Populus – Tories 6 points ahead
Populus’s monthly poll for the Times had topline voting intentions, with changes from last month, of CON 39%(+2), LAB 33%(-1), LDEM 17%(-2). The poll was conducted between the 4th and 6th April.
While Populus tend to be the pollster that produces the most favourable figures for Labour, this poll should probably be seen as good news for them. The difference in methodologies between Populus and ICM is only small, so a poll showing a Tory lead of only 6 points is a lot better for the government than other recent polls (though it does show what a sorry state Labour have got to that we can consider a poll that shows them 6 points behind to be comparatively good!).
Looking beneath the headline voting intention figures there is little else to comfort the government. Labour are now seen as less competent than the Conservative party (last September during the Brown boost 56% thought Labour were competent, now 37% do), 67% think Brown is all talk and no action. Only 5% think Brown has done better than they expected as PM, with 36% thinking he has done worse, a pathetic 3% think Brown has made a real difference to Britain – 62% think he has made no difference at all. 70% think the country is headed in the wrong direction and it goes on… Labour will be happy that this poll shows a comparatively small lead, one that would leave the Tories long short of a majority, but the rest of the figures remain dire.
Joe James -
Presumably the Conservative Party now regrets opposing the minimum wage, which did more than anything to lift people out of the benefits trap, and the working tax credits (which are ignored when coming to the figure of 5 million losers. Presumably they regret the raising of VAT to 17.5% from 8% too.
I don’t remember much in the way of relieving poverty – just the “trickle down” idea, which turned into the “trickle offshore”.
Nice to know they’ve changed their spots, and if they don’t change back, then fine by me.
Sorry to intervene in the debate about FPTP / AV but I don’t think that is the problem or indeed the solution. The problem is in large part due to the movement of voters and the failure of the boundaries commission to recognise that in anything like the right time. The next election is likely to be held on boundaries fixed in relation to electorates as they were 10 years ago. Given the current fluidity of the population that is bound to produce distotions. OK that currently favours Labour so GB will resist any change but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid non party justification for moving the Westminster boundaies approach to that for local government where changing trends ARE recognised.
John TT – I support the min wage, as does the Cons party since around 2000.
I’d rather people were properly paid than the tax payer subsidised firms who pay £2 an hour to under cut other firms. So it’s the best market based solution.
So along the same lines we believe people should be fairly taxed – not have to have extra benefits given back to them.
Regarding benefits in general, we want to help people who are struggling on low wages, but want those who refuse work to get less.
On the local elections,
the BBC projections were
2004 Con 38, LD 29, Lab 26
(although I suspect that LD figure is a bit
too high – more like 27).
2007 Con 40-41 Lab 27 LD 26.
So the Tories should hit 41-42.
I think Labour will do better than in 2004 or 2007,
but can’t put a figure on it – maybe 29.
There will be virtually no swing outside London,
with both parties moving up in line with each other.
So we will see a few Con gains, and a few Lab gains.
Joe – Cigarette papers come to mind. If it’s correct that Cameron is seeking to make the centre/left relaxed re Conservative policy, then that possibly explains his success so far.
John TT,
” Presumably they regret the raising of VAT to 17.5% from 8% too.”
Just remind me, when did Brown cut it back to 8%?
Peter.
He did at least reduce VAT on heating oil as far as possible.
I didn’t think he’d be allowed to under EU law.
Thatcher raised it from 8%, Clarke from 15% (to fund the transition from the Poll Tax). Sleight of hand all the way.
EU law requires we have a VAT system (which is why Ted Heath introduced it). The rate of VAT is primarily a matter for national governments except that a core of VAT is required to fund the EU operation – that is why we get a ‘rebate’ as a proportion of VAT receipts go automatically to Brussels.
I don’t know what the lowest rate of VAT that can be set is but it would be calculated by taking the UK Contribution less the rebate and subtracting that from the current VAT take. The gap between the two figures (current revenue and minimum revenue required to fulfill our commitment to the EU) gives the amount by which VAT could be reduced.
It is, of course, worth noting that VAT rates in continental Europe are generally higher than ours and, in most countries apply to food, children’s clothes and pharmaceuticals – all currently exempt in the UK. Books and newspapers are not exempt from VAT but the rate of VAT is set at zero – I think this is fairly common across Europe.
On the tax regime, minimum wage and other matters, it is fair to say that Brown’s objective was comprehensible in that he wanted a single system of taxes and benefits – hence tax credits. However, the cost of administering the system, its complexity and its lack of clarity conspire to create a situation where the Government budget on the assumption that a significant proportion of those entitled to credits will not claim them.
I have always taken the view that simply removing people altogether from the tax system is the best solution – it has to be nonsense when people earning minimum wage pay income tax. Especially when we supplement that taxation with a system whereby some of those on minimum wages can get a tax credit – i.e. get the tax they’ve paid back.
Some points following my earlier posting:-
Sally C, Thanks for the compliments.
Wolf, I agree with you. Political anoraks chatter about what will happen if there is no overall majority after the election, but it all depends upon the relative strengths of the parties. Obviously, if either Labour or the Conservatives only miss a majority by a couple of seats it would be difficult to form a coalition excluding that party, both in relation to public opinion and in relation to whipping at Westminster. More generally, a reasonably stable coalition needs to be based on just two parties combining to form a majority, and given the West Lothian question preferably two parties that together have a majority of English seats. If one looks to the Lib Dems to join such a coalition, the implication is that the numbers of seats will force them towards whichever of Labour and Conservatives have the larger number of seats. But the one combination which is sure to be able to form a two party coalition is Labour and Conservative (perhaps as a “National” coalition if economic times are bad?!!). The Labour and Conservatives would be wise to think in private about such a possibility if only because it would give each of the two largest parties a negotiating position to prevent the LibDem tail wagging the dog. If, as the Populus poll currently predicts, the Tories and Labour are very close in terms of seats, a “grand coalition” may be the only two party coalition available.
Julian B makes wise points here. In recent years Labour has lost large numbers of seats each year in local elections, because they have been defending seats last contested before the Iraq War. This time, Labour are starting from a very low baseline. They will be doing badly from a psephological point of view unless they gain considerable numbers of seats. But of course Labour will play up their position if they are staying still at Council level or gaining a few seats.
Joe James Broughton points out that according to the polls, the state of the parties looks much the same as in 2004. Perhaps the major question is what change there will be in the LibDem vote, how it will affect the major parties and whether it will reflect shifts in the LibDems’ strength in different regions. It is very possible that changes in the geographical distribution of Lib Dem councillors could result in net gains/losses for the Conservatives and Labour that do not match changes in the percentages of national votes cast. Specifically, as the polls stand I would not be surprised if, compared to 2004, the Labour vote rises slightly, but the Tories gain net seats whilst the LibDems and Labour on balance lose seats.
Simon Cooke makes a valuable point that the key voters are now C1/C2s who vote with their pocket, rather than listening to intellectual argument. Julian B is correct to remind us that “it’s the economy, stupid.”
The Tories should add on about 4 points against 2004 because they have already achieved 40-41 in May 2007 when the polls had them with a lower share than now.
But I think Labour is not doing as badly – on share of vote – compared to both 2004 and 2007.
I expect both to advance against the Lib Dems – but not a Lib Dem collapse.
Joe , the Conservatives did NOT achieve 40/41% of the vote in the English locals last year . The actual figures were Con 38.1% Lab 22.2% LibDem 23.6% Others 16.1% .
The actual figure this year will show a higher Labour figure than last because the areas with elections this year are their strongest areas and the Conservative share will probably be lower as the vast majority of the Shire districts have no elections .
The figures to compare with are the vote shares in 2004 Con 32.1 Lab 28.3 LibDem 25.3 . The vote share in the comparable seats in 2007 is Con 33.7 Lab 28.5 LibDem 23.0 .
The number of candidates for all the minor parties and Independents is up by over 20% compared to last year with 160 more candidates , I see no reason why the Conservative vote share will be any higher this year than in 2007 .
Mark Senior’s point needs to be answered.
I am going by the national projected share of the votes from the BBC key wards – which is on their website.
The figures he uses look either like
i) The raw votes simply as they are from the places that voted only (with no projection to the national share)
or
ii) Some projection to national share, but insufficient adjustment for places with lots of Others and Independents. The BBC Key wards are quite substantial but require all three parties to contest them.
I will continue to use recognised methods, not those from a Lib Dem blogger.
Joe , Yes I thought that you were in fact referring to the BBC national projected share which is similar but not quite the same as the R and T national share estimates . They do have one snag though , in that they redistribute a substantial amount of the real vote that the minor parties actually polled ( 16% last year )between the 3 major parties and in the last few years have ended up with a vote share estimate for Others which is too low not only lower than that obtained in the local elections but below which they got at the last GE and their current opinion poll ratings .
This may not matter if they use the same calculation method every year but even so the more than doubling of the votes of minor parties in recent years must question whether that method is now valid .
R and T , of course show both actual votes and national vote projections on their website and you can compare the two .
Note I am not making a point here to try and boost LibDem figures as the real vote share the LibDems polled in both 2004 and 2007 was in fact lower than the BBC projected national vote share . This seems to make a bit of a mockery of Joe’s oft repeated claim ( which in fact I agree is true ) that LibDems poll better in local elections than in national ones .
TJ Jones.
Does your post speak more of you own fear than our confidence?
Who with the exception of ‘The Oracle’ has said the next GE is in the bag? There have been afew ‘I think..etc…’. No more.
You haven’t had that from me, only guesses at the current position, which is alot less ‘in the air’ than your postulating about what might happen in a year.
The only elections in front of us are London and the locals and I think you’ll find if you read my posts [rather than reading 'into them'] I have not begun waving victory flags.
Perhaps you are unused to the sound of any Tory confidence after all these years. Read Mike’s posts and you’ll get used to it.
Sally – I read Mikes posts eagerly.He is the most humorous poster on here.
If the Conservatives win,will Political Betting give odds on them breaking their 3 million plus unemployment record?
So nobody’s expecting a Labour collapse at this years Locals, then?
Sally C is right to dreaw attention to Sean Fear’s observation that marginality is not just a matter of the size of a majority but also responsiveness to national trends.
So the LibDems will hang on to seats where there are more sheep than people. They may still end up with fewer seats than now, but not perhaps as many fewer as direct application of a national poll result would suggest. The other side of that is a third party squeeze where it seems that a vote for the LibDems is a wasted vote if it is an alternative to voting against an unpopular government.
Nor will a national swing against Labour make an equivalent change in seats in Scotland where there are still some very solid majorities in the West,and there are many who voted against Labour for the Scottish Parliament by voting SNP, as they can do so without risking a Conservative government. They can also get traditional Labour policies re privatisation and nuclear issues.
The Scottish voter has now had three opportunities to split the vote in the Scottish Parliament, breaking the habit of always voting for the same party, but that doesn’t mean that there is any likelihood of the Conservatives increasing the number of Scottish seats.
There are intriguing possibilities if the SNP increase their seats. No doubt they will gaain one or two. Their first year in government fully confirms what Peter Cairns said on this site: they are not only doing better than their supporters expected, they are doing better than their supporters had hoped.
The first priority of SNP supporters and party members is to avoid electing a Conservative. Conservatives might vote SNP or LibDem however, if it could unseat a sitting Labour member, especially if it was Gordon Brown.