Labour’s poll performance is a red herring

Left Foot Forward

Several of my Labour-supporting friends have a spring in their step – level in the polls at last, as revealed by yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos-MORI poll.

Our guest writer is Philip Cowley, Professor of Parliamentary Government at the University of Nottingham, and co-author of The British General Election of 2010, published later this month

Several of my Labour-supporting friends have a spring in their step – level in the polls at last, as revealed by yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos-MORI poll. How rubbish this new coalition government must be. It took New Labour years to lose its poll lead after 1997.

At the risk of being a party pooper, the trouble is that the experience after 1997 is atypical. After losing in October 1951, Labour had pulled ahead by January 1952, but it didn’t stop the Conservatives enjoying 13 years in government. In 1970, after a June election, Labour were level by October; that didn’t stop Ted Heath polling more votes four years later, even if he didn’t secure enough seats to cling on.

And in 1979, following a May election, Labour had pulled ahead in the polls by the following month. No one needs reminding what that means: Labour led Mrs T’s cutting government within a month of the election and were out of power for the next 18 years.

At this point, one or two of my friends point out that this is an unfair comparison. Those were single party governments, this is a coalition government, we are not comparing like with like, etc etc. All true, and if someone can point me in the direction of polling data from the last British peace-time coalition government formed after a general election, I’ll gladly look at that instead. But you’ll struggle.

What’s happened in the polls is what you’d expect: Government Making Cuts is Unpopular Shocker. Its only significance will come if too many Labour people think it’s significant.

No related posts.

26 Responses to “Labour’s poll performance is a red herring”

  1. frances smith

    interesting though history is, it tends not to repeat itself. you can make comparisons with the past but when it comes to human history the same situation never reoccurs exactly. we are in a different place in time, in a different situation. i know academics like theories to cling to, but previous patterns of polling data are no guide whatsoever to what is going to happen next. in a chemical experiment the same conditions can be recreated to create the same result in a controlled experiment, but this is not a controlled experiment. i’m sorry professor your conclusions, based on the past, are wrong.

  2. Labour closing gap – but why? « sgmpolitics

    […] voting intention polls. And this without a permanent leader yet in place! But Left Foot Forward has an article suggesting the poll numbers should not give Labour too much encouragement. Leave a […]

  3. Philip Cowley

    RT @GloriaDePieroMP: Sun Yougov poll Lab 39%, Con 39%. Lab and Tories neck and neck. Whoo hoo <- Not really whoo hoo: http://bit.ly/dB9mJZ

  4. Hopi Sen

    RT @philipjcowley: Lab 39%, Con 39%. Lab & Tories neck & neck. Whoo hoo <- Not really whoo hoo: http://bit.ly/dB9mJZ <- great piece -so true

  5. peter beaumont

    RT @hopisen: RT @philipjcowley: Lab 39%, Con 39%. Lab & Tories neck & neck. Whoo hoo <- Not really whoo hoo: http://bit.ly/dB9mJZ <- great piece -so true

Comments are closed.