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 5 6 7 8 9
  1. Charles Stuart

    ” 4. 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”

    Two problems, one unlike Australia we don’t have AV voting, so that rules that out, if it was too be done as a “we won’t stand where you do” then would mean that the parliamentary balance would stay much the same, not appealing to anyone. But the main problem is that most libdems are so p*ssed off with the Tories that they would take the “over my dead body” attitude, though many here will disagree, the fact is that the Tories have treated us really badly and there is no chance of another coalition with the lib dems in my life time, even if the numbers worked out. Most lib dems would rather stick needles in their eyes


    How did the Lib/Dems get on in the Rotherham by-election?

  3. Allen



  4. Hmmm not too well then!! ;)

  5. Paul Croft

    Spanish people would never have any trouble with spelling the Chancellor’s surname as the “Osborne bull” is legendary.

  6. RAF

    So Osborne isn’t very popular in Euskadia or Catalunya or …. ?

  7. Since I’ve never met a UKIP or BNP supporter, I have no idea whether their views are properly reflected in the research referred to here

  8. @OldNat

    I was thinking more Osborne bull.

  9. I don’t think we should kick Leveson into the long grass; we should head off from the last chance saloon, cross the rubicon and ……………. oh sod it, I dunno what that all means.

  10. @ Billy Bob
    @ Alec

    Thanks for your responses re MPs’ expenses.

  11. RAF

    That’s probably equally unpopular in Euskadia or Catalunya….. :-)

  12. When commercial radio found that it was impossible to get a broadcasting licence in the UK in the 1960’s, the new radio stations; Radio Caroline/London/270 etc etc. simply moved offshore and so avoided UK law.
    What’s to stop any UK newspaper re-locating itself abroad if it wants to, in this electronic age and avoiding any draconian legislation?

    I agree with DC, that we need to think long and hard before we introduce the legal control of the press by any body whose members are appointed by ministers (egOFCOM).
    It may be right, or it may be crossing the rubicon. We need to consider carefully & properly because a government in 50 years time may well decide to amend it in a way not originally intended.

    In my view, DC was entirely right to exercise caution & the adoption of dog whistle populist politics by EM, who accepted the WHOLE report in full, before he had fully read it, never mind, digested it, simply demonstrates that he has a way to go before he can be considered suitable for the role of PM.

    What was done to the McCann’s & Dowlers & others was disgraceful & illegal under existing law but is it really right that we should base this whole issue on a few terrible cases perpetrated by a minority of papers?

    Perhaps we should look instead at who owns the papers and only issue a licence to an owner for say 5 years. Is an ex Porn king really the right person to own a popular daily in the 1st place?

  13. I expect a significant drop in Tory support following the coverage given to opponents of DC’s reaction to Leveson.

    Hard to understand why he said he would support it unless it was bonkers as in now not supporting it fully he is implying that bonkers is what it is.

  14. Re: Leveson.

    The argument that it should have all been dealt with by the criminal justice system, seems to me to completely miss the point, which is the higher order question of why wasn’t it? The answer to that of course that the process was subverted by the power the press had over politicians and public officials, which is of course the root of the need for serious institutional reform of the press to regulate that power.

  15. ALEC


    I don’t want investigative journalists to be “regulated” like doctors , or judges-or the police.And certainly not like teachers. They have a different job to do, holding authority ( including some of the profesions you mention) to account on our behalf-ensuring we aren’t completely conned by the State & it’s many agents-ensuring our freedoms.

    I don’t want them to cause unwarranted distress to ordinary people either, when they are doing this job.

    I am not aware of any disagreement with Leveson’s proposal for an independent self regulator.
    As I understand it, DC’s concern is with the role of OFCOM in overseeing it.

    I don’t fully understand the nature of that concern-but I’m glad he had the courage to express it & insist that it is examined.

    In this regard I contrast his approach to Leveson with that of EM.


    I wouldn’t go as far as shooting, and I am surprised that one whose sensitivity & all round niceness is legendary, should propose such a punishment for mere grammatical misdemeanor.

    I think public castration would suffice, and the sound of the terminal S in a high pitched voice would be both a pleasant auditory experience & a warning to others.

    I don’t see why Americans should get off.

  17. Colin

    Your comments genuinely puzzle. You say you don’t understand Cameron’s concern but admire his courage and then you contrast his attitude negatively to Ed Miliband’s.

    Your clear implication is that, despite you NOT understanding the issue fully, EM is somehow in the wrong to support a report that has taken a year and been incredibly thorough.

    The only reason I can see for you to do that is that you don’t like Labour politicians – but I’m sure that can’t be the reason.

    Can you therefore share your logic with us in a convincing way?

    Ta very much.

  18. Col:

    I just meant water pistols actually.

  19. PAUL

    As I understand it EM too has conceded some concern about the OFCOM role.

    Therefore I conclude that he did not think it through yesterday, as thoroughly as DC.

    I do not need to fully understand the nature of DC’s reservations about OFCOM, to appreciate that he has them & wishes them to be aired.

    I hope to find out in due course, by reading the newspapers, & following the fate of this Draft Bill, what this is all about.

    OK water pistols then-but can we stick with the castration for Americans?

  20. What – all of them?



  21. Oh……………………ps: I said a convincing way.

    Was that yer best shot?

  22. PAUL

    No -only the ones with no “S”

    Yep-that’s it-take it or leave it.

  23. Oh I already did that Col.

    I think all Americans say Math so we’re on safe ground legally

  24. @Raf – “Barristers are regulated by the Bar Council; solicitors by the Law Society.”

    Thanks for the correction. My central point still stands though.

    @Colin – “I don’t want investigative journalists to be “regulated” like doctors , or judges-or the police.And certainly not like teachers. They have a different job to do, holding authority ( including some of the profesions you mention) to account on our behalf-ensuring we aren’t completely conned by the State & it’s many agents-ensuring our freedoms.”

    While I get your point, what you’ve actually said is nonsense. Like a few, mainly right of centre types, you’ve bought into this idea that somehow the press are the defenders of liberty and justice. While I only threw in doctors and teachers as examples of professions with extremely important roles who seem to be able to discharge these under state regulated systems, I find it frankly laughable that you think the press is more important in preserving our liberties than judges and the police.

    If judges and senior policewomen can act with integrity and independence, after having been appointed by the state, paid for by the state, and regulated by the state, I really cannot for the life of me see how the press can no longer operate effectively if they have to answer to a committee set up by themselves, manned with people they select, but with the process underpinned by law. It’s a risible argument to suggest that this is in any way a block on freedom of the press.

  25. “Social workers wanted the children to be permanently removed from their parents, concerned after discovering the father had been accused of sexually abusing his wife’s daughter from a previous relationship. A social worker from Rotherham Borough Council had travelled to their hometown to try to find out more about the family, and co-operated with the local social services department.

    But a family court judge ruled three of the children should be returned to the parents after the birth parents successfully argued that the council had failed in their duty to ensure the children enjoyed the linguistic right to learn and speak the language of their birth. In an interview, the father, along with his wife, told the Guardian the claims of sexual and physical abuse were unfounded. “We just want the children back and the social services to leave us alone. We just want to live as a normal family,” said the father.”

    The Guardian.

    Presumable this judge has been impeccably regulated.

    This journalist-apparently-has not been.

    And yet I get to read about this judge & his decision.

    Question-would I still get to read about him, if this journalist is “regulated” “properly” ??

  26. Robert Newark

    “We need to consider carefully & properly because a government in 50 years time may well decide to amend it in a way not originally intended.”

    So we shouldn’t do something now because of the hypothetical risk that a government in 50 years time could do something that they could choose to do even if we did nothing now? You could apply this logic to any legislation because no parliament can bind a future one.

  27. ALEC

    @”Like a few, mainly right of centre types, ”

    I really love the way you reduce opinion counter to that which you hold, to the smallest minority you can think of.

    I expect this makes you feel more confident Alec :-)


  28. Colin:

    You make it sound like you are part of an endangered species.

    I think its nice that you are almost unique.

  29. @Colin – “As I understand it, DC’s concern is with the role of OFCOM in overseeing it.”

    I think you’ve got this wrong. Leveson gives no role to Ofcom in the running and functioning of the regulatory body – this is all done by the industry itself.

    Where he suggests a role for Ofcom is for those publications that decide they do not wish to participate in the new body. He has taken the few that statutory regulation is unpalatable, so it should be voluntary. However, the evidence he has seen proves overwhelmingly that regulation of some form is required, so he has recommended that those publishers who refuse to take part in the voluntary system will be regulated by Ofcom.

    If publishers accept his proposals. my understanding is that Ofcom has nothing to do with it. By raising this, I think Cameron was trying to muddy the waters.

    Oddly enough, Richard Desmond has long opted out of the magnificently effective and voluntary press complaints commission. It’s so comforting to know that self regulation with no statutory basis can ensure decency and good practice in our media.

  30. @Colin – “Question-would I still get to read about him, if this journalist is “regulated” “properly” ??”


    Weird question.

  31. The Sheep – Thin end of the wedge. Once the principle has been established….

    Paul Croft – Something is either ‘unique’, or very rare. Unique means there is only one of. One of the few things I remember from English lessons in my bog standard 2nd’ary school 50 years ago. :)

  32. In the case of Mr Jeffery his life was totaly destroyed by the hacks in the media but of course the police had a roll in it too. They publicly named him as a suspect which led to a media frenzy digging up all sorts of innuendos about him.

    How many times have the police released details on suspects and the media have done them over only for them to be totaly innocent?

    Anyway PMQs should be highly entertaining next week. :)

  33. In my ever-so ‘umble opinion, dah ‘ere in sarf Landan, there is no such animal as an, ‘ independent self-regulator ‘. Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. The type of person generally selected for this role is on a personal journey, and is open to various kinds of, ‘ persuasion ‘ . I’m sure that a nod and a wink dahn in the St James’s club, or the Lords, will see a little subjectivity introduced, it’s the way of the world. Independent self- regulator…………you’re ‘avin a larf ! :-)

  34. @Ken – “Independent self- regulator…………you’re ‘avin a larf ! ”

    Perhaps, but under Leveson, it would be up to the newspaper industry to select the person they think best suited to the role, via an open and accountable process.

  35. Robert N:

    Yes, I am aware of the perils of tautology.

    However my thinking is that Colin is “almost” unique in the sense that he WILL be unique quite soon. Probably.

    Hope that helps.

    Well actually I don’t really care.

  36. ALL C:

    “The police had a roll”

    D’you mean like a cheese-roll or as in the verb to roll?

    I assume you didn’t spell a simple English word like “role” incorrectly? Especially given how great education is for you Scotch people.


  37. ALEC…………IMO, the whole thing is a farce, expensive, tax-payer funded, navel gazing, by the chattering classes, resulting, as ever, in a ludicrous fudge.
    As a taxpayer, I object to being treated as bottomless money pit by people who produce nothing of value. Mind you, as a banker, I should be used to being exploited by people for political capital, now it’s the turn of the 4th estate, who will the Establishment turn on next ?
    For the record, my business is based in the UK, pays its taxes in the UK, but doesn’t do any business here, all our clients are foreign institutions. :-)

  38. Sorry………..I meant that our revenues are all generated outside the UK, we are based here because we started here. :-)


    Yes it was a basic basic basic stupid spelling error!!

    I’m not too sure where you get the idea that I’m “Scotch?”

    13% of Scotland’s population were born outside of Scotland… don’t assume I’m one of the 87% who were born in Scotland.

    I’m a Sasanach although my father is “Scotch” and I have resided in Scotland for 15 years.

    God I hate that term “Scotch”. ..Only a passive Morris dancer would use such a word when referring to the Scots!! :)

  40. Allan:


    I got it from that great English comedian Stewart Lee who used it to great effect in his Glasow and Edingurgh shows, thus upsetting his Scotch audience.


    “chattering classes”

    Are they idiots, like “the commentariat” that all sensible people are better than?


    “Scotch” was quite an acceptable description for Scots people prior to the 20th century.

    That “pAul” (sic) chooses to use an archaic term in order to cause offence is rather a matter for Anthony to allow or not (this is his night off).

    pAul’s compatriot (I don’t know whether pAul shares his proclivities or not) had pAul’s measure –

    “Speak roughly to your little boy,
    And beat him when he sneezes;
    He only does it to annoy,
    Because he knows it teases.”

  42. Just for my tuppence worth.

    I’ve never been at all convinced by all this 4th Estate nonsense. I see nothing special about the media or what they do. They have merely elevated themselves to a special status to justify what they like to do.

    If all the Newspapers in Britain closed tomorrow we would still be a free country and all the scare mongring from the press is just special pleading. I think journalists and politicians deserve each other as they both think they are special and should have a different set of rules to the rest of us.

    They think they are something special and keep telling us so but they are not. Given the economic situation it’s high time we put VAT on them at 20% same as most other things.

    What we actually need a regulator to do is stop more than a third of the paper being adverts.

    I should of course add that these are very much my views and not those of the SNP most of whom as far as I know tend to think the press should carry on much as before.


  43. PAULCROFT……………” The commentariat ” with an independent self-regulator, or a full frontal reality by-pass. You either have a deeply developed sense of irony, or are deeply insightful, whichever, I agree. :-)


    Aye well he’s a brave man saying that word in Glasgow. Surprised he never left toon wi a Glesga smile.

    “chattering classes”

    Reminds me of Scots who move down to England and become more English than the English and talk about coming back up amongst the pheasants. ;)

  45. @Colin

    “…I don’t want them to cause unwarranted distress to ordinary people either, when they are doing this job…”

    For many journalists, causing unwarranted distress to people is the whole point. If they also get a story out of it, well, that is a happy accident. Why do you think nobody buys the Sun in Liverpool?


  46. OLDNAT

    “That “pAul” (sic) chooses to use an archaic term in order to cause offence is rather a matter for Anthony to allow or not (this is his night off)”

    Yes I think Paul should be put in the naughty corner although being Anthony’s night off I could take matters into my own hands and just give Mr Croft a right good old boot in the baws!! :)

  47. @ Croftee

    I would like to scotch the rumour that role is a “simple English word”. It is French & the o should be wearing a hat. We Scots are well educated & grate at spelin. ;-)


    ” just give Mr Croft a right good old boot in the baws!!”

    Now, now! On this site we require evidence, not simple assertion.

    There is no good evidence that pAul has such appendages. :-)

  49. Euphemism alert !!

    Independent self-regulators……………Jobs for the boys ! :-)

  50. ole nat

    a wee jest shud nae offend surely?


    I am deeply insightful, have a highly developed sense of irony and also dislike the habit some have a using jargon such as “the chattering classes” to indicate their superiority to other people, presumably for thinking and talking about current events..

    Re the press, I think a great deal of ours panders to the lowest common denominator and, to put it very mildly, blurs the distinction between opinion and fact so that those willing to see life though a distorted prism do just that.

1 5 6 7 8 9