at this particular format of debate. This means not trying to engage head on with all that is said, but relying on a large amount of pre-prepared notes and soundbites. Presscott (although there were a couple of disasters) did this quite well a few times simply by not really engaging with the question and repeating pre-set soundbites. This at least avoided embarassment.
I don’t see how the Lib-Dems can hope to survive as a serious party in the South vs the Cameron Conservatives gunning for an attempt to actually form a government. I’d expect the South to go Conservative.
I’d rather a centre-right/plain centre Lib-Dems but I think their only chance of political survival atm is to go centre-left and hope to enshrine themselves in the North and in Scotland. Target building upon the 2005 anti-Labour votes and not the 1997 anti-Conservative ones.
Come 2009/2010 are we more likely to have potential anti-Labour or anti-Conservative voters who don’t want to jump to the other big party. I think its far more likely there’ll be Northern Labour voters unhappy after 13 years who could never bring themselves to vote Tory so would go LD if pushed.
I disagree with Philip. I do not expect leftish voters to be anywhere near as disillusioned with Labour at the next election as the war caused them to be in 2005. Also, a slightly more threatening Conservative Party will I suspect result in fewer protest votes to the Lib Dems.
Therefore I expect the Lib Dems to be squeezed although in the south I suspect Labour voters will vote tactically to help them retain more of their MPs against the Tories than would be expected on a straight swing. I do think they will lose most of the seats they gained from Labour in 2005.
If Ming is replaced by Clegg I see that as a threat to Cameron. Clegg will be able to outfresh Cameron and I suspect will appeal to many of same people who are attracted to Cameron ie youngish centre right types
If you look at the breakdown from the last full YouGov poll and compare Scotland with the rest of the UK let alone the South, you’ll see that Brown still commands the loyalty of the Scots.
Much like those in Scotland who maintained that Blair only sounded like a Tory to get elected the majority of Scots seem content to back Brown as there man even if and when he is espousing right of centre policies thatthey don’t like.
That makes it extremely difficult for the SNP to make anything like major progress. however where it gets interestingis when the polls seem to indicate something like 40% Labour, 25% SNP and Tory, and under 10% LibDem.
That collapse in libDem support sould well see the best chance of SNP gains, particularly in rural Scotland and evebn a chance for the Tories.
It wil depend on how well the SNP do in government over the next two years and the extent to which Tory and even labour voterswll back the SNP to unseat LibDems.
The Tories might do it to try to help Cameron and a small number of Labour voters might because of bad feeling over the Holyrood coalition.
By and large I think the SNP can’t make major gains without a real shift in Tactical voting.
It’s hard without an up to date Scottish poll but from what we have the differeces in key issues noeth and south may also be an issue. Where as 40% in the UK put immigration as a top issue, it’s only 30% in Scotland, with what you might term the core New Labour issues of health and education higher than the UK.
That would tend to be good news for Labourin Scotland, but it might depend on the campaign.
If Brown continues his “magpie” approach and makes immigration a big issue to counter Cameron then there may be an opportunity for the SNP to fight on “One Scotland” and an “Open country”, where giving asylum seekers the right to work, an end to dawn raids and free higher education for asylum seekers children have all been relatively popular policies.
As I have said before oil might make a comeback.
With it at $80 a barrell, a tight spending round and a slowing economy, Scots might start to feel that the good times are over.
Then the psychological effect of the Irish economy probably being larger than Scotland,s over the next two years and it gets hard for Brown to argue that Scotland is doing well in the UK.
Peter.
“you’ll see that Brown still commands the loyalty of the Scots.”
I think that’s as inevitable as the fact that the sun will set tonight, in general elections at least.
If Ming is replaced by Clegg I see that as a threat to Cameron. Clegg will be able to outfresh Cameron and I suspect will appeal to many of same people who are attracted to Cameron ie youngish centre right types.
Clegg comes across as the typical sneering, arrogant lefty. I seriously doubt centre-right voters will see the Clegg manifesto and think “I’ll vote for that”.
Next big Brown hole is the EU thing, regardless ofyour views on further integration/seperation. He seems to again be caught between a rock and a hard place. Large swathes of the press and public are banging on about the manifesto pledge and the Labour dominated scrutiny commitee (deeming it almost the same) leaves him in a difficult quandry.
many are saying the red lines are virtually worthless, so he is caught between the press/public on one side and European leaders on the other. not an enviable position. But was it avoidable with a referendum?
I personally reckon, and would bet on it with his current hammering from all quarters and poll rating decline, he will engineer the circumstances to hold the referendum.
Of course off to Lisbon first to play the game.
Interesting to see what effect Sir Menzies Campbells resignation will have on the next poll. I expect the Libdems to get a bit of a boost straight away followed by a bigger boost once the new leader is elected, I also feel that the majority of that boost will come from the Tories.
Feel very sorry for Ming, but he never really hacked it at the weekly pantomime that is PMQs; even after 18 months he looked so nervous when his turn came as a clutched his notes with a slightly shaky hand. I don’t think this is an age thing, I think it’s lack of charisma and if you’re a third party your leader is the only one who gets reasonable media exposure and you need someone with some sort of obvious ‘character’…which is why Charlie Kennedy did so well!
In 6 months time, and if the Libs get the right sort of leader there’s a chance that they’ll be back up to the 18% mark which looking at the impact on Labour of a decent Liberal vote in a tight contest at a GE would please GB alot!
Incidentally, has anyone read the Electoral Calculus explanation of why their current Liberal seat prediction is zero…I have and I’m not sure I understand it??
Clegg is pretty much a carbon copy of Cameron. All we need now is for David Miliband to take over from Gordon Brown to have 3 identical leaders of the main parties.
When the LDems get the bounce that can be expected when the new leader arrives,the interesting thing will be who will they be taking the percentage points from?
I’d expect Kennedy to at least test the water, and if he gets a reaction try to make a comeback.
I suspect he is in with a chance given that a fair number of Libdems look back on his time and remember 22% in the polls and he was popular with the public which might be what they need now that it’s very much Brown v Cameron and a personality contest.
If he does try and loses then I wouldn’t rule out him announcing that he’d step down at the next election and either way if he tries and doesn’t get the leadership it’s bad news for the LibDems in Scotland, losing one Scot as leader was bad enough, ousting two in two years won’t do them any good at all.
Peter.
Andy – If Clegg is a carbon copy of Cameron,whom then will fear the most if he becomes LDem Leader?
Could the electorate be facing a choice of two Camerons and one Brown?
Cllr Peter Cairns; “I’d expect Kennedy to at least test the water, and if he gets a reaction try to make a comeback”. I am assuming that was not an intentional joke!
Andy:-
“Clegg is pretty much a carbon copy of Cameron”
…I don’t think so-try reading some of his views & speeches!
Interesting times though.
One of the biggest problems that my Lib Dem supporting friends had with Ming was failure to attack Brown. They were also unhappy at Ming’s closeness to Brown and the fact that he would probably back up Brown in the event of a hung parliament. Something they were not happy about.
I heard an interview with Clegg about 18 months ago where he talked about having closer ties with the Conservatives and he could see any chance of them going into coalition with Labour.
This may well give them a small boost but with the strength of the Tories and Labour at moment I still see them being squeezed at the next election. I think the 1987 election was the last main example of this happening.
In the past have new Lib Dem leaders seen much of a honeymoon boost in the polls?.
Campbell and Brown were very close and Brown’s Plan B was to do a PR deal with Campbell. Frankly I don’t think it matters much who leads the Lib Dems – the only point of voting for them is if you dislike Labour/Tories and you dislike Tories/Labour so that you want to make a protest vote. It’s clear that the momentum is with Cameron and the Lib Dems now seem irrelevant. If you are fed up with Brown – vote for Cameron. If not, vote for Brown. Why on earth vote Lib Dem??
If you look at events before Kennedy’s removal, it was against a backdrop of Conservatives doing well and very much targetting Lib Dem voters. Part of the reason they chose Campbell was (supposedly) to act as an ideal tonic to Cameron who was taking support from them while they were lead by an avowdly left-wing leader in Kennedy.
A large part of the reason the Liberals have moved against Ming is once again because Cameron has taken voters from them. I always believed a more centrist Tory leader would cause the Lib Dems horrible problems and that is exactly what Cameron has done- it is the second leader he has effectively deposed. It’s no coincidence both Lib Dem leaders fell at the very height of Tory support in the Polls.
I think this is bad news for the Conservtaives though, because there is no viable candidate from the left of the party that might cause Labour more problems. The only way I think this might help the Tories, is that by going for a more right-wing low-tax agenda, they help shift the political consensus further to the right and make things like Tax cuts, privitisation, and quango-culling more popular (which I feel they are becoming now), which ought to help the Tories in the longer term even if they are competing for similar ground.
If the LibDems do go for a more right of centre leader and posture, to counter the Tories, then along with Browns attempts to steal Tory clothes all we will get is another shift of UK politics to the right.
That will leave people in the North of England with no natural party to support other than Labour who’s manefesto will increasing offer nothing for them, and people in Scotland with the SNP as the only real alternative to three right of centre UK parties.
Peter.
if any of you live in scotland you will know what a mess the libdems made up here when in power.with such a low rating it is about time the received the correct coverage on tv .they get far to much exposure.it needs corrected.
this will cause more labour people to switch lib than tory,no matter what candidate is in place.cameron can take on clegg,brown cant.
If Clegg as LD leader turns out to be ( or is perceived to be) centre-right-I don’t understand why he should attract centre-right voters from Cconservatives who may win an election, to LibDems who cannot.
It looks like Ming jumped because of the polls-but if he was pushed, I think they have been precipitate. They should have waited to see how the polls look in six months time-as all parties are doing just now! There is going to be no election for at least a year.
If the very fact that Gordon postponed the anticipated election has prompted concerns about Ming’s age in 2009 or 2010-then it looks like ageism , as Vince Cable said.
Luke Blaxill (Lukw), I don’t think you can claim Cameron removed Kennedy, I think the drink did that! But I agree that most of the lift in the Tory vote has come from the LibDems and that most of this will drift back to them or Labour.
Coilin – many centre-right LibDems who switched to Tory because of “freshness” or IHT did so because they felt more in common with Cameron, but could easily be attracted back by a centre-right fresh leader, on the grounds that the LibDems don’t have a “hard-extreme” ,or “nasty side”, and the Tories do – just try reading some of the Tory blog sites!
Cllr, Haven’t the SNP silenced their middle “N” for now? I agree that economic performance should keep you in power, but I know a lot of Scots who were worried about the independence issue. Does the SNP carry out private polls on the issue?
So if the lib dems have a freshed centre right candidate they could split the tory support for fresh faced david cameroon and provide labour with the advantage that the SDP provided Maggie with in 1983
Paul – I’d almost forgotten that!
Are we agreed that a centre-right LibDem would increase support for Labour, and a centre-left one would similarly help the Conservatives?
Either way, something has to give, because the Libdems must surely recover points from either or both the other two.
Or they can continue to heamorage votes to both in a tight two-party race, nothing is certain John including that this is as low as they can go.
I think if you only look in terms of theoretical polling its obvious that competition for your supporters will lose you votes, ergo- Clegg/Huhne is bad for the Tories.
However, as I said, I think a more right wing Liberal party whose natural coalition partners are Tories wil push the consensus to the right, and that may not help Labour overall. The Tories will not look like an unruly bunch of nasty tax/spublic service cutters if the Liberals are saying the same thing! That may decommission Labour’s strongest card, or rob it of much of its potency.
The other important ramification is that it may make anti-Labour tactical voting more atrractive. So Conservatives in Lib-Dem/Labour seats feel they can vote Lib Dem and Lib Dems in Labour/Tory seats likewise. I don’t really think it is likely that Labour will be able to count on squeezing the Lib Dem voter to defeat the Tories with the party percieved to be more fiendly to the Tories than Labour.
As Philip pointed out to me, Lukw, the other way round is just as possible. I think 11% is as far down as they’ve been – if a new leader doesn’t immediately revive them , can they last?
By the way,Lukw, the “nasty” epithet wasn’t attached because of tax/spending cuts philosophy, it’s more the bigoted and xenophobic brigade at the extreme that are still around (in tiny but loud numbers) I’m afraid.
The U-turn on tax cuts by the LibDems – will that policy’s survival be affected by a new leader, or was it approved by them all?
The Lib Dems need a leader who can stop the haemorrhaging of support towards Cameron and the so-called ‘liberal’ Conservatives.
In all general elections since 1997, the Lib Dems have made steady parliamentary progress, gaining 28 in 1997, 6 in 2001 and 10 in 2005. Do they want this to continue or don’t they?
The party faces a fundamental choice, as to whether, it builds on being a respectable, parliamentary, third force (post-1997) as it has with Labour in government or relapsing into being a poor third force (pre-1997) as it was when the Conservatives were in government.
The Lib Dems are always going to benefit from significant anti-Conservative tactical voting in seats where Labour doesn’t have a wing or a prayer.
To calm all the excitement on here from the left hoping for a Conservative drop in the POLLS from whatever means – at the moment using the Liberal change of leadership / I would’nt count on that – there will be a short period of a small Liberal revival in the POLLS during their media coverage , but that will fall away as soon as the media stop reporting them .
The country want change badly – the battle when it comes at a GE will be between Labour and Conservative – the winners being the Conservatives – the Liberals don’t have anymore policies than Labour and don’t offer an alternative government .
The growth in the Liberal vote (even though small will come from both of the main parties . The maximum growth in the POLLS the Liberals will see is about 18% – falling back again after a month to about 14%
John, no current support is not the lowest its been. Check the historical levels on the left, support was often single digits in the eighties and mid-nineties . . . before they tripled their number of MPs in the next election!
John T
I am sure I could find you some nasty bigoted left wing blogs.Nastiness & bigotry is not associated with one or other political persuasion only!
My interest is in the politicians who are putting themselves forward to govern us as an administration-existing & alternative.
And I can tell you that I find much more nastiness & bigotry ( a well attested feature of left wing politics of envy) in the current administration than either of their oponents.
It seems to me that either you vote as a sort of academic excercise in political theory…or you vote in an attempt to elect in to Government people who will govern in a way which appeals to you.
I remain unconvinced that if the New LibDems present as credibly centre-right ( a massive “If” at present!), significant numbers of those currently saying they will vote Conservative will switch from Cameron’s party to them because they think the LibDems are “less nasty”
THe bigger question which might emerge for a “traditional” socialist is, given a Centre right opposition, and a Government who will espouse any cause if it keeps them in power…who do they vote for?
The press reports this morning suggest that Clegg is a shoe-in for the leadership. The only other possible names with any clout are Huhne (who will struggle to shed the image that he is a tad creepy and aloof) and Kennedy (who has too much baggage).
Clegg is avowedly on the right of the Liberal party and is very likely to present a problem for Cameron as he will (rightly in my view) focus on regaining Liberal ground in the South and in rural areas which has always been traditional Liberal hunting ground. Clegg knows that the modest advances made by Kennedy in Labour strongholds will surely be lost now that troops are returning from Iraq. More significantly, Clegg has no desire to outflank Labour to the left.
This does not mean that Brown will definitely benefit. Ultimately if Brown and Labour do not re-establish themselves as the competent party of government, they will be defeated whoever leads the Liberal party and the point that Colin makes that Brown will look tired compared to the other two leaders, would be realised. My point is simply that if Brown does stick to what he does best and the economy does not crash as some have predicted, Cameron cannot count on the 5 to 6% of voters that he has successfully wrestled from the Liberals which he must hold if he is to have any hope of forming a government.
It is early days and we have yet to see whether Clegg (if it him) will have greater success than Ming in presenting the Liberal project. In the short term, I suspect they will benefit from increased coverage as their leadership process will go on until December. Moreover, by then, the party will have started to unite behind Clegg and present him as a fresh, intelligent and articulate leader. That exposure alone is likely to give them a boost in the polls perhaps back to their normal level of 18%. The question will then be how Clegg takes them forward and whether he can grasp the public’s attention.
I think we need some more polls!
One thing that needs to be remembered is that at the GE centre or right of centre voters may have the choose between Cameron’s Conservaties, who have pretty much shed their “nasty” image and a centre right Lib Dem party. If they want to remove Labour and Gordon Brown they will vote Conservative. I am sure the Lib Dems will increase abit but I would be surprised if they repeat 22% in a GE again now that the Conservatives have momentum.
Also if the Lib Dems start advocating tax cuts and public spending efficiencies then the political centre ground moves right which helps the Tories too.
Guy,
If voters agree more with the Conservative policies then they’ll vote Conservative. As for momentum that can come as quickly as it can go. We’ve seen how voters can fall in with, fall out with and fall in with Cameron already.
Arnie,
When the Tories were ahead pre Brown the Lib Dems were on around 20%, when Brown was ahead they were on around 16%, with both parties strong they are on 12%. That suggests that the Lib Dems do better with the Tories strong and Labour weak.
Also if the Lib Dems do go for some of the Tory vote they have to think that they will do better than they did when Michael Howard was Tory leader. Even when Labour had a double digit lead that didn’t happen.
Dave Hawk – Cannot agreee with you more.Floating voters are called that because they float.The typical floating voter at the moment thinks Brown/Darling can run the economy better,Brown is a better leader and ahead in most of the issues but asked who they would vote for at the next election say Conservative.A strange lot.
The fall in and out and in love with Cameron is just as strange as the fall in then out of love with Brown.If Brown had held an election,Cameron may have won even though he was behind on leadership,economy and united party…how does that work out?It seems with exception of the hard core,and at one stage Cameron couldn’t even rely on them.Remember the poll that said more Conservative voters said they thought Brown would be better for leadership and economy than Cameron.The rest are very soft in voting intention.
It’s the most open in terms of a result for an General Election for a long time and if Clegg becomes leader of the LDems,thats another thing for the floater to contemplate.
Strange times in this countries politics.If ever a time “EVENTS” could sway an election,it will be this one.
“I think 11% is as far down as they’ve been.”
A Gallup Poll conducted from 21-24 May 1955 (just before a general election) put the Liberals on 1.5%. Since their name changed to Liberal Democrats, they were often in single figures from 1989 to 1990 – and during the 1997 election campaign too.
Andy D
I was only thinking post SDP link-up, but thanks.
Colin, couldn’t agree more, it’s just that I’ve recently been reading Tory ones, to see if they’re keen on more tax-cutting “the roof hasn’t caved in!” seems to be the attitude from the sensible ones, and you can imagine the thoughts of the extremists
People vote for those they agree with most, unless they vote tactically against those they agree with least!
At the top of each party, vitriolic senseless extremism doesn’t exist, of course not, and I wouldn’t be a floater if I thought anyone simply clinged on for their own aggrandisement. Maybe naive, but hey. I don’t think any of the parties are any more guilty than each other in that respect.
The Tories and Labour seem to be equally inoffensive to my own circumstances (lucky me!), so I guess my choice will be based on who I think is being “fairest”
[...] cites a poll done for the Sunday Telegraph that shows the Conservatives with a 43% to 36% lead over the Labor [...]