ComRes’s monthly online poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror is out this weekend. The topline figures are CON 38%(+2), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 11%(+1), Others 11%(-3).

Changes are since the last online ComRes poll a month ago, taken at the height of hackgate. The Conservative 38% equals ComRes’s highest online rating for them this year – but we’ve seen smaller ComRes Labour leads in both May (1 point) and June (neck and neck). Generally speaking ComRes’s online polls tend to be amongst the most favourable polls for the Conservative party, rather than some notable shift towards the Tories, this is very much in line with the sort of polling ComRes’s online polls were showing before hackgate.

Tonight we will also have the YouGov/Sunday Times poll at around 10pm. I’ll do a full update tomorrow when the tables appear.


128 Responses to “ComRes/Sunday Indy – CON 38, LAB 40, LDEM 11”

1 2 3
  1. Tinged Fringe

    Either the government needs to completely pull out – a free-market response, and allow the ‘naturally unemployed’ to suffer.
    Or it needs to push for full employment (through subsidies, negative taxes, etc) and restrict benefits to only those who cannot work (disabled, etc).

    I would hope it would be possible to have a mixture of both.

    What is important to avoid is where benefits are so great or earnings so heavily taxed that lower paid workers believe that there is nothing gained from working.

    At the same time I see nothing wrong in giving those who want to work more of a helping hand. It is my impression and was also the same impression when I first looked for work, that getting a job which could provide a fulfilling career is very difficult when you start out.

  2. “Tingedfringe that would mean either:”
    a and b in reply to which parts?

    “I would hope it would be possible to have a mixture of both.”
    I’m a little lost on what you mean – you can’t have a mixture of full employment policies and a free-market. They’re complete opposite ends of the spectrum..

    I have to go out now – so any replies may be extremely slow coming.

  3. Full employment through subsidies, negative tax etc means a, laissez faire “let them eat cake” means b.

  4. Both YG and Com Res have shown a small shift back to the Tories, whilst maintaining a Labour lead.

    I would suggest that is either 1/ the disappearance of the Hackgate boost so that the Lab lead has returned to the firm +6% average lead it’s had for months B4 hackgate now (as opposed to the +8% average we’ve had for the last month of Hackgate).

    Or 2/ It is a small Tory boost because not only is Hackgate out of the news but now the focus is on riots, Law and Order. In this case we should expect to see a few +2% Lab leads in there (possibly even a tie) over the next few days.

    Or 3/ This is an outlier and the Lab lead is still in the 7-8% region.

    My sense is that it is 2/ offsetting the continuing but decreasing Lab advantage of Hackgate as it’s still in the news but just not to the fore.

    This could unwind too so the Tories would do well to keep L & O at the front of people’s minds over the summer. But the economy may well take over again.

  5. E M has reportedly proposed that all Labour councillors should hand over 7% of their allowances to the Party – or face expulsion. 5% would go to the local party, 2% to the national party.

    …..Next up-an increase in “allowances” to cover it

    …..hey presto-Labour Party funding courtesy all Council Tax payers.

  6. The prime minister has called for scrapping the Human Rights Act and replaced by a British Bill of Rights…Can`t see the Liberals going along with it…Do you guys think he is going to call for an election once the Libya win comes through?

  7. Berious-
    “ever spiralling wages costs and more incentive for immigration from low paid European countries”
    Why would employment subsidies or a negative income tax lead to those issues – if there were a nationality clause.

    A negative-income tax or employment subsidy would lower the cost of employment, for the employer (esp true of small businesses – who account for a relatively small fraction of the economy, but the largest fraction of employent) and would discourage employment of immigrant labour – especially if it were coupled with a tax on immigrant labour.

    “The prime minister has called for scrapping the Human Rights Act and replaced by a British Bill of Rights…Can`t see the Liberals going along with it”
    Simple solution for the LibDems – take the ECHR, scribble out ‘European’ and write ‘British’. ;)

    “Do you guys think he is going to call for an election once the Libya win comes through?”
    I think if he were to call for a snap election, it would be early on – but I find the prospect extremely unlikely.
    It’s too risky to go to the country now when he could have a full five years.

  8. I don’t think Cameron will get a Falklands War boost from Libya however things end up. It’s been off the front pages for so long and gets reported like a normal civil war these days rather than something we’re actively fighting. Haven’t seen any polls lately but I recall support for the war was pretty soft even in the early days with the media going full on “Mad dog dictator”. My admittedly coloured view would be people still scratch their heads wondering why we ever got involved in the first place. It’s not a plucky colony full of folks more British than the Brits being forcibly annexed by Johnny foreigner.

    I could well be wrong though.

  9. Colin
    E M has reportedly proposed that all Labour councillors should hand over 7% of their allowances to the Party – or face expulsion. 5% would go to the local party, 2% to the national party.

    Over recent years there has been a massive rise in allowances and I understood this was to encourage a wider interest away from the traditional councillor.

    Mandatory contribution is IMO an abuse of local government and hopefully a number of the better councillors will walk rather than submit. If not it would indicate that Councillors are receiving too much, so perhaps a 7% decrease in the Labour Councillors pay can be justifed, and would help towards cost saving.

  10. John Fletcher.

    It may have escaped Tory attention in the euphoria, but your YG figure HASN’T improved. It’s been rock solid at 35-36 for well over a month now.

    I’m reminded of Carl Sagan and the little piece he did about Bad Science in his wonderful Cosmos series. He said that astronomers, when they turned their telescopes to Venus, could see nothing but an blank disc.

    The logic among some cod-scientists then went:
    Why can’t we see any features? Because it’s covered in cloud.
    What are clouds made of? Water
    What comes out of water clouds? Rain
    What does rain lead to? Rivers, lakes and oceans.
    What do we find in wet landscapes? Life.

    Observation: We can’t see anything on Venus
    Conclusion: It’s teeming with life.

  11. HENRY

    “Mandatory contribution is IMO an abuse of local government”

    I couldn’t agree more-but then local govrnment has been going down the pan for years.

    As you say allowances have increased like crazy. EM seems to be treating them like earned income -but I suppose that is what they have become ( ? are they taxed)

    The last straw for me was when elected Councillors started joining Councillors’ pension schemes.

  12. Tinged Fringe
    I’m a little lost on what you mean – you can’t have a mixture of full employment policies and a free-market

    I do not believe there is such a thing as 100% free market, it is a bit like perfect competition, great in theory but it does not exist, because the rules for perfect competition are never met.

    Likewise a full employment policy never exists; which is because not every one will work. They may take your money but they won’t turn up.

    So in practice the two alternatives, rather than being opposite ends of the spectrum, never exist. Which is why a pragmatic approach is to take elements of both.

    I

  13. Colin

    As you say allowances have increased like crazy. EM seems to be treating them like earned income -but I suppose that is what they have become ( ? are they taxed)

    Yes they are taxed, and so ‘allowances’ is a little misleading.

    In general the ordinary councillors receive a fairly modest sum after tax and EM contribution, assuming they are working hard and not claiming a load of other expenses.

    However, the cabinet posts and the multitude of chairmanships pay much larger sums and if you can collect a few a real money spinner.

    I did not know this until recently one of my relatives was elected councillor and they and I were amazed how much some people got.

  14. Colin. EM is “reported” as…

    Hmm? By whom?

  15. Leftlampton

    John Fletcher.
    It may have escaped Tory attention in the euphoria, but your YG figure HASN’T improved. It’s been rock solid at 35-36 for well over a month now

    True, however with a 4% drop in Labour support on YouGov, and a 2% increase in Tory support in Comres, giving an amazingly close fight at a time of very unpopular cuts, DC, JF and anyone else in blue have good reason to feel smug.

  16. “I do not believe there is such a thing as 100% free market, it is a bit like perfect competition, great in theory but it does not exist, because the rules for perfect competition are never met.”
    Allow me to clarify –
    Efficient market = free market with competition.
    Free market in employment = no employment laws, with individual contracts between employer and employee.

    “Likewise a full employment policy never exists; which is because not every one will work. ”
    This is why we have the distinction between ‘unemployed’ and ‘economically inactive’.
    Those who are not actively looking for work are classed as economically inactive – students, housewives, etc
    Those are people who do not have employment through choice.

    Unemployed are those actively looking for work.

    “They may take your money but they won’t turn up.”
    So you pay them a wage, as normal?
    I don’t see how employment subsidies – to help employers pay basic wages or a negative income tax – which allows employers to pay almost nothing in wages, would lead to people not turning up for work and claiming the pay?

  17. LEFTY

    THe question is -is it correct or not.

    On this occassion you can find the answer easily-the proposals are said to be contained in the ‘Refounding Labour’ report commissioned by EM to rebuild Labour’s finances.

    I haven’t got a copy-have you?

  18. Colin

    It doesn’t matter if I am giving my opinion from the Isle of Man, Manchester or Mars. What ought to concern you is whether I am right or not.

    (By the way the ‘higher’ tax rate starts after £10,500 of taxable income. So even with our higher personal allowances you’re talking it starting at incomes of around £20k plus. Just another little trick politicians love).

    Henry

    As you will know from my previous posts (and indeed my original comment on this topic) I’m very much in favour of tightening and enforcing the tax collection system. There seems to have been a very lax (to put it politely) attitude at HMRC in recent decades.

    But even after that and even after efficiency savings (always easier to call for than achieve) there will still be a big gap, especially if you take future commitments into account. it’s no good demanding a ‘smaller state’ without saying which bits of the state you want to get rid of. You can’t balance the budget by wishing.

  19. @Leftylampton & Colin

    Colin. EM is “reported” as…
    Hmm? By whom?

    The Daily Mail’s so called news site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028394/Miliband-using-public-funds-bail-Labour.html

  20. @Tingedfringe

    Sounds a lot like privatised Workfare. Why not cut out the middleman and have a government work scheme instead? You could have the unemployed doing socially useful work then like building social housing(could reduce the housing benefit bill at the same time then!), insulating homes, repairing roads or looking after the elderly. If you subsides the likes of Poundland any more(who already get lots of taxpayer help from tax credits, Jobseeker’s work placement schemes etc) they’ll just shift as much of their wage bill as possible to the taxpayer and bank all the profits.

  21. @ Colin

    E M has reportedly proposed that all Labour councillors should hand over 7% of their allowances to the Party – or face expulsion. 5% would go to the local party, 2% to the national party.

    …..Next up-an increase in “allowances” to cover it

    …..hey presto-Labour Party funding courtesy all Council Tax payers.
    ———————————————————
    Councillors are not salaried. Each receives a basic allowance and those with special responsibility like the council leaders and cabinet members get an extra allowance on top of that.
    The basic allowance varies widely and can be up to £10,000 a year (which isn’t a fortune, if it’s your only job)!

    The deputy chair of the Local Government Association, Richard Kemp, said traditionally councillors have not been well rewarded.

    “Thirty per cent of all councillors give up after their first term so it can’t be that much of gravy train if people want to get off it that quickly,” he said.

    Allowances are voted on by councillors themselves. Initially a recommendation is made to the council by an independent panel made up of people who do not sit on the council.

    But the councils can choose to ignore the recommendations. Richard Kemp said that often they will take a lower amount.

    “Very few councils actually make a big difference to the recommendations of the independent panel,” he said.
    ——————————————————–
    As regards Labour expecting Councillors & MPs to contribute to the Party, there’s nowt wrong with that.
    It’s preferable to selling out the Party to hedge fund managers & similar.
    8-)

  22. @ Colin

    On this occassion you can find the answer easily-the proposals are said to be contained in the ‘Refounding Labour’ report commissioned by EM to rebuild Labour’s finances.

    I haven’t got a copy-have you?
    ———————————————
    It’ll be on the Labour Party web-site, I’d think. If not, I have a copy & I’ll re-read it later then report back.
    8-)

  23. “Sounds a lot like privatised Workfare. Why not cut out the middleman and have a government work scheme instead? You could have the unemployed doing socially useful work then like building social housing(could reduce the housing benefit bill at the same time then!), insulating homes, repairing roads or looking after the elderly. If you subsides the likes of Poundland any more(who already get lots of taxpayer help from tax credits, Jobseeker’s work placement schemes etc) they’ll just shift as much of their wage bill as possible to the taxpayer and bank all the profits.”
    And what can you do with profits? Tax them. ;)

    We should socialise the risks of employment so that we can achieve full employment.
    Full employment, with decent living wages, should be the first goal of any left-wing government.

  24. Colin,

    What WAS Ed Miliband’s stance on the riots? I’ve forgotten already, which is not a good sign…

  25. Roger Mexico

    “It doesn’t matter if I am giving my opinion from the Isle of Man, Manchester or Mars. What ought to concern you is whether I am right or not.”

    It does to me.

    Anyone who, benefiting from the personal advantage of a low tax regime in a tax haven like Mann, who pontificates about the need for UK taxes to be increased has zero credibility-be they a stinking rich right wing Tory -or a left wing polemicist.

  26. Bill Patrick..

    You need to find the speech really-a lot of rambling excuses -all the fault of the bankers-need an enquiry before we do kneejerks ( they include IDS’s ideas)-etc etc etc.

  27. Once the government’s harsh medicine bears fruit, which it will, surely it’s not out of the question that the Tories will cross over Labour.
    Also, the posters on these threads may not like it, but the Tories won the national share of the vote in May despite lagging 2% but sometimes 6% (and more a little before) around that time.

  28. @ Oldnat & Scottish tuition fees from last night.
    “the number of non-UK EU students attending Scottish Universities — who pay no fees — has rocketed in the last decade, as such continental students are getting a free lunch.”
    “Just as Scots students attending those Universities in continental Europe who have no tuition fees are getting a “free lunch” too. Your narrow nationalism is a tad embarassing.”
    ———–
    Being accused of narrow nationalism from north of the border is an amusing trope but you miss the point. Let me enlighten you.

    “Recent surveys show that most EU students in Scotland came from Ireland, where fees are up to £6,500 a year, France, where fees can range from a few hundred to thousands of Euros, and Germany, where Universities are free in some states but in others cost at least a £1,000 a year, plus other charges.”

    The question is: how many Scottish students get a free lunch outside the UK?
    Scottish students could study in Ireland but presumably are deterred by hefty fees. They could study in Europe but would need a fluency in the requisite foreign language. On the other side, Irish students pay no fees in Scotland & have no language problem. It also seems highly likely that the proportion of generalist northern European students fluent in English & hence capable of attending a UK Uni is much higher than the proportion of comparable Scottish [British] students who are fluent in a foreign language & hence capable of studying on the Continent. The EU students have a structural advantage in the Uni exchange! hence the Scottish government’s concern.
    The evidential problem is that we have no data on the numbers of Scottish students at EU Unis which do not charge fees? In their absence, are you seriously suggesting that more than a trivial number of Scottish students do attend such Unis? I bet!
    This does look like an unintended consequence of a domestic fees policy. I can understand why the Scottish government is unhappy about it, but their options seem limited.

1 2 3