More from YouGov’s Sunday Times poll
The full tables for YouGov’s Sunday Times poll are now available here. While the poll shows a solid four point increase in Labour’s support, at the expense of the Liberal Democrats and others, the questions on the PBR doesn’t show it going down particularly well.
Only the new tax on bankers’ bonuses was met with widescale support (79% of respondents supported it), the public were evenly split on measures like freezing public sector wages and inheritance tax allowances, and a majority opposed the increases in National Insurance and VAT. Overall 53% of people thought the PBR had hurt them or their family, including 32% who thought it had done so unfairly.
The poll also showed the proportion of people thinking that the economy is in a bad state growing from 76% to 82% (and more strikingly, those thinking it was “very bad” grew from 28% to 40%).
While neither of the main political parties were seen to be telling the whole truth on the economy, or being fair on the whole, in both cases the Conservatives were seen as marginally less bad than Labour (Darling’s net honesty was -31, Osborne’s -12. Labour’s net fairness was -17, the Conservatives’ -11).
If this poll hadn’t had a voting intention question, I’d have looked at it and said that it showed the PBR had gone down horribly. In fact, Labour’s support went up four (or at least, they did with YouGov, ComRes’s poll painted a different picture). Hopefully we’ll have a somewhat clearer picture in the next few days when MORI and ICM turn up.
Filed under: Voting Intention, YouGov
Again, I think the PBR has had little impact. People aren’t going to be pushed towards the Conservatives even if they dislike it, because the Conservatives have done a poor job of saying what they would have done instead.
@ Jay Blanc
and this government hasnt done a poor job then?
@Mark Rose:
As much as Labour have not spelled out the whole awful truth, you must accept that the Conservatives have said even less. I don’t blame them, as saying that you would be ‘meaner and tougher even quicker’ is not a popular message.
Looking at the YouGov polls, I don’t see a contradiction between believing that the PBR means tough times ahead and Labour getting a boost. If we take people at their face value, then they appear to be asking for politicians to be honest i.e. be mean, be tough.
You could call the sadomasochistic voting intention.
Your last para sums up the opacity of this poll Anthony.
The non-voting intentions answers seem to be -
“Blimey it is bad then! -serves the *loody bankers right .”
It’s the conclusion of- “better vote Labour than LibDem I suppose” – which looks odd.
Anthony – agree ‘don’t believe everything you read in the papers’. But to back it up, look at the regional breakdown of the You Gov figures and roughly compare with actual GE result of 2005. Labour are down by 4% as a ‘whole’, (31 v 35.3) but that is 4.9% in the North, 9.9% in the Mids & Wales., 3.5% in the South, 5.9% in London, BUT only 1.9% in Scotland. Stick that in the Con/Lab swingometer for England and it must be oblivion time. And that presumes they have 31% and are only 9% behind. If the real figures are 24% share / 17% behind…. good luck to them in their new careers!
It certainly looks to be the case that detail of the PBR may not welcomed.
But the overall message of the PBR might yet strike a chord:-
Cut now with the Conservatives vs Cut when the economy has recovered sufficiently with Labour.
In fact this may well turn out to be the real issue of the election: not what to cut but when.
Unions are coming to the Tories rescue again.
@Mark Rose
Case in point. It’s no longer enough for the conservatives to point out the flaws in Labour. They need to start coming up with why they are a better alternative, and won’t make worse mistakes.
A major problem with the attacks on Labour, is that most of what is attacked had full support from the Conservative Party at the time. And when people have started to notice that, then it turns into a “better the devil you know” choice.
@ Jay Blanc – I’m not at all convinced that most of Labour’s mistakes had full support from the Tories. And I also think it’s wishful thinking to suppose that the Tories aren’t simply biding their time with their own policies, particularly given Brown’s record for policy theft. As for:
“And when people have started to notice that, then it turns into a “better the devil you know” choice.”
That rather supposes that Cameron et al are perceived of as “devils” at all. Given Cameron’s personal popularity in comparison to Brown’s, it seems unlikely.
My view remains that Labour’s recent apparent rise at the expense of the Lib Dems is very largely the result of disaffected Labour voters returning to the fold as the general election starts to loom on the horizon. Labour’s bedrock is usually reckoned at 30% and that’s pretty much where the recent increase has taken them. The question is, can they further increase it and preferably (for them) at the Tories’ expense? Given that the Tory vote seems pretty stable at 40-ish, it doesn’t seem likely at present.
Still, whatever speculations any of us make could be blown out of the water by the next round of polls, and reinstated by the ones after that … We shall see.
The thing about cost-cutting budgets is there’s always something for people to disagree with, so ask a “Do you agree with the budget” question and most people will say “I disagree”. But if you give them a choice between two different budget plans, then they’ll chose the one they mostly agree with. It’s wise to be cautious over “Do you agree/disagree with Government Policy X” style questions, as they don’t specify a difference between a minor disagreement or tell you why people disagree.
@DAVID IN OXFORD
Very much agree with your comments. If we (for now) take the middle of the road assumption of 12 to 13 % Conservative lead,
the regional England /Wales position does not look encouraging for Labour. The Times built a whole early election story around the You Gov result, one wonders what is really in Dr Browns mind.
“While neither of the main political parties were seen to be telling the whole truth on the economy, or being fair on the whole, in both cases the Conservatives were seen as marginally less bad than Labour (Darling’s net honesty was -31, Osborne’s -12. Labour’s net fairness was -17, the Conservatives’ -11).”
Maybe the cons can get away with not telling us what their policies are for longer than I’d thought.
@James Ludlow
From my poll graphs, I see no sign that Lib Dem support has suffered to allow for a Labour rise. And again, I question the ’stable at 40′ idea, when it’s more like a downward momentum. There is a pretty clear downward trend for the Conservative polling.
“Personal Popularity” polling is a wash, we don’t have any consistently asked question on that, so no way to examine a trend, and no way to judge fairly if Cameron has gained or lost there. These kinds of question are always ‘tacked on’ to the polls for flavour, and not asked in the same way as US style ‘Job Performance’ polling.
YouGov figures (minus Scotland)
Con 42% : Lab 30% : LD 16% : Other 12%
@JAY BLANC
I dont know how far you are looking back, however Mr Wells figures at the start of this site do suggest a steadying for the Conservative Party in the last couple of weeks. The last time they were up around 43 or 44 was mid October. Labour have probably “firmed up” a bit since then as the daily ration of disaster has subsided.
@ Jay Blanc
I fail to see how you can poo poo consistant polls which put the Cons on 40%. I know you are anti Tory, Jay, but again I dont believe that the Tories are losing ground but I accept that the momentum has slowed for them.
It would appear that those people who are intending to vote Tory will do so but people who are Labour/Lib Dem cant make their minds up which is why we are seeing a see saw between those 2 parties in the polls.
@ Jay Blanc – “From my poll graphs, I see no sign that Lib Dem support has suffered to allow for a Labour rise. And again, I question the ’stable at 40? idea, when it’s more like a downward momentum. There is a pretty clear downward trend for the Conservative polling.”
Yes, you keep referring to your “poll graphs” as if they are the Mystic Oracle from which all truth comes. The fact is that the three most recent polls all have Conservative support on 40/41, and Labour up a few points and the Lib Dems down a few points in two out of those three polls. I appreciate that you’ve devised a special analytical technique of your own but on the other thread you posted a comment to the effect that each of these 3 polls uses a different methodology when in fact one is a YouGov poll and a second is YouGov for BPIX using the same methodology, which makes me think that you don’t have quite as good a grasp of your data as you affect.
Report on ConHome saying ICM have the lead down 2 at 9% in tomorrow’s Guardian.
@James
I’m pretty sure I didn’t invent the concept of “Moving Average”, or “Plotting data on a graph to show a trend”.
Oh, and BPIX will apply their own weighting to the poll results.
@Roland Haines
Three polls is too few to show a ’steadying up’. I can go back and find that just looking at three polls looks like they were ’steady’ around 41, and back further I can find three polls that look like they are ’steady’ around 43.
@ Jay Blanc – “I’m pretty sure I didn’t invent the concept of “Moving Average”, or “Plotting data on a graph to show a trend”.”
Rest assured that I never even vaguely suspected you might be capable of such innovation
Nevertheless, you keep referring to your own magical graph, suggesting that you think there is something especially accurate about it. But no links, sadly …
“Oh, and BPIX will apply their own weighting to the poll results.”
Possibly but now you’re in danger of exaggerating differences when you run them through your Mystic Oracle.
@James Ludlow
Click on the link in my name on every post of mine. There you will find my graphs. I used to put direct links in, but that sends the comments to the moderation queue instead, and it’s the same site my name links to.
ICM in the Guardian: Con 40, Lab 31, Lib Dems 18
I’m not a statistician, I am a simple shopkeeper. This is the chart I use to see where he parties are is here:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
My eye tells me that the tories have started the year as they ended, regardless of duck houses and austerity (a curious mix).
Libdems have benefitted from 2009.
Labour have had a shocker.
Where is my grasp of the figures letting me down? Every one tells me Labour are on the march and the tories are in decline, I’d say the tory lead is the biggest it has been at christmas for at least 17 years.
I’ve heard Cameron described as “smug”. I wonder why?
ICM reporting 40-31-18 split. The same as YouGov ? or was it LD 16 there.
Regardless Jay’s graph gets further momentum. Comres was a rogue.
AR is a joke !!
@SURBITON
How do we know that You Gov was not wrong and ComRes is a joke?
I am not being entirely serious but you do seem to see the Labour perspective rather keenly.
Jay mason
I’m impressed with the amount of work you have put in, but I have to be honest, I don’t really understand it all.
Is the overall trend dependent on the start date for your analysis? Your choice of 1st May seems arbitrary. Are the trends the same if you choose 1st July as a start date?
I meant Jay Blanc, as my children say “my bad” (no, I’ve no idea either).
Okay, now you can start talking about the Conservatives levelling out at 40, as my moving average agrees with these new figures… But note that the difference between ICM polls is still a -2 cut for the Conservatives, so they’ve dropped down to this ’steady at 40′.
Meanwhile, its only one poll, the ComRes figure of 24, that is keeping the moving average for Labour down below 30. And there’s still momentum in the Labour figures going up.
Anthony,
As we approach the Election, the really meaningful polls are in the marginal’s – we need as much data and expertise here as people can supply us with.
Am I right in thinking that, to date, the Tories are doing better in these specific top 200 key marginal’s than the national figures suggest?
Roland: Your perspective is pretty accurate. Only your facts are wrong. I did not say Comres was a joke. I reserved that accolade for Angus Reid.
I believe Comres , this particular time, is an outlier since 3 other polls are very similar.
You may not like that – but that is not my problem.
@Shopkeeper
Trends are generated across the last 100 polls, which is actually before the graph starts. The graph only shows since May for readability.
@Surbiton – I have often criticised some right leaning posters here who routinely claim polls showing Labour in a good light were ‘rogues’, and I’ll do the same to you from the other perspective. It’s certainly odd to have two companies showing labour at 23/24 with three others having them on 30/31, but that’s what we’ve got and none of us know what the true picture is.
As a wider comment, if the ICM figure is correct it will be the first time since march since Labour got above 30 for three consecutive polls. A couple of weeks back I posted that while Labour would have happy to see the lead narrow they would still be worried that their own score had not broken the 30% barrier with any regularity. If this is now beginning to happen, especially post PBR, they will be much happier. I guess we can’t confirm it yet, but it looks like the PBR went down better with voters than with newspapers.
@Alec
ICM figure is confirmed, lead article on the Guardian on-line right now.
“With the small print of the new poll suggesting continuing public reluctance to accept the tough choices that balancing the government’s books would require, it could be that the Tory tactic of demanding deeper and earlier cuts than Labour is willing to make is starting to make the public nervous.”
This is from the Guardian report on the ICM poll. The other questions apparently show the PBR has not been popular but that the gap between Lab and Con on the economy has shrunk. The report also claims that people are not keen to accept the need for tough choices and deep cuts (unlike what King Harold insists is the case) and take the view that while the PBR was not popular the Tory line of deeper, faster cuts is even less so. If so, this could explain why Labour support is up after a widely panned PBR.
I stumbled on this site by accident and I find it fasinating.
My fealing is that labour will be relying on Northern seats, Scotland and Wales not to be wiped out.
Down here in the SW Mr Brown seems as detested as Thatcher is in the NE.
Could be an interesting split at the election, I think England will be Tory and labours only real chance is how many scotish seats can they hold.
Alec,
I agree with your analysis. People aren’t crazy about the PBR, but it seems that Brown has succeeded in drawing his famous dividing lines in the right place and moving the debate onto ground that suits Labour.
Now when the Tories attack Labour over the deficit all people will hear is “we’re going to do things even worse than all that stuff in the PBR that you didn’t like!”
I am not entirely sure why many think the PBR would hurt Labour. After all it is not a case of one party espousing cuts and the other not.
Both are espousing cuts except Labour says let’s wait another year; the Tories are gung-ho and says let’s do it now. [ When GO says it, he does it with a smirk on his face. ]
As always the public will choose the less painful one.
I do not think the public blames Labour for the recession. They have seen enough news bulletins telling them of the recession all over the world. This recession was indeed global and the deepest one since the 30’s. People know that. People know that the bankers caused it !
Regarding debt: have you asked anyone if they could tell you the difference between the PBR and the PSBR. Reagan [ Republican ] won a landslide after increasing the budget deficit. Joe Blogg does not care what is the gilts yield until his mortgage rate creeps up. People do remember 15% mortgage rates under the Tories !
The one “presentational” difference which Labour has pronounced lately and which, I think, is making a subtle impact on people’s minds is the point that let us not inflict more pain on people until the recovery takes hold. So let’s wait another year before the cuts begin. This strategy maybe more powerful than some people are prepared to admit.
Looks like Cons stable at 40-Labour clawing back the LibDem/Others defectors to get them to 30.
So the lead is now at the bottom of the 10 to 15 range rather than the top.
So the key question would appear to be is the core vote coming home for Labour, in areas which gain them seats-or in already safe Labour seats?
It could be that we are seeing a flukey succesion of outliers ? if you said that they were on the edge of their polling accuracy e.g. + or – 3%. Then they settle nicely in the 12 to 14 point lead category. Which seems to be more in line with what we’ve seen over the last few months.
@Colin – that’s going to be the interesting question. I’m tempted to view it as core vote returning, for no scientific reason other than a general ‘feel’, and if that is correct it won’t hurt the Tories too much. However, a number of Tories appear to be concerned over the situation in the SW, and it could be that some swing voters are splitting from them because of a fear factor.
@Jakob – it’s interesting that Tim Montgomerie on ConHome is saying that Cameron ‘must own growth’ by the GE. He is arguing that the Tories must talk vigorously about growing our way out of recession as a counter to a Labour 20% Tory VAT campaign strategy as he clearly feels they are vulnerable to being seen as spending cutters only.
Looks like there is a new ICM poll in the Guardian showing the Tories 9 points ahead on 40%.
People are talking about hung Parliaments again, but why are they? People are talking about snap elections, but why?
The lead in some polls is now firmly hovering below 10%. If you assume that UNS is correct, Cameron should be worried, and that’s the narrative. But I’d argue that:
a) Anti-Tory tactical voting will be far down on the previous 4 elections. They really have “detoxified” themselves.
b) Anti-Labour tactical voting will increase from 2005.
c) The regional distribution of swing seems to be in the Tories’ favour, as they are doing well in the areas where they’ll win the most seats.
d) The Tories themselves are talking up the threat of a “hung Parliament”. David Cameron himself has made statements on it. Brown hasn’t. So why? Because he wants to coalesce the anti-Labour vote around him, and stop complacency; Cameron has learnt his lessons from 1992 well.
e) If Cameron can get a narrative going, saying that Brown plans an election in March, then he can accuse Brown of “bottling it again”.
And no, Brown won’t call it in March:
a) He’s bottled it once.
b) He so dislikes losing that he never stood as a paper candidate before getting his MP seat.
c) The weather will be worse in March, with the gloom and despondency of a February campaign; I suspect there’s a reason why governments haven’t called elections outside summer for most of this century, apart from Heath, and he lost.
d) When was the last time a fading government hastened their own execution? Major should have called earlier, Callaghan was forced, and Douglas-Home dragged it on for beyond the 5 years!
Hi,
Sociology lecturer here. Just wanted people’s opinion on whether the almost blanket press support of the tories in the last 6 months has affected them negatively in the polls.
I can only go on my personal feeling at the minute (I’m actually in the midst of researching the subject for peer review for 2010), but I do get the impression that such almost sychophantic coverage sometimes actually turns people off the subject.
The Jordan/Katie Price affect. “Oh not her again”. Where suspicion of the blanket coverage turns to disenchantment with the subject matter.
Reading about how great Cameron is in the papers, I can’t help but feel that it would eventually cause a possible backlash.
In fact, I actually think it makes Brown appear a tad more “real” and personable in comparison.
My main point is the Sun support. I’d love to know if there has been any sort of correlation between that and polling.
My point being, the majority of adult, educated Labour voters are obviously pretty liberal.
The vote swing for me is going to be this market. Eductated voters. On the basis that the tories surely offer nothing to the working classes – as represented by their performances in Scotland recently.
As a case study, maybe the 26 year old grad, from Leeds, working in London. I’d say that’s where the swing will be.
The Sun, Mail, Express, are the empitome of centre right wing publishing. I can’t see at all how their opinion on subject can resonate with any real Labour support.
I’m also of the opinion that politics has got increasingly central in the last decade (I don’t think Cameron could get elected without pandering to the left a bit in fact).
I actually think such voratious, loud, aggresive support by the above titles, for the tories, is actually, potentially “turning off” the very voters they need to win the election.
The Sun report worked for Blair. As they are a centre right person, and he needed the centre right vote to win his super majority.
However, although Cameron probably needs to win back this same vote, I’m also of the opinion, that this already happened in 2005, basically.
Most tories had already gone back to the mother ship in 2005 I’d say. As the loss in votes suggested (Labour “only” won with 44% in 2005 right?)
I’d seriously suggest that the demographics Cameron will need to win his majority are:
1: women
2: ethnic communities
3: gay vote
4: northern vote
5: welsh vote
I really can’t see what any of these papers offer these groups. Other than continually offending them.
So, the backing of such titles, could well be counter productive.
Although I’m only guessing, I’d state that the drop in polls probably coincides quite nicely with “The Sun” backing.
An example of which is probably Mandleson and Brown actively goading News Corp and The Sun at every available oppurtunity.
The more The Sun shouts, the better it actually may be.
I’d also be slightly suspicious of the recent “leaks” on immigration to The Daily Mail and The Sun.
I thought at the time, and I say it again, in my (pretty vast) experience of media political coverage, I’d state that Labour may well have put that into the media themselves. I think it may have happened on numerous leaks,.
To goad the tory press to start acting “old school tory” again, and really put off the voters they need to attract.
Having the Daily Mail and Express and Sun ranting on about the EU and immigrants all week.
I have to say that it’s probably very counter productive in Cameron’s attempts to get the progressive vote
The details of the ICM Guardian Poll in full:
Conservative 40%(-2)
Labour 31%(+2)
Liberal Democrat 18%(-1)
Others 11%(+1)
Looks like Labour’s vote is hardening at around the 30% mark while the Tories seem to be stuck at around the 40% mark.
What do you think we can make of this?
It’s clear that most of you young lads have so little history —–surely everyone must know that the only accurate polls are ICM and YouGov—-you can almost forget the rest.
Tomorrow’s ICM Con 40 Lab 31 Lib Dem 18 would give a hung parliament
Still there’s a long way yet to go–a weeks a long–etc.-
Richard Manns
seems a rather partisan viewpoint to be honest. Slightly “bottom lip quivering” as well if I may be so bold”.
This is a site to discuss facts. Not conspiracy, and what may happen. It also may not happen.
The polls are consistent in a tory slide over the last 6 months. As are council elections.
To counter your claims a little bit
a) Possibly. But at the same time, I think most Labour voters would rather not vote than back Cameron and Osborne. The tories problems in all elections over the last 2 years (euro, council) is the fact that there has been no swing whatsoever from Labour to tory.
The tories were struggling greatly to get any labour swing in the euro elections, at Labours lowest point. It could be much worse now. Block voting being, “I’m not voting for any main party”.
b) Same point. It may, but I really doubt the tories will get any of it. The trends from council and euro elections seems to be not enough swing from Labour to tory. Not voting for Labour, but not for the tories either.
You have to remember, for the tories to win an election, with a majority, in this system, they can’t do it with just tory voters. They need vast amounts of Labour ones as well.
Labour can win it with just their core support. The tories certainly can’t.
c) highly questionable. Possible that they could win in the areas they need, but going by recent council elections, euro elections and scottish elections, I’m not sure they have done enough to carry any favour with typical Labour seats.
d) the more likely scenario being that he is talking about hung parilaments to phsyche up his own party into fighting back. The tories in general have been quite poor over the last 6 months. Lots of in fighting. And could possibly be feeling the pace after 2 solid years in “election mode”. More a “we could lose this” if you ask me from Cameron
e) Can’t see it. Until Brown states that there could possibly be a march election, there is little solid to work on for any opposition. In fact, I think the last thing Cameron wants is an election with a potential 6-7-8 point poll lead by then. He could well lose it.
Labour a) A bit partisan old chap. This is a serious political board, where the tactics of election plans are taken seriously. Not mocked. Brown will call an election when he thinks he has the best chance of winning. Little to do with bravery.
Labour b) again, getting into Daily Mail territory here. He will just want an election when he has the best chance of winning. Little more to read into it.
Labour c) I think the only forecast that will matter is economic forecasts. If Brown thinks there may be a mini peak in the economy in February, he will have an election without a worry. The more people have faith in the economy, the worse Cameron will do. His doom and gloom policy making won’t work, if there is a gap in the clouds, and the sun is shining through
d) I’d say the Labour party will be pretty darn happy with possibly forcing a hung parliament (they could even win it) going for their 4th consecutive term.
Going on past elections, that would be an excellent election for a 4th term party. Even electioneering for a 3rd term – that would be a decent result.
Labour will feel they have it all to play for (even if it’s only ruining camerons term).
I assure you, with these polls, the Labour will be planning a campaign on actually winning now. Not just trying to hurt Cameron’s government
Richard Whelan
The Guardian are reporting the change since the last pollicm did for their paper.
A more accurate presentation would be the changes since 2-3 Dec
Conservative 40%(nc)
Labour 31%(+2)
Liberal Democrat 18%(-1)
Others 11%(-1)
Sorry!
pollicm = poll ICM
The YouGov tables are interesting. Two things stand out for me:
1) The high proportion of “Don’t Know’s” in the two questions on George Osborne telling the truth on the economy, and on the fairness of Tory policies.
Is this the consequence of the “heads down, say nothing” strategy, and why perhaps, the Conservatives have so far failed to seal the deal? Are the public really going to embrace a Tory government without knowing what they are proposing to do? Of course, having said they will cut harder and faster than Labour, saying what they will do may make matters worse for them. This, I guess, is their dilemma.
2) The question on the effect of the PBR on the respondents own family. Only 32% think it will hurt them unfairly. So has Labour pulled off a PBR that suggests it can tackle the debt reduction problem and cause only 32% unfair harm? Perhaps this explains the rise in Labour support? The public clearly know there is more to come, but perhaps the PBR was nowhere near as bad as their expectations.
In a political system where even a winning party is opposed by nearly 60% of the electorate, these figures are not bad for the government.
Its a shame their was no direct question on cutting faster and deeper, as I think this is the key dividing line on which the election will be fought.
Oldmat
Thanks for correcting me. These were the only changes I could find.
What do you think of the poll itself?
@SURBITON
“Roland: Your perspective is pretty accurate. Only your facts are wrong. I did not say Comres was a joke. I reserved that accolade for Angus Reid.”
Yes, I do understand, the whole point of my comment was, perhaps the Tory highscores are correct and the Tory lower scores are wrong. You jumped to another conclusion with some
glee, which is hardly non-partisan.
As for my likes or dislikes on the matter, they are no concern of yours. Nor is your love affair with Labour any interest of mine.
@OLD NAT
Your figures are the correct ones, they correspond with Mike Smithson.
@CHRIS
I had no idea that Jordan/ Katie Price was a Tory.
I meant to add, that on the fairness of Labour versus Conservative tax and spending plans, You Gov show a small Labour lead (31% to 27%,
or -7% to -21% on Fair-Unfair). This may also be a contributory factor in the slight Labour improvement.
Richard Whelan
“Thanks for correcting me.”
You can take the man out of teaching but …….
I think there is an ICM poll about to come out:
C 40 L 31 Lib 18
Dont shout if I’m wrong but if I’m right, then it shows a narrowing of the gap by 2%. It seems to be the correct trend as opposed to 17% Con leads where some have posted that the gap is widening.
Moderation note
Several people have changed their screen names. If I think this is an attempt at sockpuppetting (running several identities to agree with yourself, deliberately mislead or generally bait and switch), I’ll block your comments.
Please stick to consistent names (or at least, tell people you’re posting under a different name so I know you are not aiming to deceive). If nothing else, everytime you change your name the software thinks you are a new person and automatically puts you in moderation.
(Oops, just for clarity, that isn’t aimed at Richard (Cheshire) who changed his screen name very, very slightly in a way that definitely wasn’t intended to confuse!)
It took that long for that posting to come through, It’s old news!!!
@ Chris
“partisan”
No more than your assertion that “Labour can win it with just their core support. The tories certainly can’t.”
Core vote, is presumably, those who’ll vote for Party X come what may. In which case, the lowest vote for Labour since Ramsey McDonald has been 1983 (27.6%) vs. the Tories’ 30.7% in 1997. Neither could win with that, and Labour’s is smaller.
“no swing in council and euro”
You should be quite aware of the irrelevance of Euro and council elections to the General Election. If you’re not convinced, I’d point out that the Tories have won every EU election since 1997, where Labour won in 1989 and 1994 during Tory rule. If anything, all these results tell you is who isn’t in power in Westminster right now.
“c) highly questionable” (my point about regional swing)
Firstly, core Labour seats are, by definition, lowest on the Tory target list. They don’t need these to win, much as Labour didn’t need Henley to win in 1997.
Secondly, have you sat down and worked the regional values out, then put it into Martin Baxter’s predictor? I have. I do not make these statements on a whim.
Etc. Etc. I am often partisan, but I find your claim to be some neutral arbiter hollow.
The country taking longer than many to come out of recession may be a plus for labour as it reinforces how wrong the Tories were to pump for early cuts. Undoubtedly Cameron is a much better at PR than Brown. Recently Brown appears much more confident on TV. His comments on Afghanistan and other non economic matters are more detailed and informed in contrast to Camerons. The bonus tax has hit well with the public. If the GDP growth is positive in January I would expect the small shift in the polls to labour to continue for a while. It takes a real drama to make a step change shift in opinion. Once a trend is established it is difficult to stop it. The real quaetion is what is happening in the marginals and are floating voters reaching soild ground
Simon:
33
Chris:
You should either exclude Scotland or treat it separately.
The contest in Scotland is between SNP and Labour and the press led by The Scotsman are not so much pro-Labour as anti-SNP.
Meanwhile the SNP government aims to impress voters and is dealing with a huge number of neglected issues usually of little relevance or interest to urban populations or the press. Only one of these initiatives can bring them many votes and some are controversial but there are a huge number of such issues.
People get their information from many sources other than the national newspapers, not least industry journals.
4% of people in employment are in the NHS. There must be far more who pass through a hospital in the course of a year. East coast fishing communities are already solidly behind the SNP because of their CFP policy. Even if people have reservations, they credit the SNP with taking a serious interest.
Do you know anyone trained in sales or marketing? If so ask them about bad-mouthing a competitor.
The Labour party in Scotland must have hundreds of members who have sales training, but to the party members and press a political party is more akin to a football team than an organisation bidding for a five-year contract to manage the country. Thus the supporters are more interested in whether their team can attack the opposing team than actually score a goal, and if the team has a bad season, they sack the manager.