Tories 8% ahead in new Populus poll

Times: "Labour is down by 16 points to 35 per cent on being the best to manage the economy. The Tories are at 34 per cent, up six points in three months.  The Tories have overtaken Labour on getting the balance right between taxes and public spending, at 31 to 27 per cent, after a 10 point drop in Labour’s rating. The Tories have moved into the lead on representing Britain’s best interests in the EU, by 30 to 29.  Labour has also lost ground on the NHS and standards in schools, and remains only just ahead of the Tories, by four points and one point respectively. Labour’s biggest lead is on tackling the shortage of affordable housing where it is ahead by 36 to 20 per cent.  The Tories have strengthened their lead on crime and anti-social behaviour, immigration and asylum."

8.45am Tuesday update: The previous Populus poll - at the start of November - had Labour 1% ahead (37% to 36%).  This is also the first time that Populus has put the Conservatives ahead since Brown became Prime Minister.  The 10.4% Tory lead in the ConservativeHome Poll of Polls is the largest.

Comments

[rightsideforum]

Bottler Brown will see his ratings continue to decline - the incompetence of his government really is beyond a joke.

I'm surprised even diehard Labour supporters aren't beginning to turn on him.

[Scotty]

Very good poll figure for us from populus!

[Serf]

They are still ahead on standards in schools?????

These polls display just how little most people take notice of the realities around them. We don't know how well a Tory government will perform in this area, but we know that Labour has been a complete unmitigated disaster.

[activist]

To put this in context, Populus have never shown us ahead since Brown's been in charge.

[Editor]

Thanks activist - I've now made that point in an addition to the post.

[sjm]

Labour's diehard activists are as unlikely as Tory activists in 1996 to be disloyal - however fed up and disgusted they are.

What we need are the vast majority of voters to recognise (much as they did in 1997), that change is needed.

The problem is (and I don't pretend to any originality here) that any residual trust in politicians has been so overwhelmingly eroded that many voters are just shrugging their shoulders - and that is why we are not further ahead in the polls.

My MP, who won back the seat from Labour in '05, said to constituents "give me your vote just this once, and put me to the test; if I don't fulfil my promises, vote me out next time.'

He now works pretty well 24/7, and is predicted to earn a sound majority at the next GE - my point is that every candidate is going to have win the war in each constituency, not rely on a strong national mood - with no disrespect to Cameron's sterling work.

[David Belchamber]

Ed - might I draw your attention to what I said at 17.32 yesterday about Sir Gerry Robinson and the NHS. Having seen his programmes on his analysis of what was wrong at Rotherham hospital a year ago and read what has since happened, I think his article charts one practical way forward for the NHS and should be debated.

[Simon Denis]

All very encouraging - but essentially the result of returning to tory essentials as carried out at the last conference. Let the leadership do nothing to alienate the core vote again. An excessive zeal in placating greedy, bigoted Scotland might be just such a blunder. Admittedly, Mr Cameron has improved the conservative party's tone. Shrillness and despair are never the most effective recruiting sergeants, but neither are doubt and guilt. It's really a case of being persistent, confident and suave - softly, softly catchee monkey and all that.

[Black Country Lad]

I don't know if it is just me but has anyone else spotted the cynical attempt by Brown to cash in on our soldiers risking their lives (and probably some have lost them) by visiting Afghanistan on the VERY day that there was a big push. What levels will this man go to for a headline? At least with Blair we knew it was about presentation with this one he has promised 'New Politics' so these stunts are even worse.

[Joe James Broughton]

sjm is correct.
The days when almost the same swing happened across the country, and votes are weighed in many places are largely gone.
There's a limit to what the national party can do for us winning back individual seats.
A lot (but not all) of the ConHome comments seem to be vicious sniping when polls turn against us (like over the summer) and demands for better figures (like 45) now.
SJM talks sober sense.

[Iain]

"I don't know if it is just me but has anyone else spotted the cynical attempt by Brown to cash in on our soldiers risking their lives "

Oh yes I did note the Dear Leader arriving in Afghanistan just in time to lead our troops (from 70 miles behind the front line) in the victorious assault of Musa Qala, which just be chance meant he got pictured amongst the troops.

[sjm]

'SJM talks sober sense.'

Thanks, and shows the sense of posting before the sun's over the yardarm!

Hic.

[Sally Roberts]

Oh Dear, sjm! I see your post is timed at 11:10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought the sun went over the yardarm at Noon! Anyway, cheers!

[SDPopulus]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS ABOUT A POLLING COMPANY'S BIASES.

[Bexie]

This would represent a comfortable majority of around 50 according to the Beebs seat calculator. It is interesting that reversing the figures gives nuLab a majority of 170, a reflection of the imbalance of seats in this country.

[Matt Wright]

Why has Populus previously not shown us any lead when all the other pollsters did? Do populus allow for intention to vote? Clearly we did very well in May so have populus just been out of step with others?

It is interesting that reversing the figures gives nuLab a majority of 170, a reflection of the imbalance of seats in this country.
I rather doubt if Labour got 40%, Conservatives 32% and Liberal Democrats 16% that that would result in a 170 seat Labour majority - Labour's majority in 2001 was only 167 with similar figures to that and notional changes through boundary changes including reduction in number of Scottish seats since amount to about 35 off that figure, it depends on vote distribution. In 2001 Labour's vote dropped most in safe seats, which is why their majority fell so little and the Conservatives only ended up with a net gain of 1 nationally in terms of seats and that included Tatton of course without which there would have been a net loss of 1 in England that election.