This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun had topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%. YouGov’s recent polls seem to have been showing a slight downwards trend in UKIP support, with a couple of 12s and 13s starting to appear. There has been some discussion of UKIP’s position in recent weeks – largely started by that ICM which appeared to show them dropping 6 points in a month, but which was actually largely a reversion to the mean after an odd poll the month before. UKIP’s support has NOT suddenly slumped, but looking at the YouGov daily poll they do seem to have gone off the boil a bit:

It shouldn’t be a big surprise, immediately after the local elections they were receiving massive media coverage, that has now receded a bit. The point to remember is that while the short term publicity boost from the locals appears to be dissipating, they are still substantially up on before the locals.

The rest of the YouGov poll today (full tabs here) had the regular question on which party was best on various issues. The Conservatives have a 2 point lead over Labour on which party people prefer on the economy, 27% to 25%. Labour have substantial leads over the Conservatives on the NHS (35% to 21%), education and schools (32% to 23%) and unemployment (30% to 24%). The Conservatives lead on immigration (28% to 18%) and law and order (31% to 23%). On Europe the Conservatives and Labour are equal on 21%… this is worth noting. I often see the assumption that Europe is a strong issue for the Conservatives, one where they are most trusted than Labour. It really isn’t the case.

Also worth reading today are an interesting piece by Hopi Sen on where Labour’s lost support has gone in the last couple of months. Hopi has sadly committed one of my pet hates and looked at what has happened to 2010 past voters for each party without considering the chunk that are saying don’t know or won’t vote – but it shouldn’t change the interesting conclusion that some of Labour’s lost support in recent months is former Lib Dem voters moving from Lab to UKIP, presuming people looking for the most convenient “anti-government vote”.

Finally there is a piece by Peter Kellner up on the YouGov website looking at the gap between voting intention and best Prime Minister, something I’ve written about at length before and won’t rehearse again, but highlighting both how Miliband trails Labour, but also how Cameron continues to out pace the Conservatives.


104 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 40, LD 10, UKIP 13”

1 2 3
  1. First?!
    Wow…!

    Agree with the comment re 2010 LDs moving via Labour to UKIP – classic protest voters deserting LDs and the Labour when a better ‘option’ comes along. Suspect a few of these have gone to the Greens as well…

  2. So it looks that as UKIP now seem to be finding their steady position in the polling Labour are averaging between 8 and 10% lead again with Yougov (except for the off outlier) and we are back to where we were a few months ago with the exception that both Labour and the Conservatives have fallen a few points.

  3. I think the trending down of ukip in yougov polling is largely a result of the sensationalist reporting of that icm poll, most folks would have just caught the headlines and concluded that ukip has become more of a wasted vote

  4. Just a silly thought on the libdem Switchers from lab to ukip, I would be tempted to say ukip if asked for my VI just because I’m really annoyed with the way some parts of the press are doing a fptp hatchet job on ukip, the whole wasted vote blah Blabber blah that as a libdem has been making my blood boil for years

  5. Fair cop on your pet hate, and you’re dead right about it!

    However, if I can be cheeky, it would be much easier to not annoy you if YG produced a table in which those 2010 voters who are DK/WVs were _included_ in the total share, so you can see how the entire compostion of the 2010 vote changed over time..

    Eg, on todays poll, the conservative support from 2010 is stated as breaking as 70 C 5 L 2 LD 23 Oth (inc UKIP). Then the DK/WV is given as 15. This makes it a bit harder to correctly state the shares including DK/WV.

  6. There is also the point that although ukip policies are very un libdemish a good result for them moves forward the libdem project of constitutional reform

  7. @ RiN

    I’d be hugely surprised if many ordinary voters were even aware of the ICM poll reversion, let alone influenced by it.

    Far more likely that UKIP’s slight re-tracement is down to their being less in the news – there were a few weeks where the focus on UKIP was bordering on the ridiculous, which has now subsided.

    I’d also question the description of a ‘FTPT hatchet job’ on UKIP; from my personal perspective the reporting on UKIP has generally been both relatively superficial and supportive, and given them a relatively easy ride.

  8. Did you see that?

    A real person just said something!

  9. Alec

    Are there real people here?

  10. @ Chris Riley
    ‘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. ‘

    Surely much of the problem here arises from massive grade inflation over the past 25 – 30 years? For a good 20 years a 2.1 has become very much the ‘normal’ or average – degree with the result that students who fail to achieve it are seen as having underperformed. Back in the 1960s and 70s the normal degree was very much a 2.2 and anyone who managed better was judged to have overperformed – whereas today a 2.1 no longer stands out.. Had standards been maintained , the trend really ought to have moved in the other direction since 30 – 40 years ago undergraduates were confined to the top 5 – 10% of each academic cohort compared with the top 30 – 40% today.. The change is doubtless explained by a combination of heavy reliance on modular course work – years ago degrees were based almost entirely on final exams – and league table pressure on tutors to ensure that their students are seen to match results elsewhere.. When I now hear that someone has been awarded a 2.1 I ask two questions – where did you study? and – when did you get it?

  11. but it shouldn’t change the interesting conclusion that some of Labour’s lost support in recent months is former Lib Dem voters moving from Lab to UKIP, presuming people looking for the most convenient “anti-government vote”.

    Oooo… no… I can’t see that.

    That doesn’t fit at all.

    More likely to be traditional Labour voters moving to UKIP. (In much the same way that those voters move to the BNP and for much the same kind of reason).

  12. @RiN – “Are there real people here?”

    No. You’re called Doris, and you live in Clacton.

  13. (answer to last thread)

    Allan Christie

    I don’t know what BNP policies are on the mentioned animal.

    Paulcroft

    From your comments on the last thread, I find very insulting to a Scotsman like myself. In fact, if I am perfectly honest, I think of the English as having very little to identify themselves with except for things that are British. The Scots at least have their own national identity as well as their Brtitish identity. We are Scottish Brits up here whereas you Englishmen are just Brits (nothing wrong with that, and you do at least have Morris dancing).

    AW

    Have there ever been any polls on what Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen call themselves.
    e.g. do more Welshmen call themselves Welsh or British.

  14. I have never seen the component parts of Great Britain as being any different in status to similar parts of Germany and Italy et al. Bavaria – Westphalia, Saxony , Brandenburg etc have been separate states in their own right much more recently than England, Scotland & Wales.. Much the same is true of Tuscany, Lombardy et al in Italy.

  15. “… I think of the English as having very little to identify themselves with except for things that are British.”

    As a Scotsman, I think that’s rubbish, and fairly typical of the narrow mindedness displayed by a few of my fellow Scots.

    England and the English have a rich heritage and history to draw upon, with a great, great deal to be proud of, (along with plenty of less savoury moments, as all nations do.)

    In particular, England has always had a great self confidence, openness and outward looking mentality, which is why England has generally been able to incorporate new ideas, new people and new thinking. By contrast, there are some elements of celtic culture that have been strikingly petty and backwards, although as a Scot, I also take great pride in many things that are defined as Scottish.

    Nobody is perfect, nor should we engage in pointless belittling of others, unless they are Belgian.

    On Morris dancing, as a Scot, I believe it is better and more enjoyable than Scottish country dancing. You never saw a car named after the Gay Gordon’s.

  16. Alec
    I should have mentioned in my post that I was giving my stereotypical view which is not neccesarily true. I have many English friends and my company has four premises in England which is double the amount it has up here so I have nothing against the English and have over 100 working for me.

    I would like to make the point, however, that I believe a lot more in Britishness than anything else. If I was asked how I described myself it would very firmly be British and if I was asked where my capital city was I would say London. Independence is disaster.

  17. Alec
    I forgot to mention in my last post that I do not really think that you would call me narrow-minded if you met me.

  18. I do not take any notice of telephone polls and/or polls that do not prompt all parties.

    Only the polls that reflect what happens at the ballot box more realistically are worth taking notice of.

    And funnily enough those are the polls where UKIP still hover around 20%.

  19. Reg of the BNP: “I think of the English as having very little to identify themselves with except for things that are British”

    Say whaaaa?!….

  20. The Scots at least have their own national identity as well as their British identity. We are Scottish Brits up here whereas you Englishmen are just Brits (nothing wrong with that, and you do at least have Morris dancing).

    Well expect I don’t count as British from your point of view with Two Scottish Grandparents One Irish and One Italian and all Jewish or Catholic and not particularly Caucasian but as an Englishman I would hazard a guess not having a monumental chip on both shoulders might be another difference.

  21. Alec Why engage?

  22. In the previous thread I commented on the consequences for Labour of a Scots yes vote for independence. What I was referring to was not just the loss of seats in the event of a close election, but also that within the Labour party their Scots MP’s have always played an important role. Labour would therefore have to make changes within their cabinet team and within ministerial ranks. Also Labour appear to be playing a leading role in campaigning for Scotland to remain within the UK, so any loss would hurt them.

  23. The Lib Dem modest improvement in the early part of this year has proved robust, imo due to better differentiation.

  24. Steve2
    Pardon? I am not sure what that is meant to mean or say.

    Steve
    I have no chip on my shoulder and I have no idea where I would be able to get one. I have had no more negative happenings in my life than positive ones. Please explain.

    Both Steves and others

    I did not mean to insult any Englishmen on here and it seems I have. As I have already stated, I think a great deal of most of the Englishmen I know.

  25. @Jim Jam – “Alec Why engage?”

    Honest answer? Because I miss read the original post and thought it was from Alan C, rather than Reg quoting AC.

    My fault.

  26. No I won’t
    It’s cold and lonely on the naughty step!

  27. Steve
    I am not asking you to do anything that would put you on the naughty step, I am simply asking you a question that I am genuinely interested in the answer for. A lot of people attribute BNP supporters with having a chip on their shoulder and I am perfectly serious and non-partisan when I ask you why.

  28. @Mark Thompson
    “I do not take any notice of telephone polls and/or polls that do not prompt all parties.
    Only the polls that reflect what happens at the ballot box more realistically are worth taking notice of.
    And funnily enough those are the polls where UKIP still hover around 20%.”

    Hmm. I can see your point. But it really depends on whether people analyse all possible options before casting their vote. I don’t think they do. Also it would be impossible to.poll that way. How many parties only stand in a few constituencies? Should YouGov prompt for these parties?

  29. It still gives a better shot at where the real mood is. Then again we haven’t really seen an insurgent like this.

    Cameron’s too late to tame the UKIP tiger. UKIP has been in existence for 20 years, but in some respects its work has only just begun.

  30. An illuminating article by Hopi Sen, well worth a read..

    I think the analysis suffers a bit by trying to draw conclusions from snapshots of two singles weeks of polling six months apart, assuming that both are representative of the weeks around them. What surprised me about it was that in the week selected in December Labour was well ahead of the LDs in terms of allegiances of 2010 LDs. That pattern wasn’t repeated in the subsequent five polls in December when Lab and LD were neck and neck for allegiances of 2010 LDs. On the other hand I think the sample is not overstating the erosion of the Lab 2010 core vote to UKIP. On today’s poll Lab is doing relatively badly in terms of retention of its 2010 core vote (down to 84% with 6% to UKIP, or 75% factoring in DK/Dvs) and is registering a 9% lead only by virtue of reestablishing a lead in terms of 2010 LDs (39% Lab v 34% LD).

    So I suggest that a longer snapshot is needed to draw definitive conclusions – several weeks or perhaps a month’s worth to be sure.

    That said, even with slight quibbles about the data, the general thrust of the analysis seems sound – that is, elements of both the 2010 Lab core vote and the 2010 LD switchers to Lab are vulnerable to UKIP and neither group can be taken for granted.

    It’s unfortunate that we can’t tell from the tables what is happening specifically to those who voted Conservative in 2010 but Lab in 2001 (some of whom had switched in 2005, others in 2010). That’s by definition a very volatile part of the electorate and I suspect a quite disenchanted part at this point. I suspect that it’s going even more heavily to UKIP than the Con vote in general. We do know that Labour is picking up very few direct switchers from 2010 Cons at the moment, which is where I think it should be doing a bit better.

  31. FT reports a fascinating piece of research by BoE into the state of UK Banking before the crash & it’s implications for lending now.

    At the end of 2007,Foreign-owned branches accounted for 45 per cent of UK banking assets.They now account for a third of total UK banking assets ( compared with 5 per cent in the eurozone and 9 per cent in the US.) !!!

    Lending from foreign-owned branches boomed in the run-up to the crisis before collapsing by 45 per cent between the third quarter of 2007 and the same period in 2009.By contrast UK-owned banks pulled back their lending far less dramatically than foreign branches during the height of the crunch, shrinking their loan books by 14 per cent over the same two-year period.

    The three Icelandic banks that ran branches in UK took in billions of pounds of deposits and funded huge investments in British companies in the pre-crisis period. They all failed in 2008.

    The UK was much more susceptible to a damaging collapse in foreign lending than elsewhere.-and that susceptibility is a factor in lending shortfalls today.

    Foreign-owned branches are supervised by the regulator of the country where they are based and are not separately capitalised.

    Foreign-owned subsidiaries must be separately capitalised and overseen by British regulators. Subsidiaries, which make up 14 per cent of UK banking assets, cut lending by just 12 per cent.

    FT comments that the contrast between the behaviour of subsidiaries and branches helps explain recent efforts by UK regulators to force or, in the case of EU institutions, strongly encourage overseas banks to operate as subsidiaries rather than branches.

    The pre-crash economy really was fired up by a tide of unsustainable credit.

  32. @colin,

    Spot on, which is why people always should be aware that the unique set up we had in this country, and the enormous bubble around house prices, secured debt, and even worse unsecured credit, meant that we were always going to be hit hard come a crash. This is where the 13 years of Labour does have some blame, as it relentlessly pumped the housing market and unsecured credit markets as a tool of ‘growth’. It was illusory growth.

  33. RICH

    Indeed.

    Just been reading the research itself.

    Not only were foreign branches a huge part of UK banking, they were more than usually sustained by the very funding models which failed .

    This is from the BoE research paper :-

    “Foreign branches also appeared to rely more on flighty sources of financing than UK-incorporated banks. During the boom,branches financed much of their expansion in UK lending through cross-border borrowing from the rest of their banking group abroad. And during the crisis, in contrast to both UK-owned banks and subsidiaries, foreign branches, in
    aggregate, up-streamed (net) lending significantly to other parts of their banking groups abroad. Foreign branches were also heavily reliant on interbank funding, especially from abroad, that turned out to be fickle”

    Disaster waiting to happen.

    There was a massive failure of Prudential oversight & regulation.

  34. Hopi Sen/AW

    Interesting read. I was guilty of the same cardinal sin in doing more or less the same analysis and coming to more or less the same conclusion a few weeks back. Like you two, I reckon the conclusion is sound even if the methodology is a bit creaky.

    8:26am post here
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7408/comment-page-1

    9:45am post here
    h ttp://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7435/comment-page-10#comments
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7435

  35. Colin

    If you follow this line that the growth in the years up to 2007 was all piss and wind and built on unsustainable debt (which neatly removes any blame from the current Administration for the permaslump) then it seems to me that you have a very big question to answer.

    Since the early 1950s, our long term real growth rate has been 2 and a bit %. It was that in the Man From The Ministry era. It was the same growth rate in the 70s. It was the same growth rate under Maggie. It was the same, on average, through the Lawson Boom, the 89-91 bust, Black Weds and the re-grouping under Lamont & Clarke. It was the same throughout New Labour’s time, up to 2007.

    Now. If you are saying that the growth under New Labour (or a big chunk of it) was built on unsustainable debt and wasn’t “real”, you are implicitly saying that something fundamental happened to our economy in the run-up to 2007 that meant that our economy suddenly (relatively, in historical terms) lost the ability to continue on its long-term growth path without the recourse to gorging itself on debt.

  36. Duh.

    I’ll get it right in a moment – just noticed that the first post went into Auto-Mod, so my second post with a link made no sense. Let’s try again.

    ————————————————————————-

    Hopi Sen/AW

    Interesting read. I was guilty of the same cardinal sin in doing more or less the same analysis and coming to more or less the same conclusion a few weeks back. Like you two, I reckon the conclusion is sound even if the methodology is a bit creaky.

    8:26am post here
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7408/comment-page-1

    9:45am post here
    h ttp://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7435/comment-page-10

  37. LEFTY

    Yes , I agree that is a conclusion one could easily come to.

    The growth of Credit is , I think demonstrable in ant number of charts.

    What would have happened to UK’s economy in it’s absence is a very interesting question.

    I think another interesting question is -did the expansion of credit itself , and specifically the areas to which it was directed, somehow tilt the UK economy into a balance of activities which was inherently less sustainable & more “fickle”-and militate against less fickle / more sustainable sectors ?

  38. @lefty,

    Yep I take the point about long term growth trends, which you can flip the argument the other way and say if growth was always so moderate over the longer term, then why so much antipathy towards Thatcher from the left, as growth would have been no better or worse under other Govts. Anyway. perhaps we don’t want to go there.
    I think Colin ‘s point is valid, in that without the boom in credit during the Blair/Brown years, does that mean growth might have been pretty awful through the whole period!!?

    I notice inflation has started to tick up…finally affects of QE starting??

  39. Colin

    I agree that borrowing grew to ridiculous levels. I can see now sane argument against that.

    I’m also prepared to take on board that this fact skewed the economy.

    This is my amateur observation on that.

    1) Personal indebtedness grew because people were prepared to take on more debt in a low interest rate environment.
    2) People wanted to take on more debt primarily to finance house purchases, but also to subsidise lifestyle/living costs.
    3) The housing bubble could have been deflated by increasing interest rates.
    4) But this would have had a strong negative effect on the real economy – that suggests that if rates had been raised, our long term growth rate in the period 97-07 would have dipped well below the historical 2-and-a-bit% level.
    5) Solution? More regulation on mortgages and the housing market to deflate the housing bubble whilst not hammering the real economy. And a fairer distribution of the proceeds of growth so that those at the middle-to-lower end of the scale don’t have to subsidise their lifestyles by debt.
    6) All of which sounds like a return to pre-deregulation and low top tax rate days.

  40. @lefty,

    Successive Govts have banked on house price growth then?!

  41. Rich

    I’ll make two observations of the difference between UK50-79 and UK80-. Both are factually demonstrable.

    1) In the later period, whilst AVERAGE growth continued at the same rate, the oscillations were more violent than in the previous era. And on the downswings, it is generally the weakest who are hit hardest.

    2) Again, whilst the average growth rate continued at the same trend rate, the proceeds of that growth were far more concentrated in the hands of the wealthy after 1980 than they were in the 30 years before.

    None of that is partisan. Both are observations supportable by evidence. I’ll post some graphs later if I get time.

  42. @lefty,

    but was some of that a natural consequence of changes in industries/manufacturing that were inevitable under any Govt? discuss.

  43. The rate of growth in debt in % terms was scarcely different to the rate since the mid 70s but in purely nominal terms it looks more impressive because of the exponential curve effect, the sea change occurred in the mid 70s and can not be laid at the door of one party or another but at the collective political elite. What we can do about it now is another question as all 4 major parties(5 if we include the snp ) are still committed to a debt money system and far from endeavouring to discourage further increases in unseasonable private debt are in fact actively promoting it. There still has not been any significant delevaraging!!

  44. @ Rich

    This is where the 13 years of Labour does have some blame, as it relentlessly pumped the housing market and unsecured credit markets as a tool of ‘growth’. It was illusory growth.
    —————
    That would be the reason why house prices in the UK have crashed since 2008… except they haven’t.

  45. What has happened about the Nigel Farage visit to support the UKIP candidate in the Bridge of Don by-election .

    Our local papers said he was coming this Tuesday.

    Has he chickened out?

  46. @amber,

    You are badly wrong on that. I suspect there are several hundred thousand people who bought city centre flats at peak prices who are stuck in huge negative equity that might confirm this.

    That particular market really did collapse.

  47. @amber,

    This data might help you, as the collapse is very clear. Whilst I agree overall prices have recovered, it’s mainly because houses have recovered strongly, but many flats/apartments are still well down from the peaks. A it depends on the housing class.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/8250960/UK-house-price-indices-in-charts.html

  48. but yes @amber, I guess the overall recovery was rather fast, which to me suggests two or three things;

    a) there is a super finite amount of desirable houses in desirable areas compared to buyers, driving strong price growth in those areas.
    b) there is a general overall shortage of all types of housing in the UK.
    c) we are heading for another bubble/crash (perhaps unlikely given points a&b)

  49. LEFTY

    Thanks.

    I will leave it to you & the historians I think. It all tends to become too partisan.

    Provided we don’t let it happen again, at least something beneficial comes out of it.

    But I’m not convinced-folks seem to really have developed expectation levels of general consumption & personal convenience which is sky high. ( at least by my standards) If /when better pay & easier credit return, will anything change?

    I hope the new BoE remit & the new regulatory bodies will not fail like their predecessors to spot the bubble & stop it. I think it will be down to them , rather than any fundamental change in modern human nature.

1 2 3