This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun was the first conducted wholly after the Eastleigh result was known, so is the first time we can look for any obvious effect on voting intention. Topline figures are CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 12%.

The twelve point score for UKIP is the highest that YouGov have ever shown, so there is a fair chance that it is a reflection of the Eastleigh by-election, but equally, it’s only a very small reflection. I half expected a bigger impact, after all, a good by-election performance that creates the impression that a party is a serious contender has in the past had a noticable effect – look at the polls after Brent East for example. Perhaps it would be different if UKIP actually won a seat.

Yesterday also saw the release of the latest TNS-BMRB poll, conducted mostly (but not entirely) after the Eastleigh result. Topline figures were CON 29%(nc), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 11%(nc), UKIP 14%(+2). Once again it’s an increase for UKIP, but nothing really significant (in the case of TNS-BMRB it is not a new high for them as they had one poll last year with UKIP at 16%).

383 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 40, LD 12, UKIP 12”

1 6 7 8
  1. @ Anthony

    Any chance of Lord Ashcroft sponsoring this site; given it’s the #1 non-partisan political polling site, it would be a good deal for him?


    @”Godwin’s Law strikes again.”

    Given TOH’s original reply to P. Cairns, we could coin a much more unpleasant law for the latter’s insistence on that song.

  3. @PeterCairns

    Very flattering but not my sort of music. Liked the rugby concept especially after this yearsCalcutta Cup which i enjoyed enormously.

    I am still very positive and enjoy life enormously despite my health issues but despise modern society and its sick values.

  4. Amber,

    Well, given his advertising is currently appearing on the site, I suppose he is in a way!

  5. @Colin


    My birthday today so feeling good. It’s ten years since i was first diagnosed and with help from my oncologist there is every prospect of me enjoying another ten years. I find it useful to let off steam now and again but it seems to upset some. I think its my total conviction i am right which upsets those who disagree with me. Belief and passion has always been my way and without it my life would have been much poorer.

    I have enjoyed most of your posts over the last month or two when you have been a lone voice amongst the left leaning majority on here. Been very busy myself getting my two allotments in shape and following my other hobbies.


    “This country will not recover until the size of the State is significantly reduced, not the tiny tinkering going on under the present government.”


    We are currently running a live experiment on that thesis – that the public sector is a brake on the private and… well, it’s not going very well.

    We made cuts, shed a load of public sector jobs, and the private sector did not exactly rush in eagerly. Instead, they are sitting on hundreds of billions they are not investing.

    Which is no surprise since cuts reduce the money available and kill demand. So there is no point business rushing into the void.

    So you make your cuts and announce some more and watch tax receipts fall and benefits costs rise. So you are no better off. What you saved by the cuts you lose as income falls and other costs go up.

    So then the right go “Look!! See?? We haven’t really made any cuts!! That us why the cuts aren’t working!!”

    So they make some more cuts, and the same happens again. And they say the same. “Look, no cuts really, honest”.

    Meanwhile interest costs of debt rise as we take on more debt for no benefit. And again they will therefore go “look!! No cuts really!!”

    It’s like running a business and sacking some of the sales force. And you save on wages, but it costs as much in lost sales. So management go “look, our deficit is the same as before!! Therefore, we must not have made any cuts!!” So they keep sacking more and more of the sales force till there aren’t any left…

    And as the business folds they will still be saying “We didn’t make enough cuts.. “

  7. As a scientist I very much look forward to meeting the UKIP campaigners when the next visit to give them my forthright assessment, based on science not wishful thinking, of their understanding of climate science.

    The last one who visited, fair play to him, did stay to the end of my entire 20 minute lecture on physics 101.

  8. I think what howard means is abolish welfare in its entirety

  9. @Carfew

    “We made cuts, shed a load of public sector jobs, and the private sector did not exactly rush in eagerly. Instead, they are sitting on hundreds of billions they are not investing.”

    You point to one of the inherent self-defeating elements of the “public bad, private good” philosophy, certainly from an economic policy point of view. In many of the key sectors of our economy, such as manufacturing and construction, who are some of the private sector’s biggest customers? Why, the public sector of course and if the public sector is diminishing, then not only is individual consumer demand sucked out of the economy as people lose jobs and/or see their pay contract, but the demand for new public buildings and equipment crashes too. No new school buildings, hospitals, libraries, medical centres and roads isn’t just bad news for the public sector, its employees and the people who depend on their services, but it’s pretty bad news for a whole host of private firms too.

    No one part of a complex and mixed economy can live independently of each other. Using a medical analogy, the neo-lib zealots view the public sector as a cancer that has attached itself to a dynamic free market, strangling the life out of private enterprise. They’d like to kill it by economic chemotherapy. Some of us, however, view it as an essential organ of our national life, depended on my many for their livelihoods, life chances, freedoms and well-being. Shrink it, or even surgically remove it, and I fear the host dies too. Tumour or essential organ? Miliband and Labour need to make the argument on this.

  10. @Richard in Norway

    Not so, I would have no problem with Government spending at 30-35% of GDP.


    Your analysis is totally flawed but lets not get into it as AW does not like us debating economics.

  11. @ RiN,

    I think what Howard means is abolish welfare in its entirety
    Surely not; I doubt that he would want pensioners & people who are ill to suffer the loss of their pensions, pension benefits & free healthcare. Not everybody has Howard’s resources to pay for private healthcare, personal illness cover &/or private pension. I find it difficult to believe that Howard has no feelings of sympathy or solidarity with others who are in situations similar to his but never had the ability &/or opportunity to build enough wealth to cover the costs.

    I know that he considers his private healthcare to be vastly superior to the NHS but I doubt he’d want there to be only private care. Given that most private practitioners &/or their staff have been trained in the NHS & also rely on the NHS to provide emergency & IC services, the costs of funding an entirely private health service would likely make it unaffordable to some of the people (perhaps even Howard, himself) who are currently able to afford it.

  12. Bill P

    Yes, yes, yes. (And not in a Meg Ryan sense.)

    I fully accept that the centre of gravity changes over time. My point was that the right-most of two alternatives have been pitifully poor at winning elections for the last generation. And in that, I do agree with much of what you say about the effect of Blair & Churchill.

    You’re right of course that both the Tories in 1950 and Labour in the mid 90s accepted the fact that the politico-economic landscape had changed. And I’ll happily accept that there was a certain degree of skilful manoeuvre by those parties in pushing their opponents into unattractive stances. But I think the causality from there to 13 years plus an inconclusive result is a bit too simplistic. The benign economic conditions that you give a nod to are (for me) the dominant factor in explaining why there was such a long, unbroken run of power.

    But then the end of the run was very different in the two cases. In 1964, the economic problems were relatively mild. Yes there was a sharp deterioration in the balance of trade and a slight uptick in inflation, but nothing catastrophic. Nothing to remotely compare to the earthquake of 07/08 that shaped the 2010 election.

    So, in 1964, despite not hugely troubled economic times, the Labour squeaked a bare win whilst still being wedded to the nasty policies you outlined. Whereas in 2010, in historically difficult economic times, a Tory party that had tried to flush itself of the nasty polices still couldn’t win a majority. That suggests to me that the toxicity associated with the Tory brand for the last 20 years is far more potent that that associated with Labour 50 years ago.


    Your analysis is totally flawed but lets not get into it as AW does not like us debating economics.


    That’s OK Howard, I wasn’t expecting you to debate it. Not needing to debate it further was rather the point of my post. ..

  14. @Amberstar

    Thank you. We agree but obviously not on the detail or level of Government spending. I have plenty of sympathy for those less fortunate than myself despite their strivings. I have no sympathy at all for those who want a free ride.

  15. Howard

    How do you propose to get the public sector down to 30%. Only abolishing the benfits system would do it, or privatize health and education and defence. Or privatize all the roads and the foreign office and get rid of the police

  16. @ TOH

    Sorry to hear about your situation. It was not something I have seen you mention on here before but glad you have the prospect of a lot more time left to you.

  17. @ AW

    That does make more sense- moving to not voting rather than necessarily to someone else, even though they were sure to vote and sure to vote for a definite party! Maybe they didn’t realise when they were sure to vote that Eastenders was sure to be on on a Thursday and sure that they didn’t need a bath afterwards!

    @ Amber

    Not very ambitious of you. I’d have thought you could have held out for Ashcroft buying us all lunch rather than something as simple as sponsorship of the site :-)

  18. TOH

    Very best of luck-keep with your belief & passion.

  19. @John Pilgrim
    That was fascinating. I lived in Hurst Road and then Longlands Rd in the 1960s and 70s and went to Chis and Sid. Small world.

  20. It is nonsense to say that there is no state sponsored / funded capital investment,

    It may be slow, or late, or insufficient………….but it isn’t Zero

  21. January construction sector figures

  22. Oh dear cammy has been acused of telling porkies by the head of OBR a quango that he set up, some folk have no loyalty

  23. New thread!!

  24. @SheVll

    Thanks, cancer is just an illness, happens to be life threatening but so is malaria. Getting the best advice and treatment and following it plus a positive desire to go on doing what you want to do is, I have found the best approach. I have never felt sorry for myself, its just another problem to be tackled.

    Thanks, no worries, the day i stop being committed and passionate will be the day i pop my clogs.

  25. I thought there was something fishy in some of Cameron’s claims in yesterday’s speech. Looks like Robert Chote at the OBR was less than chuffed too.

  26. TOH

    An admirable attitude. My Itslian father-in-law’s response to being diagnosed with terminal lung cancer a decade ago was that he was going to see every doctor in Europe until one gave him the right diagnosis. It was that attitude that kept him alive for 3 years after he’d been given less than 6 months to live. I’d like to think I’d be as strong and forthright but I suspect I’m deluding myself.

    Your wilder steam-blowing moments are fully understandable. And usually enjoyable as well. Don’t let up on them.

  27. @Leftylampton

    Thanks, glad I entertain you. Your father-in-law was absolutely right. As a friend of mine in a similar position says “Just keep bu..ering on” and enjoy life as much as possible.

  28. @COLIN
    “It is nonsense to say that there is no state sponsored / funded capital investment”


    Maybe I missed it but who said there wasn’t any? ….

  29. Lefty Lampton,

    “Bad economy” is also relative.

    There’s also the problem that the anti-government vote was extremely dispersed in 2010, due to a very wide number of factors (that preceded the decline in the Tory vote) whereas Labour picked up almost all of the gains from the Profumo affair, the Pay Pause fiasco etc. in 1964.

    It’s also worth noting that, by 1964, Labour had shifted to the right on policies like nationalisation and physical controls. This was largely an intelligent reaction to the failure of the nationalisations of the 1940s to deliver the promised improvements; the nationalisation of the canals, for instance, was a joke as early as 1956: “Has Colonel Nasser ever SEEN a nationalised canal?”, says wife to husband, as they pass a run-down canal etc.

    Incidentally, Labour’s vote barely nudged up an inch in 1964, whereas the Tory vote went up by nearly 4%. Both were unimpressive given the unpopularity of the government and the supposed unelectability of the prime ministers (though neither Douglas-Home nor Brown was as unelectable as some people think). One big problem for Labour in 1964 is that people in 1945 weren’t worried about mass-unemployment under a Tory government or being offered something like the NHS, so a 1945-style win was implausible.

    Additionally, as I noted, Labour accepted far more of the 1979 Tory manifesto (basically all of it and most of the 1983/1987/1992 manifestos too…) whereas the Tories never went full-blown socialist in the 1950s, which did lead to a slow but sure loss of support in slower-growing areas during that period e.g. Scotland was more pro-Tory than England in 1945, but this had turned around by 1964.

  30. Also, I don’t think Labour has ever got the chance to be as toxic as the Tories were by 1997, because they’ve never had so long a period in power. After 1992, so many Tories really did believe that they were born to rule, and behaved accordingly…

  31. Also, note that it is the Tory brand which became toxic, not the Tory substance. Ed Miliband may throw a scrap of grisle to the left-wing of the Labour party regarding maybe-possibly-sort-of-reconsidering-the-possible-future status of the railways, but even on that issue Labour has moved to the right of Thatcher during her heyday.

    Where Labour HAVE definitely remained a left-wing party is on non-economic freedoms (civil liberties excluded, where they moved to the right of the Tory party). They’ve timed changes on civil partnerships, gay marriage and transgender rights very well, in keeping with changing public attitudes. One realisable dream scenario would be that Labour would modernise UK drug law as part of a coalition deal with the Lib Dems in 2015…

    Yes, a blast from the past. Nice to hear from you. Chis and Sid then at Crittall’s Corner, and 3 out of the 6th Form made it to University. How times have changed.

    “Also, note that it is the Tory brand which became toxic, not the Tory substance”
    I have not seen a definition of toxicity, but I wonder. If, as globally is the case, in say Thailand and India, both public opinion and the economy demand equality of opportunity in education or employment, toxicity may be associated with any political agenda which appears to support inequality. The concept that the Tory party both neo-liberal and old and wet, is founded on a belief in leadership and greater economic benefit of an upper middle class, even though it may have become technocratic, may well define toxicity.

1 6 7 8