The monthly Ipsos MORI political monitor came out earlier today and has topline figures of CON 30%(-5), LAB 43%(-1), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 9%(+2). Full details are here.

While we’ve seen it from some other companies, it is the first time that MORI have shown UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems (and, I think, the first time we’ve seen it happen in a telephone poll, which tend to show lower levels of UKIP support than online polls). There is also a sharp drop in Conservative support – normal caveats apply there: sure, it could be the start of a trend, but it could also be normal random sample error (that said, YouGov’s daily polls have been showing leads towards the upper end of their normal range of late, so its worth keeping an eye on).


389 Responses to “Ipsos MORI – CON 30, LAB 43, LD 8, UKIP 9”

1 6 7 8
  1. @SoCalLiberal – “Was it a big fight or was it easy to convince lawmakers to give up their authority to draw the lines?”

    The Reform Act 1832 aimed to do away with “rotten” (decayed, ie where population had dwindled away) and “pocket” (in the gift of a landowner) boroughs, this was after decades of unsucessful attempts. Tories had been defeated in the landslide election of 1831, the Whig party winning nearly all of the “genuine constituencies”. Even so there was opposition from the Lords, it took three attempts, two PM resignations, and interventions from William IV.

    The process of disenfranchisement/enfranchisement/defining constituences continued with the Reform Act 1867 and further Acts of Parliament – this was how it had been done from the C16th onwards – before that by Royal Charter.

    Big changes came with the Representation of the People Act 1948 and the creation of Parliamentary Boundary Commissions:

    House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944, amended in 1947, replaced by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, ammended 1958, 1979, replaced by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, further ammended by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

    “The Speaker of the House of Commons is the ex officio Chairman of each Boundary Commission [England, Scotland, Wales, NI] though he takes no part in the proceedings. The Deputy Chairman of a Commission, who presides over Commission meetings, is always a Justice in a British[?] court.”

    Previously the BC completed a full review every 8-12 years. The current Sixth Periodic Review (of Westminster constituencies) which is causing a little difficulty atm would be the first of the new five-yearly reviews.

    This information comes from various Wikipedia pages (the things in capitals generally have their own page) and I hope it provides a starting point for you.

    Report comment

  2. @ Colin

    “Why is there such a desire in some people to express absolutely everything in terms of personal sexuality?

    Who would dream of describing heterosexual people who like desert environments as a HWLTD community.

    People who like going to the desert are just PWLTD-or in fact just folks who like the outdoors.

    Bizarre.”

    Because it’s important. And because sexual orientation is a classification reffering to a alass of individuals. It’s important for purposes of representation and building community.

    @ Richard in Norway

    “So many of my gay freinds ask “why do straight people have to be so blatant about it”

    I suppose it just a question of veiw point”

    You stole my point and my thunder, my friend. :)

    Report comment

  3. @ Paul Croft and Richard in Norway

    This conversation has convinced me of my wardrobe choice on Monday night for the ball. It’s black tie but I’m not going to strictly obey that black tie code.

    Report comment

  4. @ Billy Bob

    “I’m afraid it’s part of a lazy reflex that a large section of the populist press and certain politicians fall into, casual xenophobia – because it is directed at fellow Europeans it is somehow deemed to be acceptable.

    It is all very well making fun or insulting people for the home audience… as when Cameron said he would welcome all the French who were fleeing Paris because of Hollande’s policies, but it won’t make them well disposed to you when you need their help. (As Sarkosy once said “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.”)

    UK-EU relations have always been a bit fraught, but when the chips are down usually things come good… not so much of late though. If you remember Timothy Geithner gave a speech in September 2011 where he urged politicians to end the “loose talk”. This came after George Osborne provoked fury by using the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest the Eurozone was in imminent danger of collapse. A Richard Littlejohn (Daily Mail) gloss on that might read something like “The euro’s going DOWN! Tee hee hee!””

    I think Geithner wants all politicians to stop the loose talk when that loose talk creates market instability and furthers economic woes.

    Populist, causal zenophobia is about as stupid as it gets. Dubya bordered on that line but never fully crossed it (it was more out of his own ignorance and lack of curiosity about the world than zenophobia).

    Cameron can say that sort of thing in public, as long as he lets Hollande know in private that they’re buddies and can count on each other for neccessary things.

    Report comment

  5. Richard

    The scoring comprises a whole raft of factors.

    Go read the document , then you can make your mind up.

    Report comment

  6. @ Martyn

    “The extracts[2] are weird and have something missing. The structure of the speech is:

    * Part 1) The EU sucks and must change
    * Part 2) We want it to change like this
    * Part 3) If it doesn’t, we’ll leave somehow

    Many people will focus on point 1 and point 3, but point 2 is the very important bit. Problem is, point 2 is missing from the extracts. And until we see point 2, we won’t know if Cameron wants to stay in or leave, or (more importantly) is competent or incompetent.

    “Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics”[1]. Cameron and Hague have engaged in the patient, grinding work of travelling and meeting their equivalents and are in a good position to achieve change. But I worry that they simply may not know which European institutions need to change or what to change them to. Which is no way to fly the aircraft…

    rgdsm

    [1] I got it from Dad, but apparently he got it from Omar Bradley
    [2] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2013/01/david-camerons-delayed-eu-speech-extracts/

    Fair enough. Omar Bradley often knew what he was talking about. Though for me, I don’t see much difference between strategy and logistics.

    I don’t get why people publish extracts from their speeches ahead of time. Better to just get the whole thing over with at once.

    If they’re winging it as you say on #2 and they’re not quite sure what they want to change yet, they’re making a major mistake. You have to have a clear idea of what you want to do before you start making threats and demands and major speeches. Otherwise you should leave it with ‘it’s time for a rigorous public debate on the issue and I’m going to have Jeremy Hunt sit down with all sides to hear the various opinions. Then he’ll come up with a plan, 24 pages, Times New Roman, 12 point font, double spaced summaring up the report of suggestions and reccomendations and have it on my desk in 3 and 1/2 weeks.”

    Report comment

  7. SOCAL

    Thanks

    @”because sexual orientation is a classification reffering to a class of individuals.”

    I had not thought of it in terms of a “class of individuals” before.
    I don’t really understand that idea as applied to sexual orientation.
    I guess I think of it as a personal thing.

    @” It’s important for purposes of representation and building community.”

    Representation I can understand.

    Report comment

  8. Ignorant of the WEF competitiveness rankings as of most things economic I have just looked them up on Wikipedia. The calculations and theory underlying the index seem extraordinarily complex but the basic data that are mainly derived from a survey of ‘business leaders’. I wonder if a survey of ‘trades union leaders’ (possibly easier to define) would produce a similar result.

    Report comment

  9. @NickP – I think you’ve got the new pension calculations about right.

    I too was contracted out for a lengthy period, so my foundation amount is going to be £107 plus around £18 SP2, but I’ll then be able to get up to the £144 in the coming years.

    My wife, by contrast, never contracted out. She will have 35 years so gets the £144, but has also built up around £25 SP2, so I think she will end up getting around £170.

    @Colin/Steve2 – I wasn’t being entirely serious about the WEF rankings, but it’s clear that Labour kept the UK pretty near the top of them, with a slight drop after the biggest recession for 80 years, so overall not too bad a performance.

    @Charles has a very good point though. Are these rankings worth a great deal? Some of the categories are a little obscure for the UK (we score 1st in terms of the impact of malaria on business) and then there is always the question of who provides the stats.

    You might also be interested in the UK’s own employment data from the ONS. These show a very sharp decline in the productivity (measured in output per worker and per hour worked) in the UK economy over the last 2 years or so.

    Clearly, that’s Gordon Brown’s fault, but it’s an interesting stat all the same.

    Report comment

  10. @Alec “@Colin/Steve2 – I wasn’t being entirely serious about the WEF rankings, but it’s clear that Labour kept the UK pretty near the top of them, with a slight drop after the biggest recession for 80 years, so overall not too bad a performance. ”

    Your revisionist qualities are topped only by Scottish nationalists.

    Report comment

  11. Even by the Sun’s standards, this is a shockingly irresponsible way to report on one poll ….

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4750625/Sun-poll-shows-Tories-have-slashed-Labours-lead.html

    Report comment

  12. Simon, I would expect the Sun to change sides a few months before the next election, if the current polls are unchanged by then.

    Report comment

  13. John,
    The Sun has no history of picking the most likely winner and changing allegiance before an election do they??……… ;) It was ‘the sun wot won it remember’ haha

    Report comment

  14. Good Evening All.

    SIMON and JOHN RUDDY.

    Is that the Pete Kellner, quoted in the link, and thanks for the link, who is a reputable journalist and pollster?

    Report comment

  15. It’s amazing what you can do with quotes isn’t it? Take them out of context and they can prove any argument…

    Report comment

  16. I mentioned the sun at the start of this thread.

    almost funny but rather more ominous was my feeling

    Report comment

  17. Mike Smithson ?@MSmithsonPB

    Latest YouGov has Ukip at 7% & LAB with 9% lead. Its CON 33/LAB 42/LD 11/Ukip 7

    Report comment

  18. The Sun doesnt pick the winner so much as makes sure they’re on the winning side…..

    Report comment

  19. Sunday Telegraph:

    David Cameron to pledge ‘in/out’ EU referendum within days.

    David Cameron will make a firm commitment this week to hold a referendum on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union – including the option of leaving it.

    The Prime Minister will within days make the historic pledge of a national vote after the next general election in his postponed speech, which senior sources said last night they believe will satisfy most Eurosceptic Conservatives.

    However, he will not promise to pave the way for the referendum by introducing legislation in the current Parliament – something which will disappoint harder-line Eurosceptics.

    Senior Government figures are understood to see such a move as a potential coalition-breaker – with the Liberal Democrats likely to vote with Labour in the Commons to block it.

    Report comment

  20. Amber

    Someone should have proof-read that Telegraph story!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9813626/David-Cameron-to-pledge-inout-EU-referendum-within-days.html

    “Last week the Fresh Start Group, supported by more than 100 Conservative MPs, published a manifesto demanding the return of swathes of laws from Westminster to Brussels

    Or maybe they did and Tory MPs ave become Europhiles? :-)

    Report comment

  21. I see someone at the Telegraph had an “Oh, F….” moment and rapidly changed the article. :-)

    Report comment

  22. Nope Telegraph still has the same wording, when I refreshed.

    Report comment

  23. @ Old Nat

    LOL! It’s still saying from Westminster to Brussels. Well spotted; even the Graun is usually just typos. The Tele’s error is a howler.

    Report comment

  24. While I am glad that David Cameron postponed his Brussels speech, I note that the BBC has kept a very proper sense of its responsibilities: e.g. its headline today “Bucket Falls out of Military aircraft Damaging Building”, in San Diego, actually, as the article goes on, making a hole in the roof. The accompanying video includes four shots of the hole, which is satisfyingly bucket shaped, eight of the building, and four of an aircraft of the same type in flight, a two engined military transport helicopter, but not apparently the one that dropped the bucket, and two of a Lieutenant Balzy of the the Marine Corps explaining the incident. Readers will be glad to note that The article concludes,: ” Fortunately noone was hurt”.

    Report comment

  25. Of greater import, not unrelated to Al Qaeda’s claims, is its report on OXFAM’s call to world leaders at Davos to reverse the extreme inequalities of wealth, set out in its report: “The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All”, to the effect that “while the world’s 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in “extreme poverty” lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day” – and I would add, a high proportion of these live on less that $0.50 per day in rural areas of Asia and Africa.
    “We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” said Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking.
    My question would be what proportion of the World’s funding of the means of reversing this inequality, that is, development aid, goes on salaries, expenses and administrative costs of aid system, say, for starters out of UK’s pledged 8.0 bn, but more particularly to the entrenched Bretton Woods institutions; not the “richest people in the world” but a massive middle to top income level bureaucracy, rather than to basics of water, health, food and educational development? And what, in addition to Barbara Stocking’s call for changes in taxation structure and practice, the form of changes in the terms of trade might achieve in reducing inequalities?

    Report comment

  26. Very interesting responses to EU related questions in this mornings YouGov Poll.

    ” Sleepwalking towards the exit” beginning to look like the wrong call.

    Report comment

  27. Euro VI (changes since last week)
    Lab: 38 (nc), Con 30 (+3), Lib 13 (+1), UKIP 12 (-5), SNP/PYC 3 (nc), BNP 1 (+1)

    And with the fall in UKIP VI for GE with a slight rise in Con VI – perhaps not even making the speech was good enough to work.
    But it doesn’t seem to have damaged Labour VI, which should really be the goal if you’re pushing for a majority.

    Report comment

  28. Good Morning All.

    The sceptical tone towards Europe by the PM seems to be working.

    How do their partners, the Lib Dems feel about their ally’s move?

    Report comment

  29. CL1945

    @”How do their partners, the Lib Dems feel about their ally’s move?”

    Assuming you refer to the Conservatives-it doesn’t really matter what they think. This stuff is not for this Parliament , it’s for the 2015 Manifesto.

    …..if you meant Labour-I assume LibDems approve.

    Report comment

  30. @ John Pilgrim

    Thank you for pointing to the gross inequalities that seem to me to underlie a vast swathe of our ills. I also share your anxieties about aid (albeit allied with a grudging respect for Cameron for safeguarding our contribution). My specific concerns are based on very limited experience but focus on:

    1) The understandable distrust with which aid donors regard those who receive their aid leads them to demand immensely detailed and tightly defined projects, written in English and subject to Western standard monitoring and accounting.

    2) This can lead to the rise of independent Western entrepreneurs who cream off large fees from governments who lack the staff to manage the system without this outside assistance. The local partners who need the money to survive must necessarily grow the bureaucracy to deal with their donors and thus further contribute to the costs you describe. The best of these bureaucratic staff are then lured away by international agencies who pay international salaries, So the local NGO bureaucracy is not actually very good and in any case it is arguable that people who can, for example, write some kind of English would be better employed in other parts of the local economy.

    3) All this in turn makes it difficult for NGOs to work in genuine co-operation with local people. Donors want specific targets which may not be those to which local people would naturally give priority and specific timescales which allow little time for negotiation and ‘native’ ways of doing things. And in some cases this ‘parachuted’ aid can have unintended consequences (e.g. by undermining the local economy).

    I am pretty sure that this analysis applies quite well to the only NGO I know which works in the North West and Tribal Areas of Pakistan. How general it may be I don’t know. It is clearly not all that would need to be said about such things as the changes imposed by IMF, World Bank etc on governments that receive their aid.

    To get back to the issues of polls etc, it seems to me to illustrate a difficulty for politicians. I have no doubt at all that Cameron backs aid for the best of all possible reasons. Having done this, however, he must want a lid kept on discussion of any dirty linen that may lie in the aid cupboard. Otherwise all those who think that charity begins at home and should stay there will have a field day. But at the same time the lack of discussion and criticism may not in the long-term be good for aid itself.

    Report comment

  31. Watched the AM show this morning I despair of any BBC Journalist ever asking Nigel Farage any questions at all regarding UKIP’s policies other than Immigration and the EU.

    I appreciate the BBC seem to enjoy Mr Farage’s company but I suspect He would still turn up if actually asked a question.

    It would be interesting to see from an OP the percentage of responders who could identify any UKIP policies beyond the Two Mentioned.
    If UKIP votes are going to be a decider at the GE then it is incumbent on our political media to eke out some answers regarding some of UKIP’s other policies

    Report comment

  32. chrislane1945

    The sceptical tone towards Europe by the PM seems to be working.

    How do their partners, the Lib Dems feel about their ally’s move?

    Well as the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto said:

    The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

    I should imagine he would be delighted – especially as I seem to remember that this ‘commitment’ was something that Clegg dreamt up himself.

    Report comment

  33. CHARLES
    Thanks for this thoughtful response. I haven’t any doubt that the system has become colonialist and entrenched, partly because of the “project” system under which aid has been provided and monitored since the mid-seventies, borrowed from USAID. This inclines towards successive three-year projects, conducted often under project management which is technocrat in character and more directed to implementing a contracted disbursement and technical output than to respond to and build on local knowledge and need. The system may be quite honestly staffed and managed, but is, as you infer, heavily dependent on expat specialists with English language capabilities, and subject to sometimes poorly informed domination by hierarchies in the international aid agency, more concerned with disbursement, and with keeping the big bosses happy back in Washington and Manila than with genuine local benefit and participation, or with real production and income increases or poverty reduction. One thing they won’t do is give up and go home; it is now 50 years since Bretton Woods, and the reason is not that the aid program has been successful (which it has in some respects) but because it provides self-satisfaction and a career and pension from a great many well-healed technocrats. Re NW Pakistan, there have been good production developments in horticulture in which I was involved, under IFAD/IDA support, for the introduction of early maturing decdiduous fruit, polythene tunnels, and in livestock feed production. The IFAD approach, which worked there and elsewhere through domestic low-interest development banks, with locally trained agriculturalists providing technical support alongside credeit supervision, and with parallel NGO and local cooperatives support, is a model which offers and pathway out of aid dependency and the current featherbedding and costly strangle-hold of the international aid system. Cameron’s support for 0.7% of GNP may appear courageous, but risks further entrenching a costly system of doubtful effectiveness economically or in poverty reduction, and is a commitment based on too little knowledge of its current workings. It will certainly underpin an imperial system and a comfortable living for the people running it, which should have given way decades ago to one of uncluttered technical support and training where needed, and to improved domestic production and the opening of trade to the poorest countries.

    Report comment

  34. COLIN:

    I was referring to the anti European tone of the Conservatives, and the reaction of the Lib Dem allies to this tone.

    Report comment

  35. CL1945

    Yes-I know you were.

    I was teasing re your use of the word “Allies” .

    …………until I read Rawnsley this morning that is!

    Interesting times

    Report comment

  36. @Chrislane1945 – “The sceptical tone towards Europe by the PM seems to be working.”

    Three main issues here;
    i) The PM hasn’t had a sceptical tone – in fact he has been very clear that we need to remain in the EU.
    ii) There hasn’t been any significant impacts in Tory VI polling terms anyway – they are still around their low point
    iii) The big poll movements that there have been, are in voting intentions for an in/out referendum. This is probably as a result of the welter of opinion being blasted at Cameron from all sides about how damaging a referendum would be and how we must stay in.

    You maintain your admirable efforts to see all that is good in Tory fortunes and all that is bad in Labour’s, but it really does cloud your judgement. Cameron is being buffeted by winds largely of his own making and has got himself into a bit of a fix. He’ll probably manage a bit of a bounce on the back of the speech, but are there many people who believe in his promises of a referendum, and how will the people he is trying to keep happy react know they know he will campaign strongly for a yes vote, and that the outcome of such a vote will effectively end the chances of reform of the EU, as Cameron will have handed his EU allies all the evidence they need that the UK wants to stay in.

    Report comment

  37. ALEC

    @”You maintain your admirable efforts to see all that is good in Tory fortunes and all that is bad in Labour’s, but it really does cloud your judgement.”

    erm…..Pot. Kettle . Black.

    …or Green.

    Report comment

  38. COLIN
    “they know he will campaign strongly for a yes vote, and that the outcome of such a vote will effectively end the chances of reform of the EU”
    About the reforms which I see as essential, to reduce or remove the power of the Commission to spend our or others’ money on projects such as the CAP, what would be the mechanisms by which EU and Member States’ budget allocations are prevented from being changed? My reading of EM’s and DC’s intentions in staying in are precisely to achieve this and related management reforms. And my reading of Obama’s scarcely coded message is “This is a tent we prefer you to remain, and into which we prefer you not to be p-ss-ng.”

    Report comment

  39. five aces in the hand, boundary card too dog eared to be usable, welfare card played with mixed impact, referendum card played now more than 2 years earlier than we wanted, we are even tougher on immigration card still to come leaves last card of all you can’t want Milipede as PM

    Report comment

1 6 7 8