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


Phil Cowley at Queen Mary University London has released a new YouGov poll ahead of the London local elections next month. Local election voting intentions are CON 29%(+1), LAB 51%(-3), LDEM 11%(nc), changes are from the previous poll in mid-February.

If these figures were to be repeated at the locals then Labour would pull off a crushing victory… but not quite as crushing as some had previously speculated. Back in February the poll had suggested a swing of over 13 points in inner London, bringing Tory bastions like Westminster and Wandsworth into play. The inner London swing in this poll is more modest, at just under 7 points. If that was repeated Westminster would remain safetly Conservative, though Wandsworth would still be relatively close.

That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be a good performance in London for Labour, merely that it may not now deliver many council gains or headlines. Labour already made substantial gains in 2014. Barnet is the only “easy” pick-up for them next month, after that the Tories are down to their safest Boroughs that would take some substantial swings for Labour to gain. It will be interesting to see how the spin battle to portray the outcome as a success or victory for Labour & the Conservatives pans out.

Full tabs for the poll are here.


-->

The latest YouGov poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 43%(+3), LAB 38%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1). The five point Conservative lead is the largest YouGov have shown since the general election.

The fieldwork was at the start of the week, so it is possible that this reflects a bump in government support from the Syria bombing – certainly “security and defence” has risen significantly on the question of what the most important issues facing the country are, up 5 points to 27%, the highest since July last year. While the bombing itself was not popular, polls did still find that people trusted Theresa May more to handle it than they did Jeremy Corbyn, so it’s plausible that an increase in the salience of security could boost the Tories. On the other hand, the changes are within the margin of error, so the increased lead may very well represent no more than normal random variation. Even if it is the impact of Syria and the lead is down to security increasing in salience, it will probably fade away once the political agenda moves onto something else.

It’s also worth noting that the fieldwork was before the row over the government’s handling of the immigration status of the Windrush generation so won’t take into account any impact from that (personally I suspect neither Syria nor the Windrush row will make any long term difference – voting intention seems to be very steady around neck-and-neck).

Full tabs for the poll are here.


There were four voting intention polls yesterday – an unusual flurry, largely it appears because of the military action in Syria. YouGov and Opinium were their regular polls, but ComRes seems to be asked on Wed & Thurs in order to measure support for an attack beforehand, Survation was conducted on Saturday to measure support afterwards.

YouGov‘s voting intention figures for the Times yesterday were CON 40%(-2), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 9%(+2). Fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday and changes are from the previous week. We’ve already seen YouGov polling on Syria earlier in the week, which asked specifically about missile attacks and found 22% support, 43% opposed. Tabs for the voting intention poll are here.

Opinium for the Observer had topline figures of CON 40%(-2), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 7%(+1). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Thursday. It included only the briefest of questions on Syria; asked which leader people would trust the most to respond to the situation 35% said Theresa May, 20% said Jeremy Corbyn. The full details of the poll are here.

ComRes for the Sunday Express is the first voting intention poll the company have produced since the general election (I was beginning to ponder whether they’d given it up!). Looking at methodology changes, ComRes appear to have dropped the socio-economic turnout model that resulted in such problems at the last election and returned to essentially the methodology they used at the 2015 election, weighting by just standard demogs and past vote, and weighting by self-assessed likelihood to vote. This produced topline figures very much in line with everyone else – CON 40%, LAB 41%, LDEM 7%.

On Syria, ComRes asked about whether people agreed Britain should join the US and France in taking “military action against President Assad in Syria”. 29% of people agreed, 36% disagreed, and 35% didn’t know… another poll showing the balance of opinion opposed to strikes. Full tabs are here.

Survation for the Mail on Sunday is the only poll conducted after the missile attacks, with fieldwork wholly conducted during the day on Saturday. As regular readers will know, Survation typically show the largest Labour leads in their polling, but today’s figures are very much in line with everyone else – CON 40%(+2), LAB 40%(-5), LDEM 9%(nc).

Survation asked about whether people supported the “missile strikes on Syrian government facilities overnight in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack”. 36% of people said they supported it, 40% said they were opposed – a closer division than in some of the pre-strike polling, which may be because the question specifically linked it to the chemical attack, or may be because people just become more supportive once it has actually happened.

Survation also found 54% of people thought May should have sought Parliamentary support beforehand (30% did not), but on balance tend to approve of how she has handled the situation. 37% think she has dealt with it well, 29% badly. In contrast 19% think that Jeremy Corbyn has handled it well, 36% badly. Full tables are here.

Looking at the situation overall, headline voting intention polls continue to show Labour and Conservative neck-and-neck on average. On Syria, differently worded questions produced results that vary from clear opposition to just slightly more opposition than support, but it’s clear the public did not whole-heartedly support military action in Syria.


This morning there was a new YouGov/Times poll asking about whether Britain should take part in military intervention in Syria.

A solid majority of the public believe that there probably was a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government or their allies – 61% agree, compared to 5% who believe that the attack was a fabrication, and 5% who believe neither claim. 29% do not know.

This does not, however, translate into support for military action. By 51% to 17% people oppose sending Britain and allied troops into Syria to remove Assad. The more likely option of a cruise missile attack on Syrian military targets also faces fairly solid opposition – just 22% would support it, 43% are opposed.

60% of people say they would support enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria, though given the opposition to other military options one suspects this could be because a “no fly zone” is a rather peaceful sounding euphemism for something that would in practice also involve attacking anti-air defences or the Syrian air force. The full tabs for the polling are here.

While the YouGov figures suggest that there is little public support for Britain getting involved in military action against Syria, there was also some Sky Data polling yesterday which was less clear. Asked if people would support or oppose “UK military action in response to the alleged chemical attack in Syria” 36% said support, 37% said oppose. However, asked about UK military action that might result in conflict with Russia, only 28% said they would support, 48% said they were opposed. Tabs are here.

The reason for that higher level support in that first Sky Data poll is unclear. It could be because the chemical attack was mentioned in the question, or perhaps because it asked about a vague “miliary action” rather than the more specific actions in the YouGov questions. Either way, it is clear that the public are, at best, ambivalent towards military action in Syria, with opposition to most specific proposals and to intervention that risks conflict with Russia.