Tories remain 17 points ahead with ICM
ICM have a new poll in tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph. The topline figures with changes from about a fortnight ago are CON 42%(-2), LAB 25%(-2), LDEM 21%(+3).
The Conservative lead is unchanged at a landslide winning 17 points, but both the Conservatives and Labour are down, with the Lib Dems up three points to 21%. ICM normally give the Liberal Democrats the highest level of support of all the pollsters anyway, but leaving aside their 23% conference boost this is the highest Lib Dem score from ICM since May.
The 17 point lead does contrast with the more modest leads recorded by YouGov and ComRes, but technically all three party figures are well within each others’ margins of error and a lead of 15 points or so. Of course, if it was solely sample error, it would even out over time – we would not see one pollster consistently reporting larger leads than another one. Just recently it has appeared that ICM are consistently showing a larger lead than YouGov, but Populus, who use a very similar method to ICM, are showing a lower lead – so while I’m keeping a careful eye on it, I think it’s most likely just normal sample variation.
The Sunday Times also reports that ICM have carried out polling in Stoke on Trent, Blackburn and Leicestershire North West for the Equalities and Human Rights Commision, which shows the BNP at 18% in those areas. There are no figures yet – the report suggests it is not being published for several weeks – but it’ll be something to look out for.
Filed under: ICM, Voting Intention
Barring catastrophes, it does appear that the Tories are heading for a comfortable working majority, contrary to what Michael Heseltine said recently.
Micheal Heseltine I imagine is just making sure there is no complacency with Tory voters and make sure all get out to vote that intend to and not presuming its done and dusted. It will be very important that all intended Tory voters get out just to make sure.
With an incumbant government to be on 25% six months before an election is dreadful. After wasting 3 weeks banging on about the Tory associates in Europe it seems no one either cares or notices. After spending years telling us how racist we are here in the UK its no wonder we dont care what someone thinks in Latvia.
I also hear that Brown wants to continue spending with a new fiscal injection. God help us. Desperate desperate desperate.
Interesting that one of Labours safest seats – Blackburn – looks a likely candidate for a BNP surge.
Perhaps the voters there are reacting to the recent publicity over Labours clandestine immigration policies which have shown them in a particularly bad light.
I can’t see any reason why the Lib Dems would be seeing a growth in support; when they are in the news over things like the Gurkhas they see no poll boost – yet when they are silent in the media, like at the moment, they seem to see support grow?
Anthony,
The last Populus poll was on 10th October, so it is really not comparable with current polls. I think from now on we should see a clearer picture emerging. It is difficult to say exactly what that picture will be, but at the moment it looks like the pre-PBR position is something like:
Conservative ~ 41%
Labour ~ 26%
Libdem ~ 19%
I’m not a LD supporter but they must fancy their chances of closing that 6% gap with Labour if things don’t improve for the government in the coming weeks and months, especially if Labour loses what is traditionally one of its 5 safest seats in the country in Glasgow NE to the SNP.
I forecast a few months ago that at the end of October we would have an average polling of Cons 43, Lab 25 Lib Dems 20. The average is quite close and the last poll of the month even closer.
Unsurprisingly to me, Labour are rapidly developing a reputation for being the most deceitful government in British history e.g. we are well positioned for the global economic downturn; canabis is an extremely dangerous drug.
Silent Hunter – I wonder if that’s because it’s Jack Straw’s seat?
@ Pete B
I can believe that Labour will try to save certain scalps in 2010, will they be better than the Tories were in 1997?
I reckon we’ll be in for a few surprises, and it might even impact on the future leadership, as it did to the Conservatives in 1997.
WMA 41:27:19 CLead 14.9 compared to 200-day (or 188 day if you think the election will be on 6 May) average of 14.6, so situation remains as before.
The dreadful GDP figures seem to have made no difference … has everyone economically literate has deserted Labour already?
Oldnat,
Regarding your last reponse where you seek to distinguish Brown from Labour.
Over the last few years I have been hoping that Brown is not truly representitive of Labour as a whole. But very, very sadly it seem to me that this is actually the case.
Remember when Labour managed to secure a major (despite only getting 36%) they did so on the understanding that Blair would remain in office for the full term. When 9.5 million people voted Labour they did so believing that Blair would be PM, and in the full knowledge of the mistakes he made over Iraq.
Two years laters Blair was forced to resign. What had happened in the mean time? Nothing!
Brown, undoubtedly with the help of the Labour government, forced Blair out of office – CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE HAD VOTED FOR!
Brown will have remained as PM for TWO AND HALF YEARS despite never been elected to be so by the public.
Brown came into his post unchallenged. And even when it was clear what kind of PM he was, and the polls showed that people did not want him in the post they did not take the opportunity to remove him.
What does this tell us about Labour as a whole?! At this point one cannot truly make a serious distinction between the qualities, or lack of them, of Brown and Labour.
Heseltine interview very revealing. Asked whether he had anything to offer Cameron on policy, he said that numerous committees are working on various areas of government and that all those with past experience, including himself, were being consulted. I have no doubt that Hague will be ready to announce the Conservative position on Europe as soon as the Lisbon Treaty is signed. They will have been working on it for months, and it will have taken account of all the possible pitfalls , the legal limitations and the effect on both wings of the party.Interesting times ahead.
Philip JW
Sadly, I’m just one of those people who prefer accuracy. You simply misrepresented the poster to whom you were replying.
Personally I see little difference between any of the larger UK parties or their leaders.
That you apparently either don’t understand (or worse still accept) the weaknesses of English constitutional law, and how it allows MPs to select one of their own to exercise the royal prerogative and to rule with monarchical powers suggests that you are overly concerned with the cough, and not the underlying cancer which causes it.
More importantly, and most relavantly for this website, when the GE comes most people are likely not to make a distinguishing difference between Brown and Labour.
If (when) the Czech Republic sign the Lisbon treaty we will see probably the most major test of Cameron’s ability to hold a double figure lead between now and the election. If he doesn’t respond well he will lose a lot of soft support – there is a fine line to be trodden, but he has far more margin for error on the Anti-EU side of the line than on the Pro-EU side.
If Cameron is too Pro-EU in his response, he risks driving large numbers of voters away to: a) UKIP; b) the sofa; or c) BNP. If the response is too anti-EU it risks alienating the likes of Hesseltine – but in all honesty Hesseltine is a bit of an irrelevance now anyway – its the voters who matter.
Oldnat,
I think you might find, to your dismay, and possibly surprise, that what you refer to as “English Constitutional Law” is in fact British Constitutional Law.
Philip JW
Actually the polling suggests something a little different from that in Scotland.
Where there has been polling on the Labour leadership, more Scots preferred Brown to Blair – England’s preference was the other way round. During last summer’s media frenzy, the Scots sample suggested that more would support Labour with Brown as leader rather than with the likes of Milliband. In England it was the other way round.
Feel free to make party points, but please base them on some kind of evidence.
Oldnat,
Just read your last comment:
As we saw with ’smeargate’, when you’ve lost the arguement just try to smear your opponent. Of course, I recognise the weaknesses of the British constitutional laws.
You ignore the fundamental point, that to try to make a distinction between Brown and Labour at this point is grasping at straws.
I get the impression you are trying to criticise what I say in any possible way rather than interact with the issue I am commenting on. Tackle the ball, not the man, please.
@ Phillip JW
Despite my dislike of the Labour party and many of its ideas, I don’t think that Phillip’s representation is fair. I remember the pre-2005 discussions about Blair’s continued leadership; after all, he was forced to declare that he’d run for full term, which says something in itself.
Secondly, I reckon Brown’s bogeyman status is a little overrated: Brown wanted it in 2007 (everybody and their mum had known that for a decade) and the others with an ounce of common sense might have been happy to let the Brownites hoist themselves by their own petard for a few years before they challenged a now-discredited Brown.
@ Oldnat
The British constitution is the oldest of its kind on Earth and has navigated a lot more than this; if the Reform Act riots of 1831 couldn’t bring it down, I suspect that a new election and passing of much-needed Acts will deal with the problem, as it did 177 years ago.
Philip JW
I think you may be a little confused. There is no “argument”. You made a factual error a number of threads ago, which I corrected.
On this thread, you posted to me a convoluted argument why Brown and Labour are effectively the same thing. Why you did that, I have no idea, but if you address a comment to me, I feel free to point out the inherent contradiction.
I know nothing about you, but your post sounded like the comments of a Tory supporter. I have seen nothing in any Tory policy which would avoid the political impropriety that you were suggesting.
As a further correction, there is no such thing as “British constitutional law”. There is English constitutional law (which for no good reason is assumed to apply to Parliament). There is Scottish constitutional law, in which sovereignty lies with the people, not Parliament. There is UK statute law.
Richard Manns
It’s hardly surprising that the “British constitution is the oldest of its kind on Earth”.
Almost no other country has that kind of constitution. New Zealand (not surprisingly) is a younger version of that constitution. Israel embraces parliamentary sovereignty, and in Finland it exists only in emergency conditions.
So essentially, your argument is that the UK is the oldest of the 3 countries with this peculiar form of constitution.
Oldnat,
I am very disappointed to learn that British Constitutional Law doesn’t exist. That suggests the time I spent studying it during the course of my law degree was time wasted!
Neil
It suggests that your University was careless in labelling that course.
Oldnat,
Sorry if I am starting to sound a bit sarcastic towards you on a semi-regular basis. I find your repeated (and erroneous) attempts to show that the UK doesn’t actually exist as a country and that Scotland and England are in fact two separate countries, extremely irritating. Much as you might like that to be the case, it isn’t.
The differences between Scots Law and English Law are significant in some areas, but in terms of the constitution they are essentially the same thing. The closest thing to a “Scottish Constitution” is in fact the Scotland Act 1998 – an act of the UK parliament.
Actually the course was labelled Public Law – however, what we studied was mainly the constitutional law of the UK.
Neil
I presume that you are conversant with MacCormick v. Lord Advocate?
The Courts (in this case the Court of Appeal) regularly create legal fictions in order to put their reasoning into words – I would suggest that the use of the term “Scottish Constitutional Law” in this case to be an example of that.
The most interesting thing about MacCormick (from a constitutional point of view) was the court’s opinion that the sovereignty of parliament does not apply. This is something the courts often like to claim, but is completely contrary to Diceyan Legal Theory. Interestingly, in this case the courts said that parliament could not repeal the Act of Union 1707 – with obvious implications at present because of the SNP’s aim to achieve just that. Arguably that particular statement was obiter, and in any case it would probably have a relatively slim chance of surviving a challenge in the House of Lords, but it highlights the difficulties in splitting up the union.
Sorry, I meant to say “the court’s opinion that the sovereignty of parliament does not ALWAYS apply”
“Sovereignty lies with the People?”
Sorry but that sounds like a platitude to me. In what sense can sovereignty lie with the people? I am one of the people. Can I declare war? Can I annexe a neigbouring country’s territory? Can I levy taxes? No. I can vote for a representative to do those things for me.
@ OldNat
It’s called the “Westminster system”, the reason why the UK Parliament is called the “mother of Parliaments”. You cannot choose an arbitrarily small number of them to suit your ends as the weakness of an over-powerful Prime Minister is suggested for the system as a whole.
Neil
I think you misread the decision.
MacCormick and Hamilton’s petition was rejected because the Court of Session (not the Court of Appeal) decided that they had no title to sue the Crown.
Your representation of their Lordship’s judgement is inaccurate. The Lord Advocate conceded that the Parliament of Great Britain ‘could not’ repeal or alter ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union.
The Lord President, gave his opinion that “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”.
Dicey, as you well know, writes about the English legal system. You would get short shrift quoting him in a Scottish court.
Neil A
Try the US Constitution (or that of almost any other country). Sovereignty lies with the people.
They elect people to carry out government as in the UK, but thy have a constitution which can strike down actions of government which are unconstitutional.
Do you really not know that having a political leader using the prerogatives of a monarch to govern his subjects is unusual?
It’s an unusual form of words, but I really don’t accept that the UK system of governance is so different from any other. All it means in practice is that there are times and situations where the PM can act without reference to the House. The vast majority of decisions are put to a vote in one way or another.
@OldNat
They also stated that since there’s no clause regarding numbering of monarchs in the Treaty, it’s pretty hard to break a non-existent clause.
But such trifling details should not stand in the way of Nationalist grandstanding, no sir…
Richard Manns
Actually, it’s only the Brits who talk about Westminster as the “Mother of Parliaments”.
It’s comparatively recent.
Iceland’s Althing has been in place since 930. The Indians, and Sumerians have reasonable claims to have had parliamentary systems BC.
A bit arrogant to discount these other people don’t you think?
Richard Manns
They did indeed state that there was no mention of monarchical numbering in the Treaty of Union.
Didn’t stop Unionist grandstanding.
Does the whole population of Iceland still meet by a big rock every year and hold plebiscites and trials in front of the Logsogrs? In a country ruled by regional governors who are also priests?
The Althing of today is not the Althing of 930 AD.
Neil A
“The vast majority of decisions are put to a vote in one way or another.”
Oh dear, you do need to do a lot of research!
Wow! I can’t believe how this thread has degenerated into a debate about constitutional law. Anthony Wells must pull his hair out sometimes at the nature of the debate on his website.
I hoped we’d have an intelligent discussion on how Brown and Labour are now synonymous (or not) in the eyes of the voters and its potential effect on the up coming GE.
One can dream
@ OldNat
Let me explain…
“Mother” does not mean “oldest”. It means, particularly in this case, a progenitor, as many of the parliamentary systems in the world were either modelled on Westminster or actually created by its Acts.
Oldnat,
Are you suggesting that a significant proportion of the actions of the UK executive are taken without reference to legislation?
Neil A
And the English/UK Parliament is not the same as it was at whatever date you want to suggest for it’s origin.
It really is cultural arrogance to suggest that yours was the mother of all.
Oh, and the UK Parliament still has priests from one of its regional denominations voting on laws – the Icelanders gave that up a long time ago.
Well, I wasn’t the one calling it the Mother of Parliaments. But my point about Iceland was that NOW their parliament is a pretty standard affair. It has MPs. They sit on benches. It has government and opposition. They elect a PM. The PM governs on the sufferance of parliament. All pretty familiar stuff. And not very viking.
Philip JW
Hey you could have had that discussion! You could have referred to polling evidence instead of dragging me into it from a comment on a previous thread.
Why don’t you post what you should have earlier?
@ Old Nat
No-one has said “mother of all”. Except you. The precise quotation is “England is the Mother of Parliaments”, coined in 1865 by John Bright.
Not content with straw men for your arguments, you have actually misquoted someone and then called them arrogant based on your own misquotation.
Will you retract this?
Neil A
This distracting debate started with Richard Manns who was the one who said the “British constitution is the oldest of its kind on Earth”.
Accuracy is all – “of its kind” was the critical phrase. I’m glad we all agree he was wrong.
Richard Manns
Happy to accept the correction. But Bright was being arrogant when he made that inaccurate claim, and those who repeat his phrase repeat his arrogance.
Well I can see where we got onto this trajectory…. PM vs Party popularity and the extent to which this is or is not a feature of a system where the PM wields an anachronistic Royal Prerogative which is in reality no such thing…..
But honestly, although I accept that the system is a little odd (albeit that I like and support its oddness) I really don’t think there is much difference between the position of a leader in relation to his/her party in the UK or in other countries with different legal systems
There is no reason why Angela Merkel can’t be 10% more popular than the CDU, or Papandreou 5% less popular than Pasok (or whatever). I think most electors in most countries aren’t much bothered about the intricacies of their constitution and electoral system, as long as from time to time they are given the chance to “vote the bastards out”.
Neil A
I’ll agree with that. There will be times when a party leader and their party have different approval ratings. Indeed I suspect that may be quite common.
anyone got any polling evidence?
Oldnat,
The polling evidence has been made easily available on this website. All you need to do is move your mouse around and click. It’s not rocket science. And if you do you will find that Labour’s polling and Brown’s rating are virtually synonymous.
I can’t pretend I’ve bothered to crunch any numbers myself, but I read Anthony’s posts pretty carefully and he seems to be saying that, when the question is asked, support for Labour outstrips that for Brown and support for Cameron outstrips that for the Tories.
I suspect that has more to do with “opposition from the Left” to the New Labour project than actual antipathy to the PM. I think most people (even rabid Tories such as myself) think that he’s a decent, pleasant man doing a job that he’s just not cut out for.
Philip JW
I’m old-fashioned. I prefer that when someone asserts a relationship, that they also provide the evidential support for it – instead of demanding that others do that research.
if you are suggesting that the Brown/Labour approval ratings are somehow different from other leader/party ratings, then you need to support that with statistical data.
Neil A
Brown reminds me of Head Teachers I have known. Desparate for a headship, but then became desperately unhappy when they discovered that, even if they had been an effective Depute, they lacked the skills they needed for the top job.
Its called being promoted to your position of marginal incompetence. Every time you prove yourself capable of doing one job, they promote you to the next one up. Until you find one you’re not capable of doing….
Sadly Gordon got right to the top before he found his position of marginal incompetence (although, in all honesty, if it hadn’t been for the extended asset bubble that made his chancellorship look like a success, he might have found that position one rank lower)..
Anyway… the real news from Anthony’s post is this, surely….
If, during a crapstorm over expenses, with the publicity of Griffin on the Beeb, scary population forecasts and EU double dealing over Lisbon, the best the BNP can manage (in seats selected by the Sunday Times for BNP-Friendliness) is 18% then I think we can safely discount the possibility of seeing a BNP MP in the next parliament. Which is good news, no?
I have been hoping that BNP support was a wave we need to steady ourselves and ride over.
Neil A
Sadly, I have to confess that I was one of the many who didn’t understand the asset bubble, and thought that GB had been doing a good job as Chancellor.
Never having had capital until my wife’s inheritance, we invested in it. Thank goodness we prioritised gifts to our kids training/housing first!
Not that it really matters. The inherited properties produced the price they did only because of the bubble, so we really lost nothing.
I think the BNP are going to get at least one MP next June.
Looks like the past vote (2005) weighting has gone a bit wonky on the LDs, but Labour should be clawing back ground, not slipping back.
I expect some narrowing between the two main parties and a drop in LD support as the election gets very near, as people focus on the harsh choices on the economy. People tend to have a view one way or the other on the government they want in elections fought in the depths of a recession or state of recession.
The Conservative figure looks pretty satisfactory even on this measure, before the campaign.
Joe James B
“I expect some narrowing between the two main parties and a drop in LD support as the election gets very near, as people focus on the harsh choices on the economy”
I know that is the conventional view – smaller parties get squeezed as voters concentrate on which of 2 MPs they want to see as the “president” of the UK.
However, it is worth noting that NI has seldom voted on that issue. In Scotland and Wales, SNP/Plaid are less squeezed by this than once they were.
Are the English (who will decide the election) immune from seeing Con/Lab as something to vote against?
Oliver:
I can’t see where the BNP might actually get enough support to win a seat. Their best seat is Barking but the Euro elections showed clearly that there is a limit to their support in that area. They don’t quite have what it takes in Thurrock or Burnley either – they could maybe reach 20-25% in those areas at the most but that probably wouldn’t be enough to win unless the vote is split very evenly between at least 3 other parties.
I believe the SNP and Plaid C will do well, although it’s hard to see where they would gain more than a few seats.
I don’t really see where the BNP could gain a seat.
I don’t believe Thurrock is a place they could win even if it has a high BNP vote – it also ironically has a more definite ceiling on it aswell.
Burnley I think is one place where the LDs could oust Labour (and I believe there will be very few of those, and two or three the other way).
Perhaps Barking. Unlikely.
I agree that it is very unlikely that the BNP will gain any seats at the forthcoming GE. But let’s imagine that they increase their votes to somewhere over a million. They got over 900,000 in the recent European election so it is not impossible, as they have had a lot of publicity for various reasons lately.
In that scenario I wonder of we will see a reduction in calls for proportional representation from the LibDems and others?
I am a regular visitor to UK Polling and enjoy the comments of Andrew and quite a number of people who contribute. What I find distasteful are the petty arguments that appear from time to time. The comments today are completely spoiled by the verbal intercourse with OLD NAT. Pity that the comments are littered with these arguments which are completely unnecessary which do nothing but distract from some excellent reporting and comments from those who genuinely comment about the poll in question.
Pete B
‘In that scenario I wonder of we will see a reduction in calls for proportional representation from the LibDems and others?’
Perhaps they will see the light and support single transferable vote type system, which would marginalise parties like the BNP.
The current list system used in Europe is not only a poor form of democracy where individual MEPs no longer communicate with the public, it is also very helpful to extreme parties that may attract say 10% of the vote.
I have no views as to whether first past the post or single transferable voting is better. I can see pros and cons for each.
I live in the Batley and Spen Seat, where Mike Wood (Lab) has notional majority of 6814, due to boundary changes.
This area has a significant BNP presence, along with some local papers who not particularly unfriendly to them, to put it mildly.
The Tories need a swing of about 7.5% to take the seat, and the BNP chipping away a few thousand extra votes from Labour will assist the Tories. This scenario is surely likely to occur across the North of England. Whether these votes would go to the Tories if not the BNP, I don’t know.
I agree with Pete B, in that I think he is saying PR enhances the fortunes of minority parties. It may be democratic, but the flavour of these parties is often distasteful. I would hate to see the balance of power being won by cutting deals with fringe parties.
There seems to be some genuine disagreement between the pollsters now, and I have to say a 17% lead seems odd, especially with the very high LD score that doesn’t appear to be a response to any particular recent event(s).
I still feel tht a narrowing of the gap is likely. What is interesting is that within some parts of the media there is a general marshalling of more critical anti Tory voices, and there are some small crumbs for Labour. I understand that in the ICM poll there are questions of immigration policy that suggest that the Tories are seen much more positively than Labour, but when the party policies are named without respondents being told which party has which policy, the labour policy comes out as much more favourable. This i feel sums up Labour’s problems – the Tories have some good policies, but some that will be disastrous. Labour cannot get the focus onto the latter, or onto areas where they have a more positive message themselves. I’m not sure there is much time left to change this.
@Alec
Is there anything more “disastrous” than the latest set of economic data showing that Labours policies have left us as the only major economy still in recession having been told by the current Prime minister, and former chancellor of ten years, that we were “best placed” to weather the worst slump on record?
I have to agree with an earlier comment in that all those with a basic understanding of economics have already switched to the cons or, possibly, are merely victims of Labours well rewarded but decidedly third rate state education..
@Neal Preshner – “I have to agree with an earlier comment in that all those with a basic understanding of economics have already switched to the cons or, possibly, are merely victims of Labours well rewarded but decidedly third rate state education..”
First of all, you’re not entirely accurate on the first point. Many economic analysts are very nervous about Tory plans to cut the deficit too soon, although they almost unanimously accept it needs to be reduced, and most accept that Brown took broadly the correct steps once the crisis broke. By contrast, the Tory response was seen by many as confused, heavy footed and politically inspired. Osborn and Cameron didn’t cover themselves in glory in economic policy terms. Most would also agree that Brown did not do enough to restrict the government deficit (and individual debt) before the crisis however, so argue about the balance of what those who understand economics think, but please don’t be so glib.
Regarding your second point about state education – as someone with a bog standard comprehensive education who went on to get two excellent degrees (if I say so myself) I find the statement somewhat offensive. The casual dismissal of 75% of UK schools, along with the personal derision of anyone who holds a contrary view to yours, may suggest an arrogance that isn’t very attractive. By all means disagree with other posters, but please don’t pretend only those who belong to a certain tribe have valid opinions – it’s not actually the way democracy works, and as we’ve all been talking about the Mother of Parliaments…..
Political betting have noted that Labour were 13 points ahead in November 1996 in an ICM poll. Similar story now but the lead is a little larger for the Conservatives. History repeating perhaps?
Both main parties were significantly higher in Nov 1996: Lab – 47%, C – 34%, LD – 15%.
Alec – “when the party policies are named without respondents being told which party has which policy, the labour policy comes out as much more favourable.”
I suspect that the tendency to prefer Tory policy when they know which policy belongs to which party, and Labour policy when they don’t know, reflects a widespread mistrust of Labour, particularly with regards immigration. People simply believe that Labour says one thing and – either deliberately or through incompetence – does quite another. And I think that is Labour’s main problem these days – however much people may like the sound of its promises, they no longer trust Labour to deliver on them.
Greens have published details of their Holyrood YouGov poll
Constituency voting intention (2007 in brackets):
SNP: 34 (+1.1%)
Labour: 31% (-1.2%)
Conservative: 16% (-0.6%)
Lib Dem: 14% (-2.2%)
Others: 5 (+2.9%)
Regional voting intention (2007 in brackets):
SNP: 29% (-2%)
Labour: 29% (-0.2%)
Conservative: 16% (+2.1%)
Lib Dem: 14% (+3.7%)
Green: 6% (+2%)
Others: 6% (-4.6%)
Is their a Scottish Breakdown of the ICM poll for Westminster?
Paul,
ICM don’t do scotland they do “the North”.
OldNat
I’d be interested to see the exact question used in the YouGov Scottisjh poll as the greens are up two, but as i’ve always felt that YouGov do a good job of protecting their reputation in polls I wouldn’t expect to see any obvious distortion.
Putting these figures in to Webster Sandwicks Scotland Votes site and you get;
Labour 44 (-2), SNP 41 (-6), LibDem 18 (-2), Con 20 (+3), Grn 4 (+2) Ind 1 (+1) Others 0 (-).
All in all a slight fall back for labour and the SNP which leads to gains for the smaller parties. Odd possible coalition options. to get the needed 65 votes you could have;
Lab (44) + LibDem (18) + Grn (4) =66.
SNP (41) + Tory (20) + Grn (4) =65.
The first the far most likely and of course with Cameron in No 10 we could see;
Lab (44) + SNP (41) = 85…. Pretty unlikely i’d admit.
Right now amost two years out with a change of government on the cards in May I don’t think Scottish polls tell us anything much, although if “Others were going up i’d prefer it to be at Labours expense.
Oh and Oldnat, there really is no need for your regular squabbles over things like the “English” constitution. there are plenty of positive arguments without exposing a chip on your shoulder.
At the end of the day this is a UK site ( and a very good one), the vast majority of people her are English and overwhelmingly interested in UK politics.
Some do have an interest in Scottish politics though mostly from the point of view of its effects on the UK result. I don’t think lecturing them does much for their impression of you, or Scots in general.
Peter.
Paul McLennan
ICM lump Scotland with the North of England for their sub-sample.
Peter
If you put the YouGov poll from May 2007 into Weber Shandwick , they significantly overestimated the Green vote then 9% as against the actual 4%.
As to last night – rebuke accepted (though in my own defence I was reacting to others, and did not initiate what I described as a “distracting debate”).
Old nat,
Maybe before your time here but Anthony covered the high Green score in that particular Yougov poll just before the 2007 holyrood election. As i recall a change in the wording was used to specifically mention the Greens and others by name and it boosted their score.
Other YouGov polls that didn’t prompt by name were far closer to the eventual 4% figure.
Peter.
@Davey (10:34am)
Perhaps they will see the light and support single transferable vote type system, which would marginalise parties like the BNP.
I’m not so sure. Having done a quick look-up in Wikipedia, there seem to be several forms of STV. In the single-constituency version, it could work to the advantage of minor parties. e.g. in a constituency where you had to rank Con, Lab, Lib, Green and BNP in order of preference, a good number of second choices would go to the Greens and BNP as well as Liberals.
Interesting. Anyway, I think we can be sure that whoever is in power the system will not be changed in any way that would favour minor parties, unless one of them was lucky enough to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.
England will decide the election and as far as i can see labour will be wiped out, Scotland will vote snp and the BNP will win at least one seat in the yorkshire area .
Absolutely Pete B… even if enough MPs from enough parties managed to agree that a change of system was in their interests (unlikely), there’d be years of “inquiry” into which was the most suitable system… even the supposed “threat” of the Brit Nats (severely overegged in my view) wouldn’t speed up that process.
I think deep down the regime are resigned to the prospect of a handful of Brit Nat MPs being elected probably in about ten years from now, maybe sooner if the votes are sufficiently split in one or two hot spots.
40-25-20 seems about right as a generalised national average, but that doesn’t really tell you a lot about the detail of the result. The next election is bound to deliver some surprises… should be the most watchable election night ever.
The Tories have got plenty of time to stumble before the finishing line… they just don’t convince enough people… and the gaffes! We had one of them on the radio this morning actually agreeing with that rabid postman minister (with the strangely small hands) Alan whatever, about scientific advisers, whilst still managing to criticise labour for something non-specific; and the LibDems being just non-specific. An example of the lack of coherence in delivering an attack, which casts doubt on the solidity of their lead.
@ Alec who wrote the following
‘First of all, you’re not entirely accurate on the first point. Many economic analysts are very nervous about Tory plans to cut the deficit too soon, although they almost unanimously accept it needs to be reduced, and most accept that Brown took broadly the correct steps once the crisis broke. By contrast, the Tory response was seen by many as confused, heavy footed and politically inspired. Osborn and Cameron didn’t cover themselves in glory in economic policy terms. Most would also agree that Brown did not do enough to restrict the government deficit (and individual debt) before the crisis however, so argue about the balance of what those who understand economics think, but please don’t be so glib.
Regarding your second point about state education – as someone with a bog standard comprehensive education who went on to get two excellent degrees (if I say so myself) I find the statement somewhat offensive. The casual dismissal of 75% of UK schools, along with the personal derision of anyone who holds a contrary view to yours, may suggest an arrogance that isn’t very attractive. By all means disagree with other posters, but please don’t pretend only those who belong to a certain tribe have valid opinions – it’s not actually the way democracy works, and as we’ve all been talking about the Mother of Parliaments…..’
Oh dear!
Firstly, if this is how democracy works (and I do agree!!) what makes my opinion any less valid than yours?
Secondly. Yes, we all know that there were views right across the spectrum regarding Labours response to the dire economic mess into which they had led us.
Last week, however, we had the clearest signs yet that this response wasn’t working, thus making nonsense of claims that we were best placed to ride out the storm.
Whatever your views on Conservative economic policy (and you are perfectly entitled to them) any balanced opinion would, at the very least, haven given equal weight to the very real failures of those who have been in charge for the last 12 years!!
I’m delighted that our state education served you so well but go check some data that wasn’t produced by Ed Balls to see how far it has slipped in the last 12 years and why many in future will be less fortunate.
In the meantime, why not give that pompous indignation a rest?
right now october is nearly over hear is my second prediction for the next election in 2010
CON 383 SEATS
LAB 202 SEATS
LD 35 SEATS
OTH 30 SEATS
CON MAJ 116
VOTE SHERE
CON 42.5 +9.3
LAB 26.5 -9.6
LD 17.8 -4.8
OTH 13.2 +5.1
CON LEAD +16%
SWING FROM LAB TO CON 9.4%
AT RISK LABOUR MAJ UPTO 18.8%
@Neal Preshner – “what makes my opinion any less valid than yours?” Nothing, and that isn’t what I said. I was making the point that you dismissed the opinion of others you disagree with as being derived from poorly educated individuals or those who have been fooled by Labour spin. While I have my own opinions, I accept there are other views, based on a different reading of the facts, and I wouldn’t presume that your education is inferior to mine, or that you have been fooled by the Tories etc.
In terms of the growth figures, it’s worth looking at the city response to this mornings manufacturing data (biggest jump in output for two years) and consumer confidence (continued recovery). It further suggests the official first estimates of Q3 GDP (based on only 40% hard data and 60% projection) may well be wrong. Most now expect a sharp upward revision to the GDP estimates, but it may still not be enough to bring an official end to the recession in Q3.
@ silent hunter
I am not a bit suprised that places such as Burnley are questioning what exactly Labours game is. These people are not Guardian readers, they do not spend their evenings over a good claret debateing the benefits of multicultralism. How Labour have kept the lid on this unlimited immigration for so long astounds me. Clearly the most abused area’s are on the turn.
I personally detest the BNP, but I have much sympathy with my fellow English.
@ STUART GREGORY
Wicked, what a result, how much should I write the cheque for to guarantee it?
@Alec
In so far as I believe there are significant numbers who simply do not comprehend the dire economic figures being presented to them (many being well educated in other subjects) and are, therefore, more easily duped by Labour spin, I stand by my remarks.
That was why I made reference to an earlier observation suggesting that, given the lack of impact the news that we are still in recession has had on this latest poll, perhaps all those with a good understanding of economics had already defected to the Tories.
On the other hand, you appear to have taken this great leap in suggesting that I dismiss the opinions of all those who are less well educated than myself. This is simply nonsense.
I believe our state education is heading for hell in a handcart whilst Balls claims that armfuls of qualifications being gained from dumbed down exams is proof that this is not the case.
I see this as a national disgrace and NOT an excuse to dismiss those who are being deprived of a well rounded education.
@ Craig
“England will decide the election and as far as i can see labour will be wiped out, Scotland will vote snp and the BNP will win at least one seat in the yorkshire area .”
On what polling do you base these assumptions?
Alec:
“In terms of the growth figures, it’s worth looking at the city response to this mornings manufacturing data (biggest jump in output for two years) and consumer confidence (continued recovery). It further suggests the official first estimates of Q3 GDP (based on only 40% hard data and 60% projection) may well be wrong. Most now expect a sharp upward revision to the GDP estimates, but it may still not be enough to bring an official end to the recession in Q3.”
There may be an adjustment but these surveys, surveys I point out not actual data, will not affect it because they relate to October ie Q4.
Stuart Gregory
“right now october is nearly over hear is my second prediction for the next election in 2010
CON 383 SEATS
LAB 202 SEATS
LD 35 SEATS
OTH 30 SEATS
CON MAJ 116
VOTE SHERE
CON 42.5 +9.3
LAB 26.5 -9.6
LD 17.8 -4.8
OTH 13.2 +5.1
CON LEAD +16%
SWING FROM LAB TO CON 9.4%
AT RISK LABOUR MAJ UPTO 18.8%”
Your vote shares look reasonable but the LibDems will do far better than that in seat terms.
Also your ‘at risk Labour maj upto 18.8%’ fails to understand that UNS is only an average – half of seats will have higher swing and half lower. A UNS of 9.4% would put Labour seats with majorities of upto 25% at risk possibly seats with majorities as high as 30%.
Interesting watching Channel 4 this evening where the Indian presenter was talking about the genetic defects of Pakistanis. She went on to say what a wonderful country Brazil was because of all the mixed race people there but then said that white people had all the money and power. The BNP should sign her up immediately because it was the best advert for them i’ve seen.
“I expect some narrowing between the two main parties and a drop in LD support as the election gets very near, as people focus on the harsh choices on the economy.”
Never happened before, won’t happen now.
The Lib Dems ALWAYS gain support during an election campaign as they get more exposure. Also, the economy is their major strength with Vince Cable the undisputed cock of the Northern Rock.
The Conservatives are in the lead at the moment largely because they’re not Labour; when their record on expenses and their policies are scrutinised carefully, especially their grave economic errors on the recession, I expect them to lose support to poll just below 40%.
Labour will probably consolidate their core vote and recover a little as people realise they weren’t the only party whose MPs were on the fiddle (or even the worst!).
But there’s still all to play for; I suspect Michael Heseltine is much closer to the mark than some pundits on here because he’s a wise old head who’s seen it all before.
My predictions:
Conservative 38%
Labour 28%
Lib Dems 23%
Others 11%
The BNP will not gain a single MP, especially after Griffin’s pathetic performance on Question Time.
I really do believe most people have already made up their minds that they do not want another 5 years of this totally discredited and Deceitful Labour Government.
While still not totally happy with the Conservatives they are willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt.
My prediction for the 2010 General election which will almost certainly be in May alongside the Local elections.
Con ~ 40
Lab ~ 26
LD ~ 20
Others ~ 14
It also looks like Like Labour will be almost wiped out of existance in large areas of England and be hammered in Wales.
Scotland may very well not be too hard on Browns Labour Government as the Scots have virtually been running the UK Government for most of the past 12 years anyway!
Next May can’t come quick enough to be rid of this worn out pathetic apology of a Government – Be gone!!
“”"”Next May can’t come quick enough to be rid of this worn out pathetic apology of a Government – Be gone!!”"”"
Non-partisan>?
“The BNP should sign her up immediately because it was the best advert for them i’ve seen.”
Until Alan Johnson let the cat out of the bag on immigration.
Pete B
“Having done a quick look-up in Wikipedia, there seem to be several forms of STV. In the single-constituency version, it could work to the advantage of minor parties. e.g. in a constituency where you had to rank Con, Lab, Lib, Green and BNP in order of preference, a good number of second choices would go to the Greens and BNP as well as Liberals.”
Actually, STV only works to the benefit of minor parties in large multi-member constituencies. In single-member STV (more properly called AV) it is vary rare for a candidate who did not come in top two in first preferences to be elected.
For a party to win from only 25% in first preferences the other 75% would have to be widely spread, with lots of second preference transfers either falling by the wayside or the vast majority going to that party.
I can’t see that helping any party who are not a “major player”.
Jack Cornish–sorry, it’s simply through frustration that I blurt out my Politics. It affects a lot of people as we have to sit out another 6 months of this damned waste of space government – oops, sorry, done it again!