• Labour at record low in Westminster poll
  • Lib Dems only three points behind Labour
  • UKIP surge by 12 points in European voting intentions

There is a new YouGov poll in tomorrow’s Sun with Westminster and European voting intentions, both of which are striking in their own way.

The Westminster voting intentions, with changes from YouGov’s last poll, are CON 41%(-2), LAB 22%(-5), LDEM 19%(+1). Populus’s poll on Monday evening was taken after the Telegraph’s expenses expose had begun, but this is the first poll taken when people had really had chance to digest it (and the first to come after Tory expenses exposes really began to run). Once again both main parties have suffered, but Labour have clearly come off worse. This is their lowest rating in any national opinion poll, ever. It is also the lowest gap between Labour and the Liberal Democrats for years. It is worth considering that YouGov normally give the Liberal Democrats their lowest ratings – if this poll had been carried out by ICM we might very well be looking at a poll with Labour in third place.

The maths of the poll suggest that there must also have been a significant increase in support for “other” parties, though from the Sun’s report we can’t tell who has been the beneificiary of that.

Moving to the European voting intentions, the topline figures with changes from before the expenses expose began are CON 28%(-9), LAB 19%(-3), UKIP 19%(+12!) – the Sun report does not provide the Liberal Democrat or Green figures, but the BNP remain at 4%, unchanged from a week ago. It appears that UKIP – despite their MEPs own problems with fraud and expenses, have been the overwhelming victors from the expenses row.

UPDATE: Uncertainty about the actual European figures. UKIP are no longer mentioned in the Sun article, and while the article itself still says Labour are at 19%, the accompanying graphic shows them at 20%, with UKIP at 15% and the Lib Dems at 19%. I’ll go and find out the true figures!


121 Responses to “UKIP surge in the wake of expenses expose”

1 2 3
  1. ‘Pete B

    We actually lose on our trade with the EU, so if it stopped altogether so we’d actually be better off

    So based on the past you think it’s happen again? Good luck. Once you tell the EU you don’t want them where would trade go? Commonwealth? You’ve told them to get stuffed when you joined the EU so that’s gone. So your argument is pointless…

    If the UK spent the 20 years to withdraw from the EU no-one would be at all interested in them. Do you seriously expect the EU to say fine withdraw, but you can have the benefit of being part of the trade group. No way. The UK would be an isolated little country relying solely on its historic theme park to earn some money.

    You can not turn back the clock; the UKIP are little Englanders who have not realised that the UK is now a fairly minor player in the world.

  2. THANK YOU JANE – you are so right!
    UKIP is not irrelevant, it’s certainly not laughable and is not a one-issue party. Nor does it want to be “isolated” – it just wants us to govern ourselves which means choosing what taxes we pay and what laws we pass.
    That is not isolation, it’s FREEDOM.
    Ivan the Terrible is naive to believe that the Conservatives are Eurosceptic. David Cameron is just an opportunist who is prepared to say anything to get votes. One minute he promises a refendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the next minute he has forgotten what he said. He was a side-kick of Major and Lamont when they were messing this country up.

  3. The spin from the main parties is similar to 2004, and the media were there to help then. This time the media has to give UKIP greater exposure and that is why UKIP’s phones are ringing off the hook.

    It suits UKIP to a degree to have the main parties, and remember the LibDemds came 4th last time, saying UKIP is not doing well. Come June 4th UKIP will be at least second. We now have ‘it’s the way I tell ’em’ Frank Carson as a member. That will be worth a few thousand votes.

  4. “Come June 4th UKIP will be at least second.”

    Do you see a reasonable scenario where they could win?

  5. ‘I must say I do feel for Gordon Brown. The poor man must be on the verge of a nervous breakdown by now’

    Why?
    He plotted and backstabbed and briefed to get the job he’s making such a pig’s ear of
    I feel sorry for the people that his mess of a government are affecting adversely

    Sorry – I don’t like making partisan comments on here

    Anyway as I predicted Labour could and have gone below 28 per cent many thought was their bottom line
    They are now averaging 24 per cent so whether they will get polls below this 22 per cent is now the question

  6. @ Jack
    I said that we would be better off if trade with the EU stopped altogether, and you then go on to try to prove that trade would be likely to stop altogether. Thank you.

    We’d also save £40m a day that we pay to the EU for the privilege of them making most of our laws and losing money in trade with them. No to mention giving them most of our fish!

    The world’s a big place. There are plenty of countries to trade with, some of them even profitably!

    By the way, you seem to think that I’m a UKIP supporter. I will actually make up my mind how to vote in the time remaining before the election, based on the parties’ campaigns and literature etc. I have never blindly followed one party.

  7. I actually do think it might be possible for UKIP to win, but it is highly unlikely. Incidentally, I don’t even think they will manage second, but 2nd,3rd,4th will all be tight.

  8. Promsan – you can disagree with me without calling my views rubbish.

    – alright, but I think you know that what I meant was “I think you’re talking rubbish”; as opposed to “it is a fact that you’re talking rubbish”, and abbreviated it to one word.

    perhaps you can explain your apparent contradiction.

    – again, I think you’re being a little disingenous; I’m challenging the concept and language of “right-wing”, but, recognising that it is a term that you use to compile a particular selection of views that you disdain, I’m using it for brevity until an alternative turns up – I could use the term I prefer, but it would be like debating in a parallel language (reminiscent of some of my conversations with Americans, for whom the term “left-wing”, socialist, and “right-wing” mean quite different things from what they do here.

    I also don’t believe that racism exists – because, my reading of up-to-date work on the subject by the leading academics: professors Edwards; Oppenheimer; Davies at places like OxBridge, is clear that race does not exist; only ethnicity does, and so what people really mean by “racism” is ethnocentrism, but for the sake of not wheeling out loads of abstruse and possibly excessively technical references every time, I have to temporarily use terms that others understand, so that debates don’t digress into academic forays for the uninitiated.

    I mean, the problem I have with your use of the term is that you use it as an epithet to denigrate the views and people who hold those views as some kind of intellectual untermensch… structurally, it is the same kind of logical-fallacy based mode of language (taxonomically alighned with Ad Hominem, Ad Opprobrium, Ad Nazium, every-schoolby-knows, slippery-slope etc…), as “racism”… in that you define a group of people by some aspect of their identity, and attack and demean them… e.g.: the “daily mail reader”.
    I’ve never read a copy in my life, as it goes; but I did use to be a copytaker for the Independent.

    It’s known as the “Genetic Fallacy” – you belong to this category, therefore you’re evil, and thus your views are not to be engaged with.

    Second, the delusion that most of the country is “centre left”…

    I suppose, if like me, you looked at the packaging of the Tories as “left wing”, you might be right.
    However, as we haven’t established whether we both mean the same thing by “left wing”; and since you seem to class them as right wing, on the first count, there are no reasonable grounds for categorising them as such; and on the second count, you seem to contradict yourself.

    More to the point, your so-called “left-wing” government, only has a mandate of 35% of about 61%, which gives an overall figure of 26% of the electorate (and we’re making assumptions that all of them agree with everything you regard as leftie), and if you throw in the LibDems, Greens, and minor bits and bobs, and maintain the (unqualified) assumption that they all conform to your notion of “left-wing”, you’re still only talking about a third of the eligible electorate.

    If we go on to assume that being anti-EU (or Pro-Sovereignty if you like) is a core criteria for being “right-wing”, then you will have to concede that in practically every objective/professional poll taken on the subject, the balance of opinion has been consistently more like 2/3 “anti” or “not-madly-pro”; and about a third in the other direction… and I’m rounding both sides up there.

    But again, you don’t seem to actually know what you mean by “left” or “right” beyond, “left” being the goodies who agree with everything you do; and “right” being the baddies.
    It seems most likely that your notion of the division is centred around “social” attitudes…

    so in answer to you, no there is no “right-wing”, (if that’s what you call me, then i’d call you “wrong-wing”), you are just parroting anachronistic 20th century ideas.
    (..I was mocking your “simple” thing at the end)

    My simplified definition on that angle would be that it’s like a division between Free Will and Determinism; and I would rather describe myself as a Determinist-Winger rather than anything else; and I’d like to see Britain be more like Switzerland in many ways.
    My views are a mixture of all sorts of “wings” depending on question and the context.
    I don’t particularly care for any party, but I would like to see the big three destroyed utterly, and a new political paradigm begin where the views of far left fanatics and cryptofascist diversity-thought-police are not paraded around by the media and public institutions as “mainstream” or “centre”.

    “Jack”, sounds like a humanities student to me… your concept of “left” and “right” is a eurocentric one… it doesn’t apply in north america… which is why there is no “Labour Party” in America, just a “Democratic” one.

    Calling people extremists belies your own extremism.
    You forget that you and your politics are not “the” centre… from my perspective you come across as a far left fascist…. fascism is statism is leftism: simple.
    The EU is not global, it’s very very regional and self-interested… food mountains? agricultural subsidies? I don’t see them compensating Africa for colonialism with favourable trade arrangements.
    The UK is far more global than the EU with the Commonwealth and the seat on the security council, and NATO …what the hell did the EU do whilst concentration camps were set up and used just over the border in Yugoslavia?! What are they doing to help Ukraine and Belorussia?! etc… You really just need to drag yourself to the library and start deconstructing your world view, and be more objective about it.

    debating with mock-liberals really is like flower-arranging sometimes.

  9. To answer a post above there have been European wars since the EU – plenty in fact.

    I also like some of the blind nationalist optimism on here regards to trade. As the majority of the trade we do goes into the EU – if we leave – the UK will lose any say in how technical standards and regulations are created and enforced. These will be decided within the EU and the UK, to trade will have to comply.

    So better to try and stay at least within to affect an outcome.

    Still, if it as least one crumb of comfort the HoL has always maintained the if Parliament passes a law in direct contradiction to EU legislation then it will follow Parliament. We have not signed away “soverignty” (whatever that means in todays rather multi polar world) to anybody.

  10. Regardless of whether the UK was in the EU or not, it is almost impossible to imagine a realistic scenario where any European country would stop trading with us. To say that we would still be forced to abide by their trading rules or else not trade is disingenious – IF the UK decided that some of the trading rules were not to our liking, and did not follow them, does anyone seriously suggest that the EU would cut off trade rather than bend to accomodate?

    The fact is the EU depends heavily on the UK for any clout it has. Without the UK, the EU would have reduced financial muscle, very little diplomatic/political muscle, and absolutely 0 military muscle.

    The EU needs the UK, not the other way round. We should leave ASAP.

  11. “I also like some of the blind nationalist optimism on here regards to trade. As the majority of the trade we do goes into the EU – if we leave – the UK will lose any say in how technical standards and regulations are created and enforced. These will be decided within the EU and the UK, to trade will have to comply.”

    I’m guessing this might have been aimed at me. Yes, the majority of our trade is with the EU, but we have a negative Balance of Payments with them. Therefore if it stopped completely (which it wouldn’t, of course) we would be better off.

  12. Anthony, with respect, though it is certainly significant that there has been a boost in UKIP support, surely the title for this thread should have been “YouGov: Labour support falls to its lowest ever” purely because of the monumental significance of that fact.

    Opinion polls for voting intentions of political parties go back to 1943, and in that time Labour had never dropped below 23%. Indeed it has probably been at least since the 1918-1922 Parliament since true Labour support has been so low, before the party first formed a government.

  13. @ Neil

    Lets think about that for a moment Neil, yes, the other European countries would still trade will us, however no where near on the same scale, it would be harder for us to travel throughout Europe, and, lets face it, we would not have as big a pressence in the Global market.

    Nationalists, like yourself, cant seem to get in into your head that the UK is no longer the heart of a global empire, we cant just pull up our draw-bridge and say no to other countries.

  14. No, Michael, you are wrong. We could still do all the trade we wanted to with EU countries if we left the the EU itself, and we would have the advantage of no longer being impeded and frustrated by EU trade barriers between us and the rest of the world. It is the EU that practices protectionism, and don’t ever forget that!
    Has Scottish Nationalism cut Scotland off from the rest of the world in trade? Or Welsh nationalism? Have they become poorer? Have they become isolated and powerless? Of course not.
    The EU is just milking this country for all we are worth, and it is a disgrace that when our economy is so weak, the EU (initials stand for Extravagance unlimited) is increasing our contributions and impoverishing us still further. The few little pittances that we get back are an insult.
    If self-government is nationalism, and nationalism is so bad, then I suppose you think that Tibet is better off being absorbed by China than it would be as a free independent nation. Do you think the Tibetans are better off as part of something big? Should they be scared of being isolated? Should the Free Tibet movement also be dismissed as nationalism, imperialist, right-wing or fascist?
    Of course the older parties will insult UKIP and talk a lot of nonsense about it. That is only to be expected as they are hostile and fuming whenever any alternative party comes on the political scene.
    They are sneering and jeering because they are insecure, panicking because they are all in crisis over the MPs expenses scandal, and can hardly muster one voter apart from those who never read the news….

  15. Billy, I do believe your comments about Churchill are incorrect., he categorically did not want a “United States of Europe”. Churchill wanted the European countries to form a partnership and co-operate with each other (a much looser arrangement than a United States of Europe) leaving Britain to remain outside of Europe and be part of “The Commonwealth of Nations”. This would be very sensible seeing as the Commonwealth presently represents 53 countries and 2 billion people and our Queen is its head. Britain would also be able to trade freely with these countries, unlike now where we have to pay a fee to the E.U. for the pleasure. Ask yourself why is Norway such a prosperous country? Well, firstly it greatly benefits from a very flourishing and well run fishing industry and it is outside of the E.U. and can trade with whoever it chooses. Just think how much taxed income our Treasurery would be receiving now if only we had a well run Fishing Industry instead of one that is on its knees because of all the E.U. regulation. As an example a Norwegian fisherman is able to catch 16,000 tons of fish (I don’t know what kind) per year, whereas a Cornish fisherman is only allowed 16,000 kilos per year; French fishermen enjoy 70% of the fish stocks around our waters (which now belong to the E.U.) leaving our poor fishermen with 7%. If Britain is to prosper once more we must withdraw our membership of the European Union for the reasons stated above.

  16. “Nationalists, like yourself, cant seem to get in into your head that the UK is no longer the heart of a global empire, we cant just pull up our draw-bridge and say no to other countries.”

    …could always join NAFTA!
    We’d be far better of with the US Dollar than the Euro.

  17. …and it’s worth noting that in all the various tables for PPP GDP per Capita, HDI, “Happiness”, and all those sorts of things, EFTA countries: Norway and Switzerland outperform all but Luxembourg in the EU.

    It comes across as reactionary fearmongering to say “we’ll be isolated and our economy will go to the dogs”, ahem, really? what’s happening at the moment? and how is EU membership helping exactly?

    …and the notion that wanting freedom from an organisation that can’t get it’s accounts signed off for over a decade is all about clinging onto empire seems groundless (an understatement)…
    there are any number of alternative economic models the UK could pursue that would yield better growth and social stability than the current arrangement with the EU …it’s just geographical convenience: why not a global union of industrialised and free democracies?

  18. I’m not doing normal moderation in this thread, since it’s beyond saving, and is a safety valve for people incapable of following the comments policy elsewhere – but there are lines. No libellous comments please.

  19. Michael,

    How would we not have as big a presence on the global market? It would be bigger, we would not be hindered by the EU’s anti-free market, inward looking, protectionist regulations. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, the EU would still trade with us, on any scale for a simple reason – they need to.

    And by the way, your “You wish there was still a British Empire” comment just makes you look petty and ridiculous.

1 2 3