ICM’s regular poll for the Guardian has topline figures of CON 45%(+1), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 10%(-1), GRN 4%(-1). Another post-budget poll showing the Conservative poll lead holding strong – despite all the fuss and the government U-turn, it does not appear to have had any negative impact on voting intention. ICM still have UKIP holding onto third place, but only by the skin of their teeth.

The poll aslso asked about the best team on the economy, with May & Hammond recording a 33 point lead over Corbyn & McDonnell (44% to 11%) and whether each party was honest or dishonest. Every party was seen as more dishonest than honest, but the Conservatives were the least bad: 19% thought the Tories were honest, 26% dishonest (a net score of minus 7), 13% thought Labour were honest, 24% dishonest (net score of minus 11), 11% thought the Lib Dems honest, 25% dishonest (net minus 14), 8% thought UKIP honest, 38% dishonest (minus 30).


653 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 45, LAB 26, LDEM 9, UKIP 10”

1 12 13 14
  1. @Tancred

    Savour the aroma.

  2. @Carfrew re. housing report

    The thing is with housing, if supply were the issue we should expect to see hordes of people homeless for the fact that there is no where for them to shelter. We don’t. The issue is the allocation of housing, not the amount of it. England at least (since the figures are for England) doesn’t seem to do badly in comparison to other countries:

    https://www.bmwfw.gv.at/Wirtschaftspolitik/Wohnungspolitik/Documents/housing_statistics_in_the_european_union_2010.pdf

    (see p. 51, occupied dwelling stock: area per person)

    Rather than big builders throwing up a few extra rabbit hutches that are “affordable” only in the Doublespeak sense of the word, radical solutions require onerous landlording laws, far better tenancy rights, using policy to reduce rather than prop up house prices, taxing property wealth. Building houses is irrelevant if the same people own the new houses as own the existing ones. Under the status quo, building a wee bit more housing stock just gives baby boomers who missed out the first time round the chance to join in and landlord it over the young ‘uns, or a few more Chinese establishment mafiosi to store their wealth offshore.

    Did you notice the forward assumptions in the Social Mobility Commission report, based on the trends of the recent past? House price rises at 5% pa, BoE base rate not reaching quasi-normal levels (3.5%) until 2030. If the degree to which the asset-rich have been and are being artificially propped up had been carried out through more transparent (or maybe less boring, wonky) means, I can’t help but think more people would be nervously wondering how easily a lamppost would take their weight.

    I can’t see any proposals from any of the main parties to really tackle the housing distribution issue. It will involve ceasing to prop up the bubble in housing speculation at any cost. And that will cost too many votes of homeowners and mortgagees who perceive their nominal, unrealisable “wealth” slipping away.

  3. @Popeye

    Yes, you make an important point about allocation. Companies and businesses trying to control the market and hoovering up supply is what you would expect under capitalism, it’s entirely normal.

    In theory, competition is supposed to be the antidote, but those with capital seek to hamper competition and new entrants.

    Thus, companies build up land banks, which lets them profit as prices rise, without even building houses, and it also denies the land to new entrants. And similarly the wealthier individuals hoover up the housing to rent it out.

    This is where the state comes in, because it can build affordable housing and allocate it to those who need it. In the process this provides a knock-on effect pulling down prices for others.

    And you don’t have to ditch capitalism, because you can allow people to buy these houses and use the proceeds to build more.

    But this proven mechanism is no longer deployed to any great extent, and so those already on the ladder get a nice windfall, which makes up for any inability of the politicians to provide an economy that ensures all benefit from its growth.

    Constraining supply and inflating house prices is a get out of jail free card for when economic policy turns out not to be as wondrous as hoped for…

1 12 13 14