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. “modest double figures” sounds rather alluring, in an understated way.

    Is the budget the next big event (assuming no surprises at Eastleigh)?

  2. @leftylampton

    Ok, I’ll have a back-of-the-fag-packet go at your multipier thingy.

    2012 locals within Eastleigh constituency:
    LD 47.2%, Con 22%, Lab 16.8%, UKIP 11.7%.
    cf UK local elections BBC projection in 2012:
    Con 31%, Lab 38%, LD 16%, UKIP 13% (in seats contested, and UKIP did contest all seats in Eastleigh).

    (YouGov May 2–3 May 2012:
    Con 32%, Lab 41%, LD 9%, UKIP 9% not so relevant in this context.)

    For LD first I’m gonna subtract 5.8% (negative incumbency = national and constituency swings… + 3.7 for LD nationally and -2.1 for Chris Huhne taking over from David Chidgey in 2005), but what about the “disgrace” factor? Huhne is not a Milligan (Con suffered -26.6% in the 1994 Eastiegh byelection), let’s put it at -4.2%.

    LD 2.3, Con 0.71, Lab 0.44, UKIP 0.9.

    Today’s YouGov:
    Con 31%, Lab 42%, LD 12%, UKIP 9%

    ~
    LD 27.6%, Con 22%, Lab 18.8%, UKIP 8.1%,
    Others/don’t knows 23.5%.

    Not a prediction by any means, just an experiment (probably method errors included)… but perhaps suggestive of the kind of share parties may be seeing at this stage of the campaign (with three weeks to go)?

  3. Mike Smithson [email protected]

    ? First Ashcroft #Eastleigh poll being published at midnight. The Mail’s @jameschappers say it “Will ruffle a few feathers”

  4. I was wondering what would be immodest too AW? TIC here I suspect!

    Chordata

    I too have the same experience concerning the expert care services for extreme medical events and my daughter received the best of care, albeit to no avail.

    I just did want not my own magnum opus to become even longer.

    This was the point I was making about anecdote and propaganda where voters’ attitudes were concerned.

  5. Lib Dems appear to be on something of an upturn it would seem, despite Huhne business…. part of a trend unfolding since the new year, or just a blip I wonder?

  6. I hear Ashcroft`s Eastleigh poll coming tonight…Hopefully AW can post it and it can be dissected to death!

  7. billybob

    My money is on

    LD 23-27% Con 32-36% Lab 29-33% so Lab second place with chance of first if momentum gained.

    LD will only retain seat if anti-Government voters consider them not Government.

  8. Have a sneaking feeling LDs will hold it.

    No data-a guess.

  9. Colin

    If there is a poll tonight we can bend that data to fit our guesses then!

  10. What would we do without Ashcroft?

  11. @ Nick P

    No, I think Ashcrofts Eastleigh poll will show this.

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

  12. NICKP

    nah-hope I’m wrong !-but not bothered if I am.

    It’s a guess.

  13. Regarding the Francis Report, we are fortunate that YG already have regular NHS questions. It will be interesting to see the polling effect of all the media coverage.

  14. colin

    I hope but I’m not bothered? That’s the trouble with this country…bleedin apathy.

  15. On Eastleigh:

    It will be an interesting one. The sitting MP just pleaded guilty to a serious crime against the justice system and will be spending some time in gaol. Not a good backdrop from a LibDem point of view. On the other hand this is a Conservative/LibDem marginal.

    BUT:

    The last time there was a by-election in Eastleigh was in June 1994 LibDem gain from Conservatives (who were pushed into third place. The National Polls at the time showed Labour in the mid to high 40’s with a couple of polls showing 50 and over. The Conservatives were very unpopular with figures firmly in the 20’s. The LibDems were competing for second place with figures in the low to mid 20’s.

    Now this time the LibDems are nowhere near are popular, the Conservatives are up a bit and Labour are a bit lower. But throughout this time the LibDems were thought of a softish leftish but that will not be true this time. So I think it will either be a shock Labour victory or a Conservative victory with Labour second.

  16. Eastleigh will test to destruction the current polling theory that very few 2010 Tory voters have come over to Labour and that Labour’s increase in VI is down almost entirely to a combination of 2010 abstainers and former Lib Dem voters. To win Eastleigh from their 2010 position, Labour will need to attract quite a chunk of the Tory vote, as well as depend on Lib Dem defectors, so the nightmare for Cameron would be a Labour gain. If they come through from third to win then it will be on the back of a good many Tory defectors. The polls suggest this isn’t happening, so let’s see.

    My hunch, but I could be talked out of it in the intervening three weeks, is that there will be some significant churn between Labour and Lib Dem but this will enable a reduced Tory vote to sneak their candidate in to take the seat. I hear the talk of a big turnout, but I fear it will be way down on May 2010 and this may well help the Tory cause too, especially if it’s mainly Lib Dem voters who decide to sit on their hands.

    Of course, the quality of the candidates, the strength of the Lib Dem activist base in the constituency, the degree of Tory unpopularity and the credibility of Labour’s chances are all factors that make this by-election a very difficult one to call. The Ashcroft poll will be fascinating and if it suggests a credible Labour challenge, then all bets will be off. If it suggests a Lib Dem v Tory two-horse race then my money’s on the Tories.

    Interesting, intriguing and exciting stuff!

  17. And to add further spice to the mix the NHA (National Health Action) party has announced it will be putting up a candidate in Eastleigh! Interestinger and interestinger…..

  18. My guess for Eastleigh is something almost a 3-way marginal, LD and Cons quite close together, Labour somewhat behind but still in with a chance.

  19. Interesting quote from Politicshome about George Osborne’s employment rights swap for shares idea.

    Former Tory minister Lord Deben (John Gummer)… was scathing with his cool verdict, declaring the plans to be ‘mystifying’:

    “I cannot imagine in any circumstances whatsoever that this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life.”

  20. The NHA Party will contest the Eastleigh by-election. Wont this throw a spanner in the works?

  21. The NHA party could scotch Labour’s chances.

  22. @Tinted / Lefty / Chris-N-S / Roger

    Replied to posts in previous thread.

    My guess is that the LD VI for Eastleigh will not suffer as much as other party supporters would hope.

  23. @NickP

    Gummer probably believes that shares in a company is a foot in the door to ownership, and staff should never have an ownership share in their company.

    Personally I believe it is a better idea than staff never having any loyalty to their company.

  24. statgeek

    Got no objection to staff being shareholders. Every objection to those staff losing employment rights.

  25. Ran across this in my surfing exploits today

    CAN YOU  BELIEVE IT – Matt Ridley, Chairman of Northern Rock in the run up the banking crisis, became a Conservative Hereditary Peer and he’s taking the Conservative Whip!

    Is this getting the attention it deserves?!

  26. @ Statgeek

    Gummer probably believes that shares in a company is a foot in the door to ownership, and staff should never have an ownership share in their company.
    —————
    The above is unlikely to be Gummer’s opinion. The tax system gives very good tax incentives to qualifying employee share schemes & I have never heard of an MP (Gummer included) speaking against it.
    —————
    Personally I believe it is a better idea than staff never having any loyalty to their company.
    —————
    I think you have this back-to-front. A scheme to buy employees’ rights suggests the company does not intend to be loyal to its staff.

  27. Where will I find the Ashcroft poll in the morning?

  28. @Amber

    “I think you have this back-to-front. A scheme to buy employees’ rights suggests the company does not intend to be loyal to its staff.”

    Strawman.

    I said employees’ loyalty, which has nothing to do with rights. If there’s a shared interest, there’s a greater chance of employees staying, reducing staff turnover, and re-employment costs. Evereyone wins. It’s profit-related pay, but via ownership, rather than a bonus at the whim of the directors.

  29. Yours is the straw man, statgeek. There’s no shares under the scheme without loss of employment rights. So loyalty is bought from the employee and dropped by the employer at the same time.

  30. CB,

    I think you are in part correct in that what happens to disaffected Con 2010 votes may well be the crucial if Labour were to score a remarkable win from a distant third.

    It may well be though that these cons do not have to swap all the way to Labour but could end up with UKIP or not voting at all.
    The winning party in this By-Election may well have 1/3 or less of the vote share.

    FWIW my prediction.

    Tory win on reduced %age as LD vote falls significantly and Lab come a decent third with UKIP doing quite well, 10% ish; and, the HNS party pushing the Greens in to 6th (Sorry Alec) demonstrating that Lab has a good deal of work to do to convince enough Anti-Government voters that they desrved their trust.

    Different story come the GE as ABTs go back to the LDs.

  31. I’d have thought that with the right candidate there is a chance that NHA could win the constituency outright. I would imagine there is an awful lot of “plague on all your houses” sentiment out there, both with respect to the deficit/austerity (“Labour’s fault, Coalition made it worse”) and the Health Service (“whoever’s in power there’s never enough beds/nurses/money/peanuts”).

    If they select a senior doctor, I reckon it will be a 4 way contest rather than a 3 way one. And I don’t think it is just Labour’s chances that would be affected.

  32. “Will ruffle a few feathers”

    A reference to the Lib Dem yellow bird?

    Tories decide their candidate tonight, so far the suggestion is it will be Maria Hutchins… a eurosceptic social conservtive according to some. Ashcroft’s poll appears timed to steal a march on the Lib Dems who will chose an impressive local candidate on Saturday.

  33. @Nick

    The point I am making is that in a company where the employee is wanting to stay and work well, they will not get into situations of unfair dismissal in the first place.

    In that sense I was not talking about the ‘rights’ issue, focussing instead on the effects that shares can have on employee loyalty to the company (by loyalty I mean more the likelihood to stay, as opposed to any sense of personal loyalty to the company).

    The unfair dismissal rules, as they are protect the worker excessively (i.e. they protect bad or lazy workers). They should only protect good workers, and what sensible employer will want to dismiss a good worker?

    There is grounds for changing the law on unfair dismissal, but there seems to be two camps forming. “All rights” and “no rights”.

    As usual both camps are accusing the other of being nasty, when a compromise between the two would be sensible, practical and better for the good workers out there. Once more, politics will get in the way of progress.

  34. @ Statgeek

    Everyone wins. It’s profit-related pay, but via ownership, rather than a bonus at the whim of the directors.
    —————-
    It isn’t remotely like profit related pay via ownership. But there is little point in discussing it. It has not caught on & seems to be used only as a way to avoid tax in some very specific circumstances.

    The polling implications of this policy are probably close to zero so there’s little point in my giving a finance analyst’s ‘lecture’ about the subject.

  35. I was going to comment on apathy, but why bother!

    Peter.

  36. “The unfair dismissal rules, as they are protect the worker excessively (i.e. they protect bad or lazy workers).”

    No they don’t.

  37. Yes they do.

    (this is really grown up)

  38. Richard

    CAN YOU BELIEVE IT – Matt Ridley, Chairman of Northern Rock in the run up the banking crisis, became a Conservative Hereditary Peer and he’s taking the Conservative Whip!

    Indeed. He inherited the Viscountcy when his father[1] died last year – from whom he had also earlier inherited the job of Chairman of Northern Rock[2]. He was only elected to sit in the House of Lords yesterday though.

    It’s probably the only electoral system you could devise that is bizarre enough to suit the HoL. The electorate are the existing members of the HoL, but anyone who holds an hereditary peerage can put themselves up for it. In this case this means that the number of candidates (27) wasn’t much short of the electorate (43). Details of the result are here:

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2013/Conservative-Hereditary-Peers-by-election-result-Earl-Ferrers.pdf

    Voting is by that wicked rejected system AV, and I was amused to see that you appear to have a better chance of getting votes if you are a Viscount, a Marquis or an Earl rather than just a humble Baron with just “L” for Lord in front of your name.

    But Matt isn’t just a successful businessman, he’s also a science writer for the Telegraph among others and a bit of a climate-change ‘sceptic'[3]. There’s a nice demolition of him here:

    ht tp://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-northern-rock-the-planet/

    [1] Not the Thatcherite Cabinet Minister, Nicholas Ridley. That was Matt’s uncle.

    [2] Who was a Board member for 30 years and Chairman 1987-1992 Matt joined the Board in 1994.

    [3] It’s all double-jobbing, but otherwise there just aren’t enough Old Etonians to go round.

  39. Statgeek.

    No more than they protect hard/good workers. They are protect workers who are didmissed by companies who fail to carry out the right process, and very often it is a breach of that company’s own policy rather than the scrusl law. They also protect workers who are discriminated against.

  40. Fat fingers! scrusal = actual

  41. @ Statgeek

    The unfair dismissal rules, as they are protect the worker excessively (i.e. they protect bad or lazy workers). They should only protect good workers, and what sensible employer will want to dismiss a good worker?
    —————
    Indeed – so why give a good employee shares in exchange for something which the company will not need (i.e. the right to arbitrarily dismiss the employee)?

    As to loyalty, I join a company, partake of their shares for rights policy asap, get shares, sell shares, move on to the next company which will give me shares for rights. Disloyalty rewarded.

    Really, it is a ‘mystifying’ policy which does the opposite of what you seem to think it does!

  42. Re Unfair dismissal rules – I recall being a representative many years ago for Students appealing to be able to take their degree exams again or some other measure.

    Typically, there were 10 cases in a meeting and there were 3 groups of cases.

    Easy ones to find for the student – all panel members even the least sympathetic would approve.
    Easy ones the other way, clearly a frivolous appeal brought by someone who knew about the process and then 2 or 3 in the middle which could go either way.

    (My tactic frankly was to offer little if any support to the frivolous cases to try to get the 2-3 in the middle through by retaining my credibility. That was my role to represent the student and had a good success rate I like to think as a result only losing one case which I felt was genuine and which still troubles me over 25 years on.)

    Employment Tribunals, unfair dismissal claims and such like are in my opinion similar ranging from clear unfairness by the employer to clear trying it on by the (ex) employee.

    This is where I think Trades Unions who will discourage spurious claims are actually more responsible that some lawyers who will work for a settlememt based fee and secure pay-outs from Employers who wish to avoid hassle and costs.

    As with many things the question is where should the balance lie with the law to try to be fair but accepting that there will be injustice on one side or the other depending on where the bias lies?

  43. There are not-altogether-wonderful reasons someone in a company may want rid of a good worker. Discrimination, neopotism, rivalry, because they know where the bodies are buried etc. And this is before we get to offshoring, asset-stripping etc.

    Or they want to keep the workers but worsen their terms and conditions. What may then happen is existing workers take the shares and scarper, leaving management freer to hire new workers with worse conditions.

    It’s a bit like what happened in the eighties in FE when existing employees (babyboomers) voted to accept a quite decent pay offer that was great for them but gave worse pay and conditions for new entrants.

  44. statgeek

    The unfair dismissal rules, as they are protect the worker excessively (i.e. they protect bad or lazy workers). They should only protect good workers, and what sensible employer will want to dismiss a good worker?

    Um, so you are suggesting that the employees of non-sensible employers should have no protection at all then? And what about those disciplined by managers who aren’t the employer in large organisations?

    What you need is a system where whether someone has been a good or a bad worker, industrious or lazy, can be determined in an impartial way. Which is what we currently have.

    I have to say I’m surprised that this daft idea about “giving up” your employment rights in return for payment is still around. Apart from all sort of practical reason, I immediately assumed that it was probably going to be most useful as a tax dodge (effective owner-employees of company promise not to sue themselves for dismissing themselves and get given money by government).

  45. I’m not sure how it is possible to give up your “rights”.

    If a British court allows you to give something up, then it isn’t a right. Rights are upheld regardless.

    If the police offered to pay me £500 in return for not supplying me with officer safety equipment, I don’t imagine that would actually cover them for any liability they held for my welfare at work.

  46. neil a

    I think that’s right. Even if an employee gave up their rights they could still sue if they are dismissed unfairly, because, by definition, it would have been unfair.

  47. Having actually practised a bit of employment law, and appeared in ETs for both employer and employees, I nearly posted a 5 page demolition of the idea that current law is biased against employers but decided against! Frankly this is one of those saloon bar opinions frequently expressed without a sliver of evidence to support it and if anyone cares to shove up some actual specifics of what they think is wrong with the system I’m willing to give a counter view.

    Nevertheless it is true that facing an ET claim is an absolute pain in the backside and the fear of having to face one or the cost of mitigating the risk is a disincentive to new businesses taking on employees.

    I’ve always seen a lot of merit in the idea for start up companies especially as they have no idea how successful the business will be. If I was unemployed I’d consider taking a job in a new company with the agreement beforehand to waive rights – allowing the company to take me on knowing they can sack me if they need to save money or close down – in return for shares which will rise in value if the company succeeds.

  48. NeilA/NickP

    Most statutory employment rights specifically forbid contracting out. But they do so because otherwise you could – a right is still a right that applies generally to most people but not to you because you’ve signed a contract not to enforce it. Parliament rightly suspects that if the statute did not prohibit it, some employers would routinely require employees to sign contracts waiving their employment rights.

    But in principle there’s no reason why the statute could not be changed to allow opt outs in certain cases. It used to be legal – and normal – to contractually opt out of the right to a redundancy payment at the end of a fixed term contract of more than 2 years. Standard bit of legal negligence would be to draw up a fixed term contract which didn’t include an opt out.

  49. @Roger Mexico – “Viscount, a Marquis or an Earl”

    Yes, Hailsham (3rd generation Hogg) failed, possibly still under a cloud because of the moat cleaning business.

    1st Marquess of Abergavenny was the Tory Bloodhound, but memories fade, so Christopher Nevill (6th) also a fail.

    Stockton (Macmillan’s grandson) and Oxford and Asquith (HH’s great-grandson) both failed.

    Matt Ridley can of course look forward to a warm welcome from John Attlee, 3rd Earl Attlee, government whip in the House of Lords.

  50. @ Adam

    I don’t understand your point vis-a- vis start ups.

    1. Any employer has two years in which it can simply dismiss an employee without an ordinary unfair dismissal case being possible.
    2. There are no barriers to fairly reducing the size of a workforce due to demonstrable changes in business circumstances.

1 2