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 2 3 4 6

    “After Lamont’s redefinition of Labour as a party of the right, however, I did watch FMQs today”

    LOL.. well that’s one way of putting it. :)

  2. Roger rebel

    It ain’t just catalonia but also Scotland, Wales? Basque, corsica, sardinia, wallons and flems, and maybe even lombardy


    “500 years ago?”

    We had visitors last weekend from the Ile de France. He’s Breton, She’s Sicilian.

    The international conspiracy to subvert Slough is huge! :-)

  4. richard in norway

    I was thinking that he had a holiday home there and was concerned about it’s safety.

  5. Roger

    The point is that the first state in Europe to secede will be a test case of European law and custom and will set a set the framework for other regions that desire independence. That’s why old Nat is following so closely.


    That’s partly true, but I’m also following developments there because I am a European who is interested in issues affecting all of us in that Union.

    I really don’t understand those who object to any discussion of matters in the EU. That they don’t object (as they damn well shouldn’t) to SoCalLiberal’s informative posts and links is an even less comprehensible stance.

  7. @Crossbat11 – re Labour mood music – the Graungian is reporting Balls as saying that Labour will have a full review of ‘every penny’ of spending, published within a year of taking office if elected. It’s a bit of nonsense really (like, why not do the review now and then tell us what you will spend/cut before the election?) but this is the sort of thing oppositions need to do.

    Clearly, they are starting to grapple with the fact that their message must be about fiscal responsibility and control of spending, in part at least.

    I suspect we will see various formula regarding spending levels and promises to match government spending plans for the first two years (had that one before) but overlaid with a general move towards more growth measures. Whatever happens, I feel we are beginning to see the first moves towards a policy platform.

  8. Alec

    “I feel we are beginning to see the first moves towards a policy platform.”

    There have been some suggestions here that Lamont was flying a kite for a possible formal statement from UK Labour that universal benefits are fundamentally wrong, and that a shift to means testing is “fairer”.

    Do you think there is any basis for such speculations?

  9. What a god awful boring panel they have on Question Time tonight.

    Think I might tune into North Korean State TV and watch another self sustained pig farm opening by the charismatic Kim Jong-un

  10. @SoCalLiberal

    Thanks for your comments, I’m learning stuff… and while I’m taking on board everything you say, there is a suggestion that Latino is favoured on the West Coast and Hispanic on the East (Congressional Hispanic Caucus for example encompasses the Portugese component), or should I say that ‘the Hispanic-Latino naming dispute’ seems to have originated in California, The LA Times is considered influential in, some might say, imposing the term Latino.

    The 1970 census first used the identifier ‘Hispanic’… after 2000 it was ‘Spanish/Hispanic/Latino’.

    It is complicated by the fact that the idea of Latin America, in which ever language you say it, appears to have originated in France and was aimed at persuading the continent to side with Latin Europe and define itself in opposition to Teutonic Europe, Anglo-Saxon America and Slavic Europe (omg!). This kind of thinking was taken up by Napoleon III during the invasion of Mexico.

    The majority are happy to identify with the term Latino I guess, and no offence is intended when using it I’m sure; there will always be a few critics though.

    Can’t put my finger on it, maybe I’m just not used to it but I’m still thinking it is less than ideal. I’m not making a big deal about it, I just find it interesting.

    Btw I was trying to make a joke you know, in the style of Jackie Mason, about Waxman (good on him) going on another forty years, (huh, medical science), but obviously not much of a joke if I had to explain it.

    So you met Soledad O’Brien… how was it for her? (That’s also in the stlye of Jackie Mason :) .)

  11. SoCalLiberal,

    There has been a bit of talk in the Uk recently about Zero base or just base budgeting.

    You effectively start from a blank sheet and work out what you need to do and what it will cost.

    Didn’t Jimmy Carter try that?


  12. Peter Cairns,

    Sounds like a gimmick. I doubt that there’s any “low hanging fruit” left in public spending. For example, does anyone think that Labour have the steel to even fully cut school milk?

    Serious spending cuts require a certain lack of rational self-interest on the part of politicians, either due to madness or moral character or both. If it was so easy, then no country would ever get into financial trouble.


    “I doubt that there’s any “low hanging fruit” left in public spending”

    If that is true, then why the political commitment to support elite sports people in order to boost a country’s position in meaningless Olympic/Commonwealth Games League Tables? (SNP just as bad as every other party in that particular nonsense).

  14. There seems to be a totally different economic discussion in the US. I have watched Obama ads talking about growth, job creation but here all we seem to talk about is cuts.

    The US seems to want to grow it’s way out of its problems while we seem to be focussed on cuts not growth. The US economy seems to be recovering much better than ours.

    I hope Labour next week will start talking about growth.

  15. The attack on universal benefits isn’t only a Scottish issue. The left in the other parts of the UK and Europe need to make a conscious decision as to whether they have simply joined the neo-liberal concensus.

    “We have a social democratic consensus on universal services and a neo-liberal consensus on taxation. It’s time to challenge this contradiction.” Today only one of those sentences remains true.

  16. OK. I know the author of this is a Socialist, and probably that doesn’t link with the attitudes of many Labour supporters on here, but it might just make one or two think.

  17. @ Old Nat

    I think it is right for Labour to give the SNP to the opportunity to justify free prescriptions & free university/ higher education.

    Personally, I think free prescriptions come into the ‘preventative’ category which Ed Balls mentioned. Means testing prescritions costs almost as much in admin as giving them free; & having free prescriptions avoids people going to A&E to get treatment because they’ve put off going to their GP due to prescription costs.

    Regarding free higher education, as we’ve discussed before (& I think agreed) there needs to be EU wide consensus on this. If EU member students are to be allowed to have their education anywhere in the EU, then an EU policy is needed about equitable funding.

    Therefore, I think it correct for each parliament to justify these policies & not be reluctant to debate them. It is worth reminding ourselves about the costs & benefits which they bring.

  18. @ Allan Christie

    “Wonder if Cameron will receive a Letterman Chat Show bounce!! :)”

    I’m not sure. Letterman doesn’t air in the UK does he?

    I was actually irritated by the interview because Letterman really didn’t ask any serious questions (towards the end he started to). Now I get it, Letterman does comedy. But when you get a world leader or someone of great serious stature, you should prepare and ask them some good questions. Otherwise you’re wasting a great opportunity. I look at Jon Stewart, who frequently has high profile world leaders on his show, as a prime example. Stewart still does humor, still makes jokes, still keeps it lighthearted. But he does ask serious questions. And that’s actually an important service/function.

    Even if Letterman is syndicated in the UK, I’m not sure that really helps Cameron. I mean Cameron’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t look human.


    You are Kez Dugdale – and I claim my £5 (Scots). :-)

    Anyone on the right can legitimately argue that the assumed basic stance is for means testing for access to public funds, and that universal benefits (unless the bureaucracy involved wipes out most of the assumed savings) require to be justified.

    Those of us on the left (where I thought your loyalties lay) argue that universal benefits are of positive benefit because progressive taxation ensures that the richest pay most. In such a circumstance, benefits should only be means tested where perverse incentives and benefits apply.

    That you consider that it is universalism that requires justification rather defines your position on the left/right spectrum.

    I’m sorry about that.

  20. Means-tested benefits are undesirable & indeed loathsome: they are expensive to administer; they divide the world into “them & us”; worst — they stigmatize the recipients; one could go on.

    But here I am, employed, not hard-up, & showered with benefits as I have crept over 60, things which people on low incomes really struggle to afford.

    I cannot help distinguishing between universal “basic-rights benefits” — eg. health care in every dimension & at every age– & ones of newer vintage — eg winter fuel allowance –which were created universally in days of plenty.
    I ain’t got a solution: I just don’t feel comfortable as a recipient of things I didn’t ask for or need, & which were unavailable 10 years ago.

  21. @SoCalLiberal

    No, Letterman does not currently air in the UK. We can get Piers Morgan on CNN, O’Reilly/Hannity on Fox News and whatever airs on CNBC (Europe).

  22. @SoCal

    I forgot Charlie Rose on Bloomberg, but then that’s a proper in-depth interview. And he’s really good.


    Re Cameron – I tried to reply with an explanation of what a US media person said in an interview aired on TV here – but something put it into moderation.

  24. @OLDNAT

    By the tuition fees logic why doesn’t the same logic apply to child education or the NHS. Why should rich people get NHS treatment? for example

    Universal benefits are important because everyone even the rich are part of society. Otherwise benefits are something that is paid to other people and you lose the general commitment,

  25. Anthony

    What on earth have you put into your auto-moderation filters? :-)

  26. COUPER2802


    Since the state requires that children be educated until age 16, it is perfectly reasonable that it provides that education as a universal benefit (and if it insists on a school uniform being worn, then it provides that free as well).

    There is no greater justification for providing free tuition in secondary schools beyond the statutory school leaving age, than there is for further and higher education.

    Logic is something that seems to have escaped many political parties.

  27. @Old Nat

    You have moved the debate from social democracy, in which people are entitled to a fair & equitable reward for their efforts; & to not be excluded from society because of things which they cannot control, to a view where the state owns everything & people get an allocation – or to keep an allowance – from the state.

    I’m not averse to that view myself; it’s something I could personally support. But, sadly, I think you won’t find popular support for it in the UK, or even Scotland, right now.

    However, if Alex & Nicola will be bold enough to set that out as Scotland’s future were we to vote for independence, then I might consider voting for it! ;-)


    Again, agreed.

    What conceivable point was there ever in a “Winter Fuel Allowance” being issued as a “universal benefit”, other than as a bit of political sophistry. As a targetted benefit, for example, it doesn’t meet the needs of those who require to use oil or Calor Gas as their heating source.

    With the complexity of UK taxation, I don’t know if it is aggregated into my total income for tax purposes as my state pension is, or not (but someone on here will know!) If it isn’t – it damn well should be.

    Progressive taxation balances universal benefits. That Labour MPs cheered Brown’s announcement that he was removing the 10% Income Tax rate to allow a 2% reduction in the rate for richer people was one of the many shameful displays of Labour as a right wing party that I have seen,

    (That they were foolish partisans, cheering their leaders regardless of what they said, makes it worse not better – Amber, please note!)

  29. @ Peter Cairns

    “There has been a bit of talk in the Uk recently about Zero base or just base budgeting.

    You effectively start from a blank sheet and work out what you need to do and what it will cost.

    Didn’t Jimmy Carter try that?”

    This is embarassing to admit. But I actually don’t know the answer to that question. It doesn’t sound like a particularly good idea.

    The best explanation I ever heard for that man was “in 1976, scarred by Vietnam, Watergate, Ford’s pardon, and the imperial Presidencies of Nixon and LBJ, Americans decided they just didn’t want a President. So they elected Jimmy Carter.”

    I’ve been reading this book on the relationship between Presidents and the chapters on Jimmy Carter are really hilarious. The lead question heading into it is that for all other Presidents who worked with him, all were left wondering: “Was Jimmy Carter worth it?”

    Ironically, it was Paul Volcker as the Fed Chairman in the early 80’s who managed to end stagflation.

  30. Amber

    Your obfuscatory powers remain intact!

    Of course, I said nothing of the sort. There is a multiplicity of ways in which services can be delivered – by the state, charities, private sector.

    Equally, these services can be accessed in a number of ways – insurance (compulsory or voluntary), wealth, universal provision, means testing (no doubt others).

    I note your belief that Scots wouldn’t support the idea of universal benefits. However, the polling in 2010 suggests that you are entirely wrong in that belief. If you have other contrary evidence, I would be happy to look at it.

  31. @ Old Nat

    Progressive taxation balances universal benefits.
    Yes, indeed. But which benefits should be universal & paid from progressive taxation? You argue that you do not need your tax free, winter fuel allowance.

    I would argue that everybody should have a fuel allowance in accordance with their needs because energy companies should be owned by the state.

    I am Karl Marx; & if I needed £5, I’d receive it from the state. ;-)

  32. @ Raf

    “No, Letterman does not currently air in the UK. We can get Piers Morgan on CNN, O’Reilly/Hannity on Fox News and whatever airs on CNBC (Europe).”

    You get stuck with Hannity and O’Reilly? Ugh. The only time I watch them is when other pundits on MSNBC, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert broadcast clips of them saying something totally hypocritical, outrageous, offensive, or downright ignorant….or admitting something that no Republican wants to admit. I’m surprised that MSNBC doesn’t air internationally because I think that most international viewers would appreciate them more. Piers Morgan isn’t the brightest light in the lighthouse.

    Anyway, as for Letterman. I like him. I rarely watch him though. I’m surprised that Cameron would choose to do Letterman because I’m not sure what kind of benefit he gets from it. The best I can glean from it is that he’d really like to see President Obama get reelected, figures that there are a bunch of ex-pat /dual citizen Brits who are Tory voters, and thinks maybe he could convince those voters to vote for Obama.

    Although, this is purely anecdotal but I’ve found that when it comes to most European ex-pats I’ve met, most of them from continental Europe tend to be Republican (even if the Republicans don’t stand for anything they believe in) especially if they’re business people. Brits on the other hand seem to be heavily Democratic, even wealthy ones who would almost certainly be Tories in the UK (well maybe there are a few David Laws style Lib Dems who vote Democratic by accident…..maybe).

  33. @ Old Nat

    However, the polling in 2010 suggests that you are entirely wrong in that belief.
    Scots are in favour of some universal benefits paid from taxation. I think that is because Scottish politicians are unafraid to justify specific benefits & keep re-stating their position as often as it takes. Which was exactly the point that I was making earlier.

  34. @ Old Nat

    “Re Cameron – I tried to reply with an explanation of what a US media person said in an interview aired on TV here – but something put it into moderation”

    Sorry. I’ll look for it tommorow. Was it a good review or a bad review? I thought Cameron was fine on it and did well. Sometimes high profile politicos forget that they’re on a comedy program and don’t do well. Cameron didn’t to his benefit.

  35. Amber


    “But which benefits should be universal & paid from progressive taxation?”

    That is (or should be) the key political issue between left and right in any democracy.

    In general terms, the right would argue that these should be kept to the minimum. The left would argue that they should be maximised.

    If we ignore the constitutional issue for the moment, I choose to support a party which holds to a generally “left” position (though I won’t agree with it on everything), while you choose to support a party which has adopted a generally “right” position (though it might have some stances that I would agree with).

    You may have been Karl Marx several decades ago, but you have trimmed your sails so much in response to the neo-liberal breeze that your Socialism has long been sunk by sticking to the wrong tack for too long.


    ” I think that is because Scottish politicians are unafraid to justify specific benefits & keep re-stating their position as often as it takes.”

    I usually agree with you on lots of things – but that has to be one of the silliest comments you have ever made!

    You really believe that Scots only hear what Scots politicians say about political issues? You think that Scots don’t hear all the stuff about politics at Westminster (whether relevant to us or not)?

    You are better than that – but I’ll forgive you since it’s late.

  37. @ Old Nat

    You think that Scots don’t hear all the stuff about politics at Westminster (whether relevant to us or not)?
    Yes, you’re correct – Westminster is very influential in Scotland & in Scottish politics (whether relevant to us or not). I must’ve had a wee brain freeze moment, just then. :-)

  38. @ Old Nat

    “What a great piece of writing on the evils of labelling people by language/ethnicity etc. Thanks.

    The “Liberal” in your moniker is well justified.”

    Gee, thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

    @ Martyn

    “Generally speaking, the Army does do this to officers. It’s a natural hierarchy pyramid, so people have to get promoted or leave as they age. It’s not like squaddies, who level off at (say) Warrant Officer and can stay in for decades. It’s generally accepted that if you can’t get promoted from Major, you will eventually have to leave.

    (I realise your question is rhetorical, but – hey! – you learned something new today…:-))”

    I did not know that. And answering rhetorical questions is both fun and something I enjoy doing from time to time. Is this universally true or just true of the British military? Perhaps I should renew my account and look for more military guys to date.

    At many big name law firms, for a lot of associates, they’re rolled off if they don’t make partner after a point in time and aren’t able to bring in enough business for the firm.

    Still, I think that when you have someone who’s extremely good at their job, you shouldn’t throw up an artificial barrier to get them out of it. Now, I do believe in executive term limits (and could I just say how annoyed I get when people cannot understand the distinction?) but executive positions are different.

  39. @ Billy Bob

    “Thanks for your comments, I’m learning stuff… and while I’m taking on board everything you say, there is a suggestion that Latino is favoured on the West Coast and Hispanic on the East (Congressional Hispanic Caucus for example encompasses the Portugese component), or should I say that ‘the Hispanic-Latino naming dispute’ seems to have originated in California, The LA Times is considered influential in, some might say, imposing the term Latino.”

    Well, I think either Hispanic or Latino is fine. That’s what Bill Richardson says anyway. I used to think Chicano was inappropriate. But a friend of mine who is Mexican-American (although…..quick,,…call Scott Brown!!! She looks really white) said the term Chicano was just fine.

    I don’t know about a west coast vs. east coast divide on Latino vs. Hispanic. There does seem to be more of a pattern of east coast people using the term “lesbian” while west coast people are more likely to use the term “gay woman.” So it wouldn’t surprise me but once again, either term is fine.

    “Can’t put my finger on it, maybe I’m just not used to it but I’m still thinking it is less than ideal. I’m not making a big deal about it, I just find it interesting.”

    Well the whole history of the term is interesting. It’s ironic to use terms that were invented by the French for political purposes. But I feel like twisted histories of certain terms don’t really negate the point of using the term.

  40. @ Billy Bob

    “Btw I was trying to make a joke you know, in the style of Jackie Mason, about Waxman (good on him) going on another forty years, (huh, medical science), but obviously not much of a joke if I had to explain it.”

    Oh, well that’s my fault for not getting it. You know, I am convinced that if William O. Douglas (along with William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall) had gotten his way on wealth discrimination, this Congressional District would be unconstitutional. Now Henry has always had the good fortune for a left wing politician of representing an affluent District (in all of its previous incarnations as the 24th, the 29th, and the 30th) that contained some of very pricey real estate. I’ve always felt like that there is no analog to him anywhere else. I mean try to imagine that Chris Mullins represented Kensington and Chelsea (or Cities of London and Westminster) instead of Sunderland South, belonged to the same party, had the same positions he did, and routinely won with 70%+ of the vote.

    But the previous Districts that Waxman represented weren’t uniformly wealthy, there were middle class areas and even mixed income areas (like West Hollywood where you have a mix of rich, middle class, and poor living side by side). This new 33rd District is different. I have studied the borders of this new District very carefully and I am convinced that those who drew the lines this year sat down and asked themselves “how do we pack as many of Los Angeles County’s wealthiest residents as possible into one single massive Congressional District?”

    So some examples of this. Outside of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, the southern border of the District is Wilshire Boulevard. This allows it to be a mainly westside based district but leave out any neighborhoods that are middle class and neighborhoods that are low income (so a lot of south Westwood, south Brentwood, Century City). But in some cases, the border inexplicably dips south (just for a few blocks or so) to take in a luxury condo tower or a group of non-comforming pricey single family homes in a neighborhood of otherwise multi-family (and far lower income) housing or at one point to take in the entirety of a country club.

    The West LA based district inexplicably is drawn east into the middle of Central LA with a long strip that is approximately 7 blocks wide to take in ultra wealthy Hancock Park and Windsor Square (which is a sub historic neighborhood of Hancock Park). Just those two neighborhoods. Hancock Park is an island (though perhaps not as much as it used to be). Here’s a neighborhood of large mansions on large lots occupied by wealthy people (it used to be sort of a haven for LA blueblooded wasps). To the west were the more modest (often Jewish) neighborhoods of Beverly-Fairfax, Miracle Mile, Pico-Fairxfax, and the various Carthays (there are like 5 of them). To the north is run down and low income Hollywood. To the south, gentrifying Wilshire Center and working class to middle income (and heavily African America) Mid-City. To the east, you have Koreatown (which is heavily Latino and was once very low income) and Wilshire Center (also heavily Latino). Are any of those neighborhoods drawn in? No. Just Hancock Park.

    The District is drawn into the South Bay but just the western portions of it which are wealthy (the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Beach Cities), not any of the parts that are industrial, working class, or even middle class (the ragged edge parts as Liz Warren might say). Now to connect the South Bay to the Westside, the district is drawn through Venice. But again, the way it’s drawn seems to take in the gentrifying urban hipster portion of Venice and leave the rest out. It does the same as it assiduously goes around LAX taking in Playa Del Rey but making sure to leave out working class Westchester. And even the northern and western boundaries of the District seem to be drawn to take in country club communities and leave out those developments that aren’t.

    To conclude, if you want to go find top 1%ers that those Occupy Wall Street people are talking about, go visit the newly drawn 33rd District.

    Now, here’s an interesting factoid that may or may not surprise. There is no Republican running in the race (a result of the newly implemented top two system in California). Instead, Henry’s opponent is running as an Independent. Here’s the rub. He’s actually a conservative Republican who’s pretending not to be a Republican for the sake of political expediency. This makes matters difficult for Henry because he has an opponent who can run as an Independent and snatch up low information voters dissatisfied with two-party politics and those voters who might be displeased with Democrats but never ever think of voting Republican but at the same time get Republican money, Republican endorsements, and Republican votes.

    Henry is potentially vulnerable because (1) he hasn’t had to campaign in decades, (2) he’s not a natural campaigner, (3) he’s lost places that had intensely loyal voter bases for him (Pico-Robertson, Beverlywood, West Hollywood), and (4) some of the new areas added to his District are heavily Republican (especially Palos Verdes).

    I still think he’ll win though because he’s smart enough to take the race seriously (even going so far as to seek and get President Obama’s endorsement), making sure his new constituents get to know him and he will benefit from the Democratic voter registration edge (though it has dropped to a 44%-28% edge in the new District compared to a 51%-23% advantage in the old one).

    “So you met Soledad O’Brien… how was it for her? (That’s also in the stlye of Jackie Mason :) .)

    And lol. She thought she was blocking my view. I assured her that she wasn’t and that I just wanted to meet her and compliment her for her great journalistic skill.

  41. @ Billy Bob

    And here’s why I say there’s no analo gto that District (outside the United States). Most centers of wealth in democracies tend to vote for right wing parties (even if more moderate ones). There are exceptions but none quite as curious for this one.

    For example, there is India’s parliamentary constituency of Mumbai South, which is currently represented by Congress, the left wing party of India. This constituency is home to India’s wealthiest citizens. However, it’s a swing district (going back and forth between Congress and the right wing BJP) and it votes Congress because in addition to being home to the wealthiest, it also has a large number of inner city slums within it. If anything, it’s probably more like California’s newly drawn 13th District (formerly the 8th) which includes most of Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco (home to the world’s wealthiest living side by side the most impoverished).

    Then you have the Canadian oddity where their Liberal Party, in its rump and defeated state, represents both the poorest and wealthiest ridings in Canada (this includes Toronto Centre, Vancouver Centre, and Vancouver Quaddra). But I’m not sure it’s the same because the Liberals in Canada are often seen as the more centrist party. Henry, on the other hand, has always identified as a progressive. Those constituencies might resemble New York’s 14th District (well I think it’s still the 14th). That’s basically Manhattan’s upper eastside that was extremely Republican for most of the 20th Century (except for a period in the late 60’s and 70’s when it was represented by Ed Koch) often known as the Silk Stocking District. That only came to an end in 1992 when Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) upset William Green (R-NY) for reelection, probably on Clinton coattails. Still it would be another decade before all the downballot seats would switch from Republican to Democratic. But those Republicans were far more like the old Progressive Conservatives in Canada (in fact they elected Liberal Republicans….like John Lindsay) in that they were very moderate, especially on social issues.

    Then of course, there’s Scotland and its mix of wealthy constituencies (in Edinburgh, Dunbartonshire, and suburban Glasgow) that seem inclined to vote for Labour and the Lib Dems. Even staying with those two parties as Scotland’s poorest and most hardscrabble constituencies (in the Scottish Parliament) swung heavily to the SNP in the 2011 elections. Of course, that all seems to be a result of an permanent unhappy reaction to Thatcherism.

    Anyway, if those wealthy Canadians swung over to the Liberals in 1993 out of their anger towards the Progressive Conservatives (and their progressive shift away from being progressive Conservatives and into hardline conservatives) and if those wealthy Scots swung to Labour and the Lib Dems (or alliance I guess) in the late 80’s out of their anger with Thatcher, I don’t know what explains the voting propensities of Angelinos. Waxman was elected to the House in 1974 to what was then a new district carved out of an old one (represented by a left wing Dem) and even before then, he was elected in 1968 to the Assembly. And he was not the first Democrat by any means. I’d have to look carefully on an old map but I’m pretty sure that much of what is now the 33rd was once represented by Helen Gahagan Douglas (you may know her as the “Pink Lady”). Maybe it’s something in the water……

  42. YouGov
    Con 31, Lab 43, Lib 11 (conference bounce or just MOE?)

  43. Good Morning All.

    Labour lead seems surprisingly solid, and I agree that the Lib Dem ‘vi’ may well be a bounce post conference, which will imo go to the tories in the GE, leaving LD vote on about 7%

  44. richard in norway @ Oldnat

    “I saw that some Spanish(Madrid) papers were calling for the army to intervene, can you imagine English papers saying that about Scotland?”


    Worse has actually happened more recently than you would think.

    I don’t know about the papers, but the governmentsaid it and they didn’t trust the Scottish regiments not to mutiny.

  45. Chris
    Not necessarily – Ashcroft’s polling (2011) shows that in Lab vs Con seats, VI goes from a national picture of Con 37 (nc), Lab 37 (+7), Lib 11 (-12) to a marginals picture of Con 36 (-4), Lab 44 (+8), Lib 12 (-5) – no evidence of tactical voting for Cons there (unless Con>Lib swing is massive).

    For LibDem vs Con seats, it’s Con 39 (-2), Lab 19 (+6), Lib 31 (-9).
    Again, no implication of Lib>Con swing.

  46. PeterCairns @ SoCalLiberal,

    “There has been a bit of talk in the Uk recently about Zero base or just base budgeting.”

    It is what we need to make rational decisions about spending.

    Any organisation which has tried it has given up because of the expense.

    There aren’t enough accountants in the country.

  47. Blues back in the lead among over 60s.
    Weird figures for Scotland. The usual huge Lab lead over Cons has disappeared and now its almost level pegging. MOE perhaps, but seems Lab having to work hard to scrape their 12% lead.
    18-24 figures seem all over the place.

  48. tingedfringe

    It seems obvious to me. In Lab/Con marginals, those people who voted LD last time because they are anti Tory but fed up with Lab, will vote Lab next time. labour will sweep the board in these seats.

    In Con/LD marginals some of the tactical LD vote will go back to them (I am one, in Reigate. If it happened tomorrow I would vote Lab this time and that would make 2 Lab votes in the constituency). I supsect that quite a few will go back to LD but Con will still make some gains.

    LD/Lab marginals will all go Lab.

    Three way marginals will all go Lab.

    That would of course lead to a big majority for Lab. But then that’s the effect of all those anti-Tory votes lining up in one place.

  49. Of course Reigate is not a marginal and won’t go anything but Tory for a long time.

    But you get my point.

  50. If both ICM and YouGov, the two pollsters who tend to give the Tories their best VI ratings, are now converging around the 31-32% for them, then God only knows what the next TNS/BRMB, Opinium and Survation polls will show!

    As for the inevitability of a slow drift back to the Conservatives from here-on in, I’d be a little more cautious. Possible? Of course. Inevitable? Not necessarily, especially when you consider their more recent electoral performances over the last four General Elections, and they fought three of those when they were a party of opposition. In 2015, they’ll have record in office to defend.

    The other interesting thought, often debated on these pages, is what may be the Tories low watermark of support. It has been argued that this is 30-31%, a figure under which they’ll never go, (evidence based on 1997 performance), but I wonder if we need to revise these estimates now as the demographics of the electorate change and as voting loyalties to the two major parties loosen yet further over time.

    I tend to think that all bets may be off when it comes to calculating what may or may not be minimum support levels for the three main parties. That’s why I’m very sceptical about dredging up past General Election results as reliable predictors for future ones.

1 2 3 4 6