This month ICM have done parallel telephone and online polls. For voting intention the figures are almost exactly the same – topline figures are

ICM Phone: CON 38%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 3%
ICM Online: CON 36%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 4%

ICM have exactly the same Conservative lead on both modes, though the level of UKIP support is higher in the online poll (a long standing contrast between different polling modes). The Conservative lead in the phone poll is back up to five points after a neck-and-neck poll last month, not reflecting the trend of a falling Tory lead we’ve seen in other polling.

In EU referendum polling ICM found the usual, familiar gap between telephone and online samples – it’s down from the fifteen to twenty point gulf at the tail end of last year, but there’s still a steady contrast of seven or eight points.

ICM Phone: REMAIN 48%, LEAVE 41%, DK 11%
ICM Online: REMAIN 43%, LEAVE 44%, DK 13%

Tables should up tomorrow, once Martin Boon has wrestled with ICM’s new website.


240 Responses to “Parallel online and phone polls from ICM”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. John Chanin
    “The result of the referendum, as always, will be decided by people who know very little, are entirely ignorant of the advantages or disadvantages, and will vote on completely spurious grounds.”

    Is this an argument for restricting the franchise? I have an idea on this. It wouldn’t be feasible to take the vote away from people, but why not give certain members of society an extra vote? Possibilities might include those with a degree, those in employment, those who own their own (unmortgaged) property.

  2. “….to compare the SNP’s Civic nationalism….”

    ———-

    Ahahaha!!

    Almost enough to make one dance a Scottish jig!!!!

  3. OLDNAT

    I cycled quite a few times from East Ren into Mount Florida and it was hair-raising stuff…not the hills but the traffic and amount of near misses. I usually spent about an hour the night before carrying out a risk assessment of my route. ;-)

    I never realised the current Scotrail franchise was for such a long time but like you say it’s good politics.

  4. Carfrew

    You been watching Neil Oliver’s latest “Film me while I walk across the landscape, looking over my shoulder as I talk to the camera” series?

    He’s a Brit Nat.

  5. @Catman

    “Quite frankly forecasts 15 yrs long don’t interest me one bit. In any case, economic forecasts so long in the future are pointless and bound to be wrong. Crikey, we can’t even forecast the economy 1 yr hence.”

    ———-

    True, but you can look at fundamentals. Things that remain useful almost whatever happens.

    We couldn’t know several years in advance that there would definitely be an oil crisis in the Seventies. But we could have seen the vulnerability and mitigated it, kept the commodity buffers, reduced dependence on oil etc.

    Similarly, you can look at the EU thing and try and determine what are the advantages whatever happens, that may also help you cope with the unforeseen.

    (Of course, one example was the virtue of staying out of the Euro…)

  6. @Ken

    It is an interesting turn of events when such an appalling balance of trade deficit is apparently to our advantage.

    Putting aside that point, there is a deeper qualitative aspect to the nature of the trade between Britain and the EU generally – in that (in very broad terms) we sell predominantly services and some goods to the remainder of the continent and they sell a much more mixed basket of goods and services to us.

    The demand for German made cars, French cheeses, wines and perfume, Italian fashions (emblematic cliches I know) etc is unlikely to collapse if we were to depart the EU. In fact part of the political imperative for a UK government in maintaining ‘everything as normal’ would be to continue the supply of such durables to consumers without interference – a strong incentive against tarrifs. This is a big political priority and a financial one too in order not to ‘spook the markets’.

    To the contrary there is no such equivalent political priority in the long term for EU governments to continue to purchase services, especially financial services, from the UK. Financial and B2B services are ultimately footloose industries to a large extent and as such highly mobile.

    If trading conditions changed and became more favourable for certain functions such as the Euro-Dollar market, metal trading, re-insurance, pensions and primary / secondary equity listing to take place for EU and Eurozone institutions within the single market this could be accomplished relatively quickly and – from the point of view of the companies involved – painlessly. The labour force is mobile and highly skilled, the systems flexible and the legislative framework increasingly international.

    For those who believe it could never happen because of (a) the English language and (b) traditional associations I’d suggest you look at erosion of London’s position as the world’s primary shipping market. If it can happen in one trading sector in can happen in any.

    Germany can develop new markets for its cars and engineering products, we need French food and nuclear know how – but our financial services industry can easily be repatriated to wherever legal requirements make most sense for it to be located.

    We may end up exporting more jobs to the continent than anything else.

    Of course, it could be argued that free of financial interference from the EU the City of London would flourish – but the City of London is implacably opposed to this view. It’s interesting that many on here who would normally support the views of big business and the bankers would discount them on this issue.

  7. @oldnat

    You been watching Neil Oliver’s latest “Film me while I walk across the landscape, looking over my shoulder as I talk to the camera” series?
    He’s a Brit Nat.

    —————-

    Lol, you think I need some more nationalism in my life?? That’s more your thing, innit…

  8. @Carfrew

    Not to split hairs, but just to point out that when confronted with two instances of democratic deficit to choose the lesser does not constitute an ‘ironic’ act.

    It’s merely a case of ‘Hobson’s Choice’.

  9. @Pete B

    “Is this an argument for restricting the franchise? I have an idea on this. It wouldn’t be feasible to take the vote away from people, but why not give certain members of society an extra vote? Possibilities might include those with a degree, those in employment, those who own their own (unmortgaged) property.”

    I’m not sure that you’re serious… but of course this is what happened until fairly recently.

    The system of reserved university seats and the various ‘property tests’ that preceded the universal franchise certainly restricted the franchise to those ‘with a stake in society’, though of course this bore no direct link to intelligence or intellectual capacity.

  10. @Assiduous

    I dunno if you’re hair-splitting or wot, but I figured someone might query whether indeed it was irony, which is why I added in that one might instead call it a “dilemma” or summat.

    I.e., something akin to a Hobson’s choice. So your concern is a bit redundant, to be fair…

  11. Night peeps…I’m away to my bed to have a lucid dream, don’t know what dream to choose though, Brexit utopia, Godzilla vs King kong or Carfrew morris dancing to a Scottish jig.

    I hope I don’t sleep in.

  12. Assiduosity

    Provision of financial services is a very volatile economic sector.

    A bit like oil – except that the oil fields themselves can’t be moved.

    Had there been any competence at Westminster, they would have salted away a share of the cash from both into a Wealth Fund, instead of squandering it.

    Sadly, Westminster has seldom proved competent on economic matters.

  13. I wonder if we vote Leave if the French will still build a nuclear power station for us!

    Peter.

  14. @AC

    You can dream you were born and raised in Liverpool!!…

    Night!!

  15. @Carfrew

    If you revisit your post I think you will find you were most particular about the irony Colin was referring to.. so particular you mentioned it twice ;-)

    I’m always concerned where non-existent irony is concerned.

  16. @Old Nat

    “Provision of financial services is a very volatile economic sector.
    A bit like oil – except that the oil fields themselves can’t be moved.”

    Indeed. And unlike oilfields financial markets can be ‘disappeared’ by financial regulation.

    An interesting point about sovereign wealth funds. I wonder whether, were London’s position as a major capital market to be compromised we might look back at the ‘golden days’ between ‘big bang’ and ‘credit crunch’ and rue the fact we never took a bigger slice of the pie for the UK.

  17. Oh I can’t let that one go….
    ……..
    PETER CAIRNS (#twovotesSNP)
    “I wonder if we vote Leave if the French will still build a nuclear power station for us”
    _______

    Planning is devolved to the Scottish parliament so never you mind about what happens in ole England and you should be spending more time handing out leaflets, funny hats and balloons for NS re-election……..You cheeky monkey ;-)

    CAFREW

    That’s not a bad entry for my lucid dream. Might give it a go.

  18. @Assiduous

    I thought by making the “dilemma” substitution first up I had sufficiently innoculated against pedantry and wouldn’t need to keep repeating it as it would continue to be implied.

    Clearly this was insufficient when up against advanced pedantry, with peeps prepared to be pedantic over pedantry…

    Irony is, you hadn’t spotted the irony issue in your previous post, and if I hadn’t drawn attention to it with the dilemma comment, I might not now be enduring the thing I was trying to avoid.

    Anyways, unless you’ve got summat substantive, I shall bid you good night!!

  19. Assid

    You omitted the fact that I was replying to John Chanin on this point:

    “The result of the referendum, as always, will be decided by people who know very little, are entirely ignorant of the advantages or disadvantages, and will vote on completely spurious grounds.”

    It seems to raise a legitimate question. Should the ignorant be allowed the same say in the democratic process as the more well-informed? If John Chanin and yourself answer ‘Yes’ to this question, fine, If the answer is ‘No’, then I offered a few possible solutions, none of which involve taking the vote away from anyone.

    Goodnight

  20. @Allan

    You might have to change your politics a bit and stop reading the Sun, but small price to pay etc…

  21. @Carfrew

    It was your repetition of ‘irony’ that caught the eye.

    Anyway, you;re tired and fractious and clearly unable to take receive as you dispense.

    Sleep well.

  22. Assiduosity

    Carfrew won’t sleep well until he’s had the last word.

    Anyone staying up to see the NY results can keep him up, and posting, for hours yet!

  23. As I have pointed out previously, a Sovereign Wealth fund might have made Scots Independence more attractive for Scots, since they might reasonably expect a share. In effect saving up money to help fund their Independence. Politically, this might happinate some more than others…

  24. @ Pete B

    I’m not sure whether you were responding to John was relevant or not – I was replying seriously to your substantive point.

    The university constituency case remains pertinent – they were smaller constituencies which were conceived to give a greater say to the educated folk who lived / worked there.

    My example about the property-based franchise was probably not as well chosen in a direct sense.

    I might have been better to point out that before boundary reform in the late 19th and 20th century middle class constituencies were significantly less populous than working class ones. As the former would have contained more educated people this was another way of giving those with ‘intellectual status’ a disproportionate say over electing MPs.

    Finally, the process of creating life peers elevates ‘the highest achievers’ directly to the legislature without the need for election.

    In a sense, what I was saying is that your suggestion is not perhaps as alien or as incompatible with our current system as it might seem. There have been / continue to be processes – informal perhaps – in place which give the educated / qualified a greater say in our representative system.

    Possibly your suggestions would simply add transparency to this.

  25. @Assiduous

    Aww, you wanna make out that was fractious? Wow. Anyway, Oldnat’s on your side, you got bigger issues!!…

  26. Carfrew

    Oh goody! We’re keeping you sleep-deprived!

    Not surprised to see you wanting to p1ss short term revenues up against the wall.

    Not that it did you any good – VAT was still extended to storage costs.

  27. Sovereign wealth funds are a very interesting case – how is it possible to construct sufficient legislation to ensure that they are not raided piecemeal to suit the kind of short term political objectives they are intended precisely not to serve?

    Equally, they do appear – in the wrong hands – to be magnets for corruption and person aggrandisement. Not that I would suggest UK politicians would have their hands directly in the till, but I’m sure a pretty penny would stand to be made from the management of said funds by third parties.

    Of course, talk of sovereign wealth funds is pure fantasy in the UK where the civil service pension is effectively one big liability that gets more tricky to cover as Governments reduce the size of the civil service.

    The fact that we could never organise to have a pension pot for HMG’s employer pension scheme indicates how far we have always been from anything like a sovereign wealth fund – even in the best of times.

  28. Carfrew

    I’ll stick with Treebeard’s assessment.

    “I am not altogether on anyone’s side because nobody is altogether on my side”.

  29. @ Carfrew

    Four pedantries, two ironies and an inoculation (which of course is the introduction of the live bacteria direct to the blood stream) tossed my way in such a few lines.

    That’s pretty fractious in the kind of polite society I move in.

    Perhaps I need to toughen up.

  30. Assiduosity

    “how is it possible to construct sufficient legislation to ensure that they are not raided piecemeal to suit the kind of short term political objectives they are intended precisely not to serve?”

    Even Norway has had some politicians suggesting that more than 4% of the revenues should be diverted to their pet schemes, so you are probably correct that the UK is so endemically corrupt that they would have stolen the lot.

  31. @OldNat

    I have a feeling they probably work better when vested in smaller polities so that the electorate’s connection with the fund is more direct and oversight more thorough.

    Norwegian style state transparency would, of course, be a pre-requisite.

    I feel that local authorities should be allowed, for example, to build strategic reserves from business rates when they are highly successful local economies that could then be used to restructure / regenerate if the economic focus declines or moves elsewhere.

    This did actually happen in the 19th century, which allowed many of the provincial cities to go through successive periods of industrialisation and remodelling under the control of powerful municipal councils without huge central intervention.

    Imagine how differently things might have worked out if Glasgow, Liverpool or Oldham had been allowed to invest some of the wealth the generated and then used this to transition into modern economies.

    Again, something along these lines does happen with the close relationship between the German states and the Landesbanken.

    All of this is off the point of polling – and topic – except to indicate that the polar argument of EU vs nation state is very reductive, when there are so many other levels of governance and power that might be considered.

  32. @oldnat

    “Carfrew

    Oh goody! We’re keeping you sleep-deprived!

    Not surprised to see you wanting to p1ss short term revenues up against the wall.

    Not that it did you any good – VAT was still extended to storage costs.”

    —————

    You’re not keeping me sleep deprived, I have to stay up at the mo.

    And nowhere in my post did I advocate wasting revenues, that’s just a hopeless misrepresentation. I simply pointed out others might have different political objectives.

  33. Assiduosity

    Agreed about all levels of governance being relevant.

    There’s quite a strong strand of opinion here that representation of communities needs to be built as a dialogue between the most local level and the national level, rather than imposed in a standard format from the top down.

    The latter model is convenient for civil servants, but doesn’t match needs. Why should those on an island like Lismore be governed via the same model as those in Glasgow?

    In practical political terms, however, such reorganisation (doubtless as expensive as all the others the Westminster Tories imposed on us!) will have to wait for decisions on the EU and the UK.

  34. @Assiduous

    So you think you need to “toughen up” because I used such politically charged provocative terms as “inoculation” and “irony” in poking a bit of fun at myself for inadvertently causing the thing I was trying to avoid.

    All a bit unnecessary but whatever floats your boat…

  35. Regarding oil revenues, definitely think they should have been invested, but as to the best way, that’s an interesting debate.

    I’m interested in the idea of putting money into setting up lots of trusts to provide benefits that government can’t so easily keep messing with or selling off…

    (Blairite approach to locking in services and investment was to ramp up PFI, with contracts that can’t easily be reneged upon. But not necessarily so efficient…)

  36. AL URQA

    I agree that The Lords is undemocratic. Successive governments have failed to do anything about it. And it is ridiculously large.

    However, the UK Government resides in the Commons, which derives its legitimacy from UK voters.

  37. CARGREW

    Many thanks-much appreciated :-)

    re :-“Assiduous points out that Mason is simply choosing the lesser of two evils, which may be the case on Mason’s terms. “,

    -just to point out that he didn’t actually mention small FPTP majorities at Westminster. Nor did he refer to Labour Governments as being potentially “undemocratic”. He said that he would vote “Remain” because he didn’t want two Tories -Gove & Johnson-“in charge”.

    Of course he may have meant all sorts of things which he didn’t actually say-leaving ample room for those who wish to “interpret” his blunt statement in a way which departs entirely from what he actually said * meant.

    What struck me about his blunt honesty was , as Laszlo alludes to, how much he represents a point of view much repeated on the political Left.

  38. Apologies for the typo Carfrew-no irony , or insult of any kind intended :-)

  39. “We give Germany €52bn.” Aargh. We don’t.

    We pay companies from Germany that money. They have to produce and ship products that we value at €52bn.

    It’s not something for nothing.

    Sure. They would prefer us to be REMAIN for that reason. But if we LEAVE their government would be quite happy to forgo the tax on the profits on exports to the UK which is probably a figure less than €

    Out of sight, out of mind and all that. Successful exporters are pretty good at finding new markets.

    And like I said earlier. They would chop the rebate on Day one.

  40. CARFREW

    The remark in question is around the 14.00 to 15.00 mark-note Mason’s dismissive reaction to the suggestion that Gisela Stuart is on “The Left” !

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07898p7/daily-politics-19042016

    See also for interest the discussion at the end between Rentoul & Mason on the latter’s “interpretation” of McDonnel’s fiscal policy.

    Fascinating :-)

  41. In terms of trade agreements after a Brexit, the EU would undoubtedly seek to pick and choose. An exemption from tariffs for most industrial products could quickly be agreed. The sticking points would be financial products and services, agriculture, and the rest of the food sector, where free access would meet huge opposition. We could well end up in a position where we have to comply with all EU rules, plus a few extra ones, to keep what we have now as members. This still would not stop the French farmers parking their tractors in the roads leaving Calais when they felt like it.

  42. Juncker in the Bunker :-

    “”One of the reasons that European citizens are stepping away from the European project is that we are interfering in too many domains of their private lives. And too many domains where the member states are better placed to take action and pass legislation.”
    ” It is true that we are not very popular when we advocate for Europe. We are no longer respected in our countries when we emphasise the need to give priority to the EU. We will eventually end up with the ruins of this ideal”.

    Jean Claude Juncker to Council of Europe. 19/4/2016
    As reported by The Times.

    The Times mentions polls in Denmark & Sweden showing “unprecedented and deepening hostility to the EU”

    Has anyone got details or a link ?

  43. Another example of ambivalence to “Democracy” ??? :-

    “If we can work in solidarity together, we don’t have to wait to the election in 2020. We have got to bring this government down at the first opportunity. We need determination that will defeat them at every opportunity-whether it is in Parliament on the picket lines or on the streets”.

    John McDonnell to anti-austerity Rally yesterday.
    As reported in The Times.

  44. ALEC
    “Rather love the way the Scots Nats get very sniffy about their nationalism being decent, dignified and based on reason etc etc, while the UKIP version of nationalism is just that vaguely distasteful B&S stuff”
    ______

    Indeed. They conveniently forget the concerted SNP cyber bullying that went on during the Indy ref. I don’t see any of that emanating from Brexiters so far.
    Nationalism is nationalism and usually comes to the fore when a geographical area of people feel ignored by the national government. Viz the birth and growth of the SNP and UKIP. The fact that the eu is so blinked that it cannot see the rise in nationalism across Europe is a result of their own policies, is worrying for the future.

    Alun
    To suggest there is nobody in the SNP who wouldn’t want to deport foreign criminals is plain daft. I know that you didn’t use the phrase, ‘foreign criminals’ but that is what the debate is about in the country at large. I see nothing wrong in deporting undesirables (criminals) and having an Australian points system for entry in the first place. You have tried to turn it into a matter about race, rather than undesirability.

    Colin

    Mason is a left winger who has never been shy to let his personal beliefs show. Frankly I’m fed up with so called independent pundits providing their biased view of political issues.

  45. ROBERT

    It was even more striking when he was a C4 News economics “reporter”.

  46. @Colin

    At times of economic turmoil, the European project always struggles. It is human nature to believe in the grass always being greener on the other side.

    What would spark a total collapse in this Project would be if the UK leaves and gets any kind of preferential treatment. From what Gove has said, Gove wants both of these things to happen. What he hasn’t addressed is what he will do in the far more likely event that the latter does not happen.

    There’s a certain Trump element about Michael Gove. He seems to always believe he is right about everything and that his detractors will eventually see things his way. There in no middle ground. No likelihood that he may be wrong or that others will always disagree with him.

  47. DIESELHEAD…….” We give Germany €52bn.” “Aargh. We don’t”.
    Aargh, we do, €52bn is the trade gap between UK and Germany. You can cut and slice it as much as you like, bottom line is, Germany benefits to the tune of €52bn when trading with the UK……They produced and shipped products that we value at (Bn) €89,299,644, we produced and shipped products that they value at (Bn) €38,277,559 a trading surplus for them of (Bn) € 51,022,085.
    The German govt would be more concerned about the impact of compromising such a positive, for them, trading relationship, and the industrial resources employed, than tax returns.

  48. RAF

    I agree that uncertainty about the outcome of unilateral trade arrangements is a huge weakness for “Leave”. Indeed they have not addressed the effect of the temporary economic shock after a Leave vote at all.

    As to “No likelihood that he may be wrong or that others will always disagree with him.” -well this can be said of every spokesperson on either side. Actually by comparison with some of the invective laden contributions one hears from others, I thought Gove was measured & reasonable in tone.

  49. @Colin

    “-just to point out that he didn’t actually mention small FPTP majorities at Westminster. Nor did he refer to Labour Governments as being potentially “undemocratic”. He said that he would vote “Remain” because he didn’t want two Tories -Gove & Johnson-“in charge”.
    Of course he may have meant all sorts of things which he didn’t actually say-leaving ample room for those who wish to “interpret” his blunt statement in a way which departs entirely from what he actually said * meant.”

    All very well – except Mason has written at great length, not least in his book ‘Postcapitalism’, pieces for The Graun, C4 blog and to camera for Newsnight about the democratic deficit within the UK, how it’s ill suited to the changes in global economics, acts as a break on economic growth and how he believes that ‘permanent coalition’ is the only legitimate government in a fractured political system.

    He also makes no distinction between the legitimacy of Labour or Conservative governments elected on a minority of votes.

    Given such copious evidence, it’s reasonable to conclude he perceives democratic deficits both within the UK and the EU.

  50. @Colin

    “However, the UK Government resides in the Commons, which derives its legitimacy from UK voters.”

    Not so. Cabinet ministers and ministers of state still can and do sit in the House of Lords (therefore it contains branches of the executive), the Lords can effectively block any legislation (only convention dictates that is restricted to non-financial matters) on occasion meaning that this legislation is delayed until after elections.

    Primacy, and the ability to promulgate legislation (in most but not all cases) rests with the Commons, government is shared between both Houses of Parliament and the Crown (expressed through the sovereign, HMG civil service and the elements of the courts).

1 2 3 4 5