Tonight’s YouGov poll has topline figures of CON 35%(nc), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 24%(-4), a sharp drop for the Liberal Democrats.

Just when it was looking as though the position had settled down, we suddenly have a shift in support. It could be the “Cleggmania” bubble bursting, or people pulling away from a hung Parliament after the heavy Conservative campaigning against it, or Liberal Democrat supporters heeding the call of Labour figures to vote tactically for Labour…. or, it could just be an outlier. I always urge caution when a poll shows a sudden change – wait to see if it is reflected in other polling.

The only other GB poll I am expecting tonight is ComRes (though their fieldwork is one day behind YouGov, so if there has been a sudden drop in Lib Dem support I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see it reflected by ComRes). I expect most pollsters will be saving their final polls of the campaign until tomorrow evening, but we shall see.

260 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 35/30/24”

1 4 5 6
  1. Belgium is mainly f’ed up because they have a Flemish and a French version of every mainstream party (Labour, Christian-Democrat, Liberal etc). That would be the case whether they have fptp or pr, so they would always have coalitions. And in a lot of cases the coalition governments in Belgium fall over language issues, not over ideological differences.

  2. Is the fieldwork for this poll published? I can’t seem to find it on YouGov’s site.

  3. @Kevin K,

    All U.S. Senate seats and all U.S. House seats in general election are First-Past-The-Post. Louisiana used to have a different system where all voting was open. I don’t know why they had that system but in any case, they’ve gotten rid of it. In some states for special elections, California for example, there is a runoff requirement if in an open primary, no candidate reaches 50% of the vote. But in those instances, the top finisher from each party then moves on to the second round. In the second round, you can have a winner who receives under 50% of the vote.

    In local elections, where there is a requirement that one receive 50% +1 in the first round or go to a runoff, those are all non-partisan races. So last year in the Los Angeles, CA mayoral elections, Antonio Villaraigosa won 56% of the vote in the first round and was thus reelected and faced no second round. However, neither he nor anyone else running against him was listed by their party (he’s a Democrat). And the last two Los Angeles mayoral races that went to 2nd round runoffs were between two Democratic candidates.

    The closest thing we have to proportional representation are at-large local races, often held in small cities. But they are almost always non-partisan (the parties are never listed), candidate specific, and often take place in cities with a mayor-council form of government. So take for example, Beverly Hills, California. A city of 35,000 people over 6 square miles holds its local elections every two years (in one year, 2 members of the City Council will be up for election, in another 3 members will be up). The voter instruction is to vote for two or three out of a list who run (none designated by party). Then whoever finish in the top 2 or 3 slots are elected. It really makes little sense to take a city that small and divide it up by single member districts that have to be redrawn every 10 years. Plus, in a mayor-council system, you have a government where the position of Mayor and Vice Mayor rotate among current councilmembers.

    Every system has its plusses and benefits. I happen to like the U.S. system the best. But I’ve never been one to tell others how to conduct their elections (and the one upside of this Iraq War mess is that finally I’m not the only American who thinks that anymore).

    @Andrew McCaig

    I’m glad you brought this up.

    I find myself in the odd position of defending Obama along the same lines that I once criticized him during the primaries. I wholeheartedly supported Hillary Clinton and I found myself completely frustrated at times by those who would act as if simply voting for Barack Obama was going to fix every last problem and address every last issue in the nation. There were a huge number of primary voters who simply thought Obama would march into the White House, wave a magic wand, snap his fingers, and suddenly everything would be back to normal.

    Now that he’s in office and struggling to enact legislation and get things done, everybody is jumping on him. I take an objective view of what any president can effectively get done given the realities of our system. Although he’s not a perfect president and has been way too slow appointing judges, he’s doing a very good job and handling himself quite well.

    The one thing I’ll add though too is that the filibuster, which is not in the U.S. Constitution, is being abused by the Republican Party. There is no requirement that every peice of legislation receive 60 votes. The design of the Senate Rules and the two chambers was to prevent the tyranny of the majority, not create a tyranny of the minority. Even then though, because members of Congress, unlike members of Parliament, are elected individually, they are not automatically aligned to vote with their party (that’s why I’m always shocked when I see that in most parliamentary systems, a government losing a vote usually leads to the fall of the government).

  4. I have no doubt voters will come home to Labour as the wonderful YG poll suggests Labour largest seats. They have held out until the last minute and rightly. We have all been so upset by so many things Labour have done. But at the end of the day Tory tax cuts for the 3000 wealthiest and the disgusting reintroduction of fox/badger/stag hunting was too much

  5. Those 31% undecided but certain to vote will swing it for Labour

  6. PR is not the answer. If the UK had had PR since WW2, we would probably have had 65 years of Labour/Liberal coalition. Germany may be a good advert for PR, but try convincing the Italians that PR leads to accountable government. People feel that they have more of a say under PR, but in reality they do not as a large national swing of say 6% between CON and LAB would result in just 39 seats changing hands. Voters wouldn’t elect the PM, the MPs of the smaller parties would.

    Additionally with PR, you would no longer have your own local MP and you would never be able to vote out a particular MP if they were near the top of a party list (no more Portillo moments). Parties get to chose their MPs and not the electorate. What is required is fairer constituency boundaries.

    The US system is no more perfect than ours. You are forgetting that the US elect their president using a “block vote” system. How fair is it that a state that has 60 college votes casts all 60 for candidate A, just because 51% voted for A and only 49% voted for B?

  7. The sample on the 4th for LD have to be 21, at most 22 to give the end result of 24, so the best way to know if it is a rogue is to look at the poll today, if YG LD figure falls to 21/22 then it really means something big, otherwise if the number keep at say 24 then this one have to be rogue. Otherwise of other polls today shows value like 27 then all the happiness of the people around will be void.

    On the other hand, we should also be caution that the LAB value of hitting 30 could be a lesser degree of rogue, LAB previous 3 polls are 27, 28, 28 before the magic 30 appear. The latest sample have to be say LAB 32 to get this number correct, and again, if other poll do not agree with this one then this one is very likely a lesser rogue.

    As for CON, YG and ComRes have got the number stable at 35 for YG and 37 for ComRes, I do not know if the potential YG rogue may push more soft-CON and UKIPers back to CON but if not I do believe that the final poll should be in between 35 and 37.

  8. Well, I have to say it is pitious to Anthony, that get a sample potentially rogue almost on the very last day. With this sample, it is really hard to become the most accurate pollster in this election…

  9. I’m unsure whether this an outlier/rogue poll.

    But it’s prompted me to wonder whether the calls by three Lab ministers yesterday were also an attempt to shore up the LD vote at a crucial moment when signs were perhaps beginning to appear that Lab voters ‘loaned’ to LD might be returning to the Lab fold. Maybe it wasn’t just desperation on the part of Lab, but a recognition of what was transpiring?

    Just a thought.

  10. I wonder if this poll is a reaction to a Clegg quote I’ve picked up in a newspaper yesterday, which in paraphrase meant that he’d drop proportional represenation in favor of lower taxes – which in essence would make the LibDems closer to the continental liberal parties and closer to the Conservatives, with people thinking along the lines of: “well, if that’s the LibDem ‘change’, we can also vote for the Conservative original, with no change whatsoever coming up, just the usual game of ‘distribute the power amongst interchangeable nothings’…”

1 4 5 6