The monthly ICM poll for the Guardian has been published here, and has topline figures of CON 34%(nc), LAB 39%(nc), LDEM 14%(nc), Others 13%(nc) – no change whatsoever in the main topline voting intention figures. The breakdown for other parties was SNP 3%, Plaid 1%, Green 4%, UKIP 4%, BNP 1%

On economic trust 40% of people said they trusted David Cameron & George Osborne more, 29% said they trusted Ed Miliband and Ed Balls more, an 11 point lead for the Conservative team that is not significantly different from the 9 point lead ICM registered a month ago, but is still substantially below the sort of lead they had pre-budget.

ICM also asked how people would vote if Tony Blair was Labour leader, and found a slightly smaller Labour lead, with the Conservatives on 34%, Labour on 36% and the Lib Dems on 15%.


137 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 34, LAB 39, LD 14, UKIP 4”

1 2 3
  1. ICM my favourite polling company. Prefer their wisdom index though, as I feel other polls massively underestimate Liberal Democrat support.

    However, solid Labour lead it seems.

  2. “The man won three elections!1!” ©ChrisLane1945.

  3. ICM currently the best poll for the Tories and their last poll did get the local election Labour lead of 7 to 8% right.The Tories should be pleased that Labour are not pulling away in ICM.I wonder what the figures are when VI was not adjusted for turnout.

    Not sure why ICM think Blair`s gonna return as Labour leader.Aiming for a big post perhaps but surely not the next PM?

  4. So -3 for Lab but only +1 for LibDems with the Blair question. Others to Green or Nats?

    Will also have to wait for full tables – it’d be interesting to see if they weight the Blair question in the same way that they weight the headline VI. No reason not to, but it’ll be interesting to see full figures.

  5. LD on 14%. You heard it here first. Reallocation of DK’s probably bumping LD a bit at the expense of Lab.

    Ironically, this could be very close to the GE result, which as that is what it is meant to be makes it accurate and not ironic at all.

  6. Harry Thompson
    ICM my favourite polling company. Prefer their wisdom index though, as I feel other polls massively underestimate Liberal Democrat support.

    However, solid Labour lead it seems
    ________________

    A solid Labour lead of 5%? Not that solid considering the 3% error of margin rule!!

    Anyway I do understand you have to put a brave face on. ;)

  7. @Allan Christie

    A 5% Lab lead on ICM is a solid lead.

  8. “ICM also asked how people would vote if Tony Blair was Labour leader, and found a slightly larger smaller Labour lead”

    Pardon ?

    Slightly larger or slightly smaller ?

    In any case, the question was irrelevant seeing as Blair is not even in the running for Labours leadership.

  9. “Reallocation of DK’s probably bumping LD a bit at the expense of Lab.”
    For June it was -4 for Lab, +2 for Lib after weighting for turn-out and reallocation of DKs.

    It’s usual for Lab to drop 3/4 points and for the Libs to gain 2/3 points, since the collapse in LibDem votes prior to coalition. Previous to the GE, reallocation/turn-out weighting made little difference to the figures.
    But the effect post-election has been as low as -1 and as high as -5 for Lab, as low as +1 and high as +3 for Lib.
    Cons have also gained from DK reallocation since it’s post-budget collapse, but I’d assume most of that is UKIP and they will likely move back.

    So pre-allocation/weighting could be anywhere from 40 to 44 for Lab, and 11 to 13 for Lib – judging based on previous polls.

  10. @ Smukesh

    Not sure why ICM think Blair`s gonna return as Labour leader.Aiming for a big post perhaps but surely not the next PM?
    ———————–
    I think it was more about the Guardian aiming for a big headline than TB looking for a comeback.

    And I can almost hear Ed’s team heaving a sigh of relief that the Grun didn’t get a result. ;-)

  11. From the Guardian report:

    “The prospective “Blair penalty” for Labour concentrated among youngest voters aged 18-24 (–7 points), skilled manual workers (-7), northerners (-12) and Scots (-16). In the electorally important Midlands and the south-east, Labour could fair just as well under Blair as it is currently doing.”

    I like that term, the “Blair penalty”. No surprise that the Scots are the most likely to be put off by a return to Blair. I wish the divine Tony all the best in his attempted ascension.

  12. @Smukesh

    Why would Ed Milliband allow TB to get a top post? It would be nonsensical. If Lab do that, and I was a LD strategist, I would dump clegg and alexander and pull out of thr coalition. LD stock.would soar.

    I believe Amber is right. The Guardian loath Brown/Balls and all thosr associated with them, and would rather EM/EB lost the next Election, just as they crowed when Lab lost the last one.

  13. Smukesh, Amber

    According to the Guardian article:

    …after a flurry of speculation about the return of the political maestro – which Blair set off himself by responding “sure” to the Evening Standard’s question about whether he would like a further prime ministerial term – the survey also asked what voters would do if he were back in the running. A Blair-led Labour party’s immediate slippage of three percentage points would not produce any dividends for the Tories, who would remain at 34%

    So not nothing – if not much.

    We tend to forget that Blair was less popular and trusted that the media seem to believe. For example I recently came across this old YouGov poll from 2003, towards they end of IDS’s time as Tory leader:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-dTel-JulyTracker-030729.pdf

    Blair did win the best PM, but only with 31% – the same 31% were satisfied with him as PH 63% were not. And he came bottom of the the three Party leaders on who could be most trusted.

    If anyone thinks that this is because of the effect of Iraq, the same poll showed that 50% thought the United States and Britain were right … to take military action against Iraq? – only 41% said ‘wrong’.

  14. I’ve also noticed that the Guardian singularly fails to mention: A Blair led Labour Party would still beat David Cameron’s Tories, although not by as much as Ed! ;-)

  15. ‘ICM also asked how people would vote if Tony Blair was Labour leader, and found a slightly larger smaller Labour lead, with the Conservatives on 34%, Labour on 36% and the Lib Dems on 15%.’

    I glean from that that not all lefties and greenies have deserted the Lib Dems, as was supposed.

  16. Sorry, I reproduced AW’s typo, it was not intended.

  17. @RAF
    @AMBER
    @ROGER MEXICO

    I don`t mean that Blair could return to the shadow cabinet but surely him and Brown have got things to offer to the International Community in various capacities.

    The Guardian was the first paper to break out of the `Coalition is good` Consensus after the elections and Ed Mili chose the paper for interviews whenever he was in trouble during the initial phases of his leadership.

    A tribute to Blair that Labour lead only shrunk by 3 points with a man at helm who came to prominence almost 20 years ago.I think his sudden reappearance is to do with the Olympics and to stake a claim to it`s legacy

  18. CRAIG.
    TB
    Hi

    Yes, a winner, three times a winner.
    You know, then they dumped me.
    The last time TIGPOO won a GE convincingly before that was in 1966.

  19. Average Labour lead on ICM for 2011: 1.25%

    2012 so far: 2.29%

    Incidentally, looking at the ICM tables for June 2012:
    Con (all respondents) 32%/34% (certain to vote), Lab 42%/39%, LD 13%/14%.

    The certain to vote (9/10 and 10/10) responses (686 people), would represent a 60% turnout at a GE. ICM could bump that up to 67% by including the 74 people who say they are 8/10 certain to vote.

  20. @ChrisLane1945
    So, Blair was able to win two elections after – as you allude to – after a historic length of Tory rule and by diluting Labour’s platform to the extent Tories were happily voting for him (if wins are only classed if they’re convincing then 2005 certainly doesn’t count) – must truly be a god amongst men.

  21. Speaking of which, I haven’t seen your fellow Blairite Rob Sheffield on here for a while; must be too busy purging the party of those damn socialists!

  22. Is 4% pretty good for the Greens from ICM?

  23. By my (probably imperfect) calculation, ICM in June 2012 would have reallocated (before the certain to vote cut-off) half of the 24% of Con 2010 vote who are now saying “don’t know” back to them (2010 Lab don’t knows 11%, LD 26%.)

    Roughly Con +4.32%, Lab +1.59%, LD +2.99% in terms of overall VI.

  24. @Tinged F, @Billy Bob

    FWIW and despite all of my earlier comments, I do consider that ICM have a case for the “spiral of silence” adjustment in terms of increasing the Con share slightly. We can’t ignore the lessons of 1992 election which prompted its introduction. But it’s the idea that those 2010 LD “dont knows” are similarly going to return en masse to the LDs that I find fanciful, given that YouGov is now consistently finding that around 2/3 of the 2010 LD “do knows” are choosing parties other than the LDs. In the wake of the political realignment of 2010 it seems to me far more likely that the LD “dont knows” are genuinely undecided voters.

    ICM also downweight 2010 non voters by 50%, which I find simplistic in so far as such an adjustment ought to be finessed in so far as parties are recovering or losing support on their previous base. I’d suggest that 2010 non-voters who profess to be certain to vote will be more likely to vote if their party of choice is recovering in the polls than if it is losing support.

  25. @Roger Mexico

    Of course you can select random opinion polls to prove your points… but the actual poll in 2005 was

    Labour 35.2
    Conservative 32.4
    Liberal Democrat 22.0
    UKIP (For Jim) 2.2
    SNP (For our Scots friends) 1.5
    Green (For Alec) 1.0

    After two full terms of Labour government a solid victory for Labour after two landslides.

  26. ICM have taken one of Miliband’s most significant achievements for granted, namely that Labour is now broadly united in a way that it hasn’t been for a decade or so.

    You can’t just replace one leader with another and assume implicitly that that political context of unity would be the same. In circumstances of internecine civil war within Labour to rival the situation in the early 1980s – which is what a Blair coup would produce – Blair would poll far below 36%.

  27. The Sheep

    Well I was making a point about Blair not about the Labour Party. But 2005 basically illustrates two truths. One is that leaders matter less than the media and commentator believe (or hope). The other is that elections aren’t won by the best Party, but by what is seem as the most plausible, least worst.

  28. Latest YouGov/The Sun results 23rd July CON 33%, LAB 43%, LD 9%, UKIP 8%; APP -35

  29. Sample in tonight’s YouGov is a touch unusual:
    2010 Con 564
    2010 Lab 407
    2010 LD 395

    Too few Lab, too many LD?

  30. @Craig

    “The man won three elections!1!” ©ChrisLane1945.”

    Yep- and I wonder what your mate Tony Benn would do to Labours current lead? But then again Palaeolithic “sowwwcialists” like yourself are utterly ire;vant to current political questions aren’t they ?

    In any case, I very much suspect Labour would be in the low 20’s at best with only leftist nutters like yourself giving wholehearted support! I so wish you would trot off to your natural ‘Respect’ and Islamist home.

    ***

    These Blair polls are totally bogus. If polls are looking for an alternative to Ed then they should – firstly- forget about David Miliband (he is a busted flush as is Purnell)- and ask people their opinion on:

    * Chuka Umuna
    * Rachel Reed
    * Andy Burnham
    * Yvette Cooper
    * Ed Balls

    IMO none of the above would get better rating for Labour than Ed is getting- at the moment.

    Once we are into late 2013 (and Labour has produced distinct Blairite polices) then I think the younger of the above would quite possibly get better ratings (and the Labour lead will be circa 5%).

    But- it has to be said (particularly by myself): Ed M has done better than a lot predicted.

  31. Tonight’s ICM and YouGov agree on one thing and that’s the Tory VI rating but they’re rather less aligned on the Lib Dem and Labour VI. That said, should we be at all surprised because ICM have consistently understated Labour and overstated the Lib Dems ever since the last General Election? Are they the only soldier marching in step or are they, because of their unique methodology, getting it wrong?

    One way of answering this, although far from foolproof, is to see what they were saying as near as we can to the last time the country went to the polls; namely in early May. The results are interesting. The nearest ICM/Guardian poll to local elections was about two weeks prior to polling. It called the Lib Dem vote share spot on (15%) but overstated both the Tory and Labour vote by 2%. Of all the pollsters sampling around early May, Opinium were nearest the actual result, although, like all the others, badly understated the Lib Dem vote. Caveats about eccentric voting patterns in local elections obviously apply, but it’s revealing nonetheless.

    What suggests some degree of persistent contrariness within ICM though is their poll taken a couple of weeks after the local elections. Whilst all the other polling organisations were recording nadirs for the Tories (30-32%) around this time, ICM suddenly produced a poll showing the Tories at 36%. It seemed odd then and still seems odd now, maybe suggesting something is a little amiss about what they’re doing.

    As for the Blair question, what a monumental waste of polling time and money. A silly question and a meaningless answer. What next? How would a Major led Tory Party fare against Miliband? Somebody at ICM is obviously getting very bored!

  32. @Rob S

    Welcome back! I see from your reply to Craig that you’ve lost none of your flair for nuanced understatement since you’ve been away, although your use of the term “leftist nutter” suggests that you’re coming off the fence a little more than you used to! This development is most welcome.

  33. @Phil – “ICM also downweight 2010 non voters by 50%… ”

    This month’s IpsosMORI was a bit of an oddity in that the “absolutely certain to vote” criterion actually favoured Labour.

    Comparing their all respondents measure against the headline figures going back to 2002 – very often the Con lead/Labour lead would be increased/decreased by as much as 9 points, and this proved to be an accurate adjustment, however, since the 2010 IpsosMORI have been recording that Labour supporter’s disinclination to vote seems to be declining.

  34. *since the 2010 GE*

  35. @Crossbat

    ‘hello’

    I see your talent for hypocrisy (criticising posters whilst exhibiting the exact same tendency you claim to critique in your own post) has not been diluted by several months of polldrums off the back of some very poor local elections and London Mayor predictions a few months ago…

    I am lurking till October and the post conference/ SOOP season- as I have several trips to make and things to write between May and October (better things to do most days?).

    I’m only responding at the moment to posts that are utterly absurd- from a leftist perspective (UKIPers can be dealt with by others)- such as @Craigs. Or to those that (pointlessly) try to make personal attacks rather than on the substance of what I say. I note you have not changed in that regard one iota. You really are a very boring person.

  36. The polls are sometimes up, sometimes down.

    But the Tories probably need some economic recovery – end of year ish onwards.

    I think YouGov tends to under-estimate the Lib Dems
    and slightly over-estimate whoever is ahead [but not always] , but when all is said and done, is a poll we tend to look out for.

    I think the LD national figure probably is about 14-16% yes. But if they’re only getting 16 in local elections, they should be worried if it’s only about 13/14 for a GE.
    That would surely be a pretty catastrophic result for them even if it’s above the single digits in other polls.

  37. @Rob S

    Dude! Welcome back!

    Regards, Martyn

  38. @Rob S

    “You really are a very boring person.”

    The rod is cocked, the reel at the ready and another tiddler is landed with the merest bait.

    Dear, oh dear oh dear.

  39. There is mention here of a poll for the Sunday Times on Macbethian political matters by a company called Panelbase.

    Anyone know anything about them an their track record?

  40. @Crossbat

    This Rob Sheffield character seems to be quite typical of those on the wilder fringes of our party’s right wing, such as those found at Labour Uncut, plus there are several in the comments section at LabourList, or Dan Hodges. They’re always fretting about reds under the bed and frothing about ‘Trots’, ‘Marxists’, ‘Bolsheviks.’

    Unsurprisingly they always win praise from Tories, which they seem to relish. They seem more interesting in pleasing Tories than they do their own comrades. Perhaps it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, as though they’re safely in the ranks of the Very Serious People, rather than one of those ghastly leftist outriders whom all who are Serious should point and laugh at.

  41. RobS:

    “personal attacks rather than substance”

    A guddun Rob: excellent use of irony.

  42. OldNat

    Panelbase seem to very good consumer panel of decent size (c 180k) with a strong youth profile (35% under 25) which is why I’m always suggesting to Anthony that YouGov enter the transfer market with them (they’ve only 9% over 55). But as far as I know they’ve no experience on the political side at all. They’re based in Hexham, but I don’t think they have particular Scottish links.

  43. Thanks Roger

    Panelbase seem to have done another Sottish political poll in February as well.

    While refraining from mentioning the polling on the banned Macbethian topic (nothing much surprising there) the Holyrood constituency VI seemed interesting

    SNP 47%
    Labour 32%
    Conservatives 12%
    Liberal Democrats 6%

    I’m sure that the UK governing Coalition would be overjoyed if their VI had risen a couple of % since the last election, while their principal opponents remained static.

  44. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    sol·id/?sälid/
    Adjective: Firm and stable

    A ‘solid’ Labour lead is one that is stable and hard to chip away at. It doesn’t matter if its 5 points or 50 points. The word you’re thinking of is ‘big’.

    I know it’s a hard one, but maybe write it down on a post-it note and keep it in your pocket, you can refer to it if this problem arises again.

  45. “A big, hard one” ? “Keep it in your pocket” ?

    I think we should stick to politics.

  46. @ Billy Bob (from the previous thread)

    “Thanks for your post.

    Mayor Shaw was quite a piece of work. The pictures of Harry Raymond, cigarette in hand, on a hospital gurney, chatting to reporters while doctors set about removing the one hundred bomb-fragments made me think “hard-boiled” must have been less a cliché and more a way of life in those days.

    Clifford Clinton (founder of Meals for Millions), also had his house fire-bombed to warn him off investigating corruption.

    Btw I have taken a little virtual stroll out by White Knoll Drive and back, found one possible Victorian relic on N Boylston St, another on the corner of Boston St and N Kensington Rd – and then hit pay-dirt at the East Edgeware end of Caroll Avenue.”

    So, the apartment building I was thinking of was on Bixel Street and on the 600 block so not in the traditional Bunker Hill neighborhood. I think it’s all gone.

    Now as for the areas you describe, that’s Angelino Heights and technically not considered part of downtown. It was a separate subdivision if you can believe it. There are some absolutely beautiful homes up there thanks to the Carroll Avenue Restoration and it’s a much better area to live in now with downtown’s revitalization.

    Well the thing with Shaw is that he wanted the guy killed and he planted the car bomb. But he already had it in for the guy and had the police monitoring the house 24/7. The police department and fire department had been conveniently merged into one public safety entity and they were run by Shaw’s brother. So it didn’t take too long for people to figure out what had happenned. This wasn’t some random incident by some other enemy, this was done on Shaw’s orders.

    I read up on Shaw on wikipedia and he was quite litigious (attempting, post mayoralty, to shut up his enemies through defamation suits). It’s for whiny politicians like him that the anti-SLAPP statute was made for.

    Btw, Clifton’s Cafeteria is still around (but not very good).

    I can’t believe how much you know about my city. I’m very impressed.

  47. “ICM also asked how people would vote if Tony Blair was Labour leader, and found a slightly smaller Labour lead, with the Conservatives on 34%, Labour on 36% and the Lib Dems on 15%.”

    I’m honestly surprised by this. For one thing, from what I’ve seen, politicians tend to get remembered more favorably once they’re out of office. That’s how Frank Lautenberg was able to make his comeback. Why he wasn’t very well liked during his first time in office and seemingly won only because his opposition was bad. But then he retired, only to be dragged out of retirement to run (in the wake of scandal) and be rewarded by voters who fondly remembered him. I guess British voters are different and hold grudges for much longer.

    I’d like to see hypothetical polling with Jim Murphy and Yvette Cooper as the head of Labour and see comparisons to Milliband.

  48. @ Roger Mexico

    “We tend to forget that Blair was less popular and trusted that the media seem to believe. For example I recently came across this old YouGov poll from 2003, towards they end of IDS’s time as Tory leader:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-pol-dTel-JulyTracker-030729.pdf

    Blair did win the best PM, but only with 31% – the same 31% were satisfied with him as PH 63% were not. And he came bottom of the the three Party leaders on who could be most trusted.”

    I think there’s a good expression that Tony Blair should heed and that is this:

    Quit while you’re ahead.

    He’s the three time undefeated champ who fundamentally altered British politics. Don’t try and make a comeback now, hold onto your undefeated title (it’s what my dental hygenist advised her close friend when she advised that her friend not go back and recontest Cupcake Wars).

    Btw, if I was David Cameron, I’d have done everything in my power to try and get Blair to be the EU President and put Gordon Brown in charge of the IMF. He could increase Britain’s power and prestige on the global stage, remove two prior opponents from politics, and look post-partisan to the voters. He’s a bozo for letting his partisan pettiness get in the way.

    @ Stuart Dickson

    “I like that term, the “Blair penalty”. No surprise that the Scots are the most likely to be put off by a return to Blair. I wish the divine Tony all the best in his attempted ascension.”

    I didn’t realize how unpopular Blair had become among the Scots. I’m not surprised by younger voters being turned off by him who would otherwise vote Labour.

    @ Rob Sheffield

    “These Blair polls are totally bogus. If polls are looking for an alternative to Ed then they should – firstly- forget about David Miliband (he is a busted flush as is Purnell)- and ask people their opinion on:

    * Chuka Umuna
    * Rachel Reed
    * Andy Burnham
    * Yvette Cooper
    * Ed Balls”

    Agreed.

  49. @SoCalLib

    You said “…Btw, if I was David Cameron, I’d have done everything in my power to try and get Blair to be the EU President and put Gordon Brown in charge of the IMF. He could increase Britain’s power and prestige on the global stage, remove two prior opponents from politics, and look post-partisan to the voters. He’s a bozo for letting his partisan pettiness get in the way…”

    We’ve had this argument before. Cameron would rather coat SamCam in warm pie juice, leave her on a plate with a blindfolded Eric Pickles and a rusty fork, and say “Eric…knock yourself out”. Not. Going. To. Happen.

    @Oldnat

    Re: Macbethian subject

    Was I the only one who thought “Blackadder” at that point…?

    Regards, Martyn

  50. @ Martyn

    “We’ve had this argument before. Cameron would rather coat SamCam in warm pie juice, leave her on a plate with a blindfolded Eric Pickles and a rusty fork, and say “Eric…knock yourself out”. Not. Going. To. Happen.”

    LOL. Well he might consider it if Sam Cam gets in the way of his budding relationship with Cleggyboy.

    In any case, I love your “Not. Going. To. Happen.” How many times have we wanted to roll our eyes and say that or appreciated it when someone did? SNL’s Finesse Mitchell once did a commentary where he used that. “But those are rich white famous people’s kids names. Ain’t none of them ever gonna have a moment where the Kinkos manager tells them ‘I’m sorry but Jamerkalalisha won’t fit on a name tag so we’re just going to call you Jerkie for short. I mean, It’s. Not. Gonna. Happen.”

    In any case, I’m just saying what I would do in the hypothetical altenative universe where I was David Cameron’s chief of staff advising him.

1 2 3