Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Standard is out today – topline figures with changes from last month are CON 41%(+5), LAB 34%(+2), LDEM 7%(-3), UKIP 7%(-5), GRN 4%(+1). The big drop in UKIP support is probably nothing, last month’s poll had them jumping up five points, this month has them dropping the same amount, both the up and the down are likely normal sample variation.

The rest of the poll included some interesting questions on spending and the deficit ahead of next week’s autumn statement. During the last Parliament the government’s cuts were often unpopular, but the public consistently regarded them as being necessary. MORI’s poll suggests potential trouble for the government there – two-thirds of people still think the cuts in the last Parliament were necessary, but support for further cuts is far lower. 34% think that it is still necessary to make more cuts, 32% think cuts in the last Parliament were necessary, but it’s not necessary any more, 27% think cuts were never necessary in the first place.

Asked where any cuts should and shouldn’t fall international aid, as usual, comes top on the things people would like to see cut (59%), followed by benefit payments (36%), then defence (19%). On things they’d like to see protected from cuts the NHS, as usual, comes top (73%), followed by schools (39%) and care for the elderly (28%). Full tabs for the MORI poll are here.

ComRes also have new polling for the Daily Mail today (full tabs here). Support for British airstrikes against ISIS in Syria was similar to YouGov’s poll yesterday (60% support, 24% opposition), support for intervention on the ground was higher than YouGov’s poll – in a generic question people supported British troops getting involved in a ground war against ISIS by 50% to 31%, when asked if they’d support British grounds getting involved alongside the US or France support rose to 59%.

YouGov have some polling out on attitudes towards the government’s tax credit changes – full tabs are here. They suggest that the policy is seen as unfair, and seen as likely to have a negative financial effect upon most recipients… but people are evely divided on whether it should go ahead.

Overall the changes are seen as unfair by 46% of people, fair by 28% of people. YouGov then asked about the combined effect of the tax credit changes, the minimum wage increase and the increased tax allowances and whether it will leave different groups better or worse off. By 45% to 1% people think they will leave those out of work worse off, by 57% to 13% they will those on the minimum wage will be worse off, by 53% to 7% they think those in work and earning low wages (but above the minimum wage) will be worse off. Whatever the actual facts of whether people will be better or worse off, the government have clearly failed to convince the public that the combined effect of the policies will leave people better off.

While it was seen as unfair and bad for most of the less well off, when YouGov asked it if it should go ahead people were evenly divided. People didn’t like the principle of the changes – 53% thought they were a bad thing, only 21% a good thing. However, within that 53% of people who disapproved, 16% thought they should go ahead regardless given the state of the public finances, 37% thought they should be stopped and the money found elsewhere. Adding up those who like the changes and those who dislike them but reluctantly think they should happen brings us to 37% wanting the changes to go ahead, 37% wanting them stopped.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily answer the real question on the extent to which the policy damages the Conservative party, and George Osborne in particular. Currently we are still talking about a political row within Westminster that most people will pay relatively little attention to (the survey found 15% of people saying they were playing close attention to the story… and it’s likely polls over-represent those who pay attention to politics anyway). If the changes go through though the political impact will be on the number of people who actually see their income fall… assuming, of course, that they are still sore about it in four years time and it hasn’t been dulled by the passage of time. There is a good reason why politicians implement the unpleasant and unpopular decisions they want to make early in the Parliamentary term.

On other matters, Ipsos MORI have their monthly political monitor in today’s Evening Standard. Topline voting intentions are CON 36%(-3), LAB 32%(-2), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 12%(+5), GRN 3%(-1). Labour and the Tories are both down, with UKIP popping up to the sort of level that we’re used to seeing in other polls, but which is unusually high from MORI this year. Full tabs are here.


Ipsos MORI have published their September political monitor for the Evening Standard. Topline voting intention figures are CON 39%, LAB 34%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 7%, GRN 4%.

MORI have made another methodological change in the light of the polling error at the general election. Previously they had started including how regularly people say they usually vote in the turnout filter, now they have also added additional weighting by newspaper readership. Again, the methodology review is still an ongoing process, and MORI make clear they anticipate making further changes.

The rest of the poll had a series of questions about perceptions of the party leaders and parties.

Jeremy Corbyn’s first satisfaction rating is minus 3 (33% are satisfied with him as leader, 36% dissatisfied). At first glance that isn’t bad – it’s a better net rating than Cameron or the government! In a historical context though it’s not good. New leaders normally get a polling honeymoon, the public give them the benefit of the doubt to begin with and Corbyn’s net rating is the worst MORI have recorded for a new leader of one of the big two parties (the initial ratings for past party leaders were Miliband +19, Brown +16, Cameron +14, Howard +9, IDS 0, Hague -1, Blair +18, Smith +18, Major +15, Kinnock +20, Foot +2)

Looking at the more detailed questions on perceptions of Jeremy Corbyn his strengths and weaknesses compared to David Cameron are very similar to the ones we got used to in Cameron v Miliband match ups: Cameron scores better on things like being a capable leader, good in a crisis, sound judgement; Corbyn scores better on being in touch with ordinary people, having more substance than style and being more honest than most politicians. Asked overall who would make the most capable Prime Minister Cameron wins by 53% to 27%.

Of course, all of Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings need to be seen in the context that he is very new to the job and the public don’t know a whole lot about him beyond the initial negative press. Early perceptions of him may yet change. His figures may get better… or worse.

MORI also asked about perceptions of the Labour and Conservative parties, and here the impact of Corbyn’s victory on how the Labour party itself is seen was very evident. The proportion of people seeing the party as divided is up 33 points to 75%, extreme is up 22 points to 36% and out of date is up 19 points to 55%. Both the Labour party and the Conservative party had a big jump in the proportion of people saying they were “Different to other parties” – I suppose it takes two parties to be different from each other!

Full details of the MORI poll are here

Ipsos MORI released their monthly political monitor yesterday, topline voting intention numbers are CON 37%, LAB 31%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9%. These are on the basis of some minor interim changes to methodology (in this case adding how habitually people vote to the turnout model) while the inquiry continues longer term solutions are worked upon. Tabs are here. MORI also asked a question about whether people thought the four Labour leadership candidates had what it took to be a good Prime Minister. Andy Burnham had the best score (or the least worst) – 27% of people thought he did, 27% disagreed. In comparison 22% thought Yvette Cooper did, 16% Liz Kendall and 17% Jeremy Corbyn.

YouGov also published the rest of their poll of Labour party members, conducted for the Times. Tables for part one of the research are here, part two here. The second wave included a question on why party members are voting as they are, showing the contrast between what is driving Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Corbyn voters. Burnham supporters say they are backing him because he has the best chance of winning, will unite the party and will be the best opposition to the Conservatives. The answers from Cooper supporters are similar, though there is less emphasis on party unity. For Kendall supporters the key reason to back her is seen as having the best change of winning, followed by the being the strongest opposition – 31% of her supporters say they are backing her as a break from Ed Miliband’s party, and only 10% see her as a unifier. The drivers for supporters of Jeremy Corbyn contrast sharply with the other three – only 5% of his supporters say they are backing him as the candidate who has the best chance of winning in 2020, only 5% are backing him as a unifier, the reasons are overwhelmingly because they think he has the best policies and because they think he is a break from New Labour.

Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor is out, their first since the election. Topline figures are CON 39%, LAB 30%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 8%, GRN 6%. As with other recent voting intention polls, the figures themselves are perhaps less interesting than the methodology changes. In the case of Ipsos MORI, they’ve made an adjustment to their turnout filter. In the past they used to take only those respondents who said they were 10/10 certain to vote, the tightest of all the companies’ approaches. Their new approach is a little more complex, filtering people based on how likely they say they are to vote at an election and how regularly they say they usually vote – now they include only people who say their likelihood to vote is 9/10 or 10/10 AND who say they usually or always vote or “it depends”. People who say they rarely, never or sometimes vote are excluded.

The impact of this doesn’t appear to be massive. We can tell from the tables that the old method would have produced similar results of CON 39%, LAB 29%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 8%, GRN 6%. In their comments on their topline results MORI are very explicit that this is just an interim measure, and that they anticipate making further changes in the future as their internal inquiry and the BPC inquiry continue.

Looking at the other questions in the survey, MORI also asked about the Labour leadership election, and found results in line with other polling we’ve seen so far… a solid lead for don’t know! Amongst the minority who expressed an opinion, Andy Burnham, led on 15%, followed by Yvette Cooper on 14%, Liz Kendall on 11%, Jeremy Corbyn on 5% and a dummy candidate (“Stewart Lewis”) on 3%.