Labour hits record low
Our opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow records the lowest Labour share of the vote, 24 per cent, in a ComRes poll. The Conservative lead, 21 percentage points, is also equal to the biggest lead recorded by ComRes, for our sister newspaper The Independent three weeks ago. The figures, with the change since the last poll for the IoS in mid-June:
Conservative 45% (+1)
Labour 24% (-2)
LibDem 16% (-1)
Green 5% (+3)
Other 9% (-2)
We also asked if people agreed or disagreed with the statement, "The Labour Party will lose the next election regardless of who leads it": 68 per cent agreed, including 38 per cent of Labour voters, and 22 per cent disagreed.
Two-thirds of respondents agreed that "Britain should never have become involved in Iraq" (66 per cent); 26 per cent disagreed. Three-quarters agreed that "British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible" (74 per cent); 18 per cent disagreed.
Finally we asked if people thought "a Conservative government would be more effective against knife crime than the present administration": 44 per cent agreed, and 41 per cent disagreed. Given the proportion of people who must be sceptical about the effectiveness of any politicians on such an issue, that would seem a very good score for David Cameron (Dominic Grieve, the new shadow Home Secretary, probably does not yet have the public profile to take the credit for it).
ComRes has been carrying out opinion polls for the IoS since 2004. It is a member of the British Polling Council and interviewed 1,016 people by phone on Wednesday and Thursday this week. Full tables at ComRes.
Hi John,
Just to say I've linked to this post as the feature article on PoliticalBetting.com .
If, when the numbers are available, you'd care to either drop me an e-mail so I can post a link to the results on your blog on pb.com, I know it would make a lot of psephologists very happy indeed!
Kind regards
Morus
Posted by: Morus | Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 03:43 PM
Dear John
I notice that since this was posted you have added the information that ComRes have only been doing this work since 2004. This omission was noted on my blog at 5:08. Is the addition perhaps related to that post of mine? And are you in the habit of what bloggers call "stealth editing"? i.e. substantive changes, rather than say spelling grammar and syntax, without annotation.
I also note that your weblogs list isn't picking up Morus or my own posts, and probably more by now on the subject. I'll try the trackback URL as well as the URL url.
Best wishes
Chris P
Posted by: Chris Paul | Saturday, 19 July 2008 at 11:25 PM
His party is falling apart, but can you make Chris Paul feel better by giving him a link.
Posted by: His Party Is Falling Apart | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 07:32 AM
It is only a matter of good manners and integrity HPIFA. By-words for the Independent, surely?
Posted by: Chris Paul | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 08:54 AM
Well, it's exactly what Broon deserves for gutless yankee bootlicking.
This morning the yankee-doodles bombed the Afghan Police. But did they take responsibility for doing so? No, they said it was "coalition forces" who'd done it. And Gordon Gutless spinelessly goes along with taking the blame for another yankee atrocity. Is there any lower limit to which this talentless clown won't sink, to humiliate Britain for the sake of his traitorous love for yankee neocons???
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 10:46 AM
yankee-bootlicking pig? as opposed to what exactly? 99% of Tories voting to back Bush's war on Iraq vs 139 Labour people saying no? would that be it?
Posted by: Chris Paul | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 03:44 PM
As a once diehard Labour voter, I would be most grateful if Chris Paul, could tell me who the 139 Labour MPs who voted against the war are, because that would give me some hope of the Labour party. There is very little to choose between any of the parties at present, because Tony Bliar destroyed the Labour party as I and many other Labour party members have found to our cost. We have voted with our feet, and the Labour party membership has dwindled. Perhaps some of the 139 (if they really exist), would like to form another political party, which will stick to the original Labour Socialist ideals, and represent the majority of the electorate, who have been cast aside by their government.
Posted by: AndyUK | Sunday, 20 July 2008 at 10:36 PM
Andy... you can find the names of the 138 + 1 Teller by following this link: http://tiny.cc/AU9Fx
Only 15 Tories voted for this amendment to stop the war, as opposed to a third of all Labour MPs..
Posted by: Bob Piper | Monday, 21 July 2008 at 09:12 AM
Thanks for that Bob. The old forming another party idea raises its head again. It's a non starter and would play into the hands of the Tories. As does all the Labour bashing from the liberal left and the illiberal left too. They should be careful of what they wish for.
Still no word from John Rentoul on Indy stealth editing policy ...
Posted by: Chris Paul | Monday, 21 July 2008 at 10:10 AM
PS - a number of the 139 lost their seats in 2005 ... often over the war or other things they voted against. Crazy world we live in.
Posted by: Chris Paul | Monday, 21 July 2008 at 10:12 AM
Chris Paul - many apologies for doubting your information, I stand corrected. I am pleased that so many were prepared to fight for a just cause, even if they lost out in the end. Interesting to note, that some of the Tory members who voted against, were members of Maggie's government during the Falklands campaign - Clarke and Hogg for instance. Chris you rightly point to the number who lost their seats in 2005 (the year I voted Liberal Democrat), has anyone looked into this in depth? The case of Bob Wareing up in Liverpool is an interesting one - forced out of Labour by his constituents, but then winning the seat as an Independent.
Posted by: AndyUK | Monday, 21 July 2008 at 10:24 AM
How Labour could win the next General Election.
I have just driven from the west of Scotland to southwest Wales and had several opportunities while dawdling along main roads in a long line of traffic to arrive at a simple idea that would greatly enhance the popularity of the Labour Party. The greatest increase in popularity would be among the majority of road users, but the rider would also reduce the amount of revenue to be collected from all road users in th UK.
Simply, tax all caravans. An annual road tax of, say, £200 levied on all caravans would be a good start. Then an annual MoT inspection for all caravans costing, say, £200 seems reasonable considering the increase fuel consumption caused to others crawling along at low speed in low gear behind the caravans. Thirdly, a special driving licence examination and test to prove the ability to control a car and caravan combination going forwards and backwards. This would also need to be an annual event to allow for the decay of memory.
Oh! I almost forgot! A tax of a few hundred pounds on all cars fitted with tow bars.
PS. Please tell the PM that I am not available to take a seat in The Lords until next Spring.
Sincerely,
John Stewart-Smith
Posted by: John Stewart-Smith | Tuesday, 22 July 2008 at 01:36 PM