Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 39%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%. We seem to have settled into a rather steady picture of the two main parties around about neck-and-neck, though my impression is we’ve seen the inklings of a slow drift back towards Labour over the last few weeks. The next big planned “event” in British politics is the budget in just over a month – perhaps that will break the polldrums… unless, of course, something unexpected comes along before then…


216 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 39%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%”

1 3 4 5
  1. @ JIM JAM
    It struck me whilst reading my current book Cathedrals of Steel, Royal Navy vs German Imperial Navy. Churchill only made a comeback in 1940 because so many years separated his first career from his second. These days, (with the possible exception of Hague), age (far to old at 55) prevents any second attempts. Certainly the dashing young 1st Lord of the Admiralty of 1914 made enough enemies and committed enough blunders to last a lifetime in the backbenches. There was always this underlying brilliance though, however , I am not sure it would have saved him these days.

  2. @ Phil
    “And Labour’s 2005 campaign revolved around the promise that Blair would depart, without which even the 36% share attained would have been out of reach, so wasn’t it really won by Brown?”

    I was reluctant to vote Lab in 2005 because of Iraq & would not have done so if Brown had been sacked, as some suggested he would be during the campaign.

    But Brown lost the 2010 election? I knew it was a goner when I attended a large family party shortly before the poll. A group of young relatives told me that Brown was the worst PM in history; & my idiotic belief that he had [eg.] created the Minimum Wage, a measure dear to their young hearts, was an eg. of my early-onset dementia. Some of them assured me it was created by Atlee, others by Thatcher! They proposed to vote for the “radical” LDs.

    Labour’s achievements were thus under-estimated in 2010, but who should we blame other than Brown & Labour themselves. Labour’s campaign was not helped by the idiotic Leaders’ Debates. [Apologies for correct use of apostrophe.]

  3. Roly – if it seemes as though I was implying a GB comeback, no way I just wish he had had a fair crack of the PM whip.

  4. SMUKESH

    @”Libya may not be perfect,but it isn`t the carnage that many predicted it would be become…So credit to Camkozy for that one”

    A very fair remark.

    One I agree with-they could have stood by & watched Benghazi stormed like Homs.

    But they decided to stop it.

    As to the future ?-BanKiMoon seems reasonably confident.

    Of course it is difficult moving from One Family Dictatorship , with no civic institutions, no constitution, no freedom of speech & so on -to Parliamentary Democracy. It took us centuries-they are trying to do it in months.

    Young men full of adrenalin & anger , armed to the teeth, and proud of their entirely voluntary participation in a victorious revolution, find it difficult to forgive their oppressors-remember atrocities & dead relatives-do bad things.

    Just been reminding myself what Amnesty International reports said about the abuses carried out in Libya before the revolution-when there was no one helping the oppressed-and no hope whatsoever of a vote in choosing your government.

  5. Back from my week on a narrowboat on the Llangollen Canal (without internet). It doesn’t look like very much has changed in the polling? I haven’t looked back further than the current thread, mind you, so I don’t know if I’ve missed a brief 10 point lead for one party or the other.

    Definitely looks like polldrums.

    Only two comments on what I’ve read about.

    On the “partisan” effect of the reduction in the number of MPs. I think AW is right that it would have been very hard to tell whether the reduction itself (as opposed to the boundary review that inevitably accompanied it) would benefit the Tories. I would say though that in a FPTP system any reduction in the total number of seats available is almost certain to hurt the smaller parties, and that therefore the reduction was always against the partisan interests of the LibDems.

    If the whole country had only one seat, it would go to one of the Big Two. If the country had a seat for every elector, then the result would be perfect PR. Anything in between is a sliding scale of proportionality for small parties.

    The reduction in MPs was sold by the Tories as part of their response to expenses corruption. It was a very blunt instrument – quite literally a “if policitians are corrupt, the less we have the better” message. It may be on that basis that the LibDems decided they had to swallow it.

    Personally, whilst I absolutely support the switch to more regular boundary reviews, and to more equal sizes, I have no particular view on the number of MPs. Other countries manage with widely varying numbers of policitians and I am not sure that the politician-to-electorate ratio is a good indicator of how effective the government of a country is.

    On Billy Bob’s “carpet bombing” remark. I was very disappointed to read it, as whilst I don’t agree with the overall view he presents, there is certainly a good case to be made that intervention in conflict zones has a very uncertain outcome.

    But carpet bombing? That’s ridiculous hyperbole (and it was good to see Peter come to the same conclusion from a very different political outlook from mine). Carpet bombing has a very vivid and literal meaning as a military tactic. It is the very opposite of what modern NATO air operations entail.

  6. Hmm. I seem to have become temporarily dyslexic. I do know that the correct spelling is politicians not “policitians”. Maybe it’s a work thing…

  7. @ROBBIEALIVE

    “group of young relatives told me that Brown was the worst PM in history; & my idiotic belief that he had [eg.] created the Minimum Wage, a measure dear to their young hearts, was an eg. of my early-onset dementia. Some of them assured me it was created by Atlee, others by Thatcher! They proposed to vote for the “radical” LDs.”

    So we’re agreed. Some form of political general knowledge test required to enable right to vote? :)

  8. @StatGeek,

    Crikey, people have to have a clue what they’re on about in order to vote?

    So few people would be able to vote, we’d have the results by midnight!

  9. Neil A – we know people of lower intelligence are more likely t be right wing so I support you :-)

  10. @JimJam,

    There are a lot of very intelligent people who have no idea what they’re talking about… on all sides!

  11. @Neil A – “On Billy Bob’s “carpet bombing” remark.”

    No.

    Reread the post and see the source of the quote.

  12. I notice no one has disputed Craig Murry’s analysis of the discrepancy between the no-fly zone mandate and the resulting NATO’s ariel bombardment… and the consequent knock on effect for the UN.

  13. @BillyBob,

    I apologise, I mischaracterised it.

    However, I find when people (mostly Colin) simply quote a large chunk of what a commentator has said without further discourse, they are usually associating themself with the content.

    Since you didn’t add “Although Murray is an eccentric with very anti-establishment views on Middle Eastern issues, and his Carpet Bombing comment was clearly ridiculous” I felt we were perhaps at odds on the point.

  14. @Neil A

    Thanks.

    Hyperbole perhaps, but the reporting of these issues has been ridiculously one sided – on both sides.

  15. NEILA

    @”However, I find when people (mostly Colin) simply quote a large chunk of what a commentator has said without further discourse, they are usually associating themself with the content.”

    In which case, I am very impressed with your extraordinary telepathic powers.

    :-) :-) :-)

  16. OLDNAT

    Urgent new twist on WLQ issue.

    6 Scotlibdem MSPS including two ministers, two (till now respected) former leaders, my MP will be expected to vote for English bill to privatise the NHS in England.

    Whatever their private views none of them would dare justify that to their constituents if it applied to their constituents. It’s NOT like Scottish Labour members voting for things they can claim to believe in. It’s not like tuition fees where there was wriggle room.

    Privatising the NHS is anathema in Scotland. Admitting to being in favour is as socially acceptable as being a member of the BNP. Even Tories wouldn’t dare promote this bill in Scotland.

1 3 4 5