THE ELECTION

THE TORIES PULL AHEAD

Our opinion poll reveals in the race for Cambridge

THE Spectator's choice of Cambridge as one of the most interesting parliamentary seats to watch in this general election has been well justified by events. Here is a true three-way marginal which all the main parties can still hope to win on 11 June. Cambridge is a seat which the Alliance, with their President, Shirley Williams, as the candidate, must win if they are to do well in the country as a whole. Labour's Chris Howard, until recently leader of the 'model administration' local council, is also a strong contender and has been campaign- ing effectively. The Conservative candi- date, Robert Rhodes James, is a highly respected figure. He is widely believed to have served the city well as its Member of Parliament.

Personalities apart, however, the third and final Spectator Cambridge poll shows that the fight for the city seat continues to reflect closely the national position. As in the previous Spectator polls (9 and 30 May) the conventional wisdom that at general elections national parties are more impor- tant than local personalities has been borne out. In Cambridge, as in the country as a whole, Labour, under Neil Kinnock, did well on television in the first week of the campaign and began strongly in the polls. This initial rise in support, however, seems now to have levelled off, leaving the Conservatives with a clear lead. The effect of the rise in Labour support has meant that the Alliance — even though in Cam- bridge Shirley Williams has throughout been the best-known of the candidates has been squeezed back in the polls.

However, while Labour's hopes must be high, the present Spectator poll clearly shows that the Alliance can take heart from our researches. There are still a quarter of Labour's supporters who say they would switch their votes to Mrs Williams if they felt that Labour had no chance of winning. Persuading these voters that they should switch is the task that Alliance party workers face all over the country and nowhere more so than in Cambridge. As the position stands, howev- er, the sensible money must go on Mr Rhodes James being returned to West- minster with perhaps a not undistinguished majority.

When asked over last weekend, at the conclusion of the second full week of the campaign, how they would vote in the election, 40 per cent of those who express- ed a preference said that they would now vote Conservative in the election, 34 per cent Labour and 26 per cent Alliance, with one per cent for others. The 1983 result and the first two Spectator Cambridge Polls are compared in Table I below.

The more detailed figures reveal no surprising changes although the Alliance's poor performance with pensioners and with those who left school aged 18 and under shows up quite strongly on this occasion.

The position of the candidates them- selves changed only slightly in the second week of the campaign (the figures for the earlier Spectator polls are given here, and throughout, in brackets in the following order: the first figure is that of the 23-25 May poll; the second is that of the 30 April-4 May poll). When asked if they knew the names of the candidates chosen by the three main political parties to contest Cambridge 56 per cent of the respondents now know Chris Howard, the Labour candidate (48,11); 60 per cent know Robert Rhodes James, the Con- servative (50,29); 72 per cent know Shirley Williams, standing for the Alliance (63,33). Of Alliance supporters, 87 per cent now know that Mrs Williams is their candidate (76,50), while 64 per cent of Conservatives know Mr Rhodes James (55,36) and 60 per cent of Labour voters know Mr Howard (59,15). The rises in the rate of recognition of the candidates is

what one wo-ild expect at this stage of the campaign. The initial lead that Mrs Wil- liams had has been largely maintained.

As with the earlier polls, at this stage all respondents were then told the names of the three candidates if they did not already know them. They were next asked which of the candidates would make them more likely to vote for their party (Table II). Here Mr Rhodes James has done better than before, both with the electorate as a whole as well as with the Conservative voters. Although Mrs Williams still comes out on top, a five per cent advantage here is not nearly enough to suggest that the `Shirley factor' will be a decisive one.

Respondents were next asked which party they thought was most likely actually to win the Cambridge seat. (Table III). It will be seen that the improvement Labour saw here in the last poll has slowed down and the Conservatives have pulled back their support a little. Between them the Conservatives and Labour seem to be squeezing the Alliance. More Alliance supporters now think that the Conserva- tives rather than their own candidate will win in Cambridge.

The poll also 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 (Table IV). The most interesting figure here showed that there has been an increase in the number of Alliance voters who would be prepared to switch their votes — in the main — back to Labour while the other parties have, broadly speaking, held firm. However, the number of Labour voters who would be prepared to vote Alliance also remains high almost a quarter of those interviewed showing that there is still clearly a way in which the Alliance can win the seat.

Voters were then questioned again on more general political matters in order to see how they were determining their voting intention. They were first asked what were the two main reasons why they would not vote for the parties that they rejected. The results show that the single biggest block in the eyes of the electorate to voting Con- servative is still that they are thought to be `not caring enough' (54 per cent). Labour's figures show a continuing rise in the opinion of those interviewed that they are `too extreme' (30 per cent) — perhaps due to the attack, by both Conservative and Alliance national figures, on Labour's position on defence and their 'loony Left' — and a continuing fall in the view that they are 'not united'. By far the biggest block to voting Alliance remains the view that they are `not decisive' (40 per cent).

Three questions which were first asked in the second Spectator poll were asked again. First, respondents were asked who they thought would make the best Prime Minister for Britain: Best Prime All Own party's Minister respondents supporters Mrs Thatcher 43 (40) 89 (88) Mr Kinnock 26 (26) 72 (67) Mr Steel 8 ( 8) 24 (22) Dr Owen 12 (12) 39 (32) That Mr Kinnock continues to impress Labour voters may help to explain why Labour's vote seems to be holding up much better than many felt it would at the beginning of the campaign.

Second, respondents were asked which party they thought was coming over best on television: Party coming All Own party's over best on TV respondents supporters Conservative 25 (22) 44 (41) Labour 31 (32) 59 (60) Alliance 12 (13) 24 (23) Here Labour's good figures and the Alliance's poor figures as seen in the last poll remain constant both in terms of the electorate as a whole and among their own supporters.

Third, respondents were again asked `Which party leader is coming over best on television?'

Party leader All Own party's coming over respondents supporters best on TV Mrs Thatcher 27 (23) 53 (45) Mr Kinnock 32 (32) , 65 (59)

Mr Steel 7 ( 5) 15 (14)

Dr Owen 8 (10) 15 (20) Looked at overall, it seems that there has been no increase in the lead here that Mr Kinnock built up in the first week of the Table I Voting 1987 1987 1987 1983 intention 30 May-1 June 23-25 May 30 April-3 May General Election

Spectator Poll Spectator Poll Spectator Poll result

'6

Cons 40 35 36 41.5 All 26 28 32 29.7 Lab 34 35 31 28.2

Table II

Candidate

All

Own party's and party

respondents

supporters Shirley Williams (All) 30 (33,28) 75 (74,65) Robert Rhodes James (Con) 25 (20,20) 60 (52,53) Chris Howard (Lab) 20 (19,13) 57 (51,42) Table III Party thought most likely All respondents Con

Those voting: Lab Alliance to win

%

%

Conservative 37 (35,42) 52 (50,55) 24 (26,35) 39 (27,38) Alliance 19 (21,24) 19 (18,16) 11 (12,22) 33 (39,39) Labour 21 (19,14) 11 ( 9,11) 45 (40,27) 6 (10, 5) Don't know/other 23 (24,20) 18 (23,18) 20 (22,16) 23 (24,19) All respondents Table IV Con

'6

Those voting: Lab

'6

Alliance

0/0

68 (73,70) 75 (78,75) 70 (72,76) 66 (75,72) 3 ( 3, 3) /

1 ( 2, 1) 11 ( 8,10) 5 ( 4, 4) 1 ( 0, 1) /

19 (14,13) 15 (14,11) 22 (19,19) 24 (22,17) /

Not prepared to switch vote Would be prepared to vote Conservative Would be prepared to vote Labour Would be prepared to vote Alliance campaign, and Mrs Thatcher is doing better. As with the last poll, more Alliance supporters thought that Mr Kinnock was coming over best on television (27 per cent) than either of their two leaders (15 per cent each for Mr Steel and Dr Owen). In particular, Dr Owen has dropped 5 percentage points with Alliance suppor- ters.

Report by Michael Trend