The monthly online ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror is out tonight with topline figures of CON 32%(+2), LAB 37%(+2), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 15%(-4).

The Labour lead is unchanged, but UKIP drop four points. ComRes’s online polls typically show some of the highest levels of UKIP support, and this is the lowest figure for UKIP they’ve shown for ten months. As ever though, don’t read too much into a single poll, unless other polls start showing a general decline in UKIP support it’s probably just a blip.

The poll also reasked the favourability question it asked last month. You might remember that last month it came out with the rather surprising finding that UKIP had the highest proportion of people saying they had a favourable view of the party. This month’s figures instead show people have the most favourable view of Labour (31%), followed by the Conservatives (28%), followed by UKIP (24%). As usual with these questions Cameron outpolls his party (31%, so three points higher than the Tories), Miliband underperforms his (22%, so nine points lower than Labour).


97 Responses to “ComRes/Sunday Indy – CON 32, LAB 37, LD 9, UKIP 15”

1 2
  1. KITSUNE

    It’s a calculation. Up here (I daren’t mention the “S” word) the LDs seem guaranteed to lose their MEP., so the 6th seat is up for grabs.

    Polling, so far, suggests that the governing party up here is riding high in the polls, and has the best chance of taking that seat, while the Greens have little chance. Indeed, there is an outside chance of the governing party also taking the 2nd of Labour’s seats.

    Like (I suspect) the vast majority of people, I’m not actually concerned with who my MEPs actually are. However, at this point in history the political narrative is important.

    If it looks likely that the Greens, or any other party that supports my side in the [unmentionable] debate could take the former LD seat, then they get my vote.

    Report comment

  2. @MSmithsonPB: This week’s PB YouGov daily poll average with changes on lat week
    CON 32.8, -0.8
    LAB 39, +0.4
    LD, 9.2, -0.6
    UKIP, 12, +1,2

    Three polls all with 7% Lab leads – so Lab lead is 7 or did we abolish that rule?

    Report comment

  3. Sorry wrong tweet should have been@MSmithsonPB: Today’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times sees LAB lead at 7%
    CON 32
    LAB 39
    LD 9
    UKIP 12

    With same comment 3 polls with 7% leads

    Report comment

  4. And another 39 – 6 in a row with YG.

    Howard – I think that must pass some kind of rule?

    Report comment

  5. Good Morning JIM Jam and COUPER2802.
    Solid lead and figures this week.

    Report comment

  6. @Oldnat – “I wonder what it must be like to live somewhere where only one poll in the last 3 years has shown the principal opposition party with a lead at all, after the Government has been in power for 7 years, and the latest poll showed an 11% lead for the governing party.”

    I seem to recall England was a bit like that under Tony Blair for a good long while. I recall they rather liked him in Scotland too.

    Report comment

  7. The floods have been bad for the coalition. The people affected are angry and the folk not affected wonder why suddenly ‘money is no object’. Leading to many comments such as ‘once the floods reached Eton’ etc. which plays into the Cons only care about the rich narrative.

    Report comment

  8. Just scanning the morning papers and I’m wondering what the long term significance on the UK of the recent Swiss vote on immigration might be. The BBC is reporting that they have declined to sign a free movement agreement with Croatia, which is the first direct casualty of their vote, but various figures within the EU commission and membership have issued dire, yet unspecified threats to the Swiss following their referendum result.

    This really does seem a touchstone issue for the EU leaders, but possibly less so for many of their voters.

    While ‘free movement of people’ has that great ring of democracy and freedom about it, and sounds wonderfully advanced and people centred, it actually has far more to do with assisting business and driving down business costs. Under these terms, people become economic units to be shifted around and used in the most efficient manner, rather like a tonne of coal or a container full of washers. No account is taken of the time needed for adjustments in settled populations, or the negative impacts of migration. Follow the money, and little else matters. People may, as UKIP suggest, accept lower GDP growth in exchange for less migration, and if so, that’s democracy.

    We know that the current UK government wants to do something about this issue (or at least they say they do) and we know there are parties here and elsewhere that don’t support free movement, and the Swiss situation suddenly brings an issue that EU leaders refused to talk about right to the fore.

    The initial reaction was simply to bully the Swiss into reversing their vote, but how the EU responds to this might well emerge within UK politics as an issue. Could the UK end up defending the Swiss, as part of our attempts to change the tone of this whole debate? An what would that mean for UK politics?

    Report comment

  9. “once the floods reached Eton”
    The Beeb must share the blame for giving the impression that floods only affect the South. Radio 4 last night described various flood incidents in the South and interviewed several local victims. As for anything North of the M25? They simply said that “elsewhere there have been high winds and heavy rain with trees uprooted”.

    I think the PM is aware of the need to show that the Coalition knows that life exists above Watford and he did visit Blackpool the other day. On the downside , once things are back to normal it seems that the EA still intends to make hundreds of frontline staff redundant.

    Report comment

  10. http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/h5amapobl4/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140214.pdf

    Yes the polls are being pretty consistent at the moment for some reason.

    I guess that there is such a mix of issues at the moment, that none of the parties is taking any advantage of them.

    The economy is doing well in terms of GDP, but this is not currently being felt around the country, as wages in real terms are being kept down, while things such as energy bill are always rising.

    The coalition government have not taken advantage of the floods crisis. There was a lack of response earlier on, which made it look like the various agencies were not organised to help communities who were struggling. It has only been in the last week or so, that the government appear to have got involved, with troops being used and more effort going in to tackle existing floods and stop more from happening. Coaltion ministers may have gained from a crisis, had they done much more earlier on, to show how they were in command of the situation.

    The Scottish independence debate about currency options, would have been a bigger news story, but for the floods crisis. I don’t think most people in the UK really care what currency an independent Scotland would use. It will be mainly SNP/Yes voters and also businesses who would be affected, that would have a stake in keeping the pound. But as Labour, Lib Dem, Tories and probably UKIP would have the same position on this, it is not something to affect polling.

    Report comment

  11. Am I incorrect to think that perhaps the average Labour lead may just be creeping up a fraction? I may of course be suffering from a selective memory.

    Report comment

  12. @Couper

    The floods have been bad for the Coalition because when these things hit, unless you have an extraordinarily good response (and a sympathetic media), whoever was in charge gets the blame for anything unsatisfactory.

    Short of shifting sandbags yourself a la William and Harry (which came across exceptionally well), or a conspicuous show of non-political competence a la Chris Christie, I’m not sure what the Coalition could have done to avoid losing out.

    Yes, letting Pickles anywhere near a mike wasn’t too clever and yes, ‘money is no object’ played poorly outside the Thames Valley. We can analyse the details but when it became plain this was a big issue and a big news story, the Coalition were always going to get hit, and that’s just the way it is.

    Report comment

  13. Labour’s lead seems to be up slightly in the last 3 or 4 days, almost certainly because of the government’s handling over the floods. Will this last or not??

    Report comment

  14. “It has only been in the last week or so, that the government appear to have got involved, with troops being used”

    I can’t help feeling when you see the news reports that getting the army in isn’t necessarily the key element in the floods response. I think it is simply an easy way of getting bodies in place (and maybe vehicles) quickly to hump sandbags around. Might simply be quicker and more of a chain of command than trying to hire a crew of building workers.
    The army turn up and it seems to be “what do you want us to do” rather than bringing in specific expertise. The main decisions of how to control flooding and what to do probably still rests with the EA and people in offices procuring and directing where the sandbags and other flood prevention stuff go.

    Report comment

  15. Macmillan’s reply to the young journalist’s question about the thing he feared most was very apposite.

    ‘Events, dear boy, events’.

    He experienced an event later.
    Profumo, Keeler, Rice Davies, David Astor and others too powerful to have been named in the Denning Report, did for him.

    Report comment

  16. In that Observer poll, I noticed that while Miliband’s overall ratings are lower than Cameron’s, he’s also the least disliked of the three leaders. Have we factored in what ambivalence towards a leader does to VI?

    Personally I’d rather all the leaders had approvals of a flat zero, so we could concentrate on policy and ideology, but that’s just me.

    Report comment

  17. Mr N
    Might Ed benefit from a kind of Attlee effect ?

    Report comment

  18. I’m surprised David Cameron hasn’t called him a modest man with much to be modest about!

    Report comment

  19. @ Old nat

    If one wants to live in a country where a. political leader is held in high esteem – there’s always North Korea

    Report comment

  20. MRNAMELESS – “I’m surprised David Cameron hasn’t called him a modest man with much to be modest about!”

    Give him time.

    Report comment

  21. Mr N
    The thing is , Cammo is no Churchill but in the eyes of the public at least , Ed might be an Attlee.

    Report comment

  22. statgeek (fpt)

    [...]I heard that the Greens want to sack any government advisor or minister that disagrees with climate change. That’s a democratic way to look at things. Why stop there. Sack anyone that disagrees with abortion, vegetarianism, and so on.

    I’m not saying that I agree with the Greens on this one, but there is a difference. The scientific evidence for climate change is so overwhelming that claiming that it doesn’t exist is simply delusional. Indeed the way in which the opponents constantly change the grounds for their disbelief suggests that this denialism is entirely a matter of faith rather an honest attempt to understand the world.

    In contrast being anti-abortion or a vegetarian is a matter of personal choice and opinion. You might still not want to put such a person in charge of hospitals or agriculture because their beliefs might influence how they did those particular jobs, but those are basically beliefs about morality that are both coherent and don’t attempt to deny the way the world is.

    Of course you might argue that being disconnected from how things work and using ‘faith-based evidence’ is a positive advantage in political advancement in some administrations (ladies and gentlemen I give you Mr Michael Gove). But it doesn’t actually lead to good government and tends to result in endless climbdowns as reality bites.

    Naturally all this is a separate matter from having different opinions on what should be done about climate change, which is an area for genuine debate and disagreement. And such options might include “Nothing, because it would inconvenience me and I’ll be long gone before it makes a difference”. I suspect it is to avoid having even to explicitly think such things that that climate change denialism is so popular.

    Report comment

  23. My view on the Green policy is that while I agree with the intention, the practical application would be quite sad for thousands of people who lost their jobs.

    My more moderate position would be to say to climate change deniers in government: You’re welcome to hold those views and we won’t stop you airing them generally if you want to. However, if your views lead to you sabotaging or undermining government climate change policy, yer out.

    Report comment

  24. EL,

    Possibly, I suppose the point is that we don’t know yet! If one wanted to be more controversial, one could call Miliband a Thatcher!

    Report comment

  25. mrnameless

    I’m surprised David Cameron hasn’t called him a modest man with much to be modest about!

    If you think about it that’s a very weird ‘insult’, isn’t it? Because literally it means that the target does have a lot of valuable qualities but is being being modest about them. It’s just the tone and context that makes us treat is as an insult, but actually it’s a enormous compliment.

    (Incidentally this is what makes me suspect it isn’t actually isn’t by Churchill who would probably have spotted the ambiguity and seems to have been genuinely fond of Attlee – as he ought to have been given his service as his deputy in the War).

    Report comment

  26. @Alec

    “Unspecific threats” “Bullying” “Getting them to reverse their vote”…

    I think you’re being somewhat disingenuous, or repeating the comments of those being disingenuous, there.

    What I’ve seen is the EU responding to the Swiss vote with notification that the free movement clause of “Bilaterals I” is not severable, and that should the Swiss abrogate the free movement clause they abrogate the entire treaty.

    And that’s not “bullying” or “threats”, it’s a pretty sound legal position on international law. The 1999 trade agreement required free movement. Take away free movement, the 1999 trade agreement ceases. It’s that simple.

    The EU have not made any comment about requiring re-votes, or discarding of the current result. Just one single comment said repeatedly, the terms of the treaty are not severable, participation is not pick and choose to select the parts you like.

    This is just as much “bullying” as pointing out that the SNP are not in the legal position to unilaterally promise the people of Scotland membership of a Pound Sterling Union after independence.

    It’s not a threat when a country declines the request of another to abrogate the obligations of it’s agreements but keep the benefits! It’s not a threat to say that one country will not be allowed to dictate their dealings with others! It’s not a threat to reply to “We want to be more independent of you!” by granting actual independence!

    Report comment

  27. @Alec

    It’s not a threat when a country declines the request of another to abrogate the obligations of it’s agreements but keep the benefits! It’s not a threat to say that one country will not be allowed to dictate their dealings with others! It’s not a threat to reply to “We want to be more independent of you!” by granting actual independence!

    Be it the SNP, the Swiss or the UK… It’s not a threat when someone says “No” to your demands.

    The reply to the Swiss referendum has been simple, the freedom of movement clauses of “Bilaterals I” are not severable from the freedom of trade clauses. If the swiss abrogate from “Bilaterals I” and “Bilaterals II”, they do so in entirety. That’s not a threat, it’s standard international law.

    Report comment

  28. Jayblanc

    Indeed – the Swiss I know think they have been smart when in fact they have been very naïve and are poking a wasp’s nest that they shouldn’t be provoking.

    They have given Brussels a chance to show exactly what trying to negotiate FMOP means without much risk to the EU – a message to GB before 2017.

    Report comment

  29. Big play from Barruso this morning on the independence vote. He’s told Marr that an independent Scotland would be outwith the EU and would need to apply from scratch, and that it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the EU as existing members states would probably block them. He cites Spain’s resistance to even recognising Kosovo as one such issue.

    Nats will pour derision and scorn on this, as ever, but it really should be a very major wake up call for them. The EU position has been abundantly clear for a long, long time, in that they will not wish to encourage secessionist states and these would not have automatic EU membership. Theoretical points about already being EU citizens are wrong – if you vote for independence, you are voting to cease to be EU citizens.

    Once classsified as a new applicant, you then have to apply from scratch, meaning all existing member states can veto your application. In the case of Scotland, this also means the UK.

    When Sir Nick MacPherson wrote his missive about a currency union, one of the reasons he said that Scotland would need to accept a share of the debt, regardless of currency decisions, was that they would require the assistance of the UK in other areas. He didn’t mention it, but I don’t think it will have escaped Whitehall’s notice that the UK will have the final say on whether Scotland could join the EU.

    Report comment

  30. Alec,

    It has to br said that given a currency union and EU membership looks difficult, the SNP case for yes looks very hard to make on the practical aspects that matter.

    The yes campaign now looks an appeal to the heart only.

    Report comment

  31. Alec/anyone,

    When the SNP’s Fiscal Commission concluded the ‘currency union’ option was in the best interests of Scotland, was ‘remaining part of the UK’ also considered?

    Report comment

  32. Also, the “political threats” to the Swiss referendum are coming from within Switzerland. Because the Swiss economy is so heavily dominated by a service sector and what little material exports they have a likewise dominated by Germany, while having too low a population that they could ever maintain that sector on internal demand alone. Prior to the European Trade agreements, Switzerland was the weakest economy in Europe.

    Add on that Switzerland’s ‘migration’ is in the huge amount day-workers commuting in from France, Italy and Germany! There is a great amount of panic going on in companies that have a lot of day workers. Which is an awful lot of Swiss companies.

    The people tearing their hair out and making angry phone calls to Swiss leadership are doing so from the top floors of office buildings in Switzerland.

    Report comment

  33. @Steve2 – yes it was, and they concluded that this was the best option for both parties.

    Report comment

  34. @Jayblanc – yes I appreciate that. It’s a ‘take it or leave it’ choice.

    However, there really does appear to be a terror amongst EU leaders of accepting any change in the basic construction of the EU, or of allowing any adjustments to take account of increasing democratic wishes on this point.

    I think that underly!ng the thinking on this point is the basic assumption that we are heading towards being a single country. This is clear in the stated aims of the EU, and closer integration is the mantra of the entire edifice of the organisation, whether or not this is democratically acceptable to it’s people.

    Migration may yet become the issue that stimulates a radical re think of the EU structures, but if it does, it’s going to be messy and potentially dangerous.

    Report comment

  35. New Thread

    Report comment

  36. Jayblanc

    A complete misjudgement by the leadership of Switzerland. They have allowed concerns from certain of the cantons (funnily mostly those who have less problem with ‘frontaliers’ – Vaud, Geneva, Neuchâtel, Valais, Jura) to be taken on by the UDC/SVP and exploited

    A mess which the Swiss will finally get themselves out of but whether they do it in time is a big question….. as I said naïve

    Report comment

  37. Barnaby Marder

    “Suffering from a selective memory”

    Dont worry it effects as all sooner or later.

    Ambivalentsupporter

    “Will it last or not”

    No

    Mrnameless

    “One could call Miliband a Thatcher”

    “Dont be silly”

    Report comment

  38. Alec,

    I’ve just this second found the report (my Googling skills are clearly fading). It seems that an independent Scotland was the framing scenario:

    ” The Working Group was tasked with overseeing the design a robust macroeconomic framework for Scotland post-independence.”

    “The Working Group considered four options
    1. Sterling;
    2. The Euro;
    3. A Scottish currency pegged to Sterling; and,
    4. A flexible Scottish currency. “

    Report comment

  39. @Alec

    Freedom of Movement is a fundamental principle of the European Union.

    And there’s a reason.

    It stops wars.

    That’s it.

    That’s the reason we have it.

    It stops wars.

    It’s crazy to think about this, but the states of Europe have been at war with each other almost continually since before the concept of nationality. Because it was far far too easy to declare the people living over there to be less important than the people living over here. Now much much more of the people living over there are our people too, and vice versa.

    And that stops wars.

    So yeah, it terrifies me to think that we could start sliding back to nationalist us-vs-them antagonist Europe.

    Report comment

  40. Jayblanc

    You make a v good point about the EU, freedom of movement and wars.

    My parents who were both WWII combatants, strongly supported EEC membership in 1973-5 precisely because they had like millions of other British citizens, experienced the dreadful consequences of wars caused by European them and us nationalism, including racism.

    It is naive to assume that a return to nationalism in Europe would not in the end increase the risk of armed conflict. Does anyone believe that Tugoslavia would have imploded so bloodily if it had been an EU member? How many armed conflicts have there been between EU members ? Answer zero which is stunning success if you think of the record from the Fall of the Roman Empire until 1945. Yet we take this all for granted and assume peace is the historical norm in Europe based on the last 50 years.

    Polling wise as UKIP age breaks show, my parents generation has been replaced by a new cohort of oldies who mostly didn’t experience WWII and now resent an open Europe except of course when they want to retire to France or Spain. The interesting thing though is that the next cohorts behind them ie most people under 50 are broadly pro EU and the younger they are, the more pro they are. Supports my admittedly eccentric view on an EU referendum which is that only those who were too young to vote in 1975 should vote in it …ie excluding me ????

    Report comment

  41. @Roger

    So should we sack ministers with a religious faith if I, as an atheist, call for it? To me The scientific evidence against a supreme being existing is so overwhelming that claiming that it does exist is simply delusional.

    :))

    It other words, each to their own, and so on.

    Report comment

  42. @Alec

    I think that the more people claim that Scotland ‘will not be allowed’ or words to that effect, the more Scottish people will dig in their heels.

    Personally, if I become a non-EU citizen, I don’t see a problem. It’s an idea I’ve toyed with from time to time. The worst that can happen is I have to pay more for EU goods. If it encourages Scots to buy more local produce and look to trade agreements, so be it.

    It might also put the Scots (and their governments) in the position of not having a safety net, so in theory the quality of the governance will rise.

    Report comment

  43. But surely if Scotland leaves the UK and is not allowed to remain in the EU because it is a new country, doesn’t that also apply to the rUK? The UK is a member, but when it becomes two parts aren’t they two new countries?

    Or does the ‘we don’t want you’ argument only apply to the smaller of the two?

    Report comment

  44. @Welsh Borderer, et al

    EU Referendum

    We had a referendum in 1975. Everyone able to vote then had the chance to determine the future of the country. Since then, with representitive democracy, we have played our equal part in the way the EU looks today. So we, collectively, cannot moan we wern’t involved — that’s the way our democracy works.

    And if we have a referendum in the future, what happens the day after, when a given number of people celebrate their 18th birthdays? Haven’t they been denied a vote? When do you stop?

    Based on the above argument I believe the referendum demands are spurious.

    Thanks everyone for a wonderful website — having spent my two-pennies-worth I’ll go back to lurking… :-)

    Report comment

  45. statgeek

    So should we sack ministers with a religious faith if I, as an atheist, call for it? To me The scientific evidence against a supreme being existing is so overwhelming that claiming that it does exist is simply delusional.

    No because there isn’t any “scientific evidence against a supreme being existing”. Or indeed for one. Supreme beings tend to be conveniently defined as being outside the reach of science to decide their existence either way. So it is purely a matter of faith either way.

    However climate change and its roots in human activity have an enormous weight of evidence on their side. Someone saying that they don’t ‘believe’ in it is not only wrong, they are applying the wrong criterion. It’s not like Tinkerbell – it won’t go away and die if people stop ‘believing’ in it. Why someone might be declaring themself to unfit for public office with such an attitude to climate change is not just because they don’t accept such evidence but because they also don’t understand how science and the world works.

    Report comment

  46. statgeek

    So should we sack ministers with a religious faith if I, as an atheist, call for it? To me The scientific evidence against a supreme being existing is so overwhelming that claiming that it does exist is simply delusional.

    No because there isn’t any “scientific evidence against a supreme being existing”. Or indeed for one. Supreme beings tend to be conveniently defined as being outside the reach of science to decide their existence either way. So it is purely a matter of faith either way.

    However climate change and its roots in human activity have an enormous weight of evidence on their side. Someone saying that they don’t ‘believe’ in it is not only wrong, they are using the wrong criterion. It’s not like Tinkerbell – it won’t go away and die if people stop ‘believing’ in it. Why someone might be declaring themself to unfit for public office with such an attitude to climate change is not just because they don’t accept such evidence but because they also don’t understand how science and the world works.

    Report comment

  47. @Al Urqa

    The rest of the UK would not be a new country, it would be the still existing United Kingdom that Scotland has exited.

    Report comment

1 2