YouGov’s weekly results for the Sunday Times are now up online here. Current voting intentions are CON 31%, LAB 42%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 11% – typical of late, and no signs of any “Thatcher effect”, positive or negative.

46% of people think Thatcher was a great (20%) or good (26%) Prime Minister, compared to 35% who think she was a poor (9%) or terrible (26%) Prime Minister. Only 10% said she was just average. For what it’s worth these figures are a bit more negative than when YouGov asked the same question for the Sun at the start of the week – could be people less willing to be negative when the person being asked about has only just died, or the coverage grating on people’s nerves, or just normal sample variation. We can’t tell.

How much Thatcher divides opinion is apparent when you compare here to other past Prime Minister. She is rated more positively than Blair, Brown and Major, but more striking is how opinions on her are more extreme – many people say either great or terrible (46% between them), where with other recent PMs opinion tends to cluster around the mid-point.

So for Tony Blair 30% thought he was good, 36% bad, 30% average (and only 4% and 14% said great or terrible). For Gordon Brown 10% said good, 62% bad, 25% average (2% great, 31% terrible). For John Major 12% said good, 35% bad, 40% average (1% great, 9% terrible). YouGov asked about Heath too… but got lots of don’t knows, showing the limitations of asking the general public about politicians who were in power before many of them were born. Asked which later Prime Minister can best claim to be the heir of Thatcher (a good or bad thing depending on your point of view!), 52% of people said either none of them or don’t know. Of those who did answer, David Cameron was the most common response with 23%.

People were somewhat more evenly split on whether Thatcher was good or bad for the country – 42% thought she was good, 38% bad. On balance people thought that she left a country that was better off, was more respected in the world and offered more opportunities for women. However, people also thought she left a country that was more divided and less equal. Overwhelmingly they thought she did not do enough to support areas where traditional mining and manufacturing industries were closed.

Asking about the specific policies Mrs Thatcher introduced in office there were very divided opinions. Large majorities (68%) thought she was right to use force to retake the Falklands and to get a rebate on Britain’s EEC contributions. Majorities of people thought it was right to introduce the right to buy (60%) and to take on the trade unions (55%). By 46% to 36% people also thought it was right to cut the top rate of income tax from 83% to 40%.

People were negative about the introduction of Section 28, prioritising inflation over unemployment, deregulating the City of London and privatising utilities like British Gas and British Telecom. By far the most negative reaction was to the Poll tax, which 68% of people thought was the wrong thing to do.

Moving on to the reactions to her death, on balance people support the BBC coverage of her death – 24% think it has been too positive, 16% too negative, 40% that they have got the balance about right. The decision to recall Parliament is seen as wrong by 49% of people compared to 35% who think it was right, and 53% think those Labour MPs who did not attend were right to say away. David Cameron’s own response is seen as appropriate – 47% think he has respondents in an appropriate and dignified way, as opposed to 28% who think he has tried to play her death for political advantage.

On the funeral, 8% of people think Thatcher should have been given a full state funeral, 42% that the ceremonial funeral she is being given is correct, 43% that she should have been given neither. The Queen’s decision to attend is seen as correct by 57% of people.

There is comparatively little support for any further commemoration. Only 29% would support a new statue of Thatcher in London (and only 18% a statue in Trafalgar Square) and only 17% would support renaming Port Stanley after her. However, there is also wide scale rejection of people who have organised parties to celebrate her death – only 14% of people think this is acceptable, 75% unacceptable (including a clear majority of Labour party supporters).


288 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 31, LAB 42, LD 12, UKIP 11”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. @ Phil Haines

    I believe the current rules of the International Rugby Board (IRB) allow players to qualify to play for a country based on their parents’ or grandparents’ country of birth. Alternatively a player can qualify based on residency in a country for a defined number of years.

  2. Current FIFA rules:
    The relevant current FIFA statute, Article 17: Acquisition of a new nationality, states:

    Any Player who … [assumes] a new nationality and who has not played international football [in a match … in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association] shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions:
    (a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
    (b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
    (c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
    (d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

    Recent History of Changes
    Since 2004, FIFA has implemented a series of significant changes to the rules covering international eligibility. The new rulings are more stringent and set additional requirements that determine which country a player may represent in international football.

    In January 2004, a new ruling came into effect that permitted a player to represent one country at youth international level and another at senior international level, provided that the player applied before their 21st birthday

    In March 2004, FIFA amended its wider policy on international eligibility. An emergency FIFA committee ruling judged that players must be able to demonstrate a “clear connection” to a country that they had not been born in but wished to represent. This ruling explicitly stated that, in such scenarios, the player must have at least one parent or grandparent who was born in that country, or the player must have been resident in that country for at least two years

    The residency requirement for players lacking birth or ancestral connections with a specific country was extended from two to five years in May 2008 at FIFA’s Congress as part of Blatter’s efforts to preserve the integrity of competitions involving national teams.

    In June 2009, FIFA Congress passed a motion that removed the age limit for players who had already played for a country’s national team at youth level to change national associations. This ruling features in Article 18 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes.

  3. There are also UK specific rules which seek to limit the number of home nations teams for which a player is eligible over the course of her/his playing career.

  4. PC:

    I will NOT leave it at that. There are still so many lessons for us to learn from that era.

    For a start, it’s well known that unemployment was rampant in the 1320s. Overpopulation, idle beggars, feckless mothers. That sort of thing.

    The Black Death was God’s way of sorting out the supply side problem. Clean out the useless scum and allow space for the entrepreneurial folk in the working class to blossom.

    I assume the DfE has that era high on the list of issues that must be covered in detail in the new History curriculum?

  5. @Chris Riley

    I certainly was worried about finding work prior to graduating in 1982, just as I would be now. The main difference is I wasn’t £50k in debt.

    Leaving that aside, I am a bit more sceptical about labour market statistics than you appear to be. The problem is that for some time they’ve been out of line with most other economic data.

    There are certainly a lot of nuances needed when making comparisons. What about the growth of internships now compared to then? Or the numbers who are resorting to taking low paid jobs with effectively no career prospects better than if they’d left school at 18 or 16? Or those unable to claim unemployment benefit under today’s tighter eligibility rules? Or those who choose not to sign on in order to spend their time fruitfully on activity that will help their career rather than waste their time as unpaid labour for Poundsaver?

  6. Lefty

    I am afraid I am not prepared to continue this debate – suffice it to say I am right and you are wrong.

    Music in the 1320s was the dog’s b*llocks: monody was at its height.

    Plus cricket hadn’t been invented.

  7. Labour seems to have a real problem with this benefit cap they seem to be opposing a benefit cap of £500 pounds per week £2,000 per month tax free which would mean to get the same amount of money you’d have to earn about £36,000 pounds a year way above what a normal unskilled working wage is.
    Labours only answer is to keep referring to the 45% tax for the rich or increase emploment without actually say how it would be funded.
    I would think they will do little better on the employment front than the coalition, nor do I think it likely they will increase taxes for the rich and even if they put it back up tp 50% it will not raise enough money to plug the gap in welfare spending or anything else come to that. So that leaves them with a credibility gap in managing the welfare budget, so far they have had a relatively free ride with just opposing any reforms on welfare however I have noticed that even some of the more sympathetic commentators have begun to ask other than being a party of protest exactly what are Labours proposals rather than aspirations to deal with the welfare crisis.
    Based on pass election experiances I did think that Labour could cruise to a victory by being just that, a protest party, however things have changed in politic’s people seem to change there minds more these days and Labour don’tt seem to have increased their lead in the polls on the back of welfare cuts which I must admit I thought they would, so come on Labour let’s see what your new idea’s are on managing the countries finances, thats if you have any that will make a real difference.

  8. Good Afternoon All.
    Black Death was 1348.

  9. TURK

    That was what TBs “advice” was all about.

    All the same-a very steady 10% lead must be a temptation for EM not to go upsetting any apple carts.

  10. Just come across ‘Britannia Unchained’ a book written by Liz Truss ,amongst others.lt purports to be a vision of the future , with Thatcherism’s prescriptions rampant.
    Very scary stuff. Electorally they could only get to put it into practise IF they didn’t tell the electorate first i.e. no mention in the Manifesto.Just like they did with the NHS reforms this time….

  11. @Turk
    “Labour seems to have a real problem with this benefit cap they seem to be opposing a benefit cap……”

    Stop there.

    Miliband on ITV News
    Labour leader Ed Miliband said the benefits cap should take into account housing costs in each region.
    “We’ve said we’re in favour of a benefit cap but it has got to be adjusted regionally depending on housing costs in each region,” he said.
    “The danger of the way the government is doing the cap is that it forces people into temporary accommodation, bed and breakfast accommodation, which drives up costs, not reduces them.

  12. @ Turk

    While this is highjacking the rather interesting discussion of the 1320 hit list (The Witches, The Heretics, The Serfs, The Women – my folio is ripped so I don’t know who were on the hit parade from 5-10), but anyway

    1) Nothing objective relationship connects wages and benefits – merely prevailing social norms today. In my view it is unacceptable that if somebody looses his job, not for his fault, suffers any reduction in his income at all.

    2) Benefits and the 50% tax is neither here or their in public finance. Where it’s possible to make the difference are pension, health and education. Cuts there would also help overpopulation and employees insisting on various perceived rights

    3) Labour did a lot of incremental reforms in the benefit system – I don’t agree with them, but they did.

    4) For an opposition party Labour is actually quite concrete – but they don’t want to give up on protest votes (I actually think it’s less important for Labour than assumed).

  13. @”“We’ve said we’re in favour of a benefit cap but it has got to be adjusted regionally depending on housing costs in each region,” he said.”

    I thought they were against regional pay differences in the public sector.?

  14. LASZLO

    @”In my view it is unacceptable that if somebody looses his job, not for his fault, suffers any reduction in his income at all.”

    Can I understand this Laszlo?

    You advocate unemployment pay at a level equal to the last pay received when in work, the only exception being where dismissal was for disciplinary reasons. ?

  15. @ Colin

    I said “Not for his fault…” Or meant. Obviously disciplinary actions and alike do not apply.

    However, I would say that incompetence would…

  16. @Colin

    They were opposed to regional pay differences, because the proposal was to reduce wages never increase them. And it was dropped because such pay regulations would certainly require a national housing revaluation to survive legal review. Something the Conservative party do not want to happen.

  17. LASZLO

    Ah-so dismissal for inability to do the job too.

    …..still- redundancies in the high paid end -the Financial Services Sector for example-would make for some very happy jobseekers-and a few suicides in the Treasury & DWP !

    What an interesting idea!

  18. …………..how long would you be able to draw unemployment pay equal to your last wage/salary?

    ………..is there a teeny problem here……?

    Why would I bother to get another job?

  19. Merrie England.
    There was a series of harvest failures & livestock murrains in England from 1315-19 which caused heavy loss of human and animal population: this after a century of growth. Population grew v. slowly until 1348-50/51, when 1/2 to 2/3rd was knocked out by the Black Death.
    Bubonic plague was a remarkable disease in that it killed virtually everyone it infected. If I taught creationism I would include it as a near-perfect example of “intelligent design”.

  20. Turk

    Labour leader Ed Miliband said the benefits cap should take into account housing costs in each region.
    “We’ve said we’re in favour of a benefit cap but it has got to be adjusted regionally depending on housing costs in each region,” he said.
    “The danger of the way the government is doing the cap is that it forces people into temporary accommodation, bed and breakfast accommodation, which drives up costs, not reduces them.

    -Which sounds very much like a policy to me.

    The problem the Tories will have is that 50% of the over spend above £500 pw occurs in London Half from families with 4 or more children,many are already working and basically it all goes to Landlords.

    You make these tenants homeless (which will be the result if you don’t restrict the rent ) and it will cost more to house them in temporary accommodation than you save.

    Also IDS’s claim regarding 8000 having found workbecause of the possibility of the cap being implemented has been found to be spurious as there is no established causal link between the Two figures as no record has been kept as to why the people concerned are now in work and no evidence what so ever to suggest that the threat of the benefit cap had anything to do with it.

  21. @ Colin

    Let’s say for 12 months, then some reduction for 6-12 months. After then absolutely nothing. Nothing from the government. I don’t really care about them then.

    Incompetence is a fault of the employer (why hiring the person, why not training, etc).

  22. @ Colin

    I thought they were against regional pay differences in the public sector.?
    —————-
    That’s a silly comment. Capped housing costs should include a London weighting; I believe that public sector pay does. Can you recall the London housing allowance that Osborne has agreed to pay Mark Carney? It was quite substantial, if my memory serves.

  23. The whole benefit, wage and taxation system is just convenience. Minimum wage was increased today to 6.31. That’s about 13,000 a year – so taxable. Then it’s either not minimum or the tax regime is wrong. No logical explanation – convenience.

  24. Housing benefit already has a cap with rates are set according to local authority area – so in effect we do have regional variations. So we could have a benefit cap that excludes housing quite easily.

  25. LASZLO

    Ah-so the company pays this.I thought you were proposing JSA increases.

    Many companies do have redundancy schemes related to pay & length of service rather than the minimum statutory entitlement ( which is also linked to length of service)

    AMBER

    THanks

    I think the first roll out is in four London Boroughs so presumably we will learn if the cap is too low for those areas.

  26. @Leftylampton
    @Paulcroft

    Sorry to intrude on your debate, but I find this sort of thing rather interesting. I presume you are discussing Western Europe when talking of the best decade?

  27. @ Colin

    I meant it as a kind of JSA.

  28. Reg

    Its not a private debate so you’re not intruding at all.

    It is a load of ole tosh though as I was dead in 1320.

    As an optimist I have to assume the best decade is the one coming up. Sadly I can’t think of any part of my life that would attract me to living through a whole decade of it again in the same way.

  29. Looking at the latest yougov poll and thinking about Thatcher. The 40-59 age group are over-represented in the poll. 785 responded, shrunk by weighting to 678.

    Somebody who is 40 now was 6 in 1979 and 17in 1990, whereas somebody is 59 now was 25 in 1979 and when she was kicked out by her own party they were 36. So most of that group no an awful lot about Maggie’s reign and many of the older ones would have experienced life befor Maggie (with the younger ones being able to compare to life after).

    That age group breaks 50% to Labour and 26% to Tory in voting intention.

    Interesting to see if polling for the rest of the week stays the same way.

  30. PC

    Music in the 1320s?

    Pah. There was far better much around during the Viking times

    I never could understand how Angels by Robbie Williams was voted 3rd best song of the Millennium back in 1999. Everyone knows that Olaf the Hairy’s 1032 version of We are Wassailing is the finest song of the last thousand years. Far better than the cover version by Rod Stewart.

  31. LL

    We must agree to disagree – and that you are wrong.

    Did you know by the way that Olaf the Hairy was actually bald and they gave him that nickname for a laugh?

    And people say the Vikings didn’t have a sense of humour.

  32. The £26k figure that gets repeated ad nauseum without any qualifying statement is such a false premise for debate.

    The vast majority of households will get nothing like £26k. The cost of housing varies hugely across the country & the only households likely to get anything like £26k live in London but it suits the government & its supporters to give the impression that all households in receipt of benefits will get that amount.

  33. And the song was called “We Was Sailing”.

    Plus it was rubbish – especialy the shawm solo.

  34. Nick P.

    I’d picked up on the VI of the 40-59 year olds some time ago. Even when the Tories took the lead at the time of the Cameron bounce and EM slip in Dec 11/Jan 12 after the EU Veto (sic) and the abortive Labour coup, the 40-59 net VI was generally in favour of Labour. And their response to Thatcher’s demise buttresses my (possibly partisan, I thought) conclusions.

    School leavers are always the ones who get the crap end of any recession. There was a whole generation that came of age sometime between 79 and 92 that picked up the worst of the two big spikes in unemployment. It’s barely surprising that some many of them view the 80s as a time of trauma rather than national re-birth, and so many seem to have a permanent anti-Tory slant.

  35. “Plus cricket hadn’t been invented.”

    —————

    @!!%@!!!!#[email protected]!!!!???&??!!%$%?????$#@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    !!!

  36. @NickP & Leftylampton

    Yes, I’m 57, and we are also the cohort who had retirement within a foreseeable timescale but are the first to be affected with having to trudge on for extra years…..ugh!

  37. Viking music was alive and well (well, alive) in 1975 as evidenced by Robert Calvert’s seminal album “Lucky Leif and the Longships”.

  38. @Turk – it’s a little tiresome to be honest. Even @Colin sometimes finds faults with the 1980s and occasionally agrees with something Labour does.

    On the benefits cap itself, it sounds popular, Labour have a coherent riposte, albeit one that needs a modicum of thinking about, so will be beyond some newspaper editors and some of their readers to grasp, but while I’m unsure, I feel this might be a Chairman Mao moment.

    A significant number of ‘experts’ believe that the cap could well increase benefits costs. This could be the usual campaign tactics, but these reports also come from more neutral sources. If a family are evicted due to inability to pay bills, than the cost to the taxpayer for emergency housing will soar. As most of the families affected appear to be single parent units, the options for work may be limited for many, so this kind of scenario could well develop into something difficult for the government.

    I’m intuitively in favour of the cap, along with other measures like time limited benefits. However, I’ve been around long enough to know that sometimes the ‘common sense’ approach leads to unfavourable outcomes, and sometimes a counter intuitive approach provides a better end point.

    Rather than uncritically absorb press briefings and politically inspired headlines, sometimes it’s better to think a little independently and wait to see what happens. Like Mao and the French Revolution.

  39. Presumably one of the ideas behind the benefit cap is that it will encourage benefits recipients to move to cheaper housing – further from the centre of London? This will then force rents downward in the areas that they vacate, thus bringing them less out of line with the rest of the country.
    Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Less money going to greedy landlords etc.

  40. “Gold Standard” / ICM:

    Lab 38% (-1%)
    Con 32% (+1%)
    LD 15% (NC)
    UKIP 9% (+2%)

  41. The Guardian are reporting their phone ICM poll over 12th – 14th April :

    Cons 32, Lab 38, LD 15, UKIP 9

    Lots of Thatcher comparisons – none of which are complimentary to Cameron.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/15/margaret-thatcher-death-polling-cameron

  42. Snap !

  43. ICM Poll out:

    Lab 38 Con 32 Lib 15 UKIP 9

    If Thatcher were still leader Con would be on 40% apparently- which must go down as the most ridiculous question ever and subject to some dodgy humour. Stop it now- as AW would say!

  44. Reg
    Its not a private debate so you’re not intruding at all.
    It is a load of ole tosh though as I was dead in 1320.

    -But it’s only 1727Now
    What are you a Mayfly?

  45. Miles too slow me!

  46. ICM Poll out:
    Lab 38 Con 32 Lib 15 UKIP 9
    If Thatcher were still leader Con would be on 40% apparently-

    Being Dead would only be regarded as a minor inconvenience for my localTories

  47. @Paulcroft

    I had gathered that it was ‘tosh’. Even so I would be interested in an answer to my question.

    @Steve

    Your local Tories are clearly different to mine. In my area there is nothing to stop them winning except there own pessimism and fault-finding.

  48. Presumably one of the ideas behind the benefit cap is that it will encourage benefits recipients to move to cheaper housing – further from the centre of London? This will then force rents downward in the areas that they vacate, thus bringing them less out of line with the rest of the country.
    -I thought the purpose was supposed to be to encourage people to work, by forcing them into low rent normally high unemployment areas this clearly completely defeats the intent.

    The main reason why those with large families in social housing often can’t afford to work in London and consequently why the welfare bill is large is because wages are too low, rents are too high , child care costs are extortionate and public transport is the most expensive in the World.

    None of which will be impacted by the welfare cap.

  49. @PeteB

    I presume you’ve not rented in London in the recent past? The demand for decent-sized rental property is so monstrously overwhelming that even if thousands of families are affected by this it won’t even cause a slowing of rent increases – the idea of a fall is laughable.

    With regard to the morality of forcing families on benefits to move to cheaper areas – it makes me uneasy and it could easily be interpreted as social cleansing. I’m not particularly politically aligned either way myself but the areas of London I’ve enjoyed living in the most have always been those containing people with a really broad mix and it would sadden me to see them homogenised.

  50. Colin.

    I may be mistaken but I think in Europe the unemployment benefits are often a significant percentage of the last salary up to a generous limit. Some at up to 80% of the last wage

    I think in these cases the benefit is time-limited and recipients have to work hard on trying to get a new job

    TI saw a table showing the UK is virtually at the bottom of the list when it comes to generosity.

    Good job the odious ‘Sir’ Mark Thatcher is eligible for funeral payment aid

    https://www.gov.uk/funeral-payments/eligibility

1 3 4 5 6