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 2 3 4 18
  1. perhaps we should have a penalty shoot out. :-)

  2. Or Rock Paper Scissors. :)

  3. Or cut a pack of cards as that seems to be the normal way of sorting out a tied election according to one council.

  4. @DT2010 (10.07)

    “I am not saying FPTP can’t be made better,but the concept is fine”

    In that case why do only 3 out of 30 European countries including Uk use this system.

    You obviously do not believe in fairness. However I suspect that in a few years you will be screaming for Pr as the Tories are subject to permanent opposition if FPTP is maintained.

  5. A penalty shoot out? In that scenario, we’d probably have Angela Merkhel as PM!

    (as UKIP says, ‘huh, we got her already!’)

  6. Well, I enjoy sports and like to see a competitive league. Nothing to do with liberals and socialists.

    Celtic and Rangers are way more powerful than the rest of the Scottish clubs put together. Doesn’t make it a better game, hence why football is a sport, not strictly a business or politics, though aspects of each.

    Like most sports fans, I’m for entertainment. Period.

  7. @JAKOB

    Bet you werent complaining when Blair won with 36%

  8. @KYLE – “Cameron DID win the most votes. The anti Tory vote was split. Labour and the Whigs are two seperate parties. Even together they can’t form an overall majority.”
    Brilliant. You’ve just presented a perfect argument for PR ;)

  9. It is very broad to put all lib dem voters as centre left anyway. And I cant understand why labour supporters think that tories get 36% so 64% was an anti tory vote. Well Labour got 29% so 71% was an anti Labour vote. Ridiculus argument

  10. FPTP is an indefensible system for any but a two-party state, and even then you need *excellent* boundary setting and electoral process for it to be even semi-fair.

    Its time has passed in the UK. This is no longer a country of two parties only as the US is, over a third of the electorate support groups other than Red/Blue *despite* the fact that it means their vote is far more likely to be “wasted”. Under a fairer voting system support for ‘others’ can only rise – and this is good, in a democracy people should feel like they can vote for the party which represents them best.

    FPTP means millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised based on a postcode lottery. It creates a democratic deficit which is inexcusable.

  11. Anyone who starts talking about how many people didn’t vote for a party needs to quote the figures for all the parties, not just pick one out in isolation that suits their agenda. So:

    63% didn’t vote Conservative.
    70% didn’t vote Labour.
    77% didn’t vote Liberal Democrat.

  12. Julian I summed up no such thing. Are you a old advoctater of PR or did you jump on the Labour bandwagon that is currently rolling I wonder? Yes. FPTP is both fair and unfair. PR is both fair and unfair. Our country isn’t built for PR I am afraid. An old friend once said to me: Life is unfair and you die at the end of it.
    To please you, PR works in Scotland but that is as far as I will go ;)

  13. @BEN – ” And I cant understand why labour supporters think that tories get 36% so 64% was an anti tory vote. Well Labour got 29% so 71% was an anti Labour vote. Ridiculus argument.”
    In actual fact 64% probably WAS an anti-Tory vote and 71% probably WAS an anti-Labour vote.
    FPTP seeks to weaken the effect of an ‘anti’ vote and PR in its various forms seeks to strengthen it.
    Individual support or opposition to PR hinges on how much an individual thinks the ‘anti’ vote is important.

  14. @Owain

    I disagree a winner should take all. They have won the seat fair and square. lib dems should organise themselves better rather than spreading themselves thinly across the country. In PR the minor parties extreme parties exert too much influence and power. A bit like what the SNP are trying to do now demanding more subsidies and money for Scotland with just 6 seats whereas possibly the tories with 306 could be left out. And in this system you get broad coalitions of parties that represent many views in any case even for the lib dems who have only 57 seats. The greens have shown it is possible for minor parties to win seats too.

  15. 63% didn’t vote Conservative.
    70% didn’t vote Labour.
    77% didn’t vote Liberal Democrat.

    So it is a lose lose lose situation. You just hit the nail on the head there. Thanks.

  16. “An old friend once said to me: Life is unfair and you die at the end of it.”

    Um, you know Woody Allen?

    There’s only one way to find out if people want PR! Let the electorate decide!

    (probably end up 50% each knowing the UK)

  17. @ Ben

    It’s because Socialists think they know better then everybody else about everything. They also think they are the only party who want a fair society, no-one else does! I personally think that if GB could have fix it so he stays as PM until his very last breath he would. That’s why, as an LD, I wouldn’t touch Lab with a barge pole. I may be proved wrong but I think DC has a Liberal heart and a Tory head, it might not be a bad combination if he’s in tandem with NC.

  18. Owain: Excellent summary of the problem we face with our electoral system.
    Somewhere I read that in the US they couldn’t understand the concept of a hung parliament. Their system only allows two parties, how undemocratic is that?

    Let’s get on with reforming it!

  19. (probably end up 50% each knowing the UK)

    Then I strongly suggest Rock Paper Scissors for all elections. :)

  20. @KYLE
    How do you know I’m an advocate of PR? I actually agree with your comment that the one who won the most votes should probably be PM.
    But I am also trying to point out that as a supporter of FPTP you can’t complain about someone being PM on a minority percentage. You are clearly only upset because this time it would be a PM from a party you don’t like.
    If you’re really upset by the fact that someone can become PM on such a small percentage, you should become a supporter of PR.

  21. The FPTP voting system actually dictated how people voted.

    People voted tactically (want to vote for party A but will vote for party B to stop party C winning) or voted for a different party because they thought their vote of choice would be “wasted”.

    This is indefensible. The only thing that should decide who you vote for are the candidates and the policies of the parties they represent. Once one has made one’s choice, the voting system should then reflect that by ensuring that the party of your choice achieves further representation.

    That is why I signed the petition to support the Take Back Parliament campaign. More power to their elbow.

  22. @Kyle (11.08)

    “PR is both fair and unfair.”

    I am struggling even more than usual with this statement. What exactly is unfair with PR. Oh, I forgot, it will problably mean that the party who own the rights to govern will find that they are never again able to govern on their own.

  23. Decision The politcs of envy,i just don’t get.
    It’s not about envy. It’s about values. What is important in life is people – all people in the world. People have the right to live it,, to have a decent education health, homes, jobs and an equal chance It is not about money and materialism. I know you don’t get it, doubt you ever will – that is obvious there is no need for to state it.

  24. @ DT 2010

    Re: the football analogy – yup football has worked for 100 years. That’s why after handballs getting goals, balls going over lines but goals being awarded, diving, penalties being incorrectly awarded and general cheating none of the fans are screaming for the rules to be changed.

    Re: who pays for schools – the millionaires and billionaires in Britian probably form less than 1% of the British population and (before the 50% top tax rate was introduced or will be introduced) paid a very low rate of tax. In answer to that question, its the middle to poorest in the country who pay for the schools and the rest.

  25. PARAG LEICESTER -“a little teaser : who is saying this of whom?
    “He ran his campaign from the back of his Jaguar with a smug, smarmy little clique – people like Osborne, [Oliver] Letwin and Michael Gove. He should get rid of all of them. The party will settle for nothing less.”
    A Tory about DC. As I predicted on another thread, there will be a lot of attacks on DC from within the Tory party after this election.
    Do you know who said it? I heard that Lord Ashcroft has been grumbling.

  26. The following arguements can be put as the unfairness of PR:-
    People vote for their party to govern but they get a coalition. which they didn’t vote for.
    Also PR often means that the influence that minor parties get is disproportional to their support in the election.

  27. By the way, Anthony, whats FPRP? :D

  28. Virgilio

    btw thanks for the European perspectives, you are helping to dispel the fog!

  29. Julian
    This old dog is not for turning I am afraid.

    PR lets in fringe parties with extreme views. If you want an example, Germany. Scotland is perfect for PR. That is as far as I will bend to that.

  30. Long time lurker, never posted, but all this talk of PR always had me wondering what would people like Martin Bell or Richard Taylor make of it. Already the system makes it nigh on impossible for Independents but surely PR would end their chances forever. Having said that, I suppose AV+ or STV would ameliorate this somewhat.

  31. @ Julian
    ha, ha , the knives are being sharpened.
    I put in another quote about the “Big Society” campaign but the words used ( not mine- I would never use such language) have put me into moderation.

    All from the Observer ;- should be a good read.
    Lord Ashcroft is spitting fire

  32. @Parag Leicester (11.20)

    “People vote for their party to govern but they get a coalition. which they didn’t vote for.”

    With PR the majority of the electorate get something close to what they voted for. With FPTP currently 2/3 (and increasing) do not get what they voted for.

  33. “PR lets in fringe parties with extreme views”

    Firstly, depends which kind of PR.

    Secondly, if your face is ugly, don’t blame the mirror.

    I can’t see any socialist party in the HoC. Two big right-wing parties, a third centre/centre-left party. A single Green MP might be the nearest.

    @Parag Leicester
    All I can find is a ‘frontbencher’ saying it of DC. I’d guess Liam Fox.

    [It’s unlikely to be Liam Fox. Journalists like to big up their anonymous sources (see the way backbenchers always become senior backbenchers when criticising their leaderships!), so it if was a Liam Fox it would have been “a member of the shadow cabinet”. “Frontbencher” will almost certainly refer to a Conservative spokesman outside the shadow cabinet – AW]

  34. @Julian
    Actually you were incorrect ; it was Osborne being spoken about here

  35. Parag: I had just read the article in the Observer. Yes the knives are out.
    Same old Tories.

  36. @Kyle Downing (11.20)

    “If you want an example, Germany.”

    If you are suggesting that the UK has done better than Germany during the past 50 years then I give up argueing. Even with the problem of assimilating the East they have performed better economically (and in other aspects) than the UK.

  37. @Pam

    It is the entrepreneurs and small business owners that create jobs for workers!!! If you continue to attack and tax them too high what is the incentive to keep expanding and create more jobs???

  38. So one sided guys. Well let us wait 1-2 days we will see the turmoil in the labour party….

  39. @Peter Bell
    I myself agree with PR, but I am afraid there will be so much mud thrown, by the Tories and their Media friends that the electorate will be confused and it will not pass in a referandum.
    As you see there are many superficial criticisms of PR that can be made.
    In a lot of areas the Anglo Saxon system differs from the Continental one. For example in their legal system there is a search for the truth, our system is adversarial in which truth emerges as the victor.

  40. PARAG LEICESTER -“Actually you were incorrect ; it was Osborne being spoken about here.”
    That shouldn’t be too much of a problem for DC then. I would think he would like any excuse to drop him anyway.

  41. Adam G

    You said “…Firstly, most people agree that 650 MPs is far too much. Something closer to 400 would be more appropriate…”

    I disagree. 650 MPs is 1 every 100,000 people (very approximately). 400 MPs is 1 every 150,000 people (very approximately). That’s way too few. I thought the Conservatives were pushing an accountability-democracy-transparency agenda? Increasing the number of people per MP reduces the accountability of MPs, not increases it.

    I’ve got a better idea: increase the number of MPs but decrease their salary. How about 900 MPs? That’s 1 every 70,000 people (very approximately). So instead of 650 MPs (each on average on £64,766pa basic, £76,766pa after severance included but not including pension and expenses, and that’s not including increments for ministers, whips, etc), we could have 900 MPs, each on, hmm, say £25,000pa. So instead of a total wage bill of £42million (650 x £65,000), we would have a total wage bill of £22million (900 x £25,000).

    Doing it your way decreases accountability. Doing it my way increases accountability and reduces cost. My way is better.

    You said “…Secondly, Scotland and Wales have far too many seats. If you do some simple math, this is the number of citizens (not votes or voters) per constituency in each country: England:- 92193, Wales:- 72577, Scotland:- 85797, Northern Ireland:- 93626…”

    Very good point. Let’s increase the number of English MPs so that English voters enjoy the same levels of democracy and accountability as their Celtic equivalents. Just because the English voters are treated with contempt by the UK Parliament is no reason to apply the same yoke to the rest.

    You said “…Personally I could only support PR if there was an English parliament to go along with it…”

    Deal! PR and an English Parliament. Result! I fancy Birmingham/York/Reading for the site. We’ll get Norman Foster to design the building. We can be in by Spring 2012. We can have a little ceremony. There’ll be cake.

  42. Do we still not know who said it Parag?

  43. @ Ben

    And what would the entrepreneurs and small buisness owners and large buisness owners do if there were no workers to work for them?


  44. Billy:

    In another country, providing employment and tax revenue for their government.

  45. @BEN – “So one sided guys. Well let us wait 1-2 days we will see the turmoil in the Labour party…”
    I wouldn’t hold your breath. GB performed better than expected. However, I think he will go and there will be a new leader. That’s all.
    The Tories on the other hand have a problem. DC moved to the centre and didn’t do nearly as well as expected. The right of the party are not going to keep quiet now the election is over.
    IMHO of course. :)

  46. Ben: I know what you believe in. I do not and we are not going to agree in a month of Sundays.
    Wealth is created by workers, without them there would be nothing. The fruits of their toil in a capitalist society is creamed off and used to make rich men and used to make them richer and richer. Capitalism is based on greed. Look at the banking crisis.
    Meanwhile, there is poverty and people starve.

    It does not have to be that way. Wealth should be redistributed.

  47. So only 18% want a tory minority government incredible.
    So in other words itis not possible.

  48. Parag Leicester

    I resent that comment. I lived through the war. I saw the horrors of PR myself. I don’t want another Hitler rising up because of such a system. To think that PR will create a land of Milk and Honey is laughable and troubling. Deeply troubling. Anyways bed time.

    Sorry for being in such a state tonight folks. I don’t know what came over me.

  49. And Godwin strikes again!

  50. BILLY

    they move abroad.

    If we don’t let the rich expand and become even richer,we all suffer,how? companies don’t grow and are easy pickings for bigger foreign companies,and all the jobs go abroad.

    If you are not a liberal in your twenties,you have no heart.

    If you are a liberal in your thirties,you have no brain.

    Winston Spencer Churchill.

1 2 3 4 18