Tories and Labour both at 35%

An ICM poll for last evening's Channel 4 News contained slightly better news for the Conservative Party.  A 4% Labour lead in the previous ICM poll has been eliminated.  The ConservativeHome Poll of Polls puts the Tories a statistically insignificant 0.6% behind Labour.

Less encouraging was ICM's finding that voters, by 37% to 32% - regard Gordon Brown as best-qualified to be prime minister.  Mr Brown also enjoys a 44% to 34% advantage when it comes to "understanding the needs of people like me".  The most troublesome finding is that voters think Gordon Brown is tougher by 61% to 29%.  It may be difficult for Mr Cameron to prove toughness until Oliver Letwin's policy groups report and the Tory leader makes some crunchy decisions on policy.  More talk of change - which will characterise today's Spring Forum speech - may not be enough to convince the 40% who believe that Mr Cameron was "more about spin than substance".

58% told ICM that Mr Cameron was a "new face" but that the Conservative Party "hasn't really changed much at all". This view that the party needs to catch up with Mr Cameron's positioning motivates Francis Maude's suggestion that 'proper Tories should be more like David Cameron'.

Comments

[John Hustings]

"'proper Tories should be more like David Cameron'."

Rich, privileged, white, upper-middle-class and completely out of touch with ordinary people?

[TT]

John, I also found that comment a little disturbing. The Party is following the zeitgeist of the cult of personality.

Conservatism is about freeing people to be themselves; not demanding that they conform to some preconceived clone.

And what did he mean by 'proper'? Were there no Tories prior to Cameron? How on earth did we know how or what to be before he emerged to be our role model?

[Rob G]

Editor: where did you get the idea that Francis Maude said that 'proper Tories should be more like David Cameron'. It wasn't in the version of his speech that was published on the Party website. Indeed, he went out of his way to say that the old practice of saying that only some supporters were "proper Conservatives" was something we should move away from.

What Maude did say was that We now need to convince [voters] that the whole party has changed. That isn't saying that we should all become like the leader. The issue is whether the Party supports the "compassionate Conservatism" approach and the new policies as they emerge. The evidence from this blog suggests that a significant proportion of the Party hasn't yet changed and may never do so.

And before I get accused by others of trying to stifle debate, I don't suggest that people should pretend to be enthusiastic about policies with which they fundamentally agree. But I do think it is going to be very difficult to win the next election if we continually demonstrate that we are a Party divided.

What I want to see most is members of the Shadow Cabinet meaking high profile speeches in support of the new direction. We had William Hague yesterday. But where are the others?

[Rick]

We need to define our conservatism so that more people are attracted to us not fewer.

What does Conservatives intend to 'conserve'?

[Editor]

Sorry Rob G but I think my paraphrasing of FM's speech was a fair one. You are quite right that FM doesn't like the idea of a 'proper conservatism' defined narrowly. I was trying to suggest that 'proper conservatism' - as newly defined by Francis - was as inclusive and hopeful etc as David Cameron is trying to suggest it must become.

[Rob G]

Editor: thanks for replying. But I still don't see that FM was saying that we needed to be like DC--merely that more of us needed to support his approach if we are to win the next election.

[Editor]

Fair enough, Rob. FM wants us to support the approach of Cameron, not become more like him personally.

[Suggestion]

Editor,

For somebody who has a monopoly on Conservative blogging, and somebody who writes about the US blogosphere, you really have a duty to be more careful with what you post.

You are really, really bad on polls and on the analysis of polls. Anybody who wants a basic primer on internals should not be giving any credit to anything on this blog.

You post about the Brown-Cameron differential here with no qualifying remarks. It's not a straight voter-intent question with leader, which is the only comparison that matters, and it's not weighted by voting intention, which makes it almost worthless. Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com, a LibDem, warns his readers of this. You, however, just report the numbers as though they were absolutes.

It is your poor analysis of polls, especially internals, that gave rise to your risible post earlier this year that Hillary Clinton was somehow a shoo-in for the Dem nomination (obviously, you have not looked at her polling numbers against any Republican opposition).

Your blog, with your cheerleaders like Donal Blaney, appears not to have got over the fact that Cameron was elected. You are constantly posting whatever you can scrape up against him without the most basic research, as this post bears witness. And of course the press loves to quote this website as evidence of Tory discontent.

You have a monopoly. And at present you are using it to harm this party's chances of replacing a failed Labour government.

[Editor]

Suggestion: "your risible post earlier this year that Hillary Clinton was somehow a shoo-in for the Dem nomination."

I think she will win, Suggestion, but I don't think she'll be a shoo-in and I still hope I'm wrong. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and offer you dinner if I'm wrong...

Suggestion: "You are constantly posting whatever you can scrape up against [David Cameron]."

Not true, I assure you. I have, for example, warmly welcomed DC's emphasis on social justice, standing up to big business, police reform and, this, week, to open primaries for the London elections. Yes, I've been critical of his Kyoto environmentalism, his tax policy, his timidity on public services and his formula for increased state funding. I don't pretend to be impartial in every post - the site contends for the And Theory of Conservatism - as I constantly tell people. Insofar as Team Cameron follow that Theory I congratulate the team - insofar as it doesn't, I criticise.

All opinions are welcome on this site - not least on The Platform. I don't have a monopoly - RightLinks, Guido, Iain Dale and the Cameron leadership blog are just a few other Tory-minded bloggers (linked to in the UK sites sidebar). You are also welcome, Suggestion, to set up your own site. With blogging there are no barriers to entry!

Suggestion: "Your poor analysis of polls"

I'm certainly no great polling expert and I'm mindful of not overinterpreting individual polls (something we can all be guilty of)... The addition of the ConsHome poll of polls was an attempt to stop reading too much into any one poll.

As for the Brown figures in the ICM poll, no amount of weighting will undo the huge lead Brown has on toughness.

[Editor]

One other thing, Suggestion, in case you missed it from yesterday's post on the March ConservativeHome Members' Panel survey:

"The most regular readers of ConservativeHome were the most enthusiastic supporters of David Cameron. 32% of those who said that they visit the site "most days" said that they were "very satisfied". That compares to 28% of those who visit a few times a week, 27% who visit a few times a month, and 22% who never visit (shame on them!). Overall 35% of the people who completed the survey visit ConservativeHome most days or a few times a week."

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I think she will win, Suggestion, but I don't think she'll be a shoo-in and I still hope I'm wrong. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and offer you dinner if I'm wrong..<<<<
And John McCain will win and usher in 8 more years of Republican control of the White House, I don't think the US is prepared for a radical feminist to take control of the White House.

[John Hustings]

"And John McCain will win and usher in 8 more years of Republican control of the White House, I don't think the US is prepared for a radical feminist to take control of the White House."

Isn't he too old for 8 years?

[Editor]

My dream ticket is Rudi with a re-elected Rick Santorum, Yet Another Anon, but John McCain will do. My Republican friends say that McCain has a glass jaw, however, and won't survive the campaign.

[Suggestion]

Editor,

Again, it's not merely a question of weighting but also of sample size. You don't know it. A tiny sample is utterly worthless in psephology terms. ICM did not give the sample size.

Never mind about me, here's what Smithson has to say on the question. He understands polls and he is a Liberal Democrat. This is a quote from him on the matter of the Brown-Cameron question taken from his blog today:

"Peter 52. The *only* poll numbers that matter for those trying to predict political outcomes are the voting intention ones - and that’s why I always lead on these even if the media does not.

Two weeks ago ICM had Labour ahead by four points. Today they are level with the Tories. That’s the news that I guess the Mirror does not want to cover.

The other questions in surveys like this use a broader sample base embracing those saying they won’t vote and are not voting intention related. This will invariably inflate the Labour position - probably by 3-4% because many more people say they are Labour than say they will vote for the party.

Fine - the figures are interesting - but it’s voting intention that matters.

by Mike Smithson April 8th, 2006 at 1:16 pm"

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/08/its-back-to-level-pegging-with-icm/#comments

It has come to something when an avowed Liberal Democrat is giving the correct positive news on this poll for the Tories, but a nominally Conservative site is trying to make it out as bad news for Cameron.

Clearly you have no base in psephology. Can you at least read pb.com or Anthony Wells before posting in the future and reporting headline numbers the same way anti-Tory tabloids do - without checking the weighting, the sample size, or anything else that might give you a clearer picture.

[Sean Fear]

Not sure what you're complaining about Suggestion. The Editor reported this poll correctly.

35% each is neither particularly good or particularly bad. Most polls are showing Conservatives and Labour in the mid thirties, so there is nothing extraordinary about this one.

[Richard]

"35% each is neither particularly good or particularly bad. Most polls are showing Conservatives and Labour in the mid thirties, so there is nothing extraordinary about this one."

Where they will remain until the Tories unveil some popular policies and boost themselves up to the low forties. I am not expecting reat leaps yet. I will do after a year or so.

[liberal democrat]

"I am not expecting great leaps yet."

Quite right, considering the malaise we've been in in the polls for the last 12, 13 years, and for a reason, the idea that we're just going to make that up over a few months is nonsense.

Also, we're a not a demagogic party: the public isn't really going to leap on the Party just because of Cameron. The real test is whether the Party's changed too.

[Selsdon Man]

Rick Santorum as VP? My Republican friends say that he is trailing badly in the polls in the re-election campaign.

[Philip]

Still only level with Labour, not much of an improvement on the position before DC became leader. But since he became leader I have heard people say that they hated "Thatcher" but like some of what David Cameron is saying. This might indicate DC is on the right track. However when I examined the last election results, I discovered we could have won I think about an extra 30 seats if it were not for UKIP, assuming all those who voted for UKIP would have voted Tory. And I fear DC could lose more votes to UKIP. If we lose our core vote, that would be OK if we won enough new voters not only to replace it, but in sufficient numbers to get us at least 10% ahead of Labour, which is what I understand is needed to win a majority due to the unbalanced distribution of seats.

Modernise, yes, but without losing our core vote. Perhaps by being right-wing on issues on which voters tend to be more right-wing (e.g. law & order and Europe), and centrist on issues where voters tend to be more centrist (public services and the environment). On tax, of course we should want people to keep as much of their money as possible, but don’t opinion polls show voters are not convinced about income tax-cutting, preferring money to be spent on public services? George Osborn is probably right to concentrate tax cuts on business to increase competitiveness.

DC’s promises to abolish the regional assemblies and ID cards alone make a Tory victory worth fighting for.

[Rick]

George Osborn is probably right to concentrate tax cuts on business to increase competitiveness.

Sure...abolish the Climate Change Levy.

[houndtang]

In all probability the next presidential election will be between two candidates nobody in the UK has yet heard of (and for that matter most people in the US probably won't have heard of them). Clinton, Giuliani, McCain only get tipped because they are comparatively famous.

On another topic, a 5% deficit for Cameron against Brown is not that bad at this stage given that Blair had something like a 25% lead over Howard and was even preferred by Conservative voters to Hague.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>My dream ticket is Rudi with a re-elected Rick Santorum, Yet Another Anon, but John McCain will do. My Republican friends say that McCain has a glass jaw, however, and won't survive the campaign.<<<<
What a Vietnam veteran with substantial respect from all sides and many years in Congress with a glass jaw? There is no sign of anyone else of his stature standing either for the Republicans, Democrats or Reform.

He'll be 76 in 2012, Ronald Reagan was 73 when he ran for his 2nd term in 1984.

President after will probably be Latino (because of the rapidly growing Latino population in the US) - Alberto Gonzales (current US Attorney General) perhaps who in 2016 would still only be 61, he might be a good choice for Vice President in 2008.

[Selsdon Man]

Newt Gringrich for President?

[Yet Another Anon]

Have to admit to having become sceptical about opinion polls, they frequently reflect fashion trends about how people think they are perceived if they say they would vote one way or another and many people refuse to answer - obviously the Conservative Party has never been in a situation where they would have got less than 30% of the vote in a General Election since the 1832 Reform Act and there is no time ever in the past in which Labour would have got over 50% of the vote and even where the numbers appear more the way that might might be expected this doesn't neccessarily mean they are any more right, some way people think they might be perceived and people in 2 minds can result in opinion polls being way off the mark.

[Dave J]

Good grief, Editor: McCain v. Hillary? One is compelled to pose Kissinger's question regarding the Iran-Iraq War: can't they both lose? I know I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of them, and while I know I'm hardly a typical GOP voter, I can't imagine either that I'm the only person who thinks a vote for him in the 2000 primary was among the biggest--if not THE biggest--political mistake of my life.

McCain is OBSESSED with his campaign finance "reform" that blatantly violates the First Amendment, regardless of what a slim majority on the US Supreme Court might have thought. That is his defining political characteristic, and makes it impossible for me to support him. That he's now aligned himself with my *gag* beloved senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, to push an effective amnesty for illegal aliens just moves him further into the column of persona non grata, and on that issue--no longer a sleeper issue but an emrging dealbreaker--more people are going to feel that way about him in the next few years than ever have about campaign finance.

As for Giuliani-Santorum, I can't imagine a more bizarre political odd couple ever. I intend to do whatever I can to see Rudy in the White House ASAP, but how can you imagine Santorum getting the #2 spot on the GOP ticket? Forced on him by the convention like Johnson under JFK? Things like that don't happen anymore: candidates pick their running mates, and I can't for the life of me see Rudy picking Santorum. As others have noted, I don't even expect Santorum to be re-elected; I'll go further and say it might be a good thing for the GOP if he wasn't.

[Rick]

There is no sign of anyone else of his stature standing either for the Republicans

Mitt Romney has not announced his candidacy yet..............

[Margaret]

Is the Tory Party turning into the Liberal Party?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Smithson has been tipping Mark Warner for the Democrat nomination. Hillary Clinton is probably favourite due to name recognition more than anything else, plus Michael Moore is supposedly a fan.

With regards the Republican nomination, let's hope either Rudolph Giuliani or John McCain (it's a shame Colin Powell was sent to Coventry for wanting a more sensible approach towards Iraq) gets the nod so that some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration can be reined in. If somebody from the Bush team intends to run for the nomination, I'd hope it would be Condoleezza Rice.

[Annabel Herriott]

I think you should all go and have a coffee, and read Matthew d'Ancona in the Sunday telegraph. Comment. Page 21. Read it carefully. It makes so much SENSE!! Then try being positive, get behind DC, and stop undermining his leadership. We have done the same thing for FAR TOO LONG. It must stop now. I am one of the old guard. But I have always believed in the future, not dwelt in the past. I get the odd feeling that there is a percentage of our party that have let them selves become atrophied. You should realise, if you stopped long enough to study Nulabs tactics, that DC is spot on in his approach, and insistance on our policies being carefully thought out, and road tested as much as possible. Nulab have a track record of the law of unintended consequences. Tax raid. Destroyed occupational pension for the private sector.. is only one. I'm no politician. My qualifications are all nursing ones. I have spent a life time studying people. I can spot an unreconstructed Tory at 100 yards. We must gently draw them into the 21st century, little steps at a time. The zeitgeist of their youth WAS hang em and flog em. We have gone a tad too far in the opposite direction, so surely we can meet in the middle??

[John Hustings]

D'Ancona reports that a Cameron intimate put the situation to him thus: "People ask: is he [David Cameron] just a Brazilian signing that's been brought in to prop up Millwall?"

That probably is what they think. And they also think that we (tory members) should be as adulatory of David Cameron as Millwall would be if Ronaldinho came to play for them.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>so that some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration can be reined in.<<<<
The War on Terror has broadly been a success, there have been some strategic miscalculations which John McCain has highlighted from the start, I have no problems with the attitude the White House has had to terrorist suspects and do not view it as torture and so far as those found to be guilty the US Administration can torture them as much as they like so far as I am concerned, the wicked should be punished and those who are more wicked should be punished more.

[Richard]

"I think you should all go and have a coffee, and read Matthew d'Ancona in the Sunday telegraph"

His comment about the opinion polls was wrong. The Tories are doing no better than they were under previous leaders. I've provided a link to prove this on the more recent opinion poll thread.

[Rick]

Colin Powell was sent to Coventry for wanting a more sensible approach towards Iraq

Does he hold the record for the least-travelled Secretary of State ? Had he spent his time on planes like Kissinger or Baker he might not have had the rupture with Europe..............................then again if Jack Straw's son was appointed head of OFCOM as in the same way Bush appointed Michael Powell Head of the FCC there would be eyebrows raised...............but I have heard few BBC comments on this piece of nepotism

[Cyburn]

UKIP will benefit from Cameron dickheaded remark about UKIP

[Cyburn]

UKIP will benefit from Cameron's dickheaded remarks about UKIP

Cameron is making the party inot the CONservative Party

[Cyburn]

UKIP will benefit from Cameron's dickheaded remarks about UKIP

Cameron is making the party inot the CONservative Party

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Such foul comments really are unnecessary Tareq - you can disagree with David Cameron's remarks without being quite so unpleasant.

I see from your blog that you are a UKIP supporter - the nature of your remarks here would appear to reinforce David Cameron's observations about UKIP.

[christina speight]

DC has lost me - a returned Tory voter. He keeps talking about "change" but never says change from what ,TO what?

Meanwhile he hands a slice of core voters to UKIP or BNP and espouses touchy-feely nonsenses like the man-made global warming that stopped in 1998 and which was cyclical anyway.

He seems to have no principles and no backbone and ignores the collapse of society under Blair's government.

[Paul, Southampton]

"He [DC] keeps talking about "change" but never says change from what ,TO what?"

Dave is changing the Tories from a Conservative Party into the New New Labour Party. He seems to think that because the left-wing parties have enjoyed electoral success over the past few years, the Conservative Party should become left-wing as well. What a great way to disenfranchise the core vote!

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>man-made global warming that stopped in 1998 and which was cyclical anyway<<<<
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases were reduced in the UK, overall the world levels are still going up sharply and if everyone in the planet was to use the same amounts of energy and the same amounts of Greenhouse gases be produced per head of population as in the UK then global warming would continue for centuries, of course an undetermined proportion of global warming is down to increased solar output and indeed to cleaner air due to modern industrial techniques being cleaner resulting in more sunlight reaching the earth.

The solution is clear, there needs to be a new Nuclear Power Station Building programme - today the Scottish TUC in conference has been arguing overwhelmingly for this and is to pressure the Scottish First Minister on this issue, I think 50% of electricity generated by Nuclear Power would be a good target and new development of and expansion of existing renewable projects, also the way to reduce demand is to make power more expensive even if this means hitting those on low incomes - people will then self ration.