Ipsos MORI released their monthly political monitor yesterday, topline voting intention numbers are CON 37%, LAB 31%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9%. These are on the basis of some minor interim changes to methodology (in this case adding how habitually people vote to the turnout model) while the inquiry continues longer term solutions are worked upon. Tabs are here. MORI also asked a question about whether people thought the four Labour leadership candidates had what it took to be a good Prime Minister. Andy Burnham had the best score (or the least worst) – 27% of people thought he did, 27% disagreed. In comparison 22% thought Yvette Cooper did, 16% Liz Kendall and 17% Jeremy Corbyn.

YouGov also published the rest of their poll of Labour party members, conducted for the Times. Tables for part one of the research are here, part two here. The second wave included a question on why party members are voting as they are, showing the contrast between what is driving Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Corbyn voters. Burnham supporters say they are backing him because he has the best chance of winning, will unite the party and will be the best opposition to the Conservatives. The answers from Cooper supporters are similar, though there is less emphasis on party unity. For Kendall supporters the key reason to back her is seen as having the best change of winning, followed by the being the strongest opposition – 31% of her supporters say they are backing her as a break from Ed Miliband’s party, and only 10% see her as a unifier. The drivers for supporters of Jeremy Corbyn contrast sharply with the other three – only 5% of his supporters say they are backing him as the candidate who has the best chance of winning in 2020, only 5% are backing him as a unifier, the reasons are overwhelmingly because they think he has the best policies and because they think he is a break from New Labour.


517 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 37, LAB 31, LDEM 10, UKIP 9”

1 2 3 4 11
  1. @Candy

    And by the way there is no need to be nasty.

  2. @LIZH

    In other words, you had no idea that 9/11, lehman brothers etc were in the pipeline, but somehow expect politicians to have magical prediction powers.

    P.S. 9/11 was not based on “meddling” – if anything the USA meddled far worse in South America (see the history of Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama etc) than in the ME – but they haven’t responded with religious fervour, they’ve simply tried to emigrate to America instead.

    Al Queda was a religious movement dating to the 1940’s, a sunni movement (so nothing to do with Iran either – the Iranians actually held a candlelight vigil for the dead when 9/11 happened) and was all about religious fundamentalism.

    You can’t control religious movements from the outside, any more than people in the 15th and 16th centuries could have prevented newly minted protestants running through Rome smashing things in one of their religious ecstasies (yes, that really happened).

  3. @Frederic Stansfield

    Yes, I suspect UKIP being out of people’s minds explains their small fall. I wouldn’t start writing their obituary yet, though – they will have at least some sort of role to play in the EU referendum and I’m not sure the Lib Dems will be ready to resume their tribune role for some time yet.

    The Labour leadership contest continues to amaze. Is there any way the party elites can stall Corbyn’s momentum? It looks like it’s going to be tricky to me. If he wins – and even if he comes a credible second or third – I suspect their will be lots of regret at the electoral system changes implemented by Miliband. Whilst conceived with good intentions, no doubt, they do something very dangerous – they create an unknown and uncontrollable selectorate in which the MP who has to work with Corbyn is equal with somebody who has never done anything more politically active than send a few tweets.

  4. @Candy

    I never trusted Banks and still don’t but that is another matter. I didn’t deregulate the banks, politicians did. Why were banks regulated in the first place? You think that would have given them a clue.

  5. @Candy, it’s worth pointing out that, although the average man on the street had never heard of any of that stuff, the government was (or should have been) well aware of it. Among other things, the 2001 WTC attack was the 2nd, the first (involving a >600KG bomb exploding) had taken place in 1993.

  6. The irony of 9/11 is that people somehow blame George W for it, when in fact he started his presidency as a relatively moderate, isolationist Republican, and the plot to carry out the attacks was hatched whilst St. Bill of Fellatio was in the White House.

  7. @Neil A, or, more broadly, while GWBs’ dad was still President.

  8. @Wood

    It’s perfectly true that the World Trade Centre was bombed in 1993. It’s also true that Canary Wharf was bombed in 1996 by the IRA (500 kg bomb doing £10 million worth of damage and killing 2 people).

    The Canary Wharf bomb was more devastating than the WTC bomb.

    How was a rational person supposed to look at those two events and decide which indicated a bigger future threat?

    It’s really easy in hindsight to connect the dots, but I don’t think you can really see patterns while you are living through them.

  9. Spearmint
    I take the point but would nonetheless argue that J Corbyn’s particular lack of interest in leadership should rule him out. Leaving policy aside, J Corbyn seems to me to have a Forest Gump factor.T Blair had responsibilities and he achieved them at a young age. However I believe that across the world, voters will look for more practical experience.

    I note that the Socialist leader in the forthcoming Portuguese elections is the mayor of Lisbon and social democrat leaders have come from beyond parliament in Italy and Sweden. Labour should perhaps look for a northern city leader. I think B Johnston is the current favourite to be Conservative leader in the next election.

  10. And I did wonder in what way Labour had “taken Scotland for granted”?

  11. @Barney Crockett

    You are a Scottish Labour politician. You might find your answer if you asked your constituents why they voted SNP and not Labour?

  12. @BARNEY CROCKETT

    ‘I take the point but would nonetheless argue that J Corbyn’s particular lack of interest in leadership should rule him out.’

    Bit harsh isn’t it, to blame a member of the socialist campaign group for not being promoted to the Cabinet by Tony Blair or Gordon Brown? I doubt whether TB or GB ever spoke to Jeremy Corbyn, and I’m sure that both regarded him as a total er.. nuisance rather than as having promotion potential.

    Alex Nunn wrote a very good article in Red Pepper circa 2007 which described how New Labour had decided that the LP left were to be ‘sealed in a tomb’ and ignored. Hence, the ‘moron’ comment from Mr McTernan for MPs allowing Jeremy Corbyn out of the box/tomb. New Labour’s notions of intra-party democracy and representation were rather dodgy.

  13. I hope anyone here sympathetic to Corbyn’s bid will consider signing up to Labour to vote. I strongly suspect no longer will any Left candidate be lent votes to allow a wide field by the PLP after this, no matter how much grassroots support they enjoy.

    To be a tad melodramatic I regard September as D-Day for those of us who want socialist policies [in England]*.

    *Sorry Greens, but I’m not convinced minor parties will ever be able to breathe within the suffocating FPTP system.

  14. @Syzygy
    Would prefer another source for this, but on McTernan:

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-4df9-Former-Blair-aide-praises-Thatcher-at-Tory-conference

  15. OMOV is superficially more democratic than just MPs voting or even an Electoral college.

    Plus the £3 for a vote rule designed to tap in to the wider Labour sympathising part of the Electorate for choice of leader was meant to produce more mainstream leaders appealing to a wider voter pool.

    The Tories got IDS, though, and Labour may get JC.

    I think my view is in a minority in the LP in believing that MPs SHOULD have a bigger say in leadership contests as they know the candidates best.
    I accept, though, that members and affiliates maybe able to gauge better public perceptions than MPs who can become Westministerised.
    I guess I am saying that the Electoral College was a good balanced system, although the proportions can always be altered and that OMOV+ is deeply flawed.

  16. LiZH – “I didn’t deregulate the banks, politicians did. Why were banks regulated in the first place? You think that would have given them a clue.”

    The financial crash wasn’t caused by the “deregulation of the banks” but by the trade in unregulated collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).

    And the reason they weren’t regulated was because they were a new invention and didn’t exist when the laws were written!

    So again you are expecting politicians to have used their super ninja predictive powers and simply sense there was a problem as these things were being invented and ban them.

    In truth it’s hard for mere mortals to predict which bits of technology and innovation will work and which will fail. All legislation in the last 300 years has been done after a failure.

    If you want to prevent problems caused by new things, I guess you could simply ban all new inventions and jail anyone who dared to do things differently. But then we’d have to live in a world where all progress stopped. I mean, that internet thingymajig could be very bad, why take the chance, lets ban it from ever happening, if it’s new, it’s evil.

    Or lets elect politicians with superpowers who can see the future.

    Or lets acknowledge we are mere mortals and there are no mystical or god-like powers to help us, which means accepting failures from time to time and legislating after the fact.

  17. @Jim Jam

    Somewhat predictably I disagree. I think the Blairites have dug their own grave by fighting the unions’ 33%. OMOV is now perfectly equal and to grant PLP extra weighting now would just look like the stitch up it is. “Oh we want all the benefits we had from the electoral colleges, but now without the unions”. They’re meant to be representatives of the party, not the chiefs.

    There could be grounds for the £3 being a little TOO welcoming, but if new signups can really overwhelm the membership it is either a) baron or b) evenly split in the first place. But this point is moot anyways, that YouGov polling suggests Corbyn held considerable support in Labour already.

  18. @ Barney,

    I guess technically the Prime Minister doesn’t need to be an MP if he or she could command the confidence of the House of Commons but it’s kind of a big thing for the country to swallow, isn’t it? This isn’t a presidential system.

    Re. taking Scotland for granted, people probably mean you took for granted that Labour would have more than one Scottish MP. I certainly took that for granted. Even the SNP took that for granted.

    @ Syzygy,

    Yeah, but Corbyn’s not interested in leading even independent of his lack of ministerial opportunities. Diane Abbott is demonstrably more ambitious (although I’d argue her leadership qualities are even less than his) and any one of zombie!Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell, Dennis Skinner or Steve Rotheram would be more assertive. Corbyn’s never sought power even on the micro-scale on which the Socialist Campaign Group generally get to exercise it.

    He’s only standing because the others twisted his arm and made him. That’s the ultimate in anti-leadership.

    @ Craig,

    I dunno. Corbyn is a less-than-ideal messenger for the Left who signed up late after a bunch of people were already committed to Burnham. I could see someone like Cat Smith getting the 35 nominations pretty easily next time.

  19. @ Jim Jam,

    The electoral college is inexplicable to any normal human, though, and leads to legitimacy issues any time the different colleges don’t vote the same way. Look what happened to Miliband. Imagine what would happen if the MPs went 60/40 for Kendall but the unions and the party went 60/40 for Corbyn. It’s a disaster waiting to happen and it makes the party look either elitist or controlled by the unions or both.

    MPs are supposed to screen people for credibility/PLP support at the nomination stage. It’s not a problem with the system if they failed to do their job this time.

  20. @Spearmint

    Based on what I’ve seen in this session of Parliament I think Louise Haigh is one to watch for a very swift promotion if Corbyn wins, and possibly even the leadership by 2020…

  21. 9/11 should not have been a massive surprise to the authorities. The previous year I saw the gap in the street (or rather roundabout) where the US Embassy used to be in Nairobi. The replacement outside the city looked like Fort Knox.

    I believe the accusation was that the Bush administration took their eye off the ball in monitoring the terrorists.

    As an aside, I find it interesting that they never mention the flattening of 1/5th of the Pentagon nowadays.

    On Labour leadership, I do not support Corbyn but the others need to get their act together. If it were not for his ideology he’d probably be the best candidate.

  22. Jim Jam

    Oh come on, loads of MPs support candidates in return for promotions rather than higher judgement. Members are not susceptible to such patron client relationships.

  23. @Jack Sheldon

    I’ve always been impressed by Jon Cruddas. There’s a man of ideas.

  24. @Hawthorn,

    By the time Bush came to power, Mohammed Atta was already a trained pilot. From what I’ve read the allegations against the Bush administration are ridiculous – a combination of accusing security officials of failing to prevent something (with huge doses of hindsight) and then trying to lay those failures at the door of the executive branch (who of course do not direct day to day counter-terrorism operations).

    Whatever caused 9/11 it wasn’t Bush.

  25. US UK relations will be an interesting area of Opposition Foreign Policy under a Corbyn leadership :-)

  26. Breaking News!

    Former northern city leader makes bid for Labour leadership!

    ” Labour should perhaps look for a northern city leader” says ex-leader of Aberdeen City Council.

    You saw it here first folks!

  27. @CANDY

    “And the reason they weren’t regulated was because they were a new invention and didn’t exist when the laws were written!

    So again you are expecting politicians to have used their super ninja predictive powers and simply sense there was a problem as these things were being invented and ban them.”

    Yes, you are misunderstanding the role of regulation here. Some of it is to try and improve the monitoring and spot when something bad looks like happening in order to intervene.

    But, recognising bankers can be quite clever at hiding what they are up to, some regulation is pre-emptive, to try and stop banks screwing up in the first place, or limiting the damage if they do sneak summat past the regulators.

    Thus, they put regulation in place to limit riskier investment banking’s contact with retail banking, so that if the former screws up, it doesn’t take down the broader economy. These regulations were eased substantially, hence making bad things more likely.

  28. @Candy

    Furthermore, you seem to be having issues with the concept of risk. No one wants that, especially on a weekend, so let’s help you with that…

    1) Just because LizH, or anyone, cannot specify exactly when summat will happen, or if indeed it will happen, does not mean that something hasn’t upped the risk of it happening.

    !!!!

    For example, if smoking ups the chance of cancer, you might nonetheless, for example, be unable to say for certain when someone might contract cancer or summat, or even if they will. Still, it might be advisable to cease smoking…

    It is important for a Candy to get this concept!! Like one might advise you to not walk blindfolded repeatedly into a busy road, lest you come off worse in an encounter with a bus or similarly unwelcoming object.

    If you follow your current reasoning you might then go “Ha!! But can you say for certain anything bad will happen? No, you can’t!!! Ha!! Therefore your concerns are baseless!!” Which might not be the ideal conclusion for a Candy to reach…

    For circumstances where something becomes more likely, but we cannot say for certain when it will happen, we use concepts like “probability” and “risk”. This is important in understanding polling too!! The margin of Error tells us for example, that there is a five percent chance of a poll result lying outside the margin of Error.

    We cannot predict precisely if the next poll will lie outside the margin, or even by how much. But we know that there is a five percent chance.

  29. @Carfrew

    Thank you. You explain everything so much better than I ever could.

  30. @Candy

    Further to my post on regulation, to be more specific… Following the Crash ofvthe Great Depression, regulations here and elsewhere, stuff was put in place to separate investment and retail banking. In the US, it was done more formally: you can Google Glas-Steagal..

    We had out own more informal version, which got relaxed in the Eighties following Big Bang. Incidentally, banking deregulation started under Heath in the Seventies whereupon we got… Surprise, surprise… The Secondary Banking crisis… Which we have chatted about on here in the past, but you prolly missed it, speed reading or summat, so now I gotta explain risk and stuff on a weekend…

  31. @LizH

    No probs Liz, didn’t want us to be wasting time needlessly on a Friday night. That’s usually reserved for the Scots peeps!!

  32. @Carfrew

    Goodnight and have a good weekend.

  33. @LizH

    You too Liz!! Nice to see you on the board again, btw…

  34. The problem that Labour have is that 3 of their leadership candidates are anodyne and in their triangulation come across as red Tories (e.g. their recent abstention in the HoC vote on social care, and lack of dissent on the government’s foreign policy).

    There is a failure in the West to understand that many of their beliefs/actions are widely loathed elsewhere, and inevitably provoke a reaction. Examples include constant meddling in middle east politics because of oil (as mentioned by LizH), and support for gay marriage (considered an abomination by observant Muslims and Jews).

    A re-orientation of UK foreign policy, e.g. distancing itself from the Saudi regime, and issuing an apology for the Balfour declaration and taking actions to atone for the consequences of that declaration, would be a start. Of the 4 candidates for the Labour leadership, only Corbyn would be likely to proceed in such a direction.

  35. BARNEY CROCKETT
    “And I did wonder in what way Labour had “taken Scotland for granted”?
    __________

    If you watch the BBC Scotland program (Fall of Scottish Labour) you will find a host of former Labour MP’S and Labour First Ministers explaining the reasons.

    I actually predict the Labour party will appeal more to voters in England now that the party has almost no representation in Scotland. When I lived in England I always viewed Scottish Labour as a outdated backwater party full of grievances and angry weegies.

  36. Banking regulation in UK before the Credit Crisis had two main weaknesses:-

    1-Political policy-best summarised in Ed Balls’ 2006 Bloomberg speech :-

    “In my first speech as City Minister at Bloomberg in London, I argued that London’s success has been based on three great strengths – the skills, expertise and flexibility of the workforce; a clear commitment to global, open and competitive markets; and light-touch principle-based regulation…

    Most recently in this decade we have been determined to respond to events and new challenges and enhance London’s global standing and light touch regulation…

    Today our system of light-touch and risk-based regulation is regularly cited – alongside the City’s internationalism and the skills of those who work here – as one of our chief attractions. It has provided us with a huge competitive advantage and is regarded as the best in the world…

    The Government’s interest in this area is specific and clear: to safeguard the light touch and proportionate regulatory regime that has made London a magnet for international business…

    We must ensure that all new regulations are implemented in a sensitive and light touch manner…

    …[The Labour government] will outlaw the imposition of any rules that might endanger the light touch, risk based regulatory regime that underpins London’s success.”

    2-Regulatory structure-the Tripartite system criticised by House of Lords Economic Committee because ” it was not clear who would be in charge in a crisis.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8078205.stm

    The credit crisis itself occurred when banks across the world decided that they had no idea how much risk attached to the mortgage backed securities they were trading in-and stopped lending to each other.

    Those securities of course, bundled opaque slices of mortgage debt ,representing large paper profits on loans to people who could never repay them. In addition a veritable mountain of derivative instruments were devised & traded in ever increasing quantities.

    A Fantasy world of Magic Profit , not understood by the Company Directors responsible for it, and not overseen by the Regulators charged with monitoring it.

  37. Colin

    I always laugh when people claim that Vince Cable was the only one to foresee the Crash. It was pretty obvious to us down here in sleepy Devon running small businesses.

    If you had asked me in 2007 which financial institutions were most likely to go bust, I genuinely would have answered ‘Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock’. The former was issuing bogus reports on the property market ( I think it was called the Home Report ) and the latter was a small bank attracting 20% of the mortgage market at the top of a boom with 125% mortgages. Alarm bells, anyone?

    I wrote to the BBC saying that B & B were publishing fiddled figures, and to their credit, the Beeb dropped the Home Report. I will never know whether my letter had anything to do with it.

    As is so often the case, sufficient regulation was in place to deal with the problems that were arising: the failure was that a very large number of highly rewarded people did not discharge the regulatory role for which they were being paid.

  38. Craig,

    I think you are correct that those pushing for the union members losing their 33% where wrong, as I say I support the EC method but now we have OMOV it is here to stay although I expect the + element (£3 for a vote with no minimum qualifying period will be changed.

    Spearmint, you are right about the legitimacy questions and the danger of different parts of the college voting for different candidates and MPs being the Gatekeepers on to the ballet.
    The Labour Party is a political party that can achieve little if it is not in Government and I think reducing the ‘IDS/JC’ is risk is more important.

    As above, though, no going back.

    A thought occurs that Parties need a certain amount of time in opposition before they come to their senses and Elect an electable leader as some supporters and members are slower to recognise realities.

  39. The problem with the sort of banking regulation that some have been suggesting is that it is hugely unpopular, not just with bankers but also with business and the general public.

    Northern Rock is a good case in point.. The people who were getting a 120% mortgage at a competitive rate would have screamed if that form of finance was withdrawn because of a potential funding crisis that hadn’t happened yet.

    The same with the business loans being given by HBOS. –

  40. (Last comment got cut off in its prime)

    The same with the business loans being given that led to the bail out of HBOS. The companies who were getting those loans would have been pretty miffed if government regulation had stopped that source of finance.

    The real problem was an over-supply of credit which as as a result of global interest rates being too low. How national governments tackle that sort of global problem is an interesting but incredibly complex question.

  41. Millie

    I also realised that B&B and Northern Rock would be in trouble. I used to mention this sort of stuff to work colleagues and relatives who all thought I was nuts.

    I ignored them and am now in a much stronger financial and housing situation as a result.

  42. MILLIE

    One up to you :-)

    Certainly at the simple level of 100% + mortgages & the practice of borrower self certification in UK some very loud alarm bells were audible to the general public.

    That this sort of thing was embedded in mega volumes in the investments sitting on Bank Balance Sheets across the globe was not even known to the Directors of those Banks !

    I agree-as has been established-that regulation failed.

    But in a sense the Regulation regime reflected the political will-which was manifest in Balls’ speech. The insane growth of RBS should have been looked at-but what Chancellor of that day would have said-these tax revenues are too big-and so are these Banks-we must stop them growing?

    Well we all paid a very high price for bankers’ venality & political naivety .

  43. Colin

    No good getting partisan with this stuff. The Tories were even more into deregulation than Labour.

  44. The roots of the banking crisis lie not with the mortgage and lending activity in this country, but in the activity in the States. Lenders there, awash with cheap Chinese credit, needed new ways of using it, and alighted on the Sub-Prime market. Lending to people who couldn’t really afford it.

    These people were offered cheap initial teaser deals, and were hoodwinked in the process, not realising that in a couple of years their rates would become unaffordable. This ought to have been something fir banks to avoid, because they would then have a load of defaulting debt on their books but…

    Banks there went along with it because they had found a way to sell on the debt, packaging it up in ways that obscured the dodginess, so other banks unwittingly bought this debt containing its time bomb, known as toxic debt.

    British banks were hoodwinked into buying this debt too. This is exemplified in what Colin says here:

    “The credit crisis itself occurred when banks across the world decided that they had no idea how much risk attached to the mortgage backed securities they were trading in-and stopped lending to each other”

    This is what seized up the market. When banks realised they were carrying all this toxic debt, they couldn’t gauge the risk of lending to each other. So they stopped lending to each other and the market froze up.

    It wasn’t the lending here that was the problem. People didn’t suddenly start defaulting loads on credit card debt and mortgages here.

    But in the political game of who gets the blame, it is common to focus on that, to distract from what really caused the crisis…

  45. HAWTHORN

    I wasn’t partisan-quoting Balls’ speech is just drawing attention to the facts.

    All politicians were no doubt naive about the Financial Services Industry at that time.

    We can only hope that the trauma which resulted from that naivete has given rise to a better regulatory regime & a less starry eyed view of the Banking Industry.

  46. The basic problem, is that London’s success was built on Eighties deregulation. Removing the separation between Investment and retail banking. Investment banking tends to be riskier. It is investment banking that traded the dodgy debt.

    If you stop investment banking having access to retail, then when investment banking screws up, the matter is contained. But investment banking would prefer access to retail banking: more money to play with!!

    When we removed the separation, banks globally flooded to London, to take advantage. But it opened us up to the risk. Labour obviously weren’t keen to reverse the relaxation under Thatcher, because banks would move elsewhere again, for once we had removed the separation, other countries felt compelled to follow suit, including the Americans’ repeal of Glass-Steagal.

  47. In other words, Thatch had given us a banking advantage, but opened up to more risk. Labour didn’t reverse what Thatch did, because didn’t want to lose the advantage and banking business. It was all a bit of a dilemma…

  48. CARFREW

    @”It wasn’t the lending here that was the problem. People didn’t suddenly start defaulting loads on credit card debt and mortgages here.”

    The numbers indicate otherwise.

    “Prior to 2008, the average annual level of net impairments
    was £8bn. This increased sharply to £31bn in 2008, driven by new impairment charges.

    The main area of increase was corporate non-financial loans-but mortgage bad debts rose too.

    See Chart B , page 2 & commentary on Page 3:-

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/ms/articles/art1jun14.pdf

  49. @Colin

    When inflicting data, help us out with some due diligence?

    How much of that impairment is AFTER the banking crisis? The Crunch took out 7 percent of the economy, so you might expect some “impairment” but it would not be impairments causing the crisis, but the crisis causing impairments.

    In any event, it was the freezing of the banks lending to each other that caused the Crunch, owing to US subprime toxic debt, not lending here, as you well know.

  50. @Colin

    In fact, the liquidity crisis first stirred the year before, in 2007, it just came to a head in 2008…

1 2 3 4 11