There is also a new BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday. The topline figures are CON 40%, LAB 25%, LDEM 22% so largely inline with the other pollsters, showing the Lib Dems up to the low twenties following their conference. Last month’s BPIX had very odd figures that looked as if they hadn’t been repercentaged to exclude don’t knows, and without access to the tables it was impossible to work out what was going on, but these look more normal.

The poll also asked if people agreed with Vince Cable’s “mansion tax”, 57% of people said yes. Despite a generally negative verdict in the papers, as I said yesterday my guess is that only thing most of the public would have picked up from the Lib Dem conference was a reminder that they and Nick Clegg existed, and that they were going to put a new tax on people richer than them – something which polls almost always show as being popular.

8 Responses to “New BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday”

  1. mmm,

    seams in line this time, the poll from bpix that came out in july was very much out of line with every other poll and rightly so failed to apear on this web-site polls section, but the fact that 57% of people feel that the mantion tax is a good thing, say’s that 57% ofpeople are normall middle or low income familly that want to see the very well off pay more and i could not dissagree with that in any way.

  2. This confirms what I said about the ICM poll being slightly more accurate than Yougov’s. Probably the reality is Con 40, Lab 26, Lib Dems 22. Regarding the Con and Lab score this may well have been very close to the real situation throughout the Summer break.

    A significant percentage of the Lab 26 is fragile so I think that within a few weeks we should see a couple of points swing from Labour to the Conservatives.

  3. The Labour party might very well find the LibDems sneak up on them.

    Not most likely however.

    I reckon that the Lab conference wont see any Lab resurgence, but it will bolster the Labour 25%.

    The LibDem increase notibly came from the Tories and not Labour remember.

    40% tory, (20% Scot, 29% Wales)
    25% lab (30% scot)
    22% LibDem (13% scot)

    This will be the rough standing among the party’s leaving conference season.

  4. If labour doesn’t buck the trend for a post-conferance boost I’ll eat my hat. Under what circumstances could an exposition of labour as things stand state make them look more attractive to voters?

    I also think there is more to the lib bounce then the conference effect. They havn’t made this kind of policy impact since Iraq, and there is certainly increased public concern about issues related to unfareness since the banking and MP scandals.

    I think we can be sure of a steady decline for labour right up to election night, and Klegg asside, the lib dems are looking good with the most intelligable and broadly appealing policies of all the main parties. The reverse situation with the tories, who’s appeal rests almost entirely on their leader.

  5. To offset Tory popularity, the LibDems need to pick up some safe Labour seats with only a residual Tory vote, trying to get the very large swing that elswhere looks like accruing to the Tories.

    Frankly, a “mansion tax” is irrelevant to people in the city centre and very working class seats concerned (e.g. Blaydon, Liverpool Wavertree, Sheffield Central, Ashfield). For many of the electors the LibDems may want to target, a semi-detached is as beyond their dreams as a £1 million mansion.

    If they want to increase their share of the vote, the LibDems should stop talking about “Cuts” and break the all-party silence on the crucial issue: how to create the genuinely wealth creating jobs that will not only reduce unemployment but also pay off national debts.

    A similar comment relates to LibDem Celtic fringe seats, for instance in Cornwall.

    The LibDems would be wise to start by looking at Liberal economist Keynes’ World War II War Loans scheme. There shoud be compulsory savings into a fund that would bypass the banks to invest directly into industry on a large scale.

    Labour could steal the LibDems clothes on this if they found to fresh wind to want to turn things around before the election.

    This comment is to respond to Anthony’s point concerning “mansion tax”. In relation to the voting intention figures, this and the other latest polls simply appear to be “no change, except for the expected post-Conference bounce”.

  6. I suspect that the “mansion tax” sounds better as a soundbite than when scrutinised. I wonder where it would leave family farms, for example. And isn’t there already a “mansion tax” anyway, in the form of Stamp Duty?

  7. Weighted Moving Average 40:26:20 – it will be very interesting to see whether the Labour conference does anything for Labour and if so in what direction.

    BPIX actually has the lowest standard deviation of any pollster but on average they overstate the CLead by 2.4% (so they are consistent but inaccurate).

  8. I think there is an element of the lib dems tax proposals that will appeal to the less tribal tories. After all, there are tax cuts for lower earners as well as spending cuts.

    Frederick says; “Frankly, a “mansion tax” is irrelevant to people in the city centre and very working class seats concerned…For many of the electors the LibDems may want to target, a semi-detached is as beyond their dreams as a £1 million mansion.”

    But we must remember the concomitant proposal to raise the tax free threshold to 10K. Moreover, those on big estates with low incomes will benefit from this tax rate on lower earnings, and more people in this situation would be entitled to council tax benefit.