Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 42%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 7%. For what it’s worth the 35% is the Conservative’s highest level of support from YouGov since the start of May. That said, it is well within the margin of error of recent YouGov polls, so nothing to get excited about. Sure – it could be the start of a narrowing of the polls, but more likely it’s a blip and we’ll be back to a more typical ten point lead tomorrow.


284 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 35, LAB 42, LD 10, UKIP 7”

1 4 5 6
  1. Colin

    Hardly surprising that GO and EB loathe each other. They have diametrically opposed views on the correct response to the biggest economic crisis on 80 (if not 140) years. This is not political posturing. It is a fundamental difference on political and economic values and theory.

  2. @Phil

    Leave alone,whether BD’s evidence was convincing, he explicitly stated that he did not,believe the intention of the Whitehall figures was to get Barclays to falsify their rates.

  3. PHIL

    THanks

    Interesting & ingenious :-)

    Of course we only have Diamond’s version of what Tucker said , & need to hear Tucker’s version.

    There is so much that is enigmatic in Diamond’s file note .

    ……………I asked if he could relay the reality that not all banks were providing quotes at levels that represented real transactions, his response “oh that would be worse”.

    Note the quote marks-what did Tucker mean?-did he not know that LIBOR submissions were not from actual transactions from other banks ?

    ………….Mr Tucker stated the level of calls from Whitehall were “senior” and while he was certain we did not need advice, that it did not always need to be the case that we appeared as high as we have recently.

    Note the quote marks around “senior”.
    Note calls in the plural.
    Who would be concerned about Barclays high funding costs in “Whitehall” at that precise time, and in those particular circumstances?
    Note the words “need to be “-implying flexibility-or choice about the numbers submitted. But if Tucker was not aware that submissions were not always from actual transactions-how could there be choice?

    Wish I was questioning him :-)-but feel sure AT will do a good job.:-)

    With regard to your last word “fault”-as I have already said-I don’t think a nudge from Vadera via Tucker -or from Tucker because of Vadera’s concern ,to the effect that you need to reduce your LIBOR submissions was a “fault”………..at that time & in those circumstances.

    UK Banks were actually running out of cash as the interbank credit market froze. Government was facing a massive bailout programme to save them. Barclays said it was OK-and had arab funds lined up within days.

    It was clearly in the interests of Barclays, the Government , the Taxpayer & the country, that Barclays did not have to seek state funding.

    If changing a few LIBOR submissions was going to help, then it was obviously sensible to do it.

    The fact that some Barclays traders had been manipulating LIBOR submissions for years merely adds some irony to the putative official sanctioning of this practice in late 2008.

  4. The chancellor has said that Ed Balls was not personally involved in the Libor scandal.
    ————————-
    Between now & Monday when Paul Tucker will appear before the TSC, I would not be surprised if all the allegations are rowed back in preparation for his testimony. I will now be surprised if he mentions any Labour Minister, Official or ‘senior figure’ by name.
    8-)

  5. LEFTY

    I must disagree-I think it is surprising-and unusual.

    Political difference clearly exists across the floor of the House.

    I would say that it very rarely goes hand in hand with “loathing”-at least at senior Front Bench level.

    On the contrary, it often seems to accompany mutual respect-even liking.

    Osborne & Balls seems unusual to me in this respect.

    ( clearly I have my own view of the two men-no doubt you have too :-) )

  6. CL1945:

    I agree about George.

    Off to St Ives for a fortnight in September and if we could take a fantasy chum then he would be my first choice.

    On polling, and the way he and Dave lean on the dispatch box, are there any figures to indicate if this is regarded as adding to, subtracting from or making no difference at all to perceived levels of arrogance?

  7. Any thoughts: Will Osborne’s attempts to ‘bully’ Ed Balls come back to haunt him? Surely any future allegations about Gordon Brown’s time in government have been undermined by this very visible, failed attempt on Balls. Ed B called Osborne’s bluff & seems to have won!

    Ed Balls will now be even more of an evil little pixie than he was before. :evil: :-) I’m using multiple icons ‘cos Anthony has barred my smiley cat!

  8. @Amberstar
    Ed Balls has just tweeted: “Chancellor’s aides have now backed-down on false allegations about me. I hope he’ll now have the integrity to say this publicly & apologise.”

  9. @AMBER STAR

    This round went to Balls but the fight ain`t over till 2015 (the boxing analogy seems appropriate)

  10. @Smukesh @Amber

    The Tories need to find a wise old head to stop GO and DC falling into EB’s traps. May I suggest the very contemplative Dominic Grieve be given a beefed up role? William Hague is also someone who adopts a more cautious approach.

  11. YouGov poll for ITV Wales 2-4 July (compared to 12-16 April)

    Westminster VI
    Lab 54% (+4%)
    Con 23% (uc)
    Plaid 10% (-2%)
    LD 4% (-3%)
    Other 9% (uc)

    Change since GE
    Lab +16%
    Con -3%
    Plaid -1%
    LD -16%

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/y0phchdfgq/YG-Archives-Pol-ITVWales-Results-050712.pdf

    Comments invited from ChrisLane1945

  12. Sorry, that’s Lab +18% not +16%
    And Others +3%

  13. That poll looks terrifying for the Lib Dems.

    In the broader context, this must also be a big worry for the Tories. Wales was pretty much the only hard to reach area where the Tories could claim good progress in 2010 – and although the drop for them is much less dramatic, a huge Labour surge would knock them on the head.

  14. Labour lead on 8: Latest YouGov/The Sun results 5th July CON 35%, LAB 43%, LD 8%, UKIP 8%; APP -33 y-g.co/MLNMq0

  15. with tonight’s poll showing a Labour lead of 8, i believe these polls are discredited due to the wild fluctuations.
    People do not change their minds like this

  16. You Gov bouncing around like Barclays’s Libor submissions ;-)

  17. The Tories main gain in this poll is the usual suspects – older folks in the South. I wonder if they’ll be quite so happy on Sunday, if the weekend media is full of stories about the regiments being replaced with drones. :evil:

  18. PAUL CROFT.
    Far too much information, thank you, with regarding GO….

    PHIL.
    OK, yes, why are those figures so high, do you think?

    LIZ H. Chablis into the fridge again.

    AMBER:
    Never, ever under estimate the Conservatives. excluding the aberration of 1974, they have always won at least three terms in government, since 1886 (if you allow for the Ramsay Mac minority exceptions, 1924 and 1929-31)

  19. @ Chris Lane1945

    Or overestimate the Conservatives.
    They have not won a general election since 1987 :-)

  20. CHRISLANE1945
    “Chablis into the fridge again.”

    I have something to celebrate – the LDs have gone down to 8%.

  21. It’s now looking fairly clear that the Tories are very slowly attracting voters back from UKIP, but nothing much else is happening. Lab VI has been solid for over 2 months, and apart from the very strange recent blip (which has now reversed), the LDs have also been static. My guess is that, come the conference season, we’ll be looking at something in the region of Lab 43, Con 36, LD 8, UKIP 5.

    Although any renewed series of omnishambles is very likely to knock the Tories back again.

  22. PAUL BRISTOL.
    I think that you may find that in 1992 John Major won, and that in 2010 David Cameron became PM, this time, I admit with the support of the Liberal Democrats.

    ROBIN.
    I think that the recent ‘event’ to do with bankers will help the Tories

  23. @Chrislane1945 – “Never, ever under estimate the Conservatives. excluding the aberration of 1974, they have always won at least three terms in government, since 1886 (if you allow for the Ramsay Mac minority exceptions, 1924 and 1929-31)”

    Yes, but the party now is an entirely different beast. I’m reminded of the front page in The Onion (US Private Eye type publication) when Steve Jobs died – “Last American Who Knew What The F*ck He Was Doing Dies”.

    I just don’t see anyone in Tory ranks with the vision or strategy (or the intelligence) to overcome the serious electoral challenges they face. As @Paul Bristol says, it’s a quarter of a century since they managed to win a working majority.

  24. @CL45

    “I think that the recent ‘event’ to do with bankers will help the Tories”

    I disagree. I think they’ve walked into a big hole. Labour are going to continue to press for a proper enquiry, all the time with backbenchers in the background repeating EM’s “bankrolled by the bankers” soundbite.

  25. ALEC,
    Evening to you. ED M doing well on Newsnight.

    I agree with you about tory abilitiy, but I think you will find that David Dameron has a working majority; they adopted the policy of attracting allies, as they did in the 1880’s.

    We have a moderate Conservative Government.

  26. @Chrislane – John Major won in 1992 with an unstable majority but one which relied on 11 Scottish seats.

    As I said in response to news of the Welsh poll, they are now going backwards in the one hard to reach area where they showed some promise in 2010 and where they must make progress to gain a majority. In all the other similar areas they continue to be wiped out. As it stands, they have an almost zero chance of a majority in 2015.

    While Labour is also still struggling in some areas, based on local elections and opinion polls, they have started to recover in their own hard to reach areas.

  27. David Simpson – no one is changing their mind. Polls have a margin of error of about 3 percent either way, so polls showing shares of the vote shifting about within a small range are perfectly normal and don’t indicate any change.

  28. @TONY DEAN

    I agree with you that Army cuts are far more important for polling than the inquiry and it`s a missed opportunity for Labour that news was focussed on the inquiry and Balls/Osborne on this particular day.

  29. CL 1945
    We have a moderate Conservative Government?????
    Yea right, Maggie was a Social Democrat.

  30. @Chrislane1945

    Conservative general election victories since 1886 (only those indicated with a + sign are consecutive victories):

    1895+1900, 1922, 1924, 1935, 1951+1955+1959, 1970,1979+1983+1987+1992, 2010.

    Am I missing something?

  31. @CL45

    “We have a moderate Conservative Government.”

    Liz’s IMHO reasonable comment in response has been moderated, so I’ll respond in a different way that I hope is OK.

    ‘Moderate’ is in the eye of the beholder. While it may or may not be true that a majority Con government would have been more extreme, a key reason for the LD poll slump is that they are seen to have utterly failed to adequately moderate the Tory project, with the result that their erstwhile supporters have deserted in droves.

  32. Colin

    Fair points, although we are in unusual times. We have rarely in recent times had such a difference of opinion over economic strategy. Last time we did, in the 80s, I recall reading a clandestine, verbatim recording of Kinnock’s thoughts on Thatcher that was littered with the “C” word.

    But I think you are right that there is personal as well as theoretical animosity between GO and EB.

    Osborne sees Balls as a political bully and author of the current travails. Balls sees Osborne as a glib political operator and (economically) an intellectual lightweight. Not a recipe for intimate chats over country suppers.

  33. PS. I suspect, looking at polling evidence, that the Electorate despises both. Which is a shame, because there are real and vital issues to be debated here. The Zeitgeist of personality über alles fails us once again when what we need is an assessment of policies regardless of personalities.

    I often wonder what the modern Electorate would have made of Churchill. Potentially brilliant war leader, but a cantankerous, depressive, pug faced old drunk. Do we REALLY want him in charge when we could have a suave media operator?

  34. ….or even competent.

1 4 5 6