More from MORI’s monthly monitor
The full results of Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor are now up here. The voting intention figures were in the Mirror yesterday, but some of the more interesting results were instead published in the Observer today.
Firstly we have the economic optimism figures. As with YouGov in the Telegraph, these show an improvement since the announcement that Britain has formally exited recession. 44% of people expect the economy to get better over the next 12 months, 24% expect it to get worse for a net figure of +20.
I was also pleased to see MORI repeat their question on whether people like Brown and/or Labour, and whether they like Cameron and/or the Conservative party. This was last asked in summer 2008 when the Conservatives were enjoying a towering 20 point lead. Back then it showed Cameron was far more popular than the Conservatives (54% liked him, compared to 42% his party), but Brown was much less popular than Labour (29% liked him, 39% his party).
Now Gordon Brown’s likeability has increased to 35% (up 6), compared to Labour on 38% (down 1). Cameron’s likeability stands at 45% (down 9), his party 39% (down 3). Not surprisingly given the Conservative lead in the polls has gone from 20 points to 8, Brown is seen as more likeable and Cameron less so than in 2008. However, the shift really does seem to be in how the leaders are seen – how much people like the parties they lead has moved much less.
Despite that Cameron remains a plus for his party, with 6% more people liking him than his party, while Brown remains a drag on his, liked by 3% fewer than Labour are. In both cases though the gap between leader and party is much smaller.
Cameron’s +6% personal versus party popularity doesn’t really justify building a whole campaign around him. I expect a change in election strategy by the CONS.
Perhaps we’ll get some electioneering based on CONS policies now. But will the voters like them?
The more important point is the fact that Cameron’s rating has gone down by 9%, and Brown’s has gone up 6%. A 7.5% swing in Brown’s favour. The result of which we can see in the polls.
Are there any polling results on George Osborne v Alistair Darling?
Nobody is talking about the corrosive political shock on the street the day after the election in middle Britain….they simply wont understand that a Conservative Party with a 9% ‘win’ will not have a majority, when Labour in 2005 had a 4% ‘win’ and romped home!
election observer
“shock on the street”
Some hopes. My guess is that it will be apathy as usual in England.
With the main unionist Tweedles wanting to change as little as possible to retain their hegemony, many will not even notice.
Anyone remember what the public reaction was post 1983 when the Lib/SDP were screwed over? I imagine a surprise hung parliament from a big Tory lead would be similar.
For the record, I don’t remember.
AW “the Conservative lead in the polls has gone from 20 points to 8″
———————-
The question is, is there any further to go?
It’s hard to see how Labour can close that gap much further, they are still, after all, dragged down by i. being in power for a long time and ii. the Brown factor.
Personally, I can’t see Labour closing that gap to, say, 5 points. Where would those extra few points come from?
@ DAVIDIN FRANCE
“Personally, I can’t see Labour closing that gap to, say, 5 points. Where would those extra few points come from?”
I’m not saying the points will come to LAB; but if they do, it’ll be employment & the economy.
An interesting point about the AR poll. If I’ve read it correctly, those who are certain to vote are:
CON 30, LAB 18 so 12 point delta.
It’s only when you add don’t knows with a ‘leaning’ that CON goes 16 points ahead.
I don’t think that 12 points is massively different to the 8/9/10 point leads shown by the other recent polls.
Quincel
I think mowst people were surprised Margaret Thatcher’s share of the vote was so low.It was a bit like the last Reichstag elections in 1933.
@Amber Star
I’m not saying the points will come to LAB; but if they do, it’ll be employment & the economy
——
I’d agree with that. If they come, that is where they will come from. (And, perhaps, a continued rise in house prices leading to an increased ‘feel good’ factor especially in the middle classes).
I just wonder whether there really are any more points for Labour to squeeze out from the electorate.
I really cannot see them getting to within 5 points of the Conservatives just by virtue of the fact they have been in power for so long and the very negative image – especially in the British media – of Gordon Brown.
“It was a bit like the last Reichstag elections in 1933.”
Though whatever you think of Thatcher, the aftermath wasn’t as bad right?
@ Wolf
Was the vote percentage really so low? They lost 1.5 percentage points after a horrible 4 years of recession and unemployment exacerbated by a decision to swtich from Keynesianism to Monetarism; I’d count that as a great success, personally.
@ Brownedov
“With the main unionist Tweedles wanting to change as little as possible to retain their hegemony, many will not even notice.”
Oh, save me. 20% of 10% of the UK has gone for romantic nationalism, and wants to sub-divide the UK. Fair enough. But the other 98% of us have far better things to do than oppress you.
If growth had been 0.0% instead of 0.1% would it have counted as Britain formally exiting the recession or still being in it, or maybe a third category?
ANDY-it would have been a 0% increase.
The lead is narrowing because the Conservatives are appearing to be over-confident. Many do not like such complacent cockiness. Contrast this with Tony Blair, who, in 1997, remained very cautious right up to polling day.
Richard Manns
“20% of 10% of the UK has gone for romantic nationalism”
The UK consists of 4 nations, and those wanting home rule in at least three of those nations are not confined to one “romantic” party. Was it the SSP or the Scottish Greens you were thinking of, perhaps?
Until their last conference, even the LDs were committed to federalism.
But do look at the polling evidence before asserting that 98% want an unreformed, undivided UK, preferably noting that all GB-wide polls are based essentially on English demographics.
@ David in France
“I just wonder whether there really are any more points for Labour to squeeze out from the electorate.”
I think Labour may do slightly better in the election than the current polls suggest, as I think there are still a fair few natural Labour voters saying they’ll vote Lib Dem / minority party but will eventually vote Labour as per normal.
Aside from that, Labour would probably need to look to the televised debates to try and pin down the Conservatives on areas where they are “policy light”. In my opinion here though there is a problem in that both parties are trying to grab the centre ground, so it’s tricky to expose your opponent as being on the right/left without proving yourself to be on the left/right at the same time.
Should be interesting.
Andy – and if the next figures show minus 0.8%, that won’t mean we’re back in recession, because it takes two consecutive quarters of negative growth for that
0% isn’t negative either, so effectively counts as growth.
Interesting to see Cameeron shifting his position on cuts – presumably as a result of the polls ratehr than genuinely being persuaded of what many of have been saying – cuts too steep too soon would be wrong.
I’ve had a pet theory for a while now that we may get an election before the DMO starts having problems getting Uk debt away. QE has stopped (final confirmation feb 6th I think) so uk guilts are now ‘on their own’ so to speak and with no BOE buying them straight back from the market they may struggle. However this weekend’s poll moves put me in mind of a stratergy that Labour may employ to turn this negative to their advantage & at the same time allow them to cash in on the recent shift in the polls. The scenario they may play could read ‘Uk Soverign debt Markets suffer crisis [for the fore mentioned reasons plus the fact the Market hates the idea of a hung parliment more than a Tory win (or even a labour win for that matter)]. Brown then stands up statesman like & says he is going to forego his right to wait until May 6th & call a snap election in the national interest ie bringing stability to the markets buy settling the election uncertainty issue right away.’
One thing I don’t know though are the rules on how quick a ‘quick election’ could be?? Feel free to help me out on this.
Watching the various politicos on telly today I got the impression that the Tories really don’t have the debt repayment narrative nailed. Both Osborne and Cammo seemed to wilt under fire and with Mandy sniping from above, effectively, I think that the public will go for the softer option, or at least the most defined, and back Gordon to manage the country through crisis. In my opinion the Tories need to reassure the public that they have the ability to mend the economy without causing more damage, at the moment Labour look like a nurse to cling to.
Nostra
The definitive timetable seems to be the HoC Library research paper 09/44 of 13 May 2009, available in PDF form from parliament.uk
17 working days seems to be the minimum, although obviously with HoL connivance the period could be cut.
The same paper confirms (but pooh poohs the notion) that the latest date of the UK general election would be some time in June 2013 thanks to the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694.
Brown’s rise is nothing short of meteoric ! He should send a Thank-you letter to the Editor of The Sun !!
Brownedov
Thanks for that March it is then……!
To Surbiton; no he should send a thank-you letter to the Editor of the BBC’s OneShow, for the best Labour Party Political Broadcast in British history.
Actually, I don’t think even the BBC can save Brown. In my opinion, the Conservatives only need a 4% lead over Labour (let us say 39/35) to get an overall majority. I haven’t changed my opinion for several months. However, if the actual percentages are lower (let us say 35/31) then they will only be the largest party. Most political correspondents and commentators know no more about polling than they do about quantum mechanics which is why they stick to the nonsense that the Conservatives need a 10 % lead.
Actually, Brown would gladly settle for a 39-35 split. I don’t think Labour can get 35% this time though.
The Tories have a bad habit getting 30-35% of the vote in hundreds of seats. Bad electoral practice ! It’s called the wasted vote. On the other hand getting 10% of the vote in , say, Surbiton is actually quite smart.
There are no prizes in finishing second ! The Tories’ specialse in that art.
Cameron and Osborne may be vacillating on cuts because they realise that 250,000 public sector redundancies in relatively short order could impact on voters’ preferences in virtually every marginal constituency given that public sector and local authority workers live everywhere! The trouble is that such vacillation looks like weakness and that won’t do them any good at all.
@MARCO…… The BBC is under threat from a licence fee cut if the Tories win. BBC interviewers have become aggressive to the point of rudeness when dealing with Tories but charming with Labour, the One show is fronted by a Labour supporting duo and so naturally they do what they can for Gordon.
I think the one thing that’s missing here are some conservative polices. We’ve had weeks of blather but nothing concrete. I’m still not sure if the Conservative Party is conservative – and I speak as a supporter. Unless some pretty clear, conservative policies are announced soon a lot of wavering voters wont take the chance they might be voting for Blu-Labour and go UKIP.
@john tt
Interesting to see Cameeron shifting his position on cuts – presumably as a result of the polls ratehr than genuinely being persuaded of what many of have been saying – cuts too steep too soon would be wrong.
———————————————-
I expected he would shift and I even said as much on here yesterday. He simple had to offer an alternative approach to the very risky strategy of making deep and immediate cuts before recovery is certain.
I’m not surprised at the timing of this change of heart either. I know that the Conservatives had a real concern over their lead and see the economy as key to getting a working majority – or not.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, this change of tack has been done in good time. Had they gone to the election without doing so, it could have been very damaging.
Now they need to make sure Osborne understands the policy!
The idea that the Conservatives would make immediate deep cuts in public spending was always hogwash; perpetrated by both sides I might add.
The simple truth is that the mechanisms for cutting spending take quite a long time to operate. There was never any likelihood that significant reductions in public spending would be achieved in 2010-2011. The Tories thought there was a strong appetite for austerity (because that’s what the polls said) so they though there were votes in playing to that audience. It turns out (as usual) that the public want it both ways and are punishing the Tories for talking tough. Now Cameron is moderating the message to something more palatable.
One Nil to Labour’s strategists then. But its not really about the facts of policy. We do need to cut public spending – everyone agrees on that. We will have to do it in a planned way – everyone knows that. The differences between the parties are really pretty nuanced, but they positioned themselves differently and Labour caught the public mood a little more closely.
Lets see what happens next, and how the media and the polls respond to “The Return of Nice Dave”.
Apropos of my BBC comment, I should have mentioned the balancing influence of Rupert Murdoch. He of course is an advocate of licence fee reduction.
In my opinion, the erosion of the Tory lead is because although voters think it is time for a change, the weakness of the Tory message is allowing voters to drift away, as JohnRS says.
I think the Tories should show some strong leadership and give a message something like “All the parties agree that cuts are necessary. We need to start early to get it over with quicker”, rather than always trying to soften the message to appeal to the so-called ‘middle ground’. Lady Thatcher never pulled her punches and the majority of the electorate loved it, though I admit she is still hated by some.
Cameron must stop worrying about offending anyone if he wants to regain some momentum.
I don’t think that DC is raiding the GE coffers yet to any extent as yet. What he appears to be doing is testing the water with policy strategies and retracting where necessary areas which seem contentious. When he and his team have an adequate appraisal of what the electorate will accept and not accept, I think then, there will be a major effort in pushing Tory ideas and policies forward. Until he has this information, he is definitely holding back dipping too deep in the Tory pocket. All this of course could be very dangerous, depending on his time scale and, when GB calls an election.
@ Neil A
I think “The Return of Nice Dave” has somewhat been overshadowed by his extreme comments concerning burglars losing ‘all human rights’ – I concede the actual policy is popular but that rhetoric is in deep contrast to his ‘hug a hoodie’ days – does he want to help misguided children or stab them for making a mistake?
Cameron’s big risk right now is to appear to “Flip Flop” around on policies. And it can be put together into a narrative very easily… The Europe referendum policy being dropped, wavering about on feel good policies about marriage that disappear off the radar when they became unpopular, reversing the language about fast and deep cuts… It’ll all add up, and if Cameron makes any more policy blunders of the same ‘unsure of what he should do’ kind, he’s going to lose creditability.
And that’s *before* we include the potential for a new narrative that Cameron and Osborn don’t get along.
It doesn’t need Labour to add any votes at all for the Tory lead to go down to 4-5% in the run-up to the GE, simply that the Lib Dems and/or others rise by 3-4% at Tory expense.
The risk to the Tories depends largely on the extent that their current standing still reflects a negative view of Labour, because once the election is called broadcasters will be legally obliged to recognise the existence of the LDs and others, all of whom are currently getting a fraction of the air time of Lab and Con.
The growing realisation amongh electors that Cameron is not the only fruit will likely cost the Tories dear if he remains the main selling point, but with their policies still wobbling all over the shop what other direction can their election strategy take?
Obviously, they’ll attack over and again the possibility of a parliament that denies any party an overall majority, by stressing their view that it would carry grave economic dangers. But I suspect they’ll screw that up too, by overplaying the gloomy prognostications emanating from the credit rating agencies and other international financial ‘experts’, in whom people now have no trust at all .
And meanwhile the LDs and smaller parties will argue strongly that it’s been 60 yearsof overwheening single party power that has steadily driven the country’s economy into its current miserable condition, rather than coalition governments of the type found running a lot of the stronger economies.
This is still shaping up to be a fascinating election.
Burglary is a mistake?
“Yeah guv, I was just passing this old lady’s house and I accidentally smashed a window and accidentally broke in and frightened her to death”
Householders should be allowed to kill burglars. I can only assume that Ben is not a householder.
PETEB
“Yeah guv, I was just passing this old lady’s house and I accidentally smashed a window and accidentally broke in and frightened her to death”
It would hardly matter what the old lady’s right of self-defence was if she had already been frightened to death.
Please, Can we stick to how people’s perception of the policy could affect polling results instead of using emotive & irrational arguments to make the point?
I earlier attempted to ask what impact the allegation -that angry Gordon Brown hit a senior adviser, pulling a secretary out of her chair and hurling foul-mouthed abuse at aides – will have on Brown’s ratings.
Unfortunately my comments are still subject to moderation. It now seems that many of tomorrow’s papers have followed up this theme
An interesting account is by Guido “Gordon Brown is a malevolent, deeply damaged and unpleasant human being. He is at the centre of a culture of political bullying that has been unhealthy for the Labour Party and the government. The loyalist cabal around him are unpleasant people who have no place in a healthy political culture, they are as secretive and malicious as they are vindictive and vicious.”
I am beginning to think this story has legs and could have a major impact on the polls.
Householder self-defence is another area where the pontifications are all politics. Ultimately the courts decide what is reasonable. The LibDems are the only party that have shown any moral backbone, by flying the flag of “wishy washy Liberalism” rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
I don’t actually remember Cameron saying that burglars should “Lose all human rights”. It would be a pretty fatuous way to express it if he had. A more accurate description of what the Tories are trying to say would probably be “An otherwise law-abiding citizen should not go to prison because of an excessive emphasis on the human rights of criminals”. Not very catchy though.
@ Neil A
he said it on the politics show today, one arguement against said notion is “burglars who are aware that any break-in could result in their death are far more likely to come armed with knives or guns”.
Cameron’s rhetoric may please the Daily Mail crowd but him stating human rights shouldn’t be universal is a silly one at best – he’s trying to be populist but being found out all the time, eg lying over rising violent crime. The polls are showing he is no longer the electoral advantage he once was.
@Amber Star
OK. To spell it out. I think that the vast majority of householders will be in favour of a policy to be harder of burglars (though of course it is not officially a policy). Therefore Cameron’s statement will be more likely to lead to an increase in Tory support in the polls than a decrease, in my opinion.
Thanks Ben, found the quote with your help.
It’s a mistake to assume the public are going to like the way a policy is expressed…
The public may well support “people shouldn’t face prison for defending themselves against burglars” as a short question in a poll… But if you present it as “Burglars don’t deserve human rights” or “you should have the right to shoot trespassers” then support drops away pretty sharply.
This is much the same as… well, every other “populist” policy the Conservatives have put up in recent times. On paper they look good, in polling they look good, but as soon as they come out as official Conservative Party Policy, the public baulks. It’s happened with the Marriage policy, it’s happened with the Fast and Deep Cuts policy, and I think it’s likely to happen with a ‘right to shoot trespassers’ policy.
All the parties are flying policy kites at the moment, particularly regarding “cuts” and will keep doing so until the election is called and the manifestos are published.
Until then, any attempt at scrutiny seems nigh on impossible. Can anyone, hand on heart, tell me what any of the three parties’ policy is with regards to public spending over the next five years? I have heard contradictory statements from them all and find it all very confusing. I consider myself to be reasonably politically aware – one of the 300 000 who, say, watch PMQs. I wonder what the other 39 million potential electors make of all the obfuscation.
MORI’s “Brito-centric” habit of having a ludicrous region called the “North”, which includes Scotland, is becoming increasingly annoying, and making their polls of limited value.
They asked an interesting question -
“How important is it to you personally who wins the next General Election?”
Importance, GB, Eng, North (including Scotland)
Very, 40%, 42%, 38%
Fairly, 30%, 30%, 28%
Not very, 18%, 17%, 22%
Not at all, 9%, 8%, 9%
It seems likely that the 4% difference between all England and the North is attributable to the Scots. With our own Parliament, English domestic affairs will make no difference to us personally.
It may well be that this question is actually revealing an increasing disconnect between Scottish and UK politics – which may well affect turnout here significantly – but we will never know unless pollsters stop grouping respondents inappropriately.
@Shopkeeper Man
The problem is that because the Conservative Campaign is so tightly focused on Cameron and Osborn, they’ve been doing the Kite Flying on potential policies themselves rather than hand it over to someone else off stage.
But the problem is that when they say something, it becomes the de-facto Conservative Policy, not just a suggestion of potential policy. It’s too late now to try to reel back in “Fast and Deep Cuts”, that’s the message which has stuck with the public.
This is the inherent danger of starting a political campaign when you don’t have a platform yet. And one that’s probably damaged them hugely.
@Jay Blanc
“It’s too late now to try to reel back in “Fast and Deep Cuts”, that’s the message which has stuck with the public.”
I think you are right as- after the last three months so fixated on the swingeing cuts narrative- it would look shallow, incompetent and lightweight to row back now so starkly on their key approach to what will be the most important factor in the election.
There is clearly a difference of opinion between Cameron and Osborne on this as there is between diehard paleo Thatcherite Conservative supporters and members on the one hand, and swing/ independent voters on the other.
But – because of that difference between Cameron’s Tory base and the electorate at large (not convinced by the need for massive fast and deep cuts) it was actually the smart move. Cameron – on this evidence- has better political antennae than does Osborne.
But I think it’s too late- the Tories should *never* have proposed the fast deep swingeing cuts option in the first place. It’s a loser.
@ MIKE
Re the Mail on Sunday story about Gordon Brown’s alleged tantrums, I think MOS & Guido are preaching to the converted.
Most people will discount it & it won’t affect polling unless some meat gets put on the bones ie has any of the people involved filed charges or left their job & claimed contructive dismissal because of his behaviour?
Personally, I found it interesting that Mail On Line buried the story of LAB’s poll gain but had the Brown story as a headline (it then went on to say it is gossip that might appear in a book at some time in the future).
The Mail should handle this story with care – it could rebound on them like the Sun’s exploitation of Mrs Janes.
My own experience of working closely with government ministers over many years is that most of them are bullies, Tories and Labour alike. It’s not simply that it goes with the turf (of politics), but also that ‘top’ politics is one of the turfs on which bullies can still act with impunity. The Chilcot evidence has been providing illustrations of this for weeks. The public at large recognise it and (dangerously) it adds to their disaffection with politics as a whole, not only with the politicians themselves.
‘Mail’ stories about Brown’s alleged behaviour with his staff will be matched by a renewal of ‘Mirror’(?) stories about Cameron’s disdainful high-handedness with the ’servant class’. It’s a zero-sum game that will further dismay the electorate, but will conceal something that would be even more distatesteful to the public:most ‘top’ politicians are buillies.
Full transparency in the workings of government and strong investigative powers for all HofC select committees could help to bring this to light and start to deal with it, but ultimately politicians are part of our bullying society and we will need to look to ourselves for change.
SHOPKEEPER MAN :-
“All the parties are flying policy kites at the moment”
This is true.
But Labour have managed to concentrate the debate on the Conservative kite, whilst keeping discussion of their’s to a minimum.
They have run rings round Cons on this issue.:-
In the face of Cons insistence on the state of public finances, and increasing derision in the city, Labour abandon “investment not cuts”
PBR says cuts from 2011-halve the annual deficit in four years.-no details
Cons say cuts from 2010-halve the deficit sooner.-some minor benefits means testing announced.
Labour start to categorise Cons cuts as “swingeing” etc etc
Cons say they will not be “swinging.”
Labour claim a Conservative “retreat”.
So Labour turn a policy u-turn into a media victory.
Cons abandon the intellectual high ground to join Labour in the boggy lowlands of populist evasion.
Unless Cons learn to repeatedly explain what they have said, and what they have not said, PM will do it for them.
I’m not convinced that there is a real policy gulf between Osborne and Cameron any more than there is one between Darling and Brown. I think its a question of presentation. I suspect the truth is that whoever wins the election there are “swingeing cuts” in the country’s future. Any party knows that if they say they won’t do it, then do it anyway, they are going to take a lot of stick when it happens. The Chancellor will of course be the one who takes the most stick, and so the prospective Chancellors have more of an interest in being honest about it ahead of time than the prospective Prime Ministers.
I think the Tories’ error was probably born of overconfidence. They were certain they were going to win the election with a decent majority, so Obsborne’s concerns about preparing the electorate for the realities of government trumped Cameron’s concerns over electoral advantage. No doubt Obsorne frequently quoted the polls showing a willingness amongst the public to accept cuts in public spending.
Rob : “diehard paleo Thatcherite Conservative supporters and members on the one hand”
will be the ones most disappointed by Cameron’s retreat. That could have an effect on turnout (rather than voting for another party).
Even Colin accepts they have abandoned the “intellectual high ground” (not that he’s paleo anything, he’s just been the staunchest defender of cameron I can find on this site)
NEIL A
That summary has the ring of truth about it.
But Cons must learn to up their game & not let Labour define Conservative policy.
I really think that this strange period of “not really an election campaign” has been a major gain for Labour.
Cons are having to come forward with outlines of policy-& they are being picked off by PM’s well known skills at “presentation”.
Labour meanwhile have said nothing about their policies for the future.
I always thought that GB & PM would prove to be very dangerous oponents.
Cameron is the presentation expert – or was – maybe he’s going for the “look at how rubbish my presentation is, I’m all substance no spin” appeal?
It’s a failure of policy-making rather than any media-skill on the part of Brown and Mandy.
I wonder whether the Conservatives still need not be too worried by the narrowing polls. During their unpopular years the Conservatives piled up ‘unnecessary’ votes in their heartlands which gave them a share of national vote just under Labour’s, but a disastrous share of total seats.
Is that what is happening to Labour in its unpopular period? If the Conservative 38% to 40% is spread more evenly than for decades, but Labour’s 30% to 32% is piled up in its heartlands, then surely we see a reverse of the previous orthodoxy? I understand from this blog that polls have too limited a regional pool to draw regional conclusions. But if it is true, then could even a 4%-5% lead for the Conservatives result in a majority?
I appreciate we are political anoraks or we would’nt be on the site, but this amount of chatter about apparent Labour gains which are largely within normal polling error is just left wing flatulence.
‘@Marco
I could not agree more.
Lady Thatcher never pulled her punches and the majority of the electorate loved it, though I admit she is still hated by some.
——————————-
A lot of people think that, but in fact the majority of the electorate did not vote for Mrs Thatcher.
The highest figure she got was 43.9%. And that was in 1979 – at her first election.
Talking tough may appeal to some, but in an environment where people are afraid of losing their homes and jobs, it will lose as many votes as it gains.
Cameron is being much more sensible to say that cuts will come as and when required.
I appreciate we are political anoraks or we would’nt be on the site, but this amount of chatter about apparent Labour gains which are largely within normal polling error is just left wing flatulence.
———————————-
The Conservatives had a 20 point lead.
It is now around 8 or 9 points.
Some flatulence.
David – I only voted for Thatcher once, but I still loved he for not pulling her punches even when I was voting SDP/Lib or Lab, so “the majority of the elctorate” might well have loved it.
Cameron is losing respect because he’s started to pull Osborne’s punches.
@Colin
No longer seems true about all the parties still trying on policies for size.
The consistency strategy you are advising Cameron, seems to be what the Lib Dems have been following since the start of the year, first announcing an overall theme (Fairness) and their 4-5 main priorities (along the lines of taxation, education, environment, political/constitutional reform), and then regularly announcing and explaining the policy ‘flesh’ that they’d propose to put on the priority ‘bones’ (education being the latest, today).
The danger for Cameron is that, as a result of laying their groundwork now, the LDs may be well-placed in electors’ minds when they are able to start taking advantage of the much increased time the media are obliged to give them once the election is actually called.
If LD policies start to resonate with voters now, their consistency will serve them well then, and Cameron could easily find that his horse has bolted before they even open the official election date stable door. And with our little equine friend could go the vital 3-4% of votes they still appear to need for a working majority. At worst, they could ‘win’ with 36-38%, but fail even to be the largest party, given Labour’s huge electoral system advantage.
If you don’t believe me, put C37 L31 LD24 Others 8 into the swingometer and see the gee gee trample all over poor Dave and George!
For context: I’m Scottish and live in Scotland. I’m pro-independence, and republican. I don’t care whether Labour or Tories win the next UK election. I despise both parties equally for different reasons. I’d say I’m pretty much in the centre ground, not centre-left, not centre-right, more centre-centre.
I have been relatively warm to him since he took the leadership. I always suspect that Thatcher might be hiding underneath mind you
He was certainly managing to reach out to the middle ground (i.e. me) pretty well. The “Fast and Deep Cuts” idea seemed to make sense before the 0.1% figure came around; a scenario which I just had not considered.
I saw an interview with Cameron at Davos, I think it was Jon Sopel. Cameron was a mess, an absolute disaster, and seemed to be under considerable pressure. The interviewer was actually pretty gentle; I think the pressure was internal. The most precision he could summon was to say that in the first year, we need to make a start on cuts. No figures at all, no commitment, no apparent concrete policy. This is potentially a matter of weeks before he takes power. Frankly, after seeing that interview, the idea of a Cameron government frightens me. On the other hand, Brown has managed to guide us through the financial meltdown without too many wrong decisions being made (the VAT reduction, and the Lloyds HBOS takeover in the main). We appear to be coming back out the other end, albeit with a pile of debt, but then what country doesn’t have a pile of debt right now. I don’t think that Brown is brilliant, but Cameron is looking like he might mess things up, perhaps if only because it’ll take some time for them to figure out what to do, and in that time, things could easily go backwards.
There’s always the thought in the back of my head that a Tory UK government is the best bet for a yes vote on independence, so I’m reluctant, very reluctant, to support Labour (and have never voted for them before). However, since Scotland will be (equally at best, or worse more likely) affected by another disaster in the UK economy, that interview has very much changed my perspective – I’m forming the opinion that the Tories are a serious risk to our prosperity right now…
@ Al
It’s not only the shaky Davos interview, but so many other serious errors coming at the same time that are undermining Cameron’s credibility, and he needs to act on them fast and decisively and be believed when he does so.
For example, the apparent games he’s playing in NI to try to get all the Unionists and Tories into the same electoral boat – a pre-election pact with a post-election parliamentary pay-off – will presumably fail, but the idea that he should even be toying with that tinderbox sends shivers up the spine and raises major questions about his understanding of history and his political judgement. He is calling it wrong far too often.
With only weeks to go before an election being called, Cameron is entering the campaign on a major downswing. He’ll now need to show abilities not so far demonstrated if he’s to stand any chance of getting a clear working majority.
@DAVID IN FRANCE
I am not going back to last summer or spring when Labour were having a disaster a day. Of course we knew the 20% lead was not going to last forever. The “loss” of Tory support over the last couple of months now things are on a more even keel is marginal and probably to do with the 0.1% crawl. We will see how long it lasts and see if it really is a trend in Labours direction.
As usual, some of the nonsense on the site suggests we will have another 13 years of Labour government.
@COLIN
I agree, GB & particularly PM are very tricky boys, however the long term damage has been done.
Cameron’s problems are the fact that a lot of his policy is appearing reactionary.
They probably got the public mood wrong on the economic recovery – in regards to immediate hard cuts.
They certainly got it wrong on modern Britain’s reaction to being told that married people will have to pay less tax.
And they’ve slowly went on to the defensive on both subjects, and have slowly slinked towards Labour’s own position.
I actually think Cameron is awfully old fashioned at heart, and probably gets persuaded to stay away from traditional tory positions, on most policies, by the more modern metropolitan Osborne.
The problem being the odd bit of chaff slips through the net every now, and they get themselves into a right mess.
I read on a forum last month that Cameron would slowly slink away from the “age of austerity”, and drop a lot of his major economic policy.
Because he thinks he’s wrong? No. Just because the polls don’t seem to like the angle of attack. And he probably knows that all he has to do to win power is to be a “viable” alternative to the current lot. Don’t upset anyone basically……..
ROLAND
Yep-but not getting it all their own way this morning at PM’s Press Conference.
Some of the Press have their brains engaged.
His line on the Bank of England is frankly bizarre as well. Claiming that the tories and BOE will work together.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Bank of England, as an institution, completely and utterly independent from Parliament.
And their interest rates are set by their own board, and can not be influenced in any way by anything the government happen to want?
I actually think Dave me be a bit confused. Labour and the BOE have worked together this year. But that was due to unprecedented global circumstances. It’s not usually allowable.
There is no way whatsoever that the BOE and government could work together on fiscal strategy in times of growth (as in now).
So what is he suggesting?
1:That he’s going to take away the BOE’s independence on things like the setting of interest rates?
2: He simply doesn’t get how it works?
3: He thinks voters don’t get how it works, so he can get away with sound bites like this.
State again, unless Cameron is planning to change the constitution, there is no way the tories and BOE could work together on the recovery.
Roland
Your main role on here appears to be tory party cheerleader.
No matter how bad it appears by the numbers, it’s all “nonsense” or “wrong” or “misleading” or “badly weighted”!
We are debating the actual polls, and what the figures tell us. Not what you want to happen in May
@WOLF MACNEILL
I flirted with the idea of the LDs picking up some steam as a result of Chilcot, it just has’nt happened. As several posters on the site told me at the time, it isn’t going to happen either.
As I said on a previous thread, you may concern yourself with Davos but most punters think Davos is a kebab man. Never forget we are anoraks, the average person is sick of politics and politicians.
“I appreciate we are political anoraks or we would’nt be on the site, but this amount of chatter about apparent Labour gains which are largely within normal polling error is just left wing flatulence.”
Stop talking such rubbish. You are seeing the 5 polls in a row saying the exact same thing.
Of course they are in the margin of error. Who says that the margin of error wasn’t 13 points in the first place?
I do get sick of reading your tory party cheerleading on here.
This is a non partisan debate based on figures. Not you attacking comments as someone happens to comment that it’s looking a bit grim at the minute for the blues.
Try the Daily Mail forum. You’ll get far less resistance there
“Some of the Press have their brains engaged.”
That’ll make a change, but I’m not sure what relevance that is to a non-partisan dicussion.
@John tt
For heavens sake its a perfectly reasonable comment to make and in no way offends the comment policy of this site. You are getting far to anal.
PB INDEX 6 down at Con majority 50.
Punters agreeing with Peter Cairns & not with the polls ….just yet.
Roland – was that to me or to Chris?
I was just trying to nip it in the bud rather than laying into anyone.
Roland-did you miss a “b” off?
@CHRIS
You are trying to turn the tables on me for critisisms I have made about Labour/LD supporters fortelling the end of centre right politics in the “free world” everytime Labour hit 30 in the polls. You can talk about this blip until the cows come home but it wont put Labour back in office. Lets give it a week.
@COLIN
Yes I saw Political Betting first thing this AM. Its the main reason I am so hyper with the “5 more years brigade on here”.
I’ve been called worse Colin, but as long as it helps give the impression that partisan comments aren’t acceptable, I don’t mind.
I’m not sure that questions at the press conference matter to Mandelson. It seems to have been more designed to keep stories about ‘Tory cuts confusion’ on the front page for another day or two than for any governmental purpose.
And you also have to remember that the media likes Mandelson much more than any other Labour frontbencher, with the possible exception of Ed Miliband. That’s partly because he’ll answer the tough questions, even if he does do it in a patronising uncle manner. And it’s partly that they just can’t not like a scoundrel.
And that fondness for Mandelson will probably make its way through into the write-ups.
Mandelson isn’t popular nationally, but hacks love him, because he always gives them good copy. That means he’s going to be pushed forward in the campaign whilst Brown will try to look uninvolved in the campaign except at big set pieces. For the same reason, Cameron will keep himself to the front (unless his standing amongst the press continues to decline, in which case Hague will suddenly pop up everywhere) and George Osborne is likely to be kept away from the cameras.
None of this will immediately affect the polls, but it may set the tenor of the coverage, which is immensely valuable.
re PB, what were they saying when the lead was consistently in double figures?
Isn’t the game there about shifting momentum?
A spread of 40-60 as a Con majority might attract buyers and sellers at the moment, depending on their leaning. I can’t see it ekeing upwards in the near future.
Is there any evidence that political betting months before an election is particularly accurate? Certainly the American experience has been that it’s more conditioned by ideological preconceptions and news cycles than in-depth knowledge.
In addition, although it’s vanishingly unlikely to happen here, it was actually used in the 2008 election as a way of trying to change the polling by creating an impression of movement for one candidate (Hillary Clinton-diehards made big bets in an attempt to systematically shift the odds).
Chris –
You put up two posts that are merely criticisms of the Conservative party with no reference to polling, and then criticise other people for being partisan in comments that are at least on topic.
Mote and beam, mote and beam…
What I don’t understand is if 38% of people like Labour and 35% like Brown why are the Labour party polling at 30% or less surely these polls don’t match up.
@Edward Carlsson Browne
“Is there any evidence that political betting months before an election is particularly accurate”
They are probably the same people who lost their shirts in financial spread betting 2007- 2009: plus an added factor of complete inaccuracy are their links to right wing bloggers.
Note well: when the very best polls have been showing over the last months 20 seat majorities for the Tories at best (others HP) and the last few weeks has taken all polls well into hung parliament territory; that “political betting” is- as of this morning- banking (perhaps an unwise choice of phrase) on a 50 seat majority for Cameron….!!??!!
But then they are cheerleaders for AR (given their particular partisan side of the street they would be).
I hope no ‘innocents’ out there are actually making bets based on their out-of-kilter based analyses.
“I’m not sure that questions at the press conference matter to Mandelson. It seems to have been more designed to keep stories about ‘Tory cuts confusion’ on the front page for another day or two than for any governmental purpose.”
Absolutely Edward.
It’s impressive in it’s focus & purpose.
The anwers about Labour don’t matter.It’s the assertions about Cons that do.
Saw “Mo” last night. PB’s ruthless determination was touched on.
The guy is formidable.
Is there a “fondness” for him in the Press?
I would say more an admiration for him as a smooth operator-the knowing smile of one story teller about another.
Should be the publics reaction which matters ( mistrust)-but everyone reads the papers.
I didn’t mention betting markets on my article about political betting ( http://ukelectiontrend.blogspot.com/2010/01/do-bookies-know-better-than-polsters.html ) But I did discuss how bookies set odds based more on how people are betting, and only reference polling and other information as a correction on that.
The major problem is that “Wisdom of the Crowd” only works when there’s a big enough crowd, they’re well informed, and everyone has an equal weight, and they have no vested interest in the result other than their bet.
Political betting markets fall down because the crowd tends not to be as well informed as they think they are. There isn’t a huge enough number of people who bet on politics. They tend to be hugely vested in the outcome, and support one particular result. And they can bet big sums that move the odds about.
Coincidently, I bet £20 on a hung parliament when the odds were at 5/2. Which now looks a very good bet.
Rob and Roland – I’ve removed your latest comments. Stop squabbling.
Rob – constantly accusing other people of being partisan is not conducive to friendly, sensible non-partisan discussion so stop it (especially since Mike Smithson is not and AFAIK never has been a Conservative, he’s a Liberal Democrat.)
@COLIN
Forgive going of thread a sec, but I saw Mo late night and was left rather disappointed that she was depicted as a woman with the vocabulary of a fish wife and flashed her knickers at David Trimble ( of all men to choose). The politics of NI was glossed over. I promise this not sarcastic comment, but I sometimes have doubts about ever having a Tory government again when I see the soap opera they make of every subject, to provide mental chewing gum for the masses.
Has anyone noticed that Ipos Mori seem to go from one extreme to another remember they went from 6% to 17%. My guess is alot of the changes in polls are sampling errors. If the polls are right would it not be wise for Labour to have an election at the end of March.
I feel that if they wait until May that they may recieve bad news on the economy.
@ Jay Blanc
Thank you for a good post, clearly pointing out the less than rational basis of current betting.
Is it likely to become more rational – ie reflect the publshed polls of public opinion – as we get closer to the election? Finally, as actual voting intentions are sought and published, just before GE Day, isn’t there likely to be a growing convergence of the bookies’ odds with the polls.
So, when the results come out, the gambling industry would again put it about that they were ’spot on’. And thus, well before the following election, people would again be taken in by what the betting ’shows’ about the likely outcome, which most of the time is close to zero.
Of greater interest may be the individual constituency odds in 120 or so marginal seats. Nearer the time, punters will be creating the odds by laying bets with only the odd one or two (and often unscientific) local polls in play. On the other hand, with lots of experienced activists close to the ground, one would expect local ‘political intelligence’ to play into the odds, especially in the final two weeks. Is this what happens?
Does anyone know the record of local betting in 2001 and 2005, especially the odds in the final few days in the seats that were in play (ie known top target seats, plus those that unexpectedly changed hands)?
And is anyone known to be systematically monitoring the individual constituency odds in this GE run-up?
@JIM ROLAND
Agree on all points Jim, especially about I Mori. The flak AR receive really belongs to IMori. I described it the other day as being like a dog at a fair. Flying about like a mad thing.
Wolf – I seem to remember in the 92 election the odds on particular seats being different at different bookies – so it was 2:1 for, say, Richmond Surrey to go Tory, and 2:1 for it to go Libdem at the bookies down the road. A killing was made be a few who got in there first, when the odds shortened as a result of increased betting.
The bookies usually affect and respond to each other. Expect the lead to narrow because it is narrowing. It takes an accumulation of events to turn the tide and convert a blip into a trend.
Have polls ever been done asking do you think the economy will improve in 3 months time. I would think that very few people would think that the economy won’t improve after such a bad reccession in 12 month, but I feel the results would be much different if you were talking about the next three months.
John RS:
“Unless some pretty clear, conservative policies are announced soon a lot of wavering voters wont take the chance they might be voting for Blu-Labour and go UKIP.”
So you are supposing that there are many right leaning voters (who for no reason that you can explain voted last time for Labour) will be not be content with moderate (or realistic or practical) centre right policies offered by the Conservatives and pass over them in favour of UKIP?
That is nonsense. Only the middle ground voters shift. They would be repelled by far right policies and either stick with Labour or shift to the LibDems.
There is no indication that they are moving to the LibDems in big numbers, rather the reverse, and though the SNP is doing well in attracting votes from Labour, that will result in change in only FOUR or fewer seats. At 40% the Conservatives have already got all the floatable voters they are likely to get, and the last thing they need to do is frighten them off with “pretty clear, Conservative policies”.
The leadership knows that, and perhaps the Conservatives biggest worry is that Labour knows it too.
Personally I think the recent slight loss in the Conservative lead could prove to be temporary or MoE and needs to be confirmed by other polls before we believe it, but it is possible that already ex-Labour waverers are beginning to return as many others here suppose.
In Scotland the number of people who vote Conservative is broadly equal to the number who acknowledge that “Labour is tired and failing” yet despite that, still prefer to have GB rather than DC as PM. For a fifth of the Scottish electorate, a Conservative government is a worse prospect than a further four years of one which is already failing.
You can’t blame the leader for that, he’s more popular than his party and the small lead over GB for PM must be less than it would otherwise be if voters were not apprehensive that the fundamentalists would get the upper hand once in government. More people would rate DC as the better leader if he could dump the “nasty” party which is dragging down his approval rating.
So much for “pretty clear, Conservative policies”. That’s what Labour are hoping we see soon too.
Mike
The worst thing I have ever heard said of DC is that he is “heir to Blair.”
If as you say “Gordon Brown is a malevolent, deeply damaged and unpleasant human being.” then we have heir to Blair versus heir to Thatcher.
No wonder Others are doing well.
For what ever reason, it does look like only the Mail and Bloggers have accepted the ‘Tantrum Brown’ story. It does have the whiff of gossip around it. While the rest of the news papers are going with the story based on recorded statements by Cameron and Osborn.
I think this is a press handling win for Labour.
Wolf Macneill
“Full transparency in the workings of government and strong investigative powers for all HofC select committees could help to bring this to light and start to deal with it.”
That’s only part of it. We need cabinet government as Clare Short will explain tomorrow. In my opinion we need to end the two party hegemony and PR will do that. A written constitution and pre-legislative scrutiny by interested backbenchers who are not merely lobby fodder to replace the Lords revising role on “dangerous dogs” legislation.
So if you go along with all of that, as the way to better government then you should know that we already have it all in Scotland.
I don’t see any great advantage in independence for its own sake, but I can’t see us ever getting better government from Westminster, and I’m an old man who wants his grandchildren to grow up in a country they can be safe in and proud of, so I’ll vote for independence when the time comes.
I don’t understand why the SNP are unaccountably missing the best argument for independence.
When I lived in Scotland and from what i have heard in Norwich Labour have very agressive tactics and tend to scare people into voting for them.
@ John B Dick
I 100% agree that we need at least the degree of constitutional and legislature reform at UK level that is now in place in Scotland.
But, I do not accept that a basically two-party system is per se bad. If that’s what the people vote for, as once they did (in the 1950s), that’s what they should get.
My objection to FPTP is that it fails to fairly represent most voters. At the 2005 GE, only the Tories, who won 32.3% of the UK vote and 30.5% of the seats at Westminster, were more or less fairly represented, with Labour grossly over-represented, the LDs grossly under, almost no independents, no Greens etc.
MMC/STV would be a better replacment than the Scottish Parliament added member system, as it would keep all MPs constituency based, and also enable the electors to choose among candidates of the same party as well as between parties, and would bring Greens, more independents, and possibly UKIP and/or BNP into Parliament. If that’s who people vote for in sufficent numbers, so be it, that’s what should happen. It’s called representative democracy.
Jim Roland.
How do you “scare” people into voting for you?
March them to the polling station at gunpoint and go into the booth with them?
Valerie
[name removed - AW] Stop moaning about other people. There is always going to be partisan excitement in evidence from both sides here and I think it’s best just to ignore it when it goes over the top, especially when the poster is talking about polls and not going much off topic!
Thank you Jack, well said. The reason I don’t like partisan comments is because they breed other partisan comments, people feel the need to respond to them in similarly blinkered terms, and before long it’s a pointless slanging match.
It’s descended far too much into “You’re just being blindly partisan”, “No you are just being blindly partisan” of late, and in many cases those people are right – the other people are being partisan (though the people who whine the most are also often the worst offenders).
So, I’m going to be draconian for a while. No silly party partisan comments, no accusing other people of being partisan, no deliberately provoking the others into an argument, no whining about what I’ve moderated and what I haven’t (if it’s a bonkers partisan rant and I haven’t moderated it, it probably means I’m having my tea or something, or my mood has improved), no long screeds about why X party’s policy on Y is rubbish.
Above all, post in the *spirit* of non-partisan discussion. Even if you don’t think what you are writing is partisan*, what matters is whether people from a different political viewpoint are going to see it as a partisan rant.
(*If you think what you are writing IS partisan, but there’s a special exception because you are explaining polls, or evening the balance, or replying to thingy, then you are wrong. There aren’t any damn exceptions)
If I find anyone in my moderation queue too much then I’ll ban them pour encourager les autres.
Its my contention that, up to now, Cameron has been given a fairly easy ride by the media. He is seen as the golden boy while Brown has been portrayed as a brooding Cyclops almost beneath contempt and expected to take all the punches.
As the election draws nearer, Tory policies are bound to be looked at in more detail and Dave and his colleagues are going to face tougher questioning.
I’m looking foward to seeing how he copes with any hostile questions in the Leaders’ debates.
Anthony
Hope that was’nt too partisan. I haven’t abused anybody.
Valerie
Not at all Valerie, perfectly pitched
Personally though, I think the media have a greater tendency to tow the party line as the election approaches – so those newspapers who are likely to back the Conservatives (Sun, Times, Express, presumably the Mail and possibly even the rather anti-Cameron Telegraph) will probably be less critical of them as we near the election, with the Mirror, Indy and Guardian becoming more so.
And without provoking a bonkers BBC bias argument, I don’t think they have refrained from holding the Conservatives to account up to now. The main change from them as the election approaches will be the increased coverage they will be obliged to give the Lib Dems.
I think Cameron has certainly been getting a worse time of it these past few months. I’d still say he gets a better run of it than Labour, but I would say that.
Nevertheless, stuff Cameron might have got away with a year ago isn’t proving so easy now. Look at Newsnight’s reaction to the slip-up on funding for extremists in schools – they went nuclear on him.
I don’t disagree that it’ll change again as we near the election – the Sun will pull every dirty trick in the box, the Mail and Telegraph will fall in line and the Times is going to have to endorse Cameron if Finkelstein wants his peerage, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Desmond keeps the Express relatively neutral. Nevertheless, Cameron has for the past few months had a rather harsher treatment in the media than previously. And I say that as somebody who would like it to be three times harsher.
Wolf MacNeill
FPTP helps Labour in Scotland and severely disadvantages Conservatives.
In 2005 as I remember, the number of Labour votes nationally divided by the number of MP’s elected was about a third of what SNP voters and a ninth of what Conservative voters were needed to elect one MP. LibDems were better off than Cons, I think.
That’s why you can look forward to a 30+ Scottish Labour MP’s majority over Scottish Conservative MP’s voting on English issues. (SNP and Con don’t vote).
In the unlikely event that Labour hang on, they surely won’t have a majority exceeding 30. If the realisation that a Labour majority could not happen either without FPTP or without Scotland dosn’t give Conservative English nationalists the boke, then the growing confidence of the SNP pointing out how England needn’t ever again have a Labour government certainly will.
It would take a 5% swing to SNP to displace Labour, and the SNP would then be the over-represented party.
In fact it is very difficult to hit AS’s target 20 seats and they don’t look like getting more than half that this time, but next time round, a little nudge will deliver the FPTP Jackpot and 30+ SNP MP’s is quite possible and even likely assuming Labour in disarray, an insensitive Conservative government, Trident, SP Labour losses to SNP, the 6th SP Labour leader in 12+ years (the last five were each less succesful than the one before), little new blood in Labour and above all, continuing the counter-productive unremitting negativity of the Labour opposition in Scotland.
I am someone who believes that the media usually reacts to a situation rather than creating it. If the media portrayal/treatment of Cameron has become harsher I think it is because his stock has been falling rather than the other way round.
That’s the real danger of stumbling in politics; your shortcomings can become the story and there can be a snowball effect. Most voters prefer to vote for a “winner” than a “loser”.
Having said that, the past three years have been quite a rollercoaster, particularly for Brown. Brown bounce followed by a descent into the pits, followed by another Brown bounce, followed by a slightly smaller descent followed by what looks a little like another, smaller, bounce in the past week.
Its certainly a much more interesting election than it was looking like being last year.
IMHO I don’t think giving the LibDems more coverage is going to help them. The BBC had an interview with Vince Cable on spending cuts – he seemed to suggest that apart from abolishing the Armed Forces he wouldn’t cut anything else.
Re Brown’s tantrums
The book that may contain the allegations:
End of the Party by Andrew Rawnsley
Is being advertised here on UKPolling for pre-sale via Amazon. I’m sure it will be a fascinating read for all political anoraks
[myself included]
Apparently there’s a new ComRes poll tonight with a lead of 7%
@ John B Dick
You are spot on: ‘FPTP helps Labour in Scotland and severely disadvantages Conservatives’.
In 2005 it took:
2,333,887 votes to elect 59 MPs, ie 40239 votes/MP.
Labour got almost double their ‘fare share’, with 22128 votes to elect each Labour MP (2005 Total 41 )
while ALL the other main parties were under- represented, the Tories grossly so, with:
-52808 votes to elect each Lib Dem MP (11,cf 13 ‘due’)
-68711 to elect each SNP MP (T 6, cf 10 ‘due’) and
-369388 votes to elect the one Tory MP (cf 9 ‘due’)
Up to now, Labour have obviously been content with that outcome, the Tories too because they have much bigger FPTP fish to fry throughout the rest of the UK, and the SNP are happy to grind any available axe for their greater cause.
Only the LDs and the totally unrepresented smaller parties and independents are truly discontent and who’s listening to them? If the Tories were still a committed Unionist party, they might consider PR as a necessary part of the requirements for holding the Union together, but as a rest-of-the-UK party, fancifully dreaming the mirage of long term Bavarian CSU-type hegemony, they seem increasingly in thrall to those who’d happily see Scotland gone.
@ Wolf wrote ‘I don’t think giving the LibDems more coverage is going to help them. The BBC had an interview with Vince Cable on spending cuts – he seemed to suggest that apart from abolishing the Armed Forces he wouldn’t cut anything else.’
This looks unlikely but maybe Wolf is right and Uncle Vince has lost it. Did anyone else hear Cable say anything resembling the above? In any case, if the LDs are to benefit by 2-4% from increased coverage, as they usually do, it will only be when that actually happens, ie once the election is called. If they start to rise significantly before then, there’ll be yet another fascinating new element in this intriguing GE battle.