Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 44%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 8%, so bang in line with the leads of ten points or so that YouGov have been showing lately.

Meanwhile ComRes have their monthly poll for the Independent, which has topline figures of CON 33%(-1), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 13%(+2), Others 12%. Changes are from ComRes’s last poll conducted by telephone a month ago, rather than their parallel online polls for the Independent on Sunday.

They also have one of my beloved “agree or disagree with this statement” question – in this case asking if people agreed or disagreed that “the Government is more to blame than the eurozone crisis for the lack of economic growth in Britain”. 43% of people agreed and 42% disagreed. To practice what I preach in the post below on how to report polls, this should probably be read in the context of similar questions from YouGov and Populus in recent weeks.

In the Sunday Times this week YouGov asked what single factor was most to blame for Britain still being in recession. 33% said the Eurozone crisis or global factors, 23% said the deficit left by the last government, 19% said the present governments policies or cuts, 13% said the banks for not lending money. Populus last month tackled the subject a different way, asking people to rate five different items seperately in terms of how much they were to blame for the present economic situation, and then taking those who rated each one at 8/10 or more. 64% of people blamed the behaviour of the banks prior to the credit crunch, 57% the crisis in the Eurozone, 49% the last Labour government’s borrowing, 47% banks not lending and 37% the current government’s cuts.

Finally ComRes also had a poll on people’s trust in various professions for ITV news. As usual in these polls doctors were top, trusted by 85% to tell the truth, they were followed by teachers (76%), judges (73%) and scientists (72%). At the bottom only 10% trusted bankers or politicians to tell the truth, 13% trusted journalists and 19% business leaders. And, before you ask, 27% of people trust pollsters to tell the truth, 41% do not!


56 Responses to “New ComRes and YouGov polls”

1 2
  1. Anthony – I’m feeling sorry for you tonight. That last thread must hold the all time record for the length of your initial post relative to the length of the responses.

  2. Fear not. I will plug it remorselessly in future posts, it will be a gift that keeps on giving. In fact, later on tonight it will probably move up the page to be the top post again!

  3. Anthony,
    Thank you. First ?

    In from a run in the drizzle ot the height of summer in Bournemouth.
    The 10 point lead looks solid, and ED seems to be making the running on the bankers.

    Another topic: THE TIMES led today on the many children who are being sent to cheap places in which to live, far from home. These are our society’s most vulnerable.

  4. In tonight’s YouGov poll :-

    The Cuts are :-

    Bad for the economy +18
    Unfair +38
    Too deep + 36
    Too quick +36
    Having an impact on my life +36
    Labour’s fault +10

    …….

    and “Necessary” +28

    ????

  5. Does that mean that 10% trust politicians to tell the truth in their findings of an inquiry into the 10% of bankers who are trusted to tell the truth?

  6. Colin – been like that for a very long time now.

    Essentially people don’t like the medicine, they don’t think it is doing them any good, but they see no alternative to taking it.

  7. Anthony

    Thanks.

    It was mainly -Bad for the economy, Unfair…….and Necessary that caught my attention.

    But I must learn to accept that none of these opinions signify much of interest or relevance I suppose .

  8. @ Chris Lane

    45 per cent of children in care have been placed in locations outside their home authorities. The measures come a day after The Times revealed that hundreds of damaged children are sent mainly from London and the South East of England to live in care homes bought cheaply by private companies in the North West and West Midlands.
    ————————–
    I’m guessing it is the above which you refer to.
    8-)

  9. @ Colin

    It would be too bitter a pill: Unfair, bad for the economy AND unnecessary. Necessary avoids the need for protest or panic; the UK public can generally be counted on to rationalise the irrational when it allows them to ignore it & just get on with their lives.
    8-)

  10. @Colin, @Anthony W

    It might also be down to the way that all of the economic questions are all prefaced.
    “Thinking about the way the government is
    cutting spending to reduce the government’s
    deficit, do you think this is…”

    That’s implicitly leading – “try and reduce” would be better, given that a case can be made (and has been by several here) that by making the recession worse, the cuts have had relatively little impact on the deficit. And I think that, to a small degree at least, the responses to the “necessary/unnecessary” question will reflect that implicit prompt.

  11. CHRIS LANE

    Shocking report from the MPs

    “This (Rochdale) incident was not an isolated case, but indicative of something “happening all over the country.” The events in Rochdale put a spotlight on the issue, but until then “it was going on pretty much unnoticed,” the report states.
    Children’s homes in England recorded 631 incidents of children being sold for sex in the past five years.
    The report also found that almost half of children in care (46%) are placed many miles away from home, and this is often a reason for kids to run away. ”

    RT.com

    Utterly incredible, the things that have been going on.

  12. Previous thread was excellent – and I predict will be almost totally ignored by the political press.

    These polls are both good and bad for Labour. Solid lead, but the underlying notions of where the responsibility lies aren’t so good. I guess this is probably as good as it could be for Labour at this time, given what they faced in 2010, but it does suggest that while the government is struggling today, they still have some weapons to try and get back into the game.

    Labour is getting the positioning right, but as the next election approaches, all oppositions need to make that transition from an opposition party to a potential government in waiting.

  13. AMBER

    I tend not to share your certainty about what people think.

    ……it comes from reading too many of Anthony’s cautionary tales.

    I sometimes wonder why he publishes opinion polls at all :-)

  14. @AW

    “And, before you ask, 27% of people trust pollsters to tell the truth, 41% do not!”

    Ooo what a fib!

  15. A little confused about the ComRes poll for the IoS.

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_poll_17th_June_2012.pdf

    ‘Methodology: ComRes interviewed 2,014 GB adults by telephone between 13th and 15th June 2012.’

    But then their headings below refer to ‘Online Fieldwork’

    What am I missing?

  16. AMBER AND COLIN.
    yes, that is the report, and very shocking indeed.

  17. Polldrums

    But the banking scandal could be damaging for Labour…Some of the front pages tomorrow try to implicate the old regime.

    So,quite impressive for Miliband to take a lead on this issue but Balls could sustain some damage.

    And the people who are trusted 10% are going to investigate those trusted 10%.Seems more appropriate for those trusted 73% to do the job.

  18. On the subject of the previous thread “3. Beware cross breaks and small sample sizes” I consider it highly presumptive of ICM to denote their new approach a “wisdom index”. They are citing a sample size of just one to justify its supposed veracity in predicting the 2010 election result.

    It’s not at all surprising that responses revert a bit back towards the mean of the previous election result when people are reminded of that result. I am sure that that will always be the effect found by any “wisdom index”. Such reversion may often happen, but it doesn’t mean it will always happen.

    In 2010, thanks to prompting a reversion to the mean, the “wisdom index” predicted a lower LD poll rating than was being shown at the height of the Cleggasm. But is that any more than coincidence, given that there were always lots of reasons why the LD’s boost on the back of that first TV debate could be deemed to have been on shaky ground – e.g. a temporary effect likely to wear off, or a boost from people that were least likely to turn out and vote? The 2010 experience proves nothing for application for other elections, where a shift in loyalty may have more solid underpinnings than the performance in a handful of TV debates.

    So what I find highly questionable is to use that experience to assume that a similar reversion to the 2010 election mean would occur in a GE held tomorrow. The collapse of the LD vote now isn’t a skin deep phenomenon, but rather it’s down to the political choice made by Clegg et al, which has effectively redefined the shape of British politics, by removing the competition for the centre-left vote. It’s endured for two years now, bumping along the bottom.

    So, in the absence of a proven track record, how about “leap of faith index” instead, at least in the context of British polling circa 2012?

  19. STATGEEK

    :-)

  20. “Essentially people don’t like the medicine, they don’t think it is doing them any good, but they see no alternative to taking it.”

    ……….and would vote Labour if there was a General Election tomorrow! lol

  21. @ Colin

    Anthony has often pointed out that the public appear able to hold two differing opinions at the same time, without any apparent cognitive dissonance.

    It is not ‘my’ certainty about how this is possible. It is the scientific opinion of psycologists & psychiatrists that this is possible through rationalisation &/or ‘double-think’.
    8-)

  22. [Bob Diamond will] Make a robust case for its [Barclays’s] efforts to preserve its financial health during the 2008 credit crunch when directors appear at the Treasury Select Committee later this week. That is likely to involve Diamond disclosing email records and memos which I understand exist relating to a conversation between he and Paul Tucker, now the deputy governor of the Bank of England, about the integrity of the LIBOR-setting process.
    ————–
    This could be interesting…
    8-)

  23. @ Anthony,

    I’m looking for polls which included questions on attitudes to nationalised industries &/or re-nationalising some things.

    Is there an easy way or specific place where I can search for such polls. I’ve tried googling but it just comes up with a lot of rubbish. :-(

  24. @Amber

    We already have a nationalised railway in this neck of the woods, the trains being owned by Das Deutsche Volk.

  25. @Amber Star

    h
    ttp://www.politicshome.com/uk/majority_of_public_support_full_railway_nationalisation.html

    h
    ttp://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2012.04.29_Express_BRI.pdf

  26. @ Billy Bob

    Thank you :-)

    @ Phil

    LOL ;-)

  27. @Anthony Wells

    You said “…And, before you ask, 27% of people trust pollsters to tell the truth, 41% do not!…”

    Dude, dinna fash yirsel’. The smart people like you.

    Regards, Martyn

  28. Amber:

    h ttp://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/yg-archives-yougov-britishbusiness-300611.pdf

  29. @ Craig,

    I was looking for that one & couldn’t find it! Thanks :-)

  30. Next election

    Con 35% -2%
    Lab 31% +1%
    UKIP 13%
    LD 11%
    Oths 10%

  31. Lib Dems and Tories might have to stand down in some seats to give UKIP a clear run.

    There’ll be a Con-UKIP coalition afterwards.
    UIKIP to win 23 seats, the LDs to win 12.

    The Tories will offer to withdraw from Europe as part of the agreement.
    UKIP on the other hand will be denied any seats in the Government,
    but in return for that, they can claim EU Parliament expenses.

  32. Only joking btw.
    Should have taken some water with it.

  33. @ Joe James B

    Should have taken some water with it.
    —————-
    LOL :-)

  34. Health warning: just a bit of summertime fun peeps!

    … but since Joe James B has entered the realms of fantasy (not all that far-stretched by the way), here is my current thinking regarding the next UK GE north of the border. It is after all less than 3 years away now, so it is getting close enough for folk to start getting an inkling of what is likely to happen.

    The entire basis for this scenario is, obviously, that a NO vote has occurred the previous year (otherwise, there would not be a UK GE taking place in Scotland).

    A No vote would boost the Scottish Labour Party. Their support at UK GE 2010 was artificially buoyed up by the fact that the defending Scottish prime minister was so obviously despised by the MSM and much of the English electorate. This gave SLAB a huge sympathy boost (Scots tend to back fellow Scots). So, theoretically, we would expect to see Labour under Miliband dropping down at bit from the 42% they got under Brown in 2010. But they will have just won the NO campaign, and will…

    (Actually, let’s just cut the extensive reasoning and get to the fun bit:)

    SD’s prediction (at 3 July 2012) for UK GE May 2015, in Scotland:

    Lab 46% (+4)
    SNP 27% (+7)
    Con 15% (-2)
    LD 9% (-10)
    oth 3% (+1)

    Giving a seat distribution (on the new boundaries) of (+/- changes shown are with actual 2010 result):

    Lab 40 seats (-1)
    SNP 8 seats (+2)
    LD 4 seats (-7)
    Con 0 seats (-1)

    Note my assumptions:
    – the next UK GE will be in May 2015
    – the autumn 2014 independence referendum has resulted in a No vote
    – the party leaders remain unchanged (ie. Clegg is still leading the Lib Dems)
    – the next UK GE will be fought under the new, larger constituencies, using the boundaries already published by the Boundary Commission for Scotland (although not enacted yet)
    – UKIP do as proportionately well in Scotland as they are likely to do in England (ie. tripling their vote, which was only 0.7% in 2010)
    – Charlie Kennedy is the SLD candidate in the new Inverness & Skye seat (if Danny Alexander is their candidate, subtract 1 from the Lib Dem total, and add it to the Labour or SNP total, probably on the toss of the returning officer’s coin)

    If you change any of these assumptions then things could adjust dramatically, especially the party leader variable. And especially if the Lib Dems manage to get rid of Nick Clegg, who is electoral poison for the SLDs.

    My prediction might look a little too sunny for the SNP in some folks’ eyes, considering the assumption that Yes just lost. But in fact, it is very, very hard for the SNP to get fewer than 6 seats under the new boundaries, so one would have to be tremendously pessimistic/optimistic (delete as appropriate to partisan viewpoint) to expect to see overall SNP Westminster representation weakened.

  35. @ Anthony Wells

    “Essentially people don’t like the medicine, they don’t think it is doing them any good, but they see no alternative to taking it.”

    If people find out that the medication has bad side effects and is actually making their condition worse, might they want to change their prescription? And might they get angry at their doctor for prescribing them the wrong medication?

    @ Colin

    “Children’s homes in England recorded 631 incidents of children being sold for sex in the past five years.
    The report also found that almost half of children in care (46%) are placed many miles away from home, and this is often a reason for kids to run away. ”

    RT.com

    Utterly incredible, the things that have been going on.”

    It’s horrifying. What kind of person sells a child into sex? There really is evil in this world isn’t there?

  36. GSK have agreed a £1.9b fine in the US for miss selling of anti depressants and effectively bribing doctors. This is a huge fine for one of the pharmaceutical giants, at the time when they are complaining bitterly about the £4b saving the NHS is making on drugs, largely through the brilliant work of NICE over the last ten years.

    What is interesting here is that we have another case of a ‘vitally important’ industry being found guilty of criminality. Almost daily it seems we are seeing more and more evidence of how multi national mega corporations ride rough shod over the law, just as we have a government increasingly willing to provide these same companies with very attractive tax breaks and include them more and more in the running of core public services.

    Fascinating stuff.

  37. @STATGEEK

    You made me giggle.

    “And, before you ask, 27% of people trust pollsters to tell the truth, 41% do not!”

    The figure MUST be greater than 41%, those who do not trust pollsters would probably not take part and thus would skew the figure towards those who trust pollsters. Oh what a can of worms.

    :)

  38. @ Amber Star

    Elections have consequences. Case in point:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-homeowner-rights-20120703,0,5215367.story

    Curious to get your thoughts on the new law (well almost certain new law provided Governor Moonbeam doesn’t veto).

  39. corporeal

    A little confused about the ComRes poll for the IoS.

    ‘Methodology: ComRes interviewed 2,014 GB adults by telephone between 13th and 15th June 2012.’

    But then their headings below refer to ‘Online Fieldwork’

    Don’t worry, this is just the curse of copy and paste (from the previous month-end telephone poll). They made the opposite mistake in March and when I queried it Anthony said to always go by what it says on the tables. Maybe this is why 41% of people don’t trust pollsters. :P

    The tables for the most recent ComRes poll with voting intention are here by the way:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Independent_PoliticalPoll_3rd_July12.pdf

  40. @ Stuart Dickson

    “Health warning: just a bit of summertime fun peeps!”

    Yeah, it’s important to have some summertime fun. Although too much fun can be a bad thing. For example, I’m not sure that going out on boat in Santa Barbara to watch fireworks for the 4th is a good idea. I just imagine drunk people out on boats….bad news.

    @ Crossbat11

    “……….and would vote Labour if there was a General Election tomorrow! lol”

    Yes, sometimes it’s important to switch doctors and find a new one when you don’t like the one you’re using.

  41. Having listened to some of the stories coming out about the LIBOR rate rigging, it makes me wonder how may people were involved in this. Were the BOE and FSA aware of what was going on ? There is speculation that Barclays may release information which shows that the BOE were co-instigators of manipulating the LIBOR rate. If this is the case, the reputation of the city of London, is going to take a serious hit and many jobs will be on the line.

    Now that Bob Diamond has resigned, this could indicate either of two things happening. Either Barclays chiefs and bank chiefs involved in this just take the blame and just going quietly or will they release information to show a wider conspiracy.

    My personal view is that it is unbelievable that people who studied the financial markets and kept an eye on LIBOR rates, did not know what was going on. There must have been some collusion between many different people across financial services. If the government are aware of this and the consequences for the City of London, with the knock on effect to the UK economy, they will want a quick parliamentary inquiry and not an independent inquiry, over which they have no control.

  42. @R HUCKLE
    `If the government are aware of this and the consequences for the City of London, with the knock on effect to the UK economy, they will want a quick parliamentary inquiry and not an independent inquiry, over which they have no control.`

    I suspect it was `nods and winks` all around including from the Labour ministers…Their focus would have been to solve the massive financial crisis and they probably welcomed this.But if what you say is right,shouldn`t the Majesty`s government discuss with the opposition leader and explain the national interest in this?

  43. I’m wondering if there is a case against Barclays and others around the role of LIBOR and the relative inter bank rates in the pricing of banking stocks in 2008.

    Manipulating the markets, or failing to disclose data that might affect the markets, is a serious crime, and if the SEC became involved then it could be a quick trip to the US for Mr Diamond… Unless he decides to join Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.

  44. SMIKESH

    @”I suspect it was `nods and winks` all around including from the Labour ministers”

    A bit more than nods & winks if you read the Vadera intervention.

  45. Well that will teach Hollande not to ask a bunch of accountants how things are going :-) :-) :-)

  46. @ Thesheep

    “it could be a quick trip to the US for Mr Diamond… Unless he decides to join Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.”

    Apparently the Ecuadorian embassy have put in a planning application for an extension. 20 rental apartments. :)

    Just joking, but if there was a mass extradition call to the US, to enable UK based bankers to face criminal prosecution in the US, we could embassies besieged with asylum applications.

    The NatWest three who I think were involved with the Enron fallout, ended up being given jail sentences which they served in UK prisons.

  47. AMBER STAR

    @”Anthony has often pointed out that the public appear able to hold two differing opinions at the same time, without any apparent cognitive dissonance.”

    Indeed-but that wasn’t what you said :-

    “It would be too bitter a pill: Unfair, bad for the economy AND unnecessary. Necessary avoids the need for protest or panic;” – implies that the answers to those questions constituted a holistic response-that the answer “necessary” was given in the context of the other answers,

    For what it is worth ( which isn’t much at all) , I tend to think that these questions were answered in “silos”; one after the other, divorced from each other-thus one cannot & should not look for a cohesive thought process which rationalises all the answers as a group.

    But what do I know-hence my response to you. :-)

  48. @COLIN
    `A bit more than nods & winks if you read the Vadera intervention`

    I have read the piece and would say that if the government of the day wasn`t at all concerned by a high Libor rate,that would be the scandal…Nothing remotely concrete has emerged yet.

  49. SMUKESH

    There is a post on pb with a quote from a Motley Fool board-it is very interesting.

    In summary it implies that The Government of the day , and BoE were concerned about high LIBOR, and it’s drift from Base Rate.

    Tyrie might find that he has to try & distinguish between a shared concern in high places at high LIBOR, and a blind eye to suppressing it , on the one hand-( which might well have resulted in minimising interest rates for borrowers)…..and using the “fexibility” which that atmosphere engendered, to maximise margins on particular bank trades -which I presume might involve a criminal offence.

    The net result may be that the politicians & officials involved at the time should beware of making too much sound & fury about this affair.

    Tyrie’s task is a sensitive one-I have no doubt he is up to it , & will be both forensic & objective.

  50. SMUKESH

    This is the link:-

    http://boards.fool.co.uk/this-wont-be-popular-to-say-but-in-some-ways-all-12589382.aspx

    It is certainly an advert for separating retail & casino banking in the Vickers implementation.

    I do think that this is very urgent, to put those idiots in a box of their own.

1 2