The full tables for the Ipsos MORI for the Labour party are now out.

Asking ALL respondents, the figures were Livingstone 44%, Johnson 33%, Paddick 16%, Berry 4%. Once all but the top two candidates were elminated and second preferences re-allocated the result becomes Livingstone 51%, Johnson 41% (the figures don’t sum to 100% because some people were not reallocated, presumably because they gave second preference votes to candidates that had already been eliminated).

Using MORI’s standard filter on likelihood to vote, which is to take only those 10/10 certain to vote, the figures are LIVINGSTONE 42%, JOHNSON 38%, PADDICK 16%, BERRY 2%. When the second preferences of those certain to vote are reallocated, the final result becomes LIVINGSTONE 48%, JOHNSON 46%.

Interestingly these don’t tally with the figures released by the press yesterday – I think that’s because those figures had not been repercentaged to exclude don’t knows and won’t votes.

As I said this morning the poll is already a fortnight old and was conducted prior to Lee Jasper’s suspension and the negative publicity that brought Ken Livingstone (though I suspect the contrast with the more recent YouGov poll that showed Boris ahead on first preferences is more to do with methodology than a shift in support). Either way, with only 2% between them on the second count, the race appears to be very, very close.


15 Responses to “Ipsos MORI have Boris and Ken within 2 points”

  1. Anything on the Assembly vote?

  2. James – it may well have been asked, but MORI only have to release the tables for the bits of the poll that have been released into the public domain, so Labour can’t keep those bits to themselves.

  3. Mojority Londoner’s will never vote Boris Johnson, because he do not represent the real factors that made London one of the best City worldwide.

    The real matters are ;- Whom Londoner’s can trust in terms of running London effectively and efficiently.

  4. Given the on going debate about Heathrow I suspect that the greens might do better this time than last although I am along way away to make comment.

    Unlike FPTP PR lets those who have the environment as there No 1 issue have a chance to get a party that supports it in to the assembly. having said that it’s the way in for the BNP too.

    I know someone raised the issue of changing the voting system if the BNP make a breakthrough, but I think that’s the wrong approach. If it’s out there in numbers sufficient to get someone elected then lets bring it out in to the open and confront it rather than change the rules to hide our dirty secret.

    Peter.

    Peter.

  5. GRASSROOTS,

    “The real matters are ;- Whom Londoner’s can trust in terms of running London effectively and efficiently”.

    Boy is London in trouble….

    Peter.

  6. PETER said :- “I know someone raised the issue of changing the voting system if the BNP make a breakthrough, but I think that’s the wrong approach. If it’s out there in numbers sufficient to get someone elected then lets bring it out in to the open and confront it rather than change the rules to hide our dirty secret.”

    I have to agree with you on your first point that a voting system should’nt be changed to help the undemocratic parties block other democratic parties like the BNP – but i did’nt understand your comment about the BNP being a “dirty secret” .

    It’s just a shame in this country that ALL political parties of whatever persuasion cannot be heard whatever their views as in the USA – surely that’s freedom of speech !!

    The day left wing people get off their high and mighty soap boxes and proclaim what other people say is wrong and they are right is ended – it will be a better day for democracy in this country – so let’s stop this hounding of smaller parties like the BNP or whoever and accept that they have as much right to freedom of speech as anyone else !

  7. To put the discussion back on track – this POLL for London should be just as scary for Mr.Livingstone as the other one this week – roll on May and the real result !

  8. Mike,

    I have no problem with the ideal of freedom of speech and the BNP’s right to exist, where we will never meet is in your contention that the left or anyone else is have no right to say what they think is right and wrong.

    I believe that the ideology of the BNP is racist, sick and immoral and will always say so. In short to advocate different treatment on the basis of race is wrong.

    You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say “free speech” and then claim that no one can make claims about what is right or wrong, unless you’ve suddenly done a u-turn and become an advocate of political correctness where all views have equal value and no one should criticise anyone else.

    If you have then I would expect your average posts to change substantially in length content and frequency.

    Peter.

  9. Sky News reports that Boris is to receive the full treatment at the Labour Spring Conference.

    Hazel Blears is expected to say: “Boris is no joke. He’s a nasty, right-wing elitist, with odious views and criminal friends like Conrad Black.”

    Free speech alive and well in Ms Blear’s hands then-along with the class war.

    Anyone detecting a small incoming tide of Old Labour?- Praise for Fidel/Praise for Nationalising NR/Full employment Rights for temporary workers/Down with Toffs etc. etc.

  10. Maybe Boris Johnson is/was friends with Conrad Black? But what about senior Labour figures and their association with the late Rober Maxwell? ;)

  11. “I believe that the ideology of the BNP is racist, sick and immoral and will always say so. In short to advocate different treatment on the basis of race is wrong.”

    Its not just the left who can think that. I believe that the ideology of the BNP is racist, sick and immoral and will always say so. I think that to advocate different treatment on the basis of race is wrong and always will be.

    Free speech entails not just the BNP spouting their vapid bile, but allows all sane individuals of whatever political persuasion to reply in turn and call a spade a spade saying that it is hate-filled bile.

  12. Well said Phil.

    Peter.

  13. While the BNP are a concern, they really have very little support amongst voters (0.7% of national vote and only 48 councillors out of 10,661). I think the real achievment of the BNP has been to skew the political debate by even this minor showing. Of course we should discuss, debate and challenge their views, but we shouldn’t get carried away and think that they are a bigger threat than they are.

  14. Alasdair-I think that is far too convenient a way of dismissing the BNP.
    They will never be a nationwide force, unless something goes badly wrong with UK politics.

    But they are a presence of significance in certain areas.They have around 5% of councillors in Sandwell,10% of councillors in Stoke on Trent, and Epping Forest; and 25% in Barking & Dagenham.

    What is it that their constituents have turned to them for in these wards & areas?

    Unless their mainstream political oponents can answer that question & put forward an acceptable alternative in those areas, BNP will presumably continue to get elected.

    Simply reciting a catalogue of the BNP’s awfullness doesn’t contribute to removing them. Indeed, adopting such a holier than thou stance will only make the people who voted for them, feel more abandoned & cause them to turn to the BNP out of frustration.

    If their constituents have demands and aspirations which are considered unreasonable let us have the courage to say so to them-but don’t complain then when they turn to the BNP for help.

  15. Hi Colin, I agree. I don;t mean to dismiss the BNP, just put them in some kind of context. To listen to the amount of reference they get one would think they were a major force in the country. We should deal with the issues, but we must be careful of tailoring policy to face the threats raised by very minor parties, any more than we should introduce Sharia law because 0.8% of the national population might be in support…

    I suspect that there are probably specific local issues in play in the areas where the BNP have done well.