Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor has been published by the Standard. Topline figures show Labour still ahead, but their lead falling – CON 31%(nc), LAB 34%(-3), LDEM 9%(nc), UKIP 11%(-4), GREEN 8%(+5). I don’t have a decent spreadsheet of historical trend data for the Greens, but that is likely their highest level of Green support for some time, presumably a result of the publicity from the European elections.


343 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 31, LAB 34, LD 9, UKIP 11”

1 4 5 6 7
  1. @PRESSMAN: “I will be astonished if labour poll 35% next year”

    Why would you be astonished at a result below that predicted in almost every opinion poll of the last four years and worse than Labour has managed in three of the last four general elections? Or would it be astonishment at it managing no more than 35%?

  2. @GuyMonde

    It looks to me that you’ve flipped the x-axis, so that most recent is on the left?

    The interesting thing for me is that UKIP is clearly an “old people’s party”, doing twice as well in the over-40s than in the under-40s.

  3. STAN J
    “On the day I wouldn’t have thought it’d take much to see..
    SNP 3 Lab 2 UKIP 1
    SNP 3 Lab 1 Con 1 UKIP 1
    SNP 2 Lab 2 Con 1 UKIP 1”

    Agreed, although the cross-tab we’re told never to believe in these cases shows the Scottish UKIPers were 23.1% Con 5.2% Lab 7.0% LD 8.2% SNP for Holyrood in 2011, with the rest presumably not voting/telling, so SNP 3 Lab 2 UKIP 1 is probably the least unlikely “shock” result.

  4. @ARTAIR

    “But did you “buy it” under GB?”

    ———-

    No, of course not!!…

  5. @Dave: “3. Any party gaining more than 10% of the total votes at a general election would be allocated a minimum number of seats equal to its % of the total vote.”

    I think the weakness with this would be they’d be party nominees, not members representing any constituency of voters. As individuals they’d rely on party patronage rather than the ballot box.

    Best solution for a constituency-based system is AV. Sadly that opportunity has been missed.

  6. BTW, Survation must have jumped the gun in publishing the PDF as it doesn’t support the Record’s headline, so they have replaced the short URL with a link to their home page. I suspect we’ll now have two wait a day or so to see them again.

  7. @Robin

    Yes, still trying to find my way around Google Drive, which turned my Excel graphs round without me noticing!
    I have A Ukip graph which I’m trying to post too but when I turn that round it disappears completely.
    Ah… technology – don’t ya love it?

  8. @Rogerh
    “I think the weakness with this would be they’d be party nominees, not members representing any constituency of voters. As individuals they’d rely on party patronage rather than the ballot box.”

    And this is different to being the party preferred candidate for a safe seat?

  9. Additionally, unlike in full closed-list PR, the “Top-Up” seats are not assured. You can’t guarantee that those on the top of the list for those Top-Up seats will actually get any. Particularly if you did better in the Constituency seats than your vote share, in that case you get no Top-Up seats at all.

  10. @pressman – I agree 35% is the bottom of what they’d should expect – think it should be easily be 37-38

  11. Anthony & Barbazenzero

    I’m getting confused those Survation tables don’t include any Euro figures – just IndyRef, Holyrood C & R and Westminster.

  12. @JAYBLANC: “And this is different to being the party preferred candidate for a safe seat”

    Yes, it is different. The power remains with the voters, not the party, even if it’s rarely used – Neil Hamilton, for example. Not that I’m suggesting the present system is acceptable either.

  13. RogerH
    You are confusing the selection of candidates for a seat with the selection by voters IMO. Let’s at least agree that both issues can be dealt with under PR.

  14. I’m wondering, if there was another coalition (with the other main party not really in a position to form a rival) then would the LD’s be trying again to get PR on the agenda?

    I doubt they’d bother with another referendum.

    Their best bet would clearly be an election result where they get to choose who to go into coalition with – sparking a bidding war. Or would they, in the light of how PR generally was so roundly rejected?

  15. @Spearmint

    “Constiituency-based FPTP ensures that every constituency is represented by the candidate supported by the greatest number of local people, and that the Government is therefore comprised of the party that can command the most support over the broadest geographical area.”

    A valiant, albeit dog-eared and time worn, defence of FTPT, but I don’t buy it, I’m afraid. AV was an attempt to address part of this, but under the present system barely any MP is elected by more than 50% of his/her electorate and quite a few get in on about 35% of the votes cast on 50%’ish turn outs; that’s about one in four of the constituency electorate supporting them. Then you have the many constituencies where the incumbent has a gargantuan majority and it’s pointless casting a vote for anyone else. The result? Many don’t bother. I sort of half get the point you make about them receiving the support of the “greatest number of local people”, but there’s got to be a way of ensuring that every vote counts wherever it is cast. Greater minds than mine need to devise the best system and variant of PR to ensure this, but we can’t carry on with the current voting system that was born when there were usually only two parties to vote for and over 80% of the population turned out to vote. It was defensible then, it isn’t now, even though we’re stuck with it and obliged to make as decent a silk purse out of the sow’s ear as we can.

    By the way, what has geography got to do with it? I’m talking national elections here where the national assembly should reflect how the nation voted.

    And talking of democratic deficit, these derisory percentages we’ve discussed don’t even take into account the estimated 5 to 6 million people not even on the electoral roll. Voting will shortly become a minority sport if we don’t do something about our hideously antiquated and obsolete democratic systems and structures.

  16. KeithP
    I reckon all they need would be a working group to look at Roy Jenkins’ report and then come up with a proposal on which a referendum would be held, voted on by Parliament. It is perhaps interesting that no referendum was ever held on the FPTP system, but one would be felt needed now. If both Lab and LD (as an example) had the above procedure in their manifestos, then arguably, the referendum would not be needed, but I suspect it would be held just to please everyone.

  17. I read somewhere today (I think the Telegraph) that perhaps Labour’s “slump” in favour of UKIP – notice Conservatives mostly stagnant – is due to Miliband’s seeming rejection of a EU referendum. If so, it does seem to have taken a while to filter through. Maybe it took an actual election (particularly an EU one) to uncork the logjam of public opinion?

    If it’s really all about referenda & immigration etc, then I can’t see voters being much less concerned about it in 12 months time, although I can see economic issues etc having more weight.

  18. Again, can I repeat the plea I made a couple of weeks ago for people to be welcoming towards people with differing viewpoints – sarcastic, mocking and confrontational responses are not welcome. This is the only way to encourage a broad spectrum of different views – few people are going to want to contribute a different viewpoint if other people are immediately going to jump on them and knock it down. Can I thank all of those who try to behave in an inclusive way (and please, don’t take this too critically, I know most people aren’t trying to be deliberately unwelcoming… but for a newcomer whose not part of the group it can seem that way, so do please all try!)

    Secondly, while its thankfully rare I have to point it out, sock-puppetting is not allowed. If I’m moderating you on one name, you don’t get around it by changing your name, you only get IP-banned.

  19. @Anthony

    “Secondly, while its thankfully rare I have to point it out, sock-puppetting is not allowed. If I’m moderating you on one name, you don’t get around it by changing your name, you only get IP-banned.”

    So, you sussed me out, did you, when I posted as Colin for a few days?

    Shame; I’d always liked that name too. Back to Crossbat11, I suppose.

    :-)

  20. @KeithP

    The Telegraph are sure everything that goes wrong everywhere is something to do with Europe and that therefore we need a referendum. They’re on their 40th consecutive year predicting the imminent collapse of the EEC/whatever and are currently in an enormous sulk that the Euro didn’t collapse last year, especially as they’d declared victory and demanded apologies from Europhiles.

    In short, I am not sure I would go to the DT for an objective or even useful view on Europe.

  21. I don’t think Europe ever scores very high as an issue in General Elections; I’ll be surprised if it does next year either, even with Cameron’s referendum promise.

  22. I must share this with you.

    Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church elders have reacted adversely to the Eurovision Song Contest winner.

    I have just read this headline in the Belgian paper De Morgen:

    ‘Men with beards in dress opposed by men with beards in dress’.

  23. Roger H

    If Miliband polls 34% or more he will become PM. Sorry, but that is just not going to happen as the pressure intensifies.

  24. @ Pressman

    Aye, fine. But then who will be the next PM? Will Cameron continue, even if he fails to produce an outright Tory majority two elections running?

  25. @Pressman

    “If Miliband polls 34% or more he will become PM. Sorry, but that is just not going to happen as the pressure intensifies.”

    I think you may be missing that fine old, much used, three letter acronym – IMO!

    It’s easily done, but I think you’re making that classic old mistake of confusing opinion with fact.

    You have no way of knowing that what you say is going to happen will in fact do so. None of us have.

  26. John B,

    DC will not remain PM if he can not deliver an EU in/out referendum so he is honour bound to stand aside for a different leader should a minority Con Government be what the result dictates.

    Yeah right!!!

  27. We had sockpuppetry!? I miss all the excitement.

    @ Crossbat11,

    By the way, what has geography got to do with it? I’m talking national elections here where the national assembly should reflect how the nation voted.

    The implicit argument behind the constituency system is that in a country with such large regional disparities, making sure that the Government represents a majority of regions is a higher priority than making sure it represents an absolute majority of voters. That’s why it penalises the Tories so heavily- being incredibly popular in Surrey isn’t good enough if you’re unelectable in Scotland and most of the North.

    Personally I find the argument that every vote cast should count more compelling, and I’m not convinced that PR wouldn’t be better for localism than the current system. People who felt their region was being shafted could deal with it the old-fashioned way, by forming a regional party and insisting their local issues be dealt with as part of coalition negotiations. You’d probably accomplish more that way than by making your regional grievance a tiny cog in the giant machine of Labour’s (or the Lib Dems’, if you live in the West Country) national agenda.

    But that’s the argument.

  28. John B,

    If the outcome next year has Cons as largest party, but without an overall majority, then, provided Con+LD gives a majority and NC can deliver LD support, the present coalition will continue. It is unlikely there would be any change of personnel in the core triumvirate (PM, DPM, Chancellor).

    The choice of PM next May is thus DC or EM.

    Any other option could only occur if there has been an “accident” to either of them or a seismic change in election outcome such that neither Con or Lab are the largest party.

  29. @ Howard,

    Lol. Well done, that newspaper.

    @ Crossbat 11,

    Pressman could be a time traveller! You don’t know.

  30. I wouldn’t be surprised if Liberals finish 5th in the EU election and possibly even 5th in the general.

    The Greens appear to be hot on their tails, and just like UKIP I think when people start to see the Greens name up there, they will realise voting for them isn’t just a wasted vote, and so I believe support will grow further and further and they will over take Liberal.

    If you’re right wing and unsatisfied with the tories, vote Ukip, if you’re left wing and unsatisfied with Labour you can now vote Green.

    Don’t see a case for why you’d vote Lib Dem really? Although I’m sure there are a few die hard loyalists here who’d like to disagree.

    I also find Clegg’s personal attack today on Eurosceptics ugly, calling them unpatriotic I am actually in the same boat as Clegg on this, I want us to stay in the EU, but a reformed EU, however I find comments like his today a real turn off and almost make me want to vote UKIP in protest.

    I think we can all agree, those on the left, those on the right, and those in the centre, that personal attacks should not interfere in the debate, and I think it makes Clegg look incredibly childish and I’d expect the polls to follow.

  31. Jim Jam,

    Actually, even if the outcome is a minority Con gov’t, DC would remain as PM, unless the bill for the referendum is defeated. It is only at that point that he is honour bound to stand aside for having failed to deliver the referendum.

    If a referendum bill is passed, which could happen with support from minor parties (including any UKIP MPs), then there would be no need for him to resign unless he then “lost” the ensuing referendum.

    So, only if Lab emerge as largest party (with or without a majority) would DC be replaced as PM by EM. At that point he may well feel obliged to step down as leader, though it is not obligatory.

  32. @KEITHP

    “Their best bet would clearly be an election result where they get to choose who to go into coalition with – sparking a bidding war. Or would they, in the light of how PR generally was so roundly rejected?”

    I don’t remember ever having been given the chance to vote for or reject PR.

  33. @Pressman

    I think you may be a too fixated on what you want to happen rather than what the evidence currently suggests looks most likely to happen.

  34. @PAUL H-J

    I really can’t see Clegg being able to drag the LibDem rump into another coalition, particularly with a party committed to an in/out referendum and withdrawal from the ECHR.

  35. ALAN S

    Interesting, I expect it to be 30-32%.

  36. @RogerH
    ” allocated a minimum number of seats equal to its % of the total vote.”

    I think the weakness with this would be they’d be party nominees, not members representing any constituency of voters. As individuals they’d rely on party patronage rather than the ballot box.”
    !. You believe that today’s constituency MPs are not party nominees?
    2. The minimum includes any MPs already elected as constituency MPs. The LibDems in 2010 got 57 MPs with 23% of the vote, and in 2005 62 MPs with 22% so my suggestion makes no change in that case. Its sole purpose is to ensure that a party gaining a significant percentage of the popular vote has at least some representation in parliament which corresponds to its support across the country. Each MP thus elected without a constituency could claim the support of 1% of the voters – not a claim that any MP of today’s three largest parties could make. After all, parliament governs the whole country.
    No party is likely to be restricted to a minimum of 30 MPs under my system, as any party getting 30% of the popular vote would have many more MPs than that minimum elected by the usual FPTP voting. No party is likely to have 30 MPs elected without some of them holding constituency seats, though I have seen predictions (which I do not believe) that UKIP might get 20%+ of the total vote but no seats. If that happened, would you regard 20 UKIP MPs in a 670 seat parliament as excessive? To set against the ‘party placemen’ criticism, choice of those MPs could in practice be restricted to candidates finishing second in some constituency or other, or even specify those obtaining most votes whatever the constituency in which they stood.
    3. Others suggest that AV or PR could also improve on the present system. So they might, but with a raft of changes, some known and some unforeseen.
    4. @Crossbat11.”we’re stuck with it [FPTP] and obliged to make as decent a silk purse out of the sow’s ear as we can.”
    I believe that the merit of my “fix” is that it does that with no change at all to the present FPTP system of holding elections and counting votes, but at least offsets its major deficiencies, though by no means removing them entirely. under the first-past-the-post system.
    5. There are of course some issues around how a party with say 250 MPs copes with their voting power being capped at about 200. 50 different ones to stand down from voting (though not from any other contribution to parliament) in monthly rotation or in each session of parliament might be the best way, with the 50s drawn by lot at the start of the parliament.

  37. AlanS

    As Crossbat11 says, it’s all IMO.

  38. MR WELLS

    “Secondly, while its thankfully rare I have to point it out, sock-puppetting is not allowed. If I’m moderating you on one name, you don’t get around it by changing your name, you only get IP-banned”
    ______

    http://nosycrow.com/images/image.php?image=1453.jpg&width=460

  39. Roger – 30-35 LD seats is possible given their strong incumbency and ABT and ABLab votes in those seats.

    Would Clegg see the light and agree an in/out referendum on the Friday after after the poll closed – surely he is more principled that that? Oh hang on.
    As per Paul I accept on reflection, the bill will have to fall for DC to resign if he carried out his threat (or promise). though, would an LD commitment to a free vote on a referendum bill suffice for a new coalition agreement.

    Maybe Unionist and a few Lab Euro-Sceptics, maybe some EU supporters seeking ‘clarity’ would support a referendum giving DC his majority with a similar seat total to now?

  40. I think if the GE 15 turns out similar to GE 10 i.e Cons largest party and LibDems with enough seats to give them a majority – which is a reasonably likely – then I reckon Clegg will almost certainly go into a second coalition. He will easily justify it saying

    “the people have spoken an returned the Coalition so I am duty bound to bow to the wishes of the electorate. This will mean I have to accept a on EU membership in which I will campaign for a Yes vote….good of the country, continue the good work etc…..”

  41. “A referendum on EU membership” of course

  42. @Rich – Even apart from its unpleasantly homophobic description of Peter Mandelson as having “abominable morals”, the article does not seem to mention anywhere Lynton Crosby or Andy Coulson, which rather undermines its credibility.

  43. ANTHONY WELLS
    ROGER MEXICO

    It’s the curious case of the missing poll data….

    As I’ve posted on What Scotland Thinks, Survation have now put up a proper article covering the poll at http://survation.com/new-scotland-referendum-and-voting-intention-poll-by-survation/ which links to the PDF tables.

    But most oddly they have removed pages 17 to 20 from the PDF, which is where the Euro polling information is in the copy I downloaded when the link was fresh on Twitter.

    The three possible reasons I can think of are:

    1. A different client commissioned them.
    2. The Record wants to bury them.
    3. Survation miscalculated something

    1 or 2 strikes me as much the more likely, but AW’s opinion would be most welcome!

  44. Is this a new Comres Poll or did I miss it?

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/C4M_European_Voting_Intention_Poll_15_May_2014.pdf

    Also not clear on the figures as I all I can see is a 10/10 sure to vote and 5-10 sure to vote.

  45. COUPER

    “I think if the GE 15 turns out similar to GE 10 i.e Cons largest party and LibDems with enough seats to give them a majority – which is a reasonably likely – then I reckon Clegg will almost certainly go into a second coalition”
    _________

    I don’t think Glegg will or at least I think his party will tell him not to enter into coalition again.

    He might say he is duty bound but it’s up to Cameron to form a government and it may be a minority one with Lib/Dem support on an issue by issue basis.

    After the bashing the libs have taken in various local and by-elections plus the mauling they got in Scotland where they are confined to two island seats (with many puffins) I really think they would rather take stock and try and rebuild what’s left of their party.

  46. PS to my previous post….

    The clue is on their 2014 Archives page – http://survation.com/archive/archive-2014/

    11th May 2014: Survation polled 1,005 residents of Great Britain on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. As well as European Parliament and Westminster voting intention, topics included Scottish independence, The Chilcot Inquiry, the stickiness of UKIP’s Westminster vote, potential intervention in Nigeria’s Boko Haram affair, and the the concept of a politician being “intellectually self confident”. Tables can be found here.

  47. shev11

    I was reading some of the comments on the link Rich posted and someone posted this…

    Latest ComRes EU poll , 100% likelihood to vote shows.
    UKIP 34%
    Labour 24%
    Tories. 22%
    Libdem 8%

    If this is a new poll then UKIP are heading for a European landslide.

  48. The trouble with Euro Polls is they can only measure for voting in the Euro Election in isolation – they don’t take into account the many parts of England where there are also local elections on the same day and the two main parties will perform better and UKIP worse – what will be the crossover effect of the local elections with the Euros?

1 4 5 6 7