Tonight we have the first voting intentions since the General election. ComRes in the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror have voting intentions of CON 38%, LAB 34%, LDEM 21%. From the general election the Liberal Democrats are down and Labour up, presumably a direct defection of Liberal Democrat voters who are more inclined to Labour and opposed to the party joing the Conservatives in coalition.

41% of respondents thought that the Liberal Democrats had sold out their principles, with 47% disagreeing. This included 34% of Liberal Democrat votes. 35% of respondents agreed with the statement that Nick Clegg should have opted for a coalition with Labour rather than one with the Conservatives, that includes 33% of Liberal Democrats (presumably 33% of remaining Liberal Democrats, as opposed to 33% of those who voted Lib Dem in 2010).

ICM in the Sunday Telegraph have voting intention figures of CON 38%, LAB 33%, LDEM 21%. The figures there are almost identical to ComRes, and show the same pattern – a 3 point or so shift of support from the Lib Dems towards Labour.

ICM’s other questions found 64% of respondents backing the coalition as the right way forward. Asked about specific policies, 75% backed keeping inheritance tax and increasing capital gains tax in order to increase the personal tax allowance, 63% supported fixed term Parliaments, 56% backed a change to AV. ICM also asked about the Labour leadership – 32% backed David Miliband, 11% Harriet Harman, 9% Ed Miliband, 8% Ed Balls and Burnham and Cruddas were both on 2%. Bear in mind, however, that leadership questions like this reflect recognition to a great degree – most people will have little or no idea who Andy Burnham or Jon Cruddas are. If you go back to questions on the Tory leadership straight after the 2005 election Ken Clarke tended to be the winner, with Cameron around 2%-4%.

960 Responses to “New ComRes and ICM polls”

1 18 19 20
  1. @ Sue Marsh

    I fully agree with you. I don’t think there is any reasonable argument against it. But it also means to transform the Labour Party to something that it has been only very occasionally in its long history…

    P.s.: My degrees are from a different country, from a university that use to carry the name of a bearded 19th century author.

  2. SUE

    ” but we really HAVE to find some articulate, intelligent people – Mum’s, dad’s, Pensioners, Students. What else is the Labour party for????????”

    Sue-I heard Cruddas agreeing that the extended time now allowed for the leadership campaign was a good thing. But he also criticised the few days which are apparently allowed for nominations.

    His point was -how can the appropriate number of MPs-in a few short days-know enough about the candidates, their thoughts on why Labour fared badly, their ideas for addressing that, and their vison for the Labour Party , to put them forward as suitable.

    He said he wanted to hear much much more from them all before supporting a nomination & he feared that the forshortened timing was to ensure that only high profile insiders made it.

    He seemed to have a point to me-you have to respect a man who has the guts & honesty to say -I will not run as I don’t have the relevant qualities & skills.

    His article in the Guardian is very interesting.

    “I’m still not convinced that governments cannot run businesses, though if they have to.”

    Oh dear.

  4. Pam

    To defend Ian Gibson, I seem to remember that what he actually did was pretty small beer compared to some of those who got off. With both Labour and Conservatives, how you were disciplined by the party hierarchy seemed to be based not on what you did or how much you made from it but if you were in favour.

    If you were a member of the inner circle, anything not actually criminal was ignored. If you were a stroppy backbencher you were told to stand down next time and no doubt some A-lister or special advisor lined up for the seat.

    Gibson, whose scientific viewpoint seemed to be as resented as (and even rarer than) his rebelliousness, was told to go. He then did, without waiting for the next election and with the sympathy and respect, as far as I could tell, of his constituents.

  5. Anthony has a new YouGove poll up for discussion on a new thread:

    More YouGov polling on the coalition.

  6. Laszlo -re the dome – the most popular tourist attract in Europe – more popular than Eurodisney, The Millenium Wheel and Old Trafford.

    The worst business plan though.

    Laaszlo, I’m sure your students are intellectually challenged by your MBA courses. My view is currently cooloured by a funny little book called The Management Myth by Matthew Stewart. Worth a read as it sums up the cynicism of modern managerialism and corruption of decent theories by (and for)suggestible maniacs!

  7. Laszlo,

    Re your kind response yesterday evening: Actually there was a typo in my reply, which should have read “2000” years not “200”.

    Panem et circenses called to mind. Nothing new under the sun, hence the value of history lessons for those open-minded enough to learn from them.


    Nothing wrong with mathematics or engineering, very valuable degree course – certainly better than most of teh rubbish being churned out to meet arbitary targets for graduates. But they tend to channel towards right/wrong binary thinking and narrowed perspectives.

    Yesterday Laszlo and I discussed Enron. The Enron transactions which brought down Enron did not just damage Enron, they blew holes in several financial institutions (most of which were quietly covered up in the ensuing boom). The “scam” was developed by clever mathematicians (bankers) and reviewed by other mathemeticians (equity analysts) with “due diligence” by bankers, lawyers, etc. Everyone focused on the technical issues in the structure and documentation – with lots of compliance check-list box-ticking. It seems nobody dared ask the Emperor’s new clothes question.

    At the time it blew up, I worked for one of the financial institutions involved. I asked what the underlying transaction was. Within two minutes I had identified the fraud – which to me was obvious, yet had conned some of the brightest financial minds in Wall St.

    fancy degrees are no substitute for common sense – which as a friend once remarked, is anything but common.

  8. @ Paul H-J on the 19th of May

    I’m sorry that I came back to you only now.

    Yes, there are things that have been around since historical times.

    Actually, the Chicago futures market has nothing to do with the real world, it operates under a financial-mathematical formula published in a research paper. I think that’s the ultimate.

  9. smilies test – please ignore
    :0 :8 :8)

  10. @Cozmo

    8 + ) + 8)

1 18 19 20