This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%. The poll suggests an increase in UKIP support on the back of the EU summit, the child fostering row and the coverage of Michael Fabricant’s calls for a Con-UKIP pact. YouGov has occassionally shown UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems in the past, but their support in YouGov polls over the last month has typically been at around 7% or 8%. 11% is the highest they have shown them to date.

On the subject of the UKIP fostering row, YouGov also asked some more detailed questions about fostering children. 50% of respondents thought that people with extreme political views should not usually (32%), or never (18%) be allowed to foster children.

However, this was clearly not thought to apply to UKIP. Asked if people who were members of several named political parties should be allowed to foster children only 4% of people thought that UKIP members shouldn’t be able to foster (55% said there was nothing wrong at all with it, 27% said they disliked UKIP’s views but it shouldn’t be a block to their members fostering children). Figures were very similar for the Respect party, with 4% saying a Respect party member should not be allowed to foster children.

In comparison 36% of people said that members of the BNP should not be allowed to foster children (and only 18% said there was nothing wrong with a BNP member being a foster parent). As a control YouGov asked about the three main parties too – the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats. Only 1% of people said that their party members should not be able to foster children.

Yesterday we also had the weekly TNS BMRB poll. Topline figures are CON 31% (nc), LAB 41% (+2), LDEM 8%(-3), UKIP 8%(+1), OTHER 10%(-1).

Finally I’ve been meaning to write something about Leveson and polling on press regulation for a week or so, but have been distracted by gay marriage, UKIP and so on. Luckily Peter Kellner has done it for me here.

435 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 43, LD 9, UKIP 11”

1 7 8 9
  1. SoCalLiberal

    I can’t believe that it’s 57 years ago today that Rosa Parks sat down in that Alabama bus!

    Is the anniversary celebrated at all?

  2. ” in fact, I’d go so far as to say that both ‘left’ and ‘right’”
    I should probably make this clearer – I consider anarchist/non-propertarian libertarian to be on the left and propertarian libertarian to be on the right – but it starts to get quite messy when you start to use those terms in isolation.

    So to make this absolutely clear – egalitarian (i.e all should be equal), which is the ‘left’ here, and ‘conservative’ (i.e there should be some form of hierarchy), which is the ‘right’ here, are inherently state-interventionist.
    Non-propertarian libertarian (which you might class as anarchist) would also be on the ‘left’ but wouldn’t be state-interventionist (hence libertarian) and propertarian-libertarian (which you might class as ‘liberal’) would be on the ‘right’.

    But as I said, it gets very messy – because that would place social-democracy as the absolute centre (assuming the standard linear anarchist-egalitarian-liberal-conservative western-political model), somewhere between market-liberal and egalitarian.
    But through the prism of British politics, the centre is liberal and pure egalitarian/conservative are far left and right, but liberal with egalitarian and conservative leanings as the centre-left and centre-right.

    Assuming you even accept a linear model..

  3. The problem with absolute “freedom” is that things aren’t equal and, frankly, the weak need protection from exploitation from the strong.

    If you accept this premise then each decidion needs to be weighed against that premise…the problem with the control of the press argument is that the roles of the “weak” and the “strong” pass backwards and forwards according to the state of play.

    Why are the Tories so stresses over legal underpinning of press behaviour (presumambly afraid of too powerful government), but about to pass a law which will allow the government access to every single one of our private e-communications in the UK? Surely the threat of the Government or future Governments or their agancies is far higher that the threat that future Government agencies will be able to censor the press even more than they already do?

    The big question…why is the press a special case when the same people are relaxed about detention, deportion without trial, trials behind closed doors, monitoring our emails etc etc etc?

  4. NickP,

    “In the end, it may well help Milliband win comfortably and if he does, will we see the Tory party enter a Republican style meltown?”

    No. The Tory party and the Republican party have always had very different fundamental dynamics, and almost always have different basic problems. The same is true of the Labour party and the Democratic party.

    The rise of UKIP is the right-wing equivalent of ex-Lib Dems going to Labour by default, in reaction to the coalition. Or, indeed, left-wing voters of 1997 going to the Lib Dems in reaction to New Labour & Iraq. Or, indeed, centrist ex-Labour voters going to the SDP in 1983 in reaction to the early 80s lurch to the left…

    And so on. Unlike American politics, British politics over the last 40 years has been characterised by a wide range of substitutable parties. Broad coalition parties, like pre-1979 Labour and the pre-1986 Tories are gone for now in Westminister. (In Holyrood, the SNP will be such a party at least until 2014.)

    This means no more hilariously divided cabinets with the likes of Tony Benn and David Owen together, but it also means that parties are very vulnerable to disaffected voters. Just about every party’s support is “soft” now: about 1/5 of the Tory vote, it seems; about 1/3 of the Labour vote; and about 2/3 of the Lib Dem vote. Every party is 24 hours away from a 1997-style clobbering, given a disaster.

    (Incidentally, I’d hardly describe the Republican situation as a meltdown. If it was, then they might have to actually analyse their policies, presentation and organisation, rather than blame everything else under the sun.)

  5. “Do other contributors think that fear of the abyss could drive the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives into a deeper alliance? Might this Parliament be a catalyst that creates an Australian-style political set-up, with a centre-right alliance facing a centre-left single party”
    Since this is a polling site – this is a good point to comment on.
    Apologies that I didn’t earlier.

    There have been two polls on Con/Lib electoral pacts – one by YouGov and one by Angus Reid –
    Jan 2011 YouGov had a VI of –
    Con 37, Lab 42, Lib 9, Other 11
    So Con+Lib = 46.

    When asked about a coalition pact, the VI changed to –
    Con/Lib 40 (-6), Lab 46 (+4), Other 14 (+3)

    Angus Reid had the headline figures of –
    Con 35, Lab 40, Lib 12
    So Con/Lib of 47

    With coalition pact of –
    Con/Lib 38 (-9), Lab 45 (+5)

    So Labour would gain roughly 4-5% of voters and Con-Lib coalition would be harmed, in terms of votes, by such a pact.

  6. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that the very people who are under investigation, so to speak, are the ones who are setting the agenda on Leveson? Just looked at the Daily Mirror site and no mention of the ‘victims’ or their response to Leveson. While the quality papers are at least doing articles on the McCanns, JK Rowling etc, their general tone is lukewarm to say the least.

    Personally I haven’t the time or inclination to dig through the report to form an opinion. Just seems to me that an independent judge who has spent a year of his life considering the evidence and presumably has had the input from all sides is the best person to trust on this issue.

    Re polling I suspect the outcome will be neutral because of the press coverage. There may be some fallout for Milliband if he is seen to go against the press’s wishes but difficult to see that this will be a big factor in which way the newspapers go in 2015.

    Judging by their present stances, while they may well lay into Milliband a bit, the right wing press seems to have a dislike for Cameron and a love for UKIP so I can’t see the press (especially the Sun) going flat out for the Tories like they did in the 1980’s.

  7. Talking about aving a lawf, what’s all this huff about investigative journalism. Where is it? Oh the DT used the freedom of information act to check MP’s expenses, probably after reading about it in an internet blog, well that was real difficult!!!! Can anyone show me any other instances of this noble calling. In reality the only place where you find true investigative journalism is on blogs. Case in point is a former poster here who has been investigating the financial links between senior members of the govt and private health care providers who have won contracts under the new laws. And so far all I’ve seen about the new chairman of the BoE has been puff peices in the mainstream newspapers, as always if you want more intelligent information you have to trawl the internet. I hope all these folk that don’t want the press regulated will also oppose the regulation of the internet when DC proposes it

  8. It will be interesting to see how the ‘press’ treat DC, EM and NC from here.

    Has DC decided that ‘enlisting’ the support of the press will work in his favour in the run up to the GE? Surelt, EM and NC will be vilified and metaphorically crucified, wont’ they?

    To what extent will the views of joe public on press regualtion be swayed by the relentless arguments against it that are put forward by the press?

    On the other hand, will joe public be unpersauded and feel that DC is duplicitous if not mendacious, after apparently changing his mind/position on this issue?

  9. NICKP
    I’d argue that it isn’t liberty that harms the weak but it’s property – it isn’t the ability to publish what opinions you like which is the problem, but the concentrated ownership of the means of publishing in to the hands of the few.

    So it’s an issue, in terms of capitalist politics, of oligarchic abuse and in terms of anarchist politics, inherently a problem in the non-communal ownership of property.

    So to frame it perhaps more friendly to here – the competitive market has been infected by non-competitive forces (concentration of ownership) so what needs to be addressed is that concentration of ownership – not the liberty to publish without restriction.

    You’re fighting the wrong battle, Nick.

  10. Tinged Fringe,

    I don’t see journalism as being non-competitive, but I appreciate that this requires some argument.

    (1) Looking at the number of competitors and the concentration of ownership is a misleading approach. Professional sports leagues have very high numbers of competitors, but are very oligopolistic. Similarly, there might be only one seller of a product, but if entry is legally possible and plausibly profitable then that one seller will have to watch their toes.

    (2) So we need a better approach to determining whether or not a market is competitive. Two criteria make sense to me: (i) Are there legal barriers to entry, e.g. franchises or expensive licences? (ii) Is there a financial system that allows those without their own capital to enter markets when they can make a case that there are profits to be made?

    In these credit-constrained times, (ii) is a problem in journalism, but it’s a problem in ALL industries. Also, because of the development of commerical ISPs and blogging websites, a lot of the best journalism can be done online as Richard in Norway notes. The cost of internet journalism is very low.

    As for (i), I honestly don’t know too much about this, but it’s hardly like non-time sensitive mail (a monopoly of the Royal Mail by law) or medicine (an oligopoly via a licensing system) which are definitely non-competitive markets.

    If we were to do the whole libertarian vs. anarchist debate, we’d fill up 10 pages in all likelihood, but I think we can agree that freedom of speech is not the fundamental problem here.

  11. Of course, this blog is itself a great example of how the internet has opened up journalism. If I see a political poll in a paper, I make a note go to this website to see if it was being reported properly and whether there was anything wrong with it, as well as to get some quality analysis of its implications.

  12. Bill P,
    “If we were to do the whole libertarian vs. anarchist debate, we’d fill up 10 pages in all likelihood, but I think we can agree that freedom of speech is not the fundamental problem here.”

    I think we should probably leave it at that.

  13. (Sorry for the triple-post.)

    Electoral politics is also a market characterised by restrictive practices, of course, because of the deposit system. There may be good arguments for this, but it does make it very hard for parties like the Greens and UKIP to field candidates on a national level. The deposit requirement affects them in much the same way that regulations affect small businesses.

  14. @Mike N: “It will be interesting to see how the ‘press’ treat DC, EM and NC from here. ”

    I think this could be a bit of a watershed moment for the press’s relationship with their readers. I think the overwhelming majority of the people in the country are opposed to Cameron’s view and will see the newspaper’s support for him for what it is, i.e self-serving.

    I think that the press will lose much of their influence and people will be more circumspect in what they accept from them and won’t be swayed – if indeed they ever were – by newspaper opinion any more.

  15. Cutting through the disingenuous waffle, sanctimony and, yes, sheer humbug of the current debate about the importance of avoiding state control that could muzzle our truth sword-carriers in the print press, can I offer what I think is really going on and what lies behind Cameron’s current stance?

    No bravery, no courage, just political calculation. Cameron knows that he has one potential and enormous ace up his sleeve at the next General Election; a supine and supportive press who will cheer lead him and his Government, he hopes, all the way to Downing Street, monstering Labour and Miliband along the way. He knows this is invaluable and essential to his prospects of winning, as do Osborne and Crosby. Accordingly, he can’t afford to, and therefore won’t, do anything to endanger that electoral asset. Hence his stance on Leveson.

    Look no further for his motives, in my view. Rupe, Desso, the Barclays all on board. Steady as she goes.

  16. RiN

    Don’t worry.

    By the time you are my age, there won’t be a dead tree press.

    Then everyone can join you in the internet blog & twatter world of apocalyptic conspiracy & instantaneous “news analysis” – trapped forever in the feeding frenzy vortex of your own making.


  17. There seems to be a degree of overinterpretation of the results of the latest 3 by-elections. The poor CONDEM performance was only to be expected for the parties forming an unpopular government.

    However, of more significance was the result in Rotherham, where Labour failed to increase its share of the vote significantly and 34% voted for extreme right-wing xenophobic parties (UKIP/BNP/ED). This may partly be due to the disgrace of the former MP (D.Matyjaszek) and mainstream parties’ lack of sympathy towards core English (WASP) values.

    Less subservience to the creeds of political correctness and multiculturalism, and less kowtowing to the Eurocrats, without being intolerant of outsiders in the way that UKIP/BNP/ED are, would help to gain more votes from the majority indigenous population. It doesn’t help that Labour are led by vote-losers such as EM (a rootless cosmopolitan) and HH (Harridan Harperson).

  18. @Colin

    “By the time you are my age, there won’t be a dead tree press.

    Then everyone can join you in the internet blog & twatter world of apocalyptic conspiracy & instantaneous “news analysis” – trapped forever in the feeding frenzy vortex of your own making”

    Just because newspapers may move to the web does not mean there won’t be a need for (and ability to carry out) regulation. The proposed scheme of carrots and sticks seems quite capable of embracing blogs, websites etc just as much as the printed press.

    For me, the argument is entirely backwards. The key proposals are to do with access to cheap/free arbitration, and stronger penalties for those who lie outside that system. Statute is going to be required for these, and some threshold will need to be set to determine the organisations to whom it applies.

    It seems fairly obvious that it should apply to those who are part of a robust and independent form of self regulation. But that means there has to be a definition in law of what that means.

    The so called ‘statutory underpinning’ might need to be as little as defining the minimum standards. It would be up to the newspapers themselves to decide how to meet those standards, and the role of e.g. OfCom would be limited to ‘licensing’ such a scheme (i.e. declaring that the scheme meets those standards). But it might be also left open for organisations to apply to the courts for a self-regulatory scheme to be ‘licenced’ , thus providing a second route for licensing and so avoiding government interference.

    It can also be left open for organisations to operate outside that framework (or for it to be claimed in court that a scheme either does not meet the conditions or that there was a failure to properly implement the scheme), but with the risk of the greater penalties for breaches of the law, including a reformed and more accessible libel law (which is in any case long overdue).

  19. COLIN………..Is a citizen of your, ” twatter ” world, a tw*t ? :-)

  20. “Look no further for his motives, in my view. Rupe, Desso, the Barclays all on board. Steady as she goes.”

    I should have included the good Mr Dacre in the Faustian Pact too, of course!

    As Harold Evans, the former ST editor pointed out in an excellent article the other day, ownership of the press is the key issue here, not some phoney debate about press freedom; a freedom not remotely threatened by anything Leveson has proposed.

  21. Colin

    Conspiracy theories like libor rate fixing that was reported on the internet years ago or maybe like the drug money laundering by HSBC which has also been a constant subject on financial blog’s for the last 2/3 years or maybe you consider reports of major political donors receiving lucrative NHS contracts as just conspiracy theories. Of course my favourite conspiracy theory is the “people in positions of power and influence are mainly good and hardly ever act in their own interests and even when they do it doesn’t matter cos their interests are good for ordinary folk, and they know that cos they are the great and good wot know better than us” I think you are a great believer in that one unless the great and good have leftist tendencies.

  22. I tend to agree with crossbat11

    Leveson addresses the bahaviour of the press, but it didn’t address the problem of Murdoch (for instance) cornering too much of the media market and therefore exercising undue influence on Government and so gaining more control and the whole circle of insidious backstratching and fear begins again.

    You might argue that that is the way the world works. Maybe so, but having identified it, men and women of good faith should seek to restrain it. Unfortunately the decision makers are effectively owned by the lobbyists and vice versa.

    See also the Banks.

  23. The so-called debate on Leveson is another, ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’, scenario, it doesn’t matter, it’s just chatterers justifying their place in an otherwise pragmatic world. In the real world of death, taxes, and the Dog and Duck, these matters are viewed with ever increasing disdain, as far as VI is concerned I agree with CROSSBAT11, Cammo is playing a long game, with the press as his ace, he’ll be enjoying his weekend. :-)

  24. DAO:

    “Harriet Harperson”

    Truly hilarious: that and the rest of your silly post certainly helps inform us on what sort of person you are.


    miLiband has just one L. If you feel it ought to have two [or more] take it up with the boys parents.

  25. ken

    Depends whether you think having the press onside will save Cameron. With the right wing vote split, it won’t be asy easy as the 80s.

    We will see whether the Sun really can “win it” for the Tories. I predict they’ll back UKIP or even switch to Labour when they see the coalition parties are disappearing down the drain.

  26. As a non-Cameron supporter I am just puzzled by his stance. I really think he is being sincere in his reservations. On the other hand he surely must have known what was on the cards so why did he say he would implement it if it wasn’t “bonkers”.

    Maybe he really does lack polital judgement and skill but I really have no idea.

  27. I tend to agree the argument over legal underpinning is moot because whatver happens the press will carry on exactly as before.

    The only thing(s) that might give them pause is when several ex-press highfliers go to jail, as seems increasingly likely.

    There is likely to be a dispute in court about how much was known and by whom. Crone seems unlikely to willingly take the rap for anybody, for instance. I wonder what evidence might be hidden away for protection?

    If James Murdoch has to repeat his “I didn’t read the email or hear what I was being told” line before a court and under oath he might find himself in hot water later.

  28. paulcroft

    “miLiband has just one L. If you feel it ought to have two [or more] take it up with the boys parents.”

    oops! It must be all those laugh-a-minute trolls calling him Millipede.

    Sorry Ed, if you are there (and David)

  29. Cameron had the whole press on his side in 2010 but still didnt manage a majority, if they do it again in the face of a likely Miliband win hopefully we’ll see the final nails in the already well-upholstered coffin of the feral plutocratic big press that has done so much to poison the public sphere for the last few decades.

  30. NickP:

    Both th lads are here with me for footy focus and took it in typical good spirit.

  31. Murdoch wants a Tory Government led by Johnson or Gove, I suspect. Surely not Hunt?

    Will the public vote for any of them? Polling suggests Boris. But remember Brown’s seven year theory?

    Will Boris’s moment have long passed before he gets a chance?

    i don’t believe many people would vote for Gove or Hunt beyond the core Tory vote that voted in 2010.

  32. Ken



    I am uncertain as to whether the proposed involvement of Ofcom is a problem or not. MPs seem to think it might be . Happy to wait for the debate & conclusions.

    I think Internet blogs are essentially uncontrollable by any single jurisdiction -unless it cuts off access to foreign websites & controls national ones -a la China.


    Thanks-some good stuff there .

  33. @ DAODAO

    and HH (Harridan Harperson).
    Why don’t you just go away & be stupid somewhere else?

  34. @ amber star

    Didn’t HH refer to a cabinet minister as a “ginger rodent”?

  35. @DAO DAO

    Red squirrels are very cute. Even Danny Alexander himself said that he was flattered by the comparison!

1 7 8 9