The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer is out tonight and has topline figures of CON 26%(-1), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 6%(-1), UKIP 21%(+1). There is no significant change from a fortnight ago, though for the record the 21% is the highest that UKIP have recorded with Opinium and the 6% is the lowest the Liberal Democrats have recorded this Parliament*. Opinium do tend to produce some of the higher UKIP scores, something they have put down to not using political weighting in their polls.

The Opinium poll also asked about the situation in Syria, and as with the recent YouGov polling on the same subject found very little support for arming the Syrian rebels. Only 24% supported sending arms or military supplies.

(*Whenever the Liberal Democrats suffer a really low score someone will wheel out an anecdote about remembering when the Liberal Democrats were just “an asterisk” – what polls sometimes do to show a figure is less than 0.5%, but not actually zero. As far as I’ve been able to tell this isn’t actually true, or at least, has never been true in a national opinion poll. The lowest ever Liberal Democrat score I’ve managed to locate is 3% in an ICM poll for the Sunday Correspondent in 1989)

UPDATE: Just to re-emphasise, as I can see people already getting stupidly overexcited on twitter. The poll does not show any significant change or movement, it is just that Opinium’s methodology normally shows very high scores for UKIP and Other parties (probably due to their decision not to politically weight), and therefore relatively low scores for Con, Lab and Lib Dem.


147 Responses to “Opinium/Observer – CON 26, LAB 37, LD 6, UKIP 21”

1 2 3
  1. MARTYN

    I enjoyed that wee clip. Reminds me of PaulCroft chastising peeps on here over spelling etc..Ha!

  2. Bill Patrick

    Paul Croft,

    “The world would be a much better place if Allan Christie was common”
    ______

    If this were Facebook then I would had put a thumbs up for that comment. :)

  3. @Allan Christie

    Thank you.

    rgdsm

  4. @Paul Croft
    Too simplistic, Paul.

    Voter tactics exist for all electoral systems, proportional ones too. this is provable mathematically. At least in FPTP the most effective tactics are fairly clear to anyone who’s moderately interested, and are there for the voters,/i> to use as they wish, and independently..

    PR systems just make tactics too complicated for the average voter, so they are left to the highly motivated (I never tryst them, or often left to the political parties, who advise their faithful how to game the system. In Australia, even in the STV elected Upper House the ballot papers have boxes “above the line” that voters can tick to cast their preference votes the way their chosen party wants them to.

    And once you have your PR parliament – elected by voters with the assistance of clandestine back-room deals between parties – you end up with a Coalition government lead and chiefly guided by one party. As Angela Merkel said to David Cameron recently on the subject of coalitions “Ze leedl pardy ollvays gets croshed”. So you have had the delight of all that lovely extra choice, but you ended up with a pretty similar result. Given that all proportional systems make local MPs less local that doesn’t seem an improvement to me. It just takes the tactical power form the voters and gives it to the politicians.

    I can see the point of electing the Upper House by PR, however, as a diversity of representation seems both a good thing in itself and particuarly for a revising chamber. Or if you wanted to elect the PM by popular vote then yes, make the Commons proportional and force him or her to make wider alliances than the home team.

    There is more to be considered when you rewrite your constitution than just fairly your vote is represented in parliament, you have to consider what the results of that change would be – and a parliament “gamed” by one party (as happens often under PR systems) be a fair result – even if that party is one I support.

  5. Problem for Thatch with Parkinson was her ‘Family Values’ stuff as it was for Major with back to basics (although it may not have been about morals people thought it was).

    DC has talked about valuing families hence Gay Marriage being in his words a conservative issue.

    In much the same way as Robin Cook and Paddy Pantsdown did not suffer politically because of their adultery as they had not lectured anyone, I don’t think the present Government will either.

  6. I meant to say

    DC has talked about valuing families hence Gay Marriage being in his words a conservative issue but has not lectured people about their private lives.

  7. Jim Jam,

    I agree and it’s also worth bearing in mind how much attitudes have changed even within the last 15 years. When David Laws resigned, it was because he had cheated the system, not because he was forcibly outed as a homosexual.

  8. (Though I do regard adultery as a something very, VERY wrong, unlike homosexuality.)

  9. @Allan Christie

    How did you guess what I am wearing?

    “Vere tu ex tellure Martis”.

  10. “The world would be a much better place if Allan Christie was common”

    How would we ever tell which one was most pleased with himself?

  11. BILL PATRICK
    “But to say the current government has 59.1% of the votes requires the assumption that every single person voting for those parties wanted the coalition.”
    “No it doesn’t. It means that each of the parties received a vote, the total of which equalled 59.1%.”

    Correct, but less relevant to the electorate’s sense of whether they are being ruled democratically than the fact that they did not vote for a coalition, and do not now sanction or approve of it. Or to the fact that even as a political accommodation they and most authoritative bodies perceive that the policies and strategies adopted by the coalition government have not worked.
    The response of polled voters to both Tory and LD is in consequence one of anger and a sense of betrayal, IMV, at a usurpation of power and decision making over key issues of national importance, including the public management of the NHS,, schools and economic policy – the latter in a time of crisis perceived as caused by private sector greed and mismanagement. It is no wonder that LD, who represent a major section of the electorate with social democratic convictions have borne the brunt of voter disapproval. This is a disapprobation which is quite another matter than responses to policies or to events – and may mean that both of these parties are in long-term or terminal decline.

  12. @PostageIncluded

    Tactical votes exist far more in FPTP systems though, so it’s not good enough to point out they exist in other systems. It’s alright saying it becomes more obvious in FPTP who they need to vote for, but that’s part of the problem itself – you’re wittled down to two parties, or three (which in turn punishes whichever side’s split, here in the UK it’s been the left since the 80’s) and whichever is elevated to most likely competitor no matter how unrepresentative of your vote they are – far less true in polarity of parties in PR. Interesting the example you chose for parties promoting tactical voting in PR was Australia, which has become steeped in their politics through their majoritarian two-party system in their main parliament (AV).

    What is the problem that they’re lead by one party, if that parties is the one that gets the biggest mandate? Your claim of backroom deals depends on the country and coalition – if you look to Scandinavia they have blocs (Red-Blue/Left-Right) that are consistently in coalition with one another, so you know ahead of it which parties will be in government. The argument that the voters get less choice couldn’t be further from the truth, not only can they vote for who they want without fearing they’ll be letting in the worst option, but as is the case with Scandinavian blocs they can choose the make-up of that bloc: think Blairite Third-Wayers are dominating it? 5% swing to the Old Labour variant party should do it. etc etc. It’s not even true that the big parties are always protected: see how the Dutch disposed of their Christian Democrats in 2010 for a LibCon variant as easily as they liked: could they and would they have tried to do that under FPTP conditions, with in all likelihood it’d just let the PvdA (Labour) in?

    The ‘local’ aspect I don’t particularly find all that convincing – the local MP you have can do sod all on his own anyway, where as a handful all fighting (and electioneering) to those same constituents in a larger area can – and importantly can do so on a cross-party basis. Besides which, if it’s such a big issue, MMP solves that.

    You talk of gaming the system but there is none – absolutely none – moreso gamed than a two-party FPTP system like ours, and sadly it’s unbelievably difficult to get rid of because the two parties who’ve all the power and the least to gain from reforming it happen to be the same parties we end up clinging to to stop the enemy from getting in.

  13. PS. Apologies for the awful writing: fatigue.

  14. “paulcroft

    “The world would be a much better place if Allan Christie was common”

    How would we ever tell which one was most pleased with himself?”

    It wouldn’t matter. From what I’ve read – a fair chunk – of Paul Croft’s posts, he would win hands down. :)

  15. @PostageIncluded

    If you want to see STV done well, look at the Tasmanian example rather than the Australian one. Electorates of five, up to five candidates from each party stand, no party votes, no party lists, no preferences apart from what each individual chooses.

    Best implemented lower house system I’ve come across, and it has been in place nearly 100 years now.

    It is ruthlessly effective at removing from parliament the poor performers after a single term, as you can always choose a different member of the same party.

  16. Sunday YouGov: CON 30%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 15%; APP -36

    That’s starting to look like the new normal, although I suppose there’s a chance we might see some movement soon from the lobbying scandal, potential by-elections, etc.

  17. YouGov/Sun Times
    Con 30, Lab 39, Lib 10, UKIP 15

    Net Leader Approval –
    Cameron -26 (+1)
    Miliband -34 (-6)
    Clegg -57 (+2)

    7-Day weighted average (change on a week):
    Con 29.7 (+0.5), Lab 38.8 (-0.8), Lib 10.5 (+0.3), UKIP 14.3 (-0.4)

    30-Day weighted average (change on a week):
    Con 29.9 (-0.2), Lab 39.3 (-0.1), Lib 10.2 (+0.1), UKIP 14.3 (+0.4)

    With the state of the last few polls, there’s a chance that Labour VI is slipping again, but we’ll have to wait and see.

  18. And for everybody speculating on the Affair –
    “It is understood that the Prime Minister was told of the relationship – which does not involve anyone serving in the Cabinet”
    So I suspect that the Daily Mail are frothing up a story that actually is relatively minor.

  19. TINGED

    @”So I suspect that the Daily Mail are frothing up a story that actually is relatively minor.”

    I think you mean the usual suspects on UKPR don’t you?

    At least the DM doesn’t consider itself to be intellectual & oh so clever.

  20. 59% think that immigration has increased “in the last year or two”.

    Take a bow Government Information People.

  21. Good Morning All, gorgeous day here, meant to be running a 10K, too hot.

    The polls seem a bit better than Labour.

    How long can an Injunction keep an affair out of the news, and why would a court grant an Injunction?

  22. @TINGED

    ”So I suspect that the Daily Mail are frothing up a story that actually is relatively minor.”

    How unusual…

  23. Re the No. 10 affair, I wonder how many people are looking at the Mails front page outline of two peoples figures, trying to think who it might be.

    Of course the outlined figures are probably generic, otherwise you would be thinking which person in No. 10 wears their hair up.

    I don’t see why it would cause any embarassment for the government, unless it involved senior politicians. It would be more of a problem for the people concerned.

  24. The DM story is a non-story IMO. First it gives no information and even if it did it did, why would an affair between two relatively unimportant people matter?

    The question is why :
    To sell papers on a slow news day?
    To distract from lobbying?
    To compete with the lobbying revelations?
    To damage DC by further reminders of the Major years ?

  25. Sex scandals, cash for questions, a Prime Minister under attack from his own party? It’s 1994!

    Now where’s my D:Ream CD?

  26. A gay scandal could finish Cameron.

  27. This affair non story seems utterly trivial and pointless, in my opinion. It’s between a man and a woman, neither apparently in the cabinet, neither of them dead, with no children or animals reported to be directly involved, so I’m really struggling to see why the DM bothered with such pointless tittle tattle.

  28. mr far eastener

    “Far Easterner

    “paulcroft

    “The world would be a much better place if Allan Christie was common”

    How would we ever tell which one was most pleased with himself?”

    It wouldn’t matter. From what I’ve read – a fair chunk – of Paul Croft’s posts, he would win hands down. :)

    Ta for subscribing and for the praise but in a “Who’s the smuggest Allan Christie?” competition I would be disqualified for … well, not being him s’pose.

  29. I’ve just found the MoS story. The Mail is such a tease.

  30. Because it’s the Daily Mail. Publishing inane, histrionic rubbish is its raison d’être.

  31. “Assad obviously has enough support to at the very least ensure a virtual.stalemente. And that is enough for him.”

    He certainly has something of a support base, I don’t know enough to comment on how broad it is. Having said that I wouldn’t equate staying power with popularity. With military hardware, a repressive state apparatus and fear on his side, he doesn’t need huge popular support.

  32. colin

    “TINGED

    @”So I suspect that the Daily Mail are frothing up a story that actually is relatively minor.”

    I think you mean the usual suspects on UKPR don’t you?

    At least the DM doesn’t consider itself to be intellectual & oh so clever.”

    Ih well that makes it okay then I suppose – not that I’ve seen any intellectual “oh so clever” posts here, on the subject that the MOS published [ not people on this site.]

  33. Perhaps someone from No.10 is winding up the Mail. In a few days time, they will publish a picture of those having the affair.

    Larry and Freya ?

  34. PAUL CROFT

    @”not that I’ve seen any intellectual “oh so clever” posts here, ”

    Um-that was my point really !

  35. So. According to MoS, Cameron has been stunned by the political implications of the affair.

    I reckon it’s Ed M & Pippa Middleton.

    That’d blow apart the Tory strategy for 2015.

  36. Sunday Times strikes again.

    Front page coverage of a lobbying sting on three Peers:-

    Lord ( Jack) Cunningham-former Labour Minister.
    Lord Mackenzie-former Blair adviser & Durham police officer.
    Lord ( John) Laird-Ulster Unionist.

    The inside spread describes how they explain the way to get around the rules. Cunningham’s “price” makes Mercer look like an amateur.

    Brilliant.

    Await the reaction of Lord Leveson & Hugh Grant with interest.

  37. @Colin
    Oh well then, it doesn’t matter that the media barons can ruin people’s lives with no recompense for working class, as long as they can catch a corrupt political class being corrupt it shouldn’t be touched(!).

  38. “He ( LOrd Mackenzie) was particularly bitter about how the rules restricted his ability to do business, “It’s like walking on eggshells” he said.”How the hell do they expect you to operate?”.
    He said the problem was the press were “forever digging”, but boasted ” I’ve got wise to it. I know exactly what they can do and what they can’t do so there’s no problem, but you’ve got to be careful” ”

    Sunday Times.

    !!!

  39. CRAIG

    @”Oh well then, it doesn’t matter that the media barons can ruin people’s lives ”

    Nope-that matters.

    @” as long as they can catch a corrupt political class being corrupt”

    That matters too.

    …complicated…isn’t it?

  40. This scandal grows ever more hilarious: apparently they approached David TC Davies with this scam and he recognised it as a sting and turn them down.

    When your entrapment ploy is so obvious that even David Davies can tell it’s dodgy…

  41. @leftylampton

    “potentially significant political implications for him.”

    slightly different wording which perhaps people are missing, although I could be just reading more than is there…

    I could think of quite a few things that could cause issue from a couple years ago… but I don’t know if this is just a cover story to keep another from being looked at to close…

  42. TINGEDFRINGE
    YouGov/Sun Times
    Con 30, Lab 39, Lib 10, UKIP 15
    Net Leader Approval –
    Cameron -26 (+1)
    Miliband -34 (-6)
    Clegg -57 (+2)
    7-Day weighted average (change on a week):
    Con 29.7 (+0.5), Lab 38.8 (-0.8), Lib 10.5 (+0.3), UKIP 14.3 (-0.4)
    30-Day weighted average (change on a week):
    Con 29.9 (-0.2), Lab 39.3 (-0.1), Lib 10.2 (+0.1), UKIP 14.3 (+0.4)
    With the state of the last few polls, there’s a chance that Labour VI is slipping again, but we’ll have to wait and see.

    xxxxxxxxxxx

    [email protected],

    I wonder what has caused Miliband’s rating to fall? Does anybody think he needs to get more exposure? Sometimes it seems Labour are more comfortable putting out other ministers than the actual leader (for political comment/reaction etc)

  43. Yes, I’ve seen Alan Johnson a few times but hardly EM at all. Shame really – he’s not the type to punch people or call voters bigots.

  44. new thread

  45. @CL45

    “How long can an Injunction keep an affair out of the news, and why would a court grant an Injunction?

    The default position is that on the,grounds of privacy/confidence/DPA/HRA, private details about an affair between two married individuals, should not be disclosed without consent.

    If newspapers want to publish they have to argue that the, public interest in such a story (also protected under the,HRA), trumps the rights on the other side.

    So the court has to balance these arguments and decide which one wins. Where only a temporary injunction is sought, the basic principle is which party would be more inconvenienced if the injunction were granted. Thetefore unless there is an urgent public interest in disclosure, a temporary injunction would usually be granted.

    As I said previously, I can’t see the public interest in the story. Being of interest to the public is not sufficient.

  46. I wonder if the MoS released the hint of a No.10 story to drum up some sales? Perish the though.

  47. According to this poll, Labour is now attracting 42% more votes than the Conservatives.

    How does this relate to seats in a general election I wonder?

1 2 3