Two new polls tonight, showing contrasting pictures. I already mentioned Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor in passing earlier on, but for the record their topline figures are CON 36%(+1), LAB 37%(-4), LDEM 11%(-1), Others 16%(+4). Like ICM’s poll earlier in the week they have Labour’s lead dropping, though unlike ICM (which had a boost for the Tories at the expense of others), MORI have the smaller parties increasing at the expense of Labour.

Meanwhile YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 43%, LD 9%. An eight point lead for Labour is the highest YouGov have shown since the start of December, before David Cameron’s veto, so there is certainly no sign of a narrowing of the Labour lead there. If anything it’s the opposite, though I will add my normal caveat about not getting too excited about individual polls. Sure, it might be the start of bigger Labour leads, or we might be back to smaller Labour leads tomorrow. Watch the underlying trends, rather than getting excited about individual polls.

Nevertheless, it’s interesting that we’ve seen ICM and MORI both showing Labour falling relative to the Conservatives (albeit, the actual shifts in the two polls were different) while the YouGov daily polls are still showing solid Labour leads. While pollsters may have different house effects, they are all polling the same population at the end of the day so normally show the same trends.

It is possible for them to diverge (for example, YouGov don’t weight by likelihood to vote, so wouldn’t pick up a trend that was solely turnout based) it would be unusual though. I’d still expect them to settle down into a clear trend over the next few weeks.

Tomorrow is budget day – for those who missed it earlier on, my pre-budget summary of YouGov’s recent budget polling is here.


175 Responses to “New MORI and YouGov polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. PHIL……….Richard Murphy is just another agenda driven, ‘expert’, lots of them about, my accountant at PWC will give good,’ Tory’ for a fee, don’t be fooled, they’re all the same. :-)

  2. COLIN……..Great minds………! :-)

  3. Alan,
    Let’s say that Person-A is in a low-pay job and a member of Nation-A. Person-A receives a promotion and decides to leave Nation-A, which has high-tax but decent welfare, for Nation-B, which is low-tax but no welfare.
    Nation A’s property laws require that anybody leaving Nation-A forfeit their property to Nation-A (made clear when they become a citizen of Nation-A or when Nation-A changes it’s laws).

    Much like someone leaving England for a low-tax nation now, could face a property-penalty for doing so.

  4. Quite a few people are trying to comfort themselves with the thought that the next election is a long way off – particularly Coalition supporters. I rather disagree – even if the parliament runs the full term to early May 2015 which remains far from certain. At the very least some 37.5% of this parliament has now elapsed.. Another way to contemplate it is to consider that we are as close to early May 2015 as to early February 2009 – just a few months before the MPs expenses saga exploded. It seems but yesterday!

  5. Alan – the anomaly is one thing as I said I support the principle oif higher rate tax payers not getting CB in pronciple.
    The added complexity from a self-proclaimed tax simplifying chancellor when the opposite was claimed when it was introduced was my main point.

  6. GRAHAM………..Don’t wish your life away, 3 yrs is a long, long, time……..’small steps do a lifetime make’. :-)

  7. I was a little bit disappointed with the budget. The top rate should have gone down to 40% if not lower. I also wanted to see harder public spending cuts, the abolition of child benefit etc.

    EMs reponse though was lamentable, truly goddamm awful. I mean really really bad. Almost made me cringe.

  8. Ken

    So you believe that the 50% tax only raises 100 million?

    The OBR don’t seem confident and the HMRC wrap everything up in caveats.

    This budget ‘fairness’ will look completely different if this figure has been underestimated.

    You may not agree with what is in the tax research blog but the numbers from the OBR are there and there does seem a substantial pinch of optimism!

  9. Jim Jam

    It’s a universal problem, balancing complexity against fairness, when the original system was proposed people agreed with the principle but were rightly concerned at the cliff edge where earning £1 more would lose that person thousands.

    The current system unveiled today has no cliff edges (although a fairly large marginal rate of tax for large families), it still doesn’t address the two incomes vs one income imbalance, but there is unfairness over the entire income tax system with that anyway and noone gets too upset over that.

    Moving to a system where a couple shared a joint income tax code, with joint limits might be “fairer”, although it’d mean that the extra money that would have to come from somewhere else and would probably end up landing on the single person even more.

  10. BAZSC………..I’m the eternal optimist, on balance it works. :-)

  11. Ken

    lol

    I will have some of what you have been drinking!!!

    Love optimism though – do you work for the Chancellor?

  12. BAZSC………..Oddly enough, I was with the boss of Fitch Ratings today. He was at the Treasury and worked for Gordon, I made a joke about him putting our AAA rating on negative watch to irritate George…… I got the feeling he shared Gordon’s sense of humour……… ! :-)

  13. @ JoeR
    EMs reponse though was lamentable, truly goddamm awful. I mean really really bad. Almost made me cringe.
    ……………………………………………….

    :-)

    Hurt you that much then!
    The looks on the front bench of the Con Dems will live long in the memory. How dare EM say those things! ;-)

    All true though.

  14. I don’t want to get into the 50% rate argument myself, although I do think it might be unpopular immediately we’ll have to see how much more “millionaires” are paying to know the real impact of the changes. If it can be shown that they are paying a lot more despite the rate reduction, it should go some way towards nullifying the attacks.

    By effectively limiting the argument to specifically “millionaires” (who I suspect will have very high levels of relief compared to the top rate payers in general) it might make the argument easier for George to show that they are paying more now.

    I’d rather see a 45% rate with capped relief than a 50% rate with uncapped relief, obviously some would like to see the 50% (or higher) rate with zero relief and a flogging twice a day at Hyde Park Corner.

    Who’ll win? those high earners who played by the (spirit of the) rules and paid their taxes at 50%. Who’ll lose? those high earners who aggressively pursued tax avoidance to it’s limits.

    For me that is acceptable. I accept not everyone will think so.

  15. @Ken,
    Your accountant at PWC need not bother. There are an awful lot already “doing Tory”. That is, we’re already full to the brim with the mantras of those at the very top end of the tax system, such that it’s very difficult to imagine any argument that hasn’t already been repeated ad nauseum in order to try and make it true.

    @Colin
    Murphy is interesting because he dares to challenge the self interest, mascarading as conventional wisdom, of those at the top of the income/wealth tree, by reference to facts and fine detail rather than just political argument. I’ll consider his arguments at face value, thank you, rather than just dismissing them on account of his “funding sources”, whatever those are (although I can well guess).

  16. @Joe R
    “The top rate should have gone down to 40% if not lower. I also wanted to see harder public spending cuts, the abolition of child benefit etc.”

    Your abhorrance of Miliband’s response is thus rather reassuring.

  17. “Now you’re going to be able to buy your own horse”

    Best line, I thought.

  18. YouGov

    CON 36
    LAB 41
    lD……10

    App -25

  19. Looking at websites for all the trashy media – not good for the Coalition. No mention of personal allowance – all tax cut for the top, fuel tax stays and pension taxes

    Makes a change since the election!

    Interesting to see if this is selected in VI

    I do think this idea that 100m raised from the 50% tax based on a base of >6 bn is a nonsense

  20. so yesterday’s 8 point lead was an outlier and today we have reversion to the mean, which is a nice tidy place to leave polls ready for tomorrows “first impressions of the budget” poll. That will be interesting.

  21. Tomorrow will give us a clue, which narrative will Joe Public buy ? So far my theory of Ed’s exposure holds true, from 8 down to 5 in a day when Ed got a bit of airtime, but of course, all usual caveats apply, poll completed at 4-00pm etc. Generally negative media response though…..I never call the Eurovision Song Contest right either, but I’ll back Englebert this year, for certain. :-)

  22. @Alan (9.41)

    “Who’ll win? those high earners who played by the (spirit of the) rules and paid their taxes at 50%. Who’ll lose? those high earners who aggressively pursued tax avoidance to it’s limits.”

    Alan,
    please explain how those high earners who persued tax avoidance will lose. They will continue to look for loopholes and the first loophole is to transfer their gains for 12/13 to 13/14 thus saving 5% on those gains. Although there has been much talk of closing loopholes, I have not heard any concrete proposals to bring this into practice. Please correct me if you are aware of such proposals.

  23. Peter Bell

    I wasn’t talking about those who illegally hide money off shore (which will happen regardless of the rules and is more a matter for HMRC than government to chase down)

    I’m talking about the cap of legally declarable relief which is now set at 25% of income, previously there was no cap. Those who were pushing more than this through relief schemes will lose out, those who were already pushing less than this will gain.

  24. @ Tinged

    Nation A’s property laws require that anybody leaving Nation-A forfeit their property to Nation-A (made clear when they become a citizen of Nation-A or when Nation-A changes it’s laws).

    Much like someone leaving England for a low-tax nation now, could face a property-penalty for doing so.
    ——————————
    So is it geographic, then? Because I thought you wrote about folks having a different government of choice without physically changing states.
    8-)

  25. “So is it geographic, then? Because I thought you wrote about folks having a different government of choice without physically changing states.”
    It was analogous – I’ll try to be clearer in terminology.

    Person A is a citizen of the Union. Person A is a citizen of Panarch A. They have property rights according to the laws of Panarch A.
    Let’s say that they want to leave Panarch A (which they joined freely) for Panarch B. The penalty for leaving would be to lose all property that you have gained so far – a leaving tax, if you will.
    While Panarch A couldn’t stop Person A from leaving (i.e they couldn’t impose the death penalty, etc for leaving), they could impose a property penalty.
    Not all Panarchs would impose such a property penalty – they would just have the risk of free-loading.

    A better example would be a communist Panarch – upon becoming a citizen of that Panarch, you would lose all property rights to the collective. You could choose to leave, but you would do so without any property (except the commune would probably be reasonable enough to give you clothes).

    So the Panarch’s laws live within a constitutional framework set by the federal law – so there would be a charter of human rights, so no Panarch’s laws could violate those human rights. Just as a member of the EU’s laws could violate those human rights.

    Much like if I left England, I could in theory lose my property upon leaving – as would be the law of England.

    So while I am not physically leaving the Panarch, it is analogous to physically leaving a Nation for another Nation.

    Otherwise the argument is that people might leave Panarch A for Panarch B to avoid paying tax for the welfare system – much like a person may now physically leave Nation A for Nation B, to avoid paying tax.
    In essence then, the argument is that the option should only be available rich people at the moment – those who can afford to uproot their lives to another place. A fairly classist proposal.

    Essentially Panarchism is the bridge between Liberal Democracy and Anarchism.
    You have the benefits and drawbacks of Anarchism (true freedom of association) without the major downside (the lack of legal recourse).

    But I’m going to give up arguing now – there’s plenty of resources on the internet to find out about panarchism, just as there are plenty of resources to find out about the anarchist/libertarian philosophy which it builds upon.

1 2 3 4