YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 34%(+1), LAB 27%(-2), LDEM 31%(+3). Some movement back towards the Lib Dems there, and the first time YouGov have had them at over 30 for a week. Note that the fieldwork for YouGov is roughly 4pm or so to 4pm or so, so the large majority of this was conducted prior to Gordon Brown’s meeting with Mrs Duffy.

ComRes and Harris GB voting intentions still to come tonight I believe.

UPDATE: The new Harris poll in the Metro apparently has figures of CON 32%(-2), LAB 25%(-1), LDEM 30%(+1) (though before now I’ve reported Harris polls from the TV, and found different figures in the Metro the next day!). No dates yet, so I don’t know how this fits in with others.


144 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 34/27/31”

1 2 3
  1. @PETERBELL

    By balanced parliament, you mean hung parliament. Calling it balanced is just spin – there would be nothing balanced about it. The purpose of a general election is to elect a government, not a fudge.

    Many LibDems (Lords Steele, Ashdown…) have argued for a so called balanced parliament, with no mention of a majority.

    I don’t understand your point re 50% is – surely?

    Report comment

  2. Philip Jackson

    More like tax AND cut, whichever party gets in. Why won’t they all come clean? The argument about 6bn NI rise is trivial. The deficit is well over £100bn

    Report comment

  3. Pete B

    My bad, I was trying to make that poisoned chalice look like it had a sugar coated rim.

    Report comment

  4. Just for interests sack, todays YouGov poll does not signify any change on their weekly average. Here are the numbers:

    Con Lab Lib Others
    2005 33.23 36.2 22.65 7.92
    Now 33.9 28.1 29.0 8.9
    Change 0.6 -8.1 6.4 0.9

    Swings
    Lab-Con 4.3
    Lab-Lib 7.2
    Con-Lib 2.9

    It does however effect the trend. We can now see that over the period on 10 days the Tories seem to be in fact increase their vote share albeit marginally.

    Lab also increasing, but the increase is effectively so small we can easily call it a stabilization of their votes.

    The LibDem vote is more erratic, pron to wider increases and drops but over the same 10 day period it is showing a downward trend.

    Report comment

  5. @pete b

    And that’s just the deficit. The politicians keep banging on about it in the hope they can ddistract us from realising the size of the debt mountain behind it which will top £1TN by 2014 and we have no idea how to even begin paying it off

    Report comment

  6. I find it interesting, that on the Sun’s website, if you click on the link for today, y’know, the one showing a LD comeback, and it takes you to a blank webpage! more censorship?

    And talking of the Sun’s withholding of a poll showing 49% would vote LD if they thought they could win, why has no other newspaper asked the same question again?

    Report comment

  7. Could I ask what would happen should the polls in view of todays events totally collapse for Labour. to a point where they were below 20%.

    GB couldn’t resign a week before a GE…or could he?

    Is there a possibility that GB could claim the whole campaign is having an affect on his health (which it probably is to some extent ) and stand down.

    Way out I know but I’m thinking purely if the polls showed a complete collapse

    Report comment

  8. @Robert Corbishley

    “Hung Parliament” is also spin, it’s just an older idiom. It has connotations of a ‘hung jury’ where no verdict can be reached, hence of paralysis and indecision. This is also untrue of many legislatures where no single party has an overall majority, but plays well to the interests of those who favour a majoritarian system and/or single-party governments.

    As such, it probably pays not to be precious over whether people call it ‘hung’, ‘balanced’ or whatever. It’s Political Correctness gawn mad, I tell you! :-)

    Report comment

  9. “Peter Kellner has just said that there will be a YouGov poll, conducted AFTER Brown’s gaffe, coming out at 10 pm tonight!”

    Which will tell you nothing about its effect on May 6th (other than those who send off their postal votes this evening).

    “By balanced parliament, you mean hung parliament. Calling it balanced is just spin – there would be nothing balanced about it.”

    Balanced tells you everything – no one side can outweigh the other. In what way does the word ‘hung’ convey the meaning?

    Report comment

  10. @uk_john

    “And talking of the Sun’s withholding of a poll showing 49% would vote LD if they thought they could win, why has no other newspaper asked the same question again?”

    It’s a question that crops up every now and then – but it tends to be fairly rare. In the late eighties or early nineties there was a similar poll that showed that 53% (IIRC) would vote LD (or possibly Alliance, not sure now!) if they thought they could win.

    Realistically, it’s only of academic interest, given that it apparently bears no relation to how people go out and vote at a general election.

    Report comment

  11. “And that’s just the deficit. The politicians keep banging on about it in the hope they can ddistract us from realising the size of the debt mountain behind it which will top £1TN by 2014 and we have no idea how to even begin paying it off”

    Which doesn’t include the £200bn of QE that’s supposed to be paid back at some point and all the PFI stuff.

    How fun!

    Report comment

  12. “GB couldn’t resign a week before a GE…or could he?”

    He could if he wished but no politician would decide that on the basis of a fallible opinion poll.

    Report comment

  13. WMA 34:28:29 and no Stat Significant trends anywhere.

    Will bigtogate lead to a Labour collapse? And if so will L voters concerned about immigration switch to C or UKIP or BNP? It could even result in L voters moving to LD (even though the LD have the most liberal immigation policy) out of sheer disillusionment.

    But I would not be surprised (although I confess disappointed) if the effect was pretty marginal.

    Report comment

  14. @KEITH IN BRISTOL

    You make my point perfectly,

    “It has connotations of a ‘hung jury’ where no verdict can be reached, hence of paralysis and indecision.”

    That is what will happen to Parliament on May 7th if we aren’t careful.

    Hung is not spin, it has a well understood meaning.

    “Balanced” implies fair, equal. It is nothing of the sort.

    Again, the purpose of a general election is to elect a government, to govern. Any other result is useless.

    Report comment

  15. maybe it wasn’t such a desperate move Dave going up to the Labour heartland after all last week.

    This election is going to be won or lost in the midlands and the north.

    My money is on the leapfrog and I am now beginning to agree with Xiby that maybe “bigotgate” will be the straw that broke the party’s back.

    Report comment

  16. @ Robert Corbishley

    “The purpose of a general election is to elect a government, not a fudge.”

    The purpose of a general election is to indicate the will of the people – if the electorate does not think anyone party deserves a majority so be it. That’s not a fudge, its democracy!

    Report comment

  17. The Duffy affair will not make difference to the polls. It might even lift Labour’s polling in the very short term.
    Brown has handed a few cheap one liners to Cameron in tomorrow’s debate. I can hear him now saying “its not bigoted to think this, its not bigoted to think that…” Thus it might become easier for Cameron to be perceived as the debate winner because rational argument doesnt seem to be a factor at all……………………

    The real game changer however will come by next Tuesday. I predict polls showing the Conservatives on 38/39 with a 10 point lead over the Labour and Liberals a good third.

    Tories will have a majority of 10-20
    Labour will be masacred.
    Liberals will smile and declare it another triumph for their party…………………

    Electoral reform will be lost for a generation because the tories will be the most unpopular government in history within a year and David Milliband’s big election victory will dissuade Labour from voting reform.

    Report comment

  18. @ISLANDRADICAL

    It is a democratic decision, but it is also a fudge if it leads to a coalition.

    We live in a parliamentary democracy, which requires a government to be elected, that can govern.

    Report comment

  19. @Robert Corbishley (9.15)

    “hung parliament” is a very negative term and imo a balanced parliament is not negative. It has certainly not been negative for the majority of European countries who have had governments composed of more than one party for many years. Therefore, in common with many who are in favour, I prefer to call it a “balanced parliament”

    Re the 50% comment. I was assuming that the point you made re the majority of people polling against a balanced parliament was because those in favour totalled <50%. I have subsequently seen your later post and realise it was based on ONE poll.

    Report comment

  20. @ Robert Corbishley

    “It is a democratic decision, but it is also a fudge if it leads to a coalition.

    We live in a parliamentary democracy, which requires a government to be elected, that can govern.”

    There is no inherent reason why two parties working together in a coalition can’t govern – the Germans have been doing it successfully for years

    Report comment

  21. @PETERBELL

    um… I can see how the current German govt could be described as balanced – a grand coalition, but two of the UK’s parties clubbing together to govern is not, in my view, balanced at all.

    What is supposed to be balanced? Left and right ?

    Report comment

  22. @NBeale

    “no Stat Significant trends anywhere”

    You say this a lot and I’m puzzled so I have to ask. My graphs show me that the Con average has been about 29% since the about the 20th or 21st. There seem to be enough data points to me to make it statistically significant. The Lib Dems seem to have a linear trend from 30% to 29% over the same sort of time frame. Labour have wobbled from 31 to 33 and back twice since the 17th, but to my eye they all look like reasonable linear trends. Are they not significant to you?

    Report comment

  23. Sorry, Con average 34. I’m really not with it tonight.

    Report comment

  24. @Robert Corbishley.

    Robert,
    so you are saying that Germany does not have a government which can govern and that this has been the case for decades. Well I for one would rather have the SUCCESSFUL government which has existed in Germany rather than the majority government which comparitively has kept the Uk in the doldrums.

    Report comment

  25. @KEITH IN BRISTOL

    You are right when you say that “hung Parliament” is as much spin as balanced Parliament. Neither terms are neutral in the current context.

    You are wrong though when you say that it is an older idiom. The term “hung Parliament” only came into use in the 1970″s – before then “balanced” would have been uncontroversial.

    Report comment

  26. @ISLANDRADICAL

    True two parties can work together, but in the last 100 years, wartime excepting, when did this actually work in the UK?

    The Germans (and other continental Europeans) have different electoral systems and perspective on these things. (I am not making an argument here for PR!)

    The German electorate know that coalitions will need to be formed before they vote, and have a very good idea of who the parties will form coalitions with.

    Nick Clegg could easily say who he would form a coalition with now, but will he ? Of course not.

    Report comment

  27. With the Harris & Comres Pols on politicalbetting the WMA is 34:27:29.

    @Colin: what I mean by “no stat significant trends” is that there is no statistically significant evidence that the underlying figures are changing with time as opposed to random fluctuations. If there is no S.S. trend then the best estimate is the average.

    Report comment

  28. @Robert Corbishley

    With respect, that’s your personal opinion. Others have a different opinion.

    Both single- and multi-party administrations have pluses and minuses, and which is better overall is a personal value judgement that depends very much on one’s personal point of view and what characteristics any particular individual considers to be important.

    You later ask: “in the last 100 years, wartime excepting, when did this actually work in the UK?”

    The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, 1886-1912 (when the Liberal Unionists merged with the Tories).
    The Conservatives and National Liberals, 1945-1968 (when the National Liberals finally shut up shop and merged with the Tories).
    Lib-Lab coalition in the Scottish Parliament.
    Lab-PC coalition in the Welsh Assembly.
    Any number of councils across the UK (YMMV; some coalitions have worked better than others).

    Report comment

  29. @NBeale

    Right Ho. I always see “flat and level” as a trend. In manufacturing it is a good trend.

    Report comment

  30. @PETERBELL

    Germany has moved from centre left to centre right, just as we have here. Our recent (pre recession) economic performance vis a vis Germany has been very good in terms of economic growth.

    Could you honestly imagine that a coalition in the 1980s would have sorted out the unions?

    You seem to be arguing for consensus. Ugh !

    Report comment

  31. @Dave – you haven’t a clue about the working-class have you?
    you think that this will just blow over? – its obvious that the WWC have been insulted like never before. And the big con that has been perpetrated against them by a party that hates them and their views has finally been revealed.
    Expect their ratings to go through the floor probably for good. There can be no coming back from this as expect even you know.

    Report comment

  32. @Johnty

    “You are wrong though when you say that it is an older idiom. The term “hung Parliament” only came into use in the 1970?s – before then “balanced” would have been uncontroversial.”

    I have to confess that this year is the first time I’ve ever heard it used, I have to confess. But if I’m in error I’ll happily accept the correction. :-)

    Report comment

  33. @KEITH IN BRISTOL

    I thought the purpose of this forum was to offer opinions! Of which I have surprisingly many it seems.

    “merged” = coalition?

    I was talking about Westminster, not Edin and Cardiff.

    We do not have a successful record of coalitions in national governments.

    The Libs Dems are for a “balanced” parliament not because it is fairer or better govt, but simply because for the first time since 1915 they can get their hands on some power.

    We need a government that can govern with confidence and not be subject to the shifting sands of a coalition.

    Report comment

  34. @ Robert Corbishley

    “We need a government that can govern with confidence and not be subject to the shifting sands of a coalition.”

    A Conservative majority government would be subject to the ‘shifting sands of a coalition’ – the extremely fragile one that exists within its owns party.

    Report comment

  35. I want to see a poll conducted post Mr.Brown’s Rochdale episode before commenting on whether it will influence matters a great deal or not at all. Anyone abiding by the rules of this website would be wise to do the same! No more trading partisan points please at least until we actually can see some results upon which to comment.
    Let’s wait and see?

    Report comment

  36. @Keith in Bristol

    Your points are valid, however the Liberal Nationals, later National Liberals were in alliance with the conservatives from 1931-1968 (much earlier than the 1945 you state) – I should know as my Grandfather was a founder member of the Liberal Nationals!

    Report comment

  37. waiting waiting waiting

    Report comment

  38. @Robert Corbishley

    “The purpose of a general election is to elect a government, not a fudge.”

    Oh. I thought it was to elect a legislature from which government is formed.

    Report comment

  39. @ Colin Green

    I keep going to your really useful chart – however, you don’t seem to have updated it over the past 3 days?

    Report comment

  40. there was a significant movement in the polls that followed the lib Dem manifesto. That trend to the Lib Dems was accellerated by the first debate> since then the Lib Dems have consolidated their position at between 29 and 30. The Tories have consolidated at 34/5 and Labour at 28/29.

    The 2nd debate turned out to be a scoreless draw.

    Tomorrow is likely to be the decider and we have a week where every body can make their minds up and each party’s support will be relatively stable during the week and weather and turnout will then be decisive.

    I don’t believe that the popular vote will be much different than the average of the polls carried out on Saturday, even though there is time. The debates have over powered this election Then the fun begins as under our system a lot of the seat outcomes are going to be very difficult to forecast from the national let alone the regional polls.

    Its going to be a lot of fun cruching out the various scenarios based on the same share of the vote. UNS and calculus etc all coming out with different seat distribution. Maybe we will know a likely possible government on Saturday night!

    Report comment

  41. @Robert Corbishley

    “I thought the purpose of this forum was to offer opinions! Of which I have surprisingly many it seems.”

    I have plenty of my own, though I would prefer not to fall foul of the “non-partisan” rule, which we’re in danger of doing here, if we haven’t done so already. ;-)

    “”merger” = coalition?”

    That was not what I was saying.

    The point is that there have been two series of successful coalitions which *led* to mergers (though admittedly the first is outside your hundred-year window, it is close enough that it is worth mentioning).

    The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists were allied for years before they merged (and formed a Government together from 1895-1906 – two consecutive Parliamentary terms); and the Conservatives and National Liberals were allied for many years before *they* merged (and formed a Government together from 1951-1964 – three consecutive Parliamentary terms).

    “I was talking about Westminster, not Edin and Cardiff.”

    Thanks for the clarification. :-)

    “We do not have a successful record of coalitions in national governments.”

    Not true. Even with your insistence on only counting peacetime coalitions, we have the two examples above. What we don’t have is any record at all of a Lib-Lab coalition, so far as I am aware. The short-lived arrangement in the late Seventies was not a formal coalition – and the situation following the 1923 General Election was a minority Labour administration, not a coalition.

    “The Libs Dems are for a “balanced” parliament not because it is fairer or better govt, but simply because for the first time since 1915 they can get their hands on some power.”

    With all due respect, that’s a partisan view. I’ll pass on venturing an opinion about the ulterior motives of any specific political party. :-)

    “We need a government that can govern with confidence and not be subject to the shifting sands of a coalition.”

    That’s another partisan soundbite, if I’m not mistaken. :-)

    Report comment

  42. :-( ‘be kind,
    everyone has a hard fight in life’
    (apologies to Plato) :-)

    Sunstroke anyone?
    Even NC’s mind was constantly boggling on R4 with such questions as:

    Why don’t you believe in God?
    How many noughts in a billion?
    When was the last time you cried?

    ‘Seemed’ to suggest, at the fouth time of asking that he would allow a referrendum on PR – ‘That is our policy’

    Thanks to everyone for the fascinating posts.

    Report comment

  43. @Tony Dean

    Correction accepted. I was thrown by the need to avoid referring to wartime coalitions… so started at 1945. :-)

    Another point I don’t know if anyone’s made is that a key function of the legislature is to hold the Government to account, and scrutinise Bills before they become law. The assertion from proponents of multi-party rule (and, indeed, of electoral reform) is that these functions of the legislature are weak and inadequate in an environment where a single party has an overall majority.

    Report comment

  44. YouGov: 1/10 less likely to vote labour cause of “bigotgate”, only 26% think Brown apology genuine

    Report comment

1 2 3