ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian is out today and has topline figures of CON 38%(-2), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 13%(+3), GRN 3%(-1). The full tables are on their website here.

The fieldwork for the poll was Friday to Sunday, meaning just over half of the interviews were conducted before Jeremy Corbyn was announced as Labour’s new leader. If you are waiting to see the impact of Corbyn on Labour’s voting intention figures, you’ll need to wait for another poll (and even then, if the next poll has Labour down a bit or up a bit, unless it’s a huge great shift it will be indistinguishable from normal sample error. As ever, we’d need to wait for a couple of polls showing movement in the same direction before concluding there had been any real effect).


350 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 38, LAB 32, LDEM 8, UKIP 13, GRN 3”

1 5 6 7
  1. @JP

    “I have it on good authority that actually he did hum it, but would not say so in order not to undermine the principle of confidentiality which is inherent in humming.”

    —————

    He could have made summat of it and made up his own words. E.g.

    God end our storage tax
    Please lose our storage tax
    God end the tax

    (Da da da da…)

    Make the tax history
    No tax for you and me
    Keep all our storage VAT tax free
    God end the tax!!

  2. Additional versus could include Thorium etc., and… polling!!

  3. Rumours on twitter that Simon Danczuk is having talks with Tories/UKiP to jump ship.

  4. The last few days has demonstrated the political and media culture that I, and I suspect many others, detest.

    There so many issues that require a serious, mature debate, yet whether JC sings a song has dominated the headlines.

    The media had very early decided that anything he does is (delete as applicable): bad / a gaff / a lurch to the hard left / something the public won’t accept / etc.

    Here’s a crazy idea. Let’s have a politics where the media do not try to apply a stereo type in advance. Give party party leaders of all hues the chance to speak about their ideas openly, without abuse or character assassination. Don’t have the media on a 24 hour news cycle spin things to suit their owners wishes.

    We will continue to get the carp politics we deserve unless something really changes.

  5. Versus?? My autocorrect is determined to cause trouble…

  6. Candy

    An agreement amongst Westminster hacks is not a settlement.

    Blairites had a chance to explain how they would be different to the Conservatives. What would you do differently in concrete policy terms?

  7. @Hawthorn

    “Rule Britannia would be daft given the current lack of working aircraft carriers.”

    ———–

    Bird and Fortune on the carriers….

    http://youtu.be/t0jgZKV4N_A

    (There’s even a Scots Nats reference!!…)

  8. CARFEW
    The way it works is that, having had an expensive dinner with your guests of carefully chosen equal status or potential benefit in the Party or business or suitability to marry your daughters, and quaffed the Armagnac (my Bank manager sent me a case) you saunter out onto the lawn and over to the artificial lake, and casually wave your Balkan Sobrani in the direction of the island in the middle, and say “How do you like my new duck-house, designed by that photographer feller, Snowden, doncha know.”

  9. @Coups

    “AW has removed the offending posts so I will say no more”

    ————-

    Prolly my fault, earlier me and Hawthorn were discussing what “moderate” means and I wondered at the time if this may have served as a subliminal urging to do some more modding.

    But I shall always wonder what you would have said…

  10. @JP

    Ah, that prolly wouldn’t work with me, ‘cos after a few too many would prolly fall into the lake.

    Or someone would push me in, whereupon the depict house might come in handy…

  11. I don’t think autocorrect likes duck houses…

  12. @Colin

    You have me at a disadvantage, clearly being more up on the Red Flag than me. If we took Billy Connelly’s suggestion and sang the Archer’s tune instead then none of this would arise AND it might assist us at the Olympics…

  13. Billy Connelly on the National Anthem

    http://youtu.be/i9nnnM-__JQ

    … With another Scots reference!!…

  14. @Hawthorn

    Who said anything about “Westminster hacks”? Listen to the voters.

    All good prime ministers win some long term arguments and they way you can tell this is when voters reward them with a second term. They are essentially saying “We liked that, carry on and have another term”. And sometimes they give you an increased majority to put wind in your sails.

    One term premierships usually come about when voters say “OK, we gave you a chance to show what you could do, but we don’t like the results, please pack your bags”.

    And when they throw you out after three terms they are saying “We liked some of what you’ve done which is why we’ve kept you in so long, and we’ve made sure the incoming govt has accepted those things, but you are tired and are making mistakes, please take some enforced rest on the opposition benches”

    Cameron won the argument on the deficit and welfare reform in the 2015 general election. You can concede those points and concentrate your energies on areas where he is weak and then go to the voters at the next election and say “We accept your point about welfare and the deficit but we can do so much better than the other lot on XYZ”

    Or you can pretend that the voters didn’t really mean it when they gave the Conservatives another term and wait for them to come around. And wait and wait and wait.

    Last time Lab waited 18 years to concede arguments on capitalism. And Conservatives waited 13 years before they conceded on social liberalism.

    The question du jour is how long will Lab wait till the penny drops. Voters have stamina. They can make you wait indefinitely if necessary and simply look elsewhere when they want a change.

  15. @Candy

    “They are essentially saying “We liked that, carry on and have another term”.”

    ————-

    Not when the majority vote for summat else under our system. Whereupon they are saying they don’t like it, but can’t quite agree on what they would prefer.

    E.g. When left vote gets split. Some think the environment matters more (Greens), or Scots issues (SNP), or immigration (UKIP)… But the majority are clear they’re not into voting Tory…

  16. “One term premierships usually come about when voters say “OK, we gave you a chance to show what you could do, but we don’t like the results, please pack Your bags…”

    ——–

    Or maybe they were ok with it but preferred what Clegg was offering, but then Clegg did summat different and Tories wound up in power despite all those not actually wanting that.

    Then the Scots decided it wouldn’t affect them too much if Tories were in power, cos insulated, so voted SNP…

    First Past the Post is a wondrous thing…

  17. @Carfrew

    Right wing parties (Conservatives + UKIP) got 51% of the vote.

    If we had PR it would be a Tory-UKIP govt not a Lab-Green-SNP one. (And in any case Carswell, representing all the Kippers, seems to vote with the Conservatives a lot of the time, he did so on the crucial issue of tax credit reform).

  18. @Candy

    “Cameron won the argument on the deficit and welfare reform in the 2015 general election.”

    ———–

    These things are not set in stone. Early on, Labour won the argument on cuts and austerity. Things could change again.

    You can tell things change, ‘cos different parties get elected…

  19. Candy

    The voters say “they are all the same”.

  20. RIVERS10

    @”the worst the right can say about the left is that they are naïve,”

    Speak for yourself-I can do a lot better than that.

    Not here-of course :-)

  21. @Candy

    “Right wing parties (Conservatives + UKIP) got 51% of the vote.”

    ———–

    Oh you missed the way Labour bled votes to UKIP following the media assault on immigration then? And maybe Tory Ukippers more liable to return to Tories in the election? And the way Farage kept hustling for the Labour vote?

  22. @Candy

    And check the polling on how many Ukippers favour some renationalisation…

  23. @Candy

    That’s making a revealed preferences argument – which has merit in some cases but not in this one. Of note though is:

    “Cameron won the argument on the deficit and welfare reform in the 2015 general election. You can concede those points and concentrate your energies on areas where he is weak and then go to the voters at the next election and say “We accept your point about welfare and the deficit but we can do so much better than the other lot on XYZ””

    Which is precisely what Labour did do and they lost. Badly. And the reason they lost was because all it did was legitimize what the Conservatives were doing, and so gift them the argument and support.

    Had they not done so, they likely would have won.

  24. @hawthorn
    “The voters say “they are all the same”.”

    The people who say that tend to be non-voters.

    There’s no point in voting if they’re all the same. A voter usually has some sort of preference. Either for a single-issue that’s important to them or choosing the least worst option overall.

  25. Carfrew

    ” Some think the environment matters more (Greens), or Scots issues (SNP)”

    My friends who vote for other parties, think that Scots issues are just as important as I do. We just differ on the best political environment in which to handle them best.

    You are being unfair to the likes of Amber or Bill Patrick.

  26. “So here is the chatter: that one or a number of the New Labour Blairite ultras could cross the floor to the Tories..”

    You’ll see more and more of this all over as the western economies crumble – the fake left/right merging into one as left/right on the edges gets bigger.

    Trump/Sanders in the states will be another example.

  27. @Oldnat

    No, you are misrepresenting me. You know what I mean by Scots issues, I’ve indicated it enough times. E.g. Those who think voting SNP for Westminster would assist with furthering devolution/independence etc.

  28. “You’ll see more and more of this all over as the western economies crumble – the fake left/right merging into one as left/right on the edges gets bigger.”

    ———–

    The LibDems did a lot of merging last term, must be said…

  29. @Carfrew – “Oh you missed the way Labour bled votes to UKIP following the media assault on immigration then? And maybe Tory Ukippers more liable to return to Tories in the election? And the way Farage kept hustling for the Labour vote?”

    Your argument is that 100% of people in Labour constituencies are left wing, and therefore if UKIP got votes there, UKIP must be left wing.

    Actually all that happened is that there are some right wing people living in those Lab constituencies and they chose UKIP instead of Conservative as they might have done in the past.

    Same thing in Conservative constituencies – they arn’t 100% conservative, some left wing people live there and vote LibDem instead of Lab.

    If we had PR and Farage and the others were elected alongside Carswell, you may be sure that they would all lined up with him to vote against tax credits too. And none of their voters would have been surprised – people know Farage and Carswell have right wing economic views – that’s why they vote for them

    Your whole argument is based on “people didn’t really mean it when they voted as they did”. The Kippers didn’t really support kipper policies and the Conservatives didn’t really support Conservative policies.

    In your alternative universe it was all some sort of mistake :-)

  30. @Anarchists Unite

    Where Lab failed under Miliband was they didn’t have the “we can do so much better on XYZ where Cameron is weak” part of the equation.

    There was nothing they seemed to offer better than Cameron, so Cameron got returned.

  31. @Candy

    “Your argument is that 100% of people in Labour constituencies are left wing, and therefore if UKIP got votes there, UKIP must be left wing.”

    ———–

    No, my argument was what I indicated: that you can’t just lump UKIP in with Tories ‘cos a fair number of Lab. voters jumped ship over immigration and still
    reveal left wing tendencies in polling.

    This doesn’t mean they support the entire right wing agenda, just that they put immigration even above the economy, unemployment and healthcare, as revealed by polling.

    And boy did Farage row back on stuff like flat taxes to try and snaffle the Labour voters incidentally.

  32. New post. Old Nat you will like it.

  33. @ Candy

    Right wing parties (Conservatives + UKIP) got 51% of the vote.

    If we had PR it would be a Tory-UKIP govt not a Lab-Green-SNP one.

    But that assumes people would vote the same way regardless of the voting system – I’m not sure that’s the case.

  34. Colin
    As I said not my words, don’t shoot the messenger and all that :)

    Candy
    Carfrew and Anarchist made most of my points for me the one point they didn’t make was in response to this
    “We liked that, carry on and have another term”

    I’m afraid that’s a incredible over simplification even if we assumed the Tories got 75% of the vote. Could it not equally be “We really don’t like most of what your doing but the other guy is really weird so we will give you another chance” or “We like the other guys more than you but were scared they might jump into bed with the scary Nats so we’ll pick you to keep them out” amongst other things.

    There seems to be an acceptance even within the Tory party that they didn’t really win rather Labour lost. In fact correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you (it might have been someone else) post an article about George Osborne in which he admitted that 2015 was in no way a ringing endorsement for his policies?

  35. @Candy

    “people know Farage and Carswell have right wing economic views – that’s why they vote for them”

    ——–

    It’s not unusual for AW to cite polling showing how the public might be misinformed.

    But a vote for UKIP doesn’t mean an endorsement of Cameron’s economic policies. Not when polling shows different, and when they place immigration above all else.

  36. @Candy

    And it isn’t just UKIP, but Labour’s vote split to Greens and SNP.

  37. Carfrew

    Mmm I’m not sure that you are making things better by suggesting that the only “Scots issues” you know about are constitutional ones! :-)

    As to “the Scots decided it wouldn’t affect them too much if Tories were in power, cos insulated, so voted SNP…”!!!!

  38. @oldnat

    I didn’t suggest that, and you can’t fairly conclude that, you’re just misrepresenting again.

    And repeating my point on SNP isn’t a counter!!

    Seems like you’re bored and need a hobby. You might follow ToH and get an allotment…

  39. Anyone fancy speculating on the effect a Sanders win in 2016 might have on Corbyn’s fate?

  40. @Candy

    What kind of statistics are you using to turn 49.5% into 51%? I suggest you might have made a rounding error when you were adding up Con’s 46.8% and UKIP’s 12.7%.

    2015 was a divisive election, not “The Nation” accepting a second term. The Conservatives “Won” under the rules of FPTP, but there certainly was no majority support given to any particular policy.

  41. “Anyone fancy speculating on the effect a Sanders win in 2016 might have on Corbyn’s fate?”

    ——–

    I’m hoping it means Oldnat might get an allotment…

  42. New thread

  43. Carfrew – “It’s not unusual for AW to cite polling showing how the public might be misinformed.”

    I don’t think there is a single voter in the land who looks at Farage and Carswell and thinks “these are left wing politicians”!

  44. @Candy

    “Where Lab failed under Miliband was they didn’t have the “we can do so much better on XYZ where Cameron is weak” part of the equation.”

    Well yes that is true – they didn’t offer an alternative on things like welfare and austerity (the alternative they did offer was so technical that it couldn’t be communicated clearly). But there’s a problem with the logical leap being made here which is to assume that because voters went for Cameron means they support everything he puts forward.

    Parties offer groups of policies, after all. Individual voters make a choice on lots of things. It’s a bit of leap to assume that everyone who voted Conservative agrees with their welfare reforms (not least because they didn’t actually what they were in advance of the election…) Lots may have voted for them out of fear of the Tartan men coming for their wives and daughters, sisters and brothers. They may also have felt that ‘full-on austerity’ was preferable to ‘watered down austerity’, but would have really preferred the option of ‘investment, not austerity’. But that option wasn’t on the table, so they couldn’t vote for (hence revealed preferences argument).

    Voters do not, after all, come together to conspire on what they want the result to be.

  45. @Candy

    “I don’t think there is a single voter in the land who looks at Farage and Carswell and thinks “these are left wing politicians”!”

    —————

    Well there are people on here who think Cameron’s left wing, and Blair’s right wing, so that assertion doesn’t get us anywhere much.

    Except of course to dodge my points. Chiefly that…
    – Labour lost votes to UKIP following the immigration salience being promoted in the media
    – peeps put immigration above the economy, NHS etc., thus it doesn’t mean they are right wing on the economy or NHS, but simply that they may put immigration first,
    – as shown in polling when you see how peeps poll on things like nationalisation
    – it’s not all about UKIP anyway, but about Greens, SNP, and Oldnat needing an allotment

    There will be some who are unaware of Ukip’s economic policies, and some who are but think immigration comes first, even though they may have a left wing economic view. Neither of which would give a ringing endorsement of Cameron’s policies.

  46. CANDY:

    “Right wing parties (Conservatives + UKIP) got 51% of the vote”
    ______________________________________________________________

    49.5% of votes cast, actually.

    If you combine their percentages of MPs it comes to 51%. Perhaps you were looking at the wrong data.

  47. The right did get over 50% of the vote but only after including the DUP. Which doesn’t substantially alter the point. For the first time in s long time the left wasn’t robbed by the electoral system.

  48. I’m hoping that the rumours are true and MP’s like Danczuk are planning to cross the floor to the Lib Dems, UKIP or whoever. It would clear the decks. I hope they then decide to put it to their electorate too.

  49. “The right did get over 50% of the vote but only after including the DUP.”

    ————-

    The parties may have gotten over fifty percent, but that doesn’t mean everyone who voted for them is right wing.

    To take another example, you will have both left and right voting for the SNP, if for them Independence/Devo trumps other traditional left or right wing concerns.

  50. Or, the possibility of peeps voting Tory even though they may not agree with their policies, because they stand a better chance of keeping the SNP from holding the balance of power.

    It seems this is a tricky point for some to get their head around, that there can be reasons to vote for a party even if not keen on their policies.

1 5 6 7