ICM’s regular poll for the Guardian today has topline figures of CON 44%(+1), LAB 41%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1). Fieldwork was between Friday and Monday, and changes are from a fortnight ago. Tabs are here.

There was also an Opinium poll for the Observer at the weekend, which had toplines of CON 42%(nc), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 6%(-1). Fieldwork for that was Tuesday to Thursday, and changes are from February. Tabs are here.

Both polls also asked questions about how political leaders had responded to the poisoning in Salisbury, finding a similar pattern to YouGov last week. ICM found people thought Theresa May had responded well to the Salisbury poisoning by 51% to 22%, and thought Jeremy Corbyn had responded badly by 42% to 23%. Opinium only asked about approval of May’s response, but 41% said they approved, 20% disapproved.

Neither the ICM nor Opinium poll has significant changes, so I’d be cautious about concluding that the poisoning has had any impact on political support. Nevertheless, if we look at the longer trend in public support it does look as though there has been a slight improvement in the Conservative position – late last year the polls were typically showing a small Labour lead, in the last couple of months they’ve averaged out with Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck. Whether that small change really matters is a different matter, we’re a long way from a scheduled general election and there are some very big “known unknowns”, like Brexit, before we get to one. A couple of points either way at this stage of the Parliament is neither here nor there.


1,127 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 44%(+1), LAB 41%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1)”

1 21 22 23
  1. @ lazslo

    I was struggling with the point you were making to be honest. Being a bit ignorant on overseas politics (other than a general idea of the breakdown between hard left, hard right etc) I probably need a lesson from you on Die Linke as I Wiki’d it and didn’t come up with anything that stood out in the way that a Wiki on 5 Star would.

    But if I understood you right you seemed to be saying that the more radical parties will attract some rather random people? This is probably true but call me complacent if you like I just don’t see a threat of any change from anti racist credentials or on other issues. Obviously there is the potential for some bad publicity if individual go off on their own crusades but nothing i see that is likely to effect policy.

  2. This estimate of the annual cost of Hard Brexit to every person in Aberdeen – £2300 – is in line with the gloom here.

    https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/report-warns-of-brexit-effect-on-granite-city/

    The only recent pleasant local news for me, is that a giant sea crane has arrived and started the construction of the wind turbines which Donald Trump vowed to stop.

    Trump even campaigned by telling us which party not to vote for in a Scottish GE, using newspaper adverts and posted messages. If UK folk had given advice on voting in US elections, DT would have been furious.

  3. Commercial data sharing diversion.

    Last night I started watching a BBC documentary on iPlayer about UB40 (the group, that is*). I hadn’t bought anything by, searched the net for, or even thought about UB40 for many years.

    This morning, when I checked my email at work, I had an unsolicited email (well I had many actually) which was advertising upcoming gigs by UB40. Does this mean BBC are selling their iPlayer viewing records now? Very probably, I guess I signed up to that at some point.

    * Loved their early stuff, but got bored later.

  4. tyler is guilty
    the white judge has said so

  5. @ToH

    “We all get cross from time to time if what we really believe in gets trashed in some way.”

    ——–

    Well calling it a belief that got trashed, can make it sound a bit like one had some naive belief that got fairly torn apart and one didn’t like being confronted by the truth.

    Quite a few on here are not troubled at all if someone points out some error. It’s something they appreciate, the opportunity to not continue in error.

    This is different however from someone misrepresenting an argument, or chucking in ad Homs and worthless provocations that leave the original case intact.

  6. CHARLES
    “People like me who voted remain are devotees of project fear and see nothing but ruin on the horizon.”
    Not necessarily. I suspect the tendency will be for the economy to adjust – to market forces rather than to deals done by the Government with alternative partners – and in that respect to go into unknowns, which might include increased productivity and earnings and maintain more or less present GDP and inflation.
    What I fear is, on the one hand that trade deals, with the US in particular, will involve opening our services sector to access of US health and financial services which will erode standards and public control, and the food sector to a lowering of quality, health and safety and related animal welfare.
    Further that we will have lost cultural, scientific and educationl ties and a specificially UK participation in the EU as a great and evolving civilisation one to which we owe it to our children to maintain and strengthen our enjoyment, values and participation. In that regard we will be infinitely poorer as people, and have made our counry so.

  7. From the Times…

    “The co-founder of the technology company at the centre of the Vote Leave whistleblowing allegations was invited to Downing Street months after the referendum campaign.

    Jeff Silvester, of AggregateIQ, was pictured outside No 10 last year.

    Access to the prime minister’s official residence is tightly controlled and Mr Silvester’s visit would have been authorised by a Downing Street staff member.

    Last night the prime minister’s spokesman said they were unaware of the visit and were investigating who had invited him and who he had met while there.

    Michael Crick, the Channel 4 journalist who unearthed the photo, said that Mr Silvester had also visited the Conservative Party headquarters.”

  8. NickP at 3.06pm.

    Here we go again. After showing some understanding of the nature of the many-headed hydra of antisemitism he spoils it by asserting that the accusation of this heinous hatred is used to silence critics of Israeli government policies. Not only is this assertion not true, it is itself a very subtle form of antisemitism in that it implies Jews use it to play the victim card – “oh, those poor Jews, why are they SO sensitive?”

  9. NICKP

    Just spotted this:

    “crofty – you seem to have lumped a lot of my posts together.”

    Which amused me at the thought that it could all have been from one post – that would have been going some!

    ps I do worry that, in the end, you will – rightly – be complaining bitterly that Corbyn/new old Labour have been beaten by the system; my own feeling is that we already know that we face that enormous problem and simply dealing with it better.

    Squaring this circle will always be a problem for Labour, although I do hope, like you, that the younger generation will eventually come to the rescue.

  10. pointer

    actually Jews complaining about actual insults or slights are fine – also complaining if they feel a complains hasn’t been investigated properly.

    But complaining that this is happening with the only example being something about a mural 2 years ago – and then constructing a case based upon just that that both Corbyn and/or his supporters are all institutionally and thoroughly anti-semitic – no.

    There was a recent inquiry into this (Chakrabaty) that found that wasn’t the case. So what is the new evidence apart from media furore?

  11. NICKP

    Apology accepted, and I apologise to you if my take on matters upset you. I have plenty of criticism for the current government, and am perfectly happy to debate the merits or not of various policies (I’m not necessarily as right of centre as you might imagine), but I do think that political tribalism can lead some people into being too willing to label their opponents as malicious and forgive glaring mistakes made by their own camp. Attacks from the other side are part of the territory and are always going to happen, it’s how you handle them that matters. I’d say that on that basis Christine Shawcroft and her backers are making an awful mess of the current situation.

    CROFTY

    I don’t particularly buy that moron retains any of that past usage, the same doctor who invented it as a classification also applied the words idiot and imbecile to other levels of mental disability. If you rule out the use of anything which some eugenecist ever used to label people then we’d have no insults at all.

    Anyway, lets say that political stupidity is rife. I’ve been acquainted with several people pursuing political careers with major parties (or at least two major ones and one formerly major one). Most of those with a spark of human decency left politics in order to do something more worthy with their time, like journalism, law, or marketing. Many fell victim to their own stupidity along the way, doing something foolish enough to permanently end their chances. Some of them have actually managed to climb the greasy pole and now sit in the commons or work in number 10, but they’re the most coldly sociopathic of the lot, and I don’t doubt that eventually they’ll do something stupid too and end their careers in ignominy.

  12. @Turk

    “If you create a party to become a mirage image of yourself rather than a broad church and surround yourself with acolytes then you should expect criticism to be levelled at you personally.”

    ———

    Oh, you mean like May’s purge of Cameron, Osborne et al?

  13. SHEVII

    I’m sorry for my comment being foggy. It is because the issue is simple, but the context is complex, and I feel that the contexts need to be clarified before the issue,, and perhaps I made it worse.

    So I try again, concentrating only on your questions. I’m afraid there will be a lot of assertions …

    Anti-Semitism and racism in social democratic parties is different than in right wing parties. It is because of two reasons – international solidarity, and because of their ultimate aim (declared and undeclared).

    Radicalisation is a normal occurance, but it’s different when whole layers of the society get radicalised. There is no left or right wing radicalisation – it is a direction less expression of discontent against the existing order. There are many reasons why people feel like this, be it a single reason or a resultant of reasons. Still, it makes them vulnerable as parties and ideologies competing for their support promise to remove pains (in marketing terms it’s much effective than promising something beneficial).

    I can’t blame these peiple, even if they are responsible for their actions, of course, whatever repulsive it might be. I hold the people who are in the position to prevent responsible, and also those who exploit this vulnerability. And also those that have seen once to be led on the path, and allow being led again down on the same path.

    By allowing the channels of racism (including antisemitism) to mobilise discontent for narrow party political purposes, the Labour Party follows a game that is unacceptable to my mind, and extremely dangerous for Labour itself.

    I brought in the Linke, because it shows how easy it is to slip from a left-wing position to well, Mussolini? I mention this also, because Corbyn does have this tendency – basically ignoring the second verse of the Internationale – “There is no saviour above us”, and positing his policies and his movement as a saviour above the people (morally and intentionally). It is an undeniable returning theme in his speeches.

    While the UK is relatively free from these radicalized stuff, it is on the rise, and expressed more and more as identity politics.

  14. well, garj, I just don’t see the moron you see when you look at Jeremy Corbyn. But then, I don’t see the Messiah either.

    Personally I’d like somebody younger but with his socialist credibility – and that’s proving problematic.

    Sadly voters have learned not to trust some who claimed to be on their side from bitter experience.

  15. Its a pity an MP like Stephen Kinnock doesn’t actually believe in Socialism! I warmed to him (and his missis) when I saw that BBC doc the Summer that Changed Everything.

  16. test

  17. Neues Thread

  18. NICKP
    “So what is the new evidence apart from media furore?”
    The whole point of the strategy is that it should not be based on evidence. We’ve been here before:
    The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines “McCarthyism” as “the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence”.

  19. CHARLES

    I imagine a number of people will disagree with the above!

    My guess would be that most will accept it if it’s no worse than EEA [*] but that it will give everyone something to moan about. Remainers will point out how we have thrown away any chance of influencing EU decisions whilst TOH, SEA CHANGE et al will be complaining that we have become a vassal state.

    I agree with you on the Lab position albeit that given the Cons seem to have no firm positions on anything there’s very little to attack.

    [*] Of which no attempt has been made by HMG to invoke EEA A127, which requires a year’s notice and is being tested in the UK courts. I’d be surprised if, like EU A50, the Westminster parliament doesn’t have to approve it.

  20. POINTER @ BZ

    Re antisemitism, if the word has acquired a new meaning then I apologise as my OED dates from the 1960s, but are you suggesting that arabs are not semites?

    Spain, where I spend around half my time, was undoubtedly antisemitic to both Jews and Moslems for some centuries and still shows the odd trace of it. Even Switzerland, where I spend most of the rest of my time has had street protests and the odd local referendum in recent years aimed at preventing new synagogues and mosques although few were successful.

  21. NickP @ and John Pilgrim

    What is the (made-up, pro-Tory, etc) furore about and what is the evidence? you ask.

    I suggest glancing at the recent news might help. To say nothing of your (clearly unself-reflecting) avoidance of the issue of left-wing antisemitism itself.

  22. Barbazenzero

    Re antisemitism, if the word has acquired a new meaning then I apologise as my OED dates from the 1960s, but are you suggesting that arabs are not semites?

    Antisemitism means hatred of Jews. It was probably coined by Wilhelm Marr in Vienna in the 1870s where he founded the Antisemitic League in 1879.

    Although widely believed, neither Jews nor Arabs nor anyone else are ‘semites’. The word ‘Semitic’ denotes a language group having certain basic elements in common. Thus Semitic languages include Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic (the demotic language of the times of Yeshua, transliterated as Jesus in the Indo-European language group, of which the main branches are Greek, Latin and subsequent romance languages and German, with all its branches).

    To refer to population groups by the languages they speak is one enormous category mistake. But Marr was typical in using the racialised discourse that was invented in Germany from the late 18th century and is still widespread today. The purported division of humanity into different races, let alone in some kind of moral or cultural hierarchy, is utter rubbish. Thus Jews are not a race. They are a descent group, albeit one which embraces those who are not ‘born’ Jewish but wish to identify with it.

    I’m sorry if this seems pedantic, but if you really have only a hazy idea of antisemitism I hope this is helpful.

  23. POINTER

    Fair enough, although the usage seems strange when semitic refers to a group of peoples/languages developed in one region whilst antisemitic applies to only one of them.

  24. Pointer

    “What is the (made-up, pro-Tory, etc) furore about and what is the evidence? you ask.
    I suggest glancing at the recent news might help. To say nothing of your (clearly unself-reflecting) avoidance of the issue of left-wing antisemitism itself.”

    Sorry won’t wash. i asked what was new outside the media furore and you replied “check the media furore”.

    One of us is being ‘had”, and I don’t think it is me.

  25. “One of us is being ‘had”, and I don’t think it is me.”

    Are you sure, NickP? David Aaronovitch’s column in yesterday’s Times might disabuse you, but not if your head remains in the sand, let alone the Christine Shawcross debacle yesterday.

    Why on earth are you so resistant to evidence of antisemitism in our political process? Can you not be self-reflective?

  26. Correction: Christine Shawcroft (I was distracted by Easter).

  27. POINTER
    “Here we go again. After showing some understanding of the nature of the many-headed hydra of antisemitism he spoils it by asserting that the accusation of this heinous hatred is used to silence critics of Israeli government policies. Not only is this assertion not true, it is itself a very subtle form of antisemitism in that it implies Jews use it to play the victim card ”
    I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to Nick or to Corbyn. Yesterday Corbyn sent a letter as leader of the Labour Party to all party members setting out clearly the position of the Party and his own position as being opposed to racism and to anti-semitism. The position he sets out covers specifically the party’s forbidding to its members of any statement which uses criticism of the Israeli Government’s policies to cloak anti-semitic references or sentiment.
    Chakrabati’s review was intended to identify any past or existing elements of anti-semitism or related racism in the party. The subsequent actions taken by Corbyn and the executive are intended to pursue and put an end to any remaining or future occurrence of anti-semitism in the party.

1 21 22 23