Tonight’s daily YouGov poll has topline figures of CON 43%, LAB 36%, LDEM 14% – quite a change from having the two main parties equal on 39% yesterday. Technically of course it doesn’t have to mean anything – both are within the margin of error of the average of YouGov’s recent polls which is around about CON 41% or 42%, LAB around 38% and the Lib Dems around 12%.

My guess is that part of today’s poll is probably a Lib Dem gain from conference coverage – 14% is at the top of their current range in YouGov’s polls – but that the high Tory lead is probably just a outlier. Of course, it could be the other way around, with yesterday’s 39% a piece being an outlier and this being a true reflection, but yesterday’s was at least in line with the general trend of a shrinking Tory lead. We’ll see tomorrow.


374 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 43/36/14”

1 6 7 8
  1. @ Old Nat

    Only if D Milliband wins, I’d have thought. The principal supporters of the losers aren’t likely to get any favours – punishment by proxy!
    —————————————
    Maybe it’s a different situation, with the Milibands being brothers. 8-)

  2. Amber

    Remember I used to be in the Labour Party. I know what “fraternal” actually means! :-)

    I was referring to this comment of my mine –

    “Though Amber will correct me, if my observation is mistaken, Murphy seems to have taken control of Labour in Scotland almost as thoroughly as Brown did previously.”

  3. @ Old Nat

    I think Jim Murphy does have too much ‘clout’ in SLAB to be sidelined, regardless of which brother wins the leadership.

    To the best of my knowledge, ordinary members & voters are very taken with him too. 8-)

  4. Amber

    Thanks. That was my impression – though I’ll try to persuade the voters that they’re wrong. :-)

  5. @ Old Nat

    Have you noticed that Jim is often seated behind the despatch box, when HoC is televised &/or during PMQ?

    Either he gets there early & refuses to budge, or he is rated in the Party as a whole – not just Scotland. ;-)

  6. Amber

    I prefer not to watch PMQ – it’s even worse than FMQ.

    However, your post reminds an oldie like me of the Kremlin Watch – when external observers had to judge the current state of internecine warfare in the Politburo by who had a prominent position at the MayDay parade in Moscow.

    Plus ça change ……..

  7. @ Old Nat

    when external observers had to judge the current state of internecine warfare in the Politburo by who had a prominent position at the MayDay parade in Moscow.
    —————————————
    Nice 1 – That’s exactly what I was alluding to.

    I always wondered, amidst all the frantic speculation by Kremlin watchers, did those on the “up” simply get there early & refuse to budge – hence my joke about Jim. 8-)

  8. Amber

    And there was me thinking you were on e of the Politburo – and all the time you are just one of the exploited workers like the rest of us (in my case ex-worker – retirement is wonderful)!

  9. @ Old Nat

    I should have said a UK wide primary. As you no doubt understand, “nationwide” is in my vernacular.

    The story is not well known but you are welcome.

    @ Amber Star

    You didn’t offend me in the least! Nor was your comment ignorant! I actually appreciated your comments. I realize now that the tone of my comments came off as kinda harsh. It’s because I tend to get really passionate over these issues. But the harshness was not directed towards you at all. And I could tell you were yanking his chain (that’s an expression my mom uses all the time). I was just pointing out the facts of gays with children.

    Now I will say, we’ve discussed the differences here between American literalism and misunderstanding of British irony. You, of course, have a great Scottish sense of humor. I should inform you though that your humor is taken literally by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and countless scores of American judges who keep arguing that the “political power” of gays and lesbians is a reason to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. No, really. I’m not making this up.

    But I appreciate your sense of humor and I apologize for any misundertanding.

  10. @ Amber and Old Nat

    I actually have watched clips of the PMQ’s and the real thing too (not just the mid 90’s Saturday Night Live sketches which were hilarious btw) but there are clips on youtube. The few times I’ve seen Murphy, he’s either been sitting with David Miliband or with Gordon Brown. I’ve only seen him speak twice, always on Scottish issues.

    I think what is shocking and unexpected is the role reversal of how the UK Parliament conducts itself and how the U.S. Congress conducts itself. Being the most civilized nation on the globe, Brits are quiet, proper, and polite. I will admit that while we’re not rude, Americans can be rather loud and opinionated. You would think our elected representatives would reflect this. But it’s reversed. Watching the PMQs, it’s loud and boisterous with members shouting and lobbing insults back and forth at each other. And it seems that the goal of the PMQs is to figure out how to insult the other in the most creative, subtle, and yet most devastating way possible. Whoever does that, wins the day for their party. This may sound surprising but members of Congress are strictly prohibited from insulting each other during debates on the House and Senate floors. A few years ago, this crazed Ohio representative, “Mean” Jeanne Schmidt (R-OH), wearing a 70’s style tracksuit, insulted the late John Murtha (D-PA) on the floor of the House by calling him a “coward.” There was nearly a riot and even she had to withdraw her comments and apologize. Members can shout in their speeches but not at each other and are not supposed to interrupt each other during speeches. Plus, whoever is occupying the Speaker’s chair (often a freshman representative) can have anyone removed who is misbehaving. Now I’m trying to imagine what would happen if these rules applied to the PMQs (we clearly made them up ourselves), the whole thing would shut down.

    My only other observations of PMQs is that I like Harriet Harman, she’s got this great English wit. William Hague is surprisingly very funny. It’s unexpected for me because I’m hardpressed to think of any equivalent right wing social conservative Republican in the United States who is even half as funny or intelligent.

  11. SoCalLiberal

    “As you no doubt understand, “nationwide” is in my vernacular.”

    Indeed I do. It’s an interesting commentary on the power of the US constitutional assumptions that dominate the academic community (from which I am now retired).

    The complexity of Europe means that “nation” and “state” are not co-terminous (despite the 19th century imperialist concept of the “nation state”). “State” would be the natural term on this side of the Atlantic for a member of the UN, but that obviously conflicts with the US meaning. In academia – the US wins.

  12. SoCalLiberal

    Mmm I think I’d disagree about your perception of the Brits. However, you may think I am one, so I’ll forgive you.

  13. @ Amber

    “I think Jim Murphy does have too much ‘clout’ in SLAB to be sidelined, regardless of which brother wins the leadership.”

    I wonder though if he has to worry about his own electoral prospects if the party begins to change its ideology. The constituency he represents now is apparently the same one from 1997 and has not had its borders redrawn. In fact, the overall swing in his constituency (The Tories winning by 24% in 1992 to Labour winning by 21% in 2010) has been pretty dramatic…..almost American.

    I’ll give you an example. New York’s 14th Congressional District takes in the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City (and a little bit of Queens). It used to be reffered to as the “Silk Stocking District” because of its affluent residents, sky high residential prices, and famous landmarks. It also used to be fairly solidly Republican (though represented by moderate to liberal Republicans). All of the local City Council, State Assembly, and State Senate seats were held by Republicans. However, in the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton won the District handily. And he had coattails. Although he was not targeted by the DCCC, the longtime incumbent Republican Congressman, William Green, lost reelection to Carolyn Maloney in an upset. Maloney was a little known City Councilwoman and won by less than 2%. But not only has she won reelection ever since. She’s not even a target. The GOP made the seat a top target in the 1994 midterms and yet she prevailed by a 2-1 margin over a well financed Republican opponent. That tends to happen with a lot of Congressional seats. It’s rare for that to happen to a Parliamentary seat.

    “To the best of my knowledge, ordinary members & voters are very taken with him too.”

    Don’t forget to include politically obsessed American law students who follow UK politics as well.

  14. @ Old Nat

    “Mmm I think I’d disagree about your perception of the Brits. However, you may think I am one, so I’ll forgive you.”

    LOL. :) Thank you. :)

    “Indeed I do. It’s an interesting commentary on the power of the US constitutional assumptions that dominate the academic community (from which I am now retired).”

    I’m not sure it does though. I mean, there are many U.S. constitutional provisions and traditions that other countries don’t have and think we’re crazy for having. Our free speech rights jurisprudence, our parental rights jurisprudence, our birthright citizenship protections, our rights to juries in civil trials are concepts that other nations/states think of us as crazy for having. Now I am aware that there is the shared tradition of Anglo-American common law. But we have judicial review which you guys don’t and we also have preserved the right to juries in civil trials which your courts got rid of. When it comes to free speech rights and parental rights, it’s actually kinda funny to see the political unity among both leftwing and rightwing Americans in support of these rights (generally speaking).

    “The complexity of Europe means that “nation” and “state” are not co-terminous (despite the 19th century imperialist concept of the “nation state”). “State” would be the natural term on this side of the Atlantic for a member of the UN, but that obviously conflicts with the US meaning. In academia – the US wins.”

    So would the UK be reffered to as a “state” while Scotland or Wales or England would be reffered to as a “nation?”

  15. SoCalLiberal

    “So would the UK be referred to as a “state” while Scotland or Wales or England would be referred to as a “nation?””

    Yes – but just to confuse you further the Brits would also constitute a nation. Many of those living in England on here would probably put themselves in that nation (although they would be confused about it). Barney would be unequivocally and enthusiastically British. Amber might be dichotomous. I’ll add further confusion by my being Scots and European, but not British (except for the dictat of the British state).

  16. SoCalLiberal

    If you ever thought that the British state was benign, then you would need to consider the behaviour of the BBC.

    I have been banned from the BBC blogs because I politely, but persistently questioned why they labelled this pro-independence online news site as “profane” –

    http://newsnetscotland.com/

    While the Brits may not like it, this political censorship of a site that doesn’t match their values is a negation of democracy – but hey! Rule Brittania!

  17. OK I give up. I have no idea why my post has gone into moderation once I removed the automatic web link.

    On the BBC blogs, I would have assumed political interference – for very good reason – but that won’t apply here.

    Perhaps it’s because I used the word that the Beeb chose to use to describe a respectable news site that has an independence rather than a unionist slant.

  18. @ Old Nat

    Is that kind of like some American right wingers who refer to themselves as “American by birth, southern by choice?” Or is it more like Americans who found themselves mortified by Bush who would go abroad and refer to themselves as Californians or New Yorkers or New Englanders rather than Americans to distinguish themselves as non-Bush voters?

    When I was in the 7th grade, I had this very left wing social studies teacher. Her father was Scottish and he refused to become an American citizen even though he’d spent most of his life in the U.S. She explained that he was a proud Scotsman, he was born a Scotsman, he would die a Scotsman. It wasn’t anything against the U.S., he was just proud of being Scottish. Somehow, I understood this. The other students didn’t. They were skeptical and kept asking very silly questions like “why don’t you get him U.S. citizenship for his birthday?” She had to keep explaining. But what can you expect from a bunch of 12 and 13 year old overly spoiled American kids?

  19. SoCalLiberal

    I hope you aren’t expecting me to explain why Scots like Amber want to have the Brits control things that they would actually prefer to be decided in Scotland. That is beyond the understanding of all rational beings (Sorry Amber, just using you as an example).

    No. It’s nothing to do with a left/right axis. Why are people so entranced with one dimensional politics? Has no one done a multi-dimensional political analysis?

    Politics in Scotland is essentially about who takes the decisions for whom. The Con/Lab/LD alliance thinks that the critical decisions for Scotland should be taken in London. The SNP/Green/Socialist view is that these decisions should be taken in Scotland.

    Not left/right but Scotland/Britain.

  20. BillyBob

    Great team :-)

  21. OldNat,

    Interesting that you refer to the “nation state” as an imperialist 19th century concept. Surely the advent of the nation state was exactly the opposite. The breakdown of the great empires led to (or was caused by) the advent of the nation states.

    Surely SNP politics isn’t so different from classic “Nation State” beliefs? Your remarks about wanting decisions taken in Scotland not London could have been transposed to any number of small nations that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian or Spanish empires?

  22. Neil A

    You are (I think) looking only at the European context in Central Europe.

    I was referring to the way in which both the emerging and existing states in the 19th century believed in the cultural superiority of their (composite) nation and hence their entitlement to rule their “inferiors”.

    Unfortunately, certain countries (including the USA and the the UK) still seem to apply this thinking in their foreign policy.

  23. I’m not an expert in polls and methods but it strikes me as rather odd that the daily YouGov polls are being given such importance and is distorting the true measure of support particularly for the LibDems.Other polling organisations have given the LibDems a higher level of support. Can someone clarify this for me please??

  24. @ SoCalLiberal

    Thanks for replying. I’m glad you were using my post as an opportunity to make your points & that you had, in fact, understood my comment to Roland.

    I follow the make up & attitude of the US Supreme Court with great interest (I watched too many West Wings in my younger days & it was the Court system that fascinated me).

    I have seen Nelson Mandela lead a one-man one-vote South Africa, I have seen the USSR be dismantled, the Berlin wall come down etc. So many things I never thought would happen in my lifetime!

    I want to see a US Supreme Court uphold the ending of the death penalty. I wonder if it will happen in your lifetime, if not mine. It seems a distant dream at the moment, but you never know. 8-)

1 6 7 8