Populus’s monthly poll in the Times, with changes from their last poll (conducted for the Daily Mirror in the middle of last month), has voting intentions of CON 40%(nc), LAB 29%(-1), LDEM 19%(nc). The poll was conducted between the 2nd and 4th May (Friday to Sunday).
This is the first poll since the local elections and the mayoral election and is practically unchanged since Populus’s last poll, suggesting no obvious aura effect from the Conservative victory. That does not, of course, change the fact that the poll is awful for Labour. The Populus poll a fortnight ago was already Populus’s worst ever poll for Labour, and this is a point worse.
The rest of the poll has similarly awful news for the government. The Times concentrates on 55% of Labour voters agreeing that the party would do better if Brown made way for a “younger, fresher, more charismatic alternative” which seems to me a somewhat pointless question: would the party do better with a better leader? Well – er, yes, almost by definition they would.
Other findings are just as bad though – Gordon Brown’s average rating out of 10 has dropped to a frankly embarrassing 4.08, which as far as I can tell is the lowest any leader has ever recorded in the period Populus have asked this question – worse than IDS’s or Ming Campbell’s lowest scores. David Cameron’s meanwhile is up at 5.36, the highest Populus have ever recorded for a Tory leader. On the economy 40% now trust Cameron and Osborne most to deal with economic problems compared to 30% for Brown and Darling.
Terrible poll for Labour. A 10% lead for the Tories on the economy is shockingly bad for Gordon Brown!
And Populus have tended to give better results for Labour, although not to the extent Ipsos-MORI have.
I wonder what YouGov would say.
andy d- any poll showing labour down slightly is ery bad and with the very good if not briliant record of yougov during the latest elections i would say that they would be on the ball 20pt+ lead from yougov and another 1% from lab to con, at this rat brown will have as bad a ratng a major did at the end of his govenment and even then the final election poll in 97 put the tories at -10 behind labour brown is in a very bad prediciment at the moment and it will only get worse, please welcome to the conservative party conferance the new PM david cameron, he may even wipe out labour in the south.
Hang on… although this is published after the local elections + Boris, this can’t possibly have had the fieldwork done after these events? There’s not enough time!
We still need to wait for a poll in a week-ish to see what impact there has been.
This is quite shocking really. I think Brown’s inability to communicate is the problem. As Tony Blair said when he announced he was standing down “go back, no REALLY go back” – somehow I think either the public are prepared to risk “going back” or think Cameron has changed his party (despite, just before his last conference speech, there was talk of leadership bids, and many in the party wanting to move to the right).
Could be an odd an election in 2 years… we might get a new government for change’s sake.
In my opinion, Labour should dump brown. When he looses the next election, David Miliband will do well to avoid being the next William Hauge. If he takes over now, maybe he can halt Labour’s decline.
Ipsos-Mori is the only company not putting the Tory lead in double figures (at 9%). Be interesting to see what their next poll shows.
Al – all of the fieldwork was done after the local election results were out. Around two-thirds of it would have been done after the mayoral result was known.
I think the most important thing which has changed since May 1st is not the LE results, or OPinion Poll perceptions of Brown and Cameron-but Boris’ election as Mayor of London.
If Boris can “showcase” Tory policies & principles successfully working, then Brown’s accusation , “shallow salesemen” will be negated.It is a phrase which may come back to haunt him if Boris does his stuff.
So far he has made a good start.His appointments of Deputy Mayors covering policy areas show the way he intends to govern, and the appointment of Ray Lewis on youth matters is inspirational.
Successful Cost saving, Waste reduction, Crime reduction, etc. initiatives will provide Cameron with just what he needs to finally finish Brown off-the ability to say-”this is how it can be done”.
I wonder which is the more likely outome-a Tory win in C&N-or a successful Boris?
And I wonder which would really be the most damaging for Brown?
Arithmetically this makes great sense: WMA 40:29:19 CLead 12(11.54). Politically it seems a nonsense: we’ve just had local elections with 44:24:25 so why on earth would the C vote be down to 40? I suspect the real situation is 45:26:20 and that we’ll see something like this from YouGov – after all the last YouGov poll was 44:26;17 and the Mayoral elections showed that although YG was out on a limb it was right.
In a way it doesn’t matter. Unless something extraordiary happens Brown is toast and so is Labour – the rest is a question of time and magnitude.
Anthony.The Populus figures must surely be wrong and I wonder how they defend their methodology.They produce numbers before and after the elections, virtually unchanged, with a cataclysm in between.The same thing happened before and after the May 2007 elections.Are you able to make sense out of it?
collin, why should the local elections have changed the way people say they will vote in a GE?
The Populus figures should be looked at in their own context and anyone expecting an across the board ‘bounce’ for the Tories because of the recent local election results is in my view being a bit naive-some polls will show a ‘bounce’ and some won’t.
There are a group of Tory supporters-I call them the ‘Portillistas’-who continue to be shellshocked by the scale of the 1997 defeat and think the Tories are out of power for a generation. Well they are entitled to their opinions as much as the ‘Oracle’ is to his rose tinted view of their electoral prospects. I agree with neither strsnd of thinking. Right now I would say that the Tories chances of victory in 2010 are odds on in terms of being the largest party and even money in terms of achieving a majority.But there is many a slip between cup and lip…..
It wouldn’t have surprised me if there had been a shift from the local elections, through the government looking even more battered, bruised and moribund and the Conservatives having the halo of success and victory. It isn’t a foregone conclusion though, so perhaps it hasn’t.
Equally, as Nick says – look at the figures across the board. Individual polls always have a margin of error so may obscure movements. Wait and see the bigger picture.
Nick the fallacy in your argument that we have had locals with a 44 24 25 split therefore the WMA should be 45 26 20 should be clear to you .
The 44 24 25 figures are notional and not real figures . They take no account of the fact that in local elections there is differential turnout which ALWAYS ( even in good Labour years and bad Conservative ones ) reduces the Labour figure compared to what it would be in a GE and in national opinion polls conducted at the same time . There are also consistent effects that make the LibDems higher in these local notional figures .
FWIW , I would translate those notional figures into GE figures something like :-
41 28 21 10 .
Interestingly Prof. Thrasher’s early analysis seems to coincide with YouGov’s figures! [http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1315078,00.html]
Go figure….
I think the difference between 41:28:21 and 45:26:20 is only a matter of a couple of months at most. Even Polly Toynbee now thinks Labour “has become the stupid party – dumb, directionless, depressing.” But, as Anthony says, let’s see what the data bring.
NBeale, I think it is a huge assumption to say that 45:26:20 is only a couple of months away. Although it should provide no comfort whatsoever to Labour I don’t envisage the Tories gaining much more support directly from Labour. There is a core of Labour voters that would never vote Tory no matter what they did. The big problem for Labour I think would be getting their vote out to maintain this base support.
It’s very clear looking at the recent polls that apart from YouGov, all the other firms are placing the Conservatives at around 40%. The fact that the Conservatives got 44% of the vote at the local elections is irrelevant to that figure – the distribution of seats (and the preference of the electors in them) in each year’s local election is different to the national distribution and you wouldn’t expect a Westminster poll to in any way exactly mirror the local results.
By the way, did I mention that Forecast UK was back? It’s a long story but online again ready for the Crewe by-election…
Not wanting to be be the usual scapegoat and accused of being partisan (you know who you all are) – but taking off “my rose tinted glasses” – don’t you all wish you had a pair – but i did tell you all so & it happened , my next prediction is for the general election – C 45% Lab 26% Lib 17% – purely based on the fact that the Tories (as in London) will come out in force and the Labour vote will either stay at home or go to the BNP – some may go Liberal.
Oh yeah – very unlikely that the Tories will take Nuneaton – even though in a general election held now they would take it – the Liberal tactical vote will break up the votes in Nuneaton – the Liberals desperately need to have a good result after their disterous results in the local and London elections.
mark senior-
i have to say thats mostly right this is only a 2pt drop in labour votes so on a national vote say the GE 2010 labour would a worst only be on 30% of the vote if you take into acount the 2pt drop in 2006 and 2007 at this rate a hung parliment isstill looking likely the vote if the local drop is repeated will be labour 30% -6% conservative 39% +6% lib dems 20% -2% oth +2%
but as we all know when people go to vote they change their minds my gut feeling is Con 46-47% Lab 25-27% Ld 20-24%.
Contrary to some above I do think there is an ‘aura’ effect after actual election results show a big change, for the following reasons:
1. Plenty people who are not much interested in politics wake up after a big result, take notice, and may express an opinion to pollsters when they didn’t before
2. Plenty people like to be associated with a winner – be in fashion as it were – and will change their view so as to swim with the tide
3. The winning side’s supporters will grow their enthusiasm and this will affect their answers to pollsters
4. Supporters of the losing side will have another reason to give up/take less interest, especially if they think the situation is hopeless
5. After a big change like this the winning side gets good publicity, and the losing side gets basd publicity, talk of splits, bad press and so on.
6. The evidence is that whenever there is a change of Government after a General Election, and often if there isn’t, the winning party generally has a ‘honeymoon’ period, showing big leads in the polls, and this is the aura effect!
So must it be that after 11 years of being generally considered not to have a hope, and never winning a single bye-election from the opposition or any really major discernible victory, the Conservatives have now come ‘back into the reckoning’, and we can expect an ‘aura’ effect to take hold and grow from now on.
Populus is never the best for the Conservatives but this latest one still shows improvement in the Conservative position and in their position on the underlying issues as well. I now expect the ‘aura’ effect to grow, and that other polls in the next few weeks will get better for the Cons. A win at Crewe would also help.
As for the Labour ‘core’ vote, I doubt if it exists. In this part of S.E.England, it has almost disappeared
and that could happen elsewhere. No Party is entitled to think that there are people so stupid that they will continue in support no matter what happens!
Peter O
Before you get too dismissive of YouGov’s big Tory rating you should go and have a look at PB.com. Mike makes a living out of betting on outcomes based on poll analysis.
His Golden Rule….
THE POLL THAT SHOWS LABOUR IN THE WORST POSITION AS AGAINST THE TORIES IS THE RIGHT ONE.
He has just come back from spending his recent winnings. He is a LibDem. Its about money not sentiment or wishful thinking.
Mark Senior.
Have you apologised to Anthony for allowing Ken to use your words [and being paid for it!] in his vicious unwarranted attack on YouGov, a pollster you dislike for your own personal reasons [ie you believe it undersells the LibDems - compare and contrast Paddicks polling and his results] or did you just sulk back on hoping noone would notice?
Are your words part of the official complaint? Has it been withdrawn?
Sally C,
I don’t think I was dismissive of the YouGov polling figures. I simply noted that they were different to the other firms without making a comment whether that was good or bad. YouGov have shown that they have highly effective polling in predicting the London Mayoral contest almost perfectly and the other firms should take a long hard look at their techniques.
I set up Forecast UK entirely on the basis that I privately got the 2005 election almost spot on and thought that I would be cool to make some predictions public and see what others thought. I predicted the Welsh Assembly elections last year almost perfectly.
*ego mode off*
Peter O and Sally, if last week tells us anything, YouGov should be the last poll to be worthy of dismissal.
Re Sally’s third paragraph, YouGov actually overestimated LibDem support by a couple of points not only in the mayoral election but in the 2005 general election as well. Underselling wouldn’t be my choice of word.
Recent polls and recent trends need to be taken very seriously by GB. In the end the future of the Party is more important than any individual, even the PM, and if it continues to be evident that GB is an important part of ‘the problem’ he should consider making way for Milliband senior. For GB the Labour Party has been very much his whole life and he may need to recognise that he, rightly or wrongly, is the primary cause of its travails and do the decent thing!
Sally , your post is complete and putting it politely complete and utter rubbish .
I was neither asked and certainly not paid for my comments to be quoted in Kens complaint and consequently have no idea where the complaint stands .
With regard to the 2 points I raised with regards to Yougov polling .
1 ) They DID get their weighting wrong with regards to over 55 age group and Peter Kellner had to make a humiliating statement about that . They then correctly weighted for this age group and it is possible that without my pointing out their error and their changing their weightings their final polls would not have been accurate .
2 ) I WAS polled by Yougov with a mayoral voting question despite not living in London . Anthony himself has posted that many people were so polled for internal Yougov purposes .
The points I raised were completely valid points to raise and there is no need for me to make any apology for doing so perhaps I should in fact be charging a consultants fee for spotting errors in their methodology .
Delete ” complete and ” from my first sentence .
Sally/Mark Senior
You are two of the most worthy contributors to this site.I have as you know recently rejoined because Anthony seemed to have stopped the kind of personal squabbles which drove me away in the first place. So it is sad to see you two fall out. Sally I do hope you checked your facts before you accused Mark of being a willing even paid tool of the ex mayor of London. Those were strong words you used. Mark your previous over the top vendetta against YouGov was always going to get you in this kind of dispute sooner or later. My advice to you is to drop it. Go on both of you -kiss and make up.
Nick , I note your comments , I do not feel that questioning ( correctly as it happens in this instance ) the methodology of any pollster is carrying out a vendetta against them .
How much “clear blue water” dare the Conservatives develop?
Talk to-day of “stamp duty holiday” for all first-time buyers suggests rather a lot. (ie, those who benefit most are those who buy the most expensive home first-time)
Brown must at some point grasp the nettle and start explaining, as simply as possible, about marginality in the tax system.
I voted Labour last time, but never understood the purpose of complicated tax credits (aas against raising thresholds). I didn’t understand the removal of the 10p rate either until Brown mentioned in passing at PMQs that those who benefit most are those who earn above the threshold (ie it was worth more to some-one on £30k than it was to some-one on £6k).
The one accusation that sticks to Brown is the dissembling one.
I absolutely beleve he’ll go up in the polls again if he sticks to straightforward explanations of how his tax changes re-distribute wealth from the top of the income scale to the bottom.
Bringing expense claims for MPs into line with commercial business (ie every quid accounted for) might help too.
At the moment, people believe quite wrongly that the Conservative policies on IHT and income tax (if they are in favour of raising thresholds) are aimed at making things better for the less well off.
The reason for that mis-conception is that Brown has not even put any case forward for his own position. He’s scared to, because he might lose votes. Not that many left to lose!
How much “clear blue water” dare the Conservatives develop?
Not too much in my opinion. If the gap grows then the risk is that Brown will go and the Tories don’t want that. 1. Brown is accountable for the last 10 years 2. Brown is unpopular amongst English voters 3. Any new Labour leadership election will give them publicity 4. Any new leader would bound to have a honeymoon period
john tt
“The one accusation that sticks to Brown is the dissembling one.”
Yes john-and he keeps on re-inforcing it.
THe second exchange of letters between Cameron & him on “what Wendy Alexander said” re Scottish Independence referendum is the latest example.
Mind you I think a more appropriate observation by DC about Salmond & Alexander on that issue would be their joint & brasen use of a major UK Constitutional matter for purposes of party tactics & advantage.
I am not at all convinced a change of leader would help the Labour Party. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have gone through the mill with all that since 1997.
Don’t forget Winston Churchill lost the 1945 election despite everything he had done. Similarly Jim Callaghan was much more popular than his party in the late 1970s.
PB and conhome reporting a Tory lead of TWENTY-SIX points
C 49, L 23, LD 17
Which according to Electoral Calculus would give the Tories a majority of 288 and see Labour wiped out of everywhere except the inner cities, Central Scotland and the Welsh Valleys. If that happened it wouldn’t be a meltdown, it would be a China Syndrome! It’s completely unlikely to though!
I hope someone is settling Gordon Brown down with a stiff drink before giving him this latest poll.
Obviously that last poll looks to put the Tories way to far ahead, but out of interest does anyone have details of polls from pre 97? What were the worst pre election figures for Major?
I think there were a few polls with figures like: Lab – 63%, C – 23%, LD – 10%.
Mark
Have replied to you on PB a more suitable forum for this type of debate.
Sally , You have not made a serious reply to my request for the withdrawal of your factually incorrect and libellous comments on PB , as they were made on this board I would have hoped that you would do so here .
There was a poll showing 61 Lab to 18.5 Con in 1995.
But Gallup used to provide those huge leads. They changed their methods and went over to telephone at the end of 1996 – the equivalent poll started to produce leads of about 51-33, but not before delivering a final wipeout prediction Xmas present for the Tories – 61-22.
The Tories probably would have dipped below 30% in 1997 if the turnout hadn’t fallen sharply from 78% to 71%. If you look at a lot of safe Labour seats in 1997, their total vote was down slightly in a surprising number of instances – not just down on 1992 but even on 1987 in some cases.
Perhaps. I found those lower turnouts in safe Labour seats surprising in 1997 – surely you’d want to go out and vote for the first Labour government since 1979. But Labour appears to have done quite well turning out in the marginal/ex Tory areas in 1997. But low turnouts in 1997 were nothing compared to the collapse in 2001.
As for the Lib Dems, they were still putting out tid bits on Friday 2nd May that the London Mayoral counts had them running at 15%. Even I thought they’d get 13%, but they ended with a derisory vote – less than 10% and just 13% in the South West division.
Lib Dems don’t always do better than the polls. In 1992 they crept back up to around 20-21% as they kept insisting they were still as strong as the Alliance in the 1980s – but they were squeezed at the end – 18%.