There is an online ComRes poll in tomorrow’s Independent on Sunday. Topline figures with changes from ComRes’s last online poll are CON 36%(-1), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 10%(-1), Others 14% – a lower Labour lead than the recent ComRes phone poll that showed Labour 8 points up, and the lowest Lib Dem score ComRes have reported so far.

The poll also asked people the question for the AV referendum (as opposed to their voting intention in the referendum, not an entirely pendantic difference – it means you can’t give people a wouldn’t vote option). They found AV ahead of FPTP by 36% to 30%, much in line with ICM’s recent poll and in contrast to YouGov’s tracker on AV which prefaces the question with definitions of FPTP and AV and shows FPTP ahead.

It appears ComRes weighted people’s response to the AV question by their likelihood to vote in a general election (at least, they weighted by likelihood to vote and I can’t see a likelihood to vote in the referendum question in the tabs) – it made only a minor difference, before weighting the figures were Yes 34%, No 27% – so it turned a Yes lead of 7% to one of 6%.

ComRes then asked if people agreed with the statement that “I could be persuaded to support changing the voting system in the forthcoming referendum in May when I have heard more about the arguments for and against”. 60% of people who said don’t know to the initial question agreed to this, which ComRes and the Indy seem to have interpreted as good news for the Yes campaign and conclude that if they add these potential yes voters they end up with Yes 58%, No 27%.

It doesn’t appear that ComRes asked the corallary question, of whether people agreed that “I could be persuaded to oppose changing the voting system in the forthcoming referendum in May when I have heard more about the arguments for and against” – without that it’s hard to draw any meaningful conclusions whatsoever from the other statement. We don’t know if the proportion of people who may vote No is larger or smaller than those who may vote yes – by definition many of those don’t know could go either way.

UPDATE: All AV referendum polls so far are here


35 Responses to “ComRes/Indy on Sunday – 36/40/10”

  1. Con 36% (-1)

    Lab 40% (+1)

    LD 10% (-1)

    Others 14% (+1)

    DAMN- I was one point out (the orange book number)!

    IMHO a good poll for Labour: equally bad for both of the two centre right outfits.

  2. It might have made it interesting had ComRes asked the corollary question. Then we could have inferred the numbers of firm ‘Yeses’ and ‘Nos’.

  3. Two Centre Right outfits? But i thought you said this was good news for Labour.

    Come on, if you look at things much more broadly than simply economics..the Lib Dems are actually far, far more progressive, liberal (and left, if we must use that outdated term to measure things) than the Labour party. Infact Labour is further right wing on penal policy than the coalition Tories.

    I personally see the Lib Dems as the most progressive of the 3 main parties despite the coalition. Their agenda on political reform is also more radical and progressive.

    Left and Right terms are increasingly becoming redundant but until we accept as a society that politics is full of nuances and can’t be put into little boxes, i guess we’re stuck with it.

  4. What is also of interest is how the numbers in this poll closely resemble the OES result. Coalition 46/45% Lab 40/42%.

  5. And i don’t accept this is that bad for either the Tories nor the Lib Dems. There’s no particularly massive shift at the minute and their combined figure is still higher than Labour. I see the non Lab/Tory vote continues to be fairly strong too at 24%…me thinks multi-party politics is here to stay. No wonder Milliband made his speech today. Wonder when the rest of his party will catch up…

  6. As an old, un-merged, Liberal home ruler, I have been in favour of electoral reform (preferably STV, obviously) since before I was allowed to vote, but can anyone please explain why even to NO2AV campaign (http://www.no2av.org/) don’t seem to be asking for the use of AV (or a variant of it) to be abandoned in mayoral and party leadership contests?

  7. So 8 months after the general election Labour are up 10%, Tories down about 1% and the LibDems down just under 14%. Does this indicate that the Tory 36.9% at the last election was an high point? I know there has been loads of bad news but the bad news has always been for things to come. Would it be a good time for the tory-led government to call a new election, they know they would lose but things can only get worse from now on?

  8. The only reason I can think of for Cameron to call an election would be to make an incoming Labour government look hypocritical and stupid. Fortunately he’s too public-spirited to want that.

    I don’t doubt that there is worse to come for the Coalition over the rest of this year, and probably 2012 as well. But no, I don’t think the Tory score at the last election was a high point.

    What we are seeing is largely churn within the left of centre “half” of the electorate. The right of centre half is fairly solid, for the moment.

  9. Ok Neil

    I accept that the Tory vote is holding up well. That’s clear.

    But “he’s too public spirited to want that”? You jest. He told the electorate he was going to do a raft of things and now he is doing a different raft of things…often the things he promised not to do.

    It’s not public spiritedness. He just doesn’t want to be held to account.

  10. ComRes polled on AV in June.. back then 59% supported it. this 36% in favour is coming into line with the others.

  11. Surely this is bad news for the pro AV campaign? If all the votes they could possible get only gets them to 58% that’s hardly a safe win, it means they need roughly 2/3rds or more of the undecideds to split for them, as well as holding onto their voters or eating into the other sides. Possible? Yes. Good news? Hardly.

  12. Neil A I agree with you of course there will be no early GE.
    Also you are right about the left of cente ABT churn. What is less clear is what will happen to ‘centre of centre’ part of the electorate.
    No doubt as you imply this will drift towards Labour in 2011 and probably stay for 2012 (I reckon 2013 too).
    What happens thereafter? Well we get in to Economic discussions again and how much does the Economy have to pick up for the Conservatives to increase on their 2010 performance.
    It is s along ay out but a reasonable assertion that the LDs are highly unlikely to reach their 2010 number and most likely less than 20% even as low as 15% possibly.
    As such the bar for Lab and Cons is higher over 40% I reckon to win outright and only the conservatives can achieve that in 2015 as Labour’s ‘reconnection’ will take longer than 5 years imo.

  13. Barbazenzero
    Simple. In a referendum each side is wise to stick strictly to what is on the voting paper. You can only minimise your support by doing otherwise.
    BTW an Mp I was speaking to had seen a pro-yes leaflet in England featuring Paddy Ashdown. If everything is going so absolutely swimmingly for Mr Clegg then surely he will be featuring strongly. On the other hand…

  14. @NEIL A

    After 13 years of a Labour government and a world recession, the Tories could only manage 36.9%. That I think must be considered a high point. The polls since then have showed a very short honeymoon. I think the polls since then have confirmed the election result; that there was no mood for change but there was anger at the world recession (and not enough of that for the Tories). Most of the protest vote went to the LibDems because there was still a lot of distrust of the ” nasty party”. Under these circumstances I could not see the Tory-led coalition going up in the polls for long.

  15. GaryGatter
    You wrote ‘Would it be a good time for the tory-led government’

    You are not the only one here with a pink background colour who is doing this and it is an amusing, presumably unconciously partisan, mantra. Original thought is allowed on UKPR.

    AW
    You know I disagree with the YG question which I consider a dog whistle (on dear, I’m doing the cliches now).

    However, I suppose Comres could have put the negative question to half the DKs and the positive one to the other half just to test the theory of a supposed bias.

    However the writing is clearly on the wall. I invite you to look at the NoToAV website as another colleague did.

    Their main plank of the argument against comes over a bit dinosaurish and inconsistent because, as Barbabenzero wrote (I hope i got that right) if ‘more than one vote’ is the objection why do these ‘no’ enthusiasts use it for their own party elections and approve of it (nay promoted and installed it) elsewhere?

  16. @HOWARD

    Sorry Howard but it is so.

  17. gary gator

    i disagree that there was not a mood of change, i think that if there had of been a party to the left of labour, then that party would have increaced it’s vote share dramaticly

    listening to the radio and reading comments in the papers, i get the sence that the mood is that it’s time to rein in the free market and the bankers

  18. i think that av will win because the the logo design is better, having said that both campains should shoot their logo designers

  19. I have the feeling that we might be living a new 1989, this time the epicenter being the Arab world. Could it be possible that after Southern Europe (Greek, Spain, Portugal) in the mid-70s and Eastern Europe in the late 80s it is the turn of the Arabic authoritarian regimes to give way to democracy and tolerance? Maybe I am more sensible to this because of my proximity (via France and Greece) to the Maghreb and the Middle East, but if this proves to be correct, many things may change in the years to come and many predictions should be revised.

  20. @NickP,

    I am curious as to what “things” DC promised to do and not to do that you think he has reneged on.

    Even allowing for the fact that this is not a Tory government, and therefore cannot implement in full the Tory manifesto, I think on the whole DC has done, or planned to do, most of what he promised. And there was little he promised “not” to do. Sensible politicians (ie not Liberal Democrats) tend to avoid such promises.

    By public-spirited, I mean that he probably (as a Tory) thinks that a Labour government wouldn’t do the things that need to be done. So whereas it might be fun to see Ed Miliband suddenly be converted to the virtues of public sector cuts, tuition fees and VAT by the hard reality of government, it wouldn’t be in the (blue-tinted spectacle version) public interest.

  21. @Virgilion,

    I’d dearly love to believe that this is the 1989 of the Arab world, but I am very afraid that political Islam makes the situation far more dangerous. The reason the West has been so indulgent of the corrupt regimes in Islamic countries is the fear that they may become new Irans and Afghanistans, rather than new Polands and Slovenias.

    Fingers and toes crossed that we can see the back of the old kleptocrats without getting something worse.

  22. @RICHARD IN NORWAY

    At the time that was the LibDems, which is why they are hemorrhaging voters.

  23. gary gator

    do you see why i dislike FPTP

    it is the root of all evil

    but the reds would rather have FPTP than union rights for example

    i think it really would be a good time to let the reds take over in govt, cos financial crisis part 2 is on the way

  24. nick p

    not if, when

    and gordon only posponed the day of reckoning

  25. @Neil A – “DC promised to… ”

    Make any cabinet minister “go away and think again” if their policies entailed a cut to frontline services?

    He can argue that what local councils do is up to them, but having in some cases to deliver 30% cuts is no easy matter.

  26. He categorically didn’t say there would be no rise in VAT. None of the parties would rule it out. “Frontline” reductions was always meaningless. Any cuts to public services are arguably “front line” depending on your definitions. I’ll give you that the sentence is a pretty cynical piece of politicking, but that sort of thing cuts right across politics. It’s certainly not a “broken promise” though.

    The Tories promised to make “efficiency savings”, but they never promised that those would be the only cuts in the public sector. Besides which, as with “frontline”, “efficiency savings” is one of those wordplays that doesn’t really mean anything. Lots of frontline public sector activities are hopelessly inefficient, for starters.

    He never promised that he wouldn’t change Child Benefit. He promised he wouldn’t scrap it. Subtle difference. On EMAs the Tories were very equivocal about it before the election, although I accept that Cameron did, under questioning, express his support for it.

    No government ever does exactly what it said it would do, even if it secures a majority. The true test of the current government is whether it does what it said in the Coalition Agreement.

    The Tories did enter the election with a clear commitment to eliminating the budget deficit in one parliament. We all knew that that meant hard cuts to public spending in a whole range of areas.

    The LibDems did break a promise. On one level that is normal, particularly if you’re the junior partner in a coalition. But written pledges are pretty dumb, politically. They’ve certainly learned that lesson.

  27. growth is not possible without cheap energy

    oil is 100 dollers a barrel and the economy is barely moving, any higher and the price will trolltle the recovery, OPEC say that the won’t increase production because they like high prices but the truth is that they can’t pump faster even if they wanted to

  28. neil A

    we should do what the banks do

    report non exsistant tax revenues and give ourselves a big pay rise

    all these profits that are being announced are bogus accounting scams

  29. @Neil A – “… clear commitment to eliminating the budget deficit”

    The phrase I have is “Act now now on the national debt, so we can keep mortgage rates lower for longer.”

    As I have pointed out before, in the quasi-legal personal contract sent out to voters in Ashcroft marginals, tax-breaks and increased spending commitments outweighed any mention of cuts.

    (“Cut wastefulgovernment spending so we canstop Labour’s jobs tax, which would kill the recovery.”)

  30. billy bob

    you have got no color

  31. @Richard in Norway

    I’m conservative (with a small “c” obviously :) )

    It has all got a bit jazzy for my tired eyes. ;)

  32. NickP,

    OK, so long as we pass a law first that says that Labour have to call a fresh election every time they do something they said they wouldn’t, or don’t do something they said they would.

    I’d love it if parties could and would be totally transparent. In fact, lets ban political campaigning altogether. Just public legally binding manifestos, let the electorate read them and they automatically become law on election.

    If elected, Labour would have made massive public sector cuts. If you had your way, and there was an election next month, Labour would still have to make massive public sector cuts. And yet Labour talk constantly as if cuts are optional, ideological, avoidable. By your definition that’s lying.

    But, whatever, as AW will no doubt say. This isn’t the place for this.

  33. @ Neil A

    “I’d dearly love to believe that this is the 1989 of the Arab world, but I am very afraid that political Islam makes the situation far more dangerous. The reason the West has been so indulgent of the corrupt regimes in Islamic countries is the fear that they may become new Irans and Afghanistans, rather than new Polands and Slovenias.

    Fingers and toes crossed that we can see the back of the old kleptocrats without getting something worse.”

    I am in agreement. I think that over the long term, the west has made a mistake in being indulgent of corrupt regimes. I’m not sure that mistake can be easily fixed now with what, as you note, is the alternative.

  34. Barney Crockett
    In a referendum each side is wise to stick strictly to what is on the voting paper.

    You’re probably right, but that does rather dilute their adherence to the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ they claim the existing plurality system to be. In any event, would it not be a useful filibustering tactic for its advocates in Westmidden to propose an amendment to revert to plurality voting for all public elections in the UK should the referendum fail to produce a “yes” vote?