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

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.

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.