Reuters is reporting Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor. Topline figures with changes from last month are CON 35%(+1), LAB 37%(-3), LDEM 13%(-2) – echoing the slightly reduced Labour lead that we’ve seen from YouGov’s daily polls. In their monthly job approval figures Ed Miliband’s boost from hackgate has now also vanished – his net approval was back down to minus 17, having peaked at minus 7 in July and August.

Meanwhile yesterday’s YouGov poll in the Sun had topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 41%, LDEM 10%, back in line with their recent polls and suggesting that 8 point lead on Tuesday was indeed a blip.


123 Responses to “MORI political monitor – CON 35, LAB 37, LD 13”

1 2 3
  1. @ Bill Patrick

    You might even be pleased for the country if our economy doesn’t crash into bits and pieces. I know you care about that too.
    ——————————–
    Indeed but I figure that goes without saying…

    This is a political blog, & I am not going to caveat everything I write with: Of course I hope the economy recovers quickly, people don’t lose their jobs, homes etc.

    @ Everybody, not just Bill

    I have actually gone past ‘bored’ & I am beginning to be disturbed by this constant requirement for ‘group think’ caveats to be added to everything.

    Libya – Start every comment with: Of course, I loathe Colonel Gaddafi but/ &…

    Riots – Start every comment with: Of course, I condemn looting & riots but/ &…

    I could go on & on. But I’m not going to. And I’m not going to state the bl**dy obvious as a caveat on any comment I make. If this leads some people to assume that Gaddafi is my best mate & I’d like to see the Uk crash & burn in flames – both literally & economically – then so be it. But it is disturbing that seemingly intelligent people want ‘group think’ caveats to be added to every opinion & observation.
    8-)

  2. Robert C: I think there was a similar mirror effect for Labour in Southern England especially among Brown/Darling haters before the last election, trying to label Labour as a “Scottish” party.

    Now, now. Don’t tar us with that brush, thank you.

    As far as the south was concerned, I suspect the background of Brown, Darling & Co was significantly insignificant when compared to the opinion of their economic performance. A few flippant articles among a certain semi-tabloid or two does not a collective opinion make.

    Off all the nationalities, ethnicities, faiths and races that now inhabit the 23m-strong melting pot that is S & E England, ‘Scottishness’ has little chance of being noticed.

  3. @Liz Hancock

    Thanks for your reply. I understand your frustration because I feel it myself. The explanation is that we have a coalition which is a mixture of roughly 80% conservative and 20% Lib Dem MPs. The only way coalition can work is if you let them do some of the things they want that you don’t like and in return you get to do some of the things you want that they don’t like. Because of the numbers, the Tories are getting more of their way than we are. See comments by Nadine Dorries to show they’re not getting it all their own way.

    If I may briefly address your comments:

    1. We wanted to wait a year. They wanted to cut straight away. The compromise was to do some straight away, some after 5 months in the spending review and some after 11 months at the start of the next financial year.

    2. Tuition fees is one argument we lost. Badly. We get to implement some of our manifesto. This is not one of the things. It should have been one of our big red lines. We messed up. It is a mistake that has cost us dearly.

    3. NHS. We have won concessions. Maybe enough, maybe not. Lets see what happens.

    4. Nothing has been done on this yet but it is not as important as the economy or taxation or the NHS. Party funding reforms are on the agenda.

    5. The £10 income tax threshold, the state pension link with earnings and the (admittedly watered down) pupil premium are targeted specifically at the most disadvantaged. These would not have happened without coalition.

    Yes, we’re only having some impact. As the junior partner in coalition that’s all we were ever going to get. If we’d stayed on the opposition benches, we’d have got nothing. Realistically, success is us achieving more than 20% influence in government. Our aims haven’t changed but our opportunity to implement them has only gone up to 20%.

  4. Oops, that should of course have been £10k not £10!

  5. @Neil A
    “There are lots of things about the Tory party and its policies that I don’t like. If the point is ever reached where a different party is a better fit more me I’d switch my vote in a heartbeat. What I wouldn’t do is start to hate the Tories because of it.”

    There is a difference between feeling a party doesn’t fit with your beliefs anymore and feeling you have been mislead. Ex LDs feel they have been mislead and that is why the anger.

  6. @Liz Hancock

    “…I don’t really care if the Tories get in as a result of my vote because in my opinion the LDs are no different to the Tories and at least the Tories have not betrayed me…”

    And in this single sentence, you summarise why I’ve been saying since day one of the Coalition that the Blues will win the 2015 election. Thank you.

    Regards, Martyn

  7. To be fair to Teresa May, she has disowned the remarks of her appointee Tom Winsor… that according to his barrister friends, many police officers are barely literate.

    This seems to fit in with a none too incusive trend for government by dinner-party setting-the-world-to-rights anecdote.

  8. @ Liz Hancock

    “Anyway deciding to form a government with the largest party does not mean rolling over and letting them impose all their policies.”

    I don’t think there is any way that they can remotely be described as “imposing all their policies”?

    Is the £10,000 personal allowance a Tory policy? Is the Green Bank a Tory policy? The increase in capital gains tax? The pupil premium? Infrastructure investment? The continuation of the 50p rate?

    I think you only have to look at the ranting, gnashing and cursing on the pages of the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc to see whether the Tories think they are getting to “impose all their policies”

  9. Can we please not have a debate. I don’t mind people asking Liz her views, but really let’s not start a partisan debate over them.

  10. @ Nick Poole

    QE2 – Many on the left share your thoughts & concerns. That’s why it is win/ win for Labour.

    If the economy improves because of QE, then why are the Tories castigating Labour’s handling of the economy? QE was the model by which Labour rescued the banks therefore we had years of plenty & a quick dash of QE to respond to a global crisis; all ‘text book’ stuff & done by the Tories too. So where’s the ‘mess’ that the Tories are allegedly cleaning up?

    If the economy doesn’t respond to QE then it’s honours even – both Labour & Tories tried it. It didn’t work & is universally discredited.

    I think you are angry that Labour didn’t try to woo the LibDems with an offer they couldn’t refuse. I think you are angry that we didn’t fight hard enough to win in 2010. It makes me pretty angry too, sometimes.
    8-)

  11. @Anthony Wells

    “I don’t mind people asking Liz her views, but really let’s not start a partisan debate over them”

    Oops. Sorry.

  12. “@liz hancock
    Don’t beat yourself up, just vote Labour. Its clear from your posts, that you are no Liberal.”

    Another mark against your name I hope Chouenlai. Get rid please Anthony.

  13. @Billy Bob,

    Some police officers are barely literate. There, I’ve said it.

    On the flip side, many barristers don’t have the sense they were born with, or an iota of empathy with the mere mortals they deal with.

    Sensible of May to disavow it though. A very politically unsanitary remark, even if honest.

  14. chouenlai
    @liz handcock
    For Chrissake stop pretending you are anything but an avowed Anti-Tory who puts the most negative complexion on everything say and on everything they do.
    (A) It is your opinion only
    (B) It is against the comment policy of this board.

    iananthonyjames
    “@liz hancock
    Don’t beat yourself up, just vote Labour. Its clear from your posts, that you are no Liberal.”

    Another mark against your name I hope Chouenlai. Get rid please Anthony.

    Can I suggest that we leave the moderation to Anthony. It’s a bit silly laying down the law when you can do nothing to enforce it.

    Expressing your views on why you or someone else will vote seems relevant enough (even if it is a poll with a sample of one). Trying to tell someone what they really think isn’t. This is not a telepathy blog.

  15. Amberstar,

    I don’t think that desiring what is best for one’s party and desiring what is best for the country are always the same thing.

  16. @ Roger Mexico

    ‘More generally can I ask for all Labour supporters to stop obsessing/gloating over the Lib Dems and Clegg in particular. it’s starting to sound positively stalkerish: “If she won’t have me, nobody will”; “Her new fella beats her, you know”; “No, I’m not always talking about her, how dare you say that”; “I’m the only one she always wanted, you know”. I mean you haven’t been in a proper relationship since the late Seventies. Get over it, go out and meet some new voters, address the real problems in your life (the Tories).’

    Thanks for this, Roger. It really did make me LOL. :)

    @ Liz Hancock

    “…I don’t really care if the Tories get in as a result of my vote because in my opinion the LDs are no different to the Tories and at least the Tories have not betrayed me…”

    Nick Clegg and the LDs had a choice:

    1) Deliver 75% of Lib Dem policies by entering into coalition with the Tories. Or
    2) Delivering 0% of Lib Dem policies by a C & S agreement that would IMO probably have led to a Conservative majority government.

    Surely it is option 2 that would have been a betrayal of Lib Dem voters, rather than option 1.

    I thought you were upset with Nick Clegg for facilitating a right wing government but you concede that your intended vote at the next GE (Lab in a Con/LD marginal) will have precisely the same effect – ie facilitating a right wing government.

    Why do you condemn Nick Clegg so vehemently for having done in May 2010 what you are planning to do at the next GE?

  17. Amberstar

    I have actually gone past ‘bored’ & I am beginning to be disturbed by this constant requirement for ‘group think’ caveats to be added to everything.

    I totally agree with you although I am sure your examples would be different from mine.

    On many occasions these statements are a defence; for example ‘while I condemn the damage done by rioters and looters to innocent people, I have to say …a general attack on Coalition, police, Tories, DC, NC, etc. It avoids the accusation ‘You seem to care more for the rioters than their victims’

    I find myself stating, ‘I condemn the the behaviour of the bankers and feel they have got away without being penalised, etc…before supporting Benefits review or punishment of rioters, otherwise I get accused ‘ You criticise the rioters, or those who can’t find work, but I don’t hear you criticising the real culprits’.

  18. @ Liz Hancock

    “…I don’t really care if the Tories get in as a result of my vote because in my opinion the LDs are no different to the Tories and at least the Tories have not betrayed me…”

    Liz did you say you were a LD or just that you voted LD to keep the Tories out? I am sorry I obviously missed your key post?

    I do not think it unreasonable for Labour Party voters to be angry with LDs and attack our esteemed leader. I remember 1974 second election, a number of Tory voters on the doorstep were very ratty with us Liberals for letting in Labour, whereas Labourites were very appreciative and supportive.

  19. @ Henry

    ‘I do not think it unreasonable for Labour Party voters to be angry with LDs and attack our esteemed leader. I remember 1974 second election, a number of Tory voters on the doorstep were very ratty with us Liberals for letting in Labour, whereas Labourites were very appreciative and supportive.’

    I disagree. In 1974 Heath made an overture to Thorpe that was rebuffed.
    In 2010 there was no realistic prospect of a deal with Labour because the Labour Party collectively wanted to go into opposition. What Nick Clegg and the LDs did was to protect the country from a majority Conservative government. It follows that there is no reason for Labour voters to be angry. Instead they should be grateful. Losing power after 13 years was a bereavement. Anger is one of the stages of bereavement and the LDs are the nearest convenient object to kick. Thoughtful Labour supporters might want to reflect how different things might have been if the party collectively had had the courage to ditch Gordon Brown in 2009. They might want to take a few lessons from the Lib Dems on the ruthless despatch of ineffective leaders…
    As others have pointed out Ed Milliband seems to me to be more vulnerable at the moment than Nick Clegg.

  20. @DAbrahams

    “As others have pointed out Ed Milliband seems to me to be more vulnerable at the moment than Nick Clegg”

    That is true: but only because Labour has a chance of winning the next election which EdM may be messing up.

    Clegg is utter toast once we have had that next GE sometime between 2013-2015.

  21. @ Rob Sheffield

    ‘Clegg is utter toast once we have had that next GE’

    I disagree. We don’t know the result of the next GE. A LD overall majority seems unlikely but another ‘hung’ parliament is entirely possible. Clegg could remain in government in coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour.

    I don’t claim to be able to predict the future. I’m sceptical of those who do make such claims.

  22. D Abrahams

    ‘What Nick Clegg and the LDs did was to protect the country from a majority Conservative government.’

    Generally I agree with your views and I am relieved when a poster with the Lib Dem logo really does appear to be LD.

    However, I am a little disappointed in your response on this as I feel that the Coalition offers much more than just trimming the Tory wings. I think Vince Cable, to the left in the Party, recognised that GB had mismanaged the economy, possibly before anyone else and NC, and those in the Party with similar views, were concerned about and opposed the big brother and centrist aspects of Labour and saw DC as much closer to him than GB on Liberalism.

    Also I thought Labour fought tooth and nail to retain power and actually had a pretty good result. Both LDs and Tories had relatively disappointing results.

    If Labour had been the biggest Party, then it would have been right for the LDs if possible to work with them. However, even then I think it is possible that Labour would have refused to compromise offering Ministerial seats to the LDs but nothing in Policy.

  23. @ Henry

    I don’t think we really disagree. After 13 years of power Labour were exhausted and probably deserved to lose.

    The point I was making was that if the LDs had walked away from a realistic opportunity to keep Labour in power, then it would be reasonable for them to be very angry now. That didn’t happen. Labour, with the exception of Brown, Mandelson and Adonis, wanted opposition.

    The choice then was between a Conservative government or a Con/LD coalition. The effect of the Coalition is to drag the political centre of gravity from the right to the political centre (see pupil premium, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, Human Rights Act etc), something that you might expect Labour and its supporters to applaud.

1 2 3