The monthly online ComRes poll for the Sunday Indy and Sunday Mirror has topline figures of CON 37%(-1), LAB 39%(+1), LDEM 10%(-1), Others 14%. Changes are from the last online ComRes poll in mid-September. No significant change there from conference season (or the Liam Fox kerfuffle, though the poll was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday).

The rest of the poll is the normal Independent fare of agree/disagree statements. The most interesting ones are probably those that are trends. ComRes asked if people agreed with the statement “Scotland should be an independent country”, and found people pretty evenly divided, 39% agreeing, 38% disagreeing.

The ComRes press release, which John Rentoul largely echoes here, says “Scottish independence, now backed by majorities in both Scotland and the rest of the UK”. This is somewhat over-egging the pudding, given the overall UK split is so close, the Scottish sub-sample is only 146 people so shouldn’t be given much weight, and if you take out Scottish respondents from the poll, the “rest of the UK (sic)” don’t actually seen to have a plurality in favour of Scottish independence – it is even stevens! Still, what is notable is the rise in support since the last time ComRes asked it in May 2011, when people disagreed with the statement by 42% to 33%.


103 Responses to “ComRes/Indy on Sunday – CON 37, LAB 39, LD 10”

1 2 3
  1. Henry @ Stuart Dickson

    “While we LDs may not agree on whther the Tuition fees should be £0 or £9000 or somewhere in between, I think as a Party we are all agreed that the episode was extremely damaging to the Party.”

    Losing parties always say that “lessons have been learned”. It’s seldom true.

    There is a particular Highland aspect. This once safe LibDem constituency lost its LibDem MSP to an outstanding SNP list MSP in 2007 by a majority in hundreds but returned the sitting LibDem MP in 2010.

    The SNP majority in 2011 was about 5,000 and the LibDem came 4th. The fact that the councillor candidate was associated with mismanaged school closure proposals did not help.

    I suggested previously that the UK party strategists had an insoucient approach to Highland casualties to rival WW1 generals.

    I think Tavish Scott agrees with me.

    If you agree with this analysis, do you think it was an unavoidable and acceptable cost of coalition?

    Should something have been done to mitigate he effects?

    Have lessons been learned?

    My answers are No, Yes, and No.

    What are yours?

  2. Oldnat,

    “Why do we need an NHS UK, when we could have a wider NHS covering Western Europe, or the EU or “the West”, or the OECD, or the world?”

    From a social DEMOCRATIC perspective or a DEMOCRATIC socialist perspective? Come on Oldnat, that’s hardly Honours Political Theory!

    (Note in all this that I’m very much on the side of Tony Blair and the unreflective pragmatists!)

    “I am assuming that you know the history of the bitter disagreements between Nye Bevan and Tom Johnston (one of my heroes) on the structure(s) of the NHS in Scotland, as opposed to E&W?”

    I was actually alluding to it with the reference to Nye Bevan, know you’d recall this debate. ;)

    “I think you are confusing “democratic socialist” with “centralising democratic socialist”.”

    It depends what you mean by ‘democratic socialism’. If Bevanism isn’t the epitome of democratic socialism, then I struggle to know what is. However, one could doubtless use the phrase to refer to libertarian socialism, liberal socialism, conservative socialism and so on. It’s just that, traditionally, democratic socialism HAS Been about the centralisation of power into the hands of democratically-elected bodies to be redistributed equitably i.e. “economic democracy” rather than mere “political democratcy”.

    “While UK Lab was undoubtedly centralist, some of the great SLAB “leaders” (as in had real power to influence the Labour Party here) like Johnston or Ross, or Dewar, were much more decentralist in their thinking – or perhaps that would be better put that (like the SNP) they understood the concept of “demos” as giving legitimacy to political decisions.”

    I think this represents a massive deviation away from strict social democratic and democratic socialist ideologies. It’s comparable to the shift in liberal support from social insurance to the welfare state: it may be politically expedient and there may be good reasons for it, but it’s not in line with their traditional principles.

    By-the-by, when I opposed recapitalisation and bailouts more generally back in 2008, it was largely because it seemed to be a case of slamming on the breaks as you start to go into a puddle. I never realised it would so fundamentally weaken democracy by making people feel (justifiably) that it’s controlled by the bankers. We have created a system where many reap the fruits of capitalism in their profits and use economic interventionism to protect them from their losses. Did Gordon Brown ever consider this back in 2008?

  3. John B Dick
    If you agree with this analysis, do you think it was an unavoidable and acceptable cost of coalition?

    Should something have been done to mitigate he effects?

    Have lessons been learned?

    My answers are No, Yes, and No.

    Thank you and I agree with your answers. I do not think that those who advocated abolition of tuition fees and somehow got all LIb MPs to sign a promise they could not keep can answer the question =- if Labour feel they need to spend £6K and Tories £9K to balance the books how can we afford to abollish fees.

    They blame Nick Clegg for going back on a pledge, I blame the instigators of a flawed policy, almost a stunt.

    I have already said how I would address the problem in the long term. But again my colleagues on the left of the Party appear to want one thing – coalition with Labour.

1 2 3