That's the conclusion of a YouGov poll for this morning's Telegraph.
These hypothetical match-up polls have to be taken with a large helping of salt, of course. Voters know Tony Blair but not James Purnell, for example. Polls in 2005 didn't suggest that a relatively unknown David Cameron would help the Conservatives very much compared to big beasts like Ken Clarke. But as the leadership process wore on a big lead for Clarke... started to evaporate.
The poll also finds that a whopping 77% of voters do not think Brown is up to the job of being PM.
The Conservatives have a 47% to 25% lead overall but The Telegraph hasn't published a number for the LibDems. When we get a number for the LibDems we'll publish the usual poll graphic.
Isn't the Lib Dem figure 16% as listed above?
Posted by: Adrian Owens | August 01, 2008 at 09:06
Lib Dem figures are the ones in the third column of the image surely?
Posted by: Chris | August 01, 2008 at 09:06
A pity they didn't ask about Harriet Harman. I think she would probably get figures similar to Alan Johnson, but it would have been interesting to confirm or refute this hunch. After all: "this is my moment", so it was rather rude not to put her on the list!!
Posted by: Alex | August 01, 2008 at 09:08
Thank you Adrian, thank you Chris and apologies!
Posted by: Editor | August 01, 2008 at 09:09
What are the odds against the LibDems overtaking Labour as the 'main' opposition party?
Posted by: Yogi | August 01, 2008 at 09:21
So if Straw becomes PM, the Labour vote and the Tory vote goes down. How weird.
Posted by: RichardJ | August 01, 2008 at 10:01
"What are the odds against the LibDems overtaking Labour as the 'main' opposition party?"
If the labour party were to be replaced, it would be by a new party, not the libdems. The libdems are a protest vote party and have never taken them seriously, as is evident in their sudden drop in support now that votes will actually matter.
Posted by: Dale | August 01, 2008 at 10:29
Roll on Ed Balls as Labour leader!
Posted by: Tom FD | August 01, 2008 at 10:47
"So if Straw becomes PM, the Labour vote and the Tory vote goes down. How weird."
"Others" goes up. One explanation is that Straw drives Labour voters to the BNP and attract a few Tories to Labour. Another is that those who would emmigrate on this eventuality count themselves as others.
I seem to remember that the hypotheticals about Brown v. Cameron showed neither the initial bounce nor the subsequent slump. Nonsense though it is, it is nonetheless very satisfying to know that Balls's extreme unpleasantness and unfitness for high (any?) office has been apparently been noted by the Great British Public. It could just be the SATS of course.
Posted by: Londoner | August 01, 2008 at 11:03
Just in case anyone else notices but the Straw line adds up only to 99% and the Miliband line adds up to 101%. This anomaly is likely due to the rounding up/down of the percentages.
However it does go in part to explain the seeming minor changes of some of the shares of the vote mentioned above.
Posted by: John Leonard | August 01, 2008 at 11:22
"The poll also finds that a whopping 77% of voters do not think Brown is up to the job of being PM."
Worryingly, that means 23% still think he is.
One wonders how much more of a mess he will need to make of things before they get the message..
Posted by: Stuart M. | August 01, 2008 at 12:49
I too wonder what the figures would have been for Harriet (Kim Campbell) Harman.
Posted by: Tory Owl | August 01, 2008 at 13:01
What about Frank Field, ss the one with the ability, judgement and integrity to be a leader?
If he got wide exposure and voters knew how correct he's been so often, they would warm to his credentials and he could give David Cameron a run for his money we believe.
Mind you, apart from a few other Labour backbenchers with integrity he would struggle to form an able cabinet. Certainly the current bunch are mainly no-hopers and thankfully that unctious boy Balls has been well and truly revealed and scuppered!
Posted by: Essex Boys | August 01, 2008 at 13:17
Lets' be pragmatic about this. The only man who can improve Labour's fortunes is DC if he REALLY mucks things up. And I'm going to win the Lottery tomorrow.
Posted by: grumpy old man | August 01, 2008 at 13:34
Charles Clarke for Labour leader!
Posted by: RichardJ | August 01, 2008 at 14:21
for labour "things can only get better"
Posted by: kj | August 01, 2008 at 15:25
I remember the look of disdain I got from one voter who saw my Conservative sticker when telling at my local polling station in 1997 General Election. I remember how hated we were in some quarters and how ready the country was for a change, which makes it all the sweeter to see our party enjoying the good times again.
However, as Labour continue to unravel I fear for what shape the country will be in if we do what looks likely and win the next General Election.
Posted by: Conserv-a-tory | August 01, 2008 at 15:30
Just looked at Electoral Calculus. On Charles Clarke's figures that would translate to a Conservative overall majority of 404 - we would be winning 3 seats in Glasgow.
Posted by: Votedave | August 01, 2008 at 19:24
The same figures would also point to Labour hold Glasgow East...
Posted by: Votedave | August 01, 2008 at 19:37
Perhaps Blair could be persuaded to oppose Brown by becoming leader of the Conservative Party? That would be fun.
Posted by: Goldie | August 01, 2008 at 21:31