Labour’s performance in polls and in mid-term elections has become a political football – not just the usual rather routine spinning of parties saying how well they are doing, but a key faultline in Labour’s internal leadership battle. A key argument of Jeremy Corbyn’s critics is that he is an electoral liability – therefore they highlight anything suggesting that Labour are doing badly. In contrast Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters brandish anything that can be presented as a sign that Labour are actually doing well.

Which side is right? A lot of what both sides say is exaggerated or unfair. Some of it is just downright untrue. For what it’s worth, this is an attempt to unpick the evidence and look at it as fairly as I can. I expect, therefore, that this piece will not make anyone happy. It’s not going to say that Labour polls are the worst for any party ever, nor that Jeremy Corbyn is actually the messiah. It’s also quite long, so if you’re hoping for either of those conclusions, perhaps give it a skip.

Labour in the polls

Polls in August so far have shown Labour between 7 and 14 points behind the Conservatives. However, this is probably not a fair yardstick to judge them upon given Theresa May is enjoying a honeymoon in the polls. A more reasonable point of comparison is to go back earlier in the year, before the EU referendum. Between the March budget and the EU referendum there was an average Conservative lead in the polls of three points.

There have been frequent claims that Labour were equal to (or even ahead of) the Tories before Labour’s leadership troubles erupted. This is a disingenuous claim at best, and seems to rest wholly upon cherry-picking individual polls. There was a single Survation poll straight after the referendum result that had the Conservatives and Labour equal, but an ICM poll conducted at the same time had a Tory lead of four points and the average position at the time was a Tory lead of about three points. At no point this year have the polls ever shown a consistent Labour lead (and the last poll to show Labour ahead was in April).

votingintention

A typical opinion poll has a margin of error of +/-3%. That means if the actual position is a Tory lead of about three points, then random chance will sometimes spit out individual polls showing Labour neck-and-neck or even just ahead, or, at the other extreme, showing Tory leads of six points or more. Anyone seeking to honestly describe the state of the parties cannot reasonably just pick one of those outlying polls and claim it reflects the actual picture, ignoring the wider average. The only reasonable way of judging support is to take an average across many polls.

So, if Labour were on average 3 points behind the Tories, would that be good or bad for an opposition? The typical pattern of opinion polls is that oppositions open up leads in mid-term polls (so-called “mid-term blues”) and then governments recover as the election approaches. Obviously this does not always happen, but opposition parties that go on to win the next general election have usually opened up towering leads in mid-term polls. Oppositions that have not secured large leads in mid-term typically get hammered at the subsequent general election. On those grounds, an opposition that’s still three points behind mid-term is heading for disaster.

However, there’s an important caveat… oppositions that go on to win almost always have big leads mid-term. But that doesn’t mean they have big leads throughout the whole Parliament. In the first half of 2006 David’s Cameron’s Conservatives only had a lead of 2 points or so; in early 1975 the Conservatives were still behind Labour. In contrast, in early 1980 Labour had a healthy lead over the Conservatives. How well or badly a party was doing in the polls this early in the Parliamentary term is really not much of a guide as to how well they will end up doing at the next election – too much depends on the performance of the government in power and what triumphs and disasters fall upon them over the next three years.

Where the polls are more alarming for Labour is some of the underlying questions. Labour were ahead in voting intention throughout most of the last Parliament, but were behind on economic competence and leadership, which are normally seen as important drivers of voting intention (the ultimate explanation of this apparent paradox was, of course, that the voting intention polls were wrong). If we look at economic questions and leadership questions now Labour’s position looks bleak.

On who would make the best Prime Minister Theresa May leads Jeremy Corbyn by 58% to 12% with YouGov, by 58% to 19% with ComRes. YouGov currently give the Conservatives an 18 point lead on running the economy, when ComRes last asked in March the Tories had a 16 point lead. Looking at MORI’s long term approval trackers Jeremy Corbyn’s net approval rating is minus 41 – already pushing at Ed Miliband’s lowest of minus 44 (and those depths took Miliband years). Corbyn’s favourability rating in ComRes last week was minus 28, worse than everyone else they asked about but Trump.

Labour at the ballot box

The other way of measuring support are mid-term elections. Just like opinion polls there is a typical pattern of oppositions doing well in mid-term contests and then falling back come a general election. Oppositions that scrape wins in mid-term normally go on to lose the following general election; oppositions that go on to win have usually crushed the government mid-term.

Local elections

The results of the 2016 local elections were spun for all they were worth by both sides within Labour. Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn made much of Labour failing to gain councillors in 2016, but in fairness this was because Ed Miliband had already won the low hanging fruit when those wards were last contested in 2012. There were some social media memes claiming Corbyn did well in the local elections in 2016 because he got a higher share of the seats contested than Blair won in 1995 or Cameron won in 2006 – this is misleading because a different group of seats are up at each set of local elections (Blair’s first local elections in 1995 were the all-out district councils, including lots of Tory territory; Cameron’s first in 2006 were largely London and the Metropolitan boroughs, so were on very Labour territory).

The fairest way of judging local election performance are the national equivalent shares of the vote calculated by Rallings and Thrasher – indeed, that’s the whole point of them. The Rallings and Thrasher figures are a projection of what the result would be if there were local elections across all of Britain, an attempt to even out the cyclical differences and make one year’s results comparable to other year’s results.

At the 2016 locals the R&T projection was CON 32%, LAB 33%, LDEM 14%, UKIP 12%; a one point lead for Labour. Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters have presented this as a sign of Labour doing well, on the grounds they beat the Conservatives. The TSSA have presented it as positive because it is a four point swing from the R&T projection of support at the local elections in 2015.

These claims are flawed. Looking at historical comparisons, Labour’s performance in the 2016 local elections was pretty mediocre compared to previous oppositions. The graph below shows the main opposition party’s lead over the government at mid-term local elections since 1981.

localelect

It is normal for the opposition party to win local elections mid-term and a lead of just one point is a pretty poor result comparatively. It is not, as some of Corbyn’s detractors have claimed, the worst local election performance for decades (Ed Miliband’s Labour did a little worse in 2011 and William Hague did significantly worse for the Tories in 1998) but it is the sort of local election performance heralding failure at the next general election. It’s the same lead that IDS got for the Tories in 2002, hardly a happy precedent.

As with voting intention polls, if you look at oppositions that went on to win the next election, they won mid-term local elections hands down. Cameron and Blair both consistently secured double-digit leads at local elections. Oppositions that were roughly neck-and-neck with the government in local elections (like Labour in 1984, 1988 and 2011, or the Tories in 2002) went on to be defeated at the following election.

In summary, the local election performance from Labour this year is not the unprecedented disaster Corbyn’s opponents have claimed – others have done worse – but neither is it in any way positive news. It is a mediocre result, with far more in common with those oppositions that have gone onto defeat than those oppositions who have ended up winning the next election.

Scotland, Wales and London

On the same day as the local elections were the elections to Scotland, Wales and London. These were a mixed bag for Labour – in Scotland they were again crushed by the SNP and trailed behind the Tories in terms of seats; in Wales they largely maintained their position, losing a single seat; in London Sadiq Khan won the mayoralty from the Conservatives. On the face of it this is one bad result, one mediocre result and one good.

Labour’s position in Scotland is dire, but I think it unfair to blame it upon Corbyn: the way politics has changed in Scotland since the referendum is probably beyond the control of any Labour leader, and it began long before Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Wales is a devolved assembly where presumably many voters would have been passing judgement upon Labour’s performance in governing Wales – though the results were pretty middle-of-the-road for Labour anyway.

In London it is difficult to know how much voting patterns are down to the party and how much they are down to the politicians running for the mayoralty – was it a victory for Labour, or for Sadiq? Either way, the result is somewhat less impressive that it looks. In the first round, Sadiq Khan was nine points ahead of Zac Goldsmith,typical of other recent London elections: in the 2015 general election Labour came top in London by 9 points; in the 2012 London assembly election Labour won by 9 points. The anomaly was the 2012 mayoral election, when Boris Johnson won through some combination of his electoral appeal and/or Ken Livingstone’s lack of it. London is now a Labour-leaning city, and winning by nine points is just repeating what Ed Miliband managed in 2015. That’s not to be snooty about Sadiq Khan’s achievement in winning the mayoralty back for Labour, but it doesn’t indicate any gain in support since 2015.

By-elections

The final bit of electoral evidence offered is Parliamentary by-elections. There have been four by-elections so far this Parliament and Labour won them all. However, all four by-elections were in seats that were already held by Labour at the 2015 election – three of them by extremely large majorities – so this is again not a particularly positive sign. Governments sometime lose mid-term by-elections, but it is the norm for oppositions to retain their seats in by-elections and nothing to get excited about.

Finally there are local government by-elections – including the bizarre case of Jeremy Corbyn citing a local parish by-election gain in Thanet. Citing local council by-elections is normally a festival of cherry picking – there are a handful or so each week and results vary wildly, so it is simple to pick out only those that paint a positive picture for a party. For example, in the three by-elections last week Labour’s vote dropped by between 7 and 11 percent, the week before the change in the Labour vote varied from a 7 point drop to an 11 point gain. If you take an overall view of Labour’s performance they seem to be holding their own, but not making any significant advance – of the 164 local by-elections so far this year (up to August 11th) Labour have made a net gain of 2 seats.

How deep is the hole?

Looking at Labour position in voting intention polls and their performance in actual elections since 2015 their position is poor rather than terrible. Putting aside Theresa May’s honeymoon bounce, running a few points behind the Conservatives is far from good, but better than the sort of horrific polling that the Tories endured in the nineties and early noughties. These are not the polling figures of a party on course to win the next general election, but neither do they point to imminent extinction.

Equally, while attempts to spin Labour’s mid-term election results as positive are unconvincing, so are claims they are uniquely terrible. They are on a par with the performance of the opposition under Iain Duncan Smith or Ed Miliband.

In terms of public support Labour’s current position is poor, but not exceptionally so. Should the Parliament run until 2020 there would normally be time for them to turn things around. The problem is how they do it. Labour’s polling on underlying questions like leadership and the economy should be far more worrying for them – their ratings there are terrible. Furthermore, for as long as they are hamstrung by internal fighting, there is no obvious way for them to improve them.

The purpose of this article isn’t to apportion blame – when a leader is at war with the MPs is it the leader’s fault for failing to lead, manage and win their support, or is it the MPs fault for failing to back the leader? It takes two to have an argument. I’m also deliberately not suggesting Labour would or would not do any better under Owen Smith (given how little known Smith is to the general public I am deeply sceptical about any polling evidence along those lines… besides, we don’t know what would happen with the left of Labour and all those new members if Jeremy Corbyn was removed)

My own view is that Labour’s current position in the polls is poor, but that it doesn’t show the full extent of their problems. Polls are, as ever, only a snapshot. They could get better… or they could get worse. What happens if Labour’s internal warfare drags on for another four years? What happens if there are defections, deselections, a split? How does Labour put across its message with most of its known faces refusing to serve? How on earth would Labour fight an election in this state? The root of Labour’s problem isn’t with the wider public, it’s within itself.


319 Responses to “How badly is Jeremy Corbyn doing?”

1 3 4 5 6 7
  1. Thanks OLDNAT

  2. Geographic crossbreaks in YG/PB poll on favourability of “your MP”.

    Fav: Unf: Diff: Area

    47%: 30%: +17: Scotland
    33%: 31%: +1: London
    33%: 33%: 0: North of England
    32%: 37%: -7: Rest of South of England
    28%: 36%: -8: Wales/English Midlands

    Seems some MPs should be much more worried than others!

  3. Ambiguity in the Keirin rules. Will need a rewrite after the Olympics. Where have we seen that before?

  4. RAF

    Do we need a “finish line” camera in Lab NEC meetings?

  5. Colin
    ‘@”So you want to nationalise GPs, pharmacists, opticians, dentists etc etc? That’ll go down well.”
    Er-no-they provide services . It isn’t necessary for the State to own their buildings & equipment …………is it?’

    So do they need to own hospitals and their equipment?

    Anyway, probably new thread soon. I’m off either there or to bed.

  6. @OldNat

    “RAF
    Do we need a “finish line” camera in Lab NEC meetings?”

    Just a camera. Any camera will do :)

  7. RAF

    I suspect a “Camera Obscura” will be the best you get! :-)

    http://www.camera-obscura.co.uk/

  8. Its possible that Nicola Sturgeon is viewed differently from and arguably more positively than Alex Salmond, John Swinney, etc., in public perception, so that was why I mentioned that the finding related to Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP as such.

  9. I guess the reason remain people view the SNP less favourably is that they generally are in favour of “union”.

  10. OldNat

    “Seems some MPs should be much more worried than others!”

    This the problem with these liveability indexes. My wife who has the voting right in national elections doesn’t particularly like our MP (although we had a good chat with her last year), yet she keeps on voting for her (there was one year when she thought of abstaining).

    This type of polls works for different brands baked beans (although Heinz always wins), but not really when a hierarchical (and nested) decision making process is involved.

  11. iPad didn’t like “like-ability” in my previous comment – probably correctly.

  12. Prof Howard

    Mmm

    That still doesn’t explain why you referred to “Nicola Sturgeon’s Childrens’ Panel” (created in 1971), though.

    Since Nicola wasn’t even mentioned in the YG poll (much less Salmond, Swinney, Wilson, Wolfe, Donaldson, McIntyre or Watson – to mention only the post-WWII leaders), your explanation rings rather hollow!

    Of course, it is true that perceptions of parties are influenced by whomsoever the members have elected as the leader.

    Naturally, your posts will reflect that by always referring to “May’s Conservative Party”, “Farron’s LD Party”, “Corbyn’s Labour Party”, “Foster’s DUP” etc – won’t they?

  13. Prof Howard

    “I guess the reason remain people view the SNP less favourably is that they generally are in favour of “union”.”

    Except that those in favour of the EU Union don’t have a negative view of the SNP.

    Those who dislike the EU Union also dislike the SNP, so your thesis appears to collapse into its own inconsistency.

    I already suggested that BritNats (who favour one particular union, but not another) would dislike a party that wants to end their particular choice of union, would not be unreasonable.

  14. Prof Howard

    Sorry. I responded to your post without reading it properly.

    You are actually totally mistaken.

    Remain folk in GB are pretty neutral on the SNP. It’s the Leavers who are opposed.

  15. Hi Old Nat I would imagine that if Brexit folks dislike the SNP it could be that they would like to see Westminster having the greater powers overall, while the remain folks are happy with power being handed both up and down. Its not something I have very strong views on, just chatting if I am honest.

  16. Regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s Child Panel I had mixed that up with Nicola Sturgeon’s initiative to make sure each and every child in Scotland has an adult person to look after them, other than their parents, which was covered in the news media not so long ago, and garnered some interest across the board. It seems from what you say the Scotland Child Panel is intended only for children that have been designated as being vulnerable.

  17. While one can anticipate “leaks” from interested parties about what they plan to do in the event of changes that don’t suit them, this report might worry those who anticipate an “easy Brexit”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-banks-leave-uk-eu-jpmorgan-goldman-sachs-citi-group-deutsche-bank-a7193686.html

    “Big investment banks with their European headquarters in London will start the process of moving jobs from the UK within weeks of the government triggering Brexit, a faster timeline than their public messages of patience would imply, according to people briefed on the plans being drawn up by four of the biggest firms.”

    Of course, the Brit Nats will be reassured that RBS reiterating that it will move its brass plate to London (to be without any passporting rights) if Scotland becomes independent.

    Project Fear continues (though not necessarily consistently!)

  18. Prof Howard

    Why do you remain obsessed with Nicola?

    The GIFREC proposals were contained in the Children and Young People (Scotland) 2014 Act.

    Presumably, you know that Nicola wasn’t FM then – nor in 2013, when the Bill was introduced?

    I wouldn’t expect you to know that the Bill was the end-product of an initiative begun under the then Lab/LD Executive in 2006 – though, if you have any understanding of how legislation in Scotland is produced, you might have suspected it, and be less certain of your personalisation of legislative processes.

  19. Since we’re on the NHS I will introduce my favourite link:

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

    You will note that the UK healthcare system is the best of the 11 national systems assessed overall and on 9 of the 12 factors measured, despite being less costly per capita than any other country, except New Zealand.
    You may also note that our funding, despite recent depradations, is not that far behind France or some other countries.

    We have a fantastically good system, despite meddling, and we’d do well to remember it.

    As to delivery structures, I’ve rather moved my position on them. For many years I worked in the IT business, including a lot of public sector outsourcing. Maybe by believing my own BS and maybe because it was a fact, I was convinced we did a better job than the public sector bodies we worked for. People were protected under TUPE, including their pensions (which were better than the rest of the company) many were promoted and many blossomed in the environment. I personally was committed to delivering real value to clients and I’m sure we did.
    Eventually I got fired, perhaps because of excess customer focus ( ;-) ) and my work now is on the other side of the fence. I see the big process outsourcers (who I never thought much of) delivering stuff for us and it is fantastically cynical. They run rings around our staff who are highly professional about services but pretty clueless commercially.
    I conclude that the only things that should be provided by the private sector are things that are completely generic (like electricity, vans, computers, perhaps payroll and accounting services and elements of IT) . Simple things like bus/taxi services are OK provided the service is controlled by the public sector (like London Buses) and provided they are genuinely more economic, which I severely doubt.

    All this has nothing much to do with polling – apologies, but people were talking about the NHS in rather disparaging terms.

  20. Guymonde

    With family in the USA, I am well aware of how crap the US health “system” is.

    Mind you, I’m confused by these studies talking about a “UK NHS”.

    While all four of the NHS systems in the UK are far better than what happens in the USA, does this study actually analyse all of the UK systems, or does it try to combine the joint outcomes, or simply reflect those of the largest system?

    Your link doesn’t make that clear.

  21. Hi Oldnat: I guess because Nicola Sturgeon is something of a phenomenal leader!

  22. @Oldnat
    I have no idea, but surmise that the Commonwealth Fund, being based on the East coast of the USA and trying to compare the healthcare systems in 12 different nation states around the world, don’t go too much into the niceties of differing provision between states or regions within those nations (other than the US, which is after all their prime focus).
    I know that is very wrong indeed of them, but there you have it.

  23. GUYMONDE

    “All this has nothing much to do with polling – apologies, but people were talking about the NHS in rather disparaging terms.”

    On the NHS we can only speak from our own experiences. If I had waited for my cancer diagnosis I would have probably been dead for 10 years by now.

    Having said that I have also had to use A&E a number of times until my private cardiologist sorted me out. The A&E performance was first rate but the NHS follow up was too slow. So like most services there is the good and the bad.

  24. OLDNAT

    “report might worry those who anticipate an “easy Brexit”.”

    As I have been trying to tell people weeks, soft Brexit isn’t going to happen unless the EU backs down on it’s borders policy. I am happy the way things are going and not at all surprised by what you have posted.

  25. The Other Howard

    I think many people felt very unhappy with British politicians at the start of the summer, but it seems likely that British athletes have done much to restore pride at the end of summer.

  26. @ Old Nat

    You’ve got a much better Camera Obscura in Scotland:

    http://www.camera-obscura.net/

    But I always knew you were Edinburgh centric :-)

  27. I think Owen smith has just driven his campaign bus off a cliff. He says/implies he wants to negotiate with isis!

  28. “I think Owen smith has just driven his campaign bus off a cliff. He says/implies he wants to negotiate with isis!”

    Great. I thought one Labour leader who’d spent his life hobnobbing with terrorists and dictators was enough.

  29. @CR

    I did pick up that headline.

    I imagine if some else had said that, hell would have broken loose.

    I have looked at the BBC Live summary of the debate, and I’m not impressed. Whether a candidate recognises Ant and Dec is poor fare.

  30. CAMBRIDGERACHEL & BT SAYS… & CATMANJEFF

    When the BBC follow-up to the live coverage is
    Labour leadership debate: Owen Smith suggests IS talks
    I rather agree with CR’s Smith has just driven his campaign bus off a cliff.

  31. CMJ

    Mr Normal’s excuse for not knowing the score for the Wales v Belgium game, I was drunk. Not sure how that will go down in the valleys

  32. CMJ

    One of JC’s “aides” explained that Ant & Dec “are Tory voters”.

    So JC couldn’t possibly have recognised them.

  33. CMJ

    “I imagine if some else had said that, hell would have broken loose.”

    That’s almost word for word of Paul Mason’s Twitter. :-)

  34. I thought it was an interesting set up by BBC (I really liked people going on about their daily business – looked like looking after kids – in the background). It is not representative or anything like that, just – interesting.

    Hearing people (they did not seem to be all LP members) was also interesting as it suggested that the vocabulary and the logic in them are engaged by the two candidates (it’s not a value statement). So the question is diversion from that. Apart from the electability (sigh), there were two obvious (EU and Trident) diversion (I suppose because of the lack of consensus, while on economy, social services, etc there was a consensus among the audience) and some subliminal (from which Smith came out worse probably – hard to say, confirmation bias and alike).

  35. Paul Mason’s article in the G about “The parallels between Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Foot” contains two interesting remarks :-

    ” The fact that people are flooding into a left-led Labour party, not out of it, is evidence of a search for answers among broad sections of the population.”
    “The main event of 2016 – in England and Wales at least – is that 300,000 people have joined the Labour party.”

    Even recognising Mason’s exclusion of Scotland ( even Marxists can count) , the central message here is the one you hear time & again from the Corbyn Project.

    Look at the Membership; Look at the crowds. This mean a Revolution is underway in The Country .

    How on earth can people who shun the very idea of appealing to Tory voters & Middle England , equate the echo chamber of a Momentum Meeting , with The British Voting Public ?

    They are completely deluded in my view.

  36. I’m a cynic so I think this was fixed but how I don’t know, but looks impressive

    Take a look at @LabourEoin’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/765863179847135232?s=09

  37. I may agree with CambridgeRachel now – although not originally… About being the hole and digging …

    This is Smith following the debate:

    “There can be absolutely no negotiation with any terrorist group until they renounce violence, cease all acts of terror and commit themselves to a peaceful settlement.”

    Ignorance of Daesh on the power of three (?).

  38. Yes, I think this was a Smith gaffe. It’s clear from what he said that he was thinking of eventually you need to talk to everyone, as happened in NI once the fighting stopped, but the way he said it gifts a hostage to fortune.

    Corbyn tried to seize this, which is an interesting reversal for him, but equally funny is seeing all those (like the good doctor Eoin) furiously spinning this, after months of lecturing about how great Corbyn is cos he doesn’t spin.

    Still, no doubt at all that Smith wished he’d handled that better.

  39. Colin

    I wrote earlier that I didn’t think that Labour could win either of the next two elections (unless something really big happens).

    However, I wouldn’t dismiss the underlying notion in Mason’s opinion piece (how it can be operationalised is a different matter).

    There is a possibility that in medium term the electoral choice moves very strongly against the current dominant one (which brand of orange juice do you prefer) in a more complex decision making process (something that you described about yourself about Brexit and made you abstain). Although complexity, in general, results in lower turnout in all countries, a new generation is coming up, and they may have a different attitude to such a problem.

    It would switch from party affiliation to value affiliation – would it translate to actual voting – maybe not … The one in the hustling today about immigration is an example of it. No, we are not dealing with immigration, but with resources to deal with immigration – it could work as long as the outcome of such a response is plausible, thus reducing the level of priority of immigration for some voters. It is if A then C because of B rather than if A then D.

    But it is not in the here and now.

  40. Apparently there is an Ipsos-Mori poll.

  41. @CA – “I’m a cynic so I think this was fixed but how I don’t know, but looks impressive”

    I suppose the obvious answer would be for the respective campaigns to seek to pack the audience by getting their supporters to apply for the audience and then claim to be undecided. No idea if that happened here, but there were some accusations in the indyref of self selecting people trying to infiltrate online polling panels. We also often see what sometimes appears to be undecided (or sometimes apparently decided) posters on UKPR then swing strongly to another camp in an apparent conversion, with the suspicion that they were decided all along.

    Indeed, @Oldnat accused me during the EU referendum of faking my uncertainty as he claimed it was obvious that I was going to come out for Leave. I spoiled his theory somewhat by pitching for remain in the end, and he still hasn’t offered his apology, although this is @Oldnat we are talking about, so I don’t think anyone seriously expects any admission that he got it wrong!

  42. IP poll shows a 45/34 widening lead and also that Labour voters ar more satisfied with May than Corbyn.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3772/New-Prime-Minister-starts-with-a-honeymoon-among-the-public.aspx

  43. The headline VI lead is the biggest IP lead since 2009.

  44. Alec

    But Corbyn’s approval rating has improved from the last one :-)

    I really think any polling right now is meaningless, as they just reflect the huge turmoil in the LP, the status quo in government (considering Brexit, it is quite something) and the uncertainty about UKIP.

    The only question is how much the electorate would remember this summer of LP in four years’ time (pretty well, I would think, unless Corbyn follows my suggestions (:-)) or Smith can invent something like a miracle).

  45. “I really think any polling right now is meaningless, as they just reflect the huge turmoil in the LP, the status quo in government (considering Brexit, it is quite something) and the uncertainty about UKIP.”

    OK. How about the polling from last September to June, which was unrelentingly bad for Labour and awful for Corbyn?

    I suppose this is also ‘meaningless’?

  46. Again its the likelyhood to vote that’s killing labour, 5 points down before weighing for likehood to vote, 11 points afterwards. Interesting also that most of May’s honeymoon bounce is coming from other parties

  47. Thinking on how to attack May and knock the shine off her honeymoon, I’ve thought for a good long while that focusing on crime would be a good start.

    There has been a conspiracy between government and big business to effectively ‘de-criminalise’ online fraud, yet a recent study claimed that counting these properly would more than double crime. The sums of money are vast, and the action taken against such organised and effective crime is pretty miniscule.

    While online crime has been around for a while, May has been in charge of crime for the last 6 years, and has presided over a huge increase in ‘crime’, depending on how you count it.

    This affects most people, sometimes very seriously, with the typical response being that customers have to wise up and protect themselves.

    An effective opposition could do worse than start trying to plug away at this, in the hope that they can score some hits on May herself.

  48. Unless I am misreading that Ipsos Mori poll, it seems to show labour static, with the minor parties being heavily squeezed to the Tories’ benefit.

    Lib Dems back down to 7, and UKIP at 6 are both a bit of a shock… does it imply many voters feel minded to vote Tory to keep Labour out at any cost?

  49. Alec

    All polling is meaningless!

    Unless it agrees with the narrative we believe in. :p

1 3 4 5 6 7