The regular Ipsos MORI political monitor came out in today’s Evening Standard. Topline voting intention figures were CON 39%(+1), LAB 37%(-1), LDEM 13%(+3), UKIP 2%(-4). Fieldwork was Friday to Tuesday and changes are from MORI’s last poll in July (they take a month off for August).

As with other recent polls the Conservatives seem to have recovered a tiny lead since falling behind after the Davis & Johnson resignations. Worth noting is that 13% for the Liberal Democrats. This is the highest they have recorded in any poll since the general election. While one shouldn’t read too much into a single poll – especially one whose fieldwork overlapped with the Lib Dem party conference – the wider polling trend does suggest some uplift in Liberal Democrat support: six of the nine polls so far this month have the Liberal Democrats back up in double figures.

The poll also asked about confidence in the Brexit negotiations, finding predictably low figures. 28% of people said they were confident Theresa May would get a good deal for Britain in the Brexit negotiations, 70% were not.

There was, however, not much more confidence that alternative Prime Ministers would do any better. 28% were confident Jeremy Corbyn would get a good deal were he Prime Minister, 67% were not. If Boris Johnson was PM 33% would be confident he’d get a good deal, 64% would not.

Full details are here.


389 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 39, LAB 37, LDEM 13, UKIP 2”

1 6 7 8
  1. JONESINBANGOR
    I suspect MClusky is weighing in behind Corbyn and McDonnell and bailing them out of a sticky position.

    Momentum will be absolutely furious I should imagine.

    (ps – I live in Holyhead just up the road)

  2. JONESINBANGOR
    I suspect MClusky is weighing in behind Corbyn and McDonnell and bailing them out of a sticky position.

    Momentum will be absolutely furious I should imagine.

    (ps – I live in Holyhead just up the road)

  3. I do find the line that a GE is better than a second referendum to be rather odd.

    Whether the final agreement on withdrawing from the EU is acceptable is a very narrow question. You either think it’s acceptable or not.

    A GE causes issues because people vote for all sorts of reasons. It cannot be extrapolated that because x % vote for one party, all those voters support all their policies.

    The calls for a GE over Brexit is just a hobby horse to get into power, and not about Brexit at all (in my very humble opinion).

  4. Anyone know what sort of rules regulations are going to be burnt after we leave the EU?
    If were having regulatory alignment with the EU why are we leaving?

  5. DAVID COLBY

    Yes-on the face of it he said-the Members will DEcide. Its that bit about depending on the “Composites” which emerge. I don’t understand these things-but is that the way out-a resolution which says something very general?

    I thought Marr’s question on NI showed up his lack of knowledge on the detail-and as Marr said-no Labour solution beyond “Let us have a try”.

  6. V108 in Opinium asks about GE. CON-R/L and LAB-R/L x-breaks interesting

    Wanting a new GE if “no deal” by 29Mar’19

    CON-R net +6
    CON-L net -60
    LAB-R net +72
    LAB-L net +30

    I’m very curious what CON-R VI (and MPs!) are thinking. Do we have any CON-R on UKPR?

  7. CMJ

    I agree.

    But isn’t it just what you would expect from JC:- A desire to have a crack at gaining power + a desire to Leave the EU. leads inevitably to the line which you find odd.

    It was very evident in the Marr interview. His Brexit solution was Labour winning a GE and doing the negotiating. I got the impression from his answers to Marr that he has only the haziest understanding of the detail on Brexit.

  8. I thought Marr’s question on NI showed up his lack of knowledge on the detail-and as Marr said-no Labour solution beyond “Let us have a try”.

    I’ve just watched the Marr interview, and it’s quite clear Labour’s policy isn’t really any different to that of the Government.

    I don’t think either the Conservatives or Labour can square the circle. I think the public voted for the impossible (having your cake and eating it), and neither are prepared to ‘fess up to the public.

  9. @Trevor Warne – “So how can this be “fudged”? Plan A, with backstop Plan B……

    “B/ Backstop. This is the “open border” issue I’ve mentioned before where by UK unilaterally recognise EU standards and would not impose any additional customs checks on GB-Ireland border or UK-EU border (none required for the biosecurity zone on island of Ireland). To give this any hope of EC accepting it, we need to offer them a “Le Touquet+” style agreement (ie RoI+other EU will be allowed UK-EU approved customs checks conducted on GB mainland or in NI, but away from the border – this keeps GB treatment same as NI, a key requirement for DUP and hence also May).”

    Eh???

    I really do wonder sometimes why you bother to write such voluminous posts. The above is precisely what May has just rejected as violating the UK’s constitutional integrity.

    Bizarre.

  10. @andy

    “Personally, I reckon the window for a second referendum closed a few weeks ago.”

    On the hypotheticals of another vote, I’m not sure the time limits are that relevant. Several on the eu27 side have said they do not see an A50 extension for the purposes of time for an election or another vote as something that would be problematic.

  11. Hi Andy,

    I’m sure you don’t want to see the chaos of a WTO Brexit any more than me – the lorries probably will be queing back to Bangor if at all goes wrong!

  12. @ ANDY – I agree with you but Sir Vince told people otherwise and we know Remainers consider themselves to be highly intelligent ;)

    Even LSE bloggers think time has pretty much run out:
    “..were legislation introduced the day parliament returned from the party conference recess, on 9 October, the earliest Thursday on which a referendum could be held would be 28 March – the very day before exit day”

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/09/05/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

    Remainers will say we can delay or perhaps even revoke A50 but that is clutching at straws.

    EC/EU27 will be very happy to slide us into transition for 39bn.. and keep us there paying 10bn+/yr for our prison cell.

    Of course we can have a new ref after 30Mar’19 but that will be to rejoin via A49 sans rebate, sans vetoes, et peut-être avec le Euro, assis dans le coin vilain aux réunions du conseil de l’UE.

  13. Opinium movements fyi:

    Con -2
    Lab +1
    LDem +2
    UKIP +2

  14. CMJ
    It may be that JC doesn’t really understand the detail.

    I would like to see Raab & Starmer interviewed together.

  15. Of course we can have a new ref after 30Mar’19 but that will be to rejoin via A49 sans rebate, sans vetoes, et peut-être avec le Euro, assis dans le coin vilain aux réunions du conseil de l’UE.

    Unless we go to the ECJ and see if Parliament can unilaterally withdraw from Article 50, which could happen before we leave…

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/21/article-50-european-court-of-justice

  16. @Colin

    I would like to see Raab & Starmer interviewed together.

    Given both seem to be very professional and business-like, isn’t it a pity both aren’t negotiating together for the UK as part of a cross-party effort?

    It might of stopped the stupid tribalism that has really hindered the process.

  17. @ JonesinBangor

    If it’s no deal there will be 4 to 5 months to get agreed measures in place to mitigate holdups at ports and to cover the other urgent issues like security etc.

    Barnier said he wanted the remaining EU countries to have easy access to City of London finance, how’s that going to work under a no deal? It sounds like cherry picking in reverse to me!

  18. JONESINBANDGOR

    I actually work at the port. The BBC report the other day was – shall we say, decidedly selective.

    Searching at the port already takes place on a massive scale. Because it is a secure area, we have an arrangement inplace with Ireland (nothing to do with the EU) whereby we do searching on passengers and freight going to Ireland and they do it coming to UK. But tbe impression the BBC gave is that none takes place when in fact there are HMRC, Immigration, N Wales Police and searchers from private security.

    Nor did they mention the CMRs or anything else about documentation. A pretty piss-poor pirce of biased journalism.

    I voted leave and most of the people I work with did and would do so again.

  19. CMJ

    It is-you are right , Party Politics over-rides everything.

    But this is a matter with so many different outcome objectives,that cross party co-operation is impossible . Differing objectives exist within Parties too.

    It is a horribly divisive issue.

  20. “It may be that JC doesn’t really understand the detail.”

    ———

    As someone recently pointed out, JC is more about the cultural stuff, McDonnell is more the technician doing the detail, the economic socialist.

    Seems to be the way these days. The leader tries the charm offensive, often specialising in identity politics – Blair, Cameron, Clegg, Corbyn – while someone else, often in a financial role, does the detail and technical stuff – Brown, Osborne, Cable, McDonnell.

    It becomes tricky when you have a leader who might be questionable in either capacity – Theresa, Ed M etc.

  21. Andy,

    Yes, a lot of people who voted for Leave were in the know!

    As I’ve written before, most people will notice little difference, except a few less cushy jobs in Brussels for British technocrats!

  22. TW

    As an ex-con Remain voter, I see that 5 years of Corbyn would be less bad than a chaotic, unprepared for Brexit on those terms. I have no confidence in May being able to get everything (or anything of any importance or complexity) sorted in time. Partly because she’s just not very good and partly because she has no authority left within her party. I don’t see any replacement leader faring any better.

    I’m guessing those who are remain but would still vote Tory either hate brexit a little less than me or hate Corbyn even more.

    Ideal scenario for me after a GE would be Lab in power requiring Lib/SNP support to get anything really damaging through. I hate Corbyn but hate the right wing of the Tory party more.

    It’s so remote that I’m not willing to stick around to find out if that is the outcome. If it’s a complete disaster, I’d be perfectly happy to laugh at the mess from afar.

  23. ANDY

    Your post highlights the awful truth about this issue.

    Most average voters don’t understand the arguments being put forward on Customs procedures .

    Most people commenting on them in the Press don’t understand what happens now.

    So for me any statement by any politician on the pros /cons of a particular cross border proposal is assumed to be suspect.

    Complex trading procedures are being treated as mere political ammunition in this wretched saga .

  24. @ CatmanJeff

    I would go further and say it is a shame that they are not both leaders of their respective parties. They certainly should be!

  25. catmanjeff: Given both [ Raab & Starmer] seem to be very professional and business-like, isn’t it a pity both aren’t negotiating together for the UK as part of a cross-party effort?

    Cross party efforts are reserved for something like a war, where the country is united. As the country is far from united, I think such an effort would bring politics and politicians into even more discredit.

    At the moment some of our political crisis as I see it is because Labour are deliberately not giving the tories the benefit of a coherent opposition – and I suspect we would have a brexit of some variety in place if Labour had provided the tories some opposition to focus on, rather than having to stand at an open goal mouth and argue on how to take the kick.

    The price for Labour is a potential lack of credibility if they take power and choose a direction, simply for not having had that direction previously – indeed, the tories could cause Labour the same problems by not opposing them effectively.

    For Labour to have complicity with the current shambles is about the one thing they could do which is worse than they are doing at the moment.

  26. @ CatmanJeff
    The CJEU can’t and won’t rule on how the U.K. might revoke Article 50 unilaterally, merely on whether it can.

    If that’s a yes, we may well be off to the UKSC again. The logic of the Miller case is that me might well need the same dualist procedure as was required to give notice.

    So we’re tight on one that way too really.

  27. @PeterW

    If the European Court does make that decision it won’t matter if it’s enforceable or not, it will reinforce in the minds of the British people that Brussels are no more than a set of bullies if a country dares to stick its head above the parapet. Rightly or wrongly It’s all a matter of perception.

  28. Just watching the Labour Party conference out of curiosity.

    Oh dearie dearie me.

  29. @CMJ – agree that JC is in cloud cuckooland about Brexit. Labour _might_ get a better deal than Tories, but only because they would not draw such rigid red lines. I suspect JC’s ambition is to push May all the way but let her do the dirty work, and then pick up the pieces afterwards. I really don’t Labour actually want to negotiate Brexit.

  30. @Alan I would agree if someone else other than Corbyn was leader and more to the point, McDonnell was nowhere near No 11!

  31. @ Andy

    “Oh dearie dearie me.”

    Are you sure you’re not watching an old episode of a comedy program called The High Life? It was a catchphrase they often used, it sounds like you’re watching a comedy.

  32. Alan: “As an ex-con Remain voter, I see that 5 years of Corbyn would be less bad than a chaotic, unprepared for Brexit on those terms… I’m guessing those who are remain but would still vote Tory either hate Brexit a little less than me or hate Corbyn even more.”

    I kind of see where you’re coming from, but the thing is we’d still have an almighty Brexit mess even under a Labour government.

  33. @bantams

    As AW tirelessly explains ATL, people perceive things through the lens of their existing politics. People who see an action of Brussels as ‘bullying’ will be the people who saw them as bullies anyway. People who don’t, won’t.

    We’ll see soon enough if this latest spat affects the trackers but it would be surprising to see anything significant, previous ones didn’t.

    As for the hypothetical another vote, doesn’t seem to be any evidence that leave would win more emphatically (though I think describing 3.9% as empathic in the first place is rather overselling it), rather there is a small shift in the other direction, though one based predominantly on part the impact of time and part previous dk/didn’t vote breaking more to remain. Those actually changing minds seem to be very few on either side.

  34. @ JamesB

    I was a “soft” remainer last time and the perception of Brussels bullying is more a worry for me rather than my actually moving into the Leave camp. I’m right on the fence now.

    IF there’s another referendum or GE they will milk this for all it’s worth, we will see Tusk’s non cherry cake again and again.

  35. Andrew Myers: “…and more to the point, McDonnell was nowhere near No 11!”

    I’ll be honest, John McDonnell is a bit of an enigma, to me. I can’t work out whether he’s a radical Marxist who wants to see everything crash and burn, or just a guy looking out for the little people. He is developing some interesting ideas, not all of which are simply about state intervention. He does meet with business leaders, and they commonly don’t find him to be as hostile as they feared. He’s consulting, listening, and trying to build consensus, like a good politician should.

    But at the same time, this was a man who was actually happy to see the financial system collapse, because that was exactly how Marx prophesied the proletarian revolution would come about. Because, who cares about the shattered livelihoods of ordinary people, right? They were subordinate to McDonnell’s right to gloat, “I told you so”.

  36. Andrew Myers

    Currently it seems to be a judgement about which party will mess up the least. Ordinarily I would agree with you and vote Tory.

    As I don’t intend to be in the country in the short term, I’d vote for Corbyn and accept the short term damage.

  37. @Polltroll – I have heard this view put forward on more than one occasion, and find myself in agreement with some of the points. I would for instance, like to see huge organisations that pay no tax here hammered, particularly those that are replacing decent jobs with robots. I would also like better rights for those on sero hour contracts. As these people are in a limbo between employment and self employment, they should be compensated with a much higher minimum wage. I also find talk of a citizens income very interesting although have yet to be fully convinced. If new socialism heads down that sort of path then perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad thing. The problem is I don’t trust Old McDonnell to deliver it.

    @Alan – I might be doing the same. Moving abroad that is!!

  38. ToH in good form for his weekly visit, even triumphant it might be said. I am not sure, however, that he is right that the chance of ‘no deal’ is anything like 90%,

    Fortunately for the country, the conservative party and my own mental health, I am not Mrs May. If I were, however, I might reason like this.

    I want to keep myself in power, my party together and the country safe from the economic disaster of no deal, To do that I need to get through the conservative party conference and then strike a deal with the EU who want no deal almost, but sadly not quite, as little as ‘I do,

    To deal with my party ‘I must put it about that the EU is trying to bully me\us and that I am not having it. As the only thing that is not really agreed about the withdrawal agreement is the ‘Irish border I must be extra intransigent about that. Why not say they are trying to break up the UK. That will rally the troops or at least, if not them, the DUP.

    I am, however, worried about the economics of all this. Once we have withdrawn, we have much less negotiating strength than the E/U and there is no guarantee that we will get a decent trade deal with the E/U.let alone strike deals with anyone else in time to prevent irrevocable damage to our economy and social Fabric. That’s no doubt why the perfidious EU did not want to negotiate trade along with withdrawal,

    But I have an idea! Basically I need to stay in the common market for the foreseeable future, The only way to do solve the border issue is to do just that. And if we define managed divergence as something where change only happens through negotiation between sovereign states. That starts to look OK to me, because its not hat unlike Chequers.

    Furthermore I have some leverage in this as we have not yet paid the money. Nothing is agreed unti everything is agreed,I can tell the DUP that I am keeping the country together, the country that ‘I have pushed through my plan with my usual perseverance, the labour party that it can vote for no deal or back mine or get lost, and Brussels that we are bound to the central requirements of the common market by a treaty which we can only alter by negotiation, which we will never be in a position to do,

    Clearly presentation is all. But I am convinced in my heart of hearts that chequers is the only game in town, And after the conference I am going to play it.

    Why wouldn’t his work and has anyone got a better idea?

  39. New thread

1 6 7 8