The latest YouGov/Sun poll today has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8% – still very much in line with YouGov’s recent polling.

For those looking for any polling effect from the strikes, you’re a day too early! Remember YouGov’s fieldwork period is about 5pm or so through to about 3pm the next day – most of the responses come in overnight. Not, I should add, that I’d particularly expect a sudden strike effect anyway… it’s not as if people weren’t aware it was going to happen.

Tabs are here


216 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 37, LAB 42, LDEM 8”

1 3 4 5
  1. Chris Lane asks why Labour isn’t doing better. The downturn has not yet hit hard and we are now in the salad days (excepting certain vegetables).

    I can’t remember any major swings taking place before conference season and more likely not until the new year, as a rule.

    I await confounding data from our number crunchers.

  2. @chris Lane – “Why is Labour not doing better?”

    I suspect it is because of the kinds of reasons I posted in my 12.35pm post. Things aren’t going too well at the moment, but Labour don’t yet have a viable alternative and there hasn’t been the kind of ERM drop out/devaluation/Iraq war kind of issue to fatally damage government credibility.

    It is only just over a year since Labour lost and in the absence of an event that crystalises a major loss of confidence in the government to the point where people turn to the opposition almost regardless of what they themselves are like, Labour still has a lot of work to do.

  3. @ Chris lane

    “Why is labour not doing better?”
    1. Labour is doing remarkably well for a party who have just lost office after 13 years in power with their second worst post war electoral vote shARE ( AT OR AROUND 40% – at least 10% higher than a year ago
    2. We have had a tireless and sustained media mantra – across all platforms press, tv, internet that the deficit is the problem and that Brown created the deficit ergo it’s all Labour’s fault has been the agreed position not just of the Murdoch press and daily mail, and Express but SKY news and the BBC – there has been no publicising or exploring of other root causes of the defocit or other root problems other than the deficit per se being at the heart of UK’ s economic problems ( specifically the collapse of the bnking system – and lack of growth in general) Thus we have the bixarre scenario of the worsening condition of the economy – brought on by GO’s idiotic austerity programme when we need all the growth we can get being blamed- still – on the Labour party.

    In fact you could just as easily have asked ” Why is Labour doing so well?”

  4. Alec

    “It is only just over a year since Labour lost and in the absence of an event that crystalises a major loss of confidence in the government to the point where people turn to the opposition almost regardless of what they themselves are like”

    You (and John Dick re Scotland) really must get out of this habit of making accurate, non-partisan analyses of the political situation! :-)

    it leaves the rest of us with little to say except “I agree”.

  5. @ Old Nat

    “You (and John Dick re Scotland) really must get out of this habit of making accurate, non-partisan analyses of the political situation! :)

    it leaves the rest of us with little to say except “I agree”.”

    I agree. :)

  6. @Iceman / Chris Lane
    That Labour is doing rather well in VI polls is inferred from the comparison with the respective main opposition parties in EU countries that hold GE in 2010. In the Netherlands, not only Labour does not increase its VI, but is on a downward trend, mainly to the benefit of the far-left Socialists and the center-left D66. In Hungary socialists gain a little bit, but still trail far behind governing FIDESZ. Only in Slovakia and the Czech Republic the socialists have a commanding lead, but there they were the first party already in 2010 and lost for lack of allies. Now of course they increase the difference from the second (center-right) party and the center-right alliance in both countries has no OM. But, I repeat, there they were 1st party even in their “defeat” in 2010, whilst Labour trailed 7% behind the Conservatives, after 13 years in power. Same scenario in Sweden, where, according to the last poll, ruling Moderates (EPP, center-right) decrease from 30 to 29 and Soc. Dems increase from 31 to 35, but there as well the latter were 1st party even then. Bottom line: Apart from Labour in UK, no other opposition party that was SECOND in GE in 2010 has managed to become FIRST party in 2011 polls.

  7. Virgilio

    “Apart from Labour in UK, no other opposition party that was SECOND in GE in 2010 has managed to become FIRST party in 2011 polls.”

    Couldn’t that be largely explained by the fact that England/UK is one of the few countries in Europe that is unused to Coalition Governments?

    The massive loss of LD support to Labour in England, due to their Coalition with the Tories, would seem to explain this oddity.

  8. @Alec Man and Iceman.

    Thank you for these comments, I agree.

    Interesting times we live in

  9. @OldNat
    Yes, this is maybe true. All the examples I cited above are from countries that are accustomed to coalition governments, usually of 3 or more parties, and the opposition is composed of 2 national parties at least, so the political landscape is much more fragmented, as in the majority of EU countries.

  10. Chris Lane
    ‘Interesting times we live in’

    That dreaded phrase again, perhaps you are new on here. :-)

    I think the times are bloody boring and there is no sense of any spark of opinion-turning thinking emerging from any party, as evidenced by 37 42 8.

    Cucumber sandwiches anyone? Pimms on the lawn? Anyone for tennis? and is there honey still for tea?

  11. Oldnat/Vigilio

    Is the dissatisfaction of former LibDem voters

    (a) because the LibDems went into coalition with the Conservatives, or

    (b) have not been effective in constraining their coalition partners.

    LibDem ministers claim that it was the right decision to go into coalition. They are less willing to make a case for their success in preventing even harsher right wing policies. They are of course inhibited while in government, but the suspicion is that they don’t have much to boast about.

    The scale of their losses suggests to me that it is not the fact of coalition itself that has offended their supporters, (they were up for a second coalition in the SP) but rather that they didn’t get what they expected.

  12. John B Dick

    “The scale of their losses suggests to me that it is not the fact of coalition itself that has offended their supporters, (they were up for a second coalition in the SP) but rather that they didn’t get what they expected.”

    I think you have explained that in your previous posts.

    In the SP coalition, they could clearly argue that they were on “the side of the angels” (though that analogy is stretching things more than a bit!) by going into coalition with Labour to ensure a large voice for rural Scotland in an urban dominated Parliament, as well as moderating any Labour extremism. Certainly delivering PR for the Scottish locals was a major achievement.

    Going into coalition with English Tories was completely beyond the pale.

    As I understand it, there was a stand-up shouting match at the SLD Executive meeting, when Jim Wallace refused to even talk to the SNP about anything, though most/many (?) members would have had no problem with an SNP/LD coalition.

    Lord Wallace of Tankerness may have been the decisive element in the death of the Scottish LDs.

  13. @John B Dick

    I don’t know *why* LD/ex-LD voters vote the way they dd, but I do know what happened at the same time.

    * Election result: twentysomething percent
    * Coalition formation: it started dropping off
    * Party conference season: stabilised at about 11-13%
    * Tuition fees: dropped off again, bottoming at 7-9%
    * Unknown: started increasing again, levelling at 10-11%
    * Local elections/AV: started dropping again, to its current position of 8-9%

    Hope that helps, regards, Martyn

  14. @John B Dick

    I reckon it’s probably more (b) in England and Wales to some extent but (a) was possibly the primary reason in Scotland.

    At least in Scotland they achieved one significant thing (voting reform for local councils) as oldnat mentions but in England they gave the impression of having red lines on things like not increasing tuition fees and PR but they turned out to be more ambigious ones according to the leadership after the election.

    Trying to own the coalition was arguably foolish IMO but a row seems to have broken out between the UK leadership and the SLDs about the SLDs not defending their role in coalition enough

  15. Maybe its not sticking to what people thought was the deal.

  16. Failure to deliver on the conract.

1 3 4 5