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 7 8 9 10 11
  1. RIVERS10

    @” give it some time for his message to filter through to the public at large.”

    Precisely !!

  2. a telling article in the independent yesterday as according to the findings of the labour affiliated fabian society in which of those canvassed 76% considered the labour movement as less electable than under miliband and if were to hover up the votes of all available green and lib dems in 83 conservative marginal seats whilst retaining everyone of there own may vote it would gain them all of 26 seats , whilst accepting that ukipers could well be won back to a certain degree it does seem to highlight the impossibility of not only the wholesale capturing of green ,liberal and socialist votes but also retaining centralist and attaining soft tory support can anyone give me a convincing scenario where corbyn can be the unifying candidate I this regard?

  3. TOH
    I’ve argued on this site multiple times the (in my mind) very simple and logical case for solving our constitutional woes with regional assemblies and electoral reform and while some have agreed with me others have provided arguments against it.

    EVEL is the exact same, you might think its simple but I and many others think its a lazy hapdash partisan solution that would alienate Scotland, Wales and NI, exacerbate the North/South divide and lead to a political quagmire regarding the whole basis of “what is a English only issue?” Basically I and many others would rather see no change than EVEL.

    Alas things need to be scrutinized and properly thought through, not rushed through parliament via standing orders.

  4. Mark Sadler
    The idea behind Corbyn is as follows, Firstly don’t look for much from the Greens or Lib Dems, the Lib Dems are pretty much down to their core and short of an electoral pact Labour will not get all the ex Green voters, they might get half if their lucky and half a million votes while helpful is not a game changer especially when the bulk of them are located outside of the marginals.

    The main thrust would likely be at UKIP were a straight talking authentic character like Corbyn could cut through to kippers and maybe get them back on board, the white working class used to be a core of Labours vote and many feel left behind from the Blair years, someone with radical policies like Corbyn’s could win them back.

    Finally the swing voters, many of these will be genuine centrists who might recoil at the thought of Corbyn but these folks probably already had that reaction to Milliband what with the way the media went on about him. However others might have been put of by Millibands personality, or had a “better the devil you know” attitude. With the correct pitch emphasising what polling suggests are very popular policies Corbyn could get some of these folk on board.

    To throw some random numbers in to give a bit more of an idea the results in 2015 were
    Tories 36.8%
    Labour 30.5%
    UKIP 12.7%
    Lib Dems 7.9%
    Greens 3.8%

    Lets say Labour make modest vote gains off of Greens and Libs but nothing huge lets say 1% between the two.
    Throw in a modest swing from the Tories taking some of the swing voters mentioned earlier, another 2%
    Finally a decent crack at kippers gaining about 3% of UKIP (primarily WWC voters)

    That would give us (rounding down)
    Labour 36%
    Tories 35%
    Throw in Labours abundance of allies (SNP, Plaid, Greens, Lib Dems etc) Labour would probably have enough to govern without making any huge inroads into Tory voters.

    All hypothetical of course but that’s the idea, whether it would actually work well…..

  5. The reason the Tories should fear Corbyn is that he will be making an argument against Austerity, against Trident, for Trade Union rights and against the neo-liberal consensus. He will be helped in that argument by SNP, Plaid, Greens, SDLP and maybe he will win that argument. The worst outcome for the Tories and those that benefit from having the Tories in government is the neo-liberal consensus is rejected as a failed philosophy.

  6. @TOH et al

    On EVEL go ahead press on it will only accelerate Scottish independence. If you can’t see what’s wrong with EVEL then you consider Westminster to be the English Parliament which it is not but might soon become if EVEL is implemented.

    Neil A
    You will have to watch your tongue. Any criticism of the SNP will result in comments about the links of your politics to paedophilia. Thats the kind of political debate we have in Scotland


    I don’t think this sort of comment has any place on UKPR. This is the second time this particular poster has posted insulting comments on this forum for absolutely no reason at all.

    As someone who supports the SNP I’m really offended by this comment and it also falls well below the standards of UKPR rules.

    It also falls well below the standards expected for an elected official holding a position in public office.

    I’m really considering sending an email to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland regarding this individual.

  8. Any Labour supporter who thinks that the SNP is an ally is engaged in self-delusion.

  9. Allan

    That is a wind-up, yeah?




    Certainly not. I’ve taken a screen shot and posted the URL to http://www.ethicalstandards.org.uk/

    There is no basis for his comments on here. People disagree with each other but bringing pedophilia into it??

  11. @Mr Nameless

    I’m also concerned at the result of that poll, but more because of the prospect that Cooper could win a Cooper-Corbyn run off. Corbyn I could live with and I’m glad that he’s shifted the terms of debate away from Kendall’s nonsense. But however much he would re-enthuse many on the left, he’ll still put off many others if he lasts until 2020. Like you I would prefer Burnham as leader. I am impressed by the policy positions that he has come up with, most recently on social care, and am mindful of the polling that consistently shows that he is the candidate of the four that voters have the most time for (although that isn’t saying much). His opposition to the welfare bill was early and remains crystal clear and would clearly be there at the third reading under his leadership. Cooper on the other hand has said little of substance and doesn’t seem to connect with the wider electorate at all. It would be sadly ironic if a resurgence of the left let her in to pip Corbyn by eliminating Burnham from the final ballot.

  12. That should be “concerned at the result of that ALLEGED poll”

  13. I think posters here are getting a better understanding of the nature of current politics in Scotland. The cybernat drive is to remove all other opinions by intimidation.

    There is a constant stream of complaints about me to the Commissioner on Ethical Standards, well over a hundred by now. I have never been found to be in breach but the pressure on the commissioner is intense.


    2. “The EVEL being proposed by the Governement is a very watered down version of what should be a straight forward only English MP’s can vote on matters relating to England only.
    3 The rejection of every amendment is what often happens in a parliament where there is a clear government majority, it’s democratic.
    If any nation has been treated badly, it’s the English on the EVEL proposals”

    I’ve always said that it’s the English who will lose out when other parts of the UK have increased devolved powers.

    Unless the English vote for it I don’t see the need for an English parliament but I can never understand why there can’t be English Question Time? We have Scottish questions and Wales question time so why not English?

    Then all MP’s come together for national and international debates such as welfare reform and sending UK troops to fight terrorists.
    Westminster can function as one national parliament as well as accommodating the English without creating an English parliament within a parliament.


    The problem is. UKPR is not the place to post what you “may” have witnessed on other forums/websites.

    Your comment regarding pedophilia had no basis on UKPR.
    That’s the point I’m making.

  16. As things stand, Corbyn is unlikely to win a general election. The same people who were so determined to keep Miliband and the SNP out of Downing Street will haul themselves to the polling booths to keep out Corbyn.

    Where he will create ructions though is in the EU referendum. Cameron has been relying on Labour giving him a blank cheque – “we will campaign Yes, regardless of how the renegotiations turn out and what is renegotiated”.

    I can’t see Corbyn accepting that. He’ll have his own laundry list of things he wants. Which is healthy. All the parties should be standing up and saying what they want from the renegotiation. It’ll strengthen Britain’s hand if real pressure is put on Cameron and the guys in Brussels see there is no blanket approval for Yes, so they’d better make their offer good as opposed to only conceding token things.

    And if Cameron actually loses the EU referendum, all bets are off. We’ll be in completely uncharted territory and who knows how power will shift…

  17. Personally I am a federalist who would prefer regional parliaments such as London Assembly becoming a full law making body while a smaller national parliament deals with things for the entire country.

  18. Phil Haines

    I pretty much agree with that, although Burnham is looking like a bit of a leap of faith.

  19. @Allan,

    The word paedophiles was introduced into the debate by OldNat who seems to suggest that the existence of such in the House of Lords is a reason for the Scots to reject rule by Westminster (I guarantee you that statistically there will be at least one or two in the Scottish parliament – it’s quite a common condition).

    I think you’re being a little unfair on Barney therefore. Although in fairness to Oldnat I think it was probably a joke (although a bit jarring).

    Personally, I don’t think there’s any party political angle to be found in offences against children. There’s nothing that’s taken place in Labour run areas that couldn’t also have happened in Tory run areas, and there are people in all parties with such predilictions.

  20. @Barney

    If people are slandering or libelling you, you should sue. Those laws exist in the first place to protect people from malicious behaviour.

  21. NEIL A

    Reading Barney’s comment I’m of the impression he was reading rubbish on some deluded forum and posting his thoughts about it on here.

    Regarding OLDNAT’S comment it certainly doesn’t warrant the sort of response from BC. Maybe if posters actually pacifically said who their post are in response to then it would help matters.

    Yes I agree with you, no party in the UK will be immune from pedophilia and there may well be some skeletons in the Scottish parliament in this regard but it’s not a pretext to write on UKPR ” Any criticism of the SNP will result in comments about the links of your politics to paedophilia”

  22. thanks to rivers20 for his endeavours in explaining the thinking behind the corbyn phenomena and the belief that government rule can be attained by attracting the traditionalist labour vote via e.u scepticism which sounds plausible enough but I would have grave doubts that a wholesale left-wing attitude in regards to such subjects as defence , welfare ,law a order and the economy would be as appealing to this demographic .

  23. CANDY
    If people are slandering or libelling you, you should sue. Those laws exist in the first place to protect people from malicious behaviour

    That’s not the issue here so why bring it up?

  24. Phil Haines
    I also think Cooper would be a disaster and if I had to play it safe would pick Burnham as my preferred candidate but I’m not much worried about the prospect of Cooper becoming leader. I may be speaking to soon but I feel that if Cooper has moved into second place ahead of Burnham its because loads of ex Burnham supporters have jumped onto the Corbyn wagon, this results in either a Corbyn win or those voters getting cold feet at the last minute and going back to Burnham. I think Coopers only shot is if the Kendall supporters accept what appears to be inevitable defeat and back her instead.

  25. BM11
    We are in complete agreement on that issue :)

  26. If we can stop being babyish for a minute, the Burnham For Leader campaign Twitter has tweeted some canvass data:


    Andy Burnham: 37.31%
    Jeremy Corbyn: 27.59%
    Yvette Cooper: 9.60%
    Liz Kendall: 5.77%
    Don’t Know: 19.51%
    Not Voting: 0.22%

    With DK/NV removed:

    Burnham: 46.5%
    Corbyn: 37.4%
    Cooper: 12.0%
    Kendall: 7.2%*

    SAMPLE SIZE: 29,020

    *Yes I know that’s 100.1% – can’t figure out where I rounded wrong.

    CAVEATS: Although you do it less than with general voter contact, you still target your best hope supporters first. I would like to see the other campaigns’ internal figures too, in order to discern how much confirmation bias there’s been with selection of contacts.

    Again less than with the general populace, but you still get people saying they’ll vote for your candidate so they leave you alone (it doesn’t work but people think it will). Again, seeing the other campaigns’ canvass returns would be helpful but I’m not sure we will (why say you’re in third or fourth?).

    ANALYSIS: A good solid lead for Burnham is a helpful stat for him to produce. There’s been no statistical good news for the non-Corbyn camps recently otherwise.

    The sample size is in some way more important than the results. It’s probably about a tenth of the electorate so far, pretty high for an internal election. It makes me wonder how effective a machine Corbyn, Cooper and Kendall have – in a relatively small selectorate like this, face-to-face and voice-to-voice contact can be more important than in a regular election.

    Corbyn’s made a lot of noise on social media, but among people who, let’s face it, don’t have great organisational weight in the Labour Party. Corbyn’s trade unionists will help, but the left doesn’t necessarily have any great organisation to help it recruit within the CLPs (LRC and CLPD are tiny and considered as cultish as Progress with some). We need to know how many people are phone banking or recruiting face to face for him. How many are going to his meetings, etc.?

  27. Corbyn now favourite with some bookies.

  28. Yeah those figures are interesting. I have my doubts they are correct. I suspect Cooper, Burnham and Corbyn are all quite close( looking at CLP nominations where last time everyone but the Millbands only got 20 or less). It would be another polling goof if You Gov over estimated Cooper as well as Corbyn

  29. In 2010 charlie whelan was expected to swing Unite behind Ed Balls but they backed Ed M.

    In 2015 Unison was expected to back Yvette Cooper but they have just announced they will back Corbyn.

    Deja vu ?

  30. RIVERS10: “short of an electoral pact Labour will not get all the ex Green voters”

    Hello hello! ;-)

  31. Mr N – does Burhams team contain ex LD By-Election campaigners?

  32. I must admit that the canvas data looks a bit odd.

    I would have thought Yvette has more first preferences, and probably from Andy.

  33. @LizH

    I personally think Cameron will hang on until 2020 unless things really start to go wrong and/or the EU referendum is lost. He did commit to a ‘full second term’ in the same interview he announced no third term in. I assume what will happen is that in 2019 there will be a leadership contest, the winner of which will head up the election campaign and run the party but not become PM until after the GE. Doing it this way would be a break with how British parties have done things in the past but could be advantageous to the Tories by allowing the leader’s customary honeymoon to coincide with the election. The Blair/Brown handover is probably an example not to be copied.


    The Yvette Cooper camp have also released canvas data:

    From 5000 phone bank calls they have…
    Cooper 843
    Corbyn 778
    Burnham 612
    Kendall 384

    From 22,335 calls, texts, postal surveys and text responses…
    Cooper 8136
    Corbyn 1255
    Burnham 715
    Kendall 384

    So, yes, both Burnham’s and Cooper’s figures to be taken with a pinch of salt. (That Corbyn is ahead of the others among their samples is, I suppose, of interest).

  34. Jack Sheldon

    That is an interesting thought as to how Cameron might hand over, chimes with his ‘full term’ comment, which seemed a bit odd at the time, and actually makes a lot of sense.

    Rivers 10

    Regarding how Labour/Corbyn might win, I posted something similar a couple of weeks back, saying that Labour had to appeal to ‘soft Tories’ to have any chance.

    I can’t remember who it was who corrected me, but they quite rightly pointed out that Labour can win comfortably without a single Tory defection, provided they attract the support of a significant number of those who did not vote at all in 2015.

    There is an argument that Corbyn can thrive by retaining present Labour supporters, and adding a big chunk of those who did not vote, in a way that ‘more of the same’ Cooper and Burnham can’t.

    I don’t really buy it, but you might!

  35. Millie,

    Yes Millie – the Tories are close to 38% which whatever happens with the rest of the vote would be enough to make them the largest party in 2020.

    Ergo, to form the next Government, Labour need to take some votes off the Tories or hope someone else does.

    (Of course if AC enthuses a higher turnout then the same number of votes for the Tories is a slight %age reduction but you get my drift).

  36. @Millie

    Was that me?

    15.7 million voters abstained at the GE.

    Seeing as they are likely to hate the Westminster establishment, the more this establishment bashes Jeremy, the higher his status among the disaffected.

  37. JC not AC oops!

  38. Jack Sheldon

    Well Corbyn is now favourite on Oddschecker, albeit by a wafer thin margin (Corbyn 13/8, Burnham 15/8, Cooper a little further back at 13/5). Given the voting system (Cooper being most candidates’ second preference), Burnham is in trouble.

  39. @Raf

    This is the impression I get. I don’t think his campaign has gone well and I imagine a chunk of Corbyn’s support would have been Burnham backers had Jeremy not made it.

  40. CMJ

    I think it was. And you were right.

    My point was actually that if Labour take a vote from someone previously a Tory then it is worth more than taking a vote from another party.

    Or indeed, someone who previously did not vote, although that does not invalidate what you said at the time.

  41. Jim Jam

    JC? Can’t we keep religion out of it?

  42. Jim Jam
    ‘ the Tories are close to 38% which whatever happens with the rest of the vote would be enough to make them the largest party in 2020.

    Ergo, to form the next Government, Labour need to take some votes off the Tories or hope someone else does.’

    I think that is a non sequitur. If the Tories remained at 37/38% whilst Labour managed to get to 35% you are correct to say that the former would remain the largest party in 2020. However, they would not be above 300 – 310 seats in a 650 Commons and that would not be sufficient to sustain a Tory minority Government. Beyond the Ulster parties and UKIP it is almost impossible to imagine minority parties which would prop the Tories up. I would imagine that Farron and the LibDems would see such an outcome as a golden opportunity to redeem themselves with left of centre voters.

  43. To gauge these polls one would need the Labour Party better. I will go to hear JC (not that JC) on Saturday. I guess it will be overspill, but I have a guaranteed (come on, it is) place. If the NW is seizable in the Labour Party, with the addition of some London and the fact the large public employee membership … Well, it could be a short announcement in September.

    The DT was right yesterday that JC would be very difficult for the Conservatives, as the debate would go to landscape where they don’t want to go. The much I detest SWP and alike, it’s extremely difficult to engage in a proper argument with them and hence they have a good chance of winning them.

    The SNP is a competitor (actually a hostile competitor) to Labour – yet we have seen weirder coalitions (Greece). But i think Labour should have a hostile stance, but simply stating what the SNP is about, rather than the centrist stance of the Labour Party.

    Greens, at least in Liverpool, are not an easy prey for Labour, and I agree with CMJ’s point some times ago about building the bridge.

    However, as a non-Labour person …

  44. Laszlo,

    As I understand (may be wrong) the biggest regions for Labour membership are London, the North East and North West.

  45. @ Mr Nameless

    Thanks for understanding of my post in spite of the clandestine activities of my iPad.

    Yes, what I meant that if the information coming out is reliable to any meaningful extent, then JC can win outright. So, Labour would have a centre left leader who can communicate (apparently) with a large proportion of the society. I don’t know, and I’m reading the comments here to gauge it.

    The Green Party is terribly important though …

  46. The Green social media shows that the main obstacle to many Greens following a Corbyn LP is the lack of electoral reform.

    With a commitment to PR, JC Labour could attract a large progressive support.

  47. One of the things for 2020 will be the generation that experienced the Great Recession as young adolescents. It they become politically active, even if they return to the usual spectrum, they would make a major change. They are doing in food sales, restaurants, etc, so why not politics.

  48. @ CMJ

    Let’s contemplate that JC wins. His main challenge is the PLP. Does he have a backup in the constituencies? Both activist and intellectual? If he does, he can manage it, and PR will be on the offer (here in Liverpool, many Labour people could be persuaded to PR, but nobody does it).. If not (and it is a real possibility), it could be a sad chapter in the history of the LP.

  49. Speaking of the Great Recession, and our discussion from several pages back about whether it is possible to predict a crash at least three years in advance to give the regulators a chance to do something about it – it turns out there was an economist who did.



    Raghuram Rajan (then of the University of Chicago) presented a paper in August 2005 to the world’s top economists and central bankers at a do to honour Greenspan who was retiring (Greenspan, Bernanke and Mervyn King were present), predicting that credit-default swaps and financial engineering had increased systemic risk in the banks.

    He then got attacked by everyone present (Larry Summers called him a Luddite).

    Imagine if our govt had spotted his talent and had appointed him to succeed Eddie George in 2003 instead of Mervyn King – history might have been different.

    It’s too late to head-hunt him – he’s got appointed Governor of the Reserve Bank of India in 2013. As for Summers – according to Krugman, the job of Chairman of the Federal Reserve went to Janet Yellen rather than to him was because of his reaction to Rajan’s paper in 2005, (I guess Obama didn’t want to take the risk he’d make mistakes like that in the future).

    So there was a very senior person, who had access to all the people in power, who predicted the crash – but he got ignored. So the next problem is, how do you get the people in power to listen to you, even if you do predict things correctly…

  50. JC’s main challenge won’t be the PLP. It will be the media, and difficult questions about Islamists and other extremist groups with regard to which his opinions are rather more nuanced than the public are likely to accept (at least, once they’ve had those opinions painted in lurid colours by the media).

1 7 8 9 10 11