There is a new ICM poll in the Guardian tomorrow that probably isn’t what David Cameron hoped for on his 100th day in power. Topline voting intention figures are CON 37%(-1), LAB 37%(+3), LDEM 18%(-1). This is the first time an ICM poll has shown Labour catching the Conservatives since October 2007 and the election that never was.

Despite this rather striking finding, the Guardian’s report concentrates upon the findings on the economy, which is rather more positive for the government. 44% thought the government was doing a good job on securing the economic recovery, compared to 37% who thought it was a bad job. 42% thought George Osborne was doing a good job, 33% a bad job (a net approval of +9). ICM’s approval rating for the government stands at +10 (the difference between this and the narrower figures from YouGov will be at least partially the wording – YouGov ask if people approve of what the government is doing, ICM ask if they are doing a good job. ICM’s wording probably picks up people who think the government is doing a competent job at something they don’t necessarily agree with).


130 Responses to “ICM show Labour and Tories neck and neck”

1 2 3
  1. Too far to the left, doesn’t seem to appeal as a leader and his attempts to distance himself from Iraq etc are severely damaging his credibility on my eyes.

    Report comment

  2. @The Last Fandango

    Er… I might know a little bit of what I’m talking about, as I’ve been to quite a few Liberal Democrat fund raisers, and have relatives who have stood for election as Liberal Democrats.

    Liking the idea of Coalition government in general, does not at all mean they will like the idea of this specific Coalition government.

    Report comment

  3. @Neil A

    It’s my view that the coalition are five levels down in the crypts of moderate doom, and their cleric is on five hit points.

    Report comment

  4. @ JayBlanc:

    “Liking the idea of Coalition government in general, does not at all mean they will like the idea of this specific Coalition government.”

    Simon Hughes:

    ” a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour is still on the agenda for after the next general election.”

    .

    Report comment

  5. Sue

    “Colin – Everything EM says is true. If he chooses to address his campaign to those voters, few in the Labour Party would disagree with him. If, however you’re waiting with baited breath for Michael Foot you’ll be disappointed.”

    Well well.

    I only read what the guy says.

    If he ever gets anywhere near the keys to No 10-I will be very interested to know what you/your firm is advising it’s clients to do with their equity portfoios ( I seem to remember you saying you are in stockbroking)

    I wouldn’t need too much advice myself.

    Meanwhile I can only hope & pray that he is as close to winning as he says he is.

    Report comment

  6. Colin – In all honesty, EM is the leader I will put 5th on my choice. (Yes, 5th)

    However, if my party democratically choose him, I will accept it and get behind him and his vision for our country 110%. If my party think we should go left, they must go left. The electorate will then make a judgement for themselves.

    Report comment

  7. Colin,

    Your two posts on EM are good. I relate to both of them from the other side of the spectrum and I do not doubt he faces an electoral challenge to win from a more principled and more leftist stance.

    Our chances of being reelected are significantly better served by heading right into the centre of UK politics. EM is not daft- he knows that.

    If he is elected it will require a year or two of positioning so that he can allay the fears of the electorate…

    Moving forward he stands a good chance of reuniting all wings of the party. That might be an internal political advantage, as opposed to a party political.

    I wish him the best of luck. The political landscape is too far on the horizon to know how best to emphasise future labour policy. The debate on the other thread exemplifies this.

    Report comment

  8. Sue

    You said “…Amusing to see Martyn and Rob arguing oh-so-intellectually over their certainty about what will occur in the next 5 years. Neither of you know, so there!!…”

    This is true: neither of us know what’s going to happen. It’s a clash between two different approaches…

    My approach is: I’m looking back at the past and using past events as a guide. As Rob correctly points out, past performance is no guarantee of future events. Fair enough: I’m not guaranteeing anything. All I am pointing out is that whenever something like this happened in the past, it lasted.

    Rob’s approach is: outline a future sequence of events that can lead to a Coalition collapse. Fair enough, could happen. But my point is unless you can assign probabilities to each event (and, as Jay points out, any probabilities would be just guesses), the statement is literally meaningless. Now Steven Wheeler (Lab) has actually tried to do this, and came up above with a ~20% chance that the Coalition will collapse. Now, that may be right, it may be wrong, I dunno. But at least he’s shown his working so I can check his math. Rob isn’t doing this, so there’s nothing to check.

    Regards, Martyn

    Report comment

  9. Martyn – I got a B instead of an A in my GCSE maths as I refused to show my workings.
    I thought it was a ridiculous concept and the right answer should serve them well enough. (I’ve always been terribly precocious, I also refused to sit the modern literature part of my degree as I argued that in most cases the jury was still out)

    As a HUGE advocate of ER, you use the past to prove why the coalition will probably last.

    As a HUGE supporter of Reds, Rob uses probability to prove why it probably will not.

    Excuse my scepticism (In the nicest possible way ;) )

    Report comment

  10. Eoin
    Thanks
    Courteous as ever.

    I just think he will spook an awful lot of people in Industry & Commerce-the City etc.

    And I cannot see how he will widen Labour’s appeal. Indeed he appears to be focussing it’s appeal on a more core sector.

    But hey-what do I know.
    He’s not my concern really.

    Report comment

  11. Colin,

    Yes- that is what he is after. The core vote and energising it… with all this three party stuff that means a bit more that it did when Blair took over back in the mid 90s. If Blair had gone for C V S then we’d never have got in…. With partisan dealignment etc… holding your core is not to be sniffed at…

    Report comment

  12. Comres were way out and all over the place, they are a useless poll. The only two polls I take much notice of are ICM and Ipsos Mori, these two polls are consistent and always average out.

    I would like someone to explain to me, whenever there is a bad poll for the Tories on YouGov, why is it always rectified by at least a 2 point recovery the next day? This is now in the realms of impossibility. What gives?

    Report comment

  13. @Marjorie

    You said “…I would like someone to explain to me, whenever there is a bad poll for the Tories on YouGov, why is it always rectified by at least a 2 point recovery the next day? This is now in the realms of impossibility. What gives?…”

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

    @Sue

    Point taken. I am still right, tho[1]… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

    [1]: Well, to be more accurate, I am still wrong-ish, but the extent of my wrong-ishness is knowable.

    Report comment

  14. @colin/ eoin

    “@colin: Your two posts on EM are good. I relate to both of them from the other side of the spectrum and I do not doubt he faces an electoral challenge to win from a more principled and more leftist stance.”

    Ah- the touching example of that most historical of electoral alliances: between the hard right of the Tory party and the hard left of the Labour party.

    Just like when they both wanted Footie to be leader !

    We all know which element has done the best out of it ;-)

    @Eoin

    EM said during hustings “if I had been an MP in 2003 I would not have voted for the war’

    You said : EM has a more principled….stance

    You are completely kidding right ??

    Report comment

  15. Rob Sheffield

    “Ah- the touching example of that most historical of electoral alliances: between the hard right of the Tory party and the hard left of the Labour party.”

    I am not “hard right”.

    Report comment

  16. ……..but it would be eminently preferable to the living death of the authoritarian left’s humourless tendency.

    :-)

    Report comment

  17. Marjory – it’s normal regression towards the mean, outliers in polls (or other statistics) will tend to be followed by findings close to the average. It works the other way too – there’s a 8 point lead for the Conservatives today, but the chances are it will be smaller tomorrow since the average is around 4 or 5.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversion_to_the_mean

    Report comment

  18. Rob,

    I hope your sleeping well :)

    Report comment

  19. Rob – I am truly mystified.

    How can anyone claim DM is an un-principled, disloyal chancer and then claim EM is principled as he mops up the core vote??

    How can anyone laud Cameron for moving to the centre, then insist the Labour Party should NOT choose a candidate that does the same ?

    How is DA the left-wing choice when she sent her own child to private school?

    Why have I concluded that DM and EM are much more left wing than we give them credit for, AB is the Blairite candidate, and EB is not as left wing as I thought?

    Why do people think the wider electorate would vote for EM?

    Every day I get more and more confused by the leadership contest.

    When previously red posters suggest that Labour should have no policies, that we send foreign speaking prisoners abroad to be locked up, and use a treadmill to generate their own electricity, yet decide DC is the new Obama and agree with everything Colin and Pete B say, I am frankly spinning.

    Report comment

  20. @Sue M

    I can’t add anything to any that- he’s been well and truly ‘deconstructed’ ;-)

    @Colin

    “I am not “hard right”.”

    ???!!!

    Not convinced :-)

    Report comment

  21. Rob,

    I am afraid I cant comment on Ed’s brother. I courteously made an undertaking i would avoid reference to him for the next 5-6 weeks.

    Hard left? I’ll put that down to the late hour at which you posted it yesterday. Suffice to say that the two Trot colleagues who passed me in the cafeteria yesterday do not think so.

    But then we all have our ivory towers don’t we. I guess Rapunzel probably thought she was an active citizen.

    Report comment

  22. Eoin – Not no comment on DM? Just veiling the contempt a bit? I would never ask you not to comment.

    Report comment

  23. ROB

    “Not convinced ”

    Bless !-as if I care :-)

    Report comment

  24. Sue,

    Veiling no. Not at all in fact. I have not alluded to DM once- nor to I intend to. As it so happens, I am true to my word. As far as i am concerned he will not enter my head until the leadership race is over.

    Report comment

  25. Not sure if I was clear.

    I meant I would never ask you not to comment.

    Report comment

  26. Sue,

    So as I am clear- I was veiling nothing. Centemptability does not come naturally- rather, I veiwed it as a philisophical difference.

    Report comment

  27. As we have the thread to ourselves, I still don’t understand and I really want to.

    You do hold him in contempt or you don’t?
    It seemed that you did and it was this I disliked, as I’ve tried very hard to look at all the candidates afresh.

    I felt you had every right to your contempt by the way, just not to present it as fact, rather as opinion.

    Report comment

  28. Sue, (you will have to address me by my name it is most discouteous not to)

    The presentation of argument differs in academia. I think it explains why Martyn, Rob, Laszlo and myself phrase things in the manner we do. IF we do not have the courage of our conviction sin our own domain… our colleagues/academic peers would not give us the time of day…

    When yourself and Amber post on financial matters the post carry a different type of tone than if you were posting on something else. More authority but that is not to say that you post with certainty- simply authority

    As it so happens, I think we all collectively know nothing. Knowledge is too vast for us ever to know anything. But when I put my point accross I take it as a given that it is simply that my point. And importantly, my views carry no more authority than Wayne’s for example.

    Report comment

  29. Eoin – I nearly always do, why is it discourteous? No-one else has commented since midday, I reckoned I was fairly safe!

    Sorry, but I’m not really any the wiser.

    Never mind.

    Report comment

  30. Sue,

    We are going round in circles. Suffice to say that do not hold any current of MPs of any persuasion in contempt.

    I was sure of DMs candidature many years ago… I have been reading his words carefully since. But no- I do not hold him in contempt.

    Report comment

1 2 3