Labour increase in new ICM poll
ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian is now available here. The topline figures with changes from the previous ICM poll at the end of October are CON 42%(nc), LAB 29%(+4), LDEM 19%(-2).
The Conservatives are unchanged but there is a significant boost for Labour at the expense of the Lib Dems and others (Others are collectively on 10%, one of their lowest scores in any poll since the expenses scandal broke. Certainly there is no echo of ComRes’s big increase for minor parties here. The Greens, UKIP and the BNP are all on 2%).
This is the first poll since the Glasgow North East by-election and I’m sure some will attribute the boost in Labour’s support to that, certainly it is one of their better poll ratings in recent months. Personally I think there is also something of a reversion to the mean here after some outliers – as I’ve said a couple of times in recent weeks, there was no obvious methodological reason for the great big gap between Populus showing a 10 point Tory lead and ICM showing a 17 point lead, suggesting that all along the real figure was somewhere inbetween.
The Guardian’s coverage is rather pessimistic for Labour, focusing on the other questions in the poll which dealt with perceptions of Brown and Cameron’s character. The full details are not there yet, but David Cameron apparently leads Brown by 16 points on having what it takes to be a good Prime Minister, by 33 points on having changed his party for the better and 11 points on being decisive, once upon a time one of Gordon Brown’s strengths.
42% of people would be pleased or excited if David Cameron won the next election, with 36% either angry or disappointed. The figures for Gordon Brown were 27% pleased/excited and 53% angry or disappointed. The Guardian’s interpretation is that this shows there is more to the Conservative lead than just Labour unpopularity. I’m not so sure, after all, one could be pleased about a Conservative victory because it would mean Labour had lost!
Filed under: ICM, Voting Intention
I have to admit, I’m perplexed by the Guardian coverage. For a left wing paper.
It even, dare I say it, looks like it’s been spun a bit, to help Cameron.
They barely mention the Labour gains, and instead focus totally on minor questions such as “excitebility”.
They constantly compare the polling to Labour’s lead in 1996, even though Blair had double digit leads in nearly all polls at this time.
I hate to say this, but I have read that even the Labour supporting papers, are starting to turn their backs on Labour, to carry favour with a new PM in the next 5 years.
It seems to me, seriously, that this article has had the Coulson treatment, and has been spun to make it favourable to Cameron.
Surely the headline is “Tories lose ground to Labour”.
There’s is “Cameron closing deal “.
Bearing in mind he’s probably lost about 2-3 points in the last month on a general poll! Nuff said
SNP + Plaid Cymru = 4%
Tremendous poll for us. Especially as the fieldwork was taken just after the disappointingly large Lab maj at Glasgow NE.
We only got 2.1% (1.5& + 0.6%) at the last UK GE in 2005.
This will put real stride back into the SNP activist and supporter base.
Chris – as Anthony says in his summary, Cameron probably hasn’t lost ground in the last month and Labour haven’t gained. The 17 point ICM leads were probably an over-estimate and the 10 point leads by Populus were too narrow. This poll is simply right in the middle of where all the polls have been for months. The true headline should be “No Change – Cameron one month closer to Victory”
Labour seem to be starting their fight back. I do think its all to play for. By no means are the Tories home and dry.
Not sure what positive spin can be put when even a 4 per cent jump in Labour’s percentage gets them only just above their disastrous 27.6 in 1983
They’ll need to continue inproving substantially to prevent a Tory majority – and I cannot see that happening unless something major happens
Stuart Dickson
The trouble with that is that the Scots and Welsh respondents aren’t matched to the Scots and Welsh demographics.
British polls are precisely that and, as with everything else, take no account of any other political systems than that which operates in England.
All these British polls which report the results for SNP/PC are, at best, careless/ignorant.
And one also has to remember that this is a poll that takes in all regions so if we assume that labour is doing better in scotland hence the glasgow by election result then that will distort the true picture of labour elsewhere in England so I would epxect the Tories to be doing better than this overall % in this poll, more like 43/27/18 and it will be in England where the election will be won or lost
Plus weve been here before not that long ago with labour reaching 29 ish and it didnt take that long for it to drop back again.
Eh I thought yougov just published a poll on Sunday so I cant see why this is the first poll since Glasgow NE????
AMW,
Most of the fieldwork for both Sunday polls was carried out before the result of the byelection was known!
Sorry to do this to you again Anthony, but it seems as though you have the wrong figures again. The change on last month’s ICM/Guardian poll are Con-2, Lab+2, LD+1.
Graham cheers for that info. Still not much of a bounce for GB.!!
CLAD – changes are from the most recent ICM poll, which was for the Sunday Telegraph (the methodologies used are identical).
Quite good news for Labour, but it won’t save them. One curious thing is that so many people still stick to the idea that the Tories cannot get an overall majority unless they lead Labour by at least 10%. Recently both Messrs Oborne and Rees-Mogg have said so. By comparison Labour in the actual election of 2005 got a majority of 67 with a tiny 3% lead over the Tories (35% to 32%). Yet apart from the small matter of Labour always gaining slightly from the move of voters into suburbia, there is nothing fixed about Labour’s apparently huge advantage in recent elections. I believe it was caused by the behaviour of Lib Dem voters in particular, but also the floating voters and ‘others’ in voting against the Tories rather than against Labour. All the evidence is that this has now been entirely reversed: first, polling in the marginals where the Tories lead Labour by 2 to 1; and second, election forecasting methodologies more sophisticated than the old unified national swing indicate this. Scotland seems to be stuck in the old routine, and will return an exaggerated number of Labour MPs. But as for England and Wales, I reckon the Tories only need a 4% lead over Labour on election day (let us say 36% – 32%) to gain a small overall majority. Their current lead of 13% will deliver a landslide victory.
Marco:
I’m not sure about that. The new boundaries are already 10 years out of date and that means Labour will have to win a lot less votes per seat than the Conservatives.
Perhaps the Guardian spin is the Toynbee (and I am sure Brown hating White) agenda being pushed.
That is replacing Brown with someone else.
I think Marco is right about the cons not needing 10% but 4% would not be enough. Reckon 6% (GB only) for small majority, 8% for decent, 10% large and if the lead holds at 13-14% a landslide with Labour returning less than 200 seats.
The Guardian’s interpretation of the emotions question is bizarre, and I think the headline may be more to do with its columnists recent attempts to encourage another challenge on Brown.
Pleased/excited appears to be entirely in line with the voting intension figures (I would be interested to see a breakdown of this by voting intention – anything other than almost exact correlation would be extremely strange indeed!)
It seems to show what most people have already suggested – that there is more anti-government sentiment that there there is anti-Con sentiment, but this isn’t entirely surprising given where the main poll figures are.
Andy Stidwill
“The new boundaries are already 10 years out of date”.
Yet another argument for not trying to pretend that there is a single political system in GB. The Scots Westminster constituencies were redrawn for 2005.
It really makes little sense to try to predict the composition of the UK Parliament as if it were a single system. Far more sensible to aggregate separate polling in the 3 nations and the province.
@Stuart Dickson – “This will put real stride back into the SNP activist and supporter base”. It’s what I love about us poll watchers – we can always find something positive to say! Four days after the Nats worst by election for 30 years, but life’s OK – the polls say so.
I don’t think the ‘change’ in this poll is significant, but as AW says probably suggests the 17% leads were outliers, as in all probability were the 10% leads. However, I was given the verbals by a few people last week after I suggested Labour had a better weeks coverage, and we should hold our collective breaths for a little longer just in case this has created a minor Labour rally. The big question remains whether the economy will improve to any great extent and if it does whether Labour has any credibilty in voters minds to get the credit. The PoliticsHome website is reporting their insiders poll as showing a belief that the GE result will be closer than previously thought, but it still points to a good Tory win.
“They constantly compare the polling to Labour’s lead in 1996, even though Blair had double digit leads in nearly all polls at this time.”
For the 75648607th time – with the exception of ICM, polling methodology was a lot different and overestimating Labour support prior to 1997. It’s amazing the number of times people seem to ignore this no matter how often it is pointed out.
@Richard
ICM also showed Labour above 50 in the 1995/96 period, albeit never by as much as the other pollsters.
Cameron appears to be single-handedly dismantling the Tory Party – I expect the Guardian are pretty pleased at that.
ICM’s average for the last 3 polls: Con 42.6 Lab 27 Lib Dems 19.3
Yougov’s average for the last 3 polls: Cons 41 Lab 27.3 Lib Dems 17
Comres’s average for the last 3 polls: Con 39.6 Lab 27.3 Lib Dems 18
The agreement on Labour’s position is so striking that we can say with a lot of confidence that they are on 27%
The average of the 9 polls show Con 41 and Lib Dems 18 and is thus by far the safest assumption of their position.
This gives a 14 point lead of the Cons over Lab. For Lab it gives a 9 point lead over the Lib Dems.
The evidence from the intention figures, of course, don’t tell the whole the story. How the Guardian has protrayed all the figures suggests that they too recognise the demise of this Labour government.
It seems that from every quarter there is the recognition that we have now a ‘fag end government’, to repeat an expression used of the last days of the Tory government under Major.
Labour are now closer to the Lib Dems than they are to the Tories. The danger that they could come in third is actually greater than their chance that they will come in first (in terms of percentage of votes).
Oh Simon Cowell did come to Brown’s defence saying Luie shouldn’t criticise ‘our’ PM. But the following week he gave Jedward another chance. Clearly he has a soft spot the talentless (-:
Can we assume those people not quoted as either for or against are ambivialent? If so figures come out as:
Cons; Positive 42% Not fussed 22% Negative 36%
Lab: Positive 27% Not Fussed 20% Negative 53%
This poll gives Cons 42%, Lab 29% Lib Dems/Others 29%. Assuming the figures for pleased/excited and angry/disapointed breaks down on obvious party lines:
Of these all the Cons are positive about a Con victory and all the Labs are horrified and 7/29 of the Lib/Others are horrified and 22/29 are presumably ambivialent.
On the other hand although almost all the Labs are positive about a Lab victory 2/29 are actually not bothered at all if they win, with all the Cons and 11/29 of Libs/Others horrified and 18/29 ambivalent.
Seems to reinforce the idea that the Conservative vote aren’t exactly holding their nose in disgust at the idea. Also that there is a good majority who at least don’t mind the prospect of a Conservative government. I would suggest this is a serious improvement on before the last election. It also might spell problems for any Labour attempts at negative campaigning, which seems to be what they’re relying on more and more these days.
Also there’s an actual majority that want to get rid of Labour.
Both of these things would seem to be interesting, especially in the light of possible tactical voting at the next election. Seems to indicate the majority of this could be anti-Labour in focus. Unlike possibly at previous elections.
(Sorry for the two posts)
OldNat:
I’ve just checked and the current Scottish constituencies are based on electorates from June 2001, which is only 16 months later than the date when the new English seats’ electorates is based (February 2000). So the Scottish seats are almost as “old” as the English seats which haven’t been fought yet. The only difference of course is that the Scottish seats have already been used once in 2005.
It’s a bit weird that the Scottish seats are based on 2001 numbers and have already been used in an election, but the English seats which are actually based on figures from a year earlier haven’t been used at all yet.
Not a very exciting poll insofar as it’s in line with the general picture over the last year or more – namely, a Tory lead of 13 or 14 points.
Cameron’s also been substantially ahead in the leadership stakes for quite a while so nothing extraordinary there either.
The Guardian’s gloomy headlines reflect Labour’s plight – there’s little to be optimistic about here for Labour, just a small rise within the margin of error that doesn’t make any real difference to the likelihood of a Tory win with a solid working majority. The Guardian may hope to scare some disaffected Labour voters back into the Labour fold or it may be seeking to further encourage a coup against Brown. I don’t see the latter happening though. It would have happened by now, if it was going to, though there’s a chance Brown may crack up altogether and prompt such a move.
Great fun all this guessing game but people close to me who never vote Conservative really do believe that Labour are doomed to a wipeout especially in large swathes of England and basically deserve everything they get.
If you look more closely at the Marginals and also the many Council By-elections week after week Labour don’t stand a cat in hells chance next May.
My prediction update is:
Con ~ 40-43
Lab ~ 25-27
LD ~ 18-20
Even if you take the worst case scenario with Con-40 Lab-27 LD-20 it would still give David Cameron a very large working majority.
This poll tells a familiar story and highlights labours fate.
In both Glasgow NE and Glenrothes labour fought a local camapign blaming the SNP for local problems and with a well know local candidate who distanced himself not only from Brown but also from politicians in general.
That can’t work in a general election where people will be deciding on the next government and the next primeminister. Labour can’t fight a campaign pretending that they aren’t Labour and Brown isn’t their leader.
A lot of people put the SNP win in 2007 down to a combination of “time for change” and “Alex Salmond for first Minister” and i for one think there is a fair degree of truth in that.
there is a lot more to the sNP and our government than that but those to campaign themes contributed greatly to our victory.
right now the Tories seem to be doing more or less the same thing building their campaign of “DC for PM” and “For Britains Sake Just Go”. That is a solid strategy and probably a winning one and they would probably do well to avoid labour attempts to flush them out and be more detailed.
For the Tories the best line over the comming monthes is probably to keep asking the electorate questions like,
“Why Give Them Another Chance?” ” isn’t Enough Enough” “How Many More Mistakes?”
I should i suppose remind people that I dislike the Tories intensely and I for onre,even if it is good for the SNP, don’t want to see Cameron in No 10.
But this post isn’t about what I want its about what the polls are telling us and how the parties should respond to that. As for advice for labour…
“Go back to your Constituencies and pack your bags…..”
Peter.
OLDNAT:
You suggest that Conservative government would be good for the SNP. Do you mean
1 clumsy and ignorant “British” rhetoric?
2 Opportunities for the SNP to say they were being obstructed and cheated of funding?
3 Co-operation because my enemy’s enemy is my friend?
4 Independence would finish off Labour as a party of r-UK Government?
OldNat:
“It really makes little sense to try to predict the composition of the UK Parliament as if it were a single system.”
Would you agree that this is also true within Scotland?
Red Clydeside doesn’t vote for the Nats but the Picts do.
Queen’s Speech coming up next. I think many of you may agree that this is one of the last chances to kickstart the motor for Labour. I have no doubt that it will be a populist election-fighting agenda.
We are all aware of public apathy and discontent with Labour . More particularly, in the Labour activist ranks there is a terrible lack of urgency.
Looking at the polls, Labour is exactly where it was a year ago: it seems that 27-29 is Labour’s base vote and will not go any lower at a General Election. The question is, where does Labour have to be in the polls to get the membership animated? Within 10 points? Within five?
The converse question is, at what point do you think the Conservative ‘big tent’ would start to crumble and turn on Cameron.?
Stephen W – when questions like that have been asked in the past there’s normally an option in the middle saying something like “wouldn’t mind” (plus, of course, don’t knows)
Anthony,
Can you recall if anyone has done a scaled poll on government preference, with say 0=strongly Labour to 9= strongly conservative. The same could be done for PM.
It might give us more a feel for how people might act in marginal seats, and how the DK’s might split.
Of course we often get a lot of 4 to 7’s in these type of polls but it might be useful at some point.
I suspect the issue might be although it may tell us somehing new it doesn’t fit in with the normal voting intention questions that paper ask so it’s unlikely to get commissioned.
Peter.
Peter.
For those who are unfamiliar with Master Dickson, please go to Mr Smithson’s place for more example of his copy-n-paste abilities. Nice to see oldnat trying to keep up the ethos of polling-comments (as opposed to political-comments) but we need Marcia to keep young Stuart in check.
On the polls:
Mike shows the two-party vote has risen by 16% (over the previous analysis). How can anyone make sense of such wide/wild movements…?
How much flexibility is left in how people will vote? I (most people) would be very surprised if the Tories don’t get 36% plus even if things turn bad for them. Labour must be guaranteed 25% whatever they do (and they have done plenty to date), and the Lib Dems have a core of around 18%. Others are likely to get 12% plus. That only leaves about 9%, to be spread between all parties, however good or bad their campaigning is.
There are about 50 seats that will decide whether the Tory majority will be 10 if they win none to 110 if they win all.
Although there is some polling of marginals, I am a little surprised that there is not considerably more.
Lastly, has anyone any views about the three main party machines in delivering maximum turn out for their respective parties in the last few weeks and on the day? In by-elections LIB Dems have disappointed a little whereas both Labour and Tories have had their successes; however a General Election is different. I know nothing about the present capabilities of the electoral machine, except that as is generally reported DC is an asset to the Tories and GB is a liability to Labour.
It’s possible that there is a slight trend for a reduction in the C-lead over the last 172 days – the R2 is only 0.39 so it’s far from convincing, and the trend, if it exists, is about 1 point every 60 days. On the other hand any recovery in Labour votes may be in already safe Labour seats. And since the beginning of Oct there is a slightly stronger trend up. (R2=0.45).
All in all, we still seem to be in a static situation, and with the WMA at 41:27:18 this poll’s CLead seems to be about right.
I read the Guardian and its posts quite a lot. My take on the tone of this article is an attempt to lull the enemy into complacency.
A number of the way out left brigade are going “nuts” this morning regarding the papers treachery. It is not that they are
unable to see a devious motive, its just a red mist (no pun intended) has fallen over their eyes.
On Davey’s question I expect the Conservatives to run the most effective campaign and that Cameron will come across alot better than Brown in the media. I think Cameron could grab alot of waverers or people who haven’t voted especially amongst women , i certainly know a good number of female friends who were LDs or didn’t vote who say the more they see of him the more they like him and what he is saying. Could push them up to 43-44 %
RMMGLAS,
I am not sure if it was a calculation or not but I suspect Cameron is happy to be seen to be being attacked by those in his party who the public see as relics of the past.
The likes of Sir Jeremy Bagge come across as old duffers as far as most women voters are concerned and having him talk about Cameron interfering is exactly the image of the old Tories that Cameron wants to dispel.
Its not a clause three moment but if you have to have a public fight with elements in your own party it helps if they are ones who the public has little sympathy for and who can’t really hurt you.
Peter.
John B Dick
It all depends on whether you see Scotland as a slightly variant part of the GB political system, or a different system in which all parties label themselves as “Scottish” (whether they are or not).
The dynamics of a system in which their are two major parties (only one of which is a GB party) and two minor parties (one of which is likely to form the next government) are very different from the 2 major, 1 minor party system in England.
Essentially this is an argument over the applicability of UNS over multiple systems.
I know this isn’t massively related. But does anyone know the last time a party won over 50% in an election? Also when was the last time that a parties % was greater than the next two (i.e. the same question as my first but leaving out the “others”)?
I only ask because sometimes when i look at the polling figures on here it all seems a bit ridiculous talking of a national mood etc when only 40% of people want a party!
Andy Stidwill
Thanks for that.
I wonder if Scottish constituencies in the Central Belt are actually even more out of date! Since 2000, the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the economic advantages of being based on the East Coast to trade with Europe (as opposed to the West – great for trading with the Empire!) seems to have resulted in significant population shift to Fife and the Lothians.
John B Dick
“You suggest that Conservative government would be good for the SNP.”
Did I? If so, I shouldn’t have made it on this blog!
@RRMGLAS
This female voter support you mention is noticable and has been getting stronger. Of course it was a Tory strength years ago and was thrown away, (probably by a female leaderine). The result in Middle Ages Norfolk will help the cause of Tory appeal to women further, as it will show that Brigadier Sir Bufton Tufton is on the way out.
Jack – since you ask, 1931 and 1955 respectively.
Yes KH , no better sign that things have moved on than old bufties like this not holding swathe over local parties any more. He’ll probably take the huff and join UKIP !
Interesting point, if we had proportional representation how many seats would the Greens, LibDems and the BNP have?
Colin MK2
Too many – and hold too much power!!!
We will never know because people would vote differently – e.g. labour supporters in the South might vote Labour rather than tactically LD.
@Jamess
Would it not encourage more people to vote and would it not be a more representative government.
The party in power would not be able to push through some really stupid laws having to U-turn after the damage is done.
Most of all it would give people more say in how the country is run.
‘ALEC
…! Four days after the Nats worst by election for 30 years, but life’s OK – the polls say so.’
Alec what rubbish. A poll on one seat where under a third of the population voted is not the same as one trying to reflect national mood. You need to understand the difference.
I also have trouble accepting that it was the worst result for the SNP since 1979; if it is that is because they have won so many by elections by landslides.
The desperate pro Labour slant is a bit obvious given that actual result in the by election showed a 2.3% increase in the SNP vote and winning 4 times more votes than the party which came 3rd. Fine, SNP didn’t win but it’s not a bad result to increase your percentage of the vote and be second…
@Colin MK2
I’m not convinced that more people would vote – I think the current system gives a personal link between the MP and the electorate wich encourages voting.
PR might let the BNP into Parliament – I find this abhorent – although it might make people think before voting for them.
I would favour a system that gives MPs more accountability to their electorate and less party control. PR makes MPs much more in the control of their party.
The current system will show its strength at the next election. MPs who have acted dishonourably with their expenses will struggle to be re-elected.
I would admit that something has to change, MPs are been elected with ever smaller minorities of their electorate (under 40%) if the ‘others’ vote holds up this will increase in 2010. That’s not right.
@JAMESS
I dont think a PR arrangement would create any doubt in a BNP supporters mind. Most of them would never understand the system anyway. However we cannot discount PR just because unpleasant people might be advantaged.
@KH
OK that would be/is a form of Gerrymandering.
I live in a bubble of optimism that hopes that a number people are voting BNP to really irritate liberal minded people like me. It sends a clear message that they are not being represented. This rather than because they are unpleasant…I may be reading too much into it!
The electoral sytem that contains the strengths of FPTP, plus the representativeness of PR is the two-election system. At the first election any candidate with more than 50% of the vote is elected. A week, or two, later there is a runoff between the top two candidates who did not reach the 50% threshold.
Yosemite Sam,
The system you describe is that used in France. It is essentially pure FPTP in round 1, then qualified FPTP in round 2 – the qualification being that you have to have reached a certain level of votes in round 1 to be eligible to participate in round 2.
It is not “proportional representation” as most people recognise it. It is almost a halfway house between pure FPTP and AV (which is not PR either)
If applied in the UK, it may result in more LD MPs, but is unlikely to benefit the “minor” parties.
OldNat,
As a keen psephologist you must surely be aware that UNS is but one of a number of proxies used to predict likely result of a general election from opinion polls.
Its greatest weakness is that there is no such thing as “uniform national swing”. Scrutiny of any set of GE results (let alone local election results) will reveal numerous instances where the “swing” in two neighbouring seats may not only be significantly different in amplitude, but may actally be in different directions.
Scotland does not have a “different system” from the rest of the UK, it is merely the case that the regional strengths of the various parties standing in Scotland differ significantly from the UK position.
The place to discuss / debate the regional / local factors which may deliver a result different from that implied by UNS is on the Constituency section of this site.
I don’t agee with you, Paul, that issues relating to regional factors in voting intentions should be confined to the Constituency Section of this site. Not least, many newspaper commentators make the mistake of using GB wide party percentages to predict the likely Government and majority after the next election, instead of using regional figures to predict how many seats will be won in each region and then aggregating. This applies not least on the articles accompanying reports of polls commissioned by the papers, which Anthony helpfully summarised (or indeed expands using the source data) on this section of the site.
From comments which are being made for individual “moderately safe” Labour seats, it seems to me that commentators using the GB headline voting intention figures are consistently underestimating the Conservative majority that would result “if the election were held tomorrow”.
Please can someone tell me the swing Cameron needs for a maj of 1. Thanks Al
Frederic
In principle, you are quite correct about the need for commentators to look at regional trends and aggregate the results by region rather than simple UNS across UK. However, that runs into the following problems:
1. Pollsters use different regions – with some only having a North / Midlands / South.
2. Historic information on regional results and seat breakdown is not widely available
These combined make comparisons across polls harder to make.
Finally, the analysis involved is simply too much work for lazy journalists to do – and it is not certain it would capture reader attention anyway. Indeed, the oversupply of info and analysis might put off far more readers than it would attract.
Paul. I very much agree with you about the non-standard use of regions by pollsters. Indeed I got caught out on this myself in the Summer when a journalist referrred to Labour being behind in every region, and then posted on the assumption that Labour were behind in the North-East. But these days it is generally accepted (outside political polling?!) that the regions are those used for Euroelections, and for government initiatives led by Europe. Whatever you think of the EU in general, and England’s gerrymandered regions in particular, it is disgraceful that if they do impose regional administration it is not overseen in England by directly elected regional assemblies as in all other sizeable European countries. And if a journalist refers to regions without further explanation, the regionally knowledgeable reader will assume (s)he means the Euroregions.
If the pollsters’ professional organisation can lay down standards concerning the availability of survey data, can and should it not give guidance concerning the use of regions for political opinion polling? The actual guidance – use the Euroregions – would be simple enough. although there would need to be some elaboration, e.g. to cater for breakdowns reasonable to the sample sizes used and to suggest how Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as England should be treated. Of course, such guidance should not be too restrcitive as survey design is part of commercial competition between marketing firms, and freedom to change is important to innovate and improve on psephological techniques.
There should be some guidance as to which regions are in the North (North East, North West and Yorkshire, clearly), Midlands and South (less clear, as even the South East region contains Oxfordshire – Cameron’s own county – which many ordinary people would regard as being in the South Midlands). There should also be agreement as to whether there should be an Eastern region for analysis purposes and what people should be taken as meaning when they refer to “Eastern England”.
Personally, I think “The South” should be the SouthWest, London and the South East, and the Midlands should be England that is not in the South or the North. But it should be made clear that the Euroregions are badly drawn in the Oxfordshire should be in the North and Hertfordshire (should be in a redrawn South East region (any comments on this?)
It is quite inappropriate in particular, c.f. previous discussion on this thread, to treat Scotland and England, in particular, together for polling purposes. Obviously, there is a major party, SNP, to be considered in Scotland which does not operate in England. Further, voters concerns are in principle different because the Westminster parliament now has different repsonsibilities for Scotland as compared to England. And historically (and from recent by-elections it appears at present) there is plenty of evidence to show that opinion in Scotland can change in different directions from that in England.
If a researcher surveyed 900 cats and 100 dogs and concluded that 10% of animals bark (s)he would in principle, although obviously the comparison is exaggerated, be making the same mistake as pollsters who give GB wide reports about current political opinion. To estimate how many MPs will be returned after the next election, it really is necessary to survey separately for England (and perhaps Wales) and then Scotland. it is surely not too much even for very lazy journalists to add e.g. the number of Labour MPs to be elected in Scotland to the number to be elected in England and Wales to get a total. Particularly as they already do this when they add in the Northern Irish MPs: even bone idel journalists realise it would be silly to include Northern Ireland along with England, Scotland and Wales for polling purposes.
The London papers are mainly read in England: Scotland has “The Scotsman”, the “Glasgow Herald” and indeed that notable institution, “The Courier”. As the English press largely reports domestic poltitics relating to England, it would be sensible to report the changes in English opinion (of any) that events in English politics (to a not insignifcant effect inflicted by Scottish politicians) caused by English political decisions and debate.
Frederick,
Yes, it would be nice if we had consistent regions. The problem of course is that within England there is no real regional identity, and, with the exception of London, there are no democratically accountable regional authorities.
The “euro-regions” you mention were actually invented by Whitehall some years ago when Major’s government tried to rationalise all the multiple quangos, agencies and departments. That these are now used for Euro-elections was again purely for administrative convenience when we moved to a PR system in 1999 since the alternative would have been a “national list”.
In terms of where some of the boundaries are drawn, I am sure we can all find our own pet quibbles. Herts being in Eastern region is a prime example. I speak as a Cllr in Hertsmere who, like some 60% of my constiuents, commutes to work in London, and has little affinity with East Anglia proper. Another example is Cumbria, which could more productively be united with the NE in a real “Northern” region. But in any case, however drawn, these will still remain artificial creations as far as England is concerned.
As to regional polling evidence, please remember that even were all pollsters to apply the same regional definitions, we should still be wary of drawing conclusions from the sub-samples since they are not demographically / politically weighted. You will of course have seen that caveat repeated countless times in respect of the Scottish sub-samples in polls where Scotland is treated as a distinct region.
Correction
That should be
“who, like some 60% of my constituents in employment commutes to work in London.”
The actual number of people of working age in employment who commute to London is of course signiifcantly less than 60% of my consituents since we have a fairly large number of retirees and housewives not in full-time employment.
Paul, I spent much of my childhood in Hertfordshire and agree with you that your area of England, like many other counties near London (but see below) lack a regional identity. In Hertfordshire particularly, there is a problem in that the communication routes are overwhelmingly geared to North-South travel. As an extreme example, when I lived in Bishop’s Stortford my mum helped at the CAB, and talked about (without mentioning specific cases, of course) the nightmare for people without cars being called for jury service in St. Albans. The only half-practical alternative to a car journey is to travel by train into London and out again, which involves a journey of several hours each way. If you are a mum on a housing estate, that is not on.
However, I think you will raise many hackles if you say that there are no regional identities in England. Perhaps above all, what about Yorkshire. And also at least the core of Lancashire (you proposal of administering Cumbria along with the North East not least would imply treating Barrow-in-Furness would treat combine some of historic Lancahsire with the North-East1).
Even in the South East there are counties with historic identities. For instance, Kent made a separate agreement with William the Conqueror in 1066. Whilst some of Kent has regrettably been submerged into London and suburbia, there still is most definitely a county identity in Maidstone and East Kent. The separation of Medway as a unitary authority is of course a most regrettable gerrymander – again, there was no consultation with ordinary people in Kent.. Incidentally, a significant reason for County identity, in a county with a lack of keading football teams, is the Cricket Club: hertfordshire’s status as a minor county for cricket is unhelpful to solidarity. Compare Essex and witness the development of cricket in Durham.
The South West of England is another area with a definite regional identity , both in general and in relation to specific counties such as Somerset and Devon. Cornwall of course increasingly regards itself as a country (or duchy) in itself and would like treatment comparable to Wales etc. rather than as part of England.
Giving counties like Cornwall a separate identity could give them an additional voice in Europe. Why should Kent have no European Commissioner etc. when we are comparable in size and population, and richer in terms of money, than many European nation states?
The current regions don’t work not least because we the people were never consulted about them. There are many things I dislike about Europe, but the principle of subsidiarity is not one of them. We need devolution, and accompanying voting procedures, for regional or sub-regional (in many cases historic county) units within England. This is as a matter of principle, but I believe it would also bring the UK generally greater prosperity and not least help greatly in addressing the electoral apathy and disillusion which is reflected in very many posts on this site.
Frederick,
But all of the “regional” identities you mention are County based.
That is why the only two English “regions” which are recognisable to their inhabitants are London (Middlesex, LCC, then GLC) and Yorkshire / Humberside – though there are parts of the North Riding in the NE region, and Humberside includes bits of Lincolnshire.
The NE is essentially Northumbria and County Durham, hence has a quasi regional identity, while the bulk of the NW region is formed from historic Lancashire (including some bits appropriated from Yorkshire.)
Devolution is an ambiguous term. Do we mean decentralised administration of centrally funded facilities or genuine release of control from Whitehall to allow local authorities to pursue their own policies ?
How is that compatible with a “National Health Service”, still less the plethora of rules regulations targets and controls imposed on local councils from Whitehall ?
It’s “Yorkshire & the Humber” – we lost the side a while ago.
It’s actually most of Yorkshire with the exception of the towns of Redcar, Thornaby and Middlesborough. Bits have been lost to Lancashire and Westmoreland over the years but we’ve stolen bits off them too.
Why North and NorthEast Lincolnshire got included, noone really knows. Theres little affinity with the East Riding yet they got shunted together in 1974, and ended up in our region rather than the East Midlands or, if you prefer regimental recruiting areas, Anglia/Eastern England.
Ask 100 people in Yorkshire to tell you what region they live in (as opposed to county) I think mostly they would say “The North”, (unless they work for/are funded by the RDA or GO)
Frederick Stansfield
You make an important observation about the separate concerns of the “National” (ie London) press and the Scottish press.
Before devolution, many things were organised separately including the NHS; Law, justice and prisions; Religion; Education.
Devolution transferred the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. Because these matters were no longer discussed between Scottish Office ministers (based partly in London) and the “UK” ministers the differences have increased.
We shouldn’t be surprised at that for that’s what devolution is meant to do. Solutions designed for (and hopefully appropriate to) E&W are not applied in Scotland if circumstances are different, and Scottish ministers can address the needs of their departments without a default position that they will adopt the E&W solutions perhaps with minor modifications or changes in terminology.
Scottish ministers now look at proposed English-only legislation and take a view on whether or not to take account of the changes but there is no presumption that they necessarily need to take any actiion at all, far less to do the same thing.
The fact that the Scottish Government is now of a different party has of course increased divergence. Sometimes this is intentional (ending hospital privatised cleaning contracts) but it will also be inadvertant because of reduced contact between ministers.
The result is that when I now read a “national” newspaper, it is often uncertain whether the report refers to E&W or Scotland or UK.
Sometimes there is a clue if the name of the responsible minister is mentioned, and I usually assume that data for “Britain” relating to Education or Health relates in fact only to “England and Wales” since it is collected separately. One is left to guess whether Scottish data would show that a problem is twice as bad or doesn’t exist at all.
This is especially true of health or education statistics.
It’s bad enough that I waste time reading something I wouldn’t read if I knew it didn’t apply to Scotland, but it is worse when you just can’t tell.
There is progress. Since Richard Holloway was the Scottish Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh, his successors have resisted the London journalist’s assumption that they speak for the leadership of the national church and the fact that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland can’t and won’t do that either is beginning to be understood better after only 400 years.
Readers of the Scottish edition of The Sun are spared Kelvin Mackenzie’s anti-Scottish column and the paper is less openly pro-Conservative since few of its readers are likely to vote Conservative if they vote at all.
SNP advocacy is the least important of the forces driving us inexorably towards separation. It hasn’t had much effect in the last 40 years and it isn’t working now despite the fact that there are more opportunities to persuade voters.
The relative competence of the Scottish Government is obvious to all, and some of their policies are more popular than those of NewLabour, not just with the electorate as a whole, but even within the Labour party itself, but media ignorance and insensitivity to Scottish sensibilities, geography and rurality which rivals that of the former Conservative government makes a significant contribution too.
Shopkeeper Man,
The inclusion of North Lincolnshire was courtesy of Barbara Castle. Having spent £600m (a vast sum in those days) building a pointless bridge, they had to demonstrate some kind of “affinity” and community.
Peter Walker was happy to go alogn with it when he reorganised the Counties in 1974 because losing Labour Grimsby made Lincs CC safer for Cons.