Tonight’s YouGov/Sun has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%. In the last week YouGov’s daily poll seems to have pretty much settled down at around a four point Labour lead, with the Conservatives at 37-38, Labour at 41-42, the Lib Dems between 8-10.

279 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 37, LAB 41, LDEM 8”

1 4 5 6
  1. I thought the Lib Dem conference voted to get the NHS bill re-written?

    I think those few Lb Dems left are going to be thinking about leaving. Hell I think there’s a fair few Tory voters who didn’t want the NHS privatised.

    We’ll see. We’ll see.

    Problem is, all this slash and burn ain’t gonna be undoable. And with my pay frozen presumably indefinitely I sure can’t exercise much “choice”.

  2. @Billy Bob
    “The worry is that this is a once-and-for-all action. The new market then becomes subject to international competition law and cannot be brought under public governance as things stand.”

  3. RiN,

    In your view, In what way does the current bill depart significantly from the plans in the coalition agreement ?

  4. @Billy Bob
    “The worry is that this is a once-and-for-all action. The new market then becomes subject to international competition law and cannot be brought under public governance as things stand.”

    Pardon my ignorance but which court is responsible for international competition law and what is stopping us flouting these laws?

  5. Billy bob

    What you are saying is that the UK has lost sovereignty to the WTO. This is clearly a case where we need to repatriate powers from an unaccountable and undemocratic supernational body. That should be right up ukip’s alley.

    Can we have a referendum on WTO membership

  6. BlueJock
    ‘Is it the end of politicians from all sides making ridiculously hyperbolic statements about the NHS? Sadly not’

    Very true. It seems the Coalition policy on Health will destroy the NHS, the policy on Education will destroy Education (while I was hoping it might at least slow down the freefall in international standing), the austerity will destroy our economy, police reform will massively increase crime and planning laws will result in building over the green belt and other precious open spaces.

    Is it not possible that either some of the reforms may help address some of the problems we face and even improve services? if not cannot the opposition argue that the policies are not as good as and will not work as well as their, but just sometimes short of ‘disaster’.

  7. @RIN
    I am prepared to vote UKIP if we can renationalise the NHS. That is how much I care about the NHS.

  8. Well reading the last few pages the only people who seem to be dooming and glooming the NHS, talking of guerrila tactics and revolution seem to be the government detractors in general (on the whole).

    My tuppence worth…Cameron and the like wouldn’t attempt a privatisation unless:

    a) It was necessary to save the NHS (possible)

    b) It greatly reduced Labour’s vote (unlikely)

    The ‘c’ option; the one that people believe he would do this to wreck the country, the NHS and leave the poor folk to a life without free healthcare is in my opinion a non-option. He wants to get re-elected. He wouldn’t do this unless it was worth it.


    It’s EU competition law, so the European Court of Justice would be the deciding body.

    You would need to leave the EU in order to avoid their application.

  10. Nick Poole
    ‘I think those few Lb Dems left are going to be thinking about leaving. Hell I think there’s a fair few Tory voters who didn’t want the NHS privatised’

    I am aware that the NHS is making use of private organisations and this will continue and probably continue to expand under the Coalition as under Labour, but what do you mean by privatisation?

  11. @OLDNAT

    Thank you.

  12. @Bluejock

    Well for one I can’t find anything about abolishing the cap on hospitals doing private treatments in the coalition agreement and of course there’s this humdinger:

    “We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care. We are committed to reducing duplication and the resources spent on administration, and diverting these resources back to front-line care.”

    Reducing duplication and admin by fragmenting commissioning from about 150 PCT to an estimated 350 GP consortia. Apparently economies of scale don’t apply to the wasteful public sector

  13. I mean covered by competition law and opened up to bidding (and hence monopolies) and no longer the responsibility of the SoS.

    Basically if some chancers from the US or anywhere else want to bid low they can shut an existing hospital and then put the price up later. They won’t even have to beat the price the hospital quotes, because the NHS hospital will ahve to ahve their state financed advantage offset by accepting a higher bidder.

    We’ve seen it before. that’s why those charmeing G4S and Serco run detention centres, not the Prison Service…and why future Prisons will probably be run by the US military commercial arm.

  14. @Liz Hancock

    Another poster highlighted this link:


    btw Ukip’s opposition to Europe is a commitment to the neoCon agenda imo.

  15. oldnat @ Berious

    “You may need the services of the surviving NHS systems in Scotland and Wales or Health and Scoial Care in Northern Ireland, to clear that infection.”

    I don’t know about you, but I remember being ill before 1948. I was delirious, sweating, frightened and passing in and out of consiousness and my parents were up all night looking after me. They were obviously concerned.

    For whatever reason, they wouldn’t, or couldn’t, call the doctor.

    I have told my doctor in the presence of my wife that I would prefer to die on an NHS waiting list than accept private treatment.

    Since 2007 when I had an accident, I havn’t been ill in a way that would have kept me off work if I had been at work. In the last year I have had 27 NHS contacts of seven kinds in the last year and am booked for another. I went to see my doctor last week because I thought it was time I met her since she had been getting paid to look after me for two years.

    I have asked my MSP for a comfort statement about the possibility of harmful consequenses for the NHS in Scotland. The effects might be beneficial. We might be able to fill difficult to fill vacancies. There might be Barnett Consequentials.

    There could be adverse consequenses that I cannot forsee.

  16. Henry,

    Absolutely, the hyperbole spreads further than health. It’s always best to judge the real sentiment by the actions rather than the words, the absence of commitment and resolve to undo any reform, or the resort to the sanctum of futility (“once this is done we’ll never be able to undo it”)
    On health, all parties know the NHS was unsustainable in its current format. Labour had no plans to ringfence the money for it, knowing that they couldn’t sustain it as it was. Opposition to reform is rhetoric alone……

  17. I’ve let this thread run on because by the time I looked at it it was beyond salvation, but just to make sure it doesn’t infect future threads, this is NOT a site for political debate. I don’t think a lot of NHS comments here could be described as taking a detached and non-partisan viewpoint ;)

    (If people want to go on debating it in this thread, go ahead… just don’t let it leak into the next one)

  18. John B Dick

    Like you i have had considerable experience of the NHS from a patient’s point of view in recent years. I had already worked for the NHS for about 10 years, not as an employee but as part of Labour’s creeping privatisation, but hopefully made a contribution.

    Although i barely experienced the health service for my first 58 years, since then I have had plenty experience, and both my life and quality of life depend on the NHS surviving and hopefully improving. So if the Coalition kills the NHS, they take me with it.

    I want more money spent on the NHS and the service, which in many areas is working well, to improve where it is working less well. I support the NHS concept passionately and I know most LDs so, and I suspect (but cannot speak for them) that most (but not all) Tories do as well

  19. Liz Hancock @ Billy Bob

    “The worry is that this is a once-and-for-all action. The new market then becomes subject to international competition law and cannot be brought under public governance as things stand.”

    “Pardon my ignorance but which court is responsible for international competition law and what is stopping us flouting these laws?”

    Tut tut. Such a suggestion.

    All you need to do is ask the government of an independant Scotland (possibly with all party support by then) to bid to take over and run the whole of the English NHS for a management fee of eg €1m.

    You might need a side deal to pay a huge amount of compensation for the loss of Trident jobs when you take it away to Plymouth.

    We could run yout parliament for you too for a few hundred years, just till you sort yourselves out but we’d wan’t something in return which we could call “The Equivalent” It would be about £398,000 at 1707 prices.

  20. @Billy Bob

    Thank you for the link. We know what the government is trying to do but we seem to be powerless in letting it happen. As far as I can see none of the political parties are interested in doing things for the good of this country. They are just interested in power and money for themselves and their friends. None of them deserve our vote. I am really upset today.

  21. @ Henry, R in N.
    Shirley Williams appears to be what we call at my work place a “coffee bar radical”. She’s full of talk & fight before important meetings, but at the meetings themselves is silent & abstains or votes for the orthodox party line. No doubt Ms Williams will be soon be back on Question Time etc making fiery criticisms of the NHS reforms etc.
    I suggest you turn her picture to the wall until she actually has the courage of what she had pretended to be her convictions.

  22. @John B Dick

    Once Scotland becomes independent, please invade England. There are many here who will happily help you from within.

  23. Bluejock @ Henry,

    “On health, all parties know the NHS was unsustainable in its current format.”

    Agreed. NewLabour managerialism wasted a huge amount of money. Organising internal markets wasted huge sums. Managers managed targets, not patients.

    For 17 years I ran an NHS finance department with 9 staff. Three of these were engaged on payroll and personnel data recording. Payroll is now outsourced.

    The work of the remaining 6 is now done by 18.

    All other HR work was dealt with by departmental managment with advice from a senior administrator who had many other functions including recruitment etc for his own small department.

    There is now a separate and entirely additional HR department of 25.

    I think the number of extra staff at the top level has more than doubled. It’s difficult to count.

  24. Robbie alive

    Shirley was making an interesting point about the constitutional role of the lords, she was saying that the unelected lords should not attempt to overturn the wishes of a democratically elected govt. But amending the bill was within the scope of the lords, many thought that David Owens amendment had the intention of killing the bill. For more than a hundred years the liberals have fought against the power of the unelected lords, to now abuse that power would be strange. You might say that the ends justifies the means but I would argue that there is a constitutional issue here. Having said that I wouldn’t put it past our lot to use a constitutional issue to escape taking responsibility

  25. Liz Hancock @ John B Dick

    “Once Scotland becomes independent, please invade England. There are many here who will happily help you from within.”

    A couple of years ago I wrote a first draft of a mini play.

    It assumed SNP hopes and ambitions for water, renewables, health promotion, food and other agriculture etc would meet their objectives, maintaining ancient values and traditions such as a respect for education.

    England would continue on its present course with current problems and values. The likely consequence of separation, I thought, would be that r-UK would leave the EU and become increasingly divided into the super rich and an ill educated underclass.

    There was nothing that in itself was fanciful. All of the changes are already incipient. None of these speculations was impossible though of course the probability of all of them happening tgether is virtually nil.

    I tried it on Nationalist friends, one now an MSP. My point was that one could easily conceive of circumstances in which they would become Unionists.

    Independence wasn’t a principle at all.

    You have got the punchline.

  26. Withy DC wanting to keep lines open to the Tory right wing, if DR Fox goes he’ll bring in Michael Howard who has excellent credentials on the right wing front. David Laws – no chance as it woyuld moving the LD Number 2 at the MoD which could have other ramifications.

    On other unrelated matters will GB get the job at the ECB when the current fellow goes(can’t remember name but t begins with ‘T’) – I gather that in recent months he’s been advising theECB and having private meetings with Merkel and Sarkozy about how he saved the world from financial ruin and how they must deal with the euro crisis – Gif they takesome notice of GBs avice we’ll be in the Gordon does it again scenario and perhaps the beginning of the rehabilitation of his reputation?

  27. @Liz Hancock,
    @Billy Bob,

    Er, no it wouldn’t be the ECJ, on several grounds:

    * The ECJ doesn’t hear cases from people/companies, it’s a referral body for national courts.
    * EU competition law prevents states disadvantaging actors dependent on nationality, but nationalisation is egalitarian (it disadvantages all actors equally).
    * Healthcare was specifically excluded from the Services Directive.

    So renationalisation of healthcare would not be covered by EU law. So not the EU. But if not the EU, then who?

    Nationalisation without effective compensation is covered by a system of multiple BITs (bilateral investment treaties) called IPPAs (Agreements for the Promotion and Protection of Investments) which prevent State X nationalising investments by actors from State Y. Appeals for violations would go via the DSB (part of the WTO) and/or the ICSID (part of the World Bank).

    So the answer to your original question would be the World Trade Organisation and/or the World Bank. I’ll put the supporting links into a following post so Anthony can moderate it in the morning.

    Hope that helps, Regards, Martyn


    I don’t think the Lib Dems have any interest in being in a permanent coalition with the Tories, it’s all out of convenience. Frankly, also IMO, it seems like David Cameron and Nick Clegg have far more in common ideologically than they do with either party that they lead.
    October 12th, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    My ppint is that the two parties coming together gives them a majority in the upper house….which is exactly the position Before 1997 when the hereditary peers were semi-abolished. In short even a labour government with a majority of 150 in the lower house never had a majority in the upper house. It means that the Coalition is less likely to have its legislation revised…as we’ve seen….an much of this legislation wasn’t in their Manifestos….

1 4 5 6