Yesterday we had two polls conducted partially after the referendum announcement, from YouGov and TNS, neither of which showed any boost for the Conservatives. Today’s YouGov is the first conducted entirely after the referendum announcement and has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 43%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9% – so no obvious impact at all.

Personally speaking this is a slight surprise, while Europe is not an issue that particularly excites voters (even UKIP voters are actually driven more by things like immigration and the economy),  I thought a temporary boost from Cameron looking on top of things and the exceptionally good press coverage of the last few days was likely. In the event Cameron’s own ratings have indeed improved – YouGov repeated their leader attributes question yesterday and Cameron got his best ratings since last April,  with particular increases in strength and being good in a crisis. However these don’t appear to have translated into voting intention. Normal caveats apply, it is just one poll and others may paint a different picture, but so far the big gamechanging speech doesn’t appear to have changed public opinion much.

YouGov’s poll also asked voting intention in a referendum – the figures remain extremely close, 40% would vote to leave, 38% would vote to stay, confirming again the drastic narrowing in the lead of those wanting to leave since last year. Populus also had a poll out this morning in today’s Times which found almost identical figures – 40% saying leave, 37% saying stay.


235 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33, LAB 43, LD 10, UKIP 9”

1 3 4 5
  1. Colin

    Of course growth is not pre-destined. And yet, there is a remarkable consistency in our post-War real GDP growth. Despite recessions, wars, unions, deregulation, booms and slumps, commodity price shocks, joining the EEC, talking about leaving the EU, dot com bubbles, Barber booms and IMF bailouts, our real GDP growth never varied by more than a whisker from a consistent 2.1% rate between 1955 and 2008.

    It would be remarkable indeed if the fundamentals of our economic potential suddenly changed overnight.

    Report comment

  2. @ Colin, Alec

    @Colin – “Should have read more thoroughly.”

    That’s what I really like about you (or at least your online persona you create). There aren’t many people on here who choose to remember what they said previously if it turns out to be wrong, and fewer still who admit to it. Many posters carry on regardless, tying themselves up into ever tighter knots just trying to argue black is white merely to save face, rather than simply admit they called one wrong.
    ————
    Seconded! :-)

    Report comment

  3. I’m much more interested in China’s development of thorium nuclear power than their investment in shale gas. Will it really be safe efficient and have low waste levels?

    Report comment

  4. @Colin

    A very interesting if scary article which i must read in more detail. I particulary liked

    “In terms of solutions, the first imperative is surely a cultural change
    away from instant gratification, a change which, if it is not adopted willingly, will be enforced upon society anyway by the reversal of economic growth”.
    This lines up with my views on the unsustainability of the Welfare State as the Left want it.

    Report comment

  5. NICKP

    @”Soros seems convinced that the liquidity introduced to the system by printing will have to be removed or risk inflation and higher interest rates.”

    Well hallelujah !

    @”I am not so convinced. I’m not sure our Government think inflation is our enemy.”

    THey don’t -your right. And when Mr Carney gets stuck in , inflation targeting will essentially be abandoned.

    Some time in 2008 I remember GB having an exchange with DC in HoC. GB told DC ““Next year the problem is deflation and the problem of inflation close to zero.”

    Within months LIam Halligan was writing this in DT :-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/5066497/Its-time-to-admit-inflation-is-going-to-be-a-major-problem.html

    UK Politicians ( as opposed to German politicians ) don’t worry overmuch about inflation .
    It magics debt away, gives house owners the happy drug of imagined wealth-and only hits the silly sods who saved .

    And who cares about them?

    Report comment

  6. @colin – “…but not convinced that it is the damp squib you both seem to indicate either.”

    just to be clear, I don’t view shale gas as a minor thing. It’s just that I don’t think it will bring prices down. It will help ensure we can access energy, which helps prevent costs spiral, but it isn’t cheap energy.

    Your post also shows the real complexity of anything to do with energy policy. Shale gas is a dirty and environmentally dangerous process, but if it relieves pressure on oil extraction in places like the Arctic, there may be an environmental case to adopt some level of development of shale stores.

    Report comment

  7. Richard.

    Thanks .

    Thorium looks interesting-I see Norway has started a four year trial.

    Depressed to see who with -Westinghouse, now owned by Toshiba, to whom it was sold by the British Government ( BNFL) in 2006.

    When people rabbit on about “selling our gold”, I want to scream ” Westinghouse”.

    Report comment

  8. ALEC

    Thanks.

    Prices have come down. In USA , the price of natural gas dropped to a 10-year low last year, and although it has since recovered a little, at about $3.30 per million British thermal units it is still well below its peak above $13 in 2008.

    Re environmental factors, whilst they clearly register in EU ( with us & France for example) , they won’t in China-nor overmuch in USA I suspect.

    Cheap energy comes before clean energy, whether we like it or not.

    Ultimately mankind just wants the band waggon to keep on rolling.

    Report comment

  9. TOH

    Nothing new is happening

    Yes it IS!!!!

    Clegg criticizing govt policy. Ditto business, BJ, papers, IMF etc etc

    All of that is new – and significant. There is a general cry of enough is enough: sacking people has not helped and sacking more will make the hole deeper.

    Report comment

  10. @Paul

    It won’t make a jot of difference Osborne will continue with his policy. If it ultimately works then all the current cricism which has got you excited will mean nothing.

    Report comment

  11. “It won’t make a jot of difference Osborne will continue with his policy. If it ultimately works then all the current cricism which has got you excited will mean nothing.”

    I think you are wrong. It’ll be u-turn or get sacked well before 2015.

    Report comment

  12. Paul, TOH
    Whether it works or not, politically, Osborne can’t abandon his policy – and by tying himself so closely to the policy, Cameron can’t, politically, give Osborne the boot.

    The coalition government is tied together through a central economic tenet – expansionary fiscal contraction. And nothing short of a new election will change that.
    So the only ones who can change the policy is the LibDems abandoning the coalition (which they’ve ruled out), an internal Conservative party leadership coup.

    Ultimately it’s about who blinks first – and if the policy continues to fail in to 2014, I’d imagine some people will get nervous enough to try it.

    So TOH is right in that it won’t change anything in practical terms, even if it is more politically dangerous given the current widespread criticism.

    Report comment

  13. Osborne is not going to U-turn. He is going to have Mark Carney do it for him.

    Report comment

  14. “There is a general cry of enough is enough:”

    I wonder how long it will be before the Tory ‘Grandees’ tell DC and GO that they have have been allowed too much time to experiment in the playpen – and it’s time for a change of tack?

    Report comment

  15. I think Dave and George were hoping to emulate Tony and Gordon as an epoch shaping duo. Of course reshuffing chancellor’s has been common practice in the past, Maggie had a few, but after Gordon serving so long any change in chancellor will look unstable in the eyes of the public, I think that might factor highly in Dave considerations.

    Report comment

  16. @TINGEDFRINGE

    Exactly, he believes that his approach is right and he’s going to carry on with it.

    Report comment

  17. TOH

    Disagreeing with your “nothing is happening” because it fippin’ well is does NOT mean I am excited.

    I am as calm as a very calm person who has just nodded off and is having an amazingy calm dream.

    Report comment

  18. @TOH
    “Exactly, he believes that his approach is right and he’s going to carry on with it.”

    Reminds me of the saying :-
    “If at first you don’t succeed – then skydiving is not for you”

    Report comment

  19. “If at first you don’t succeed – then skydiving is not for you”

    ROFLOL – I hadn’t heard that one before!

    Report comment

  20. @OZWALD

    I don’t hear people saying “enough is enough” where I live. After all public spending is still increasing which makes makes nonesense of phrases like “savage cuts”.

    Report comment

  21. I’m much more interested in China’s development of thorium nuclear power than their investment in shale gas. Will it really be safe efficient and have low waste levels?

    -I might be wrong but I think development of Thorium reactors commenced 50 years ago in the USA Significant research is also being undertaken in Norway and India

    Thorium is available in far greater abundance than Uranium and is incapable of being weaponized. However, as it isn’t as fissile it needs an initial charge with a fissile material such as Plutonium.

    Once a reaction is under way Thorium actually creates more Thorium. Much of the Worlds supplies can be found Australia which has significant advantages in respect of regime stability and infrastructure as it is unlikely that Australia will be taken over by militant Jihadists or a dictatorship!

    Report comment

  22. TOH

    “I don’t hear people saying ‘enough is enough’ where I live”

    You surprise me.

    Report comment

  23. I agree with the other Howard.

    I have been quite well invested in the market recently as I trust the Tories on the economy and market confidence. Investments are going very well. If labour look like getting in, I am very nervouse of the tax and spend policies, and more precisely, with a likely debt of circa £1.4 trillion and circa £15 billion borrowing per month, where they think they are going to find money to increase spending, especially as interest rates on govt borrowing will almost certainly rise if labour get in.

    Therefore, I plan to cash out all investments late next year and take a watching brief.

    Report comment

  24. RICHO

    Pleased you’ve not been made redundant – despite your other worries that will cushion the blow a bit I imagine.

    Report comment

  25. and.. just back to the original Euro question, can somebody please explain from the labour camp what is actually wrong with democratically asking the electorate for their consent on ever greater European integration?
    I think the default Euro/Tony Blair position that the institutions of Europe are far too important to ask for the voters opinion is absurdly undemocratic and is more at home in Yes Prime Minister.

    ps: I think we should stay in, just to dispel the default assumption you might have!

    Report comment

  26. @ Richo

    …just back to the original Euro question, can somebody please explain from the labour camp what is actually wrong with democratically asking the electorate for their consent on ever greater European integration?
    ——————
    Greater European integration for the UK itself is already covered by referendum legislation, which Labour have said they intend to abide by.

    The proposed 2017 referendum is not predicated on greater European integration, it is centred on a Tory wish list of reversals to current position.

    Ed Miliband’s ‘No’ was to promising a referendum years before it will actually take place. Labour believes that the UK can get a better deal by supporting the Eurozone countries’ need for greater integration in exchange for their support on challenges which the UK is facing.

    Report comment

  27. RICHO

    Wot she sed

    Report comment

  28. Richo

    Labour will get the money from the same place that the present fiction is getting the money, from the BoE, there is unlimited amounts of money there

    Report comment

  29. Bloody keyboard fiction should read govt

    On second thoughts…………

    I think my phone has a sense of humor

    Report comment

  30. Amber: “Ed Miliband’s ‘No’ was to promising a referendum years before it will actually take place. Labour believes that the UK can get a better deal by supporting the Eurozone countries’ need for greater integration in exchange for their support on challenges which the UK is facing.”

    Is this your personal opinion or stated Labour policy? If the latter, then there are some noteworthy elements:

    1. Labour are openly advocating a two-speed Europe in which the UK will clearly be in a separate group to the EZ/pro-integration states. Surely, we don’t want the gap between them and us to widen any further…

    2. And what support would he be seeking with regards to the UK’s specific challenges, if not the rescinding of restrictive EU regulations?

    Report comment

  31. Good Evening All.
    Cold on the beach here; great run of 10K though.

    I think that Ed M is positioning Labour as the party totally committed to the EU.
    There will be a real choice, as there was in 1983.

    Report comment

  32. Paulcroft

    Do you mean people who are on the left saying enough is enough nothing new there.
    Enough is enough of what, the so called savage cuts (about 1% a year still has government borrowing going up faster than ever, maybe the flat lining of the economy which is still doing better than some of our European partners, even the mighty Germany’s economy has stalled this quarter.
    Nobody wants to be in recession but apart from borrowing even more I don’t see EB with any great idea’s and the public has even less faith in EM than DC which is saying something.
    Until unemployment begins to grow and it’s travelling in the opposite direction at the moment I think most people accept were in a period of stagnation which will continue until world/european trade picks up which we know will have precious little to do with any politician there only good apart from a little domestic tinkering at spending a country’s wealth not creating it.

    Report comment

  33. @ Steve2

    1. Labour are openly advocating a two-speed Europe in which the UK will clearly be in a separate group to the EZ/pro-integration states. Surely, we don’t want the gap between them and us to widen any further…
    —————–
    We currently have a 2-speed Europe; it happened when the UK opted out of the euro. For Labour to advocate joining the euro, there would have to be a quantum shift in the UK population’s attitude to the single currency.

    The EZ inner group will deal largely with their joint approach to monetary policy which won’t apply to non-euro countries so I’m not sure what your point is.
    —————–
    2. And what support would he be seeking with regards to the UK’s specific challenges, if not the rescinding of restrictive EU regulations?
    —————–
    EU wide policies targeting ‘full’ employment & commercial/ industrial policy addendums (these could be time-limited)which facilitate this aim during the current crisis.

    The US is leading the way by targeting sub-6.5% unemployment as an economic KPI.

    Report comment

  34. @Steve2

    For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Labour Party member & take a keen interest in the Party’s policies & positions but I certainly do not claim to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in any official capacity!

    Report comment

  35. New thread.

    I do claim to be Paul Croft’s deputy thread monitor. ;-)

    Report comment

1 3 4 5