Latest UK Polls

Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor is out today, with topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 11%, GRN 4%

MORI also asked respondents to choose between the parties on various more specific measures – a bank of questions with back data going back to 1989:

• On having the “best policies for the country as a whole” the Conservatives now lead by ten points (compared to a two point Tory lead in 2010 and 2014, and a Labour lead from 1992 to 2005).
  
  
• On being the most clear and united about its policies the Conservatives lead by twenty points (compared to ten points in 2014, five points in 2010. The last time there was a lead this big was a 31 point lead for Labour in 2001.)
  
  
• On having the best “team of leaders” the Conservatives lead by twenty-seven points (compared to eleven points in 2014 and five points in 2010 – again you need to go back to Labour in 2001 to find a larger lead)
  
  
• The only measure where Labour haven’t collapsed is “looking after the interests of people like yourself” – here the Conservatives have a narrow lead of four points, compared to a two point Labour lead in 2014 and a four point Tory lead in 2010.
  
  

The poll also had questions about two policy issues facing Labour. One was Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion that companies should be barred from paying dividends if they don’t pay the living wage. In principle this idea seems popular – 66% of people say they would support it, 17% of people would be opposed. In the survey MORI did a split sample experiment and asked the other half of the sample about the policy without any attribution, and half about it having explained it was Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion. When the policy was identified as coming from Corbyn support was lower – 60% support, 24% opposed.
The obvious conclusion is that identifying a policy as coming from Jeremy Corbyn makes it less popular. This is probably true… but I wouldn’t get too excited about it. Conservative party modernisers used to make their case using similar data showing policies were less popular when associated with the Conservative party. I think the reality is that strong partisan supporters of other political parties will almost always be turned off a policy when it is associated with an opponent, so yes, putting Jeremy Corbyn’s name to a policy would make it less popular, but so would putting the Labour party’s name to the policy, or the Conservative party’s name, or Osborne or Cameron’s name.
The other policy MORI asked about was Trident. 58% of people opposed Britain getting rid of nuclear weapons, rising to 70% when it was asked specifically about unilateral disarmament… a similar figure to when MORI asked the same question in the 1980s.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9591


It does make for interesting reading this. With huge austerity measures and yet there is an increase for Tory support and policies.
I think two aspects stand out here.
One again people think with what is in their pocket
Two people are concerned at the appeasement of the left on security issues

I presume that Corbyn's talking about the voluntary living wage, not the compulsory one. If companies don't pay the compulsory one, they'll be in trouble anyway.

He can't ban companies from paying dividends as long as they're paying employees the legal rate - that would be absurd.

Right, so assuming that he's talking about the voluntary living wage, I don't think he's thought this through.

First of all, not all shareholders are "fat cats". There are plenty of people with a small shareholding. If they didn't get dividends, they would lose money that they perhaps depend on a little bit. The value of their shares would fall because bigger investors aren't going to bother with companies who don't pay out a dividend and whose shares are unlikely to rise in value very much in the long term.

He won't be able to apply it to foreign companies of course, only British ones, so guess what? British companies would go down the pan and the foreign ones will flourish.

It wouldn't necessarily affect bonuses paid to the "fat cats" who run those companies or are directors.

It may well create benefits for rich speculators who could use the fall in share prices to their own advantage - something I'm sure Corbyn would not like to see.

Raggamuffin wrote:Right, so assuming that he's talking about the voluntary living wage, I don't think he's thought this through.

First of all, not all shareholders are "fat cats". There are plenty of people with a small shareholding. If they didn't get dividends, they would lose money that they perhaps depend on a little bit. The value of their shares would fall because bigger investors aren't going to bother with companies who don't pay out a dividend and whose shares are unlikely to rise in value very much in the long term.

He won't be able to apply it to foreign companies of course, only British ones, so guess what? British companies would go down the pan and the foreign ones will flourish.

It wouldn't necessarily affect bonuses paid to the "fat cats" who run those companies or are directors.

It may well create benefits for rich speculators who could use the fall in share prices to their own advantage - something I'm sure Corbyn would not like to see.

Very interesting Rags
I think it would still apply to foreign companies in the UK
What may well instead then happen, is they would do something far worse and close their businesses here and set up shop else where.
So your point would still stand on this.

I hear and read this, I dunno what to believe.

People on the minimum wage whatever amount it has been over the years get government top ups to survive which to me is wrong.
Any company which does not pay a nationally agreed LIVING WAGE should be closed down.

I bet directors, company owners live well on NOT paying a LIVING WAGE to employees.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Right, so assuming that he's talking about the voluntary living wage, I don't think he's thought this through.

First of all, not all shareholders are "fat cats". There are plenty of people with a small shareholding. If they didn't get dividends, they would lose money that they perhaps depend on a little bit. The value of their shares would fall because bigger investors aren't going to bother with companies who don't pay out a dividend and whose shares are unlikely to rise in value very much in the long term.

He won't be able to apply it to foreign companies of course, only British ones, so guess what? British companies would go down the pan and the foreign ones will flourish.

It wouldn't necessarily affect bonuses paid to the "fat cats" who run those companies or are directors.

It may well create benefits for rich speculators who could use the fall in share prices to their own advantage - something I'm sure Corbyn would not like to see.

Very interesting Rags
I think it would still apply to foreign companies in the UK
What may well instead then happen, is they would do something far worse and close their businesses here and set up shop else where.
So your point would still stand on this.

They'd find ways round it - possibly by issuing shareholders with different kinds of shares whereby they're not subject to British rules - other than tax rules of course.

Also, how is he going to police this and find out what companies are paying each of their employees?

Stormee wrote:I hear and read this, I dunno what to believe.

People on the minimum wage whatever  amount it has been over the years get government top ups to survive which to me is wrong.
Any company which does not pay a nationally agreed LIVING WAGE should be closed down.

I bet directors, company owners live well on NOT paying a LIVING WAGE to employees.

So you would install mass unemployment.

They should be fined, but closed down is not the most practical policy I think anyone would back.

I back a living wage and it will happen, as already some companies like Lidl's have up their wages to accommodate this.
This always has an effect on other companies within that industry, as they will then lose the best pool of people
It tends to make others up their money over a period of time

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Very interesting Rags
I think it would still apply to foreign companies in the UK
What may well instead then happen, is they would do something far worse and close their businesses here and set up shop else where.
So your point would still stand on this.

They'd find ways round it - possibly by issuing shareholders with different kinds of shares whereby they're not subject to British rules - other than tax rules of course.

Also, how is he going to police this and find out what companies are paying each of their employees?

Not sure to be honest rags, the details here would be very important to understand how this would work.

Stormee wrote:I hear and read this, I dunno what to believe.

People on the minimum wage whatever  amount it has been over the years get government top ups to survive which to me is wrong.
Any company which does not pay a nationally agreed LIVING WAGE should be closed down.

I bet directors, company owners live well on NOT paying a LIVING WAGE to employees.

This is why the Government is bringing in the national living wage - so that people earn more and therefore don't need to claim top up benefits - in theory anyway. In April there will be a living wage of £7.20 per hour, but only for people over 25.

There's also a voluntary living wage, which is different and is a higher amount than the statutory one. I'm pleased to see that quite a few companies have decided to pay the voluntary living wage.

Of course, it might mean that companies cut costs in other ways - by cutting jobs, for example.

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:I hear and read this, I dunno what to believe.

People on the minimum wage whatever  amount it has been over the years get government top ups to survive which to me is wrong.
Any company which does not pay a nationally agreed LIVING WAGE should be closed down.

I bet directors, company owners live well on NOT paying a LIVING WAGE to employees.

So you would install mass unemployment.

They should be fined, but closed down is not the most practical policy I think anyone would back.

I back a living wage and it will happen, as already some companies like Lidl's have up their wages to accommodate this.
This always has an effect on other companies within that industry, as they will then lose the best pool of people
It tends to make others up their money over a period of time

The voluntary living wage is very useful in areas with low unemployment. As you say, if one company is paying more than a similar company, people will apply to the one which pays more. The second company will therefore either have to raise wages or be very short-staffed because they can't recruit, which pisses off the people already working there, and who might leave.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They'd find ways round it - possibly by issuing shareholders with different kinds of shares whereby they're not subject to British rules - other than tax rules of course.

Also, how is he going to police this and find out what companies are paying each of their employees?

Not sure to be honest rags, the details here would be very important to understand how this would work.

Foreign investment in British companies may well drop too - I don't suppose he's thought about that.

This is the trouble with people like Corbyn - he may well have the interests of "poor" people at heart, but he needs to think about the long-term consequences of what he's proposing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not sure to be honest rags, the details here would be very important to understand how this would work.

Foreign investment in British companies may well drop too - I don't suppose he's thought about that.

This is the trouble with people like Corbyn - he may well have the interests of "poor" people at heart, but he needs to think about the long-term consequences of what he's proposing.

100% agree rags

These polls are a bit silly really. Of course if you ask people if shareholders should get rich on dividends whilst the workers are paid a pittance, they're going to say no. That's because they don't understand how the market works and the knock-on effects of such a policy.

Mass immigration pushes up the cost of living while also pushing/holding down wages and suppressing wage increases...

Con majorities...
Electoral Calculus 98
Fisher et al. combined 100
Nigel Marriott 109
ComRes 100+
Ashcroft Model 142
Yougov Model - hung

what is clear is that the tories are not in freefall as they are a point down on the figures they had when the election was called.
Labour have increased their share somewhat, but then people do tend to like being offered free stuff from the magic money tree. And don't like having to face up to the realities of the day.
However when it comes to put that x in the box most will not be so stupid as to vote for the three stooges of corbyn, maodonnell and abbot, who would make britian into a worse version of Venezuela.

The tories will have a comfortable majority.
Labour will claim victory if they have 200 seats left, I am not sure they will.

If you want labour in power then dont vote tory. If you dont, then every vote that isn't for the tories puts corbyn one step closer to not defending our country.

Dino wrote:...people do tend to like being offered free stuff from the magic money tree. And don't like having to face up to the realities of the day.

Rather like free pretzels on the bar, as you finish your pint. Brings the lads in.

Original Quill wrote:

Dino wrote:...people do tend to like being offered free stuff from the magic money tree. And don't like having to face up to the realities of the day.

Rather like free pretzels on the bar, as you finish your pint.  Brings the lads in.  

Very true, Quill. The trouble is, though, that someone is having to pay for those "free" pretzels in the long run, and all too often it's not the ones gorging themselves at the bar.

Don't believe any of 'em, they are always wrong, [ mostly]

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Rather like free pretzels on the bar, as you finish your pint.  Brings the lads in.  

Very true, Quill. The trouble is, though, that someone is having to pay for those "free" pretzels in the long run, and all too often it's not the ones gorging themselves at the bar.

very true, and likely to make you sick in the long run(s)