The monthly ICM poll for the Guardian is out today and has topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 35%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 10%, GRN 3%. The full details are on ICM’s website here and again come with some pretty candid and downbeat commentary from Martin Boon, who writes that the raw data is still heavily skewed towards Labour and that – to his mind – the existing data correction at the analysis stage isn’t succeeding in correcting it (Martin was also interviewed in Radio 4’s interesting programme this week on why the polls went wrong, as was Joe Tywman of YouGov, Damian Lyons Lowe of Survation, James Morris of GQRR and Pat Sturgis – the Chair of tomorrow’s inquiry into the polling failure).

There were three other GB voting intention polls in the weekend papers. ComRes for the Indy on Sunday had figures of CON 40%, LAB 29%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 3%, Panelbase in the Sunday Times had toplines of CON 39%, LAB 31%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 14% and Survation in the Mail on Sunday had CON 37%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 3%.


22 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 40, LAB 35, LDEM 6, UKIP 10, GRN 3”

  1. Isn’t all this polling malarkey getting just a teeny-weeny silly now? Shouldn’t they all come with the following warning: –

    “Please ignore most of the findings of this opinion poll. The figures are likely to be totally unreliable and, accordingly, the voting intention ratings will be fanciful. It’s all a bit rubbish, I’m afraid”.

    Why is any polling company publishing polls, for Gawd”s sake, until they are confident in their methodology?

  2. Me thinks ICM/Guardian pollsters should seriously amend their polling protocols or choose another day job.

  3. One of the polls may be correct. It may even be the COMRES, but everyone is too scared to put any credence in a good poll for Labour. Martin Boone is obviously commenting on the basis of his own guess that labour are still languishing, and he may be right, but we all know that hunches in this situation are not usually wide of the mark.

  4. … ARE usually wide of the mark

  5. On what basis does he know the analytical correction doesn’t correct enough? If he’s just comparing to other pollsters, that introduces the problem of herding.

  6. Anthony
    You have omitted the Survation poll which appeared in the Mail on Sunday

    Con 37 Lab 30 LD 7 UKIP 16 Grn 3

    [Thanks Graham – AW]

  7. From the last thread, I’m unconvinced that “it’s all about the leadership ratings (or the economy) really” is something you can take home from the headline polling failure. As it seems like the main problem has been sampling (and I’ll say again, the “suppressed,” experimental, Survation poll is another straw in the wind for that: http://survation.com/snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory/), how does it follow that the same samples were suddenly really accurate for other questions?

    On another note, this finding would seem to be particularly grim news for online panel based pollsters.

  8. I wonder if some one more knowledgeable than me (not difficult) can clarify a couple of issues.
    My understanding is that since the last election many polling organisations have already changed/tweaked their methodology/analysis to take into account some of the factors that contributed to the issues of pre-election polling.
    Is that right?
    If it is right does any one know what effect that has had already on polling results, for example does it give more weighting to conservative voters and or less to Labour voters or does it alter them in some other way?
    Thanks in advance

  9. “But the memories and embarrassment for the polling industry of 2015 will take time to fade.” Laura Kuenssberg’s latest blog.

    I wonder if journalists and pundits should show a little more humility. Yes the polls were wrong, but it wouldn’t be such a big issue if journalists weren’t so reliant on them to understand what’s going on in the country. The general election coverage was so tedious because every single question was followed up with “but the polls say XYZ, how do you respond to that?”

  10. I find it almost impossible to believe a poll putting Labour on 35% with Corbyn’s leadership ratings being so utterly abysmal.

  11. Taking the last 10 results and averaging them gives a figure of 9.1 lead to the Conservatives which seems reasonable. Though I think it might be even higher after a campaign! Labour might achieve similar results to those in Scotland!

  12. Boon’s comments on his own Poll-presumably paid for by the G -plumbs new depths of incredibility.

    Why on earth has the client paid for this ?

  13. Bloomberg’s report on UK Polling.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/u-k-polling-inquiry-raises-global-questions-about-predictions

    …….or for the Scottish take-The Herald’s headline :-

    “Report: General Election polling error could have been caused by ‘herding'”

    !!

  14. In Jan 2011, Labour had a small lead. It’s hardly a surprise but the opinion polls clearly show that to date Corbyn’s Labour is much less popular than Mili Labour. It is early days, but time is passing!

  15. @Hannah

    “From the last thread, I’m unconvinced that “it’s all about the leadership ratings (or the economy) really” is something you can take home from the headline polling failure.”

    It would appear that the consensus as to why the pollsters got it so wrong appears to be that they tended to use samples that weren’t representative of the electorate, inadvertently selecting more Labour voters than Tory ones. That said, I do think that the questions and responses on leadership and economic credibility are key indicators of eventual voting behaviour. I can well believe a voter responding with his or her heart in terms of voting intention but responding with his or her head when asked about leadership qualities and economic competence.

    If that theory is correct, the question that is then begged is to what extent the head rules the heart in the secrecy of a polling booth. I’ve told a pollster I’m going to vote Labour, but are the troubling questions and nagging doubts making my pencil hover over the ballot form? I think there may well have been quite a few people caught in this dilemma last May, certainly enough to distort opinion polls. They said one thing, but did another on the day

    I’m also attracted to the theory that more and more people “game” surveys and polls these days, either mischievously or out of sheer spite. In other words, their responses are some way away from their real views and intentions. Maybe some people respond peevishly and angrily out of pure irritation for being asked to participate. Who knows, but my personal and recent experience of a phone poll conducted by Populus tells me that patience and attention can be severely tested!

    How well are the telephone callers trained and how reliable is their data capture? Again, my experience with Populus didn’t inspire confidence.

    Who’d be a pollster, hey?

    Anthony – answers on a postcard, please!

    :-)

  16. Polls vary from 40-29 to 35-30…it’s hard to take them seriously when there is such a wide variation between them.

  17. Correction…40-29 to 40-35. That said, the figures I quoted above could easily pass for that of a pollster, given how skewed these polls have been.

  18. None of the opinion polls predicted an overall Conservative majority. They all said that Labour would be in the low to mid 30’s. When new opinion polls are being conducted it seems that there are too many past Labour voters and that somehow they are all getting more than the offical figure of 30%.
    The reaction is ‘the previous opinion polls were wrong and all the new ones are wrong too’. Could it be that they are all RIGHT and Labour really did get 34%?

  19. what seems clear is that the tories are on or around 40% most polls show labour on or around 30%
    a poll that shows big disparity may be considered fishy.
    much like #jihadijez ‘s fingers after a night out with abbott

  20. When will the numbers on electoral register at 1/12/2015 be published , which will determine seat allocation in 2018 review ?

  21. ONS has the release date down as 24th February

  22. The Panelbase tables do not appear to show the Westminster voting intention – they are just quoted in other sources with the Tory, Labour, UKIP and Lib Dem numbers.
    Does anyone know the Green/SNP scores?