Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%. The seven point Labour lead in this poll is the largest YouGov have shown since before Cameron’s veto in December. Normal caveats apply of course – true, it could be a sign that Labour’s lead is still growing, but if Labour’s underlying lead is around about five points as last week’s polls were suggesting then a seven point lead would be very much within the normal margin of error. Right now this poll is entirely consistent with last week’s.

Tonight’s poll also has the fortnightly question on what issues people think are important – note how high the NHS is still scoring. 33% of people picked health as one of the most important issues facing the country, 38% of people picked it as one of the most important issues facing them and their family (second only to the economy). The second of these is at its highest level since last June.

As I’ve said before, the coverage of the NHS isn’t making that much difference to the proportion of people who back the Conservatives on the NHS, because not many people trusted them on the NHS to begin with. On that front it is more likely to entrench existing views of the Conservatives on the NHS than change any minds. What it has done is drive the NHS up the political agenda and make more people consider it a pressing issue (I suspect Ed Miliband’s focus on the issue of the NHS is also one of the things that has driven his leadership approval ratings up since January).


220 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 36%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%”

1 3 4 5
  1. I can see a film here, or at least a half hour mockumentary. on ‘Chelsea, the revolutionary Vanguard’. Quick, how do I contact Channel 4?

  2. Good Afternoon.

    I have been sent an interesting blog by new thinkers in the Labour Party about The Family.

    http://michaeltmerrick.wordpress.com/

  3. CROSSBAT11……….I always had you down as a whistle-blower, now you’ve even compromised me. I just hope Smiley at the Blackheath golf club doesn’t get to hear of this. :-)

  4. CROSSBAT11…….OUCH!! Of course, I meant… :-( I really did, the previous image of Smiley was very old.

  5. @Chris Lane

    I’m not entirely sure what the merit is of a lengthy blog post couched in pseudo philosophical terms about how the Labour party is doomed because they abandoned the Traditional Definition of Family to be Soulless Libertines, nor what it’s relation is to Polling.

    (I’m close friends with a real Philosophy professor, and know the difference between a real paper on ethics, and something written by someone trying to sound philosophical.)

  6. I see Tom Winsor’s second report on the police is being reported on. So much claptrap it’s depressing. Perhaps I should start preparing now for my annual fitness check starting in 2018.

    I suspect I’ll need at least that long (or a Stannah stairlift..)

  7. At least Hutton’s review focused on what it was functionally about – ie cutting pensions to save money.

    Winsor has resurrected a number of old peccadillos that have been kicking around in political circles for decades – like direct recruitment of senior ranks. I remember Douglas Hurd being asked about that decades ago and ruling it out. “There are no Private Soldiers in the police force” he said.

  8. @NEIL A
    “At least Hutton’s review focused on what it was functionally about – ie cutting pensions to save money.”

    This is also about saving money. The fitness test will be the excuse to reduce the number of policemen and save on salary. The Guardian states “His recommendations claim to – alongside reforms of pay and working condition proposed in the review’s first stage – deliver more than £1.9bn of savings over five years on the annual police pay bill.”

  9. @LizH,

    You’re right that the key ingredient is the search for savings, but some elements, like the direct recruitment of Inspectors etc, seem to me to be part of an overall misconception about what a police officer actually is/does that has been around for a long time in all political parties.

  10. @NEIL A
    “the direct recruitment of Inspectors etc, seem to me to be part of an overall misconception about what a police officer actually is/does that has been around for a long time in all political parties.”

    I agree with you 100%. Reforms wont work unless you listen to the people who do the work no matter what organisation/company it is. This is the same with the NHS reforms. Such short sightedness and waste of money.

  11. I don’t know why I was moderated for saying the same as everybody else.

    If claptrap is partisan for me, it’s partisan for everybody else, surely? Which was the point of my post.

    Actually I don’t like the look of Winsor’s review either. I have a theory that nowadays these reviews are never commissioned without a strong steer towards a preferred outcome.

  12. @NickP
    “I don’t know why I was moderated for saying the same as everybody else.”

    I saw your post and don’t know why you were moderated either.

    “I have a theory that nowadays these reviews are never commissioned without a strong steer towards a preferred outcome.”

    Couldn’t agree with you more.

  13. The irony is that I am fairly ambivalent about the actual cash cuts to police budgets and pay. Obviously it’s to my personal detriment, but the axe has to fall somewhere and police officers aren’t going to be starving.

    But I think there is a future vision of the police service – essentially a corps of unskilled, armed brutes supported by a range of specialist civilian (and probably private-sector) auxillaries and overseen by an “academic” management class. Only that management class would enjoy decent conditions and/or contracts. I expect the constables will eventually be shunted onto 5 year contracts, and dismissed over 10 years in favour of cheaper, fitter youngsters.

  14. neil a

    I don’t think anybody is anti saving money. But at last you see what I see…public service converted into a profit making concern.

  15. @NEIL A
    “The irony is that I am fairly ambivalent about the actual cash cuts to police budgets … ”

    It is wrong to make all decisions simply based on money. There are certain things we do well in this country that should be protected but unfortunately people would rather support party politics than some of our national successes such as the police, education, NHS etc.

  16. Neil A
    That’s been the way the armed forces, specifically the RAF have been going since the early 90s, with pretty much all else apart from Aircrew and front-line Groundcrew being out-sourced.
    The list of private slightly opaque defence contractors a la “blackwater” has been getting longer and longer.
    Police core services will be a lot more efficient (read smaller) with many many subbies carrying out specific ops.

    A4E were paid for results on a case by case basis….. maybe solving a burglary will mean a commission being paid to the company that catches the burglar/thief/rapist/murderer.

    I’m not advocating this type of behaviour or condemning it, but thinking of commoditizing events like these leaves one thinking where it will all end.

  17. Con:37 Lab:42 LD: 8

  18. I worry that adding “the profit motive” to solving cases will result in a lot more “evidence” turning up a crime scenes than was there when the police arrived.

  19. @Jay,

    I don’t think it’s quite as stark as that, but there’s no doubt that so it has proved impossible to construct a “performance pay” arrangement for police that makes any kind of sense.

    I am a very smart guy. If you made 40% of my pay dependent on jumping through the right hoops and saying all the right things, you can be sure I wouldn’t miss out. But it won’t make me any better at policing. Almost certainly the opposite.

    What I find a little bizarre is that I haven’t actually seen any really logical argument put forward as to how the proposed changes to recruitment address any of the problems that the police have experienced. Would David Duckenfield have made better decisions about opening and closing gates at Hillsborough if he’d joined as an inspector and never actually stood in uniform at a gate? Would the (almost all university-educated) senior officers who covered themselves in ordure at the select committee hearing over phonehacking been any better if they’d joined as inspectors? If it would improve these things, how would it? It seems to me that a love of the British Army, and an admiration of its structures, has convinced politicians whose knowledge of policing comes largely from the TV that an “officer class” would improve the police. I see no logical reason for believing that it would.

  20. I awoke this morning to a Radio 4 discussion on David Cameron’s plan to ‘tax’ cheap booze. It seems that the budget has become a week long affair.

    Another wonderful piece of news for the reds that will no doubt filter through a little more quickly to the opinion polls.

    Very cheap booze is usually the tipple of those at the very bottom of society who can least afford something better to enlighten the misery.

    Labour has consistently found it hard to get this large source of natural support bothered enough to go and vote in the first place. It’s like extracting teeth.
    This is exactly the kind of measure that will go a long way to giving them the kind of motivation needed to register their protest.

    They are clearly missing Andy Coulson.

1 3 4 5