Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 37%(nc), LAB 34%(+2), LDEM 17%(nc). Leaving aside that 2 pointer for the Sunday Times, which in hindsight was probably something of a rogue, it’s the lowest Conservative lead YouGov have shown since October 2007 and the election-that-never-was.

The movement is well within the margin of error. What is actually more significant is that the Conservative lead has been below 6 points in every one of YouGov’s polls this week. For the first two weeks of their daily polling, it seemed quite evident that the lead was around about 6 points and the daily polls were just random sample variation around it. This week the lead seems to have narrowed.

UPDATE: There is also a new Angus Reid poll for Political Betting out tonight, which shows a completely different picture. There the topline figures are CON 39%(+1), LAB 26%(nc), LDEM 18%(-1). Others are presumably somewhere around 17.

Clearly there is a methodological difference here – while the levels of Conservative support are within the same ball park, Labour’s figure down in the mid 20s stands out in contrast to most other companies except for newcomers Opinium. Part of this will be down to Angus Reid’s politicial weighting, but that’s probably not enough to explain all of it. The other difference, as I mentioned earlier in the week, is on support for the minor parties. The newer online companies (Angus Reid, Opinium and Harris) are showing much higher levels of support, up in the region of 17 or so, than the more established companies like ICM, Populus, YouGov and MORI, who all have them down near 11 or 12.


484 Responses to “YouGov Daily Poll – 37/34/17 – UPDATED”

1 8 9 10
  1. Michael B

    Your daughter is American and Blair is Scottish. I’ll sound off all I like if that’s ok with you matey. I appreciate what you said about your daughter, but NI number and Passport doesn’t make her English/British.
    My friend who was born here in England lives in US and has been given a US passport number,Green card and relevant docs etc. Doesn’t make him American..

    But enough of this….we’ll agree to disagree matey..?

    ;-)

  2. @Dave in S and Andrew,
    These predictions can only be gut feeling or speculative comparisons and whilst I am extracting thorns from my arms, I think saying ‘just you wait until May 7th’, may be cathartic but won’t actually change what will take place, about which of course I know as little as any of you!

    Taking a ‘poll’ at the 19th hole at the Golf Club, as some do, seems a somewhat dubious addition to the information we are getting from the pollsters though. :-)

  3. ‘Michael B
    Dress it up all you like matey, where you are born determines what Nationality you are. By WHERE she was born, your daughter is and always will be AMERICAN. She may well be a british CITIZEN but the fact doesn’t change she is American, and that will always show on her birth certificate. Fact.’

    Actually wrong in many ways. Just because you are born in a country does not get you ‘nationality’ of that country. It will show on your birth certificate but you do not axiomatically get nationality rights.

    That is why if you are born overseas you register that birth with your embassy to ensure you get the rights associated with the parents nationality .

    I have two nephews born to expat oil working brother; one was born in the Netherlands, one in Brunei–neither have any rights in those countries. So the place of birth is Netherlands / Brunei; they have absolutely no rights in those countries. It is the parents nationality (especially the mother’s) which determines nationality.

    Wit the Uk as said- children of a UK father get UK nationality (id mother not UK) but if child of a UK mother (and not UK father) then child does not get nationality (gets a sticker for ‘right of UK bode’ in passport of another country…)

  4. ‘Michael B
    Your daughter is American and Blair is Scottish. I’

    Is Scotland a nation now then if they have nationality? Isn’t that what the SNP is fighting for? Have I missed something?

  5. You can only decide your own nationhood, not the nationhood of others. It is called Tolerance.

  6. @Dave in Southampton

    As Churchill said when he addressed the Congress/Senate in Washington:

    “If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way round, perhaps I could have made it here by myself.” Explains the nationality thing rather well, don’t you think?

    Anyway, we’ll call a truce.

  7. @Jack

    ‘Is Scotland a nation now..?’
    Now?
    What can you mean?
    Have you studied history?
    Scotland didn’t give up its millenium of nationhood in 1707 when it dissolved its Parliament.

    In any case, people are entitled to call themselves by whatever nationality they wish and to expect their wishes to be respected.

  8. Jack is absolutely right. Before this got a liittle inflamed, we were discussing right to vote, which is the only matter here that isof interest. My daughter was born in Uk but cannot vote in national elections in NL, but my son was born in NL and can vote here because he lives here and has citizenship because we took care to register him for that at the Embassy in AMS. He would have course have been entitled to it in principle because he is my son.

    My thought was whether the pollsters check thisstuff out?

  9. @Colin – an age and a half ago you were talking about the union links with Labour. I didn’t have time to respond, but I did want to post that I am somewhat ambivalent about union support for Labour (or any other political party). I was a union member for many years until I set up my own company, but during that time I was regularly balloted on both union leadership, governing body, and crucially the political levy. Union money for labour is democratically agreed by the membership – this is why I have never understood why the Tories seek to link wealthy financial backers with union contributions, which are, in effect, the cumulation of millions of small individual donations democratically approved by the donors. Whether an overly close reliance on the unions would harm Labour is another issue and I can certainly see political risks there, but I believe the political system needs to recognise the interests of unionised Labour as much as any other sectional interest – unlike business backing for political parties at least union support is heavily regulated and democratic.

    This links in very neatly with the current political landscape. We have a completely unrepresentative and undemocratic but very powerful City lobby that exerts enormous political influence. They basically trashed entire nation’s bank balances, and then scream at us to cut vital services to pay for their folly, while refusing to countenance any policy moves that would claw some of the money back from their own pockets. There is a serious need for governments to slap down the financial interests on behalf of their citizens and rebalance the entire economic and political system. Even the co founder of Pimco is saying this (as well as saying he would vote Labour if he had a vote in the UK). I am less fearful of a party influenced by Trades Unions than one influenced by bankers and dealers.

  10. Eoin Clarke

    Tolerance is often sadly lacking.

    However, I now intend to suspend my tolerance during the Calcutta Cup game!

  11. Alec and Colin
    I am not arguing that TUC CBI (strikes, fat cats) type issues will not have a bearing on the polls but do you not think that they will be devastingly outweighed by the reporting of the Budget (note I said ‘reporting’) and the Debates (in which the journos cannot interfere, thank goodness)?

  12. Anthony

    On a lighter note – please can I nominate Amber Star to do the calculations when we next have our
    ‘’ General Election Prediction’’ Game? It’ll be rather nice to sit back and see our averages appear on the screen. Hope that’ll be ok with you Amber ;-)

    Also, will the number of polls increase as we get closer to the election? Thanks

    My fun prediction for tonight is
    Con 37
    Lab 34
    LD 20

  13. Umm…. hang on… just to go back to that daft argument about nationality… I’m shocked by the lack of a basic grasp of logic that some of you have demonstrated.

    Just to recap:-

    1. It was claimed (in a light-hearted way which some seem to have taken very seriously) that there had been no non-English PM for 12 elections.

    2. Ah, but as one or two pointed out, that claim is false because Tony Blair is a Scot.

    3. Bizarrely, some have gone on to argue, “Ah, but Blair is not a Scot. He’s a British citizen”.

    Eh?

    So what does that make Callaghan? Kinnock? And all of those other figures? How is Kinnock Welsh? But Blair not a Scot? How is Michael Howard Welsh? Etc…

    In short, you can’t say ALL of them – except Blair – can be called Welsh, English, Scottish. But Blair is somehow just “British”.

    The logic of the argument is as follows:-

    EITHER all of these people are British – in which case the original claim made no sense. (Though as I said, I’m sure the original poster meant nothing serious by it and I don’t mean to criticise him at all).

    OR all of these people can be described as English, Welsh, Scottish and so on – in which case Blair is a Scot and the original claim was wrong.

    As I said, a frightening lack of basic understanding of logic…..

  14. Daivd in France

    2nd half is starting, so my tolerance mode is off!

    it doesn’t matter a damn what you think someone is. Every person’s identities are for themselves to decide – not to be allocated by some arrogant other.

    All of the candidates for PM were legally British Citizens (or the equivalent for their time).

    Whether they considered that their national identity was English, Welsh, Scots, Irish or British (or some combination of these) is entirely a matter for them.

  15. ALEC

    Thanks for your post.

    I must sadly decline to respond.

    Amber posted a very interesting list of questions on the topic & I responded in detail.

    Anthony zapped them both-which is his right of course.

    So all I can say is that I disagree with most of your post-some of it fundamentally so.

    I have been very very interested to see the reaction of certain parliamentarians in our two devolved fora, when their proceedings were disrupted by the current industrial action. I found it instructive and thought provoking.

    Enough already!!
    ;-)

  16. @ COLIN

    I was a little non-plussed re the zapping of our discussion about unions. I didn’t think it was partisan or particularly inflamatory.

    I’m guessing it got zapped for being off-topic – I guess I stretched the connection between politics & polling a little beyond the limits ;-)

  17. AMBER
    “I was a little non-plussed ”

    I usually don’t ask.

    It’s like questioning the Ref.

    They do it in soccer-and look what a self indulgent rabble they have become-we wouldn’t want to be like that would we?

    No -better to follow the Rugby Union example-gentlemanly acceptance of & total respect for the Ref.

    Walk away ……….then smack your opposite number in the teeth.
    ;-)

  18. ICM 38/31/21 Tory lead cut by two.

  19. ICM POLL shows 7 point lead for the tories.

  20. @DAIVD IN FRANCE

    I am the original poster.

    As you say, in a light hearted way, I was playing ‘devil’s advocate’ to suggest that there may be other issues, never explored or explained by the polls, that might be interesting to discuss.

    My first posting queried why the Bookmakers were still offering an OVERALL TORY MAJORITY as the odds-on favourite result at a time when the polls suggested NO OVERALL MAJORITY as the likely result.

    My second ‘thought provoker’ was the statistical evidence that no non-English potential PM had won a GE election in 50 years, and was Scot Gordon Brown sufficiently strong as a potential PM to be the one that would change that?

    The response, in the main, has been that many people started to pick away at bits of these two ‘light hearted’ thoughts for discussion – by attacking the thoughts themselves rather than commenting on them.

    Your post was refreshing to read

  21. So, Colin, you propose the John Prescott form of elctioneering? Always been a rugby girl myself, no time for the football prima-donnas

  22. Ooooh, ICM seem to be right on the average. Interesting

  23. Re ICM: Tory lead cut by 2.

    It seems that the Lib Dems have gained some ground on the Tories and Labour is static. By the way, have a look at the BBC poll tracker and it says that the You Gov lead for the Tories is at 5 points. That is for the poll dated 11th March.

  24. An ICM 7% and a YOUGOV 3% is both within each others margins of error.

    I always find myself waiting more for the ICM one than any other so im gonna place a wee bit more stock in that.

    HUNG PARL is becomming ever more likely

  25. Kyle – I don’t understand? Does it mean YouGov’s average?

  26. ICM’S poll for the Sunday Telegraph been released and Tory lead marginally down from last week’s in News of the World.

    Conservative 38% (down 2)

    Labour 31% (same)

    Lib Dem 21% (up 3)

    Poll was taken Wednesday and Thursday. of course ICM usually show bigger Conservative leads, we await You Gov to seee how they compare.

  27. Must be lovely to live in such a certain world

  28. Sue, it is the actual polling result. It has Labour on 32% instead of 34%. here is the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8280050.stm

  29. The ICM figures of late have all been in the 7-10 range.

    Apparently tomorrow’s Sunday Times/ YouGov lead for the Tories is another 5 point one.

    Interesting.

  30. So as dispassionately as I can, would we all agree that the lead is around 5 – 7% now?

  31. The last YouGov on 11th March was 3% Tory lead.

    Don’t we have to wait until 10pm for the Sunday Times YouGov poll, or has it been leaked?

  32. ICM having the CON lead cut by 2 to 7 – I am :-) about this.

    I wonder what perception questions were asked & if that will give us some insight into that -2%

  33. It’s Sunday – no poll ’till tomorrow evening – HELP – I’ve got WITHDRAWAL symptons !!!

  34. Excuse my ignorance but could somebody explain how it came to be that, if the Conservatives and Labour get an equal vote share in the 30’s to 40’s area, it gives Labour 80 to 90 more seats? Was this due to boundary changes brought in whilst Labour have been in power. Hardly seems fair and seems rich in view of Labour trying to hijack the electoral reform issue probably for their own ends.

1 8 9 10