Following on from the two point and four point leads in the Ashcroft and Populus polls today the other two voting intention polls tonight both have six point Labour leads.

ComRes‘s telephone poll for the Indy has topline figures of CON 27%(-3), LAB 33%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 17%(-1)
Meanwhile YouGov‘s daily poll for the Sun has toplines of CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

138 Responses to “Latest ComRes and YouGov polls”

1 2 3
  1. Evening All.
    Swing back not yet started, to the Government.

  2. So today’s 4 polls show an average Labour lead of 4.5% – almost bang on line with Anthony’s UKPR average. A very slight slippage perhaps in July but not much.

  3. That does indeed look like a Comedy Result.

    39 is a rare sight these days.

  4. 2 in a week Mr N.

    within moe of 37-38 YG average

  5. 39 is rare but 38 has been quite a frequent score for Labour in YouGov polls. It’s not a comedy result – just towards the more optimistic side for Labour of MoE.

  6. I should clarify I was talking about the Comres showing 33/27 for the Big Two which looks distinctly odd. The YouGov is perfectly plausible.

    By the way, If I was going to be a shameless self-publicist I could tell people they could read my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine situation on the website Clarity News. But that would be egotistical.

  7. Wow, I thought when I saw the headline in the Guardian – 40,000 people flocking to Birmingham to see Ed. That speech last week must have lit some kind of fire!

    Then I started reading, and realised it was 40,000 people flocking to Birmingham for Eid.

  8. Comres tabs at

    From my perspective highlight is on p21: Green party at 7% (which follows from a 5% in each of YG (SundayTimes) and Populus and a 6% Ashcroft).

  9. The speech probably did help. It was clever psychologically If you admit your faults is gets people on your side.

    For example someone you know has a really annoying whiny voice which irritates you like mad. Then they say ‘I hate my voice it is really whiny and annoying’ You think ‘Yes it is’ but it never annoys you nearly so much again. In fact you start to feel a bit guilty for thinking it was annoying in the first place.

    Maybe Ed has spiked Pressman’s guns.

  10. @Allan C

    Just because they’re out to get you it doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.

  11. two 6 point Lab leads……average a solid 4%

    And this is after the big economic good news story for the Tories which dominated the news on friday.

    Osborne must be scratching his head tonight…..surely he thought this was the start of the comeback….almost doen to 9 months to GE

  12. And as if we haven’t already been spoilt enough by four polls in one day, here’s a fifth from London for the Evening Standard:

    “Today’s survey also shows Labour has increased its lead over the Conservatives in London from seven to 10 points since June. Ed Miliband’s party has risen three points to 45 per cent, while David Cameron’s Tories are unchanged on 35 per cent. Ukip is down two points to eight per cent, while the Liberal Democrats are in fourth place.”

    Lots of polling also about Boris Johnson, but who cares about such froth?

    All in all, not a bad day for Labour.

  13. @Allan C

    I am more paranoid. I think that the Cons are deliberately being a bit useless till Scotland votes No, once that is in the bag they will have massive Britfest at Tory conference then ramp up and with Pressman’s help win I’m May 15.

  14. @ Mr Nameless

    I know your name now! FWIW, I think it’s a well written piece; I like the approach that you take – linking it to past ‘lost causes’.

    It’s quite tricky to find using google; it’s much easier via twitter. It’s about politics, so I don’t think Anthony would mod you for posting a link to it.

  15. Should not get too excited by these daily polls to be honest. The election will be one long term – and Miliband is there for the long term. Previously a Tory Government if they believe their own stuff would have gone for a snap election. Problem is the five year thing – far too long. Anyway they will lose (the Tories that is) and the Liberals will be a distant memory.

  16. @Billy Bob, @Carfrew.

    Thank you for your comments FPT. Yes, I am in permod and no, I haven’t complained about it: it’s Anthony’s board and he can propose/dispose as he wishes – it’s not as if I pay him…:-) I do hope it’s not permanent, tho’, since it is uncomfortable, but, well: we’ll see how it goes.

  17. Martyn

    ” it’s not as if I pay him”

    You could always try that approach! :-(

    Pity, I miss your contributions.

  18. Best thing with these two polls is to take the average of them I think.

  19. “ComRes‘s telephone poll for the Indy has topline figures of CON 27%(-3), LAB 33%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 17%(-1)”

    But for England & Wales the change is a little better for Labour –

    CON 29%(-2.5), LAB 33%(+2), LDEM 8.5%(+1), UKIP 19%(-1).

    – ComRes being one of the pollsters which has the good sense to provide a cross break which excludes the very different pattern in Scotland, where the UK GE results might affect the governing majority, but almost never the decision, as to who governs the UK.

  20. Yet more methodological changes in indyref polling!

    Panelbase – “We have made two adjustments to our weighting process for this poll. First, we have rebalanced our sample to reflect voting patterns in the recent European elections. Although turnout was low among the general population, it was high among the respondents to this survey and it seems prudent to take account of this very recent voting behaviour when seeking a politically balanced sample. The effect of this is to slightly increase the gap between Yes and No. Second, having observed in several recent polls that people born in Scotland have quite different attitudes to independence from those born elsewhere, and that Scots-born tend to be somewhat underrepresented in samples, we have also weighted the data based on country of birth. The effect of this is to slightly narrow the gap between Yes and No. In summary, the net effect of these two new weights is statistically insignificant, as indeed are the variations in referendum voting intention between our recent polls,”

  21. Latest YouGov / The Sun results 28th July -, Lab 39%, Con 33%, UKIP 12%, LD 8%, Greens 4% Nats 3%, Others 1%; APP -22

    I do wonder if this poll had been posted on Sunday, whether there would have been the rise in optimism about the economy

    Having said that, in this poll, there is a lot of uprating of the Lab numbers and the young voter cross break is ridiculous and maybe the ex 2010 LD to Lab is a little higher than recently

    Edge of MOE I think – 3% to 5% Lab lead seems correct to me at the moment

  22. Article from the Conservative biographer Tim Bale about the relationship between economics and voting intentions

    He states

    The rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation were the numbers that counted from 1950 to 1970

    Then it was whether the voters felt that things were moving in the right direction for the economy or personal finances from 1980 to 1997

    Then economic competance from 1997 to 2010

    Tim Bale writes

    ‘most of the classic “objective” indicators also favour (the coalition): GDP is growing; unemployment is coming down; inflation and interest rates are low.


    ‘real wage growth remains anaemic’ and ‘many people believe the economy is growing despite the goverement’

    Tim Bale conclusion for 2015 is

    “The economy probably does decide elections. But exactly how it does so is far more complicated than many of us imagine.” – so, like the rest of us, Bale doesn’t really know what will happen.

    Good Morning. Sun Twitter has a 6%Lab lead.
    On the economy; I think Labour does better when people feel less insecure, and more optimistic.
    1945, 1964/66 1997 are the examples which come to mind.

  24. ChrisLane

    Good Morning, I hope you are enjoying your summer holidays

    I agree with you about more optimism gives Left of Centre parties more chance

    In this one
    ROC 45% (Cons and UKIP)
    LOC 46% (Lab, Greens, Nats)

  25. I would certainly suggest that talking about “Economic growth and prosperity” while wages continue to stay behind inflation, is actually going to cause discontent.

    As I’ve said here for some time, “Economic Recovery” based on the leading-edge measures of GDP and stock market results, had to have arrived last year for trailing-edge increases of living standards to arrive in time for the election. Economic improvement is only a political positive when it comes with improvement of the standard of living.

    And the UK coming out of the depression (I see we appear to have all accepted that it was a depression now, not just a harsh recession) last leaves clear lines of attack on “Government hindered the recovery more than they helped it”.

    That’s the problem with “It’s the Economy stupid” politics, in that “The Economy” in politics is not just one set of figures. It’s a much more complex relationship between potential earnings in the future, current standard of living, and past trends.

    Now, GoP NOP’s Consumer Confidence does show a positive result, the first since 2005. However, the Conservatives went into 1997’s election with Consumer Confidence having pushed above zero too.

  26. It’s not about the economy per se, it’s about what affects people, and where. E.g. unemployment diminished as an electoral concern once it was more localised in Labour areas. It is a concern once more with this new, “flexible”, zero-hour economy.

    ERM-related interest rate hikes did for Major. The economy was growing, but fat use against the fear of hefty mortgage rises.

    Economy is growing now but as capital has acquired its growing hegemony it can force wages down and prices on essentials up, thus making a mockery of supposed trickle-down. Which is why we limited its power in the first place. (Nothing should have too much power, neither state nor capital, nor media etc.)

    Meanwhile, the New Statesman is saying that there appears to be a media battle between government and Labour over the NHS, with the former being instructed not to mention it, and the wanting to mention it as much as poss. NHS concerns have been splashed across the front pages of Times and Sun recently… be interesting to see if it rises in salience…

  27. (and the latter wanting to mention it as much as poss…)

  28. And I’m not sure splashing the difficulties in getting a doctor’s appointment across Murdo’s titles is going to help Pressman’s strategy…

  29. Today I specifically looked at the UKIP scores on the questions ‘are you worried’ ‘who’s to blame’ etc. Interestingly (although unsurprisingly), UKIP is very close to Labour. I think this supports Smithson’ s latest post, which is about the latest Ashcroft polls showing UKIP splitting equally among Con and Labour as to which govt they would prefer to see in power.
    A Con UKIP electoral pact would not clearly benefit Con, and ‘vote UKIP get Labour’ might also not have the expected result.
    4 party politics is not so simple. As I have thought for a while, UKIP supporters are partly made up of traditional swing voters who probably voted Labour pre-2010. Some polling on ‘did you vote Blair/Thatcher’ would be useful.

  30. Also, on the subject of capital’s growing hegemony, people have been pointing out that while GDP is growing, because of the rise in population, GDP-per-zerohour-serf remains flat. However, there ought to be another benefit to growing GDP: it ought to put us in a much better position regarding the deficit etc., and in turn allow government to offer more.

    Unfortunately, owing to the growing hegemony of capital etc., corporates are able to force down their tax contributions and force the government to subsidise wages, thus leaving the deficit more of a concern than we might have hoped…

  31. These polls are all over the place, giving Con and Lab hope for the 2015 GE.

    EM’s ‘admission’ of geekiness I feel will suck the air out of the right wing media campaign against him – perhaps as effectively as GB’s TV interview with Piers Morgan did in 2009 (IIRC). It will be interesting to see if polls reveal an improvement in public perception of EM.

    Compared to summer 2013, this summer looks like being a busy time for C and L parties/leaders.

  32. With some exceptions it seems that recent polls are tilting things Lab’s way. That London poll looks very healthy for them if accurate.

    I posted a couple of threads back about house prices. The Halifax survey showed a very large monthly drop in sentiment in terms of ‘right time to buy’ – down from +35% to +5% – close to negative, suggesting buyers are backing out.

    This is supported by real figures from the Land Registry (for E&W only). June prices overall were static from May, but actually fell in 7 of the 10 regions.

    Comments upthread looked at what exactly is it about the economy that floats voters collective boats, but I would guess house prices represent one of the less logical feel good factors. If we are seeing a tailing off in this critical part of the consumer economy, this could have implications.

    At the very least, it suggests confidence is weakening.

  33. ALEC

    @”At the very least, it suggests confidence is weakening.”

    I don’t think so-I think it is a direct result of BoE tightening of mortgage rules-which was designed to head off a price bubble.

  34. Looking at the unweighted figures from Yougov, that was a very odd sample, with a quite high proportion of 2010 Conservative voters.

    However, looking at the unweighted figures alone is illuminating as the shifting support is clear from 2010. The conservative vote has declined by 13%, the labour vote has increased by 23%, and the lib dem vote has declined by 71%!!!.

  35. @CHRISLANE1945

    “On the economy; I think Labour does better when people feel less insecure, and more optimistic.
    1945, 1964/66 1997 are the examples which come to mind.”

    Yes – a point that’s too easily overlooked….but there is the countervailing baggage from 2008 too…but nonetheless your point stands

  36. Carew says – ‘people have been pointing out that while GDP is growing, because of the rise in population,’

    No it has not – GDP has been growing because of the growth in the economy.
    Has the population suddenly increased by 3%? GDP per capita is increasing.

    It seems strange to me, to say the least, the excuses people have to come up with before they will face the truth.
    Your talk about ‘serfs’ shows in fact you are clearly prejudiced against the truth.

  37. @Alec, Colin et al

    On the matter of housing and Help to Buy, New Statesman has an article on Labour’s rival “Help to Build” scheme…

    ….where they offer guarantees for small builders, since it says they have been rather locked out of the market owing to being unable to raise finance, and sometimes land. The idea is it’s supposed to encourage a fair amount of new housing…

    “Emerging findings from the Lyons Housing Commission, set up by Ed Miliband to deliver a roadmap to getting 200,000 homes a year built by 2020, show there is a need to increase diversity and competitiveness in the housing sector. Figures show that 25 years ago small builders were building two thirds of new homes. Now they’re not even building a third of new homes. Over the same period, the number of firms building between one and 100 units has fallen from over 12,000 to fewer than 3,000.

    What has caused this decline? The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) surveys of small house building firms have consistently shown that for these firms access to finance and land are the most significant barriers to growing their businesses and increasing the supply of new homes. In the FMB’s 2013 House Builder Survey, 60 per cent of house builder members cited access to finance as a major barrier to their ability to increase their output of new homes, more than any other factor.

    That’s why earlier this year, Labour set out plans to increase access to land for SME builders. The next Labour government will require local authorities to include a higher proportion of small sites in their five year land supply. We will give guaranteed access to public land to smaller firms and custom builders. And we will guarantee that a proportion of the homes built in the next generation of new towns and garden cities will be built by smaller firms.”

    So will (any) voters prefer this to Help to Buy?…

  38. @Hookeslaw

    Nah, I wasn’t saying GDP was growing because of the population growth, I was saying GDP-per-person is flat because of the population growth.

    It isn’t my “prejudice” that caused you to misread it.

    GDP per person may not be absolutely flat, but it’s close enough to be a problem. Nitpicking won’t change VI…

  39. FV

    @”he young voter cross break is ridiculous ”

    It has certainly changed from the previous YG poll:-

    34/37/8 to 11/59/4 !!

    Some kindly souls tried to explain the possibility of skewed sampling to me on the last thread . I will just assume it is a meaningless crossbreak fluke & has no implications for the headline VI.

    However this age group interestingly falls into a pay survey which is quite revealing. report a 1.7% rise in graduate pay between May & June, taking the yoy rise to 5%.
    Adzuna reports a shortage of “top talent” , and a rise in salaries for the “best people “. Their ratio of applicants to vacancies has fallen to 1.21, its lowest since May 2008-and about half what it was a year ago.
    They also identify Construction sector pay as a big riser–+3.5% yoy.

    With these data, and BoE’s recent highlighting of skills shortages in manufacturing & construction , we have a picture on the pay front which is not properly conveyed by the global averages used by Labour in their central attack strategy

    I expressed the view recently ( to Jim Jam I think) that the “average pay” play by Labour may not be as productive for them as they currently think.

    There are huge sectoral differences ( and with them, voting demographics) , and an underlying momentum in the right direction.

    Also, this is a rebalancing economy-shedding some high pay sectors for the better ( eg Merchant banking) , whilst growth sectors seek new talent & are prepared to pay; and a buregeoning self-employment sector includes tech-savvy young people starting up omline orientated businesses which simply didn’t exist before.

    Of course , it must be true that if Cons tell people who are not better off, that the country is-they will be less than impressed. But conversely if EM tells the whole workforce that it is worse off, those in the sectors who aren’t might be less than interested.

  40. Alec

    Re the general point about house prices/expectation/activity, I had an interesting conversation with my neighbour who has had her house on the market for some months with (to my surprise) no interest. It’s price is in excess of 2.5m but appears a snip when a property just down the road is up for 4.5m!
    When I asked what she the thought the problem was, she burbled (with a look of panic) “interest rate fears, mansion tax, general election”
    I think I was seeing the whites of the eyes of the rich!!

    By the way, I am not paticularly reprepresentative of the income bracket of this area!

  41. @Colin

    There are shortages in accountancy too IIRC.

    As we know, what may matter more is how pay is doing in the marginals…


    The appropriate “population” for a GDP per Capita stat is the working population.
    Children don’t contribute much to GDP, and the retired live on income which is unrelated to the then economy.

    Working population is up by about 2% yoy

    Chained volume GDP ( ONS) -ie adjusted for inflation-is up 3.1% yoy

  43. @Hookeslaw – “No it has not – GDP has been growing because of the growth in the economy.
    Has the population suddenly increased by 3%? GDP per capita is increasing.”

    As GDP is the economy, that’s a bit of a tautology, but there are a couple of factual issues with what you’ve just said.

    Yes, population growth does directly affect the size of the economy. Also – the economy hasn’t yet grown by 3%.

    In the last year, the population grew by 0.6%, which is significant, and since the crash in 2007/08 the population will have grown by around 3% or so, which is also significant.

    GDP per capita is growing now, but it remains very far behind the GDP per capita at the start of the recession.

  44. ALEC

    You stick to your story-I’ll stick to mine.

    …which is that the new rules on mortgage lending make it mandatory for lenders to test ability to repay against a specific increase in mortgage rate. No wonder Ciderman’s friend was thinking about interest rates.

  45. @Colin – “The appropriate “population” for a GDP per Capita stat is the working population.
    Children don’t contribute much to GDP, and the retired live on income which is unrelated to the then economy.

    Working population is up by about 2% yoy”

    That’s therefore actually quite bad news for the coalition then? A big increase in working population in the last few years, with very little overall growth in GDP, meaning the most appropriate figure has declined sharply?

    I guess we’re back to the productivity gap again.

  46. @Colin

    So accepting your calcs, two-thirds of the GDP increase in per capita terms is eroded by population growth.

    Which surely has some significance. But as I made clear I was simply going by discussions you and others had on the matter previously (which may have been considering a longer time frame), and saying if it is the case that per capita takes a hit, then at least GDP could help the deficit more. Only it doesn’t so much.

    I think you understood my point.

  47. ALEC

    @” A big increase in working population in the last few years, with very little overall growth in GDP, meaning the most appropriate figure has declined sharply?”

    Try reading my post again.


    It does have significance-I agree.
    However, even though GDP volume growth exceeds working population growth by only 1%-it is an an increase in productive output per head , in real terms.

    Of course one has to ask -what does the stat mean?

    For the average person, what matters is their own pay. And for many what matters is the level of State spending on services. The latter is a function of the proportion of GDP taken by the State in taxes-not just the GDP per se.

    So I think this GDP per capita-whilst an interesting & significant statistic, only achieves it’s current level of focus, because Labour needs to stem all signs of a real increase in national output & personal income.. They have to do this, because their central electoral message on the economy is built upon iit.

  49. Just watched an unbelievable report from Sky’s estimable Katy Stallard.

    She was in “Georgia” next to a razor wire fence. On her side was an old man , whose house was burned down by South Ossetian “rebels” . He now lives in a derelict school-and his orchard & land is in “independent” South Ossetia-the other side of the wire.

    On the other side, another old man told her , through the fence, he thought he lived in Georgia, where he was borne and now he can’t “go anywhere”.

    The fence was erected by armed Russian troops.

  50. @Colin

    I think if Labour pursue a line on people’s personal finances that is out of step with reality, they may pay a price for it, since personal finances are rather visceral.

    I wasn’t aware Labour were pursuing the per capita thing… I’ve only seen it mentioned here. As far as I’m aware, we weren’t using Labour’s stance, but looked at GDP and wages and inflation, and people offered GDP-per-capita as a reason for wages not rising more than they have.

    Regarding the impact on VI and personal finances, one should not just focus on a 1% rise in GDP-per-capita, and possible impact on wages, if prices (esp. on essentials) are rising faster…

1 2 3