YouGov’s daily polling tonight has topline figures of CON 34%(nc), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 28%(nc). Obviously there is no significant change since yesterday. YouGov’s polls this week have been pretty static, Conservatives at 33-34%, Labour at 27-29%, the Lib Dems mostly around 28-29% aside from that one spike to 31%. Neither the Mrs Duffy affair nor the second debate seem to have had any great effect.

It looks like YouGov are entering the final week of the campaign showing a broad position of the Conservatives around about 34%, and Labour and the Lib Dems neck and neck in the high twenties.

255 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 34/28/28”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. @Dan,

    “Did the polling companies alter their polling a little after 2005 to make up a little for the shy tory and pro labour bias.”

    I’m not sure, to be honest. I know many have attempted to factor in likelihood to vote though. I;m not sure if they did this in 2005.

  2. Tony Fisher/Bumpy

    Mine is 39/27/25, although personal predictions are somewhat irrelevant.

  3. @ Julian Gilbert

    “Harris have been polling Lab about 3% lower than YouGov recently, so it’s consistent.”

    Ah, such a pity for them. Keeping their manifesto promises for a referendum on Jenkins recommendations might have been better but there you go. At least they got the left leaning racist bigot vote back last night with Brown siding with Cameron against Clegg.

  4. re: Guardian
    Strangely the less newspapers that support Labour the better, the Mirror being the lone voice might be the best outcome. Labour’s best chance is probably to be seen as the underdogs with papers and news orgs against them.

    It will completely solidify the labour core vote plus get the core vote out.

    And as a by product – With the growth of internet news and the social networking sites could create a “Rage against the Machine effect”, switching young voters to Labour.

  5. @Sue Marsh

    I’ll be at the count :)

  6. I just love all these “I never thought much of the Guardian” posts!

    I suppose it must be a bit like if your mother suddenly announces she prefers your sister and is ready to show this in her will!

    Something tells me the support of the Guardian is not going to propel the Lib Dems to victory in Newcastle North however! (maybe in islington – who knows?)

  7. FrankG

    I have the break downs for all regions but didnt want to bore ppl with numbers that much. Just chucked them in as i saw you where talking about the North marginals.

    I will put up the rest, sorry for anyone who is put off.

    Con 24.8
    Lab 35.5
    Lib 25.9
    Other 14.8

    East Mid
    Con 34.3
    Lab 31.2
    Lib 28.9
    Other 7.4

    West Mid
    Con 36.2
    Lab 30.1
    Lib 26.9
    Other 6.4

    Con 41.0
    Lab 21.5
    Lib 29.9
    Other 6.4

    Con 38.7
    Lab 31.0
    Lib 24.7
    Other 6.3

    South East
    Con 47
    Lab 16
    Lib 31
    Other 7

    South West
    Con 38
    Lab 16
    Lib 37
    Other 8

    Con 15.9
    Lab 34.9
    Lib 22.5
    SNP 22.1
    Other 4.9

    However do keep in mind that the numbers on the latest regional poll never properly added up so neither will these. But nonetheless they are a pretty decent indication as to how things stand in the regions.

  8. The polls that matter is 6 th May. A lot of people still undecided. As the poll is today reflect tories core vote as well as labour.

    To be honest, tories can not exceed 36 and the actually vote share will be less 1% and labour more than 1 or 2 % going by the old trends in the past elections.

  9. The ettiquette for May 7th will probably be to fail to comment here as all as it cracks under the weight of traffic!

    I’ll be setting up a backup site on the free WordPress hosting thing, so people can go there if the site goes down.

  10. Sue, we”ll be feverishly speculating about who is going to do a deal with who. The 24-hgour news channels are going to have a field-weekend.

  11. @ AL J

    If you do get the chance to read this, you will be in my thoughts from now until we hear from you again.

    I am so, so sorry to hear this. Please take care of yourself & come back here when you can. We will miss you.

  12. Like many people I spent Friday evening down Tesco doing the shopping, then came home and opened a beer to watch some relaxing TV. Which would NEVER include watching a dull political interview.

    I suspect that no matter what the myriad of Labour plants on this blog seem to believe Joe Public will not have been watching Paxman. So even if Gordon did “ace” the interview (which I find hard to believe) it will make approximately zero difference to the outcome on Thursday.

    More likely to have an impact will be what the papers say on Sunday when people are more relaxed and receptive to boring politics.

  13. @Anthony

    It’ll be fascinating to watch reactions as results come in in the early hours. This campaign has been the most fascinating in my lifetime

  14. I never thought the debate would have much impact. It was barely mentioned in the news yesterday or today that DC won the debate. How it was reported in the press was always more likely to have an effect than the actual debate itself.

  15. Jack Jones
    I presume you refer to me.

    Read my posts

    I am clearly not a plant

    Your comment embarrasses you

    No doubt you hide behind a pseudonym]

    Go somewhere where nutters are acceptable
    This site depends on respect


  16. What a crass comment by Jack Jones. He has to suggest we are plants because we have the temerity to give Brown some well deserved praise for a good interview.

  17. @Matt

    “I never thought the debate would have much impact. It was barely mentioned in the news yesterday or today that DC won the debate. How it was reported in the press was always more likely to have an effect than the actual debate itself.”

    The same can undoubtedly be said of the Paxman interview. Given that neither of the previous interviews broke the media surface I’m guessing the same will be true of this one.

    Delighted that flock-gate had no poll impact. Not that I agree with what she said or how he reacted, but that we are a mature enough democracy to shrug off ludicrous and biased press reporting. Brown is losing this election because of Labour’s record not because of trivia like that.

  18. Jack Jones

    a plant? …..what would be the point?

    I respect all the partizan views on here.
    Slagging matches or plants are for Nick Robinson’s BBC blog.

    Hoped you enjoyed your beer! :-)

  19. “The same can undoubtedly be said of the Paxman interview. Given that neither of the previous interviews broke the media surface I’m guessing the same will be true of this one.”

    Very true.

  20. @Leslie
    I feel a lot of people think the media have it in for Brown and have a great deal of sympathy for him on a personal level.Last week Stephen Fry was tweeting about voting Lib Dem, on Thursday he was tweeting about wavering and thinking about voting Brown because of the “horrible media” .I do feel there is some of that going on. I don’t think Brown has a cat is hell’s chance of being PM, but that’s due to the economic situation.

  21. Is Cameron on with Marr this weekend? Clegg and Brown already went the last few weeks.

  22. Leslie –

    I agree and hope it’s right that the polls reflect the performance rather than the media effect.

    Whatever presentational tricks the protagonists learn, there’s no substitute for actual track record, actual plans of action, and actual relevance to the voter.

    AKA Ethos, Logos, Pathos.

    Where logos is the original Greek context rather than the Judaic twist on it or the branding thing that led paradoxically Ferrari to put a bar-code on a Formula One car :)

  23. The way things are going, the most important poll will be 21 October when we have the replay. If it’s still a draw after then it will go to extra time and penalties.

  24. The media have been saying that politicians are out of touch and here is brown supported by the guardian and independent completely disregarding what the flocker had to say

  25. Clegg always picks up after a TV debate and then sees his share of the vote drop during the week.

    I reckon as follows.

    Tory 37%
    Labour 30%
    Liberal 25%

  26. Fragmeister – looking forward to Merkel as our Chancellor then :)

  27. Dan

    I’d go along with that, perhaps Labour on 29% though

  28. @Dan

    Somewhat optimistic I think.

  29. @Yozza

    I disagree the only thing keeping the tories from a majority is the economic situation.

    Tories won in 1992 with bad economy and lost in 1997 with good economy.

    Before Lehman collpased in september of 2008 the tories lead by over 20 points in almost every poll in the summer. One poll had 52 to 24. This was shaping up to be a 1997 wave election like blair had.

    A few months after lehman collapsed tories lead in one poll was down to 39 to 38.

    Voters don’t like change in a what they percieve as a crisis. You see that in focus groups of voting wanting a hung parliament as an alternative to major change. But a hung parliament really means labour still in power.

    The bad economy has been good for labour because it has allowed them to scaremonger about cuts and bring up thatcher.

    Bad economy also brought osborne into play.

    The tories have admitted they would’ve rather had a decent economy. The crisis rallied labour voters. In summer of 2008 labour support in polls was 50 percent and after lehman collapsed it went to 80 percent among labour voters.

    Economy going bad was the best thing that happened to labour and cameron was cursed.

    The tories had been out of power for 13 years and a new generation was about to take power and there would have been a wave election like 1997.

    There are going to be a lot of ticked off tories when Brown comes in third and is still PM. Brown in 1992 said Major had no moral authority to govern if he didn’t get 326 seats and now brown could be PM for five more years with 226 seats.

    This election setup isn’t good for the tories. I really believe in a two horse race tories would’ve beat labour.

    But in this system labour will get all of lib dem votes and seats in a hung parliament when polls show only 52 percent of lib dems would support labour over tories.

  30. @Dan,

    Your wrong on the last point. Analysis shown on here in the last few days shows that the increased Lib Dem vote does hurt Labour as well as Conservatives.


  31. @John

    What did Brown have to say.

  32. @Richard O, Dan,

    Yeah, the Tory lead over Labour is currently about 7% – not that much different to when the election campaign first started. Also, a recent poll suggested that the Lib Dems will gain many seats from Labour, but few, if any, from the Tories. Not sure this will be the case myself, but it illustrates the point that Labour are suffering from the Lib Dem surge too.

  33. @Richard

    I know seat wise it hurts them both.

    I mean in a hung parliament all of Lib dems votes and seats will prop up labour in a hung parliament.

    So this system doesn’t hurt labour in a hung parliament at all because a vote for lib dems is a vote for labour.

    Tories problem was lib dems didn’t have to prop up Labour in 2005 then tories wouldn’t have lost the 33 percent of voters that would rather have tories over labour. Tories could have then been truly the outsider party.

    There are going to be a lot of voters who didn’t think their vote for lib dems meant a vote for labour.

    All the background quotes are lib dem mp’s saying they will never support a tory govt and they will go with labour.

    Clegg isn’t the ultimate decider it is a party choice and they relish both joining up and getting AVS which under 2005 election would give tories 25 less seats, labour 25 more seats and lib dems 9 more seats.

    Labour will never go for PR but lib dems want tories out of power and AVS wouldn’t be a good electoral set up for the tories.

    I have read lib dem mp’s say they view labour as a rival and tories as the enemy.

    This notion that somehow lib dems will help tories in a hung parliament is so far fetched. Ashdown laughed about it.

    Brown has 12 days to form a coalition.
    The only parties have secret talks about a coalition are labour and lib democrats. Labour doesn’t want to talk about this too much because it would shift some lib dems back to tories.

    Labour’s only goal in this election was a hung parliament because a hung parliament meant a labour PM for five more years and AVS electoral system to keep tories out forever.

    Clegg has backtracked saying it would be just odd if labour came in third and brown was still PM.

  34. I don’t get this pity for Brown.

    He is still on course to be PM for five more years. Also I have pity for the soldiers that have lost three limbs in snatch rover vehicles not pity for any politicians. The soldiers that have lost eyes from IED’s and been taken to court to get payments back. Those are the real victims not politicians. When I read about people having pity for politicians I want to gag.

    Clegg will have no leverage to pick another labour PM because lib dem mp’s won’t risk having the tories take power and labour won’t displace brown. They won’t care what it looks like because the next election won’t be until 2015 with a voting system more favorable to labour.

    In 2005 labour got 35 percent of the vote and 55 percent of the seats. Under AVS in 2015 35 percent of the vote would be 60 percent of the seats.

    It will be almost impossible for the tories to get a majority with AVS. AVS takes away 25 seats so they would need upwards of 350 seats under the current system to attain that.

  35. AV puts the Tories out of power permanently, and puts the LibDems into power permanently.

    Doesn’t take a genius to see how a hung parliament plays out.

  36. @ Robin

    Why would AV put the lib dems into power permanently? They would be a partner but not have the PM position.

    Labour would still have the PM.

    Lib dems need Proportional and then they could have the PM in a labour/lib dem alliance. In proportional they would get more seats than Labour under these polls.

    But Labour frontbench besides alan johnson want nothing to do with PR. Jack Straw is very much opposed to people even talking about PR.

    They have gotten used to having the power and PR would never again allow them to have a majority and they have had 13 years of that.

    They know they won’t get a majority this election but they don’t want to give up that option in future elections and AV helps labour the most by giving them 25 extra seats on the 2005 results compared to only 9 extra seats for lib dems.

    So AV on 2005 results would have had labour with 380 seats and 35 percent of the vote and lib dems with 70 seats and 22 percent of the vote.

  37. Al J

    May I join with your other friends on this site in sending you my prayers and best wishes.

  38. @Kay

    Gordon Brown thought the Iraq war was a good idea.

    How can he have such a great grasp of issues when he rallied the cabinet to support the worst foreign policy disaster.

    There were no IED’s in Afghanistan before the Iraq war.

    if there were any justice no one that supported the Iraq war should be even allowed to stand for election with all the treasure and lives lost.

    How could he have been great for the economy supporting that war with what it did to the world oil markets and let speculation run wild and hurt the world economy.

  39. Brown sold gold at record low.

    In the summer of 2007 in the middle of the sub prime crisis he said the economy was in a golden era.

    Brown has zero economic educational background.

    Brown wanted Balls in and Darling out. Yeah what great judgement.

    Brown and Darling wouldn’t let Barclay’s do a deal with Lehman Brothers and sent the world economy off the cliff.

    I am so tired of hearing about Brown saving the world when Darling and Brown set the world on fire not letting Barclays do a deal with lehman brothers.

    Then they way over spent rescuing the banks and spent far more than other countries and UK was the last economy out of recession.

    Now they don’t want to make any cuts until April 2012 when that is far too long and can at least be made in April 2011.

    Brown is a history major and wasn’t trained in economic and wanted Ed Balls in Darling’s position.

    Brown the economic guru didn’t take into effect Iraq war would have on future speculation on oil prices.

  40. Govt left soldiers in unarmored snatch landrovers.

    IED’s have been a problem in iraq since 2003 then copied in afghanistan since 2005 and yet as late as 2008 labour govt wouldn’t spend for armored vehicles and troops being maimed going over IED’s.

    Why didn’t Paxman ask Brown about leaving soldiers in unarmored vehicles.

    In 2008 five years after IED’s became a problem Labour govt rejected the funds needed for armored vehicles.

    There was no planning before or after iraq and the consequences it had in afghanistan.

    It is a disgrace that Brown was involved in the worst foreign policy disaster and running for election.

    —-he wrote—-
    “I’ll be setting up a backup site on the free WordPress hosting thing, so people can go there if the site goes down.”

    -Could someone give me the link to the site AW is referring to

  42. @Dan

    It depends what you mean by “power”. There’s a lot more to power than being the Prime Minster’s party. Like being able to implement your policies. And I’m sure the post of Deputy Primer Minister would become a much more important position.

    And once AV is in place, who is to say how voting intentions will change? Maybe LibDems would become the senior partner.

  43. Robin:
    Pr gives the electorate their choice, has to be an improvement, doesn’t it?

  44. @Pam F

    Depends on which flavour of PR, but yes.

  45. MEDIA
    TIMES switches support to CON

  46. @robin @pamf

    “Pr gives the electorate their choice, has to be an improvement, doesn’t it?”

    I don’t see that at all. As has been said many times, perhaps 35-40% of LibDem voters would prefer the conservatives over labour. So based on a poll of 35/27/29, total conservative support would be say 45% (assume 37.5% of LD voters would prefer conservatives). Total Labour support would be around 46%, so ‘others’ would hold the balance but it would be a very close run thing to see who has ‘majority’ support.

    However, under PR, CLEGG gets to choose where to take his 29%, NOT the voters. All of a sudden we will have a LibLab coalition on the basis that LibLab have 56% total (eg majority support) but this is not close to being true. How does this result in ‘the electorate having their choice’? What would happen if 45% of LD voters preferred the Tories but Clegg preferred Labour – PR would effectively give LibLab a majority on a minority of support!

    If PR supporters really wanted to be fair, we could have alternate vote for the whole country in a single constituency and only the top two win seats based on the final percentage of votes after the flow of preferences. It would be just as ‘fair’ – it makes no difference if there are no LD MPs or other MPs if the other party has a majority on preferences – frankly, the existence of minority MPs in parliament is basically pointless as they cannot influence legislation if one party has a majority. In this system. the winning party is guaranteed to have a majority of seats and the explicit support of the majority of voters. What could be fairer than that?

    The big question PR supporters need to answer is – are you actually focused on having a government that has majority support (the normal excuse for changing FPTP) or do you actually just want coalition government. It is clear from the example above that that the two objectives are not necessarily consistent.

  47. @Ryan

    “What would happen if 45% of LD voters preferred the Tories but Clegg preferred Labour – PR would effectively give LibLab a majority on a minority of support!”

    As opposed to every single election bar one (if memory serves) under our majoritarian system, which gives one single party control on a minority of support? ;)

    I don’t see this issue being specific to PR. Under FPTP, in this coming election, the sort of outcome you describe is a very real possibility as it is. FPTP is no guarantor of an outright majority for any one political party. It’s certainly no guarantee that the party with the most votes gets the most seats.

    But I have to put this to you: people voting Lib Dem *know* that it could go any which way – and that there is a chance of a Lib-Lab coalition, a Lib-Con coalition, or no deal at all, in which case the best Lib Dems get is a large Lib Dem bloc on the Opposition benches. There’s even an outlier chance of a Lib Dem majority, though it’s not one I’d ever dream of putting any money on, were I inclined to gamble.

    So it’s not accurate to say that you’d end up with a majority coalition with minority support. It would still have *majority* support – when voting Lib Dem, after all, people are voting first and foremost for Lib Dem representatives, policies and influence in Parliament – it’s just that some of that support would be half-hearted.

    Given the half-hearted support our parties seem to enjoy nowadays anyway (how many people will file into the booths on Thursday not out of enthusiasm for their party, but to keep – or get – the “other lot” out?), PR would hardly seem to be a worse option.

    If PR was ushered in and we were all set for a decade of glorious Lib-Labbery, people who couldn’t tolerate that could, and would, vote with their feet. It would be a bit of an insult to the intelligence of Tory-leaning Lib Dems to suggest that they’d keep meekly filing into the polling booths like sheep to vote Lib Dem when all they got in return was yet more Lib-Labbery.

    Worst case: the party would split. That’s the ultimate price parties pay for ignoring voters under a more proportional system. It’s not like FPTP where people end up knuckling under “for the sake of party unity” (as splits under FPTP tend to result in electoral suicide; see also ‘Liberal Party’), or becoming disillusioned and staying out of the process altogether (see also 2001 and 2005 turnout figures).

    So in short – these things have a way of sorting themselves out. :)

    Your notion of “fairness” is, I’m afraid to say, utterly alien to me.

    As for the question: what do I want? In four words: “To Stop Bad Bills”.

    I want a Parliament that actually acts like one. I want one that holds the Government properly to account, scrutinises proposed legislation properly and isn’t simply a rubber stamp for whichever faction happens to have the keys to Number Ten.

    Personally, I’d prefer minority administrations over coalitions. That allows for proper scrutiny in that it leaves factions free to criticise, amend and strike down bad Bills without being handcuffed by notions of collective responsibility.

  48. DC is indeed on Andy Marr tomorrrow…

  49. My thoughts are with you AL J

  50. Whatever the poll’s believe about voting intentions, on the day when you are going in to vote for Joe Bloggs as your local candidate rather than Brown, Cameron, or Clegg, intentions will switch to the actual likelihood of you candidate winning or stopping your most feared candidate winning.

    This will ensure Labour come at least second in the polls and may get the most seats FPTP. As for the debate, no-one I have spoke to believes the polling reflects what they actualy saw, but more what people’s general attitude to the parties.

1 3 4 5 6