When will the Conservatives overtake Labour in the polls?

[Deleted]

There's been a lot of speculation about this on robo's 2014 prediction thread. I am keen to know what most of us think - and, when the time comes, if we will be proved right.
When I ask this question, I don't mean just the odd occasional outlying poll showing a Conservative lead - it would need to be a consistent moving average between all polling organisations.

[The Bishop]

It would be a brave - or far sighted - person who answered "never"

[thirdchill]

There will be a couple of opinion polls that show the conservatives ahead of labour by the end of the year. However labour will still average higher overall.

Near the general election is more likely.

[timokane]

There has to be a reason if the Tories were to take a poll lead from where they are now and I just don't see one materialising.no amount of upbeat forecasts of an improving economy will filter through until wages increase to at least keep pace with inflation. Best illustrated here.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/12/30/britain-needs-a-wage-rise-the-big-economic-demand-for-2014/

In footballing terms the Tories are three goals down with twenty minutes to go.

[Deleted]

Labour lead by 2-3% this time next year, the polls will be even during the GE campaign.

[carlton43]

I have considered this to be medium term in aspect rather than 'to the end of history'!? So 'never' means not once until the actuality of the 2015 GE. On that basis I vote NEVER because if Labour carries on with semi-plausible populist policies and UKIP maintain the current impact on the current basis, I don't see how the Conservatives can close the gap.

In fact I think, and I most certainly hope, that the gap will tend to widen. The reasons being a steady squeeze on the LibDem vote (to Labour) in marginals where LibDems cannot win. I hope and expect UKIP to develop robust anti-immigrant policies based around a) Romanian/Bulgarian/Polish incursions, b) the impact on housing availability/rents/prices, c) the impact on NHS services/waiting lists, d)the impact on wages/job opportunities of the lowest paid, and e) the impact on educational chances in high immigrant areas. If this is remorselessly pushed in the right areas we should peel off Labour and Conservastive votes.

I expect 'events' to determine outcomes. Only if there are disastrous gaffs by Labour or UKIP do the Conservatives stand a chance of avoiding a double squeeze. They are far from gaff-free themselves. I am hoping for dissension inside the party, dissension with the LibDems and a messy ill-natured parting, then some Conservatives 'jumping ship' to us in the last months before the GE as part of a bandwagon and spoiling policy.

All this leading to a narrow but workable Labour win. That to be followed by an economic Balls-up leading to a series of UKIP by-election victories and hopefully a messy and totally damaging internal fight for the heart and soul of the Conservative Party that reduces it to the state it is in in Scotland.

[baloo]

You appear to be hoping for rather a lot carlton. You also seem to greatly overestimate the impact that UKIP have had on the Conservatives, we polled just less than 37% at the last GE and the last Yougov poll of the year put us on 34%. Mid term with the government cutting expenditure that's surprisingly not bad and doesn't indicate that our vote has collapsed to UKIP to any great degree.

With regards to the question asked, I personally only pay attention to Yougov (as they do the most regular polls) and ICM (who seem to have consistently been one of the most accurate pollsters for a long time). Labour averaged a lead of around 6% in December with Yougov and ICM's last poll of the year gave Labour a 5% lead. That's a lot to overturn in a year, but the 2005-10 parliament showed that when a change does happen it can generate a momentum of its own and big changes can happen very suddenly (I'm thinking of the summer of 2007 when Gordon Brown was regarded as the new Messiah and the sudden and dramatic switch in our favour that autumn). Still I chickened out and went with before the election as I think that the shares of the popular vote won by us and Labour are going to be quite similar.

[carlton43]

Yes the operative word is of course 'hoping'; but the actuality only follows on from a conviction that there is a reasonable possibility, and that must start in the head in order to drive the will. We all know that with a core of people absolutely driven by a unified desire and a coporate belief....virtually anything can be achieved. There are a significant number of people in Britain who are so dissatisfied with the status quo that they will do anything to redress the position. The truth is that UKIP could go out like a damp squib.....but it could catch afire and tear through the land changing everything!

[Deleted]

I think it will draw about level by the end of campaign and we will narrowly beat labour in votes, but not in seats. UKIP will be nowhere (c. 5%).

It would be interesting to see which kippers would vote for a tory in the hypothetical absence of a UKIP candidate (or even tactically with one). We can rule out Carlton and Pimp I presume. I think Pete has mentioned tactical tory voting a few times - he doesn't seem as furious with the tories as Carlton.

[baloo]

UKIP do seem to have transmogrified from an anti immigration/EU party into a more general anti politics party but I do think that your potential is limited. You have proved very effective at capturing the prevalent mood that the establishment needs to be replaced, however I think it is fair to say that UKIP have been careful not to say what they would replace it with. If you ever tried or you ever got into power you would have to make compromises, tolerate things that you dislike and work with people you have no respect for. Essentially you would become one with the LibLabCon. I suspect that you would then see the creation of an anti politics political party who's supporters would attack the LibLabConUkip without saying what they would replace it with.

[Deleted]

If we have a plurality over Labour combined with the Lib Dems but not a majority I would suggest a very short coalition just to pass PR then have another election. It is increasingly a must for be, and I would even put up with preferential voting (still don't like the concept).

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2014 12:02:37 GMT timokane said:

There has to be a reason if the Tories were to take a poll lead from where they are now and I just don't see one materialising.no amount of upbeat forecasts of an improving economy will filter through until wages increase to at least keep pace with inflation. Best illustrated here.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/12/30/britain-needs-a-wage-rise-the-big-economic-demand-for-2014/

In footballing terms the Tories are three goals down with twenty minutes to go.

That is wishful thinking - a 5-6 point gap with 18 months to go is historically speaking a poor starting position for an opposition. Wages will also overtake inflation by the end of 2014. Don't think that we won't put in public sector pay rises before the election - because we will - actually thats fair enough given years of poor rises. Good mood will be engineered. I don't agree with quite a bit of what will happen, but happen it will.

If you are infront at the next GE in terms of votes, it will be very close.

You are listening to your own spin too much - very dangerous, you'll turn into Ian if you do that.

[The Bishop]

But "historically speaking" has a few flaws. Firstly, the methodology of polling until the 1990s was *much* more favourable to Labour than it is now - indeed, a plausible answer to "why haven't Labour scored 50%/been 20 points ahead/blah blah in this parliament?" is "they might have done under the old methods"

Plus we - for now at least - have an effective four party system (as in Scotland and Wales for a while) and this reduces the capacity for big leads. In addition to that (and linked to the above) Labour/Tory floaters seem a fairly rare breed at present, in contrast to previous parliaments - again, this reduces the capacity for sudden big swings. Political opinion seems highly polarised at the moment - pro-coalition Tory/LibDem, anti-coalition Labour/Green/SNP/PC, anti-politics UKIP. Barring some major unforseen development(s) I don't see these camps shifting much.

As significant IMO as the relatively modest Labour lead in the past year, is that the Tories didn't lead in a single poll in the whole of 2013!

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2014 14:33:38 GMT joe said:

Which is a whole separate question.

Here in North East Somerset we have one of our targets, but a right wing populist MP in Jacob Rees-Mogg. Rumours are that there will be no serious UKIP challenge, maybe not even a UKIP candidate.

[marksenior]

Certainly in the short term and probably in the medium term polling changes are not caused by voters switching between parties but moving between parties and don't knows and in variations in likelihood to vote figures . This is especially true of Ipsos Mori polls .

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2014 15:16:10 GMT @robin said:

Jan 4, 2014 14:33:38 GMT joe said:

Which is a whole separate question.

Here in North East Somerset we have one of our targets, but a right wing populist MP in Jacob Rees-Mogg. Rumours are that there will be no serious UKIP challenge, maybe not even a UKIP candidate.

Ive often wondered why NE somerset / Wansdyke has appearead to trend Labour in recent years. It seems the sort of WWC (at least in areas of labour support) place that would be going the other way. I would be really pretty surprised if you were successful to be honest.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2014 15:13:34 GMT The Bishop said:

But "historically speaking" has a few flaws. Firstly, the methodology of polling until the 1990s was *much* more favourable to Labour than it is now - indeed, a plausible answer to "why haven't Labour scored 50%/been 20 points ahead/blah blah in this parliament?" is "they might have done under the old methods"

Plus we - for now at least - have an effective four party system (as in Scotland and Wales for a while) and this reduces the capacity for big leads. In addition to that (and linked to the above) Labour/Tory floaters seem a fairly rare breed at present, in contrast to previous parliaments - again, this reduces the capacity for sudden big swings. Political opinion seems highly polarised at the moment - pro-coalition Tory/LibDem, anti-coalition Labour/Green/SNP/PC, anti-politics UKIP. Barring some major unforseen development(s) I don't see these camps shifting much.

As significant IMO as the relatively modest Labour lead in the past year, is that the Tories didn't lead in a single poll in the whole of 2013!

Granted, but by calling it 3-0 with 20 minutes to go is hyperbolic in the extreme. That would suit 1995 but not 2013/early 2014.

The same poster probably thought it impossible that the labour lead would half over 2013, but it did. The fact that the recovery is yet to be felt, is, if anything cause for more optimism in our camp as it gives us growing room. Don't get me wrong, I think the chance of EM being PM is still over 50:50 - but the triumphalism by some posters feels a bit like Sheffield 1992.

[carlton43]

The present structure of UKIP is at a stage where there are not so much factions within it as discrete input parts. There is a core of anti-EU campaigners who want us out of the EU. That is the brand of the party: that is what is on the side of the tin. Then there is a group to whom curtailing immigration is prime. The third grouping are refugees from a modernist Conservative Party. And lastly there is the NOTA, former non-voters and anti-politics group. Within these four sections there is a degree of overlap. It is a mistake to think that the majority are ex-Conservative voters, let alone members. As I see it now, anti-immigration and an anti-politics strand will produce much more product than euroscepticism. Yes there is an angry faction who are very antagonistic towards Cameroon conservatism. That faction not only will not 'revert' to the Conservative fold, they will bend every effort to see them defeated; for in the short-term they see the present Conservative Party as a Quisling outfit that has sold the pass on nationality, mass immigration, green policies, socialism-lite Blairism, multi-culturism and absurd levels of foreign aid. They want that party wrecked so as to re-cast the Right in a very different image. So, i am far less sure of a collapse back to the normal status quo in 2015.

In answer to the question above about personal voting intention. I shall vote UKIP whatever I think the result is likely to be. If there were no UKIP candidate I would vote Labour to try to bring about the medium term desired result through a short-term Labour win.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2014 17:18:57 GMT carlton43 said:

The present structure of UKIP is at a stage where there are not so much factions within it as discrete input parts. There is a core of anti-EU campaigners who want us out of the EU. That is the brand of the party: that is what is on the side of the tin. Then there is a group to whom curtailing immigration is prime. The third grouping are refugees from a modernist Conservative Party. And lastly there is the NOTA, former non-voters and anti-politics group. Within these four sections there is a degree of overlap. It is a mistake to think that the majority are ex-Conservative voters, let alone members. As I see it now, anti-immigration and an anti-politics strand will produce much more product than euroscepticism. Yes there is an angry faction who are very antagonistic towards Cameroon conservatism. That faction not only will not 'revert' to the Conservative fold, they will bend every effort to see them defeated; for in the short-term they see the present Conservative Party as a Quisling outfit that has sold the pass on nationality, mass immigration, green policies, socialism-lite Blairism, multi-culturism and absurd levels of foreign aid. They want that party wrecked so as to re-cast the Right in a very different image. So, i am far less sure of a collapse back to the normal status quo in 2015.

In answer to the question above about personal voting intention. I shall vote UKIP whatever I think the result is likely to be. If there were no UKIP candidate I would vote Labour to try to bring about the medium term desired result through a short-term Labour win.

Where do you fit in? The first three all seem to fit you very well.

If there was no UKIP candidate would you vote for a Hollobone or Bone? (I personally have much more time for the former than the latter)

I wonder what RA is planning for his political future - I hope to see him in blue with a genuinely right wing leadership in place one day.

[carlton43]

Well Joe, the honest answer is "I don't know." Perhaps I don't fit in at all? No to Hollobone or Bone because I don't live in their constituencies and they would be Conservative candidates helping towards a Cameron Party total of MPs up with which I will not put. This is pure politics towards a medium term objective; it has nothing to do with actual policies, individual personal stances or 'blocking Labour'. I don't see a fundamental difference between Cameron and NuLabour even after minor tweaking by Ed M. They are both Metropolitan, soft left, pro-EU, pro multicultural, easy with current rates of immigration, pro-Green policies, soft on adequate Defences, soft on crime, too committed to USA friendly policies, and generally wishy-washy Internationalist and weak-willed on just about eveything of any value. Stuff the lot of them. I do fit in with Category 4 you see....as well. There has always been a touch of the anarchist about me. But at present there is a lot of anger for the immense damage the political classes have caused to Britain and all the socio-economic classes from C2 downwards. And no. I have never been in C2 or downwards myself.