The full table for YouGov’s Sunday Times poll are now up here. On the regular leader trackers Cameron’s net rating is minus 25 (from minus 27 last week), Miliband’s minus 21 (from minus 24), Clegg’s minus 59 (from minus 55). This is Clegg’s worst rating so far… though not quite the worst YouGov have had for any leader, Gordon Brown did get worse a couple of times.

YouGov asked some more specific questions on how David Cameron was seen. His worst rating, as usual, was on being seen as out of touch. 66% thought Cameron was out of touch compared to only 23% who saw him as in touch. 52% think he has run out of ideas, compared to 32% who think he has plenty of ideas. 47% now see him as weak, though 38% still see him as strong. His better ratings are 40% who see him as decisive (47% indecisive), and 42% who see him as likeable (44% dislikeable).

Alternative Conservative leaders are all seen as likely to do worse than Cameron. 43% of people think Boris Johnson would make a worse leader compared to 23% who think he would do better, 42% think Michael Gove would do worse compared to only 6% who think he would do better (though 32% say they don’t know enough about Gove to say), 59% think Osborne would do worse with only 3% who think he’d do better. Closest to Cameron is William Hague – 28% think he would do better compared to 32% who think he’d do worse.

On the House of Lords, asked specifically about the governments proposed reforms of the House of Lords 44% of people say they support them, 28% are opposed and 28% don’t know. A majority of both Labour and Lib Dem voters support them, Conservative supporters are pretty evenly split. While people tend to support the proposals, only 17% of people say they should be a priority at the moment and, given the failure to pass the programme motion, 48% of people say the government should abandon them at the present time. 32% think the government should keep on trying.

Turning to the coalition, a majority of people still expect the coalition to last until the election (30%) or until shortly before it (24%), only 12% expect it to end in the next year… up from only 7% in May, but nevertheless still very small. Asked about what they would LIKE to happen, 43% of people would like to see the coalition end within the next year. Unsurprisingly this is mostly made up of Labour supporters, but just over a quarter (27%) of Tory voters would like to see the coalition end within the next year. If the coalition did end 64% of people would like to see a fresh general election, including majorities of Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters. Tory voters would like the Conservatives to continue as a minority government in the event the coalition fell.

On the LIBOR scandal, 49% of people say that George Osborne should apologise, 30% say he shouldn’t. It splits, as one might expect, strongly along partisan lines. 77% of Labour voters say he should apologise, 60% of Tory voters say he shouldn’t.

Finally on long term care 78% of people say they would support a cap on charges for long term care. Asked about where this should be, most people tended to go for the lowest option available (35% said it should be below £35,000, 13% £35000, 24% a higher figure). 60% of people say they would support means-testing age related benefits like the winter fuel allowance to help pay for this, 52% would support extending national insurance to people over retirement age to help pay for it.


126 Responses to “More from YouGov’s Sunday Times poll”

1 2 3
  1. SOCALLIBERAL

    Vote for the one that is the least obese?

  2. So of the four I get to choose from in this vote:

    Martie Duncan: Her pilot is ‘Martie with the Party.” She’s a sassy, southern gal who likes to create parties. I really like her because throughout the competition, she’s actually made food that I want to eat. I actually want to watch her show. Plus, she’s one of those endearing middle aged working women who you just can’t help but love cause’ she’s self-effacing, clearly hyperactive, and yet talented enough and spirited enough to actually pursue her dreams. I mean, I thought she’d get eliminated in the first episode back in May. The fact that she’s gotten here is a stunning tribute to her. Apparently, she got into this when a bunch of sorority sisters played a very mean prank on her (having her host a party for them and then not showing up) and it inspired her to want to throw really great parties that everyone wanted to go to.

    Justin Warner: His pilot was “Rebel with a Culinary Cause.” He’s this early 20’s something Millenial chef who’s totally independent free spirit guy. He makes all these weird dishes that I would never eat but he’s clearly talented (already has his own restaurant) and I would totally watch his show just because I find him so interesting and entertaining. I mean, he wore different colored tights to various cooking competitions. He embraces being different and I just like that. Also, he and Martie were on the same team and therefore competitors and despite being polar opposites (he’s the youngest in the competition, she’s the oldest), they became very good friends and legitimately regretted having to compete against each other for the last spot. I think it takes a special quality in someone to look past artificial age divides and forge friendships with those who are direct competitors.

    Michelle Ragussis: Okay, so for whatever reason I haven’t connected to her despite the fact that she’s (1) a lesbian, (2), a bad ass girl chef, and (3) a New Englander and proud of it. I love all three of those things and yet I haven’t felt the connection to her that makes me want to watch her on tv. Her pilot is entitled “My New England” and she’s all about seafood. I feel like I should vote for her though, just out of tribal duty. There are going to be a lot of people who don’t vote for her simply because of her nose ring and I got to back her up. But I would genuinely enjoy watching a New England based culinary show.

    Ivan Lemoine: His pilot was entitled “Family Style” where he focuses on family style cooking. He’s basically a likeable guy from Venezuela, who when he first immigrated to the U.S. as a boy was forced to eat out of the garbage (due to his large family and mother’s inability to afford food). So it helped him build a connection with food. And today, he’s a chef at the French consulate (which you know means he can cook because if there’s one thing the French take seriously and do right, it’s cooking). Honestly, he’s the least likely of whom I’m going to vote for but he is likeable.

    So anyway, I suppose this is what it’s like to be an independent swing voter who actually can be swayed by the ads and debates. And the back and forth political bickering.

  3. @ Old Nat

    “Vote for the one that is the least obese?”

    None of them are obese or even remotely close.

    In fact the only contestant on the show who was at all overweight was Ippy (who somehow was one of the final 6). All the rest were either slim or average.

  4. @PHIL

    “As a more general point, if as a society we consider that the government should aim to reflect the interests of every single one of their citizens without favour, shouldn’t constituencies be equalised on the basis of the size of the total population, regardless of age?”

    Do you mean to give those under 18 the vote, otherwise, I can’t see the point of including ineligible people when designing constituency size. The point is to equalise the representation (however badly it seems to be done) of eligible voters.

  5. STATGEEK

    There are two different ways to look at this – neither of them necessarily better than the other.

    1. Elected members are there to represent everyone living in that area, but only those of a certain age and citizenship are allowed a say in electing them.

    2. Elected members are there to represent all those eligible to vote who live in that area.

  6. @ Phil

    “Given that you heed from a land which has turned legislative gridlock between two chambers into an art form, we should pay heed to your warnings.”

    It was designed that way. And it typically works well. But not neccessarily in times of emergency situations and not when one side resolves to destroy the other just to have political victory.

  7. Phil

    I suppose that’s true (census records nationality – and age too) so perhaps you have a point here.

    We who want PR, of course, see no fairness in having constituencies that are socially and economically divided, whereby the numbers game doesn’t do it. People have suggested wedge type constituencies so as to encompass inner city out to rural through suburb but this is just playing around.

    I feel very comfortable with the regional muti-member concept (as for EU only more members of course). This preserves the geographical element while not giving huge bias in any one area. I actually (whisper it in case Old Nat is viewing) am quite enamoured with the Scottish system for Holyrood.

    I know something better will come about eventually, but not in my lifetime.

  8. I do have trouble understanding the 70 odd or whatever (very odd) Tory MPs opposing a democratic second chamber, or the LD MPs who wish to retaliate over Boundary changes.

    It is as if DC and NC are the lead turkeys and have just told their flocks they have succeeded in postponing Christmas until 2015. The response seems to be ‘no bring on Christmas; and why wait till December ?’.

    The old Greek saying ‘Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad’. How very true.

  9. @Statgeek
    “Do you mean to give those under 18 the vote”.

    No, the point stands regardless of whether or not the franchise should change. I hold to the quaint notion that the political clout of an area is all other things being equal proportionate to the number of its MPs.

    Lets put it this way. Imagine an extreme case where there are two towns with equal total populations but totally different demographics. Newtown consists entirely of families, with 1 child for every 1 adult, and Resortville consists entirely of elderly retirees or near-retirees with not a child in sight. Despite being of equal size, with representation linked to adult population only, as at present, Resortville would have twice the MPs and twice the political clout. I can’t see the fairness in that. Solution: Give both towns the same number of MPs.

  10. HOWARD

    I heard you! :-)

    New Zealanders and others quite like the AMS system too. Though if the balance is poor between constituency and list members (as in Wales) I think it’s less effective.

    You would have to watch the “nationality” question in the various 2011 censuses, Those questions were about “national identity” – not citizenship.

    The English and Welsh censuses asked questions about which passports people held (the Scottish census didn’t, and I don’t know about NI).

    Presumably, the passport question could be used in calculations for E&W.

  11. @ Old Nat

    “1. Elected members are there to represent everyone living in that area, but only those of a certain age and citizenship are allowed a say in electing them.

    2. Elected members are there to represent all those eligible to vote who live in that area.”

    Why does it seem that to me, those are the same two things? Or maybe I’m underthinking it? For your second view, are you suggesting that a representative doesn’t represent those residents living in his area but only those who live in his area and can vote for him?

    @ Statgeek

    “Do you mean to give those under 18 the vote, otherwise, I can’t see the point of including ineligible people when designing constituency size. The point is to equalise the representation (however badly it seems to be done) of eligible voters.”

    Oh I can. Just because you’re not of voting age doesn’t mean you’re not a citizen. And just because you’re not a citizen but instead merely a resident alien doesn’t mean you’re not part of the broader population. There are lots of constituent services from elected representatives that those folks who cannot vote need and are entitled to. They deserve equal representation even if they cannot legally vote.

  12. @PHIL

    I disagree. The MPs represent those who are eligible to vote, while children have no representation, and are under the care of their parents/guardians.

    @OLDNAT

    2. :)

  13. SOCALLIBERAL

    While it’s not “my view”, there is a logic (and many elected people constantly say it) in the idea that they represent “the voters”.

    Phil’s Newton and Resortville scenario makes the point rather better than I did.

  14. STATGEEK

    And any damned foreigners who happen to live in his constituency shouldn’t bother asking Statgeek MP for any help! :-)

  15. @ Howard

    I’ll tell you that my view is evolving on this. I love FPTP single member districts and I really dislike all these other systems of voting that you guys like and advocate for.

    But I’m also realizing that I might not love FPTP single member districts and might be a similar advocate for the types of voting systems you and Old Nat and the other progressives on this site you do if I lived under a different system of government.

    I can rely on a system of checks and balances. It’s not perfect, it’s got its faults and drawbacks but generally speaking, it’s pretty darn good. So yes, poltiicians can win with 38% of the vote but there are limits to what they can do in office.

    Under the Westminster system, there is no similar balance. You can get a large majority of seats with 36% of the vote and then enact a bunch of laws and policies that most of the population really doesn’t want.

  16. socalliberal

    I think the democratic deficit in the UK is very similar to that in the US. That’s why both countires have been run by corporate interests and banks for thirty years…and why most of the citizens are now poorer and the all the money has been stolen by those corporate interests.

    Your “checks and balances” have failed you absolutely, as have ours.

  17. As the dust settles on the House of Lords, Boundary Changes spat – are the Tories right to be annoyed by the Lib-Dems threats?
    We analyse the effect of the latest dispute on the Coalition.
    Follow the link: http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/07/the-politics-of-the-boundary-review/

  18. STATGEEK

    Actually, you probably need to broaden out your thinking about children. They do have rights to make their own decisions in a number of areas – depending on their level of maturity.

    “Young people” (those aged 16-17) have a significantly different legal status from “children” (15 or less) which is one of the major reasons that enfranchising them makes sense.

  19. NICKP

    Agreed.

  20. Phil
    ‘Resortville would have twice the MPs and twice the political clout. I can’t see the fairness in that. Solution: Give both towns the same number of MPs.’

    Of course Newtown could be packed with Kids say 4 kids to every adult as opposed to poor old resortville where there are no kids. The adult population in each place is the same and so in your world the voters in newtown would have votes worth five times that of the voters in resortville.

    One way to keep pensions low and child benefit high I suppose.

  21. @ Old Nat

    “While it’s not “my view”, there is a logic (and many elected people constantly say it) in the idea that they represent “the voters”.

    Phil’s Newton and Resortville scenario makes the point rather better than I did.”

    I think one represents the citizens. The harder question for a legislator, in my view, is whether you vote to represent your constitutents or vote to represent all the citizens. For example, if you’re Carolyn Maloney or Lynn Woolsey or Henry Waxman or any number of others in their shoes and you vote against Dubya’s 1.6 trillion in tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest. You’re voting against the direct interests of your constitutents but instead in favor of the nation overall.

    Anyway, who would you vote for? Martie, Justin, Michele, or Yvan? (Actually, I think you can vote in this competition as well). I’m leaning Michele even though I probably would prefer Martie or Justin.

  22. @ Nick P

    “I think the democratic deficit in the UK is very similar to that in the US. That’s why both countires have been run by corporate interests and banks for thirty years…and why most of the citizens are now poorer and the all the money has been stolen by those corporate interests.

    Your “checks and balances” have failed you absolutely, as have ours.”

    I don’t know about that. I think that’s an easy way out for us progressives. Too easy.

    And checks and balances aren’t supposed to prevent any particular governing ideology from taking hold. They’re supposed to prevent too much power being exercised from too few hands and allow a small plurality of voters to control the agenda.

  23. @Statgeek
    “while children have no representation, and are under the care of their parents/guardians”.
    Indeed, the interests of children seem to count for about as much as those as sheep* nowadays.

    @Henry
    That would indeed be a parallel universe to the one I’m living in. It’s not so much a case of keeping child benefit high, more a case of halting the withdrawal of a range of other financial support and services that previously supported families with children.

    Anyway, we may disagree but it’s good to see you posting back here.

    (*Mind, that reference to sheep is not intended as an argument for increasing tenfold the parliamentary representation of Powys. One Lembit Opik was quite enough.)

  24. @ Amber Star

    Since you’re my guru on things like this, will this actually mean anything?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1110564/-Obama-Admin-Wins-Trade-Complaint-Against-China-At-WTO

    Yes, the WTO says the U.S. wins but are the Chinese actually going to listen to this and follow the decisions of the WTO?

  25. @SocalLiberal

    The symbiotic economic relationship between China and the US renders WTO action rather redundant. It really isn’t worth the effort. I mean if the Chinese don’t abide by the Panel’s decision, are the US prepared to impose tariffs on Chinese goods merely for electoral gain?

  26. @OLDNAT

    “And any damned foreigners who happen to live in his constituency shouldn’t bother asking Statgeek MP for any help!”

    They can certainly ask.

    @PHIL

    “Indeed, the interests of children seem to count for about as much as those as sheep* nowadays.”

    And have a similar amount of common sense and judgement, on average. Some are very savvy. Most are not.

1 2 3