YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 39%, LAB 41%, LDEM 11%. Once again that’s YouGov’s highest Labour score since the election-that-never-was in 2007.

Over in the New Statesman they’ve commented on the lack of conference bounces this year. It’s not entirely true, while there was no great jump in Lib Dem support in YouGov’s daily polling the Lib Dems did rise from their usual 12% or so to a brief peak of 15%, their highest for a month. While there was no obvious jump for Labour after Ed Miliband’s speech, their conference as a whole has improved their ratings – this week we’ve seen three polls showing Labour ahead and their first 40+% ratings for years, that’s not to be sniffed at.

True, there aren’t any of the drastic shifts in support that we’ve got used to during conference seasons in previous years (take, for example, 2008 when Labour’s conference temporarily gained them 7 points, or the massive shift in support during the 2007 Conservative conference), but the normal pattern is there. Now let’s roll on the Conservative conference and see what it produces for them.


102 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – 39/41/11”

1 2 3
  1. @Alex – I accept your point, and I think the OBR itself regret that and see it as a gaffe. I would suspect though that they might want to assert their independence in future, but I don’t completely discount your view and you could be proved right.

  2. COZMO and others

    As Osborne and friends have been going on about 25% cuts for months now, there’ll be a serious credibility problem if the actual cuts package is well below that figure and attempts to hide this sort of ‘U’ turn would soon be rumbled.

    That is not to say that the proposals will be progressively watered down in the face of virulent opposition from various quarters. This may help the coalition by giving it a reputation for flexibility but it would undoubtedly result in something much more similar to the Darling proposals.

    Overall, expect a degree of obfuscation but still expect there be to some very nasty (and in some cases unnecessary ) cuts.

1 2 3