Ipsos MORI have released their monthly political monitor for the Evening Standard. Topline voting intention figures are CON 31%(nc), LAB 35%(+1), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 12%(-1). As you can see, there is no significant change from last month.

However, I suspect that’s not the way some people will interpret it. I’ve already seen some reactions to ICM’s poll yesterday making great play of UKIP dropping by six points to 12%, a change that was probably mostly a reversion to the mean after a strange result last month. MORI’s 12% for UKIP is going to be misinterpreted in some parts as confirming a drop in UKIP support, when in reality it does no such thing. UKIP’s level of support seems broadly unchanged from a month ago.

If you are looking at the changes from poll to poll you need to compare like-to-like. For methodlogical reasons different companies tend to show some consistent patterns in their results. Most notably in the current environment, the newer online companies like Survation, Opinium and TNS-BMRB tend to show much higher levels of support for UKIP than do traditional telephone companies like ICM and MORI (YouGov tend to give UKIP scores somewhere between the extremes). That means it is entirely misleading to look at Survation and Opinium polls from a week or two back with UKIP at 20% plus, compare them to ICM and MORI polls now with UKIP at 12%, and conclude that UKIP support has fallen. It hasn’t necessarily fallen at all, it’s just different pollsters using different methods that produce different results.

UPDATE: Full tabs already up on the Ipsos MORI website here

UPDATE2: Other interesting findings in the poll are that Ed Balls has a slight lead over George Osborne on who people think would be the most capable Chancellor, Balls 38%, Osborne 35%. In terms of party leaders though Cameron continues to have a substantial lead over Miliband on economic trust, 37% Cameron, 25% Miliband. Economic optimism also continues on a positive trend, the proportion of people expecting the economy to get better in the next year (31%) is now the same as the proportion that expect it to get worse.

UPDATE3: The Balls v Osborne result isn’t actually that unusual – MORI have shown much the same before, here’s a graph of past times they’ve asked the question. In fact, they’ve only shown Balls ahead twice before, and only shown Osborne ahead once.

222 Responses to “MORI/Standard – CON 31, LAB 35, LD 10, UKIP 12”

1 3 4 5
  1. Does anyone keep a graph or history of “don’t knows” and “would not votes” mapped on the same graph as VI?

    Would be interesting to see how that moves as the voting intention for one party either increases or decreases significantly, and as you get closer to elections historically.

  2. @ Howard

    Richard’s question is directly related to your assertion. If I understand it well, the proportion of DKs is of the 100%, while the headline figures are of net of DKs, so if there is a movement from DK to any party, if no other thing changes, the “incumbent” parties’ share would drop.

    When Labour started to recover after the elections it was largely from DKs.

    @ Richard

    If my understanding is correct, you would have to recalculate the headline VIs so that they would be % of the whole sample (% of the population vs % of those who choose a party).

  3. Amber, I like your mischievous question to Howard.

    I think the answer is that the initial growth for UKIP came predominantly from 2010 Cons and the discussion on here was about how many would return come the GE in Tory held marginals (and some LD/Tory ones).

    If the UKIP held on to an increased 3%, for example how many seats would this cost to the Tories etc.
    We have secondary debates around would tacking rightwards to get most back cost the cons other votes.

    This is still valid imo and I have no doubt that the Cons will get many erstwhile UKIP supporters back for 2010.

    It is also clear that since Eastleigh and reinforced by the locals Labour has lost support as the UKIP’s VI has risen (could be churn through, some direct and some DK firming we don’t really know).

    IMO though much of this was pure protest and may well come back to Labour at the GE if these voters remain unimpressed with the coalition and we can be credible.

    Some was soft support that would not have stayed Labour anyhow but the UKIP surge has peeled this away earlier than typical in Electoral cycles.

    In short, the UKIP declining vote will still go more cons than anyone else but Labour will receive a higher proportion than under the previous situation.

    So when UKIP was lower but we could speculate say 5% to fade by the GE this may have been worth 3.5% net to the Tories over Lab

    Now if UKIP fall 8% this may only be worth net 3%.

    Numbers only examples not due to analysis.

  4. @Howard ” …technically, if anything, the shift is mainly from Labour to UKIP”

    That is one way of putting it.

    The next GE will be about voting behaviour not current intention, which is why those 2010 LDs are so important.

    Generally LDs are more likely to be “don’t knows” than is the case with other parties, also in 2010 polling companies maybe were overestimating their likelihood to vote a bit.

    We had a situation where more of those 2010 LDs were giving Labour as their VI than LD. That situation has reversed, which leads some to think that a fair amount of the drop in Labour VI is down to 2010 LDs veering away from Labour and into the arms of Farage. Where they go at the GE is anyone’s guess.

    As Jim Jam suggests, UKIP might be currently enjoying a kind of “winner’s halo” bounce.

  5. Jim Jam,

    I think your analysis of the UKIP surge is pretty well spot on! I would add that the post- Eastleigh erosion of Labour’s vote to UKIP’s benefit could well mean that the residual Labour vote is much more solid and far less likely to be peeled away in the run up to 2015.. To that extent,therefore, recent poll figures are probably giving us a better indication of likely Labour vote share next time.

  6. Jack

    Maybe but my money is on labour voters going straight to ukip. Really for most folk they seem to have only two issues, Europe and immigration plus they ain’t conected to any of the scandals or any of the financial mess. It true that most labour voters wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole if they had a good look at their policies, but folk go on general impressions rather than detailed analysis of policies

  7. All
    That’s why I used the word ‘technically’. I did not regard Amber’s question as mischievous at all. I suppose ‘technically’ one might expect that to happen, that which she asks me to confirm.

    On a psychologically based view, I would expect ‘Labour to UKIP’ flirters to go back to Labour more readily than ‘Con to UKIP’ annoyed voters (i can’t write ‘flrters’ as i just do not have that image of right wing Con voters).

  8. Another small defection:


    It would seem that even if there isn’t a big shift to UKIP, they will have a larger presence in 2015 than some believe. As a Scot, watching QT last night, and being on the fence regards Independence, there was a lot of food for thought.

    Tweedledum or Tweedledummer?

  9. RinN
    Our posts crossed. I don’t think this Ashcroft grouping that we have invented for him give a fig about Europe.

  10. Statgeek,

    To be fair to the nationalists, their argumentation last night was weaker than normal e.g. the journalist focused purely on what I like to call the “gerrymandering argument” : I want policy X, therefore we should draw the political boundaries so I can get what I want.

  11. The internet spying scandal gets worse, now there are hundreds of American tech firms involved in providing access to foreign computers, the quid pro quo is either juicy govt contracts or more disturbingly, confidential commercial infomation. It seems the American tech industry is helping the US govt spy on the world and in return the US govt is spying on their competitors and passing trade secrets along

  12. Okay, this entry shows that I have not been properly keeping up with my UK politics of late as I should be. This lead seems as close as Labour has had in a long while. But then as the top lines reveal, this is actually an expanding of Labour’s lead from the last poll (where have I been?).

  13. Socal
    Welcome back. The HC re-election machine appears to be starting up. Do you think it is?

  14. RinN
    Socal has joined us so he may know better, but when i worked for an American consultancy, most of their business was with the government and on top secret stuff at that,

    So one might anticipate the ‘synergy’ to which you refer.

    Oops I am now a target of the NSA – hi guys!

  15. SoCalLiberal,

    “where have I been?”

    You’re better equipped to answer that question than the rest of us, but seriously: it seems that UKIP took some votes off Labour as well as the Tories and so the Labour lead narrowed a bit.

    Richard in Norway ,

    Everytime I think, “Wow, even ruling out any further scandal, this is an indictment on the American government and just about every other government”, further scandal happens and I have to think the same thing again. It is to Watergate what World War II was to the Battle of Cable Street, with the added frustration that no-one is going to be disgraced as Richard Nixon was disgraced.

  16. “Maybe but my money is on labour voters going straight to ukip.”


    Wouldn’t surprise if one looks at the subquestions on things like renationalisation and cuts etc.

  17. “Personally I think the ICM polling at the moment will be quite close to the election result (maybe a bit high for Lib Dems) but I feel it is slightly unfair if then people double count and start saying- Lab should be 10-15 points ahead at this stage when ICM may already have taken into account the likely drop as people revert to their past party when you get to an election.”


    It does surprise that this doesn’t get mentioned that often. Tory voters may be a bit disappointed as a result. How much are these reallocations and stuff worth though? How much mid-term blues leeway does it give? Depending on pollster.

    Or to put it another way, if Labour actually DO need a twenty point lead now to win in 2015, that presumably relates to past polls with far less reallocations. Given that these days we reallocate, what lead under current methods is equivalent to 20 points under old systems?

  18. And how close have Labour been to a twenty point lead before reallocations etc. any of the polls?

  19. IN any of the polls…

  20. Carfew – not close enough for an OM but doing enough to make it close for most votes between them and cons and probably being largest party as things stand.
    Almost 2 years to go though of course.

  21. New thread…

  22. @ Billy Bob

    Last night, I went and attended the Congressional Baseball Game (this is the annual contest where Republican and Democratic members of Congress play each other). Gotta give you the report.

    I cannot tell you how much fun I had and how enjoyable it was. And not just because the Dems actually won this year and won 22-0 (that’s an absolute wipeout, that’s like winning 8-0 or 10-0 in football). Jared Huffman and Raul Ruiz both played in the game for the Dems. Ruiz was not effective on offense (he hit into a double play and struck out at least once and I don’t think scored while on base) but he did play second base and was extremely effective offensively.

    The most surprisingly effective player was Representative Linda Sanchez, the only woman to play in the game. She doesn’t have an athletic physique either (think Hazel Blears plus 50 pounds give or take). Yet she has the loudest cheering and applause section (yes, individual members brought in their people to comprise cheering sections). She hit at each at bat and drove in runs and actually the Republicans compounded it by committing errors whens he would get a hit, allowing additional runs to score. She can’t run but in this baseball game, they used a very liberal pinch runner rule which enabled the Dems to use the same fast pinch runner multiple times without then having to play that player. This was good for Sanchez and for some of the other older, grayer, portlier Dems, who could hit but struggled to run the base pads.

    Btw, I FINALLY met Patrick Murphy. (So very exciting). He actually is a really good baseball player (I had read him claiming to have initially had a scholarship to pitch at University of Miami and had some doubts about it but no longer). He is a good hitter, very patient at the plate. He’s good defensively. He’s great at running the basepads too and keeps a great presence of mind during the game. He’s naturally athletic and he’s so aggressive and driven, you kinda see why he managed to get into Congress despite the odds and not wind up just another Cary Peck. I thought it was kinda funny that he brought in a cheering section from Florida.

    The one who led them to victory was Cedric Richmond (D-LA) who is a former college baseball pitcher and quite good. He led on the mound with a complete game shutout but he also led offensively too (He and Jared Polis (D-CO) came closest of any of them in hitting actual home runs). He wore a Los Angeles Dodgers #42 uniform in tribute to Jackie Robinson (which this Dodger fan greatly appreciated).

    Gentleman moment of the game belongs to Eric Swalwell (D-CA). In the seemingly never-ending bottom of the 5th, Linda Sanchez doubled him and Murphy in to score and make the game 15-0. But during the process, she’d lost her batting helmet and batting gloves and was out of breath having reached second. Swalwell paused the game and went over to go pick up her gloves and batting helmet and bring it to her (and who says chivalry is dead?). He was an integral part of the game too despite not being a baseball player. He’s a former NCAA soccer player (Jim Murphy would be jealous) and was used extensively as a pinch runner. He stole home at one point which was nothing short of amazing.

    In any case, it was fun to see.

1 3 4 5