Tory leads stays at just 10 from Populus
There is a new Populus poll in the Times. Topline voting intention, with changes since Populus’s last poll, are CON 39%(-1), LAB 29%(-1), LDEM 18%(nc).
It’s another no change poll, but as I’m sure many will note, 10 points is a particularly low lead compared to other recent polls. Populus use very similar methodology to ICM, and I’d expect them normally to show pretty similar pictures. However, the last two Populus polls have shown Tory leads of 10 points and the last two ICM polls have shown Tory leads of 17 points. Technically speaking they are within the margin of error of a position somewhere inbetween, and since there’s no methodological explanation my guess is that it is just that – normal sample error with the real picture being a lead around 13 or 14.
Others are up slightly to 14%, this is mostly a boost for UKIP who are up to 4% from 2% a month ago. It’ll be read as a result of the Conservative Lisbon policy, but I would be wary of reading too much into that – there’s no significant shift in Tory support and the level of support for minor parties does tend to bounce about a bit. For the record though, it is higher than UKIP normally reach in Populus polls (as opposed to around the time of the European elections, when they were as high as 8%)
Asking specifically about the Conservative European policy, 48% of respondents backed the Conservative policy that “it would be pointless to have a referendum on Europe unless specific further changes in Britain’s relations with the EU were being proposed”, with 46% instead saying that “should be a referendum early in the next Parliament on the general issue of Britain’s relations with the EU”. Conservative supporters however were less supportive – only 37% agreed with their own party’s policy, with 59% supporting a referendum.
Populus also asked about MP’s pay. 68% disagreed with the statement that MPs should have their pay increased “to ensure that good quality people from all backgrounds are not deterred from standing”.
Filed under: Populus, Voting Intention
I guess we must be pretty close to hung Parliament territory with the Conservatives below 40% Anthony?
Others at 14%
Peter – on a uniform swing (with all the caveats that implies) it works out to a Tory majority of 2.
As Anthony has pointed out there appears a huge gulf between populus and ICM, but suppose Populus is right and things are a little better for labour on the night, and Tories are 20 short of overall majority, is there any possiblity of Lib Dems supporting labour when they are on 29 and the Tories on 39?
Thanks very much Anthony.
As a Conservative myself I can see both bad and good in this poll. Bad becasue we are below 40% and we really should be doing better than that. Good in that Europe is a potentially explosive issue for the Tories and the coverage has been quite negative(not unfairly so when some of that negativity has ben pepetrated by Tory MEP’s themselves plus the likes of Craswell. I support the Cameon policy which I believe is one which downgrades the EU as an issue and we will se him concentrating on cooperation with them. This poll shows that he is basically not out of synch with the mainstream centre ground on this issue although paradoxically he is at odds with a majority of Tory voters. I reckon he went in for a damage limitation exercise and provided it does not take centre stage again he will begun to recover support. I am really struggling to see how Labou CAN recover to actually win outright.
I still believe that on the night the English Marginals will win it for the Conservatives.
My prediction is still.
Con ~ 40-42
Lab ~ 28-30
LD ~ 18-20
Davey, I do not try to answer your question but invite you to consider another!Why would it be unreasonable for the LibDems to take the view that ALL the parties are minority parties? Given that that proves to be so in the context of a Hung Parliament why should they feel obliged to support the largest minority party? Would it not make more sense to support whichever party comes closest to its own views on the major policy issues – macroeconomic policy – Europe- electoral reform – Afghanistan etc?
Graham
The SNP governs Scotland as a minority government – and according to the TNS poll today still enjoy 40% of the popular vote for the constituencies, 31 months after the election.
However parties posture, I’m sure that they all have noted the difference between Scotland and Wales – where Plaid entered a coalition with Labour and are certainly not doing as well (though I know there are all kind of other factors).
Based on Scotland’s experience, the largest party in the UK might want to have a stab at minority government, if there is a hung Parliament.
It’s certainly a possibility that the Conservatives could win the next election with 38% or 39% of the vote, but they would obviously like to win 40% or more. I think it could well be a close run thing as to which of those scenarios actually happens. One possibility of course is that they win 40% of the GB vote but 39% of the UK vote, which would probably lead to 4/5 years of Labour and the LDs always quoting the UK percentages with the Tories usually giving the GB figures.
Andy Stidwell – I’m not quite clear what you’re getting at. GB is the mainland (Scotland, England and Wales), while the UK includes Northern Ireland as well. As the mainland parties do not normally contest seats in Northern Ireland, I don’t understand your point. Sorry if I’m being thick.
I’d like to pick up on this from Anthony’s article:
“Populus also asked about MP’s pay. 68% disagreed with the statement that MPs should have their pay increased “to ensure that good quality people from all backgrounds are not deterred from standing”.
I’ve seen this point made by various people – that the expenses reforms will mean that only the rich will be able to become MPs. It doesn’t make sense to me. Given that the average wage is about £25,000 per year, why would low-paid or average-paid people be deterred by having a basic salary of £65,000 plus legitimate expenses? I understand that most MPs get extra for sitting on committees, being junior ministers, whips etc anyway.
I think what these people mean is that those earning 80-150,000 would no longer find it so attractive to become an MP. Boo hoo.
Pete,
What Andy means is that commentators regularly mix up the GB percentages (excluding Northern Ireland) and the UK percentages.
The Tories have occasionally contested some NI seats, but generally the GB figures are about 1% higher for Tories or Labour and about 0.5% higher for LDs.
The opinion polls are only interested in GB.
Some people also take the view that the mainland where the conventional parties stand is all you should look at.
People often make the mistake of comparing the polls against the total votes, i.e. the UK.
My own view is the that NI, for good or for ill, is part of this country so we should be looking at the base of support throughout it regardless of whether those seats are contested by C/Lab etc. and obviously remember to compare like with like.
Lindsay Roy was earning around £68,500 pa before he became MP for Glenrothes. However, he was nearing the end of his career, so he was actually going to be spectacularly better off adding his MP salary to his HT pension.
I think there’s a lot to be said for politicians being drawn from the ranks of people who have been successful in industry or public service first – rather than from political researchers.
For those paid a lot less than Roy, £65,000 will be a huge rise.
PS Roy was elected to the wrong Parliament. He was a respected and able HT within the Scottish education system, and would have been a useful addition to the Scottish Parliament. Waste of time his being in Westminster being whipped through on English issues he probably doesn’t understand.
OLDNAT
When did the Westminster lot last learn anything from Scottish politics?
Was it (a) 1997 (b) 1314 (c) Never
This was the bit I didn’t get:
“One possibility of course is that they win 40% of the GB vote but 39% of the UK vote, which would probably lead to 4/5 years of Labour and the LDs always quoting the UK percentages with the Tories usually giving the GB figures.”
Assuming that the ‘Big Three” mainland parties do not stand in NI, how relevant is it that a few people over there support one or other of them?
By the way, I’ve always wondered why they rarely stand. After all, they usually stand in Scotland and Wales, where there are also strong local parties. Perhaps if all three main parties stood in NI it might help to reduce the partisanship over there, as they are all moderate compared to the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein for instance.
@John B Dick
Did the Scots learn anything about English politics in 1513?
Pete B
Recent research http://www.elenkus.com/bannochburnRev.html
suggests that the lessons learned in 1314 were later used by the English to good effect in France, and that the myths you will have heard are less to the credit of the English than is the truth.
I’m not sure about 1513 but it won’t happen again because of the what the SNP has learned from the Irish over the last 30 years.
Pete B
Not that I’m defending John B Dick’s post, but he was referring to UK politicians (”the Westminster lot”), not the English.
As a historian, I’m happy to debate dates, but they are not really relevant here – unless they relate to polling.
Anthony – please note. I am a reformed character
Tories lead down to 10 points. Thats befor pre budget report Queens Speech. Think Darling will have some very election type tricks there.
Hung Parliament is where we are now. In 1992 Labour had 14 point average lead going into the election but truth is people lie. When they go to the poll with ballot in hand, they bottle it and vote for the incumbent. I’ve done it myself.
[Edited - Jayne, comments like that are more for the open thread (same goes for comments I've pruned replying to it. If you see a comment that's really not the sort of non-partisan stuff we aim for here, please don't reply to it in the same vein! - AW]
Jayne
Congratulations on voting for John Swinney!
Anthony – please note. I am not totally a reformed character
Jayne, It is not true that Labour had a 14% lead entering the 1992 campaign. In fact Labour’lead was very small and no poll put it higher than 7% at any time in the course of the campaign- some polls gave the Tories a lead.
@JAYNE
“posh bloke ”
Much better to be lead by any old incompetent-provided he’s “ordinary” eh?
Mark, it’s a little rich to chide for labours claims of having fixed the economy, and then imply that they’re responsible for the current crisis….
I don’t think hung parliament is particularly likely, but reckon that this poll just shows what’s becoming more apparent over time….that sticking with the current system is going to eventually lead to no party getting a parliament majority being the default assumption for elections….
I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the strong sentiment in this poll against improving MPs pay. I think people who argue that £65,000 is a lot of money should take a long hard look at salaries in senior public sector roles. I am sure there are plenty of people who would happily swap their job on £25,000 for an MP’s job, but by and large are these people capable of making a decent MP? You might as well argue that its wrong to pay £80,000 to a headteacher because plenty of young teachers out there would happily run the school for you for half as much. Personally I think that MPs have quite a tough job, and I think it is worth spending a little more to encourage the right people to apply. We are talking pennies in the overall scheme of things.
I firmly believe that we are now into Hung Parliament territory…
It can be argued that the Conservative lead over Labour has… for some time now fluctuated wildly…
The fact that in a number of recent polls the Tory lead stands at 10% means that:
1. During the Intense few weeks of the General Election Campaign depending on who performs the best:
- Labour as the incumbent may well significantly close the Tory lead… a 5% uniform swing would achieve that… such a result with the FPTP electoral system would give Labour a small overall majority… A poor Tory and a good Labour election campaign would further assist this…
- Labour suffers badly as a result of a poor election campaign… with Cameron’s Tory’s gaining momentum… and widening their lead… This would result in either a comfortable or a landslide victory for them…
2. That the “Other” Party’s take a fairly sizable chunk of the vote in Key Marginal Seats…
- The Conservatives… to generalise… suffering at the hands of UKIP and the BNP…
- Labour suffering at the hands of the Green’s and the BNP…
This scenario would see the Conservatives failing to pick up a number of Key Target seats… whilst Labour would suffer lost votes too…
This would effectively distort the overall General Election result… as there would be a complex exchange of votes between the Conservatives… Labour and the “Other’s”… ie the Greens… BNP… and UKIP…
I still believe that the outcome of next years GE is still very much “Up for Grabs”… I do not believe that it is a foregone conclusion as to who will win… suffice to say that an outright Labour victory is fairly remote…
The result of the General Election is likely to be one of the following:
1. A slender overall majority for Labour (Remote).
2. A Hung Parliament with Labour the Largest Party
3. A Hung Parliament with the Tories the Largest Party.
4. A Comfortable overall majority for the Tories.
5. A Tory Landslide (Remote).
Were I to state what I strongly believe to be the most likely outcome of the General Election next year… I would say that… a Hung Parliament… with Labour or the Conservatives as the largest Party…
However… as I stated earlier in this post… the final result of the Election is very uncertain…
Whatever the result… it will be one of the most exciting General Elections we have seen for many years…
As the saying goes… “Only Time Will Tell”…
Colin – Rupert Murdoch isn’t incompetent.
Jayne – He isn’t posh either
I wish a party would have the courage to offer an EU referendum, even if only a consultative one.
We rely on polling questions to guage public opinion on the EU, but a proper three-week engagement in the build up to a national vote would do us all some good, and the eventual result could clarify how EU-friendly we are
IMHO morale in both Labour and Tory Parties is low.
“Rupert Murdoch isn’t incompetent.”
Indeed not John-didn’t realise he was standing for election.
NEIL A.
I disagree.
MP’s are well paid by comparison with the average wage.
Comparisons with professionals are erroneus. You need no professional qualifications to be an MP.
If , as an MP you rise through the ranks to hold office, you will be very well remunerated for your skills & effort..
If you reach high office then your financial future is secured.
That’s the way it works in the real world .
MPs have got themselves way out of focus because the priviledges they have voted themselves , and fiddled from the “rules” they wrote have shielded them from the real world in which most of their consituents live.
They need to join the cleaners & commuters & night workers, who work unsocial hours to feed their families.
They need to join the mortgaged & the indebted who try to house their families.
They need to join the working mothers who juggle child care & work.
They need to understand how it is for most people before they can understand what needs to be done.
And when they understand -and if they do something with that understanding, to achieve public office, the taxpayer will reward them handsomely.
Andy / Pete B
Actually, I doubt that Lab or LD will be too keen to distinguish between UK vs GB share of vote after the next election since Con will be the only party fielding a full slate of candidates in NI.
Moreover, Labour will not be wanting to draw attention to how far they are likely to have slipped back in any of the countries in the union – their decline in Scotland and Wales may be worse than that in England.
Colin,
Unless you consider politics to be a career whereby you start out as a young councillor, progress to being a back-bench MP, and then become a junior minister, rising through the ranks to Cabinet level before retiring to teh red benches, the idea that MPs can be paid at no more than median incomes is erroneous.
It if inifintely preferable to have MPs who have some experience of the world outside. That means people who have proven themselves, not those who have failed to progress beyond the junior grades.
The basic pay for an MP needs to refelect a certain element of seniority, but not the peak of a profession – equivalent to a Deputy Head or junior GP rather than the Head or practice leader. Promotion to ministerial rank or chair of committees should justify pay commensurate with the responsibilities incvolved.
However, we should also recognise that the role of MP is more onerous than that of an average managerial position, whetehr public or private sector.
In the private sector the anti-social aspects of a role are rewarded through higher pay or bonuses. For MPs, this has been done through the allowance system – which sadly too many have abused.
In my view, it is still better to have an allowance system to specifically recognise the anti-social aspects of the role rather than to inflate the base salary, especially as one problem is that people conflate the two to suggest that MPs are overpaid.
What we clearly do need is a better appreciation of what we expect our MPs to do, and what experience and abilities we require them to have before first being elected.
Open primaries may well be a way forward, but, like many sound proposals, it does cost money.
It’s the idea that MPs are in control of their own unlimited expense budget that turns people off. I agree there are expensive and onerous obligations imposed by the job.
If you gave the average professional a pay rise and asked them to fund their own international travel, i think there’s be uproar/resignations all round, plus refusals to travel to meetings.
It would be green, but not popular.
Paul:-
“the idea that MPs can be paid at no more than median incomes is erroneous.”
I would probably agree-I didn’t say they should.
The actual sum is for debate-I believe the current level to be not at all unreasonable.
“It if inifintely preferable to have MPs who have some experience of the world outside.”
I agree-but “the world outside” encompasses people of all social strata & incomes.We need MPs to represent as many of them as possible. A HoC full of professional accountants & lawyers is as bad as one full of Academics & Local Council employees.
“In my view, it is still better to have an allowance system to specifically recognise the anti-social aspects of the role ”
I disagree-that’s what has led to MPs fleecing the taxpayer for everything including the kitchen sink.
The Green Book actually said that their Expenses should always be those incured “wholely, exclusively & neccessarily” in pursuit of their duties.
In the companies which I have worked in those have always been the guidelines. The rules on BIK reflect this too-except for MPs it seems.
These rules & that basic guideline clearly allowed for the “anti-social” aspects of the job-ie all relevant Travel , accommodation & subsistence was recoupable.
But they insisted on stretching those guidelines to breaking point.
I hope sincerely that the Kelly recommendations are implemented as given, by IPSA-but the initial noises off sound like the boil has not been lanced yet.
Graham,
Thank you for your thoughts on those who are most close on policy e.g. afghanistan, should consider forming a government.
Does that mean a labour/tory coalition?
I think if Lib Dems have say 60 seats and there is a hung parliament they are in a sticky position, inn danger of alienating one side of the party or the other.
However one thing I cannot fathom is why there appears to be any possibility of an election after the first thursday in May. Surely when the five years are up, the five years are up? Or am I being old fashioned?
Why is this Populus poll any more significant than it’s predecessor , which showed the same picture; but which was followed by eleven polls from other pollsters averaging a Con lead of 14?
Colin,
[ “In my view, it is still better to have an allowance system to specifically recognise the anti-social aspects of the role ” - I disagree-that’s what has led to MPs fleecing the taxpayer for everything including the kitchen sink. ]
Misapplication of a policy does not make the policy itself wrong.
I agree that the system should be more robust so as to prevent abuse. I disagree that the system should be abolished because it has been abused.
It should also be noted that the Fees office were clearly complicit in the abuse. Whether that was a failure of management or a deliberate policy imposed by parliament is less clear.
What is interesting is that there does not appear to have been systematic abuse of either the office & staff or the travel budgets – though even here the level of scrutiny appears to have been less than one would expect in the private sector.
Complete Labour blip – 29% is a fantasy result. I also think the Tories are in danger of a long-term dip below 40%, as a result of backtracking and failing to convince that they represent change.
The Afghan war is political kryptonite, it’s absolutely implausible for Labour to *gain* support in this environment… (i.e.: along with the growing pile of other nails for the New Labour coffin) I’m waiting to see what MORI say…
Paul
“I disagree that the system should be abolished because it has been abused.”
The system is not being abolished.
Kelly has returned to the core Green Book principle-” Wholly, Exclusively & Neccessarily in pursuit of duties”, which the private sector observes at the behest of HMRC day in , day out.- and which MP’s cheated on.
I think it is quite clear why the Fees Office was complicit.
It’s very very simple.
MP’s self policed their own fiddles.
The Fees Office was run by The Speaker who acted a shop steward for the MPs.
With the Speaker behind it all, and MP’s in “I am a very important person ” mode-the clerks in the Fees office were mere cyphers.
IPSA must implement Kelly in letter & spirit.
It’s Chairman is a very very important figure in all of this & I am shocked that he appears to be yet another from the sphere of influence that surrounds the HoC.
“Others are up slightly to 14%, this is mostly a boost for UKIP who are up to 4% from 2% a month ago. It’ll be read as a result of the Conservative Lisbon policy, but I would be wary of reading too much into that – there’s no significant shift in Tory support and the level of support for minor parties does tend to bounce about a bit. For the record though, it is higher than UKIP normally reach in Populus polls (as opposed to around the time of the European elections, when they were as high as 8%)”
All well and good, but the long-term trend is clearly upward… bearing in mind voting for “Others” is a not simply “new” but a revolutionary idea after years of a consistent pattern of tribalistic voting that was arguably broken in ‘97… it’s taking time for the public to take the plunge… the fluctuation is “toe dipping”… a bit of protest and threat… but there’s enough in the “fire triangle” (fuel, oxygen, and heat) to push unknowable numbers of people towards an avalanche threshold, where small parties can be carried by a momentum that is not of their own making – and I think that applies to all (three) of them (that are regularly discussed).
I think we need to be a little careful to avoid overdoing reaction to this poll. As Colin has pointed out, we’ve had an identical lead before followed by lots of polls with larger leads. That said, the consistent divergence between polling companies is odd, even if AW ascribes it to normal variation. We’ve had a recent poll suggesting a Labour recovery in Scotland, and at least one polling company putting the Tories below 40%. I have said for a long time that I believe the polls would tighten before the GE and marked the conference season as something of a minor turning point in sentiment towards the prospect of a Cameron government. The other issues swirling round, like increased consumer confidence and retail sales and what looks like a major backlash against the Sun’s campaign on Brown’s handwriting are all part of an interesting mix. I may be wrong, but at some point I expect other polls to start converging on the Populus numbers, and then talk of hung parliaments may be a little more justified.
Heckers, one poll showing 10 point Tory lead and the Labour diehards are all over it like white on rice predicting a hung parliament.
Steady on, old chaps. I say, steady on there.
I love your unquenchable optimism Alec!
WITH REGARD TO THIS POLL RESULT, ARN’T SOME PEOPLE SOMWHAT OVER REACTING. ITS A BIT OF A ONE OF, AND CERTAINLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF AN ARTICLE IN YESTERDAYS GUARDIAN BY NO LESS A LABOUR TROLL THAN JACKIE ASHLEY.
Anthony, what is your latest view on how turnout will affect these percentages on the day of the GE?
@ jayne
According to you anybody who is worth more than a million is completely unsuitable to run the government. That leaves Tony Blair and half the labour minister out than.
I would personally rather have somebody with some financial acumen be in charge than some jumped up ex council jobsworth or an ex union useless fatcat
KING HAROLD,
Yes I agree that people do appear to be over reacting. It does appear that Populus are overstating Labour support if you compare with the last Gold Standard of ICM (25)and Mori (26) and to an extent YouGov (27). They are also the only polling company showing a Tory lead as low as 10. I suspect it is as Anthony says somewhere between 13/14 points !
However in my opinion ICM are about right with the last poll Con 42 Lab 25 Lib 21 and I bet this won’t be far out come election day !
‘COLIN MK2
@ jayne
According to you anybody who is worth more than a million is completely unsuitable to run the government. That leaves Tony Blair and half the labour minister out than.
I would personally rather have somebody with some financial acumen be in charge than some jumped up ex council jobsworth or an ex union useless fatcat’
Surely it depends on how the million was got? Inheritance? Lottery? Earnt?; equally be careful- many intelligent, hard working and admirable people can be in a Council or a Union. This site is meant for reasoned discussion…
RC – Populus factor turnout into their figures, so if they are correct, it shouldn’t make any difference at all.
Generally speaking polls are interpreted as suggesting that a high turnout is good for Labour and a low turnout is good for the Conservatives, since Conservative voters always say they are more likely than Labour voters to vote. I’ve always been slightly dubious about this.
@Neil A – I didn’t think I was being overly optimistic, but there you go. However, I don’t agree with the view put out by many posters that the Labour vote will continue to implode. At worst, it’s stabilised, at best improved slightly. Labour hit rock bottom a while ago and have bumped along ever since, so the only two realistic choices for the GE would to stay as they are or improve. With the economic outlook offering more hope than was the case six months ago, the odds are for a slight improvement. And of course, the question has to be what if Populus are right and the lead is currently only 10 points?
Can I remind King Harold of the policy on this blog of leaving partisan comments to the open threads. There is more than enough message space on order-order.com for VERY LOUD messages of abuse.
@Davey:
I’d like to clarify one mis-conception that people have regarding elections. The first Thursday in May would mark five years since the last General Election and after that date the current Parliament’s mandate ends.
However, by statute that is only the last possible date from which the Prime Minister can CALL an election. I am not au fait with exact period, but the executive (i.e. ministers under the Crown) still has a grace period of government a few weeks before the last possible date on which to HOLD an election.
@WAYNE
Thanks for the reassurance Wayne, I shall have to hang on for
Mori.
@CAPN SCOOBY
Can I remind you that the partisan comments did not come from me. However, the inverted snobbery involved has been picked up by others and I agree does not belong here.
Cap’n Scooby – my favourite subject to bore on about
Under the Septennial Act 1715 Parliament expires 5 years after the date the writ of summons appointed it to meet, which was the 11th May 2005.
By statute, writs must be issued within 3 years of the dissolution of the present Parliament under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694. So according to statute law, the last date for the election would be June 2013.
The British constitution is not just statute law though, it is also convention. In practice, the government cannot just allow Parliament to lapse and continue to rule without one (not least, the power to raise income tax would lapse, rather buggering up the finances.)
One interpretation is that Parliament cannot be allowed to expire, and the government is compelled by convention to request a dissolution prior to the Parliament expiring (in which case, election day would be 3rd June 2010). An alternative view is that the writ would be automatically issued as soon as Parliament expired (if done the next day this would produce an election on the 4th June 2010, a Friday, so realisticly this would be 3rd June as well. Finally one could argue that there is no statutory reason why the government should call an election straight after Parliament expired, and therefore theoretically they could call an election later into June 2010.
This is all “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” stuff though. In practice the acceptance seems to be that the 10th May 2010 is the final day for the writ being issued.
Once the writ is issued then under the Representation of the People Act 1983, nominations close 6 days later, and then the election itself happens 11 days after that, so 17 days after the writ. This ignores Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays, so the normal timetable is that the writ is issued on a Tuesday, and the election happens on the Thursday 3 weeks later.
Theoretical constitutional wranglings aside then, for all intents and purposes the last day is the 3rd June 2010. Personally I’d expect Brown to go for local election day in May 2010 at the latest anyway.
Anthony,
As we know, 10th May next year will be the Monday after the local elections held on 6th May across practically all (*) of England – but not Scotland, Wales or NI.
For Brown to wait until after his party has been slaughtered in local elections to announce that he is bowing to the inevitable is hardly conducive to boosting the morale of party workers for an election campaign.
Hence the generally accepted view that the GE will be on 6th May.
This implies an announcement either just before the Easter recess, or on the day parliament resumes. I would expect the announcement to be made earlier – say just after the budget has been announced, but before finance bill is debated – with the writ being formally moved at the appropriate date in April.
Oops – forgot the footnote above.
While there will not be local elections in every ward in England next May, the exceptions are mainly in smaller wards of English districts with elections by thirds, or in some Unitaries.
The former will be predominantly Con / LD contests anyway, while the latter are few in number and scattered around the country. To all intents and purposes, it will appear as if all of England is voting.
Most importantly for Labour, there will be elections in both London and throughout the Metropolitan boroughs. If these lead to significant losses, they will be a precursor to a disaster if electors are asked to go back to the polls four weeks later.
I always find this website completely hypes up certain polls, and completely ignores others.
Dependent on how it reflects on the tories.
The ICM poll is complete rubbish. I don’t know why you give it the time of day. And yet you use it to bash a very good poll in the times.
Your own poll is 14%. The Times is 10%. I’d say the correct polling is somewhere between there. Around 11-12%. Which is worrying for the tories. That’s a hung parliament.
Of course, not even websites like this can escape the huge media bias that surrounds Labour at the minute.
Even if anything positive happens, in regards to polls, you all jump to the conclusion that it’s “wrong”.
Read Alaistar Campbells views on polls in his blog. It makes very interesting reading. Claiming the tories will win, but it could be edgy.
And claiming the media and pollsters are trying to forcefeed the fact the tories are going to win handsomely down our throats, when it’s probably not the case at the minute.
He points out to receiving a call from The Times at the same time, pre election in 1996, telling him that his party had a 39 point lead in the polls! And he said, even then, they weren’t celebrating.
There aren’t many in the media prepared to break ranks, and actually tell the truth on what’s going on.
A 10-11 point lead is probably accurate. And bearing in mind your accuracy is only to about 5 points, everything to play for I say
“It does appear that Populus are overstating Labour support if you compare with the last Gold Standard of ICM (25)and Mori (26) and to an extent YouGov (27). They are also the only polling company showing a Tory lead as low as 10. I suspect it is as Anthony says somewhere between 13/14 points ”
Wayne
Simple point. When was the last YOUGOV report. When was the last ICM. When was the last Mori.
They were all over a week ago. Like 3rd November.
Tory Support has been split since then with the EU. Obvious.
The poll is different as it’s easily the most recent, and relevant
Again, if people don’t get a poll they like, they spend all their time trying to justify why it’s wrong.
The tories have taken a hit in the last week. Obvious to see
Lots of interesting comments on this poll!
If you believe the ’slant’ that the Times has today on it then Brown has almost won the next election!
Dream on…!!!
Cap’n Scooby and Anthony
So you learn something every day. Thank you. I did not realise that the five years could be exceeded in the ways you describe.
Re class warfare debate (fuelled by highly wealthy and privileged H Harman). Until the Eton folk became involved, the recent Tory Leaders had relatively ordinary backgrounds and state school education, such as Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Howard.
Labour had three election wins in a row under the leadership of very privileged ex-public schoolboy Tony Blair.
David Cameron’s home background is not a good reason for voting or not voting Tory. I do not think it will affect the election result. DC appears to me to be one of the good guys, who believes in the NHS and helping the poor, running a party many of us would not trust an inch (or centimetre). Perhaps I am easily fooled. I said the same about Tony B.
@Chris,
Are you doing anything on May 6th next year? You’re exactly the sort of person I love to watch general election coverage with….
The Weighted Moving Average is 40:27:19. There are 179 days (from the date of this poll) to the Election, and over the last 179 days the WMA CLead has been 14.7 +/- 1.5.
Populus has an anti-C bias of about 1 point, and this one is 3 points below the WMA like the last one.
Politically the dire economic and political clangers should be making a difference. Statistically they don’t seem to be. Yet…
Wow, amazing how people buzz like flies around the proverbial because it shows a smaller Tory lead.
Maybe a few people need to be a little more educated before jumping to conclusions of what is going to happen.
@chris
11 -12% lead for the Tories is NOT hung parliament.
Even a 10% lead for the Tories will give them an overall majority a little larger than you may expect as they are polling even better in the marginal constituencies than they are nationally.
Polls need to tighten further and stay there for a while for the chance of a hung parliament to become a REAL possibility.
Chris –
What is your criticism of the ICM poll? ICM have one of the best records of accuracy of any of the polling companies.
The methodology of ICM is pretty much identical to that of Populus. What differences there are, are ones of degree (do you reallocate 30% of former Lib Dems or 50%, do you weight or filter by likelihood to vote?) and make little or no difference to the topline figures.
Methodologically, I can see no rational reason to criticise ICM if one accepts Populus.
Politically the dire economic and political clangers should be making a difference. Statistically they don’t seem to be. Yet…
That is a very clever remark – it appears to sail close to the wind of Anthony’s rather abused comments policy, but on reflection is the perfect comment because one cannot decipher which party is the subject of the partisan critique, “dire economic and political clangers”.
All three main parties, and most of the others are guilty of those.
I’m not overly convinced by this poll suddenly meaning there’s going to be a hung parliament – other recent polls predict a fair sized majority for the Conservatives despite all this about referendums etc. But if there is something like a hung parliament, it’ll be either Conservatives with a piddly little majority or just short, in either case they probably won’t be rushing around looking for permanent allies with excessive demands which might tie them down for the sake of a few seats extra.
The UK public has no idea the harm Labour and Brown have caused the UK.
Perfect example is this story over the soldier’s mother and Brown.
I’d be mad as hell if my son was killed in afghanistan by an IED.
There were no IED’s in afghanistan before the iraq war. In 2001 and 2002 uk soldiers faced no ied’s.
Gordon Brown took part in the cabinet decision and was in favor of the iraq war.
The iraq war ignited the region and lead foreign militants that went to iraq to fight to then train the taliban in IED’s and plastic explosives. Suicide bombings in afghanistan and car bombings were also unheard of before the iraq war.
Before the iraq war the afghan people were giving our soldiers a chance to make a better life.
So this soldier’s death is 100 percent responsible for the labour govt’s decision to go to war in iraq. Without that foreign policy blunder there would be no ied’s in afghanistan. And it is now a quagmire because of iraq with thousands of ied’s and brown still can’t see that.
And somehow the public is making this mother to out to be the villain.
She lost her son because of the incompetent decision to go to war in iraq which made afghanistan become ied land just like iraq and copy the tactics.
She should be able to sue gordon brown. And yet instead he is getting the wave of sympathy and not her.
If I was this mother and lost this son because of brown and blair’s incompetence and then they got sympathy and people came down hard on me I would be beside myself.
This is brown who also tried to cut funding for our injured troops care and gives them equipment support. Our troops has so few resources that in 2006 they were stuck for weeks out on a base with no ammunition and barely any food. Brown won’t even pay for the helicopters or armored vehicles. Brown thinks if you pay too much it will hurt him in the election. It is all about himself.
This whole episode is sickening that Brown is getting all this sympathy.
The story isn’t about Brown keeping the troops in Afghanistan for another five years and the lack of funding support.
No the story is how there is now a wave of sympathy for Brown.
Not the wave of sympathy for the hundreds of soldiers who are maimed because of incompetence.
That is why Brown can possibly be PM for another five years because the public doesn’t have a clue what kind of damage he has done.
He was right at the center of the Lehman fiasco as well. And he was also the one who said UK is best positioned to come out of the recession while it is last of the industrialized countries. He is also now touting the most optimistic forcasts of growth instead of going down the middle.
Brown used to make fun of Major how Italy had become stronger economy than UK well guess what has happened now.
Anthony – unrelated topic, but please remove these ads before entering the site. I have just been subjected to one for hair shaping mouse. Please this does not befit this great site.
Mike
As far as I know, these ads are selected by your profile that the cookies have created of you! I’m sure Anthony would be quite happy to dump the ads if you provide the equivalent income they provide!
PS I get much more boring ads
Mike
Ah, mousse! Not surprisingly at my age, I don’t get these ads either.
The sun’s lettergate has backfired spectacularly judging by the acres of messages of sympathy for Gordon Brown.
In the last 24 hours the blogs have been swamped with support and praise for Brown from both left and right wing readerships which is something that does not happen very often!
Daily Mail readers praising him is something he could only have dreamed about, the most common theme on the threads is that the vast majority did not know he wrote to the families personally and would not have come into public domain had it not been for the Sun.
The question remains (a) will this show Brown in a new light, (b) will any of this sympathy translate into votes and better poll ratings?
John
“It’s The Sun Wot Won It”?
TNS-BMRB have now released the full datasheets from Monday’s Herald poll. Now we can assess the full Holyrood results, which the Herald failed to publish. I wonder why?
The Green figure on the regional vote is ALWAYS important to look at, as a small but significant number of seats are entirely dependent on the level of the Green vote. This survey is very poor for the Scottish Green Party. That is good news for several Tory list MSPs!
Holyrood v.i. – Constituency vote (FPTP)
(+/- change from Scottish GE 2007)
SNP 40% (+7)
Lab 32% (n/c)
Con 13% (-4)
LD 11% (-5)
oth 5%
Holyrood v.i. – Regional vote (AMS)
(+/- change from Scottish GE 2007)
SNP 37% (+6)
Lab 29% (n/c)
Con 12% (-2)
LD 12% (+1)
Grn 4% (n/c)
SSP 2%
Sol 0
oth 4%
Here is the TNS-BMRB link to the detailed findings:
http://www.tns-ri.co.uk/_assets/files/Scottish_Market_Polls1.pdf
Anthony, I wonder if you could update Monday’s post with this link?
@King Harold:
Okay, it is good we agree on that at least. I think I’m being a bit sensitive after being called a ‘troll’ on order-order.com about fifty million friggin’ times instead of receiving proper arguments. Water under the bridge and all that.
The Holyrood polls are really quite something. Two years into a minority SNP administration in the midst of recession, you could have been forgiven for assuming that they would have been under siege, embattled and plummeting.
I’m no Nat but I have got to say that Alex Salmond is one of the canniest politicians in Europe for where he has taken his party to .
I’d say this poll is most depressing for the Lib Dems. They had a period of eight years in coalition and are now looking increasingly marginal.
Hi Capt’n
I am only just getting into Scottish politics, however I have felt as you feel re Mr S for a long time now. I am waiting for tomorrows result with baited breath, as I feel the SNP are quite capable of mugging Labour. As for the Lib/Dems, I cannot help thinking now Charlie & Ming are washed up, the Scots are not going to take to Cameronlite Clegg. So yes, once again I agree with you view.
@Stuart Dickson
Nice work Mr D and most interesting. You have got me racking my tiny brain as to why the Herald did not publish these very interesting figures. LOL as they say these days.
@DAN
God forfend I should ever speak kindly of Brown but the SUN have delt the Tories an accidental blow here. Its the kind of emotional thing the British people love to have an opinion about these days. Its not complicated like the economy or the “war on terror”, its more like a tv soap plot. Distraught mother looses son, silly man who means no harm says the wrong thing. When people have got real issues like Jedward vrs Lucie Jones on their mind, this is comprehendable.
I think the sympathy for Brown is not necessarily good news for the Labour Party. A lot of people who work in call centres will understand Brown’s predicament – the irate customer who you try to help but everything goes wrong is pretty common ( and to be blunt Mrs Janes does come across as a bit of a bigmouth ) – but it also does tend to confirm the impression of Brown as someone wildly over-promoted who got their job through politics ( rather like most call centre managers IMHO).
I doubt the “wave of sympathy” for Brown will do him any good at all when it comes to a general election. It might prompt an extra point or two in opinion polls in the immediate aftermath but in 6 months’ time? And when it comes to the crunch, I’ll wager that voters are less – not more – inclined to vote for a PM they pity. Who wants to be led by someone pitiable?
Stuart Dickson
I don’t think Con List MSP’s ever had anything to worry about. Their number isn’t going to go up much, and it won’t go down either unless they win a constituency seat somewhere, and that’s not going to happen more than onece or twice. That’s the real risk to the Conservative (and SNP) list MSP’s.
Cap’n Scooby & King Harold
You are right. The interesting thing about this data is not that the SNP are doing well, but that the LibDems are doing badly.
For whatever reason, their former supporters see the SNP as a more attractive choice for those who are turned off the two main parties, and this does not (at least not yet) translate into support for the SNP at Westminster where they can never be the government, still less to support for independence.
Uninspiring leadership in the SP has no doubt contributed since Jim Wallace is gone.
Labour have a much bigger problem in this respect.
They are now on their fifth leader In ten years. Other talented members of the first Labour administration who have been spoken of as potential leaders have gone or are no longer interested (and who would blame them). All of those who chose to leave Westminster for the Scottish Parliament have gone except Malcolm Chisholm and he is marginalised.
Significantly, I think, it was he who was the sole MSP who did not vote (or abstain) on party lines on the Megrahi decision because he is the last and youngest of those close to Donald Dewar.
The talent pool is gettng used up though it it is entirely possible that there is someone in the recent intake of new MSP’s who can revive Labour’s fortunes.
In contrast the SNP team are making a big impact despite or helped by a hostile press. Two workaholic ministers are making many small changes that are winning support. All of them are trying very, very hard to impress.
AS has got the right approach, the opposite of the Westminster model. He appoints good people, and lets them get on with it. What he said about Megrahi was the right thing for someone in his position.
“I THINK it was the right decision.” (MacAskill must have spent more than a week’s work on it, and he couldn’t go over all that again and do the same for everything else)
“but I am CERTAIN it was taken for the right reasons.”
(That’s my emphasis.) It is not his job to micro manage everything nor should he pretend to do so.
It’s not rocket science. It’s very basic good management, but you don’t need to be good if the competition is crap.
Further to the Glasgow North-East by-election,
I’ll stake my money on a Labour win with a much reduced majority. This close to a General Election and with the nascent Labour tribalism will kick in.
I do not believe there is any chance of a Glasgow East earthquake, mostly because the SNP have been far too quiet about their own chances this time around (got burned by boasting during the Glenrothes campaign).
@ James Ludlow (and others) – perhaps the Sun story reaction is a little more significant than we think. Moods change, and a shift away from the viceral anti Brown hatred prevalent in some quarters, towards a more evenly balanced analysis of both Labour’s record and the Tories promises will help Labour. In itself, the Sun story is nothing much, but it’s in the wider context of whether the media in general shifts tack slightly. Soon there will be some interesting stuff to talk about – for example we’ve had the first monthly increase in the number of people employed announced today and an upgrade of the BoE growth forecasts to be more in line with the Treasury numbers. Things are moving out there, and if they move far enough in time for the GE then Labour will have a little more credibility. Its at this point that the general media attitude will make a difference, and when all’s said and done, although it’s only one polling organisation, we have the most recent poll showing the Tories under 40% and only 10 points clear. What if Populus are right?
@Alec
Its all very selective. The Guardian speaks of unemployment slowing, the Indy speak of the all time high for youth unemployment being reached. The Telegraph tells of Fitch considering a financial downgrade. So its a case of half full/half empty depending on party support slant. There are to many people on this post who know what they are talking about, still betting on a Tory win for me to panic yet. Also Anthony feels he needs to see a lot more evidence to suggest a Tory slide.
It is interesting that the ILO headline figure is beginning to suggest that the peak of unemployment in this recession may already have been reached.In the 3 months to September the total rose by 30,000 to 2.46 million. Last month the total rose by 88,000 to 2.47 million in the 3 months to August.. My interpretation of this data tells me that in the 1 month between these headline figures unemployment fell by 10,000.This surely has to have some significance given that until a few months ago the total was widely expected to reach 3 million by the end of this year.
@ Alec – oh no, not another straw to cling to! I don’t think public opinion on Brown will change significantly. This sorry episode has made Brown a rather pathetic figure and, again, I really don’t see that helping his electoral chances.
I’m sure the Populus poll – which also gave the same result last time round – is “right” insofar as it’s not “wrong”. But you’ve only to look at the table in the sidebar here to see what other poll findings in the last month:
2 giving the Tories a 10 point lead
1 giving the Tories an 11 point lead
1 giving the Tories a 12 point lead
3 giving the Tories a 13 point lead
2 giving the Tories a 14 point lead
4 giving the Tories a 17 point lead
The likelihood is that we’re looking at a Tory lead of around 13 or 14 points and the extremes on either side of that are just ordinary margin-of-error variations. The latest Populus poll fits that pattern; it doesn’t change it.
@JAMES LUDLOW
You just prove my point. You know what you are talking about and it puts Populus into perspective.
However, we should have a poll on how many orgasms occurred with Guardian readers when they saw what they now regard as a good result.
The economic numbers will be spun greatly for the next 6 months. Just remember Brown was the one who said UK was in best position to get ouf the recession. It turns out UK is the last industrialized economy still in recession.
Now Brown is giving the most optimistic forecast of 1.5 percent growth when even some treasury officials are saying Brown is trying to sound way too optimistic for politics. Brown in an interview went beyond Darling’s 1.25 growth forecast which was already viewed as far too optimistic. I’ve seen forecasts that say there won’t be growth for the first two quarters of 2010 although they expect growth in the 4th quarter. Would it be asking Brown too much for once to go down the middle and take the median estimate of the growth forecast and use that to tell the public what the growth will be next year.
The latest downturn has been 5.9 percent and a slight revision downward would surpass the 6.0 percent downturn 30 years ago and if there is negative growth at the begging of next year that is possible. You could have a situation where growth starts in the 4th quarter and they are popping the champagne and then right before the election in late april figures show the first quarter there was negative growth and it is now the biggest downturn ever. This all has to do with the reduction in the VAT tax. That is why some estimates have growth in the 4th quarter and negative growth in the first quarter.
@James Ludlow – I fully agree, and if you notice I didn’t claim this poll to have any undue significance. I do though think that people really should liven up a little and listen to Graham’s point about the employment numbers. If you were all to rewind your posts over the last 12 months and read what many people predicted for unemployment figures, and by how much unemployment would still be rising by the time of the GE, I think you would all be a bit embarrassed. If (only if) this is the peak for unemployment at around 2.5m, that is a dramatic improvement on previous recessions and is a big story in its own right. We then have to argue over whether this is due to Labour policies and if so whether it proves worth it in terms of the debt levels. And then we can wonder whether it will affect the polls.
@Dan – you’re right – the growth figures have not been good. However, before you make too many judgements, bear in mind that final definitive GDP figures take 2 years to finalise. detailed research by Goldman Sachs covering the last 25 years or so has also found that where the initial quarterly figures were negative, the final quarterly figure was on average increased by nearly a full percentage point (it sounds a bit weird, but thats what they found). If this pattern is repeated now we came out of recession 6 months ago. I think there are reasons for doubting the final figures will show such a big upgrade this time round that I don’t want to go into now, but matching the initial GDP numbers with employment, retail spending, manufacturing activity, consumer confidence, limited home reposessions etc there is clearly something amiss. One set of numbers appears wrong.
I really don’t like ploughing an almost lone furrow and harping on about the more positive signs, but I am struck by the reaction on here by many when I point out some better news. Its almost as if some posters are frightened to even entertain the idea that some of the most pessimistic economic forecasts were wrong.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator Alec and Graham. I quote: “In the last two recessions unemployment was a lagging indicator peaking approximately 18 months after the recession officially ended”. There are some big variations, but umemployment is likely to rise until summer of 2011, especially in the midlands where vast numbers of marginal seats exist. This is even if we don’t get downgraded credit rating, double dip recession and other horrors. It might just be less of a lagging indicator (as has happened in the distant past) and not reach 3 million, but I wouldn’t put money on it. For example, house prices have been rising; how can that be sustained ? Interest rates are bound to rise with inflation at some stage; tax rises and spending cuts all will take money out of the system in 2010.
@ Alec – “If you were all to rewind your posts over the last 12 months and read what many people predicted for unemployment figures, and by how much unemployment would still be rising by the time of the GE, I think you would all be a bit embarrassed.”
Excuse me? I don’t think I’ve ever posted a word here about unemployment figures. If you want to rabbit on about comments on unemployment, kindly don’t preface your rabbiting with my sacred name. I thank you.
the vulgarity is indescribably boring.KH , AND ANYONE ELSE WHO CAN’T RESIST DISPLAYING THEIR MISERABLE LACK OF INTELLEXCT- there are plenty of sites where you can get it off your chest, you’re just lowering the tone here.
Marco, You are quite right to point to unemployment being a lagging economic indicator – though it is worth remembering that it lagged far less in the early 90s recession tnan in the early 80s and previous economic downturns.There was a concensus view then that we were likely to see a repeat of the pattern experienced in the 80s – unemployment was expected to continue rising until at least the mid 90s. Yet it didn’t happen!
With regard to the current position, the rise in unemployment has been decelerating now for quite some time as reflected in both measurements used – the claimant count and the higher ILO figures.There must now be a fair chance that we will go into the General Election campaign against a background of gently falling unemployment!
Andy’s Election General Election Forecast: End Oct 2009
OK – enough spurious speculating! Let’s try and put a forecast together for the current polls based on what has gone on before.
Here, a little later than usual, is the latest of my forecasts for next year’s GE using past data. I have collated opinion poll data for the 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections (courtesy of this site) and am looking at the variance of the Conservative lead in the polls to their actual lead at the election and also the Lib Dem share of the vote compared to the actual result.
Every month from now until the election I will publish my forecast and then we can see how accurate it is come next May.
The following data is from the previous elections. For each year the first number is the variance of the Tory poll lead (or defecit) versus their actual result. A positive number means that they did better in the election than in the poll and vice versa.
The second figure is the difference between the LD result and their poll result – again a positive figure means they did better in the election than in the poll.
For each month I have taken the last 6 polls.
So the results for end Oct are as follows:
Base Data:
1992 +8.50/+2.97; 1997 +10.00/+3.63;
2001 -3.17/+0.30; 2005 +3.83/+0.60
Average: +2.89/+1.88
Note that the first figure is a weighted average (50% 2005, 30% 2001, 15% 1997 and 5% 1992)
Most recent 6 polls show a Tory lead averaging 13.50 points and a LD poll rating of 18.3%
The average Tory lead has gone down by 1 point since last month.
Based on this assumption my prediction for the GE is a Tory Lead of 16 points and an LD poll rating of 20%.
Assuming that the three main parties poll 90% between them would give the following split between the main parties:
Conservative 43% : Labour 27% : Liberal Democrat 20%
Giving a Tory majority of 104 seats.
Forecasts to date
July-09 Con 43%: Lab 26%: LD 21% Con Maj 120 seats
Aug-09 Con 45%: Lab 25%: LD 21% Con Maj 174 seats
Sep-09 Con 40%: Lab 28%: LD 22% Con Maj 34 seats
Sep-09 (revised) Con 42%: Lab 29%: LD 19% Con Maj 70 seats
Oct-09 Con 43%: Lab 27%: LD 20% Con Maj 104 seats
Average to date Con 43%: Lab 27%: LD 21%
@James ‘The Sacred Named’ Ludlow – Please accept my humble apologies. My comments were general, but I forgot to separate them from a direct reply to you. My first sentence only was my specific response.
Dan
I did not support the decision to go to war in Iraq and I agree Brown was involved in the cabinet decision to go to war and is suffering to a egree baecause of this. But people are not forced to join the army anymore and anyone who has joined up in the last 10 – 15 years has known there was a good chance they would be sent to fight in some distant wartorn country. I have a relative who has recently left the amed forces who took the pragmatic view that if you’re prepared to carry a gun for a living you must expect someone to point one back at you at some point. I am a parent myself and this is any parents worst nightmare – but surely he knew what he was signing up to when he joined the army!
@ Alec – my sacred name and I graciously accept your humble apology.
@JOHN TT
So sorry to have indescribably bored you squire, it was a light hearted comment on the straw clutching currently popular with people on the left. But pardon me for breathing.
@Alan
I stand roughly where you stand on this issue, however I do feel Brown has been parsimonius in an uncharacteristic way, for years where defence is concerned. If you are going to send lads to fight either equipe correctly, or dont send them at all.
I still think that the faster the economy recovers (or at least gets out of intensive care) the better for the Tories. Partly for reasons that have been repeated a hundred times by people on here (the Tories were on the way to a landslide before the economic crisis) but also because the entire Labour narrative against the Tories on economic policy depends on the economy being in peril.
Both the parties agree that spending will need to be cut; the Tories want to do it as soon as possible, Labour after the recovery/the next election. Were the economy even superficially stabilised by June 2010, the Tories are logically in a better position and many people who equate government spending with economic growth will be more likely to consider voting Tory.
If I was in Labour HQ, I would hope that, come the next election, the economy is still in a bad state. It’s Labour’s best chance of winning.
I’d just rather you breathed somewhere else.
The only possible answers to your comments are rebuttals, and this isn’t the place for that. There is nothing in your comments that deals with how public polls are changing or staying the same, or anything to do with any reasons for any movement.
It may be that everrything you say is accurate and based on factual knowledge, but it’s just so boring to read endless partisan outpourings that appear to me anyway to lack any sort of rigorous forethought.
The vulgar insults signify your self-image more than anyone else’s.
Bill – You’re right that the public appear to recognise the need for cuts, and that all the independent observers agreee that the right time to do that will be when we start to grow again (but not too quickly).
The nub therefore is who will cut more safely, as the argument over to cut or to expand will be over.
The sooner we are out of recession, the sooner Brown will be saying “we got us out, now trust us to keep us out of a second dip”
There’s a bit more optimism around now – if it subsides before next May, I think that would be worse for Labour than if it grows.
@JOHN TT
Well you will be disapointed to know that I am going nowhere.
As for rebuttals, I have not received one yet, so what exactly are you talking about? My comment the other day in response to a poster displaying huge inverted snobbery and class envy was perhaps a little harsh on this site. However, if you think I am going to be be driven of this site by you, forget it.
KH – you mock yourself. I am not able to drive anyone out. My disappointmet is that vulgar , ad hominem insults are no longer moderated out as they used to be.
@Bill Patrick – I understand what you mean on the effect of recovery on the polls, but on balance I’m with John TT in that a better than expected economic performance will help Labour in my view. I think it already it – even the Express headline today strikes a remarkably cheery note (although I haven’t read beyond the headline). I suspect the key issue will be credibility. There is no question that Cameron/Osborne mocked Labour’s measures and attacked the level of spending, and also called for fast spending cuts way before most economist thought it appropriate. An improving, if fragile economy will permit Brown to claim credit for helping people through the worst and dredge up fears of a Tory government that made the wrong call coming in and spoiling a delicate situation. I don’t claim any certyainty to this, and on balance i would still expect the Tories to have a decent majority, but as I have said before, it is striking how ‘good’ some of the economic numbers are. This morning we’ve heard the second downgrade in the CML forecasts for home reposessions, and it looks like they will peak at half the gross number seen in the Major years – someone should be taking credit for that. Even yesterdays news on youth unemployment missed the fact that it has fallen fractionally for the last three months. It is interesting that the macro numbers (deficit levels, GDP) are poor, whereas the numbers that affect real people are significantly better.
@JOHNTT
I would also cast a bet that you are disappointed you cannot drive people out, you sound very much that type.
You’d be on my list
@alec
This question of an improvement in feelgood or at least don’t feel quite so bad, is helpful to the govenment. The Tories are well aware that they are trading on a negative and that they have not sealed the deal. If things do begin to look and feel somewhat better, the Tories will have to face a devil you know reaction from Labourites who have turned away and then turned back again. Like you I was amazed at the Express headline.
I would like to see a repeat of the polling question about who is best to manage the recovery. I seem to remember Cons were winning that when recovery was not visible , but I wonder if that will change when it is?
It will be a critical factor come the GE
It certainly looks like we will be bumping along the bottom. Even if GDP growth is not yet significant, the forward view will be up instead of down.
Brown’s problem will be how to counter ” do you want four more years of Brown?” in order to convince that Labour is best to manage the recovery , & in the context of market pressure to reduce debt ( see Fitch recently)
Cameron’s problem is how to disaggregate his plans for restructuring the role of the State ( as per his last speech) from the imperative of fiscal tightening which Osborne will emphasise, and Brown’s inevitable charge of “Tory cuts=slash & burn ”
I am afraid the result will be that voters will not get a reasoned & credible debate on the state of public finances .We will have to rely on independents for that-as usual!!
Colin – surely the question would be “do you want five more years of Brown”? Good question, that apart.
Anthony
I am really sorry but there are a lot of comments on this thread that are just partisan rants and futile slanging matches, and have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
John-yes , of course.
Probably a Freudian slip.
Perhaps “Do you want half of one more year of Brown and then a GE under a new voting system” might be a good question too.
I’m not related to “John”, and don’t understand how his point fits the comment policy either.
Some interesting analysis from the last election.
In Autumn 2004 the average result for the polls in Oct/Nov was a Labour lead of 6 points.
The last ten polls show a Tory lead of 14.5
At the 2005 election Labour achieved a lead of 3 points
We could take this to mean a position that the Tories do better in the election than in the polls OR that the incumbent party recovers before the election.
Even if the lead dropped by 3 points Tories would still be 11.5 points ahead
Translated into support it would go something like 40.5:29.5:20
This would still give a majority of at least 22 seats but probably closer to 35.
@ Andrew Myers
Interesting that your projections the other day and these figures, whilst not identical, are pretty close.
@Andrew Myers – I don’t think we can compare 2010 with the last two elections. 01 and 05 were in broadly stable growth periods and apart from the Iraq war in 05 there were not the big issues floating around now. I suspect that in other circumstances Labour would pick up strongly in the polls if the economy continues to progress. However, extending one party government up to a potential 18 years is naturally resisted by many, and the Afghan war is a real drain on voter mood that both make a strong Labour recovery difficult. There are signs that Labour is responding in the policy arena – immigration today, and I expect some fairly radical stuff on public service reform in an attempt to paint Cameron as withdrawing the state. I still think though that in polling terms Labour have a mountain to climb. Having said that, I have a hunch we will all be surprised quite how high up that mountain they get.
@ ALEC
“There are signs that Labour is responding in the policy arena – immigration today”
Indeed so Alec-but as for other areas , belatedly recognising the failure of a past policy which has been defended vigorously against Conservative opposition, only when it becomes an electoral liability looks like being pushed into an admission of failure.
I don’t see it as a vote winner at all. Those core Labour supporters who have championed immigration without limit will presumably see this as a backward step.
The votes lost to BNP will surely stay there as that party will merely say “we told you so-they cannot be trusted”.
You really have to have some semblance of core belief or the whole thing becomes a dutch auction .
There are only 2 possible outcomes at the next GE:
A Conservative victory
or,
A Hung Parliament
Whichever result, the Conservatives will end up with at least 1.5 to 2 million more votes than Labour.
@ Colin – “Those core Labour supporters who have championed immigration without limit will presumably see this as a backward step.”
I’m not sure about that. I know a few Labour supporters who work with immigrants (in a social work type sense) and they are of the view that immigration levels have been so high that it’s now problematic in a whole host of ways. Lots of people are pro-immigration but not pro- excessive and poorly controlled immigration.
@ALEC & COLIN
It will be taken as to little to late. For Brown to say at this stage
“immigration should be debated rationally without fear of accusations of racism” is about 12 years behind the times.
I am very sorry if this comment sounds partisan but I blame the Tories also for bowing down to this state of affairs. I think non BNP people who have a genuine concern about the subject will see this as a Labour wriggle to late in the day.
Howard’s 2005 “are you thinking what we’re thinking” campaign included ” It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration”.
He was castigated by Labour for it & it fed into “the nasty party” epithet.
More to the point only 8% of voters thought this was a priority.The Tories paid a price for looking ahead.
That’s only four years ago-and now the BNP have scared the living daylights out of Labour-& they ARE racist!
If “a week is a long time in politics”, four years is an eternity.
Oh but it was so nasty Colin. Those posters went up outside junior schools in inner-cities. The message was aimed at not just immigrants but black people too. It was nasty. The very phrase “are you thinking what we’re thinking” includes the tacit : “but are too polite to say out loud for fear of causing offence” It deserved to backfire.
Insidious slogans are not Cameron’s style, thank goodness.
As far as your last sentence goes, a lot of Labour supporters will be thinking that with some dread.
“Oh but it was so nasty Colin”
An opinion I do not share john.
“the tacit : “but are too polite to say out loud for fear of causing offence” ”
Oh no-not my interpretation at all john.
It was something like this :-” Are you too, quietly wondering about some of these things , but worried about saying so in case you are howled down as a right wing monster by Labour’s thought police?”
Re immigration-it is to his eternal credit, that it was Trevor Phillips who finally said don’t worry about worrying-it doesn’t make you a racist and they shouldn’t have said it does.
But now Labour actually do face the genie they so often tried to conjure up. And it’s a bit different trying to tell their own erstwhile supporters that they are racists.
Hence the little coughs behind the hand from messrs Johnson & Brown before they admit to being “maladroit” in the past.
I think it’s all quite delicious & a complete hoot.
Re immigration (for all the idiot BNP posters / UKIP posters) it’s worth noting that according to OECD figures only Mexico has more of its people in other people’s countries than the UK. Comparative figures are forgotten by the thick tabloids and their followers.
So, if you view immigrants as a great asset to a country– worth noting that according to Australian research immigrants use social welfare less, have children who overachieve, do the dirty jobs which locals refuse to do etc—then we are enriching other countries greatly or if you take the BNP / UKIP / Migration Watch paranoid position then we are stuffing up other countries far more than they are doing here.
The more immigrants the better. Why? If we are all related then there would be no more wars. The number one argument for the EU is simple-before it we had European wars. Since it we dont.
For heaven’s sake there is a points policy like Australia-who also take in about 100, 000 refugees a year-which is all that is needed. No country gets its training right and to attract migrants who can add value is important for the economy.
The reason we need migrants is simple–look at your population pyramid-until the recent EU migration we were averaging about 1.6 children per couple. To get an actual pyramid we need to attract outsiders–the reason the old age pension is going up is because govt looked at that factor. We need young migrants with lots of hard working children to enter jobs as otherwise we’ll just be a country full of old people.
Worth remembering countries such as Australia have 50% of their population either born overseas or have one parent born overseas. And we are not talking UK; Melbourne, for example, is the 2nd last Greek city after Athens.
Ignore the idiot BNP; they do not deserve the oxygen of publicity and are no better than the National Front or Mosley’s Nazi Blackshirts. We have always had an absurd minority (like other countries-such as the KKK In the USA) who rely on people on the bottom of the social class/ intellectual class who look for someone else to kick, not recognising that they are at the bottom because they deserve to be. Far better to pick on someone from another nationality / religion…
‘Worth remembering countries such as Australia have 50% of their population either born overseas or have one parent born overseas. And we are not talking UK; Melbourne, for example, is the 2nd last Greek city after Athens.’
Sorry, that should be largest…
I think that the immigration announcements today show that the BNP might be influencing the main parties in a similar way to how the Greens do. Neither has any chance of forming a government in the foreseeable future, but they scare the big parties by threatening to take away swing voters or even core support. This results in some movement towards the small party positions by the big parties.
“For heaven’s sake there is a points policy like Australia-”
It’s nothing like Australia.
The UK PBS places no limit on the number of immigrants allowed to settle in the UK.
The UK P B S applies to work-related migration and students only. According to Government figures, these categories accounted for just 20% of all entry visas issued in 2008-9
The Australian system starts with a numerical limit on the number of immigrants who will be allowed to settle, decided in the light of political and economic circumstances: immigrants are then selected by means of its points based system.
The UK system applies only to work related migration (and students); it is not intended to limit that migration in any way: there is no cap on numbers.
There are massive admin problems with PBS-it’s a shambles -try to find Nicky Cambell BBC phone in prog-some time last week. Hear it from the people who work in the Border Agency.-broadly speaking just like the Prison Service ( which the phone in was actually about)-ie Fiddle the figures, tick box, meet target, keep them happy & off my back.
@ Jack – I really don’t see what “comparative figures” have to do with anything, for the simple reason that they don’t compare like with like. If a million or so elderly Brits retire to Spain to stretch their pensions and savings out in the sunshine, as they are entitled to do under EU law, there isn’t some cosmic law which requires Britain to allow in 2 million migrants from outside the EU to draw benefits or work in minimum wage jobs. Moreover, individual nations should be free to decide their own immigration policies on the basis of what sorts of society they want to be and what they feel comfortable with. Patently, a majority of Britons does not feel comfortable with the extraordinarily high levels of immigration we’ve experienced over the last decade. Poll after poll tells us this and it’s about time our government – which is supposed to represent us, not to dictate to us – reflected that fact in its policies.
Australia is quite unlike Britain – Aboriginal people aside, its population entirely consists of relatively recent immigrants. And I don’t think its original inhabitants are actually too pleased about that, are they?
The pensions argument is a spurious one. Yes, we’re in for a decade or two of an age-heavy population due to the baby-boomers hitting their dotage. But they’ll die off over a couple of decades so the problem – if it really is such anyway – will be decreasing all the time and will be non-existent within 20 years.
I appreciate that you disagree on immigration but yours is a minority viewpoint. Most people want less immigration. Not “none”, but less. And that’s actually fine. I don’t know how this idea that unless a population consists of every ethnicity under the sun in huge numbers that population is somehow wicked. It’s a ludicrous notion.
Labour’s policies on immigration were scandalous. They purposefully increased immigration to rub the tories noses in it. And the outcome of their foolish policy was to create the BNP.
The home office also wouldn’t allow papers to be published that warned of the effects of massive immigration.
Having trust with labour in immigration would be like trusting Bush with iraq.
I don’t want labour anywhere near immigration policies. They have done enough damage and they will never have the answers for the right solutions because they are so ideologically driven when it comes to immigration. They flooded the country with immigrants to rub the tories noses in it. This is what a former govt official that worked with jack straw admitted. Jack straw still holds the justice minister position in the labour govt. If labour wins the next election straw will still have power in the immigration debate. Straw still calls people racists who have a different viewpoint as his.
Tories also have to win an outright majority. Brown with not give up power if the tories have more seats but in a hung parliament. I read an article that stated in that position Brown could still keep power.
To win 326 seats the tories need a double digit lead if they are at 39 percent. The new poll that shows tories at 39 and Labour at 29 has the tories with a majority of two. This just shows how hard of a task the tories have. If the tories get 42 and labour gets 33 and lib dem 18 the tories still only have a majority of 4.
Tories at 38 and Labour at 32 and Lib dems at 18 would mean tories 289 seats and labour 286 seats.
What I didn’t get was that I read Brown didn’t have to give up power if tories couldn’t form a majority.
Even a small tory majority wouldn’t be that bad because with some northern ireland mp’s not voting a very small majority would be somewhat workable. The number of seats to swing still is a huge task. Going from 214 in the new boundaries to 326 is a huge swing. I don’t know how pundits think the tories have such a great advantage. I think just to get to 300 seats from where they are now would be a great effort and that would leave them still 26 short of a majority.
@King Harold & others – apologies, but I didn’t intend to stir up a debate on immigration. I merely intended to note that Labour are beginning to address some key policy issues rather than appear like rabbits in the headlights. I certainly didn’t wish anyone to infer from that whether or not I supported the policy announcement or their record on these issues.
Glasgow by election – bigger result than expected for Labour and an interesting result? I don’t pretend to know much about Scottish politics, but maybe this fits with the idea of a Labour recovery north of the border noted in an earlier poll?
Re: Glasgow result – I don’t know about “interesting” or “bigger results than expected”. It seemed entirely predictable to me. It’s one of the safest of safe Labour seats and I think Labour would only have lost or got a kicking in terms of scraping in there if it was polling in the teens in the national polls. The Guardian is bigging it up as a great victory but I don’t really see it. It’s the equivalent of claiming that an elderly athlete still has a shot at an Olympic gold just because he managed to walk to the corner shop without falling on his behind.
The surprisingly large margin by which Labour won yesterday’s by-election in Glasgow North East indicates that the SNP surge in Scotland is starting to melt away, and that Labour is, as Alec’s post hints at, experiencing a recovery North of the Border, certainly at least in Westminster Parliamentary Election’s.
Alex Salmond and the SNP, given their victory in the Glasgow East by-election and their failure to win Glenrothes and now Glasgow North East has been dealt a severe blow, as has their target of winning 20 Westminster Parliamentary seats at next years General Election.
The margin of victory for Labour last night will also be worrying news for David Cameron’s Conservatives given, up until now, the recent history of decline support for Labour and a surge for the SNP.
A good night for Labour, and a bad one for the SNP and the Conservatives.
I forgot to add in my last comment that the socio-economic profile of Glasgow North East is almost identical to that of Glasgow East which the SNP gained on 24th July last year.
In that election the SNP vote increased by 26.1% while the Labour vote collapsed by 19.0%.
However, in yesterday’s Glasgow North East by-election the Labour vote increased by 6% and the SNP by 2%.
The Conservatives were up by 5.2% but that was only because, due to the observation of Parliamentary protocol by them and the other main political party’s in England, they did not put up a candidate against the Speaker of the Commons, Micheal Martin who won in 2005.
@ Dan
Your note of caution on the electoral mountain Cons have to climb for a decent majority is instructive & apposite.
All Con supporters would do well to heed it-not least loose cannon ,”blokey” Ken Clarke, who appears to think it’s in the bag. He is going to be a problem for Cameron at some point in the future.
@Alec
Think nothing of it dear boy. Re Glasgow, yes my guess was miles out. I think it shows the political DNA up there is very different to England.
@Dan & Colin – I also agree. There has been a general assumption that it’s in the bag and some hear repearedly state that Labour support will continue to fall, without any real reason other than personal belief. I’ve said for a long time that I think it will b closer than most expect, in part due to amount of ground the Tories need to make up.
@Dan
I seem to remember Heath trying to do a deal with Thorpes Libs
in 74. The deal did not work out, even though the Libs loved Heath to bits. Old Ted tried hard to hang in there but could’nt. The largest party leader (if no deals are done) gets the call from Her Majesty. After 12 years in power, if the public reject you even by 5 or 6 seats, the message is clear. By the way, what new poll shows Tories 39 Labour 29?
@DAN COLIN & ALEC
All this is true, however the Tories know it big style. I did not attend their conference but I am told the message of “a long way to go” was played and played.
@JACK
To compare Australia with Britain is absolute apples and pears.
A) There is a tiny difference in size
B) When Australia was first colonised Britain was already well into its march towards wealth and Empire.
C) When I was a school boy, more people lived in London than in Australia.
We dont need more people.
James Thurston,
You could be right. But, Glasgow is not the place to judge something like that. That the SNP won one by-election there is a suprise.
The West of Scotland is a strange, strange place in politics. Crooks and corruption. Keep in mind the West of Scotland is home to nearly half the Scottish population – when the SNP won Holyrood, it was because of big shifts in support outside of Glasgow rather than inside it. Labour’s policy has been to fortify its position there with the whole “SNP does not look after Glasgow” slogan. Wait and see what happens elsewhere.
@JAMES THURSTON
Please dont think I am straw clutching, but what implication do you read into the very low turn out of 33%. Surely this takes a tidy bit of shine of off this “magnificent Labour victory”.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the minds of some people as to what happens in the event of a Hung Parliament.In particular , many appear to believe that the leader of the largest party would be invited to form a Government. This is not so!
If such a scenario arsises the initial advantage lies with the incumbent – whether now the largest or second largest party – who can simply decide to carry on and try and get a Queens Speech through the Commons. This might be achieved via a formal coalition with another party or – probably more likely – an agreed programme supported by one or more of the smaller parties.Only in the event of the incumbent having failed to do this would he resign – and only then would the Queen become involved by inviting another party leader to try to form an administration.
I think the Glasgow result went as expected, as labour was 1-5 with the bookies. Although they will be at least relieved. Very bad result for SNP I should think. I was surprised that the Tories outscored Lib Dems. I wonder whether that reflects certain local traits or whether there is a drop in Lib dem support generally in Scotland.
I think we need another opinion poll asap to put this result into context.
@King Harold – I understand your point about the low turnout – I think this was the lowest ever Scottish by election turnout? However, that could easily cut both ways. Usually, the incumbent party is hammered in by elections with low turnout based on their own supporters staying at home being one of the main mechanisms for some stunning percentage swings. This has been observed over many by elections regardless of which party is in power. The commonly held view up until this morning was that Labour would be shaken by a low turnout. Well, we’ve had it, and Labour have done very well. Perhaps if turnout had been 50% it would have been even better for them?
As I said earlier, I’m no expert on Glasgow politics, but if this is a sign that Labour can hold 10 or 15 more seats north of the border than people thought last summer it is very good news for them. It may also be a lesson to all those who said Labour were finished to appreciate that there are solid and concentrated areas of Labour support that are likely to deliver 200+ seats for them even on a dire GE night.
I don’t know what the polling says, and while I’m aware the position in Wales appears much worse for Labour I would be interested if this boost for labour is a peculiar Scottish effect or whether other core areas in England are also responding?
@Graham
The Heath/Wilson affair I mention above is the only example in my lifetime. Pre war the National Govenment arrangement seems so removed from present circumstances that I cannot see much connection. Where might Brown find support to keep a larger Tory party out of office do you suppose?
KH. My own view – though I am aware that others disagree – is that only the Unionists from Northern Ireland can be relied upon to give support to a minority Tory Government.. This would imply that Cameron needs something in the order of 312 seats to form a minority administration.
As I believe I said in a post on Scottish politics in another thread, the Lib Dems are suffering the worst of any party and this result is confirmation of that.
For the party that took Dunfermline East in a stunning by-election victory to come sixth -SIXTH- behind the BNP and Solidarity is nothing short of disastrous. Whatever happened to the LD’s infamous by-election machine.
There has been a lot of talk about how this result indicates Labour holdig various numbers of seats north of the border and thus keeping them in contention.
What do the good patrons of this blog consider Glasgow North-=East to indicate about the Lib Dem chances of holdig their seats in Scotland?
Beans:
You are certainly correct. Most of the SNP’s advance is because they are proactive in many rural and cultural issues which are not at all important in this constituency. If you were to judge from what Labour and Conservatives have to say, you would think that hunting was the only rural issue, whereas it probably isn’t in the top 20.
That must be the most important of four reasons why the LibDems are doing badly in Scotland. The next most important reason is that , with the SNP in higher profile because it is in Government in the SP, anti-Lab/Con/Con+Lab voters see the SNP as the Best Buy.
A lacklustre performance in the SP where they are no longer in coalition “punching above their weight” doesn’t help and nor does the party’s rejection of two popular Scottish leaders.
The lesson from that is that those who vote for a party because they consider it the least worst, have no party loyalty whatever. The LibDems in England, and the SNP in Scotland need to be alert to the risks of losing such support.
That being so it is no surprise that the Conservatives were ahead of the LibDems, for even in Glasgow there is a residual Unionist and Conservative vote for the Conservative and Unionist party. That they
had not many more votes than the BNP would be something that they should not be concerned about in a constituency where both parties should be content with 1.000 votes.
In that respect both the BNP and the Cons should note that the combined Socialist vote was not so far behind, and probably would have been much more had it not been for legal issues. By the time of the general election these issues might be resolved, but even so in one of the most disadvantaged of Glasgow constituencies the BNP, the Socialists and the Conservatives are irrelevant, and the LibDems not just squeezed by the SNP but squashed flat.
The result says little about the prospect for any of the four main parties in Scotland as a whole, and nothing at all which would inform us about Labour prospects in England. It says that everything is normal here, but that Labour would do well to focus on finding out what went wrong in Glasgow East and learn the lessons from that.
The SNP are making steady progress among the Picts and that they have not overturned a huge majority in Red Clydeside is not a sign that this will not continue. For the voter who is unimpressed by both the parties of UK government, they are still the best option.
The SNP will not win as many as 20 seats in the general election. Ten would be more likely. That has not changed, and even if they won 50 Glasgow North would not be one of them.
Labour should not take much comfort from that, because the fact that an SNP breakthrough will not occur at the next election will provide false comfort and draw attention away from the likely outcome that the SNP will have converted many third place positions to winnable marginals, and have a majority of the popular vote.
If that happens, it will be very bad for Labour if they are in opposition.
Labour will be in disarray and in financial difficulties . They will take Scotland for granted, thinking their supremacy there is secure.
An incoming Conservative goverment may seek to improve its majority in as little as three and a half years when Labour will not be able to afford another election.
Current trends favouring the SNP may well continue. The Conservative government could persuade large numbers of Labour supporters to back the SNP. (That’s something they can do so much better than the SNP).
At that point, a relatively small Lab to SNP swing will be the FPTP tipping point, and the SNP will win many more seats far beyond their share, on a majority of the popular vote, just as Labour have had for decades.
The SNP will be disappointed, by this result but just because they had a miraculous win in Glasgow East, it doen’t mean they should expect to make a habit of it. The whole point about miracles is that they don’t happen often.
So Labour won an election in Glasgow. Is the Pope still a Catholic?
Basically their chances are poor for the same reason LibDems don’t tend to stay around in England – they can’t do government. Compare and contrast the LibDems in Aberdeen and Edinburgh on school closures with the Labour Party in Glasgow.
A number of people have mentioned media accounts of Labour immigration policy in 2001 etc. Before everyone gets hot under the collar perhaps they should read the original report which was circulated as a discussion paper at the time. It is available at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf
Ralph
33% turnout? That makes any mathematical predictions based on this totally invalid. So Labour holds a seat they have always held. Whoopee…
@JOHN B DICK
On a different tack I think perhaps the real winners in Glasgow were the Tories. And not just because of their fiesty wee women.
Brown will hand off any challenges as a result of this result, this will suit Cameron down to the ground. Any waivering about giving Johnson or Milliband a chance is squashed.
Its just James Gordon Brown he has to beat.
It was suggested above that Conservative bloggers now realistically saw only four gains in Scotland.
That should really be one more-than-likely gain and three possibles. Those with Local knowlege will know best, but to gain all three would require the Conservatives to be very lucky in their choice of good candidates and positioning on local issues, and the Conservatives aren’t exactly spoilt for choice in the sellection of candidates in Scotland when they have field candidates in every seat.
While it would be rash to say that they will win only one additional seat, it is also unlikely that they will win all four.
One they won’t win is Argyll, because if the LibDem loses enough votes to fall below the Conservative (and that is by no means certain) the way these voted split is crucial and the third placed SNP may well win. I wouldn’t bet on the winner, but the Conservative will most likely still be in second place, and is unlikely to be third. Labour won’t be lower than fourth place.
My analysis above is that many former LibDem voters who never had any loyalty to the party, now see the SNP as the best third party choice. If that is so, in this, the least rural of the highland LibDem incumbencies, most LibDem votes lost will break in favour of the SNP rather than the Cons.
If there is any change at all, and that’s by no means certain, it won’t be a Con gain, and Argyll is probably one of the four seats Conservatives expect to win. (Another may be an SNP marginal and that’s improbable)
Of course, complications of that sort and local conditions may work in the Conservatives favour in other target seats, and whether I am right about Argyll or not, they may very well win one, or even two of them but it’s very optimistic to count all four chickens before they are hatched.
I’m predicting that the number of seats in Scotland which change hands does not exceed ten, and that Labour’s net losses will be no more than six. Neither the SNP nor the Conservatives will lose any that they curretly hold.
I’ve suggested above why the SNP would be wrong to expect a big breakthrough this time and also why they will not be disappointed if they have a little more patience.
Those who are calculating the size of the Conservative majority over Labour should do so without assuming that the scale of Labour losses in England will be replicated in Scotland, albeit to the SNP’s advantage rather than the Conservatives.
The resilience of Labours huge majorities in the West of Scotland is nothing new and nor is the FPTP dynamic. The SNP’s time may yet come, it’s just not this time, and a Conservative government will help if it is as ignorant about Scottish sensibilities as the last one.
Another possibility is that anti-EU obsessives and English Nationalists amongst the Conservative party might (quite mistakenly) assume that the substantial number of Labour MPs could never be reduced by either the SNP or Scottish Conservatives, and help the SNP have what it wants most of all.
They would be wrong to think that, but it wouldn’t be the first time they were wrong.
John B Dick
An interesting analysis, particularly on Tory gains. However, there was a time when Tories held alot of seats in Scotland. The Thatcher years changed that. Even from England I can see that the Tories in Scotland have rebranded as the Scottish Tories.
Can you see a time (not in the next couple of elections) when say a third of MPs in Scotland are Tory?
Can you see a time (not in the next couple of elections) when say a third of MPs in Scotland are Tory?
I personally doubt it. You should have a look at the polling data from Yougov, the Tory vote is distinguishable from mainstream voters. This is especially true for views on the Scottish Parliament. If you’re a Tory, the silver lining is that their voters seem fairly entrenched in their views (i.e. they are unlikely to vote for anyone else). The other side of the coin, if you take John’s example of Argyll, I would have thought they may pick up the seat only if the Lib Dem AND SNP vote is split fairly evenly (I do not suspect they will see a rush of voters suddenly voting conservative). The net effect being, Tories will pick up seats only where the anti-conservative sentiment (i.e. SNP voters voting to keep the Tories out) is the weakest.
The question you have to ask is, where will voters come from for this Tory revival? A problem as I see it is that Labour seem to portray themselves quite well as a West of Scotland party in Scotland. The problem is that SNP-LibDem-Conservative are all vying for the seats outside of Glasgow. A modest Tory recovery will only win a couple of seats. A recovery you are talking about would result in the Tories taking everything from SNP/LibDem – which I cannot see happening. Labour know that if they keep Glasgow and the West, they will always be a powerful force in Scotland (which I should not lament so much (sorry James)).
Davey
Yes, but only under independence if the SNP fragments.
I can see a time two elections away or maybe only two years away when they can be in coalition with the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.
Bavarianisation (or independence) and rebranding as the responsible party of the thinking Scottish right (as compared with the recent positioning as the Thatcherite Nasty Party ignorant of anything on this side of the border) is what they need.
They are already moving in that direction. Notwithstanding a few lapses, under Ms Goldie they are smarter operators in a minority government situation than the LibDems.
There are economic rightwingers amongst the SNP whom they could cosy up to up after independence, when they would be a purely Scottish party.
To reach the former position when Scottish Conservatives had the majority of the popular vote (the only party in any part of the UK to do so) they would similar opponents, and that is inconcievable.
Labour then was an association of class warriors and a strong Roman Catholic base. The middle class, and those who aspired to be middle class, together with a handful of rabid working class protestants, found it impossible to identify with Labour even if a Labour government would have been in their narrow economic interests.
The LibDems had yet to build support at a local level. If one should reach a better third place in a general election than a barely saved deposit, commentators would look for a reason why they should come back from the dead and point to an old National Liberal history in the constituency.
The large heavy industry employer with unionised Labour is gone altogether but so too have the One Nation Conservatives who were the backbone of the party. Fundamentalist free marketeers and English nationalists have repelled some, but most have just died off, and their class solidarity is no longer relevant because of the Americanisation of culture.
Sectarianism in Schools remains, but religion is not what it was either.
Davey
Could I see the Socialists in Scotland winning a third of the seats? Same answer:
“Yes, but only under independence if the SNP fragments.” … and if Labour implodes.
For the moment, the Socialists are spending more time with their lawyers. They would need to be united, and give up their propensity for a truly Presyterian level of schism. That would be against all experience.
The would also have to give up another bad habit too.
Socialists use elections campaigns (because they have few other opportunities) to preach their faith, instead of arguing for their policies showing how they would work.
Conservatives do this too, as Teresa May did the other day. If you are preaching to the converted it is OK to say that unrestricted free financial markets will create vast riches for a few, but Hey! that’s OK because they will flash their money about and the person who cuts their hair will get £100 a time.
Or the Nationalists will tell you that an independent Scotland will be a land flowing with milk and honey, and it will be organic milk and the honey will be low GI and good for diabetics … or the Greens will fix Global warming in three weeks.
In six (at least) party PR Scotland any party which is going to form a government is going to need a lot of support from those who do not accept the whole credo of the party (or any other party). A party with wide support cannot be a sect, but a broad church.
So you can’t argue from the premise that the basic tenets of the faith are accepted by all rational people and that it only needs to interpreted to show that the policy is bound to work. You have to first persuade voters that the policy is worth a try, wait till they realise for themselves that it does indeed work, and then explain why it worked because of general principles.
Socialists usually try to start at the wrong end.
Can I see Labour winning a third of the seats in Scotland two or three elections from now?
That’s the real issue, and a very different answer.
NewLabour, no. Old Labour: same answer as for Conservative.
They need at least Bavarianisation. Independence for the Scottish Labour party, or independence for Scotland, it doesn’t matter. Either will do.
The SNP claim, with some justice, that the other three large parties are controlled from London and this is even more true of Labour than the others.