On tightening polls

Will it be a closer race as the election approaches?

Cllr Denzil Coulson responded to my post on the seventeen-point post-DC speech poll lead with a Tweet that a 45% Conservative poll rating at the next election was “very unlikely”. Lo and behold, another poll put the Conservatives on precisely 45%, which I duly tweeted for his attention.

“You and I know that polls tighten during the election campaign”

came the response via Twitter and it’s not an unreasonable one, so I thought I’d look into it, starting in 1992. Back then, polls weren’t as frequent or, as we subsequently came to realise, as accurate as now. But looking seven months out from John Major’s photo-finish election win, ICM/Guardian on 14 September had Con 39, Lab 39 and LD 17. That was the same result in MORI/Times 10 days later. By 12 October, there was a Lab 43, Con 41 LD 12 poll done by ICM/Guardian. I’m not being selective – those are the polls I can find. In the end, the result was Con 42, Labour 34, LD 18. Not much sign of a tightening there – except for one away from the October 12 ICM Labour lead.

In 1997, it is a slightly different story. A November 1 MORI poll has Lab 54, Con 30, LD 12 and a Lab 47, Con 34, LD 15 poll followed the next day by MORI. All other polls in November had Labour above 50 and the Conservatives on around 30. The final result - Lab 43 Con 30 LD 17 – is indeed a tightening of the polls seven months out; but which way are the polls tightening? As in 1992, the move was away from Labour as people who, when questioned, said they would vote Labour stayed at home.

In 2001, four polls in December put Labour on around 46, the Conservatives on 33 and LDs on 15. The actual result – Lab 41, Con 32 and LD 18 – was similarly due to Labour voters staying at home, a lack of enthusiasm for the Conservatives and aggresive Lib Dem campaigning. Yes, a tightening – but a tightening away from Labour. During the last election polls seven months out showed Labour at around 38, the Conservatives on 31 and the Lib Dems on 21. The election result was Lab 35, Con 32 and LD 22 – very close to the polling figures in November.

A few things to note:

1) The Labour vote has always been lower in the election than the average polling figures seven months out, probably due to lower turnout among Labour voters

2) The Conservative vote in polls seven months out since 1992 has been very close to the results on the night

3) The Lib Dem vote has always been higher in elections than polls because they campaign so well

It is also worth stating the obvious – that it depends which polls you look at and where the votes are cast is more important than how many are cast. But the evidence above suggests that Labour’s percentage on the night will be lower than their current polling, that the Lib Dems will do better (just as well given that they are on 16% today)and that the Conservative vote will hold around about where it is now ie the average for the month.

We are, of course, all hostages to fortune and whatever surprises the next seven months may hold. But a quick glance through records shows that the Lib Dems relying on a tighening of polls during an election campaign to produce a hung parliament might be a little misguided. It’s still a possibility if we don’t work hard enough, though.

Right on the money

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

The technical problems on my blog have prevented a more in-depth following of the Conservative conference but here’s how I see it up to today. Firstly, I thought that Rachel Sylvester did a great piece in The Times yesterday on the mixed messages of the first couple of days of the conference. I can’t complain that there weren’t any policy ideas – in fact, there have been so many that the government has been forced to rush out some of its own - but the problem with policies is that they often contradict each other (“Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”, anyone?) Spread out, no-one notices but releasing them all so close together draws a more prominent relief of any inconsistency.

Having said that, what I’ve heard has been pretty sensible given the financial circumstances. In 1997, it was easy for New Labour to come up with big ideas and schemes; this time, with the country in economic dire straits it’s a lot more difficult. I support the idea of benefits being cut to fund education and training – it’s the difference between economic opportunity and economic slavery. I support a long-term view of working conditions that preserves pensions but needs us to work longer for them. I also support the measures that have been put in place to support small enterprises, which create wealth, jobs and investment in this country.

I’m delighted beyond all measure that the message that I have been telling everyone who will listen should be put out is finally being delivered – that after 12 years of Labour spin, spite, incompetence and centralisation spattered by the odd moment of common sense, the Conservative Party is the party who will be honest with voters, tell them about the pain ahead and take them through what is going to be an agonising Parliament. George Osborne isn’t my favourite member of the front bench – I’ve got far more time for Runnymede and Weybridge MP Phillip Hammond, who is a real asset and should be chancellor – but his speech yesterday was dead on the money.

And it was vitally, vitally important that he delivered a well-judged message in an appropriate way. There’s still a fair hint of arrogance about his speaking method but the content was absolutely right and I suspect the voters would rather vote for an arrogant man with good ideas than a humble man with no clue.

As Nick Robinson (who else?) points out, it’s a significant political gamble to announce cuts and tough times ahead but I think people are resigned to it and it will give the Tories acredibility lacking in the current government (and Vince Cable, who just wants to tax your mansion). This country, once again, needs to be rescued from Labour overspending by a Conservative austerity regime. Am I looking forward to it? No. It is fair that public sector workers will have to cope on frozen pay? No – but then I’ve not had a pay rise this year, either. Is it fair that they should lose their jobs? No – but this is Labour’s mess and they should remember that when they cast their vote.

Labour created tens of thousands of silly jobs in the public sector that were unsustainable to fund in the long-term. Now the party is over, those stuck in them are going to have to pay Labour’s debt. It’s a shocking betrayal – but I bet Labour (in opposition) won’t see it that way.

It is also interesting to note that despite the policies coming forward, we’ve had comparitively scant negative reaction in the mainstream media – let’s leave the Grauniad and Mirror aside. Instead, the BBC has contented itself with Chris Grayling’s mishearing of questions, the appointment of Gen Sir Richard Dannat and the When Boris Met Dave silliness on Channel 4 (although calling them mainstream is a little generous) tonight.

This reflects various things, I suspect. A quiet conference day in the build up to DC’s speech tomorrow – although this usually gives space for some criticism. There is also the realisation that the next government is almost certainly going to be a Conservative and journalists getting used to buttering up the other side. But also I think there’s an unspoken feeling at conference from the websites, papers and Twitter, that Britain has been buffeted, bungled and betrayed by Labour and that Conservative support might, as Rachel Sylvester suggests, be fragile – but they do actually have some half-decent ideas to try and restore our national self-esteem.

Purpose and clarity – there is still work to be done. But I think DC knows what needs doing tomorrow.

Two reasons for Labour shame

Two things came out of the Labour conference that real made me angry. I can put up with Labour ministers banging on about how Gordon Brown saved the world and how the Tories are planning to throw pensioners into the sea etc etc but the sight of ex-terrorists being allowed to return to the scene of one of their most infamous atrocities on an official ticket, to be able to mingle with Cabinet ministers and turn up to parties sponsored by the Grauniad really makes me doubt the character of the people responsible. We all know who I’m talking about; his name doesn’t get mentioned on this blog.

What the IRA did to the Grand last time they visited

I don’t need to go into the details of the Brighton bomb, which happened 25 years ago next month. Suffice it to say that I refuse to believe that it never occurred to the Labour Party what an inappropriate situation this was. It’s just the small, petty, spiteful and vindictive actions of a party that has lost its self-respect. No doubt next year they’ll be heading down to Eastbourne to hold the Labour conference outside the former home of Ian Gow. I don’t agree with Norman Tebbit about much but I certainly understand why he is not happy. Strangely, the BBC reports this only in its Northern Ireland coverage rather than the main conference section.

The second thing that made me mad was Gordon Brown‘s proposal for 16 and 17-year old single mothers to be housed together in shared accommodation rather than single flats. I can imagine the utter furore if a Conservative government had come forward with similar proposals. This is the politics of victimhood – of Labour saying to people “You’ll never amount to much but if you stick with us, we’ll protect you from the Conservatives who want to cut you loose in society.” Wrong.

The way to tackle teenage pregnancy is break the cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity that teaches young girls the only way to get on in life is to have babies because with those come houses and income through benefits. Young people need teachers who can instill self-worth in them, social workers who have the power to tackle parents who don’t give a damn and clear and distinct paths of opportunity to make their lives better before they bring babies into the world to share them.

It would also help if teachers didn’t hand out contraceptives to girls barely old enough to write their own names and if our culture wasn’t so wholly dominated by images of sex and peer pressure to engage in it. There are other enjoyable pursuits in life for young people – but if sex is all they know, it’s inevitable that it will become a preoccupation. It is up to government to enable the alternatives. It makes me mad that Labour has no intention to do this while telling everyone it cares about young mothers. It is not interested in single mothers – only their votes – and bunging them all together in block accommodation is a ghastly piece of ignorant and exploitative legislation that has no place whatsoever in Parliament.

I hope DC refers to this in Manchester. The Conservatives should be able to do a lot better.

Where’s the plan?

Hmmmmm...

Yes, Minister is full of allusions to the concept of “the less you intend to do about something, the more you have to talk about it” – no doubt I could find an episode and exact quote, but you get the picture.

During the Lib Dem conference, there was a clear picture – a narrative of where the Liberal Democrats wanted to go and what they wanted to do. They have a clear ambition and are aligning themselves nationally to the left with the intention of also being able to soften this to tempt away core Conservative voters. I don’t agree with it policy-by-policy but at least it’s there, it’s clear and frankly, it’s sensible.

But I’m searching the Labour conference in vain for a cohesive, collective and strategic vision. Gordon Brown has been banging on for ages about his strategic vision. Longer, even, than since he became Prime Minister. And the reason that the country has been allowed to drift is because Brown has never come up with this encompassing vision. After 12 years in power, Labour has been drained of the strength to reform government properly ie from the Civil Service upwards and instead now tinkers around with headline-grabbers.

On the one hand, Lord Meddlesome wants to extend the car scrappage scheme for cheap new motors - on the other hand, Ed Miliband wants us all to believe Labour will be serious about climate change at Copenhagen. Andy Burham can’t guarantee health spending while maintaining Labour is the party of the NHS, Jack Straw promises more support for victims but Alan Johnson wants to be tougher on crime – we’ve heard it all before.

Gordon Brown wants to end the bonus system – but he presided over it. And Meddlesome thinks that Labour are both the “underdogs” for the election but also that it’s “up for grabs”.

This is government by headline and they are desperate headlines at that. Ministers’ ideas are stolen by the Prime Minister to shore up his own teatering authority and the country is being run by a series of politicians positioning themselves for leadership after the fall of a man whose methods of internal control are by all accounts tyrannical.

It strikes me that this conference is more about the Labour Party than the Labour government. Perhaps searching it for a national vision is to mistake its true purpose.

Luvvies, Labour’s Lost

Flawed but not floored - can he turn it around

It’s a bit early to define a narrative from the Labour Conference in Brighton just yet but so far the most interesting thing coming out of the proceedings there is the attitude of the BBC.

First, we have a surprisingly combative interview from the normally obliging Andrew Marr, who went so far as to raise with the PM the issue of his alleged medication. Predictably, Brown dodged the question and instead went for the sympathy vote over his eyesight, something that David Blunkett – a far more robust and substantial man – would never have done. Whatever the answer, it caught me (and quite a few of the Tory Twitterati that I follow) out – one wonders whether this is the last Marr/Brown interview.

It obviously irked Marr to ask the question as much as it did Brown to have to answer it. The BBC man’s pleading that it was a “fair” question was followed up by some serious feigned interest in Brown’s sob story. Obviously I’m sorry he has a sight impairment – but it was noticeable how much detail he was prepared to give up on this in contrast with the actual question about prescription drugs.

Then we had this from Laura Kuenssberg (@BBCLauraK) – she really is a gem on top of a compost heap. Not only was she prepared to tell viewers the actual mood of the conference on Brown’s arrival (ie pretty dreadful) but also to lob some real questions at him about his law-breaking ministers and then reflect that the party activists (the BBC usual calls them crowds as if to ignore their handpicked pedigree) were making so much noise that he couldn’t hear her. And she hinted, quite correctly, that this was probably deliberate.

But look at the story headline – “Labour ‘should expose the Tories’”. Clearly the online staff have gone seriously off message – or on message with PM. It doesn’t reflect the downbeat message from LauraK and about Labour – or indeed much about Labour at all. It’s just a pop at the Conservatives.

Previous to this, of course, was this beauty – again courtesy of online staff – suggesting that Brown and Barack Obama are, after all, the closest of chums and that Obama doesn’t see Brown as a washed-up political liability or “depressing to be around“, as one of his staff leaked to the press. According to the BBC, this official line “quelled rumours” of an Obama snub. No it didn’t – and who are they to report that as fact? Any moderately sensible person watching the polls will realise that the last thing Obama needs with his problems at home is to become embroiled in some tawdry scheme by a foreign political party to prop up their ailing government with lent popularity.

Obama isn’t my cup of tea but he’s certainly not a fool. And only a fool would consider anything other than refusing any more public airtime with Gordon than was absolutely necessary. Any suggestion to the contrary is completely counter-inituitive and total propaganda, which the Beeb is only too happy to repeat.

Going back to the polls, not even Obama could have found a way to spin a poll that suggests you are heading out of office positively. I can’t now find the link on the BBC website – maybe they’ve seen sense and pulled it – but this poll, which states 41% of people think Brown is almost certainly going to lose is bad, bad news. Instead, the BBC concentrated on the 48% of people who though Labour still had a “slim chance” of winning in 2010, along with the 11% who think he will win.

It’s a silly question – you can’t ever rule out that a party has a “slim chance” of winning. I’m not surprised so many people ticked that box rather than commit themselves but it doesn’t reflect reality. The BBC is supposed to be here to present facts not spin to us that 59% of people think Gordon is still in with a chance next year – of course he is, he’s taking part in the election. They are more aware than ever that politics is self-fulfilling and by buying into this silly poll (I though they didn’t report routine polls anyway) they are just playing PM and the PM’s game for them. At our expense.

I don’t expect the BBC to give DC a free ride. I don’t expect them to push through government PR work. But there is a bipolarity within the corporation at the moment between the political pragmatists that realise the New Labour years are 95% drawing to a close and the politically-motivated staff who desperately want to play a hand in upsetting the odds with sly journalism. It’s got no place in the BBC and they have no place on the public payroll.

The BBC is a service, not a political tool. I’m afraid quite a number of its staff work there for the wrong reasons – they should stand for election instead.

Brown doesn’t get tough on Scotland

Further to this, this, from Tim Dodds‘s excellent blog. I don’t think I can put it any better.

It’s quite shocking and goes to the heart of just what the Labour government has become. There is no law without justice – Baroness Scotland of all people should know that.

Balls goes for scorched earth

 

Ed Balls - a rare point

Ed Balls, the man who takes the ‘Ed’ out of ‘education’, has ever-so-accidentally let skip that he wants to slice £2bn from the education budget on the grounds that our national debt will reach a staggering £1.1tn by 2011.

Well, £2bn isn’t a great deal in the grand scheme of things but every penny helps. Why, though, has he chosen to be so very public about these cuts, which he maintains will be achieved by relatively painless “natural wastage”? Because by 2011, when the next spending review in 2010 will take effect, Balls and his chums will all be on the opposition front benches – but the treasury figures will have been predicated with a £2bn reduction in education spending for George Osborne to worry about.

So George Osborne’s first review will have education cuts built in and he will have to decide whether to keep them in and risk a high-profile run-in with the NUT, those cheeky Lib Dems and even the bare-facedly shameless PLP - or whether to put that money back in for the sake of some great PR and wield the axe elsewhere.

It’s one of many, many ticking packages that the Labour front bench is busy constructing for an incoming Conservative government. As if ruining the country wasn’t bad enough, Labour also believes it’s a good idea to sabotage the tools of the next government who have to sort out their sorry legacy.

The only hope that this country has of being able to contribute something worthwhile to the world and hold its place on the top table of nations rests with the quality of education we give people, young and old alike. There may be cuts to be made in our education system – I don’t know, I’m not an insider – but getting rid of teachers appears to me to be a “must try harder” idea.

We need more teachers – we need better teachers – but we also need an education system with different types of education to provide interest for different types of people – scientific, artistic, business-minded, academic, practical, creative and everything in between. For that, we need more money, not less. I would rather see money diverted from income-based benefits into both child and adult education to take people out of state-sponsored poverty and into self-driven opportunity.

No doubt Ed Balls’s response to my view would be “so what?”. Labour just doesn’t see education in the same way. I believe Tony Blair did – but he was never supported by his party in his aim to make education the enabling, enlightening, enriching and enduring aspect of our lives that it should be. 

DC and his front bench have largely had the benefit of great education and they should be able to appreciate the difference it can make. Let’s hope so – this is one area of Conservative policy I’m looking forward to seeing in the manifesto. But first they have to dodge the Balls.

Scotland gets tough on migrant

The best story of the day has to be the news that Baroness Scotland, who worked on leglisation to crack down on the employment of illegal immigrants, has fallen foul of the very law she helped introduce.

I can’t remember the last time a minister was caught by their own legislation. Her draconian drafting to fine those hoodwinked by illegal immigrants with seemingly all the right paperwork up to £10,000 – apparently discarding the old adage that it’s not a crime to be deceived – has rebounded brilliantly.

So will she be fined? Or is their some unwritten rule that the law shouldn’t apply to ministers? Would a member of the public in the same position escape application of the law in a similar way?

Her spokesman said she had “never knowingly employed an illegal immigrant”. Doesn’t matter. And that “She hired Ms Tapui in good faith and saw documents which led her to believe that Ms Tapui was entitled to work in this country.” Whatever. In addition:

“At no stage prior to the matter being raised did Baroness Scotland believe there was any question over Ms Tapui’s entitlement to work. Ms Tapui has now been dismissed with immediate effect.”

Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard that one before. Now, where do we serve the papers? Oh, you’re the minister, are you…?

Writs all round

Thank goodness that Nadine Dorries (left) has finally served libel writs on Damian McBride and Derek Draper for the scurrilous, nasty filth that they were bandying about for their Red Rag project.

The Grauniad reports authoritatively (along with a suitably unflattering photo) that Gordon Brown was not aware of the emails and was “furious” when he found out that they had been sent. One is inclined to be cynical about this kind of thing but I have to say I don’t believe such slanders are Brown’s style and for once am willing to take something other than a job ad at face value in the Grauniad .

Nadine Dorries is a canny individual though – she knows that the timing of her writs is likely to mean court hearings in around, say, six months or so when Gordon Brown needs them the least. I could drum through the Defamation Act 1996 but suffice it to speculate that even if they feel they were treated unfairly, McBride and Draper will come under some pressure to settle and avoid a courtroom soap opera in the press.

Whether they accede to that pressure remains to be seen but at least the writs have been served on the twits…

#welovetheenvironment

Having achieved a degree of success conning the media into following their vacuous Twitter campaign #welovethenhs, @KerryMP and the Labour e-coterie has now decided to run another silly season bandwagon, this time on the environment.

Enter Ed Miliband, the Environment Secretary now fully Twittered up, who Tweeted a week ago:

“@KerryMP totally agree on end of the line. Showed in my constit. did they give
out guide on fish to buy? Should be campaign on this.”

This particular piece of non-communication refers not to the end of the line for the Labour government followed by advice on having to buy your own fish (as opposed to getting it on expenses) but to the Bluefin Tuna boycott being pioneered by this organisation.

Now it’s turned into a wider campaign on the Road to Copenhagen, where in 104 days, world leaders will sit down and talk about the environment. They will discuss carbon outputs before India, China and the US refuse to lower their own emissions, instead paying for lesser developed nations to lower theirs in lieu. They will refuse to cut air travel, increase investment in renewable technology, lower oil consumption and take proper action over the destruction of rainforest and natural green space.

There will be no progress on population control (except in China where the sensible one-child policy is the most far-sighted thing about that nation) and instead we will get a series of headline-grabbing initiatives such as save the whale, hug the trees and re-glaze the icebergs – none of which will make the slightest difference to our environmental mess.

Still, if Labour really wants to push this charade as caring about the environment, that’s their problem. I’m sure a #RoadtoCopenhagen topic will appear soon, as well as some media coverage about climate-change denying Tories (which no doubt they will try and generate – Tory MPs/MEPs beware).

And after the environment, what will be the next campaign? It’s not as if Labour hasn’t got a huge mess that they’ve landed this nation in to try and sort out.