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 6 7 8 9
  1. Most of the contributors appear to missed a really exciting and uplifting occasion, which a million of us experienced first hand, and a further 41% of the population watched on television.

    Does the Comments Policy no longer apply, Anthony? If it did about 300 of the 333 comments would be removed.

    Can any of the anti monarchists confirm that the views they are expressing have been aired in their local election literature?

  2. @ Nick Poole

    That sounds like you buy into the whole commoner and royalty concept to me
    _____________________________________

    Got it in one.

    I took an oath of alleigancee as follows:

    I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

    I m a man of my word.

  3. @ Colin

    Not sure about “raves” though. Do they count as “community” parties-or are they usually rather speratist, divisive & intolerant ?
    ——————————————————–
    Not any raves that I’ve been to. They’ve been fully inclusive & open to anybody who wanted to party. The only discrimination being that those of us who could run fast were an ‘elite’ who could avoid being arrested. ;-)

    And is David Cameron to be allowed to define what a ‘community’ is? Good royalist communities & Tory village communities may do as they please but communities of ravers will be subject to the full force & effect of the law?
    8-)

  4. I have a friend who is a member of the Royal Household.

    The rumour re Blair and Brown is that William absolutely did not want Blair there as he loathes the man for his exploitation of his mother’s death.This left them in a quandry; how could they invite Brown but not Blair? Clearly they couldn’t so they had to chop Brown too.

  5. Amber

    That wasn’t really my point. I was objecting to those who claim to be republicans and then start complaining about something as trivial as a wedding invite. If you’re republican it should be for weightier reasons than that, otherwise it just sounds like one of those family rows that no one else cares about.

    To be honest, my real objection is to those on the ‘Left’ who treat the whole subject as one of any real importance. Given the growing inequality in Britain, to fixate on one family (and far from the richest) looks to me like a cop out.

    As far as I know the royals pay the same taxes as everybody else (technically the Queen pays ‘voluntarily’ because of the odd legal position of the Crown). Indeed they may be less likely to use the sort of avoidance measures that are the hallmark of the rich. If the ‘Left’ are so concerned about people paying their fair share, maybe they should go after all individuals and companies not doing so. Instead we seem to have gone from a situation where the Queen was the only rich person who didn’t pay tax, to one where she’s the only one who does.

  6. My local election literature?

    What are you talking about, Davey? Do you have to be standing for parliament to express an opinion here?

    It’s true though that the unelected Windsor parasites have nothing to do with a polling site, as they never get elected for anything.

    As for William loathing Blair, I wish Blair had left Lizzy to sort out her own mess. Things would be a bit different now I suspect.

  7. Amber

    “Good royalist communities & Tory village communities may do as they please but communities of ravers will be subject to the full force & effect of the law?”

    Absolutely-got it in one :-)

  8. David B – I doubt there are any markets on PM on X date. The closest thing to what you want is probably the Betfair market on when David Cameron will cease to be Prime Minister.

  9. An interesting story Last Fandango.

    If it’s true , William gets a few brownie points from me.

  10. @The Last Fandango

    I would put that down to classic transference… understandable given the circumstances, but on reflection rather short-sighted given the service to the monarchy performed by Blair in their hour of maximum danger.

    William needs to be sensible, he already has a number of personal conections with prominent Tories and needs to widen his circle.

  11. That other Royal Family from Bahrain was there too, I understand.

    Just about sums up both their priorites and the whole concept of a divine right to rule. They won’t invite Labour ex-PMs but crushing democratic protesters is a-ok. Come along and have a party.

  12. John Fletcher

    Technically you’re wrong about ‘commoners’. It’s legally anyone who isn’t royal. So Diana Spencer counted as a ‘commoner’ when she married the current Prince of Wales.

    Incidentally when she did so she was the first commoner to marry an heir apparent since the Wars of the Roses.

  13. I have now read most of the comments on this thread (now on their 8th page) and some of the conclusions being drawn in some recent posts don’t seem to reflect the trend of opinion at all.

    1 – most posters who are broadly left of centre (a) recognise that we need a Head of State who can represent the country and its people properly and (b) regard a constitutional monarchy is a reasonable compromise as long as that constitutional monarchy doesn’t cost too much and elitist values are discouraged by various means.

    2 – most posters from all political persuasions were happy that many people enjoyed yesterday’s events even if they personally were not that interested – I haven’t deteced much in the way of negativity or cynicism about this marriage except in relationship to how the various costs of managing the day are being divvied up.

    3 – most posts, again across the spectrum, have recognised that it was poor judgement not to invite Blair and Brown and that Cameron must have been implicated in some way – this seems to me to demonstrate once again that people on this board are reasonably objective and fair most of the time.

  14. @ Roger

    As far as I know the royals pay the same taxes as everybody else (technically the Queen pays ‘voluntarily’ because of the odd legal position of the Crown). Indeed they may be less likely to use the sort of avoidance measures that are the hallmark of the rich.
    ————————————————-
    The royals don’t pay the same taxes. They have specifically not volunteered to pay inheritance tax & that’s off the top of my head without doing any research.

    And IMO, they are only less likely to use avoidance measures because they don’t have to. The royal family simply tell the Inland Revenue how much they are willing to pay.
    8-)

  15. @ The Last Fandango,

    Your story does make a lot of sense and would also explain why the TV coverage looked like a party political broadcast for a Coalition. Cameron and Clegg were shown each time we had a hymn and we saw more pictures of Kenneth Clarke than we did of the Mother of the Bride (although I think that was because he seemed to be singing bass).

    Ed Milliband was there, but The Family had obviously ruled that he was not to be filmed.

    Slightly petty, but it’s their wedding – they should invite who they want to invite. And we should hardly be surprised that the Royal Family would have a tendency towards the Conservatives (I think they may be in the AB category).

    I do think this will have zero impact on 5th May though.

  16. @ Colin

    Absolutely -got it in one … LOL :-)

  17. Back on the topic (and on the thread – which seems to have got lost somewhere) …

    I had my No2AV leaflet and it was very very clearly aimed at Labour voters (who are a rare breed in Chelsea!). Had a picture of Clegg and Cameron, Clegg looking deviously over his shoulder with his hand on a Cameron’s shoulder, Cameron hunched over, walking into Downing Street with the message “AV will bring more hung parliaments, more backroom deals, and more broken promises”.

    Now completely leaving aside the arguments (which are silly) … it is clearly an anti-coaltion message. It is not clear whether the “broken promises” are meant to be towards Clegg (e.g. tuition fees) or Cameron (e.g. VAT, winter fuel), but you are meant to think that The Coaltion was a “backroom deal” which led to “broken promises”. Lab and Lab leaning LDs are clearly in mind.

    It is a great leaflet because it’s sinister and you can read whatever you like into it. Such a pity the Yes campaign didn’t get their act together until too late.

    But it does leave me wondering whether the Tories will get any benefit from winning AV, as it is going to be anti-Coalition Lab voters who seal the victory (and if they do go to the polls in big numbers then the council numbers will be terrible for the Tories).

    Still leaning “Yes”.

  18. To do well at the local elections, Labour needs to gain several thousand (at least). They have such a low starting point, that even a 1000 gain would be pretty meagre. Even if they finished neck and neck point-wise with the Tories, they’d still make significant gains.

    All the pressure is on Labour to show they mean business. I’m watching out for sweeping gains to be Made. Anything less than 1,500 would be a big disappoint. They need to try to make a move, so that the coalition is put under pressure. They then need to build on this by opening up poll leads in the region of at least 12-15 points by the end of 2011 if they are to stand a realistic chance of winning the next GE IMO.

    As for the

  19. Excuse my typos. Typing everything out on my Ipad!

  20. @ Roger Mexico

    Given the growing inequality in Britain, to fixate on one family (and far from the richest) looks to me like a cop out.
    ————————————————————
    IMO, this was the Downing Street press office fixating on one family & trying to use the ‘snubbing’ of Labour PMs for political gain.

    Which Labour politicians have been making a big deal out of it?
    8-)

  21. I predict that 2011 and 2012 will both be excellent years polling-wise for Labour. They need to be. The cuts are only starting to bite, the world economy looks fragile, as the US and other major economies, have recently shown. It is an opportunity that Labour can and must seize upon. Meanwhile, the Tories will try to ride the storm, offer the electorate sweeteners as early as 2013-14, once the economy is, in all probability, on the full road to recovery. They will claw back some of the lead which Labour will have inevitably have built up before a 2015 general election, if it lasts that long, as the vast majority of governing parties tend to do.

    Hence, I think the pressure is really on Labour and Ed Miliband now. He needs to start making a move soon, otherwise Labour in trouble. The pressure is building, and I await the outcome with interest.

  22. Well, it’s just a rumour.

    It wasn’t a wise decision. Brenda has been studious in her impartiality over the last 50 years so it seems silly to allow it to be questioned now, even if it is just a wedding invite.

    My guess is that the Royals didnt think anyone would particularly notice or care. And it looks like they called that wrong.

    I genuinely dont believe Cameron or No10 are the culprits. They have nothing to gain from it at all. I cant see why Cameron would want to put the Royals in a difficult position.

    But to then have Peter Hain and Polly Toynbee whingeing about not enough coverage of Ed Miliband on the telly. Well, that really was petty and dumb.

  23. Ambivalentsupporter,

    I share your general view, though I think that clawback for the Tories will be tough in 2013 and 2014 because of the fiscal situation. This will be the first recovery from a major recession in the post-war era where the central bank is independent, so “tread carefully” would have to be a heart-imprinted imperative for the government.

    But the key point is this: if Ed Miliband wants a majority, he has to get to work now. His priorities should be doing well in the local elections (to build up a good base); getting the policy review right; building up membership; and repairing finances/minding the pennies.

    I still think that a hung parliament in 2015 is a good possibility, so Ed might also want to start rebuilding bridges with the Lib Dems. He’s the worst Labour leader to have from the point of view, because the Lib Dems will never, ever trust him*. I think a minority Labour government would have a horrendous time after 2015.

    * “We have to make the Lib Dems an endangered species – and then extinct.” – Ed Miliband

  24. @ Nick Poole

    “As a Labour voter I am seething with indignation at the deliberate royal snub of my party and it has decided me once and for all that they should be denied all public money and kicked out of all their government functions.

    About time we had a republic. I mean who the hell do they think they are? I for one will NEVER bow and scrape to somebody because of an accident of birth or for any other reason.

    They have succeeded in polarising the country even more rather than making any attempt to unite it.

    Get rid of them.”

    I hope your position doesn’t stem only from the royal snub alone.

    I think not inviting Blair and Brown was nasty because the royal wedding was essentially a big national party for you all. Labour doesn’t want to feel left out of the fun by not having their two Prime Ministers invited.

    @ Amber Star

    “Angela Eagle is married.”

    I appreciate and agree with your larger point. Though if I could, I’d like to point out that she’s technically not married under the law (even though she should be).

    @ John Fletcher

    “Look at Obama

    “Funny isn’t it. The Royal Family are hugely popular in the USA. They can’t get enough of them.”

    I wouldn’t say that. The Royal Family isn’t hugely popular in the U.S., they’re just so irrelevant that they’re not unpopular. Those who follow the Royal Family treat them like they would any celebrity. It’s for pure entertainment value not for any respect for or desire for monarchy and the British Crown. For those who aren’t royal watchers but tuned into the wedding (both groups constituting a minority of the population), they tuned in for the fashions and obsession with weddings (with some tuning in because of the whole real life fairy tale aspect). The overwhelming majority of people did not care at all about the wedding though many found the obsessive media coverage to be both over the top and obnoxious.

  25. @Bill Patrick,

    Yes, I totally agree with your assessment.

  26. Alec
    “A good deal of Cromwellian reforms also endure to this day – so those 10 years weren’t entirely wasted.”

    All acts and ordinances of the interregnum were considered void after the Restoration because they had not received Royal assent. Did you have something else in mind when you mentioned reforms?

    Jamie
    “Frankly if I’d invited neighbours over, and then expected them to bow or curtsey for no other reason than the family into which I was born….”

    I think you have deliberately misunderstood the point. I was talking about rudeness, not a particular mode of greeting. Different greetings are appropriate in different circumstances. Sometimes a shout, or a wave or a handshake are appropriate, at other times something more formal.

  27. I guess the only thing I disagree with is the likely comeback for the Tories in 2014 onwards. I accept the fiscal situation will be tough, but the cynic in me says that they will offer sweeteners to the public anyway. This is also reportedly to be the case according to the Time recently, where it was revealed that the sweeteners would start to be offered as early as 2013. Then, of course, there’s the fact that most governing parties tend to claw back/gain in the lead up to a generic election anyway.

    That’s why Labour really needs to push a lot further ahead in the coming year IMO.

  28. Poll?

    Is there one tonight,,,,, :)

  29. Cromwell’s most enduring reforms were to the army, which had hitherto been a pretty amateurish and sub-Feudal affair. It’s hard to judge his political reforms – things moved with such speed in the years after the Restoration.

  30. Futher to my previous post in reply to TheLastFandango about the supposed resentment towards Blair (a line which other bloggers are pushing), it is a too early to jump to conclusions.

    Other bloggers are mentioning a briefing emanating from Clarence House suggests that political/diplomatic invitations were issued under advisement from the government.

    Given the controversy aroused by this “snub”, an answer to Denis McShane’s Parliamentary question will be awaited with interest.

  31. Neil A
    I agree about the army reforms (its good to agree on some things :) )

    Interesting though that the Oath of Allegiance is to Her Majesty and her heirs and successors – not to Parliament.

  32. @TGB

    Re: Poll?

    There’s a BPIX poll out tonight for the Mail on Sunday – look’s like the No camp have their biggest poll lead to date at 22%!

    Yes – 33%, No – 51% (Y-39%, N-61% exc. DKs)

    Westminster VI: Con 37%, Lab 42%, LD 9%

  33. It’s difficult to see that size of lead being overturned in less than a week.

  34. @Green Benches

    As I noted earlier there is a Scottish Election poll. SNP still ahead with some narrowing of gap by Labour if the following two tweets posted this evening are to be believed:

    Jamie Livingstone (STV political correspondent):
    “I believe tomorrow’s poll in the MoS will not show any major change from recent polls. Suggests the SNP are still front-runners”.

    Angus Macleod of Times:
    “Believe latest SoS poll shows narrowing of SNP-Labour gap. Nats still ahead.”

    So that’s two believes which must equal a “we’ve seen the poll”

  35. MLB,

    Thanks for the BPIX..

    They use a YouGov panel but with their own rating…

    The dark recesses of my brain tell me that they tended to show 1% better showings for blue on average…

    That would broadly correspond with a YG 36/42/10…

    This suggests that the LD 12% was a blip…

  36. 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.

    One interesting fact I remember about Diana was that she actually had more right to the throne than Charles did. This resulted from the anti Catholic shenanegans that put George the First on the throne (From whom Charles descends. No only was he German and could speak no English, he was actually about 43rd in line, but he was Protestant, so that was OK. Diana’s descent was from someone higher up the charts but presumably Catholic.

    To keep with tradition, perhaps if we have a republic, Angela Merkel will do the job?

  37. Moray Loon,

    I am very excited about the Holyrood poll [I think my attentions will be wholly devoted to it come next week]

    I will look forward eagerly to the results being published tonight..

    Does MoS indicate a TNS BMRB?

    They tended to show bigger leads for reds actually so if it transpires that they have SNP in front, t’will be bad [for us reds] indeed.

  38. Robert Newark
    “One interesting fact I remember about Diana was that she actually had more right to the throne than Charles did. This resulted from the anti Catholic shenanegans that put George the First on the throne (From whom Charles descends”

    We’re in danger of straying somewhat from the point of this blog, but it was illegal for a Catholic to be on the throne, and George’s granny was Elizabeth of Scotland.

    We can’t seem to keep the Scots out of anything on here. I’m so glad we’ll soon have yet another poll showing that the SNP might or might not be doing well. :)

  39. I think there should be some sort of rule that when the comments hit 400 Anthony just makes up a poll to give us something meaty to talk about.

    At the moment we are speculating on polls that may not exist!!

    I presume there must be some sort of polling action over the weekend as the Sunday papers want to put something in before the election on Thursday.

    If YG is sticking at about a Lab lead of 6 (here I go speculating …) then what would that mean in terms of swing for council elections (where are Raillings and Thrasher when you need them ,,,)

  40. … and Robert and and Pete are speculating about Princess Diana’s Royal bloodline …

    Please, another poll, something, anything … (actually there are some interesting ones on pollster.com for the US 2012 matchups!).

  41. Pete B

    “We can’t seem to keep the Scots out of anything on here”.

    That’s all the thanks we get for running your bl00dy Empire for you! Damn ingrates! :-)

  42. I think we should all calm down, all love one another, and let the nationalists have a rally at Sheffield and we can watch Braveheart and tear it apart with our vast knowledge of history and it’s inaccuracies

  43. Nick Poole

    ‘What are you talking about, Davey? Do you have to be standing for parliament to express an opinion here?

    It’s true though that the unelected Windsor parasites have nothing to do with a polling site, as they never get elected for anything.

    As for William loathing Blair, I wish Blair had left Lizzy to sort out her own mess. Things would be a bit different now I suspect.’

    My understanding is ‘No, it is not the purpose of this site to push your political views and bias.’

    According to Anthony Wells Policy:

    ‘… the rule in the comments section is that all comments should be made in the spirit of non-partisanship, to try and all people here to discuss polls and politics like adults with a shared interest, despite supporting different parties.

    This means that it is not a place for spinning, not a place for saying how much you hate party X and wish they would lose, nor it is a place for saying what party should win, or what the public should support. We are interested in what will happen, what the public actually think, not what you think they should do’.

    I am disappointed by the licence given to you and a number of other posters, who clearly breach the rules and yet your postings stand. This site provides a fantastic range of information about politics, polls and results; The blogging side with some rare exceptions, such as OLDNAT on Scotland breaks both the letter and the spirit of the policy.

    Perhaps to police the postings is so time consuming it is impossible to enforce policy. It’s Anthony’s site and he appears to have no objection to you pushing your extreme left wing agenda.

  44. @ Old Nat,

    You also gave us the Krankies as well … let’s not forget that. Comic legends like that don’t come along too often :-)

  45. @Pete B – “All acts and ordinances of the interregnum were considered void after the Restoration because they had not received Royal assent. Did you have something else in mind when you mentioned reforms?”

    Reforms don’t necessarily need pieces of paper or legal statutes to remain as influencial.

    After Cromwell, no British monarch has dared to try to subvert Parliament and the Settlement of 1688 after the rejection of the incumbent expressly confirms many of the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty that Cromwell believed in. Cromwell himself sought all opportunities to enable Charles 1st to remain alive and in post, but it was Charles’ own capacity for duplicity and obduracy that sealed his fate, with Cromwell saddened by the turn of events.

    Any good historian will tell you that Cromwell’s legacy lives on in the UK constitution, even if his statutes technically do not.

    Incidentally – good factiod from C4 tonight; 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.

  46. JACK93

    History has many inaccuracies – but Braveheart has very few accuracies.

    Why do you want the Brit supporters of the Union to rally at Sheffield? Does it have some deep significance for the Brits – or just very sharp knives?

    Adrian B

    We did give you the Krankies – but you swine sent them back!

  47. @ Alec and Pete,

    It’s a bit (and only a small bit) like Barry Goldwater – he was soundly and badly beaten by Johnson in 1964 but his policies were pretty much universally adopted by Reagan in 1980.

    Hmmm … totally unlike Cromwell and the Royalists actually, but interesting how political ideas leave their legacy and often remain deep in the DNA/psyche to be retrieved by later politicians.

  48. Not a poll, but this is the formerly strongly Unionist Scotland on Sunday leader tomorrow

    http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion/Leader-Salmond-is-best-choice.6760543.jp

    Gray did not do enough on the positive front. He has not laid out how he would steer Scotland through the tough times ahead. Gray pitched himself as a “serious politician” who would tackle the coming difficulties, but then scrapped reform of the council tax and his education spokesman’s policy on university tuition fees. He was too content to play the oppositionist, rather than the potential First Minister.

    Alex Salmond has proved he can stand up for Scotland on the national and international stage and acquit himself well. Tellingly, in this election, he has spoken with passion about his grand vision for Scotland, a vision that sees the country harnessing its population’s creativity and its natural environment and exploiting its moment in time to be a global leader in renewable energy technology. We may be wary of some of the claims, and know that there is a long way to travel, but we should admire and applaud its ambition. Where is the alternative vision?

    So, that then is the choice before us. For our money, Salmond takes it, comfortably.

  49. Thanks Oldnat,

    That COULD be thought of as a partisan posting, but I’m sure you would have put it up if the SoS had been just as glowing about Gray … :-)

    @ Davey and Nick above,

    Yes, calling the Windsors parasites IS totally of limits on this thread and against the comments policy. As is any pro-monarchy chat.

    Let’s just talk about the polling please (which means we need another poll Anthony!!).

  50. @Old Nat

    Had spotted the SoS as well, difficult to believe the Sunday Herald will stick with Labour in the face of the tidal wave…

    Poll tomorrow as I noted rumoured to show some narrowing of SNP lead but I would think that with the media (grudgingly in some cases) swinning behind the SNP, it’s now all over for Labour (and Iain Grey in particular, even if he hangs on to this seat).

1 6 7 8 9