YouGov records 7% Conservative lead

YouGov's poll for this morning's Telegraph offers a similar headline result to that of ICM's survey for Tuesday's Guardian.  In contrast to ICM, however, YouGov does not find any strong movement between Labour and the LibDems.  It records a 7% Tory lead and helps produce a 6.4% Tory advantage in ConservativeHome's poll of polls.

YouGov finds that by 43% to 36% voters prefer a Conservative government led by David Cameron to a Labour government led by Gordon Brown.

The most interesting component of the YouGov poll is a comparison between voting intentions at last May's General Election and today.  A Telegraph leader is underwhelmed by the overall Labour to Tory swing of 4% but that swing hides significant differences.  The swing to the Conservatives amongst women, for example, is 6% but only 2% amongst men.  It is 9% in London but just 2% in the North West and 3% in Yorks & Humber.  Jonathan Scott wrote about the Tories' continuing 'northern problem' on yesterday's Platform.

RETURN TO CONSERVATIVEHOME AT 9PM TONIGHT FOR A MAJOR ANALYSIS OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT POLITICS, POLICY AND THE CAMERON PROJECT.

Comments

[tapestry]

Others at 13%, still growing.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Another very encouraging poll, that backs up the findings of the earlier ICM poll that the Conservative lead is widening. Labour are in crisis, a deeply unpopular government that can now command the support of scarcely a third of the electorate. Most worrying for those in the Labour Party who believe simply changing the leadership would be enough to revive their fortunes has to be the lead David Cameron enjoys over Gordon Brown.

[Kevin Davis]

There was something rogueish (!) about the ICM poll earlier in the week. But it does demonstrate the soft underbelly of the Lib Dem vote - volatile in the extreme.

[Don Jameson]

What caught my eye was a 5 percent swing to Conservative in the Soviet North East - not much of a "Northern problem" there.

[christina speight]

Today's YouGov poll in the Telegraph uses a big enough sample to look at regional variations. It suggests that the Cameron approach is paying off against LibDems especially in London, but also in the South East and South West and against Labour in both the East and West Midlands. Elsewhere the improvement is modest.

[David Belchamber]

Very encouraging, especially as it suggests that the Lib Dems are not - contrary to the ICM poll - rallying. When the policy review groups report - "more matter, with less art" (Hamlet) - we should see a surge in support.

[Andrew Woodman]

Without anting to sound like the voice of doom, we'll need to do much better in the North West and Yorkshire as that's where a lot of target seats are. Encouraging poll but still a lot of work to do.

[kingbongo]

Tim, considering the that all the talk amongst the 'insiders' on PB.com etc was of Labour ralying support in these August polls your analysis is very grudging. The fact is that the polls are slowly and steadily moving decisively in the Conservatives' favor.

The current attitude of the Telegraph is explicable only in the context of the influence wielded there by the hefferlump and his UKIP minded acolytes.

CH should try and show that despite there being much more to do the overall picture is of a party steadily moving into a position to form the next government.

The reputation CH has in the blogosphere of being representative only of the 'tory taliban' is unfortunate but not helped by continued reluctance to be positive about things to be positive about and constructive about things that need improving (such as party organisation and by-election management).

Constant sniping and reluctant praise are a surprising recipe for a site which should believe that even a bad tory government is still a better prospect than a Marxist government under Brown.

[changetowin]

Another fantastic poll result. Should not blind us to the fact that this is the start of a journey of change. But we are certainly going in the right direction. We tried the other approach for 8 years - Hague, IDS and Howard all had a shot. Eight months of sustained modernisation have transformed our party. Disagree with the optimistic message if you like, but don't argue that it is electorally unsuccessful.

[Editor]

I'm sorry kingbongo but I do think the progress is pretty modest and I'll keep the champahgne on ice for the time-being.

The swing to the Tories between the last election and now is 4% yet since the last election we have seen...

(1) Immigration run out of control, the NHS debt crisis, the prison release scandal, loans-for-peerages, John Prescott's multiple embarassments and internal Labour anger at Blair on almost every front.
(2) The LibDems elect an ineffective leader after their own internal problems.
(3) The best publicity any Tory leader has enjoyed in living memory.

Yes, of course, a "bad Tory government" (to use your expression) is better than a Brown government but I cannot pretend that I think the Cameron project is yet a great success. I support DC's leadership and wish him well. I do not think there is anyone else better placed to lead the Tories at this time but I want the Conservatives to be much broader in their appeal than is currently true.

Either of the two main political parties - and their chances of winning a majority - are vulnerable to an independent party that really starts to address voter concerns on tax, crime and immigration.

My argument has been consistent from the day I launched ConservativeHome - a Conservative Party that kept with the core issues that have characterised its recent campaigns and blended them with a commitment to lift up the poorest people in Britain and around the world would be electorally formidable. Add to that policy platform David Cameron's charisma and we could win a healthy majority at the next election...

[Ted]

Kingbongo, I see nothing in the editorial which doesn't support the slow and steady improvement this poll shows or is negative. Our position is unchanged, Labour has droppped 2%, LibDems stable.

Reporting that the Telegraph is underwhelmed is a fact. It seems that the Barclays, being conservative, have decided to go for their own core readership strategy and are suffering the consequences that we did in a core vote strategy and seeing their circulation hard hit.

There are interesting trends in this survey - showing areas the change message is working but also how well its doing in London. We really need to build on that in our Mayoral bid. If we can attract the same media interest in the primaries - where I am unconvinced by need for a big hitter which seems to mean a politician with no future in national politics - as we did in the Cameron/Davis election then we do stand a good chance of taking London.

[Andrew Woodman]

I think there is a bit of a bandwagon building up to suggest this site is hyper critical and just wants to do DC down. The poll is encouraging, but is also shows that the North on the whole isn't buying into DC enough to return a Conservative government. It would be a pretty pointless site if Tim just ignored this and wrote '7% lead, the next election is in the bag'.

[Tony Barton]

There's a long time to go before the next election.

Seems to me that all this current euphoria is doing is giving Labour time to prepare.

Blair has done himself in with the war, honours scandal etc but he'll be gone by the time of the next election.

Brown isn't party leader; Cameron is. I wonder what %age of the public would have supported Cameron in a similar poll a year before he became leader.

Less than 1%, I suspect.

[Ted]

Tony B
But the public have seen Gordon Brown operating the Labour domestic agenda for 9 years - they've all heard of him, seen him in a powerful job and still prefer the Leader of the Opposition.

[John G]

The problem with that, Ted, is that Labour may also choose somebody completely new young and dynamic. Don't say it can't happen. Everybody was expecting the Tories to end up with Ken Clarke or Dave Davis.

I see changetowin is rapping on again about 8 months sustained change etc. This is becoming a little bit like a parody.

I am DC's #1 fan because he has the right image for our party: clean cut, good education, good orator, nice family, well connected and so forth. However I don't really see our party changing fundamentaly on the ground.

Maybe changetowin or anybody else who shares his view would like to tell us how they have changed (to win)?

[Voice from the South West]

Actually the swing is 5%, and I'm not sure how reliable polls are when they are broken down into regional samples - having just said that I notice the swing from Lib Dem to Conservative is 5.5% in the South West, which *if* it were repeated at a general election would be a disaster for the Lib Dems, but I digress.

People talk about how rotten and how bad this government is and how much we should be doing better, but in the end of the day people are still living a relatively comfortable lives and are not losing their homes or their jobs. I am not praising this government's economic record and I wouldn't wish to do so. People are disappointed with this government but their disappointment is recorded more than anything by apathy. Unless you are already politically engaged – e.g. hold strong opinions about Iraq, etc – then people are less likely to be seen marching out onto the streets demanding that Blair resigns.

OTOH there are signs in London, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the local economy is beginning to overheat, and that is probably why we are seeing significant swings to us in the capital. On a smaller scale many people living in rural areas have also been affected by the government’s policies, and in my own seat there were very large swings towards us in many of the rural parishes at the general election. However at the same time those living in the towns, who had been far less affected by the government’s policies, the swings were much more modest. Whilst it is very encouraging that these people are swinging back towards us, we cannot hope to win a general election on their support alone. As a party, we all have to make a lot more progress before we can be confident in winning the next general election.

[Bob B]

Above all, what the YouGov poll in the Telegraph shows is:

- "Labour languishes but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are still failing to thrive"
- "Londoners are clearly even more fed up with the Labour Government than voters elsewhere and readier to switch directly to the Tories"

Possible reasons for this is that Londoners have come to realise that they have a special reason for being fed up with Blair's government and perhaps even more especially with Gordon Brown and the Treasury - London resident taxpayers are being differentially screwed by taxes:

"London is a major net contributor to the Exchequer: Our estimates suggest that London continues to be a substantial net contributor to UK public finances, by between £6 and £18 billion in 2003-04, despite the deterioration in public finances at a national level, with the mid-point of the range of estimates implying a net contribution of £12.1 billion."
Oxford Economic Forecasting: London's Place in the UK Economy 2005-6
http://www.oef.com/On-Line%20Services/ClientsTriallists/LPUK05FULL.pdf

And that is despite:

"London has the highest rates of children, working adults and pensioners living in income poverty."
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayors_report/oct22_2003.jsp#case_2210

- and despite the London region having the highest (ILO) unempoyment rate among all UK standard regions:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1606

- and despite the 2001 Census showing "Nearly half (45 per cent) of the total minority ethnic population lived in the London region, where they comprised 29 per cent of all residents."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=263

But there is also another powerful reason. According to an ICM poll for the Guardian in April 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, respondents in the south of Britain were quicker in realising: (1) that the Iraq war didn't make sense, and (2) that they had little or no confidence in "the American handling of the situation" there. The results of the poll are here:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/04/20/OmGuardian-1.pdf

What Table 3 in the poll results shows is gradients in the responses moving from south to north as well as in the social class groupings AB-C1-C2-DE.

In answer to question 3: "How much confidence do you have in the American's handling of the situation in Iraq?", northern respondents were more likely to have confidence while southerns were least likely. By the social classes, pensioners in the north (group DE) were more likely to be confident than ABs in the south.

That is rather curious since ABs in the south are likely to be among the more affluent and better educated folks in the country, the more widely travelled and the more pro-America in other contexts. How come the insight they were quicker to pick up on about the Iraq war and the competence of the American administration in the conduct of the war than other poll respondents?

[Peter Coe]

There isn't that much to be excited about in these polls. First, polls taken in August aren't that meaningful.

Second, while a lead over Labour is nice and still something we Tories are re-acquainting ourselves with after a long period, they're no more indicative of a Conservative win at the next General Election as their mirror images were in the mid terms of the Thatcher governments - we need at least 42% to win and at the depth of the Blair Government's unpopularity, we're not close. Governments always bounce back from mid term polls.

Third, how credible, given that we've just had real votes cast in real ballot boxes in London in May's council elections, is a 10% swing in London over and above the swing we gained there in 2005? While we won lots more councils in London, our vote in 2006 rose by just 0.1% over 2002 - it was the collapse in Labour's vote to minor parties, principally the Greens (something less likely to happen in a General Election) that won us so many extra councils.

Sorry, but there's no way we're on track for a majority - any more than it was likely that Neil Kinnock was going to turn his 209 seats in 1983 into a majority in 1987...he of course had more MPs then than we do now. We look likely to advance, and a hung parliament looks incredibly likely here and now, but let's keep some perspective.

[kingbongo]

blended them with a commitment to lift up the poorest people in Britain and around the world would be electorally formidable

I think this is a really important point. I am putting a lot of faith in IDS to come up with some radical suggestions on helping the poor in our society escape the poverty inducing policies of socialism. This and education reform should be major areas of policy development.

I still think your grudging support for what is an amazingly difficult task for whoever leads the party; one that I believe is unprecedented in UK electoral history, is a shame. However, it's your site and obviously you have to pursue your agenda in your own way.

You are right that CH must never be seen as a mouthpiece for CCO. Sometimes though I wish it felt more like we are all on the same team.

[Editor]

I guess kingbongo that I'm more inclined to think that this first stage of the parliament - when the party is reviewing its policies etc - is an appropriate time for serious internal debate than will be true as election day nears. For me it's certainly about winning but it's also about building a Tory government that'll be really worth having (more of which at 9pm).

When we know who will lead Labour after Blair and when our policy review is settled I hope you and I will feel that we are clearly "on the same team" - with our fire focused on ridding Britain of this incompetent Labour government. Keep your comments coming though, please. I do always read the comments that you, changetowin, HF and others make and I try and learn from them.

[changetowin]

I want the Conservatives to be much broader in their appeal than is currently true.

As do I. Attracting around 40% of the British electorate rather than 33% of the British electorate is certainly broader. There is further to go to get to an election winning coalition. These marginal voters are going to be won by staying on the centre ground of British politics, not by retreating to the right.

The real debate on this blog, as ever, is between those who want to be an ideologically pure debating society and those who are serious about attracting the broad coalition of voters needed to win an election in 21st century Britain.

[changetowin]

Thanks Editor - just read your comment.

[Editor]

changetowin: "The real debate on this blog, as ever, is between those who want to be an ideologically pure debating society and those who are serious about attracting the broad coalition of voters needed to win an election in 21st century Britain."

That's just not true. I could just as easily mischaracterise the debate as between those who think everything David Cameron does is wonderful and those who want the Tories to refight the 2005 General Election.

I'm not going to defend every visitor to this site but I will defend my own position! I absolutely believe in a "broad coalition" and have consistently argued for such a coalition. We should have policies that appeal to the higher income values voters who care about the environment and global poverty (that was one of the reasons I was dissatisfied with Michael Howard's '05 campaign) but we can't ignore the growing tax burden and problem of immigration that affect lower income strivers, in particular. We have to engage with both sets of voters AND AT THE SAME TIME if we're to avoid charges of flip-floppery.

On top of all this we need to be serious. Our policies need to be thought-out and credible - after the Blair years people want authenticity and are not going to be easily convinced about a politician's sincerity.

[Denis Cooper]

changetowin @ 10:00:

"Another fantastic poll result. Should not blind us to the fact that this is the start of a journey of change. But we are certainly going in the right direction. We tried the other approach for 8 years - Hague, IDS and Howard all had a shot. Eight months of sustained modernisation have transformed our party. Disagree with the optimistic message if you like, but don't argue that it is electorally unsuccessful."

Just have a look at this graph:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting_files/image004.gif

The reality is a very gradual, very irregular recovery after the precipitous collapse which started in the autumn of 1992 and levelled out around the middle of 1994, and if you asked somebody who didn't know to pick out the periods under any of the last four leaders they would have great trouble doing so.

[greg]

Denis, Mori's "all naming a party" poll is hardly a good place to start if you want to examine voting trends.

[Denis Cooper]

greg, nevertheless the general trends are clear, and it is perfectly obvious that the convergence of Labour and the Tories at this particular time has far more to do with trends running back to the middle of 1994 than it has to do with Cameron becoming leader. But feel free to post an alternative graph of the long term trends which you think may be more reliable! :-)

[David Belchamber]

"On top of all this we need to be serious. Our policies need to be thought-out and credible - after the Blair years people want authenticity and are not going to be easily convinced about a politician's sincerity".

Tim, I agree very much with those sentiments but would it not help all our slightly disaffected core voters to remind them periodically that this process is going on, to the extent perhaps of listing who the chairmen of the groups are and giving some timetable for their reports?
We want policies that cohere - and include Europe, taxation and immigration.
The other qualities "authenticity" and "sincerity" (might I add "competence in management"?) derive from the people propounding the policies.
Are we happy with all members of the shadow cabinet?

[John G]

Should not blind us to the fact that this is the start of a journey of change.

Still no answer from changetowin on how he himself has changed or expects to change.

Surely he can't seriously expect the rest of us simply to change to agree with him?

[Mike Smithson]

Tim, you say after the Blair years people want authenticity and are not going to be easily convinced about a politician's sincerity.

I would suggest that the evidence suggests the exact opposite. DC's. problem is that hes a Tory not that he's not seen as authentic.

[eugene]

An excellent poll result.

Two things working in the Conservatives favour:

1. The growth is strongest where it is needed most in terms of seats falling out of the Yellow/Red column into the Blue.

2. I am middle class and absolutely broke. Taxes and inflation (there is no way it is 2 %- just my council tax, gas and petrol bill alone put my household inflation at 20 %)are the main causes. The Conservative gift to Labour of loads of money and growth has now been wasted/killed off by Gordon Brown and the economy is on the skids. Labour may well be finished.

My worry is how on earth are the Conservatives going to fix the mess and how many years will it take?

[ToMTom]

What caught my eye was a 5 percent swing to Conservative in the Soviet North East - not much of a "Northern problem" there.

Posted by: Don Jameson | August 26, 2006 at 09:13

Well since the British Army depends on recruiting those "Soviet" citizens in the North-East perhaps you ought to get your candy ass moving before they take issue with silly comments about "Soviet North East"

[John G]

What caught my eye was a 5 percent swing to Conservative in the Soviet North East - not much of a "Northern problem" there.

There seems to be a degree of presumptuous arrogance at work here.

Exactly the sort of Tory "attitude problem" that has blown it for us in the past and may well do so again.

Remember that our current success is mainly down to current Labour problems. There's precious little evidence that we're benefitting from anything other than the fact that the hated figure of Blair is not our leader.

We forget this at our peril.

[HF]

Some weeks ago the talk amongst the political bettering fraternity on PB was to expect an upturn in Labour's support closing the gap with us, possibly overtaking us. And that theme came from some of its main "high rollers".

It was based on the view that the terror threat and John Reid's performance would lift Labour. They may have, but the other factors still pulled Labour down.

Should Labour start polling under 30% then I expect Brown will be forced to act.

Regarding the regional numbers outside London, now is the time for each Constuency to renew itself particularly in the North. The North needs one full time person to be clearly accountable for its performance. Is there someone?

As to this sites Editorial, what I admire about Tim is that he does engage with his audience. The Telegraph however seems to have retreated into Hefferlump's embrace and the flapping coat tendency.

[Editor]

Thank you HF.

[lifeguard]

"What caught my eye was a 5 percent swing to Conservative in the Soviet North East"

You silly, silly man! This just proves that the Tories are not a real party of the United Kingdom. How can you be so crass as to dismiss a whole section of the country.

[CDM]

For all this talk of being the party of the United Kingdom, let's stay in contact with reality. The Labour preponderance in the north of England is absolutely vast, and we are deluding ourselves if we think that the Soviet vote can be removed in a single elctoral cycle. We should instead concentrate our resources on capturing marginals in the South and Midlands (where elections are won and lost), rather than deluding ourselves about winning Durham North.

[Oberon Houston]

I agree, but we shouldn't fall into the bear trap of ignoring these people again. The message should still strongly be 'one nation', open door and inclusive. As you say - many will need actions not words to change their minds, and they should be consistently targeted in a 1st parliament.

[Tortoise]

CDM - so the Conservatives are now admit that they are not a national party and persist on calling electors in the north "Soviets". Some of my wife's family fled from the real "Soviets" in the 1920s and the rest were killed or imprisoned. I wonder if you would get away with calling voters "Nazis"?

[Tortoise]

Oberon Houston

I think you were trying to include those of us who live in the north, but the phrase "these people" reveals your true colours! When Tim set up the site he said he had in mind "Scunthorpe man" - with posts like the ones on this page I hope that Scunthorpe man does not log on.

[John G]

Yes this continuing dismissal of Northerners is thoroughly offensive, and extremely dangerous.

Unless we recapture the North we will not win the next General Election. Some of these head-in-sands posters had better wake up to reality pdq.

In this respect at any rate, it seems, a certain section of the party has not changed at all.

[Tortoise]

John G

I fear you are right about some sections of the party.

I cannot help but feel that the next election will be the Conservatives "1992" - at the last minute these attitudes will rear their head and people will run to the new Labour leader. The thing is, will the party be able to stand another defeat?

[John G]

The de haut en bas tendency has always been a liability to the party, tortoise, and more often than not it is to be found on the wing that considers itself to be most progressive.

I assume our worthy colleague's first name really is "Oberon" but in the spirit of change-to-win might I suggest he use his second name instead when communicating with the electorate.

That's provided it is "Simon" or "James" rather than "Augustus" or "Tarquin" (lol!)

[comstock]

"I am middle class and absolutely broke. Taxes and inflation (there is no way it is 2 %- just my council tax, gas and petrol bill alone put my household inflation at 20 %)are the main causes"

Well moving to a smaller property, nearer work would solve those three in a fell swoop, no?

As for taxes, they haven't gone up since 97 (I only wish they would put the top rate up) so I don't see where you are coming from......

[jeff randall]

That's provided it is "Simon" or "James" rather than "Augustus" or "Tarquin" (lol!)

Hey bigot what is your real name?

[John G]

Hi Jeff. Care to explain what's "bigoted" about advising Tories to avoid using names which may turn off certain target voters?

On the other hand, if you don't agree with me, maybe you'd like to explain why not?

[jeff randall]

Your racist and homophopic views perhaps?

Last time I checked the dictionary meaning of bigot, they were all covered there.

I think you're just going to have to accept the fact people can read everything else you have written on this blog and so "Enoch was right," (paraphrase) I don't personally have to like gays, and "different races" in London is a big disaster (no doubt as "Enoch" predicted), "is" going to get around. I mean, as you might yourself say, people is not stupid is they, you know?

[John G]

Well thank you Jeff for that intelligent and good-natured comment.

Putting aside a number of misquotations on your part I think we can rely on the moderators to ensure that there is no racism on this blog.

And I'm afraid we are going just a teensy bit off topic. May I suggest you at least attempt to stick to the discussion in hand?

[jeff randall]

"think we can rely on the moderators to ensure that there is no racism on this blog."

Unfortunately, we cannot rely upon you for that.

[Tortoise]

The moderators do not stop racism - the Guardian Diary loved the comments about giving Muslims £5000 and a plane ticket.

However, make a relevant comment about one of the editorial team's private life and your posts are deleted and you are blocked from the blog.

[Editor]

Let's get back on subject please or I will do some deleting and banning...

[Mark Senior]

I would not put any faith in the regional breakdown figures . There are clearly some odd results particularly concernong the % for Others .Take for example Scotland : Con +1 Lab -4 LibDem -3 SNP N/C . Where have the other 6% gone . Not to SSP who have disintegrated so in fsct the increase in other Others must be around 7% . Greens will have increased by 2-3% but there is nowhere else for the rest to have gone . Some of the English regions and Wales also show increased Others beyond credible explanation .

[kingbongo]

As for taxes, they haven't gone up since 97

sorry comstock, even Gordon Brown no longer persists in this fantasy. The share of income taken by the State (tax) is now well over 40% of national income and rising. It will have to rise some more as the borrowing numbers deteriorate but don't expect headline tax rises just subtle things that can be disingenuously spun as affecting very few people (like the changes to trusts in the budget)

I know you are trying to cling on to reasons for still believing in the Labour party but am surprised you think all the increased public spending is a result of efficiency savings and reckless borrowing.

[comstock]

Editor has requested we stay on topic, Kingbongo, so I'll be brief. Firstly I don't neccesarily think the increased public spending is a bad thing (something we proberbly won't agree on) Secondly I think income taxes *were* a bit too high in 1979, but were cut too far by the 80's Tory admininstration. Labour knew it was political sucide to propose headline tax rises, which is a shame, because I think the only truly fair and honest way to raise money is income tax.

Anyway, back to the poll numbers. You would expect a Tory lead at this stage. I agree with the poster who said the next election will be a mirror of 1992. I predict a Labour majority of 10-20 seats. Winning the one after will be hard, but a lot can happen between now and 2013, so don't count the Tory chickens, even for then ;)!

[Ted]

Mark Senior

See I was right - the 5% Liberal resurgence was where the missing others were :-)

thought I had to add the :-) symbol so it was obvious I wasn't serious as posts above indicate certain posters seem to misunderstand ironic comments like "Soviet".

It does seem to show that there are a number of voters not attracted to the main two parties and some volatility about whether they say LibDem or another when questioned. Possibly related to methods of sampling either reflecting different ways people respond to phone or web or sampling error itself as result of realtively smaller numbers. Not sure if organisations lists the others or only asks Lab, Con, LD or other.

There does seem to be a fragility about the LibDem share though - with Ming having made little impact an IMHO having lost the chance to establish himself as a leader going forward. He is successful in consolidating a large part of the support but unlike the past two leaders isn't taking the party ever forward in polls. Perhaps Paddy & Kennedy were fortunate in timing but they could show better than steady growth. How will the party react if there are reverses in Scotland - where voters are incresingly restive about the Lab/Lib coalition? What if results in next English locals are as poor as this years? Will Charlie's suppporters point out that even under the influence he brought a record representation whereas Ming....

[Matt Wright]

The figures from YouGov are very interesting. They show that the main swing to Cameron is coming from younger white collar workers and women. Also they show that the North and West is moving our way but not uniformly. Wales and the North East look good but the swin to the Tories in Yorkshire and Lancashire has ben lower.

Matt

[Richard]

"Anyway, back to the poll numbers. You would expect a Tory lead at this stage. I agree with the poster who said the next election will be a mirror of 1992. I predict a Labour majority of 10-20 seats"

The difference is that the Conservatives may have a higher share of the vote despite losing (similar to 1974). Still, this distortion in our electoral system is a price I am prepared to pay to keep the Lib Dems out of power. Labour are wrong but the Lib Dems are mad. And annoyingly self-righteous.

[Mark Senior]

Ted - ICM do give the breakdown of Others in their full survey results . Yougov unfortunately do not . I agree there is around 5% of the voters who show as Others or LibDem depending on the pollster and I think it is caused by a combination of the question asked and the adjustments pollsters make for past voting behaviour .
Matt - I think your comment on women changing to Conservative more than men is valid but I would not draw any conclusions from the regional breakdowns for the reason I gave before also even with combining a number of polls the samples of some areas are small and M of E will be higher .

[comstock]

The difference is that the Conservatives may have a higher share of the vote despite losing (similar to 1974)
If the Tories are ahead whilst Labour win a majority, it will only be just. If electoral calculus is to be believed a result of CON 36 LAB 35 LD 20 gives a majority for Labour of just 6.

Ideally I'd like to see Labour win the most votes as well as the most seats, but if they don't you still have factor into the equation the fact that (if pressed between the two) more Lib/Dem voters would choose Labour than Tory.

Of course the way to avoid this type of scenario is to let voters make a first/second preference to choose MPs like they do for Mayor of London

[CDM]

Comstock, where do you get the idea from that Lib Dem voters prefer Labour? According to a Bow Group poll taken last year (under Howard), 45% of Lib Dem voters would consider voting Conservative. Do you really think Labour would manage a dramtically higher figure?

[Fred Baker]

In June 2003 Iain Duncan Smith had gained a five point lead over the Labour Party. Three years later we are little better off.

We need a 15 point lead to get a working majority I suggest.
When Brown takes over Labour will get another lease of life. And the LibDems will pick up the disaffected.

If the next General Election is close there will be a coalition between the LibDems and Labour as we have in many boroughs.

The Labour week spot is all the unnecessary wars our “Washington poodle” has taken us into.

The Serbian episode was due to a KLA ruse. 100,000 dead Kosovans turned out to be 20 or so.
Iraq was a CIA ruse. Um weapons of Mass Destruction – non existent.
Afghanistan - even the Russians gave up on them!
Lebanon - It seems the mismanaged war had not been due to start till October! So Hezbollah had set off a damp squib!

"Yo, Blair! we must’t do this shit”

All this trouble and the Yanks are making 99% of the explosives involved!

Say something David.

[John G]

The problem is that these votes supposedly coming our way are very "soft"

Blair is a totally discredited busted flush. Brown...well nobody knows what will happen should he actually become leader.

However my main fear is that Labour may mrror the Tories and pull a real blinder with a totally new, cool, and unpredictable leader.

With every poll unfavourable to Labour this becomes a real possibility.

[Yet Another Anon]

Another fantastic poll result.
Talking of any polls on anything as results rather ignores how unreliable especially polls on voting intentions are, election results are results and the next General Election is about 2 years 10.5 months off with Labour having changed leading, a new US President and Vice President and a very different international situation.

If the opinion polls showed Labour 7% ahead I would say nothing different, I would be very surprised if the Conservative Party got less than 10 million votes at the next General Election, 35% of the vote and at least 200 seats - I still expect Labour to hold it's majority and perhaps get 12 million votes, and the Liberal Democrats to fall apart.

People are a bit uncertain at the moment what to think because they haven't decided what to make of David Cameron and Tony Blair's leadership of Labour is in it's twilight years, Meinzes Campbell really is reliant on bad news for other party's on which he can launch into criticism on, he doesn't seem to be able to launch successful initiatives himself - more of a sinking duck than a lame duck.

[Yet Another Anon]

If the Tories are ahead whilst Labour win a majority, it will only be just. If electoral calculus is to be believed a result of CON 36 LAB 35 LD 20 gives a majority for Labour of just 6.
It depends on how votes are distributed - if Labour does well in seats that the Liberal Democrats had taken in recent years and their vote collapsed in mostly already Conservative seats then they could increase their majority with the same vote or even lower, equally if Labour were to strengthen their vote in safe Labour seats substantially and lose votes in marginals then they could lose their majority with actually a higher percentage vote than currently, shifts in Liberal Democrat positions resulting in a change in their distribution of the vote could have quite unpredictable effects.

[TomTom]

This really is the Marketing department wondering how the latest ad campaign has gone isn't it ? If the policies appealed to the public it would not be necessary to see if sliding in to power were possible due to some statistical freak.

The Govt is discredited but the Conservatives make no headway. We know from some on this site that people north of Nottingham are "Soviets" and not worth bothering about........so their 200+ seats are not worth bothering about.

Well now why hasn't Labour done badly enough for the Conservatives to be certain of winning ? What disaster has Labour avoided thus far ?

[Denis Cooper]

Fred Baker @ 23:52 -

"In June 2003 Iain Duncan Smith had gained a five point lead over the Labour Party. Three years later we are little better off."

Are you sure of that five point lead? Anyway, supposing that's correct, even if that was just one rogue poll or a temporary blip, the fact is that Tory fortunes in the opinion polls have gone up and down, but the general trend has been very slowly up, since about the middle of 1994. Although greg said that this the wrong long term polling data to look at I offer it again:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting_files/image004.gif

[eugene]

Comstock says

''Well moving to a smaller property, nearer work would solve those three in a fell swoop, no?

As for taxes, they haven't gone up since 97 (I only wish they would put the top rate up) so I don't see where you are coming from......''

Dear me. I live in the cheapest urban area in the South East. I am a school teacher, 5 miles from work and have a two bedroomed house. Not extravagent at all.

As for taxes not going up since 1997, welcome back from your 9 year holiday. Was the weather good? I think at last count, there were 112 defined tax increases.

[Fred Baker]

That 2003 poll coincided with the invasion of Iraq.

Blair's wars is Labour's Achilles heel .If you wish to win a battle (in our case an election battle) you attack at the weakest point and hammer away at it.

[comstock]

As for taxes not going up since 1997, welcome back from your 9 year holiday. Was the weather good?

Not bad at all, Eugene. Bit of rain around 2002 but other than that, excellent. And do you know what? Whilst I was travelling in Timbuktu, or was it Outer Mongolia....now come to think of it it was the lost city of Atlantis.....anyway I met this public sector worker who thought he would be better off under the Tories.

Don't you see, if the Tories cut taxes, your pay would go down and so you'd be worse off? Don't you remember the school strikes of the 80's ?Is it me, or will some turkeys vote for Christmas?

[eugene]

:) LOL Comstock. Thanks for your good light-hearted reply.

For the record, I have been a public sector worker since 1986 and I was bettter off under the Tories.

[comstock]

:) LOL Comstock. Thanks for your good light-hearted reply.

:D No probs :) We are gonna have to agree to disagree but glad I made you smile. Enjoy the rest of your holidays :)

Meanwhile, back on topic ......

Comstock, where do you get the idea from that Lib Dem voters prefer Labour? According to a Bow Group poll taken last year (under Howard), 45% of Lib Dem voters would consider voting Conservative.

Interesting, although that still leaves 55% who wouldn't.

FWIW my notion came from the Independant just after the last election who gave it somthing like 66/33 to Blair over Howard amoung L/D voters. I think it depends on the question asked.

I honestly forget the exact numbers but I genuinely believe there is a left of centre majority in this country, to the extent 'left' and 'right' mean anything anymore. In many aspects the LibDems are 'left' of Labour.

[Yet Another Anon]

I honestly forget the exact numbers but I genuinely believe there is a left of centre majority in this country, to the extent 'left' and 'right' mean anything anymore.
What is centre exactly? Even if you define a spectrum it's still all relative and I have heard it argued many times that the US Federal Government is Socialist because it still owns land, if this is left wing then on those grounds Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are all left wing. Equally lots of Labour activists complain about every Labour leader (including Michael Foot and if he had been in this country no doubt Leon Trotsky too) as being too compromising, in the end it all means nothing, either you are for something or against it for whatever reasons - if something is right to do then it's right to do and who gives a damn whether it's labelled Hard Left Wing or Hard Right Wing or Centre or Fred or whatever!

As for taxes, they haven't gone up since 97 (I only wish they would put the top rate up) so I don't see where you are coming from......''
There was a peak in the mid 1990's and they fell back in the late 1990's and have risen back close to the levels they were at in the early 1980's and mid 1990's, they are still lower than they were in the 1970's but not much - Labour have switched to talking about holding them down and has not raised them as quickly as it had done in the past, Conservative Governments have reduced them only to increase them again, really no Government in the 20th or so far 21st century could be said to have adequately aimed to hold down public spending or taxation.

[comstock]

Even if you define a spectrum it's still all relative.....in the end it all means nothing, either you are for something or against it for whatever reasons - if something is right to do then it's right to do and who gives a damn whether it's labelled Hard Left Wing or Hard Right Wing or Centre or Fred or whatever!

A good post. Although I would consider myself left wing, not everything fits neatly into these boxes. For instance I see no contradiction in wanting more help for those in genuine need of a leg up, and also wanting harsher punishment for those who do wrong, even though one is considered left wing and another right wing.

Nor do I see any contradiction in wanting higher taxes on the rich to pay for the education of the poor, but also wanting school discipline and a fairly traditional curiculum taught etc etc

[Fred Baker]

Taxation is a barbaric method of funding. It is outright extortion and violation of liberty.

Basically we rob the rich to pay the poor.

The problem is this: - Now that we rob via taxation (the benevolent squire being long gone) the poor expect money as a right! You can be completely feckless and still enjoy a good life thanks to this legalised robbery.

[John G]

Basically we rob the rich to pay the poor.

Wrong Fred.

We rob rich and poor alike to fund state tyranny.

To a limited extent taxation is a necessary evil, but it must be reduced to the bare minimum necessary to support basic state functions.

[Graham D'Amiral]

The key point about our performance in the polls since David Cameron became leader is that we are now enjoying a sustained lead which if recent polls are anything to go by is beginning to widen.

It is true that since 1997 we have enjoyed the occassional positive poll which put us ahead, but usually only from one polling organisation which the following month put us behind again. So the situation we are in now is different.

As for the argument that with the Labour Government in the wretched position it is we really should be much further ahead, it is important to remember that in the run up to the 2005 general election there was no great love of Labour's record. Taxes were up,the NHS in crisis, violent crime up,the immigration system in chaos etc. However Labour were still ahead in the polls, I agree that things have gone very badly for the Government since the election but let's not pretend dissatisfaction with their performance is something which didn't exist a year or so ago.

[Tony Barton]

We're doing well because Blair is finally and totally discredited. It's clearly not down to anything else because apart from (yet another) change in leader, a few deaths, and some adjustment to the window-dressing the Conservative Party remains exactly the same party it was a couple of years ago.

Let's reassess the situation when we see who Labour choose as their next leader.