Having said there aren’t any other polls in the Sunday papers, it turns out there is an Angus Reid on in the Sunday Express. Their voting intention figures are CON 32%(-1), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 11%(-1). Changes are from their poll at the start of the week.

The 11 point Labour lead is the largest any pollster has shown since the general election, and the 32% the lowest any company has shown the Conservatives – although Angus Reid do tend to show lower Conservative figures than other companies and consequental higher Labour leads (somewhat ironically, considering prior to the election they tended to be an outlier in the opposite direction).


77 Responses to “Angus Reid poll shows 11 point Labour lead”

1 2
  1. The GDP effect???

  2. And what happens if you add the Tory vote to the LibDem?

    You get?

  3. NickP

    “And what happens if you add the Tory vote to the LibDem?

    You get?”

    A fairly meaningless number?

  4. This is much more in line with MORI’s latest poll showing a 10 point lead. Are they picking up something YouGov aren’t?

  5. As far as I can tell, the first time that Labour’s share has matched the other two added together.

    What was it called?

    ATTAD?

  6. Conceptualisation is the most important word in UK politics. Can Joe Schmoe conceptualise a -0.5% Q4 result? Of course not.

    can Joe Schmoe conceptualise £1.31 a litre of gasoline? Of course they can.

    Therein lies the clues to our current VI… VAT/Tuition fees don’t help either.

  7. @ Nick P

    Yes, first time Labour % = ATTAD %

    A very meaningful number ;-) but I’d like to see another polling firm or two showing the same before I get all excited.
    8-)

  8. Yeah it’s the petrol. But it’s also being told that we’ve gone backwards.

    Recession means nothing if you are not suffering. Who was it said What recession?

    Petrol and food prices are going up fast, fast, fast. Wages aren’t.

  9. On the swingometer this would give a Labour majority of 115. If translated into council seats it will give them control over a large number of councils who the government can then blame for making the wrong cuts.

    Is this the ConDems plan B

  10. S Webb – there’s something different going on with MORI that I’ve meant to blog about in the last few days but haven’t had time to do properly.

    The very short version is that because they don’t have political weighting their samples tend to be more Labour than other companies samples. In the past this has been cancelled out by MORI’s harsher filtering by likelihood to vote, which always used to heavily favour the Conservatives.

    However, MORI’s recent figures have had Labour supporters as just as likely to vote as Conservative supporters, meaning their harsh turnout filter no longer has a big effect. Hence we should expect MORI to start showing larger Labour leads than other companies.

    I’ll do a more in depth post on in the next couple of days.

    Angus Reid have completely different methods to MORI – they are closest to YouGov in how they do things – so there is unlikely to be any methodological connection.

  11. Amber

    Why do you see it as meaningful?

    Unless there is an electoral pact, AND all those who register a VI for one or the other UK Coalition parties are subject to instruction by Cameron/Clegg, AND there are no Independent Conservatives/Liberals/Social Democrats/Crofters, then it would appear to be simply an arithmetical accident.

    You could no doubt achiever the same equivalence in some polls by summing Tories, UKIP, BNP, EDs.

  12. @ANTHONY WELLS

    What result would YouGov give it were to use Angus Reid’s raw data as input? Or is that not possible?

  13. Angus Reid have little credibility as far as I’m concerned. They massively fluffed the general election, and I see no reason to think they’re any more accurate now.

    MORI’s lack of political weighting mean they’re little more reliable.

    I give much more weight to ICM, and to a lesser extent Yougov.

    Still this means a 5pt Labour lead, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this had grown somewhat since the bad budget figures.

  14. Anthony, my moderated post was a reply to daveb. You also moderated a post of mine that said just “time for a plan B?” in response to the economic indicators.

    Fair comment?

  15. No, I don’t think the labour lead is this big, but it means that 4% is probably the minimum, with indications of worse to come.

    This shouldn’t be time to start with plan B, perhaps a bit of tinkering with plan A. Coalition governments can’t really afford to be too unpopular in case it all breaks up and an election occurs suddenly.

  16. 15% others seems high.

  17. Angus Reid since the election:

    Con 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 33, 32%
    Lab 38, 37, 40, 41, 40, 41, 43%
    LD 16, 15, 13, 9, 12, 12, 11%

    (01/10, 28/10, 30/11, 20/12/2010 and
    06/01, 25/01, 30/01/2011)

  18. .Angus Reid for the Sunday Express tomorrow

    Con 32
    Lab 43
    LD 11

    Angus Reid for the Sunday Express 10th January 2011 (last direct equivalent)

    Con 35
    Lab 38
    LD 16

    So tonight’s poll for Sunday Express tomorrow shows a net change for each party of

    Con -3
    Lab +5
    LD -5

    So Labour taking from both governing parties in the ensuing three weeks (in terms of field work). They have both lost to ‘others’ (namely UKIP and Green) as well.

    As said on the YG thread: the Lib Dem so-called “recovery” is well and truly busted based on the figures from the numerous polls of the last week by different companies…

    I still don’t think we will get consistent double digit leads (ranging over the weeks and months and across multiple parties) until mid 2012 and I would imaging they hold through till late 2013. Whereupon the Lib Dems will have a very crucial decision to make.

    The next election- whether Osborne’s plan A (of deficit decline and promised post election tax cuts) works or not- is going to be another squeaker.

    The Conservatives need to be no more than 3% behind Labour 12 months out from the next election, to match the average ‘incumbent claw back’ of the last 31 years and draw level at the election.

    That is notwithstanding the widely argued view that- even with both AV and boundary changes/ 600 MP’s- to get a simple majority they need to be more than 6% ahead of Labour on election day…..

    8-)

  19. @ Old Nat

    ATTAD is important because it’s the public’s verdict on the government’s policies v the opposition alternative.
    8-)

  20. Amber

    That is a huge assumption on your part. If for no other reason than the Coalition are only the English Government in many domestic policy areas. Even if the minor nations only alter the English figures by a percent or two, it still makes the 43% equivalence meaningless.

    Additionally, it ignores the 14% for others that AR identify.

    I know that you are thirled to only thinking of the big parties – but that leads to a huge arithmetical confusion in your thinking.

  21. I think I’m all Egyptrd out for another day. Back to UK polls.

    @Amber – what is ATTAD?

  22. RAF

    I had to ask that earlier. Apparently it means Add Together Tories and Democrats.

    It seems to be Labour’s equivalent of numerology. :-)

  23. @Raf – ATTAD, another way of saying Totald
    (Total of tories and liberal democrats)

  24. Or Mynging

    MYstical Number Giving Indication of Next Government.

  25. Or LEFTIE

    Labour Expect Fate To Influence Electorate?

  26. oldnat

    “It seems to be Labour’s equivalent of numerology.”

    Until Labour went into the lead- and in earlier halcyon times when ‘ATTAD’ was consistently over 50% (indeed all of last summer it was consistently over 55%)- ATTAD was actually the introduction, purview and plaything of the many Conservative supporters on here and their (at the time) gung ho Lib Dem partners.

    How times change huh?

    Something the Scots Nats are likely going to have to prepare themselves for this May !

  27. Rob Sheffield

    Nothing new for us to deal with UPAST.

  28. A few more polls like these, and the Tories will be begging for AV.

  29. I think GDP figures will affect VI, but not yet, and I see little reason to trust AR. The economic news (as in the quantative stuff) will only effect VI because it’s a brilliant point of reference for anyone who opposes the government, including of course, Labour. Balls will have to be careful not to cling to the latest figures too much, in case the next quarter shows a different picture, but that won’t stop journalists and the like using them (and of course Labour people themselves). There’s 3 months before the next set of figures, plenty of time for the ‘it’s not working’ mantra to build, and as people are hit harder and harder, enough time for your everyday people to start making vague comments about the cuts not necessarily working. That wll affect VI, and that will take time. Methinks.

  30. One interesting thing that none of the polls is measuring is what would happen if Clegg and Cameron were summarily replaced with Simon Hughes and David Davis as a result of internal party rebellions againstthe cuts. Since this is the likeliest scenario for 2011-2012 we should begin to think about how the electorate at large would respond.

  31. Baroness D’Souza, convener of the non-aligned peers, told the Observer that peers might as well “go home” and “cease to exist” if the prime minister moved to put a time limit on the upper house’s historic duty and right to scrutinise legislation.

    She said that any attempt to introduce a guillotine – which David Cameron has threatened to do early this week following agonisingly slow progress on the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill – would provoke uproar and would almost certainly be defeated.

  32. @ Amber Star

    “Baroness D’Souza, convener of the non-aligned peers, told the Observer that peers might as well “go home” and “cease to exist” if the prime minister moved to put a time limit on the upper house’s historic duty and right to scrutinise legislation.

    She said that any attempt to introduce a guillotine – which David Cameron has threatened to do early this week following agonisingly slow progress on the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill – would provoke uproar and would almost certainly be defeated.”

    Seems like a silly thing to fight over. The Tories don’t want an AV system anyway, they’re only doing this because of their obligation as part of the Coalition. If you’re going to go out and force the House of Lords to swallow something they don’t want, at least do it and put your neck on the line when it’s for something you really want.

    Btw, I decided to do a comparison between the U.S. and Australia considering Australia’s implementation of AV. Why did I do this? Because the U.S. follows the allegedly “backwards” FPTP system (not just for electing members of Congress but for electing presidential electors) and Australia follows the purportedly “more fair” and “more progressive” AV system. And all the discussion of whether the voting system of FPTP is fair (the one I use except in non-partisan local elections) interests me.

    Since Australia went to AV in 1919, they have had 36 General elections, 6 of which have resulted in the losing party receiving the most popular votes while the opposing party has won a majority……even with fewer popular votes. This has occurred in 1940, 1954, 1961, 1969, 1990, and as recently as 1998. That’s a solid 16% of elections where a majority of seats has been won while winning fewer popular votes than one’s opponent. And last year in the 2010 election, it should be noted that while the popular vote winner ultimately won control of the government, they actually won fewer seats than the opposition party.

    By comparison, in the past 223 year experiment with democracy, we have had 56 presidential elections, of which only 4 saw a president elected while winning fewer popular votes than his opponent, just 7% of all elections. This occurred in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. But that’s a bit misleading. That’s because in 1824, no candidate actually won a majority of electoral votes and the election was thrown to Congress. This leaves just 3 elections (or 5.3% of the total) where a president won a majority of electoral votes while winning fewer popular votes than his opponent. This brings us to 1876 and 2000, both of which were disputed. The evidence strongly suggests that the popular vote winner in those two elections (Samuel Tilden and Al Gore) would have won a majority in the electoral college had votes in contested states been properly counted (Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana in 1876 and Florida (again) in 2000). That leaves 1888 as the sole fluke election where a majority of electoral votes was won by the popular vote loser.

    Anyway, why this long recitation of pretty much useless history? AV is allegedly more progressive and more representative of voter intent. FPTP is supposedly backwards. Yet, in Australia which has this complicated second preference system, parties have won elections while failing to win the most votes on a fairly frequent and reccuring basis. While in the U.S., we have had a candidate win a majority of electors and become president while failing to win the most popular votes a grand total of 3 times (and in two of those three elections, the popular vote winner likely should have been the electoral vote winner as well).

    My final point would be this: is ditching FPTP for a different system really more fair and equitable over the long run for voters?

  33. You know, I think if anything, these polls might (stress might) keep the coalition a little bit more stable and more cohesive. It seems like a number of MPs in both the Tory and Lib Dem caucuses are unhappy with the Coalition. But forcing leadership changes or ending the Coalition in some other way would lead to a new election. If this polling here is accurate, Labour would win a new election and return to power with a substantial victory. Hence, those Lib Dems and Tories who might be tempted to bring down the Coalition are probably less inclined to do so.

  34. @ Billy Bob

    “(Total of tories and liberal democrats)”

    Thank you, I was struggling with what ATTAD was too.

    I think it’s a mistake to try and group the Liberal Democrat and Tory vote shares together to equate support for the Coalition. These are not similar parties with similar ideologies who often work together. This is a marriage of convenience, which both parties hope will be temporary and neither party seems to really care for. And so voters may still prefer their own individual parties but that doesn’t mean they want a return of the coalition.

    Plus, having the Lib Dems and Tories viewed as a single entity for polling purposes and speculation of a pact seem really silly in light of the fact that in the past, the Lib Dems and Labour have worked together in elections.

  35. @SoCalLiberal,

    Is there much point in comparing AV to the US voting system, with it’s almost entirely Two-Party set up?

    I imagine if AV had been used in US elections it would have made very little difference to any result that didn’t feature a strong third party challenge (Ross Perot etc) and even then I think the second preferences of that third candidate would break more evenly than in most other countries.

    A more useful comparison might be to check what the Australian results would have been under FPTP. A lot more wins for Labour, I expect, unless Liberals and Nationals merged into a single entity.

    Personally I think filibustering has to be met with “force” or we may as well not have a parliament at all. This is not a complex bill, the delays are purely down to people trying to oppose it procedurally because they know they don’t have the votes to do so legislatively. Guillotine away, and announce the abolition of the Lords as you do it, Mr Cameron…

  36. @ Old Nat

    “A fairly meaningless number?”

    Notwithstanding Amber’s arguments to the contrary, I agree with you.

  37. @ SoCaL

    I am guessing that David Cameron & Nick Clegg were making a gesture to the Dem’s supporters when DC floated the guillotine suggestion. They’ll have known how the cross-benchers would react. I was of the opinion that the Lords would see it as a dangerous precedent; & I’m sure DC has advisors who know much more about such things than I.

    I’d think that the Coalition would have more concerns about splitting the bill than seeing the AV referendum delayed. A delay, which could be blamed on Labour, would likely suit both Cameron & Clegg.

    Labour only gains if there is determination to pass the bill in time for a May referendum; that’s the only reason for the Coalition to make changes to the bill. If they simply accept that May isn’t going to be the date, the Coalition need not give any ground.
    8-)

  38. @ Neil A

    “Is there much point in comparing AV to the US voting system, with it’s almost entirely Two-Party set up?

    I imagine if AV had been used in US elections it would have made very little difference to any result that didn’t feature a strong third party challenge (Ross Perot etc) and even then I think the second preferences of that third candidate would break more evenly than in most other countries.

    A more useful comparison might be to check what the Australian results would have been under FPTP. A lot more wins for Labour, I expect, unless Liberals and Nationals merged into a single entity.”

    My point of comparisson is that a system created in the 18th century has proven more useful for reflecting the voter intent than a 20th century system supposedly deemed “more progressive” and currently being proposed for 21st century adoption in the UK. Instead of complicated systems of voting, an FPTP system might be the best available. Sometimes an oldie is a goodie.

    IMO, the electoral college created and maintains the two-party system.

    “Personally I think filibustering has to be met with “force” or we may as well not have a parliament at all. This is not a complex bill, the delays are purely down to people trying to oppose it procedurally because they know they don’t have the votes to do so legislatively. Guillotine away, and announce the abolition of the Lords as you do it, Mr Cameron…”

    :)

    Do the Tories want to abolish the House of Lords though? They’re not elected so I don’t fault your views on this but for Cameron, is it strategically a good idea force the issue for something he doesn’t want?

    On this topic, could you explain to me the procedural history of Section 28? I had read that after it was repealed during Blair’s first term, the repeal was blocked in the House of Lords. But the main opponent then died and Section 28 was finally repealed during Blair’s second term. Was the opponent filibustering? Or were there other membership changes to the House of Lords that allowed it to go through?

  39. @ Amber Star

    “I am guessing that David Cameron & Nick Clegg were making a gesture to the Dem’s supporters when DC floated the guillotine suggestion. They’ll have known how the cross-benchers would react. I was of the opinion that the Lords would see it as a dangerous precedent; & I’m sure DC has advisors who know much more about such things than I.

    I’d think that the Coalition would have more concerns about splitting the bill than seeing the AV referendum delayed. A delay, which could be blamed on Labour, would likely suit both Cameron & Clegg.

    Labour only gains if there is determination to pass the bill in time for a May referendum; that’s the only reason for the Coalition to make changes to the bill. If they simply accept that May isn’t going to be the date, the Coalition need not give any ground.”

    What I think is problematic though for Cameron is that of the three parties, the party that most approves of and likes the House of Lords is his party. So while he may benefit from increased support for guillotining from Lib Dems, I think he risks alienating his own supporters.

    I’m not sure Labour gains or loses from either outcome. I think they have a chance to defeat the Referendum either way at the ballot box.

  40. Socalliberal

    In your comparison, what do you mean by ‘more votes’? If you mean first preferences then there is a problem in the case of AV – a second preference is still a vote…

    The situation with the Lords is very interesting. I’m not sure how the various conventions work, or if they work, with a coalition. It’s not like the coalition document was ever put to the people. On the other hand, both the Tory and LibDem manifestos were rejected (especially the LibDem one…). What is certainly the case is that you can lose a lot of parliamentary time trying to put things through the lords. This may be what is pushing Cameron towards a guillotine… He doesn’t care about this bill, but he does about the others in the queue.

  41. Another poll showing Labour on 43% – very good for Labour.

    Personally, I think the Tories are a little low here and others a little high – I’d say a movement of 3-4 points between the 2 is about right.

  42. SoCalLiberal

    I think you’re missing the point of AV as opposed to FPTP. After all if AV was meant to produce the same result as FPTP, there would be no point in it.

    The basic principle behind AV is that votes cast for probable third etc parties in a constituency aren’t wasted and can be transferred to more successful candidates according to the wish of the voters. Thus individual voters aren’t forced to guess the two front-runners and choose the least unattractive to then. Instead they can express their real preferences and the voting system resolves who has the most support (perhaps not wholehearted, but none the less support) among the electorate.

    You can’t really judge voter intent unless there is a way to express that intent without electoral penalty.

    So in Australia, people can vote for the Greens in some numbers without feeling their vote is wasted; or choose between different Coalition candidates without worrying about letting Labour in.

    In the US however, FPTP tends to reinforce the two-party system, making both of them into perhaps over-wide coalitions. Admittedly with regard to individual candidates,it is mitigated to a large extent by the primary system, but that also makes it less possible for new Parties to establish themselves. I think there area also some states where run-off elections are held if no candidate gets above 50% of the vote.

    With regard to ‘Section 28′ (technically it was renumbered to 29), the Wikipedia article gives a reasonable idea of the timeline.

    ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    Labour didn’t attempt to repeal it till after most of the hereditary peers were removed in 1999, but it was still voted down twice. Filibustering doesn’t usually happen in the Lords (if you’ll pardon the pun, peer-pressure tends to stop it), though, given the rather rambling nature of some of their Lordships’ speeches, it can be hard to tell one way or the other.

    Incidentally the Wikipedia article doesn’t stress two of the most offensive things about ‘Section 28’. Firstly it was written more in the language of tabloid newspaper columnists than the law. So nobody really knew what it meant or what to do about it. It was a very bad precedent for legislation as gesture politics – not that the UK needs to instruct the US how to do that.

    Secondly its vagueness gave many schools and local education authorities the excuse to ignore sex education of any kind. This avoided conflict with religious schools and parents, but meant that practical and emotional relationship instruction was just not given to many of a generation of children. Ironically not teaching about homosexuality may have led to more teenage pregnancies.

  43. So let’s look at Ipsos MORI since the election:

    Con 39, 40, 37, 39, 36, 38, 33%
    Lab 31, 38, 37, 36, 39, 39, 43%
    LD 19, 14, 15, 14, 14, 11, 13%

    (17/06, 25/07, 12/08, 17/10, 14/11, 12/12/2010 and
    24/01/2011)

  44. @Anthony Wells

    Is it likely that Mori will review their methodology in the light of this change?

    @oldnat

    I feel that it is a relevant number in the context of an existing coalition government and the possibility (albeit not a strong one IMO) that they may campaign as a coalition at a future GE.

    ps One could also point out that partisans for the current government were bandying that figure around for well over half a year since the GE and it is entertaining to twit them with it a bit!

    :)

  45. SoCalLiberal

    Just to emphasise Roger’s point about the tabloid nature of Section 28 (Section 2A in Scotland) – it read

    “‘A local authority shall not: a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

    The other parts of the UK had to wait till 2003 for its abolition. In the Scottish Parliament it was easier as Lab, LD and SNP agreed with repeal, and only the small Tory group in favour of keeping it.

    It was repealed in 2000 by 99 votes to 17.

  46. I’m now watching the Andy Murray game. The joking is largely at the expense of the sportscasters (who don’t joke about it – it simply reveals an underlying bias which has resulted in the jokes.

    Pre-match references to nationality – British 3 – Scottish 0.

  47. I have to agree with NeilA.. Comparing a multiple-party system to a two-party system with voting is ridiculous when expanding that to the AV/FPTP debate.

    Of course FPTP works in the US, with the two party system. You’re basically given the choice, ‘Do you want A or B?’. Which is the basis of FPTP.

    But as we’ve seen in the latest election (and previous, if you believe SDP/Labour were largely anti-Tory) is that FPTP breaks down when you introduce a large third party.
    It inevitably splits the vote.

    So FPTP reinforces a two-party system because tactical voting is required to ‘keep out the xs’.

    So the question is not, ‘What system would work best in this specific country with a two party system?’ but rather ‘Which system works best *on average*?’, which I think both sides are largely lacking in the debate.

  48. I wonder if the Libdems switching support to labour, and precipitating an election would enhance their share of the vote?

  49. And as I should really finished my train of thought before finishing my post, I should continue.
    You could brute-force a computerised test of AV/FPTP – I figure there’s roughly a trillion combinations with three parties (using whole percentages and I know you could cut that down heavily, but can’t quite work out the figure myself) – to get the answer, but my own feeling is that AV would work better than FPTP on average (due to the vote split problem).

  50. Martin Williams

    “I wonder if the Libdems switching support to labour, and precipitating an election would enhance their share of the vote?”

    I’m sure it would in some parts of the UK like Scotland, where (once you ignore the loyalists) their support is largely anti-Tory.

    However, that would clearly lose them support in areas where the non-loyalist support is largely anti-Labour.

    I’m sure that any calculation would be on the basis of seats rather than vote share and, in any case, one suspects that many of the Orange Bookers are in partnership with the Tories by choice.

1 2