There are two post-election polls in tomorrow’s papers. A YouGov poll in the Sunday Times found 62% think that Gordon Brown should concede defeat, wih 28% thinking he is right to wait to see if the Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiations fail. Asked who should form the next government 48% of respondents thought there should be either a Conservative minority or a Con/LD coalition. 31% favoured a Lab/LD agreement.

62% said they supported a change to a more proportional system, with only 13% supporting FPTP. You can get a lot of variation in FPRP v PR survey questions depending upon how the question is asked, but if this question is a repeat of one of YouGov’s previous electoral reform questions it is probably a big jump in support for electoral reform.

ICM also have post-election poll. They found similar preferences on who should form the government, 51% wanted a Conservative minority (18%) or Conservative/LD coalition (33%) and 32% wanted a Lab/LD coalition. ICM however found considerably less support for electoral reform – 48% supported PR, but 39% supported sticking with FPTP.


889 Responses to “ICM and YouGov post-election polls”

1 16 17 18
  1. Bias to left

    Hmm, well, we had a few other Tories occasionally drop in but they never engaged as Neil A and Matt do.

    They just bore out the complaint I made earlier this afternoon. The post 2200 posts that appeared from such as Fluffy and Duffy and Buffy were straightforward jeers outside a pub door. Not my image of a Tory at all as it happens – more BNP, frankly.

    But we also had the cheerleaders who simply wrote the same thing every evening as though they were afraid that we had not fully digested their previous posts.

    The only person I thought was more than once well beyond the pale was Rob from Sheffield who would find it difficult to persuade a pools winner to collect their cheque.

  2. Re Sue’s competition

    2 from other side:
    Kate Hoey
    Frank Field

    2 Vetoes:
    Mandelson
    Brown

    PM: David Davis

  3. Sorry Anthony will get back to polling and implications there of

  4. Ooooh, they’re at it again. Clegg and Cameron having another little chat

  5. “The only person I thought was more than once well beyond the pale was Rob from Sheffield who would find it difficult to persuade a pools winner to collect their cheque.”

    I have to say I agree with that 100%. He was extremely patronising. I remember having my posts ridiculed several times by him, and on a few occasions he signed his reply off with a rather annoying and dismissive ‘thanks mate’ with smiley and all. Very annoying.

  6. Pete B – noted. PM choice can be from any party guys but genuinely who you think is best for the job.

    Anyone remember who won last time yet???? Amber ;)

  7. Dominic Greive and ‘Two Brains’?

    GO and WH

    GB

  8. Rainbow coalition with Caroline Lucas as PM, it’s obvious!

  9. Tony D
    Instructive post, thanks.

    I think these areas are better based on city regions than shire counties. The concept of ‘commute’ is not a favoured one but that’s what we all are now one way or another. Some shire counties do not have a city centre (e.g. Dorset) whereas, to stay with that example, Poole / Bournemouth / Christchurch is the second largest conurbation in the SW and draws from outlying areas such as Wareham, Blandford, Wimborne, etc. At the other end of the County, Exeter is the place of work and also Yeovil in the northern part.

    Thus the true demography in voting terms is preserved and makes sense in local representational terms too.

  10. I did say the rumor I had said that Clegg would again be meeting Cameron after he spoke to Brown.

  11. Thanks all – catching up with the posts this evening has been a hoot!

    So the 3 stooges from Con and LD have been in an amicable meeting for seven hours today.

    DC and NC have just had an “amicable” half hour together.

    And now amicability is breaking out all over UKPR! ;-)

  12. Woodsman – Don’t forget the “amicable” chat between GB and NC.

  13. Sue’s competition;
    2 from other side:
    Ken Clarke
    Boris Johnson
    2 vetoes (difficult, there are so many!):
    Zac Goldsmith
    George Osborne
    PM: Alan Johnson

  14. Just realised, does it have to be cabinet or shadow cabinet members?

  15. Sue – Ah yes, perhaps it was the most amicable of them all….. ;-)

  16. Re. Sue’s competition.

    Two from the dark side: Ken Clarke (if he can let his partisan mask slip and truly be himself) and David Liddington

    Vetoes? Michael Gove and Oliver Letwin (but there are quite a few more I’d like to see taken in for questioning)

    PM: Alistair Darling

  17. Just two from the other side Julian. To make it more interesting we decided you could choose grandees who were still active, even if not on the benches. (ie Prescott, Portillo etc)

  18. In that case – PM – the great Norman Tebbitt!

  19. A short, but interesting piece from the inestimable Ben Goldacre:
    htt p://ww w.badscience.net/2010/05/will-a-hung-parliament-undermine-fiscal-discipline/

  20. Can’t imagine C Chope would be enamoured to a deal with the lefties in LD He’d be good at talking it out.

  21. Jeremy Brown,
    Mike O’Brien (sadly unseated – well, not that sad).

    Phil Woolas,
    John Prescott.

    PM: Douglas Carswell.

  22. @Howard,

    there are definately far more lefties/Labour on here, and certainly have been over the past 4-5 weeks.

    It’s been a few of us Conservatives holding the fort!

    Any partisan comments from me are to be taken in a jovial spirit. This site generally rises above the nasty stuff, which means anybody doing this is ignored and leaves quickly.

    Rich

  23. It’s not partisanship I object to (well, it shouldn’t be on here – I mean generally), it’s illogicality.

    If someone’s advancing an argument with which I disagree, the first thing I want to do is to tease out the facts upon which we are both relying. I don’t want to find that in fact I am wrong because the person I am debating with has more knowledge than me. A good example would be the “right-to-buy” debate a couple of months ago, where I was successfully persuaded that certain types of council property tend to be taken out of the market altogether after sale.

    What irks me is when someone says something factually incorrect for partisan reasons, and then responds to my attempts to correct their assertion with a partisan tirade. My ongoing tiff with Rob from Sheffield on the subject of the “marginals” premium falls into that category.

  24. @sue
    good game

    2 recruits from the death star
    Edward miliband
    Adonis

    2 vetoes
    Balls (just one)
    Byrne (someone wipe the smug grin please, or tell me why the smug grin?)

    PM
    Ken Clarke

  25. Neil, I assume you meant “I *DO* want to find that in fact I am wrong because the person I am debating with has more knowledge than me.” !

    Perhaps a Freudian slip? :)

  26. Picks – Philip Hammond and Michael Gove.

    Vetoes – Grayling and Osborne.

    PM – Milliband.

    Howard – site used to be the other way round, take a look back to last summer.

    balance only shifted this year with improved Lab showing and some con posters moving to PB.

    Alec used to take a regular pounding.

  27. @Sherwick,

    Hmm, well I suppose what I meant was that I didn’t want to find that I was wrong in a future debate. You knew what I meant anyway, cheeky monkey!

    I like to think that all my views are grounded in some basis of fact and that any differences I have with others are because of our interpretations of those facts. I love debating with sensible, knowledgable and erudite opponents because I learn new facts to replace any shoddy ones I’ve collected previously, and because hearing other people’s interpretations gives me an increasing ability to develop my own.

  28. “Just how much in % of votes was the support of the Murdoch media worth to the Cons? Let’s say 2%. We’ll reduce the Cons share by this and allocate 1% to L and 1% to Lab.”

    And then presumably add 6% to the Tories to make up for the Murdoch media being pro-Labour in the previous 3 elections.

    Honestly, all this non-stop drivel about the press supporting the Tories now the boot’s on the other foot – and it’s not as though The Times, for instance, didn’t have lots of positive coverage on Labour and Lib Dems, even after they officially came out for the Tories – in contrast to the Daily Mirror or The Express, to pick extreme example on both sides of the spectrum.

    The Mirror had barefaced lies about Cameron on their front page every day during election week but I never saw one mention of them on these threads!

    If the Tories form a government i am sure there will be plenty of things to drag them down with – so can we wrap up now with Murdoch and Ashcroft – they’re both very stale.

  29. Other than that, last nioght’s thread was very entertaining with tough and well-reasoned arguing from both sides – can’t understand why regular pollsters didn’t enjoy it – upstaged I suppose.

    Think the Tories on the thread, although later outnumbered, had the best-argued logic – the opposition were forced to resort to satire in the end – but credit to all sides for an entertaining and thoughtful debate.

  30. Was ages ago but thanks for the clarification Anthony about PMQ’s.

  31. @Mike

    You said “…I partly agree with you but suspect DC will not need to concede much on PR. I think the LibDem leadership knows it could not get win a vote in Parliament authorising a Referendum on “genuine” PR until it can demonstrate a new coalition lasts for a few years. I am a Tory and take the view that if a new Tory/Lib Dem coalition works reasonably well I could be persuaded to support PR in the future…”

    Mike, hi!

    Sorry about the delay in response: I missed your post.

    * Firstly, time is not of the essence in PR: everybody understands the economic situation and that must take priority. No problem there. We all live in the UK and if it falls, we fall.
    * Secondly, if the price of a whipped Referendum Bill (not a free vote, please) is LIB playing nice for two years and beyond, no problem.
    * The issue for LIB is trust: can CON be trusted to deliver a whipped Referendum Bill, or are ConHome grassroots whisperings about stringing LIB along the reality?
    * The issue for CON is trust: can LIB be trusted to function as coalition partners despite the fact that some issues (Europe!) go against LIB’s deepest instincts?
    * My gut says that LIB will go to extraordinary lengths to get PR. So CON can trust LIB.
    * So can LIB trust CON?

    As for timing: I’d go for Summer 2012 – contemporaneous with the Olympics, lots of non-UK nationals wandering around going “Bert yeur eelection prawcess is saww primiteeve”, with added umlauts. It’ll play well with a modernising agenda.

    In a way, it’s a battle for CON’s soul: do CON actually *want* to deliver their accountability-democracy-transparency agenda, even if they (incorrectly, IMHO) think it’ll disadvantage them, or are CON content with a power imbalance provided CON are on top? A deeper question, and possibly not one with a single answer…

  32. Snatching Defeat From The Jaws of Victory,

    As an American, it really is not place to comment, but what’s the point of being American if I can’t be boorish.

    I don’t understand why Clegg is messing around with the conservatives. Here it is, the Holy Grail of Liberal Democrat politicians within their grasp and they are going to punt it away. If they make a deal with conservatives without any PR referendum, they forfeit the right to ever complain about the system.

    The Lib Dems fear a coalition with the Labs will destroy the referendum and their party. I don’t believe that is likely, but not getting anything from cooperating with the Tories, in my opinion, is just as destructive: no PR and a deflated base. What most likely to happen with a Lib/Lab coalition is a PR referendum passes but the Lib Dems get punished at the polls. But lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculation. Let’s say Lib Dems vote crater to 15% under PR in a 650 seat parliament: the Lib Dems would have 98 seats, a huge increase over their 2010 seat count. The Lib Dems and the country would have plenty to look forward in the future in a PR system, but nothing but scorn and despair if they fumble their chance in the here and now.

    Lib Dems choice is similar to the health care reform vote the Democrats just made. Plenty of Democrats are going to lose their seat this November because of this one vote, but they realized it was the one issue that was worth sacrificing a career. Time to grow a pair, Mr. Clegg.

  33. There are a couple of facts to be noticed:

    1. No matter whom LIB side with can cause LIB MPs rebel in VONC, 36 required if a CON/LIB coalition, and 18 needed if a rainbow coalition. ( in fact less considering all the SF, etc. )

    2. Tory could have been voted out because of the cut in the next two years, but then if LAB come back and maintain a not-too-big deficit as Keysian and Labour economics like to. The country could still go bankrupt in a decade. What will happen next?

  34. BT SAYS…at 10.24 pm yesterday

    You took my comment of earlier yesterday out of context, I suggest. Anyway moving on…

  35. Obviously PR is a big stumbling block for a ConDem arrangement, but so is the issue of when cuts in spending should start and how much of the deficit is to be met via increased taxation.

    Of the three main parties only the Cons proclaimed cuts this year in its manifesto. This has effectively been rejected by the voters, as a substantial majority have indicated via their votes for L and LD that they want cuts to begin in 2011.

    I see this issue as major problem for the LD MPs.

  36. ‘Obviously PR is a big stumbling block for a ConDem arrangement, but so is the issue of when cuts in spending should start and how much of the deficit is to be met via increased taxation.’

    The policy differences are less important than the election results and the horrendous implications for the Lib Dems if they (try and) prop up a defeated Labour Party

    It’s a tricky poition for Mr Clegg to find himself in as whatever way he leans he’ll lose support but he should stick to his campaign pledge of working with whichever party gets the most votes and seats

    if he can get the Lib Dems even a handful of cabinet seats it will have to be worth it for almost anyone who supported the party

    They will also act as a useful check for voters such as myself who feared that an outright Tory majority would result in too many savage, right-wing policies

    Any deal with Labour willl result in the Lib Dems being torn apart by the right-wing foreign-owned press, the same papers that would conspire to make sure that any referedum on PR (which is what Labour is offering) results in a no vote – which brings the Lib Dems back to square one

  37. @Todd K
    You are absolutely right.

  38. Getting back to the thread, the Worcester women did their bit. An almost classic swing seat Lab to Con 6%.

  39. As a Labour supporter I’m thoroughly depressed by the prospect of “Lab-Lib-SNP-Plaid and whoever else we can rope in” deal.Added to which we will have another leader who the British people had never had a chance to cast judgement on as a potential PM at the ballot box.Labour can’t even rely on its own backbenchers never mind other parties.It will be a disaster and I’m starting to seriously doubt the sanity of the Downing Street clique who feel this would be acceptable to the majority of the people.

    Please step aside while we have any dignity left.

1 16 17 18