YouGov – 41/40/10

The first YouGov/Sun poll since the spending review has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%. It’s the smallest Conservative lead for a week or so, but there’s no massive change from the pre-CSR polls – no collapse or increase in Tory support – nothing, in fact, that couldn’t be normal variation within the margin of error. What is notable is the Liberal Democrat score: 10% is the lowest YouGov have ever recorded them, the last time any pollster had them that low was 1997.

Naturally YouGov asked a large number of questions on the spending review itself, which I’ll post about later once the Sun release them.

I don’t know if there are other polls tonight – Channel 4 News said a poll tonight would have the Lib Dems at a 20 year low. Clearly this shouldn’t apply to this poll, YouGov haven’t been around for 20 years, and it’s only 13 years since another pollster had them on 10%. That said, it could just have been human error.


106 Responses to “YouGov – 41/40/10”

1 2 3
  1. chris D

    what does this mean

    “non.partisan”

    we seem to have lost our way

  2. Neil A
    As a greenie, I am more annoyed about the hundreds of cars than the rest of your evidence!

    The Dorset Police HQ at Winfrith is in the middle of nowhere (a nature reserve) only reasonably accessible by car and their other office is on some bypass, also in a nature area, near Wimborne….

    Don’t get me going on police pensions. Our local bobby is serving in a local shop earning ‘a bit extra’ having retired on a royal pension as well at an age that most of us would describe as ‘young’. Examination of the Dorset police budget reveals that more than a third of costs are pensions and…………………….

    I am sure you do a great job my friend.

  3. @Julian,

    You don’t have to be a red to want to sack those bankers!

  4. Neil A
    11.11
    Strong post

  5. Ken,

    If companies paid a decent living wage, then taxes could be cut as currently the tax payer props up the wages of millions of people via tax credits.

    In essence, the tax payer subsidises the wages of cheap skate employers.

  6. @Neil A
    I’m glad to hear it.

  7. The result in Oxford Barton & Sandhills was a Labour hold.

    LAB 74% (+31)
    LD 23% (-5)
    CON 8% (-15)
    Others 18% (+12)

    But turnout was down from 57 to 27… I guess many blue and yellow stayed at home. Even red scored 400 less actual votes

  8. @Howard,

    I am under no illusions. My pension is one of the best in the world for mere mortals. I fully expect to have to pay a bit more into it. The rest we will have to see.

    As for retirement ages, that’s changed a little. The new pension scheme requires 35 years service. As very few officer join before they’re 21 that means retiring at 56. That’s a lot older than most policemen in the world (and older than most workers in France and Greece full stop!)

    Just consider this. It’s night time, you wake to find two burglars are downstairs in your house armed with knives. The police react immediately and send a 55 year old man and a 56 year old woman, both unarmed, to help you out…..

  9. Garry K,

    I understand your reasoning on low pay, but the problem is globalisation. If pay were increased for jobs that are exportable, the employers would simply move them offshore, thereby decreasing our tax take and increasing our benefits bill. Tax credits and other working benefits are effectively a subsidy by the state to keep employment in the UK. It’s not so different to the £50m bungs the government gives out to inward investors to chose Sunderland over Stuttgart for their new factory.

  10. Sorry… got that all wrong… it was a LAB gain in Oxford. Carry on.

  11. Sacking bankers doesn’t help anyone, apart of course, those with an axe to grind. At the moment the banking sector is booming again, most of the benefits of this recovery go to the Treasury and UK pension funds, and of course, benefits recipients, if we shaft the banks we cut off our nose to spite our face. I work in the banking sector and never cost the economy a penny, in fact my company has paid an increasing amount of tax every year for the last 16yrs, every penny of that tax is a result of trading outside the UK, so it’s net revenue. I will keep working in the face of an irresponsible and uninformed opposition, I feel sorry for people who’s mindset is so negative.

  12. neil

    we had someone come into our house in the middle of the night once, the missus woke me up and i ran down the stairs, and terrified the young lady standing in our hallway, as she hid her eyes behind her hand i realized what was troubling her, in my haste i had forgotten my clothes

    i’m not sure that it would work as a police tactic

  13. Neil A,

    I haven’t done the maths, but perhaps the sum lost by a Company paying a bit more wage wise could be taken off business rates or other business taxes perhaps.

    Globalisation affects some sectors, but I am talking about fast food workers and Care Assistants for instance. You can’t send your Granny to India for her dementia care!

  14. garry K

    You can’t send your Granny to India for her dementia care!

    why not?

  15. LutonPete

    But turnout was down from 57 to 27… I guess many blue and yellow stayed at home. Even red scored 400 less actual votes

    Whether you win 1-0 or 10-0, you still only get 3 points :-)

  16. @Richard in Norway
    “i’m not sure that it would work as a police tactic”
    —————–
    But it may work as the ultimate deterrent – who needs Trident?
    :)

  17. Garry K

    “Whether you win 1-0 or 10-0, you still only get 3 points”

    Which is exactly what @lutonpete would have said had the result gone to his liking ;-)

  18. @Ken – “How can the people that crashed the economy have any credibility when it comes to rebuilding it, the total denial of responsibility puts me in mind of a drunk in a car crash.”

    Not quite sure – are we talking about the last government or the bankers here?

    @Richard in Norway – “what does this mean
    “non.partisan”
    we seem to have lost our way”

    Don’t worry – Anthony is silently circling like a great white, ready to break surface and take chunks out of any unsuspecting partisans.

    On the last thread he did such an efficient job on one poster that the man disappeared entirely. Not a scrap left.
    Swim gently.

  19. @Alec…………….You must know that bankers, never, get drunk. :-)

  20. One thing I’m puzzling about is the fact that while Osborne is busy taking billions out of the economy to reduce the deficit, he has given the BoE the green light for another round of quantative easing should the economy turn down.

    While QE doesn’t appear on the government deficit, it still represents money that needs to be repaid at some point. What I find interesting is that we’ve got potentially two significant macro economic influences working in diametrically opposite directions.

    If there is a need for more QE, why don’t we just delay some of the cuts and save a little bit of hassle for punters, rather than pursue cuts that in turn make QE more likely and end up with the same team pulling on opposite ends of the rope.

    It’s one I’m trying to get my head round, but intuitively to my mind something doesn’t seem right about this.

    On the polls, I have said for a while now that Clegg is in much bigger trouble than he thinks, Attacking the IFS is pretty desperate and makes him look poor, in my view. But it’s a side show – I really think Clegg has unwound 20 years os very hard work and the result will be a third party that is irrelevant once more. It could be decades until they are respected and trusted again.

  21. Eoin
    On the Scottish poll, the figure for over-60s supporting snp was high and I believe that is due to the tax-freeze promise. labour is the strongest party amongst the young and has its most intense support anongst younger adults ie mums and dads.

  22. Lib Dems?
    A tory mp I noted yesterday referred to the great service the Lib Dems were doing as the tories nuclear shelter. We seem to have moved on from sheilds

  23. alec

    i was just going to bed, but then you mentioned a subject that i’ve been dying to talk about

    QE

    i have heard on the radio several officials from developing countries, really having a go at QE and low interest rates, which they say is fueling an asset price bubble, one complained about the fed creating “hot” money and another went so far as to describe it as “toxic money”

    is it really the case that our stimulus measures do nothing for us while at the same time destroy other economies

    i think i heard that some of them have began taxing money coming into their country! in an effort to keep it out!!!

    your take on this

  24. i have to go to bed now

    goodnight all

    alec

    i look forward to reading your reply tomorrow

  25. @Alec “Clegg has unwound 20 years of very hard work and the result will be a third party that is irrelevant once more. It could be decades until they are respected and trusted again.”

    How relevant is a party without power? Their post-war contribution as a party (but not as individuals) has been pretty much negligible.

  26. @ Alec

    One thing I’m puzzling about is the fact that while Osborne is busy taking billions out of the economy to reduce the deficit, he has given the BoE the green light for another round of quantative easing should the economy turn down.
    ——————————————–
    If the QE goes ahead, it becomes clear that the cuts are ideological.

    And this part of the reason the AJ was a decent choice as chancellor. Whilst an economic high flier would leap to his feet yelling: “Ha! QE = QED”, AJ will know that the average person is simply baffled by QE.

    He will find a way of questioning it that resonates with the public. 8-)

  27. If the Tories were going to get a bounce from the CSR announcement it was in its immediate aftermath (i.e. in the early post CSR polls). The fact that this doesn’t appear to have happened must, I suggest, be a little worrying for them. Most budgets and detailed financial announcements, initially well received, unravel slowly over time and I sense that a good deal of the measures in Osborne’s announcement will start to curdle under the media spotlight and this will be reflected in opinion polls over time. If I was Miliband, I’d be quietly pleased with the initial polling reaction, thinking that this might be as good as it gets for the coalition and that, over time, Alan Johnson’s initial line of attack, relatively detail free but politically adept, will gain traction over time.

    As for the Lib Dems, this is starting to look like the slowly unfolding political nightmare that was largely predicted for them. If ever there was a lose-lose situation in politics, then they’ve discovered it!

  28. @ Neil A

    I understand your reasoning on low pay, but the problem is globalisation. If pay were increased for jobs that are exportable, the employers would simply move them offshore…..
    ——————————————
    You missed my comment about low cost economies, then. They don’t exist. Wages in China & India are being kept artificially low by manipulation of currency & killing of domestic demand to prevent the inflation that would see the wages of semi-skilled & skilled workers rise to the same as in US & Europe.

    President Obama will have this resolved, or we will see the end of globalism & the reintroduction of capital controls & trade barriers within months, rather than years. 8-)

  29. You can’t send your Granny to India for her dementia care!
    —————————————
    Nor can you throw her off a bus. ;-)

  30. With this sort of polling LD’s would lose 75% of their seats(!) Nick Clegg really needs to somehow get a “yes” vote through on the AV referendum or else they are heading for real problems. Also like some others I am struggling to see much evidence of LD influence on the cuts.

    An election result like this would be very much like the 1st 1974 election, Lab and Cons within a handful of seats, and LD unable to supply enough to get either an overall majority.

  31. Neil A

    The average 50-odd year old is in much better shape than their equivalents fifty years ago or whenever the current police retirement regulations came in. If the same isn’t true of those in the police, then we are in trouble. Even more relevantly the demands of the job are very different from when the police’s job was mainly seen as keeping order and it was set up as, literally, a paramilitary organisation.

    Actually what really annoys me is that, yet again, a whole generation of officers will be booted out at an age when they would be assumed to be at the peak of their profession in any other job. The more effective and careful ones will no doubt be first as all that trying to do things right does so spoil the esprit de corps. Then the taxpayer will be paying for them at great expense for another forty years (because pensions are another budget and no one’s responsible for it).

  32. You can’t send your Granny to India for her dementia care!

    No, but you can bring India to her in the shape of doctors and, more numerously, the Philippines in the form of nurses and care assistants. Some care homes here now have an almost entirely Filipino staff.

    It’s partly the result of cut backs in training under both Tories and Labour and the academicising of nursing (which has now stopped being one of the few forms of advancement available to working-class women – and some men – looking for a career long after leaving school). But it’s now become an easy way of getting good staff without having to train or, even worse, pay decent wages. Yet again individual businesses benefit and the country picks up the welfare bill.

  33. @Alec

    This is my take on your QE dilema. The apparent inconsistency between spending cuts and another round of QE occurs because normally you would use both fiscal and monetary policy working in the same direction to either grow or contract the economy. In 1979 fiscal and monetary policy were both tightened to control inflation by slowing the economy.

    Our current fiscal policy is and has been expansionary as evidenced by the budget deficit. Even though we’ve had low interest rates monetary policy has been tight as evidenced by the year on year growth in M4 for September of only 0.9%. Even with the previous round of QE broad money is barely growing due to the contraction in bank lending. On this analysis the fiscal/monetary policy mix needs to be rebalanced so spending cuts are tightening fiscal policy while QE will be used to loosen monetary policy.Normally cutting rates would have boosted bank lending and hence broad money but this hasn’t happened.

    In our current situation there is every chance of another round of QE unless the banks start lending again. QE would also keep sterling weak which appears to have been the policy for a few years.

    @Amber

    I don’t think that another round of QE confirms that the cuts are ideological. It just means that there needs a rebalancing of a loose fiscal policy vs a tight monetary policy. IMHO.

  34. @ Aleksandar

    I don’t think that another round of QE confirms that the cuts are ideological. It just means that there needs a rebalancing of a loose fiscal policy vs a tight monetary policy. IMHO.
    ———————————————–
    But it does – because it is the tight fiscal policy that is driving the need for looser monetary policy.

    Normally cutting rates would have boosted bank lending and hence broad money but this hasn’t happened. Why? Because there is no demand. Why is there no demand for money? Because every business & every individual is retrenching because of the cuts.

    So the government will create more money & pass it the banks to lend; but they have nobody to lend it to. Therefore they will invest it (or gamble with it, depending on your point of view). And what will they invest it in? Land, property & shares are all looking iffy. My guess, commodities. So everything you buy with your fiscally frozen income will increase in price as the banks take a further skim from every commodity (fuel, food etc).

    Stagflation looks more likely with every action that GO takes. There is no economic justification for the path he has chosen. It is either ideology or stupidity that has driven his choice. 8-)

  35. @ Amber Star

    “You missed my comment about low cost economies, then. They don’t exist. Wages in China & India are being kept artificially low by manipulation of currency & killing of domestic demand to prevent the inflation that would see the wages of semi-skilled & skilled workers rise to the same as in US & Europe.

    President Obama will have this resolved, or we will see the end of globalism & the reintroduction of capital controls & trade barriers within months, rather than years. ”

    That’s an interesting theory and I haven’t heard it before. Most of the pro free trade advocates I know have simply argued that outsourcing exists because business regulations are too strenuous, wages too high, taxes too high, and evironmental standards too stringent.

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s anything Obama can do to resolve this.

    “Normally cutting rates would have boosted bank lending and hence broad money but this hasn’t happened. Why? Because there is no demand. Why is there no demand for money? Because every business & every individual is retrenching because of the cuts.”

    I agree. That’s why it’s vital in times like these for the government to spend the money to keep the economy moving. Or in the case of the 08′ financial crisis, to keep economies from collapsing.

    “Stagflation looks more likely with every action that GO takes. There is no economic justification for the path he has chosen. It is either ideology or stupidity that has driven his choice.”

    If the large deficit is helping the UK economy recover and grow, then the large deficit is doing its job and will drop. What I don’t understand from many right wingers who push their economic ideology is this one-size-fits-all approach to managing the economy. One-size-fits-all doesn’t work for clothing, why on earth does anyone assume that this will work for the economy? There are times when the government needs to cut back and deficit cutting helps the economy. There are other times when the government needs to go out and spend money.

  36. A 1% Tory lead after the cuts.
    It looks as though the left are lashing out like a cat with sharp claws, while the right are grimacing but taking the medicine.

  37. I am with Amber if fiscal policy was looser QE would have to be reduced to get the current balance, basic economics.
    As such the Tories are making an ideological choice they are entitled to make having gone to the GE with this policy, if not spelt out in detail but understood by all.
    The LD’s are suffering beacuse they have been judges inconsistent, one of AJ’s best lines that Nick Clegg discovered Greece between Thursday and Sunday after the GE.
    In summary grudging respect for the cons even from opponents but little for the LDs.
    Their mantra that it would have been harsher without us is not being heard even though there is some truth in it.

  38. @Starchief – “How relevant is a party without power? Their post-war contribution as a party (but not as individuals) has been pretty much negligible.”

    Over the last 15 years they have been very slowly gaining ground and have been increasingly in power locally and regionally. Their increase voter support has also meant the other parties began to ape their policies.

    Influence is about more than just holding the reins of power. Lib Dems had a distinct brand and voter appeal, even amongst many who didn’t vote for them. Now Clegg has made them just like all the other politicians and this is what they won’t recover from.

  39. Just to remind everyone, I predicted C37, L43, LD10 by Sunday. I also said NC and DC would become defensive quite quickly.

    VI may not quite get to these figures, but they will be close methinks.

    This morning NC’s attack on the IFS has received a lot of coverage. Makes him sound defensive, desperate and crazy.

    Has he forgotten that the OBR recruited Chote from the IFS? Doh!

  40. @ Ken.

    Excellent posts Ken, I hate the biased BBC reporting and the totally negative attitude of Labour and its followers. Amazing You Gov figures considering all the negativity at the BBC.

  41. I’m still expecting a poll showing Lab in the lead by the end of the weekend.
    Wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a YouGov poll with LDs in single figures.

  42. @Aleksander – “The apparent inconsistency between spending cuts and another round of QE occurs because normally you would use both fiscal and monetary policy working in the same direction to either grow or contract the economy.”

    That’s rather my point. Clearly there is a need to loosen monetary policy but with base rates at 0.5% there is nowhere to go, yet we are tightening fiscal policy at the same time. It is inconsistent.

    @Richard in Norway – here goes.

    There is no question that QE is creating global stresses, which is why I fear another round. The way this has been done is to pump vast sums of money into the financial sector which has then sought the best return, and with western interest rates on the floor it has gone to places like Brazil and India.

    It’s been good for the banks, but as Amber points out, as our real economy is very shaky it hasn’t translated into more credit here and it is really hurting the recipient countries as their currencies rise and choke off their exports. There is real anger about QE overseas – effectively it is exporting the pain and the west will start a devastating currency and trade protection war if they continue to rely on this tool.

    I think it is illuminating the way QE was done. It was organised via the banks, partly to help repair balance sheets, but with no regard to the real economy. Governments re wrote the rules when they did this – why didn’t they make a rule that QE was invalid if exported, to keep the cash in the home economy? Because they still suffered from the illusion that markets know best.

    Better still, instead of buying £200b bonds from the banks in exchange for cash, why didn’t they take £200b of the mortgages of the least well off and trade them for cash? This would have gone into bank balance sheets anyway as the mortgages were paid off and left real people with a better life and the economy with a huge spending boost – just what it needed.

    As it is, we’ve helped the bankers to greater profits, harmed other countries economies and failed to do much for our own, and now the bankers turn round and expect us to take their pain.

    I see no macro economic difference in pumping money into the economy via banks or via real people – except that in the latter case, real people would have spent much moe of the money within the UK and it would help prepare them for the inevitable hit as fiscal policy eventually tightens.

    It’s symptomatic that all eyes in government looked to the financial sector and the simple idea of helping the little people overcome the mistakes of the bankers just wasn’t considered. So what if a bunch of completely undeserving householders gained a small fortune from QE? Better than the bankers being rewarded for utter incompetance.

  43. A few weeks ago I said that I would cease referring to the government as the coalition and instead start referring to it as the Con gov.

    So, I’m pleased to have just read a piece by Andy Burnham in The Guardian where he says: “This is a Tory government in which Liberal Democrats have accepted jobs.”

  44. I recommend Andy B’s article.

    He says: “…the Lib Dems have failed to nail down promises made to them by the Tories in post-election talks – promises that have been Clegg’s fig leaf for staying in the coalition.”

    h ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/21/ruthless-tories-chewed-up-nick-clegg

  45. An article on the Inside Housing website says:

    “Councils in London are arranging to move local housing allowance claimants into accommodation as far away as Hastings, following cuts to housing benefit confirmed in the comprehensive spending review.

    Families with children would be forced to remove them from school, and those claiming housing benefit as an in-work benefit would lose their jobs as a result of moving so far away, Mr Minto warned. “

    h ttp://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/councils-to-move-lha-claimants-out-of-london/6512167.article

  46. @Roger,

    I know people always say this, but you really can’t equate policing with the majority of other professions. The core job of policing involves a variety of tasks that need to be done by people who aren’t pushing 60, whether it’s driving cars at 140 mph, leaping over walls and fences, sprinting down alleyways, fighting toe-to-toe with drunken hoorays on a Friday night.

    There used to be a whole range of policing jobs that didn’t require you to be young and healthy, from station office reception, to control room, to “Home Beat”, to preparing court papers, to Crime Prevention.

    For decades now it has been thought cheaper and more efficient for those “non-frontline” tasks to be carried out by civilians. That’s fine, but it means that the police officers themselves are increasingly pushed towards the physical tasks that remain in their remit, with literally nowhere to go if they get ill or injured.

    A good example was when Condon arrived in the Met, bringing his “tenure” policy with him from Kent Police. Basically he wanted to do away with career CID officers, and he ordered that all detectives had to go back to uniform after five years.

    One colleague of mine, a lifetime detective of above average ability, was ordered to return to uniform. He was in his late 40s, and suffered from a “frozen shoulder” (ie he couldn’t lift his arm above his waist). This had no impact at all on his role as a detective on a child abuse unit, but it made him “unfit for service” as a uniformed officer.

    The Met decided to force him to go back to uniform, and then retire him on ill-health because he wasn’t fit for duty as a uniformed officer. It was only the timely arrival of Sir John “That’s Ridiculous, Change It Now” Stevens as a replacement for Condon that saved his career (and the taxpayer a fortune).

  47. Mike N,

    This morning NC’s attack on the IFS has received a lot of coverage. Makes him sound defensive, desperate and crazy.

    The reputation of the IFS for being Independant is well known. They happily put the boot into Labour, so are obviously not biased.

    Nick’s reputation, may I politely suggest, is some what diminished, given the compromises and U turns the LDs have taken since joining the coalition. His approval ratings back this up.

    I don’t think he has chance of winning this one…

  48. @Neil A – “…. Sir John “That’s Ridiculous, Change It Now” Stevens….”

    I still remember Sir Robert ‘It’s About the Width of a Couple of Pedestrians’ Mark.

    In my youth, that became a standard unit of measurement, alongside ‘an area the size of Wales’.

  49. @Garry K – I think the attack is ill advised, but the coalition are in a tough position. They have nailed fairness to their own mast, but if it is seen as untrue they are in trouble, none more so than Clegg.

    I can’t quite get his line of attack, but he seems to be implying that if you take the narrow definition of the policy announcements the IFS is correct but that broader improvements will stem from these in terms of jobs, social mobility etc, that will be more progressive.

    This reads rather like an acceptance that the measures themselves are regressive but that the hope is things will get better.

    I’ve just heard a teaching assistant from Morpeth describe how the pupil premium will help her school, but it will be less than reductions in other budgets and so she is being laid off. I think Clegg will struggle to sell this as ‘fair’.

  50. The figures are up, and if you subtract the 21% who didn’t know or wouldn’t vote, it actually works out at

    Con 40.5%
    Lab 40.1%
    Lib 10.0%

    Now, this is imprecise, but every other time I’ve used this method,. it’s shown the Con’s were above the figure prescribed to them (labeled 42, they’d be 42.4 etc) , and the Lib Dems were always close to it (in the cases were they were 11, they’d often be 10.7) but from the figures there, the Cons scraped their 41% and the the Lib Dems earned decisively their record low that is 10%.

1 2 3