We have details of two more polls – YouGov‘s poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures, with changes from yesterday, of CON 35%(+1), LAB 27%(-2), LDEM 28% (-1). BPIX in the Mail on Sunday have figures, with changes from a week ago, of CON 34%(+3), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 30%(-2).

Taking a wider look at the polls, the Conservatives do seem to have recovered slightly over the week. After the first debate the pollsters seemed to be consistently putting them in the 31%-33% range, the polls conducted over the last two days (seven of them!) all have the Conservatives between 34%-36%.

The Lib Dem surge looks as though it may have peaked too. The Ipsos MORI poll showing a huge drop is probably meaningless, it looks like a rogue, and a lot of the fall will just be down to the sample being less-Lib Dem inclined (10% of the survey reported voting Lib Dem in 2005, compared to 13% in MORI’s previous poll. Unlike most other companies MORI do not weight by past vote, so it varies from sample to sample). However, the other polls still seem to be showing a slight drop – after four polls in a row showing them over 30%, YouGov have now had them below 30% for three in a row… not, of course, that we don’t still seem to be headed towards the Liberal Democrats best ever performance.

There is also a OnePoll survey in the People which has figures of CON 32%, LAB 23%, LDEM 32%. I do not have any information on whether OnePoll surveys use proper sampling or appropriate weighting, so cannot vouch for whether this is meaningful at all.

UPDATE: The YouGov poll figures have been corrected – the Lib Dems are actually at 28%, not 29% (I’m having a weekend off, so only got the official figures at 9pm like everyone else!)

728 Responses to “Sunday Polls 2 – YouGov & BPIX”

1 13 14 15
  1. @Eoin

    “but what did Smith do?”

    Is that a serious question?

    Try this Times story:


  2. Xiby,

    This type of analysis of the cross breaks is very very interesting.

    I would love your verdict over a week of YG’s….

    In particular how you see the Midlands…. not just the data, which is important, but also your reading of it…

    Thanks for the effort :)

  3. @ Eoin Clarke

    “Sue cited a good example once MP for Cawley. (Moffat).”

    Unfortunately, Laura Moffat is not seeking re-election. Agree re her merits though. I met her a few times before her 1997 win and I doubt if anyone worked any harder than her to achieve victory.

    What surprises me is that those high-profile women MPs within easy reach of London studios and with healthy majorities of their own aren’t used more. I’m thinking specifically of Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell.

  4. YouGov: CON 34% (-1), LDEM 30% (+2%), LAB 28% (+1)
    They’re all tweeting this but is it true?

  5. Something’s just occurred to me, which perhaps Eoin could comment on (and any others with N.Ireland experience/knowledge).

    If Northern Ireland’s economy is completely dependent on public sector jobs financed from London, where would that leave a United Ireland in terms of the economic balance of the country?

  6. MikeP

    I too have experience of the RDAs.

    One of the best aspects of their work is in buying up redundant and polluted sites and regenerating them to provide employment and leisure. The down side of them was to be too fascinated with gimmicks. I cite the Olympic Sailing school at Portland and the allied industry in marine articles it has spawned as a typical success story.

    We should remember that W Hague was at one time positively glowing about the success of the Welsh RDA in whose glory he was proud to bask as Welsh Secretary of State. So I don’t know why they became bete noir in Tory circles. One of our minor mysteries I suppose.

  7. Éoin,

    Re: Smith – a personal thing and probably unfair of me – I just didn’t like her as home secretary very much. My impression was that she was populist rather than principled, and a little out of her depth.

    I too would love to know if the YouGov C34 – LD30 – L28 rumour is correct. All the time that the LD share is higher than that of Labour then Clegg has every right to pile the pressure on. However, he is in danger of looking a bit silly should those positions be reversed.

  8. Funnily enough, although Jacqui Smith was bitterly detested by the police service (for the simple reason that she reneged on a deal) I actually rather warmed to her when I saw her interviewed on TV a few times. She reminded me very much of the sort of teachers, social workers, probation officers etc I used to deal with in Child Protection. A sort of honest, realistic world-weariness mixed with a determination to carry on in the face of adversity.

  9. Xiby et al

    There should be a new regional breakdown tomorrow of the YouGov figures from this last week (including the poll expected tonight).

    It’s published at Politics Home UK. The figures from 11-18 April are on the Politics Home website but for some reason not in the YouGov archive (and the previous week to that has the wrong date).

    Note that these regions are smaller than the daily ones, so you can split SW from SE etc.

    If Xiby’s figures are anything like correct they will be extremely interesting indeed.

  10. Neil A,

    Just goes to show how one should be extremely wary of personality politics, when two people (never mind 50 million) can have such opposing views of the same person. If only policy was all!

  11. Here’s a revelation. We two LD members are in favour of ID cards (passports) and DNA database (from birth). I thought of that when you discussed Mrs J Smith.

    Good job for Nick that we support PR and entry into Euro (everything european).

    That’s the trouble with labels – but first there is a job to do.
    Am I not right that if MOE on 1500 samples is, say, 2% then it is a multiple of that for 200 samples. (they were weighted of course).

  12. “So I don’t know why they became bete noir in Tory circles. One of our minor mysteries I suppose”

    No mystery at all. They are perceived in eurosceptic circles as part of some diabolical master plan of EU regionalisation and the death of the nation state.

    The North East of England might well be regretting their failure to support a regional assembly in the referendum there. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London all have structures in place to mitigate the worst effects of large-scale cuts. The NE has none.

  13. @Tony dean

    “This is England after all, not Zimbabwe!”

    …and indeed that very analogy means a combination of two parties with the *majority* combined vote share (by some distance) and a majority in seats, is perfectly acceptable.

    Even if that is a LiB Dem and Labour combination in a situation where the largest *individual* vote share and seat tally was Conservative.

    “God Bless Brittania”: is what I’ll be saying when Cameron has to answer (in oppostion) to the ‘men-in-grey-suits’ after the GE “on 6/5″…. ;-)

  14. ‘South’ includes London, SE and SW separately (I knew my regional experience could come in handy one day!).

    I am afraid these areas are far too large and demographically diffuse to be of significance. In other words they all have rural and urban areas, even London. That’s just one factor.

    Do beware jumping to conclusions about these data.

  15. @Scotleag

    “The North East of England might well be regretting their failure to support a regional assembly in the referendum there. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London all have structures in place to mitigate the worst effects of large-scale cuts. The NE has none.”

    Very good point- prior to the referendum in NE for regional government OP’s said 2-1 in favour. But a Tory campaign based on ‘tea-party” esque “it will just mean more politicians and more taxes” turnedthat around.

    Though IMHO Labour after 1997 and 2001 victories had the mandate to impose regional government but Blair chickened our thinking- a la Wales and Scotland- he’d get the cover of a referendum for his radical reform……

    If DC gets a majority the NE population will be able to ‘repent at leaisure’ as the saying goes…

  16. Nick Clegg has rather shot himself in the foot this morning by insisting that he would not form a coalition with a party that did not have the largest vote share.

    My father has received several letters from LD HQ seeking his vote in a rural area – reckoned a Con/LD marginal. It would be a tactical vote as he is a Labour stalwart.

    Yet, if he votes tactically for the LD’s then Clegg says to dad “because you did not vote Labour then your party has a lower vote share so I am going to form a coalition with the Conservatives”.

    i.e. – Thank you for your vote – now get stuffed.

    It would be sensible if Clegg really really really wants tactical support in Con/LD marginals to come up with something slightly more nuanced than this idiotic stance.

    Otherwise he can look forward to kissing goodbye to Labour votes he needs in his west country marginals

  17. A good friend of mine (solid Labour voter from North London if that matters) is convinced that it is a personal animosity towards Brown that has led Clegg to speak out as he has today, and that this personality clash, trumping ideological similarities between Labour and the LibDems, will end with a LibDem/Con coalition. I think he’s nuts, as the issue of electoral reform will, IMHO, always prove insurmountable for any LibDem partnership with the Conservatives. What do you guys think?

  18. Andrew H,

    I agree that your father would be completely forgiven for refusing to vote tactically given Clegg’s pronouncement today. But in the end, he should ask himself: would he prefer an outright Tory majority, or a balanced parliament?

  19. Mitz

    The whole SW edifice in Con / Lib Dem marginals is to combine with disgusted Labour suporters (especially on but not only Iraq) to get rid / keep rid of Con with the promise of PR. ‘Lend us your vote’ is on every leaflet that goes to Labour supporters. If intelligent Labour voters ever get the whiff of treachery, NC can kiss goodbye to existing seats, let alone winning any new ones.

    Is that a plain enough input from a LD activist?

  20. I have CON 34% as my final GE prediction. That’s what I’ve predicted as CON next GE since 2005 & I have never had reason to change it.

    LAB & LD are the new game in town. And it could be an interesting one.

    There has always been talk of LAB having a level of ‘safe-seat’ support that never actually votes because they don’t need to i.e. they live in a safe Labour seat & would vote Labour.

    I am wondering if LAB will be exhorting those voters to make the effort because having a high % of the vote could actually matter this GE.

  21. @ Rob Sheffield

    Yes that’s exactly what happened. I lived in the NE at the time and voted yes. However there was another factor – which runs through every regional devolution argument – and that was fear of Newcastle domination. The further away from Newcastle the higher the NO vote. Some of us who raised this matter as far back as the 1980s called for Durham to be declared the ‘seat of government’ of any regional assembly. Picking a ‘neutral’ central city would help pro-devolutionists on Wearside and Teesside.

    If Canberra is good enough for Melbourne and Sydney then Durham should surely be good enough for Tyneside, Wearside & Teesside.

    People take a long time to learn lessons. I said to colleagues at the time that it will probably take another long period of Tory government to turn regional sentiment around to a pro-devolution stance, just like Wales (Scotland was always pro-devolution)

  22. Very plain Howard, thanks! Are you telling people that NC was wrong to say what he did then?

  23. Amber
    They will need to start printing leaflets /making phone calls quickly. Is labour geared up for this kind of operation?

  24. No Mitz, he did actually choose his words carefully and I heard them but as usual its what people are told what he said that is more important and there are people in the news media just awaiting their chance. In fact they began already.

  25. There is no perfect message in politics. You craft one message to be positive for one audience, and hope that other audiences don’t resent you too much for it.

    Clegg’s interview was specifically targeted at the “change” voters who are torn between Tory and LibDem. Those that Cameron’s “vote Clegg get Brown” message was targeting (I suggest quite successfully). He will have calculated they are more important to his prospects than the voters he may lose in the process (Labour supporting tactical voters mainly). He may have miscalculated, but I think his approach is clear and reasonable.

  26. @Mitz

    “I think he’s nuts, as the issue of electoral reform will, IMHO, always prove insurmountable for any LibDem partnership with the Conservatives. What do you guys think?”

    See practically daily posts by me over the last 10 days….

    @Neil A

    “Those that Cameron’s “vote Clegg get Brown” message was targeting”

    I happen to agree that this was the underlying rationale i.e LD’s have kept the Lab voters they garnered in their surge but seem to have lost a good deal of the Con-LD anti-GB waiverers,

    But of course it is a fine judgement- they might not convince current Cons to come over again as they did in the initial surge whilst at the same time losing some of the Lab voters they had collected.

    I think he should simply be honest and say “this electoral system is NUTS: I will only support a party that gives the UK people a referendum between AV, AV+, STV and D’hondt systems: NOT a referendum that allows for a result that retains FPTPP”.

    That would benefit from being both honest and politically astute….

  27. Just got an email from YG:

    34-28-30 is confirmed.

    A bad poll for Cameron.

  28. Sorry Howard, I must have missed the nuance, because I’ve been out and about with family all day. I only caught on the news that Clegg would refuse to back Brown to stay on as PM in a coalition if Labour came third in the popular vote. Was that misreporting, me not understanding correctly, or just not the whole story?

1 13 14 15