Ipsos MORI have released their monthly political monitor. It’s their first poll since Theresa May became Prime Minister, so the changes since last month show the same honeymoon boost we’ve seen in other companies’ figures. Topline figures are CON 45%(+9), LAB 34%(-1), LDEM 7%(-4), UKIP 6%(-2), GRN 4%(nc). The Conservative figure of 45% is the highest MORI have shown since back in 2009 (and note how low UKIP is – MORI tend to show some of the lower figures for UKIP and other recent polls haven’t shown them nearly as low, but it’s hardly positive). Full tabs are here.

Yesterday ICM also put out their latest voting intention polling. Topline figures were CON 40%(-3), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 14%(+1), GRN 4%(nc). Still a very robust twelve point Conservative lead, but down from the sixteen point peak in ICM’s last poll. Tabs are here.


350 Responses to “Latest MORI and ICM polling”

1 5 6 7
  1. Colin

    Apologies – I didn’t see your comment earlier.

    I know that I didn’t clip those wings (how can I?), but in spite of your points, I’m sure that, with the appropriate adjustments, it is the only way to Labour to th election (my main point was the ability to to talk to different, and divergent groups).

    What I said derives from what Corbyn advocates, but it has massive implications.

    In our ward there are about 12,000 people (including kids). There are three councillors. I have seen one over 22 years and that was at an election. It is not the way, if Corbyn wants to take his own idea seriously. What is the measurement of taking the message out? I would say that It has to be over 50% participation rate in council by elections (yes I know, but they are talking about a movement) if you don’t have it, you are not talking to the electorate, which is supposedly the corner stone.

    So, what hasn’t changed: They aren’t out to sell their ideas (which are supposedly new and refreshing) to the public, but simply stay in the echo chamber. This seems to be what we hear from Guymonde and also from some research. With higher turnout Labour wouldn’t have lost a council seat in Kent, and perhaps would have gained the two seats in Thanet DC. Still there are leakages from the echo chamber.

    I don’t know why it didn’t come across, I don’t have high hopes in Corbyn and his people because what they are talking about has huge prerequisites and they don’t seem to care about them at all. I think it can be done, and I also think that even if he wins (very likely) it won’t be done.

  2. I see the Observer is carrying a story that Sadiq Khan is supporting Smith – “Ditch Corbyn now or lose to Tories, Khan warns Labour” runs the headline.

    That was from George Eaton of the New Statesman who tweets the front page with the comment “Sadiq – Labour’s most senior elected politician – backs Owen Smith.”

    Presumably Khan being Mayor of London makes him “most senior” in the eyes of Londoners, but he has far less authority or power than Carwyn Jones in Wales, so the ranking of him seems rather presumptuous.

  3. @Oldnat – yes, that labeling of SK does seem a little forced, but it is true to say that he is the UK politician with the largest personal vote, by a very substantial margin. [I saw a note somewhere which I can’t now confirm that he has the third largest vote of any politician in Europe].

  4. Alec

    Indeed, if “the largest personal vote” is to be criterion for seniority, then the London Mayor will always be the most senior politician (of any party) in the UK.

    Theresa May should clearly step aside! :-)

  5. An interesting suggestion from Ummuna.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241057/Jeremy-Corbyn-s-leadership-victory-pave-way-riots-warns-former-Labour-frontbencher-Chuka-Umunna.html

    Unless England elects a Labour Government (regardless of how “Labour” it is) then the Tories will rule for a long time, and there could be riots in some English cities again.

    If he’s right, England seems to be a very dangerous place – and probably best avoided. :-)

  6. Why have the BBC commentators largely stopped describing athletes from their team as being “Team GB” to now being “Great Britain and Northern Ireland”?

    “UK” is much easier to pronounce in a commentary than the clumsy expansion of the technical description of the UK. – even though both “UK” and “”Great Britain and Northern Ireland” are both misrepresentations of the relevant Olympic franchise that the athletes actually represent.

    However, I suppose nationalist broadcasters are always subject to political direction.

  7. And re the lottery –

    Athlete on BBC urging people to buy lottery tickets to buy more sporting success.

    Perhaps the medal table could be enhanced by using lottery cash to investigate which genetic characteristics enhance the chance of success in particular sports.

    With such evidence, a selection could be made from possible immigrant children who could have the potential to win medals.

    Of course, other Olympic franchises might decide to do the same thing, so it might be necessary to institute a breeding programme among such people, in order to maintain/enhance the medal table position.

    Distasteful, of course, but the media would happily overlook that, if their team dominated the world!

  8. @ Oldnat

    It is quite ironic that Sadiq Khan feels that it is necessary to back Owen Smith because Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable. Ward by ward analysis by Stephen Bush of the New Statesman led him to conclude that the London mayoralty was won because of Corbyn.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2016/05/victory-london-was-jeremy-corbyn-s-not-sadiq-khan-s

    I am also more than a little perplexed by Sadiq Khan’s assertion that the ‘the will of our membership should be respected’. Clearly that doesn’t apply to the 59% who voted for Jeremy Corbyn last year.

  9. Syzygy

    From The Telegraph

    “It came as Tory MP Andrew Bridgen revealed he had been approached by Labour MPs as part of an attempt to secure an early general election to “get rid of Jeremy Corbyn” as the party’s leadership contest continues.”

    This obviously isn’t about electability, if they are desperate to lose an election

  10. @”Unless England elects a Labour Government (regardless of how “Labour” it is) then the Tories will rule for a long time, and there could be riots in some English cities again.”

    I see Ummuna has joined Momentum.

  11. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    This has all to do with the long-term electability and direction of the Labour Party.

    The PLP would rather lose now in 2016 and fight a new election with a new leader in 2021 rather than losing with Corbyn in 2020 and fighting a new election in 2025.

    More importantly they also want to avoid the boundary reform which will surely see multiple MPs from the moderate and rightwing of the Labour party face de-selection if a Corbyn controlled NEC implements mandatory re-selection.

    As I have mentioned before it is absolutely in the Tories interest that Corbyn does not face an election until after boundary reform. This will help Momentum to push the Labour party even further to the Left.

  12. More seriously – for a Labour MP to explain that the Party currently generating headlines like this :-

    “lmost 6,000 people have been reported to Labour’s National Executive Committee as part of an initiative to crack down on abuse and anti-Semitism”
    (DT)

    ….might be involved in ” riots ” if the voters don’t give them a majority in Parliament is quite extraordinary.

  13. @Syzygy – “Ward by ward analysis by Stephen Bush of the New Statesman led him to conclude that the London mayoralty was won because of Corbyn.”

    No it doesn’t. If you re read that article I think you will need to agree that it is a very unrigourous and lame analysis, with no statistical evidence presented. Intellectually, it’s really quite a poor read.

    Firstly, he suggests that Goldsmith’s campaign worked, by attracting some Hindu votes and white working class votes in BME majority constituencies (although here the author says only that this is his ‘hunch’).

    He also surmises that the downside for Goldsmith was that he drove away ‘small l liberals’, younger voters and educated professionals.

    In the very next paragraph he claims the win was Corbyn’s saying “basically, Corbyn’s Labour did very well indeed wherever there were large numbers of well-educated professionals and middle class public sector workers,…”, precisely those groups turned away from Goldsmith, yet now claimed as positive responders to Corbyn and not Khan.

    Later on, he admits that Khan outperformed in Jewish areas, where Corbyn has a known and measurable problem (if only 4% of Jewish Labour members voted Corbyn, there seems little chance in him getting support from the wider Jewish community).

    It’s actually quite hard to make claims that Corbyn got Khan elected though, when it was abundantly clear in the campaign that Khan didn’t support Corbyn and didn’t welcome Corbyn’s support. That isn’t to say that some demographics would vote for either candidate, but the only clear message from this article is that Khan outperformed Corbyn’s Labour in the Jewish voter group – all else is unevidenced supposition.

  14. @Alec
    Agree, very lame. However there was a definite lack of enthusiasm for Sadiq amongst the Sikh and Hindu voters round here, which IMO had naff all to do with his policies and qualities nor with JC.
    In fact, JC was little mentioned on the doorstep: a few referred to him as hard left (but I doubt they were ever likely to vote Labour) and a few were anti because of a supposed sympathy for terrorists argument which was “JC supports Hamas/IRA and SK is a Muslim therefore they’re dangerous”
    but again I don’t think they were ever likely to vote Lab

  15. Picking up on a discussion from yesterday, George Eaton is reporting the following on Twitter:

    ‘George Galloway on why Respect has deregistered itself: “because we support Corbyn’s Labour Party”.’

    I guess the question will be how many of the 500-1,000 Respect members will be eligible. Hard for Galloway himself because of standing against Labour Party candidates in recent elections, but others with a lower profile will presumably find it easier to join.

  16. @Muddy Waters

    This is a test for how serious Labour are about building a coalition.

    A genuine broad church Labour Party should not have a problem a left wing party disbanding, and it’s members wanting to rejoin Labour, especially when they will share a broad policy agenda.

    If previous support for other parties of the left is a bar to rejoining Labour, then it is clear Labour don’t really want build a broad party of the centre-left. This would be a difficult road, and one I suspect is a road to nowhere.

  17. CMJ

    Maybe, but it look to me more like a test of Labour’s willingness to tolerate intolerant demagoguery masquerading as left wing policy.

    There are plenty on the centre-left who would see a coalition that can accommodate Galloway and some of his less delightful supporters as too broad.

    There has to be some middle ground between “no enemies on the left” and narrow sectarianism.

  18. I don’t think that New Statesman article has much credibility.

    It is likely that Corbyn supporters voted for Khan against Tessa Jowell, but there is a survey that suggested that 10% of the new members (post May 2015) voted for the Green candidate.

    I think Khan is entitled to his opinion, and can endorse whom he wants. The script is boring, and highly repetitive, but the plotters probably think that it works (this is why films are often so similar to each other, even if the script follows true events …).

    There is another element of the script which we saw during the resignations – it is staged. So we had Heidi Alexander a few days ago. On the day of her article Khan was asked whom he supported on radio and he declined the opportunity to answer, as his opinion had to come out today. So we can expect someone tomorrow or Tuesday.

    I cannot be sure, but there is one more component. The Twitter storm against Khan is really awful – it reinforces that “intolerant, aggressive, etc” depicting of Corbyn supporters.

  19. @” it reinforces that “intolerant, aggressive, etc” depicting of Corbyn supporters.”

    This is what Corbyn & his chosen support group has unleashed on The Labour Party. Momentum recently ditched its own no-violence rule.

    Theresa May will have a field day explaining who has the mantle of Nasty Party now.

    Corbyn has opened a Pandora’s Box . He is the Parliamentary figurehead of an aggressive , angry Street Protest Movement.
    I hope the Police are prepared.

    An article in ST suggests MPs might group around The Co-Op Party for anti-Corbyn organisation in Parliament , if he wins again. It is a “Party” which might provide the necessary vehicle for an approach to Bercow for recognition as Official Opposition.

    But Corbyn’s Pandora’s Box will still be open outside Parliament. I don’t see any end to the bloody schism on the political Left .

  20. Colin

    Yes, there is lots of baiting on social media, on comments sections of newspapers (both sides), and indeed a lot of intolerant stuff is coming from some of Corbyn supporters.

    Yet, I think you are extrapolating too far. In Cobyn’s Liverpool rally there was no need for police (apart from closing Lime Street as more people turned up than expected), and judging from the videos (one in the Star, one in the Mirror) very similar people were present in Sheffield yesterday. These aren’t the street fighters.

  21. @Muddy Waters

    I’ve just been looking at policies of Respect.

    All look like sound policies that a huge majority of left/centre left voters could easily agree with.

    If previous Respect members who have campaigned on these policies in the past, did so for Labour, surely it can only benefit Labour?

  22. LASZLO

    I disagree-they haven’t started yet.

    This is a Street Protest Movement with attached MPs Laszlo. It will be uncompromising -and that means violence sometimes.

  23. CMJ

    I think (well, I know) there are two reasons for these rules in the LP, and there are overlaps between them.

    One is that the LP thinks it has a God given right to be the “official” party of the left.

    The second is closing towards the left (originally against the various independent Labour parties, the PM against the CP, then against the fringe movements). This is partly for a political reason, partly for forcing the “others” to vote for LP. There is an interesting video on YouTube in which Henry Pollitt (general secretary of the CP) effectively accepts it for the 1945 GE. The CP ended up with two MPs, and then lost both in the next GE (I’m not saying that they have ever had the chance to have a sizeable share in the HoC).

  24. @”One is that the LP thinks it has a God given right to be the “official” party of the left.”

    What a telling remark Laszlo.

    Attlee & Bevan would raise a posthumous eyebrow :-)

  25. Re: the vitriol online

    I’m with Marcus Brigstock (at least in the following respect). He suggested that left wing demonstrators should march in their suits, work clothes .. or their Sunday best because it deprives antagonistic spinners of their prey. Jeremy Corbyn adopts the strategy by not responding to insults. I wish his supporters would emulate him … but I suppose it wouldn’t stop the ‘agents provocateurs’.

    As for the ‘violence’, I have yet to see anything of the sort.. in fact, the notion is risible for the Corbyn supporters that I have met.

  26. @Laszlo

    Thank you.

    I have suspected the first reason for a very long time.

    The second, I will look that at that video after lunch.

    I think the resistance from the LP to accepting PR is that without FPTP the big tent will no longer be required, and alternative left options become more credible. That would be the end of Labour as it is now, and the first reason is blown out of the water.

    The Conservatives would not be under such a existential threat at the moment, but would lose the massive bonus FPTP gives them.

    It feels like watching two old dinosaurs fighting to the death, but whoever wins, change is coming at some point.

  27. @ LizH

    ‘Looks like the PLP want to replace O.Smith but why then the orchestrated articles first Alexander & then Khan.’

    I believe that they didn’t have a choice but to put up a candidate in order to buy time to prepare for the real putsch. It is simply not credible that the Labour Right will support Owen Smith’s policy programme… and the silence of the blairite wing is palpable.

    As Laszlo has suggested, this interregnum is an opportunity to collect evidence for (presumably) a court case in which they will argue that the LP has been subverted by entrysts and that the brand and assets should therefore be handed over to ‘True Labour’. I assume that ‘Labour Tomorrow’ is the vehicle to collect funding for legal action.

    I’m afraid that IMO Alexander and Khan’s pieces are just part of the pretence and more bait to collect the sort of abuse that Colin reports. If Owen Smith does better than expected, it will be grist to their mill. There will be slightly more of a problem in undermining the legitimacy of the election if OS wins but they clearly don’t expect that he will.

  28. CMJ

    All look like sound policies that a huge majority of left/centre left voters could easily agree with.

    They don’t look at all like that to me (not that I can speak for the huge majority of left/centre-left voters), and it’s probably beside the point given that Respect has been a personal vehicle for Galloway rather than a more typical programme-based party. I guess we’ll find out if and when his reinstatement campaign gains any ground, but I’d imagine that extending the Labour tent to cover Galloway territory would alienate a large proportion of Labour’s social democratic wing – so moving the left-coalition to the left rather than broadening it.

  29. CMJ

    It is the last 20 seconds of this.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6yxRGdq1I

    There was a longer Pathe news version in which there is some elaboration on the point, but it seems it has gone.

  30. @ Laszlo and CMJ

    I love the reversed brief case lectern…

  31. Syzygy

    :-)

    Well, from 1945 onwards you can see almost all of them only reading from notes (except for those who had party dispensation). So this video represents a transition :-).

  32. OldNat

    An interesting suggestion from Ummuna

    Chukka seems to be advocating doing just enough to stop poor people becoming so angry they riot.

    Is this what passes as ‘triangulating’ in the current Labour Party?

  33. just in case, as it seems nobody mentioned that DT article (that the DM refers to) with Ummuna is from September 2015 before Corbyn won (and yes, there was no plotting, no sabotage, but genuine attempt to engage with the new leader, unfortunately his leadership shortcomings obstructed the PLP to be an effective opposition. It is also true that the wolf ate little red riding hood and grandma, but then the hunter cut the wolf’s belly, and both were safe and sound).

  34. Anthony Wells

    I didn’t know it was wrong to suggest how to get around offending words in a link.

    Apologies, and I will not do it again.

  35. Test

  36. @AW Sorry I thought commenting on the person DH was banned but not linking an article written by him.

  37. I didn’t know where the whole thing was so familiar :-). All changes from th original text are clearly marked. It is obviously just a coincidence.

    In the summer of [year], [they] united to form an anti-Party bloc, made it a rallying point for the remnants of all the defeated opposition groups, and laid the foundation of their secret [organisation], thereby grossly violating the Party Rules … [in spite of the warnings] They went on banding together their … party, started [a] … printing press, collected membership dues from their supporters and circulated their platform. ….

    In their platform, they professed they had no objection to Party unity and were against splits, but in reality they grossly violated Party unity, worked for a split, and already had their own … party ….

    In their platform, they professed they were all in favour of the policy of […], and even accused the [party] … of not proceeding with [the policy of …] fast enough, but in reality they did nothing but carp at the Party resolution on [this policy] ….

    In […] the Party announced a general Party discussion, and the fight began. … 724,000 Party members voted for the policy of the […]; 4,000, or less than one per cent, for the bloc of […]. The anti-Party bloc was completely routed. The overwhelming majority of the Party members were unanimous in rejecting the platform of the bloc..

    But even this lesson was lost on the supporters of the bloc. Instead of submitting to the will of the Party they decided to frustrate it. Even before the discussion had closed, perceiving that ignominious failure awaited them, they decided to resort to more acute forms of struggle against the Party …

  38. Colin

    Yesterday the cooperative party had 9000 thousand members, thanks to that article they probably have 100,000+ members today

  39. If the Labour MPs want to get away from us they will have to join the tories

  40. CAMBRIDGE RACHEL

    Is that what is known as “entryism” ? :-)

    Your use of the word “us” in a phrase which makes Labour MPs “them” eloquently describes the collapse & implosion of The Labour Party .

    Have fun in your war with your MPs. You’re doing a great job .

  41. I can nly suppose that those suggesting/reporting on a supposed use of the Co-op Party as a home for spitters hven’t bothered to read the Co-op Party rules. These explicitly say that siting MPs are not eligible for nomination to the Co-op Party parliamentary panel. So it is simply not possible for new sitting MPs to join the existing group.

  42. Colin

    Have you been paying attention, have you heard what the MPs have been calling the members? A lot of the MPs have made it very obvious for a long time that they see it very much as “us and them” and that the members should know their place

  43. Robin

    Im guessing it just to see what kind of reaction it gets, i didn’t take it too seriously

  44. CR

    UKPR is becoming more & more like this :-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

  45. @ Robin

    ‘I can nly suppose that those suggesting/reporting on a supposed use of the Co-op Party as a home for spitters hven’t bothered to read the Co-op Party rules. These explicitly say that siting MPs are not eligible for nomination to the Co-op Party parliamentary panel. So it is simply not possible for new sitting MPs to join the existing group.’

    Thank you. It all seemed very doubtful to me but you clearly know it to be. For a start, the article talks about 100 Co-op and Labour MPs when a cursory search indicates that there are fewer than 25.

    We seem to be beset with misinformation and false trails. In fact, just as Adam Curtis described in his film ‘Oh Dear’.

  46. Robin

    If you refer to Section H of the Co-op Party, it is irrelevant.

    However, there is a six-month membership rule for officers, etc. However, as in the case of the LP, the Co-op NEC can do what they want.

  47. Robin

    Sorry, I should have been clearer.

    The point itself doesn not obstruct existing MPs to become members.

    However, it would be essentially impossible without the LP’s approval, and would cause problems at the end of the current Parliament.

  48. New Fred.

  49. Anthony Wells end of June Survation putting labour and conservatives neck and neck was cherry picked. He points to an ICM poll which gives Tories a four per cent lead. This poll was not publicised in the newspapers at the time, as far as I can find. Perhaps someone will explain how Wells derives his four percent lead?.

    http://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Voting-27thJun16_pv-only-BPC.pdf

    icm voting intentions 27 june 16

    In the top line there or 509 Con and 508 lab, near enough equal. I make the total 1527. Where have the other 474 ? are they unlocated or dont knows? I dont know. All you experts will. If we take 1527 as the numerator I get 33 per cent equal pegging. How have these data been interpreted to give a four per cent lead to the Tories

    to anyone willing to enlighten me by email I shall be gratful

    [email protected]
    the triple n is intended

1 5 6 7