Tonight’s YouGov figures are CON 32%, LAB 43%, LDEM 11%, Others 14% (inc UKIP on 7%). The 11 points for the Lib Dems is the highest YouGov have shown since April (though normal caveats apply, it is most likely a blip that will return to usual tomorrow).

The Guardian has part of their monthly ICM poll, but it looks as though they may be keeping back the voting intention figures for tomorrow, as so far they have only published the results of questions on the Rio summit. Like YouGov yesterday ICM asked a tracker question on public belief in man made climate change. ICM found 57% of people thought that man-made climate change was happening (up 1 point from 2009), 30% thought climate change was happening, but not due to man (down 3 points) and only 7% who thought that the world was not getting warming at all (up 2 points).


30 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 43, LD 11, UKIP 7”

  1. @Valerie

    Yes

    @Anmary

    I’ve answered your accountancy question on the previous thread on the previous thread

    @ChrisLane1945

    Yes

    Regards, Martyn

    Report comment

  2. AW

    Thankyou for the reply.

    Is that me out of moderation then 2 years is a long time to be modded,and i didn’t read the site rules until after i had posted the partisan comments.Thought it was a Guardinista type site.

    Report comment

  3. No it’s not then. :(

    [It is now]

    Report comment

  4. SHAUN

    @”Thought it was a Guardinista type site.”

    An understandable impression at this point in time.

    Report comment

  5. Saw a lovely tweet from someone that summed up today’s big speech from DC. It went along the lines of ‘at least Cameron is giving us advanced notice of what he will U turn on now’.

    Report comment

  6. Maybe a 3-4 point Labour lead in ICM? The lead seems to have narrowed a little bit since the last one was out.

    Report comment

  7. Thankyou for removing me out of moderation.It was my own fault for not reading the rules.

    :)

    [You should really be out now! Didn't do it correctly last time - AW]

    Report comment

  8. Just watching Newsnight discussion on the EU.

    Didn’t realise, that Margaret Thatcher campaigned for a YES vote in the 1975 EU membership vote. ( I was too young at the time, to take too much interest in politics.)

    Many gloomy media stories in tomorrows papers. Ratings agency says that OBR growth forecasts are too optimistic.

    Cyprus are the latest country to ask for EU bailout money.

    Report comment

  9. @RHuckle

    “Didn’t realise, that Margaret Thatcher campaigned for a YES vote in the 1975 EU membership vote. ( I was too young at the time, to take too much interest in politics.)”

    Not only that but she also signed the Single European Act in 1986, thus taking us into deeper integration within the EU.The SEA swept away restrictive practices in a range of areas of private enterprise and the public sector, in order to reach the target of a full single market by 1992. It sought to improve democracy by strengthening the power of the European Parliament to discuss new laws, and it gave the Parliament the power to veto the admission of new member states. The SEA made it easier for laws to be passed by the Council of Ministers by increasing the number of areas covered by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV). The Treaty also officially included the comitology procedure. Finally, it laid the tentative groundwork for the creation of common European Foreign, Justice and Home Affairs policies, which would emerge in the Maastricht Treaty (1992).

    Yes, not only did Thatcher do away with the sainted O Levels and CSE exams, an “historic mistake” according to Gove, but she also signed the very Act that created what we now know to be the European Union.

    It was only in the late 80s that her famous Euroscepticism became pronounced when she felt that the socialist President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, was frustrating her attempts to create a deregulated neo-con nirvana here in the UK. Then it was all out war, but her real European legacy was to have been the UK PM who took us further and deeper into the “European Project” than any of her predecessors or successors. A supreme irony.

    Report comment

  10. It’ll have had no effect on tonight’s poll, but did anyone else notice David Laws’ reported comments at the weekend, which could be read as a pitch for Conservative support on the grounds that he’s indistinguishable from a true-blue Conservative? Perhaps the LDs are giving up on the idea of retaining Labour tactical votes, or more likely Laws is just speaking for himself. If the latter, might he at some stage just jump ship to the Conservatives?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567776

    “Mr Laws said the public sector’s share of the economy should be cut to 35% from the 49% it reached in 2010-11. It needed to be “back in kilter with the amount of tax people are prepared to pay”, he told the Sunday Telegraph. His call goes further than that of Commons Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie who wants a 40% share.”

    Report comment

  11. @Harry Thompson
    ICM’s monthly polls seem to jump around a lot nowadays. I suspect there’s a fair bit of random m.o.e. due to a relatively small sample size compared to YouGov.

    Report comment

  12. @Phil

    Seeing as you ask, I did post this a couple of days ago: “Laws wants a deeper permanent cut in public spending. There seems to be no reason why the Tories could not adopt him as a candidate at the next election, or at least offer him a local pact.”

    The Telegraph mentioned Clegg’s “spy in the camp” of Cameron’s delegation – to forestall another 4am veto – but they also speculate he may be sounding out own his future prospects for a job in Bruxelles.

    The end of the coalition hangs over this parliament like the sword of Damocles. The clamour for a post-coalition true Tory manifesto has broken out into the open, with attendant mutterings about the leadership. We still wait for the other shoe to drop, but there have been rumours of plans to install a new Con friendly LD leader (Ed Davey?) before the election.

    Report comment

  13. @Billy Bob
    Thanks – I was away from the internet for the weekend so missed your contribution. We came to essentially the same conclusion independently.

    Report comment

  14. @phil (11.25)

    Rumour has it that he would have joined the Tories many years ago but for his sexuality. Certainly, imo., he has always been at one with the Tories. Together with Clegg, Alexander and a handful of others, he has destroyed the Lib Dems.

    Report comment

  15. Good Morning All.
    ROB HUCKLE.
    Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were two of the main anti European leaders in the 1975 Referendum.
    Pedantic note: It was still called the EEC then.

    Mrs Thatcher pushed the Single European Act through Parliament in 1985-87. This created the EC and open borders which came into effect in 1992, when the EC became the EU.

    Off to school now!

    Report comment

  16. Given that the Tories are not well trusted on the NHS – with Labour leading by 37 to 21, with +10 leads being the norm – I’d imagine the news that an NHS trust is effectively going in to administration is probably not going to play well with the public in the short term.
    This opens up an easy dual narrative for Labour – that we bailed out the banks but the government won’t bail out the NHS and that the cuts and reforms are to blame[1].

    In the long-term, it could be better for the Tories if, as suggested, a private company take over and turn things around. This would effectively ‘prove’ their narrative in the eyes of the public that privatisation of health services is a good thing.
    They just have to hope that the people who take over can turn things around in 3 years – if they lost the election over the NHS, Labour would be the ones to reap the benefits.

    [1] Even though it seems debt from a PFI scheme is the actual culprit.

    Report comment

  17. @Tingedfringe,

    You’re right that as the government in power, they are likely to get the stick for it. But it is ironic, given that the procedure that is about to happen was brought in by Labour, and as you say the germ of the problem was the two PFI projects initiated by Labour.

    Personally I think allowing public sector agencies to borrow money was stupid in the first place. A hospital should never run “at a loss”. If it doesn’t have the money to provide a service, it shouldn’t provide the service.

    Report comment

  18. TINGED FRINGE

    @”I’d imagine the news that an NHS trust is effectively going in to administration is probably not going to play well with the public in the short term.
    This opens up an easy dual narrative for Labour – that we bailed out the banks but the government won’t bail out the NHS and that the cuts and reforms are to blame[1].”

    But your grudging caveat at (1) is so important isn’t it?

    There is only one narrative for Labour -and it isn’t helpful :-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/25/nhs-trust-special-measures-debt?newsfeed=true

    So far as Cons are concerned, I would like to see them commenting on the opportunities for attacking the terms of these PFI contracts. The lie at the heart of these schemes was always that they were “off balance sheet”. THe ultimate risk was for the Taxpayer-crazy.

    Ones heart goes out to the spokesman for the clinicians , quoted in the Guardian :-

    “”This is about historic debt. The quality of care has improved measurably. We have achieved some of the lowest mortality rates over the last 18 months. Infection rates are also three times lower than the national average.”

    Evan Davies on Today made a very telling point about the responsibility & accountability of the politicians & civil servants who imposed this deal on the clinicians involved.

    Report comment

  19. @ Old Nat

    Read pages 30 through the top of 38 of this link:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

    It provides a very interesting history of dual sovereigns and the meaning of having two sovereigns and the interplay between them. It also explains the theory behind them as well. It’s interesting in light of all the discussions about the Euro and separate sovereigns and all the discussions we’ve had about the Scottish sovereign (and its possible existence even without Scottish independence). Don’t read the rest of the opinion though, it is as you Scots would say, a great big load of keech. But that first part is good.

    @ Martyn

    I put on the Clash today once I got south of Stockton and played it through Patterson (which is when I’d had my fill of it). It was fun though. The music of the Clash was meant for the Central Valley I think.

    The Clash weren’t the only UK group I listened to on this trip. I played some Steve Winwood through the Gravevine (both on the way up and the way back down). On the way up, I listened to the Stones from Lodi to downtown Sacramento. And I played them last night on a little food adventure up to Placer County. I listened to the Three Degrees both on the way up and the way down. They’re not a British group of course but they are (or were) Prince Charles’s favorite band.

    Report comment

  20. ICM IV in the guardian

    Lab 39%(-2) Con 34%(-2) LD 14%(+3) Others 13%

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/26/labour-five-points-ahead-tories?newsfeed=true

    Report comment

  21. It’s not a fashionable view among my peers on the left, and may seem odd after my criticism of the way the education reforms were announced, but I have to say I broadly support Gove’s stance on exams, with the exception of the idea of a two tier system – this is completely unnecessary and divisive, and is not needed to drive up standards in the assessment system. If he drops this rather pointless bit of ideology I suspect there will be very little to prevent the rest of his agenda gaining good levels of public support.

    On bankrupt hospitals – I can’t really see any great advantage for either side in polling terms. The Tories invented PFI, Labour extended it, and the issues around this story could well get too complicated and obscure for most voters to care much.

    Within this though there is an interesting point of the level of responsibility and openess we should expect from the private sector when supplying public goods. FoI doesn’t apply to the private sector, and it should if they are engaged in public contracting. With the likely pattern of service provision continuing to swing more to the private sector, we need to address issues of information flow, and not claim commercial confidentiality for public service provision. This may help prevent future PFI blunders.

    Report comment

  22. @Colin, @Neil A

    Given your comments, I trust we can all agree that major infrastructure projects necessary to deliver services financed by the taxpayer should be designed, built, financed and operated by the public sector, rather than used as an excuse for wholesale privatisation of services under fixed contracts for a duration of 30 years.

    Report comment

  23. @ SOCAL

    I don’t know how people in the US become accustomed to driving such huge distances. In the UK, due to the cost of fuel and congestion, many people now fly using budget airlines, if they can. It can be cheaper to fly, than getting a train or paying for petrol.

    In regard to the US love of British music, when you look at the history of it, bands such as the Rolling Stones were heavily influenced by US black blues and soul artists. The same can be said of many British acts. I suppose it is down to being a small island nation, is that we tend to look outward for anything that can takes things in a different direction.

    Many US acts come to the UK to try to become successful, as it easier to get airplay and less expensive to travel around to play pubs/clubs. The US is such a big diverse place, that it can take years to achieve any success. Many UK artists have spent years in the US, without any joy.

    Report comment

  24. @Colin – “Evan Davies on Today”

    Interestingly Stephen Dorrell refrained from making a partisan point on this, remarking that PFI was a Conservative initiative dating from1992. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich contract was signed in 1998… no doubt the project was initiated well before that. The worst cases of PFI appear to date from “before central -guidance was issued in 1999″:

    h
    ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552091/NHS-could-lose-millions-on-PFI-land-clauses.html

    Incidentally GO has been signing off these type of contracts at an increasing rate over the last three years.

    Report comment

  25. @Alec
    Gove’s proposals on exam boards should not be controversial to anyone who has seen through the dogma of competition. Why anyone with a left wing perspective should want to criticise them beats me. Removing the ability to pick and choose exam boards means removing the scope for schools to compete with one another in a race to the bottom means At the moment, both schools and exam boards are forced to respectively choose and set papers which make it easier to get better grades. Schools because they need the results, exam boards because they need the custom.

    Report comment

  26. PHIL

    @”Given your comments, I trust we can all agree that major infrastructure projects necessary to deliver services financed by the taxpayer should be designed, built, financed and operated by the public sector, rather than used as an excuse for wholesale privatisation of services under fixed contracts for a duration of 30 years.”

    But that isn’t the only alternative.

    I believe you state what is known as a non sequitur. :-)

    Report comment

  27. BILLYBOB

    He did indeed-and Evan Davis’ point about accountability of the people who signed the relevant PFI deals was non partisan too.

    I think they should be made accountable-whoever they were.

    Report comment

  28. @Colin

    “We have achieved some of the lowest mortality rates over the last 18 months. Infection rates are also three times lower than the national average.”

    I wonder if this improvement in outcomes is in any way related to the fact that they are now working in state of the art medical facilities that were built as a result of the PFI programme you so deride?

    I share some of your misgivings about the terms of many of the contracts that were negotiated, not least the one in the Bexley NHS Trust, but we have to be realistic about why PFI was introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 90s and why the Blair and Brown governments carried it on as a way of financing essential public infra-structure investment. Major’s Government probably “saw it as part of the wider neo-liberal programme of privatisation and financialisation driven by an increased need for accountability and efficiency for public spending” (quote Wikipedia) whilst Blair and Brown saw it as a convenient way of financing public investment that didn’t immediately impact on the government’s balance sheet.

    What ever happened to that quaint old assumption that public spending came out of a public purse that was largely funded by progressive tax revenues? Oh, I forgot; we concluded somewhere in the 1980s, didn’t we, that people wanted decently funded public services but didn’t want to pay the taxes to finance them. A political circle that no government has squared ever since.

    Report comment

  29. Phil – re

    @Colin, @Neil A

    Given your comments, I trust we can all agree that major infrastructure projects necessary to deliver services financed by the taxpayer should be (a) designed, (b) built, (c) financed and (d) operated by the public sector, rather than used as an excuse for wholesale privatisation of services under (e) fixed contracts for a duration of 30 years.

    (a) No – If I want to build a house I employ an architect. I can specify what I want / need / would like, and review the plans before agreeing them, but I would not dream of doing it myself. Which public sector agencies have this capability in-house ? – and if they do, why ?

    (b) No – same logic – but with extra consequences.

    (c) Maybe – depends if you mean finance as in using own resources / borrowing arrangements – which could be obtained from a commercial bank and is basically okay – or get someone else to take on the debt but with me ultimately bearing the cost – in which case I agree. Using my house analogy, PFI works by allowing my builder to team up with a bank to finance an over-designed over-priced state of the art house built on my land, which is mortgaged to the bank, and on which I pay rent at an inflated price. Oh, and the bank sets the finance cost based not on my exemplary credit rating, but that of my builder. The builder then gets to charge me a fee for maintenance services which I may / may not need. I can’t move for 30 years unless I find someone willing to take on the existing terms.

    (d) That really depends on the nature of the service involved. There is no reason why any service has to be operated by the public sector unless it is one of those “public goods” on which it is next to impossible to put a price. The irreducible core is generally acknowledged to be Defence, Justice & Policing, Foreign Policy and certain essential utilities / transport infrastructure. In all other areas – including health and education, it is possible to devise a structure whereby services are funded by the public sector but commissioned from “private” operators.

    (e) It is not so much the tenor of the contract as its flexibility which is the issue. Clearly the longer the tenor the greater the risk of problems in later years. PFI contracts tend to be this long in order to amortise the massive debts associated with such projects. That is where the real problem lies.

    Don’t confuse sound principles badly executed with bad principles soundly executed. Sadly, in the case of PFI, I think that too often we ended up with cases of bad principles badly executed.

    Report comment