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 6 7 8 9
  1. PAULCROFT…………Okay Paul, you got the job, start Monday. :-)

  2. Al:

    How do passive Morris dancers jingle their bells?

    Its quite a conundrum actually to figure out which is the more dull: a dancing Morris dancer or a passive one.

    Still, its all we English have left of our heritage.

  3. pAul

    Doesn’t offend me – but then I’m only offended by those who matter.

    I note, however, that you subscribe to the Bernard Manning school of comedy. That’s your choice.

  4. OLDNAT

    “There is no good evidence that pAul has such appendages”
    _______

    “Appendages is an external body part, or natural prolongation, that protrudes from an organism’s body”

    I’m sure whenever Amber Star surfaces one of Mr Crofts “Appendages” grows with excitement!! :)

  5. @Alec

    Journalists and judges were regulated by the State in Nazi
    Germany and Soviet Russia.

  6. WOLF

    “Journalists and judges were regulated by the State in Nazi
    Germany and Soviet Russia”
    ______

    And still are in Rotherham Council ..

  7. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    I have already had to reprove you for making assumptions about pAul!

    Please desist from such assumptions – regardless of how desirable Amber is.

    While the latter statement may also betray an assumption, I think there is more than enough evidence from her posts that she would approximate more to the Pippa Middleton than the Johann Lamont end of the pulchritude scale.

  8. PAULCROFT

    Nonsense you still have Cheddar man day in Dorset or is it Somerset?

  9. ON:

    I can’t say I find your comparison of me with the odious Bernard Manning, on the basis of my using the term “Scotch”, to be either very funny or very accurate. Nor do I understand why you should say I don’t “matter”.

    You do come over, very often, as one of the most cantankerous people I’ve never met – still, please yourself, I’m off to sleep.

  10. Wolf:

    Yes, comparisons to Hitler and Stalin are always a sensible alternative to thoughtful discussion.It was a sad day for both Germany and Russia when they they agreed with the findings of a judge led enquiry into the conduct of their tabloid press.

  11. What did the Romans ever do for us ? Scribes, scrolls…..erm! I don’t think they got round to, ‘ independent self-regulators’. Missed a trick there, the Romans, could have ruled the world. :-)

  12. pAul

    Ah! The glorious sight of someone who admits to posting to offend, then gets offended, and going off in a cream puff!

    Twas but a wee jest! :-)

  13. OLDNAT

    “While the latter statement may also betray an assumption, I think there is more than enough evidence from her posts that she would approximate more to the Pippa Middleton than the Johann Lamont end of the pulchritude scale.”
    _______

    LMAO and to think I had her as a approximate to Jackie Baillie. ;)

  14. KEN

    “What did the Romans ever do for us”
    _____

    They built a big wall to stop the Scots comming doon and smashing Cheddar Mans face in. :)

  15. ON:

    You accusing me of writing to “offend” is not the same as me actually doing so – and, of course, I was actually writing to Allan who reacted rather more lightly and humorously than you seem able to.

    As always, last word to you………………

  16. pAul

    OK. Feel free to huff. It’s your right to free speech. :-)

  17. ALLAN CHRISTIE…….A few years ago on here I suggested that rebuilding the wall would be a useful job creation scheme, however, due to the insistence of certain posters, on the setting up of an, ‘ independent wall-regulator’ the project never got off the ground, bogged down by the heavy hand of bureaucratic self-interest, and the usual bout of , ‘ laudator temporis acti ‘. :-)

  18. Crikey I hope Mr Wells doesn’t read the last 20 odd comments or he will have a fit.

    I’ll just say Paul Croft fraped me. ;)

  19. KEN

    Tell George Osbourn to give Alex Salmond more borrowing powers and he’ll have that wall built within a week. ;)
    ….
    “independent wall-regulator’”

    Aye that would be Mr Stonemason? :)

  20. KEN

    I think the proposal to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall ran into a jurisdictional dispute about the transfer of significant parts of Cumbria and Northumbria to Scotland.

    Scots were willing to take on these contingent areas, in a similar way to how West Germany incorporated the East, However, revision of the Berwick and Wales Act, 1746, proved an impossibility for London politicians.

  21. @ Old Nat

    :-) & :oops: Pippa Middleton? I have a few more years than Pippa! I am thinking about writing a book tho’. I’ll let folks know if I actually get it done & published!
    ——————
    @ Allan Christie

    LMAO and to think I had her as a approximate to Jackie Baillie.
    ——————
    I’m a wee person; closer to Nicola S’s size. Jackie B is worth 3 of me!
    8-)

  22. AMBER

    At my age, all you young women are attractive! I don’t remember why, but there used to be a good reason, I’m sure. ;-)

  23. OLDNAT…………Dead birds don’t leave the nest. :-)

  24. ALLANCHRISTIE………… :-)

  25. KEN

    :-) But good parents don’t starve the wee souls!

  26. @Old Nat et al

    I don’t think Paul intended to offend at all.

    However the only thing I’ve ever identified as being Scotch was a posh English skeleton who used to advertise long lasting video cassettes that wiuld “re-record not fade away”.

  27. RAF

    The reason that Americans use the term “Scotch tape” is that when we were buying their tobacco (having secured the monopoly of providing the drug to France), we normally paid them in goods like textiles – including ribbon. It’s rather reminiscent of European colonists “buying” Manhattan from the Native Americans for gaudy trinkets! :-)

  28. Nick P

    The Conservatives will need to get some extra votes from people who didn’t vote in 2010, Lib Dems, and new voters.

    Labour will rise from the LD decline – the Tories will need to get some of those aswell.

    There is always a degree of churn, so if the Tories take some from Labour beneath that, it wouldn’t prevent an overall Labour rise at LD expense.

    Boris won the London Mayoral election – not Ken.

    The previous Government almost bankrupted the country. It sounds like an excuse, but it’s true that what they left was far worse than the Tories expected, although they knew it would be bad.
    It wasn’t just the equivalent of the expensive stash of fine wines found at City Hall in 2008,
    but every single cupboard in Whitehall bare except for post dated cheques.

    Miliband has nothing to offer except Lib Dem style tactics in the absense of any alternative policies to put matters right.

    It’s a disgrace – just imagine what would have been said if the Tories had spent the lot and left it like this in 1997.

    These points will be made ……. those are the choices.

  29. @ Old Nat

    You know, I had one of those days today where I felt very British (or Scottish or perhaps English) about politics. As much as I love and understand the grittyness and dirtyness of this stuff, I felt very disenchanted today. Well only a little bit.

    I don’t believe most politicians are liars. There’s a difference between spinning and outright disingenuousness. But my Assembly Speaker has really ticked me off today. And it sucks because he’s a role model for me (not just for politics cause’ I seriously doubt I’d ever run for office but for life in general) and someone I really respect, look up to, and admire. Well it just bugs me.

    Also, if you ever run into Alyn Smith at one of your Nats Conferences or Nats local events or something, please tell him to go attend a Victory Fund event in the US.

  30. Joe James B,

    The lesson is: slash-and-burn works. Leave the country in a mess, make some huge spending commitments towards the end of parliament, let the other party make the tough decisions, have a policy-free period in opposition, and then ride the wave of the public backlash. It worked for the Tories in 1974/1979 and it’s working for Labour in 2010/2015.

  31. ALEC

    @”I find it frankly laughable that you think the press is more important in preserving our liberties than judges and the police. ”

    Before you laugh too much Alec, have a trawl through recent reports on the liberty preserving activities of South Yorkshire Police-or The Met.

    The Police & Judiciary do not preserve our liberties-they enforce & administer the law.

    The law may be good law-or bad law.

    It is representative Democracy which preserves our liberties-the Vote.

    A Free Press ensures that the activities of the State’s army of regulatory bureaucrats are transparent.

    In extremis it is journalists & writers who are always called to defend our freedoms when democracy itself is subverted or abused.

    I recommend a wonderful film titled ” The Lives of Others”. There isn’t much laughing about freedom preserving police & judges in it-but there is a writer & his typewriter.

    Our Press does need to consider it’s own abuse of power & influence, & do something about it.

    But I don’t ever want to curtail it’s exposure of the abuse of power & influence by others.

  32. Good early, and cold Morning to All.

    A. Darling’s ‘BACK FROM THE BRINK’ is worth reading. He says that pre Crash in 2007-2008 the UK GDP debt ratio was the best in the G8 except for Canada, and quotes Vin.Cable at length opposing fiscal tightening at time of recession.

  33. JJB and Bill Patrick

    Nice to see posts where – as AW suggests – you would have no idea of the writers’ politicak leanings.

  34. Paul Croft,

    You infer that I’m anti-Tory then?

  35. @ Old Nat

    “The reason that Americans use the term “Scotch tape” is that when we were buying their tobacco (having secured the monopoly of providing the drug to France), we normally paid them in goods like textiles – including ribbon. It’s rather reminiscent of European colonists “buying” Manhattan from the Native Americans for gaudy trinkets!”

    I did not know that. I thought it was just a brand name or something. Europeans were able to “buy” Manhattan and other places because the Native Americans never really had the same conception of private property as we did. Kinda unfortunate.

    Oh and here is an abject lesson in U.S. about how we don’t do SPADing (for better or for worse).

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/50/

    Try and imagine it this way. The boundary comission changes the boundaries of a constituency for an incumbent MSP making that seat less safe for him or her. The First Minister is a friend and backer of that incumbent MSP. That MSP then moves into a different, safer constituency and assumes they will run on the party mantle. However, they have never lived in or represented that constituency before. The First Minister spends millions of pounds trying to ensure this MSP’s victory in the new constituency. He dispatches all of his troops from Holyrood into the constituency to knock on doors and man phone banks.

    Then the voters rebel and say no. This is what it looks like.

    @ Colin

    You get my apology from the other day? (I think it was Wednesday).

  36. Freedom of the press, as a concept, does not refer to newspapers. It refers to the ability to publish without having a license from the government. It is an argument for a marketplace of ideas – that people should be able to publish anything offensive without state interference.
    There is an argument that the proposed regulatory system comes close to this, because newspapers wouldn’t be able to publish without having to follow state rules restricting the freedom of expression.
    Unfortunately we already have laws which impinge on the freedom of expression – for example, it is illegal to publish a photograph of yourself burning a poppy (someone was recently arrested for ‘malicious communications’ for doing so), because it is offensive.

    So unless you’re arguing for anarchy of expression – something that I’d happily back – the argument that the state can’t regulate certain publishers because it’d curtail freedom of expression is nonsense, because we already have restrictions on freedom of expression, even for those privileged publishers.

    If the idea is that if we regulate these privileged publishers, then they won’t be able to do investigative journalism, this should also apply to TV news, which is far more restricted in it’s freedom of expression, but seems to do a job of investigative journalism.
    In fact – it is *worse* for TV news because the restrictions on political expression which are so feared already apply to them – TV news has to apply balance to it’s political reporting.
    Again – I’d be happy to remove this across the board [1] and have the emergence of Fox News-style politically biased TV.

    There is also the revisionist historical idea that it is an ‘ancient liberty’ that is stake, that once lost will never be able to be regained, and once one regulation is applied, any regulation can be applied.
    But this is also nonsense – we’ve slowly become more free when it comes to expression (culminating in the ECHR guaranteeing expression, something that so many oppose), we initially started with a completely licensed press (in it’s original sense – that is any publisher) with restrictions on expression.
    In fact, there was a time when you could be convicted of treason (see Thomas Paine) for publishing republican ideas.

    There is also the free market argument – which actually carries far more weight.
    If people were unhappy with the newspapers, they could boycott them – which is what has happened in the case of The Sun in Liverpool and is what led to the closing down of the NOTW.
    There is a good argument that this would be a far better system of regulating the press – and if the concern is over the press being a ‘gutter press’, it’s because there is a market for a gutter press, and people are free to buy the less trashy newspapers if they desire.

    [1] With the exception of the BBC, which is a state body so should have heavy neutrality regulations.

  37. This is perhaps the dumbest question I’ll ever ask. But do you guys have things like elected student councils in your schools?

  38. “This is perhaps the dumbest question I’ll ever ask. But do you guys have things like elected student councils in your schools?”
    Across the board? As far as I know, no.
    Perhaps certain schools do though.

  39. ALEC

    @”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.”

    No- I think you have.

    He proposes that OFCOM has a “validating” role for the Independent Regulator -or the Panel which appoints to it’s members ( can’t remember which one ).

    Interesting movements in Labour following EM’s rush to judgement :-

    “Ofcom or an alternative is where you would get interference from politicians with the press”

    Graham Stringer MP.

    “My concern is that once you have anything in legislation you know how bureaucrats and politicians work, adding more here, there and everywhere. When the first thing came out about MP’s expenses would there have been an attempt to stop that ?”

    Kate Hoey MP

    ” It is right that other options for the appropriate regulatory body backed by law are considered as we build a consensus across parties for the implementation of his central recommendations.
    Similarly, some have expressed reservations about the measures relating to data protection..
    This has already been raised in the cross-party talks and we are showing we are serious in our desire to build a consensus by agreeing it is right for Parliament to look at the detail of these proposals”

    The Labour Party.

    :-) :-)

  40. I do also find it interesting that the centre-right is currently engaged in libertarian arguments – that the state should only regulate in law what is necessary for the general well-being of the population.

    There seems to be the opposite view when it comes to other issues of liberty – when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, to gay marriage, to restrictions on what people can consume, etc

    The opposite is true of the centre-left – that it’s an issue of liberty, except when it’s the other half.
    Perhaps that’s the key – only when it applies to ‘the others’.

    Seems that people want to have their cake and eat it – either the state ideologically exists as something that begins almighty and grants you permission to perform acts, or it exists as something that only restricts acts as is absolutely necessary for the general well-being.

  41. colin

    “Before you laugh too much Alec, have a trawl through recent reports on the liberty preserving activities of South Yorkshire Police-or The Met.”

    Although your point is valid, I can’t help pointing out that in both cases the supposedly “free” press willingly joined hands with News International to either lie or suppress evidence or both.

    The problem is, as Neil A suggested, when you have a bunch of criminals in the press and the police it becomes very difficult to control them. Personally I think long deterrent sentences would be preferable to slaps on the wrist or early retirement.

  42. Tinged-my guess would be that the participants in Samizdat, and all the Vaclav Havels down the years have been left of centre by political inclination-even when the regime suppressing freedom has itself been left wing authoritarian.

    Must look for a Wiki on dissident writers later.

  43. Tinged Fringe,

    Yes, although one can easily exaggerate the social liberalism of the left and the economic liberalism of the right. The former tend to be interventionists on many issues (particularly when there’s an approved minority’s alleged interests involved) and the latter do have a taste for pro-business spending & in many cases protectionism.

    Most people in politics really haven’t thought through the Hobbes vs. Locke debate which you refer to, I’m afraid.

    My view on the phone-hacking is this: politicians rarely let a good crisis go to waste, and a few high profile press abuses will allow for the groundwork to be laid for never letting things like the expenses scandal, “Tory sleaze” and Bigotgate happen again. As I see it, if I don’t like a paper’s publishing I can stop buying it; but if I don’t like the government, I have to obey its laws and orders nonetheless.

  44. NICKP

    Accepted entirely-I did say that the Press’s own abuse of power & influence must be corrected.

    Yes I agree with your last thought.

    The existing law has not been enforced properly , or effectively.

    But none of this-imo-militates against the absolute necessity of a “free press” & vigorous investigative journalism .

  45. BILL PATRICK
    I agree that both sides are overly interventionist – in fact, I’d go so far as to say that both ‘left’ and ‘right’ (of egalitarian and conservative philosophies – as opposed to anarchist or propertarian philsophies) are inherently interventionist.

    I just wish that both sides would stop waving the banner of liberty, when they’re both clearly opposed (although for different ideological reasons – and may back libertarian policies, but their motives won’t be purely libertarian).
    Now, there is a good debate over propertarian vs non-propertarian liberty to be had, but it’s a rhetorical fudge otherwise.

  46. @ Tinged Fringe

    “Freedom of the press, as a concept, does not refer to newspapers. It refers to the ability to publish without having a license from the government. It is an argument for a marketplace of ideas – that people should be able to publish anything offensive without state interference.
    There is an argument that the proposed regulatory system comes close to this, because newspapers wouldn’t be able to publish without having to follow state rules restricting the freedom of expression.”

    Very good point. Not sure if I fully agree or disagree but good point nevertheless. I don’t think (though I’m not set in stone on this) that newspapers have any greater rights than individuals do.

  47. Paulcroft

    There is some evidence that Morris dancing came from the Moorish culture during the middle ages, but I’m sure the hats are English. Evidence of a Cheddar man is more elusive are you sure it’s not the ancient English boxing man cheese Farleigh Wallop.

  48. @TingedF – my thoughts entirely. I find it genuinely sad that those friends of the press, who are in all fairness, predominately from the part of the political spectrum generally favoured by the press, can’t seem to understand that, notwithstanding the function of the press in exposing truths, the press itself has become the powerful and uncontrolled oppressor. It is us that needs protection from them, rather than they needing protection from our elected representatives.

    @Wolf – comparisons between Leveson and Nazi Germany/communist USSR merely show how far divorced from reality your comments on this have become. Risible.

    Our judges are appointed ultimately by parliament. Are we trying to say that they do the governments bidding, serve only their political masters, and subvert their independence to keep the people who pay them happy?

    @Colin – re Ofcom, I may well have misunderstood it’s role, as I haven’t read the full report. I understood that Leveson was only saying that Ofcom should oversee the process of setting us the oversight committee – eg it’s structure, membership, and selection process. It would have no part in overseeing the day to day management and decision making process.

    Even if it did, as I and now @TF have pointed out, are people saying that our broadcast media functions in an equivalent way to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany?

    Anyway – we’ll likely not agree on this, and I’ve made my views known, and the site is about polling anyway, so I’ll make this my last contribution on the rights and wrongs of Leveson.

  49. I thought Nigel Farage made some good points following the by elections. Clearly there is some PR going on with his claims to be the third party now, but his observations regarding the Tory vote in northern towns and cities was quite telling I thought.

    Never attach too much importance to by election results, however significant they may seem at the time, but even so, his identification of the ebbing of the residual support for the Tories in many parts of the UK fits with other evidence.

    Increasingly, the concept of a Tory majority government any time soon is looking even less likely, I feel.

  50. The problem for the Tories is that there is a narrative building that

    1 UKIP is the “real” Tory party

    2 Cameron’s clique is no different from New Labour

    Basically the message is vote UKIP and force the Tories to go back to the party it used to be. The counter-argument…”you’ll let Labour in!”…is answered by saying that they are no different from what we’ve got anyway.

    It all plays into the myth that if only Conservative had a real Tory leader and policies they would win a general election.

    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?

1 6 7 8 9