There are two new polls out tonight. The daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 8%, so after an eleven point lead yesterday we are back into the middle of the normal nine to ten point lead that YouGov have averaged around for the last month or so.

Secondly there is a new poll from TNS BMRB, conducted over the last three days, which has topline figures of CON 30%(-2), LAB 42%(+2), LDEM 11%(+1), Others 17%(-1). Changes are from their last poll in June.

319 Responses to “New YouGov and TNS BMRB polls”

1 2 3 7
  1. hmmm

  2. A steady lead for Labour. The Tories need a good Olympics.

    KL in his radio show a couple of weeks ago, said that one of the main purposes of the bid was to attract massive foreign investment and enhanced transport links to a very depressed area, and that waa the main point of the legacy project

    This really is a massive opportunity for the Tories and the UK as a whole.

  3. Why do the Tories need a good Olympics?

    The Olympics is not about them.

  4. Not exactly melt down then -was it?

    I think you are right RAF-it is on both counts.

    I have to say I think it all looks superb-what a great advert.
    Even the BBC seem to be catching the wow factor in it all :-)


    @”Why do the Tories need a good Olympics?”

    Because they need a bad Olympics like a hole in the head.

    Simples :-)

  6. Anthony

    Is there polling evidence that sporting success benefits the governing party?

  7. If the Tories are hoping for some sort of good feel boost to their poll ratings, I think they maybe disappointed.

    Didn’t happen for the Jubilee, so why on earth should it happen because of the Olympics?

  8. Paul Bristol

    Because DC has promised ‘we’ will deliver a good games. So if there is any problem he has nailed his colours to this mast.

    I do not remember him promising to deliver ‘a good Jubilee’. (What’s that anyway?).

    What’s a good Olympics? No bombs.

    ‘Very courageous Prime Minister’.

  9. So, as AW once again predicted….no significant movement in the polls after the GDP figures were released.

  10. @ Nick P

    Better luck, come Saturday!

  11. @ Old nat (and one that may please you!)

    18 June 1970 General Election from Wiki

    “Most opinion polls prior to the election had indicated a comfortable Labour victory and had put Labour up to 12.4% ahead of the Conservatives. However on election day, a late swing gave the Conservatives a 3.4% lead.”

    14 June 1970 England 2 Germany 3

    Nuff said!

  12. I think people have a reasonably good idea of the state of the economy without needing to rely on GDP figures, which tend just to confirm a general impression of good or bad. Except perhaps when they move very quickly and/or there is particular media attention – then you might see a poll shift.

    The olympics will hopefully help the country long term. Any association with the current government is tenuous to say the least. It’s possibly more associated with the previous incumbent, but I think the events surrounding the winning of the bid have been pretty much forgotten. I wouldn’t expect anyone to gain or lose support from a normal Olympics.

    Hopefully they will get the flags right from now on. They could hardly have chosen a worse blunder though!

  13. Why should the Tory-led coalition get any boost from the Olympics? They didn’t do anything to get the games.

  14. SHEVII

    As they say – Mmmmm. :-)


    Technically, the flag mix-up was probably a breach of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, as public disorder was a likely consequence (if there had been N Korean supporters in the crowd). :-)

  15. If the games go well,the Tories may get a short-term poll boost…The longer term numbers depend on what sort of legacy they create from the games-be it public health and more importantly economic.

  16. Good Evening all.
    CHASGLASS. In Olympic times, partisanship is suspended, even Athens and Sparta avoided war then.

    News, however, that the National Debt has been falling; I thought the figures show that the National Debt was rising, and it rose from 1979-1990 also.

  17. CHRISLANE1945

    Alternatively, as Orwell noted “Serious sport is war minus the shooting.”

    The modern Olympics goes a bit further and includes the shooting as an event.

  18. @OldNat

    the North Koreans could bring on a Chinese substitute.

  19. talking of shooting at Olympics reminds me that it’s 40 years since the Munich shootings. That can certainly be classed as a non-normal Olympics, the one that might change things beyond sport. Hopefully 2012 will be of the ordinary sort.

  20. KEITHP

    “the North Koreans could bring on a Chinese substitute.”

    Last time they did that, it resulted in a draw.

  21. Are Germany competing in the Olympics football tournament?

    If so, I hope the organisers aren’t going to mistakenly unfurl a swastika as the German team is announced.


    At the 1966 World Cup, When North Korea lost a 3-0 advantage to Porugal finally losing 5-3, David Coleman said (something like) I don’t know whats gone wrong with the North Koreans…. I think they have a chink in their defence.

  23. CROSSBAT11

    The only European countries with football teams in the Olympics are Spain, Switzerland and GB in the men’s event. France, Sweden and GB in the women’s.

  24. @ John B Dick (from the previous thread)

    “There you have it. From the horse’s mouth.”

    That just makes it seem more complicated and doesn’t actually explain why something like this takes such a long time.

    @ Tinged Fringe (from the previous thread)

    “You probably would know better than me, but I’m wondering if you have any court rulings in that area to back that up. I’d be very curious to read them.”

    Yes. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1922); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984); Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Perez v. Sharp, 198 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1948); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).

    There are more too. But those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

    “Obviously we’d have different philosophies on how fundamental rights work (I don’t think fundamental rights exist), but I was just curious about US law itself (where my views are not what counts ).”

    You don’t believe in fundamental rights? What kind of lefty are you? :)

    In fairness, my views don’t count either. It’s hard to explain what the law is since the law is consistently changing and since we can’t always explain what a court is going to decide. Hence, my extreme dislike of the Prop 8 lawsuits in federal court.

    Of course, sometimes my view counts. A while back I was having an argument with one of the Tories here who was defending Arizona’s downright evil SB1070 law and insisting that the police had a right to stop citizens anytime they wanted and that Arizona police had every right to stop and ask people for their immigration papers.

    I said that was unconstitutional and last month, the Supreme Court agreed (surprisingly according to the media) with me and took out nearly the entire law (one small part was kept……bad policy but not automatically facially unconstitutional). :)

    “I think the simplest solution to this whole marriage issue would be to just get the state out of the institution of marriage completely.”

    That makes zero sense. Why get rid of a government institution that works perfectly fine and is highly desireable? Just because people who are excluded from that institution want access? I mean, talk about selfish. No offense (cause I don’t think you mean it this way) but these whole “let’s get rid of marriage” suggestions remind me of southern white business owners who preffered to shut down their businesses than integrate as required by law. Or the white communities that shut down their public pools rather than let blacks in.

    The suggestion in the U.S. is completely ridiculous because (1) nobody wants to get rid of marriage, (2) only civil marriage is recognized under law (even though it can be performed by religious officials in religious institutions), and (3) it’s completely unconstitutional.

    “These sorts of laws exist to create a privilege (who can engage in an act or not) and now people who are privileged are upset that the privilege is being extended to other groups (so they’ll end up being less privileged). So let’s just abolish it (the legal privilege that is).

    If people want to engage in marriage ceremonies or not, let them – keep the state out.”

    No. “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimitae to the degree of being sacred. The association promotes a way of life, not causues; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an assocaition for as noble a purpose as any . . . ”

    Put more simply and less poetically, marriage is something that is a highly desireable personal goal for many and it’s a civil institution organized by the state for purposes of societal organization.

    To take it away (this whole “keep the government out” talk) and completely change family law just out of the fear that gays and lesbians could partake in it too is the ultimate homophobia/heterosexism. It’s the equivalent of closing down your public swimming pool because you’d have to take blacks or shutting down your Rotary Club because you have to take in women.

  25. @ Old Nat

    “The only European countries with football teams in the Olympics are Spain, Switzerland and GB in the men’s event. France, Sweden and GB in the women’s.”

    Why is that? Are the major teams resting after the Eurocup? I know it can be difficult for our NBA players to play in the Olympics and then come back and play the NBA season. They still tend to do it.

  26. @ American Bystander (from the previous thread)

    “It’s interesting how Tories tend to get along better with Democrats and Labourites tend to get along better with Republicans. Reagan-Thatcher is the exception ofc.

    Blair is a good example, many Republicans praise Blair, but they seem to forget that he often described himself as a Socialist in the 80?s…”

    I don’t think that’s neccessarily the case. LBJ and Harold Wilson had a very strong relationship. Clinton and Tony Blair had a very strong relationship too even if Blair later developed one with Bush as well. Also, Blair still describes himself as a Socialist. I guess he could be described as America’s Favorite Socialist….well that would be Andy Cohen’s term for him if Blair gets his own show on the Bravo Network (which you gotta admit would be highly entertaining). I think most Presidents and PMs tend to get along. Whether they become close and develop strong relationships is a matter of personality I think.

    Here’s the thing. This was a horrible day for Romney. I mean he totally embarassed himself. Here’s a guy who’s getting a total pass on his complete lack of foreign policy experience who manages to cause an international incident. He comes off completely unpresidential and demonstrates how undiplomatic he is. He embarassed our country.

    This wasn’t an issue of not knowing some obscure royal protocol or using a word with a very different meaning or doing something that was culturally frowned upon or getting some fact of government wrong. It wasn’t even the case of reffering to something or someone who’s Scottish as English. This was going into another country (our greatest, longest standing, closest ally) and insulting them. Even Dubya and Sarah Palin know better than to do something like that.

    Think about this too (and it’ll be lost on most Americans) but if you think about it, could you find two British poltiicians who are more similar to Mitt Romney both politically and personally than David Cameron and Boris Johnson? If Romney cannot get along with them, who can he get along with? How is he going to deal with Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin or Ahmedinijad? It’s scary to think about.

    “What I mean is that Romney can very easily win, and that I’m fearing it. So yes the BBC is wrong, Romney is the worst candidate in a long time, but Obama is that hated where Romney is seen as a viable replacement. I had a polisci graduate instructor who predicted Romney would win the election well before the Iowa Caucuses, if that means anything.”

    Dude, he’s not hated. If he was hated, he’d be in the 20’s or 30’s right now. The fact that his approval ratings are as high as they are and that he continues to lead Romney in the polls is an astounding defiance of political gravity. It is only because he is personally well liked that he’s able to do this.

    @ Crossbat11 (from the previous thread)

    “Was anyone else as disconcerted as I was with this Romney Miliband love-in today?”

    Me. I saw that part of Romney’s sh*tshow today. It reminds you of Inspector Clousseau.

  27. @Social Liberal

    Actually, are four the representants of Europe in the Olympics. Belarus is also playing.

  28. Anthony,

    Were you planning on reporting the Panelbase poll published in the Sunday Times? As it is now Friday, I assume that the answer is ‘No’. May I ask: why? Or is this website only “Certain Parts of the UK Polling Report”. (Or perhaps you dislike non-BPC polling firms?)

    Panelbase/Sunday Times
    (+/- change from Scottish GE May 2011)

    Scottish Parliament voting intention – constituency vote (FPTP)

    SNP 47% (+2)
    Lab 32% (n/c)
    Con 12% (-2)
    LD 6% (-2)

    Scottish Parliament voting intention – regional vote (AMS)

    SNP 46% (+2)
    Lab 28% (+2)
    Con 11% (-1)
    Grn 6% (+2)
    LD 4% (-1)

    Independence Referendum 2014 voting intention

    If three options:

    Independence: 30%
    More devolution: 29%
    Status Quo: 28%

    If straight Yes/No:

    Yes 36%
    No 45%
    DK 20%

    Interesting to see the Scottish Green Party overtaking the Lib Dems on the crucial 2nd vote. This is the first poll I have ever seen with the Lib Dems in 5th place.

    The 20% DK on the straight Yes/No question corresponds very well with the level of support for More Devolution. Not a coincidence IMHO. It is actually this wavering group in the middle that will decide the outcome on the day. As always.

  29. SoCal,
    Thanks for the court cases – I might get to read them at some point.

    “You don’t believe in fundamental rights? What kind of lefty are you?”
    A realistic one – fundamental rights are a myth used to justify the protection of some types of liberty and some types of legal privilege [1].
    Just because it’s an effective ideology, doesn’t make them any less real – once you accept that fundamental rights don’t exist, you are more liberated to be able to reform [2].

    “Why get rid of a government institution that works perfectly fine and is highly desireable? … To take it away…”
    I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
    I’m not talking about making marriage illegal, I’m talking about liberating it.

    Marriage, as an institution, existed before government recognition (i.e civil marriage) and it’d exist without government recognition.
    The reason to have legal recognition is two fold – to enforce the marriage contract [3] and to decide which persons are allowed to get married, i.e to make it a privilege.
    So marriage, in most nations, can only be between a single man and a single woman – i.e heterosexual monogamy. It used to be that it could only be between people of the same race, etc.
    So abolishing the legal institution of marriage won’t abolish marriage as people will still get married. They will still have private ceremonies before their God/Gods/No-Gods, but the state will stay out.
    Abolishing the legal institution of marriage will liberate marriage for everybody.

    [1] Property, for example, is a legal privilege. It may be a socially desirable privilege, but that doesn’t make it any less so.
    [2] Again – the right to own land is a “fundamental right” which makes land reform virtually impossible. I believe we should reform land from ownership to stewardship (and thus abolish the landed aristocracy in one swoop) – but the ideology of fundamental rights stops those reforms.
    [3] To make property joint ownership, to enforce faithfulness, handle children etc – which can all be done through private contracts.

  30. “doesn’t make them any less real” as a sentence doesn’t make sense in the context of my post – “doesn’t make them any less a myth”.

  31. Also – before anybody catches me out on it – Yes, the implication that it does allow anybody to marry their dog[1]/plantpot/tv/othernonhumanthings.
    And there is only one reason to not allow those things – because you might upset people who disagree with it (i.e “devalue marriage”) – but that’s the same anti-liberty argument used against removing any legally recognised cultural privilege, which I find to be bogus. (Although polling would probably suggest the public think otherwise).

    [1] As long as they don’t consummate – that is a violation of other law.

  32. Corkscrew, Coleman never meant anything by that just a quirk of the tongue but repeating it in the way you have done is offensive.
    Accuse me of over the top PC behaviour if you wish but I can’t let it slide without comment. (My kids would be disappointed if I didn’t)

  33. h ttp://
    Someone posted this the other day here – my results –
    Jill Stein (Green) – 89%, Obama – 81%, Stewart Alexander (Socialist) – 78%, Ron Paul – 58%, Mitt Romney – 28%

  34. SoCalLiberal

    When Joe Biden is criticising you for being tactless, you’ve certainly achieved something.

    America’s Favorite Socialist….well that would be Andy Cohen’s term for him if Blair gets his own show on the Bravo Network (which you gotta admit would be highly entertaining).

    Real Househusbands of Islington?

  35. Wake up call:

    For those people getting (politically) excited about the Olympics

    It’s really not going to make any difference whatsoever for the outcome of the next General Election.

  36. I got 85% for Ron Paul/Gary Johnson, 70% for Mitt Romney* and 8% for Barack Obama. A reassuring start to the day.

    * Pretty meaningless considering he’s really a big government flip flopper.

  37. JIM JAM

    It is because Coleman did not mean any offence that makes the quote funny. Even my kids find it amusing.

  38. Stuart Dickson

    The figures for LibDem and Green are so small as to be meaningless, but the LibDem are benefit from Green absence on the Constituency vote as well as local support for high profile candidates. Two of these retired in 2011 to be replaced by SNP, one of them already a list MSP specialising in road and rail safety

    If the Greens could take some constituency votes from LibDem (without getting any MSP’s elected) and LibDems lost any more of their long serving, local and high profile MSP’s (or MP’s) they may be in irrecoverable decline.

    The difference between List and Constituency, if sigificant, should worry them because it may indicate a coming catastropic collapse as a national force in Scottish politics.

    Their problem is not that the Greens are ahead, but that they are in danger of being so small as to be usless as minor coalition partners and on a par with the extra parliamentary socialists.

  39. One of my favourite Colemanballs was about Juantorena

    “..and the big Cuban opens his legs and shows his class.”

  40. @SoCalLiberal – ” …he totally embarassed himself.”

    I see it is being reported as Mitt Romney’s Excellent Gaffe-Filled Adventure. By aiming to score a tiny little point about how to stage an athletics event, he has managed to sabotage his entire diplomacy offensive and make himself the butt of jokes to boot.

    He seems to be playing into the line of attack from this succinct Obama campaign ad:


  41. NICKP

    Thanks for that. It is my other favourite, but could never remember the athlete’s name.

  42. Surprised the conservative poll ratings haven’t gone further after the gdp figures.

  43. “You don’t believe in fundamental rights? What kind of lefty are you?”

    Looks suspiciously like a Marxist to me ^^. I seem to remember Marx making very similar arguments regarding the rights myth as a tool for entrenching capitalist notions of property, although I can’t remember where (and if I had to read Das Kapital again it may just kill me…). I always thought Bentham’s “nonsense on stilts” was a great deal more punchy!

  44. Daniel,

    That is the Miliband Minor factor. Now, if they had chosen Miliband Major instead…

  45. Morning all, long-time lurker bored at work!

    @Stuart Dickson

    Thing is, I believe if D Mil had been chosen over Ed Mil, a lot more of the Lib Dem switchers would have gone Green what with the revelation in 2010 that DM had explicitly sanctioned torture, and was seen as much more in step with New Labour and Blairism.

    Re olympics, like Mike Giggler of old I’ll be watching the women’s volleyball, maybe the basketball, and while I’m generally contemptuous of the whole affair, I might watch the opening ceremony just to see what goes wrong (or right)

  46. Is there any real value to opinion polls during Olympics and holiday season? Just a thought.

  47. @Mike B,

    There is ‘real’ value to opinion polls during the Olympics and holiday season….if nothing else it can sometimes demonstrate how solid or soft poll leads truly are. I mean, if something like the Olympics or the summer holidays can affect voting attention significantly then we would surely have to question the ‘softness’ of any poll leads.

    As it is, I doubt the Olympics will make much difference to voting intention. I’d be pretty surprised if the Tories gain anything over the next few weeks..I think we’ll be stuck on a 9 or 10 point Labour lead for a while yet.

  48. Welcome Alex!

    If your first post is indicative of your tone and approach, you will be an asset to the site.

    On your specific point: I do not have a great level of knowledge of most contemporary English politicians, D Mil included, so the torture thing passed me by. Call me parochial, but (probably in common with most Scots voters) me focus is roughly 80% Scottish current affairs, 15% Rest of the World current affairs, and just 5% Rest of UK current affairs. So, much Westminster bubble stuff passes right by me.

    I do not mean to downplay the importance of torture as a global topic, just D Mil’s significance in my world picture.

  49. @Stuart

    Thank you! To be honest, I do enjoy your parochialism (and Old Nat’s of course) so I’m not complaining.

    Re DMil, it was revealed that he had signed off on the torture of British nationals by the USA back when he was foreign secretary, which would have really messed up Labour’s attempts to reposition itself on civil liberties!

    That and his support of Iraq (remember when he leaned into Harriet Harman during EM’s inaugural speech at the part where he denounced Iraq and said to her quite snappily ‘Why are you clapping? You voted for it.’) and the Lib Dems flying the last chopper out of Mr Clegg’s Saigon might have flown into the wilds of Don’t Know or found safe berth with the Greens…

  50. I say might of course, as I speak with no authority whatsoever ;)

1 2 3 7