There were two more polls in the Sunday papers. BPIX in the Mail on Sunday had voting intentions of CON 41%, LAB 37%, LDEM 13%.

There was also a new Angus Reid poll in the Sunday Express, which seems to be their first voting intention poll since the election and apparently shows the biggest Labour lead yet. Sadly the Sunday Express doesn’t actually give the full voting intention figures – saying only that it “showed Labour taking a three-point lead over the Conservatives, with Lib Dems drifting in huge numbers to Ed Miliband’s party”.

Sadly I haven’t been able to make contact with Andy Morris yet to get the full numbers. I’m expecting Angus Reid will also have made changes to their methodology following the election, so it’ll be interesting to see what they’ve come up with.

UPDATE: The full Angus Reid voting intention figures are here, and are CON 35%, LAB 38%, LDEM 16%. Looking at the tables, AngusReid no longer seem to be weighting past vote to the actual shares of the vote at the last election – they appear to have weighted to CON 35%, LAB 29%, LDEM 25%, Others 10%, so Conservative and Labour slightly lower than they actually got and Lib Dem slightly higher. More significant might be when they ask past vote – rather than ask people to recall their vote when filling in the survey, AngusReid may now be able to use past vote data on their panellists collected in May 2010, in the same way YouGov do with their party ID weighting. I’ll get some proper details when I get chance to talk to Andy Morris.

532 Responses to “New Angus Reid and BPIX polls”

1 9 10 11
  1. Eoin

    don’t take the proposals of the statesman seriously.

    Iain Martin is a cheer leader for the blues: I’ve been reading his blog for over a year and see him regularly on bloomberg/ cnbc as a pro Conservative talking head.

    He’d love nothing more than Miliband to intervene during a Conservative conference and distract attention away from the Osbornes and IDS of this world.

    I suspect we will hear from EdM at the weekend after the Conference ends- or in the following week.

    That is the clever political tactical approach. In the meantime let Yvette after them.


  2. Alec,

    Perhaps. It won’t be very long before it is incontrovertible (one way or the other). If you are correct he has not only got us all bickering about the £86k’ers but simultaneously ressurected a nineteenth century policy that was buried in the coalition agreement. Nifty buffonary- if that is what it is.

    And all this will have happened before the ordinary voter takes the blind bit of notice.

  3. Rob S,

    Run a discourse analysis past Yvette’s once brief response- she does not criticise the principle. Simply the procedure.

  4. @SueM

    “Eoin- The same game that suggested Labour put forward no policies at all a while ago. Today however, the game requires a reply on universality.”

    Dito with ‘osborne the genius”/ “the public love and support the CB announcement”.

    Its not worth the dialectic- its that compulsion for inconsistent contrarianism against the prevailing (red poster) consensus that regularly gets him into trouble. The one that I pointed out before rearing its head again unfortunately.

  5. Sue,

    Incorrect. I have always favoured a strong policy platform- gees how one could garner anything else from my ramblings on graduate tax, housebuilding, income tax and national care service- i’ll never know.

  6. Eoin

    she quite clearly defends Universality: that is the current Labour response and is also Labours current policy posiiton. Anyone listening or reading can comprehend that easily.

    You are overcomplicating it all and confusing yourself with that useless Foucauldian claptrap :-)

  7. Rob S,

    You words would carry greater weight if I was inconsistent on Osborne. I have since Febaruary consistently stated the same point regarding his ability. No red saw it as contrary back then. Perhaps the Liberal Left reputed for its tolerance has none when it comes to difference from within. ;)

  8. Rob,

    Last week Trot, this week Foucault- next week can I Wallerstein? Tis you who is inconsistent.

    The last time a red politican defended Universality was David Miliband 3 weeks and 2 days ago.

  9. Rob, you’re right, I really shouldn’t go there.

    Now I am to forget a day long discussion in which Labour were merely to be a constructive opposition and not counter anything the coalition says or does. That it didn’t need policy whilst in opposition.

    Mike N was on the receiving end of that one I think, or possibly Billy Bob.

  10. “Perhaps the Liberal Left reputed for its tolerance has none when it comes to difference from within. ”

    And there it is, as ever. If anyone disagrees with the endless glaring inconsistencies we are intolerant.

    I’m off for the night.

  11. Now even Conservative supporting Iain Martin of the WSJ is worried:

    h ttp://

  12. Sue,

    To post that I have ever said Labour did not ‘need policy whilst in opposition’ Is a balant inaccuracy. I have always argued the opposite. You see I have argued so, not out of pragmatism, but of conviction. There is probably not one day where I have not said something to that effect.

    As for being constructive in opposition – I did say that- and I still think it to be the case.

  13. @Sue

    “And there it is, as ever. If anyone disagrees with the endless glaring inconsistencies we are intolerant.”

    Yes- sadly a repetitive accusatory strand over the months since Brown lost.

  14. @Sue M

    “I’m off for the night.”

    Expect a minimum of 20 posts in each active thread when you make it back :-)

  15. Sue,

    Rob called be ‘contrarian’ ‘useless focualdian claptrap’

    I have never once insulted him in any way.

  16. In my view, if the Tories want to regain the initiative on this issue, then they should go on the attack not the defence. To see Polly Toynbee squirming on Newsnight last night, when faced with the question as to why those on low income should be taxed to provide benefits to the wealthy, was a joy to behold.
    It surprises me that the Tories didn’t see the anomalies and the problems this would cause, beforehand. After all, I seem to remember the same arguments when Tax Credits were introduced.
    The problem is to do with the fact that we switched from the taxation of the family unit, to individual taxation several decades ago and perhaps we should now plan to go back to family taxation. Then there would not be this problem. Or am I being too simplistic?

  17. Robert In France,

    You are not being simplistic at all. To actually means test it in a gradient way is very expensive and difficult to administer so blue when for the blunt chop.

    I do not know whether they forsaw the backlash or not, my guess is that Alec is probably right that they didnt- but they have used the opportunity to ressurect their marital policy, which while quite possibly unintended at first, turned out to be pretty nifty.

    The most humourous thing for me was the motley alliance of yummy mummies, well paid journalsits, and chablis socialists tempoarily uniting. I would love to deposit an archive collection of two days worth of the newspapers for posterity. Future generations will have a right chuckle.

  18. Whether the marriage allowance is a good idea or not, is a whole new argument, but to introduce it as a knee jerk reaction in the current scenario would be bizarre, likely cost more than the savings from the CB changes and would un-necessarily complicate the tax landscape, especially if only high earners over £44k are to get it.
    I thought the object was going to be to simplify the tax system, not make it more complex than even GB could manage!
    This could turn into the Tories 10p tax moment & the lesson from that exercise was surely, admit you have dropped one, U turn & weather a few days tough headlines, rather than plough on ever deeper, for months. When in a hole, stop digging, springs to mind.
    Having said all that, does this really affect that many families & does the public really care about the relatively wealthy being disadvantaged?

    Why is DM so quiet? Is he dithering?

  19. @Alec,
    RE Coulson,there was a little paragraph on this in the Times yest.erday.A good day to bury bad news?
    @Sue,With reference to your comment about U turns.It is easy to do these things in opposition not in goverment.already this coalition is developing the reputation of doing things it blatantly had no manifesto for doing.So far the Tories have had an easy ride .

  20. Sue, hi!

    You said “…The house you posted in my town was absolutely at the bottom of the barrel. It was an ex-local authority repossession in an area that saw two fatal stabbings last year. The nearest one in price to it was 150k – another repossession, the first actual house on the open market was 169k…if you think people aren’t fatally stabbed in Worthing, that St Leonards doesn’t have massive homelessness and immigration problems and that Brighton doesn’t have the highest drug related deaths in Europe, then you are simply living in some resentful bubble where anyone living above the poverty line is stinking rich and shielded from real life…”

    Going thru your points one-by-one.

    * As already explained, if the property is a house, structurally sound, of traditional construction, mortgageable and proceedable, and isn’t in a neighbourhood where you need to carry a knife to get to the shops, then it isn’t *anywhere* near the bottom of the barrel. Further down the barrel includes high-crime areas, nontraditional construction (prefabs/concrete), park homes, caravans, and maisonettes. Many people have to invoke that option – thankfully not me, but many do and have to.
    * The fact that a house is a repossession doesn’t disqualify it from being on the open market. You still buy then via an estate agent.
    * I did not say Worthing has no fatal stabbings. It would be difficult to think of an area that did not. I live in quite a nice neighbourhood (yesss!!!!) – leafy paths, tended lawns, blackberry bushes, joggers, nice people walking friendly Labs on leads, not pitbulls on strings – but even so, there was an unpleasant knife murder last year that made the news.
    * St Leonards does *not* have massive homelessness and immigration problems. Haiti has massive homelessness problems. Malta has massive immigration problems. St Leonards has literally *some* immigrants and a shortage of social housing. Like everywhere else in the UK and less than most.
    * As for your claim that Brighton has the highest drug related deaths in Europe…er, I don’t know if it’s true or not (source?). But I will note that I was able to walk along the seafront many times without benefit of armed bodyguard and was unfathomably not stabbed by drug-crazed Ukranians.

    To place your claims in context, I looked at the ONS poverty maps (specifically the worklessness maps for England and wales). Here’s the Dec 2009 version: h ttp:// Please note that there is *no* index of deprivation by which Worthing/St Leonards/Brighton are the worst in either England and Wales generally or in South-East England specifically (that’d be Portsmouth. It’s always Portsmouth).

    Regards, Martyn

    PS: for a UK wide view see:
    * h ttp://
    * h ttp://

  21. Roger Mexico
    Thanks a lot
    Anything would be forgiven of Anthony if he were to have a Scottish election constituency section.
    Old nat is right about sites. Anything remotely light-hearted seems to have closed. For a sideways slant Angus Nicholson in the Western Isles is fun

  22. MIchael V

    “a family with a single parent / one working parent earning 45k isn’t entitled to the same benefits that a family on 80k + combine”

    Just to be clear about that-when you say “benefits”-the issue here is specifically Child Benefit.

    The family on £80k combined will continue to get CB if the two salaries are any of the these combinations :

    Any other combinations which total £80 k pa will result in the higher salary being subject to 40% income tax, and the household losing CB as a result.

    Salaries of £70k , £100k, £250k, £500k, £1millon etc etc etc will also result in the loss of Child Benefit.

    CB will be retained by 85% of current recipients & lost by 15%.

    The 85% will be in the 1st to 6th deciles of UK income distribution.

    The 15% will be in the 7th to 10th deciles of UK income distribution.

  23. @Eoin Clarke

    “The most humourous thing for me was the motley alliance of yummy mummies, well paid journalsits, and chablis socialists tempoarily uniting.”

    With this sort of lazy, clichéd labelling of people you are straying dangerously close to Daily Mailesque-think. Initially, I was surprised by you doing so, but should I be? I’ve thought for some time that you’re in danger of triangulating yourself up your own exhaust pipe, with intellectual contortions bordering on the absurd. Maybe there’s a political love in there somewhere that dare not speak its name and, if there is, my advice is to get it out in the open, if for no other reason than the maintenance your own peace of mind. Colin and Roland would be pleased as well.

    “Yummy mummies, Chablis socialists” – come on Eoin, you’re better than that, surely??

  24. Nick Hadley

    “Colin and Roland would be pleased as well.”


    Pleased with what ?

  25. @Nick Hadley

    I have called the tendency ‘a compulsion for inconsistent contrarianism aimed at that days prevailing consensus amongst only the red-leaning posters’.

    You call it: “I’ve thought for some time that you’re in danger of triangulating yourself up your own exhaust pipe”

    Though we mean largely the same I thing I actually like yours the best!

  26. Nick H,

    Enlighten me? Do you support universal benefits? I have no choice but to be polite, I am afraid I am very unskilled at insults… as my son he can leave me more red faced than him I :)

  27. Nick H,

    This might help. I posted it on the 12 June 2010 in relation to universality and child benefit. If you check my response to GOs announcment yesterday, you will note that 120 or so days later, I have been entirely consistent.

    Hardly the trait of a contrarian :)

    Billy B,

    I agree with you on Universality of Child Benefit…. for the same reasons as you really so I wont bore you with a long response… In my time I have seen tuppence spent on some children of wealthy parents… Daddies out their xontrol the families purse strings… for stay at home mums of wealthy patriarchal husbands who are too tight to give tuppence for the kids, this gives her a teeny bit of leeway… and independance to provide

    June 13th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  28. @ Colin

    Pleased with what ?”

    I strayed into sarcasm, I have to admit, and I apologise for a bit of low wit. I dragged you and Roland into my little gentle joshing of Eoin because, as more of an interested reader of these pages rather than an inveterate contributor, I’ve often followed almost endless discussions between the three of you. Two of you are nakedly partisan and seemingly proud of it (and why wouldn’t you be. We all think we’re right, you know!) and then Eoin surfs his way around every convoluted twist and turn of the argument, almost falling over himself to agree with positions and views that do not always appear to marry with his previous arguments. Now you see him, now you don’t with his will o’ the wisp observations, liberally laced with esoteric polling observations. I don’t mind impartiality and civilised discussion but Eoin tries to hard for my liking!

    @ Eoin Clarke

    “Enlighten me? Do you support universal benefits?”

    Yes I do and, ironically, I thought Philip Hammond put the argument pretty well during the General Election campaign. Firstly, there are very, very few truly universal benefits, child benefit being one of the very rare ones. Most benefits since the establishment of the welfare state in 1945 have been means tested or income/wealth related to a greater or lesser degree and my wife and I have combined salaries that take us out of entitlement to nearly every benefit except child benefit. Child benefit however is different and probably explains why it survived even the benefits firestorm of the Thatcher years and, until now, remained available to every child whatever the income of their parents. I like that principle and the way it loops in, even at its very margins, every parent and child in the welfare state. That’s inclusivity to me, extending a rare benefit to everybody who pays into the national realm. It was always the Beveridge and Atlee vision because they knew that if ever welfare was only the preserve of the very needy, it would unravel to become a US style handout system for the impoverished. What next, anybody earning over £50k not allowed to use the NHS?

  29. Nick,

    I support it too :)

    All that ‘triangulation’ and ‘exhaust piping’ was a consideration of the merits of the 45k.

    My brother earns £10400 p.a. in a hospital (auxillary/orderly whatever they’re called). He’s working class, not someone on £45k.

  30. Nick Hadley

    ” remained available to every child whatever the income of their parents”

    It is available to every mother-not every child.

    How it is spent is the decision of the mother.

    “It was always the Beveridge and Atlee vision ”

    Beveridge proposed social insurance actually
    .He said that social security “must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual”-a State which “should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum”-room should be left for encouragement of voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.

    Bevin called the Beveridge Report a “Social Ambulance Scheme”

  31. @Eoin

    “My brother earns £10400 p.a. in a hospital (auxillary/orderly whatever they’re called). He’s working class, not someone on £45k”

    That’s the real scandal though, isn’t it? Somebody like your brother doing an essential job in a valued public service and he’s paid in a year what a Bullingdon Club member might blow on a night out. I always thought the much maligned John Prescott made a very good point when climbing the ranks of the Labour Party in the long wilderness years of the 80s and 90s. Labour was championing, somewhat forlornly it has to be said, the idea of a minimum wage. The then Tory government rubbished the idea, saying it would create widespread unemployment (as if there wasn’t enough of that around then already!). Prescott , when interviewed, made what I thought was a killer point. He commented, wryly, on a society that thought paying somebody £100 for a 40 hour week was “unaffordable” when it equated to a round of drinks in a London bar on an average night out for a city high flier. Of course, the press branded him a dangerous extremist for having the temerity to even think such a thing! Bankers were treasured wealth creators back then, lionised and hero worshipped. How times have changed but looking back, we were inflating the bubble as far back as the 1980s, weren’t we? Didn’t it just go pop with an almighty bang!

    Meanwhile, your brother works on to make ends meet. It’s a funny old world isn’t it?

  32. @Colin

    The trouble is, as Philip Hammond rightly observed, where do you stop? Means tested entitlement to child benefit surely leads, logically, to questioning everybody’s entitlement to universal services. Combined household incomes of over £80k a prohibitor to access to state education? Over £100k and you have to take out private health insurance? Free libraries and museums but only for those earning under £30k? Earn more than that and you pay. Income related access to state subsidised transport (actually, come to think of it, is there any of that left in this country or is it only those dastardly devils on the continent who indulge in that sort of crypto-socialism!!) ? Earn over £50k and you pay the full price on the train??.

    Hammond was spot on. Where is all this going to end?.

1 9 10 11