This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 43%, LD 11%, UKIP 10%.

I’m always wary of reading too much into small movements in polls, but four of the last five YouGov polls have had Labour leads of 12 or more, so it is beginning to look as if the Labour lead has increased slightly. This seems to be down to a drop in Conservative support and an increase for UKIP, rather than any shift in Labour support, presumably due to the publicity UKIP have recieved in recent weeks from the Rotherham adoption case, the speculation about a Conservative-UKIP pact and their strong performance in last week’s by-elections.

There is also a new poll by Angus Reid, whose British polls are becoming increasingly infrequent. Topline figures there are CON 28%(-1), LAB 42%(-3), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 11%(+3). Changes are since March, the last time Angus Reid did a British voting intention poll. The fourteen point lead for Labour, while large in comparison to other companies, is actually a drop from Angus Reid’s previous poll – for whatever reason, they tend to show by far the largest Labour leads of any pollster.


378 Responses to “New YouGov and Angus Reid polls”

1 4 5 6 7 8
  1. RIN – may be UKIP should be in the averages if they keep this up for a few months but not the swingometer as per Anthony
    I expect we will have fun with the Euro results in 2014 giving some consituency data no doubt showing that if repeated at a GE UKIP will take xx seats.

    The practical part of this is that it will tell UKIP (and others) where their best chance of any Westminster seats are.

  2. OLD NAT.
    2-1

  3. CHRISLANE1945

    That was close. :-)

  4. God Bless Celtic

  5. I think Osbournes autumn statement will solidify the nasty party image in the minds of many. And that – coupled with the fact that their whole economic policy looks to have fundamentally failed – destroys their chances of winning the next election.
    I think we are going to see widespread and rising anger with this government from large parts of the population.

  6. Congratulations to Celtic and imo last 16 v Man Utd would be brilliant.

  7. JIM JAM

    Can’t see Celtic going any further, so a game against Man U would be good.

  8. I would have to consult my conscience as for which team to pray, when Busby’s boys and Stein’s men play each other.

    Respect to Neil Lennon.

  9. Chris 45

    Wtf, its easy, hoops all the way

  10. I had a little go with the advanced swingometer for the first time today. Not sure I understand the logic behind it, because as one party goes down an unrelated party goes up, then at a certain stage the gains switch to another party.

    However, if I understand it there is a way to separate Plaid, SNP from other Others, in which case small changes between a roughly equivalent LD and Green/Ukip do make a noticable difference… to the size of the Labour majority. Even other Others on 25% only gives them three seats.

  11. Anthony

    As always you are one step ahead of us and you included the greens as well, I wasnt expecting that

    Watch out though those pesky Nats will be wanting the same treatment!!!

  12. RiN

    :-)

    Since the SNP alone exceeds the combined support of the two Green parties in GB ……..

  13. Despite a 6-1 victory tonight my glorious Blues will no longer be defending their European Champions title, we’re relegated to the Europa cup, sad. Anyway, GO told it like it is today, and in the absence of any sensible alternative we carry on. In the banking fraternity we call George’s presentation, ‘ squeezing the executioners testicles ‘. :-)

  14. @Ian Pennell

    If the Greens did not have an MP in parliament, their vote share would be included in ‘Others’ in my stats. No reason, other than their VI is always low:

    UK – Greens 2.0% / Others 4.5%
    London – Greens 2.8% / Others 1.0%
    RoS – Greens 2.3% / Others 1.9%
    Mid & Wal – Greens 2.0% / Others 3.5%
    North – Greens 1.8% / Others 2.1%
    Scot – Greens 1.0% / Others 0.8%

    In fact, there’s a reasonable argument for just including the Greens separately in the RoS data, where their MP (and leader’s) seat is located.

    Around the time I set up my spreadsheets, UKIP were polling 4.9% – 5.1% in the national polls and I hummed and hawed about it. At the time I decided that a party had to get 5.0% or better regularly or have an MP in the house. Glad I did, as it would have been hard to include UKIP later.

  15. ITV News

    “strivers not skivers” – Crap reporting, whichever side of the political debate you are on.

  16. great result for the Bhoys, but life long fan or not I don’t see the last eight.

    We have the highest points total ever of any Scots team in the group stages but I think we had less possession an fewer chances in ever game we played.

    Still as the whole team cost less than Messi it is still pretty good going.

    As to UKIP their best tactic would be to put up a limited slate of candidates for Europe in 2014 and the run the winners in 2015.

    On the basis of 12 constituencies and 72 members they would be likely to get a fair number.

    on the STV principle of a threshold of 100/(elected +1) the percentage needed to get an MEP are;

    Greater London 8 11% expect 2
    South East England 10 9% expect 3
    South West England 6 14% expect 2
    West Midlands 6 14% expect 2
    North West England 8 11% expect 2 or 3
    North East England 3 25% expect 1
    Yorkshire and the Humber 6 14% expect 2
    East Midlands 5 16% expect 2
    East of England 7 12% expect 2
    Northern Ireland 3 25% expect 0
    Scotland 6 14% expect 0
    Wales 4 20% expect 0

    About 20 MEP’s all told.

    In order to get a Party political broadcast etc they will need to field 600+ candidates but their best strategy is put the vast amount of their resources behind the winning twenty in England and to run the MEP’s in the twenty English constituencies where they got the most Euro votes.

    Between June 2014 and May 2015 they have a full year to flood those constituencies with literature paid for by the EU. THat and making a lot of noise in Brussels and getting it in the local press every week.

    A common theme of taking back our country pointed at not just the EU but the same tired old Parties ( yes shamelessly stealing the LibDems slogans and mantel).

    A pledge to only take the Euro salary and serve in Westminster for free would be good too… ”

    We pay enough for Europe now lets make Europe pay for us”

    I think avoiding a Prime candidate out with England would be best as a combination of the nationalist parties and lower general support outside England would make winning a seat highly unlikely.

    Again it might well be that targeting LibDem seats or where there was a history of large tactical voting to or by LibDems might also work.

    I still think winning any is unlikely but putting 90% of the effort into only 20 seats makes most sense.

    I dare say that there are better people than me who could probably list those one to two dozen target seats already.

    Peter.

  17. “I dare say that there are better people than me who could probably list those one to two dozen target seats already.”

    No idea, but I’ll take a stab at:

    Buckingham
    Witney
    Tatton
    Doncaster North
    Morley and Outwood
    Sheffield Hallam
    Twickenham

    That would be fun!

  18. @Old Nat

    I suspect that somewhere in the back of Lord Ashcroft’s brain there is a 1983 Billy Joel hit still playing… it might help to explain a couple of his bizarre descriptors:

    Labour mainly:
    “Downbeat Dependants”, one in seven of the population,
    “Liberal Idealists”, another one in seven,
    The “Entitlement Anxiety” segment accounts for more than a quarter of the population.

    Voting Tory: Just under a third of the population are “Optimistic Individualists”.

    “Suspicious Strivers” make up 15% of the population…they are the least likely of any group to identify with a political party, and have the highest UKIP vote – another symptom of their dissatisfaction with mainstream politics. The Tories won comfortably among Suspicious Strivers in 2010, but Labour are now ahead.

  19. BILLY BOB

    If Ashcroft is writing the script for ITV News – that explains a lot! :-)

  20. Apologies – I missed this mornings PMI date for the service sector for November.

    Like construction and manufacturing, this was poor and below expectations. At 50.2, the headline index shows as effectively stagnant. More worrying, both domestic and corporate customers were reported as reducing consumption, new orders were down, and backlogs of work declined for the second successive month. This suggests that it’s unlikely that December is going to jump out of the bag.

    The full November data is now confirmed as poor, with indications from all economic sectors that the next couple of months are unlikely to see improvements and are quite likely to see further falls. A negative Q4 GDP now looks increasingly likely, with some analysts suggesting a hefty 0.4% drop.

  21. ChrisL/OldNat

    Having seen that penalty decision, I think God has already blessed the Bhoys.

    (And for the record, there’s no sectarian malice there – I was brought up as a left-footer myself before I became a born-again atheist.)

  22. Oh wow

    ” . The FT just released a blockbuster that Europe’s most important and significant bank, Deutsche Bank, hid $12 billion in losses during the financial crisis, helping the bank avoid a government bail-out, according to three former bank employees who filed complaints to US regulators. US regulators, whose chief of enforcement currently was none other than the General Counsel of Deutsche Bank at the time!”

    The question is who else was doing it

  23. The answer is all of them

  24. Okay lets work on UKIP’s election plan as up to now they have been crap at it!

    Looking at the Euro regions and ruling out where ; The winner got over 40% a majority of over 5,000 and it was a straight Lab/Tory fight.

    Greater London.

    BRENTFORD AND ISLEWORTH

    Doesn’t make it on UKIP getting over 4% but Lab and Tory both on under 40% and nearly 25% LibDem.

    CARSHALTON AND WALLINGTON

    LibDems at over 40% and UKIP on just 3% but if the LibDems don’t recover.

    HAMPSTEAD AND KILBURN

    Three way marginal with all three even.

    HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN

    LibDem both over 40% and 5k majority but they will go down Labour second so it will be a target for them.

    KINGSTON AND SURBITON

    Again just out with criterion but a LibDem seat.

    and thats it for London. As I said unlikely to win any and London isn”t that strong for UKIP but one of those five would be the best target.

    I’ll look at other regions some other time.

    Peter.

  25. BILLY BOB

    Seems Ashcroft is also writing Mags Curran’s material! She is also talking about “shirkers” and “strivers”!

  26. OldNat ”Including revenue from G4 [sic] licensing (which hasn’t happened yet) in the current year’s figures certainly contributes to “surprisingly good numbers”

    RiN “That’s fraud, pure and simple”

    As a finance employee in a retail business, if I suggested in our forecasts/budgets that we exclude revenues in the remainder of our fiscal year from store sales, online sales, licensing royalties or wholesale because ‘they haven’t happened yet’ but included all the expenditure of our business even though ‘it hasn’t happened yet’, we’d have a pretty dire, and useless set of forecasts and projections. And so would any other business/entity in the world. Can’t really understand where either of you are coming from.

    As to ‘fraud’, perhaps you might be confusing Treasury forecasts with companies filing (backward-looking) accounts in which forward revenue has been booked……see Enron, amongst others.

  27. HOODED MAN

    I’m surprised that you are surprised as to where I was coming from.

    Alec had expressed surprise over this year’s figures. I gave a couple of examples of where specific “one-off” revenue sources had been included to produce that “surprise”.

    According to the reports I saw on BBC today, these monies are to be sensibly (if rather late) to be spent on infrastructure projects in future years.

    I doubt that you build your business model on a single year that you happen to realise one-off revenue. That helps to get you through a particular downturn, but isn’t sustainable.

    Alas that successive UK Governments chose to use the oil revenues to plug holes in current revenue streams!

  28. Seems Ashcroft is also writing Mags Curran’s material! She is also talking about “shirkers” and “strivers”!
    ———————–
    Oh, good grief…

  29. OldNat,

    4G revenues were not a “surprise”. The auction has been widely known for some time. The only surprise would have come from a rather optimistic forecast of the revenues. Given the size of the deficit, there will be as many, and probably more, “one-off” expenditure items in the current year. I’m not sure how much war, pestilence, famine or death are factored into the projections but you’d need a pretty visionary Chancellor to call them right too.

    We could all debate the ‘legacy’ or otherwise of North Sea oil revenues, and indeed the ownership. But as a natural resource and contributor to Treasury coffers since the 1970s it is not a “one-off”. Shame no-one in the past forty years has thought up or discovered a millennium Brent…..

  30. Hooded

    I misunderstood Oldnat, I thought he was suggesting that osborne was taking next years revenues and counting it in this year, but I doubt that he has underestimated the likely figure as would be prudent to do so

  31. @ Hooded Man

    Osborne is including 2013 forecast revenue (the auction will happen in 2013) as 2012 revenue.

    Enron included fictitious revenue, so not really an apt comparison.

    Xerox did something which is broadly similar to what GO is doing i.e. treated future income as if it had already been received; the SEC pursued Xerox for fraudulent reporting, fined them & made them restate their accounts.

    But I’ll also mention that governments can’t misstate their accounts per se because they are not required to comply with GAAP. However, if the government was a company, the way in which GO has treated the potential 4G income would not comply with GAAP.
    8-)

  32. @ RiN

    I misunderstood Oldnat, I thought he was suggesting that osborne was taking next years revenues and counting it in this year
    —————-
    No, you didn’t misunderstand; nor is Old Nat wrong. GO is doing what Old Nat said he is. Robert Peston picked it up right away. There’s £3.5Bn in there; GO is also including at least £11.5Bn of QE interest release as a deduction from 2012 debt according to RP.
    8-)

  33. HOODED MAN

    Why Alec was surprised is for him to answer.

    As to oil revenues, I wasn’t raising the question of “ownership” – simply the incompetence of UK Governments in choosing to consider a non-renewable resource as something to be used for temporary electoral advantage rather than long term investment for the benefit of future generations.

    You choose to ignore the benefits of establishing a sovereign wealth fund. I’m sure that your grandchildren will bless your care for their future!

  34. @ Old Nat

    GO is ruminating about creating a Sovereign Wealth Fund. There are noises about it being a sort of PPFI2.

    Personally, I think it will be where the QE ‘assets’ get stashed. GO simply can’t get away with cancelling them because ‘he’ created them. He does not want an incoming Labour government to get control of (could be) £500Bn of ‘free’ money either.

    But when the world is in dire straits & everybody is screaming for infrastructure investment to rebalance the economy, how can he lock up the QE in 100 year bonds & kick the can down the road for inflation to render it worthless? That would be unconscionable.

    In addition to the QE, there is the RBS etc. GO does not want Labour to get their hands on that lever either. But he can’t see a sell off being possible without unacceptable losses; a give-away to the public of RBS shares would be politically risky & economically dangerous.

    So, IMO, all of these assets may go into a sovereign wealth fund. Politicians won’t be able to do stuff with the fund unless all sorts of conditions are met & the approval of quasi-independent trustees is obtained. You know the sort of thing.
    8-)

  35. Amber

    I had noted some talk of GO doing some sort of sovereign wealth thingy.

    Your speculation sounds the kind of thing he might consider. :-(

  36. Amber

    Of course, with another royal wean (or more) on the way, GO might decide to just expand idea of the using Crown Estate revenues to provide a literal “sovereign” wealth fund! :-(

  37. No-one seems to have mentioned yet, that the OBR’s forecast of negative GDP growth for 2012 implies that 2012Q4 is going to see GDP shrink by 0.4%. And that’s without factoring in the OBR’s record of being hopelessly optimistic.

    It’s looking far from unlikely that the UK will experience its first ever triple-dip recession. Could the Tories recover from something so unprecedented?

    (Not that I think they have a prayer anyway.)

  38. Dunno if anyone’s already mentioned it but on the issue of possible libdem bounce/Tory decline in VI there’s this poll on the green energy thing

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/05/public-opposed-osborne-anti-green

    “The poll found that 54 per cent of the public and 53 per cent of likely Tory voters agree “we can save the planet and the economy both at the same time by investing in green technologies”, compared to 29 per cent of the public and 32 per cent of Tory voters who think environmental protection is unaffordable in tough economic times.

    In a boost to the renewables industry, 57 per cent of the public and 53 per cent of Tory voters said the UK should commit to generating most of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 with just a tenth of respondents opposing the idea. The findings echo a series of recent surveys that have consistently shown around 60 per cent of the public support increased investment in renewable energy and favour renewables over fossil fuels.”

  39. Ok. It’s late and I’ve been working hard into the night.

    But I’ve watched and re-watched the comments from both sides following the AS and a strong analogy has come to mind.

    Labour spokesfolk unable to utter any word that might indicate any admission of error in the last administration (if Rachel Reeves really is the rising star then God help us).

    Tories, ditto vis-a-vis the current administration (to the extent that the party line – Redwood & Javid on PM particularly come to mind – seemed positively Panglossian).

    Then I recalled 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    HAL the computer, eventually going berserk from the stress of peddling a line that he/she/it knows to be economical with the truth.

    And it leaves me wondering about the mental health of our leaders. The stress of constantly having to keep up a media face that admits no error.

    When and where do they get the chance to bare their intellectual vulnerabilities? To discuss, frankly, the alternatives to their dearly held beliefs? To consider apostastic ideas without Paxman asking them why they shouldn’t be considered lower than vermin for even thinking about changing their minds? And how they consider alternatives without running the risk of tomorrow’s headlines screaming “U-TURN!!!”

    Every once in a while, when the situation is as bloody awful as it is right now, it’s worth putting aside thoughts of partisan advantage and considering whether the entire system is kaput.

  40. “Every once in a while, when the situation is as bloody awful as it is right now, it’s worth putting aside thoughts of partisan advantage and considering whether the entire system is kaput.”

    I agree. However, the MPs do not. The opposition will not change its position for fear of appearing to be wrong. The government will not change its position for fear of appearing to be wrong.

    Nor will many voters and their chosen party for that matter despite current or past events. If the Con, Lab and Lib voters had shifter en masse to other parties for good reasons (rather than for being the fresh thing on the menu during the leadership debates) we would have a mess anyway, but it would have been a new mess, rather than Lab, then Con, then Lab, then Con.

    Lib has hardly inspired either. Perhaps that’s why the voters are more disenchanted than ever.

  41. Yougov:
    Con 32 Lab 44 LD 9 UKIP 10
    :-)

  42. LEFTYLAMPTON
    You might add “A Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” to your source book: e.g. the official response to the imminent destruction of Earth to make way for the Celestial Motorway: well, you can’t complain – you should have read the public announcement.

  43. Tingedfringe… are you there….we need your analysis! :-)

  44. @ Billy Bob

    “Labour mainly:
    “Downbeat Dependants”, one in seven of the population,
    “Liberal Idealists”, another one in seven,
    The “Entitlement Anxiety” segment accounts for more than a quarter of the population.

    Voting Tory: Just under a third of the population are “Optimistic Individualists”.”

    I’m an optimistic individualist (I think….well I’m personally pessimistic but optimistic about everyone else) and I don’t think I’d be a Tory. But maybe this is why I don’t hate them and feel warmly towards some of their leaders. What is entitlement anxiety?

    Anyway, I am crestfallen after looking up individual precinct results in Los Angeles County. Obama lost every single precinct in the Beverly Hills flats as well as every single precinct in the north end (north of Sunset Boulevard) although he did carry the city overall. I will admit that I am surprised and I am somewhat disturbed. Saddenned as well.

    But not to worry. It wasn’t all bad (the President did better in LA County overall than he did in 08′). It’s strange but the precincts that surround those Romney precincts in Beverly Hills voted for Obama and overwhelmingly so. This includes Nancy Reagan’s precinct (covering Bel Air East Gate, Holmby Hills, and Beverly Glen Canyon which voted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a 69%-29% margin. The precinct also voted for Henry Waxman over Bill Bloomfield by a 68%-32% margin and voted for Diane Feinstein by a 75%-25% margin. Wonder who Nancy voted for.

    And to the south of Nancy Reagan’s precinct and also BH adjacent is the precinct covering Little Holmby and Holmby Hills, home to Petra Ecclestone, Hugh Heffner, and John Williams (among others….and no I am not stalking any one of these celebs). This precinct voted for Obama over Romney 58%-39%. This precinct voted 60%-40% for Waxman over Bloomfield and voted for Diane Feinstein by a 71%-29% margin.

    As for those downtown Los Angeles precincts you enjoy google mapping (the new Bunker Hill and elsewhere), they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, with the President receiving at least 80% of the vote (and outperforming downticket Dems) in just about every precinct I’ve looked at thus far. In some cases close to 90%.

    The precinct where the British consulate residence is located in Hancock Park voted 66%-33% for Obama over Romney. Also voted for Waxman over Bloomfield by a 64%-36% margin and voted 73%-27% over Diane Feinstein. So fear not, your Prince (and future supreme leader and overlord) and his wife, Princess Kate, were not forced to stay anyplace where they might be surrounded by Republicans.

    As I look through this odd assortment of precincts and their disparate and sometimes strange voting patterns, I’ve come to the following conclusion. Any voters who voted Romney-Waxman are basically American Likudniks. And any voters who voted Obama-Bloomfield are basically American Tories.

  45. @ Billy Bob

    http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/tobacco-fueled-ads-helped-tobacco-foe-waxman-win-reelection/

    Sometimes SuperPACs do really weird stuff. Like inexplicable stuff that even putting on my biggest conspiracy theorist hat I can’t really understand.

    This would be like someone challenging Alex Salmond for reelection, having a successful shot at it, and then having an anti-Independence group coming in and spending money in a stealth way to reelect Alex Salmond. No, no, even that is not a perfect analogy. It would be like unions stealthly spending money to prop up Maggie Thatcher if she was seriously challenged in Finchley.

    If you (or Old Nat or Amber) can offer your theories, I’d love to hear it.

  46. @Robin – that’s the same conclusion I came to, although I wasn’t certain if the ‘2012’ figures meant the calendar year or the financial year.

    @Carfrew – these are the kinds of poll results we tend to get with green leaning questions, but as ever, ask it another way and you’ll get another answer.

    You might be interested in this though – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9723731/Climate-change-funds-earmarked-for-Africa-are-going-to-corporations.html

    Although it’s a foreign aid story, it highlights the big error with climate change policies from both parties, and the capture of policy making by corporations. Efforts to promote renewables have rested almost exclusively on the commercial sector, or on the wealthier section of the public.

    If we are going to secure widespread support for these efforts, we really need to construct mechanism that give communities the chance to develop renewables, and in the domestic sector, target resources at lower income families.

  47. @SoCalLiberal

    Your last analogy (Union+Thatcher+Finchley) would make perfect sense for a Trotskyite faction. A revolution will only happen when the conditions are right. Paradoxically the conditions for revolution are weakened when workers gain incremental rights, because they become more aligned with the ruling class (that’s where the petit bourgeoisie come from, remember).

  48. Just been looking at the OBR figures in the Autumn Statement. Something sounds very not-right.

    They have consistently stated that the main factor behind our disappointing growth has been poor growth in EU economies. There is much to this argument of course, but it should be noted the EU growth has been 1-2% higher than our own over the last 2 years.

    They are now saying that in 13-15, the EU economy will grow by 0.0, 1.1 & 1.4%, whilst our own will grow by 1.2, 2.0 and 2.3%.

    I’ve missed something here. Where is the magic wand that has suddenly turned us round from lagging the EU performance, to leading it? And, specifically, where is our growth coming from if the EU is stagnating and we are continuing with fiscal consolidation?

  49. Sheep

    Aye. I lost any passing interest I might have had in far left politics when I was told by a Home Counties dwelling RWP member in the mid 80s that he voted for Thatcher because it was only by the workers’ plight being made worse that revolution would come. That, at a time when unemployment in my town was 28% didn’t do much to recommend revolutionary politics to me.

  50. @ The Sheep

    “Your last analogy (Union+Thatcher+Finchley) would make perfect sense for a Trotskyite faction. A revolution will only happen when the conditions are right. Paradoxically the conditions for revolution are weakened when workers gain incremental rights, because they become more aligned with the ruling class (that’s where the petit bourgeoisie come from, remember).”

    So you’re saying that the big American tobacco companies want increased tobacco regulations and restrictions in order to forment the right conditions for a revolution wherein the entire public decides they want to smoke?

    Not sure the analogy holds.

    My conspiracy theory is that this Bloomfield guy must have slept with the wife of one of these big tobacco company heads in a failed wife swapping attempt or miscommunication back in the 80’s. He must have invited the company head out to LA for some discussion on some big real estate deal and they all must have had dinner at Trader Vics, gotten stuffed on some spare ribs and Cheese Bings, discussed how great the Republican Party was, had a few too many Pina Coladas, and things must have somehow gone awry. Very awry. And that tobacco company head must have held a longterm grudge. “And now I’d like to do a scene from the movie raging bull. You f**k my wife?” I have absolutely zero evidence to suggest that any of this ever happenned. Well perhaps more than some of the birther theories and teabagger theories about election fraud by Acorn. But that’s the best my imagination can come up with.

    That or they accidentally donated the money by mistake or gave it away without realizing who it was going to.

1 4 5 6 7 8