Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 44%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 6%, so still very much in line with YouGov’s recent polling which has Labour leads of around about nine or ten points.

This morning there was also some YouGov polling on Europe, full tabs here. It showed support for a referendum on Europe, but as we’ve discussed here before, people almost always express support for a referendum on almost any question you ask about. More interesting were people’s preferences on the various sorts of referendum that have been suggested. 20% would prefer a referendum to give the government the mandate to renegotiate, 25% would prefer a referendum following renegotiation, 35% would prefer a straight in-or-out with no renegotiation.

Asked how they’d vote in the three types of referendum, in a straight in-or-out 31% of people would vote to stay, 48% would vote to leave (21% say they don’t know or that they wouldn’t vote). In a referendum prior to renegotiation, 61% say they would vote to support renegotiation, 15% would oppose it. Finally YouGov asked how people would vote if the government renegoiated British membership and then David Cameron recommended a yes vote (basically the equivalent of what Harold Wilson did in 1975) – in those circumstances 42% say they would vote to stay in, 34% said they would vote to leave.

Also interesting were a pair of questions asking what people considered the best and worst things about the European Union. Asked what the best features were free trade was by far the top, picked by 41% of people. It was followed by the freedom to live in other European countries (21%), ensuring peace and stability in Europe (21%) and co-operation on issues like the environment and terrorism (19%). In terms of what people considered the worst things about the European Union, immigration from Eastern Europe was seen as the worst thing (45%), followed by interference in how member countries run their affairs (40%), the single currency making the financial crisis worse (32%) and the cost of membership (31%).


275 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 35, LAB 44, LD 7, UKIP 6”

1 4 5 6
  1. @ SMUKESH

    Thanks.

    Seems a nice chap and has a sense of humour! Makes a pleasant change after the street brawl last week.

  2. Paul Croft

    :-)

  3. Does that mean you’re lost for words Mr. Nat?

    [I didn’t study smilies at school.]

    Paul.

  4. AMBER

    Thanks

    THe politicians on DP today -one from each party , all said there will be “some Lords reform”

  5. Paul Croft

    It means that I appreciated your comment. Nice turn of phrase.

    If you didn’t study smiles at school, was it run by Mr Gradgrind? :-)

    (That smiley was to show that it was a joke.)

    As you will realise, the parenthetical comment is also not to be taken seriously.

  6. Drawing a line under Clegg !

    Yes I agree, that would be a good idea. A line that should not be crossed. ;)

  7. In a partially elected HoL do the elected members have precedence because their “legitimacy” is superior?

    Is their vote worth more than the vote of an appointed member?

    If not-why not?

  8. @ Amber Star

    “The commons, if they are determined, can pretty much ignore the Lords & carry on regardless. :)”

    Ahhh, I see. I was somewhat curious as to how Clement Attlee got as much done in his first term with a likely conservative House of Lords that was probably less than enthused with what the new Labour government was doing.

    Btw, I finished reading Justice Liu’s dissent. And yes, I agree with you, it was brilliant.

  9. Mr. McNat:

    I dunno how Oscar Wilde managed: I never knew which bits to laugh at.

    Paul

  10. @ Jay Blanc

    “You may not have noticed, but your country has been “in time of war” for over a Decade now.”

    We technically have not declared war on anyone since 1941. I think that would have to happen in order for Congress to take advantage of powers only allowed to it during “wartime.”

    We can’t allow these seemingly never ending military engagements and military troop placements to be the excuse allowing various politicians to circumvent our system of laws and inhibit individual liberty. That’s what all the Guantanamo cases have been about.

    @ Colin

    Thanks for the link. I will read that a little bit later.

  11. PAULCROFT

    See! You can do it when you try.

  12. @ SOCAL

    Will there be a USS Obama aircraft carrier ?

    Currently this appears to be just a joke for some online commentators. It has been convention to have a new carrier named after president leaves office, but I can see Obama saying no to this.

  13. Sorry, I didn’t get that without a smiley.

    Does that mean I’ve become addicted?

    If ever I’m PM I shall arrange for the “firm-but-fair” system to apply to smiley users and have them shot [in front of a large smilie so they can see its just done for a larf.]

  14. @SoCal

    The US hasn’t passed a motion in congress formally ‘declaring war’ since 1942, no. But it would be a legal mockery to say they have not authorised states of war since then. They did not stop declaring wars, they changed the phrase they use when they do so. Now they “Authorize Use of Military Force” in accordance with the “War Powers Resolution of 1973”.

    The current state of War for the US was authorised by S.J. Res. 23 “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” passed as a joint resolution September 14, 2001. It formally invokes the “War Powers Resolution”. And it is a formal declaration by the United States Congress that the country is engaged in a war.

  15. Have just got in and have been browsing BBC News and I’m absolutely appalled at Mr Cameron’s behaviour towards a rebel MP. I’m no fan of Mr Brown, and he had his anger issues, but was never caught doing that (not saying it didn’t go on however)

    Watching Prime Minister’s Questions I must say Ed came across very prime ministerial and while I’m unsure of his economic policies (not sure he has any) today for the first time I could picture him on the steps of Number 10.

    Do instances of reported anger, such as the one with Mr Brown and the stapler have any impact on polling? If not in Conservative VI is it likely Mr Cameron’s approval rating or likability rating could be harmed because of his outburst?

  16. To be fair to Cameron the MP did say at the opening that he was calling on MP’s to “support” the PM whereas in reality he was doing the opposite.

    I think its one thing, and perfectly honourable, to rebel but quite another to presume to dictate whether it is done with the PM’s best interests at heart when that was very clearly NOT the case.

    I’m neirth a Conservative or coalition supporter by the way – quite the opposite.

    Paul.

  17. I don’t think DC did himself any favours by appearing abivalent on whether or not the programe motion passed. Had he been more strongly and demonstrably in favour, the rebellion would have been much weaker on the main Bill. Today’s story in the Guardian that the PM is looking to not so much water down Clegg’s reforms as uproot them does nothing to dispel this view.

    That’s why I suspect the rebels believed they had the tacit support of the PM.

  18. @ANMARY
    `Do instances of reported anger, such as the one with Mr Brown and the stapler have any impact on polling?`

    I do remember this incident from Brown and recall that Labour VI went up during this period when it emerged that Brown got angry due to civil servant bungles.If I am wrong @AW could correct me

    Regarding anger in public figures,my view is it`s a stressful job (an understatement) and they should be able to give legitimate expression to anger.

  19. On the issue of whether Cameron’s reported proposals for much watered down Lords reforms would get through if Lords opposition meant that they had to return to the Commons after the boundary changes had passed, on reflection I consider that they would have a reasonably good chance.

    The reason is that although removing the boundary changes from the equation would remove Clegg’s best card for bargaining with the Conservatives, it would also remove the main reason why Labour is being obstructive. Would Miliband not see some party advantage in replacing hereditary peers with elected ones, given that there surely can’t be many Labour hereditaries at the moment? And surely Miliband, as an election approached, would not want to be seen to be the defender of the hereditary principle?

  20. Smukesh – I’ve just looked back at my posts from the time of the bullying allegations against Gordon Brown. It didn’t make any difference to voting intention, though funnily enough it did show the percentage of people seeing Brown as a “strong” leader going up a bit, albeit, not enough that it might not have just been margin of error.

  21. @Phil

    One of the ironies is that the 92 hereditaries are currently the only part of the Lords that have been elected – albeit by other hereditaries.

    While I dislike DC’s latest move on this, i’m rather hoping that with 92 directly elected members of the HoL, the cause for full democratisation of the whole House will simply grow louder.

  22. @AW
    Thanks

    @RAF
    It is reported that one of the reasons for retaining 92 hereditary peers is to make the case for continued reform of the HOL.

  23. @Smukesh
    @RAF
    “It is reported that one of the reasons for retaining 92 hereditary peers is to make the case for continued reform of the HOL.”

    And that’s a valid point. But the UK is not a state that is prone to making wholesale constitutional changes. It almost always gradual and piecemeal. As it was with reform of the number of hereditaries. And any elective element,to the Lords would be the beginning of the end for appointed members. Or at the very least we would move from a paradigm of who percentage should be elected, to what percentage should remain appointed.

  24. @Raf

    According to Wikipedia, of the current hereditaries, 4 are Labour, 4 LD, 49 Conservative, 31 crossbenchers with a handful of others.

  25. What I fail to see with HOL reform is why do people want to replace a house that contains cross benchers and members of the party faithful with a house that simply contains members of the party faithful.

    People often complain that the HOL is an MP retirement house but this reform simply removes the other residents who actually do provide good knowledge and insight.

    I’d like HOL reform but in a totally different manner, where they are appointed by an independent body and one of the criteria is not being politically affiliated or to have not held party affiliation for at least 10 years.

    I’d like a house full of talented well reasoned unbiased individuals, I don’t think the idea of more elected politicians appeals to many in the public domain. They may in principle say they want reform, but it’s sadly true that most don’t bother to turn up for Non-general elections anyway so they may say they want to be able to vote, but in actual fact, most of them won’t bother.

1 4 5 6