This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 44%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 10%. I think we can now be pretty confident that the underlying Labour lead in YouGov’s daily polling has ticked up to twelve points or so, mostly it seems from a drop in Conservative support and increase in UKIP support – Labour’s own support remains pretty much unchanged.

The main driver of change here was presumably the positive publicity UKIP got from their strong performance in the recent by-elections, the Rotherham fostering row and the talk of a Conservative-UKIP row, an excellent week of news coverage for UKIP. Whether it will be sustained or will fade away again as the news agenda rolls on is a different matter.

(As a reminder, the vast majority of the fieldwork for this poll was completed before the Autumn statement. Tomorrow morning’s poll will be the first one conducted after the statement, though personally I wouldn’t expect any huge impact.)


144 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 44, LD 9, UKIP 10”

1 2 3
  1. I’m going to go on out on a limb here, and predict that the UKIP gain will not last, after those who switched away from conservatives find out a bit more about their new party. But that won’t mean they’ll move back to Conservative, but will instead switch to “don’t know” or “won’t vote”.

    The slow momentum seems to be against the Conservatives here. And GO has done little to help turn it around, and there seems to be no prospect now at all for a general standard of living increase in 2014.

    Report comment

  2. I think the odds against an election in 2014 must be shortening fast.

    Report comment

  3. @ Robin

    I’ll abide by the convention that discussions are not carried on from thread-to-thread: except to say:
    (1) I don’t think yr earlier egs. proved yr case; the last one probably did. (2) I am moving on to hyphens & then emoticons, a fatuous name for a fatuous practice.

    Report comment

  4. There is certain to be an Election in 2014 Mr. apostophre pedant, European Parliamentary elections.
    Personally, I doubt very much thet there will be a GE in 2014, time is the coalition parties biggest hope.

    Report comment

  5. “I think we can now be pretty confident that the underlying Labour lead in YouGov’s daily polling has ticked up to twelve points or so”

    Indeed. The MAD values are also up by 0.5% for Labour (down a touch for CON). As always they trail the recent polling, but the solid numbers are Lab 43/44 and Con 32/33.

    Report comment

  6. @Robbie

    :-)

    Report comment

  7. 15% tomorrow.

    Report comment

  8. I too think UKIP will drop back slightly but just because they will be out of the news over Christmas. Most of their support will be to busy over the festive season to look at their policies if they ever look at all.

    Much of that is in the hands of the Tories.

    Much like Labour in Scotland who seem to talk more about Independence than the SNP ( not that I am complaining) it’s Tories arguing amongst themselves about Europe and Immigration that keep UKIP centred issues in the news.

    However with the EU banking deal to be sorted before the end of the year and budget talks just after UKIP can expect lots of useful publicity for a few months yet.

    Given what we know about their supporters concerns the big issue for the rest of the year will be the emerging trend in net migration.

    I expect it to drop a bit or level off mostly down to the length of the recession, rather than government policy.

    Poland and much of Easter Europe is now growing faster than us!

    if the Tories can spin it as down to tough action then they may well take the wind out of UKIP’s sails before the Euros. That and a budget freeze.

    Peter.

    Report comment

  9. IMO, the LDs are in a dreadful mess politically. The Chancellor’s cuts to welfare fly in the face of empty claims made by LDs to protect the poor and tax the rich. They have also historically argued that they are preventing the worst excesses of a Tory government.

    The on-going and perhaps worsening problems in the economy rips away any hopes they have held that their electoral hopes would improve as the economy improved before the next GE.

    I almost feel sympathy for LD activists/supporters.

    Report comment

  10. Mike N,

    I pretty much agree with that. Far from me to give Labour election advice but I think the Election line should be.

    “The LibDems have achieved everything they wanted from the coalition… five years fat salaries and life long pensions for Nick, Danny and Vince”

    Peter.

    Report comment

  11. The next mandated election is on 7 May 2015.

    Or in other words, the Coalition have 28 months to turn the economy around, increase standards of living, and repair the rifts within their own parties.

    Time is a diminishing quantity.

    Report comment

  12. The Other Howard,
    ‘ “How was the huge debt brought down after 45? Answer by really really tough austerity! I remember those years well.”

    The austerity of the post-1945 was accompanied by significant economic growth during the transition from a war economy to more normal peacetime conditions. Policymakers relied heavily on direct controls – particularly rationing – and high direct taxation to prevent latent pent up demand from the war years feeding through into high inflation.Despite debt levels so much higher than today, no attempt was made to impose savage draconian cuts in public expenditure – indeed the period saw the creation of the NHS and the public ownership of many industries.. Perhaps the time has now come to consider reverting to the approach adopted by Stafford Cripps and Hugh Dalton!

    Report comment

  13. There is irony is there not in the claims from some (eg DC?) that the UK faces problems akin wartime…yet the economic solutions to a post war situation are not being applied.

    But like some in government I don’t understand economics.

    Report comment

  14. NICKP

    “I think the odds against an election in 2014 must be shortening fast”
    __________

    I doubt it very much due to the fact the Scottish Independence Referendum is being held on that year.

    In any case (unless the UK gov falls to bits) I don’t see the need for a 2014 election just because Labour are ahead in the polls!!

    Need to get used to being in opposition for 4 more years I’m afraid cookie!!

    Report comment

  15. In my humble opinion it is nothing like the post war period.

    The fundamentals we face are a global economy where skilled labour is going to be cheaper for decades in other parts of the world and where it is so much easier and less risky to have all manner of manufacturing and services performed in emerging economies than it is in Britain. When you add on that free trade has allowed multi nationals to channel their taxable profits to wherever they want them to go we have a double whammy where we do not have the jobs and we do not even have the tax income from profits made in this country.

    We also have an ageing population requiring more care and the answer has been a combination of providing incentives to have children and immigration which just pushes things on to the next generation of even more elderly requiring even more people to provide care and ‘pay for the pensions’.

    Report comment

  16. I know cross breaks come with a bigger health warning than eating raw chicken but UKIP on 9% in Scotland?

    STATGEEK get that into your savoury pie charts. ;)

    Report comment

  17. Interesting point raised by MS on PB, UKIP are averaging 16/17% amongst the over 60’s the age group most likely to vote and least likely to change their minds. If true that could mean that UKIP will have an effect above their polling average?

    Report comment

  18. @Alec

    Thanks for the link to the Telegraph article on green energy funding being captured by corporations. Sobering stuff. An unfortunate by-product of these corporate shennanigans is that if one debates climate change with people across the pond, then there is no shortage of people who see climate change as little more than a corporate scam designed to line a few pockets. But then they’ve got that whole Ayn Rand thing going on. ..

    We don’t see so much concern about it over here, but debate with people across the pond and many also

    Report comment

  19. I predict UKIP support will remain stable or rise, as the Tories become less and less credible and people look for an alternative on the right.
    In 2015, the political landscape will look much as it does now, with UKIP a little higher, the Tories a little lower, Lib Dems and Labour about where they are now.

    Report comment

  20. (Oops, soz about that last line going rogue. Editing, error, tablet issues, usual thing. ..)

    Report comment

  21. UKIP will gain prominence with the 2014 Euro-elections, and earlier if there happens to be a bye-election in a safe Cons seat, something that has not happened for years. UKIP have been starved of the kind of luck they need to achieve a mindboggling result, but when they get that there could be a bandwagon effect with huge consequences.

    Report comment

  22. We can put to bed the debate that has been raging here in the past…

    In a letter response to a House of Lords committee inquiry, the EU Commission have drafted the following response.

    “If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.”

    The remaining UK would be considered the sole successor state by the EU. Scotland would become a ‘third party country’ with no formal ties to Europe, and would have to apply for admission and follow the same path required for all new entrants, and be at the back of the queue.

    To sum up, a Yes vote in Scotland would also be a vote to exit the EU, with all economic consequences that entails.

    http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/scottish-independence-separate-scotland-must-apply-to-join-eu-warns-brussels-1-2677200

    Report comment

  23. JAYBLANC

    Except that “President Barroso has been invited to contribute to the House of Lords inquiry on the economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence. The President has not yet replied.

    “The Commission position is well known and set out in the series of responses given to European parliamentary questions. The Commission has been very clear that we do not comment on specific situations but can only give a view in general”.

    He added: “So to be clear – no reply has been decided or sent by the President yet so the Scotsman story is incorrect.”

    Report comment

  24. “To sum up, a Yes vote in Scotland would also be a vote to exit the EU, with all economic consequences that entails.”

    …and all economic benefits that entails too, if applicable.

    Report comment

  25. JAYBLANK

    I went to read the article which you kindly provided a link to and saw the name “David Maddox” at the top of it.

    I’m sorry but the guy has about as much credibility as Pinocchio and therefore I never read anything the guy scribbles.

    Report comment

  26. Jay

    ” “If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.””

    Ah but that’s the rub, is Scotland a territory of England or a state in a union with others. If the first then its clear that Scotland would have to renegotiate entry to the EU, but if its the second then either both parts will have to renegotiate or neither. In practice we know that both successor state with have to renegotiate their relationship with Europe anyway however its judged. One thing that is certain is that if the Scots really want to make sure of a secure place in Europe then they must vote for independence, as that is the only guarantee of continued EU membership. I wonder if the announcement of a definitive in/out ref is being delayed until after the independence vote, it would not surprise me in the least if the EU ref is announced the week after the Scots vote, if it should fail. Of course the Tories won’t use it as an election gambit if Scotland with its labour mps leave, as they would fancy their chances of a least a hung parliament

    Report comment

  27. ‘the positive publicity UKIP got from their strong performance in the recent by-elections,’

    If you compare the results for the Rotherham by-election with the 2010 election, you’ll notice that the results for the BNP and UKIP have been reversed, it’s similar for other by-election results, makes me think that UKIP are picking up a lot of their votes from disgruntled BNP voters, rather than disgruntled Tories, could be of course that a minority of right wing Tories vote for the far right when they think that the Tories have no hope of winning the seat.

    Report comment

  28. “If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.”

    Not really got a problem with that it’s fairly clear.

    The remaining UK would be considered the sole successor state by the EU.

    Again that is fine and okay.

    Scotland would become a ‘third party country’ with no formal ties to Europe and would have to apply for admission.

    More or less although quite clearly after 30 years in the EU we would have a whole series of formal ties not least compliance with all EU legislation and compatible procedures.

    and follow the same path required for all new entrants

    Not really; given the above a large amount of the work needed for compliance would already have been done and that is what takes the time.

    and be at the back of the queue.

    That part is just nonsense, we would reapply and renegotiate but it would be in parallel to the UK negotiations between a Yes in 2014 and formal Independence in 2016.

    I couldn’t be more relaxed if I was made of rubber.

    Peter.

    Report comment

  29. Will we get the mythical, mystical, never seen before…
    C 30 L 45 LD 10 tommorrow? :-)

    Report comment

  30. andyo

    yes we cam.

    [lol]

    Report comment

  31. @Paul

    Yeah, soz about that. Still, being positive, at least I can do the apostrophe thing!!

    Regarding UKIP’s rise, and how soft their support may be, which I saw debated on here a little while back, did anyone mention party membership? Coz LibDemz are polling similar to UKIP, but have around three times more membership than UKIP from some figures I saw recently. How much of a difference will that make in practice?

    Also, on media exposure, to what extent is it a bit chicken-and-egg? Doing better in the elections RESULTS in more media exposure. Which results in a further polling boost.

    I wonder how big a deal exposure is at times. Not denying there’s an effect, but more exposure for the LibDemz once in government did not seem to advance their polling prospects, to put it mildly. ..

    Report comment

  32. @Paul Croft

    I think what Allan means is that the Scotsman is…well check the political alignment:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scotsman

    Report comment

  33. ANDYO
    Will we get the mythical, mystical, never seen before…
    C 30 L 45 LD 10 tommorrow?

    ————————————

    Retired babyboomers were mostly spared again. What proportion of the Conservative vote are they? Many conservative measures do not, it seems, fall hard on many of their core?

    Report comment

  34. Imagine you are an undecided Scot and think how you might react to 2 approaches from the RUK part of the No Camp.

    1) You are breaking away from the UK so you will lose your EU membership and it might take you years to get back in as an independeny Scotland so vote NO.

    2) The legal position is unclear as there is no precedent. I am campaigning for a no vote but if Scotland votes for independence then we should repect that and help them retain EU status if that is what they wish as regardless of possible legal constraints the EU member ship is a joint position held by all parts of the current UK.

    Also RUK woud want its nearest neighbour to be in the EU.

    IMO – answe 1 would wind me up pushing me towards Yes while answer 2 would improve my repspect for the RUK no campaiger.

    In short I hope the NO campaign are grown up about this.

    Report comment

  35. Err.. since I posted in the wrong thread (oops) –

    “Tingedfringe… are you there….we need your analysis! ”
    Simple – nothing has changed.. err.. perhaps a little more?
    Labour seems to be up slightly, LibDems and UKIP up slightly and Tories slightly down.
    Wait and see if this persists.

    And on the ‘We need to always run a surplus! We need to cut spending to X% of GDP!’ and ‘We can run a deficit! We need to increase spending to X% of GDP!’

    I always find these discussions interesting because those with capitalist or conservative politics favour lower spending [1] (always to some arbitrary % of GDP[2]) and those with socialist or social democratic politics favour higher spending (always to some arbitrary % of GDP[2]).
    And both sides are always able to find evidence that supports their side (and always their side).

    It’s almost like there’s a link between ideology and someone’s ‘objective’ view of reality.
    Of course, those who have the ‘objective’ view of reality will argue that their ideology is based on reality as it’s the other side that is delusional.

    That isn’t always to say that those who’re ideological aren’t concious of their ideology.

    There are plenty of small-state ideologues who believe that Keynesian spending works, or large-state ideologues who believe in the laffer curve but just don’t care.

    You can see this in polling – when people are asked about the rich paying more tax, plenty say that it is a moral obligation for the rich to pay a higher % even if it doesn’t bring in any more revenue.

    In September 2011 (VI Con 38, Lab 41, LD 9) this was 42% of people who thought it was morally right vs 45% who believed that high taxes should be abolished if they don’t bring in higher revenues.
    Both Labour and LibDem voters had majorities supporting higher rates as a moral imperative.

    [1] Atleast in the case of capitalist ideology. It becomes a lot more complex with dealing with conservative ideology.
    UKIP and Republicans both favour lower spending.. except military spending and any other conservative ‘pet projects’, even when it’s a higher % of GDP than any comparable western country.
    [2] And the reason for the arbitrary figure is never explained – nor where the money is going to be saved/spent.
    If 45%, why not 50%? If 30%, why not 25%? etc

    Report comment

  36. I don’t see this government going before 2015. I think it will hang on to the bitter end. George wondering why his austerity plan did not work. Dave trying for eu-veto like poll bounces. Nick like a rabbit caught in the headlights trying to judge the optimal time to jump ship.
    Five year terms always seem to end badly (mired in splits and sleaze) … recall the last year of Mr Majors Government (or even Gordon hanging on too long till 2010) Just a thought….. :-)

    Report comment

  37. @OldNat

    “He added: “So to be clear – no reply has been decided or sent by the President yet so the Scotsman story is incorrect.””

    I will remind you of what I said, and what the article said. A *DRAFT* letter. No, the formal response hasn’t been made, but the draft of it was leaked.

    I note that your quoted rebuttal does not counter the claim of what the draft response was, but merely state that they haven’t given the formal response yet. I also note that the draft as quoted by the Scotsman, was phrased in generalist terms without specifying Scotland, that made it clear that Scotland would be required to apply as a newly independent state external to the EU.

    This is *exactly the same* as the legal advice that Downing Street announced they had received on November 1st.

    I would however be interested in any legal opinions being produced, or statements from the EU commission saying that Scotland would receive automatic or even fast-track entry. However, I regret I can not accept Alex Salmond’s bold statement that Scotland would of course remain a part of the EU, as it is apparently based on the SNP taking no legal advice on the matter what so ever.

    I also note that any entry to the EU would only be possible at all after Scotland has a stable and settled government post independence. The idea that a newly established country would be granted a Finland like ‘fast track’ entry is absurd, when the institutions and practices that the EU will expect them to have are still finding their feet. In fact, I suspect that portions on the right of the SNP would still like to over turn current equality laws, and doing so would certainly call into question any EU Accession.

    Report comment

  38. @Peter Cairns

    “we would reapply and renegotiate” etc

    You’re in danger of presuming that Scots would want Scotland to rejoin. Rather than take their views for granted, surely there should be a further referendum first.

    What would be the wording in such a referendum on Scottish EU membership? Perhaps something along the lines of “Do you agree that Scotland should not be an independent country?”

    Report comment

  39. @GRAHAM

    What draconian cuts, I cannot see any. Goverment spending continues to increase which is my main argument with this government.

    Report comment

  40. STATGEEK

    PAULCROFT was ticking me off on another comment lol.

    “Political alignment” ref the Scotsman….Yes well highlighted on the Wiki page and one can see where the biased reporting from Monsieur Maddox starts to manifest from.

    Report comment

  41. Nigel Farage called, ‘ the biggest waste of money in Europe’ by fellow member in Euro tirade. Good fun to watch rant, check it out on Huffington post. :-)

    Report comment

  42. @Colin
    I was interested to hear you live in East Sussex. I’ve been here in Brighton 25 years now, though I still think of Lincolnshire — where I was born and brought up as home. However, no matter how crap I’m feeling on the way to work in the morning, I just look left and see the sea, and it makes me happy, and I do feel part of this place now. :-)

    Report comment

  43. @The Other Howard

    ‘what draconian cuts….’
    If you can’t see them where you are, come and spend a day with me on the front-line of Mental Health Services — cut to the bone… :-(

    Report comment

  44. Allan/Carfrew:

    ta for your light-hearted responses to my light`-hearted responses to your original posts.

    Sadly they make little sense as, once again, they have been regarded as beyond the pale and been disappeared. I can only assume Anthony was protecting you from my awful abuse – which is nice.

    soz about that.

    By the way, did you know that NO-ONE who closes a letter with LOL or ROFL has EVER been found larfing out loud OR rolling on the floor so, as young people say, what’s all that about?

    Is Anthony American by the way??

    ROFLMAO

    FA

    Report comment

  45. Phil,

    “You’re in danger of presuming that Scots would want Scotland to rejoin. Rather than take their views for granted, surely there should be a further referendum first.”

    As with the UK it might depend on the Terms,

    I think a better deal on fishing the same open borders with the Uk as Ireland and joining the Euro eventually when eventually is when we want would get approval.

    I think Euro now border posts and less fish would struggle.

    As to a referendum that is where we differ, as Scotland has a proportional Parliament, a strong yes vote would represent a majority of the publics representatives.

    Equally a strong call for a referendum would unlike Westminster would be all but impossible for even a majority government to oppose.

    “Do you agree that Scotland should not be an independent country?”

    No as I said in a previous thread I would go for the same question as Boris has suggested.

    “Do you agree to membership of the EU as renegotiated”

    Jay,

    ‘The idea that a newly established country would be granted a Finland like ‘fast track’ entry is absurd”

    As I said before what is absurd is to try to pretend that Scotland hasn’t been in the EU for thirty years.

    Peter.

    Report comment

  46. JAYBLANC

    Unfortunately, your original post started off with “We can put to bed the debate that has been raging here in the past”

    Since whatever Barroso writes will simply reiterate the EU’s statements from the past, the situation remains as was. (EU have said that they will only respond to specific possibilities when asked to do so by the government of a member state).

    It’s never wise to take an article from the Scotsman as gospel on anything!

    Report comment

  47. AndyO

    I agree re election: the worse it gets for the coalition the more impossible it becomes for them to go early.

    Worth a flutter on them going the full course and anyway all the major figures, Clegg, Ming, Ginger R [forgotten his name] and Cable were all on TV saying it was a fair and balanced budget so there is no room for any tactical retreat on their part.

    ROFL

    Report comment

  48. @tinged

    I always find these discussions interesting because those with capitalist or conservative politics favour lower spending [1] (always to some arbitrary % of GDP[2]) and those with socialist or social democratic politics favour higher spending (always to some arbitrary GDP[2]).
    And both sides are always able to find evidence that supports their side (and always their side).

    —————————————-

    If you have a non-partisan view, one of the benefits is that you get to debate both sides of the coin and hence explore the different viewpoints. Indeed it’s a big part of the reason for doing it, because on the whole being non-partisan is not much fun. Sounds like a good thing to aim for but in practice it tends to mean that EVERYONE – right and left etc. – thinks you’re partisan.

    It’s a bit like being the BBC!!

    What I find is that economic debates are coloured by disagreement over fundamentals such as:

    1) A disagreement over the worth of government investment. With the right tending to see it as not being as worthwhile as the left

    2) A disagreement over, in effect, human nature. With the right tending to be less enthusiastic over assistance given to the less well-off. To the left it’s a necessary helping hand, to the right it kills off striving and initiative

    3) A disagreement over one of your specialist areas – property. The right will say they should keep their money to spend how they see fit because it’s theirs and often established in law. Others will say it’s a stacked deck and keeping the money stacks it further and anyway they make the money with the support of others. The right will also point out taking it off them kills incentive which takes us back to point two.

    4) a disagreement over the virtues of competition versus Co-operation.

    And so on. Your spending example relates to both points one and two. I don’t think the left are for more spending per se, nor the right always for less. For many years the left were not as keen as the right to spend on nuclear subs and stuff…

    We saw an example of all this in the previous thread, over the aggregate demand thing. The left pointed out that in terms of aggregate demand, there’s not much difference in the Autumn statement. If you shift money from civil servants’ wages to construction wages, you’re still getting the same amount of money going into the economy.

    But then Col says that surely BEYOND that, it still matters how the money is spent? Is the value added by a construction worker more than a civil servant in procurement? After you have taken their wages going into the ecinomy into account. And he’s right about that and I don’t think it received a satisfactory answer. It’s critical to many debates. What is the best way to spend the money.

    Report comment

  49. PAULCROFT

    On the subject of “lol” David Cameron used to sign off his text messages to (that naughty female) with lol.

    So in the David Cameron spirit..

    Lots of Love X ;)

    Report comment

1 2 3