Clegg is clearly enjoying the traditional ‘honeymoon effect’. But how long will it last? Labour still have all to play for. This is rather a less disastrous poll than those in November/early December. It will be interesting to see what effect the Prime Ministerial anoouncements of the last few days will have. Brown has received a not wholly unfavourable press and I am not sure that the public will appreciate the seemingly automatic rubbishing of his proposals emanating from the Conservatives.
Thanks, Anthony, for a measured and thoughtful analysis.

How do you reconcile that you say that LibDem boost is because Clegg has been voted leader, while his own personal rating is low because very few people have an opinion about him?
Would it simply be that more people have been reminded about the LibDems existence because the candidates have been on telly a few times?

I’m still sceptical about this - I don’t think the samples taken over the holidays are necessarily representative. However the Weighted Moving Average is 40:33:17. Recent Populus polls have consistently underestimated the C lead by an average of 4%, and so the latest deviation of 3% seems plausible. In the absence of disasters Brown may be slightly recovering, but the next disaster is just around the corner, I suspect.

Pete - I don’t disagree with that. By a Clegg effect I don’t mean that people think Clegg is wonderful and are all voting for the Lib Dems because they think he’s ace, just that the boost is probably because of the appointment of a new leader. It’s probably largely publicity and coverage (though I expect it’s also partially just the perception created by his appointment that the party are ‘in the game’ again)

This is a usual POLL from Populus - out of sync with the other Pollsters and in this case generous to the Liberals - just a glance at the previous POLLS shows Populus standing out in the crowd . I would have to agree with the “Times” on this one - especially on the personal ratings .

A “measured and thoughtful analysis”, as my near namesake says - but I feel that Anthony (in common with a lot of the media commentators - and all Tory supporters) are writing Brown off far too soon. Not surprising that his ratings have gone down after a torrent of abuse - mostly based on some fairly minor “fiascos”, many of which were hardly the fault of either Brown or the government on any fair analysis - although who expects a fair analysis in political comment these days! Give it at least six more months before writing the obituaries.

It may not be a “Clegg effect”.

Polls move up and down.

The Tories still have more to do to convince wavering voters, however, because we could be seeing clues that some of their lead has been due to bad news stories for the Government dominating the media.

Have to agreee with JohnH. A number off respondents here have now dismissed the last four polls that show Labour improving and the Tories slipping as rogues/Xmas blips/out of sync etc. How many rogue polls make a trend? Perhaps it all depends on which party’s rose tinted specs you are wearing at the time.
I think the key area to watch will be the personal ratings. It’s nip and tuck between DC and GB, which is much better for the Tories, but how those numbers move over the next few weeks will be as important if not more so than the headline numbers.

Mike R - Just a glance at recent polls shows clearly that it is Yougov who are out of sync with the other pollsters not Populus . No other pollster has given Conservative a rating as high as Yougov’s 45% . The question is whether that was a rogue or caused by the inherent bias in their self selected panel of more COnservative older more affluent people than the population as a whole .
I agree with JohnH , although it looks likely that Brown will not be able to recover , it is not impossible , Thatcher and the Conservatives were in an even worse position in the polls in late 1981 and at times in 1985/86 and still won the following general elections easily .

JohnH -

You read like a Labour version of Mike R! (No bad thing and respect to you both!)

We’re still all waiting for the torrid times to subside and for a meaningful series of polls to set the scene. I find it healthy that there was no election in the Autumn, and that the battle of ideas will be joined on three sides over the next year or two and a half. I’d have been troubled by a Brown victory on the back of his honeymoon - he never deserved a five year term, never having fought for one.

There’ll be no “honeymoon” effect on any side to distort matters. I’m relieved that Clegg has had a positive bounce like the other two leaders, and look forward to it subsiding like the others.

Brown’s image - the bags under the eyes etc. - could go against him, or for him. His supporters would encourage him to “be himself”, even if that includes admitting he’s obsessive, intense and never sleeps (rather like Macbeth!). I suspect I’d be the same if I had his job.

I can’t help wodering how many people would vote one way “to-morrow” but expect to vote another way when the time eventually comes.

John TT , The problem is there will never be a non torrid time that will give a series of meaningful polls . The next couple of months polls will be influenced by the Clegg honeymoon , then it will be the influence of the May locals , then it will be the influence of summer holidays , then it is conference season and the associated wild swings we saw last year . then it will be Xmas again .

Fair point!

As a Londoner, I can see Boris and Ken providing some light relief on the one hand, but also throwing into relief the differences between Brown and Cameron.

I’m not sure the conferences will provoke the wild spending spree by news organisations on pollsters that we saw last year - i suspect any election speculation will be dampened in advance, and I hope (rather than expect) that the atmosphere might be calmer.

Can we say then that this, for the first time in living memory, is a bad poll for everyone?

If it is I am sure it is well deserved by all 3.

The alcohol and festive spirit has just worn off and the reality of paying the bills has now hitting home. Given these factors I am surprised anyone responded positively at all to any of the main stream party’s. Most of which are still basking in sunnier climes, at largely our expense.

Well, Labour stuck on 33%, I don’t see much for Labour supporters to be happy about, quite honestly. Yes, the Tory lead has fallen somewhat, probably because of the new Liberal leader, but Labour are beginning to look suspiciously like they’re flatlining to me…

GIN
At least they aren’t flatlining at a level that would reasonably lead to a leadership challenge, which, given the lack of a challenge during the leadership “contest”, would signal the end for this Govt.

I agree with Atlas that they should none of them be happy (but not that it’s a first - and aren’t they all back now anyway, getting their expenses forms in in time for their Xmas credit card bills to be paid?)

Well, low 30’s is where Labour’s core support is. Just as it was with the Conservatives. If Labout stay stuck at 30-33% over the next few months, then they are flatlining at their core vote. The question then becomes, how high can the Tories go? Obviously they won’t go as high as Labour in the “glory years” of 94-97, but anything around 42-43% would be enough for the Tories if Labour remain at their core vote.

The more Labour and conservative policies converge - such as forcing disabled people back to work - the better for the LibDems. If Cameron wants to cut money he should expel any greedy councillors who vote themselves pay rises. Fair play to Brown on MP’s pay.

The talk of core vote levels is interesting. One of the key changes from 1997 that I think has been underestimated is the role of the LDs. Althugh they are still very much the third party, we now really do have three party politics, but conversely this seems to have the impact of magnifying swings against the main parties and seems to enable majorities with smaller vote shares. I doubt that either Tories or Labour will get over 40% at the next election, and I suspect they will both be several points lower than this. I wonder how long it can go on having first past the post majorities on shrinking vote shares before some form of PR becomes widely popular?

“The more Labour and conservative policies converge - such as forcing disabled people back to work - the better for the LibDems”

All three parties seem to be in a bidding war as to how many benefit claimants they would get back to work over the weekend.As for the poll, and latest polls.Well, they won’t have Labour supporters cheering in the streets ,but, I recall several posters predicting that Labour’s slump in the polls in November would become a freefall, it hasn’t and probably won’t.All these polls show is it’s all to play for over the next 12 to 18 months.

All that these recent polls demonstrate is that anyone who thinks that the result of the next election is certain, is either a moron or so politically biased that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

A Tory lead of 37-33 even if you permit some error and call it 38-32 becomes a lead of nothing if just 3 in 100 voters switches sides on a net basis between now and next May (or 2010).

My personal view is that there is much for each party to worry about here and some hope for all too. This is entirely to be expected. Brown’s task is to reestablish his competency in the eyes of the public and give the perception of freshness to his agenda. Cameron’s task is to add meat to the bones of his general promises (less state, more choice) without losing those voters who are worried about change to the NHS, schools and welfare. Clegg’s task is to have the Libs taken seriously again such that they pick up the anti Labour and anti Tory vote from those who don’t want to swap from red to blue and vice versa.

It is quite possible that each leader may succeed or fail in their tasks and we can all advocate the case for why we think one will succeed and one will fail. Just remember that that is very different to what will in fact happen.

I suspect that the fact that the last few polls have shown the Tory lead way down from the 12 points or so in mid-December will be an enormous relief to Labour even if it is clear it still has big problems.

a 4 point Tory lead is unlikely to result in a Tory win unless there is alot of anti-Labour tactical voting and after the last few turbulent months that will give some comfort to Labour

If the next months’ polls confirm a narrower lead, I wonder if that will put pressure on Cameron to be more radical, or less?

I think Arnie is absolutely correct. Also worth bearing in mind that momentum is important. Now that we have a narrative of Labour in trouble, a narrowing of any Tory lead will be seen as pressure on Cameron, and John tt’s point comes into play. Politics works in odd ways.

Parliament is shut, and the media is twiddling it’s thumbs. Brown’s “new politics” has surpassed Blair’s spin, with the former not only ignoring Parliament by [re-]announcing policies to his friends in the media, but showing contempt for his colleagues [sic] by doing their job for them. [Alan Johnson does what...?]

None of the minefields of 2008 have been approached yet. Northern Rock may go bust due to falling house-prices despite £60billion in government support. Immigration-control is systemically non-existent. Detention-without-trial awaits, as does the EU Constitutional-Treaty. The possibility of Alastair Darling interfering in the energy markets coincides with media-reports that Tory-leaning areas may have to pay more for their energy supplies (which one assumes is purely just bad-timing).

Christmas is over, but what have [they, the politicians] done? Another year of polling over, but a new one just begun!

Four polls - holiday season or not - is enough to suggest that Labour is recovering. It was only a few weeks ago that many were saying Labour was in free-fall toward the mid-20s, and that the Tories were establishing an unassailable 10% lead and were above the 40% level that would result in a majority for Cameron.
Labour is heading back to the mid 30s from where it won the 2005 election, with its’ vote firming up again, and the Tories are losing votes back to the Lib Dems as their boost in the polls from Nov/Dec is revealed to be entirely down to the Government’s bad press. The Tory vote is softer than the “Brown bounce” of last summer, and Cameron is not doing nearly enough to make the public feel positive about his Party.

Oh dear, a new year and already we’ve got the Tories (Mike Richardson) rubbishing polls that don’t give the Tories a 57% lead over Labour; and Lib Dems (Mark Senior) rubbishing polls that accurately measure the status of the Lib Dems in the low teens.

Every single one of us can dismiss polls for no more substantive a reason than we don’t like what they tell us - but too bad: get over it - the more concerning issue is when a pollster (like CommRes or ICM) consistently overstates or understates a party’s position by using filters that are clearly dubious (see my earlier post about only considering the responses of 10 out of 10 certain to vote-rs).

It’s a good thing ICM doesn’t poll in the US: on its absurd 10 out of 10 measure I suspect it would have been forecasting a landslide Hillary Clinton victory in Iowa because it would have excluded the first-timers and never-before-rs energised by Barack Obama.

BTW, I suspect the LD “bounce” has nothing to do with their leadership irrelevance - just that when political coverage is turned down as it was over Christmas the anti-Government mood subsides and, given that most of the recent Tory advance has come from the LDs, that naturally expands their base a little.

I think that a rise in the Lib Dem vote at the expence of the Tories here will probably slide back towards them come an election. If the next election is a genuine contest, these voters will be aware that they can choose the government. Given this,, then they will probably end up voting Conservative come polling day.

Adam , ICM does NOT have a 10/10 filter on certainty to vote that is Ipsos Mori . ICM has a filter that counts those 7/10 or higher on certainty to vote . This is much more sensible than Yougov whose results are based on a turnout at the next GE of almost 80%

Nothing newsworthy is happening at all in British politics atm, all news interest at the moment is on US politics as there is fascinating things going on across the pond. Domestically we’re still in the “holiday season”.

My suspicion is that this doesn’t make these polls “rogue” but perhaps demonstrate what is at the moment the “core” support of each party when no news is going on. I think the levels we’re seeing now, is the basic levels for each party at the moment stripping away any news events, since there aren’t any.

The only exception is the Lib-Dems who’re possibly experiencing a honeymoon bounce.

—–

As for who should be happy with these figures, I rather suspect nobody, but at a push (and expecting to be accused of Rose-Tinted Spectacles) the Tories can get some pleasure from it.

Conservatives: Not an election winning lead, but to be clearly in the lead still (outside margin of error) is not a bad start when Brown has still been in the post less than a year. Will need to do better to get an overall majority, but there is at least a good platform to build on here.

Labour: Something dramatic has to happen to get them above the low-thirties I suspect.

Lib-Dems: To be in a “honeymoon” and below 20% is not a good sign. On the road to recovery, perhaps, or perhaps still in doldrums but experiencing a bounce. We’ll have to wait and see, but to just stay still they need to gain from here.

Sorry for pools/polls spelling mistake, see below.

Hard to know what to make of this poll. Another “holiday mood” poll or the Tory lead weakening?

I’m still not convinced of any trends to any party either positive or negative until Westminster reopens and politics is back in full swing.

When are the next polls due ?

Last year January was:

ICM/Guardian 21st
YouGov/Telegraph 24th
Ipsos-MORI/ 29th

Thanks to the out of date “new” boundaries which will be operating at the next election, it’s very likely that the combination of a 19% Lib Dem result with a 33% Labour showing would be enough to stop the Tories winning an overall majority, so the Conservatives will be hoping that this particular poll is not repeated in the coming weeks and months.

ANDY - I think Boundary changes at the next election favour the Tories but you’re right in the fact that Boundary changes in general take so long to happen that by the time they do they are out of date and further boundary changes should have been introduced.

Hence Labour win a few smallish(It terms of total voters) inner city seats which, by the time of the next election, will probably have been put into a larger constituency.

It might be worth mentioning that a month ago Populus had,

Labour 32% (-5%)
Conservative 40% (+4%)
Lib Dem 16% (-)
Others 11% (-)

Given that these are pretty large swings it could be that if anything it was actually the early December poll that was the rouge and that it overemphasised the Tory lead at +9. November had

Labour 37% (-3%)
Conservative 36% (-2%)
Lib Dem 16% (+4%)
Others 11% (+1%)

Which compared to now would be

Labour 33% (-4%)
Conservative 40% (-4%)
Lib Dem 19% (+3%)
Others 8% (+1%)

That would suggest a LibDem recover at the expense of everyone including the “Others”, or just that all polls are currently erratic.

Peter.

Sorry “Others should be (-3%)

Peter.

With the last boundary review, the seats were based on February 1991 electorates and were first fought in May 1997, so there was only a 6 year gap. The previous changes to that were based on 1976 data, and were first fought in 1983, a 7 year gap in that case.

With the present boundary review, the seats are based on February 2000 electorates. So if the election is in May 2010, they will be more than 10 years out of date. Even if the election is in May 2009, they will still be a lot more out of date than the previous reviews, at nearly 9 and a half years.

Encouraged by my correct poll prediction that for once Populus would swing into line with ICM and YouGov let me go on to make another which is that it won’t last long. Clearly however there has been a contraction in the Tory lead and whilst this may be no more than a holiday blip it should nevertheless serve as a reminder to those Tories like Mike Richardson who seem to think that it is all plain sailing between now and the General Election.
It is difficult to know if Clegg is giving the Lib Dems a bounce or not. Neither he nor Cameron have had much publicity lately and in Clegg’s case it is probably unfair to make an assessment of his impact until he does get a bit of coverage.

The Populus poll puts others at 11% which I am certain is too high. Yes the SNP vote may very well increase at the next GE but there is no indication that Plaid Cmyru, the BNP or UKIP are on the up rather the reverse. More to the point many of those people who say they are going to vote for these parties may not even have a candidate standing in their constituency. Generally I have to say that I do not believe that the vote for others will exceed 8% at the next GE.

Not sure what the Lib Dem figure indicates yet-time will tell I suppose.

It seems to me that as Brown’s policies move rightward and-as has been said above-converge with Conservative policies, the electorate is left with very little ideological difference to ponder.
The two recent announcements on Welfare to Work are an example. Both parties have the same ( perfectly sensible ) objectives-neither party is criticising the other on principle.
Labour say the Tories approach is not cost effective. Conservatives say the Labour approach is not comprehensive.

So the voter has either to get right into the detail proposed by each party in order to make a judgement-or fall back on judgements about the leaders’ managerial competence.
And in that context Brown must be concerned about this Poll & the Tories pleased with it.

However at some point the Conservatives must persuade the voters to make that transition from increasingly believing in Cameron’s greater competency to believing wholeheartedly in the Conservatives as a Government. They don’t seem to have made that leap yet.

Anthony’s observations about The Times’ reporting of the Poll is interesting.Today’s Cartoon, , The political Sketchwriter-and the Leader are all very uncomplementary about Brown’s NHS speech.He must be concerned as to how he can retrieve the confidence he once enjoyed by the Press ( well The Times anyway!)

NICK KEENE / MARK SENIOR / JOHN TT / ADAM :-

Thank you so much for the responses to my 4.5 line POLL comment - much appreciated , i obviously have a great influence on your thinking & i have a few worried about my past and current predictions .

NICK KEENE :- i have to respond to you saying that at a glance YouGov POLLS are more out of sync than Populus - i would have to disagree - going back as far as august last year - i see Populus POLLS out of sync on 9/12 , 4/11 , 6/10 , 5/10 , 28/8 & YouGov only out of sync on 28/8 & 10/8 .

I have to agree with a few on here that the Clegg boost should be higher - i predicted a high of 18 to 19% - this will go up and down till the next election but won’t ever finish at a general election above about 17% maximum.

I also agree with a few on here that Labour are very close to their core vote - but as we have seen back in the 80’s under Michael Foot & recently under the final days of Blair - Labours core vote can drop as low as 27% - whereas the Tory core vote tends to be in the low 30’s.

Yes Brown has been protected over the Xmas season from bad media coverage - as has Cameron and Clegg from good media coverage - so a bit of a holiday feeling in everyone till (as someone said earlier) the bills start coming in at the end of the month. The late january early February POLLS will paint a truer picture of the electorates feelings .

I don’t think it’s time for any handclapping yet from any party followers - time will tell and the May elections are’nt far away - the POLLS will get very exciting till then as will the media headhunt .

It was interesting to note that while The Times was not good for Brown today, The Sun was OK. Murdoch’s son is now at the helm and reportedly not a Brown fan but is Cameron friendly. He claims he does pull some sway with the Sun, but stays out of the Times. In those circumstances, you might have expected the position of the papers to be reversed.
I understand Miss Wade herself is more inclined to the left[?]. I suspect The Sun is hedging it’s bets. Come closer to an election, I doubt the paper will be allowed much latitude. The Times will be more consistent. If he loses them, he will have lost both by the next election. Reporters on Sky News’s seem to have cooled. They took the same angle as The Times on the Populus poll.

Sorry. Shouldn’t type with a forty pound dog on your lap.
Peter’s comments about the last Populus poll were interesting

Agree with Colin’s comments. In the absence of ideology we’re left with managerial competance - in these circumstances government slip ups are damaging. However, as I’ve said many times before, people have not really bought in to Cameron the leader, and after two years in post I doubt they will. This makes things hard to predict, and Clegg’s next twelve months critical.

It will be interesting to see the full tables when they are up, to see if there has been any recovery in Scotland, although I have to say that a combination of volatillity and very small sample size makes recent Populus figures for Scotland little short of whacko.

The last few months figures for Scotland have been,

Dec. Labour 31%, SNP 35%, Tories 20%, Libdems 7%…..( Yeah 7%).
Nov. Labour 32%, SNP 43%, Tories 14%, Libdems 7%
Oct. Labour 60%, SNP 17%, Tories 14%, Libdems 5%

Given that 40% of LibDem votes are in only 20% of Scottish constituencies it’s easy to see how on a sample of less than 100 a few calls can throw the whole thing out of kilter.

As to Labour going from 60% to 32% while the SNP climbs from 17% to 43%, what is that about.

Peter.

“Labours core vote can drop as low as 27% - whereas the Tory core vote tends to be in the low 30’s.”

Apples and pears.Labour hasn’t dropped beneath it’s core vote as yet in any opinion poll during the past 11 years of government.I can well remember the Tories polling in the mid 20%s, and once dropping below 20%, during their spell in office.While ‘weighting’ has done a great deal to stabilise polling I don’t think Labour are in the sort of mid term melt down we’ve previously witnessed under Thatcher’s and Major’s governments- Labour are currently somewhere between 2% to 5% below their 2005 general election figure.Something that was pointed out to several over excited Tory supporters before Xmas.As it stands,Labour’s position is recoverable, it doesn’t mean they will recover, of course. Everything to play for.

“As to Labour going from 60% to 32% while the SNP climbs from 17% to 43%, what is that about.”

Peter Cairns (SNP)

Maybe we should get Steve Buckner, Mark Benson and Ricky Ponting to clarify the outcome…?;)

Maybe we should all take a lesson from New Hampshire where the voters have just made idiots of the opinion polls on a scale I haven’t seen since at least 1992 in the UK.If the voters either side of the Atlantic are in a contrary mood for whatever reason or none then predictions based on polls alone are best avoided. Roll on the May local elections! That might be a better guide right now.

Yes Nick , as I have consistently maintained ( and been ridiculed for saying ) real votes are of far more importance and a truer guide to what people are thinking than opinion polls .

Nick,

Pollsters have problems dealing with hype be it Brown’s honeymoon or Obama. If those they interview suddenly start telling them that they have changed who they are voting for they have to accept that even if it turns our to be as reliable as a Hain submission to the Electoral Commission.

Mark,

All I’ve ever done (and never using ridicule) is to point out the many flaws in doing that. How do local issues like for example a candidate running an erotic story website tell you anything about the national scene?

The political sophistication of those who vote in these council by elections is also very high I would imagine= genereally those who make it to the polling station when there are very low turnouts are likely to be more politically aware, and I suspect that favours Lib Dems and Conservatives more than Labour- that being the case because the later tends to take more votes from poorer people (in opinion polls and general elections) who may not follow politics as closely and are harder to attract to the polling station.

Mark, the issue is that real votes occur once every 4-5 years. Of just once a year in some of the country every May if you want to take Local Elections at a push. Local by-elections are not comparable to real votes any more than school board elections are comparable to Presidential ones.

No doubt Anthony is more informed than the rest of us, but Adam Boulton was reporting that the exit polls in the US primaries are ‘notoriously unreliable’, for what ever reason.
It does seem unfair and premature to smear all our own polling organisations on the basis of the experience of another polster in another country in another election. At least let them stand or fall on their own record.

I am with Sally on this one.

The Polls or rather the pundits have made the basic mistake of taking the trend in the first election, High turnout and a Barak win and on that basis predicted High turnout must mean a Barak win.

That’s a basic mistake and indeed one Anthony has warned of here on numerous occasions particularly with regards to churn amongst parties as opposed to straight switchers.

If the Tories rise and Labour fall it doesn’t automatically mean that Labour voters are switching to the Tories, equally if the Tories are up by 5% it doesn’t mean they are 5% up in London and New castle , far from it.

Peter.

As regards turn out in by elections, it’s more a case of political motivation rather than sophistication.The Lib Dems in particular are very good at making a local elections about one issue, “vote Lib Dem to save this or that” .Thus making a by election more of a referendum on an issue, people aren’t actually making a political judgement, they are recording their view on a particular local issue.That’s why they should be dismissed as a reliable guide to party support.

Just a comment on Obama.It wouldn’t be the first time the public told pollsters what they think pollsters wanted to hear, the Obama bandwagon seemed the place to be.However, in the privacy of the polling booths it seems quite a few of those people voted for someone else. Personally I’m delighted the voting public can still pull out a few surprises.

However inapplicable it might be to the UK, I really enjoyed the discomfort of the commentators who took too much notice of a few polls, rubbished the “failing” candidate for being too cold and lacking in charisma, and so yesterday - completely dismissing her chances against a bright personable newish face! (Maybe they will make a dream ticket if they can stand each other enough to stand together)? Meanwhile, back to our own commentators and a much longer race…

You haven’t been ridiculed for saying that real votes matter more than polls, Mark - that’s a truism; what you’re mistaken in claiming is that local by-elections provide a more accurate measure of national party support than polls measuring specifically that.

And you occasionally erode whatever justification you might have for such an argument when you make partisan extrapolations from one week’s by-election results, which you don’t always do, but occasionally manage.

Thanks for the correction about ICM - something didn’t sit right with me when I typed that but I was a little distracted at the time!

Seems some websites are crying fowl [US Primaries]. The surprise result has led some to inquire further and BO was ahead in the ‘by hand’ counts and HC in the computer counts in New Hampshire. Hanging chads all over again or just a fruit cake of a web site? We will see but if it runs but it will be an example of the opinion polls leading to scepticism about the real thing!

With regards to the NH primary, I think we need to differentiate between what the polls were saying and what the pundits were saying.

As far as I can see the Polls were saying,

“It will be a very high turnout”.

It was the news commentators who were predicting an Obama win, not the polls.

That for me is a bit like this site. Each of us here puts our interpretation on the results, but if that interpretation is wrong it’s our fault not YouGov’s.

It’s not a slap in the face for polsters, it’s a slap for the likes of us.

Peter.

Sorry that should read foul not fowl. One two many chicken stories on today.

One too many…??? bedtime I think.

Peter you are right of course [I consider myself duly slapped] but just think how much excitment we would miss out on if the polls were absent from the narrative. I am in favour of banning polling in the last few days of an election campaign because it is so easy to put an incorrect spin on a poll in the all powerful media circus just by lazy or poor reporting. If you only turn out to stop the other guy winning or only if your own are desperate, you don’t care enough.

“It was the news commentators who were predicting an Obama win, not the polls.”

Apparently Obama’s team were telling commentators they were showing a 14% lead for Obama in their private polling.Other polls were also showing an Obama lead, one poll showing only a 1% Obama lead was dismissed as a rogue.

Oh yes, the polls were very much predicting an Obama win. No hiding away from the fact that the polls got this one wrong. I meant to write a piece yesterday on what might have caused it, but so far I haven’t worked out what actually did (though that’s largely because US pollsters aren’t as open as ours, you often have to actually pay expensive subscription charges to look at the detailled tables, stopping me looking through the entrails as much as I’d like).

Staying with Obama et al for a minute and as Anthony says- despite Peter’s denials- the polls DID get it wrong–what do folk make of the worrying suggestion made on the BBC news that voters may have changed their minds in the polling booths because of the colour of Obama’s skin? Is that an unjustified slur on the voters of New Hampshire or is it the case that some white voters even in a state not exactly overpopulated with blacks are still imbued with the old racist views.I don’t know. Personally I believe Hillary Clinton is like George W Bush far too divisive a politican to heal the wounds inflicted on American society. To me the perfect contest in November would be Barack Obama against John McCain. Neither man indulges in attack adds and smears and the mutual respect between them could lead to the first adult presedential debate about where America is going since well Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. The rest of the world would benefit as a result and could rest easy with whichever one was elected. Neither of the frontrunners Clinton or Guiliani are capable of this- they would be at each others throats from day one.

Nick - nope, you don’t become racist in the voting booth. The potential error on that front is that people actually didn’t vote for Obama because he was black, but didn’t admit such things to pollsters, therefore artifically inflating his support in polls. There is a long history of polls overestimating the level of support that black candidates have, presumably because people are worried about looking racist if they tell a pollster they’ll be voting against them. I’m not sure that actually was the problem here, PEW produced a paper last year suggesting the race effect in polling had largely vanished - but that is one of the causes that has been suggested.

There seems to be a strong suggestion that a late surge in women’s votes after the “tearfull episode” clinched it for Clinton.
How would the Polls pick that up?
It was nip & tuck at the end anyway-39/36, and equal on delegates.

Two things strike me about it:-

There seems to be a significant ambivalence in the Democrat electorate between the “Change ” candidate & the “Experience” candidate-some echos of that in Brown v Cameron?

This exercise in grass roots democracy, where candidates are shunted all across the country for ruthless public exposure of their personalities, to the will of the people at a very local level, is in sharp contrast to UK.It is a superb spectacle for anyone who believes in democracy.

I love the lists of expenditure-and votes per $ spent-for each candidate. If we tried that here, we would be forever adjusting the numbers!

Concerning the earlier comment, I think the Tories’ lowest rating in any individual poll during their time in office was 23% in about 1995 or 1996. I don’t think they fell below 20% in any national polls.

Andy, I think this was the low point :

Gallup/Telegraph 09/01/95 Con : 18.5 Lab : 62 LibDem 14 Labour led by 43.5.

I can’t remember what was happening around that time, though I guess the pundits weren’t advising that the Govt had had the benefit of a “Xmas bounce!

The detailed data for the Populus Poll is on their website . Ther comparison with how people voted in 2005 is interesting as always , the net change is now from Lab to LibDem of +10 ( last poll +6 ) and from Con to LibDem of -13 ( last poll -29 ) and from Lab to Con of -17 ( last poll -30 )

Clegg gave a good account of himself at Prime Ministers Question Time this week. He just concentrated on the one subject re rising fuel/heating bills. However the PMs Question Times may not influence matters greatly: Brown has to answer many questions from many MPs and perhaps, as a result, gets more exposure. All in all the New Year has started better for Brown than expected. What will matter in the end is the size and scaleof the economic downturn. “It’s the economy stupid” as Clinton used to say.

Andy is wrong on the lowest Tory poll rating being 23% in 1995/1996, or never being below 20%.

It fell to 18.5% in early 1995 in a Gallup poll (whatever happened to them?).
And it was several times around 21-22% from late 1994 to 1996 - usually Gallup. I think they changed their method to telephone and this reduced the Labour leads from the 40 points or so around this time.
But we had another 61-22 Xmas present in 1996 - heading for wipeout.

IPSOS-Mori gives the Tories a 10 point lead: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/12/were-back-to-a-double-digit-lead-with-ipsos-mori/

John Charlesworth

Until the latest government gaff(Hain) the year had started well for Brown. He was in the media nearly every day announcing something or other.
But once again another bad story(Hain’s donations) have probably undone all his good work.

Brown would look stronger in the public’s eyes if he sacks Hain asap otherwise this story will run and run and hurt the Government even more.

Clegg has just announced his education policy-less state control & open up the supply side to private/third sector…….ie = Conservative Policy.

So the centre right position is getting a little crowded with all three main parties moving there!!

They’re all preaching “choice”-but not it seems for the British voter.

Given that education is one of the primary functions of Local Government (especially in Scotland), I wonder how Clegg’s announcement is going down with all those LibDem Education committees up and down the country?

Peter.

Indeed so Peter-how soon before Old Labour joins Old Liberal in a proper Left of Centre Party?-then we’ll all know where we are again like in the good old days!