We have two new voting intention polls today. First is a telephone poll from ComRes for the Daily Mail – topline figures are CON 38%(-1), LAB 33%(+3), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 10%(-2), GRN 3%(-1). Since introducing their new turnout model based on socio-economic factors ComRes have tended to show the biggest leads for the Conservative party, typically around twelve points, so while this poll is pretty similar to the sort of Conservative leads that MORI, ICM, YouGov and Opinium have recorded over the last month, compared to previous ComRes polls it represents a narrowing of the Conservative lead. Full tabs are here.

The second new poll is from BMG research, a company that conducted a couple of voting intention polls just before the general election for the May2015 website, but hasn’t released any voting intention figures since then. Their topline figures are CON 37%, LAB 31%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%. BMG have also adopted a methodology including socio-economic factors – specifically, people who don’t give a firm voting intention but who say they are leaning towards voting for a party (a “squeeze question”) or who do say how they voted last time are included in the final figures, but weighted according to age, with younger people being weighted harshly downwards. Full tabs are here.

BMG also asked voting intention in the European refrendum, with headline figures of Remain 52%, Leave 48%. ICM also released their regular EU referedum tracker earlier in the week, which had toplines of Remain 54%, Leave 46%. A third EU referendum poll from YouGov found it 50%-50% – though note that poll did not use the actual referendum question (YouGov conduct a monthly poll across all seven European countries they have panels in, asking the same questions to all seven countries and including a generic question on whether people would like their own country to remain in the EU – this is that question, rather than a specific British EU referendum poll, where YouGov do use the referendum question).


240 Responses to “New ComRes and BMG voting intentions”

1 3 4 5
  1. I have just read Mark Pack’s article. Interesting that no mention is made of what occurred six months post 1959 election when Labour was behind the Tories – but still went on to win in 1964!

  2. [Snip – this whole conversation has been skipping very close to it, and sometimes over into it, but as ever, please don’t get into debating whether government policies are right or wrong – AW]

    As for @Neil A, I too find myself wondering at the mindset of the migrants who are burning their accommodation and protesting at the UK base in Cyprus.

    I can accept that conditions may not be ideal (although there are some Brits who pay to go camping in the Med at this time of year) but if I were a genuine asylum seeker, fleeing persecution or war, I think I would be rather grateful to be fed, watered and sheltered for nothing – even if it was in a tent.

    As @Colin alludes to – the media driven insistence that ‘something must be done’ and the EU’s desire to find solutions seems to be driving decisions in a direction that will create longer term problems of greater scale and duration than a more reasoned and balanced policy might bring.

  3. Graham,

    Are you suggesting Labour’s leader will die of an illness and be replaced by a careerist backbencher, and that the Tory PM will stand down due to age and be replaced by a skeletal Lord?

  4. MRNAMELESS
    No – but Labour was already doing well by the time of Hugh Gaitskell’s untimely death in January 1963 – indeed many believe that Labour would have won more comfortably in 1964 had he lived.
    Many also think that Alec Douglas- Home did very well to run Labour so close! Probably did better than had MacMillan stayed on!

  5. By the way -Harold Wilson was hardly ‘a careerist backbencher’ – he was Shadow Foreign Secretary before becoming Leader.

  6. COLIN
    “Encouraging Refugees to leave UNHCR camps to give Traffickers large sums of money & risk the lives of their children in a perilous journey for the supposed financial gains of economic migrancy is not a responsible or humane policy.”

    It isn’t anybody’s policy. The movement of people which is taking place is either in response to the pull factor of the European labour market, or that to the push factor of war and hunger.
    I agree that there should by now have been a more effective clamp down on people smugglers.
    It does appear that they greatest number of migrants are equipping themselves to make a move to the opportunity of employment and a livelihood for the families, and as @Candy implies a principal need is for safe transit.
    As the Bishop of Aleppo says, the West should be engaged in seeking a peaceful solution in Syria, but since he himself has said that a majority of his flock wish to leave for Europe specifically in response to danger and the loss of electricity and water in the city,I doubt that he has suggested that this is in response to being lured by western governments – unless you can quote him.

  7. COLIN
    I think I’ld prefer to bring this discussion back to my main point, which is that the UK electorate will be asked a question, remain or leave, which evades the issue of whether in remaining they know or understand the reforms which the Government in office would seek in remaining, and a basic difference which exists between the present Govrnment of the UK and Labour, SNP and Greens, and I guess Plaid Cmru and the DUP: that all the opposition parties would sign up to the EU Agenda programme, specifically, with the UK charitable organisations and the Churches, to receive illicit migrants now in Europe.
    The likely ignorance or poor intelligence on the latter extends, however, to that which appears to be governing the position of the Government, which reflects what Rory Steward declared, in an impassioned and erudite speech in the HOC as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, to be a tragic and damaging loss of the independent intelligence capability of the UK on the Middle East and in other areas of foreign policy, and which now appeared to be defining our responses to conflict in Syria and its consequences, as it had done those in Iraq and Libya.

  8. @Graham

    Indeed, Wilson was famously not a backbencher at all until his resignation in 1951 over the budget that raised defence spending but introduced prescription charges for dental care and glasses. I think he is unique among post-1945 MPs in making his maiden speech from the dispatch box. He returned to the frontbench under Gaitskell in 1955, and was Shadow Foreign Secretary at the time of Gaitskell’s death.

  9. Quite right. I’ve no idea where backbencher came from. Maybe I was remembering his 1951 resignation.

  10. JOHN

    @”It isn’t anybody’s policy”

    It is-the policy of Germany, announced a few months ago -which I referenced earlier

    You can no doubt find the full text of the Syrian Bishop’s speech if you are interested.

    But very few people in the West are-the views of the Syrians who stay in Syria aren’t on anyone’s radar.

    RE The EU Referendum -I am confident that when the question is put, the alleged reforms achieved will be critically examined by both sides in the argument.

    RE . I don’t understand your point about intel in Syria. As I understand it DC has now abandoned any attempt to bring a proposed intervention to HoC because he knows he will lose the vote. Thats Democracy I guess.

    But I have no doubt whatsoever that the prospect of an aerial dogfight between a British Tornado & a Russian SU24 has been a factor.

    Facilitating a Syria which Syrians don’t have to flee from is now in Putin’s gift-and we know what sort of Syrians he favours ( hence the warning about an increased outflowflow of Syrians”

    As an adjunct to the emerging pre-eminence of Russian policy on Syria-have a look at the DP clip from yesterday with Dianne Abbot-about a Stop The War “debate” which she chaired. It features a Syrian lady who was present & who has interesting views on what “Stop The War” actually means.

  11. @AW – many apologies – I thought if I was nice to the government it would be OK, but I appreciate that isn’t how it works.

    I’ve been interested in Labour’s new approach in Scotland. On the face of it, quite messy, but I get the sense that the move on tax credit cuts has discomfited the SNP to an extent.

    Making a firm commitment to restore these to present levels and naming the scrapping of an SNP tax cut as the key means to do this may appear to come across as a reasoned response. There was also some confusion yesterday within SNP ranks about whether the new powers would enable them to do this, which made the SNP appear like it was trying to duck the issue by denying they had the ability to act.

    I’m aware that there remain lots of practical questions for LiS on this, and many SNP supporters will pick holes in the announcement (I guess the main ones being their belief that this demonstrates LiS have given up fighting the cuts and that reducing air passenger duty will increase revenue, not decrease it) but that isn’t so much the point. Whether the public is moved by this is more relevant.

    LiS is probably in too deep for a single announcement to make any noticable difference, but I suspect their strategists will be pleased that at least the debate has moved on to what to do with the new powers and away from continued examination of the constitutional settlement, even if for a few days only.

  12. COLIN
    “Facilitating a Syria which Syrians don’t have to flee from is now in Putin’s gift”

    Yes, I think you’ve got it. And surely the consensus now is that it does not matter which demagogue he favours, since stablity and normal livelihoods are what are needed. Has Putin, however, asked the question: have you stopped barrel bombing your own population?

  13. CANDY
    I’m puzzled. What makes you think that Syrian migrants would not do the same?

  14. JOHN

    @” the consensus now is that it does not matter which demagogue he favours, since stablity and normal livelihoods are what are needed.”

    Whose “consensus”?

    Those who think ISIL is a bigger killer than Assad? -certainly ( though their mortality stats are wrong !)
    Those who support the Assad regime?-of course?

    But the millions of Syrians who aren’t religious fanatics; who fear Assad’s bombing of his political oponents & just want to live in peace-in Syria?-No.
    Their “consensus” is to be found in the tawdry camps from Greece to Germany’s border; on the Turkish beaches-and for some -at the bottom of the Aegean.
    For these people -like the Syrian lady on DP yesterday ” stablity and normal livelihoods ” is not available whilst Putin’s “demagogue” is in power in Syria.

    As to it not mattering which dictator is in power provided they provide “stability”-well we know something of this philosophy don’t we.
    And the end game is predictable-you WILL be called upon to support WHATEVER brutality he metes out to opponents . And if you change your mind & topple him, chaos fills the democratic vacuum which you & he created.

    And in the ME that means Islam’s internal war will be fought out in yet another arena.

    Still-we can salve our consciences & parade our virtue by welcoming the victims-provided they take part in Merkel’s 2500 km compulsory Obstacle Course.

  15. @Neil and Candy (6.26 and 6.46 p.m.)

    I assume you were both joking.

    It is obvious that there is simply not enough room on Malta for 100,000 new homes. Nor was I suggesting that the long-term houing crisis in many parts of the UK is something that can be dealt with overnight – and nor is it something which needs be dealt with just because migrants.
    The housing crisis in the UK is a long term problem which successive governments have refused to face up to. Had there been more courage in dealing with the issue over the past twenty years we would not now be facing the present ridiculous situation in which one of the leading world economies is unable to house its own native population, let alone those whom it desperately needs for its long-term economic health (given age demographics).

  16. @John Pilgrim

    Because they show no signs of doing so in Germany and Sweden. People tend to have one profession or skill they concentrate on all their lives.

    The Ugandan Asians were business people in Uganda and they were business people after they came to Britain.

    Most of the Syrians leaving at the moment are ex-fighters. Which means all they know is war, and they’ve been hardened by it. It’s probably why they behave so aggressively at the camps – it’s a different response than you see from refugees from natural disasters – say the Nepalese refugees who headed to India after their earthquake. The Nepalese refugees were a normal cross-section of the society and behaved much as you’d expect, shock at what had happened and gratitude to their hosts for sheltering them. Ex-soldiers don’t behave this way – war warps them.

    To be perfectly frank, I’d rather take in economic migrants from Africa/Asia than ex-soldiers from anywhere. At least the behaviour of the economic migrants would be normal.

  17. I should add that by going directly to the camps to pick up orphaned children, our govt is avoiding the ex-soldier problem and helping the most needy (children who can’t go 1000 mile forced marches).

    It’s the correct approach – we’re helping those in need, but not damaging our society by introducing warriors who have been conditioned by experience to think the rule of law doesn’t apply to them.

  18. @Candy

    ‘Most of the Syrians leaving at the moment are ex-fighters.’

    And the source of this ‘information’ is to be found where, exactly?

  19. @John B

    They instantly recognisable as ex-fighters……they wear ladies clothes, carry babies and have toddlers clinging to their legs.

    Dead give away to an expert ‘ex-fighter spotter’…..

    ;-)

  20. GRAHAM.
    Good Afternoon to you from very wet and windy Bournemouth and Boscombe.
    I think that Hugh Gaitskell’s death and John Smith’s death were tragedies for their families, obviously, and also for the Labour Movement and the country.
    I agree with your assessment of the skills of Douglas Home.

    The talents of the Wilson Cabinet were not used well, I think, and at least the Cameron Government is competent and calm in comparison.

  21. @catmanjeff

    Candy has probably seen sand on their boots as well.

  22. @JohnB

    See

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/28/in-two-charts-this-is-what-refugees-say-about-why-they-are-leaving-syria-now/

    @CatManJeff

    When looking at pictures from Syria, look at teh big group pictures, not the ones where they zoom in to the women and children. About 90% of those entering Europe are men. Small children can’t cope with the journey – you are a father, you know this. How long could your toddlers walk before getting tired and starting to howl? Three hours max?

  23. @candy

    So being an adult man makes you an “ex fighter” . An interesting insight into your world view.

  24. @Hireton

    It’s an interesting insight into your naivety that you actually believe that in the midst of a civil war where everyone is conscripted to fight on one side or another, that none of the men aged 18 to 30 are fighters!

    Have you read the link I posted – the men are all fighters, by their own admission. The women are stuck in the camps with the children.

    Taking people from the camps is the correct thing to do. Saying that you will only take people who march 1000 miles to your border is to select only the young males. Because children can’t do the journey, and only cruel people would insist that they would only take children who have marched 1000 miles…

    Are you cruel? Or just foolish?

  25. CANDY
    Turning again to the question of how good is the information on which we support the Government or an oppostion position on remaining in th EU, and specifically on choices made in assisting refugees or accepting economic migrants, your
    ‘I should add that by going directly to the camps to pick up orphaned children, our govt is avoiding the ex-soldier problem and helping the most needy (children who can’t go 1000 mile forced marches).’ prompted me to look at local government and Home Office reports on the experience so far of the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.
    I stand to be corrected by those better informed, but it appeared from the Cardiff and the Hull and Sheffield reports to their Councils, that it will not be orphaned children but families of 4 to 6 which will be accepted. The numbers are lower in these various reports and vaguer than I anticipated, “several hundred” families over the next two to three year,”based on need rather then targets”.
    However the costs are clear in the local government reports: about 8,000 per person per annum plus educational costs and medical costs of up to 25,000 – to which one would have to add the costs of the logistical and admin support, including those of the UNHCR and the IOM.

    I ended up thinking on a back of a fag packet basis that the scheme might cost 160,000,000 or so for the 20,000 – who couldn’t, I suppose, be expected to be addiing to the economy or paying any taxes for a while. And, I confess, to wondering whether the money might be better spent, providing this support to a larger number of vulnerable families, or as you infer, to orphaned children in Syria or in refugee camps, where they could eventually be reintegrated into Syrian society, and providing special needs training and specialist medical support for the process.

  26. Sorry, 1,600,000 per annum. But I expect I’m wrong. Anyone have the Home Office figures?

  27. While I fairly regularly follow the discussions here, I don’t contribute much as while interesting they rarely have much to do with polling.

    However I will comment on some recent exchanges here generally. There cannot be useful discussions on many issues until those involved all accept that there are no good answers to the question. Only then can the least worst be sensibly discussed. This includes:

    – The Syrian civil war
    – The flood of refugees into Europe
    – The West Lothian question
    – Reform of the House of Lords

  28. @John

    In my experience, questions that have good answers are seldom discussed, because they are breezily addressed before anyone before a discussion can begin.

    That said, the answer to most questions is pretty contentious, usually because there’s a cost to someone somewhere and someone has to be persuaded to lose something in the solution.

  29. @John B,

    Joking, after a fashion.

    Perhaps more highlighting the parallel of asking a small island to solve someone else’s problem by covering large areas of their land mass with concrete.

  30. JOHN CHANIN
    That reads like a very good point.
    I am not sure though. Does asking whether the electorate or we on this blog have enough information on major issues of policy, such as the migrant crisis, or reform of the HOL, require a definitive answer?

  31. @Candy

    By your logic, all conscripted fighters on the losing side of the second world war ought to have been left to rot, instead of being helped to get on their feet again and start a new life. Very odd.

    I’m not sugesting for one moment that none of those coming to Europe have view which we might regard as highly suspicious. But to condemn everyone just because we find some have views which we think of as dangerous is a nonsense. To condemn everyone to rot is to confirm what the ‘enemies of western civilisation’ say about us.

    Of course it would have been better to do more at the point of exit from Syria, or even to have done more within Syria in support of the people there. But we didn’t. We have steadfastly refused to send in the troops. And for good reason, of course, in that we have not the remotest idea what to do for the best.

    It is a remarkable fact that in three years’ time we will be celebrating the centenary of the war which brought down the Ottoman empire. The present boundaries of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and co. were drawn up by the victors in that war. Is it any wonder that they are reluctant to have another go?

  32. @John B

    The debate we’re having is whether we should participate in the EU migrant redistribution project (which redistributes only those who have made their own way into Europe) or whether we should continue with our own strategy which is to take people directly from the camps and fly them in safety to Britain.

    Those in favour of the EU migrant redistribution fall into three categories:

    1. They accept that it only rewards people-traffickers and mainly young males, many of whom are ex-fighters, many of whom are in Europe because can afford to bribe people traffickers. But they think that supporting the EU means supporting it’s bizarre judgements about who is “needy”.

    2. The Contrarians. Because the govt wants to collect people directly from the camps, they want to take only those who have walked 1000 miles to Europe. Because they think this is what opposing the govt means.

    3. The mean ones. What, fly people in safety to Britain from the camps, no, the only ones who should be rewarded with asylum should be those who have made the journey on their own, and if that means children are left behind in the camps, tough, let them rot there.

    Most Britons fall into category 4: they think the govt is right to select people directly from the camps because a) it means people traffickers are not rewarded and the rule of law is upheld b) the needy are selected, orphans/families with small children c) the people selected can be vetted first before being brought here to exclude potential terrorists and d) it’s the most humane way of doing it because we’re flying them in, instead of forcing to go on a dangerous obstacle course for several months.

    Why are people so angry that we’re selecting directly from the camps? You express great concern for the young male ex-fighters – but Germany and Sweden are taking care of them. The real people “left to rot” are the children in the camps. But people are so angry that we’re selecting children, simply because they feel like opposing the govt for the sake of it.

    How about admitting that we’re doing the right thing, and that if the rest of Europe had done the same, there wouldn’t be this mess of people dying in the Med, people-trafficking, law breaking, resources diverted to defend borders and so on.

  33. Good evening all from an extraordinary wet Westminter North.

    CANDY
    “I should add that by going directly to the camps to pick up orphaned children, our govt is avoiding the ex-soldier problem and helping the most needy (children who can’t go 1000 mile forced marches).
    It’s the correct approach – we’re helping those in need, but not damaging our society by introducing warriors who have been conditioned by experience to think the rule of law doesn’t apply to them”
    ______

    I see some people have disagreed with the above comment but I would go further than Candy and say that many of the refugees coming into Europe are draft dodgers from the Syrian army and will sit in the bars and cafes of Paris Berlin and London lapping it up when troops from other nations fight their battles for them.

    I also don’t buy the idea when most refugees say they are fleeing Assad because they know it fits the Wests agenda and narrative when they condemn him.

    The best way to help those in real need is to take them from the camps and not those who seemingly have thousands to pay traffickers to get them into Europe and cause havoc for East European borders and pig farmers.

  34. The Andrew Fisher business is interesting.

    If he is suspended from the Party & JC refuses to sack him-what then?

  35. Do the EU referendum polls include Northern Ireland? From the tabs it seems like they don’t

  36. Omnishambles

    I emailed BMG as to why they talk about “a representative sample of UK residents”, when their tables seem to be clear that they mean GB – No reply from them.

    Perhaps worse is that they say they have targetted on “UK” data -which will be a tad misleading when they apply that to a GB sample (or perhaps they actually meant GB and not UK data – who knows?)

  37. @oldnat

    Thanks for the reply.

    Ignoring NI, although a bit rude, was understandable for Westminster VI because their parties are all different to the ones on GB. However in this EU referendum we are all answering the same question. I was looking through the latest ICM tabs and it doesn’t say either way – but regions are all listed and NI isn’t there.

    Anyway the reason I brought this up was this new poll via NC:

    LucidTalk/Belfast Telegraph (NI #EUref):

    REMAIN 56
    LEAVE 28

    19th-21st Oct
    N=2,517
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/debateni/bill-white/how-will-northern-ireland-vote-in-the-upcoming-eu-referendum-34176966.html

    If all the regular polls are GB-only then we’re going to have to combine with these regional NIs to get the true UK picture

  38. @ Colin

    There’s no rule which says that a person must be a member of the Labour Party to be employed by the Labour Party. So Andrew Fisher being suspended from the Labour Party has no direct bearing on whether he keeps his job or not.

  39. And there’s now a thread on the NI poll about the EU referendum.

  40. @AnthonyJWells

    heeeelp!

    I’m trying to chase down poll data for the 1975 referendum but the data’s not available online: wikipedia doesn’t have them, the Cabinet Office briefing papers aren’t digitised on the National Archive, and Gallup doesn’t have an online archive for the 1970’s. I’ve managed to track down four: feb74 NOP, Aug74 Gallup, Aug74 Labour/Worcester, Jan 75 Gallup. Do you (or anybody else?) know where this stuff is held online?

    Help would be appreciated…

1 3 4 5