Saturday night polls

Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 41%, LDEM 10%. The five point Labour lead is typical of the YouGov polling we’ve seen this week.

In tomorrow’s papers we also have a BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday which has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%, and also an AV question showing YES on 33% and NO on 51%. Given it is a BPIX poll and tables are not normally forthcoming, I do not know what question was asked, and whether it used the bare referendum wording or had some introduction.

As is traditional, Kenny Farquharson of the Scotland on Sunday has also been teasing people about a new YouGov Scotland poll on twitter… I’m afraid I don’t know what’s in that one yet, or whether or not it has voting intention figures!


117 Responses to “Saturday night polls”

1 2 3
  1. @Ambivalent Supporter

    I’m sure religion plays a huge part in a many people’s political views (take Spain for example where the whole Catholic religious establishment directly supports the PP against the PSOE).

    However in the absence of any mainstream religious parties (such as the Christian Democrats) or decisive religious block votes (as in Spain), who a deeply religious UK Christian (any denomination) actually votes for is much more complicated. The traditions of the founders of the Labour Party are religious, as is much of the social philosophy of the Conservative Party. But both have significant policy areas where they appear to be in direct conflict which traditional views of religious morality.

    UK Jews do not appear to favour a single Party either, with significant heavyweight representatives in both major parties. While conservative Jews are far more likely to favour the Conservative Party, the Labour Party has many Jews who were pioneers for civil rights for all minorities.

    UK Muslims have traditionally favoured the Labour Party – but on social issues religious Muslims are likely to align with the Conservatives, and on civil liberties of Muslims from draconian state action, with the Liberal Democrats.

    Hindus are also split. As are Sikhs.

    I have no current knowledge of Jain’s, Zoroastrians/Parsees, Ba’hai’s’ or Ahmedis political affiliations.

    One suspects that Druids and Pagans may be Greens.

    Have I left anyone out?

    It’s a complex picture

  2. OldNat
    “Does equating posts on Thatcher as a modern version of Godwin’s law, amount to Godwin’s Law itself?

    This could get really complicated. :-) ”

    I think it’s easier to think of it as Pete B’s updating of Godwin’s Law. i have to get famous somehow before I die.

  3. I personally accept think that talk of how parties should be polling is pure guesswork and speculation. Politics is quite a retrospectcive thing, so it’s only after the likely GE in 2015 that we’ll know whether Party X’s polling in year Y was good or not.

    One thing I would say, however, is that it is my belief that the Labour Party would be polling considerably better if they had a better leader.

  4. Billy Bob
    “It is Chris Huhne, a cabinet minister who is currently raising the spectre of Thatcherism.”

    Apologies, I hadn’t realised. I think many people might think of it as the promise, rather than the spectre of Thatcherism, bearing in mind that she won 3 General Elections, and lost none. And if you say that times have changed or something, then why on earth do people from the left keep raising the subject?

  5. Gaddafi’s son, Said, and 3 grandchildren killed in NATO attack (BBC News 24). Is this likely to change the support (or lack of) for Nato’s action in Libya.

  6. @Crossbat,

    I genuinely am relaxed about the current Tory polling. That may be because I am at the liberal end of the party and quite like the coalition. I am worried by the low LD score (although not exactly morose, it has to be said). I see the current political playing field as pretty wide open between Tory and Labour in the UK as a whole. My hunch is that any LD revival will be drawn mainly from non-Tory parties, but a hunch is all it is.

    I don’t feel that the Tories need to improve their vote share by more than a percent or two. However I do think Labour have to lose a good chunk of theirs. I am hoping fervently that the LDs can pull that off. I am not exactly banking on it, though.

    The rock solid Tory support seems to be at least 1/3 of the electorate; that is, people who support cuts and blame the last government for them, and therefore are resilient to the suffering the country is currently enduring. It doesn’t need too many “fairweather friends” to return for that to be a strong position.

  7. By better leader, I mean, say, David instead of Ed.

  8. By better, I mean, say, David instead of Ed.

  9. @Ambivalent Supporter

    “I personally accept think that talk of how parties
    should be polling is pure guesswork and speculation. Politics is quite a retrospectcive thing, so it’s only after the likely GE in 2015 that we’ll know whether Party X’s polling in year Y was good or not.”

    Not necessairily even then…

    “One thing I would say, however, is that it is my belief that the Labour Party would be polling considerably better if they had a better leader.”

    Many people think this. But leaders are always a compromise choice. Labour chose Ed M because they wanted to re-connect with their base at a time when the Tories were advocating policies alienating the Labour base. Whether EM genuinely speaks for these poeple or not, he appears to do so more than David M or TB did. Hence Labour’s munch into the yellow social democrat vote.

    Wehether he is doing well enough is, as you say, guesswork. With the greatest of respect to psephologists, we simply don’t know how good a 5-6% Labour lead actually is under the new political reality. It may be worth 10% traditionally, of 15%, or less than zero.

    My personal view FWIW is that the gap will remain similar through to the GE, unless the Coalition falls apart in which case all bets are off. This is based on my view that those who votes Con or Lab largely backed each party’s general approach to the scale and speed of the cuts. And that is not likely to change. What has changed is the haemoraging of yellow social democrat votes to Labour, due to the LD’s having been seen to change their cuts narrative.

  10. Peter Bell
    Increase, in my opinion. We’re getting somewhere at last.
    Neil A
    Very interesting post. I agree that Tory support seems to be pretty much their baseline, whereas Labour’s is more volatile at the present time.

    I also agree with AmbivalentSupporter and others, that Lab would do better with a different leader, but my take is that 4 years from a GE it doesn’t really matter.

  11. 3 months ago I posted that the Tories polling then at 36% were doing reasonably well considering that 9 months previous they scored 37% as a share of GB votes..

    In the month that followed the averaged 36%
    In the month that followed that, they averaged 36%
    This month they averaged 36%..
    Next month?

    Well, that of course remains to be seen…

    perhaps we’ll finish May with the Tories crashing in the polls, perhaps Labour will ace the Holyrood elections, perhaps Cameron’s AV gamble will backfire, perhaps those cuts will really really start to bite…

    we could be looking at Tories on 30% if all that happens..

  12. @Peter Bell
    Wow. That’s big news. Watching the latest now on Al- Jazeera. What is the justification for this? He wasn’t a significant figure.

  13. Perhaps we’ll be invaded by Aliens from outer Space?
    Perhaps Oliver Cromwell will rise from the grave to take leadership of the Labour Party?

    I could go on.

  14. 1979-1985 (publication of Faith in the City): time-lag for effects of Thatcherism to become a matter of overwhelming concern within the hierarchy of the CofE.

    2010-2011: time-lag for a coalition cabinet minister to warn against a repeat of the excesses of Thatcher (whose “political philosophy… still drives Cameron’s party”).

    If that clears up the intended meaning of my post (fwiw).

  15. @ Peter Bell

    All doubt is removed. NATO are carrying out a vendetta against Colonel Gaddafi & his family; this seems to have included direct targetting of his family home.

    Regardless of one’s opinion of Colonel Gaddafi, it could be argued that NATO have descended to the level of terrorists.

    IMO, The world has now become a more dangerous place.
    8-)

  16. @Pete B

    “Perhaps we’ll be invaded by Aliens from outer Space?
    Perhaps Oliver Cromwell will rise from the grave to take leadership of the Labour Party?”

    Are these two observations linked in any way?

    If the latter were to occur, expect a commotion on an unprecendented scale in the Tyburn (Marble Arch).

  17. @Raf – “What is the justification for this?”

    While everyone (BBC is now talking hundreds of millions perhaps worldwide) was watching you-know-what, an attempt was made to assassinate the Libyan head of state (he and other members of the family were in the same building but uninjured)

  18. Sorry, RAF, U was taking the p out of Green Benches who said (but was probably intending to be humorous himself)

    “perhaps we’ll finish May with the Tories crashing in the polls, perhaps Labour will ace the Holyrood elections, perhaps Cameron’s AV gamble will backfire, perhaps those cuts will really really start to bite…

    we could be looking at Tories on 30% if all that happens..”

  19. YouGov Scottish poll

    Anyone got full details?

    I have Constituency – SNP 42% : Lab 35%
    List – SNP 34% : Lab 33%

    Prediction of seats

    SNP 55 : Lab 48 : Con 12 : Green 8 : LD 5

    (sounds more likely that the PSO based prediction.)

  20. That shd have said “I” not “U”. I’m off to bed now. Obviously getting tired.

  21. @Amber
    “Regardless of one’s opinion of Colonel Gaddafi, it could be argued that NATO have descended to the level of terrorists.”

    It could, could it? How about the member states of NATO involved in this operation have broken international law for which those responsible can be prosecuted? Not that they will.

    They have just assisinated someone who played no role whatsoever in the current hostilities. He was not even a member of the government.

    But who’s surprised? There is no such thing as international law anymore. Might is right rules. And no-one can question our actions.

  22. @Billy Bob

    “@Raf – “What is the justification for this?”

    “While everyone (BBC is now talking hundreds of millions perhaps worldwide) was watching you-know-what, an attempt was made to assassinate the Libyan head of state (he and other members of the family were in the same building but uninjured”

    Yes – but what was the justification? Have we decided that it is OK to assissinate heads of state now? Because we deem this appropriate? Who restrains us? Are we above the law? etcetera etcetera etcetera…

    @Pete B
    Sorry, RAF, U was taking the p out of Green Benches who said (but was probably intending to be humorous himself)

    “perhaps we’ll finish May with the Tories crashing in the polls, perhaps Labour will ace the Holyrood elections, perhaps Cameron’s AV gamble will backfire, perhaps those cuts will really really start to bite…

    we could be looking at Tories on 30% if all that happens..”

    I think you may have taken TGB’s conditional future a tad further, though it was amusing :)

  23. Old Nat

    I think it’s

    Constituency
    SNP: 42%, Lab: 34%, Con: 12%, Lib: 7%
    List
    SNP: 35%, Lab: 33%, Con: 12%, Lib: 6% Green: 7%

    Seats projection:
    SNP: 55 Lab: 48 Con: 13 Lib: 5 Green: 8

  24. “List – SNP 34% : Lab 33%”

    The list really does look stubbornly hard to call. I wonder if this means a relatively good night for the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens or Independents ?

    “They have just assisinated someone who played no role whatsoever in the current hostilities. He was not even a member of the government.

    But who’s surprised?”

    Since they have attempted to assasinate Gaddafi on at least two occasions already not me. But lets see the government and NATO try to argue this isn’t regime change now. So much for following U.N. resolutions and having international law on thier side. The US and UK still haven’t called for Assad to go (Syria’s Ambassador was almost at the wedding remember) yet killing Gaddaffi’s children is fine.

    This will further polarise opinion in Libya and entrench this civil war. I’d like to see anyone deny this isn’t a quagmire now.

  25. Coming through the Rye

    Ta

  26. @ RAF, Peter Bell

    The one-story house in a residential neighbourhood in Tripoli reportedly suffered heavy damage.
    ———————————————-
    This was not a military target in any way, if the Guardian reporting is accurate. If NATO are resposible, all pretence of a humanitarian mission lies in tatters.

    It is absolutely impossible within international law for a UN mandate to be stretched to the point where a family home becomes a legitimate target. Gaddafi publicly asked for a suspension of bombing & a period of negotiation. If reports are accurate, NATO’s response was to bomb his family. I am truly shocked by this.

  27. Thanks Coming through the Rye.

    Looks like it’s the Greens who are doing well.

  28. Three of Gadaffi’s grandchildren have been killed too in the NATO air strike.

  29. @Amber

    Expect our most esteemed elected representatives to say in unison that the UNSC Resolution provides that we can use all necessary force (or words to that effect) to protect civilians. And as the biggest obstacle to the satisfaction of this objective is the Colonel, that bombing his house is justified.

    You see – anything can be justified in politics when you are the stronger side – restrictions just apply to our enemies.

  30. Amber
    Sorry, I haven’t quite gone to bed
    “If reports are accurate, NATO’s response was to bomb his family. I am truly shocked by this.”

    When you’re at war, you’re at war. I remember all the silly nonsense that we shouldn’t have sunk the Belgrano when we were at war with Argentina because she was sailing in a particular direction!

    While we’re at it, why don’t we blow the Somali pirates out of the water? Lots of countries have naval ships in the area, but they all seem afraid to actually kill pirates! It wouldn’t have been like that in the 18th century!

  31. I think anyone who attempts to justify this in that way is putting themselves up for ridicule. Unfortunately though, I don’t think there’s a single journalist with a even vaguely wide readership out there who will have the guts to do so.

  32. Provide the ridicule, that is.

  33. @ Amber

    ” Gaddafi publicly asked for a suspension of bombing & a period of negotiation.”

    I am against bombing anything in Tripoli unless it can be proved categorically that it is used as a control centre.

    However, Amber, you are naive if you believe that Gaddafi wants a ceasefire except on his terms. I don’t have sufficient fingers to count the number of times he has offered a ceasefire then broken it within hours. The man is a pathological liar.

  34. William, royal through an accident of birth. Saif al-Arab, Gaddafi’s son through an accident of birth.

    This will be my memory of the royal wedding: Our nation being told to have street parties & enjoy ourselves, whilst – in our name – Saif al-Arab & three children of his family were killed because of who his father is.

  35. @ Peter Bell

    Colonel Gaddafi has never offered a unilateral ceasefire. That would be idiocy; his men & his supporters would be slaughtered.

    Every offer to negotiate a multi-lateral ceasefire was rejected by the rebels &/ or NATO. There is to be no opportunity for the will of the Libyan people to prevail, if their will might include electing anybody named Gaddafi to lead them.

  36. Amber

    It really looks as if the UK can’t do humanitarian intervention without moving it to regime change.

    Deeply depressing.

  37. @ Old Nat

    Is this the world we must live in? Where the alleged sins of the father are used as an excuse for over-whelming military might to come crashing down upon his children & grand-children.

    When humanitarian action turns out to be a thinly veiled excuse for continuing a vendetta & forcing regime change, all hope for a better world is gone.

  38. @ Amber Star

    I mean, I don’t want to revel in the death of others (well not too often anyway). But aren’t Ghadaffi’s kids all part of the family business if you will? I may be wrong on this but I think his kids have been involved in carrying out the actions that have led to the military intervention in the first place.

    I want to feel sorry for Ghadaffi but I have a hard time doing so. It’s kind of like my opinion of Frank McCourt. I really can’t feel sorry for what’s happenning to him since he brought it on himself (even if some of the criticisms of him are really not valid). Not that McCourt is somehow like Ghadaffi. But in any case, Ghadaffi was given ample opportunities to stop the slaughter of his own people. He’s ignored those opportunities and continued to commit atrocities. Now he’s lost this son but he had the opportunity to avoid this fate.

  39. @ Peter Bell

    “However, Amber, you are naive if you believe that Gaddafi wants a ceasefire except on his terms. I don’t have sufficient fingers to count the number of times he has offered a ceasefire then broken it within hours. The man is a pathological liar.”

    I agree with you re Ghadaffi. Every single offer of a ceasefire, every single claim of a ceasefire….just about everything that’s come out of his mouth has been a lie.

  40. “Ghadaffi was given ample opportunities to stop the slaughter of his own people. He’s ignored those opportunities and continued to commit atrocities.”

    If only he wasn’t sitting on so much oil he could carry on with impunity like President Assad has.

    “But aren’t Ghadaffi’s kids all part of the family business if you will?”

    Some are, this one appears to be far less involved than the other Saif but even so, his grandchildren ??
    And come to that if Gaddafi says the families of Western leaders like Sarkozy or Cameron or Obama are fair game how do we think that would be treated ?

    “just about everything that’s come out of his mouth has been a lie.”

    But only since a few months ago. You remember, after he could no longer be supported and the oil stopped. Because before that he was a ‘partner for peace’ with Western Countries happy to be doing plenty of deals with this ‘madman’.
    Just like Saddam in fact.

  41. Oliver Cromwell was a lot like Ghadaffi in his day. He overthew the monarchy and got rid of the House of Lords (and then the House of Commons) but he didn’t really establish republican government. Instead he ruled as a totalitarian dictator. He made sure to control ceven trivial aspects of life England, committed war crimes in Ireland, and slaughtered Catholics ruthlessly on account of their religion. Ghadaffi is similar. He also got rid of a monarchy but replaced it with his own dictatorship.

  42. @ Mick Park

    “If only he wasn’t sitting on so much oil he could carry on with impunity like President Assad has.”

    It is unfortunate. But there are other political realities there that prevent intervention against Syria. Most conservatives in the U.S. oppose Libyan intervention because we get so little oil from Libya.

    “Some are, this one appears to be far less involved than the other Saif but even so, his grandchildren ??
    And come to that if Gaddafi says the families of Western leaders like Sarkozy or Cameron or Obama are fair game how do we think that would be treated ?”

    I think he already has. As for the grandchildren, it’s a shame but it’s the price of war. Wars aren’t good or pleasant things.

    “But only since a few months ago. You remember, after he could no longer be supported and the oil stopped. Because before that he was a ‘partner for peace’ with Western Countries happy to be doing plenty of deals with this ‘madman’.
    Just like Saddam in fact.”

    There was an attempt at detente with him. It was an intelligent diplomatic move. There were ample good reasons to reintigrate Ghadaffi back into the mainstream of the world, notwithstanding the awful things he did with his state sponsored terrorism. But at the end of it, he’s still the same Ghadaffi and when these 2011 uprisings began, he went back to his old bad ways. It happens.

  43. “Instead he ruled as a totalitarian dictator.”

    Which is a novel change of pace for the middle east.
    That must have made for some interesting chit-chat beside the Ferrero Rocher between Prince Charles and the Bahrain and Saudi dignitaries yesterday at the wedding.

  44. @ SoCaLiberal

    I don’t feel sorry for Gaddafi. I feel sorry for the world.

    A world in which children & grand-children are killed for crimes their father/ grand-father may have committed or been about to commit? Where there is no evidence, no trial & no justice for anybody. Will you willingly accept such a world?

  45. @ SoCaL

    I think he already has. As for the grandchildren, it’s a shame but it’s the price of war.
    ——————————————————–
    We are not at war with Libya. That is why Colonel Gaddafi & his family cannot be targets. What don’t you understand about a declaration of war being the difference between us & terrorists?

  46. @ SoCaL

    I agree with you re Ghadaffi. Every single offer of a ceasefire, every single claim of a ceasefire….just about everything that’s come out of his mouth has been a lie.
    ——————————————————–
    I will try again…. every offer to negotiate a multi-lateral ceasefire has been rejected by the rebels & NATO.
    How does rejection of an offer make the offer itself “a lie”?

  47. “But there are other political realities there that prevent intervention against Syria.”

    Obama and Cameron can’t even bring themselves to call for Assad to step down despite him using tanks against his people. And those ‘political realities’ include the US and other Western Countries using Assad’s torture prisons as a dumping ground for some terror suspects.

    “I think he already has.”

    Has he ? Odd that him saying that has not been trumpeted as proof of his barbarity but given these events perhaps it’s not so odd after all if he did say it.

    “it’s a shame but it’s the price of war. Wars aren’t good or pleasant things.”

    Unfortunate then that this was sold to the public as a humanitarian intervention and a No Fly Zone.
    It seems that lying to the public about Wars has become a bit of a habit since Iraq.

    “There was an attempt at detente with him. It was an intelligent diplomatic move.”

    It was certainly a lucrative move and far from an attempt it held for years.

    “he went back to his old bad ways. It happens.”

    He hasn’t changed one jot.
    He never stopped being a pretty brutal Dictator, but when the brutal Dictator’s are “our friendly” brutal Dictators they can expect arms deals, oil deals and even wedding invites.

  48. @ SoCaL

    “And come to that if Gaddafi says the families of Western leaders like Sarkozy or Cameron or Obama are fair game how do we think that would be treated ?”

    I think he already has.
    —————————————————
    Which leaders’ & their families did he threaten? I’d appreciate it, if you would provide a reliable source or link to a report about this.

  49. @Amber,

    There’s no doubt that the attack as reported has all the hallmarks of an Israeli-style “decapitation” strike. I don’t think that’s a very sensible thing for NATO to have attempted, not so much because it isn’t tactically justified (Gadaffi is after all at the head of the military command chain) but because all of the NATO ministers and spokesmen involved have repeatedly ruled out such an option. What is more they ruled it out in ironclad, unequivocal terms. If this is a decapitation strike then it will make those statements into bare-faced lies, which is terrible politics.

    I do think you’re overspinning things a little though. You talk as if Saif al-Arab and his children were the target of the strike, and that NATO specifically decided they should be killed because of their blood ties to the regime. That seems to me to be vanishingly unlikely. If it turns out that Muammar Gadaffi himself was in the building, as reported, then it seems very obvious that he was the target and his family were collateral damage. That’s a pattern we saw when the US were trying to kill Saddam in Iraq. They’d get intelligence that he was staying in a farmhouse somewhere and then flatten it from the air, killing all of the occupants.

    I think it will take a while for the full truth to emerge. Al-Jazeera are reporting a lot of scepticism in the region about whether the account is true at all. I suspect the basic facts probably are true, but we won’t know for a little while. The surrounding circumstances will probably take weeks or months to emerge, and even then there may be key elements that are never disclosed.

    I share your disquiet though, I have to say.

  50. Can I just point out that no-one forced Ghaddafi to start slaughtering his own people in the first place? I am deeply disturbed by the moral equivalence being imposed on the issue here. The air strikes are in accordance with the UN resolutions and international law. Turning guns on your own citizens is not.

1 2 3