It looks as though opinion polls are going in the same 24/7 direction as the news did roughly seven years ago. On the broader canvas, this worries me even more than non-stop news – for while that discourages analysis and makes it easier for those in public life to lie, the exponential rate of improvement in online polling technology and analysis is bringing the instant-decision ‘amphitheatre culture’ ever closer.

Within five years, near universal access to interactive government will mean that some idiot can suggest an idea on waking up at 7.30 am, and have it enacted by mid afternoon. Imagine the Blind Date ‘ditch or date?’ format transferred to ‘should these enemies of the People live or die?’ and you might understand my concern. Or feel more sure than ever that I’m completely mad – the choice is yours.

But although it worries me, market research is one of my professional disciplines, so I’m a sucker for what they have to say – and not always just to try and prove polls wrong and/or pointless. Today at poll of polls, a new ICM study is reviewed looking at Labour’s candidates to give the leaderless ranks a new Messiah.

When candidates are unknown, such polls can mislead: at the start of Cameron’s leadership bid, he scored 4%. No doubt even now, there are electors who think he’s Cameron Diaz’s elder brother. I have worked with clients where names we invented as ‘control’ comparisons scored more than the brand being studied. Thus, Jon Cruddas (what a name that is) getting a 2% level of support is probably meaningless – beyond telling his campaign team that their man has a mountain to climb.

More interesting are the Labour names that people know extremely well. As you might expect, Fresh-faced banana munching David Miliband is miles ahead on 32%, but other scores suggest that your average Brit can still tell jelly from putty.

Thus Harriet Harman (who isn’t running anyway) got just 11%. Just three years ago – having just been elected deputy Labour leaderine – she peaked at 7%. This tells you exactly how hopelessly out of touch Labour is, but her increase almost certainly has nothing to do with her performance. I suspect it’s a combination of everyone else at a senior level being utterly discredited, and Hattie being seen as wise for deciding not to stand. Even if the Party doesn’t get it, the Mad Hatter knows perfectly well how unpopular she is.

More interesting still is the high-profile Ed Balls’ score – a pathetic 8%. As Morley’s constituency result showed, most people see Balls for what he is – Ashcroft or no Ashcroft. What’s more, ICM also showed a continuing 64% level of approval for the ToryDem coalition.

So on that basis, Balls is probably a shoe-in for the job.