This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 9%. Yesterday had a thirteen point lead, but today’s is very much back into the normal range. There is no sign of any bounce for the Liberal Democrats from their conference, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect one yet – any impact normally peaks after the leader’s speech. Interestingly enough where there is some whiff of a conference boost is UKIP, who YouGov have shown at 9% for two days in a row. Its not significantly above the seven to eight that YouGov normally record for UKIP so could easily be normal sample variation, but YouGov haven’t shown them that high for a good six weeks.

Tomorrow and Sunday’s polls will show any impact from the Lib Dem conference, although as always in conference season the peaks of troughs of each party as their conferences come and go isn’t really that important – it is whether things are any different once these short term publicity effects fade.


293 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 41, LD 9, UKIP 9”

1 4 5 6
  1. Amber

    I suspect that the problem is that I thought that what Labour said about the reorganisation of the party in Scotland had some basis in reality.

    You have confirmed what the cynics suggested – and that I was unwilling to believe – that the whole exercise was just a PR stunt and that Lamont has no more authority than some mnor apparatchik in Yorkshire.

    So anything Lamont says is just trivia (unless under orders from UK HQ), and we should rely on Milliband’s team to understand and articulate what Labour in Scotland is told to think.

    That might be an even more difficult message to sell in Scotland than Lamont’s rejection of universal benefits.

    Not that I mind you doing ( &copy I Davidson) that of course! :-)

    Report comment

  2. “&copy” was meant to be the copyright symbol. Damned HTML when you try to make a joke!

    Report comment

  3. @ Raf

    “Back to last night’s discussion on US political/chat show hosts whose shows air in the UK. We do also get The Daily Show (with Jon Stewart). But its on Comedy Central. The US Edition is on Comedy Central X (Sky Channel 128), at the moment. Comedy Central also shows the Global Edition.”

    I know you guys told me that it was off the air for a while and had just recently come back on. And Jon Stewart made a reference to that recently (pointing out all the offensive things towards Brits he said during the time he was off the air). I think David Cameron would probably benefit from going on the Daily Show then (as long as it’s on the air in the UK) and I feel like Stewart would do humor but ask some serious questions.

    Report comment

  4. @Old Nat

    So anything Lamont says is just trivia (unless under orders from UK HQ), and we should rely on Milliband’s team to understand and articulate what Labour in Scotland is told to think.
    ——————
    No. Not Ed Miliband’s team. If only that were the case, I’d be a bit happier.

    Report comment

  5. Amber

    So there is confusion as to who speaks for Labour in Scotland?

    Lack of strategy or policy is bad enough, but you present a picture of total chaos!

    Report comment

  6. Amber

    I’m genuinely not trying to make any party political point.

    We are in different parties because of the constiutional issue – when that is settled, I suspect that we will be in the same one.

    I once said to Brian Wilson that “while his pronouncement wasn’t actually inept, it certainly wasn’t ept!” Currently your party seems to lack “eptness”!

    Report comment

  7. @ Old Nat

    “Poor Gordon”

    Yeah, that is really sad. Poor guy. He needs better media people.

    Report comment

  8. @ Old Nat

    Total chaos would be better – political anarchy can be fun :-)

    I’m being very personal here, more open than I probably should be; IMO, David Miliband & his team (Murphy, Alexander etc.) didn’t win the big prize so they’ve taken over Scotland instead. I don’t think of Scotland as a ‘consolation prize’, so it p!sses me off.

    IMO, It hasn’t gone entirely un-noticed in the Party & there’s been some gentle pushing back against it by a few of Ed’s team e.g. Andy Burnham, Ed Balls & Harriet Harman. All are English shad cabs, so make of that what you will. But I, for one, am pleased to see it.
    8-)

    Report comment

  9. RiN

    @”why shouldn’t management have to consult their shareholders before provoking strike action might it have something to do with shares only being held for an average of 1.5 seconds!”

    Use of the word “provoking” explains your strange idea I feel.

    Shares in listed companies are not all dealt with in rapid trading. Most are held by large institutions like insurance companies & pension funds as long term sources of income .

    Amber

    I understood that the UK Corporate Governance Code is a part of the Listing Agreement for companies whose shares are quoted on a UK Stock Exchange,

    THis Code-as I understand it requires every board member to be re-elected annually, rather than min. three years under the previous Combined Code.

    Report comment

  10. AMBER

    @”Obviously, if ‘your’ shareholding is via e.g. a pension scheme, you will have NO voting rights; the fundholder is unlikely to even be represented at the meeting, never mind actually vote on anything.”

    That is nonsense.

    ABI and the NAPF are very powerful voices at AGMs and have been increasingly willing to use their votes in the cause of best governance.

    Any Board which willfully ignored a significant holding in it’s stock by these two would be skating on thin ice.

    Report comment

  11. The morning on UKPR are always interesting.

    One gets to read the strange & indecipherable thoughts of those who live in darkness, and in another Time.

    The incomprehensible runes of the night before, conjure up images of their authors, denizens of the Lands beyond the Light hunched over their nocturnal keyboards in the caves of Ultima Thule.

    Report comment

  12. Colin,
    I pay in a pension fund which is managed on my behalf.
    I chose for my own current scheme the Coop but the others where chosen for me by my former employers.

    In your view who are the shareholders me and other members from my former emloyers and others schemes or the fund managers who may well have a different outlook on matters political to me.

    Theoretically I could have declined my former employers pension scheme as the funds they invest with may well buy some shares in companies whose directors act in a way I don’t approve of. In reality I was not going to give up the matching contributions and I guess there are very few people who would; and, who has time to check which funds hold shares in which company?

    In this context I agree with Amber that the ability of the ultimate shareholders (the ones providing the funds for the shares to be bought) to influence companies is minimal if not non-existent in most cases.

    BTW – chose Coop for my PPP as they at least make some effort to be more ethical from my perspective.

    Report comment

  13. Meanwhile, back in the real world of real people voting in real elections – as we approach the Labour Party Conference – in a county by-election in North West Norfolk on Thursday in a division they came 4th in in 2009, Labour took the seat from the Conservatives with a 22.4% swing from Conservative to Labour.

    22.4% swing to Labour in an East Anglian seat!

    Report comment

  14. Alec

    @”Like, 1945, say?”

    Too easy-try something a little more distant from a global war…………1976 perhaps?

    Actually I think the model for a putative Labour Government in 2015 is a little closer to hand-France.

    Their austerity budget yesterday was in response to a deficit of ……..wait for it 4.5% of GDP.

    I can hear the incredulous cries of UKPR lefty keynsian deficit denying, anti-capitalist ,public spending junkies at such a derisory “problem”.

    The reason that a Socialist Government thinks 4.5% of GDP is a problem which needs addressing is to be found in their Debt levels-90% GDP & rising.

    And this is roughly where UK could well be come 2015/16 on both Deficit & Debt.

    Hollande’s solution is swingeing tax increases on individuals & companies , modest cuts in public spending & no real effort to bring the State’s take of GDP down from the 50% + required by it’s high welfare costs & protectionist labour laws.

    There is a huge debate raging in France , involving business & unions on how to improve French competitiveness.

    UK is more competitive than France , but the nascent rebalanced economy which will be emerging in 2015 will require just as much care & attention if it is not to be destroyed . How to do that whilst stopping Debt from climbing through & beyond 90% GDP will be a key issue for EM if he gains power.

    No doubt Cons will seek to persuade the electorate that he will muck it all up.

    And we will have Hollande’s record in office to look at by then :-)

    Report comment

  15. @ Colin

    Yes, very poetic. Some of us denizens of the night are quite early risers too, though. :-)

    Report comment

  16. RAF
    @Alan Christie

    Re: Political levy (above)

    All I know is that the wife is a member of Unite, and the opt-out option is explicit. I thought that this was a legal requirement
    _____________

    I can assure you ASDAW don’t make the opt-out explicit and indeed their own rep was unaware of this and on his next visit to my work he left around 60 opt-out cards in the staff canteen,

    If the opt-out option is so explicit on other Union membership forms then why have it in the first place? I would had thought an opt-in would be far more prudent so people are fully aware of party funding and aren’t unwittingly funding Labour!!

    Report comment

  17. @ Colin

    I understood that the UK Corporate Governance Code is a part of the Listing Agreement for companies whose shares are quoted on a UK Stock Exchange,
    ————–
    No, they simply have to disclose the reason for their non-compliance, if they don’t have a full re-election annually.

    Very few FTSE listed companies have changed their articles to require annual re-election of directors.
    8-)

    Report comment

  18. JIM JAM

    Pension scheme members who derive their pension rights from their employment have their contributions handed over to the Trustees of their scheme, who in turn employ fund managers to invest their fund.

    So between the contributing member ( and indeed the contributing employer, who puts in most usually) and the ultimate investment lie professional managers-who are subject to strict rules in connection with the management of pension funds.

    Many companies these days appoint employee representatives on to Pension Scheme Trustee boards-and no doubt they can try to influence investment policy.

    However, I do think that you are trying to mix two very different objectives-the duty of your fund trustees & investment managers in maximising returns & meeting the pension entitlements of members….and your personal desire for politically motivated investment policy.

    The two may be incompatible-certainly for the majority of scheme members.

    If you really feel that the politics of investment policy overides , the criteria of members’ pension rights, perhaps you should have considered self-invested pension arrangements which allow you to choose an investment vehicle whichj you are happy with.

    Pension Funds-like Insurance companies deal in pooled interests-not the interests of individuals.

    Report comment

  19. @ Colin

    ABI and the NAPF are very powerful voices at AGMs
    —————-
    Your “nonsense” sounds a bit like bluff & bluster to me.

    So tell us about – or link us to – some examples of their very powerful voices being used/ heard at AGMs then. Go on, you know you want to…
    8-)

    Report comment

  20. AMBER

    I venture to suggest that most, if not all listed companies require periodic re-election of directors, and that every AGM will see some of the directors up for re-election, such that they all stand again over a defined period.

    I would be interested in any examples of listed companies which do not.

    I should have included crepuscular UKPR member to cater for your goodself :-)

    Report comment

  21. AMBER

    Will try .

    Meanwhile , I repeat that your asertion that they never vote on “anything” is just silly.

    Read their websites for policy on good governance to get a flavour of their interest in the companies they invest in.

    Why on earth would anyone take a 5% + stake in a company & not be involved in shareholder voting ?

    Report comment

  22. AMBER

    This briefing paper provides some recent examples of shareholder activism, plus a comprehensive analysis of the law on this subject :-

    http://www.taylorwessing.com/uploads/tx_siruplawyermanagement/Shareholder_activism_-_Guide_to_shareholder_rights.pdf

    Report comment

  23. “Nick Clegg has said that it is “completely unacceptable” for cultural sensitivities or political correctness to deter the pursuit of cases of child grooming.
    The Deputy Prime Minister said that agencies across the country had failed to get a grip on the sexual exploitation of vulnerable young girls.
    Police and social services should investigate without fear or favour, said Mr Clegg as he became the most senior politician to respond to the scale of the scandal exposed by The Times.”

    Times online

    Bravo.

    Report comment

  24. Interesting what’s going on in France, suspect the results may have several implications on the UK.

    1st, will French business flock to London and instead of paying the higher rate of french tax, pay british tax.

    2nd, if this exodus occurs as expected and France’s economy suffers will that harm Labour?

    3rd, if Hollande’s plan works, what will Cameron be left with after that, it’d be proven essentially that the cuts weren’t necessary.

    Report comment

  25. @ Alan Christie
    I would had thought an opt-in would be far more prudent so people are fully aware of party funding and aren’t unwittingly funding Labour!!”

    In my employment I am obliged to contribute to a pension fund. Some of this money is invested in corporations which make contributions to Tory party political funds. I have no control over these investments or contributions.
    If you step back form this issue for a moment, and try and see it in a non-partisan light, then the realialization will dawn that most people in Britain are enmeshed in a party-political funding system of which they are only dimly aware and of which they would not approve if they were in possession of the full facts.
    Focussing on trade union contributions is your bag but it gives a wholly one-sided view of the issue.

    Report comment

  26. Has anyone seen the Populus poll commissioned by the Cons ?

    There’s great excitement about the negative figures for Ed Miliband but I haven’t been able to find the poll nor a breakdown of the questions asked.

    If you have seen the poll, do you have any comment to make on the poll questions & can you put up a link to it ?

    Report comment

  27. @ Colin

    This briefing paper provides some recent examples of shareholder activism, plus a comprehensive analysis of the law on this subject
    ————————-
    Have you actually read the briefing which you linked to?

    The examples it gives of shareholder activism are fairly familiar to me – in each & every case the activists failed to achieve anything significant.

    Shareholder activists would have zero chance of preventing donations & other political interventions by the directors of these companies – which is where this conversation started.
    8-)

    Report comment

  28. Do the words activist &/or intervention cause an auto-mod?

    Report comment

  29. It must be something else.

    Report comment

  30. ROBBIEALIVE

    I don’t disagree with you for one minute but just because I don’t approve of the way the Unions fund themselves and Labour then please don’t automatically label me as a Tory.

    The company I work for do contribute to the Tories, well at Director level, and in a round about way so do the customers but that is life!!
    …….
    “In my employment I am obliged to contribute to a pension fund. Some of this money is invested in corporations which make contributions to Tory party political funds. I have no control over these investments or contributions”
    …..

    Indeed so would you not then agree that an opt-in for the Unions would therefore be a good idea so people are not duped into funding a party who they do not vote for?

    People who use Stagecoach could be funding the SNP but it’s a bit more clear cut when concerning the unions who fund Labour to the hilt!!

    As for me being partisan? Yes okay I am a bit Tory-ish but have never and will never vote for them, I just prefer them to the current Labour crop.

    I’m what people in Scotland would call a Tartan Tory. ;)

    Report comment

  31. @CHORDATA

    Here’s a reference to the poll: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iNNbTss2z3ymBfGAh9Hqh2InerDQ?docId=N0473731348873866344A

    Just think how big the Labour lead would be if Ed Miliband was actually popular. Doesn’t really say much for people’s view on the Conservative Party does it?

    Report comment

  32. NORBOLD

    Well that sort of poll could lead to electoral disaster for the Tories. If the poll is correct (which I don’t doubt) and the Labour lead drops over the comming year or so then brother David might just get called upon and like the poll suggests, David is the more popular and bye bye Cameron!!

    Report comment

  33. Amber

    Thanks

    Report comment

  34. Amber

    Are any of these Compass people in contact with Scottish opinion?

    I have never seen a statement of that sort from any of the three UK parties that shows such understanding of the difference between the London & SE England perception of Scotland and the reality.

    All it lacks is a historical explanationover a longer period showing that the roots of the differences in values are in the Reformation and 19thC Cholera
    .
    Focusing on a solely Socialist analysis is to ignore the antecedents which allowed socialist values to take hold in Scotland in the first place.

    That the independence party should revere deeply historical national values should surprise nobody.

    That the formerly dominant force in Scottish politics should abandon them on the instruction of an ignorant leadership is proof that the Labour party is a leadership cult for Authoritarian Followers.

    The SLAB brand needed a management buyout as soon as possible after devolution. Bavarianisation then might have “seen off the SNP” but we are where we are and I look forward to what ever parties of the left and centre left emerge after independence in contention for government in a parliament which is based on the Founding Principles and reverence for the values on the mace.

    Report comment

  35. Col: Re. your 8.00 am creative writing…… bless.

    Report comment

  36. @Norbold

    Thanks for that link but it’s still only a summary when I want to see the actual questions asked :-(

    Personally, I like Ed M & I hope people can begin to see the genuine man that the media overlook in their desire to highlight his ‘wonky looks & nasal speech’

    I hope to god we don’t choose our PMs on their looks.

    Report comment

  37. AMBER

    @”Shareholder activists would have zero chance of preventing donations & other political interventions by the directors of these companies ”

    I don’t think that is true.

    But it matters little-you were clearly talking about shareholder activism for political purposes.

    I was refering to shareholder interventions in respect of good governance, including directors pay.

    We have been talking at cross purposes.

    Report comment

  38. @ Chordata

    “I hope to god we don’t choose our PMs on their looks.”

    Blair’s team made a lot of the negative image of Major. Ever since Parliament became televised, the average parliamentarian has to look better than in previous ages. Cabinet ministers more so.

    Report comment

  39. Glad you enjoyed it Paulo.

    So you think that’s what constitutes “creative writing” eh?

    :-) :-)

    Report comment

  40. Col: Gosh no: I assumed you did. Anyway there are jolly good classes for it where you get to meet normal people [so I'm told anyway; as I'm naturally creative I've never been.]

    Report comment

  41. Ah-I’m relieved.

    No-that’s just normal stuff really -for me anyway.

    Fancy-having to go classes eh !

    Yes-I can understand why you wouldn’t want to do that Paulo-normal people would disturb you I think-and vice versa as t’were.

    Still-who wants to be normal-I hear you say.

    Report comment

  42. Col: You can get help for hearing things. Probably too late though once it gets that specific.

    Report comment

  43. Chordata @ Norbold

    “I hope to god we don’t choose our PMs on their looks.”

    No we don’t [Atlee Churchill, Salmond, Dewar] but the press do.

    Report comment

1 4 5 6