Tonight’s YouGov poll has voting intentions of CON 40%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%. My guess is that the underlying position is still a small Labour lead, and random error on this poll has pushed it a bit in the Tory direction much as that 5 point Labour lead yesterday was probably random error in the opposite direction.

88 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 40/40/11”

1 2
  1. @roland haines
    However, although they are currently suffering for showing courage and a sense of country above party, I applaud them and trust their sense of duty is rewarded.

    LOL -hilariously deluded. That has cheered me up.

    Roland, next May when the Liberals are annihilated can you promise to come back on with another comment like that? The demise of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is just about the only bright thing in politics at the moment.

  2. @Eoin

    Incumbency, or a reflection of the government’s ability to choose the time of the election to suit them? If they can help it, governments don’t choose to call an election in the middle of a recession, when waiting another year for the recovery will benefit them.

  3. @MIKE N
    With regard to your first paragraph, I refer you to my comment to Cosmo vis a vis some kind of continuation of Con & Lib.
    With regard to your second paragraph, it will simply come back to the success or failure of Osbourn’s economic policy. It will be no good giving money away to buy votes if we still haven’t got any. If on the other hand, the deficit position is demonstrably improved, then a few give – aways will NOT appear cynical and Labour will have a job on. If the reverse is true, then “go home and prepare for office”. You have got 4 years to find out. In the meantime, the presumed miniscule Labour lead at present, is absolutely to be expected in the light of what is being laid before the country. Sorry to be a bore, but I cannot understand why it is not a genuine 5 to 7 points.

  4. @ Howard

    “It’s all getting very evangelical this morning, apparently as a LD I have to ‘believe’ in something,”

    Is it as vague as “something” Howard?

    My impression is that they have a list of quite specific things you must believe in.

    Perhaps you should obtain a copy ?

  5. @Roland Haines
    Not sure of the point(s) you’re seeking to make.

    My post about which you commented concerned Eoin’s contention that there is an incumbency factor that works in the favour of the government.

    You may disagree with my observations but at least read and understand them.

  6. “pragmatists rule OK and how fortunate for the Tories they are led by one too.”

    Absolutely Howard.

  7. @ MIKE N
    You seem to think that I comment without reading the post I am commenting about. I most certainly do read these posts. My point is simple, either Osbourn gets it right or he gets it wrong. In one instance incumbency wont save the Tories, in the other, he wont need any benefit from incumbency to win the 2015 GE.

  8. @Roland
    I understand now.

    Certainly ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ which will decide the way many people decide to vote.

  9. Here’s a thought.

    In commenting about the gov’s fiscal plans that were announced in June to tackle the deficit, the OBR said that they might work but that events could jeopardise them. (I paraphrase, but I think thta was the gist.)

    So, is the ROI problem on aon a scale that jeopardies GO’s plans?

  10. last sentence revised:

    “So, is the ROI problem on a scale that jeopardises GO’s plans?

  11. @MIKE N
    Well he seems as if he cannot wait to help the Irish.

  12. Mike N

    I don’t think Mrs Swing Voter will have a view on that but she will notice when the price of her favourite plonk goes up in January. Is that not more of an event than lending a few of our bob to Eire by GO?.

  13. @Eoin

    Re incumbency: I’ve had a quick look at the CoI budget over the last fifteen years as a proxy for govt spending on information/advertising. There does appear to be an increase in these activities in the year before an election with a fall back after.
    All the numbers (E&OE) are in cash terms and in millions for the year ending

    96-126, 97-126, 98-110,
    99-173, 00-200, 01-295, 02-273
    03-267, 04-317, 05-343, 06-325
    07-338, 08-392, 09-540, 10-531.

    The 09/10 budget was trimmed but from a massive 08/09 figure which fitted into the average 4 year electoral pattern. The 10/11 budget is meant to come in well under £400m. What price the 2014-15 CoI budget?

    One other point is the massive increase in the CoI budget over the period. I’m not surprised the coalition is taking the axe to it.

  14. Howard
    Aye, you’re right about the plonk.

    I have no problem with the UK gov bailing out ROI. It makes financial sense to me.

    But this is the sort of ‘event’ that could derail GO’s finscal plans. They were ambitious and vulnerable to unknown events (which always occur) so ROI could be in this category.

    Whether it means anything now to joe public is anyone’s guess. But of course if it measn delays to the gov’s palns then it could further limit scope of GO and DC to say pre 2015 that we’ve turned things round.

    ROI has the potential to seriosly damage the gov’s financial creditbility, IMO.

  15. Aleksandar

    Are you taking into account inflation in that criticism. The corduroy and blow wave brigade don’t come cheap you knowt

  16. @Mike N

    ‘ it could further limit scope of GO and DC to say pre 2015 that we’ve turned things round. ‘

    GO/DC could just say that they saved the world.

  17. @Aleksandar
    But it wouldn’t be true!

  18. All this giving money to dodgy foreigners won’t be doing the Tories much good.

    To late Aleks, its already been saved twice, a bloke from Judea a couple of thousand years ago, and a bloke from North Queensbury last year.

  20. Wolf

    You’e right – I think some Tory backbenchers are against this intervention, aren’t they?

  21. @ Mike N

    The only worrying thing about the Ireland mess, is Ireland was the example of austerity GO was saying he was going to follow.

    So who the hell is going to bail us out?

  22. Aleks,

    An interesting take. I am nowhere near explaining its reasons yet. I am simply at the stage of pointing out that there is a net 11% turnaround in favour of the governing party in the 12 months before an election. I welcome your input, I am simply not in an informed position to comment on it.

    What is the col budget out of curiousity?

  23. I heard a Mr Bone MP on the issue last night and it was hilarious. He was not against helping the Irish but objected to our giving the money to Merkel so that she could pass it on. She apparently might impose less favourable conditions than we would. (I precis).

    The phobia continues. Last night I watched the football and whilst i appreciate it was just a thicko Sports reporter, he started on about Agincourt and Waterloo.

  24. @Howard

    The CoI figures are in cash terms however using the RPI data the 1996 figure of £126m translates into £185m by 2010 versus actual spend of £531m. The 08/09 rise is the really shocking one in amount and timing.

    I do think my criticism is fair. Short, back and sides for the lot of them.

  25. @Billy
    That’s a very good question. But thinking for a moment like Mr Micawber, something will turn up. Won’t it?

    Just a thought…that nce man GO is a key palyer with the IMF. Surely he’ll find a few bob from somewhere?

  26. @WOLF
    On a serious note, I think their could be some political gain for the Tories. When one considers how many Irish names there are in the phone book, it could help the Tories a bit. Most people of Irish origin are aware of it and proud of it, even if their people have been here 300 years. Of course the Glaswegian Irish and Liverpool Irish are Labour zombies, but not all Murphy’s and Callahan’s fall into those categories.

  27. Howard
    “…it was just a thicko Sports reporter, he started on about Agincourt and Waterloo”

    An English reporter then?

    I’d switched over at halftime so didn’t catch that drivel (fortunately).

  28. Aleksandar,

    To be fair the CO of I budget is not all spent bigging up the govt of the day. All these Dept of Health campaigns and road safety adverts, etc can’t really be considered to be pro-govt.

    But it is obviously not a coincidence that the spend increases pre election. I guess it still acts as a reminder for the electorate of how important the state is, which is an important message for a Labour govt certainly to disseminate…….

  29. @Howard

    Waterloo…obviously the reporter did not fully understand the role played by the Prussians who turned defeat into victory.

    Even so, it was damn close, I believe.

  30. “I am simply at the stage of pointing out that there is a net 11% turnaround in favour of the governing party in the 12 months before an election”

    Oh dear! Let us get this sorted shall we:

    **Governing Party turnaround 2009 – 2010**

    Governing Party vote in May 2010 election was 29%

    Nearest polls to one year earlier by each Polling company are:

    -YG May 8th 2009 was 27% = 2% net ‘clawback’
    -ICM May 17th 2009 was 28% = net clawback of 1%
    -Populous 10th May 2009 was 26% = net clawback 3%
    -Ipsos Mori April 19th 2009 was 28% = net clawback of 1%
    -Comres April 26th 2009 was 26% = net clawback 3%

    So for the General Election of 2010 we have a ‘net clawback’ figure across the five polling companies of a meagre **TWO** percentage points ;-)

    People had made up their minds a very long time before the election of 2010 that they were not going to vote for the Government.

    What fluctuated wildly was just WHO they were going to vote for (instead of the government).

    Hope that’s all clear now.


  31. @Eoin ‘

    From their website:
    ‘The Central Office of Information (COI) is the Government’s centre of excellence for marketing and communications.’
    I’m sorry if I confused you by writing CoI instead of COI.

    @Hooded Man

    I was using the COI figures as a proxy for govt advertising. It is the variations that I am highlighting as in theory the normal govt advertising budget should reflect inflation.

    @Mike N

    It reminds me of my favourite and very useful Russian proverb.
    ‘It happened a long time ago and wasn’t true anyway’


    ‘already been saved twice, a bloke from Judea a couple of thousand years ago, and a bloke from North Queensbury last year’

    Third time lucky?

  32. Rob S,

    What is certainly “all clear now” is that you didn’t read Eoin’s post or the analysis carefully.
    Bit of a habit developing there…….

    Go back and have another go :-)

    18th September, 2008
    “The Ipsos Mori poll of 1017 adults taken last weekend had the Tories ahead of Labour on a range of key issues ……. 52% with Labour unchanged on 24%…..”

    That’s a 28% lead. Nearly 30% as I stated..

    ….inconsistent ramblings…….as pompous as our resident know-it-all ……
    Just some examples of ROB SHEFFIELD’S offensive remarks. I’m sure others can give a lot ,ore examples.
    My question, when is he going to be put into moderation as a warning to be more polite to his fellow posters?

  34. Julian,

    I would not bother. I am a man of free speech. Inclusivity makes for greater variety. I cannot pretend to be thick skinned, I am far from it [being a mammy’s boy and all that]. But maybe a bit of roughin u will do me know harm! :) Let the man speak I say!

  35. Can people please not take discussions (or more commonly, arguments) from one thread to another – there’s a reason there is a recent comments bit on the sidebar!

    Secondly, do be civil to each other.

  36. You’re a better man than me Eoin.
    I’m happy for anyone to say anything they want.
    But Rob needs to learn to be more polite.
    Much more polite.

  37. howard & hooded

    i noticed in London that there where lots of ad’s and leaflets with “office of london mayor” logo on them. i thought it was a bit sly

  38. @ Howard

    “Well, she is of course a Republican, but i suppose that is a given for Alaska.

    Mr Miller’s tea party antics are redolent of what is happening in the Netherlands, where the right wing sudden surge is producing mps with murky pasts, one of whom has already had to resign his seat.

    UKIP had the same problem when they suddenly got people into the EU parliament.

    Our one Green is very level headed but I do wonder what would result if Greens got off the electoral floor.

    I’ve met some whacko people over the years in the environmental advocacy circles.”

    1. I think that the Democrat in the race might have won had it not been for Murkowski deciding to reenter her race.

    2. I think a majority of Republicans (nearly 100% of their elected officials) have lost their marbles. But there is still a significant minority who are similar to Tories. And they do not want to vote for wackos.

    3. Miller had his own mini paramilitary force that claimed to be campaign security. They at one point arrested a reporter who was asking tough questions. His supporters marched in local parades with assault rifles. That was on top of his already crazy policy positions.

    4. The other Senator from Alaska is a Democrat so it’s not always a given (though he only won because his opponent had been convicted of federal corruption charges and was campaigning while awaiting appeal).

    5. Do you know if the Greens in the UK related to any of the other Green parties internationally? I was once tempted to vote for a Green Party candidate for Governor but switched my vote in the end out of practical considerations (what you guys refer to as “tactical voting”).

    @ Neil A

    I’m no fan of Murkowksi but I think that her victory is a step for general sanity and some moderation. I’m also glad that the voters there were smart enough to spell her name properly and properly cast ballots. And that they were properly counted.

    There was this terrible incident in San Diego about 6 years ago where we had this very funny mayoral race. San Diego is really the last city in the U.S. where Republicans have a signifcant presence. And they had a runoff election where the mayor, an old corrupt Republican was facing off against an old corrupt Republican challenger. So this gadfly City Councilwoman, liberal hippie surfer chick Donna Frye, entered the race as a write in candidate. Amazingly, she won a plurality of votes but did not become the mayor. The final count certified her losing by a hundred votes or so. Why was this? Because thousands of voters correctly wrote in her name (even spelling it correctly) but forgot to punch in the ballot hole for “write in candidate” and thus their votes were not counted. I think it was a travesty. I’m glad that did not occur here (though I’d hate to think that Alaskans were smarter than San Diegans).

    @ Hooded Man

    You’re welcome. It is the first write in campaign to win a Senate race since 1954. Though there have been successful write in campaigns over the years in other races.

    I love that you refer to Sarah Palin as “Caribou Barbie.” That term has definitely crossed the Atlantic, my dad refers to her that way too! :)

1 2