Two polls tonight. First YouGov’s regular daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 42%, LAB 37%, LDEM 13%. The Government’s net approval rating is nil – 40% approve and 40% disapprove.

Secondly there is a ComRes poll, with significantly different figures. They have topline figures of CON 38%(-1), LAB 34%(+1), LDEM 18%(+3). This is a much higher level of Lib Dem support than YouGov are showing, up from 15% in ComRes’s last poll, apparenly at the expense of “others”. Interestingly enough, ComRes’s press release says that the proportion of Lib Dem 2010 voters who have defected to Labour has risen from 15% a month ago to 22% now, which is rather odd given the rise in overall support – presumably they have picked up enough support elsewhere to cancel it out.


121 Responses to “New YouGov and ComRes polls”

1 2 3
  1. A big congratulations to the Lib Dems for getting 13%….panic over :-)

  2. No Panic in Dorset LD circles and was not aware there was any anywhere else. Evidence to the contrary appreciated.

  3. 10 weeks ago LD were 34% Martyn reminded me.

    A fickle electorate as I demonstrated on the last thread. 85% are living in financial cloud cuckoo land, the BBC poll tells us.

  4. Anthony

    ComRes details are now up on website:

    ht tp://www.comres.co.uk/page190180478.aspx

    I don’t know if you saw a comment I did to Eoin about last month’s ComRes. I reckon they always give both Lib Dems and Others higher scores (Others are still 10% in this poll) because of the way they ask they questions.

    In particular ComRes seem to squeeze harder to get get an an opinion than other pollsters. Whether they actually go too far and boost some figures with people who will actually never vote is a matter for discussion

  5. I notice that Comres do not prompt specifically for ‘Others’ by individual name so perhaps that explains a lower Others but why the net effect is to benefit LD is opaque.

  6. Actually unless my arithmetic is faulty Others are 10 so it does not seem that many BNP and Greens are flocking to Libs. Perhaps the movements are in all directions.

    Eoin will tell us Comres is voodoo.

  7. Comres used to have a propensity Apr-May 2010 to underscore LDs by comarison with Yg say.

    That they are now overscoring them compared to YG baffles me.

    Hmmm……….. methodological changes perhaps?

  8. ComRes- eve of poll/ first after Brown left and today. Clear that only one party has lost support- though by less than YG suggest.

    CON/ LAB/ LD/ con lead

    2010-09-05 (current)
    38 34 18 4

    2010-05-13 (first post Brown poll)
    38 34 21 4

    2010-05-05 (eve of Election)
    37 28 28 9

  9. I just did hours of catching up on the other thread and now no-one will see my genius :(

  10. As far I can see from the ComRes figures, the number of defectors Lib Dem to Labour out of a sample of 161/162 GE Lib Dem voters has actually dropped from 31 to 28 from Aug to Sep. So where the increased percent comes from I don’t know. The increase in Lib Dems also comes from the Greens – but as you can see from the numbers, we’re talking tiny sub-samples here.

  11. Sue Marsh

    Worry not! Your genius wasn’t lost on me.

  12. Sue

    Even worse than that, I replied to you afterwards. :cry:

  13. It does seem that non-Yougov polls are showing a slightly different picture. Not that it’s easy to tell with so relatively few of them. Will give the LibDems at least some cheer though.

  14. Sue
    I went back especially to find it but nothing (er, of genius anyway, unless it’s that you come from a boxing family, fascinating) but I do want to find it, so could you give me a time line? I am off to bed now (driven by Tony Benn and some NS bloke arguing about what is Socialism) so will look out with eargerness to your reply tomorrow, regards, H

  15. @ Sue & Roger

    I saw your brilliance – Rob Sheffield has added a comment too. It is for you, Sue – & it made me laugh.
    8-)

  16. @ Sue

    Are you yet to reveal the results of your Labour Leadership test? Or did I miss it?

  17. Eoin
    Thanks for the info on yougov in Scotland.
    Perhaps unsurprisingly A Salmond has decided to go all out for the very high risk option of a full campaign on independance. This is the opposite of last time when voters were encouraged to give the snp a try without worrying about independence.
    To be honest the cartoons of A Salmond in one paper have been so cruel, I’ve only just realised its meant to be him. The press are being absolutely scathing.

  18. Lol. There was no genius H, though I was mildly amusing once or twice and a bit thoughtful about Coulson.

    I went back guys, thanks.

    Michael V – I haven’t yet revealed my little test.

    Went to a funeral today, so brain mushy. I’ll have to keep you in suspense a little longer, sorry.

    Nephew just joined Labour though, so I’m proud as punch.

  19. Eoin
    Notice massive Labour lead amongs the young in Scotland. More than 2 to 1

  20. @ Barney,

    “SNP to shelve plans for vote on independence” is the Scotsman headline. Are you behind or ahead of the news cycle? 8-)

  21. Barney

    “The press are being absolutely scathing.”

    Is that also true of SNP supporting papers? Oh, silly me – they are all Unionist supporting, so that’s hardly surprising.

    Amber had an interesting idea of “Independence in Britain”. Care to provide a critique, and explain to her why she is un-Labour?

    The funeral of my old boss is on Wednesday. He seconded Davie Lambie’s motion to a SLAB Conference in the early 70s that a devolved Scottish Parliament should be created. They were roundly booed and heckled, and told that they should go join the SNP.

    How times change. Hopefully, Amber is the voice of Labour’s future.

  22. @ Barney

    You were ahead – it’s now been clarified:

    First Minister Alex Salmond is set to abandon plans to put his referendum bill before MSPs and will instead appeal directly to the electorate to back the need for a vote on independence at next year’s Holyrood election.
    8-)

  23. Sue & Michael V

    Can someone fill me in on what this Labour test is all about too, please? I’ve finally got round to renewing my membership so I can vote but I have no idea who to vote for. I would be grateful for any inspirition to get off the fence.

  24. Steven

    Diane Abbott – none of the Labourites on here are supporting her, so you’ll annoy everyone. :D

  25. Steven W

    Vote on policy. It is that, that changes lives- not politicians. If anything civil servants have a greater impact, since it is they who implement it.

    Roger’s advice aint all bad.

    Barney-

    It is the best red poll in Albana ever. No wonder Old Nat and John B have been on the qt (as much as I greatly value their posts).

  26. @ Steven Wheeler

    Éoin & I have Andy Burnham in 1st because we like him. If you’d like the reasons, tell us & we’ll do a big long post that’ll bore everybody but you. Maybe even you, actually. ;-)

    Sue, Mike, Rob Sheffield & Billy Bob are all David Miliband supporters.

    We all like Ed Balls but most of us seem to prefer him as chancellor, rather than Party leader. But don’t let us put you off him for leader.

    None of us are voting for Diane because she has no experience of government & hasn’t really shown any ability to unite the left behind her, never mind the entire party. Again, don’t let us put you off. Perhaps she has [well] hidden depths.

    Ed Miliband will likely win, according to Éoin & I. The others think David will manage to hold him off. 8-)

  27. Steven Wheeler

    As Milliband D said (approximately) “Benn, Brown, Blair etc are not on the ballot paper. this is a new generation.”

    If you really think it matters which of these upper-middle class clones wins, then feel free to decide how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

    Whatever is decided, it will not be a significant decision for Scotland, so do what you think best for England (the only part of the UK for which the UK Government has responsibility for social policy).

  28. Oh Steven, how can I resist that? (Sorry everyone this will be a long post….)

    The problem is I only tested Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and David Miliband, because they were the three I couldn’t decide between, so it probably won’t help you unless you are only interested in those three
    However…..

    If someone asked me what went wrong with the Labour Party, I would say:

    The members became a machine that won elections, but we were nothing more. Generally ignored, rarely listened to, rarely engaged with. It was impossible to interact with ministers, Conference became like a celebrity line up. Worse still, there was even at times a sense we weren’t respected or even liked very much.

    For me, that was the most important thing I wanted to change. I want a representative team of women, men, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight. I want my party to reflect its members. I want to fight “the shrug” that has convinced 30% of the country not to vote at all.

    IMO Labour and all of politics has to change or die.

    As I started to get literature from all the candidates, they all said they had to re-engage with members (like me) and they wanted a more representative cabinet.
    Well, I’m sorry, but I’d heard it all before, so I decide to see who would actually put there money where there mouth was.

    So, My first test was “How accessible are these Men?” I would judge it on how easy it was to find contact details for them, and whether they actually replied to me in person (or indeed at all). Would I be able to talk to them directly? (Surely if not, then the “cabal” looked unlikely to be breached.)

    My second test was “HOW will you re-invigorate Labour” Words are fine, but I wanted tangible action that would effect change, not just talking.

    Thirdly, how would they ensure a wider range of candidates stood for Labour.

    1) Ed Balls had no contact details but email (he never replied) BUT he made the effort to come to Brighton and meet real members in someone’s garden. I spoke to him for 10 minutes. He advocated good old fashioned campaigning but all through a political term, not just at election time. He said he would introduce a Diversity Fund to help under-represented groups get elected and end undemocratic imposed selections.

    So, on all 3 he scored well, but, he didn’t set me on fire. I really liked him, loved his politics, but didn’t get the sense that the party would change very radically.

    2) David Miliband had emails and phone numbers. I phoned and spoke to someone, who suggested an email address to send my questions to. I didn’t hear anything for 10 days, but then I got a quite thoughtful reply (as follows) that actually answered my questions. (You’d be surprised how often that hasn’t been the case)

    “As part of his campaign, David is also training 1000 future leaders in the skills and techniques of community organising so Labour can once again be a living breathing movement in communities. This will help rebuild membership and reach out to new constituencies of people. He is also targeting a doubling of party membership by the next election.

    Most importantly, David is raising money to fund a Leadership Academy – this would provide support and mentoring for Labour party members, so that they are fully prepared for when the PPC lists open if they decide to run as a candidate.”

    I went on the Movement for Change training and to the rally. I was truly inspired by the idea of making Labour a movement again and actually training people in negotiation and taking action. Real change was happening around the country and I found it very exciting.

    I have had endless phone calls and emails supporting me as a Community Organiser and today I got a phone call. The chap said,

    “Thanks for coming on the training and to the rally. Would you like to come to Manchester as a thank you. There will be another rally and you’ll get to see the new leader speak”

    It was the first time in 19 years of activism I’d been acknowledged, thanked or rewarded.

    3) Andy Burnham Had email and phone details so I phoned. An aide sitting with him on his Battle Bus called me back in minutes and asked me to send my email straight to her.
    After 11 days, I got a direct response from Andy as follows:

    “I know you spoke to Jo last week, and I’m sorry it’s taken so long to give you a full response. As you probably know, we’ve been travelling round the country on our battle bus for the past few weeks, talking to members. My tour has taken in places across the UK, including those without a Labour MP or even Labour councillors. When I visited Eastbourne, local members told me I was the first frontbencher to visit since Michael Meacher. That, to me, isn’t good enough. If anything, we should be doing more to support members in those areas – not just giving them Voter-ID targets. In my manifesto – which you can find on my website http://w ww.andy4leader.com – I have said that we need to be a more active Party. We need to be more visible as a force for good in our constituencies and communities, and not just the members, but MPs too. Councillors shouldn’t be the only ones to shoulder the burden. We have to work together to get things done.

    I have said from the very beginning of my campaign that, under my leadership, there will be no more parachute candidates, no safe seats reserved for favoured sons or daughters. The choice of candidates must lie in the hands of local constituencies, not the national or regional party operation. I have also pledged to do more to support those who want to stand, either at a local, national or European level, through better training and mentoring.
    I hope this helps you, and again I’m sorry it’s taken a while to get back to you.
    Best wishes
    Andy”

    I loved his answer. He really “gets” ordinary Labour members imo and I believe him when he says things, I don’t get the impression it’s just empty promises.

    There was one final hidden test. I mentioned that I’d always wanted to work in politics just to see if any of them put their money where their mouth was and offered me any real advice.

    None of them did

    So on balance, I scored

    Ed Balls 7/10 Steady, approachable, genuine,

    David Miliband 9/10 Genuine dialogue, Actual training, courtesy, Movement for Change, first email response.

    Andy Burnham 8/10 Easily the most human, the most passionate. Engaged directly.

    My conclusion : All three impressed me, but David inspired me.

    **I have factored in the vastly different budgets available to the candidates. I accept that DM had the resources to contact me so much and set up the training. I concluded however, that he didn’t have to do any of it. He could have spent it all on posters and chauffeurs or something.

    I know that was a REALLY long post, but I hope it might have been interesting. I genuinely tried to look at all he candidates afresh, attend everything I possibly could and judge as objectively as possible.

  29. Steven Wheeler, Amber -I have just posted the results of my test and a word has put it in moderation :mad: :mad: :mad:

    PLEASE go back and read it sometime if you’re interested, it took me AGES :(

  30. Don’t you hate it when you forget the captcha code and have to rewrite everything?

    Thanks everybody for your input.

    AB is probably my favourite at the moment based upon his policies, ideology and attitude and he’ll probably get my first preference.

    The problem is he probably won’t win so I have to choose EM or DM for my second vote. I’m not enthusiastic about either.

    @Amber
    I’d love to read all your reasons. I’m not sure about everyone else but they can always scroll past.

    @Sue
    Thanks I will :)

  31. Steven

    “AB is probably my favourite at the moment based upon his policies, ideology and attitude and he’ll probably get my first preference.”

    I’m thinking along the same lines actually at the moment. AB has surprised me and I have surprised myself by being most drawn to him as leader. Gonna watch some more TV debates first though before I finally decide and rank the candidates.

    “The problem is he probably won’t win so I have to choose EM or DM for my second vote. I’m not enthusiastic about either.”

    I know what you mean but both have potential. Unfortunately both have drawbacks as well. Both are a bit nerdy and have slightly odd mannerisms. Both are career politicians.

  32. Gary

    “I know what you mean but both have potential. Unfortunately both have drawbacks as well. Both are a bit nerdy and have slightly odd mannerisms. Both are career politicians.”

    Yes and it wouldn’t be so bad if I could see some major policy difference. The only difference I see is that DM says we need to appeal to middle-class voters more and EM says we need to appeal to LDs.

    Obviously our message needs to appeal to both – it’s what the message is that matters. In fairness I haven’t really heard them both out properly yet so I’m reserving my judgement for now.

  33. @ Steven Wheeler

    Andy Burnham
    Minister for Health – massive, complicated, flagship department. Managed it without scandal or pointless tinkering which is why so few people had heard of him before now!
    Dismantled Lansley in the HoC on every crucial point of the NHS reform plans; destroyed Francis Maud on Question Time.
    Loyal to Blair & Brown whilst they were leaders; gets only one mention in Blair’s book – which is a good thing, IMO.
    Is neither trashing New Labour nor planning to forge ahead with only minor tweaks.
    Is the only one who has actually put up a mini-manifesto for consideration.
    Is the only one who has put up a mini-budget with ideas for taxation etc.
    National care plan.
    Got out on the road to meet people, during his campaign – including door knocking for an Edinburgh by-election!
    Working class background, comprehensive school, place at Cambridge on merit, worked as a journalist.
    Local boy in his constituency, huge majority.
    Coalition & right-wing media would have no obvious game plan on how to deal with him.

    Now for the ‘trivia’.
    Genuine footie fan, good taste in music, facial expressions match the subject being discussed (i.e. no amused/ patronising/ bemused smiles during serious subjects or when he is on the receiving end of ‘mockery’). No irritating hand gestures or other body language ticks. Pleasant looking, smartly dressed without being vain.

    That’s my list for now. I’ll likely keep popping up to say “…& another thing”. 8-)

  34. I’m very interested by how completely random LD support seems to be. YG has been showing quite a low level of support for LD for a while now; whilst ICM & ComRes have continuously shown a higher level.

    I’m going to take a guess that they’re floating around 12-14.

    I don’t think we can gauge anything yet though, once the conference season is over we should start to see whether LDs are in trouble; as I’m sure many LD supporters are reserving judgement on the “coalition” decision. So I’m going to wait until then before making any assumptions about their position.

    Labour leadership; like others have expressed I’m still undecided, there is no “obvious” candidate. For Me it’s this:
    DM = Charismatic, good at argument. Right of Party :/
    EM = Good Policies. Robotic; frequently flounders and leaves open goals to opposition.
    AB = Good ethics of getting grassroots on side and good new ideas; particularly like what he’s talking about regarding the realities for graduates unable to find work and his NCS idea; would be a new face. Sounds scripted though.
    EB = Good at taking fight to opposition. Too embroiled in Bl vs Br, risky seat, comes across as a liar.
    DA = Completely in her own little world.

    So actually… having just weighed it up like that I think I may just put a #1 on Burnham…

    Peoples thoughts on Labour NEC Committee/Treasurer/other parts of the A3 sized ballot paper?

  35. @ ACTIVITIESALAN

    Treasurer – Not Lord Prescott. Being a finance gal myself, I’m voting for Diana Holland.

    National Exec – If you are a Livingstone fan, vote for him & the candidates he suggests. If you aren’t, look at who Oona King is supporting. That’s the two groups. If you think groups = factions, vote for Livingstone & King; then ignore their recommendations or pick half & half from their suggestions.

    National Policy Forum – Being Scottish, I’ll likely take ages to make up my mind about this!

    That’s my suggestions – for what it’s worth. 8-)

  36. Amber

    “National Policy Forum” I don’t know what this is – but how many of the policies it produces (?) will be relevant to Scotland?

    If they are social policies which apply only to England, should you have any input at all?

  37. @ Old Nat

    Scotland was under-represented on Labour’s national policy forum because we have our own parliament. Labour will hence-forth include more Scottish representatives because Labour does so well in Scotland.

    To be devastatingly frank – the National Labour Party have discovered that Scottish residents are not an alien species. So why do middle-class Scottish residents vote Labour & the same class of voters in the South don’t?

    Perhaps it cannot be dismissed as Thatcher’s legacy – perhaps having to compete with the SNP up here actually means the SLP have to devise better policies (or nick them from the SNP depending on your Party affiliation).

    Whatever it is, we are now to have Scottish reps on the national policy forum, duly elected at the same time as our new leader. 8-)

  38. @ Old Nat

    Follow on from previous posts – Britain needs Scotland’s input. They would be lost without us. ;-)

  39. POLL ALERT

    Anthony, had you spotted this TNS-BMRB poll in the Herald?

    Lab 42% (-4)
    SNP 32% (n/c)
    Con 12% (+2)
    LD 11% (+1)

    Seat predictions from that poll:

    Lab 59 seats (+13)
    SNP 43 seats (-4)
    LD 14 seats (-2)
    Con 13 seats (-4)
    (Grn 0 seats (-2))
    (Ind 0 seats (-1))

    Note: 65 seats are required for the government to have an overall majority

    Another Lib-Lab pact?

  40. link to Herald artocle on that new TNS-BMRB poll:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/snp-trails-labour-by-10-points-1.1053016

    link to Holyrood seat calculator:

    http://www.scotlandvotes.com/holyrood

  41. Why exactly is the Sun asking YouGov to do so many polls for them?
    I could understand before the election but it was three months ago now.

  42. @Steven Wheeler

    To have elected one leader who went on to develope mad staring eyes could be considered as unfortunate, to elect another who already has them 8O , would seem foolhardy. (Look in my eyes, look in my eyes, not around the eyes, look in my eyes.)

  43. Activitiessalan – My friend, Simon Burgess is standing for NEC – he’s an amazing guy, worked in local politics here for 17 years, works every minute of the day and gets involved in local issues all the time. If anyone deserved to win his seat in 2010, it was Simon, but sadly, he didn’t

    Another friend, Daniel Chapman is standing for Youth and also works so hard we joke he’ll waste away.

    Martin Philips is standing for the National Policy Forum and is very level headed, astute and measured.

    Hope these help – At least when you know people you can vouch for them (or not, lol)

  44. ActivitiesAlan,

    Good post- I agree with your analysis on all five (i might be a bit kinder on Diane- she is a lady afterall).

    we NI CLP are pushing for these six to get onto the NEC

    Peter Wheeler,
    Ellie Reeves,
    Ann Black,
    Luke Akehurst,
    Shaukat Ali
    Oona King.

    Take a look at what they are about. Any vote would be greatly appreciated.

  45. Stuart,

    Thanks for the poll (TNS)

    The Lab- SNP gap is 10% with both YG and TNS. I would lean more to YG’s poll because the latter have a track record in overegging red.

    The low blue stands out in TNS’ Stuart. Have you any thoughts on it?

  46. Eoin,

    I’m afraid that Taylor Nelson Sofres (the old System Three) have a pretty dire record of overstating Labour and understating the Tories.

    I’m not entirely sure why this is. There areseveral theories. A prime candidate is that TNS do not use past-vote-weighting.

    However, in TNS’s defence, ALL pollsters tend to underestimate the Scottish Tories! (Although not by as much as some Tories would have you believe! I tend to mentally add 2 points to any Scottish Tory figures that I see.)

    Why do pollsters have difficulty in identifying Scottish Tory voters? Again, there are lots of theories, but i suspect it is mostly because these people live in small “clusters”, surrounded by oceans of non-Tory voters. It is very easy for pollsters to miss out sampling such clusters.

  47. Stuart,

    Thanks for that. Is Thatcher hating abating? I wonder? Perhaps in 5 years time we will be able to judge better… I saw the £3.9bn cuts headline last week and I must say that left me less sure of a blue recovery… Was it Lanarkshire council that is shedding a 1,000 jobs?

  48. Eoin,

    I think that the Thatcher thing is over-egged quite frankly.

    The Scottish Tories have a far more elementary problem than just an unpopular leader who left 2 decades ago.

    Their fundamental problem is that they are commonly perceived as being “un-Scottish”. Even “anti-Scottish”. Now, that is really a very, very difficult brand management problem. Probably irrecoverable IMHO.

    They cannot fall below 15%. They cannot rise above 20%. They are imprisoned within that narrow band: significant in terms of electoral geography, but able to influence diddly squat in real life.

    The Lib Dems now run the Scotland Office, because Cameron has, quite literally, given up.

  49. Job losses are never a good thing,but i sincerely hope that some of those losses are the councils climate change experts so that they can find some extra cash to fund the salt reserves we’re probably going to need again this winter.

  50. Howard – no one includes the minor parties by name in their main voting intention question, although this is often unclear in the tables produced. As far as I am aware all companies do it pretty much the same way – they prompt for the main parties, giving an option along the lines of “another party”, and then give people who say “another party” a list of minor parties to choose from.

    ComRes tend to show a significantly higher level of support for others than do other companies, I am not sure why.

    Stuart – the cluster effect would be a factor in face-to-face polling where interviews are done in small clusters, but shouldn’t be a factor in telephone or online polling.

1 2 3