Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. This is the first voting intention poll conducted wholly after the budget, though much of it was before this morning’s newspapers and the continuing media coverage we’ve had today (for the record, YouGov’s actual fieldwork times are from around about 5.30pm yesterday until around about 4pm this afternoon)

The eight point Labour lead equals the largest this year. It could be a budget knock for the Conservatives, though it is worth remembering that we also had another eight point lead earlier this week before the budget (in so much as it can be “before” a budget that had been so widely leaked), so it could be normal margin of error.

The YouGov poll has various other questions on the budget. The increase in the personal tax allowance is predictably popular, with 90% of people supporting the change. There are also solid majorities in favour of the cut in corporation tax, allowing shops to open on Sundays during the Olympics and the increaase in stamp duty on homes worth more than £2million.

Turning to the more controversial measures, 55% of people opposed the decision to cut the 50p tax rate to 45p, with 32% in support. The opposition to this measure is less strong than most of the pre-budget polling on the question – the difference is largely because polls before the budget tended to show Conservative voters opposed to the abolition of the 50p tax rate. The post-budget poll shows 60% of Tory voters in favour. Part of this might be because people are happier with a 45p compromise than abolishing the band completely, but a lot is probably Conservative supporters being more supportive of a policy when the Conservatives actually do it.

Where they haven’t done that is the least popular part of the budget, which predictably is the “granny tax”. Only 18% of people support increasing taxes paid by pensioners by phasing out the age-related tax allowance, with 64% opposed. This includes 57% of the Conservative party’s own voters and, as one might expect, 79% of people over the age of 60.

Overall just under a third of people (32%) think the budget is fair, compared to 48% who think it is unfair. To put this in context, YouGov asked the same question after last year’s budget and found 44% thought that budget was fair.

The survey also asked people whether they thought different income groups would end up paying more or less in tax as a result of the budget. 46% thought poorer people would pay less in tax, and 56% thought that the richest people in Britain will end up paying less tax. In contrast, 40% think people on average incomes will end up paying more, compared to just 23% who think they will gain and asked about “people like themselves” 21% of people think’ll end up paying less tax, 37% think they’ll end up paying more.

All this suggests the budget has not gone down well. What remains to be seen now is whether there is any real knock to voting intention once we’ve got some more polls to judge by (as ever, one should never put too much weight on one poll) and, if so, whether it lasts once the immediate negative coverage of the budget fades.


286 Responses to “YouGov’s first post-budget poll”

1 4 5 6
  1. @ Liz

    Yes, I often find myself in agreement with Zach Goldsmith, from a broadbrush perspective. What I find interesting is that two very diffent approaches can often lead to the same conclusion.
    8-)

    Report comment

  2. My income, as a 65 year old in retirement, is above the current £24,000 cut off point to receive an enhanced personal allowance, (it goes up next tax year to some £25,400.) However, had my income been lower, say £23750 pa, I would be entitled to a personal allowance of £10,500 pa next tax year. This figure will now be frozen until the “general” figure, (new tax year £9250) catches up.
    Osborn gave a strong hint during his budget presentation, that 2013/14 could see £10,000 as this general figure, for pre 65 and post 65 alike. This COULD lead to a pensioner being £80 pa worse off.
    My wife and I had post this am, it confirmed my OAP would rise by £10 per week, and Mrs Roly would receive an extra £6 per week. That is £832 pa. Ten times more than the potential but by no means certain loss of future allowance. Is this bloody nonsense in the media, therefore mistaken. And, are the “bash the bankers not the pensioners” brigade, just greedy old buggers?

    Report comment

  3. Amber

    @”Equality = an Everything for everyone society? The premise is wrong”

    I didn’t equate them-I asked you questions about them as separate idea(l)s.

    …and you didn’t answer either .

    @”Should some people be expected not to have ‘everything’ so that all citizens have ‘something’? Yes, I think so.”

    So do I -your good at non sequiturs aren’t you?

    Not as good at answering questions as you are at asking them though :-)

    Report comment

  4. @ Billy Bob

    I’ve noticed the same thing.

    In polls, the public feel they are still entitled to blame the last Labour government but they do not think elected politicians deserve the same latitute. The attitude to politicians is now: Well you asked to be elected to sort it out, so take responsibility & get on with it.

    It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the public’s judgement of the government as a whole to fall into line with its judgement of individual politicians who say: ‘Blame the last lot’.
    8-)

    Report comment

  5. @Roly1 – “My wife and I had post this am, it confirmed my OAP would rise by £10 per week, and Mrs Roly would receive an extra £6 per week. That is £832 pa.”

    You might or might not have noticed Roly, but last year we had comparitively high inflation, at over 5%. This is why the cash value of you pension has increased. It buys you no more in real terms, and is not an increase – it just means you are the same as you were last year.

    The entire argument over pensioners ‘getting a big increase’ is a complete myth. They will get exactly what they got last year, and then suffer a loss from the removal/freezing of the allowance.

    Report comment

  6. R HUCKLE
    I suspect this is another one of those ‘The Marxists are everywhere!’ conspiracy theories… which have been doing the rounds since Abbe Barruel’s Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism (which interestingly, Edmund “Father of Conservatism” Burke believed was true).
    Of course, that was back in 1798, back when it was the illuminati and not Marxists.

    I notice that this specific (UKIP) conspiracy alleges that even the Conservative Party are part of this EU conspiracy.

    Here’s two questions that always make me suspicious of these conspiracy theories-
    1) What do these conspiracy theories want?
    In the case of ‘neo-marxists’, they want liberty, equality and fraternity. Which is what the political left have been pushing for, for hundreds of years.. and doing so successfully, over time.
    There’s no need for a formal conspiracy if that’s what ideologically the left want anyway and there’s a ‘slow game’ of success. It’s not like the political left are quiet about what they want.

    2) What’s the point of a conspiracy if these guys are already in all the positions of power?
    This is the one that always bothers me – if every major political leader is part of this strange conspiracy, it only needs them to actually use the force they have to put the ‘end game’ in to place.

    Now here’s the real kicker – what’s the only way to defend against these conspiracies?
    It’s to use the power of the state to defend ‘tradition’ and ‘real values’ against the conspiracy.
    And “‘We’ [in this case UKIP] are the only ones who can defend ‘you’ against the conspiracy. So if you only give us power…”

    And that’s ultimately what it’s about – there is no conspiracy and those who’re alleging it either want your vote or want to sell you something.

    … or maybe that’s what I would say, as an illuminee. ;)

    Report comment

  7. @amber star
    I believe it is inordinately naive of you to expect the public to forgive Norman Lamont in a couple of months and resume great trust in a Tory Chancellor. Likewise, the condition of the economy in 2009/2010 was laid at the door of your great countryman and his helpers, Balls and Miliband. It will blight them for the whole of this parliament.
    The best you can hope for is this, Osborn makes the kind of mess many of your associates(but not you) predict and pray for. The polls will then say “none of em know what their doin, all it for number one”. At this point
    they, (depending on the size of Osborn’s mess) will return to Labour, maybe.

    Report comment

  8. @ Colin

    I simply though that you were intelligent enough to follow a broader debate & that I could dispense with bullet point, yes/no answers.

    But if you insist on simple answers, you’ll need to simplify/ define your questions more rigorously.

    “So you don’t think Ken’s “Everything for Everyone” Society is possible ….?…..or do you?”

    No, I think that it is not possible for everybody to have or achieve everything they’d like to have or achieve, if that’s what you mean. But that is so self-evident that I didn’t think that was what either you or Ken meant. Am I crediting you both with too much subtlety?

    “Do you think absolute “Equality” is desirable?”

    There is no such thing as “absolute” equality. Equality is qualitative. “Absolute”, without context, must be assumed to be quantitative, like e.g. absolute zero. If you want an answer to this, you are going to have to define your perception of “absolute” in the context of equality.

    “If you do-do you think it is possible to achieve it?”

    When I know what “it” is, from your perspective, I’ll be able to have an opinion regarding whether it is achievable or not.
    8-)

    Report comment

  9. @alec
    I am well aware of what inflation has been. I am also aware what inflation is now and its direction of travel. This “poor old pensioner diatribe” over the potential loss of some age allowance is just left wing propaganda. The pensioners affected at all will be in pocket during the coming tax year, despite rabble rousing from the usual quarters.

    Report comment

  10. I also find the updating of these political conspiracies interesting – because they always adapt to the political conservatism of the time (or the liberalism, if you believe in the “new world order” conspiracies).

    So back in Barruel’s day, the conspiracy wanted to abolish the power of the absolute monarchy and institute democracy, with the eventual end game of Anarchism – the abolishing of the state. (By the way, success!).
    And now the conspiracy wants to attack democracy…

    Back in Barruel’s day, the conspiracy wanted to abolish the absolute power and state influence of the “one true church” and faith (Christianity), with the end game of abolishing all religion. (By the way, success!)
    And now the conspiracy wants to attack Christianity’s cultural dominance…

    And back in Barruel’s day, the conspiracy wanted to push for measures to help the poor and go after the aristocratic wealth.. with the end game of abolishing property. (By the way, success!)
    And now the conspiracy wants to abolish private property…

    But I notice that, despite the conspiracy’s apparent success in shifting the world left-ward, those who’re against the conspiracy don’t want a return to absolute monarchy, absolute faith and aristocratic control.
    They want things kept as they are now (or some recent mythical time when everything was perfect).

    So essentially, the conspiracy (of whatever time) is just an inversion of modern (for the time) conservatism.

    On a side note – the earlier alleged conspiracy (1798) does actually fit Marx’ view of history… but that’s just a happy coincidence.

    Report comment

  11. @Amber Star – “… you asked to be elected to sort it out, so take responsibility & get on with it.”

    I think there is a fundamental problem with blame culture per se. Peter Lilley’s little Gilbert and Sullivan ditty about single mothers did much to promote the “nasty party” tag – but more than that – always looking for someone to blame leads to flawed logic.

    Lansley and co hoped that animus against “bureaucrats” would be sufficient to sway public opinion in favour of sweeping reform.
    We’ll wait to see how well that one works.

    Report comment

  12. Predictions for tonights Sunday Times You Gov

    Labour 43%

    Tories 35%

    LD 7%

    I usually get predictions wrong, but if I get this one right, perhaps my lottery numbers might also come up.

    Report comment

  13. R HUCKLE
    Or to summarise more clearly -
    These political conspiracy theories always fit a pattern -
    1) Take the reader’s value system. Invert it. That is what The Conspiracy want.
    This is true whether the theory is left-wing or right-wing.
    2) Whoever the political opponents of the author are – they are members of The Conspiracy.
    3) Only we can save you (or our books, in stores now) from The Conspiracy.

    So for UKIP, who want to gain Tory votes – Cameron is part of The Conspiracy, etc

    Since this new theory fits the pattern, it’s probably nonsense.

    Report comment

  14. @ Roly1

    GO was never going to implement policies which I would advocate, that’s for sure – but I certainly don’t want him to ‘fail’ based on an economic calamity.

    I think I am disappointed in the deals which GO has done which didn’t achieve what they were supposed to achieve. Project Merlin has been an unmitigated flop. If he can’t get his ‘own team’ on-side, he needs to get tough. Instead he rewards ‘them’ with corporate & personal tax cuts. It sends the wrong message, IMO.

    I do admire his approach to QE & the idea of converting it into perpetual bonds – which is actually a somewhat leftist solution to the problems which he faced. Hence the resounding silence from Balls & Miliband on the topic of QE.

    But I think that GO will not be strong enough to resist the rightist opinion against QE, which is a pity. I think he should keep going with it, albeit in smaller amounts instead of by the bucketful.
    8-)

    Report comment

  15. Also Prediction -
    I was way out for Friday, but I’ll go with
    Con – 37
    Lab – 41
    Lib – 9
    It’s always a pretty safe bet to go with Lib 9. ;)

    Report comment

  16. And since we’re on the subject of polling – there will be a ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll on the budget.
    For those who don’t follow AW on social networking sites and don’t already know this. ;)

    Report comment

  17. For those of you who don’t follow me on social networking sites, why not? @anthonyjwells

    Report comment

  18. @ Tony Dean
    ‘At the end of the night they only had a net loss of 1 seat, but should have lost 8 on UNS. (They went from 14 seats to 13, instead of 14 seats to 6 as per UNS.)’

    In 1979 the Liberals actually dropped from 14 to 11 – their 3 losses being Noth Devon (Jeremy Thorpe) , North Cornwall (John Pardoe) and Montgomery ( Emlyn Hooson).

    Report comment

  19. My prediction for Monday is still from last thread:

    My prediction for tonight (or possibly Monday):

    Lab 44
    Con 33
    LD 7
    UKIP 10

    Domething nearing that tonight. Unless the Tory vote has really collapsed after their gift to the rich in which case they could be heading below 30.

    Report comment

  20. There is, apparently, growing speculation that Vince Cable will be shuffled up a cabinet ‘siding’ or removed from the cabinet altogether.
    8-)

    Report comment

  21. AMBER

    @”“So you don’t think Ken’s “Everything for Everyone” Society is possible ….?…..or do you?”
    No, I think that it is not possible for everybody to have or achieve everything they’d like to have or achieve, if that’s what you mean. But that is so self-evident that I didn’t think that was what either you or Ken meant. Am I crediting you both with too much subtlety?

    I can’t really speak for Ken-who coined the phrase-but I would be happy with your characterisation-& I too think it is not possible.

    @”There is no such thing as “absolute” equality. Equality is qualitative. “Absolute”, without context, must be assumed to be quantitative, like e.g. absolute zero. If you want an answer to this, you are going to have to define your perception of “absolute” in the context of equality.
    “If you do-do you think it is possible to achieve it?”
    When I know what “it” is, from your perspective, I’ll be able to have an opinion regarding whether it is achievable or not.”

    That’s fair comment.

    I find this difficult though because when I hear left wing proponents talk about their desire for a society of “equality”, I am never quite sure what they mean. ( HH-“Labour is the party of equality” )

    Sometimes it sounds like equality of opportunity-which I very much believe in.

    Sometimes it sounds like “fairness” & lack of discrimination-which of course any civilised person would say is right & proper……….but is this really “equality” ?

    Sometimes, when propounded by the far left it sounds very much like equal incomes-or even equal wealth. This could only be achieved if the State owned all property and dictated income levels, and I can never believe in that.

    To me “equality” is something which is not present in human beings-nor is it desirable that they should be equal.

    For me the most important things are the specific potential & aspiration of the individual ; and equality of opportunity .

    I have had discussions with a left wing blogger who rejected these twin pillars of belief because they encourage competition between individuals, and produce a society where “inequality” is fostered.
    I can only presume that in such a belief , the aspiration of one individual is considered to be at the expense of another………..something I fail to understand, though it does give clues as to the meaning of equality for someone with such beliefs.

    So……..I have finished up trying to say what I believe, because I don’t really know what proponents of “equality”, like Harriet Harman ,mean by the word.

    …….so I withdraw my question to you on this confusing concept .

    :-)

    Report comment

  22. AMBER STAR
    But isn’t he one of the important figures that is keeping the coalition together?
    Much like Prescott was there to keep Old and New Labour together.

    Report comment

  23. @ Tinged

    But isn’t he [Vince Cable] one of the important figures that is keeping the coalition together?
    Much like Prescott was there to keep Old and New Labour together.
    —————————————
    I agree but, allegedly, Nick Clegg is willing to have him side-lined or removed altogether.

    I’d also agree that John Prescott could have been seen as an ‘old Labour’ bridge. Personally, I’d see him as merely populist ‘old’ Labour. Alan Johnson was, IMO, considerably more ‘old’ Labour than Prescott.
    8-)

    Report comment

  24. “This could only be achieved if the State owned all property and dictated income levels, and I can never believe in that.”
    Not to be pedantic – but not necessarily.

    This is an interesting point because it assumes a prescriptive propertarian view of philosophy – that property ownership exists as a fundamental right and thus the only way to deal with inequality of property is for the state to ‘own’ all property.
    This is, of course, the orthodox marxist view of it.

    But libertarian philosophy (even the anarcho-capitalist) points out that the state already ‘owns’ all property and regulates it’s distribution.
    It’s just that it protects the accumulation of property rights in to the hands of the few as opposed to the many (an inverting of equality but still requiring the state). I.e you only “own” your property because the state ultimately backs that right through violence.

    So, for example, there are libertarian capitalists who take the Lockean view and believe that the state should only protect the fruits of labour and investment and the right to land should only be protected by land-use (i.e you cannot just accumulate land – but if you build a farm, for example, that farm is protected from others trying to use the same land).

    They view the ideal state in this case, not as a prescriptive force (this is the way it is, therefore the state enforces it) but only as utilitarian entity – if the fruits of labour and investment aren’t protected, then nobody will work or invest – but that rent (derived from prescriptive property rights) is state-backed redistribution of wealth.

    So the other method of equality of wealth would be in a abolition of property rights – whether or not that is desirable is up for debate (the utilitarians, as pointed out above, support limited rights) but the argument that only the state can enforce equality requires a prescriptive view of property.

    Report comment

  25. @Roly1 – “This “poor old pensioner diatribe” over the potential loss of some age allowance is just left wing propaganda.”

    Indeed. Those Marxist at the Daily Telegraph and that well known Trot Paul Dacre are just such tiresome leftoe stirrers.

    ” The pensioners affected at all will be in pocket during the coming tax year, despite rabble rousing from the usual quarters.”

    Err – no they won’t be. They will be exactly the same as they were last year, with the inflation rise bringing them back to where they were at the start of last year’s accounting period. The inflation rise is a retrospective rise – your pensions gets steadily worse over the year as inflation has it’s way, before being recouped at the start of the next financial year.

    Report comment

  26. Tinged

    “But libertarian philosophy (even the anarcho-capitalist) points out that the state already ‘owns’ all property and regulates it’s distribution.
    It’s just that it protects the accumulation of property rights in to the hands of the few as opposed to the many (an inverting of equality but still requiring the state). I.e you only “own” your property because the state ultimately backs that right through violence.”

    I have no idea what this sort of stuff means. No doubt it stimulates the minds of the left wing “intelligentsia” in their Hampstead salons. :-)

    But it doesn’t contribute to wellbeing of the man on the Clapham omnibus.

    Report comment

  27. Would LDs really take ownership of Lansley’s toxic bill in return for a Tory getting Cable’s job?

    The specualation about an early reshuffle underlines how delicately balanced the original cabinet was – all the changes so far have been neurtral. Even trying to shift Clarke is fraught because he is seen as “the sixth Lib Dem”.

    This will be Cameron’s opportunity to wrest promation/patronage within the Conservative party away from Osborne – now that he has fallen from grace.

    Report comment

  28. COLIN
    Given that I was describing libertarian capitalist philosophy, i.e right-wing philosophy – and that I’m working class, I find your reply strange.

    I’ll try to break down the right-wing libertarian argument -
    You only have the right to property because the government enforces that right through state-violence. I.e if I take something that is ‘yours’ men with guns will come and take me away.
    So distribution of wealth is already regulated by the government.

    Now – if we abolished the right to property then you could work hard at creating something (the fruits of your labour) and then I could come along and just take it from you.
    So that would discourage people from working and encourage people to take what other people have worked on.
    So we invent the crime ‘theft’ to deal with the taking of property that you haven’t ‘deserved’. This is a utilitarian state action – we protect the property of fruits of labour so that people will labour.

    But the ownership of land is completely prescriptive – you only have the right to that land because if someone tries to use, occupy or move across that land, the state will send men with guns to deal with the person.

    But the land, which isn’t created by man, shouldn’t belong to any person – since they haven’t laboured for it and land ownership doesn’t encourage labour.
    Worse still – if someone owns land and rents it out to a farmer, he takes a portion of the fruits of that farmer’s labour. Or he could not put the land to use and hoard it – thus discouraging work further.
    So the libertarian capitalists argue that land-ownership should only be defended when that land is used (i.e when a farmer builds a farm) and not when that land is hoarded.
    This is again, a utilitarian argument – one borne of necessity.

    It’s an inverting of the prescriptive view of the state – libertarians want a state limited to what is necessary (protection of the fruits of labour and the use of land), not in the defence of something completely arbitrary (the ownership of land).

    Report comment

  29. @ Colin,

    If Labour meant equal incomes or equal wealth they’d have to start with Parliament. So, firstly the same salary for all MPs regardless of whether they were PM, cabinet or backbenchers. I don’t think any Labour government has made any moves toward doing this.

    So there you have it, in a nutshell. I’ll believe that Labour are for income equality when I see them take that very simple step towards it. Therefore, I think that for now, we can safely rule out income equality as being within Labour’s definition of ‘equality’. ;-)

    Report comment

  30. @ Colin

    I think that perhaps my response was closer to what ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ would understand. :twisted:

    Report comment

  31. Perhaps I just think that assuming that the working class (of which I belong) are in a state of self-inflected philosophical ignorance and need things simplifying to the point of absurdity is insultingly condescending? ;)

    Report comment

  32. @ Tinged

    I agree. And to put it in Clapham omnibus terms, the state have all the powers they need to take any property they want to take. Compulsory purchase orders – & variants thereof – are still very much alive from a legislative perspective.
    8-)

    Report comment

  33. @ Tinged

    I actually agree that the Clapham omnibus thing is a wee bit patronizing – in case you missed the ‘tone’ with which I referred to it.
    8-)

    Report comment

  34. @ Graham

    Thank you. I really must get the reference books out rather than just type up from a faulty memory mustn’t I ?!

    However, 14 to 11 still shows evidence of them doing better than UNS. I remember correctly that there was surprise at the time at how many sitting Lib MPs had bucked the trend by holding on, and in a number of cases increasing their personal majorities, despite the party nationally being far less popular than in 1974.

    Report comment

  35. “The economy will decide the next election and I am quite confident that will recover,”

    I don’t think it was the economy that won the election for Labour in 1997. More like ‘sleaze’ in the Tory Government the sort of thing we have now.

    Report comment

  36. After the Bradford West byelection result, any opinion poll I see now just seems meaningless.

    Report comment

1 4 5 6