« Project Cameron has evolved but has been remarkably consistent overall | Main | Highlights from David Cameron's Andrew Marr interview »

Comments

If someone could be kind enough to email me if another poll comes out, perhaps ICM for S.Telegraph - I'd appreciate it!

The figures for change are not the same - if you look on politicalbetting.com - those change figures compare with the last IoS poll whereas the last comres poll has slightly different change figures.

Was at a dinner party of largely English expats here in Singapore tonight and something came up that I thought was interesting.

Roughly eleven to fourteen years ago, in the dying days of the last Tory government there were a slew of movies, tv shows, etc that documented how unhappy the "populace" was.

Yet, the popular culture today in the UK is not reflective of how unpopular the current government is.

Isn't that interesting?

We all found it so.

torysingapore has spotted something. As the economy improved 1994+ the media, notably the BBC, put out programmes highlighting anything bad about the government. This is one reason for people still thinking the Tories left a mess in 1997 and Gordon sorted it out. One suspects that, since most of the programmes were less than honestly objective, many pro Tory people never saw their affect on voters even now.

These figures are disastrous for the government. They basically show there's a lead of around 20 points - at this time. And that's even after a few weeks where things have not gone so well for us - expenses stories, hints that there may even have to be tax increases, plus uncertainty about the affect of David Davis's resignation from the front bench might have.

The Tories in 1990 hardly ever saw votes just collapsing like this. We polled just under a third of the vote in the supposedly catastrophic 1990 local elections, and did rather well in London.

Although I shouldn't, I actually have some sympathy for Labour Ministers as they find themselves in what, potentially, looks as though it could be similar to where we were in 1995.

But David Sergeant @ 18.59 - 'This is one reason for for people still thinking the Tories left a mess in 1997.....', that is precisely the reason that members of this government have regularly, when interviewed on television, have side-stepped whatever question is put to them, and immediately gone back to 'the last Tory Government...', it has been a quite deliberate policy.

This policy has worked relatively well until now; some people on this site are rather fond of saying that 'people are only voting AGAINST the Government and NOT for the Conservatives', in fact SOME people say AD NAUSEUM!

In fact I think that the polls and the by-elections etc: are showing that more and more people are making a positive choice these days - a choice FOR, not against, and the for is for Conservative!

Really Mr. Brown is the perfect political animal, first he shmoozes Lady Thatcher, when it seems politic to do so, now, not so much time later, he is permitting her policies, and therefore her, to be slagged off, because it is politic to do so, in the hunt for labour votes in Glasgow East. Whats the betting that at some later stage, in a crucial by-election or even the GE, if things continue to go badly for his party (which seems distinctly possible!), that Mr. Brown turns around and erm slags off Mr. Blair - at least his policy vis-a-vis Iraq, in the hopes of rescuing a few Muslim votes???

Remember also during the early Thatcher years that the BBC always gave the rise in unemployment as a number( ie 36459) but when unemployment fell it always gave it as a percentage.

Following on from what toryinsangapore (1822) and David Serjeant (1859) have said, I have been noticing something similar. It seems to me that, yes, the BBC do report on the economic woes and the Government's problems, but then the analysis following the initial report often gives more optimistic mood music. Imagine if we were in power how more negative the outlook would be reported. (Compare with sleaze - every little supposed offence from years ago by a Tory is hunted down and given full coverage- e.g. Caroline Spelman and Ray Lewis, while Labour's misdemeanours are little more than mentioned). Of course the BBC hates conservative values and so would not want to assist Labour's demise. But at least any playing down of economic problems doesn't seem to be having much effect on the voters, if this poll is anything to go by.

We should aim for Labour's complete annihilation, or at least the number of Labour MPs to be reduced to below 100, (and Lib Dems to below 20)

Something I could have added is that another factor in the poll leads must be that it is David Cameron who is now giving the nation leadership, (e.g. on crime and social breakdown etc, and being honest on the economic problems we'll face in government).

'We should aim for Labour's complete annihilation, or at least the number of Labour MPs to be reduced to below 100'

Completely agree. Whilst the sun shines we ought to be recruiting hard in seats where we would previously have been seen as outsiders and putting together coherent GE strategies.

There should be no sympathy for Labour, Labour politicians or the supine media that slow pedals anti-Labour stories. Collectively, they have damaged our country deeply.


Can we actually take this poll seriously - I can not believe ComRes could find 24% of people who would actually vote for this moronic Labour party – hmmm something wrong there!

Can anyone think of a particular reason for the rise in support for the Green Party? Could it be dillilusioned left-wing voters who no longer feel at home with Labour and the LibDems?

Disillusioned, I meant.

Sorry to go on about this, Mr Editor, but the LibDems actually got 16% in the most recent YouGov poll, not 18% as erroneously reported by the Sunday Times. This is confirmed by Anthony Wells and the YouGov website itself.
I won't mention it again but it ought to be pointed out.

People complaining about BBC bias should read this
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4360497.ece

I completely agree with PragueTory and Philip. We should give no quarter at the next GE. The utter "annihilation" of Labour MP's should be our aim. Never shall we forget our electoral dark days of 1997. And we shall make every Labour MP, activist and sympathizer of it pay for it in votes.

Upon our first day in office in 2010, we shall remind the British people why we never have Labour governments.

No opposition isn't good for democracy. Also, it's better not to personally wish ill on people in different parties.

That said, I suspect the Tory majority might be larger than we thought possible until very recently. There's quite a long list of places which are looking for a fresh approach but weren't considered trendy enough. The elections this year really showed the breakthrough.

'No opposition isn't good for democracy'

I'd like to see a new main opposition emerge - one that isn't full of class war dinosaurs, bleeding hearts and economic illiterates.

It's foolish to wish the destruction of the Labour Party. The poor working-class needs representation. If Labour vanished, nasty fringe parties like the SWP and BNP would attract much higher levels of support.

Most interesting about this poll is that it confirms a consistent lead of 20 points over some months. After a period of topsy turvy poll ratings, the public seems to be firming up its impressions of the two leaders. This is encouraging for Conservatives.

I see no way back for Brown. He can change his policies but he can't change his personality.

Wanting the Labour Party to be destroyed isn't the same as wishing ill on people. I don't feel any sympathy for Labour politicians who can not win the support of the electorate and lose office as a result.

Their elected (or indeed unelected) positions aren't an entitlement and if they are committed to their life of public service I am sure they can find alternative ways to do that.


Robbie, Prague Tory et al, 24% is similar to what Labour got in 1918. So, if we can force them back to that level, in all likelihood, we'll have destroyed them for good.

I don't think we'll do that well, but if we do, we'll hav performed a valuable public service.

I'm so releved that we have held our position prety much. The polls are staying the same, that means we Lib Dems can regain our stupendous momentum very soon. Just remember, it was 11% last October and we had to decopitate our leader. This is fabulous progress, first we'll overtake Labour, then the Tories at the end of 2009. My prediction? A close finish, but Lib Dem overall majority of 40-60. I'm woried I might have my tires slashed.

I agree with Praguetory, the annihiliation of the Comrades is devoutly to be wished. Just think how Comrade Brown doesn't hide his desire to destroy the Conservative Party!

And let's not forget the other half of the Lib-Lab pact - the loony Liberals who are the equivalent of political woodworm - they burrow in and do untold damage. In return, they deserve to be nuked into oblivion.

"Record low for Labour in ComRes poll"

Now, that really needs dredging back into the dusty files and recesses of historical comparison.

As I remember, ComRes has been at this -- oh! -- since September 2007. Before that, they were "Communicate Research" (perhaps on the Windscale/Sellafield principle), all the way back to -- oh! -- 2005. That's one General Election, where they were the most inaccurate of the pollsters, and out by the equivalent of a full 5% swing.

Was ComRes the lot who found that only 17% remembered voting Tory last time round?

We need a return to Tory-Whig politics. Socialism should be eliminated as a mainstream force.

I applaud Jill, London's comments. Brown and other hardcore Bolsheviks in the Labour party certainly don't hide their willingness to destroy the Tories.

A kicking by the electorate of Labour to its early 1900's MP levels should be desirable amongst the Conservative Party.

Philip at 20:32 (and similar political neanderthalers):

"We should aim for Labour's complete annihilation, or at least the number of Labour MPs to be reduced to below 100, (and Lib Dems to below 20)."

Yes: the one-party state. Works a treat in Zimbabwe. And there they really know the meaning of "annihilation".

"Yes: the one-party sta0te. Works a treat in Zimbabwe. And there they really know the meaning of "annihilation"."

The liberal Democrats.
The liberal Party.
The British National Party.
The green party of england and wales.
The green party of Scotland.
The green party IN Northern Ireland.
The scottish national Party.
The scottish Socialist Party.
Solidarity.
Plaid Cymru.
The united Kingdom Independence Party
Veritas.
The popular Alliance.
The socialist alliance.
The communist party of Great Britain.
The official Monster Raving Loony Party.
The democratic Unionist Party.
The Ulster Unionist Party.
The social deocratic and labour party.
Sinn fein.
Respect, the unity coalition.
Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern.
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland.
The Progressive Unionist Party.
Boston Bypass Independents.
Community Action Party.
English Democrats.
England First Party.
Mebyon Kernow.
Men's Representative Party.
Miss Great Britain Party.
Money Reform Party.
Mum's Army.
National Liberal Party - The Third Way.
One London.
Social Democratic Party.


These are all covers for the conservative party?

BTW If you knew anything about Zimbabwe, you would know that zimbabwe has many different parties. There is a difference between a one party state, like china, and a banana republic.

We should aim for Labour's complete annihilation, or at least the number of Labour MPs to be reduced to below 100, (and Lib Dems to below 20).

A lot of hotheaded nonsense being spouted here.

Governments with an over-large majority and no proper opposition are not a good thing. They are effectively an elected dictatorship. Just look at 10 years of Blair, and the last two terms of Thatcher for evidence.

Thatcher did her most important and useful reforms in her first term, with a majority of only 44 and (for the first three years at least) the general expectation that she'd lose the next election. Even with Labour in disarray under Michael Foot she was still massively unpopular up until the Falklands War in 1982.

A small majority keeps a government on its mettle. Harold Wilson was at his most effective when governing with a majority of less than 5 - he lost his way after the 1966 landslide gave him some protection.

Is it a coincidence that the Major government managed to get the economy back on track with a majority of only 21 and shrinking, while having to deal with a strong opposition? Conversely, weak Tory shadow chancellors over the last 11 years have allowed Brown to get away with all sort of things - because they didn't have the parliamentary arithmatic to hold him to account, or even force a change of policy.

The utter destruction of New Labour would be a good thing - to allow the re-emergence of the genuine Labour Party. Parliamentary democracy only works properly when parties with strongly conflicting views on most things produce checks and balances on the behaviour of each other. For the past decade we've had a tory party (albeit a very poor one)in power and a Tory party in opposition and a complete drift in the politics of spin and inconsequence with manufactured "differences" being played to an increasingly sceptical electorate.

I’d like to add how the Comrades have tampered with democracy in an attempt to keep themselves in power by adding proportional representation [all part of the Lib-Lab Pact] to first-past-the-post.

Look how the Comrades gained the upper hand in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and London mayoralty [and the latter was set up to act like an elected dictator if the incumbent so chose which is totally undemocratic].

After dominating those institutions for eight years, it’s changed - so their latest wheeze is thinking about the Australian Transferrable Vote system. No wonder the electorate are confused, and the proportion of spoilt ballot papers is a disgrace. [I know from the London Mayoral/GLA elections, having been a counting agent.]

For those who attack Conservatives in their wishful thinking of getting rid of the loony Left, I suggest they look at the democratic destruction perpetrated by the Comrades. It is Comrade MPs who say – quite openly – that devolution was designed to “kill nationalism” – meaning the nationalist parties. And look how the Comrades nearly destroyed the Ulster Unionists [Conservatives] in Northern Ireland.

Jill
Only in the context of the wild eyed politics of Ulster could the Ulster Unionists be described as "conservative".

David McEwan Hill - can you explain how this is Conservative policy - banning fox hunting, and the constitutional vandalism of the House of Lords?

Just because B-Liar et al conned the floating voter into thinking they weren’t Comrades doesn’t mean they aren’t!

They are a shower of Marxists implementing Marxist ideology. With Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony as their ‘bible’, they impose the will of the minority on the majority.

David McEwan Hill - In Scotland, the Conservatives are the Conservative and Unionist Party. In the dying days of John Major's government, he was accused of keeping his majority with the aid of the Ulster Unionists.

I don't think reducing the number of Labour MPs to below 100 is possible really. Their core vote, and the distribution of constituency boundaries in England, will likely prevent it. However, I do think there is a mood in the country at large to evict Labour as a party of government for a generation or so, much as was felt against the Tories in 97. Even where the government has a support of more of the public than the Tories, such as 42 days' detention, they do not reap any popularity rewards. An echo of the Conservatives, who managed to get the economy back on its feet between 92-97 but reaped no electoral rewards (and in fact, got hammered)?

"The utter destruction of New Labour would be a good thing - to allow the re-emergence of the genuine Labour Party."

don't really think I want Old Labour socialism back to be honest. I'd prefer what they essentially have in America - a liberal party and a conservative party (although I admit it's not quite as simple as that).

"It's foolish to wish the destruction of the Labour Party. The poor working-class needs representation".

I agree with those who feel it is unhealthy for democracy to have virtually a one-party HoD but I also hope that the conservatives will start rebuilding our broken society from the bottom up and take care for the disadvantaged in a much more effective and less patronising way than Nulabour.

Richard J – I absolutely agree with you. If only we could go back to the Conservatives -v- the Liberals – but NOT the current Lib Dems [aka the Yellow Peril] as they are just tax-guzzling, bullying political opportunists.

As I posted elsewhere, the Americans have been so lucky not to have been strangled by the political arm of the trade union movement [aka the Labour Party] that fosters the politics of envy, tries to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator [the equality of misery], and infantalises the electorate in order to bully them.

I don't think that we need to reduce Labour to below 100 to raise the prospect of their demise. As others have pointed out the electoral landscape means that even if they polled in the low 20s they would probably take about 20% of the seats. If we took them down to 150 that would be a political earthquake.

However, their financial position and Labour's likely remaining PLP would place them poorly for mounting a comeback and a realignment on the left would be possible.

Be interesting to see how that 5% for the Greens pans out and if it translates into votes at a general- they've a leadership election coming up.

Bad poll for Labour obviously- they are running out of time sadly. Holding Glasgow East is a must IMHO.

Can anyone think of a particular reason for the rise in support for the Green Party?
A legacy of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election and a bit of a protest vote I think, I don't suppose it means anything, whether they get 5% or 1% in the General Election they probably won't have any seats, the only parliamentary seat they had was one where the candidate stood jointly for Plaid Cymru and Green Party.

The Greens might stand a chance in Brighton Pavillon if they can pick up some Labour and LibDem votes.

Jill: Just because Major propped up a small majority (allegedly), that doesn't make the UU an extension of the Conservative Party in NI anymore than it makes the 9 DUP MPs who voted with Brown Labourites. It was more likely some type of horse-trading.

For the past decade we've had a tory party (albeit a very poor one)in power and a Tory party in opposition
Social Democratic Party in power, Official Opposition a Liberal Party of sorts and a Liberal Social Democratic Party as the Third Main Party.

I agree with Jill. A Conservative / Liberal system would be great.

Democracy doesn't need a socialist party. If we could kill off Labour, we would be doing our grandchildren a favour.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker