As I have pointed out on many occassions, when we look at the current opinion polls, the devil is in the detail. Yes, there has been a large swing from Labour to the Cons and yes it has passed us by, but the swing is nothing like as large as the headline poll figures imply.

What has changed is that the PTV scores (Propensity to Vote) for Con supporters has shot up to levels which are highly unlikely and the level of the other parties to very low levels. Two polls I have seen show the PTV score of LD supporters as low as 50%. This is equally unlikely, especially in seats we are targeting or where we have sitting MP’s.

For these reasons, Chris’s more upbeat view is closer to reality than the mindless nonsense being punted by the Tory Trolls on PB. I expect us to be at around 55 seats on current figures, losing around 15 seats to the Tories, though gaining perhaps 3 or 4.

Where I am far less optimistic is in the number of corresponding gains from Labour. At the moment I don’t think this will be more than a handful. I think Nick has spotted this and is adjusting strategically. Whether His Lordship and his acolytes are able to adjust their tactics accordingly is another matter.

Hmmm.

The average figures for national opinion polls from the months of September, 3 years into the last 3 parliaments (from ukpollingreport.co.uk) are:

September 1995:
CON 28 LAB 52 LD 16

September 2000:
CON 36 LAB 39 LD 18

September 2004:
CON 32 LAB 33 LD 25

But I grant that our poll rating was similar to the current one in 1995 and 2000, even though it was 8 points higher under Charles Kennedy at the same point in the last electoral cycle.

But of course the huge difference is in the Tory lead over the Liberal Democrats. In those three years it was 12, 18 and 7 points.

Now it is 29 points. It’s ridiculous to pretend that isn’t going to make a big difference, whatever local factors – such as the advantages of incumbency – may apply.

I don’t actually understand why there seems to be such a determination to minimise the Tory threat to our parliamentary seats. Positive thinking is one thing, but surely this is more an issue of false security and over-confidence – especially if the question is whether to concentrate resources on defence against the Tory threat, or to dissipate them in a quest for largely unattainable gains from Labour.

In some LD seats, there has been a very measurable swing to the Tories at local level(in some of the SW London seats, for example, or in Torbay). In others, the position in this Parliment is very similar to the last Parliament. In a few there have been LD advances (e.g. Solihull).

The $60,000 question is whether the results at the next election are more likely to reflect the local council results of the last couple of years (in which case Tory inroads into LD seats will not be enormous) or whether the present national polls and a uniform swing are about right – in which case, there are a whole swathe of seats at risk.

I imagine the truth lies somewhere between the two. A strong local effort can be expected to mitigate a negative national swing, but won’t usually nullify it.

But that is his job. My job as an activist is to be relentlessly positive and point out how to apply the lessons of our previous successes in order to gain more successes.

In my area (and we are moving forward, not a target) we have more activists than ever before, we deliver more leaflets than ever before and we have more councillors than ever before.

We think we can overturn conventional wisdom by working our socks off and making sure the result is down to our efforts in talking to voters, not the efforts of a select group of backroom journalists talking to their editors.

Simon says Nick Clegg has been invisible – he should tell that to all the people Nick has been meeting in his town halls up and down the country!

Simon says the recent spate of by-elections are good indicators of the public opinion in the country at large – he should tell that to all the people in the other parts of the country who haven’t had their say!

Simon says 2005 was a high-water mark – I say 2005 was only just the beginning of the redefinition of our party as the party of moral, intellectual and political leadership!

I’ve written a short piece on PoliticalBetting.com so that our punters can have a go at challenging your argument.

All the best,

Morus

Unfortunately for us, the polls indicate that currently the net effect is a swing directly from Labour to the Tories bypassing us completely, so there is a lot of work to do.

Further Result from Thursday 28-8-08

Crewkerne TC,
LD Robin Pailthorpe 1317 (59.7)
Con 814 (36.9)
Lab 75 (3.4)
Majority 503
Turnout 38.6%
LD hold

And the Tories think they are going to unseat David Laws?

I can’t find any evidence to suggest out poll ratings have increased from 13% to 17% since the leadership election. Our average poll rating in November last year was 16%. Our average at present is 17%.

Positing that we will get 22% of the vote at the next election is not wholly unreasonable, but it certainly leans towards optimism. There is some evidence that we go up in the course of an election – especially when we have a new leader. But it’s by no means a certainty.

Finally, sketching out a scenario based on a uniform swing that would deliver a Tory majority of one enormously understates the Conservatives’ present polling position. Again, maybe they will fall back, but the polls presently show a swing to the Conservatives way in excess of what they need to squeak in with a single figures majority. This, in turn, means that Chris is looking at a LibDem to Conservative swing that is enormously smaller than the present polls indicate. (Essentially Chris is positing a swing of about 3% from LD to Con, the current polls show a swing of about 8%). I am not saying the swing might end up being 3% – but the present “spot price” of 8% places many more LD seats at risk from the Tories.

Finally, on the prospect of taking seats off Labour, there are clearly a good handful where we have a great chance, but the bald truth is that a good number of Labour targets either need monumental swings and/or are in Scotland (where our poll numbers show our vote halving since the General Election, actually implying a swing FROM LD to Labour, not the otehr way round).

All this indicates to me that while the electoral picture is complex and multi-dimensional, the truth is that the bulk of our key electoral battles are in LD-Tory marginals, mainly in England, and mainly south of Birmingham.

We have also tended to do better in seats we are targeting for the next GE, be they Labour or Conservative. Look at St Albans, where we took control of the council in May. Our vote went down in those parts of the Borough not in the constituency, but it went up in those parts that are.

Trolls salivating at the prospect of a Lib Dem wipe-out will be sorely disappointed.

Whatever the overall national swing we know from experience that we are capable of reducing the swing against us in seats we are defending and at the same time winning much larger swings against Labour in seats where we are on the attack.

If the national poll position puts us on a small loss of seats then my money would go on us making modest overall gains.

The question is what can we do to do better than that.

I seem to remember being one of a very small number of people who beleived she would win the Brent East by-election.

If Chris says it will be, it will be. Now how about those six numbers for Saturday, Chris?

It’s fine if you wish to use an alias, but using more than one alias in the same thread can give a rather false impression…

(As ever, if a mistake has been made and your comment moderated in error, just get in touch.)

Didn’t happen.

So why should it *automatically* happen when the positions are reversed? Doesn’t mean we can’t cock it up, but there’s no inherent reason why Chris’ broader message here should be wrong.