YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 39%, LDEM 12%. Rather to my surprise there is no meaningful increase in Labour’s support from Ed Miliband’s first conference speech as leader. Once again, more stuff to come either later tonight or tomorrow morning.

UPDATE: I meant to update this last night or today but didn’t get the opportunity. The rest of the YouGov/Sun poll following Ed Miliband’s speech are here, and paint a rather mixed picture.

On one hand, the direct questions about the speech were all pretty positive – 36% think EM will change the party for the better, 35% that he won’t change it, 12% that he’ll make it worse, 53% believe that he is serious about reducing the deficit, 23% think he isn’t. 71% think he was right to criticise the last government and 56% that he was right to say the war in Iraq was wrong. The percentage thinking he will do a good job has also risen to 50%, from 43% before the speech.

But on the downside, he hasn’t managed to dispel the negatives he was clearly seeking to address in his speech – 32% think the unions will have too much influence (compared to 33% before the speech) and 45% think his election means the party has moved to the left (compared to 42% before the speech) – plus of course, the speech produced no obvious boost in voting intention.

Tonight we have not only the normal YouGov/Sun poll, but also an ICM poll for the Guardian.


225 Responses to “YouGov – No speech bounce for Ed – UPDATED”

1 3 4 5
  1. @GrahamBC

    “I do not understand how it became a two horse race”

    Simple: the MP’s and the Unions (i.e. the college technicalities) made it thus.

    One key thing that EdM needs to do is reform our leadership electoral system to OMOV and reduce the threshold for MP nominations – two things AB has suggested.

    Union members and MP’s/ MEP’s should not be allowed to vote twice (or more if you believe the conspiracies).

    The qualification for voting in a labour leadership election should be that you are a member of a ward Labour party as an individual.

    Nobody else should be able to vote and no organisation should be able to exert any influence on the result via recommendations/ materials supplied in support of one candidate but not any of thr others etc etc

    This reform is a matter of democratic urgency IMHO.

  2. @Frederick Stansfield

    The bookies are quoting odds for EM being PM after the next GE. No is the favourite at 4/9 while you can get 13/8 that he will be. These are slightly wider odds than for Labour as the bet is more specific as you discussed.
    FWIW the odds for the next Lab leader are 4-1 fav DM, 5-1 for YC, 10-1 the field headed by James Purnell.

  3. @Rob

    The Labour party membership agreed to the rules, and can change them if they want to. That they haven’t suggests that the party is happy with how it works.

  4. @Aleksandar

    James Purnell!?! He isnt even an MP anymore!

  5. ICM has dems at 18
    you gov has them at 12

    why the dfference

    it must be the question, i think that you gov doesn’t name the parties

  6. @Jay Blanc

    “The Labour party membership agreed to the rules, and can change them if they want to. That they haven’t suggests that the party is happy with how it works.”

    I’d like to see polling evidence on that- not sure about your assertion at all.

  7. Jay,

    I suspect most Labour party members don’t even understand the rules!

    (I must confess until very recently I did not!)

    They could be improved and somewhat more transparent.

  8. @The last Fandango

    You can get odds for TB (100-1), GB (200-1) and even Sarah Brown (100-1). However for Purnell to pip EB (12-1) and AB (14-1) is indeed strange.

  9. @Rob, Garry,

    The Party Rules are renewed or altered by membership at Party Conference, and that’s the party membership not the associations. (Not hard to look that up to double check, it’s on Labour’s website.)

  10. @Jay

    “The Party Rules are renewed or altered by membership at Party Conference, and that’s the party membership not the associations. (Not hard to look that up to double check, it’s on Labour’s website.)”

    So you are saying that it is impossible for EdM (and allies) to propose to LPC rule changes on the leadership electoral system???

    I think you are wrong on that….

  11. He can propose anything he wants. But changes to the rules would be voted on at conference, just like any other political party.

  12. I have read many of the Ireland posts with interest over the last week or so.

    The government in the south deliberately pumped as much bad news about the economy into the press as possible to accrue the narrative that further cuts are necessary. We are seeing a further £3.5bn cuts this year. aside from AIB and the other NAMA assets, Debt vis a vis GDP is 12%. Our house ownsership is among the highest in the world so whilst there will be reposessions, they tend to be more on buy to let premises rather than peoples homes. the low corp is hear to stay and the workforce remains highly competitive.

    Google, Intel Xerox and others have not announced redundancies. Our agricultural secotr and tourist trades remain strong.

    The bottom line is that cuts are a good idea for the irish economy. thei rpublic sector is much much smaller than england’s. There is even a case to be made that the state is not the number one customer in the south.

    My verdict is that Ireland will not go to the IMF, they are unlikely to avail of European funds, and the worse is over. Their economy is resilient and will bounce back well. I don’t give this verdict lightly, in fact I brewed over it for some time. But if blues want ammo to justify cuts, they could find it in Ireland’s example. I would contend that they are not like for like comparisons, but that’s for another day.

  13. @Jay Blanc

    “He can propose anything he wants. But changes to the rules would be voted on at conference, just like any other political party.”

    So- if he proposes OMOV- you think LPC 2011 is going to vote against that ??!!

  14. @Rob Sheffield – “… materials supplied in support of one candidate”

    *Must not be supplied with the ballot paper* (this was circumvented by putting the envelope containing the ballot paper inside a larger envelope containing the voting instruction material).

  15. @Billy Bob

    “*Must not be supplied with the ballot paper* (this was circumvented by putting the envelope containing the ballot paper inside a larger envelope containing the voting instruction material).”

    I know- not good.

    We need OMOV as a matter of uregency.

  16. Rob,

    OMOV would not have changed the result. By far the least proportionate 1/3 in raw democratci terms came from the MPs section.

  17. @Eoin-

    “OMOV would not have changed the result. By far the least proportionate 1/3 in raw democratic terms came from the MPs section.”

    I want one member one vote.

    In the individual membership college DM won by some distance even up to the 5th preference. If EdM is not careful about his positioning over the next 12-24 months that one simple fact could come back to haunt him (and the eider party)/

    I don’t want to change the vote of September 2010.

    I want to avoid Union activists having two votes and I want to avoid MPs/MEPs having two votes.

    I also want Union executives (containing members of parties such as SWP/ AWL/ RCP) to be stopped from sending out the ballot envelopes contained within an outer envelope that contains election materials for only one of the five candidates.

    Incidentally the guy you purported to support has said that we desperately need OMOV and a reduction in the number of MP’s it takes to triggers an leadership election.

  18. @Rob

    Can I suggest that you might mean a different term than “one man one vote”, because that would risk giving the unions a *bigger* vote, and make the parliamentary party vote insignificant.

  19. Jay

    “Can I suggest that you might mean a different term than “one man one vote”, because that would risk giving the unions a *bigger* vote, and make the parliamentary party vote insignificant.”

    As I said above- my definition of OMOV are those individual party members attached to a ward party and above that a CLP party. Ditto Andy Burnham.

    Not the ‘contracted in’ fictitious couple of million party members via the Unions as you seem to want.

    Only individual party members should be allowed a vote: not MP’s or Union members.

    Of course- you would have thought- all MP’s and a certain number of Union members- are party members.

    So they have a vote that is equal to the rest of us.

    And they don’t have more than one vote which is utterly undemocratic.

  20. Jay/Rob

    Open Primaries are the most democratic way to elect a leader or MP…. One human one vote, or one adult one vote- I cannot decide…. As for barring people becuase of their leftist leanings SWP etc… that is not what democracy is about.

  21. @Eoin-

    “As for barring people because of their leftist leanings SWP etc… that is not what democracy is about”

    Oh well now you are “out there” on the lunatic fringe.

    Why not allow Labour party members to have an influence on Tory leadership elections !!!!

    Nonce-sence Eoin.

    SWP/ Respect; AWL/ Socialist Organiser; RCP members should have NO INFLUENCE whatsoever on Labour party elections.

    Why?

    Because they are members of another party !!

    You seem to have a very very strange view of what ‘democracy ‘ actually means ;-)

  22. Rob,

    More than 35million voted to choose the Democrat US presidnetial candidate.

    That is a really beautiful thing.

    I am not sure they checked the alleigances of those people beforehand. I hope they did not.

    You have called me all sorts- Lunatic is harmless enough :) :)

  23. @Eoin-

    “Rob, More than 35million voted to choose the Democrat US presidnetial candidate.
    That is a really beautiful thing. I am not sure they checked the alleigances of those people beforehand. I hope they did not.
    You have called me all sorts- Lunatic is harmless enough / ” “As for barring people because of their leftist leanings SWP etc… that is not what democracy is about”

    SWP/ Respect; AWL/ Socialist Organiser; RCP members should have NO INFLUENCE whatsoever on Labour party elections.

    I can go along with the ‘closed primary’ approach: as long as members of other parties are ruled out.

    If you look at Democrat commentators they will support my view on that: and not yours. Democracy is best served by opposing opinion: NOT by agent provocateurs getting involved in ‘open primaries’.

    In the USA in 2007-8 it backfired on Republican operatives who thought that by influencing Democratic open primaries- and electing Obama as Democratic candidate- then the Dems’s would never win.

    Whether it works in terms of the Unions getting EdM elected……..well we will have to wait and see. I am still of the opinion that there are two scenarios: EdM is a surprise winner; or he resigns in 2013 having made no inroads into the Tory poll rating.

    I think the stepping stone to that should be one individual labour party member one vote.

    Members of trot parties (and others) should be excluded from any involvement or influence n Labour party politics.

    That is the difference between the ‘Labour Party’ and the ‘Labour Movement’.

    Just thought I should point that out ;-)

  24. A belated thanks, Aleksandar, for your information about the bookies.

    As I think it unlikely that David Miliband will be the next leader – he is moving on (good luck for him), and in any case if Ed Miliband quits the leadership for any reason, short of some accident nobody would want to happen, I think Labour would want a greater change. It follows (warning, I don’t bet on politics, so no responsibility taken) that the odds on the other candidates, particularly Yvette Cooper, are probably quite generous. Although the long odds on just about everybody suggests the next Labour leader, whenever there is a change – which may not be for a long time, may well be somebody nobody has thought of yet. Which, given that neither Blair not Cameron were in parliament when their party was previously defeated, seems quite likely.

    I watched Question Time yesterday with the teletext comments on. It cannot be said that people were in general enthusiastic with Miliband, or indeed Diane Abbot, who was on the panel. It does very much look like the Labour revivial is because people are unhappy with the Coalition Government, bot that they are enthusiastic with Labour.

  25. Why on earth would you expect the Ed M speech to give Labour a bounce in the polls when it got scant or negative coverage in the Tory press, and little time on the news bulletins? In direct conjunction with the above, where are the figures showing us how many people a) say they watched some of its coverage on one of the TV channels? b) how many actually watched it? c) for how many minutes did they watch it? and d) how much attention did they actually pay to it and him?

    Much as I love the website, I have to say, as loudly and stridently as I can,

    GET REAL!

    RR

1 3 4 5