I’m going on holiday for a bit, so it’ll be quiet here for a little while.
In the meantime, it would be great to hear from you with any thoughts on what you’d be interested in seeing covered when I’m back. Has there been too much politics lately? Want more climate change? Or is Boris vs Ken all you want to know about?
Your suggestions below would be most welcome.
Since we’ve now had three polls on the London mayoral election since mid-January, now seems a good time to look at what they tell us about the race.
When the last poll came out, Ken’s lead seemed a real surprise. In retrospect, perhaps it shouldn’t have done. Despite the shocked reaction, previous polls had suggested the race would be close: Ken’s January lead didn’t represent a sharp reversal in opinion, but actually a restatement of what we’d seen before.
So in this context it’s not hugely surprising that the two more recent polls have also found the race to be on a knife edge. Two of the three put Ken narrowly ahead, and the third gives it to Boris – but all are within the margin of error:
In terms of where these numbers might go, I would echo my previous suggestion that Boris could be boosted by an incumbency effect, but Ken might expect Labour’s overall showing to increase a couple of points in the next few months if, as seems likely, the Tories gradually lose the boosts they had from the EU walk-out and Miliband’s bad January (bad in terms of immediate poll reactions).
There also continues to be a ‘Labour for Boris’ vote as well as a ‘Tories for Ken’ crowd, as pointed out by Mark Gettleson at Politics Home.
But the ComRes poll in particular demonstrates an interesting point about where the polls might go from here.
A set of questions about each candidate suggest stark differences in their strengths and weaknesses. While Ken is seen as understanding ordinary Londoners’ concerns, it is Boris who is seen as the man with the plan, and the ability to deliver on his promises. This is reflected not just among the whole sample, but also in the opinions of each candidates’ own supporters:
A lengthy and complex bill to radically restructure a public institution is never going to capture the popular imagination. But the mess that is the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill suggests more than just a failure to inspire.
According to today’s Mail on Sunday, Cameron’s pollster Andrew Cooper has told the inner circle that the party is vulnerable on the NHS. He’s not alone in this, with Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome reporting that a Tory Cabinet minister has likened it to the poll tax. The e-petition to abandon the Bill has easily passed 100,000 signatures, and Ed Miliband has warned that the NHS will be ‘a defining issue’ at the next election if the changes go ahead.
But even if the NHS reforms are unpopular, that doesn’t mean that people particularly care about them. The crucial question is one of salience: whether or not the reforms can attract the attention of many outside the Westminster and medical villages.
There’s no doubt that the reforms are unpopular. According to YouGov, only about one in five (18%) supports them, with nearly half (48%) opposed. On the central question of the impact of increasing competition in the NHS, two thirds (66%) think health services will be unchanged or made worse.
Even among the government’s supporters, there is little enthusiasm for the Bill. Fewer than half of Tory voters (44%) think more competition would make services better, with an equal number saying they would be unchanged or worse. Lib Dems are even less supportive:
So there really is very little love for the reforms. But these are prompted concerns: they don’t tell us how much this actually matters to the public.
Over the last few weeks, the issue has shown some increase in salience, according to YouGov’s issues tracker. At the start of January, health was only the sixth-most named issue as the most important facing the country. Now it’s third, behind only immigration and the economy.
But we should keep some perspective here. Health may have increased in salience, but the economy is still seen as an important issue by 2.5 times more people.
Looked at another way, the results show that only one in three people thinks that health is one of the top three issues facing the country. It hardly seems the defining issue of the age:
In the 60 years since Elizabeth II came to the throne, Britain has become vastly less religious and less deferential. You might expect such trends to have undermined support for the continuation of an institution whose authority comes from God and superior birth – yet support for the monarchy is overwhelming.
But while there is little appetite for Britain to become a republic, attitudes to the monarchy have changed in recent years. Far fewer people now think it brings any overall benefit to Britain, and there continue to be doubts about whether Prince Charles should inherit.
Better than the alternatives
Over nearly 20 years, Ipsos MORI have been asking whether people would prefer Britain to become a republic or remain a monarchy. In that time – covering the emergence of Charles’ relationship with Camilla, the death of Diana, and Harry’s appearance in a Nazi costume – support for keeping the monarchy never dropped below 65%, compared with a high of 22% wanting a republic:
A question from YouGov adds an interesting point of comparison. In July 2003, 41% said they would support keeping the monarchy in its current state, 41% said they would only support keeping it if it modernised, and 16% opposed keeping it altogether.
At that point, MORI’s data suggest that given a straight choice between keeping or abolishing the monarchy, only about 20% would abolish it. So of the 41% who told YouGov they would keep the monarchy only if it reformed, nearly all would, if pushed, prefer to keep it than scrap it.
The growth of indifference
But this solid opposition to republicanism doesn’t equate with full-throated support for the monarchy.
Another tracking question from Ipsos MORI suggests that, since the early ‘80s, there has been a significant fall in the numbers who think that the monarchy brings an overall benefit to Britain.
In 1984, 77% thought that Britain would be worse off if the monarchy was abolished. Now, that figure is just 46%. In keeping with the continued lack of support for a republic, there has been little change in the proportion that thinks Britain would be better off without royals. Instead, the growth has come in the numbers who say it would make no difference.
While the tracking stopped in ’02, the pattern is clear: since the early ‘90s, barely more than half think that Britain would be actively worse off without a monarchy:
Britain has a new energy and climate change minister. Ed Davey will have a packed ministerial in-tray, and among the files about nuclear power, shale gas and feed-in tariffs will be the question of how, if at all, the public can be engaged on the need to deal with climate change.
Fortunately a new Ipsos Mori poll for Climate Week shows what the public think about climate change, and gives some idea about the communications options open to the new minister.
In short, the British public are worried about climate change, are prepared to take action, and believe that their collective action can make a difference. But they think that more time is spent talking about climate change than addressing it and are particularly suspicious of politicians who they hear on the subject.
The results of the poll may come as a surprise to some, after the British Social Attitudes survey in December seemed to suggest that Britain was becoming less concerned about climate change. But that survey may have been picking up reactions against left-wing green activists in general, rather than any disagreement that climate change needs to be addressed.
The new survey supports that interpretation. It shows clearly that people are concerned about climate change, feel motivated to take action themselves, and think that domestic actions will make a difference:
But if the public think that action is needed to address climate change, they don’t believe that enough is being done. Nearly two thirds (64%) agree that “there’s a lot of talk about climate change but not much action”.
This present a challenge for the new climate change minister. A response to the fact that the public want action and don’t think enough is being done could be for him to get in the TV cameras and cut the ribbon on a wind turbine factory.
But the new poll also suggests that politicians are among the least trusted group to talk about the issue. Just 3% say they would most trust politicians’ views on climate change, putting them at the same level as religious leaders and the royal family. All trail far behind scientists, who are on 66%.
The level of distrust of politicians in general is such that even when they are trying to do what the public wants – tackle climate change – they still struggle to cut through the cynicism that surrounds their motives. As we have seen before, the immediate reaction of many is that politicians use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes and draw attention from other issues:
The Left is retreating around the world. The Great Recession has produced a landscape so favourable for right-wing parties, their opponents can only feel sorry for themselves as they watch support drain away from them.
At least, so goes the popular narrative. At the last Labour Conference, Douglas Alexander said: “for a decade around 1997, the centre left was defeating the right. Now the centre right is beating the left”. Fraser Nelson agreed, with the assertion “across Europe centre-Left parties are in electoral retreat”.
But an analysis of elections over the last 12 months doesn’t bear out the argument that the Left is on a losing streak.
What we see instead is that while the main centre-left parties have indeed lost some ground to the main centre-right parties, left and centre-left parties have generally done slightly better than parties of the right and centre-right.
The results come from all country-wide parliamentary general elections held in Europe, North America and Australasia in the last 12 months, totalling eight elections. See here for the full methodology.
If we look just at the performance of the main centre-left party in each country, and compare it with the result for the main party of the centre-right, we do indeed see a drop for the centre-left.
In six of the eight elections, the main centre-left party lost support; only in Ireland did it gain, and that was at the expense of the centre rather than of the right. The average swing is about 2pts to the main centre-right party.
But that’s only part of the picture. If we count all parties of the left and centre-left, and compare them with all parties of the right and centre-right, the result is reversed.
YouGov today have a poll that has radically changed expectations for this May’s London mayoral election. Previous polls had suggested that Boris Johnson was on course for a comfortable re-election, but today’s poll has put Ken Livingstone narrowly ahead, give or take a margin of error.
Since polls on the vote have been relatively sparse, we can’t easily tell whether this is an outlier. But when looking at where Ken has got his boost, the results make intuitive sense.
Quite simply, Labour voters have shifted strongly into the Ken camp, as the charts below show.
The first shows how Tory supporters would vote in the London election, comparing last June with today’s poll. There has been very little change, with Boris taking pretty much all their votes.
But when we do the same for Labour supporters, we see a large movement of Boris voters into Ken’s pile:
Recent polls aren’t encouraging for those hoping for Scottish independence. Only around a third say they would vote to break away, while over half say they would vote against.
But older polls suggest opponents of independence shouldn’t be complacent. There has been a great deal of volatility in opinion, which could spell trouble if the campaign goes against them.
Three polls since October last year put current support for independence in Scotland in the region of 29%-34%, with up to 54% opposed. From these, there’s little to suggest any recent trend in either direction:
Data and question wording: YouGov Jan 2012; Ipsos MORI Nov-Dec 2011
But while these numbers look very reassuring for those opposing divorce, older polls suggest a much less settled view.
UK Polling Report have gathered the results from 34 polls, conducted between 1999 and 2009, with questions on Scotland’s independence. Inevitably the question wording varies widely, so it’s difficult to use the full set to show how opinion has changed.
But five of these polls with simple questions on support for independence show clearly that there is potential for much higher support than more recent polls have found:
Commentary on the difficulties facing the Labour Party – leading in nearly every poll for over a year – sometimes puts me in mind of Bill Shankly, the Liverpool manager of the ‘60s and early ‘70s. Responding to a journalist’s question about a supposed crisis at the club, the great man said, “Ay, here we are with problems at the top of the league”.
Likewise, despite Labour’s consistent polling lead, the impression from the comment pieces, blogs and tweets is of a party struggling to find supporters. The logic is that, firstly, Labour’s lead is smaller than might be expected against a government undertaking such spending cuts, and, secondly, that the government is likely to recover and overhaul that lead between now and the next election.
The first of those points may be subjective, but the second can be tested against what’s happened in the past. Mark Pack has compiled the voting intent results from all opinion polls published since 1945, which allows us to do just that.
November 2011 marked 18 months since the last general election. At that point, Labour were on average 4.6pts ahead of the Tories, a score that has since slightly reduced due to Cameron’s veto bounce.
Comparing this score with opposition parties’ poll scores relative to governments’ 18 months after past general elections allows us to benchmark how Labour are currently doing. It also allows us to estimate Labour’s result in the next general election.
A regression analysis of historical polls 18 months after an election, relative to scores in the next general election can provide a model to analyse where we are now (see below for the detailed methodology). The analysis suggests that performance at this point is in fact a pretty good prediction of performance at the next election: it predicts nearly 60% of the result of the next election, with a very high level of confidence (p=0.002).
If a party is leading at this point, it tends to be leading at the election. However, the gap between the government and the main opposition partly typically halves over the remainder of the parliament.
Therefore, given the current position, the historical data suggest Labour should expect to win the next election by a small margin, of a little over two percent.
However, these polls weren’t conducted equally far before the forthcoming election. The Feb ’74 election, for example, was 44 months after the previous election, while the 2010 election was 60 months after the previous one.
So, as well as comparing election results with polls 18 months after the previous election, we can compare the results with polls exactly two years before that election date.
In the party horserace, 2011 was the year of not much happening. In fact, it was a year of exceptional boringness on that front, punctuated only by a small and quite possibly transient boost for the Tories after the EU veto in December.
But behind that headline of ‘no change’, there were interesting shifts on other fronts.
I’ve pulled out five questions where there was movement in 2011, and which will be worth watching in 2012:
1) More attention to growth
We’ve seen before that there was a significant shift in 2011 towards people thinking that the government should change its deficit reduction strategy to concentrate on growth.
Most of this movement happened between July and September. If that shift repeats, it could have important consequences for politics:
2) Speed of the cuts
While the first question suggests there is a growing view that more should be done to promote growth, there seems to be less agreement that spending is being cut too quickly.
Unless this trend is halted, Labour may find it more difficult to make the case that the cuts are hurting:
