YouGov President Peter Kellner explores how the public's current views of the two main parties are affected by the state of the economy
Two big facts lie at the heart of contest between Labour and the Conservatives. The first is that most people think the government and, in particular, George Osborne, are making a mess of running Britain’s economy. The second is that Labour has so far failed to persuade enough people that its people and policies would make us better off.
YouGov’s latest survey for the Sunday Times provides compelling evidence on both points:
One the other hand….
Will this verdict – poor government, unpersuasive opposition – persist until the next election? Only a fool would pretend to know the answer, but it is possible to identify the main factors that will decide the outcome.
The first and most obvious is the state of the economy. By 2015, the Conservatives will want far more than today’s derisory 8% saying their policies have started to work. This will require two things: evidence of sustained growth and a steady reduction in government borrowing. One without the other won’t be enough. And for the public to be sure that progress is being sustained on both fronts, I’d expect a year or more of improving figures to be needed.
This means turning the corner by the end of next year. If one takes into account that any change in policy takes six months or more to have a significant impact on the real world, Osborne needs to ensure that the right policies (whether maintaining plan A or switching to plan B) are in place by next spring. Although the next election is almost three years away, Osborne will in effect be judged in 2015 by decisions he takes within the next 12 months.
The economy’s trajectory will also play a large part in deciding the second factor: by 2015, who will the public blame for the recession that we are currently experiencing? If growth resumes and the deficit reduction programme remains on course, David Cameron will have every reason to expect Labour’s performance before 2010 to be thought to be more at fault.
Even if the economy is still stumbling, it is not absolutely certain the Tories will attract the lion’s share of the blame. Labour needs to win the argument, and so far it hasn’t done so. This brings us to factor number three: Labour’s credibility.
To some extent, the current, continuing, lack of faith in Labour’s Shadow Chancellor and policies is not surprising. Two years ago, after 13 years in office, Labour suffered a bad defeat. Once a party goes into opposition after a long period in government, it has difficulty getting its message across. The Tories suffered this problem after the first Labour landslide in 1997. Implicitly the great majority of voters who don’t follow politics closely take the view that they have made their decision and aren’t interested in what the rejected party has to say until close to the following election.
That’s where Labour is now. Those who take a close interest today in its affairs are like people who fret in December about Andy Murray’s chances of winning Wimbledon. They may be noble but they’re not normal.
This is, then, a good time for Labour to work out in detail, and behind closed doors, the details of the economic policy offer it will make in 2015, and not to worry too much about its reputation for a good while yet. But, once again, it will take time for the party’s policies to percolate through to the public. And part of that process will be the debate among economists, business leaders and the more serious financial commentators: their verdict will help to shape the wider public response.
This means that Balls, like Osborne, has some time – but not a vast amount. The basics of Labour’s offering will need to be out in the open within the next year or so, even if precise tax and spend numbers need not – indeed, should not – be unveiled until much nearer the election.
In short, the relationship between the economy and voting intention is not a simple one.
Older politicians should know this well: in 1992 a Conservative government secured re-election despite a weak economy, because Labour wasn’t trusted – and then, five years later, the Conservatives were ejected from office despite a strong economy, because the party’s credibility had been shattered by Black Wednesday.
Today the contest is finely poised, because millions of voters are impressed with neither main party. Both Tories and Labour are caught together in a vortex of public condemnation. If one of them can escape the swirl and regain its credibility, it will be well placed for 2015.
See the survey details and full results for the latest Sunday Times poll here
Follow Peter Kellner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@YouGov
Down with Big Brother: how student radical George Osborne railed against MI5
Osborne Accused of Cowardice by Tory Lawmaker Over Fuel U-Turn
George Osborne statement on Barclays scandal: Politics live blog
Failed banks' chiefs will be banned from finance, warns FSA
George Osborne scraps fuel duty rise: a story of petrol, populism, and panic
MP forces a vote on Osborne's plans to relax tax dodging rules
Lord Lawson: George Osborne's delay in fuel duty rise risks Britain's ...
George Osborne scraps fuel duty rise: a story of petrol, populism, and panic
George Osborne branded a 'coward' over Chloe Smith petrol tax disaster
The ordinary person in the street would find the 'hounds of hell' after them if they were to practice just a tiny fraction of what these criminals have been doing.
This is not the time to "keep calm" and "think things through", it is the time to call in the police and get at them.
I wonder if the presentation of Parliament is also a negative issue for many people. On another HP page a headteacher is lamenting standards of behaviour in schools. But the MP's behaviour at PMQs and other high profile sessions is far worse than any teacher would tolerate. How can the voter consider the wisdom of any speaker when shouting/heckling of the worst kind comes from people that we, yes WE, voted into parliament. To talk of a national disgrace is to under-state the issue. Once this was the Mother of Parliaments, now it's the mother of............(you decide).
It is such a turn-off that of course the polling data becomes vague.
This is why neither party have any real popular support.
Asking lots of people the equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is it more than a hundred , more than a thousand, or less than ten?" And then pontificating over the answers those questions have gathered is about as unhelpful as examining the entrails of a recently deceased goat.
Being compelled relentlessly to choose between two sets of ideas which are already so far past their sell-by date that they stink is eating away at the idea of democracy itself. The two main parties are so distracted by the minutiae of their arguments that they've forgotten why they're having them. It's like watching a married couple arguing over the colour of their bedroom curtains while their baby chokes to death in the next room.
What we need is some great new ideas that are relevant to modern problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
http://youtu.be/AFOEe6M2VT4
The second video is full of statistics, but not of opinion - of truths about people and societies.
So, stick to the goat entrails, yougov. Or try and make a difference by measuring something useful.