A new YouGov London poll has been released here. Westminster voting intention in London, with changes from March, stand at CON 32%(+1), LAB 51%(+3), LDEM 8%(-1), a slightly bigger swing to Labour than the general GB polls are showing.

However, in the Mayoral race Boris continues to lead, with 48% to Ken’s 41%. The diference is because Liberal Democrat voters break in favour of Boris, and about a fifth of Labour’s Westminster voters would vote for Boris in the mayoral elections.

The figures probably flatter the amount of the vote that both Boris and Ken would get given that other candidates remain unannounced, but it does appears that Boris is maintaining a lead independent of his party.

163 Responses to “YouGov show Boris ahead in London”

1 2 3 4
  1. Going back to the thread (!) the London mayoral contest seems to be dictated very much by national polls, more even than a local election round, such as we have just had. As Ken L said when he was being told that he was doing well in Hackney, ‘yes but it’s in Bromley where it matters’.

    What shows the whole thing to be some sort of electoral sham, is that it has nothing to do with what the council tax payer is charged. No mayoral candidate can do what i believe is possible in Scotland and put a few pence on the rate.

    So the mayoral election becomes more about what people think it’s about than what it’s about.

    It’s about Strategic Planning and Transport infrastructure (the latter determined by central government). Try knocking on the door and saying that’s what you’ve come to canvass about..

  2. An honest question here; why are unions these days pretty much solely concerned with the public sector?

    And if governmental services were one day entirely privatised, would unions just disappear?

  3. Gregor – they aren’t completely, things like air travel are still unionised but are private sector, where we still have steel works, car plants and so on they are still unionised.

    The answer as to why they are less influential outside the public sector is, I expect, to some extent the decline of manufacturing. Trade unions flourish in great big blue collar workplaces, and that is a much smaller part of the economy these days.

    And to your other question, probably not. Privatised industries are still pretty unionised – the private rail companies are still heavily unionised, British Airways is, I believe British Telecom and British Gas are still pretty unionised. It’s the culture within the company – privatising it doesn’t change that overnight.

  4. John B Dick
    Thanks for that detailed answer to my question regarding the SNP & Scottish Tories. I learnt something there, however is it not also true to say that, until the 50’s it wasn’t the Conservative party in Scotland but the Unionist party, which, as in NI, voted mainly on religious grounds; hence natural labour voters in say Glasgow, effectively voted Tory? Once the Unionist tag was dropped in favour of a Conservative one, (presumably to reduce sectarianism, then it’s not surprising that the Tories lost market share. It was indeed the Conservative & Unionist party then, was it not?

  5. Robert Newark

    “it wasn’t the Conservative party in Scotland but the Unionist party, which, as in NI, voted mainly on religious grounds; ”

    That was true in parts of the West of Scotland, but certainly not in the North, South or most of the East of Scotland. There, John Dick’s description is wholly accurate.

  6. Do the polls show that strikes by unions in the private sector are more or less supported by the public?, as opposed to strikes by public sector unions?

    I.e, does the general public resent strikes by people who are paid from the public purse?

  7. Gregor S

    Personally I resent strikes by anyone. It’s a selfish act which inconveniences others and usually achieves nothing. I do accept though, that sometimes bad management is the cause of them. However I regard the proposed strikes as being politically motivated, if not by all the participants, certainly by the unions involved.

  8. Robert Newark: “And finally on the location of the (Con)federal parliament, surely that should be in Gods own County of Yorkshire. If not York, then Leeds. York was after all capital of Britain (as it was then) under Roman rule”

    Typical distortions of history from a biased Tyke! York was never capital of a united Roman Britain.

    The first capital was Colchester, but for most of the Roman period, London was the capital of the Britannia province. In the 3rd Century Britannia was split into two. York (Eboracum) was capital of Britannia Inferior while London was capital of Britannia Superior. Later on (by the 4th Century) the Inferior province was split into two, with Cirencester being made capital of Britannia Prima and York of Britannia Secunda. The Superior province was first renamed as Britannia Caesariensis and then split into Maxima Caesariensis (London) and Flavia Caesariensis (Lincoln).

    London was always the larger administrative centre, and Cirencester’s forum was larger than York’s. What York did have was a large military presence, due to the need to defend against all those Picts and Scots. So it’s really a symbol of the martial oppression of Britain.

    Still, ‘Inferior’.

  9. Gregor S “An honest question here; why are unions these days pretty much solely concerned with the public sector?”

    Basically, it depends on where their members are. My union (Unite) has a lot of private sector members. I work in the private sector, and our business has not been privatised. In fact, most places I’ve worked at, the companies have had a fair number of union members, often with recognition, and these were private companies (financial sector).

    We have had disputes too – a threatened strike in 2009 which was called off when we got a deal.

  10. Colin

    It didn’t used to be a problem when as a young accountant people urged me not to go into the public sector because the salary potential was far greater in the private sector.

    What has happened over the last 50 years is that pay and pensions has changed in the private sector and not it the public sector. Pay and conditions are less at the bottom, and much more at the top. There may be fewer employees in the middle.

    In my 20’s I had the opportunity to join a prvate sector pension scheme in an industry in which a very large number were on very low pay. Assuming I retired at 65, I would be 80 when I got back the (non-indexed) money I had paid in. I left mainly for other reasons, but the pension scheme wasn’t a reason for staying.

    Low pay was very costly for that company. They could promote staff at the level of today’s minimum wage from retail sales to a de-skilled supervisory or branch manager level on not much more, but they could not recruit or retain skilled bookkeepers and finance staff without paying them much more and it took a dedicated team of half a dozen or so several years to sort out the financial systems.

    You may well be right that the private sector Sun reader may be jealous of the better pension conditions of others but pandering to the predjudices of the ill informed is not the best way to run a government.

    What do you say to those on the right who (mostly unjustly in my view) formerly accused socialists of wanting to level down the aspirational, now that is what the mean spirited on the right propose for the contributory pensions of the long serving teachers, doctors and policemen with a vocational committment to public service?

  11. Danivon

    At one time many managements prferred to have a union to represent workers so that there was a channel of communication through which minor issues could be addressed and early intimation of more serious issues could be obtained.

    That’s not the fashion now is it?

  12. I guess the public sector, of its nature administrative rather than managerial, still finds unions convenient.

  13. Robert Newark & Oldnat

    In the ’50’s West there was a clear class division in class, housing, occupation, religious school, sport, and voting but there was also a division within the working class and a third of the population of Glasgow was of recent Irish descent, mostly Catholic.

    Religion has less force nowadays, not only among the working class sectarians, but the middle class protestant Christian Democrats.

    It looks like the regionalism which was the key to understanding the SNP and LibDem vote up to the 2010 election had been much reduced by the UK coalition government’s splintering of the anti-Con LibDem vote. Anti-cons are the largest force within the Scottsh electorate but they have hitherto been split between three parties, and now only two.

    There is a real chance that those that remain or have recently become Labour voters will see where the others have gone, and that they will think that it no longer matters which constituency you are in, the default option is just to vote SNP. That might not always be a mistake even if the SNP is in third place behind the Conservative.

    If voting SNP bcomes the default for the anti-Con, then the pattern of voting Labour for Westminster and SNP for the SP would change.

    There is nothing much the SNP can do to bring this about. The individual decisions of Labour voting anti-Cons and local factors are unpredictable, and the “Tartan Tory” tag though untrue, still has force.

    The key fact, whether anti-Cons revert to favouring Labour and the Libdems or further concentrate in the SNP support is that these voters are promiscious and have no loyalty to any party.

    To say as some do that Labour voters lent their vote to the SNP in the 2011 election is quite wrong. Anti-Cons in both LibDem and Labour fancied the SNP as a more effective choice and a few anti-Labs also realsed that the Cons were a busted flush and the SNP suited their needs better – this time, but not necessarily next time.

    Which says nothing at all about any change in support for independence.

    The support for the SNP’s flagship policy includes Greens and Socialists and some in the other parties. Independence is supported by a small part of the SNP vote. The core SNP vote isn’t necessarily a much bigger proportion than the core vote of any of the other parties.

    The people who voted Labour in 2010 and SNP in 2011 weren’t ever true Labour supporters. They just decided to bestow the favour of their vote for a different party in a different parliament. They are allowed to do that, inconvenient though it may be for tribalists.

    What they will do next time, is a known unknown, but having moved once, they may more easily move again.

    There isn’t much the SNP can do to retain these votes except focus on building the reputation for competence that brought these voters to them in 2011. They can draw comfort from the fact that the three UK parties have just sacked the best SP leaders they have, and have given no sign that they have learned from their mistakes.

1 2 3 4