The Guardian have a new ICM poll on the coalition here. The YouGov/Sunday Times results are also up on the website now, covering the coalition and the Olympics – I’ll leave people to look up the Olympic results themselves if they are interested.

In YouGov’s poll, 45% of people think the coalition should end now, 40% should it continue. The majority of people who think it should end are, naturally enough, Labour supporters. About three-quarters of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats think the coalition should continue for the time-being, about one in five of both think it should end now.

Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters who want to see the coalition to end would like a new election, most of those 20% of Conservative supporters who’d like the coalition to end would prefer a minority Conservative government.

The overall results on the House of Lords reform and boundary changes are almost identical – 34% of people think Cameron was right to cancel the Lords reforms, 42% think he was wrong; 34% think Clegg is right to vote against the boundary changes, 41% think he is wrong. The cross-breaks are unsurprising – Conservatives think Cameron is in the right and Clegg in the wrong and Lib Dems think vice-versa.

Turning to ICM, they asked a question on how long people thought the coalition would last. The question is almost the same as a YouGov one asked last week, giving people pretty much the same answer opinions. When YouGov asked the question in July they found 54% thought the coalition would last most of the Parliment (30% until the election, 24% until just before). ICM a fortnight ago found very similar results, with 56% expecting the coalition to last the term (33% until the election, 23% until just before).

YouGov repeated the question just after Nick Clegg’s statement on boundary changes, and found the proportion of people thinking the coalition will last the term had fallen to 47% (24% to the election, 23% until just before). ICM today find it even lower, with only 35% thinking the coalition will last (16% till the election, 19% just before). The difference between ICM and YouGov could be wording, but I suspect some is also the effect of asking two days later once people had had chance to see the news.

174 Responses to “YouGov and ICM polling on the future of the coalition”

1 2 3 4

    It is surely more than anecdodtal to suggest that a good 2/3 of those now being enrolled as undergraduates would not have been admitted circa 40 years ago – the places were simply not available.Necessarily universities would have been obliged to be far more selective as compared with today – had they all applied.


    @” If I don’t think any of that is significant, then the voters certainly will not.”

    Ah-must remember to consult you in future then. It will save so much time reading Opinion Polls.

    There are some VERY significant changes in that QS, whether you think so or not.

    The public are interested in outcomes which improve things for themselves & the country. These are not recognisable until the effect of legislation is apparent.

    re” On non-personal items, it’s making sure we’ve sorted out the immigrants, socked it to Johnny foreigner (even if, e.g. our medal winners don’t look very British) and hung the pervs. These views are really held by the majority of voters even if they will not admit it.”

    I find this sort of statement indescribably offensive . It reeks of holier than thou, self satsified pious cant. It always brings a certain LibDem MP to mind for some reason.

  3. LEFTY

    What the Guardian so determinedly continues to ignore ( or be unaware of) is that , in some instances, there is no connection whatsoever between Olympic achievement & time at school.

    Indeed there is a least one documented case where the Gold winning Olympian left school ( a comprehensive as it happens) in order to pursue a particular sport.

    A table of the relationship between Medal Winning & Parental support & involvement, and membership of sports clubs / associations would be equally valid-if not more so.

    Who is it on here who keeps reminding us of the difference between correlation & causation?


    “It is surely more than anecdodtal to suggest that a good 2/3 of those now being enrolled as undergraduates would not have been admitted circa 40 years ago – the places were simply not available.Necessarily universities would have been obliged to be far more selective as compared with today – had they all applied.”

    That they didn’t all apply is what demonstrates the falsity of your argument.

    50 years ago, it was possible to get into a number of Universities with minimum entry qualifications. Such people would not get access today.

  5. @Oldnat and @Graham

    You don’t even need to go that far back. I remember speaking to a tutor at Law School, who said that in the 80s Lower Second’s were generally good enough to get into most firms (including some City firms). Now you need a high Upper Second or a First.

    It also used to be much easier to enrol at Uni. Not just because of generous grants (Mrs T got one) but because the entry grades even for popular courses at most Uni’s were not too taxing.

  6. While I don’t necessarily agree with all that @Graham says on higher education, his central point, that standards have declined and grade inflation has taken place, appears to be backed up by substantial evidence from the universities themselves.

    The proportion getting firsts or 2/1 classifications is way higher than previously, while the standards at entrance are now lower, so much so that many universities are now having to introduce what are in effect remedial courses for first years, along with dropping more difficult elements from degree courses.

    I’m afraid I can’t track it down, but a few months ago a major report highlighted findings that even good A level students were entering universities well short of the required standards for their prospective degrees, but at the same time the degree grades have continued to rise.

    I’m really not one of those people that harks back to a golden age of grammar schools and the birch, but I’ve not seen a single serious piece of genuine research that doesn’t indicate very strongly that grade inflation has occurred throughout schools and universities, and that similar grades today equate in general to lower standards of learning than in the past.

  7. @RAF
    ‘You don’t even need to go that far back. I remember speaking to a tutor at Law School, who said that in the 80s Lower Second’s were generally good enough to get into most firms (including some City firms). Now you need a high Upper Second or a First.’

    I rather think that makes the point that gaining a 2:1 in the last 10 years is comparable in terms of application – and achievement – to obtaining a 2:2 in the 80s.


  8. LEFTY

    From a quick bit of Googling-Seven main Cyclist Medal Winners:-

    Lizzie Armstead.
    Grammar School-Talent spotted when Cycling Sport people came to school for trials. PE master said she only had a go to get away from maths lesson.

    Bradley Wiggins
    Comprehensive-Father endurance cyclist. Started at Herne Hill Velodrome .

    Chris Froome.
    SChool & first cycling ( BMX) in South Africa.

    Victoria Pendleton.
    Father a national cycling champion. Talent spotted at Fordham cycling track.

    Jason Kenny.
    Acknowledges support from College PE master.

    Laura Trott.
    Took up cycling when mother did to keep fit. Talent spotted.

    Sir Chris Hoy
    Independant day school in SCotland.-Inspired to start cycling at age 6 by the Film “ET”

    ………..but no doubt all this stuff is too much like hard work for the Guardian -& anyway it spoils their story :-)

  9. [Snip]

    I think tonight’s poll may be the most interesting and illuminating for some time. I suspect if there is any residual or delayed Olympics boost for the Tories it may well manifest itself tonight as the British public bask in the warm afterglow of the Games. If there is no discernible boost for them, then we may have to conclude that the boat has sailed on by with the government still cast away on a fairly barren desert island. I see no other feelgood ships on the horizon either.

    I await tonight’s poll with unusual interest.

  10. OLDNAT
    ’50 years ago, it was possible to get into a number of Universities with minimum entry qualifications. Such people would not get access today.’

    My experience extends to 40 rather than 50 years, and I recall well that standard UCCA offers for traditional Arts/Science courses were almost invariably in the BCC range – which could well be equivalent to AAA in today’s devalued A level currency.. Some courses – Engineering I seem to remember – resulted in lower offers as did most Polytechnic courses. However, the minimum offer would have been 2 A levels at grade E – and I respectfully suggest that a grade E from the 70s would certainly be worth a grade C today in most subjects.Students with 2 C grades are being enrolled by institutions low down on the academic league table – eg East London university – Anglia Ruskin etc- as are colleges of Further & Higher Education. I have taught them myself.

  11. Whether or not grade inflation has occurred, it is much more important that many more youngsters now have the opportunity for university and other higher education. When this was restricted to 5-7%, those fortunate enough to have a home with books, parents who took an interest in education, or access to public schools, had an enormous advantage. 30-40% obviously gives many more an opportunity to fulfill their potential – but still not enough! Is there polling evidence that a majority of voters favours a reduction in the numbers enjoying higher education? I doubt it.

  12. I don’t think there will be any Olympics boost for the Tory party. I genuinely don’t think the British public base voting intention on the sporting success. The feel good factor hasn’t enabled my 18 year old grandson to find a job. It hasn’t allowed my daughter to find an affordable home to buy with her husband and 2 kids. Tuition fees are still putting off kids from pursuing their dreams at University, early reports show at least 15,000 if I recall correctly.

    Why would 16 days of sport and a party last night change anyone’s minds on how to vote at the next election.

    Also, even if there was a feel good factor, and people were greatful enough for the Olympics surely it would go towards Labour as it was a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor who brought us these games which is apparently going to cause this feel good factor.

  13. Labour shortening in Corby.

    Latest best prices – Corby by-election

    Lab 1/8
    Con 6/1
    UKIP 33/1
    LD 66/1

  14. GRAHAM

    It’s difficult to make comparisons between your system and ours – even historically.

    In those far off days of the 60s, when Scotland only had 5 Universities, there was an agreed minimum entry level of 3 Higher and 2 Lower passes (subsequently increased to 4 Higher and 1 Lower) – known as the “Attestation of Fitness”. Without that attestation, you could get into no university for any course.

    Within the different University systems both within and outwith the UK, the same argument over grade creep goes on.

    The trouble is that most of these arguments aren’t comparing like for like.

    To take one obvious example, in the 60s, only a limited number of University courses had highly competitive entry. It was sensible for many pupils to make sure that they achieved entry to the courses, but not necessarily to obliterate teenage life by working to achieve the grades of which they were capable. Exactly the same applied within University. Graduates were virtually guaranteed good jobs, and there was no massive incentive to get the best degree of which you were capable.

    The simple fact that entry to University and to subsequent jobs from it are both much more competitive provides a possible explanation for improved awards.

    Students now work harder and achieve more – because they have to.

  15. Colin

    I’ll repeat. I’m not trying to make any point whatsoever. I’m merely providing facts. So that, when you hear people who ARE trying to make a point about the education of medalists, you can check their claims against facts.

    No more, no less.

  16. OldNat:

    Agreed. Precisely the same rationale applies in sport. Athletes from 50 years ago wouldn’t even qualify for a competitive squad, never mind the olympics, based on times.

    But on latent ability – well, who knows, but very probably. They were simply as good as they needed to be to be top of THEIR pile, not a theoretical one half a century later.

  17. Colin

    I’m baffled as to why you are posting those quotes. You are tilting at windmills.

    No-one that I have heard or read on the Left has claimed that state school kids won medals only, or primarily because of their schooling. The issue is FAR more complex than that.

    So, I suppose we can agree that politicians who raise the issue of medalists’ schooling and draw conclusions about the quality of the schooling as a result are either intellectually stunted, or pedalling a devious political line. Agreed?

  18. CON 34%, LAB 42%, LD 9%, UKIP 6%; APP -29

    A 9 point improvement in Net Approval …??

  19. LEFTY

    It is indeed complex.

    So I fail to understand why you keep posting the Guardian stats.

    They are meaningless.


    Hadn’t thought of the sporting analogy – but that seems very likely too.

  21. Colin

    No valid statistics are meaningless. No go and wash your mouth out with soap and water.

  22. Colin

    If you fail to understand why I am posting those data, I refer you to my post of 21:57.

    It’s all there in simple words.

  23. LEFTY

    @”I’ll repeat. I’m not trying to make any point whatsoever. ”

    Accepted-so we can agree that these statistics do not necessarily demonstrate the causal link inferred by the Guardian——–or anyone else.


    @”No valid statistics are meaningless”

    What is “valid”?

    What is “meaning”

    AS LEFTY says-it is a complex set of causes & outcomes.

    Probably a little too complex for you to follow :-)

  24. @Howard
    “What would be your non-partisan solution to achieving a more representative balance, given the fundamental nature of society?

    Recruit more over-50s and constituency nominated candidates with LG experience as parliamentary candidates.
    Constituency party activists of all three main parties have vastly different work, educational and political experience, scientific knowledge, more common sense and better manners, and are more representative of the nation, than the present make-up of the HOC.

1 2 3 4