Following the very peculiar ComRes poll for Open Europe there is a more normal one out tonight – their monthly telephone poll for the Independent. Topline voting intention figures with changes from last month are CON 30%(-2), LAB 34%(-4), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 17%(+4).

This is the first ComRes telephone poll since the local elections and shows the same trend we’ve seen from other companies – a big boost for UKIP at the expense of the main two parties.

255 Responses to “ComRes/Indy – CON 30, LAB 34, LD 10, UKIP 17”

1 2 3 4 6
  1. @Simon

    While in theory, the odds for LD, UKIP, Greens, RESPECT – and btw, let’s not forget the SNP and PC, or, just mathematically, even the BNP – could get better if the two big guys on the playground settle down with their “safe” shares, the problem for the smaller kids is that with FPTP, they need regional, nay, even local! strongholds… and while I personally like the Greens in particular, I fail to see any seats where the Greens will be able to have a go at taking them… The LD look like they will get a beating in 2015, if everything stays as it is right now, reducing their numbers in Westminster, RESPECT have a very small chance in some urban areas to pick up 1-3 LAB seats maybe, UKIP will, tops, be able to pick a handful of CON seats, if at all, because of a mostly evenly spread distribution of support, BNP will hopefully fail to win anything again, PC will have a hard time to stay at about an equal number of seats in Wales, with the only comparatively safe increase of 3-5 seats for the SNP in Scotland because of what I think to be able to read into the numbers as a rather complete crumbling of the CON and LAB vote in Scotland.

    Point is, with FPTP, that’s a factor for 20 seats, tops.

    The interesting part will be if a CON/UKIP battle for the “souls” of the right wing part of the population ends in some kind of “CON 30, UKIP 25, LAB 35, LIB 10” results in seats that would up until 2011 have beeen “CON 55, LAB 24, LIB 21”.

  2. I am finding some of the polling data a little odd. Within a much larger sample of ABC1’s, there is not much of a gap between Labour and Tories. It is only through weighting and unpopularity of Tories outside of England (except North), that you end up with a 10% lead.

    For this reason, I am beggining to believe that Labour are probably nearer to 35%, with the Tories around 30%.

  3. And with regard to the CONs entering a pact with anyone else… well… they had one in Northern Ireland in 2010 withe the UUP, forming the UCU – and that one reduced them and their partner from iirc 1 seat to 0 seats… Okay, they came close to taking Fermanagh and South Tyrone when allying with *another* partner, the DUP, to elect an Independent, but that too failed by a mere 4 votes.

    In addition to the not-so-nice experience of the CONs in the recent past, I’d also think that the LIBs as their coalition partner wouldn’t be particularly happy with their partner practising a kind of “open political marriage”…

    So, I don’t see an official CON/UKIP pact before the 2015 election in the cards.

  4. Woops. My bad.

    “because of what I think to be able to read into the numbers as a rather complete crumbling of the CON and LAB vote in Scotland.”

    should have read

    “because of what I think to be able to read into the numbers as a rather complete crumbling of the CON and L_D_ vote in Scotland.”

    I guess I wanted to type “LibDem” first and then changed my mind in mid-word…

    I’d like to add that at the same time, I think the Orkney and Shetlands seat will nevertheless retain the current distribution of votes, still making it an extremely safe LibDem seat.

    [… come to think of it, that, that one is geographically missing on the map of the 2015 election guide; both the UK map and the Scotland map]

  5. Don’t rule out a Con – UKIP deal. The Tories want to win, its looking increasingly impossible for that to happen with Cameron so I think desperation will drive a leadership challenge next summer. A leader Farage can do business with could bring about some kind of pact, but as others point out a formal deal would drive UKIP voters away, so perhaps a gentleman’s agreement to stand down candidates in swing seats rather than anything as extreme as a joint ticket.

    Would this kill the coalition deal? Possibly. It would be very hard for Clegg to associate himself with a new Tory leader wooing Garage and we expect a formal divorce before the election anyway.

  6. Couper 2802

    I think it’s still almost two years to the next election, whether individual deals are actually done with UKip will depend on how strong they are nearer the GE. If their was ever a party to have skeletons in the cupboard it’s UKip if one gets out that could be the end of them.

    But if nothing changes with DC in charge it’s very unlikely a national deal would be done with Farage, if individual Tory Mp’s choose to stand on the same platform with UKip I think DC will say that’s up to them to say whether they support UKip values or not, in the same way EM will say the same thing if UKip do a deal with individual Labour Mp’s.

    As to your comment about Labour being ahead that’s certainly true I suspect Neil Kinnock felt that same warm glow of being ahead right up to the moment he lost.

  7. Some very excited speculation going on here this morning. Just have another look at the YouGov result and say ‘oh, silly me to have been carried away by such as ComRes’.

    Is there a continued refreshment of the YG pool of online contributors or is there a danger of stasis or contraction of the pool? You used to have 40,000 I thought.

  8. “If UKIP voters wanted Torys, then they would vote Tory. They don’t so they wont.”

    I think the UKIP situation is a bit more complicated than that. Roughly speaking, I think we can put UKIP supporters into three groups.

    1) Traditional tory-right supporters who don’t like the direction the party is going whilst in coalition.

    2) People who are disillusioned with all three main parties (who may agree with all, some or none of UKIP’s policies).

    3) People who don’t really intend to vote UKIP at the next general election but do so in by-elections, opinion polls or local elections in the hope of making their preferred party change policies (probably immigration, but might be other things).

    Voters in group 3 are going in 2015 no matter what. Groups 1 and 2 they also stand to lose in a pact with the Conservatives. You can’t hold on to an anti-establishment vote by joining the establishment, and as a Tory/UKIP pact is only going to happen in conjunction with the Tory Right retaking control of the party, that will re-take a lot of defects.

    However, they stand to gain votes from a completely new source, which is constituencies where they agree to field a UKIP candidate instead of a conservative one. Provided UKIP have the sense to hold out for a decent deal, they should be able to get some seats out of that.

    But the real question is what happens to UKIP after the election. Discipline amongst its MEPs hasn’t been great. Will UKIP MEPs descend into infighting? What about the election after 2015? Will there be a Tory/UKIP pact in that? Can they hold on to MPs without it? And what if they somehow end up in a governing coalition. The Lib Dems had a pretty hard time adjusting from anti-mainstream to governing party – if anything, UKIP will have even more trouble.

    Against this, we have to compare UKIP’s prospects outside of a pact. That is also very difficult to predict. There are a lot of unknown factors on that route too. The key factor, however, is that they’re highly unlikely to grab more than a handful of seats on their own. That’s not necessarily a bad thing though – the price of getting more seats through a Tory pact may be too high in the long run.

    I’m keeping an open mind on whether UKIP will be better or worse off in a conservative pact. The only thing I think we can be sure of is that UKIP will have a much tougher time holding on to votes once there’s a prospect of actually holding power. But as for the Conservatives, a UKIP pact would almost certainly backfire.

  9. simon

    “with that idiot Cameron in charge”

    Perhaps you shoud read the comments policy? I am not a conservative voter but find that both absurd and offensive.

    Its becoming increasingy irksome here to see insults used instead of rational debate – where that is relevant. Cameron is by no means an “idiot” and I doubt if anyone could manage his party at the moment

  10. I find it inconceivable that the Tories would agree not to stand in any seats to allow UKIP a free run – the Tories re the ‘One Nation’ party for whom standing in every seat is de rigeur.

    I could see UKIP choosing not to stand against certain selected right wing Tories (Nadine, etc) but never the other way around.

    It was hard enough for SDP and Libs to agree which seats to stand in – given the animosity there is no chance whatsoever (IMHO of course) of a Tory/UKIP electoral pact,

  11. Yeah, Cameron did get a first at PPE. Even if he did get it from the wrong university (or the right one, possibly; given the politics of this place he was probably better off at Oxford).

    Pjeck: I think the LDs will hold on to more than Orkney & Shetland. I’d be surprised if Kennedy lost his seat, and Campbell might do so too unless he retires.

  12. As we know there is a difference between Standing in a seat and Running for a seat. I agree that it would be hard for Tories not to post a candidate, but they could run no campaign.

  13. One of the issues facing the LibDems in Scotland is that they will soon be represented by the “Old Guard”, and that a poor result in 2015 could bode I’ll for the future.

    There two youngest members are Swinson who will be 35 at the election and Alexander at 43. Then they have four at 50+, two over sixty. With the loss of a lot of Councillors and MSP’s they are short of rising stars.

    By the 2020 election they could have non under 40 and half over 60. It may well be that the damage done by a few years in coalition could last more than a decade.


  14. @Paulcroft – quite right. This isn’t the place to define Cameron’s level of idiocy – only what the polls may tell us about people’s perceptions of that, and other issues.

    An entirely inappropriate comment, in my view.

  15. Oh and as to UKIP taking votes from all the main parties, although evidence is thin I have seen nothing to suggest they are taking votes from the SNP who are after all the government in Scotland.

    If anything since Farage’s trip to Edinburgh there support in Scotland appears to have dipped. We need a good Scottish Westminster poll and I don’t think I’ve seen one of them in ages.


  16. Amber Star

    ComRes 2010 voters having a different 2015 intention pattern from YG could be due to ‘false recall’

    Indeed. If you look final figures (admittedly post-squeeze) 49% of 2010 Lib Dems are remaining faithful which seems a little high:

    compared to only 34% in April. However the upweighted figures shows 2010 Lib Dems up-weighted by 20% while 2010 Labour votes are downweighted 35%. It looks as if some 2010 Lib Dems are now ‘remembering’ they voted Labour, their current choice. This would have the effect of reducing Labour’s final VI percentage, possibly by several points

    There may also be a similar if smaller effect for the Conservatives from ex-Lib Dems.

  17. Paul

    I was talking about Farage’s view of Cameron, Farage has called him an “idiot” and wouldn’t do a deal with him.

    Sorry if I came across badly, I have put myself on the naughty step. Will try harder. I do hate it when this site decendes into chaos.

    PS I did vote for Cameron in 2010.

  18. This suggested UKIP-Conservative deal does not seem very likely. It would be like the SDP splitting from Labour then talking about a deal between them, again not likely. Then probably the only deal they could have sensibly made was with the Liberals, four parties are just too difficult to squeeze into FPTP without someone losing out badly.

    If there’s a poll suggesting that people think DC is an idiot, then by all means lets talk about it. Otherwise that’s a comment for somewhere else.

  19. Has any polling about the certainty of peoples VI ever been done?

    Ie. Labour supporters could be 90% certain of voting Labour in 2015, whereas UKIP voters might only be 60% certain of sticking with UKIP in 2015.

    I suppose it’s very subjective.

  20. @TURK

    Yes the spectre of ’92 will not let Labour rest easy. That may be a good thing.

    On the subject of ’92: I don’t necessarily think ditching Cameron would disasterous for the Cons. It worked when they swapped Maggie for Major.

    It depends on who they replace him with – if it is someone the media love. I think David Davis would be a good leader for Cons (not for me). He has an interesting back story,would please right wing being against Gay Marriage and I think the media would take to him.

    Funnily the more UKIP is in the news the more I warm to the non-swivillies in the Conservative Party.

  21. Simon

    Cheers. I don’t like coming over as a pompous git but the written word is a delicate thing and there have been a few insults flying around at people who, by and large and whether we approve of them or not, have achieved quite a lot so far in their lives.


  22. @ Peter,

    “There two youngest members are Swinson who will be 35 at the election and Alexander at 43.”

    Neither of whom are likely to hold their seats. Still, you forgot Duncan Hames (38 in 2015) and Stephen Gilbert (39), and Tim Farron is reasonably young as well.

    I don’t think it’s really going to be a problem for them because their parliamentary representation is likely to be dropping for the next few elections anyway. When you only need to replace one or two retiring MPs in each election (and Campbell and Kennedy’s seats are lost once they retire, so replacing them is basically a moot point), you don’t need to have spectacular recruitment in order to fill the gaps.

    They’ve got much bigger existential problems than their demographics, I think.

  23. @couper2802

    In 1992 the Tories needed to dump an election-losing policy,the poll tax.Now they need to change what exactly?The nearest you can get is a promise to to hold an immediate EU referendum and try to imagine the immediate consequences on the economy of intrroducing that uncertainty!

    Meanwhile the Lib Dems breathe a sigh of relief as they quit the coalition and Boris waits in exile to ambush the hapless Davis after 2015.

    I don’t think so somehow – it’s all pointlessly risky ,potentially suicidal and there’s not even a guarantee they’d have solved the UKIP problem either.Farage and a number of others now have growing ambitions of their own……

  24. @SEN5C

    I am just trying to think what the Tories could do to win an OM in 15.

  25. “The nearest you can get is a promise to to hold an immediate EU referendum and try to imagine the immediate consequences on the economy of intrroducing that uncertainty! ”

    As far as I can tell Cammo has promised a referendum in 2017 “IF/when” he manages to negotiate some unknown concessions IF his party is elected in 2015.

    Alot of if’s and buts in there I think. It aint gonna happen.

  26. @ Couper2802,

    Convince Argentina to invade the Falklands?

    Even then it would be a reach…

  27. @ Cooper2802

    “I am just trying to think what the Tories could do to win an OM in 15.”

    It is an interesting problem. I suppose there are two main issues that are interrelated. Firstly, the country has changed since 1997 (sociologically and in terms of social psychology) which is in contradiction with the brand image of the Conservatives for large sections of the society (2010 and the mild Labour resurgence in the last week of the campaign shows this). Secondly, its PR policy is all over the place. It still uses Labour’s mismanagement (the past 13 years) which will be a 5 years old argument at the next GE. It started to move to “they want to do the same thing as before 2010” and “they don’t say what they want to do” – hm… Simply they don’t present any strong argument against Labour.

    Now, it could be said that they just have to refer to their achievements in government (?) as a government party would do, but because of 2010 it is not sufficient (even if there were achievements – there are, but they are oversold, which is a mistake). They would need to show that Labour would not be good (kind of similar to 1992, but it will be much harder).

  28. It’s not all doom and gloom or Cameron if you look at the YouGov poll:

    Asked: Who would make the best Prime Minister the results were:

    Cameron :32(31)

    Apr 9-10 in brackets. Cameron lead over Miliband upto 11 Points from 7.


    I would love the question to be “Is DC/EM/NC the best person to lead their party?” yes/no/dk.

  29. Sen5c,

    With economic prospects improving, and more than much of Europe too, the Tories are fine to stick with their policies here.

    I also see the Europe issue as a minor distraction of no real relevance. UKIP is seeing a surge as it is the protest-party-en-vogue, and I still think thieir new support will drop as economic fortunes improve.

    What the Tories can do is set a vision of what they are going to do once the economy recovers. Tell us how much (% GDP wise) they are going to spend on welfare, health, education etc. They should especially emphasise policies in green energy, high speed rail, universal high speed broadband, low business taxes, more scientific research etc. all barely hinted at so far.

  30. How to win the next election:

    #1 Voters concern – economy

    Everything else is far behind.

    So whoever has a plan to fix the economy will win the next election

    Get house builders building again. Punitive Land tax on undeveloped brownfield land. Build now or lose it. Turn the empty offices and shops across the country into houses. The recent IMF report said we need to do it, why hasn’t it been done already? Young people deserve houses, where I live people in their late 20’s are still living with their parents as housing is unaffordable. Build, build, build until the demand and supply gets in balance again. But build on brownfield, not greenfield.

    Economic improvement zones. Large tax breaks for companies to open new offices/ factories/ call centres in areas with high unemployment. Every other country is doing it, UK is way behind and it is allowed under EU rules if it improves a poor region.

    Choose 2 or 3 industries and grow them. We are the banking world leaders, why not also medical research? Create a silicon valley for 2 or 3 key growth industries. Large tax breaks for companies investing in those areas, fast track visas to relocate key people from across the world to one place where all the cutting edge research is happening, massive investment in university research in those areas.

    Buy British campaign. Most other countries regularly promote buy local policies, products have large “proudly British” stickers, there are regular government promotions to encourage people to buy those goods. Why not here?

    Look at what the rest of the world is doing. The Irish are very successful – adopt the policies of the Irish development agency. The Chinese are also leading the way with economic development zones. Hire some of the world experts and built the British development agency.

    Sell London property. Relocate government out of London and build housing where the government offices uses to be.

    And then as you do that tell the voters what you are doing. It should have been done years ago, a bit late now for 2015, it will take a few years to take off. But at least if the voters know there is a plan, they may give you the benefit of the doubt.

  31. Richard: Sell London property. Relocate government out of London and build housing where the government offices uses to be.

    Turn Whitehall into an exclusive apartment complex? That’ll be popular! London is the capital and moving government out is a notion that died in the 1950s with ‘Elizabethia’.

  32. @ Richard

    Many of these are being done, the rest would require massive institutional changes or (and) likely to end up as failure.

  33. Can I put a request in for the ‘Latest Voting Intention” table to be updated? Thanks.

  34. I am with bigfatron in that the chances of a UKIP/Cons pact of any kind or even Tory candidates standing down are extremely slim; the damage their positioning would be too great and most even right wing Tories will realise this.

    What imo is more likely is the UKIP not fielding a candidate where they consider the incumbent MP (could be the odd PCC I guess) sound in their terms.

    Cash, Dorris, Carswell for example maybe even Hoy and Mitchell.

    TURK – not many Lab people I know expected a win in 1992 as Major was sufficient change for many and the poll tax had gone. Did think we would force a con minority though but ……

  35. Richard

    Love your policy platform but it’s a big vote loser, have you considered what that will do to house prices? I’m pretty sure that the all important swing voters vote according to their house price and it seems Osborne agrees with me

  36. Anthony

    A coupe of days ago I made this suggestion of a poll with the simple, serious question –

    “If you had the casting vote which of these four parties/leaders would you want to form the new government for five years? You HAVE to make a choice.”

    etc [i.e. Miliband/Clegg/Farage]

    It would be of theoretical/intellectual interest only but could offer some clues as to what people genuinely prefer [or dislike least] This is normally concealed within our outdated FPTP system and I for one would really like to see the result.

  37. Ian – how can we do a deal with a party that hasn’t got any seats?

  38. Agree it’s an unwieldy coalition – joint con/ld candidates in some areas if you were to believe stories in 2010,
    and joint con/Ukip ones in others.

    Pass the selotape please.

  39. @JIM JAM

    “What imo is more likely is the UKIP not fielding a candidate where they consider the incumbent MP sound in their terms. Carswell for example.”

    As a constituent of said Douglas Carswell, I have to say sadly that I think you are correct. UKIP didn’t stand against Carswell in 2010. When the Referendum Party stood in 1997, it helped get Ivan Henderson (Labour) elected as the RP took enough votes from Iain Sproat to make the difference.

  40. @Spearmint

    “Still, you forgot Duncan Hames (38 in 2015) and Stephen Gilbert (39), and Tim Farron is reasonably young as well.”

    I hope it’s not bad etiquette for me to reply on Peter’s behalf since he has not done so himself – he was explicitly referring solely to Scotland.

  41. @ Roger Mexico

    Nice1 for checking my assertion regarding ComRes ‘false recall’. I’m glad you were able to confirm that it possibly played a part in the Lab 34% outcome.

  42. I seem to be quoting from the Indie today! The public’s lack of enthusiasm for the ‘snooper’s charter’ as a prevention of terrorism bill seems to be justified, according to the comment made to the Indie by “Senior security sources”. They see it as an extension of police powers rather than a security service ‘tool’.
    A Conservative-backed plan to allow police and the security services unprecedented access to people’s internet communications would not have helped prevent the murder of Lee Rigby, MI5 officers have indicated.

    Senior security sources have told The Independent that attempts to cite last Wednesday’s killing as a reason to push forward with the controversial ‘snooper’s charter’ was a “cheap argument”.

    The remarks will be seen as a rebuke to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, who suggested at the weekend that the Draft Communications Bill was “essential for the intelligence agencies” to combat the threat of terrorism.

    In fact, the security source suggested, the Bill would be of greater use to the police in gathering evidence in the early stages of an investigation than it would be in preventing the type of attack seen in Woolwich.

  43. Pretty depressing program on BBC look East about Lithuanian drug addicts in Wisbech and their English landlord who is getting £2400 a week from letting three houses out to them. One or them said he was looking forward to an English pension.

  44. You got to be pretty desperate to be looking forward to an English pension

  45. Amber

    The snoopers bill must be really good, Dan Hodges is right behind it

  46. @ RiN

    The snoopers bill must be really good, Dan Hodges is right behind it
    Really? That’s good news because Dan Hodges being for surely means Ed Miliband is personally against it. ;-)

  47. @Amber Star /RiN

    Dan Hodges isn’t a person. He’s a caricature.

  48. I think the Blairites left in the Labour Party should split off and form their own party. They could call it the ‘Social Democratic Party’.

  49. Mr Nameless

    That’s Ed’s party. The radical Blairites should call themselves One Nation Tories. What’s there to split them from John Major

  50. It is ironic to think of the glee with which the British people stamped on the grave of the trade union movement, 1979-85.

    They believed Murdoch’s anti-union propaganda.

    Now look at them: No right whatsoever to complain about stagnant wages and rising prices.

    Without strong unions, the position of the worker is impossible. That’s a fact.

1 2 3 4 6