Opinion polls are a little light at the moment, and probably will be for the next few weeks. Even at the best of times there is little polling in the weeks immediately following a general election – we’ve just had an actual general election to judge people’s voting behaviour, attention is elsewhere and newspapers will generally have blown their polling budgets in the campaign. I’d expect even less polling over the next few weeks because of the errors in the polls at the general election. Some of the long running trackers like the ICM/Guardian series and MORI political monitor will likely continue just to avoid a gap in the data series, but generally speaking most of the regular polls will probably pause for a bit while they work out what went wrong and sort out solutions to it.

As it is, the next political events we have too look forward to aren’t about Great Britain anyway, but the Scottish, Welsh and London elections next year – I’m sure polling on them will start firing up in the next few months. The other, more immediate, race is the Labour leadership election.

We have had a little polling on that already – the YouGov/Sunday Times poll at the weekend (results here) asked the general public their preferences for Labour leader. Chuka Umunna came first on 17% (fieldwork was conducted before he withdrew), followed by Andy Burnham on 14%, Yvette Cooper on 8%, Tristram Hunt on 3%, Liz Kendall on 2% and Mary Creagh on 1%. Amongst Labour’s own voters Andy Burnham was ahead on 22%, with Chuka Umunna on 19%.

Obviously the key conclusion here isn’t really who is ahead… it’s how low anyone’s figures are. 55% of the general public said don’t know, 40% of Labour voters said don’t know. YouGov also asked separately about if people thought each of the contenders would make a good or bad leader, and in each case a clear majority of respondents said they didn’t know or didn’t know enough about the person to say. This is a race where the public simply aren’t familiar with the personalities of the candidates to have any clear opinion yet. That’s not necessarily a bad thing for the next Labour leader – the public having no clear image of you is better than having negative baggage – it just means they need to be pretty careful to make sure people’s first impressions are good ones, as they are difficult to shift once the public have formed an impression.

On the other outstanding issue – what caused the polling error – I’m beavering away at looking at what caused the errors and how to put them right, as I am sure are the other companies. I’m not planning on giving a running commentary, though I gave some thoughts at the end of last week on Keiran Pedley’s Polling Matter’s podcast here.

463 Responses to “Polling in the coming weeks”

1 6 7 8 9 10
  1. “My personal conclusion is that Labour is suffering from a Victor Meldrew factor”

    Lab’s “Victor Meldrew” problem would be quite clear if the media and political class mounted a full and honest investigation into the national extent of the grooming gangs.

    It’s not just that of course but the process would shine a light on the PC cult and everything would become obvious.

  2. Liz Kendall also said she is a modernising candidate who is true to Labour’s values.. I was a bit startled, but then the Labour Party is a broad tent.

    I was particularly surprised by her claim that Labour lost quite a few seats in Scotland because it went too much to the left.

    I actually think she is after the ex LibDem vote. She has a very good chance that she won’t have an opportunity (to do in her way).

  3. @ John Smith

    Indeed, The Green would profit from it.

    However, either AB or YC will be much more blurred in their points than Ms Kendall.

    I don’t really trust their enquiry as I haven’t heard from any of their activists (OK, I don’t know that many) if they were interviewed or asked for any opinion.

    So it will come down to the current makeup of the PLP and the composition of the membership. I really doubt if these facilitate a major shift to the right (while neither AB nor YC are on the Left).

  4. Afternoon folks – don’t you just love it when there’s a debate about immigration on UKPR? Anyhow – moving swiftly on, I’m not in the mood to be moderated this afternoon.

    There’s an article in the G discussing John Curtice’s lecture at Newcastle University on his thoughts after the election. The audio is available online – I haven’t listened to it yet, but when I do, I can summarise for those who can’t be bothered listening. His thoughts on why Labour may have lost are rather interesting – and once again, the idea that Labour may appear to be too right-wing for Scotland and too left-wing for England is brought up. Personally, I’m not totally convinced by this line of reasoning – generally speaking, there’s not a great deal of difference between the economic and social policies of all of the major parties in the UK, it’s mostly tinkering at the edges to be honest, which underlines the necessity of a party having a coherent message (saying what it is that you actually want to do!).

    I suppose the headline from Prof. Curtice’s talk will be the statement that Labour need to lead the Tories by 12.5% to win an overall majority provided the SNP vote stays more or less the same. I can’t remember exactly how this compares to the graphs that were shown a couple of threads ago, but if my (rapidly declining) memory serves me, the figure there was in the same ballpark. Not that I’m in the game of cheering up Labour supporters (if you want to win an election, you’ve got to put the groundwork in!), but I don’t believe those figures at all – primarily because it can only be based on UNS, and direct swing between two parties (we don’t have a two-party system in case you haven’t noticed). I’ll make a prediction for 2020 right now – if Labour have a lead in GB of 10%, they will have a majority of more than 50 – simply because of regional variation.

    It’s highly unlikely that Labour could increase their vote share in London and the North East to well above 50%, so that would mean a disproportionate increase in the Midlands and South. Moreover, a Conservative drop to ~30% probably implies a pick up for the Lib Dems and or UKIP, which makes the South of England much more competitive than at present. (As an aside, if Labour are on 40% in GB, you would expect some improvement on their share in Scotland as well). Added into the mix are potentially boundary reforms – although nominally these *should* benefit the Conservatives, I’m not terribly convinced that’s the case. If, by the way, my prediction is way of the mark, I promise on election night 2020 to eat my non-marzipan hat :)


    On party economic and social positioning – well, the parties may be in the same ball park but it’s the perception that matters. In Scotland the SNP have defined Labour in one way, in England the Tories and UKIP have defined them in another way. That’s a big problem for Labour.

    Re your second bit of analysis I don’t have the time to delve deep into the figures now this second. But I’d be surprised if the trends of this election were totally reversed in 2020 so as that LAB outperform their national swing in the South and Midlands (v Tory incumbents mainly) and don’t do as well in London and the North East. Anyway, at this stage 10% LAB leads sound like pie in the sky. We’ll see how the next few years pan out.

  6. Any argument about the scale of the swing (needed for Labour) is ceteris paribus, which is a bit doubtful:
    1) are the LibDems a dying species?
    2) what will happen to the Greens in organisational terms (and would Labour make overtures to them)?
    3) what will happen to UKIP after the referendum (that the first major issue brought up is immigration is not only about the publication of figures, not only against UKIP, but very much pushing Labour into an indefensible position)
    4) what will be the cuts and who will be blamed? (This can increase regional differences in political attitudes in England)
    5) Hawthorn’s point about the world economy
    6) odd scandals

  7. 7) national elections in Scotland, Wales and N
    8) mayoral election in London

  8. LASZLO.
    Good Afternoon to you from a very warm beach hut here.

    IMHO, as they say here, sometimes: There are four factors not mentioned in your lists.
    1. A Labour leader who is credible as PM, and has built a credible Government-in waiting team as Shadow Cabinet and shadow ministers of state.
    2 A socio-economic policy which is credible.
    3 Clear understanding that 98% of all ‘workers’ (which includes ‘middle classes’ do not see themselves as ‘poor’ or in opposition to ‘bosses.
    4. A return to English-Tory Labourism’ which Martin Pugh writes about.

  9. @laszlo
    “1) are the LibDems a dying species?”

    What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger.

  10. @ Chris Lane1945

    Good afternoon from the today sunny Merseyside to you – just before a stroll with the dog on the meadows and fields.

    I would take on your point 1. I doubt the rest, but it can be just down to being locked in the region of the NW with occasional escapes to London, Leeds and Glasgow.

  11. I am disappointed by young liz and the blairites.She needs to listen to Curtice who says labour has amountain to climb but importantly its not all about tacking right .

    Before 1997 Blair wanted PR for westminster and to join the euro.The size of labours win killed off PR and Brown and Balls showed him the error of his ways on the latter.

    After that he seemed to base his policies on focus group findings produced by philip gould .Brown had deborah mattinson doing the same.

    Ironically liz says labour spent too much ,well if it did (I disagree) it was her hero who did it-big increases in spending on health,education,a us inspired foreign policy ,indifference on tax avoidance were the main causes.

    No politician can or should ignore public opinion but neither should they be a slave to it.

    I want some mildly progressive leadership not rehashed daily mail prejudice.The tuc survey suggest some lines to think about .

    Strategy not tactics is what labour needs leading to a simple understandable offer to voters that they feel will improve their lives.

    But before that we will see a thoroughly divisive referendum and maybe a deal between the snp and the new tory leader on devo max and plenty of events of course.

    Burnham gets my vote ,with a campaigning deputy who he has confidence in to deal with fast bowling from davis,brillo and co.

  12. @Mrjones – “It’s not just that of course but the process would shine a light on the PC cult and everything would become obvious.”

    I would suggest a little caution.

    When the Guardian published an analysis of convictions for grooming, while it found that ethnic minorities were over represented, the vast majority of convictions were of white British men, followed by white European men.

    The analysis however, did conclude that the kinds of locations where these offences were more prevalent were more urban areas, where the ethnic mix of the population is more skewed towards non white groups. The implication of the study was that the over representation of ethnic groups amongst the convictions may be more down to other social factors, rather than ethnicity, although from memory the authors said they felt more research was needed on this.

    The key finding was that you are far more likely to read about grooming cases if the perpetrators are not white.

    This may have changed, but as ever, you need to read more widely than the Daily mail before attempting to understand complex social issues, and the lurch towards the ‘PC brigade’ response needs to be tempered by careful research.

  13. Alec

    In that case the Guardian should welcome having a full investigation into the scale and extent of the grooming gang issue i.e. something akin to the Jay report in all the 40-50 towns where there have been trials rather than councils / police forces investigating themselves and coming up smelling of freshly laundered roses.

    Among the many things that would be revealed if the political class did what they would have done years ago if the circumstances were different is the disproportionate significance of illegal immigration in all of this.

  14. @Laszlo

    It’s not just me – http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/custom/uploads/2015/05/BES-2015-General-Election-results-file-v1.1-change-log.docx

    • Cardiff South and Penarth – Plaid Cymru votes
    • Monmouth – UKIP vote, share and change since 2010, total votes, and turnout
    • Pontypridd – Conservative vote, total votes, and turnout


  15. ChrisLane 1945

    I have no idea what English-Tory Labourism refers to, but it certainly sounds appealing – I’ll vote for that.

    The missing ingredient from Liz Kendall’s agenda is genuine reform of the public sector. And I don’t mean Tory-style cuts.

    Talk to anyone working in the public sector and they don’t complain about cuts. or resources, or their ‘customers’ – they complain about… bureaucracy. Until a few years ago, I had not appreciated that my local authority has had huge bureaucratic burdens placed upon its activities, which have greatly increased costs. Planning agendas are literally ten times the size they were ten years ago. And no, I am not exaggerating. The police consultant responds to every planning application with the same identical word-processed response referring to designing-out crime, which is dutifully printed out and ignored by every councillor. So it goes on.

    I could fill a hundred posts with examples of pointless bureaucratic activity within local government, and which those working within the organisations detest.

    The Tories have cut local government, but they have not tried to improve it. That is the fundamental task that Labour could promise to undertake.

  16. @AW

    To contradict your post in which you say you expect even less polling over the next few weeks, I had the standard VI poll questionnaire by yougov yesterday !

    It hasn’t been logged on the yougov website so I’m guessing it may be contributing to Sundays one for the Times but don’t they generally poll on Thurs/Fri ?

  17. MILLIE.
    Hello to you. Martin Pugh’s History of the Labour Party, which is entitled ‘Speak to England’ explains that Labour did well in the early days in seats where Labour Men and Women were patriotic in an explicit sense. Thorne, Crooks and Bevin (not Nye) were of that mould. Dalton’s 1945 diary records the singing of ‘England arise’.

    In practice, I think that would mean being ‘illiberal’ on immigration, EU centralised powers, crime and also welfare payments.

    Men like Bevin were genuinely distressed that many people by 1951 had ‘low aspirations’.

    He often complained about the ‘low aspirations’ of ‘people.
    In schools a key issue really is appalling standards of behaviour.
    These are not ‘right’ wing issues, imo.

  18. @ Millie

    What you described doesn’t really have any cost implications, does it?

    Cutting bureaucracy is a code word for cuts of proper services. You can’t really cut bureaucracy because of compliance issues. Liverpool City Council has become much more flexible over the last 20 years, but actually costs money.

  19. @ Statgeek

    I read a warning somewhere (was it AW?) that it’s only V1, subject to revision. I think 2010 got to V5.

  20. @ Sunreada

    Utter good sense from beginning to almost the end. Not sure about Burnham yet but completely agree with your analysis of why Kendall is not the correct choice.

  21. Sunreada,

    I agree and will also be voting for Burnham in all likelihood. I’m curious who you have in mind for deputy as that could apply to either front runner and indeed I’m not sure who I’ll be supporting for that (still leaning Watson).

  22. Bureaucracy = Accountability. They are just negative and positive words for the same thing.

    If, 2 years after I have done something, you want me to be able to explain exactly why I did something. What options I considered. What the rationale was for rejecting some options and adopting others. Then I have to write it all down in detail. That’s bureaucracy.

    We can cut it, definitely, if people are prepared to accept government employees shrugging their shoulders and saying “I don’t remember” when they’re asked to account for themselves.

  23. @ Neil A

    I agree with you on every word about bureaucracy and accountability.

  24. I am very keen to see Labour come up with a brand of social democracy that is an acceptable alternative to the Tory party. What do some of these ridiculous terms mean, Blue Labour, Red Tory and best of all English Tory Labourism? Many a time on this board, I, a vile ranting Tory, have said how much I admire the great Ernest Bevin. People like that do not come along very often, but the ability to exude good faith and reason is just what Labour need right now. No one pretends that David Cameron is Churchill, but Labour must be very careful who they choose. Not for the dedicated socialist who posts on this site, but for the British electorate.

  25. I suppose, the whole thing about bureaucracy is a red herring.

    What is the goal? A cost effective, accountable public service. It’s probably the consensus.

    It has two conditions: good control system to ensure accountability, and reducing any cost not related to delivering front line service.

    The prerequisite of the first one is investment in control system (bureaucracy?).

    the prerequisite for the second one is cutting the cost of control (cutting bureaucracy?).

    So we will end up with cutting frontline services in the process of seeking compromise between the fire and the fire engine.

    Of course, the antagonism between the two premises could be resolved by being able to delegate to lower levels. However, it has some prerequisites too: reducing wage differentials (increasing wages), training, trust, job satisfaction, autonomy, etc. it sounds quite expensive, and it is very expensive.

    And as you don’t want it to be a post code lottery, so you have to invest in these everywhere in the country.

    It’s cheaper to denounce bureaucracy and cut frontline services ….

  26. Tricky choice Mr N

    Watson is the most talented ,effortlessly intuitive politician.But somehow not as sincere as some would like.But a brilliant campaigner tho maybe not hard enough for the interviewing side.He dodged a bullet by resigning as election coordinator.Labours results across the midlands were poor and its his patch.

    Flinty has improved her interviewing ,tough -slight doubts about her loyalty to burnham dont know whether she is into campaigning.

    Eagle is very sincere and competent Unifying and strong on policy development.

    Creasy could surprise ,again great on unity but honest and great campaigns on payday loans .

    Bradshaw using snapchat !!!! Very good interviewee.

    Members elected Harman over Johnson in 2007 (just) .If Johnson had been elected the future would prob have been very different.So its an important decision .

    Burnham will pursue the class war. Anyone who does not sound like a throwback to a Yorkshire coal miner, a Liverpool docker or a Welsh schoolteacher is not acceptable company. Its dead, this kind of politics of envy, The pure and gentle Lord of Hartlepool is right about some things.

  28. @NeilA I strongly agree. A lot of it is about trust. If rightly or wrongly i think that the police are picking on black people or council staff are favouring certain contractors they will be forced to adopt expensive procedures for recording what they do, ensuring meticulous adherence to protocol and so on. If my bosses do not think that I can be trusted to exercise professional judgement in some field they will similarly try and tie me down with protocols of different kinds. Sometimes these things can actually help but more often they result in inefficiency and cost. Not sure what this has to do with voting intention except that it shows the effectiveness of the right wing attack on state spending. In theory this would be expected to increase distrust of state services and hence lead to more cost and more distrust.- a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

  29. @ Roland

    Why do you think that AB would start a classwar. Yes, he was born in Liverpool, but not a class warfare family.

    Nothing what he says has any throwback to the 70s and 80s (Hillsborough is different of course). He is a very centrist candidate. I don’t know if he’s good or not, it’s up to the Labour Party to decide, not a C like me, but listening to Liz Kendall today, well, he’s miles ahead.

  30. I honest believe that politicians genuinely mean what they say when they express a desire for efficiency savings and reduced bureaucracy. But the nature of the command chain is that the people who are put in charge of making the savings are by definition part of the bureaucracy and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. There is also an inherent tendency, in those who wish to advance, to avoid giving the “wrong” answer to those above them.

    Most of the inefficiencies I see in the police aren’t really about bureaucracy per se, they are about bad habits and a cultural aversion to change. Having worked in two police forces makes this starker. There are procedures that are done in one force, and considered to be essential, that noone in the other force has ever even heard of. And vice versa Partly that reflects a different set of challenges between London and the countryside, but mostly its just the “we’ve always done it this way” mode of thinking.

    The strangest inefficiencies come from poor design of IT, or overly strict interpretation of the function of IT. The number of things that are done because the computer program “has a box for it” and noone has the bottle to write “not applicable” in it is extraordinary. And the plethora of IT systems sitting side by side, all doing slightly different but overlapping things, beggars belief.

    We get new IT systems, sure, but none of them ever quite manage to fix the problems and its not uncommon for a new system to actually have worse problems than the last one.

    My force’s latest scheme is to issue Galaxy Note phones to frontline staff instead of notebooks. I hope to God it’s done sensibly…

  31. @ Neil A

    I don’t think that it would console you, but one of our high street banks hasn’t managed to move onto a unified IT system, and different units actively sabotage this.

    About 15 years ago, in a session I got (as the lead in a particular session, I was junior in the project as a whole) the most senior police officers of a particular police force to agree on the conflicts that existed in managing their service. They actually came up with the solution (well, I don’t know, but it was detailed enough, so it could have been tested). The satisfaction was visible on the faces. They were proud and committed after two hours of extremely intense work (obviously they had more than enough intuition). And then they (to my shock) rejected their own conclusions as impractical. I tried to dissolve it, but I failed.

  32. I think we should create a national police service, and then establish national procedures for everything that needs it.

    The rule of thumb should be “find the force whose procedure for this is the simplest and least time consuming, and use that one”. Where some forces have not been doing something at all, and getting away with it for decades, not doing it should become the new procedure.

  33. Re bureaucracy:
    There have in fact been huge efforts by governments and the public sector in general to cut bureaucracy and increase efficiency. Some of this has been hugely effective (anybody remember what it used to be like to renew car tax?) but it has been counterbalanced, I suspect by new accountability/control activity.
    An obvious example is the DBS (formerly CRB) check. I’ll withhold comment on whether it’s good law, but implementation seems to be a mess. Something similar is Security Clearance and here there is (or was a few years ago, I doubt it’s changed) absurd inefficiency and defence of patch (EG I had, at considerable cost to them, mid-tier clearance from the MoD, but this was not acceptable to the Foreign Office, who had to clear me again at similar cost. And the clearance lapses if you leave, so if like me you’re a contract worker and likely to return after a break, the whole thing starts up again)
    If anyone thinks this is confined to the public sector, try opening (or even closing) a bank account: money laundering regulations have opened up new oceans of bureaucracy to increase cost and delay and annoy costomers (unless of course you happen to be a Colombian drug trafficker, where the bureaucracy is waived, obviously)

  34. @Laszlo

    Yes, and their spreadsheet in its current form is largely out of kilter with my one for many of the reasons listed. I used it to compare party VI in each seat and perhaps managed to correct a couple more typos on my part.

    I’m getting into the realms of wanting to have my England data checked…any volunteers? Heh!

    I figure if 10 people each check two random constituencies in each region, that’s would be 200 random samples from 533. Not bad, and if really random it should find any issues.

    Oh and I transferred all lost deposit indy candidates to ‘others’, but retained the rest as Indy (sig). Ten in all, and one of which won a seat.

  35. @GuyMonde,

    You jest but that’s almost true…

    It always amuses me that after you’ve contacted a bank asking for information about one of their dodgier clients, the NCA suddenly get a run of SARs (suspicious activity reports) on that customer, as the bank suddenly notice they haven’t been following the rules for years and try and tidy things up…

  36. @ Statgeek

    I’m quite happy to help you tomorrow, if it helps.


  37. @Statgeek

    I have some free time tomorrow evening.

    I’ll do a bit for you.

    Let me know.

  38. @ Statgeek

    I think the transfer of independents should also depend on the constituency. I don’t think I have come across any constituency in England where a deposit losing independent made any difference, but still.

    Now considering that so many LibDems lost the deposit … A new classification?

  39. The problem with dealing with bureaucracy, inefficiency, savings, reforms, cuts, is that the process by which improvement is achieved is often, well, bureaucratic.

    We all, public and private sector, at times fail to implement the blinking obvious, and we all conform to irrelevant procedure to the point of absurdity.

    I note in particular the reluctance to change course ( was that Thatcher’s fault? – This lady’s not for turning ), or to apologise.

    This is all far removed from my original proposition, which was that the Labour Party are much better suited to public sector reform than the Tories. But I’m enjoying listening to the frustrations others have experienced. It makes me feel better.

    First thing I would do on becoming Labour Leader? – call for the abandonment of HS2 – immediate fiscal credibility, proof of a willingness to slaughter a sacred cow, instant popularity with Middle England.

    And as the costs increase, a stick to beat the Tories with.

    The improved rail links between northern cities is a far better idea.

  40. @ Statgeek

    English councils are pretty good in reporting election results (but they use different methods …). Would it speed up the checking?

  41. @Laszlo / CMJ (RE: checking)

    Friday night date? Aren’t we the party animals? :))

    What I’ll do is split up the regions. To be honest my eyes are going together with these 650 x 50 or so spreadsheets. Definitely time for a dram with some checking tomorrow. I’ll maybe setup another chatroom so we can stay off the forums and not annoy the locals.

    @Laszlo (RE: classification)

    Have a little sympathy for the Greens. Their losses were worse, although both have a better contested to won ratio than UKIP (charts for all this on the back boiler).

  42. Core Vote strategy still alive & kicking :-

    “Meanwhile, having returned from his holiday in Ibiza, I’m told that Miliband has been advising MPs on the lessons to learn from the defeat. The former leader has told colleagues not to listen to figures such as Peter Mandelson and not to turn rightwards, according to sources. “He’s not staying out of it,” one Labour insider told me (although the former leader will not be endorsing a candidate). Miliband is said to have emphasised that his party lost due to the failure of millions of notional supporters to turn out. The pollster Ipsos MORI has used the term “lazy Labour” to the describe the 2.9 million who supported the party in pre-election polling but did not go on to vote. Left-wingers have argued that this demonstrates the need for a more radical offer to enthuse this group, rather than a more moderate pitch aimed at winning over Conservative voters. ”

    George Eaton.
    The Staggers.


  43. @sunreada,

    Eagle is very sincere and competent Unifying and strong on policy development.


    Please. I think she is dreadful. I heard her shortly before the election and she spoke for ten minutes and didnt mention Labour policy once, it was relentless moaning about the nasty conservatives. If Labour pick her in any leadership capacity, I am going to William Hill and placing a thousand pounds they get well beaten in 2020.

  44. @Laszlo (RE: speeding up the checking)

    Happy to get all my data from the BBC. Most, if not all Wikipedia constituency pages are using BBC as source. I found the BBC to be in error in 2010 for a handful of values. I have only checked a handful of local authority published results, but they are 100% accurate to the BBC.

    If my data is consistent with the BBC (and therefore wikipedia), it will be a right pedant that hauls me up on my data.

  45. ChrisLane1945

    Forgot to thank you for the explanation of English-Tory Labourism. Interesting and entirely believable.

    I am reminded ( for some reason ) that when Fascism flourished briefly here in Devon in the 1930s, the biggest support came from agricultural workers.

    And when someone asked why there is little Labour support in the rural South West, I replied that council estates very often voted Tory rather than Liberal.

  46. @ Statgeek

    If you put up your figures for England, I will check them against BBC from the end of the alphabet and report them by 10s (starting from 10 am, giving 10 min per hour to it).

    I’m sure AW will tolerate it (it is certainly less partisan than anything else).

  47. Liz K is being very poorly advised. It is to the great misfortune of the Labour Party that a number of those inspired by Blair believe that Blair became successful by trashing everything Labour did previously, when in fact it was far more nuanced than that. A lot of the spending she criticises came under Blair.

    Burnham is ahead not because he’s a lefty but because he has the political experience to understand the importance of nuance.

  48. @Colin

    Jon Cruddas wrote a piece about a week ago in the G explaining that Labour lost because of a bits and pieces campaign that lacked an overall narrative. He said that his team had been commissioned in the last parliament to come up with cohesive radical low spend ideas in order to build this narrative. However, he states that while the leadership originally supported his ideas (which included a more developed decentralisation strategy that GO’s Manchester plans, but along similar lines), they got cold feet after the Omnishambles budget and became too timid.

    He also argued that the Omnishambles budget became a millstone (no pun intended) for Labour, as it resulted in a double digit “unearned” poll lead, which Labour sought to manage for the rest of the parliament.

  49. EFUK have tweeted a link to a report on their website of what went wrong with their forecast.

  50. RAF

    Two things occur to me :-

    * The new Leadership election rules are shutting down debate because a) the threshold of 35 MPs is too high, and b) commitment to a particular candidate before any debate starts is shutting out other candidates.

    * Ed Miliband clearly still believes in the Pollsters-well IPSOS MORI anyway.

    But its not for me to say why Labour lost , what they should do about it & who should be their leader now.

    I merely observe a familiar ritual underway. :-)

1 6 7 8 9 10