Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9% – a seven point lead for Labour, quite high by YouGov’s recent standards. That said, yesterday’s daily poll had topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, so I suspect both these are just normal random sample error around an underlying Labour lead of 5 points or so.


331 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 35%, LAB 42%, LD 9%”

1 5 6 7
  1. Colin

    I didn’t get a tax paying option, but I know that if I had ordered the hardback version instead of the digital that the customs would have assessed them for duty. Even so there are many ways to avoid paying the full VAT. But it does raise the question if VAT is still enforceable in an age where borders don’t exist for intellectual products(although downloading die hard 2 would be stretching the concept of intellectual, somewhat) and if a consumption tax for digital services and products is not enforceable then why should the high street be subjected to an unfair tax disadvantage.

  2. KEN

    I was interested in your remarks about the Jimmy Carter threat.

    THe Community Reinvestment Act ( CRA) was the vehicle in question.
    Clinton made obtaining an acceptable CRA rating tougher-by having lending figures broken down by neighbourhood, income group, race & gender.

    A whole industry grew up around consultants advising banks how to get a good CRA rating.

    70% of US home loans-increasingly being tipped by the Government , to the sub prime market-were bought by Fannie , Freddie.& Ginnie-US government agencies.

    Bush actually altered the charters of Freddie & Fannie to declare they had an obligation to facilitate the financing of “affordable ” housing for low income families. The Department of Housing set goals of 55% of mortgages to be in that category.

    Bush ended up with Federal funding of deposits & legal costs through his American Dream Down Payment Initiative.

    When US house prices were at their peak, Fannie & Freddie owned more than half of the USA mortgage market-$12 Trillion.

    Of such idiocy was the Sub Prime catastrophe built-seeded through the global banking system by the designers & salesmen of mortgage backed “securities”.

    The central culpability of politicians in the 2011 Sovereign Debt Crisis is manifest -but it is not so well reported in respect of the 2007/8 Global Banking crisis

  3. RICHARD

    INteresting points.

    Didn’t realise digital purchases escaped Sales Tax in that way.

    Don’t tell this to any Greeks :-)

  4. Good news for GO today,,,,,,,Germany’s 10yr borrowing costs for its benchmark ‘ultra safe’ bunds hit 2.26%. The debt markets are only charging the UK 2.18% for 10 yr bonds. So we’re rated as safer than the Germans, the reason…. Germany only managed to sell e3.6billion of a e6billion issue yesterday.
    Not often Germany can’t get its bund issues fully subscribed, that leaves only us and the US as safe havens, good economic policy ?

  5. COLIN…..Thanks for that, I was speaking from memory, but I remember attending a conference some years ago, where an American banker gave us a heads up on the real culprits behind the crisis, I spoke to him afterwards and felt I could go with his argument…………as did a couple of speakers from academia.

  6. We don’t have to sell bonds after all, we have the Treasury and BoE to pass things between themselves until a credit mysteriously appears.

  7. Colin

    You need to do your research about sub prime, as I told you before start with professor William black, then Google robo signing and liars loans. Could also try reading leverage by Karl Denninger. But I’m afraid that the stuff you are repeating is a gross exaggeration of the facts being perpetrated to cover up massive fraud, which has been accepted by lazy journalists(which is most of them) even if these myths were true it does not explain why such a small market segment could blow up the whole world economy.

  8. Ken

    You believe what a banker tells you, and you don’t think he might have an interest in distorting the truth. Ah but honour among thieves(just kidding)

  9. Ken

    If that’s your idea of good news I hope you never wish any ill luck on Osbourne.

    That news is good in the sense that it is better for your mate to fall off the mountain rather than you. Course, if you’re roped to him…

  10. Here’s a link to an FT site setting out the 10 year bond yields for several countries.
    http://markets.ft.com/RESEARCH/Markets/Government-Bond-Spreads

    Data suggests IMO that whether or not a bond rate is ultra low requires first and foremost a country to be outside the Euro (the exception being Germany). The UK rates seem more common than not amongst the non-Euro countries listed.

    And it’s perhaps apt that Belgium is making a late surge on the rails, now only a short head behind Spain, given the responsibility of Brussels for all of the Euro mess.

  11. RiN,

    I was assuming we were talking about a sovereign debt crisis. A private debt crisis would be extremely surprising.

  12. Has there been any reporting of last night’s Mori poll on here as regards state of the parties and leader ratings. I may have missed the headlines!?

  13. Bill

    I think its the banking sector and insurance company’s which are the firing line

  14. Yet another dire poll for Håkan Juholt, the leader (since March 2011) of the once almighty Swedish Social Democratic Party:

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article13984828.ab

    (Google Translate is your friend.)

    Plenty more links to truly catastrophic poll availble for the curious.

    The civil war within the party broke out in public this week, with the contemp of party colleagues being very barely concealed.

  15. There is obviously a number of people conversant with economics on this site, even if they have different perspectives.

    Can anyone answer a simple question in simple terms please?

    There’s common agreement that this recession/depression or whatever you want to call it, was originally caused by too much bad lending and borrowing, whoever’s fault it was.

    That being the case, can anyone explain why the government thinks that part of the solution is to guarantee mortgages?

    I can see that first-time buyers would be pleased, but won’t the banks be tempted into irresponsible lending again? After all, if the government guarantees the debt, they can lend to everyone and his cat, or am I missing something?

  16. Pete b

    It good to have a laugh and your clear sighted comment made me chuckle

  17. PeteB

    As I understood it the governemnt would be underwriting 5% of a 90% mortgage, giving the bank the security of a 95% mortgage while allowing a homeowners to get onto the ladder with a 5% deposit.

    I think it’s a reasonable way to revitalise the housing industry which has been dead (or at least stunned, lovely plumage) for a number of years in the first time buyers market.

    I don’t know what the relative levels of risk are to the government, as it would depend on how this guarantee would be implemented. i.e. in the event of a default after x% of the principal has been repaid is the governments exposure 5% of the initial principal or of the remaining principal?

    The devil, as always, is in the details. I’m sure the people who have proposed this plan have had a good hard look at the actuary tables so pretty much know how much this policy is expected to cost.

    If the cost < the benefit to the government via increased house-building/buying, it's a good policy!

  18. Amber – you don’t have to register separately on different computers. Register on one, and you can use the password on any old computer you happen to be using.

    It’s not any sort of computer registering system, just a name and password.

  19. RiN
    Cheers.

    Alan
    Thanks for the reply, but I still don’t see why part of the cure for the malaise is to encourage the sort of behaviour that caused the problem in the first place.
    I suppose it’s because we hicks aren’t as clever as the gumment up in London. Round here, if our house burns down, we don’t try to rebuild it by lighting a bonfire, but I expect it’s because we’re stupid.

  20. Richard

    @”You need to do your research about sub prime,”

    Do it all the time Richard-I find it fascinating.

    @”But I’m afraid that the stuff you are repeating is a gross exaggeration of the facts”

    Don’t think so- my post just included facts I think-unless you can prove otherwise.

    I know you have a “bankers’ conspiracy” agenda. THat’s fine by me-they most clearly played a part.

    But in my book they were agents-leeches feeding of the system .The principles were the politicians & their placemen……………..not forgetting a certain Mr. Greenspan.

  21. PETEB

    @”That being the case, can anyone explain why the government thinks that part of the solution is to guarantee mortgages?

    I can see that first-time buyers would be pleased, but won’t the banks be tempted into irresponsible lending again?”

    Very good questions.

    I hope Mr Shapps has read his history of the USA sub-prime catastrophe :-)

    More seriously, we don’t have & are not proposing anything like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

    If you ever see a report that the UK government owns 50% of UK mortgages-start to worry seriously.

    Till then-hope for the best :-)

  22. YouGov/Sun results 24th Nov

    CON 35%, LAB 40%, LD 9%; APP -31

  23. Colin

    Thanks.

    You missed out on the full quotation

    ‘hope for the best, and prepare for the worst’. Good luck :-)

  24. Colin

    Fact; only 6% of sub prime mortgages were made under the provisions of the CRA and they were the sub prime loans that reformed best.

  25. Colin

    Fact; American Dream Down Payment Initiative was signed in Dec 2003 it provided downpayments to 40 thousand borrowers per year. By true time of the crisis, at most it could have provided 150 thousand downpayments which in terms of the American market is a drop in the ocean. Also I find no evidence that the loans made under this scheme were sub prime

    But it does seem like a silly idea to me

    More facts tomorrow, but I will keep them here on this thread.

  26. Richard in Norway.

    A quick look at Wiki on CRA’s contribution to over risky lending, indicates to me that it’s not quite so clear cut as you suggest.

    For example :-

    “Speaking to the February 2008 Congressional Committee on Financial Services hearing on the CRA, Sandra L. Thompson, Director of the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection at the FDIC, lauded the positive impact of CRA, noting that, “studies have pointed to increases in lending to low- and moderate-income customers and minorities in the decades since the CRA’s passage.” She cited a study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, that found that “data for 1993 through 2000 show home purchase lending to low- and moderate-income people living in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods grew by 94 percent – more than in any of the other income categories”.

    “According to a 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998, $467 billion in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to low- and medium-income borrowers and areas. In that period, the total number of loans to poorer Americans by CRA-eligible institutions rose by 39% while loans to wealthier individuals by CRA-covered institutions rose by 17%. The share of total US lending to low and medium income borrowers rose from 25% in 1993 to 28% in 1998 as a consequence”

    but also this :-

    “Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA.Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.

    and perhaps there is a much wider perspective to this :-

    “During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know”

    All quotes from Wiki

  27. Richard

    The blogosphere is cram full of stuff on CRA effect.

    Some come down on one side-some on another.

    I guess you have to make your own mind up-and I doubt the answer lies at the extremes.

  28. Colin

    Look this up

    Testimony of Richard M. Bowen, III Presented to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Hearing on Subprime Lending And Securitization And Government Sponsored Enterprises April 7, 2010

    You will see that this firm was making loans that were defective, that they knew they were defective and they knowingly sold them on to unsuspecting third parties including fannie Mae and Freddie mac. From this testimony it appears that the the institutions being accused of being at fault were actually the victims but that would be gross simplification.

  29. Ps, this is not an isolated case, there are many such testimonys

  30. Richard-thanks

  31. Colin

    You are welcome

1 5 6 7