Graphics to follow later but YouGov poll in tomorrow's Sunday Times gives the Tories a 38% to 32% lead.
4.45pm update on Sunday:
The 9% lead in the ConservativeHome Poll of Polls is the largest in the series. It may rise after May's local elections if the Tories do well and David Cameron gains a 'halo effect' but will probably erode over the summer when Labour enjoys disproportionate media attention for its leadership succession (providing it doesn't get too bloody).
Small increase in the lead within the margin-of-error. That's fine. :)
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | March 17, 2007 at 21:13
A more realistic lead I think than the ICM poll earlier in the week.
Posted by: Richard Tyndall | March 17, 2007 at 21:15
I may be wrong but Yougov is the one opinion poll I trust the least. Having seen it advertised on a website linked to ukip as a way of making money by a poster who got banned for advocating voting for the BNP I am suspicious of the larger shares of the vote for both ukip and the BNP it uncovers. I realise that Yougov has 140,000 people who can be randomly polled for its' polls and that it would take over 1000 people to push up any one parties figures but still I haven't seen any other party or associated pushing joing the panel as hard as the above mentioned two. Therefore I will still have reservations about the figures it produces apart from general trends.
Posted by: martin whitehouse | March 17, 2007 at 21:32
To put it in context, Tories up one, trend of increasing Tory leads sustained.
Leader voting question increases the lead to 10% (Cameron-Brown) 41-31.
This is another very heartening poll.
Posted by: Tory T | March 17, 2007 at 21:47
"This is another very heartening poll."
Unlike the recent real polls in Northern Ireland sadly.
Posted by: Anti Jihadi | March 17, 2007 at 21:53
"This is another very heartening poll."
Unlike the recent real polls in Northern Ireland sadly which were anything but.
Posted by: Matt Davis | March 17, 2007 at 21:54
As far as I am aware Yougiv has by far the best record in recent years of getting its predictions right.
It doesn't matter if you push to get your members on. The polls they do do not poll the whole of their 'electorate' but take a selection based on previous voting and declared intention as well as other factors and use that to make adjustments to the raw figures.
The only way in which I would see problems is that because they use people who are already politically active enough to bother to be on the panel they would have more difficulty dealing with the non voting portion of the population.
But as I say, their record speaks for itself
Posted by: Richard Tyndall | March 17, 2007 at 23:31
I agree with Richard.
Yougov is the only poll with a reliable voting record over the last several general and european elections. It uses much larger samples usually 3000 instead of 1000-1500 and it gets the ABC1 males, inevitably missed out by phoning at midday.
I am also a member of its panel although it is years since they asked me for a political poll.
Posted by: Opinicus | March 18, 2007 at 00:34
BPIX in Mail also has 38% - despite questions on airline green taxes being part of questionaire.
Posted by: Ted | March 18, 2007 at 00:39
This is another very heartening poll.
Oh really?
I thought "Dave's" lead was supposed to be in double figures these days.
The ravings of the Camerloons are beginning to resemble those of the doomed denizens of Hitler's last bunker.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 01:24
Alex, you really don't get it. In polling you look at trends in like for like. Cons lead is up a point. Cons lead stretches to 10% with Brown named. This is fantastic news.
Tell me Alex, will you or any of your ilk be here commenting on May 4th? Your reactions then should be most instructive.
Posted by: Tory T | March 18, 2007 at 06:50
Mike Smithson at politicalbeting is always interesting on the polls. Here's his take this morning:
"For the Cameron gang these latest polls will provide relief that their air tax proposals, though not welcomed by voters, do not seem to have done their party any harm. They reinforce my oft-repeated view that the more their leader is in the public eye the better the Tory ratings get - something that will further frustrate Cameron’s opponents within the party and the media."
He points out that YG does the Bpix fieldwork for them, but bpix are not a member of the UK polling council. They have Lab down a point at 31%.
It is indeed good news that after all the fuss about air taxes paid for by family and business tax cuts, and the fuss made in various places, that our position in the polls has risen, not fallen.
Posted by: Tory T | March 18, 2007 at 06:59
"Tell me Alex, will you or any of your ilk be here commenting on May 4th? Your reactions then should be most instructive."
May 4th should be a rout for Labour - midterms and all that. If not we should be worried. These poll leads should be in double figures now or we could be in serious trouble.
The best we can hope for is a hung parliament - that could cause more problems than losing!
Don't take too much solace from the Brown factor - he may not win, a week is a long time in politics and Labour leaders have a habit of passing away before elections - Smith and Gaitskill. Equally, if he does win he could get a boost, just for being new and therefore wipe out a small 6% lead.
I know there are lots of variables above - but that's the way politics works. What we do know is the leads are not that good and rather than playing the "Emperor's new clothes" we should look at why we are not doing so well.
Posted by: ballotboy | March 18, 2007 at 08:54
"It is indeed good news that after all the fuss about air taxes paid for by family and business tax cuts, and the fuss made in various places, that our position in the polls has risen, not fallen."
Remember the "shy Tories" of 1992 who would not admit to pollsters that they would be voting for Major. I think we may have some Shy Nulabs out there who have done ok since 1997. I am picking up a great deal of hostility to Cameron and the air tax - hair an air seem to be the problem this week. I live in a marginal and people who voted Tory last time are not sure about Cameron.
Posted by: ballotboy | March 18, 2007 at 08:59
My Cons MP has had 60 emails this week in support of the airtax and none against. He was out canvassing yesterday and getting continuing excellent response. For the first time in years round our way, we are picking up CF members.
I loathe the airtaxes schtick, and I'm not personally enchanted by DC, but his programme is working in our part of the metropolis.
Posted by: sjm | March 18, 2007 at 09:09
Unlike the recent real polls in Northern Ireland sadly.
Unionist parties won a sizeable majority of the vote still and it continued to consolidate around the DUP blocking the progress of Sinn Fein - I'd say that that was better than what could have been the UUP and DUP splitting evenly allowing at a Westminster level Sinn Fein even to win a majority of the vote next time around.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | March 18, 2007 at 09:31
"his programme is working in our part of the metropolis"
Yes - London. But do we want to win only in London. And we already have your seat - what about the others we need to win next time.
Posted by: ballotboy | March 18, 2007 at 09:39
They reinforce my oft-repeated view that the more their leader is in the public eye the better the Tory ratings get
An interesting quote by Tory T from the great Mike Smithson whose supposed credentials as a political guru remain resolutely top secret.
Well "Dave" is well and truly in the public eye this morning jetting around like James Bond in a glamorous private Cessna while we the Great Unwashed are sanctimoniously commanded to curb our flights to Benidorm.
One can imagine The Celestial Dave raising his hand in a cheery two-fingered salute as he merrily polluted Britain with 0.1 tons of CO2 during his totally unnecessary 93 mile flight.
But what else can one expect from the man who cycled to work followed by the tree-killing gas-guzzler containing his bags.
My wife tells me the press have been going through his dustbins as well, uncovering some very ungreen contents.
More power to their elbow!
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 11:00
Those 'others' are now in front of the Lib Dems at a massive 17 per cent............
Posted by: Lord Cashcroft | March 18, 2007 at 11:01
Alex, you clearly wish to damage the Conservative party, help the opposition and are running a personal camapign against the leader of the party using this site. Editor, I can't see where this fits in with any sensible debating,
Matt
Posted by: matt wright | March 18, 2007 at 11:20
Well Matt, if you don't realise by now that I'm no friend of Cameron you clearly haven't been following my posts.
I want to see him out, and replaced by a decent leader long before the next General Election.
Any chance of answering my points instead of squinnying to the Editor, presumably hoping to silence awkward truths you find uncomfortable?
It's actually called debate, by the way.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 11:44
Alex... why ditch the most successful and popular leader the Conservatives have had for 15 years?
Posted by: Antony Calvert | March 18, 2007 at 12:08
you're going to be disappointed then Alex,Those of us who actually want to see a conservative government recognise that David Cameron is a hugely impressive leader who is our best possible chance our delivering that prize.
If I can quote President Bush out of context "you're either with us or against us"
Posted by: Graham D'Amiral | March 18, 2007 at 12:17
Alex
Usually I skip your posts on basis it's probably good therapy for your to let out the bile but not worth my time.
A debate is usually considered a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against. I've seen no signs in your negative, often insulting posts of any form of engagement or discussion on the matter in hand. The only engagement from you is your pilloring of particular posters who think you are a waste of thought, reading & discussion time.
If you are stating a formal proposition of a stand against Cameron, well you've done it, it's now boring and repetitive and takes "the debate" no further. We know your position - so what? Convince us that we should spend any time considering it.
Posted by: Ted | March 18, 2007 at 12:18
Can't seem to get past 38% on a regular basis. Does this mean we aren't attracting new voters - are we simply holding on to the old faithfuls?
We must all become ardent supporters of Gordon Brown for No 10 although perhaps if he does become PM, we could see the return of the badges from the 1964 election re George Brown 'Don't say Brown say hopeless'
For any young cubs who don't get that I will provide an explanation of it's derivation if necessary
Posted by: Andrew Bradley | March 18, 2007 at 13:17
"We know your position - so what? Convince us that we should spend any time considering it."
Ted, next time you lay in to Alex Forsyth and pretend that the whole party is against him, and try and shut him down, you should perhaps remember that one third of the party voted for David Davis and is thus not starting with Cameron's point of view, and that the number uneasy about Cameron's positions has increased greatly. Whether you realise it or not, in constituencies and constituency committees all over the country there are a large number of extremely unhappy lifelong conservative supporters.
The truth is that without people like Alex Forsyth and others onboard, Cameron cannot win the next election. We forget that if Tebbit together with one of either Fox or Davis decides to seriously rock the boat(and split from the party, which is presumably what you want Mr Forsyth to do), Cameron is finished electorally and will never be PM.
Posted by: congaconga | March 18, 2007 at 17:08
Thank for drawing my attention to "Ted"s comments, congaconga.
I have merely repeated what I understand to be a fact; namely that Cameron used a highly ungreen private plane for his own purposes days after telling the rest of us that he would tax the hell out of our holiday flights.
That's an accusation of hypocrisy which neither Ted, Matt Wright nor anybody else has even attempted to rebut. Maybe that's because their hero has put them on the spot.
Of course my posts reflect my disapprobation of Cameron, just as Ted's reflect contrary sentiments. Sorry Ted, but I just don't happen to believe that "Dave" walks on water.
And if my posts are "boring and repetitive" what can we possibly say about the endless flow of sycophancy which comes from your wing of the party?
Anyway, Ted, if you've got issues with my posts the remedy is in your hands.
Don't read them.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 17:28
Alex - Are you a Lib Dem? The tone of your messages certainly indicates a certain tw*ttish attitude usually displayed by dirty Liberals
Posted by: Normal | March 18, 2007 at 18:02
No Normal. I joined the Young Conservatives in either 1970 or 1971 (due to advancing senility I'm unable to recall which). I have been a party member ever since.
I'm usually regarded as a right-wing Thatcherite Tory so I'd be interested to know which of my statements leads you to believe that I am a Liberal, dirty or otherwise.
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 18:17
"That's an accusation of hypocrisy which neither Ted, Matt Wright nor anybody else has even attempted to rebut."
I'll gladly rebut it. David Cameron has not said that people can not fly: he's simply said that flying should be subject to taxation which recognises its environmental cost. Though not required by legislation, Cameron has offset the carbon cost of the flight. Suggesting that he is hypocritical for flying is the same as suggesting that the Chancellor is hypocritical for drinking alcohol.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 18, 2007 at 18:42
It's too late. The damage to the environment has been done.
What do you mean he offset it?
Posted by: Nikki C | March 18, 2007 at 19:16
Nikki C, this is what I mean.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 18, 2007 at 22:48
congaconga
you should perhaps re-read my post. I suggested the opposite of shutting any comments down but invited discussion rather than repetitive, negativity that closes debate.
Posted by: Ted | March 18, 2007 at 23:15
Is that so Mark?
For every tonne of CO2 emitted, an equivalent tonne is supposedly removed elsewhere.
Note the word "supposedly".
Note also...
Offsetting does not undo the environmental harm caused
Anyway, let's buy it. How has Cameron supposedly "offset" the harm done by his zillionaire jet joyride?
Posted by: Alex Forsyth | March 18, 2007 at 23:19
Alex, the fact that Cameron offset the carbon cost of the flight is secondary to the main point: imposing a tax on flying does not make it hypocritical to fly. If you’ll accept that Cameron wasn’t hypocritical, I will take the time to get the exact details of how the carbon offsetting was done.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 19, 2007 at 12:10