Labour 11% ahead in post-speech YouGov survey

A YouGov poll of 1,341 voters for Channel 4 News gives Labour an 11% lead.

It's obviously not good news!  But...

1. Most of Labour's gain is from the LibDems.  The Tories are actually on the same standing as they were in the YouGov survey for last Saturday's Telegraph.  If an autumn election doesn't happen there must be every chance that Huhne-Clegg-Laws will move against Ming...

2. This poll has been taken in the afterglow of Brown's big speech and the blanket coverage it received.  That's bound to artificially boost Labour's rating.

Greetings btw from the lobby of London's Dorchester Hotel - I've just paid £4.90 for a pot of tea (with no biscuits)!!  Comment moderation might be slow throughout this evening as I'm here for the Carlton Political Dinner where David Cameron is speaking.   I'll aim to file a report at 11ish.

Comments

[Traditional Tory]

Simon Denis - The moment the whole Cchange business got going, I smelt a rat...And so where is Cameeron? Abandoned by the centre, despised by the free marketeers, hated by the academic right, mistrusted by the nationalists and disliked by the old social conservatives. In short, he has demoralised and all but dissolved the right of centre coalition.

Simon, that is a superb analysis of the Conservative crisis; one of the best I have ever read on CH - or anywhere else for that matter.

If one good thing comes out of the impending disaster it must be the end of the now-discredited PC tendency which has done so much to damage the credibility of our party and to alienate its best and most reliable supporters.

[Dale]

I'M NOT DEBATING THIS ANY FURTHER, DALE. THIS WEBSITE WILL NOT HOST PERSONALISED ATTACKS.

[Anon]

Mr B said: "Please name another person in the entire Conservative Party that would now be AHEAD in the polls. Howard, Davis, Redwood or Fox you say? Since most of the votes have gone from the LibDems to Labour, I hardly think any of these leaders would be doing better."

There is a huge section of the public that are simply not interested in what politicians say because politicians do not say relevant things. Most people are absolutely disgusted and scared by what is happening to the UK - the vast amount of people emigrating and hoping to emigrate says a lot!

No party including the Conservatives will dare say those things that need saying most. In a highly affluent area of a midlands marginal seat I am told by business owners and professionals of the need for a radical reforming party. It won't happen and these people are very pessimistic and scared for the future.

[Bruges Group NG]

Shock...horror

Tory spokesman on national TV does effective job of attacking Labour. I am talking about Chris Grayling on GMTV yesterday. The best Tory effort I have seen for a long time (not saying much, I admit). He should have been made Party Chairman. Where is Spelman ?

At the risk of going over old ground, and saying 'I Told You So', a couple of fairly obvious points:

1. The Party should have got on its knees to Michael Howard after 2005 and begged him to stay for 2 more years, both because he was good at OPPOSING, and to give the Policy Reviews a chance to get going. He could have then handed over to ? once their work had been done.
2. We wasted the "Cameron Bounce" from 2005-2007 on a busted flush Cheshire Cat, who was going anyway.
3. Our Shadow Cabinet is lazy, invisible, not credible, and very often a mixture of all 3.
4. The current perception of Trust Fund Tories patronising the voters we need will do for us, 100%, be in no doubt about it.

I cannot wait to see the result in Richmond Park. It will remind me of Patten's defeat in Bath in 1992.

I for one will be shouting "Tory Gain" when Kramer increases her majority.

[mark]

Tony Makara.With respect why wait til an election campaign to expose Mr Brown's failures? Being the opposition should be a full time job.I am dismayed by the non appearance of the shadow cabinet and Mr Cameron.He is no doubt writing and re-writing his speach depending on whatever the next poll says rather than concentrating and focussing on this governments terrible record

[anon]

"Our Shadow Cabinet is lazy, invisible, not credible, and very often a mixture of all 3."

Personalised attacks Mr Editor!

[Jomo]

From Townhall.com 21.9.2007

(Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It's nothing more than "childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." Very seldom does any issue that doesn't involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling "nice" or "mean" to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues.

Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That's because it doesn't matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel "good" or "bad," "compassionate" or "stingy," "nice" or "mean.")

A helpful definition from the US. It clearly applies to Brown but it may also explain some of our current difficulties!

[James Maskell]

To Chris Grayling's credit I emailed him a question about his Portfolio area and got a swift and full answer within 24 hours.

Im still waiting for answers from Michael Gove and George Osborne though.

[EML]

Obviously it's good (under the circumstances) that our vote has not dipped below the 33% point yet. There are obviously 5% or 6% of the voting population who are wavering between Labour, Lib Dems and us.

Let's see what Cameron and Co can pull out of the bag at our conference. We have to offer a positive vision for a future Britain - not just moaning about how crap things are, but putting forward ideas for how we might make it more bearable.

[Patriot]

The Lib Dems are paying the price for announcing at their conference that in their view households earning £70k - ie a couple living together where both earn £35k - are the super rich and should suffer penal taxation.

Green taxes, such as a tax on supermarket car parks, would have a similar effect.

Please, please, do not announce this or anything like it at conference.

[Simon Denis]

I quite agree that we should not confine ourselves to moaning and that we should certainly offer and advocate policies. Those policies, however, should be genuinely conservative: low tax, minimal immigration and academic selection. Let the Tory party speak with its old, sound, trustworthy voice, not with the off-putting metropolitan twang of recent years.

[Dick Wishart]

Mr Editor, if you thought the price of your tea was a bit pricey, then dont go to to Padstow and order fish & chips without an overdraft facility in place.

[Northernhousewife]

Mr Denis 11:18. Sir that part of the electorate that actually have children , who are can not afford private school and are not sure of their offspring's genius will not vote for a selective education system.
It's like asking a parent "which two- thirds of your children would you like to de-select?"
Who was it on this site who said "if anyone mentions Grammar Schools at the Conf , they should be taken out and shot" Less drastically ,please please read my comments on behaviour at the Conf. on the Cartlon Dinner bit of this site

[Chad Noble]

"It's like asking a parent "which two- thirds of your children would you like to de-select?"

The answer being of course, none.

They should all get the chance to take the entrance exam, and that will be the judge of whether they have the ability to get into selective education.

And yes, I am a parent (5 and counting) and yes I've used a mixture of state and private education based on each child's needs as an individual.

The kids are indiviudals after all, so why would parents look for a one-size fits no-one solution?

[Simon Denis]

To Northernhousewife

Dear Lady, I must draw to your attention a recent poll which found that six out of ten now favour a selective education system. No surprises there as the comprehensives have brought nothing but illiteracy. As to those who fear that a selective system will damage the majority, the statistics perpetually refute this contention. Take Germany for example, where selection ensures that the academically "bottom" forty per cent is some two years ahead of our own in essential skills and accomplishments. Further evidence in favour of selection may be seen in the superior performances of children over all in those LEAs which have retained grammars and secondary moderns. Since these are the facts do we not have an inescapable duty to broadcast them and to propose appropriate action? Do you imagine that the parents of bullied, crushed, frustrated children will thank you for continuing to heap them in purposeless dumps? These schools are ugly, indisciplined and faceless institutions. They neither train their charges in skills nor offer them culture. How can you rise to defend this shameful, infamous, brutal schooling system which was introduced with the sole aim of levelling people down? It is unconservative, it is unviable and it is contemptibly unjust.

[tim]

Re Simon Dennis' comments about Germany: anyone who knows better please correct me, but I think one difference is that in Britain before comprehensive schools there were effectively only two options, with 80% of children sent to the less prestigious one.

In Germany I understand that there are more than two types of school. It is therefore not the case that the majority who do not get into the most academic schools are thereby labelled as having "failed" the selection. Perhaps this makes the system more widely accepted.

I went to a Comprehensive myself and from personal experience, while they are not all bad, they are simply not the way to give abler and more hard working children of all backgrounds the confidence and learning to make the most of their abilities.

The people who most strongly defend the Comprehensive system tend to be of the old style collectivist mentality, and think that a system that is superficially 'fair' is better than one that genuinely helps individuals and this country to be successful. The long-term harm that letting that attitude determine policy will do to everyone's welfare should be obvious to anyone who stops to think about it.

I know that it would be difficult to move the whole country over to a Grammar/ Technical/ Secondary Modern three option system now. However, we could achieve a more flexible sytem more easily with a move towards education vouchers and maximum school and parental choice, including paying part of the fees for a subsidised place at a private school for some people.

[Northernhousewife]

Mr Noble You have at least had the choice of being able to use private eduacation .It gives you an option not available to all: a place to go if you are stuck and therefore you clearly can not understand the terror many parents feel at not having a good local school.Many parents are not able to transport their children to various locations in any event. In rural areas public transport is limited and unpunctual [if it exists]and may have to be paid for.
Most people in Britain could not afford to have 5 children and maintain the middle class lifestyle to which eveyone aspires ,let alone send any of them to private school.
Such is the resentment of private education in Britain that in a recent survey 2/3 of the public said it should be band! I do not speak as a green-eyed monster [my own were in state and are now in private] but I am at least able to be sympathic to friends and strangers , who on average income , do not have that option and whose very normal average children would not get into a grammar school even if it existed They fear it's existance might indeed make their situation worse.By definition ,most children are average. Grammar schools are wonderful and we all have a very clear idea what one is. Woolly phrases like "schools to meet the individual needs of the rest" will not do.People either do not have a clear idea what that means or , worse still, the do-- an it's called a secondary modern!People of average intelligence are just that - average , not stupid.

[William Norton]

Simon Denis:I must draw to your attention a recent poll which found that six out of ten now favour a selective education system. No surprises there as the comprehensives have brought nothing but illiteracy.

Er, being picky, your evidence suggests the comprehensives also appear to have brought about a situation where 60% of people don't want comprehesives. Perhaps they're working better than we thought?

[Chad Noble]

"and therefore you clearly can not understand the terror many parents feel at not having a good local school

Hi, NorthernHousewife, I came from a poorer family and was educated at grammar school (the alternative being the local comp full of skinheads), so I know exactly how hard it is for parents who cannot afford private schools and what a difference grammar schools make in such a situation.

As an parent, I have had to face the real strain of multiple private schools fees too because the local rural schools were not up to scratch. I have seen how Private schools fees (for those with more than one child) have become completely unaffordable too.

I see education vouchers as the answer for parents to spend at the educational establishment of their choice (whether grammar, relgious, specialised in another area or whatever) but as no party is offering that, and as I only have one chance to give my kids a decent education, I've done what a lot of others have done and emigrated to a country with a better education system.

[Mike Christie]

I work in a modern comprehensive school (err... sorry, specialist college.)

If you don't work in a school, let me tell you that anything you thought you knew about falling standards in education probably isn't as bad as the reality.

It isn't the fault of the students, and in most cases it isn't the fault of the teachers.

The college I work at offers qualifications in 'Adult Literacy' and 'Adult Numeracy'. They are supposed to be the equivalent of GCSEs.

They are multiple-choice tests on a standard of literacy and numeracy I'd expect from reasonably bright primary school children. Not GCSE. The school loves it, its a quick and easy way to make the results look better. Its the kids who are being conned.

There are students here who will go through the school and come out with a clutch of GCSE passes at grades E and F.

Can anyone please explain what the point is of forcing these kids to study subjects they know they're no good at, that their teachers know they're no good at to gain a low-grade qualification that's going to do nothing for them in later life. What use is a grade F GCSE in Geography?

Instead of turning these kids out at 16 with their self-esteem shot to pieces because all they've ever been taught is stuff they're no good at, wouldn't it be better to have an education system that could identify what they were good at and develop those skills and talents?

[Steve]

According to the "Polls" English people must love this.....

http://tinyurl.com/2phpaz

[Northernhousewife]

Dear... well..all.I'm not an apologist for Comprehensives. I went to one. A really really bad one - under Tory rule since Mrs T did not liberally scatter the country with Grammar schools as far as I can remember. . Nor I confess do I have the answer to our educational woes. The problem is that people in my area view the policy with suspicion, at best. Parents and grandparents would support them if they knew their children were certain to be admitted, but that can hardly be squared with selective education. They remember the local Grammar fondly but they also remember the alternative. The problem it seems to me is that even if a comprehensive[small "c"] policy were drawn up we do not have the credibility in the country to sell it over and above a substantial amount of negative experience.
[Apparently there was a time when nearly everone in Sheffield went to a G.S. as they were all graded!]
But in the meantime it is not a vote winner and certainly not worth undermining your party leader for.
I note that Mr Noble to whom my reply is at least partially directed is no longer in the country.
I wonder what the view is like out of your window? As a small matter of interest ,mine is of a Yorkshire constituancy with a tiny Labour majority [which actually increased under Michael Howard - from about 300 to about 600] We have a smsll mountain to climb but we can make it if you don't make life difficult for us.I want the seat right now more than I want an ill-tempered debating society.
As to Mr Denis who subtley implied I was not a real conversative because I was not prepared to wave a grammar school banner- uncalled for sir-I have earnt my stripes. I guees you didn't read my addition to Dave/Dinner at the Carlton.

[Traditional Tory]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN FOR ATTACKING ANOTHER COMMENTER.

[Northernhousewife]

Mr Christie I agree. I only volunteer in school.
Even though I went to a Comp. I do have professional qualifications[not in teaching]but am now one of Brown's Mrs Nobody's- voluntary work [not the glam kind] kids, helping friend's who go out to work and oh helping my husband Mr Self-employed fight off Mr B.
The issue you raise is very true- as long as good teachers have the right surroundings, power and resources the biggest deficit comes with those lower down - we need a clear and careful policy for those who do not suit an academic education and it would have to be seen to be working eg. test schools before we could go any further with a suspicious public. We would be accused of secondary moderns bythe back door but to do that - we need to win my seat!

[Simon Denis]

No, O housewife from the the Frozen North, I have not implied that YOU are not a conservative, merely that your views on education do not partake of your broader wisdom.

You refer to good local schools. I too support such institutions. They are known as grammars and secondary moderns. Whilst it is true to say that in some ways the current comp is a sort of secondary modern writ large, the difference lies in the size and in the attempted spread of intake. It also lies - as Mr Christie so ably pointed out - in the futile attempt to foist a truncated academic curriculum on pupils whose need is for a trade or a vocation. Germany wisely and compassionately caters for such pupils as well as for the academically bright. We used to do the same. Go to any of the surviving secondary moderns and you'll find that they offer a far less depressing spectacle than the vast majority of dumprehensives. The pupils are led forward at a pace which they find congenial. The sort of educational options and career paths which are unfolded before them suit their talents. No, this does not condemn them to unambitious paths in life because, as we all know, a man or a woman who is able to make a go of things in a practical sense, working and earning before the age of twenty-five, is quite capable of moving further up the ladder; further at any rate than pupils offered drugs, bullying, left ideology and pointless dreams, the staple diet of the "local school" today.

Why, O Wife from the sub-arctic zone, do you persist in a failure to register and recognise that this is even so?

[Traditional Tory]

I see that Northernhousewife (do housewives still exist north of Watford?)claims to send her children to private chools yet doesn't think that the option of grammar schools should be permitted to those who are unable to afford the fees.

Frankly I don't believe this person is what he/she claims to be. The posts are crude caricatures, larded with deliberate spelling and punctuation mistakes..

CCHQ troll.

[Northernhousewfe]

Mr Denis.
How persuasive you are.
Perhaps you would like to you to attempt to persuade God's county - after the next election - and definitely after the party con.
Eloquent though you undoubtably are, you might have to tone down you style abit.
As for "frozen north" - at the risk of starting another little spat - we have global warming up 'ere too you know.

[Northernhousewfe]

Traditional Tory
The media caricature of a Tory has always been that of an arrogant man. Your spelling may be spot on. Your manners and judgement are not.
I am all that I am save the usual exaggerated silliness about the north. I feel no need to justify or explain myself.

[Traditional Tory]

The media caricature of a Tory has always been that of an arrogant man. Your spelling may be spot on. Your manners and judgement are not.

Yes, Northernhousewfe (sic), it is often said that I do not suffer fools gladly.

[NoRTheRnhouswife]

Sir
I can spell irony.

Editor, you may allow him to reply to this and know it will be the last word . I am happy to let him have it in the safe knowledge he will only he will continue to prove my point.
I must go and walk the whippets.

[Patriot]

Just to get back to the original subject for a second. I've been trawling through the many comments from the public which have appeared against articles on the internet sites of the UK dailies over the past three days to see if there is any discernable sense of mood in the feedback they provide.

Astonishingly, given the state of the polls, they are almost unanimously negative about Brown. Yes you can find the odd supportive post, but easily the overwhelming trend is against him. For me this was most noticeable in the Guardian, probably because it's the place I least expected to find criticism of the Dear Leader, but a look at the "comment is free" area reveals that even some of the Guardian articles themselves are negative and at least one is quite scathing.

As a result a strange, odd feeling seems to hang over the web concerning Brown. It's a little like a hushed pregnant silence in a crowded theatre when your instinct tells you that the script calls for cheering and rapturous applause, the cast are standing quietly on stage waiting for the clapping to start, but the silence is so pervasive you could hear a pin drop, and it's all about to become very, very embarrassing.

There are positive articles in some cases certainly, though most are muted, and although the clear impression is that the intention is for Brown to appear as the solid, reliable, unifying, all embracing elder statesman who is going to solve all our problems and the world's as well as he towers above the political scene, I get the distinct feeling that somewhere a little boy is shouting that the emperor has no clothes, and the crowds are beginning to notice.

[Rod Sellers]

It has always been about survival of the fittest and always will be. Government is now the barrier and is perverting the process. Foot and Mouth, Northern Rock, Immigration, all now sponsored by the State.

[Yet Another Anon]

Obviously it's good (under the circumstances) that our vote has not dipped below the 33% point yet
Of course it is more than about percentages - after all if the Conservatives got 33% and that was 8 million votes that would be very bad, if they got 33% and that was 10 million votes then that would actually be far and away their strongest vote since 1992 and would keep the pressure on Labour to maintain their vote up. As the saying goes "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics".

[Teck]

After watching more clips of Gordon Brown at the Labour conference, I think it is unlikely he will use poll ratings as a major basis for deciding on an early election. The anxiety whipped up in these threads has not considered the low statistical significance of the sample sizes and, more importantly, overlooked Gordon Brown's need to evaluate the Tory conference and the public response to it.

In fact, he doesn't have to go to the country at all until expiry of the present term. So, he could be trying to use this "prerogative" period to foment unrest within the Conservatives.

Unless we have a shambolic conference, more internal sniping, defections, daft policies and political "own goals", I believe Gordon Brown will continue to tease and taunt but not act on an early election.

The strategies for winning the next General Election are therefore all too obvious.

[Effie]

Yes, Northernhousewfe (sic), it is often said that I do not suffer fools gladly.

Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 26, 2007 at 18:52

I totally agree with you TT. That is the reason I look out for your contributions.
They are brutally honest, you hit the nail on the head, you call a spade a spade and while I will never agree with some of your principles and convictions, I always admire your stance.
I still find you THE most sensible contributer to this blog-site one of the very few with their feet firmly on the ground and a reality check on things as they are and not the way you would like them to be.
Keep it up!.