ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian is out and has topline figures of CON 35%(-2), LAB 39%(nc), LDEM 15%(+2). Changes are from their last poll in mid-December. The four point Labour lead is in the same sort of region as YouGov have been showing in their daily polls, where Labour’s lead has been at or around 5 points lately.

After YouGov’s poll yesterday showing the Liberal Democrats up at 11 I was rather cautious about whether it meant anything, but here we also have ICM showing the party recovering somewhat (there’s a big gap between 11% and 15%, but YouGov tend to show the lowest score for the Lib Dems of the regular pollsters while ICM tend to show the highest so this is to be expected – the interesting finding is both companies have them noticable above their respective low points.)

The other findings mentioned in the Guardian are that Cameron is ahead on best Prime Minister by 38% to Miliband’s 25% and Nick Clegg’s 12%. Asked to choose whether the coalition or Labour are best placed to deal with Britain’s problems 41% pick the coalition and 36% Labour.


55 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – 35/39/15”

1 2
  1. @Robert C:

    Combined Labour and Tory share of the vote:
    1979: 80.8%
    1983: 70.0%
    1987: 73.0%
    1992: 76.3%
    1997: 73.9%
    2001: 72.4%
    2005: 67.6%
    2010: 65.1%

    @OldNat

    Thats rather partisan of you.

    Just pointing out that its the electorate that has moved on to more pressing matters closer to home- as a cursory glance at ‘key topics’ polling will illustrate.

    PS I would never use a word like “wisnae” though I might be tempted to suggest some on here are “neds”

  2. @OldNat,

    I don’t personally have any axe to grind on public or private ownership of water utilities. I didn’t support privatisation on the basis that it was (unlike most of the other utilities) an absolute monpoly. However I think the performance of the privatised water companies has been pretty good (despite living in the demesne of Britain’s Most Expensive Water Company).

    I was responding more to NickP’s musing about renationalisation than I was to your original post. Renationalisation with compensation would be money I don’t think the public would consider well spent. Renationalisation without compensation (a la Amber) would cause pretty massive international ructions considering how many of our utilities are foreign owned…

  3. Fwiw, 13th -15th December 2002 ICM poll:

    Lab -2%, Con +13%, LD -27% approval for military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.

    Also of interest:

    h ttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/09/Tony-Blairs-Challenge-in-Securing-British-Support-for-a-War

  4. @ Rob Sheffield
    In any case none of the party “alternatives” you give can be described as on the centre left.

    Though most could well be described as ‘progressive’ or ‘far’ left.
    I don’t think either of the nationalists or the Greens could be described as anywhere near far-left and “progressive” is such a meaningless self-justifying term that any right-winger can call himself (as we’ve seen in recent times). The furthest left – the Greens – are left-wing, but so was Labour in 1945 – which you argue was centrist for the time; surely now a strengthened Labour which doesn’t have to appeal to Tories because its vote is hopelessly split, should set about moving the centre back leftwards, which New Labour and all its’ centrism didn’t do, and has in fact allowed the Tories to continue on with what Thatcher couldn’t?

  5. @ Clad

    “I don’t get this, could you elucidate?”

    There is a risk of carrying on a thread that becomes dead here but I would be glad to explain and elaborate.

    When Obama began his utterly improbable campaign, he ran as the insurgent outsider candidate. If you wanted to take a chance with rapid unprecedent change, you had the opportunity to go with Obama. His extreme inexperience was a liability and a line of attack for his opponents but it was also an asset for him. His appeal wasn’t someone who was mature and responsible but someone who was young and exhuberant.

    But what ended up happenning was that when crisis struck in the middle of the campaign, he stopped playing the role of insurgent. He was calm, cool, and collected. He was knowledgeable and knew how to explain what the economic crisis was, how Americans would get out of it, and how people would be repaid. When people were upset and frightened and didn’t know who to turn to, they wanted someone who was the adult in the room. That was Obama. And despite all that has gone on, Obama’s approval rating remains fairly good because voters overwhelmingly see him as “reasonable”, again the adult in the room.

    And when times are tough and uncertain, people don’t want a leader they can hug, they want a leader who they can trust. If others are screaming and crazy and if others act childishly, voters want an adult in the room.

1 2