Small parties are gaining from Labour woes as much as 7% lead Tories

After yesterday's YouGov/ Sunday Times poll giving the Tories a narrowing lead, today's YouGov/ Telegraph poll gives the party a steady 7% lead - unchanged from August.

Analysing the poll Anthony King notes the growth of the smaller parties:

"If findings like these should worry the whole political class, another aspect of YouGov's data should worry Conservatives especially and may even offer Labour supporters a little comfort. According to YouGov, Labour support among the electorate has fallen by five percentage points since the 2005 election and Liberal Democrat support has also fallen by five points — a combined loss of 10 percentage points.  On the face of it, the Tories should have gained most of those 10 points. But they have not done so.  As the figures in the chart indicate, the Conservatives have gained five of them but the various minor parties have gained the other five. The opposition to the Labour Government is thus fragmenting instead of consolidating.  No fewer than 13 per cent of YouGov's respondents say that they would vote for some party other than one of the main three at an early general election. Three per cent would back either the SNP or Plaid Cymru, four per cent Ukip, three per cent the BNP and two per cent the Greens."

Comments

[ToMTom]

Seems plausible - but for my local MP who is a very good local representative I would not consider any of the main parties and probably abstain

[michael riley]

The problem for the Tories is the mountain they still have to climb. Seats that they won under Thatcher they now are a poor third in.

Tactical voting still goes very much against the Tories. It costs them nany seats.

[Editor]

I think the tactical voting problem looms large in DC's mind, michael riley, hence his necessary work to forge a greener, gentler conservatism to unwind the determination to unseat the perception of 'nasty' Tories.

[Graham D'Amiral]

So in you gov's poll for the sunday times yesterday we see labour vote up 2% and some people start to express concern about our position, then today you gov do another poll for the Telegraph and Labour support falls by 2% widening the tory lead to 7%. It just goes to show the point I made in the discussion about yesterdays poll, we shouldn't read too much in to individual polls.

[Richard Willis]

Graham - what it shows is that there is a margin of error and you shouldnt read too much into any one poll!

[John Coles]

The Tories were never loveable, Editor, there always was a streak of nastiness in them. And why not? - you need a little ruthlessness to govern effectively.
However, the Tories WERE respected as competent: that is the element of appeal that the party should be trying to reacquire. This pursuit of a "nice" image is futile and, in fact, brings the party into comtempt.

[Editor]

I think you have to pass a basic decency test, though, John in contemporary politics. In 1997 many voters who had become wealthy during the Tory years still rejected us because we were seen as 'in it for ourselves' and sleazy. I agree that voters generally elect Tories when they want a job done but we do need to address some of the negatives. I think that is one of Cameron's strengths.

[Vic Tory]

Dave may try to portray the Conservatives as the nice party, but the message has not got through to the constituencies. There they still revel in their nastiness.

[Neil Reddin]

I'm not convinced that Tony King's analysis is entirely correct - I think it's not so much 5% coming to us and 5% to the small parties, but that "other 5%" would be largely the smaller left-wing parties (and also the BNP, which mainly draws its support form the "traditional" Labour vote). Even UKIP is not exclusively the Tory-alternative that they are sometimes thought of.

It is not the "opposition" but the Left that is fragmenting (returing to form, then). This is an effect we saw last May in the local elections, with the Greens, BNP and Respect bleeding votes off Labour and LibDems (sometimes letting Conservatives in as a result).

[Monday Clubber]

"Dave may try to portray the Conservatives as the nice party, but the message has not got through to the constituencies. There they still revel in their nastiness"

The phrase "The Nasty Party" coined by Theresa May was a Gerald Ratner moment of mindblowing stupidity.

Some Tories may be going out of their way to pretend to be "nice" (ie PC) but have any Tories really "changed"?

Of course not. The leopard never changes its spots.

[Chad]

"Even UKIP is not exclusively the Tory-alternative that they are sometimes thought of."

Exactly. Being on the libertarian-right, there are channels to both liberals and conservatives.

[Barnet Boy]

The phrase 'The Nasty Party' coined by Theresa May? The Just William books had William talking about 'The Nasties', but then it was his name for the Nazis.

[Gadfly]

Actualy, both polls show that the main parties are static. YouGov has a margin of error of no more than 1%. Internet polls tend to have a smaller margin for error than telephone polls. However all polls seem to give off the same message that Cons are not breaking through and holding a significant lead. The public still doesn't see any thing to persuade them that time for a change should become time for the Tories. IDS had a lead in 2003 of between 3 and 6% from the may elections onwards. Michael Howard inherited that untill the problem of 'if I knew then what I know now ' interview in the Sunday Times in 2004. DC's lead has gone up and down for a longer period but throughout the Cons have failed to break 40% for any sustained period. This at a time of unprecedented internal problems for Labour. The problem is still that the public doesn't believe it wants a Cons government, even if they don't want a Labour one. That is why the opposition is fracturing. In Thatchers time if you didn't want Labour you went to the Tories, it was a no brainer. That has changed. I suspect we are still scarred to a greater degree than we are prepared to admit, by the folk memory of Conservative Government 1992 -1997.

Gadfly

[Martin Cole]

Minor party and independents popularity spell doom for the Cameron strategy.

Discussion here during the weekend touched upon the problem caused by the Conservative Party now being led by one instinctively opposed to all that conservatism is supposed to hold dear. Some talked of another leader.

Another leadership election would clearly be a disaster for the party and the "conservative" cause, but another solution offers itself, which could become more attractive as Cameron's true credentials become ever clearer. I seemed alone in mentioning that something was amiss with the handling of the leadership election.

The constant leaking of Cameron's two thirds lead should have been impossible in any normal secret ballot. As I finally pointed out in a post on Teetering Tories on 3rd June:
+++++++++++
This blog remains entirely sceptical as to the democratic credentials of Cameron himself. Just how did the YouGov organisation continue to publish poll results with Cameron way ahead in the leadership election without some collusion from Central Office as to membership lists and even apparently such detail as the names of those polled who had already voted and those who had yet to do so. How representative could such sampling have possibly been? We seem to remain alone in posing this absolutely crucial question. As each month passes it becomes ever more plain that the Conservative Party has been hi-jacked by the entire philosophy of New Labour, leaving the country condemned to continuing totally incompetent and self-opportunistic governance.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

A sensible topic for any true conservatives attending conference next week should be a full inquiry into the recent leadership election with a view to having the result overturned.

[christina speight]

YouGov must be out of their collective mind(s) to allow two polls on two successive days to produce mind-bogglingly different HEADLINE figures.

Those of us who were once involved in Market Research know full well that these differences (Tories 37 or 38%- Labour 33 or 31%) are ironed out in time.

But my only point is the commercial one that it can't do their credibility any good to do this when they must know that it is the LEAD that gets the headlines and small variations in party preferences are magnified in this Lead !!

The other thing I remember well was told me by a director of NOP (then a market leader). He said that political polling was a nightmare because the only poll that is potentially accurate is when an election is actually in progress and people's minds are focussed on a real choice.

It's all good clean fun but when real issues such as Gordon Brown's disastrous record as Chancellor are overshadowed that is a pity.

Yesterday the S.Telegraph examined the fiscal legacy of G:B: in a major feature they commissioned from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. This is a warts and all assessment and has enormous implications for the Cameron / Osborne tax strategy.

For instance the tax take per household this year is set to rise by £750 - ENJOY!

[Sean Fear]

Yougov shows a consistent radical right vote of around 6-8% of the total.

Thirty years ago, at a time of Labour unpopularity, that vote would have swung behind the Conservatives, in order to get Labour out.

[Chad]

4% is an excellent base for UKIP to build on. Let's hope as we start to take local issues and election seriously, we can slowly build this to 10%.

[Given Up]

The tactic of driving core voters away is working and this poll confirms it.

That the tories have such a small lead under present circumstances is a disaster. Labour hasn't even got a leader, all of its major policies are confirmed basket cases, yet still the tories cannot establish a lead that would win them a majority.

Cameron is being rumbled as nothing more than a PR spiv, who lives in a non confrontational policy vacuum.

[Chris]

Martin, YouGov operates in a completely different way to the other polling companies, it selects people from a pre-registered group, it does not cold call or hold interviews like the other companies. Everyone registered with YouGov is asked to state party preference or affiliation in their profile, and such it is remarkably easy for YouGov to get hold of a long list of Conservatives to question.

Have you even read the questions that YouGov was posing? I wouldn't be at all suprised if it was along the lines of:
"Who have you voted for?
a) David Davis
b) David Cameron
c) Not voted yet"

As such I see there to be absolutely no evidence to support your theory and I'd be very careful about accusing YouGov secretly colluding with CCHQ... unless you enjoy being sued. Allegations of background deals to elect the leader of her majesty's opposition are pretty serious after all!

Can't honestly be bothered to analyse the results properly, just remember:
a) Lib Dem Conference has not boosted LDs share
b) We still have absolutely no policies on which to campaign on
c) There will be a point where Labour support will appear static in these polls, but will be lower at ballot box, when Labour supporters don't show up.

A question to all the Cameron critics, if a pollster was to call you up, what would be your answer to the voting intention question, and the likelihood of you voting question. I'd like to know if the sceptics are still recording as Tories, but don't plan on showing up to vote, or whether they are already registering as supporters of other parties.

[Victor]

The Treehugger has eviscerated the Tory Party. Now it is a colourless, shapeless mess. It is time for an internal revolution to get rid of this man, and return to true Conservative policies. Stop immigration. Leave the EU. Bring down taxes.End this Green nonesense. Then UKIP and BNP supporters would return to their true home, and we would win the next election hands down

[Gareth]

There is reason to believe that at least some of the far right support shown in these polls comes from Labour rather than our 'core' vote. Here in Birmingham, for example, the BNP do well almost exclusively in formerly safe Labour seats and get no where in safe tory seats.

[Chris]

Oh, and I've just noticed that Mike Smithson has got a nice article contrasting last year with this year. The 7% swing from where we were last September might just be due to Cameron yes? You can find it here

[James Hellyer]

The 7% swing from where we were last September might just be due to Cameron yes?

Or it might just be to do with a government that's spent the best part of the last year mired in scandal, and that's just seen its leadership implode due to internal politics.

[Gunther]

Instead of this talk of a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition why don't we write this idea off and work for a Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition. We have so much in common, and would give us the votes we need to get power.

[Chris]

"Or it might just be to do with a government that's spent the best part of the last year mired in scandal, and that's just seen its leadership implode due to internal politics."
Yes, and it could be due to a plethora of reasons. I simply picked my one, because it allowed me to come to the conclusion I wished to reach. Thats the beauty of these recent results you really can twist them to fit whatever scenario you wish to paint.

Personally though, a 7% swing in 12 months is an impressive feat, even if it in't due to cameron in any way. New Labour only had an 8.8% swing to them in 1997 after 5 years of aggresive campaigning, and we all know that in 1992 we were hardly the most popular government in the world (I use the word "we" liberally, seeing as I was 4 at the time).

James, would you mind answering my theoretical question on pollsters which I posed at 11:18. I'm not sure if you are so far disillusioned by Cameron yet not to vote Conservative, but I'd still appreciate your input.

[David Belchamber]

"Instead of this talk of a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition why don't we write this idea off and work for a Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition".

If we were forced to do this in order to form a government, Gunther (@11.40), I would conclude that we had failed to produce a raft of policies (including the "difficult" ones, such as taxation, Europe, immigration et al) that appealed to the nation as a whole. The Conservative Party always used to be a very broad church and that is what we need again.
If the manifesto fleshes out the missing parts of BtL in a positive way, then why would voters vote for minority parties that have no chance of formimg a government? Except, of course, in protest.

[Chad]

"Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition"

The BNP is an authoritarian left-wing party that succesfully picks off disaffected old Labour votes. You'd need to move very far to the left to appeal to them.

However, UKIP sits economically on the same side as lots of conservatives,hence why many of its members are ex-Tories.

As I noted earlier, being libertarian-right, UKIP also picks up libertarian exLibDems too.

[christina speight]

Chris at 1118 -"if a pollster was to call you up, what would be your answer to the voting intention question, and the likelihood of you voting question. I'd like to know if the sceptics are still recording as Tories, but don't plan on showing up to vote, or whether they are already registering as supporters of other parties."

I asked myself that question, scratched my head and when asked I went in as a Don't Know - previously supporting the Tories.

[Bruce]

I have never been questioned by a pollster, and only twice by a party canvasser. Am I one of the majority or one of the minority?

[Gareth]

"Instead of this talk of a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition why don't we write this idea off and work for a Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition. We have so much in common"

It will be a chilly day in hades before we make common cause with the BNP. They are anathema to everything that any fully paid up member of the human race stands for.

There have, of course, been persistent rumours of a deal between UKIP and the BNP.

[Chad]

"There have, of course, been persistent rumours of a deal between UKIP and the BNP. "

Only from those seeking to smear UKIP though
Gareth, as you yourself keep trying. Wonder why, perhaps that 4% rating is showing our growth.

If you thought logically for a moment, why would a successful left-wing party seek to work with a right wing one?

Why not focus on issues or would that be too constructive?

We have a simple, positive, low tax, pro-grammar, small government agenda. I can't understand why that attracts so much abuse from "conservatives"

[Richard Carey]

Instead of this talk of a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition why don't we write this idea off and work for a Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition. We have so much in common, and would give us the votes we need to get power.

Gah, I hope not! I must stop reading this blog over lunch - as a Conservative I've just lost my appetite!

[James Maskell]

Browns doing the big speech right now. Hes getting a lot of applause... A lot of gestures and head nodding. Hes going for it. Hes playing all the cards including the environment, quoting Miliband. Climate change...education, communities.

Oh my God...hes saying what Camerons saying... Localism, global co-operation, hes playing it all. Shared values, best of British. Man, weve got a tough battle ahead with the new policy direction. Talking about getting rid of "rashism"...hehehe. Right and responsibility, security of Britain. Economy sprinkled across the whole speech. Support for carers and voluntary sector.

Prescott not clapping very hard. Looks very annoyed at one point only clapping when he gazed across and saw Blair clapping. Blair nodding and seems to be happy that Brown is saying Blairite stuff.

Cameron had better perform in the Conference because Browns setting the bar rather high. Hes even bringing up duty in politics! The audience loved it when he said that he would relish the chance to face Cameron in an election...

3 minute five seconds standing ovation!!! Blair looked so happy. Prescoyt though seemed very reluctant. Obviously Brown has said something to Prescott...

[Victor]

Has anyone seen my Party? Blue, anti Common Market, immigration, for lower taxes, stronger defence, a strong voice in the world.

[James Maskell]

Victor, no idea who they are. It sure aint the Conservative Party...

[Chris]

Victor, I believe you are looking for UKIP. They are the only party opposed to the common market and really I can't understand why. Oppose the EU by all means, but the common market offerred by the EEA is incredibly useful.

[Chad]

..perhaps Tim and Iain's new Tory TV channel will seek to be a strong voice for conservatism, Victor.

[Gunther]

The BNP left wing? The National Front was doing well until Maggie attracted their supporters. Cameron's replacement could do the same. After all BNP supporters are not ex Labour voters but ex working class Conservatives. After all, all we want is their votes.

[Graham D'Amiral]

The Conservative Party stands for centre right values that are a world away from the hard right prejudices of smaller parties, we have nothing at all in common.

[Chad]

Who told you that Gunther (probably the BBC etc)? BNP has had real success picking off disgruntled "old" Labour socialists.

Have you already forgotten Labour's panic over losing support to the BNP in May?

BNP are left on the economic scale (pro-nationalisation etc), but "right" ie authoritarian on the social scale. So they are more accurately described as authoritarian left-wing. See PoliticalCompass.org

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Sticking to the main topic, let's study three constituencies that were won by us in 1992 - part of our 21 seat majority in Parliament. Edmonton, Luton North and Slough. All were won by - give or take - 500 votes. In 2005, we seem to have polled, again give or take, around 30% of the vote. Surely these are seats that need to be ‘taken back’ for us to form a government? In two of those seats, the Associations are weak and in the other it is fairly poor. CCHQ should set up a star rating system - like the Audit Commission. In a lot of seats that we won in '92, our organisation is poor and weak. In some of the seats that we won or lost by small margins in 1992, we do not even have a single councillor to our name (Cambridge and Hornsey and Wood Green to name just two). The solution? CCHQ needs to urgently identify seats that we need to win in 2010, assess the Associations – and rate them as weak, poor, good and excellent – and train an army of agents to help re-build the Associations and to return us to government.

[Peter Coe]

Actually, the poll findings have already been reflected in the London council election results: Labour's vote fell over 5% but the Conservative vote went up just 0.1% - the gainers were not the Lib Dems but the Greens in inner London and the BNP in outer (east) London.

In response to Justin, exactly the same seats do not need to be regained in order to get back a majority, because demographics make some former Conservative seats unwinnable (like, for example, Mitcham & Morden, and Brighton Pavilion, Blackpool South etc) and some former Labour seats much more promising - Battersea being a classic example from the 1980s (which is still swinging away from Labour), Tooting, Hammersmith and several in the midlands also.

Of the three seats you listed, only Luton North looks a possible regain by the Tories: that's not much of a problem because others will come into range instead.

That's not to understate the mountain the Tories need to climb: there is no realistic prospect of the Conservatives going from 199 seats to a majority in one go.

[Oberon Houston]

Interesting, on a matter of principle Ed, or could you forsee any circumstance where there would be justification?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

If we had paid professionals in seats like Mitcham and Morden, Blackpool South and Brighton Pavillion, would our electoral fortunes be improve? I think they would - we write too many seats off because we're too stupid to invest in them. As I said, we have too few professional agents - instead of spending £40,000 on a tree we could have used the cash to help provide an Association with an agent!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

If we had paid professionals in seats like Mitcham and Morden, Blackpool South and Brighton Pavillion, would our electoral fortunes be improve? I think they would - we write too many seats off because we're too stupid to invest in them. As I said, we have too few professional agents - instead of spending £40,000 on a tree we could have used the cash to help provide an Association with an agent!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I could live with people like David Laws and Nick Clegg propping up a Cameron governmnet (if they hold their seats) but I suspect their activists wouldn't be able to stomach it. When are we going to get them to defect?

[Chad]

Tim wisely said:
"Just for the record - blogs are places for free speech - but I would leave the Conservative party if it went into any form of coalition with the LibDems."

As any good values-based conservative would.

Well done Tim, honest and brave.

[Gunther]

Would Editor Tim leave the Conservative Party if there was a Conservative/UKIP/BNP coalition?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Gunther, unless there's PR we won't, thankfully, have any UKIP or BNP MPs.

[Mark Fulford]

"Just for the record - blogs are places for free speech - but I would leave the Conservative party if it went into any form of coalition with the LibDems."

I’m interested to know whether this is because of specific button issues or general disdain.

[Chad]

"Gunther, unless there's PR we won't, thankfully, have any UKIP MPs."

Or defections of course.

[Gunther]

Justin, a pre-election arrangement, with Conservatives standing aside in some seats in exchange for a clear run elsewhere could result in some UKIP & BNP MPs, and possibly some UKIP cabinet seats.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Just for the record - blogs are places for free speech - but I would leave the Conservative party if it went into any form of coalition with the LibDems."

That's a quite extraordinary thing to say, so much that I'm breaking my self-imposed comment embargo!

While there are some obvious reservations to working with the Liberal Democrats (they have form as duplicitous, mendacious weasels after all!) - there are some obvious areas of potential agreement, particularly if the expected Orange Book putsch does happen.

Coalition with the Liberal Democrats is far from ideal, but surely working with LDs led by Huhne/Clegg/Laws is a small price to pay for getting rid of our terrible government?

One more thing - with a Con-LD coalition, we could at least bring some influence to bear in curbing their worst excesses, whereas the socialist shenanigans that would result from a Lab-LD coalition doesn't bear thinking about.

[Angelo Basu]

I'd hope that most people would leave if there was even a consideration of joining with the BNP.

There seem to be lots of lapsed Tories on this blog who dream of uniting the Conservatives with UKIP. Leaving to one side the merits of leaving the EU, there doesn't seem to be any real consideration of whether that would appeal to the electorate. It might win back the defectors and anti-EU LibDems, maybe even a few thinking BNP supporters (if there are any) but will it win votes from substantial numbers of non-voters, and current Labour and LibDem supporters? It seems wildly off-target to think that the voters who left the party and voted in New Labour or LibDems in the suburbs (both strongly pro-EU in the MPs representing those sorts of constituency) would be lured by a strongly anti-EU party.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Gunther, the answer is no - never - because we're not a racist, homophobic, xenophobic and anti-Semitic Party.

[Bruce Standing]

A Con-LD coalition would also have the advantage of trimming the Conservatives worst excesses. Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote would probably lead to Con/LD, Con/Lab, and Lab/LD coalitions at various times, and have the same effect.

[Chad]

.although you have introduced fixed quota ethnic minority preference lists which the UN defines as racist Justin.

Positive "action" - it doesn't do anything it says on the tin.

[Editor]

Sorry to disappoint folk but the comment that appeared above - now deleted - appearing to say that I would leave the Tories if the party formed a coalition with the LibDems was not posted by me.

I would leave the party if we formed a coalition with the BNP but no mainstream Tory would countenance such a thing, Gunther.

[christina speight]

Daniel V:-A: - "Coalition with the Liberal Democrats is far from ideal, but surely working with LDs led by Huhne/Clegg/Laws is a small price to pay for getting rid of our terrible government?"

If that happened I'd cease to be a trenchant critic of the present Tory leadership and turn into an active opponent. Huhne, particularly, is a noted EU-federalist as is his party.

[Sean Fear]

It's conceivable that the next London Assembly election will produce 10 Conservatives, 2 BNP, and 1 or 2 UKIP, out of 25. I wonder how they'd all vote then, when it came to dividing up committee Chairmanships.

[Chad]

Allowing anonymous postings always leaves you open to this kind of abuse.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Sorry to disappoint folk but the comment that appeared above - now deleted - appearing to sat that I would leave the Tories if the party formed a coalition with the LibDems was not posted by me."

Thanks for clarifying that - nice to know that you're not the sort to flounce out of the party in a huff.

Back to the silent observation role for me now!

PS O/T but I've just heard on the radio that Ms Cherie Booth QC (i.e. the PM's missus) walked out during the Chancellor's conference speech, calling him a liar. Pass the popcorn folks, 'things can only get better'!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

A more interesting question: would the DUP support a Cameron-led government? The DUP is very socially conservative. Although many Conservatives are pro-life (self included) we don't hate Catholics or homosexuals.

[Sean Fear]

I imagine that the Conservatives could get DUP support, without adopting the DUP's socially Conservative agenda, if they gave the DUP what they want in Northern Ireland.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

That would have huge implications for the Peace Process and could possibly end it. Would we be willing to take such a risk in order to get power?

[Sean Fear]

It's hard to see the IRA being able to mount a serious terrorist campaign now, so I think the risks would not be as great as you can imagine.

Also, I think the DUP realise that they just can't ignore Sinn Fein now, so I doubt if they'd be demanding the sorts of things they'd have demanded 20 years ago.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Thanks, Sean. Interesting!

[Angelo Basu]

Sean- I'd hope that in the scenario you set out of the BNP getting 2 GLA seats the Conservative group would not countenance working with them. It is hard to see how we could come to any accommodation with a party whose central policies would call for "encouraging repatriation" of approximately 20% of the latest Conservative A list top up, not to mention many millions of British citizens who are non-white or not from "assimilable Western European" heritage (eg Michael Howard, Boris Johnson and Michael Portillo- whatever one might think of them!).

[tapestry]

UKIP & BNP at 7% combined? They were half that last year. If this growth rate persists, their combined total will exceed the Lib Dems by 2009.

This would open up a new front, which could in time be profitable for Cameron to harvest.

Incidentally we've had other polls which claimed that UKIP and BNP were not significant. Either some polls are useless, or they don't always tell the truth.

[Sean Fear]

Telephone polls tend to show much lower scores for UKIP and BNP, but internet polls show higher scores. When measured against actual outcomes (such as the European Parliamentary elections) the internet polls have shown themselves to be more accurate at predicting minor party shares, although it's difficult for any pollster to predict their shares accurately.

[tapestry]

Internet polling predicted the Conservative and Lib Dem share of the vote accurately at the general election in 2005, but got Labour's share wrong by 12% (35% result was predicted at 23%).

Interestingly labour polled about 25% in local elections in 2004 and 2006.

What was that all about?

[Sean Fear]

I think the survey you refer to was a self-selected survey, and thus worthless.

Yougov, Harris, and BES all conducted internet surveys prior to the last GE, and performed well.

[Peter Coe]

Justin, no, I don't think the Tories can win seats like Brighton Pavilion and Mitcham & Morden any more with or without paid staff because the demographic has changed. It's not a question of writing them off - but I suspect you wouldn't anticipate that the Conservatives could win Camberwell & Peckham because it just doesn't contain anywhere near enough voters who will be attracted to the Conservative message.

The same is increasingly true of some seats like Pavilion and Mitcham, where "our" voters have been replaced by those who aren't - these aren't people who've just switched their vote: they've gone and been replaced by different types.

Ideally, all parties should have full-time staff in all constituencies, and all parties should be active in all constituencies: but we don't live in an ideal world, so should we invest in seats we can't win instead of targeting limited resources wisely? I don't think so, myself.

[Victor]

Reading through the comments here one gets the impression of little support for Dave Cameron, Liberal Conservative Leader of the Conservative Party. There is still time to replace him with a true Conservative before the General Election, so is it time to mount a 'Cameron Must Go' campaign?

[John Moss]

Whether you have party professionals in target seats or not, matters very little if you don't have the small army of helpers required to effectively fight a seat.

The Lib-Dems had over 150 people working Islington South, they didn't win, but they were bloody everywhere.

A good agent may be able to help you find people, but it is the activists - and if you have them - councillors who need to be trained to make sure they always, always, always ask a supporter to help.

Our problem is we're too damned conservative!

[Jack Stone]

As I said yesterday pollss go up and polls go down.
Anyone who says that we have common cause with the BNP says more about themselves than I ever could.
We are seven points clear and someone writes we should start a Cameron must go campaign. I can only presume that was spoken in jest. If it was serious I am afraid you are clearly Barking.

[christina speight]

Sean 1602 - "Telephone polls tend to show much lower scores for UKIP and BNP, but internet polls show higher scores."

Well ICM's website latest (August for The Guardian Sep not yet up) shows 8% TOTAL for others, with UKIP on below noticeable threshold of 1% !!! SNP and Green were on 2% each and Plaid Cymru on 1% and OTHER Others on 2%)

So What that proves I don't know!

[Sean Fear]

It's hard to know what will work.

Sometimes an area has been shifting towards the Conservatives for years, but we don't know it, because it's always been an opposition stronghold, and we've never bothered to campaign in it.

That can be down either to demographic change, or simply a change in outlook among the local population. Examples are places like the Isle of Dogs, in Tower Hamlets, or Borehamwood in Hertfordshire. Labour for decades, and then the Labour councillors start going down like a row of dominoes when we start campaigning there.

OTOH, there are other places where no amount of dedicated work by activists would pay off, either because the area is moving rapidly against us demographically, or because the Conservative vote has just never been there.

[Victor]

Jack Stone - The Conservatives are overwhelmingly against a Con/Lib Dem coalition, so why should they put up with a self confessed liberal Conservative Leader? As the General Election approaches his weaknesses will become apparent to all, but it will then be too late for us to elect a new Leader, and a further term of Labour Goveernment will follow. It is better to elect a new Leader now than to wait until a general Election defeat. Cameron Must Go!

[Tapestry]

Sean Fear you might be right except at the polling booth the self selecting internet poll was correct for Labour too. Only Labour's estimated 2.5 million postal votes out of their 9.5 million total votes lifted their share. And many of those could have been dubious. I still think they rigged the election through fraud, and will probably do so again.

I support David Cameron BTW. He's sounder than Conservatives realise. He has to play the centre ground to get elected. Murdoch's media never has a good word to say about him, which is aure sign he's OK politically.

[Jack Stone]

You are definatly barking Victor. To get rid of the most popular leader in the country who as put us by the latest opinion poll seven points clear would make the party look insane and would give Labour a walkover at the election.
As for the bit about Liberal/Conservative. What the hell do you think Winston Churchill was.

[Victor]

Jack Stone - No need to be insulting. When Churchill was Leader the Party was much more Liberal than it is now. Nowadays Conservative would rather do business with Labour than the Liberal Democrats. So why have a Liberal Conswervative Leader? Cameron Must Go!

[Wallenstein]

>>You are definatly barking Victor<<

Pot talking to kettle, I think.

>>As for the bit about Liberal/Conservative. What the hell do you think Winston Churchill was.<<

Well for a start Jack, he had a very nice line in racist abuse. I'm not going to repeat it here but read Andrew Roberts's "Eminent Churchillians" or look it up on the web if you can't afford to buy a copy.

He may have been a liberal in his youth. He certainly wasn't in his old age.

Anyway you're a Socialist, not a Liberal.

[Ben Redsell]

Christina, I agree with every word of your post at 10:36. Amazing I know. You'll probably want to recant it now!

Seriously though, although it doesn't do much for YouGov's commercial credibility, you and I both know that the two polls agree within the Margin of Error.

[Wallenstein]

...and then of course there was the MORI poll which showed Labour back in the lead.

Q: When did Sir Bob Worcester cease to be the "doyen of pollsters.

A: When he failed to produce the results the "Dave" faction wanted to read.

[Max]

Wallenstein - for me it was when he called the US election for President Kerry.

[christina speight]

Editor - Jack Stone's "You are definatly barking Victor" surely is an unacceptable personal attack????? I don't mind but you SAY you do!

He adds "What the hell do you think Winston Churchill was." He wasn't a LibDem anyway. The Liberals in those days were totally different animals.

Victor's right - Cameron must go!

[Richard Carey]

Victor's right - Cameron must go!

No, Victor's not right. The last ConservativeHome members' panel (an independent survey) shows 74% satisfaction with Cameron - see the top left of this page. There are a handful of vociferous posters like you on here pushing this line, but you are the only ones - and I can only surmise you are trying to damage the Party.

Back on topic (in my earlier post I only had time to make a political punchline out of UKIP/BNP et al - too tempting). I wonder if the rise of the smaller parties is not down to national policy, or policy at all, but experience of local contact and local campaigning? Has anyone ever seen any polling for contact rates for the minority parties, similar to Ashcroft did for the major parties in 05?

This comes to mind because my only concern regarding minority parties at present relates to council seats in May 07. I have wondered in my own area whether there is a small risk that they will gain a seat by steady activity on pavement politics, sustained personal contact, newsletters etc in apparently solid Conservative wards. We need to ensure that we haven't forgotten how to conduct longer-term campaigning projects in these wards ourselves, and that there is no perceived lack of contact or awareness for these people to exploit.

[comstock]

Just starting playing around with this on Electoral calculus.

Obviously a bad poll for Labour, but you guys are still 5 short of a majority. Even 1% anti Tory tactical voting makes that 11 short.

Now bare in mind (or is that 'bear' in mind....hell they both look wrong!) the next year or so will be the governments lowest point, so called 'mid term blues'. At this point in the 1992-1997 term Labour was *way* ahead. If the polls don't show a Tory majority by mid 07 it's gonna be term number 4 coming right up :D

[malcolm]

Oh my God! Yet another thread degenerates into Jack Stone making his spurious comments and Christina Speight/Wallenstein etc calling for the end of Cameron.Can't you people find anything else to post about?

[Wallenstein]

Waht's UKIP/BNP Richard?

Can't you tell the difference?

[Wallenstein]

Cornstock's viewpoint is very interesting and intriguing.

As a Labour man, Cornstock, how do you see the pro and anti Cameron factions developing over the months to come?

[Victor]

We may be ahead in the polls now, but not by enough. And what would our position be if we had a real Conservative Leader with experience? By the time the election comes the electorate will have seen through Cameron and we will face another four years in opposition. That will lead to the Liberal Democrats making their much heralded breakthrough.

That is why Cameron must go now.

[Richard Carey]

Waht's UKIP/BNP Richard? Can't you tell the difference?

Firstly, not having got off the last bus in terms of political campaigning, I can - the BNP is far more odious than UKIP, many of whose members are simply slightly nutty.

Secondly, why does it get you so exercised if I lump some minority opponents together for the purposes of discussing camapaigning strategy? I want to make sure I beat them both, and I would consider any local vulnerabilities to both can be addressed in much the same way.

I'm aware, Wallenstein, that you're not particularly interested in the Conservative Party winning at the moment. You'll have to excuse me if I'm focussed on winning, I know it's a little unfashionable on some of these threads lately!

[Ben Redsell]

Richard Carey, you say you can tell the difference between UKIP and BNP. Please tell me how. My local UKIP candidate was revealed to have attended BNP rallies. Some people came from the Midlands to burn the posters on his fence (which I condemn happily) but it shows how interchangeable these two odious little parties are. Thank god for our FPTP system that prevents them ever getting enough support for a Parliamentary seat.

[Richard Carey]

Richard Carey, you say you can tell the difference between UKIP and BNP. Please tell me how. My local UKIP candidate was revealed to have attended BNP rallies.

Ben, I was responding primarily to Wallenstein's implied assertion that I somehow didn't think they were two separate registered political parties (I'm sure he thinks I'm a bit dim!). Free movement of some supporters between the two doesn't surprise me on personal experience, I have to say.

I know there some anecdotal evidence of collusion/co-operation, some of which I have little reason to doubt, such as the UKIP candidate in Dartford who had a BNP activist propose him on his nomination papers. As you rightly point out, when you stand that close together, it's hard not to get painted with the same brush.

As I say, I have very little time for either, and want to ensure our organisation and campaigning is sufficiently strong that we can squash them both without being overly distracted from our primary focus of beating Labour.

[Dennis Donnelly]

All this talk of a coalition, whether it be Lib/Lab or Lib/Con, is utterly dillusional. Between 1988 and 1992 the Labour Party under Neil Kinnock was regularly 15 to 20 points ahead of the Conservative Party (under both Thatcher and Major). Kinnock the energetic, colourful Labour leader with a deep economic slump(engineered in part by the then government)to his advantage still lost to the incumbent 18 months after becoming prime minister. Look at where we are today; a bouyant economy that has weathered a global reccession and an economy that looks set to grow by above the European average in the medium term. On top of that the electoral system is stacked heavily in Labour's favour (anyone remember 2005?) My impression is that Labour's underlying political position has been grossly distorted by media hype. Many Conservatives sense victory but they are deceiving themselves. Blair may be over but Labour certainly is not. Cameron is a few points ahead in the polls after a month in which he should be really be breaking double digits. Don't underestimate Labour and don't underestimate the British peoples penchant for the tried and tested. I'm a Conservative but I'm also a realist. It will not be next time, Cameron is void of any real leadership qualities or any real qualities at all for that matter. Brown may not be as attractive but he's certainly tested.

[Chad]

Roll up that forked tongue Richard. Would you like me to list the full roll call of Tories prosecuted for racism or Tory councillors defecting to the BNP etc?

[Chad]

TORY COUNCILLOR DEFECTS TO BNP

"Lincolnshire district councillor has defected from the Conservatives to the far right British National party (BNP). "

Link

..and so on...

It really doesn't help the debate at all does it?

[Richard Carey]

I don't have a forked tongue, Chad. The defecting (defective, I believe!) councillor that you refer to is (unfortunately) in my constituency. He had been rightly suspended from the Party for associating with the BNP well before his defection to them. His views were bizarre and had no place in the modern Conservative Party. Incidentally, he was prevously investigated and warned in 2004 by the Party and the leadership of his council Group when he wrote letters to the local newspapers in his capacity as a Conservative district councillor urging people to vote UKIP in the European Parliament elections!

I hope this answers your questions on the subject, and I hope that you can also confirm that UKIP took similarly robust steps against the candidate that Ben referred to above.

In addition, I look forward to helping the Party ensure that we re-take his seat in May, and hopefully turn the guy into a joke in the process. This is one thing that provoked my thoughts on the subject above regarding local campaigning. BTW, if anyone in Lincolnshire wants to help us utterly destroy this odious party's toe-hold here, we won't say no!

And your asking whether it helps the debate misses my point. I'm not in this to debate with you - I'm in this to beat you and your ilk and keep you from taking any local seats with the minimum of resources so that I can concentrate on beating Labour. As someone who makes such a great play of their conservative credentials, do you really want to get in the way of me or anyone else beating Labour?