ComRes’s monthly poll for the Daily Mail is out, topline voting intention figures are CON 40%, LAB 28%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 10%, GRN 5%. The poll also asked about military intervention in Syria. By 56% to 33% people supported British airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and while the public are opposed to sending British group troops against ISIS, it’s less overwhelming than most of the polls I’ve seen in recent years that have broached the topic of sending British ground troops into conflicts – 49% are opposed, 41% would support. Tabs are here.

415 Responses to “ComRes/Mail – CON 40, LAB 28, LDEM 7, UKIP 10, GRN 5”

1 6 7 8 9
  1. @John Murphy

    Trump is the American version of Corbyn. The true believers think he’ll sweep to power, but everyone else is looking on in astonishment, knowing it won’t happen because they, the majority, simply won’t let it.

  2. @Candy

    Comparing JC to Trump is very harsh.

    JC, love or hate him, has a long traditional of a principled stance from a certain position that many share (but of course many don’t too). He is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent man.

    Mr Trump has a long list of offences for saying grossly stupid things.

    They are not alike remotely.


    @” there is in practice quite the “free money” element, ”

    No there isn’t-as I have explained.:-

    The Asset Purchase programme involves the Exchange of Government Bonds for cash ( well quasi-cash in the form of a credit balance with BoE)

    The Assets in question are IOUs with specific repayment dates.

    There is no “free money”.
    The Banks & Insurance companies swap one asset for another
    The BoE is like any other holder of UK Gilts-in possesion of an IOU which must be repaid on the maturity date.

  4. Alan Johnson spelling it out :-

    “………Corbyn had no such constraints. He’s been cheerfully disloyal to every Labour leader he’s ever served under. That’s fine so long as members understand that it’s the loyalty and discipline of the rest of us that created the NHS, the Open University and all the other achievements I’ve mentioned and the many that I haven’t.”

    ” Let’s end the madness ………”

    I have always had the impression that AJ enjoys considerable respect in the Labour Party-Ordinary Bloke/Speaks Human/Common Sense personified/Broad Appeal across the electorate etc etc.

    We will see .

  5. @ Catmanjeff,

    Their electoral situations are also very different. US presidential elections are a forced choice between the Republicans and Democrats, in which the least unpalatable candidate wins. Donald Trump is never going to be the least unpalatable choice for 50% of the American electorate.

    In the last UK general election, anti-Westminster parties got 22% of the vote. If Corbyn can tap into even half of that sentiment and harness it for Labour without losing centrist 2015 Labour voters, Labour are home and dry.

    I think he can’t, for a variety of reasons (<a href=""the 2012 London mayoral election, the fact that you personally won’t vote Labour because they don’t support PR even if you agree with much of Corbyn platform), but it’s not impossible that his strategy could work. Trump’s never could.

  6. it’s the loyalty and discipline of the rest of us that created the NHS

    What discipline? Aneurin Bevan flounced out of the Cabinet over eyeglasses.

  7. I treat with great caution the assumption that parties can cut and paste voters from different blocks and build a majority..If there is a single lesson to be learned from last May it is that voters do not behave like this.

    Ed Milliband’s leadership foundered on testing that very notion to destruction. It turned out that LiDem voters in former Conservative seats more or less returned to the Conservatives…..

    To win any party need to have an offer that attracts enough support from the fluid middle where most of the public are placed and where they place themselves. It is true voters often say they like a clear choice and like to know where someone stands – it does not follow that they will actually vote for it – it may merely clarify their reasons not to vote for it.

  8. Candy
    I felt the need to address this point.

    “The reason the South-East is thriving isn’t to do with QE at all, it’s because it has a lot of entrepreneurial activity. That’s nothing to do with govt and entirely to do with local cultures and attitudes. There is nothing stopping people in the north setting up new businesses apart from cultural conditioning and peer-pressure”

    No offence intended but that is a load of drivel. Pretending for a minute that the North/South divide is due to differing attitudes to entrepreneurialism is unfairly ignoring vast amounts of history and government policy not to mention being quite insulting to people in the North. It’s an apologists argument right out of the Norman Tebbit’s handbook.

    Lets look at the facts. According to the ONS if you exclude London (for various reasons, one its obviously an outlier being the UK’s economic hub but also it’s an unusual case of having both high levels of self employment but also high levels of poverty) the three Southern regions (South East, South West and Eastern) have a self employment rate of 15.8% compare this with the self employment rate for the three Northern regions (North East, North West and Yorkshire) which stands at 12.3% Now does that 3.5% really make all that difference? I highly doubt it if for no other reason than for the UK’s second poorest region (Wales) having comparable self employment rates to the South (14,8%) but being vastly poorer.

    But we can delve deeper, lets look at the changes in the self employment rate since 2008 and economic growth. Since 2008 the South (again excluding London) has grown twice as fast as the North thus one should assume that since the self employment rate isn’t twice as high then at least the increase should be twice as much? Well it isn’t, the South had an increase in self employment of 1.5% since 2008 while the North increased by 1.2% That 0.3% difference does not account for twice as much growth.

    I don’t mean to hijack the discussion but I don’t like letting political or economic orthodoxies go unchallenged especially when there is little or no evidence to support them. The reasons behind the the North/South divide are many and complicated but differing attitudes to entrepreneurs likely makes little to no difference and the gap will not be narrowed by government telling Northerners to bugger off and start a business, that’s plain lazy.

  9. @CatManJeff

    I don’t think anyone could describe Corbyn as “thoughtful”. Apparently he invited the IRA to visit Parliament two weeks after the Brighton Bomb – I suppose it was “here’s where the people you bumped off used to work” tour. Whatever it was, it was not “thoughtful”.

    Can you imagine Members of Congress inviting Al Queda to visit Congress two weeks after 9/11 and the Pentagon got attacked?

    He’s as much of a loon as Trump, but you can’t see it because you are on the edge of the “true believers”.

  10. @Rivers10 – you know the difference between setting up a business (incorporating as a limited company) and being a sole trader (self-employed), right? There is nothing stopping people in the North or Wales from setting up new businesses if they want – it comes down to attitudes to risk and profit, and that is cultural.

  11. @Candy

    I will not respond any more than saying you comments are far too personal.

  12. Candy
    Yes but there is significant overlap, I concede not all business owners are classed as self employed but a very large % are. Also the majority of entrepreneurs will start out as self employed.

    But if that doesn’t convince you how about this. The South’s (excluding London) business density rate per 10,000 citizens is 1,100 compared to the North’s 850, not a huge difference. But even more interesting in my opinion is the following. in recent years the South (excluding London) has grown by 8.5% while the North has only grown by 3.4% This obviously does not correlate with the business density statistics but what’s even more interesting is that the economic data suggests that business density (as well as self employment levels) have absolutely no bearing on growth levels. The regions with the biggest increases in business levels were Wales (13%) and the North East (12%) but these regions grew by only 3.4% and 2.8% respectively over the past several years, this compared to the extreme examples of Yorkshire which saw a business growth rate of just 1% and Scotland which actually saw its business rate decline by 1% yet these regions grew by 2.4% and 2.6% respectively.

    I don’t want to turn this into a wider debate about Capitalism but the mantra that an economic plan consisting of little more than asking your citizens to set up business is lunacy. Business start ups guarantee nothing, any Capitalist will tell you the same, they are hit and miss and while they might see that as some form of natural selection I just see it as an inefficient waste of resources.

  13. Once upon a time comments on this site concentrated on polling, rather than personal views and favourite myth peddling.

    Happy days!

    Opinium have a poll on attitudes to the GB Labour leadership election.

    The data tables also allow the GB VI (useless though these numbers are) to be calculated.

  14. Candy

    Could not agree with your comments more. Corbyn for leader ,the labour party want an unelectable fool lets hope they get it

  15. @Rivers10

    I have no idea who is right or wrong, but what I do know is that government expenditure on business support is ridiculously twisted in favour of start-ups and against help for existing businesses.

    So we see vast sums wasted on ‘facilitators’, website providers and ‘workshops’ aimed at start-ups, who have no business experience and are generally clueless.

    And all the website providers never actually build a website for the new business – they just explain what a good idea it would be to have one.

    Which they already knew…

  16. @Rivers10

    What I’m trying to get at is that cultural attitudes to profit and risk-taking play a big role in to whether people take the plunge. If everyone around you is slamming business and treats profit as a dirty word would you be more reluctant to set up a business than if you lived in an area where you got respect for taking the risk?

    Lets take the argument out of the UK to remove the partisan heat from it.

    Why are there so many start-ups in California but much fewer per capita in say, Canada? I think it’s cultural. Smart Canadians (and Britons and Indians and everyone else) would rather head off to California to try their luck than stay at home simply because the environment is friendlier – not just in terms of lots of venture capitalists on hand willing to take a bet on you, but there is cultural support – everyone is having a go.

    That’s what is holding people back. In the olden days it was snobbishness at the top universities towards “trade”, but now it’s political sneering at profit and no respect for the risks these people are taking. Which is why the risk-takers huddle together in Shoreditch or Cambridge for mutual support rather spread out across the country.

  17. @Millie

    Had no idea the govt was wasting money like that. It’s not actually hard to set up a website. The best thing about Google is that you can find instructions on everything – a few minutes googling on how to buy a domain and load up a free CMS and you can have your website up and running in a couple of hours.

    Governments can’t help in these instances. They can only get out of the way and hope an entrepreneurial culture takes hold – but that requires the wider population to stop slamming businesses and act supportive when one of their number takes the plunge.

  18. Candy
    But the risk takers are not all huddled together in Shoreditch or Cambridge, as I said the regions with the largest increases were actually Wales and the North East but were it has made very little difference on the economic conditions in those places. Also I live in Liverpool (probably one of the most left wing cities in the UK) its not like we go around sneering at the local branch of Primark or firebomb Starbucks, its also not like the folks in Woking or Guildford stroll around praising their energy supplier as a fine example of private sector industriousness….

    Also you mention California, one of the most left leaning states in the US, were Bernie Sanders is proving very popular. California’s economic success is not due to some open arm embrace of business, if it was Kansas would be an economic powerhouse (look up the Kansas governors relatively recent “experiment” with tax breaks)

    However I think Oldnat is correct and while he may not have been targeting us in particular this conversation doesn’t really have anything to do with polling and is probably in violation of comments policy..

  19. @Oldnat

    The data is interesting.

    The most pro-JC part of Labour voters appears to be those flirting with the Greens.

    No surprise I guess.

    If the poll is correct, then the membership views Burnham/Corbyn in reverse to Labour voters.

    The position on Cooper and Kendall are about the same.

    I think uniting the party whoever wins will be tough job for sure.

  20. @Rivers10 & Candy

    The concept you’re both looking for is ‘path dependence’.

  21. Owen Jones & Ken Livingstone seem to be JC’s main Disciples on Earth.

    The Miracle of “Peoples QE” makes the Feeding of the Five Thousand seem like Tory Cuts :-)

  22. Andy Burnham comes out in support of renationalising the railways.

  23. Ah -Krugman too.

    He will have to abandon his title of Keynsian in Chief if he is going to endorse Corbyn’s Murphy QE fantasy.

    This is what Keynes said of Weimar Hyperinflation in his book ” The Economic Consequences of the Peace:”:-

    “”The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance.””

    Perhaps Krugman will but JC on the right path ?

  24. Norbold

    I read the Krugman article as a (very valid) criticism of the Labour moderates than a Corbyn endorsement.

    Interesting that it is not just New Labour who like to spin.

  25. I don’t see why people’s QE is such a big problem. It’s not like it’s intended as something to be in place for a long time, Corbyn and Murphy both explicitly say so. However, in the context of a country which has an inflation rate of 0.1% and a target rate of 2.0%, and which many argue should actually have a target rate of 2.5%, it is inevitable some sort of pro-inflationary monetary policy will have to be pursued. Normally that would be lowering the interest rates, but… that’s difficult now, for obvious reasons. Right now, if people’s QE lead to inflation rising, that’s not a problem at all, because we currently *want* inflation to rise.

  26. I mean, it’s all very well and good quoting Keynes on Weimar Germany, but the UK is quite obviously not Weimar Germany, and if we’re going to engage in quote wars, Keynes’ open letter to Roosevelt during the Great Depression seems somewhat more relevant:

    ‘Broadly speaking, therefore, an increase in output cannot occur unless by the operation of one or other of three factors. Individuals must be induced to spend more out of their existing incomes; or the business world must be induced, either by increased confidence in the prospects or by a lower rate of interest, to create additional current incomes in the hands of their employees, which is what happens when either the working or the fixed capital of the country is being increased; || or public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money ||’.

    That highlighted last part seems pretty relevamt no?

  27. *relevant, even.

  28. @ Old Nat,

    I mostly remember comments on this site concentrating on the pros and cons of Scottish independence. :p

    Thanks for linking that poll, though. Why do I suspect the obvious conclusion- Andy Burnham is the candidate best poised to win back voters from across the political spectrum- will have zero impact on the people allegedly choosing their candidate based on “electability”?

  29. MrNameless
    Really? do you have a quote or link or something? I’m not doubting it but everything I’ve heard or read on Burnham’s views on the issue he seems to be advocating Milliband’s policy of allowing a public sector contractors to bid or as I like to call it “nationalisation by stealth”

  30. Oldnat

    That poll confirms the far lefts worst fears: that in their insular back slapping echo chamber they don’t speak to or for actual Labour voters. That is the same argument made by many (but most eloquently Denis Healey) in the documentary series “writing on the wall”

    – a documentary series that every Labour member / ‘supporter’ under 35 should be sent along with their membership card.


    I think OJ is correct: but not for the reason he deliciously expounds. They are scared because these next 1-3 Corbynite years could see the end of Labour as an electoral force- at best for the next decade. That really is scary.

  31. Rivers10:

    “Time to tell it as it is: rail privatisation just hasn’t worked. As Labour Leader, I will pursue a policy of progressive re-nationalisation.”

    Burnham’s Twitter. I originally read it as “aggressive re-nationalisation” and thought “steady on”.

  32. Mrameless
    Actually no need the Twitter feed has lit up.
    This is a shrewd move by Burnham, obviously its a carrot to lure Corbyn voters but also a big, bold, popular and most importantly cheap policy to campaign with come 2020. Clearly this talk of Corbyn dragging the debate to the left seems to be correct.

  33. MrNameless
    Yeah wrote that last post before you posted :(
    Aggressive re-nationalisation that would be a real carrot for the Corbyn backers lol

  34. So Mr Corbyn on newsnight has opined his belief that Tony Blair colluded in a illegal war and should therefore be prosecuted for war crimes how is this statement going to lead to a unifying and conciliation of the labour movement ?

  35. @ Colin

    Sorry, a rather busy period (instead of holidays), so I can’t check it, but I clearly remember the rule being changed and it stated that the QE purchase couldn’t be more than 70% of government papers. Then I did a quick calculations, and came up with the figure.

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t check it for some time, so I accept what you said – which still kind of nuances your response to someone (Spearmint?) one or two days ago.

    For the time being I rather just read the discussion rather than engaging with it.

    Just one comment – to everyone. Ever since the 1950s various UK governments devised economic policies – some good some less so – but none could implement them. Simply the UK doesn’t have the institutional infrastructure to do so at a coherent, relatively macro basis. You can’t mobilise people with informing them about such changes, but it has to be dealt with if anyone wants to propose economic policies beyond fiscal. In the last 30 years Heseltine, k. Clarke and P. Mendelson got close to it, but all failed (for various reasons).

    That would have the winning coalition of people.

  36. Habits of commenting …

    I don’t think Corbyn would kill off the chance of a Labour Party government, and if it is, RIP – but Labour has gone through bigger upheavals.

    In any case – their voters will find other parties …

  37. “In any case – their voters will find other parties …”


    They could try that “Laboratory Party” someone mentioned earlier. Although even laboratories are prolly vote losers these days…

    People will tend to be “sensitive” if someone basically accuses half of a nation of being racist…


    Ah, but you neglect, as did Statty, Colin’s observation about the flak of one kind or another wafted copiously in the direction of Englanders by some pro-Indy peeps…

  39. @Candy

    “Your idea of helicoptering by just cutting everyone a cheque would have resulted in very poor targetting by comparison. Lots of people would have received the money who didn’t need it.”


    Well, you prolly been speed reading again ‘cos I haven’t expressed my idea of helicoptering, and there are more ways of doing it than cutting everyone a cheque (e.g. infrastructure); haven’t even said if I’m in favour or not. It’s just that some are keen to point out differences between helicoptering and QE so I was interested in looking at things they might have a bit more in common.

  40. @Candy

    “You’ve also made a few comments about how the South-East benefited most from QE – but recall that QE was money lent to the govt who then spent it, and the South-East receives the least amount of govt spending per capita.”


    Ah, well, it’s possible that with all the speed reading you may have missed Colin’s most excellent, and most frequent guides to the Asset Purchase Mechanism thing. One aspect of the mechanism is that in buying gifts and stuff from the banks, the banks receive money in return (or electronic credit balance or whatever) which they can then use to provide more lending to businesses etc.

    And given the banks are based in the SE, the SE are in pole position to benefit. There’s been £375 Bn of QE, so that’s a lot of money for the SE to benefit from via the banks, as opposed to via govt. borrowing.

    Naturally, with that kind of injection, it would be no surprise if more entrepreneurial activity since more money in the SE via the banks would encourage more demand.

  41. Gifts = gilts

  42. Rob Sheffield

    Given your total lack of understanding as to what motivates voters in Scotland, I’m not inclined to think you are a reliable judge of voter motivation in England & Wales either.

    The link was to a poll of voters, stressing the views of those that voted Labour in May.

    It doesn’t confirm the fears of any faction – though those that look at the results in some detail may care to note that Scots are even more disinterested in the outcome of the GB Lab leadership contest than those in E&W.

  43. Carfrew

    “Ah, but you neglect, as did Statty, Colin’s observation about the flak of one kind or another wafted copiously in the direction of Englanders by some pro-Indy peeps…”

    It is often difficult to select the most inane, meaningless comment on UKPR.

    However, this from you is a strong candidate.

    I do remember, from my youth, the frequent references to “Ze Englanders” escaping in comics of the day.

    That your comment simply replicates such comic stereotypes is disappointing – but, sadly, in no way surprising.

  44. There is an article in the Grauniad highlighting “research” by John Cruddas (he of “Blue Labour”) and “The Campaign Company” (using the YouGov panel) which, quelle surprise, finds that people are all in favour of austerity and that Corbynomics won’t work.

    Using loaded questions like this:

    “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”

    56% of people in England & Wales supported that statement. I’m surprised it was that low.

    I would have thought that after its near-death experience at the GE, that polling companies wouldn’t produce politically motivate crap like that. But hey-ho.

  45. @James Morrison

    Weird question really as I have been assured by Mr G. Osborne that the deficit will be eliminated by 2020.

  46. TOP HAT

    I don’t share your faith in the ability of Corbyn & co to restrain themselves which such an tool. There are very good reasons why Central Banks turn their backs on monetising the debts of their Governments.
    I think we should stick to those rules.

    As for Murphy, I have no respect for , or belief in his prognostications.

    If Corbyn wins, and continues to take advice from Murphy , I have no doubt that his ideas will come under examination.
    Meanwhile, he doesn’t escape examination by fellow professionals like this one :-

  47. @Colin

    What you fail to understand is that Corbynites are not interested in what the media and other politicians have to say. So they can scrutinise all they like because the only people who will be listening to them will be ones who won’t vote for Corbyn anyway. That is why they are so afraid of Corbyn.

1 6 7 8 9