The Conservative leadership election is abruptly over while a Labour leadership election begins. No doubt there will be polling on those over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime ICM put out a new voting intention poll today, with topline figures of CON 38%, LAB 30%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%.

The eight point lead for the Conservatives is a slightly larger Tory lead than at the general election, and was conducted over the weekend so does not yet account for any honeymoon Theresa May may or may not enjoy. During the leadership election May ruled out the opinion of an early general election, so if she keeps her word she’ll resist the temptation of an early election while Labour are at one another’s throats. If not it may be an interesting result.

ICM rolled out a couple of methodology changes for today’s poll. Firstly they’ve dropped weighting turnout based on self-reported likelihood to vote and replaced it with a turnout model based on demographics, secondly they’ve started weighting by level of political interest – the poll was also conducted online rather than by phone, which seems to be increasingly the case for ICM polls. According to ICM the impact of the changes is typically to increase Tory support by about a point and decrease Labour support by about a point. Full tabs are here.


987 Responses to “ICM – CON 38%, LAB 30%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15”

1 18 19 20
  1. @CambridgeGirl
    Definitely and that is why you will see on social media the ‘cybernats’ backing Corbyn because we know he is being stitched up and we know he has never been given a chance by the establishment.
    The demonisation of Corbyn supporters and in particular Momentum, calling them a ‘cult’, exactly what happened to the Yes movement. Politicians allowed to smear the movement as fact without challenge on news programs. When Jim Murphy was hit by an egg it was all over the news for days, yet a guy was in court at the same time for trying to run Alex Salmond’s car off the road.
    Blair McDougal the Labour staffer made a list of so ‘abusive’ Cybernats, honestly so mild you made the list – if you quoted Burns’ ‘Parcel of Rogues’ and gave it to the tabloid press who then doorstepped the people on the list.
    I noticed Daily Politics reading out tweets by Corbyn supporters – again fairly mild but they don’t have to be very bad to be labelled ‘vile abuse’.
    I think it is all very disgusting by a Labour Party who ought to stand up & support ordinary folk who maybe aren’t great at expressing themselves are denying them a voice.
    The demonisation is to marginalise you and to make the general public scared of you so they won’t trust you or want to be associated with you. It is the establishment playbook.

  2. @CambridgeGirl

    The BBC are the absolute worst for twisting and demonising. For example yesterday a Labour MP was in court charged with assaulting a Yes campaigner the BBC tweet headline read ‘Yes campaigner denied lying in MP assault’. & sparked a Twitter meme #TweetLikeTheBBC

  3. Laszlo

    Thanks for that, I think¿

    It was a bit creepy in a way, but I can see why you posted it. My favourite bit was

    But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”

    I don’t think I’m ever going to make a good communist !

  4. Cooper

    Thanks for that. But the Nats still won despite it, or almost. Or would it be more accurate to say because of it? Still a hopeful sign

  5. The current troubl of the LP is the relatively equal strength of the two factions. Any compromise between the two is a lose-lose situation without agreeing on the desired outcome. As there is no discussion on the outcome, the whole thing is self-destructing, in which both sides have a responsibility (although to varying degrees).

    Both sides reference their case to themselves and not the socioeconomic environment in which the party exists. So, both are just philistines. Neither “defeating the Tories” nor “struggle for social equality” are meaningful. These are unactionable normative statements. These are expressions of searching for the gap or searching for grabbing a percentage of the whole, or combinations of the two.

    Both are up to defeat.

    The point is: compromise between the two will take nowhere. It is revisiting the goals that matter. The polls give plenty of evidence to do the evaluation. Plus, use the feedback from the canvassers. Then define the goal – something that is achievable through actions and satisfies all the key actors. You will be surprisingly close to winning – in a coalition.

    Doing this analysis is not easy – you will be fighting with all your own assumptions and beliefs. But without it Labour’s fate is just another version of the LibDem rise and fall, and stabilisation at that low level hoping for hardship to come.

    The goal will have prerequisites. It will require harsh measures. As long as there is an agreement on the goals, these measures (essentially p45s to MPs and central office staff) will be minimal.

    Apologies – I just got tired of the internal, fruitless labour discussions.

  6. @Laszlo

    Trouble is, if it’s more important for one faction to stop the other winning, either because it would reveal their own policy choices not to be as necessary as claimed, or because it would deny them career advancement or directorships, or both, then quite hard to reconcile.

    This is possibly why Theresa felt she had to be rid of Osborne. He may not be keen on her demonstrating that the cuts weren’t as necessary as claimed.

    It’s also summat for the likes of Hawthorn to chew on awhile. Why, if not keen on Blairist policy, would he back a return to summat a lot closer to it? And, as Rachel points out, to a return to the shabby revolving door stuff that underpins it?

    As for internal politics, I don’t mind watching it up to a point because so alien to me. But having watched it, thought I’d chip in with what’s salient to speed things along.

    And what’s salient, in terms of how things will pan out, is who is really advancing or hindering the party, and why.

    In terms of internal politics, thus far, Corbyn’s opponents are doing most of the wrecking. In terms of policy, because he’s used party democracy to sideline some of his own views Corbyn isn’t giving attackers so much purchase. Problem is the mainstream media can sell the party poorly ignoring or undermining positives and whipping up immigration hysteria.

    Thus the key issue becomes to what extent can Corbyn bypass the media, and compete for floating voters in marginals. He seems to have a message to excite a lot of members. But question is can that be leveraged to win an election?

    In the end, despite favourable media, Tories knew it wasn’t enough. They needed an operation targeting voters individually in marginals. Labour needs this even more. I was on about this years ago, when Labour secured Axelrod and Tories Messina, and wondered on here who would win out in the targeting and mobilisation war.

    It looks like Labour weren’t really at the races. I’m not sure how many activists on here, invested in conventional methods, really get it. It’s pretty crucial.

  7. @couper,

    Yes I expect the Scottish witch woman to say how nasty the conservatives are, but really they are going to have to take some blooming responsibility one of these days. They get the most generous funding arrangement in the Uk, take credit for any positives and blame tories and labour for any mistakes. There only big foreign policy world stage piece was to put back Scottish US relations 25 years by releasing the Lockerbie bomber early. The most opportunistic party in British politics. Sooner or later the Scottish people will cotton on.

  8. @Richo

    The problem with your rant is that taking responsibility is exactly what ‘the Scottish witch woman’ intends to do. That is her goal independence for Scotland and total responsibility.

  9. Good morning all from on board a delayed 7.42 Winchester to London Waterloo Choo.Choo.

    It’s a pity T May couldn’t bring in Michael Portillo into her new cabinet as Minister for Trains.Anyway can’t complain too much at least I got a seat.

    JAYBLANC

    Thanks for uploading Boris Johnson’s job remit. I’m not too fussed what his job remit entails so long as he doesn’t upset my ol pal from the Kremlin Sergey Lavrov. ol Sergey ain’t one for waffling.

  10. The NEC’s decision to allow JC automatic entry onto the Labour leadership ballot is to face a legal challenge:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/14/labour-donor-to-mount-legal-challenge-over-leadership-ballot

  11. You got a seat?? Clearly privatisation hasn’t gone far enough if there’s still some fat in the system and more passengers could be crammed in.

  12. @Carfrew

    I believe Winchester-Waterloo is operated by South West Trains, which is a stellar franchise compared with SouthEastern and the dreaded Southern!

  13. As a right of center Independent, it was very interesting to see the first appointments in the new Government. Like most I was surprised at the appointment of the new Foreign Secretary it will be fascinating seeing what a good job he will make of it. The other appointments look sound although I know little about Rudd. I was delighted that David Davis was put in charge of Brexit negotiations.

    The most amusing of last nights posts were those by Remainer’s who still can’t face the fact that we are leaving the EU and that freedom of movement will be curtailed. I looking forward to seeing Brexit happening.

    May’s direction of travel is very “One Nation” and probably a smart move looking ahead to the 2020 election.. Not in line with my own thinking but as I have said before I’m never going to get the sort of Government I want.

  14. @RAF

    I will take your word for it!! But it wouldn’t happen under a Tory government…

  15. @RAF

    So it’s a Labour DONOR making the legal challenge? Does he not feel he’s getting his money’s worth or summat??

    Can someone mount a legal challenge over the surreal ludicrousness of it all?

  16. TOH

    The only way free movement will be meaningfully curtailed is if we don’t have access to the single market.

    By appointing Johnson to Foreign Secretary, even in a symbolic role, makes even an immigration fig leaf less likely.

  17. “The NEC’s decision to allow JC automatic entry onto the Labour leadership ballot is to face a legal challenge: ”

    I hold no brief for the PLP, the NEC or the Corbynistas, but it is difficult to see the High Court, if they decide to hear this case at all, to come up with any judgment other than one which describes the application as being totally without merit, and vexatious.

  18. Now that order is restored and Miliband’s in charge at Conservative HQ, things are changing apace. Hammond’s ruled out an emergency budget. Ruskies seem keen Hammond’s moved on…

  19. Ruskies will be happy with Boris, isn’t he like a quarter Russian! I am guessing, but know he has some descendant.

  20. TOH: “The most amusing of last nights posts were those by Remainer’s who still can’t face the fact that we are leaving the EU and that freedom of movement will be curtailed. I looking forward to seeing Brexit happening.”

    What I find most amusing is the number of pro-Brexit posters who believe we can retain Single Market membership without freedom of movement. In the real world, the choice is between EEA (with freedom of movement), or a full exit and do what trade deals we can with the EU and RoW.

    I respect any Brexiter who accepts that Brexit means leaving the EU and the Single Market, then trading with the EU on the same terms as the rest of the world. I think that’s your position, ToH, and it makes Brexit itself fairly straightforward in that all we have to do is agree the practical details. The long slog comes afterwards in re-doing 43 years’ worth of accumulated product and business regulation, and negotiating trade deals with the world while dealing with the economic fallout.

    If you’re crossing a bridge and find someone teetering on the brink, who says, “I’ve had enough, I’ve decided to jump,” there are two possible reactions. You can shrug, say
    “fair enough, you know best, would you like a push?” or you can try to talk them out of it. Maybe the second reaction is failing to face the facts, but it’s a noble human instinct to try to protect someone – or a country – from grave self-harm.

  21. well, there is a third option, you can just leave them to it…

  22. or you could try and distract them. look, a squirrel!!

    or give them an even bigger problem to deal with. Like Miliband taking over…

  23. @Somerjohn,

    I can’t remember where I read it, but as I understand it the plan would be to simply copy across all current EU regulations into UK law as a block, and then gradually replace them over time with new legislation.

    Still a massive task (the fact that there’s more EU law than anyone can count may be part of the problem perhaps) but manageable I would think. And it allows time for a proper democratic process in the UK to decide on what changes we’d like, once we have the power to do so.

    Ultimately it all depends on whether we’re in the EEA or EFTA. If we are, we’ll need to adopt a lot of the regulation anyway, so the unpicking at leisure part will be less important.

    I still believe that the difficulties in the UK negotiating treaties are being exaggerated. The ground for agreement is already there, as the status quo. Talk of the UK not “benefiting” is posturing I think. Trade talks are (or should be) about mutual advantage. There’s no advantage to either side in not agreeing to trade. I don’t see the UK trying to get “unfair” terms from the EU (you have to take our beef tariff free but we’re going to whack 10% on French cheese sort of thing). I suspect that’s more likely from the EU side. But every EU leader will be conscious of the jobs at stake in their own country, and there will be a drive to reach agreement.

    The Germans are not going to countenance the loss of industrial jobs in their country in pursuit of a French demand to charge 10% tariffs on cheddar cheese.

  24. @Somerjohn,

    I have heard sneering and dismissive remarks from anti-Tories on this site since the first day I looked at it. Brown would win in 2010. Cameron was all talk no trousers. Labour would form a rainbow coalition. The Tory-LibDem coalition would collapse in 10 minutes. Miliband would turn out to be electoral gold-dust. Osborne would never reduce the deficit. The Tories could never win in 2015. The Tories wouldn’t be able to function with such a small majority. The referendum was just an electoral ploy and would never happen. There was no point in the referendum as Leave didn’t stand a chance. Etc, etc.

    I’ve never said that the UK can definitely get a Single Market deal without accepting freedom of movement. I’ve said that this is a negotiation and that it is not impossible, but that a more likely outcome is hard Brexit with some sort of trade deal. However, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if something wasn’t offered to cut the Gordian knot.

    It must be very satisfying to be so smug that you know everything, very gratifying to be head and shoulders above your opponents intellectually and morally, and very disappointing when your certain knowledge about the future constantly gets spiked by reality.

  25. “I respect any Brexiter who accepts that Brexit means leaving the EU and the Single Market, then trading with the EU on the same terms as the rest of the world.”

    ———-

    Brexiters seem to see the matter mostly in terms of trade deals, and replacing them. Don’t appear to have engaged so much with the problem.of losing banking and other business…

  26. @NEIL A

    Is there actually a need to replace EU legislation? I think this whole thing about ‘unpicking’ legislation is big red herring. I can see the need to abrogate laws relating to CAP and CFP but most of the rest could presumably stay ‘as is’. It would need to be if we want to maintain access to the single market.

  27. @Somerjohn

    I’m pretty sure that there will have to be compromise on both sides over freedom of movement. I believe there is room for compromise on this and some kind of ‘controlled’ freedom of labour movement will be negotiated – basically an enhancement of what Cameron agreed before.

  28. Neil A: “as I understand it the plan would be to simply copy across all current EU regulations into UK law as a block, and then gradually replace them over time with new legislation.”

    Well, I think it is all part of UK law already. As 99% of it is uncontroversial, sensible stuff which we’ve already agreed to – what pigments are allowed in paint, how much space a battery hen needs, what safety tests an electric iron has to pass – I wouldn’t expect much unpicking, apart from a very-few high profile things that the press will campaign for (permitting inefficient vacuum cleaners, perhaps?) However, as I understand it the existing laws are framed in terms of, and with reference to, directives, regulations, the role of the ECJ and so on. Their practical effect assumes access to the EU machinery, which means they mostly have to be redrafted.

    No doubt there will also be some changes on employment law, but given May’s apparent social conscience I wouldn’t expect much there.

    It’s one of my quibbles with Brexit that though one of the principal Leave memes was “Brussels makes most of our laws” there seems a ready acceptance that in fact we won’t bother to change more than a tiny fraction of it.

  29. There’s no such thing as “EU Legislation”. There’s primary and secondary legislation that was approved of by parliament, that implements an EU directive. Even if we go full Brexit, none of that legislation goes away without acts of parliament to reverse them.

  30. Also, if anyone thinks that trade agreements with the EU bloc will not require continued harmonisation of law, then they need to look at the History of the way the British Empire used it’s own trade agreements.

  31. Neil A: “It must be very satisfying to be so smug that you know everything, very gratifying to be head and shoulders above your opponents intellectually and morally, and very disappointing when your certain knowledge about the future constantly gets spiked by reality.”

    Well, yes. But I think your description applies equally to hard-line ideologues on both sides of the political divide. Thinking of politicians, I’d put Tony Benn and Gordon Brown in your basket, but also Margaret Thatcher and Bill Cash. Personally, I’m part of the mushy middle, condemned to see both sides of an argument.

    But what I think is important is to challenge lazy assumptions and argument based on myth. It happens that the referendum debate was based in large part on just such myth-based argument. But in part UKPR functions as a forum for Hegelian dialectics. If someone puts forward a dodgy thesis, then it is up to the rest of us to point out the flaws and propose an antithesis: hopefully we all go home at the end of the day happily agreeing the synthesis. In reality, we keep banging on, but I do think the process is valuable and that we all gain more understanding of the position of others.

  32. @JAYBLANC
    “There’s no such thing as “EU Legislation”. There’s primary and secondary legislation that was approved of by parliament, that implements an EU directive. Even if we go full Brexit, none of that legislation goes away without acts of parliament to reverse them.”

    That’s not quite accurate. EU Regulations automatically become statute law in all member states. EU Directives mean that each member state has to pass its own version of a law implementing the Directive within two years.

    But you are correct in saying that any Regulations (and Directives which have been incorporated into UK Law) can only be repealed by Acts of Parliament, or amended via a Statutory Instrument.

    In the event of a ‘full fat’ Brexit, we could ignore any Directives made after A50 was triggered.

  33. Somerjohn

    Re Trade and free movement.
    Just because such and such a situation doesn’t exist now, does not mean it cannot exist in the future. The world moves on and the EU has no option to move on too if it wants to continue in existence.

    Think outside the box a little more and you will achieve more when negotiating.

    NeilA
    I was only thinking of all those certainties, which weren’t, the other day. Didn’t someone called RedRag used to say that Labour was a shoe in, in 2015 because there was no way they could drop below 40% in the polls?

  34. @David Carrod

    There is no function that allows EU Regulations to automatically become statute. EU Member states pass their own laws, then send “notices of transportation” when they’ve passed something they think has satisfied an EU Directive. Sometimes, those get challenged, but there’s no legal way for the EU to force a Directive onto a country’s statues, even when they outright fail to send a notice of transportation. The most the EU can do is impose slap-on-the-wrist level fines.

    This is intentional, because implementation of Directives can often discover edge cases that were not considered in their drafting, that need to be allowed for. The idea of the EU as a giant Sovereign entity of it’s own has always been false, it’s a consensus between Sovereign entities, and it would take a dramatic upheaval of how the EU works to alter that.

  35. Robert Newark: “Just because such and such a situation doesn’t exist now, does not mean it cannot exist in the future.”

    I take it you’re saying that because the EU currently says Single Market membership must involve acceptance of free movement, doesn’t mean that they won’t change their minds?

    Well, yes, just as we might theoretically drop the monarchy or adopt the euro in some future negotiation. But free movement is one of the four founding principles of the EU. To think outside that particular box is to indulge in fantasy, as in my example of dropping the monarchy.

    What’s wrong with accepting that if we leave the EU, we leave the Single Market?

    Of course we will then be able to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. It might be a long and difficult negotiation, but as many Brexiters have pointed out, it is in rEU’s interests to do so. But what there seems no rational basis for expecting is that rEU members will all agree to giving a non-member of the EEA access to the single market in services.

    Threatening to refuse free trade in goods unless we get full access for services won’t do the trick. In that case, we would be bound by WTO rules, so any import duties we impose on the EU will have to be the same as on the rest of the world (in the absence of individual trade deals).

    From the rEU’s point of view, what’s the downside of WTO trade with the UK? Tariffs of less than 10% won’t have much impact on exports of finished goods to the UK, because how are we going to replace those goods? All buy Hyundais instead of BMWs? (Tricky anyway, because many are made in Czechia). But the UK’s position in the EU manufacturing supply chain will become much harder to maintain, meaning that manufacturing shifts to within the EU. For a hard example, consider Ford. Most of their EU engine manufacturing is in the UK, at Dagenham and Bridgend. In the short term, of course that will continue. But over a 10% tariff barrier? Ditto with banking and other services.

    So addressing the clear limitations of our negotiating position is not to refuse to ‘think outside the box’. It’s always possible that our negotiating partners will roll over, wave their legs in the air and agree to a deal that is clearly against their interests and basic principles. Just as it’s possible I will win £10m on the lottery this weekend. But I’m not basing my future plans on that win.

  36. @JAYBLANC

    You’re failing to appreciate the difference between Regulations and Directives.

    For example, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 emanated from the EU, and passed straight into UK law.

    Whereas Directive 2009/125/EC relates to maximum wattages of vacuum cleaners.

  37. I’m in agreement with laszlo there can be no quarter given by either side . To my eyes the only solution to the movements current predicament will be a formal split as there has simply been too much bad blood and spleen vented to back down and there’s clearly a chasm of opinion as to the desired route to the attainment of power and the literal interpretation of the rules that underpin the very framework of the parties mechanism . Whoever triumphs from this interscene strife will feel compelled to purge which surely will inevitably set in motion the above chain of events.

1 18 19 20