Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor has now been published. Topline figures with changes from their last poll in mid-September, before conference season, are CON 33%(+3), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 9%(-4), UKIP 6%. The Labour lead remains pretty steady at around ten points, again roughly the same sort of Labour leads MORI have been showing since May.

Part leader satisfaction ratings are Cameron minus 29 (from minus 24 last month), Miliband minus 12 (from minus 9 last month), Clegg minus 45 (from minus 43 last month).

309 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 33, LAB 43, LD 9, UKIP 6”

1 2 3 4 5 7
  1. The greeny

    ” Perhaps we need a new term to describe this prolonged period of bumping along the bottom”

    Why not use the traditional term “Depression”

  2. Found this online. Surprising result in Windsor Maidenhead ! If Labour voters turn out to vote tactically for the LD’s in sufficient numbers, perhaps the LD’s will do a lot better than polling predictions. I am presuming tactical voting, which may not be the case here.

    Council by-elections from yesterday

    Caerphilly – New Tredegar
    Lab 694 Plaid 94 Con 24
    Lab Hold.
    (Economy still crap here)

    Fenland – St Marys
    Con 397 Ind 160 Lab 78
    Con hold
    (Osborne is working here)

    Hartlepool – Seaton
    Putting Hartlepool First 441 Lab 261 Ind 193 UKIP 128 Con 94 LD 31
    PHF gain from Ind

    South Oxfordshire – Didcot All Saints
    Lab 436 Con 340 LD 151
    Lab hold (in a split ward)

    Windsor and Maidenhead – Pinkneys Green
    LD 839 Con 831 UKIP 152 Lab 121
    LD gain from Con (in a split ward)
    (they don’t want Theresa as leader)

  3. Was the ukip vote up and the labour vote down in this instance?

  4. Windsor & Maidenhead result not as strange as it looks. I live in neighbouring ward! LD gain was former LD Leader (and former Leader of the Council when LDs had majority a few years back!) regaining seat he lost when whole council was up for re-election and at that time LDs wiped out bar one seat held in this ward then by ex-Parliamentary challenger to Theresa May. Given LDs were able to target all their constituency activist resources into this ward by-election a victory by 8 votes is not that comfortable a gain – I would have predicted a bigger majority for them in a Pinkney’s Green Ward by-election.

  5. @ R Huckle

    Pinkney’s Green roughly 70% very affluent villas and bungalows near national trust woodland. 30% a pretty desperate sink estate – Got some info from a former LD chum. Yes, large tactical voting still by a naturally Labour area for LD candidate. LDs used two-horse race squeeze leaflets very effectively and knocked-up Labour area hard throughout day, including solid Labour pledges who they verbally “squeezed” on the way to the polling station! Seems to have paid off? Interesting.

  6. Wolf – presumably he’ll be able to claim as much authority as Bush 2000-2004, that is to say plenty.

  7. Lib Dems were also assisted by UKIP standing. Even so, I expected them to have won here by a bigger margin then they did since this probably their strongest area in the whole borough.

  8. @ AKMD

    Yes, I am too surprised by how narrow the LD win was. Is there a single ward in all Windsor & Maidenhead where Labour is in with a shout? If not, then perhaps this added to the LD ability to still squeeze effectively? Until Labour effectively mounts a challenge somewhere in the Borough perhaps LDs still seen as only non-Tory hope of winning despite national picture?

  9. http://www.examiner.com/article/if-the-polls-are-right-romney-will-win-the-popular-vote-and-lose-the-election?CID=obinsite

    Just found this article supporting my view. Romney could be the Al gore of 2012. If the election were held tomorrow, Romney would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. Because Obama has a razor thin narrow lead in many of the swing states, while Romney has been increasing the Republican lead in states, already Republican.

  10. Having checked for myself the theory that the LD win in Windsor & Maidenhead yesterday by squeezing Labour votes was in large part due to Labour failing to establish itself as challenger in any ward anywhere in the Royal Borough, the following link helps:


    It seems that Labour’s best performance is in my own ward of Belmont – and here they got about 12.5% only!

    All this is of course very local stuff – BUT perhaps it gives us a clue as to the potential effectiveness of continued tactical voting by Labour voters for the LDs probably solely in areas where Labour either cannot or has not established any kind of challenging presence? An unproven theory, but if true, it might mean against the odds sitting LD MPs might cling on unexpectedly at the GE?

  11. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

    RCP which averages all the polls to iron out any bumps shows that Obama has a slight lead electorally (the important one) while Romney leads nationally (the not so important one)

    Really think 2012 could be a reversal of 2000, as Romney’s popularity grows, reaching 50% of the nation for the first time in an ABC poll, but this increase in support comes from states that are already red so make no difference to the electoral map.

  12. Also looking at the state by state break down, Romney also seems to be making gains in states that are certain to vote Blue, again this is folly, as these states are surely Blue, making them Blue but a little less blue again no effect on the electoral college. The states in question are mainly Michigan and Pennysylvania, Obama’s lead is down to 4%, still enough for him to win there and too much for Romney to overcome.

    Also states like Connecticut, Obama’s lead was in the mid teens, now they are averaging about 11% lead, so still certainly an Obama win, still no use to Romney whatsover. He needs to be making gains in Ohio.

  13. @Tony Dean

    Eton Wick was a Labour ward until fairly recently. Part of that seems to have been due to the personal vote of the Labour candidate. He stood again last year after not being on the ballot in 2007 and achieved a significant increase in the Labour vote but not quite enough to win. Clewer has been fertile territory for the party in the past. If you’re interested in finding out more, have a look at the constituency pages for Windsor and Maidenhead.

  14. alec

    “Who said badgers don’t vote?”

    I don’t know about badgers, but in my experience, constituencies with a high number of sheep seem to havea high LibDem / Liberal vote.

  15. @”I don’t know about badgers, but in my experience, constituencies with a high number of sheep seem to havea high LibDem / Liberal vote.”

    …and I have heard that constituencies with a high number of those people who throw cabers seem to have a high Scots Nationalist vote.


  16. Anthony,

    Report from Stornoway of a new Yougov poll on Scottish Independence;


    Any comment?


  17. @RHuckle

    “Caerphilly – New Tredegar
    Lab 694 Plaid 94 Con 24
    Lab Hold.”

    As many as 24 Tory voters in the birthplace of Aneurin Bevan and Neil Kinnock? Never!!

  18. Stunning poll published in Sweden this morning: the Sweden Democrats (BNP-lite-ish) have recorded their highest ever VI rating, putting them in 3rd place for the first time. Looking grim for 1 or 2 of the tiny centre-right coalition parties (think Lib Dem-ish).

    “In a poll carried out by research firm Ipsos and published on Friday in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper, support for the Sweden Democrats surged 2.7 percentage points to 8.5 percent.

    Coupled with a drop in support for the Green Party, which saw its poll figures fall by 2.7 points to 7.2 percent, the Sweden Democrats now rank as the third biggest party in Sweden behind the Moderates and the Social Democrats.”


  19. Note: I call that poll “stunning” because political opinion in Sweden usually moves more sedately than a very lazy glacier.

  20. RCP is well known for its Republican leanings and it is significant that it totally ignores a good few tracker, national and state polls when arriving at ‘average’ calculations.There has to be at least some suspicion that the selective inclusion of polls enables the RCP to influence the media narrative to the advantage of the Republicans.

  21. US growth 2% for the last quater — faster than expected.

    @SOCal — will this give a boost to Obama’s chances — does GDP influence VI in the US?

  22. EDF this morning announcing a nearly 11% rise in their gas and energy prices. This could prove a test for Cameron, how does he react to this, a mealy mouthed statement condeming it will look like his comments last week were toothless, actually growing some balls and doing something about it, or at least announcing he’s doing something could help put him on the side of the consumer in public opinion. He doesn’t want to be seen as being in company to the big energy companies.

  23. Stuart, I am hardly stunned, with shares below 10% of the vote a small sample variation can make a big difference so I would be cautious. In a recession a rise for parties on the right blaming “Them” isn’t unusual.

    If the third largest party has 9%, then it still isn’t going to get near leading a government. Out of interest what share did the top two get, the article didn’t say and I can’t find it.


  24. RCP may be funded by Conservatives, but as I’ve seen Anthony mention, it’s of no interest to either side for the polls to be wrong, they need as accurate information as possible. RCP announcing a Romney lead that doesn’t exist wouldn’t help Romney at all.

    RCP is quite well respected and even if articles they report on their website may be deemed to lean to the right, the poll of polls is simple math. They take a selection of polling companies, the same ones every time so no argument for bias there, and do a simple average.

    The election is 11 days a way, it’s more than possible for Obama to close that 1% national lead equally for Romney to close that 2% lead in Ohio.
    It really is going to be a photo finish, unless something major happens in the next 11 days.

    This could be the last election involving the electoral college. There is a movement called the national popular vote interstate compact. Where states agree that one the number of electoral votes in the compact reaches 270 they will allocate the 270 to whoever wins the national popular vote, rendering the electoral college an insignificant formality.

    At the moment, only Democrat states have signed up to it, California, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, DC and Vermont. With 4 states pending, 3 Blue, and 1 swing state (New York, Pennsylvannia, Rhode Island, and North Carolina) making a total of 182 votes out of the necessary 270)

    Up until now red states have refused the compact as they see the electoral college as beneficial to them (Bush 2000) but if Obama wins the electoral college, then we could see a lot more Red states signing up, as well as a renewed outcry like the one after 2000 so momentum would be behind the compact again.

  25. Sorry the compact currently has 196 electoral votes not 182

    Also didn’t make clear enough the compact wont be in place for this election, it only comes into force when enough states join to make 270, so the earliest it could be in force is 2016

  26. Also the compact enjoys majority support among all 3 groups.

    78% of Democrats support it
    73% of Independents support it
    60% of Republicans (who until now thought the electoral college benefited them)

  27. Not much sign of “recession” in Sweden Peter. The economy may not quite be booming, but it is ticking along very nicely indeed, like a finely-tuned Volvo: very boring, but very safe.

    Please note that sample sizes in Sweden are usually huge (3000 or 5000 is standard) so MoE is lower than GB polls. Swedish polling firms and media routinely report findings to one decimal place. They are noticeably less volatile than GB VI polls.

    Full results: DN/Ipsos today

    (corresponding GB party in brackets)
    (4 members of ruling centre-right coaltion = *)

    Social Democrats (Lab) 34.8%
    Moderates* (Con) 29.4%
    Sweden Democrats (BNP) 8.5%
    Environment Party (Grn) 7.2%
    Left Party (Res) 6.3%
    Peoples’ Party* (LD) 5.3%
    Centre Party* (LD) 5.3%
    Christian Democrats* (Con) 3.8%

    The threshold to get back into the Riksdag is 4%.


  28. Good afternoon everyone.

    The following figures are all taken from Nate Silver’s 538 blog – just about the most trustworthy source for this kind of thing: Obama has a 94% or better chance of winning states that will take him to 237 ECVs. He has an 86% chance of winning Wisconsin (10 ECVs), a 78% chance of taking Nevada (6 ECVs) and most crucially of all a 75% chance of holding on to Ohio (18 ECVs). Total: 271 and the White House.

    Even if Romney takes Ohio, a combination of New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) and Colorado (9) will still give Obama the win. Failing that, Virginia (13) and either Iowa or Colorado will get the job done. All four of these states, while marginal, are currently more likely to fall for Obama than Romney.

    It is not inconceivable that Obama could even sneak Florida and North Carolina, which are pretty much tied – a total of 347 ECVs is by no means out of the question.

    On the other side, Romney absolutely has to win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio. If he manages that (total 266) then one of either Colorado or Iowa will do the trick. The chances of him doing so are extremely thin.

    It is only a remote possibility that one or the other candidate could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote (Silver currently rates the chances of 5.3% for Romney winning the popular vote but losing the EC, and 1.8% the other way around). But it makes a great story full of controversy, extended recounts, visions of 2000 and hanging chads etc. so many media outlets are running with it.

    As Graham stated above, the RCP forecast is deeply flawed in that it arbitrarily discards some polls (it certainly does include all that are Republican leaning, including Rasmussen which has been shown to have a Republican bias of on average 2 points). Why RCP does this is anyone’s guess – mine would be that in the States political strategists on both sides are fond of the theory of the self fulfilling prophecy – if people see their preferred party doing well in the polls the get more gung-ho and are more likely to vote, whereas if the perception is that their party is doing badly then they get depressed and don’t bother. Questionable logic, but the best I can come up with.

    The most sensible reading of the figures draws one to the conclusion that Obama will comfortably win the electoral college, and by a narrower margin the popular vote.

  29. Typo: the Centre Party (former Agrarian Party) are on 4.2%, not 5.3%. ie. just over the 4% threshold. Their new leader, a presentable young lady, was thought to be a massive boon when she was first elected, but she has turned into a bit of a wet fart. Reminds me of the elation of the “Cleggasm”, now long forgotten.

  30. I’m sorry I put more faith in a website based on actual maths, and widely cited by many, (not just fox, but most organisations, use RCP even left leaning ones) than just some guy on his blog.

    Also if Romney has a narrow lead in Colorado how can Obama be more likely to win it? Are you expecting a sudden shift before election day.Equally Obama is averaging a 2% lead in Ohio, well within MoE, and Ohio famously has a reputation for going with whover the nation picks, I’d say Obama was more likely to win for sure, but 75% no way.

    Both parties have a very clear path to 270. It focuses on 5 states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana) Romney realistically needs to win all of these, he is leading in all except Ohio, + 1 of the following (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire) Obama currently leads in all of these except for New Hampshire.

    There are other ways for Romney to get 270 without Ohio but these are extremely unlikely, they’d require him to win in Wisconsin, plus at least 2 other marginal leaning blue states, so very unlikely.

    As a general rule of thumb it’s all down to Ohio, if Obama can keep Ohio (currently is leading) then he has won, if Romney can just sneek a win in as Bush did in 2004, then it;s likely he would win as long as he was able to keep the others mentioned.

    Overall though I think Obama will win but it will be close.

  31. Just re read my post sorry

    Obama currently leads in all of these except for New Hampshire.

    Should read

    Obama currently leads in all of these except for Colorado

  32. MITZ

    there are two parallel narractives about the US election (as Peter Kellner of YouGov pointed out)…one is that it is mostly neck and neck and Obama is struggling to hold back a Romney surge that has put the republic into a slight lead, and the other (which you describe) that Obama has always been going to win (relatively) comfortably and any poll fluctuation is pretty negligible.

    I tend to go with you and Peter K (and therefore Obama)…but what do I know?

  33. An example of a survey just published that is included in the RCP averages:

    Sunshine State News have Romney leading in Florida with 51% against Obama’s 46%, in a poll taken amongst Floridans likely to vote.

    The same poll has in its cross-breaks Romney enjoying a 21% share of the black vote. Now you should make of this what you will, but for me one commentator has already said it best: “Romney has about as much chance of winning 21% of the black vote as he does of going an entire day without lying.”

    The editorial of Sunshine State News, needless to say, is heavily in favour of Romney winning the presidency. The company they commissioned to conduct the poll, Susquehanna, last week published a Pennsylvania state poll giving Romney a 5 point lead there – such a massive outlier from the rest of recent polling in that state as to be almost laughable.

    In my mind there is little or no doubt that Republican strategists and sympathisers are deliberately pushing a false agenda of “Romney is winning”. And by the way, I don’t think the Democrats are entirely guilt free on this score either.

  34. Nick

    Again you’re confusing National Polls and Electoral College polls.

    When you say ” that Obama has always been going to win (relatively) comfortably” that refers to the electoral college, the one that matters, Obama has always been leading, in that, Romney has never taken the lead and in the election that’s what counts.

    The other part “one is that it is mostly neck and neck and Obama is struggling to hold back a Romney surge ” is the national poll which doesn;t have any effect as Gore found in 2000. That did used to show Obama about 10% ahead, now Romney has a narrow 1% lead, as I said previously, that doesn’t matter, the national vote doesn’t decide.

    “any poll fluctuation is pretty negligible.” That is untrue, after the first debate, the scene did shift dramatically. Obama was leading in the electoral college 347 – 191 but since the first debate Obama’s lead has been cut to 281 – 257 so Obama still wins but it’s a lot closer.

  35. Are we referring to ‘push polls’ here in what we think they mean, not what Anthony thinks they mean? :-)

  36. MIM,

    That statistician you describe as ‘just some guy on his blog’ got every state except for Indiana (which surprised everyone), not to mention every seat in the senate correct in 2008. He uses a highly complex algorithm that employs every poll published, state and national. His maths are more trustworthy than the selective data used by RCP.

    And Obama is ahead in Colorado. The last three published polls all give him a lead of 3 points.

    Having said all that, on the most fundamental point we agree: it all comes down to Ohio.

  37. man in the middle

    That’s one version of what’s happened to the popular vote. But Peter Kellner reckons that Romney got at most a 1% boost from that first debate and the real picture remains (and always remained) obama ahead in the popular poll as well as the college.

    I’m not saying he’s right, but he is more likely to be right than RCP in my opinion.

  38. Mitz

    RCP also got 49 states correct in 2008 so they’re equal in that regard.
    If Nate’s blog is more reliable, why don’t more companies use it, even left leaning orgs seem to use RCP.

    As for Colorado, the 2 most recent polls I can find show an Obama lead of 4 points, (surely an outlier, we can both agree its a close race there) and another poll showing a tie, most of the ones before that show Romney and Obama each taking a 1 or 2 point lead, and so the average is a Romney lead of 0.4 but what you can say is that the momentum may be behind Obama in Colorado, and after a few more polls like the ones more recently then Colorado will likely shift back to the Obama column, which would hit Romney hard, and possibly cost him the presidency even if he won Ohio.

  39. Ooooooh! How’s this for a suggestion? Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire reports the following:

    “Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) proposed a Constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes, The Hill reports.

    “Swing states would still retain their importance in the Electoral College, but the additional 29 delegates awarded to the popular vote winner would fundamentally alter the focus of the campaigns. Candidates would have to target voters in states they have no chance of winning, as well as in states they have no chance of losing.””

    I don’t know how Rep Israel arrived at a figure of 29 but it is certainly an interesting suggestion. Essentially, it would mean that a candidate would have to win the state by state electoral college by at least 285-253 to be absolutely sure, otherwise his or her opponent could take the White House via a win in the popular vote.

  40. I don’t know what Peter Kellner is on, but it’s a lot more than a 1% boost. Before the debate, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado were all safely in the Obama column, now I think most agree they are all back in play. Before the first debate there really was no race at all. Obama’s still in the lead, but instead of an Obama landslide, at the moment it looks like it will just be either an ordinary, (or maybe tight) win no one, not even the left, is predicting a landslide anymore. The left seem to say Obama will have a decent win, the right seem to say Romney will have a narrow win, so I take the middle of those two and think it will be narrow Obama win, as Mitz and both have said, it will come down to Ohio where Obama currently has a lead of 2% which means a gain of just over 1% would tip it.

    My dream situation, purely because of the chaos not any actual support for either side is that Romney loses Ohio but wins Iowa, Nevada and Colorado.

    The result, Obama 269-269 Romney. The Republican House then decides the President, and the Democrat Senate decides the Vice President.

    So how does a Romney/Biden ticket sound? That could cause quite a stir at the White House.

  41. Mitz a good suggestion, I definitely think the national vote should play some element, I said that after 2000 when the system unfairly handed Bush the win.

    I think 29 was reached because that’s the number of votes of the largest swing state, Florida. Effectively the United States, would become a swing state in terms of the Electoral college, so it probably matches the votes of the largest actual swing state.

    I’d much rather the National Vote Interstate Compact though, whoever gets the most votes wins, simple! If we had that in place, we’d never have President Bush2!

  42. MIM

    The 538 blog is now owned by the New York Times and is behind a partial pay wall (one can only read a maximum of 10 articles per month free) whereas RCP is a more freely available agglomeration of articles from all over.

    Recent Colorado polls:

    PPP: Obama 49% – Romney 46% (25/10)
    Grove: Obama 46% – Romney 43% (24/10)
    Keating Research: Obama 48% – Romney 45% (24/10)

    Curiously, RCP have included a PPP poll from the same period (the 4 point pro Obama ‘outlier’ that you mention) but there is no sign of Grove or Keating in their averages.

  43. Well to be honest, I’ve not really heard of Grove or Keating, so there probably not very big, have they ever been included in RCP? I don’t think you can accuse RCP of bias as long as they maintain consistancy, if these smaller pollsters aren’t ever included, that’s understandable, if however, they sometimes do include them. but haven’t included them this time, then there is a case to call RCP bias.

    I’d be weary of the 538 blog too as NY times is known to lean to the left.

    I’m not sure who the momentum is with in Colorado, but I think we are sort of splitting hairs, we both agree it’s more likely Obama will win, we just disagree over how big the win and how likely it is!

  44. *Obama wins the US election overall I mean. Not sure about who wins in Colorado.

  45. Prior to the first debate, 538 gave Obama’s chances of winning as 87.1%. In the week that followed they dropped to a low of 61.1%, before rebounding somewhat to the current 73.1%. There is very little doubt that the first debate radically changed the flavour of the race.

    The biggest winners were US media outlets. The perception of a significantly tighter race led to a massively increased media spend – estimates place the total dollar value of the ads bought so far at over $1bn.

  46. Well, put it this way – I offered a friend of mine a tenner on Obama winning 303 ECVs. He generously accepted, giving me a margin of error of 10 ECVs either way. So I can be wrong about Colorado and New Hampshire and still win, but if Obama somehow takes Florida or North Carolina I’ll lose!

  47. I agree Mitz on the first debate, so we can both effectively discount the Kellner comment as wrong.

    I’d like to know how Nate works out his percentages for likelihood to win? Does he just take into account poll figures as they are, or does he include other figures as well such as voting history? Could explain why he got Indiana wrong in 08 as it was traditionally very Red and seems to be so again.

  48. Bunga bunga gets four years, that’s going to be one hellava jail house party

  49. 538 methodology can be found here:
    h ttp://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/

    In short, there is a complex (and IMHO logical) set of filters that is applied to all polls – they are weighted on such factors as recency, sample size and others. Historical voting patterns are indeed factorised into the analysis. The final figures are fed into simulations, i.e. the numbers get crunched several tens of thousands of times in simulated elections. The probabilities are simply the results of those simulations. So, for example, from yesterday’s run Obama won in Ohio 3 out of every 4 simulations.

  50. According to BBC

    Berlusconi sentenced for 4 years, banned from holiding political office for 3 years? Is that political ban 3 years after his 4 year term in jail? Surely it’s an EXTRA 3 years Otherwise it seems a bit irrelevant to have the political ban shorter than the prison sentence, is he going to hold office from inside prison for his first year? Or is it 4 years in jail, then another 3 years free from jail but still banned from office?

1 2 3 4 5 7