ComRes have a new poll of European voting intentions in the People tomorrow. Topline figures for those 10/10 certain to vote are CON 22%(+1), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 30%(nc), Others 10%. Changes are from the last ComRes European poll about a month ago.

The poll was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, so was partly before the Clegg-Farage debate.

UPDATE: There are crossbreaks on the tables for before and after the debates – I would urge extreme caution into reading too much into this and going off with the idea that the debate had this or that effect.

One the political make up of the early and late parts of the sample are different (pre-debate had more 2010 Tory voters), VI from the two halves of the sample are based on only around 300 and 450 people so big margins of error, and more importantly dividing at 8pm is too soon. In any event it’s not just the people who watch directly, it’s the media coverage afterwards.

UPDATE 2: There is also a new Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday which has Westminster voting intentions of CON 29%(-5), LAB 36%(+1), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 20%(+4) and European voting intentions of CON 21%(-6), LAB 34%(+2), LDEM 9%(+2), UKIP 27%(+4). Fieldwork for the Survation poll was done on Friday, so wholly after the Clegg-Farage debate.

140 Responses to “New ComRes European poll”

1 2 3
  1. UKIP from Con bounce fading a bit?

    Approvals have reversed there trend of late-something upset the voters in policy?

    Report comment

  2. How often does one see bad obits?

    Report comment

  3. Green at 5 with YouGov? That’s a rarity!

    Report comment

  4. Er…and they’re not, they’re still on 2.

    Report comment

  5. Oh for goodness sake, PI was referring to an entirely different Euro poll. I’ll get me coat.

    Report comment

  6. Oh-Approvals are -19…….not -29 .

    A YouGov counting error-I feel a whole lot better lol

    Report comment

  7. At the risk of making a fool of myself twice in ten minutes, I think the approval rating in the headline is wrong – on the tables it’s -19, not -29. Either that or I really should go back to bed.

    Report comment

  8. Oh good. (Sort of ; )

    Report comment

  9. @COLIN

    “Oh-Approvals are -19…….not -29 .

    A YouGov counting error-I feel a whole lot better lol”


    Unfortunately the remaining LibDems adding to approval may not vote Tory…

    Report comment

  10. @ Virgilio
    “LAB at 30 or more in EE means a 30+ lead of PES/SD over EPP in one of the big-4 of EU, a gap impossible to compensate for with results from other countries… … Bottom line: EM and Matteo Renzi offer the victory to the Social Democrat family in May…”

    Agree with the conclusion for European Parliament, and also Conservatives likely to be the biggest UK losers in euro-elections, which they have quiety won here in the UK from 1999 onwards.

    However, and I hesitate here as Virgilio is the acknowledged expert on European parties, but I think there may be a typo when the EPP is mentioned, as I believe the Conservative Party left the EPP for the European Conservatives and Reformists.

    I enjoy the posts! Thank you.

    Report comment

  11. quiety – quietly. (It’s early).

    Report comment

  12. Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 4th April – Con 34%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%; APP -29

    Report comment

  13. There’s a bit of a tradition of Con MPs going over to more right-wing parties before GEs – George Gardiner, Andrew Hunter and Bob Spink, etc. Will we see a defector before next May?

    Report comment

  14. @alister1948

    Virgilio is making an EU-wide prediction based on opinion polling in the member states.

    He’s interested in the balance between EPP and PES/SD.
    ECR don’t really figure, but Virgilio has posted on the likely outcome for them.

    Parliamentary groupings need a minimum of 25 MEPs from at least seven member states.

    ECR had it origins in the Conservative party leadership election in May 2005, but it took them until June 2009 to cobble something together.

    Back to square one for Tory MEPs looks highly likely after the elections.

    Report comment

  15. Fair to say that Coalition bounce has disappeared and we are back to a 5% Labour lead, not surprised, said as much was likely at the time.

    Slight decline in Government support on the only movement of significance in this mornings poll. Cannot see any reason for it so just polling variation I suspect.

    News wise not a good week for the Government


    Government approval is actually -19 (33-52).

    Report comment

  16. Should have said slight decline in Government support on the economy


    Report comment

  17. Amber – “That’s fact; they’ve acknowledged by their actions that there was a problem.”

    They really haven’t. Only that there was a problem with perception. YouGov have in the past tended to close the panel to new recruits in the immediate run up to general elections. This is largely done to stop the perception that there can be a problem. It’s not acknowledging there IS a problem because it is impossible to pack a sizeable panel in this way.

    Panels don’t recruit themselves – recruiting and maintaining an active and representative panel is a difficult and time consuming task, and one of the most critically important tasks in doing decent polling using this method. As such, there are panel teams charged with recruitment, the routes and rates of people joining are carefully monitored, there are reports and analysis each week. YG’s active panel is about 300,000 or so. Hence, to change the make up of the panel enough to affect the result of polls by a single percentage point would require 3000 people. Getting 3000 people to join the panel through a single route (most people do not join by just rolling up to the website!), all behaving in a single atypical way would stick out like a sore thumb with a flashing neon sign saying “SORE THUMBS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!”

    That is not to say that a panel that is not carefully enough recruited could have systemic biases… but its so long as they are of reasonable size and being properly monitored it’s would be extremely, extremely difficult for anyone to effectively pack them – the number of people necessary to make a difference would be too difficult to sneak on without being detected

    Report comment

  18. Morning folks,

    Here are the charts for the You Gov data this week:

    It looks like things have almost gone back the average polling data for the year.

    Looking at the week by week comparison by 2010 voter ID, the top 3 changes are:

    1. Con VI from Con 2010 = -1.0%
    2. UKIP VI from Con 2010 = +1.0%
    3. Con VI from Lab 2010 = -0.4%

    The charts for each party current VI by 2010 voter ID looks very normal (i.e random up and down, poll to poll.

    Them polldrums again….

    Report comment

  19. MrNameless – Andrew Hunter was a bit of a strange case. He defected because he intended to move to Northern Ireland and become involved in politics there (it was apparently disrupted by the death of his wife). There isn’t appear to be have any obvious rancour about it.

    Bob Spink and George Gardiner on the other hand are far more comparable – both were the result of deselection attempts. Gardiner was successfully deselected by his local party, what was going on with Spink was never clear (it was never clear if he actually joined UKIP either), but it was known that there were ongoing deselection attempts against him which he claimed were irregular.

    Best candidates for defections (especially to parties that don’t have safe seats to parachute defecters into) are normally the deselected, the unseated (when there are boundary changes) and the retiring.

    Report comment

  20. @Billy Bob

    Yes, the (reduced) number of Conservative MEPs after May will have to do some thinking. From what you say the conditions for maintaining a group or creating a new one seem quite a high hurdle.

    I suppose any problems the Conservatives find over their grouping etc might weaken even further their attachment to the EU, such as it is.

    Report comment

  21. ST reports that Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA has said MPs can no longer be trusted to police their own affairs. He has called for the HoC to end the system under which a Committee of MPs decide on the definition of misconduct & it’s punishment.
    In an extraordinary adjunct to this, ST reports that Kennedy’s term , comes up for renewal in November, & he will be required to re-apply for his job. Bercow has advertised it.

    The sidelining of Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, merely repeats the disgraceful ousting of her predecessor Elizabeth Filkin in 2002.

    MPs have been gunning for Kennedy ever since IPSA was rushed into being under Brown in the furore over expenses.

    John Mann has now called for Miller to resign & the pressure on DC to sack her must be enormous. I have the greatest admiration for Mann in his principled stand against winging & fiddling MPs , and I agree with him that Miller should go. My concern is less to do with yet another case of MP avarice, than with her suitability for her job.

    Miller tried to frustrate Hudson at every turn & indeed threatened to refer her to the HoC Committee on Standards !. Worse-much worse-if the DT tapes are to be believed, she threatened the newspaper with references to her role in drawing up new rules for Press Regulation.

    She is not fit to carry on with that task-she has no credibility with which to impose any constraints on the UK Press.

    If Kennedy is ousted in favour of a stooge, or IPSA is scrapped ( which many MPs have called for ever since it’s formation) , and Miller stays in post supported by David CAmeron & tacitly by Ed Miliband, Nigel Farage will have a field day.

    Report comment

  22. I think this is an interesting question about the changed morality of the country and whether this has any affect on how people would vote.

    Would issues of sleaze affect the party you vote for ?

    Of course it would depend on the nature of sleaze, but there are various scandals involving politicians covered in todays Mail on Sunday. I wonder which type of sleaze would affect the voting intention of people, more than other forms of sleaze. It is the financial conduct of MP’s or is it the personal morality stuff that does more damage ?

    I think because of the decades of reported scandals affecting MP’s, that the public are no longer shocked by them. Because all parties have been affected by scandals, I am not sure one party is seen, as any worse than another. In my opinion, sleaze would no longer be an issue for most people when deciding which party to vote for. The older generation of voters who would have had a problem with sleaze are no longer around, to make any difference to the outcome.

    Report comment

  23. @Anthony Wells

    Interesting background. Thanks. What about subsections of the panel? Is there a greater risk in relation to the pool for polls needing more specific characteristics?

    Report comment

  24. TOH

    “Fair to say that Coalition bounce has disappeared and we are back to a 5% Labour lead, not surprised, said as much was likely at the time.”

    But, did we listen to you? Did we beggarry. And now how foolish we look and you were so, so right all along. How do you do it?

    Report comment

  25. Darling relying on that old chestnut-”outlier”.

    Sounds like a UKPR contributor lol.

    “An unnamed minister has told the Sunday Telegraph that the Culture Secretary’s behaviour was “incompatible with what she should be doing as a Cabinet minister”, while members of the backbench 1922 committee predicted in the Observer that Ms Miller would be “sacked, demoted or moved” in a forthcoming reshuffle. ”

    Politics Home

    Report comment

  26. Muddy waters – there would be, yes (but equally, rather more attention goes into recruiting hard-to-get groups so it would be more easily spotted and defended against!)

    Report comment

  27. Am I alone at being surprised by the budget bounce and, once it had happened, surprised again by its brevity. What it tells me is how little I understand of voters and how useless I would be at prediction, especially of the next election.

    Report comment

  28. Anthony – Thank you. That’s what I would have assumed – on both the additional risk and the mitigation.

    Report comment

    Billy Bob is right, I mentioned a 30+ point lead for Labour because, after the end of the euro-parliamentary partnership between EPP and the Conservatives, the EPP has 0 points in UK. The battle for 2nd place between the Conservatives and UKIP is a shadow fight, of course it will have political consequences in the UK political scene, but none whatsoever in the broader scheme of forces in the EP. The most important thing is which party will have 1st place, the SD or the EPP, because it will very probably also have the next president of the European Commission, according to the Lisbon Treaty. Second point of interest is whether ALDE will continue as third party or will be overcome by the Radical Left EUL/NGL, and the third one is whether the new Far Right Alliance under LePen, Strache and Wilders will be able to form a distinct group. ECR and EFD (the groups of Conservatives and UKIP respectively) are in danger to be dissolved, or, at any rate, to have a very reduced influence in EP and European politics.

    Report comment

  30. newhouset

    I find it easy. Just age and experience i guess.

    Report comment

  31. @Colin

    I remember Elizabeth Filkin being ousted for having the temerity to do her job. It seems as if Hudson has been sidelined for much the same reasons. Maybe their male predecessors were treated with more respect? As it stands, it certainly appears that Parliament wants to be seen to have tough independent investigative commissioners but they don’t want them to actually conclude that an MP has done anything wrong.

    Personally, I think that the backlash against alleged unreasonable expenses a few years ago was a tad excessive. Newspapers gave the impression that most MPs were corrupt which I do not believe to be true. Who does not claim expenses, when seeking reimbursement of necessary costs incurred directly through work related activity? However, the solution to this perception was to beef up the powers of the Standards Commissioner. To then stymie the Commissioner reinforces the original perception. If Farage makes hay on this point, all power to his elbow.

    Report comment

  32. @ Anthony

    That is not to say that a panel that is not carefully enough recruited could have systemic biases… but its so long as they are of reasonable size and being properly monitored it’s would be extremely, extremely difficult for anyone to effectively pack them – the number of people necessary to make a difference would be too difficult to sneak on without being detected.
    I am sure that could not happen with YG but I think that it did happen with Panelbase.
    Without evidence, a professional like yourself cannot let such an allegation against another firm stand. I’m neither an expert nor a professional – which I already emphasised in this context so I am happy to stress that your opinion is 100 times (at least) more worthy than mine – nevertheless, I continue to doubt that PB is even close to getting an accurate result in its referendum polls & I think the reason for this is partly method but also partly because they have an unrepresentative panel.
    When a polling firm which had been performing attitude surveys in Scotland for years (Ipso Mori) is getting a difference of -25% & PB is getting a +1% there’s something going on. As PB is new, it’s more likely to be something awry with PB than Mori.

    Report comment

  33. Ok, so if people use a single route, that’s a bit obvious. What if they use multiple routes though?…

    Report comment

  34. “Who does not claim expenses, when seeking reimbursement of necessary costs incurred directly through work related activity?”


    Is it normal to claim for duck houses or that you live in a cupboard under the stairs or summat?

    Report comment

  35. (I mean, obviously if you breed ducks for a living, the duck house might make more sense…)

    Report comment

  36. And as well as using different routes, don’t pack ‘em in all at once?…

    Report comment

  37. RAF

    I agree

    Report comment

  38. @Colin – Agree entirely with your 9.36am post. It’s really refreshing to see a completely non partisan post on such a matter as this. I hope I would post something equally unequivocal were this a Green Party minister or MP in similar circumstances.

    @RAF – I’m not so sure you can say the majority of MPs were not corrupt. It’s perhaps stretching it to call what went on corruption, at least in all but a few cases, but it’s very clear that the majority abused expenses.

    We can blame the system as an excuse, but let’s be clear – some, such as John Mann – were utterly blameless. If just one MP operates entirely cleanly, you have to start looking at the MP’s own choices, not the system.

    I therefore think it’s very fair to say that the vast majority of MPs acted immorally, but whether this could be construed as corrupt is more difficult.

    Report comment

  39. @Virgilio, Billy Bob

    Thanks for clarifying about the EP.

    I’ll be going to Brussels in July, but only to change trains unfortunately.

    Report comment

  40. 2 things. First & foremost, the front page of the Sunday Times refers apparently to a poll on Scottish independence which is within the margin of error. Is the headline wrong, or is it not a bona fide poll or something? There’s no reference to it here. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
    Secondly, a very belated response to Ann in Wales on the previous thread. Angus Maude was never Tory MP for Solihull ; he was MP for Stratford-on-Avon, and before that in the 50s represented Ealing South.

    Report comment

1 2 3