Low Satisfaction With Blair May Still Be Good Enough

More of the public are worrying about the possibility of nuclear war than at any time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, according to the latest MORI Political Monitor. Almost one in ten, 9%, of the public interviewed - in the survey conducted the weekend before last, just at the start of the Conference season - names nuclear war, nuclear weapons or disarmament as one of the most important issues facing the country; the last time the figure reached even 5% was in April 1990. Taken with the rise in concern about "defence/foreign affairs", named by 23% of the public as "single most important issue" (top of the list) and by 34% as one of the most important issues (second place, behind the NHS), it is plain that the continuing Iraq crisis is high on the public agenda.

Yet, for all the rough ride that Mr Blair's own party is giving him over Iraq (as well as other issues of far less immediate concern to the public), his political position remains secure. True, delegates in Blackpool this week seemed more enthusiastic about, and trustful of, Bill Clinton than they did of Mr Blair or indeed any of his cabinet. (Ironic given the degree of amusement they have derived from the revelations of John Major's sexual peccadilloes, and Mr Clinton's own record in that sphere.)

Figures just released from MORI's latest (Summer 2002) survey of Members of Parliament may also raise the question of how tight his grip is on the Parliamentary Labour Party. The survey, conducted between 10 June and 7 August (and which, unlike some much vaunted surveys of parliamentary opinion, interviews government and opposition frontbenchers as well as backbenchers), found that Gordon Brown has edged ahead of Mr Blair as his colleagues' choice as "most impressive Parliamentarian", 16% of MPs naming Mr Blair and 22% Mr Brown; as recently as the Winter 2001 survey, 47% named Mr Blair.

But, as the latest MORI Political Monitor figures show, his standing with the public is still impressive. 42% of the public say they are satisfied with the job Mr Blair is doing as Prime Minister (49% are dissatisfied), and 37% are satisfied with the way the government is running the country, a three-point improvement since the last survey (at the end of July). The Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, meanwhile, has a satisfaction rating of only 22%, while 39% are dissatisfied, the highest dissatisfaction figure of his year-long leadership; indeed, even among those who say they would vote Conservative he can scrape only a bare plurality of approval, 38% satisfied and 37% dissatisfied.

Admittedly, at first glance Mr Blair's figures may not seem very impressive. In some other countries it is taken for granted that a popular President or Prime Minister will achieve satisfaction figures well over 50%, and that a government with whom more express themselves dissatisfied than satisfied is heading for defeat in the next election. But that has never been the way in Britain; we tend to forget, because Mr Blair's ratings were high for so long, that the natural state of affairs in Britain is a net negative rating, and that does not preclude re-election when the time comes.

For much of his first term as Prime Minister, Tony Blair and his government enjoyed persistently high opinion poll ratings - indeed, unprecedentedly so. This applied not only to a sustained lead in voting intentions, which may have been as dependent on the disarray of the Opposition as on the administration's own showing, but on the more intractable ratings of satisfaction with the Government and with Tony Blair himself. This had all the characteristics of the "honeymoon" period that other governments have enjoyed in the past, but was more marked and considerably more prolonged; for most of Blair's first term, the public seemed prepared to discard any misgivings they might have.

That honeymoon period is now, clearly, over. As the graph of the MORI satisfaction ratings shows, the decline had set in by mid 1999, from which point the overall trend was downwards. Taking a 50% satisfaction rating for Mr Blair himself as a somewhat arbitrary boundary, we see that he dipped below this line in only one monthly poll between his election and February 2000; from May 2000 onwards the trend has been to remain below that line, with only two brief peaks above it - one after the 2001 election as the culmination of several months' sustained improvement in ratings, the other a much sharper but fleeting leap in ratings following the September 11 terrorist attacks and widespread satisfaction with Blair's handling of the situation that created. At its lowest point, following the petrol crisis in September 2000, Blair's satisfaction rating fell to just 32%, and his government's to 26%. Though he can still reap the popularity benefits of a successful election campaign or admiration of his sure-footed handling of an international crisis, he can no longer rely on the public giving him the benefit of the doubt if they are dissatisfied with his performance in the routine tasks of government.

But Blair's decline from those previously unimaginable heights of popularity need not be interpreted with undue gloom by his supporters. Comparison with Margaret Thatcher, the last Prime Minister to win consecutive elections, is instructive. Superimposing Thatcher's monthly satisfaction ratings onto Blair's it can be seen that there was not a single point in his first three years in office where Blair's ratings did not surpass Thatcher's - dramatically so at the height of his honeymoon. Yet they reached the election at the end of their first term with similar scores, and the trend of the ratings in the first year of their second terms seems similar if we disregard the huge upward blip caused by September 11.

In fact, satisfaction with the way Mrs Thatcher was doing her job declined steadily through most of her second term, down to a 27% trough in August 1986, but from that point climbed again to touch 50% immediately after the 1987 election. But, of course, we need not assume that these "mid-term blues" are inevitable. Perhaps Mr Blair can stabilise his standing rather than sinking to Thatcher's 1986 levels of unpopularity. It is worth noting that Blair's lowest rating since the 2001 election has been 39%; Thatcher scored below that level for two solid years of her second term, yet very comfortably secured a third term when the time came.

Of course, Mr Blair has no room for complacency. While the public is reluctant to turn to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and other parties are plainly benefiting from public disillusionment. Charles Kennedy's satisfaction figures are better than Tony Blair's (43% satisfied, 47% dissatisfied), and the Lib Dem standing in the voting intention polls is higher than ever before at this stage in a Parliament (though that should perhaps be slightly discounted since this is the first parliament in which most of the polls, including MORI's, have used "prompted" voting intention questions, a methodological switch which tends to benefit the Lib Dems and smaller parties). But the Lib Dems are not going to form the next government. Mr Blair must still avoid disastrous mistakes over Iraq, and over the Euro referendum, if he chooses to hold it; but for the moment, mid-term blues notwithstanding, he is in as good a position as Mrs Thatcher was at the same point in her premiership; and Thatcher, of course, went on to win a third election victory and a three-figure majority in 1987.