I am away from the computer properly until later tonight, but we’ve already got some of Sunday morning’s polls out.

So far ICM in the Sunday Telegraph are showing CON 36%, LAB 29%, LDEM 27%. There is a second ICM poll in the News of the World of marginal seats which I’ll look at properly later – the News of the World are saying it predicts a Tory majority of 4.

Angus Reid in the Sunday Express have CON 35%, LAB 23%, LDEM 29%.

ComRes in the Sunday Mirror have CON 38%, LAB 28%, LDEM 25%.

Definitely YouGov to come later, and probably more. I’ll update properly then.

UPDATE: Traffic keeps knocking the site down tonight – I’ve switched off comments for now. My original plan was to set up a second cut down site with seperate hosting to allow people to comment on the eve of the election and election night when the traffic would definitely bring the site down, but it seems like I’ve already reached the point where the server simply can’t cope with the traffic, so I’m going to set it up later on tonight instead.

UPDATE2: The UKPollingReport backup site is here – http://ukpollingreport.wordpress.com/. It is still only half set up, but you may as well bookmark it now for whenever the site goes down, or whenever comments are shut.


139 Responses to “ComRes and ICM polls”

1 2 3
  1. Hmmm there’s no mention of a new MORI poll, but the last one was a week ago. Where are they normally published?

  2. @RogerH…………….The same question, asked now, might get a different answer, that is the point of regular polling, to see what is the current view is.

  3. @dave
    “I am a Labour supporter but a tory majority is now inevitable.

    The tories have to capture more seats than they have since 1924. That looked improbable at the beginning of the campaign.
    But as Andrew Grice pointed out in today’s Independent, it is ironically the rise of the Liberal vote at Labour’s expense, splitting the anti tory vote and allowing the tories to come through the middle to win, which makes a tory majority possible. Just like 1983, when Thatcher’s vote fell by 2% but her majority rose by 100 because the Alliance took votes from Labour.

    Nothing can now prevent Cameron becoming prime minister with a majority even though it looked unlikely four weeks ago. And he has Nick Clegg to thank for it.”

    What utter arrogance to suggest that Labour have the automatic right to the anti-Tory vote and that the LDs are somehow culpable for gaining at Labour’s expense.

    If Cameron gets a majority (which I still don’t think he will) the fault will lie not at all with Nick Clegg but with a Labour party which the public feels has run the country badly.

  4. I was going to vote Labour but Bumpy has pursuaded me by the force of argument to vote Conservative.
    Sorry Anthony.

  5. @Paul Bristol

    I think this is the best the Tories will do

    ________________________________________

    Do you have any evidence of this.

    After all only 3 weeks ago the Cons were 40%+ in some polls,

    Why should they not return to close to this level over the next few days as the election comes closer and people make their minds up.

    I am not saying this will happen, of course it could move the other way for them, but I see no REASON why especially since it seems to be moving in that direction.

  6. “I seem to remember Blair coming to power in 1997 with the health service on its knees and education starved of resources.”

    And they still are sadly. Whoever gets in – nothing changes, it seems.

  7. “After all only 3 weeks ago the Cons were 40%+ in some polls,”

    Only in 1 or 2 (literally!) YouGov polls. Overall, they were averaging in the high 30s.

  8. “What utter arrogance”

    Yes but what you Liberals dont seem to realise is that under the under the existing electoral system and given the way your vote is distributed you cant win.
    So its the Liberals who are being arrogant by putting themselves on a par with Labour.
    You can only get a hung parliament-and therefore electoral reform if Labour does well. By taking votes from Labour and splitting the anti vote you make a tory victory inevitable.

    It is the Liberal ambition to overtake Labour for second place even though it might mean a tory government-and the Liberal failure to properly explain that ot its potential voters which is the greatest arrogance of all

  9. It amazes me that the Lib Dems and Labour are still in contention when you take into consideration that the Tories have the Mail, Telegraph, Times, Sun…plus Sky News and ITN all pumping out right wing propaganda daily. Plus the Tories have millions of pounds at their disposal thanks to Ashcroft etc. I think Nick Clegg and his team in particular should be congratulated on a fabulous campaign on a small budget without Murdoch’s puppy’s to help them. A noble effort.

  10. Looking at some of the questions in the Mail On Sunday Harris Poll as an example (which shows 33 for Tories, 32 for LibDem and just 24% for Labour) are there rules on the order in which they can ask questions?

    For example the general voting intention presumably must be asked first. Otherwise if questions on say a hung parliament are asked first, then asked who would be best on the economy and best PM etc, and the voting intention was asked last, the response may be very different. People might be embarrassed to answer their original intention if other questions lead them to another logical choice.

  11. Matt

    “and they still are sadly”

    No they are not. The NHS is in a much better state than in 1997.
    My school was on the verge of closure in 1997. There were holes in the roof, lack of books and teachers.

    Weve just had a brand new school building and we have money for books computers and smaller class sizes.

  12. @MAtt

    Overall, they were averaging in the high 30s

    _________________________________________

    Agreed, but my point was that there is not glass celing that I know of to prevent the Con % from increasing from its present level of the mid 30ies to a point where they will get a majority, particularly as they have been there fairly recently.

    High 30ies with the Lab/LD vote split will result in a Con majority.

  13. Tony Fischer –

    “What utter arrogance to suggest that Labour have the automatic right to the anti-Tory vote and that the LDs are somehow culpable for gaining at Labour’s expense.”

    I’m not sure that is what Dave was implying. Clegg needed to think tactically. He needs a hung parliament to get PR, otherwise its back to the same old voting system and another 30 years waiting for an opportunity that good again.

    But he foolishly (IMO) decided to try and replace Labour as second party instead of wooing the Tory vote (which would have a guaranteed a hung parliament and his choice of partner in a coalition). Now he may get nothing as a result.

  14. @John Fletcher,

    “Agreed, but my point was that there is not glass celing that I know of to prevent the Con % from increasing from its present level of the mid 30ies to a point where they will get a majority, particularly as they have been there fairly recently.”

    Very true. I totally agree with that.

  15. @DAVE

    It is not arrogent to vote for the party you want to represent you. Whether that’s Lib Dem, Green, UKIP or even BNP. It’s your choice.

    Lib Dems and the most of the smaller parties all do support PR and so Labour being part of a new government is far more likely to offer that than the Tories. That you are correct on.

    However if the popular vote is so out of step with the seat allocation, even more skewed than the unfair results we have had since the war, the case for change is strengthened.

    Unless all non Tory voters simply want a non Tory result, boosting the national share of their chosen party will build the case. Even the Tories will have to consider electoral reform with such a skewed result, especially if they don’t get their majority.

    So please don’t try to put people off voting for what they believe in, it is their right and is not arrogent. I think it’s called democracy.

  16. Andrew

    But surely its right to point out that if you perform a certain action the consequence of that action might be the opposite of your intent.
    Thus if you vote for the Liberals because you are on the centre left and want electoral reform, the consequence of that action would be to get a government of the right which blocks reform for a generation.

    What on earth is the point of voting Liberal in a tory labour marginal if the result is a tory?

    Thats not arrogance. Thats just plain stupidity.

  17. “Today’s result shows only small changes, with the Conservatives gaining one point at the expense of Labour, who fall to third place behind the Lib Dems.’ (Anthony Wells)

    And that’s it.

  18. Andrew – ” However if the popular vote is so out of step with the seat allocation, even more skewed than the unfair results we have had since the war, the case for change is strengthened.”

    Andrew they have been skewed for decades and no PR. The case can be as strong as it likes – no Tory or Labour government will introduce it without being forced to as a condition for support in a hung parliament.

    “So please don’t try to put people off voting for what they believe in, it is their right and is not arrogent. I think it’s called democracy”.

    In Liberal terms, this country is not a democracy until we have PR. We have minority rule – government by 25% of the people. If you want to change that, you need to be in government first.

  19. bumpy

    i find your input, both in content and style, pathetic on a site like this.

    It’s particularly embarrassing as I vote tory.

    Partisanship to a degree is unavoidable but re-read the last few threads and you will find no posts like yours.

    Apart from maybe the cringeworthy one yesterday about benefit leeches. Also a tory.

    Please desist!

  20. It is an English Principle of Law that ‘Silence belies Consent’.

    I think you will find that the average turnout is way up on the last GE. probably 65%+. That leaves 35% did not vote at all. A point for compulsory voting maybe, but not for claiming they voted for or against any of the parties.

    It is nonsense to claim that a party getting 36% of those that vote has less of a mandate than a party getting 30% or a party getting 27%. Is the party getting 30% more valid, 36 + 27 = 63% did not want it. Is the party getting 27% more valid, 66% did not want it.

    You cannot claim that both parties 30 & 27 combined is more valid, because that was not the proposition put to the electorate. If it was, then it should have been stated as a formal coalition BEFORE the election, not after they seem to have lost.

    What would be the mandate of a post election Lab Govt (with LD support ) type coalition actually be:

    NI tax? err Yes err No.
    Nuclear subs err No err Yes
    Immigration amenesty err Yes, eer No.
    Cuts now err Yes err No
    Euro err Yes maybe err No
    AV+ err No err Yes
    and so on and so on

    If LD & Lab force a coalition, they may have got a majority of seats, but their ‘mandate’ is a bunch of holes in almost every major policy decision.

    I suggest that ‘possible losers’ accept they have lost for the moment and not try a back door coalition for which there is no clearly no approved mandate. How do you know that some LD and Lab voters would have not voted Con if their particular policies were not the agreed ones in a coalition? 1 in 4 LDs seems to favour Con and not Lab. How do you know how other voters such as UKIP would have reacted. They and other groups may actually have supported and voted Con against such a coalition.

    On May 7th we will get the answer as to which party and their policy mandate the electorate who bothered to vote actually preferred.

    NC has said that if a party gets the most seats and the largest number of votes, then they should have the first option to form a new govt. It would be spiteful not to do otherwiswe.

    I have enjoyed being on this site, but it has shocked me how spiteful and un-democratic some members can be. Rivalry is one thing, but some of you go too far.

  21. @DAVE

    I would actually encourage non Tories to vote Labour in Lab Con marginals even if they prefer LibDems. It’s a logical decision under this unfair voting system. However those that do reduce the vote for the Lib Dems making people even less likely to see them as a viable alternative.

    Suppose the Lib Dems came a healthy second in vote share as with the Harris poll and the Tories fail to reach a majority. Could they really resist even a referendum on a new voting system? There would be massive public opinion in favour of change. Especially if Labour got twice the number of seats in third place.

    The Tories are intending to reduce the number of consituencies and the necessary boundary change might help the Lib Dems even under a FPTP system as their wider spread vote may be more effective over larger consitiencies. Labour will be the biggest loser with less but larger constituencies. Help – I’m starting to accept a Tory victory! no no no ….

  22. What a difference 24 hours make. Only yesterday there was glee from some of the more outspoken contributors that there was no discernible switch to the Tories after the third debate. Today, there is a switch, but it’s either wrong or due to idiots who will deserve all they get when DC seizes power on the basis of being the most popular choice. The Tories will then apparently wreck this socialist utopia despite the heroic efforts of the People’s Party and the Enlightened Liberals.

    I really thought this was about discussing the polls rather than an excuse for a political slanging match.

    Please feel free to argue with me if you like; I do it for a living anyway.

  23. @STATTO “they have been skewed for decades and no PR. The case can be as strong as it likes – no Tory or Labour government will introduce it without being forced to as a condition for support in a hung parliament.”

    No result has ever produced a third placed (share of vote) party beating a second placed party in terms of seats. Or even the third places party winning the most seats (which now seems unlikely).

    And between first and second place, the share of the vote and seat allocation has been in the same order in almost all cases (1951 and Feb 1974 being exceptions).

    So this could be the first election where the unfairness of the current system is so exposed.

  24. The tories intend to geerrymander the electoral system by reducing the number of constituences to keep themselves in power.

    But if they have a small majority they might not be able to do that the 2012 election with Milliband as leader.

    Also if Labour and the Liberals form an electoral pact to defeat the tories in 2012 with a view to changing the electoral system in the face of a tory government which is unpopular after deep cuts, the progressive alliance will be unbeatable.

    So Labour should leave office with dignity. Its done a good job and Brown has been treated disgracefully by the media. The Liberals have made the same mistake as 1983 with the same consequences for itself and the country but if they form a pact with Labour in 2012 after he tory government loses its tiny majority,victory can eventually be snatched out of jaws of defeat.

  25. “The tories intend to geerrymander the electoral system by reducing the number of constituences to keep themselves in power.”

    Can’t blame them for that. If Labour forms a coalition with the Lib Dems, they will probably agree to PR mainly in an attempt to keep the Tories permanently out of power. GB hinted at this about a week ago. What’s the difference?

  26. Matt

    “Whats the difference?”

    The difference is that the Labour and Liberal vote combined is more than 50%
    AND
    At every election since 1935 the centre left vote (Labour and Liberal) has been in the majority.

    If the Tories gerrymander the electoral system in their favour they are keeping a minority centre right view in power.

    Somehow however i think their plans to stay in power will go awry….

  27. “If the Tories gerrymander the electoral system in their favour they are keeping a minority centre right view in power.”

    As opposed to Labour, who has managed to gain power with a minority of the vote, and gained a disproportionate number of seats, you mean? They have hardly wanted to address the in-built electoral bias in their favour either, have they?

    All political parties look after themselves – Labour, Libs and the Tories are no different, in that regard.

  28. I’m been following this page to try to help me understand what’s going on in this election..

    I don’t understand why some of the comments on here are becoming so bitter and vicious. I wish people would desist.

  29. @Dave

    Labour can hardly bleat about the prospect of a Tory Majority when they have had 13 years to change this disgraceful electoral system.

  30. I think Dave has a very good point, though it could be argued that the changes will merely make the electoral system more proportional to what the public wants (i.e. by addressing in-built bias).

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with the FPTP system, or the Labour in-built bias. Nor do I have a problem with the Tory rebalancing of bias if they win. I’m a strong believer in FPTP, despite it’s obvious weaknesses.

  31. It’s a shame bumpy wasn’t able to contribute to an intelligent debate. I think extreme partisan comments are pointless on a polling website. It’s also better to keep things to the point, but to avoid insults/bitterness, as this forum is generally quite a friendly place IMO.

  32. Well said Matt

  33. Mike Smithson today, while dealing with OnePoll without chortling, points out the ICM, ComRes and Populus allocate dont knows. As we were reminded YG does not.

    Labour is equal with Cons if this is done, he writes.

    I never look at responses on PB but MS’s articles are always worth more than a glance.
    Quote:Thus today’s ICM marginals poll for the News of the World has C36-L32-LD23 before the “adjustment” and C35-L35-LD22 afterwards.

    Shy Labour?

  34. @Howard,

    I think so, more than ever before.

  35. I always try to be erudite and suave and all that on here but I earlier watched GB live from a church talking of our international responsibilities to the poor and disposessed.

    I am an atheist but was deeply moved by his words. If these clips are shown on News, then he will resurrect his position of moral integrity, no mistake. It was as though it was a cathartic exercise for him, back to the Manse.

    What was so encouraging was that it was on Sky News which broadcast the whole thing! Well done, Sky and I wonder whether you have developed a twinge of conscience.

  36. @Howard,

    Yes his “good samaritan” analogy makes your proud to have him as PM.

  37. The truth is these opinion polls are obtained by organisations that are clearly pro Tory. Polls by YouGov and ComRes are run by supporters of the Tory party. The owners of YouGov are Nadhim Zahawi and Stephen Shakespeare. Zahawi is standing for the Conservative Party in Stratford-on-Avon at the General Election.
    Stephen Shakespeare was the Conservative candidate in the 1997 general election, and supported Archer in the London Mayor election bid. He also runs the pro Tory Conservative Homes. Greig Baker of ComRes is also a Tory supporter and is a co-opted member of Conservative Homes. and is also involved in United Kingdom National Defence Association [UKNDA]. He was previously a member of the Shadow Defence (Tory) and Foreign Affairs (House of Commons) research and advisory teams where his responsibilities included speech writing, policy analysis and policy research. And , Populus is fronted by Andrew Cooper who is also a member of the tory party

  38. Sigh – shock! Horror! Pollsters have Conservative employees! Some pollsters vote Tory!

    Nadhim resigned as CEO when the election was called, he’s technically on the board until 6th May, but we haven’t seen anything of him. Stephan actually runs the company – the global strategy, innovation and investor relations stuff, the actual political polling is under the control of Peter Kellner, who is obviously a Labour supporter. There are staff with all different political view points, and all are professionals capable of doing a professional job whatever their personal views.

    It is, however, a great boon for the tinfoil hatted community, since paranoid conspiracy theorists of a Conservative bent can be convinced that Peter Kellner fixes all the polls, while crackpots of a more leftist disposition can think Stephan Shakespeare fixes them.

    Frankly it’s just bonkers. Political polling brings in hardly any money at all, companies do it as their shop window – it gets publicity and advertises their accuracy, in order to get the lucractive commerical clients who are interested in accurate market research, not being told everything is rosy. The owners of the company have vested interests in producing ACCURATE results, since it leads to more customers and more money.

    Unless there were completely insane pollsters would not allow their own political viewpoints to skew their results, since it would be destroying their own company and their own livelihood.

  39. @ Dave

    You wrote: “It is the Liberal ambition to overtake Labour for second place even though it might mean a tory government-and the Liberal failure to properly explain that ot its potential voters which is the greatest arrogance of all.”

    Dave, that is exactly what the Labour Party did to the Liberals between 1906 and 1929. They were determined to challenge sitting Liberal MPs even when it meant Tories winning the seat, in order to destroy and replace the Liberal party as one of the two great parties of state. As a consequence the inter-war years were dominated by the Conservatives, despite the Lib/Lab vote outpolling them. Now the boot is on the other foot. Labour offered no working together then, so why should the LibDems now?

1 2 3