Tory lead falling in latest Populus poll
Populus’s monthly poll for the Times has topline voting intention figures, with changes from last month, of CON 37%(-3), LAB 34%(+3), LDEM 19%(+2). The poll was conducted between the 7th and the 9th.
It’s always a mistake to read too much into a single poll, the normal random variation we see from poll to poll could have one drawing conclusions in any direction you wanted – for example, given their methodology is almost identical to ICM’s the 9 point Tory lead recorded by Populus last month seemed somewhat out of line and probably flattered them somewhat – in this case though the collective picture across all the polls now seems to be one of a falling Tory lead, even YouGov who in recent months have recorded the largest Tory leads have shown leads in the 6-7 point range rather than the 8-10 point leads they showed at the start of the year.
The increase in the level of Lib Dem support in this poll may be thanks to the increased publicity they received during the EU referendum debate – an exampe of the old maxim that no publicity is bad publicity, though it could equally be just a reversion to the mean after an outlier; again, Populus’s methodology is almost identical to ICM’s, so January/February figures with Populus showing the Lib Dems at 17% and ICM with them at 21% could never have been sustained. The fieldwork was carried out before Nick Clegg’s conference speech, so any boost they recieve from his first real set-piece outing won’t show up until the next polls.
Even if publicity has boosted the Lib Dems, it hasn’t boosted Nick Clegg. The average rating of his leadership is now at 4.16, slightly below Ming Campbell’s nadir (for contrast, IDS fell to 4.00 in Spring 2003.) The only saving grace for Clegg is that there were probably a large proportion of don’t knows to the question (in January it was 39%, but we won’t know till the tables come out). For the other leaders Gordon Brown remains down at 4.59 and David Cameron is up at 5.23, only marginally below his position during his honeymoon in January 2006.
On other underlying figures there is no shift back to the government either. The percentage of people dissatisfied with the government also crept up. This is a pattern we’ve seen in other companies polls too – a position where the underlying figures on things like the economy, best PM, leader approval and so on suggest no shift back towards Labour, but where the topline voting intention figures show a falling Tory lead – my guess is that the reason is that the larger Conservative leads at the end of last year were never ‘real’, they were the product of a government that appeared to be in crisis – now they have ridden that out we are seeing a more genuine position.
Meanwhile, after those contradictory polls for the Lib Dems and iwantareferendum Populus also asked a question on the EU referendum that gave people all the options – no referendum at all, a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, a referendum on EU membership or a referendum on both the treaty and EU membership. The latter was the most popular, the preference of 36% of respondents, 19% no referendum at all, 18% on just the treaty and just 16% on EU membership alone.
John tt 2.05pm
The summary is not the whole document-the link says so.
THe summary does not say ” I won’t be allowed not to take a holiday!”-it says holiday in lieu of pay is debarred.
The summary does not say “soaring electricity bills””-it says “Higher household electricity bills”. It does not say this is EU “policy”-it says this is amongst the effects on our lives.( you need to read the document to understand the reasons-one is the implementation of ETS , which I agree with, the other is the closed energy market, which I object to).
The Document says -repeatedly-that the effects are simply listed – not described as “good” or “bad”-that is for you to judge.
I find it interesting that you should need to misquote for a particuular effect.
Facts cannot be partisan-but objection to their disclosure always is.It is for you to judge whether this document lists effects of EU legislation or not.
I profoundly disagree with MP salary increases “in lieu” of expenses.Expenses are ( correction-should) be incurred as and when neccessary-salary is a fixed cost.It should be paid at the appropriate rate-which has no connection with expense levels.
The Leader ratings….
Obviously, the rating for each leader tends to be higher from within their party rather than without.
GB’s rating is 4.59 overall and yet 6.27 from Labour supporters.
I assume the leader rating is taken from those who might be discounted from the voting intention part of the polling because of likelihood of voting [or lack of it!]. Nonetheless since this poll attributed 34% of voting share to Labour, I would assume they still represented a significant proportion of the whole polling group.
Is GB suffering a normal or an unusual differential between these groups?
I would expect [possibly wrongly] that because DC has taken the Tory Party ‘on a journey’, some of whom might be still be ‘reluctant travellers’ that his ‘in party’ and ‘outside party’ ratings would not share the same disparity.
Whilst this question of interest to me, it might also be natures way of telling me I have too much time on my hands.
IHMO the Tories need to sort out what is really popular ( such as cutting inheritance tax) over expensive gestures such as ‘saving’ sub post offices. There’s a difference between a Beresford who cut spending and a Lord Hanningfield who appears to think we’re still in the 1950′s with Churchill as PM.Perhaps each Tory MP could sponsor a post office – i’m sure with their big allowances they have plenty of spare cash.
Wolf-
yes they do-but not much “sorting out” is required.
We know what the public’s priorities are-there are Polls to tell us.They don’t change much.
IPSOS/MORI of Feb 2008 gives the main ones in order of importance as :-
Immigration
Crime
NHS/Health Care
Economy
Education
Defence
Housing
Morality/Individual behaviour
Taxation/Inflation
Drugs
Environment
The first six were of relatively significant importance.I probably have a reasonable sense of their policy principles ( but not necessarily methodology) on five of those…..but then it’s not me they have to inform & convince.
What formla do the polling companies use to convert their actual returns into percentages? I am interested in how they profile the population given that the census is so far out of date
What do they say – “Criticism is the Highest Form of Flattery” – THANKS Guys !!
Now for the serious stuff – glad to see that the Tories on here are still not running for the hills after yet another “rogue” POLL – but i am disappointed in the Labour & Liberal followers who have been grasping at some straws from this POLL.
The figures speak for themselves and back up my earlier predictions :-
Firstly – let’s look at the “ROGUE POLLS” since 6/10/07
Populus on 6/10/07 had a Labour lead of +2% (everyone else had an average Tory lead of +5%)
Ipsos Mori on 23/10/07 had a Labour lead of +1% (everyone else had an average Tory lead of +7%)
Populus on 4/11/07 had a Labour lead of +1% (everyone else had an average Tory lead of +7%)
Ipsos Mori on 23/1/08 had a Labour lead of +1% (everyone else had an average Tory lead of +6%
Those alone are VERY obvious indicators of the main ROGUE POLLERS – This latest POLL is from Populus !!
_____________________________________________
There is NO loss of Tory lead in the POLLS – you just have to take the last 44 POLL results since 6th October 2007 including this latest ROGUE POLL to see the following :-
Conservative = average POLL 40.11%
Labour = average POLL 33.9%
Liberal = average POLL 15.7%
Average Tory lead over 44 POLLS = +5.9%
_______________________________________________
Just in the last 7 POLLS over the last month (including the latest ROGUE POLL) the average figures are as follows :-
Conservative = average POLL 39.3%
Labour = average POLL 33.9%
Liberal = average POLL 17.3%
Average Tory lead over the last 7 POLLS = +5.9%
________________________________________
So – unless everybody else is looking at something different to me , the figures show a steady and continuing steady gap between Labour and the Tories , only the Liberal POLL has risen slightly over the last few weeks.
Whoops – slight miscalculation – the Tory lead is actually +6.2% for the last 44 POLLS – a better result than first shown .
These above results compared show a slight Liberal advance at the cost of about 0.5% split between the Tories and Labour – the rest coming from the “Others”
Whoops again – must be the time of night / the Labour average on the 7 POLL average should read 33.4% which would tally up to the 5.9% gap i have shown
How about some more predictions Mike? Your last ones were for February. I’ve already stuck my neck out – care to look into your crystal ball to see if I’m right?
It’s difficult giving anymore predictions at the moment apart from the ones still standing – just to update you Steve – i forecast a continued Tory lead , which will increase dramatically after the May elections nationally and in particular London – once they hit all the headlines in the media with their wins.
Do you want a result for London ? I can even predict the headlines leading up to the election there ?
Colin
Apologiews, I mis-read through my tears of laughter . The actual line was :
“Higher household electricity bills, more wind turbines; Soaring water bills.”
The EU is apparently to blame for eveerything that may or may not appear to be wrong – the price of a football ticket, the Northern Rock crisis. It is a thoroughly biased list of gripes that has no objectivity.
Abolishing expenses might be a bit off the wall, but it wouldn’t be nearly so offensive as what we have now. And not open to abuse. Who’s to judge what is a “properly” incurred expense? Why not simply gauge how much expense should be occurred by an individual, pay it and let that person get on with it.
The system is wasteful and corruptible – my idea would put responsibility into the hands of the individual.
The only abuse that could occur would be if an MP stopped travelling to and from the HofP. In some cases that w=might be good for us all!
John tt
“no objectivity”
Through my tears of laughter I see Black Pots & Kettles!
“Who’s to judge what is a “properly” incurred expense?”
Whoever has the Rule Book with which to audit them.It’s done in the Private Sector all the time.This isn’t rocket science.
We now learn that the new £25 rule doesn’t relate to “The Food Allowance”-a fixed monthly entitlement of £400 which only saw the light of day this week!
These people are at it big time. It has to stop.
The second homes Allowance is the biggy though-they will fight like hell to hang on to that-who else gets the taxpayer to pay their mortgage-even as in one (Tory) case where their isn’t one.
Pleased to see that “senior” MSPs are to “review” the expenses scandal unearthed by the EU Court of Auditors-though they still refuse to release the damning report to public gaze as it would be a “breach of confidentiality” …and this is our money remember.!!
“the effects are simply listed – not described as “good” or “bad”-that is for you to judge”
It would be a more digestible 18 pages if it weren’t so one-sided. For example, the 58-hour a week limit on “trainee” (ie junior) doctors is presented as a threat to patient care because it means “fewer training hours”! Apparently patients had a much better chance if they were treated by doctors working round-the-clock!
Colin
“Pleased to see that “senior” MSPs [MEPs?] are to “review” the expenses scandal unearthed by the EU Court of Auditors-though they still refuse to release the damning report to public gaze as it would be a “breach of confidentiality” …and this is our money remember.!!”
I don’t understand why this hasn’t been leaked. Someone public spirited must have access to it. For God’s sake, photocopy it and distribute it to the press. Post it on a website. Deposit it in the House of Commons library. Anything. We the taxpayers have a right to know how our money is spent.
Paul Smith – the weighting targets are mostly drawn from the National Readership Survey. MORI and YouGov also use the Office of National Statistics for age and gender targets (the ONS publish annual estimates for population, presumably drawn from the census – if 5% of people were 20-24 7 years ago, around about 5% of people will be 27-31 now)
The detailed data from this poll is now on the Populus website .
Peter Cairns is always interested in the Scottish subsample figures ( smaal though it is ) . Lab 36 SNP 35 LibDem 15 Con 12 Others 2
The net changes for those who voted in 2005
LibDem to Con net 10 voters to Con
LibDem to Lab net 13 voters to LD
Labour to Con net 26 voters to Con
Poll used to say that the scores were right + or – 3%. Is that still the case (in which case the numbers are unchanged), or are polls more accurate now? Or, alternatively, do pollsters now accept that the margin of error cannot be so accurately calculated?
Colin – Kettle point taken, though I haven’t gone out of my way to go on an obsessive 18 page rant about how glorious the EU is and then added a claim that “we do not seek to pass judgement”.
Nor did I quote a right-wing think tank poll as though it were carried out by some-one independent.
I still see no analytical reason for leaving MPs to pay for their own lunch out of their own wages. Most in the private sector don’t get subsidised for travelling to and from work.
I meant “for NOT leaving MPs to pay for their own lunch”
Stuart – the + or – 3% is the standard margin of error based on a sample of 1,000 (actually it’s 3.1%, but there goes). If a poll has a larger sample size then technically the margin of error is smaller – a poll of 2000 has a margin of error of around + or – 2%.
The figures are based on a genuine random sample, so they are a polite fiction. In reality Ipsos MORI and YouGov don’t use random sampling, and the phone pollsters don’t achieve a genuine random sample because of non-response and non-contact bias (the majority of people they ring don’t end up being interviewed). They were somewhat misleading anyway, since they always implied that sample error was the only source of error, and otherwise polls were accurate when in reality there were all sorts of other potential sources of error.
I can’t speak for pollsters in general, but personally speaking: no, margins of error cannot be that accurately calculated.
Phil C
It was leaked -which is why we know it exists-but we are unable to know the detail.
MEP Chris Davies ( LIbDEm)-a member of the MSP’s Budget Control Committee -along with all his fellow members was shown the report in a locked room-sworn to secrecy -& unable to take copies.
He went to the Press & told them ( us) that widespread abuse of expenses had been found totalling £100 million pa-including payments to employees who don’t exist. ( thats fraud in my book)
Davies was castigated by his fellow MEPs-A Spanish MEP said “Passing information to the press is a misuse of information and a misuse of parliamentary obligations.”
Don’t look for whiltleblowers from the Court of Auditors-they get sacked by the likes of former Commissioner Kinnock.Look at the cases of Marta Andreasen, Dougal Watt & Paul Van Buitenen-the latter brought about the resignation of the infamous Santer Commission-he still got sacked.
THe EU Accounts have never been ratified by it’s Auditors-Fraud , Financial incompetence & waste are rife. If it was a listed company it would have been de-listed long ago & be bust by now, with it’s senior management in clink.
There was more accountability & transparency in The Kremlin than exists in the Institutions of The EU. But anyone who dares to suggest they be more “open” is vilified as Anti Europe/Eurosceptic/Disloyal/Right wing/ etc etc.
Stalin would be proud of the lot of them.
including payments to employees who don’t exist. ( thats fraud in my book)
Mine too. Why does that money go through the hands of the
M(E)P? Why not pay (and tax) the individual direct? The employing Member would still effectively have the status of “manager” of the PA, still choosing who works, and even what they are paid, but not handling the cash.
Talking of Fraud and Europe’s increasing powers, if that Societe Generale chappie had been forced to use up his annual leave, his handiwork would have been un-covered a lot earlier. He never left his desk.
Such behaviour should arouse suspicion amongst auditors in any event.
Pingback: Darling, you were wonderful: Westminster Watch: w/b 10th March 2008 | The Wardman Wire
One thing I like about this messageboard is the fact that most of the threads go off at a tangent,oh and the oracle,his predictions and his justification for them.
Again,keep up the good work.
ps Anthony,twice isp bitten,thrice shy