MORI suggests Labour 6% lead

Yesterday evening we reported a YouGov survey that appeared to confirm last Sunday's ICM poll and a 7% Labour lead.  Another poll in The Observer - by Ipsos-MORI - puts Labour 6% ahead.

The Observer reports that Brown will make other announcements later this week - including a new counter-terrorism strategy.

Comments

[TomTom]

including a new counter-terrorism strategy.

Unless it includes tight border controls he can save his breath

[Observer]

Conservatives

Tory voters have never had it so good

Little wonder that Conservatives lack the passion to tackle Labour... they're better off than ever

Nick Cohen

[tapestry]

This poll looks wrong. Others on 10%? Othersd are on about 15% for a long time. Polling is part of the current game to pressure Cameron, and see if they can break him.

[tapestry]

correction - others on 9%!!!!!!!

35+15+41 = 91 100-91 = 9

this poll is a farce.

[tapestry]

Southall had others on 9% but the biggest 'others' weren't there.

Sedgefield had others in reality on 20%.

Take it as the average btween the two on 15%, where polls have had 'others' for a long time.

It seems that the BNP are pulling big chunks out of Labour's vote, when they stand. They will be in 500 Constituencies at the next general election.

If pollsters are still ignoring the BNP, and base their sums on asking people who they voted for at the last election, and then make assumptions as to loyalty rates, they will be well off the correct figure in reality.

The Conservative figure is holding well at 35% given the rate of media assault currently in play. I dispute the Labour figure.

If it pushes Brown into fancying a GE, he will get a big shock when he finds as he did at Sedgefield that the BNP are sucking away his votes. The BNP has appeal to some Conservatives too, but the BNP's economic policy profile stops them from going across. Labour are in a far dodgier situation than they are claiming.

[601]

So tapestry what you are saying is the BNP are providing the opposition to Labour when it should be the Conservatives?!

[Observer]

Polling

This poll is from Jujne but look at the issues

[Downsize the NHS]

Im surprised the usual brainless muppets arent shouting that Brown's lead has dropped from 7% to 6%. Obviously a triumph for Cam. BS!!!

The man is a walking disater area and wil soon be the most unpopular Tory leader since Major.

I can hear those white coats flapping.

[Dismayed]

Tapestry is playing the ostrich again. The BNP is only strong in the North West and Yorkshire. It put a lot of effort into Sedgefield. That level of performance cannot be sustained across the country.

The last three opinion polls (ICM, Yougov and MORI) give Labour around 40-41% and leads of 6-7%. On what basis can Tapestry dispute the Labour figures? How can three reputable polling companies be so wrong? Get your head out of the sand!

There is a very clear pattern that would give Brown a majority of over 150 seats (i.e. Tories would lose seats gained in 2005).

"Others" will include the Greens, UKIP, BNP and Respect. It is quite possible that they will benefit from dissatisfaction with the three main parties who are competing for the so-called centre ground.

If the Lib Dems ditch Ming and pick Clegg, the Conservative share would be even lower. If UKIP get its act together, Cameron will be in even bigger trouble.

[TomTom]

The BNP is only strong in the North West and Yorkshire.

Barking is in Yorkshire or the North-West ?

I am Dismayed by your geography

[Dismayed]

It is wrong to say that BNP is only taking votes from Labour. The BNP is picking up the working class votes that enabled Thatcher to win with huge majorities in 1982 and 1987.

[Dismayed]

You will get exceptions to the rule in other regions, Tom Tom. The BNP has picked up council seats in places like Broxbourne too. However, its real strength lies in places like Burnley, Keighley etc.

TomTom always plays the smart ass rather than offer cogent analysis.

[TomTOm]

TomTom always plays the smart ass rather than offer cogent analysis.

TomTom thinks Dismayed is an ignorant fool and knows zilch about Keighley which will be a Labour seat until Anne Cryer decides she doesn't want it.....since TomTom knows so much more about Keighley than Dismayed he thinks he should tell him to stop fabricating "analysis" and find some facts before sounding off

[The Ghosty of Leo Amery]

TomTom is a smart ass, who sadly, offers cogent analysis and a very broad and deep knowledge. It hurts me to admit it, but its true.

[Michael Davidson]

Why are people quibbling over the MORI poll? There's still the YouGov poll as well which puts Labour seven points in the lead - which is even worse.

The basic point is these polls are a huge slap in the face for Cameron.

[tapestry]

The ICM poll was not a poll but a survey quoted by two newspapers. It asked two questions. Which party did you vote for at the last election? Followed by which party do you feel warmest to now?

From the answers given, the pollster make deductions about current voting intentions. A voting intentions poll asks specifically, if there was a GE tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

The changing picture of the BNP is that they are rolling out nationally, and are preparing to contest 500 seats next time. they are opening branches all over the shop, and could poll around 5%.

They seem to pull more from labour as their economic policies are a bit barking from the Conservative viewpoint, apart from the fact that Conservative voters seem to be remarkably loyal through thick and thin.

Cameron will be changing his strategy to meet the new circumstances he faces, and Brown too will be feeling surprised that the BNP took 9% at Sedgfield, a seat they only began working recently.

There is a significant element of estimation made in any polling. I don't think the polling organisations have yet taken on board the changing political landscape as has been revealed at Sedgfield. The model they are working to is out of date.

[tapestry]

Re UKIP, who do you think you are kidding?

The hot news this morning from Southall is that the pro-multiculturalism United Kashmir and India Party (UKIP) has polled a monster 285 votes to beat their rivals, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (OMRLP), by an impressive 97 votes!

A EUphoric UKIP supporter, speaking through an interpreter, said: “the result shows that we are a real force in the country and it can only be a matter of time before we get 1% of the vote”! The same source attributed his party’s success to their multi-language election leaflets: “our literature, printed in Hindi, went down well with the local electorate and played a major part in our success – after all, wining 285 votes, sends out a real message!” Of course, the UKIP’s other secret weapon, was its MEPs – at least one of whom was reportedly seen, albeit briefly, in the constituency - it is claimed!

Meanwhile bitterly disappointed OMRLP members were visibly crestfallen this morning over the result. However one of their supporters, putting on a brave face, said: “we made mistakes, we should – on reflection – have followed the UKIP lead and printed up at least some of our literature in Hindi and other languages – we have been punished by the electorate as a result - we’ll do better next time out”, another was altogether more blunt: “being beaten by the UKIP is a humiliation the party may not recover from – we have become a political joke – we need to take a long hard look at what went wrong!”

Result: UKIP 285 (0.7%) OMRLP 188 (0.5%)

[Ches Blue]

"It is wrong to say that BNP is only taking votes from Labour. The BNP is picking up the working class votes that enabled Thatcher to win with huge majorities in 1982 and 1987."

The BNP vote is drawn mainly from people who do not vote, and never normally would vote-there are more 'non voters' in traditional Labour areas than Tory areas.They do pick up a few protest votes from people who want to give the major parties a kick in the pants.They are as likely to take protest votes from any of the three main parties.If Tory supporters are pinning any hopes on the BNP vote to aid the Tories things are far,far more dire than previously thought...

[Yet Another Anon]

There is a very clear pattern that would give Brown a majority of over 150 seats (i.e. Tories would lose seats gained in 2005)
Still I think the main losers will be the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives will probably end up with around 215 seats, Labour probably somewhere between the majority they have now and a 120 seat majority.

I would think that the figures given for the three main parties in this opinion poll would probably be about right for what will happen at the next General Election, not that I'm giving any credence to this opinion poll, probably sheer coincidence, even if the balance between the parties returned to that of 1997, Labour wouldn't get more than a 150 seat majority because of the reduction in the number of Scottish seats that had already reduced Labour's majority notionally in 2005 by about 14 and the boundary changes that have just come into effect in England & Wales should have a small effect re-adjusting for demographic changes, slightly benefiting the Conservatives and making it slightly more difficult for Labour.

Labour should recover a number of previously safe seats it has lost to the Liberal Democrats in 2001 and 2005, there will be Labour gains from the Conservatives and Conservative gains from Labour.

[Steve]

The people of England love their scottish dictators it seems, come on Gordon/Labour!, ruin us! we love it!.

[601]

"Keighley which will be a Labour seat until Anne Cryer decides she doesn't want it"

I hope so. Ann Cryer is one of the few MP's who isn't so PC to the point you would want to puke.

She says thing that need to be said, no one could accuse her of appeasement.

[tapestry]

Keep hopes for what cameron is offering us recently, Ches Blue.

The growth of other parties, of which the BNP is only the latest, makes it nigh on impossible with three main parties for any to achieve a vote of 40+%, which due to the bias in the electoral system Conservatives would have needed for a majority.

If we want to win an election, it will be far easier to do so with opposition votes split. The Lib Dems and Labour have run effective electoral pacts in 2001 and less so in 2005, but the tendency to work as one to block the Tories is there.

Mrs Thatcher's victories owed much to the tendency of Lab and Lib Dem to compete. There was genuine hatred. Under Ashdown and Kennedy, they became Labour's secret weapon.

If a new group comes along with genuine hatred for labour's policies, as with the BNP, and they split away left wing voters, that will help the Conservatives.

It's not 'hopes'. Just look again at the Sedgefield result. If you prefer we can discuss theoretical situations and past ones, but I prefer current reality myself.

Cameron is starting to move away from the Maude 'Lit' tendency, which was typical of Blair era superficiality. He's appointed one Cornerstoner to the front bench, and is adopting socially conservative policies. This is all recent, and will increase Cameron's appeal.

I will keep my 'hopes' avaiable for these encouraging moves, but what other parties do is still of interest as it sets the target we are aiming at.

[Yet Another Anon]

Mrs Thatcher's victories owed much to the tendency of Lab and Lib Dem to compete.
There wasn't really the Liberal Democrats then, rather there was the Alliance consisting of the Liberal Party who were anti-nuclear, generally pacifist - in fact along those lines the actual Liberal membership held very similar views to those of Michael Foot, rather suspicious of the EU in sharp contrast to most of the parliamentary Liberal Party, then there were the SDP who were in a project to recreate the Labour Party as they wanted it - Roy Jenkins and David Steel got on well together, but Roy Jenkins and David Owen issued different policy statements and ended up falling out, if the Alliance had had a single leader in 1987 they probably would have increased their vote, as it was despite a terrible campaign their total votal held up although their percentage vote went down slightly.

In 1979 the Liberals had lost all credibility and were not much of a factor in the election itself.

In 1983 the Alliance was too novel and didn't have a sound electoral base to campaign from, Labour was in chaos and lead by someone who sounded like a puppet of the Kremlin and whereas by then the Conservative vote was being much less affected by the Heath years, people still remembered Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan's economic crises. A lot of Conservative supporters either didn't vote because they were worried about the size of the majority, or because they felt that the Conservatives were going to win anyway and so felt that they didn't need to and there were many tactical votes for the Alliance against Labour, so the Conservative victory could have been far bigger maybe with more than 50% of the vote.

In 1987, Labour was starting from a very low ebb and the Alliance were divided amongst themselves although more so divisions in the opposition were important as there is no doubt that the opposition to the Conservative Government had grown.

[CCTV]

The people of England love their scottish dictators it seems, come on Gordon/Labour!, ruin us! we love it!.

Posted by: Steve | July 22, 2007 at 13:24

A cry from the heart from a man who wants to replace a man called Brown with a man called Cameron !!!! LOL

[Bradford]

Elect Calculus

This prediction gives Labour an 84-seat majority and wipes out the one Conservative seat in West Yorkshire

[601]

Why have no Scottish seats selected yet?

[Joe James Broughton]

The Lib Dems problems are more related to a two party squeeze developing - which is what happens after a long period of a government, rather than who their leader is.

Policy aims need to be sharpened up a lot - and should have been before Brown arrived, but any talk of leadership plots is a disaster.

[David Belchamber]

As Alice Thompson points out in The Telegraph, Cameron beats Brown hands down at PMQs when he is earnest and factual.
Brown is doing well at the moment, not only because he is reversing so many of Blair's policies, but because he has been faced with major problems - and is coping with them.
That is what government is very largely about; not posturing and theorising but getting on with sorting out problems.