ComRes’s monthly telephone poll for the Daily Mail is out today and has topline figures of CON 42%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 9%, GRN 6%. The last time the Conservatives reached the heights of 42% in any poll was way back in 2010. Full tables for the poll are here.

The poll also had a bank of questions on perceptions of the four Labour leadership contenders and whether people would vote for them. In my last post I wrote about how such questions really don’t tell us very much: none of the candidates are well known to the public, and how people would vote with x or y as leader is an extremely hypothetical question – what policies will they follow? How will the media and public react? Will the party be united, split or riven with dissent? I don’t know and neither do the poll respondents.

For what it’s worth though, the main finding here was how little there was to choose between the candidates. ComRes asked if people would vote for Labour with the four candidates, the spread was between Burnham and Corbyn on 22% down to Kendall on 18%. They asked who had what it took to be PM, Burnham, Cooper and Corbyn were essentially in a three way tie on 23%-24%. Given the standard margin of error on a poll this size, it suggests the wider public really aren’t that enthused by any of them.


860 Responses to “ComRes/Daily Mail – CON 42, LAB 28, LDEM 8, UKIP 9, GRN 6”

1 12 13 14 15 16 18
  1. Laszlo

    That book sounds interesting.

    As to that “margin of error” in the estimates, those polling England (outwith London) in 2015 might have wished they had adopted it! :-)

  2. It is really terrible :-) when I agree with the main points of the logic of a nationalist :-)

    But yes, moral is a great compass of people’s action (although it is surprisingly fluid), but morals of another generation is not an obligation or a guidance for a new generation (otherwise we would still have the Soviet Union – the moral compass of 27 or 20 million dead was wiped or at least reframed).

    There is no such a thing, by the way that logic overrules emotions or vice versa. It only appears to be the case afterwords. In the real situation a genuine reflectin process takes place that makes the ruling (which could be a lose-lose one). This is true for the current LP leadership elections too.

  3. I will switch back the autocorrect. It’s still better than the current one.

  4. It’s a book of an UNCR place for the sick of the liberated Dachau. Poles, Hungarians, Turks (?), Russians, are there under American authority. One thing is rather apt today: the argument of the maintenance of these people, and the benefits given to the natives. He (the author) resolves the problem very elegantly, and cleverly.

    If I can’t negotiate the rights, I have to wait 16 years until,it gets out of copyright. The regime change caused the problem in this case …

  5. Laszlo

    :-)

    Ah, but a true non-nationalist from the Carpathian Basin would not only have wanted the artificial concept of “Hungary” to be fully incorporated into the Soviet Union, but for the Federal structure of the SU to have been destroyed, and “Hungary” to have been properly incorporated into the Russian state (until all humanity was incorporated into a single state).

    True, a few more folk would have died in such a process – but they would have died at some point anyway. :-)

  6. It’s hilarious to see the unholy alliance between the Blairites and Tories/right-wingers re “how Corbyn can’t do this and that” blossom. Particularly love the one that if your MPs are elected on one manifesto, the party has no right to change its direction following its defeat. Was anyone to be found arguing this nonsense when Kinnock was casting the ’83 manifesto asunder?

  7. Craig

    Why do you see the alliance of Blairites and Tories as “unholy”?

    People (OK, not them) have died to ensure that Haliburton’s profits increased (and went to the right people (them).

  8. @OldNat

    You’re quite right, the unholy alliance was always left-wingers and Blairites.

  9. @ OldNat

    It is a Trotskyist concept of nationalities against with which YVS fought almost to his death (well, the On the question of Linguistics is 1951 or 52 and he died in March 53) :-). Did you know that Bulgaria wanted to be the 17th Republic of the SU?

    Anyway, in spite of all the errors and criminal acts, we actually can thank the SU (and Stalin – now I spoilt it) the survival of many languages, traditions, folk tales, etc. it wasn’t the choice of the individuals, they were trained and told,what they had to do (somewhat similar to the current JSA schemes).

    (A final remark: Anything is better than the south-eastern European nationalism).

  10. Laszlo

    :-)

    Nytol

  11. You too, I don’t think I will need one of those … Very tired.

  12. @Pete B

    It’s really simple. You think people fighting for summat creates a moral imperative to participate in that thing.

    It ain’t necessarily so, as we can show with an avalanche of examples. The “orientation” gambit is a bit comical and doesn’t wash: you are arbitrarily creating some adjunct as a get-out.

    “Ok, erm… there’s no moral imperative where… Erm… let’s see… where “orientation” is concerned!! Phew!!”

    I don’t have the voting orientation, as it happens.

    People have died in the making of a road. Do you feel you have to go out of your way just to use that road?

  13. @Pete B

    Another problem with the orientation gambit is that you leave a moral imperative on those who have this “orientation” that you speak of, while letting off those who don’t.

  14. @LASZLO

    “I will switch back the autocorrect. It’s still better than the current one.”

    ———-

    Now, see, under Carfrew’s regime, in addition to investing in Thorium, to subsidising coffee and the right of all to a storage unit at very acceptable rates, there would also be provision for proof readers for peeps like Laszlo… (and me…)

  15. @Pete B

    What happens if peeps also die for the right not to vote?

    There are people who’ve died both for and also against summat. Some fight the making of a road, some fight for the road, maybe even in the making of it. How does fighting for summat create a moral imperative one way or the other?

  16. @Pete B

    Did you ask those who died whether they insisted people should vote, or whether they were fighting for the right to CHOOSE whether to vote?

  17. This Corbyn guy seems to be a disaster for Labour. But maybe it’ll help the Lib Dems make a come back. Isn’t this how the SDP split off in the first place?

    Seems like with Farron and Corbyn/divided Labour as his opposition, David Cameron can run hog wild around Parliament. #PrimeMinisterForLife

    On an unrelated note, seems like the Tory boost is in part to them winning. People seem to love to go with the winners in these polls. I kinda hate that. People always shifting loyalties after an election (well at least among political professionals and activists). I’m always honest about who and what I supported in an election even if they lose. I don’t believe in the whole “oh I totally supported you” shtick people give after the fact. Just don’t. Stand by what you believe. (That said, I’m being a coward right now on Iran so I’m no one to criticize…nevertheless, I stand by my candidates).

  18. @Rivers10
    @ Rob Sheffield

    An interesting debate on the Labour core vote.

    I think Rivers’ optimism is based upon the assumption that the ‘left/far left’ are going to coalesce around Corbyn and hold up that ‘core vote’. I am not sure that such optimism is soundly based.

    If the UKIP vote subsides, then it is likely to go to the Tories and Labour in roughly even proportions. In fact, I suspect that the Tories will benefit more: the right-leaning Kippers have only the Tories as an option. The left-leaners have a plethora of choice.

    The Greens may well have Caroline Lucas back instead of Natalie Bennett, who was a poor performer. CL will do far better if re-elected.

    The TUSC is tiny and therefore electorally all but irrelevant.

    The LibDem’s performance is unpredictable – I personally think their vote could diminish further. But one thing is for certain, Farron is much to the left of Clegg: any dissipation of the LD vote is just as likely to go to the Tories than to Corbyn.

    For reasons Old Nat has enunciated, there is perhaps little prospect of a Corbynite SLab doing any better than the Tories in Scotland.

    If the Tories determinedly occupy the centre ground, then they will surely take ‘Middle England’ votes from Corbyn.

    All the above suggests that the Labour core vote could come under severe pressure.

    And this might be compounded by some serious internecine warfare in the Labour Party, although I doubt the prospect of a major split.

    And finally, we might see continued relatively strong economic performance, underpinning the appeal of a centrist Tory party.

    It is only a possibility, perhaps even remote, but there is a distinct risk of a complete Labour meltdown. We have seen with the collapse of the LibDem vote, and the extraordinary rise of the SNP that major shifts are entirely possible, and I wonder whether this is a reflection of the impact of modern media.

    Old style ‘tribal’ loyalties are falling away, and I think the Labour ‘core’ vote could be much lower than you both think: more of the order of 12-15%. This is not a prediction, by the way. ‘Core’ vote and vote are not the same.

    I think Corbyn is shrewd, and I think he will enjoy at least a honeymoon period, but the potential downside for Labour is very low, in my view.

    My impression is that there is more volatility within the electorate these days, but is there evidence for this?

    @Roger M

    You will have the answer to my ‘volatility’ question, and I note and accept your earlier comments regarding the lack of evidence for a phalanx of Corbynites amongst Labour’s new recruits.

  19. PeteB

    I share your views on the hard won right to vote in this country, I suggest that in future you avoid getting drawn into long winded arguments with Oldnat and Carfrew on subjects like this. I think that they are just “winding you up”.

    No rain forecast for today so off for a long walk before some harvesting at the allotments. Have a good day all.

  20. Okay, time to talk about the EU referendum.

    So Nigel Farage is now fronting his own unofficial campaign alongside the two campaigns run by business leaders and MPs respectively. I do agree that he should not be fronting the main campaign – he’s too toxic with the 87% of people who didn’t vote for him in the GE, and it would likely be a repeat of the AV referendum where people subconsciously replaced the referendum question with, “Do you like Nick Clegg?” and overwhelmingly decided they didn’t.

    However, the OUT campaign is now very divided. If the general election taught us anything, it’s that clarity of your message is tantamount – we may have got bored with “long term economic plan” and “riding on the coattails of the SNP” but they were simple, memorable and they got the job done. Whereas the electorate are now going to be presented with three different arguments for leaving the EU, which are often contradictory. Moreover, the campaign could descend into infighting.

    Despite all of this, though, I feel it was inevitable. UKIP are hardly going to shut up during the most important campaign in their history. And of course without Farage, who would be mobilising the UKIP base (who are far more concerned with immigration than the EU per se)?

  21. SoCal Liberal,

    I agree regarding the Lib Dems. As someone who is socially liberal, I always want there to be a liberal force in British politics, especially one that isn’t as tied up with traditional left-wing ideology as Labour, and at their best the Lib Dems provide that.

    However, while they tend to be good on security issues, they’re being very timorous on some of the big controversial issues of the day: drugs policy and immigration.

  22. Pete B
    One of the great things about rights is that you can choose not to use them.
    As an adult you have the right to marry another adult, but crucially you can also enjoy bachelorhood if you so desire.
    If you get charged with a crime you have the right to remain silent, but our legal system would be in a sorry state if no defendant ever spoke in court.
    As a citizen of an EU country I have the right to live in Dublin or Nice or Rome, but so far jackbooted policemen haven’t kicked down my door to take me there.

    And so it is with voting.

  23. Millie

    The Tory party isn’t centrist and hasn’t been for at least 40 years.

  24. FUNTYPIPPIN

    @”And so it is with voting.”

    Unless you see it as a duty-which some people do.

    CRAIG

    @” the unholy alliance between the Blairites and Tories/right-wingers re “how Corbyn can’t do this and that” .”

    Your use of the word “unholy” in that context is interesting. It implies that you see political belief as akin to Religious Doctrine..

    That would at least explain why you see all who oppose your political opinion as “the same”.

    Does it ever occur to you that this is a very narrow view of the world , and that people can hold core beliefs in common, but still support different political parties?

  25. COLIN
    ” Frank Field who says that a Corbyn victory would “land Labour on the elecvtoral rocks”.

    “The shepherd in Vergil sought for love and found her to be a native of the rocks”

    Johnson, letter to Chesterfield – What is a patron”

  26. Electoral Commission is saying that the EU referendum question should be changed, to include the phrase “or leave the European Union”, then have the options “remain” or “leave”.

    Presumably this is because their testing has found that a significant minority of people are blissfully unaware that the UK is a member state of the EU.

  27. JOHN

    As I read it Johnson’s letter accused Chesterfield of only providing help when it was least needed.

    Frank Field , on the other hand, provided JC with support when he most needed it.

    That he has subsequently decided that the person he then helped will be a Leader who is unpopular with the UK electorate doesn’t make him Chesterfieldian.

    Paul the Apostle might be a better metaphor for Frank Field in this regard. :-)

  28. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “PeteB
    I share your views on the hard won right to vote in this country, I suggest that in future you avoid getting drawn into long winded arguments with Oldnat and Carfrew on subjects like this. I think that they are just “winding you up”.”

    —————

    Howard, it’s clear I support the right to vote too. It’s the imperative to vote that was at issue, an important distinction, otherwise you will be in danger of winding Pete up, and indeed yourself.

    P.s. on Dvorak, it is indeed amazing that having invented a superior keyboard layout he then went on to have an impact on classical music. (He didn’t do much on Thorium though…)

  29. James Morrison

    “Presumably this is because their testing has found that a significant minority of people are blissfully unaware that the UK is a member state of the EU.”

    Turns out that, while that was the basis for recommending different wording in the 2013 Private Member’s Bill, it wasn’t the reason this time, but

    “because of what we heard through the consultation and research about the perception that the question encourages voters to consider one response more favourably than the other”.

    I had been hoping to re-use by big YES sign from last year, but both LEAVE and REMAIN are clumsier words than YES/NO for signage.

    It may come down to there being only 5 (rather than 6) letters in LEAVE – and I only have 5 trees!

  30. While the trial of Alastair Carmichael MP (at the moment) is unlikely to attract the size of audience that Pistorius got, it will be shown live on the internet next week.

    http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1475/Election-Court-Hearing-to-be-Broadcast-Live

  31. “Old style ‘tribal’ loyalties are falling away, and I think the Labour ‘core’ vote could be much lower than you both think: more of the order of 12-15%. This is not a prediction, by the way. ‘Core’ vote and vote are not the same.”

    ————

    We bandy about “core vote” in cavalier fashion, myself included, but it’s a bit of a fluid concept. One can envisage circumstances/actions in which much of Corby’s or indeed Labour’s core vote might evaporate, the question is how likely are the circumstances/actions.

  32. @Graham

    RE Thatcher invincible for years after Falklands

    Rubbish!

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Infographics/ipsos-mori-margaret-thatcher-infographic.pdf

    1984 Dislike 50% Like 45%

    I remember the split nation very well. 1984 was first year I could vote ;-)

  33. Graham

    I commend your persistence in trying to get OldNat to answer a question which he probably prefers not to address.

    Although this may not be what you had in mind, I think the arrogant and mistaken Faslane announcement by GO at last gives a Corbyn-led UK Labour Party the chance to offer a clear reason to vote for them in Scotland : only a Labour Government in Westminister can stop Trident Mk II. There is realistically no chance whatsoever of a Labour-led Government in Westmister if Labour cannot regain 30-40 seats in Scotland, which combined with rest of UK gains would be enough to make them the largest Party or have a small majoirty.

    GE 2015 shows that rUK voters will not countencne a coalition between Labour and SNP, although I can understand why Scottish Nationalists find that unpalatable
    .
    I predict many Scottish progressives will vote SNP for Holyrood in 2016 and for a new generation of left wing, devo-max Scottish Labour candidates for Westminster in 2020, Why not – unless of course your sole aim is complete independence for Scotland ?

    On a separate issue are there any leaks from ERS or elswhere about the actual votes being polled by JC et al ?

  34. Maybe I’m missing something but I can’t see that Carmichael has a case to answer. Any lie he may have told (or conspired to tell) was about someone who wasn’t a candidate at the election, let alone one of his opponents in Orkney.

    That’s not a coment about the morality of his actions just their legality. Although if politicians are going be disqulalified for telling lies then you open a fairly large can of worms.

  35. @OLDNAT

    “While the trial of Alastair Carmichael MP (at the moment) is unlikely to attract the size of audience that Pistorius got, it will be shown live on the internet next week.”

    ————

    The Apple event will be live on the internet next week, and in the cricket, there will be One Day Internationals against the Aussies!!

    There may be summat to do with that Corbyn chappie as well. Dunno if there’ll be any polls…

  36. RIVERS10

    ‘It is telling that 28% of people would vote for it’

    Indeed: it tells us with clarity that- even when the country was more to the left than it is now- a Bennite manifesto cannot win a general election.

    The Falklands war effect was wearing off by the election but it did indeed still play to the mood music that Labour was irrelevant, extreme and unelectable.

    The SDP split/ vote was a product of sectarian exclusionary shouty lefties taking over local parties and forcing upon the party a platform that activists liked but labour voters did not. That we only lost 10% of the vote between 1974 and 1983 is largely a credit to the blind loyalty at the time of many Labour voters. Something which has dissipated over the ensuing years.

    If you really actually want to understand the 1983 catastrophe (I’m assuming you weren’t even born then) you should listen to all those key players involved/ their own words and observations.

    http://youtu.be/6ITCj38dLgk

    This archetypal documentary provides the final word on ‘1983 debates’ in terms of clarity and sagacity.

    Watch it.

  37. @ OldNat

    From last night.

    Of the immigrants from Hungary in 1956, 67% were under 29 years old, and almost 90% under 35. There is no data on skills, but if they were mainly townees, they would have been skilled (through apprenticeship mainly at that point) or semi-skilled (on the job training).

    The data doesn’t include the returnees and I have to admit that my source is a Hungarian book published in 1972.

    It also has to be added that of the three immigrants in England from that period (so low because of my choice) I know all abandoned their original skills and specialised in something new, so if it is generic, while Hungary suffered not only a major loss of young people and skills, the recipient countries did not directly benefit from the skills.

  38. @Rob Sheffield

    1984 Dislike 50% Like 45%

    I remember the split nation very well. 1984 was first year I could vote ;-)’

    1984 was two years after the Falklands and the country was in the middle of the bitter Miners Strike. At the time of the 1983 election she was invincible. Moreover even the 45% positive personal rating recorded for 1984 was pretty good for her in the context of a divided Opposition.

  39. Graham

    You said she herself was ‘invincible for years after the Falklands’.

    No she was not.

    Agreed the Tories were though- but that had more to do with Labour at 1987 still championing Corbynite policies such as CND and Euroscepticism.

    RIVERS10

    ‘It is telling that 28% of people would vote for it’

    Indeed: it tells us with clarity that- even when the country was more to the left than it is now- a Bennite manifesto cannot win a general election.

    The Falklands war effect was wearing off by the election but it did indeed still play to the mood music that Labour was irrelevant and unelectable.

    The SDP split/ vote was a product of exclusionary shouty types taking over local parties and forcing upon the party a platform that activists liked but labour voters did not. That we only lost 10% of the vote between 1974 and 1983 is largely a credit to the blind loyalty at the time of many Labour voters. Something which has dissipated over the ensuing years.

    If you really actually want to understand the 1983 catastrophe (I’m assuming you weren’t even born then) you should listen to all those key players involved/ their own words and observations.

    http://youtu.be/6ITCj38dLgk

    This archetypal documentary provides the final word on ‘1983 debates’ in terms of clarity and sagacity.

    Watch it.

  40. @Colin

    Does it ever occur to you that this is a very narrow view of the world , and that people can hold core beliefs in common, but still support different political parties?

    Yawn. Forgive me but that sounds like the usual blinkered Tory appraisals of the Left. There’s plenty of disagreements on the Left, and at times there will be agreement with Blarites & Tories, but it’s obvious you both share an extraodinary amount of core beliefs, probably as much as your nearly-extinct Wets.

    I just find it funny to see Tories clamouring in to lecture Labour members and supporters what they’re to do with their party, but can more easily understand the impulse to defend your Blairite compatriots(and their dislike for any democracy that no longer serves them).

  41. @SoCalLiberal

    Must say, it’s nice to hear your praise for the party I always felt you better suited for!

  42. @ROB SHEFFIELD

    “You said she herself was ‘invincible for years after the Falklands’.
    No she was not.
    Agreed the Tories were though- but that had more to do with Labour at 1987 still championing Corbynite policies such as CND and Euroscepticism.”

    ———-

    It also has something to do with the collapse in oil price ushering in a world boom, a fall that had begun before 1983 thus giving additional advantage to Thatch and which tends to left out of these calculations.

    Along with our peak oil, which although only around 4% of GDP represented 15% of government spending, a big boost at the time.

  43. Well, from memory, peak oil may have been a few years later, but still, it ramped up a lot…

  44. Ken

    Any thoughts on the stock markets? ;)

    These movements do remind me a lot of 2008.

  45. Carfrew

    NS Oil revenues certainly helped the Conservatives (for example when income and corporation tax receipts collapsed during 1980-82): and this went – along with the Labour policy platform of the time- some way towards ameliorating the dislike that 50% of the population had towards Thatcher herself (rather than ‘the Tories’) throughout the 1980s.

  46. Rob Sheffield

    Re-1987. Labour was rather unlucky that year, and I believe that the scale of its defeat owed a great deal to the Greenwich by election following the sudden death of Guy Barnett. The victory of Rosie Barnes for the SDP gave the Alliance momentum again and effectively split the anti-Tory vote with a resulting increase in the Tory lead. Had there not been a by election at that time I suspect the 1987 result would have been a good deal closer – a Tory win more on the scale of 1992.

  47. I would also suggest that there was no contradiction in being politically invincible for a period – whilst at the same time being widely disliked.

  48. @Rob Sheffield

    Not sure you should be pulling age rank on Rivers, but anyways… You may not have been old enough to vote in ’83, but I was, although as you would expect, I didn’t vote. I did, however, sit up all night watching the election at the urging of my friend*, who had been urging various pals to vote SDP.

    So we watched the election, and I observed his growing chagrin as we saw the Lab vote getting split.

    He never urged me to vote SDP again. Indeed he’s a Labour MP now.

    * a curious request, I thought. Voting was bad enough, why would you want to sit up all night watching others vote?

  49. Graham

    I think the unknown factor would be wet Tories who voted SDP rather than for Thatcher’s Conservatives.

1 12 13 14 15 16 18