YouGov gives Labour a 10% lead

A YouGov poll for tomorrow's Sunday Times puts Labour on 42%; 10% ahead of the Conservatives.  The LibDems are down to 14%.

Another poll - ICM for The Sunday Mirror - is a little better for the Tories.  Labour is on 39%; 6% ahead of the Conservatives on 33% with the LibDems on 18%.

1am update: The Sunday Times' survey is now online.  Some key findings:

• 65% think Brown is doing well as Prime Minister; 17% badly.
• 36% think Brown has performed better than expected; 5% think he has performed worse.
• 51% think David Cameron would do badly if he became PM; 27% think he'll do well.

Comments

[Alan S]

Can we start panicking yet?

[Steve]

Well, they are just doing what McLabour tell them!, but the sooner Cameron goes the better, gat Davis in as he should have been in the first place!.

[Jennifer Wells]

Noone should be in any doubt about the seriousness of the Conservative Party's position.

Fact 1: We are facing the prospect of a fourth General Election defeat.

Fact 2: Unlike Labour in 1992 our fourth defeat will probably be at least as bad as our previous three.

Fact 3: We will have been defeated after having abandoned key beliefs of the party on tax and immigration. This will mean the party will not only be defeated for a fourth time but will be terribly divided.

Fact 4: David Cameron will have been the architect of this and must not be allowed to escape responsibility.

[dafberad]

this really is quite worrying

[Opinicus]

S !
O E
M C
E N
B U
O

[Umbrella man]

What is most worrying about these polls is the underlying collapse in Cameron's numbers. Brown has big leads on who should be PM and economic competence. I really am very worried for our party now.

[Opinicus]

That looked much funnier the way I actually wrote it

[Umbrella man]

What do you mean Jonathan????

[Scotty]

WOW, poll mania in August!

[Afleitch]

Can we start panicking yet?

No. YouGov are, at present, the most favourable pollster for Labour. This is partly because they do not weigh their sample by likelyhood of voting, which if applied would pull Labours lead down to probably 5 or 6.

Secondly. It's the summer. YouGov suffer at summer because many of their internet sample are out of the country and unlike other pollsters they have no 'replacement' sample to fall back on.

[Umbrella man]

YouGov have traditionally been most favourable to the Conservatives Aleitch.

Are you clutching at straws by any chance?

[Paul Oakley]

How representative are YouGov nowadays anyway? They stopped asking me who I would support in a general election some while ago.

Instead, I keep getting highly irritating surveys asking me to rank branded goods, most of which I've never heard of.

Anyone else had a similar experience from them?

[Scotty]

"Anyone else had a similar experience from them?"
Yes!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

No need to panick! All good things come to men (and women!) who wait...

[John Scott]

Either way, whether it is YouGov, ICM or MORI we are between 5-10% behind. Can we start discussing what we are going to do about it! Is anyone at the top of the party still here to give a lead??? Or has the summer "offensive" died out already?

[CCHQ Spy]

Those who are attacking YouGov really are desperate. There have been many threads on Conservativehome when previous bad MORI or Populus polls came out with Cameroon loyalists saying 'let's wait for YouGov'! John Scott is right: we need to stop the denial and think of what to do.

[Steve]

Not bad for a anti-English scottish communist with no mandate to rule England!.

Rigged polls or death-wish by the people of England, its one or the other and thats a fact!.

[bluepatriot]

And he has this 10% lead BEFORE he starts a phased withdrawal from Iraq!

[david]

Couldn't be a case of 'shooting the messenger' could it?

[Paul Oakley]

I'm not desperate at all CCHQ spy. Just miffed at YouGov because I'm constantly being asked trite questions like "Would you be proud to work for Aldi?".

I'd far rather they asked me more interesting and topical questions, ie "Who is the bigger dastard: Hain or Milliband?"

Or indeed, in line with this thread: "who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow?"

I still live in hope.

[John Scott]

I think just because YouGov hasn't asked for YOUR view personally shouldn't invalidate the poll! Otherwise, presumably we would ALWAYS have a lead - if politics was only that easy!

[Tapestry]

Interesting that The Sun field this poll and give Gordon a big pat on the back, and then follow up by saying the trust he currently enjoys could quickly erode if he doesn't give the 81% who desire it, a referendum on he Constitution.

For Murdoch to betaking a lead role in stopping the EUSR Constitution is indeed a breakthrough.(SR = subservient regions)

[Niallster]

No need to panic at all. We are stuck with CMD for the next election which will be pretty damn soon in any case.

Broon can't wait with all the chickens coming home to roost.

As stated above Broon is a rabidly anti-English commy with no elected mandate to rule England and no ability to rule Jockland but still CMD is losing.

He has achieved the remarkable feat of totally alienating the Tory base whilst attracting absolutely zero support from anywhere else.

Our only hope as a party is that CMD loses so badly tghat there is no talk of giving him another shot or we will lose 5 elections in a row.

I hope the next leader is Davis but whoever it is could he be a CONSERVATIVE please.

[Jake]

Well , how about recognising that the United Kingdom is dying and championing the English for a change ( where nearly all the potential Conservative votes are )and less of this offputting Britain stuff

ie accord with reality .

[MrB]

What a bunch of defeatists. There's so many opportunists on here as well...waiting for any bad scrap of evidence to say Cameron should go.

How about we wait until there's a real competition? All of the Frank Luntz polls and focus groups have consistently shown that head-to-head Cameron is far better at communicating and connecting with the voter than Brown.

So when we get into the conference season, away from blanket-Brown media coverage where there will be room for more political debate (unlike since Brown has come to power)THEN you can decide if Cameron is failing or not.

[Mr Angry]

"How about we wait until there's a real competition?"

What, MrB you mean like the Ealing Southall by election which was fought, entirely the way they wanted to fight it, by brand Cameron for and on behalf of what used to be the Conservative party?

Oh and Tapestry, how many more times? Murdoch is, and always has been, very Eurosceptic. He is motivated principally by power and a Federal Europe would seriously dilute his power which is why you have never seen a pro europe editorial in The Sun, not ever. It really is beyond me why you persist in believeing that Murdoch is a europhile when that is so very far from the truth and there is loads of evidence to that effect.

[MrB]

Of course, a lot of you would love to believe that the Ealing Southall By election was a real contest. Well of course it wasn't and anyone sane would know it. It was stupid of the party leadership and of many on this site claiming that there were "posters in every window" and we were heading for victory. Firstly, we NEVER do well in by elections and secondly it was in a constituency with demographics we would never be expected to do well with anyway, nevermind how "Inclusive" our party now claims it is.

I'm not entirely happy with project Cameron, I'm just not selfish or deluded enough in my own traditional views to want him to be replaced by another even more vote-losing leader.

The local elections wern't a real contest either, (since they too never normally reflect subsequent general elections) but all the defeatists seem to forget those 900 gains. Odd that.

[Wilmslow Thinker]

WE DESPERATELY NEED A NEW LEADER - A CONSERVATIVE ONE PLEASE - NOT BLAIR MARK 3.

GET IT SORTED BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

[MrB]

Dear me..it just beggars belief. Ok so we chuck Cameron now after he loses a VNC (yeh right)then in the ensuing turmoil the party has another massive debate about its "Direction" (which we already had, Cameron won by a mile), lots of daggers are drawn, lots of Cameroons getting revenge on the ones that ousted him, even more daggers drawn...party splits in two maybe? All this before a general election? The word oblivion comes to mind.

[Traditional Tory]

Yes it's rather amusing to recall how those of us who were prepared to put our heads above the parapet during the 'Cameron bounce' were constantly mocked by the true believers who, one charitably assumes, are currently taking their summer holidays.

Such a shame that Tory T isn't here to regale us with his latest slant. 'Only a 10% lead! Compared with Blair in ...'

I knew Cameron would fail from the moment he paraded his ridiculous, shallow, optimistic pseudo-philosophy before the gawping groundlings. Now they know it too.

And always during the boon months - if ever there was a slight dip in the lead - the Roons would chorus 'Just wait for YouGov, you can't trust Mori/NOP/whatever'

Our hearts say 'Dump Cameron'; our heads tell us we're stuck with him until the election.

What we must agree on is this; the day after the next election Cameron and his shabby spivvy policies go - for ever!

[Tory T]

It's very simple: YG has no likelihood to vote filter, explaining the 5-4 point discrepancy with the other polls.

[TomTom]

All of the Frank Luntz polls

Reading tea leaves is also fun....

Luntz was a consultant to NBC's THE WEST WING, worked for several Fortune 100 companies and four different billionaires.

Luntz

Luntz has risen to media stardom on the strength of his work with focus groups, typically gatherings of a dozen or so people, carefully screened to be representative of a larger population. A moderator leads the group in a discussion, and carefully chooses questions to elicit the participants' deep feelings about candidates or issues.

And Luntz is an able moderator. Watching him work a room is like watching a good politician: He's bright, funny, amiable and connects with his subjects. He speaks in simple, direct sentences, and asks questions like "Is Bush a smart guy?" or "Does he have what it takes to be president?" He's a first-rate empathizer, all grins and furrowed brows.

This has undoubtedly helped the media pine for him, but it's also fallen in love with those wonderful little gizmos he often gives his groups that allow voters to instantly make their opinion known during a speech or debate -- a little dial that they can turn one way for approval and the other for disapproval.

As an event unfolds, he sits back and watches a constantly shifting fever-line that shows which statements people favor or dislike. If you have ever wondered about the fickleness of the American public, just watch one of Luntz's dial tapes as I did during the 1996 presidential debate in Hartford, Conn. It's an experience in terror. One line may elicit a negative response, while a different line meaning basically the same thing is all positive.

Of course, political focus groups aren't new. Their use dates back to World War II. They allow the moderator to dig into specific questions more deeply than "Do you support abortion rights?" or "Do you use Clorox?" and check for emotional responses.

They are not, however, substitutes for polling data. They create no hard numbers, and since the groups are usually small, it's hard to extrapolate any definitive result

[TomTom]

All of the Frank Luntz polls

Reading tea leaves is also fun....

Luntz was a consultant to NBC's THE WEST WING, worked for several Fortune 100 companies and four different billionaires.

Luntz

Luntz has risen to media stardom on the strength of his work with focus groups, typically gatherings of a dozen or so people, carefully screened to be representative of a larger population. A moderator leads the group in a discussion, and carefully chooses questions to elicit the participants' deep feelings about candidates or issues.

And Luntz is an able moderator. Watching him work a room is like watching a good politician: He's bright, funny, amiable and connects with his subjects. He speaks in simple, direct sentences, and asks questions like "Is Bush a smart guy?" or "Does he have what it takes to be president?" He's a first-rate empathizer, all grins and furrowed brows.

This has undoubtedly helped the media pine for him, but it's also fallen in love with those wonderful little gizmos he often gives his groups that allow voters to instantly make their opinion known during a speech or debate -- a little dial that they can turn one way for approval and the other for disapproval.

As an event unfolds, he sits back and watches a constantly shifting fever-line that shows which statements people favor or dislike. If you have ever wondered about the fickleness of the American public, just watch one of Luntz's dial tapes as I did during the 1996 presidential debate in Hartford, Conn. It's an experience in terror. One line may elicit a negative response, while a different line meaning basically the same thing is all positive.

Of course, political focus groups aren't new. Their use dates back to World War II. They allow the moderator to dig into specific questions more deeply than "Do you support abortion rights?" or "Do you use Clorox?" and check for emotional responses.

They are not, however, substitutes for polling data. They create no hard numbers, and since the groups are usually small, it's hard to extrapolate any definitive result

[Tory T]

(there is no doubt that these are bad polls at the moment)

[Ray Gillespie]

Imagine what fun Labour would have reading all these comments!

[rumpelstiltskin]

If we dump Cameron now or after a General Election defeat, it will be the end of the Tory Party as presently constituted. A right-wing assumption of power will put us in the wilderness for the foreseeable future and will divide the Party. UKIP supporters will return - and there is only 2% of them, according to the polls - but the great majority of the centre-right British public will desert us in even greater numbers. The only alternative then will be for sensible middle-of-the-road Tories to make common cause with sections of the Liberal Democrats represented by Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne etc., who see little or no future with Campbell and the left-wing section of their party. The extreme, europhobic, anti-immigrant wing of the Tory Party, plus their UKIP friends (and I can see no difference now between them!) will be forever marginalised and a civilised, sensible centre-right Tory/LD Party will really challenge the Brown hegemony and, arguably, be in government for many years. We MUST dump the nutters who have caused so much trouble since the retirement of Margaret Thatcher. They would rather lose and maintain their "purity" than actually unite behind a leader elected by two-thirds of the membership to WIN the next election.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"The only alternative then will be for sensible middle-of-the-road Tories to make common cause with sections of the Liberal Democrats represented by Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne etc."

But, you've already made common cause with them - ably demonstrated by calls from the Camerloons for these members to defect from their own party to the Tories. There's no difference between Shameron's Tories and the Limp-Dems. That's why Blu Labour's poll rating is so low.

Why vote for Blu Labour - a silly and trivial copy - when you can have the real thing, which has a 'serious' leader ?

That's why the Tories will lose.

[All over for Cameron]

"Imagine what fun Labour would have reading all these comments!"

Well seeing as they seem to be heading for a large increase in their majority, I'm sure they couldn't give a toss what some Cameroons in denial think.

As noted above, YouGov has been the accepted measure of accuracy for the past two years on this site by loyal Cameroons, and to see it being trashed by delusional Cameroons now is plain embarrassing.

Cameroons please note: The 'old right-wing unpopular backward-looking dinosaurs' received more votes than *every* other political party in England in the 2005 general election.

Your failure will be your failure., no-one elses. No-one knows what the point of the Conservative Party is now, and that is directly because of the Cameroons.

[Ben Surtees]

All Over For Cameron.

Totally correct about YouGov, "you live by the polls, you die by the polls"... however it is worth noting that there is still some length of time to go and while the polls are troubling and down right disheartening they were not totally unforeseen.

But you are wrong in suggesting that "The 'old right-wing unpopular backward-looking dinosaurs' received more votes than *every* other political party in England in the 2005 general election." has any real relevance, still finished firmly behind Labour in the number of seats that were won and gained larlgy thanks to a big rise in the LibDem vote, whats is more its a poll of the entire UK not just England (!)... and more to the point does it any way suggest that a hard right agenda would produce anything more than the pathetic electoral performances of the last decade? (indeed with us back to 33% and Labour gaining from the LibDems is likely to see us do much worse!).

[Traditional Tory]

Rumpelstiltskin has certainly shown himself up in his true colours and at the same time blown the gaff on the entire Liberal 'Tory'/Roon masquerade.

These people aren't Tories at all. They are basically 20th century middle class Marxians who still see the Tory Party as their best road to power and wealth. Hopefully not for much longer.

Of course I would like rumpelstiltskin and the other fairweather friends to hive themselves off to the LibDems ASAP and the remaining, genuine, Tories to take over UKIP, or at any rate the Tory majority faction of UKIP. It's not widely appreciated but UKIP contains a noisy minority of anti-EU 'social liberal' pinkoes, whom we can certainly do without.

Certainly as long as the population remain enmired in socialistic selfish stupidity we will not regain government. Better to come to terms with that reality than to betray every principle for which we have ever stood.

Far better that the party should provide a credible opposition, while remaining a sane and stable base for those who believe in the enduring principles of nation, altar and traditional decency.

There is the future of Conservatism. The Cameron mirage is fading fast.

[Traditional Tory]

Rumpelstiltskin has certainly shown himself up in his true colours and at the same time blown the gaff on the entire Liberal 'Tory'/Roon masquerade.

These people aren't Tories at all. They are basically 20th century middle class Marxians who still see the Tory Party as their best road to power and wealth. Hopefully not for much longer.

Of course I would like rumpelstiltskin and the other fairweather friends to hive themselves off to the LibDems ASAP and the remaining, genuine, Tories to take over UKIP, or at any rate the Tory majority faction of UKIP. It's not widely appreciated but UKIP contains a noisy minority of anti-EU 'social liberal' pinkoes, whom we can certainly do without.

Certainly as long as the population remain enmired in socialistic selfish stupidity we will not regain government. Better to come to terms with that reality than to betray every principle for which we have ever stood.

Far better that the party should provide a credible opposition, while remaining a sane and stable base for those who believe in the enduring principles of nation, altar and traditional decency.

There is the future of Conservatism. The Cameron mirage is fading fast.

[simon]

Well, we're screwed. Brown would be bonkers not to go to the country in October. The poll lead for Labour is attributable to DC making a right balls up of things. The people i speak to think he's a 'useless yah'. I'd be interested in DC's own result in the Witney constituency due to his inept handling of his 'africa jaunt'. If he gets told to 'f-off' by a constituent in leafy West Oxon whilst it was underwater things do not look good. If we go down to a 100 seat majority for Labour, DC cannot carry on as leader- full stop. Which leads us to who takes over? I can't think of anybody at the moment but DD- but he's essentially a busted flush too. Come back Michael Howard!

[Traditional Tory]

One of the biggest hoots during the week was John Selwyn Gummer's half-hearted defence of Cameron in the Telegraph.

Presumably dragging the has-been burger king out of semi-retirement was the latest wheeze of the party's new PR guru.

Gummer urged party members to follow Cameron and 'embrace the 21st century'. Coming from a man who left the C of E because he hated the idea of women priests that's rich indeed.

[Matt Wright]

It would be interesting to have a more rational analysis of how just 3 months ago we did extremely well (other than just Brown is brilliant and Cameron is satan etc, etc) and now we are apparently so far behind. I have my views which I've expressed before but interested in others,

Matt

[Simon Newman]

Well, I think there's a risk the Conservatives could lose the next election. I'd much rather lose under Cameron than (eg) Davis though. If the party changed leader and still lost (because voters saw it as divided) both sides would blame the other. Cameronism would never have had a real test. I think the Cameron strategy needs a chance to see if it works.

[Traditional Tory]

It's quite simple, Matt. Because former golden boy Blair had well and truly blotted his copybook AND lost all interest in anything other than baiting his successor, Cameron enjoyed an extended honeymoon.

That's now ended, just as I predicted it would.

Cameron himself has consistently implied that centre-leftism is the default position of the public these days, and he may even be right. Following his logic we can confidently say that with the removal of Blair the public have returned to that default position.

When you are all froth and no substance it doesn't take long for people to see through you. Sad; but that's the way of the world.

Roons who are looking for a political career would be wise to hitch their wagons to Brown's star. They won't have to change any of their 'principles' so the transition will be entirely painless.

[TomTom]

I think the Cameron strategy needs a chance to see if it works.

Even if it doesn't Brown might invite them into government since they agree on such a broad range of issues....

[Miss Tooty]

Ahh well, another 4/5 yrs of labour in power. By the way just where are David Camerons tories? They all seem to have disowned him. His ego is to big for him to resign now. Maybe the order of ones boot up his arse may help him find the door.

[Traditional Tory]

By the way just where are David Camerons tories? They all seem to have disowned him

Probably relaxing by their hotel pools filling in their application forms to join 'Gordon Brown's Socialists'

[anon]

Well, there's one crumb of comfort. The Labour defectors who went straight to the 'A' list will be having a few sleepless nights now.

[Yet Another Anon]

If we go down to a 100 seat majority for Labour, DC cannot carry on as leader- full stop.
Since 1997, a very large number of seats have not been Conservative; in 1997, 2001 and 2005 progressively the numbers held by Liberal Democrats and small parties and Independents has increased - there are enough seats that were formerly safe Labour seats that Labour can retake that the Conservatives could hold all their seats and even recover 20 or 30 from the Liberal Democrats and Labour could win a 100 seat majority, equally a collapse in the vote by Labour might not result in an upsurge in Conservative seats, the Conservative Party can make a huge gain in votes and fail to win any more seats than they had currently - at this point David Cameron would choose either to stand down or continue and the Conservative Party would have a debate as to what it should do next and the balance of opinion would affect what would happen next, the outcome might be right or wrong but that is what would happen.

I'm inclined to think that so long as the Conservative Party total vote increased in total and the Conservative Party ended up with 200+ seats that David Cameron would probably be able to continue, I'm not saying that this would necessarily be the right thing, but rather that I think this is what would happen - supposing for example that the Conservative Party exceeded the total number of votes it got in 1997 and the percentage vote went up to 36% or so, but ended up with no apparent progress in seats - approach to the results would be split with some saying it was going backwards, but others would say that the vote was going the right way and if sustained at a following election would see the Conservative Party starting to make progress in numbers of seats and of support starting to return to levels in the 1980's.

[Thatcheroon]

God! these comments by the usual anti-Camerons make me so angry!

Yes the polls are very bad, but is that totally surprising? Brown got a new leader bounce, he then got extra points for "strong leadership" during the terrorist attacks, flooding, and foot & mouth, while at the same time those slack jawed cretins within the Tory party have seen their chance to attack Cameron, and the public dont like divided parties.

What makes it even worse is that the anti-cameron, anti-conservative traitors hate Cameron because of some delusional impression that he has "abandoned Tory principles".

He has said again and again he wants to cut taxes over the course of a parliament, he has said again and again he will reduce the size of the state, but because he doesn't (years before an election) say how much or what taxes this becomes warped in what passes for the minds of the traitors into "opposing tax cuts".

He has proposed an annual limit of economic migrants from outside the EU - but this becomes warped into "abandoned key beliefs of the party on immigration."

He has policies to build more prisons, more drug rehab centres, a border police force, etc. but this becomes warped (via Labour party spin) into "hug a hoody" and being "pinko".

He has said again and again he wants to suport marriage and the family (and, oh look, tax cuts for married couples) and fix the "broken society", but this is blanked out and the usual "pinko liberal marxist" comments continue.

He even wants to bring back fox hunting - not doubt somewhere an anti-cameron has attacked this for being a "toff" thing.

He wants to get out of the social chapter, re-negotiate the Human Rights Act, and wants a referendum of the euro constitution. He wants to leave the EPP, but delays it, so the traitors call for David Davis (who ruled out leaving the EPP in his leadership campaign) to become leader, on the basis that Cameron is Europhile!! I'm surprised some of you traitors can dress yourself in the morning.

And because of these idiots we may well lose the next election, condemming the country to Gordon Brown until at least 2012. Of course this doesn't seem to worry the traitors because many of them have said on this site (or the Telegraph) that they are quite impressed by Brown and will vote for him. Some were even saying they would vote for him before he became PM.

Either base your opinions on reality or go and die in a fire.

[Raj]

Alan S

What does panicking achieve?

I'm surprised people are so quick to forget John Major's bounce - or am I to believe he was some sort of political super-star? I think his lead lasted something like 5-6 months - Brown's been in for less than 2 months. If the grey pea-counter could stay ahead for nearly half a year, I think Gordo could do the same.

As much as some people here don't like Brown, it doesn't mean the public won't give him a shot.

[Raj]

Correction

Given that some anti-Camerons actually like Brown, they can't expect Cameron to cut Brown's lead faster than Major's was.

[Scotty]

"Far better that the party should provide a credible opposition, while remaining a sane and stable base for those who believe in the enduring principles of nation, altar and traditional decency."

Debating society full of hot air which aims to be pure but impotent.

[North Briton]

I really do think a lot of this comment is nonsense. Brown has enjoyed wall-to-wall coverage and a series of "crises" (so-called) that have allowed him to appear prime ministerial. This has allowed him to take the political initiative. It's also made Cameron appear maladroit for the moment.

However, the political terms of trade will change, and so long as the leadership (and the party) don't panic, you will, after some time, see the polls recover. Cameron remains a formidably effective communicator and will certainly prove competitive when the next election comes around.

Issues like pensions, debt, interest rates, Europe and the state of the public services have been driven from the media. They will return and the Tory Party will be much better able to take advantage of them next time round. There are plenty of folk, when they have time to reflect, who won't fancy five more years of Brown and Labour. And they won't be voting LibDem this time, either.

[christina]

This is - as usual wrongly reported. What is the matter with these journalists? Can 't they add up properly?

The reported figures
Lab 42% + 2%
Con 32% -1%
LibDem 14% -2%
Others 12% +1%

The true figures if you look at the WHOLE sample are:

Lab 29% - 1%
Con 22% -2%
LibDem 10% -2%
Others 8% = n/c

Will not vote 16% n/c
Don't know 14% =+5%

So by far the biggest change is of voters going to the Don't Know category which exactly balances all the other changes.

The paper writes it up as a triumph for Brown and a disaster for Cameron.

[Graham D'Amiral]

So You gov give labour double the lead that Mori do and almost double the leadr ICM do. Just as last month You gov was giving labour a lead about 3 points higher than any other organisation.

[Traditional Tory]

God! these comments by the usual anti-Camerons make me so angry!

Well hello Thatcheroon (sic). As you don't previously appear to have been numbered among the usual pro-Cameroons and I'm sure you wouldn't be doing anything so underhand as posting under multiple IDs, how would you know how to recognise 'the usual anti-Camerons'?

'those slack jawed cretins within the Tory party have seen their chance to attack Cameron'

'anti-cameron, anti-conservative traitors'

'this becomes warped in what passes for the minds of the traitors'

'I'm surprised some of you traitors can dress yourself in the morning.'

'Either base your opinions on reality or go and die in a fire.'

May I be the first to congratulate you on these stunning contributions to party unity and felicity?

[Niallster]

'anti-conservative traitors hate Cameron because of some delusional impression that he has "abandoned Tory principles".'

When ranting it is still important to be coherent. Are we 'anti-conservative' or are we 'defending Tory principles' we can't be both.

Oh and by the way when you and all the other David Cameron's Conservatives lose the next election its YOUR fault not ours. Remember that.

[All over for Cameron]

Ben,

The relevance will be revealed after the next election.

If the Cameroons have improved the relative vote share (% diff +/- than Labour) then they may well argue that that the 'dinosaurs' are holding them back (as it hasn't improved quick enough etc).

*HOWEVER* if the relative vote share to Labour is worse than the 'dinosaurs' achieved in 2005, then that will be a clear demonstration that the Cameroons have taken the party backwards as they will have actually lost more support than they have gained.

The polls suggest the latter is the case and that shouldn't really come as a surprise as there is a general feeling of confusion over what the Conservatives now stand for.

Remember, party membership is lower now than under Howard and Labour appear to be returning to their popularity level seen in 2001 (41%), with anger at Blair over the Iraq war causing the 'blip' 5% fall in 2005 which benefitted the LibDems most.

All in all, objectively, it looks like Howard and Kennedy achieved very good results in 2005 off anti-Blairism Iraq-war anger, and that this is unlikely to be repeated or bettered by the Tories or LibDems for some time to come.

Anyone betting on anything but an improved result for Labour in the next election is a mug, imho.

[All over for Cameron]

Ben,

The relevance will be revealed after the next election.

If the Cameroons have improved the relative vote share (% diff +/- than Labour) then they may well argue that that the 'dinosaurs' are holding them back (as it hasn't improved quick enough etc).

*HOWEVER* if the relative vote share to Labour is worse than the 'dinosaurs' achieved in 2005, then that will be a clear demonstration that the Cameroons have taken the party backwards as they will have actually lost more support than they have gained.

The polls suggest the latter is the case and that shouldn't really come as a surprise as there is a general feeling of confusion over what the Conservatives now stand for.

Remember, party membership is lower now than under Howard and Labour appear to be returning to their popularity level seen in 2001 (41%), with anger at Blair over the Iraq war causing the 'blip' 5% fall in 2005 which benefitted the LibDems most.

All in all, objectively, it looks like Howard and Kennedy achieved very good results in 2005 off anti-Blairism Iraq-war anger, and that this is unlikely to be repeated or bettered by the Tories or LibDems for some time to come.

Anyone betting on anything but an improved result for Labour in the next election is a mug, imho.

[New Blue Future]

We need to hold our nerve. The Brown bounce was expected and predicted. Brown has been smart by moving to the right (without the bleating from the left - yet). He has also been lucky politically as he's had 3 big issues with which to look statesmanlike (failed terror plot; floods; foot and mouth).

I think all the bad news for Brown is ahead of him - the economy is heading for troubled waters (inflation higher; interest rates moving up; oil price moving back up; unemployment rising; insolvencies rising; stock market unstable; property market correction and so on) and he CANNOT escape blame when these things get worse, although he will surely try.

It's all down to the Brown gamble - if he goes to the polls early he will win a 4th term and then face the fallout of the worsening economy. This could put him miles behind in the polls but in power for years (like Major).

Or if he dithers (his normal modus operandi) then his popularity will fall and we are then looking at a very close election in 2010 with a hung parliament a distinct possibility.

My predictions are therefore these:

07/08 election - labour majority
11/12/13 election - big cons majority

or

2010 election - hung parliament.

NBF

[christina]

Please all, lets talk about what YouGoov actually found and not about how the S.Times misereportyed it.

What actually happened is that there was a major swing to the Don 't Knows at the expense of all 3 major parties. The Don't Knows are now significantly bigger than the KibDems.

[Teck Khong]

Is 1922 watching the country and the grassroots very carefully? We have not fired hard into Labour's weaknesses and failures or come up with un-copiable strong and much needed policies. What are we doing about winning? Logically, however you cut it and as things stand, we are not yet ready for government, come Autumn 07, Spring 08.....

[Michael Davidson]

Cameron's a dead duck - the sooner he goes the better.

It's astonishing how the 'Roons are still trying to cover up his mistakes and the usual 'oh don't worry, we'll be back in the lead before you know it!' Rubbish - there's no hope whilst Cameron's in charge.

[Scotty]

Oh dear, the anti Conservative party brigade are really scrapping the barrel with the playground taunts on this thread.
They were there when the polls were good, but 6 weeks into Brown's premiership and they are positively drooling bile.
Anyone who is after a sensible debate about these polls should not bother on this thread or you will be tarred with their favourite taunt of being a Cameroon. Why debate the big picture when you can get down and personal with genuine posters who are Conservatives.

[James Maskell]

Its a bad poll, thats for sure. But the election wont be called for a while and we have time to do something to ensure that if we are to lose a fourth election, we're going to go down fighting.

Weve got plenty to attack in Labour. Now is not the time to lose control. Im not a Cameron fan but we know we are stuck with him. We have to dig deep.

[TomTom]

But the election wont be called for a while

It is good that you are in the know....have you told Brown the news ?

[James Maskell]

Maybe Im getting a feeling of deja vu but in an attempt to recycle everything, did you recycle that joke, Tom Tom?

Obviously I dont know for sure, but to call an election only months after taking power would be a highly risky thing to do when you have until May 2010 to call an election. It makes no sense for him to call it so soon.

[Niallster]

James,

Read my lips. PFI.

November 2007 at the latest.

[TomTom]

Oh no James Maskell...of course it does. It would precede ratification of the EU Treaty and Brown can repeat the pledge in the 2005 Manifesto to dish the Tories.

It is before the EU Elections of 2009 and it is unlikely to get any better than at present if the US economy tanks

[Den]

This isn't a bounce, its a trend, and its one that is set to continue. There is only one person who is to blame for the mess we're in now and that's David "Dave" Cameron. I have consistently called for this idiots head on this site and in these threads. It really doesn't matter now, we've lost anyway. Whats more; the people of Great Britain now think less of Cameron than they did of Neil Kinnock in 1992 when he was in a similar position before Labour's fourth consecutive electoral defeat. It is incredible to think that given the Iraq war, rising taxes, rising mortgage rates, uncontrolled immigration, crime at record levels, failing public services and an economic slowdown starting to take hold, the British electorate would comfortably return Labour with an increased majority of over a hundred seats. And yet there are still mentally deranged conservativehome members who believe that the moron leading the party will bring us victory at the next GE and that we should support his socialist agenda without question. Major, Hague, IDS and Howard were all poor but this fool has set us back another 10 years at least. To put it midly; we are f**ked.

[Teck Khong]

Anger, Den, robs rationality. Tell us explicitly please your concrete plans of how we fight and defeat Gordon Brown and Labour?

[Den]

Teck khong: I am devoid of rationality? Certainly not. I am also not devoid of anger either. How should we fight and defeat Gordon Brown and Labour? Well my peace loving little hippy friend - we could start by getting a little more angry and a little more critical of "Daves" hero's past and present in the Labour movement. Or we could just agree and comply with everything they do and say, which we've done since November 2005, and continue flat-lining at 30% in the polls. I would opt for the former, you it seems would opt for the latter. So why don't you tell us ecplicitly please how this approach will defeat Gordon Brown and Labour? As for my thoughts on stopping Brown and Labour winning an election they've already won; I would suggest sending in a crack commando SAS unit into Downing Street and then turning them on Whitney. Because lets face it, even without a government to fight, David Cameron would still find a way to lose.

[Teck Khong]

No offence meant, Den, for I too share the dismay at our consistent failure to lob bombs into the Labour compound where they have no excuses for letting the British public down. We have to convince the people at large.

Neither am I hippie, in age or stance, being blue to the core but now unavoidably impatient.

[Traditional Tory]

Scotty - Oh dear, the anti Conservative party brigade are really scrapping the barrel with the playground taunts on this thread.

Wouldn't you say, Scotty, that your mucker Thatcheroon just about hits the jackpot where 'scrapping (sic) the barrel' is concerned?

Or do you consider telling members of the same party to 'go and die in a fire' to be part of the normal rough and tumble of poolitics?

[Scotty]

He started it, no he did, no what he did was worse...
As I said, playground behaviour.

[Den]

Teck Khong: I'm sure your not a hippy - I was being a little bit childish. But I am now starting to doubt whether the Conservative Party, based on the findings in recent polls, will ever win power again? We just don't seem to stand for anything. I have Labour supporting friends who routinely ask me to name three Conservative Party policies. I can't. I have friends who used to be Conservative Party supporters but have since decided to support UKIP. They ask me to demonstrate how the Conservative Party under Cameron is any longer a centre-right movement. I find it very hard to do so. But the worst occurence of late has been friends who are still supportive of the Conservative Party who believe Brown is a far superior leader than Cameron and should probably deserve another term in office. This isn't the mark of party destined for victory anytime soon. Even betwwen 1994 and May 1997 there was worry inside and outside of the Labour Party that they would somehow blow it. We need to get rid of Cameron before the conference season starts and admit to making a huge error of judgement in backing his leadership.

[Traditional Tory]

He started it, no he did, no what he did was worse...
As I said, playground behaviour.

Oh right. So it seems that you are not prepared to condemn such wicked utterances when made by your own side.

[MH]

Well, Den, I left the Conservatives to join UKIP last year. All I see now is the Party headed for yet another election defeat. I should be feeling delighted that Project Dave has been proved so wrong, instead, I just feel rather depressed about the whole thing.

[steve]

I'm new o nto this blog although I've been a Conservative for many years.Must say it attracts some strange people!
David Cameron has done some good things,he's done some bad things too (Grammar Schools)but he's the only leader we've got!It would be mad to get rid of him now particularly when there is nobody obvious to take his place.
Traditional Tory, are you for real? You seem like you're Labour to me trying to wind Tories up. Either that, or a complete prat.

[steve]

Well I'm sure you're going to make a real difference with UKIP ,MH,not.

[Annabelle Thomson]

Lets prepare for our next Leadership Election! We should be 10 points ahead of Labour NOW!!

[MH]

Well, Steve, it's called principles. You know those things that the British public has rumbled Dave doesn't have.

[Den]

MH: I sympathise with your decision to join UKIP. I feel that the Conservative Party is no longer representative of conservative values and I genuinely believe it has been hijacked by a bunch of hooray's who feel the need to ingratiate themselves with "modern Britain" at every possible opportunity. I just feel that Cameron's time is over whether Brown calls an election in October or not, and that its probably wise to see what emerges from the rubble. Influential elements in the party and in the media have been urging us to adopt a "modernising" agenda for years now. When Cameron eventually fails so will their ridiculous arguments about "change" and "reform". I joined the party in January 2005 when I was 21, so given my age and the length of time I've been an active member, I may as well wait a few months longer.

[Teck Khong]

Den, Social Responsibility seemed at first to be to be a sound basis for our policies. However, 'talking about it' has not engendered national policies as far as I or any would-be voter can see. Maybe I am stupid, but surely, if we are not a Party of eunuchs, we ought to have the courage to enunciate pride of ownership and responsibility of one and all in the same breath, say clearly what is common sense and show our commitment with conviction.

Many years ago during the Thatcher years, a young University student asked me what in a nutshell is the enduring distinctiveness of the Conservatives. Those same words today sound strangely hollow, and that's sad.

Very sad indeed, as they are still as relevant as ever.

[steve]

Nah,it's just a complete waste of time MH. You know you're not going to win anywhere. You're not going to achieve a single thing. Why not set fire to your ballot paper at the General Election? You can watch your 'principles' go up in smoke as Labour win thanks to people like you.

[PODWAS]

Poor Old Dave, What A Shame!

[christina]

Everyone here goes on as though the Sunday Times has reported the poll correctly ,

THEY HAVEN'T

ALL 3 main parties lost share, but as they never show the Don't Knows people don't twig on to the fact that ALL the voters lost to the main parties ended up as Don 't Knows -- +5 percentage points . This group is now on 16% compared to the Tories on 22%, Labour on 29% and the LibDems on a paltry 10%.

Can we please discuss the facts (for the third time of asking) ?

[Sam S]

I don't quite know what the anti Cameron comments mean when they say that DC has no principles. Do they mean that he does not bang on about Europe and Immigration? Or do they mean that he talks too much about the Environment and the NHS? Frankly, the policies are sound (or will be), and do not differ fundamentall from the past.

Instead, the difference is that Cameron is trying to de-toxify the Tory Party and to get it taken seriously once again. Unfortunately, Gordon has enjoyed a much greater bounce than envisaged - gained by a combination of the fact that he's Mr Blair, his facadist attempt at restoring honesty, and that the Conservatives self-implode at the publication of the slightest bad opinion poll.

It's a great shame that some Luddite members stab him in the back immediately when the party hits unsteady waters.

I am depressed at the polls but we must wait until the policy reports have finished. What's more, the fact that economic problems lie ahead should be highlighted.

[Jake]

Er , just a small point to enlighten the despair .

Mr Brown's position in Scotland has converted from poor to disatrous
The Scotsman yesterday :
"SNP leaders are celebrating their best-ever poll result, after the party took a 16-point lead over Labour.

The poll, by Scottish Opinion, put the SNP on 48 per cent with Labour on 32 per cent - a huge lead only three months after the parties had been separated by just one percentage point and seat in the Scottish elections. "

The figures in Scotland are :

SNP 48%
Labour 32%
Lib Dems 8%
Tories 8%
Greens 2%
Scot. Socs 2%

I have not sure how many seats that implies that Labour loses but it must be significant - and a major reason why Brown will NOT go for an election. Labour could face precipitous decline in Scotland , Brown's own seat could be under threat .

By the way the figures in the same survey for Scottish independence were
For independence 31%
Against it 48%
Don't knows 20%

which seems to imply that the SNP is becoming the new establishment party in Scotland - only . After all it is the SNP not the SIP .

I don't think there will be an election any time soon .

[MH]

Steve, can I just point out that Dave said anyone who didn't want to be part of his project should leave the party?

[John Leonard]

Jake:

The problem with that poll is that

a) It is not produced by recognised pollsters.

b) It refers to the Scottish Assembly NOT UK

The Yougov poll provides a small canvas for Scotland as part of its recent poll.

This gave:

Lab 36%
Other (SNP?) 36%
Con 17%
Libdem 11%

Perhaps this gives a flavour of how Scotland would vote in a GE?

[steve]

I didn't ever hear him say that MH. Got a reference? Even if he did why didn't you stay and fight rather than wasting your time in UKIP. You're not going to achieve anything at all with them. You probably already know that.
All you'll do is help Labour win. I hope that makes you proud.It wouldn't make me.

[Traditional Tory]

I'm new o nto this blog although I've been a Conservative for many years.Must say it attracts some strange people!

You being one, Steve. FYI I've been a member of the party for 37 years.

Traditional Tory, are you for real? You seem like you're Labour to me trying to wind Tories up.

The only people I wind up, Steve, are Roons like you.

Most Tories seem to be pretty much ad idem about Dave these days.

We all make mistakes...

[Traditional Tory]

Why not set fire to your ballot paper at the General Election?

Steve, you do sound spookily like Thatcheroon. He also had a charming if somewhat excitable way with words, and an alarming tendency towards pyromania.

Could the two of you be related, I ask?

[steve]

What's a Roon? You do seem a twat Traditional Tory! Have you got any friends? Anyone who can come on here and blog all day and just say the same thing every time he blogs is pretty stupid.
Why don't you say what policies you want rather than just slagging off Cameron every time you come on here?Or are you Labour?

[James]

Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them. There is nothing we can do to make Brown unpopular, just be there when he c*cks up. And he will. He's a canny politician who knows what his image was and how he needs to comes across, and he's doing it. How long he can keep it up is another matter.

So far he's had a good first month - he couldn't have planned it better if he'd tried (a series of crisis in which he doesn't have to do ANYTHING, but can look and act statesmanlike). Hold on, and as the problems start to mount up (EU constitution, rising interest rates, stumbling housing market, stumbling stock market, pension incomes falling...) we'll see how he fairs.

The worst thing the Conservatives can do is panic and look split. Frankly, if we lose the next election it will not be because of David Cameron, it will be because of the suicidal nay-sayers who seem to think that the reason we lost the last three elections is because the electorate kept making some sort of a mistake, and if we just keep saying the same thing over and over, heads in the sand, eventually they'll realise that they're all Conservatives after all!

[TomTom]

Why not set fire to your ballot paper at the General Election?

Public Order Act 1986, and no doubt breach of laws on conduct of elections, so a conviction in Magistrate's Court if not Crown Court.....abstention would be much less inconvenient