ComRes has released a new poll on the AV referendum commissioned by the NO2AV campaign. Topline figures, weighted by likelihood to vote in the referendum and excluding don’t knows have the NO campaign ahead by 60% to 40%, the biggest lead the NO campaign have recorded so far.

I always urge some caution in polls commissioned by the campaigns themselves – but in this particular case the tables appear wholly and entirely above board. It is a standard survey asking how likely people are to vote, and then asking them the bare, unadorned referendum question. Note that the regular ComRes polls on AV for the Independent on Sunday are carried out online, so this is the first recent ComRes telephone survey on AV.

There is also a new poll by a company called ICD Research in the New Statesman, which shows NO ahead by 14 points: NO 53%, YES 39%, undecided 9% (repercentaged to exclude don’t knows it would be a 16 point lead for NO).

I’m not aware of any previously published political polling by ICD, but it appears to have been an online poll, weighted by age, gender and region but not politically. Both the ICD and ComRes polls were conducted over last weekend, so both slightly predate the YouGov/Sun poll conducted early this week.

413 Responses to “Two new polls show NO campaign well ahead”

1 7 8 9
  1. Oldnat

    It was OUR empire old chap. We were delighted to share it with you so long as you didn’t get above yourselves. :)

    “Up to the marraige of the queen mother in the 1930?s, no royal in direct lineage to the throne had married a British spouse for 264 years – the royals are that British.”

    Not quite sure what you mean by direct lineage. The Queen Mum’s hubby was not the heir apparent or presumptive when they married.

    George V married Princess Mary of Teck, which sounds foreign, but HER mother was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. I’m sure there are other examples. Anyway, aren’t we supposed to call everyone British as soon as they set foot in the country nowadays? You can’t have it both ways.

    Anyway, I think we’d better lay off the genealogical researches else we’ll get told off. Personally I think Harold Godwinsson’s descendants should be our royal family.

    I agree with Adrian B. Another poll please!

  2. I see my point yesterday about the timing of the wedding has had zero responses. OK, maybe I deserved that, but it is unusual for such a huge occasion to be scheduled a week before major elections. Particularly with the Coalition desperate for a feel-good factor amidst all the gloom.

    Anyway, glad it all passed off well.

    @Robert Newark

    “And lets remember that Cromwell really wanted to be King. He even wanted his son to be his successor. A Democrat, he was not, so get rid of the rose tinted glasses.”

    Actually he was never a revolutionary, but a centrist. He stood strongly against the Levellers. What he wanted was an accomodation with the King. For the King to accept the will of the people, who were prepared for civil war.

    He never wanted to be King. But with the King refusing to accept any curtailment on his divine right to rule and parliament full of the King’s flunkeys, something had to give. Eventually, he became paranoid and puritanical and ended up believing only he could save his country (delusions suffered from many others since…)

  3. Many interesting,silly and funny comments tonight.Because I am a dedicated follower of fashion does
    anyone agree with me that princess Beatrice was wearing
    a hat that made her resemble a telly tubbie?Was this a joke or just the height of fashion?

  4. Raf,
    I also raised the subject of the timing of the wedding a
    couple of days ago.Quite handy for the goverment I would
    have thought.Also that weird comment by someone that
    Cameron had had a good wedding.Whatever did they mean?

  5. As Socalliberal pointed out yesterday (I hope I don’t misinterprete you) – the Royal Family could never forgive that Blair saved their skin when the heir’s wife untimely died. There was a genuine anti-monarchist feeling then (even if in my opinion the whole thing was pathological). The whole thing actually is waste of time here. It does not really move the electorate (even if they partied). They know perfectly well that a bankrupt family from the taxpayers moneis built up an immense fortune. The only reason why they don’t want to get rid of this burden on the country is the lack of alternatives (I quite liked the proposal raised earlier) – perhaps the Swiss version.

    As to the Tory support (by no means all Tory supporters) – the RF is a legitimacy source for them – dreaming back to a time when there wer good commoners whi left the thinking to the nobility and the rest that could be regularly disciplined without recourse. And this thinking crept into this topic…

    (Sorry if any errors. Writing it on my mobile)

  6. @Ann Miles – Princess Letizia’s was nice in a conventional way, but if you are going for weird why *not* go all the way?

    There is a facebook group for Beatrice’s hat apparently:


  7. @Ann Miles
    “Also that weird comment by someone that
    Cameron had had a good wedding.Whatever did they mean?”

    Your guess is as good as mine…:)

  8. @Ann Miles
    If I’m thinking of the right Spanish Princess, Letizia got married to an FC Barcelona handball player, whose 2,000 unpaid parking tickets were subsequently mysteriously waived!

  9. Here it is.


    For immediate release 1 May 2011


    Today’s YouGov poll for Scotland on Sunday again suggests a breakthrough result for the Greens, up to 7% and again ahead of the Lib Dems. Projections from Scotland Votes indicate that the party would be up from two seats to eight. (1)

    Patrick Harvie said:

    “The momentum is clearly with the Greens, and if this poll is right we’re on course for our best ever Holyrood result. A second vote for the Greens will not only ensure strong voices against the cuts to public services, but if the Lib Dems can be squeezed into fifth place it could even be a fatal blow to this unwanted and unpopular Westminster coalition.”


    1. YouGov’s results for Scotland on Sunday are as follows.

    Constituency vote
    SNP: 42%
    Lab: 34%
    Con: 12%
    Lib: 7%

    Regional vote
    SNP: 35%
    Lab: 33%
    Con: 12%
    Grn: 7%
    Lib: 6%

    Seat projection for
    SNP: 54
    Lab: 47
    Con: 14
    Grn: 8
    Lib: 5

  10. The gap, between the big two is at the upper end of credible as are Con Losses and Green gains though clearly all are pointing in the right direction. I’d take one or two off each of these

    Tavish Scott would be the only constituency LibDem. The Greens would have one more than they had in 2003.

    It won’t be as dramatic as that.

    We know they don’t do it the right way don’ twe?

  11. Presumably the Greens would have one in each region. Their list vote will need to be evenly distributed, and it had better be not rounded up to make that prediction reliably.

    There will be “Others” at least one.

  12. The argument that the votes of people who support extremist parties should not be allowed to count twice seems to be very persuasive.

    Also, the Yes campaigns determination to declare everyone who supports ‘No’ as a fascist is really abusive and also appears to be backfiring. Who thought that that would be the winning argument?

  13. Dear Anthony,

    I would like you to post an official thread on the site giving us your official position on the AV referendum.

    Harriet Jones,

    MP for Flydale North.


    Post Transcript (PS): I am against the Alternative Vote.

1 7 8 9