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 8 9 10 11
  1. Eoin – It is their conference week, so I’m sure they hope so.

  2. It seems that the current swing from LibDem to Labour is now 10% (!) Exactly that achieved from Con to Lab in 1997. LibDems will be lucky to keep half their current seats next time if this continues. Perversely with the current polling (lots of neck & neck) they probably will get to stay in government.

  3. Amber [Sue even – AW] – income isn’t often given as a cross break. Most recent example I can find is this poll by Populus from Feb 2010:

    Unsurprisingly there is a correlation between income and voting intention – richer people are more likely to vote Tory and less likely to vote Labour, but the highest cross break presented here was 27,000k+, so we can’t say anything certain about higher rate taxpayers.

    There are plenty of stats on income from places like the IFS, HMRC or large scale academic surveys. It appears around about 10% of people earn 44k or more.

  4. Labour has yet to oppose the ending of universality in Child Benefits. There is every chance that a consensus could be achieved on this. My advice to reds is to hold off on putting the boot in for fiancial reasons- just yet.

    In the word’s of New Statesman (regarded as Ed’s chief backer) “Ed’s silence is starting to seem less strategic, and more hesitant.”

    To illustrate my point, the reds might enjoy this article:

    h ttp://

  5. I immediately commented the very same point when we heard about a cap at 44k yesterday.

    I would argue that if it has to go, it should be reconsidered when the financial crisis has eased and be set at a higher level.

    Anthony, thanks for the link :)

  6. Aleksandar

    Thanks for that ROI update.

    Absolutely incredible.

    How can any government allow it’s banks to get into that state, on that scale?

    I think the constant complaint about lack of credit from banks now must still be somehow related to the loss of collateral value behind all that real estate financing at the top of the market.

    One really does wonder how long it will be before bank balance sheets recover from those bad debts.

  7. @Colin – “Well well-the sound & fury expended here by lefties on behalf of the impoverished people on £45 k pa and above is truly eye opening.”

    You know me Colin – never one to miss the chance to savage the middle classes. My criticism with this announcement is less the technical details of who loses what – apart from some glaring anomalies it’s basically fair in principle.

    What does concern me – and I think this is something you may well also agree with – is that we have seen is potentially a significant change in the principle of universal benefits.

    Universality was applied decades ago to meet a clearly identified problem that could potentially threaten the entire construction of the welfare system and create a significant social divider. While I wouldn’t say I was happy to see peolpe I consider to be well off receiving state hand outs, I accepted this as the price paid for simplicity and 100% buy in to the concept of a socially unified benefits system. In this, I was in complete agreement with the Tory election position which they held up until yesterday afternoon.

    I have regularly suggested many ways to iron out such anomalies with a universal benefits system, but these involve use of taxation rates and thresholds in a carefully thought through and coherent long term plan to recover from higher earners the unnecessary benefits accruing from the universality principle. To make such a major philosophical shift without a careful anaylsis of the long term implications and without even briefing you own front benchers is cack handed at best.

    Policy development aside, in terms of the party Cameron and Osborne have never been popular with their MPs and were always seen as cliquey and arrogant – this kind of behaviour will create further internal tensions just when they need to be absolutely together.

    It also suggests to me that the government will not be as radical as they would have us believe. They are not going to look at an integrated and wholesale tax and benefit reform, and the results are therefore likely to be highly messy.

    It’s a PNM [Pot Noodle Moment] – There is a time and a place for Child Benefit reform – this is not it.

  8. In my opinion, the wrong question has been asked. The question should not be, ‘Why do the well off get CB?’ It should be, ‘ Why in 2010 is the state sponsoring an increase in the birth rate, through subsidising adults to have children, when clearly the population is not in decline & we live on an island that could be deemed to be over populated in the 1st place?’ After all, to have children is not a right, it is a responsibility, which should be carefully considered beforehand.

    If I was GO, then I would have said that from Jan 2012, only the 1st child would be eligible for CB, further children would not be. However I would continue to pay all existing claimants, at the current level, (frozen), the cost of which would gradually wither on the vine over the years.

    That would be fair and everyone would be able to plan their lives accordingly.

  9. Alec

    Love the PNM ! :-)

  10. Billy Bob

    You said “…Before people get too excitable with Rightmove searches it might be worthwhile actually talking to the estate agent/surveyor/mortgage consultant about these properties. There will be serious problems to address, otherwise they would not be at the bottom of the barrel…”

    Those houses were nowhere near the bottom of the barrel. They were cheap because they were repos, from deceased clients, in unfashionable neighborhoods, poorly decorated, or some combo thereof. But all of them were houses, freehold, mortgagable, proceedable, wind-and-watertight, brick-and-mortar walls, tiled rooves, no structural defects, no roofwork needed, no rewiring needed, and in neighbourhoods where you don’t need to carry a knife to get to the shops and back. Heck, some of them even had Waitroses locally. Sarah Beeny would have jumped at the chance, even if she is permanently pregnant.

    There is a conceptual gap here. I get the impression that the Labourites here think everybody earns more than £40Kpa and everybody under that are the cast of Shameless and live in Thunderdome. But most people work hard, study, bring up a family, obey the law (mostly) and pay their taxes on a *lot* less than £44Kpa. Even in the South-East.

    Regards, Martyn

  11. Alec

    I won’t respond to “Cameron and Osborne have never been popular with their MPs and were always seen as cliquey and arrogant ” etc etc -I know that’s your “tipple” as Eoin would say.

    RE “They are not going to look at an integrated and wholesale tax and benefit reform, and the results are therefore likely to be highly messy. ”

    I think you criticise unreasonably.

    You know as well as anyone what a difficult task it is to unwind & revise UK’s benefit & tax system after it has been through the GB mill.

    Complexity is rife-so anomalies are built in-and will appear everywhere as soon as you touch something.

    Personally I like the system Aleksandar touched on -flat rate tax plus single benefit/allowances.

    BUt right now-with time available at a premium, and the desire to start implementing some reforms which simplify & achieve welfare to work objectives ( alongside the Education reforms & what THeresa May has just been outlining on crime )-all of which start to build on the overarching theme / objective, they have to be circumspect about Big Bang changes.

    I have no doubt whatsoever , that a few years down the track-and particularly if they get a second term, given an improved economy, the more fundamental changes you & Aleksandar would like will be considered.

  12. @Sue

    You said “…A very average three bed in my town costs £230k. Of course we can all find examples of some scum hole for much less than this, …”

    Ahem. St. Leonards on Sea and Hastings are *hardly* South Central Los Angeles. There will never be a “CSI:Worthing”. Nobody will ever run in fear of the Eastbourne Massive. Their greatest cause of non-accidental death is boredom. Scum-holes, my bottom… :-) :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  13. @Robert in France – your thoughts largely mirror mine regarding why we pay CB and how we could eliminate it.

    @Colin – Fair comment, although I recall the pre election breifings that the new government would be ‘the best prepared’ and that they had completed years of detailed policy work in advance.

    Well worth reading the Telegraph coverage of this though – they seem convinced that the policy was decided on Sunday morning, they imply that Cameron wasn’t in favour, and it seems no one told Nick Clegg in advance, just 2 weeks after his party voted to retain universality.

    Just as an aside to no one in particular, another witness has come forward to say that he was with Coulson when he (Coulson) asked to listen to recordings of illegal phone tap conversations. I think it’s the first eye witness account to directly contradict Coulson’s entire defence.

  14. Considering the upcoming legislation that Must Pass to satisfy the Coalition Agreement, I think GO is playing with fire here. We already know the conservative backbenches are vocally unhappy with the PVSC Bill, and comments were made about passing it’s second reading only in respect of the party whip.

    The worst case is the back benchers deciding that punishing GO is more important than keeping the coalition.

  15. @Martyn – “no structural defects”

    Perhaps get a survey done anyway – just to be on the safe side. ;)

    “Labourites here think everybody earns more than £40Kpa”

    Absolutely not. Antony pointed out that is it is about public perception and voting intention. Those beneath the media gaze who are already being affected effectively no voice. It is to the credit of Gordon Brown that he looked to their interests even though they were unlikely ever to make it into a polling booth.

  16. Could Osbourne have wreked the blue conference anymore than he already has with this child benefit cut? You have to chuckle.

  17. poll alert: YG on AV

    Despite Ed M stating his support for AV- opposition has grown against it. Those favouring to retain FPTP has now hit a record high of 40%. Those favouring AV stands at 35%. AV is doomed to fail.

  18. Public perceptions of the government cutting unfairly had fallen steeply.

    two weeks ago it was +21% who beleived the gov. cut unfairly… That has fallen by 8% to +13%. That trend will please the CofE. The fieldwork dates wouldnt have fully taken in the CB announcment (I don’t think).

  19. @Alec – “… without even briefing your own front benchers.”

    I’m calling this the ‘Battersea gawp’ – the same perplexed expression that greeted the Big Society launch.

    @Colin – “Complexity is rife-so anomalies are built in-and will appear everywhere as soon as you touch something.”

    Agreed… though perhaps you criticise Gordon unreasonably. Surely he is not responsible for life the universe and everything. ;)
    Seriously though, business will need to fund employees adequately, taking lower profits; and in the short term at least, sacrifice efficiency by taking on more staff if GO is to have any chance of finding a way out of his predicament.

  20. “Children’s Minister Tim Loughton said the move to cut the benefit from 1.2 million families might need revising. Mr Loughton told Channel 4 News: “If there are ways we can look at compensating measures for those genuinely in need that will be looked at in future budgets.
    “If the thresholds need to be adjusted there’s plenty of time to look at that.”

    I have to go along with @Alec from this morning who deployed this quote (and Gingerbread spokepeson on SN right now talking of ‘backlash’ and ‘better ways forward than this’): this increasingly has the air of an ill thought out and badly timed policy announcement.

    Nothing to learn from that….

  21. @ Martyn

    “Labourites here think everybody earns more than £40Kpa”

    I’m not labourite, but just to put things into perspective. The reason why so many people do not earn over 40,000 is because there is a welfare state. Without the welfare state, to maintain the current living standards, the average (!) wage should be about 50 thousand.

    If there was no free health service, wages would have to be higher (or admit that low paid people, unlike the rich, would die without seeing a doctor)

    If there was no free schooling, wages would have to be higher (or the kids of poor people would have to be taught to count up to 100 in the prisons),

    If there was no state pension, wages would have to be higher (or poor people would be pushed in the sea).

    If the child benefit is taken away from a proportion of the population, their wages have to increase (or they have to swap their current expenditure to bringing up their children).

    If there is no state support to skilling, salaries would have to increase for parents to provide skills to their children or for anybody whose skills are not required anymore in the labour market (or they would have to just accept that they are inferior (this is Osborn said yesterday) and should be happy with either charity or unskilled jobs).

    If the Tories continue with chipping away the welfare state (in particular the universal benefits) and there is no wage increase, first switching from one expenditure to another will take place, then there will be skill shortages (or only unskilled jobs created) triggering immigration, then maybe fewer children, then probably malnurished, uncultured children…

    Welcome to the liberal paradise (a very large proportion of Tories are liberals).

    Or evoke charities, the benevolent rich, the caring social strata, the forced upon neighbourhood “communities” which is the Tory paradise (and many liberals are tories). A longing for a time when various social classes knew their place and their duties…

    I’m not saying that any of the kind liberal or tory people think like this. They are too good people for this. But this is the inevitable logic of their argument.

  22. @Rob Sheffield

    ‘Nothing to learn from that….’

    I will be interested to learn what the final outcome is over the CB proposals. It will show up whether the govt is pragmatic and flexible and listens or whether the govt is going to ignore some very valid criticism of the changes and then carry on regardless up the Khyber Pass.

    GB could have put his hands up and said the 10p abolition was an error but instead he ploughed on making concessions left, right and centre at considerable expense. They should make all politicians do the Green Cross Code. Look right, look left and ,of course, look right again.

  23. @Laszlo

    ‘The reason why so many people do not earn over 40,000 is because there is a welfare state. Without the welfare state, to maintain the current living standards, the average (!) wage should be about 50 thousand’

    This analysis seems to ignore that there is a cost attached to providing the welfare state.
    If you remove those items from govt expenditure you could also lower income tax to say 10p. It is your after tax position that ultimately determines what you can spend.

  24. @Aleksandar

    RE: “are they going to be pragmatic and U turn given the criticism/ or do a Brown-head-in-the-sand, heels-dug-in act”

    Could not agree more.

  25. Martyn – That’s absolute rubbish.

    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

  26. I’m really surprised to see such kneejerk nonsense to people who earn 44k a year!

    Martyn, 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.

  27. Billy Bob – You’re on fire today. Too many ROFL’s to count.

  28. It’s fascinating that Cameron has today been quoted as indicating that the transferrable married couples tax allowance will be looked at to see if it can compensate some of the losers in the CB change.

    This merely heightens the sense of incompetance over this announcement. If it was a tough but fair decision why is there a need to compensate any of the losers? And why talk in these terms less than 24hrs after the policy announcement?

    I’ve said many times before over the last three years that DC and GO policy development tends towards the John Wayne School of Politics (shoot from the hip). I think we’re seeing that they really haven’t upped their game since moving into Nos 10 and 11.

    The actual policy intention is reasonable and well supported, which is what makes the screw up even more baffling. The danger is that they get a reputation for hapless buffoonery – a really bad thing image to develop under the current circumstances.

  29. Alec

    “The danger is that they get a reputation for hapless buffoonery”

    Are they copying Boris?

  30. Just like to draw everyone’s attention to an interview with George Soros on Bloomberg’s today. It was mainly in relation to the US, but still has resonance elsewhere.

    His main worry centres on the withdrawal of stimulus measures. He instead favours a continuing fiscal (as opposed to monetary) stimulus that would be clearly focused on investment rather than consumption. He made some very valid points that similar investment projects from the 1930’s like roads, bridges, dams and education are still earning a return for the government eight decades later. He worries that political pressure over deficit reduction is harming the governments ability to make the right decisions.

    In the UK, the PMI for the service sector showed modest growth for September against expectations, but is still 3.5 points below the long term average and and with the new business element in decline and consistent with a contraction of the sector in the coming months. The price element actually fell in September, indicating profitability (and therefore tax revenues) are falling.

    We really are in a double dip risk zone. That would do far more damage to the deficit (and our long run ability to reduce it) than slightly higher but well targeted current spending. The markets have to be made to realise this, because by the time they wake up to the real risks we face, they will have crippled us for a generation. Markets don’t function according to logic – they run more by groupthink and the herd mentality. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

  31. The voters seem to like it- It seems that middle class lefties are the only real objectors thus far. i wonder if this will continue it tonight and tomorrows polling?

  32. Eoin – What makes you think the voters like it?

  33. Sue

    Yesterday YG published:

    Benefits like child benefit, the winter fuel
    allowance and free travel for pensioners are
    currently available to all people who qualify,
    regardless of their incomes. Would you support
    or oppose them being means tested, so only
    those on LOW INCOMES recieve them?

    56% support (including a majority of labour Voters)
    35% oppose

    The question, I guess, is whether or not £88K is considered too low, in which case it might hurt them in the polls.

  34. I’ve been thinking today, I am genuinely fascinated by what effect the Tory conference will have on VI, if any.

    I honestly couldn’t call it either way.

    Osborne obviously thought his CB announcement would go down well as he timed it to overshadow conference. I don’t suppose we’ll really know for sure until Sunday.

    In a normal working week, we see a lot of the charm pixies – Cameron and Clegg, but rarely see a glimpse of the cloaked one. at Con conference, Clegg won’t be around and Osborne was all over the news last night.

    Certainly the media coverage I’ve seen on CB reform has been hideously damning, but GO and DC could have made a finely tuned judgement on the public resonating with the idea of cutting benefits for middle income families.

    Instinctively, I feel that GO doesn’t do the coalition much good when he’s put up front, but then we have DCs speech to counter-balance things, so anything could happen.

    I really can’t wait for Sunday and wouldn’t want to hazard a guess at how things might go.

  35. This move doesn’t involve means testing, does it?

    From what I can see instituting this system – whereby a family with a single parent / one working parent earning 45k isn’t entitled to the same benefits that a family on 80k + combined – is simply wrong and distinctly unfair.

  36. “system – whereby a family with a single parent / one working parent earning 45k isn’t entitled to the same benefits that a family on 80k + combined – is simply wrong and distinctly unfair.”

    working at home today preeparing two days of lectures and have had news channels on in background.

    Yep- this quote above is the narrative-de-jour.

    Terrible media coverage for both the illogicality-unfairness (i.e. stupidity) of the policy and for Osborne personally. All through the day on both Beeb and SN and across the blogosphere.

    I am quite surprised. Osborne has been tactically astute from September 2007- May 2010.

    But I guess being in Government is- as the saying goes- “a whole new ball game”…


  37. Oh Eoin, you are funny.

    Rather than trying to make the facts fit your argument, why not wait and see what the polls actually do?

    I see you’re now focussing on 88k too.

    Perhaps you’ll come up with a few more “middle class lefties/chablis drinking socialist” comments to go with the 88k


    Another thought occurred to me earlier, the same blues sticking it to me today, are broadly those who would think it outrageous to hit the richest hardest, who constantly refer to the scape-goating of the super rich and how they hold our economy together. Funny old world isn’t it.

  38. Rob – To be fair though, I remember when Osborne woke up that morning and thought, “Hey, I dunno about this austerity lark, lets switch to tax cuts!”

    I thought it would be an unmitigated disaster, but Eoin said it would work and it did.

    That’s why I’d hate to call this one.

  39. Labour have known about the Child Benefit announcement for two days, which is a long time in politics. Why don’t they have a position on it yet?

    DM was known to be a big backer of universality.
    EM was reputedly seeking to redfine Middle class more tightly at say £35k

    The stratgies are quite different. One seeks to reach out to middle England, which is a method proven to aid election victory. The other was seeking to recapture the million of lost working class votes. The latter regards this as crucial to recconecting reds with their traditional support base.

    Thus EM now has a very risky strategy. If he champions the stay at home yummy mummies, he might face revulsion from the minimum wage workers who, if they chose to have one parent remain at home could potential earn 7 times more that this family set up (min wage £6 per hour x 40 hour week x 52 weeks – compared to £88k of the teacher head of dept. and her barrister husband). He has a tough call to make. If he turns his vote on the yummy mummies he might never get another chance. Yet if he cosies up to them would Joe the Plumber forgive him when ‘his’ cuts (VAT etc.. which hurt disproportionately more) start to bite.

    My humble advice is to tell the yummy mummies thanks but no thanks.

  40. Back universality but at a higher household level, getting rid of this silly 44k each business.

    65k household income seems fair and was the level at which tax credits stopped.

    Agree that there will be a review when the crisis has passed.

  41. Sorry that obviously should have read “Don’t back universality, but back a higher household level”

  42. Eoin

    “Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) spoke to Katie Couric of CBS Evening News on October 15, shortly after the conclusion of the final debate. Asked whether Obama’s proposed $250,000 tax threshold would affect him, Wurzelbacher replied: “Not right now at presently, but (…) he’s going to do that now for people who make $250,000 a year. When’s he going to decide that $100,000 is too much? (…) You’re on a slippery slope here. You vote on somebody who decides that $250,000 and you’re rich? And $100,000 and you’re rich? (…) Where does it end?”

    Somewhat reminiscent of the discussion on here. :-)

  43. Eoin

    “Why don’t they have a position on it yet?”

    They do. Universality. Which should not be a surprise as it was part of EdM’s platform so I’d hardly expect him to drop it yet, if at all ever.

    This is in the LES tonight:

    “Ms Cooper was on top form yesterday as she ripped into the Osborne proposals, unashamedly defending the principle of universality for rich and poor alike.

    Seizing on the sense of unease within the Tory camp, she said:

    “They have clearly been taken aback by the reaction of parents across the country. George Osborne and David Cameron obviously don’t understand what it means for families on middle incomes to lose thousands of pounds a year”. ”

    I have seen other similar reportage on 24 news channels.

    Although- albeit- Faux news UK line was more along the lines of:

    ”you can’t have child benefit as a single parent on 44k or more but can as joint earners on 86k or less: even socialist universality is better than that”


  44. OldNat,

    I remember it well.

    Just because you fear something ‘might’ one day affect the have nots, is no reason to stand shoulder to shoulder with the ‘haves’. In foreign policy terms that strategy is something akin to a pre-emptive strike. I favour a ‘sleeping giant’ style approach. Whisper, mutter, mumble but never shout. When the day comes that you express genuine anger, then it has more effect. I am sure you used that tool in the class room.

  45. Rob S,

    h ttp://

    h ttp://

  46. The problem for Cameron is not the policy itself, but the sense of confusion it has caused. Tonight he has been hinting that the transferable married tax allowance could now be applied above the 40% threshold – something expressly discounted in the manifesto.

    If the initial policy was right (why should low earner pay tax for high earners benefits) why the shift on the tax break (why should low earners pay tax for earners benefits).

    They’ll still get a poll boost from the conference I’m sure, but I often pondered how strong the Tory party nerves were in opposition and remember posting a few times about how jittery they got at the first whiff of trouble. Today, they have shown a decidedly panicky nature in government.

    They have some really, really tough calls coming – on this evidence they are going to struggle.

  47. Alec,

    Has it occurred to you that GO sought this reaction so he could get his Marriage Tax back on the table? He has no rather craftily succeeded.

    h ttp://

    I really hope you and Ann and others are right about his buffonary.

  48. Eoin

    Indeed I did use that very technique.

    However, I was suggesting that the original Joe would either have a yummy mummy of his own – or someone else’s – or both! rather being onside with those on less than 44k.

  49. Eoin – “When the day comes that you express genuine anger, then it has more effect.”

    Aha, your much trailed “give them enough rope” game.

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

  50. @Eoin – “Has it occurred to you that GO sought this reaction so he could get his Marriage Tax back on the table”

    No. The trouble with conspiracy theories is simply that the people meant to be behind them are simply not that bright.

1 8 9 10 11