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 3 4 5 6 7 18
  1. “Oh my goodness! We can’t possibly have the system rigged to be fairer can we!”

    I agree. I am a Tory voter, so would love for the system ‘to be rigged’ in their favour XD.

  2. I don’t think any party can complain if another party rigs the voting system in their favour. They all do it!

  3. @MATT

    The problem with changing the electoral boundaries is that you end up with very odd shaped constituencies in order to have an even population distribution.

    Also the data is based on the Census but that becomes out of date very quickly as lots of people move around. Therefore it is very difficult to make constituencies exactly even in size.

    Reducing the number of MP’s by 10% would benefit the Tories slightly as would changing the boundaries to make the populations more even. However, what is far more imprtant is where those boundaries are drawn.

    A change in where the boundaries are, alongside a reduction in numbers, can turn 3 safe labour seats and 5 safe Tory seats, into 6 tory leaning seats with a much more efficient and even spread of the vote.

    This whole argument about boundaries etc is exactly why I dislike FPTP constituencies. They are inherently unfair to someone.

  4. Or would do it, given the chance!

  5. @P Brown
    “I have to say this uniform size thing is a bit silly. Look at Na h-Eileanan an Iar on a map – how on earth would you make it any bigger????”

    Well I have looked up this bizarre name, and it is in fact the Western Isles. Obviously, if it needs to be made bigger, it could either include other nearby islands or part of the mainland. It’s not rocket science!

  6. @MIKE R

    “..for the country to see 2 losing parties linked together – both having been rejected by the voters !”

    Technically there were 3 main losing parties. The Tories didn’t win. They are trying to say they did – but they didn’t. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this argument.

    The Tories were rejected by the voters as well.

  7. @Gary,

    I’m not sure if the phrase ‘uniform size’ is referring to the number of voters or the geographical area. I think I need to investigate further.

  8. @MATT

    I could be wrong but I think they meant uniform in terms of voters.

    Uniform geographical size would be bizarre – you would have some constituencies where about 100 people would get a vote and others where an MP would be representing 100,000 people.

  9. Presumably if a Lab-multi coalition were to happen, it would probably mean that all UK countries except England would be exempted from the massive public spending cuts. Nice!!!

  10. @Gary,

    Thanks. Me too. I assume that is what they meant anyway.

  11. @MIKE R

    Sour grapes again. Scotland is part of the UK and it is entitled to express its opinion, just as the south and east of England is.

  12. @MATT

    “Presumably if a Lab-multi coalition were to happen, it would probably mean that all UK countries except England would be exempted from the massive public spending cuts. Nice!!!”

    Nonsense. If you freeze public sector pay, for example, it has to be done nationwide.

    In my view the SNP and PC could be bribed with various special grants and job creation schemes in their respective areas of the UK. A price worth paying in order to have a stable government.

  13. @MIKE R

    What is this nonsense about an ‘unelected’ PM? Since when does the PM get directly elected in this country? He is a PM, not a President. A party winning the election selects its leader and he becomes PM.

  14. There doesn’t appear to be much public pressure for a coalition of any colour combination.

    I think the favourite has to be a Conservative minority government but things are finely balanced depending on how bad behind close doors the economic situation is.

    In the situation, that the economy is bad, then this maybe a shot gun wedding organised by the civil service in the end!

  15. @ gary

    Only one party came from 2nd place to 1st place / only 1 party increased it’s national share of the popular vote & only 1 party gained nearly 100 seats while all others either stayed where they were or lost seats to the 1st place party – so yes, in my book only party won !

    @ Marcus Antonius

    Yes indeed sour grapes – without Scotland, there would’nt have been a Labour government in 2005 – well at least a minority one. If Scotland had’nt been given that ridiculous self government – the Scots would take the Westminster elections more serious. But, they don’t need to, because they can make all their own decisions, including the destiny of the rest of the UK.

    It can only be fixed by reducing their seats and not allowing Scottish MP’s including the likes of Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown to vote on English and Welsh matters.

  16. @ Marcus Antonius

    In my view the SNP and PC could be bribed with various special grants and job creation schemes in their respective areas of the UK. A price worth paying in order to have a stable government.
    ———————————————————
    I thought the SNP would need to be ‘bribed’ too – but apparently they have agreed to join the Alliance because the people of Scotland rejected a Conservative government – both in seats & % of vote.

    Alex Salmond can see that it would be political suicide not to support a LAB/LIB Alliance (if the opportunity arises).

  17. Hmm, I’d like to see the SNP support a Queen’s Speech that mandated a big cut to their Barnett Formula allowance…

  18. @ Martyn

    “Dear Lord in Heaven above! We have a sterling crisis, a humungeous debt crisis, the Euro’s collapsing, we’re at war in Afghanistan,Greece is going nuts, we’re running out of everything, and the new Daleks are rubbish…”

    Sorry, I know it was posted ages ago, but it really made me giggle.

  19. @MIKE R

    Its fairly obvious where your rather partisan loyalties lie.

    “Only one party came from 2nd place to 1st place”
    Yes…

    ” / only 1 party increased it’s national share of the popular vote”

    Actually that not true – Lib Dems and Greens increased their national share of the popular vote.

    ” & only 1 party gained nearly 100 seats while all others either stayed where they were or lost seats to the 1st place party”

    Although the Greens gained a seat and lost none – shall we make them the ‘winners’ instead?

    “– so yes, in my book only party won ! ”

    As i said – partisan. You can’t win outright in our system unless you get a majority of seats – any other result just means you have a certain number of seats and need to build an agreement or coalition to get in power.

    Its called parliamentary democracy.

    Just declaring you’ve won doesn’t work.

    Cameron can take his 307 MP’s into the commons and get voted down on everything he wants to do.

    That is not winning.

    No other single party won either.

    Cameron came closest but close doesn’t mean anything unless he can get over the line.

  20. @ BILLY
    @ Martyn

    “Dear Lord in Heaven above! We have a sterling crisis, a humungeous debt crisis, the Euro’s collapsing, we’re at war in Afghanistan,Greece is going nuts, we’re running out of everything, and the new Daleks are rubbish…”

    “Sorry, I know it was posted ages ago, but it really made me giggle.”

    Yes – made me giggle too. All the important issues summed up in one sentence… :-)

  21. @Matt

    You said “…I don’t think any party can complain if another party rigs the voting system in their favour. They all do it!…”

    *Any* party that attempts/succeeds to rig the voting system in their favour should be arrested, locked up, and their assets sequestrated. There’s a reason why the Electoral Commission is non-partisan. We’re on the ragged edge of being a democracy as is, and UKIP (for example) have legitimate grounds for complaint (nearly a million votes. No seats!). Let’s not go out of our way to make things worse, eh?

  22. @Gary, @Billy.

    Thank you: I’m here all week…

  23. @ Mike R.

    So your solution to “unfairness” is to give the casting vote to the South East of England (A Conservative hearland which, I believe, has more constituencies then Scotland).

    Secondly… when the f*** did Tony Blair become Scottish?

  24. @ Mike R.

    Made a pratt out of myself, Tony Blair was born in Scotland.

  25. @ billy

    You ask when did Tony Blair become Scottish – the answer dear Billy was the day he was born there by Scottish parents, educated there & lived there till his early manhood !!

  26. Mike R.

    Picked you out at random, but the level of ignorance among posters about Scotland and the UK is truly astonishing!

    The electoral quota for Scottish and English constituencies has been the same since 2005 – when the number of Scottish seats was reduced to 59.

    “without Scotland, there would’nt have been a Labour government in 2005 – well at least a minority one.”

    I suggest you learn to count. Look at the English seats that had Labour MPs in 2005. I’ll even help you 1,2 3 …..

    Bigotry is quite common – it’s normally associated with ignorance.

  27. @ Anthony

    In a previous thread, you have provided the following breakdown of the vote:

    CON 36.88%
    LAB 29.7%
    LDEM 23.57%
    Others 9.89%

    However, the BBC is showing the following:

    CON 36.1%
    LAB 29.0%
    LDEM 23.0%
    Others 11.9%

    See: “SHARE” at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

    Can you explain the difference?

    I ask because my schholboy maths changes the impact of rounding with these 2 different sets of results (e.g. Labour being able to say they secured 30% of the vote – which is a minor psychological barrier for some I suspect) and because a 2% difference for “Others” is quite major considering what proportion of the vote others normally/often get.

  28. Nice to see we are hoping for an outcome for the national interest rather than already planning the victory in the next election. It is funny how labour supporters think they will now have an automatic majority in 6-9 months. It ofcourse all depends on the circumstances of how the second election is called. Also you got to remember this year won’t see that much in cuts. And it could go either way i agree but if a hung parliament causes a weak government people will reflect on the situation and want a majority government. The easiest way to achieve it and avoid another hung parliament would be to vote tory in present situation. Also the conservatives still have the finances to run an election campaign. who knows who will win..?

  29. Wow – What a load of chuff from last night!!!

    Everyone claiming they have the mandate – moral, literal, constitutional blah blah.

    No, NO-ONE WON!!!

    As for sniping at Brown in all of this, “Get real” to coin a phrase.

    All the time Tory 1 and Tory 2 are trying to snuggle up, GB has absolutely no choice but to stay where he is. (Personally I’d have left them to it, but he can’t or we’d have no PM because NO-ONE WON!!!

    Seems to me GBs stayed right out of it, been pretty dignified. Other than Clegg phoning HIM and Alex Sammond chatting HIM up, he’s gone home for a nice bit of roast beef dinner.

    If we’re ever going to be grown up enough to have PR we really need to get over all this. If we can get a LibCon deal, fine. If not, we will have to try and form a rainbow alliance OR have another election OR have a minority Con government.

    All perfectly legitimate.

    I read on Twitter last night that Con got 10 million votes, Lib/Lab got 15 million. Not a bad argument for legitimacy.

    (I don’t want a lib/lab pact incidentally)

    Now, lets see what effect Hague’s little “Tough on the Euro, tough on the causes of Euro” has

  30. GB is doing the right thing and has facilitated (NOT hindered) DC & NC to explore if they can do business.

    As those discussions could come to ‘nowt’ he is right to remain and then able to explore whether there is an alternative grouping. Nothing at all wrong with this approach and certainly the best in terms of keeping the Queen detatched from party politics.

    IMO there WILL NOT be a formal coalition between LD and Con. There will be an understanding to allow CamCon to operate as a minority and commence some of his financial programme but that will be limited.

    In this way NC will preserve most of LD’s principles

    Once that moves forward GB will resign as PM and Lab will immediately set about electing a new leader to replace GB.

    Parliament will be volatile and once Lab have new leader CamCon will find it increasingly difficult to introduce and societal changes etc. The opposition will await an opportune moment, based on the financial situation and their own ability to run an election campaign and eventually CamCon will lose the confidence of the House and call an election.

    IMO that will be within 12 months but obviously not in the depths of winter so early October 2010 or early May 2011.

  31. CORR: “difficult tpo introduce ANY societal . . . “

  32. The issue isn’t about Brown needing to resign. He needs to graciously accept that he lost the election and will not be seeking a mandate and will be stepping down as soon as someone has agreed a deal. That would be the right thing to do.

  33. @ Sue

    Why do you add up the lib/lab vote as they are the same. There are a lot of centrist and centre right liberal democrat voters. This comparison of an anti tory vote is simply wrong. You could argue the same of a con+lib anti labour vote.

  34. @ Ben

    IMO I think Sue is merely demonstrating that IF LD grouped with Lab the popular vote would support that.

    As it would, if LD support Con.

  35. @Rosie

    It is not possible. A lib lab coalition lacks a majority. A tory majority England will never accept Labour offering Scotland more subsidies and money to stay in power.

  36. @ Ben.

    I do realise that Ld/Lab does not = 323 (needed for maj) and that grouping would require other collaboration.

    However, on the pop vote, that sort of group does command >50%.

  37. @ Ben, I’m not suggesting that a LD/Lab grouping will emerge – see my earlier post.

    However, IF it did the ” A tory majority England” would have no say in the matter at this time. They would need to await a further eletion opportunity.

    I don’t think many in the north or Scotland ‘accepted’ Thatcher and then son of trapeze act Major – but they endured until they were removed through the ballot box.

  38. Sue Marsh

    “NO-ONE WON”

    I agree, but where’s the self importance in that? Since the “prize” has still to be won, people will still put themselves forwards in whatever way they best can, no matter how tenuous their claim.

  39. Ben try reading properly.

    Did you read ANY of the rest of my post or just leap on the bit you didn’t like?

    Shall I translate it for you? I said I DIDN’T want a Lib/Lab coalition. Nonetheless they got most votes, which is at least as legitimate as other considerations at the moment.

    I said you’ve all got to get over this mandate stuff (that means will of the people to instruct a government)

    Whether it is “moral” (I won because I say it’s fair) Constitutional (I won because of what the law says)
    NO-ONE ONE A MANDATE

    We got a hung parliament, deal with it.
    Cameron didn’t win.
    Brown didn’t win
    Clegg didn’t win

    Any coalition/pact/agreement/minority gov will have as much legitimacy as any other and if we can’t get used to that, we’re in trouble.

    Phrases like “propping up a discredited Labour government” or “Propping up a flimsy Con majority really aren’t relevant.

  40. Colin Green – lol

  41. England has not been run by Scotland for the last 13 years. England has voted for labour majorrities in 1997, 2001, and 2005 stop this disgusting myth.

  42. My penniesworth…

    The key to what happens is the LDs position. If they cannot reach agreement with the Cons to support a programme for say 12 months, will the LDs either support a Lab prgramme for the same period, or choose in each case not to give any assurances?

    In other words, both a Con minority gov or a Lab minority gov would be inherently unstable. The latter more so simply because the Cons have more MPs.

    If the LDs cannot reach any sort of arrangement with the Cons, I suggest they will have to reach an accord with Lab.

  43. BBC:’Clegg’s personal animosity towards Gordon Brown, which is cosiderable, is the main stumbling block to any Lib/Lab deal’

    After Cleggmania, Cleggpetulence?

  44. Ha, my captcha code is…UK2L

    Some further observations.

    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.

    Just how damaging to Lab’s share of the vote was GB’s unpopularity? Let’s say 3%. We’ll take 2% from the Con vote and 1% from the LD vote.

    Outcome, the Con share decreased to say 33%, the LD share stays static, and the Lab share becomes 34%.

    Of course, all this is speculation. The effect of the media and GB’s unpopularity could be over or understated. It would be useful to to have a poll indicating the growth in Lab share had GB not been PM.

    The point I’m making is that the Cons are not in a strong position at all IMO.

  45. @ Mike N – quite right in that CamCon/Tory are NOT in a strong positions right now.

    An earlier post introduced the consept that the Tory grandees would seek to oust DC as he had not delivered a maj.

    I do not agree with that in its entirety. The task of securing a maj was mathmatically difficult in one election. The result was desperately disappointing given CamCons poll ratings since 2008 – when on most of these he would have not only secured a maj but also the ‘destruction’ of Lab. So I think CamCon will get another shot at maj and without a formal LD pact that (IMO) will be within 12 months.

    Lab’s position (including their improved local govt perf) is solid at c30% and >250 seats. This is a great base for a new leader to take the party through to a new maj at that next election.

    So Cam may be on a ‘temporary’ 12 month contract with Tory.

  46. Sue

    “Wow – What a load of chuff from last night!!!

    Everyone claiming they have the mandate – moral, literal, constitutional blah blah.

    No, NO-ONE WON!!! ”

    Thats what I was thinking

  47. Interesting the news leaking from the Con / LD discussions. All positive but not excitedly so. Just enough not to be seen to derail anything just now.

    The ‘lack of overall enthusiasm’ is as important – I do not think there will be a formal coalition/agreement and therefore a minority Con is most likely to emerge from this process.

    The only other business would be to see whether a Lab/LD + others grouping could work, but that too would be difficult.

    Depends whether there is enough passion to keep out the Cons.

    But as it might not be a bad election to lose – let Con get on with it for now and take all the difficult decisions and attract downward poll ratings!

  48. Is it possible that the counters in Esher and Walton have got it completely wrong?

    Look at the neighbouring constituencies:

    Runnymede and Weybridge:

    Safe Tory seat with an existing and now high profile Conservative candidate:

    [b]Swing TO the Conservatives of 0.3%[/b]

    Kingston and Surbiton:

    Marginal Lib Dem seat:

    [b]Swing TO the Conservatives of 1.1%[/b]

    Sutton and Cheam:

    Marginal Lib Dem seat:

    [b]Swing TO the Conservatives of 1.4%[/b]

    Twickenham:

    Marginal Lib Dem seat:

    [b]Swing AWAY from the Conservatives of 0.5%[/b]

    Epsom and Ewell:

    Safe Tory seat with an existing and now high profile Conservative candidate:

    [b]Swing AWAY from the Conservatives of 2%[/b]

    Woking

    Marginal Tory seat with a new Tory candidate:

    [b]Swing AWAY from the Conservatives of 0.8%[/b]

    Spelthorne (which borders Esher and Walton)

    Safe Tory seat with a new Tory candidate after the existing MP resigned due to expenses:

    [b]Swing AWAY from the Conservatives of 6%[/b]

    Esher and Walton:

    Safe Tory seat with a new Tory candidate after the existing MP resigned due to expenses:

    [b]Swing TO the Conservatives of 15%[/b]

  49. @BOBBNY

    Even in 2005 more people in England voted tory than Labour. And at this election tories have over an 11 point lead. So it is unthinkable that Labour will give more concessions and money to Scotland in order to stay in power by getting SNP support at the expense of Tory England

  50. Rosie:
    Thanks for that interesting post. If the Cons are to go it alone, with limited Lib support, would that mean no to PR.

    Or could this issue be brought up from the (majority) opposition benches?
    Could the Libs agree not to vote down a queen’s speech if there is a guarantee for referendum?

1 3 4 5 6 7 18