We had the monthly ComRes online poll yesterday, today we have their monthly telephone poll for the Independent. Topline figures here are CON 32%(+1), LAB 39%(-2), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 10%(+1). The changes are all well within the margin of error so are not meaningful in themselves, but it is in line with the weekend polls showing a drop in the Labour lead.

UPDATE: Today’s YouGov/Sun poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 41%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9%, confirming the narrowing we saw in the YouGov/Sunday Times poll.


88 Responses to “ComRes/Indy – CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%”

1 2
  1. @Leftylampton

    Our little discussion last week made me think about myself and why i believe as i do. Clearly my early years had a very big effect on my attitude to life in general and politics specifically. Clearly the same is true for you and I don’t suppose either of us is going to change our minds any time soon, but thanks for that, much appreciated.

    On the economy I agree the continuing situation is mostly depressing but we have very different fews on how to improve it which it is probably best not to get into again.

    Report comment

  2. Is it possible that 2013 will be a closer run thing in the polls between Labour and the Tories.
    Have we reached the point that Austerity is fixed the populations mind and no longer has the effect on polling that we saw in 2012.
    We see that unemployment continues downwards all be it at a slow pace and I suspect having a job means more than austerity cuts these days.
    Of course nobody can predict what the year holds but if the government avoids a triple dip although personally I’m not even sure that still holds the threat it did as most people see it as a single recession with peaks and troughs.
    I would expect the next round of economic figures to be better because of the fall of the pound against other world currency’s making our exports cheaper.
    This will an interesting year as the Liberals begin in earnest to define themselves as a separate party and become more irrelevant in the currant government maybe we will even see some major policy announcements by Labour although it may be to soon.
    As for the Tories I expect them to concentrate more on family friendly policies to try an attract more women to vote for them, the EU vote has been a good move for them and expect the debate to grow stronger this year especially in the realms of EU migration.
    All in all a good year to look forward to, no party in a position to think winning is in the bag.

    Report comment

  3. That Old Bloke

    I don’t think any of the right of centre posters on here believe that, it’d going to be the economy in my view but Cameron has positioned himself well on this secondary issue. In my view of course.

    Report comment

  4. @Leftylampton

    Should have been “views” of course.

    Report comment

  5. Turk,
    I am wondering about the net impact of a falling £.
    If against the $ then we can expect more inflation due to commodity prices.
    Some benign inflation will of course reduce the real terms cost of the National debt but carries risks with the capital markets. The big danger, though, for the Government imo would be interest rate rises

    Personally, I think that higher employment with under-employment (accepting austerity as Turk implies) isbetter than higher unemployment and more over-time etc like in the early 1980s.
    Some of those giving the Governement the benefit of the doubt whilst seeing a fall in real salaries may take a different view if their mortgage payments increase and squeeze their disposable income.

    Report comment

  6. @ BiilyBob
    “The announcement that David Laws has been given control of the next LD manifesto ….”

    That will the second-longest suicide note in history then.

    Report comment

  7. Apparently when the BOE sells the gilts bought using QE, they could lose money. Therefore the Treasury taking the interest on these gilts from the BOE, appears to be a bit risky. Surely the Treasury should allow the BOE to keep some of the interest, just in case there is a loss ?

    I have a feeling that the use of QE is going to bite the UK on its backside at some point. It may have been a temporary fix, but it was done without knowing the future consequences.

    Report comment

  8. @Wolf

    The point is that it’s not just spending, but investment. What you spend on the infrastructure you get back via growth in terms of more tax and less welfare. It largely balances out as we saw with Labour. Only each year with continued growth the situation improves.

    Although Johnson may of course just be being populist. Imagine that. ..

    Report comment

  9. Politicians, even right wing Tory ones, always ask the Treasury to spend more money on their “department”.

    Boris is acting exactly like a cabinet minister, except that his “department” is London.

    Report comment

  10. Sure he is Neil, but he’s going further. He’s not just asking for money but criticizing the “hair shirt” policy. ..

    Report comment

  11. (Soz about the needless ‘z’ in “criticising”. The typo monitor will get me! !…)

    Report comment

  12. JIM JAM

    @”Some of those giving the Governement the benefit of the doubt whilst seeing a fall in real salaries may take a different view if their mortgage payments increase”

    I agree.

    And gilt yields are drifting up .

    Report comment

  13. CARFREW

    @”What you spend on the infrastructure you get back via growth in terms of more tax and less welfare”

    Not a Golden Rule.

    It all depends-as the Spanish found out to their cost.

    All that “infrastructure” funded by the cajas turned out to be elephants of varying shades of white-and the banks went t**ts up- Mr Draghi ( and the German taxpayer) is kindly keeping them afloat though.

    Report comment

  14. Boundary changes vote. Telegraph is reporting:

    “David Davis, Mr Cameron’s former rival for the leadership, said he was likely to vote against the government while five other Conservatives are also expected to rebel.”

    Some of the 5 may abstain, rather than vote against.

    There’s still no news about whether any DUP or Nats MPs will vote with the Tories.

    Report comment

  15. Wonder if the HS2 route will affect the tory vote seeing as ITV reported last night on the protests by residents of Osbornes constituency.

    Many voters in the shires are very unhappy about HS2 so it will be very interesting to see if any effect is seen in the upcoming polls.

    Report comment

  16. Open question….
    The YouGov site says the government’s approval rating is -11. My reading of the figures is -28. Am I correct?

    Report comment

  17. Yes corkscrew, it’s a typo.

    Interesting to see that the tracker also shows both Lab & Tory are neck and neck on the economy.

    Report comment

  18. @ Oldnat
    “Yes there have been significant changes across the world over the last 30 years, but there were also significant changes in most places at any time, compared with the situation 30 years earlier.”

    True: but social change can accelerate or regress.
    I still believe that there was a sea change in the western social climate in the ’60s/early ’70s [tho as a child of that era "he would say that wouldn't he."] It is difficult to recall quite how repressive, sexist, racist and homophobic the previous decades had been.
    Moreover, most women of my mother’s generation adhered to Q. Victoria’s moral code. Given their lack of economic opportunities they were right to do so: something that my daughter’s generation find hard to grasp. [It also makes me smile how hostile they are to "feminism": tho it would be naive to expect one generation to be grateful to their benefactors in the previous era.]

    Today’s apostrophe lesson: it’s ’60s, not 60’s or 60s.

    Report comment

  19. CHORDATA

    Thanks. Initially thought the Cameron speech had really had a huge impact on this, if not VI.

    Report comment

  20. @Colin

    I agree. You can have “roads to nowhere” and stuff. But infrastructure done right does offer a lot of benefits along with things like cutting VAT etc.

    Labour didn’t really do that big a specific stimulus per se. Much of the deficit was due to loss of tax revenues and increase in welfare due to the crash taking out seven percent if the economy. Still got us back to growth though…

    Report comment

  21. Amber – Tom Newton Dunn’s said that the SNP are due to confirm that they’ll vote against, so unless something surprising happens the vote is going to be lost.

    Then we’ll see if the government confirm that they’ll accept the amendment and let the bill go through, killing the boundary review, or delay or abandon the bill (I’m assuming the first – after that strange article mentioning the Parliament Act I haven’t seen any more rumours to the contrary)

    Report comment

  22. CARFREW

    @”But infrastructure done right does offer a lot of benefits ”
    AS I said-it depends. You have to be specific-plus you need a combined POlitician/Civil Servant capable of implementing it without screwing up.

    In this country -not much chance.

    @”along with things like cutting VAT etc.”!

    Not convinced. For big tax gains you need spend on big ticket optional consumer items. IN this climate?-don’t think you’re going to encourage that with a few quid off VAT.

    Not sure what you mean by “etc”.

    Report comment

  23. By etc. , I meant the policy mix that Labour used to get us back to growth, including the car scrappage and so on.

    Not my idea of a perfect mix by any means, but the VAT, infrastructure etc. was sufficiently well-chosen to get us back to growth quickly and from a hideous position.

    Report comment

  24. Incidentally, you might remember that on my last post about the boundary changes I said the Lab/LD amendment had problems with it – specifically it changed the BC requirement to report at least 18 months before an election to a requirement to report at *most* 18 months before the 2020 election, which would be silly. If they wanted to delay the next review to 2018, they would have been better off changing to a requirement for the BC to report before Oct 2018, but not before an earlier date.

    Anyway, the Lords did actually alter the amendment that way at 3rd reading, so that is one problem solved.

    Report comment

  25. Btw the point of the VAT cut is not to have big tax gains but get more money spent in the economy and improve business confidence. Since the cuts business has been sitting on billions they could have invested. ..

    And if you contrast with the coalition VAT increase, 5% price increase is quite significant. ..

    Report comment

  26. 255 Lab + 57 LD + Grn = 313

    Con 303 – 5 rebels (?).

    6 SNP:
    “Monday afternoon a spokesperson for Alex Salmond’s party refused to confirm which way its MPs would vote” (Huffington Post).
    “Last night an SNP spokesman said the party has “no intention” of supporting the Conservatives in any vote on the boundaries plan” (Scotsman).

    That leaves 8 DUP, 3 SDLP, 3 Plaid Cymru, 1 Respect and 1 Alliance.

    Report comment

  27. ROBBIEALIVE

    I wouldn’t disagree about the rate of change being somewhat faster of late, but it’s the perceptions of people at the time that is important (as you note).

    Contemporary accounts in previous centuries frequently regretted the increasing rate of change. Also compare attitudes in Restoration England compared with Puritan times, with regard to liberalising after a period of social repression.

    Report comment

  28. CARFREW

    @”the point of the VAT cut is not to have big tax gains but get more money spent in the economy and improve business confidence.”

    ..erm….as I pointed out, since mandatory spending like Food & Energy for example , is VAT free or Lower rate VAT, “getting more money spent” by dint of a VAT decrease means expenditure on relatively high priced , optional consumer goods.

    Report comment

  29. @ Colin

    A VAT reduction allows most businesses (excluding retail food chains) to keep a bit more of their turnover. Often this allows them to stay in business, hire more staff &/or give the staff they already have a pay rise. That’s how the money gets into the economy. It’s not really about spending on big ticket items. And there’s VAT on fuel too so reducing that helps.

    Report comment

  30. NEW THREAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report comment

  31. @Carfrew
    “Re: hi-tech vs. Race-to-the-bottom (FPT)

    Krugman won a Nobel (OK, pseudo-Nobel) for showing how countries can continue to sell into markets while competing with countries with lower wage costs etc”

    Thanks for this valiant try for resurrection of an important debate in the midst of the confused last thread.
    Boris’s list of investments for London needs to be read in the context of the comparative advantage of London as a world centre of design, financial institutions and marketing, and as a bloody good place to be and trade; not as the whipping boy of the all regions are equal school, tho’ not inconsistent with good investment in regional excellences and advantages. See my last post in the previous 400 block-buster, if you have time.

    Report comment

  32. Surely you can see that upping prices by 5% via VAT is not exactly helpful to a struggling economy. ..

    Report comment

  33. Plus there are many everyday consumer goods that carry VAT but are not high priced.

    Report comment

  34. AMBER

    THanks.

    I would much prefer a reduction of direct taxation as a stimulus ( assuming the funds were available).

    It puts more spending power directly into taxpayers hands-they don’t have to rely on responses by employers.

    It can be targeted at low income groups ( for whom proportionately larger amounts of family spend are VAT free) , and can be targeted away from high income groups ( for whom proportionately larger amounts of family spend are discretionary high value VATable items )

    Also I would like to see how much VAT relates to consumer items which are a) imported & b) retailed away from the high street via on-line companies.

    Have seen reports of possible re-instatement of the 10p Income Tax band at the next Budget. I think that is a much more attractive idea than VAT reduction.

    Report comment

  35. CDs, cable for my headphones, numerous cleaning products, some coathangers, a take-away, razor blades, a few shots of rum, the odd bottle of wine, some socks… all relatively inexpensive things I bought in the last week that carried VAT.

    Oh and plant food, light bulbs, couple of towels and pillowcases, some Biros, foil, freezer bags etc etc etc. ..

    Plus my mobile phone bill, etc.

    Report comment

  36. That’s just a survey. And a big part of the point of the measures was to MAINTAIN spending.

    YOu can come up with all kind of conjectures why policies may not work, but the elephant in the room is that they did.

    Report comment

  37. “That report is just a survey”, I meant. .

    Report comment

1 2