YouGov in the Sunday Times
13 Sep 2008
There is a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times showing topline figures (with changes from YouGov’s last poll) of CON 46%(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 16%(nc). Effectively no change again, giving us a very static summer in the polls. Unless there is more to come from the Sunday papers that is the last pre-conference poll (and apparently the last pre-Labour leadership crisis poll), so we shall see what effect that has.
The Sunday Times normally ask quite a wide range of questions in their YouGov polls, so I’ll update later on or tomorrow with anything else interesting.
Filed under: Uncategorized
There is a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times showing topline figures (with changes from YouGov’s last poll) of CON 46%(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 16%(nc). Effectively no change again….
Anthony, do you have a proper job – other then stating the obvious…?
anthony most likely sits at a desk all day and dose nothing or little at all and all politics is is a pass time.
as the conferance season gets going we should see a bit more beaf on the bone from the conservatives and more of the same or worse from labour the lib dems as ever will pick up labour voters who do not want to vote conservative or ex lib dem voters who swichted to labour in 1997 in what we may see is conservatives taking votes from labour and the lib dems but the lib dems taking votes from labour in light we should have a govenment with lib dem second conservative first and labour well third or worse.
I am fairly new to the polling game, but can see that there is merit having a poll conducted immediately prior to the start of the party conferences, as a marker or baseline. As the weeks progress, so the impact of each conference can be measured by the changes from that earlier poll.
It’s just a guess; but it means that it was worth conducting and worthy of a mention here, also noting whether or not there had been any change from recent “regular” polls.
This Yougov poll represents an 11% swing from Labour to Conservative from 2005 – and suggesta a fairly stable position for some four months now. Indeed the Labour figure – 27% – is on the higher side for Yougov , if anything,and tends to confirm a bottoming out in its support.I suspect a new leader could add at least 5 % to this figure!
Fluffy Thoughts (E.D.P.),
That’s a bit harsh, shooting the messenger….
Anthony merely gives us the update on what the polls says. It’s hardly his fault if it doesn’t tell us anything new. As to the day job that’s his business.
Peter.
Me thinks our Scottish participator is unaware of a “tongue in cheek” comment by Fluffy Thoughts – perhaps lightening up would be the order of the day.
This latest POLL from YouGov is no surprise – we will see some inetersting POLLS during and after the 3 main parties have concluded their conferences – mixed in with the rising mutiny by Labour MP’s.
The Oracle,
I think Peter and Anthony are aware of my tone of response. When the parameters don’t change there is little to say.
However, it is good to talk…!
P.S. It may save NBeale some time doing his analysis. It’s now a cut-’n'-paste jobbie…!
I think there has been a ‘wait and see’ mentality among many Labour supporters towards both Brown and the Labour government.
Will ditching Brown make ANY difference? It may make a small difference, but not necessarily a positive one from a Labour perspective. It depends, of course, on who they choose as their new leader.
Brown’s misleading statement that all pensioners would benefit from their scheme to help the poorest lower their energy costs may have been the last straw for some people. And with gathering pressure a leadership contest does seem to have become probable, but not yet inevitable.
i’ve now had time to look through the results of this poll and the fiures for regions which are high this time round, the only hope for brown at this time is the north where the gap to the conservatives has closed to one point CON 38% to LAB’s 37% but even with that figure the labour party would lose alot of seats in the north, however in scotland it looks like the poll that was conducted by yougov not so long ago was right and the gap has come down labour are only 3pts down 209 people came from scotland in this poll so more representitive than normal, the midland/wales and the south are mainly un-changed and londons votes is only a few pts back towards labour, however as we know the regional figures are most likely a few pts up or down due to the size or number of people survayed in each regional area but the high sample rate in most regions is a good taster of onpinon across the country but the top line figures tell their own storie labour slightly up but nothing to talk about and the conservatives up slightly but nothing to talk about a steady picture for now but as i’ve said this poll had a high number of respondents so seams more representitive.
It is almost become a wee bit boring -these endless identical polls. Are we waiting for a rogue poll to come along and get us all going again?
Today is a grim day in the financial world-much worse than when Northern Rock went down and the implications for the wider economy are beyond calculation. The latest CBI forecast of a mild recession is I fear already out of date. What we are about to experience is not only going to shake the architecture but bring about the fall of several buildings.
In this situation we simply cannot afford to have a government which is in office but not in power and torn apart by internal dissent and so completely lacking any notion of what to do next. Something has to give at the coming Labour party conference or we are heading for uncharted waters which I for one have no wish to enter.
Bizarre, isn’t it? Free-market capitalism is effectively pronounced dead by the Fed, and yet a supposedly interventionist UK Govt finds no traction, no way of simply pointing out that the markets cannot be trusted as they were.
This collapse (and the sale of ML) proves why banks are reluctant to lend to each other – no-one wants to let on about the level of exposure to the brokers’ folly.
I don’t share Nick’s pessimism on the economy. Oil ($95) and gas continue to cheapen, so we should get interest rates cut and cheaper fuel soon.
The CBI is probably basing its mildly negative forecast on the shaking out of the cost-push inflation from the last ten months.
I do agree with Nick re the Labour conference – it’s probably Brown’s last chance to start doing what he was (not!) elected to do – Lead!
It is important to have regular polls, not least at the start of the Conference season, and I agree that Anthony cannot be blamed if the result is “no change”.
I also agree with John t that the big issue is that now even the United States establishment has come to realise that free market capitalism is dead. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Blair/Brown Government that went out of its way to support such economic policies, despite their party’s past, is in deep trouble. If the real issue is economics, it doesn’t matter who their leaser is. All Labour’s MPs voted to squander proceeds of North Sea oil and to let the fre market rip itself to pieces.
It is also hardly surprising given such economics that the Liberal Democrats are getting nowhere. It was Liberal economists who thought up in the first place the ideas that have got the world into its current mess. Ordinary voters may not understand this, but perhaps they do understand that the LIbDems are adrift ideologically without any answers.
The Tories have undertaken major economic somersaults over the last two centuries, and I suppose a cynical electorate thinks Cameron might do so too as the least worst of a bad bunch.
Perhaps the surprise in current cicumstances is that the Greens are not making major progress. I have pointed out in previous posts that, whether or not you agree with the Greens, they are the only serious and moderate party to be offering a genuinely different economic policy at the moment. Maybe the trouble is that people identify the Greens with the environment, whereas voters at present are preoccupoed by the economy. This is a mistaken perception, because the environmental crises that are threatening to overwhelm us are part and parcel of devastating failings in the economic orthodoxy that is now breaking down, specifically its short-termism. But the Greens are not yet managing to get the connection betwen the economic and environmental crises across to non-committed electors.
It is difficult to argue that thinks are getting better for Labour, with the economic crises that have spread from US economic institutions in the last couple of weeks as well as their intensifying leadership disarray. Labour’s static position in the polls – a 1% change is within statistical error – strenghtens the impression many of us have had for some time that they are down to their bedrock support.
I think the idea that “Free Market Capitalism is dead” is ridiculous.
What has died is inadequately regulated bank lending, opaque tradeable financial instruments as a means of earning huge bonuses, unrealistic central bank interest rate policy-and the outome of all these failures-the massive overstatement of house values.
I happened to buy my house in 2000 & sell in 2006. It increased in value by 135% in those six years.This period roughly correlates with the most marked period of house price increase in this country following the 95/96 bottom.
From Sept 01 to Nov 06 UK base rates were sub 5%-sub 4% for a while.
In retrospect it was crazy to set interest rates at 4%pa or 5%pa when house prices were rising by 20%pa.
It was a fools paradise-in UK as well as USA.
That vastly inflated asset values are now being unearthed in the “sophisticated” financial assets on the balance sheets of lending institutions is hardly a surprise.
Neither-sadly- is the craven panic with which these institutions now try to avoid dealing with one another, and look to Governments & Taxpayers to get them out of the mess.
The idea that the banks are in “craven panic” is ridiculous. They are behaving perfectly rationally. They each know that others are exposed to sub-prime debt at a level which is too high a risk to deal with.
THe Fed has signalled that it won’t always bail out losers, ironically in a “let the market alone” spirit, and in doing so has allowed the free-market to kill itself.That’s not to say that the market is dead, or capitalism, but free-market capitalism as we’ve known it has gone.
Interest rate setting is done to control inflation and growth.
Creating CDS and SPVs and what have you (ie money out of thin air) was more to blame and that fault lies with those who act without proper ethics to guide them. No amount of (artificially) high interest rate setting would have prevented that.
NR is one thing, but 250k USA repos per month puts the thing in better perspective
“Interest rate setting is done to control inflation”
But the point I made was that “inflation” did not include house prices.
In the period I cited “inflation” was largely a function of cheap imported consumer products( not forgeting that in 2003 GB dumped RPI ,which includes some house related costs, to CPI which doesn’t !)
BoE set it’s interest rate against that benchmark, and the resultant interest rate was the driver for the cheap and plentifull credit which drove house prices to double digit inflation.
The unsustainable rise in house prices was caused by the disconnected low interest rate.
Yes-of course the packaging & trading on of those loans on fundamentally unsound collateral valuations spread the contagion through the banking system.
But it was the low interest rate/cheap credit = everincreasing house prices formula that caused the problem.
That is why Greenspan said yesterday that the problem will not be resolved until house prices reach their floor. Only then can values be ascribed to the toxic loans with a degree of certainty.
I’m not an economist, but I don’t understand why the price of houses isn’t included in the inflation figure. OK I can understand CPI as a measure for comparing EU countries, and RPI as a measure of what inflation is for the individual – but if you are trying to control inflationary pressures in the economy, surely the price of houses is an important part of that?
Colin – the fact really is that higher interest rates would not have prevented the back-room magicians from working out how to create money out of thin air and let the jobless pay for it (and even they won’t have to pay because they’ll just default and go back to renting)
House prices will almost certainly over-shoot the “floor” and there’ll be a good few people out there rubbing there hands and holding onto their cash.
Credit boom and bust was the reason for the 90′s recession, and that happened despite relatively high rates.
Credit controls were not introduced then, and won’t be introduced this time (when the reasons for any recession will be more to do with lax controls all round than just low rates)
Phil C – house price defaltion would distort the picture and people would be very unhappy if they had a wage claim of inflation + 1% when their house had just lost 15% of its value.
Having said that, I believe the BofE takes house prices into account when setting rates.
And another thing…
High rates lowers inflation. Too high, and you risk de-flation. You think it’s bad now?
john tt – I would support the current situation of their being one measure for measuring inflation in the economy, and one for mesasuring the cost of living for individuals. RPI is a given, I was really questioning the suitability of CPI as a measure of inflationary pressures in the economy.
Your second point – what I’m getting at is that maybe the effective rate of inflation is currently less than 4.4% becauae house price deflation isn’t being factored in – so maybe we need lower interest rates.
Phil – We do need lower interest rates but not because of lower house prices and not despite high petrol costs. We need lower rates in order to boost the amount of money in the economy. We also need lower taxes (I think that’s happened this month) for the same reason.
I do agree that different measures should be used for different purposes – that would lead to more transparency and less confusion between core inflation (wages and general cost increases) and “shock” inflation (ie house price and oil spikes).
john:-
“the fact really is that higher interest rates would not have prevented the back-room magicians from working out how to create money out of thin air ”
It isn’t “thin air” thats the issue-it’s the trading of securitised mortgage debt with inherantly impaired asset backing.-and its the trading of these instruments in an opaque fashion which leaves the holders unable to readily value them.
This has caused the credit crunch.
As to whether higher interest rates would have helped-the question is did low interest rates encourage the bubble. I think the answer is yes-so higher interest rates for mortgages would have helped-plus some effective monitoring & oversight of the lenders by central banks in USA & UK.!
THis of course raises the problem of two tier interest rates-one for industry & commercial lending-and one for the house finance market. I have no idea how this might be achieved-but it should be considered.
Right now industry is crying out for lower interest rates to stave off recession-but lower interest rates may mitigate against the correction in house prices and reduction in household debt that is needed.
THe UK Government -whoever that is to be-must change the rules & regulations applied to Financial Markets. ( Who agreed that Banks should be able to leverage their “assets” by a factor of X30 as is now being commented on?)
Just hasd a llok at the full figures.
As elsewhere Gordon Brown is still far more popular in Scotland than elsewhere but what struck me was the Voting Intention figures;
Labour 32%, SNP 35%, Tories 22% ( the highest figure I think I,ve seen for them ever) and LibDems 8% ( The lowest figure I think i’ve seen since they dumped Charles Kennedy).
That puts the LibDems close to a third of what they got in Scotland in the last westminster election.
I am sure they well get a conference boost but I am not sure if they will get as large a one in Scotland as they seemed a bit to much like the Tories.
It may however have an impact between the Libdem/Tory vote gap and be significant in the seats near edinburgh and in the Borders where it could decide who gets the seat.
But before you say it Mike, it still won’t mean 10 Tory seats in Scotland.
Peter.
inherantly impaired asset backing
My shorthand is “thin air”.
Two-tier interest rates – it sounds to me like you’re becoming something of an interventionist at last
Lenders set their own rates, either discounting or loading the base rate depending on the competitive market.
What might have a dampening/mitigating effect on household debt would be some way of taxing equity release, with the proceeds being used to reduce IHT. However, I can’t see any votes in anything that prevents people from pocketing a wedge every so often
Peter – Do you think the improvement of the tory polls signals the end of the Thatcher Factor for Scots?
The poll tax abuse of 1989 is a dead issue now that the LIT is on its way in?
John tt,
I am not even saying it has improved. Is a small sample in one poll and it may indicate something or nothing.
I don’t see any reason for scots to warm that much to he Tories but then given the miidle ground they are trying to occupy their really isn’t any real reason why they should only get half of what the get in England.
What we will have to watch is whether Clegg and then Cameron have any effect on what happens to their vote share in Scotland.
The Libdems might pick up at Tory expense by talking about tax cuts, but equally the Libdems might get squeezed if the Tories continue to grow in strength and look more and more like a governement in waiting.
Clegg could be thinking that as the Labour vote seems set to collapse he will pick up a good part of it before the Tories, so he doesn’t have to try as hard to take votes from Labour as he does keep them from the Tories.
In that case it might be a good Uk strategy, bu it might play better in the south than in Scotland.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
Peter.
There were a lot of posts following my last one which discussed economics without concentrating, as I did, on its psephological implications. Which shows what a hot topic the economic crisis is for voting intentions.
Perhaps I could point out that a regulated market is not a free market. I think one of the reasons the parties get in such a tangle over economics, with implications both for their efficiency and their support, is that they pretend to support an economic philosophy when in fact their policies and actions don’t follow that philosophy. Which is hardly a good way of getting voters’ support. Once again, the ewxception are the Greens, but perhaps that is becasue they have never been tested in power.
On a separate matter, Peter Cairns reported Scottish figures is interesting. However, with respect to the Liberal Democrats polling data in Scotland particularly must be treated with caution because Liberal Democrat support is concentrated in a small number of seats where they hae MPs. However, it is difficult on such figures to believe the Liberal Democrats are going forwards rather than backwards. They don’t seem to be succeeding in putting forward a distinctive platform, and in Scotland, where the vote has historically been largely pro- or anti-Labour, there are other havens for voters wishing to register a protest vote.
One swallow does not a summer make. I would need to see a lot more polls showing the Scottish Tories at this level before placing any credence in a major revival happening in their fortunes north of the border.Nevertheless it is on the cards that one will happen between now and the General Election and this just might be the first indication.
How any such revival might translate into seats is open to question. An electoral calculator is of less help in a four party fight. Clearly those on this site who have long been in denial over POSSIBLE Tory gains in the likes of Edinburgh South must wake up to reality. The Tories are on the march.The worse the economic picture gets the more voters will tend to coalesce around the party most likely to evict the present government.
Nick,
“The worse the economic picture gets the more voters will tend to coalesce around the party most likely to evict the present government.”
with respect I think the time for that pasted last year when the LibDems were being squeezed and Labour or tory could win. for the last six months i think the public mood has been that the tories will win, so I can see movement betwen the other parties by those who won’t vote Tory rather than an increase in the Tory vote.
the decline in the Libdem vote will be interesting if true, if the poll showes where it has come from. It could be that the “we’ll cut taxes bit has actually put off Labour defectors.
Peter.
Peter
Well yes and no. The recession has only just started to bite and its full effect will probably not hit the general population until 2009. If the government is unpopular now heaven knows what depths it could sink to next year and on into 2010.
There are plenty of people out there-nearly 40% of the electorate-who usually don’t bother to vote-and in the above scenario-might be so angry with Labour as to cast a vote to get them out rather than aiming to register a protest vote for the Lib Dems or a minor party. You obviously hope the SNP can retain its present level of support in the polls. Well yes being a reasonable person I agree that it might but it is also quite conceivable that you will get a late surge from the don’t knows to the Tory party as happened in both 1970 and 1992 and most notably right here in Scotland. The latter was my biggest ever betting coup and I am looking to collect again so lock up your cheque book Peter!! Hope its not HSBOS you are with…..
Frederick is right that LibDem holds in Scottish constituencies are to be expected despite national polling trends.
The LibDem voter in those LibDem highland strongholds asks two questions:
1) Has the incumbent LibDem MP been above average in understanding of constituency issues and active in promoting constituency interests, (post offices, fishing, farming etc) and deserves to be supported?
2) In the light of the answer to that, will voting LibDem still be the “best buy” for someone who wants to keep out either Lab, or Con, or Lab+Con, or would the SNP be a better option?
In these constituencies, provided the SNP are in a poor fourth position, a LibDem is a secure incumbent and in others could be a successful challenger to only Labour.
In the constituency in which I vote, Argyll and Bute the answer for some voters will be “No” though whether there will be sufficient LibDem losses for the third placed SNP to win is at this time still unclear. What is clear is that the Conservatives will certainly still be in second place and Labour have nothing much to lose.
It’s not simply the existence of a fourth party that makes national polling swings almost useless in predicting the outcome of Scottish marginals, but the fact that sometimes one, sometimes the other and sometimes both of the Westminster government parties is not in contention and each of these conditions needs to be considered in a different way.
Conservatives have one highly likely gain and I have never doubted that there are three, perhaps four other “POSSIBLE” gains. I am not in denial about that, its just that I don’t believe in counting ALL the chickens before they are hatched. If the Conservatives end up with a total of three seats in Scotland, they should be well pleased with the result.
If present trends continue, the SNP might achieve their target of 20, but as things stand at present, that seems over ambitious though not quite as absurd as the Oracle’s 12 Cons.
As for the “Thatcher Factor”, the opportunity to link cheap archive broadcasting to a state funeral will give it a final boost before it can be over. Could the SNP be lucky enough for that to happen a fortnight before the referendum?