YouGov’s daily polling for the Sun this morning has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 40%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 13%. While we have seen much higher from other online companies, it is the highest UKIP score that YouGov have shown so far. All the usual caveats apply: one should never get too excited about a record breaking score as it will almost always be a bit of an outlier. What counts is the underlying trend, and these figures underline the ongoing increase in UKIP support, and indeed the recent modest recovery in YouGov’s Lib Dem support.

595 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 30, LAB 40, LD 12, UKIP 13”

1 7 8 9 10 11 12
  1. £53 per week !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Luxury. I would enjoy the challenge of economising and still be able to give a large chunk to charity as I want to continue playing my part in the BIG SOCIETY.

  2. @Couper2802

    Thank you.


  3. @ Tony Dean

    Hmm I’m about to go off on one of my historical tangents which probably should not be allowed on a political polling site, but here goes…

    I agree that undergraduate teaching should not necessarily be the same as that of secondary school, let alone primary. Also, it is crucial to have a basic knowledge of the narrative framework of history before you can really get to grips with it – I remember an undergraduate module on the Middle East at the time of the crusades which was taught by the leading scholars in the UK but which most of us struggled with because we simply did not know, e.g., who Zengi or Nur-al-din were, so could not do the sort of analytical work we could happily have done on say Alfred the Great.

    But the problem with Gove’s approach is that “how did we get here” in practice is very selective and easily slips into “why we are great” and assumes that “here” is the inevitable and correct destination of the past.

    Much of history isn’t about “how we got here” anyway. No-one in the C12th was working towards the creation of what we have today and much of what they did was going in completely different directions. Should we ignore any features of the C12th that do not advance us towards today’s society? If we only want to understand where we are today, maybe yes; but if we value history as a subject and want to understand the C12th for its own interest, then absolutely not.

    Any serious study of the middle ages, let alone the ancient periods or pre-history, shows that the current nation states of Europe – and indeed “the nation state” as a concept – bear no relation to the political structures of most of European history – Europe has millennia of recorded history but no UK before 1700, no Belgium before 1830, no Germany before 1870, no Ireland before 1922 etc. etc. But the Gove approach – and tbf most European nation states have followed it since the invention of the nation-state – seems to have as a central aim the inculcation of a loyalty to the current state structure. Which has its uses as a social tool – I’m quite for social cohesion personally – but is essentially political propaganda, not history.

    I’m afraid Gove gives every impression of being an ideologue wanting to push a political agenda. So I regard his determination to limit history to a tiny selection of facts with deepest suspicion, because I fear only facts which support his view of the natural order of things will get selected. And even if I do him an injustice, I think I’ve shown that history is a deeply political subject.

    So I don’t agree that the examination of sources and their reliability should be totally removed from the syllabus, at least at secondary school level, because pupils should be taught to beware the political motivations of all writers of history.

    Above all, I think history is not just “how we got here” but “what we are” – what makes us human. By studying people over long periods of history, including times when basic assumptions that we take for granted did not apply [e.g. the nation state, a money economy, that war is a bad thing, that religious freedom is a good thing, that women are equal to men, that slavery is immoral,] you can detect what things are constant and which are human [and possibly temporary] constructs – however valuable.

    Frankly I don’t think Gove has a clue about any of this. Or I hope he doesn’t because if he does then he is deliberately ignoring it.

  4. @ Martyn

    You really should write good, modern and realist novels. Your post had everything needed: structure, composition, knowledge of the subject, objectivity (yet empathy) and humour bending to grotesque when necessary.

    I read your post with appreciation.

  5. @Martyn

    Ditch your lysteria lab. Buy milk only if you have guests. Use long-life cream in your coffee(!), soya milk (from Lidl) on your cornflakes.
    Eat any fresh food within the week

  6. Give curriculum regressions won’t change vi – but it remains a very sad story.

    Teaching history is difficult, because it is about today and the future – how you understand today drives your understanding of history. This is what’s important, not whether you teach dates and names a la Comte or without them a la Weber.

    History is ideological and Gove’s problem is that in order to create a history that fits his ideology and meet efficiency targets he has to sacrifice his own values. A quote common problem for many Conservatives really.

  7. Apologies for predictive text in my previous post.

  8. When I was a trainee teacher in 1971, on placement, I had to teach the “Great Fire Of London” to a class of young Geordies. They had to take turns to read a sentence or so from a school text book [dating from shortly after the Great Fire Of London.]

    It was hysterically funny because of their lovely Geordie accents and difficulty with some words: but I then had to read out a list of questions, cunningly based on the text, and they had to write the answers down.

    Anyway, it boody well works and good for ole Govesly ‘cos I STILL know that the BAKER discovered the GREAT FIRE in PUDDING LANE and very few others do.

    I have patiently waited for 42 years to drop that into a conversation and I can now die a happy man.

    Not just yet though I hope.

  9. @Lazlo

    Thank you

    @Billy Bob

    It’s the old peaches-vs-tin-of-peaches argument – is fresh better than tinned? I cleave to the tinned, simply because they’re easier to carry. But U do take your point

    (Beside, now I can afford chocolate HobNobs, so life is good…:-))


  10. @Martyn,

    Appreciated your post very much. It’s instructive that you were describing life with a full time job which in one way perhaps emphasises the government’s point about making sure people in work are materially better off that those without. For example the dental element wouldn’t have been a problem had you been out of work. I am not suggesting that IDS has necessarily got it 100% correct with his proposals so far (a lot of the cuts fall partly on the working very poor – the group I think deserve better treatment more than any).

  11. Not 100% correct? IDS has got it mostly wrong with the idea of living on £53 quid a week. We went through all this a hundred years ago with Rowntree’s seminal report busting the myth of the deserving poor. Gove needs to put that in his curriculum…

  12. @NeilA

    Thank you. Before people start rustling up food parcels for “Live Aid: the Martyn edition”, I need to point out I wasn’t poor by *any* definition: the problem was I had a big fixed-rate mortgage, so when the economy and the property market went south simultaneously, the gap between money coming in and going out narrowed horribly quickly and suddenly one is going “mmmm….cheap beans….” and realising that Sky is actually a luxury, not a necessity.

    You’re right about the dental, tho…:-((


  13. As I understand it, people on benefits theoretically receive free dental care but in practice it’s almost impossible to find an nhs dentist so free dental care is a myth. At least this is what I have been told

  14. ” and realising that Sky is actually a luxury, not a necessity.”


    Yes, but TMS though, that’s pretty essential. Though folk seem to be more about the footie around here…

  15. @ Neil A

    For the washing machine, I’d apply for a social grant or loan.
    No you wouldn’t, because IDS is scrapping both of those ‘disaster relief funds’.

  16. @ Robert in Newark

    It is estimated that more than 250 million Russians (excluding natural deaths) died in WW2 as a result of Russia’s involvement in the war against the fascists. Please show some respect.

  17. @Amber

    “No you wouldn’t, because IDS is scrapping both of those ‘disaster relief funds’.”

    Yes, which is why I posed the question!

    To all those who really think they can live on benefits. I suggest you listen to the lyrics of ‘Common People’ by Pulp. You will then realise the contempt that ‘benefit tourists’ deserve.

  18. @ Robin

    I am extremely concerned that women & men will be forced into begging, crime or prostitution when they cannot find work. And worst of all, they may rely on the kindness of strangers who are not kind at all…

  19. @ Spinner

    There woudl be no Russians now if 250 million of the had died in WWII

    An enormous number – maybe 26 million died, but not 250 million.

    Of course, that number is roughly equalled by those who were direct victims of induced famine and purges; and given the Soviets’ allying with the fascists from 1939 to 41, a good measure of the”WW2″ dead can also be attributed to those purges as well.

  20. This petition, calling on Duncan-Smith to put his money somewhere other than where his mouth is for a year, or strictly speaking anywhere other than where his mouth is, has gained 44,000+ signatures in the space of less than a day.

    Currently on 122,000

  21. I am amazed at the nonesense i have read here re the very sensible benefit cuts that are going through. All this froth is whipped up by the BBC and the Labour Party and some people seem to fall for it. Absolutely amazing that apparently sensible posters are conned by it all. The reforms are very necessary and of course Labour will not reverse them if they eventually come back to power.

    IDS was daft to say he could live on £53 a week. He could of course but it was bound to end up with the silly petition led by a market trader who has already been exposed by the Daily Mail.

  22. @Spinner

    What about the many many millions who died under Stalin’s and Mao’s rule?

    Many more than anything Hitler did!

  23. @ Spinner

    You meant 25 million?

    Apologies for my earlier wrong figure – my memory let me down about the Chinese CP members’ death. So, SU about 2 million party members died in the mobilised army and about 1 million in the occupied territories (but this figure may include Komsomol). China about 1 million (I remembered 5, hence the error, sorry about it). High number of CP members died in France and Yugoslavia. Spain and Bulgaria before WW2 also saw many fallen.

  24. DS was daft to say he could live on £53 a week. He could of course but it was bound to end up with the silly petition led by a market trader who has already been exposed by the Daily Mail.

    – The Daily Mail the font of all wisdom!

  25. I think the danger for both sides in the benefits debate lies in exaggeration.

    Osborne is apparently going to argue that the benefit cuts are not just going to save the government money but that they will get people out of a poverty trap which to my eyes is manifestly absurd. People are in this position because for one reason or another (mainly lack of local jobs that require their skills) they cannot get work. All that the welfare cuts will do is make the trap more personally destructive and the next step even less well remunerated than it is at present.

    So as I see it, this particular spin is likely to be discredited because it is absurd and plays into the narrative that the conservatives have no idea of what life is like for the poor. Raising the tax threshold and lowering corporation tax look more relevant but they are not in themselves part of these benefit changes. No doubt you need money to do them but the public presumably know (and believe) that you can raise this money in other ways. A bit of honesty ‘we’re doing this to save money’ would, I suspect, play better. (Even, if it may not actually do so).

    At the same time Labour need to be careful about exaggerating the effects. There will not be bread riots. Neil is right that the reasons for homelessness will stay much the same (getting out of this predicament will be more difficult but this effect will be slower to show). There may be small increases in the suicide rate, the rate of children in care etc but cause and effect will be hard to show. People will get by eating sardines, doing without their faulty washing machines, not replacing their mobile phones when they are stolen, borrowing from loan sharks etc. Some landlords will decide that housing benefit recipients are too unreliable to be their tenants. There will be many many families, where there is pervasive anxiety and a feeling that children are deprived because they not as well provided as their neighbours. Solidarity will be undermined by media and political spin.

    Personally I think that this will be a quiet disaster. It is not the kind of society I want to live in. I think that it is based on a flawed and self=serving analysis, and I hate the way it is sold by using stereotypes that encourage hatred and disunity. But for all that, when it is done, I will learn to live with it, and see other uses for the money that may be available rather than reversing the cuts. So in the long run an over-hyping of the effects may not be to Labour’s advantage either.

    What I want from Labour is a more positive, reasoned and value based vision of what it wants to do. If it doesn’t provide this, I would expect that its lead will gradually erode as its apocalyptic predictions about the NHS and welfare fail to come to pass and, no thanks to any party, the economy slightly improves. As many people have pointed out, the Conservatives can hardly win. But at present I don’t think Labour is likely to win either and I am not even certain that they deserve to.

  26. @Steve

    No me actually! But thanks for saying i am the font of all wisdem. Nice to feel appreciated.

  27. The recent arguments as to who is the biggest mass murderers Facists or Communists, please give it a rest, both are odious instutions that rely on suppression of free will to the sebservience of the state, and both at least in the west have been rejected as political dead ends.
    Democracy in the west may be flawed but at least we didn’t slaughter thousands if not millions of our own citizens either through political dogma or military incompetence as ably demostrated by both Hitler and Stalin in WW2 or result to the shear barbarity of the concentration camp or the gulag.

  28. @Charles

    Loved your bit about mobile phones. We all did perfectly well without them before they were invented. I still do. I have a mobile phone but it is only for emergency use when i am out alone in the great British countryside doing field work on my own. I guess I use it about three times a year.

    I am surprised you think these changes are of such magnitude that it represents a society you don’t want to live in. Unless we get our economy right, and we are a long way from doing that, then you really will see cuts!

  29. @Turk

    Agreed, all of them are truly odious. Enough said.

  30. @TOH
    “All this froth is whipped up by the BBC and the Labour Party and some people seem to fall for it. ”

    I recognise that by now as pretty much your standard response whenever the news agenda shifts to something you’re uncomfortable with. In this case a narrative that blows right open the idea that the pain of the cuts is being shared out fairly, or targeted on those who have only themselves to blame.

    What is happening is that we seeing the outcome on the ground of all the legislation passed many months ago, as it starts to affect the lives of real identifiable people rather than the caricatures portrayed in political debate. And as such even our still overwhelmingly right wing press is reacting to that at national and local level.

    Here as an example is the coverage yesterday from my local paper, the Express and Star, which is usually as right wing as they come, citing three such victims of the bedroom tax. Try reading the cases of Mr Marston, Mrs Talbot or Mrs White before trying to claim that they have fallen for something that isn’t happening or which they deserve to be the victims of.

  31. Phil,

    Yes, it is worth reading the comments after the article. It makes my point that the people that are personally affected by the changes are furious. And it is a big mistake to think that none of them are (or were) Con or Lib voters.

  32. To be fair to Gove, I think he has become convinced that the education system has become riddled with people he thinks are using their positions to advance their own political beliefs (which he disagrees with) and feels that he is entitled to try to correct that.

    Like many profoundly political people, he believes that he has come to his beliefs through a wholly rational process and that it is only through poor education and/or moral failings on the part of others that everyone does not also hold the same beliefs. Therefore, if everyone were properly educated without perfidious lefties misleading them, everyone would think as he does. Because he’s right, anyone who disagrees with him cannot be doing so for good reasons and can thus be safely ignored.

  33. @Turk

    Well we’re better, but not with a clear conscience on this. We used concentration camps extensively in the Boer Wars (although not death camps), both we and the US used internment camps in WWII – in the US case extensively on their own citizens.

    The US fought a war of genocide against the native Americans, we put in place policies that caused famine and death in the Indian sub-continent. And both us and the US made an awful lot of money out of slavery.

    Moral – we can’t stand on our record as democracies as if it gives us a naturally superior position, we need to be aware of our role and power over other…


    @” think the danger for both sides in the benefits debate lies in exaggeration.”

    Yes-as witness the revelations about Mr Mitchell’s actual income-and some of the ways he chooses to spend it.

    He has done no service whatsoever to those people whose budget is very very tight.

    As for Labour-they really need to stop the easy mantra that all benefit cuts are bad for someone-and actually say what size the safety net would be under them, and how much it would cost.

    Difficult questions like-how many bedrooms does the taxpayer fund, and to what cost limit? ; What constitutes a condition of “unable to work”? , Should there be any limit to one families total welfare benefit, if not why not, if so what limit?…………….

    What do Labour actually believe about the provision of & entitlement to , Welfare provision in this country?

  35. @Phil Haines

    I am not in the least uncomfortable with the reforms. If i was in charge i would go much further because our failing economy demands it.

    Of course there will be losers, there always when reforms are made, and they will be paraded by the BBC and Labour. Sad for the individuals, or at least those who are genuine, but its a tough World we live in. The European model of high state and in particular high welfare spending is on the way out, by economic necessity, as i have posted many times on here.

    I think even Labour understands this although it would never admit that.

  36. @ The other Howard. In a sense I agree about mobile phones. I have a pay as you go, only use it when I have to and think that on the whole life was better without it.

    That said, mobile phones are quite a good example of what I mean. Imagine you are a single mother with a slightly disabled son. Being one of the world’s strivers you naturally want to pay your way and get work as a carer/cleaner. To keep going you need to be reliable and inform your clients when you can’t get to them, and also be available to take extra work when they try and get in contact with you. All this has to be juggled with the demands of the school who occasionally demand your attendance to discuss your son, managing school holidays, dealing with your responsibilities for your mother etc.

    In this situation theft or loss of your mobile phone makes your life very difficult to manage and you yourself much less effective. In addition your more affluent friends will be managing their lives through mobile phones and so you are being cut off and excluded. And your son at school, where most kids have these phones, feels even more so.

    So what about doing with an ordinary phone? Well, this is difficult because it won’t help when you are out on a job. Equally, you cannot afford to burden yourself with bills that have to be paid on a regular basis any more than you can help. Having a mobile phone, you can, push comes to shove, use it to take incoming calls only. And living where you do, public pay phones are not available as they used to be. And theft/loss of your mobile phone is a real risk, and just when you have dealt with that someone goes and steals your bicycle. And yet with all this you are still a striver and you don’t make any kind of fuss and don’t actually think that it would make any difference if you did.

    And as an imaginary exercise you can think of a striving window cleaner, or an ice rink constructor coming off a long period of unemployment or the street trader who challenged IDS and think through what life is like for them. It is not just living off £53 a week but the things that happen when you do.

    Does that make it any easier to understand why I don’t want to live in this kind of society?

  37. In 1905 the Daily Mail told readers that refugees from the pogroms were bringing scarlet fever and smallpox… painting a picture of Jews “fawning and whining”, hiding their gold and asking for handouts

    In the thirties it was :”Hurrah for the Blackshirts” and Rothermere’s letter to the Führer: “I salute your Excellency’s star, which rises higher and higher.”

    In the forties it had a warning for Jews: “They should be careful not to arouse the same resentment here.”

    In 2005 The Daily Mail was telling us immigrants were bringing TB and HIV.
    In 2009 it was the Tamil hunger-striker costing us millions, and an entirely false story that he was eating burgers.

    Odious, truly odious.

  38. @TOH
    “Sad for the individuals, or at least those who are genuine, but its a tough World we live in.”

    I am sure you will agree that our ageing population is our biggest drain on the economy. So until our country’s finances improve how about no state pensions for people who have private ones and no state health care for people with private pensions.

  39. @The other Howard So what you’re saying is that we should forget about people who need the most help like my disabled son whenever times get tough?
    It’s really sad for you if you really think like that.

  40. @TheSheep

    Spot on. Sick of reading ahistorical revisionism on here unchallenged. No mention of how many people the UK and other Western democracies sent to their death when we were empire building (including WWI in that), but conveniently plenty of condemnation when the USSR done it.

  41. @Charles

    Not really, I would have to see a detailed breakdown of individual spending, do they smoke for example? or drink? In the case of single mums, why are they single?
    We would all like a better World where the deserving are happy and contented but there are different ways to get there and as i say at the present time it really is a very tough World.

    As for the undeserving, I don’t care a ……………

  42. @Craig

    It’s called history and you have to put yourself in that time to understand history. Personally I am proud our our history on the whoile , including the Empire.

  43. @TOH
    “Of course there will be losers, there always when reforms are made….sad for the individuals, or at least those who are genuine, but its a tough World we live in.”

    A useful stock phrase that could be trotted out as a superficial defence of the impact of just about any fiscal measure that any government ever took. But as such, rather than justifying anything, it of course justifies nothing.

    If the government were instead implementing a mansion tax, it would work just as well (or badly).

  44. “Difficult questions like-how many bedrooms does the taxpayer fund, and to what cost limit? ”


    Didn’t we already do this?

    If we are talking about, say, a single person with several spare rooms, that’s one thing.

    But in many cases, it’s a single spare room. Which, we have established, has an important utility, especially for the disabled. Family, carers can stop over, partners can sleep apart if necessary.

    Plus, there isn’t enough property without spare rooms so you force disruption and abandoning support networks and they may end up in the private sector costing more anyway.

    Or else they take the financial hit when already on not very much…

    No one can justify this policy it seems. They just keep posting as if they can, over and over. ..

  45. @Phil Hains

    I could say the same of your response.

    You really dont get it do you, we cannot afford to go on spending huge sums on welfare or many other forms of state spending. Those days are on the way out, you don’t like it but its happening and there is nothing you can do about it.

    As for a mansion tax or other attacks on the rich, it will just mean that many of the most potent wealth creators will go elsewhere. By far the biggest proportion of income tax is already paid by the richest 10%. A change of government will not make much difference, except in my view that the decline in the nations economy will accelerate.

  46. TOH

    Oh, so everything’s justified within the context of ‘history’…except the USSR’s. I’ve no doubt you support our empire, it’s fairly common amongst those who are regularly found crowing about our liberty, loveliness and democracy (with no trace of irony).

  47. Thankfully we’ll have new polls tonight or tomorrow morning so we can at least start a new thread (they always tend to disintegrate as they get old), but again, can people steer away from discussing whether policies are any good or not. This is a final warning before some repeat offenders start having all their comments pre-moderated.

    The comments here (when all is working as it should) are intelligent, friendly, rational, civilized and welcoming to people of all views BECAUSE they avoid party partisan arguments. If you want to exchange comments about how evil government policies are (or how wonderful they are), about how all wicked Tories think X or all wicked Lefties think Y, about why politician A is doing things because he is evil and uncaring, while politician B does them because he is kind and true and noble then do it somewhere else, or the comments here will just devolve into the sort of comments you get on Guido’s site or Comment Is Free which are none of the things I listed above. Bad comment drives out good.

  48. @LizH

    It may well come to what you suggest but it will not be just the rich affected. I believe that the days of a free NHS are strictly time limited and everybody will require there own pension funded from earnings.

    As I post elsewhere the rich will move to where they can get the best value for there wealth

  49. TOH

    please tell the rich… dont wait

  50. Apologies AW, I have been doing a lot of washing this morning to help my wife after a weekend entertaining visitors and I found it difficult not to respond and establish a better balance.

    Off to spend time in the garden, sunny here so togood to waste. Have a nice day all.

1 7 8 9 10 11 12