The monthly Ipsos-MORI political monitor for Reuters has topline figures (with changes from last month) of CON 35%(-5), LAB 42%(+2), LDEM 10%(+1).

Reuters strangely headline it “Conservatives’ support falls slightly”. I’m delighted to see the media not over-egging changes that probably aren’t meaningful (the previous MORI poll showing Labour and the Conservatives equal looked like something of an outlier in hindsight and, given there is no obvious trend against the Tories in recent polls, this poll is more likely showing a reversion to the mean)… but it does seem somewhat incongruous against an apparent 5 point drop!

YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun today has figures of CON 37%, LAB 41%, LDEM 10%


227 Responses to “MORI/Reuters – CON 35, LAB 42, LDEM 10”

1 3 4 5
  1. Stuart Dickson

    “Here is something you don’t see every day: a politician giving away his pension!”

    It doesn’t surprise me that that sort of decision comes from a former PO.

    I’d be a republican if the head of state was shortlisted from former PO’s. If it’s president Thatcher or President Blair then God save the Queen LONG may she reign.

  2. robin @John B Dick

    “There’s a big difference between the collective formulation of party policy and the actions of individuals when in government.”

    That’s the argument of the Roman Catholic Church. If any good has been done at any time it was the Church that did it inspired by its faith and principles. If anything bad was done, it was down to human error, weakness or sin and nothing to do with the organisation itself.

  3. Robbiealive @John B Dick

    “To say, as you do, that Salmond is a giant among pygmies is just another way of expressing cultish reverence for a political leader…”

    I didn’t say he was a giant. I said an ordinary man APPEARS a giant among pygmies.

    I’m not even a party member far less a cultish supporter, but you really need to google Bob Altemeyer Manitoba to recognise what I am describing.

  4. oldnat @ Virgilio

    “…good social democrats should all be nicely nestled in the south-west quadrant.

    … a party that pretends to be social democratic that is so far to the right on social issues probably needs the application of the surgeon’s knife! ”

    Or a coup de grace. Why do you associate knives with SLAB?

    What would tell us much would be if SVC would work back through each election to the 1950’s and size the party Icons according to votes. We would then see the SNP and Greens pop up like mushrooms and sundry socialists and others on the left come and go.

    Both Labour and Consrvatives would have moved and by seeing the change in votes and position, we might infer cause and effect.

    I’m where Oldnat is and I split my vote between Grn & SNP. In the same place is a former colleague whose words and picture appeared on election literature for the Labour party. He too was closest to Green.

    To move from SLAB to Green, you have to pass the SNP on the way. For old Labour supporters (as distinct from Old Labour supporters), the SNP is too far to the right!

    How is it that SLAB can get away with calling the SNP “Tartan Tories” and gaining significant numbers of votesin the West thereby?

  5. John B Dick

    “Why do you associate knives with SLAB?” :-)

  6. @John.B.Dick

    “…Tartan Tories”

    Maybe they’re prehistoric Labour and they think.of you all as Jacobites :)

  7. @ Alan

    “Your point about restricting hate speech.

    Just as free speech doesn’t give you the right to cry “FIRE” is a crowded theatre (assuming there is no fire). People shouldn’t have the right to talk about another sex, race, religious group, sexual orientation or political group in a manner that encourages hatred. There is no problem with people who choose to attack people of another “group” if they wish, it’s the language designed to stir up hatred and violence that is restricted.

    Of course the question about “How far is too far?”, is a grey area. There are hate groups who are clearly far beyond the line of what is “reasonable language”

    As an example, the BNP, although their views are abhorrent, are free to speak about their policies as much as they like, and during elections are able to make political broadcasts as freely as any other party, compare this to the language used by the National Front 20 years ago.

    For me the line is “Is the primary purpose of the message to inform you of their views, or is it to incite people to actively hate another group?”

    At what point does the right to free speech stop and the right to live your life as you please without people being incited to hate your lifestyle start. In the extreme cases both are not compatible and in my opinion, rightfully here the law favours the right to lifestyle over extreme speech.”

    Here’s the thing, free speech means free speech. It doesn’t mean free speech until it is speech we disagree with, dislike, or even abhor. It doesn’t mean speech until we decide that it must have no positive societal value. Now for me, the decision has already been made. Hate speech is constitutionally protected speech.

    Now as for the example of not being allowed to cry fire in a crowded theater, a few points need to be made. First off, it’s dicta. Second, to the extent that the statement is true, it is a rare and narrowly delineated exception to free speech, not the basis of a broad balancing test for when speech is allowed and when it’s not.

    Now, in terms of speech that incites hatred, how do you know and how can you tell that the speech stirs up hatred? And how do you measure it? In terms of incitement to violence, let’s be clear, hate speech is not a crime and it cannot be taken as an incitement to violence on its own. Though I’m sure the law is different in the UK, in the U.S., the government may only prohibit speech as incitement when:

    1. The speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

    2. The speech is likely to produce the action.

    Hate speech, on its own, does not meet this burden.

    Also, I don’t think that speech harms one’s lifestyle.

  8. @ Alan

    “Yes we have CGT in the UK, it’s 18% or 28% now (damn those liberals actually getting policy through!) if you pay more than the basic rate of tax, income tax is divided into “bands”

    It’s historically been lower than the rate of income tax so it was typical for the wealthy (or simply the self employed) to shift as much of their income as possible into Capital Gains Tax. There was also “Tapered Relief” which means that if the gains can be spread over a number of years the liability was reduced on a pro rata basis (up to 75% relief for business gains).

    The are a number of exemptions, such as your primary home, or certain savings schemes and a reduced rate for shareholders in new businesses.

    All in all, how much you pay is dependent on how good your accountant is.”

    Thank you. I really appreciate this. That’s pretty much what we have here though our rates are not as high.

    The reason I asked about it is because I came up with an idea to aid economic growth, specifically job growth and help stop the trend of outsourcing partly through the restructuring of Capital Gains Taxes. I think it might work in the UK too (since you guys face the same problems with outsourcing that we do).

  9. Don’t know whether this continues as the active main thread or whether the later thread takes over.

    Any way I’ll post this on both, but eacourage you to reply on the other thread.

    Just visited Political Betting and read an interesting article by Mike Smithson on the potential for and timing of a collapse of the coalition this year with a resulting GE.

    Earlier this month I said the NHS is the ‘big one’ for the coalition.

    A GE held this summer is improbable, but after the annual conferences is possible. A date in early November (the 3rd?) seems a likely date were a GE to be called.

    In the last week we have seen some entrenched and strident views being expressed by LD and Con MPs about the NHS reforms. It is likely that Lansley would quit as SoS if they are watered down. NC is boxed in by the demands of the membership – despite having signed up to the reforms at the outset. If DC dilutes or abandons the reforms he risks antagonising his MPs.

    I don’t know how DC solves this problem.

    It’s a good article worth a read.

    I should add that it is my view that a GE will occur this year (in Nov). Arguably this will be the best year for the Cons to call a GE: the LD sand Lab do not (yet) have the resources to fight a GE. NC is detested and EM’s popularity is low. The Cons have done nothing ‘wrong’ – and they are doing what it say on the tin. DC is viewed well by a large slice of the public. Lab is still tainted by the state of the economy that it left behind in May 2010, theview that it allowed immigration to get out of hand, and that it is the party of the social security scroungers.

  10. SoCaliLiberal

    I understand that the laws on hate speech are different between here and the US, I was merely pointing out the reasoning for drawing a line, free speech is still protected up to the point that it is considered to incite hatred, without being specific about causing a specific action.

    A recent example has be of extreme muslin clerics teaching young people that “The west is evil and it’s your duty to oppose it” over a sustained period in order to instill hatred towards the west. Although there has been no (provable) specific mention of violence, it almost certainly has made these people more amenable to further suggestions of violence. I’ll be honest I don’t know exactly the limits at which hate speech becomes illegal in this country but it certainly becomes a crime before it gets to the point of “It’s your duty to kill westerners, you should target the public transport systems next month”.

    I personally cringe at footage of placards in the US along the lines of “God hates fags”. Those placards alone aren’t likely to convince others to agree with them. However if a person in a respected position (and therefore likely to influence others), be it a teacher or a minister started teaching impressionable people how gays were evil and shouldn’t be allowed to exist, that would be inciting hatred, fostering a situation where people were more likely to commit violence, without singling out a particular person to commit a specific crime.

    In UK law, Incitement to racial hatred covers:

    Deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group.
    Distributing racist material to the public
    Making inflammatory public speeches
    Creating racist websites on the Internet
    Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

    From my observation, there still is a huge amount of free speech in this country, and people are free to speak about their extreme views, for example it’s legal to deny the holocaust happened, it’s just not legal to suggest that it was a good thing.

  11. @ Alan

    “Rights aren’t inherent, they are granted by society, and sometimes oppressed against societies wishes by and authoritarian government. The only reason we have free speech is the fact as part of society, you and I along with the rest society agree that it’s a good thing that people can express their views without fear of reprisal. There is nothing in the human genome that dictates we should have free speech.”

    Rights are inherent. They may not be recognized at once and they may develop over time. But they are inherent and free speech is certainly one that is inherent. For me (and this makes me glad I’m not a European), free speech is not something to be debated about by snooty European intellectuals (not that you are one) or hypersensitive Republicans (again, not that you are one), but something I have as a fundamental right. It’s not subject to majority whim.

    “The grey area is in the middle where comments such as “Gays are unnatural and evil” or “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack” are crossing over to the point where they are encouraging others to join then in hatred of another class, if not going so far as to taking violent action, they are trying to create a culture in which it would be impossible for a group of people to enjoy their lifestyle without fear of harrassment.”

    I don’t think that’s a gray area at all. The question is not whether they’re socially acceptable (they’re not) or whether they’re right (they’re wrong) or whether they’re bigoted (they are) but whether the speech may be made. There is nothing about those comments that should be unprotected. And I should add that things such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation are not lifestyle choices. They are immutable characteristics of individuals that have no impact one’s ability to perform in society.

  12. @ Alan

    “I personally cringe at footage of placards in the US along the lines of “God hates fags”. Those placards alone aren’t likely to convince others to agree with them. However if a person in a respected position (and therefore likely to influence others), be it a teacher or a minister started teaching impressionable people how gays were evil and shouldn’t be allowed to exist, that would be inciting hatred, fostering a situation where people were more likely to commit violence, without singling out a particular person to commit a specific crime.”

    Well, since that’s what teachers and ministers (and politicians) and community leaders have been saying for centuries if not thousands of years and continue to often say today, I don’t see why that should be banned now. It’s always been wrong but it’s always been present. And you don’t get rid of homophobia and heterosexism simply by banning the speech. Because the thought doesn’t go away.

    As for the placards, it’s really been a boon. You know, I’ve come to love Fred Phelps. He is a disgusting, vile, pathetic excuse for a human being. But you know, I’ve come to really love him. And you know why? Because his hate speech and his decrepid family have done more to advance the cause of sexual orientation equality and pushed people to you up. It wasn’t his intention of course but it doesn’t matter. Those placards reflect the true feelings of Christian conservatives. It’s just that the rest of them are smart enough to sit around talking about “lifestyle” and not go protest at military funerals. But because Phelps does, he exposes them for who and what they are.

    Btw, I should add that I find the description of LGBT persons as having a “life style” to be offensive. However, just because I find it offensive does not mean that I ever think it should be banned.

  13. @ Alan

    “In UK law, Incitement to racial hatred covers:

    Deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group.
    Distributing racist material to the public
    Making inflammatory public speeches
    Creating racist websites on the Internet
    Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.”

    I think every single one of those laws if enacted in the U.S. would be struck down as unconstitutional except for the last one (and even that one has some issues in terms of group libel). Reminds me to be grateful for living in the land of the free. For all that we have in common as Obama explained so eloquently on Wednessday, we still have a good deal of differences. Actually, I’m curious about this. Is one allowed to burn the British flag in the UK or even the English or Scottish flags as a symbol of protest?

    “I understand that the laws on hate speech are different between here and the US, I was merely pointing out the reasoning for drawing a line, free speech is still protected up to the point that it is considered to incite hatred, without being specific about causing a specific action.”

    And I get that. And I respect that but I feel the need to defend free speech rights as much as I can (and it helps keep me mentally sharp).

  14. @ Alan

    I’m curious to get your thoughts on this idea (I’ve had it for the U.S. but I think it would work in the UK as well).

    We should create a new tax-status for companies in the following four sectors: (1) manufacturing, (2) media production, (3) software design and development, and (4) medical research. Call it “certified British Crown status” or something like that. A business entity could choose to elect this status if they had something close to 100% of their jobs (excluding clerical positions and top level executives) on British soil. Now electing this status would not result in a direct tax benefit to the entity. Instead, the tax benefits would be for owners of publicly traded stock shares of these companies (once the company elects the status, all of its stock becomes certified as special stock).

    The benefits would be a lower capital gains tax rate on shares of this stock (keeping the same dichotomy for lower rates on long term held stock and higher rates on short term held stock). On capital losses, taxpayers would be allowed (within a reasonable limit) to deliberately uprate their losses. And for dividend paying stock, the dividend tax (which I assume you have some form of) would either be removed or greatly reduced.

    Here’s my thinking. Instead of giving tax credits directly to business entities, pleading with them to stay and not move jobs to other countries (where it’s cheaper because they don’t have to adhere to labor laws and environmental regulations), we instead create a market demand for jobs at home. Today, the investor class is huge (and at least in the U.S., they’re doing better than ever after nearly losing everything in 08′) and has a great potential to move companies. Business entities who want to have their stock trade higher and want to raise capital more quickly will want to have shares considered more valuable by the stock holders. Those investors will receive an extra benefit but their reward is for creating jobs that directly benefit their fellow citizens. And while the government takes in slightly less revenue at first from these tax breaks, it would likely make it back from the increase in employment.

    Anyway, I’m curious to get your thoughts on this idea.

  15. SoCali Liberal

    I regret using the word “lifestyle” to cover things such as religion, sexually orientation etc. I didn’t mean in that horrid “lifestyle choice” sense that has undertones of “I really don’t like it, but I know I have to say that I tolerate it” so would happily retract that word and replace it with “ability to live their life however that person wishes without fear of prejudice”.

    As for flag burning, as far as I am aware it’s legal, however most of the time the flag burning is normally done in conjunction with public order offences but there is no crime as “Burning the flag”.

    I’ll be clear, it’s very rare that anyone is prosecuted, the last case I can recall was that Muslim cleric (Abu Hamsa i think his name is)

    Hateful speech is allowed here, speech designed to incite hatred in others, extreme cases can be prosecuted.

  16. @Socal

    “I personally cringe at footage of placards in the US along the lines of God hates fags”

    But isn’t it nice to know that God deplores cigarettes? :-)

  17. SoCaliLiberal

    Interesting idea about creating tax breaks for those who invest in “British Business”, I sounds a reasonable idea on paper, although I’m sure it wouldn’t be permissible under European competition law, (designed to stop governments subsidising an industry). I think it’s a reasonable premise though, I suppose there’s a point where to make investing in off shore companies prohibitively expensive (in relation to national companies) oversteps the mark of protectionism, which I don’t believe is healthy.

    Protectionism might seem nice at first (lets protect everything that directly affects us first) However it’s hard to criticise China’s undervaluation of the yuan if you engage in protectionism, just a bit more indirectly.

    It is an interesting concept though, I’d have to think over the implications (such as discouraging foreign investment in a company if that investment didn’t come with the same tax breaks) A company that might be good value for a national to invest in might now not be so good for a foreigner.

    It depends what the aim of the policy would to be, is it purely to stop foreign business undercutting businesses with cheap labour and lax regulation?

    I can see how the vast difference in wealth amongst the world is a massive issues, both home and abroad, the issue with outsourcing would still remain, unless you’d want to ban registered companies from buying services from overseas. Thinking of call centres specifically, how would a company what workers are all on “home soil” but pays an Indian company to run it’s call centre (A common practice in my experience).

    To summarise my views, Interesting idea, I’d be worried about it creating a protectionist regime, and also about companies exploiting loopholes. As with everything the devil would be in the details.

  18. robin

    “But isn’t it nice to know that God deplores cigarettes?”

    S/he hasn’t much time for Engish “public” schools either! :-)

  19. The use of the word public at least made sense at the time the phrase was coined!

  20. Joe

    I went to a public school. Everyone I knew went to a public school.

    I sometimes wind up English acquaintances by telling them of my public school education. :-)

  21. @ Old Nat

    You know, when you have independance you’ll miss us Publicly schooled and Oxbridge English Tories. We are very cuddly, honest!

  22. And shock horror occasionally even know something about “the real world”!

  23. Joe

    “you’ll miss us Publicly schooled and Oxbridge English Tories.”

    Oh, I’m sure that we’ll still import some of you. Lots of you are really quite good at all kinds of things! :-)

  24. @ Alan

    “Interesting idea about creating tax breaks for those who invest in “British Business”, I sounds a reasonable idea on paper, although I’m sure it wouldn’t be permissible under European competition law, (designed to stop governments subsidising an industry). I think it’s a reasonable premise though, I suppose there’s a point where to make investing in off shore companies prohibitively expensive (in relation to national companies) oversteps the mark of protectionism, which I don’t believe is healthy.

    Protectionism might seem nice at first (lets protect everything that directly affects us first) However it’s hard to criticise China’s undervaluation of the yuan if you engage in protectionism, just a bit more indirectly.

    It is an interesting concept though, I’d have to think over the implications (such as discouraging foreign investment in a company if that investment didn’t come with the same tax breaks) A company that might be good value for a national to invest in might now not be so good for a foreigner.

    It depends what the aim of the policy would to be, is it purely to stop foreign business undercutting businesses with cheap labour and lax regulation?

    I can see how the vast difference in wealth amongst the world is a massive issues, both home and abroad, the issue with outsourcing would still remain, unless you’d want to ban registered companies from buying services from overseas. Thinking of call centres specifically, how would a company what workers are all on “home soil” but pays an Indian company to run it’s call centre (A common practice in my experience).

    To summarise my views, Interesting idea, I’d be worried about it creating a protectionist regime, and also about companies exploiting loopholes. As with everything the devil would be in the details.”

    It’s not protectionism though. We’re not treating goods any differently. Additionally, foreign owned companies could elect this status as well. It’s not the investment in British businesses, it would be investment in British jobs. Therefore, owners of a business entity could be in Mumbai or Hong Kong or Tokyo. The measuring point for when these taxation benefits would kick in is not ownership but instead employment.

    What I see as a potential problem (but one that could probably be worked out) is what happens when companies attempt to cheat by electing this status but then set up shop in foreign countries anyway.

  25. @ Old Nat

    “I went to a public school. Everyone I knew went to a public school.

    I sometimes wind up English acquaintances by telling them of my public school education.”

    I only went to public school for one year of my education. Otherwise, I’ve been in private schools the rest of the time. Thus, I can’t claim to be publicly educated.

  26. @ Robin

    “But isn’t it nice to know that God deplores cigarettes?”

    Well that comment should be directed at Alan, not me. I don’t cringe at those placards (though I do kinda despise them).

    The double meaning of the word is unfortunate because it’s going to result in someone accidently punched some day or fired. It reminds me of the uproar that’s caused by the use of the word “niggardly.”

  27. @ Alan

    “I regret using the word “lifestyle” to cover things such as religion, sexually orientation etc. I didn’t mean in that horrid “lifestyle choice” sense that has undertones of “I really don’t like it, but I know I have to say that I tolerate it” so would happily retract that word and replace it with “ability to live their life however that person wishes without fear of prejudice”.”

    I understand. My feeling is that an individual’s speech doesn’t interfere with my ability to live freely, laws by the government that restrict me do interfere. Now it is important to have protective laws in the area of public accomodations, employment, housing, education, etc to prevent private discrimination. But private discrimination is different from putting out pamphlets.

    “Hateful speech is allowed here, speech designed to incite hatred in others, extreme cases can be prosecuted.”

    Right but to me I don’t see a distinction or how you can even make one. What hateful speech incites hate and which speech doesn’t incite speech? Does it depend on the speech? The speaker? Or who the listeners are?

1 3 4 5