Sources close to The Guardian are indicating to me that their poll tomorrow will show a Tory lead of three points. If that is true (and I have no way of verifying it at the moment), and the YouGov poll for the Telegraph shows a similarly dramatic turnaround, then it would surely mean that all election bets are off. It doesn't indicate how Brown will explain the volte face, but that is something for us all to look forward to and relish.
UPDATE: I've just been told the Channel 4 News/YouGov poll shows a Labour lead of 3% - again, a massive turnaround. I'm trying to verify these figures at the moment, but I thought you'd all want to know, even if they are at the moment unconfirmed.
UPDATE 4.40pm: Well the plot thickens. The Guardian figures were apparently from the early results, but Labour have now firmed to hold a small lead, which is thought to be nearer to the Channel 4 figures.
Whatever the figures finally turn out to be, it's quite clear there has been a dramatic shift in the polls over the last five days. As I said some months ago, it will be difficult to really read the polls properly until a few weeks time. Gordon Brown should have realised that before he marched everyone up the election hill. Perhaps he's not quite the supreme strategist that everyone thought.
All good fun, eh?
59 comments:
I'd like to put some of my man relish all over your volte face...
It would make Tim Hames look stupid after saying that the polls aren't volatile. Which is good - there are so many crap political journalists out there.
It would be incredibly dramatic. I cannot think when there was last an 11 point swing (8% lead for Labour to 3% lead for the Conservatives) from one party to another in the space of just one week without any major event having taken place. It would be good news but the momentum must be maintained.
If true then what does it mean? Polls are rubbish? Or people are very fickle, have no firm political views and therefore highly changable to what they are presented via the media?
If it is the second it's time to be worried, very worried.
I'm a tory voter and would be delighted with a tory win, but my worry is that people are not listening to politicans (and who can blame them!) but instead are listening to journalists (who in turn are listening to spin....
I think it was you how advised us back in July to ignore the polls until well after the party conference season? My guess is that Gordon Brown was anxious to ensure that DC had an easy ride in Blackpool because he sees him as Labour's greatest asset when the election really comes...
I think a lot of people were put off Brown this week by his transparent cheap trick of using an anouncement about a troop reduction in Iraq as a spoiler for the Tory Conference.
The sight of Lord Kinnock braying about crushing the Tories must have added to the swing.
how is an anagram of who...
This explains why Brown's stooges have been busy in the media all day claiming that Brown himself has never said anything about an election this year. He has seen the polls and bottled it.
Having marched his troops to the top of the hill Brown has seen what's over the other side, crapped himself, and marched them back down again.
What little credibility Brown had left is now in tatters.
It's not just the fact that the Tories had a good conference that's done for him, it's his cynical stunt over troop withdrawals that backfired.
Everyone I know was thoroughly disgusted by him playing political games with British soldier's lives.
I doubt most people will ever forgive him for that.
Nonsense. Fun, but nonsense.
Brown is going to bottle it..... again
If true Labour is shafted ! All bets off ! But it shows just how volatile the polls are and how much they should be ignored by all parties
Gordon won't go on these figures but if not how he exactly explains to the electorate why he's allowed the election fever to build will be a very interesting experience and he will face a "beasting" at the first PMQs of the new session from Cameron
Volatile or what? Are people telling pollsters the truth any more?
I have been wondering recently if the way Polls were interpreted in the past is reliable . Has there been a paradigm shift with far less people committed than once there were ?
Brown`s loss of momentum may strat to show Labour cracks .He has irritated Labour voters and the Party beyond all reason to get into the centre .He had a damn long way to go and had allowed a lot of hopes to be projected onto his bland ambitious face in the past
Lets see how he acts under pressurre ( Hides?)
With "crap" political journalists in mind what about the comment on DC`s adedress by the Brown biased Mirror journo Kevin Maguire
JH
Brown lost any credibility he had left with his nauseating Iraq stunt which was widely publicised on TV and in the press. Don't underestimate the level of disgust amongst much of the public towards him after that.
He is a busted flush and has a very painful personal road ahead.
Peter King: People are indeed fickle. Remember that the ones who talk to pollsters are the same people who 'vote' in TV unreality shows and popularity contests, where spin and presentation are everything. Depressing.
If true, just goes to show what a load of nonsense polls really are. I mean ask 1,000 people to represent the views of 30 million? That takes some jiggery-pokery.
Let's just have an election and be done with it.
There seems to be some disappointment on here that a large Labour lead has disappeared in a week.
Haven't you Brownite trolls got anything better to do with your time? I hope you're not sucking on the public teat.
If the latest opinion polls do show such an implausible "swing", it goes to show there must be something seriously wrong with their sampling. I did not believe for one moment that the Conservatives were anywhere near 11 points behind Labour in the first place.
Actually Labour can win with a 4% Tory lead because of the differences in size of constituencies which neither party seems to want to grapple.
Does anyone know HOW they choose the people that they 'poll'? Is it done randomly? On the street?
I wish someone would ask me! :)
It's still nowhere near the eleven point lead that you'd need for an overall majority of one.
i can only smile
"All best are off..."
Well, if you're sure get over to Betfair quickly as the odds for a 2007 election are still odds-on for the laying!
Well done Iain, it's clear Labour support has crumbled since last week. Brown's crew have been out all day saying their boss never said there would be an election this year. The ridiculous Micheal White even claimed on Radio 4 that it was all spin cooked up by journalists and David Cameron!!
The truth is Brown knew the way the wind was blowing and he's bottled it.
No election this year, or next year, or even the year thereafter.
It's 2010 or bust.
best=bets, doh.
I stick to my guns about it not being cut and dry for an election....
And I might be right..
Hmmm maybe I should start a blog?
Iain, you need to burn sources who feed you such rubbish if you want to be truted on topics like this. Someone tells you that there's a Tory lead in a poll, and when you publish it you put your reputation at stake.
Doesn't matter if you lard it with caveats, you're saying you trust your source.
Then your source comes back with some cock and bull story about the "early numbers" and you have to back off.
You should ask your source if they have a spread betting account, and if they made any interesting bets recently.
Bother - I was looking forward to the headline "Tories go back to front".
F*ck. I was well up for a Tory lead.
Dale, why do you do this to us?
Check your facts before getting everyone excited!
So David Lindsay likes our uneven constituencies! What a democrat!
thank you for the updates..
Iain, I agree with BritSpin.
CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST
And this isn't the first time you've been way off the mark, is it?
Labour's lead is crumbling to dust. Well done Gordon, look where your incompetent lies and spin are leading us.
I posted this last week:
http://dailyreferendum.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-conservatives-win-2007-general.html
Do I win a prize?
Peter King says : "If true then what does it mean? Polls are rubbish? Or people are very fickle, have no firm political views and therefore highly changable to what they are presented via the media?"
I'd say that people have been desperate to escape the caledonian pickpocket but had no-one they could turn to. Perhaps they have no found a suitable alternative to brownspin in a relatively straightforward DC ?
Alan Douglas
'Perhaps he's not quite the supreme strategist that everyone thought.'
I think you'll find that many of us thought he was a supreme strategist.
I said to the wife that that Iraqi stunt might prove to be his 'Sheffield rally'
Mark Sanders on the Beeb just now saying Westminster rumours of Conservative lead "anything up to 4 points" and stressing usual caveats.
From the Times (Philip Webster):
The prospect of Gordon Brown calling an election next week has fallen away after a strong performance by the Conservatives at their annual conference, Labour sources told The Times today.
Although the official position of the Prime Minister is that he will not make a decision until the weekend, the early signs are the Tories made an impact on public opinion this week, and party insiders expect Labour’s lead to be heavily cut in polls published over the next 48 hours.
Polling has also suggested, apparently, that the public has no real appetite for a November election which, for hundreds of thousands, would mean turning out in the dark to vote.
Labour insiders also say that the inheritance tax plan from the Conservatives has gone particularly well in marginal seats, which are the election battleground.
Anon "CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST
And this isn't the first time you've been way off the mark, is it?"
Ratty and rattled.
I almost hate to do this to you drooling, hate-filled, poverty stricken Northern public sector Labour-voting subhuman pieces of snake shit....but here's the Sheffield Rally of 1992 that lost you c***s the election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8F-4du3rQ
I have watched this about 150 times...classic!
You don't know it yet but you just lost the next one. LOL! Die poor, Labour peasants!
If Brown won't call an election he should be forced into one. I think a motion of not confidence is merrited over the EU Treaty, pensions, gold, foot and mouth, violent crime, breaking the covenant with our armed forces, I could go on, but I think that is enough for starters.
Let's get rid of him.
From Wikipedia:
A motion of no confidence, also called a motion of non-confidence, a censure motion, a no-confidence motion, or simply a confidence motion, is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or embarrassing a government. On rare occasions, it may also be put on the parliamentary order paper by an erstwhile supporter who has lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence). In the British Parliament it generally first appears as an early day motion although the vote on the Queen's Speech also constitutes a Confidence Motion.
We may not win the motion but it will give Brown a clear indication of his lack of popularity.
I'm not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, but Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report recently wrote: "UPDATE - not true after all, seems those were interim figures and the final ones show a small Labour lead."
If the Tories were only 11 points behind at their lowest ebb - remember grammar schools, supermarket car parks, holiday taxes and other green crap - they could easily have recovered that ground and more this week. Their conference was mighty impressive. It's now a question of getting those messages across to as wide an audience as possible.
Interim figures? Guardian Poll? hmmm
The media can manipulate opinion for sure, but that is not what's happened here. If true it looks like a very rare case of the real efforts of the party overcoming media prejudice and winning through to ordinary people (who were always disposed to like Dave). Plus of course a little help from Gordon's stunts. The Labour lead was a thoroughly media manufactured affair. This can't be given the total absence of support from the press pack a week ago. I wonder if they are now going to start every interview with Labour MPs with 'So did you underestimate David Cameron?'
I said on here last week that Channel 4 hate new labour and the only reason they were trumpeting the 11 point lead was because they knew it could only go down. They could then do one of their negative new labour stories.
This isn't political reporting, it's just manufactured sensationalism.
I don't like them, Ed. I merely acknowledge their existence. Anyone who says that Cameron can win does not so acknowledge. In other words, denies reality.
PaulD, making up the 11 points to level pegging would still deliver a Labour overall majority of 90. For a Tory overall majority of one, you'd need another 11 points, i.e., a 22-point jump in all. Not going to happen. For good, ill, or (in fact) no change, there we are.
And Daily Referendum (or anyone else, come to that), WHY should there be an Election only two and a half years after the last one? Just how often would you like them to be, and why?
One interesting thing might be what happens to the Lib Dems....
I know...I'd forgotten about them too
David Lindsay,
Because Brown has no mandate for a start. The fact that he is going back on a manifesto promise is another. There are more reasons.
But most importantly David:
It IS time for a change:)
David Lindsay,
Another thing David, it was only in March THIS year that we had (according to Mori) an eight point lead over Labour.
11 points is not that unrealistic.
Can you feel it David? Does it hurt?
The are spinning hard - trying to over do expectations for the Conservatives - so they can turn round as say look it wasn't that good for Cameron.
Same old socialists - same old spin.
The BBC were doing something similar yesterday in front of a pool tracking chart which showed the direction of change of both Labour and Conservative support leading to a a rapid close. the BBC take on this - the lead for Labour is getting bigger.
They are either mathematically illiterate (possible) or biased (also possible - see Stephanie Flanders for details).
Doesn't bother me, because they are exactly the same. In ways that "hurt", but which aren't going to change either way. Neither of your arguments for an Election stands up (I ask again, just how often would you like them, and why?), and from where you are to where you'd need to be is hopelessly unrealistic.
David Lindsay,
As for how often I would like to see election my answer is this: They should be on a fixed four year period. The Prime minister should not set the date. However that does not mean a Prime minister should stay in office when he is obviously not fit for purpose.
As to whether the swing required is possible, we will just have to wait and see.
Ed said...
Actually Labour can win with a 4% Tory lead because of the differences in size of constituencies which neither party seems to want to grapple.
It is more due to that fact that Labour voters are more evenly distributed throughout England whereas a high proportion of Conservative constituency have very large majorities. These surplus votes contribute to the overall national percentages but don't benefit the Conservatives in terms of additional seats. That is why the marginal consituencies are so important in deciding which party has most seats.
The polls are nonsense anyway. The big labour lead, that conveniently emerged during the Northern Rock fiasco, was faked, to give Brown the springboard into the conference season he wanted and to put Cameron under pressure. Thereby, continuing the Gordon love-in and anti-Cameron narrative in the media.
Talk of an election was always nonsense, as it was designed to destabilise the Conservative conference as much as possible, but in fact, had the opposite effect. Also, New Labour are not the Party of government, they are a Party of the mass media, as has been plainly obvious for the last ten years and true to form, Labour threw their media chums a big bone to chew on. The political news would have been a lot flatter without election talk thrown in. I don't believe for one moment, that Brown, is/was seriously considering an election. The risks were and are far too great.
I doubt there has been a genuine big swing to the Tories, because they were never really that far behind in the first place. Their TV coverage on the BBC bulletins ( by far the most influential outlet at conference time) gave them little coverage this week and Cameron's speech got about 3mins of coverage compared to the 15 Gordo shag-fest that we had to endure last week! And the floating vote are heavily influenced by TV news, and although the Conservatives avoided negative coverage (grammar schools etc.) they were denied too much positive coverage, at least the papers were kinder, but they still preferred to headline the 3rd enquiry in Diana's death! The Conservatives had an excellent conference, but the wider electorate will be largely ignorant of this, thanks to Labour's strangle hold on the MSM.
david lindsay (6.36pm)
Quote from your blog profile: "the prophet, apostle and high priest of paleo-Labour"
What the hell does this mean? Everyone has a voice, David, but you owe it to the rest of us to explain your point of view in a bit more detail because we just don't understand what you are talking about.
Yours in friendship
As it says on my blog, that is just what my blogging enemies call me (among other things). I first read it on here, in fact.
The blog is one of the ways in which I explain my position in more detail. You should read it.
Post a Comment