The full tables for YouGov’s Sunday Times poll are now up on the YouGov website here.

The questions on the spending review have results very much in line with YouGov’s poll straight afterward Osborne’s announcement – time to digest newspaper reactions and an extra day’s new coverage don’t seem to have changed opinion as they sometimes do. 43% thought the announcements the government made were right, 43% wrong, 45% thought they went too far, 43% thought they got the balance right or didn’t go far enough (33% and 10% respectively). 51% thought they were unfair, and 45% continue to blame the last Labour government the most compared to 17% blaming the coalition.

One notable change from last week is to perceptions of who will suffer most from the cuts. A week ago YouGov found that 48% thought middle income households would suffer the most, ahead of low-income households on 35%. Presumably this was the result of the child benefit announcement and, perhaps, the tuition fees announcement. This week YouGov repeated the same question and people saw the poorest as likely to suffer the most by 48% to 36% (only 6% think the rich will suffer the most).

Looking at the polls on the spending review as a whole there seems to be a pretty coherent pattern. People are either evenly divided or positive about the cuts themselves, evenly divided over their size, and continue to see them as both unavoidable and more the fault of Labour than the Conservatives. However, they also tend to see the way the coalition have carried them out as unfair, and expect the poor to suffer more than the rich.

On other questions in the YouGov poll, the majority of respondents supported the decision to protect the NHS and schools from cuts, but opposed the decision to protect international development. 70% expect to be worse off from the changes.

There was little sympathy for the BBC – 48% thought the freeze on the licence fee and the end of government funding for the World Service got the balance about right, 31% thought the BBC should face larger cuts, with only 13% thinking the cuts went too far.

There is a continuing appetite for banker-bashing. We asked people if they thought George Osborne had succeeded in getting right what he called the balance between making the banks pay their share and not driving them abroad. Only 5% thought Osborne had gone too far, 31% thought he had got it right, a majority (52%) thought he had not gone far enough and taxes on banks should be even higher.

There was also a BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday. The quoted shares of the vote in the paper are CON 35%, LAB 37%, LDEM 10%… but this implies others at 18% which would be a sharp contrast with other pollsters. In the past the Mail on Sunday have published figures from BPIX that weren’t repercentaged to exclude won’t votes, so this could be the case here, meaning all three parties are actually higher. BPIX don’t publish tables so we’ll never know.

349 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times post CSR poll”

1 5 6 7
  1. ERNIE
    If boy B has the basic intelligence to do what boy A has done, it is still unlikely that he will achieve it, agreed.
    However, throughout my life time ( I am currently 64,) such a person could have used his talents to get to a redbrick. From there a very distinguised career should await. This chap will probably not catch EtonBoy in one life, but his son could go on and achieve anything that EtonBoy Mk 2 achieves. If EtonBoy Mk 2 is a raving coke head the poor family now made good will overtake them. All without any help from a politician.

  2. Re: Eoin and the Deficit deniers.

    I remember, when I was a little girl after a primary school history lesson, trying to get my head around the idea of putting people in to the debtor’s prison until they had paid their debts.

    It seems to me that the parallel is clear. Increasing unemployment decreases the country’s tax revenue, and so without increasing any spending, the structural deficit will get larger. In fact, the structural deficit left by the last government was largely due to tax receipts falling after the recession caused by the banks. Therefore, the only solution to reducing the structural deficit is to increase tax receipts either by reducing unemployment through growth and/or by progressive taxation of the most wealthy and the banks.

    I am also aware that the structural deficit after WW2 was 2x the present deficit, and to date I haven’t felt the need to fret over it! I believe that the IMF also said that the UK could borrow as much again without being at risk from a sovereign debt crisis … partly because only 30% of gilts are financed from foreign lenders. The interest paid to the remaining 60% is recycled in the form of British pensions paid out by the pension companies who hold the bulk of government debt.

    Ed Balls, Krugman, Stiglitz etc seem to me to be much more likely to have got it right than Mr Osborne who,prior to the GE, was repeatedly rated by the city as being less competent than Vince Cable or Darling. In that sense, I am certainly a ‘deficit denier’.

  3. @EOIN
    If a man from Godalming, ate fat filled pies, smoked 50 fags a day and consumed upwards of 100 units of alcohol every week for 35 years, he to could die at 54.

  4. John F,

    It is a question of principle I guess, and you seem resolute in yours! God will return to you before your dying day – be sure of it.

  5. @ Roland

    Labour think they can control these things, they cannot.

    When the going gets tough the tough get going.

    Lab had sapped our strength for 13 years by making us believe that we could live the life of Riely without having to lift a finger to pay for it.

    Lets hope there is enough bulldog spirit left in us to give is the backbone once again to be the great nation of free, self sufficient and happy individuals that I believe the majority of us want ot be, instead of the comatose subservient enslaved masses that Gordon Brown envisaged.

    Again all in my opinion,

  6. Forgive me- my understanding of economics is pretty basic.
    I read that the govt is planning to pump millions into the economy. So called atquantitive easing.
    Won’t this increase the deficit at the same time as the country is going through all the pain to reduce it?.

  7. @ Eoin
    God will return to you before your dying day – be sure of it.

    Since he or she was never there for me there is no question of a return. At 4 years old I was thrown out of my frist and only Sunday for questioning the obvious contradictions in waht I was being taught. Much to the shame of my parents

    While at Sandhurst I fell out at every church parade and had the privildege of a a personal Seargent Major driiling me for the 1.5 hours of the service in order to make me tow the line.

    Whos God will come to me? Yours or someone elses? So many Gods so little time.

    My wife is a devout catholic and I have absolutley no problems with that so I am not anti God per se. Its just not for me. Ill manage on my own thanks.


  8. RE : Fairness

    It has never existed and never will. Even communism isn’t fair. I ram home to my kids “life isn’t fair” the idea is to make them resilient to events, to strive to achieve their ambitions and goals. I always say that you should hurt no one along the way (unless they hurt you or your family) and succeed by your own abilities.

    Always treat others as you would be treated yourself. My mate has always said “my life mantra” will just make me a walkover. He’s wrong. You will always get the benefit of the doubt from me but cross me at your peril.

    Now the role of the state, should in my opinion, be to support those at the bottom to provide opportunity, not those in the middle they should fend for themselves.

    The key phrase is provide opportunity, if people choose not to take it, provide a safety net, not opportunity after opportunity. People just learn to expect.

    You can’t deny survival of the fittest its just the way of nature and will override everything else.

    You can help people to help themselves, you should do no more for adults.

  9. @SYZYGY
    Its really uplifting to think that we only owe half as much as we did when we had fought Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan for 6 years. And by the way still in colossal debt from round one in 1914 – 1918. Well done Labour !

  10. @ Simplesimon.

    Re Fairness.

    Bloody brillaint post. :D :D :D

  11. @DAVID B
    I think it would be fair (since that is so important) to point out that Blair/Brown inherited a tiny smidgin more of financial stability than Cameron/Osbourn.
    Furthermore, the sound judgement, attempts at fairness ect were also very important to people in the 1950s. The main difference is that many people then, had known through no fault of their own, what real hardship was.

  12. valerie

    “Usually they did, but I can remember my manager cursing when the school phoned and rather pointedly asked her to collect her child as she had a temperature and a cough.
    Would this constitute ‘feckless’ parenting?.”

    no it would constitute feckless management

  13. The definition of Socialism used to be,’ Put all the money in a pile and share it out equally, then, when I’ve spent mine, put all the money in a pile……..! That’s fair. :-)

  14. During the 60s, in between spliffs and navel gazing, my teacher friends seemed to spend most of their time complaining about how unfair everything was. The breakthrough for them came when some American educational ‘guru’ sold us the idea that kids should focus more on their ‘creativity’ ,and, ‘express themselves’, school sports days in state schools, became ‘creative time’ with no winners and losers, all in the name of ‘fairness’. Fast forward and check out the UK today.

  15. Well, let me repeat something I posted @ Colin & let’s hear the screech of Tory posters’ brakes being applied.

    David Cameron, Osborne, Clegg etc CHOSE to engage on fairness. They could’ve said, it’s indefinable or life is unfair or whatever.

    They didn’t. They spoke about the budget & the CSR as being FAIR. So it is up for political debate, it is a valid KPI & you blues are just going to have to suck it up. ;-)

  16. Blimey, I’m amazed at how ill-informed some of you Tories are about what reds believe in.
    You all seem to think we go around slapping each other on the back calling each other comrade, that we think the only way to solve problems is to throw money at them and that everyone should have exactly the same as each other, regardless of intelligence or ability.
    Stereotypes dear boys. (I think you’re all boys here at the moment).
    Have you never heard that it’ a good idea to try to know your enemy if you want to defeat him??

  17. Simplesimon

    “It has never existed and never will”

    It’s too simple a word.

    On it’s own, it describes an entirely subjective concept-so we will all tend to translate it as “fair to me & my family”.

    If we try& fill it out a little, we could add “equal”-fair & equal.
    I think this is what many on the left really mean by “fair”-eg it is “unfair” for one person to have financial assets, and another to have none….thus the solution is redistribution of wealth from those who unfairly have too much to those who unfairly have too little.
    Equality of opportunity is not achievable. Competition in life always leaves some behind and so the State must compensate them & make them as equal as possible.

    If we try another tack we could add “reasonable”-fair & reasonable.
    This is how many on the right mean by “fair”.
    eg It is fair that the State help those in financial & social distress, but it is reasonable that they be encouraged to help themselves as much as they can.
    Equality of opportunity is the objective ,rather than equality of wealth, which is neither achievable nor desirable.
    Competition in life drives social mobility, and the State provides a safety net those who get left behind.

  18. Such has been the power of the Lab spin machine, backed up by the chattering priviledged classes, press et al, that the centre left have hypnotised the electorate into believeing that the holy grail of politics is “Fairness”.

    Since my first post about it a few hours ago on this site a few think that it is at best a nebulos and incoherent and undefined aspiration whereas most agree that it is undefinable and unacheivable.

    Not one left wing thinker has come up with any response apart from Eion who quoted Laby Thatcher, of all people.

    Fairness to the electorate is like a cuddly spring lamb. When times are good and your belly is full you will welcome it as a pet, When times are hard you will serve it up with mint sauce and gravy.


  19. The breakthrough for them came when some American educational ‘guru’ sold us the idea that kids should focus more on their ‘creativity’ ,and, ‘express themselves’, school sports days in state schools, became ‘creative time’ with no winners and losers, all in the name of ‘fairness’. Fast forward and check out the UK today.
    At his first school sports day, my son was winning his class race by a long way. Then he stopped to wait for the rest of the kids to catch up. When one fell over, he actually ran back to pick him up & check he was okay.

    Fast forward in your imagination & think how the world could be, if that was they way to ‘win’.

  20. Amber

    “David Cameron, Osborne, Clegg etc CHOSE to engage on fairness. They could’ve said, it’s indefinable or life is unfair or whatever.”

    They could-and should have said ….” and this is what we mean by “fairness”.

    And before you get too holier than thou, it behoves EM & his team to define what they mean by “fairness” before using the word.

  21. @Amber

    Last week I wanted DC to say to Em, “Life it fair, get over it. i’m sure your brother has”

    IMO Fairness is completely the wrong word and definition to attempt.

    Opportunity and safety net were the correct phrases. The middle classes need to be weened off their CB and CTC.

    And before anyone talks of privilege or money I may have, I was raised on council estate in Redcar.

  22. Fairness isn’t nebulous. It’s about meritocracy.
    Most people, left and right, would agree people should be judged on merit. Most people would agree that if our industry, economy, politics, defence, health, education etc etc etc were run by people who were in their positions due to their merit, all of those things would be run better.
    Reds believe we can only have a true meritocracy if we provide equality of opportunity.
    That’s fairness.
    BTW, the survival of the fittest is a massive simplification of Darwin’s theory. Animals cooperate just as much as they compete.

  23. @ Colin

    And before you get too holier than thou, it behoves EM & his team to define what they mean by “fairness” before using the word.
    No, he doesn’t – The Coalition need to define, we get to criticise the definition. Opposition is a comfy place to be. ;-)

  24. @Amber

    My daughter has done the same, she waited for the rest of the class to catch up and they walked over the line together. I was very proud.

    There is a difference between choosing to do something because you can and been forced to do it because someone else’s ideology thinks you should.

    If I work hard, I am clever, intelligent, do a good job earn money as a reward. Should I give up my earnings for others not prepared to the same ?

  25. @ John Fletcher

    Every year 1-3 million people die of malaria in sub-saharan Africa

    Many people (particularly Africa) don’t have access to clean water and die of easily curable diseases

    In some Asian countries young children are prostituted as the only source of income

    Slavery still exists in many regions of the world

    36 people will die this year in a car related accident

    1 million people will die this year by killing themselves

    Some children right now are being abused by their parents, families, or others.

    In the time it’s taken me to write this over 100 people have died of hunger.

    So yes, life isn’t fair. But you know what I say? Life (or God) you can go f*ck yourself.

  26. @Simple Simon/Amber
    I hope my son turns out to be as nice as your children obviously are when he’s older. ;)

  27. @ Julian Gilbert.

    Reds believe we can only have a true meritocracy if we provide equality of opportunity.
    That’s fairness

    Individual A is born with an IQ of 85.

    Individual B is born with an IQ of 170.

    Whatever social engineering you put in place to make their opportunities equal (or fair) you can’t chnge the inevitable outcome.

    Your meritocracy argument cannot not hold water.

    Individal A with an IQ of 85 will porbably strive with all of their might to succeed and still fail to do so.

    Individual B could be as lazy a sin but probably succed because they have the smarts to do so.

    Meritocracy, fairness they are all just the same.

    And THET DO NOT EXIST in the real world.

  28. Royalty or zillionaires aint any fitter than I. I am smarter, more physically capablr, and more resourceful than them. And yet their wealth dwarfs mine. That aint survival of the fittest, that’s surivial of the luckiest. A businessman who makes exhorbient profits at the expense of poorly paid employers or ripping off his customers aint survival of the fittest, it is surival of the greediest. Those men who gain promotion due to their gruff overbearing, machismo and the expesne of an equally competent femlae, whom on average earns 16% pay is not survival of the fittest, that is survival of the chauvantistic. A women or child who is succumb to abuse by a phyically more capable man, is not failure of the weakest, it is abuse of those who wield power.

    In short, what a load of crap those than think they were lucky, greedy, cruel or chauvanistic actually got where they are due to fitness. Half of them have guts that would make Henry VIII shudder. Where is the humanism among these people?

  29. @Amber Star…………Your son’s school sounds like an ideal place to train as a social worker……! :-)

  30. @Billy

    And thats why I choose to give a proportion of my salary to various charities every month, and why I support our international aid budget increases……

    Its also why I have little sympathy for the people propping up the bar all day, with skysports at home and a foreign holiday all subsidised by the state, complaining they are poor and how life is so hard. Perspective.

    What about this?
    Individual A is born with an IQ of 85.
    Individual B is born with an IQ of 170.
    Individual A is born into a good family and inherits everything from Daddy when he’s 18 and he goes on to run a bank which he does so badly that the taxpayers have to bail him out.
    Individual B is from a poor working class family, can’t afford to go to university so he ends up wasting his abilities and doing a job well below his ability.
    We all lose out.
    Governments can and should do something about both of those things. IMHO

  32. @Billy,

    And if the UK put its money in a pile with sub-saharan Africa, then shared it out evenly, ten years later we’d be in poverty and millions of people would still be dying of malaria and starvation.

  33. With Amber’s social workers and Éoin’s communism we have all we need to grow the economy out of the hole that Labour got us into. :-)

  34. @Julian,

    I haven’t actually seen much evidence that banks are run by upper-class dunces (any more). More like greedy lower-middle-class wideboys who are smart enough to screw the system for a fortune.

  35. @ Eoin

    it is surival of the greediest.

    You speak the truth.

    The two most powerful emotions (outside a Darwinian and illogical love for you immediate family) are.

    FEAR and GREED.

    We might not like it, and we might all wish to rise above those most basic instincts.


    When the going gets to tough ?????????

  36. @Eion

    Your correct, none of those things are right. There is difference between abusing a situation.

    But into all of that about values ? Acceptable values.

    Although I’m a righty I have morales and values and I hope others do as well. I see those things as morale values.

    No one is saying we abandon those people, but to avoid a culture of dependancy.

  37. @ Julian Gilbert
    Governments can and should do something about both of those things. IMHO


    Thats life.

    Its not fair. Life is not fair and never will be and governments cant change that.

    Deal with it and move on.

  38. John F,

    When the going gets tough, the bulk of humanity club together. There are certainly countless examples of it. Don’t make the mistake of equating the greed of mongrels at the top for decency of us much lower down the ladder.

    My partner’s aunt ran in to diffuclty paying her mortgage. In typical ‘keep up with the Jones’s’ mentality she hid it from teh world until she was on the brink of being reposessed. I witnessed unemployed plasterers, bricklayers, young privates in the army, unemployed window salesman, chimneybuilder, housewives and even the aunt’s children, all club together to clear her arrears. This deed was done by people who could not afford the generosity they committed to.

    I would give you the last shirt off my back, if I thought you needed it, as would I suspect the majority of Britain. That is not survival of the fittest, that is the triumph of humanity. So pen a song to that, and play it on your Gee Tar :P

  39. Naughty step could be crowded any time soon. :-)

  40. @John Fletcher -“Thats life. Its not fair. Life is not fair and never will be and governments cant change that. Deal with it and move on.”

    That must mean you don’t believe in a meritocracy then?
    That’s some admission. ;)

  41. We certainly seem to have strayed into the Mother Lode of Left-Right differentiation!

    No good can come of this I fear so I’ll sit it out and wait for the new thread on tonight’s oddly conflicting new polls.

  42. @Eoin

    Re your 8.09pm post – very, very well said. I have rarely read a post on here I agree with more and summarizes why, although very comfortably off, I can never bring myself to vote for the blues..

  43. Well said Neil A. I am writing up a post on the new polls now, rather than spending time going through this thread and pruning it properly. If I get time, I’ll go through later and put some people who should know better on pre-moderation.

    Anyone who wants to continue the discussion really doesn’t know how to take a hint.

  44. @ Julian Gilbert
    That must mean you don’t believe in a meritocracy then?

    Of course I dont believe in meritocracy.

    It is an unachievable illusion.

    No one really judges people for what they are really worth

    and if you need any examples try X Factor


  45. @ Eoin

    I would give you the last shirt off my back, if I thought you needed it,

    I wanted to start a discussion about the meaning or defention of fairness since it seems to be the only standard by which the media and the politicians want to judge the defecit reduction.

    It seems I have succeded. :D

    Devils advocate EH.!!!

  46. Phew. I was about to send off a rocket, then I saw AW’s words of wisdom!

  47. @ Antony

    Sorry about my last post 8.46. Crossed with yours about pulling my horns in.

    Lips are now sealed.

  48. @ Neil A

    Yeah, I understand what you mean – but its the general… I don’t know, the whole *shrug* ‘c’est la vie’ attitude that I can’t stand.

    @ SimpleSimon

    Someone supporting international aid? Heh, that makes a nice change :)

    @ John Fletcher

    Five years ago my IQ was 90. Six months later it was 133. IQ is a horrendously poor measure of intelligence and was never designed to measure intelligence in the first place.

    @ AW

    Forgive me this last post – it’s my final word on the subject.

  49. Anthony,

    Apoligies, I am normally more restrained, next time I feel like that, I’ll get up and go for a run, rather than retort. No excuses.

1 5 6 7