Ming toughens crime policies as his rating slides

If today's YouGov poll makes good reading for David Cameron - the post-May 4th lead having been confirmed - it makes very worrying news for Menzies Campbell.   "Only eight per cent of YouGov's sample," writes Anthony King, "would like to see him in Downing Street - the lowest recorded for any Lib Dem leader since the Liberal Democrats effectively replaced the old Liberal-SDP Alliance in 1990."

The LibDem leader will attempt to reverse his party's decline with a speech on crime today.  The speech will distance the party from some of the 'soft' policies associated with Charles Kennedy's leadership.  Sir Menzies (who has also appointed a new spin doctor) will call for a violent crimes register, no automatic release for prisoners who are halfway through their sentences and the deportation of undesriable foreign offenders.  The toughening of policy is partly the work of the new LibDem home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg.  Mr Clegg would be the candidate most likely to replace Sir Ming as LibDem leader if the party continues to struggle.  A Clegg leadership, combined with a tougher policy on crime, would position the party for some sort of pact with the Tories in the event of a hung parliament.  Despite all of the progress being made by David Cameron, a minority government looks more likely than for a generation.

Below the headline numbers the most encouraging YouGov finding comes on economic competence.  One year ago Labour enjoyed a 22% advantage on the economy.  That advantage over the Tories has shrunk to just 2% today and may explain the increasing likelihood that Gordon Brown may face a serious challenge for the Labour leadership.  Labour's retreat is not just on the economic front.  Anthony King again:

"A year ago Labour led the Conservatives on no fewer than 14 of the 18 issues, with the two parties tied on a 15th. The Conservatives at that time led on only three: immigration, law and order and council tax.  Now Labour leads on only nine of the 18 with the Tories ahead on the other nine."

The blots on the landscape from the YouGov poll come from the rise of the minor parties.  The Greens on 4%, UKIP on 4% and the BNP on 3% contribute to a 14% total for Britain's 'other parties'.

Comments

[TimC]

Another excellent poll. Hopefully we will also be able to go into the next election without anti-Conservative tactical voting.

[JP]

You describe the rise of the minor parties as 'blots on the landscape'. Surely without the existence of the minor parties more than a million voters wouldn't bother to vote. And isn't that what the Establishment parties and their supporters are always telling us: use our votes? If the main parties and their supporters don't like it, it's tough, I suggest they work a little bit harder. Be it the nutcases in the Greens or the nutcases in the BNP, the nutcases are here to stay. And what a change it makes from the lying, cheating, thieving spivs we have at the moment. Anyone for a rent boy? A diary secretary perhaps? A non-executive directorship even?

[Ted]

Still about 3 years to go (with next Labour Leader possibly chooosing early election in 2008 or if polls bad stcking it out to 2010)but
good to see both improved Tory & weakening LD polling.

If we do succeed in squeezing the LDs in the South & South West I wonder what the impact post election of a Liberal Democrat party dependent on its Scots seats will have? I had thought that Labour after Blair could be bereft of a philosophy and direction and rich pickings for the LDs but it now looks more like the 1992 position - a core Labour vote of around 30-34%, Tories 40%+ or so and LDs back at 15-18%.

[Peter M.]

Fantastic news, but we must not forget that we cannot get breakthrough in the North where there is a big amount of small constituencies and that Scotland stays 'the no-go-area' for us. We still need to do much much better.

[David Belchamber]

Although the latest YouGov poll results are most encouraging, we must remember that a week is a long time in politics and many weeks will elapse before there is a general election.
Most encouragement I feel is to be derived from the trend shown in the 18 specific policy areas; a year ago Labour led the Tories on 14 of the 18 points. Now it is 9 all, with the Tories ahead on education (remember the mantra: "Education, education, education"?), law and order (remember: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?) but much more significantly we are now only slightly behind on the economy (one of the key issues for the GE, no doubt) and the NHS ("the NHS is safe in our hands").
Get these issues right and we should open the gap even more.
"By your soundbites you shall be judged". OK what about "Labour isn't working - again!"

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Mr Clegg would be the candidate most likely to replace Sir Ming as LibDem leader if the party continues to struggle."

I disagree. Aside from the fact that Nick Clegg simply wouldn't wash with the Sandalistas unless there was no other credible option available in a leadership contest, judging by what I've seen of him so far (admittedly I have not watched last night's Question Time yet), he is vastly over-rated and rather dull and uninspiring. I'd say Chris Huhne is better positioned to take over if/when Campbell gets the boot.

[Serf]

Excellent comments all:

The nutcases are here to stay - Too True, unless major parties can appeal to their supporters.
Hopefully we will also be able to go into the next election without anti-Conservative tactical voting - That depends on us overturning the irrational prejudice that the word Tory creates in some people.
We must not forget that we cannot get breakthrough in the North - I agree and unless we can at least turn some nohopers into marginals by the next election, we run the risk of coming back for one term.
Most encouragement I feel is to be derived from the trend shown in the 18 specific policy areas - This is before we have even come up with any policies.

Should we start laying down some champagne?

[Harry Randall]

Feeding the latest YouGov poll results into Electoral Calculus gives the folling in terms of seats:
Con. 268
Labour 340
Lib 8

LABOUR MAJORITY 34
Harry

[Ted]

Harry

When I do the same on Electoral Calculus I get:
Conservatives 312
Labour 286
Lib 15

Conservatives 12 short of majority (and with boundary revisions more probably a majority of 10 or so)

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>The blots on the landscape from the YouGov poll come from the rise of the minor parties.<<<<
Then again the last Guardian ICM poll showed the combined 3 party vote at 92%, rather highlighting the unreliability of polls unless there has been some sudden variation affecting 6% of the vote in the past few days

>>>>When I do the same on Electoral Calculus I get:
Conservatives 312
Labour 286
Lib 15<<<<
Depends on the assumptions you make - assuming a 1% Liberal Democrat tactical vote for the Conservative Party and 4% tactical vote by both Labour and Conservative supporters for the Liberal Democrats would give Labour 279 seats and the Liberal Democrats 22 seats, in fact I rather think that in seats with sitting Liberal Democrats there will be a lot of Tactical voting at the next election and they could easily end up with 15% of the vote or so and yet still 40 seats or so, factoring in boundary changes and the poll if it was the actual result in the end would suggest a Conservative government on the verge of a majority but of course it is 3 years to the Next General Election at the earliest and of course the poll doesn't say how the support is distributed and just as if it showed Labour and Conservative support the other way around it wouldn't neccessarily mean that it would be correct.

I'm increasingly inclined to think Opinion Polls affect voting opinion more than they actually reflect it.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Should we start laying down some champagne?<<<<
Best thing is always just to accept that what has happened was always what was inevitably going to happen and drink up anyway and analyse what happened with a detached view.

[CDM]

The fact that vote shares identical to these would give us an overall majority (thanks to boundary changes) is extremely encouraging, and should remind all of us that winning the next election is an achievable goal. If you think that we don't have any policies yet, we should be aiming for nothing less than a landslide victory in 2009, and a mandate to undo the constitutional and economic damage Labour has inflicted our country.

[Richard]

Excellent news. Would it be of greater benefit though if the Lib Dem vote increased at the expense of the Labour vote?

P.S. Pedant alert: According to the Telegraph it's the Greens who are on 3% and the BNP on 4%.

[Richard]

By the way Editor, your original link to this thread actually linked to an earlier poll on May 10.

[David Belchamber]

One point about recent polls is quite interesting. Whilst the various polls show no great difference between the two main parties, there is usually a much greater variance in the Lib Dem vote. YouGov has them on only 16% in the latest poll, while ICM has them on 20%. Previous results were fairly similar.
Are they in decline or bearing up quite well, given their recent little problems and present leader?

[Ed]

Proof that the Cameron strategy is working.

[comstock]

"According to the Telegraph it's the Greens who are on 3% and the BNP on 4%"

The problem the Tories have got is that that 4% could hold the key to an overall majority, yet you cannot actively target them in any way at all, or your centre support would collapse.

[comstock]

"
When I do the same on Electoral Calculus I get:
Conservatives 312
Labour 286
Lib 15

Conservatives 12 short of majority (and with boundary revisions more probably a majority of 10 or so)
"

Doesn't EC already take account of the boundary changes?

Anyway given 10 DUP/UUP members supporting you on crucial votes and 5 SF members not voting 312 might be *just* enough to go it alone without the Liberals. I doubt you'd last a full term though.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Doesn't EC already take account of the boundary changes?<<<<
No, it would be virtually impossible to do so unless the voting data from 2005 could be broken down by ward and I don't think that information is publicly available.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I doubt you'd last a full term though.<<<<
Depends how many by-elections there were, whether there were any defections and which way they went - there were only 5 by elections in the last parliament, in 1974-79 Labour lost vast numbers of by-elections and still held on and they started with a majority of 5 in a situation in which there were no MP's not taking up their seats, in the end it came down to a Irish Nationalist Socialist Independent MP abstaining rather than voting for the government in a Confidence Motion (which he turned up to do in person).

[comstock]

"in the end it came down to a Irish Nationalist Socialist Independent MP abstaining rather than voting for the government in a Confidence Motion (which he turned up to do in person)."

V quick aside, Tony Benn claims in his diary Roy Hattersley tried to bribe him with three bottles of whiskey!

Whether this bribe succeeded (in persauding him to abstain rather than vote against) or was counter productive (turning support into abstention) is not documented- but it seems unlikey someone would turn up with the intention of abstaining!!

[Adrian Barton]

I have just read THE NEW EAST END by Dench Gavron and Young. They record how thw white working class was pushed out of large parts of the East End by a change in housing policy that recognised need but not entitlement and that the liberal middle classes would have curtailed the mass immigration if the Bangladeshis were moving in large numbers into Hampstead or Notting Hill. Are the BNP therefore nutcases or people with a well-grounded grievance?