Last night we noted a YouGov survey for The Sunday Times giving the Conservatives a 20% national opinion poll lead.
Over on the Seats and candidates page we blog an ICM poll that puts the Tories 8% ahead in Crewe and Nantwich. It also shows that voters are unpersuaded by the 10p tax u-turn.
A third poll - for The Independent on Sunday - confirms Brown's bleak position. The Tories are 17% ahead across Britain - with Labour flat on 26%.
57% told ComRes that Labour must change its leader to have any chance of winning the next election.
There's also a 'work-to-do' message for David Cameron. 46% think the Tory leader has what it takes to be a good Prime Minister. 42% disagree.
These polls are incredibly encouraging. I'm just wondering when the Labour back-benchers are going to openly panic. Must be in denial at the moment. Sustaining this is obviously the priority. We just need to keep developing the policies we want to enact when we get power.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | May 18, 2008 at 09:56
In 1985-86 and in 1989-92 Neil Kinnock was talked of as being the next PM in a similar way that David Cameron is talked of now, from the time when Nigel Lawson resigned in 1989 people seemed to expect Labour to be the next government.
The same was true after the Night of the Long Knives in 1962 and it ended up with the national vote shares between Labour and Conservative being very close, in 1951 the media did not expect Labour to end up with more votes than the Conservatives although they lost their majority, in the late 1960s and late 1970s there were huge Conservative gains and yet the following elections were far closer than expected even after Labour went through the Winter of Discontent.
I think a Conservative advance in votes and seats is almost certain at the next General Election, but I doubt Labour will lose its majority.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 10:32
I recon the panic button will be hit when Crewe and Nantwich goes Conservative. Crewe and Nantwich was a Labour strong hold (Majority 7,078 - 16.3%) - if we win with a good majority - I wonder how many MPs will feel they will have a job after the next general election?
Posted by: Robbie | May 18, 2008 at 10:35
Cumon, Yet Another Anon, what was Kinnock's nickname, or one of them? Windbag! Waffling on and on and on. And I don't think that you can accuse David Cameron of that!, since most people seem to accuse him of not saying enough!!!!!!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | May 18, 2008 at 10:45
The Conservative Party's record in parliamentary by-elections is abysimal though, even in opposition they have been struggling to hold some of their safest seats and frequently lose seats to the Liberal Democrats that are now marginals and were safe seats once, even Labour from 1979 to 1983 had a better record in parliamentary by-elections than the Conservatives have had since 1997. It improved in the first term, no sign though that it has improved since 2001 although there has been a slight improvement in the Conservative vote in General Elections - it actually makes no sense, why is an official opposition apparently improving in national elections and yet struggling to take seats in parliamentary by-elections when the Government has had a majority of over 60 for the past 11 years?
If it was a marginal with the Liberal Democrats well third I would expect the Conservatives to walk it, normally though the Official Opposition is in the running even to take safe Government seats, in the past seats with a majority such as that in Crewe and Nantwich frequently fell to Opposition parties with relative ease.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 10:50
Yet Another Anon, what was Kinnock's nickname, or one of them? Windbag! Waffling on and on and on. And I don't think that you can accuse David Cameron of that!, since most people seem to accuse him of not saying enough!!!!!!!
I was comparing the situations, though certainly there was one similarilty in that Neil Kinnock was short on substance far more than Tony Blair was accused of being, Tony Blair certainly succeeded John Smith who very much led on substance and yet was still popular.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 10:55
Kinnock was unelectable and scared middle England. Can't accuse Cameron of that.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | May 18, 2008 at 13:48
I believe it is also the case that no government has ever gone on to win an election after suffering such a loss in preceding local elections. Bar a huge upset, I think we can be reasonably confident of a modest Tory majority at the next election. Remember "Smithson's rule" as well- the more DC appears in the media, the better the Tories' poll ratings. This would almost certainly help in a GE campaign.
Posted by: MrB | May 18, 2008 at 14:29
The previous YouGov poll showing the 26% lead was obviously a flash in the pan, but these 15%+ poll leads coming consistently from different pollsters gives credibility to the idea that Conservatives really are pulling way ahead in workable majority territory.
Posted by: Josh | May 18, 2008 at 14:33
Kinnock was unelectable and scared middle England. Can't accuse Cameron of that.
David Cameron hasn't led in a General Election campaign yet, the numbers turning out to vote Labour went up quite significantly while Neil Kinnock was leader - numbers voting Conservative went up a lot too, the percentage difference between the two main parties went down.
People can be scared by uncertainty as well as by for example Labour's extremist policies on nationalisation, public spending, taxation and defence notably in the 1980s. One thing both Neil Kinnock and David Cameron had in common was a tendency to be vague and wobble on policy - the issue over Grammar Schools with David Cameron was one notable case in point, with Labour shifting positions in not just the 1987, but also 1983 General Elections on Defence - during a General Election campaign being fuzzy can be fatal.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 14:59
I don't think Cameron intends to be "fuzzy" during a GE. We've had quite a big problem in that, whenever we do announce substantial policies, Labour try to nick them.
We know what Hilton is like with all his "phases" of the Cameron project. It's probably all part of "the plan". Although like you point out with the grammar school episode, things don't always go according to plan.
Posted by: MrB | May 18, 2008 at 15:27
It is of course correct that todays opinion polls are won't be reflected in the next General Election. Good opinion polls does not make a winning party.
However, we shouldn't forget that the Conservatives recently crushed Labour in the local elections. Labour got it's lowest share of the vote since 1968, and we got the highest share since the 80s.
Governments often return from bad polls, but they rarely survive after such crushing defeats as the one Labour suffered this May.
Posted by: Buckinghamshire Tory | May 18, 2008 at 16:10
We've had quite a big problem in that, whenever we do announce substantial policies, Labour try to nick them.
Because the Tory leadership is afraid to announce anything genuinely radical.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | May 18, 2008 at 16:29
If we gain Crewe & Nantwich next Thursday, the momentum gained from such a victory could have a further effect on the national opinion polls in the subsequent few weeks, ie. another "flash-in-the-pan" boost in the Tory lead.
Posted by: Votedave | May 18, 2008 at 16:41
Governments often return from bad polls, but they rarely survive after such crushing defeats as the one Labour suffered this May.
Labour only got 22% of the vote in 2004 and that was a national vote, and yet got 35.2% the following year although on a much higher albeit still low turnout.
Labour got it's lowest share of the vote since 1968, and we got the highest share since the 80s.
It was Labour's lowest share since 1931 and the Conservatives highest share since May 1992.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 17:12
Labour only got 22% of the vote in 2004
In the UKs bit of the Euroland elections that is.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 17:14
YAAI'd be happy to take a big bet with you that Labour lose their majority at the next election. Let me know whether you're up for it.
Congratulations to the CHomers who went to Crewe today. I wish I could have been with you but it was my daughter's birthday.
Hope it went well.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | May 18, 2008 at 18:08
YAAI'd be happy to take a big bet with you that Labour lose their majority at the next election
As I have said before - I dissaprove of gambling and don't take part in raffles, lotteries or any kind of gambling irrespective of the probabilities.
I would not even put money down if someone bet me that Lord Lucan would be PM after the next General Election and he would have Britney Spears, Elvis and Shergar in his cabinet.
I left the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society because they kept sending me books of raffle tickets (without even asking me) - whatever the cause I simply am fundamentally opposed to gambling and so do not participate in any way.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 18, 2008 at 18:21
So I'd take that as a 'no' then YAA? Shame, I'd have made a fair amount of money I think even if I'd given you generous odds.Personally I think it would take a miracle for Brown to retain his majority even though I think Cameron, Osborne & co have to do much, much more to justify the leads the polls are indicating at the moment.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | May 18, 2008 at 19:31
Sensible man, YAA. I was stupid enough to visit a bookmakers prior to the London elections and got what I deserved (lost money).
And I fear the Coggeshall Royal British Legion will be recieving a donation from me before too long, based on these numbers. :(
Posted by: comstock | May 18, 2008 at 20:01