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 2 3 5
  1. Harking back to that 40/30/15/10 poll a while bak, that is a sort of benchmark.

    Lab won’t want to fall far from 40, Con will be desperate to stay at 30 or above.

  2. Regarding popularity of leaders I am sure AW will correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall Tony Blair having an unfavourable rate of around 64% in 2005 before the election.

    Still I suppose the current party leaders can but dream of 36% popularity ratings.

  3. Polling is boring recently. Nothing’s shifted VI since the local elections!

  4. Steve

    Re Tony Blair.

    This link contains good info and shows how significant events affect a PM’s popularity.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4717504.stm

  5. @Nameless

    If you dicount UKIP not a great deal has changed for many months, with Labour still around 10% ahead of the Tories, and the LDs around 10%.

    It’s arguable that barring a seismic one-off event, the die for the next GE has already been cast.

  6. The majority of people (60%) think that today’s children will end up worse off than their parents were.

    Hard to see how they could end up better off with housing becoming ever more unaffordable.

    Unless the UK has a major crash in property prices how will most children ever afford a mortgage with prices at upwards of £200,000 and more?

  7. Huckle

    Thanks and interesting and indicates even at his popularity low point TB seems to have been more popular than any of the current crop of leaders of the main 3 parties

  8. @RAF

    It’s arguable that barring a seismic one-off event, the die for the next GE has already been cast.

    —-

    So far there have been 3 major moves in VI since the 2010 election. None of them seismic. But all having a major effect in creating the current VI.

    First: During 2010 and early 2011, the loss of Lib Dem votes to Labour.

    Second: The ‘Rich Mans’ budget of 2012 and the subsequent loss of Conservative votes to UKIP and to a lesser extent Labour.

    Third: 2013 and the loss of Labour (and to a lesser extent Conservative) votes to UKIP during the last six months.

    Will there be any more? If there are, will they be seismic? Or are things now set for the GE?

  9. @Steve

    The practice of prioritising polling over principles (how alliterative) can do that. That and a bit of charisma.

  10. It’s true that the polls don’t look much different lately on average, but as many have said, these things should be seen over a period of time
    .
    If we take a snap shot of all the polls since the beginning of June 2013 Labour has been averaging a 8.2.% lead over the Tories.
    If we look at the same snapshot of all the polls for the same period in June 2012 we see Labours lead was 10.3%.

    Now I would be the first to say the Tories need to improve there game but on the other hand they remain in touch, dispite some terrible headlines and have even seen a couple of points fall in Labours lead over the year, when they might of expected the oppositions lead seen beside the coalitions austerity programme to be going in the opposite direction.

  11. @ Chris Todd

    Third: 2013 and the loss of Labour (and to a lesser extent Conservative) votes to UKIP during the last six months.
    ————————
    If ComRes respondents are to be believed:

    Using Comres to analyse the UKIP voting intention (Page 47)
    307 voters represents that 19% support for UKIP. But when asked “Generally speaking what do you think of yourself as”

    84 of those 307 say UKIP – 27% of UKIP vote
    122 say Conservative – 40% of UKIP vote
    50 say Labour – 16% of UKIP vote
    10 say Lib Dem – 3% of UKIP vote

    [Richard provided the above extract on the previous thread]

    How would that change ComRes VI outcomes?
    UKIP 19% –14% = 5%
    CON 26% +8% = 34%
    LAB 35% +3% = 38%
    LDEM 10% +1% = 11%
    Other/ DK = +2%

    That’s based on all UKIP voters who don’t think of themselves as kippers returning to the Party they self-identify with.

    It would be interesting to have this Voter self-ID information for YG, rather than just the 2010 actual vote. Labour’s 2010 vote was very low – so having the ID information might give us an idea of the number of potential Labour voters who are currently choosing UKIP.

  12. @ Steve

    Thanks and interesting and indicates even at his popularity low point TB seems to have been more popular than any of the current crop of leaders of the main 3 parties…
    ——————
    I think the expenses scandal, the banking sector turmoil, the coalition & TB becoming ‘filthy rich’ has resulted in people being much more cynical about politicians.

  13. CHRIS TODD
    The majority of people (60%) think that today’s children will end up worse off than their parents were.

    Hard to see how they could end up better off with housing becoming ever more unaffordable.
    Unless the UK has a major crash in property prices how will most children ever afford a mortgage with prices at upwards of £200,000 and more?
    June 16th, 2013 at 11:36 am

    xxxxxxxxxxxx

    I agree. No party political point to be made here either. Simply that housing & at least three housing booms (80s,90s,00s), pensions/annuities collapsing etc means there is zero chance the next generation will be as wealthy as the current one. Even if we embarked on an enormous house building programme, it wouldn’t scratch the surface on this disparity. Most of the very desirable areas have limited build opportunity and finite land given the size of the uk, so it’s likely to be big purpose built estates that will get done anyway, tiny plots etc Tough challenges ahead for whoever gets in, especially if you look at even higher youth unemployment across many other parts of the developed world.

  14. How come there ain’t polling on nuking tax havens, simple and cost effective

  15. “Hard to see how they could end up better off with housing becoming ever more unaffordable.

    Unless the UK has a major crash in property prices how will most children ever afford a mortgage with prices at upwards of £200,000 and more?”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but is this the first recession in history where there hasn’t been a crash in house prices? (Definitely a good thing in my opinion)

    I think that house prices need to go up and stimulate the construction industry and in turn the rest of the economy.
    The only way to achieve this is a big increase in demand and a population increase is the best way to achieve this.

    As a property investor with a good sized portfolio of houses I rent out to low income families (mostly Eastern Europeans) I see things pretty clearly in terms of the property market and EU immigration and I must say that they are the only thing that has prevented a property crash.

    There are regular bidding wars between prospective renters at the letting agency I use and this is causing rental prices to go up and in turn increasing demand for the low grade housing that I buy in auctions. In turn low grade housing going up in price has caused the houses higher up the ladder to go up in price.

    UKIP’s policy on immigration hasn’t taken these arguments into account and they really need to have a rethink.

  16. @ Chris Todd & Rich

    Hard to see how they could end up better off with housing becoming ever more unaffordable.
    ————
    Won’t the children inherit the ‘boomers’ houses & stuff when they die – or are we expecting the ‘boomers’ to live for ever having benefitted from the ‘death gene’ being identified & then ‘nuked’ for free on the NHS?

    Actually, instead of blaming the ‘boomers’, folks need to be pointing at the elite 10% who we are told have sucked up 90% of the UK’s wealth.

  17. @Amber
    Many of the houses will have to be sold to pay for care for the increasingly frail, superannuated boomers in the next 30 years.

    It is the elite’s fault, not least the failure to build houses in the last few decades. The younger generations are getting a much worse deal though, not least with university fees (see recent appalling news). Even their NHS is being threatened.

    I fear this is turning younger people against the state, even where it is a non-controversial good, as seen in the recent Social Attitudes Survey. It was the existence of the interventionist, Welfare State that allowed the boomers to get that better deal.

  18. LOSERER

    @”. It was the existence of the interventionist, Welfare State that allowed the boomers to get that better deal.”

    The term “baby boomer” seems to relate to a rather flexible set of birth dates-so I’m not quite sure if I qualify.

    But just in case I do…..

    ……the Welfare Sate had F*** All to do with “the deal ” that I finished up with.

    Such as it is , it was acquired by 40 years hard sodding work .

  19. @Turk

    I don’t really see how the Conservatives can be considered to still be “in touch of the ball” here. In football terms, and to be honest I haven’t watched a game of football since the 90s, the Conservatives won the toss, but have been tripping over their own feet ever since. They haven’t been on a real offensive against Labour since winter 2012 and the Veto-that-never-was. A lucky tackle, that was out of position to score?

    As of now, and considering that Immigration, Europe, and Benefits have failed to shore them up; it is unclear what the Conservatives have in terms of positive campaigning. The UKIP drain seems to have levelled out, and the net result is status quo ante – an election tomorrow would be a Labour Landslide.

    Now, what could potentially benefit the Conservatives from this is if UKIP voters return to main parties, but more return to the Conservatives than Labour. But the problem there is that most of UKIP’s votes came from DK/DVs, and they are more likely to return there than any of the main parties. I don’t see an “Appeal to UKIP voters” winning an election, particularly when it risks losing the moderates.

  20. @Colin
    Well, maybe I should have qualified it but as a wholethe people born post war enjoyed adequate and affordable housing supported by state funded housebuilding, they had their medical costs covered by the NHS, they enjoyed the secuirty of unemployment benefit and free university education.

    Of course they worked for what they got (but not for what they inherited), but the welfare state had more than f*** do with it and your statement is demonstrably wrong.

    Of course there are exceptions, people who did it all themselves, and received no help at all from the state, but that does not represent the whole generation.

  21. @colin,

    I agree. My parents I would describe as middle class now, but they got there through hard work over coming up to 50 years, as their parents/ my grandparents were very much working class, a market stall owner and a newsagent.
    The welfare state had zero to do with my parents or myself doing ok, it’s been through working hard every single day of their/my adult lives.
    Without wanting to dredge up the MT debate, my parents credit the 80s as allowing them to really do well and probably move in to the middle class bracket.

    Rich

  22. You cannot blame the ‘baby boomers’ for being born at the time they were. But I think some of addtitional benefits received should be targeted at poorer pensioners only.

    The simple fact is that in many countries they have not adjusted their economies to suit increasing populations. The UK’s population in 1951 was 46 million and in 2011 it had grown to 62.5 million. By 2025 it is estimated to hit the 70 million mark, of which about 17% will be of state pensionable age.

    People and companies will have to pay more tax and/or be forced to put more money aside for pensions. This will mean that people have less income to pay for housing costs and therefore should have an impact on house prices.

    Planning rules will have to be relaxed in some ways, to stop NIMBY campaigns delaying house building. I don’t agree with building too many homes on green belt land, but there is room for many towns around the country to receive additional housing. There are loads of brownfield sites in most cities/towns that could be used to build affordable housing. The UK needs to have several million homes built during the next 10 years. If these are built, it should stop housing costs increasing too much.

    Tax avoidance must be reduced on a worldwide basis to stop companies offshoring their revenues and importing their costs, so they can be as ‘tax efficient’ as possible. It is really silly that a major company can earn millions of advertising revenues in the UK, but these are somehow earned in Ireland, where they can pay half the rate of corporation tax. This is apparently lggal for companies, but if an individual tried this, they would end up in prison.

    If the government does not manage to sort out tax avoidance, it just means that they will struggle to pay for all of their spending commitments and will have to continue borrowing.

  23. LOSERER

    Every house I purchased was built by a Private Sector Builder to whom I paid the then market price.

    Everyone today gets their medical costs covered if they use the NHS.

    There is unemployment benefit today too.

    Free University has certainly been restricted-to first time graduates after 2012 who earn under £21k pa.

    I inherited nothing.

  24. @Colin

    With all due respect, all your hard work was made substantially easier by the welfare state. Free university education, cheaper housing, full employment policies and job security…

    The current generation entering the workforce are expected to work just as hard as you did, if not harder, but will get much less and will have fewer protections.

    The generation who will now be entering retirement benefited greatly from the welfare state and nationalised infrastructure while they were young, and then benefited greatly from dismantling and privatising them when they were middle aged, and are now demand that protecting their pensions be the primary aim of any government.

    I suggest this may be the cause for why “Baby Boomer” is a politicised epithet.

  25. RICH

    Thanks.

    They are just looking for someone to blame for everything-I guess my generation & yours are as good a scapegoat as any.

  26. Your privately purchased housing was still substantially cheaper because the socialised housing brought the market price down.

  27. I didn’t intend to say people didn’t work hard, I apologise if that is how it came across, just that people who work just as hard today will not be able to afford what people in the past had, and that has more than nothing to do with the interventionist state of the past.

    The biggest thing is the housebuilding, the lack of which is really hitting the young. Rich’s parents customers had more to spend at their stall because their rents and mortgages were lower, for instance.

  28. The prime minister from a party traditionally associated with law and order is saying that the police are dishonest. Aside from the irony of a politician talking about dishonesty, is this really the Tory party?

  29. @Colin,
    I wasn’t blaming the older generations, if you re-read my comment you will see. But maybe I am wrong and the price of your houses were utterly unaffected by the supply of housing available, or that supply was unaffected by council house building.

    Perhaps people live in bubbles where the actions of the state has zero effect and only how hard they personally work matters.

    I admit my comment about the welfare state was over simplified, but I stand by the statement that the postwar generations as rule got a better deal from the state than current generations.

  30. JAYBLANC.

    The Welfare State was not a factor in my career, or it’s outcome.

    Sadly, Free University Education was not something from which I benefited. It is of course still available to people who earn less than £21k pa.

    Are houses today any more expensive in real terms than they were when I first bought? I doubt it. You should try repaying a mortgage with 1970s mortgage rates.

  31. @Colin,
    It’s not free if you earn under 21k you don’t pay anything yet, but the debt baloons at RPI+3% and you have to pay back more when you do earn above the threshold. And they can change the terms of that loan at any second.

    That is not free.

    So your career had nothing to do with the British economy?

  32. RICHARD

    He was trying to suggest that some may have been dishonest-and he was doing so in the context of the Plebgate arrests.

    You can decide whether he had reason to say that when Operation Alice is concluded .

  33. LOSERER

    It is free if you earn less than £21k now-we shall see how that is indexed over time.

    If you earn a high income after graduating , you repay.

    Whatever you haven’t repaid after 30 years is written off.

  34. House prices, adjusted for inflation, are between 2 and 3 times more expensive now than in the 1970s. Interest rates low of course, but will that contunue? And a deposit to find.

  35. @Colin

    University education in the early 80s included a good cost of living grant, housing benefit and social security in the vacations. Plus tuition costs.

    That was all gradually stripped away.

    Of course many more go to University now, but there is little doubt that the financial deal in 2013 is far, far worse than it was then.

    However, I think that there are a range of things that mean that our children will be better off than us – technology is making the world a far more interesting place, the nuclear fears we had in the 80s are largely a thing of the past, the world is far more cosmopolitan (remember when pasta was considered exotic?)

  36. I was willing to believe that Lab’s lead really had softened a point or two but if this latest YG is maintained for a few days then we just witnessed ‘longer blips’ that’s all.
    I am ever more convinced, from colleagues’ analyses, (for which thanks Lefty and all), that we must regard half the UKIP vote as non voting, or evenly split, as regards the 2015 turnout, seen from today’s standpoint.

    How’s that for a sub-clause-full sentence?

  37. @Colin
    “Are houses today any more expensive in real terms than they were when I first bought? I doubt it. You should try repaying a mortgage with 1970s mortgage rates.”
    ——————————————-
    Maybe you had MIRAS to help reduce your outlay? State subsidy. Housing Benefit by another name.

  38. Perhaps if there was a compulsory euthanisia programme for anyone reaching say 75 years of age, it would save the country a lot of money. The NHS would be able to cope, i.e no queues at A&E, operations done quickly and if the euthanasia is not counted in the stats, better death rate stats for Hospitals.

    A joke of course, but perhaps there needs to be a proper debate about how a UK government needs to gear the system to cater for a larger population of older people. If you look at the population stats/estimates, the NHS is going to be under massive strain in the years ahead.

    People live longer, but they need to have many more NHS treatments to maintain their health. There is also the issue of younger people with unhealthy diets and binge drinking, which will also cause problems in the years ahead. The NHS budget is going to be under massive pressures and rationing of health services is going to become more of an issue. It is not just the cost of existing treatments, but any new drugs, new equipment and new surgical procedures are also more expensive. This may partly explain why the Tories wanted to delegate down control of NHS budgets to GP commissioning groups.

  39. @ Reg of the BNP

    If you want to live in a communist country, emigrate.
    —————-
    ROFLOL, Your own Party is giving (lip?) service to tax avoidance by the richest 10%. Are you suggesting that your own Party’s supporters all emigrate to a communist country?

    And also: LOL! If you want to live in an all white, Christian country, why don’t you emigrate?

  40. @Reg of the BNP

    “If you want to live in a communist country, emigrate. We are capitalists in this country. ”

    Speak for yourself.

  41. @Chris Todd

    “Will there be any more? If there are, will they be seismic? Or are things now set for the GE?”

    Here’s my general impression of what I believe might happen.

    2014:

    – UKIP get masses of support in the EU elections;
    – The Scots say “No” to independence;

    2015:

    – Much of the UKIP support shifts back to Con / Lab in fear of allowing each other in the door;
    – The SNP get masses of support in the Scottish elections again.

    I just have a feeling that folk will want UKIP in Europe, the SNP in Holyrood, but are not quite ready for massive change in Westminster.

    The Lib Dems will do well to get anything from any of the events mentioned, short of there being anti-Con or anti-Lab voting at the GE. (imho).

  42. Amber Star
    Not all the richest 10% avoid tax. Just because somebody has money, that doesn’t make them a bad person.
    In answer to second paragraph: No1 reason – there are no all white, all Christian countries, No2 reason – I don’t mind a multiracial/multireligous mix but I think that we should prevent immigration as we have reached our limits when it comes to immigrants.

  43. Academic
    Are you communist?

  44. @Colin

    Those who claim they had no benefit from government handouts, always seem to cast a blind eye to any government subsidised service they used. And of course it’s not their fault if any government assistance was automatically applied to their circumstances. And well, buying BT and British Gas shares was just taking advantage of an opportunity. And it’s simply right that the dismantlement of welfare should have reduced their tax bill…

    Claiming that you had no benefit from the welfare state, and didn’t take advantage of it’s deconstruction, is part of why the younger generation view the older generation so poorly. “Not our fault! Stop blaming us!” doesn’t cut it. The previous generation get the praise or the blame for the state of the world they pass on to the next Generation.

  45. No are you fascist?

  46. No, but capitalists aren’t fascists. Non-capitalists are communists.

  47. The world is not divided between Friedmanist Capitalists and Stalinist Communists.

  48. @Statgeek

    The next Holyrood elections are not until 2016, to avoid clashing with the 2015 Westminster elections, after an agreement that elections with different voting systems should not be held simultaneously.

  49. Jayblanc
    I agree… to an extent.

  50. ‘- UKIP get masses of support in the EU elections;
    – The Scots say “No” to independence;’

    If UKIP gets lots of support then the Scots will go for independence as they are far more pro-Europe than those in South Britain.

1 2 3 5