It looks as though yesterday’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll showing a Labour lead of four points was indeed just a blip – tonight’s poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 44%, LDEM 9% – very much in line with the average Labour lead of 8 points or so that YouGov have been showing for the last six weeks.

110 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 35, LAB 44, LDEM 9”

1 2 3
  1. On the matter of employment…

    “The future of the government’s Work Programme “hangs in the balance” as research has revealed that 90 per cent of providers will miss their targets to get people back into work.
    “…the Social Market Foundation (SMF), a think tank which helped design the scheme, has suggested that nine out of ten providers will miss their targets in the third year of the programme.
    “The forecasts also showed that providers will fail to meet the minimum performance expected of them by the DWP – by around 30,000 jobs over three years – and will undershoot what the government anticipates would have happened if no welfare to work scheme existed at all. ”

    ((Some may be disappointed and others relieved to hear that I’m away now; returning in Sept. I wonder what I’ll come back to.))

  2. @ Anthony Wells

    You mention that the four point Labour lead in the Sunday Times was a “blip” but that isn’t necessarily so: ComRes showed an even smaller lead and ICM has the Tories ahead.

    Comparing ICM to yesterday’s YouGov shows a 10 point discrepancy, so the true position is anybody’s guess.

  3. @Clad

    You said “…ICM C37 L36 LD17. Surely an outlier?…”

    No. We can argue all day about whether ICM, YouGov, ComRes or even Angus Reid ( :-) ) is most accurate, but the point here is the change, not the level. The change between ICM’s July poll and now is CON 0, LAB 0, LIB +1, OTH -1. So what this poll says is “nothing much has changed in the last month except for a *very* slight improvement in Lib”. Which is *exactly* what YouGov is saying. In short, polldrums.

    Regards, Martyn


    “- “Ed needs to spend most of his time on the streets of… Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow.”

    Oh please please please please please please please please please please please. Pretty please!”

    Ed Balls too, with any luck. ;)

  5. Sergio – “You mention that the four point Labour lead in the Sunday Times was a “blip” but that isn’t necessarily so: ComRes showed an even smaller lead and ICM has the Tories ahead.”

    Sergio – no, ICM supports the perception it was a blip, given it shows no change from last month. There are different causes of variation across polls – amongst others, random sample error and the systemic methodological differences between polls. They are completely different.

    Probably best to explain this with an example. Imagine there were two polling companies, A and B. Because of their sampling, company A consistently shows party Y 10 points higher than company B does.

    Now, imagine company A had recently been showing party Y at around 40%. Normal random sample error would mean we’d expect to see variation between 37% and 43% in company A’s polls. Imagine one day’s poll showed party Y at 37%. It could be the beginning of a drop for party Y, or normal sample variation.

    Looking at company B’s recent figures, they have party Y at 29%, 30%, 29%, 31%, 28%, 31%. So, they are showing party Y much lower – does it mean party Y are in decline? No. Company B always show them lower, and in fact, the trend in company B’s figures looks flat, suggestng company A’s 37% is just an outlier.

  6. Since we’ve flipped a page, can I repeat my earlier request not to discuss the ins and outs of Andy Coulson. By all means talk about any polling on it or the impact on public opinion, but please do not debate the issue itself – last time it ended up with some of the most awful partisan guff and conspiracy claptrap.

    Even some of the very sensible comments we’ve had so far will, inevitably, devolve into the same thing: I will just moderate it all, so please save your fingers!

  7. Anthony I had not seen the previous page that explains why my last post ia awaiting moderation

  8. @ Alec

    We are in the midst of Son of Credit Crisis and like most remakes it’s a much worse than the original. Coulson, Libya, riots, Central Edinburgh council by elections – none of this is going to be very important before long.
    On the contrary, what you write about is only money which can be created at the flick of a switch.

    Coulson/ NI etc. is about the power of the media; the media gets to decide what information is available to the public; & to what extend they will seek to distract voters from issues to personality politics – or even no politics at all: politics & politicians are irrelevant, corrupt, boring etc.

    Regarding Libya & the rise of the SNP (which drove the discussion of the Edinburgh election), the future of entire countries are at stake.

    So, I have a lot of respect for you, Alec but you don’t get to decide for us that money is the most important thing in the world.

  9. AW. Point taken and understood.

  10. A Cairns @John B Dick

    “The most likely scenario is probably ‘churn’ and Labour not losing more than 3/4 seats to the SNP at the GE but nothing can be ruled out.”

    In the 2011 election Labour clearly gained from the shattering of the LibDem vote, but in UK FPTP elections, Labour cannot lose seats in the North they have never had, not will the smaller share of the few LibDem votes in the central belt bring them much comfort..

    What we can say is, how big is the task for the SNP to take the FPTP jackpot from which Labour has in the past greatly benefited, and more significantly, what the lead over Labour has to be to have the majority of the Scottish seats.

    Remember that before referenda were fashionable, and pre-devolution, a secession of Scottish MP’s was seen by all sides as the route to independence. I do not think that is the current view of the SNP or anyone else, but it would have a profound presentational importance.

    If you put the FPTP SP constituency vote %ages

    SNP 45%; Lab 32%; LibDem 14%; Con 8%.

    into Scotland votes, you get seats:

    SNP 43 Lab 13 LibDem 3 Con 0

    Adjusting the Lab/SNP percentages so that SNP have just half of the seats you get seats

    SNP 30 Lab 24 LibDem 3 Con 0

    a Lab:Con surplus of 24, with the poll shared

    SNP 42%; Lab 35%; LibDem 14%; Con 8%.

    compared with 2010 when there was a Lab:Con surplus of 40 from votes of

    SNP 20%; Lab 42%; LibDem 19%; Con 16%.

    On the face of it that is a big ask, but according to my calculations, 25% of those who voted for Labour in 2010 voted SNP in 2011. That is a soft anti-Con Labour vote. These people are politically promiscious and they do not “belong” to any party.

    SNP canvassers and EM should take note of that.

    The LibDems Shetland and Charles Kennedy apart are according to Weber Sandwicks projection of a recent Angus Reid poll will be wiped out as will all the Conservatives in Scotland, but what Conservative strategists need to think about is the Lab:Con surplus.

    The better the SNP do, the harder it is for Labour to form a majority. A Labour majority with SNP support would be possible in theory but SLAB would be in an impossible position and the price in concessions to the SNP would be unacceptable.

    A confidence and supply arrangement with the Conservatives would be possible, but ironically, the better the SNP do, the lower the Lab:Con surplus, and the less the SNP are needed to allow the Conservatives to govern England in a way totally at odds with what the SNP will be doing in Scotland.

    Again the price would be painful to the English nationalsts in the Conservative party, those who complained about a Scottish PM in particular.

    So if you think this coalition government is a tricky thing to handle, just wait til the next time.

1 2 3