Is Labour's lead five points or 10? Why ICM and YouGov disagree

It all depends on how you assume those who say "don't know" will vote when the election actually happens.

The latest monthly ICM/Guardian poll, showing that Labour's lead over the Tories has shrunk from eight points to just five, has provoked much comment. How, when most surveys show the party around 11 points ahead, can Labour have sunk so low?

To begin with, it's important to note that ICM's polls have long shown a lower Labour lead than those from other groups such as YouGov and TNS-BRMB. Seven of the last 12 polls by the company have had Labour ahead by five points or less. December's ICM poll, which showed a Labour lead of eight points, was also less flattering than the concurrent YouGov survey, which showed a Labour lead of 10.

Why the discrepancy? The main reason is the difference in how the two pollsters treat the "don't knows". While YouGov simply discounts those voters who say they "don't know" which party they'd vote for, ICM reallocates 50 per cent of them based on the party they voted for at the previous general election. This approach was originally developed to respond to the phenomenon of "shy Tories" - those who intended to vote Conservative but were unwilling to say so. In 1992, this famously meant many polls showed Labour in front when in fact it was the Tories who were heading for victory. After studying the data, ICM found that a disproportionate number of those who said "don't know" to voting intention questions in 1992 had voted for the Conservatives in 1987. The reallocation method was born.

At present, since a significant number of 2010 Liberal Democrat voters are unsure how they'll vote at the next election, while most Labour voters are sure, ICM invariably shows a higher level of support for Clegg's party than YouGov and a lower level of support for Labour. The most recent poll by the latter has Labour on 42 per cent and the Lib Dems on 11 per cent, while the most recent by the former has Labour on 38 per cent and the Lib Dems on a seemingly miraculous 15 per cent. There are good arguments for both YouGov and ICM's approaches but for those sceptical of ICM's method, it's worth pointing out that it was the second most accurate pollster in 2010.

Finally, it's worth imagining how different the political narrative would be if it was ICM, rather than YouGov, that conducted a daily poll. Since the coalition came to power, ICM has never shown a Labour lead larger than 10 points (a figure the party has only attained once, in September 2012) or a Lib Dem vote share lower than 11 per cent (the party averaged 14 per cent in 2012). Conversely, YouGov has had Labour ahead by as much as 14 points and the Lib Dems as low as seven per cent. But fortunately for Ed Miliband and unfortunately for Nick Clegg, politicos pay more far attention to a daily pollster than they do to a monthly one.

Ed Miliband would be under greater pressure if ICM's polling figures received as much attention as YouGov's. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.