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 7 8 9 10 11
  1. @ Bullman

    “its not ok some middle class person whining about not having enough aston martins in his 3 bedroom house because the gorvernment wont give him tax credits or child benefits.

    Im sure the homeless and people who live in poverty in third world countries really do feel thier plight on this subject”

    ;-) ;-) ;-)

  2. I attach the link for a salary chart…. perhaps we a re looking at it back the front… instead of ‘what life costs’ perhaps it might be better to examine ‘what people earn’.

    h ttp://

  3. Barney Crockett

    “1. I agree about income distribution therefore the first shock is that the Tories are making an issue of something which is in fiscal terms trivial
    2. Secondly there is impermissable innocence in proposing to collect the money by having people tick the box to say they are due it when this will not be otherwise obvious to Revenue
    3. Most importantly they haven’t agreed on it. “There is plenty of time”

    1-it is revealing that you think £1bn pa is” trivial”. Put together with revelations by Pickles & Maude at the Tory Conference it helps build a picture. I have more & more hope that lot’s of fiscal “trivia” will emerge from Labour’s woodwork.

    2-I was not aware of this. I understood that the route proposed was chosen because Inland Revenue know who pays 40% & 50% tax rates-& they administer CB.

    3-You would object if it was fine tuned?……….what exactly do you want?

  4. Colin – “You would object if it was fine tuned?……….what exactly do you want?”

    Well, for a start, why should a couple be able to earn up to 88k without losing their Child Benefit, but a single parent only be able to earn 44k before losing theirs?

  5. Eoin

    Have a look at this fantastic tool from IFS


    Put in £44k pa / 2 adults/2 children/average Council Tax -see the results:-

    THis family is in 7th decile-ie higher income than 70% of the population.

    Look at the income distribution curve-see what the income levels are for the mass of people in 2nd/3rd/4th/5th deciles.

  6. Eoin

    Have a look at this fantastic tool from IFS

    Put in £44k pa / 2 adults/2 children/average Council Tax -see the results:-

    THis family is in 7th decile-ie higher income than 70% of the population.

    Look at the income distribution curve-see what the income levels are for the mass of people in 2nd/3rd/4th/5th deciles.

  7. Colin,

    Thanks for that- good tool. I could not reconcile my stance with my own convictions were I not to admit that £45k (or there abouts) seems a very fair benchmark.

  8. Barney

    Congratulations on your selection. It’ll be interesting for you to be the main challenger, instead of just flag flying.

    You’ll understand that I’m not going to wish you good luck in Donside. :-)

  9. Amber

    Yes. I knew you were joking. :-)

  10. Sue

    “Well, for a start, why should a couple be able to earn up to 88k without losing their Child Benefit, but a single parent only be able to earn 44k before losing theirs?”

    I would say -in respect of the former-they are both having to work. So they must need child care . So they have some entitlement to a benefit whose purpose is assistance with the costs of children.

    In respect of the unit you didn’t mention -one earner/wife at home -I would say they do not need child care & have the benefits associated with care of young children which means so much to people like Bullman.

    In respect of the single parent on 7th decile income, with children-it seems like rough justice & I am sure they will feel that. Do you know how many single parent, 7th decile earners their are as a matter of interest ?

  11. Eoin – How can you be in favour of universal child benefit but agree a cap at 44k is fair? Especially as you don’t think we need to be making cuts in the first place?

  12. “… a 3-bed house on the South-East coast for ~£125K”

    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.

  13. Colin – That doesn’t answer the question at all.

    Why should a couple be able to earn 88k before losing CB (assuming both ARE working) but a single parent only 44k?

  14. Sue,

    5 Oct. 9.33am explains my position well.

  15. @Barney Crockett

    Congrats, and all the best. Btw my councillor from when I lived in River ward (Medway) is now MP for Sefton Central.

  16. @Colin

    Please, for your own blood pressure, do remember to add in the phrase “In comparison to a £519 billion budget, and a GDP of £2.7 trillion”.

    It is not helpful to emotionalise a discussion of economic impact, by ignoring the scale being worked to. These are all big numbers. Even the smallest insignificant sums in the national budget are counted in millions.

    Yes, compared to you and our personal budgets, £1 billion is a fantastical huge amount. To a G8 government, it’s a tiny fraction of their budget.

    As a reminder, HS2, which the government are committed to, has an estimated cost of £30 billion, because it’s such a small amount for the economic returns of improving the Birmingham-London freight corridor.

  17. Billy Bob, As reds we aren’t allowed to say things like “bottom of the barrel.”

    For me, there is a bigger picture.

    When Eoin talks about what we need, not what we earn, I think this hits the nail right on the head. We now need to earn much more just to get by but wages don’t reflect this.

    I am all too aware that most people don’t earn 44k a year, just that given the figures I posted yesterday, they need to in some areas to get by.

    We acknowledge these things with London wage ratings and affordable housing for key workers, what am I saying that is so controversial here?

  18. Eoin – Exactly, that’s why I’m confused. You say in that post that you don’t support means testing for CB, yet go on to say later that 44k is a fair cap.

    We are only talking about CB here aren’t we?

  19. I think fine tuning is required to alleviate some obvious issues but the principle of removing CB for higher earners is right.

    But as I understand it Labour’s strive for equality focuses on the gap between higher earners and lower earners.
    At the moment it seems to have started a debate over equality between the country’s highest earners by salary and the country’s highest earners by household? I’m confused!

  20. Sue

    “Why should a couple be able to earn 88k before losing CB (assuming both ARE working)”

    If they are not both working, they lose CB.
    If the wife of a very high earner has a low paid job they lose CB.
    If the wife is a moderate earner & husband over £45k they lose CB.
    If they are both earning exactly equal amounts they keep CB

    RE Single parents , you might be interested in these stats from Gingerbread :-

    There are 1.9 million single parents in Britain today.
    There are 3 million children living in a single parent household.
    92% of single parents are women.
    Half (50 per cent) of children in single parent families are poor .
    •Only two-fifths of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s other parent.
    •The latest employment figures show that 56.7 per cent of lone parents are in work,
    •The median weekly income for working single parent families is £404.52, compared with £618.44 for couple families with one worker.

    My take from this is that 7th decile earners who are , single parents are pretty thin on the ground.

  21. Sue,

    Below is a post of mine from 50 odd days ago on UKPR when the figures were not yet known to us. £45k for a family is a reasonable ballpark figure for most of the country- maybe not you dudes south of the M25- but you know about that than I

    The tories opposed means testing for years… As late as 2007 they were still criticising it…

    So that we can properly target those who need help the most means testing is the only way..

    A point often missed is that single guys over the age of 25 are entitled to tax credits prodided their income is sub 15k I think they get £500 p.a.

    The admin is a slight problem I accept as the lag can be 18months in which amounts overpaid are hard to claw back. But the idea of means tested Working tax Credit is a fantastic one…

    It is also true that up to a family earning up to £64k can claim a modest amount back but Labour were trying to acknowledge that middle class families also find it tough…

    a combined income of £45k for example does not get you very far at all…

    Obviously those under £22k are the ones we try to help the most… It is more or less the poverty line for a family with children. (the figures are approximate you would have to add inflation for 09/10).

    IDS’s ideas do not strike me as an attempt to trample over Brown’s if anything they are a volte face for the old blues… means testing works.. working tax credits work.. red tape can be reduced and the sums can be propoerly targetted but absolute full marks for IDS for trying to improve the system.

  22. I just cannot see what all the fuss is about.

    If you as a person on £44k plus are unable to absorb losing up to £2,500 child benefit in 3 years’ time then that is your fault. Period.

    I have always thought of child benefit for the well off as a perk. No-one in that income bracket, in their heart of hearts, should be badly affected by this.

  23. Hooded Man

    ” I’m confused!”

    I think that was part of GO’s plan ;-)

    Labour have to decide who they are rooting for now.

    Over to Ed & Yvette to sort themselves out I think -and relieve you ( & me) of our confusion.

  24. I think I’ll give up today as no-one seems able to answer a straight question.

    Colin – The answer to my question is of course “It’s not fair and should have been ironed out before an announcement was made.

    Eoin – As far as I’m aware, we’ve been talking solely about CB this morning, not benefits in general.

    So If you are in favour of universal CHILD BENEFIT, why would you support a cap of CHILD BENEFIT at 44k?

    Yes I used Caps, but that’s because you all seem a bit wilfully deaf this morning

  25. I don’t think Labour need to do much about this at all.

    I’m sure the people affected will decide if it affects their voting.

  26. Sue,

    When did I say I would support a cap? If £45k is the figure in blues minds when it comes to CTC/WTC i’ll be happy :) As for CB, I am against ‘cappng’ as you call it. I support the universality of CB. GRaduated means testing – not ‘capping’ is preferable. If £45k is to be the battleground as to what defines middle class or not then that pleases me. My big fear was that they would go as low as 35K per family. £88k per family is much more preferable. The attack on single parent families here will be ironed out- I hope.

  27. Jay Blanc

    “It is not helpful to emotionalise a discussion of economic impact, by ignoring the scale being worked to”

    I couldn’t agree more-you need to explain that to your left wing friends on UKPR who are expending much energy on behalf of the tiny cohort of people who happen to earn £44500 pa.

    It would be very interesting to know how far above this figure their care & concern runs out :-

    £45 k?

    I know it cant be £150k-because they agreed with raising the tax rate at that point.

    …so it’s somewhere between £44500 & £149,999 I presume ?

  28. Eoin – “I could not reconcile my stance with my own convictions were I not to admit that £45k (or there abouts) seems a very fair benchmark.”

    Were you not talking about the cap on child benefit here?

  29. Colin (11.37) – Why do you have to be sarcastic about this?

    I said when this debate first started that I felt it should be closer to 65k.

    Much as you might like to make me out as a snob, if you need a combined salary of 55k just to get a mortgage on an average house in the UK, and a combined salary of closer to 75k in several regions, then I wouldn’t say that 44k means that you are well off and living in the lap of luxury.

  30. To put this in perspective, even on an MPs salary I wouldn’t be able to afford a 3 bed house in my town and therefore would be priced out of my own constituency!

  31. if we are to define the point at which a family could be expected to make ends meet without the state’s help then £45k aint a bad ball park figure. I would not dream of opposing CB simply because I thought a faily on £45k was poor.

    My opposition to means testing CB is realted to an ENTIRELY different matter.

  32. No-one has argued that a household income of 45k means that you are poor.

  33. @Barney Crockett,
    I would like to offer my congratulations also.I think that Osbourne has made a big tactical error here.Look at the rage on the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail.It is a long time since the right wing press so openly criticised the Tories.Also Ed Milliband said that he was for the squeezed middle.Surely he never dreamt they were going to present him with an open goal like this so soon!

  34. It seems to be a new truism in politics that it’s not about being smart – it’s just about being less stupid than your opponents.

    GO makes an announcement about cutting child benefit for middle classes. In terms of the deficit (or the debt) this has as much impact as p*ssing in the ocean (but every little helps).

    Result? Labour gets wrapped up debating exactly what middle class is – allowing GO to dance away and give the working classes a good swift kick in the balls.

    @ Eoin

    Re: Blues handling the expenses scandal well.

    Are you sure? My memory of the conservative handling of the expenses scandal was Cameron saying repeatedly “I’m vewy, vewy, sowwy (p.s. please ignore my own fairly ludicrous expenses claims – down with benefit scrounging!)”, expelling some of his enemies from the party and rolling his eyes, with a wry grin, and saying “tsk” when one of his chum’s expenses claims rolled into view.

    Case in point – Alan Duncan. Claimed a lot of unnecessary stuff and complained about how he was living on rations (despite his salary being 64 grand a year). What was Daring Dave’s quick fire reaction? Oh yeah, he dithered around for a few weeks before demoting Alan to prison’s secretary. This, I believe, was praised as “decisive action”.

    *face palm*

  35. Sue

    “To put this in perspective, even on an MPs salary I wouldn’t be able to afford a 3 bed house in my town and therefore would be priced out of my own constituency!”

    surely like i said before if you where priced out of the area you would have to give something up….like say your car,

    many people have had to do that.

    unfortunatly we all know we have to make sacriffices sometimes.surely that is reasonable.

  36. @Sue

    ‘It’s like they’re living inside a little policy bubble where none of their actions have any wider effects.’

    I find it worrying that politicians of all parties bang on about engaging with the electorate and then make policy changes that ignore the actual effects of their tinkering on that electorate. Is there no-one with commonsense involved in decision making? The bubble needs bursting. GB was still standing when I realised the implications of the 10% fiasco on lower paid workers. I can only guess that there weren’t any low paid workers involved in making that decision. The only virtue of the current proposal is that there is plenty of time for the govt to be convinced of the problems.

    GO said “It’s very difficult to justify taxing people on low income to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more than them.”
    I actually agree with the sentiment behind the change in CB payments however IMO the route being suggested is wrong. Many have highlighted the problem with 2X43k vs 1X45k but what happens to someone on 43k who receives CB and is offered a payrise of 1500 to take them over the threshold. Should they refuse? More worryingly if you earn 45K should you ask for a small pay cut to take you back under the threshold? When people are forced to behave unnaturally because of the tax system then it is the system that is wrong.

    I have no vested interest but my favoured solution would have been to tax all benefits in the same way that pensions are. They are both income and as such should be taxed as such. This would stop the dislocation at the threshold though would not get over the ‘ net worth’ of CB being different for families with different earning profiles even if CB was split 50/50 between partners.
    Our tax/benefit system needs a major overhaul as govts have kept tinkering and this has led to to many such anomalies. I also like the idea of including everyone in the taxpaying process even if their marginal rate is zero. It makes the transition to tax payer easier.
    There are times when a massive rise in the personal allowance and one flat rate on income tax plus NI seems so attractive with all benefits counted as income. All those tax credits, pension reliefs etc could all disappear as well.When I have the time I will look into the arithmetic of this. This sort of change would be easier in better economic times.

  37. Ann (In Wales) – Indeed Ann, this “squeezed middle” are surely the same group who are going to lose Tax Credits and pay a 20% rate on VAT? If they work in the public sector, then their wages are going to be frozen too. I should think that at some point they would have to start feeling some rage.

  38. Billy,

    Yes there were moats, duck houses jealousy, palaces a plenty. But crucially, Cameron was robust at dealing with his party. Gordy was flat footed, unilateral and chose the wrong medium (remember YouTube?) Instead Cameron offered a set of proposals and sacked I think about 20 including a close advisor whose name now escapes me…

  39. Eoin – Mackay… but this isn’t really the place for the discussion. It’s a site about public opinion and polling, so here it matters more which party the public percieve to have dealt well with the expenses scandal, who actually did is a discussion for elsewhere.

  40. @ Eoin

    But none from his own inner circle who’s claims were the same – that’s my point.

    Remember, though, he also had a day to prepare for it – the Telegraph started with Labour and then moved on to the Conservatives. I’m sure in 24 hours his team of advisers would have been able to come up with the appropriate response. And it looks like they did.

  41. Billy,

    To illustrate a point YG polled voters as to who handled the Expenses crisis better

    54 per cent said DC,
    and only 12 per cent GB.

    (18 May, 2009)

  42. old nat
    Thanks Very gracious of you in the circumstances
    billy bob
    Thanks a lot
    Ann (in Wales)
    Thanks. You are absolutely right
    Jay blanc
    You will have to get used to it that I am not in charge. Its the Conservatives.

  43. @Colin/Amber

    Robert Peston quoted figures for the exposure of overseas banks to Irish Debt as Euro 206bn for Germany, 224bn for UK and 169bn for the rest. In every group the exposure is greater than Irish GDP.
    One other shocking stat from the Irish govt was that Euro 50BN of the Irish banks’ lending was to just 100 companies mostly in construction. That averages 500million each. Seems like a lot of money to me.

  44. Anthony,

    Agreed- you beat me to it, my follow up post pursued that very line.

  45. Anthony – As you are lurking, are there any good breakdowns of polls that would show us what the majority of those families on over 45k vote? Also how many of them there are? Is it really a “tiny cohort?”

  46. As I said last night, can we not get too carried away with “How to Live on the South Coast for 5 Dollars a Day”? The reason those properties are on rightmove for more than 5 seconds is that they are hard to shift because of poor condition, short lease, non-standard construction (so no mortgage), poor positioning etc. Ever heard of bait and switch?

    In any case we have to look at how the system works for the average user in a particular situation. It’s like saying benefit claimants should all subsist on marked-down supermarket food. If they all did there wouldn’t be enough to go round. Also supermarkets wouldn’t mark it down any more because demand exceeded supply. (Why do the greatest advocates of the market always fail to take into account how it works? ;) )

    Also as I said (probably incoherently) last night using household incomes you’ve got to be careful. A very large (and increasing) number will be single person or pensioner households. None of the first and few of the second will have children of the right age.

    As a result when you look at “average” household income, you’ve got to remember that families with children will mostly be higher than that halfway point – not least because there are usually two adults of earning age. You need to look at family income rather than ordinary household income.

    Personally I think that the cost of raising children does need some form of subsidy for all but the very richest. And given that the very richest are less likely to have children under 18 (being rich correlates with being old), it’s literally not worth the effort.

    Of course it means that Oliver and Jacintha’s mummy will probably spend the money on unnecessary treats for them. But that’s probably still a more productive form of Quantitative Easing than they’re managing at the moment.

    Old Nat and Barney Crockett

    I knew the Sheridan trial was the perjury one, it was just it seems to have been discussed for ever, so I thought it had started yonks ago. I obviously do not pay enough attention to the lives of former Celebrity Big Brother contestants.

    And congratulations and good luck to Barney on your selection.

    By the way is Anthony going to do/host a section for the Scottish and Welsh elections? (I would quite understand if not, he’ll be criticised as an interfering outsider for every misspelled place name :) ). If not are there any good local sites?

  47. @Sue Marsh – “We now need to earn much more just to get by but wages don’t reflect this.”

    I liked this comment from Lazslo last night:
    “British businesses simply do not pay this element of the wage as it is distributed by the state.”

    GO was always going to be on a very steep learning curve, his reputation for being a tactical genius rests on the inheritance tax gambit of 2007.

    That aside, as A Darling pointed out before the election, when it comes to important matters of judgement you would have expected him to have been right about something, just once, even by accident – but he hasn’t.

  48. I expect that the decision to target familes on 88K or above will go down very well in the polls for YG today. The question is whether the ill thought £45k loophole mitigates any of this gain. Probably looking at blues largest lead fo some time, tonight and as the week continues in general.

    As YG’s polling showed thi smorning- people like the way blues are handling the benefit cuts… even the majority of Labour voters are thus, far impressed.

  49. YG asked:

    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
    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.

  50. Roger Mexico

    “are there any good local sites?”

    Let me know if you find one! :-) There are interesting ones, but most are very partisan – if not in the thread topics than certainly in the dominance of SNP or Labour in the comments (rather like most UK blogs in fact, in terms of one party dominance).

    It would be good to have one like UKPR which does expect a reasonable level of evidence to justify the arguments.

    Steer clear of the Scotsman at all costs! The posters there represent the worst elements of both party’s supporters.

    The BBC site “Blether with Brian” may be the best – it would be good to have more balance in the comments there.

1 7 8 9 10 11