Populus and ICM have now also released figures from instant polls conducted straight after last night’s debate. In the Times’s Populus poll 37% of viewers thought Cameron had won, 36% said Clegg and 27% Gordon Brown. In ICM’s reaction poll for the Guardian Clegg came first on 33%, with Brown and Cameron both on 29%.

Putting all five of the proper instant reaction polls together, Clegg leads in 3 of them, Cameron in 2. All five have the three leaders pretty close together – Brown trails the most in Angus Reid, who tend to deliver lower figures for Labour anyway.


216 Responses to “Populus and ICM post debate polls”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. I hate the fact that people are complaining about the articles in the newspapers critisizing Nick Clegg. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been in the spotlight for years now and if Nick Clegg wants to be seen as a potential leader he should come under that spotlight. He has actually brought a lot of this on himself by claiming to be the one to clean up the politics of the two old corrupt parties when in fact he is as corrupt as any of them himself. He claimed thousands and thousands of taxpayers money renevating a delapedated house in the knowledge that he would be able to sell it at a hudge profit to himself. He claimed over a million pound in lavish MEP expenses and some that in my opinion should be counted as fraud as they would if it was us doing it. The Lib – Dem party in my opinion should be forced to pay back £2.5m in stolen money that was donated to them by a convicted fraudster. The Lib-Demsa are refusing to pay back this money to the innocent people that the money was stolen from and I find that disgusting. So my point is I could not care less who is in the papers and what scrutiny they come under, if they suddenly have the possibility of affecting our lives and our country people should be reminded of what sort of person and party they are. All parties have let everyone of us down but I hate the fact that NC is conning people in to believing he is the saviour when his is clearly not. If he was a straight politician there would not be expense claims to be questioned by the papers in the first place. So please stop defending a corrupt politician just because he is flavour of the month because it is your money that he is spending on himself. No wonder some politicians are so corrupt when people moan about papers highlighting thier corruption rather than moaning about that politicians abuse.. Rant over.

  2. @ Eoin Clarke
    You wrote “In addition, at 10.30am on the 21/04/10 4 newspapers owned by the Murdoch group wiped the Liberal Democrats off the the top perch…. ”

    As a fellow historian, I wonder what would have happened if the Murdoch Group had switched camps to Clegg on the very same day, and praised him to the heavens stating that he only “needs 3% more to be the largest party and 6% more for a majority” – would his money have secured a political revolution?

    We shall sadly never know now – but I suspect he might have?

  3. Amber Star
    @ RICHARD O

    RE: Chicken thing…

    DC is a huge fan of the US TV show The WestWing. In that show, a candidate who is afraid to debate policies is followed around by a man dressed as a chicken – so Dave should not be discombobulated by it

    More serious is a story about 2 councillors following John Prescott around (wearing masks, they allegedly assaulted two women campaign workers in their attempts to reach John Prescott). They were arrested by local police.

    Mr Pickles has launched an investigation & will suspend their party membership if they are councillors or members of his party.

    The chicken thing pales in comparison to this, I think.
    *********************************************
    Couldn’t Prescott just punch one of them back? ;-)

  4. @JayBlanc: But some of them are. There was a lot of Jewish hostility shown in a hustings held in a synagogue. The Tory candidate supported Israel’s invasion of Gaza & considered the Israelis’ actions had not been disproportionate.

  5. @Ian McKay

    ‘A little confused by your logic!’
    0.2% is double 0.1%. So 1st Q 2010 growth figure is double what was announced final Q 2009.

    Exactly! So 0.2% is a DECREASE from the revised figure of 0.4% for the 4th Q 2009. That means it shows GDP slowing. Revised figures for 1st Q 2010 may put that figure 0.2% up or down. IMO considering, the weather at the time I don’t think the full effects have shown in the figures yet. I think therefore it will be downgraded rather than upgraded, but that is my opinion and not based on any facts at the moment.

    The purpose of my post was to show that you were implying that because 4th Q 2009 GDP was upgraded last time then the 1st Q 2010 would be upgraded. That opinion is about just as valid as mine that it will be downgraded. We just don ‘t know at the moment.

    If GB mentions the GDP rise in the way you have done, the natural reply is 4th Q 2009 0.4%, 1st Q 2010 0.2%. Rate of increase slashed in 1 month and you GB think this is good news!

  6. @Tony Dean

    That is a very interesting hypothetical, particularly in the light of Michael Tomasky’s post here:

    h t t p ://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/apr/22/rupert-murdoch-david-cameron

    I am finding this election’s “old vs new media” narrative very interesting. If the tories do not win, then whoever does will have a very clear mandate to tell Murdoch to get stuffed :)

  7. @ Eoin Clarke

    I’m quite happy with the moral high ground.

    You clearly prefer the moral low ground occupied by a party that still has three house flippers on its front bench and benefits from a funding system that is chock-full of corruption, with no intention to change it.

  8. Parag/Amber
    Local political campaigning – does it work? People are perhaps interested so I’ll give an idea of how it works… It is relevant to this site because it relates the polls to what happens on the ground

    The answer is yes, but unless there are big local issues it does not make more than a % or two difference for Labour or the Tories in a general election. It is different for the Lib Dems – every seat they hold defeats the “natural tendency” of voters by at least 10%. Lib dems have to work MUCH harder than the others to get elected, and in my rather partisan view that tends to make them better MPs

    At local council level local campaigning makes a huge difference, and the Lib Dems have shown that by simply delivering 4 leaflets a year and actually taking the trouble to find out what local people want, they can win any council seat in the country. Believe me it is hard work for a few people though in metropolitan wards! there are 9000 houses in my ward and it takes an hour to deliver 100 leaflets – do the maths!

    The Lib Dems have shown time and again that local votes do increase general election votes in a constituency as people get used to the idea that a Lib Dem vote is not wasted – it is not enough though. A good showing of posters and an avalanche of leaflets in the campaign is just designed to show people that the Lib dems CAN win in the big vote. What the leaflets say matters very little in general, with mainly the result last time and the qualities of the candidate being the essence of them. The parties believe a lot in target letters but I don’t think they make much difference. Target letters to groups like students can make a difference

    Doorstep canvassing can really make a difference. I always reckon that if I talk to 20 people I can win one vote – but that is about as many as i can do in a 2 hour doorstep session, believe it or not. Most people don’t like going canvassing and even in a target seat if you get 10 people out in an evening you are doing well. With 40,000 houses in a constituency you can see why most people complain they have never been canvassed. Telephone canvassing is quicker but in my view less effective – many people are very resistant these days and if a canvasser phones me I try and make sure they never do it again by asking them questions about who they are, where they are calling from, who is paying for it and whether it is declared in the election expenses!!

    BUT you can’t beat the swing completely by local campaigning. I organised the Lib dem campaign in leeds NW in 1997. We started in second place, had the best candidate and ran the best campaign, I thought. But Labour came through to win in the Blair landslide and we went down from 29% to 23%. I was absolutely shattered and didn’t even deliver a leaflet again until this year. But the swing against us was the lowest in Yorkshire and I like to think that our hard work in 97 paved the way for the Lib Dem victory in Leeds NW in 2005 – a seat I am confident will be held this time.

    Hope this slightly personal account helps – mostly I have nothing but respect for local activists of all the main parties (I leave out the BNP!) and in my view most people actively involved in politics are actually trying to do some good.

    Andrew

  9. @Derek Pierson
    “As I’ve said before, the main hurdle is the wasted vote perception, though with a 20% Jewish vote, the LibDem stance on Israel is another hurdle.”

    You need only read the articles and letters pages in the Jewish Chronicle to see that there is no monolithic “Jewish vote”. All shades of opinion, from Likud to Communist by way of secular nationalism are represented. In this week’s issue, an article attacking the Lib Dems for not getting rid of Jenny Tonge is balanced by an article by Lynn Featherstone explaining the LibDem stance on Israel. Any group who can accomodate Gerald Kauffman, Danny Finkelstein and Baroness Julia Neuberger in its ranks cannot be considered a voting bloc.

  10. @Andrew McCaig

    I grew up in Leeds NW (Otley) and my parents still live there… based on the folk I talk to there, it has no chance of being anything other than yellow on May 7th. :)

  11. @Matt

    ‘This would strongly indicate that the Tories would change the boundaries, if elected’

    Not quite true. A non-partisan committee called the Boundaries Commission looked at the relative sizes of the electorate in each constituency and reported in 2007. Seats and individual constituency boundaries are then adjusted to stop any bias due to electorate size. That is why in this election some regions have fewer seats, why boundaries have been redrawn and why we have notional voting figures/majorities, why some seats now with say Lab MPs are shown as notionally held by another party, why the swingometer shows the Con figure already +17 and Lab -12 and the total number of seats increased by 5 to 650.

    No govt of any shade controls this assessment process. The Boundary Commission has recently been incorporated into an Electorial Commission(?) but the next assessment would not be due until about 2014.

    There is an excellent explanation to all this readily available on this very page. Go to the ‘ARTICLES AND FAQs’ area on this page, click on ‘ELECTORAL BIAS’ and it is all explained.

  12. @Adam etc.

    An interesting contribution from the BBC’s Nick Robinson about yesterday’s smear campaign:

    ” I now learn that political reporters from the Tory-backing papers were called in one by one to discuss how Team Cameron would deal with “Cleggmania” and to be offered Tory HQ’s favourite titbits about the Lib Dems – much of which appears in today’s papers.

    The key personal allegation about payments from donors into Nick Clegg’s personal
    bank account came, however, from the Telegraph’s expenses files. Incidentally, the party has now published details of Nick Clegg’s bank statements and party accounts showing that Mr Clegg received payments totalling £19,690 from three businessmen (Neil Sherlock, Michael Young, Ian Wright) and then paid staff costs of £20,437.30 out of the same account.

    According to these figures, Mr Clegg actually paid £747.30 out of his own money towards staff costs.”

    So he actually paid in £747 of his own money yet is canvassed as a thief in Tory newspapers. For which he loses valuable percentage points in the polls. And you call that justice?

  13. Will M,

    Good to hear. Otley is a hotbed of political activity for all 3 parties, generally. Labour won Otley by a mile in 1997 so it just shows how times have changed!

    Before this election started I expected the Lib Dems to fall back to 20% and 50 seats, so the present situation is a bit of a shock!

    Andrew

  14. ht tp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/23/leaders-debate-complaints-nick-clegg

  15. FrankG

    This is why Cameron is so keen to reduce the number of MPs – it will force another boundary review and the easiest place to lose seats will be in the cities. It will take years and cost plenty of money however, and in my view constituencies are plenty big enough for an MP who does his/her job properly to look after. Cutting them by 100 will make a minimal diference financially

    It is interesting that despite all the effort of the last review, rural seats are still bigger than inner city ones and there is still labour bias. Introducing PR ( not AV) would be a quicker, easier and fairer way of sorting out the problem!

    Andrew

  16. I always felt the mucky path of Clegg mud slinging would find it’s way back to Tory HQ.

    Too much co-incidence that on the day of the debate, each and every pro-Con paper was pushing this anti-Clegg message – this could seriously blow up in their face and makes their protestations regarding Labour leaflet hypocritical to put it mildly.

  17. Judging by some of the outrageous rants here AW must be at TGIF duties!
    Seriously, have you all had a look at the ICM tables. IIRC, last time, ICM carried out a further poll with another 500 and then published it as a 1000 poll.

    So we should get a result soon. I got the distinct impression that this time (a well as yesterday) our bold forecaster from Belfast may be more than 1% out for tonight’s polls.

    That’s if there are any.

  18. @ Robert C

    It was very naive of NC to pay money into his personal account when other options were available. He’s in a situation of his own making here, politicians who make “holier than thou” statements should check for cracks in their glass houses first. I think there may be a lot more NC stories coming out over the next week, kitchens, cake tins, economy and business class flights etc.

  19. are clegg and brown trying to dig up dirt on cameron ?

    because if the tory press attack proves to win them a few votes , then the dirty politics war is back on

  20. ROBERT C

    Clegg “canvassed as a thief in Tory newspapers.”

    I have have found no reference in any newspaper to them calling Clegg a thief. Perhaps you could draw one to my attention.

    In any event you have missed the key point about the Telegraph article. It highlighted a possible weakness in Clegg’s judgement and raised questions about why did the money go through his account ? These questions have still be answered.

    It is rather sad of you to mention justice. Just look at the many lies in the left wing press about the Tories -over several months – which will have cost the Tories
    points.

  21. @ Steve

    With regard to the Telegraph story NC didn’t do anything illegal, didn’t break any parliamentary rules, didn’t profit personally in any way (he actually made a loss), so what exactly DID he do wrong? Please explain – i’m dying to know.

  22. I read in the last few minutes that he paid out £700+ more to workers from his bank account than he’d been given to pay them.

  23. /But are these intention to vote polls, or whp won the debate? Surely there’s a difference as not all parties were in the debate, and therefore is it a fair representative to be included in the averages?

  24. Simply by carrying the story on its front page the Telegraph raised unfounded doubts among its readership about what Nick Clegg had done with the money – The story was also aired on Sky News in front of an audience of millions in clear breach of the rules of the debate.

    Smearing him was the clear intention and it succeeded in doing just that.

    They said he had questions to answer and when he was given enough time, he answered them. But they went ahead and published all the same.

    It is an outrage. Pure and simple.

  25. @Robert C

    I think Nick Clegg’s expenses should have been scrutinised. He is the one who placed himself on the pedestal of purity, slinging mud at the “old politics”. Of course tabloids are going to try and knock him off, they are interested in selling papers.

    I’m more concerned with the fact he “bought a total dump” and did it up under taxpayer expense increasing it’s value tremendously.

    Surely if he bought a second home it should have been fit for purpose to begin with and not used the taxpayer to pay for renovations. This is getting close to the “dry rot” fiasco and rightly it should be investigated.

    Nick Clegg played a dangerous tactic with the “a plague on both your houses” and if it is backfiring a little now the media have investigated him with more scrutiny so be it. He has still benefited more than he has suffered from the strategy.

    He wants to play with the big boys, media scrutiny is part of that. I’m sure Cameron’s and Gordon’s expenses have been equally scrutinised. This isn’t Nickophobia, it’s journalism.

  26. Over a 100 complaints to Ofcom regarding Boulton’s performance as moderator – Kay Burley should get double that – she’s like a Mail columnist that’s found herself on TV.

  27. It’s worth pointing out that the Telegraph’s headline for their story this morning — now Nick Clegg has released the bank statements — was “General Election 2010: Nick Clegg admits £20,000 was paid into his account”. I mean, seriously, come on!

  28. @ Alan

    ” I’m sure Cameron’s and Gordon’s expenses have been equally scrutinised”

    How much have the tabloid press mentioned about Cameron taking out maximum taxpayer funded second home loan of £350,000 on his constituency home and then miraculously paying off a £75,000 loan on his London home just four months later? Or the fact that shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley received £21,000 to run his office from private health company Care UK, setting up a massive conflict of interest?

    I’ll bet you that you hadn’t heard of either of those before.

    And don’t even mention Osborne. He won’t even disclose how he funds his office.

  29. Does anyone know when the first 3 post debate voter intention polls are being published and by whom? I presume You Gov tonight?

  30. Robert C Nick Clegg claimed £80,000 in expenses renevating his house. When he could have bought a house already in working condition he chose instead to buy a run down property knowing he could spend tax payers money decorating it with new kitches, bathrooms, gardening etc etc the list goes on he claimed the very maximum that he was aloud to every single year. He knew that when it came to selling that house he would stand to make a fortune out of the taxpayer. He should have asked to be a guest on property ladder. He has claimed dodgy expenses as an MEP. The Lib-Dems are funded by a convicted fraudster using stolen money from innocent people for their party and refusing to give it back. I do not care if it was David Cameron or Gordon Brown or any other politician that has provided the stories because it just highlights what a fraudster Nick Clegg is when he claims to be the man to change politics because at every stage of his political career eIther as an MP or MEP he has taken the maximum that he can get away with from the taxpayer and that is not what this country needs. I would love the country to have more larger parties but not ones that are corrupt with corrupt leaders. Still keep defending fraudster. By the way what do you think the Lib-dems should do with the £2.5m in stolen money they have received from a convicted fraudster. should they give it back to the innocent victims or should they keep it like they are?

  31. @Robert C

    I do not hold with this type of smear campaigning as much as I don’t hold with ‘fear’ leaflets. Explain your own policies, point out errors in your opponents policies, but don’t make up deliberate lies about them! It is dirty politics and I deplore it.

    However what you have said did not include all the truth did it?. The 3 donations I think were specific for a particular post in NC’s staff. Did all the donation go towards that post or was some inadvertently used in other areas of ‘staff costs’. If the former he is whiter than white and should get the credit. If the later then he has committed an error of judgement. None of this would have been necessary if he had kept his political and private accounting separate as is the recommended way for accounting.

    Remember during the 1st dedate both GB and DC stated that ALLparties were to blame for the expenses scandal, only NC tried to make political capital by claiming it was all the Cons and Lab fault. That was a cheap bid for ‘popular’ sentiment and unworthy. Some would say he brought it on himself that there would be a backlash unless he was whiter than white.

  32. @Adam

    You keep wittering on about Michael Brown, yet that was five years ago before the LAST election and well before Nick Clegg even became leader. It was also cleared by the relevant authority, the electoral commission.Michael Brown’s dodgy dealings only emerged much later.

    The difference is, whatever happened in the past, the Lib Dems have policies to take these huge sums of money out of politics, with a maximum £50,000 personal contribution.

    The Tories don’t want to change and positively revel in the vast slush funds they get from their foreign sugar daddies.

  33. @FrankG

    “only NC tried to make political capital by claiming it was all the Cons and Lab fault. ”

    Look back at the transcript of the debate and you are wrong. He never said that.

  34. And who is in control of this election?; look at the hysteria here and we are meant to be reasonable people.

    The more LD make the news the more they will keep their percentage, especially when the best the tory / Murdoch can do is really rather silly smears. The perception, if the LD are always in the headlines, is that they are no longer the third party but an equal contender. They could never have hoped for this.

    LD will clean sweep in the SW of England and destrot Tory chances of winning, so ensuring a PR Upper House and preferntial voting in the lower house so making tories unelectable …

  35. I have an opinion why the funds went into Clegg’s personal account. IMHO the donors wanted change in the LibDems & didn’t want to risk the money going to supporting Menzies Campbell. Clegg should have set up a separate account, so he failed in that respect.

  36. Still at it everyone?
    Frankly your posts would have been more ‘useful’ on the posts page of the newspaper concerned than boring the pants off a small bunch of polling anoraks such as we.

  37. “You clearly prefer the moral low ground ”

    Robert C,

    from what I gather, though matters it not, you are a LibD. Historically, your party has a lot to be proud of. See Gladstone’s Heart of Midlothian campaign of 1879. The credentials of a moral party that do the right thing are self evident.

    If you seek to be regarded in high terms then you must act so. Throwing mud at whatever person or party yields little comfort to the protagonist.

    Upon reflection, you will probably regret accusing me of that,

  38. @ Adam.

    “Brown and Cameron have been under the media spotlight for years.”
    Do you honestly believe that?
    I’ve always thought the press have given C a really easy ride.
    For example, he got off really lightly over the expenses saga despite the large sums he claimed for his second home, an hour away from London.
    Not bad goingfor a multi-millionaire!

  39. Can someone help me? Just for my tally of which party I support, can you please tell me which party Robert C was referring to? In my 2.10pm post

  40. @ Howard

    “AW must be at TGIF duties”

    I had a perfectly reasonable point moderated last night and it is still not appeared so maybe Anthony is embroiled in something else. And I and another poster asked if the UKPR Polling Average tables could be updated beyond the 20th, at least 6 more recent polls missing but no sign yet.

    Shame it’s the numbers, trends and weightings that drew me to this site not the politicking.

  41. “DC is a huge fan of the US TV show The WestWing. In that show, a candidate who is afraid to debate policies is followed around by a man dressed as a chicken – so Dave should not be discombobulated by it ”

    It should be pointed out however, that the candidate was the frontrunner for the entire campaign but was destroyed by a previously unknown politician who exposes him as being without substance.

  42. Tony Dean

    187 out of 187 newspapers owned worldwide by the proprietor you mention, backed editorially the invasion of Iraq. He even gave an interview claiming it would halve the oil price to $20, and that the boost to the economy would be eqivalent to 2% off corporation tax.

  43. @Robert C

    GB and DC were both specific using ‘us’ and ‘we’ ie inclusive. NC chose to use ‘you’ which is non inclusive and a gesture towards the other two.

    I am not defending this type of smear campaigning or smear debating. I do not like it. I think that the particular form of debates being used is deliberately ‘confrontational’, but that seems to be the ‘big brother’/’X factor’ way. I happen to think the election is more than just a quiz show.

  44. @Andrew McCaig
    Fascinating insight, thanks for that

  45. Blimey
    I was a bit worried my previous post might seem too partisan. Then I read some of the more recent stuff!

  46. @ Valerie

    “the press have given C a really easy ride”

    And the Bullingdon Club?
    Eton background?
    Had he ever taken drugs?
    Tory toff?
    Cycling with a security car behind him?
    All been featured widely on TV and pictured in the papers

  47. Adam,

    Why are you quoting all this stuff about Clegg doing up his house without including what Clegg has to say (which is even in the Telegraph if you bother to read the whole article).

    “Repairs made will have affected the value of my constituency home. That is why I have always said that when I sell this house I will give any profit back to the taxpayer.

    “I am the only senior MP who has voluntarily made this commitment.

    “It should be the taxpayer, not me, who benefits from any increase in the value of this home.”

    I well remember Clegg trying to make it a Commons rule that MPs would return all profit made on selling their second home to the taxpayer, but the rest of them did not accept that

    Andrew

  48. “details of Nick Clegg’s bank statements and party accounts showing that Mr Clegg received payments totalling £19,690 from three businessmen (Neil Sherlock, Michael Young, Ian Wright) and then paid staff costs of £20,437.30 out of the same account.”

    I must be missing something. Is it usual practice for businessmen to pay money into an MP’s account that is then used to pay that MP’s staff?

  49. I think formerly the usual practice was that the money was not used to pay staff

    ;-)

  50. Clegg on housing allowance from the horse’s mouth (in May 2009)

    h ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047551.stm

1 2 3 4 5