Communicate Research - Labour lead down by 6%
April 2nd, 2005
-
Tories up in spite of Flight sacking row
In the first national poll to be carried since the sacking of the Arundel MP, Howard Flight, there been a big improvement in the relative position of the Conservatives. The survey, by Communicate Research for tomorrow’s Independent on Sunday shows a significant drop in the Labour lead compared with last week’s survey that had Tony Blair’s party doing substantially better than at the 2001 General Election.
The figures are with changes on last week: LAB 40 (-3): CON 34 (+3): LD 16 (-1)
There will be concern at Labour’s HQ about the “amongst those certain to vote” figures where the split is LAB 39: CON 39: LD 12. This will be especially so as there were real hopes that Howard Flight’s comments about tax cuts and the way that Michael Howard dealt with him had seriously undermined the Tory resurgance. Only last Sunday the IoS itself was talking of a “Tory meltdown“.
-
The question is whether other polls will follow suit. CR seemed to be an oddity last week - will it be this week?
We have commented before about CR’s methodology which we does not involve prompting for party choice - a methodology which in the past has been shown to understate Lib Dem support. In their comment on the poll the paper notes the possibility of “random sampling variation” - an element that could have been reduced by CR weighting their sample by what those surveyed said they did at the last election. All the other phone pollsters do this.
The “certain to vote” figure is very much in line with the last Mori poll and the British Election Study report the week before last which was showing a Tory lead.
Other polls should be coming out in the next couple of days and it will be interesting to see if the trend of the CR poll is reinforced by other figures.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I simply cannot take any poll seriously. They are giving Labour a huge lead an leaving the Lib Dems way behind. It makes who wonder who’s in the pay of who.
CR do seem to produce particularly erratic figures so I’m not sure how much credence to place on this poll. But, if accurate, then I do feel a modest sense of relief that that the Flight furore does not(yet?) appear to have damaged the Tories’ standing.
Mike - truly, great minds think alike!
Might he delay the election, if we get a clutch of bad polls? (As was suggested this week on the BBC News web page)
No. He’s made his bed, now he’s got to lie in it.
I do not think very highly of the Communicate Research polls. I think all the other polls will show an increase in the Labour support.
Even though this looks like good news for us, I am unconvinced. Lib Dem vote (12%) looks catastrophic and way out of line with other polls.
I think this poll is entirely consistant with the higher profile and strong leadership given to Michael Howard over the Flight affair.
Perhaps YouGov and Mori will have the Tories in the lead.
Yes I agree Marcus, this poll is out of line with other polls. It seems extremely hard to believe that Lib Dems haven’t made gains since last election.
I’d dearly love the Lib Dem figure to be right. It’d give them a right kick in the pants and put them back in their place, but we’ll see what the rest say. Seems a bit too good to be true.
Maybe Charles Kennedy will have to remain leader after the election by default?
[9, 10, 11] Guys - if this site has taught you anything, it is not to compare polls with election results, only with other polls…
The Flight sacking will have no lasting impact in my view.
Few voters have heard of him and the remarks he made were too vague,they will get lost amongst the general political noise.
The death of the Pope will grab all the headlines in the next few days and by the time that story subsides the Flight affair will be long forgotten
I wouldn’t be too dismissive of this poll. It’s to be expected that as the election campaign gets under way the third party vote will get squeezed. What doesn’t make sense is that so many people are likely to have changed their votes over three days. Obviously one or both polls is wrong.
Communicate use (I think) broadly the same methodology as most were using when they vastly overestimated Labour in 1997 (and some in 2001) when they were only spared blushed by tactical voting and the size of the majority.
A third of people said they couldn’t name Michael Howard from a photo. I have been convinced the more exposure he has, the greater his appeal will be, as too many people don’t have a view about him. That isn’t to say a majority will like him but the Flight affair has helped his standing.
Roger - I think we’re broadly seeing fluctuations around the margin of error - last months was probably at the top end for Labour/bottom end for Tories
NOP had the Lib Dems on 11% at this precise stage before the 2001 election. The party ended up with 18.8%.
Roger (14) you wrote my thoughts. I have said all along that I expect - as in 1951, 1970 and 1979 that the Lib dems will suffer a disproportionate and surprising loss of seats but I don’t expect their vote share to fall by much if at all.
One point though, the number of occasions we Conservatives are coming out level pegging is undeniably rising. Could the ‘trading range’ of poll figures for us be moving out of the 30-34% and into the 34-37% range?
If so this is very big news indeed. You have to go back to 1992 before that was the consistant range for us.
Alex at 15 demonstrates why past vote recall is so unreliable - Communicate hasn’t polled in any previous election.
On the Lib Dem figure being down, I think Communicate also weights by likelihood to vote and having just taken a look at the certainty to vote figure it suggests the LD voting intention figures could be hit because of the flakiness of their vote, esp compared to the conservatives.
This poll is simply totally out of touch. They over estimate Labour’s lead by about 7%. Labour’s average pollings for this month are around 39/30%. So work it out!
re 4 - you’re not seriously suggesting this is a bad poll??? Cruising to another substantial majority, and that’s without the bounce that parties in government usually get once the official campaign gets going. (as for past #1 saying polling companies are part of some kind of international conspiracy, it came from someone calling themself “vote respect” - enough said.)
Billy I see your point that Labour are still a strong 6 percentage points ahead, but I always think with polls the most important thing is the change in them, not the way the parties actually compare. With that in mind, this definitely is a bad poll for Labour.
Ales at 23 You said “Billy I see your point that Labour are still a strong 6 percentage points ahead” . They are not a ’strong’ 6 points ahead. Virtually every poll that includes a ‘certain to vote’ question puts Labour even or slightly behind. Turnout is the key and if Labour voters are less inclined to vote….
Since the Flight case happened a week last Friday Labour have been almost squeezed out of the headlines. As well as the Tory party issues there’s been the Pope’s health and the Prince Charles photo-call. Big Labour measures like the school meals move and Gordon Brown’s home ownership plans have hardly got a look in.
Last weekend I argued that the Flight sacking might not be too bad news for the Tories because it showed Howard being resolute which is what the public like in their leaders.
It’s also been interesting that the spread-betting markets only moved a small notch in response to the developments. The sacking might have excited pundits but it did not get punters reaching for their wallets.
16, I thought quite the opposite, many find him quite repulsive, he is not a good speaker
O/T - for distinction I am alex and Alex is Alex
It’s a bad poll for Labour if you believe voters change their voting intention so close to an election. I repeat what William Hague said about voters making their choice over the last four years and the campaign itself making no difference. 1997 would be a good example. The Tories had been performing well for a year or so, but the vorers wouldn’t forgive them for Black Wednesday.
The flight sacking was always a flash in the pan, as I argued when it happened, but what it did do was expose the Tory weakness, the James report is wrong most Tories know it, but so do Labour and the Lib Dems, since it is the single plank of their whole strategy I expect sometime in the nest two weeks it will be pulled from under them, there are quite few Tories who recognise that some of the maths in it is very shaky to say the least. So when it is exposed for the the sham it is they will have to explain (tell the truth) which services they are going to destroy, most know the game and will not want to risk it.
I read on this board that some Tories think Howard is an asset, to Labour he his not to the Tories he was one of the most unpopular ministers from the last Tory government.
My perdition Labour 80-106 majority, Howard will resign don’t know what will happen to the Tories but I expect a lot of soul searching and perhaps a move to the centre ground
28 - You don’t remember John Major’s “don’t send me naked into the European summit” Party political broadcast then?
I agree with you Robert but Printz doesn’t do analysis. If he thinks something then that’s the way it is. I wish he would put his name at the top rather than at the end.
4./5. Blair rather needlessly boxed himself in with ragrd to May 5th, by allowing it to be spun so extensively that this would be the day. In 1970, 1983 and 1987, for example, the government allowed the local government elections to go ahead on the first Thursday in May and used them as a barometer to evaluate potential of a June election. Blair can’t do this now: it would look like running scared.
The problem Labour have is that, from the bulk of their campaign so far, they are basing the core of their strategy upon a gamble that Howard is the Tories weak link. If they are wrong then it could be very costly. Remember Howard may have weaknesses, but he also has strengths - people may well appreciate the iron discipline he is imposing (provided it stands up) because it serves as an antidote, and a very clear antidote, to all the splits of the past. People may profess to be fed up of Labour control freakery now, but this will not automatically transfer to the Tories. People like control freakery if it serves to implement policies they like.
Whilst I do sincerely believe in not getting excited over a single poll that may be an outlier, I have to say that I am grinning broadly at a Lib Dem rating of 12%!
Just for fun I put the certain to vote figures into Baxters prediction model: Cons 247, Lab 367 and Lib Dem 3 THREE! The Libs would be all but wiped out on this result but Labour would still have a majority of 88.
Billy - I believe it was the Labour Party that was part of the conspiracy which told there were WMD in Iraq? Labour are overestimated all the time. I was just saying it’s a bit of a coincidence and the ‘conspiracy,’ thought had run through my head. If you really think the Lib Dems are going to be that low then maybe you’re watching a different election campaign.
Clearly another absolutely abysmal effort from CR. The Conservative figure is right at about 34%, but if anyone seriously believes those Labour / Lib Dem ratings then they might as well think that Chelsea are about to get relegated from the Premiership - rubbish.
re 35. Richard, I sense there’s just a touch of wishful thinking there. When I saw the figures for the first time a couple of hours ago I thought of you getting excited.
Very funny Rik (see my post no11)
CK, Simon Hughes and the ex-Lord the only MPs left.
nb. I see why you put the “certain to vote” figures in. Paul Burstow hangs on using the headline numbers
I heard Evan Harris phone in to any questions this lunchtime and I found him particularly articulate. Admittedly it was a medical question. But during the scare over the MMR jabs he was equally impressive and I remember thinking that it was a pity he couldn’t be the government spokesman. Is there any talk of him as a possible leader? I don’t rate Oaten very much.
I agree Peter C, Blair has no option on the election date.
The worst that could happen in the next few days for him is that he calls an election, behind in a few polls, and the Pope completely over shadows his carefully planned election campaign launch designed to take back the initiative.
I think the figures are rubbish. I think Verritas are going to get 34%.
(Sorry if I sound stupid but I’m trying to send a subliminal message to Hunchman, Printz and Vote Respect)
40 - Roger you’re talking about my local MP, and a very good one too on health matters even though I’m not a Lib Dem. Don’t think he would really be in a position to go for the leadership after standing down as health spokesman. But he’s got a safe seat in Oxwab as long as he wants to remain in parliament.
Re. 33 Agree with you alex Howard is not the weak link it is the Conservative ‘brand’ Labour should be attacking along with a positive message on their own record. I was a little perplexed the IFS report was not spun more widely in the context shown in todays FT which would help get the core vote out and win over some Lab/LD waverers. It may not go down well in some ‘middle england’ seats but frankly we are going to lose them anyway!
Ridiculour polls, appearing with kids on a saturday night programme. They’re stepping up their game.
What about Lembit Opik as Lib Dem leader? At least we would sleep soundly at night, knowing that we had somebody watching out for meteorites!
Yes Vote Respect, Blair really is raising his game being interviewed by two school children. It really shows the level of debate Blair wants in this election.
What does everyone think the result Howard needs to stay on is?
News just in is that the Pope has now died. This will over-shadow all the plans on the start of the election campaign for all the parties. There’ll be the funeral and then the election of his successor - plus, of course, the Royal Wedding.
Mourning period lasts nine days. Begin electing a new one after 15
Will - I’m surprised there hasn’t been another Margaret Dixon moment although there is plenty of time for the Conservatives on that one. Bit on further attack on Labour over compulsion pension tax was quite clever. But although pensions issue is high on the agenda (4th/5th issue according to some polls) it’s a bit of a difficult issue to win votes over. No gov’t is now going to bring back the dividend tax credit at c.£7bn and no immediate reward for your lavish generosity
38 & 39 - of course I accept that this one poll with quite odd figures but it is fun! I see the Lib Dem posters are somewhat “missing” right now! I will remain wedded to the concept of taking an average over a polling cycle and even on that basis thinks are inching up for the Conservatives. A couple more polls should help determine the true position.
POlitically that is good news for the Conservatives less election publicity is likely to depress turnout.
Not sure it should necessarily overshadow everything though - depends on the media. We are CofE after all.
re 48. If the Tories come top in the popular vote then that will be enough. Otherwise 220 seats. More importantly what result does Blair need to survive? Labour getting a 40 majority but 2% behind the Tories in the popular vote - my current prediction - won’t look good
As a Lib Dem I would say this, but I think that the poll is a joke. How can we be in a situation where the Lib Dem numbers range from 16% (or even 12%) and 23%- some pollsters will be very embarrased and I do think that CR will be.
Canvasing recently has shown a small swing where I am to the LDs from Conservatives, and many Labour switchers, and if the LDs got 12%, can anybody see Kingston, OXWaB, Campbell in North East Fife and about 30 other definates going Tory? I can understand some saying we will lose 5 or 6 seats or stay still, but I can’t understand how CR can honestly say that that, with all the good council results, by-elections and Iraq and tuition fees switchers, the party will collapse.
BTW I wonder how the Indy will cover it- a short line at the end of an article on page 20 or about how we all hate Labour on the front page?
Do any of the LD’s think that Michael Moore could be a possible future leader. He’s my local MP (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) and he always seems very competent and likeable.
56 - Im sure the pope will be on the front page.
48 - I think 200 seats is the immediate benchmark - Howard can credibly claim a Conservative recovery of sorts over that. I’m still on 210 seats with a Lab maj of 40, but I await the post Flight polls (not withstanding the CR poll) to see if I change my mind. Anyone want to venture if we will have a newly elected Pope before 5/5/05? Heard today that one election in the Middle Ages went on for 3 years! This and the wedding are going to massively overshadow the start of the campaign - I think on balance that is a plus for Blair, I really don’t think he wants a campaign full of fireworks. Also the report on the Birmingham electoral fraud episode is not going to make the impact now that it might have done.
Re. 54 - alex did you see last nights news it was about 75% of coverage. I was a little bit surprised by how prominent it was.
Re. 51. - I agree I think pensions is a hard one to win votes over it is just too long term, the one issue I expect the Conservatives to push hard on is education. The NHS is now harder to attack as poll ratings seem to have been going up for the last few years whereas education after stronger start seems to be more of a weakness now.
“What does everyone think the result Howard needs to stay on is?”
The Telegraph suggested that if he’ll be able to win back 30 seats from Labour he could stay.
In Arundel, some Flight’s supporter continue to protest. But all this will be rovershadowed by the Pope’s death.
Re [48, 55] - it depends what you mean by “survive.” If the result looks like a full-term Parliament MH’s decision is whether or not to seek to lead his Party in 2009/10 when he will be, what, 67 or 68 years old. I think that unlikely. What he won’t do is quit immediately, as Hague did, no matter how few additional seats the Tories win. However, his position, paradoxically, may be weakened by the kind of result Mike anticipates if that leads to Brown replacing Blair. Then the media will run the “story” about how the Opposition too neads a fresh face - unfair, but then that’s how it is.
56 - the poll will definitely be buried on page 20 IMO!
57 - where is Moore standing? He’s not standing in the new Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale seat is he?
Re. 61,62 I actually think given even a half decent result say 200 seats plus he will stay on and challenge the election in 2009/10, he seems to have made a good fist of the job so far and there is no obvious successor.
As the death happened so late, surely first editions will either miss it or have a small article on it (perhaps with more inside about his legacy etc that would go in anyway).
Not to treat his death purely as a political matter; very sad news.
65 - they will have prepared a shadow edition in advance.
I’m expecting another poll overnight but all the newswires are being swamped by the sad news from Rome.
63 - He’s standing in Berwickshire, Roxburghshire and Selkirk. It contains all of Archie Kirkwood’s old seat and most of Michael Moore’s ald seat.
55 - Mike, I agree with you on Lab maj but I can’t see how that could equate to Conservatives being 2% ahead of Labour in popular vote. That implies even more TV lined up against the Tories. On a 5.5% UNS Labour would lose around 65 seats leaving a majority of 20. But if they really are that unpopular then some of the TV would almost certainly unwind IMO, leaving us well into hung parliament territory. Are you expecting Labours popular vote share to be extremely poor as a result of mass abstention in their strongholds? Possible to some degree but I still don’t think that stacks up to a result as you describe.
68 - Thanks Max. That is pretty much a Lib Dem banker then from what I know of that part of the world.
62. Always reported in The Telegraph a couple of months ago, according to Howard’s aides he would stay only for a year. He would fight the EU Constitution referendum and he will change the ladership rules before standing down to give the new generation the chance to win in 2009.
69 I’m basing my projection on Labour holding up well in its marginals but doing really badly due to very low turnout in the other 450-500 seats where it does not matter. The 2001 seat result was the equivalent of Labour having a 12% margin. It’s actual margin was 9.3%. It’s that effect that I think will be repeated.
My thinking is that the seat result will be equivalent to a 37-37-20 vote split giving a majority of 40-50. The actual votes will be in the region of 37.5 - 35 - 22.5.
We know the Lib Dems put on support during the campaign as the broadcasters are obliged to give them equality of coverage with the big two and that most polls put them on a higher level of support than the corresponding stage four years ago.
I don’t think Labour will be bothered because they’ll hammer the marginals, getting their core vote out and reminding voters if they vote Lib Dem in Southgate, Hove etc they’ll end up with a Tory MP. In the Neaths and the Newcastles does it matter if say 5,000 of their voters abstain and 5,000 turn to the Lib Dems or the Nats? Yes, in terms of their share of the vote but not in terms of their majority.
The Tories are dying a long, lingering death.
73 - JOhn you are having a laugh!
Are you seriously saying that the largest UK party in Local Govt, in the European Parliament and the London Assembly is dying?! Get real. We have more members than any other party and more youth members than all others put together. We are about to gain a significant number of seats on 5th May. If that is death roll on rigor mortis!
Rich, didnt you hear :O… UKIP are going to take those Tory gains away from us. They are proabably going to win 40-50 seats, MINIMUM!!
Nigel Farage’s comments on Channel 4’s programme with Morgan and Platell might have interested Flight this evening.
As a leader you set the news agenda, are entitled to at least the delusion of progress and the Flight with his comments comes along. Nobody can blame Howard, anyone in his shoes would have been steaming.
(Flight must be touched by the support he’s received in the media by the likes of Galloway and Benn- not the substance of his arguments of course, but his right to say them and preserve a place in a broad church of a party.)
72 - Mike, I do expect the Tories to do relatively better in the marginals that you suggest for 2 reasons.
1 - as I’ve mentioned before I do expect a modest amount of TV unwind as previous Lib Dem voters who voted Labour tactically in the past won’t be able to bring themselves to do that this time with the war etc. in Lab/Con marginals.
2 - The Conservatives campaign in the marginals in 1997 and 2001 was quite frankly a joke. CCO in 1997 clearly didn’t realise what seats were on the edge as they were still predicting c.220 seats on the eve of election day IIRC. And I distinctly remember Labour acheiving c. 13% swings in those type of seats e.g. Kettering, Wellingborough as against the national 10.5% swing. FWIW I believe the Tory campaign with Voter Vault is now roughly on a par with the Labour / Lib Dem campaigns. And I do believe that they know what seats are on the knife edge, there won’t be the scattered 150 seat targeting nonsense that there was in 2001!
As the Prime Minister is (quoting the BBC) “the closest thing to a Catholic PM without actually being one”, is it likely that he will delay the election for a week (i.e call it on April 11th for May 12th)?
77 - 1st para should rean ‘than’ rather than ‘that’.
Turnout - I still haven’t really got a firm view on this one. Mike I thought you were on a 62/63% turnout a few weeks back? Why the sudden change of heart? Cleaning up the register will artificially boost by c. 2%, but I still think it will be around 58% if I had to venture a figure. As Karl Rove famously said in the US election though, there aren’t as many swing voters out there as many people believe. Funny how few people mention the doup in turnout from 78 to 70% from 92 to 97. That drop in turnout IMO destroyed the Tories as much, if not more than those who switched to Labour / Lib Dem.
Richard, Rob, what will you gain? You might gain 30 or 40 with a tactical unwind and you can nourish hopes of ‘one more push’ in 2009 but that’s it. I subscribe to the Peter Hitchens’ view: a new party of the Right is needed, I hope it’s UKIP obviously, but as a party of government the Tories are finished. Thatcher’s harshness, Major’s [governments]incompetence and sleaze have finished them. All the Tories represent is neo-liberalism, tough talk and the white flag towards Europe, big business…oh and themselves with a dash of metropolitan political correctness and slavish worship of America thrown in.
Should the Liberals ultimately replace the Tories then, as Hitchens argues, Labour will collapse and the Liberals will be flushed out for what they are.
79 - oh dear, not a good night for the spelling!
78 - No I don’t see it having any impact on the date. No chance of holding a GE 1 week after council elections. IIRC there isn’t any provision for moving council elections back a week, from the traditional 1st Thursday in May - correct?
[81] Blair moved the Council elections last year so that they co-incided with the Euros, he’ll move them this year if he wants a June GE (short Bill). Doubt the other parties would play ball if he wanted to defer beyond that.
80 - don’t agree with that. I think the Tories with help from new boundaries and a fresh approach under Cameron / Osborne and Grayling (MP for Epsom & Ewell) will look fresh enough in 2009 against a tired looking Labour govt, plus Brown doesn’t attract the critical middle ground as much as Blair. Still I think the Tories will have to move a lot closer to the centre, you might just get Cameron/Osborne talking about social justice etc to appear more inclusive, but we shall see.
80 - How are you UKIP doing at the moment?
The Tories on 34%! Does it matter which pollster it is? 30-34% is inevitably their range.
They are 1% up on the last assuming- the 34% figure- how pathetic is that, with a government of such failure and warmongering as this one?!
85 - How are UKIP doing at the moment?
78 - no Blair will not defer the election a week. The voters will not like to turn out two weeks in a row.
I am not Catholic or sympathetic to Catholics but respect to the passing of the Pope - he was a good man
I remember reading in the papers after the 1992 election that Labour would never be elected as if they couldn’t win in 1992 they never would. It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen in 4 weeks let alone 4 years.
re 85 - I bet UKIP wouldn’t mind being 1% up! (or even 1 up, that would double their last showing - do i recall a recent poll where only one poor deluded soul owned up to wanting to vote for them?!)
UKIP and all these other small parties will have no influence on the election - the only other in mainland UK will be KHHC if the Doctor stands.
Sophia, currently, the Conservatives are receiving about 34 times as much support as UKIP. However, they are about to be replaced by UKIP, as the main right wing party.
Sophia (84), I think -and I vote for them, I’m not a member- that had Kilroy become leader then the Tories’ death could have been expedited. I have high regard for Roger Knapman, but the party in my view said to itself [re the Euros and Hartlepool] ‘we did well, now let’s put our feet up’, instead a leader with charisma, evolution of policy and continuous exposition of the party’s policy positions would have brought great results. I think the party has wasted the last eight months or so.
Why are people surprised that the Lib/Dem certain to vote figure is so low? They know that their party can’t form the next government.
The height of their ambition is helping to choose which of the two other parties forms the government.
You’d expect their vote to be soft. Many of them might be fearful of a Labour or Tory government and choose a different way to ensure that it doesn’t happen.
Do you also support Veritas John?
re 93 - shame on you Roger! - what would Brian Eno say?!
As I said at the time (we all keep saying that!), I didn’t believe the 12% lead, and I’m inclined to think that was simply a rogue poll. The 6% lead with parity on ‘certain to vote’ is fairly close to most others recently. FWIW, though, I’m convinced that there has been a Labour improvement in my patch this week (regular readers will know I don’t routinely say this) - the fifth successive evening tonight with several direct Tory->Labour switches and overall as good or better than 2001. About half the switches have been on personal grounds (people I’ve helped etc.), the rest apparently genuine changes of party preference. If more polls show Labour’s lead falling I’ll be surprised (but that won’t be the first time…).
re 87 - not sure which one of the Pope’s views makes him a good man - homophobia? anti-abortion / women’s rights? anti-contraception?
How about making arguably the single greatest individual contribution to the ending of the Soviet Union?
I think grassroots Tories are going to have to ask themselves some basic questions. How much longer are they going to vote for what Peter Hitchens ( a hero of mine) refers to as ‘Useless Tories’? Their party isn’t at the races, their party has a kind of midas touch in reverse.I love the way their (admittedly feeble and contradictory) immigration policy elicits public support, but when the pollster says ‘it’s Tory policy’, support for it dwindles- the Tories are a contaminated brand. Why was the North East referendum won so well? The Tories had little to nothing to do with it, that’s why. The Tories voted for the appalling war, waved through the Huma Rights Act, tell us about being ‘in Europe, but not run by Europe’ (one of the most grotesquely laughable contradictions-in-terms ever). Tory supporters -a majority- want out of Europe, their hearts are with UKIP, but not (yet) their votes.
Now a couple of young looking MPs who the metropolitan modernisers hail as the future are going to be the Tories’ Blair and Brown apparently. Are things that bad for them? Social liberalism taking over the Tories completely then? Hmmm, good for UKIP I’d say.
Just fed the certain to vote figures into Hill & Knowlton:
Labour Majority of er..one.
Lab 324
Cons 287
LD 9
SNP 3
PC 4
NI 19
IND 1
Adjusted for scottish revisions L-10, C LD SNP -1 each
98 - I think that was more to do with Reagan and Thatchers leadership and arms build up than the Pope!
So UKIP won’t overtake the Tories in this election, are you looking at 2009/10, and how many seats do you think you will win?
re 101 / 98 - Richard Willis has a point - and I don’t remember the Pope out on the Berlin Wall, hacking it to bits in the middle of the night…
101 “How Many divisions does the pope have?” J stalin 1944.
100 - v good forecast in line with my own views (bit optimistic on the small no of LD but lets hope)
97 - leading opposition against the increased immorality which has permeated our (the world’s) Society over the last 25 years…..
re 102 - bit unfair Sophia; half an hour ago YOU said: “It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen in 4 weeks let alone 4 years.”
99 - Hmmm JOhn, these “useless Tories” have won just about every national election test since 2001. If Peter Hitchins is your hero than that about says it all. He has pretty much no credibility left and this election will wipe out the remnants.
If only the UKIP political corpuscle could realise that the only purpose they now serve is to help elect a few more Labour and Lib Dem MPs. I used to want to see UKIP members join the Tories but now I think their natural home is elsewhere. The trouble is that the Monster Raving Loony Party is full!
105. Agreed. And a lot of people will agree. Just how many will become evident on May 5th. For the record I’m a catholic and will be voting for Michael Howards party. A lot I don’t like but at least they are going in the right direction.
If you don’t think the Pope had anything to do with the ending of the Soviet Union then you need to learn some history.
Sophia, I am voting UKIP but WHERE I live determines my vote as much as anything. Although I’m really a Winterton- Alan Clark right-winger, I live in a {currently}safe Tory seat with a Europhile MP.
I would be prepared to vote for Veritas- I want out of Europe. I thought the war was none of our business and I hope Tory voters will vote tactically to get King out at Bethnall Green and Bow. Parliament needs the Galloways and Kilroys not the lobby fodder we’ve got now.
That is true Robbo, I am still intrigued as to how UKIP are going to overtake the Tories.
105 - oh dear; am I the only Conservative who doesn’t show myself up saying this sort of illiberal nonsense…? No wonder we’re in a bit of a state…
109 - go on then alex, enlighten me…!
108 - good call. I will be voting Con too - lets hope enough of us do to be able to clear the current shower out of power!
The Guardian has on it’s center page an article which starts “As the Tory campaign unravels there is already talk of a 4th term Labour victory” The whole tenor of the paper at the moment seems to be one of ultra confidence in a large Labour victory.
This was a nice story “Labour targets Gay vote”. They have produced some beer mats with the slogan “Go to bed with Charlie wake up with Michael Howard”!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1450747,00.html
109 - alex I am well versed in history thanks. Yes the Pope gave some moral support to Solidarity in Poland but it was a pretty small role compared to the economic ruin that the arms race was causing the USSR.
But let’s not discuss what the Pope DIDNT do. I think he does deserve respect on the day he died. And I am not a Catholic.
27. Thanks for making that clear alex. We’ll stick with that!!
I can’t believe how disrespectful some people on here can be toward one of the great figures of the last hundred years only two hours after his death!
The BBC has been plastered with coverage the last two days of the deep involvement of Pope John Paul II in the unravelling of the Soviet Union, Robbo. Don’t you have a television set? With the manners and courtesy you’ve just displayed here, perhaps you ought to change that ‘R’ to a ‘Y’.
I did write (arguably) the single greatest individual contribution, Rik.
112 - we appear to be on the same side(?) but it is not ‘illiberal’ nonsense it is supporting moral values - something which is sadly lacking in so much of this society…
Looks like we are all missing vote-2005…
Nick Palmer (96) astonishes me. I’m sure he might have an increased personal vote, but from the way he’s speaking he’s holding on with an increased majority! I hope he gets that result because as we’ve seen with the war etc the Tories are New Labour’s best friends. An INCREASED Labour majority is certainly possible I think.
115 - Well then they are a bunch of idiots. A large Labour win is far from assured, as this latest poll, even though parts of it seem to be rogue, confirms.
Labour defeated in the popular vote yet with a working majority in parliament would be a disaster for the political system. The government would have no authority, would be torn to pieces by the media and the Lords would give them hell.
118 - AHM: apologies if my honesty offends
124 - Honesty is a virtue; it’s ignorance I abhor.
123- Peter C, I read this week Labour could finsh THIRD in terms of the popular vote and yer get an overall majority of eight (if both Tories and Lib Dems ger 30% each and others 10% with Labour I think getting 29.9%.
I think if the Tories won the popular vote but Labour got more seats or indeed a majority, people would refer to past elections in 1950(?) and 1974(Feb or Oct). But what mandate would Prescott have to concrete over large swathes of Tory England for example ?
123 - Personally, I would be delighted to see Labour defeated in the popular vote yet with a working majority in Parliament. Anything which gets people thinking about the political process, and questioning why we do things the way we do them, is long overdue. Even if people consider the outcome and decide that they want to keep our poitical system exactly the same, at least people will have had to think about it from first principles.
I think that once they realise that our political system is not very subtle, penalises choice, and is capable of producing ridiculous results, the British people will want it to change. And change will involve some form of preferential voting system.
(I quite like Mike Smithson’s idea of “laying” against a candidate at an election - a sort of “Anti Vote”.)
Well there are Tories like Michael Brown -I assume the former MP is still a Tory, writing as he does for the ‘Independent’- who believe it’s in the Tories’ interests to support PR.
Personally I think that’s absurd.
125 - I think “ignorance” is a little harsh, although I am happy to accept that my initial outburst of passion may have been mistimed - apologies to all for my lack of judgement in this case
John Paul II, RIP.
That said, surely this site is not going to avoid discussing the betting on the election of the next Pope. Mike, put up the odds for the favourites and get the discussion going! If you want to wait 24 hours, I fully understand. But by Monday, let’s have at it.
126. There have been two occasions post-war that the party which lost the popular vote has ended up with more seats, 1951 and February 1974. On neither occasion did it matter too much. In 1951 Churchill returned as PM; in Feb 1974 there was a hung parliament which only lasted until the following October.
In 2005, however, with a far less deferential media, a demonstrably bent electoral topography, and a Prime Minister severely tarnished in the eyes of his detractors, the situation would be far more contentious.
PR is irrelevant if the running of our nation is handed over to mainland Europe. This is where UKIP has a vital role in this election to attack Labour and Lib Dems on Europe, but instead they seem obsessed with attacking the most Euro-sceptic of the three main parties.
MIke
Any news of this other poll you expect? Which company is it?
133 - I was polled on voting intention by YouGov on Thursday
[126,127] In both 1951 and February 1974 the difference between the two parties was less than 1% of the popular vote and in terms of seats in single figures. If that happened again, I think we would just note it and move on, as we did then.
However, what is being discussed is Labour being 2% or more behind in the popular vote and being over 50 seats ahead. That is uncharted territory. It would be widely seen as a system failure. A cunning move by Blair in that event might be to offer to form a coalition with Kennedy and then when he’s turned down say, well, I tried to form a legitimate government but I couldn’t, no one else has a majority in the House so don’t blame me for carrying on
Further to Paul’s post, a slight adjustment to the figures:
Lab 323
George Galloway’s Respect: 1 (holds balance of power!)
Cons 287
LD 9
SNP 3
PC 4
NI 19
IND 1
107 said “If only the UKIP political corpuscle could realise that the only purpose they now serve is to help elect a few more Labour and Lib Dem MPs”. Not as simple as that, I’m afraid. In my area, when UKIP started standing in Council elections the Conservative share of the vote actually increased two years running despite UKIP taking almost 10% each time.
UKIP often take votes from disillusioned Labour voters - the kind of people who would never vote Tory on principle.
Yes, UKIP do take Conservative votes - especially in the South-West. But even there, they take some votes from
My view? UKIP will improve a little on national poll results because they stand in more seats than Green/BNP/Veritas/Respect. They will take a large chunk of the protest votes, which will boost their national vote share.
Also, most polls do not specifically prompt the names of the ‘Others’ so I expect that the true level of support for all the ‘Others’ is slightly understated. Of course, this won’t show through so much for parties which don’t stand in many places. However, with a record number of candidates this election I am certain that ‘Other’ votes will rise substantially.
That will have an effect on the outcome, I’m sure - but whether that favours Labour or the Conservatives, who can say?
The only thing that would help is a larger opinion poll (say, 10 people in each constituency nationwide) prompting for the actual names and parties standing in that constituency. Anyone care to fund such a poll???? - lol
IA at 135: the precedents (Britain in 1951, US in 2000) suggest that people soon shrug off cases where the party that leads in the popular vote doesn’t win - partly, perhaps, becuase it’s recognised that differential turnout and tactical voting distorts actual levels of support.
Precedents don’t form a rule, Nick. If you win a minority government and decide to launch another illegal war, the people will rise up.
138 - I must be living in a parallel world when anyone who didn’t support Bush spent four years complaining that he lost the 2000 Presidential election
Alex, personally I don’t believe Bush “really” won the 2004 election.
138 - Nick, it ought to be remembered that the electorate has a much greater experience of using “funny franchises” now. The one common feature of the systems used to elect the Scottish Parliament, Welsh, Northern Ireland and London Assemblies, London Mayor, the European elections, and the soon-to-be-introduced Scottish Local Government system is that they are all different! All sorts of systems are being tried, and they seem to be working - certainly, the Government tells me they are very successful. Generating popular support for one of those systems might not be too difficult if the current system fails to deliver, or is seen to be mainfestly unfair.
107- Richard, the Liberals, New Labour and the Tories want to stay in Europe. UKIP wants out. Measuring scepticism of the Westminster parties is pointless- they are all pro-EU membership.
138. I wouldn’t say that the 2000 election was ’shrugged off’ in the US. It was the cause of enduring bitterness, although not so much as prevent W’s reelection in 2004.
The examples given (US 2000, UK 1951 and Feb 1974) all demonstrate the weakness of the FPTP electoral system when the contest is very close.
What is being surmised for the upcoming UK election, however, is that the system we are currently operating is grossly distorted. Labour could get significantly few votes than the Tories and yet end up with significantly more seats. Although no one can do much about the vaguries of tactical voting, why hasn’t the Bounday Commission been doing its work with regard to equalising constituency populations?
I don’t think PR is really in the Lib Dems interests currently- far better to play off the big two against each other, making further inroads by default, deceiving the electorate eliciting support from hard-left Socialists and traditional Conservatives. Bring PR in and they sould shrink to 5% Free Democrat support like in Germany. Carry on deceiving, utilising FPTP.
138 - you certainly have a point. However, in 1951/2000 the popular vote was very close.
This election could see clear water in the popular vote and still end up with a Labour majority. If that happens the tabloids will dig their talons in at the first hint of trouble. Labour could easily then become as popular as the Conservatives were in 1997.
In the long run, many Conservatives probably wish they’d lost in 1992 - they’d have got back in in ‘97. If Labour don’t win the popular vote it could be one term of office too many for them too.
Of course, I remain to be convinced that the Conservatives will win the popular vote in any case.
If New Labour retains office having lost the popular vote, the Tories will do…what exactly?
Say the Govt have no mandate and cause deadlock in the House of Lords
138 The Democarats have still not forgivrn Bush for 2000 to such an extent that even having won 52% of the votes they deny that GWB has a mandate. Applied to the UK that means that there has been no government with a true mandate for perhaps 50 years?
The fieldwork for this CR poll was during the two days after their previous poll. So that poll shift is unbelievable.
FPTP is surely in the Lib Dem interest now. It can keep making inroads into the big two’s support, playing them off against each other. PR would usher in coalition politics for sure and flush the Lib Dems out. Better to keep deceiving: better to keep eliciting the support of Socialists to the left of New Labour and traditional Tories.
132 - PR is not irrelevant, UKIPJohn. It would give UKIP (and possibly Veritas) seats.
However, there is a price to pay - hands up all those who fancy the BNP holding the balance of power?
Perhaps the fairest way to get around the probnlem of total instability is to use the d’Hondt system.
Ironically that’s basically the system used in the European elections - but then, they turned out okay for UKIP…
149 - It wasn’t two days after the fieldwork for the previous poll.
A lot of the difference can probably be explained due to the natural variations within the margin of error.
150 - The d’Hondt System is used to calculate the Quota, i.e. the minimum number ovotes required to get a candidate elecrted in a proportional system. The d’Hondt System can (and usually is) used to calculate the Quota in Single Transferrable Vote elections, as well as Closed List systems.
New YouGov poll:
Lab 36% (358 seats)
Con 34% (195 seats)
Lib Dem 22% (62 seats)
The number of seats is also predicted in the artical.
Well, well, well.
And there were the socialists writing us off and accusing of being week and all the rest of it.
There’s an even bigger shock coming up on polling day.
Nearly forgot the link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1552449,00.html
Just shows what Michael Howard showing leadership does.
Its along time a week in politics.
138 - Not every country has a gerrymandered electoral system like ours.
Reminds one of your mates in Zimbabwe.
The Labour lead was only 1% in the last YouGov poll, the Tories are hardly in ‘meltdown’ but they are hardly ahead either.
152 - I was referring to the idea of splitting the country up into multi-member constituencies/regions like in the European elections / Spanish elections. I didn’t realise that the d’Hondt system was also used for calculating STV vote quotas as well.
So again in that 30-34% range for the Tories.
On PR surely it’s not in the Lib Dems’ interests: better to play the big two off against each other, make inroads into both Tory and Labour shares by default, getting left-wing Labour supporters, traditional Tories, tactical votes from both Left and Right. Dustbin votes.
With PR and inevitable coalition politics the Lib Dems would be forced to choose and would be flushed out, their deception ended.
I wonder if we will be able to count the number of UKIP supporters (on this poll) on one hand or two.
Our time will come.
When…roughly?
The first stage in that process will be after the Tories’ third landslide defeat with the hopelessness that engenders.
Geofreey at 155: actually it doesn’t show any such thing - the figures since the last YouGov poll (I think we all agree that cross-poll comparisons are dodgy) show 36/34/22 vs 35/34/22 last time. The 1% Lab increase is neither here nor there - it’s basically no change at all.
The accompaying S Times article is interesting, and claims that inherent pro-Labour bias in the polls has been reduced or eliminated. Not sure what post-2001 changes YouGov has made?
To summarise: we’re back to the holding pattern: Labour ahead by 5-6% in non-internet polls, barely ahead if at all in internet polls and polls testing 10-out-of-10 certainty to vote. Certainty to vote and tactical voting rewind are both likely to be higher in the marginals, so I’d think that Labour probably does have a modest lead where it matters, though not enough for comfort.
163- so 2009 then?
164 - Nick I agree with your analysis entirely
159 - or in the 34-37% range!
153 - I have noticed that the votes changes are not as Nick describes but are in fact:
Lab 36% (-1%)
Con 34% (+2%)
Lib Dem 22%(-1%)
Since the previous S Times YouGov poll.
UKIP-John, the problem with UKIP is they have no vision and nothing much positive to say. Europe is one of the most major issues facing this country, and Kilroy is right, UKIP were just sitting on their backsides when they should have been drawing up policies and battle plans.
I’m as against handing over power to Europe as any UKIP member, but I would never vote UKIP because you have no strategy to acheive anything. You have MEPs elected freeloading off the taxpayer, but what are they doing?
You seem to delight in attacking the most Euro-sceptic main party and have no decent campaign or strategy (apart from your Kilroy days). That one-man-band George Galloway is going to get far more votes than UKIP. Father’s for Justice are better campaigners than you are and that is just a bunch of frustrated blokes with an axe to grind, not a political party. As I see it, UKIP will be likely to be disbanded by the 2009 election. Even the SDP, when they could fit their entire parliamentary party in a telephone box and was beaten in Bootle by Lord Sutch had more credibility.
Richard, True, but Nick is rightly referring to the YouGov poll that appeared in the Telegraph last Saturday. Doesn’t affect your joint analysis on the current lay of the land.
Labour have officially suspended all public campaigning on Sunday.
Funny, I wasn’t aware there was any official campaigning going on! Has an election been called?
164 - Nick, finally a poll that shows the figures in line with my exact hunch stated on here about 3 weeks ago. It’s a shame the article doesn’t go on to explain YouGov’s rationale for prediction of no. of seats. Basically such totals imply absolutely no TV unwind whatsoever in the critical marginals - anyway it’s like chalk and cheese when compared with CR!
168 -
“UKIP were just sitting on their backsides when they should have been drawing up policies and battle plans”. True.
“You have MEPs elected freeloading off the taxpayer, but what are they doing?”
They are NOT doing what the other parties are - trying to create more EU regulations/directives. Nigel Farage exposed the French Commissioner’s past conviction. Question : do you know what your local Labour/LibDem/Conservative MEPs are doing? Let’s be honest here, most people think their MEPs are so remote they haven’t a clue what ANY of them are doing!
“That one-man-band George Galloway is going to get far more votes than UKIP” In the seat he stands in, probably. His national share of the vote will be abysmal because he’s not standing in many places.
“As I see it, UKIP will be likely to be disbanded by the 2009 election” Unlikely. They put more funds and effort into the European elections than any other because they have a more realistic chance of taking lots of seats.
If they were to lose quite a few seats in 2009…who knows? But not before.
“UKIP-John, the problem with UKIP is they have no vision and nothing much positive to say” True to an extent. But how much of that is the fact that the press don’t report it when they do say anything that isn’t about the EU?
168 - Printz, one aspect of UKIP I don’t understand is why they don’t keep banging on about why 55-60% of the decisions that affect the UK eminate from the EU - although they’re a lot of the less politically charged issues such as product legislation etc. And that Westminster spends such a vast amount of time just rubber stamping statutory instruments converting EU decrees into British law. But your average Joe Bloggs IMO has absolutely no understanding of that whatsoever, as the Tories finally worked out after 2001.
A lot less would change outside of the EU than a lot of people presume anyway, Norway has to go along with EU law by and large even though it is outside, in order to maintain it’s exports with EU members.
re everyone, except UKIP-John- is anyone taking the UKIP seriously in this election, assuming that they take 100% of votes from the Conservatives, UKIP presence in the election wont even make a difference not even in seats like Harwich and Devon North. looking at the polls Kilroy and Sykes departure was the end off the ukip pipe dream. Its quite ironic that their working class friends the BNP are set for higher percentages in the seats they stand in, Particularly in Keighley where Ann Cryer is running around like a headless chicken tyring to work out how to confront the BNP threat, where Nick Griffin is predicting 20%+ vote. Percentages the ukip can only dream of. On the spreads my money has already gone on a UKIP sell, free money IMHO.
173 - Why compare to Norway (which has only to go along with the Single Market legislation - under 20% of all EU laws) anyway?
Why not compare to Switzerland or any of the other non-EU nations which have bilateral trade agreements with the EU?
Svenson, UKIP are one party I want to do well. But they haven’t got their act together.
Their leader isn’t dynamic or assertive enough to make impact. UKIP MEPs were elected on the basis they would try to get Britain out of Europe, not just take the money and run.
They could be rallying protests in Brussels. They could be orchestrating publicity stunts. They could be making documentaries. Look at their website. It has no vision or appeal to capture a wider vote.
Kilroy gave them a good Euro vote and picked up much of the protest that would normally go Lib Dem. Now he’s gone and theie vote is gone. That’s because they have no strategy.
They are middle aged men in suits with plums in their mouths and don’t sound like they represent ordinary people. They sound like disenfranchised Tories. They need to be and sound passionate to succeed.
Sunday Times Report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1552450_2,00.html
Many experts are still unwilling to commit themselves to predicting the result of the election, despite Labour holding a big opinion poll lead and with a massive Commons majority sustained over two terms.
Some have decided that betting on a Labour win is more profitable than putting their money in the bank. Ladbrokes, the bookmakers, said: “People see this as an easy way to make their money work better than the bank. We expect a few more to come in and just back a Labour win.”
Ladbrokes also reported that one man had asked an Isle of Wight branch if it would take £100,000 on Labour to win. He was told yes, but it is still waiting for him to return.
One bet that could attract some attention is the 10-1 being offered on Howard losing his Folkestone seat.
The new betting exchanges — where people can “make” their own bets with other customers — say there has been a huge amount of interest in the election. Increasingly, pundits are “following the money” rather than looking at opinion polls, whose reputations have suffered since John Major beat Neil Kinnock in 1992.
Early indications show that Labour is likely to lose more than 68 of its 408 seats and that its majority will be cut from 161 to less than 60 seats. It is probable that the Conservative party will pick up most of this loss, with the Lib Dems getting between 56-65 seats.
176 - I agree about the UKIP website. Many of your criticisms of them are accurate.
About protests etc., they do make them. But how often do you hear it reported?
As for the general election, I agree that their chance of a real breakthrough has gone. However, the protest vote element will grow this time. As they’re standing in 400+ seats, they will be standing in areas where other minor parties aren’t. They are bound to pick up a lot of protest votes. See 137.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1552450_1,00.html
The party released private opinion poll research this weekend showing that it is leading the Tories by nine points — much higher than published polls which show the gap between the two parties as just a few points.
Labour’s ratings go up, say party officials, when positive messages, particularly the government’s economic record, are emphasised. Nearly half — 47% — of people who say they have switched to Labour say it is because of the economy.
Also reports that Robin Cook is to be recruited to campaign to get back Labour anti-war votes.
Re: 150 So what if PR would give Veritas and UKIP seats. In a TRUE democracy the people choose who to vote for and the electoral system reflects that. I have grave doubts as to the commitment to REAL democracy of anyone suggesting a country should choose an electoral system to ‘ban’ a party they dislike from gaining seats in Parliament. It is up to the electorate ALONE to decide which parties are suitable to be elected or not, not an electoral system. Perhaps, one of the reasons why the turnout at the last election was so appaling is that the very wide diversity of political opinions in this country was not able to be translated into seats in Parliament due to the electoral system?
Svenson, a small party like UKIP can make a difference in marginals, potentially stopping a very pro-Europe party or candidate from winning. This surely should be their strategy. They seem to lack focus. I’m not sure if they will be fighting Veritas in many seats, but that would damage their message. I agree they suffer from low media coverage, but they need to find ways to grab headlines.
Re: 74 It is true that the BNP has more of a ‘working-class’ vote than UKIP which tends to do better in ‘middle-class’ areas but it is a common misconception that they are ‘Right-wing’. This is, in fact, one of UKIP’s main problems - the fact that they have quite a wide diversity of people in their ranks from hard-right, Thatcherite Tories to people who, if the Lib Dems proposed to take us out of the EU, would comfortably support them. This makes it very difficult for the party to expand and develop their policy platform beyond the single-issue of withdrawal from the EU.
181 - since Veritas consists almost entirely of ex-UKIP members, I would think they will by nature be fighting quite different territory (some overlap is possible, of course)
180 - I agree to an extent. Yes, PR would give UKIP, Veritas, Greens, Respect and BNP seats.
What I am saying is that if you have PR within, say, 10-member constituencies, those parties still have a chance of getting seats. If you have straight PR across 646 constituencies, a party would need less than 0.2% of the vote to take seats. That really does raise the spectre of some quite odd results, and political instability. Italy is a prime example of this.
If an electoral system makes it too easy to get elected, splinter groups and parties will form all over the place. That will leave voters with dozens of options on their ballot paper, and a choice they are unlikely to understand. Parliament will be a mess.
That’s why, in 150, I suggested using a system like the one used for the European elections. It gives smaller parties a realistic chance of winning seats - but it won’t be done on the basis of 1% of the vote.
Barry, PR is likely to mean the people vote and then the small parties decide who will form the government.
Is that REAL democracy.
Imagine Labour had 30% Tory 35% Liberals 15% Green 5% BNP 3% Nationalists/N/Ireland 5%. UKIP/Veritas 2%.
The party leaders would disappear into smoke filled rooms and decide who runs Britain.
It could exclude the party with the largest vote, because they couldn’t get enough coalition partners. So you could have Labour/Lib Dems/Green and BNP (the smallest party) forming the government. Is that your idea of TRUE democracy?
And if you didn’t like that coalition, how are you going to remove it in the next election?
182 - very difficult, but not impossible.
Raising pensions £25 per week, raising the tax threshold to take poorer people out of tax, replacing VAT with a fairer sales tax to be paid at point of wholesale and reducing council tax liability won’t offend many UKIP supporters at all.
They will argue that the money saved from EU withdrawal and the associated economic benefits from removal of (most) EU legislation, leaving the CAP etc. gives enough money to keep both ’sides’ happy - ie. lowering taxes and increasing public spending.
Re 184. No system of voting is without disadvantages and I can see your point here but surely no-one is suggesting that Germany isn’t a democracy nowdays because this sort of thing happens there?
186 - Germany is slightly different. If I reacall, it has a threshold (5%??) stopping parties getting seats if they poll less than that threshold.
The Yougov website figures for 2005 polls average out (please correct me if I am wrong) at Labour 35.4 Conservative 32.7 and LibDem at 22.6 compared to this poll as reported here at 36 34 22. The “Others” seem to be steady up to this latest poll at 9 percent. The ttrend is a better indicator than a one-off so the next few YouGov results will be important. But at face value this latest poll suggests that the only real movement in the last three months is a very slight uptick in the Conservative percentage. If this is so it would seem to be despite Flight and the Chiefs of Police criticisms. But the usual margin of error means that the it is really all too close to call. Exciting stuff.
Earlier posts mentioned William Hague’s take on a campaign’s flow. I think it was slightly misrepresented. I understood him to say that in 2001 the Conservatives did not properly develop their themes in the immediate run up to the election (the “pre-campaign”) and as a result the real campaign was never going to be a tremendous success. This seems to be a lesson learnt and may explain why there is such an emphasis in the Conservative grid on awakening their core vote. They then expect to have something to build on during the campaign proper.
Is there any way to edit your posts on this forum? I keep finding that I’ve mistyped something after posting it.
Re 183. I agree with your points here. I wouldn’t suggest PR be adopted like the variation of it they have in Israel where you can get seats in Parliament on 1 or 2%. I think the Germans have a good system where a party must win 3 seats outright or pass the 5% threshold to win seats. In my opinion, any party that can get more than 5% or so of the national vote deserves to be represented in the legislature unlike here where you can get 15% or so and NO seats at all because your vote is too thinly-spread out over the country. Democracy should mean that a Tory vote cast in the Rhondda has an equal value to a Labour one cast in Arundel and the South Downs.
188 - in that case, what about Labour’s campaign? Their ‘pre-campaign’ has surely failed to gain any momentum at all. If you are right then I assume you expect that the Conservatives will pick up more than expected during this campaign.
The German system would be unfair to parties like Plaid Cymru / SNP, or a number of the parties in Northern Ireland. There is always the possibility that they might in some future election fail to win 3 seats outright. Then because they are restricted by geography, they get nothing.
That’s why I prefer the Spanish system (which AFAIK is pretty much the same as the one we use in European elections).
191 Svenson I am making no predictions as that requires a judgement on the pre-campaign and its too early for sufficient evidence. One straw in the wind might be Labour groans to the journos that the “Conservatives have taken control of the grid”. Which is why Alan Miburn was so joyful at the Flight saga. But I would agree that so far the Labour “pre” has not been very impactful mainly as the press picked holes in the 35bn and now the first time buyers housing scheme. And Labour so far do not seem to have retaken control of the grid. Time will tell.
However, impressions received by the people like us who are keenly intersted in the process are the least certain to be correct.
Re. 101. Reagan got lucky Rik; if it hadn’t been for JP II the demise of the Soviet Bloc would never have happened under his watch.
I think this poll looks fairly accurate, I always considered the last one to be a “rogue poll”. I do have a small problem with the research methodology of this poll and I think perhaps you could take 1-2% from Labour and give it to the LibDems.
The figures among those certain to vote does show big problems for the LibDems. I have always wondered how many people who vote for them actually agree with their message rather than simply voting against other parties. This shows that their support base is indeed very fragile. A significant amount of their support in recent elections has simply been tactical voting against the Conservatives and this is like ly to erode significantly this election.
Or, Dave, there is another explanation. I am a Lib Dem member, not just a supporter, and it is by no means 100% certain how I will cast my vote. You see, I worry about things and think about issues – and outcomes. I like to think that I am not just a zombie. I could be persuaded to vote Labour, if the circumstances were right – and that despite Irak, Blair and all the rest of it.
So I listen to all that poor old Rik has to say from Sutton & Cheam, for example, and I must say I am not very convinced, but I do listen to him. And all the rest that comes out of the different party machines, including my own. And then I make up my mind, on the basis of what I hear and how I interpret it.
So if a polling company comes along and asks me whether I am 100% certain to vote Lib Dem, my answer at this stage – because it is an honest one – has to be “no”. I suspect that most Lib Dems are thinking people. If that is the case, then obviously the Lib Dems are going to come out worst in any poll that goes only for those voters who are currently 100% certain to vote for any specific party.
The fact that the Tories seem to come out best of this kind of poll may well imply that their voters are the most determined to vote for their party…. or else that they have simply stopped thinking.
Communicate Research seems to be a highly dodgy polling organisation. Its results are all over the place in a matter of only two days……
IIRC, you are discounting the unethical polls that are reported in the Scottish press that emanate effectively from the Labour Party.
Ought we not - on the same basis - to discount Comunicate Research and all its works and all its sponsors, until it adheres rather better to the established norms of opinion polling?
The non-reporting of its results might put pressure on CR to reform its ways, or on its sponsor to find a more reliable organisation….
What about Graham´s, for example?
Wonders will neve cease! Poor old Rik (101) said:
“I think that was more to do with Reagan and Thatchers leadership and arms build up than the Pope!”
And to some extent I agree with him!
But I think it was even more to do with the internal collapse of the Soviet system, because of its inherent weaknesses. Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope were just in the right place at the right time to be given the credit.
Now business bacck to normal…
Remind me please, Rik, since we both have out roots in Greater Slough, what is the current Tory policy towards the increasing dominance of the Roman Catholic Church over internal domestic policy (ie social matters) in this non-Catholic country of ours?
Is what’s presented as a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times today actually a poll? The paper has been publishing what it terms a “prediction” which has vote shares and projected seats - but this has not been based on a specific survey.
From the web-site story it is hard to say whether this is a poll or not in spite of what the headline says. The normal information you would expect to see about a poll - survey dates, numbers questioned etc. - are not there.
We’ll cover it in the normal way if it does turn out to be a proper poll.
Interesting article by Peter Kellner perhaps? It’s not credited. It could be that YouGov have decided to include likelihood to vote for the first time so have chosen not to put their base figures in the article. It’s interesting that they say everyone has changed their methodology since 2001.
Yougov figures into Hill and Knowlton:
Labour Majority 14
Lab 331
Con 217
LD 70
SNP 7
PC 4
IND 1
OTH 19
Adjusted for scottish changes L -10 C, LD, SNP -1 each
Sorry that should be SNP 6, LD69
Just to clear this up: my article in today’s Sunday Times is NOT a report of a new poll; it is my (current) forecast for the likely result of the general election. It takes account of recent polls, but is not in itself a new survey.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that today’s CommunicateResearch poll has fieldwork dates of 24-25 March, more than a week ago and just after last Sunday’s poll, which was conducted on 22-23 March.
199 - John. The pollsters don’t ask “are you certain to vote for your nominated party”, they ask (effectively) “are you certain to vote” - two somewhat different questions.
Interestingly there is a lot more liquidity on spreadfair now the election is in the air - all the major prices are quite narrow now. I presume the spread betting market-makers will have to cut their spreads again by Friday to stay competitive.
Re 206. Thanks to Peter Kellner, head of YouGov, for his very helpful contribution which confirms what I thought was the case.
He also makes a very good point on the timing of the CR poll.
The problem is that the Sunday Times, certainly on its web-site, is headlining Peter’s article as a “poll” so it’s not surprising that people are jumping to conclusions.
Peter Kellner. Are we permitted to ask where your latest poll, commissioned on Thursday, is going to appear?
Just to clear things up does this mean the only new poll today is Communicate?
*PRESS RELEASE*
I think i just got my Glasto tickets (?) it all seemed a little easy… perhaps too easy well now all we have to do is wait for four hours for the confirmation
*END*
Further to 199 - this poll however is unusual. I think I’m right in saying that studies have generally shown that LibDem support (in terms of percentage share) is generally unaffected by turnout adjustments, possibly (my hypothesis) because they attract support equally from ‘natural’ Labour voters (who are less likely to vote) and ‘natural’ Conservative voters (who are more likely) - and the two cancel themselves out.
My impression is that Peter Kellner’s hypothesis for variations in levels of YouGov support is pretty weak and seems to me to be trying to fit the figures to support an argument rather that the other way around. The significant recent shift in YouGov levels (the Feb poll), I recall, came as a major surprise mainly because the recent headlines had been dominated by immigration - with the Tories subsequently benefitting among a number of the other polling organisations. YouGov have been so steady over the last year and a half that any variations could just as easily be put down to natural variations within a “no change” situation.
115-” They have produced some beer mats with the slogan “Go to bed with Charlie wake up with Michael Howard”!”
The slogan is nice.
The problem is if half drunken gay guys will understand that it’s an election slogan and not an advertisement for a dating service that offers menages a trois.
And considering Charlie’s lack of sexy appeal (he reminds me a big potato), someone could even prefer to bed Howard.
So, if there was no new YouGov poll and the CR field work was March 24 and 25th, then we are still none the wiser about the impact (or lack thereof) of the Howard Flight controversy?
Interesting article from the Sunday Times particularly the last two paragraphs.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1552450,00.html
Labour’s ratings go up, say party officials, when positive messages, particularly the government’s economic record, are emphasised. Nearly half — 47% — of people who say they have switched to Labour say it is because of the economy
This sounds like voodoo polling.
You missed the part about the nine point Labour lead alex!
Tories are sweeping their campaign HQ in search of bugs and Labour moles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/nbrun103.xml
Andrea at 215. For those who want to “bed Howard” there are instructions to leave their guide dogs at the door!
221- yes, but Kennedy is not better!
I think Peter Kellner can reasonably grumble to the Sunday Times that he’s been a victim of Sub-editor’s Stab. Whoever wrote the headline “Latest poll…” clearly didn’t realise it wasn’t a poll!
John O and Peter himself are therefore quite right - we’re none the wiser about shifts in opinion since April 25. That’ll teach us to get all excited by single reports.
I wonder what your reaction was, Roger, when Liam Fox announced at the Tory conference that their private polling showed that they were on course to sweep the vast majority of the marginal seats needed to return to power?
Why did the IoS waste money on two polls in 3 days - were they offered some sort of “2 for 1″ bargain deal?
Yes Labour have found that if they spend long enough at the front doors talking about the economy, they can get people to say they will vote for them! They have found they have a 9 point lead and no doubt are set, therefore, to do as well as last time! I think they are deluded.
Oh, by the way, perhaps the subheading to the thread (”Tories up in spite of Flight row” might need editing?
Incidentally, I agree that LibDems are *not* generally unsure whether to vote. Many are, I think, more unsure than most whether to vote for their preferred party, partly because of tactical issues in many seats and partly because some see the LibDems just as the “none of the above” option, and I’d guess that the low ‘certain to vote’ figure for them in the CR poll reflects this, even though the question wasn’t phrased that way.
Alex, it seems like CR were worried they were going to have egg on their face with a poll that was unlike others, so a few days later they came up with a new set of figures.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=626010
Is there no way we can get rid of this man?
Since Howard Flight has not been a big news item since Monday evening. we may never know what, if any, impact he had on public opinion.
228 - you’re right Printz. The IoS article seem to basically say the changes in this poll are as a result of the last poll being rubbish!
alex at 225. It’s possible I suppose that the Labour Party are using CR for their private polling and are handing the polls over to the IOS after they have taken what they want from them. Just a guess of course but the figures are pretty close. Mid-way between the two polls.
Sean at 230. Yougov did a poll on Thursday. At some point it’s likely to see the light of day.
206 Peter Kellner said on the Sunday Times “poll”,”it is my (current) forecast for the likely result of the general election. It takes account of recent polls, but is not in itself a new survey.” This simply raises more questions. On what basis is this prediction made? It seems to be against the trend of the YouGov polls in 2005 so far. Or have, Mr Kellner, you got inside information from the next YouGov poll? Your “prediction” also goes against the trends of most other polls including the much attacked Communicate R poll which show a narrowing of the gap as do YouGov in 2005. So much so that I am surprised that you have gone for a wider gap than the last YouGov poll (35 34 22). The trend up tick in the Conservative score may not on its own be statistically significant but it is the only upward trend of the three main parties. The reasons for your call, Mr Kellner, would be interesting.
Clive. His prediction is based on 35-34-22.
I wonder how Michael howard is going to dispatch her to the wilderness;
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=UQB0OKEVO4R3DQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/04/03/nred03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/03/ixportal.html
220 - If true, the incidents reported in the telegraph article will backfire heavily on the perpetrators. People are not stupid and annoying voters is IMHO the best way to get them to vote for your opponents.
I have just read an article on page 5 of “The Observer” by their Political Editor, Gaby Hinsliff, that subsequent to the Flight affair Labours private polling shows them now 9 points clear of the Tories. Astonishingly she also reports that this polling has the LibDems ahead of the Tories!!! On that basis and allowing for the “Others” to be about 9% the figures would be around :
Labour 36% LibDems 28% Tories27%. This flies in the face of the CR poll today. To qoute a comment on another thread it looks like the polls at the moment “are all toss”.
237. That would be funny!
Paul at 236. At this stage newspapers are actively campaigning for the party they support. This one is straight out of CCO. If you want to see it from the other side of the coin try the Mirror.
Actually there’s a different explanation 237 - that each poll is doing something slightly different. Labour are unlikely to bother doing national polls - what they are probably releasing is information from private polling in marginal seats. These will include Labour/Tory marginal and Labour/Lib Dem marginals - hence the Labour vote will be relatively high. Imagine there were only two seats - one lab/ld one lab/con - with vote shares 40/40/20 for lab/con/ld in the lab con one and 40/20/40 in the lab/lib one. The average of the two is lab 40, ld 30, con 30 - despite both seats being on a knife edge.
Jack 237/ Treat all reports of “private polls” with a big pinch of salt. Unless you can see the basis on which they were carried out they are merely propaganda and possibly deliberate lies.
Last week there was a report that Labour so called private polling had the Tories 5% ahead last November and that Labour had overhauled that. There was no published poll that month that had anything other than a Labour lead.
Here is the article. It doesn’t EXACTLY say the Tories are behind rhe Lib’s
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1451333,00.html
239 , Rob , I understand your reasoning but this is not how the story reads at all . I’m sorry there is no link to this article. Any thoughts on this poll Mike ?
241 Roger , thanks for the link , my stupidity on these computer links exposed again !! . However the article does say that the Tories are “now trailing behind the Liberal Democrats” . I don’t know any other way to interprate that statement.
Do we know what Labour’s private polling was saying before the 2001 election?
240, Mike , I agree that caution is required, but is a Political Editor likely to put her name to such a story lightly ?
244 - yes - it was saying whatever they wanted it to say on any given day. Mike S is right we should ignore ALL leaks of private polling. The only polls worth considering are those with full methodology and field work data.
….on one issue Jack. here is the paragraph
“The polling also suggests the row over Howard Flight’s unguarded comments on spending has damaged Howard, with the Tories now trailing behind the Liberal Democrats for having a ‘clear vision’ on the economy amid the confusion over their plans, according to the internal figures”.
Far be it for me to accuse people of not being able to read, but it says that the Cons are trailing the Libs for “having a clear vision for the economy” - which is pretty damning seeing as the Libs don’t really have an economic policy but not the same thing as saying they are trailing on voting intention.
Paul at 236. This is an example of the Observer doing what Melissa Kite did in the Tekegraph. Printing a story unchecked from the party’s head office.
229- “http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=626010
Is there no way we can get rid of this man? ”
maybe he’s not enjoying Brussels anymore or Brussels is not enjoying him ( look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/nmand03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixhome.html )
249 - Its called doing a Tom Baldwin.
250 - Yeah I saw that Andrea. Although it was rather tempered by the comment from the EU press guy:
“The attitude you have shown towards the press until now contains nothing of the democratic principles and spirit of openness the European Union claims to practise”
“claims” clearly being the operative word
247, 248 . Sorry folks but my copy of “The Observer” makes no mention of the economy . There is obviously a difference in the two items. The actual paper reads as follows “The polling also suggests the row over Howard Flight’s unguarded comments on spending has damaged Howard, with the Tories now trailing behind the Liberal Democrats” Make of it what you will.
Re the Labour private “poll”. Journalists are failing in their job if they write this without subjecting it to cricitcal scrutiny - which does not on the face of it seem to have happened here.
All the parties are guilty of this including my own - the Lib Dems. We’ve can all recall the “canvas figures show..stories”
What we expect is for serious journalists to treat this sort of thing with a level of scepticism.
Despite all the polling evidence and anecdotal stories to the contrary I now think the likelihood is a result similar to 2001. My reasons are as follows; The Tories would have been kicked out long before ‘97 because they were considered the ‘Nasty Party’. The only thing that saved them was the notion that Labour couldn’t handle the ecconomy.
To-day the ‘Nasty Party’are back and Labour have a booming ecconomy.
Mike would you or one of the other betting experts on this site tell me how to maximize a bet based roughly on Tory 170, Lib/Dem 60 Lab 400 using IG (where I have an account). I have a feeling to-day might be the best day for getting good odds.
254 et al Mike, Yes, but do we know that Gaby Hinscliff has not treated this story correctly ? She may well have checked this story carefully , we simply don’t know. Indeed some would say she had a responsibility to report this private poll especially if she checked her sources .
I have no political axe to grind here and simply posted the story for interests sake . As I said earlier there may be something in the earlier thread - “all polls are toss” at the moment . We love them nevertheless.
255, Roger , A very brave bet with the Tories at 170 ,a net gain of only 5 over 2001. I must confess 6 months ago I would have predicted similar figures , perhaps with the LibDems at 70 rather than 60 . However I feel that the Tories may recover a little more than your forcast say 200 or so , much in line with the present spread betting ranges. Good luck !
Clive G, I agree with you about Peter Kellner.
Mr Kellner seems a tad too confident to me. He seems very sure of his figures. The Tories chances of forming a government “are remote,” a very factual statement based on opinion polls or his opinion?
I find it bizzare that an opinion poller should make his own private predictions of the election result.
Are his predictions going to change each week? Or are we going to be at the eve of the election when Peter Kellner says one thing and YouGov says something slightly different?
Doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Roger 255. My suggestion would be a buy bet on Labour which is currently at 353 seats.
255, Roger , Your numbers add upto 630 , this only leaves 15 for “Others” which is incorrect - allow 30 or so for “Others” and readjust your numbers . Good luck again.
Roger wrote:
“To-day the ‘Nasty Party’are back and Labour have a booming economy.”
Reply:
But what’s keeping the ecomomy going? Runaway consumer credit, government borrowing, raiding pension reserves, tax hikes, employing towards a million public sector workers and contractors, shifting a nearly a million from the dole queue to disability.
Have you thought that maybe the booming economy is all an illusion and we’ve lost a million manufacturing jobs, house prices are plunging and we are spending above our means?
258 , Printz , I think in fairness to Peter Kellner he’s simply seeing the polls , political trends and “events” as they are . The campaign may change things of course but he does enjoy a good reputation as a pollster and political analyst.
Did you enjoy your rest in the darkened room ?
261, So the the Tories are going to slash public spending, get unemployment back up to 3 million (where they prefer it because it keeps inflation down) I only hope that you are not going to be one of them!
There is a basic point of philosophy here, I believe in spending public money on public services not paying for unemployment you can have it either way, the Tories are the party of unemployment they believe it is a valid economic tool, never mind the social distress it causes.
For all Labours faults and I recognise that there are many, they have at least got unemployment down and given many people hope in their futures by investing in up skilling the workforce.
262 Jack W says ” I think in fairness to Peter Kellner he’s simply seeing the polls , political trends and “events” as they are.” But, Jack, how does he know that the trends his own polls seem to show will reverse or stop. If they do not reverse then the trend continues which is a so far a very small Conservative advance with the Labour party flatlining and the LibDems declining. All very small and all not sustained or significant enough to become the established trends. But that said Peter Kellner is making a prediction of a result that seems contrary to those trends and I would simply like to know on what basis he does so. He may have insights that might inform us all.
263 - Ah Robert but it was the Conservatives that transformed the economy and got unemployment down. Labout have just achieved the rare (for them ) feat of not screwing it up too much!
BTW the Tories are NOT going to “slash public spending”, we are going to grow it less fast than Labour - an important distinction.
Robert wrote:
For all Labours faults and I recognise that there are many, they have at least got unemployment down and given many people hope in their futures by investing in up skilling the workforce.
Reply:
But HAS unemployment really gone down since 1997? Include disability allowance figures and increased further education places where dropout rates have increased sharply.
264 , Clive, like any analyst Kellner will use a variety of emperical data and trends to determine his judgement . He may also allow for an assessed turnout figure, LibDem media bounce , tactical voting and local factors. In all it’s not an exact science but his view this far out of the final result . Indeed this site is about us all making our judgements this far out against the spred betters and trying to make money - chance would be a fine thing .
Jack W, 262,
Three weeks ago YouGov gave Labour a 5 point lead, a week or so a go it was a 1 point lead. Now Peter Kellner is giving his own prediction of a 2 point lead by election day with no explanation.
To me, he completely undermines the credibility of YouGov. I expect science, not figures plucked out of the air. Peter Kellner is YouGov to the public. Is he going to have a new prediction each week that is different to YouGov?
Maybe this is a new way of newspapers looking something like they
have an opinion poll without paying for them?
NO! I DIDN’T LAY DOWN IN A DARKENED ROOM! I MUST DO IT NOW!
Sad news about the Pope. It seems he played a major role in the dramatic political changes in Poland in the 1980s.
On another point though, not really in keeping with the first. Yesterday we had an attack leaflet from the Tories (though it was difficult to tell it was from them, smallprint was v.small) on the Lib Dems which was v.well written. It focused on Lib Dem proposals on crime, some of there bizarre taxes (dog tax) and there proposal to abolish faith schools, grammar schools et al. It was clever because it did not talk about Europe (in an area Richmond Park where views are divided) or about there main tax proposals (LIT, Super tax which might be popular to some Tory voters). It certainly seems to be a step up from what I have seen in the past (printed on nice glossy paper) and a sign the Tories are finally taking the fight at least locally to the Lib Dems.
Re. 266 Printz check all statistics unemployment is well down even taking into account ‘hidden unemployment’ which has also fallen greatly since 1997.
I don’t think you can include further education places in the unemployment figures Printz even those who drop out then go and get jobs.
A private poll showing Labour 9% ahead, and the Tories in third place? That’s b*****s. Maybe it was a poll of Labour’s staff!
Come on Princz 268. You are confusing two aspects of Peter Kellner here. Wearing one har he heads a polling firm that abides fully by the code of the BPC and we can all examine how the figures were derived. His firm can only report the figures as they turn out.
Wearing the other hat Kellner is a highly experienced commentator on these matters and his prediction today is him making a professional judgement.
I think that he is nearly right except that Labour will get almost the same number of seats on a much smaller share of the vote. What will screw the pollsters up is what screwed them up last time - disproportionate non-voting by Labour supporters in seats where it does not matter.
68, Printz , Yes but you’ve answered your own question. An opinion poll is simply a snapshot of opinion on a given day(s), whereas Kellner gives us his forcast for election day on May 5th. The two are not mutually exclusive ; most of us do the same, only time will tell who is right.
273 , Sorry that should have been 268 not 68 . Totally agree with Mike at 272.
Unemployment isd down, although there is good reason, i think, to think some of it is somewhat misleading considering it is in great part down to (public spending dependent) jobs ‘created’ in the public sector. The situation in the private sector isn’t nearly as encouraging.
Re. 265 “it was the Conservatives that transformed the economy and got unemployment down” I agree you transformed the economy we lost 25% of our manufacturing capacity in 1981 alone! As for getting unemployment down it was higher when the Conservatives left office in 1997 than it was in 1979.
276 - Will -”lost 25% of our manufacuring capacity”??!!! WHat bunkum. It was more than replaced with high tech industry. What sensible person would want to go back subsidising Shipbuilding, coalmining and steel making when we now have clean, high value added IT industries and a smaller but profitable steel maker. Lets face it the only reason we had the manuf industry we had in the seventies was due to over regulation and subsidy that we couldnt afford!
With our EU membership much of the subsidy would have had to stop anyway regardless of who was in power.
The unemployment argument is rather simplistic. To transform the UK into the skilled economy it is today a transition period was inevitable. We were fortunate in that we went first under Maggies leadership, who had the foresight to realise what had to be done. Germany and France will now need to do the same. Oh and BTW I think you will find that Germany and France have much higher unemployment than we do, precisely because they have failed to reform their economies as we did in the 80’s. As someone once said “there is no alternative”!
Re. 277 Richard I was not saying that change wasn’t inevitable of course there has been a long term shift over from Manufacturing to the service sector my point is it was done in a needlessly brutal fashion it was more of a decapitation than a transition. The combined effects of monetarist economic policy and the pound becoming a ‘petro’ currency manufacturing industry did not have a chance to evolve it simply went of business. Unfortunately that was whole areas of the country and peoples livelihoods that were destroyed!
You call my unemployment argument simplistic and then go onto state that Germany’s unemployment is rising now due to a failure to create mass unemployment in the 80’s!
Richard I am not arguing that reform was not needed in the 80’s but to claim it was some type of triumph is beyond a joke.
Richard at 277. Come up to South Yorkshire after the election and I will take you to some former mining communities and you can put your argument to them.
266, Yes it has gone down and well you know it! Were you around in the eighties under the Tories, there are two ways of using public money either you create jobs or you pay for unemployment, I agree with the transition argument as posited in another post, however the money spent on unemployment could have been much better spent on investing in public services, rather for 20 years the Tories systematically under invested in health education and other vital services, it makes me laugh when people think it will take a short time to turn around
I don’t know if this is the place to do it, but the factcheck website is good and should put paid to many arguments here http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/
Blair postpones calling election
Downing Street has announced that Tony Blair will not be dissolving Parliament on Monday.
Although the prime minister was expected to announce a general election for 5 May, he has decided to pay his respects to the Pope instead.
Mr Blair will now attend vespers at Westminster Cathedral in memory of John Paul II.
Downing Street added: “In response to speculation we can confirm that he will not be going to Buckingham Palace.”
282 - looks almost certain now that we will have an announcement on Tuesday morning of a May 5 poll.
Richard (277), even if what you say, that those jobs in manufacturing industries that have failed (ship building, coal mining and the like) have been replaced by ‘high tech’ industries, how does this help the former steel workers, coal miners, and ship builders? Even if they retrained, unless they are in their early 20s at the time of retraining, I don’t see them as having a hope in hell of breaking into, for example, a computer related careeer, or into the white collar world in general.
Also with the Conservatives, while this may not be fashionable or politically correct to say so, do you really think the British public at large is going to vote for a Romanian immigrant who has changed his name (from Hecht to Howard) to run the country over the pair of very socially aware Scots (Blair and Brown) currently running the country? You are dreaming! The Conservatives haven’t got a hope in hell of being voted into power.
Some may take offence at Debbie’s (#284) contention: “do you really think the British public at large is going to vote for a Romanian immigrant who has changed his name (from Hecht to Howard) to run the country…”. I know better: Debbie is either a self parodying genius, rivalling Baron ‘two ls’ Kinkel, or she is desperately needs directions to Vote 2005…
Oh dear Johnno, resorting to personal attacks now, is it? Howard will never be living in 10 Downing Street. Why don’t you give up while you are down and out and vote LibDems for a change.
Debbie [284] - don’t insult the Scots by suggesting that TB is one! He went to a Scottish public school, that’s all. And it was MH’s grandfather who changed his name…
Hey ho..you just can’t win, can you? And here was I, trying to bestow a compliment.
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, current Prime Minister, Date of birth 6th May 1953, PLACE of birth Edinburgh. Last time I looked at a map Edinburgh is in Scotland. Didn’t you go to school when you were growing up, Innocent Abroad?
Johnno, maybe you and Innocent Abroad should get together - two idiots for the price of one. I hope there are enough sensible NON conservative voters marking their ballot paper this year!
To Mike and Jack W.
I don’t think Peter Kellner is in the correct position to wear two hats.
Let me give you an example.
How does it sound if I said this?
I am a representive of a market research company and I have been asked to research if people prefer a new ginger flavour coke more than a new banana flavour coke.
The results of my research will be used by the board of directors of Cocky Coke Corporation who are going to invest ten million pounds to launch one of these new drinks. So as you imagine it is vital I get it right.
After very careful market research, in which 1000 people tasted the new drinks in double blind conditions and weighting the figures to take into account those who say they are certain to buy the new drinks when they come out in the Summer, and taking into account those who said they previously drunk coke, I am now going to present my detailed figures to the board.
“I am pleased to present the results of our research and I can reveal that our highly scientific research under careful test conditions, says that the ginger coke is the favourite, but hang on one moment. In my own view, taking off my market researchers hat and projecting forward to the summer when it will be launched, I think ginger coke will in fact be favoured a bit more than our highly scientific research says it will. In fact, by all means look at our research figures, but in my opinion I think the figures will look more like this.”
It’s hardly going to instill much confidence is it?
I know in the USA last year that pollsters were aware of the mobile phone issue, but not sure they dealt with it. In other words lots of people, especially young people don’t have lnadlines, just mobile phones.
Does anyone know how UK polling orgsnisations deal with this issue. If they don’t do some sort of weighting they may underestimate a segment of society.
A colleague who works for one of the parties was teeling me that at least 20% of the population don’t have landlines now. Apparently in 1997 it was only around 3%, presumably because mobiles are taking over.
Debbie, You are a STAR. I so relish, nay cherish, your indignation about personal insults. And so I say this in a truly caring and compassionate way, but distressingly the words pot, kettle and black do spring to mind.
But enough of badinage. I’m orf to mow the lawns of my estate on this wonderful spring afternoon. And your good self..?
Who needs a lawn mower with Edinburgh’s botanic gardens just outside the door.
I don’t think Richard Willis and I are likely to agree much, but I must say for him (and others; Mike Smithson is an example) that he is much easier to read than most posters, not because he spells correctly (though he does), but because he punctuates. Please help us all, at least through full stops and capital letters; it makes life so much easier.
A propos many comments: Shouldn’t you edit your comments *before* you post them? I always do — and often have to correct them.
Ah Debbie lives in a flat.
re 296: LOL
Someone should tell Little Britain about this site. There’s enough material for a whole series.
Given the nature of this site, perhaps it would be best if the posts from the troll named “Debbie” were to be deleted.
244 - Yes. In the run up to the 2001 election, Labour several times leaked private polls showing them to be about 20% ahead.
Debbie - you should check your facts a little more carefully before you go sounding off at others. Michael Howard is not a Romanian immigrant, he is the son of a Romanian immigrant, born in Llanelli; following through on the logic of your statement about Tony Blair being Scottish because he was born in Edinburgh, this makes him Welsh surely? Also, Michael Howard did not change his name from Hecht to Howard to run the country, his father changed the family name after he received British citizenship when young Michael was 6 years old: I would have thought that the brand of populism you seem to espouse would approve of such attempts at assimilation.
Debbie. In my opinion Michael Howard is running a quasi racist campaign. For those opposing him to use the racist slurs that you are is frankly depressing. We are all immigrants somewhere down the line and many of us will have Anglicized our names. So what?
I didn’t even have to Anglicize my name - the English did it for me on a non-voluntary basis several hundred years ago!
“Hecht” is the name generally used by BNP supporters.
Debbie - there are lots of reasons not to want Howard as PM, but having Romanian parents isn’t one of them…
237 (Rik - “just a bit of fun” :)) that gives Baxter seats of 394 Lab, 135 Con 86 Lib. Add in 5% tactical voting Lab -> Lib and you get Lab 294, Con 112 Lib 109.
277 - Rik, perhaps it escaped your notice, but in 1990 the then W Germany re-unified with the ex-Communist E Germany. This was coupled with a 1:1 transfer Ostmarks to Westmarks. Essentially the West German economy had to absorb bankrupt smokestack industries in the former East. That is has managed to do this and still maintain its economic performance levels is a minor miracle. Do you honestly thin that the UK economy could have done the same thing? I think not.
306 - Tabman - the UK reformed its “bankrupt smokestack industries” in the 1980’s; so yes it did do the same thing. What is your excuse for France then?
Re Debbie at 284 etc - it is ironic that it is so often people on the “left” who come out with the most racist and objectionable comments because they assume that being from the “left” their credentials are beyond reproach. If a Conservative said something similar they would be screamed at until they withdrew and apologised, and then forever be branded racist! I remember in Reading a Labour Cllr explaining that a school had poor results because it was “a Paki school”. She was excused by her group leader as not really racist and it was just a slip of the tongue. As a Conservative group we accepted her apology as genuine but pointed out what her leader would have said if I or a colleague had uttered the remarks. I think Debbie should also withdraw her inaccurate insinuations.
305 - Tabman - yep it is a bit of fun but that’s all it is!!
295 - thanks - I do try!
307 - Rik I don’t think there’s any comparison between what the UK undertook and what was undertaken by West Germany in absorbing East Germany. The cost has been estimated at $1.25 trillion.
308 - If anything the UKs task was harder politically and was faced by Thatcher. Germany has tried to dodge the issue by throwing money at the problem which patently isnt working.
309 - the integration into West Germany of 20 million inhabitants of a failed communist state wasn’t/isn’t a difficult political, or expensive, problem???
307 - Rik, OK, I concede that France hasn’t reformed its economy with as much vigour as we have. OTOH, they have lower rates of divorce, crime, depression, suicide, teenage pregnancy, obesity, shorter working hours, fewer prisoners, longer holidays …. you pays your money ….
FAO Paul How can YOuGov’s figures mean a majority of 70 if you say H7K Give them a 14 Seat Masjority that’s a whopping difference.
They’re still finding a Plaid Cymru voter in North England.
enforcing agreed!ignoble Colgate liveried braver …