As well as the figures from the YouGov/Sunday Times poll there is also a new ICM poll out today, the first monthly ICM/Guardian poll since the election. Topline figures with changes from ICM’s last poll are CON 39%(+1), LAB 32%(-1), LDEM 21%(nc)…exactly the same as the latest YouGov figures. 59% of people approve of the coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems, with 32% opposed.

There was also a question on PR – 56% of people said they supported a more proportional electoral system, 38% were opposed.


670 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – 39/32/21”

1 9 10 11 12 13 14
  1. @ Eoin

    Frank Field ??

    Kate Hoey ????????

  2. @Roger Mexico

    Should the coalition fail now, then it would be far too soon after the last election for a new one to be called. And I believe that it would then pass into a period of the ‘progressive rainbow’ being considered again, then dismissed again, then a Conservative minority government.

    I’m not sure that Cameron could politically survive that as leader of the conservative party if it happens. So we’d have another ‘unelected’ Prime Minister, heading a Minority Government, during what appears to be troubled times. Very interesting indeed.

  3. Well….Labour did well in Thirsk & Malton !

    A sign of things to come?

    Clegg’s long game ?

  4. Roger,

    Yes Kate Hoey and Frank Field… I have seen archival evidence of their past committee minutes of an anti-internment committee they served in in London.

  5. Colin,

    Did Labour do well in thirsk and Malton?
    How did the Liberal Candidate do? Not the Liberal Democrat candidate.

  6. “Campbell commented: “This pathetic ploy to bully the BBC suggests that the ministers are a bunch of wimps”

    Oh wonderful-AC defends BBC from bullying !

    You have to hand it to him-I bet they miss him so much in Whitehall !! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

  7. @LASZLO
    “It was certainly a PR negative to the coalition”

    Why?

    No shadow minister from Labour means no minister from the government. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

    AC is neither is he ?

  8. should read – “AC is neither elected nor a shadow minister is he ? “

  9. The coalition stands for Freedom, Responsability and Fairness. So lets start with the first of those tenets.

    ht tp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/05/question_time.html

    “t is a fundamental principle of our independence that politicians cannot dictate who sits on the panel. It is for Question Time, not for political parties, to make judgments about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience. Parties are free of course to accept or reject those invitations, but they do not have a right of veto over other panellists. Licence fee payers rightly insist that the BBC must be free from political interference.”

    The beauty od new politics ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

  10. THIRSK AND MALTON

    Conservative – 20,167 – (52.87%)
    Liberal Democrat – 8,886 – (23.30%)
    Labour – 5,169 – (13.55%)
    UKIP – 2,502 – (6.56%)
    Liberal – 1,418 – (3.72%)

  11. @ COZMO

    Will give great confidence to the Coalition, particularly the LD component and give it a much better chance of long term survival.

    Lab must be very concerned. Only twice as many votes as UKIP.

  12. Cozmo,

    Thank you for this. That is a doubling in UKIP’s vote. Quite a small increase in blue.

    Ironic that we thought Yellow would be biggest loser…

    What was the turnout? :)

  13. @Eoin
    Top of the morning to you sir!
    Turnout 50.3%

  14. @Eoin & John Fletcher
    I lifted this from Gruniad when they weren’t looking:-
    ——————————

    Formerly Conservative MP for the Vale of York for 13 years, McIntosh also served as shadow floods minister, and a former MEP. She took 52.9% of the vote, on a turnout which fell to just over 50% from a notional 65% in 2005 (based on the wards of the Vale of York and Ryedale seats which were merged to form the new constituency).

    The 76,000 electors in Thirsk and Malton, England’s biggest parliamentary seat with 16,000 more electors than the average, had to wait for three weeks to vote. The delay followed the death in late April of the Ukip candidate, John Boakes, after nominations had closed.

  15. @Cozmo

    By my calculations 75% of the voters in favour of the sitting government.

    I think the C&C will be enjoying their breakfasts this morning.

  16. I said this before the poll, and will affirm it after. This result means nothing really. Anyone who thought that some tell tail signs from this seat was wishfully dreaming.

    Its a new seat, too early to tell, election fatigue and disinterest as it would have had no bearing over the nationwide result, honeymoon period for gov, no voter mobilization, etc etc etc.

    I hold steadfast with the notion that any tracking of coalition popularity should start from the autumn polls (Octoberish). Then follow with great interest the scottish parliament election, culminating in a true test in the London Mayor election.

    Early days. And as always, “events dear boy, events” – we had none so far ;)

  17. @John Fletcher
    “I think the C&C will be enjoying their breakfasts this morning.”
    —————————–
    Yes I’m sure. Neither LD nor Con ended up as “toast” as predicted by some! :)
    I guess there must have been tactical voting since this is such a safe blue seat.

  18. “I think the C&C will be enjoying their breakfasts this morning.”

    We’re still in the honeymoon period for Mr and Mr Chuckle bros. Although it seems a long time ago, it’s three weeks since the GE and slightly less time since the coalition agreement was reached.

    This result has no value/meaning whatsoever. IMO.

  19. @Xiby
    This result means nothing really
    _________________________________________

    You make many vaild points.

    I feel however the significance of this will be psycological. C&C took huge risks in forming this coalition and had the result gone badly for either of their parties it would have given their awkward squads ammunition.

    This result IMO will bind their parlimentary parties closer together and pacify some of the doubters amongst their grass roots.

  20. I still think that the Dems will end up quite toasty by the end of this, the Libs maybe much less ;))

    I do think that a realignment is taking place. The Libs will slowly but surely lose the Dems within their party. Whether or not it will be the Libs who get the squeeze in the end, or the Tory right is still a matter for history to reslove, but one or the other will happen.

    1997 was also a period of political realignment with the Lab Left getting the squeeze. Lab however did this without too much bloodshed (well last election was the first proper blow ;) ). The test for C&C will actually be how well they can steer this realignment.

    Clegg (small rebuke by Kennedy) seems more in control of it then Cameron (1922 Committee)

  21. Nobody predicted Libs or COns would do bad in thirsk. There was not one post predicting this. SO while yellow / blues celebrate an endorsement of sorts, it owuld be wrong to say that people thought that any other outcome was likely..

    Safe blue is a ronseal seat. I don’t think anyone thought any differently.

  22. @Xiby
    Clegg (small rebuke by Kennedy) seems more in control of it then Cameron (1922 Committee)

    __________________________________________

    To be expected I would suggest for the following reasons.

    1. DC has over 5 times more MP’s to control and NC only has about 30 who do not have Govt jobs.
    2. Tories were not far short of a ruling majority or even viable ruling minority so those without Govt jobs will feel let down. There is still a lingering sense of dissapointment.
    3. LD’s never expected to be where they are and would have had to form a coalition anyway to get into power. It is generally agreed that DC has been generous towards them.

    However the right wing of the tories really do not have anywhere to go. UKIP is not a serious option for anyone except perhaps Cash. They will try to keep DC honest by lobbying and with some success. I have already been innundated with e-mails about CGT.

  23. I thought it was hysterically funny that the coalition wouldn’t send a minister to sit with Campbell.

    The make up of the panel is always broad based and often includes paper editors, spin doctors or charity reps.

    Really very funny indeed. I presume Andy Coulson won’t ever be appearing?

    You have to show you can beat the attack dogs!!

  24. @Sue

    I suspect that this Govt will try to bring the BBC to heel over what THEY consider to be a left wing bias.

    Expect many more clashes between the two.

    The problem for the BBC is that with so many other news and current affairs outlets it now needs the Govt more than the Govt needs the BBC.

  25. John Fletcher

    I suggest DC finds himself facing problems of both success and failure. His problem is essentially how he keeps LDs and Cons ‘happy’ and supportive.

    The CGT issue is one which could blow up in a big way – whether for the Cons or the LDs. (What would happen if VC insists on the increase, but NC ‘agrees’ with right wing colleagues?)

    Is DC capable of appeasing both elements and keeping them on board? His ill-advised encounter with the 1922 Committee does not bode well – but perhaps he’ll learn from this?

    I see DC as an opportunist (no criticism intended) but his role now demands I suggest a different set of skills.

  26. @Sue Marsh
    ” – – – I thought it was hysterically funny that the coalition wouldn’t send a minister to sit with Campbell.”
    ———————————–
    Agreed. I was pleased that the Beeb insisted on their right to decide for themselves which guests to invite. I was critical of Nick Robinson’s bias during GE but they redeemd themselves by resisting the Overlords over QT.

  27. Oops,

    “but NC ‘agrees’ with right wing colleagues?)” should of course read

    but DC ‘agrees’ with right wing colleagues?)

  28. @Mike N

    Agree with your post.

    On CGT I expect they will compromise and bring i some form of taper releif as suggested by Redwood.

    It probably wont drop to 0% after 5 years which is what Redwood wants. More like will will start at 50% (the LD’s prefered sum) for the first year and taper off to about 20% (roughly the current level) after 5 years.

    A compromise both sides could live with.

    JUST :D

  29. @john Fletcher – “However the right wing of the tories really do not have anywhere to go”

    Are we sure about that? UKIP was the only party to increase it’s vote in Thirsk last night and more than doubled it’s share. OK – we’re only talking 2,500 instead of 1,500 and a 6.6% share in effectively a by election, but I wonder?

    @Sue Marsh – couldn’t agree more re QT. Why on earth are they so scared of Campbell? What was the point of the objection?

    @Mike N – re CGT, Oliver Kamms in yesterday’s times wrote in support of extending CGT to ALL homes. It makes excellent economic sense in terms of helping to stabilise the housing market, one of the most damaging and destabilising aspects of the UK economy, and would arguably help introduce a hugely fairer taxation regime, equalising the tax take from earnings and assets to a large degree. All in all this would get a big plus from economists but be politically very difficult.

    Having said that, he made the highly valid point that at one time it would have been political suicide to end the old mortgage interest tax relief – a long cherished direct subsidy to the middle classes – but over time people realised how unfair this was and it went. In the end, it was Thatcher herself who got rid of this – one of her best decisions.

    I firmly believe that if we were sitting down with a completely blank sheet to write the full UK tax and benefits system from scratch, almost nothing we see now would remain. CGT on all property would be part of the new picture for a a whole host of economic, efficiency and egalitarian reasons.

  30. John Fletcher – Bizarre fights Mr Cameron picks. His own backbenchers, the BBC, why give your opposition any more ammunition than necessary???

  31. @ Colin @ 7:10

    It is negative PR for the coalition because of the way in which the BBC presented it (in my view it was a rather poor QT – three journalists arguing with each other) and also because the argument is weakened by the fact that the LibDems put up a failed candidate.

  32. I also can’t help feeling the CGT on second homes is a bit of a red herring, or at least will not affect many people. Given that there’s a £10,100 annual tax free threshold, so a couple owning a holiday home get twice that anyway. For a property worth £250K and taking into account any repairs or tax deductable expenses you would still need an annual price inflation of 10% in order to even start paying CGT. If you did get this, then frankly you deserve to be taxed a little, in my view. You would still be paying a lot less tax than someone earning a wage of £25K, so what’s the complaint?

  33. If you thought you would pay 40% CGT on your second home, would you sell it?

    If you bought it at say £120,000- it rose to £200,000 you would be liable to pay £80,000. This would eradicate your 10 years of gains on it… had you simply spread your cash around in ISAs, shares, collectibles you could have avoided this £80,000 bill

    Instead you would consider other options…. a phoney divorce with your wife- let your keep one house you the other.. sign it over to your son… put it in the family business name so that it becomes a business asset.. anyone buying a second home now will just put it in a loved one’s name (your wife perhaps)

    In short, there are several options open to people… This is sure to see the yield be very low indeed…

    I support the redistribution of wealth but this is not the way to do it.

  34. The debate about CGT is interesting because four different things are mixed in the debate: economic doctrines, pure ideology and budgetary considerations and being a chip in the coalition bargaining.

    The fact that, as the FT reported it today, the cancelling of the ID card (and biometric passport) will bring only 220 million saving in four years does not help.

  35. My apol your bill would be £32,000 wouldn’t it?

  36. @ Eoin Clarke

    Yes, 40% of the gain less deductible expenses.

    Manipulating sales documents (price) could also occur.

  37. @laszlo,

    When I bought my house (entirely kosher) The lady did try to get me to purchase it ‘her way’. I suspect this was aimed at shoring up paperwork at her end to avoid these types of bills. She was even going to give me 5k to do it that way.

    they are experts at dodging this, the only people who will pay are the honest and decent hardworking people who were told ‘bricks and mortar’ were an invest. A pension if you like.

  38. @ Eoin

    Yes, it is common – it use to be because of the stamp duty, fees and also because of splitting changes in the bank account figure between asset-related and income related change.

    However, this could become really massive with such a change in the taxation system.

  39. Good result for Lib Dems especially with a possible ‘Huggett’ effect. Labour will want to forget this one quickly.

  40. Laszlo,

    You would almost query the wisdom of buying your home at all in view of this.

  41. Eoin – Quite. My husband and I had come to this conclusion before the election!!
    We live in the South east and the multiples are just so ridiculous now, we might as well rent. We sold our house, put the equity in the bank and gave up on the whole nonsense of it all.
    (you need to earn 80k between you to buy the very cheapest family home!!!)

  42. @Eoin – your sums (even the corrected ones) are completely wrong.

    Firstly, you would pay CGT at the rate you pay income tax – it’s only 40% if you are a top rate earner. But lets assume you’re super rich, so you have to pay at 50%.

    With a capital gain of £80K you could be liable for £40K CGT. But each year you get a tax free allowance – currently £10,100. So each year you own the asset you are allowed £10K of capital gain without tax.

    lets say you own the asset for 4 years – so you have a tax free gain of £40,400, reducing your CGT bill to £19,800. If your partner owns 50% of the property, you have two allowances so then owe nothing. If you own the asset individually, if you had owned it for 8 years you would also pay nothing.

    You also need to set against the gain any allowable costs – maintenance and repairs etc. These also reduce the gain.

    There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your post and elsewhere that people will be liable for 40% of the gain – they aren’t.

    In all logical and reasonably analyses, CGT is a perfectly fair and balanced tax. It taxes unearned gains over a certain annual threshold (a higher threshold than Income Tax, National Insurance or VAT). The simple question economists ask is why is income derived from asset inflation taxed far more leniently than income derived from labour? If anything, it should be the other way round. Labour means people actually work, and everyone seems to agree work should be rewarded. Asset inflation does not require any work on behalf of the recipient – it’s largely the result of market speculation. Should we not prefer honest labour over gambling?

  43. @ Eoin

    To be quite honest – yes, but it’s my personal preference. Having said that, moving to the UK many, many years ago, I had to accept the values here (and my British family’s desire) – so I had to overcome my preference.

    Except if someone using property as a part of portfolio investment or has skills in playing in the market, the “own house” as an asset/investment does not make much sense (3% annualised increase in value in a working lifetime) – only for the next generation :-).

  44. Sue,

    And I hope you would agree with me, we are not talking about millionaires? Ordinary punters suffer the most. I realise your a broker but to people like myslef speculating in shares seems like gambling. I’d stand a better chance of backing a winner in the grand national.

    My interest is quite selfish in the whole thing. I wanted a way of setting aside money for my son so that when he was 21 he had a decent start. I’ll have to go away and think again.

    That apartment in Pula (Croatia) is becomming ever more appealing.

  45. @ALEC “Are we sure about that? UKIP was the only party to increase it’s vote in Thirsk last night and more than doubled it’s share. OK – we’re only talking 2,500 instead of 1,500 and a 6.6% share in effectively a by election, but I wonder?”

    Are you sure about that? The notional figures I saw had Conservative +1%, Lib Dems +4.5%, UKIP +3.5% and Labour -9.8%. UKIP got a substantial boost and all but this is in an ultra-safe Blue seat (where voting Purple won’t let a “liberal” in) and where there would be sympathy and publicity due to the death of their previous candidate.

    I’m not really convinced that UKIP could be a force significant enough to pull a large number of right-wing Tory backbenchers under the current system. I’m not even sure if they could under direct PR (D’Hondt etc) tbh – I think their success in EU elections is more to do with the low turnout than anything else. This may be wishful thinking though as I really, really dislike UKIP.

  46. Sorry, I just noticed that I reused “Are you sure about that?” in my reply and it sounds a bit arseish – apologies for wording!

  47. @ Alec

    You are right with many points. There is a policy element though: how will it affect people’s behaviour. I guess this is the main reason for reluctance to suddenly change the taxation system – whichever government is in power.

    I remember the anecdote from my public finance UG course. Oral exam: professor takes the student to the window. It’s a wonderful spring day. What do you see – this is the question. The correct answer: subjects and objects of taxation.

    There is also a historic perspective. Historically Tories favoured indirect taxation, liberals direct, proportional income taxation, social democrats progressive income and wealth taxation. It seems that, although in a blurred form, it’s still around.

  48. @Alec

    Labour means people actually work, and everyone seems to agree work should be rewarded
    __________________________________________

    Of course.

    But money that is invested had to be earned first and of course taxed.

    Labour (except in a few dangerous professions) is not risky. You put in te hours you are pretty much guaranteed to be rewarded.

    Investment however is risky in the sense that you do not know if you will make a gain or a loss, and our current economy relies on investment so the willingness to take risk should be reflected in the rate of tax IMO.

  49. One other thing to bear in mind amidst the talk of investments and home ownership. The fact that we have a lenient CGT regime has helped to distort the markets and the tax system. If we had a balanced tax regime, it is highly likely that the rampant speculation in the housing market would have been far more controlled, and areas like mine blighted by empty second homes would have been spared the community decline and unaffordable housing.

    Secondly, if a greater tax take came from assets, less would need to come from income. Saving for your pension/children would therefore have been easier (and safer) because you wouldn’t be paying as much earnings based tax and mortgages would have been cheaper.

  50. DunKhan

    The doubling of the UKIP’s vote should not be dismissed that lightly. Nor should the 1,500 given to the Lib candidate.

    10% of the Thirsk electorate voted for UKIP/Liberal – I read that as a direct rebuff to the coalition.

    It is true that reds sank like a red balloon but this is Thirsk afterall :)

1 9 10 11 12 13 14