Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 38%(-1), LAB 33%(+1), LDEM 16%(-1).

None of the changes are significant, and I suspect the real picture is that we’ve been a lead of 6 points or so for the last week and a bit, with the variations just being normal random sample error. I expect in time there will be major news stories that do have big short term effects upon the polls (or perhaps not, one of the fascinating things daily polls will tell us is more about the short term impact of news events upon the polls), but away from that I expect the norm will be polls that are pretty constant, with slight variation from day to day due to normal sampling error.


293 Responses to “YouGov Daily poll – 38/33/16”

1 4 5 6
  1. @MARK JOHNSON
    Your comment regarding the Great British Public and the last 13 years sounds like me 2months ago.
    Unfortunately the last 13 years have either been totally forgotton or fear of change has brought on temporary amnesia at the very least. Of course the Conservertives may have just blown it. Whatever it is I certainly do not have your confidence.

  2. Alec

    As I’ve been writing recently this has also been my expectation for the past couple of years. The TV debates are fantastic news for the Lib Dems: who can argue against people earning £10,000 p.a. being taken out of tax for example? For the first time they’ll be heard much more clearly and will benefit from this in the polls and in the election.

  3. @ HOWARD
    “it’s the trend in the polls that is most significant and unfortunately we are are all genuinely puzzled why are we not?”

    I’ve settled on “Tory Cuts Unfair / Labour Cuts Fair.

    …as received & assimilated by the very large number of voters who’s income ( and Pension Rights) is dependent on current State Payroll levels, Pay levels in the Public Sector ,Pension policy in the Public Sector and/or current Welfare Benefit schemes.

    i.e the result of a very successful repetition of that theme by GB, and the utter failure of Cons to refute it.

    Whilst I can appreciate that the use of the word “Thatcher” when referring to Tory fiscal policy is a subliminal message which still has traction for Labour , that does not absolve Cameron from the task of explaining that he does not intend -as a matter of deliberate policy-to implement “unfair” fiscal tightening, any more than the Son of the Manse does.

    In addition, the much abused “Tory Cuts NOW / Labour cuts when it won’t hurt-aka when the recovery is “locked in etc etc ” , has had effect I think.( as witness the Politics Home Poll quoted by Rob Sheffield)

    I think this has also been a successful use of the mesmerising effect of the repetitive drumbeat by GB & co.

    What is so utterly depressing -from my point of view-is that this is a complete fiction. At least on the basis of current policy on timing, which is virtually identical.

    Osborne has failed abysmally to refute this assertion.
    His Mais lecture sets his programme out-it should have received much more circulation in simple form from Cons.

  4. Ken:

    Tres amusant !

  5. I am still struggling with the Leader of theHouse’s performance today and cannot even spell “Conservative”.

  6. The Labour Party kept losing elections (partly0 because it kept tying itself in knots, over-complicating, whereas the Tories always made life look so simple.

    Don’t want to be less of a generaliser than that, as the point is that Labour’s message seems simpler now than the Cameron messages, which seem more like a patchwork (notwithstanding whether he is entirely right about everything or not)

    I think it’s the Optimism factor (no need to copy and paste from the Daily Telegrap, as it irritates the t’s off me to see others do it!)

  7. Flipflop (OED) is not a word so I will try ‘Feelgoodfactor’.

    I said we are bemused about the trend but clearly Colin isn’t. Yes I guessed a whyile back it was FGF but Alec, especialy, as well as Colin is providing hard evidence. A couple of cents (euro or dollar) on / off the value of the pound will not sway anyone but those confidence data are telling.

  8. Alec – interesting news, sort of borne out too by anecotal evidence. A friend, a self employed chippie, suffered badly from late 2008 and for most of 2009 struggled to find business. Since January he says things have remarkably picked up.

    Two, three weeks ago, I was contacted/canvassed by local Lab party and asked various Qs, and also what I saw as the most important issue facing the UK. I said growth. (At the time I was worried about a double dip.)

    Whatever the GE outcome, it’s great news re the economy. GB and AD should get rightful praise.

  9. I am so sorry about my typos. I keep forget I have a web form spell checker. Apologies

  10. Blast, I’ve made another mistake now – time to go and make tea.

  11. @ Rob Sheffield ‘“Evening Standard have just put online a YouGov poll for London;
    Con 39%, Lab 35%, LD 17%” I have to say I find that poll astounding given the Conservative poll leads in London last year- surely that must be disproportionate to the national narrowing trend?’

    If poll is for all of London (inner + outer), it looks like Con +7%, Lab -4%, LD -5%, c.f. 2005, so a swing of 5.5%, which is pretty much in line line with current national polling.

    Quite interesting, but a poll of London marginals would be really interesting….

  12. “The TV debates are fantastic news for the Lib Dems: who can argue against people earning £10,000 p.a. being taken out of tax for example?”

    People in the jobs pushing the paper enabling the welfare system to tax somebody and then give them benefits back, that’s who!

  13. @ Wolf MacNeill – is there a mistake in that post? Are you telling me the last result was Con 32, Lab 39? Or am I missing something?

  14. @Mike N

    “Whatever the GE outcome, it’s great news re the economy. GB and AD should get rightful praise.”

    Praise for what? Giving us the longest recession of any major economy? Giving the deepest recession of any major economy? Or leaving us with a bigger debt of any major economy courtesy of a massive structural deficit even before the recsssion (that Brown had promise us would never hahppen).

    Please let us know what you think a bad job would have been?

  15. JamesB: Very droll and a good point: perhaps they can be amongst the first to be made redundant in order to save money. [Not that that system is their fault of course.]

  16. @JAMESB
    You are awful but I like you. Fancy taking the wind out of a Lib Dems sails. Its easy to frame a list of political promises, when you know you will never be called upon to act on them.

  17. @TONYM
    Oh come on Tone, it started in America.

  18. I think the service sector figures are disappointing. I think the government should have borrowed an extra £1,000,000,000,000 and pumped it into the public sector. That would have meant we could all spend ten times as much on services and boosted the economy through the roof, making Britain the richest country in the world and proving once and for all that GB is an economic genius and master of all he surveys.

    We would have also had fire engines made of gold, police stations lined with marble and social workers wearing sandals of crocodile leather, which would be nice..

  19. @TonyM

    It’s pointless going over the same ground.

    But GB and AD saved the UK banking system (if not the world’s banking system) from collapse. It would have been calamitous if they hadn’t. Along with most countries affected they went for investment on a massive scale. So far as I can see it’s working and we are seeing growth.

    I believe this massive investment has received the ‘blessing’ of economists.

    Who else would rightfully be due praise?

  20. @NEIL A
    I find I detect a smidgen of sarcasm in your response.
    Spinning of statistics is not cricket and is surely not in keeping with our government. It is not in keeping with the view from the United States about our countries economic condition either.

  21. Alec:
    I too was fairly sure a year ago that it would end up a much closer fight than most people (including Anthony) supposed. Since then I have not posted because there seems to be a built-in anti Labour bias here – and even more of an anti-Brown bias – and little tendency to treat political opponents as people who have a different (if mistaken) view, rather than as scoundrels.
    It is easy to blame Labour (and Brown) for all our economic woes in the UK, but only by shutting our eyes to the similar woes of all the other G20 countries – and also by shutting our minds to the great service that Brown has given to the international community during this global melt-down (acknowledged in many countries if not by the opposition here).

    So, if the recession has ended and the government’s policies can reasonably be seen to have steadied our economy, prevented the worst fears of unemployment, house repossessions etc., and seem to be leading to a much more hopeful – if still difficult – future, then it is not surprising that people should begin to look harder at the alternative.

    Given the general view of the main opposition since the mid-90s, it is to Cameron’s credit that the Conservatives have made such a strong showing, even against such a devastating economic background. A few minutes spent looking through Conservative Home website, for example (which makes this seem like a rational conversation between reasonable people), shows a worryingly different picture of the outlook of people who claim to be “real” conservatives, compared to the detoxified image Cameron has tried hard to convey.

    It seems to me that the trend of the POLLS (oops, sorry) polls this year is almost inevitable in the improving economic conditions, and shows that many are willing to give at least some credit to Labour and that they remain to be convinced that the Conservatives are yet ready to be trusted again.

  22. @MIKE N………………..Just a reality check here – no they didn’t save the system, the British tax payer did, and will continue to do so for the next generation. GB and AD did the hard work, signing the cheques.

  23. @SUE MARSH
    Re London Polls, AW describes all on a new tread.

  24. Ken

    Yes but if they hadn’t signed the cheques I doubt they would have signed themselves. ;-)

  25. @Ken
    So, if GB and AD had not supported the UK banking system using taxpayers’ monies, what would have happened?

    They didn’t lose their nerve in a time of crisis. They made the right decisions.

    Yes, it’s going to cost us all, but I suggest nothing like what it would have cost if GB and AD had bottled it.

    Tell me, what exactly was the alternative?

  26. @MIKE N…………….Makes no difference to me, I’m just introducing a little perspective, it doesn’t take nerve to make the right decisions, just common sense.
    I’m not judging anyone, or their decisions, it gives me the creeps that our leaders seem to have lost sight of the value of money.

  27. NEIL A

    I like your ideas.

    If indeed “Public Expenditure” is what grows an economy, and to shed workers in the Public Sector would risk a double dip recession, then it seems so obvious-

    Increase the 25% of the workforce employed by the State to 100% & the Recovery is locked in forever.

    I’m surprised it hasn’t been tried before??

  28. @COLIN

    “I’m surprised it hasn’t been tried before??”

    It has – it is called communism,.

    But you are right. The logic is right up there with “borrowing money to pay the interest on an already enormous debt”. Shouldn’t take a genius to understand that it is a recipie for a disaster – even the Greeks have figutred it out. Still, even common sense is in short supply.

  29. @TONY M……………Nailed.

  30. “It has – it is called communism,.”

    Oh really-didn’t know that.

    What happened?

  31. @TonyM

    I’m pleased we all agree that GB and AD are doing the right thing.

    Sorted.

  32. @COLIN

    They watered it down a bit and called it socialism (or crypto communism as Mrs Thatcher called it). ;-)

  33. “They watered it down a bit and called it socialism ”

    Ah yes- I vaguely remember it-way back before Tony Blair.

    Thank goodness they wouldn’t try that sort of thing here , these days.-even watered down it sounds dodgy.

  34. ROLAND HAINES

    “Spinning of statistics is not cricket”.

    I admit that I don’t follow the sport, but are spinning and statistics not integral to it?

  35. Just a word for those worried about UK debt rating. Yesterday the Debt Management Office sold a chunk of 30 year gilts that were 1.9 times oversubscribed, which is in line with most of the recent long dated bond issues. Pension companies like these so generally these aren’t affected by currency rates etc. Today saw a sale of 5 year gilts, much more prone to problems as overseas buyers are common for these. They were oversubscribed by 2.3 times. While Osborne and Clarke seem to be doing their best to talk up currency and bond crises, the markets are chugging along quite nicely in terms of UK’s borrowing requirements.

  36. And the FTSE has risen to over 5500 so the stockmarket is’nt in freefall either at the prospect of a hung parliament

  37. It’s great that the coutnry can borrow and borow ad infinitum without any worries.

    And it’s even better that the country isn’t facing 20% cuts in public services and tax rises because it doesn’t have a £800bn and growing debt.

  38. ALEC

    The concern is gilt yields & the cost of servicing the State Debt, rather than an inability to sell them.
    Losing AAA is unthinkable, slipping a rating not so unthinkable.

    UK Gilt yields are rising -are they not?

    Hague asked HH about this at PMQs-asking why UK bonds compared unfavourably to some corporate bonds. She thought he was talking about Sterling, so the point was not illuminated.

  39. @colin – the point about the gilt sales is that the government would have to raise interest rates payable if the sales were undersubscribed. In particular, the successful sales on long dated gilts give the UK taxpayer very good protection against rising interest rates, as the rate payable will be fixed for 30 years at a low rate and with the real repayment value due on maturity slowly reduced by inflation. The DMO has been very good at selling long bonds which is why we have to raise much less from the markets next year than France or Germany. These points are currently overlooked by most commentators and market players it seems. UK will not default on its debts. There should therefore be no risk premium on UK gilts. That the markets have priced in a risk premium already tells us nothing other than the markets are about as intelligent as a shoal of herring. In due course they will realise their error and the premium on UK debt will fall. If we lose AAA from one of the ratings agencies that won’t make a blind bit of difference – the market in it’s lunacy has already priced in the risk anyway, so we won’t be any worse off.

    @Tony M – “It’s great that the coutnry can borrow and borow ad infinitum without any worries.” Basically, that’s right – we can, although subject to limits based on the cost of servicing the debt. National debt isn’t like a car loan or family mortgage – it never needs to be paid off and can grow indefinately, so long as over time the nation’s economy grows at an equal or faster rate. At the end of WW2 we had a national debt of around 800% of GDP. That declined gradually and puts the current problems into a more reasonable perspective. The only real issue we should be interested in today is what is the correct speed to reduce the current unsustainable deficit without damaging the economy and leading to a counter intuitive increasing of the deficit.

  40. @ Mark Johnson – Chadderton – Lancashire
    @ Barry P
    “Please don’t Blaspheme Quincil, to some people its as bad and objectionable as using the ‘F’ word !!”

    Seconded. It’s just a lazy way of avoiding more appropriate

    Thirded
    And the general lack of offensive expressions helps keep this site generally civilised and pleasurable to use…

  41. @Alec

    I’m a bit confused there…

    If the debt “never needs to be paid off and can grow indefinately”, why is it a “current unsustainable deficit “?

    Surely it is either unsustainable or can grow indefinetly but can’t be both?

    Do you think that there could be any downsides to reducing the deficity too slowly or is it just a black and white issue?

    It is interesting to compare our situation with that after WW2. Quite frightening that we have to draw upon such examples to find comparisons to the current situation.

  42. Must admit I cant help pointing out – given much of the above – that the largest economy now is that of China (gasp, a communist -or crypto socialist?- country) and it owns a large amount of the USA.

  43. Tony the debt is what accumulates because of recurring deficits. If the deficits ceased (and we balanced , no more, no less than 0) then teh debt would remain the same and need never be paid off (the interest would sustain it)

    The deficit is unsustainable because it adds to the debt too much.

    In an ideal world, we’d reduced debt during good timesand only increase it during hard times. The political bit is deciding what is a “good” time. Labour would argue that having to build lots of new school, prison & hospital buildings, and give long-suffering GPs a big pay rise pointed to a “Hard” time, whereas the Tories would say that those were good times and the money should have paid down debt instead.

    It’s more balanced than that, because the Tories and Labour are a lot closer than they say tehy are, but that’s what it boils down to if you want to see a vast chasm between the two sides.

    Jack – China is a Capitalist Republic owned by The People. Meretricious, Ruthless to its “Miscreants”

    And the people have to pay for things like education, health , road travel etc by way of personal contributions.

    Works for them (but if you want to go and live there, never be rude about the Government!

1 4 5 6