The Conservatives brief post-Jubilee recovery seems to have passed. After a month of YouGov’s Labour leads averaging at twelve points last week we saw three polls in a row with leads down into single figures, enough to suggest it was more than mere sample variation.

However, today’s poll has Labour’s lead springing right back up again, with topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 45%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 9%. While it’s possible that this lead could be an outlier and we’ll see smaller leads again tomorrow, it makes a lot of sense that the lead should return to its pre-Jubilee position. The fact that there were some Jubilee celebrations may have made people feel generally better about the ways things are going or taken minds off the government’s problems, but the fundementals hadn’t changed.


213 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 45, LD 9, UKIP 9”

1 2 3 5
  1. Good point for the boys against France though. And Ukraine!

  2. Good Evening all.

    Is LizH still around, with a fine chablis?

  3. Strewth !-so much for my “silence is golden” theory .

  4. @CHRISLANE1945

    Off the drink this week as I have to prepare for another 10K on Sunday. So good to be back to the 14 point leads.

  5. If this Labour lead holds up, I intend to infuriate people by suggesting:

    Gordon Brown at Leveson v Her Maj’s Jubilee
    1:0 Gordon ;-)

  6. LD and UKIP neck and neck!

  7. I got left behind on Mensch I even missed AW’s plea, (respected).. It was personal not political.

    Jubilee over then and I didn’t even see it blow my polling hat off. .

  8. Commiserations to neighbours Ireland after last night’s game. Congratulations to our neighbours England for getting a point against france.

  9. Labour support in the polls seems to dip around bank holidays. Perhaps this is because working class people and families are more inclined to be away from home on a bank holiday, whereas retired and very wealthy people go away when it suits them?

  10. How long did the Tories flatlining trend last?

    Some suggestion from ICM that Tories were within 3 points of the 31% mark from 1993 through to 2003 (with a brief uptick during the fuel crisis of 2000). Possibly 2005 before they really kicked the trend.

    A long way to go before they repeat that feat… still just an uncomfortable reminder atm.

  11. The x-breaks are quite bizarre. The male of the species has deserted the Tories in droves.
    8-)

  12. A 14% Labour lead re-emerges; no wonder Nick Robinson looked livid on the 10 o’clock BBC News bulletin tonight! In full eye-bulging and phlegm-flecked mode, he claimed that following Brown and Osborne’s testimonies at Leveson today that it was quite possible that the Tories would be the happier “if Brown has got it horribly wrong” and made the Murdoch saga “all about Labour again.”

    What???????????????????

  13. Rather as I thought,now people are back from the whitsun
    holiday,the polls are reflecting more as they perhaps are.
    Squeezed,also a lot of people with school aged children,
    are tied to the school holidays.

  14. LD approval rating 45 to 29, -16. Indicating a soft 9%?

  15. i think its at the farther end of the recent average. If Labour gets into the higher 40s – say 46-8% that will be the game changer….that’s at the edge of where government’s find it difficult to come back from and because the coalition taints two parties it may make it slightly easier for Labour than if the polling was merely against the conservatives…

    But this is a long way from where we are and the economy may yet come right…equally no one thought the Euro crisis could outlast two years…and yet still remain unresolved.

  16. Going back to the previous thread and referenda, can we have one on marzipan? I can’t decide between white and golden: I think I probably like them both equally.

    Re the poll, I’m surprised the ole lib dems aren’t complaing that ukip should have as many mp’s as they have.

    Why’s that then?

    Gerrard should have been England captain for the last three or four tournaments. [referendum?]

  17. Well I did post at 9.44am this morning, wondering whether the post Spanish bailout euphoria would last the day, and true to form, it hasn’t.

    EU leaders must surely realise that the ever diminishing returns are a sign that they have consistently failed in their objective of achieving financial stability, and every time they fail, the window of post intervention calm gets smaller and smaller.

    For the Spanish intervention, it turns out that they don’t know which fund the bail out will come from, which has big implications. We still don’t know who the priority lenders are, which is why Spanish bonds rates actually increased today.

    Cyprus next for a bailout, which will mean getting on for a third of all EZ countries will have been bailed out.

  18. UKIP up to 5 in Scotland, jubilee? Also UKIP are a bit weaker in London and North than usual so will be interesting to see if the reach new highs later this week. Looking at the data I think it is becoming clear that UKIP can no longer be called a party of the South East, they as consistantly highest in the Midlands/Wales, I would be interested how high the Midlands number would be without Wales.

  19. @Amber

    Men leaving Tories.
    Does this not indicate an outlier rather than what is probably the case?

    @Squeezed. I’ve often wondered about that. I don’t know how you can check it.

  20. @JOHN MURPHY
    `i think its at the farther end of the recent average`

    I would agree with you…An outlier perhaps…And the Euro crisis tends to give a alibi for the failing plan `A` and a distraction from what`s going on at home,and boost the more Eurosceptic Tories.

  21. Interesting to note that the coalition has held together very well, if cracks did appear I am sure that that would lead to an increase in the Labour VI.

    When the election is called in 3 years or so how are the coalition going to achieve a safe decoupling?

  22. @ Howard

    Yes, this poll could well be an outlier. It will be a few days or even weeks before we can be sure whether this 14% or the 3 x 8% lead is the blip.
    8-)

  23. Well yes… unless they keep moving about, in which case we won’t.

  24. @Gary

    My belief is that in 2014 (or maybe even earlier) the coalition will enact a planned ‘storm’, whereby they have a big public disagreement over an issue, split officially as coalition partners, with the LD’s agreeing to a confidence and supply partnership.

    That will give both parties electoral distance for the upcoming 2015 GE.

    Or something like that.

  25. Tories will be hoping this is an outlier – down to 75% of their 2010 vote, with 9% (3.25% of the electorate) going direct to Labour.

    Forgetting about Ukip and LD for a moment, apply just that Con>Lab swing to the 2010 result:

    Con 32.85%, Lab 32,25%

  26. My belief is they won’t.

  27. @MICHAEL_H

    I think people would see thru that, it would have to be a very big issue given the stuff the LDs have put up with.

  28. @Michael_H
    “My belief is that in 2014 (or maybe even earlier) the coalition will enact a planned ‘storm’”
    I can’t shake the nagging suspicion that there will be an electoral pact in 2015. With no proportional representation to make it sensible, I just can’t see how the parties can campaign against each other on the basis of a shared 5 year record.

  29. After the recent Spanish un-bailout, I think we must also start looking nervously at Italy. They are next in the trail of gunpowder, if that blows up we are in serious trouble. Soon we will know. Also we have the 2nd attempt at a general election in Greece, more trouble for the Euro.

    atm it’s not entirely clear how much trouble we are in for, DC could just get away with this current double dip recession if it is mild and goes away quick, but a deeper one will probably bury him, even if he can get some UKIP voters back. Definately not a good time to be running the country.

  30. PEEWEE

    ” I just can’t see how the parties can campaign against each other on the basis of a shared 5 year record.”

    Isn’t that just because being governed by a Coalition of 2 parties is new to voters in England?

    In Scotland, and many other countries, coalition members had no problem in fighting elections against each other in the subsequent election.

    Why should England be uniquely different from other political systems?

  31. An electoral pact would be the final nail in the coffin for the Lib Dems. They would never go down that route. Their support is being hoovered up by Labour right now; an electoral pact would flush the rest of the left-leaning / anti Tory voters into Labour votes, benefiting neither the LD’s or Tories. The Left would effectively be united for the first time since the second world war, leaving the Tories out of office.

    At the going rate, I’m not entirely sure David Cameron will survive until 2015. He didn’t win the 2010 election, and it looks increasingly like he won’t win the 2015 one either. The Conservative Party is notoriously ruthless when it comes to ditching a losing leader. They are extremely pragmatic when their chances of losing power is questioned, and will quickly unite behind a new ‘untainted’ leader, although I’m not sure who that might be.

  32. MICHAEL_H

    ” He didn’t win the 2010 election, and it looks increasingly like he won’t win the 2015 one either. The Conservative Party is notoriously ruthless when it comes to ditching a losing leader.”

    For as long as voters for the UK Parliament are being asked to choose between parties, all of whose leaderships are seen as lacking competence, it could be that no party can actually “win” an election. Enthusiastic endorsement is unlikely when the contest is to elect the least incompetent.

  33. London Data (with prior to this poll averging data in brackets):

    Con 29 (34.4)
    Lab 52 (44.2)
    Lib 9 (9.2)
    UKIP 5 (6.5)
    Green 2 (3.6)
    Other 3 (2.1)

    Possible outlier? :)

  34. STATGEEK

    Given that the geographic X-breaks are not demographically balanced to the locality, shouldn’t we expect lots of them to be “outliers” quite regularly?

    If YG are doing their sampling properly, then an “outlier” in favour of one party should be balanced by countervailing VI in other areas.

  35. @Peewee
    “I just can’t see how the parties can campaign against each other on the basis of a shared 5 year record.”

    Reading your post on the basis that you’re inferring that parties can (of course) do so but not with any credibility, such that it should really read “credibly campaign against each other”, then I fully agree. It is the eternal problem of fully fledged coalitions and junior partners seem to come off particularly badly.

  36. @Alec
    “Well I did post at 9.44am this morning….”

    In which case I must point out that I beat you to it at 10.44pm yesterday.

  37. Or even the day before yesterday.

  38. PHIL

    ” It is the eternal problem of fully fledged coalitions and junior partners seem to come off particularly badly.”

    That wasn’t the case for the LDs, as junior members of the ruling Coalition in Scotland. They won 17 seats in 1999, the same in 2003 and, when Labour ceased to be the largest party in 2007, the LDs only lost 1 seat.

  39. @OldNat

    Scottish elections are surely not totally immune from their wider UK context? That was a fairly poor performance by the LDs by 2007 in the context of losing seats after a decade in which Blair’s plummetting popularity should have left them in a position to reap electoral benefits.

    Look also at how Plaid declined from a peak of popularity after going into coalition with Labour in Wales. Or the current implosion of Labour in Ireland after gifting any claims of left wing credibility to Sinn Fein by entering the current coalition. If you change the party labels that seems similar to the fate clearly awaiting the LDs in the UK.

  40. Phil

    I wasn’t arguing that Scottish elections aren’t affected by other issues – any more than any other elections.

    However, neither does it simply replicate UK politics.

    I was suggesting that your claim that “junior partners seem to come off particularly badly” was a generalisation that couldn’t be justified.

    Indeed, you actually accept that by suggesting that somehow the junior partner in the Coalition should have been “in a position to reap electoral benefits.”

    If you look at the Federal Parliament in Germany, the Greens were the junior partners in the 1998-2002 Government. Despite various crises, they increased their representation in 2002, and despite SDP losses, the governing Red-Green coalition government survived.

    That there are cases where the junior partner does suffer doesn’t justify your assertion of that as a general rule.

  41. @ Old Nat (from the previous thread)

    “I haven’t done a count of the legislative and policy changes under the different administrations since devolution.

    My impression is that the first Parliament was the busiest in legislative terms. Since Westminster was unable to find time to legislate much for Scotland, there was a backlog of (fairly uncontentious) legislation that the Civil Service had saved up.

    Policy changes were fewer then, however, as a Labour dominated Executive were replacing a Labour secretary of State.”

    Even in that case though, you had a Parliament legislating on stuff that was backed up among civil servants. They weren’t really creating new institutions out of whole cloth.

    So in the case of the District, you had a governing board of three unelected city commissioners who were appointed by Congress. They ran it as they saw personally saw fit and as Congress wanted (and of course they were all white till the very end and governed over an overwhelmingly African American state). No one who they governed had any say over what they did or how long they sat in office.

    So once given quasi-freedom in the 1974 Home Rule Act, citizens enacted sweeping new laws like the Historic Preservation Act and the Human Rights Act. When there were only three commissioners during the 50’s and 60’s, developers were able to tear down pretty much whatever historic landmark homes they wanted and were able to put up ugly office towers. Citizens didn’t want that, they wanted to preserve what was left of their historic neighborhoods. But in doing so, it’s enough to simply pass a law (one that’s been very successful I might add), you have to set up an agency that can enforce that law, designate buildings and neighborhoods as historic, crack down on delingquent developers, and encourage restorations. When they enacted the Human Rights Act of 1977, it’s probably one of the broadest civil rights laws on the planet. But in order to make it work, you have to actually create an Office of Human Rights that can actually enforce the law and make it meaningful. Even the act of electing an independent city council and a mayor required the creation of an Elections Office. Why? Because iwhen you have unelected leaders, there’s no need to actually run elections. It’s not simply a handover to the people, saying “here, take and be merry.” The creation of a state (or a quasi state that is more like a semi-independent planatation) requires a great deal of new creation.

    The way that Devolution is portrayed and the way that the SNP’s battle for independence and Labour’s battle against independence is portrayed, you would think that the Devolution required the creation of new government entities out of whole cloth as well as ushering in brand new government policies for Scots. Only the reality is that it didn’t. In so many cases, Scotland already had different laws, different policies, different agencies that were completely independent from the rest of the country. Even your courts were different and had different methods of appellate review. Compare that to the 1970 DC Courts Reorganization Act that had to create a wholly new court system that is basically a federal-state hybrid.

    Now why does it matter to polling and to politics? I think the mindset of Scots on what Devolution did drives the voting intention for both independence and for the various parties. Scots who are likely to see Devolution as a massive overhaul of their government are far more likely to vote for Labour and for other unionist parties. Scots who see Devolution as little more than a handover of already existing government agencies are more likely to vote for the SNP. And those voters who are simply indifferent or confused by the effect of Devolution are those who tend to swing between the two parties (perhaps the same voters who vote Labour for their MP ballots and SNP for their MSP ballots).

    Ironically though, it seems like (and admittedly, I’m no expert), the Scottish party most likely to propose the sweeping new laws is the SNP while the party that acts to maintain the status quo is generally Labour.

  42. @Ann in Wales and @Howard I certainly think that the Labour drop that I have noticed around bank holidays is due to families being more likely to be away from home when pollsters call them. These days families can’t take kids out of school for a holiday so they have to make the most of bank holidays.

  43. Just to add… whilst Labour may drop around a Bank Holiday, I think opposition parties get a boost just afterwards because families get together at Bank Holidays and so are more likely to talk politics and have a moan about how the country is being ran etc.

  44. SoCalLiberal

    “The way that Devolution is portrayed and the way that the SNP’s battle for independence and Labour’s battle against independence is portrayed, you would think that the Devolution required the creation of new government entities out of whole cloth as well as ushering in brand new government policies for Scots.”

    I think you are talking about the portrayal outwith Scotland, by journalists/politicians who knew little or nothing about the governance of Scotland, and just assumed that it was governed in much the same way as their part of the UK (or as England in the case of journalists from outside Scotland).

    I doubt if attitudes to the extent of change brought about by devolution has that much effect in Scotland. Polling has been pretty consistent for a long time that a consensus around a very large extension of Scottish autonomy, falling short of independence can exist. Most independence supporters will accept some form of fiscal autonomy for Scotland, if their preference fails to secure a majority.

    Whether such an option will be given to Scots by anyone will be a large determinant of how people vote in the referendum.

  45. @ Old Nat

    Here is another thought on this. I’ve brought up the West Hollywood seccessionists before. Unlike Scots Nats (and DC Statehooders), they weren’t seeking the establishment of a separate sovereign but instead an independent municipality.

    The situation there was this. It was an urban set of neighborhoods that was in unincorporated County. As a result, all local governance issues were dealt with by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Now the board is elected and citizens in West Hollywood could elect their supervisor. However, there are only 5 supervisors for the entire county.

    Now, within this unincorporated part of the county, you had a diverse group of residents and you had an increasingly frustrated and angry with rising rental rates and massive overdevelopments due to a complete lack of urban planning. The LGBT population also wanted to enact anti-discrimination laws. Finally, all residents were tired of a lack of decent regular city services and attention. So the residents organized and they voted to secede and form their own independent city. Now, the city in many cases continued to use county services (for example, they continue to use the County’s Sheriff’s Department for local policing). But once independent, the City Council voted to enact laws to rectify the problems the citizens faced that drove them to seek independence.

    The city enacted tough new rent control laws, tough new zoning laws to restrict overdevelopment, and enacted far reaching anti-discrimination laws. Now these are laws that the County would have never enacted. Later on, during the height of the AIDS epidemic, the city was able to direct its focus and energy to combatting the spread of HIV and treating those who were infected with AIDS. The city became the first municipality in the U.S. to cut off all economic activity with South Africa. The county would have never done any of this. Independence was required in order to make these changes. So since the city became independent 28 years ago, it has changed dramatically, largely due to the ability of citizens to rethink how they wanted their city to operate.

    It seems like the SNP views the Holyrood Parliament as a vehicle to rethink Scotland and implement new far reaching policies that could never have been implemented had power remained at Westminster. But the difficulty for the SNP in acheiving independence for Scotland is convincing voters that they can do with independence what they can’t do as part of the UK.

  46. @ Virgilio (from the previous thread)

    “I will begin from your last question. First, I made a typo error, I wanted to write 13 to 5. The 1st constituency is open in the sense of French “ouvert”, i.e. it can go both was at the runoff, since UMP is first but the PS has more reserves because of the eliminated Green and LF candidates.”

    That’s interesting way of looking at an open seat. I think of an open seat being any legislative seat where there is no incumbent. In your description of the 1st constituency, you’ve got a pick-up opportunity for the Socialists due to the fact that the number of Green votes and Center votes could put the Scoialist candidate over the top.

    “Re Pyrénées Atlantiques: The UMP candidate has the right to remain (and he just declared that he will do so) because he scored more than 12.5% of the REGISTERED voters. The same apples to Melenchon, he could remain also, but obviously he will not do so, the LF has an agreement with Soc-Green that the candidate that comes ahead gets the votes of the other one that is eliminated even if the latter has the formal right to remain in the runoff.
    Re Royal: The UMP candidate declared that she will cast a blank vote, but I am afraid that a part of her voters will vote Farloni just to see Royal out.
    Your are right, the PE runoff seems to have been much closer than the GE runoff will be, and the main cause is that abstention is stronger among circumstantial Sarkozy supporters. The only question that analysts pose is whether the PS, its satellites (Left Liberals, various left) and its close allies (Greens) will have OM by themselves (as in 1981) or if they will be obliged to rely on Left Front MPs (17-23 according to the projections), as in 1988 and 1997. Judging by the numbers and the dynamics, I would dare predict that the first outcome is more probable, but the second one is not bad either). It is, at any rate, clear that an important part (near 40%) of Melenchon voters voted Socialist-Green yesterday, a kind of Presidential + useful vote effect”

    Well, I am slightly confused. I’ve always thought that the French system sent the top two finishers to the runoff if in the primary, no candidate received more than 50% of the vote. How does the UMP candidate have the right to run in the runoff if he finished in third place? Do parties have additional rights? I’m used to the French style system for my local elections. In these elections, it’s very rare that an open seat race ever lasts only one election. They almost always go to runoffs. Incumbent councilmembers and mayors almost never get defeated in the first round (I think it’s only happenned once to a councilman). I like it but I feel it’s only appropriate for local, non-partisan elections.

    As for Farloni, why is this candidate a dissident Socialist? Is this candidate running to the left or the right of Royal? I think that will make the biggest difference as to whether they can gain UMP votes. If Farloni is running on a platform to the far left, I think it would be difficult to attract UMP voters outside of those who were purely juvenile and wanted to give a black eye to Hollande’s common law ex-wife.

    I admire Hollande and Royal for the way in which they conduct themselves and how sophisticated their relationship has been. I think it’s amazing that they stay on good terms and serve as political allies even though their relationship ended. They make Bill and Hillary look downright conventional, conservative, and traditional.

  47. @ Old Nat

    “I think you are talking about the portrayal outwith Scotland, by journalists/politicians who knew little or nothing about the governance of Scotland, and just assumed that it was governed in much the same way as their part of the UK (or as England in the case of journalists from outside Scotland).

    I doubt if attitudes to the extent of change brought about by devolution has that much effect in Scotland. Polling has been pretty consistent for a long time that a consensus around a very large extension of Scottish autonomy, falling short of independence can exist. Most independence supporters will accept some form of fiscal autonomy for Scotland, if their preference fails to secure a majority.

    Whether such an option will be given to Scots by anyone will be a large determinant of how people vote in the referendum.”

    Well if you guys lose the vote on independence, will you get fiscal autonomy? That’s what I wonder about.

    The reason I bring up the whole thing about creating new governance is that moving towards fiscal autonomy is going to require the creation of new government agencies and the division of power traditionally under the control of one singular British authority.

  48. Yawn,

    Jubilee Schubilee. Seems fairly clear to me that this is the end of the well-established “holiday effect”, last seen at Easter. Now the holiday’s over, polling reverts to its previous state.

  49. @ Phil and Chris Lane

    The LA Kings made history tonight and won the Stanley Cup. They won Game 6 in style too, winning 6-1. It’s the first time the Stanley Cup has ever been hoisted in LA. I’m no hockey fan but I am happy for what this brings to the city. The LAPD was put on tactical alert with 5 minutes left to go in the game though hopefully there won’t be any troubles (something I find incredibly embarassing/depressing).

  50. @ Phil and Chris Lane

    Btw, the LA Kings did this as the 8th seed in the playoffs, which is also a historical first. I don’t think any team has ever done that in any professional sport with that kind of bracket breakdown (I think the New York Knicks came close in 1999 but they lost the NBA Finals that year). That is winning the hard way.

    Also, I have to say that Eric Garcetti (D-Council District 13). my favored mayoral candidate, has to be the least superstitious politician ever. First he plays the Mayor of Los Angeles on a tv show in a race he’s running in. Next, after the Kings went up 3-0 against the New Jersey Devils, Garcetti posted a Facebook photo of him taunting Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker on the impending Devils’ loss (the Devils play in Newark). The series wasn’t over then. It was highly improbable that the Devils could have won the championship but they still technically could have. And the NHL was at one time the only sport where a team came back from a 3-0 deficit to win a best of seven series.

    I am superstitious and thus was kinda scared when the Devils proceeded to win Games 4 and 5. But no more need to fear. :)

1 2 3 5