This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LD 9%. Full tables are here.

The tables also include some questions on long term care for the elderly (the answers are unsurprising… people tend to think that wealthier people should pay for their own care, but bridle at the idea of making them sell their homes. They tend to support a higher level of assets than the current £23,000 when means testing), and on Olympic tickets. 23% think the distribution of tickets was fair, 23% unfair. 34% would have preferred if they’d been sold on a first-come-first-served basis, compared to 31% who think the ballot system was the best way of distributing them.

I’ll be back on the site properly from tomorrow.


250 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 37, LAB 42, LDEM 9”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. I seriously doubt the Libs will score as low as 9% come 2015. Even in the local elections recently, their vote share was much higher. Having said that, I would be surprised if their vote share ‘recovered’ – I think they’ll get 15-17% in 2015, which would mean a sharp reduction in the number of seats.

    I think it’s far too early to talk about the Libs suffering the worst in the boundary changes. Some reports forecasts say they won’t, the one last night says they will. All the forecasts are based on assumptions and predictions – some of which will probably prove slightly out when the boundaries are drawn. In fact, according to today’s article in the Guardian:-

    “But the final word will go to the Boundary Commission working in each of the component nations of the United Kingdom – and no doubt the result will be different in significant ways from any other model set of boundaries.”

    It’s also worth remembering that the latest forecast is based on the 2010 general election, when the Libs attained 23% of the vote, rather than the 9% or 10% on which they currently find themselves.

    For me, the interesting thing is how much the Tories will gain relative to Labour. Their will be some gain when compared to the current boundaries, but the question is how much.

    Interestingly, it is also understood that the Tories are prepared to make counterproposals should it not be happy with the consultation process in the Autumn.

  2. AmbivalentSuppOrter
    “Interestingly, it is also understood that the Tories are prepared to make counterproposals should it not be happy with the consultation process in the Autumn.”

    When you say “the consultation process” do you mean this or the feedback received to the proposals. And what could the counterproposals be? The Cons can’t offer some alternative set of boundaries, or remove/postpone the bits they don’t like surely, without appearing to be gerrymandering?

  3. @MikeN – “… the forecast of the number of MP losses”

    This has echos of DC’s botched move on the 1922 Committee after the GE. There is already grumbling about No 10’s control of candidate selection, and with “no certainty that any seat will remain unchanged” it is likely that many MPs will have to face reselection for their modified seat. (Or be bumped up to the Lords – and how big is that compared to the Commons, with the record number already enobled by DC?)

    Clegg’s negative attitude to Brown set in train his stance pre-GE and really blinded him to the political choices before him imo.
    Aligning with the Tories would endear him to voters, and show that LDs could be trusted?
    The LDs would build on their support at the GE, a wave of approval would carry the AV referendum… more MPs in 2015, with next stop full PR and a permanent place in government?
    Ditching the pledge to students would quickly be forgotten?

    When alll the +/- of boundary changes is calculated, Labour may feel they have got the best of a bad deal *if* they have secured upwards of a third of the LD vote.

  4. @Mike N,

    “When you say “the consultation process” do you mean this or the feedback received to the proposals. And what could the counterproposals be? The Cons can’t offer some alternative set of boundaries, or remove/postpone the bits they don’t like surely, without appearing to be gerrymandering?”

    I am not sure – I read it one the Internet somewhere. I think it means after the preliminary findings of the Boundary Commission are released this September, though.

    I agree about the gerrymandering bit. I guess, they are prepared to do whatever they can to get an advantage!

  5. I don’t know what the counterproposals would be, but I assume they wouldn’t involve alternative boundaries, but rather a different set of criteria for drawing up the boundaries. I guess they could, in theory, do this.

  6. LAZLO

    @ Henry

    “this is because 35-38% of the population believe, rightly or wrongly, that the state sector is too large and that those in the state sector have too much of the cake. ”

    or that people think that the state sector did not save us from the recession, so

    So. This is why the Tories may retain 36% of the popular vote even if the economy does not recover. I was continuing Hal’s comments on scenarios on how the votes may change, and whether there will be radical change in the polls. Of course there is an equal number who do not agree and will vote the other way, which would indicate stability rather than significant change.

  7. Billy Bob
    “Clegg’s negative attitude to Brown set in train his stance pre-GE and really blinded him to the political choices before him imo.”

    I agree. But I would add that IMO NC utterly misunderstood from where support for the LDs came – whether from Cons or Lab.

    IMO, history will show NC’s action to have been instrumental in bringing about the destruction and devastation of the LD party. Paradoxically NC’s wish to bring about a relaignment of British politics may be shown to have occurred.

  8. I think the polls can, and will, change. Remember, Labour got only 28% of the vote at the GE just a year ago. Therefore, all thoughts of a ‘solid, core’ vote goes out the window IMO.

    If the economy collapses or the coalition does something very unpopular, I think the Tories are just as likely to see their share of the vote capitulate. In fact, I believe the Tory vote will start to tail off anyway because of the unpopularity of the cuts – which have yet to really hit yet. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Tories were as low as 33 or 34 so a year from now.

    If anything, the past few months have demonstrated just how ‘soft’ the Lab and Tory vote is at the moment.

    I would say Labour are currently on about 42%, Cons on 37% and Libs on 10%.

  9. @CROSSBAT
    “Are you still here? I thought we were overdue a respite and then a return with a new name. When Lord Tory expires, as he surely must, can I suggest “The Sword of Truth” as a new moniker? You’ll remember that this was a memorable quote from that old Tory jailbird Jonathan Aitken who, I’m sure, was, and continues to be, a constant source of inspiration for you and your friends. His definition of the truth, however, was a difficult and troubling one. The good Lord Archer had
    similar difficulties, although not, of course, when he was Chairman of the Conservative Party! lol”

    CROSSBAT
    You pass comment on this board which is nothing more than a personal attack on me. Because my name on this site is “Lord Tory”, which is only 50% correct, but what the hell, many of us have daft names, you see fit to abuse me and make a list of crooked Tories.
    I do not think your remarks are in the spirit of the comments policy. Furthermore, do you seriously think that presenting in your nipple rouge Labour logo, you have the remotest right to criticise any other political party in Great Britain for sordid fiddling? I cannot believe you are so stupid as to raise the issue of dishonesty in the light of your parties recent past.

  10. @ambivalent supporter

    “I respectfully disagree. Labour were regularly recording 6-10 point leads (more generally) until a month before the elections. These then turned into 0-3% with ICM and Mori (and other pollsters). Yougov changed more gradually and proved more stubborn, but finally caved in just before the election with 2%.”

    Not so at all !

    If you take the polls recorded here

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention

    for 2011 you’ll find that 194 are recorded.

    Of these 39 resulted in a Labour lead of more than 7% (21%);

    49 resulted in a Labour lead of 4% or 5% (25%);

    whilst 104 resulted in a Labour lead of 4% or less.

    Thats means 54% of labour leads since the start of 2011 are 4% or less.

    It pays to check your facts before posting ;-)

  11. @MIKE N
    You ask me for the point I am trying to make regarding your aversion to any form of standards or discipline.
    Requiring school kids to wear a school uniform is one example of how it can be “appropriate”. Not allowing your 7 year old daughter to dress like the current posse of female rock “stars”, who cannot sing a song or make a video without it looking like an advert for sex, is another case in point. These are area’s where most but by no means all parents use their own common sense. It is interesting that the worst examples of children dressed to look like some pop idol, are in the areas where a paediatrician is seen as a pervert and a paediatric nurse had her house burned down.

  12. @Rob Sheffield,

    I’m not talking about 2011 as a whole – the results would obviously be skewed by smaller leads in January and February, and May for instance – I am talking about the lead that Labour had built up by March/April time. Looking through the figures on this website, you can clearly see that the vast majority of Labour leads in March and April were in the 5-9% range. I seem to remember AW surmising around that time that the Labour lead had reach circa 7%.

    Simples. ;-)

  13. ambivalent supporter
    “I don’t know what the counterproposals would be, but I assume they wouldn’t involve alternative boundaries, but rather a different set of criteria for drawing up the boundaries. I guess they could, in theory, do this.”

    I can’t see that another set of criteria for drawing up the boundaries can be proposed without the Cons and LDs being rightly accused of gerrymandering.

    What is comng over clearly however is that the actual effect of the boundary changes is not at al easy to predict. I can see Con and LDs being very unhappy with the uncertainty.

    DC grabbed the opportunity presented by the expenses scandal to propose a reduction in consituencies. This could turn out to be another ill-thought through policy by DC.

    Nothing wrong with ‘opportunism’ but the other side to it is hasty poorly-considered decisions/actions. IMO, DC has these weaknesses: his temperament (which I think the jury is out on), and his tendency to opportunism. (There may be others.)

  14. Note: The 5-9% leads were mainly recorded by Yougov. Other pollsters recorded- and still do – smaller Labour leads on average. However, we have to compare like with like.

    There were also, one or two 10-11 point leads, though these were obviously the exception to the rule.

  15. @Mike N,

    “I can’t see that another set of criteria for drawing up the boundaries can be proposed without the Cons and LDs being rightly accused of gerrymandering.”

    I agree. Though, I wouldn’t put it past them, knowing them as I do!

  16. Mike N,

    If I’m honest, DC does possess many of the leadership qualities associated with a successful PM. He reminds me, in many ways, of Tony Blair. I would have to agree with many commentators that he makes a better PM than he did opposition leader. However, I’d have to agree with your assessment of his weaknesses; he does have a tendency to be impetuous, resulting in rash decisions occasionally being made without much prior thought. Much of this is borne out of his arrogance and self-confidence IMO, but could ultimately result in his downfall.

  17. @Hal
    Your comment last evening regarding a choice of scenarios which may occur in the British polls was just the ticket. Your earlier comment which I criticised, seemed to assume the coalition and the Tories were going to be dead in the water and that’s that. The later comment, that things could just as easily go well for them, was more rational.

  18. @LordTory
    “You ask me for the point I am trying to make regarding your aversion to any form of standards or discipline.”

    I am not averse to standards or discipline. There was nothing in my posts that I believe could have lead anyone to think otherwise. I suggest you read into my posts what you wanted to, perhaps because of your own viewpoint.

    “Requiring school kids to wear a school uniform is one example of how it can be “appropriate”.”

    You’ve lost me here.

    “Not allowing your 7 year old daughter to dress like the current posse of female rock “stars”, who cannot sing a song or make a video without it looking like an advert for sex, is another case in point. These are area’s where most but by no means all parents use their own common sense.”

    I have seen the kind of pop videos to which you refer (typically when I’m at the gym) and I wonder whether it is ‘sex’ that is being sold, too. (Really entertaining videos byt way.) But I have never seen any seven year old dressed (or in a state of undress) like some of those featured in the videos.

    And even if a mother chooses to dress her child in the latest fashion so what? You only have to visit the beach park or swimming pool to see people of all ages dressed scantily.

    “It is interesting that the worst examples of children dressed to look like some pop idol, are in the areas where a paediatrician is seen as a pervert and a paediatric nurse had her house burned down.”

    Oh good grief. In that one sentence you reveal so much about yourself.

  19. AmbivalentSuppOrter
    “If I’m honest, DC does possess many of the leadership qualities associated with a successful PM.”

    Out of curiosity, what would they be?

  20. Actually, I’m no Tory (or right-winger), but even I must admit that some of the clothes sold to 7 year olds now make me feel uncomfortable.

    I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this, Mike N, because I did voluntary work in a local primary school a few years ago and some of the clothes young girls now wear (admittedly just a small minority) would make anyone feel uncomfortable. Even the teachers were moaning about it in the staffroom. (I say that as a young 28 year old guy who is not easily shocked.) I don’t think a girl’s clothes (i.e. under 10) should ever have a sexual element to it. That’s just my opinion, though – but it is shared by a majority of people nationwide.

  21. Lib Dems need to be aware how near the edge of the precipice they are. Using Electoral Calculus we get the following number of Lib Dem seats in the HofC –

    Con 37, Lab 43, Lib 9 = 9 LD seats
    Con 38, Lab 43, Lib 8 = 9 LD seats
    Con 38, Lab 44, Lib 7 = 9 LD seats
    Con 39, Lab 44, Lib 6 = 8 LD seats
    Con 39, Lab 45, Lib 5 = 1 LD seat

    Similar results if you increase others by the odd point or two rather than Cons or Lab.

  22. Ambivalentsupporter

    “That’s just my opinion, though – but it is shared by a majority of people nationwide.”

    umm…do you have any polling evidence of that?

  23. @Mike N,

    “Out of curiosity, what would they be?”

    He is quite charismatic and believable in a toff kind of way (his problem is that even his forehead screams of toff/wealth). He is fairly good at talking the talking – but like most politicians, he struggles to put his words into meaningful action/policies. He has a very confident and self-assured personality, which makes him appear competent. He is young.

  24. “umm…do you have any polling evidence of that?”

    Yep, Yougov did a poll on the sexualisation of children very recently.

  25. Taken from Yougov site. You can see what the vast majority of adults think on this matter.

    “82% agreed that companies were sexually exploiting children with clothing, reading material, or other age-inappropriate materials, in a survey for the Sunday Times. Further research by YouGov also found that people are worried about the effects that sexualised media are having on children.

    74% of Brits agree that children are under pressure to behave in a more sexualized way nowadays than when they themselves were young. Of those who regularly care of children, 76% also agree that this is the case. Similarly, nearly three quarters of those who regularly care for children are concerned about the effects that sexualised media and sexual peer pressure will have on children now and in the future

    Interestingly, of adults who have children or care for them, 67% are surprised at how sexualised they think their child /children’s peers are, given their age; but the same is not true when asked of the children they are regularly in contact with. Of these, only a third (34%) agree that they are regularly surprised by the extent of their child/children’s own sexualisation, given their age. Nearly a quarter (23%) disagree that that their child /children are often surprisingly sexualised. Could this possibly be wishful thinking?

    The survey results beg the question: whose responsibility is it to stop companies and media from using overly sexual imagery and themes to attract young people? The Sunday Times survey reveals that half of the British public feels that it should be the Government who protects children from these pressures (52%) and over a third (37%) feel that it should be left to parents. But with these findings hinting that parents and carers often remain unaware of their own children’s sexualisation, one may wonder what, if anything, they may choose to do about it.”

  26. Blimey.

    I wonder why the phrase “moral panic” leaps to mind?

  27. This effectively means that the ‘sexualisation of children’ is not just a right-wing concern, but one that affects both sides of the political spectrum. It’s very much a problem of our time – and one that will surely get a lot worse in years to come.

    IMO the state should never impose itself excessively on public life. This is one of the things that I think Labour got most wrong in office – they created an excessive ‘nanny state’. However, I do think that shops are now (wrongly) selling indecent clothing to young children. This is just plain wrong IMO. Obviously fashion is totally different to sexualised clothing (for the under 10s), and should be treated as such IMO. That is where the boundary needs to be drawn IMO.

  28. As the father of a seven-year old myself and a governor at the local primary school I share the concerns expressed by many about ‘sexy’ clothes being worn by young girls – however I think one of the key points of Mike N is how do you police it? A long list of proscribed items of clothing won’t work – certain clothes are ‘normal’ worn one way but ‘provocative’ if worn differently, and what about new styles that haven’t made it onto “The List” yet? Does someone have to make a judgment as to whether a 7 year-olds clothes are ‘sexy’ and who defines ‘sexy’? As has been pointed appropriate clothing is situational, what is totally appropriate for adults at the beach has totally different connotations in a nightclub. What penalties would applied that would not be seen as excessive, but still a deterrent, both to the unemployed young mum on a council estate and the ‘with it’ mum from a well to do background?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m as appalled as any at what some parents dress their kids in, but I can’t see how the state can impose a solution. As often the case with kids the problem stems from the parents and must be down to niavety. I suspect these parent are deliberately trying to make their daughters look sexually provocative, they simply dress them in ‘adult’ fashions not realising how inappropriate it is. The answer (as so often) is far more complex than passing a law or banning the sale of certain items of clothing. It lies in better education of parents and better parental awareness, coupled with restraint from the media (particularly television) and retailers. It will be difficult and so we will see a few token gestures made, then everyone will forget about it and move onto the latest shocking issue of the day. And the chances are fashion will change and the problem will pretty much go away of its own accord.

  29. @mike n
    “Oh good grief. In that one sentence you reveal so much about yourself.”

    Yes it says I have no tolerance for the kind of chav who wishes to dress a small child like a cheap whore.

    As for kids running about a beach in swimming suits, you go to work in Speedo’s do you?

  30. “coupled with restraint from the media (particularly television) and retailers.”

    I agree. Really provocative clothing should not be sold. It wouldn’t be too difficult to impose – will just take an independent organisation/agency to look at retailers/tv etc. We already do that, to some extent, with dvds/films etc.

    Better education of parents simply won’t work. The problem is that the parents, in many cases, simply don’t care.

  31. AmbivalentSuppOrter
    “I don’t think a girl’s clothes (i.e. under 10) should ever have a sexual element to it.”

    ((I’m assuming you’re male.))

    Several things…
    I am in favour of school uniforms, generally.
    I opened the discussion yesterday on sexualisation of childhood because of: the gov’s proposals, the difficulty in enforcing them, what they might lead to, that they are reactionary.

    This ‘sexualisation’ is not the same as exposng them to paedophiles is it?

    You refer to being ‘uncomfortable’. ((There’s an obvious question there but let’s avoid it.)) More to the point is that what you see as ‘inappropriate’ might be more or less ‘appropriate’ than what others see. Would an all over shroud covering the body and face be appropriate?

  32. Lord Tory
    “you go to work in Speedo’s do you?”

    Lol, I’m not a lifeguard.

  33. If I were a feminist, I’d pay more attention to how young girls/teenagers in particular are increasingly being sexualised due to the media/fashion etc. I’m frankly amazed that more feminists are not showing serious concern about how teenage girls/young women are being put under increasing social (and other) pressures. Until women are freed from these pressures, equality will be but a distant dream.

  34. “Really provocative clothing should not be sold”

    Define this.

    TheGreeny
    Aye. I agree fully about the need for education.

  35. @Mike N,

    “This ‘sexualisation’ is not the same as exposng them to paedophiles is it? ”

    It’s got nothing to do with paedophilia. It’s about protecting very young children from sexualisation until they are older (and ready).

    “You refer to being ‘uncomfortable’. ((There’s an obvious question there but let’s avoid it.))”

    I have no idea what you mean by the second comment, though it makes me feel uncomfortable because it is abnormal and wrong IMO to see a 7 year girl dress in indecent, provocative clothing designed for a much older female. Childhood should be a time of innocence. It would be abnormal to not be offended at the sight of a 7 year old girl dressed in provocative clothing, would it not?

    “More to the point is that what you see as ‘inappropriate’ might be more or less ‘appropriate’ than what others see. ”

    I am not easily shocked, believe me. I’ve had my fair share of relationships over the past decade, and I’m no prude! But it’s worth remembering that my take on it is the norm – it does have majority support amongst the British public. Your view, no offence, is in the minority.

  36. “Define this.” Clothing that is designed to be sexually provocative. Common sense needs to apply, as indeed it does with films/video games etc. It works for them.

  37. Lord Tory
    “Yes it says I have no tolerance for the kind of chav who wishes to dress a small child like a cheap whore.”

    And that is your right to feel like that. But I suggest you and the rest of us have no right to dictate what people should wear albeit it is right to define a level of minimum clothing.

  38. “Common sense needs to apply, as indeed it does with films/video games etc. It works for them.”

    ‘Common sense’ is an interesting term, and will mean different things to different people.

    I can foresee the lawyers and courts having fun with this.

  39. @Mike N,

    But why see the need to educate when you don’t see a problem?

    Using your words, what one person sees as inappropriate another might deem appropriate, so how can you even approach education if that is the case (i.e. there is no inappropriate way to dress)? Why would you even want to with that philosophy?

  40. AMBIVALENTSUPPORTER
    “Better education of parents simply won’t work. The problem is that the parents, in many cases, simply don’t care.”

    I agree, so what does a responsible government do ?
    Perhaps make liberal platitudes about “mothers dressing their daughters in a modern way”. Refusing to contemplate that the sexualisation of kids is not happening. This, despite all evidence of ever rising teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

    No, they act, they take steps to reduce the impact of the omnipresent media, which happily turns kids from Peter Rabbit to a video of simulated sexual intercourse with some bird howling down a microphone

  41. Mike N,

    “‘Common sense’ is an interesting term, and will mean different things to different people. ”

    And yet, our court systems/laws are based on the application of it – in the form of judgement. So are the enforcement of film and video game certifications etc.

  42. AmbivalentSuppOrter
    I welcome your comments.

    “But it’s worth remembering that my take on it is the norm – it does have majority support amongst the British public. Your view, no offence, is in the minority”

    It will be interesting to see what joe public’s reaction is to the proposals and whether this affects VI.

    And no offence taken, btw.

  43. @MIKE N
    So in Leftworld a workshy father who refuses to get a job, should not be inconvenienced because he has children. These in turn will be encouraged never to get jobs. In the meantime, the sexualisation of children cannot be tackled
    because this article has the right to dress his child how he likes. Even if it makes his child more vulnerably.

    What a great system.

  44. “And yet, our court systems/laws are based on the application of it – in the form of judgement. So are the enforcement of film and video game certifications etc.”

    Hmm yes and no.

    There is common law and statute law. I agree that common sense might operate where common law applies, but not where statute law appleis as it is then a matter of interpretation and application and there is little if any scope for ‘common sense’.

    I knw little about game and film certification but isn’t the stucture/rules for this defined in law?

  45. “Using your words, what one person sees as inappropriate another might deem appropriate, so how can you even approach education if that is the case (i.e. there is no inappropriate way to dress)? Why would you even want to with that philosophy?”

    Fair point, but perhaps the ‘education’ would in part be about awareness and tolerance. It would perhaps complement sex education.

  46. @Mike N,

    “There is common law and statute law. I agree that common sense might operate where common law applies, but not where statute law appleis as it is then a matter of interpretation and application and there is little if any scope for ‘common sense’. ”

    True, but in most court cases at least some degree of judgement/discretion is used.

    “I knw little about game and film certification but isn’t the stucture/rules for this defined in law?”

    I have no idea, if I’m honest. However, I would imagine that, again, judgement and interpretation of what constitutes ‘violence’, ‘bad language’, ‘sexual scenes’ etc must have to be made.

    “And no offence taken, btw.”

    Cool, cos none was certainly meant. On other matters I find myself agreeing with you most of the time, so it’s nice to have something to disagree about!

  47. @Mike N,

    “Fair point, but perhaps the ‘education’ would in part be about awareness and tolerance. It would perhaps complement sex education.”

    Ah, I see.

  48. “So in Leftworld a workshy father who refuses to get a job, should not be inconvenienced because he has children. These in turn will be encouraged never to get jobs. In the meantime, the sexualisation of children cannot be tackled
    because this article has the right to dress his child how he likes. Even if it makes his child more vulnerably.
    “What a great system.”

    You really do have a problem separating out individual rights from other issues. The amusing thing is your lines of action will mean more legislation, bureaucracy and costs and diminution of rights than ever countenanced by a Lab gov.

  49. @MIKE N
    No, I have difficulty listening to cant which is anti anything proposed or supported by David Cameron.

  50. I think the main point is that children should NEVER suffer for the transgressions of their parents. They are the innocent party and should be treated as such. If, in some cases, this means that the parents can use their position of parenthood to sponge off the state, then so be it.

1 2 3 4 5