Tonight’s YouGov/Sun poll has topline figures of CON 38%, LAB 44%, LDEM 8%. Yesterday’s narrowing of the Labour lead to two points looks like the outlier most people assumed it was at the time – instead we are back to figures very much in line with the Labour lead of about 5 points that YouGov have been showing for a fortnight or so.


307 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 38/44/8”

1 2 3 7
  1. That is quite a high % for Labour though and a low LibDem %…….is that the initial response to the changing economics of the politics….or vice versa….or maybe its all the same as they say in Ireland.

  2. Seems to reverse the trend we were seeing this week – Tory fall to Lib Dem gain. 44 v 46 ATTAD.

  3. Why have the LibDems dropped so low?

  4. Hmmm If I was Mike Smithson I’d be writing out that cheque for £1000.00 already.

  5. Liz – probably just an outlier. YouGov have had them up around 10 for most of the last week.

  6. Okay, I think 2 is the smallest ATTAD gap we’ve had from any polling firm. Does anybody disagree?
    8-)

  7. David – I wouldn’t. Mike has offered a bet based on the average across the main pollsters. YouGov tend to show the lowest scores for the Lib Dems, so they are the most likely to show the Lib Dems dropping to fourth place.

    For Mike to lose the bet the MORI’s and ComRes’s of the world would also have to show the Lib Dems in 4th place, and they often show the Lib Dems a couple of points higher than YouGov.

  8. Why have the LibDems dropped so low?

    It does seem a bit unrealistic for Labour to have a ratio of 5.5:1 to Lib Dem when there was almost parity in May (well maybe 1.2/1)

    YouGov does seem to give low LD polling. It is something to do with adding up the don’t knows.

  9. I think the LibDems look a couple of points too low and the Tories a couple of points too high.

  10. Lib Dem’s bit too low against recent trends – I’d expect a switch of 2 points between Cons and LD.

    44 for Lab feels about right – given the past weeks events

  11. aw – thanks for removing me of moderation.

  12. Wow, when it rains, it pours……at least in terms of polling. The other polls today showing big leads for Labour make me think that YouGov’s poll yesterday might have been an outlier.

  13. Labour had a 44% with YouGov in late September 2007. Before that, late April 2002. Now twice in one month.

    Conservatives hit 44% once in July and August last year, and again in October and February 2009.
    At 45% twice in April 2009, and before that consistently the mid to high forties May through to October in 2008.

  14. Billy, B

    The 2002 stuff wnet on until Aug. Cheriegate.

  15. @Iananthonyjames

    “Why have the LibDems dropped so low? ”

    Most probably as per what @GaryGatter says- namely the Lib Dems on YG are a little too low and the Tories on YG are a little too high.

    Especially in the context of the other two polls today…..

    Tonight is either an outlier or the impact of the GDP figures sinking in: in latter case ergo both governing parties down whilst Lab *up*.

    We now have a centre left at 44% -2 behind the centre right at 46% which is split between two parties.

    @SCL

    yesterdays 2% labour lead was most probably an outlier.

    Also- after the last three nights YG numbers- the Lib Dems average since January 4th (just over three weeks) is back to 9%.

    So higher than tonights 8% but lower than their double digits of the last couple of days that had raised so many hopes !

  16. Eoin – That was just from the UKPR historical polling tables (for YouGov)… maybe they are not complete.

  17. I see the government approval’s edging towards that -27 outlier, with tonight’s second-lowest -24.

  18. @Anthony Wells

    Thank you for your link to the UCL lecture on the new constituencies: it was interesting

    @All

    With the AV referendum, the new constituencies, etc, I’m trying to build up a reading list. I know everybody has (sincerely-held) opinions, but I’m interested in academic working papers/publications. This is the best I can do.

    * Department of Government, London School of Economics (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/government/home.aspx )
    * Department of Political Science, Trinity College, Dublin (http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/ )
    * Department of Politial Science, University College London (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/ http://vimeo.com/politicalscience )
    * Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS), Trinity College, Dublin (http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/ )
    * CREST-Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends (http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/ )
    * European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde (http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/ )
    * National Centre for Social Research (http://www.natcen.ac.uk/our-research-and-publications )
    * Houses of Parliament Library (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/ )
    * The Elections Centre, Univerity of Plymouth (http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/elections )
    * Constitution Society (http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/ ) Not sure about this one
    * Parliamentary Brief (http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/ )
    * Simon Hix (http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/ )
    * John Curtice (http://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/politics/staff/curticejohnprof/publications/ )
    * Michael Thrasher (http://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/elections/elections/staff/staff_mthrasher2.htm )
    * Colin Rallings (http://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/elections/elections/Staff/staff_crallings2.htm )
    * YouGov (http://today.yougov.co.uk/ )

    Has anybody got any others?

    Regards, Martyn

  19. @Anthony Wells

    Thank you for your link to the UCL lecture on the new constituencies: it was interesting

    @All

    With the AV referendum, the new constituencies, etc, I’m trying to build up a reading list. I know everybody has (sincerely-held) opinions, but I’m interested in academic working papers/publications. This is the best I can do.

    * Department of Government, London School of Economics (h ttp://www2.lse.ac.uk/government/home.aspx )
    * Department of Political Science, Trinity College, Dublin (h ttp://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/ )
    * Department of Politial Science, University College London (h ttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/ h ttp://vimeo.com/politicalscience )
    * Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS), Trinity College, Dublin (h ttp://www.tcd.ie/iiis/ )
    * CREST-Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends (h ttp://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/ )
    * European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde (h ttp://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/ )
    * National Centre for Social Research (h ttp://www.natcen.ac.uk/our-research-and-publications )
    * Houses of Parliament Library (h ttp://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/ )
    * The Elections Centre, Univerity of Plymouth (h ttp://www.plymouth.ac.uk/elections )
    * Constitution Society (h ttp://www.re-constitution.org.uk/ ) Not sure about this one
    * Parliamentary Brief (h ttp://www.parliamentarybrief.com/ )
    * Simon Hix (h ttp://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/ )
    * John Curtice (h ttp://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/courses/politics/staff/curticejohnprof/publications/ )
    * Michael Thrasher (h ttp://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/elections/elections/staff/staff_mthrasher2.htm )
    * Colin Rallings (h ttp://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/elections/elections/Staff/staff_crallings2.htm )
    * YouGov (h ttp://today.yougov.co.uk/ )

    Has anybody got any others?

    Regards, Martyn

    eyecatcher

  20. Martyn,

    A favour if I may….?

    As you know I am pro-Av.. .

    I would ask that you bear in mind that about 45% of Labour MPs/MEPs/Peers/MSPs are also…

    We are campaigning for a yes vote.

    I understand that it is easy to get swamped under with the anti-AV sentiment among reds on here.

  21. Billy B,

    I’ll find out.. Aug/Sept 2002 is ringing a rather large bell but I am aging so memory doesnt seem to be what it used to be..

  22. YG figures back to ‘normality’. My pending concerns about YG’s reliability for accuracy now banished.

  23. Eoin – here is another Red (party member) who will vote for AV (and I think Rob as well) regardless of the impact at the next GE as I support in principle mainly for the opportunity it gives voters to support a minor party with first preferences.
    Actually I am an STV multi-menber supporter but AV will do for now.

  24. This rather puts the 2% lead into perspective. Labour possibly a bit too high here but you do get the feeling that there has been some distinct movement since Coulson, and there might be more as the fuss over the GDP figures come through.

    The government is really being assualted on multiple fronts now, and they have largely lost control of the news narrative. This morning we’ve got the independent King’s Fund debunking of the case made for NHS reform. The UK improvements in heart attack outcomes has been so fast we’re going to overtake France in 2012, and it’s a similar story with breast and lung cancer. In fact, completely contrary to Tory claims, the story of the NHS has been one of huge improvements over the last 15 years or so that are still continuing.

    The polling was always going to get very difficult with their chosen path on deficit reduction. Where I am surprised, and I suspect the Tories will be shocked, is just how difficult it’s going to become for them in areas where they have created self inflicted wounds.

  25. In other words, Alec, it’s not the cuts per se, it’s the bolted on less state, more privatisation ideology.

    The NHS reforms are a major mistake. It (rightly or wrongly) looks like both a broken promise and a non-money saving tampering. The very opposite of no “top down” reorganisation.

    Coulson is a bonus for the opposition, but Murdoch was always going to be an issue sooner or later.

  26. This may seem like a stupid first comment but here goes –
    If the coalition fall one point (either party) and Labour increases their share one point then they are equal. Obviously.

    So here’s my question –
    Has there been any point in recent UK history where the opposition has polled equal to/higher than the other two parties?

    So when Labour were in power, Tories being higher than combined Lib/Lab.

    Just wondering if it’d be a historical first.

  27. Jim,

    Yes STV would be much more preferable but that is the equivalent of demanding a date the Charlize Theron when all that is on offer is a date with either Anne Widdecombe and Cheryl Cole :)

  28. Tinged F,

    In Aug 2008, blues where whipping yellows & reds combined.. Interesting question tho’

  29. Green benches

    How did the Tories lose that sort of lead? Did it go to Labour or the Lib Dems?

    Or a bit of both?

    The more I think about it, the more extraordinary it is that Con did not get a majority last year. Does this mean they cannot ever? Is that why they are reducing numbers of MPs and changing the boundaries?

    Otherwise they will always be in coalition or opposition.

    (“Always” being for about ten/fifteen years or until things change, obviously)

  30. NicK Poole,

    I am very reluctant to get into such debates for there is always certain to be different takes.

    Mine simply out of politeness is that Incumbent parties claw back voters and election day looms. You also wish to supplement that with a bit of unforseen Cleggmania.

    As a general rule if your party eeks out fanstic polling socres in silly season, there are to be treated simply as a moral boost.

    For me, Oct/Nov polling Mar/Apr polling are the two seasons where I take the biggest heed of what the figures actually say…

  31. Tingedfringe

    This may seem like a stupid first comment but here goes –
    If the coalition fall one point (either party) and Labour increases their share one point then they are equal. Obviously.

    Welcome to commenting by the way. It’s not a stupid comment but it does include a very common misconception. The ‘big three’ Parties are not a zero-sum game.

    Firstly they can lose votes to ‘minor’ Parties. In the last few months UKIP have picked up a couple of points, mainly from the Conservatives and Greens an extra point, mainly from the Lib Dems. This means ‘Others’ are currently in the 10-12%, a bit higher than usual at this time in the electoral cycle.

    But more importantly, the ‘big three’ can just lose votes. Disillusioned voters start to appear as ‘Don’t Know’ or ‘Would Not Vote’. This is significant because eventually these people will go back to their original choice (with varying degrees of reluctance), switch to a different Party, or continue abstaining. Conversion directly between Parties happens less than is often thought.

    This is important for politics itself, because it shows that politicians can’t rely on the mistakes of others (either in government or opposition) to get people to vote for them. They have to present an attractive and plausible alternative.

  32. ‘IANANTHONYJAMES
    Why have the LibDems dropped so low?’

    Because many of its supporters refuse to eat with the devil.

  33. The LDs were 11% just over three years ago… Traditionally yellos sink after an election when their exposure drains. It remains to be seen whether people come flocking back as 2015 approaches. I have my own views on whether or not that will occur but I do not wish to air them.

  34. TGB

    I’m not sure that tradition still operates now that LDs are in the UK Government.

    In any case, it always seemed to me to be unwise to see the LD supporters as a monolithic group.

    The commonality of interest between LD voters in Sutton and Sutherland must be very small.

  35. OdN,

    Of course yellows are not homogenous… but then homogeneity is scare in a Liberal democracy…. I am red becasue of my devotion to the underclass.. I couldnt give a hoot about PFI, pro EU, Consumer choice blah blah blah..

    I suspect in Scottish Nationalism you have cultural nats eg shinty Gaelic etc… then you have economic NAts.. gimme back me oil.. you have quite potentially religous nats of the Presbyterian Stornoway mould… [I’m surmising here].. and of course you probably have your politcal ideologically motivated nats..

  36. TGB

    We’re back to the multi-dimensionality of politics! Every party has huge variation of opinion on matters that aren’t its core position on it’s core dimension.

    The difference between the LDs and (probably) every other party is that it isn’t transparent what their core position is and on which political dimension it lies.

    The voters in leafy Sutton are hardly likely to be enthused by the Crofters Party base of the LDs in treeless Sutherland, nor those in Sutherland by the Orange Bookers of Sutton.

    Hence why Charlie Kennedy (though not Tavish Scott) could probably salvage a significant portion of the Highland LD vote in May, if he positions the Scottish party as more radical than Labour.

  37. OldNat,

    There is a song called the “four Face Auld Clock”. I think it describes the LDs very well.

  38. Anthony,

    I just saw You Gov’s poll of world leaders Brits would like to lead their own country! :) The comedy value is enough to make one double over in pain laughing.

    2% think Hugo Chavez for example…

  39. Council election:

    Winchester City – Olivers Battery and Badger Farm: Lib Dem 894, C 604, Lab 162.
    (May 2010 – Lib Dem 1,615, C 943, Lab 162).

    Lib Dem hold.
    Swing 3.8% Lib Dem to C.

    I wonderif they are the same 162 Labour voters both times?

  40. Andy Murray has moved along the Brit-ometer away from the Scot to the Brit.

    Wonder if he can become a fully fledged Brit in the final or slide back to mere Scot-ishness?

  41. Nick Poole

    Don’t be silly. According to your NHS, he’d have to start saying crocerdile to be a Brit! ;-)

  42. @TingedFringe

    Look at historical polling (on right of page) for 1992-97

    Labour was already enjoying a 20% lead over Tories when Blair became opposition leader.

    There were moments during that parliament when the Labour lead over Tories and Lib Dems combined was at 25%.

    No wonder Cameron would like to be ‘heir to Blair’.

  43. Billybob – be very careful looking at polls from 1992-1997. Many of the pollsters had not yet corrected the errors of 1992 and were still grossly biased towards Labour. The best thing to do is to ignore everyone except ICM (who reformed their methods comparatively swiftly) for 1992-1997.

  44. @ Éoin

    Obama 1st seems sensible, though. He’d be my pick. But I’d also quite like Putin heading the UK for a few months because then the Russian people might get back some of their assets which were appropriated by the ‘oligarchs’ when that numpty Yeltsin was supposedly in charge.
    8-)

  45. Contrast the 3% growth in the States for the last quarter with our own “flattish” snow affected performance.

    Interesting to compare austerity (Eire & UK) vs growth (US) and see who gets out of the mire and who continues to sink.

    I’m very much afraid we will be the sinkers.

  46. Can we have Castro?

  47. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about Labour’s approach to the May council elections.

    Harriet Harman was suggesting that safe Labour seats are probably very safe at this time & resourcing the South of England effort would not be a waste.

    Methinks she’s been looking at YG polls :-) which show – albeit in the caveated crossbreaks – that Labour & the Tories are pretty much neck & neck in the ‘Rest of the South’.
    8-)

  48. Nick Poole

    I don’t think that’s constitutional. He didn’t go to Eton.

  49. Amber

    Surely the South of England is quite well enough resourced as it is, without Harriet giving them even more.

  50. nick poole

    the 3% growth in the US is dodgy numbers

    the jobless rate is still zooming up

    interestingly they are blaming the unemployment increase on

    can you guess

    yep thats right

    SNOW!

1 2 3 7