Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 39%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%. The two main parties remain extremely close, but we’re seeing more marginal Labour leads than marginal Tory ones (in the last fortnight’s YouGov polls there have been 7 Labour leads, 3 Tory leads), suggesting the underlying position is a very narrow Labour lead.

Ipsos MORI have also released the rest of their regular Scottish poll, showing Holyrood constituency voting intentions. Topline figures there are CON 13%(+1), LAB 23%(-3), LDEM 10%(+2), SNP 49%(-2), Others 5%.


262 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 39, LAB 41, LDEM 8”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. LIZH

    I note that you don’t follow your own advice! :-)

  2. @OLDNAT

    I don’t let Chou wind me up and I do like winding him up sometimes.

  3. Nick P

    A bit of a late response to your earlier posts i am afraid, but can I respectfully suggest you learn the difference between tax evasion and tax-efficiency? (otherwise called ‘tax avoidance’ – as if it were a crime to pay the least amount of tax possible and as if there are hordes of people who are begging to pay more than they have to!)

  4. @ROBIN

    25.9% turnout at Amersham. Looks like 74.1% of the electorate don’t care about HS2, either way.

  5. What kind of powers do English Town Councils have?

  6. BT SAYS…
    `A bit of a late response to your earlier posts i am afraid, but can I respectfully suggest you learn the difference between tax evasion and tax-efficiency? (otherwise called ‘tax avoidance’ – as if it were a crime to pay the least amount of tax possible and as if there are hordes of people who are begging to pay more than they have to!`

    I am really sorry…Ofcourse it`s all right to reduce the tax bill by having a good accountant…But to pretend to be a company when it`s clear as hell that you are an employee is nothing but a con…In times of austerity,when pay is being freezed,it is not unreasonable to expect the government to act on these tax-evaders

  7. @Statgeek

    More a question of 74.1% finding it too b****y cold to go out to vote in a town council election. Isn’t this a fairly standard turnout for local by-elections?

  8. * frozen*

  9. *freezeded*

  10. @OldNat

    “What kind of powers do English Town Councils have?”

    They provide allotments, plant flowers in the flower beds in the middle of roundabouts, maintain cemeteries, put up Christmas lights, make futile submissions to planning authorities. That sort of thing.

  11. Oldnat- Town councils are parish councils. They have very limited powers on things like village halls, allotments, cemeteries, parks – sometimes things like lighting footpaths or carparks. Their powers often overlap with district or unitary councils, so it depends what things the higher tier council lets them do.

    It is real “parish pump politics” – their elections are very often non-party political, and personal votes are often extremely important (hence the sniggering at the back when someone mentioned them the other day as the sign of some great political swing)

  12. Robin remembered one of their most important powers – making futile submissions to planning authorities*. That does seem to keep them busy ;)

    (*they do not have any powers over planning, but are consultees to any planning applications within the parish)

  13. Robin/Anthony

    Ta.

  14. Smukesh 5.34

    Well it’s up to the government to change the law then if there is genuinely an ‘unreasonable’ loophole; no point castigating the very typical human beings who take advantage of it.

    This is not only legal but human nature of all classes, but some of the angry comments about it sniff badly of envy and class war I am afraid.

  15. Interesting by-election result in Madeley, Stone constituency:

    Changes from May 2011

    LD Simon White 617 (47.7; +21.7)
    Lab 342 (26.4; -7.9)
    Con 294 (22.7; -8.9)
    UKIP 41 (3.2; -4.9)
    Majority 275
    Turnout 36.7%
    LD gain from Lab – a ray of light for Libs amidst the gloom.

  16. BT
    “A bit of a late response to your earlier posts i am afraid, but can I respectfully suggest you learn the difference between tax evasion and tax-efficiency? (otherwise called ‘tax avoidance’ – as if it were a crime to pay the least amount of tax possible and as if there are hordes of people who are begging to pay more than they have to!)”

    I second that emotion. I am sick & fed up of those on the left referring to tax avoidance as if it was some heinous crime. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and on the basis that it is incumbent on every man (& women) to pay the least amount of tax that they can, then we should all be at it.

    Tax evasion, on the other hand is totally illegal and should be punished with the full force of the law.

    But please will you band wagon lefties please get your facts right before criticising people who are doing perfectly legal things, in order to stop the theft of their hard earned cash.

    Choenlai – I just love your posts. You make this board worth reading and frequently hit the nail on the head.
    If it were not for you (telling it like it is & winding up the left) Colin & Neil (for rational argument) & Martin (for indisputable factual information) this site wouldn’t be worth reading. Apologies to OldNat but I have no interest in what happens in Scotland and you can have full independence tomorrow, as far as I am concerned. :)

  17. CHRISLANE

    @”The Lib Dem Simon Hughes: Is that by any chance the same Simon Hughes who won the ‘straight campaign’ in Bermondsey against Peter Tatchell in early 1983? Lovely man.
    The Liberal leader was David Steel, I think. Collusion”

    Often I find your posts obtuse. They seem to be making a point which escapes me.

    The word “collusion” in the above achieves the said effect :-)

    …so will respond prosaically !:-

    Yes , I think he probably is.

    He has never been my cup of tea , frankly-a bit too holier than thou-even for a LibDem.:-)

    But I willingly concede that I have changed my opinion.

    He has somehow contrived to be supportive of the coalition, whilst maintaining his LibDem “credentials”.

    His interventions in the HoC are always respectful , but focused on his concerns -which are usually to do with the social justice aspect of the legislation in question.

    He does not ( so far as I can judge) complain to the press that his Conservative colleagues are fascist monsters, and that he is constrained by them at every turn.

    In this I draw a distinction between him & Vince Cable, for example. VC looks & sounds as though his heart is in another place-the Labour Party.

    Simon Hughes sounds like a LibDem trying to ensure that his principles inform the legislation which the Government of which he is part brings forward.

    One cannot ask for more.

  18. I am going to be brutal here…There is no difference between benefit cheats and the sort of tax evasion that Ed Lester has been involved with…Those doing it should be ashamed of themselves

  19. I think many of you seem to presume that just because soem Minister rubberstamped it, it must be legal.

    Tax is not “theft of hard earned cash”. I pay tax…why can’t they?

  20. Robert Newark

    No need to apologise. Some of us are interested in what happens in other countries. You are inward looking, and no doubt happy with what you see.

  21. “Choenlai – I just love your posts. You make this board worth reading and frequently hit the nail on the head.”

    Trolls always need their cheerleaders. Why else would they troll?

  22. @BT says

    “if there is genuinely an ‘unreasonable’ loophole”

    I think the point is that there *isn’t* a loophole. There was legislation on this in 2000 and further tightening in 2007. From what I’ve read, the arrangement in place was not legal, and if it was signed off by HMRC then it wasn’t correct in doing so. If HMRC’s tax treatment of an individual was influenced by ministers (which is reportedly the case), that seems to me to be a very serious matter.

  23. ROBERT

    Thank you.

    :-)

  24. AW

    “(*they do not have any powers over planning, but are consultees to any planning applications within the parish)”

    *Wrong* I am afraid since the passing of the ConLib Localism bill.

    They can now prepare ‘neighbourhood development plans’ (NDP) which will become part of the statutory local plan and they can create ‘neighbourhood development orders’ (NDO) which defectively grant automatic permission for the stated type and scale of development on the indicated site contained in the order.

    They have to get the authorisation of the Local council but no-one is going to stop them because if council say no the PC can go to Eric “localism localism localism” Pickles.

    Ditto in urban areas where PC tend to not exist both NDP and NDO can be create by newly authorised ‘neighbourhood planning’ organisations- residents groups/ community groups etc. There are already over 100 ‘front runners’ creating NDPand NDO across the country.

    It is not all localist bloom though- they cannot act as NIMBY organisations: they can only propose MORE development than is in the existing/ developing local plan. They can’t be used to block development!

    So not real localism arguably- because that would allow local people to do what ever they wanted.

  25. “defectively” = effectively

    ;-)

    Anyone in search of a good example next time they are asked to define a ‘Freudian slip’ has my consent to use above

  26. Robin

    I’m not sure that ” influenced by ministers” is fair. In reality, ministers rely on civil servant advice and most(?) often simply sign it off without examining the detail.

    I doubt that Danny Alexander had a clue as to what he was agreeing to – like most Ministers in most governments in most countries.

    What is of most concern is that officials in a number of Departments may have colluded to an arrangement which was beneficial to “one of their own”.

  27. I think the problem with the Tax Avoidance/Evasion thing is that the left and right are talking about different things – the left are talking about a *moral* problem, while the right, who see no moral problem, are talking legalities.

    So right-wing politics, the politics of self-interest, will view legal tax avoidance as the moral thing to do[1]. Thus they’re doing nothing immoral[3] and it’s an insult to be accused of such.

    The left, however, who see tax as something everybody should pay equally [1] (or for the far-left, as much as they are able[2]) and thus tax avoidance is immoral, as it is to the benefit of the few who can afford to.

    So it’s just amusing to see two sides having two completely different arguments, once again.

    [1] Funny how both sides seem to also think that human nature is on their side – right-wingers see human nature as self-interested, left do not.
    [2] To pay for those who’re in need.
    [3] And doing nothing illegal either, making it a worse insult.

  28. Colin
    ‘Simon Hughes sounds like a LibDem trying to ensure that his principles inform the legislation which the Government of which he is part brings forward.’

    In addition, I have been assured by those close to him in Bermondsey that he has championed many vulnerable people against gangland thugs, which have resulted in several death threats, so far not deivered, which is one reason he has continuously retained a seat that should be massively labour.

  29. SoCal
    “The Lib Dems here seem to like Ron Paul (but some of that seems to be from the perspective that he would weaken the United States internationally and militarily and therefore is desireable).”
    I like Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy view – and I think that would also fit with most Democrat voters too.
    The problem would come when he’d be calling for the stripping back of the state to it’s core functions – I suspect not even most Tories would be supportive of that. ;)

  30. @Tingedfringe

    Nice analysis.

    We also need to bear in mind the practical side of tax collection. When assessing how to recover unpaid debts HMRC need to evaluate how to extract the maximum amount from the person/company involved. Sometimes trying to get the total owed would result in significant delay in getting anything, and would risk getting almost nothing (if you sent a company into administration for example).

    There is however an interesting asymmetry here. We think it is right to take people accused of benefit fraud to court, even when we have no realistic chance of recovering the money, but won’t do this for those accused of incorrectly reducing their tax bill*.

    *language carefully chosen to evade and avoid accusations of bias.

  31. BT says

    ‘This is not only legal but human nature of all classes, but some of the angry comments about it sniff badly of envy and class war I am afraid.’

    I suspect that many of those who would be critical are small business entrepreneurs who have felt persecuteed in recent times, often on IR 35, even when it is obvious they have formed a legitimate Company. In this case it is clear tax evasion and a proecution should follow and would be welcomed by me.

  32. If there were to be a By election at eastleigh Labour would be mad not to put a full effort into the campaign.At the June 1994 by election – a few weeks after the death of John Smith – Labour came a creditable second. Further back in the 50s and 60s , it was actually a Tory leaning Con/Lab marginal. Labour had good hopes of winning in 1966 – but fell short by 700 votes.

  33. graham

    I agree. I can smell a breakthrough moment in Eastleigh.

  34. THESHEEP
    It’s a difficult one either way – whatever your political ideology, you can’t ignore cost-benefit.

    But I just find it interesting how often, due to different moral-systems/world-views, people of both sides are using exactly the same language but are having completely different conversations. And that’s why people get so offended so often at the other side – it’s essentially miscommunication.

  35. “I agree. I can smell a breakthrough moment in Eastleigh.”
    I disagree – looking at the figures it would take a minor miracle for Labour to take the seat.

  36. The Sheep,

    ” but won’t do this for those accused of incorrectly reducing their tax bill*.”

    I’m not sure ‘Arry Redknapp would agree with you…….

  37. @OldNat

    “I’m not sure that ” influenced by ministers” is fair. In reality, ministers rely on civil servant advice and most(?) often simply sign it off without examining the detail.”

    That may be true in practice, but it goes against the principle of ministerial responsibility. And for the rest of us signing something means we agree with it.

    “I doubt that Danny Alexander had a clue…”

    Got to agree with you there. Except for the use of the past tense.

    “What is of most concern is that officials in a number of Departments may have colluded to an arrangement which was beneficial to “one of their own”.”

    The key point is that this isn’t an arrangement the employer can make. The legislation says that is the responsibility of the intermediate company and the de facto employee to correctly represent their tax status. Failure to do so is an error at best, tax evasion at worst.

  38. Oldnat

    I said as much and was misrepresented as accusing him of duplicity and failing to appreciate the great virtue of his loyalty.

    Wasn’t it Lord Salisbury who, when he suggested to an MP that he might be offered a post if his loyalty could be relied on, and being assured he could count on support when he was right, replied that that was not the sort of support he had in mind?

  39. Jim Jam,you called so I have answered from my self imposed purdah.I can only venture an opinion on South
    Wales and I would say that there is a lot of apathy here
    and most people that I meet think the assembly is okay
    because of free pescription charges,free hospital car
    parking,EMA and generous grants for students.Plus pegging tuition fees.Awful problems with unemployment,
    but it was ever so,here.Interesting that there were no riots
    in Wales last summer.However this is just anecdotal so
    worth zilch! Regards Ann.

  40. Robin

    We don’t differ on much in this case. Agreed that ministers are responsible for all decisions in their office.

    My disagreement with you was purely on whether ministerial ignorance can be equated with ministerial influence.

  41. COLIN.
    I thought it was the Simon Hughes, who is gay, allegedly, led by David Steel, who ran that subtle homophobic campaign against Tatchell.

    Bob Mellish was his Labour predecessor I think.

    I agree Vincent Cable, who began his political life in Labour and was lost to Labour when Bennism took over, comes across as Labour- would be a good shadow chancellor.

    I also agree that Simon Hughes is a very loyal supporter of the Coalition Government. I have not checked what he voted this week on child benefit and on support for children with disabilities.

    David Steel was furious with him in 1987 for leading for the anti SDP-Liberal platform on the nuclear deterrent.

    I am glad he is a very good MP. How many people will be evicted in his borough as a result of Housing Benefit changes? He laughed heartily at the PM’s attack on Joan Ruddock’s past support for unilaterism when she asked about evictions of people.

    A great man.

  42. John B Dick

    :-)

  43. HENRY

    Thanks

    I don’t doubt it.

    I think SH is one of the LIbDems who has “grown” in government.

  44. CHRISLANE

    Thanks for explaining.

    In future, when reading your posts , I will think “irony” :-)

  45. Robert Newark,
    I have a job which often means I am skipping through threads to catch up.
    I skipp most posters when catching up (sorry I am sure most people skip mine as well) but I do like to see what Roland is on about as it is entertaining and interesting (Nordic SS debates aside). I get enough inside Labour dicussion at branch meetings so alternative views are more valuable for me to read. I respect Neil A plenty and we often reach similar interpretations of the polls possibly due to the education this site and Anthony has given us but just as I read Colin and Martyn you should not dismiss the more thoughtful non-con contributers such as Alec who get most Economic issues before the rest of us.
    There are other righties and lefties who are rather tiresome – no names.
    Cue me being called tiresome :-)

  46. Technically, I think, Simon Hughes is not in the government not being in the executive (Cabinet, or other ranks of minister) He is a government supporting backbencher.

    Our local Lib Dem MP, Annette Brooke is outstanding.

    And she voted against the Tuition Fees hike, having pledged to oppose fees for students.

    There is a moral question, I think: Should we support things that we know to be wrong because we have signed a coalition agreement?

  47. Chris,
    As a point of fact it was the so called Real Labour candifate who issued homphobic literature in Bermondsey. Isn’t is great though that now such literature if not unlawful would probably lose votes.

  48. “I also agree that Simon Hughes is a very loyal supporter of the Coalition Government. I have not checked what he voted this week on child benefit and on support for children with disabilities.”
    Simon Hughes voted with the government on the measures, as far as I can see.
    There were very few rebels from the LibDems but they were the usual suspects.

  49. Chris Lane,

    “a great man”

    Simon Hughes of course can’t compare with the truly great men – the likes of Rev ARP Blair, MA (Oxon), forever noted for his “heroic” Iraq exploits…….

  50. Roland,for one terrible moment I thought it was you who
    was describing Simon Hughes as a great man.Oh, the
    relief on re reading and finding it was Chris Lane.

1 2 3 4 5 6