ComRes’s monthly online poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror is out and shows virtually no change from last month. Topline voting intention figures are CON 33%(+1), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 8%(-1), Others 7%(nc).

Yesterday there was also a new Angus Reid poll, their first since May. Topline figures there are CON 30%(+1), LAB 41%(-4), LDEM 11%(+2), UKIP 9%. It shows a significant fall in the Labour lead, but this will be due to their previous poll being something of an outlier and being conducted in May when other companies were also showing somewhat larger Labour leads.

Later on tonight we also have the regular YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.


71 Responses to “New ComRes and Angus Reid polls”

1 2
  1. Everything changes and everything remains the same
    s…since the autumn after the election…Labour
    ….a weird stability to the polling figures for the main partieedging up to a comfortable but not crazy lead and the conservatives below their middish thirties figure they polled in May 2010…The LibDems aruond 12%…and ups and downs leaving them all in much that place or within reach of it….

    I wonder what chances that the election result will be a Labour 37-39% and Con 34-36% and LibDems 555e.but all within reach giving Labour something like a small working majority…

    I’m not really a betting man…but it seems strangely like the place we’ve reached though I’m aware there’s lots of churn underneath

  2. It’s when you see
    223 383 20 6 18

    (AW’s UNS current projection) that the political jaw drops.

    Labour’s inbuilt advantage (surely to stay now) means no rash stuff emanating from EM or his colleagues.

    Enjoying the holiday Ed?

  3. Well UNS won’t happen. The LDs are in a pretty bad way but are possibly still capable of retaining 35 out of their 57 seats even if they slump to 14% or so.

  4. assuming the boundary changes do not go through of course (not jumping to conclusions).

  5. Good Evening all, Wonderful Bournemouth beach scene tonight.

    Lots can and will change from now until May 2015.

    The 20 seems very high to me.

  6. It is important the LDs continue to edge up. If they can reach say 13% by mid 2013, then there will be everything to play for.

    I expect many Labour supporters living in Tory areas who swore never to vote LD again will reconsider for should there be no overall majority with Labour the biggest party, quite a possibility, then it is almost certain that LDs would back them.

    I still cannot believe that 70 odd Tory MPs scuppered reform of the house of Lords and doing so lost the chance to reform boundaries gaining them many seats. Crazy.

  7. @ A Cairns

    I’m not so sure about the Lib Dem position. Every result from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, local elections and by-elections suggests the Lib Dems really are facing a meltdown to around 20 seats.

    The General Election is only 24 months from this coming spring (at most) and there is nothing in the pipeline to suggest the Lib Dems can expect an upturn. They’re only saving grace is their decision not to support the boundary changes or they could have been cut to 10-15 seats.

  8. @Henry

    Where did you get the idea that the Lib Dems are “edging up”?

  9. @Swebb

    fair enough , I’m not convinced there will be an election until 2014 at least but I’m just trying to give fair and balanced analysis.

    I’m certainly not an LD supporter unless you get you get the wrong end of the stick.

  10. “Being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government”

    Yes 18
    No 61

    mmm

    …in absolute terms-or as opposed to a coalition with Labour?

    If the former, given the response, LibDems might as well return to eternal opposition, which they ere presumably credible at.

  11. HENRY

    @”I still cannot believe that 70 odd Tory MPs scuppered reform of the house of Lords ”

    I think you will find that they disagreed with the reforms proposed by Clegg. “Reform” of HoL can be accomplished in any number of ways.

    Lord Steel offered a compromise bill I think-but Clegg would not have it.

  12. @ A Cairns

    Agreed – I think the Coalition will last until the bitter end as the Coalition parties cling on for grim death.

  13. HENRY.
    Hello, I have missed you, and hope you are well.

    My ‘analysis’ is that the Lib Dem figures are very high at the moment.

    University fees: Did you know that parents who go with sons and their daughters to see admissions tutors at the moment, and pay all the fees up front are getting their offspring into univ, even if they missed the grade offer?

  14. While HoL reform is not per se undesirable, the Tory rebels did the country a service in wrecking the ill-thought out reforms proposed by NC. In any case, NC’s threat to attempt to kill off the boundary changes won’t necessarily materialise, as the 20 or so LD members of the government cannot vote against a government measure without resigning from it. This would lead to a collapse of the coalition, with a likely general election to follow, which the LDs clearly wouldn’t relish before 2015.

    In addition, voting against the boundary changes would be seen as partisan and could backfire against the LDs, as these changes have wide public support as they are correctly seen as making elections fairer. Until it is clear whether the boundary changes will proceed, predicting the number of seats which parties would win at the next GE on the basis of current polls is something of a lottery.

  15. DAODAO

    ” as the 20 or so LD members of the government cannot vote against a government measure without resigning from it. ”

    I think that’s a convention based on one party rule – not a requirement. Of course, Cameron could sack them – n which case the coalition would end.

  16. There is also the possibility that some/a few Lid Dems may vote in favour of the boundary changes (or abstain). One senior Lib Dem MP, for example, has reportedly said that he/she thinks that all Lib Dems should vote it through in the best interests of the coalition. If just a modest number of Lib Dems follow suit, this could enable it, in theory, to be passed – especially if, as some suggest, the Tories get the DUP etc. onside as well whip all Tory MPs to vote in favour.

    Then, of course, there is the possibility that a deal could still be reached between the Tories and Lib Dems. Not saying either scenarios are all that likely, but they are still possible at this stage.

  17. Amber
    It was good of Old N to post a link to Scottish Review on the last thread. On the page there is a link to an article by Doug Marr on events in Aberdeen and area. Tere is a nice comment about me! More importantly, he writes about the Union Terrace gardens issue Which has divided the city top to bottom. The debate may be a bit of a shock to those who think that the snp are some sort of left wing party.

  18. Cameron said he has not abandoned the idea of a reduction in the number of MPs/boundary changes – but he had to say that didn’t he?

    Even his supporters described his approach as Micawberish… the subsequent talk of a party funding sweetener seems to have been turned down by LDs and sat upon by Tories.

    Isn’t it more likely that the issue will be allowed to fade away?

    If any LDs disobeyed the leaders instruction to vote against, they would be more than outnumbered by the Tory rebels.

  19. @Billy,

    I think there will almost certainly be a vote. The Tories will find it nigh on impossible to win even a slender majority in the modern era without the changes. To get a working majority, they’d have to score in the mid 40s – very unlikely IMO. The question is whether DC can win it. At the moment, I’d say it’s unlikely.

    I think there’ll be very few Tory rebels on the vote due to what will be the very strong party whip (as political commentators all seem to agree), but unless they can get other party support and/or a few Libs to vote in favour or abstain, it won’t be passed.

  20. Barney

    I’m surprised that you don’t read the Scottish Review regularly.

    Did you miss Alex Wood’s excellent review of ‘The Strange Death of Labour Scotland’?

    http://www.scottishreview.net/AlexWood2.shtml

    “They pose Labour’s enormous strength in Scottish local government as the third pillar of the ‘Labour Scotland’ self-perception but also as the root of much of the party’s innate conservatism. Men and women (but it was overwhelmingly men) who attain local status and influence through an effective electoral machine become enmeshed in that machine and in their local power. They are right and have accurately identified the petty-minded conservatism as well as the cronyism which such a machine engenders.”

  21. BARNEY CROCKETT

    “The debate may be a bit of a shock to those who think that the snp are some sort of left wing party”
    _______

    Over all the party is to the left but does command the support of some of Scotland’s and indeed the UK’s richest people.

    It gets confusing because on one hand you have Scottish Labour saying that the SNP are for big business and on the other people like George Galloway saying the SNP are more Labour than Labour!!

    Personally speaking as a supporter of the party I would like to see them lean a wee bit more to the centre hence the reason I tend to agree more with the Tory’s on this site than Labour. :)

  22. Colin

    ‘I think you will find that they disagreed with the reforms proposed by Clegg. “Reform” of HoL can be accomplished in any number of ways.’

    I think the reform is far from perfect. However reducing the monster from currently over 1000 would be a fantastic start. And I would like to see some attempt at democratic selection rather than what I see as a toady bean feast at our expense. Did those Tories who opposed the reform actually get involved in suggesting the best approach or did they steer well clear so that they could reject the final proposal?

    If these people had gone with their leader as a reward the Tories would have got their boundary changes.

  23. @Daodao

    The LDs will vote against it – Clegg has been clear that the party will not vote for it, implying he’s going to whip it. If he changes his mind then I suspect that ChrisLane’s opinion on LD polling will come to pass, he will have lost any remaining credibility.

    There may also be Tory rebels – after all, if your seat is about to be vaporised then the threats of the whips won’t seem to be the worst outcome, heck if you’re lucky you might back Cameron’s replacement in the leadership election…

  24. @Daodao – “In addition, voting against the boundary changes would be seen as partisan and could backfire against the LDs, as these changes have wide public support as they are correctly seen as making elections fairer.”

    I wonder. Equalising constituencies probably is seen as fairer – few would argue against this. Fewer MPs – questionable. This increases the power of the executive in parliament, increases the advantage to the Tories from the changes and reduces our chances to lobby our local MP. Meanwhile, Cameron has increased greatly the number of Lords, so cost savings don’t seem to be much of an argument. An objective analysis would probably conclude that this change is not quite so fair.

    Finally, Labour are making great play of the fact that constituencies are equalised on the basis of the electoral role, rather than population. While I understand that this is how it is currently done, I was very surprised by this – I assumed population size was the determining factor. This net effect of Cameron’s proposals are biased in favour of his own party, and I suspect when it is explained to them, the majority of people would side with Labour on this issue.

    However, the key factor is to put aside logic, and start thinking about how voters actually judge complex issues. If the Tories are unpopular, and labour get some effective and punchy messages across about ‘Tory gerrymandering’, I suspect that the boundary proposals will not receive widespread support.

    An additional factor here are the radical changes to some constituencies. I can tell you that the reaction in my constituency that the boundary changes will be abandoned has been one of universal pleasure. No one wanted the new huge constituency, and no amount of logical explaining as to why it was a fair thing to do made the slightest difference.

    I would just tend to be a little cautious in assuming people either agree with you or think overly logically about issues.

  25. @AmbivalentSupporter

    The problem with “the very strong party whip” is where was it when it was needed (to get the reduction in MPs/boundaries through – that is, during the Lords reform timetable vote)?

    The reduction in MPs/boundaries gives the Tories 20 extra seats? No, it gives them 7 fewer seats – and only if they poll the same as they did in 2010. On current polling, on provisional constituencies they lose 86 seats, instead of the 75 they lose under the current system.

    Tory backbenchers, the type who (if they have a safe seat) will always be backbenchers, don’t like the reduction to 600 because it reduces their power in relation to the government payroll (of whichever complexion).

  26. Chris Lane

    ‘Hello, I have missed you, and hope you are well’.

    Thanks Chris. I am sure the LDs are riding high; however we both remember when the polls were showing 7-8% and so to me 10-11% is not too bad and something to build on.

  27. S Webb
    ‘Where did you get the idea that the Lib Dems are “edging up”?’

    Well I do not think I imagined the time when LDs were on 7-8% so for me 10-11% at this time is moving in the right direction. I do see some on the left in Tory seats returning to support the LDs as the election approaches.

  28. My prediction is that the coalition will end by Spring 2013 at the latest and the Tories will attempt to govern on their own.

    As has been pointed out on here recently, in terms of legislation that needs to be passed, there is pretty much nothing left, now that it looks unlikely an constituitional changes will be made.

    A good number of Tory backbenchers appear to be no longer interested in the coalition agreement and are eager to go it alone. Cameron may be forced to go along with this.

  29. @Billy,

    “The problem with “the very strong party whip” is where was it when it was needed (to get the reduction in MPs/boundaries through – that is, during the Lords reform timetable vote)?”

    A lot of Tories were strongly against the HOL reform from the very beginning.

    “The reduction in MPs/boundaries gives the Tories 20 extra seats? No, it gives them 7 fewer seats – and only if they poll the same as they did in 2010. On current polling, on provisional constituencies they lose 86 seats, instead of the 75 they lose under the current system.”

    The central point is that Labour would lose quite a few more seats than the Tories. Therefore, talk of the Tories gaining is solely in terms of ‘net seat gains’. It would make it a lot easier for the Tories to get a majority, or deprive Labour of a majority/being the largest party. That’s why DC wants it to go through – because without it, the Tories could well be out of power for another generation or two.

    Read Labourite Paul Kellner’s summary on Youtube and it demonstrates brilliantly just why DC wants it to go to a vote.

  30. *Yougov*

  31. HENRY

    I doubt that many people still see UNS as meaningful in modern GB.

    However, LDs need to be particularly careful about its use. With 19% of your MPs coming from Scotland (double the electorate %) where the LDs show no sign of recovery at all, the damage to the LDs could be even more severe, than GB figures show.

  32. @AmbivalentSupporter – “One senior Lib Dem MP”

    Might that be the one senior Lib Dem MP who spoke to Isabel Hardman – as reported on her Spectator blog on August 4th – two days before Nick Clegg made his statement of the party line?

  33. @Billy,

    It is indeed. I always take what is reported in the media with a pinch of salt, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that at least a few Lib Mps might rebel against Nick Clegg. Whether that would be enough to pass the vote, of course is another matter entirely….

  34. As I said the other day, I’m sure the Tories would be more than happy to be the largest party in a hung parliament and try to get a boundary vote through before the subsequent GE due (possibly) in 2020. That way, they’d be in a much better situation to win a majority going forward (especially with the individual voter registration changes due after 2015 too).

    But, as polls currently indicate, Labour are currently in a good position to mount a serious challenge for a majority in 2015 and thus deprive them of such an opportunity.

  35. @AmbivalentSupporter

    Unfortunately (for us) Gary Gibbon seens to be on an extended summer break. Imo he has been the only political correspondent comprehensively across the implications of this all along (the 8th May 2012 entry is worth a read):

    h
    ttp://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tag/house-of-lords

  36. @SWEBB

    You said “…Where did you get the idea that the Lib Dems are “edging up”?…”

    It is technically true that they are “edging up”: more 10/11s on YouGov, less 7/8s. I do not know why (Lords reform? Failure of the Euro to collapse? Moon in the Seventh Sky? Whatever). Whether this is enough to make a difference is a different matter. My take is this is a real but small movement that doesn’t really amount to much and that the polls have stayed reasonably stable for some months now. Nothing is really happening (ohh, very Baudrillardian me) which is why I’m not in this burgh much these days. Except for Olympic opening ceremonies, of course… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  37. barney crockett

    […] he writes about the Union Terrace gardens issue Which has divided the city top to bottom. The debate may be a bit of a shock to those who think that the snp are some sort of left wing party.

    I’m not really sure that it’s a matter of being left- or right-wing. It’s more a matter of whether a politician suffers from what you might call Mandelson’s Syndrome – the tendency to go weak-kneed in the presence of money. This isn’t so much to do with the desire to be corrupt (though I’m sure it’s been known) as a reaction to money as celebrity. There’s also a belief that because someone is rich, everything they touch must turn to gold and therefore their every whim should be catered to because the magic will rub off on you, your country or town.

    Of course this shows little grasp of business, economics or indeed reality. And it’s also based on the odd assumption that because someone has been a success at one thing (making themself a lot of money), that somehow they will be equally good at something completely different. That’s presuming that their intention still isn’t just making themself a lot of money, irrespective of and possibly at the cost of the politician’s objectives or indeed treasury.

    And worst of all watching the process of ingratiation take place is intensely embarrassing. Not that such things would ever take place in the Isle of Man you understand.

    Anyway, good luck with your battle to retain the Gardens (and not put Aberdeen into even greater debt).

  38. @AmbivalentSupporter

    You said “…As I said the other day, I’m sure the Tories would be more than happy to be the largest party in a hung parliament…”

    Given that they have a perfect opportunity to do just that immediately (dissolve the Coalition, pass a vote of confidence and form a minority government) I’m not sure that’s true.

    One thing that genuinely bugs me about both the Libs and the Cons is that they are in the Coalition *voluntarily*. If I hear one more sad sack whining that “oh, we wanna do X but Y won’t let us” I’ll projectile vomit. If either side want to leave the Coalition they are entirely free to do so.

    Regards, Martyn

  39. @Alec

    “Finally, Labour are making great play of the fact that constituencies are equalised on the basis of the electoral role, rather than population. While I understand that this is how it is currently done, I was very surprised by this – I assumed population size was the determining factor.”

    The Electoral Commission has estimated that there are 6 million adults in the UK who are not registered to vote. This is some 2.5 million more than the original estimate and it is the reason why the Government has been advised to proceed with caution in terms of using the electoral roll, rather than census measured population, as the basis for equalising constituency sizes. Unfortunately, they are ignoring this advice, even though they now know that the amount of unregistered voters is far higher than first thought.

    To compound this, the government are planning to introduce individual registration before the 2015 general election, phasing out household registration. The Electoral Commission thinks that this change may well increase still further the number of unregistered voters.

    It is not said overtly, but this state of affairs is thought to favour the Conservatives who probably calculate that the six million people not registered, and this figure will probably be higher still by 2015 if their plans for individual registration go ahead, are not likely to be potential Tory voters.

  40. Just another thought on the amount of unregistered voters. If we accept the Electoral Commission’s estimate of 6 million and then add those to the 14 million registered voters who took no part in the May 2010 election, then that is roughly 20 million adults in the UK who are not participating in the democratic process.

    Am I the only person who finds this a quite staggering and truly frightening figure?

  41. @Martyn

    Of the last 7 YouGov polls, the Lib Dems have registered:

    11% x 1
    10% x 2
    9% x 2
    8% x 2

    That looks like a 9% to me (+/-1%) with no sign of an upward trend. The 11% is the oldest of these and one of the 8%s the most recent!

  42. @Martyn – You said: “Moon in the Seventh Sky?”

    You meant to say:

    “When the moon is in the Seventh House
    And Jupiter aligns with Mars…

    Harmony and understanding
    Sympathy and trust abounding
    No more falsehoods or derisions
    Golden living dreams of visions” etc:

    h
    ttp://www.elyrics.net/inc/vidplay.php

  43. Martyn

    The micro-revival of the Lib Dems has been one of the mysteries of the Summer to me. I had assumed the latest improvement was due to the prospect of Lords reform – partly because that’s the sort of thing Lib Dems care about, but mainly out of relief at Clegg insisting on anything.

    But Lord’s Reform has gone and Clegg has insisted on nothing. Yet the small improvement remains for no reason I can see, unless people are impressed by hissy-fits[1]. The only reason I can think of is some sort of holiday effect where some people drift back to their traditional voting patterns in the absence of much political news.

    And everyone knows the Olympic opening ceremony did not take place. :D

    [1] Clegg’s threat to veto the boundary changes away in revenge over the loss of Lords Reform was not only petty-looking and ineffectual (it’s Clegg, so everyone thinks he’ll give in eventually). It also ignored a perfectly good and principled reason for doing so.

    He could have said “We were unhappy with the reduction in the number of MPs because it would make the Commons less powerful against the Government. Lib Dem policy was to reduce the number only when when powers were taken away from Government to be used at more local level. But we agreed because a more effective and powerful Lords could compensate for this loss of control over an ever-more powerful central Government. Now that won’t happen, we need to keep the extra MPs”.

    It might not convince everyone, but it would have come across a lot better than threatening to take your ball away and go off and sulk.

  44. Aggregate Tory support does look as though it’s rallying a bit – across about 2 months.

    But maybe the temperature has dropped – politically.

    Not sure Lib Dem support is “edging up”.
    I think they will end up with about 30-35 seats but it’s hard to tell.

  45. @Roger Mexico

    In fairness on August 6th Clegg did say:

    “Lords reform leads to a smaller, more legitimate House of Lords. Boundary changes lead to a smaller House of Commons, by cutting the number of MPs. If you cut the number of MPs without enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lords all you have done is weaken parliament as a whole, strengthen the executive and it’s over-mighty government that wins.”

    h
    ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19146853

    He does seem to have taken his argument against strengthening the executive direct from Tories who objected to his bill back in 2010… basically he is now saying “the executive is always putting silly bills before the house – we are not to be trusted!”

  46. Have I missed the YouGove Poll?

  47. STOCKPORT RED

    “Have I missed the YouGove Poll?”

    Was that the one where you had to guess how many English school playing fields had been sold off?

  48. @ Billy Bob (from the previous thread)

    “On Julia Brownley… you might have noticed I was being a little bit flippant in some of my remarks, but there is a contrast between her page and and those of the other candidates It has a more refined upmarket feel – no problem, perhaps that’s right for Ventura County; but the others do seem to make more of an effort to connect – her profile is all in the third person. From my idiosyncratic standpoint, the portrait on the candidate page drew me in, but the homepage kept me at arm’s length. Funds behind her might make a difference there.

    I guess I was hoping for something closer to the Molly Erdman/Elizabeth Warren tribute you pointed to on YouTube:

    Elizabeth Warren Announces Her Bid for Senate. :)”

    I saw that youtube clip and love it (I sometimes will randomly quote it for inspiration).

    To address your concerns, I don’t think an upmarket feelis a liability. It is a pretty upmarket district and so if her website is upmarket, that won’t neccesarily hurt her. She’s also got to sell herself because her old Assembly District (which was redistricted into oblivion) didn’t really cover a lot of this new Congressional District and so she runs a little bit as an unknown.

    I think that third person biographical descriptions are best. Politicians who talk about themselves and use the ‘I’ word incessantly do so at their own peril. It can’t be all about what you as an individual have done. Gifford Miller (a well funded NYC mayoral candidate in 2005) used to make this mistake. In fact I’m hardpressed to think of any successful candidates who write their bios in the first person.

    Now, it’s interesting to think about the demographics of the District. For the most part, the super wealthy don’t really live out there (there’s definitely some money in Westlake Village and Thousand Oaks to be sure) but it’s more an upper middle class district. Those voters can be the hardest to reach and appeal to (though not exclusively and it is reportedly 43% Hispanic and only 46% white). Upper middle class suburbs were what powered Obama to his 2008 victory and indeed, he won what is now this District 56%-41%. However, in 2010, with far lower turnout, Meg Whitman prevailed here 47%-46% over Governor Moonbeam. How Obama does at the top of the ticket (especially given that it’s an open seat) will factor into whether Dems are able to take this seat.

    Now, I’d like your opinion of the following candidate and his website.

    http://www.henrywaxmanforcongress.com/

  49. Nobody has tweeted tomorrow’s STYG poll yet, as far as I’m aware. :-(

  50. SoCalLiberal

    “Politicians who talk about themselves and use the ‘I’ word incessantly do so at their own peril.”

    I do hope that you weren’t meaning Barney. He was so delighted at someone saying something nice about him! :-)

1 2