Tonight’s YouGov poll has topline figures of CON 33%(+2), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 31%(-3). A drop for the Liberal Democrats, but YouGov has been bouncing back and forth between Lib Dem and Tory leads since the debate – realistically the position seems to be stable, with the changes all just random variation within the margin of error.

We also have a new poll from TNS-BRMB, who I think are the final pollster left to produce a “post-debate” poll (though a very small part of the fieldwork to this poll was conducted prior to the debate). Their figures are CON 34%(-2), LAB 29%(-4), LDEM 30%(+8).

Later on we have ComRes’s daily poll. Remember that it is a rolling poll, and half the data in today’s poll will actually have been in yesterday’s poll that showed a nine-point Tory lead (and judging by the shift in yesterday’s ComRes figures, the new half of the data yesterday must have been very Tory). Don’t be surprised therefore if tonight’s ComRes poll also shows a decent Tory lead, it’s the drawback of rolling polls – if you get one perculiar sample it takes a couple of days to work its way through.


346 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 33/27/31”

1 4 5 6 7
  1. Re ComRes

    There is only ione conclusion we can drawfrom ComRes’ rolling poll – that the recent 500 show LD up 2% and Lab down 2% on the 2 day-old 500

    To illustrate (and what I suspect is a reasonable punt at the truth)
    18th 500: 33/28/26
    19th 500 (rogue): 37/24/26
    20th 500: 33/30/24

    That would deliver 35/26/26 on the 19th rolling, and 35/27/25 on 20th.

    All you need is one sample of 500 taht is a genuine rogue, and the rest being well within sample error of a ‘best fit’ 33/31.5/28.

  2. Paxman just described the Telegraph story tomorrow as “a load of stuff and nonsense”.

  3. @Eoin:

    I assume you mean me (my name’s Matt). I wasn’t really talking about the Lab %, just Con and Lib percentages (actually, just Con). Going from Comres’s figures, it seems the actual daily 20th Apr score for the Blues was around 39/40, whilst the rolling average (using both the 19th and the 20th daily polls) produced the published 36% figure. (I get the 39/40 by using Comres’s published 19th Apr figure, which was 32, and 32 and 40 average out at 36).

    Today’s figures would suggest that if the Blue score from yesterday was 40 (not the rolling Comres figure published), then today’s actual result must have been around 30. This seems far too low – and my numbers might be based on assumptions that might be rubbish. Could anyone tell me if I’ve got it right with these figures?

    I might be wrong in all this, and in the end all it probably shows is Comres’s sketchiness.

  4. Where have all the

    ’40 – 30 – 20′ advocates gone?

  5. @NickP,

    Good assessment on ComRes, I think you’ve probably nailed it.

    Although, it would show Labour scoring 24% on the “non rogue” element of the poll, which is… interesting.. in an AR kind of way..

  6. @Rob A,

    yep… fingers crossed!

    He mentioned another slur….. as a headline in a diff paper. Wont mention the details but did u see it?

  7. Oh well EOIN, we have the same figures then, so all is well :)
    i wonder if there was an initial “Oh my goodness, Cameron was terrible, we’ll have to vote Labour” and then the media narrative gave them Clegg the saviour and they thought “pheww, we’ll vote for him then” hence the very slight, possible (I’ll give you that much ;) ) Tory claw back.
    By the way, please tell me what you think about the DC performance for tomorrow I posted on above? You obviously think he CAN perform well enough to pull up to 38, so what will he do?

  8. Guys on Comres you ight be right that its 33% but add that to the other 33s and 34 and we have a trend…

  9. So if ComRes is a rolling poll and has gone 32-35-35

    the daily polls for the last 3 days could well be 32-38-32??

    If so, nothing to write home about…

  10. @Gareth,

    There was only one 40/30/20 advocate and that was Mark from Chadderton… he’s not been around for a couple of days it seems..

    Don’t tempt me to make predictions… but I have a hunch the GE numbers will be closer to 40/30/20 than they are to the last week’s polls. (NOT a prediction!! I have no clue really.. just a hunch..)

  11. Colin Green says we should have a separate election for PM. This was introduced in Israel, one of very few countries where the parliament (Knesset) election is overwhelmingly based on PR.

    It produces fascinating results, although the constant coalitions and resulting back-room negotiations between parties does not, in most people’s view, produce dynamic and progressive politics.

  12. Billy Bob and Sue

    Independent survey on C4 says GB saved over 1,000,000 jobs in Uk alone. If I find the link I’ll post it. It may be on their site.

    I imagine you will hear of that from GB (!!!).

  13. @ Eoin

    Something in the Daily mail was it? I can’t remember exactly what he said. But they have been in anti-clegg propaganda overdrive for much of the past week. Can’t imagine its anything particularly revelatory. But i’ll wait and see.

  14. Gareth – don’t worry, he has the same figures, but Lab are now on 20 and Lib on 30!!!

  15. Anyone who doesn’t think this breaking story on NC is big news is kidding themselves I think.

    It wouldn’t have been if he’d hadn’t banged on about honesty and been accused as he is now of being holier (sp) than thou.
    It will be on the news (and was tonight) and this is what will happen as he comes more and more into the spotlight.

    Watching Jon Sopel tonight was interesting with Kelvin Mackenzie and the 3 old leaders. They all agreed that he had a pretty easy ride last week and wasn’t pushed on policy at all. Mackenzie doesn’t like him and those who think people aren’t swayed by the papers are I think a little naive. Throw enough mud etc….NC had better be squeakier than clean.

    I saw somewhere else as well that it was commented that NC is prone to getting his heckles up and can get rattled easily. Both GB and NC will attack him tomorrow and as he’s in the centre he could get it in both barrels.

    Will be a great wtach whoever is your man.

  16. @ colin green….not quite right back:)

    its true that the local elections end up choosing the government but that isn’t really what I was driving at

    my point was rather that people obsess over national share when they should obsess over seats

    if labour were to finish 3rd in the popular vote but be the biggest party people would say it was ‘unfair’

    I don’t really know the answer to that I’m not into moral questions but the counter argument (which no one will make) is that more local areas want a labour representative than the other parties

  17. Pete B
    It is arguable that we are slow to change, but some posters on here seem to believe that FPTP has been deliberately invented to give false election results, whereas it is just the oldest and simplest method of electing.

    Not so. The plurality system was pretty fair until the secret ballot was brought in in 1872. Before that, voting was in public and the running totals announced. If wanting to vote tactically, one simply waited until near the close of the polls. Trollope’s Dr Thorne has a good chapter or so on a pre-1872 election. AV should have been introduced with secrecy.

  18. @Sue,

    There are polls before the debate begins

    I expect a 38% to appear in one of those….

  19. @ SUE MARSH

    I tend to agree, it seems the Tories have lost 6 ish to Labours 4 ish
    The man with all to gain tomorrow is GB, he is in an awful position with seemingly no hope due to the topic tommorow, it wouldn’t suprise me if Browns experienced solemn words convince people this safe steady leadership spin has an ooid of truth.
    Lets face it 26 27% is potentially at or below the Labour core vote and with economic optimism directly proportional to LAB poll score it’ll be close to 30 on the night.
    There is no way 37% will vote Tory now, even if Clegg gets hammered by the press they will still win 70 seats.

  20. Read the Telegraph piece on Clegg on the web in advance of tomorrow’s paper (which will be the last time it appears in my house!!). This smacks of the Zinoviev letter. The story relates to payments made into Clegg’s account in 2006 by 3 businessmen to fund a member of staff. Apparently payments were declared in the register of interests at the time. It has been blown in true Torygraph into something that it isn’t. Either – the mud will stick and the honeymoon is over or it will massively rebound on the right wing press. I hope the latter.

  21. So a possible Con recovery, with Lib falling back a little and labour pretty much standing still.

  22. @Nick P

    “Re ComRes

    There is only ione conclusion we can drawfrom ComRes’ rolling poll – that the recent 500 show LD up 2% and Lab down 2% on the 2 day-old 500

    To illustrate (and what I suspect is a reasonable punt at the truth)
    18th 500: 33/28/26
    19th 500 (rogue): 37/24/26
    20th 500: 33/30/24

    That would deliver 35/26/26 on the 19th rolling, and 35/27/25 on 20th.

    All you need is one sample of 500 taht is a genuine rogue, and the rest being well within sample error of a ‘best fit’ 33/31.5/28.”

    Absolutely correct. And in a sample of 500, 37% is only 185 voters. The statistical error in that is +/-14 voters or +/-2.8% of the whole sample. A small sample is likely to give a much greater random error and that’s exactly what’s happened. I’m pleased someone else here actually understands statistics!

  23. Hi Robert are you a former Liberal councillor in Brighton?

  24. “I often think we should have 2 elections simultaneously: One for your local MP and one for Prime Minister. That way you can keep your local MP if you have a good one but choose the better PM / Cabinet.”

    You can’t have a PM or government that doesn’t have a majority in the House of Commons. as Charles I discovered.

  25. Interesting work published in todays Evening Standard and carried out by ipos mori -Q how certain r each parties supporters to vote? Result for % of each parties supporters that say they r certain to vote 58 49 44

    the headline result for this poll was 32 28 32. if you ex out the non firm voters and re weight you would get 37 28 28. Given all polling organisations have a nightmare with how to treat the no shows and turn out was c63% in 2005 viewing the not decided as probable no shows may not been that darft perhaps? feels right to me and would justify the betfair ‘predictions’

  26. Lets hope the story is nothing

    wysteria, cleaners, private accounts there are an equal. None are more equal than others. shoddy politics.

    @Sue,

    Tomorrow nites debate I posted a rahter long blog on how I see it going in the earleir thread.. I’ll find it and post it again…

  27. Mark S

    32 38 32

    Yes I prefer your palindrome to mine and I had not looked up the previous ComRes figure.

    That’s what bothers me about the moving averages. There are polls with 5 days of filed work and others rolling an dothers 24 polls.

    To slosh them together to produce averages does not seem kosher maths to me.

  28. Off topic as per u

    22nd April and May 6th very good for GB – explain later.

    Eoin: do you mind, my gt gf really did know LG. Not perfect by any meanner of means, but as you pointed out, something strkingly modern about him.

  29. I actually think the Tory press going for Clegg in the way they have might backfire.

    I think its fine for the press to pick apart the detail of Lib Dem policies and ask tough questions but some of the stuff in the Mail and now the Telegraph is just gutter politics.

    Apparently the Sun are going for him as well (according to Kelvin Mackenzie earlier today on ‘The campaign show’).

    Its all a bit unseemly for the media to seek to influence the electorate by smearing politicians because their favoured party is not winning.

    In fact I don’t think the press coverage at this election has been very good at all – far too much political bias in all the papers and not enough policy investigation and political commentary.

  30. @BARNABY MARDER. Yep – Preston Ward 1985 – 1989

  31. @Sue

    The next two TV debates promise to be a disaster for the Tory party. Domestic policy was their storng card. Immigration, crime, broken society- they had it all. On the international affiars debate, they are in a much weaker position.

    Lisbon Treaty
    The new European grouping
    China?

    Brown will be able to remind voters of his statesmanship.

    IMF, G20, International Development.

    Clegg, may well prosper in an Obama type role. get rid of nukes but he is pro-Europe. Anti-Iraq war may fade. Was he an MP in 2003?

    If the sentiment is anti- pound anti-Europe then perhaps cameron can claw it back. Also if it becomes about defence spending he might play well.

    But if it is about Global economic cooperation, then it is Brown’s for the taking.

  32. Eoin
    There are polls before the debate begins

    I expect a 38% to appear in one of those….

    Well, unless Comres comes out early you’ll be scratchimg around old chap!

  33. Eoin,

    I think the most interesting thing about the Telegraph article is the very last sentence:

    “George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, and other senior Tories have in the past been criticised for failing to make public where their office funding has come from. ”

    It would appear that Clegg’s problem is that he HAS made it public, by declaring it… It is a shocking piece of journalism, trying to suggest that there is some sort of gap between the amount he claimed from parilament and the slary costs of two researchers without pointing out that NI and pension costs could easily add 25% to the salaries – all that has been gone over with a fine tooth comb already and Clegg is in the clear. Then he has some additional payments from private donors to pay for extra research it would appear, all declared in full, and separate from any public funding. His only mistake is paying someone out of his own bank account. The Torygraph uses innuendo to somehow suggest that Clegg has misused public money, when in fact there is no question of that whatsoever.

    I think if the Lib Dems plummet in the polls after this the Telegraph might find itself paying out substantial damages for this one – but no doubt that will not matter to them if mission is accomplished…

    Andrew

  34. My prediction is for another smaller surge in Lib Dem support following the 2nd debate. LDs on solid ground having opposed Iraq, want to withdraw from Afghanistan and their trident policy is becoming quite popular. I can’t see Cameron or Brown being able to land any real punches on NC.

    We will see LDs polling +35% over the weekend.

  35. @ROBERT EGGLESTON
    I assume you were perfectly happy when the Telegraph was attacking Tory MPs for claiming for their duck ponds, but now they have exposed Lib Dem misbehaviour the Telegraph is suddenly an appalling paper?

    By the way the Zinoviev letter was revealed to be a forgery – Nick Clegg’s office has already admitted that this story is true, so hardly in the same league.

    I assume you also disliked the fact that the Telegraph revealed Nick Clegg receiving £82,000 of YOUR and MY money to pay for refurbishment of one of his many homes (I believe he has at least three).
    Me thinks the lady doth protest too loud.

    Back on topic though it will be interesting to see how quickly (if at all) this story impacts on Lib Dem support.

  36. Just read the Telegraph online article about Clegg’s bank account. It does appear to be a complete non-story, but sadly I think there is a chance it will hurt him. It’s the “feel” of it rather than the truth of it. People have a downer (wrongly I believe) on “businessmen” at the moment. Fat cats paying cash into your bank account will probably make some electors go “ick” just like claiming for trouser presses and first class travel did. Stating that “it was all declared and was all permitted under the rules” is absolutely true and absolutely right, but it’s also exactly what the greedy MPs all said in answer to the last Telegraph story.

    We’ll see I suppose. It will make me think less of Cameron if he mentions this story though.

  37. @Nick P

    * Comres release 2010-04-21 (fieldwork 2010-04-19, 2010-04-20): CON 35 LAB 25 LDEM 27
    * Comres release 2010-04-20 (fieldwork 2010-04-18, 2010-04-19): CON 35 LAB 26 LDEM 26
    * Comres release 2010-04-19 (fieldwork 2010-04-17, 2010-04-18): CON 32 LAB 28 LDEM 28

    Yep, I think Comres’s 19th April fieldwork was the weird one too.

  38. Robert E;

    Absolutely agree. Happiliy all it will do is:

    1/ Show how desperate and tawdry they are

    2/ Force LD supporters to remind the public of the offences Osborne etc are guilty of to put it into perspective.

    I imagine they will cope with it well.

    It will rebound on the newspaper and their party.

  39. @Robert Eggleston

    “Read the Telegraph piece on Clegg on the web in advance of tomorrow’s paper (which will be the last time it appears in my house!!). This smacks of the Zinoviev letter. The story relates to payments made into Clegg’s account in 2006 by 3 businessmen to fund a member of staff. Apparently payments were declared in the register of interests at the time. It has been blown in true Torygraph into something that it isn’t. Either – the mud will stick and the honeymoon is over or it will massively rebound on the right wing press. I hope the latter.”

    I too take the Telegraph (not after tomorrow) and I too am concerned that this does seem like an attempted slur. Trouble is, mud can stick. Even if Clegg can prove he did nothing wrong (as he seems to have begun to do), the public venom about the expenses scandal may damage him. Alternatively, it may be seen as a deliberate attempt by the Tory press to unfairly damage an opponent and may backfire on Cameron. I rather hope it just dies down like a damp squib. Elections should be about policy.

  40. Andrew..

    You could be right. But the question was asked on Sky as to why was it paid into his own private bank account..they said it seemed very odd.

    Again, not that he nay have done anything wrong, it’s the ” perception ” of the clean up kid with the high morals being seen as maybe having a skeleton or 2 to come out…..THAT is the thing IMHO.

  41. @Howard ;)

    Michievous did ya say?

  42. Telegraph story summed up on SkyNews tracker:

    Tel allege: NC received payments from party donors to his private bank account.
    NC spokeswomen: All payment’s properly declared: they were used to fund part of a party members salary.

    Former Chairman of Standards Committee Alastair Graham: No breach of the law or rules.

  43. @ Andy Green

    NE 64,110 per seat corrected by losing 2 seats and then re drawing the boundaries such that the votes/seat increased to 68,689 per seat.
    SW 75,399 per seat corrected by an additional 4 seats and re-drawing the boundaries to decrease it to 69,916.
    Still a slight difference caused because the figures used by the boundary commission were those of their last census which happened to be 1997 after the GE. The boundaries are based on the number of electors, not the numbers that actually vote. GE2001 did not feature any new seat allocation or boundary revisions as it was too soon after GE1997. the repport of the boundaries commissionwas presented in 2007 for implementation at the first GE after that date ie. 2010.

    All the other regions are all within 2000/3000 of each other. There is no huge difference with the new seat allocation and boundary changes.

  44. EOIN – Thanks for that.
    I’d never seen this next debate as being good for GB so that was a real eye opener. I’d always worried it would be an Iraq-Afghanistan-soldiers equipment-Wooten Basset-car crash for him.
    I hadn’t given any thought to his record on world poverty, global debt, European co-operation, and global economics.
    Maybe I’ll hold off on the valium just yet.

  45. torygraph – please, not for the last 2 years!

  46. Howard
    There are polls with 5 days of filed work and others rolling an dothers 24 polls.

    I’m not drunk believe me, oh dear.

    Should read:
    There are polls with 5 days field work and others ‘rolling’ and others are 24 hour polls’

    I meant to say that apples and pears should not be added together.

  47. @Polly Ticks

    It’s already ”NO” news. NC has made his Bank Statements available & all the donations were declared. It’s all been passed as ”ok” by the standards committee.
    As I said no news. Although I’m not a LD supporter -I see this as a desperate attempt to discredit NC.

  48. @RAF

    Telegraph story summed up on NeilA tracker:

    Tel allege: Rich Tory squire MP received large cash payments to trim his maze, clean his moat and replace his silver cutlery.
    Rich Tory Squire MP spokeswomen: All payment’s properly declared: they were legitimate expenses for maintaining a second home.
    Commons Expenses Office / CPS : No breach of the law or rules.

  49. You are right Tony, they should be about policy, but it wouldn’t stop either opposing party doing the same though really would it. ? Would supporters of either party on here tonight truthfully condemn it if it were a Tory in the same boat tonight…?
    Policy above style…?

  50. @AL J / Rob A,

    You’re both correct. Sorry I raised it. :) :) :)

    Their is another story though might carry a bit…. dont want to publish it on here tho

1 4 5 6 7