After four days without a GB voting intention poll (which suddenly seems like quite a long time!) we’re back into the normal cycle. Topline figures for the daily YouGov/Sun poll tonight are CON 36%, LAB 41%, LDEM 10%.

UPDATE: The poll also asked about AV. Adjusted for likelihood to vote and excluding don’t knows and won’t votes, NO now has a 18 point lead, 59% to 41%. The change from YouGov’s previous AV poll is only minor, but it suggests the NO campaign are consolidating that big lead that opened up last week. Conservative voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to AV (by 82% to 18%), Lib Dem supporters remain overwhelmingly supportive (84% to 16%) and Labour voters remain split almost straight down the middle (49% pro, 51% anti).

Full tabs are here.


358 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 36, LAB 41, LDEM 10”

1 2 3 4 5 6 8
  1. National Debt fell as a proportion of the size of the preposterous asset bubble it was being measured against. When that bubble burst, National Debt instantly rocketed because it was being measured against the “real” economy that was left.

  2. Eric, do you think that is an acceptable amount saved for 10 years of good economic conditions. No me neither.

  3. Eric,

    Further to Neil A’s answer…

    Labour’s debt figure excluded PFI debts, the public sector pension debt and the state pension debt.

    From 2002 onwards, Brown was also borrowing near to the EU ceiling, despite strong economic growth and much increased taxation.

  4. @Raf and Phil

    From EM’s website: 18th August 2010.

    ‘There are 10 key mistakes that the Coalition government has made in these first 100 days:

    1. Harsh cuts to public investment which go faster and deeper than needed and will damage the economy, risking a double-dip recession.’

    Is that predicting a double-dip or just covering all possibilities just in case? If there is a double-dip, I warned you. If not, I never actually predicted one.

  5. Phil

    You think that’s news?

  6. Steve

    Points relevant to the discussion are relevant in more than one place.

    For example Iain Grey’sbehaviour in Ardrossan is strangely reminiscent of Subway in Glasgow

    http://news.stv.tv/election-2011/245397-asdagate-alex-salmond-and-iain-gray-accused-of-hiding-from-each-other-during-supermarket-visit/

    and should be seen everywhere. :-)

  7. @ERIC

    “But UK National FELL from 43% of GDP to 37% of GDP between 1997 and 2007 – it only went UP during the financial crisis, as it did in every other major industrialised nation”

    Your last statement is wrong-because of the time frame you chose.

    This was the record :-

    From a peak deficit of £50bn in 1993, annual deficits declined & ceased in 1997, following which surpluses were generated by a growing economy for four years to 2001

    This reduced Total Debt/GDP from 40% in 1997 to 29% in 2002.

    Then-from 2002 to 2007, spending funded by deficits which totalled £195bn-(during a credit fuelled boom-) took Total Debt /GDP back up from 29% to 37% .

    When the crash came, Debt/GDP rocketed for the reasons Neil explained.

    I repeat-GB Spent, Taxed AND Borrowed for six mad years.

  8. Oldnat,

    How is that article relevant to anything here?

    Leave your irrelevant and incessant SNP campaigning elsewhere.

  9. Steve

    And your post to Phil was what exactly? :-)

    I’m at least giving exposure to the other side of the debate.

  10. Phil,

    – “slightly premature triumphalism”

    Huh? Triumphalism?? Pointing out that a candidate is now 10/1 is hardly the same thing as saying that he is actually going to win it. That remains highly unlikely. T’would be funny though!

    And quoting Wikipedia?!? Err… you do know that any old idiot can (and often does) write that stuff. Don’t you?

  11. Colin,

    Budgeting deficits after 15 years of continuous growth is perhaps Gordon Brown’s most amazing achievement. Then again, being a weak chancellor is easy; being a strong chancellor is hard. The finances during the 1945-1973 expansion were far more impressive than the 1992-2007 expansion, which is rather depressing.

  12. 1. @Jonn
    Maybe the FT thought growth of 1.2% appropriate due to the allegedly exceptional factors that lead to the -0.5% figures in Q4.
    0.5% is not normally terrible for.a Quarter. However, neither is it evidence of sustaonable growth. The Government needs real and substantial private sector growth to reduce the deficit and offset public sector unemployment. There is no evidence of that – yet.
    RAF
    I understand why FT suggested the 1.2%. But a glance at quarterly GDP figures shows that since 1980 whenever a negative quarterly GDP growth figure was followed by a positive quarterly growth figure the largest next quarter growth has been 0.5%. Normally it has been lower. Obviously I am not checking why the negative growth in the first place and whether a corresponding rational is a similar exceptional factor.
    It is only in the 60’s and 70’s that we see a big increase in growth following a negative quarter – but note that in the main the previous quarter negative growth has been exceptional large whenever an exceptional positive growth has occurred. Thus, again ”recent” historical data would suggest that the growth number should not have been surprising and is slightly better than data would have suggested. Again, I am purely looking at numbers and not pontificating on possible factors and whether good or bad.

  13. @DavidB – “… the ‘image value’ of politeness and good manners.”

    Given that polling has for the last five months shown the electorate favouring Labour over Tory it might indeed be politic to tone down the rhetoric of constant denigration and misrepresenting the record of Labour in government.

    Even though Gordon Brown may have been unpopular it is not wise to publically insult one’s predecessor.

    Btw is it true that (in contrast to Major and Thatcher) Brown and Blair have both been left off the guest list for Friday – or is this just mischief on the part of the Telegraph?

  14. Nasty No2AV ad at the top of the page. “Want PR? vote No2AV” Remember the last time that happened. Me neither – it was 80 years ago. That went well then.

  15. Billy Bob

    Are you propounding that as a general principle that Labour itself should follow?

  16. BB,

    – “is it true that (in contrast to Major and Thatcher) Brown and Blair have both been left off the guest list for Friday – or is this just mischief on the part of the Telegraph?”

    Yes. It is (amazingly) true.

    The most preposterous reason I’ve heard is that Thatcher and Major are Order of the Garter, but Brown and Blair are not.

  17. Thanks for that nugget SD (and to Old Nat for cracking wise).

  18. Latest poll = Tories & Libs have oredictable intentions re AV & that Labour voters are split 50:50.
    The Liberals must have realised from the beginning that they would need massive Labour support to get AV through & yet in the last 12 months they could not have done more to alienate Labour voters if they had tried. Their tactics have been woeful. Csmeron’s recent arrogant outbursts are only made possible by Liberal misjudgements. The Libs have popular politicians & elder statesmen, Kennedy, Hughes, etc. They might as well be on the other side of the moon. Cable has made a belated appeal for a progressive Lib-Lab alliance: bit bloody late mate!

  19. @ BT

    Please explain to me how joking about someone losing their job … or claiming that the job they are about to lose was not worth doing anyway … is funny?

    And also how that doesn’t break the spirit of the comments policy.

    Let’s keep the discussion to polls, polling and analysing politics.

  20. @COLIN
    Oh dear Colin, your are still in deficit denial, denial. Debt is good and the last PM was a genius. Its just that we are to stupid to see the light.
    Looking at the guest list so is Her Majesty.

  21. @ Adrian B

    “Please explain to me how joking about someone losing their job … or claiming that the job they are about to lose was not worth doing anyway … is funny?”

    Well said.

    Re double dip – Ed Miliband may or may not have predicted it, but the Daily Telegraph doesn’t seem to have much doubt:

    ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8476464/Britain-on-the-edge-of-a-double-dip-recession.html

  22. @ Eoin

    “A Tory election victory in 2015 moves a little closer”

    Maybe. But one thing I’ve noticed from looking at UK elections is that how the economy is doing is not always a decisive factor in an election. See, e.g., Harold Wilson’s loss in 1970; Tony Blair’s landslide win in 1997. I also think that if economic growth figures continue on this trajectory, running on the economy might not be the best campaign strategy of the Tories.

  23. @ADRIAN B
    You are clearly a Municipal Broken Biscuit Repairer / Outreach Officer yourself. I am so sorry if my inappropriate ( I bet you love that word) comment, rang true. Similar sentiments to Aberdeen Angus.

  24. @ Aleksandar

    You are right about the financial flows between the different sectors of the economy. But I don’t think the corporate sector would easily give up much of the cash surplus – not even in dividends (the credit crunch was a harsh lesson and they can hedge inflation). The capital outflow is a serious issue – could happen (at a larger scale).

  25. As to the debate of the reasonable GDP quarterly figure (and it’s related to the FT opinion): the whole question is whether the last quarter drop is considered as a for ever lost output. The government had the opposite narrative in their PR – hence their problem today with the first quarter figure. If it’s forever lost, then the first quarter figure is acceptable, although certainly not roaring.

    Oh, by the way, even BBC talks about -0.5% today for the last quarter of 2010. Wasn’t there a downward revision to -0.6?

  26. Bit worrying on the breakdown of those who’re sure on how they’ll vote in the referendum vs those who’re unsure.

    47% oppose AV.
    28% for AV.
    13% Unsure.
    14% Don’t Know.
    (I realise this does add up to 102%, but I would guess there’s some rounding of numbers going on in the yougov figures).

    That still means No only have to win a tiny fraction of those undecided to win.
    Yes have to pull off a spectacular victory to win.

    The last few days will be based on how well the Labour Yes team can convert Labour voters to the Yes side.
    Which may explain why suddenly the Liberal Democrats have become virtually silent about Labour and wildly anti-Tory.

    On the GDP figures – not sure on them.
    Not great but not terrible either.
    Only Q2 will tell.

  27. As Colin rightly pointed out earlier the use of different cut off points (in the contexts of the national debt), it is true for employment as well.

    Public sector, just as the private sector, tries to stagger redundancies – for example, a volunatary sector organisation I’m familiar with had a 55% cut and they started the lay offs, but it will reach the full scale only next March.

    And, by the way, the government is throwing a bit of money around to ease the cuts (aptly called transitional funds) in the sector. It will stretch the redundancies and closures in the sector over a longer period – no doubt with the hope that things will change. It’s not a bad policy, by the way, except that the criteria of the allocation of these moneys are rather unclear.

  28. @Eoin – “A Tory election victory in 2015 moves a little closer

    1. Employment climbed 156,000.
    2. Unemployment fell 17,000
    3. Inflation fell 0.4%
    4. Retail sales climbed 0.3%
    5. Trade gap closed £1bn
    6. Deficit came in at £141bn, £5bn lower than expected
    7. PMI is still comfortably over 50
    8. Service sector growing again
    9. Mortgage books in healthy state after record repayments
    10. Nationwide shows a 0.1% rise is house prices, suggesting decline in prices is halting/slowing
    11. George Osborne cut several pennies off petrol which helps ease inflation
    12. BoE keeps interest rates low
    13. Spending 2011-12 is to be £10bn higher & £7bn PFI than stated in CSR
    14. The banks [ eg. Barclays] the oil companies [eg. BP] and the grocers [eg. Tesco] are all making profits
    15. 0.5% growth in Q1 – 2011”

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Eoin, you’re no economist.

    Tesco’s profits – largely stagnant in UK, growth all from overseas.
    Higher govt spending – largely through higher interest payments and benefits uprating due to higher than expected inflation – not a good thing.
    Record low interest rates – not a good thing – merely confirmation that the BoE sees the economy as flatling so dare not raise rates, despite inflation running at 4% + – really, really not a good thing.
    0.1% rise in huse prices – pretty disastrous, given the falls in prices and especially if you strip out the impact of top line housing in London. Virtually all the rest of the housing market is declining.
    Inflation down 0.4% – ‘pon my sole, cutting prices when input price rises are running at record levels (yes, that’s record levels) means nothing more than suppliers desperately squeezing margins as the consumer economy is so weak they can’t raise prices – a really, really bad sign.

    lets be fair – at best, it’s a very mixed picture, with most independent commentators seeing things more on the down side than the up at present. If you were so biaised in your use of statistics in your academic career then your writings and research would be worse than useless.

    For example, you could have chosen to select figures than show advanced orders for manufacturers falling for the last two months, lending to businesses falling by over £3b last month (that is a really bad sign by the way), Amazon profits tumbling by 30% in the first quarter or the UK export economy being badly damaged by shut downs at some of Europe’s largets car plants.

    The Tories may well win in 2015 – who knows – but it won’t be anything to do with the (mainly) very poor (and extremely selective) economic data you’ve just quoted.

  29. @ Old Nat

    “Someone from England will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think theere was a period when the racist far right hijacked the English flag, and mainstyream England allowed them to do so.

    On my more recent visits to England, i’ve been glad to see their flag much more commonly displayed, and it seems to have been reclaimed by “ordinary folk”.”

    Well I’d never heard of this before and never seen it. In fact, for a long time, I didn’t even know there was a seperate English flag. I remember being with a group of high school students one day in England almost 10 years ago visiting a castle in England and I saw this flag I’d never seen before. And I was confused because I only knew the flag of the United Kingdom, when someone explained to me that the flag was the English flag. I’ve since learned that there’s a Scottish flag (and that the Union Jack is a combination of those two flags plus the Northern Irish flag).

    Considering that David Cameron flew the English flag outside 10 Downing Street in honor of the English team in the World Cup (and lots of mainstream politicians of all political parties pose with the English flag), I have very strong doubts that the flag connotes any kind of racism.

    I have no doubts that Anglophobia is non-existent in the U.S. If it was, I doubt that the royal wedding would get so much news coverage.

  30. @OldNat

    “You think that’s news”

    The electorate in Yorkshire and Humberside is only 5% or so less in size than that in Scotland, so yes, I think a 12% post GE election Con to Lab swing there by March 2011 is news. And the sample size was 3372 in Y&H. Just trying to bring a sense of perspective to what sometimes feels like Scottish Polling Report.

    A LD to Lab post GE swing of 19.5% in the South West is likewise news, on a sample size of 3387.

    You’re showing remarkable restraint. I don’t really think of Scotland as a region.

    @Stuart D

    I will nonetheless join you in some slightly premature triumphalism given the prospect of next week’s maturing investments on the SNP in Caithness, Skye, Aberdeenshire W, Edinburgh W, Galloway (a tasty anti-Con weighted arb), and possibly even NE Fife and Orkney, all taken out before the odds shortened dramatically. The only exception is the investment in Mid Fife and Glenrothes which was a case of head over heart (but 6/4 now in to 1/25 sweetens the pill), rather like your “No” wager.

  31. SoCalLiberal

    I wasn’t commenting about Anglophobia – just what I understand has happened with the English flag.

    I’d have thought Francophobia was commoner in the USA – that’s all the thanks they get for freeing you from King George’s oppression!

  32. @ Stuart Dickson

    “Yes. It is (amazingly) true.

    The most preposterous reason I’ve heard is that Thatcher and Major are Order of the Garter, but Brown and Blair are not.”

    Is this for the royal wedding? It doesn’t surprise me and frankly it’s not a big deal. First of all, the royals are right wingers and they probably don’t want any left wing “working class riff raff” (I’m quoting Basil Fawlty here) coming in to ruin their wedding. I mean, why else did Michelle Obama get left off the invite list when Nancy Reagan was invited to the 1981 wedding? They only want people there who they like. And can you blame them?

    In any case, I don’t think it’s a big deal. You have a marriage of two people who are extremely unimportant in the scheme of things if not completely irrelevant (aside from their ability to boost the tourism industry).

  33. @ Old Nat

    “I wasn’t commenting about Anglophobia – just what I understand has happened with the English flag.

    I’d have thought Francophobia was commoner in the USA – that’s all the thanks they get for freeing you from King George’s oppression!”

    Oh I know you weren’t commenting on that. I was just pointing out what I found myself in the middle of.

    You are right about Francophobia though that seems to be on the decline fortunately. And yes, it’s not a very nice thank you. :)

  34. @Social Liberal
    “It’s not a big deal”.

    It is for me, if only one of symbolism, which sometimes matters a great deal. The figurehead of the whole nation, or just the privileged part of it? Definitely a wake up call. If someone proposed abolishing the monarchy upon the death of the Queen, I’d now be all for it.

  35. @Alec

    Your post much earlier on the (lack of) growth stats was spot on IMO.

  36. @socialliberal

    Old Nat is right about the English flag.

    Prior to Euro ’96 you rarely saw an English flag because it was (rightly or wrongly) associated with the National Front and its spawn such as Combat 18 and the BNP.

    The increased use of the Scots and Welsh flags post-devolution has helped rehabilitate the Cross of St George. We may not be allowed a parliament but at least we now can fly a flag!

  37. @ Phil

    “It is for me, if only one of symbolism, which sometimes matters a great deal. The figurehead of the whole nation, or just the privileged part of it? Definitely a wake up call. If someone proposed abolishing the monarchy upon the death of the Queen, I’d now be all for it.”

    You know I used to think Britain was backwards for still having a Queen and a royal family and emphasis on royal events. But today I’ve had the realization that most people in Britain don’t go around debating whether your leaders were actually born in Britain and demanding to see their birth certificates. This puts you guys at least one step ahead of us. :)

    I would take my analysis with a grain of salt, I tend to be snarking with some of my analysis on these things. I looked at their guestlist and they are inviting a number of people who don’t fit the privileged criteria: the left wing feminist atheist Julia Gillard and her unmarried cohabitating hairstylist partner, the erstwhile Alex Salmond who doesn’t want to recognize the Queen, Elton John (he’s gay and proud), and of course the atheist, ethnically Jewish, left wing Ed Miliband and his unmarried partner.

    I think the real reason for not inviting Michelle Obama were not a negative reflection on Michelle but a realization that she’s such an international figure, she would wind up taking away attention from the bride and groom. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the tv show Bridezilla but I think that people generally don’t want anyone at their wedding who will upstage them (intentionally or not).

  38. ALEC

    Thought your reply to Eoin was masterly. Enough said.

  39. @ The Last Fandango

    “The increased use of the Scots and Welsh flags post-devolution has helped rehabilitate the Cross of St George. We may not be allowed a parliament but at least we now can fly a flag!”

    Well that’s the first step! :)

    There are very few flags I associate with racism (even if racists use them as their symbols). The two I would associate with racism are the flag of Nazi Germany and the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy. But that’s it really.

  40. @SoCalLiberal Where do you get the: “Alex Salmond who doesn’t want to recognize the queen” bit? You might want to do a bit more research on the SNP position on that.

    While the SNP seems quite comfortable in their big tent with republicans such as Roseanna Cunningham, I believe that OldNat can confirm that there is no such SNP policy. Leaving the UK would not necessarily involve “recognizing the queen” and rumor has it that Salmond and the royal family are on quite friendly terms.

    And back to the subject of polls, I hear there Weber Shandwick has a new Poll of Polls out. Anyone have any thoughts on it?

    I saw in the Press Association that it puts SNP on 45% of the vote in constituencies, ahead of Labour on 34%, the Conservatives on 10% and the Liberal Democrats on 8%. For the regional vote, the SNP leads on 40%, with Labour on 33%, Conservatives on 11%, the Lib Dems on 8% and the Greens on 6%.

  41. @ Alec

    “Record low interest rates – not a good thing – merely confirmation that the BoE sees the economy as flatling so dare not raise rates, despite inflation running at 4% + – really, really not a good thing.”

    This brings up an interesting point for me. I was talking to a former boss of mine the other night about the economy and the budget brinksmanship the GOP was engaging in with Obama. He suggested to me that the reason that major spending cuts were needed right now were because without them the bond markets would start to worry because of future interest rate increases. He argued that the only reason for the current economic recovery in the U.S. was because of low interest rates. The massive deficit would thus hinder the markets and create a double dip recession.

    Interest rates in the UK as you’ve pointed out are very low (they’re low in the U.S. right now too). This got me to thinking though. If high deficits are bad because they stunt economic growth through high interest rates, does that mean we should be engaging in massive spending cuts right now? If the interest rates are low now, should the fact that deficit spending could go higher be our main concern?

    One other thing. Obama has instituted a pay freeze for all federal employees (many are unhappy with this) but we have not had massive layoffs of federal workers (at least not yet). Cameron and Osbourne have cut a huge number of government employees. Now I saw a study posted that showed that if the 54% of all Americans were employed, the current massive deficit would disappear (of course the same study noted that there was not enough job creation to allow that to happen). If this study is right (and I’m not an economic expert), wouldn’t this mean that cutting government employees would actually be counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction?

  42. SoCalLiberal

    I have no idea what Salmond’s personal views are on the monarchy, but you are totally wrong to say that he “doesn’t want to recognize the Queen”.

    He has never argued a republican stance. He has argued that the question of monarchy is a total irrelevance as to whether Scotland should be independent or not.

    Lizzie will be Queen of Scots (her successors Kings of Scots) until the people of Scotland decide otherwise in a referendum.

  43. @ JR Tomlin

    “Where do you get the: “Alex Salmond who doesn’t want to recognize the queen” bit? You might want to do a bit more research on the SNP position on that.

    While the SNP seems quite comfortable in their big tent with republicans such as Roseanna Cunningham, I believe that OldNat can confirm that there is no such SNP policy. Leaving the UK would not necessarily involve “recognizing the queen” and rumor has it that Salmond and the royal family are on quite friendly terms.

    And back to the subject of polls, I hear there Weber Shandwick has a new Poll of Polls out. Anyone have any thoughts on it?

    I saw in the Press Association that it puts SNP on 45% of the vote in constituencies, ahead of Labour on 34%, the Conservatives on 10% and the Liberal Democrats on 8%. For the regional vote, the SNP leads on 40%, with Labour on 33%, Conservatives on 11%, the Lib Dems on 8% and the Greens on 6%.”

    You gotta simma down na (as Nadine orJohn Bercow might say). :) I was being facetious in my descriptions of those on the invite list including Alex Salmond. It’s like my descriptions of why Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron would or would not run for the governorship of California.

    As to the polls, I’m not surprised that Labour’s last minute effort is not helping in Scotland. The independence debate doesn’t seem to be at issue in this election. For an MSP election, there’s a choice between either the SNP or Labour with either Salmond or Gray as First Minister. Salmond has given Scottish voters plenty of reasons to return him as First Minister (or so it appears), Gray isn’t giving any reasons why Scottish voters should put him in office as FM.

    Not surprised on the updated figures showing AV trailing. In these types of polls, the most important number is the yes vote and if the yes vote is beneath 50%, that initiative is unlikely to pass (even if it leads the no vote in an election).

  44. Ack….meant to say “even if “yes” leads the “no” vote in a poll of the initiative”.

  45. #SoCalLiberal

    “Simma down” is both condescending and unnecessary since I expressed no anger, but simply said that there is no such policy.

    As OldNat just pointed out, it would be a decision of the Scottish people. What that has to do with someone who isn’t American being governor of California, I don’t know.

    The queen is not Canadian and is recognized there; she isn’t Australian and is recognized there; etc. I happen to be rather fond of accuracy in these discussions whether you are being facetious or not.

  46. @Alec

    Be careful, you’ve taken on the sainted Eoin, the Bard of UKPR. Your rebuttal of his selective and slightly dodgy economic statistics was indeed, as DavidB observed, masterly, but you run the risk of being accused of “vitriol and denial”, or even worse! I wish you luck, but I rather suspect that you’ve started an argument that knows no end; certainly not a reasoned or logical one, I fear! Eoinomics will prevail, come what may! lol

    Changing the subject, I’m amused at the mini-row about the alleged snub to Blair and Brown resulting from them not being invited to Friday’s Royal Wedding. Am I being nostalgic here when I pine for Labour politicians of old like my first and enduring political hero, Tony Crosland, who would have been mortally insulted and offended at the prospect of being invited in the first place? If Blair and Brown had turned out to be the Labour Premiers I wish they had been, they wouldn’t have wanted to have been seen dead anywhere near the damned thing anyway!!

    Or is a version of the famous Groucho Marx quotation more appropriate; “I wouldn’t want to be invited to an event that would have me as a guest anyway!!”

  47. “Bit worrying on the breakdown of those who’re sure on how they’ll vote in the referendum vs those who’re unsure…”

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding the figures but don’t the YouGov figures predict a turnout of up to 80%, with 60% ‘certain to vote’ and another 20% scoring 6 to 9 out of 10 on likelihood of voting, (Against an actual 33.67% in the equivalent elections of 2007.)

  48. YouGove – 36/42/10 – not much to get het up about.

  49. I find it hard to be surprised about the mediocre support for AV. Even people who hate FPTP seem substantially less than enthusiastic about it from what I can tell.

    Here I will agree with SoCalLiberal that referendums don’t generally pass at that level of support.

    No, SoCalLiberal, I’m not angry or upset. I’m just pedantic about things being correct. There is too much misinformation around.

  50. Latest YouGov C36 L42 LD10

    Tables are up promptly again here:
    http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-sun-results-270411.pdf

    Interesting that in the “which would be best for Britain” question the remaining LD voters are now evenly split 40/40 between a Con-LD coalition and a Lab-LD coalition, whereas they were 47/31 for the former two weeks ago. Perhaps this just indicates some volatility in the stats. But the change would also be entirely consistent with the idea that the outright hostility that has emerged between the LDs and Cons has done some permanent damage to the attractiveness of a coalition with the right in the eyes of the LDs remaining supporters. Similarly the proportion of Cons preferring a majority Con govt to a Con/LD coalition has increased from 82/15 to 86/12, again consistent with the idea that the falling out has had an impact.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8