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 The proportion of people seeing the party as divided is up 33 points to 75%, extreme is up 22 points to 36% and out of date is up 19 points to 55%.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 3 4 5 6 7 9
  1. @OldNat

    Not at all.

    The Scottish way is to look like a really good prospect in the group stages and then play like idiots and suffer a dismal defeat in the first knockout round :)

  2. Anarchists Unite

    With a round ball, I’d be delighted even to get to a knockout round! :-)

  3. @OldNat

    Big parliamentary elections in Catalunya tomorrow. Surprised you haven’t mentioned anything about in on here?

  4. RAF

    I had noticed! Unusually, there has been coverage of it on STV as well as in the Scottish Press.

    The Project Fear stories there are somewhat familiar – though the EU seems to have been even more duplicitous this time round, by giving a different version of the Commission view in the Spanish version of the authorised text in English.

    Polls suggesting a majority of pro-indy MPS, though just under 50% of the popular vote.

    As Anthony says “Let’s wait and see”. :-)

  5. RAF

    Bloody automod!

    I’ll try again to respond.

    I had noticed! Unusually, there has been coverage of it on STV as well as in the Scottish Press.

    The Project Fear stories there are somewhat familiar – though the EU seems to have been even more dup-licit-ous this time round, by giving a different version of the Commission view in the Spanish translation of the authorised text in English.

    Polls suggesting a majority of pro-indy MPS, though just under 50% of the popular vote.

    As Anthony says “Let’s wait and see”. :-)

  6. RAF

    I’ve tried a couple of times to respond on Catalunya, but something puts it into moderation.

    This time tomorrow, we should know whether the polls have been accurate.

  7. @OldNat

    Yes – interesting times.

  8. Well lets be honest, not good polls for Corbyn.

    I’m sure his supporters will remind us all of how he can turn them around and its early days, but it didnt work for Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband did it. 3rd time lucky?

    Also was reminded of this site when a girl at a social launched a tirade at me for being an f** **ng socialist and then I thought of how people on here constantly call me conservative so i must be doing something right.

  9. On Monday “NASA to Announce Mars Mystery Solved”.

    I solved it on my last trip to the USA. Mars Bars are called Milky Ways there.

  10. @MITM

    I get that sorta thing a lot, but I tend to think your interpretation of polls is sometimes a little off. The polls are bad for Corbyn as an individual, but…possibly a slight improvement for Corbyns Labour? Since the start of the month Lab scoring 32 32 30 32 31 34….beforehand they were averaging 30.

    It’s always hard to disentangle lots of different effects, and there’s fiddling with methodology and potentially some sort of government honeymoon period….but there has arguably been a bit of a Corbyn bounce. Always want more data though.

  11. AMBER

    Nearer a quarter ( 23%) actually-but I agree with your caveat.

    Wrong policy IMO.

    Hope you are well.

  12. Blimey-Mandelson has called Jezza a ” quasi-Marxist”. I think that means not quite the real thing.

    What an insult.

  13. @Old Nat
    Thanks for the info regarding boundary changes

    @Amber
    ’employers’ is rather a vague term. Does it include the State? And Local Authorities? Also, in the end, non-State salaries are paid by those who pay for goods – and large companies are capable of cross-subsidising from one part of their network to another.

  14. COLIN
    “Blimey-Mandelson has called Jezza a ” quasi-Marxist”. I think that means not quite the real thing. What an insult.”

    Coming from Mandy it would not be primarily an insult – more a device. It recalled Corbyn’s response to Marr’s similar question: “Yes, I really ought to have read more of him”, rightly implying that Marx’s influence has been primarily that of a social scientist.
    There is a very odd and confused debate on “Marxism” and Marxist states on here. it’s mainly based on the false assumption that Marx or Marxism provided a formula for a socialist state, and is largely contributed to by the avowedly unread and those with no experience of any communist system.
    What seemed to work pretty well in Soviet Russia, and in its Republics, for about five decades was universal employment rights with equal rights of women, and those of access to services and livelihoods under “ownership of the means of production” inthe form of collectives or state enterprise owning municipalities, surviving into the nineties, for example, at Kuprograd in the Urals which had a monopoly of copper recycling for the whole Union, in a brewing/agricultural coolective in Latvia, and in a glass manufacturing enterprise in Khyrgizstan which I visited during 1989 to 93 under EC PHARE and TACIS programmes.
    The health, child care and care of the aged and the gymnasia were superb. What was wrong and led to bankruptcy in the late eigthties was the imposition of Gosplan and centralised baning, funding the system based on entirely phony data and economics based on ‘meeting production targets’ rather than profitability, unrealistic levels of separation of production of parts and products in physically distant centres, and the unacceptable lack of choice ‘of any car other than a Lada or colour other than black’, and so of market motivations – that is bad economics and bad planning and management, especially financial management.
    What didn’t fail, as far as I can judge, was ‘Marxism’ or the concept of ‘ownership of the means of production’ which was working pretty well in respect of social services as production factors and of individual enterprises. The Russian soviet system was failing very badly in respect of distribution, supply, management information and financing, which demanded IMHO the mechanisms of an unfettered market and the reintroduction of small scale farming. It was pretty much that that Gorbachev was aiming for.

  15. John PILGRIM

    ……er………thanks…..gulp.

    I have just watched Jezza doing his “Motherhood & Apple Pie-I’m reasonable, me” thing on Marr.

    It is very persuasive-I mean when he says ” I’m for not leaving the poor lying in the gutter”-its not very challenging thinking through the alternative view is it?

    …..so I will remember stuff like your post when listening to him in future. I think it might help when asking myself if the poor should in fact be lying in the gutter.

    :-)

  16. @Colin

    “Blimey-Mandelson has called Jezza a ” quasi-Marxist”. I think that means not quite the real thing.”

    Better than being called a porcine molester by the chappie who used to bankroll you!

    :-)

    Just watched Corbyn on Marr. I think I can see his appeal to some, including my fairly centrist, monarchist wife who watched it with me. He appears to be a human being who is comfortable in his own skin and that’s not something you can say about many politicians. He gave straight answers to all the questions and rather disarmed Marr with his good natured geniality. I also detected some political anntenna twitching sensibly and his answers on a united Ireland and the Monarchy were cute. He’s got other fish to fry and those boats have sailed.

    The key to Corbyn’s success or otherwise will be to what extent his very different personality and style can reach that part of the electorate who, hitherto, haven’t been listening to politicians. That’s a vast number of people and if Corbyn can make inroads into this virtually forgotten mass of people then it really won’t matter how many die-hard Tories were spitting feathers and Throwing metaphorical bricks at their televisions between 9.30am and 10.00am this morning!

    Mr and Mrs Angry from Tunbridge Wells will have been very, very angry! :-)

  17. COLIN
    Yes, I watched JC on Marr, and as hitherto was struck by the not necessarily politically useful lack of craft – he isn’t speaking to the media, and can’t resist the occasionally impish twist in the tail.
    The most important parts of his responses were, perhaps, those on defence and international issues: on dialogue rather than armed intervention, which he begins to address with some detail, for example in a negotiated excision of ISIL from funding and oil markets; so dialogue with Russia on this and demilitarisation of E.European and Baltic borders; and with Saudi Arabia and Iran, again to remove Britain from ultimately self-destructive supplies of arms to the M.E.

  18. Corbyn was very good on marr. Ironically, in light of how much he dislikes the press, he is much more convincing when he’s being calmly interviewed than he is in an auditorium.

    What he patently isn’t though – despite what almost everyone seems to believe – is honest.

    We are witnessing his squirming seduction by the prospect of power before our very eyes. His tactic seems to be to alternate between Conference and the PLP to pull his chestnuts out of the fire; he can just shrug his shoulders and say he’s for a united Ireland, for a Republic against NATO etc. but either The Membership of the PLP disagree and have put paid to that for now, ,so “relax, lets move on”. So the ‘principled, straight-talker’ can engineer a free pass on any of the convictions which might otherwise derail him.

    It is indeed a novel approach, but its extremely slippery.

    My guess is that it will be his most ardent supporters who stab him in the back first.

  19. Speaking as an ardent Corbyn supporter (or at least the movement to rejuvenate and reclaim the Labour Party from the technocrats), I’m more than happy for Corbyn to pragmatically abandon currently unwinnable battles on global power politics and focus on pushing the centre left forward on wars it can win – promoting public investment, halting privatisation, key denationalisation where achievable etc.
    Basically stemming and reversing the one way tide to neoliberal extremism seen over the last four decades.

    I think everyone who supported him expected/hoped he would modulate his policies on transition from backbenches to leader. Anything else would be madness.

  20. (Key denationalisation I meant, clearly!)

  21. Gah. Autocorrect is the bane of modern existence. Renationalisation.

  22. Joe,

    Autocorrect clearly has a political bias.

  23. @David Colby

    I bet a pound to a penny every party leader and PM has had ideas they sincerely hold, but can’t enact because either the public won’t buy it or their party won’t, or some other good reason.

    This is reality. If JC personally believes there should be a united Ireland, that’s okay isn’t it? The truth of that is Northern Ireland can only change on the principle of consent of it’s own people. I have no doubt at some point in the distant future there will be a referendum. So it is quite possible to support the idea of a United Ireland in theory, but accept it is not your place to make it happen, as it’s a decision for others to make.

    If this makes JC dishonest, he is being no more dishonest than any other party leader or PM we have ever had.

    I would suggest that a leader admitting such inconsistencies is more honest that most.

  24. CATMANJEFF
    Precisely my point. He’s turned into one of ‘them’ in just two weeks.
    He’s calculating that a lot of people will vote for a republican as long as he promises them that the monarchy is safe. Ditto Someone who ‘would leave NATO’ but don’t worry because ‘it won’t happen’.

  25. Since when did he ever say he’d impose his personal views on the rest of the Labour Party? I thought his USP was more about inclusive policy-making. This is a total strawman erected by his media enemies as they realise he is going to defuse their attacks by being moderate and consensual.

  26. CB11

    I don’t read the gutter press Daily Mail :-) lol

    JOHN

    Yes-it all sounds really easy. Wonder why it hasn’t been done before.

    I expect Assad, Putin, Iran, Saudi, ISIL etc etc will be happy to put the guns & bombs away sit down with Jezza.

    But of course we have a stage to get through first. As he explained on most of the issues Marr raised-they are “up for debate”. So when he has decided who/what actually makes policy now in the Labour Party-we will have policies to consider-rather than Jezza’s wish list ( he said that he isn’t going to impose his views).

    —we will have policies to consider IF they actually emerge of course. But if ( as Tom Watson seemed to suggest) things like Trident become free vote issues for Labour MPs, then JC will be asking the UK electorate in 2020 to elect the convenor of a debating society-not the leader of a political party with a programme for government.

    This might be a bit puzzling for our voters.

  27. No, David, he hasn’t turned into “one of them”. His own views are perfectly clear and he states them quite clearly. What he cannot do is override the democratic wishes of his party and impose his will on it, not, if it is obvious that a large majority of people in the country support, for example, the monarchy, can he ride roughshod over that.

    His own views are clear. But there are more important things to argue about that need addressing, such as the anti-austerity programme and it’s quite right that that is what he should concentrate on.

  28. Some people like the idea of discussion and rational argument as a route to policy making rather than dictatorship by our ‘betters’.
    I know this is clearly an anathema to you, Colin.

  29. Joe

    Speaking as an ardent Corbyn supporter (or at least the movement to rejuvenate and reclaim the Labour Party from the technocrats), I’m more than happy for Corbyn to pragmatically abandon currently unwinnable battles on global power politics and focus on pushing the centre left forward on wars it can win – promoting public investment, halting privatisation, key denationalisation where achievable etc.
    Basically stemming and reversing the one way tide to neoliberal extremism seen over the last four decades.

    I think everyone who supported him expected/hoped he would modulate his policies on transition from backbenches to leader. Anything else would be madness”

    I second that post in its entirety.

  30. Regarding my above post I have no idea what that first quotation mark is doing….

  31. You can’t have a free vote on Trident, it is ridiculous: the Labour Party doesn’t have a view on when whether

    1. We should devote a huge proportion of our budget to WMD
    2. The Labour party doesn’t know if it is a unilateralist party with the consequences for defence and for NATO

    I though Corbyn pitch was anti-Trident, anti-Austerity – now free vote on Tridents, signing up for Osborne’s fiscal plans.

    This is the worst of both worlds, a left-wing leadership following Tory-lite policies. It’s worse than I expected, I thought that at least he would put forward a clear alternative to the Tories but seems not.

  32. Except that isn’t what they are doing at all, and it is only their enemies that seem to be pushing this total straw man. Hint : it isn’t actually working.

  33. Corbyn’s pitch was consensual policy-making. A more democratic, grassroots, Labour Party. That’s it.

  34. @Joe
    “Corbyn’s pitch was consensual policy-making. A more democratic, grassroots, Labour Party. That’s it.”

    Indeed. It’s the initiatives to achieve that democracy which will be radical. Of course he has his own views but the focus is on democratisation.

  35. Policies and policy ideas are also appraised in government by the civil service and in opposition by party advisers, sometimes on the basis of policy studies by such as Chatham House and the Institute of Public Policy Research, sometimesover a period of years, and sometimes biting the dust .
    It is just possible that JC, after thirty odd years in public life knows that his most ardent ideas need this scrutiny as well as that of the public and party, before being, as he said on Marr, carved in stone. I rather think he also respects opponents and opposed ideas. Though not necessarily those of people who think he is a knave or an idiot.

  36. Spin has come about for two reasons. One is that in Britain we have an unusually vicious media that thinks good journalism means undermining democratic politics. The other reason is that there is a gulf between what some of the public thinks government can achieve and what government can actually achieve. It’s very early days for Corbyn but as time goes on, he’ll be drawn deeper and deeper into the distorting currents of media narratives and public expectations. How will he deal with it? The way he is already starting to deal with it. Spin.

  37. It is similar to the old UKIP faithful watching with dismay as Farage purges people for making un-PC comments. For many of them, giving a public megaphone for un-PC comments was the whole point.

  38. @Watchit

    Have you read ‘Where Power Lies’ by Lance Price?

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Where-Power-Lies-Prime-Ministers-ebook/dp/B00HT53FE2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443359002&sr=8-1&keywords=Where+power+lies

    The way the [print] media behave now, and the political reaction to it hasn’t changed in 100 years.

    Some of the early newspaper moguls (Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook for example) make Murdoch look meek and mild.

    When discussing spin, the long view is essential.

  39. “What seemed to work pretty well in Soviet Russia, and in its Republics, for about five decades was universal employment rights with equal rights of women, and those of access to services and livelihoods under “ownership of the means of production” inthe form of collectives or state enterprise owning municipalities, surviving into the nineties, for example, at Kuprograd in the Urals which had a monopoly of copper recycling for the whole Union, in a brewing/agricultural coolective in Latvia, and in a glass manufacturing enterprise in Khyrgizstan which I visited during 1989 to 93 under EC PHARE and TACIS programmes.”

    The factory owning the town, whose inhabitants thus become tied labourers for that factory, sounds an awful lot like neo-feudalism. We had a lot of that sort of thing in this country in the 19th century, then from leftwing paternalist capitalists, but it was voluntary and has therefore tended to fade away as people choose to take their salary and otherwise live independently of their job.


    The health, child care and care of the aged and the gymnasia were superb. What was wrong and led to bankruptcy in the late eigthties was the imposition of Gosplan and centralised baning, funding the system based on entirely phony data and economics based on ‘meeting production targets’ rather than profitability, unrealistic levels of separation of production of parts and products in physically distant centres, and the unacceptable lack of choice ‘of any car other than a Lada or colour other than black’, and so of market motivations – that is bad economics and bad planning and management, especially financial management.

    “What didn’t fail, as far as I can judge, was ‘Marxism’ or the concept of ‘ownership of the means of production’ which was working pretty well in respect of social services as production factors and of individual enterprises. The Russian soviet system was failing very badly in respect of distribution, supply, management information and financing, which demanded IMHO the mechanisms of an unfettered market and the reintroduction of small scale farming. It was pretty much that that Gorbachev was aiming for.”

    You may also see the problem with trying to decouple having e.g. a monopoly on recycling glass for the entire country with the problems of centralised planning of industries and irrationally distributed production centres. With the monopoly, the state must decide where and who takes that monopoly, and what are the standards by which their success is judged and rewarded or punished. Without the monopoly, the company cannot provide guaranteed jobs for its tenants because it cannot guarantee that someone else won’t start recycling glass better somewhere else; workers will choose to take the highest salary over illusory job security and move away.

    Decoupling the provision of services from the management of production is precisely what Blair did by allowing the free market to produce as was most efficient and then having a large welfare state through which the government redistributes that produce retroactively. Corbyn (and his tendency) do not seem to have any new ideas on this topic. The new synthesis appears unaesthetic to them and they are simply trying their best to pretend it doesn’t exist or was the work of evil people rather than a rational response to new evidence. This is the key weakness in Corbyn’s position and why he is being forced to concede so much so early when faced with the need to make himself electable.

  40. JOE
    all views are ‘personal’, that’s what makes them yours. A politician might be able to get away with voting against his concience on one or two issues, but I dont think you can get away with it across the board and blame every decision on your PLP colleagues or the members. It won’t fly.
    Imagine this: “Personally, I’m against Trident. but I’m going to allow a free vote next year out of respect for my fellow members. The result is that Trident gets renewed, but my concience is clear because it’s ‘s not MY fault.”

  41. The mental gymnastics of Corbyn’s many opponents is something to behold.

    Before JC is elected:
    JC: ‘I intend to lead the Labour Party with a consensual, bottom-up basis for policy making.’
    His enemies: ‘JC is a dangerous extremist with inflexible views from a bygone age and cannot lead the Labour Party’

    Once JC is leader:
    JC: ‘I intend to lead the Labour Party with a consensual, bottom-up basis for policy making.’
    His enemies: ‘JC is a flip flopping U-turner who is just the same as the Tories. New politics indeed.’

    And they have the chutzpah to accuse him of spin!

  42. David – but the point is, JC’s position is that he isn’t there to unilaterally impose every one of his personal views on the rest of the party – he is there to enable a new, open process of development of what the party’s official views should be, which can then be put forward on a more united front at a later point.
    On this he has been clear from the start.

  43. @David

    But Corbyn is not and will not be voting against his conscience. He will be voting against its renewal. The only question is should that be party policy or should their be a free vote.

  44. Joe. In that case he should have formed a think tank.

  45. RAF
    Correct, and using ‘free votes’ to get you out of the merde will wear thin pretty quickly.

  46. Joe
    “The mental gymnastics of Corbyn’s many opponents is something to behold”

    Again I find myself totally agreeing with you. Some in the media and indeed on this very site (though I won’t name names) are betraying their own insecurities about Corbyn. I personally don’t know if Corbyn will be a success, to tell you the truth I’m pretty nervous about him. what I do know though is basic psychology would tell us that those who GENUINLY believe he will succeed or fail and are very confident in that assumption generally don’t feel the need to constantly repeat it and are happy to let things play out (many on this site are doing just that and good luck to them)

    Others though feel the need to voice not their genuine thoughts but their desires for him to fail/succeed under the guise of making an impartial, critical thought, when in reality its nothing other than a self-reassurance exercise. Its basic human nature and I know it all too well since I’ve done it many times myself over different issues. In those instances it is very obvious (at least to me) who believes what.

    I’ve already made a rough mental note over the past few weeks regarding who on this site thinks what so I can put their Corbyn related posts into context. There are obviously some (but not many) people who are confident Corbyn will be a success and a lot more who are confident he will fail. What interests me the most are those who say one thing but (I feel) think another, as far as I can tell there are few (if any) people who say they are confident Corbyn will win but don’t actually believe it but there are some definite suspects who I feel routinely rubbish Corbyn but are actually quite worried about him.

    And to anyone else reading this all I would say is be honest with yourself. We’re heading into unknown territory with Corbyn and deluding yourself (regardless of your view) is not going to make what you wish come to pass. You may as well just voice your honest opinion.

  47. @David

    It depends how often you use it. Votes of conscience are meant to be free votes.

  48. @ Colin

    He explicitly ruled out negotiating with ISIS with a very reasonable argument (that they don’t have any intention of negotiating), so he proposed something else about them – still not war, but depriving them from resources. It’s pretty good considering the nature of civil war in Syria and Iraq.

  49. I promised myself that I wouldn’t go into this Marxist thing, this is how long it lasted.

    Creating the Soviet system didn’t stem from Marx (not even from Lenin – between 1917-21, he changed his views about the economic system at least three times, although the NEP could be considered as a second edition of the early 1918 attempt – Alec Nove was wrong about it), but from the necessities of the political-social-economic needs of the country, though arguably with the perspective of a future communist society. Marx was very clear about it: “I’m not writing recipes for the future’s cookery books.” Even in the critique of the Gotha programme he is very reserved. It was more Kautsky who tried to do it (Erfurt programme).

    The Economic planning debate (1930) was pretty good and created methodologies, used extensively in the New Deal in the USA.

    Once the threat of famine and nuclear unbalance was removed, the existing system of planning got into trouble, because it couldn’t identify priorities (early 1960s) It would have required the democratisation of planning (including decentralisation), From the mid 1960s marketisation combined with central planning had been the agenda (the Chinese studied it very closely from 1979, along with the South Korean active developmental state), especially in agriculture, but also services.

    The break with China was a major cause of the downfall – BAM (Baikal-Amur railways, purely with military purpose), nuclear mobilisation along the Chinese border, etc., while keeping up with the West and increasing living standards. It collapsed once the oil price collapsed. It went parallel with the annual fall in innovation from the mid-1960s, and a madly wasteful production system due to the badly introduced marketisation measures.

    In 1986, the answer was acceleration, but it lasted for not more than 8 months (creating growing debt). Then perestroika (huge investment in social services and housing – perhaps this is what John Pilgrim saw a few years later). It resulted in inflationary pressures (especially in combination with the dry law, which reduced the budget revenue, and created a powerful organised crime network), and exhausted resources. At this point the Planning auhorities produced daily plans, so no plans really.

    The final attempt was when the directors of the leading companies put forward a reasonable set of emergency measures, which pushed Gorbachev to accelerate the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

    Oh, and Corbyn is not Marxist (just as Varoufakis isn’t), but borrows from him and reinterprets it in a kind of Mills way. It is not a problem. The problem is that he will certainly need a degree of harshness even for his centrist agenda, and if he hasn’t got it, he will need to include people who have.

  50. “Have you read ‘Where Power Lies’ by Lance Price?”

    ———

    Nope. Is it about modding?

1 3 4 5 6 7 9