Tories surge to record lead
A new YouGov poll for the Sun tomorrow has topline figures, with changes from their last poll, of CON 49%(+5), LAB 23%(-3), LDEM 17%(nc). This is the first poll conducted wholly after both the local election results and Boris Johnson’s victory in London, though Populus’s poll was partially conducted after the mayoral results.
The 26 point lead is obviously in a different league to every poll that’s gone before, on a uniform swing it would produce a Conservative majority of 272 (though obviously, in the vastly unlikely event that such a lead occured at a general election all bets would be off and who knows what freakish result would actually occur). It’s the sort of lead that ICM – the only pollster whose figures from back in 1992-1997 are comparable to their figures today – was recording for the Labour party when the Conservative party was flat on the canvas back in 1995.
As ever, we need to be cautious about any poll that shows large shifts of support. This one is explicable – big election victories like the local elections last week often have a halo effect, the winner suddenly has the aura of victory about them, the loser the scent of defeat. Another good example are the polls from straight after the Lib Dem victory in the Brent East by-election back in 2003, when the aura of success about them briefly saw them leap to joint first place in the polls on 31%.
They soon fell back, and if that’s what’s going on here the Tories will fall back too; I personally find it hard to believe they’ll stay at quite this level anyway. Alternatively, the local election defeat may have been the trigger for a real change in public attitudes towards Labour, confirming an image of them as past it and ready to be kicked out.
A third possibility of course, is that this is just a freak result. Remember Populus’s poll earlier this week showed no such similar jump in the Tory lead. YouGov normally show the largest leads, so I doubt other companies will match the scale of this lead, but we’ll have to see if they show the same trend towards even larger Conservative leads.
UPDATE: The Sun says this is the lowest Labour have ever sunk in the polls since records began. Is it? As far as I tell it equals their lowest rating ever. There was also a Gallup poll in December 1981 that put them on 23%.
UPDATE 2: Seems it’s even lower than December 1981. Apparently that Gallup poll actually had Labour on 23.5%, so this really is the lowest since records began.
Filed under: Voting Intention, YouGov
It’s now obvious to everyone that Brown simply isn’t up to the job of being PM. See eg Phillip Stevens in today’s FT and Simon Carr today in today’s Independent. Labour morale has collapsed and the Party is also effectively bankrupt (see eg yesterday’s FT). World prices are hurting us more because of Brown’s serious mismanagement of the economy – piling up Stealth Taxes and Stealth Liabilities (PFI and Pensions)so that the £ is very weak despite the highest interest rates in the EU. I’m NOT saying these things as partisan points – though I am a Conservative I’m beginning to be worried about the future of democracy in this country. Perhaps it would be OK if Labour became the 3rd party. In the last 2 months the movements in WMA have been +4:-6:+1 so 2 more months of this and we’ll have a WMA of 47:21:20
It is interesting to observe that Brown might be considering the slash and burn strategy – making DC’s advance seem like Napoleon’s march to Moscow! This suggests that he knows he won’t recover from this situation – it’s not just the polling and the local elections or even Boris. Read Frank Field’s piece in this weeks ‘Spectator’ – it says it all.
Paul Smith’s observation on the Lib Dems is also significant – great quote from Cameron (reported by Fraser Nelson) “I have to keep scratching myself to believe that’s true but I am on my fourth Liberal leader…I count them up. Instead of counting sheep to go to sleep at night, I run through Lib Dem leaders.” Ouch! Seriously though Clegg is about as inspiring as an overcooked pudding – and he’s way more gaffe prone than Boris. ‘Calamity Clegg’ was either a knowing comment or truly prescient.
Michael Portillo was very depressed on This Week last night. He didn’t vote for Boris apparently…
This poll is so devastating, even given that the lead is probably exaggerated in the wake of last week’s local election results, that little comment is really needed.
However, in response to Mike “the oracle” Robertson, my recollection is that the only modern United Kingdom general election in which the Government got over 50% of the votes cast (and even then not by much) was the National Government landslide of 1931.
Some other thoughts while I am commenting. Firstly, when I did some political science at university I remember being told that, regardless of electoral system, a government requires something like 20% support to retain political legitimacy (e.g. in relation to East European countries, such needs for support constrained Soviet Union influence over satellite states). Over much of the United Kingdom, particularly England, Labour is reaching this floor level, with the consequence that it will just not dare implement policies. Which is not good news for those of us who love peace and democracy even if we do not like Labour.
Secondly, the Swingometer suggests that even if Labour drops to 5% of the national support, they will still get nearly 10 seats (the same is not true of the Conservatives). Given what happened in the Welsh valleys last week, I doubt whether the Swingometer remains valid in such extreme cases, although there are perhaps one or two seats in Yorkshire and Durham where Labour can still take the working class for granted because there is no alternative. The issue is whether a complete Labour wipeout is possible over the next three or four general elections.
Thirdly, it is bluntly being suggested that some middle aged Labour MPs will do anything to hold on because they have no alternative career prospects, which is hardly a recommendation of their quality. On polls anything like this one, their best chance would be to stick to the old Labour principles they presumably joined the party with and jump ship before it goes down. Thousands of ex-Labour members without political jobs to lose, indeed probably the majority of those in the Party before they made the error of electing Blair the leader and Brown his deputy, did this years ago, if for more principled reasons. What I am saying froma psephological point of view is that many sitting Labour MPs would now appear to have a better chance of re-election standing as an independent or for a new party than on any Labour ticket. Not least, one wonders whether Ken Livingstone would have got back in if he had still been an independent.
I feel a bit sorry for Gordon Brown actually – even though I shouldn’t as a Tory.
He has finally got the job he wanted but it’s going wrong for him.
I remember the 1993 period onwards when the government was just seen as stale and tired and not much you could do about it. For Labour, it seems to have arrived a bit quicker (i.e. before a fourth election). I wonder whether the transition to Major did look fresher because he was a relatively unknown figure whereas Brown so obviously is the same government.
Examining our detailed ward by ward figures from Harlow last week (where I ran the Conservative war-room), the extraordinary thing is just how vulnerable the Labour vote is. Even in wards where we did no work we got in the region of a 7 to 8% swing. Of particular interest was that in Lib Dem wards (i.e. where it was Lib Dem versus Con), most of our increase came once again from Labour voters.
I think that those on this and other forums who are suggesting that the recent YouGov polls show a much weakened Labour position because of them being right down to their core vote, may have put the finger on the pulse of what is happening out there. On the ground there is an extraordinary shift in public opinion happening, very similar to the post-1993 disaster that befell the Tories.
If the next poll… and more importantly the ones after the Crewe and Nantwich by-election can have a swing like this to the tories (even if not as bigger lead) then Labour are in serious trouble.
Especially as the news is grim over a change of leader – though I suspect the reality on that front may be different?
KTL
“If DC has any sense, and I think he has, then he won’t be making any promises that he can’t deliver. Heck, the Tories haven’t made brash promises about Tax so far and they don’t have to in order to win the election by the look of these polls”
I agree about explicit promises, however there is an implicit suggestion that people will be better off under the Tories and the public don’t really distinguish the subtleties of what was actually promised and who is actually responsible.
Maybe I’m wrong but I suspect that if they felt they weren’t better off after 5 years of a Conservative government then they’d feel wronged, regardless of the specifics of what was said.
All that said I would expect the Tories to reduce taxes and, while I don’t think they’d be reckless, I think they might take, shall we say, an optimistic view about whether or not it was prudent or not (as Brown has with spending).
I think you are right Jon H, but there is obviously another factor to take into account.
If we just assume for a moment that the Tories will win the next election (I’m not suggesting that it is definate that they will). What Cameron has to do in the first 4 years to ensure that he will get another term depends very much on what happens to Labour.
If they fall apart (or continue to fall apart) in the same way that the Tories did in the 90’s then he really won’t have to do much. However, if they can limit the damage and make themselves electable again quickly then Cameron will probably have to take a more adventurous course to stay ahead.
Recent history suggests that the former is more likely, but it may not work that way.
Do we have the actual figures yet?
I also suspect Major pulled off the trick in 1992 partly because the Tory party still seemed somewhat interesting, and people wanted to see how things went without this incredibly dominant leader who wasn’t there quite suddenly.
Brown, unfortunately for him, seems to have gone into the boring stale phase as soon as this election which never was.
Oh come on folks; let’s gett real and consider swings and roundabouts.
Long term govts. rarely hold on as we all get bored with them. In particular they lose when the ‘new’ leader GB isnt new and has been in power for the whole time. Yes, GB will lose the election -at this point in time- but Labour will appoint a new fresh face and the game recommences. And DC will get ‘tired’ and some old tories will come out and say / do stupid things and we will get tired with them after , two terms… This, I think, again proves the old adage of Govts lose elections; DC can hardly said to be winning as he doesn’t have policies, except not to wear ties (a policy I agree with)…
May I point to Australia where the old, tired Conservative party under John Howard has been totally thrown out and ‘new labour’ there holds every government, State and Federal for the first time in a million years? The highest elected Tory there is the mayor of Brisbane–not even Melbourne or Sydney.
It’s what I am saying, the electorate just gets tired, especially as the ‘ideas’ offered by a Government are nothing more than more of the same or dafter (’let’s get the police to bully the young bullies to show them that bullying is wrong’ does not seem to be the greatest policy ever to come out of Home Office.) Then the elctorate swaps over for a while…
Joe -
I agree about the “not Thatcher” vote. However, Major won that election, rather than the Tory party (a large part of which would have been not too displeased to lose it), by connecting directly with the voters.
He used a soapbox.
I’m not suggesting Brown should find a similar prop (I found it rather odd at the time), but if/when he feels there’s nothing left to lose, he surely must take up the challenge and wear his heart on his sleeve.
The dissembler side of Brown is the compromiser, the scaredy-cat that wants to appeal to the centre. His real mettle is to the left of centre, with social justice and wealth re-distribution at its core.
KTL:-
“If Scotland were ever to go independnent then Westminster would be well and truly dominated by the Tories”
Indeed-and this is the source of Labour’s panic stricken efforts to head it off.
Seems like Salmond figures a referendum in 2010 -after a Tory victory-will swing opinion in Scotland behind home rule ( to hell with being governed by Thatcher’s party)
So Wendy Alexander-presumably relying on recent polls showing no majority for independence-wants to get the Referendum out pronto & obtain a No vote, thus removing SNP’s raison d’etre.
Meanwhile poor old Gordon assumed they would all plod slowly through his Review Commission.
The big question is how a UK Prime Minister who belongs to the Conservative & Unionist Party will sort things out with an SNP administration in Scotland.
John tt-
re your doubts about Boris’s ability to stop drunken yobbery on London public transport-I note that Bob Crow -predictably-shares your view.
I am sure that Boris will stick to his guns, and try to provide whatever resource & impetus is needed to meet his pledge.
I can see him saying-if it can be done in New York, I’m f****d if Mr Crow is going to stop it happening here.
A new Tory administration is going to have major battles with some public sector unions -looks like Boris may be first over the barricades.
Jack:-
(’let’s get the police to bully the young bullies to show them that bullying is wrong’ does not seem to be the greatest policy ever to come out of Home Office.)
I rather thought it was an Essex Police initiative-though I can remember the days when Bobbies confronting trouble makers on the beat was just normal policing-now it’s an “initiative”…and welcomed with grateful thanks by the locals whose lives have been blighted by feral yobbos for too long.
It’s a bloody good idea-it’s what POlice should do-it’s what people want-and it’s only taken Labour eleven years , 12,000 useless ASBOS and other assorted pointless pieces of paper to realise it.
Colin – you say :
-I note that Bob Crow -predictably-shares your view.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever been offended by any comment on this site! Crow “Predictably” shares my view! I’m outraged!
If I thought that dinosaur union leaders would ever hold sway again, I’d go back to voting Tory!
I find your imagery a bit disturbing – tin hats all round?
People will judge issues/disputes on their merits. If rail/tube workers are forced to tackle drunken yobbery, they’ll be seen as right to want extra training, pay and other resources such as police back-up.
john-please put away your outrage.My sentence was very badly constructed.
“predictably” was meant to refer to Crow’s view that it could not be done-not that you happened to have reservations as well.
Given your description of Mr Crow as a “dinosaur” I find myself sharing your sentiments.
Let’s wait and see how the policy is to be implemented. For the moment I prefer not to believe that we must accept public drunkeness & associated violence because the problem is insoluble.
Not sure how I produce an imagery of “tin hats”-but I have no doubt that those unfortunate enough to travel the Tube every day, or live on a socially blighted housing estate would recognise it.
I hope both of these groups of people can have their lives improved.
“All guns blazing” and “over the barricades” – it’s not exactly WW1 trench warfare. Much less predictable, and I have personally faced that dilemma – do I want a knife in my face if I intervene?
An alarm button next to every carriage seat would be convenient, but it takes resources to operate and respond.
Operation Leopard sounds like a good wheeze that Boris might copy (pc’s following known miscreants around until they get the message)
My offence was not entirely serious!
“That Gallup poll had Labour on 23.5% (Gallup gave polls to whole numbers or halves in those days), so I think The Sun is right.”
I possess a Times Guide to the House of Commons 1983. On page 281, it lists a table of the polls held during the election campaign. It was an “Audience Sel” (don’t know what Sel stands for) poll conducted by telephone on 7 June, sampling 1100 people. It was C 45, All 29, Lab 23, Oth 3.
So I suspect this YouGov poll is in fact the JOINT LOWEST EVER for Labour, if the “Audience Sel” one counts. It is true that Gallup’s lowest ever was the 23.5% in December 1981 – and they have the longest history of political polling in the UK. It was a shame their contract with the Daily Telegraph ended, although I believe YouGov to be the most accurate today, which the paper now uses.
The Tories highest ever rating with Gallup was 56%, and their highest ever lead was 28% – both in May 1968.
I can strongly recommend “British Political Opinion” published by Politico’s in 2001, edited by Prof Anthony King. Gallup polls dating back to the 1930s are listed there.
Ironically, it was in fact The Sun which published that 1983 poll with Labour on 23%.
Question about the impact of this in Scotland.
Most of the day to day running of Scotland and the things that affect Scots are decided at Holyroyd, not Westminster, so then is it really fair to say that if Cameron wins then “Scotland will be governed by Thatcher’s party?” Surely not in any meaningful sense? An impending Tory landslide will make things interesting in the run up to the scheduled referendum. Alex Salmond undoubtedly follows events down south carefully and he may have already decided that Brown is dead meat and not worth dealing with, while Cameron is the coming man. He’ll also know that the best case scenario for the Tories in Scotland is to win a maximum of 4 seats, this will revive SNP taunts that they won’t have a mandate to carry out the reserved matters, while the Calman Commission is likely to recommend more powers for Holyroyd. If the polls in 2010 showed that Scots still favoured “devolution plus” over independence, then surely the smart thing for the Tories is to make a virtue out of necessity and agree to more powers for Holyroyd? This could then be put to the electorate in a 3 way referendum, independence v dev plus v status quo, Cameron may also agree to Salmond’s request that the First Minister negotiate directly with Downing Street and not have to work through the Scotland Office. Salmond would gain control over just about everything the government does in Scotland, short of independence and an increased status of the FM’s office while Cameron dodges the “you haven’t got a mandate in Scotland issue,” while the Scots Tories continue to work with the SNP government, which I think is probably their best way of achieving a recovery.
How realistic is this scenario?
the oracal made his point clear 5 weeks ago before the local elections by saying not maney councils would change hands but in the end the con’s gained 12 councils in net terms and the ld’s also gained seats, so my own prediction of 300 labour losses was very near the mark and the 230-250 seats in said the con’s would gain also came close to the mark, thelondon election was to close to say for me but boris winning was very good, the county elections next year will be very intresting and mostly more of the same melt down part two coming soon to a govenment & council near near you rated 18 adults only.
this film was rated 18 beacuse of he number of labour councilors being killed off, with a total of over 300 in net terms.
The Tories have been accused of not making ground in the North, until now (with the gain of Bury and North Tyneside councils, and some progress elsewhere in the north).
The most interesting immediate point of the YouGov/Sun poll is that the Conservatives are 19 points ahead of Labour in the North … what, therefore, are the implications of this for the Crewe & Nantwich by election?
Just leafing through my British Political Opinion to which I referred earlier – from what I can see there is just one poll – the Gallup poll conducted 10th/13th May 1968, showing a larger Conservative lead than this YouGov poll since records began. It was C 56, Lab 28, L 11, Oth 5.
Only one party in one part of the UK has had more than half the popular vote in, I think, 1952. It was in Scotland and wasn’t the Labour party. It was the Conservative (and Unionist) party. They will not in the next election gain 19 seats, nor 11 nor even 5. If they gain three they should be delighted, if they gain two they should be satisfied. I doubt if they could field 19 credible candidates now, so far has the party declined.
The fact that the SNP, not the Conservatives gets the anti-Labour vote in Scotland shows that the Conservative party isn’t gaining support, though there is no doubt that Labour is losing.
The poll shows too large and too sudden a swing to be anything but overstated, and it may be that many who have deserted Labour will not vote at all. Labour losses in Scotland will not increase the Conservative majority overall and while it is certainly bad for Labour, it doesn’t mean a Conservative landslide of the scale extrapolated from this poll.
The notion that Labour could be eliminated in England within four elections is a lot more fanciful than the Conservatives being wiped out in Scotland in one.
The Scottish voter has learned to split his vote in the SP elections, and many who would vote for other parties for the SP would support existing Labour MP’s rather than risk letting in a Conservative, though Labour gains are not to be expected.
In the past, the SNP has not done as well at Westminster as they might appear to be doing in the Scottish parliament. The are in government in Scotland thanks to PR. Both Labour and LibDem Scottish MP’s may be more entrenched than their colleagues elsewhere.
There is no doubt that Labour have lost a lot of support throught the UK, and that the SNP is doing exceptionally well in government, but for the Conservatives to win enough seats for a working majority is still a big hill to climb.
The detailed results are up. For Scotland, they are: SNP 32%, Lab 26%, Con 21%, LD 13%. According to Electoral Calculus, that would result in the following number of MPs: SNP 23, Lab 21, Con 7, LD 8. Labour casualties would include Des Browne, Alistair Darling and Jim Murphy.
I suspect the Tories must be getting more than 50% of the vote in England in this poll if they’re only getting 21% in Scotland.
john tt
“My offence was not entirely serious!”
Good!
Steve Wheeler
“Can anyone think of any other straws that I could clutch at, please”
One appears in The Times tomorrow it seems-According to Cherie, TB is “secretly” advising Gordon on how to win the next GE.
Hope this helps!
It was 1955 and 50.1% for the Scottish Tories, (although some of the seats were National Liberal according to Wikipedia). They won 36 of 71 seats.
40 years ago…
Im sure I recall a poll from around 1994/95 – can’t remember from whom – which had Labour support at 62% Conservative 18% -a 44 point Labour lead. Can anyone clarify ?
But the Scottish figures are based on a sample of 141 people and that’s probably too low to be representative so I’d take that with a pinch of salt. What’s interesting is that until now Labour have been ahead on Westminster voting intention but this poll shows the SNP comfortably ahead. Something to keep a close eye on!
Anthony, I didn’t realise that You Gov put Wales and the Midlands in as the same region, do you have any specific figures for Wales? I’m asking this because the Tories really seem to making headway there. They did well in the locals and in the 05 Assembly elections and Electoral Calculus is predicting them to make 8 gains off Labour and the LD’s with another 6 Labour seats with predicted majorities of less than 5% and therefore winnable. I think it would be interesting to track the current situation up until the GE!
The impartial observer Re Scotland.
If there is a possibility that Scotland will get more Devolution so called “Devolution Plus” then surely there is a case for reducing the amount of MPs Scotland elects to Westminster.
Scotland is overprepesented in terms of population and seats – if they are going to decide more of their own affairs is there not a case for cutting the amount of scottish mps.
Historically why is the scottish population overrepresented at Westminster? and Who has the power to change it ?
for scottish observers,the snp remind me of the new labour first term.you have snappy slogans a very charismatic leader etc.behind it they are weak and quite left wing.
we may have a mini belfast on our hands,where the conservatives and the snp(who agree on quite a few policies) work well together.the tories will need to make gains for this to happen,but that is very possible.then annabel goldie and alex s. can negotiate increased funding together,powers etc.
that will create a stable backdrop in scotland and increased power in scotland.
KTL,
Scotland was over represented when it had 72 seats at Westminster, but with Devolution that has been cut back to 59, which is just about right proportionally.
Still I wouldn’t be averse to reducing the number of Scots MP’s at Westminster again, by around 59……
Peter.
Impartial – nope, I dn’t ave any breaks beyond hte published ones. The sample size would be very small indeed anyway, so if they were separated out it wouldn’t be much use.
KTL – After devolution Scotland’s seats were reallocated using the same quota as England’s seats, so they no longer have any intrinsic over-representation. If they are still slightly over-represented compared to England (and I think they are) it’s just because of the geography of the Highlands and Islands which forces some seats with smaller population than the quota.
Peter/Anthony – Thanks for the correction.
“Im sure I recall a poll from around 1994/95 – can’t remember from whom – which had Labour support at 62% Conservative 18% -a 44 point Labour lead. Can anyone clarify ?”
See my post on the next thread, I actually refer to that very poll there.
As much as I want to say this is AMAZING news for the Conservatives and DISASTEROUS news for Labour… haven’t we always been saying here that this sort of wild shift in opinion should be looked at with a taste of ‘rogue’ about it??? Maybe we should be a bit calmer and wait for more polls… However let’s be honest… it’s a YouGov poll and to be fair to them they have got the important ones spot-on!
I think we should take this poll with just a little bit of Salt. I mean yes it looks very bad for Labour and people are now starting to talk them as if we were are back in the mid 1990s in the last days of John Major’s Government but lets face it if the polls do get worse for Labour then it would not matter what they do because the people will want Labour put into opposition.
Alex
I think we’re already at that stage _ the country wants a change and the lsbour vote surely can’t go any lower than the polls are showing at the moment.
Although the Scottish seats are now based on the English electorate quota, the base year for that quota was 2000 and of course since then the population/electorate of England has increased quite a lot faster than Scotland, which is why there are very few Scottish seats even now with more than about 75,000 electors whereas there will be many English ones above that level when the new English boundaries come into effect. For example, I think the new Northamptonshire South seat already has more electors than any Scottish constituency.
“I think we’re already at that stage _ the country wants a change and the lsbour vote surely can’t go any lower than the polls are showing at the moment.”
If Labour succeed in winning an overall majority at the next election it will be the most sensational comeback in political history. I know people will mention the Falklands War turning things around for the Conservatives in 1982-3, but that was in the first term of a Tory government.
For a such a turnaround to happen after three terms in office would be even more extraordinary, especially given that Labour were just 3% in the popular vote in 2005.