It's good to see the party getting specific about what "change" means.
Other similar positive policy messages will be appearing on other posters.
Of existing Tory policies, which would you most like to see highlighted?
I'd like to see "Let's put an annual limit on immigration."
Tim Montgomerie
Stephan Shakespeare, CEO of YouGov, on opinion polling.
In swift succession, YouGov has been accused of being anti-Labour, anti-Conservative, and (today), anti-LibDem. Apparently, at various stages, we have had Labour / Conservatives / LibDems too low, and this is because we’re unrepresentative / skewing the weights / push-polling. I think we’ve dealt with the first two, but now we have to deal with the third – which is easy to do, since it just requires a simple explanation of the difference between push polling and message testing.
Most professionally-run campaigns will at some time want to test public reaction to a variety of messages, to see if its communication strategy is likely to work. This applies to companies and brands, and of course political parties. Typically, they will want to test both positive and negative messages, either to promote those messages or find out which they most need to defend themselves against. Market researchers will run those tests to specifically or randomly selected respondents. Typically some respondents will see one set of questions, others will see another set. When you see these questions, you can’t be sure who the client is, or what the reason for the test is.
Voting intention questions intended for publication must always come at the start of a poll, so that respondents cannot be affected by anything else that might be in the poll. In fact all questions asked in research that is for publication is carefully ordered so as to minimise the effect of any question on the questions that follow.
Push-polling is a very different beast. Push-polling is unethical. Push-polling is conducting a poll to influence a respondent for some particular purpose. Mainly it is when people are pretending to conduct a poll, but actually they are contacting hundreds of thousands of people to repeat attack lines – it’s campaigning masquerading as polling, and in New Hampshire it’s even illegal (and quite right too).
Continue reading "The Shakespeare Report: Message Testing v Push Polling" »
Eric Pickles gives his daily take on the election campaign.
I am genuinely puzzled. I watched the debate on Thursday and like millions of others, I reached the conclusion that if Gordon Brown is the answer it must be a very rude question. I am not saying that Mr Clegg didn't do well, but my main puzzlement is that I can see no trace of it on the ground. What I did see was David Cameron looking like a serious leader ready to get us out of the huge economic mess the Prime Minister has left us in.
Like hundreds of our candidates and thousands of our supporters canvassing across the country over the weekend, there was no discernable movement away from us from our pledges.
I remain convinced that people are not going to elect a government on the basis of one and a half hours of television. As one elector put it to me on a sunny doorstep on Saturday afternoon:
"Yes, sure, Clegg did do well but it is not going to change my vote, the last thing I want to do is let Gordon Brown in by the back door of a hung Parliament."
Let's be clear - this country needs change and everybody knows it.
We need to take decisive action, especially as we tentatively come out of the recession.
Of course, the Liberal Democrats are vulnerable on their policy of throwing away our nuclear deterrent in uncertain times, their commitment to an amnesty for illegal immigrants which will only encourage more illegal immigration, and their refusal to protect the NHS.
But as much as it's right to talk about these things, the main threat that the Lib Dems pose is a hung Parliament, propping up Gordon Brown who can't deliver the change we need.
Our country needs change from an overpowering incompetent state. We need to give people an opportunity to shape their country through our Big Society proposals. We need change that passes power down to and through local government to real communities who want to make a difference.
The question remains on the doorstep: "Do you want five more years of Gordon Brown?"
The answer is that if you vote Liberal Democrat or Labour you will. Only by voting Conservative can we be sure of the change we need.
Eric Pickles
More in The Guardian.
Tim Montgomerie
5.30pm update:
A new Angus Reid poll has just been published on Political Betting with the parties on the following standings:
Comparison are with the AR poll for Political Betting this time last week.
6.45pm update:
Tonight's ITV News at 10pm is carrying a new ComRes poll - for which the embargo on the figures appears has been broken by none other than Charlie Whelan of Unite infamy. They are:
More detail from the poll will follow at 10pm.
ComRes also asked voters what their preference would be in the event of a hung parliament. 46% of Liberal Democrat voters would prefer a Gordon Brown led coalition, while just 31% of Liberal Democrat voters would be happy with a coalition led by David Cameron. However, 58% of the overall sample said they would be ‘unhappy’ with a minority government led by Gordon Brown which is currently the most likely outcome given the distribution of votes between the parties.
7.15pm update:
Tomorrow's Daily Express carries a new Opinium poll with the parties on the following standings:
1,957 people were polled between Friday and today. Comparisons are with the Opinium poll for the Express a week ago.
8pm update:
YouGov's daily tracker for the Sun has:
Jonathan Isaby
"It was The Sun wot won it," was the iconic headline after the 1992 election - the last time Britain found itself in an election campaign as hazy as the cloud of volcanic ash blotting out most of northern Europe.
Then the nation's most ebullient tabloid took it upon itself to shred the "Welsh windbag" Neil Kinnock and to claim victory for its campaigning techniques after John Major defied the pollsters and a recession and scored an unexpected win.
Nearly 20 years later and The Sun finds itself at the heart of the campaign. It spoiled Gordon Brown's last party conference by declaring for the Conservatives a few hours after his speech and it has since wasted little time boosting David Cameron's prospects.
It is also running the YouGov daily tracker poll - our best guide to the ups and downs of this rollercoaster campaign.
Today, much to its chagrin, The Sun is forced to report that Nick Clegg is out in front, just ahead of the Tories and 7 points up on Labour - a result that would still make Brown leader of the largest party in Parliament and
presumably keep him in No 10.
In the absence of any signs of a concerted Tory counter-offensive against the Lib Dems, the press, led by The Sun but also including a so far lukewarm Daily Mail, are hitting back. They are driving home the message that a vote for Clegg will keep Brown as Prime Minister.
Across two pages today, The Sun puts Lib Dem policies to the test of public opinion, finding that of his top 10 plans for the country, six are rejected by voters and only three (tax, public sector pay limits and voting reform)
win support.
Anxious candidates fighting Lib Dems might find the poll helpful when it comes to mounting their own fightback on the ground.
But policy is not what is driving the Lib Dem surge. It is Clegg's dubious claim to represent a new kind of politics - to be the voice of a disenchanted public infuriated by the expenses scandal - that is the real
motor.
All now seems to turn on the second TV debate on Thursday. The Tory high command has to find a way of demonstrating that Clegg's claims are spurious and that only Cameron can rescue the country from its current malaise.
Nick Wood, Managing Director, Media Intelligence Partners
We have just seen a weekend of hype about Nick Clegg in the media on the back of the opinion polls after the first Leaders' Debate.
I am increasingly confused as to whether I watched the same debate as everyone else: Clegg put in a creditable performance, but was it really as ground-breaking as the press reports would have us believe?
It is not entirely unsurprising that the media have been talking up the Lib Dem "surge" these past few days. In what had thus far been a relatively pedestrian campaign, it's a new story to write and mixes everything up a bit.
Likewise, whilst a hung parliament would be a disaster for the country and in particular the economy - as the FT notes this morning - the ensuing political chaos would be a fascinating story to write: many journalists are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a hung parliament which would be, in their words, "good for trade".
But the need for a decisive election result in which the Conservatives win an overall majority is the message which David Cameron puts out in an interview with the Guardian this morning.
"If you want to be sure of a change of leadership after 6 May, if you want decisive government, if you want to get things done, if you want to get the economy moving, if you want to mend the broken society, then it is the Conservatives that offer that decisive change – anything else and you risk being stuck with what you have got."
"What I want to do in the remaining 18 days of this campaign is to make the case for a different prime minister for Britain, to make the case that if you want to solve the problems we have, then it is decisive change we need, and that is what we offer, and all other options manifestly fail."
And whilst others (such as George Osborne) have attacked the Lib Dems, Mr Cameron remains insistent that he is not going to go negative:
"My response to all this is to redouble the positive. I am sure plenty of other people will now scrutinise Liberal Democrat policies in huge detail, and I am sure that it is a very worthwhile thing to do."
"I am fully aware of their policies. But I choose to accentuate the positive and talk about what we will do and the leadership we'll bring."
"The success we have had over the past four and a half years has been based on being positive, on actually saying to former Liberal Democrat voters that if you want a more family-friendly Britain, a more decentralised Britain, if you want to pass power to people, the Conservative party can get the job done for you."
Jonathan Isaby
On a uniform national swing this would put the Conservatives on 251 seats; Labour on 230 and the Liberal Democrats on 137.
Tim Montgomerie
On his blog John Redwood has listed other possible actions.
Tim Montgomerie
Nick Wood's daily High Noon column.
Last Sunday I observed that the real contest in this election was Cameron versus Clegg. This Sunday, after the oxygen of publicity afforded nice Mr Clegg by the first of the Leaders' Debates, political prediction has become political fact.
One poll - for today's Mail on Sunday - puts the Lib Dems ahead and the others all have them closing fast on the two main parties.
The general election is in danger of becoming some vast by-election in which the Lib Dem bandwagon gathers pace and more people clamber aboard as the belief takes hold that they can actually win.
The biggest obstacle to Lib Dem progress is the widely held perception that voting for them is a wasted vote. But it is harder to argue that point as they and their Leader surge in the polls and growing numbers of the public say that they actively want all this to end in a hung Parliament.
So how does David Cameron stop the orange bandwagon?
First, the Conservatives need to go negative - and fast. They need to drive home the message that a hung Parliament would be a disaster for a country mired in an economic crisis and desperately in need of a government with the mandate and the courage to take tough decisions on tax and spending.
Second, they need to neutralise Clegg's most beguiling argument - that he and his party represent something new as opposed to the "old politics" of Tory and Labour. This is a bit rich coming from a party whose salad days coincided with the reign of Queen Victoria. What is new about tracing your political ancestry back to Gladstone and Lloyd George? Clegg is not really Leader of the Lib Dems. He is Leader of the None of the Above Party, tapping into the sense of disgust and betrayal felt by many people about politicians in general after the expenses scandal. But Clegg and his party are not untouched by financial chicanery, as Harry Phibbs so effectively pointed out yesterday. Clegg's hypocrisy over expenses needs to be exposed.
Third, the Conservatives must bring home to the public the left-wing nature of Lib Dem policy. They are soft on crime and immigration, in favour of the euro and all things European, instinctive tax raisers and spenders, weak on defence and generally bossy and bureaucratic.
Fourth, as the polls all too readily confirm, the grin on Gordon's face is getting bigger as the Lib Dem surge promises to keep him in Downing Street for another five years.
Continue reading "Time to fire up the attack dogs (but Cameron must stay positive)" »
In his News of the World column Fraser Nelson says there are five keys to Downing Street: immigration, education, defence, crime and jobs. He uses his column to set out the winning Tory policies in each area.
The biggest issue missing from that list is the whole anti-politics thing. That is key to Nick Clegg's surge. The idea that he is not a 'Labservative' offering up the same old politics - even though his party is immersed in the political gravy train. ConHome readers said MPs' expenses was one of the top four issues being discussed by voters.
I also think Tory pledges on cancer care drugs and access to an NHS dentist are winning ideas.
So if I had to list the top five policy issues for the remaining 18 days until the election I would suggest immigration, NHS, crime, jobs (which includes tax and growth) and political reform.
Tim Montgomerie
Since the beginning of the Cameron era the aim has been to love-bomb Liberal Democrat voters. But there has been little attack of LibDem policies. That is now changing.
In an email to Tory supporters George Osborne questions the Liberal Democrats on immigration, defence, crime and tax:
"How can they control immigration by giving an amnesty for illegal immigrants? If they want to scrap Trident what is their alternative – do they really want to leave Britain unprotected in an uncertain world? If they want to scrap prison sentences under six months how many burglars and drug dealers will be walking the streets as a result? And how would they get the economy moving with new taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs?"
Repeating a message issued earlier by David Cameron the Shadow Chancellor also warns against a hung parliament:
"This is the most important election for a generation. Our economy, our society and our political system all need fundamental change, and the question at this election is who can get the job done? It’s increasingly clear that the answer is David Cameron not Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown has had 13 years and made things worse. He’s sinking – and clinging to the Lib Dems as his life-raft. But a hung parliament won't get the job done. It would be dominated by haggling, not decision making. The best way - the only way to get the job done is to have a decisive Conservative victory."
The attack on Nick Clegg's policies and highlighting the dangers of a hung parliament were strategies two and three of Paul Goodman's earlier post.
I'd like to suggest a fourth.
Clegg is presenting himself as the anti-politics candidate. He isn't. As an MEP he was deeply immersed in the EU gravy train. His party broke its promise on the EU referendum. His party campaigns dirtily in election after election. Liberal Democrat MPs, MEPs and councillors all have questionable expenses. As Harry Phibbs has begun to do this afternoon, on CentreRight, we must demolish what Cameron called Clegg's claim to be "holier than thou".
Tim Montgomerie
More in The Sunday Telegraph.
Overnight YouGov had the LibDems up by 8%.
Tim Montgomerie
4.45pm
64% of voters told ComRes that Nick Clegg should play some part in the government.
7pm update:
BPIX for the Mail on Sunday has the parties on the following standings:
Lib Dems - 32% (+12)
Conservatives - 31% (-7)
Labour - 28% (-3)
Well, I said 'be ready for froth' but I didn't expect quite such large dollops.
First we had some unnecessary confusion as ComRes ran (and published) a voting intention question to a sample that had all watched the debate, and then came back trying to sell us a 'remodelled, extrapolated' version, as if there could be any possibility of this being valid (you cannot possibly 'extrapolate' the opinions of non-viewers from viewers). Dismiss all that.
But then came the bombshell of our normal poll for The Sun showing the LibDems running a strong second, pushing back Labour to third. A real shocker, even allowing for margin-of-error. Is it really possible?
I stick to my froth theory for some of the observed effect, but maybe not for all. Consider this:
a) Experimental polls that ask people to imagine a genuine three-way race, with Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems all equal, and then ask respondents to place their votes, show a strong tendency for the main party vote to collapse to the LibDems. The fact is people do quite like the LibDems, they just think they can't win, and don't want to waste their vote.
2) Those experiments are sometimes supported by reality in the form of by-elections. When the LibDems manage to convince people they can really win, they often do, upsetting huge majorities. These new debates present the three leaders on equal terms, creating a little of that by-election effect.
3) Loyalty to the main political parties has sharply declined, especially after the expenses scandal, of which the LibDems were regarded (by the public) as relatively innocent. Many voters would love to give the main parties a bloody nose. The narrative is exciting, and creates its own momentum.
Recent Comments