ComRes have released their first voting intention poll since the election, and have topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 29%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 5%. Full details are here.

The ComRes poll also had the first attempt at a methodology change to address the failings of the polls at the 2015 general election – though as ComRes make clear in their explanation this is not ComRes’s final word on the topic, they are continuing their internal review and may make extra changes too.

As with all the pollsters who use political weighting, the initial change is to move from past vote weighting using the 2010 election to past vote weighting using the 2015 election, something that would have been done anyway. The second change is a new model of turnout weighting. This is based on the theory that a cause of the error was people overestimating their likelihood to vote in an uneven way – that is, we all know people overestimate their vote, but ComRes suggest they overestimate it unevenly, that people in some social groups (who happened to support Labour this time) overestimated their likelihood to vote more than other groups, thus skewing the polls.

In the past almost all the pollsters accounted for likelihood to vote using a straightforward system of asking people to rate their likelihood to vote on a scale of 0 to 10, and then either filtering out those people who gave a low score, weighting people according to how likely they said they were to vote, or a combination of the two. ComRes’s new method still filters out people who say they are less than 5/10 likely to vote, but after that bases likelihood to vote weighting on demographics, based upon patterns of turnout at the general election, specifically that there tends to be lower turnout in areas of social deprivation and in areas with a high proportion of social classes DE and low proportions of ABs.

The mechanics of this aren’t completely clear yet (I’ve asked ComRes for some more details which I’ll update later), but essentially it looks as if younger and more working class respondents are assumed to be less likely to vote than they claim they are and weighted downwards accordingly. It means, in effect, that the final headline voting intention figures are made up of 41% AB, 31% C1s, 19% C2, and just 9% DEs, so the effective sample once it’s modelled for the sort of people who actually turn out to vote is far more middle class than the pre-election samples that got it wrong.

The impact of the change is, as you might expect, to produce significantly more Conservative figures. In this particular poll it increased the Conservative lead from eight points to twelve points. In ComRes’s final pre-election poll it would have changed the result from a one point Tory lead to a five point Tory lead, significantly nearer what actually happened.

UPDATE: ComRes have got back to me with some more details of their turnout model. In my original version of this post I’d assumed ComRes were still weighting people according to their 0-10 score, but were adjusting this score based on demographics too. In fact ComRes are now only using the 0-10 score to filter out people who say they are less than 5/10 likely, otherwise the turnout weights are all based on demographics.

401 Responses to “ComRes/Daily Mail – CON 41, LAB 29, LD 8, UKIP 10, GRN 5”

1 5 6 7 8 9
  1. Also, while the sample size is large, these lovely graphs are still crossbreaks.

    The biggest thing missing is country and regional breakdown. I doubt that homeowners in my constuency at £50,000 would vote similarly to let’s say people homeowners in a prosperous SE city or large town on 70,000 (to account for the cost differences).

  2. Good afternoon all from Giffnock. Warm and a bit grey but it’s dry!!

    “I have taken a break from UKPR because I was tired of all the SNP bashing but I have returned briefly to give you the benefit of my crystal ball.”
    Well actually we’re busy taking Labour to pieces at the moment and would hate for you to miss out on that!!…

    Hmm…. the problem I have is that I’ve already taken Labour, the Tories, the Lib/Dems and UKIP to pieces but if we’re back at Labour then I’ve gone full circle.

    Maybe I might start on Plaid Cymru, I don’t think they are doing enough to promote the Welsh language in Patagonia.

  3. @ AC

    Sure, but there is always new stuff to consider. Like, new developments concerning EU ref will switch attention to Tories etc. (We’ll need to return to Lab at some point to give Coups a reason to pop back again…)

  4. Allan

    Given that this must be the SNP’s high water mark – at least this time round – you could quite safely now start taking the SNP to pieces. Personally I hope we get out of one-party-rule as soon as possible!

    That in no way indicates a change of mind on the Principal Issue, of course, but the SNP’s present policies are not necessarily those which would be most beneficial for an independent Scotland……. or even for Scotland’s place in a Federal K, (or even a Federation of Ks) rather than the UK as presently structured.

    Thanks to Carfrew for your comment to me earlier re:the Greens.

  5. @Carfrew and Allan

    Probably not as warm here in Bathgate as in sub-tropical Giffnock, but it is dry at least.

    Carfrew’s point about the Tories already beginning to tear themselves apart over Europe (ok, you didn’t say that, exactly, but that’s what we may read between the lines…..) raises the issue of how long we have to go before the Euro-Referendum, and how much damage will be done to the Tories before we get to it – and how much more there will be when the result is announced.

    Does anyone know the odds for an ‘exit’ vote? Not that I’m a betting man at all, but sometimes the bookies are closer to the truth than some others I could mention…….

    By the way, did the man who put a few thousand on a Tory victory ever pick up his winnings?

  6. Sounds like DC is getting himself in a bit of a muddle over where ministers will be forced to support his view on the referendum or is it that journalists have misinterpreted what he has said. If it is the latter I am still not sure what he does mean, in particular will he allow ministers to campaign for a no vote or not – he needs to make his mind up

  7. @John B

    “Carfrew’s point about the Tories already beginning to tear themselves apart over Europe”


    Well, it’s more that we are liable to explore the impact of this issue – which may involve a consideration of things not 100% favourable about a party therefore we need to be careful about it – and later we get to see who was right!!

    Like with polling. Some of us before the election were going “hang on guys, Tories could still win an OM you know if polls are wrong etc.” but I did it nicely so didn’t cop any flak. Actually, I did it so nicely barely anyone seemed to notice.

    (Oil prices though, that got more attention…)

  8. “Sounds like DC is getting himself in a bit of a muddle over where ministers will be forced to support his view on the referendum or is it that journalists have misinterpreted what he has said.”


    Maybe it would suit DC if peeps are in a muddle over it though…

  9. Good Afternoon All, clouding over now in this seaside Premier League town.

    The PM does not have much pressure on him, IMO, as Labour is week at the moment, and will be until a new leadership team is formed.

    @ AC
    Sure, but there is always new stuff to consider. Like, new developments concerning EU ref will switch attention to Tories etc. (We’ll need to return to Lab at some point to give Coups a reason to pop back again…)

    Yes but I covered the EU thing last night with my Tory rebel of 50 forming a branch office of UKIP but I’m with you that we need to keep Coups posting so hopefully she can dig some stuff up on Labour’s leadership candidates north and south.

    Speaking of Labour leadership candidates…Anyone seen AMBER?

  11. JOHN B
    Given that this must be the SNP’s high water mark – at least this time round – you could quite safely now start taking the SNP to pieces. Personally I hope we get out of one-party-rule as soon as possible!

    It’s not gone unnoticed. Michelle Mone has upped sticks and moved to The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea siting her main reason for doing so at the lack of democracy in Scotland.

    Seriously though, I do agree with you that some of the SNP’s polices are not very worthy so I’m thinking seeing as Alex Salmond is the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman maybe he should take a trip over to the DPRK and take some lessons on how a one party state should operate/ ;-)

  12. CHRISLANE1945
    Good Afternoon All, clouding over now in this seaside Premier League town.
    The PM does not have much pressure on him, IMO, as Labour is week at the moment, and will be until a new leadership team is formed

    Good afternoon to you. On individual polices I would say Labour are not in a position to take on the Tories but on the EU referendum all Labour have to do is sit on their hands and act ineffective but at the same time watch the Tories split, splinter and morph into a mess.

    Why have a strong opposition when the governing party are fragmenting within?

  13. As things are a bit quiet on the polls front, perhaps I can pose a question that’s puzzled me for a long time. This isn’t meant to be partisan or contentious, just a search for knowledge.

    I’m interested in the fundamental philosophies of the main political parties rather than particular policies. It seems to me that the Conservative party believes in free trade, personal responsibility, strong defence of the realm and law and order. I realise that this is not all necessarily true of the current government in every detail, but I’m talking about general principles.

    Labour on the other hand believe in much more state intervention (though not as much as was once the case, obviously), with the state playing a bigger part in peoples’ lives.

    I realise that these are generalisations, and perhaps not as true as they once were now that they both chase the fabled ‘middle ground’.

    However, my real question is this. What is distinct about Liberal philosophy? And how does it differ from say Social Democracy? I’m looking for something deeper than the fact that they are the most pro-European party.

    I’d be most interested in anyone’s thoughts on this.

  14. PS Apoligies to SNP, UKIP etc supporters. It’s the Liberals who I get muddled about.

  15. @Pete B

    Broadly speaking I think Liberal philosophy would sit somewhere between Conservatives and Labour; that is they are in favour of a limited amount of state intervention in the economy (to correct ‘market failures’), but are not in favour of increasing state intervention in people’s lives overall (so hence anti-snoopers charter, extremism bills etc. that the Conservatives are in favour off, and Labour would not necessarily be opposed to). I suppose it might be called an interventionist small state.

    That, at least, is how I would understand it.

  16. @Pete B

    Of course there is no ‘Liberal’ party as the LDs are a fusion of the Liberals and the Social Democrats, so in actuality they have both those strains and likely trend one way or the other depending on the leanings of the leaders (e.g. they were more Social Democrats when Kennedy was leader, and more Liberals when Clegg was leader).

  17. @ Pete B

    Very good question.

    I think:

    The philosophy of the Conservative Party comes from the basic assumption that social relations are transparent and as a result, there is a meritocracy overall, as long as the transparency is maintained. What you wrote about is a consequence of this (as, for example, state interferes with transparency). Clearly there have been issues with the assumptions, hence the factions within the party.

    The philosophy of the Liberal Party is based on the assumption equality of chances (hence for example the progressive taxation). As chances are influenced by birth (among other things), allowed the splitting of the Liberal Party, and the merger of one factions with the SocDems.

    The philosophy of the Labour Party is that as neither of the previous assumptions are correct, institutions, primarily the state has to correct them, hence equalising chances, and correcting for distortions in meritocracy. The differences in the different factions are really only emphasis questions on the two major things.

    There are big overlaps among these principles, so you can have all kinds of mixtures, but as the philosophical differences, and hence the assumptions are derivatives of social conditions, they don’t go away just because of fashionable trends, they are recreated (also maintained because “deserted altars can still have martyrs).

    There are philosophies that cannot be put in these, and hence, even if they participate, are outside the Parliamentary system (most notably the Greens and the Communists).

  18. There is actually still a small Liberal Party that refused to accept merger with the SDP – though its prescence is largely confined to parts of Merseyside and Exeter.

  19. @ Graham

    Yes, it is mainly down to people in the Merseyside, and also the politics in Merseyside (while it’s all red, and Militant history, etc., candidates, MPs, councillors are actually quite centrist or right of the centre within their respective parties the parties who compete here).

  20. @Pete B
    One take on it is, what I like to call, the “Who needs help” paradigm. Thus…

    Labour: People need help!!

    Conservatives: But giving help makes things worse!!

    Liberals: Who’s largest party? We’ll go along with helping them, in the interests of the nation

    Greens: The planet needs help!!

    UKip: Let’s stop helping foreigners!!!

    SNP: We’d like to help ourselves, thank you very much. Especially to the oil.

  21. @ Pete B

    SNP is the party that shows how interchangeable those philosophical assumptions are – providing that there are the right social or historical conditions.

    I agree that Labour should leave the Tories to argue about the EU, and then Liz Kendall can start to put a new leadership team together over the summer.

  23. Thanks all for the thoughtful answers (and Carfrew for the amusing one!). I think I’m slightly wiser now, but still unclear about the distinction between Social Democrats and Liberals. Also, don’t some Labour people consider them selves Social Democrats?

  24. @ Pete B

    It has never been fashionable in the UK to call oneself a Social Democrat (apart from the short period of SDP), but most Labour Party supporters are SocDems alright (just don’t tell them).

    Left to right within the parliamentary system:

    Socialist Democrats, Social Democrats, Social Liberal Democrats, Liberals, Liberal Conservatives (one nation), Conservatives

    Then there are people you can’t fit in, but would associate themselves with one or the other.

  25. Laszlo

    Thanks. It’s almost as bad as the People’s Front of Judea versus the Judea Peoples’ Front! Still, the extreme left are even worse I believe.

  26. @Pete B

    “Thanks. It’s almost as bad as the People’s Front of Judea versus the Judea Peoples’ Front! ”

    I believe that’s what Monty Python were mocking ;)

  27. @ Pete B

    Both on the extreme righ and the extreme left indeed.

    But as I said there are two parties that are outside of this: the Communists (non-existent really) and the Greens (very much in existence).

    And you also have the nationalist parties (and some others), many of whom I would put down as “radical parties” (essentially petty bourgeoise parties uniting large segments of the populous), which, although have had precedents in the UK, have been only temporary phenomena. It could be different this time.

  28. @Carfrew

    “Well actually we’re busy taking Labour to pieces at the moment”

    That’s an England-only issue. :))

  29. Does anyone know if the Conservatives for Britain are standing for the Scottish 2016 parliament. I would like to know what their “fundamental philosophies” are besides staying out of the EU.

    I’m surprised Pete B never mentioned them in his party shout out list? after all with 50 MP’s they are the 4th largest party in the Commons. ;-)

  30. @Pete B

    My take is less scientific than @Laszlo’s.

    A true Liberal, is an economic and social liberal. One who fights against state interference against the citizen’s personal (individual liberty) and economic/property rights. I guess we now tend to call these people Libertarians. A bit like Ron Paul in the USA.

    However, very few people in UK political parties are genuine Libertarians. It is very rare that you find social liberals who are also economic liberals. Orange Book Liberal Democrats are a bit light on economic liberalism to qualify, and right wing Ukippers to light on social liberalism (although Douglas Carswell may qualify).

    I suspect in answer to your actual question that the USP for the LDs in the UK political space is the social freedom of the individual from the state (civil liberties Max if you like).

  31. CHRISLANE1925

    “I agree that Labour should leave the Tories to argue about the EU, and then Liz Kendall can start to put a new leadership team together over the summer”

    Listen Liz Kendall’s new leadership team will be as successful as A.F.C. Bournemouth’s chances of staying in the Premiership. ;-)

  32. Interesting article from YouGov about how culture played a part in voting:

    Note also that they put Independent readers into the “left-wing” category – but they had more Conservatives than the Guardian group – perhaps that editorial endorsing the Conservatives has a marginal effect?

  33. Judea Peoples’ Front — are they different from the Judean Peoples’ Front?

    (I’ll get my coat…)

  34. @ Candy

    Have you also noticed that apparently every single respondent of the 100,000 read one of these newspapers, and that none of them read two of them?

    Well, there are miracles. My take on it is on the previous page and the first on this page.

  35. @Pete B

    The Liberals were the original Free Traders, it was the Conservatives that were anti-free trade (The Conservatives almost tore themselves apart in the 19th century when Robert Peel bravely repealed the Corn Laws and reduced tariffs on about 150 goods, to the intense anger of Conservative supporting groups).

    Even a century ago, the Free-Traders consisted of Liberals and Labour (who were free-traders because they believed, correctly, that Free trade reduced prices for the poor) and it was the Conservatives who believed in tariffs combined with Imperial Preference.

    The reason the Liberals have no USP any more is because they’ve won their arguments and everyone has pinched their clothes.

    Everyone is a free-trader now, the Conservatives cautiously did a U-turn after WW2 and Margaret Thatcher (who was really a Radical not a Conservative) really baked in the change of attitude.

    The other great Liberal cause, Personal Freedom, was embraced by the Labour party from the start (women’s rights, gay rights, the right to be yourself really without some authoritarian finger-wagging at you) and Cameron has at last made the modern Conservative party socially liberal.

    The Labour party still has it’s old USP – services like health paid out of taxation rather than individually, and the Conservatives still have their USP, the economy. The Liberals have had their clothes stolen. And the ten percent or so of the population who are socially conservative and who want tariffs/removal of free trade and removal of free movement of people, now vote UKIP.

  36. Laszlo, apologies, didn’t realize you had already posted the link.

    I guess they’ve gone for “which is your favourite paper” and don’t take account of those who read all the papers online and some foreign press too for interest!

    I do think they’re accurate though for the older generation – my parents and grandparents still buy a Sunday paper and it’s usually their favourite (Sunday Times) they never buy more than one. I don’t buy any, it’s all just clutter that needs recycling!

  37. @ Candy

    I agree with that (here nobody buys the Sun, but people by DM and DT – some purely because of the horse races, and the dominant paper is the local one).

    But I found it strange to define culture by newspapers – this is the only question really … (Also DM print and DM online are quite different). Culture is important, but it multifaceted. I read the G on the tablet, DT on mobile (to avoid the 25 article rule) and FT in paper (you are right about recycling) because it’s very pleasing to flick through the main section, exchanging it with my wife for the company section, over tea and coffee.

    Also, I’m quite sure OldNat referred to this days ago, yet AW haven’t made a post on the “largest post-election poll ever” in spite of the drought of polls.

  38. Dave seems to have ended the post election honeymoon with the press at the G7 today after the debacle of the briefing on sacking cabinet members who go all eurosceptic and disagree with dave.

    I had the same problem with my old boss -never a details man but he got overconfident and started to make stuff up when asked a question.Once sussed most concluded it was time to retire.

  39. Millie

    Thanks for the response. While their is a set of attitudes around which a lot of Open Democracy readers could coalesce, I can’t really see it as forming a coherent set of political aims.

    My question, however, was badly phrased. I didn’t mean “is there a coherent set of principles which could incorporate the E&W Greens and the Federal LD Party?”

    I’m sure that such a coalition could be created under a charismatic, visionary team of politicians.

    I was being much more prosaic! In our political system, I can’t see any prospect of the expanding SGP tying themselves in any way, shape or form to a discredited and declining bunch like the SLD!

    I wondered whether there was any reason for the E&W GP to form a coalition with the remnant LDs there.

    Hello Again. My name is 1945, not 1925, and AFC B will do ok; they are going for the core points strategy of 35 points, winning against the bottom six teams, home and away.

  41. PLP hustings today -nominations open tomorrow and close next monday.

    Supporters of candidates tweeting away -it was a closed meeting no press.

    I see frank field has nominated jeremy corbyn ,always the contraire -he voted for Ed M last time ,what does he know ?

  42. John B @ Allen

    “Given that this must be the SNP’s high water mark – at least this time round – you could quite safely now start taking the SNP to pieces. Personally I hope we get out of one-party-rule as soon as possible!”

    You guys are well behind the pace!

    I’ve been saying for ages that I’ll vote Green on the List – as the party that (a) I agree with more and (b) most likely to stir up the SNP into more socially progressive actions.

    I’ll still vote SNP in the constituency – an excellent current MSP and the best tactical vote too.


    “That’s an England-only issue. :))”


    Lol Statty, somehow doubt that will keep you Scots from taking a keen interest in Labour. Coups popped back especially…

    And it’s only until Labour find summat Scots want more than Devolution. Like… a Spaceport!! With Maglev, and powered by renewables. Only, a Spaceport on castors or summat so we can move it south of the border easily if you decide to cast yourselves adrift…

  44. @AC

    “Speaking of Labour leadership candidates…Anyone seen AMBER?”


    Not seen her much since the election. She may have done a “Crossbat”, along with other Labour board notables?

    Still, hopefully she’ll return. If not, I’ll post stuff on Public Schools, that’ll bring her back…

  45. BTW: apologies: I wrote week, instead of weak. Time to declare and retire.

    CANDY; I agree, and thank you for your historical analysis of the ‘strange death of Liberal England’ but I would add that the 1906-1916 Liberals in Government were great social reformers; social democratic-liberals.

  46. @PETE B

    “Thanks all for the thoughtful answers (and Carfrew for the amusing one!).”


    I spared y’all the extended versions. E.g.

    “People need help (especially in key marginals)”

    “The Planet needs saving!! (Especially in Brighton) etc.

  47. 07052015
    I wonder what your old boss thought of you? By the way, a number of Tories have been eurosceptic for years, they haven’t just gone that way. In any event, these little local difficulties can hardly damage a government, that has Labour as its main opposition. Even Harriet Harman says she is glad they lost.

  48. @Laszlo

    I agree that since most people got broadband, they now habitually access multiple souces of info and their view of the world is more nuanced.

    But I’m not sure what other shorthand there is apart from newspaper readership there is for the pollsters to approximate culture. They could do it street by street like Messina did for the Conservatives, but that cost several millions and I’m not sure the clients of YouGov and co are willing to pay as much.


    You are of course correct, the Liberals also pioneered the welfare safety net – and had that idea pinched by the Labour party. Yet another Liberal idea stolen!

    It’s kind of fun looking at the old party manifestos of nearly a century ago.

    Here’s the Liberal one:

    It has the following prescient lines:

    “Liberal policy stands for the prompt settlement of Reparations, with due consideration for the position of inter-allied debts, and for an earnest endeavour to co-operate with the great American Commonwealth in bringing peace to the world. Liberals hold that the economic restoration of Europe is the necessary condition of the revival of our industries and the establishment of peace.”

    It also has this robust defence of Free Trade:

    “Trade restrictions cannot cure unemployment, Post-war conditions do not justify such restrictions; they merely render it more disastrous. High prices and scarcity can only lower the standard of living, reduce the purchasing power of the country, and thereby curtail production.”

    And the following sounds like Clegg:

    “Unemployment is also caused by over-taxation and wasteful administration. There is urgent need and abundant scope for retrenchment in the expenditure of the taxpayer’s money in some departments of public service.”

    Here’s the Labour party manifesto from the same election:

    “The Labour Party challenges the Tariff policy and the whole conception of economic relations underlying it. Tariffs are not a remedy for Unemployment. They are an impediment to the free interchange of goods and services upon which civilised society rests. They foster a spirit of profiteering, materialism and selfishness, poison the life of nations, lead to corruption in politics, promote trusts and monopolies, and impoverish the people.”

    and the following line that keeps getting echoed in all their manifestos:

    “Labour stands for equality between men and women: equal political and legal rights, equal rights and privileges in parenthood, equal pay for equal work.”

    and here’s the Conservative party one from 1923:

    It bangs on and on about Empire. So tariffs are justified by Empire:

    “What we propose to do for the assistance of employment in industry, if the nation approves, is to impose duties on imported manufactured goods, with the following objects:-
    * to raise revenue by methods less unfair to our own home production which at present bears the whole burden of local and national taxation, including the cost of relieving unemployment.
    * to give special assistance to industries which are suffering under unfair foreign competition;
    to utilise these duties in order to negotiate for a reduction of foreign tariffs in those directions which would most benefit our export trade;
    * to give substantial preference to the Empire on the whole range of our duties with a view to promoting the continued extension of the principle of mutual preference which has already done so much for the expansion of our trade, and the development, in co-operation with the other Governments of the Empire, of the boundless resources of our common heritage.”

    State intervention writ large, on behalf of business!

    and this little gem:

    “Moreover in the field of Empire development, as well as in that of home agriculture, we are not confined to the assistance furnished by duties. We have already given an earnest of our desire to promote a better distribution of the population of the Empire through the Empire Settlement Act, and at the Economic Conference we have undertaken to co-operate effectively with the Government of any part of the Empire in schemes of economic development. More especially do we intend to devote our attention to the development of cotton growing within the Empire, in order to keep down the cost of a raw material essential to our greatest exporting industry.”

    I don’t think anyone in 2015 would vote for the Conservative manifesto, but in 1923, they were the largest party and the Liberals with the best manifesto, the smallest.

    The miracle of the Conservative party is their hard-headed ability to ditch their sillier policies and reinvent themselves. So Margaret Thatcher was further away from the Conservative party of the 1920’s than Labour or Liberals are from their equivalents from the ’20’s even now.

  49. In the interest of balance heres jeremys take on labours future

  50. Now G is using that YouGov survey on newspaper readership.

    They have lovely sentences in it, like

    It is inconceivable that previous Lib Dem voters opted for Ukip

    Wow. I could show them several thousands of them here in Liverpool.

    As to the survey …

1 5 6 7 8 9