Tonights’s Yougov tracker has topline figures of CON 37%(+1), LAB 33%(-1), LDEM 18%(+1), so the Tory lead goes back to four points. As I said yesterday, we’ll never know for sure whether yesterday’s two point lead was just an outlier, or whether it was a real narrowing reversed by the budget.

This poll was conducted between yesterday afternoon and this afternoon – so it is entirely after the Budget was delivered, but not necessarily after people had heard or read about it. Certainly many respondents would have answered the survey before having read the newspaper coverage of the budget this morning. While this first test of public opinion after the budget suggests it is not a game changer, there may well be more to come in the weekend polls.

My view is that the budget was more of a risk than an opportunity for Labour – Darling had no money for giveaways and the last two budgets had a strongly negative impact on Labour’s poll ratings. If Labour emerge unscathed, it’s probably good news for them… if they emerge unscathed – this is, after all, just one early poll and I expect we’ll have a lot more to digest over the weekend.

409 Responses to “YouGov Daily poll – 37/33/18”

1 6 7 8 9
  1. @Paul H-J

    I can believe that in principle cutting business rates leads to higher revenues. Of course, that depends on what businesses do with the “extra” cash. If they use it to pay themselves mega bonuses rather than for expansion and job creation then you’re back to square one.
    Anyway, I was not arguing for public spending stimuli, but suggesting that with the current state of the economy, spending cuts must precede tax cuts. There is simply no way tax cuts can substitute spending cuts in any way. As a result I think GO, if he wants to cut tax, must also match labour’s spending cuts. Even then, the remaining deficit will be too large for tax cuts.

  2. @Colin the numbers scare me! 3500billion gee’s that is a lot of money

    it would not be wise to give 87 billion cuts wud it?

  3. “(FWIW, govt spending “cuts” in teh 1980s were not actually cuts, just reductions in the rate of growth – but why spoil a good line with the facts. ”
    Indeed Paul-HJ — I would put it a little differently. Before the election in 1979 labour produced totally unsustainable spending plans. The tories reduced those but still increased spending overall.

    One of the good things about exposing labours lies now is that their lies ever since about the 1980s have been exposed as well.

    Otherwise I think your wasting your time trying to talk sense to these people.

    Mike N – are you telling me there has been no inflation in the past year?

    Mr Hadley, have you forgotten Browns miserable performance on TV the other week, apparently he was not best pleased on the car trip home. There is no evidence that Brown is popular.

    Pull the other one Howard — “and he personally had little idea how it would be achieved”. Byrne – THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY – does not know how these savings could be achieved? That they came from Burnham?? What utter rubbish. Its Byrne’s job to know – its Byrne’s job to INSIST

  4. Eoin

    They are still stuck so responding to your 10.52pm :-

    NI 1%-no £5bn pa ( Treasury “Ready Reckoner”)-from 4/11-so 4yrs in the term.

    IHT-funded by Non Dom surcharge.

    Council Tax-yes correct

    Corporation Tax-As you say funded by dropping reliefs & allowances-self funding.

    Marriage-yes the latest proposal; ( IDS) is the £0.6bn pa-from say 4/11

    So over the first term=£23.9BN= 0.7% of total tax revenue over the Parliament,

  5. Its a funny thing with these defecits, the fact is that there have only been 5 surpluses in th last 30 years, 3of them under labour. John Major had higher defecits in his years as pm tha tony blair. I imagine the way public finance is structured that inflation and growth eats up much of the borrowg over the years.

  6. I notice Yougov always shows Labour support higher than the other polls. now i can’t believe it is that high.

  7. @Trevorsden

    Er Comments policy

  8. @Colin

    if u accept NI .5 = 5 billion p.a. x5= 25

    corp 3 p.a. = x5= 15

    your five for NI is modest calc

    TImes daid 10 billlion indy said 7bn p.a. i took conserv estimate

    so i say 35= NI
    15= corp

    that is 50 alone

    sorry everybody else for the maths :) :) :)

  9. Trevorsden.

    A few pertinent points made there. AL J, what makes you believe any announcement on AD staying on if Labour scrape through would muster such a mass of support.

    Would people believe GB anyway? Ed Balls, backed 100% by the rising far left camp of the party is the most likley contender.

  10. @Trevorsden,

    I do believe you are going to be a legend in your own lifetime,

    El partisan extordanairé

  11. Éoin

    You have a superb sense of humour ;-)

  12. @ Éoin

    So over the first term=£23.9BN per Colin. You said £20Bn in your original post.

    Multiply it by 5 years (as you said) = £120Bn

    Your forecast was £87Bn for 5 years – all else being equal. Therefore Colin is estimating £33Bn more in tax cuts than you are.

    But it is all academic because Osborne has already caveated everything except the restricted Marriage + Child(ren) tax credit. Most voters think working couples with children already do well under Labour, so probably not a big vote winner.

    Tax cuts are just a bad idea in these times. It’s enough to make Brown smile. And he has done exactly that on the Guardian’s “Exclusive” on Labour’s new election pledges card. But you knew that already…

    Can’t really see any of those catching on though.

  14. @ RAF

    I must admit, I did not get overly excited by Labour’s pledges. I believe they are things one should be able to take for granted in a civilised society.

  15. If the poll for Daily Politics on BBC says Labour ahead of Conservative on economic competence amongst every social / gender group, this is shocking. Has any party behind on economic competence ever won?

  16. Has anyone done a compilation of local election votes in 2010 and aggregated them. ? This will show major swings away from the Tories, albeit from the last time they were won.

    There are lots of Labour gains being reported.

  17. @Surbiton,

    If there weren’t, Labour should be terrified. If you can’t win back council seats that you lost when your vote dipped down towards 20%, then Heaven help you…

  18. @Paul HJ

    “The answer to your question is that tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than public spending. This leads to increased revenues despite the lower rates. Tried and tested many times in many countries.”

    You are of course hopelessly deluded and dangeroulsy misguided. So lets leave it to several economists and even a bunch of USA REpublicands to put you right:

    “University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod is adamant on one of the key economic issues of our day: “Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves! Period!”

    Hardly any economist would disagree. This is true for Republicans as well as Democrats. It is also true regardless of whether they describe themselves as NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists.

    But for a substantial portion of the *general public*, the idea that cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues has become an article of faith (*NOTE PAUL HJ!*). The following anonymous comment to an online Associated Press story is typical: “The only way our government can create jobs is to cut taxes. It’s been proven over and over again. Cutting taxes also increases government revenue.”

    The idea that a tax cut would increase tax revenue is dangerous.

    As noted at the top of this column, Joel Slemrod, who served as a tax specialist on the staff of Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers in the 1980s, strongly agrees.

    So does Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who headed the CEA in Reagan’s first administration. Feldstein led the respected National Bureau of Economic Research for 30 years.

    And there’s Greg Mankiw, who headed the CEA for George W. Bush and made the “cranks and charlatans” remark about advocates of self-paying tax cuts.

    Believers in self-financing tax cuts may respond that all of these distinguished economists ignore the fact that Reagan administration tax cuts increased tax revenues. They are wrong.

    The Reagan administration did cut corporate and personal income tax rates but it closed loopholes, broadening the base of income subject to taxation. And government revenues at the end of the administration were higher than at the start. But they would have risen even more without the tax cuts. Explaining that requires another column. So save any angry e-mails until after next week!

    Economist Edward Lotterman teaches and writes in St. Paul, Minn”

  19. Trevorsden et al posters regarding ‘mythology of the 1980’s/

    As somone who got interested in and then came of age throughout the first two Thatcher terms nothing irks me more than historically inaccurate twaddle.

    I could precis Bill Keegan article into a few bullet points and try to pass them off as my own (as is the approach of several regular posters) but I refuse:

    “She wanted to cut public spending and curb inflation by controlling the money supply. Gradually, as conviction politics faced reality, her ambitions were revised from aiming at cuts, to freezing; and finally, to trying to control the rate of increase. (Incidentally, while cultivating the ‘image’ of Iron Lady, she presided over a reduction in the rate of increase of defence spending.)

    With regard to her ambition to curb inflation, she presided over a doubling of inflation between 1979 and 1980, from around 10 to over 20 per cent, and a return to ‘double-digit’ inflation at the end of the 1980s. Myth and reality – aren’t they wonderful?

    At one stage Thatcher thought the money supply and the rate of interest were the same thing. In an interview with Peter Jay she displayed little knowledge of the monetarism she had espoused. Jay subsequently joked that explaining monetarism to Thatcher was ‘like showing Genghis Khan a map of the world’.

    The results were disastrous, as unemployment soared from an inherited 1 million (when the Thatcherites proclaimed ‘Britain isn’t working’) to 2 and then 3 million. Britain suffered its worst recession since the war: and, so far from enjoying an industrial or entrepreneurial miracle, we experienced one of the slowest rates of economic growth ever. When the (Nigel) Lawson Boom ended in tears, and Thatcher bowed to pressure to enter the European exchange rate mechanism in 1990 at a dangerously high exchange rate – she wanted it even higher – the stage was set for the next-worst recession since the war (the worst, in the south east, because the industrial north absorbed the brunt during the early 1980s).

    For all the need for Britain to change its ways after the troubled times of the 1970s, the economy’s growth rate under Thatcher did not even compare favourably with the bald old ‘consensus’ days.

    Another myth that has resurfaced during the celebrations is the one about the 364 economists who were ‘wrong’ to say there was no way out of the economic morass of the early 1980s. The economists’ letter was based on the economic policies of the time. What happened, however, was that, under the influence of Thatcher’s economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters, and others, monetary policy was relaxed and a determined effort made to bring the overvalued pound to a more competitive level. That reversal was what stimulated a recovery.

    Nor should the myth be perpetuated that the Thatcherites came into office with a dramatic programme of privatisation and trade union reform. These policies only came to the fore as a diversionary tactic when the macroeconomic policies known as ‘monetarism’ were going badly wrong. It was a brilliant diversion, and Thatcher will go down in history for giving privatisation to the world (the word ‘privatisation’ did not figure in the 1979 manifesto – indeed I don’t think it had even been coined) and for crushing the unions. In this respect, Arthur Scargill, by calling the miners’ strike without a vote, played straight into her hands.

    Britain is now ‘celebrated’ for being a more entrepreneurial society with a wonderfully ‘flexible’ labour market, and much of this is popularly ascribed to the wonders of Thatcherism. But there again I fear there is a heavy presence of ‘myth’ and ‘image’.

    Our industrial base was badly eroded under Thatcher and has still not fully recovered, as can be seen from the appalling trade figures. To take but one example, Germany, for all that economy’s troubles, is a far bigger exporter to expanding markets such as China than we are. Throughout her premiership Thatcher enjoyed the inestimable benefit of North Sea oil, yet there has been little to show for it in the country’s longer economic performance.

    As for ‘market forces’, Thatcher did not discover them – although admittedly previous governments were probably overinclined to favour ‘producer groups’ as opposed to consumers. But, as Gilmour notes, ‘The market was God to Thatcherites except when the consumers wanted a non-Thatcherite product… They might want improved social services; what they were going to get was more tax cuts (at least if they were quite well off)…’

    Again ‘Thatcherites happily distorted the market by subsidising people to buy shares in the new private monopolies, yet refused to realise market demands for better education and health provision as these would entail expansion of the public sector’.


    “Has anyone done a compilation of local election votes in 2010 and aggregated them. ? This will show major swings away from the Tories, albeit from the last time they were won. There are lots of Labour gains being reported.”

    Yesterday there were two Labour gains (one from Cons and one from Inds) and one green gain from the Conservative.

    The Lab-Con gain was a TC seat which is part of a ‘southern’ constituency won by the Tories by 49-29 (labour in 2nd place) in 2005 GE:

    Bracknell TC, Old Bracknell Town
    Lab 380 (41.9), Con 370 (40.8), Lib Dem 107 (11.8), Green 49 (5.4)
    Majority 10. Turnout 22.4%. Lab gain from Con.

    The Ind-Lab gain was also a TC seat in colwyn bay where they beat Plaid C into second place.

    The green gain was *very* interesting as it came against the big three and its main ‘minority’ rival UKIP and was a District council ward:

    Mid Suffolk DC, Haughley and Wetherden
    Green 444 (61.0;+45.4), Con 176 (24.2;-20.9), Lib Dem 51 (7.0;-32.4), Lab 32 (4.4;+4.4), UKIP 25 (3.4;+3.4)
    Majority 268. Turnout 41.57%. Green gain from Con.

    Again a southern seat- part of Bury SE constituency which the Tories beat labour by 46-27 at 2005 GE

    So far the gains and losses in 2010 are:

    Con 15 (-3)
    Lab 12 (+6)
    LD 9 (=)
    Oth 2 (-3)

    Neil A

    “If there weren’t, Labour should be terrified. If you can’t win back council seats that you lost when your vote dipped down towards 20%, then Heaven help you…”

    huh??! Looking at this hard data rather than polls with sampling and methodology errors (albeit on a small geographical scale): IMHO they only people that need the help of a higher power and who most probably are changing their brown trousers by the minute are the DC-GO show (er) !!

  21. Rob, thank you for giving up so much of your night to writing a calm and critical synopsis of the economics of the Thatcher years. It has raised the level of debate.

    I’d be very interested to see an equally calm and erudite defence.

  22. It’s not possible to discern significant trends from the gains and losses of only 38 mixed UA, CC, DC, TC and other seats whose points of comparison with when previously fought are so different.

    The overall seat numbers, however, of C15, Lab12, LD 9, show a great resemblance to current C and Lab polling proportions, but give the LDs a higher share, with less for Others. But, I don’t think anything can be read from that either.

  23. Trevorsden “Mike N – are you telling me there has been no inflation in the past year?”

    Please go back and read all my postings on this issue of tax alowances as you seem not to have carefully read or understood them.

  24. Well, I’ve had a fascinating lesson in politicking in the last 24 hours. Anthony seems to have all but given us an open thread (or maybe he just went to the pub lol) and some of the posts have been brilliant – (EOIN, ROB SHEFFIELD, COLIN)

    EOIN – I see you spent a pleasant evening doing just what we thought you would, indeed debating with Con sympathisers rushing to agree that tax cuts are just the ticket. I’m naive perhaps, but I’ve never seen first hand such an example of (struggling to find a word that will make it through moderation here) lets say a rapid change of opinion. Even Mr Trev had nothing to say about GO giving away a further 89 billion (or 57 or 120, whatever it is) after all his dire warnings of armageddon and bankruptcy.

    Re : By elections, I could be wrong, but I thought the Conservatives almost never won them most of the way through their 18 years and certainly not from about half way through?

    Rob – Fascinating stuff. The eighties and early nineties certainly FELT that way, but how interesting to see why

  25. @Sue,

    24 hours is a very long time….

    Now when you hear cut, you have to aks “cut what” tax or spending?

    The polling wont pick it up ntil it is officially announced so we are probably going to have

    a) the fallout from the budget reflected in the polls.
    b) in th emiddle of next week their may be reaction to osborne’s NI tax cut, inheritance tax cut and corporation tax cut, he may outline in greater detail his marriage and council tax proposition…

    I think a reasonable voter might conlude that debt must be manageable if Osborne feels he can give away £87 billion.

  26. @ Eoin
    “if u accept NI .5 = 5 billion p.a. x5= 25

    corp 3 p.a. = x5= 15

    your five for NI is modest calc

    TImes daid 10 billlion indy said 7bn p.a. i took conserv estimate

    so i say 35= NI
    15= corp

    that is 50 alone”

    NI STARTS under Labour April 2011-so four years in the first parliament.

    Corpn Tax-nil net cost-Allowances & reliefs scrapped to pay for headline rate reduction.

    Cost of 1% reduction £5bn pa ( HM Treasury Tax Ready Reckoner-Dec 09-Table 5-page 15 )

    Get you numbers rtight Eoin .

    @ AMBER

    “So over the first term=£23.9BN per Colin.

    Multiply it by 5 years (as you said) = £120Bn”

    Oh my god -no wonder Labour always ends in a financial mess.


    If you multiply it by FIVE-then thats for 25 years.


    Now -Eoin & Amber.

    If you want a really significant figure from the IFS report it’s this :-

    At the end of the first Term ( That Parliament to you Amber) -n five years time ( Amber)-in 2014/15,
    DEbt on Government Borrowing will be £73 Billion pa-that’s every year.

    That’s over 10% of TOTAL tax revcenues.

    Thats bigger than the total EDucation Budget.

  27. Angus reid poll released

    voters overwhelmingly reject budget

    30% support 54% reject (rememebr Comres had a lot more indifference to the poll- I can only imagine that AR must have teased this indifference out of the voter …….. somehow)

    that is quite different to COMRES but then it would be wouldn’t it…

    if this is reflected in a proper national poll for AR i imagine there will be no shrinking of the 13%.

  28. @ Eoin

    if u accept NI .5 = 5 billion p.a. x5= 25

    corp 3 p.a. = x5= 15

    your five for NI is modest calc

    TImes daid 10 billlion indy said 7bn p.a. i took conserv estimate

    so i say 35= NI
    15= corp

    that is 50 alone”

    Wrong Eoin
    my reply is moderated again.

    @ AMBER

    “So over the first term=£23.9BN per Colin.

    Multiply it by 5 years (as you said) = £120Bn”


  29. I’m back now, so you can all get back onto the comments policy. Arguments over whether Thatcher was any good, whether tax cuts are good, etc, are now CLOSED.

    Sue – regarding by-elections under the last Tory govt, their last gain was in 1982. Their last hold was Richmond in 1989 (won by William Hague and caused by Leon Brittan going off to Brussells, the only reason they held it was that the opposition vote was split between the nacent Social and Liberal Democrats and the continuing SDP). Between Richmond in 1989 and Uxbridge in 1997 they lost every one.

    Surbiton – Rallings and Thrasher try to do projections of national support from local government by-elections. It isn’t that great, and had pretty much broken down completely because so many by-elections now have minor parties entering and skewing the vote. R&T have now come up with a new version of their model which gives notional support to parties that didn’t contest the ward last time. The current average from this gives support at CON 36%, LAB 30%, LDEM 25%. At past elections this has grossly overestimated the level of Lib Dem support, so Rallings and Thrasher also reduce Lib Dem support in line with previous “split ticket” voting patterns, giving them a current prediction of CON 38%, LAB 32%, LDEM 20% – so actually pretty much in line with the polls.

  30. I am currently leaning towards the view that “ordinary voters” are nowhere near as silly as we give them credit for. Despite hearing that the recession is all GBs fault they seem perfectly aware that it was a global phenomena.
    Despite being told GB couldn’t spend his way out of trouble, they are now concluding that he made the right calls at almost every step and the recession has been nowhere near as deep or painful as it could have been.

    That said, I feel absolutely confident that when they hear that far from “steady as she goes prudence” GO has managed to find another 89 billion to spend while spending cuts are necessary, they will poll even more heavily towards confidence in GB/AD to run the economy.

    IMO, all the public will really hear from all this noise is Lab – slowly but surely recovery on the way
    Con – We’ll cut a lot, not sure what yet though, and we’ll giveaway a lot too , but we’re not quite sure how yet.

    I think they’ll be SAVAGED by the city, economists, Paxman and the press and we’ll see a level poll any day now. There. That’s my prediction.

  31. Interesting developments on the tax and spend debate within the Tory party. There are the first signs of disquiet within Tory ranks, and one thing the polls don’t like is any sign of division within a party. I’m not quite sure how Labour have got away with attempted coups etc in recent months, but if the strains in the Cameron coalition start to show that will have a serious effect. So far the arguments are between figures on the margins, but if it transfers into a more mainstream issue it could have a bearing on the result. The discipline under pressure of the Tories is something a few posters have alluded to over the years and this could be a developing story I feel.

  32. Ha Anthony, be kind I posted the last one before your post ;)
    Wow, for once my memory served me correctly then, thanks for that.

  33. @Trevorsden

    ..”There is no evidence that Brown is popular”

    You miss my point completely. I never claimed he was, or is ever likely to be, I was merely arguing that there had been a decline in his unpopularity. That is, subtlely, a very different thing and let me explain why I think it is and how it may be feeding into the current polls. When the Conservatives were polling in the early to mid 40s, consistently, about 12 months ago, a good proportion of their surge was down to Brown’s unpopularity rather than any particular enthusiasm for them. I think this was widely accepted and the whole thrust of their strategy ever since has been based on popular antipathy to Brown and the general “time for a change” mood prevailing in the country. Now, if I was a Labour strategist, and who’s to say that they haven’t already started to do so, I’d counter that with firstly trying to neutralise hostility to Brown and secondly, confronting the electorate with the consequences of the changes they may be about to make. I think they’ve had some success, as evidenced in a consolidation of their recent improved ratings and a remorseless decline in the Conservatives share of the vote. I just don’t think there is the level of hostility around for Brown that there was 12 to 18 months ago. That doesn’t make him popular but it’s shot a major Tory fox stone dead.

  34. Steve Kingson – you are very silly. The idea that Ed Balls is “supported 100% by the rising hard left” of the Labour Party is totally ridiculous. Personally I’d welcome a “rise of the hard left” as it goes, but it isn’t happening. Yes a couple of left-wingers have been selected for winnable seats but the Left of the Party has been totally marginalised for a generation now. And I think you’ll find many who are to any extent on the Left would be more supportive of Jon Cruddas, or Ed Miliband rather than Balls although it is true that the uber-Blairites dislike Balls more than the Left does.

  35. Nick Hadley – I read your post about GB and I’ve posted very similar thoughts myself lately. As someone pointed out a day or two ago, you don’t have to be popular to win elections. I think GBs competency has risen markedly lately and his image seems to have softened into “awkward, cross, but pretty steady” That’s why the emphasis on simply bashing Brown hasn’t worked IMO

  36. “Has anyone done a compilation of local election votes in 2010 and aggregated them. ? This will show major swings away from the Tories, albeit from the last time they were won.”

    You could argue that anyone would have reasonably expected this. The electorate is very angry with all the major parties, and the Tories have had a much larger share of the vote in local elections, so it was inevitable that the swing would affect them worse.

    The results wouldn’t be good for any of the major parties, least of all the Cons/Lab, were it to repeat itself in the GE – but I seriously doubt it will. Local elections tend to be a time when the electorate registers their dissatisfaction with mainstream politics – but they will go back to generally voting for the ‘main 3’ come election time.

  37. by a margin of 62 to 29 per cent Unite members think the law should be changed to reverse the burden so that members would have to opt in to the scheme instead.

    Read more:–prefer-Cameron.html#ixzz0jMpQmZ8G

  38. Presumably Osborne will have to detail these rumoured tax cuts before the Ask the Chancellors Live Debate on Mon eve?
    If he doesn’t he’ll be open to plenty of attack along the lines of will you/wont you rule them out. And what exactly are your policies etc etc,
    If he times it well though then most of the focus of the debate will be on his cuts announcement and he wont give his rivals much notice of exactly what they are.
    Either way it could be pretty lively….

  39. An interesting Poll from Poulus of UNITE members.

    Reported as :-

    “Some 59 per cent of those surveyed by Populus said they disagreed with the decision to fund Labour, compared with 34 per cent who agree.”

    “Just 17 per cent think that funding Labour is the best way to spend their money. Some 76 per cent disagree”

    “Thirty-four per cent of Unite members want Mr Cameron to be PM against 29 per cent for Mr Brown and 14 per cent for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, with the rest undecided”

    “Current political funding rules mean that union members who do not wish their cash to be handed to Labour have to opt out of the union political fund. But by a margin of 62 to 29 per cent Unite members think the law should be changed to reverse the burden so that members would have to opt in to the scheme instead. ”

    Anthony-do you have any comments on the methodology here, and how we can be sure it is representative?


  40. Poll of bosses by Institute of Directors (from the Press Association):

    16% think the Budget was positive for the economy
    38% think it was neutral
    46% think it was harmful (mainly due to lack of specific plans for debt reduction).

    PA report these figures were the result of a snap poll of 1,2000 people taken by the IoD immediately after AD’s Budget statement.

  41. UKIP looking up?

    Farage with a smile on his face ?

    Merkel and Sarkozy want the EU to assume responsibility for the “economic government of Europe”. That basically means control of fiscal policy. The Greek economic tragedy has clearly riled the prudent thrifty Germans, who now want to ensure the fiscal prudence of EU member States from Brussels.

    It certainly would be a step forward from the extremely flexible & much ignored edicts about deficit maxima.

    New economic powers for Brussels would presumably require a new European Treaty.

    Here we go again !

  42. Anthony, are quoting a new YouGov poll with the headline “New blow to Labour as Scots slam budget“. No voting intentions quoted, but some interesting numbers on “honesty”. Would you know if there is more to come? Will post URL separately as it will take a while to be modded.

  43. @COLIN

    Re:UNITE opt in/opt out issue. I presume on the levy/membership form, there is an opt out box, that members can tick. If they don’t want their money to go to Labour, they can just tick it!

    Also, the poll isn’t a surprise. Union members are very disenchanted with Labour. However, DC’s outdated views on the Unions and Union power have damaged his chances with these voters.

  44. I think the point is that the vast majority of the general public doesn’t trust either Labour or the Tories on any of the issues. This election will be more a case of ‘who benefits my pocket the most’, I think.

  45. In answer to a post I saw yesterday, yes the electorate wants a good NHS/public services. However, the vast majority of people think that someone else should pay for them (other than them)!!!!

  46. Well Done Eoin Clarke
    For spoting the AR budget/economy trust poll. As stated vastly different to Comres. Tories very much in control on this one.
    Who the hell knows? I must say, the pro Labour Comres result suprised me slightly, no not because I am a Tory, but because it did not square with the general budget reaction. On the other hand, if the Tories are as “in front” on the economy as AR suggest, why hav’nt they got back to the 40s in the polls.

  47. Brownedov – I don’t actually know (I don’t have anything to do with Scottish polls), but couldn’t tell you even if I did!

    If clients want to spread publications their questions out over several days it’s not for me to announce what may be coming up.

  48. @ Colin

    The only Populus poll of Unite workers that I could find is from March 2009.

  49. Further to my previous post. I blame the Augurs Mike Smithson, and Anthony Wells. The number of chickens and goats they slaughter and the time taken up studying entrails, they should be able to say “Watford Tory Gain 1800 maj”, “Labour Hold Copeland”. Instead we get all this confusion refered to by Eoin and myself.

1 6 7 8 9