ICM. The Guardian, 22/2

[Democratic Hawk]

There is a poll in The Guardian, which shows that Labour's lead over the Conservaives has been slashed to 3-points! This is down from 7 (in January) and 9 (in December)

However, recent polls [Populus, The Times, 8/12, which matches that of the 2001 election; and NOP, The Independent, 15/2] have Labour leading the Tories by 9-points and 12-points, respectively

Assuming, the ICM poll is the better barometer of public opinion (in that it is the most recent), this represents a swing of 3% from Labour to the Tories since 2001. On the basis of this, any Labour-Conservative seat where Labour's lead is less than 6-points is vulnerable to the Tories

In England and Wales, the Tories would gain, in order of most marginal [Labour lead]:

Dorset South 0.4%
Braintree 0.7%
Lancaster & Wyre 0.9%
Monmouth 0.9%
Kettering 1.2%
Northampton South 1.8%
Welwyn Hatfield 2.8%
Shipley 3.1%
Clwyd West 3.2%
Bexleyheath & Crayford 3.7%
Milton Keynes North East 3.9%
Hornchurch 4.1%
Selby 4.3%
Hammersmith & Fulham 4.5%
Thanet South 4.6%
Wellingborough 4.6%
Forest of Dean 4.8%
Ilford North 5.3%
Rugby & Kenilworth 5.3%
Gillingham 5.4%
Harwich 5.4%
Enfield North 6%

I'm not certain about what will happen in Scotland, but Ayr and what was Edinburgh Pentlands look vulnerable

However, some of these marginal Labour-Conservative constituencies are sure to buck the trend, while some safer Labour seats may fall (and then there are the Lib Dems and nationalist parties)

Either way, Labour would be on course for a good majority with a 3% lead in the polls

Dave

P. S. Does any one know which of the pollsters (ICM, NOP and Populus) are the most reliable?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Statistically Labour and the LibDems stayed were they were in the last ICM poll... the only party with a statistically significant change in support is the Tories.
Still a big majority in theory though.

As for pollsters:

ICM: tends to have a slight pro-Tory bias. As a result it got 2001 more-or-less spot on, but underestimated Labour in 1997. Sample size is usually too small for my liking.
NOP: tends to have a slight pro-Labour bias. Changed methodology after badly over-estimating Labour in 2001... but in the 2003 Welsh elections they actually underestimated Labour
Populus: Are new kids on the block. No track record, although I guess a slight pro-Labour bias, although originally it had a noticable pro-Tory bias. They've since fiddled with the methodology and increased the sample size (it's now the biggest of any poll firm).
MORI: Bob Worcester's outfit. Traditionally had a pro-Labour bias, but after a poor 2001 they radically changed their methodology and may even have a slight pro-Tory bias.
Communication Research: New kids on the block (again). No track record at all. Weight the crap out of their polls.
YouGov: Internet pollsters. Screwed up the 2001 election, and the 2004 Euro and London elections very badly. Entire reputation based on getting the Tory vote in the Scottish elections about right.

[Democratic Hawk]

Statistically Labour and the LibDems stayed were they were in the last ICM poll... the only party with a statistically significant change in support is the Tories.
Still a big majority in theory though.

As for pollsters:

ICM: tends to have a slight pro-Tory bias. As a result it got 2001 more-or-less spot on, but underestimated Labour in 1997. Sample size is usually too small for my liking.
NOP: tends to have a slight pro-Labour bias. Changed methodology after badly over-estimating Labour in 2001... but in the 2003 Welsh elections they actually underestimated Labour
Populus: Are new kids on the block. No track record, although I guess a slight pro-Labour bias, although originally it had a noticable pro-Tory bias. They've since fiddled with the methodology and increased the sample size (it's now the biggest of any poll firm).
MORI: Bob Worcester's outfit. Traditionally had a pro-Labour bias, but after a poor 2001 they radically changed their methodology and may even have a slight pro-Tory bias.
Communication Research: New kids on the block (again). No track record at all. Weight the crap out of their polls.
YouGov: Internet pollsters. Screwed up the 2001 election, and the 2004 Euro and London elections very badly. Entire reputation based on getting the Tory vote in the Scottish elections about right.

Thanks Al. Guess there will be plenty of more polls between now and May 5. This one might be an outlier. The thought of Howard knocking on Number 10 is frightening

In a way, Labour not being too far ahead of the Tories should guard against complacency

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Guess there will be plenty of more polls between now and May 5.

Yep... loads. Maybe a tracking poll or three. Most polls will get one of the parties very, very wrong though (happens every election)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of the changes in the poll are well within ICM's MoE. Mind you, Labour still win big even with a three point lead (differential turnout etc).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eek!
Mind you he needs something like a 7 point win in the PV for that to happen...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point. To hang on to a load of marginals we need a solid turnout in the council estates.

[afleitch]

As 20 year old student, the support for Michael Howard in the 18-24 category doesn't suprise me (48% asset to 30% liability) There is a 'under the surface' support for the Conservatives among many students, who no-longer see Labour as the natural 'student friendly' party.

[Platypus]

that's worldwide. The 'iGeneration', basically everyone who is currently a teenager, and can barely, if at all, remember a time without a computer, are very anti-major party. I know that because it is my view you might think i'm biased, but it's true. Look, for example, at the polls in Australia. Combines, the coalition and the ALP barely scrape two thirds of the primary vote!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well I wouldn't draw too much from the breakdowns of an ICM poll (they're sample sizes are far too small IMO) but as a general point what we're seeing with younger voters in the U.K at the moment is increasing polarisation along class lines (something that can only help Labour) due to all the various government schemes etc. that have helped working class kids a lot.
There were a poll a while ago about first time voters (18 year olds) : Labour had a large lead, the Tories were in second and the LibDems actually did worse than most of their recent national numbers.

Blair, Brown et al may finally have made Wilson's dream come true.

[afleitch]

I wouldn't say there is a class split at all, at least along traditional lines. There is a 'have' and 'have not' split however, but its class in reverse. The 'haves' are those who are considered 'disadvantaged' by the govt and find themselves given a hand up into university, poor qualifications still get them entry and loans galore without the worry of paying it back to the same degree. The 'have nots' are those with good grades, middle class kids who are survive on few loans, work part time and are now levied with top up fees. Sounds rather blunt I know, but it is the truth. Labour has undermimed the Higher Education system. It is time the professionals claimed it back. I mean come on, qualifications in FLOWER ARRANGING!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wouldn't say there is a class split at all, at least along traditional lines. There is a 'have' and 'have not' split however, but its class in reverse. The 'haves' are those who are considered 'disadvantaged' by the govt and find themselves given a hand up into university, poor qualifications still get them entry and loans galore without the worry of paying it back to the same degree. The 'have nots' are those with good grades, middle class kids who are survive on few loans, work part time and are now levied with top up fees. Sounds rather blunt I know, but it is the truth. Labour has undermimed the Higher Education system. It is time the professionals claimed it back. I mean come on, qualifications in FLOWER ARRANGING!

Oh it's very much along traditional class lines... but the boot is on the other foot for a change
There's also a suprising amount of re-distribution of wealth going on as well (local government grants and stuff).

[Silent Hunter]

MORI Poll:
Labour 39
Conservatives 37 (Eek!)
Lib Dems 18

Is it me or does this feel a lot more even than it did a few weeks ago?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

MORI Poll:
Labour 39
Conservatives 37 (Eek!)
Lib Dems 18

Is it me or does this feel a lot more even than it did a few weeks ago?

Strange thing is that the Labour vote is solid. What appears to be happening is that middle class voters are hovering between the Tories and the LibDems.

[Silent Hunter]

On the MORI figures, the Liberals actually go DOWN to 38 seats (Labour have 371, Tories 208)

YouGov comes out tomorrow. It's going to be interesting to see what they say.

MORI was before the Council Tax announcement,

MORI tend to underestimate the Lib Dems and don't weight by past vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

YouGov comes out tomorrow. It's going to be interesting to see what they say.

Just for entertainment value though

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. Mori also tend to exaggerate any swings or trends.

[Platypus]

you know what, if I was in the UK i'd probably be a swinging voter

[Filuwaúrdjan]

you know what, if I was in the UK i'd probably be a swinging voter

Do you know what Section 28 was?

[Platypus]

No, but like most voters, i'm uninformed

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, but like most voters, i'm uninformed

It were a ban on "promoting homosexuality in schools" ("promoting" more or less translates as "talking about") pushed through by the Tories in the '80's and repealed a few years ago.
Howard was a big supporter of it IIRC

[afleitch]

Section 28 was terrible, but as a gay man who campaigned against it a few years ago in Scotland, I can forgive Howard for it. This election is not about the distant past. It is a judgement on Labour's record, not the Conservatives.

[Bunnybrit]

I couldnt agree more, as a fellow gay, but also a tory party member(yes thats right- a gay tory!!!!!), I was aginst section 28, but understand why it was brought in at the time, but I hoped this election would be about Labours record, but it seems to me it is going to be labour smearing the Tory plans, and attacking Howard`s record in Government over a decade ago. I wish it could be a proper debate but I fear it will be a dirty campaign.
It is a shame because the sort of campaign that Labour are already running is only going to turn people away from voting, not attempting to get them into the polls, whoever they vote for.
Anyway the latest poll for the FT Today has:
Labour 39
Tory 37
Lib 18
If that happened on polling day it would mean a Labour majority of around 90 seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway the latest poll for the FT Today has:
Labour 39
Tory 37
Lib 18

Already been discussed in part. It's interesting that if you adjust for MoE the Labour vote is solid as a rock... it's hardly budged for months.
LibDem and Tory numbers are yo-yo-ing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Majority of 90=Want I'd like to see* Big enough to get legislation through, small enough to stop attempts to ram bad legislation through.

*And Roy Hattersley as well o/c

[Silent Hunter]

YouGov poll (22-24 Feb, I think):
Lab 38
Con 32
LD 21

[Democratic Hawk]

On the MORI figures, the Liberals actually go DOWN to 38 seats (Labour have 371, Tories 208)

I calculated that on a 3% (as per ICM poll) swing from Labour to the Tories that the Tories would pick up 22 seats in England and Wales from Labour. I assume then that they could pick up another 20 or so on a 3.5% swing (as per Mori). Either way even with a 2-point lead Labour are on course for a majority

The new YouGov giving Labour a six-point lead over the Tories up from a 1-point lead last month:

Lab 38% (up 3); Con 32% (down 2) and Lib Dems 22% (down 1)

The time for Labour to become concerned is if the Tories are 5-points clear and I don't see it coming. Correct me if I'm wrong but they need a 7-point lead to become the largest party and an 11-point to get a majority of one

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

This election is not about the distant past. It is a judgement on Labour's record, not the Conservatives.

And by comparison with the Tories, it's a pretty solid record. Michael Howard can't escape, and should not be allowed to escape, from his past failings.

Having spent my formative years under Thatcher, and the destruction of my community, I don't welcome a return to those days. Most people I know are better off and they feel relatively secure in their employment, which is something many folk never had during the 'Tory Years'

Michael Howard has carped on for years about the 'harm' that would be done to the economy in the event of a minimum wage. What harm, would that be? Frankly, a minimum wage is surely beneficial all round in that ir can only serve to reduce the dependency on welfare

Blair isn't perfect. Every time he's seen standing shoulder-to-shoulder with GWB, it goes against him. But they are both resolute in the face of what is not necessarily politically expedient and for that at least, I can applaud them

Dave

[minionofmidas]

Those 7 and 11 point thingies are assuming a uniform swing...and I would not assume anything like a uniform swing.

[Democratic Hawk]

Those 7 and 11 point thingies are assuming a uniform swing...and I would not assume anything like a uniform swing.

It's simple to calculate using a uniform swing - but, realistically, I expect seats to buck to trend (i.e. Labour holding ultra-marginals but losing relatively safe seats), especially if local factors come into play

I've assumed a uniform swing of 3% on the basis of the ICM poll - but some of those 22 constituencies could stay Labour, while the Tories may pick-up some seats where Labour majorities are greater than 6%

Dave