We have new polls from ComRes and YouGov tonight. The monthly ComRes telephone poll for the Indy has topline figures of CON 37%(nc), LAB 40%(+2), LDEM 13%(-1), Others 10%. Meanwhile the first of this week’s daily YouGov polls for the Sun has topline figures of CON 38%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, Others 13%. Both are consistent with the picture we’ve been seeing lately of a very small Labour lead.


153 Responses to “New YouGov and ComRes polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. NickP,

    “First, a service has to be delivered (keeping roads and rail open for instance). If transport is subsidised by the taxpayer, the taxpayer gets cheaper transport. Which helps trade.”

    Cheaper at their own expense and regardless of whether or not they use those services or to the extent that they use them. So people who never rode Triumph motorcycles or Rolls Royces still subsidised them, insofar as they paid taxes, and their reward was to get cheaper goods that they didn’t want to buy anyway.

    Roads, incidentally, ARE a good example of where state ownership and management is best, especially when it comes to backroads or major roads with no alternatives. There is also a moral case for ownership/subsidy/regulation (as appropriate) of the railway industry for environmental reasons and the halfways house we’ve had since 1995 has not impressed, especially prior to New Labour’s reforms.

    “And don’t talk to me about the privately owned banks… They are a cartel and effectively a monopoly by sharing the risk amongst themselves they ensure they cannot go bust without taking us all down with them.”

    That’s a very loose use of “monopoly”, not least because you can do your banking almost anywhere in the world. Also, when a central bank has lender-of-last resort powers there is no need for a financial crisis bringing down the whole economy and even if the central bank can’t do LOLR then it can always stimulate the economy to firewall the real economy from the financial industry.

    The great ruse of 2007-2008 was that guillible politicians in the West were convinced that billing the taxpayer for the mistakes of their friends in the City was the only solution. That was one of the many bad policy errors of that period in the UK and we’ve still paying the price today.

  2. “The Tories said at the time they would simply not go into coalition if PR was a condition.”

    The discussion on here can be traced back to Roger Mexico’s posting at Roger Mexico @12.10am and my observation at 7.59 am.

    The point is that there seems to be growing unease in LD ranks about the impact of implementation of the boundaries review. An implication is that LDs have or are unwittingly creating the electoral landscape for Con hegemony. This can be in part blamed on the reduction in MPs which the LDs have had as a manifesto commitmnent but always tied in with PR. They got one without the other…words fail me for the sheer incompetence of NC in allowing this. NC should have had the foresight to see what might happen.

  3. @RogerMexico don’t think three is statistically signifcant. it is roughly MOE in the same way one and two are. Four and above os where it starts to get statistically signifcant.

  4. @MIKE N
    “NC should have had the foresight to see what might happen.”

    Maybe that was his aim all along?

  5. bill

    there’s certainly a discussion to be had about what “should” be privately owned, what “could be” and even what “should NOT be”.

    I don’t think for instance that Tesco should be nationalised, but it also needs to be prevented from using its financial muscle to price everybody out of business (and possibly bankrupt all the suppliers too).

    These are complex issues and the amount of central control and/or regulation is basically where all the political argument takes place. Too much state or too little is equally a disaster, but the arguments are now getting polarised somewhere right of where I am.

    So nobody represents my view that the NHS doesn’t need competition at all!

  6. @Colin Green;

    Then I’d say, at the end of the day, allowing the Conservatives to form minority government would have been the better choice. Have the Lib Dems really gained more by entering the coalition than they would have by not joining?

  7. LizH
    “Maybe that was his aim all along?”

    Aye, in which case LD members may well question NC’s motives and capability to lead the party.

  8. @TOP HAT
    “Have the Lib Dems really gained more by entering the coalition than they would have by not joining?”

    The justification I have heard is that they now have experience in governing. But what use is that if you never see the light of day again?

  9. I understand that despite the e-petition haveing well over the requried numbers a debate on dropping the Bill has been rejected by the Backbench Committee.

    I coffed at the idea of e-petitions when this gov announc ed the concept. Democracy?

  10. @coffed’ shoudl be prefixed with s

  11. My guess is that impetus for the coalition had a lot to do with the personalities involved.

    Rumours that Laws and Letwin had been preparing the ground for months, on the train journey back to their neighbouring constituencies.

    Clegg (who proir to cleggmania was referred to by some journalists as the young fellow carrying Cable’s bag) delivered a reduction in LD MPs – and by rights (if Huhne’s postal votes had not been delayed in the Christmas post) he should never have been leader.

    Cameron, unloved by his party – they swallowed his objectionable detox only as an electoral ploy. If he had won a majority would they have changed their view of him, or found a way to install a proper Tory? In the case of him trying to lead a minority administration – ditto.

    The Cameron-Clegg Rose Garden was a ecstacy of relief – shoring up their respective leaderships, and hobbling their parties. The predominance of the “quad” (Cameron/Osborne/Clegg/Alexander) further insulates them from internal party pressures.

  12. Amberstar & LizH

    If Angus Robertson’s team are asleep on the job they will look very foolish if the bill goes through.

  13. Roger Mexico @ OldNat

    “Incidentally I’m always amused by denunciations of NHS bureaucracy by those who want the market to rule. Do they have any idea what they are letting themselves in for? What you end up with is two enormous bureaucracies – one public, one private, both paid for by the taxpayer – keeping an eye on each other.”

    In an insurance based system there are costs for the hospital in cost accounting, biling, debt collection, and fraud. The entire cost of the insurance company in advertising, sales, billing, collection, bad debts, tax, profit, and fraud is extra.

    Only from economies of scale or repalcement of truly gross mismanagement can a commensurate saving be made unless pay rates and other staff costs can be reduced.

    Something of the order of 75% of hospital costs are staff costs and most of that nurses bcause to have one nurse on duty 24/7/365 needs over 10 on the payroll.

    The only way to pay for extra administration and profit without reducing service levels is to reduce nurses pay and conditions. There is no way at can be done without creating recruitment and morale problems and therefore a worse service.

    Significant savings can be made by cumulative incremental improvements and the removal of the vestiges of NewLabour’s internal market.

    21 years ago I was in charge of the finance function of a small Health Board. Excluding payroll staff (now outsourced) the remainder has increased threefold and there is an entirely extra HR department of 25.

    I’m sure they are all working hard creating work for each other.

  14. LIZH
    `Donations pouring in to 38 Degrees to put up billboards across London next week to ask Cameron to stop the damaging NHS reforms. At the moment 7269 people have donated £99362 and more is coming in by the minute`

    Interesting idea…Will a national issue work in a local election and the voters choose to send Cameron a message rather than choose the mayor?I think given the closeness of the election,it would be very interesting

  15. Bill Patrick

    That the railways were nationalised was nothing to do with monopolies.

    For five years refurbishment and investment had stalled because of the war, and the railway companies could not raise the capita they neededl.

    The choice was between nationalisation and further decline leading to closure.

  16. @ Old Nat

    More than a bland assurance. I was referred to “EU competition law and health policy” by Lear, Mossialos & Karl, for further detail.
    —————————————-
    Thank you, I shall order a copy & read it next weekend.
    8-)

  17. Amber

    You can save your money. The reason I was referred to it is that it is available online.

  18. NICKP

    @”Fully accepted that (New) Labour were in bed with Murdoch too. Doesn’t excuse any of them.”

    THanks-agreed.

    @”I would like to see some long sentences ”

    Me too-when Akers is finished I think they will happen.

    For me the corrupt civil servants who took NoW’s money are the worst of the bunch.

  19. nickp @ bill

    “So nobody represents my view that the NHS doesn’t need competition at all!”

    Nobody in England that is maybe. In the Scottish Parliament the Greens, the SNP and the Margo and formerly the two Socialist parties would meet your needs as would much of SLAB if not whipped.

  20. “For me the corrupt civil servants who took NoW’s money are the worst of the bunch.”
    The implied corruption of the police seems to be the worst part – knowing at the time that there were at least 100 victims of the hacking but not fully investigating and then helping News International cover it up (with the ‘one rogue reporter’ line, etc).

  21. Tinged

    Indeed.

    But I am intrigued by Sue Akers’ reference to Prison Service & NHS staff.

    When she is through & they start prosecuting, we will find out who these people were.

  22. NICKP
    COLIN

    Given what happened in 1992 and the 17 years in opposition,is it any surprise that Labour courted News International?I don`t see any problem in courting a media group as long as nothing unlawful or unethical is involved
    I was moderated about the current government`s media courting,so won`t be venturing there.

    Currently News International own the biggest media outlet in the land apart from the BBC (who are also in fear of the government due to licence fee),so the opposition is really quite handicapped in getting their point across…Ed has been very brave to oppose Murdoch…I hope he doesn`t pay the price for this bravery

  23. “The comments by Lord Lee in today’s FT are quite extraordinary. The Lib Dem peer opposes the coalition’s plan to reform the House of Lords to such an extent that he has threatened to quit his role as a Lords whip if it pushes ahead. He said:
    There is absolutely no public demand for this at all, and pretty much zero support from serious political commentators.

    Lord Lee is not alone: we have now learned that 14 Lib Dem peers wrote a letter last year to the party leader outlining their opposition to his plans for an 80 per cent elected chamber.
    In the letter, the 14 said:
    We do not believe there is any real demand from the public for a second elected House, and we would lose the expertise currently therein.
    They also attacked the official Lib Dem argument that House of Lords refom has cross-party support because it appeared in all three party manifestos in 2010. They said:
    We do not accept that the presence of somewhat different wording in all three party manifestos is an adequate basis for scrapping the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected Chamber.
    And they issued an ominous warning for the Lib Dem leader:
    We know there remains sufficient determined opposition in all parties in both Houses to gum up completely the legislative programme of the coalition government as happened with the reform attempts of the Wilson government.

    The general hostility in the Lords to the proposals was evident in the tone of the questioning faced by Clegg and Mark Harper, the junior constitutional minister, from the joint committee on Lords reform yesterday.
    Lord Trimble summed up the feeling of many of the peers on the committee when he said that giving members of the reformed house 15-year terms without the chance of re-election meant:
    We are creating a mechanism for irresponsibility in the second house.”

    FT

    Trouble ahead for NC on this -and from his own party it seems.

    The more I read of this proposal the less I like it.

  24. There seems to be an assumption by some posters that the changes to the NHS could cause the break up of the Coalition or that they will not be a success and that this could well be a vote changer. On the other hand if the legislation is completed and if after say six months, a year or eighteen months the general public have not found that the NHS has collapsed and people are being treated as normal, I do not think this will any longer be an issue and could in fact favor the Tories, as this could neutralise what has always been seen as Labour’s strongest suit.
    Miliband said 4 weeks ago that there was just 12 weeks to save the NHS, well he has got only 8 weeks left and if things continue much as normal after 1st May, he could have his statement thrown back at him repeatedly during PMQs. A point made by Andrew Neil the other day.
    It will be interesting to see whether this topic is still of major interest to voters in a years time, as it clearly is now.

  25. DINGO
    `Miliband said 4 weeks ago that there was just 12 weeks to save the NHS, well he has got only 8 weeks left and if things continue much as normal after 1st May, he could have his statement thrown back at him repeatedly during PMQs. A point made by Andrew Neil the other day.`

    Milliband clearly meant the three months till the Queen`s speech in May when the bill will become law…Only the most partisan will believe that the public will decide their vote depending on how the NHS is on the 11th May.

    The bill has been badly mismanaged and Labour will use the two months in the interim to hammer their message across and attempt to draw the swing voters to their side.And if the NHS performs well in 2015,fantastic…If not,Labour have made enough noise for the public to remember that the coalition had been warned and chose to ignore it.

  26. DINGO

    Good points.

    THe Labour approach-ditch the Bill-is just the latest bout of opposing without proposing alternatives.

    It may yet come back to bite them.

    Listening to senior LibDems-including Simon HUghes, I believe they are intent on seeing the Bill into law because a) they believe that their amendments have made it “acceptable” -and b) they believe that the legislation , as amended, will bring about effective & desirable reform.

    So I foresee yet another issue-like the economy, on which Labour’s future stance in this parliament will be merely looking for negatives & seeking to blame.

    If the gods do not grant them a major negative on the economy & a reformed NHS , that stance could begin to look a bit sterile come 2015.

  27. SMUKESH

    @”I don`t see any problem in courting a media group as long as nothing unlawful or unethical is involved”

    My guess is that no political party in UK now subscribes to that point of view.

  28. SMUKESH

    I didn’t see Boris’ comment.

    Gove warned that we must not stifle freedom of the Press.
    He detected a “chilling” atmosphere developing at Leveson.

    He may not be alone in reaching for the sick bag, when watching people like Alan Partridge , Hugh Grant & Heather MIlls complaining about invasion of their private lives.

    There is a fine line to be drawn between press adherance to the law, protection of innocents from harm, & stamping out corrupt relationships between the press , the police & the civil service……….and freedom of the press to expose cant, hypocrisy & wrong doing amongst the powerful & privileged.

    Let’s hope Leveson comes up with a good balance .

    You can hardly criticise a politician for defending the ability of the press to expose politicians’ wrong doing.

  29. @Colin – “… latest bout of opposing”

    “Your government has interpreted our commitment to our patients as support for the bill. It is not”, writes Everington. “Local Gps and other health professionals were very keen that we should make our opposition to these proposals clear to the prime minister.”

    Letter to David Cameron from Tower Hamlets clinical commissioning group in east London, authored by Dr Sam Everington, who used to advise Andrew Lansley, and whose Bromley-by-Bow surgery in Tower Hamlets hosted the health secretary’s first speech soon after the 2010 general election.

  30. Amongst the increasing number of critical analyses of the Lords reform proposals is an interesting article by Jesse Norman in today’s Times.

    In addition to points which others are raising-like reduced diversity, and compromised primacy of HoC-he raises the spectre of an Upper House West Lothian question.

    He suggests that, until the matter of Scottish independence is settled, it is not possible to say what sort of Lords reform will be appropriate.

  31. COLIN

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/28/phone-hacking-boris-johnson?newsfeed=true

    Boris is actually responsible for the Met which is investigating the allegations,I may add

  32. BILLY BOB

    THanks.

    DR. Everington supports Clinical Commissioning & has demonstrated how it is helping to integrate health care in his area.

    His objection is to the magnitude of administrative change inherant in the Bill , which he says is a distraction.

    HE claims CCGs could be rolled out without legislation.

    BUt he doesn’t say how you get rid of PCTs & SHAs & their cost , without it.

    THe government response is :-

    ” A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘GPs in Tower Hamlets, like all GPs , will be able to take these powers to benefit their local patients, and only with the bill can we make clinical commissioning a reality for patients across the country. That is why the NHS Alliance and National Association of Primary Care – who represent over 11,000 primary care clinicians – support our proposals.’
    ‘Without the bill, doctors and nurses will always run the risk of having their decisions second-guessed by the managers running primary care trusts. The bill cuts out this needless bureaucracy and hands control for care over to those who know their patients best – the doctors and nurses throughout the NHS.'”

    I am not competent to say who is right.

  33. SMUKESH

    THanks for the link-from which :-

    “Johnson, who has a formal role overseeing the Met through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, said allegations about the bribing of public officials were very serious and needed to be investigated. But after that “I want the caravan to move on,” he added.”

    He pointed out that there are 180 officers tied up on Elveden & Wheeting.

  34. I for sure can`t understand why the government cannot even carry the Clinical Commisioning groups with them on the NHS reforms…This bill gives them the power to commission services and thus the ability to increase the GP`s profits through more competition and price-cutting…Maybe they have useless ideas like patient care on their mind

  35. COLIN

    I would say that 180 officers is not much for investigating a `network of corrupted officials` across the police,NHS,defence,prison and civil service.I believe you wanted them severely punished too.

    And this is not the only crime being investigated.What is the point of setting up an inquiry headed by a judge if it isn`t accompanied by a credible investigation with sufficient resources.

  36. @SMukesh

    File on 4 latest investigation was into treatment of diabetics – with no reference to the Landsley bill – currently GPs (because of annual budget concerns) are failing to refer enough patients for specialist help – even though early intervention can avert (more costly) consequences in the long term.

    GPs detest the idea that they will be made individually reponsible for making personal decisions (chosing one patient over another) about rationing healthcare, rather than having resources allocated in a rational, impersonal and equable manner throughout the service.

  37. BILLY BOB
    `GPs detest the idea that they will be made individually reponsible for making personal decisions (chosing one patient over another) about rationing healthcare`

    Agreed…But if they ration effectively,they can increase their profits…This goes against the argument that the health service is acting as any union does in protecting it`s interests

    `

  38. Bill P.
    “The great ruse of 2007-2008 was that guillible politicians in the West were convinced that billing the taxpayer for the mistakes of their friends in the City was the only solution. That was one of the many bad policy errors of that period in the UK and we’ve still paying the price today.”

    I do worry that this will become received wisdom. From the relative comfort of 2012 (relative inasmuch as that we DIDN’T have a collapse of the banking system, DIDN’T have a collapse of Western capitalism and DIDN’T have 25% unemployment across the Western world), it’s perhaps a little indulgent to look back to 07-08 and carp that, as Western leaders looked over the precipice, they didn’t handle the situation according to one’s own preferred economic theory.

    It’s very, very easy now to explain why the imminent catastrophe wouldn’t in fact have occurred if only A had been done instead of B. The beauty of economics of course, is that most economists never actually get to experimentally test their own theories, and so cannot be proved wrong.

  39. NickP,

    “So nobody represents my view that the NHS doesn’t need competition at all!”

    None of the “big three”. However, most of the left-wing minnow parties in England take that view.

    Failing everything, you can move to Scotland, where the SNP seem to be determined- rightly or wrongly- to get the NHS back to about where it was twenty-two years ago.

  40. John B. Dick,

    “Nobody in England that is maybe.”

    Do you dare to challenge the existence of the glorious SWP? Not to mention giants like the Socialist Labour party and the Green party.

  41. The public are not happy with the NHS Reforms and that is shown by the £154,460 donated by 11,237 and the donations are still pouring in to 38 Degrees. Cameron better take notice or he will face the consequences come election time and Boris will be after his job if he loses his own now.

  42. Liz – no it isn’t. The proper polling on the subject shows the public are opposed to the NHS reforms. 11237 people giving money to a campaign against it shows that 11237 people are opposed to it.

  43. @ANTHONY WELLS

    Anthony I take your point. Some of those people are putting their money where their mouth is which just underlines the polling results on the NHS reforms.

  44. Liz – it doesn’t really, in this case we know that the public as a whole don’t back the NHS reforms, but it’s perfectly possible for thousands of people to feel strongly opposed to an issue that the majority of people support, or vice-versa.

    For example, 4000 or so people feel strongly enough about the BNP to pay a subscription to it… but it doesn’t follow that the majority of the public agree with the BNP. However enthusiastic and motivated they are, activists represent only themselves.

  45. @ANTHONY WELLS

    Thank you. I see what you mean.

  46. Btw IpsosMori modified their headline figures to show “those absolutely certain to vote” in November 2002.

    The do, however, maintain an archive which includes their current polls, but without that filter, so that pre and post 2002 polls can be compared on the same basis:

    h
    ttp://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=103

  47. Colin

    ‘He may not be alone in reaching for the sick bag, when watching people like Alan Partridge , Hugh Grant & Heather MIlls complaining about invasion of their private lives.’

    … and massive compensation for the likes of Charlotte Church. I do not mind News International being penalised but at least these very very rich people could donate this money to help care for the elderly, fight disease or feed the 100,000s of starving kids in Africa.

  48. Colin

    The Lords won’t vote for reform, and indeed will fight tooth and nail against it. They know they are onto a nice little earner. In the 21st century an unelected house should have no legitimacy. If the 3 parties can agree a sensible approach to reform, then they should press ahead and use the various Parliamentary rules to minimise delay and disruption.

  49. I’m hearing that the Sun is tweeting a very significant Tory lead in tonight’s YouGov. Is there any substance to this does anybody know?

  50. ‘… and massive compensation for the likes of Charlotte Church. I do not mind News International being penalised but at least these very very rich people could donate this money to help care for the elderly, fight disease or feed the 100,000s of starving kids in Africa.’

    No problem with the money for Charlotte Church; her mum tried suicide because of the invasion. Dome times rich people are also human (even if Murdoch isnt) , allegedly.

1 2 3 4