MORI too show a post-PBR boost for the Tories
Following on from ICM’s poll on Saturday, Sunday’s Observer also features a poll showing an increase in Conservative support following the PBR. The Ipsos MORI poll has topline figures, with changes from MORI’s last poll conducted a fortnight ago, of CON 43%(+3), LAB 32%(-5), LDEM 15%(+3).
MORI’s previous poll, as you may remember, famously showed the Conservative lead cut down to only 3 points. That may have been something of an outlier – the Lib Dem figure of only 12% was particularly difficult to believe – and hence the very large shift in this poll may be exaggered, but all the same it suggests a swing back towards the Conservatives since the PBR.
There don’t seem to be any fieldwork dates in the Observers coverage of the poll, though it does make clear it was conducted after the PBR.
Filed under: MORI, Voting Intention
The write up says: “conducted on Thursday and Friday”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/30/polls-pre-budget-report-labour
Ooo yeah baby!!!!!
The question is ….those that said the previous Mori was a rogue, is this less of a rogue because you are happier with the result.
Looks like the PBR has not gone down too well, however, I think Brown is playing long term, any positives from the PBR if they appear will take time to filter through. With regards Green I cannot see the public particularly being bothered. With what the majority of the public think of MP’s do you really think they will feel for one of them being arrested. The only people that will be bothered will be people who are active in politics, and that is not that many compared to yesteryear.
Will have to wait for a few more polls to see if this is a swing back to the Conservatives. If the next poll out is from a pollster who currently shows the Conservatives are double digit leaders but shows a fall in the lead, it would make the underlying trend even harder to fathom.
TONY JONES said “With regards Green I cannot see the public particularly being bothered. With what the majority of the public think of MP’s do you really think they will feel for one of them being arrested. ”
That is a very sad comment and very wrong in more than one way – this time Labour have gone too far and have put a chill down the back of many people in this country – even more so as the Tories don’t give up on this episode and the media dig deeper – this will most certainly add to the eventual demise of Labour after the next election.
As for this latest POLL – the only word to use is “inevitable”, it was going to happen – it was just when !
So far. three post PBR polls (including the latest Populus poll) have shown public opinion swing to the Conservatives. Assuming that all three polls dont have the same members of the public within them, this suggests that the Brown bounce is filtering out and the wheels on the Labour wagon are becoming wobbly once again.
We still have yet to see how the Damien Green fiasco has truely affected the polls. Although I agree with Tony Jones that MPs aren’t usually taken to the public heart, it is the manner in which Green was questioned that is more worrying, As he has stated that he and other MPs of all political hues have always leaked details to the media as a matter of public interest, the public may worry that we are becoming more of paranoid police state under this Labour regime.
Personally, I can also see Labour frantically adopting many of the fiscal suggestions made by the ‘Do-Nothing Party’ in order to patch up their PBR nightmare – Oh, how that comment will come back to bite Brown in the nether regions! But whatever is desperately shoe-horned into the Queen’s speech, the die has already been cast – New Labour is dead and welcome back to 1970s Labour politics, complete with beer & sandwiches with belligerent unions, rampant unemployment and massive debt!
@ Tony Jones – it’s less of a “rogue” because its findings are more in line with several other recent polls and, especially, the post-PBR ones to date. A drop in the Tories’ lead to just 3 points always looked a bit extreme, even alongside a small number of other single digit findings. Had that sort of figure continued to be returned, of course one would have had to accept it as a significant swing. But on the evidence so far, that seems not to be the case after all.
I’ll be interested to see how the Damian Green disaster affects the polls. A lot of people seem very angry about his arrest, including a lot of nominally Labour voters.
WMA 43:33:16 so the CLead which dipped to 8 on the 16th does seem to be increasing a bit, although it is possible that this is all a statistical artefact.
Toby seems new to this forum and whilst welcoming any new voices I should remark that the idea that different pollsters have consistent biases is not well supported by the data. With the exception of BPIX which does have a 2 pt pro-C “bias” all the others have a deviation from the WMA that is on average <+/-0.7% and a Std of 2.5-3% with a broadly similar picture if you look at deviations from Retrospectives (although on that basis Ipsos/Mori shows a slightly higher anti-C bias of 1.1).
In short, the errors caused by different methodologies appear (apart from BPIX) to be random and much less than the sampling error in each individual poll.
re Green, the public will now know that if an opposition MP can not sleep safely in his bed without getting a morning dawn raid noone is immune. There is probably someone in Cheltenham going through these posts now filtering out the anti-government ones and making a record. Abit extreme maybe or maybe not! but once on a slippery slide it is difficult to get off.
re polls, again the Tory 40% looks fairly solid, even through this Brown bounce. Bet Gordon is pleased he poured scorn on an early election this time around and didnt allow speculation to grow.
Tony, please check the spread-betting market. At least – and until – Labour intervene to correct market-failures.
As an English-Democrat I can’t wait for June 2009!
It would appear that the momentum has defintly begun to change direction again. I think we have reached a tipping point and the public will now move aay from labour i would not be surpised now to see the lib dems begin to poll around 20-22% as those who can’t bring themselves to vote tory go back to the lib dems.
The green issue i have yet to meet anyone who thinks the government/police handled this in a good way.
I find it odd that the Conservatives are not further ahead. Especially now that they have aimed their attacks more succesfully.
I do get the impression that much of the real anger at Labour, that was prevalent for the first half of the year, has subsided and that we are seeing their proper core vote (which was never ‘really’ in the mid 20’s).
Still think that the Tories should be regularly getting 45 plus to be sure of victory in an election but having seen how busy the shops have been over the weekend I must admit I’m not quite as pessimistic over the economy as I have been.
Labour still have some fight in them, no doubt about it.
IVAN THE TERRIBLEplease, may I introduce myself…?The economy has been tanking from 2007Q2.
That meant I could dry-clean my old suits, but not afford a new one.Now I can pick-up a £200 suit for £79.99.
This is a site for polls, not economics. If you wish to start a discussion, please ask Anthony first.
Thanks
Tony – The first post PBR poll showed a small swing to Labour and the lead down to 4%.
James – A small number of singlr digit lead findingd – yes 4 is a small number but 4 in the last 8 polls is not particularly small.
I always find it enlightening to see peoples responses on here. They give away who they support immediately and the spin they give on each poll is always a good read.
This poll is obviously not good for Labour or the LDems however to start to say the Brown bounce has evaporated on the back of two polls. Why not hold back until a few more come out, rather than stating a preference to what you hope it means.
Fluffy – If you stopped any talk apart from talk about polls, most posts would be removed as most are either slating the government or patting Team Dave on the back.It’s only the odd one or two that sneak in about the polls.Or they will spin a part of the poll in the post then go on about how bad the government is.
For example…SEE ABOVE.
Mike – It is a sad thing to say, however Mp’s are held in less asteem as estate agents and you hardly hear a good word for them.
With the exception of reading it in the paper I have hardly heard anyone I know mention it, they are more interested in what is happening with the economy.Im sure if it was a quiet news period it would get more response, however there has been a slaughter in Mumbai and the world economy is on the brink of collapse, I think the public may be more interested in that.
Talk of poll bounces is a joke at the moment – it’s more like ping-pong!
@ Tony – “James – A small number of singlr digit lead findingd – yes 4 is a small number but 4 in the last 8 polls is not particularly small.”
True, but it’s hardly decisive either, given that the other 4 returned double digit leads and that this period was supposedly the very height of the supposed “Brown bounce”. Since PPR we’ve had 2 major polls. Both have given substantial Tory leads. My guess is that the Damian Green story, which is rapidly snowballing (see today’s Independent, for example) is going to bring only further grief for Labour. As it should, frankly.
Given the reaction to the PBR I think these polls are fairly predictable. I think it may be that enough people have effectively decided that this government has run its course, but the mood certainly doesn’t accord with pre 1997, despite what some on here suggest. It may be that even if the PBR measures work and the recession ends quickly Labour will not be given much credit. Cameron hasn’t made any effective progress in defining what he stands for, but then he doesn’t have to – governments lose elections, as they say.
Its a bit like the Green affair. I have no doubt that this was an over zealous police operation and absolutely nothing to do with government ministers. I’m not a Labour supporter but I find Mike’s comments on this fatuous and offensive. Its an operational police matter, not a political conspiracy, and those implying anything else are the ones that create the cynicism in UK politics. However, Brown will get blamed, because that’s how things are now. Interestingly enough, I didn’t pick up the same sense of outrage here when Labour ministers were being dragged from their homes in dawn raids by the Met in the cash for honours affair, which, everyone should remember, found no evidence of wrongdoing.
If you’re going to shout the odds about police treatment of MPs, do it for all parties, rather than just the one that you support. That way your protests about ethics in government might just hold a little more water.
The previous Mori poll confirmed Yougov’s results of an improved position for Labour.
Will Yougov’s next poll confirm Mori’s that it was just a blip?
My guess is yes. But given the regularity of Yougov’s polls we should know soon.
Anthony
Your comment “….That may have been something of an outlier – the Lib Dem figure of only 12% was particularly difficult to believe -” implies that the 12% is an outlier, actually although you may find it hard to believe, that figure is very consistent with MORI’s previous two surveys.
Although the MORI figure for Lab and Con are clearly volitile, the same cannot be said for their Lib Dem figures which have been very stable.
That may mean there is a problem with their methodology/sampling, but it does suggest that there was nothing eratic about the finding
The movement of Polls -like movement of the Stock Market-has to be defined in terms of timescale being examined.
One look at Anthony’s All Polls Graph ( post GE 2005), shows that the Conservatives have been in the lead for the vast proportion of time since David Cameron became their leader.
In the three years since DC became leader, on 6/12/2005, Labour have been in the lead for only one sustained period:-
The Gordon Brown “Bounce “which followed his appointment as Leader on 24/6/07, lasted for three months and a few days until 5/10/07-two days after DC’s Conference speech.
During that period 35 of the 56 Polls in which Labour has been in the lead since DC’s leadership occurred-out of 288 Polls.
The recent narrowing of Tory margin ( not actually a Labour lead this time) has occurred at a time when GB has had massive international Press coverage & introduced totally unprecedented counter-recessionary measures in UK.
It looks like the false dawn GB produced after his accession might be repeated.
Is there something about this PM’s flourishes which do not stand up to critical assessment and are doomed to disappoint?
If the Polls slip back into the three year trend of Tory leads, will the Labour Leadership again become an issue?-or will Labour simply lose heart?
I just can’t see the Green affair animating the public a great deal and indeed it may be in the interests of politicians to turn down the heat.
It could be one of those situations that when the public want politicians to be concerned about their concerns politicians are percieved as getting animated by something that only really matters in the Westminster village even if MP’s do try to portray it as being about freedom or liberty.
I remember somewhere seing a quote about a general by one of his staff which said;
” The only time I ever saw him put up a fight was when he was asked to resign”
Politicians always take a risk when they make an issue of something that matters more to them than the public.
Peter.
“I didn’t pick up the same sense of outrage here when Labour ministers were being dragged from their homes in dawn raids by the Met in the cash for honours affair”
Because they weren’t. No ministers arrested. No ministers dragged from their homes. Just asked if the police could drop round for an interview under caution.
Treated much as one might have expected in the Green case.
And holding the governmen to account, even through leaked documents, is legitimate parliamentary business. Selling peerages – if that had been what happened – isn’t.
As I have said before here at some stage the general public will see through Gordon Brown and his Government.( If they havent already)
After the PBR I think many people will see once again that GB and his Government cannot be straight with people
The momentum against Labour was halted because of the Finacial Crisis but I as unemployment unfortunately continues to rise, and we see large parts of the service and retail sectors collapse, it seems that any Labour recovery will be short lived
With regards to an early election I have no doubt GB would go to the country whenever he could if he thought he could win regardless of what he has said recentley
I think he may have a very long wait!!
Tony Jones: It is a shame you have such a low opinion of the British electorate that you think they are unable to be collectively outraged by an assault on hundreds of years of democratic principle. I personally think that this story will run for a long time and that the New Labour will reinforce it’s position as a bullying authoritarian govt that is totally out of touch. The media will reinforce this and the polls can only get much worse for labour. Expect them back down to mid twenties in 2 to 3 weeks time.
Can I remin people that this really isn’t the place to argue about how outragous or not something the government has done or hasn’t done is. This is supposed to be for non-partisan discussion of the polls, not tired arguments about whether the government is any good or not.
We should be discussing what the polls suggest the wider public think, not what we ourselves think.
FWIW while I agree that the Damian Green episode will not register significantly with large sections of the electorate, I dont think it will play well with Liberal Democrat voters and when they are invited by Labour to vote tactically to keep the Conservatives out in marginal seats, they may well think hard about which is the lesser evil!
Lots of ordinary people have mentioned the Greengate affair to me and are angry. Its no good burying your head in the sand, this is bad for Labour.
The Sunday Times was very critical- not least because of the involvement of the police in political decisions which is not something done in England. Really it’s fantastic for Green who was a complete nonentity and is now a fully-fledged freedom fighter.
Ivan the T is correct for the Tories to be confident of an outright victory they should be getting over 45% in virtually every poll, remember 1992. The short term impact of the PBR has clearly been bad for Labour, the polls after confirm this; a key political question at the election could be the 45p rate coupled with Tory inheritance task proposals. This is long-term dog whistle fstuff rom Labour reminding people of ‘Tory toffs’ wihch they can’t say openly. Clever in my view – expect reminders in Labour press of Cam, drugs at Eton etc. Still game on.
‘As for this latest POLL – the only word to use is “inevitable”, it was going to happen – it was just when !’
Again, the capacity to see into the future remains stunning from someone who called all the polls against Obama wrong and who knew Obama would lose. Stick to analysis of facts Mike, and get rid of ‘Oracle’; the most visible showing of your hubris was your call that all the polls for Obama were wrong and you knew better. Self-evidently you didn’t- here is clear proof you are not an oracle (let alone in many other calls).
As Anthony says- this is about polls and analysis of polls. As however I say; wish fulfilment, which is what you indulge in, is actually merely tedious.
‘Greengate’ mattering? Not when you have lost your job or your neighbour has. ‘It’s the economy stupid’ as someone far more important than me said.
This is solely a matter for the chattering classes and will have no impact, I suspect, in the real world removed from our oversensitive gaze. We are nerds, after all.
Anthony I think your banging your head against the wall here.Look at this thread, how many posters actually mention the poll compared to how many posters just rant about how bad the government is.
Maybe you can have two threads for every poll.One where we can talk about the poll results and one where the anti-government posters can all moan about Brown, Darling et al.
I agree with Tony Jones.
“We should be discussing what the polls suggest the wider public think, not what we ourselves think.”
We are all representative members of the wider public (though some of us are less proportionate than others).
What we need isn’t less partisanship, but more balance – which means a greater diversity of views.
If it weren’t for the inifinite nuance within the potential variety of views it would be easier choose to moderate out all repetitive comments and allow the audience to make it’s own mind up, so instead all we can hope for is that an evolving communal spirit and a gradual maturing of the participating voices will overcome the tendency for wishful thinking.
Thank you Anthony.
If I may suggest part (and only part) of the reason for the recent moves in the polls to the Conservatives may be the pretty uniform media criticism of the Government, initially of the PBR and especially the VAT change. Whether the similarly unform criticism of the Green saga will reinforce that move we don’t yet know but if it does than it MAY be that media coverage is becoming (again) a very significant factor in influencing voters. Given the New Labour determination to control the media pre and post 1997 could we be in for another attempt at spin?
Tony – it’s something I’ve often considered actually, a “pit” thread where we can throw all the partisan stuff and let people let off steam as they wish. I’m not sure if it would work or not.
Thomas -” What we need isn’t less partisanship, but more balance ”
No – it isn’t, that’s the polar opposite of what I want here. When I set out a policy of wanting non-partisan discussion I didn’t want the BBC idea of non-partisanship – that it, get someone from each side of the argument and then it’s balanced. I want people from whatever side choosing not to make partisan points in this venue and discussing politics sensibly with people who may have different views without trying to claim their side is best or score points. A place for people with different political views but who have a shared interest in the process of politics. “Balance” just ends up with the tired recitation of party lines, rebutals, spinning and so on, which in turn drives out any sensible discussion.
David D – I would think that the media coverage is ALWAYS a very significant factor. With the exception of political parties websites, direct mailing and canvassing, the public only ever see politics and politicians through the prism of the media.
Seems to me that, after all the excitement of the last 6-8 weeks we now have a poll position almost exactly as it was in September. This points to a Conservative election win but not to the labour Party being written off – we could have any result from a narrow Labour win to a Conservative landslide.
I would be very surprised in labour fell below 30% in a GE (just as I would be if the Conservatives did likewise) and I would be equally surprised if either party got more than 45% in the same election. And for completeness the Lib Dems are unlikely to get less than 15%.
Oddly enough the Green affair might be good for Labour as it takes the publics attention away from the economy and the PBR.
I think the attention it is getting is because it’s of importance from politicains and journalists both of whom wouldn’t like to be treated like us mere mortals when it comes to leaking information.
Oh and before the paranoia sets in I don’t think this was a Labour ploy to take the medias attention away from the PBR, they aren’t that clever.
Peter.
Sorry Anthony, but I don’t accept the BBC definition of ‘balance’ is valid or helpful in this medium.
Neutrality doesn’t exist in punditry and any pretence at neutrality where it can’t be absolutely enforced (through the constraints of time etc – as in broadcast media) means that the forum becomes dominated by the shrillest and loudest voices (the Dutch claimed neutrality in WW2, just look where that got them).
So as this site creeps further out of obscurity and attracts more adherents it risks drowning out analysis if you wish to completely sideline any partisanship.
The evolving online world means that you are going to be forced to choose between open and democratic commentary or an elite subscriber base; a tightly focussed comment policy or a wider audience and increased influence.
Since I’ve been here I’ve also noticed the changes and I would say that this reflects the stage of the electoral cycle, so the discussions are clearly more than a matter of academic interest.
If I may offer a suggestion I would encourage the regulars to be more proactive in enforcing your policy as this would coopt us into moderating the tone, if not the content – this would also have the effect of lifting some of the burden from your benevolence: I call it independent active citizenship!
The polls continue to send us a mixed message, as the economic questions show.
To be frank, there seems to be an element of wanting to cling to the government for now, to steer us through this mess for another year, and then let them go.
On the 45% question James mentioned, well first, we must remind ourselves that polls are where we are now, not predictors.
I agree, with the disparity on seats, still there with the boundary review, that a 45% figure is the most re-assuring for the Tories to indicate they can withstand any swing back to the government.
But I do suspect, also, that, if they did add on significant numbers of votes, the electoral distortion would unravel – up to to a point, and a lead of about 7% would give them a majority of 25-35 seats.
But Labour still have some fight in them, and it could go either way.
Thomas,
Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey ,Spain and Portugal also claimed neutrality and look what happened to them.
If you choice is valid, which I doubt, then I’d guess that Anthony would quite happily forego the wider “open” commentary and stick with a narrower “elite”.
Anthony has said in the past there are plenty of other places to go on the net if you want a rant. This site has a specific remit and purpose and no one is forced to visit or post.
My advice would be;
“This above all: to thine own self be true.”
As to the idea of influence that is a myth, if you gain popularity by playing to the crowd you ultimately go where the crowd wants to go, even if it’s the gallows.
Whats popular isn’t always right and whats right isn’t always popular; Me I like to stick with right as respect is a rarer commodity that popularity and of much more value.
If the current exchanges do show us something of us,e it’s that the are accurate in showing that all parties have an unshakeable core vote who will always defend their chosen party regardless of the evidence.
What we are seeing right now aren’t so much supporters as fans, people who back their team regardless, always complain of bias when a decision or result doesn’t go there way and who alternate between their manager deserving a Knighthood or the sack depending on where their team is in the league, or the result of the local derby.
What the current ding dong over the PBR or Green doesn’t tell us is what the overall electorate think, that’s what the polls are there to do.
Peter.
Once again I really don’t understand such swings… +3 pts lead one day, +11 the week after…etc. Therefore I can only see alternatives:
1- people don’t care and tell rubish (end of polling then ?)
2- people have no brain anymore and in modern times, the louder the better probably
Hmmmm does not sound very optimistic for the future…
Much as I respect Peter’s comments I have to say that I disagree with him when he says:
“Oddly enough the Green affair might be good for Labour as it takes the publics attention away from the economy and the PBR. ”
I certainly don’t believe that the public has had its attention diverted from the economy, the huge increase in debt and the promise of tax cuts in the future. Moreover the electorate is notoriously ungrateful and I don’t think Labour will benefit at all from the VAT cut – the cheaper goods will simply be pocketed. Brown benefited from the flurry of activity during the “crisis phase” but now that things are settling, normal politics will resume.
So far as the Green affair is concerned whilst I agree that it is too muddy to directly affect public opinion very much – it has certainly antagonised the Fourth Estate, big time. This will make it much harder now for Mandelson, Campbell et al to gain traction with their media management, which has tended to rely on bullying and clever leaking. I suspect the journos will be far more inclined to raise two fingers to them now – particularly as the narrative has turned against the government so much.
Looking at the post-PBR swing back to the Conservatives, I think it shows public disappointment to the fiscal stimulus package.
Labour had been gaining on the economy (are they the only party ever to benefit from a recession?) and people were feeling confident that Labour would offer them a nice lump sum of around £800-£1000 per family to go out and spend.
Instead the VAT cut, as welcome as it is, has been seen as ineffective and is not going to get people spending more as it doesn’t give them extra money to spend (if I have £10, I can only buy £10 worth of things whatever price they are).
We will have to wait to see if this drop continues as the PBR disappointment fades from memory. The worry for Labour will be that, on anything other than the economy, they have not had a good win for a long time.
I get the impression the PBR has gone down badly not because of perceived profligacy, but rather because of the view that a cut of 2.5% in VAT won’t make any difference.
Presumably an £18bm tax cut or threshold raise would have been more popular, though it wouldn’t necessarily have been a better way of putting money into the economy.
I suspect it would be easier to justify reversing a VAT cut in 13 months time than to justify reversing tax cuts and threshold rises in 13 months time (Just before an election).
I agree with peter in that the voters should follow the decision makers (and hold them to account), not the other way round, and that doing the correct thing should drive politicians.
Perhaps Darling has managed to do something that will prove to be correct both politically and for the good of the country, but I sense the timing of the next election, as ever, has had rather a lot to do with it.
A good poll for the Conservatives but one thing this does show is that the next election is still not a done deal. The polls showed Labour catching up, now they are falling back again, but still not as bad as things were (early to to say that, I know). But Labour still have one advantage, they are in power.
Totally agree with Gary. The economic competency findings of the poll strongly imply that there is still everything to play for.
As noted the individual poll “swings” are unreliable because the real 90% confidence interval of the polls is about +/-5% so about 1 poll in 10 will have an error of >5%. The underlying position (on the Weighted Moving Average) is about 42:33:16 – Anthony calculates on a slightly different basis but gets much the same figure.
Being in office is not generally an advantage when you are about to be hit by the worst recession in living memory.
If we look at the medium-term WMA trends, the CLead:
a. peaked at 8 in March 07,
b. fell to -9 by Sept 07
c. peaked at 10 in Dec 08
d. fell to 5 in Jan 09
e. peaked at 21 in Sept 08
f. fell to 7 in Nov 08
If 7 proves to be the latest trough we could expect the peak to be in the region 20-30.
PS Anthony: are the likely to be polls specifically about Greengate? if so, when do you think they might emerge? My guesses are yes and soon.
Peter,
Commendable post at 08:56. You reminded me of the French revolutionary who exclaimed on seeing a rabble running down the boulevard “I must follow them, I am their leader!”.
What seems to be striking from the polls in recent months is not so much how the Con-Lab lead has fluctuated, but the volatility as between the Labour and Lib Dem shares. With only a few exceptions (and then only by 1 or 2 %) Tories have been consistently in a range of 40-45% for a year. Labour on the other hand has been on a roller-coaster for most of the past two years, with much of this movement coming to/from the Lib Dems.
If Labour’s position subsides back to low 30s in the polls over the next few months, then it will become ever harder for Brown to claw his way back.
It may be a side effect of regional distribution, since I suspect that most of Labour’s recovery in recent months has come from their core / heartland voters being firmer in their support, rather than new “converts”.
This raises an interesting question as to how much impact regional variations will have on actual seats won/lost together with the probable effect of unwinding of the (anti-Tory) tactical voting that evidently occurred in 1997 and 2001, but less so in 2005.
The only thing that can be said with certainty about the polls at the moment, is that the polls are certainly volatile, and that virtually no political evidence can be deduced from them. It would be interesting to see what the private party polling is telling them. I think that the polls will only be useful, say, a month or two before a GE is called.
I think the poll volatility is down to two opposing trends functioning simultaneously.
Firstly the core support of the parties is growing harder, but this is in response to the fact that this is shrinking (along with party membership).
The uncommitted, undecided floating voters open up an opportunity to fourth party groups or fifth columns gaining in popularity.
I also don’t think the polls adequately reflect the dissatisfaction and apathy being bred by the current system and it is possible that the polling methods are contributing to our corruption, so I would like to see how the companies respond to this challenge.
-
Incidentally Peter, I suggest you look at how Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey ,Spain and Portugal behaved and understand that they were sympathetic in their individual nationalisms; but then it is understandable that an SNP poster would choose to ignore this.
I think you inadvertently add weight to my point that partisanship is unavoidable.
john t t
The view that the VAT cut won’t have any difference has a lot of good reasoning behind it. The aim of the exercise was to provide ‘fiscal stimulus’ or in other words, get people to spend again to attempt to boost the economy. Cutting prices by ~2% doesn’t help that, as I said earlier, people can only spend what they have (especially now, as we can’t borrow to spend like we used to).
Small example. If I earn £20 and I am taxed 50%, I have the ability to contribute £10 to the economy. If prices come down 2%, I can still only contribute £10 to the economy, although I can buy more things. If, instead of cutting VAT, income tax is cut to 25%, I now have the ability to contribute £15 to the economy.
They would likely have been concerned that the lump-sum method tried in America resulted in most people putting the money in the bank, and were trying to avoid it by providing a cut that could only be enjoyed by spending. It seems though, that they chose an ineffective option, as reflected in the polls and media.
Hello,
Sally C at politicalbetting.com referred me to you. I’m trying to find the most recent poll on British support for eurozone entry. Any ideas?
I think the Polls reflect a feature of Brown which we saw just after last years Labour Conference-he looks & sounds good in set piece speeches.
This was so again as he travelled the world speaking about the Credit Crunch & the Recession.
But in both instances however, the subsequent decision making -the judgements about tactics-they seem to fail him & people can see it.
Re Damian Green-it sounds as if there is a groundswell of cross party support for protest by MPs-probably on Wednesday.
Discounting the emergence of duplicity or lying by the Home Secretary, I am not convinced that the general public feel quite so strongly as the MPs & journalists about the rights & priviliges claimed by the latter.
I hope we get some Polls with sensibly framed questions to test the issue.
Re the PBR -it has met with almost universal criticism.I must say that when you look at what the two largest global economies did there were clear pointers for the Government.
China-who had no need for Credit related measures, given the State owns their Banks, opted for construction projects to stem unemployment.
USA-who had tried a pretty unsuccessfull tax reduction, have concentrated almost entirely on Credit related initiatives.
It is evident that lack of credit is the key problem-and unless this is unblocked pronto, the post Christmas period could be very bad on the employment front.
Darling has already acknowledged that the PBR package may have been inadequate & he will have to intervene again.
Thomas
“Incidentally Peter, I suggest you look at how Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey ,Spain and Portugal behaved and understand that they were sympathetic in their individual nationalisms.”
All nations do that not just neutral ones, in fact up until Pearl harbour it was the US position.
The fact that these nations were neutral in the conflict doesn’t mean they didn’t have reasons to lean one way or the other, be they sympathy or self preservation.
Your original contention seemed to be that the Dutch experience showed that neutrality doesn’t work. I pointed out that it worked fine for others.
The Dutch problem, like Norway and Finlands wasn’t so much that neutrality didn’t work, but that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or that they were faced with someone who just wasn’t prepared to accept it.
Norway is a good example, we look on it as an ally now, but in actual fact there was only a week or so difference between Germany invading it or the UK, as both thought it crucial that it didn’t fall in to the hands of the other.
Peter.
All, I am very gratefull for this website. It is the first site i’ve found that has a core of people who seem to give a balanced and fair representation of what is happening with the polls and more importantly why.
I have only recently within the last 6 months started to really take an interest in the polls as I like many others are concerned about possible ramification of swings to and from the government.
I believe you will find more and more people becoming interested in politics as we head to this election as I believe it will have one of the biggest turn outs of both Conservative and Labour core votes on record.
I also think that as I am not a regular on here I can say with some authority that many many people are concerned with the D Green affair. We see too many other countires suffer because of a lack of democracy and all of the laws and traditions that protect it, that we are shocked when our own establishments are attacked – this comment has been echoed by labour / lib dem/conservative MP’s so please no accusations of bias.
I am unclear of government involvement, but their collective and rather slow handling of this affair will I believe have a much larger impact than some on here believe. People don’t like indecision and dithering from their government, so this will be interesting to see – I was in gloucester when it rained a bit
What I think will be really interesting to discuss over the next few months, is the countries desire for change. As with all governments, they reach critical mass and create (without the need for opposition) the requirement for change. This need for change will manifest itself in many ways, but hopefully the polls will register it.
Thanks Mark M – very clear. In an earlie rpost I pointed out that it’s retailers who will feel the effects of this VAT fiscal stimulus, as their increased margins will allow greater breathing space to compete through end-of-year and New Year sales.
If it’s costing £18bn, it must have an effect, whether or not that effect is perceived by the voters. That 2.5% saving might just keep some of the big retailers from closing some of their stores (and creating voids for councils and pension fund landlords)
It is therefore possibly a better idea than the eye-catching lump-sum (which will have to be reversed anyway). A lot depends on Xmas sales.
No Peter, my contention wasn’t that neutrality doesn’t work, but that it doesn’t exist.
Being a non-combatant did not make any of the countries you cited neutral and it was because the Netherlands was not neutral (particularly regarding war finance and the refugee issues) that it was invaded.
Similarly the floating voters in this country are not disinterested in politics, only sceptical about what the established parties have to offer.
If the political establishment excludes the sceptical masses then it becomes easy to slip over into cynicism, at which point the constitutional settlement starts to unravel. It is therefore easy to understand why the SNP wishes to place restrictions on participation.
The relevant question is what measures can be taken to counteract any Hawthorne effect of polling analysis.
On this I think plotted graphs of opinion polls are far more helpful than any weighted average – especially where it comes down to trying to ascertain whether any individual poll result can be determined as an outlier (or rogue) rather than any sudden shift in opinion.
I would be very interested to see if Anthony could provide alternative graphic representation, as I believe this will provide an informative basis which would melt much of the astroturf found in these comment threads.
Thomas,
“Being a non-combatant did not make any of the countries you cited neutral and it was because the Netherlands was not neutral (particularly regarding war finance and the refugee issues) that it was invaded.”
The Netherlands was invaded because it was in a strategically important position for both sides, it’s political stance had nothing to do with it, Norway suffered the same fate.
“Similarly the floating voters in this country are not disinterested in politics, only sceptical about what the established parties have to offer.”
Floating voters aren’t necessarily sceptical, they could be discerning, confused, indifferent, any number of things either at one point or over time.
The polls tell us that they aren’t commited to any one party, but they don’t tell us why. You may like to think it’s sceptacism but that doesn’t mean it is.
“It is therefore easy to understand why the SNP wishes to place restrictions on participation.”
And exactly what has the SNP supposed to have been doing to restrict participation may I ask.
“The relevant question is what measures can be taken to counteract any Hawthorne effect of polling analysis.”
Given that the current definition of the “Hawthorne Effect ” is ” the alteration of the behaviour of a subject of a study due to their awareness of being observed” are you suggesting that people express different opinions in polls to those thay actually hold because they are being polled.
Do you have any evidence for that or is it just more supposition on your part.
As to alternative graphics i don’t know how helpful that would be for you given that you earlier yougave a list of polls without polster which because of the ommissions gave a false impression that the polls were currently erratic.
The same series of polls in a graph without the proper caviates would give the same false impression.
Peter.
Peter, on each response you are either inaccurate or vague.
Firstly, to be sceptical does not impute the reasons for it.
Secondly, Dutch strategic geographic importance is lower than that of Belgium, they had not participated in WW1 and were widely sympathetic to the German cause, so there is no reason why a puppet dictator could not have been installed (as had been done elsewhere) as a precursor to the invasion of Belgium if that was the only reason.
Thirdly, you stated yourself that you preferred to restrict access to these comment threads. If you wish not to be counted as representative of your party, then I suggest you remove the tag.
Fourthly, you are inaccurate in your definition of the Hawthorne effect (’a temporary change to behavior or performance in response to a change in the environmental conditions’) and I think you may be getting confused with the Heisenberg principle or observer effect. I provide you as exhibit #1 and subsequently every other commentator (including myself).
Fifthly, in my previous listing of polls I did not omit any – as you can check for yourself according to the list on this site.
So I ask you:
Who exactly is trying to give a misleading impression?
What positive measures do you suggest can be taken to avoid any future perversions of the actuality?
Definitely what the Tories need but I agree, this indicates nothing solid. If the Conservatives vast lead could collapse to the extent of just 3 points ahead of Labour (versus the famous 28 points) in just a couple months then this is no time to be making predictions as to who is going to win the next general election.
Interestingly enough though, one person mentioned that the Green affair may be good for Labour as it took attention away from the negativity of the PBR and the economy. We don’t have any polls yet to argue this either way, but the only thing Labour has had to rely on during these last few months of hugely improving poll ratings IS the bad news on the economy.
It almost feels as if those months since the collapse of Lehman Brothers was a building up to this big PBR package which was meant to solidify those favourable Labour figures. Unfortunately it appears, at least at first, to have done the opposite.
And a footnote to Anthony – I don’t want you to be accused of being as Stalinist as the police have been of late but maybe a good idea to bring the thread discussions back to the tranquility they had before this website became so popular would be to implement a more strict members system for posting? Ranters and posters who generally ignore your policy of open-minded, poll-based discussion get struck off? A three strikes policy could be fun.
Mark M, I think most people, and the media, probably deliberately, miss the point of the VAT cut. Let’s say, your household budget is £1000pm. And 30% of that is at standard rate VAT. That would be a saving of £10.5pm. Too small an amount to really save. And here’s the clever bit, HM Treasury still gets another 15% of that £10.5 that you spend. Added to the recent fall in some mortgage repayments with the cut in interest rates, and more to come. Also the increase in child benefit and Pensions due in January, a most welcome time, and the increase in personal allowances due at the same time. i think we are in a wait and see mode, wrt the PBR and its effects politically and financially.
Jordan, I’m concerned about restrictive posting: – 3 stikes and you’re out if WE believe you are ranting? and who would decide, what political stance would they have? Surely it would depend on your mood or the placement of the sun and moon in relation to uranus (sorry cheap joke)
I agree with an earlier posting. Lead by example and keep to topic. You’ll find people will stop posting when other people stop answering.
Jordan – I pondered that at some point, in fact, I even did up the graphics ready to roll it out – here, have a yellow card
I changed my mind and decided against it though, I much prefer a light touch and occassional nudge in the right direction (and Littlethunder, if I ever did do it, the answer to your question would be that I would decide. It ain’t a democracy round here you know!
Too comments: –
Well said – Anthony for Emperor
and
Never a truer word spoken in jest (sorry off topic – ranting again)
C.L.A.D.
I don’t understand how you get £10.50 :-
either:-
Your household budget figure is VAT inclusive-in which case the saving is £1000 X 30% =£300, which =£255 pre 17.5% Vat…so 2.5% saving=££6.38
or:-
Your household budget figure is VAT exclusive -in which case the saving is 2.5% X £300 = £7.50
Whether either figure in that sort of budget features as significant when shopping on a High Street where prices are being discounted by 60% as I saw this morning, I think is debatable.Buying presents for my grandchildren today I saw a £10 price differential between two shops on just one video game.
I agree with you that those seeing their mortgage payments fall will be pleased.-but that reduction will be academic if they lose their job next year.
The increase in State Pension is indeed welcome-but it is of course simply a function of Inflation Rate as it is every year.
Pensioners’ inflation rate tends to be largely influenced by Council Tax, Heating & Food. Only Food shows signs of reduction in huge recent inflation rates-the other two have seen dramatic increases which show no signs of abating.
In addition, the falling interest rates will penalise those many retired people who rely on some savings income to boost their pension.
So all of these things have different effects for different people, and drawing generalised conclusions for all the different economic groups is probably a mistake.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that we are in a “wait & see mode”-but not for PBR’s effects-I doubt very much whether they will ever be isolated( the fiscal ones anyway).
Very simply we are waiting to see how many jobs will go & whose they will be.
And this is why I think the burgeoning army of Public Sector workers will gravitate to the party who they think is least likely to end their job & pension rights.They might think that is Labour.
There are 6million of them-around 13% of the 2005GE electorate-or 22% of all those who voted then.
The more unemployment rises next year , the more I think Public Sector workers will vote Labour, and vice versa for those in the Private Sector, and in Retirement.
Anthony, lucky you dropped the idea with the graphics or you would end up giving out more cards than a postie the week before Christmas.
UKPR had a ComRes showing the Tory lead down to 1 (-5), before it exploded. Any confirmation of this?
Do you mean PB.com David?
Cripes, it appears to be true. Major movement in DE-class voters.
David:
I checked the Comres Site before it crashed as well: it does indeed show a poll with the Tory lead at 1%, Con 37, Lab 36, Lib 17.
David, who was the mole that told you?Have they surpressed the poll for the benefit of the Conservatives?Is this a breach of our democracy and has anyone told the Speaker of the House?Will the public be in uproar and are the posters on ConHome considering a march to parliament about this scandal of hiding the truth?
SEND FOR THE MET OFFICE!
WATCH OUT ANTHONY, TRASH ALL YOUR EMAILS AND LETTERS!
Hold the Met,this is a current poll that has just appeared on net world.
Conservatives – 37 (-6)
Labour – 36(+4)
LDems – 17(+5)
ROGUES EVERYWHERE SOON ON THIS SITE!
We all know that FPTP proportionately disadvantages the Tories and Lib Dems – but with the Lib Dems (oddly in historical context) making big gains in the combined ‘chattering classes/student/anti-Iraq’ vote.
But I think the Tories are still at least 15 seats down from where they ’should’ be (discounting minor parties) – with UKIP/Veritas neutralised and (indeed the whole EU question) irrelevant in voters’ minds at the mo.
The next election may well see the Lib Dems reverse the gains from previous elections – I would think that Winchester , for example, will go back to the Tories after the Mark Oaten scandal.
The Tories will clean up in the Kent super-marginals (and in ‘South East England’) but will be lucky to get an overall majority of 10. They certainly won’t get a 1979-style majority of c.40 imho
Am I missing something? ComRes poll for tomorrow’s Indy appears to be posted here:
http://www.comres.co.uk/page190624540.aspx
Fieldwork 28-30th November
Hold everything again,
A right wing forum site is saying the same poll by Com Res is:
Conservatives – 48%
Labour – 25%
LDems – 15%
One of them is going to look rather foolish.
DC – Thanks for the proof.Guido Fawkes forum, too biased for it’s own good,so much so that it is now lying about published polls.
Lead down to 1% in this Rogue of Polls.
Thomas,
Some Dictonary definitions for you.
Sceptical; Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
Some of the electorate may well be easily convinced and thus change from party to party, some may be sure about most policies but shift weight between them depending on events, and some may well just not care and indeed far from being not easily convinced they are actually easily convincted that the parties are all the same.
If you are saying that the electorate are sceptical but that there could be many reasons for that ,it still doesn’t prove wide spread scepticism.
Some may be sceptical but it doesn’t have to be wide spread and indeed there could be many people who are sceptical about their party of choice but still vote for them as the lesser of two evils.
Hawthorne effect; The alteration of behaviour of a study due to their awareness of being studied.
That’s the dictionary definition I’ve got, although wiki ( never the definitive source for anything) does say that the definition has changed over time and is now variously definied.
And no I am not mixing it up with the Heisenberg principle. You may make about as much sense as a Star Trek script but I am not mistaking it for quantum uncertainty.
On Holland in may 1940 this from wiki;
“The strategic position of the Low Countries, located between France and Germany on the uncovered flanks of their fortification lines, made them the logical route for an offensive by either side. The Entente tried to convince them not to wait for the inevitable German attack but join them first.”
As I said never a definitive source but if you have anything better I’d like to see it.
The fact that I support Anthony’s right to set his own policy on his own site and to take action if he sees neceassary hardly amounts to the SNP trying to restrict democracy, unless you are advocating that all websites should be open to all comments without moderation or restriction.
No one is saying you can’t say what you like but rather that there are limits that you agree to before you enter and if you don’t like them don’t come in.
It’s just like a pub, if the sign outside says “No Spitting” (well seeing I am from Glasgow) then if you spit inside expect to be shown the door. You may see that as some infringement of human rights I see it as the rules of the house.
If anyone doesn’t like it they can find a pub that lets them s**t on the tables if they like.
Also I never said you omitted any polls, but by listing them without the organisation that conducted them we couldn’t tell if the different methodologies of the pollsters accounted for the variations rather than volatility as you claimed.
As Anthony has pointed out repeatedly different pollsters have different methodologies that either increase or decrease the shares for different parties. On that basis a set of pols which have the same basic raw data could have a variation in the results depending on who conducts the poll.
Like most of your arguments it was sloppy, thats why I intermittantly pick you up (when I can be bothered), you aren’t as bad as Mike, but you do tend to make sweeping assumptions on very little evidence.
You also just dig yourself in deeper, as with the comments on Holland in WW2 where rather than accept it was a weak analogy you try harder and harder to justify it.
Of and using things like “Hawthorne effect” and “perversions of the actuality?” just make it look like you are trying to be clever by being deliberately obtuse.
Peter.
Peter,
it’s good to see you raising the level of debate… just a couple of minor factual points though:
On the point about statistical methodologies, if you reread the comments you’ll find I wasn’t disagreeing but augmenting the argument that different methodologies can’t be judged alike, in order to conclude the WMA is flawed. I’ll take it that you agree on the mathematic theory.
Holland comprises just two regions within the Netherlands, which is itself only one of the three states commonly known as the ‘low countries’, but I’m sure you don’t need to read up on your geography.
The Netherlands wasn’t invaded in WW1 because it’s strategic position means it doesn’t have a border with France, does not control the approaches to the straits and therefore did not have a mutual defence pact with the entente powers. This didn’t change between then and ‘40, as I’m sure you’ll know from your history.
As for dictionary definitions, that’s English language, and I’m sure I can afford a Scot some discretion on that.
Finally the politics: your need to reply is a demonstration in point that this is in fact quite acute and contrary to your own interpretation.
Perhaps you could engage with the issues at hand rather than making personal attacks – would you indeed prefer plotted graphs which give scope to integrate the poll variations we are attempting to make sense of, and is not the identified polling volatility a actually only a symptom of the line graph used?
I think it is impossible to infer the swings in individual poll results are due to to the effects of news events when these cannot easily be disentangled from the different polling methodologies.
I can only conclude that either you think any such inferences are safe, that you cannot suggest any way to disentangle one from the other, or that it suits your personal ends to see confusion reign.
Considering the latest result from ComRes how we disinter meaningful conclusions about public opinion as a basis for policy-making is a subject of growing importance.
Thomas,
Have to take issue with you re Holland – a commonly used shorthand for the Netherlands – especially pre WWII – notwithstanding it only being a part the latter.
Firstly, I agree with Peter Cairns’ basic point that Hitler was going to invade Holland whatever their government said / did. This was a strategic imperative for several reasons.
Your comparison with WWi is invalid because the underlying causes of those two wars were actually quite different, and the nature of what was strategically important had changed dramatically. It was not just a question of Geography, but of resources, and the Netherlands had both – in particular the port of Rotterdam.
It was in thinking that WWii would be a replay of WWI that got France into such trouble. The lesson of History is that when economic factors change, one’s response should also change, and the tools of yesteryear may not work today, let alone tomorrow. Rather apt at present wouldn’t you say ?
Anthony, sorry if this is a bit off thread, but I thought Peter deserved defence.
(will comment on Thomas’ last point separatel;y)
Paul,
or as the adage goes;
“You never fight the same war twice”
Bush though Gulf War 2 would be just like Gulf War 1, and look where that got us.
Peter.
Thomas,
As Peter also commented (possibly on a different thread), Political Leaders should seek to lead public opinion into doing what is right and just, and not just following every fashion or trend. To that end, the volatility of the polls is immaterial for public-policy making, since to suggest otherwise imoplies that public policy should follow the polls, rather than simply be “informed” by them.
It has always been when government action (or legislation) has been motivated purely by polling evidence that we have had the worst outcomes. For a government to base its entire priogramme on polls (or focus groups) leads to bad law, bad government, and is generally bad news for the country.