Ipsos MORI’s political monitor for September is out and has topline figures of CON 37%(-3), LAB 37%(-1), LDEM 15%(+1). Changes are from MORI’s July political monitor – there does not appear to have been one in August.

This is the second poll to show the parties equal after ICM’s last month. YouGov earlier this week showed the two main parties within one point of each other. YouGov’s voting intention this morning meanwhile was CON 42%, LAB 39%, LDEM 12%.

Something interesting for the methodology geeks amongst us – below is a graph of past vote recall for the 2010 election from MORI’s five polls since the general election. Unlike most other pollsters do not weight by past vote, so while we should expect their past vote recall to be more volatile than other companies, any trends that are there will not be weighted out of existance – note the percentage of those saying they voted who say they voted Liberal Democrat. In May, 28% of people telling MORI they voted at the election said they voted Lib Dem, clearly higher than the Liberal Democrats actually got. In the months since then, the proportion of people claiming they voted Lib Dem at the 2010 election has dropped to 21%. We’ve gone from people claiming they voted Lib Dem when they probably didn’t, to people conveniently “forgetting” that they ever voted Lib Dem.

484 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Reuters – 37/37/15”

1 8 9 10
  1. @ Barney Crockett

    I can’t vouch for any of it. I mean I’ve seen some pro SNP posters on different websites who don’t seem to like the guy. Murphy doesn’t like Nationalists and they don’t like him. But people are allowed to have their own opinions.

    Now do you actually care about insults in regards to names of individuals? There are so many Thompsons and Murphys and Kennedys in the U.S., I couldn’t assume any of them were related.

    The guy has a bright future politically even if he’s Scottish. He’s far better looking than Gordon Brown for starters. :)

    @ Eoin

    Wasn’t David Cameron once asked early this year what his favorite joke was and didn’t he respond: “Nick Clegg”?

    Interesting about the Irish names, especially with Kennedy. So if Jim Murphy’s name were to be translated into traditional Gaelic, it would be Seamus O Murchu, right? Murphy seems pretty proud of his Scottishness. It’s entirely possible that only one part of his family comes from Ireland.

    I will from now on (if it ever comes up) use the term “Scots Irish.” Senator Webb (the one who once nearly got into a physical altercation with Bush at the White House) uses the term “Scotch-Irish” but he’s an American and probably doesn’t think of it as offensive. I think Judge Wardlaw has used that term too.

    @ Billy Bob

    I think a more nasty term for a politician would be “a*****e” or “motherf****r” or “psychotic b***h” or “jerk” or “Mayor Dumb**s” or “President s**t for brains” or “moron” or in the case of the 1988 Democratic Primary Field, the” Seven Dwarfs”.

    Before looking up the words, if I had been in Scotland or England and someone had called me spud or called me a numpty or reffered to someone else that way, I wouldn’t have known the meaning and thought “oh another one of those British words that has disappeared from the American English vocabulary.”

    @ Amber Star

    There’s an excellent City Councilman in Washington, DC, Jim Graham, who has a great sense of humor and would make a wonderful mayor. His trademark is bowties and these orange framed glasses. Well it turns out that he is in fact Scottish, well American now but he was born in Scotland. For a number of reasons, he could never be the mayor but being Scottish would not be one of them. Lol.

    But maybe Jim Murphy can be elected the PM some day. If the U.S. can elect a black man and Australia can (kinda) elect a woman, surely Britain can elect a Scot. I read his website and he did support the English team during the World Cup. Maybe he’d have that Obamaesque style appeal to English voters.

  2. Did anyone just watch “The Special Relationship” on BBC2?

    Brilliant attempt imo to frame Blair’s relationship with the US – and how it ended up undoing him.

    Loved it.

  3. SoCalLiberal

    The term “Scotch-Irish” isn’t offensive. It’s an American term which IIRC refers to immigrants who sailed from Northern Irish ports (mainly Belfast). Many Scots and Irish sailed from there, and there is no particular reason why the USA should have discriminated between them.

    In the 19th century “Scotch” was a quite acceptable term for Scots. Words change, however, over time, and we now use “Scots” in preference, when talking about people.

    It’s only offensive to call us “English” – when you know what you are doing! Otherwise it’s like people here talking about the Netherlands as Holland, or Americans in the Southern States as “Yanks”. A little bit of cultural ignorance of other countries.

  4. Sue

    Agreed – but having recently watched Frost/Nixon, I kept on being confused as to whether Michael Sheen was being Blair or Frost – the performances seemed identical.

    Make of that any political points you wish. :-)

  5. @ Old Nat

    1. When I think of English conquerors particularly the English taking over Scotland and Ireland, I think of the crown and I think of all people living under the crown as subjects of the king and queen. That is when the royal family had actual governing power.

    2. I think Barney does think Murphy is an excellent politician. He gave me a veryi detailed answer about the guy’s political potential and his appeal.

    @ Eoin

    I was aware that New York used to be New Amsterdam. Even if English does take over the globe, it’s not really the same language. At times it seems that Americans and Brits speak two different languages. Some of you guys could tell I was an American just by the diction in my writing.

    To counter cultural imperialism, many black Nationalists in the 60’s began naming their kids what they perceived to be traditional African names. There’s this comedian, Finesse Mitchell, who does a funny but about it. I always pronounce these names correctly though.

    @ Colin

    Interesting. Yeah, educational figures are always interesting. They’re rarely the type to evoke neutral feeling, usually evoke either hatred or love. Michelle Rhee is that way though she’ll continue to have movies made about herself and continue to self-promote.

    Does Cameron suffer from some of the same party restlessness that Obama does? That is, lots of Democrats feel disenchanted that Obama is not doing enough. Do Tory activists feel the same way or does Cameron have the excuse of the Coalition?

    I always get the feeling that the Lib Dems put up with Clegg because he’s their Tory while the Tories put up with Cameron because he’s their Blair Labourite. And that for whatever political troubles they get into, even if everyone else hates them, Clegg and Cameron actually like each other and hold similar viewpoints (even if not those held by their respective parties). I could be wrong on this.

  6. @ Sue

    I found The Special Relationship a little brittle. It was a spin off from The Queen which I thought was a better movie – largely because Helen Mirren gave an Oscar winning performance.

    I didn’t find Michael Sheen – or the woman who played Cherie – conveyed any change in the characters over time; whereas everybody knows the Blairs changed a great deal over the 10 years covered in the movie.

    I am looking forward to a post memoirs movie that really gets under the skin of the Blair years – we shall see if it is ever forth-coming. 8-)

  7. SoCalLiberal

    “When I think of English conquerors particularly the English taking over Scotland and Ireland, I think of the crown and I think of all people living under the crown as subjects of the king and queen.”

    You are sadly misinformed.

    The current political Union between England and Scotland was by Treaty to unite the Parliaments – not a conquest. Somehow I don’t expect Barney to suggest that we had something of a gun to our head at the time. :-)

    As for the Union of the Crowns, the first Union (when the King of Scotland became King of England) collapsed in Civil War in both countries and war between them.

    The current Union of the Crowns took place in 1689, when the Scots Parliament decided to appoint the same Dutch King as the English adopted.

    On that basis, you should be asking what the Dutch did to both England & Scotland.

    However, I suspect you knew all that and that you are still extracting the “sterile, liquid by-product of the body”. :-)

  8. Huh, Amber, I thought it showed how Blair started to change and what might have led to it.

    By the end, I thought he was the start of Tony2 The Revenge.

    I thought the casting was brilliant, esp the Clintons.

  9. Amber – something I know you WILL love is a little gem I just saw on You Tube. Don’t think AW would appreciate the link, so will think of brilliant way to tell you about it cleverly……

  10. If for instance there was a song about a right wing paper with the most sensational headlines that rhymes with Fail….

    (OK, not very cunning, but it’s late and I’m tired ;) )

  11. Old Nat
    Not at all techy I was approving of your comments No sarcasm
    Socal Liberal
    I live in Aberdeen and there are I believe 7 in the usa. There is also a Crockett County in Texas. I am showing a group round our Town House (City Hall ) on Friday from Aberdeen Mississippi

  12. Sue Marsh

    “If for instance there was a song about a right wing paper with the most sensational headlines that rhymes with Fail”

    That could cause some confusion, given the discussion on Irish political parties earlier! :-)

    The Daily Boil?

  13. Socal Liberal
    Individual nick names?
    As Old Nat said, if you call someone with an Irish name Spud in Scotland it will not be taken as individual but as a slur on a starving peasant background. A bit like Socal people speaking years ago of Okies and Arkies

  14. Socal Liberal/Amber
    Of course we have never had a Catholic PM before but many Scots

  15. Old nat
    I have a comment in moderation (my first Time!) just saying I approved of your comments

  16. Oldnat – funniest thing I’ve seen for ages.

  17. Barney

    Do you think it’s in moderation [b]because[/b] you approved of my comments! :-)

  18. Blast!

    I’ve forgotten which brackets to use in HTML!

  19. Barney

    And your views on this?
    (Scotsman 3/12/09)

    Lothians Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, a former UK government minister, referred to the First Minister as “Il Duce” – the nickname of Italy’s Second World War leader.

    However, Lord Foulkes refused to apologise and claimed that his comments were just “a slip of the tongue”.

  20. Old nat
    You are on a roll
    I certainly don’t approve

  21. @ Old Nat

    My best friend got married to a guy from Tennessee. She’s a blue blooded wasp (descended from a former president) who grew up in the suburbs just outside Washington D.C. He refers to her as a “Yankee.” She points out that in fact, Maryland (a state where slaveowning was once legal and commonly practiced) is below the Mason-Dixon line. So technically she’s not a Yankee. But I don’t think Yankee is a perjorative term, it’s just used differently. Brits will refer to all Americans as Yankees. Southerners will refer to Northerners (and perceived Northerners) and sometimes westerners as Yankees.

    I would never refer to a Scot as English or vice versa. Similarly I would never fer to a Salavadoran as a Mexican or vice versa. I’ve only been offended by people who think I’m from Orange County.

  22. SoCalLiberal

    “I’ve only been offended by people who think I’m from Orange County.”

    Seems reasonable! :-)

    We have more family in the USA than in Scotland – and my wife has more in Maryland than anywhere else.

    PS Did you really think we had been conquered by the English? There is a belief that Americans don’t do irony, but I’ve found that you guys often do it very well.

  23. @ Old Nat

    Well the Dutch king didn’t really conquer England so much as he was invited to become the King of England by Parliament.

    Though while I’m on the topic, King James I became the King of England when he was already the King of Scotland. When King Charles I took the throne of England after James died, who became the king of Scotland? As I’ve understood it, frequent invasions from the Scots led to Charles’s ultimate downfall because he needed money to raise an army and only Parliament could give him the cash (requiring him to call Parliament back into session). But if Charles was the son of James, wouldn’t he have become the King of Scotland as well?

    In any case, most Scots speak English. It seems like this was at some point forced upon the Scots. And I’ve heard that a lot of Irish people speak English too (though there are many who also speak Gaelic). So I think my original question is, when Scots were taught the English language, were they forced to assume English names as well or did that just happen naturally?

    @ Barney Crockett

    Hmmmm…..I don’t think anyone uses the term “Okie” anymore. Though there are debates on the term redneck and hillbilly. Bill Clinton refers to himself as a “redneck.”

  24. Howard. Thankyou very much. I was thinking of doing some polling on this but probably not until next year when the shape of Continental policy becomes clearer in the run up to the French Presidential Election and we see how the Labour Party here is positioning itself. I think Cameron is extremely grateful that he has a cast iron excuse in the Coalition to keep Redwood and Co in check. I am also a bit confused how AV plays re Europe: UKIP think it will greatly increase their influence apparently. On the other hand, more coalitions will at least mean moderation, but then moderation will not lead to euro entry or anything of the kind in any forseeable future I fancy, just an absence of any serious moves for withdrawal. Best wishes anyway.

  25. @ Old Nat

    There’s a great line in the movie Clueless where the main character, Cher, offends her housekeeper by informing her that she needs her to speak to the gardeners because she doesn’t speak “Mexican.” Her housekeeper gets offended and storms off, saying “I’m not a Mexican!” Cher’s step brother explains to her that the housekeeper is from El Salvador and not Mexico. When Cher protests that this is a minor difference, he says to her “Cher, you get offended if people think you’re from south of Sunset Boulevard!”

    I only limit myself to Orange County though.

    I didn’t think you had been conquered but that somehow the English wound up in control of Scotland. Which is why I thought Scottish Devolution was a major issue and why the Scottish language was a major issue.

    As for irony, I think it depends on which part of the country you’re in. I love irony and I love sarcasm. I’m not from New England but New Englanders do irony and sarcasm like nobody’s business. Californians understand irony though we don’t always engage in it. But we can. There are some people who don’t get irony and take everything literally. Like the people who thought the song “Blame Canada” was offensive…..I assure you those offended were not Canadians.

  26. SoCalLiberal

    OK I’m going to treat your question seriously (though I still have serious doubts about you!)

    James VI , King of Scots became James I King of England
    His son Charles I in turn became King of Scots and King of England (but both countries had Parliaments, and more importantly Scotland had a Church which brooked no interference from the Monarchy/State. Hence Charles was in conflict with both of his countries. when the English executed their King, however, they coincidentally executed the Scots King. The Scots then declared his son (Charles II) as King. The English refused to accept that and war between England & Scotland ensued (though it was far more complicated than that!).

    Eventually, the English got fed up of being a republic (silly people) and invited Charles II back as their king (remember he was already King of Scots). When Charles died, his brother James VII King of Scots (II of England) ascended to both thrones. As a Catholic he was acceptable to neither country. The English Parliament had to invent a new rule that he was a traitor to England (he was out of the country fighting) in order to remove him from the English Crown. The Scottish Parliament had to do no such constitutional maneuvers. In terms of Scots Law, they simply declared that he had broken his contract with the Scots people (in Scots Constitutional Law there is no Divine Right. We choose our rulers).

    Being pragmatic, however, the Scots agreed that they would have the same ruler as England – William of Orange – as long as he agreed to a set of conditions which protected Scots institutions. The current Union of the Crowns was decided by the Scots Parliament on the basis of Scots Constitutional Law – a contract between the King and the people (who are sovereign).

    Much contracted – but the essentials are there!

  27. SoCalLiberal

    I’ve posted a rather lengthy summary of the current Union of the Crowns – I’m assuming the length is the reason for it being in moderation!

  28. SoCalLiberal

    “but that somehow the English wound up in control of Scotland. Which is why I thought Scottish Devolution was a major issue and why the Scottish language was a major issue. ”

    Obviously, since this is an “unequal Union” – England being 84% of the population – it can be argued that England is in control (although I would suggest that the political and economic elite in the South East of England are those in control).

    Devolution is not the issue (all it did was to place the powers that had been previously exercised in Scotland under democratic control, rather than controlled by Ministers selected by the [English dominated] Commons).

    The question as to the powers of the Scottish Parliament is whether they should be extended, and if so over which areas – all the way to full independence from the UK, or somewhere in between.

    Language is not a big issue in Scotland (you are thinking of Wales). We have (at least) two native languages. Gaelic in the Highlands, and Scots (one of the many varieties of English) elsewhere. Educated Scots speak a type of English which is a little different from that spoken in England, but probably more similar to it than American English.

  29. SocCalLib,

    Black Nationalism 1960s? My partner is writing a book on the Black Panther Party. I am fortunate enough to pick up on some of her material. Yes you are right… the Afeni’s of this world were very selective about their name choice…………

  30. @ Old Nat

    Thank you for educating me about the history of Scotland and its union with England to form the current United Kingdom. I was not aware that Scotland even had a Parliament (prior to the current one established by Devolution). When your post eventually clears, I can’t wait to read it.

    With all the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie Bomber (I forget his name), I get a little confused over the fact that Holyrood has the ultimate say on issues like that without any Westminster veto possible. Yet powers such as taxation are still in the hands of Westminster and not Holyrood. I don’t blame David Cameron or Gordon Brown or anyone in the UK government for his release. I understand that the constitution puts the power in the hands of Scottish government to make the ultimate decision. But I would think taxation powers and other regulatory powers would go first to the devolved Scottish government.

    I don’t think Americans know about or understand Welsh or Scottish nationalism. I remember about 12 years ago, this segment on the Daily Show about the Scottish Nationalists entitled “Move over IRA” where they start out playing ominous music and showing footage of IRA bombings and police response. “But now, there’s a new dangerous revolutionary force to be dealt with for England….the Scottish Nationalists.” And then they break into this segment showing this group of like 25-35 middle aged men who come marching out of a stone church structure wearing kilts and playing bagpipes. And then it went through a list of very minor demands that these “dangerous terrorist nationalists” wanted. It was very funny but it didn’t exactly educate as to real issues of Scottish nationalism and the relationship with England.

    Btw, wasn’t one of the criticisms of Murphy (or Seamus O Murchu) that a Secretary of State for Scotland was no longer needed because of the Scottish Parliament?

    I find this stuff interesting because I see some parallels with the way the U.S. government treats the District of Columbia and the battle of District residents for full statehood or some sort of equivalent. I find it interesting that the electoral process set up for Holyrood was to ensure that it would be nearly impossible for one party to gain a majority of the seats. So even with Labour or the SNP in control, they have to rule with the support of another party in a coalition.

    When the Home Rule Act was passed in 1974, Congress was concerned that not enough Republicans would get elected to the D.C. City Council so they required that two of the thirteen Council seats be reserved for members of the minority party. What they did not expect was that third parties and Independents would compete for an often win those seats from the Republicans.

  31. @ Eoin

    That’s cool that your partner is writing a book on the Black Panthers. I once read and loved the Autobiography of Malcolm X. He wasn’t a Black Panther but he was definately a Black Nationalist. The Black Panthers are pretty much gone now but there are still remnants of Black Nationalism around.

    Thank you for educating me about the history of Irish and Scottish names, language, and migration histories. Two of my favorite Supreme Court Justices, William Brennan and Frank Murphy, were of Irish descent and Catholic to boot (though more Beverly Hills Catholic than regular Catholic).

    I think Hillary has some Irish ancestry.


    England and ScotLand reamin two spearate monachies until the Act of Union creates a single political entity called Great Britain.

    Up til then monarchs are crowned kings or queens of both. When they’re the first of that name i.e. Charles I they are CharlesI of Scotland and England…. James II and VII is the last one to need the double. William III conveniently is William III of both England and Scotland as is his wife, as it’s a joint monarchy, Mary II…Mary I of Enlgand is ‘Bloody Mary’ Elizabeth’s half sister and Mary I Scotland being of course Mary Queen of Scots….and thus it continues until Edward VII…who should have been Edward I of the new entity GB never found out why regnal counting went awry…Victorian superiority? No idea.

  33. Socal liberal

    “I could be wrong on this.”


  34. “I am sure LDs will see our taking part in the coaltion as a brake on UKIP Tories like IDS masquerading as Tories.”

    It is remarks like this from Howard which make me more & more certain that the SocDem element of LibDems will split off.

    I was also very amused to read in the papers this morning of the old farts who like “Liberal” attached to their identity, whilst objecting to the idea that parents & teachers be given freedom from LA control over education provision.

    This thought was crystalised on reading the outcome of EB’s dicatat , before leaving power, that parents moving home must now ask their Local Education Authority (LEA) to provide a school place for their child, rather than organise it themselves.

    ………… 44 LEAs who responded to a MoS survey admitted that 5,600 children of primary and secondary school age had still not been allocated school places in time for the start of the academic year.This would pro-rate to 15,000 children nationally.

    Wonderful-the empowering State !

1 8 9 10