Sunday polls

This week’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times is now up on their website here. Topline figures are CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11%. The five point Labour lead is their lowest this year (the last time YouGov’s Labour lead was this small was back in November 2012). Obviously it could be a bit of a blip – polls have a margin of error – but it fits in with the recent trend of Labour’s lead narrowing a bit as UKIP come off the boil.

The rest of the poll had some interesting questions on immigration. 56% of people think that immigration into Britain has been bad for the economy, with only 19% thinking it has been a positive factor. However, on balance immigrants are seen as harder working than people who are born in Britain. 32% of people think that immigrants who come to work here are harder working, 12% less hard working, 46% much the same.

Asked about various groups of immigrants, 70% of people think we should allow fewer (or no) low skilled workers to come to Britain, 59% think that we should allow fewer relatives of people already living in Britain to come here to join relatives. People are actually far more positively disposed towards other immigrant groups – only 28% want to see a reduction in high skilled immigrants looking for well paid jobs, only 27% want to see a reduction in foreign students coming to study in British universities. Asylum seekers split opinion – 42% want to see a reduction in the number of people fleeing persecution allowed to come here, 47% are content with present numbers or would allow more.

Viewed as a whole it suggests people are far more positive about some types of immigration that you would think. It’s one of those times that, in hindsight, you wished you’d asked an extra question – in this case to find out what proportion of total immigration people think is made up of those groups. Given overall public hostility towards immigration I imagine they think it is mostly unskilled and relatives, rather the skilled workers and students they are apparently well disposed to, but it would be good to test.

Asked about specific government policies on immigration, views are once more the typical anti-immigration responses: 71% support requiring a £3000 bond for visitors from high risk countries, 84% support the idea of forcing benefit claimants to learn English or risk losing benefits.

In the Sunday papers there was also a new Opinium poll for the Observer, which had topline figures of CON 27%(nc), LAB 37%(+1), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 19%(-1). No sign of a narrowing in the polls there, although worth noting that the higher level of UKIP support is normal (Opinium are typically one of the companies that show the highest levels of UKIP support, something that they have said is probably due to them not using any political weighting).

Finally there was an ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph, largely covering recent benefit changes and the spending review. 87% of people supported stopping benefits if people won’t learn English, 53% supported making people wait 7 days for benefits. 64% support a cap on the cost of benefits that excludes the state pension, 23% think it should include the state pension. However, 56% would also support means testing age related benefits like the winter fuel payment and free television licence. ICM don’t ask voting intention for the Sunday Telegraph, instead asking respondents to predict what they think the shares of the vote will be at the next election – answers this month were Conservatives 29%, Labour 34%, Lib Dems on 15% and UKIP on 13%.


250 Responses to “Sunday polls”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. @Carfrew

    It seems that I’m not allowed to disagree with you.

  2. Forget that last comment, I thought that my 9.30pm effort had been moderated as well.

  3. It’s okay Phil. Maybe it’s Anthony’s telly night or something…

  4. paulcroft

    three or four what?

  5. Regarding Lord Hattersley…

    I love Roy, he’s my favourite Labour politician, his politics are probably closest to my own, unlike many of the senior members of that party he’s an actual grown-up, and I have a great deal of respect for him. But I have to say his record on winning elections does not inspire much confidence.

    His fundamental view that people vote primarily on a gut sense of the allegiance of the parties rather than individual policies is a good one, and it’s clear that New Labour’s triangulation (or really, New Labour’s transparent metropolitan apparatchik inauthenticity – I suspect Andy Burnham can be as rightwing as he likes and get away with it) damages the brand. On the other hand it’s equally clear that prior to 2010, the Labour base was not broad enough to win an election on its own. The Cleggocalypse may have changed that, but do any of us really want to run that risk? (Aside from Colin et al., obviously . ;) )

    I think the best analysis on the Eds’ latest round of embarrassing mental gymnastics comes from Rawnsley here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible

  6. don’t say I don’t occasionally give out useful information

    reg

    “paulcroft

    three or four what?”

    People have met the politicians etc etc etc.

    Wuffly.

  7. Good Evening All.

    Roy H writes very well.

    I believe he is the same man who was a senior Labour figure in Labour’s triumphs in 1979, 1983, 1987 and in 1992.

    His triumphs were reversed in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

    Sandbrook’s ‘SEASONS in the Sun’ reminds me of the 1974-79 Governments and what a socialist democratic triumph they were. Roy H played such a great role,

  8. paulcroft

    people out of the whole sample you mean?

  9. Ignore line one of previous post.

    And also lines two to six if you like.

  10. @Spearmint

    Andrew wasn’t really criticizing Labour’s position. Just noting that it’s difficult….

  11. @chrislane1945,

    lol. I occasionally write the odd post saying how I quite admire Major, or Lawson, Lamont etc, and I get piled in to with huge criticism on each of the figures, despite their obvious on balance politically successful careers. Yet conversely I often see politicians held up on a pedestal from the left, many of whom did nothing other than relentlessly lose elections or never hold position. Tis v.strange.

    Rich

  12. @ Chris,

    To be fair to Roy, Labour’s 1983 triumph was no fault of his. He’s long been part of the solution rather than the problem. But broadly, I agree.

    (Although the crash would not have been so bad under a less City-bedazzled Labour government, so you could argue that the party’s current position would be better if they’d governed according to Hattersley’s vision rather than Blair’s.)

  13. @ Carfew,

    No, I know. He was saying they had to do it, and on balance I think he’s right.

    I take some small comfort in the thought that it’s probably more painful for Ed Balls to say he accepts Osborne’s spending plans than it is for me to hear him say it.

  14. @ Carfrew, rather. Dunno what I did with your other ‘r’.

  15. SPEARMINT.
    Roy H also was a big supporter of Tony Crosland’s attempts to ‘destroy every ******* grammar school in England. He is a good writer imho, from Hull Univ.

  16. Spearmint
    “…(Although the crash would not have been so bad under a less City-bedazzled Labour government, so you could argue that the party’s current position would be better if they’d governed according to Hattersley’s vision rather than Blair’s.)…”

    One problem with that theory – they wouldn’t have won any elections.

  17. @Pete,

    You beat me to it!

  18. As the recent play about the Whips’ Office at The National Theatre showed, Roy H did make a heroic deal with the Ulster Unionists.

  19. @ Pete,

    Eh, Hattersley’s pretty centrist. I think he’s quite electable, if you set aside the blobbiness and the lisp- the problem was every other senior figure in the party. Would John Smith have lost in 1997? I doubt it, although he wouldn’t have won Blair’s landslide.

    But then, you don’t need a landslide majority to govern.

  20. CHRIS RILEY

    I stand corrected.

    The article does make those points.

    And they are well made in the context of the modern global economy.

    Employers have to seek the requisite skills for their requirements. And with today’s mobility of labour that introduces fierce competition in the jobs market.

  21. @SPEARMINT

    “No, I know. He was saying they had to do it, and on balance I think he’s right.”

    —————-

    Aside from those who fell for the line Austerity would mostly clear the deficit in one parliament, it’s been pretty clear from the outstanding Labour’s hands would be tied somewhat at the next election because the government would be piling on the debt without much growth to show for it.

    Tories cannot easily criticized Labour’s approach since they have been forced themselves into accepting the need for more high-multiplier spending. Having done another u-turn Tories are compelled to try and portray Labour as the phones as Andrew notes.

    Andrews writing seems a bit different currently compared to around the time of the election, lol…

  22. cl1945

    “Roy H writes very well. I believe he is the same man who was a senior Labour figure in Labour’s triumphs in 1979, 1983, 1987 and in 1992”

    He is indeed – and very well spotted.

  23. Outstanding / outset
    Phones / phonies

  24. Andrew’s writing seems a bit different currently compared to around the time of the election, lol…

    The entire Guardian is suffering from the most hilarious case of buyer’s remorse that I have ever seen.

  25. Maybe we’ll see the odd Con lead appearing around the autumn.

  26. I’m not sure about an 144 majority in 2015 though.

  27. I see mps are going to give themselves a massive pay rise and all the party leaders are out condemning the rise, but are ‘powerless’ to prevent it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23122628

    Should see the ‘others’ vote rise significantly in the coming weeks.

  28. @JOE JAMES B

    “Maybe we’ll see the odd Con lead appearing around the autumn.”

    ———-

    Which autumn?….

  29. @SPEARMINT

    “The entire Guardian is suffering from the most hilarious case of buyer’s remorse that I have ever seen.”

    ————-

    Haha, yes there have been some comic editorials. Though they haven’t been quite as shocking since Glover left…

  30. ‘Cut police pensions’ to punish misconduct, MPs say
    Police officers who commit serious misconduct should have their pensions docked, a group of MPs has said.

    The Home Affairs Select Committee also called for a new code of ethics for all officers in England and Wales.

    Just like MP’s Don’t!

    I am sure the £10,000 pay award will go down like a lead balloon too.

  31. Seems to be a general acceptance of the lead slipping, although this is only partially backed by the evidence. Two polls today, one shows smaller lead, one show larger lead, and the company with a smaller lead had a larger lead a few days ago. Best not to let detail get in the way of what posters want to see happen, I always say.

    Out in the real world, the badgers are angry – more angry than usual, that is.

    It turns out that after telling us how much of a threat bTB is to health and the beef industry, and slaughtering cattle and badgers to prove it, those nice chaps at Defra are then going and selling the beef from slaughter cows into the food chain, to help raise a few million pounds for the hard pressed Sec of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    You really couldn’t make this up.

  32. Incidentally – they are selling the meat to companies that feed soldiers and school children amongst of outlets. And Health England state that there is a small risk of catching bTB from infected meat.

    ‘Help for Heroes’ – we’re all for that.

  33. @Alec,

    The badger cull proposals in my view are disgraceful. At a time when many of our native species are down by at least 50% in numbers over the past 30 years, to wilfully kill arguably our most beautiful mammal is crazy. And on top of that, the evidence against them is scientifically flimsy, and their is a vaccine available for cows too.

  34. @Colin

    De nada. The Times stable isn’t very good at labour market issues because they’ve become too close to the political process themselves and, although now wedded to a certain economic point of view, have not gone far enough intellectually to work through the implications.

    London is now a global city that happens to be located in the UK. However demographically and in terms of the jobs market and mix of skills, it is very different to the rest of the UK – and, indeed, almost anywhere in the world. The skilled labour market in financial and business services in London has very unusual and specific requirements which cannot (and should not) be met by the UK alone – although I’d hope that UK labour was well represented.

    There is actually a very interesting debate to be had here but I am afraid that the UK Press, with the honorable exception of the Financial Times and, perhaps, the Economist and the Times Higher (if they get some better reporters) is not up to the job.

  35. Rich/Alec

    Bovine TB is not only confined to Cattle and badgers it infects deer goats pigs dogs cats and many other animals but the disease is particularly common in Badgers who in turn infect cattle and other animals, any infected animal will die, cattle are slaughtered Badgers die a slow miserable death while infecting other badgers.

    The cost so far to the tax payer since 2003 is about 500 million expected to rise to 1 billion in the next decade.

    The figures fighting this disease are staggering 5.5 million tests in cattle since 2011, 28,000 cattle slaughtered with the disease since in 2012 since then a further 3,500 cattle infected cost to the average farm with infected cattle £34,000, cost to the farmer about £12,000.
    11.5% of cattle herds under movement restrictions 23.6% of West Country cattle herds have been under some form of movement restrict one time or another since 2011.

    The farming industry along with the Government is try it’s hardest to eradicate this disease through vaccinating cattle and small local culling of badger sets, nobody wants Badgers eradicated but we must have a sensible programme that protects both badgers and herds we already cull animals such as deer ,rabbits and grey squirrels without harmful consequences to the species the same can be done to badgers until a effective way can be found to eradicate the disease.

    It’s time we stopped throwing insults and accusations around and had a grown up discussion about this terrible disease.

  36. @RICHARD

    “I see mps are going to give themselves a massive pay rise and all the party leaders are out condemning the rise, but are ‘powerless’ to prevent it.”

    ————–

    Well, apparently there is this strange law of nature, of the universe, that goes something like this.

    When they want to reduce the income of the poor, it doesn’t matter how many bad effects this happens to have, there is no choice in the matter. “Times are hard, bills have to be paid, yadda yadda”.

    Even if it is pointed out that the measure might not only be unfair, or bad for the economy, but even self-defeating like the bedroom tax (another reason for that came to light recently on radio five – Seems it’s pushing up rents for single-bed accommodation), then there is still nothing to be said and the measure still goes through without challenge.

    But but when it comes to measures to reduce income for the wealthier, oh well then it is very different. We can’t be having more income tax ‘cos the wealthy might flee and screw up someone else’s economy while driving down wages and holding us to ransom if we don’t bail them out.

    And we can’t be having mansion taxes ‘cos aunt Ethyl might have to downsize, and inheritance taxes, oh no, that would spoil the ability of wealthier parents to bail out their kids if they screw up in the competitive jobs market of which have they are so fond or to buy them a better career via internships.

    There are lots of reasons for reducing the income of the poor, but they don’t apply to the more wealthy. Reducing the income of the people with money is always very very bad, it is only reducing the income of those without much money that is good.

    No one knows why.

  37. Just to introduce a little note of accuracy into the debate on MPs salaries… they arnt awarding themselves anything.

    Let’s have a little history lesson to remind us. Back in the dark days of the expenses scandal, the solution – agreed by all, the media, the public and the politicians was to have an independent body monitor everything – pay the MPs their wages and expenses and so stop the unedifying spectacle of MPs voting themselves huge pay rises and rubber-stamping expense claims.

    That organisation – enshrined by legislation – is called IPSA. They have done a study of what work MPs actually do, and worked out what they think they are worth. They’ve invited input from MPs, Government and all interested parties.

    The result is this pay award.

    My gripe is that public sector workers used to have similar independent pay review bodies – now pay rises are set by the diktat of the Chancellor.

  38. @rich

    They were failures, in the case of Lamont catastrophically so.

  39. “My gripe is that public sector workers used to have similar independent pay review bodies – now pay rises are set by the diktat of the Chancellor.”

    ———–

    Only the wealthier are allowed such things see that law of the universe above…

  40. Turk

    Culling Badgers in the Irish trials did show a reduction in TB in cattle, but only by a small percentage. I am surprised that the UK trials are not being done in Northern Ireland, as they have more TB in cattle than in other parts of the UK.

    As for the science regarding culling Badgers, there is too much conflicting info for me to make an argument about this. I would prefer it if they did not go around shooting Badgers, but if Badgers are dying a horrible death through TB and catlle/farmers are really suffering, then something has to be done, if there is no vaccine as an alternative.

  41. Carfrew

    I take it you have some grudge against the wealthy? Half of your points at 10.22 would seem to signify that. Tell me, if you were rich or even just a hard working member of the middle-lower class who had built up some savings, a nice house, etc., would you want the value of these things to go to the government or your children?

  42. Whilst discussing MP pay rises, what about the Prime Minister’s pay? I would say that he is the worst payed man in the country considering he has the worst job.

    P.S This comment is regardless of who the Prime Minister is.

  43. @John Ruddy

    ” they arnt awarding themselves anything.”

    Of course they are. They setup IPSA, they determined what it needs to do. IPSA is just political cover. We do still live in a democracy, if they get a massive pay rise while freezing public sector pay there will be a well deserved backlash by voters.

  44. @ Reg of the BNP

    You forget the millions earned by ex-PM’s after they leave office. Tony Blair is not poor by any stretch of the imagination. Gordon Brown is also reported to earn millions from speaking engagements, but apparently he donates many of his fees.

  45. Richard

    I know but I am only talking about when they’re in office. Some PM’s won’t get much of a chance to earn their money afterwards so I was thinking of the salary they are sure to get.

    Did John Major earn his pennies after his term as PM?

  46. REG OF THE BNP
    Carfrew
    I take it you have some grudge against the wealthy? Half of your points at 10.22 would seem to signify that. Tell me, if you were rich or even just a hard working member of the middle-lower class who had built up some savings, a nice house, etc., would you want the value of these things to go to the government or your children?

    ————-

    Why do the right… [snip. And more generally, this isn’t a debating venue, it’s a site about polling and psephology, for talking about general public opinion, not debating each other’s. Let’s bring this to a close now – AW]

    You are woefully misrepresenting me though. The point of my post was the unfairness. I wasn’t focusing on the richer you are doing that. I was saying how it’s one rule for them and another for others. You know this, when you say it was just half my post about the rich.

    I’m not campaigning for the wealthy to lose everything. I’m saying it’s not very all in it together if meanwhile the poor take a hit again and again. But you don’t want to talk about that. You want a straw man instead. But in terms of VI, my point is the important thing…

  47. Carfrew

    I could see your point but I was just correcting the way you went about it. I was not using an ad hominem but making a point about the way you went about putting your point over.
    Even so, I would not entirely agree with you. The rich are not being let off scot-free as is evident when you look at the foreign rich in our country especially.

  48. Reg – “Did John Major earn his pennies after his term as PM?”

    I would have thought so. He became Chairman of the Carlyle Grp in Europe which I expect paid him an awful lot of pennies.

  49. I don’t know what Jim Callaghan did after office, but I think the last former Prime Minister who was hard up after office was Wilson.

  50. AW

    Thanks for the info. Do you know if Eden and Heath made much after office?

1 2 3 4 5