Tonight’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, Others 16%. The two point Labour lead is not out of line with the average leads of around 4 points that YouGov have shown since the conference season ended, but it is worth noting that this is the first time they’ve shown Labour below 40 since September. Sixteen is also the highest total YouGov have shown for minor parties since Summer 2009.

I’ll add my usual caveat for anything unusual in voting intention polls, this could be the start of something interesting… but more often than not it turns out to be normal random sample error.

Full report to follow tomorrow.


57 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 36, LAB 38, LD 10”

1 2
  1. @crossbat11 – “… this 36% Tory VI which seems utterly impervious”

    The last eight Populus/Opinium/Angus Reid polls (going back to July) have Con on 33-34%.

    During that period IpsosMori have Con on 32-35%.

    ComRes 34-38%, ICM 37% and YouGov 35-39% for the period.

    Does this have something to do with weighting/not wieghting LD defectors to the Tories? In any case there seems to be a divergence as to whether support is at, near, or below 2010 GE levels.

  2. Here’s the link to the tables.

    http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-st-results-21-231011.pdf

    What stands out are some very dodgy proportions in the 2010 vote within the sample: Con 529 Lab 412 Lib Dem 424. So given that the LDs didn’t come 2nd in the popular vote in 2010, and the Cons vote wasn’t 28% above that of Labour, I suggest that this should be viewed as rogue poll.

  3. @Phil

    “this should be viewed as rogue poll.”

    TBH I don’t think we really needed the tables to know that, but it’s good to know that my gut feeling was justified.

  4. The Con – Lab 2010 voters look about right relative to each other. Its more than just the Libs are higher than expected – which should help Lab a bit relative to Con

  5. Lots of listed companies donate to the Conservative Party. Do shareholders have the opportunity, as individuals, to opt out? 8-)

  6. Richard in Norway & SoCalLiberal

    The 1689 Claim of right listed many alleged abuses of power of James II of the sort indulged in by recently departed rulers in oil rich countries and George W Bush and claimed that these these were unconstitutional, and therefore that the King had forfieted his right to the throne, which they settled it on William and Mary.

    In England the king was deemed to have abdicated by leaving the kingdom.

    The principle that soverignty comes from the people harks back to the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 in which the principle of self-determination was asserted. The petition was accepted by the Pope who consented to the proposal that the excommunicated murderer Robert de Brus should be King of Scotland, so long as he behaved himself, but if he didn’t, he would get kicked out.

    “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

    The Claim of Right of 1988 was the outcome of a campaign to move forward from the failed attempt to set up a Scottish Assembly which fell because of a wrecking clause that required more than a simple majority.

    http://www.alba.org.uk/devolution/claimofright.html

    It was taken up by the Scottish Constitutional Convention who produced proposals for the new parliament. Between joint-chairing the deliberations of the Convention and drafting his Scotland Act to create the parliament Donald Dewar persuaded the Convention, the cabinet, both houses of parliament the Law Lords, Tony Blair (who didn’t understand it) and three quarters of the people of Scotland to accept in every detail known to me the concepts which he had been promoting for almost half a century.

    Two years later, half the people who voted against devolution were lying about it to pollsters.

    That provides the background. I assume that what Oldnat was referring to was some initiative announced at the SNP conference. Perhaps this will in some way engross the claim of right with the parliament’s Founding Principles.

    We need to hear from him.

    The SNP have announced their plans for the referendum campaign. It must be part of that.

1 2