YouGov/Sun 42/38/12

YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 42%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%. This is the first poll since David Cameron’s conference speech and like Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg before him, it doesn’t seem to have given him much of a boost. I’ll try to have a better look at the post-conference polling position over the weekend.

299 Responses to “YouGov/Sun 42/38/12”

1 4 5 6
  1. Eoin

    “Nothing I would ever seek to do through electronic communication would be done so with a view to decreasing a human being’s happiness.”

    A trifle over-egged perhaps?

    You post positively about the “reds”. If that resulted in Barney’s lot gaining sufficient votes to become the Government of Scotland, my happiness would be significantly reduced.

    On the other hand, you post positively about non-centralised political structures. If that resulted in my lot continuing in government in Scotland, then Barney would be very unhappy (especially if he failed to win in Donside by a couple of votes that you had influenced the “wrong” way).

    So either you have no influence, and are a mere cipher (so why bother posting) or you may have an effect, in which case you will contribute to someone’s unhappiness.

  2. OldNat,

    “with a view” ;)

  3. @ Old Nat

    Now Chris Huhne is saying the Coalition ‘may have to tack about a bit’ on the cuts whilst keeping an eye on the global economic weather.

    The cuts will happen to the public but not in Whitehall. Pensions, welfare, local government etc will be facing the shredder. The FO & London Civil Service will survive & thrive. ‘Twas ever thus, with the Tories. 8-)

  4. Eoin

    So you don’t post with “a view” to encourage Labour voting in Britain and NI?

    You don’t accept that that will make people unhappy? (Yes, I understand that you don’t want to make nasty comments about individuals and thus cause them pain – but you did make a very grandiose statement that invited ridicule!)

  5. @ Rob Sheffield

    Bush, MacCain, they’re all the same… I was indulging in pedantry – forgive me. ;-)

  6. OldNat,

    T’was sincere. Not a grandoise invitation :)

  7. Amber

    “‘Twas ever thus, with the Tories”

    True, but also ‘Twas ever thus, with Labour, and many years ago (and now) ‘Twas ever thus, with the Liberals.

    You should know better than to imagine that the manipulation of politicians by the Civil Service is restricted to a particular party.

    Have you heard of “Director’s Law”?

    “Director’s Law states that the bulk of public programs are designed primarily to benefit the middle classes but are financed by taxes paid primarily by the upper and lower classes. The empirically derived law was first proposed by economist Aaron Director.

    The philosophy of Director’s Law is that, based on the size of its population and its aggregate wealth, the middle class will always be the dominant interest group in a modern democracy. As such, it will use its influence to maximize the state benefits it receives and minimize the portion of costs it bears.” (Wiki)

    However you want to define “middle class” they are dominant in the Civil Service.

  8. @ Old Nat

    So either you have no influence, and are a mere cipher (so why bother posting) or you may have an effect, in which case you will contribute to someone’s unhappiness.
    I am willing to contribute generously to the political unhappiness of Tories; now, all I need is a cunning plan with which to achieve this goal. 8-)

  9. Joe James B
    We went into the ERM at 2.95 DM if I remember correctly.

    Indeed and almost exactly 20 years ago to the day. I remember saying “Yer what ?!” very loudly and embarrassingly when I heard the rate. At the time I always thought the high rate was due to Thatcher’s vanity in wanting to show that we had a “strong” currency (history may correct me). Not that it did her much good of course – she was gone soon after.

    The Major government did get inflation down, and didn’t get the credit for it in 1997 – the classic case of it not always being “the economy stupid”. Mind you I’m not saying that current situation is anything like the same – even with politicians of all stripes studiously ignoring inflation, even if the voters aren’t.

    Ah, Alan Greenspan. The modern Pythia

    Sometimes LOL really does mean laugh out loud.

  10. Eoin

    Having read your posts with interest for some time – sorry I doubt your sincerity on this. Of course, you don’t want individuals of any identity to feel pain – but since many of them don’t share your views, they will feel pain if your views win.

    This dichotomy is most obvious in countries such as yours and mine, where there is deep division as to the approved identity of the appropriate political state.

    It may make little difference in England whether they have a right wing Labour Government or a left wing Tory Government (parties overlap on a single political spectrum).

    However, the gulfs are huge elsewhere. You may not intend to make Barney or me unhappy, but actions have consequences. You shouldn’t try to avoid the moral consequences of your actions just because you want to be nice.

    (Anthony – that is way off topic, but was fun to write!)

  11. Amber

    “I am willing to contribute generously to the political unhappiness of Tories”

    Not only refreshingly honest (as always) but you are generous to a fault. (The fault, of course, is voting Labour in Scotland :-) )

  12. @ Howard

    Dick Cheney was always a polarizing figure and always significantly less popular than Bush. He definitely had the most involvement and power of any vice president in American history. But was he acting as the president behind the scenes? I’m not entirely convinced of this. There were a number of things that Cheney wanted that Dubya refused to let him do and several suggestions Cheney made that Dubya turned down. Actually in the last few months of Bush’s administration, I actually thought that Hank Paulson, who was the Treasury Secretary, was actually running the country and basically acting as the president.

    My name isn’t a spelling quirk. It stands for southern California liberal, which is where I’m from. Since people in southern California often refer to that part of the state as “SoCal” (people in Northern California often refer to it as “NorCal”), I decided to use it as part of my online monniker.

  13. @all the reds

    RE: Johnson as shadow chancellor

    Looking back over this thread I have to say I find it (highly) amusing that- throughout the day- so many of you have transitioned from shock through to outright negative ‘I am gutted about Johnson being given SC’ ;-)

    As I predicted over two months ago EdM was ALWAYS going to shift to the ‘right’ one he secured the leadership.

    EdM played a tactical blinder i.e. he appealed to the ‘left’ of the ‘labour movement’ – those refusniks and Neanderthals who simply psychologically could not cope with a DdM Labour Leadership (represented by certain regular posters on here). Innocent and inexperienced posters on here totally fell for that rhetoric :-)

    He was ALWAYS going to shift back to the centre of UK politics (and the right wing of the Labour party- some might even say ‘Blairite’) once he had won the election based as it was on a very silly and utterly unrepresentative ‘electoral college’.

    AJ is possibly a stopgap appointment (though I am not convinced of that as yet): if he is he will be replaced by someone who ‘gets down with the EdM programme’- of centre left economic policy . Forget ‘growth deniers’ (unless you are a member of the Socialist Workers Party).

    My worries about EdM are rapidly and daily being assuaged by his statements and his decisions (Khan notwithstanding = as long as he condemns Islamist [email protected] then I am OK with that appointment. Of he makes excuses for it (in the way that Martin McGuiness does not anymore by the [email protected] of the real IRA than I am happy with that !


    I am deeply concerned about your categorisation of people of a certain political stance as “Neanderthals”.

    Do you have an inbuilt prejudice against certain members of the human family (albeit extinct) – or only those who you see as being represented by those found near Dusseldorf?

  15. @ Old Nat

    Perhaps I should move to SE England & convince them that nice, finance professionals vote Labour & they might want to give social democracy a chance.

    Maybe I could convince them by appealing to their self-interest. I’d ply them with wine & the Director’s theory that you so kindly contributed to my ‘cunning plan’.

    But leaving Scotland is probably too high a price to pay for the opportunity to convert a few floating voters in key English marginals. ;-)

  16. @ Amber

    Yes, it was McCain who lost to Obama. If Bush had been allowed to run for a third term, he would have suffered an even greater defeat. It was because of Dubya’s high unpopularity that Obama was able to win.

    @ Alec

    I think incumbency only helps so much in a Parliamentary system. I think had the election been held in May 2009, far more MPs would have lost reelection just over the anger over expenses.

  17. OldNat,

    I am afraid that is not the case. A very noble red poster once said, to good effect, play the ball- not the man :) On that Ms Star and I disagree :)

  18. Eoin

    But balls hit men (and women) – not a reference to the Shadow spokesman for whatever! You continue to have the moral culpability for whatever sin you commit (even if unintentionally). Of course, that depends on the religious/moral traditions one comes from. I’m an agnostic Presbyterian. You are whatever you are. :-)


    Don’t go!

  19. I don’t think it’s unfair to charge higher tax rates to the wealthy than to the poor and to have a sliding scale of income tax rates. Nor do I think it equates with hating the rich. I think it’s just a measure of social responsibility, an effective way of raising revenue for the government, and a way to ease the burden on the poor. Having equal taxation rates for everyone sounds fair until you realize the effect it has on people. As for the Bush era tax cuts, they overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy. With the gaping deficit that the U.S. currently has, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask that the tax rates on the wealthy be returned to their perfectly reasonable 2001 rates.

    @ Rob Sheffield

    I don’t think Labour hates the rich.

  20. SoCalLiberal

    “I don’t think Labour hates the rich.”

    Under Blair, the privileged of Labour loved and envied the rich!

    So we’re back to the English class system again!

  21. @ Rob Sheffield

    Here is an Amber style analysis of why AJ was chosen as SC: It was AJ’s prize for not standing in the leadership contest, thereby leaving the field free for the brothers Miliband.

    We shall see how it works out. It will either be a stroke of genius via political expediency & sheer luck; or it will crash & burn so horribly that AJ will have to accept being shuffled out at the 2 year re-election.

    Whatever happens, it is unlikely to be dull. 8-)

  22. @ Rob Sheffield

    ….those refusniks and Neanderthals who simply psychologically could not cope with a DdM Labour Leadership (represented by certain regular posters on here).
    I blow a big raspberry at your New Labour diatribe against the (slightly more to the) lefties in your own party. Blehhhhhh!!! :-)

    Translating what our bard said: It would be quite a gift to have the power of seeing ourselves as others see us – especially before we post a comment like yours. Here is the view from the other side:

    I am enjoying Ed M gradually converting those refusniks & Blair fanatics who refused to countenance anything but a David Miliband win. ;-)

  23. @ Anthony,

    Am I in the sin bin or did I just use a ‘bad’ word? 8-)

  24. @ Old Nat

    You’re not going to let any of my pro Murphy statements slip by, are you? :)- I think once a project has been started, the project, excepting some special exceptions, needs to be finished. Otherwise, you really have wasted money because you have nothing to show for what you’ve spent. And you can’t get back what you’ve spent.

    As for political meanings, I think Arthur Schlesinger, a famous American liberal thinker and Kennedy advisor, once wrote that the term “liberal” had a very different meaning in the United States than it did in the rest of the world “save for the possible exception of Britain.” I think that U.S. liberals can be considered broadly progressive/left wing.

    I think liberals in North Carolina and liberals in California are probably fairly similar (as are conservatives). I think where you generally have the bigger ideological differences are among parties. Democrats in North Carolina and Democrats in California are going to have differences. But those divisions can occur even within individual states. For example, a southern Maryland or Eastern Shore Maryland Democrat (conservative) is not at all like a Washington D.C. suburb Democrat (liberal).

    Speaking of political ideologies, my ballot came in the mail today! :)

  25. @ Old Nat

    I went to a Presbyterian nursery school and was exposed to many agnostic Presbyterians early in life (including my dad’s best friend who’s a Presbyterian minister). Now on a Fawlty Towers DVD commentary, John Cleese once described the definition of a Presbyterian “as someone who is suspicious that someone somewhere is enjoying himself.” I don’t know if that’s true of Scottish Presbyterians but California Presbyterians seem to be those who enjoy themselves quite often.

    As for Labour loving the rich….is that where the term “champagne socialist” becomes applicable? Is Tony Blair one now? Nigella Lawson? And what is the difference between a champagne socialist and a limosuine liberal? Democrats don’t hate the rich (many are rich) but get accused of it by Republicans who will start screaming “CLASS WARFARE” at the drop of a hat.

  26. @amber

    “We shall see how it works out. It will either be a stroke of genius via political expediency & sheer luck; or it will crash & burn so horribly that AJ will have to accept being shuffled out at the 2 year re-election.”

    You were always pro Ed when I was pro Dave (as was the lamented SueM): all though the summer. Though at least you WERE actually pro EdM rather than pretending you were pro Andy B or pro Ed Balls like others did for- IMHO- incredibly cynical and conniving reasons (i.e. “anyone-but-daveM”).

    I always felt two things- and SAID them on here: (1) that EdM would jump to the centre ground if elected; (2) that EdM supporters were deluding themselves if they felt that they were stopping the ‘Blairite-Continuation’. EdM’s decision today on which individuals were given which posts; and the votes (by Labour MP”s) for the shadow cabinet, illustrate what a load of nonsense that was.

    Even more so: in the context of EdM’s decisions since he won (courtesy of the Trade Union section only) this notion of yours that it’s about expediency and luck does you and your opinions on here a giant disservice.

    Or rather- to get back to your point: even if AJ does- in your words- “crash and burn so horribly “, his replacement will simply be another Blairite/ David M approved candidate.

    Because that is- quite simply- how we WIN elections.

    Most of the reds on here would rather win then be self-defined ‘pure’ and give up power to Cameron and Osborne…..


  27. @ Rob

    I voted for Andy B 1st; Ed M 2nd. I was first to say with certainty that Ed M would win.

    I did not consider any of the alternatives to David M to be more left than each other – all were slightly to the left of David, at least on specific policy areas.
    You said: ..even if AJ does “crash and burn horribly “, his replacement will simply be another Blairite/ David M approved candidate.

    Rob, I think you are wrong about this. AJ got his reward. Now it’s up to him to make something of it.
    If he doesn’t rise to the occasion, he will be replaced by somebody with a strong background in economics.

    If AJ was not given SC as a prize, then his appointment was a concilliatory gesture; & you need only make such a gesture once. If it doesn’t work out, you don’t have to do it again. 8-)

  28. @Howard
    I have been AWOL so trying to catch up about Wayne and Reading University. Do we have a date for the lecture by maestro Wayne? Are we all invited? I would be happy to make the journey.

  29. @Eoin – “What in particular has changed over the last few days that has led you to believe things are being ‘overegged’ to put it politely.”

    Nothing specific, but just a general upping of the aggression levels (something I too have been guilty of in recent weeks on occasion). I exclude the Wee Hours set from this though – the postings from about 1am – sunrise nearly always seem to be extremely mellow in tone.

    @Joe James B – you’re right – ERM was. dm2.95 – I knew it was 2.90 or 3.90 but couldn’t be bothered to check. It did squeeze inflation, but wasn’t the best means to do this and I never bought into the idea that only inflation mattered – a truly good government would deal with inflation without the blunt instrument of unemployment being the key weapon.

    Ken Clarke’s reputation is (in my view) overstated. ERM was an involuntary act and a naturally fast recovery took place after a nasty recession – whoever was in the seat would have gained the credit. Where Clarke does deserve plaudits was in refusing to countenance the normal Tory trick (copied at times by Labour) of trying to buy votes at the ’97 election with a spending splurge. Lawson did this in ’87 with disastrous consequences that ultimately led to the ERM fiasco, but Clarke refused severe pressure to repeat the mistake.

  30. @Cozmo
    Someone should be there to record Wayne’s lecture for reasons of posterity and accuracy.

    I’m quite happy for you to suffer on my behalf.

  31. @Cozmo – “Do we have a date for the lecture by maestro Wayne?”

    All I can find is the following on Tues 12th Oct at 4pm;

    ‘Dr Petra Schleiter, University of Oxford
    Government Accountability and the Survival of Semi-Presidential Democracies’

    There’s nothing say this isn’t Wayne?

  32. @Alec – “… getting wearily tetchy and very partisan”

    People take their lead from the government. We have had some rhetoric about how we are all “in it” (together ;) ) from the top, but the persistent undercurrent has been about the undeserving, gold-plated, profligate, wasteful, good- for-nothing parasitical pc conker-banning people up-and-down the country who have brought it to its absolute knees.

    Once this public mood becomes established, it will be difficult to get back to the confident inclusive ‘tone’ that we took for granted.

  33. @Billy Bob – I appreciate everyone wants to make a point about their political opponents, but I really think blaming the government for the tone of debate on the UKPR discussion site is stretching things a bit!

    No one is responsible for the tone and style of posts there other than posters ourselves. It’s like blaming Thatcher because you went bald.

  34. I was tucked up in bed with a horrid cold last night, so wasn’t on at all to moderate. Thank you Alec for your sensible comments – that is exactly the sort of self-moderation that I hope people here can exercise.

  35. @Alec – The point I was trying to make was that we overestimate our individual autonomy sometimes – depersonalise it a bit. We are part of a collective (unconsious). I thought you might agree that when you knock confidence too much, people will retreat into defensive attitudes and mutual antagonisms.
    I would make the assertion that GO has concsiously created an anxious and uncertain climate in the lead up to CSR.

  36. It is amusing to read the highly nuanced & coded references to EM’s SC choices, stated according to the Blair/Brown identity of the poster.

    The papers too are full of it.

    And Labour supporters harp on about the stresses & strains in the Coalition !

    At least for the Government, one can read the political accommodation they reached in the Coalition Agreement-and relate Cabinet positions & deployment to it.

    With Ed’s coalition -unless you are on the inside-you have to guess.

    So-the SCoE position has been given to a man who says his first task is to read a primer in economics, because he didn’t run for leadership himself, and isn’ Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper.

    Presumably Neil Kinnock, who thought he had “got his party back” after all those uncomradely election victories, will now slink back into the shadows to count his pension schemes .

  37. BillyBob

    “GO has concsiously created an anxious and uncertain climate in the lead up to CSR.”

    I certainly agree that the emphasis now being placed by ministers on the phasing of cuts, begs the question-why did they not spell it out in June, after the Budget in which it is explicit?

    June Red Book-cumulative expenditure reduction, £bnpa at each year end from 2010/11 through 2014/15


  38. @ antony w

    Hope you feel better soon. :D

  39. @Colin – I think the point is that the previously announced schedule is being revisited as the Treasury is beginning to understand that circumstances mean that the original plan could have been too fast. Osborne now appears to accept that more BoE QE action is needed, so it would be a little incoherent for the BoE to be stimulating the economy while the Treasury is cutting spending.

  40. Re the shadow cabinet, I freely admit to being somewhat uninformed about many of the individuals and have o real judgement to make as to whether Ed has made a good selection.

    What I would say is that I feel the immediate ‘Red Ed’ attacks and the initial accepted wisdom regarding his election are proving a little wide of the mark.

    With johnson for Shadow Chancellor he has scotched the deficit denier tag, and as some of us predicted, what was said in the election campaign was for the election campaign only – there won’t be a major lurch to the left.

    ConHome posters are beginning to understand that the Red Ed tag is a very useful one for a centrist Labour party and offers hope to a wider selection of voters. Many commentators are also writing of Ed’s ruthlessness. Tories really should not underestimate this man – he’s far more of a threat than his brother was.

  41. Alec

    I rather thought the TReasury had scotched that rumour-but who knows?

    Certainly QE is on the agenda again, and deploying it depends on the outcome of the current disagreement between those who fear inflation & those who fear deflation.

  42. @Alec,
    Re ,wearily tetchy.Yes I agree.Comments like”Innocent and inexperienced posters” do not help either.There seems to be an attitude or clique who seem to suggest that unless you have a PHD in PPE you are just cluttering
    up the site.This site has lost a great deal when it lost Sue
    Marsh,kindness humanity and a sense of humour for a start.

  43. Alec,

    Thank you for yur reply. I echo Anthony’s sentiments. How dull life would be if nobody you disagreed with, posted on UKPR :)

  44. @Mike N
    “Someone should be there to record Wayne’s lecture for reasons of posterity and accuracy.
    I’m quite happy for you to suffer on my behalf.”
    Your generosity underwhelms me!!
    :) :)

  45. “There seems to be an attitude to suggest that unless you have a PHD in PPE you are just cluttering up the site.”

    Well said Ann.

    Take no notice of them.

    Your views are as important as theirs

  46. @Alec

    ‘it would be a little incoherent for the BoE to be stimulating the economy while the Treasury is cutting spending.’

    Surely it is pefectly reasonable to tighten fiscal policy and loosen monetary policy if you feel that the mix is wrong. It is certainly true that fiscal policy has been loose over many years as witnessed by the deficit. The low interest rates have kept the price of money low but due to the collapse of bank lending QE has done little to boost the quantity of money as witnessed by the low growth of M4. The yoy rise in M4 was 1.8% in August.

    I agree that the policy would be incoherent if the purpose was to slow the economy to prevent inflation or a credit bubble. Normally both fiscal and monetary policy would point in the same direction but not when you want to reduce the fiscal deficit but not to crunch growth.

    In the early 80s the policy mix was a tightening of both fiscal and monetary policy both here and in the US. Rates were 17% and the BoE was moping up liquidity by overfunding the deficit with gilt sales.There is a different policy mix today because it is a different situation.

  47. @Alec

    Sorry should have been ‘mopping’ though the BOE may well have been moping as well.

  48. Good for you Ann

  49. @Amber

    “Rob, I think you are wrong about this. AJ got his reward. Now it’s up to him to make something of it.
    If he doesn’t rise to the occasion, he will be replaced by somebody with a strong background in economics.”

    On reflection I think you are correct:.

    If EdM can pick someone who assuages the centre right and right of the party as well as being good on economics he will do so: but I agree with you that the actual key element will be the economics not so much the party positioning.

    I still stand by the element of my point that argued AJ will lay down the foundations of EdM economic policy- and that this policy will not be able to be drastically changed by his successor (however technically qualified). So if it is Ed or Yvette we won’t get something in any way similar to Ed Balls leadership policy.

    I have to say though I am warming to this shadow chancellor decision (for however long it lasts) and the various decisions EdM has been making recently- on not feeling the need to speak to every political comment and event at the CPC; universality; accepting deficit reduction etc etc

    @Socalliberal/ Amber

    Bush as McCain?!! Oops- I think that was one of those ‘type in haste repent at leisure’ moments: my overall point (lost in that error) was the Republicans lost for many reasons (such as those SCL pointed out) and that ‘spending too much’ as @Richard was asserting, was certainly not one of them.

1 4 5 6