New MORI Poll
Ipsos Mori have released a new poll conducted on behalf of Unison. Like ICM’s poll last night, it’s something of a return to normality after the extremes of last month. The topline figures, with changes from MORI’s last poll, are CON 39% (-1), LAB 25% (+7), LDEM 19% (+1) (the previous poll, you may remember, showed Labour way down at only 18%)
The poll included a booster sample of public sector workers allowing MORI to better gauge public sector voting intentions – there support stood at CON 32%, LAB 29%, LDEM 19%. An idea I often see expressed is the public sector employees constitute a “payroll vote” who monolithically vote Labour. It’s not true – public sector employees are more likely to vote Labour, but as this shows, it’s not some sort of guaranteed block vote – at present the Conservatives even have a narrow lead.
Filed under: Uncategorized
At first I thought . . . Eh? . . . That can’t be right; and then I saw the “public sector workers” loading.
So you ask members of ‘Labours Client State’ and get a result more favourable to Labour . . . well, knock me down with a feather . . . who would have guessed that?
The only poll worth anything is the one called the General Election – let’s see what Labour ‘poll’ then shall we.
hmm… not sure what to make of this.
it’s still 14pt lead whats the big deal other than a few more public sector workers were interviewed. at the last election and the locals and eu elections i voted tory and im in the public sector be it as a cleaner at a school but it could be the case that mori only interviewed low level workers such as cleaners cooks and teachers (on a higher scale)
Jeez … who are the masochists who would vote Labour for another 5 years’ of misery.
And don’t say all public sector workers. I’m a Civil Servant and there’s no way on God’s earth I’d vote for them.
“it’s still 14pt lead whats the big deal ”
A very good point Stuart.
Surely it’s the gap which wins elections.
Since 1945 there have only been three double digit % leads in a UK GE -two Conservative (15% in 83 & 11% in 87) & one Labour ( 13% in 97)
The current gap appears to be in the 10% to 15% range & therefore in the top three bracket since WWII.
are we aware of any more polls coming out tonight maybe?
I am absolutely astonished! A majority for the Conservatives amongst Public Sector workers! Could this actually be a case of Turkeys intending to vote for Christmas given the Tory promise of 10% cuts outside Health and Education? Perhaps teachers and nurses are making the difference?
Tony, actually I think you will find that the 10% savings are Labour’s spending plans.
However it is widely recognised that we will probably need even great Tory saving to counter the debt created by Labour waste.
Is this the place for some of the political comments here?
Can we not stick to talking about polls?
OK?
This one.
It is of interest as it shows the Conservatives are – indeed – still comfortably in the lead.
But it must be a worry for them that they are NOT polling in the mid to high 40’s.
We might speculate as to why that is the case. But this does imply that their position is not secure. Even though they have a consistent and large lead.
Could be some interesting polls if the economy shows signs of improvement over the summer. Might an October election be on the cards?
@ Tony Dean – “Perhaps teachers and nurses are making the difference?”
I don’t know about nurses but Cameron’s promise to scrap SATs seemed to go down very well with teachers the other day. My impression is that a lot of teachers have been very unhappy for a long time with the increasingly rigid and bureaucratized systems and initiatives imposed on them. So it might well partially account for the small shift in the Tories’ favour.
The recent Populus poll asked voters if they may well change their current voting intention before the next election 20% of Conservatives ie 8% of the electorate said they may well change . The libDem % was higher at 37% but a lower % of the electorate .
David in France -
Re-reading my comment I see that it could be taken as politically partisan – it wasn’t meant to be. I was using clumsy vernacular expressions to register my astonishment at the findings of the poll amongst public sector workers. I finished by putting forward teachers and nurses, whilst actually wondering which job sectors of the public sector are swinging so heavily to the Conservatives so as to give them a relative lead within the whole group, which traditionally has supported Labour – albeit, as Anthony writes, never unanimously, as per some perceptions?
not seen the full figures yet but if labour are coming in with some sort of mini come back then they will hope to be near or at 30% of the vote before even calling an election if this dose not happen and the tories pull away then the election will not be untill may next year maybe even june.
camoron has given a gaff at a camoron direct in norwich for saying can i see your papers please in a german voice.
For some time, it has crossed my mind what would happen if the next General Election produced a hung Parliament. It is not impossible for Labour to pull enough support back to deny David Cameron a majority.
Personally, I think that that the Lib Dems would not want to be seen propping up a weakened Labour Party, so would side with the Tories. What would the price of their support be?
If the Tories poll 40% or less, do people feel that the “anyone but Labour” syndrome is likely to produce a small Tory majority?
I’m a Labour supporter but even I’m not surprised a majority of public sector voters support the tories. The amount of tinkering, target-setting, permanent ‘reform’ and general faffing about with the system is probably making itself felt. If I were a teacher or an NHS worker I’d probably be exasperated at it all. “Tory Cuts” slogans might win a few back over the coming months, but if we’re honest as a party we’ve failed to bring in the workers into the reform process, relying on trying to impose standards via targets from above.
Does Public sector workers include those who now work for private contractors some in low paid jobs.
School and hospital canteen staff, cleaners, refuse collectors, council tax collectors etc.
If it is narrow payroll then the professionals, including Health and Education ,will be a much higher proportion than 5 or 10 years ago.
Both these professions are not Labour as much as before as per Morgan above.
As for the GE poll we have stasis until others fade somewhat.
Need the 2 bye-elections to get the debate going again in the media.
Silent Hunter – I should make clear, the final sample would not have over-represented public sector workers. MORI deliberately interviewed more public sector workers than necessary…then weighted them down to the correct proportion.
It’s a way of being able to compare cross breaks that would normally be too small to rely upon.
@ Garry K
I agree, the Lib Dems certainly do not want to be seen as supporting or propping up an unpopular govt. In my opinion, Cameron and Clegg have worked well together on the opposition benches.
Asfor the two by-elections, i ont think they will give us much of an indication on the election, atleast not asmuch as people are saying, look at it this way, Martins is in a safe Labour seat so his wont reveal much, if the bye-elections were in Labour vs. Tory land trhen they may reveal more.
so norwich north is not labour vs conservative then
MICHAEL or did we miss that one off the list
In fairness that is just one constituent, if we had 3 or more by elections in Labour v. Tory areas it may give us a better picture, but its hard to come to the conlcusion on who will win the next election off one.
Im not saying it wont give us some idea of what may, it just wont give us the whole one.
My point was that it will get party fortunes back on the media agenda again, particularly Norwich North.
I agree it won’t tell us much about the next GE.
I suppose if they are super dreadful there may be more moves by the PLP to oust GB.
Weighted Moving Average 38:24:19 it’s all very stable. And very odd.
The press coverage and news flow for Labour has been uniformly awful – the worst any party has ever had AFAIK. Yet there is a slight recovery in the Labour vote. Could it be that people who formerly voted Labour are ashamed to admit it?
It’s a very good point Antony this misconception that Labour have bought the vote of public sector workers – often made by Cons to justify cuts.
NB- Are you going to do something about the totally partisan and irrelevant polling comments posted by BOUDICCA.
Anyway – another stagment polls for the Cons – should be streets ahead not being pulled back – can see Con HQ getting quite nervous at this trend and also the more and more promising news on the economy.
Chris – I’m sure any party would prefer to be higher in the polls at this stage of the cycle. Looking at the tables for recent polls I’ve noticed a couple of things which should be positive for the Conservatives. Their certainty to vote is better than the other parties and the undecideds would add to both of the main parties in equal measure. They have the advantage of being able to say to their supporters that “this is the time we can win”.
Also the economic news can cut both ways. If the decline slows or the bottom is reached, that’s good news for everyone. But unemployment is rising rapidly and will continue to do so for a while. As someone has been unemployed for 7 months I can assure you it is a nightmare to find a job. That filters through families/friends and makes it very difficult to run a positive economy message – for everyone you cheer up, you really annoy another one. Mr Lamont probably destroyed any chance of a Tory victory with his green shoots comments, not that they had much of a chance of winning.
I’m still not convinced that the Conservatives can win, but I cannot see Labour getting anything near a victory. Watching Question Time for the past few weeks has shown that there is a lot of anti Labour anger. There isn’t much Conservative love yet, though.
I’m of the opinion that post conferences is when we will see the polls settle into the election run in pattern.
@Colin – yes, the gap is 14%, but Cameron’s worry will be if Labour recover by another 5-6% (low 30s – still historically bad for them) – will things still look so rosy for the Tories? I also made the point on a previous thread that there is an issue over legitimacy, which although it matters not a jot in our system, will I think worry the Tories as they face some very tough choices if they win. I’m sure they dearly wish for a big mandate – I don’t think they will get it though.
It’s also interesting that we suddenly have rapid and sometime large recoveries from the Labour scores of sub 20% at the height of the last crisis. This shows how timing could be crucial to the GE result. get a good month or two for either party and things could look very different. The peculiarity of our system in leaving the timing of the election with the sitting PM is something we shouldn’t discount as a major factor.
Sorry I meant to say: “I’m still not convinced that the Conservatives will win…”
Norman Lamont made his green shoots comment in the autumn of 1991, and the Tories did indeed win the General Election in 1992.
(In fact the economy flattened in late 1991 showing some signs of optimism, but there was downward twist in the early months of 1992 – perhaps because we weren’t able to get interest rates down).
Mark Senior quotes high figures from a poll showing voters could still change their minds before the election.
But, in fact, there could be a lot more churn in elections than people tend to assume. I read some analysis I think by Butler and Kavanagh in their book about the 1987 General Election where their surveys indicated a quarter of Tories defected even though their total share of the vote was exactly the same. I do rather doubt that figure, but even if it’s half correct, it is still significant when the election overall looks like a faded photocopy of the one before.
Alec-yes all fair points.
But there is one huge factor missing from all our prognostications which is the GE Campaign & it’s effect on voters’ opinions.
I believe Cameron’s strengths & Brown’s weaknesses will be emphasised in the media spotlight.
Why are people surprised that public sector workers do not back Labour massively. My wife is a teacher and she is always complaining about what they are doing to the system. as she says ‘Why cant they just let us teach?’ . I am sure the same is happening in others areas too. Too many targets gets in the way of people doing their jobs and the people who know this best are those at the ’sharp’ end.
Alec….and then there are “events”…like the speech later today in which (BBC) Darling is to announce that he does not plan fundamental reform of the way UK financial institutions are regulated & will say the current regulatory system is not to blame for the credit crunch.
But of course , Osborne needs to be able to shoot through an open goal as well as see it.
Adrian –
Like your wife, I was a school teacher from 1993 to 2002. I remember well that we felt the same before 1997 – we disliked all the monitoring and testing, “Baker Days” et al. After all it was the Conservatives who, with hindsight now correctly in my view, brought about accountability for what was going on in classrooms. However, I understand it has become even more prescriptive since I left. As Morgan admits the reform agenda has been too “top-down” frankly under Governments of both persuasions, but Labour as the most recent incumbent is getting the current blame. I suspect this is true across the public sector?
In socio-economic terms, are public sector workers not among the higher paid, most secure and best rewarded workers in the country? Are voters in this bracket not normally more Conservative, and so to find only 32% of them voting Conservative is actually rather lower than one might expect of well paid, well pensioned individuals?
I hate to keep laboring the point but we really do need to get away from this nonsense about “where the Tories should be”. It does not really matter very much whether they are at 42% or 38% if their lead over Labour is the same. A 14 point lead (for example) is a 14 point lead!
I am also baffled by some of the talk of Labour “recovery”. They are polling below Foot in 83 and are 14 points down in this poll.
Those of you stating that the tories should be concerned that they are not in the mid to high 40s are basicly saying that they should be concerned because they do not seem to be on course for a landslide greater than labours in 97. Well… no doubt Cameron would like a majority of 175 but i suspect he will settle for 60 or so.
Chris
It ill behoves you of all people to demand that Anthony snips somebody else’s comments. He has enough trouble snipping yours.
Shouldn’t we regard a poll that includes an unrepresentative sample of ANY group (in this case public sector workers), as unreliable?
Neil - the point about 40% is that the margin of error for the cons is small so if something happens a 4-5% fall is serious for them.Cameron gaffe (worse than the ‘Allo Allo’ German voices) or Osbornes flipping becomes an issue etc.I agree with other posters who suggest that past ‘last year movement ‘are not much of a guide this time.First we have had a 3 term Labour Government, never before even 2 term.Secondly, the recession plus expenses makes this parliament less typical in the way poll numbers have progressed.I agree also with others that the Cons can win a working majority with 38% and with a smaller margin than UNS would suggest and don’t particularly think it will undermine their legitimacy.
It may, of course, make them more timid as a few % would cost them a second term, maybe they would be less savage in the public sector?The key point in my view about the 40% is the effect it has on coallescing the opposition vote as I believe there is still a strong anti-Cons vore out there, maybe 50% maybe not but certainly enough to stop an outright majority.At over 40% the disillusioned Labour vote can think ‘well the Tories are going to get in so I think i will switch to LD’ or whoever .This happened in 1997 when it was clear the Cons would lose, best example to Referendum party, cost Mellor and others.If the Tory score settles below 40 in the run up to the GE and Labour creep up to 30 or so the anti Cons vote may well come back to Labour.Of course it may energise the anti-Labour vote for the Tories if it looks like the Labour party could scrape home as happened in 1992 after red Wednesday.
Bizarrley best for Labour may be to get closer but not too close
Richard B
Nope.
As Anthony has already explained, the main voting intention poll is weighted to reflect the general public just like any poll would be. Mori simply found a number of extra public sector workers in order to provide a large enough sample of these people to for an additional poll.
@Colin – “I believe Cameron’s strengths & Brown’s weaknesses will be emphasised in the media spotlight”
You’re probably right, but it cuts both ways. Working on the assumption that nothing says the same for ever, the pendulum of media pressure will swing back against the Tories at some time, and they have some tough questions to answer. Putting aside policy for now, on the expenses for example, its currently very unclear why Osborne hasn’t repaid large sums of CG tax on his flipping, while Cameron has sacked others for very similar offences, and there are even posters on Conservative Home asking why the shadow cabinet are still claimng the communications allowance that he called to be scrapped, highlighting what they see as his shallow lack of principles. That’s from his own supporters. The future is unknown, but with a 3 – 7% rise in Labour support in a week or so, it doesn’t take too much imagination to envisage a set of circumstances where the Tories are hit by something that shifts votes fast, and its game on. This is why they really want to be mid forties I think and will still feel vulnerable at 39%.
Oops, sorry – I’ve noticed Anthony’s explanation now!!
What is interesting is that the last time a poll was conducted on Public Sector workers it showed that the LDs had a lead in this segment, with Cons a close third to Lab. This poll on the other hand shows a similar pattern to the country as a whole but with Con / Lab much closer.
Two small polls months apart is not enough to deduce any trends, but it should concern LDs that they are not doing better amongst this segment as it is critical to their hopes of winning seats from Labour.
Paul HJ, I haven’t checked back, but I think the one you mean was by Populus. I’m be slightly cautius about drawing trends because we’re not sure if Populus and MORI identify public sector workers in the same way.
@Neil Mungeam – the comments re the Tory score at below 40% isn’t anything to do with whether they will get a landslide, or (Chris excepted) a judgement on where they ’should’ be. We’re just pointing out that if Cameron cannot command 40+% of the votes now, he may be vulnerable to a modest Labour recovery. Surprise scandals aside, I feel some recovery in Labour support is highly likely. Today’s unemployment figures are further evidence of this possibility, with the rise much lower than expect. So far, pretty much every UK economic indicator since March has been significantly better than predicted, and if this goes on (big if) the battle on economic competance will be much more competitive. Brown has a lost a lot of credibility, but if the economic battle continues to turn his way this is where a partial recovery could come from. One of the big questions that we don’t yet have an answer to is whether the better than expected news helps reduce the national debt projections – this might help remove the air of impending future crisis, but would have implications for both parties.
Paul H-J
What you write is fascinating. I do wish pollsters would do some polling in Lab/Con; LD/Con: LD/Lab hyper-marginals to see what is really going on, rather than just nationwide snapshots. Is this much more expensive to do Anthony?
Jim Jam
I do not really understand your point about margin for error. How is their margin for error any worse on a 38-26 lead than on a 42-30 lead? This is my point. Obviously if it is 42-30 vs 38-30 then that is a problem for them.
I have not heard anything about this supposed Cameron gaffe in the media. Does not seem to have much in the way of legs. The whole expenses scandal seems to have lost them 3 or 4 points so i cant see one tasteless gag doing worse.
I do agree with you that the higher the share of the vote they receive then the greater their perceived legitimacy but i do not think this will impact on their agenda/reforms.
With regards the possibilities of anti tory tactical voting. This has surely been weakening since 97? Though of course if looks like a possible Tory victory then it might strengthen again. I am in general inclined to believe that Labour is so unpopular that its vote will fragment artificially boosting the Tories majority as Thatchers was in 83 when Lab and the Alliance pretty much split the opposition vote.
When asking about Lab/Con hyper-marginals I mean those seats that would be around the contention area should the two parties be winning the same number of parliamentary seats, not current marginals as they would clearly be lost by Labour given current polls.
I am not sure that the overall figures are very exciting – Tories in the high 30s / low 40s, Labour in the mid 20s, Lib Dems in the high teens / low 20s – much the same as we have seen for the last few months.
I am, however, surprised that so many contributors are surprised regarding the small Tory advantage with public sector workers.
There is the obvious argument that a public sector worker voting Tory is like a turkey voting for Christmas, but what about:
1) public sector workers are not totally shielded from the problems Britain face (especially the non-economic ones, such as crime, ID cards, Iraq etc)
2) many public sector workers may blame the government for putting their jobs at risk with their disasterous public finance policies
3) being closer to the point of provision, public sector workers will see waste of resources more clearly than the rest of us – and they are taxpayers too; and
4) even if cuts of 10% are likely to occur, that would suggest that 9 in 10 of all existing public workers will keep their jobs – and I would imagine that even a greater proportion of public workers than this would feel that their jobs “were too important” etc to fall within the cuts
What does everyone else think on this?
Tony Dean,
As you surmise, the kind of polling you ask about would be horrifically expensive. Politicshome did run one last year which covered about 90 marginal seats. The detailed analysis was available subscription-only to help recoup the costs.
One thing that poll did throw up is that a large number of seats not currently classified as “marginal” could actually come into contention – which fits with your comment as to which seats will become the “super-marginals” that will decide the result.
On the Lab/LD marginals, it has already become evident that the two ultra-close three-way marginals where LDs were second to Lab (Edinburgh S and Watford) are now clearly LD/Con marginals where Lab is likely to come third (by some distance in the case of Watford).
However, one cannot simply scroll down the list of LD targets on this site to see where the next Lab/LD battles are going to be becuase the strength of the LD challenge is very much dependant on how strong the LDs are at a local level and how much further behind them Cons are.
To illustrate, compare these two scenarios:
A: Lab 48%; LD 25%; Con 23%;
B: Lab 53%; LD 23%; Con 16%
In scenario B, even though the Lab majority is 30% compared to 23%, LDs may have a better chance of taking the seat than in Scenario A where they risk being leap-frogged by Cons.
@Alec
“Today’s unemployment figures are further evidence of this possibility, with the rise much lower than expect. So far, pretty much every UK economic indicator since March has been significantly better than predicted”
I posted on this forum months ago that Labour were deliberately over playing the depth of the recession so they could claim the credit for data showing things not as bad as expected. Unfortunately the Conservatives played into their hands somewhat on this.
Steve the tories were greedy and wanted short term glory by saying look how bad this is it must be labours fault, but if the recession goes away they will look stupid.
@ Alec – “Today’s unemployment figures are further evidence of this possibility, with the rise much lower than expect.”
I keep reading these comments suggesting that some statistic or another is higher or lower “than expected”. Chris does it over and over re: the Tory share of the vote – always lower “than expected”. One or two others cite some pitiful Labour result as better “than expected”. And now here you are doing it with unemployment figures. The BBC News headline on that story is “UK jobless total at a 12 year high” so I can only imagine that whatever worse figure was “expected” must have been terrible indeed.
Still, throwing out very low expectations for Labour does give its supporters some succour when, miraculously, those expectations are exceeded by some small amount. Ditto setting high targets for the Tories allows you to feel reassured when the Tories don’t reach them.
In my view, this poll doesn’t tell us very much other than that the positions of the three major parties relative to each other are more or less stable.
@Steve Cooper – I vaguely recall your post, but it struck me then, as now, that the outlook was exceptionally grim, and I think Darling was probably being honest in calling it as he saw it, rather than needing to exaggerate for future political gain. However, you’re absolutely right that Labour will be looking to hammer home the ‘worst global recession’ message. What people need to honestly assess is whether, if the outlook really was that grim, Labour policies have helped alleviate the worst, and at what future cost. When you get Nobel prize winning economists like Krugman speaking about government actions in such an admiring manner, we really need to start thinking about these things. I honestly believe that if the expenses row had never happened Cameron and Osborne would be under pressure in the polls and there would be real talk of an election in the Autumn.
Reaction to the expenses row has unfairly penalised Labour, more as a reflection on a government that looks generally tired than for any logical reason. Even here though, there are increasing questions over Cameron’s lack of real action. Anything can happen, but I don’t think it’s over yet.
@James Ludlow – Firstly – please don’t assume I’m a Labour supporter – I’m not. The point I’m making is that the markets expected a much higher claimant count increase. Some were predicting this unemployment level by Christmas, but as with home reposessions, for whatever reason these rises are lower than market predictions. This matters for two reasons; 1) Government credibility and 2) Public finances. If the recession in the UK is shallower and shorter than most other developed nations, which at present is an increasing chance, it matters an awful lot for the judgement at the next election.
What I would say, is that even if the economic numbers run in Labour’s favour, it isn’t necessarily enough to make a big dfference. Brown’s fundamental presentational dishonesty is a real problem for them in building credibility, and currently the judgement appears to be from too many people than Labour cannot be trusted. That could change, but if it doesn’t those people will not give credit to Labour even if the economy responds well.
@Wayne – don’t get so excited. The first point is a political one, in that the next government will be making some tough calls and they will be unpopular. Whoever is in power will want a big a mandate as they can get. The second point is that at 39% now, they may not get to power. Who knows?
Incidentally, the Boundary Commission decide constituencies. Labour were better organised at the hearings than the Tories, and you comments might be taken to be libellous on this one, although I’m sure no one will be that bothered.
@ Alec, The first point is fact and you think Labour are going to get a big mandate they didn’t in 2005 did they and unless the conservative party are exterminated Labour won’t get one either !
What are you banging on about my comments being taken as libellous ……. What are you Rumpole of The Bailey !
@Wayne – As your post as disappeared it may be that AW agrees with my assessment.
Labour didn’t get a big mandate in 2005, but for many reasons, not least expectations, Cameron would dearly love one this time. And I don’t think Labour get a big win, if any win, either. I’m just making a point about the current level of Tory support and that it may be a little more fragile than it was 3 months ago.
I’ve analysed all polls in 2009 by calendar month of publication (so not necessarily fieldwork). The average Tory lead on a simple unweighted average of the polls shows:
June to date 14.4
May 16.6
Apr 14.9
Mar 11.8
Feb 13.7
Jan 11.4
One is struck by the overall consistency. Some small evidence of the Tories benefiting from the expense scandal in May but it doesn’t seem to have lasted, and there is absolutely no trace of any post-Euro/local election boost. Similarly, you’d never know from these figures that Brown was feted by (some) world leaders at the G20 summit in April. I can’t think of anything special to explain the boost in February but it was apparently short-lived.
If the exceptional circumstances of May are excluded, there appears to be a gradual consolidation of the Tory lead from 11 to 14% over the last five and half months. If Brown has passed his nadir – which seems possible given that the media have lost interest for the time being in putting his lugubrious face on every front page – then it may be that there is an equally leisurely decline in the lead back to around 11% by the end of the year.
Unless Labour can do something game-changing around their conference, like getting rid of Brown, there appears to be no prospect of an election this year and a projected Tory majority in the high thirties (seats not votes) by December.
Of course, all this could be nonsense!
Alec,
Best to end the tittle tattle and wait for the GE result !
Anthony,
Are we expecting any more polls over the next few days or weekend ?
thanks
Alec,
In general I agree with much of what you say. We do however need to be careful as to how the public may perceive financial / economic data and what impact, if any, this has on their assessment of the Parties / Leaders and their policy proposals when the GE is finally called.
Recent data suggests that the economy may be levelling out, but it is far too soon to say whether we have really turned the corner or this is merely a pause before resuming the downward trend. We should also be alert to the danger of a double dip – it has happened more often than not when there has been a systemic / global shock as opposed to “normal” cyclical fluctuation. [oops, I forgot, the normal boom and bust cycle has been abolished hasn't it. So presumably only exceptional patterns can occur - which makes a double-dip even more likely.]
As to where the polls are likely to go from here until May next year – who knows ? But the current position and recent track record suggests that it is Labour who have the bigger mountain to climb not Conservatives.
Undoubtedly Cameron would prefer the polls to give him support at +/- 45% than 38-40%. His original target back in 2005 was 43%. But the key number he will be looking at is 326 – the number of MPs required to have a Commons majority.
Only once that hurdle is passed will he become concerned as to either the size of his majority or the actual share of the vote achieved. In any case, these figures are not directly linked since it depends on what happens to the Labour vote.
Which gives him the stronger mandate ?
C 42; Lab 36 and a majority below 20 or
C 38; Lab 24 and a majority over 100 ?
There is no magic figure, but obviously the greater the majority the more the more confident the government will be about being able to take difficult decisions.
“Alec – Today’s unemployment figures are further evidence of this possibility, with the rise much lower than expect. ”
Alec, March’s rise was a bit lower than expected which is good news for those of us looking for work. Public sector job creation is still there, which would tend to indicate that the private sector is sheding jobs at a higher rate than the overall figures would tend to suggest. This could shift the public sector v private sector debate more towards the cuts argument along the lines of “Why should the public sector not take some of the pain?” It isn’t something easy to articulate, but it could be a subsconsious theme. In the end, both sides of the argument have difficulties with this – Brown is not being believed, but the cuts argument will resonate with some of the soft Tory supporters. This is a real challenge for the party leaders. I think this could be fascinating in terms of their individual poll ratings as well as the overall party figures.
@ Alec – fair enough.
I think the unemployment figures are going to look even more unpleasant next month as graduates try to enter the workforce. Not something I’m gloating about, in case I’m giving the wrong impression here.
Neil M, just for clarity by margin of error I am not referring about polling numbers but about the Cons margin for making errors.
As others have said 40% is fine but at that level they can’t afford to be losing many votes for whatever reason.
I just don’t understand this government.
It announces an Iraq enqiry in camera -& everyone clamours for a public enquiry.
It says Darling’s last Budget shows no cuts in Public Expenditure after 2011-& all the experts say it does.
It says the structure of the Banking Industry & it’s regulation needs no changes-& the BoE Governer says they do , whilst Obama publishes plans to implement such.
Has Brown got some sort of death wish-or does he really believe he is the only person who is correct on these issues?
There is a 80% probability that to with 1% the recent polls show the reality to be Cons 40%, Lab 23.5%, Lib Dems 19%.
Sorry, but I do not have the patience to explain my long worked on methodolgy – it would be labourious to explain, and even more labourious to defend from criticisms that might come from those who are intellectually narrow and shallow minded.
@Matt,
I think you are spot on with some of your comments about public sector workers. I am one (albeit in a profession that probably always shades Tory – I’ll leave you to guess..). The amount of public money that leaks out of my organisation is breathtaking. Sometimes I think about how we have just spent the entire tax-take from a dozen average waged UK workers on some pointless, ill-thought out stab in the dark and it makes me fume. I have always felt that the public sector has an absolute, overriding moral obligation to spend as little money as we can, but that is just not the culture. The siren call is always “if we don’t spend it, some other department will”..
@James Ludlow – you’re probably right. Peace breaks out.
@Colin – I absolutely agree with your last post. What I have been saying on the poll and economic numbers is that there may be a chance for Brown to pull off a remarkable victory, but he would really need to work for it, and get some luck. I would draw the parallel with a footbal team in the relegation zone that needs to win its last three matches plus have other results work in their favour. But after all the clamour for change, to have Brown base the Iraq enquiry on a model used in 1984, with an arch establishment figure already discredited in many people’s minds for his role in the Butler review is, as you say, some kind of death wish. All your other points are equally valid.
As I have said previously, to have any chance of survival Brown needs to get seriously honest, go radical, and seize any chance that might come his way, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve been waiting for grown up politics for, well, all my grown up life. Right now I expect to have to wait a good deal longer.
@paul H-J
The double dip scenario seems very possible to me, considering a leap in inflation could be just around the corner driven by higher oil prices once global demand picks up (remember pre-recession price trends) and also the possible consequences of quantitative easing. This would, I believe, kill any recovery stone dead and along with it any chance of a recovery in Labour fortunes
Somebody told me a story a few years ago that he knew of a terribly inefficient factory in West London that was beset by union problems and was being subsidised by the government.
Yet within literally a few days of effectively winning the February 1974 election, Labour closed it down.
Looking at the graph of the moving averages over the last 5 years, until the expenses scandal broke the Labour and Conservative votes appear to have consistently mirrored each other around the 35% line. One goes up, the other goes down. The symmetricity is striking.
Then expenses hit and their shares of the vote appear to have been acting in tandem since – ie both plummeting for weeks, with even a matched recovery in the last week or so.
@Leslie calculated the movement this year in the Conservative lead over Labour (which has been pretty consistent). What really interests me is the gap between Labour and the Lib Dems, because I believe that if Labour suffer one more big blunder and even begin to average below the Lib Dems then that is game-changing.
This is what I make the average leads in every poll published in each month this year of Labour over the Lib Dems -
Jan 18.4
Feb 10.9
Mar 12.7
Apr 9.9
May 4.1
Jun (to date) 4.7…
That’s quite some drop.
@Steve Cooper – the double dip could well happen, not least as the current pick up is partly based on restocking inventories. The inflation issue could be a problem, although we need to remember that capacity is under utilised so there will be limited price pressures here at least. Oil is the more likely candidate, but Opec have signalled their desire for stable prices. One other point to consider is the positive benefit of a small dose of inflation. It’s generally a bad thing, but with very high debt ratio’s at household, company and national level, a period of old fashion inflation helps to bring debt as a proportion of income down. Its not advisable to pursue this as an effective policy, and I don’t want to overstate the benefits, but a little inflation, for a short period, would probably not do the economy a great deal of harm.
As I understand it the trick with ‘helpful’ inflation is for the Gov’t to have long term fixed interest rates debt at low interest rates before inflation rises and therefore interest rates.
If the Gov’t have to go to market excessively during the inflationay period with are in even deeper doo doo.Get this right, though, and debt as %age of GDP could come down a lot quicker than forecast.
I guess Money market attitudes to Gilts and Gov’t debt are so crucial to this possibility as if only short term money can be raised this scenario is not possible.
Alec & Jim Jam
The concept of “helpful” inflation is dishonest. It is merely a mechanism to rob savers in order to reduce the pain for those who are over-borrowed.
Older people – who tend to be savers rather than borrowers – know this from bitter experience – which may explain why people tend to drift towards conservative values as they age.
The problem for governments trying to manage national debt through the gilt markets is that their buyers are more sophisticated, and they can no longer rely on plundering the savings of grannies who might thus lose their blouses.
The government needs to focus on reducing spending in order to live within its means. That would be “prudent”. To pretend that we could somehow keep spending by borrowing then using inflation to reduce the value of the debt is downright dishonest – and dangerous for the health of the economy.
Even if Brown does not appear to understand this, teh public have twigged.
Some of todays headlines;
“British deficit soars to $18.8 bln in May -Public borrowing at record levels ”
“Retail sales suffer surprise slump in May ”
“UK jobless total at 12-year high”
“Mortgage lending falls back again- CML”
I don’t think we’ll see a good level of sustained optimism until such headlines stop coming. I reckon another 6-12 months untill that happens. At which time inflation will have begun to rise and, no matter how kindly it’s ’spun’, Labour have consistently linked that to the ‘bad days of Thatcher’ so it will hurt them.
More expenses stuff out today too. I don’t think the polls are worth anything while that’s still up in the air. A couple of months before we can can really see where the publics mind is I reckon.
Paul HJ – what you say is only true if real interest rates are negative as last happened for any lenght of time under Thatcher/Howe after the big VAT rise (my recollection may be wrog)
Normally part of bringing inflation down again is encouraging savings so real interst rates stay positive even a higher than normal.
I agree though it is a dishonest way of working and extremely risky.
Agree with Ivan need 2 months min, maybe even conferences out of way before we have a clear picture.
We can still have some fun on here in the meantime – esp with the Bye – Elections.
@Wes. Interesting analysis of the Lab-LD gap. It does seem surprising that such a precipitate growth in this has not been reflected in a comparable widening of the Tory-Lab gap, especially as it has arisen more from a reduction in Labour support than a growth in LD support. The explanation seems to be the growth in “other” support and this may still prove to be the wild card in any general election – either people returning to their original fold or continuing to support the minor parties.
I suspect that the next GE will be the most difficult to call in a generation and the opinion polling in the run-up to the election may be less of a guide to the outcome than in normal years – even if the share split is accurately forecast, its translation into seats won and lost may prove much more unpredictable.
Sorry, that should be “precipitate narrowing” in the second sentence.
@Ivan – you are right to point out contradictory signals. We’ll be in this situation for some time I think, and as I earlier said, whatever the broad economic numbers, its the impact on public debt that is the key and this is the hardest to forecats with any accuracy. An awful lot will depend on global circumstances, but here there is more encouraging news from China and the US, but its very much up in the air how quickly better news will feed through.
@ WES
That moving polling average of labour over liberal is quite startling when you see it. But naturally I would caution that the political map has changed to be quite different in Scotland; where the liberals have fallen alongside labour (because of the deeply unpopular labour-liberal executive for 8 years).
So just to point out that those figures are presumably UK wide, and therefre not all that relevant to the Scottish case, nor the Welsh one either (given the euro results from there).
Dean – quite right. UK figures. Though needless to say that would suggest it’s narrowed even more outside of Scotland.
Wes,
The real issue for LDs is that, whatever the gap between Lab and LD, there are very few Lab / LD battleground seats. This is because, unlike Con, neither party has its support evenly spread around England.
What is happening is that LDs are progressively replacing Lab as the opposition (or main alternative) to Con throughout large parts of England (different positions apply in Scotland and Wales). That was graphically demonstrated in the County Council elections where the ward maps show a sea of blue with patches of yellow and only pinpricks of red.
In northern urban areas – but not London – LDs have attempted to position themselves as the alternative to Lab, taking advantage of Tory weakness in these regions in recent years. That has delivered considerable success in local councils, but begs a question of consistency. It also puts LDs at a risk of being squeezed in event of a close national election in a way which does not apply in rural England.
The political reality is that at the next election it will be difficult for LDs to win seats direct from Lab, while they will be hard pressed to defend what they hold aginst Con. But, at the election thereafter, while they will still struggle to win seats from Lab, they may be in a good position to win from Con many seats which were only marginally taken from Lab in 2010.
The one strategic exception which may assist LDs in 2010 is Tactical Voting to despatch Lab MPs. This will in effect be the reverse of what happened in 1997. But the problem for LDs is that unwinding of past anti-Tory tactical voting could cost them a large number of their current MPs.
Hi Paul – I agree with much of your analysis, but I think the LDs’ biggest problem remains the fact that large numbers of people simply don’t take them seriously. If they’re seen to be polling above Labour nationally with any degree of consistency (a big if, of course, but they’re much closer to it now than at any time I can remember) – if that were to happen then I think that the charge of being a “wasted vote” would cease to have the same kind of credibility and that they could start to punch higher in all kinds of places where you might not currently expect them to have a sniff of a challenge.
The evidence that national polling can have an impact in this way, in places where the figures should actually not be relevant, is borne out by the fact that one frequently hears this charge of a LD vote being a wasted vote *even here in Somerset* where they’ve regularly place first or second in elections for years. It would also of course be very damaging for Labour to be regularly polling third. Like I say a big ‘if’ but on recent trends not unthinkable.
I would have thought the LDs must be pretty disappointed not to have done a lot better over recent weeks.
Agree with that too.
The problem for them is Clegg; I like him myself but given his contributins to in the ‘Orange Book’ his natural political territory is probably akin to being a centre-right liberal (economically) with a merely centralist social agenda. Hardly attractve to Labour voters on the centre left on both counts.
But Clegg is qualified to hold ground against Conservative challenges; thats presumably why he was chsenoer the more leftist Chris Hune.
But just to mention, the Liberals managed to sustain their net total councillors in England for example, despite loosing ground in the South West to the Cons. Might this not be at least an indication that the picture Paul paints of a Liberal boat sinking is not perhaps the whole story? (again the Scots and Welsh cases excluded).
Indeed the LibDems never seem to get very far no matter what they do or what happens elsewhere. By recasting themselves as a generally centrist party, they are losing the protest votes which seem to be going to rather more unusual and less mainstream parties. And, it is not as if we are short of quasi-centrist parties right now, which will happily take those floating voters who don’t want to float too far.
Perhaps someone will invade iraq again, and then they’ll be getting somewhere again.
@Alec
Your concept of “helpful inflation” with government debt is utter tripe. Once a country gets a reputation for doing this, the markets demand higher interest is paid on government debt for decades. Why do you think that the interest rate on British debt was higher than interest rate on German debt (adjusting both for inflation & currency expectations)? Because the markets trusted the German government! The Tories built a reputation for controlling inflation, and the *early* years of New Labour continued that impression, so the premium the UK had to pay was continuing to drop. [snipped...]
Dean,
If you reread my analysis, you will see that far from suggesting that the LD boat is sinking, I have set out a course which would allow it to emerge much strengthened in 5-10 years time. However, to do so, it requires courage and the ability to withstand some pain in the short term. That needs strong and clear leadership.
I pass no comment on the current LD leadership, but one dififculty the party does face is that very few of its MPs have won their seats from Labour. They have plenty of experience in appealing to pale blue voters, but not very much in appealing to pale pink. Yet those are the votes they need if they ever hope to replace Labour.
Much time was wasted in the past ten years imagining that they could somehow replace the Conservatives as the opposition to Labour – yet their track record on the ground in local councils throughout southern England shows clearly that they can replace Labour and assimilate their support on a semi-permanent basis.
In Scotland, the LDs became too close to Labour without offering any appeal to fiscal or social conservatives. Salmond, who is not a socialist, gratefully mopped up those votes where he could. So, yes, in contrast to England, the LD boat is sunk north of the border.
Jim-Jam
Real interest rates are negative at present. Moreover, for savers, it is not the headline rate that they need to consider, but the effective rate which they receive (after tax). At present, the return is practically nil, even before taking into account the adverse impact of asset price deflation on non-cash savings, while, despite offical figures, the things on which older people spend a larger portion of their income are rising rapidly..
Previous governments have taken sensible measures to promote saving and so support the investment in new business the country needs.
This government, by its statements and policies, seems intent on promoting consumption at all costs.
At the same time, we can now see more clearly the long-term effects of Brown’s wanton attacks on savings and investments in the early part of his Chancellorship. Money plundered from savers and investors then wasted through profligate spending on unreformed public sector entities (I refuse to use the word “services” here.
Finally, to rub salt in the wound. Those who have been prudent and built up savings, have this held against them when applying for local care support, while the idle and irresponible receive hand-outs without question.
Many of the people most damaged by these policies were traditional Labour voters. That is why Labour has seen widespread disillusion in its former heartlands. How that will play out electorally at the next GE is, in my view, a big unknown.
Having grappled with the Lib (now LD) stategic problems professionally during the 80s, most of the analysis I read by Paul H-J is correct. However, there are certain key factors that I have not seen mentioned. In those days we deduced that a LD/Con marginal seat is easier to hold during a pro-Tory year when historically the combined Lib/Lab vote was together significantly more than 40% despite it regularly previously being held by a Conservative. Where the LDs have gained a classic Tory seat where in the old days (50s-70s) the Tories polled more than 60% they are devilishly difficult to hold for more than a couple of GEs (e.g. Orpington, and more recently Newbury etc.). Where there is a significant anti-Tory tradition they are much easier to hold. Of course there are other variables, but the long term history of seat behaviour, social composition and traditions is a factor than can tip tight fights either way.
I agree the LDs must be worried a little not to have made better headway. However, they are probably relying upon Clegg, and more importantly Cable, faring well during the GE campaign itself. I suspect they will have a rum time holding off the Tories in seats where there is no further Labour vote to be squeezed to compensate for the “National Liberal” (I use the description classically, not the new neo-Pujadist group registered with the Electoral Commission who have stolen the label!) types returning to the Conservatives, because unlike the previous leaders since Major, Cameron is acceptable to them. However, Cleggs own centre-right views might mtigate this a little if he can get his message across convincingly during the campaign.
As I have said before the size of the LD parliamentary party is very difficult to predict, and the size of it could make all the difference in the world to who wins No.10 in 2010.
Cynorgies, you are right of course but I do seem to recall Lawson’s Blip produced CPI over 10% before erm discipline kicked in.
So it was only 5-7yrs of Tory good work and 9 of Labour.
Fair enough re Interest rates Paul when taking tax in to account but the asset value piece (ie houses) does not really apply to old people very few of whom will have moved to a bigger house in the last 3 years.
Also (and this in not just spin) poorer pensioners along with low earners with kids have been the biggest gainers of transfer payments under labour financially.
The issue is the self reliant but not rich grouip who don’t get the benefits but are not wealthy enough to not worry about less income and get hit by Council tax and other rises.
Most of these have gained massively from house porice inflation, though, and have made oodles from downsizing as they get older, that is why there was an IHT debate in the first place.
So pensioners are not a group who need too much sympathy in general.
Not sure what the ‘ money plundered from savings and investors’ is about’ unless you mean tax on dividends policy which is not universally condemned but this is too big a debate for here probably.
“The Tories built a reputation for controlling inflation,”
A thoroughly partisan post, but hey it’s a pro-Tory one.
Of course the electorate might well forget the high inflation, high unemployment, high interest rates success story of former Conservative Governments.
It remains to be seen how the inflation graph look in a couple of years from now (assuming Darling’s policies are implemented). I would have thought, given the Tory line that they would spend about the same as Labour, that there wouldn’t be much difference. Whoever gets in is going to have to control inflation by “quantative tightening” and raising interest rates.
The likelihood of a return to the inflation rates of the eighties and early nineties is quite slim. However, an antagonistic approach to industrial relations (cf Boris and Crowe) and pay round negotiations might well lead to higher pay claims, strikes, lower growth,high inflation and misery all round.
Cyno – i do agree with you re “helpful inflation” though – there’s no such thing.
Jim jam,
The main financial asset holding of most people at or near pensionable age is not, surprisingly enough, the equity in their main home, but the cumulative value of their pension funds – whether personal, group contribution based or final salary scheme – the vast majority of which is invested in equities of one sort or another – however indirectly they may be held.
Many younger people are unaware of this – which is how Brown was able to clobber pension and savings funds with impunity in 1997-99, and then deny the long-term effects ever since.
While accountants argue over the IFRS effect on fund valuations, the underlying reason why our country’s pension funds moved from massive surplus in the 1990s to massive deficits since 2000 are ultimately down to the fiscal changes made in 1997-99 – including windfall taxes and PRT as well as Brown’s only “tax cut” – the abolition of ACT (yes he really did try spin it as a tax cut). Not only did this reduce the income of these funds, it also reduced the cash available for productive investmnet (as opposed to government spending programmes) which has undermined the long-term productivity of teh economy.
Whenever these effects are explained to an impending pensioner coming to grips with a pension income way below their expectations, the anger is palpable. And pensioners vote – however much you may feel them unworthy of sympathy.
Oh, and on the question of moving, those who have already traded down will be pleased as pie. But what about those who had been banking on selling their house for a fortune in the next five years in order to fund their retirement ?
It is an axiom of government that the law of unintended consequences can produce outcomes very different from those desired. But when the government either fails to properly assess potential consequences – or as has frequently been alleged in respect of the former chancellor – ignores advice as to what those consequences might be – we should not be surprised if government action produces unwelcome results.
John TT,
“I would have thought, given the Tory line that they would spend about the same as Labour…”
Of course we all know they won’t/wouldn’t though don’t we?!
Yes Ivan-in fact they have said that they will spend less.
Which is why the current spat is so strange. Of course they would cut harder, so why not just come out and say so?
And on the other (Labour) hand, why on earth not just come out and say “we’ll cut less than you” or “we’ll cut because wwe have to, but you’ll cut because you want to”?
John TT
“And on the other (Labour) hand, why on earth not just come out and say “we’ll cut less than you” or “we’ll cut because wwe have to, but you’ll cut because you want to”?”
Little chance of that level of honesty – mainly because the principal reason why cuts are needed is because Labour have consistently overspent / mis-spent. Admiting to the need for cutting spending is taking honesty just that little bit too far !
When ACT existed many poorly performing companies paid a dividend that was disproprotionate in other to boost their share price.
Marks and Spencers did it for years when they were declining.
Abolishing ACT took away this trick as it made share value growth through growing a business profitably the main vehicle for pension fund growth.
It was only when the stock market crash occurred that shortfalls appeared.
Share values have fallen by as much in the US and Japan (more infact) as here so ACT abolishioncan not be blamed.
Of course ACT was very regressive as the more you earn in general the greater your pension contribution and therefore dividends,
It was one of the few properly redistributive measures taken by New Labour, no wonder Tories don’t like it.
As for windfall tax well that is another debate around saving unemployment benefit and taxes later etc.
@John TT
“Of course the electorate might well forget the high inflation, high unemployment, high interest rates success story of former Conservative Governments.” — A very odd way to describe the change from the disaster they inherited from Labour in 1979 to the 4th most competitive economy in the world which Brown inherited from the Tories.
However, ignoring your partisan jibe about a fictitious past, lets look towards the imminent future. With Labour’s debt now on watch for rating downgrade, we have already seen the interest rate premium we pay to borrow increase. It is likely (I put it at about 70%) that we will see a formal downgrade before the autumn statement, and this is likely to add another 75 basis points to government borrowing costs. So, yes, Brown’s idiocy will penalise the country before any election takes place. Much of the damage will occur before any election. We don’t need to look years ahead for rising interest rates, just until Moody’s or S&P downgrades Brown’s borrowing.
Re quantitative “easing” – We are seeing an increasing amount of round-tripping – banks buying debt and then selling it back to the government through the quantitative easing window. They take a few b.p. turn in the deal, and the net effect is the BofE buys the government debt. It may (on paper) allow the government to claim it can fund the debt, but has no beneficial effects for the economy.
Re “beneficial inflation”. Because there is a psychological resistance to being forced to drop a price, there is an economic argument that a small amount of inflation should be tolerated to allow relative prices to adjust more easily. However, an inflation rate of less than 2% p.a. has proved successful to achieve this in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland. So I wouldn’t go as far as saying there is no “helpful inflation”, but I would say that increasing inflation to devalue debt has the logical consequence that you have to pay a risk premium to investors which (over the course of time) costs far more than the transient benefit obtained.
““we’ll cut because wwe have to, but you’ll cut because you want to”?”
Don’t think they would say that because it would immediately be categorised as another meaningless piece of Labour jargon.
The Times today has an eyewateringly frightening analysis of the May public sector finance figures.
They indicate borrowing figures for this year of £200bn-£25bn worse than Treasury last forecast.
Talk of “we’ll cut less than you” is moronic-what we need is an honest discussion of the emerging realistic borrowing figures & the debt reduction timetable most likely to appeal to our creditors.
That much should almost be non-political & could be laid out by any reputable independent body.
The politics should be about choice of options to implement that cash flow plan.
“It was only when the stock market crash occurred that shortfalls appeared”
The Times obtained documents under the FoI Act , which showed that Chancellor Brown was warned in 1997 -weeks before his first Budget-by the Savings and Investment Division of the Inland Revenue of the possible consequences of the ACT change.
He was warned that pension providers could lose around £67 billion on the actuarial value of their existing assets, that employers would have to contribute between £3 billion and £10 billion a year more to make up the difference, while pensioners would find that their pensions would shrink.
The paper given to Brown included a prediction by the government actuary’s department that some pension schemes might be pushed into insolvency .
The stock market was buoyant in 1997 but it fell sharply after the collapse in the value of dot-com companies.
Oh, as this is a polling site I will make my prediction for the next poll that may arrive over the weekend
Con 42
Lab 25
Lib 21
I will also make a prediction;)
Con 38-42
Lab 21-23
LibDem 19-21
Quite possibly the most unpopular Labour government ever and they still get a third of the public sector vote? Sounds like a rapantly self-interested, special interest group block vote to me.
Quite possibly the most unpopular Labour government ever and they still get a third of the public sector vote? Sounds like a rapantly self-interested, block vote to me.
Adam – you’ve got to be kidding me. People vote in their own interests? Shocking.
@Colin “They indicate borrowing figures for this year of £200bn-£25bn worse than Treasury last forecast.”
And three months ago, “independent” forecasters (and Cameron/Osborne) were saying the Treasury’s forecasts for growth of -3.5% in 2009 were fantasy. Now they look like they may be spot on.
“the debt reduction timetable most likely to appeal to our creditors.” – the creditors seem quite happy with the current debt reduction timetable see last oversubscribed government debt auction for evidence of this.
@ STATTO
Yes -£7bn away OK…only another £200 bn or so to go this FY.
Prediction
Con: 38-41%
Lab: 24-27%
Lib: 17-20%
‘ADAM TEBBLE
Quite possibly the most unpopular Labour government ever and they still get a third of the public sector vote? Sounds like a rapantly self-interested, block vote to me.’
Actually a third support does not sound like a block vote. It sounds quite close to the core vote figures bandied around here given the often low paid nature of most public service jobs.
So; the Labour support in the PS seems to reflect the percentage support outside the PS for the same SES status. What a (not) surprise…
Further to my last post about different kinds of LD/Con marginals, a former colleague has pointed out something interesting.
Look at seats Labour won, or came very close, in 1945 in the SE and SW regions outside the big cities. Then look at all the seats the LDs have gained and either held or lost back to the Conservatives since 1997……..the list has an uncanny correllation!
Poll Alert !
On the Independent’s site John Rentoul is promising a Comres poll in tomorrows independent…
Lets see if they can come up with a load of balloney like their recent attempts !
Anthony are we getting any other polls this weekend ?
Thanks
STATTO “and three months ago, “independent” forecasters (and Cameron/Osborne) were saying the Treasury’s forecasts for growth of -3.5% in 2009 were fantasy. Now they look like they may be spot on.”.
They still appear to grossly overstate the likely growth. Please look at the latest independent forecasts including the most recent CBI prediction