Full tabs for this week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll are here, covering the Euro crisis, public sector pensions and the protests outside St Paul’s (along with some stuff about cricket which I won’t parade my ignorance by writing about!)

18% of people think the Eurozone should try to keep Greece in the Eurozone, 59% think they should not, largely unchanged from a week ago. An overwhelming majority of people (80%) think that it is important for Britain’s economy that the problems in the Eurozone are solved, and by 39% to 18% people think it would be bad for Britain if the single currency collapsed. However, a majority (55%) of people continue to think that Britain should not be financially involved in any bailout.

Moving onto public sector pensions, people think it is right that public sector workers should contribute more of their salaries towards their pensions by 51% to 35%, support linking pensions to average salary rather than final salary by 49% to 30%. They are, however, evenly split over whether public sector workers should have to work until they are older to recieve their pension – 44% think it is right, 45% wrong. These questions were a repeat of a poll back at the beginning of July, and show no real significant change.

Asked about the changes the government proposed to the pension scheme last week (keeping existing retirement dates for those within 10 years of retirement, building up pension entitlements quicker… but still requiring public sector workers to contribute more to their pensions), 16% of people thought they were too generous, 17% thought they didn’t go far enough, 42% thought they seemed like a reasonable compromise.

On the strike action at the end of the month, 31% of people said they supported public sector workers taking strike action over their pensions, 53% were opposed. This is a slight shift against the strikes since YouGov last asked the same question in September, when 38% of people supported it and 49% were opposed.

Moving onto the Occupy London protests outside St Paul’s, YouGov asked a general question over whether people supported or opposed the protest outside the Cathedral. 20% of people said they supported it, 46% were opposed, 33% said neither or don’t know (note the contrast with the question a week ago that found 39% of people saying they supported the aims of the protesters, suggesting there are significant numbers of people with sympathy towards the protesters aims but don’t support them protesting outside the Cathedral). 44% of people said that legal action should be taken to remove them, 38% said it should not.


215 Responses to “YouGov on the Eurozone, pensions and protests”

1 3 4 5
  1. So what I’m saying is, Murdoch is a pragmatist – not an ideologue.
    The people who work for him (and possibly his son, although I’m not totally convinced either way) often are ideologues.

  2. NickP

    @”It iis also the misguided ideology that drives the idea that if you shut down the public sector the private sector will expand and employ lots of people to fill the void”

    There seems to be an interesting point of view underlying that remark Nick.

    It reads as though you feel both the public sector & private sector exist only in order to employ people.

    The statement that jobs shed from the public sector create “a void” gives that impression-that if the private sector cannot fill that “void” , then those people should not have left the public sector.

    My view is that the key criterion should be sustainability of employment-that jobs in either sector should be productive .

    To see the public sector as merely a repository for the unemployed is to further emphasise the concerns I have about the public sector -that it matters less what people do , than that they are employed.

    In the private sector , that leads to loss of competitiveness , loss of market share and -absent corrective action-complete loss of presence in the sector & possible liquidation.

    In the public sector it leads to higher tax levels, public sector pay inflation further squeezing out private sector employment -particularly in export sectors.
    If tax revenues cannot be raised , then systemic state borrowing & “Greek syndrome” can occur.

    Clearly one has to define those functions in which the State should be provider as well as funder & to some extent political ideology will always intrude into this determination.

    But once that has been settled, it is a question of effectiveness, & sustainability in my view Nick-not ideology.

  3. “What I find strange about your country is that it’s generally (Koch Brothers excepted) that care too much about higher taxation – it’s everybody below them.”
    Should really read “Is that it’s generally not the rich (Koch Brothers except)…’
    Otherwise the post makes no sense.

  4. @Old Nat

    You seem to make a classic mistake, that I myself made back with the AV Referendum, and a lot of people made with the Australian Republican Referendum.

    The assumption that those who support A will also support Compromise(A). In reality a large amount of those who support A will explicitly not support Compromise(A) even if it’s the closest thing on offer.

    I would assume that a large proportion of those who support Independence for Scotland would not vote for a Devo-Max compromise, particularly if it were campaigned against as ‘The worst of being independent with the worst of staying part of the UK’. And this could very well scupper any referendum depending on how the Independence supporters split. (No Pun Intended.)

  5. oldnat @ KeithP

    “It would be an interesting aspect of Donald’s legacy to the UK that he created a Scottish Parliament which became a model for an English/rUK Parliament. Not so much “father of a nation” as “father of nations”!

    That is indeed likely. The strength and weakness of the UK constitution is that it can and does adapt to the need for change – but a generation or two after it becomes obvious that iss needed. That’s even true of devolution, for it was 44 years after Donald told me about it that it happened, the concept wasn’t developed in that kind of detail in five minutes and he was standing on the shoulders of others who had promoted the Scottish Covenant up to 1950.

    Two million Scots assented to the proposition that:

    “We, the people of Scotland who subscribe to this Engagement, declare our belief that reform in the constitution of our country is necessary to secure good government in accordance with our Scottish traditions and to promote the spiritual and economic welfare of our nation.

    We affirm that the desire for such reform is both deep and widespread through the whole community, transcending all political differences and sectional interests, and we undertake to continue united in purpose for its achievement.

    With that end in view we solemnly enter into this Covenant whereby we pledge ourselves, in all loyalty to the Crown and within the framework of the United Kingdom, to do everything in our power to secure for Scotland a Parliament with adequate legislative authority in Scottish affairs.”

    No Scottish MP supported the Covenant except Jo Grimond.

    Donald Dewar was twelve years old. He was working on the project for half a century.

    How’s that for inefficiency?

    The only reason I support independence is that I can’t wait till I’m 109 year old for phase 2 at the same rate of progress.

    The only improvements in the Westminster set-up since my weekly griping to Donald are changes relating to the Trade Union block vote, and the hereditary peers, the latter moving sideways rather than forwards. Much else is worse, not better.

    As JimJam says, England may move rightwards. It may leave the EU, become even more divided between a rich metropolitan elite dominating politics finance media and entertainment and an impoverished underclass unable to afford health, education or insurance against unemployment and unable to escape into a middle squeezed out of existence as Elizaeth Warren has shown is happening in America.

    Then, and only then, probably as a result of social upheaval may the Scottish Parliament, it’s Founding Principles, election system, procedures and standards be the model for the reform of the traditon based parliament at Westminster as Donald envisaged.

  6. “We, the people of Scotland….”

    Search and Replace “Scotland” with “Britain” and I’m a Unionist. Independance is not the best way to organise governance in these Islands.

    As things stand I’m a Nationalist. Bring it on.

  7. SOCALLIBERAL
    ‘I guess I am “young” and a “Liberal” and a “Democrat” but I don’t think I really count. I will tell you though that you share the same name with a very good Liberal, in fact a great Liberal, one of my favorites:’

    You definitely do count. Keep on blogging please. Thanks for your site references.

  8. @CROSSBAT
    I note your attempted assassination of Theresa May. It is the typical rant of a political opponent who wishes her gone, in order to cause embarrassment to her party.

    Let me make 2 points;
    Whether, Mrs May is at fault or not, there can be absolutely no doubt, which political party caused the underlying farce of immigration into this country and the British public have noted it.
    Secondly, when Mrs May had the courage to say at a party conference, “we are seen as the nasty party”, she was right. The steps taken since have, if not destroyed, certainly ameliorated that situation. It occurs to me, that a senior Labour politician should have girded his/her loins and owned up to one or two little faults in your party. Not in the mealy mouthed way of blaming Blair for everything, but with the honesty Mrs May displayed.

  9. Jayblanc

    “I would assume that a large proportion of those who support Independence for Scotland would not vote for a Devo-Max compromise, particularly if it were campaigned against as ‘The worst of being independent with the worst of staying part of the UK’.”

    I deeply regret that that was exactly my attitude to Home Rule when I first heard Donald Dewar’s vision. He was disappointed, hurt even, that someone who agreed with him on almost everything took that attitude.

    He also argued with a Nationalist, who as opposed to Home Rule but thought that Home Rule would inevitably lead to, but delay, independence, (the good is the enemy of the best) that he should support it as a step in the right direction.

    What he never said was that devolution would “see off the SNP”. That was George Robertson, not the sharpest knife in the box. In fact, much later he said that “Scotland will be independent when people vote for it,”

    The notion that the aim of PR was to ensure the SNP could not form a majority government is foolish partisan nonsence. In the 1950’s the SNP were somewhere between where the Socialists and the Greens are today and no threat to the established parties. The aim was to ensure that roughly speaking a majority of voters supported any majority (however formed) of MSP’s which voted legislation into law.

    A majority of MSP’s on 44% is an A- but not a fail I reckon if the standard is comparison with Westminster.

  10. Anthony

    According to today’s herald http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp_under_pressure_as_scots_back_change_1_1951777

    “…independence, support for which, according to the poll, has fallen 11 percentage points from the 39 per cent backing in a survey published in September.”

    If “according to the poll” that kind of unbelievable volatility, was the result, then we really would be better off with horoscopes.

    Innumerate journalist award.

  11. “The Scotsman”. (aka The North Briton) obviously, not Herald.

  12. ‘You seem to make a classic mistake, that I myself made back with the AV Referendum, and a lot of people made with the Australian Republican Referendum.’

    The Australian republican referendum was brilliantly hijacked by the conservatives. It became a referendum ‘Do you want your politicians to have more power by choosing the token Head of State which would replace the UK monarchy or not’. argument. Obviously a referendum giving more powers to politicians will fail. Mind you, one of the 2 big states – Victoria -even then voted to get rid of Betty.

    Blair did an excellent job getting rid of the farcical born to rule Lords and then let the replacement issue being a different issue.

    When Australia has its next referenda (which it will as being an independent country is on many people’s agenda, just not high up) I assume they will have a question like (After the death of QE2)

    a) Head of Sate to be Australian Yes/ NO
    b) Place in order of preference your view as to how the new HoS will be chosen
    -Canberra Parliaments
    – Direct vote of the people
    – Some other choice.

  13. Unisys poll of 973 adults has found 70% support of shutting down facebook and twitter during any ‘unrest’.
    And three quarters support the government having ‘open access’ to data on social network users to ‘prevent crime’.

    Support strongest with 65+ and lowest 18-24s.

    Although it’s not given, I’d imagine the breakdown for users vs non-users would follow a similar pattern.
    Ignoring the privacy, freedom of speech, etc implications – it’s not a terribly surprising result.

  14. Also it would probably be unwise for the government to back such controls on social networking – even ignoring it’s lack of support from the police, social networking is such a big part of young people’s lives (and the lives of future citizens) that you risk alienating voters for the future.

    Being ‘out of touch’ is a risk politicians face most of the time – being so out of touch probably isn’t worth the risk.

  15. Rupert Mudoch told the Committe that he was not resigning because he was the best person to sort out the problems.

    Therefore nobody else (including James Murdoch) is the best person to sort it out.

    Who was responsible? “People I relied on.” He relied on James Murdoch.

    Rebekah Brookes had an office next to James Murdoch, but he was seldom there.

    It seems to me that Rupert Murdoch did not pay as much attention to his work as he might have done, and that Wendi Deng’s fidgeting when James was speaking management gobbledegook contrasted with her engagement when her husband was involved in the discourse suggested to me that she was not unfamiliar with James Murdoch’s managementspeak.

    Rupert Murdoch and his wife, the shareholders of B-SkyB and I may be in agreement that James Murdoch though not actually a b-anker could be described as something like that.

1 3 4 5