This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%. This is a bit more typical of YouGov’s recent polling after a rather incongruous eleven point Labour lead in yesterday’s poll – the underlying average in YouGov’s recent polling appears to be a Labour lead of about eight points.

Given it was the first poll following the spending review (as I said, not something I expect to have any particular impact), it also included some economic trackers. George Osborne’s approval rating continues to be solidly negative – 52% think he is doing a bad job as Chancellor, 25% a good job. However, he has extended his lead over Ed Balls on who would make the better Chancellor. 32% now prefer Osborne, 23% Balls.

Also out today is a new batch of polling from Lord Ashcroft, this time looking at Boris Johnson. I shall try to write a bit more about Boris in the days to come….

184 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33, LAB 39, LD 10, UKIP 13”

1 2 3 4
  1. That said, I’ll save our resident Tories the trouble of saying “1992 called; it wants its psephology back” by saying it myself. ;)

  2. Spearmint,

    I rarely double post from an old thread but I wrote this when I did not realise this one has started. Basically same as youbase for Con and lab around 35% now.

    ”As per my post above I think the real gap once the UKIP vote falls for the GE is nearer 5 already and as you imply the extent of the Economic recovery will determine how much the Con vote increased over 35%.
    Re Lab soft vote, I think the 35% strategy never existed but the number emerged from some ideas suggesting that 35% is Labour new core given 2010 vote plus 25% 2010 LD.
    As such I think the real core once the UKIP daliance erodes are very close for the main 2 parties.

  3. It will be interesting to see how far (if at all) the UKIP vote declines at the GE. They are likely to have had a boost from a good result in the 2014 Euro elections.
    Also, I know quite a few local UKIP activists. They certainly don’t care if Labour get in at the next election as they can’t see much difference between any of the main parties. Of course this attitude may not necessarily apply to voters as opposed to activists.

  4. Anyone who can’t see much difference between Labour and the Tories really isn’t paying attention…… (or is an idiot).

    Although Labour’s new economic policy might reinforce that view.

  5. I still feel Labour’s potential range is greater than the Tories’ at the upper end and that is very simply based on polling evidence.

  6. I wouldn’t/couldn’t speculate on how far each party’s potential vote share could reach in 2015…….I don’t personally think the current polls tell us much in that regard. I think the public’s regard for all parties is such that anything is possible, quite frankly. But, we can say that Labour are still comfortably ahead as it stands and on course for an OM.

  7. I agree Neil. If nothing else you know where you are with the Conservatives. They think the deficit is too big, and want to bring it under control by reducing the size of Govt. Got it.
    With Labour I did think their policy was ‘we want to borrow more, as we believe it may give a boost to growth, regardless of the shorter term increase in debt’. Although now I am genuinely unsure what Labour are saying, which is worrying given I follow politics incredibly closely. I think they have now agreed to the Govts spending limits, virtually all cuts, and the bulk of this weeks spending review, although I am not completely sure of that.

  8. However, I would say this….if I were a Tory, I would be deeply concerned that they have a ceiling of 38/39%. There is nothing concrete to say that they couldn’t theoretically hit 40% or more beyond recent historical data, but they haven’t done so in many years – including when Labour were at their lowest in 2010. As I said, it’s possible but currently very unlikely IMO.

  9. Forgive me Rich but what Labour is saying is straightforward even if you don’t agree.

    Same envelope for current spending in 15/16.

    We should bring forward investment by borrowing more now while rates are cheap and will make a judgement on whether borrowing to invest in 15/16 at the time of the GE.

    Also crucially for their message they claim they will be fairer.

    Opposing Cuts up to now was right as the lack of Growth proves but we are where we are now and the balance of advantage has shifted from supporting the Economy through current spending to investing.

    Opponenst can scoff and say incoherent but it is credible even if you disagree.

  10. @Rich

    It’s simple, whatever Tory policy was a year previous is what Labour’s policy is now.

  11. rich

    “If nothing else you know where you are with the Conservatives”

    Just needs “We might be horrible but” in front of that and there’s their 2015 slogan. It’ll be a shoo-in.

  12. @ Neil A

    Since I think I pay attention, so I would fall in your second category… Anyway

    Labour and Conservatives ESSENTIALLY say the same thing, but there are nuances and more importantly, they try to speak to different audiences.

  13. Doubtless Osborne’s election slogan will be ‘ Arbeit macht frei’

  14. I don’t see any difference, seems Labour has promised to do the same as the Tories but be a bit nicer about it or should I say condescending

  15. Actually, it would be rather surprising if they had different views – to do that, the governing values would have to be different and they aren’t – the differences are only quantitative (which is the curse of the LDs). It’s a different question if in the populous there is an appetite for a qualitatively different message – the polls don’t suggest so.

    So, the question is merely the differences in the sizes of the target audiences and the willingness of the individuals in these to vote.

  16. “Doubtless Osborne’s election slogan will be ‘ Arbeit macht frei’”

    Mine is, on balance, more likely.

    Unless they go with the rather pithy “Bugger.”

  17. @Wily, Rich, The Other Howard

    I think there’s been a great deal of Austerity. Ask anyone on disability benefits, or who used to work for a closed library or youth centre.

    The problem is that, sometimes directly, the Austerity did not benefit the public purse. In the clearest case, cuts to HMRC have led to them being poorly equipped to stare down the likes of Apple, Google and Starbucks. If you don’t pay the tax collectors, tax doesn’t get collected. And if you fire a tax collector when they can’t get any other work, Government still has to pay them unemployment.

    Then there’s the situations where functions were transferred to private companies, which turned out to cost more than when government ran it directly. Or where bids were accepted that should not have been and services fail with the government having to spend extra to repair the damage.

    The Government’s plans for growth circled around “Capital Investment” projects… But movement on it started too late, and far far too few of them were ‘Shovel Ready Projects’ to borrow an American term, and so nothing significantly back into the economy.

    Their initial plan was simply to make targeted tax cuts, that would ‘stimulate’ the private sector to take up the slack. The private sector did not grow as much as the public sector shrank, and that’s left an economic quagmire it’s hard to get out of. But that tax cut stimulus still heavily cut into Government revenues.

    That Austerity has failed to decrease government expenditure does not mean there was no Austerity. There was, it was harsh, it’s going to get harsher. But it’s all been economically ineffective and counter productive.

    I’d be interested if anyone could mention *one* Austerity measure that has not resulted in a net increase of expenditure either directly or due to second or third order effect.

  18. @Laszlo “It’s a different question if in the populous there is an appetite for a qualitatively different message – the polls don’t suggest so.”

    Although the polls are surveying a populace who – for the most part – haven’t been exposed to a qualitatively different message (unless you consider Nigel Farage to be putting one out), so the evidence is inconclusive on the question of how they would respond to such a message.

  19. Ken Tynan used to say that there was only an inch or so difference between Tory and Labour,but that was enough.
    l tend to agree, as the honest alternative to voting for one or the other is to break out the Kalashnikovs!

  20. @ GreenChristian

    Yes, you have a point. But without a sizeable (large) number you would need a political organisation. While I sympathise some of the green arguments, it lacks the organisation and cohesion that would (could) do that. So, after all, practically the inconclusive is conclusive at the moment (what happens in the future is a different matter).

  21. @Graham

    Should Labour’s then be:

    “Schulden macht Sie wachsen”

  22. @JimJam,

    Has there been a fundamental change in world economics that means that cuts in 2010-2015 are harmful to Britain’s economic health but cuts in 2016-2020 aren’t?

    Would you have a fundamental objection if the Eds were announce tomorrow that they were going to completely reverse Coalition policies, across the board, and borrow as much money (currently available freely and cheaply) as it took to do so?

  23. rin

    “should I say condescending”


  24. “Has there been a fundamental change in world economics that means that cuts in 2010-2015 are harmful to Britain’s economic health but cuts in 2016-2020 aren’t?

    Would you have a fundamental objection if the Eds were announce tomorrow that they were going to completely reverse Coalition policies, across the board, and borrow as much money (currently available freely and cheaply) as it took to do so?”


    Massive straw man alert!!!!!!

  25. RICH
    “Gin @ Tonic, with lemon & cucumber. (gin is Hendrick’s, lovely with a slice of cucumber.”


    Sounds good. What was the tonic? I’m partial to Fever Tree…

    By the time you posted I had been persuaded to stay out and had hit the bourbon. (Sadly they had run out of Woodford though. Osborne needs to get his priorities right and sort it out…)

  26. JIM JAM

    @”Opponenst can scoff and say incoherent but it is credible even if you disagree.”

    I think you explain it better than the Ed’s do Jim Jam.

    But , I presume you would acknowledge that the answers to the last two questions in the thread Poll indicate that the public are not convinced of it’s credibility.

  27. Looks like DC had a fun day out in Brussels !

  28. @jayblanc,

    except the issue with big business tax existed during Lab years too when we had a much bigger state, so I am not sure the link is always there between revenue and size of Govt! If anythingI think the Conservatives are determined to make progress in this parliament on big business tax, but it’s a very co pled issue when these big business work across international boundaries.

    @jimjam, I agree with Colin, you explain it better than EM! The only point to make, which I think Neil made, is that I suspect many Lab supporters would still be happy with the old position of more opposition, but I guess you have had to move with the changing party line.

    @carfrew, Fever Tree is the best, great shout. It was Shweppes last night, but a few months back Waitrose had a great offer on Fever Tree and I bought about 16 mixer bottles. Awesome stuff.

  29. Falkirk Syndrome breaking out into quite a bad infection:-

  30. RICH

    It is intent , determination & efficiency which get results-not mere headcount:-

  31. Colin, I have noticed a very worrying aspect in your posts and that is the misuse of the apostrophe. Perhaps Michael Gove is right after all regarding the teaching of grammar.

  32. Rich/Colin – thanks I have your quotes on my CV accompanying my application to Labour’s media team.

    It is clearly the case that Labour and EB lag on Economic trust questions. What is not clear is whether it is the legacy or the new position which is the main drag; I suspect that as most people don’t follow policy announcements as much as we do it is mainly the legacy.

    Neil A – short answer, difference now is that there is some nascent growth in the Economy driven to some extent through lower savings ratios.

    By 15/16 we will have growth over 1% (maybe close to 2%) p.a so (to use the buzz phrase) the balance of advantage changes from boosting aggregate demand directly through current spending in favour of more capital projects.

    A bit of a wriggle I grant but credible enough and the typical voter won’t care what Labour said in 2010-12 just like they forgot about DC/GO saying they would match Labour’s plans right up to Lehmann’s collapse.


    Well spotted.

    Gove is definitely correct.

    I had a very deprived up-bringing-plus I’m a lazy writer.

  34. Sorry – Neil/Rich to answer you directly, yes some (perhaps many) Labour supporters and activists would prefer continuation of opposition to cuts.

    Realists among us recognised that even while we reveled in the Governments ‘omnishambles’ discomfort the Granny Tax, CB changes, plus other measures like Tax Credits cuts etc would not be reversed in the 2015 manifesto.

    We can still oppose some cuts but need to shown where we would find the money.

    I think the bedroom tax may be one such exception, not least because there is evidence it is counter productive. We may want to call for an impact study of the 7 day wait policy as well but suspect in the end we will not reverse it but use a hardship back up fund or some such.

  35. @ Amber Star (from the previous thread)

    “Yes, I’d read all the exciting news from the USA about DOMA & Prop9; I’m not sure that Rudd I much better than Gillard on this issue but maybe you can tell me different, if you know more – but nevertheless, a great day indeed & I hope you had a fantastic celebration of it!”

    I actually predicted (somewhat) the strange majority on Prop 8 by the Supreme Court. Amber, this was really an episode of playing with fire. But we didn’t get burned due to fortunate circumstances.

    The exciting news though was really today. It was expected that marriages would not be able to resume for at least 25 days if not more on Wednesday because that would be the time required for remmtitur (I’m spelling it incorrectly) from the Supreme Court for its decision to become final. Once that happened, the 9th Circuit would then get around to lifting the stay of the District Court’s judgment. So basically, paperwork and waiting.

    But then, today out of the blue, the 9th Circus issued a one sentence order lifting its stay of the District Court. Same-sex weddings could resume immediately. Upon hearing the news, Kamala Harris rushed over to San Francisco City Hall and officiated the wedding between two of the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier. Well because of the quick news, this resulted in some confusion. This required Harris to get on the phone (she’s such a diva……I love it) to order the confused Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office to issue a marriage license to the other two plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, Jeff Zarillo and Paul Katami. They then were married on live national television by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who conducted the wedding at City Hall. Kinda exciting. Watched at the gym and gave a couple of fist bumps while on my machine.

    Now here’s the funny thing. Who is currently the Mayor of Los Angeles? I don’t know. The new mayoral term is supposed to start (I thought) on July 1st. Yet, the Inauguration for Eric Garcetti, the new mayor ,is scheduled for this Sunday, June 29th. I heard this was ceremonial. But then this morning, I learned that the Mayor as well as the other two citywide elected officers and all the councilmen were privately sworn in. This leaves me confused quite honestly. If we’re attacked by terrorists or aliens, who is our voice to the nation and the world? Is it Antonio or is it Eric?

    Well, thank god, we didn’t have an attack but we did have a big wedding ceremony. When Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC anchor, announced the soon to be live wedding (her show’s first ever), I wasn’t sure who the “Los Angeles Mayor” was going to be. To add to my confusion, Eric performed the first legal same-sex marriage ceremony in California in 2008.

    It’s been a long, hard, at times strange journey. Really. This has been not just the 4 and 1/2 years since Prop 8 but 9 years since Gavin Newsom began this battle. Maybe it’s really 13 years if you want to go back to Prop 22. But now it’s finally over, at least here in the Golden State. I’m playing Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture on Youtube to celebrate.

  36. I blame the texting and twittering for the decline in standards of English. When I started work many decades ago, you were expected to be able to write letters and reports to a reasonable standard. These days, even with University education, I find that many younger workers in their 20’s have difficulty in writing properly, without falling into bad habits picked up using new media formats.

  37. @ Amber Star (from the previous thread)

    “And I agree about Jim Murphy – his obvious support for equal marriage has pleased & surprised many of us (he’s Catholic).”

    He had been a very solid vote on those issues in the past (from what I could tell….sometimes not being present for votes). But he had done it in a purely strict capacity as a Labour MP (as he’d been instructed by Tony Blair or Gordon Brown). But I’d noticed he’d been more outspoken on the issue and not just marriage equality but on other things as well (getting quoted in this article about Prince Harry taking on homophobic bullying, etc.). It made me wonder if perhaps he has higher leadership ambitions.

  38. Colin, I too came from a deprived working class background, but thanks to the reforms brought in by the Attlee Government I was able to make something of my life and have now had 25 books published. My next is, in fact, about growing up in the East End of London in the 50s and 60s. I hope I can rely on you to purchase a copy when it comes out.

    Any excuse to get a bit of advertising in….. :-)

  39. NOBOLD.
    Publisher’s names please.
    Serious request.
    ‘My generation’ was the last to be able to go to grammar school, or in my case, an Independent Grammar School to which the Local Authority- in my case it was Surrey then Sutton – paid the scholarship.

    As Kinnock said in that speech Labour Councils built many of those schools.

  40. @jimjam, I think you speak a lot of sense, and look like a labour supporter who is also grown up enough to identify weaknesses of your own party’s position when they are evident.

    I think you’ll also find the likes of centre righters like Colin and I are more than willing to identify issues with Conservative policy we don’t agree with.

    @norbold, well done on the books. Writing a book is one of those things we have all thought about at some point in our lives, but the reality of getting one complete and published must take a huge amount of effort.

  41. Colin

    “Looks like DC had a fun day out in Brussels !”

    Aye, but the fact that he had one up the spout was a bit too much information.

  42. @Chris

    I can’t actually say at the moment as it is not a finally done deal. My agent is dealing with some distasteful financial issues which I don’t like to sully my hands with. As soon as I get the all clear from her I’ll let you know.

  43. I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding of Labour economic policy here. My understanding is thus:

    *Additional government spending to promote growth is planned, but this will be in election-winning areas such as widespread tax cuts followed by capital spending, not election-losing areas such as increasing benefits.

    *Some coalition cuts will be reversed but only if they are paid for by populist measures such as bashing the rich. Announcements to be made nearer 2015.

    *Other cuts may be reversed later, when there is more growth. But nothing is automatic and there may be better ways to spend any money.

  44. NORBOLD. Thanks, have you read the Dominic Sandbrook books?

    I am now on to his 1970-74 volume, having read his later book on 1974-79 as well as his accounts of the 1960’s.

    Very well written stuff.

  45. rich

    “Writing a book is one of those things we have all thought about”

    I’ve been thinking about reading one: what are they like?

  46. COLIN
    Well spotted.
    Gove is definitely correct.
    I had a very deprived up-bringing-plus I’m a lazy writer.

    Take a few days off from UKPR then mate!

    Only kidding I would miss you.
    As our resident Latin corrector have a go with this one:
    Commentaires vos semper me ridere

  47. @Rich
    ‘I think you’ll also find the likes of centre righters like Colin and I are more than willing to identify issues with Conservative policy we don’t agree with.’

    You keep repeating this contention. I don’t think it’s backed up by the evidence. I noticed in one recent poll we had on leadership qualities that Labour voters were much more likely to ascribe positive attributes to DC than Con voters were to EM. Note only Con voters were reluctant to ascribe positive attributes to EM. Lab and LD voters seemed quite positive towards him.

  48. ^ I like this contention. :-D

  49. @ SoCal

    It made me wonder if perhaps he [Jim Murphy] has higher leadership ambitions.
    I think there are two reasons for JM raising his profile:

    Firstly, we have the referendum in 2014 so all Labour MPs & MSPs are wanting to be noticed by the public to show how much influence Scotland has in the UK; &

    Secondly, I think JM has become genuinely much more concerned about armed forces personnel since he got the shadow MOD brief. He seems to have become increasingly aware that equality issues seem to be ‘magnified’ in the forces with women, gay & ethnic people still being very much under-represented therein & facing exceptional difficulties. The forces perhaps being a bit of a refuge for bigotry is bad for the bigots too. It makes life very hard for them – & those around them – when they leave the forces.

    So I actually think JM has a renewed vigour regarding equality for more altruistic reasons than self-advancement.

  50. I find JM a very impressive and thoughtful person.

1 2 3 4