Tory lead doubles with Brown in charge

David Cameron now enjoys a solid 5% lead in ConservativeHome's poll of polls.  The increased advantage reflects the best showing for the Conservative Party in a Guardian/ ICM poll for 13 years.  David Cameron's Conservative Party enjoys a 4% lead over Labour.  Party strategists will also be delighted that Tory policies on health, education and the economy enjoy more support from women than do Labour policies.

The poll is also disappointing for the LibDems.  Ming's party is down 4% in the first ICM poll since the local elections.

This poll - if replicated at a General Election - still puts the Tories needing to form some sort of pact with the LibDems but the man who really should be worried from this poll is Gordon Brown.  Despite the fact that he is seen as more trustworthy than the Prime Minister, the Guardian survey reveals that, with Brown as leader, the Tory advantage would grow from 4% to 9%.  "This," notes Mike Smithson at PoliticalBetting.com, "is the tenth poll in a row from the three main pollsters where the Tories do better against Labour when the Cameron-Brown voting intention question is put." 

Postscript: With thanks to 'Coffee Monster', a regular ConservativeHome visitor, the Poll of Polls also incorporates the results of an early May MORI survey for the FT which had been overlooked previously.

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Does this mark the start of the end of Browns premiership ambitions?

[Alexander Drake]

A very encouraging result because the polls shows Labour's lead on who is better on the economy has dramatically contracted since the 2005 GE.

If we continue to see those figures moving in the right direction, and eventually start to see us lead (hard for any Opposition to turn around without a sharp interest rate rise), then we are getting into VERY interesting territory indeed.

[Christina]

I can't see it being the end of Brown's ambitions, but his chances. He didn't have the balls to make a move. (apart from Ed)

[CDM]

Perhaps the Editor could post the poll figures for when Brown is Labour leader?

They are:
Con 40
Lab 31
Lib 19

Which according to Baxter would give us an overall majority of 8, rising to 24 if boundary changes are considered.

[James Morris]

This seems very encouraging. We are moving ahead on some of the key issues most tellingly health and education which suggests that gradually people are beginning to trust us on these issues. Like with the recent resurgence of M&S people are beginning once again to identify positively with the Conservative 'brand.'

The general drift of these indicators suggests a good foundation on which to build the policies that will emerge from the Commissions.

[Serf]

We are now consistently ahead, and consisitently more ahead of Brown.

If we continue to push the agenda, that lead will increase steadily up until we win in 2009.
:)

[David Belchamber]

Before the GE we must convince the electorate that both the economy and the NHS are safe in our hands. With the former we need greater transparency, honesty and simplicity; with the latter, we need to do away with targets and bureaucracy and let the professionals get on with it, subject to proper accountability.

[Mark Fulford]

What this absolutely rules out is any idea of Gordon Brown fighting a leadership battle with a mind to an early election.

To be honest, I find it hard to imagine who would want to take over the Labour party in its current state - especially if they can't go to the polls for a mandate. Tony Blair will probably serve out a full term.

[Ed Ramsay]

The lead the Conservatives have over the Labour Party is still short of producing a swing at the next election that would propel us into Government. However, what this and other previous polls suggest is that David Cameron has successfully broken the ideological hold that Labour have over the public services. For the first time in over a decade, people are beginning to believe that the Tories can do it better.

[Janice Small]

I am very heartened by this poll. Only recently Brown was ahead of DC in the polls as the person to be trusted with running the country. Amazing that people feel they can trust us with the NHS and public services - and we don't have any policies. As a press consultant and marketer I think DC's team are doing a fantastic job in selling the brand.

[Teresa]

Please get real. Here we have Cameron a few points ahead in the poll and already the pundits are predicting a hung Parliament. Lets get this into perspective. What decides any election is the "Economy Stupid" There is nothing that concentrates the mind quicker than wondering if your Mortgage, Job and Health are okay with the other guy. British people are not stupid, they are telling these pollsters that at the moment they are not happy with what is happening in this country and rightly so. Cameron has a long way to go and at the moment he is being given a gift with the state that the Labour party is in. However make no mistake about this, there are a lot of active Party Members and for that matter a good many muzzled Tory MP's who do not like the direction Cameron is taking the Party. David Davis would have made a better job than this guy. Davis would have more appeal to the people of Scotland, Wales and the North of England whose votes the Party need if they are ever going to win again. I just wish a few real "Good old Tories" such as Lord Tebbit, who is usually right about things would voice their true opinion of Cameron. I notice how quiet Liam Fox and John Redwood are these days "Are they holding their thunder"?

[Richard]

"David Davis would have made a better job than this guy. Davis would have more appeal to the people of Scotland, Wales and the North of England whose votes the Party need if they are ever going to win again."

Like it or not he lost the leadership election and you're not going to change that by indulging in counterfactual history.

[Mike Christie]

"I notice how quiet Liam Fox and John Redwood are these days "Are they holding their thunder"?"

Whisper it quietly... they might just be perfectly satisfied with the progress the party is making and be busy with their respective roles.

Forget the poll numbers and feel the vibe, people are taking the idea of voting Conservative and having a Conservative government seriously again for the first time in a long time. Labour are helping massively now that their inability to arrange a booze-up at a brewery is becoming apparent and they are collapsing into open civil war. Let's not try and join them in falling apart.

[Henry Cook]

"What decides any election is the "Economy Stupid" There is nothing that concentrates the mind quicker than wondering if your Mortgage, Job and Health are okay with the other guy."

Not so simple actually:

1992 election - country in the midst of recession, with only very small indications that things were about to get better, and yet the incumbents were returned with a record number of votes (over 14 million - never happened before, will probably never happen again)

1997 election - economy booming, and yet Labour recorded a huge landslide victory.

Perceptions about the economy are certainly very important, but they are often wuite removed from the reality. The slogan 'its the economy, stupid', invented by Bill Clinton's communications officer in 1992, is therefore thoroughly misleading and in itself, stupid.

[Ted]

Through the ether a lost email to RedLab.com appears
Please get real, Tony Blair is only a few points ahead and already pundits are predicting a Labour victory. What decides the election is the Economy stupid - and look at how Chancellor Clarke is sorting that out. British people aren't stupid they are just telling pollsters they are not happy. Blair has a long way to go and he's been given a gift by Major's current difficulties. Make no mistake comrades but there are a lot of Labour members and many muzzled MPs who do not like this New Labour talk. John Prescott would have made a better leader than this guy. Prescott would have more appeal to the hard working people that we need to return to Labour to ever win again. I just wish a few real Labour voices such as Tony Benn and Michael Foot would voice their true opinion of Blair. I notice how quiet Kinnock & Beckitt are these days, are hey holding their thunder?

[Richard]

Ted, an excellent comparison but I think it's unfair to compare Foot and Benn to Tebbit. They were much nearer to the far-left than he was to the far-right.

[J.W.Tozer]

Lets get all this into perspective.

1. the GE is probably more than 3 years away
if a week is a long time in politics, 3
years is an eon.

2. The government has had negative
headlines for weeks. It still
amazingly has 34% of the vote.

3. It is not unusual for the main
opposition party to have a 15/20%
lead, after a government has been
in power for a long time: 4% is
nothing.

4. GB is an unknown quantity as far as
being PM is concerned, nobody really
knows how the public will react to him.

5. Tories should be pleased that at last
they are moving into positive territory.
But this probably has to do with the
governments incompetence, than anything
DC has done.

[James Maskell]

The talk of us having the equivalent of a majority is rubbish. The Conservatives arent close yet. Labour need to be much further behind (15-20 points) before we can say the Tories are back in Government.

Sadly this poll news will just fuel Camerons determination to keep to his path.

[Oliver McCarthy]

I agree with Mark Fulford that Blair will serve out his full term, though I would amend his "probably" to "almost definitely", unless he sees an economic downturn on the horizon. (Anything genuinely bad happening in the War on Terror is obvioualy too unpredictable, and if anything bad does happen on that front then Blair will bounce back again straightaway.)

Yes, the number-crunchers are right to a certain extent, and David Cameron still looks like being a slightly wet British version of Stephen Harper. But the real danger at the moment (pace Messrs. Tozer, Maskell et al.) is that Cameron will lose his nerve in the next couple of years and fight the next election in the same way as Hague and Howard fought the last two -- i.e. by getting some Australian spin-doctor who knows nothing about British political history to orchestrate a "right-wing" campaign that has nothing to do with traditional values but everything to do with alienating moderate small-c conservatives and the upper middle-classes.

And thank-you to "Teresa" (Joseph Stokes) for injecting a much needed note of pessimism and bitterness into proceedings. Clearly the Tory Party is much too nice and united at the moment, and a bit of division and nastiness would do our electoral hopes no end of good.

Clinton, of course, was only elected because Ross Perot divided the Right. It had zippo to do with the economy. Clinton would have lost against Dubya, and by the next General Election his missus will have lost against McCain.

[SimonNewman]

Labour are rotting, just like the Conservatives were in the mid-90s. And a Brown premiership isn't going to 'renew' them. There's a possibility that if the Tories don't push hard enough their decaying government could still stagger to victory next time, but change is in the air. They are now into the spiral of decline, and they know it.

[TimC]

The other thing to bear in mind is Labour does not follow the Conservative re-election graph which can see it slump mid-term when it is performing necessary reforms before increasing in popularity as it reaps the benefits of those reforms.

Labour on the other hand has not followed that path. In fact prior to 1997, it had never been re-elected. When it has been re-elected, it has remained popular throughout the cycle.

[Ted]

James

Agree that talk of majorities is premature - most likely outcome remains a hung parliament. A two election recovery was what I expected after our poor showing last year.

It also seems to me highly unlikely we'll see 15%plus leads as long as the LDs retain 18-22% poll ratings. With others generally 6-8% we are looking at how around 70-76% of Con & Lab intentions split. So at the low LD & Ind share we would need to be polling 45% to Labour 30% to get near those levels.

Hoever the one thing that makes me more optomistic about a possible majority is that Labour only got 36% last time - dropping down to less than 33% looks possible and I think at those levels a lot of electoral share models have problems as the inbuilt assumptions haven't been tested against such a reality.

Labour losses in Scotland & Wales due to voter disenchantment with Labour led executives could add another dimension.

As for your last line - if the direction of travel is advantageous why should Cameron change?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Perhaps they should have taken the comparative vote shares for Johnson/Cameron/Huhne rather than Brown/Cameron/Campbell?

Although Alan Johnson could possibly suffer from not having the same name recognition quotient as Gordon Brown.

[Ted]

DVA why Huhne?
Read the LDs on PoliticalBetting - they had a smashing locals, Ming is the best thing since...well Ming, they are going to push us hard in Bromley (thought they weren't meant to be campaigning yet)and their constituencies across the South are well fortified basions.

A good dirty leadership battle next summer will be proceeeded by tittle-tattle from Gordon & the Brownites trying to destroy any likely contender. That should help us no end.

[Ted]

Bastions not basions
(Memo to self - clean keyboard)

[Oberon Houston]

Very encouraging, although there is still a long way to go.

A couple of observations:

New Labour, and Gordon Brown, in particular, has consistently manipulated the honest and worthy public desire to improve Public Services into a strategy that’s designed primarily to undermine the Opposition Conservatives. We have very stupidly allowed him to do this with ease. David Cameron has been the first to realise what is happening and move to counteract it, and it is working. We must not allow an unprincipled Brown to outflank us again.

Crime and Law and Order speak largely for themselves. People will naturally come to us for a better alternative; however, again, on the issue of things like ID cards, freedom of speech and religious hatred, liberal democracy, our positioning has been woeful. Golden opportunities to defend our constitution and way of life against New Labour attack have been wasted. Again, we need to stand up for British values and not get sidelined by a Labour Party that cares more about the next news bulletin than our way of life. I think Cameron appreciates this, but doubt David Davis does.

Finally we have someone in charge who now appreciates where we have been going so badly wrong and is making moves to counteract it.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Which according to Baxter would give us an overall majority of 8, rising to 24 if boundary changes are considered.<<<<
I thought that the Conservatives were expected to gain 11 seats if nothing else changed except the Boundaries and Labour lose 10 seats - in fact this adds 22 onto any Conservative majority which in theory would give a majority of 30, although of course it is somewhat crude because the ideal would be to do projections based on extrapolated data for the new boundaries as gains and losses won't work out as simple as that, also changes in proportions of the votes occuring differently in different areas even if such a poll was a correct reflection of opinion (opinion polls have been way out since supposedly they were fixed after 1992 and in fact when showing what actually turns out to be a result may be more a coincidence than anything else), regional variations in the change and changes in the marginals could result in the Conservative Party getting a far larger majority than projected or failing to even become the largest party when a majority was projected - political support in the UK has varied a lot from one area to another over decades in the UK.

If true and I think this would be the most significant fact, added together the figures would give 92% as the combined vote of the 3 main parties and would be the highest support in total for the 3 main parties since the early years of the John Major administration.

[Chad]

Cameron is clearly making the right sounds and has been rightly rewarded for that.

The challenge is trying to understand what he actually stands for, as pm he will not be able to produce a nice soundbite in reaction to challenges, but will actually have to address and seek to solve them.

Although it is encouraging to see the Guardian attacking Cameron (the first sentence says it all - they are worried) they do also have a point.

Why would a man who voted to keep positive discrimination in politics as an illegal act then use the very same law he sought to prevent as the basis for modernising his party?

Cameron clearly identified what needed to be done to improve the Tory party image, a massive challenge and success in itself, but we will be left waiting for some time to discover whether he actually has any solutions to the problems his soundbites promise.

I don't fear (as Labour have claimed) that Cameron is a nice image but a traditional Tory underneath, I can't help but fear that he is a nice image with nothing underneath.

When the LibDems and Labour slate Cameron for writing the 'most right-wing manifesto ever' etc, they seem to miss the point that he is actually being consistent in being whatever he thinks at that time will be most effective at that time, whether right or left.

I'd love to be proven wrong, and we won't know until he produces his manifesto.

I'm just sick of soundbite politics and when everyone seems willing to finally look away from this thoroughly discredited and rotting Labour government, I fear that for all my hopes that the Tories will deliver, Cameron, when it comes to the real business, will be left wanting.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>It also seems to me highly unlikely we'll see 15%plus leads as long as the LDs retain 18-22% poll ratings.<<<<
Most of the change in support between 1997 and the 2005 General Election had been gains by the Liberal Democrats of dissilusioned Labour voters mainly in safe Labour seats which is why the Liberal Democrats now hold places such as Chesterfield and Manchester Withington, and were able to take control of Sheffield City Council for a bit and Chesterfield Council and were on the verge of making the breakthrough in Manchester City Council.

Liberal Democrat support appears to have peaked in 2003 at the expense of the Labour Party, at the last General Election the Liberal Democrats did very badly in most Conservative seats, the gains were mostly in Labour seats and most of the change last time was as a result of Labour support switching further to the Liberal Democrats.

So it would depend which group(s) of people abandoned the Liberal Democrats, I'm rather inclined though to think that Liberal Democrats will split pretty evenly between Labour and the Conservative Party.

[Yet Another Anon]

Probably the War in Iraq will go on affecting Labour support for another 10 years although tending to diminish by the year, though there is no doubt that Labour's core vote is probably now even lower than it was in the 1980's, Gordon Brown as leader will probably sustain it but after he's gone the Labour Party will start to fall apart and I don't see any future for the Labour Party except in permanent opposition after 2024.

[John Hustings]

"Party strategists will also be delighted that Tory policies on health, education and the economy enjoy more support from women than do Labour policies."

What policies?

[Ed Ramsay]

For over a decade, The Conservative Party has never been in this position. It is about time that people begin to accept our return to the One Nation tradition. The fulcrum of British politics is in the centre. Why destroy a unique opportunity to recapture the centre ground in the recent wreckage of the New Labour project? This poll is thoroughly good news.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Con 40
Lab 31
Lib 19

Which according to Baxter would give us an overall majority of 8, rising to 24 if boundary changes are considered.<<<<
Depending on where the votes fell, especially Tactical Voting in marginals that could result in the Conservative Party having barely more seats than Labour and the Liberal Democrats even gaining seats or it could result in a 100 seat Conservative majority.

[William]

I notice how quiet Liam Fox and John Redwood are these days "Are they holding their thunder"? writes Teresa.

The problem with Fox and Redwood is that they are loyal to leaders. Cameron has to survive and watch his back so he promotes the known back-stabbers into the prominent positions such as Chairman, where they can parade their egos from dawn til dusk.

The rule of leadership is always 'keep close to your friends but keep your enemies closer.' Have them pissing out of the tent rather than in etc

We could of course get so much better quality piss from Fox and Redwood, but Cameron knows he can trust them, so they have to keep quiet...for now, and we endure C-grade output from A-grade egos.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Why destroy a unique opportunity to recapture the centre ground in the recent wreckage of the New Labour project? This poll is thoroughly good news.<<<<
There is no such thing as the centre, there is perhaps mainstream opinion but that could be anything and varies from time to time.

As to whether someone wants to "capture the centre ground" and given that this suggests that Conservative and Labour governments be much the same it rather defeats all the effort in the first place - the aim surely in politics is to win the battle of ideas, if something is not mainstream then arguments have to be made to make them mainstream which results in electoral success, if at the next General Election people are cynical and they look at Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party and see that on most issues there is little difference then the most likely thing is that they will stick with the devil they know rather than risking putting in someone who appears to be the same but is untried - the Conservative Party seems to be working on the basis that if things go wrong and they are there and they simply stick to mainstream thinking that things will go fine, what about when if elected there is then the dilemna as to whether to stick to some mainstream political solutions when obviously these turn out to be a poor solution, either then they have to be abandoned in which case there are accusations that the government is breaking manifesto commitments or the policies are carried through and problems result.

[David Belchamber]

The criticisms of DC and of the Party expressed above are very healthy. But if you look at the bigger picture, DC has had a cataclysmic impact on the political scene since he took over. The Lib Dems have changed leaders, the government is in severe disarray, the local election reults were excellent and the polls have now gone positive.
DC has broken the mould of modern politics and is grabbing the attention of younger voters. He has repositioned the Party where I believe it should be - the centre right.
Most of us are now asking for more detail, more substance. But unless there is a snap election this Autumn, I think we must allow him more time, at least until the various policy review groups come up with their findings.
If they get these right, the polls should then shoot up, irrespective of who the other two leaders are.

[steve e]

Well I still think that DC has the position absolutely spot on. I live on the corner of a Strong Tory constituency next to a strong Labour and a strong Lib dem (Arundel,Lewes and Brighton Pavilion)

For the first time in 20 odd years people I speak to feel that they can vote Tory and not be seen as the 'uncaring sort'. You know what I mean - the economy is more important than the NHS and the usual rubbish that was trotted out by Labour over the years.

True DC has almost no firm policies, but then why at this stage in the election cycle do you need them? They cannot be out into practice or voted on. At this stage DC needs more general positioning, before firming up on policies in the future.

[Chad]

I generally agree David, but it is much, much easier to offer a popular soundbite contrary to an unpopular or failing government policy, like the LibDem election result off the back of the Iraq backlash, but as we have seen with the LibDems since, such support can evaporate very quickly.

Give me a Bush "you might not agree but you know what I stand for" over "you might agree but you have no idea what I stand for" every day of the week.

For me, the soundbites are just candyfloss at a time when we need some real beef.

[William]

Teresa - Tebbit is not as quiet as you think!!!

Lord Tebbit thinks Britain should leave the EU

24-05-2006

In a letter published in the Sunday Telegraph, the significance of which has been completely missed by the national media, Lord Tebbit has publicly converted to the belief that Britain should leave the European Union.

The letter published on Sunday 21st May, which we reproduce below, was written jointly with Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who has campaigned against Britain’s EU membership for more than 30 years.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>The Lib Dems have changed leaders<<<<
They did that because they eventually realised that while Charles Kennedy might come over well on Have I got News For You that he showed no interest in policy formulation even saying that it bored him - he was laid back to the point of complete inactivity, who knows? Maybe in the situation in which the ebbing of support from the Liberal Democrats over the War in Iraq was at it's worst that was the most successful stance, but now that if anything that support is starting to drift back again then what had become virtual inactivity since the General Election was going to be disastrous for the Liberal Democrats, in fact in 2001 the proportion of those voting Liberal Democrat only increased because of a huge drop in turnout of Labour and Conservative voters, their actual total numbers of votes has only returned to where it was in 1992 and their percentage vote still has not reached where it was in 1987.

[Nick Longworth]

"For me, the soundbites are just candyfloss at a time when we need some real beef." Chad.
For those a little hard of hearing - THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS IN OPPOSITION AND THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ELECTION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
This is not the time when we need some real beef. This is the time when we need to be building interest in the party, professionalising our campaigning, countering a decade of image problems and establishing a narrative into which the policy "beef" will fit at the appropriate time. My view is that that time will be in roughly 18 months, a year and a half from the general election. And, blow me, that's lucky, that's coincidentally just when the policy groups will all be reporting!

[Chad]

No Nick,

You are missing the point. No-one is asking Cameron for detailed policies right now, but detailed principles.

Values >> Principles >> Policies.

For example:
Q:: Is Cameron for or against positive discrimination?
A:: We don't know. He voted against it then proposed it.

Etc etc. We want to understand what principles will guide his policy making (the beef) not what the exact policies will be (as we will have a good idea any way if we understand his values and principles).

For those of us who are looking for solutions to the problems caused by Labour, not necessarily just looking for a Tory victory, the soundbites offer nothing at all.

[Ed Ramsay]

<>

I am intrigued with your assumption that all mainstream solutions to the problems of government are necessarily bad ones?

[William]

Editor - isn't it odd that Conservativehome did not report Tebbit's letter declaring his support for EU withdrawal? Or did you and I missed it?

[kingbongo]

The relatively large movements in the polls over the last few months show that there is general steady progress but that Labour are still in there and fighting.

We have a long long way to go but at this time it is about the government messsing things up and the Conservative leadership showing the Conservative party is relevant. Next year will be the time for concrete policies.

People trust us more on the NHS because they have seen the disaster of Labour policy that sounded so sensible and are now willing to listen to more radical ideas. That's what the policy review groups must be about if we are to start being thought of as ready for government. Next year we need to be polling above 40% but the current position is very promising. Labour have a core vote around the 30% mark so talk of 15%+ leads is highly unlikely.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I am intrigued with your assumption that all mainstream solutions to the problems of government are necessarily bad ones?<<<<
I didn't say they all were, but for years now there has been an opinion among many notably the One Nation people that what the mainstream says is what parties should go for.

Clement Attlee, General De Gaulle, Harry Truman and Margaret Thatcher were keen to find solutions, and so has George W. Bush - they formulated ideas and then sought to convert people to their own beliefs.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>People trust us more on the NHS because they have seen the disaster of Labour policy that sounded so sensible and are now willing to listen to more radical ideas.<<<<
Unfortunately people seem to be demanding more money, Labour has raised expectations that more public money means better services and many in the public seem now to expect that the NHS can do anything and fund everything, surely the thing to do is lower expectations and cut public funding to the NHS and extend charging and move towards charging on a commercial basis with low interest loans repayable in a similar way to Student Loans - if the Conservative response is simply to put in the same amount of money but change the administration only or structure handling it then this will be as much of a failure - the NHS should be transferred to a Private Charity Limited by Guarantee (as should State schools) and move towards funding by charging for services and cross subsidising some vulnerable groups such as the Severely Disabled and Elderly, NHS Estates could be floated on the Stock Exchange and hospital capacity could be reduced with sales of new hospitals, expectations could be dampened and people should be encouraged more to deal themselves with minor health problems and hypochondria which is at epidemic levels and the treatment for which is the avoidance of medical personnel.

[Goldie]

I think these numbers are rather meaningless, and no much cause for celebration, for the simple reason that a "virtual" Brown premiership is very different from a real one. Once Blair actually goes, and Brown can finally shape the government as he wishes --and the eternal Blair vs Brown bickering is gone-- there will be many changes. Brown will undoubtedly enjoy a 'honeymoon'.

[Ted]

Chad

Nick is right - oppositions that announce policies early find:

1 the attractive ones are stolen and re-badged (look at Mr Blair's notes to his ministers last week - all based on trying to move his pawns onto key areas we have started to develop)
2 the Government can start to rubbish them and develop a strong though misleading message (Control public expenditure = cuts in key public services)

Built to Last establishes the broad values & principles. You have decided you don't agree with the Tory Party before any policies on basis of whtat's already been stated so there seems to be enough beef you don't like taste of.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Labour have a core vote around the 30% mark<<<<
Labour's Core Vote is probably about 7 million (what percentage that is depends on turnout generally). Even in 1983 they weren't quite down to their Core Vote but it was higher then - more like 8 million.

[Teresa]

Oliver as Free White and many many years over 21, can I assure you that my politics are my own although the site is registered to my husband and not me, we have been a stable partnership for nearly 50 yrs, neither of us has ever felt the need to hide under the pseudonym of USA McCarthy Politics, we both lived through that nasty era. We could perhaps teach you a thing or two about it. I have always been his partner and not his Chattel, can I remind you that women have had the vote for a lot of years, we are supposed to have equal rights, we no longer walk 4 paces behind our husbands and most of us can think for ourselves. Who says the Nasty Party is not alive and kicking Teresa

[Chad]

Ted,

Again, that is not true.

"Built to Last establishes the broad values & principles"
Yes, but, it has been totally inconsistent with the actual details that Cameron has given.

As I have noted many times before, I completely agree with the principle espoused in B2L to achieve the value of sexual equality is to empower communities to produce fairness, not expect it to be solved centrally.

Great, I was happy. Then bang, instead of following that Cameron chose a central solution to solve sexual inequality.

This is my point. It is impossible to know what he really stands for, and that it because I fear he does not stand for anything.

So just looking at sexual discrimination, so far:

A:: Cameron has voted against making it legal. Excellent!
B:: Proposed in B2l that communities not central solutions solve sexual equality. Excellent!

At this point I am 100% with Cameron, until...

C:: He proposes positive discrimination to solve sexual equality issues! Aargghgghgh!!!

Can't you see why I have no idea what Cameron actually stands for?

[Chad]

..If Cameron had succeeded with his intention with his vote in point A, then his proposal for point C would have been illegal!

[david]

I know this isn't the right place to mention this, but re yesterdays discussion on drugs policy, if u want to read some commonsense on the subject.

http://www.unclenicks.net/canvas/sanity.html

[Richard]

"I know this isn't the right place to mention this, but re yesterdays discussion on drugs policy, if u want to read some commonsense on the subject."

Well you could just mention it on the drugs thread!

As for this poll, I wonder how long Ming can last as leader?

[Chad]

I agree Richard, Ming is a disaster, well, for the LibDems anyway!

I guess the best thing would be for Ming to hobble through to the next election rather than see him replaced with a candidate that could look a little too similar to Cameron.

[Nick Longworth]

One of the reasons for the better opinion poll results is the success in reaching out to groups that in the past ignored most of what the party had to say. For example, Cameron yesterday launched a disability policy review: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5005066.stm
A good quote from the report:
'Among those present at the seminar, Anne Pridmore, who chairs the BCODP, said it was important that the disability movement engaged with whichever party was in power.
"I think we have to be there to get what we want on their agendas," she said.
"After all, it was the Conservatives that brought the Disability Discrimination Act in."'
Obviously, this is not the first time the party has tried to engage on such issues in opposition, but it appears to be the first time it's got such a positive response and the first time the BBC has given it such positive coverage.
I believe, therefore, that this is the time to listen, not to preach. So demanding "beef" in terms of supposed true conservative principles or policies (just imagine) is missing the point about where we are in the electoral cycle.
None of us likes soundbites, but there are times when talking in generalities is required if we are to bring the many, not the few, on board (forgive the gratuitous Blairism - it's just to wind up Chad)

[Chad]

:-) I'm happy Nick. My work/life is in balance.. ;-)

[Ed Ramsay]

For Yet Another Anon...

We should be talking about the politics of today, not the politics of 1979.

Indeed it is partly due to Mrs Thatcher's reforms that the conduct of British politics has become more managerial and less ideological - we won that debate 20 years ago! As a result The Labour Party is ideologically sound but politically incompetent. It is on this basis that we should formulate policy and fight the next election. A manifesto to manage things more efficiently and more accountably.

The reactionary politics of the late 1970s is outdated and more importantly unecessary.

[Yet Another Anon]

I agree Richard, Ming is a disaster, well, for the LibDems anyway!
He's definitely been aged by his health problems, I think he probably though comes over quite well on programmes such as Any Questions and Question time and in interviews with journalists because it comes over a bit like a fireside chat and not simply heckling, Charles Kennedy had the advantage of always sounding ironic and cynical in that slow drawl of his which in Prime Ministers Questions which sort of gave out a signal of dissaproval even before he had really said anything actually at all.

[Nick Longworth]

ommm. :)

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>The reactionary politics of the late 1970s is outdated and more importantly unecessary.<<<<
Radical rather than reactionary, sometimes things can be left exactly as they are, sometimes things can be tweaked and sometimes things have to be changed more radically and in fact Health Spending as a proportion of GDP has been increased by every single administration since the Second World War - it was higher as a percentage of GDP when the Conservatives left office in 1997 than it had been in 1979, it is out of control and has to be reduced.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I agree Richard, Ming is a disaster, well, for the LibDems anyway!<<<<
That bit should have been in brackets.

[Deputy Editor]

Editor - isn't it odd that Conservativehome did not report Tebbit's letter declaring his support for EU withdrawal? Or did you and I missed it?
In a word, no!

[Ed Ramsay]

Health Service spendind is not out of control...what is out of control is the waste.

[Martin]

The pessimists still don't get it do they. A four point lead for us is likely to be at the very least twice the size on an election night. Every single election for at least the last twenty years has over stated Labour support and dramatically underestimated Tory support. Remember those polls the other week that had voting intention before the local elections at 33% Labour and 33% Conservative. The outcome was 28% against 40%. This happens in every single local and general election. Anyone with the slightest bit of sense knows that if the polls say we are in a four point lead then in reality it is almost certainly more like a ten point lead. How many more polls and elections is it going to take before people notice a pattern? Does anyone really think that Labours 4% rise in the polls since the local elections is grounded in reality. If you do, stay where you are , you will be collected shortly.

[Yet Another Anon]

When the NHS was setup spending on it was only 4.5% of GDP, now I gather that there are plans for it to go to 9% of GDP, no matter how much NHS is spending those demanding ever more extension of services will still not be satisfied - it's a Black Hole for public money to drop into, people have been encouraged to expect to be able to get treatment wherever and whenever they want it and all kinds of tests for just about everything, in fact the major factors in improving Health of the Nation relate to Water & Sewerage provision, access to adequate amounts of good quality food, adequate exercise and improved transport links and general prosperity - Japan has far higher life expectancy than the UK as does the USA and both don't spend such ludicrous amounts on Public Healthcare.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>The pessimists still don't get it do they. A four point lead for us is likely to be at the very least twice the size on an election night. Every single election for at least the last twenty years has over stated Labour support and dramatically underestimated Tory support.<<<<
The trend has been for governments to do progressively worse in By Elections and other Elections in between General Elections the longer they are power regardless of how well they do in General Elections, Labour got 35% of the vote in the 1983 Local Elections and 27.5% of the vote in the following General Election, in 1986 the Conservative Party did very badly and actually in the General Election then increased it's vote, in the 1989 Euro Elections Labour got 42% of the vote and only got 34.5% of the vote.

Governments always get through the most unpopular legislation in the first part of the parliament and tend to leave the easier bits to later, naturally at that point there is a strong tendency for them to recover support.

[Richard]

"The outcome was 28% against 40%. This happens in every single local and general election."

While I like the optimism of your post it must be noted that Hague and IDS did well at local elections too. I think your point is stronger when it comes to opinion polls in general, although Yougov is very accurate.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Remember those polls the other week that had voting intention before the local elections at 33% Labour and 33% Conservative. The outcome was 28% against 40%.<<<<
That was in a situation of a growing scandal relating to the misplacing of Foreign Nationals who should have been deported at the end of their sentence and Margaret Hodge's PR gift to the BNP - in that situation the Local Elections couldn't have come early enough from the point of view of the government.

[Ted]

From stats I've seen USA spends around 14% of GDP on Healthcare (of which about half so 7% is tax funded), most other developed countries also spend more than UK, with most spend being tax funded.

People don't get aggrieved on whole about the amount, or the tax, but about the inefficiencies and waste. With an aging population so increased number of people on fixed incomes it's less about cost and more about delivery.

We tried to get public to accept health rationing by talking this up in our last government (while incresing spending) but people made rational decision that Health was something worth spending money on so voted for it. I don't think thats changed.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>While I like the optimism of your post it must be noted that Hague and IDS did well at local elections too. I think your point is stronger when it comes to opinion polls in general, although Yougov is very accurate.<<<<
The opinion polls frequently either mask something or exagerate it, in the situation in which people are embarrased to say that they support one party or other then it tends to greatly exagerate support of other parties - opinion polls showing Labour at 63% and the Conservatives at 19% that there were in the 1990's and early in William Hagues watch were so absurd that I don't know why the organisations commissioning them bothered publishing them and there were equally ridiculous polls immediately after John Major became Prime Minister, the number of forecasts showing the Alliance winning every seat in the country 1 or 2 really show that actually they don't mean much at all.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>We tried to get public to accept health rationing by talking this up in our last government (while incresing spending) but people made rational decision that Health was something worth spending money on so voted for it. I don't think thats changed.<<<<
Given the obvious failure of Tax Funded Personal Healthcare surely the public's opinions might change, with new technologies coming online faster than the state's ability to pay for them even out of the vast sums allocated is somewhat limited and charging is a good way of rationing access to reasonable levels.

[Graham D'Amiral]

this poll is very encouraging as a number of others have been recently, but we should be cautious about whether there has yet been a fundamental shift in the state of party politics.

[Martin]

Yet another anon:"That was in a situation of a growing scandal relating to the misplacing of Foreign Nationals who should have been deported at the end of their sentence and Margaret Hodge's PR gift to the BNP - in that situation the Local Elections couldn't have come early enough from the point of view of the government."

But all these problems for the government had already taken place and the damage had been done,yet still the opinion polls showed this dramatically different story to the one that played out on election night. The big clue is always among those certain to vote. These polls are always closer to the actual result. The fact is that Conservatives tend to turn up on election day and the Labour support frequently stays at home. This could well be a major factor. We constantly blame other factors for our underestimated support on election night.

It was like the general election in 1992. Most of the polls predicted a Labour majority, and yet there wasn't even a hung parliament.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"DVA why Huhne?
Read the LDs on PoliticalBetting - they had a smashing locals, Ming is the best thing since...well Ming, they are going to push us hard in Bromley (thought they weren't meant to be campaigning yet)and their constituencies across the South are well fortified basions."

Why Chris Huhne? Because sooner or later, even the Liberal Democrats will surely be able to realise they made a terrible mistake by choosing their leader on the basis of reputation rather than cold, hard reality.

When that happens, Huhne will be in the best possible position to capitalise and is the most credible of the potential challengers.

[Ed Ramsay]

Since its conception in 1994 the entire New Labour project rested and still rests on the support of the middle classes in the South East.

The story of the last six months has been the steady erosion of this support base to the Conservatives - not in fact to third parties as the psephologists predicted. This is the raw explanantion for what amounts to a near 6-8 percent shift in our electoral fortunes.

Every poll has been indicating these incremental gains from Labour.

Note, the Labour Party has done much of the work. The arrogance of office after nine years in power afflicts electoral damage to any party.

And to those who persist with this rather boring critique of his leadership and direction, one only needs to remind you that David Cameron fought his campaign on a platform of a radical reorientation of the party back to the centre - a contest that he won overwhelmingly. He has the mandate and we must let him get on with the job.

The voters like it, the majority of the party like it...if you don't then go and join UKIP or the BNP.

[Richard]

It's notable that when asked how people would vote if Brown was leader, the Lib Dems lost another point and were down to 19.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>But all these problems for the government had already taken place and the damage had been done,yet still the opinion polls showed this dramatically different story to the one that played out on election night.<<<<
Polls on how people would vote in the Local Elections though did show Labour on less than 30%, in fact one I saw did show them on 26% and the Conservatives on 35%, also bare in mind that the polls usually given for levels of support are for the British Mainland whereas the Local Elections were only happening in England and of course people don't neccessarily vote the same way in Local and National Elections.

For example someone in a Local Election who was fundamentally opposed to the abolition of the Nuclear Deterrent might vote for the Green Party because they know that even if elected they have no involvement in decisions relating to Defence policy.

[Richard]

By the way, what exactly happened between 1992 and now that means we need a much larger gap between ourselves and Labour to get a decent majority? Was it all down to boundary changes?

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>British Mainland<<<<
That is including the Scottish Islands as well, Scotland, Wales as well as England - not Ulster but unless there was a really huge surge in Conservative support outside England if there had also been Council Elections in every area of the UK then the overall percentage Conservative vote would have been probably only 38% or so and Labour's probably would have been more like 30%.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>By the way, what exactly happened between 1992 and now that means we need a much larger gap between ourselves and Labour to get a decent majority? Was it all down to boundary changes?<<<<
There has been a lot of tactical voting against the Conservative Party since 1992 although since 1997 this has been going down, also the Conservative Party got 41.9% of the vote in 1992 and in 1992 a few thousand votes redistributed in a dozen marginals and the Conservative Party would not have won a majority.

Norman Fowler as Conservative Party chairman didn't think that boundaries mattered bizarrely and saw it as a distraction.

One major problem the Conservative Party has is that the Conservative vote has been largely piling up in safe seats and under the current system whether you win 55% of the vote or 35% of the vote if you have the largest vote you hold the seat and so because most of Labour's lost votes since 1997 have been in safe seats it hasn't had the effect that might otherwise have been expected, especially in 2001 when the Labour vote dropped from 44% to 40.5% with very little change in the number of Labour seats, in 2005 of course Labour's majority was reduced by about 22 by the reduction of the number of Scottish seats from 72 to 59 (I seem to recall the prediction was that it reduced their number of seats by 11.

[G-MaN]

"Tories should be pleased that at last
they are moving into positive territory.
But this probably has to do with the
governments incompetence, than anything
DC has done."

Its alot to do with what DC has done. He has broadened the appeal of the party to the point where we seem to have stabliblised at 38% since the Locals and (for the first time for someone like me), more people trust us on health and education - albeit a small pecentage - its a damn GREAT breakthrough!

[Ted]

Actualy 1992 did show the impact of Labour seat advantage - Major's Conservatives took around 42% of votes as against Labours 34% and LDs 18% but only scraped majority of 21.

As YAO says one statistic after the election was that if in our bottom 11 seats we had lost 1,250 votes we would not have had a majority.

The Conservative Party in 80's & 90's didn't seem to see that the distribution of seats was moving against them and played the Boundary Commissions badly.

[SimonNewman]

The Conservatives always seem to do better in real elections than in polls - at least any polls the BBC reports - and the local election followed that tradition; AIR the BBC were predicting big Lib Dem gains and the Conservatives flatlining, in the end we had the opposite.
This is one reason why Conservative 38 / Labour 34 means something different than Labour 38 / Conservative 34. Of course we do also suffer from unfair boundaries meaning that 1% of Labour votes counts for more than 1% of Conservative votes; which means that Conservative gains in marginal (sub)urban areas matter more than votes in traditionally Tory rural areas. Another reason why Cameron's strategy is the right one for winning elections in our current political setup.

[David Belchamber]

Recent polls have been very encouraging but opinion polls are not election results, so I think we should just note them with pleasure that things are moving in the right direction.
What is important is to underpin DC's leadership with some substance, either by debating actual policy issues or, as Chad suggested, debating values and principles on which the policies will eventually be based.
Ed Ramsay @16.19 and 16.42 yesterday made very good points: "...The Labour Party is ideologically sound but politically incompetent. It is on this basis that we should formulate policy and fight the next election. A manifesto to manage things more efficiently and more accountably".
He added: "Health Service spending is not out of control... what is out of control is the waste".
This I think is key: the tories and new labour do not differ greatly in many of their aims (how many people remember the pendulum swings of the 1960s and 1970s?) but we must be so much more competent in delivering the goods. It is easy to claim that we will run the Home Office and NHS efficiently, cut out billions wasted by Brown etc but can we and will we be able to convince the electorate that we can?