Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor came out today. Topline voting intention figures were CON 41%(-2), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 10%(+4). Fieldwork was the 20th to 24th April (that is, last weekend, just as the Windrush scandal was getting going) and changes are since last month. The ten point score for the Liberal Democrats is unusually high, the largest share they’ve recorded since the election, though the four point increase in a month is probably exaggerated by an unusually low score a month ago.

Jeremy Corbyn’s personal ratings have fallen noticably. 59% of people now say they are disatisfied with his leadership (up 7), 32% are satisifed (down 5), giving him a net rating of minus 27. This is his lowest rating since his ratings rose so dramatically during the election campaign. In comparison Theresa May’s approval rating was minus 17, the government’s minus 33. The rest of the poll had some more in depth questions on leadership qualities. May scored better than Corbyn on being patriotic (by 29 points), on being good in a crisis (by 18), being a capable leader (by 14) and having sound judgement (by 10). Jeremy Corbyn lead May on personallity (by 23 points), on honesty (by 7 points), and was far less likely to be seen as out of touch (by 25 points).

By 47% to 44% people narrowly disagreed that Theresa May had what it takes to be a good Prime Minister. In comparison, 30% think that Jeremy Corbyn has what it takes, 58% do not. Looking at some potential alternative Tory leaders, by 60% to 12% people think that Michael Gove does not and by 34% to 6% they think Gaving Williamson does not (though note the very high don’t knows). Boris Johnson – once the Tory who could reach parts others could not – has lost his magic: 72% of people think he doesn’t have what it takes to be a good Prime Minister, only 17% do. The best net score was for Ruth Davidson – 29% think she has what it takes to be a good PM, 29% do not.

The full data for the MORI poll is here.

Also out today were the tables for YouGov’s poll last week, which came out in the Times over the weekend but got rather overlooked. Topline figures there were unchanged from the previous week, CON 43%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc). The fieldwork was on Tuesday and Wednesday, so like MORI, before the Windrush scandal had really played out. We will have to wait for the next round of polling to see if that has had any impact. The full YouGov tables are here


149 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 41, LAB 40, LDEM 10”

1 2 3
  1. Rjw,
    History suggests that local elections between national elections are often used to express a protest vote, which fails to hold up on the next general election. The same is likely to apply to the brexit referendum, where despite high hopes by tories that labour leavers would turn to them on the recent election. …They mostly didn’t.

    It isn’t really clear how many voted leave as a protest against government urging the opposite. Quite possibly enough to have swung the result.

  2. Alec,
    I do wonder if may and rudd have sought to demonstrate to the nation the real consequences of a policy of reducing immigration, of the sort being demanded by Brexiteers. If it turns out the public doesn’t like the consequences of restricting immigration, then why leave the EU so as to reduce immigration?

  3. TOH

    Be careful what you wish for. You may support the present government’s agenda and feel outraged about any impediment to it, but I doubt you’d be very pleased if Corbyn were to get into power on a slim majority and had the ability to impose his entire agenda unopposed.

    The House of Lords is one of the better-functioning parts of our legislature, and tends to do a much better job of scrutinising legislation than the Commons. It might have something to do with the ability to vote with their conscience which freedom from reelection provides. The Burns report provides a very good set of proposals for reforming the Lords without throwing away those aspects of it which have made it successful.

  4. @Charles

    “And yet others are genuinely convinced about the way in which ‘dependency’, ‘prolific muslims’ or some other alien vice or culture are a threat to civilization as we know it. ”

    ——–

    A lot of these people who worry about “dependency” were perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of having all that QE pumped into their local economy and to have assets inflated in other ways. And things like winter fuel allowance and triple lock while others have pension ages pushed off into the distance.

  5. COLIN

    Many thanks. As you can see from RJW’s post, treatment of Prostate cancer has improved a great deal over the last 20 years, even when as in his case it has spread. I am very lucky in that I have had it for 15 years now and while neither surgery nor radiotherapy have totally eliminated the disease my state of health remains good.

    Both RJW and I are very supportive of having the PSA test if you are 50 or over, or even earlier if you have the classic symptoms. It is a simple blood test as he says and can then be followed up if their are any worrying indications from it. Like most cancers, prostate cancer is usually treatable if caught early enough. The test should be taken annually especially if there is a family history.

  6. @Carfrew

    The first rocket-powered soft landings were back in 1966, when both the Soviets (Luna IX) and Americans (Surveyor 1) landed on the moon. Go forward to the 1990s and you can find the McDonnell-Douglas DC-X, which was the prototype for their Delta Clipper SSTO and demonstrated automated vertical landing. It’s only people who don’t know the history of spaceflight, who get taken in by Musk’s hype and think that he originated these ideas.

  7. Charles & RJW

    Many thanks for your kind wishes, I wish the same to you and yours.

  8. GARJ

    “Be careful what you wish for. ”

    Your point is well made, I used to think that it was better to have two chambers and I have struggled with it as an issue for many years before coming to my present view.

  9. If you don’t want PR and a body to challenge the House of Commons the solution is second chamber that doesn’t get elected but rather selected in the same way as a Jury.

    Randomly select one voter every term from each constituency.

    Phase it in over a fixed parliament term so that only 20% are elected each time.

    No party elegance, no appointment for favours, no former politicians.

    Peter.

  10. For anyone from a non-economics background interested in understanding the economics issues surrounding trade in goods/services, current account, etc, there are lots of tutorials on the web with the ‘formulas’ and often some historical info. EG
    https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5776/trade/uk-balance-of-payments/

    If any LAB or Remain want to explain how LAB’s Brexit policy (aka Turkey deal or CU-SM) is going to help sort out our chronic and unsustainable current account deficit I would love to hear it. It will make it WORSE!! Lunacy.

    @ DANNY(from last thread) – again, until you look at the trade info there is not point me replying to you. If you can answer the above then let’s have an intelligent discussion.

    @ ALEC (last thread) – What do you want me to say?
    a/ We haven’t left yet
    b/ We were always going to have a dip during the “uncertainty” period
    So yes, 2017 wasn’t a great year (due to the above). However, it certainly wasn’t a recession and we didn’t see unemployment rise 500,000 (the exact opposite in fact).
    Brexit is about rebooting the UK economy for the FUTURE

  11. Peter Cairns

    As 98% of people are uninterested in politics, is seems that random balloting would be unlikely to produce a capable second chamber and most would most likely defer to party allegiance whenever they didn’t care or understand a topic.

    Out of 500 say, you might get 10 people who took the role seriously.

  12. @Leftie Liberal

    You seem unable to even remotely compare like with like.

    Doing it on the moon with no atmospheric heating and low gravity in a purpose-designed vehicle that did not have to first launch a big payload and isn’t going thousands of miles an hour away from the target and doesn’t have to be reusable and can have throttleable engines and isn’t almost out of fuel is NOT REMOTELY THE SAME THING.

    And similarly the DCX just hopped up and down and only reached an altitude of ten thousand feet. It didn’t have to launch a payload and go at thousands of miles an hour away from the launchpad and reach an altitude approaching a hundred miles outside the atmosphere.

    Blue Origin more recently have been hopping up and down too. Strangely, they haven’t been getting orders to put satellites in space because, like the DCX, hopping up and down a bit is an insufficient requirement for putting satellites in orbit.

  13. PETER CAIRNS

    Ye gods, no. A horrible idea. Like Alan says, very few people have an interest in politics. I’d go further and say that most people are idiots (ourselves included). The Lords does a lot more than wave legislation through, it plays a hugely important role in scrutinising it and ensuring that our laws actually function. I would far rather a chamber of experts.

  14. @Colin

    I’m going to trade some news cuttings with you because I know how keen you are to know what’s cooking out there. This story is getting real traction locally in rhe West Midlands and was all over the BBC TV Midlands Today bulletin this evening. It plays a little into what my local Labour candidate was telling me last night about some of the low tactics increasingly being employed by the Tories on social media and in their election literature. Pretty shocking isn’t it? You’d be appalled if some Labour candidate did this, wouldn’t you? I expect you’d have let us know pretty damned quick if you’d spotted it somewhere: –

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-43961953

    I’d be interested in your views.

  15. @LL – “It’s only people who don’t know the history of spaceflight, who get taken in by Musk’s hype and think that he originated these ideas.”

    I always tend to think of the Steve Jobs accolytes in the same vein. He didn’t invent much – just repackaged stuff other people did and was a good showman. He also nearly bankrupted the company. To me, Apple sell stuff that is OK but grossly overpriced and with all manner of restrictive practices that force consumers to spend more with Apple. Never really understood why he’s seen as some kind of demigod.

    On the Musk transport ideas, if he started to work for a world where we needed less transport, then I might get interested. He’s inventing solutions that are part of the problem, rather then starting to recognise what the problem actually is.

  16. @Alec

    “He didn’t invent much – just repackaged stuff other people did…”

    ——–

    That is a big part if the gift. Working out which bits of the package to take from all the bits out there, and then putting it all into a package that works well.

    Jobs or his engineers didn’t invent all the tech that went into the iPhone or iPad. But they made it work seamlessly. Touch interfaces etc. before that were clunky affairs.

    Musk didn’t invent rocket power. He didn’t invent powered descent. But being able to do a powered descent in a launch vehicle travelling thousands of miles an hour away from the target having reached outside the atmosphere with only enough fuel for a couple of thirty-second burns and then being able to reuse it increasingly cheaply? No one else can do all that.

    If Musk makes Mars colonisation work, again, he’ll use tech already developed. He’ll probably use the Sabatier process to turn CO2 and water on Mars into Methane and Oxygen to refuel the rocket for the return trip. He’ll design the rocket to use methane to that end, and it won’t be the first methane engine etc.

    But if he does it, he’ll be the first to put it all together and make it work.

  17. Garj,

    I never said I was in favour, but the Ancient Greeks used it and as I said we use it for trials which most people support.

    As to only a few being interested in politics, there is a big difference between not being interested in Politics and not being able to do it.

    If as you seem to think that most people are idiots then that by definition includes politicians and Lords as well as experts.

    Peter.

  18. Just want to add my agreement to what ToH has said about prostate cancer. I had to have a cyscopy four years ago at 50 years old. I was given the all clear. For a few moments of discomfort it might just save your life.

  19. @Alec

    “On the Musk transport ideas, if he started to work for a world where we needed less transport, then I might get interested. He’s inventing solutions that are part of the problem, rather then starting to recognise what the problem actually is.”

    ——–

    You might as well say you want less healthcare. Many humans tend to want to increase their capabilities, rather than diminish them.

    It’s like, people say we should have less population. But, it’s very useful to have more, if you can. So people will figure out ways to be able to have more while reducing the side effects. (Ultimately that may involve rotating habitats).

    Inventing less burdensome transport, or habitats, i.e. Progress, is the way things are likely to go.

  20. TOH

    Good news!

    And, to repeat the advice given by many on here, If you are a male 50+ and haven’t had a check for prostate problems – get it checked – otherwise you are more likely to be prostrate.

  21. CB11

    I had already seen that on Guido. Extraordinary . Hard to understand the mentality behind such comments. What do they mean?
    They appear to be dealing with it.

    Have you seen the Labour Councillor , Labour Activists & “Corbyn supporters” taking to Twitter to describe Sajid Javid as a “Coconut” & “Uncle Tom”. ??

    Our politics seems to be at a very low ebb.

  22. @mike Pearce

    Indeed, it is very heartening to hear of how things are going for Howard and RJW, and how they’re taking it on. A family member of someone I know is going through similar and it’s quite sobering.

  23. @Colin

    I don’t think they’ve descended to vans yet though.

  24. Peter Cairns

    In a trial, it’s reasonable to use lay-people to judge the facts (although in complex fraud trials we do use judge only trials). It takes an expert to judge the Law (that’s the person in the wig).

    Examining new laws does require a bit more capacity to understand what the implications of the new law would be. Experience in parliament (particularly of drawing up bills as a cabinet member) is valuable experience and would be far more suitable than grabbing a random bloke out of the pub and asking him to do the same job.

    Perhaps if you added a test, say place an existing bill in front of your proposed layman and test his understanding of the bill and its implications. Anyone who couldn’t be bothered to do so should be discounted and anyone incapable of producing their reasoned opinions of the bill should also be discounted.

    Eventually you’d find your Lords but it seems like it’d take an awful lot of work.

  25. CARFREW

    So you find “Coconut” & “Uncle Tom” as descriptions of the new Pakistani Heritage Home Secretary less offensive than:

    ” In UK Illegally?-Go Home or face arrest-Text HOME to 78070 for free advice & help with travel documents” on the side of a van.

    ?

  26. @Leftie

    Apparently, engineers from the DCX are now working at Blue Origin. Musk appears to have leap-frogged them rather!

  27. @Colin

    No, that’s a rubbish straw man, I wasn’t talking about degree of offence. But about the difference between someone who might “claim” to be a supporter of Corbyn, but could just as easy be a Tory supporter trolling, and government action.

  28. @Colin

    I should add, to just have vans for immigrants and nothing else, is hyping the problem, thus causing people to think the problem is bigger than it might be. We could have vans for all sorts. People who spread FUD, for example. Or politicians who make stuff up. To just have them for immigrants is pretty rubbish.

  29. Colin: it’s just moronic, isn’t it? Surely true left-wingers have plenty of ammunition to point at someone who re-reads Atlas Shrugged every year without resorting to race-baiting!

  30. CARFREW

    You said “descended” to vans. So Vans are worse than the Tweets I referred to.

    The Tweets in question are from Labour Supporters-including a Councillor. Which of them do you suspect are Tory supporters?

  31. Oh the irony that someone called polltroll would fall for anti-Corbyn trolling online.

  32. POLLTROLL

    Apparently not-his politics seem to be a secondary to these individuals , after his betrayal of his ethnicity.

    Thats what those two expressions mean.

    Interesting isn’t it?-the assumption that a particular ethnic group should vote in a particular way as a matter of ethnic identity.

  33. @Colin

    They’re worse in the sense that they might have greater negative impact.

    If someone calls themself a Labour supporter that doesn’t mean they are. A councillor might be different, however, but you didn’t give any details of that.

    But can you seriously not find similar among Tory supporters or those who claim to be? You do nor appear to be very non-partisan about it!

  34. CARFREW

    You can find them online Carfrew-then make your own conclusion.

    If you have anything “similar” from a Tory supporter I would be interested to see it -thanks.

  35. @Colin

    Catman posted some recently for example to show it isn’t just confined to Labour. (From Conhome I think?)

    We do understand the point, that there are people online who post questionable stuff. (Some of them might even actually support who they say they do!)

    I think you gave fairly established this point Colin.

  36. I would love to know what the combined VI of contributors to this site is – anyone hazard a guess?

  37. @Andrew Myers

    Well, we used to be colour-coded by party! (I’m a non voter though so didn’t have a colour.)

  38. @Colin

    “Our politics seems to be at a very low ebb.”

    I agree and I think we’ve become terribly complacent in this country, perhaps a little too self-congratulatory at times about the health of our democratic institutions and the quality of our public discourse. I get a little uneasy when I see us pouring scorn on some of the antics we disapprove of in other countries, almost implying ” it couldn’t happen here.”

    I used to think that too until I woke up to the news one day and heard that one of our MPs had been murdered by somebody who hated the political views she represented.

    The moronic garbage now swirling around the social media, and dripping into election literature too, from supporters of both sides of the political spectrum, is the mood music that spawns much darker actions.

    Time to wake up, I think.

  39. Can any LAB-Remain comment on why HoL LAB have voted for several amendments to make HMG’s task harder, encourage Barnier to give us a very bad deal, etc. but then voted against the amendment to allow a “People’s vote”?

    One might draw the conclusion that LAB want a “no deal” Brexit but simply want CON to deliver it.

    Keen to hear any LAB-Remain give a different explanation (feel free to start with “CU respects the referendum…”)

    At least LDEM are being fairly honest about what they want (let’s leave n4ivity over Revoke and Remain on same terms and hence fulfilling the job of Best for Brussels aside for now)!

    Seriously are any LAB-Remain actually falling for Corbyn’s “ambiguity” charade?

  40. As Colin pointed out, if you are a Tory troll, then becoming a member of Labour Party and being elected as a councillor is pretty deep cover!

    Let’s get two things straight. One, these people are cranks who do not represent the mainstream of Labour thought. Two, they are still supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, and in many cases paid-up members of the Labour Party.

    Now, every party has its cranks. Politics is a crank-friendly hobby. Cranks alone are not enough to destroy the reputation of a political party, certainly not a party that gave us Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and (yes, I’m going there) Tony Blair.

    What might be more damaging, however, is the culture of denial, of reaching for conspiracy theories, of being so damn convinced in your own rightness that you never stop to check whether you’re making a mistake. It’s a culture that deals with cases of genuine anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, not with zero-tolerance, but accusations of smears by a frightened elite with ulterior motives. It’s a culture that sings the virtues of its leader’s distinguished history of fighting racism even as he provides over a historically sharp rightward turn on immigration policy. And it’s a culture that is so convinced of its own moral infallibility that it lapses into using the same sort of racial slurs against its political opponents that would rightly disgust it if the tables were turned.

    Now, being completely un-self-critical may not prevent Labour from forming the net government. But it will sure as hell prevent Labour from governing well when it gets there. And if your retort to all this is “well we’re still better than the Tories”, then you are missing the point. It’s already clear that, for many people in Labour, Vladimir Putin is better than the Tories. Maybe you could set your sights just a little higher than that.

    Okay, rant over.

  41. @ CARFREW – You’re a “non-voter”!?!?

    Can you explain why you are not eligible to vote coz no way anyone is going to believe you don’t vote by choice or are under 18!

  42. POLLTROLL

    Ok. Fair comment but we also need to hold our press to account too. They are allowed to constantly attack Corbyn and get away with it. One day he is a spy. The next he is a terrorist sympathiser. The next day he is anti Semitic.

  43. @Trevor W

    Not everyone is like you Trev., and I’ve been challenged on it before, but no one has ever been rude enough to doubt me. I’ve given numerous reasons why I don’t vote before now.

  44. @Polltroll

    “Two, they are still supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, and in many cases paid-up members of the Labour Party.”

    ——–

    Christ. There are Tories who say they became members just to vote for Corbyn, hoping to damage the party.

  45. @Polltroll

    “What might be more damaging, however, is the culture of denial, of reaching for conspiracy theories, of being so damn convinced in your own rightness that you never stop to check whether you’re making a mistake. It’s a culture that deals with cases of genuine anti-Semitism in the Labour Party…”

    ———

    This is a separate thing that we have explored at some length, that is not well informed by reposting an avalanche of dodgy internet tweets etc.,!

    What we haven’t explored as much is the culture of a party that did the Windrush thing, and went into denial trying to say it was just about illegals, and doing vans about immigrants and nothing else, and doing legislation that turns landlords into immigration police etc. etc.

  46. The E. D.

    “I can’t think of a single thing May has ever done where long-term consideration has entered the equation, and when she finally departs I do not think any remaining reputation she may still hang on to will be worth having for long.”

    When she does eventually go I think it will be as though she was never here. She will leave a non-existent legacy.

    Unless you count her first speech on the steps of no. 10. [Which I don’t.]

  47. There’s a chance the immigrants might know she was here.

    New Thread.

  48. trevor warne,
    “One might draw the conclusion that LAB want a “no deal” Brexit but simply want CON to deliver it.”

    I think the best outcome for labour would be for the tories to simply cancel Brexit. This would shatter the tories current suport base.

    Alternatively, if tories go through with a hard brexit, then the negative economic consequences would probably also destroy the credibility of the tory party.

    Either scenario might allow the libs to become the new main right wing but pro EU party.

    And I think, judging from their actions, that the tories agree with this.

    That leaves two scenarios with more promise for the tories. One is to negotiate a very soft Brexit and persuade their supporters that it was the only option on offer.

    The other is to persuade the public that brexit was rather a bad idea, and then bow to public pressure. Naturally, they cannot be seen to be trying to persuade the public of this. If they lose control of parliament and the opposition stops Brexit, then they can avoid blame from brexit supporters for this failure. This is probably their best bet, and they have been moderately successful so far.

    Labour has been trying to keep the tories on the hook of having to cancel Brexit themselves, which they are able to do because the tories believe hard brexit would be a real disaster.

    May seems to be steering for three or preferably four, as any sensible leader might. Such things as lords defeats and tory commons rebels are essential if the plan is to succeed. In this light, Rudd might have been needed on the back benches, we shall see what she does.

  49. Why it benefits Labour to remain ambiguous over Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/labour-clarify-position-brexit-vote-share-leave-remain

    Read this article by Anand Menon in The Guardian. Essentially, the seats that Labour needs to win to gain a majority in a GE are in Leave-voting areas; there just aren’t enough seats like Putney and Chipping Barnet to make it worth them going over to Remain.

1 2 3