ComRes has a new poll in tomorrow’s Independent with, for want of a better description, frankly odd results. The topline figures with changes from ComRes’s last poll are CON 30%(-10), LAB 22%(+1), LDEM 18%(nc).

These results are clearly grossly out of line with other companies – why? The reason isn’t a change in opinion, this poll was conducted at exactly the same time as MORI’s poll. Over at Political Betting Mike Smithson is focusing on ComRes’s past vote weighting, which has shifted significantly in Labour’s favour this month. Unlike Populus and ICM, whose political weightings are practically static from month to month – thus fulfilling the purpose of ensuring that the political make up of each month’s sample is stable – ComRes’s seem to change from one month to the next.

I’m struck by the high proportion of “others” in the poll. UKIP are at 7%, the Greens at 8%, the BNP at 3%, SNP and PC at 3%. These are all perfectly believable and in line with other companies. However, unlike anyone else ComRes also have 9% voting for “other others” – far out of line with everybody else.

I’m reminded of Populus’s last review of their methodology: people who said they were going to vote for “another party” used to be included in others, even if they didn’t know who for. Populus changed their policy so if people didn’t name a party they were classed as don’t know. If ComRes include people who don’t know what “other party” they’ll vote for, it’s a potential reason behind that big “other other” score.

Alternatively of course, MORI could be wrong (the changes in party support are, after all, just as extreme as ComRes’s) and the Conservatives could suddenly have seen their support collapse over the weekend. Personally, however, I’d be amazed if YouGov, Populus or ICM produced figures to support this poll.

103 Responses to “ComRes show collapse in Conservative support”

1 2 3
  1. Promsan,

    In one of your posts above you touched on a point which was recently raised by the Archbishop of Canterbury (and the RC Archibishop in Scotland) which is that we do not hear our political leaders making a stand on moral issues of “right” and “wrong”.

    To a large extent this is a consequence of the “liberation” philosphy of the 1960s or the concept of “moral relativism”. Actually, both are primarily selfish inasmuch as what is “right” is determined by what any individual hapens to consider “right” for themselves, so there are no absolute or universal values.

    The generation which grew up in the 60s/70s who felt most strongly about this approach went on to work in media and public services, labelling themselves as “progressive”. Roy Jenkins described it as “bien-pensant” – the implication being that anyone who thought differently was bad. From this developped the concept of “political correctness” – which is plain totalitarianism if looked at objectively.

    Whenever any politician has tried to make a stand based on moral values, they have been ridiculed by this self-appointed clicque, led most notably by our publicly-funded broadcaster.

    Prime examples are Frank Field and Iain Duncan-Smith, but also look at what happened to John Major when he launched “back to basics” in an attempt to bring back some morality. The media immediately jumped on some examples of individual misbehaviour to rubbish the concept which threatened their world-view.

    If we want to reconnect politics with morality, we need to reform our media, or we are asking for characters with incredible courage to stand up to them.

    It may be possible. In the past few weeks I have heard more prayers in church for our politicians and leaders than I can ever recall in the past.

  2. jimjam

    not remotely convinced… since they gave up clause 4, they gave up any pretence to a core philosophy any different than that of Blair Light and Blair Lighter.

    P h-j

    I am a determinist, not a religous-ist.
    The reason why morality is something they daren’t touch, is because moral relativism dictates that “good” may not be defined; and if “good” cannot be defined, then “good” cannot be done.

    My definition of “good” and morality, stems from a “first principles” approach, and travelling via Plato, Darwin, and Popper.
    I would never hand over the determination of morality to a man in a dress waving an ancient book of fairy stories!
    Morality can be defined in terms of systems; and in my view, should be defined as rather like a vector than scalar concept: the direction being the persistence of the system. It just so happens that “the 7 deadly sins” concur conveniently with “systemic errors” in the moral logic of the system (in my view).

  3. “different than ”

    different from (god I’m turning into an American like those bloody sentence inflectors!)

1 2 3