Ipsos MORI have published their September political monitor for the Evening Standard. Topline voting intention figures are CON 39%, LAB 34%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 7%, GRN 4%.

MORI have made another methodological change in the light of the polling error at the general election. Previously they had started including how regularly people say they usually vote in the turnout filter, now they have also added additional weighting by newspaper readership. Again, the methodology review is still an ongoing process, and MORI make clear they anticipate making further changes.

The rest of the poll had a series of questions about perceptions of the party leaders and parties.

Jeremy Corbyn’s first satisfaction rating is minus 3 (33% are satisfied with him as leader, 36% dissatisfied). At first glance that isn’t bad – it’s a better net rating than Cameron or the government! In a historical context though it’s not good. New leaders normally get a polling honeymoon, the public give them the benefit of the doubt to begin with and Corbyn’s net rating is the worst MORI have recorded for a new leader of one of the big two parties (the initial ratings for past party leaders were Miliband +19, Brown +16, Cameron +14, Howard +9, IDS 0, Hague -1, Blair +18, Smith +18, Major +15, Kinnock +20, Foot +2)

Looking at the more detailed questions on perceptions of Jeremy Corbyn his strengths and weaknesses compared to David Cameron are very similar to the ones we got used to in Cameron v Miliband match ups: Cameron scores better on things like being a capable leader, good in a crisis, sound judgement; Corbyn scores better on being in touch with ordinary people, having more substance than style and being more honest than most politicians. Asked overall who would make the most capable Prime Minister Cameron wins by 53% to 27%.

Of course, all of Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings need to be seen in the context that he is very new to the job and the public don’t know a whole lot about him beyond the initial negative press. Early perceptions of him may yet change. His figures may get better… or worse.

MORI also asked about perceptions of the Labour and Conservative parties, and here the impact of Corbyn’s victory on how the Labour party itself is seen was very evident. The proportion of people seeing the party as divided is up 33 points to 75%, extreme is up 22 points to 36% and out of date is up 19 points to 55%. Both the Labour party and the Conservative party had a big jump in the proportion of people saying they were “Different to other parties” – I suppose it takes two parties to be different from each other!

Full details of the MORI poll are here


437 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 39, LAB 34, LD 9, UKIP 7, GRN 4”

1 2 3 4 9
  1. Alec
    Or both.

  2. Or maybe the EU will just keep expanding, maybe into the Middle East and Africa which would solve the immigration problem as they wouldn’t be immigrants external to the EU any more.

  3. @MOG

    A few suggestions, pity I can’t find a good woman but maybe someone else has a suggestion

    David Miliband
    Dan Jarvis
    Chukka Umanna
    Keir Stammer

  4. @ Couper2802

    I keep reading in various forums that Dan Jarvis is the great hope for the future revival of Labours fortunes .

    I suspect the great British Public would say ” WHO ? “

  5. @Couper2802

    “David Miliband
    Dan Jarvis
    Chukka Umanna
    Keir Stammer”

    This list, of course, raises interesting questions on who is first rate. David Milliband lost one election fair and square and then left his seat in a huff, after sulking about on the backbenches like some spoilt five-year old who’d been denied a sweet. Dan Jarvis declined to run. Chukka did for all of three seconds and then dropped out because the pressure was too much (is that first rate?) and Keir Stammer declined as well (on the grounds that, having only been elected in 2015 he lacked experience, which is fair enough).

    So its a bit unfair to castigate Labour for only putting up ‘second raters’ (as if Labour High Command selects people to run) seeing as; one of them couldn’t, one of them tried but couldn’t hack it, and two of them declined.

  6. @kentdalian

    Aye, but you can say that about, essentially, every politician. He does look extremely promising in my eyes.

  7. Dan Jarvis comes across very well, but can anyone say for sure what he thinks? Apart from liking the Parachute Regiment of course!

  8. @Couper

    “David Miliband
    Dan Jarvis
    Chukka Umanna
    Keir Stammer”

    First rate? Only in the sense of the one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind.

    Miliband was a lightwight foreign secretary, had his chance of leadership, and went off abroad in a huff. Jarvis has never held public office of any sort. Umunna has held nothing more than minor shadow office. Stammer is so first rate I’ve never heard of him.

    As OldNat pointed out, there are no heavyweights any more.

  9. @ Wood & Hawthorn

    That wasn’t particularly intended to a be disparaging comment about Dan Jarvis, just a statement of fact.

    I’d literally never heard of him until he was much mentioned as a possible successor to Ed Milliband, and like everyone else on here I probably take more interest in UK politics than is good for me !

    I’m curious why people are investing such great expectations in someone with such a (as yet) low public profile.

  10. Kentdalian
    Probably because he’s quite good looking and knows how to eat a bacon sandwich.

  11. @kentdalian

    (presumably) saintly/heroic past, suggestive of professionalism & competence, sympathetic dead wife, very family, moderate & pragmatic, says all the right things, passes Ship Captain test with flying colours.

    Nobody can say what’ll happen over the next 4 years, but if we have to guess, he seems head and shoulders over everyone else, especially after, IMO, Cooper & Chukka scuppered themselves this time out.

  12. @Hawthorn

    “…frankly the difference between being in the EU or not is nowhere near as big as either side is prepared to admit.”

    The difference between my colleague’s Mondeo and my Subaru is not that big either, but it’s my hand on the steering wheel of the Subaru.

  13. Dave

    Well, that’s the point about it not making a right lot of difference.

    If we continued to trade with Europe, they would still be in de facto control, except we would have no say. Just ask the Swiss.

    Business would still lobby for other stuff like liberal immigration, and we all know who bankrolls the Conservatives.

    Even if we got out of the EU, the fun and games would not be over with the Europe issue.

  14. @ Wood

    In that case I can see him ticking all the boxes for “electability” in the eyes of the media and Labour high command.

    However he still has the face the same electorate that Kendal, Cooper and Burnham so clearly failed to impress.

    Will he have anything different to say ?

  15. Dave

    To give a worked example on the topical subject of vacuum cleaners.

    Imagine you are a UK company making vacuum cleaners. Or perhaps designing them to be built in China then imported to Europe.

    Obviously, you would want to export to Europe. Let’s say Europe decides to limit the power of vacuum cleaners.

    That company would still have to comply with those rules in order to sell to EU countries. Are they going to create a niche powerful vacuum cleaner specifically for the UK market? Would such a bespoke product be competitive compared to a standard model? No and no.

    So there is one tabloid bugbear where being in the EU makes SFA practical difference.

  16. Couper

    David Miliband
    Dan Jarvis
    Chukka Umanna
    Keir Starmer

    Jarvis and Starmer are both promising but the other two, meh.
    David would suffer the same accusations of being weird as Ed did, they’re not all that different. As for Chukka I personally think he is massively overrated, I’ve always though he comes across as sneering and the absolute epitome of the quintessential career politician who has little to no real personality and will say anything to the crowd he is addressing, for better for worse people are sick of that style of politics and I find it difficult to believe people could ever warm to him.

  17. To get back to the MORI poll, another example of unconscious bias among the pollsters lies in how they lead in their commentary on Corbyn’s various perceived qualities in contrast to Cameron’s. But this needs to be looked at very carefully because of how MORI ask these questions. They say I am going to read out some things both favourable and unfavourable that have been said about various politicians. Which of these, if any, do you think apply to {X}? where X is David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn.

    But the ten things aren’t symmetrical. Only ‘Patriotic’ is there, not ‘Unpatriotic’ (or anything like it). So there’s no way of telling whether a low score is due to voters thinking that the leader is unpatriotic or neither or simply having no opinion on the issue.

    You can see this in these figures where Cameron scores an average of 52% across all ten attributes while Corbyn only gets 38%. There are negative as well as positive qualities in there, so it’s not that people think Cameron is ‘better’. It’s just that they will have more views on someone who has been in position two weeks and who they probably hadn’t even have heard of three months ago.

    That’s even before you take into account the sort of partisan opinion on both sides which will automatically give the answer that supports their guy and puts down the enemy’s. So the percentage of minds that have actually been made up, from those that actually form an opinion, will be even smaller. Corbyn may not have had any ‘honeymoon'[1] because of the constant attacks on him, even before he won, but when it comes to the detail of what people think of him, there will still be a lot of uncertainty.

    This makes comparing the images of two or more politicians particularly doubtful – especially if one is very new to their position and people will not have much opinion on them. These questions are useful, but the results need to be looked at carefully.

    However the great joy about MORI’s figures is that they go back decades and you can see things in historic contest. Indeed that is what the the whole ‘even worse figures than Foot’ story, that the media are gleefully repeating, comes from. So we can see how Corbyn is perceived as compared to other Labour leaders:

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/59/Labour-Leader-Image.aspx

    which shows us for example that with a rating of 37%, Jeremy Corbyn has the best score for ‘Patriotic'[2] since March 1984. Blair never got better than 29%. And yet the coverage is all ‘Public say Corbyn unpatriotic’ rather than ‘Corbyn most patriotic Labour leader for over 30 years say public’. Funny that.

    [1] Something announced with great relish by the people who have been throwing bricks through the windows of the bridal suite ever since the engagement was announced.

    [2] See column marked ‘Pat’, first asked (of Kinnock) in March 1984.

  18. I would suggest as alternative leaders for the LP (in the future because I’m quite happy with Jeremy Corbyn):

    Lisa Nandy
    Richard Burgon
    Clive Lewis

  19. The main point about leaving the EU is that we would be able to negotiate our own trade agreements with the US, Commonwealth and the whole rest of the world without having to put up with deals arranged by others who would not have UK interests as their highest priority.

    It would also free us from stupid trivial interference in domestic matters, such as the imminent introduction of charging for plastic bags in supermarkets. Whether or not it’s a good idea, it’s no business of the EU.

  20. @Kentdalian

    “I’m curious why people are investing such great expectations in someone with such a (as yet) low public profile.”

    I think quite a few leadership contests are won by people on the basis of who they are NOT as opposed to who they actually ARE. John Major ran on an “I’m not Margaret Thatcher” ticket and I’m convinced that quite a bit of Corbyn’s attraction was down to the fact that he wasn’t Kendall, Cooper or Burnham. In other words, they won by dint of either the inadequacies of their rivals or the personality of their predecessors.

    Maybe Jarvis’s relative anonymity is an advantage when what is known about his rivals is less than complimentary.

  21. @Roger Mexico

    I vote for you to write the thread commentaries rather than Anthony!

    :-)

    Seriously, though, I think the nuances you expose with your in-depth analyses of polls are always illuminating. Opinion polls are like a lot of things in life where beauty, or interpretation, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

  22. PETE B

    No trade deal with the US would be any different in practical terms because US companies are not going to start treating the UK as a bespoke case for regulatory purposes, even if the trade deal had differences to the one for the EU. For example, if we ended up importing American vacuum cleaners, they would be to EU specifications (except the electrical plug).

    As you say, plastic bags are a trivial matter and no reason to leave the EU.

  23. Syzygy
    Lisa Nandy
    Richard Burgon
    Clive Lewis

    Nandy is a possibility but the other two? I personally like them both but it would just be Corbyn mark 2.

    It does raise the point though that while undoubtedly Labour’s 2015 intake was very left wing whether you agree with that style of politics or not some of the new blood is genuinely impressive.
    The likes of Clive Lewis, Richard Burgon, Tulip Siddiq, Louise Haigh, Catherine West, Daniel Zeichner, Cat Smith, Rachel Maskell, Kate Osamore, Paula Sherriff, Keir Starmer, Jo Stevens, Connor McGinn, Imran Hussein, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Angela Rayner amongst others all have a serious future in frontline politics, I think Corbyn knows this hence why most have been given shadow ministerial positions, probably as prep for full cabinet positions at some point in the future.

  24. Any news on Todgergate? It seems to have gone very quiet.

    :-)

  25. It seems a recent poll by the Press & Journal (Aberdeen & shire Daily) is not all it seems.

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/press-journal-embarrass-themselves.html

    Anyone got tables for it? (Thinking Oldnat’s neck of the woods)

  26. @syzygy
    If you really want a Corbynite, Lewis appears promising, but probably not gonna be ‘ready’ by 2020.

  27. Out of Syzygy’s list, Lisa Nandy would stand out.

    As I have mentioned before, the advantage of Corbyn is that it gives chances to the non-hacks to shine once the worst of the ex-SPADs are cleared out (or clear themselves out).

    There has got to be at least one leader there who will not treat the party as Lord Sainsbury’s plaything.

  28. Hawthorn
    What I was thinking of with the ability to negotiate our own trade agreements was not of course the precise specifications of particular products, but the fact that we could allow or disallow particular items either way, or raise and lower tariffs, according to our own requirements rather than those of the EU as a whole.

    Re the plastic bag comment, I obviously need to spell things out a bit more clearly. I did not (again of course) mean that in itself it is a reason for leaving the EU, but that it is one tiny example of the tide of pointless legislation which is imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats from outside our own country.

  29. Pete B

    Whether it is pointless is a matter of opinion.

    99% of trade agreements are exactly about that. As far as tariffs are concerned:

    1) we would still be in the WTO so we would not have full autonomy anyway.

    2) The USA would be a stronger negotiating position so it would likely benefit them rather than us regarding tariffs in any case.

    3) Even if we had a strong hand, the global corporations would lobby very strongly to have low tariffs. I cannot see the free-market Conservatives trying to turn back Globalisation, although I can see the attraction if you are on the left.

  30. To amend: 99% of trade agreements are about product/labelling/safety specifications or regulations.

  31. Couldn’t help but feel a tinge of sympathy for Alan Johnson on this week squirming in his seat whilst having to hear a follow member of the labour party disparage the last thirty years of the movement as a tory-lite sham and then having to grit his teeth whilst Andrew Neil pushed him into admitting that on unilateral disarmament , the benefit cap ,N.A.T.O membership etc he has profound differences with his elected leader yet if at some future point these stances were to become party policy he would still stand for election on a platform he simply didn’t agree with ! you could sense him dying inside . Now just imagine how many numerous occasions he and his fellow m.p’s are going to face this line of questioning from now till the next election .

  32. Well, Corbyn managed it for 32 years.

    Perhaps if Alan Johnson had decided to go for the leadership with a platform that would appeal across the whole Labour Party, his soul would be in better condition.

    They had plenty of chances.

  33. I love exchanges like this one between Mark Sadler & Hawthorn.

    They emphasise how much the centre of gravity & power has moved away from the PLP-at least the current PLP.

    Surely the only way that it can be resolved , without constant disagreement at Westminster, is for the MPs to reflect the wishes of Corbyn’s electoral mandate. ie change-or be replaced.

    But then , of course, a different electorate has to pass judgement on those MPs-the only electorate which matters.

  34. Colin

    All parties disagree, as the Conservatives are about to be reminded when Cameron starts praising EU membership next year!

  35. I don’t feel any sympathy for A. Johnson. Anyway, the Labour Party doesn’t have rules on democratic centralism, so it shouldn’t bother him – he can still say whatever he wants.

    But Colin’s point is very valid. If Corbyn can show any kind of promise, the chistka is almost certainly unavoidable, and yes, it can be an electoral disaster.

    While writing the previous paragraph … Still, I think, it will be largely resolved through compromises, which may end up in a lose-lose outcome. The purge is better :-)

  36. @Laszlo

    Would removing the party whip count as a purge? It seems to me to be a fairly quick and easy way to resolve persistent undermining… and would give a replacement Labour PPC (for 2020) time to establish themselves in the constituency.

  37. @ Sue

    I think it’s a very good starting point.

    The problem is at many levels. There are party members as a block, sympathisers as a block, both at the level of constituencies. Affiliate members seem to be only a block. Alliances easily cross these bureaucratic divisions, causing all kinds of unpredictable outcomes.

    If Corbyn happens to perform next week well- will it quieten or heighten the sabotage? And vice versa – underperforming quietness it along the lines of P.M.?

    When it comes to reselection (and if the 600 HoC comes in, it will happen) – what will be the considerations of the constituency party organisations and their members?

    I don’t know Corbyn’s personality and motivations, but it is almost certain that he would have to set up a relatively narrow circle around him (well, he cannot have a broad one), and reward external ones by access to information (there is still plenty that leaders have and the others don’t) and hence tying them in. One of his difficulties is that he can’t really fire anyone, because he would have difficulties replacing them …

    The other problem is the Labour Central Office – I don’t know what rights the leader has, but certainly he has to have his trusted people there in positions where they can get, process, and monitor information – unless the union’s provide the resources to set up an alternative central office.

    It is a tough job, but Corbyn’s style has changed somewhat, so who knows.

  38. Wow you guys don’t mess about comply or die ! , I personally can’t see how purging whole rafts of the plp from the party is going to make labour a more attractive proposition to the broader electorate and in contrast to the 1980’s the m.p objectors to some of Corbyn’s desired policy shifts are more numerous and of a broader range in terms of the different wings of the party plus I am far from convince that Mr Corbyn’s views on foreign affairs and even the social budget will have universal support within the movement or even amongst those who voted for him.

  39. Dan Jarvis comes across very well, but can anyone say for sure what he thinks? Apart from liking the Parachute Regiment of course!

    I met him last night at event in Edinburgh. Very personable, has a bit of sparkle & seems genuinely kind. A solid centre left social democrat. I’d say he’s like Andy Burnham but with a better ‘life-story’ & without any ‘New Labour’ baggage weighing him down.

  40. @ Mark Sadler

    I simply wrote about some organisational principles, and they are quite universal. I pointed also out that it could end up in disaster. But it may not. At the moment everybody is just creating a narrative, no action has been done.

    Just to make it clear – I won’t be a participant in either way, – for not being a Labour Party member, or for that matter, strictly speaking, a supporter.

  41. RIVERS10

    Syzygy
    Lisa Nandy
    Richard Burgon
    Clive Lewis

    I’ll go for Syzgy. Never heard of the others.

  42. Have i missed the point? Labour’s percentage has risen to its equal highest level since the election and everyone is discussing the leader of the party under whose leadership the rating has risen. If it’s rating had fallen maybe but…

  43. Slight amendment to my previous post.(Apologies, first time I’ve done this.) It should have read:

    Have i missed the point? Labour’s percentage has risen to its equal highest level since the election and everyone is discussing changing the leader of the party under whose leadership the rating has risen. If it’s rating had fallen maybe but…

  44. @ John Pilgrim

    Flattered that you’ve heard of me :)

  45. John Pilgrim
    Lol I didn’t know he was putting himself forward :)

  46. @Rivers10

    Syzygy isn’t a he :-)

  47. Not that it’s of any real interest to anyone, but it seems to me that the pro-EU/anti-EU discussions on this site are already developing along lines reminiscent of a certain other debate leading up to September 18 last year: that is to say, it is unlikely that either side (e.g. Hawthorn v Pete B) is going to communicate with the other. For what it’s worth, I find Hawthorn more convincing than Pete B.

  48. Lol John, talk about damning Hawthorn with feint praise!!

  49. Blah autocorrect…

  50. @Rivers

    Just so you know, Couper also isn’t a he, nor Amber (apparently she’s an English Imperialist!!…)

1 2 3 4 9