Labour gain and state funding loses in Populus survey

A Populus survey for this morning's Times confirms the pattern of recent polls that point to a modest slippage in support for the Tories.  The main two parties were level-pegging at 35% each in Populus' March survey.  Labour has now opened up a 2% lead.  The ConservativeHome Poll of Polls  now puts Labour up by 1.4%.  This finding comes a few days before Mr Cameron makes his first big speech to Tory activists since becoming leader - to the Party Spring Forum on Saturday in Manchester (from where ConservativeHome will be liveblogging).

Populus also offer some interesting findings on political funding:

• 79% support a limit on the amount of money an individual, company or union can give to a political party;
• State funding of political parties is opposed by 53% to 43% of voters;
• 54% to 42% support tax relief on "relatively small individual donations".

Messrs Blair and Cameron should reflect on these findings as they meet today to discuss a way forward on political funding.

Comments

[Jaz]

I'm unconcerned at this point, Cameron is very approachable, and at the right time before tenext GE he WILL perform.

Labour getting 37% is a virtually impossible at this point with TB at the helm.

[Chad]

Tim,

Just out of interest. You did used to include predicted seat majority from electoralcalculus with the poll of polls.

I know it is depressing read now, showing the Labour majority up to 56 seats, close to the 2005 general election levels, but don't you thin this measure is a really good way to focus on the size of the task ahead?

[Ted]

Jaz

I wish I shared your optimism - I think DCs strategy is the right one and it is vital the Tory party is seen again as a broad church. But if you look at the polls Blair is still popular with Labour voters (even in the current scandal ridden scene). In Populus poll 42% want Blair to stay for at least another year and 33% want him to stay till next election! So even some LD or Tory voters still want him around for some time (maybe not for same reasons as Labour ones)

I assume we will see a resurrgence in party activity before the May polls and some improvement as a result in our poll ratings. But the taxpayer funding issue is dangerous because it puts DC & Blair together, both in policy and in shared blame - we played the whole loans issue badly and now DC is close to being tarred with the same brush as Blair.

I'd prefer we went with a proposal around £100k caps on gifts and tax relief on donations up to say £5000 a year.

[Selsdon Man]

The slippage is definitely a trend. We are almost back to the general election vote shares. This is not good news for the local elections.

[John Hustings]

I wonder when the media will pick up on Cameron's dismal poll ratings?

[Nick Longworth]

Selsdon and John, you're sounding more and more like Fraser the undertaker with every post. ("We're all doomed" for those who never saw Dad's Army)
For fear of being taken for Corporal Jones ("Don't Panic" for you youngsters again), I'd just point out that Populus have only had the Tories ahead once - in February - and then by only one percent. If you look at the figures over time (try Anthony Wells's excellent ukpollingreport.co.uk) you will see that the Cameron bounce still leaves the party in a much stronger position than previously.

[John Hustings]

"Selsdon and John, you're sounding more and more like Fraser the undertaker with every post. ("We're all doomed" for those who never saw Dad's Army)"

Err, no. I'm just anxious that this notion that Cameron has totally transformed our fortunes gets dumped. His tactics are failing. And the argument that you most often hear from Cameron's ardent supporters, "principles are useless without power", doesn't pack any weight since Cameron hasn't taken us any nearer power.

"If you look at the figures over time (try Anthony Wells's excellent ukpollingreport.co.uk) you will see that the Cameron bounce still leaves the party in a much stronger position than previously."

Except Cameron's ratings are still on a downward turn. We don't know how low they will sink yet ;)

The reason I pick up on Cameron's poor ratings is not to "doom-monger", it's to suggest that perhaps Cameron's narrowly focused campaign doesn't have the wide popularity that his media profile would suggest.

Perhaps, then, he should widen his focus?

In what way is attempting to make this point "doom-mongering"?

[Nick Longworth]

John, I apologise for suggesting you are a 'doom-monger'. My point was that we all need to keep some perspective when looking at opinion polls.

[John Hustings]

And my question was over when the media would pick up on the fact that Cameron's poll ratings have nose-dived. The television coverage, in particular, doesn't seem to have registered the fact.

Whatever "perspective" you might keep, it'd be good if people were aware of just where we were in the polls. That way comment and analysis would be a little better informed.

[J W Tozer]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this. You can change your leader, your policies, the colour of your rosettes, it will not bring you back to government. Only one thing will do that, stop believing in SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH.
While the majority of the British public see the Tory party as the party of the haves you will not get anywhere.
I nearly vomited when I saw a Tory MEP moaning about how the 'poor farmers' weren't getting their 'bung' on time, yuck why are these people getting taxpayers money to keep them in business, whats wrong with the free market? Miners/steelworkes etc lost their jobs in their thousands, explain to them and millions of others why some of the richest landowners in the country are still getting taxpayers money. Tell the elctorate the first thing an incoming Tory government will do is stop wasting billions on these people. Sean Rickard who was once the NFU's chief economist has called the subsidy system, 'The greatest conspiracy the defraud the British people ever devised'. If the free market is good enough for me, its good enough for them. Oh and if any of them go bankrupt and lose their jobs etc.
Remember the wise words of Lord Tebbit, 'My father was un-employed in the 1930's. my father did not march, my father did not protest, my father did not riot, my father got on his bike and looked for work,' its time that they were shown where the key of the bike shed is.

Yours

J W Tozer

[PassingThru]

While i dont support state funding, even if there is a cap on its reserves, id presume there will be more people/parties demanding that money than there is supply of it. How/who would decide how it is allocated, given so many small parties come and go and there is therefore no way to judge their support. Appraising their merits without information on how popular they would be whilst staying within finance limits would be a very risky business surely?

[Be positive]

"And my question was over when the media would pick up on the fact that Cameron's poll ratings have nose-dived. The television coverage, in particular, doesn't seem to have registered the fact."

Why don't you send them a press release John? You seem to be doing your best to publicise it on this blog.

[Editor]

Chad: "Just out of interest. You did used to include predicted seat majority from electoralcalculus with the poll of polls. I know it is depressing read now, showing the Labour majority up to 56 seats, close to the 2005 general election levels, but don't you thin this measure is a really good way to focus on the size of the task ahead?"

I took it off, Chad, as I was concerned that it was misleading. It gave a very low seats tally to the LibDems and it was unclear as to whether boundary changes were incorporated in the projection.

[Rob G]

Ted: I'd prefer we went with a proposal around £100k caps on gifts and tax relief on donations up to say £5000 a year.
But tax relief for something as specialist as donations to political parties is just a form of state subsidy. Its stealth public spending. And it further complicates an already over-complicated tax system (assuming you would expect HMRC to do something to check that people weren't exceeding the limit).

[Jack Stone]

Dear god a reduction overall in the last few opinion polls of 0.2 in the party`s ratings and we get all these people going online virtually writing off the party`s chances at the next election.
Polls will go up one month and they will go down the next. The party as chosen the right path and the right leader and it just needs to keeps its nerve, show the leadership loyalty and support and we will see David in Downing Street at the next election.

[Anthony Wells]

"I took it off, Chad, as I was concerned that it was misleading. It gave a very low seats tally to the LibDems and it was unclear as to whether boundary changes were incorporated in the projection."

Boundary changes are incorporated into Martin's projection, but for the time being not very well (he is using stop-gap figures that assume each constituency is entirely homogenous, rather than having strong Lab/Con/LD areas).

The reason electoral calculus shows such low figures for the Lib Dems is because is uses a sort of halfway house between a uniform national swing (UNS) and a proportional swing. In short, on a uniform swing, if the Lib Dems dropped from 23% to 17% you would reduce their vote by 6% in each seat. Using Martin's method you would reduce the Lib Dem vote by about a quarter in each seat. It prevents parties getting negative votes in individual seats, which can happen with UNS, but also seems to overexaggerate the likely the effect of swings against the Lib Dems.

[True Blue]

And my question was over when the media would pick up on the fact that Cameron's poll ratings have nose-dived. The television coverage, in particular, doesn't seem to have registered the fact.

That would be the right-wing bias of the BBC, I'd guess. Seriously, be pleased they haven't noticed.

[Ted]

Rob G
Doesn't seem too difficult for the charitable donations I give to reclaim the tax. Adding the names of parties registered with the electoral commission with those registered with the Charities commission would be difficult.
Agree its state subsidy but I'd prefer any subsidy to be directly tied to donations rather than past vote performance.

[Richard]

"Miners/steelworkes etc lost their jobs in their thousands, explain to them and millions of others why some of the richest landowners in the country are still getting taxpayers money."

While you make some good points about farm subsidies, I doubt this is the reason why the Tories are failing to do well in the polls.

I'm not surprised at the result. As I have said before, the Tories can't expect to do well unless they have some clear policies or the public have a good idea of what they stand for. The media honeymoon is over along with the poll bounce. Now it's time to tell the people what we believe in without the use of bland statements that anybody could agree with.

[Goldie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Cameron Project is flopping. He's junked conservative policy after policy and after a short honeymoon and a rise of a few percentage points, the trajectory is clearly downwards. The LibDems are recovering and continue to attract one in five voters. DC has annoyed large parts of the conservative "base" and I've sign very little sign of revitalisation at the local level. Despite massive problems, support for Labour is steady and the hand-over to Gordon Brown will produce a significant honeymoon for them. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Cameron can do much about any of this.

He will probably fare badly in the local elections in May.

[Chris Palmer]

"DC has annoyed large parts of the conservative "base"" - Goldie

No, just a few whinging supposed "Conservatives" on the internet.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I find this continued Hefferesque "doomed! doomed I tells ya!" talk of flopping and plummeting ratings a little odd - sure, the poll ratings aren't as good as they should be, but compared with the position we have been in over the past few years, we're not doing that badly.

[Michael McGowan]

Let's just wait and see come election time, Chris. If I were you, I wouldn't want to count any chickens...... The world doesn't owe Tory MPs a living. The 40+% share of the vote target seems as elusive as ever and it looks as if the benefits of boundary changes will be modest.

[Richard]

The Tories did well in local elections under Hague and IDS despite low poll ratings. I expect an anti-Labour protest vote may benefit them. Although this (worthwhile for a change) article by Polly Toynbee suggests that this is most likely to be evident in London:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1746217,00.html

[Umbongo]

By all means shoot the messenger. But realise that DC has achieved the dead cat bounce because he is not offering people an alternative. If I tell my non-Conservative friends "well actually DC doesn't like grammar schools, wants a 100% tax funded NHS, is happy with ID cards (although prepared to think about them 4 years and £x billion away), is happy with our new secret police (SOCA), is happy to consider even more state funding for political parties, is happy to delay leaving the EPP grouping (his only firm commitment to date)" they say to me "why should I vote for that? That's what I get from Blair and that's what I'll get from Brown" And do you know, they're right!

[Esbonio]

I agree with you Umbongo.

I cannot see any positive reason to vote for the current Cameron lead Tory party. And if it stays like that I will not and I am confident nor will my friends and family vote for the party which still calls itself conservative.

[Margaret]

Blair, is supposed to be the most unpopular PM in living memory, but it isn't doing him any harm. If the tories can't draw ahead in the polls now, they won't have a hope in hell in the next GE.

The man in the street cannot see the difference between Nu Labour and Cons. He will vote for Nu Labour, not some untested party which appears to be a Nu Labour clone.

[Rob Largan]

One thing is certain, Cameron privately must be disappointed with the current set of polls, they must surely have anticipated better poll showing than this.

Not that I take polls too seriously, but think back to the optimism the vast majority of the party had in December, the very favourable media coverage, the mess both other parties were in. The question is how has this not transfered into a more significant and sustainable position in the polls? I believe that to some extent John H and others are correct, in the sense that this narrow focus on issues like the environment, may be important, but until we start to actively make the case on Economics, instead of merely trying to deflect the issue with sentiments about stability, we will struggle to gain the support we deserve. Of course we have to wait for the policy groups to report, but until that time, a little bit of confidence and courage when it comes to the economy, health and education is needed.

[John Hustings]

"I find this continued Hefferesque "doomed! doomed I tells ya!" talk of flopping and plummeting ratings a little odd "

And I find the Panglossian optimism of some rather odd. Especially those who refuse to see that there might be some fault with Cameron's approach.

The lesson, for me, is that there is only so many votes in fair trade tea. (Hey, that rhymes!)

[James Hellyer]

but compared with the position we have been in over the past few years, we're not doing that badly.

We're not doing well either, Daniel. Cameron is actually doing worse than Howard was in a comparable point in his leadership according to the YouGov polls, and this despite being far more of the media's golden boy than Howard ever was.

Cameron's ratings may now be higher than Howard ended up with, but the Conservative party is still stuck "in the box".

The problem is Cameron. His superficial brand of gesture politics might signal a change from Howard's focus on immigration, but it similarly fails to give people a reason to vote for us on the issues that the electorate prioritises.

CCO buying fairtrade tea and the Cameron household investing in a windmill doesn't make the electorate feel the streets could be safer, the schools could be better, and that they could have more cash in their pockets.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"And I find the Panglossian optimism of some rather odd. Especially those who refuse to see that there might be some fault with Cameron's approach."

John, you know full well that's not fair.

You've quoted very selectively from that particular comment of mine - I openly acknowledged that our poll ratings aren't brilliant, which is hardly Panglossian optimism is it?

I see nothing wrong in trying to strike a balance between the two increasingly polarised camps on this blog, but it seems that only earns attacks from one side as a headbanging nutter and attacks from the other side as a lefty sell-out!

[James Hellyer]

How are your the sandals?

[Chris Palmer]

"Let's just wait and see come election time, Chris." - Michael McGowan

Indeed we shall.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"We're not doing well either, Daniel. Cameron is actually doing worse than Howard was in a comparable point in his leadership according to the YouGov polls, and this despite being far more of the media's golden boy than Howard ever was."

I've made the same point myself several times James! But I was choosing my language carefully in my earlier comment in the name of what I am led to believe is called 'compromise' ;-)

[James Hellyer]

"How are your new sandals?"

Duh! Must get typing lessons...

[Umbongo]

The reason the Blair approach to his particular "old time religion" worked was because the Labour old time religion was dead and discredited - Clause 4, tea and sandwiches at number 10 etc - and most of the Labour Party knew it. Our old time religion - independence from the state, adherence to the traditions of the constitution, working with rather than against the grain (ie preferring what works rather than what "should" work) etc etc - is still in working order. DC, by adopting the Blair programme is dumping what works and what people (in the end) are comfortable with: rewarding effort, catching and punishing criminals, proper schooling, honest exams and so on. For the Conservatives there is no Clause 4: the Party and Conservative philosophy doesn't work like that. It takes a high quota of determined ignorance in DC (who, despite a 1st in PPE, has never worked outside politics or public relations) not to understand what sort of party he is leading. A different style of leadership should be refreshing - even welcome - but this guy is throwing out the bathwater, the baby and the bath itself.

[Richard]

Oh dear, it seems Cameron hasn't had a good day today on Conservative Home. Despite being firmly on the Right of the party though I will still reserve judgement until he has some policies. I accept that a full on right-wing agenda won't win an election but nor will a "let's be like New Labour" agenda. We need more than gesture politics. We need indications of policies and a clear sense of direction.

OK Cameron, we know you want to deal with environmental issues and world poverty but what about other issues that rank more highly in the minds of the electors. Labour are weak and entering a Major period. We should be on the attack, exposing Labour's multiple failings and giving a good idea of how we'd do things differently.

[John Hustings]

"John, you know full well that's not fair."

And you know full well that it's not fair to call me a doom-mongerer (or you ought to).

As I've said before, people have been told to sacrifice their principles for the sake of power, and thus good poll ratings are the very least we should expect. If the poll ratings aren't good, I'm gonna be banging on about it.

[Matthew Oxley]

I do not think the problem is Cameron himself, but it is clear there is a problem somewhere if a series of polls can still put us lower than such an unpopular Labour government.

I think the public has responded quite well to Cameron, they like his style and it's clear that he a lot of Charisma, but the problem must be the bad direction he is getting from Maude.

Fraude, Oliver Leftwing etc are making us look like a joke by trying to turn the party upside down over night into some super-nice liberal party and it's giving Labour the 'inconsistant' image which could stick to Cameron himself right up to the next election.

I think DC has some of the right ideas but Maude is seeing this modernisation as his personal crusade against the members, and this is our problem.

He's the chairman that tried to deny us our vote, that scrapped the conferences and that is destroying our policies.

It's clear to me what sort of 'change' we need!

[John]

Enjoyed my email from Greg this am, cheered up Monday morning.
The fracturing of the British political scene is going to make the next GE difficult to call. In 1956, 95% of the electorate chose either Conservative or Labour, that is no longer the case. Where I live (rural) there is no doubt about the appeal of UKIP. They may not yet vote UKIP, but many of what you could call 'natural Tory voters' certainly talk it. What's left of the Labour vote, will probably switch to the Libdems, (its a former Tory seat, now held by them) so polls based on overall percentages, may not be able to predict the actual amount of seats any party will take or hold.