AngusReid still have the Tory lead at 17
There is a new AngusReid poll for politicalbetting.. The topline figures, with changes from their previous poll, are CON 40%(+1), LAB 23%(+1), LDEM 19%(-2), Others 18%.
It was conducted between Tuesday and Thursday, and according to Mike about a third of it was conducted after the PBR. In practice that means this won’t really show any PBR effect, since a fair proportion of that third of the sample wouldn’t have seen the PBR anyway, and very few would have digested the media response.
The trend is clearly one of no change. All the polling companies but Angus Reid are now showing a narrowing of the Tory lead, and there is an increasingly sharp contrast between the level of Labour support they are picking up and that of other companies. As I’ve said before, part of this will be their weighting figures (AngusReid weight to actual 2005 shares of the vote, rather than shares adjusted to account for false recall) and part will be down to a higher level of support for others (which I can see no obvious methodological explanation for). They should, however, be showing the same overall trend.
Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has implied on his twitter feed that we’ll also be getting something from them tonight, though I don’t know if there’s really been time for a post PBR voting intention poll.
Filed under: AngusReid, Voting Intention
Not really a big suprise! Be more interest to see polls conducted over today and tomorrow to gauge the full reaction, although interestingly the tory machine has been in full efective operation!
Thats more like it !!
Pinch of salt time though until we get some more post PBR Polls perhaps at the weekend!
Labour couldn’t have asked for more terrible headlines in this mornings newspapers and that includes the Guardian!
What a nice Christmas Present it would be for DC if the next few Polls showed a new widening of the Poll Lead again just in time for the Christmas Recess!
I personally feel that AR should be taken out of the WMA. They don’t have a long enough track record wrt British voting intention polling. It’s not even worth commenting on their figures.
It would be interesting to know why Angus/Reid continues to show others doing much better than the other pollsters. Of course in the Euro elections most pollsters did underestimate how well UKIP were going to do; most of them didn’t pick up that Labour might be beaten by UKIP once again.
@C.L.A.D.
I’ve dropped them from my own graphing and trend model for pretty much those reasons. If they were a new outfit, but polled in line with other pollsters, or they were an established outfit that polled outside the trend, maybe… But both together suggests that either all the other pollsters are fundamentally wrong, or AR is.
@Mark
Again, you need to compare within the same pollster’s results, not to recent polls from other pollsters. And this one shows essentially no change, as the lead between Con/Lab is still the same.
Reminds me of the proud mum watching her son at his army passing out parade – “look, everyone’s out of step except my boy”.
All the other polls show a clear trend, so this one is a maverick. Not worth a real analysis, except to say “clearly unreliable”.
It might be nearer the mark for Labour when we’ve all digested Mr Darling’s statement, however!
Think i’ll ignore this one.
The variation between ARS and the rest is, I suggest, all down to their very particular question asking “How will you vote in your constituency”.
This either makes them much more likely to embrace the impact of potential tactical voting at a constituency level or prone to inaccuracy with respondents not being very clear on whic constituency they reside or knowing how to use their vote effectively.
On the other hand, asking a question about voting intention on a national level – as the others do – when we vote only at a constituency level could be quixotic and more prone to error (ICM’s good record notwithstanding).
To claim, now, that ARS MUST be wrong in advance of any results to asses them against is simply jumping to conclusions without any evidence.
YouGov’s internet polling has been pretty good when judged against real outcomes. It is entirely possible that ARS’s USP of its question may have brought a new level of accuracy to polling.
We must wait to find out.
I don’t see the point of a post PBR poll this early. People need to have at least read today’s papers and watched the various post-PBR TV analyses before they have a handle on it. I’d have thought tomorrow would be the earliest such a poll would be at all meaningful.
@ C.L.A.D. – I seem to recall Anthony saying that AR’s political polling is headed by someone with a great deal of polling experience. Just because AR itself is new to the field doesn’t mean that the people running it are as well.
Rush phone polling this evening, press rooms go into crunch time around 10pm, then articles in the newspaper tomorrow morning for the ‘instant reaction’. It can be done. But I’m tempted to throw away any poll published tonight or tomorrow, depending on the sample size.
AR are obviously out of step with other pollsters. However they do have a proven track record in Canada.
Their predictions were within a percentage point in each of the last two Canadian General Elections.
As I’ve always said when people cry rogue when the polls are in the other direction, I suggest you never reject a poll that meets the polling association rules, which I assume AR does otherwise Anthony wouldn’t bother to include them here. Clearly AR have been out of step for a while, but interestingly only on the Labour/others tally – for the Tories and LDs they are now bang in line with other pollsters. Someones right and someone is wrong – we’ll just have to wait and see.
Frankly, my feel is that the PBR won’t have much effect on voting intentions. Most people know that all the parties will in practice have to do much the same after the General Election. And they discount political gestures such as Darling’s reduction of the Bingo Tax by less than he put it up last year. To give Labour it’s due, there are one or two good things amongst the details, for instance in relation to scientific research, employement and gas boiler replacements.
The real trouble is that there is not enough money for the good intiatives, whilst at the same time the “Cuts” and tax rises are of nothing like the magnitude to address the UK’s financial problems.
Those of us interested in voting intentions ought to be watching the UK’s credit rating, which was used by financial interests to advance their position in advance of the PBR. It is increasingly clear that this is being manipulated until after the election for polticial reasons – which rather undermines the point of credit ratings, although it is good for us in relation to the rate at which the Government can borrow money.
One issue about the UK’s credit rating is that it could well cause difficulty if, as currently appears quite possible, there is a “hung” parliament. Bankers and other lenders hate uncertainty.
I have pointed out in a recent letter published in “New Statesman” if there is no overall majority there may well be little choice as to who forms the Government, in effect because of the West Lothian question.
For instance, if the Tories have enough votes to get specifically English legislation through with SNP, Plaid and the Northern Irish MPs abstaining, as they usually would, Labour and the LibDems could not practically form an administration.
Whatever the outcome in terms of administration, it will be important because of the financial fragility of the UK for the parties to condust any negotiaions after a “hung” election quickly and cleanly.
After 1931, there is unlikely to be a “grand coalition” in the UK. But, particularly as an early second election is unlikely to gove a different answer, my suspicion is that in the event of a “hung” parliament an administration formed by whichever of the Conservatives and Labour gets the most seats will have to be tacitly supported by the party that comes second.
Which consideration, if they realised it, might affect people’s propensity to vote LibDem.
“Thats more like it !!
Pinch of salt time though until we get some more post PBR Polls perhaps at the weekend!
Labour couldn’t have asked for more terrible headlines in this mornings newspapers and that includes the Guardian!
What a nice Christmas Present it would be for DC if the next few Polls showed a new widening of the Poll Lead again just in time for the Christmas Recess!”
1: The Guardian has been backing the tories for a number of months. Not that they are a centre right paper, but they have given up on Brown and want him out. An election loss is the only way that will happen.
2: Cameron/Coulson are running at least 90% of the media outlets at the minute. Just like Blair in 1996
3: Poll changes will only be temporary, either way. Voting intentions are more deep seated on which party makes tax cut admissions. Anyone with a brain realises, it will be little difference whoever wins
4: It’s nowhere near a 17 point lead. They always poll over the top.
AR certainly seems to be pretty dodgy. The field work for this poll was done at a time when Labour were getting extremely positive headlines so it is hard to believe that these figures could be accurate.
Call me cynical, but I don’t think polls, after budgets/conferences, hold any water at all.
You have to remember that Coulson and Cameron are controlling pretty much every news outlet in the country now – other than probably the Mirror, BBC, FT and Independent. Even the Guardian have jumped on the “I will be the PM setting media laws” band wagon in recent months.
These speeches happen, and no matter the content, the dominant politician will just have his media machine hammering in every title in the country.
I remember some of Majors (pretty excellent policies) with Blair at the same sort of time. They just got destroyed by the media machine.
In essence, I think the public are pretty cynical about newspaper coverage these days. They know the game, and know how it works. In fact, I think the coverage turns people off. There aren’t many titles that people actually trust for coverage.
My point being, people will take note of coverage of PBR. But they certainly won’t put any real faith in any of it.
I just think that the wall to wall coverage these days, makes people more wary than they used to be of what they are being told. And they simply ignore the actual event.
It was the same at the conferences. Brown gets hammered for a week. Cameron and Osborne get praised.
What happens? A little boost for maybe a fortnight in Cameron’s favour, and then people just get back to their own political thought on the situation, and we go back to the status quo.
Why? The simply reason that people don’t believe what the media is telling them and are cynical about it all.
Any boost, or drop, will be very superficial I predict. And will have no long term affect on polling.
@FREDERIC STANSFIELD
In the light of 1931 would any Labourite cooperate with a Tory administration? Its 80 years ago but Ramsey MacDonald is still hated more than Baroness Thatcher.
@MATHEW
So Mathew, what will it mean, what will the outcome be?
ARS are new to UK polling, but they have some good people at the top. There is a methodology difference. As Mike explains at Political Betting:
“Angus Reid Strategies weight by what respondents say they did in 2005 with no adjustments being made for false recall and to deal with the so-called “spiral of silence”. These are measures used by ICM, Populus and ComRes.”
There is some belief that the methodology used by ICM etc will boost the Labour score, therefore not doing that would give a more accurate Labour vote, if you accept the original premise.
There are still some trends that match with the other pollsters. Labour have got a couple of points more, the Tories are on 40% and the LibDems are just shy of 20%. The others score is higher which is the interesting point. If there are a large number of voters in safe seats, then they may feel more inclined to protest vote.
CLAD – as Alec says, the criteria for going in there is whether the methodology seems likely to produce representative figures. They are weighted down for not having a track record, but not excluded. (Longevity is no guarantee of being any good anyway. Last time AR produced a poll someone compared it to Research Services, a company that produced laughably out of line polls during the 1979 election. At the time though RSL were the second oldest polling outfit, founded in 1951. Similarly look at how poor Gallup, the oldest polling company of all, were performing before they gave up UK political polling. That said, being new is no guarantee you aren’t hopeless either!)
Geoff H – that is not the question that AR ask. They ask which party people would support in their constituency. My guess is asking “support” rather than “vote” has as much potential to make a difference as mentioning constituency. At the moment it’s my best guess at the reason for the high level of other support, though it’s a very tentative one.
James Ludlow – that tends to my view as well. Polls taken immediately after an event can show different results to ones taken after people have read the media coverage. The reality is that most people see political events and announcements only through the prism of the media.
It’s surely odd that the Labour % is consistently so low.
Though I think unless Labour trends consistently towards 32% all of this talk may be no more than one swallow not making it summer.
This is clearly not 1997 in the making, but then both the long post war periods of conservative government weere pressaged by a small intiial victory. Labour has a poor history in opposition.
The exception to that rule was in 1974. That was a victory pulled from the jaws of defeat, as I recall on the differential turnout. Even then the tories polled more votes in the Feb election.
If labour did manage to hit 32% region it might be possible for Labour to allow Cameron to form a government without a majority and subsequently defeat them in a confidence vote. They could then form a government themselves by invitation from the queen…If labour were to emerge the largest party its also possible that Brown could resign as Labour Leader allowing a clooeage to form an interim administration. Though everything we know about Brown seems to indicate he will hang on in as long as he can.
It’s potentially interesting since the early 70s were another period when we had serious economic challenges and the country tried the soft options before eventually turning to Thatcher. And then Labour tore itself apart. It is hard to see the modern Labour Party repeating that trick.
A big lead for the Conservatives.
Question is: Is AR just miles out? Or are they ahead of the game and the Tories have indeed recovered some ground?
We’ll have to wait and see.
But if other polls do not support AR perhaps they should be taken out of the equation – as some have suggested – as their methodology must then be suspect. This would be akin to what happened in the US election, on Nate’s site, where people began to factor out Zogby. And were right to do so.
I do think polls in general understate the Conservative lead by at least two points, but this one is taking it to the other extreme.
For me, looking at the polls leading up to the 2005 contest, add 1 point on to what the Conservatives are on with YouGov, and deduct one from that of Labour’s – and that’s the position we’re most likely to be in.
At this stage of the last Parliament (November/December 2004), Labour had a 3-point lead with YouGov, more or less the same as what they got the following year. Therefore there is a straight 8% swing to the 13 point Tory lead they are showing today. I think a very comfortable overall Conservative majority is most likely next time.
I emphasise my use of the words “most likely. “YouGov’s my favourite polling organisation as they got the Boris and Ken race almost spot on.
Anthony, it’s just that I feel that with the WMA we are ready ’stretching’ it a bit. As averaging different pollsters results is a bit akin to comparing apples and oranges. With AR because of their questioning, it’s more like comparing apples and onions. No one really expects ‘others’ to actually poll almost 20% come GE day. If you ask someone who they would suppor it is completely different to who they would vote for. If your were to ask someone who had a leaning towards UKIP, they would be inclined to say they would support UKIP. But when it came to who they would vote for, more than likely they would vote Conservative, if they knew that candidate had a better chance of defeating the Labour candidate. But if they knew the Conservative candidate was assured victory, they may be more inclined to stick with UKIP.
Perhaps lots of people “support” Others, but will vote Labour when it comes down to an election. Hence AR’s high Other and low Labour score?
Whatever the reason AR is clearly out on a limb, and the first test of its validity will be the election itself.
Hopefully Comres will have something tonight.
‘@JOHN MURPHY
It’s potentially interesting since the early 70s were another period when we had serious economic challenges and the country tried the soft options before eventually turning to Thatcher. And then Labour tore itself apart. It is hard to see the modern Labour Party repeating that trick.
I very much hope there is a bit more realism this time. As far as Labour induceing civil war again, they just might.
think i’ll ignore this one.
Sure the tories are ahead but 17 points!!!
23 for Labour seems very low.
If they turn out to be right there will be one big inquest!
One other thing Anthony wrt ComRes, wouldn’t their poll be due Sunday? We had the ComRes/Independent on the 29/11/09. Isn’t it the turn of the Independent on Sunday?
WHAT A LOAD OF B……S! Nowhere near 17 point lead. I would bet everything on Tories doing an awful lot worse than polls suggest.
Anthony.On 39/28/19 Electoral Calculus gives a majority of 28. Do you use a different programme or have I misunderstood something?
Mathew – interesting that you feel cynical because you don’t believe polls hold any water. The one thing I would expect a cynic to ssay would be that “people” at large hear that one party is massively ahead and either support them because that seems like common sense, or support the opposite because stubbornness suits them (or some other reason)
The point is that polls can have an effect on public opinion – much more than the issues themselves (on which most politicians are forced to agree by the constraints posed by the executive, professional advisers and tgheir own sense of caution).
I write as a cynic!
John Murphy – whoever loses the next election could go wither way. Self-destruct because how could they possibly have lost (on the one hand because of the terrible Govt, and on the other because of the terrible opposition), OR, unite behind a fresh leader safe in the knowledge that the 2010 electoin is a great one to lose.
The chances of Labour self-destructing after a defeat are less than they would have been during a stable period. The chances of the Conservatives doing so would be completely diminished by the obvious need to remove Cameron and learn the lessons that will deliver 20 years Govt from 2015. (and, KH, for what its worth, I reckon I’d be voting Conservative then in those circs)
Statto/Geoff/Anthony I’m intrigued by the questions asked. “If there were an election to-morrow” to me has alwways invited a response that ignores the next General Election. “Well, to-morrow I’d vote A, but come the election, who knows?”
It’s a bit late to change it now, but I’m not sure what extra value we get from “if it were to-morrow”
I love how people fail to mention that nearly all of the voting intention polls from Angus Reid have been complete outliers in comparison to the other pollsters.
@John TT
I agree there is little value in the “tomorrow” element of the question, especially at this stage when the election is a few months away.
However the “support” part is potentially more critical. I might support the Greens, or the Liberal Democrats, or UKIP, but vote entirely differently in my constituency because none of these parties has a chance to win the seat.
It’s a shame AR don’t ask who people would vote for in their particular constituency. I think they intended to pick up on possible tactical voting, but they may just be picking on the difference between support (in the theoretical sense) and voting (in the practical sense).
Here’s a thought.
Maybe as the Conservative vote has basically held steady its the labour vote that has collapsed due to the PBR and those that were inclined to vote labour ie public sector workers etc have now got so fed up with being deserted by labour,
( remember the 10p tax fiasco), and are now voting others, BNP, UKIP etc rather than Conservative and therefore by default increasing the Tory lead as a percentage difference ie 17%
I look upon half of the 18% of others as undecided. I’m expecting the Tories and the Lib Dems to take the lion share leaving Labour on 25% or worse.
@Stephen
The Labour vote has also held steady in AR polls, just at a very much lower level than all other polls. Tonight’s AR poll is really showing no change (indeed all their polls have shown no change, even when other pollsters have shown a drop in Conservative support).
I look upon half of the 18% of others as undecided. I’m expecting the Tories and the Lib Dems to take the lion share leaving Labour on 25% or worse.
—————–
I’d willingly place a substantial bet agains that!
Labour will close down 30% by the time of the GE. They may not achieve it. They may achieve more. But the idea that they will poll mid to low 20’s is yesterday’s news.
Won’t happen.
“I would bet everything on Tories doing an awful lot worse than polls suggest.” – David C
I don’t agree – I think in general most polls understate the Tories’ position. Most of the polling organisations were proved to have exaggerated Labour’s lead in the run up to the last general election by at least a couple of points.
However, you’re right about this particular poll I’m sure.
There is some interesting polling from Populus in the Times. Surprising high support for the moves in the budget, even a majority supporting the NI rise.
Only the moves on public sector pensions were opposed by more than half of those questioned (54%).
The Times reports:
“Only 36 per cent, however, agree with the Tory view that the Budget deficit is now so serious that “we cannot put off dealing with it any longer and significant cuts in public spending must start next year”. The poll found that 59 per cent back the Labour view that, while there will have to be significant cuts, they “should not be made until the economic recovery is much stronger”.
Be careful on that poll Statto. It’s a random poll and doesn’t look to have been weighted.
@Nickr
I appreciate that, and its small sample, but even allowing for lack of weighting the figures are surprising.
WMA 39:27:18. Angus Reid still overestimate the CLead compared to others (about 3pts on average, 2 on the Retrospectives but there are too few samples to be sure) but then Populus under-estimate.
The PBR has been a terrible missed opportunity. 2.5% increase in pensions – the country is pretty well BUST for heaven’s sake!
Less than 150 days to the election. the average WMA CLead has indeed been 14% but over that time the CLead has a dowtrend of 4 points with an R2 of .56 – so if this continued we’d see a CLead of 8 at the election. and I really don’t think the electorate can be so stupid as to go for a hung parliament in the worst financial mess in 60 years. We shall see.
@NBEALE
That is of course assuming the present trend continues. It might well stop, or reverseor even accelerate – although given the extent of the financial mess Brown and co have created I would see the latter scenario as somewhat unlikely.
AR poll minus Scotland
Con 42.1% : Lab 21.2% : LD 20.3% : Others 16.4%
I think Statto is totally right about constituency voting. My consituency is a 2 horse race and neither my party, and so my answer to who I want to win the general election will be different to how I will actual vote in my constituency. There must be alot of people like me particularly in marginals.
I’m always a little suspicious of Angus Reid, because they’re so far off the others, but even though I’m a Tory, I have to say that you can’t ignore them out of hand because we’ve never seen this situation before.
We’ve never seen Labour after 3 terms in office.
We’ve never seen Labour lose in Wales before.
We’ve never seen Labour with so little union backing before, both in terms of money and membership.
In short, Labour has proven itself capable of scraping this low in a real election, 1983, and now in certain respects, its situation is more precarious. However, they don’t have an SDP this time (although they do have the BNP, SNP, PC and UKIP).
One other thing: the regional tables are interesting (although I don’t know the sample size); if they’re accurate, then the Tories really are achieving their goal of taking the marginals of the North, Midlands and Wales, although only one more seat or so in Scotland.
I posted this on Brian Taylor’s blog.
“I give scant respect to the sub-samples of polls since the sample is so small. However, the Scottish sub-sample of the latest Angus Reid poll is intriguing – if only because this is yet another poll showing the Scottish LDs down to around 7% for Westminster.
Let’s pretend that the numbers are accurate and this translated into MPs (according to Electoral Calculus) -
Party, % support, % Change since 2005, MPs lost/gained
Lab, 42%, +2%, +2 MPs
SNP, 33%, +15%, +5MPs
Con, 14%, -2%, -1 MP (Tory free Scotland again!)
LD, 7%, -16%, -6 MPs
Given previous polling for Westminster which suggested that a huge majority of Scots, when pushed, thought a Tory Government would NOT be good for Scotland – including 20% of Tories!), significant tactical voting should not be unexpected.
Since the polling figures for England & Wales in this poll are
Con 42.1% : Lab : 21.2% : LD 20.3% : others 16.4%, at the very least, this suggests not only a Tory Government in the UK – but a vast gulf between Scottish and English politics.”
I repost it here because I think it supports Stattos view. For a Westminster election, it really only makes sense (other than for diehard supporters) to vote Tory or LD in seats where Labour or SNP are shoo-ins. Otherwise you risk allowing a Tory in.
in England there may be something similar going on (but in the reverse direction).
Davey – I suspect that it is in the English non-marginals where the “others” will pick up votes since it is “safe” to do that there.
@NBeale
“I really don’t think the electorate can be so stupid as to go for a hung parliament in the worst financial mess in 60 years.”
Funny, the voting slips I’ve seen don’t have a box for “Hung Parliament”. Perhaps I’m missing something.
Yariv
There are people who want “strong unopposed government” during an economic crisis. The historical examples where this actually occurred in the 20th century are not good precedents.
@STATTO
As an initial response I’m sure the govt will be pleased. I think it takes a few days for things to sink and with it being Christmas it might take longer. We will probably need to wait a bit longer to see a response we can take as accurate.
@OldNat
Indeed.
Although I notice that there’s no box for “Strong Unopposed Government” on the voting slips either!
NBEALE:
I’d like to see the WMA for the last 12 months if possible. I could look back on previous posts but you might have the figures easily to hand.
@andy: It’s a big spreadsheet I’m afraid.
@andrew: Indeed – I don’t think this trend will continue, I’m merely trying to record what would happen if it did.
Anthony: Until recently many people were embarassed to admit that they had voted Tory. Now I suspect it’s the other way around. Wouldn’t this mean that pollsters who adjusted for false recall would tend to under-estimate the CLead?
@NBeale
If people are embarrassed to say they will vote Labour, they’ll also be embarrassed to say that they voted Labour in the last election, so it’ll even out. I think that’s the point of the adjustment, isn’t it?
I still think we need to wait a few days for the PBR and further expenses situation to sink in and on top of that we now have the spat between GB and AD as to which ‘TAX’ to hit people with.
Add to that the increase in Petrol duty (yet again) and the rate of VAT going back up to 17.5% in January the bad news for the Government and GB is building up quite significantly.
However – lets now look forward to the next couple of Polls due over the weekend then we can more accurately guess whos alarm bells will be ringing, DC or GB, I think the latter!
Tory free Scotland eh?
Add to that a Labour decimated England and Wales and you have a very interesting situation.
My December GE prediction and my ‘Christmas Present’ for DC.
Con ~ 40-42
Lab ~ 25-28
LD ~ 18-20
=a comfortable Conservative majority but with no help from Scotland!
YouGOV have shown a slight swing to the Tories at 13% . So that two which are showing a large lead for the Tories.
I think it would be interesting if others was really that high 18% . But who are the others!!!!!!!!
Populus have just published their detailed tables from their December Times poll.
Populus/Times Scottish split (136 respondents):
(+/- change from UK GE 2005)
Lab 37% (-2)
SNP 34% (+16)
Con 13% (-3)
LD 12% (-11)
BNP 3% (+3)
Grn 1% (n/c)
UKIP 0 (n/c)
oth 0
Populus tables:
http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-061209-The-Times-The-Times-Poll—December-2009.pdf
The key thing is not the actual scores but the direction.
As others have said whether AR are correct and the others all wrong is irrelevant except for its’ possible impact on media narrative.
In this context it is really a no change poll with slight increases for Lab and Con and a fall for LDs and the prevoius AR may have been at edge of MOE for them and Labour.
As such it is better for the cons as recent polls apart from You Guv showed a move to labour and away from cons.
Conclusion may be is that narrowing was exagerrated and/or ephemeral but that probably in the month pre-PBR there was a modest closing of the Con-Lab gap.
@ NBeale
“Shy” Labour seems possible, but…
The Tories are at about 40%. This isn’t actually high; the Tories have won more than 40% of the vote in every election they’ve won since the Second World War, so it’s hardly high, especially considering Tory voters’ reputation of voting Tory “come rain or shine”.
Also, various pollsters have tried to balance using “past vote recall” or asking people who their parents voted for. If you believe what they tell you, Labour must have won every election for the past 60 years.
Given that, since the 80s, the pollster giving Labour the worst prediction has been the most accurate, the “shy Tory” effect exist(ed) and the Labour-leaning “past vote recall”, I’d say that there is a bias against the Tories that persists both when the Tories have a landslide majority, and when Labour do.
From table 12, the question “how did you vote” the “didn’t vote plus a few of the the “refused/don’t know” amounts to the same as in 2005 (61.4%)
On the basis that this poll reflects the same 61.4% turnout in 2005, the figures, going on the weighted totals, show that if anything Labour voters have the best memories out of the three main parties.
Out of the 939 (61.4 % of 1505) who probably voted last time :
Labour’s 35.2% of the vote in 05 equates to 331 (the table says 336)
The Tories’ 32.4% of the vote in 05 equates to 304 of the 939 (the table says 286)
The LibDems’ 22% of the vote in 05 equates to 207 of the 939 (the table says 185)
So no particular shyness appearing there (although I’m not certain such inference from that table is completely valid)
It’s not my own experience that Labour voters are shy now – disappointed maybe, but not shy.
para 1 “amounts to the same turnout figure”
Pretty disastrous night for the Tories regarding council by-elections on Thursday. Labour winning seats from the Tories and polling more votes.
Where was this Wolf .Please give details?
Agreed Wolf. There was an 11% swing to Labour in the Westminster City Council by-election, which was unprecedented even by the head of the Labour group there.
If you extrapolate that swing to the country as a whole, Labour are set for a landslide!!!
Mark Johnstone:
“Tory free Scotland eh?”
Certainly -1 is within the range of possibilities and I would not risk being proved wrong by saying it (or +1-1)won’t happen but it is just as unlikely as +6.
The long term prospect as Conservatives are recognised as a minor party and a “wasted vote” for the UK parliament is a very marginal decline.
Split voting for the SP encourages tactical choice voting for the UKP. In some places it could be entirely reasonable to vote for the party of choice (eg Con) on the list, and different other parties (perhaps LibDem and SNP) for the constituency (local issues/candidates) and the UKP (non-wasted vote).
[Only on typing that just now have I realised that I actually did just that over the last round of elections, though it was for none of these choices, and it won't be exactly the same in the next round.]
Notwithstanding that minor parties including the Conservatives may be irrelevant at Westminster, Con MSPs, under Ms Goldie’s leadership are seen to be more effective than the LibDems and as electable on the list as Greens or Socialists, there is no inhibition against voting Con on the list.
Perhaps they will become like the SNP, the Greens and the Socialists, essentially a split voters choice, not worth supporting for Westminster elections but enriching the breadth of representation in the Scottish Parliament.
That, were it not for the Westminster connections, would do much to counteract the habit of indulging in the puerile party games of two-party politics. In an independent Scotland we will have grown up politics.
We could so easily have had that at Westminster instead, if we had had grown up politicians.
As things stand there are – on both sides – too many legally trained role-playing MP’s supporting whichever side of the argument they happen to be to assigned to as if they were in some contest between Oxbridge debating societies.
In the long run what matters is what governments achieve, not what points are scored in debate or what PR and news management opportunities are devised.
I think the SNP (because they are not part of the Westminster culture) and the minor parties in the Scottish Parliament (because they can see the opportunities) recognise this.
Conservative MSPs, now verging on minor party status themselves, with somewhat looser ties to Westminster are now keen to grasp opportunities for influencing and supporting right wingers in the SNP.
Fully detatched, whether by independence or Bavarianisation, they could find their way to a better way of doing politics and even a degree of influence more than proportionate to their limited numbers, if their imagination and skill at multi party politics betters the poor performance of Labour and the LibDems.
That wouldn’t be difficult.
Someone talked about local council election results. I have not heard anything about this and if Labour did do well it was probably due to turnout as noone even new any were on. I predict a conservative landslide. Swingometers always are a bit ridulous i.e you can give Labour 0% vote and somehow they still gain a few seats. I think their will be massive swings in marginals to the Tories, yet Labour strongholds and labour lib dem marginals could see swings to Labour. So a Tory landslide with only a 7% swing or so to the Tories overall.
@JOHN B DICK
You speak of right wing members of the SNP John. How broad a church is the SNP? Also would you say right wingers in the party
could be compared with moderate Tories.
@ CaptScooby – “If you extrapolate that swing to the country as a whole, Labour are set for a landslide!!!”
Defo. All the really smart people have already bet their houses on this.
If Labour lanslide is as likely as Portsmouth winning the premiership this year. The best they could possibly do is to do as well as last election and that really is if everything goes there way untill the election.
4 Possible results depending on how things go.
LABOUR WIN BY 60 SEATS
due to:
Unemployment surprise cut to 2million .
Growth in fourth quarter reaches 4%.
Labour election posters prove decisive.
HUNG PARLIAMENT (LABOUR MIN)
Unemploment cut to 2.2million.
Growth in fourth quarter reaches 1%
Labour election posters prove decisive.
HUNG PARLIAMENT (CON MIN)
Unemploment remains at 2.47 million
Growth in fourth quarter reaches 0.6%
Labour election posters have same effect as Tory Posters.
CONSERVATIVE WIN 40 MAJORITY
Unemploment grows to 2.5 million
Growth in fourth quarter of 0.2%
Tory election posters tip the balance.
CONSERVATIVE WIN 150 MAJORITY
Unemployment grows to 2.5 million.
Growth or recession in the fourth quarter of -0.2% to +0.2%
Tory Election posters prove decisive
@ James Ludlow
‘Smart’ people, betting their houses! How ’smart’ is that?
Given how worthless some houses are at the minute, perhaps it is better to bet bricks and mortar as opposed to ,say, government bonds?
Oh, no, wait a minute, they are on the way down. How about Conservative cast-iron guarantees?…no, that won’t do either…Maybe shares in duck-house manufacturers?
@Yariv. No I don’t think so. If that were the case there would be no need for an adjustment. But this is v technical stuff – Anthony may explain.
@ CAP’N SCOOBY
What odds would you offer on Spain joining the G20 ?
The sharp drop in turnout in elections since 1997 has probably understated Labour support. And I think turnout dropped most sharply in traditional Labour seats and amongst traditional Labour voters.
If there is some recevery in Labour support and there is a better turnout of traditional labour voters and if we are in the region of Labour getting 32% in the polls all bets are off for a conservative win. They may even struggle to emerge the largest party.
Those though remain three large ifs; but there is some trending to them. But this happened last year and fizzled out in January.
At the moment the AR poll just looks outside the likely box and it now seems likely that the Conservatives will struggle to win 40% but even something as low as 38% might still on current trends leave them 10 points clear of Labour. If turnout at the election rises I think that will benefit Labour as it has underperformed in the last 3 elections.
The local gov byelections continue to show volatility over and above what might be expected at this stage of a Parliament. The intersting things from what I’ve seen of the results is that Labour voters are coming to the polls although the total poll is lower than in the normal cycle. That is a big change since the summer.
Again I’d not make more of it than that for now. But if Labour support rises and traditional labour voters feel more strongly about voting then Feb 1974 may now be a bad precedent to look at; and 1964 Labour won by the narrowest of margins over a very tired discredited and scandal ridden Tory Party that had been in power for 13 years.
Could it be that Mr Cameron is less Blair and more Wilson there’s a thought.!!!
The Westminster council by-election result does make me wonder if there will be a significant ‘Boris Effect’ in London. Plus, votes in an *actual election* trump those of opinion polling and speculation about ‘the marginals’. http://ukelectiontrend.blogspot.com/2009/12/elections-trump-opinion-polling.html
Sorry typo: meant 1974 would not be a bad precedent to consider……
You know The City of Westminster is only about 1,000 people living their probably mainly foreign plutcrats who use the UK as a way of Tax avoidance. Only the Mega rich can afford to live there.
@Paul B:
You are confusing the City of Westminster (pop. about 236,000) with the City of London (pop.about a 1,000 plutocrats).
City of Westminster is a London Borough. City of London is the ancient ‘Square Mile’ and is governed by Corporation of the City of London.
@ Ken:
I’d say bet your house on it.
@ Ken -‘”Smart’ people, betting their houses! How ’smart’ is that?”
Ezackly!
Last week’s local byelections show continuing Tory slide -7.5% Weymouth and Portland
-9.2%Bedford
-9.7% Nuneaton and Bedworth
-30%! Weymouth and Portland
That’s 3 Labour gains 1 from BNP 2 fron the Tories, 1 Lib Dem hold.
Not bad for a ‘failing’ Govt.
This slide seems to have started with the percieved U-turn on Lisbon
Correction: -7.5% Wyre Forest not Weymouth and Portland-sorry
I’ve been looking at council byelection results for a while now, and while I’m not sure they have any significance at all, the picture since October has been interesting. Last night was a fairly typical night, with Lab holding 1 and gaining 4 (2 from Con, 1 from LD, 1 from BNP), LD gaining 2 (both from Con), holding one and losing one, and Con holding 3 (2 with reduced majority) and losing 5. Cons seem to be getting particularly heavily hit in the SW where both Lab and LD are clawing back seats on a regular basis.
I recall Anthony mentioning the irrelevance of council byelections to GE results, and others have previously mentioned the ‘high tide’ effect of big Tory council seat wins unravelling slightly over time, but the regular pattern of byelections doesn’t suggest a forthcoming landslide.
I wondered if anyone had views on this?
You have to take into account how badly Labour and the LDs have been doing in recent local elections. That explains why they’re winning back seats in local y-elections.
Andy could be right, nevertheless if someone could tell me where the by-elections were that would be most interesting. So far I only know about the ones in Aldershot, Westminster & Hastings.
@ Alec – I think Anthony is right and there’s little relation between council elections and a general election. For the last three of my local elections, I’ve voted for a particular Lib Dem councillor because she is a very, very good counciller. But I’ve never voted Lib Dem in a general election and I’m not about to start at the next one.
I don’t have any evidence to back this up but my feeling is that in local elections more people are willing to vote for a good candidate regardless of party while in general elections the party usually takes priority.
@ John Murphy
“If there is some recevery [sic] in Labour support and there is a better turnout of traditional labour voters…”
Why? Firstly, there is no evidence that they will. The left-wing “longest suicide note in history” of 1983 produced a grand total of about 25% of the vote for Labour.
Secondly, even if the non-voters in Labour’s heartlands (of which there are many) started to vote (which they generally don’t) and voted Labour, then they’d affect the totals of MPs very little, since those seats are already solidly Labour.
Thirdly, the fall did not start after 1997, it started with 1997. Labour’s success has coincided with the lowest turnouts since women were given the vote, so why you think all those votes are for Labour is beyond me.
Weymouth and Portland is part of the South Dorset constituency which has Jim Knight as its sitting MP.The Conservatives are keen to win it back from Labour and are fielding a wealthy landowner against Knight in the GE.This recent council by -election result will send a shock wave across the Tory bow.
So far in December I have figures for 17 by-elections all over our countries.
Votes polled:
Tory 6969 30.7%
Labour 6290 27.7%
Lib Dem 5803 25.6%
Others 3613 15.9%
All the parties stood in 14 or 15 by-elections but amongst the others there were only a few green and bnp candidates and an assortment of Independents
Whilst it pains me to see the Tories losing council seats, I think such losses need to be considered in context.
The Tories hold a much higher number of council seats that is “normal” for them. Most of the by-elections being fought are for seats last fought in 2007 and 2008, during periods of great success for the Tories in local elections.
If Labour were not making at least some gains of seats by comparison with council elections where they were, quite frankly, massacred, then they might as well pack up and go home.
@James Ludlow – maybe the Tories have so many councillors they are now on the bad ones?…. I’m not sure though whether your explanation is relevant in this question as most of the byelections were caused by deaths/resignations etc, so candidates qualities might have been less important.
The Conservative vote share in the Westminster Queens Park byelection was the lowest they have polled there since 1903 !!!!!!! . In several of the other contests they polled worse than not only 2007/2008 but not as well as they did in 2003/2004 .
@ Alec – my point is that local dynamics aren’t the same as national government dynamics and people vote more flexibly in local elections. Where I live, we’ve had a Lib Dem majority on the council for years but Lib Dem parliamentary candidates here invariably end up in 3rd or even 4th place. Clearly there is no meaningful correlation here between local and general elections and where I live isn’t noticeably weird so I don’t think it’s particularly unusual.
Also, voting for a Labour councillor isn’t going to result in 5 more years of Gordon Brown. Voting for a Labour parliamentary candidate just might.
Grasping at straws comes to mind.
Just read that Labour overturned a Tory majority of 500 in Weymouth.The seat was a traditional Tory seat.
But Labour made gains at the 1979 local elections while losing the general election.
The Tories made gains at the county council elections in 1997 while losing the general election.
They simply bumped off the nadir, which is what Labour is doing now.
It’s too easy to dismiss Labour council gains. What it shows is that, when they get the activists on the streets they can get people out to vote.
Labour should take heart from that. However, they’ll need to work extra hard in the GE, when the tories will be able to out-resource Labour in the marginals and I feel sure they’ll get their own vote out for “the big one”.
@Lin,
The “seat” in Weymouth was not a traditional Tory seat. In fact its a ward that Labour won in 2007 and is in a marginal parliamentary constituency. Still a good win for Labour, but you may be being swayed by the notion that Dorset is somehow rock-solid Tory heartland when much of it is not.
Britain’s seaside towns have large populations (infestations some might say) of benefit claimants.
The local by-election results are indeed showing a very clear recent shift.
The Conservatives are showing a clear drop in support, Labour is improving just about everywhere and the Lib Dems are showing a definite rise, particularly noticeable in the SW seats which many assume will be lost to the Conservatives (largely on the evidence of the “local” County Council elections!).
Whilst I do not hold the view that local results necessarily have a direct relation to the way people vote in a General Election in any seat, when viewed over a parliamentary cycle, they give a view to the way public opinion is moving. I were still a Tory, I’d just be beginning to get slightly anxious. This election is still wide open.
The amount of ’straw clutching’ by GB/Labour supporters is breathtaking but I suppose they have to really when almost everything (at the moment that is) is still pointing to a substantial Conservative Majority but perhaps not the Landslide many had a first thought.
We must really wait for a couple of more ‘normal’ Polls over the next week or so to see what if any shifts in public opionion really is!
Mark Johnson: I’m not A GB/Lab supporter – anything but!!
At my local club, out of about 20 of my fellow members who I know vote Conservative, 4 (formerly all staunch Conservatives like me) have decided to switch. 2 are going UKIP in protest at the Tory stance on Lisbon, 1 is going to the Lib Dems because he thinks Vince Cable should be running the economy, and regrettably, 1 is going to vote BNP because he’s been made redundant and is a bit dense. All are voters in a Lib Dem/Conservative marginal seat.
So if formerly loyal voters are thinking again, I think the recent general poll trend that the Tory bubble is bursting somewhat is correct – the question is now “small majority or hung parliament”. On current trends, the latter is looking more likely, but the Conservatives might regain the initiative if they can make a convincing case that they can handle the economy better than Darling, which shouldn’t be difficult but hitherto has been beyond them.
Don’t just trust the polls – there’s a lot more peripheral evidence as to what is going on.
King Harold
A Con MSP has recently welcomed the new Education Secretary in terms that will have embarrased him. This was on the strength of proposals on a joint authored book published several years ago.
As I recall there was something about choice and vouchers in education.
It remains to be seen what, if anything, will be done for choice is not an practical issue outside the central belt.
The opportunity to do deals with or without coalition is potentially there, and would be for Labour too were it not for their many other problems.
Others are better placed to say how right or left the SNP is but I would suggest it probably reflects the balance of Scotalnd as a whole.
If someone were to claim that on such and such an issue Scottish Cons were to the left of English NewLabour I would be disinclined to argue and they are, or have been, either to the left of English Cons or a lot more feart.
The SNP USP is pragmatism and competence. They arn’t going to first decide on the policy objective (eg Education Vouchers) introduce it ignoring objections and then spend years trying to make it work. They arn’t interested in that sort of dogma driven government.
Since the day after the Referendum it has been clear that as AS said shortly afterwards that “oppositions have a way of becoming governments.” Now in government, they will never again be regarded as an unelectable fringe party of impractical romantics incapable of forming a government. That was what they were 50 years ago.
They must now for four years do everything possible to avoid making mistakes, and deal with as many as possible minor issues that have been ignored. Christian Schmidt on these pages described it as “bog standard competent government and a few minor gimmicks” and SNP ministers are working very hard on dozens of popular and non-controversial issues, most of them only of relevance in rural areas. They are making great efforts no doubt at the cost of relationships or health for some.
This month’s lead story in “The Farmer” is an example.
It’s not about the billions of pounds for the banks, but £217,000 for farmers markets. That will as producers, employees or customers affect 217,000 or more citizens and it isn’t likely to change many votes, but it is only one of hundreds of initiatives and most of them will persuade voters that here we have a government concerned with what it may achieve.
If the electorate is impressed with what the SNP government has done with a majority of one over the next largest party, they may give them a bigger majority next time.
The objective is to persuade voters to trust the SNP with independence. Government is what they do to try to impress voters.