Monday tends to be the day we have the most polls (as telephone polls are usually done over the weekend) and today is no different, with polls from ICM, Ashcroft and Populus.

The monthly ICM/Guardian poll has topline figures of CON 31%(nc), LAB 32%(-3), LDEM 11%(nc), UKIP 14%(nc), GRN 6%(+2). Labour are down a bit on their recent results, their lead back to one point (ICM had been showing Labour and Conservative roughly equal in the summer, but their Autumn polls were showing larger leads).
The weekly Ashcroft poll has topline figures of CON 30%(nc), LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 16%(nc), GRN 7%(+1). Having got a repuation for somewhat volatile figures, today’s are rock solid. Voting intentions are almost wholly unchanged since a week ago (tabs are here)
The twice weekly Populus poll has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4%. A two point Labour lead is wholly in line with Populus’s polls last week and in late October (tabs are here.)

We still have the daily YouGov/Sun poll to come, but so it doesn’t look as the fuss over Miliband’s leadership is having any significant effect. Populus and Ashcroft show no real change and while ICM show a small drop for Labour, in the context of other polls showing no movement it’s nothing that can’t be normal sample variation.

223 Responses to “Latest ICM, Populus and Ashcroft polls”

1 3 4 5
  1. Robin,

    I don’t think that is what the polls say. Unless there are some I haven’t seen.

  2. This whole “can’t out-kip UKip” line is transparently flawed.

    Not least because Labour probably can’t out-green the greens, or out-sNP the sNP etc. either…

    Maybe they can “out-Don’t know” the Don’t knows…

  3. UKIP lead the Conservatives by 44 per cent to 32 per cent in the Rochester & Strood by-election, according to my poll of the constituency completed yesterday. Labour are a distant third with 17 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats on two per cent.

  4. Bramley,

    You have just blown your secret identity

  5. “UKIP lead the Conservatives by 44 per cent to 32 per cent in the Rochester & Strood by-election”


    Must be because Tories can’t outkip UKip either. No one can outkip UKip!!

    (LDs can hardly outkip anyone…)

  6. “You have just blown your secret identity”


    Yes, and we don’t tolerate failure on this board. He’ll be dealt with in the usual fashion. (Prolly give him the after-midnight moderation shift…)

  7. Members of the House of Lords can out-kip anyone, and paid for snoring!

  8. “Members of the House of Lords can out-kip anyone, and paid for snoring!”


    True, and I bet they skim posts too!!…

  9. @Carfew

    If Labour were *trying* to Out Green the Greens, or Out SNP the SNP, then maybe you’d have a point. But they’re not. At most, they cherry pick Green and SNP policies, looking for the ones that won’t alienate prospective centrist voters to adopt as their own.

    Conversely, the Conservatives are trying to outkip UKIP, with policies that are both too watered down to compete, but still spicy enough to upset the business and bootstraps side of their own party, let alone the centrists and classical liberals.


    Another fascinating EU story.

    This was a case brought in Germany, and would seem to be a judgement broadly in agreement with majority UK opinion, I would imagine.

    This produces an odd notion – that perhaps the EU rules, and their enforcement via the courts – are actually rather more sensible and appropriate than many would have us believe.

    Difficult for some to conceive, no doubt, but the courts assessment of the requirements for a right of residence really is quite a striking counter to those who think we are being ‘swamped’ by foreign ‘scroungers’. If we are, then presumably it’s our own rules that are to blame.

  11. Alec

    “There is a growing credibility issue over Cameron’s statements on the EU”

    Isn’t it a wider problem? Politicians’ statements on most things are given little credibility by a majority? of the population.

  12. Also, the EU Court ruling on ‘benefit tourism’ is going to be an interesting disruption. It clearly sets out that EU migration is not a threat to welfare budgets, because only contributory welfare is protected, and that’s always been the rule, and seems to be prodding this ruling in the UK’s direction. With undertones of “Look why are you complaining that we’re forcing welfare migrants on you that you absolutely don’t have to accept, we never demanded you do so and here’s a clear ruling you could have asked for but waited till the Germans did it for you. It’s certainly not something you need to keep threatening to leave the EU over. Idiots.”

  13. It also brings up the issue of exactly how much UK Policy is actually dictated by people saying “we have to do it this way because of Europe” when there is no such restriction at all. NHS competition rules, that we “have” to keep the Railways privatised, not being able to weight government bids towards local providers…

  14. This is a win win from the EU, people who come from Eastern Europe to work and contribute can work and contribute, and people here who don’t want to work or contribute don’t need to work or contribute!


  15. @Peter Cairns

    However, the court also ruled that you don’t have a non-native right to residency unless you have a means of support. So they’d only possibly get a years welfare under current rules limiting contributory welfare terms, and since housing benefit is tied to being in receipt of a benefit… I guess a year is about the right amount of time for someone to either find new work, or relocate back to their native state where they can get continuing welfare.

    I’d suggest that we provide relocation assistance to their native state tho, because that’s a lot lot better than having stranded homeless wandering our streets. And I would certainly expect exemption for those with disabilities who would be unfairly disadvantaged by expecting them to relocate. And we might want to think twice before cutting off someone who’s lived here over a decade for example…

    But certainly, it seems we never needed to start talking about blocking EU migrants to address the concerns about them taking benefits. And again, it seems to be DC’s error in accepting UKIP’s line.

  16. Really quite tight indeed for the GE. While clearly not as good for UKIP as in Clacton, this suggests some significant damage to Cons at the GE if UKIP can keep it’s support at these kinds of levels in specific target seats.

    @Jayblanc – Your point about the EU being a convenient whipping boy for UK based policies is very true.

    There’s a great example in my own field. If you want to install renewable energy technologies, you now get grants, as the systems earn Feed in Tariff (FITs) once they are up and running. This is reasonable, by and large. Pre FITs, there were grants, but no output based subsidies.

    For businesses or third sector bodies, the EU ‘states aid’ rules are quoted as the reason. However, there is no reason under EU rules why charities or community groups can’t get both capital grants and FITs – so long as they don’t breach the EU de minimis rules. That they can’t do this is a choice entirely made in Westminster.

    Worse than that, people probably don’t realise that when they pay money to play the National Lottery, the government counts the resultant lottery funding as ‘states aid’ for this purpose – eg, treats it as if it were government spending.

    So groups can’t even get a lottery grant for solar panels without losing FITs, despite the fact that you paid the money, not the state.

    There will be numerous examples of the UK government doing whacky things and hiding behind EU regulations, but this particular example is a bugbear of mine and particularly irritating.

  17. Alec
    Disappointed that you ‘skim’ over my posts apparently. I reported the EU Court decision this morning. I’m mortified even.

  18. While in pursed lips mood, May I also remind that I pointed out all this about rights to claim within EU rules over a year ago when it was raised then.

  19. Howard

    You did, indeed, point that out a long time ago.

    Sadly, there’s a new thread now.

  20. “Disappointed that you ‘skim’ over my posts apparently.”


    Skimming abounds…

  21. @Howard

    “I have the view that the voters are largely ignorant or confused about the ins and outs of issues but that does not prevent them have their prejudices in spades.”

    I’m pretty sure they can understand simple arithmetic when it is displayed in front of their eyes.

    If you have x infrastructure and y amount of people in then you have a ratio x/y.

    If you increase the amount of people y faster than the amount of infrastructure x then the ratio goes down.

    Which is what has been happening since 1997.

    The consequences didn’t display everywhere at the same time or change at the same rate hence people in the roughest areas complaining first – and being ignored – but as the ratio continues to decline and over a wider area more people are effected.

    The people least effected are the least concerned hence why that bloc of Con seat in an arc roughly NW of London should be fairly safe while the opposite arc to the east aren’t.



    “So we do a massive costly police sweep of the nation looking for slum housing”

    Cool, so we’ve gone from nothing can be done to it’s too expensive. Progress.

    “And here’s the kicker… WE ALREADY DO MUCH OF THIS. It’s already a focus for councils to track down this kind of situation. Big fines, demolishing the buildings used where they’re completely unsuitable for inhabitation, black listing the landlords from operating high-density housing.”

    This has only started happening (at least to my knowledge) in the last few years in the areas with the worst housing problems because the problem has now got so bad after being ignored for many years.

    (A problem largely caused by inner city employers buying up the cheapest housing and filling them with illegal workers being paid a pound an hour if that.)

    “It certainly wouldn’t decrease the number of asylum seekers.”

    Oh I think it would reduce the number of people claiming asylum.

  22. Just finished adjusting my seat calculator to deal with Scottish polling. Usually it’s pretty irrelevant to UK results: if the SNP got between 6 and 10 seats, they would be unlikely to be approached as a coalition partner when the LD’s have say 30 or 40.

    But now things look as they will be reversed. Except that I think larger parties will probably be more prepared to deal with the LD’s than SNP unless they have no choice.

    Anyway my results are Cons 265, Lab 301, LD 15, SNP 40, based on recent polling averages. Plausible, I suppose. Hopefully now UKIP will not cause me any problems too.

1 3 4 5