YouGov’s daily polling figures are normally going up at 5.05pm each day, but today (and next Thurs) publication is being brought forward to before the leaders’ speeches to leave 5pm free for other things.

Hence we already have today’s figures, which are CON 40%(+1), LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 18%(-2). That surprising bump up into the high 20s for Labour yesterday seems to be real, while Lib Dem conference boost looks like it is rapidly fading.

The most interesting other question on the poll was about “that question” by Andrew Marr on Sunday. A large majority of people (73%) thought Marr was wrong to ask Gordon Brown whether he was taking prescription pills and that Brown had a right to privacy. Only 22% said the public had a right to know Brown’s medical details.

I was actually rather surprised by that result – my expectation was that the general public attitude towards politicians is that they should jump through whatever humiliating hoops we demand. Looking at the queston wording, YouGov did specificy that the Prime Minister had a right to privacy on medical matters “that do not materially affect their work” and I suppose Andrew Marr would have said that the rumours, if true, could affect Brown’s work. That said, 73% to 22% is pretty clear opposition to this sort of questioning.

YouGov also asked whether people supported or opposed plans to ban automatic bonuses to bank employees and limit the amount of money banks can spend on bonus. Much less surprisingly, there was overwhelming support for this with 83% approval and 9% opposed.

24 Responses to “YouGov Daily Poll 40/29/18”

  1. Anthony – Very interesting. How does this (and the other poll showing Labour in the high 20s) square with MORI’s poll?

  2. AW -“A large majority of people (73%) thought Marr was wrong to ask Gordon Brown whether he was taking prescription polls….” Shurely shome mishtake? Aren’t we the one’s on ‘prescription polls’?

  3. MORI and ICM seem to be showing a different picture to YouGov at the moment.

  4. Depressing for lib dems!!

  5. To some extent the public take their tone from the parties themselves. While Labour behaved like dead men walking, the polls reflected that – why support a party that has no self-belief? if the result of the conference season is that Labour exudes a belief that it can win, then I predict that the polls will stick for some time at least in 40:30:20 territory and perhaps even into a single figure lead. Whether this survives into the winter will determine the shape of the election campaigns.

  6. This could be either a blip or demonstrative of the expected conference bounce. Either way I wouldnt read too much into this poll in isolation.

    Much more prevelent perhaps is the moving polling average, which isnt all that good for the New Labour party: 40:25:21

    This is more important than an isolated poll. Indeed the previous one which showed the LibDems in second place that poll was a telephone poll (which means its worthless frankly).

    All I’m saying is caution, and dont read too much into one poll.

  7. James – you’re showing a 38-23-23 ComRes poll for 27 Sept on the right hand homepage column at the moment, but I can’t see any comment relating to it. Do you have details?

  8. I dunno what’s worse for him, pity; or ridicule …he might end up with both!
    The media have been hounding him ruthlessly, but I don’t think much of the attempts of politicians to try and fish for sympathy… nobody’s forcing him to stay.

  9. Looking at the table of the daily polls so far i think the tories should be happy.

    We are about half way through with their conference still to come, and the libdems finished and their vote has varied by only 1%. Labour has swung around by 6% and the Libdems by 4%.

    So whatever is happening with voter intention neither Labour or LibDem seem to have dented the tories….yet.


  10. Seems like his speech was full of fresh spending committments.If he’s doing drugs or not he doesn’t seem to have a very firm grip of reality.

  11. I hope you are right Leslie but I expect by the end of November we will be nearer what Dean says with perhaps the Labour gap to the LDs a little bigger.
    Note others down to 13% (apart from a couple at 12 a few weeks ago) most have had them around 15%. This could be some coming back to labour or an moe thing.
    40 for the cons would suggest 42-44 by the end of next week which is comfortable them, maybe with others down to 12 or lower, apart from Nats and maybe 2 green targets a vote for a minor party is wasted and the electorate will recognise this.
    Unless the ‘games up’ phenonemon comes to pass which I think not likely but possible.
    Of course tomorrow’s daily may shift again after Brown’s dog whistle but effective attack on the Cons for being out of step with every other country.
    Will be interesting to see how reported.
    I think Labour have given up winning out-right and are chasing more of the anti-Tory share to get back to early 30s which may be enough to stop an outright majority.

  12. @ Wolf, Brown has always been good at giving the impression of spending billions and billions while in reality just referring to the same billion or two over and over.

    Things are looking up somewhat for Labour, the lib dem boost…if you take it seriously, seemed to show what most of us thought anyway, that much of the tory vote is not particularly people enthusiatic about cons but rather anti-lab…..and the talk of a threeway debate can only be a bad thing for cameron, brown has little to lose and it’s near certain in my mind that clegg would concentrate his attacks on cons for obvious reasons….

    However, labour conference….of course things look good for them, they’ll probably look terrible for them during cons. Wait a month, see what’s what then. I suspect overall outcome will be a small….1 or 2….reduction in cons lead…enough to stop any lab thoughts of changing leader, but not really a big thing.

    It really does seem like the GE is more open now though, labour is unpopular, but it doesn’t seem like people particularly want cons govt either.

  13. WMA 39:26:21 – so far there have been no disasters at the Labour conference. If people notice that Brown’s speech was completely unreal from an economic PoV then it might backfire – we shall see.

    As for “that question” – the whole point is that if the allegations are true then this strong medication and serious medical condition directly affects his ability to do his job. Depression seriously influences your judgement, and these medications are pretty strong stuff. The way YouGov framed the question was seriously problematic to the point of being highly biased. Who was resposible?

  14. NBeale – Rubbish. If the argument is that because its on the ‘net, its fair game, then do we expect Mr Marr about to ask Cameron about the stories of cocaine use in the past? Of course not!

    Those defending the question are trying to bring American-style personal attacks into our political system. Its shocking and Mr Marr should be ashamed of himself.

  15. What someone may have done before they entered pubilc life is not in the public domain, unless it can be shown to have a major and substantial effect on their present public role.

    If it is true that the PM is on powerful and dangerous anti-depressants because he is, alas, suffering from a serious mental illness then this clearly has a direct bearing on his ability to do his job. There is no shame in being mentally ill, any more that there is shame in not having sight in both eyes. It is not a “personal attack” to suggest that someone may have an illness. But if the illness singificantly impacts on their ability to do their job, then it is this is a factor that people should be able to consider when they make their decisions in the polls.

  16. NBeale,

    If it is true that David Cameron has been brainwashed by the Ku Klux Klan, then this clearly has a direct bearing on his ability to do his job. There is no shame in being forcibly reprogrammed, any more than there is shame in being a member of the Conservative Party.

    Do you see what I’m getting at here?

    Not only was there no obvious basis for the original rumours, but they had already been directly denied by No. 10.

    Should the BBC keep asking Cameron if he’s under the control of the Ku Klux Klan, even until and after he denies it?

    Even if there were some pressing need to clarify Brown’s status regarding medication, talking of “powerful and dangerous” anti-depressants betrays a strong political prejudice.

  17. There have been various reasons to suspect that Brown was on anti-depressants for some time. The specific allegation about MOAIs was based on a well sourced story about a long list of specific foods that Brown was not allowed to eat.

    Brown’s response to Marr looked like a classic “non-denial denial”. Can you provide a link to the “direct denial by Number 10” so that we can understand the precise wording please?

    Also, just because Brown denies something doesn’t mean it isn’t true (10p tax, cuts, etc..)

  18. Marr’s question wasn’t specifically about MOAIs.

    It was:
    “…a lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those people?”

    If Marr had had specific information that Brown was on MOAIs, then he would have put this to Brown – ergo he didn’t have or didn’t trust the information.

    Brown’s direct answer to this question was “No”. If that doesn’t qualify as a sufficient denial, then I don’t know what does.

    I haven’t seen the alleged denial by Number 10, it may not have been reported on publicly but it’s referred to as a reason why other reporters didn’t repeat the question, e.g. here:

    So it’s reasonable to assume that Marr was aware of it too.

    Interview transcript at:

    “Just because Brown denies something doesn’t mean it isn’t true ”

    Agreed, and I’m no fan of Brown either, but there are so many issues he could be attacked on that I see no benefit in resorting to US-style smears and rumours. Fortunately, the polls seems to show that most other people were unhappy about it, too. Considering that people have such a negative opinion of Brown, for as many 73% to support him on this shows surprisingly strong feelings on this issue, I think.

  19. NBeale – “What someone may have done before they entered pubilc life is not in the public domain, unless it can be shown to have a major and substantial effect on their present public role.”

    Isn’t there a counter argument that says “How do we know that he doesn’t still use the stuff if we don’t ask him? “(I am not saying that we should ask him btw, I’m just making the comparison of inappropriate questions).

    I believe that NBeale and others have let their own dislike of Brown cloud their judgement about what is and what isn’t appropriate to ask a politician.

    Anthony – are you aware of any polling on what impact these type of questions have on how voters see the politicians in question?

  20. “Well sourced”, my arse – it was blindingly obviously planted with $RIGHTWING_BLOGGER, shown to Heffer for clearance, and then reflected back through De L’Aire’s so the rest of the msm could run it as “prominent blogger scoop”.

  21. Yariv

    “There is no shame in being forcibly reprogrammed, any more than there is shame in being a member of the Conservative Party.”

    Of course not, the one is forced on you, the other is a matter of choice, but the converse is not true as the many “shy Tories” in Scotland understand.

  22. ” there is shame in being a member of the Conservative Party.”

    I think I’ve done really well to let that pass this long without a comment…….


  23. Interesting that no-one can actually find the “denial” from No 10. It may well exist, but it would at least be interesting to see what it actually said.