YouGov: Voters want more on tax, crime and immigration from '5% lead Tories'

Today's YouGov/ Telegraph poll for the Tories gives a 5% lead (down 2% on last month) - exactly the same as ICM's recent poll for The Guardian and much better than Tuesday's Communicate Research poll for The Independent.   Anthony King's analysis of the poll seems spot on:

"A year into David Cameron's leadership of the Conservative Party one thing is clear: he certainly doesn't frighten the horses. As the Tories have succeeded in frightening the horses for the better part of a generation, that might be thought to be an advantage.  However, YouGov's latest monthly survey for The Daily Telegraph still finds little evidence of positive enthusiasm for either David Cameron or the party under him. Although the Conservatives still lead Labour, they are only narrowly ahead and a large proportion of voters' verdict on Mr Cameron remains "Don't know"."

The most interesting YouGov findings can be found below the headline numbers.  The voters are evenly split (38% both ways) on whether Cameron is right to be cautious about early declarations of policy or whether he is paying too much attention to public opinion and should be setting out more detailed policies now.  By 48% to 34% 'all voters' believe that the Tory focus on green issues is a mistake and that the focus should be on taxation, crime and immigration.  The proportion is bigger (55% to 35%) amongst Tory voters.  Perhaps, next time, YouGov will test the 'And Theory' for us!

HAVE YOU VOTED IN THIS MONTH'S CONSERVATIVEHOME SURVEY?

Comments

[bee]

there is no need to start banging on about right wing issues so far in advance of the only election we need to win. I am quite happy for Dave to spend 2 more years 'hugging hoodies' and working on the image.

Why do we need to win the next general election 4 years before it's due?

[James Maskell]

Bee, because the more we sound like a Government in waiting the more the public will believe we are a Government in waiting. By not shunning debate, it would make us seem mature and prepared for Government. As for winning an election, poll figures dont always prove accurate as to saying who will win the election. History tells us that.

Cameron needs to open up debate on the Tory issues. He has to at some point and by appearing to shun those issues he may well lose voters that he might be able to retain by having a debate about it.

[Tam Large]

Problem is Dave is not just sounding like a government - he sounds exactly like THE Government: Blair's hated and morally bankrupt one.

The voters want an alternative - not a clone.

[Jorgen]

Well said, James. Anyway, 5 %-points is a very little lead considering that the Government is as hated as it is, as Tam correctly says.

[James Maskell]

Yeah. He does. What Im saying is that if he opens up debate on other issues which he is currently reluctant to talk about, it will make it seem more mature and would be more attractive to the public. That is if the resultant policy is good for the public at large.

[Torygirl]

Dave has said he is "heir to Blair" but that is not what the voters want. This Government is the most hated ever, yet the Tories are hardly making an serious impact. By now the Tories should be at least 12% ahead in the polls.

Most older Tories are in despair, and these are the people who do most of the work in the constituencies.

[Michael McGowan]

Has it crossed the mind of people like bee, secure in their gated ivory towers, that it is things such as tax, crime and uncontrolled immigration which are a major concern to ordinary voters because they are bearing the brunt of these issues while bien pensants pretend that they do not exist? There is a section of the Conservative Party which persists in seeing the challenge not as winning an election in 2009 but in 1997.

[Fjms]

Why is everybody so down on a lead? Whether it's 5% or 50% it's a lead, a lead which we haven't had for over a decade. The fact is we live in a different era. The last election proved a party can win handsomely with 35% of the vote providing your votes are in the right places. It would be much more interesting to see polls from the important marginals as I don't believe on this day and age any party is going to achieve the mythical 40%. There is too much dissatisfaction with all politics and politicians.

[Crighton]

Uncommented upon so far for this poll is the rise in the numbers who say they would vote for 'Others'.

It now stands at 15%, up from around 8% at the time of the GE only 18 months ago and is now almost equal to the percentage saying they would vote LibDem. Not a bad performance.

On this showing it could be argued that 'others' may determine the next GE result.

The 'other parties' vote may be worth rather more attention.

[George Hinton]

Whilst Dave can get rightly get away on the question of setting policy in stone now, he still needs to attack NuLab.
So many opportunities have been offered up on a plate by NuLab this year, and they should have been crucified into their graves, but sadly the Tories seem to lack the killer instinct....a bit like ole Joe Bugner.
The party needs to make more of the scandals, the mendacity, the shameless spinning and disinformation that NuLab enter into to....all puff and no substance.

[Mark Fulford]

I’m not sure if it’s by design, but David Cameron’s reticence on tax, crime and immigration seems to be creating an appetite in the media to move these issues up the agenda. David Cameron has young children and therefore it doesn’t surprise me that he’s mastering reverse psychology.

[Editor]

I agree Crighton. I'll try and report more on 'The Others' in future - although it all sounds a bit creepy to us 'Lost' fans!

[Jorgen]

Why is everybody so down on a lead?

Because 5 %-points is a very little lead and what we would expect to get just by not being Labour. Cameron's "aspirations" (I can't call them policies) are not working and anyway not Conservative policies.

Quite another problem is that Cameron may attract voters from Labour and LibDem, but can he keep them when the election comes? It is too late to cry over lost Conservative votes after the election.

[James Maskell]

Pah, Lost...just an adult version of Lord of the Flies...

[Jorgen]

just an adult version of Lord of the Flies..

Prescott can then be the pigs head.

[Donal Blaney]

Cameron has built up credibility among the electorate. As King said, he doesn't frighten the horses. He therefore is perfectly placed to talk about tax, crime and immigration - issues that truly do matter to ordinary voters who are overtaxed, frightened and threatened by the spread of radical Islam. He can talk about them in a way that is not threatening and indeed focuses on arguments as to fairness and the moral case for low taxes, rather than coming across as a selfish Tory (which is the way Labour would love to paint him). Will he have the courage to do this?

[James Maskell]

It'd give Prescott a bigger job than he has as Deputy Prime Minister...

[James Maskell]

It'd give Prescott a bigger job than he has at present...

[Daniel VA]

"Uncommented upon so far for this poll is the rise in the numbers who say they would vote for 'Others'.

It now stands at 15%, up from around 8% at the time of the GE only 18 months ago and is now almost equal to the percentage saying they would vote LibDem. Not a bad performance.

On this showing it could be argued that 'others' may determine the next GE result.

The 'other parties' vote may be worth rather more attention."

Unless a breakdown of 'other party' poll results is provided, it is hard to draw any conclusion about them.

OTOH, it is easy to indulge in conjecture about the results, for example I would hazard a guess that the rising support for other parties could be a reflection of the upcoming elections to Follyrood and Cardiff Bay and the increased attention given to the nationalists (particularly the SNP, who are said to stand a good chance of taking control north of Hadrian's Wall next May) at this time, but that is merely conjecture and the likelihood is that I'm completely wrong, so nothing has been learned from it.

[Jon Gale]

The Other increase could be due to the declining LibDem vote - who were at 22% at the GE. The LibDems are the "protest" party, after all.

Anyway, yes Cameron has to talk about the big issues at some point, but ONLY after the public pereception of selfish nasty Tories has been put to bed by talking about more "caring issues" such as the environment and speeches about social responsibility.

Labour was massively unpopular after the Iraq war. But people were not giving us the benefit of the doubt - our policies were individually popular until they were told they were Tory policies.

Cameron has to (and is) address that problem before anything we say about immigration et al will even be heard.

[E L Marberry]

Actually, what DC needs to do is more of the same with just a bit more flesh - so on crime we should say we are not just about banging people up (the hug a hoodie speech was probably the biggest breakthrough of the re-imaging process, even if the Mail hated it) and on tax DC is absolutely right to rule out early and unaffordable tax cuts.

[Jorgen]

But tax cuts are affordable after ten years of Brown, if Cameron ditches the tosser within him and avoid a spending spree.

[Michael McGowan]

Perhaps Marberry, who increasingly looks like a Labour troll, can point to the "early and unaffordable tax cuts" which David Cameron was being asked to make? How does he know that they are unaffordable unless he believes (which I assume he does) that every pound spent by Labour is well-spent?

[Derek Buxton]

What does Cameron stand for..... besides power for himself that is. I have neither heard nor seen any conservative principle coming out of his mouth. "I will spend more than Labour, I can spend more than you can", they should set it to music, in event it is it is not his to spend, it is ours.
What facts did he glean from, his Iraq trip? I suspect he would have far got more information from the internet.

[Ali T]

Well said Donal Blaney, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Cameron is clearly playing a clever tactical game. He is building up his credibility on issues like the environment, health and poverty, so that when he starts to deal with what is seen as our ‘traditional’ core issues voters stay engaged.

Those who seem to be calling for change in direction, a U-turn and a return to the days when are party simply talked about tax, immigration and Europe have conveniently forgotten that on these issues we have lost three successive elections.

Voters then viewed us as the “nasty party”, divided on Europe, in politics for what we could get out and morally bankrupt. Whether this image was true or not, this was definitely how we were perceived and if we are to win again this view held by many has got to change.

I am hugely impressed at the way the image of our party is changing. I hear it on the doorsteps of my ward. Voters in my area like what they hear and are looking forward to hearing more and this is what we should be focussing on.

As for those who think we are soft on crime and immigration, you only have to listen to David Davis to know that we are not. We have been setting the agenda on immigration for years, so much so that some Labour politicians have thought about a limit on immigration.

Now let me ask the question, which party had that proposal in their manifesto? Got it in one, we did. Who has called for the creation of a border police force to plug our porous borders? You guessed right again we did? Finally for an extra special bonus who has been advocating the use of phone tap evidence? That’s right we did.

So lets not think because Labour have come up with a few more headline grabbing gimmicks that there is any need to panic.

May I just remind all those dissenters out there that Labour has been in power for the best part of a decade, has passed hundreds of pieces of legislation and yet they are still failing to tackle the problems of crime and immigration.

Foreign prisoners are still being released in to the community and are not being deported. ASBOs, Labour’s effort to combat anti social behaviour are seen by many hooligans as the ultimate award for their efforts, a sort of premiership title. And young people on mass are being demonised as violent binge drinking thugs because of the behaviour of a few individuals.

So before the usual suspects start on the same old diatribe and try to rewrite history they should remember that things have not got better, despite the hundreds of times the Blair and Brown have told us they have.

Cameron is right to focus on the causes of crime, both morally and economically and if this is seen as less hard then so be it. In my own City of Portsmouth I was amazed at the work of a group called PYOP which works with young offenders and those at risk of offending. This group has saved the hard pressed tax payer millions of pounds through their work as sorting out the underlying problems often associated with offending costs just one tenth of what it costs if we do nothing.

So lets keep talking about poverty and deprivation, about the challenges in the NHS and education system these are things that really matter and if we are to form a future government we will have to have answer to them.

[Jorgen]

That is right! We used to be divided on Europe. Now we are divided about policies instead!

[malcolm]

Good post Ali. But as far as I'm aware Labour are not proposing to do anyhing substantive about border controls (apart from providing some uniforms!) or make intercept evidence admissable in court.
Reid 'though has skilfully(if disingeniously) managed to portray Labour as taking crime and terrorism seriously whereas DD appears to be quiet on the subject.I don't understand why?

[Scotty]

"By 48% to 34% 'all voters' believe that the Tory focus on green issues is a mistake and that the focus should be on taxation, crime and immigration"

""A year into David Cameron's leadership of the Conservative Party one thing is clear: he certainly doesn't frighten the horses. As the Tories have succeeded in frightening the horses for the better part of a generation, that might be thought to be an advantage."

You have got wonder just what would have happened if David Cameron had been elected, dusted down the previous election manifesto with a line scored through 2005 tried to sell it to the public over the last year.
I am not saying that crime, immigration and tax won't be a priority for many at the next GE but it actively hurt the tories in 2005.
Concentrating efforts on green issues has been very positive for the whole debate on environmental issues and the image of the conservative party.
It has also IMHO brought a much needed spark into politics in general and a closer race between the parties might increase voter turnout.
We have to be seen to be strong in all area's of concern for voter's and we would have been "the same old tories" had we just concentrated on a new "suit" trying to sell the same message.
Mrs T's greatest achievement was changing the nation's views on how the UK economy should be run. It was unpopular and harsh at times, but Gordon Brown must thank the tories for giving him such a golden economic legacy to manage. Make no mistake climate change and how a dynamic Western economy handles the challenge over the next 50 years is important.
I really believe that Cameron and Osborne realise that, and they are already looking beyond a possible GE victory to the reality of running the economy in a new era with the emergence of India and China and a resurgent Russia which is rich in oil and gas.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am beginning to agree with James Maskell - David Cameron needs to open up debate on Tory issues, as by appearing to shun those issues he might begin to lose more voters than if he tackled them.

Having said that he did tackle immigration in an article to the Evening Standard, I think.

George Hinton @ 11.29 hits the nail on the head with -- 'the party needs to make more of the scandals, shameless spinning and disinformation of this mendacious government.

[Denis Cooper]

"I am not saying that crime, immigration and tax won't be a priority for many at the next GE but it actively hurt the tories in 2005."

No, only the second issue, tax, hurt the Tories in 2005; the other two helped.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Re OTHERS 15%

Here's what Christina Speight dug up on this:

..the full voting intentions as reported by YouGov at (randomly chosen!) Today 1/12/06; August and February

Percentages – Today – Aug - Feb

Con........................37----38----38
Lab.........................32----31----36
LibDem.................16----18----18
(Others..................15----13------9)
-Nationalists........4------2------2
-UKIP.....................3------3------2
-BNP......................3------4------0
-Green...................3------3------2
-Respect...............1------1------1
-Veritas (!).............0------0------2
-Other....................1------1------0

Not included above
Will not vote...........9------9------7
Don’t Know..........14----14----15

[Scotty]

"No, only the second issue, tax, hurt the Tories in 2005; the other two helped."
Denis, I disagree. Immigration and the way it was covered by the press and Labour really did the most damage. It turned so many people off looking at the conservatives and made us appear "nasty"
I really got concerned during the 2005 GE when I saw the negative coverage we received.
Not every area in Britain saw it has a hot topic. Just look at the way that Labour has now changed it tune very cleverly on the whole issue, and they are the ones in government presiding over the whole mess.

[Sean Fear]

WRT Others, the biggest change from the GE is the fairly steady 6-7% that UKIP and the BNP record between them, up from a combined vote share of 3% in 2005.

[Larry Green]

"Voters then viewed us as the “nasty party”, divided on Europe, in politics for what we could get out and morally bankrupt."

Here we go with the same old self-trashing "Nasty Party" tripe.

This time it's posted by somebody from Portsmouth. As it happens my sister is a member of one of the Portsmouth associations and as a result I get to hear about the state of the party there.

We lost both seats years ago. One is likely to remain LibDem in perpetuity, and one of the assocs (I wont say which) is in such a state of continual strife that many of the members have joined the other one. The two assocs have been told to merge but won't.

Hardly an example to the rest of us.

[Stephen Ogden]

The pessimists and malcontents may wish to have a look in the left-hand column of this very web-page:

'76% of Tory members are happy with David Cameron'

If the period between the 2005 general election and the (say) 2009 general election is likened to a marathon, then we've only completed around 9 of the 26 miles.

DC is narrowly ahead of the field and looks in great shape. He obviously has reserves of energy, and the crowds by the roadside are cheering him on, increasingly enthusiastically.

Messrs Brown & Blair keep tripping over each other in DC's wake. Blair is about to slump onto a grassy verge (near a watching policeman). Brown is panting, and seems confused about the route of the marathon. Whichever corner they turn, the crowds react with a chorus of boos.

(Mr Campbell is way behind, and few people seem interested in his fumbling progress).

End of analogy.

I would summarise my thoughts as follows:

1. The Conservative brand was badly tainted when DC became leader (good underlying product, but consumers turned off by negative brand connotations)
2. DC is restoring the Conservative brand, but this will take longer than 12 months
3. When the time is right, we can start to be more specific about certain policy areas (good underlying product, and consumers no longer turned off by negative brand connotations)

I'm chilled, anyway!

[James Maskell]

76% of those who said in an open questionnaire that they were Tory members, you mean.

As for the marathon analogy, its interesting but lets not forget, this isnt a presidential contest. He has to pull the Party over...

[Ted]

James
In the poll 71% of those who said they would vote Tory said Cameron was moving Party in right direction against 11% who thought not.So its not just CHome polling. Agree it's a marathon but we are at least competing and on the right circuit.

It's a good poll but more importantly its a wake up to show just how tough it will be.

[E L Marberry]

Yes, I support David Cameron so (obviously) I am a Labour troll. The twisted logic of the failures of the Conservative Right.

You had your chance between 1997 and 2005, you failed.

[Esbonio]

EL Marberry informs us the "Conservative Right" had their "chance between 1997 and 2005".

The Conservative Left broke the back of the Tory Party when they got rid of Maggie and and continued to kick it whilst it was down.

If the Conservative Left are now in charge, as implied, (and as it seems given the increasingly vacuous/leftoid commments from the "leadership") then there is no reason whatsoever to vote Conservative.

[E L Marberry]

The sad fact is that Mrs thatcher refused to admit her mistake over the Community Charge and unpleasant though it was that made it essential she was amde to resign.

If we had tried to fight the 1992 election defending the "poll tax" Neil Kinnock would have walked it.

[Scotty]

E L Marberry, as a fan of the present conservative leadership you has been accepted as a member of the Cameroonie fan club if you have been accused of being a Labour troll. You have to wait until your get the even higher honour of being accused of being a CCHQ plant before you receive your tartan poms poms though.

[Esbonio]

I forget whose idea the poll tax was.

I thought at the time it was fairer than the rates and I understand it had a higher take up than the latter as well. Of course the media whipped it up. As a resident of K&C at the time I was appalled at the riots. It is a shame the police did not seem to be as firm with the poll tax rioters as they seem to have have been of late with other demonstrators.

Kinnock winning in 1992 and out in 97 may well have been better than 10 years of New Labour to date and the Con servative Party we now have.

[Michael McGowan]

The Conservative left will deliver what it has always delivered since 1945: slow motion acquiescence in 80+% of what it inherits from Labour.

Yes of course Mrs Thatcher would have lost in 1992 if she had persisted with the Poll Tax. But that is nearly 15 years' ago. So what is the relevance of that to 2006?

[Esbonio]

As usual I entirely agree with you, Michael.

Whilst it is a bit of an over-simplification, I believe a combination of noblesse oblige Tory Toffs who have always been insulated from the worst effects of Labour coupled with too much deference from the rest of the Tory Party has for far too long lead to a passive party leadership.

Maggie was in a way an aberration only permitted because of the mess the country consecutive Labour and Tory parties had got into. We need her likes again. People are crying out for something to be done. Cameron is not the man for the job.

[Michael McGowan]

It is a mistake to believe that the left wing of the Tory Party has significant differences of principle with the left. Their differences often boil down to clashes of style and personality dressed up as differences of ideology.

[Esbonio]

The party may well have been better off if it had split post Maggie. As many people have noted, we do not need three socialist parties.

[jorgen]

Amen to both of you, esbonio and Michael.

[Old Hack]

From personal observations the rank and file membership and base support are beginning to lose patience with the constant emphasis on branding. I'm beginning to see resignations and doubts among local loyalists that remind me of IDS and Hague at their worst.

We've now had a year of rebranding and we need to move on. YouGov gives us that cue if nothing else does.

A key point I picked up on at the 'Take Your Seat' conference: Stephen Gilbert, who has been polling for Lord Ashcroft, pointed out we are losing successively more support at each election among A/B voters. At the same time the A/B social classes are growing in population. We need to win these people back. But how - the trite and unconvincing argument that we will be better technocrats?

It strikes me that these are more astute and intelligent voters who are often professional and well able to discriminate between brand and product quality. They are also key opinion formers.

By focusing obsessively on brand as Cameron emphasised we had to do at TYS, we are doing nothing to convince people who want a convincing argument more than smiles and platitudes.

If the Shadow Cabinet want people to believe we will be better technocrats than Labour all they can look forward to in the polls is more frustration.

Politics is about leadership and direction. That means a narrative, a positive cause and a vision about what we want for the country. Labour cannot steal our policies, they are too discredited.

We have everything to gain by being bold. If losing three elections should have taught us anything it's that being timid and appeasing vested interests in the public sector gets us nowhere.

Its time to move forward.

[Yet Another Anon]

there is no need to start banging on about right wing issues so far in advance of the only election we need to win. I am quite happy for Dave to spend 2 more years 'hugging hoodies' and working on the image.

Why do we need to win the next general election 4 years before it's due?

There has to be consistency, people expect a leader to have a clear vision and broadly speaking stick to it, what changes is how broad the range of policy is and how in depth, it should become more detailed gradually as time goes by - further out from an election the focus is more on what can be done in terms of the parliamentary situation as it is and increasingly towards the election it is based on ambitions for how the following parliament will be and then if results do not go as hoped then it has to be seen what can be done to impliment as much as possible.

[E L Marberry]

As is always the case the unrepentant right come on here and claim that the Conservative Party is beset by resignations when there is no evidence for that at all.

True enough the "in out" brigade who duck in and out of the Conservative Party - this week to the Referendum Party, next week to UKIP - are doing what they always do - attention seeking.

But I see no evidence at all of the sort of accelerating decline we all saw between 1997 and 2003. And I would remind the whingers here that William Hague seems to have learnt his lesson from 1997 - 2001 and is firmly supporting DC.

His tragedy was that he lost his nerve, and tacked harder to the right to pacify the sort of people who come on here and whinge about DC.

[Yet Another Anon]

If correct it only means a slight change in support and Labour holds it's majority and usually government support strengthens in the run up to the General Election, I rather see next year having continuing difficulties for Labour but in early 2009 Labour support recovering, there have been signs of former Labour voters among Muslims returning gradually in the past few years and others who had abandoned Labour over the issue of the Gulf War and this is likely to hamper Liberal Democrat hopes of consolidating their position, this government is never going to get back to the 150+ majorities it had in 1997 and 2001 but it could perhaps get up to a majority of 100 mainly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, the seeds of the destruction of this government are in place though in about 17.5 years time.

[Michael McGowan]

Rather that indulging in playground abuse (the Tory left's version of one club golf) perhaps E.L. Marberry can explain what his brand of Conservatism is going to offer that Labour and the Lib Dems aren't already offering? Bear in mind that Cameron is already committed to Labour's tax and spending plans and to no meaningful reform of public services so that they actually serve the public. Why should anyone vote for the monkey, Dave, when they can get the organ grinder by voting for Gordon?

William Hague has increasingly struck me as yet another career politician who has never had a real job in the real world but is doing very nicely thank you very much out of the Westminster Village. So why should we be surprised that he is now tacking to the prevailing political wind?

[Esbonio]

I have been sceptical about Cameron since I first heard of him which was well before the last election and before I started posting here (which was almost straight after it launched).

It strikes me that seasoned posters here (as well as bloggers elsewhere) are becoming more and more Cameron-sceptic whilst his supporters seem relatively new to the scene.

[Scotty]

"It strikes me that seasoned posters here (as well as bloggers elsewhere) are becoming more and more Cameron-sceptic whilst his supporters seem relatively new to the scene."
Esbonio I respect your views although I do not agree with them, but on that assumption you are totally wrong and may I say out of touch with many fellow conservatives. Many pro Cameron poster's on this site have come and gone, hounded out by constant abuse and insults. Sometimes reading the posts on here reminds me of the man walking the streets wearing a board saying "We are all doomed"

I first spotted Cameron as a potential future leader after watching him on Question time or something similar. He captured the imagination of not just the majority in the party but also the public in what was I think the first open primary style leadership contest in the UK.
A two thirds majority within the party to elect him and a consistent poll lead among the public indicates that for the first time in many years the conservative party is again in touch with the electorate.
David Cameron is causing more concern among Labour and Libdem activists than in his own party and that is a great improvement.

[matt wright]

I agree with Scotty. I remember canvassing in GE 2005 and there was a clear point when people started to get very put off by our shrill messages. It was very obvious amongst women and younger executives in new housing estates where we should and needed to be doing well. I remember holding a conference call at the time and expressing my concern. I was told the dog whistle strategy would continue. The rest is history!

Matt

[scott barker]

"This Government is the most hated ever"

oh do wake up to a few facts and you may actually start to have a little more realism about the current political situation.Labour's current poll rating of around 33% is par for the course for a mid term government,indeed it's rather better than the norm.The only reason everyone is getting excited about a current Tory lead is Labour has bucked the usual trend in the last two parliaments by maintaining a large opinion poll lead despite being the government.

We have now returned to the usual state of affairs of the governing party falling behind in the polls between elections. I seem to recall the Tories falling below 30% in the polls between the 1979,1987 and 1992 elections but still winning the subsequent elections.

There's still time, but for Cameron to be on course to win in 2009/10 he needs to be well over 10% ahead in the polls (and that means all polls) from 2007 until polling day.He also needs to be ahead on virtually every key issue and to be seen as Prime Minsterial material.I look at his current poll ratings and the public perception of him and both have 'Neil Kinnock' written all over them.

[Scotty]

"There's still time, but for Cameron to be on course to win in 2009/10 he needs to be well over 10% ahead in the polls (and that means all polls) from 2007 until polling day.He also needs to be ahead on virtually every key issue and to be seen as Prime Minsterial material.I look at his current poll ratings and the public perception of him and both have 'Neil Kinnock' written all over them."
I agree with most of your analysis there regarding what is needed to win a GE. But can you remind me just how many extra tory MP's would grace the opposition benches if we matched Neil Kinnock's 92' result.

[Yet Another Anon]

But can you remind me just how many extra tory MP's would grace the opposition benches if we matched Neil Kinnock's 92' result.
According to Polling Report's swing calculator it would actually be about 4 MP's fewer despite boundary changes and Labour would win a majority of about 122 if the got the same percentage vote as the Conservatives got in 1992 with the same vote distribution as currently - in fact if as indicated in the Local Elections the Conservative vote actually continued to focus to the same extent in London and the South largely in areas where they already hold the seats then it would be possible that the Conservatives would actually do worse.

I'm rather inclined to think that the Conservatives will get about 225 seats at the next General Election and the Labour majority will hold or only slightly increase.

[TomTom]

I don't think any polls are worthwhile if voter turnout continues to fall. In time the large influx of EU nationals will be eligible to vote and be candidates in local (but not national) elections and this will make such campaigns even more divorced from what is happening on the ground.

The turnout at the next General Election could be a disaster, the emigration intention is becoming ever more important to people. The congestion as population expands and space contracts, green spaces disappear, and 'quality of life' is eroded; is causing people to withdraw into themselves and cease to be active in public space.

[scott barker]

"I'm rather inclined to think that the Conservatives will get about 225 seats at the next General Election and the Labour majority will hold or only slightly increase"

At this stage I'm backing a very narrow Labour win, but the situation is too volatile and we will need to see how Brown gets on with the job when he is constantly in the public eye. I'm not sure if Cameron's current strategy is correct but I don't really see what else he can do but be 'nice'..