The monthly Populus poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 39%(+2), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 9%(-2). This is the lowest level of Lib Dem support that Populus have shown so far, and the first time they’ve shown them dropping into single figures (YouGov have regularly shown single figure Lib Dem scores, but Populus have tended to show them a couple of points higher).

Populus also asked whether people trusted Miliband & Balls or Cameron, Osborne & Clegg to run the economy better. Cameron, Osborne and Clegg led Miliband & Balls by 41% to 23%, a significant shift from when Populus last asked the question in March when the lead was 44% to 33%.

258 Responses to “Populus/Times – CON 39, LAB 40, LDEM 9”

1 4 5 6
  1. Govt approval now -29.

  2. @LordTory
    “who do you think you are”

    1. Someone who was employed on the basis of earning x for 25 years and is now being told that they were actually employed on the basis of earning x – y for that period.

    2. Someone whose remuneration is paid in part now, in part later. But I don’t really think you object to that in itself, despite all your bluster. What you really think is that those working in the public sector are overpaid, and any means of cutting any element of their remuneration is justified, whether it’s through pensions or something else.

    Who do I (and many others on this site) think you are? You know very well.

  3. Phil

    ” Money purchase schemes can provide just as much in the way of benefits, with the employee sharing the benefits if their pension plans perform well as well as the risks if it performs badly.”

    Really? When my former, private sector company switched out of a defined benefits to a money purchase scheme the CEO promised that no one would be worse off. This resulted in a 33% additional contribution from the company on top of the basic 6 and 6%.


    Thank you for your considered response to my post. You may be right that those who voted LibDem may have really supported the Labour Party. I voted Lib Dem because I am a Lib Dem supporter and naively assumed so did everyone else. I knew that the Lib Dems would not form a majority on its own, but this time with luck it would form a Coalition with either Labour or Tory, whichever was the larger Party, which is precisely what it did. The result is a moderation of Tory Policy; if only we had formed a coalition with Labour in 2005, perhaps our influence would have moderated Labour’s overspending and helped reduce the impact of the financial meltdown.

    I still find it difficult to understand why anyone should try to compare a Coalition who actually received 50% of the vote (compared to the previous Labour Government on a mere 36%) with a middle eastern disctatorship.

  5. @Neil A

    Thanks for your response to Wolf earlier up thread. :-)

  6. @ Bill Patrick

    “Maybe, maybe not, but he WILL triangulate. That’s Obama’s fundamental approach. He’s willing to make any compromise to get his key policies through and he knows that getting a big win in 2012 will require doing what Clinton did in 1996.

    Obama’s already triangulating e.g. on the Bush tax cuts he’s found a middle ground. Whether tax cuts (which entail deeper spending cuts in the long run) are a conservative value is perhaps a matter for semantic debates, but regardless Obama thinks there is political mileage (presumably with independents) by offering to continue Bush’s tax cuts for most Americans.”

    There’s a difference between triangulation and compromise. In that regard, he’s shown a willingness to compromise since the begginning of his presidency (that I’m fine with…for the most part). Triangulation though is different. You shouldn’t be triangulating when your opponents are more unpopular than you are and don’t have popular policies.

    And trying to redo 1996 in 2012 is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in politics. You have to live in the present, not in the past. What occured in 1994 that led Clinton to adopt his strategy for 1996 is not what occurred in 2010. It’s easy to draw a comparison but it’s a false one. The electorate is not the same, the issues are not the same, and the problems are different.

    Also I need to correct you about the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts did not benefit most Americans. Most Americans received zero in the way of tax cuts (except for perhaps the $300 check that Dennis Kucinich, the socialist, was responsible for). The continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy was a compromise (unpopular with most Americans) in order to get through other tax cuts enacted in 2009 under Obama and continue unemployment benefits. FYI, continuing tax cuts for the wealthy did not help lower the deficit.

  7. @ Bill Patrick

    “And I very much doubt that Democrats would sit at home with Obama vs. Pawlenty or even Obama vs. Romney.”

    Considering that both men have won in traditionally heavily Democratic states, I wouldn’t say this with certainty.

    Let me give you an election day anecdote that I think sums up the 2010 elections and what could happen in the 2012 elections. Afternoon class at a fairly liberal law school on election day. The liberal professor enthusiastically asks the class if everyone has voted yet. There is a groan of yes from the students (the reality being that many did not vote and would not vote unless pushed). Why was this? What happenned to Obamania?

    Well it’s quite simple. Unemployment is extremely high. People can no longer get jobs. For those in college and especially those in professional school, the joblessness creates a feeling of despair. College graduates find themselves moving back in with their parents because they’re unemployed. For professional school students, they sacrifice a great deal of their lives to earning that degree and getting licensed. Many also take on huge personal debt in order to pursue a degree. But these sacrifices in the past were rewarded with good jobs afterwards. No longer.

    There is extreme competition and for many there are no solutions. The federal government has a hiring freeze so there are no government jobs to scoop them up. At job fairs, students are told that the best way of getting a job is to have a connection, which is unhelpful if you don’t have one. A student is left to wonder whatever happenned to individual merit and hard work. Then, people are told to be entrepreneurial. But this is only so helpful. How is someone supposed to be entrepreneurial when lenders are unwilling to lend for small business startups? Especially for those who have no experience with running their own businesses.

    And it’s not just students and young people who are unable to find work and unable to become independent. People are struggling to payoff mortgages, stuggling to find jobs after layoffs, struggling to pay off education loans, struggling to keep their businesses afloat. Meanwhile, affecting everyone is the rising costs for standard of living.

    For these voters, there’s no reason to turn out and vote. And even if Democrats can be guilted into voting, this doesn’t help with Independents who feel no allegiance to Obama or the Democratic Party. So yes, voters would stay home in a battle against Romney and Pawlenty. Or any Republican candidate.

    Now some voters may come back anyway just because of the GOP’s ill thought out decision to go after Medicare and Social Security. That helps Obama a great deal.

  8. So Cal Liberal,

    You’re quite possibly right on all these issues, for all I know. I still think, however, that Obama is a fundamentally cautious politician with a passion for consensus and will go for triangulation next year. He won’t suddenly turn into a tea-partier, but he will take advantage of disillusioned moderate Republicans.

1 4 5 6