This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 42%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 9% – tables are here. This follows on from a ten point Labour lead yesterday, so with the referedum boost gone, it looks like we are settling back into the familiar pattern of modest double figures for Labour.


97 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 42, LD 12, UKIP 9”

1 2
  1. I can’t understand why some of you are writing about a threeway in Eastleigh and then a fourway if NHA join in.

    Has UKIP decided not to stand?

    Report comment

  2. Re Niel As point.

    Can someone who knows tell me are there not 2 seperate things.

    Unlawful dismissal which can not be waived and unfair dismissal which can be if this proposal is enacted.

    So discrimantion law (sex, race disability) over-rides any waivers?

    Report comment

  3. The Yougov Labour lead is now officially back to around 10 or 11 points again, and the speech bounce ended very quickly.

    The Libs also seem up slightly on 6 months/a year ago – they seem to be regularly scoring 10-12% with Yougov now. Is this a result of their more recent push to promote themselves as different to the Tories, or is it merely the, perhaps, inevitable (slight) unwinding of diabolical polling numbers?

    Psephologically speaking, the GE in 2015 will make for fascinating viewing!!

    Report comment

  4. @ JimJam

    Unlawful dismissal which can not be waived and unfair dismissal which can be if this proposal is enacted.
    ————–
    They are indeed two separate things. That is why I mentioned ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal in my comment @ Adam.

    Unlawful dismissal applies from the first day of employment; an individual cannot ‘opt out’ of having these rights, even in exchange for a payment.

    Report comment

  5. JimJam

    There’s Wrongful Dismissal, which is failure to give notice due either under contract or under statute. It can be rectified by paying the notice wages. Up to 1960-somethiung that’s all there was.

    Then there’s Unfair Dismissal which is dismissal either without one of 5 specified statutory fair reasons or, even if there is a fair reason, where the dismissal was not “reasonable” [which in effect means the employer did not follow various procedures designed to check that the fair reason applied and was serious enough to warrant dismissal rather than other disciplinary action.

    But to complicate things a whole load of other reasons for dismissal are “automatically” unfair, mainly if the dismissal is directly or indirectly for discrimination relating to sex, race, religion, sexuality or disability. As you’ll see that list has grown a lot since 1974! There can also be damages for discrimination under those headings that falls short of dismissal.

    It is a bit of a minefield for the honest employer who just wants to get on with their business, but equally so for the decent employee who finds themselves employed by a rip-off merchant. As a lawyer it is much much easier to win if you represent the employer but then the poor sap has to pay you.

    Report comment

  6. @R Huckle

    “No, I think Ashcrofts Eastleigh poll will show this.

    Lib Dem 33%
    Tory 30%
    Labour 22%
    UKIP 13%”
    _____________________________

    I think the LDs will be a bit below that and Con and Lab a bit above, although not by much (yet). But even if you’re right, a poll along those lines would be enough to establish the seat as a three way rather than a two way contest in terms of the wider media narrative. And so Labour could get a bit of momentum even from 22%, if a few more LD tactical voters are induced to switch back.

    That said, I remain somewhat reluctant to take Ashcroft’s polls at face value in this sort of context. It’s not as though he doesn’t have an agenda. As it’s a non-standard poll, there might be a few issues over the precise methodology Populus use. And I wonder just how much leverage Ashcroft exerts in all that?

    Report comment

  7. @Amber Star
    1. the last government reduced to qualifying period from 2 years to 6 months for Unfair Dismissal, though your partly right in that its still 2 years for a redundancy payment
    2. I quite agree that a business can legally reduce the workforce either through redundancy or “necessary business reasons” under the “some other substantially fair reason” catch-all. But to avoid an ET claim they still need to follow correct procedures to avoid a claim under the “reasonableness” leg and they also need to make sure they have not discriminated, even indirectly. And even the most feeble ET claim can be time consuming to defend. At very least you need to pay legal expenses insurance. And for the small-scale employer it can actually be emotionally traumatising

    If you are a big firm it shouldn’t be a problem. But if you were an IT geek with a great new idea for a product, would you really want to bother with this?

    Report comment

  8. Adam and Amber, thanks much clearer now.

    Report comment

  9. Another fruitless day trying to get the badgers to appreciate nut loaf. They don’t look good in sandals either. I’m feel very demotivated at present.

    On a brighter note, Gove has taken a bit of flak today. I think he’s done quite well with the changes announced, but it still looks like something of a climb down and a poorly executed bit of governance from one of the more successful cabinet managers. Along with last weeks reports of some of his advisers allegedly going off piste with their twitter account, his personal stock seems to have taken a bit of a hit.

    Report comment

  10. Labour surely needs to fight Eastleigh as the ‘Anti Coalition’ party.It’s likely to be the most effective way of detaching left of centre LibDems who voted LD in elections there since the 1994 byelection.. The tactical labour voters who went LibDem in 2010 can be expected to return – but that would probably only get Labour back to the low 20s – they need a bit more than that including people who voted LD in 94.

    Report comment

  11. From the Graun:

    “The poll shows the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 31% and Labour on 19%. The UK Independence party (Ukip) is fourth with 13%. The figures reveal a 16-point fall in the Lib Dem vote since the 2010 general election, and nine-point rises for both Labour and Ukip.”

    Report comment

  12. h ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/07/eastleigh-byelection-conservatives-liberal-democrats

    Report comment

  13. @ Adam

    If you are a big firm it shouldn’t be a problem. But if you were an IT geek with a great new idea for a product, would you really want to bother with this?
    —————-
    For an IT geek, employment law is a breeze compared to intellectual property rights law.

    I think your point is perhaps a better fit with e.g. A person who offers a low-tech service e.g. cleaning, laundry, book-keeping, consultancy etc. They are usually deterred from hiring outside their immediate family & friends for many reasons not just the possibility of tribunals – but it can be yet another consideration amongst all the others.

    However, back to Osborne’s shares for rights scheme: IMO, Such start-up companies have more risk of being sued if they hand out shares in exchange for employment rights than their risk of being taken to an employment tribunal! Their shares are unlikely to be traded, so presumably a buy-back policy will need to be in place to induce the employee to take up the offer. I am sure, as a lawyer, you are no stranger to the protracted legal bickering which disputed share valuations engender!

    Report comment

  14. The previous Ashcroft for Eastleigh (August 2010) showed
    Con 43%, Lab 20%, LD 31% UKIP 4%

    The nearest Populus (Sept 2010):
    Con 39%, Lab 37%, LD 14%, Others 10%
    (YouGov etc were putting UKIP on ~3%)

    Populus (Dec 2012)
    Con 29%, Lab 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 11%

    If you could extrapolate a national trend you might get something like:

    Con 32%, LD 24%, Lab 22%, UKIP 15%…

    compared to the very latest Ashcroft poll reported as:

    Con 34%, LD 31%, Lab 19%, UKIP 13%.

    Report comment

  15. With changes since Election -
    Con 34 (-5), Lab 19 (+9), Lib 31 (-16), UKIP 13 (+9)

    Changes since Aug 2010 Ashcroft poll -
    Con 34 (-8), Lab 19 (-2), Lib 31 (nc)

    Report comment

  16. err.. since I can’t read/count -
    Changes since Aug 2010 Ashcroft poll -
    Con 34 (-9), Lab 19 (-1), Lib 31 (nc)

    Report comment

  17. I thin worrying for Labour is that the Conservatoire have only lost 13% of their 2010 vote according to the Eastleigh poll…

    Report comment

  18. So Cons have to run on ‘Vote UKIP, get Liberal’ and Libs have to run on ‘Vote Labour, get Conservative’ – tricky campaign given that they’re in coalition. ;)

    Report comment

  19. I think that poll wrecks any outside chances there were for Labour. Any gains they could make through canvassing they would probably lose more from the Lib Dems saying it’s a two horse race.

    What will be interesting now is to see if Lib Dems do sway any of those Labour voters to vote tactically. If they don’t then the Lib Dem prospects for 2015 look very grim.

    Report comment

  20. Alex – 13% of 37% is around 4.8% meaning 32+% VI so is in line with current national polls, I think.

    Turnout will be key and whether the LDs can get any ABTs now saying Lab back.

    As I said a couple of days ago I reckon many will vote Lab this time as one MP makes little difference but in the GE could well come back to LD.

    If the LD candidate is popular locally and has been crtitical of their leadership on Tuition fees and a few other issues I may be proved wrong and the LDs get enough Lab supporters to hold on.

    Report comment

  21. Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB

    First #Eastleigh polls has CON winning by 3%. CON 34%, LD 31% LAB 19%. Ukip 13%. It was carried out for Lord Ashcroft.

    Report comment

  22. Eastleigh-Not irrecoverable for LD`s but tough fight with Cons as expected

    Report comment

  23. Mike Smithson ?@MSmithsonPB

    Ashcroft polling. In the final Ashroft Corby poll both LAB and CON were overstated by 6%. LDs were as polled and Ukip understated by 8.3%

    Report comment

  24. Interesting decision by BoE on QE today.

    On March 7th the first maturity of gilts held under the Asset Purchase Programme ( QE) occurrs.

    £6.1 billion will be repaid by the Treasury to the holder on that day-in this instance BoE.

    If things were left there, BoE would take £6.1 billion out of circulation, easing the overall QE total down to £369 bn & signalling tightening of monetary policy.

    BoE has announced today that it will re-invest funds from 9th March maturities, thus maintaining -but not increasing the total monetary stimulus under QE.

    Taken together with BoE’s decision today not to increase QE beyond £375bn , this signals steady as we go on monetary stimulus.

    Mark Carney, the next BoE Governor was grilled by Treasury Select Committee today & commented:
    “The flexible inflation-targeting framework should remain broadly in place, but details need to be reviewed and could be changed,” “The bar for change is very high but review and debate can be positive”.

    This sounds a little softer on the prospect of abandoning inflation targets & adopting nominal gdp targets -an idea Carney has been strongly associated with.

    Report comment

  25. On the Ashcroft numbers LD could sneak it.

    It will be one helluva fight between Cons & LibDems

    Report comment

  26. Guardian article ‘removed because of broken embargo’ tut tut!

    Report comment

  27. Ain’t no embargoes here!

    Report comment

  28. Although I assume there are, in which case: please don’t ban me, Mr Wells.

    Report comment

  29. No one sent me an embargoed copy, so it doesn’t apply here

    Report comment

  30. PhilHaines

    I cannot imagine Populus being prepared to adopt anything from Ashcroft that was interference in their professional standards.

    Report comment

  31. Alec

    And yet Gove is still quoted by the bookies as 2nd favourite behind Boris to replace DC.

    It’s interesting that Gove doesn’t seem to have been wounded by a number of what ought to have been quite humiliating U-turns. At least 2 of them (the school re-building list in July 10 and today’s) were due to Gove’s firing off a decision before proper checking or consultation had been carried out. Once is unfortunate. Twice begins to seem like a personality disorder.

    But perhaps the air of certainty that his every word carries perhaps counts for more in his overall public image than the simple, boring, day-to-day competence of getting your facts straight.

    Report comment

  32. IDS’ open letter to EM on HB is a humdinger.

    Hope it gets wider circulation than the Spectator

    Report comment

  33. Katie makes the point that the final Populus poll for Corby had the front runners (Corby leaders were Labour & Tory) over-stated by +6 points each.

    So, it will be interesting to see the tables & pore over any adjustments made e.g. do the headline figures only include people who say that they are certain to vote?

    Report comment

  34. @Lefty

    “But perhaps the air of certainty that his every word carries perhaps counts for more in his overall public image than the simple, boring, day-to-day competence of getting your facts straight.”

    I think that’s part of it. He comes across as someone who either knows what he’s about, or someone who will try to know.

    Whether that’s the case remains to be seen, but he’s one of the better ministers I’ve listened to in the past couple of decades (albeit, his department does not affect me).

    Report comment

  35. @Graham

    “Labour surely needs to fight Eastleigh as the ‘Anti Coalition’ party.”

    Wouldn’t that open them up to accusations of negative campaigning? Remember the Scottish Elections.

    Report comment

  36. @Colin – it’s an interesting spat, but judging by recent media coverage in my local area, IDS is on the wrong side of the debate.

    I think he is arguing a logical and sensible approach, if you take the house to be just a house, but unfortunately we are talking about people’s homes, with all the emotional attachments and social factors that surround that.

    So far I’ve witnessed stories like the reports of the parents of a recently deceased child told that the bedroom full of her things that they can’t face clearing out will be ‘taxed’, and old people considering moving to single room properties meaning they won’t be able to have the grandchildren to stay. Labour were now where near these stories – it has just been straightforward TV and press reports following up on complaints from their audiences.

    The real problem is shown in this mornings report by Shelter. Since 1971, if we applied the same inflation rate experienced on house prices to food, we would be paying £10 for a carton of mild and £51 for a chicken. We haven’t done anything like enough to balance supply with demand in the housing sector for decades.

    What IDS is saying does make sense – we should focus on those most in need – but homes carry special emotional resonances with voters, whether they own them or rent them, and in the absence of a clear plan to resolve the overall problem, initiatives like this are going to be very hard to sell.

    Report comment

  37. @Lefty,

    Call me partisan, but I found the “school building list” issue very suspicious.

    Checking that a long list of locations is accurate is, frankly, not the job of a cabinet minister. It is also not really a very difficult job. The repeated inability of his department to be accurate left me thinking “sabotage”.

    But even if it was a genuine mistake, I honestly don’t think it was Gove’s.

    The GCSE issue is more directly his “fault”, although I think it is just a case of overreaching himself and then (wisely) listening to the critics and responding. Not pretty, but its nice when a politician actually does “listen” and “take into account” rather than just saying that they are.

    Report comment

  38. @Shevi
    “I think that poll wrecks any outside chances there were for Labour. Any gains they could make through canvassing they would probably lose more from the Lib Dems saying it’s a two horse race.”
    ____________________

    On the contrary, it suggests that the Lib Dem vote is in freefall, and that Labour are in outside contention in a seat which they had previously written off for years. Lib Dem squeeze tactics no longer work on potential Labour voters now that the Lib Dems have gifted Cameron three years in No 10 with the promise of another two. I’d expect the Lab share to go up from here, not down. Likewise, UKIP might gain a bit of momentum from this at the expense of the Conservatives.

    Report comment

  39. @Alec,

    I think you’re spot on, but it does seem odd that some children go without a bedroom in their own home so that other children can occasionally stay in a bedroom at their granny’s.

    Having a house big enough to comfortably accommodate houseguests is, unfortunately, a luxury.

    Report comment

  40. @ Colin

    IMO, IDS has over-reached. He makes considerable comment about housing policy, which isn’t within his remit. He has thereby risked digging a great big hole for his Party.

    IDS may be relying on Labour observing the political etiquette, which is: Don’t respond to open letters where the writer is clearly preaching to the choir.

    If Labour do respond by administering a whacking great slap to the Coalition’s minister for housing, backed by IDS’s complaint about waiting lists for social housing not being addressed, Labour may manage to portray this as a public disagreement between the government’s own ministers.

    Housing is a big issue with voters. IDS may come to regret his open letter.

    Report comment

  41. ALEC

    THanks.

    Of course a house becomes a home for most people, and therefore , as you say acquires all manner of emotional attachments.

    But the problem remains -where the state is essentially funding the occupancy, is it entitled to apply the constraints of available finance, which impact on self funding occupancy?

    If you believe that the answer is Yes-and as IDS points out-Labour too , acknowledge the rising cost of HB-then unpopular constraints will have to be applied by the state funder.

    And no amount of “shroud waving” makes that necessity go away.

    Report comment

  42. Amber

    Thanks.

    Yes I can see that risk.

    Report comment

  43. @NEIL A

    The GCSE issue is more directly his “fault”, although I think it is just a case of overreaching himself and then (wisely) listening to the critics and responding. Not pretty, but its nice when a politician actually does “listen” and “take into account” rather than just saying that they are.

    ————————-

    Yeah, that seems to be the party line each time there’s yet another climbdown. It would be great if he could listen BEFOREHAND, check up in advance, instead of proceeding regardless with something then finding out the hard way again and again that there are flaws.

    Report comment

  44. New thread on Ashcroft poll.

    Report comment

  45. Neil A

    The story I heard from a relatively senior civil servant was that Gove pressured civil servants to give him a list so that he could establish his credentials as a committed deficit tackler. But there were complex contractual issues to be assessed before the list could be finalised.

    Of course the added irony is that this type of capital expenditure cut-back is now widely seen as contributing significantly to our perma-slump. Hey ho…

    Report comment

  46. I dont think the Ashcroft poll is unexpected… Labour up quite a bit, Tories down a bit and Lib Dems down a lot.

    That mirrors the national picture, doesnt it?

    Report comment

  47. NEW THREAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report comment

1 2