June 7th, 227 Seat Majority?

Parliamentary Monitor 'VOX POP'

"The MORI survey predicts Labour will win 443 seats, the Tories 158, Lib-Dems 30 and others 28."

Who says so? The Sun (May 2, 2001). Last month I took the latest 'Kalends' survey of "leading political scientists and commentators", to be found on the Reuters' web site to task; this month it is The Sun and all the journalists, print and broadcasters, who somehow think that polls are anything but a snapshot at a point in time.

Polls don't predict, forecast, tell the future, gaze into crystal balls, read tea leaves, palms, Ouiji boards or even wiggle like divining rods.

Polls don't predict, but sometimes pollsters do. On May 2nd, I went on the under appreciated Channel 4 'Powerhouse' programme to discuss the poll we did for the Sun, and other polls. On air, I said that despite the projection of seats from the findings of the survey carried out on 30th April and 1st May, that my 'best guess' as to the outcome on 7th June was a Labour majority of c. 100-120 seats.

Last month I warned that 'Old Labour' lags, who certainly voted for a Labour Government in 1997 (and think they didn't get one) wouldn't be so keen to vote for another Blair landslide; that 'Tactical Lib-Dems' from '97 wouldn't vote for the Lib-Dems again (but that some of the disillusioned 'New Labour Idealists' might, disappointed in New Labour's failure to solve all the country's problems and that they might, just, vote for another party to 'teach Tony a lesson'.

But not even William Hill thinks that Labour's lead will evaporate between now and Election Day. They are giving out 1631 for every 16314, the meanest odds ever.

Every poll since November 1st, an unprecedented run, has shown Labour around the 50% mark; the Tories at around 30%, and the Liberal Democrats at c. 15%. The table below gives the last two month's poll figures for the major pollsters, with ICM's 147 seat majority (on a uniform swing and not accounting for regional variations or turnout factors, much less the appeal (or not) of the local MP the lowest, and Gallup's. 311 the highest.

* Telephone Poll

Personalities matter in elections, whether in the country or in the House of Commons.

We thought we'd test the appeal of the leading politicians, both to see their standing among the electorate on the eve of the election, had the election been held when long expected, May 3rd, and to test the appeal of the contenders likely to challenge William Hague for the leadership of the Conservative Party should he go, or be pushed, after the election.

The first thing that appears immediately on inspection of the 'thermometer chart' below is the 'average standing' of the Labour team is much higher than the Opposition's. Second, that the Blair/Brown top team is in a class of its own, and if you take into account the 'weakness' scores as well, the Chancellor actually outscores the Prime Minister, by a net score of +45 for Brown, to +42 for Blair. Only Robin Cook among those tested has a net negative score, with 52% saying he is a weakness to the party, and only 25% saying he is a strength, for a net -27.

Among Labour intending voters, Mr Blair leads the pack, with a +82, followed by Mr Brown's +59, David Blunkett's +40, Jack Straw at +26, John Prescott at +9 and Robin Cook lagging behind at -12, among those who told us they would have been voting Labour if the election had been held last Thursday.

Third, that Ann Widdecombe is the best scorer among the Tories, with 47% thinking she is an asset, and only 30% a liability for a net +17; among women, she has a net +29, among men +4. For not having held a major Cabinet post in Government, she is very well known, with only 14% of the electorate saying they don't know her at all, and another 9% being neutral. She scores more highly than Ken Clarke, the former Chancellor, at +13, and 20% say they don't know him, and among the 18-24 year old cohort, his 'invisibility rating' shoots up to 43%.

The most likely successor to the Tory Leader in the view of most observers (and the bookies) is Michael Portillo, who rates only a +35, with 11% saying they've never heard of him, followed by his leader, William Hague, whose 23% strength rating is dwarfed by the nearly two thirds, 64%, who characterise him as a weakness to the Conservative Party he leads, giving him a net score of -41. Even among intending Conservative voters, Mr Hague only scores a +4, with 43% saying he is a liability to the party.

Looking to measure a dark horse candidate, we put PAC Chairman David Davis's name in the hopper, and found 77% admit to never having heard of him. If the size of the majority is anything like the projection of a Labour majority of 227 the Sun splashed last Wednesday, there will be those in the Conservative Party emboldened enough to call for Hague to do the decent thing, and then it just may be that someone not so visible outside the House may slip into poll position in the Tory leadership handicap stakes.

Lib Dem Leader Charles Kennedy rates a net +20, and among Lib Dems, +55, but still after over a year in the leadership, 28% have never heard of him, and another 14% don't know his well enough to venture a view.

3 days and still counting.

Professor Sir Robert Worcester is Chairman of MORI. Once the election is called, see updates of the parties' standing in the polls in Sir Robert Worcester's daily column on www.epolitix.com, and expanded coverage of the state of the polls on www.ipsos-mori.com