Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 42%, LDEM 11%, Others 13% (including UKIP on 7%) – the Labour lead is down to 8 points, but is still well within the margin of error of the ten point lead that YouGov have been showing for the last week or so.

Earlier on today YouGov also released polling conducted yesterday on some of the welfare changes David Cameron floated in his speech yesterday. 53% of respondents said they suppoted withdrawing housing benefit from the great majority of people under the age of 25, with 37% opposed. 59% of people supported reducing benefits for families with three or more children, 30% were opposed.

UPDATE: The YouGov poll today also covers attitudes towards reform of the House of Lords. The @Sun_Politics team have already tweeted some results: 76% people think the Lords should be partially or wholly elected, but in a separate question, 52% said reforming the Lords should not be a priority now. Full results will be up tomorrow morning.


64 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 34, LAB 42, LD 11, UKIP 7”

1 2
  1. @PeterCairns
    “Equally a property at £500 a week for two bedrooms in Newcastle sits fairly well with a £400 average. If anything if Newcastle is £500 a week, the £400 a week figure might be a bit low.”

    I do hope you mean monthly instead of weekly…

  2. Hannah, indeed.
    Wiki states on German minimum wage:
    ‘no statutory minimum wage, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Minimum wage is often set by collective bargaining agreements in other sectors of the economy and enforceable by law’.

    Paying a decent wage does not seem to hold that economy back does it? I have not looked up controlled rents but I am certain they will be.

    That is certainly the case in NL and on min wage (quote Wiki again)
    ‘€1,446.60 per month, €333.85 per week or €66.77 per day for persons 23 and older[45]; between 30-85% of this amount for persons aged 15–22.

    I think it’s called civilisation, which is a feeling I got when I descended the plane steps at Cologne recently and will do in Amsterdam shortly.

  3. There is a very early narrative getting created that is going to show how the Tories will differentiate from Liberals and the Cons at the next election. I think they are on the right lines. Generally, apart from Labour supporters and those on the left of politics, people generally disagree with the level of welfare expenditure. I know that’s a broad statement, but it’s roughly where people seem to be, and the polls on here seem to back that up.

  4. CHRISLANE

    @” It was also a ‘wolf whistle’ ”

    Did you perhaps mean to say “dog whistle”.

    A wolf whistle , I think, is a means of communicating sexual attraction in which the sender displays overt signs of desire, and the recipient feigns disdain, whilst in fact welcoming the implied compliment.

    A dog whistle , I think is a means of communicating political attraction in which the sender displays overt signs of peddling populist policies to the worst possible elements of reactionary core supporters, and the recipients slaver with animal hunger……………

    ……………unless the topic is immigration, and the sender is Ed Miliband; in which case this is a sensitive & perceptive response to he changing needs of the country & it’s voters.

  5. @Rich – I think you are correct in stating that people ‘generally disagree’ with the total level of welfare expenditure, but history also shows us they disagree with things like homelessness and food banks. As ever with Cameroonian policy discussions, very often the rhetoric remains just that, and in this particular case he has established another hostage to fortune.

    The headline image from this is the withdrawal of housing benefit from under 25’s, which currently polls suggest that around 70% of people think they like, but we haven’t yet seen the consequences.

    Unless we expect a major collapse in rental costs, which seems highly unlikely, such a move would mean young adults leaving their homes – and as @Amberstar has so adequately picked out, the vast majority of these will be in work or not capable of work, rather than ‘workshy scroungers’ or some such.

    So we will be left with a significant number of homeless young people, requiring family or friends to house them, with some having to give up jobs as they are evicted, and with their own families quite probably being unable to home them adequately.

    If Tories believe this is an effective route to maintain the detoxification of their party brand, then so be it – good luck to them. I tend to think that the perceived polling gains achieved today may not look so attractive as the detail of policy becomes apparent and the point of delivery draws near.

    This wouldn’t be the first time this government has faced difficulties in selling an apparently popular policy once the facts emerge.

  6. @Alec,

    (On minimum wage)

    I was posing a question, and you have mostly answered it.

    I have a few little quibbles though.

    1) Surely the “moveable” businesses (factories and offices) also have their share of “minimum wage” jobs. I am thinking of cleaners, canteen staff, security guards etc. I expect there might also be entry level jobs (admin assistants, reception staff etc) which are at or close to the current minimum wage. I entirely agree that a large chunk of low-paid jobs in areas like hospitality and agriculture cannot be outsourced, and will continue to be done in the UK by foreign workers as they are now.

    2) Wouldn’t an increase in the minimum wage cause a certain amount of “grade inflation”. Many people who had been paid “more than minimum wage” would now be paid minimum wage. Some relatively skilled workers might see the wages of the cleaners in their organisation rise to the same level as theirs. In theory that shouldn’t matter, but human nature being what it is I wouldn’t be surprised if it created an upward pressure on wages generally.

    3) I posed the question in the context of the “controversy” over whether people supported by the state are in or out of work. In other words, what I really meant to ask was what would the effects be of setting a minimum wage at a level where full time workers would no longer need housing benefit. I honestly don’t know the answer, which is why it was a question not a statement.

    4) I was never particularly opposed to a minimum wage, so long as it was set relatively low. Its purpose seems to me to prevent people from being forced into wage-slavery that is little more than indentured servitude. When the debate was being had, and people were saying it would reduce employment, the level had not been set. Clearly there is a level at which it would reduce employment (£12/hour? £20? £120?). And clearly there is a level at which it would make no difference to anyone or anything (£2/hour?). In the event, Labour set the level pretty low, to the anger of their left wing, and so it didn’t have a huge impact. As to the increase in employment, well I don’t really think that relates to the introduction of the minimum wage. It’s more a question of it having been introducing at the beginning of what turned out to be a massive (credit-fuelled? ultimately doomed?) boom for the world and UK economy.

    As for “Tories always attack the poor”. I hope that wasn’t aimed at me, although I suppose it must have been to some extent.

    There may be some Tory supporters who actively hate the poor and want to see them harmed (in fact, I am pretty sure I’ve met a few). But it is a knee-jerk response to characterise all Tory thinking this way.

    It is possible to do something for the right reason, but for it to have the wrong effect. There is a major school of thought on the centre-right (and in places on the centre-left, such as Frank Field) that excessive welfare spending actually hurts the poor in the long term. Also, there is a belief that even though a taxation or economic policy might feel “proper and just”, that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. The consequences need to be looked at with a cold eye to see whether it does what you want it to do.

  7. @Howard – ” …the polling shot in the arm on the HB side was deemed insufficient”

    Balls had a piece in the currant bun that morning about fuel duty – the government usually caves if The Sun threatens to launch a campaign. The article called for Tories to rebel and join Labour in forcing a vote on the issue. Neither Cameron (who was forced to wield the veto) or Osborne has much authority within their party.

    The response to falling behind in the polls, during the first half of 2011, was two relaunches of the Big Society plus a speech about the failure of multiculturalism thrown in for good measure.

    At the outset of the coalition, the Maude/Cameron modernisers were expressing enthusiasm for a new breed of Liberal Conservatism, but the party, and polling interpolation… has painted them into the corner of negatory populism.

  8. @NeilA

    I think there is a big difference between “attack” and hate. There is a traditional right wing concept that people are poor through their own decisions. You don’t need to hate the poor to think that if you can only make them work then they will have an incentive to stop being poor (and if they don’t then it’s their own choice).

    This view is especially prevelant in the US, and was evident in the infamous “get on your bikes” statement.

    I’m not going to suggest that this is a view that you hold, of course, or even that the majority of the Tory party think it…

  9. @Neil A – in answer to your quibbles;

    1) Agreed – there will always be some movable low paid work.

    2) I think I did refer to compaction of pay scales, with the same thought in mind, so yes, this will also have a potential effect.

    3) I would tend to think that setting min wage to remove the need for HB would indeed be impossible. Probably best to focus on why housing costs are so expensive.

    4) Would agree with this as well.

    On ‘Tories attacking the poor’, no it wasn’t aimed at you, and on reflection was probably a bit too inflammatory for these august pages.

    When I wrote it I was thinking of an Independent article I read recently where the writer quoted a senior former Tory cabinet minster speaking at Oxford Uni, who said to the private meeting that the Conservative party exists to protect privilege and maintains power by giving just enough away to just enough people to keep just enough voters happy.

    It was said quite seriously and without irony, and was taken as such by the meeting. While I don’t go all misty eyed with romantic notions of the oppressed working classes, my default setting tends to be that as it’s the rich and powerful who have the greatest influence, when things go wrong, we should look here first to find out why.

    The OECD has suggested that rich Americans should be paying more tax, while the Republicans believe that paying too much welfare to the poor is the problem. It’s a similar pattern here.

  10. Alec, I have been to virtually all and organised a couple of visits of senior Conservatives at Oxford and nobody has ever said anything like that in my hearing. Not once.

  11. Thats from 2007 to 2011 btw.

  12. Billy Bob

    Thanks for informing me about the Sun. I heard a vox pop on PM that indicates that the knee jerk announcement had the right effect, as a white van man murmured that it was a ‘good thing’.

    If so, (if), then it seems surprising that, having suffered so grievously, by climbing into bed with Sun functionaries (figuratively speaking), DC and GO would do as they were told, although you seem to indicate neither had much say in the decision.

    So who did then? Somebody must have decided. Does the political assistant class (there is an acronym but it escapes me, no it doesn’t – SPAD) now run the Government?

  13. @Joe – this was a few weeks ago I understand. A minister in the Thatcher years I think.

  14. COLIN.
    Good Afternoon.
    LOL as they say; I will stay with wolf whistle as the phrase.

    NEIL A.
    Good Afternoon; from an old thread:
    i. I have investigated, a little, about what we could do with our £320K house with 5 adults living here, plus my poor Mum having to come here as well

    ii. In terms of your suggestion of downsizing in order that (ut in latin) to finance their housing, I am not sure how much you suggest.

    iii. Then there is the student loans, if they ever decide to pay them back.

    Our mortgage finishes in 2018. by which time one ‘child’ will be 30, the next will be 28, the next will be 22 and the next will be 20

    Thanks!

1 2