Sunday, November 01, 2009

Tories Poll Better Than Labour In 1996


We keep being told that David Cameron hasn't "sealed the deal" with the electorate because the Tory poll lead isn't as big as Labour's was in 1996 - ie at the same stage on that parliament.The above table, created by PoliticalBetting.com from ICM polling data, blows that theory out of the water. You will see that the comparable lead for Labour in 1996 was 13%. The Tory lead in today's ICM poll is 17%. Mike Smithson explains in more detail the consequences and relevance of this HERE. His main point is that Labour are now polling in the mid 20s, as opposed to the Tory poll figure of early 30s in 1996. He concludes...
You get the feeling that just like 96/97 voters have made their minds up. They might not like the Tories but they just want the election to happen so they can boot Brown out. Truly it is said that government’s lose elections rather than oppositions win them.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dont forget to factor in the millions of votes the Conservatives will lose if....when....Cameron breaks his promise to hold a referendum on the EUSSR Constitreaty.

I despise Labour but if Cameron surrenders id rather vote Labour than the Conservatives, at least Labour dont try to hide the fact that they are lying traitors working for Brussels.

Paddy Briggs said...

So what about Tarzan then?

http://page.politicshome.com/uk/hung_parliament_very_likely_maintains_lord_heseltine.html

Stronghold Barricades said...

The "deal is not sealed" until the ballot boxes have been emptied, and shame on you Iain

Despite public opinion, the recent EU elections and the mounting issues for Labour in it's heartlands, Brown is determined to hang on to the last

...and the latest revelation today, is that Brown won't stand aside because he feels that anyone else as leader of the Labour Party will do no better

Bob said...

Any poll that shows that Labour will soon be annihilated is a welcome one.

salisbury said...

Your headline is simply wrong. "Labour poll worse than Tories in 1996" would be accurate. The inverse is not supported by the numbers. Once again reportage has got mugged by wishful thinking.

salisbury said...

Your headline is untrue. "Labour poll worse than Tories in 1996" would be accurate. The numbers do not support the inverse proposition. Once again reportage has got mugged by wishful thinking

David Boothroyd said...

You and Mike Smithson are attempting to compare one poll out today with one poll taken 13 years ago. Remember that the 'margin of error' (95% confidence interval) is 3% on each of the parties anyway.

ICM was the poll which showed Labour consistently lower in 1994-97. Gallup, throughout 1996, never put the Conservatives higher than 27%, and never put Labour lower than 53%. Other polls also put Labour over 50%. The Conservatives are nowhere near that level. They have not sealed the deal.

Liam said...

There is a sense that those in the marginals have made up their mind, but clearly the voters in more traditionally w/c or Labour camps (especially in the North), have yet to be won over.

The issue which totally sways the simple art (or act) of opinion polling must be the expenses scandal. Far more likely to nudge people towards alternatives to both Labour and Conservative candidates will be the strength of the memory about 2009. Percentage leads are on thing; a scandal hit MP is another

Iain Dale said...

Boothroyd, you make me laugh. WHat does it matter what Gallup said. ICM got the polling day figures more or less spot on. Gallup were way out. They never put Labour lower than 53! So bloody what! Meaningless! Headline poll figures don't matter. It is the lead that matters. And the Tories are achieving a 17% lead (in the last four polls) despite the LibDmes being on average 4 points higher than in 1996.

FireForce said...

If the Conservatives want to win with a landslide, all they have to do is act like a Conservative government.
Cut spending,
Repeal the firearms acts they and labour made,
repeal the fox hunting laws,
curb immigration, so so simple. but with out a promise to repeal the firearms law I will be staying away from voting.

True Belle said...

Come on Iain, didn't you watch Dan Hannam on the politics show?

Dan is the man with the proper plan.

People do not want to be duped by Cameron flip flopping on the promised referendum.

Polls mean nothing what so ever.

Anonymous said...

What ever the polls say Labour will lose the next election.

Anonymous said...

In government but not in power.....who really gives a shit about the next government of a far flung region of the EU?

David Boothroyd said...

Iain, I cannot imagine what it is I have done which leads you to write your reply in such an impersonal and insulting way. The level of nastiness in that comment is really quite breathtaking. I think you may wish, on mature reflection, to withdraw it and rewrite something a bit more measured.

Iain Dale said...

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I remember your insulting remarks in one of the Kaminski threads. People call me Dale on here all the time.

Now, would you like to engage with the argument?

David Boothroyd said...

The point is, Iain, that I don't recall ever calling you "Dale" here or anywhere else.

For the record the sum total of everything I said about Michal Kaminski was that he supported the Lisbon Treaty. See here. That is it. Where are the insulting remarks?

There is a well-known blogger who frequently claims that you post lies about your political opponents. I do not know why you should wish to provide additional evidence to help him make that accusation against you.

True Belle said...

Oops sorry oh, Dan Hannan correction, not Hannam ! Dan is still the man with a sensible plan.

PS, Wish you had corrected my mistake, Iain.

Hurf Durf said...

I love it when Labourgs try and grasp at straws that don't exist.

L is for Labour. L is for Lice.

Javelin said...

Yes, I read that. Interestingly is the rise of the LibDems at the expense of the main parties.

1996 - C31-L49-LD16
2009 - C42-L25-LD21

If things are to continue like this then we need to look at the swing from Conservative to Labour.

The swing was C42-C31(11) and L49-L25(24) and LD21-LD16(5).

The Labour Party figures look VERY, VERY bad - in fact the down swing is HUGE. If 5 years into a Conservative Government the LD even up swing by 4 points then the Labour Party will be beaten into 3rd place.

In the long run you might expect a Swing against the Conservatives. In which case the whole thing is looking pretty HUNG.

Things probably have never looked better for the Lib Dems.

I have said for 20 years, politics MUST move to the right in this country as we find our attitiudes becoming more competitive against rising 3rd world countries. That will happen if we want to maintain standards of living and ANY social justice.

neil craig said...

The lead over Labour is one thing. The fact that the Tories total % of the vote is lower is another showing most people don't like them, just that more don't like Labour. The 3rd is that under the FPTP system the Tories are so keen on Labour get a 5-10% advantage so you have to do a lot better than Labour in 1997.

Patrick said...

Thanks so much for cheering us up on this dismay day.

Dont forget the Weather was much better under the Tories too.....

microdave said...

Anon 11:12, and True Belle - here go those votes.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224428/Tories-U-turn-Lisbon-Treaty-Cameron-drops-pledge-referendum.html

No Society said...

Iain, start using your influence, reach down and grab a pair. What is going on with THE only topic of relevance today, the EU.Do you have views that do not "walk the line". Are all comments on most credible Tory blogs ALL UKIP tolls. I think not

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224335/PETER-HITCHENS-The-slow-motion-New-Labour-putsch-swept-nation-away.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224266/EU-leaders-furious-David-Camerons-bid-scupper-Lisbon-Treaty.html

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/10/cameron-surrenders-2.html

Shane Greer's intense stare said...

Iain you really need to tone it down sometimes: why the extreme bitterness?

Also, why are you going out if your way to claim that the Tories have it in the bag? Listen to Hesseltine, a man if real intellect and talent, calling it like it is.

Iain Dale said...

Dont be such a prat. Nowehere did I say it is in the bag. It's not what I believe.

Shane Greer's intense smile said...

'Prat'? It says a lot about you, Iain, when you so frequently have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Your mask slips quite a lot these days.

Claiming, as you seem so intent on doing, that the Tories have 'sealed the deal' - as evidenced by their consistent lead of Labour in all recent opinion polling - is as good as claiming that it's in the bag.

Now, no matter how profoundly you disagree with me there was absolutely no need to insult me: please apologise, Iain.

Iain Dale said...

You think I am going to apologise to someone who calls themselves Shane Greer's Intense Smile! Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

"We keep being told that David Cameron hasn't "sealed the deal" with the electorate... The above table, created by PoliticalBetting.com from ICM polling data, blows that theory out of the water."

November 01, 2009 11:01 AM

"Dont be such a prat. Nowehere did I say it is in the bag. It's not what I believe."

November 01, 2009 3:52 PM

David Boothroyd said...

I do expect an apology to me, for your insulting tone (quite unprovoked), for accusing me of "insulting remarks in one of the Kaminski threads" which I never made, and for implying that I call you "Dale" which I never do.

For what it's worth, the average Labour lead in ICM polls in 1996 was 17%. The 13% lead you and Mike Smithson refer to was bookended by leads of 18% (October 1996) and 19% (December 1996). The Labour vote share in 1996 was never shown lower than 45%. In 2009's ICM polls, the Conservatives have never polled over 44%.

susiep539 said...

David, its a written message, you cant exactly infer tone accurately from it.

It seems to me you are merely trying to stir things up and put Iain on the spot. If you really are this sensitive to comments in real life I have no idea how you cope from day to day, because I get more 'abuse' than what you've experienced from the little old ladies who come and buy sherry in my shop...

Unsworth said...

@ Boothroyd

Why not address the point rather than doing the girly thing of complaining about how people talk to you?

But maybe you don't have an answer.

Unsworth said...

Who are these pillocks to complain about 'tone of voice'? It's the usual effort to control debate rather than engage with the argument itself.

Morons.

David Boothroyd said...

The other thing which the well-known blogger I previously referred to often says is that Iain Dale usually goes quiet when he has been proved wrong, and then lets his commenters attack the person he's been disagreeing with.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Iain Dale said...

I'm not apologising when I have nothing to apologise for. And when you have to call on the "other blogger" to aid you argument you are clearly on a loser! Engage in the argument instead of whinge about an imagined insult.

Quietzapple said...

Elsewhere the druggies are lapsing into abuse, here it is the tories worried about looking foolish and losing again. Again.

Heza may have been gutles when he left it to Sir Anthony Mayer (The Stalking Donkey) to oppose Mrs T's leadership, but his reluctance was well judged; he was going to lose.

He is pretty sure there will be a hung parliament, Chameleon may not be the Tory to take a leading role in that situation, it would depend on the strengths of the hanging parties.

David Boothroyd said...

Direct question Iain, what were the "insulting remarks in one of the Kaminski threads" that you remembered me writing? Quote and link please.

Unsworth said...

Boothroyd

Don't be so bleeding silly. ..."lets his commenters attack the person he's been disagreeing with."?

Do you actually believe that there's some sort of orchestrated conspiracy here? Do you not understand that it's quite possible that others may actually disagree with you? Paranoid or something?

Anyway, why not address the argument, rather than indulging your childish sensitivities? But maybe you have no real response.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you apologise for needlessly calling one of your contributors a 'prat' for having the audacity to accuse you of taking a Tory victory for granted?

Out of your depth mate: and you know it.