Tonight’s is the last YouGov daily poll for 2011 and topline figures are CON 40%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, meaning we end the year with the two main parties neck-and-neck, which is at least quite tidy. I’m not sure if we’ll have any polls until next year now. We haven’t had an ICM poll for the Guardian yet this month, so perhaps they’ll pop up between Christmas and new year, or perhaps they’ve skipped a month. Either way, I’ll try to do a round-up post or two over the next week.

208 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 40%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%”

1 3 4 5
  1. @ Martyn

    Is Chris Huhne’s driving violation a gaffe or corruption?
    I don’t know about corruption but it seems he’s going to be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. If he’s found guilty, I’d say it’s almost certain that he’ll be retired to the back-benches.

    Police have recommended that both Energy Secretary Chris Huhne and his ex-wife be charged over claims that he dodged a speeding penalty.

    Detectives believe they have presented the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with enough evidence to charge Mr Huhne with speeding and, more seriously, attempting to pervert the course of justice, according to tomorrow’s edition of The Times.

  2. Martyn

    * Is Clegg’s 12-month AV campaign consisting of “well, I think it’s great, um…” a defeated political POV or a gaffe?

    Simply wanted to offer the people a choice on the electoral system. He did not go as far as he would have if the LDs were the largest party. Don’t see it as a gaffe

    * Is David Laws’s expenses kerfuffle a gaffe or venality?

    More of a kerfuffle; certainly does not match the dodgy expense arrangements of many other MPs, some still in office and some sent to clink.

    * Is Chris Huhne’s driving violation a gaffe or corruption?

    While still innocent at the moment, if guilty then a serious crime and conviction will mean jail, and in such circumstances richly deserved.

    * Is Oliver Letwin’s wombling a gaffe or a security breach?

    I wonder if anyone outside media and political pundits are worried by the dear old [email protected]’s wombling. I did not think MPs ever actually read letters from constituents. They usually get an underling to reply.

    * Is Peter Bone’s question about Prime Ministerial succession spectacular ignorance about how the PM is appointed, or a gaffe?

    specular ignorance sums it up.

    * Is Theresa May’s conviction that “BECAUSE HE HAD A CAT! IT’S TRUE!” silliness or a gaffe?

    An intended joke, based on the fact the ownership of the cat did in some way show a relationship.

  3. @ Old Nat

    “Gordon has been spending his time playing football in the house with the boys.

    They knocked the Xmas tree over and Sarah is mightily unpleased. The wrath of the electorate is nothing to the wrath of a wife.”

    It sounds like Gordon Brown is finally having fun and enjoying himself. That’s what he needs to do. He needs to be less Annie Walker and more Ann Richards.

    @ Neil A

    “I think there is a tendency on the left to romanticise and demonise their leaders and opponents which is not really matched on the right.

    Every Republican President or Tory PM is an evil, wicked destroyer of hope. Successful socialists/Democrats are Christlike bringers of light.”

    That is so NOT true. First of all, if it were true, you wouldn’t see right wingers putting up statues of Ronald Reagan everywhere and trying to make sure something is named after him in every single county of the United States. And the left doesn’t demonize right wing leaders. Certainly, you don’t hear people demonizing Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerry Ford, and George H.W. Bush. I suppose that Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya are “demonized.” But that’s only if you consider demonization to be truthful reporting of facts about what these men did as President and drawing conclusions about these men from their actions. To me, that’s not demonization, that’s just an honest assessment. Charles Manson was evil because of what he did to Sharon Tate and 6 others. I don’t think I’m demonizing Charles Manson, I’m simply drawing a conclusion based on his actions.

    Seems to me that leftists don’t really romanticize their leaders either until the leaders have long left office. During their administrations, we hate them and talk about how disappointed we are in them.

  4. @ Amber Star

    “I think that Labourites love Kennedy because he did seem to believe in society; & that together we could reach for the stars… figuratively as well as literally.

    And JFK had a glamour about him; a flawed & fragile grace which is rarely seen in someone with the power to command a nation.

    Perhaps you are not a big fan because you see him as a President whereas we see him as embodying the hopes of a nation for a better society; & such hope, like Kennedy, is flawed & fragile but full of grace.”

    I think that a lot of people love Kennedy because he represented all that they hoped for and believed in. Keep in mind that discrimination against ethnic minorities was rampant in the U.S. Kennedy’s family was wealthy but for most of the period prior to World War II, most of these ethnics (white ethnics) were poor and at the bottom of the food chain societally. All faced discrimination though (even the wealthy families like Kennedy’s).

    But starting with World War II and the massive government investment in education and housing and veterans benefits, a lot of people who were once in poverty rose out of poverty and into the middle class. This included a great number of white ethnics. They saw a little bit of Kennedy in themselves and someone who embodied their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. I think to a lot of people, his election symbolized the feeling of “We’re Americans too.” The fact that he and his family were so glamorous helped a lot too.

    The country was well off back then too and people remembered feeling a great sense of positivity and optimism under him too.

    I’ll tell you Kennedy’s lasting legacy though. If you’re ever in D.C., try walking down Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. between the White House and the Capitol. Consider dining at one of the fine restaurants on that street. You will notice that it’s a beautiful and vibrant avenue. When JFK was sworn in, the place was basically a ghetto and a red-light district. It was a growing embarassment for presidential inauguration marches. Kennedy set out to fix that and put Daniel Patrick Moynihan in charge of a Pennsylvania Avenue revitalization project. It worked. He also desegregated the White House guard.

  5. @ Amber Star

    The thing about JFK is that I look at what he acheived as President and I try to view it objectively.

    Most of the great, groundbreaking legislation he supported languished in Congress. He basically got through a tax cut and the Equal Pay Act. Kennedy was basically dragged into coming out against segregation. It was really only towards the end of his presidency when the actions of southern whites were so outrageous and so awful and everything was caught on tape (see, e.g., Bull Connor having his storm troopers beat people on church steps) that Kennedy stepped in. Largely, he backtrackked on segregation issues and did little to advance civil rights.

    When it comes to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy got to claim a victory but he could have gotten everyone killed through his brinksmanship.

    As for the Supreme Court, he was 1 for 2 to use the baseball expression. Arthur Goldberg was a solid pick (albeit for a very short tenure) and helped advance Liberal causes on the bench, providing a key 5th Liberal vote for Warren and Brennan. But Byron White turned out to be a Conservative who would later oppose abortion rights and write one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history, Bowers v. Hardwick (though JFK can’t be blamed for that).

    As I said before, he is responsible for Pennsylvania Avenue’s current grandeur. He helped lay the foundations for the DC Metro by appointing locals who supported mass transit and opposed freeways. He also, as you mentioned earlier, laid the groundwork for reaching the stars.

    So, he wasn’t a horrible President and he did some great things as President. But to me, he’s never been a great President.

    See I do look at Presidents as embodying the hope and spirit of a nation. There are any number of political figures who I admire greatly and look up to. Kennedy isn’t one of them (amazingly enough).

  6. Peter Bone is Teresa Gorman’s anointed successor.

  7. @SoCal,

    I almost choked on my Weetos when I saw you argue that the left doesn’t demonize right-wing politicians, whilst simultaneously comparing Nixon/Bush to Charles Manson!!

  8. Neil

    I think its a fair comparison, really all leaders that get involved in unnecessary wars or prolong them are worse than Charles manson. In the case of bush the comparison is unfair to Mr manson, bush allowed men to be executed when there was good reason to believe they were innocent because it was politicaly expedient. Of course I would add Blair and Johnson to that list as well

1 3 4 5