Just look at how 2010 CON voters view the same sex marriage issue compared with those who now say they are voting for the party. The first group show by 53% to 39% that they are against.

Compare that on the drop down menu in the chart above with current CON voters. They are in favour by 48% to 41%.

Look also at the emphatic opposition from current UKIP voters.

The poll also shows how 24% of those who voted for the Conservatives in 2010 now say that they back Ukip. A coincidence?

It is always dangerous looking at numbers and declaring that these have been the cause of voting changes. What we can say is that the Tory voters who remain have a different response pattern compared with those who have left.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

The EU issue the only big thing dividing the Tories from UKIP

The Conservative Party is one of the oldest and most successful political parties across the world.  It is so partly because it has had in the past displayed a surprisingly flexible approach in adapting to defeat, and partly because it has ensured it dominated the political field on the centre-right, either by eliminating or allying with rivals.  So can it do so against in response to the rise of UKIP?

The formation of the Con/LD coalition went directly against that historic practice.  The breadth of the political ground covered by the two parties inevitably meant that the policy compromises would alienate the Tory right but those lost predominantly to UKIP could not be replaced by voters to the left of the Tories as those who would most naturally be attracted – right-of-centre Lib Dems – will be perfectly happy with what Clegg’s doing.  For the first time in over a century, the right is more split than the left.

That situation’s not something which can easily be resolved before the election.  UKIP has a fairly clear field to make populist noises that individual Conservatives might echo and the Tory front bench might hint at for a future single-party government but cannot do anything about for now.  To some extent, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about the discontent anyway, which is less about specific issues than a general discontent with modern politics.  Still, it’s a wave UKIP’s riding effectively.

What about after the election?  If it results in a Conservative win then the issue probably goes away.  Such circumstances imply that Cameron (or his replacement) has succeeded in attracting many of the disillusioned back the fold.  That scenario is, however, judged by the markets to be the least likely.  Another coalition with Conservative involvement would simply reinforce the existing dynamic.

By contrast, a defeat would force the Conservatives to face the reality of what the split on the right had delivered, as well as the opportunities for healing it.

The biggest division would be the question of the EU but the Conservative Party is now heavily EU-phobic and while that might not be obvious at parliamentary level it’s more openly so in the voluntary party.  Were UKIP to take, say, 10%+ in the 2015 election, that would be taken as a green light by many to advocate EU withdrawal (irrespective of whether that was really the factor that had pushed voters that way).  It is far from unrealistic to believe that adopting such a policy could be decisive for a leadership contender, particularly with the prospect of Ed Miliband signing up to five more years of Euro-socialism.

With the EU question resolved and the luxury of opposition reducing the effect of UKIP’s none-of-the-above attraction, the field would be clear to either repeat the experience of allying with the Liberal Unionists of a hundred and more years ago, or the National Liberals either side of WWII, or to watch them wither, depending on how much strength they retained.  It will take the chastening experience of defeat but it has happened before in Britain, it has happened in other countries such as Canada (which was more of a reverse takeover but the principle was the same), and it could very easily happen here again.

David Herdson

Henry G Manson on how the Tories have made GE2015 easier for Ed

There is a bit of talk as to whether certain Conservative MP are able to be endorsed by UKIP and stand with two party emblems next to their name on the ballots paper. This is now possible under updated election law. This week Peter Bone MP took to the airwaves arguing for joint Conservative and UKIP candidates to take advantage of this:

“There was a tremendous Conservative vote. There were the conservatives that voted Conservative and the conservatives who voted Ukip. The trick is to get us all together again and that’s what we’ve got to do.”

I can see why that would be attractive to the certain individual MPs as they attempt to ride both horses to save their skin. It could be less straight forward for the parties. As we’ve come to appreciate UKIP can now win votes from Labour and in Northern heartlands. If UKIP backed joint candidates with the Tories it could endanger their appeal in many parts of the North where the blues remain so toxic. Look what’s happened to the Lib Dems in the urban North there as a result of coalition with the Conservative. For UKIP to pull it off it would need a suitable number of Labour MPs to enter in a similar arrangement. This is never going to happen. The party simply wouldn’t permit it.

Being backed by two parties would also raise other issue when candidates become elected and arrive in the Commons. They’d potentially experience contradictory whipping operations. Would they be permitted into the 1922 or would their loyalties be questioned? Many Labour MPs have dual ‘identities’ as Labour and Co-op Party MPs. The difference is that the Co-op Party doesn’t stand against Labour MPs and there is no Co-op whip as would surely be the case with UKIP. Conservative and UKIP MPs could pose as many problems as solutions. All in all this seems a clunky response to the fragmented state of British politics and avoiding the bigger problem further upstream – the electoral system itself.

It’s worth casting more than a moment’s glance at what might have been for the blue party. The electoral system that would suit the Conservatives the most right now is the one they campaigned hard against early in the parliament – the Alternative Vote.

This would have effortlessly allowed right-leaning voters to support UKIP first and Conservative second without fear of ‘splitting the vote’ and letting in Lib Dems or Labour.

Instead David Cameron’s Conservatives are now going to have to try and win back the support of UKIP while not alienating their more moderate supporters. Not an easy task. It’s all well and good Boris Johnson arguing that the rise of UKIP is good news for conservative ideas – but here speaks a man who isn’t going to be held account for the outcome of the next general election and has to fret about marginal seats.

What does seem strange looking back is how the official Yes 2 AV campaign went out of its way not to include UKIP in its campaign. Instead as a result it gave the impression of being a liberal middle class enterprise rather than one based on some wider democratic concerns with First Past the Post that would have almost certainly included UKIP. Comfort zone politics at its worst. If an AV campaign and referendum were re-run today I wonder if the result would different with Farage on the platform? I’m pretty sure it would.

Is there any regret at all among Tories that they opposed AV in the referendum? I don’t see any sign of it despite it possibly being a pivotal moment for the party.

Will much of the UKIP vote come to the Conservatives closer to election as some at CCHQ hope? I’m not certain. It’s starting to look like First Past the Post could make it harder for Conservative Party to win power in the years ahead – it’s certainly helped give it a stinking headache with UKIP now.

Despite his support for it, Ed Miliband could well be the biggest beneficiary of AV’s defeat. As with the avoidable collapse of boundary changes, the Labour leader is starting to look lucky.

Henry G Manson

Tomorrow it will be exactly 6 months since @nadinedorriesmp was suspended as a CON MP. Farage is making overtures. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) May 5, 2013

It’s starting to appear “nasty” that the whip has not been restored to @nadinedorriesmp .

— Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) May 4, 2013

It’s time to “Free the Mid-Bedfordshire One”

In 2008 the county council in Bedfordshire was abolished so it wasn’t one of the traditional shire counties where there was voting last Thursday.

If there had been elections I’ve little doubt that it would have followed the pattern of elsewhere in eastern England with Ukip making big inroads – particularly in the area covered by the Mid-Bedfordshire parliamentary constituency which, of course, is represented at Westminster by Nadine Dorries.

Exactly six months ago today Nadine was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party for her much publicised trip to Australia to take part in the TV programme – “I’m a celebrity get me out of here.”

That suspension is still in force and speculation has been revived about her switching to Ukip. Farage was quoted yesterday welcoming such a move which, if it happened now, would add to the ongoing positive narrative about the party.

Over the weekend senior party figures like Lord Ashcroft, David Davis and the editor of ConHome , Paul Goodman, have joined the clamour for Nadine’s punishment to be lifted.

Davis bitingly contrasted Nadine’s treatment with old-Etonian, Jesse Norman, who rebelled and then got promoted. Nadine, brought up on a Merseyside council estate, is still being hung out to dry.

If Nadine did join the purples she could do immense damage to the Tories. She’s a fierce critic of Cameron and being UKIP’s one MP would provide a platform for ongoing attacks on the PM.

Her constituency is just five minutes from where I live and I know it well. My reading is that she’d have a good chance of holding it for UKIP against an official Conservative candidate at the general election.

This has betting implications. There was an active market on whether she’d switch before the election and, of course, it impacts on how many, if any, MPs Ukip would have.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

RT @rufusjones1: Margaret Thatcher’s Yeast Extract. twitter.com/rufusjones1/st…

— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) April 12, 2013

Henry G Manson on the Mrs. Thatcher aftermath

One of the Conservative Party’s secret weapons to winning more votes in the North of England is a young man called David Skelton. Skelton is from the North East and has an impeccable feel for the North in a way few Conservative strategists do. This was demonstrated in an article for Labour List last year explaining why Ed Miliband was right to speak at the Durham Miners’ Gala, while he was being attacked by the Tory frontbench for doing so. He argued:

‘Politicians like talking about community. I doubt that they will find many better examples of communities pulling together in celebration of their communities and in memory of some of the most severe adversity than the pit villages of the North East of England. Politicians like talking about re-engaging with ordinary people but it is the sad truth that the Miners’ Gala too often represents people who have been ignored and taken for granted by all parties for too long.’

This coming from a Deputy Director of the right wing Policy Exchange group came as more of a surprise at the time. It was a sign that someone was prepared to shake their party by the lapels and remind them of some of the things they had to do differently to have a chance of winning back support in the North. And it was genuine.

It was therefore with some nervous trepidation for this Labour supporter to hear that Skelton is getting to get the time and resources to work precisely on this in the years ahead. Two weeks ago Skelton explained to Conservative Home:

‘The Conservatives haven’t won an election for 21 years and this overwhelming perception that they are “the party of the rich” is an important, some might say the most important, reason why. Whole urban centres outside of the South of England now have no Tory representation whatsoever and the Conservatives are struggling amongst working class voters, ethnic minorities and women. Conservatives hold only 20 of the 124 urban seats in the North and Midlands – that’s a mere 16 per cent. And it’s these areas that will be the big battleground at the next election.. If the Tories don’t face up to this challenge and broaden their appeal, they will face the prospect of never being able to have a sustainable period of majority government again.’

The following week saw the death of Lady Thatcher. The former Conservative leader had not been discussed and debated on TV to this extent for many, many years. I know that many in the younger generation don’t know much about Margaret Thatcher and the media are understandably going to focus more on her positives in the immediate following of her passing. But for many over 50s in the North of England, Midlands, Scotland and Wales the experiences were not good. For many our towns, cities and former coalfield areas felt like the victim of an occupying force. My prediction is that the memories evoked by Lady Thatcher’s death will make David Skelton and the Conservative Party’s work that bit harder.

Henry G Manson

Even over her funeral Mrs. Thatcher continues to divide the nation. See pie chart from Survation/Mirror poll. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) April 11, 2013

If this polling is right Dave might have misread the public mood

According to newspaper reports this morning there’s been a huge row between Number 10 and the speaker, John Bercow, over Mrs. Thatcher. Bercow didn’t want the recall of parliament or the changing of the parliamentary time-table for next Wednesday – the day of the funeral.

In yesterday’s tribute debate Bercow quashed complaints about the manner of some of the anti-Maggie voices, particuarly after the speech by the mum of Dan Hodges, Glenda Jackson.

Yet it’s hard to see how Dave could do it in any other way. The right in his party is deeply suspicious of him in any case and it would have been a big political risk if he’d pushed for anything less than what is happening.

The response to another Survation question on the cost of the whole thing is also interesting.

“The Thatcher family, rather than the taxpayer, should pay the bulk of the estimated £10million cost for Margaret Thatcher’s ceremonial funeral”
All responders: Agree 57% Disagree 22% Neither 17% DK 5%

Let’s see what Friday and the weekend bring.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

I was only twelve when Lady Thatcher was replaced as Tory Leader and Prime Minister, I remember my mother being particularly happy at the news.

Growing up in 1980s South Yorkshire, I was used to hearing abusive things said about Margaret Thatcher, particularly in the aftermath of the miners’ strike.

But as some of you may have guessed, those things didn’t have a lasting effect on me or my views on Lady Thatcher.

She set the benchmark that future Leaders and Prime Ministers are judged by, just think, every time a politician commits a u-turn, the Lady’s not for turning clip gets played, and PMs and Leaders are compared to that.

A few years ago, I heard William Hague speak, where he said, and I paraphrase, Margaret Thatcher’s achievement was that she not only changed her party, she changed the Labour Party, and arguably caused the creation of the SDP, not many politicians have had such a change on British politics.

As Tony Blair put it

Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader. Her global impact was vast. And some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour government, and came to be implemented by governments around the world.

We (and I’m sure others here and elsewhere will) can spend time arguing on whether she was a force for good or bad for the country, but what is inarguable, she changed the country, and not just this country, her influence for good or ill, had effects on lives of Argentinians, South Africans and Eastern Europeans through her opposition to Communism and the signing of The Single European Act.

Would UKIP be doing  so well today (or even exist) if she hadn’t signed the Single European Act (something she later reportedly regretted)

Would Scotland be having a referendum on Independence in 2014 if her government hadn’t tested the Community Charge/Poll Tax on Scotland in 1989?

Would Kuwait still be occupied by Iraq? She was visiting the first President Bush when Iraq invaded Kuwait and urged him to remove Saddam from Kuwait, and later telling President Bush “This is no time to go wobbly, George”

She is also proof that  past electoral success is no protection from the ruthlessness that the Tory party displays when they conclude their leader is harmful to their electoral chances.

Even the manner of her departure still has ramifications for the Conservative Party. Europe is the fault line on which the Conservative which periodically tears itself apart over, in the 1997 Conservative Leadership election, when it looked like Ken Clarke was about to win the Leadership, Lady Thatcher intervened and campaigned very publicly for William Hague.

In an era of SPADS and political families, She was the grocer’s daughter from Grantham who had a career before politics, I suspect we will not see someone like her again, which may sadden some, and bring joy to others.

TSE

Great Boris Private Eye cover that’ll become a classic if ever he does become CONleader/PM.via @hendopolis twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) April 4, 2013

Remember how Ken ran him so close?

Just before the Easter weekend we reported on a new YouGov poll that had a Boris-led Tory party level pegging with an EdM LAB one when the named leader voting intention question was put.

This caused something of a stir and was in line with similar polling at the time of the Olympics. There’s little doubt that substituting the Boris name for Dave does give a boost to Tory ratings.

What we should also ask is how serious such findings are and a wider one relating to polling about Boris when tested against real results.

For six pollsters carried out voting surveys ahead of the May 2012 mayoral election and the final survey of every single one of them over-stated Boris’s eventual winning margin.

In the election Boris beat Ken by 3.06% when second preferences were allocated. This compared with (see UKPR here) Opinium +4%, YouGov +6%, TNS-BMRB +6%, ComRes +8%, Survation +10% and Populus +12%.

On the night, as no doubt many will recall, the big surprise was that Ken, with all the issues surrounding his campaign, had run Boris so close.

It appeared that the race had closed in the final days.

The lesson I take from this is to be more wary of named leader polling when it relates to Johnson.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB