The monthly online ComRes poll for the Indy on Sunday and Sunday Mirror is out tonight (ComRes have two monthly polls, the other is a phone poll for the Indy – the two different methods tend to produce slightly different results). Topline figures with changes from December’s online poll are CON 30%(+1), LAB 35%(-1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 19%(+1).

ComRes also asked if people had favourable perceptions of each party and their leader. We get the usual pattern for the Tories and Labour: David Cameron is seen more favourably than his party (27% are favourable towards Cameron, 48% unfavourable – a net rating of minus 21 compared to the Conservative party’s minus 25), Ed Miliband is seen less favourably than his party (a net rating of minus 31 compared to his party’s minus 19). Cameron is seen more favourably than Miliband, Labour are seen more favourably than the Tories.

So far nothing new. The interesting findings are UKIP. There is an assumption that UKIP are a bit like marmite – love em or hate em. Their supporters are very positive (and vocal) but are vastly outnumbered by detractors. The ComRes results however paint a more positive picture for UKIP – 27% had a positive opinion of the party (so marginally higher than Labour (26%) and the Tories (25%)). Only 38% had a negative opinion though, which was significantly lower than the Conservatives or Labour, giving them the most positive net figure. The other interesting finding was that Nigel Farage polled significantly less positively than his party – a net rating of minus 18, compared to minus 11 for UKIP.

We should also have an Opinium poll tonight in the Observer, and tomorrow morning the weekly YouGov poll in the Sunday Times.

UPDATE: Opinium figures in the Observer are CON 30%(nc), LAB 36%(-1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(nc)


99 Responses to “ComRes/Indy on Sunday – CON 30, LAB 35, LD 8, UKIP 19”

1 2
  1. There is often talk here and elsewhere about what motivates people to vote for a certain party. There will be many people who at a certain point in their life will identify themselves with a particular party. But there will also be a large number of people who don’t identify themselves with a party and these are the people who will decide the outcome of an election.

    I often dismiss the Tories chance of winning a majority, because they are not really in competition in many parts of the country. They also rely on the votes of older people and some of these according to the polls are drifting towards UKIP.

    If the Tories can start to implement budget measures that help people deal with cost of living increases, there is no reason why some of the ‘don’t knows’ cannot be turned into Tory voters. There is also the possibility that some of the Tory UKIP flirters will return and that the Lib Dems will do much better than polls predict.

    We shall see.

    Report comment

  2. a Christie

    “Hmm well I can meat you halfway.”

    Oo-er Missis !!!!

    “I wouldn’t like to be in an audience with Kim and was caught not clapping hard enough, I might get shot….”

    I keep saying he’s not all bad.

    Report comment

  3. Ben Bloom of the Telegraph’s sport is asking “How many goals will Luis Suarez score this season?”

    A few days ago on UKPR asked if Suarez would score more goals this season than the Lib/Dems would have MP’S after 2015.

    The fact that he scored zilch today I should be getting a little worried…not at all…Looking at todays VI for the Lib/Dems I’m now thinking Simon Mignolet might score more goals than the Libs will have MP’S .

    Report comment

  4. @ Chordata,

    Thank you for your kind words :-)

    Edinburgh Central & Edinburgh Southern now has their Labour candidates for the Scottish Parliament in 2016 so I can resume poll watching & commenting until another ‘project’ comes along!

    Report comment

  5. ROSIE

    LOL yeah well I asked for that….

    Report comment

  6. MRNAMELESS

    I don’t for one minute disagree with your analysis on NK but I think there is something romantic about the country and it’s fanatical leadership built on a cult personality dictatorship.

    There is a lot of human suffering in the country but sometimes you need to look a little beyond its borders to find the route cause of the problem and one reason sticks in my mind…..Proxy politics.

    Report comment

  7. # root cause ..

    Report comment

  8. BCrombie that fact about the tories haven’t won an election in 21 years does indeed sound frightening until you realise that we only have an election every 4 or 5 years, also if the Conservatives 36% doesn’t count as a win in 2010, I’m sure you don’t think Labour’s 35% in 2005 counts as a win either, in which case by the time we get to the 2015 election it will be 14 years since Labour “won” an election. If you do count 2005 as a win because they still managed an OM, it’s still 10 years, which sounds fairly daunting in itself.

    Pointing out the problems with Labour’s economic plan does not make Mark Carney or the BoE impartisan, he was asked for his opinion as an economist and he gave it.

    Equally pointing out statistical fact that the polls are narrowing does not mean I am any less in the centre ground. It’s common knowledge then when approaching an actual vote the dont knows tend to break in favour of the Status quo. In early 2009 the Conservatives were enjoying double digit leads, this however did not ensure an overall majority in 2010, so I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that Labour’s 5/6 point lead does not guarantee them an overall majority in 2015, in which case there will be a hung parliament, and you open up the door to a continuation of the current coalition.

    And yes there will be howls of protest from the left if the 2nd and 3rd parties join to form a government, equally as there would have been protests from the right had the same happened in 2010, that didn’t stop the talk of a LibLab pact then, so I doubt it would stop talk of a continuation of the LibCon pact in 2015 were such an opportunity to present itself.

    Report comment

  9. MitM

    Unfortunately for the Tories 36% is not good enough for them to win and I am not sure they will see more favourable conditions than they had in 2010 – the tendency is for Government’s to lose votes in subsequent elections but even if they manage to hold on the indications from the polls are that Labour will match them or beat them.

    I see you are rewriting history as well in suggesting Labour didn’t win in 2005 – you do realise how are electoral system works don’t you – it is about seats not percentages?

    My point, which R Huckle tried to address earlier, is that I am struggling to see where the votes come from to get them above the 40% they need. Things may change before next May but time is getting short

    Carney is on very sensitive ground when commenting on the specific policies of one of the parties – he should have dodged the question. It is not his role to answer it. Very naïve

    I don’t think it is a nailed on victory for Labour but the high leads for the Tories in the last Parliament were mainly at the height of the crisis – these sort of events can lead to volatility. Hague was even ahead of Blair during the fuel crisis. The polls may be narrowing but we have no indication that the Tories will have the 7% or so lead needed in 2015.

    All I go with are the indications from the polls

    Labour have held a lead for pretty much all this Parliament

    There has been narrowing of the lead but it is still there

    The polling companies have refined their methods since the elections where they got it completely wrong

    The LD VI has been badly affected by transfers to Labour and it seems to not be shifting back

    UKIP are the ‘elephant in the room’ – despite what the right try to claim it is predominantly affecting the Tories electorally

    All party leaders are unpopular

    Now events may lead to an upheaval but my crystal ball does not allow me to predict them – I just know my town in the Midlands is a ghost town reminiscent of the early 80s – the ‘boom’ hasn’t been seen here.

    Report comment

  10. “It’s common knowledge then when approaching an actual vote the dont knows tend to break in favour of the Status quo.”

    Is it?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-dont-knows

    Report comment

  11. “Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.”

    http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

    Report comment

  12. @rosieanddaisie

    “Oo-er Missis !!!!”

    Glad I’m not the only abnormal person who instantly had this thought.

    Report comment

  13. A hat-trick of eights for the Lib Dems (no Saurez pun intended).

    @MSmithsonPB – Tonight’s YouGov for the Sunday Times had

    CON 33
    LAB 39
    LD 8
    UKIP 13
    The LD share right down – the Rennard slump?

    Report comment

  14. If the Lib Dems do score 10% or less at the 2015 election, they could be lucky to hold onto 20 seats. They are strong in a few areas of the country, but if they lose more than half of their 2010 votes in other areas, they will lose more than 30 seats.

    Report comment

  15. Good early morning all, from a cold and dry Bournemouth.
    The polls still seem to point towards a significant Labour lead, but not a huge lead. Lib Dems doing better in the polls than they may do in the GE, IMO

    Report comment

  16. The yougov poll today seems correct to me – lead 6 to 7 for Lab.. Lab high 30′s Cons low 30′s and the LD’s struggling to get into double figures. I note that non-voters are the same in total for Con and Lab and only the LD’s have the potential to boost their score because their non voters are higher.

    @ Chris i was staying in Bournemouth just before Christmas, i have never visited before. Bournemouth itself seems prosperous, but Boscombe seems a sad place with lots of people under financial stress.

    Report comment

  17. FLOATING VOTER.
    Good Morning to you.
    I agree with you about Boscombe in Bournemouth,.Large properties are now multi occupancy sub lets. When I was a boy in the 1960′s it was much more prosperous. The football team used to be called Boscombe, at the matches. Liverpool are coming next week, and I camped out all night to procure two tickets.
    Politically the town is solidly blue, as is Christchurch, which saw a big LD win in 1994.

    Report comment

  18. Morning to you as well Chris

    The architecture of Bournemouth is very impressive, I thought, with many lovely buildings and impressively huge trees along the avenues. It is really nicely planned town.

    Report comment

  19. TONY DEAN
    “Unfortunately the political establishment, and that includes Ed Miliband, are all to the Right of this position nowadays.’

    Well, I wonder. It depends on how you construct the left-right specttrum.
    “The Times” first leader on Saturday 18 Jan is worth a read on this for a number of reasons. It acknowledges that it can no longer be said that EM “stands for nothing” in the light of “the distinctive prospectus for the form of capitalism that he wants to bring to Britain” in which “The hoped for destination is an interlocking system of institutions that cover vocational training, finance to small businesses [through competitive banking] and worker participation.”
    While it makes a Murdochian nod to say that this would – will? – lead to “A more equal but lower level of prosperity….in nobody’s interests”, the reading of the Labour prospectus which “The Times” provides to the AB voter is, in its own words, of a coherent policy and programme, based (as I have frequently argued) on acceptance of the economic reality of the social market within the EU, and on the politics of the possible.
    Not socialism? Maybe, but what socialism, and as “The Times” asks, what capitalism. For answers, have a look not at ours but at the economies of Germany and of China, the SE Asian tigers and India, with which a “predistributive” Britain will need – not to compete pace DC – but to dovetail.

    Report comment

  20. @R Huckle
    The LDs big seats gain was in 1997. So surely the key numbers for them is the difference between Con and LD?

    Report comment

  21. I agree with CB11′s interpretation of the Conservatives’ dilemma. I would have thought they are better going for the younger demographic, as where will the baby-boomers (like me) be in twenty years’ time.

    Conservatives are not the only party to have more than one strand, but the prospect of losing is putting their problems into sharper relief. Barring a really bizarre set of circumstances they cannot win on 30%.

    @ Guymonde
    ““Do you know a builders merchant where we
    Can buy 30 cubits of gopher wood.LOL.”

    I expect you can check it electronically, but my guess would have been The Ragged-trousered Philanthropists – but LOL was probably not a current expression in those days?

    Report comment

  22. What is the definition of a “baby boomer”. It seems to be applied to people born just after the War; in the 60s, in the 70s, in the 80s……? Are we all “baby boomers” or is there some definitive definition?

    Report comment

  23. @ChrisLane1945

    I trust AFC Bournemouth will see off the wounded Liverpool team next week after my beloved Villa gave them a fearful mauling at Anfield yesterday. We were denied a victory in the end by the gymnast come footballer otherwise known as Luis Suarez. His disgraceful dive in front of the Kop, combined with the referee’s supine obedience in doing what was demanded of him, allowed the Reds to claim an undeserved point.

    Not than I’m biased or anything. lol

    Anyway, good luck to the Cherries next week.

    Report comment

  24. Norbold

    It comes from the US and it covers the period from the war to the mid 60s – I think anyone at 50-70ish is considered a ‘boomer’.

    I think the whole area is one where there is a lot of discussion though.

    To me it really covers the free healthcare, final salary pension, social housing, free university etc generation.

    In my mid-40s now I benefited from some of this and not others. I think the generation below me has only the free healthcare left and that is being undermined.

    Report comment

  25. So much for the Lib Dem bounce in those other polls like populus and ICM.

    How can the Lib Dem and UKIP support be SO different?

    The methodology has to completely suspect considering that UKIP support and Lib Dem support is so much higher and lower (respectively) with all the other pollsters. 9% vs 19% that is a huge, huge difference.

    Still, the ICM results give the guardian plenty to headline about…..

    Report comment

  26. JOHN PILGRIM

    @”“The Times” first leader on Saturday 18 Jan is worth a read on this for a number of reasons. It acknowledges that it can no longer be said that EM “stands for nothing” ”

    Indeed it was-the Leader heading being :-

    ” Ed Miliband’s wish to curb the power of banks is part of a coherant approach to the economy that leads in the wrong direction”.

    The conclusion that it would lower the level of national prosperity seems to meet with your approval if that prosperity is “pre-distributed” according to your preferences.

    Well that is certainly a “coherant” policy-as The Times says-but to abandon ( as you seem to suggest) the competition DC calls for with the economies you cite, and content yourself with sharing out a diminishing cake, would certainly justify the conclusion reached in yesterday’s Times Leader.

    And the more EM spends his time & thought on how wealth can be distributed by The State rather than generated by The Private Sector, the more true that seems to be.

    Of course what matters is how the voters see these things.

    Report comment

  27. “His disgraceful dive in front of the Kop, combined with the referee’s supine obedience in doing what was demanded of him, allowed the Reds to claim an undeserved point.”

    It was worse than that Mr Batty

    He should receive a ban for Arsenal’s visit.

    Report comment

  28. @alister1948

    Ragged-trousered Philanthropists… the building and decorating of “impressive seaside architecture” as mentioned above.

    Three examples, Val Mascal, West Dene and Filsham Lodge can be seen here:

    h
    ttp://www.hastingschronicle.net/tressell_02.html

    Report comment

  29. Norbold,

    Baby Boomer is generally defined as people born between 1948 and 1964.

    Generation X is 1964-1980.

    Millennials (although I dislike the term) are 1980-2000.

    I don’t know what we’re calling the current youth!

    Report comment

  30. @John Pilgrim – i currently happen to be staying with my daughter-in-law’s family in Singapore where I have not been before. At first sight the governing party here look mind bogglingly right wing, but then they appear to have built on a past that sorted out health care, accommodation etc in what looks like a very socialist way (compulsory purchase, massive planning etc). The one thing they do not look to the casual observer is liberal in any sense of the word. But as I have only been here a couple of days, I can hardly count as an expert observer and would value your more considered judgement. The only thing I would say is that it certainly seems to validate your point that left and right can be put together in different ways,

    Report comment

  31. “I don’t know what we’re calling the current youth” – children?

    Report comment

  32. Both Stewart Wood in the Spectator and Andrew Rawnsley have written near-identical articles comparing Eddy Miliband to Teddy Roosevelt.

    It’s an unusual line, but I suspect Labour HQ was involved.

    Report comment

  33. Wes,

    Well, exactly. I find the generation thing a bit silly except for statistical purposes.

    Report comment

  34. I really don’t think that the Lib Dems polling data can be translated into seats: as someone in a constituency with a Lib Dem MP, their national vote in no way translates to their local support as they are incredibly well organized with an extensive grass roots network. Ashcroft found that in seats where the fight is Lib Dem/Labour their vote has collapsed, but where it is Lib Dem/Tory their vote holds up (because the Labour voters will still vote tactically?). They will lose seats from their high point at the past two elections, where they positioned themselves to the left of Labour in constituencies like mine, but they won’t be wiped out. In

    Report comment

  35. I just looked at the 2005 election results and it is interesting that the Tories polled 31% under Michael Howard. Is this their natural support base prior to the detoxification project? I am struck by how similar it is to their current VI.

    Report comment

  36. I agree – although, I was thrashed by a couple of late Baby Boomers at Baby Boomer Edition Trivial Pursuit a couple of weeks ago.

    Report comment

  37. COLIN
    You described Labour trailers on EM’s speech as “spin”, and I certainly respect your expertise in this area.
    Re “The conclusion that it would lower the level of national prosperity seems to meet with your approval if that prosperity is “pre-distributed” according to your preferences…….
    And the more EM spends his time & thought on how wealth can be distributed by The State rather than generated by The Private Sector, the more true that seems to be.”

    I do indeed think there is a body of opinion in this country which would see a lessening of overall prosperity – boosted as that figure is by a grotesque level of income in the financial sector – reduced if that would achieve a fairer balance, including job creation among the working population. Fairer taxation might well work that way while the deficit and predistribution of wealth came into play.

    Ed, BTW, does not seem to be advocating distribution by the State, but rather better competition by the inclusion of consumer advocacy, of Which and citizens’ advice bureaux in the regulatory system, and by creating jobs and skills within a more prosperous small enterprise and more equitable banking system.

    Otherwise I agree with all you say

    Report comment

  38. @Charles

    There can be some blurring between fascism and socialism.

    @John Pilgrim:

    Although the less wealthy have a higher propensity to spend their money so generating more economic activity than the rich who like to squirrel it away, often abroad.

    Report comment

  39. CHARLES
    Yes, Singapore also illustrates how equity and shared prosperity – founded as Colin would argue, on a hard working and highly competitive commercial sector – can develop progressively over several generations. So there’s been time to shuffle the pack, but not without a basic morality.
    Developments in Singapore have, since Independence sixty odd years ago, been based on three principle elements in its political and economic systems: a draconian legal code, a highly tuned financial sector, and a very high level of education.
    All three were, in various degrees, derived from the ethics and institutions of erstwhile British rule, but also on a stern moral purpose, an equalising protestant ethic which, as you suggest, is socialistic and directive, but (there and elsewhere) drives a relatively corruption free capitalism.
    In these areas it seems as if Ed does not mind being a bit of a nerd and history buff.

    Report comment

  40. ROGERH
    “Although the less wealthy have a higher propensity to spend their money so generating more economic activity than the rich who like to squirrel it away, often abroad.”

    And who are institutionally corralled in a financial system where they are dolled out – rather than in any meaningful sense earning – so much of the stuff that they can’t possibly spend it in ways which would achieve the neo-liberal trickle down effect.

    The economy increasingly resembles the conspicuous consumption features of the potlatch of the Tlingit and Hadza of British Columbia, whose chiefs would burn canoes in front of one another to signal a continuous round of competitive and economically useless one-up-manship.

    Report comment

  41. Oi

    “His disgraceful dive in front of the Kop, combined with the referee’s supine obedience in doing what was demanded of him, allowed the Reds to claim an undeserved point.”

    The valiant reds were denied their rightful 3 points against the 4 yellow card butchers of Birmingham. Poor Luis, nearly crippled by the cynical assault by Guzan (even has a brutal-sounding name) which prevented a certain goal did not even have the consolation of barbarous Brad being sent back to his cave.

    I hear a rumour that justice will be served by awarding a bonus goal to Suarez to help him get over the trauma of yesterday when the saintly reds face Bumnal

    Report comment

  42. In the most amazing Prem ever just five points separate the entire bottom half of the table.

    Meanwhile the Arse are well clear at the top.

    Report comment

  43. amber

    “Edinburgh Central & Edinburgh Southern now has their Labour candidates for the Scottish Parliament in 2016 so I can resume poll watching & commenting until another ‘project’ comes along!”

    Gosh! That sounds hysterical.

    Report comment

  44. Looking back at the table for Jan 2013, there has been a twenty one point turnaround between Arsenal and Man U – twenty FIVE if they lose today at Chelsk.

    Report comment

  45. 21 should read 22.

    Report comment

  46. Billy Bob – thanks for the link.

    @Mr N, Norbold
    Glad I qualify as a boomer.

    Report comment

  47. @Man in the midden

    if the Conservatives 36% doesn’t count as a win in 2010, I’m sure you don’t think Labour’s 35% in 2005 counts as a win either
    ———————————————————
    I think most people’s definition of a GE ‘win’ is when a Party gains an overall majority.
    Labour won the election in 2005. The Tories didn’t in 2010 as they were 20 seats short.

    Report comment

  48. That is not the point Valerie.

    Report comment

  49. @ Rosie&Daisie

    Gosh! That sounds hysterical.
    —————
    LOL :-)

    Report comment

1 2