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 15 16 17 18
  1. @ Sue
    “Damn I’m good.”

    Hey me too! ;)

  2. @Xiby,

    “but when someone comes here all high and mighty thinking he knows it all and spouts mis-information, then I stop being nice.”

    Does that extend to Labourites as well? Because, no offence, but in my experience, it definitely doesn’t.

    There has been so much ‘hogwash’ spouted by Labourites on here too, and yet no one questions it – ever (except Tories, of course).

  3. It seems strange to me that the Lab supporters all seem to be in a good mood despite ‘losing’ the election and the Tories are grumpy despite ‘winning’ it.
    Any happy Tories out there? How are the LD’s feeling :)

  4. @Owain, Sue,

    I’d have no objection to Darling staying chancellor in a Cameron-led National Unity Government. Plus a few hand-picked Labour ministers in other posts (Mandelson, Bradshaw, Johson to name three). Make Cable Chief Secretary and Clegg Foreign Secretary and we have a deal!

  5. @ Julian
    “Any happy Tories out there? How are the LD’s feeling”

    As a LD voter (almost entirely because of PR) I’m still optimistic, though a little disappointed that the support shown in the polls wasn’t borne out in the polling booths.

  6. @AMBER
    No I certainly don’t take them as offensive, just a bit silly, on what is supposed to be a serious discussion site. What is going on at present is ground breaking and I have been stuck to Sky News all day watching things unfold. The fact that Clegg may be prepared to put country before party is a great credit to him.

  7. Good point Julian ;)

  8. “Any happy Tories out there?”

    I’m pretty happy and cheerful. :)

  9. @Julian,

    I’ve already said I’m happy as a clam at the prospect of a LibCon coalition deal.

  10. Neil A
    Blimey Neil what’s left for the blues?


    “Currently the public sector is bloated due to the contraction of the private sector for 6 quarters ”

    THat is -amongst many many fine contributions from the left-the funniest explanation I have yet read for the increase in the cost & size of UK’s public sector.

    I respectfully suggest that your timescales are a little compressed.

    But its all academic-the public sector payroll is ALREADY being shrunk.

    This will-and must-continue.

  12. “No, but 90% of posters on here are of the left-wing variety (i.e. anti-Tory).”

    Is that figure from a representative poll?

    @Jack Jackson
    “So you work it out. If you cut the public sector before the private sector is strong enough to make back what its lost. You get cut and contraction as a whole.”

    There is a slight flaw in your logic. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the public sector? If the private sector has shrunk, so must the public sector unless we are going to build up even MORE debt.

  13. @Howard,

    The more appropriate question, perhaps, is what is left for GB and Labour, as well as the Tories (and DC). :)

    We won’t know until tomorrow, it seems.

  14. Matt – Rich, Colin, Julian Fletcher, Decision Time, Robert in France and Neil A have been here on and off all day.

    I started the day being pounded by Tories, it’s just a weird time. The joking was just a release of tension after a day of waiting for news that didn’t come.

  15. @OWAIN
    Actually even as a Lab supporter I’m disappointed too at the results for the LD’s.
    However, i still think something changed in this campaign that will be positive for the LD’s in the long run (which could be quite soon) and I’m also optimistic too on PR.

  16. @Howard,

    Prime Minister, mate, Prime Minister! ;)


    ” The fact that Clegg may be prepared to put country before party is a great credit to him.”

    I agree.

    He dealt with the disgracefull Billy Bragg Rent-a Mob yesterday with great skill.

    I am impressed.

    He & DC could make a great team.

  18. @Sue,

    I hope I wasn’t pounding you all day. I’m engaged to be married! 8)

  19. @Sue,

    That’s regrettable. I’m sorry that fellow blues behave in such a manner. The shame is that both sides seem as bad as each other, which I openly admit.

  20. Neil – Congratulations! no, just the guys this morning.

  21. @Jack,

    Ah, I see your logic. The mistake the Greeks made was clearly not to boost public spending enough. They therefore missed their opportunity to stimulate their economy and get out of their economic problems! Or something….

  22. Neil A
    I wasn’t going to say that to a lady! (But i admit to thinking it – men , eh?)

    Oh, PM well great, what use is that function , other than keeping limousine chaffeurs employed?

  23. @ ROBERT

    I agree, we are being silly.

    There seems to be an absence of information to seriously discuss; & no time-frame for expecting everything to become clear.

    If you can suggest a serious discussion topic, everybody will grab it with both hands :-)

  24. Pete B
    You say “Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the public sector?”

    Surely it comes from the willing lenders at the moment.
    Taxation on the profts of private and public sector enterprises (inc newly-profitable public-owned banks) pays when the economic conditions allow for such profits.

    The idea that at this point in the cycle the redundant will be taken up by the private sector and converted to profitable little alking Units of Endeavour doesn’t take into account the prevailing fear ans risk-aversionin that sector.

    In my view, the actual difference in the degree of cuts is quite small, whereas the Perceived difference is enormous

    That’s why the party who came secong is staying out at the minute. Labour would love the Conservatives to eat the LD’s alive before taking all the blame.

    I don’t think it’s edifying, and can’t imagine the voters will appreciate that the party who came third wielding more influence than the one which came second (and potentially more influence than the one which came first)

    BTW I’ve read some of the above comments and can only think that AW wants to hit four figures….

  25. Frankly, I try not to engage with some of the right-leaning posters here, just as much as I ignore some of the left-leaning ones. The problem is that the differences between our parties are exaggerated, and chasms of ideology imagined out of nowhere.

    If I was a politically centrist, sensible moderate martian landing on Earth today in human form, I think I could quite easily find a berth in any of the three main parties without anyone finding my views particularly out-of-kilter.

  26. I’d rather we continue with silly(-ish) discussions for a while. Perhaps we could hunt for semi-relevant Yes Minister quotes? ;)

  27. “If I was a politically centrist, sensible moderate martian landing on Earth today in human form, I think I could quite easily find a berth in any of the three main parties without anyone finding my views particularly out-of-kilter.”

    Yeah, that describes me perfectly too!!

  28. Amber
    Well I just touched on it as a subject (the nature of real influence).

    If I were someone who wanted influence I would get myself in a position to exercise it. Poncing around the globe on a series of boondoggles does not strike me as an achievement. One exception to this, of swift diplomacy, is GB’s saving the world from a depression, which I think he achieved mainly on the phone. I think our UK opposition friends have a choking feeling when asked to consider that.

    It’s why Eoin (with others, I’m sure) is already writing up a modern history.

  29. @ Matt
    “Yeah, that describes me perfectly too!!”

    You’re a politically centrist, sensible moderate martian? O.o

  30. Here is a good read from Fry

    ht tp://

  31. “You’re a politically centrist, sensible moderate martian? O.o”

    Yep, that’s me.

  32. @NEIL A -“…..a politically centrist, sensible moderate martian…”
    I don’t believe you. I have it on good authority that all Martians are Green.

  33. Sue Marsh
    Lord Maclennan

    Cabinet Office spokesman

    “We have to put the interests of the country first, and a government of all the talents of the three major parties would make a lot of sense in these circumstances, where we have our backs to the wall economically.”

    Damn I’m good.
    hehe Sue.
    Actually that would be in the best interests of the Country.
    fixed term unity Gov, 3 years to sort the debt, then an early election.

  34. @ Ben

    You asked: I haven’t heard of that system called Limited AMS how does it work?

    Limited Additional Member System is what Scotland and Wales use now. Pure AMS is Germany with 50/50 FPTP/top-ups from lists. Scotland is roughly 60/40 and Wales is 66/33. Conservative Lord Alexander of Weedon’s minority report in the Jenkins Commission recommended an 85/15 split. The list element would be done by historic county, not nationally or regionally. An example: Berkshire. Electorate entitles it to 8 seats in House of Commons. 15% of 8 seats is 1 seat (12.5% = nearest whole figure to 15%). Boundary commission therefore draws up 7 FPTP constituencies. Given results last Thursday Labour won 1 seat, and the Conservatives all the others, which if there were 7 constituencies in total would be 6 (Infact there were 7 as there was of course no 1 seat reserved for top-up). Given that LibDems polled between 25-30% throughout Berkshire they under d’Hondt division (see d’Hondt method on internet sites) would gain the top-up seat. Con 6 Lab 1 LibDem 1 is slightly more proportional than Con 7 Lab 1 LibDem 0, although not fully PR. This example of Berkshire works in the LibDems favour, but for example in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire or any Scottish group of counties etc. it would be the Conservatives who would win the top-up member for those counties.
    The net effect of Alexander’s 85/15 balance would
    a) Reduce the pro-Labour bias in the system.
    b) Give the LibDems about 60% of their polling strength in representation as against about 30% as at present.
    c) Enable both Conservatives and Labour to have elected representation from their weakest areas, creating geographically more balanced parliamentary parties.
    d) Retain the flavour of the current House, with only the addition of less than 100 additional “County” members, who could be styled the “Hon Member from Berkshire” for example
    e) The system would exclude extremist parties given their current level of support.
    f) Not preclude majority Governments being elected as 85% of seats still FPTP.
    g) Give a party with a sizeable but third placed proportion of the vote some guarantee of representation through the county top-ups.

  35. For the economically illitterate:

    Putting it simply if the economy had continued to grow even at a low 2% per annum instead of shrinking by over 10% since June 2008 then we wouldn’t have the defict problem, would we?

    Problem is shrinking revenue causing dispropriare borrowing – ergo deficit.

    Get Growth of private sector get revenue.

    If you are doctrinaire and want smaller government then that’s not an economic argument but a political one

  36. @ Xiby
    “Here is a good read from Fry”

    Rather, though he doesn’t appear to have considered the fallout if Lib/Lab coalition publicly invites the Tories to join them in a grand coalition. If they do that it would be game-changing.

  37. Any one else just seen the SNP on SKY?

    Not sure if their participation in a grand coalition will play well in England!

    Which interestingly brings us back to the potential of the winners curse!

  38. Matt
    “Any happy Tories out there?”

    I’m pretty happy and cheerful.
    yes I am pretty happy & relaxed at it all. Obviously wanted a majority Con Govt, but the Country has spoken, and that’s democracy.
    Anyway, I have had a good laugh today at the ridiculous SNP delegation riding to London like the muppet show on tour.

  39. Xiby
    Thanks for the link.

    The great man (well, he’s bigger than I) sums it up rather well and it’s quite interesting.

  40. Pamf
    Sorry to read your post because I have enjoyed your comments.
    Eoin offered some good advice – look at the names and then think before responding. I didn’t like the abuse you recieved last night either, but saw no point in getting involved. Best wishes

  41. @ Howard

    I am trying to keep off the subject of who should lead a Rainbow Alliance if t’were to happen.

    Nick Clegg is the only party leader who has – during the heat of an election campaign – said he would not support GB continuing as PM.

    This has lead to endless talking heads saying GB would have to resign as leader of the Labour Party & discussion of who would replace him.

    I see no need for him to resign as leader of the Labour Party. There could be an MPs’ vote about who should be the ‘face of the coalition’ & therefore PM.

  42. @Matt

    “No, but 90% of posters on here are of the left-wing variety (i.e. anti-Tory).”

    I think that says more about the Conservative party than those on here, actually.

  43. Pam F – I’ve been there. Please do post.

  44. Amber
    Nick Clegg is the only party leader who has – during the heat of an election campaign – said he would not support GB continuing as PM.

    No he did not. We can’t get any further with this if we don’t agree that he did not say this, even in the confused interview that spawned the impression. He later clarified what he meant and that is where we are now.

  45. @Tony Fisher,

    It doesn’t say anything about any party. It’s just a statement of fact.

  46. Well well, my first ever post on here was suggesting a “fantasy cabinet” in the event of a National Government of all three parties!!

    the rules were you had to propose two people from the side you DIDN’T support and you had two vetoes. You also had to suggest an overall PM

    Bet I get more takers if I suggest it again today!!!

  47. @Decision time 2010

    You said “…Italy on average has had a GE every 12 months since the second world war…” and then listed over 50 lines of Italian script.

    Er, DT2010, it appears you have been genuinely misinformed: you listed Italian cabinets since WWII, not general elections.

    Please note that the number of UK cabinets is of the same order – for example, the Major government had five cabinets: November 1990 3 April 1992, 4 May 1993, 5 July 1994, 6 July 1995.

    Please find below the following:

    1) a list of the 50-odd Italian cabinets since WWII
    2) a list of the seventeen Italian general elections since WWII
    3) a list of the five UK cabinets between 1990 and 1997


  48. Oh, and prizes for anyone who can remember who most people suggested for PM of it. Wow!!!!

  49. @ HOWARD

    Thank you :-) :-) :-)

    Therefore the media’s delight in saying that GB’s standing down as a pre-requisite of LD talking to LAB is simply a misunderstanding on their part.

  50. DC and NC hold a second set of talks in parliament. Breaking news.

1 15 16 17 18