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.

517 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 37, LAB 31, LDEM 10, UKIP 9”

1 9 10 11
  1. Nigel
    Keeping things non-partisan the vast majority of he public (fairly or unfairly) either loath him or don’t trust him. His time as education secretary did him great damage and people seem to think he was trying to ruin their kids education. Now you could argue that was the teaching unions being over dramatic but regardless parents are more inclined to trust their child’s teacher than the education secretary.
    Hence why Cameron hid him away in a more “backstage” cabinet role just prior to the election. Of all members of the cabinet Gove is probably the most disliked especially among swing voters.

  2. @John B.
    Do not presume to preach to me about Northern Ireland. For I have seen the best and worst of men in that province. As for Scotland, the sooner it goes its own way, the better.

  3. @Rivers10

    “His time as education secretary did him great damage and people seem to think he was trying to ruin their kids education.”

    You certainly know you’re doing your job badly when Cameron sacks you without you being involved in a scandal first…

  4. @ RAF,

    It depends to some extent how flouncy the New Labourites are, I think. Corbyn is such a democrat that he’d probably be perfectly happy to implement whatever policy the Shadow Cabinet voted through, and since he wants to restore Shadow Cabinet elections the modernisers could win all the seats and give themselves a near-veto on policy. But if they all go to sulk on the backbenches, as Kendall and Cooper have vowed to do, then inevitably they’ll have no influence.

    I’m intrigued that you think Cooper can win, though. Looking at that YouGov poll it seems inevitable to me that it will be either Burnham or Corbyn, because if Burnham comes third Corbyn will receive enough of his transfers to win. Whereas Cooper’s second preferences almost all transfer to Burnham, which might be enough to push him over 50% if she comes third.

    Burnham’s the “Stop Corbyn” candidate because he’s more leftwing, and if the Progress/Labour First people don’t wake up to this soon they’re going to be very sorry on September 12th.

  5. Interesting to see the momentum gathering in various places for an alliance against the ‘Eurozone elite’. Disparate and diverse as it may be, and it doesn’t yet register as a ‘movement’ for those reasons, but the Greek fiasco has certainly sparked off some strident political views on the EZ and how it’s economies are being managed. It’s almost as if the EZ’s determination to solve the economic problems have lit the fuse on a long term political problem.

    Also very interesting today to see the IMF state publicly that the bailout is inadequate and that they won’t be involved unless it is a properly crafted deal. Again, the IMF is telling the EZ and ECB that they have got it wrong.

  6. I think the Labour Leadership contest is fascinating.

    Whoever wins, I can see massive upheaval for Labour. It might be painful, but is probably the fresh start it needs.

    Mr Corbyn has started a fire for sure, and all modernisers seem to have to put it out are buckets of petrol.

    The PLP and membership relationship looks seriously damaged too.

  7. Nothing is so bad it can’t happen, so said Gunther Grasse about what he had learned as a child soldier on the Eastern Front.

    The hesitation of the IMF to countenance involvement in a Greek bail out unless the EZ accepts a big write off is seen as pressure on Germany and co (which it is) but the more likely outcome is that Germany walks away. There is believed to be little chance of the German parliament voting for any deal that does not include the IMF and less of a chance of Germany providing the terms the IMF is demanding as an entry condition.

  8. @ Catmanjeff,

    all modernisers seem to have to put it out are buckets of petrol

    We’re certainly getting a graphic demonstration of why every election campaign John McTernan has ever advised has resulted in a catastrophic defeat.

  9. @Spearmint

    I think that’s a very astute commentary on the Labour election.

    Cooper will get most of the Kendall second preference votes, and then it could be tight between her and Burnham.

    If Burnham is eliminated, then more of his votes will go to Corbyn, whereas if Cooper is eliminated, then almost all will go to Burnham.

    So yes, Burnham is the logical ‘stop Corbyn’ candidate.

    Which begs the question: Why has Burnham plunged in the betting, whilst Cooper has remained steady?

    It is a complete mystery to me.

  10. @ Millie,

    Burnham’s momentum stalled out after the welfare vote because his supporters are leftwing enough to get upset about it and some defected to Corbyn, whereas Cooper’s were already embracing the “move right” strategy and didn’t care. Then Burnham had to tack left to try to win them back, so he probably lost a few more people on his right flank. This gave Cooper the chance to catch up to him. They crossed over briefly in CLP nominations this evening.

    I still tend to think the membership are so unimpressed with her that she won’t be able to beat Burnham in the second round even with most of Kendall’s transfers, but who knows.

    It may well be that ten years from now we’ll look back at the welfare vote as the final nail in the coffin of New Labour. Which I suppose is poetic justice for the lousy way Blair and Brown treated Harriet Harman for all those years…

  11. Syriza is a major defeat to the radical petty bourgeois parties everywhere in Europe (most notably in Spain, and it is not because of the growth there).

    The outcome is likely be (depending on the area) an increase on the radical right, or (less likely, but plausibly) to the centre right. The UK is uniquely protected in spite of the UKIP an SNP.

    As to Labour … … … … ….

  12. @ Spearmint

    To be fair to Cooper. She had some of the most left wing points in this competition. If I had the vote, I would give it to her. She will have a lot of seconds. The question is whose second. AV system …

  13. @ Laszlo,

    Apparently she picks up a lot of Corbyn’s 2nd prefs too. Not that that is going to be relevant.

  14. Millie, I suspect you’re mistaken about where Burnham’s preferences would go. I suspect they’d break more to Cooper than Corbyn (albeit less strongly than Cooper’s would go to Burnham).

  15. As a young student union activist (albeit one who did not seek to use as a springboard to a political career) I came across these AV/STV dilemas/challenges frequently.

    There is an attempt to say vote Cooper get Cobyn by the Burnham camp.
    The idea being as others have stated above that /Cooper in the final round would be a win for the former as ABs preferences will not split enough (if at all) in YC favour.
    Whereas if Cooper goes out in round 2 her votes will split decisively in ABs favour so he wins a JC/AB final round.

    Ergo – if you support Cooper but can live with Burnham and don’t want Corbyn you better vote Burnham.

    Logical Yes?
    Desperate from AB supporters – Yes
    Will it work – maybe?

    Personally, I think but with no conviction that Cooper will make the final round and it may even be with Burnham’s as Corbyn’s vote may be flakier than is apparent.

  16. Corbyn launches an open letter calling for party unity regardless of who wins. Everyone not signing is to to be called a Blairite Progress Neoliberal Tory War Criminal by a hipster on Twitter.

  17. @Mr Nameless

    I can’t see why Burnham/Cooper is less likely than Cooper/Burnham. Neither Burnham nor Cooper supporters want Corbyn or Kendall to win as they see both as extreme.

    Obviously it depends on the FP maths, but if Cooper performs respectably on FP votes, she’s bound to get far more SP votes than anyone else, because (bar Corbyn) she is everyone else’s second choice – as was demonstrated by her spread of MP nominations.

    One word of caution about the process. In the London Mayoral contests in 2008 and 2012 many votes Boris/Ken or Ken/Boris and of course SP votes of candidates who make the final round do not count! There were a lot of wasted votes.

1 9 10 11