Ipsos MORI have published their monthly political monitor for the Evening Standard. Topline voting intentions, with changes from last month, are CON 31%(-2), LAB 40%(-3), LDEM 10%(+1), Others 19%(+4) (including Greens on 5% and UKIP on 6%).

Other questions suggest a sharp fall in the public’s regard of George Osborne, something that YouGov also picked in polling since the budget. Asked who will make the best Chancellor Ed Balls now leads Osborne by 37% to 29%, compared to the two men being pretty much neck and neck the last two times MORI asked the same question in March 2011 and March 2012. The change is almost entirely down to Osborne’s falling ratings, while Ed Balls’s ratings have remained very stable.


181 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 31, LAB 40, LDEM 10”

1 2 3 4
  1. Now we know that the most famous quote of Cameron `We are all in this together` first made in a speech in October 2010 was sourced from Rebekah Brooks` text message from October 2009…You can`t make this up

    I thought he did well though…Does anyone think his appearance will affect VI?

  2. @SMukesh
    “I thought he did well though”

    You must be the only one :-)

  3. Actually it looks like Brooks borrowed it from Osborne,so am wrong there.

  4. @LIZH
    `You must be the only one`

    Could have been worse

  5. @ Smukesh

    I don’t think it could have been worse! David Cameron is being reported as evasive, not at home to Mr Detail & devoid of ideas with regard to what the Leveson inquiry should recommend regarding future media regulation.

    He himself called for the Inquiry but he seemed to have no idea what it was actually for! Jay stopped him when he tried to make it party political & blame New Labour. Leveson ‘pulled him up’ about focussing too much on the Dowlers & pointed out that the hacking – & indeed the Inquiry itself – were about a much wider range of privacy/ media/ politics issues than the hacking of Millie’s phone.

    Like that horse, Raisa, the story which will run on & on is likely going to be the ridiculous text which he received from Rebekah Brooks. Country supper? Yes we Cam :razz:

  6. I thought someone on here would know the answer to my question but I suppose one has to be an expert on the law regarding the Marriage Act. I assume there is such a thing, otherwise how could we have legal divorce, or indeed bigamy. I recently looked up Isaac Singer, the sewing machine tycoon, and his story took my breath away, talk about tangled webs, makes Monsieur Hollande look very tame..

    The Other Jim needs to define what he means by ‘a church’. I rather took him to mean he would disregard marriages between jews or hindus because they don’t marry in the right building.

    It’s a non-political issue is it not? I mean, all the parties think the same don’t they?

  7. @ Howard

    “she is now saying that the tweet was a hacker not her (I didn’t follow your link perhaps it says that).”

    The link claimed otherwise but it sounds like a hacker. (Or perhaps a joke gone bad).

  8. Howard – I think the important legislation is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, though there will be earlier legislation dating from the creation of civil marriage and registration of marriages.

  9. Having had a peer about, there are loads of previous marriages acts – the most important seem to be the Marriage Act 1753 (which seems to be the first real statute law on it, as opposed to canon law), and the Marriage Act 1836 which introduced civil marriage.

    There are lots of others though, and I’ve no idea which are still in force and which have been consolidated into later legislation.

  10. @ Virgilio

    “Fortunately, all eliminated progressive candidates (Green, Left Front and even the centrists) stand clearly for Royal, so if Falorni is elected, it will be thanks to the votes of vengeance of the right-wingers, and this will not be a honorable victory at all. There is honor in victory as there is in defeat, and the defense of our principles, whichever these might be (I have great esteem for the right-wingers who honorably defend theirs), is far more important than a seat more or a seat less in the Parliament.”

    It’s juvenile. It’s one thing for voters to cross over and vote for a candidate of the opposite party (or ideology) when they are more moderate or acceptable than the other one. So for example in your case, Socialists voting for a UMP candidate against an FN candidate in a runoff. Or UMP voters voting for a Socialist candidate over a Melencon backed candidate.

    “Unfortunately the Royal affair is becoming more and more embarrassing. In the absence of any surprise for the second round (the left is poised to have a comfortable OM according to all estimations), this has become one of the major “talks of the town” in France but also abroad, Even here in Greece it is the topic #1 among French expats, whereas us bi-nationals we are mostly preoccupied by the results of Greek GE which is also on Sunday, so no one really cares about the result in our constituency (the 8th of French residents abroad), where the victory of the socialist candidate is given for granted – anyway I am one of the few that campaign actively for her and I will continue to do so until tonight, my 30-year political experience in 2 countries has taught me never to take anything for granted but to go on fighting even when victory (or, in other cases, defeat) appears to be certain.”

    Well keep in mind that voters aren’t forced to back candidates simply because their party or prior preffered candidate back them. So I wouldn’t take any elections for granted.

    This year, to get elected as a DNC Delegate, I joined a slate of candidates. We ran together and asked our particular set of voters to vote for the others on the slate. Did we all wind up with the same number of votes? No. Most of our friends and supporters who came cast full slate ballots where all of our names were marked. But not all. And as I watched the ballot count, it was interesting to see the ballots where some of us were marked and some of us weren’t.

    As for this tweet, I think it’s interesting from a gossip point of view. It’s entertaining and perhaps slightly humorous but I’m surprised that people care that much about it. If French ex-pats in Greece are talking about it, it’s probably a big story.

    “I nourish a great esteem for S. Royal and think that this affair is the most cruel of adversities that she had to deal with”

    I like her too and I think that this is just rubbing it in. I would try though not to take it so personally. People will be cruel for any number of reasons, especially in politics.

  11. @ Howard

    “I thought someone on here would know the answer to my question but I suppose one has to be an expert on the law regarding the Marriage Act. I assume there is such a thing, otherwise how could we have legal divorce, or indeed bigamy.”

    I don’t know your marriage law. I know my own (mostly). There have been marriage statutes for centuries and marriage is defined by civil law, not by religion (so all this talk of religion and marriage is a lot of bs, at least on this side of the pond). I think English/British marriage law is complicated by the fact that you have an official state church where people are allowed to be married.

    Btw, speaking of marriage law, it was just last week that some people marked the 45 year anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.

  12. ALEC

    @” Could have sworn we had a Spanish bailout earlier this week, but my memory must be playing up again.”

    It is a proposed bailout of Spain’s stricken regional savings banks-not the Spanish State.

    Indeed Rajoy has been trying his best not to have any of this money come anywhere near the Sovereign-he doesn’t want any more nasty rules than he has already.

    Joaquin Almunia, European Competition Commissioner has been musing that some of the cajas should be allowed to go bust, rather than use up more taxpayer euros in a fruitless attempt to correct the appalling results of their mismanagement……..most sensible thing I’ve heard from Brussels in a while.

    Of course you may yet see a bailout for the Spanish Sate , as it’s bond yields soar above the 7% level considered the threshold of unsustainable funding.

  13. Good Evening after a run in the rain on our beach.

    i. The Irish Anthem is about to be played and sung. Never played in the UK, though ‘The Queen’ is now,

    ii. On Marriage Law, I think that Equality Legislation will be interpreted by the Courts as a form of basic law, which is more powerful than other statute law.

    iii. Vernon Bogdanor has made the same point about the Human Rights Act, and has been proven correct. A form of codification of law has been taking place,

  14. And on the Anthem, the You Tube clip of both anthems being played at Croke Park for the first time at the Six Nations match is powerful= emotional and also a form of reconciliation..

  15. @ Colin

    “The penny begins to drop :-”

    Here’s the thing. It’s really easy to say we should abandon those big dumb banks and let them fail. Afterall, they made bad decisions, they were stupid, they were reckless. They made their bed, let them go lie in it, as the expression goes.

    The problem is, these banks employ massive numbers of people. If they fail, there are mass layoffs. Also, there’s a savings loss because the FDIC is going to have guarantee up to $25000 (it used to be just $100,000) for every individual account. For some people, that FDIC protection is a god send. For larger accounts, that could be a wipeout of life savings. Either way, the taxpayer has to pay in order pay all of those people.

    So, I supported those massive bank bailouts. They were neccessary even if highly unpopular.

  16. @SMUKESH

    Re Leverson

    I can’t see it having any big movement on VI, people have become very bored with it; it gets a lot of coverage but no big shocks. And people seem to support their team/teams, as it were, and attack the “others”. The next big issue may be the Euro crisis when/if it occurs, in whatever form it occurs.

  17. @GARY GATTER
    `I can’t see it having any big movement on VI`

    Maybe not on VI,but I do see a downward effect on Cameron`s ratings.

  18. @ Chris Lane

    “On Marriage Law, I think that Equality Legislation will be interpreted by the Courts as a form of basic law, which is more powerful than other statute law.”

    What’s the difference between basic law and statute law? I’ve never heard of this distinction before.

  19. CHRISLANE1945
    As far as the HRA/ECHR goes, we could check the legal commentaries –
    “In order to take into account the diversity of domestic regulations on marriage, Article 9 of the Charter refers to domestic legislation. As it appears from its formulation, the provision is broader in its scope than the corresponding articles in other international instruments. Since there is no explicit reference to ‘men and women’ as the case is in other human rights instruments, it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognize same-sex relationships in the context of marriage. There is, however, no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages.

    It should be mentioned, however, that Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, is of special importance with respect to the interpretation of Article 9, and it may be invoked in relation to the exercise of the right to marry. It can be argued that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Article 21.

    At present, however, for want of legal norms, the ECJ has found itself prevented from granting rights based on same-sex bonds as, for example, in Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West, Ltd. The Court showed that it was not prepared at the relevant time to interpret the prohibited grounds for discrimination (read sexual orientation) independently, if Member States have not exactly specified EC law in such a way.”

    “If Member States have not exactly specified EC law in such a way” is the most important bit – governments are allowed to legalise gay marriage under Article 9 but it up to the member state to specify how Article 21 is used.

    So the government could legalise gay marriage without having to force churches to marry people.

    Given then that it’s only domestic equality laws which would force churches, the government could modify those equality laws to exclude marriage.

    Problem solved.

  20. GARY GATTER

    Watching Cameron at Leveson today, Nixon’s advice to John Dean as to to give evidence on Watergate came to mind.

    “you can say ‘I can’t recall. I can’t give any answer to that that I can recall.'”

    Of course, there isn’t any evidence that there was anything wrong in the first place and given the number of meetings Cameron had with media people – 26 a month in opposition, 13 a month in office – it’s unreasonable to expect him to remember what was said at every one.

    So, I totally agree with you that the tendency of people to assume that their leader is white as snow, and the others in the pay of the devil is particularly partisan.

  21. @ Tinged Fringe

    “So the government could legalise gay marriage without having to force churches to marry people.”

    Why would the government force any church (or any religious institution) to perform a marriage it did not want to recognize? What on earth would be the reasoning behind this?

    Such a law like that here would be patently unconstitutional but I can’t think of anyone who would ever try to enact such a law (therefore, it’s never come up).

  22. Re Cameron at Leveson.

    Given Nick Robinson’s take, it would appear that they are all in something together…

  23. Amber,Michael White comparing the country suppers
    with “country matters”.If you know your Shakespeare and
    I am sure you do,there could be an even bigger story here.

  24. SOCALLIBERAL

    Presumably the whole point of having a state church is (or at least was) that the state can use it to enforce its decisions on moral matters.

    Otherwise, what’s the point of having a state church?

  25. Ah, colour me not completely correct –
    That is the Charter on Human Rights (which actually isn’t legally binding in the UK, under the Lisbon treaty – we had an opt-out) – I can’t actually find a legal ruling in regards to the ECHR, but I’d assume it would fall under the same legal precedent – given that the conventions have almost identical wording (and given that the charter is based on the original convention).

  26. “Why would the government force any church (or any religious institution) to perform a marriage it did not want to recognize? What on earth would be the reasoning behind this?”
    The government doesn’t want to force churches to perform marriages – but the argument is that under Article 14 of the HRA, protection against discrimination of sexual orientation (“other status”) would require churches to marry homosexuals.

    But this is just a distraction argument – as the law can be modified to remove that problem.
    The distraction being a false dichotomy, that you can either have gay marriage OR churches deciding who to marry.
    It’s essentially used (as all distractions are) to try to shut down an argument in which there is a fundamental disagreement but in which the person providing the distraction wishes to distract from that point.

    So “I’m against gay marriage for tautological reasons [1]” becomes “I’m against gay marriage because freedom of religion would be under attack” – presenting a false dichotomy of religion vs gay marriage.

    This sort of thing is fairly common across the political spectrum on a host of issues – find a small fault (and thus reasonable constructive criticism) with a political issue or piece of legislation and then use that fault as an argument against the whole, rather than accepting a modification of the original piece which takes care of that small fault.

    [1] “Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman”, even if you want to dress up the argument in other rhetorical clothing.

  27. My prediction for YouGov tonight:

    Con 28
    Lab 46
    LD 8

    My prediction for tomorrow

    Sweden 0
    England 2

    Just watched Spain demolish Ireland. Ireland looked shakier than Cameron did. Just.

  28. Latest YouGov/The Sun results 14th June CON 31%, LAB 43%, LD 9%, UKIP 8%; APP -39

    oh well

  29. New thread

  30. @ Old Nat

    “Watching Cameron at Leveson today, Nixon’s advice to John Dean as to to give evidence on Watergate came to mind.”

    I was watching Chris Matthews on Hardball this afternoon while at the gym. And do you know who he had on? None other than John Dean himself. He was describing the infamous “you could get a million dollars and you could get it in cash” conversation.

    The 40 year anniversary of the Watergate break-in is coming up on Sunday. I read recently that Dean is possibly looking to get his law license back in Virginia.

1 2 3 4