As far as I can see from their website the Sunday Times only reported the Labour leadership figures from their YouGov poll this weekend. The whole poll is now up on YouGov’s website here Topline voting intention figures with changes from last week are CON 39%(+2), LAB 32%(-2), LDEM 21%(nc).

David Cameron’s approval rating as Prime Minister is still in honeymoon mode at +42, Nick Clegg’s approval rating is similar at +44. 63% think the coalition partners are working well together.

YouGov asked people if they supported or opposed a series of policies put foward by the coalition. Most popular was an annual limit on immigration from non-EU countries (supported by 81%), followed by scrapping ID cards (63%), banning cheap alcohol from supermarkets (56%) and removing peoples DNA from the national database if they are not convicted (54%). A plurality of people also supported the immediate £6 bn in spending cuts (by 43% to 34%).

The most unpopular policy was the expected rise in VAT to 20%, opposed by 66% of respondents. A majority (61%) also opposed reducing the number of CCTV cameras and a plurality opposed the part privatisation of the Royal Mail (by 47% to 33%). While asked in isolation the VAT rise was very unpopular, YouGov also asked if they would prefer the rise in VAT or large cuts in public spending – in that context 46% of people prefered the VAT, 38% the larger spending cuts.

On the Labour leadership David Miliband remains the clear frontrunner, with 23% naming him as the person they think would make the best leader. Somewhat surprisingly Diane Abbott is in second place on 9%, followed by 8% for Ed Miliband. Diane Abbot’s popularity though is much higher amongst Conservative and Lib Dem supporters – amongst Labour’s own supporters she is in fourth place behind David Miliband (34%), Ed Miliband (13%) and Ed Balls (10%). As I warned last week though, leadership preference questions are this stage are largely name recognition.

Asked who would be the WORST leader, Ed Balls is top with 21%, followed by Diane Abbott on 18%. Amongst Labour’s current supporters Diane Abbott is seen as the worst candidate on 22%, followed by Balls on 13%.

Moving on, YouGov asked about the BA strike and who was most to blame. They found 32% of people blamed the Trade Union, 20% the BA management and 38% both of them. YouGov also asked if various groups should be allowed to strike – there were three groups where a majority thought they should not be able to strike – for both the army and the police 22% thought they should be able to, 69% thought they should not. For NHS staff 36% thought they should be allowed to stike, 55% thought they should not. A plurality also thought energy distribution workers shouldn’t be able to. For the other professions YouGov asked about people thought a majority should be able to strike, including 61% who thought airline workers should be able to.


240 Responses to “More from the YouGov/Sunday Times poll”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. ROBERT IN FRANCE

    A very bold-and thoroughly sensible suggestion.

    Your last para is absolutely right-it would be howled down by the left.

    This is the sort of “environmental” approach to tax policy that should be considered.

    It would be interesting to know if the Greens would support such a change-and if not , why not!!

  2. R in F
    No problem but then do not promote yourself as a left wing politician – do me a favour Ms Abbott (implied insult intended) .

  3. ” Child benefit should be changed and be paid for the 1st child only….it is ridiculous that the government sponsors ever larger families.”

    Oh dear God….. :( :( :(

  4. Sue Oh dear God

    You a believer then?

  5. SUE

    ” The only reason you Conservatives all favour Diane Abbott”

    Can’t stand her myself Sue.

    My Trojan Horse was EB-but looks like he isn’t going to make it.

    So might as well “support” the only decent one amongst them-that nice Mr Burnham . :-)

  6. Sue,

    Don’t worry, God favours larger families.

  7. Robert in France
    “Child benefit should be changed and be paid for the 1st child only. Obviously those getting it at present should continue to get it, to withdraw it would be unfair. Make the change effective from 12 months hence then people can plan accordingly.

    With the population increasing as it is and with the pressure on services & infrastructure, it is ridiculous that the government sponsors ever larger families.”

    Agree completely, and such measures should be adopted worldwide. Even then it would barely begin to address the problem we face with overpopulation.

    It’s not a comfortable subject but there’s no point ignoring it.

  8. Colin and R in F
    Good posts
    In my environmental circles, they refuse to confront the issue

  9. PAUL H-J

    “God favours larger families.”

    The Roman one does ;-)

  10. @ Howard

    It wasn’t so much Diane sending her child to a ‘fancy’ school that infuriated us – it was because she had made great hay of criticising Labour people who sent their kids to anything other than the local comprehensive – then sent her kid to a ‘fancy’ school.

    Sensible Labour voters do accept that the happiness of one’s children is important; it’s Diane’s holier than thou attitude, followed by a complete u-turn, which we didn’t like.

    What I’m saying is – I agree with you :-)

  11. Sue Marsh

    I think it would be a good idea to replace Council Tax with a levy on all adults. ;)

  12. HOWARD

    “In my environmental circles, they refuse to confront the issue”

    THe Green movement believe in the “sustainability” of homo sapiens Howard-nothing else.

    It’s a huge con trick.

  13. People are slightly missing the point of my note about child trust funds (perhaps my fault by highlighting the income we were on).
    My key point, is that yes, I would love to see handouts of even £500, £1000, especially for children born in to poverty, but the idea is unaffordable, especially when the money is borrowed, so the £525m actually costs circa £625m.

    I’ll try to make it clearer. Would any rationale Govt bring in the CTF now with a deficit approaching £1.4trillion? Of course not. Which makes it a prime candidate for withdrawal given that it doesn’t have an unemployment cost.

    Everything, and I mean everything has an opportunity cost. It’s unfortunate that sometimes people prefer an emotive approach, i.e. ‘the Govt will just have to find the money?!’ , er ‘what money?’.

    Final (final) point, is we also got £80 per month child benefit. Our daughter wanted for nothing already, so in reality this money was used to go out, meals etc. total lunacy.

  14. Hi Amber – Thanks for the nice message earlier :)
    My problem with DA is that she opposed for the sake of opposing. Right from the start. Her own government NEVER did anything she approved of. She provided a more effective opposition than the Tories for about 7 years.
    I am treasurer for our CLP and believe me, I know many an Abbott!!

    For you “environmentalists” I would agree if I didn’t believe the statement actually read “…it is ridiculous that the government sponsors ever larger poor families.”

  15. @ Paul H-J
    “Don’t worry, God favours larger families.”

    I thought he was meant to be smart…?

  16. Robert in France – All those I know on low incomes pay into their children’s CTFs. so do their Nan’s and Uncles and Godparents. The thought would never have occurred to them before.

    Rich – You could always have given your un-needed benefits back :)

  17. @ Sue

    The Guardian is also stuffed with those who will disagree with any Labour government that doesn’t meet their purist criteria.

    They prefer to snipe from the sidelines, rather than get elected & actually do some governing.

  18. All,

    This discussion will be probably cut off by AW and I can’t moan but it is the back of what will happen in the polls. Don’t think that what occurs to us will not also occur to the rest of the 10% who change opinion.
    I am enervated by the ‘too many people’ discussion and child benefit one because we all know, do we not, that encouraging population growth is the opposite of what will save the human species and this is what we have forward thinkers for. They do not include politicians unfortunately (at least those who might say what they think).

  19. SUE

    Of course one would make transitional provisions.
    And the welfare net should deal with poverty anyway.

    Large families come with a cost though. Are they a sensible strategy if you are in poor financial circumstances?

    And should the State encourage you to have them if you are in those circumstances ?

    By the way-you can relax -it will never happen-not in a million years.

  20. AMBER

    “Where there is lack of income, joy about the birth of a child should never be allowed ”

    emotive responses like that merely expose the paucity of argument.

    The discussion is about LARGE families-ie many children.

    Not ANY children.

  21. @ OWAIN

    …crop research, a field I got into ……
    ———————————

    I thought you meant an actual field, you know… with crops & stuff growing in it ;-)

    And Sue & I have simply had an over-dose of extremists suggesting ‘poor’ women shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

  22. @SueMarsh
    I did not use the phrase ‘poor families’. If parents want to make themselves poor by buying a Rolls Royce, or having umpteen foreign holidays a year or having 6 children, that is their decision. People should take more responsibility for their actions & if you do not have enough income, then any of the above is irresponsible. Irresponsibility should not be sponsored by the state. But if you unexpectedly fall on hard times, through illness/unemployment etc. then of course the state should support you until you find your feet again.

    So let the govt sponsor the 1st child and any more are up to you, the individual.
    Perhaps socialists are not so green after all?

    Heck, in China they had much more drastic measures & they are probably less densley poulated than England is on a people per square mile basis. (Supposition & I stand to be corrected on that)

  23. A hardworking family of four (my neighbours are a binman, a part-time shop assistant and two lovely girls :) ) should surely be encouraged?

    Owain – We are indeed off message and a little heated here, but no need for insults :)

  24. Amber Star

    The children born to ‘improvident’ mothers are often the ones who grow up devote their lifetimes to shouldering the burden of society (they do the hardest and dirtiest work) for the least reward, and the shortest life expectancy. Whether this is right or not, is another matter, but without them I can hear the howls from our Tory men. ;)

  25. Colin – The original argument was made about the 2nd child, not large families, hence Amber and I no doubt rearing up a little more than we probably should.

  26. @ Billy Bob

    I think it would be a good idea to replace Council Tax with a levy on all adults. ;-)
    ————————————————————
    But Billy, whatever would we call such a fair & progressive levy?

  27. @ Amber
    “I thought you meant an actual field, you know… with crops & stuff growing in it

    And Sue & I have simply had an over-dose of extremists suggesting ‘poor’ women shouldn’t be allowed to have children.”

    Yeah well I’m not one of them. I’m suggesting nobody should have more than two children, max, rich or poor. World population growth is unsustainable.

    Of course, it would be better to try and do this through incentives rather than Chinese authoritarianism.
    One idea I heard and liked is a world bank-esque organisation who would pay all women of child-bearing age a monthly sum which would halve after the birth of their first child and stop after the second.
    This should also have some positive aspects for women’s rights and equality in some poorer countries in addition to curbing population growth imo.

    @ Sue
    It will have to be about the second child. Ideally our population should contract from its current size to be sustainable without straining the environment too much. A one-child policy for several decades is needed.

  28. @ Billy Bob

    Absolutely correct. And those restuarant toilets don’t clean themselves after Richard O has been out spending the family allowance ;-)

  29. @ Sue
    “We are indeed off message and a little heated here, but no need for insults”

    I’m sorry but you greatly offended me first, implying that anyone with concerns about family size is simply worried about growing numbers of ‘lower-class rabble’ or the like. I happen to care passionately about population growth and the dangers of mass starvation we face in the future – possibly partly due to the pervading cultural awareness of the Great Famine.

  30. Owain – I was actually replying to Robert in France

  31. @ Eoin
    “My mum had eight children. all are now tax payers.

    The state got its child benefit back many times over.”

    That’s not the point, the planet is facing a population crisis. One which people like to ignore. Doing so won’t help at all…

  32. The overseas development budget is ring fenced. Essentially this means protecting poor children from dying before they can reproduce.

    If that sounded like a Tory, no apologies. It’s the biggest issue facing the developed world.

    Time to cap it yet AW?

  33. @ OWAIN

    One idea I heard and liked is a world bank-esque organisation who would pay all women of child-bearing age a monthly sum which would halve after the birth of their first child and stop after the second.
    This should also have some positive aspects for women’s rights and equality in some poorer countries in addition to curbing population growth imo.
    —————————————————————–
    I think this is a good idea. Having 2 children is okay, population wise, because some women choose not to have any.

    In poorer countries, it would take a little time for women not to be afraid that both their children would die :-( But it is a good idea for developed countries.

  34. Owain,

    The population of the island of Ireland is 5.2 ,

    considering it is equal in size of England with 500 million I hardly think so…

    besides our population in 1841 was 8.5million

    We have plenty of room for our Eastern European friends should they care to join! :)

  35. Owain

    Atheists don’t believe in Malthus :P

  36. @ Amber
    “In poorer countries, it would take a little time for women not to be afraid that both their children would die But it is a good idea for developed countries.”

    The money they would receive if they stuck with one child would in theory help in that regard, they could take better care of them. Even if the sum was something like $10 a month it would make a massive difference in the amount of care a family could afford their kids in the poorest countries.

  37. Owain,

    Read Eng as 50 of course :)

  38. @ Eoin
    “The population of the island of Ireland is 5.2 ,

    considering it is equal in size of England with 500 million I hardly think so…

    besides our population in 1841 was 8.5million”

    And us Irish tend to emmigrate a lot, a significant reducer of apparent population growth. That’s what happened to a lot of the 1841 population, moving abroad so as not to starve. Like I said, it’s a global problem.

  39. Owain, Amber, BillyBob,

    The Irish have been told they are over populated for 2 centuries now. There are more cows in kerry than there are humans in the other 31 counties of Ireland….

    It would not be society if there were not some calling for a population cap..

    What are we going to do when the Geriatric continent (Europe) all retire and noone is their to run affairs..

    If it was not for th epopulation growth among our ethnic minorities we would be in even bigger trouble..

    oldies aint dying true but we still need young people..

    In germany and italy they incentivise birth- here we want to cap it.

    My oh my

  40. @Owain,

    Tis not a global problem

    Africa is severely underpopulated as are the ameircas

    The sub continent is the subcontinent. they are a pretty smart bunch I have every faith in them to absorb their growth.

  41. Eoin
    Birth
    Agree about here.
    Point was about elsewhere.
    We are alright jack.

  42. Half the worlds pop. is India/Pak and China. Them aside the world is not very over-populated

  43. @ Éoin,

    It is a geriatric & Incontinent Europe I worry about – especially since you told me bigger nappies cost more ;-)

  44. Eoin

    Essentially agreed. Add anywhere where huge under-development exists
    (dichotomy of international development budget).

  45. Owain – Didn’t mean to be flippant, but we did go through this on a thread before, I understand your concerns. *If* we can develope lower impact/footprint/more rewarding/less wasteful lifestyles then there is a sustainable future for us all.

  46. One piece of today’s pruning was to take £290m from the Future Jobs Fund, which offers state-guaranteed work to anyone between 18 and 24. Labour said the result would be an extra 44,000 young people left jobless.

    This has got to matter to people, no?

  47. @Amber Star

    Plus 10,000 who won’t now be going to University

  48. Howard,

    I agree with that…. it is regrettable that birth control is not more readily available I am sure many would avail of it.

    Amber…

    Huggies in buggies

    but Pampers and Champers for the geriatric millionaires

  49. @ Éoin

    LOL :-)

  50. I am about to watch my first epsiode of shameless. If Britian is broken i wanna see what all the fuss is about. Wish me luck.

1 2 3 4 5