Must Labour lose... in 2010

A Yougov poll conducted 29/05-04/06 has been used failry bluntly to explain voting for the BNP, but actually it reveals a great deal more about the state of engagement in British politics. In terms of the election itself it is questionable whether it matters, or whether the results can be translated into a national trend; the majority are expressing their views on Britain's relations with Europe or on the British 'political scene'; the problem is that both are transient and as Europe is unlikely to be a General Election issue, and the scene could well change following Brown's reforms, the next election will be framed by a very different context. Perhaps then the other revelations offered by the poll are more interesting.

Firstly, something which we were probably aware of, has been the break in generational loyalty but what is surprising is that this is least pronounced for Labour where 66% of current Labour voters are copying their familial predecessors. Currently Labour has lost the faith of those who are most loyal, but their allegiances are now spread across competitors; hence they may be able rescue their position electorally if they are able to recapture their heartland voters. Of course the erosion of loyalty from Labour is not new, I identified this in research in Barnsley back in 2002 after the famous low-turnout election of 2001, but is is perhaps becoming more pronounced and so leading to more protest voting. However, given that Labour is still perceived on the left and, perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives on the right and for the rich; an image that remains hard to shift particularly perhaps in the wake of those moat cleaners and duck houses. That said it seems that there is little real difference between the perceptions of parties in relation to issues or voter satisfaction. In fact the only slight difference, which one could note and say here is where the voters for any particular party can be identified from others is confidence of prosperity in years ahead. Supporters of the Conservatives and UKIP seem to have more fears than do voters for the more left parties; is this an opportunity for the right? Certainly the figures offer some insights into potential strategies; however the data needs more sophisticated analysis of the raw numbers to really glean powerful insights.

A final point, however, while many talk of media usage and the power of online across all the parties the traditional mass news media predominates; well almost. The BNP website is in many ways the most interactive; interestingly, and despite the media coverage, their supporters are more likely to use party websites (12% over 3/4% the next highest and joint median average). Are the BNP capitalising on the negativity of the mainstream media coverage and gaining direct communication with current and potential supporters, if so this is worrying as not only does this allow for purer persuasion (indoctrination perhaps) but also influence via the two-way communication facilitated on their forum. Something else to throw into the strategy pot.

Odd Attacks and Interesting Data

A poll published by the Indepedent which shows Gordon Brown as almost the most unpopular cabinet member and that 54% of Labour activists would prefer someone else to be leader has received a lot of publicity as well as scathing attacks on the Ministry of Truth blog and Iain Dale's Diary. MoT's attack on LabourHome notwithstanding, the basis for dispute is "the poll had been commissioned by the Indy... where’s the demographic information that pollsters collect as standard in order to balance their polls and ensure their statistical validity and what’s the margin of error on the numbers......" Well it is not unusual for media organisations to commission polls and not state the fact, even when it is the phone in poll, and the article does say "an exclusive poll for The Independent". But the main problem is validity, but it was an online poll of an audience that is largely unknown. The invitation was to "With the Westminster Villiage obsessed with the question of leadership of the Labour Party, we thought it's time to find out what the grassroots thinks. Click here to take part in the Labour Grassroots Survey and we'll publish the results in the first days of Labour Party Conference." So the respondents, from a total population of unknown numbers, could be non-average (unrepresentative) just because the link was only there for a matter of days. There were 788 members, all of whom must have been checked to see if they were supporters as "Non Labour supporters who responded to the survey were stripped from the results" though this may have still been skewed by opponents claiming to be supporters. However, a serious question is how you get to the engaged and active supporters of a party. Chances are, in the digital age, they are online and accessing party communication and taking part in social networks. But is it really so wrong to do a poll online? It is impossible to offer the normal caveats or statistics beyond the number of respondents, and perhaps The Independent should have stated how it was conducted, and yes sponsorship should have been mentioned by Labourhome in the link as perhaps some supporters were a little too honest (though it does say data will be published), but are all the attacks really justified and why are the opposition attacking when really it is better for them and for Labour. As I understand it, Labourhome is independent of the party leadership and perhaps the one place where inconvenient truths can be aired, such things should be read by the party leaders as it may jsut enhance the connection between the party and their foot soldiers. For PR purposes, and if I was advising Brown, I would face this head on in the speech this week!

The polls say...

ComRes have published results of a poll of the Crewe & Nantwich electorate, it shows Conservatives on 48%, Labour on 35% with the Liberal Democrats on 12%. There is only one slight problem, of those polled only 13% are certain not to vote while 73% are 8/10 or more likely to vote. Now the question here is if this is a poll predominantly of those most likely to vote then the results could be fairly safe, but history indicates that turnout in by-elections is usually closer to 30% than 70%; Leicester South saw 41%, Brent East 36%. So should we trust this poll? If of the general electorate, as is claimed, it seems there is some reporting error so how many respondents will not vote and will they be equally spread across the parties or are one party's suppoters less likely to vote? Interesting huh?

The Crewe TV blog's poll, just as an aside, seems to have had a sharp injection of Labour voters; suddenly Dunwoody has shot up to 26%, second place is UKIP on 25% with the Conservatives and LibDems tied on third; but of course the beauty of this polls is that getting 40 people to sign up, or one person to vote 40 times and you can see a visible shift. Gordon Brown is perhaps wishing he could make Labour support shift as easily!

The Assembly by Saturday! Maybe?

Tony Travers' report Predicting Londons Elections is a great read, if he is right, and of course this data is extrapolated, the above will be the shape of the newly elected Assembly with one seat for the BNP. While the whole thing may be sound, its publication on the 6th April, and the resulting press coverage, could have numerous effects on actual voting behaviour. The prediction of a Labour win across the council elections could mobilise Conservatives or lead to vote switching, as could predictions of a win for the BNP, so while interesting I will re-read this and compare it with the results while also looking at the press coverage, particularly the articles in the Standard, if there are differences between predictions and the outcome, and if we take the predictions to be safe as of April 6th, then we may see a poll effect has taken place.

Why Polls don't predict Results

The media, their pundits and the pollsters seem to have egg on their face this morning 9particularly newspapers that have seriously outdated headlines) as we wake to discover that it is a narrow victory for Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire and not the predicted Obama landslide. It seems the polls got it wrong again! Well perhaps it is really the fault of those who use the polls. Polls are good fun, and often without them there would be no news stories during elections, but even if they ask the right question of the right people they cannot tell us who will win the party nominations in the US and it is doubtful if they can truly predict who will win the presidency unless it is a non-contest; this is why.

1. Polls are context specific

While rolling polls can iron our problems and identify changes in opinion, any poll is related entirely to the moment when the question was asked. The Obama surge may have been linked to his appearance as a winner on the media, so before the New Hampshire campaign got more intense, or there may have been a post-Iowa sympathy surge to Hilary Clinton; either way the results can be outdated and changed very quickly.

2. Polls effect turnout

Polls can be an indication of support but they are not predictive of actual behaviour. The disparity between poll and result may be a reflection of individuals who support Obama, would go to a caucus if their vote mattered, but assumed it did not; so they stay indoors in the warm and actual support seems lower. Alternatively the polls may have mobilised the Clinton supporters in the fear that she would lose. Either way anything but a marginal result can either mobilise or depress turnout; why do you think that TV presenters when running a phone poll tell viewers the results could not be closer, they haven't a clue but it encourages voting!

3. Polls effect results

But polls may also make people question their support. Supporting Obama, the great rhetorician and orator, may be different than wanting him to be President. Voters may have considered whether another Democrat (Clinton) had a better chance of winning the White House, or they don't actually want him as President, or they do want Hilary; whatever the various reasons people may have changed their minds between poll and vote.

4. The mystical caucus

While voting can always prove unpredictable, a caucus is something different. Here it is about face to face persuasion by campaigners for each of the candidates. It is here that prejudices can be played upon, beliefs eroded, hard arguments can have impact; all the tricks come into play here. Maybe evidence of Hilary's record and experience made some Obama supporters question their allegiance; or maybe Edwards' supporters were more swayed by the Clinton team. Whatever it makes for a very unpredictable outcome.

So for those four reasons, all of which may well be happening at the same time to skew results one way or the other, polls should be taken with a pinch of salt and a degree of intelligent scepticism until the results actually emerge. If not you get headlines wrong, assume too much and look very daft when the results emerge.

Can rhetoric win the nomination?

Barack Obama is in triumphalist mood this week. In an email sent round his supporters he claims:

"The most extraordinary and deeply humbling result is the people -- more than 258,0000 of you -- who have taken ownership of this campaign. A number that big is a thunderclap over the political process. It means our campaign has more supporters than any campaign in history at this point in an election, and it’s a wake-up call to our current politics. It means ordinary people are coming together in unprecedented numbers to take back their government. It means you are defying the pundits and Washington insiders, rejecting their cynicism and negativity, and embracing the hope that we can change things for the better. It means we are building a movement so big, so deep, and so personal that our collective voice is undeniable."

Rhetorical certainly, bravado to an extent, motivational speak definitely. But perhaps the words are not empty as Obama has raised $10 million more than Hilary Clinton and is perhaps pushing their campaign towards a more negative tone according to one Iowa press report. Bill Clinton, the man tasked with telling his wife's story during her campaign, declared her: "the best qualified non-incumbent I have ever had a chance to vote for president" but avoided making any criticisms of his wife's opponents saying he liked them all.

I guess the question is will Obama's triumphalism act as a bandwagon that will propel him into the run-off or will Hilary Clinton's claim to be the "best qualified and experienced person" win the day. As Obama's campaign has developed it seems to have adopted an almost evangelical style as opposed to the serious issue based campaign of Clinton; the big question is, if it is a straight fight between the two, which style will be seen as most attractive among Democrats and which will be seen as the best to compete against the Republican nominee which seems to be former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani or John McCain (all of whom are underdogs in a straight fight against Obama according to one poll. Guess the big question first is what sort of leader the parties want and then the same question will be turned over to the American people.

Has Brown sold change?

The message the new prime minister has been hammering home is change, that he will be different to his predecessor is the perception he wants us all to possess of his style of leadership. This is a difficult task given his centrality to the Blair government over the last ten years, and doubled by the fact that the media has focused on the change narrative and taken many opportunities to suggest there is little evidence that Brown would be different to Blair. But none of that matters if the public do buy it.

An ICM poll suggests that to an extent they have. The baseline is that 13% think there will a big change for the better, 26% a small change for the better, 40% no real change, while only 15% suggest a change for the worse. More interesting is the distribution across groups. Brown seems to have won over slightly more women than men, a key voting group. But the magical middle England C1 C2 social classes are not as convinced, in fact it is the ABs and DEs that he seems to have convinced to the greatest degree. This may be reflected in the fact that most support comes from those who voted Labour in 2005, the figures suggest that he is in a good position to regain the support of the traditional Labour supporter and head off a Liberal Democrat challenge from the left, but Conservatives are unconvinced. Again looking at the regions, the North is more convinced that there will be change for the better than the South.

So has the hype had much effect? It is hard to tell. The poll seems to have asked a very narrow question, but looking at this and other polls it seems voters are giving Gordon the benefit of the doubt but with a healthy amount of scepticism. The news is peppered with evidence of change: his more moderate tone on security after the weekends' failed terrorist attacks, discussion of re-empowering MPs, so he could convince many more between now and the next election. I would suggest this will be the key predictor for when it is called, if his approval is maintained and he is perceived as quantitatively different then he will seek an early mandate but Douglas Alexander will be watching these polls with interest and assessing how to keep the momentum up.

Do polls tell us Brown would win?

The latest Yougov poll suggest a lead for Labour suggesting Gordon is enjoying a honeymoon as Prime Minister among voters, if not the media! This, the Telegraph argue, is a signal that the time is right for a snap election to dispel the question of how legitimate the Brown mandate is. But is this poll really saying that Brown enjoying unswerving support in the country. Reading the figures, the interesting aspect to these polls is that they are so mixed and, I would argued, could not seriously be used to predict an Election outcome.

While responses to the statement 'Who would make the better prime minister, Brown or Cameron' (which Brown wins 35 to 23) is indicative, more indicative are the 38% who don't know. Similarly on the 'forced choice' between voting Labour or Conservative, Labour wins 43 to 36, but there are 21% don't know. But consider these figures, 52% say it is possible for Gordon to make a fresh start, but 48% suggest he will be no better or no worse (the same as Blair then!). 41% say he will make no significant changes, there is a 40/40 split between yes he wants to meet the concerns aspirations of the country and no he doesn't. 57% say no Gordon is unlikely to restore trust in government.

So would you call I election if I were Gordon, well maybe. What this shows is a lot of uncertainly, the don't knows being a group that could go either way, but a degree of faith in Brown as a leader, a good manager perhaps. Cameron it seems does not yet possess the image the British voters are looking for and perhaps the Quentin Davies critique is one more widely shared. Sadly it appears that Brown is the best choice, but not because of his outstanding qualities or record, more that he is perceived currently as better than Cameron only.

The ficklest of masters

Blair's popularity over his 10 years, as measured by Ipsos Mori, tells an interesting story of dips and troughs and the expected long term decline that every prime minister would receive. But does this mean anything? Apart from support for a leader seems to increase in both times of crisis and triumph, not a lot on its own. It only means anything when compared to expected satisfaction under the competition. Clearly in 2001 and 2005 Blair may not have scored 50% in the satisfaction ratings but he was liked more than the alternative. Interesting that his lowest score came days before his departure, not post Hutton or the Fuel Tax protests, it shows that perceptions are cumulative and no one event can turn public opinion, it is a tide that leaders surf.