THE SPECTATOR CAMBRIDGE POLL

The second Spectator Cambridge Poll shows that the fight for the city seat is still a lively three-way affair. The figures will surely give hope to all of the three main political parties that they can win at the general election. As in the previous Specta- tor poll (published on 9 May), 811 voters in Cambridge were interviewed by the Harris Research Centre. Thirty-five per cent of those who expressed a preference said that they would now vote Conservative in the election, 35 per cent Labour and 28 per cent Alliance, with one per cent for others. This compares with the 1983 result and the first Spectator Cambridge Poll in the fol- lowing way:

1983 1987 1987 General Election 30 April-3 May 23-25 May result Spectator Poll Spectator Poll Cons 41.5 36 35 All 29.7 32 28 Lab 28.2 31 35 The results are absolutely in line with the national swings for the first week of the general election campaign. The more de- tailed figures show that the changes are, broadly speaking, spread evenly across the sample interviewed but there is a sugges- tion that there has been a slight move away from Alliance to Labour among student voters and that Labour has improved its standing with younger voters as a whole.

The position with the candidates them- selves has undergone a considerable change since the earlier poll (the figures for which are, throughout, given in brackets). When asked if they knew the names of the candidates chosen by the three main poli- tical parties to contest Cambridge, 48 per cent of respondents now knew Chris Ho- ward, the Labour candidate (11 per cent); 50 per cent knew Robert Rhodes James, the Conservative (29 per cent); 63 per cent knew Shirley Williams, standing for the Alliance (33 per cent). Seventy-six per cent of Alliance supporters questioned now know that Mrs Williams is their candidate (50 per cent), while 55 per cent of Con- servatives know Mr Rhodes James (36 per cent) and 59 per cent of Labour voters know Mr Howard (15 per cent).

As with the last poll, at this stage all respondents were then told the names of the three candidates if they did not already know them. They were then asked which of the candidates would make them more likely to vote for their party.

Candidate and party All respondents Own party's supporters

0/0

Shirley Williams (All) 33 (28) 74 (65) Robert Rhodes James (Con) 20 (20) 52 (53) Chris Howard (Lab) 19 (13) 51 (42) Respondents were next asked which party they thought was most likely actually to win the Cambridge seat (Table I). Labour has had the chief benefit here, seeing a rise in the number of those who thought it would win the seat from 14 to 19 per cent. The number of people who say that they don't know what the outcome will be has also increased.

Three new questions were asked in the poll which had not been asked before; and there are suggestions from these as to why Labour has, overall, done rather better. First, respondents were asked who they thought would make the best Prime.Minis- ter for Britain:

Best Prime All Own party's Minister respondents supporters Mrs Thatcher 40 SiS Mr Kinnock 26 67 Mr Steel 8 22 Dr Owen 12 32 Second, respondents were asked which party they thought was coming over best on the television: Party coming over All Qwn party's best on television respondents supporters Conservative 22 41 Labour 32 60 Alliance 13 23 It is interesting to note that more Alliance supporters (24 per cent) thought that Labour were coming over best on, televi- sion than their own party (23 per cent).

The third new question was 'Which party leader is coming over best on television?'

Party leader All Own party's coming over respondents supporters best on television % Mrs Thatcher 23 45 Mr Kinnock 32 59 Mr Steel 5 14 Dr Owen 10 20 The poll asked again about tactical voting — whether respondents were pre- pared to switch their vote if they thought that their favourite party had no chance of winning (see Table II below). The figures here showed that there has been a slight increase in the number of respondents who were now not prepared to switch their vote. The most interesting figures, howev- er, are those for Labour, which show the

•

Table I All respondents 35 (42) 21 (24) 19 (14) 24 (20) Table II All respondents Those voting: Con Lab Alliance % 50 (55) 26 (35) 27 (38) 18 (16) 12 (22) 39 (39) 9 (11) 40 (27) 10 ( 5) 23 (18) 22 (16) 24 (19) Those voting: Con Lab Alliance Party thought most likely to win Conservative Alliance Labour Don't know/other

% %

Not prepared to switch vote Would be prepared to vote Conservative Would be prepared to vote Labour Would be prepared to vote Alliance 73 (70) 3 ( 3) 4 ( 4) 14 (11) 78 (75) 72 (76) 75 (72) / 2 ( 1) 8 (10) 0 ( 1) / 14 (13)

19 (19) 22 (17) /

opposite: there are now marginally more Labour voters prepared to switch their votes, mainly to the Alliance if they felt that Labour had no chance of winning the seat.

The second Spectator Cambridge Poll suggests that the contest is still a genuine three-way affair. Labour has done well, winning the first week of the campaign on the television. For the first time in any published poll by Harris Labour is now ahead of the other parties in this respect. As his party's leader, Mr Kinnock has also done well in the opening stages of the campaign both in the nation as a whole and in Cambridge; but there are also indica- tions that possible tactical voters in Cam- bridge are still considering moving away from Labour's Chris Howard to Shirley Williams. If the Alliance's fortunes pick up in the later stages of the election, as they did most dramatically in 1983, then there is every reason to believe that Mrs Williams could still win the seat. The present posi- tion, however, must also give great hope to the Conservative camp that they can hold off the attack from the other two parties and return Mr Rhodes James to Westmins- ter.