Friday polls

We have no fewer than four voting intention polls out today. Populus’s twice weekly poll has topline voting intention figures of CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 13%, UKIP 9%. Full tabs are here.

Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Evening Standard has topline figures of CON 30%(-3), LAB 39%(+2), LDEM 13%(+4), UKIP 11%(+1). The increased Labour lead seems to be mostly down to likelihood to vote – last month MORI’s results for all voters had a seven point Labour lead, which became a four point lead when they took only those certain to vote. This month their results for all voters had a five point Labour lead, which became a nine point lead when they took only those certain to vote. Full details are here.

MORI also had some interesting questions on coalitions. 60% of people now think it was a bad thing that we had a hung Parliament in 2010, 32% a good thing. This compares to 40% good, 52% bad when it was asked in May 2010. Looking forward, only 26% think it would be a good thing if we had another hung Parliament at the next election, 65% see if as a bad thing (thought 51% of people think it is very or fairly likely). MORI also asked if people would support the party they support going into a coalition in the event of a hung Parliament.

  • 70% of Tory voters would support another coalition with the Lib Dems, only 40% would support a coalition with UKIP.
  • 62% of Labour supporters would support a coalition with the Lib Dems, 63% would support a coalition with the Greens
  • 65% of Lib Dems would support another coalition with the Tories, 53% would support a coalition with Labour

Moving on, YouGov’s daily voting intention poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12% (full tabs are here.

Finally, Sky News have a Survation poll with topline figures of CON 30%(-1%), LAB 34%(-1%), LDEM 12%(+1%), UKIP 18%(+2). Full tabs for that are here


178 Responses to “Friday polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. @ToH, Bantams

    There have been a string of articles in the press suggesting growing discontent between the Civil Service and the Ministers. For example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9805060/Francis-Maude-The-Civil-Service-must-reform.html

    It would be very hard to describe the current Government’s relationship with the Civil Service to be a functional, friendly and mutually accepting one. But arguably, that’s the same who ever’s government of the day.

    Report comment

  2. Is there any evidence of tory voters – Im assuming the more socially liberal ones – switching to the lib dems? Maybe in revulsion to Crosbys UKIP chasing dog whistles?

    Would be an interesting development – and a minor disaster for cameron as he’d caught between appeasing both sides and exacerbating the split in the tories between the modernisers and tradtionalists.

    Maybe the future for the lib dems (if they have one) is to occupy the economically rightwing/socially liberal ground. A tactical boost to labour of course as it leaves the entire left of centre ground to them.

    Report comment

  3. “Is there any evidence of tory voters – Im assuming the more socially liberal ones – switching to the lib dems? Maybe in revulsion to Crosbys UKIP chasing dog whistles?”

    I believe it might have been one of Statgeek’s charts that showed about 2% of the electorate moving from Con>LD this parliament.

    Whether that’s down to Crosby I don’t know, but I doubt it’ll do tremendous harm to Cameron. The moderate wing of the party has been chipped away from Heathite dominance in the 1970s to there being very few One Nation Tories left.

    Report comment

  4. @ Colin

    I can see why you didn’t say “excited” or “upset”, they’re rather predictable & boring choices. But there were other, more entertaining options available to you which have less negative connotations.

    Discombobulated is my favourite – a very under-used word. Peeved is also good. Exercised (in its alternative sense) would also have worked.

    If those seem archaic or academic (I like words), you could’ve said “provoked a reaction from Labour supporters here” etc.

    Report comment

  5. Calm down, Amber. You’re getting worked up!

    ;)

    Report comment

  6. Language police are on patrol!

    I’m surprised that “65% of Lib Dems would support another coalition with the Tories, 53% would support a coalition with Labour”

    I really thought it would be the other way. It’s interesting that 16 months before the election Labour only have an average lead of 5 points according to the average poll of polls.

    Conventional wisdom is that in the run up to an election undecideds tend to break in favour of the status quo so could we see a further narrowing of the lead, especially as that even Labour seem to have accepted they were wrong about the economy and that it is now growing. As the effects of that recovery begin to trickle further down will we see a further tightening of the race.

    I don’t believe we will get a Con majority, but I think it’s now possible that Labour will have the most seats in parliament but not enough for a majority and the current coalition will continue.

    Report comment

  7. MitM,

    A Labour plurality would almost certainly result in a Labour-led coalition or Labour minority government, for the reason that it would be hard to argue the legitimacy of a government composed of the second and third-largest parties.

    Report comment

  8. Jayblanc

    Thank you for your reference. Having read it I has to say I tend to agree with Blair’s sentiments that it is no longer fit for purpose.

    Report comment

  9. @MitM
    “…but I think it’s now possible that Labour will have the most seats in parliament but not enough for a majority and the current coalition will continue.”

    It’s very hard to see how that outcome is mathematically feasible, if Lab gets about 33% or more.

    Report comment

  10. @MANINTHEMIDDLE: “I really thought it would be the other way”

    I’m sure it would have been if you’d asked the question before half of their former supporters had ceased to identify themselves as LibDems.

    Report comment

  11. @ToH

    To be fair, I suspect a great deal of the antipathy also comes as much from Ministers demanding the impossible be performed because they made a policy announcement saying it would be so, failing to read Civil Service briefings warning of limits to what can be achieved, or fudging the numbers provided by them for political reasons… And then turning around and blaming the Civil Service for not moving mountains to serve them.

    There is after all an inevitable conflict between Announcing A Policy, and Enacting A Government Program. The latter actually has to face real world practicality.

    Report comment

  12. Reggieside,

    It would leave the British liberal left ground open to Labour (at least for a while) but they’ve already lost a huge amount of ground in Scotland, face PC (such as that is a challenge) in Wales, and Labour’s dominance among the British conservative left is already under threat from UKIP.

    That said, I do agree that there is a potential space for the Lib Dems as the right-wing party for those of us who like immigrants and decriminalizing drugs and devolution and being in the EU. And, as someone who identifies as economically right wing/socially left wing, I’d say that a One Nation Tory is the OPPOSITE of what I would call myself, unless the term is extended to include liberal Tories like MacLeod and John Biffen (excepting his views on immigration).

    Report comment

  13. @BANTAMS

    In your post of 1.25pm, you attribute the following words to me but those were Colin’s words, not mine.

    I said that this is the way politics works-the past is another country ( unless we are talking about Margaret Thatcher of course)

    Report comment

  14. @Valerie

    Interesting observation.

    @Amber – good to see you back, you’ve been away too long.

    Report comment

  15. Jayblanc

    I have to say I would be surprised if the current Government which has embarked on major reform (Education, NHS, Welfare) had not had problems with the Civil Service. You last post reminded me very much of that wonderful TV series, “Yes Minister”.

    Report comment

  16. Rosie and Dasie,

    Snort what?

    Report comment

  17. @BILL PATRICK

    “…Rosie and Dasie,…Snort what?…”

    I’m not sure RosieAndDaisie and RosieAndDasieeee are the same person

    Report comment

  18. @TOH

    Part of the problem with the Civil Service and ministers (Yes, Minister notwithstanding) may be more connected with the lack of experience of most ministers of managing anything much.

    Examples from the current government (and this is not a partisan post – all governments tend to be much the same) are IDS who, even if you view his CV as less of a work of fiction than it could be, appears to have reached the heady heights of a Lieutenant in the army and some unspecified functionary for GEC-Marconi.

    Equally Michael Gove has never done anything but journalism.

    Whatever you think of their vision for radical changes, making them happen in ‘enterprises’ with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees is a very significant undertaking and outside of government would involve research, explanation, consultation, compromise, change management and dynamic commitment to making it happen. All of these have special difficulties in government: in any case it seems to be accepted wisdom that 75% of change programmes fail, wherever they are carried out.

    Report comment

  19. Anthony

    Seems odd to allow a user name that imitates someone else’s.

    I don’t think of it as flattery and it could confuse speedy readers.

    Nor do the pups, who are wuffing quite crossly, appreciate it at all.

    Can you do something about it ‘cos the person posing as me is obviously a total duffer.

    Or as the gurls say, a t*sser.

    Ta.

    Paul

    Report comment

  20. MiM

    “Labour seem to have accepted they were wrong about the economy.”

    No. Just, no.

    Report comment

  21. Will Ed M’s proposals for the big banks increase his VI? I think (if he keeps banging on about the ‘reckoning’) he could up the VI to 40 for a bit, but the last few points of that 40 are always flaky for Labour, whose ‘core’ VI (imo) is 38. If Ed does touch 40 for a while, therefore, I don’t think that will last. The 38 per cent are a core in the sense they remain solidly anti-neo-liberal; the occasional 2 or 3 per cent on top of that aren’t.

    But will the 38 per cent turn out to vote? If I am right about the grounds for their thinking, yes, you bet they will. Will the ‘Others’ lean more towards the Tories? Possibly, if the ‘economy’ improves in a real (as opposed to a housing bubble) sense, but there’s absolutely no sign of that, and there is possibly (just look at Club Med and look across the pond,) every sign that another crash is on the way. So probably not.

    The problem, as was being debated in the last thread, is what Labour can then do about the economy, however committed the party is to fairness. Austerity (and the small state it demands) does not work, in the sense it does not stop resources being sucked ever more quickly upwards towards those who already have them aplenty. Basically those who call for a small state are happy to take from a small state the things that they (the few) would like to receive from it, but deny to others (the many) the things needed by them.

    A bigger state needs financing, however, and needs to be sustained without excessive state interference with people’s freedom to act in self-fulfilling ways. This requires taxation at a higher level than we have at present – and this will be a problem for whatever party is in government for the foreseeable future, if they wish to ensure an economy of which everyone can feel a part.

    So how is such taxation to be raised? People discussed this a few threads back, and were unable to find sources of revenue that would be substantial enough to be effective. Nevertheless the wealth held by a very small proportion of the people in virtually every country is so vast it dwarfs their traditional tax-take. Whilst general taxation of wealth could not replace traditional sources of taxation overnight, there will be no alternative to it before too long, if we are not to enter into a dark age from which escape will be both difficult and protracted.

    Of course – by way of a footnote – even the moderately (let alone the excessively) rich will propose that this line of thinking encourages the ‘talented’ to take their skills elsewhere. But the evidence for such ‘talents’ is thin on the ground, unless by talent one means something close or equivalent to criminality. I would argue in the opposite direction entirely: if we were to call the bluff of the ‘talented’ and let them go (they won’t!) and if in their place we offered (say) £500,000 as the top salary in any UK bank, we would still find takers aplenty for those posts who could handle the running of those banks with high sense and to good effect.

    Report comment

  22. Bantams
    You are confusing’ backing up ‘ comments, with polls stats etc. and tacking on your tendentious assertions to a supposed accepted case. A quick scan of regular contributors will show that virtually all of them, most of the time , don’t do this, cos it’s boring. As to you being a right leaning LD , welcome aboard, just remember that you are not composing copy for ‘Focus’.

    Report comment

  23. R&D – I don’t, but I can’t tell if its imposters or people changing their email address. Now I know I’ll block it.

    Report comment

  24. ComRes:

    Con 30% +1
    Lab 35% -1
    LibDem 8% ±0
    UKIP 19% +1

    Plenty of other questions that will lead to headlines such as Ukip most popular of the parties….

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-the-most-popular-party-in-britain/

    Report comment

  25. @ Colin Davis

    “Whilst general taxation of wealth could not replace traditional sources of taxation overnight, there will be no alternative to it before too long, if we are not to enter into a dark age from which escape will be both difficult and protracted.”

    I wonder how much could be raised by restoring the wealth-related taxes we had until not very long ago. I am referring to Capital Gains tax at rates to match the prevailing income tax rates (as we had from Lawson until G.Brown broke the link, rather oddly) and the investment income surcharge that we had until 1985 at a 15% rate.

    Rather than an investment income surcharge, and given that employees’ NICs are widely regarded as hidden income tax and are not charged on investment income (or pensions) perhaps we simply change that rule and make them apply to all income. Oh, and while we’re about it we can abolish the 45% rate as the top tax rate would in effect become 52% (40+12) rather than the 47% it is now.

    That would probably be over-penal to those who are at the bottom end of the 40% (really 42%) bracket so a bit of reprofiling would be called for.

    Report comment

  26. Thanks Anthony.

    Report comment

  27. Welcome back DOSIEANDRAISIE but not RAISIEANDDOOSIE, oh no,

    Report comment

  28. The Financial Times who have been supportive of Labour
    reviewed Ed’s policies on banking yesterday and didn’t like them much.I think they find it hard to understand that repeating the policies of the Blair government and subsequent crash of Northern Rock and RBS is particularly credible.

    Report comment

1 2 3 4