ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian has topline figures, with changes from the last ICM poll, of CON 40%(-4), LAB 30%(-1), LDEM 19%(+1). The poll was conducted between the 17th and 19th April.

It shows a sharply different result from the two polls at the weekend, which were taken to show a big jump in the Tory lead. One of those polls was carried out by ICM’s sister company Marketing Sciences and I assumed it had been carried out using ICM’s methodology. If so the two polls are telling rather different stories!

This poll would have been conducted while the smear email saga was still all over the media, so it’s unlikely to be the case that there was a blip that immediately vanished again. This is actually the lowest Conservative lead in an ICM poll since December, which given the horrendous week Labour have had in the media seems a somewhat unlikely trend.

Tomorrow MORI’s monthly political monitor, which was also carried out over the weekend, should appear tomorrow and perhaps that will clear things up a bit – otherwise we’ll never know for sure the effect of the smear emails on Labour’s public support, since the next round of polls will be subject to whatever positive or negative effect the budget has.

Looking beyond the topline figures, the underlying trends are rather better for the Conservatives. Cameron & Osborne now have a 10 point lead over Brown & Darling as the most trusted team to run the economy, up from 2 points the last time ICM asked the question in January. The Conservatives are also seen as the party most likely to “use power honestly” – backed by 29% to Labour’s 20% and the Lib Dems 13% (implying that 38% of people wouldn’t trust any of them).


64 Responses to “ICM shows no “smeargate” effect”

1 2
  1. Thanks Anthony.

  2. Having seen the table, I’d be interested to read your views in general, and on the “party identifier” figures – how they were weighted to avoid an undue influence by the size of the Labour-identified section.

    Presumably Labour voters are more likely to support efforts to close loopholes and raise taxes on the highest earners.

  3. I’d like to associate myself with Peter’s remark.

  4. Me too – there’s far too much poverty concentrated in the hands of so many.

    What gets me is the inherent unfairness of inherited poverty. Why should so many of these little kids grow up and go through life without ever knowing what wealth really means?

    I’m not saying all poverty is bad – some of it is well-deserved and those who have achieved great poverty despite, say, growing up in abundant wealth, should be allowed to enjoy their poverty.

    At least we should provide some education so that they can find out how the other 5% lives.

    Also, every effort should be made to lift the supremely wealthy out of their slough of despondency and into a society that recognises that, although poverty isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, a little bit of it can go a long way to enriching a person’s life.

  5. john:-

    ” Income is taxed twice when you go out and spend it. Also, if you save, the interest is taxed, capital gains are taxed. All tax is viewed as unfair to some extent, and we’d rather do without it. The gains your pension fund makes are taxed. ”

    Interest & capital gains are “income”-albeit “unearned” in the quaint terminology of the tax tomes.
    Pension fund gains are income.

    These are all mandatory first time taxes on new income.

    Tax on consumption is to some extent discretionary-but I agree that it is largely mandatory given one basic VAT rate.

    Peter:-

    “What does that leave us with… taxing poverty?”

    No of course not-that’s just silly.

    What is left is tax on income with the higher earners paying more tax than lower earners. How “more tax” is defined is of course subject to political viewpoint.

    Also what is left is relevant, sensible, appropriate , efficient use of those taxes by those who levy them-be they Central Governments, Devolved Administrations or Local Authorities.

  6. “Also what is left is relevant, sensible, appropriate , efficient use of those taxes by those who levy them”

    A remarkable definition of “left”, but one with which i wholly concur, Colin. thank-you and welcome to the right side of the argument!

  7. “welcome to the right side of the argument!”

    Good to see you on this side too john!!

  8. “there’s far too much poverty ”

    Which poverty did you mean john?

    The UK definition of falling below some arbitrary percentage of national income, whilst living in a country which provides welfare, education & healthcare out of other peoples taxes?

    Or perhaps poverty of parental care, or cultural poverty -or just poverty of ambition?

    Or maybe you meant real poverty like this :-

    The 1.1 billion people in developing countries who have inadequate access to water, and the 2.6 billion who lack basic sanitation.

    In the “developing world” :-
    The 640 million children without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
    The 400 million children with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
    The 270 million children with no access to health services (1 in 7)

    The 121 million children out of education.

    Or just simply the billion people who entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.?

  9. Colin – read my post again and imagine swapping the words “wealth” awith “poverty”. It was a fairly light-hearted response to Peter’s little comment.

    This isn’t the place for boring debate about definitions of poverty , but I’d define it as a lack of sustenance, and then define “sustenance” in terms that allowed a comparison with the next street as well as with the next continent.

    Like I said, let’s not argue about this, it’s too dull.

  10. “Like I said, let’s not argue about this, it’s too dull.”

    I don’t agree at all that it is a dull subject john-but very happy not to argue with you about it …particularly since you have become less “sinister” !

  11. Excellent! I hesitate to describe you as less “dextrous”, as I’ve always known you secretly agree with everything I write.

  12. Damian McBride is a very bad man. He might have upset David and George’s feelings, are Labour resulting to playground tactics?

    Another naughty person is Jaqui, someone should phone her parents and tell them about her behaviour. She is stealing the public money, and using it to fund her illegal drugs ring. OOps, I just made a smear comment, how do you like that McBride?

    Another week has gone by, and Conservatives and Lib Dems have done………

    well nothing.

    However the Conserves continue to have more support. Conserves, not conservatives. Yes thats right, I suuport Jam.

    The Greens continued to talk about trees, and eat leaves hoping that one day, someone would take pity on them, and decide to give them a vote.

    Ukip, quietly confident of a June Election win in Europe, complained to whoever deals with copyright, that Libertas was stealing their ideas, and that there was room for only one Eurosceptic pressure froup, OOPS, I mean party, in the UK.

    SNP, Plaid Cymru, and of course Sinn Fein, all had a nice meeting about how best to give the English a kick in the nuts.

    That leaves the poor UK votes with not much to vote for. I might send a vote Christian Democrats way, and leave the current crisis in Gods hands. But then again, I’m not even sure he can fix Gordon’s mess.

1 2