Yesterday’s ICM poll makes bad reading. Of course, one poll means little, but if ICM’s findings are the beginning of a trend then we could have a very serious problem. I would point out two significant figures:
David Cameron’s approval rating amongst Conservative voters is +25. Firstly, +25 is a low score. It suggests that voters who voted Conservative in 2005 are not happy with Cameron’s positioning of the party. That said, as the party changes it’s inevitable that support amongst Tory voters should fall. If anything +25 isn’t low enough.
What is disappointing, however, is David Cameron’s wider approval rating of -8. This shows that Cameron is failing to reach out beyond Conservative voters.
If this is the case, it suggests that Cameron has changed the party enough to irritate Tory voters, but nowhere near enough to attract new voters. This is a changed situation since the spring, as the ICM poll indicates.
For the first eighteen months Cameron’s leadership resulted in a sustained poll lead. A commitment to maintain Labour’s level of investment, and a shift on to education, health and quality of life issues, was the basis for the improvement. ICM suggests that as the Conservative poll lead narrowed, so to did their lead on these particular issues.
In January, ICM polled the Conservatives one point ahead on Education, and only 1 point behind on health. Other pollsters put them above Labour on health for the first time ever. Now Labour has a lead of twelve points on Education and thirteen points on Health.
On tax and public services the Conservatives have lost a three point lead to a Labour lead of twelve points. And on the environment, the Conservatives have lost a three point lead to a Labour lead of five points.
Regardless of whether this indicates a lurch to the right, it does show that the progress Cameron made on key centre-ground issues has been reversed.
The danger now is that people simply don’t have a clue what the Conservatives are about. As a Conservative member, do you even know what we’re about? I bet you don’t.
20/09/2007 at 12:39 |
Cameron’s poll rating has declined significantly since his emphasis of more ‘traditional’ tory themes. Surely therefore, one could read precisely the opposite interpretation into the poll as the one you do, Daniel?
20/09/2007 at 15:45 |
I do think that it is cameron’s focus on more traditonal issues that has led to a decline in the overal poll rate. As I say in the post, this is reflected in a decline across the ’soft’ issues.
I also thought I’d conclude in the post that most people would now be struggling to know where the tories stand on anything. This is perhaps a result of the swing away from soft issues to traditional issues.
What is clear, is that the progress Cameron made on new issues during his first eighteen months has probably been reversed. Work needs to be done to boost these ratings and to move away from traditonal issues.
20/09/2007 at 18:00 |
Tosh
20/09/2007 at 19:13 |
Can we stop slagging ourselves off?
21/09/2007 at 07:24 |
What has he offered of substance? More green taxes (rather than incentives)? – impressive…
Whilst the conservatives insist on imitating NuLabour, ie BluLabour, they haven’t got a hope. Why would people trade something in that is ‘working’ (and I use that term loosely) for something that promises essentially the same thing? They wouldn’t.
The clear blue water is in areas the Socialists can’t enter by nature of their ideology; personal responsibility and innovation, less government control, reinstatement of personal freedoms, incentives rather than more lurid taxation schemes, greater choice, smaller government.
If the conservatives continue in the way they have been, there is really no point in voting for them over NuLabour.
As an aside, you’ve just seen what the Great British Public thinks of government promises in the Northern Rock fiasco, where people were still taking their money out, even after Darling had ‘promised’ its safety. All those lies and spin really have taken their toll. I see a lot of spin coming from the conservatives, and not nearly enough substance. The GBP are not stupid…
21/09/2007 at 09:08 |
Tosh – seconded. Dan – You’re all over the shop with your analysis and attacking the base is not a wise strategy – but then again we do have state funding of political parties on the horizon so maybe our leadership have decided they don’t need members any more.
We appear to be approaching a stage where the political elite (of all parties) is ranging itself against democracy/the common man with a few exception on all sides such as Lynne Jones, John Redwood and Norman Lamb (to pick some principled politicians from all of the main parties). I know which side I’ll be taking if current trends continue – do you?
It’s a sad day when I’m looking at France’s political leadership with envy.
21/09/2007 at 11:05 |
Tony im insterested your still calling the Labour Party socialist. Can you give me a socialist policy they’ve introduced since 97?
Also i’m a little confused when you imply that Labout aren’t in favour of greater choice (in public services i presume) and personal responsibility etc. I would say those two concepts alone have been the driving force behind many a policy of the ‘blue’ Labour govt.
On the issue of Northern Rock – i’m not really sure your interpretation gells with that i read in the Economist.
“As the run on Northern Rock persisted, there was a growing danger that the public might lose confidence in other banks. Stopping the run became imperative. On September 17th Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, played the taxpayers’ card: he guaranteed all the existing deposits in the bank for as long as the financial system remained in turmoil.
That did the trick. The queues disappeared. The financial panic was over. So, too, was the political panic that had gripped Gordon Brown and his ministers as the bank run persisted. In a further fillip for Mr Brown, a poll taken by Populus on September 17th indicated that the public was more inclined to blame risky mortgage-lending in America than the government in Britain for Northern Rock’s woes. Another survey suggested that Labour’s lead over the Conservatives had widened.”
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833550
Oh well what do they know? – i’m sure your more, y’kno, in touch and stuff.
In other news here is the result for the by-election in Brandwood ward yesterday:
Ken Axford, Conservative Party Candidate 1663
Michael Patrick Leddy, Labour Party 1998
Brian Alec Peace, Liberal Democrat 285
Robert Purcell, British National Party 290
http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/bcc-2109071.html
The Tories had gone into the by-election with a majority of 400. If i’m honest I think this is a real shocker.
Dogmatic politics does not win elections. Witness Labour in the 80’s and the Tories since 97. The Conservative Party is living with the hangover of Thathcherism and is now unelectable. Cameron is a PR man, granted but I think he has a bit more political nouse then a lot of the posters on this blog. To beat Labour Cameron realised he had to steal votes of both Labour and the Lib Dems. To a huge degree that strategy has worked.
Check out http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/
The Lib Dems are down to 5 seats, not 50, or 15, but 5!
Your not going to win Lib Dem voters by ‘getting tough’ on immigration and advocating lower taxes. If you realised that I think the Tories may have a chance of winning the next election.
Alas not.
21/09/2007 at 11:19 |
This oft used expression, ‘lurch to the right’, I can’t quite get my head around. So, if Cameron talks about the environment, green taxes, and public services, before moving on to discuss immigration, taxation, and Europe – This is to be called a lurch to the right? What if he’d done the reverse, would he be guilty of lurching to the left? I bet not. How about mixing the two together? Let me guess, he’d get sea sick.
It seems to me that Cameron is wisely covering most of the issues, and not just a section of them. When he fails to do this, he is accused of lacking substance, and under a General Election climate (whenever that is to be), he’d be accused of a woeful ignorance of important issues.
Therefore, two points: First, let’s take the current polling data with a pinch of salt; and second, let us leave the charges of ‘lurching’ to the opposition (they’re doing a good job without our support).
21/09/2007 at 12:46 |
Instead of going into a debate about the policies, I think there is something I should point out. When many seemed so sure that the Tories were going to win the next election during Cameron’s honeymoon, I did point out that actually Cameron was stylistically going over board. he never really established himself as strong or economically competent: the two biggest factors in a general election. Cameron is certainly an improvement over past leaders (although many polls put him behind Hague) but he is struggling to be your Kinnock, never mind Blair. (And before any of you start screaming, he’s actually further behind Brown on strength than Kinnock was with Thatcher!)
21/09/2007 at 15:11 |
Prague Tory – Envy of French leadership? Seconded! Sarkozy is exactly what I would want in a Conservative leader. A true Conservative.
25/09/2007 at 16:45 |
http://www.platform10.org