Here are some bits and pieces from polls you may have missed.

ICM did a poll on Faith schools for Channel 4. On the principle of faith schools, 37% thought there should be faith shools, 59% disagreed (although the wording was a bit harsh – the anti-faith school argument said “schools should be for everyone regardless of religion”, so it’s possible some people who picked that option may have supported faith schools if they were not allowed to select on the basis of religion). On the subject of admissions, 37% thought it was understandable the lengths some parents went to get their children into their preferred school, with 60% saying it was wrong for parents to pretend to belong to a religion to get into a school. People were split on whether or not schools should have a daily religious assembly – 45% agreed they should, 44% disagreed.

Moving on, there was a short YouGov poll commissioned by the Ed Balls leadership campaign and the CWU on whether the post office should be privatised or not. 60% thought it should remain wholly in public ownership, 13% that is should be part-privatised and 15% that is should be privatised completely.

Interestingly enough, we used pretty much the same wording for this poll as for this poll of Labour members for Compass back in 2009 – back then 66% of Labour members opposed privatisation, 24% supported part-privatisation and 5% complete privatisation, giving us the rather surprising result that Labour members are marginally more likely to support privatisation than the general public. The reason for this odd answer is straightforward – back in 2009 it was Labour party policy to support post-office part-privatisation – I suspect Labour party members would be much less supportive now it is the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government doing it! On the subject of party supporters becoming more positive towards a policy when their own side puts it forward, there’s a good article here (hat tip to Paul Goodman at ConHome).

Finally, here’s some interesting bits and pieces from the YouGov daily polls. Following Eric Pickles instructions to councils to have less road signs and clutter, 43% of people agreed there were too many road signs on Britain’s roads, 10% too few and 37% that the balance was about right. (here). And finally, on THE BIG ISSUE of the last week, 84% of people said they though the cat-binning lady should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. (here).

The only poll I’m aware of tonight is the regular YouGov/Sunday Times figures at 10pm.


420 Responses to “Things you may have missed”

1 7 8 9
  1. Well, well well.

  2. YouGov; CON 43%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%
    Wonder when was the last time LDs got so low?

  3. Tonight’s YG = LDs 11% the cliff is perilously close. Minor coalition partyitis.

    They are finished… At what point does keeping your cool become plain friggin stoopid.

  4. Just checked;
    2007-10-24 LDs were on 11%.
    Actually not as long ago as I thought it would be.

  5. Julian – straight before and after they dumped Ming.

  6. Julian,

    Off the absolute top of my head LDs have been at 10% on seven separate phases in the last decade. I’ll have to confirm that for you.

  7. Clegg has had as much exposure as he’s likely to get. So we cannot put this down to the usual mid term faceless nature of yellows (mind you Ming’s crash was shortly after the conference season).

    I think a moment of introspection is called for among Yellw MPs. How yella are they?

  8. Eoin – a brief glance through my tables and none leap out at me. The last 10% I can see is 1997.

  9. Peter Henessey’s advice to Nick Clegg this week – grow a moustache and say nothing (Attlee as Labour leader in Winston’s wartime coalition).

  10. i confidently predict CON 25% LAB 20% LIBDEM 45% and OTHERS 10% at the next GE

    bløødy exciting times what!

  11. On 2010-04-20 YouGov had the LDs on 34%.
    On 2010-08-31 YouGov have the LDs on 11%.
    Surely such a turnaround in fortunes is unprecedented in modern-day British politics?
    If it’s not, I’m sure someone here will know.

  12. shy blues
    shy reds
    shy yellows

    can anyone really belive polls?

  13. @Eoin

    What benefits the LibDems during campaign time is the publicity they get as a Separate Choice, distinct and different from Labour and the Conservatives. Part of what they’re suffering from is a magnification of this because of their association with the Conservatives.

    I still think they’ll get their usual campaign-period-boost just before an election. Perhaps less, but perhaps more from a greater swing-back.

  14. @Julian Gilbert

    You said “…Just checked; 2007-10-24 LDs were on 11%. Actually not as long ago as I thought it would be…”

    The last poll to have LIBs on 11% was on 2008-12-11, (20 months ago) although that was a blip: the numbers before and after were notably bigger. As you say, the last poll to have LIBs at 11% as part of a run of low numbers was on 2007-10-24 (34 months ago).

    Regards, Martyn

  15. Anthony,

    Thanks for that…. must be 7 phases of 11%. Gees it is even worse than I thought.

    Jay,

    entirely logical in theory… how forgiving are the English public? The Cornwallians and the Scots? I am not so sure…

    I do think the leadership debates will help the public view yellows as distinct but how quickly can you fall out with blue?

    Having you ever tried convincing your work colleagues you aint dating the ‘gal in the office’ the tension stands out like a sore thumb lol.

  16. @ Roland Haines

    I was reffering to my country, not yours. I’m sorry for the confusion. I think it’s unfortunate that what is a high voter turnout in the U.S. is usually far below a low voter turnout in the UK. I think your lowest turnout in recent memory was 59% in the 2001 GE. That would be very high in the U.S.

    @ Billy Bob

    I hope that story is not true. If Dubya and Condo Rice did that, it is completely inappropriate. The United States has no business interfering in the elections of other countries. Now it’s fine if U.S. leaders have preferences but that’s different from attempting to interfere. It’s fine that Hillary Clinton has a crush on David Miliband. It’s not fine if Hillary Clinton starts trying to insert herself into an electoral process. And plotting to try and keep Gordon Brown out of the Prime Minister’s office, if true, is certainly interference. The choice of whether Gordon Brown should lead Labour is not a decision for a U.S. president or members of the U.S. exceutive branch to decide, the choice of whether Gordon Brown should be Prime Minister is a choice of UK voters, not a U.S. president. I am aware that the U.S. has intervened and interfered on a multitude of occassions in the elections of other countries. That doesn’t make it right though (and usually it’s wound up being completely counterproductive). And certainly, the UK should be off limits completely.

    @ Steve

    Gerrymandering is, unfortunately, allowed. But what I mean by boundary drawing is that in the U.S. you are required to redistrict (whether its done by a non partisan commission, a partisan legislature, or a state executive board) by population and not by voter registration. Now technically, you can draw districts by the number of registered voters they have. However, those districts must be equal in terms of their regular population. If you drew districts based on voter registration and they had differing populations, those maps would get struck down.

  17. @Social Liberal – Didn’t mean to upset you. :)
    Daily Telegraph not above putting a slant on things, then again well aware that the previous administration pushed the bounds in many ways that US citizens do not approve.

  18. @Anthony

    I hadn’t realised Labour had a 50 seat advantage under the current system.

    I just hope that more Labour supporters come to recognise the importance of voting even if they live in a safe labour seat. :-)

  19. @ Billy Bob

    You didn’t upset me. I don’t like the fact that the U.S. has spent so much money and used troops to back up brutal dictators and has interfered in so many foreign elections, I’ve lost count. It’s completely hypocritical and it’s often wound up biting us, just look no further than Vietnam, Iran, and Cuba. If you are the “leader of the free world” then you need to let others choose for themselves. Now I don’t know that Dubya actually interfered but it’s certainly not beyond him. Frankly, I don’t want foreign countries intervening in U.S. politics. I think we should observe that principal with others.

    I read the Mandelson book and loved it, I’ll definitely read the Blair book. The Telegraph is very anti-Obama it seems.

  20. Just to add a comment to the discussion on boundaries etc.

    The boundaries are being redrawn on the basis of past electoral register.

    But not everyone registers, and many people/groups (eg youngsters) in our society are unable to vote.

    IMO, this is wholly inappropriate for our democracy. The baoundaries must be based on population. If that means regular costly censuses so be it. What price democracy?

1 7 8 9