This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll is now up online here. Topline voting intention figures are CON 30%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%. All three polls today are showing a nine point Labour lead, though of course, that is co-incidence to some degree – remember that other companies like ICM, MORI and ComRes’s phone polls are showing smaller leads.

The rest of the YouGov poll asked a couple of questions about the G8 conference and some questions on generational advantages. On balance people have a positive opinion of the G8 summit – 41% of people see meetings between the wealthiest countries to work together as a good thing, 24% take a more negative view as see it more as a club for rich countries that ignores the wider global problems. The public are divided down the middle on the policing of any protests, with 38% thinking the police should do all they can to stop violent protests, even if it limits people’s rights to peaceful protest and 38% thinking the police to do call they can to allow the freedom to protest, even if there is some risk of violence.

On the issue of tax havens 56% think countries regarded as tax havens are acting in an immoral way and should change their rules regardless of what other countries do. 22% think they should wait until agreement can be reached between all countries so the problem isn’t just moved elsewhere.

The majority of people (60%) think that today’s children will end up worse off than their parents were. The baby boomers born in the 1940s and 50s are seen as by far the generation that received the most advantages and opportunities and the 1960s are seen the generation when it was most opportune to be a young adult starting out in life. Perhaps surprisingly there is not a huge difference in opinion between different age groups, whenever respondents were born the baby boomers tend to be seen as the best off.

In terms of government spending on different generations, overall respondents think every generation gets less than its fair share (though families with young children are the group that is most commonly seen as getting more than its fair share). Here there is a big difference between the generations, with each generation most likely to see itself as being the most hard done by.

211 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 30, LAB 39, LD 10, UKIP 14”

1 3 4 5
  1. @Alec
    What a well-thought out post, going against the grain of received wisdom. CC it to Ed, please.

  2. Colin – thanks.

    Here’s an actual polling question. I understand that different pollsters have different ways of calculating likelihood to vote, and of deciding whether or not to include them in the published figures.

    If we suppose that UKIP are getting at least some support from those who have not voted recently because of disillusionment with the older parties, how is that likely to affect the VI as measured by pollsters?

    I would think that pollsters who take into account whether a voter voted at the last GE, and then only counted those most likely to vote, would underestimate UKIP support in that scenario?

    Is that borne out by the figures, or does anyone have better insights?

  3. @Alec – all very interesting and cleverly worded.

    But whatever spin you want to put on it Labour are really the only major party of the UK that would lose out big time!

    Obviously it depends on the Political cycle but lets put it another way – It would be far more difficult for Labour to win at Westminster without Scotland.
    True if things get really bad for the Cons of course Labour could still win – BUT it won’t quite be as easy for them.
    That’s pure fact surely Alec!

  4. @Colin

    University courses do serve the needs of the economy.

    Media rhetoric about ‘Mickey Mouse’ courses is characterised by exaggeration, dishonesty and (sometimes deliberate) economic ignorance. There are very few entirely useless undergraduate courses (the only ones I can think of are in alternative medicine, which shouldn’t be taught in HE and soon will not be).

    That’s why graduate employment rates have held up remarkably well during the recession. The UK’s USP for HE is that our graduates are particularly flexible, and for a lot of the jobs they’re going for (probably an absolute majority, although it’s hard to do the research), it doesn’t matter if you’ve done physics or fine art.

    There’s also another set of separate, equally daft myths that you can’t get jobs if you get less than a 2:1 or if you go to certain institutions. These are also drivel and stem from a misunderstanding about the size and nature of the graduate jobs market. About 10% of jobs for graduates are on big graduate training schemes.

    This is, incidentally, not a million miles from the mistakes the devisers of the new fees system made when they overestimated future graduate earnings – they forgot that most graduates make perfectly comfortable but not wealthy livings in respectable middle-ranking professional roles and don’t become City consultants – or Whitehall policy wonks.

    Unfortunately, a steady process of media denigration of university and its graduates has had an effect and conveniently allowed the argument that university is a luxury that students must pay for to win the day.

    In Germany, the other side of the argument won.

  5. @Richard In Norway
    Re Beanz Meanz Cheatz
    Thanks, you have taught me a thing or two there . I didn’t know they got up to such trickz !

  6. Ozwald

    I didn’t either until I started reading “straight statistics” which AW has so kindly provided a link to on the left hand side

  7. Alec
    “Southern Blairite Labourites are about as different to central Glasgow Labour Lefties as Nigel Farage is to Caroline Lucas, ”
    A bit of oranges and applies going on here, i suspect. What evidence do you have either of the political beliefs of individual party members or supporters in the south and Glasgow, or of differing support for specific policy measures in party branches in the allegedly Blairite south and in left-wing Glasgow?

  8. oranges and apples even

  9. @Sine Nomine

    Do you class 2005 as the Tories doing really badly? Labour won a 153 majority, which would still be over a hundred if you removed the fifty odd Scottish seats.

  10. @Craig – yes I suppose so but recent GE have really shown up the unfair skew of a Labour inbuilt advantage and why it does need adjusting.
    Slightly different issue i know but all part of the same picture.
    If we are to keep FPTP then it just has to be adjusted to be fairer or scrapped completely.
    Then of course we may never again have a majority Lab or Con government again.
    Coalition Government forever – what a horrible thought!!

  11. Craig – um, Labour’s majorty in 2005 was 66, and would have been 43 without Scotland.

1 3 4 5