But YouGov show lead back to pre-HoonHewitt levels
There is also a new YouGov poll out tomorrow for the Sunday Times, which paints a somewhat different trend to that of ComRes. Topline figures are CON 40%, LAB 31%, LDEM 18%.
The previous YouGov poll was that huge 10,000 job for the Sun. The overall voting intention figures for that were CON 40%, LAB 30% – but because the Hoon-Hewitt plot broke right in the middle of the fieldwork it ended up being split into two polls, the first “pre-HH” part showed voting intentions of CON 40%, LAB 31%, LDEM 17%. The final “post-HH” part showed figures of CON 42%, LAB 30%, LDEM 16% – so from YouGov’s most recent measure of voting intention the Conservatives are down 2, Labour up 1 and the Lib Dems up 2.
The suggestion here, therefore, is that Labour’s leadership ructions caused a temporary shift towards the Conservatives while it was in the news, but now the news agenda has moved on it has done no real lasting damage. Of course, with ComRes showing an increased Conservative score we need to wait for more polling before we can be certain.
YouGov polls for the Sunday Times normally include questions on a broad range of issues. This one included some questions on the Iraq inquiry. 52% of respondents thought that Tony Blair has deliberately misled the country, with 32% thinking he “genuinely believed in the threat”. 23% of respondents thought that Blair should “face war crimes charges”.
Filed under: Voting Intention, YouGov
@Sean Fear – I agree with you up to a point (debt problem, not crisis). However, you need to be careful in assigning all blame to Labour. Two points; 1) The government didn’t spot the financial crisis and could have taken steps to protect the UK financial industry up to a point. In this they are culpable. However, virtually everyone else was too, and it’s very doubtful whether any of the other parties would have done any differently. The crisis was a structural catastrophy within global financial markets, and while every government has to shoulder some of the blame, a little historical perspective is needed before we blame one party for incompetance when thy were following established beliefs held by all their opponents as well. 2) Yes, government spending was too high from about 2004/5. This has put us in a more difficult position than say germany. However, economics works on long cycles, and a lengthy period of higher public spending was the natural progression from several decades of under investment in public services prior to 1999. In this, the Tories need to be held responsible as well. There is no excuse for waste, but as the Audit Commission chairman has said, even after the deep cuts coming public services will still be better off than they were in 1997.
Elections provide false cut off points in history, but in reality governments successes and failures live long after them. It’s too simplistic to blame everything on one party, but there is certainly some blame on their shoulders.
“My reference to Labour’s backstory in my last post reflects my thinking that Brown has serious personality flaws that have no place in a collegiate style of government that I favour”
Blatcher too. In fact it is the mad system they are attempting to operate for the sake of the media.
The PM is in a position where he is expected to be in control of his party, dominate every ministry, service a constituency, run his personal staff and socialise with party officers and donors. That’s on about half his time because people in top positions spend much of their time relating to other top people outside their organisation.
The span of control encompasses so many people directly accountable to the PM that you wouldn’t find it easy to put the organisation chart on paper and it might need to be three dimensional.
Personally, I would not take a job at any level in an organisation as impossibly complex as that.
Alex Salmond just about copes with far fewer ministers and a hands off approach.
Valerie
You ain’t seen nuthin’ until you’ve been in a few Glasgow pubs just before closing time.
Off-topic (sorry):
One of the things I harp on about is people getting the GB and UK shares of the vote confused.
I’ve just received my copy of the totalpolitics guide to the 2010 election and I’ve noticed that on page 59 the percentage shares of the vote for 1992 are given as follows:
C – 42.8%
Lab – 34.4%
LD – 17.8%
I think I’m correct in saying that the Con share here is for GB (excl. NI) but the Lab and LD figures are for UK (incl. NI). I think the Lab share for GB was 35.2% and LD 18.3%.
That was a bit pedantic but I thought I’d post it anyway!
About the debt problem, while Labour can not be blamed for seeing the problem coming they were to blame for running deficits in the good times before. remember the deficit was running at 3% of GDP before the crisis hit. The last time the government ran a balanced budget was in 2001. It goes to show that without that our deficit now would be at least 3% of GDP less. Not so frightening.
ALEC:-
That’s a pretty fair response to Sean.
Typical of you.
Alec, thanks.
I don’t think any of us saw the financial crisis coming, so to that extent, Labour aren’t culpable.
However, there was little excuse for starting from the fiscal position they were in. It wouldn’t have been hard for Brown to run a balanced budget throughout most of the 2000’s, given the ease with which tax revenues were being generated.
David P, oh, I didn’t spot your response.
With a more prudent approach, we’d more likely have seen debt peak at about 60% of GDP.
@John B Dick – I’m increasingly thinking similar thoughts. I never thought I would say this, but I on balance I would now favour a system modelled more on the US with a directly elected PM and an executive separate from the legislature. It’s what we have in effect anyway in terms of how and why we vote, but without the democratic safeguards a properly worked out system would provide.
On the debt issue – a rare moment of peace – we all seem to be in agreement! The sense I get is that the years of plenty have encouraged a slack approach to efficiency in public services. While I don’t necessarily advocate reduced spending just for the sake of it as a permanent aim of government, there is no question that tighter budgets can help deliver greater spending discipline and efficiency. In recent years the reverse has been the case, which helps explain for example why there are so many public servants earning more than the PM and not (in my view) showing great value for our investment.
@John B Dick – re the C19th American political thinker – the only name I can come up with in relation to land taxes is Henry George who advocated a land tax equivalent to the full value of the economic rent on all land – effectively nationalising land. He argued that this would raise sufficient to avoid the need for all other taxes and became known for the ’single tax’ theory. However, I don’t think he was a Republican. He was widely forgotten in the US but his views were picked up with more interest by European and British socialists. Sorry it has taken so long to reply but I must have missed your original post.
And before anyone askes, no, my proposals are not based on this theory.
Alec
I’d rather aviod presidents and the fact that we have one in practice doesn’t mean we need to accept it. It’s toomuch loke the Aztecs who killed the warrior/religious leader of he failed to bring rain or win a battle. I think we need more than one brain and keep alpha males under control.
Thanks for Henry George. That’s the man. Whether they know it or not, the Scottish Green Party’s Land proposed land tax would seem to be on similar lines.
My tax idea is to make company tax voluntary. Insteas of paying in money, you could pay in shares. Not for every company of course, just if the Government wants to do it and at the price they want to do it.
Shares could be sold or held. There could be a national investment fund, or not. The government could be an active shareholder or not. In any year the fund could be increased or reduced.
Companies could distribute more in dividends, invest or pay down debt. Government would have the same choice, reducing personal tax instead of paying dividends. They would have to decide whether (at the rate offered for shares) they would prefer to pay the tax or not.
Think about the potential from the perspective of each party in turn.
The Greens can use it to take a controlling share in polluting companies or make investment funds cheaply available to developing companies whom they wished to support.
Socialists could part nationalise “the commanding heights” or take a stake in companies with a bad labour record.
Nationalists could take a stake in iconic companies to prevent them moving abroad.
LibDems could promote rural industry, and even have regional investment funds.
Conservatives and Labour would just use it to pay back their financial backers.
I’ve probably put this in before but my issue with land value tax is that it assumes wealth…
There are lots of people who have property but low wages and it effectively means that poor people in areas of rising values are forced out. That happens over time as rural villages fall in to commuter zones because young people can’t buy where they were born but an annual tax would accelerate it.
The other killer from a UK point of view is that a small house with a big garden would probably pay more than a big house with a small one. From a Green perspective focusing on land use that is a good thing but in a nation full of garden loving middle income budding alan Titchmarshs it would be close to political suicide.
I do think equity for tax might be worth looking at but it’s not that different from the treasury buying corporate bonds or shares to boost industry and I suspect it would probably be best to do that on a case by case basis as part of a defined industrial policy as opposed to incorporating it into an already complex tax system….
Peter.
@Peter Cairns – I know I didn’t offer details, but the land tax idea is in my mind not aimed at the main domestic residence. It would apply only to non residential land, but probably also to second and third homes etc. I’m not a tax expert and any tax proposal needs a lot of detailed work – it’s just an idea.
Alec,
Fair enough, but for about a decade i’ve been asking proponents of LVT the same basic questions and I’ve never really got a straight answer from any of them.
Peter.
Peter
Thanks for these thoughtful comments.
I suggest that if offered in furtherance of policy objectives, and at the price government would offer, equity for tax could be a option which the company could choose to take up or not. If it were voluntary, who could object?
Both sides would need to proceed slowly to learn when (and at what price) to opt in.
In essence it is a public interest cheeseparing of the shareholder interest in the balance sheet in the same way as directors share opions.
There could be cash flow and investment financing advantages and it could contribute to a defence against a hostile takeover.
A straight investment method might be difficult to harmonise with EU rules.