Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 7%. This is the first time YouGov have shown the Labour lead dropping back into single figures since the local elections, and follows a ten point lead yesterday.

I’ll add my normal caveat – it could be the start of YouGov’s bigger Labour leads of up to 14 points that we’ve seen since the local elections falling back a bit… or it could just be normal random sample error.


209 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 34, LAB 42, LDEM 8, UKIP 7”

1 3 4 5
  1. @Amber

    A great point……if only we had a proportional electoral system (which as you should know I support)!

    Unfortunately we don’t.

    Any localised UKIP-Conservative informal alliance is going to be far more potent than anything ‘Lab-Lib’: although of course- with the surviving LDs (after the next GE) likely being predominantly 19th century Liberals (in effect Tories)- a Labour-LD agreement then is a *remote* possibility.

    IMHO anyone who thinks a UKIP-Tory alliance in some areas (if that happens and it is a big ‘if’) is not a threat to Labour needs to stick their face in a sink of ice cold water.

    8-)

  2. Stab J

    Check out the ‘Spectator’ website as opposed to an obscure blog.

    I’ll adhere to the former over the latter 10 times out of 10…

  3. @Dave Spart

    “IMHO a rather obvious (and rather shameless) attempt by the Unions concerned to influence the labour policy review and claim (despite the large majority for ‘reducing the deficit’) there is widespread public support for McDonnell and his ‘radical alternative to austerity’ manifesto with ideas like a top rate of 75%. Not going anywhere IMO- ‘blue labour’ and ‘black labour’ ideas will dominate the next manifesto whereas Mcdonnells ‘red labour’ (and ‘purple labour’ hyper-blairism for that matter) will largely be swept aside.”

    (cont/…on Page 94)

    Lol, as they say

  4. @ Rob Sheffield

    “with the surviving LDs (after the next GE) likely being predominantly 19th century Liberals (in effect Tories)”

    You can keep on repeating this but it still doesn’t make any of it true. If you look at the policies being proposed by the Lib Dems in government, virtually NONE of them would have been enacted by the Tories in government on their own.

    Tax cuts aimed at the worst off?
    Higher capital gains taxes?
    Reform of the House of Lords?
    Gay marriage?
    Green Bank?
    Regional Development Fund?

    I think you are very confused about what Lib Dem policy is and what was negotiated in the Coalition agreement.

    Unfortunately views like yours are prevalent simply because most voters don’t understand the limits to what a party with 8% of MPs is able to negotiate with one with 47%.

    If any of our MPs were instinctually “Tories” don’t you think that they would have done the easy thing and joined the party in the first place rather than trying to get elected for a third party consistently excluded from power?

    My own instinct is that boundary changes will not make it through this parliament and that there will be a strong incumbent effect as there always is with Lib Dem MPs. Consequently, there will still be around 40-45 MPs flying the yellow flag next time.

    As long as they can maintain a presence in parliament in 2015, they will be well placed to spring back once Labour squeaks into power in 2015 and promptly becomes unpopular again.

  5. @ROB SHEFFIELD

    I was pointing more towards Nigel’s statement rather than the blogger’s commentary. Though the latter made sense as far as I could tell. Farage isn’t a dictator afterall and I see a lot of UKIPers who share the same sentiment as the blogger.

  6. @Rob Sheffield

    I don’t quite follow your logic that a UKIP / Con pact would be a threat to Labour. How many Lab/Con marginals are there where the 2010 UKIP votes would have proved decisive? Assuming that the UKIP VI is driven by Conservative voters unhappy with the compromises of coalition would you not imagine that a lot of these would swing back to the Tories naturally at a GE.

    Labour would be in a sorry state if it had to rely on a split in the centre right vote to gain power. The important thing for Labour come 2015 is to win back the voters that deserted it in 2010, the LD voters which it seems to be winning over in recent polling and the voters who turned blue (where there is still a lot of work to be done). UKIP voters are not Labours natural constituency.

    I think that Amber’s point highlights the fact that in recent history the centre left vote has been more split between LD and Labour than centre right which has been overwhelmingly Conservative. Hence an electoral pact on the centre right would have much less impact than a potential pact between Labour and LD.

  7. @Rob Sheffield – “… localised UKIP-Conservative informal alliance”

    That already happens to some extent. Standing down candidates where there is a eurosceptic Tory:

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/april/15/ukip_stands_down_in_rochester.aspx

    UKIP leader (Lord Pearson) called on supporters to vote Tory at the last election, which probably limited their advance to the +0.9%. Cameron ran his ‘heir-to-Blair’ campaign regardless of the balance of the Tory party, and of UKIP – which does seem to be now metamorphosing into something with a special antipathy towards his modernising strand.

    That is not to minimise the effect of Tories+UKIP both playing to anti-EU, anti-immigration sentiment at the next election.

    Combining that strategy with under the radar localised informal Con/LD understandings and trade-offs – whenever there is a possibility of defeating Labour – would be a tricky manoeuvre, but I don’t rule it out. They will both be campagning on a “never trust Labour with the economy again” platform after all.

  8. More trouble at mill.Baroness Warsi not declaring rental
    income.See Telegraph.

  9. If ever there was a case for a None Of The Above candidate it’s the Eurvision song contest…

1 3 4 5