YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun this morning has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%. For the record the 34% for the Conservatives is the highest since early February.

Out yesterday there were also some more results from YouGov’s poll of Conservative party members for Tim Bale and Paul Webb – the new results are here and I’ve written about them in more detail over on Huffington Post here.

Also worth reading this morning is Peter Kellner’s take on Miliband’s latest polling figures and Labour’s relationship with the Unions here.

202 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 34, LAB 40, LD 10, UKIP 10”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. Steve – 10.

    Wonder where you got that beaut from? ;)

    I got it right in the original source as well – although then it was a guess.

  2. Morning everyone,

    This mornings poll about right methinks!
    Yesterdays was ‘great fun’ but who knows tomorrows poll might equally be good fun!

    Problem for Labour is the age group that would well remember the awful 1970s when the Unions thought they ran the country or wanted to are the ones more likely to vote in 2015.
    The younger ones who were actually born in the 1980s and early 90s are the ones least likely to vote.
    So who knows – nobody really knows!!

  3. “Why don’t the Tories, and the Lib Dems too for that matter, seize the moment and resurrect the cross party talks on party funding? Forget narrow party self-interest, they should join in a mature and measured debate about how all the major political parties can dig themselves out of this appalling mess. The health of our democracy and party politics depends on them doing so.”

    It was only last Thursday that Clegg said he had failed to get cross-party agreement on funding and that they wouldn’t be revisiting the issue in this Parliament.

  4. On the polls, I have to say that they’re baffling me a bit. The latest YouGov has the Tories back down to 31% and Labour sticking adhesively to 39-40%, despite recent political events suggesting that things should be narrowing.

    It can’t be said with certainty, but my little pet theory that the in-built and ever-present anti-Tory vote amongst the British electorate has congealed around Labour, is gaining some credence. It’s a pity that there isn’t a pollster, or polling sponsor like Ashcroft, who is prepared to drill down into the polls to understand more about the nature and motivation of this Labour vote. I’d be fascinated to know more about it and why, up to know, it’s remained so comparatively solid. The assumption has been that it is intrinsically soft but the events of the last two weeks are suggesting otherwise.

  5. “@steve,
    I still hold out that one day you will say something positive about the Conservatives. :-)”

    Not referring to anyone in particular (I’ve been meaning to say this for a few days), but I’ve said in the past that that a good rule of thumb that you are posting in the *spirit* of non-partisanship is if it would NOT be immediately apparent to someone visting the site for the first time what party people supported.

    An awful lot of people (perhaps most) don’t even come close to meeting that standard, there are some people whose comments may as well be written on party notepaper.

    This is a problem, since the only way the comments policy here works effectively is when people self-moderate, restraining themselves and deciding this isn’t the best venue for a comment… and thereby socialising new posters into the same behaviour.

    Could I appeal to people who believe in the ethos of the comments policy here to try harder. If your own political viewpoints are coming through in your posts, you are not trying hard enough. And can I appeal to people to don’t believe in the ethos of the comments policy not to spoil it for those who do… there are an awful lot of other venues for partisan political discussion if that’s what floats your boat.

  6. I don’t mind abiding by the comments policy, but I’m not sure I agree with it. Amicable discussion on policy is surely poll-related, and need not be snide partisan stuff. But I do agree that far too often, it is.

  7. @ crossbat

    Daily random variation is such that it can mask all but the most dramatic switch in VI. You have to look at the last ? 6 to 10 polls to be able to take a view of the (near) current situation..

  8. I’m thinking that I will have to stop commenting because a reader would have to be very slow-witted not to ‘get’ that I am currently a member of the Labour Party. :-(

    “Some conversations on here get far too deep and not very relevant to a polling site”
    On the other hand, there is a lot of tolerance of the anorak-clad trainspotter approach to the polls which some of this site prefer.
    My own addiction to trainspotting is still close to my heart, but founded on seeing the engines behind the numbers in real life – including the five Mallard Class locos lined up at the York National Railway Museum last week for the 75th anniversary of the old girl’s World Speed Record, during hols and to celebrate my little sister’s 70th birthday (one of the Mallard’s steamed up from London at 92 mph averages speed, by God – how’s that for history in action?), refreshing the batteries of my memories of going to see the Saddle Tank, breaking into the Nine Elms Yard with my mates for the purpose, or lying in a field near Sevenoaks in the intersection of three express lines running into Waterloo and Victoria, to get the Golden Arrow at steaming thorugh at speed.
    Substance, my dear: polling is about a wonderfully complex real life, engineered, human-derived, thought induced relationship between what is happening in the world and expected to happen, the designs, intentions and statements of politicians, the manipulations of the media, what we want for our families and the families of others, a means of retaliation towards those with power whom we detest and distrust or in whom we see the glimmer of ability and trust.
    VI, and its lovely statistics – just look at the uniformity of the current VI across age-groups in the UKPR this week! – is the otherwise dry manifestation of a political process which will continue to be explored by many on this site who think there is more in this careful presentation of fact in an otherwise duplicitous world than is in your philosophy. Against all experience they think that they can read this code against their own knowledge and experience of the sometimes absurd and sometimes dreadfully real pretensions of politicians to keep us in work and our families fed,, schooled, healed and housed.

  10. Amber

    What! I thought you were a tory

  11. @ RiN

    LOL! :-)

  12. @Anthony W

    “… is if it would NOT be immediately apparent to someone visting the site for the first time what party people supported.”

    I better get rid of my red background then, hadn’t I? It’s a bit of a give-away, don’t you think?! lol

  13. NickP – you could be the poster boy for pleasant and not snide comments, and if everyone posted like you I think the comments policy might be different!

    The comments policy isn’t because such things aren’t poll related – rampantly and stupidly partisan comments could still be poll-related. It’s just the type of conversation I’ve encouraged and set down here.

    Mostly, I have to say, because I think heavily party-partisan discussion is tedious, often unpleasant and normally intellectually insulting, given it rapidly descends into cherry picking evidence to bolster your own party position rather than any attempt at weighting evidence.

    I personally don’t want to read it, and yet it drives out other conversation on websites – once one person starts posting partisan attacks and challenges other people respond in the same way, and people who aren’t interested in that sort of thing gradually stop contributing, and soon the only comments you get are frothing partisan rants.

    So when I set up my own website, I set a comment policy enforcing the sort of conversation I like!

  14. The problem with judgement about non-partisan posting is that even objective, analytical posts are seized on as partisan [by some] if they arrive at a conclusion they dislike.

    If the response was to analyse also but show how a different conclusion could be arrived at, then that is debate and, to me anyway, is fine. What normally happens though is that the response is simpy to disagree and say “well I think X will win anyway.”

    Like Nick and Amber I do think it’s impossible to hide one’s general position but it’s not necessary either to bang people over the head with it.

    As I’ve said before I think the vast majority of poiticians do a very difficult job for decent motives and the exaggerate differences as though they are life and death stuff all the time is tiresome to read.

    The White Queen is very good. I am a big Richard III fan so very interested in that period anyway.

  15. Crossbat – the original reason I put them here now sounds so naive I’m almost embarrassed to admit it. Over on the constituency guide part of the site, when people were making predictions and things, I thought it better than people were identified in some way so that people knew whether the person predicting lots of Tory wins was, in fact, a Tory support, and the person predicting lots of Labour wins was, in fact, a Labour support.

    It was almost a caveat to people’s views given that they would all dutifully follow the comments policy and their views would not be immediately apparent. In some cases I waas justified – I have hilariously seen some comments on constituency pages being quoted in the press as being from local Tory party activists, when it was in fact from a Liberal Democrat from another part of the country (or something along those lines).

    Obviously, I doesn’t really work like that. If anything, I worry that they are counterproductive and people take them as permission to be partisan, or think because they have party colours they have a duty to defend the party they support. They also don’t work for new commenters.

    I keep meaning to take them down, but they make the place look prettier. Especially the Green party background, which I like.

  16. Anthony: You’re in charge: make it ALL green. We’re all green at heart, one way or another.

  17. Paul – I’d always recommend ignoring people like that.

    There are a few on here who haven’t crossed the line into such flagrant partisanship that I feel justified in banning them, but who I’ve long since decided aren’t in the slightest bit open to any evidence or argument that suggests their party won’t win, and are purely interested in twisting evidence to support their own position.

    They really aren’t worth the time or the keystrokes required to respond, so personally I don’t really bother reading or responding to their comments. (So if I communicate with you, you can assume you’re not one of them!)

  18. Paul – it’s tempting. It’s a really nice colour. I may paint my hallway that tone.

  19. Anthony

    Nice image.

  20. Obviously I probably won’t put a big Green party logo on the radiator. That would be going too far.

  21. @AW

    Well said Anthony – Although I don’t consider myself to be aggressively partisan – i suppose i do nail my colours to the mast occasionally but with a cheeky smile added.

    Some people on here are far too partisan and deep in their comments though.
    Also some of the subjects are way off this sites agenda.

    It would put some people off joining in i’m sure!

    I agree with you about the different colours – can I have a blue one please? -lol

  22. sine nomine

    I’m genuinely curious. Would you consider the following to be cheeky rather than snide, then?

    “Problem for Labour is the age group that would well remember the awful 1970s when the Unions thought they ran the country or wanted to are the ones more likely to vote in 2015.”

  23. Just for the record, my moniker is a tribute to the 1970s comic book hero Kenny Lampton.

    As a left-sided midfielder myself a few years and a couple of stone ago, he was my idol.

    Mind, I can appreciate that it may be misinterpreted as a partisan name on a superficial glance.

  24. Is it that really that easy to tell which party people support in multi-party Britain, as opposed to whether they are inclined to the political left or right?

    For my part, I rejoined the Labour Party a couple of years back after a long period of absence. But I’ll be voting Green in the Euro elections, would do so also in Brighton Pavilion and also in any Con-LD contest where Labour was well out of contention. Nor would I vote Labour if I lived in a certain constituency just down the road, where the then MP decided to resign just as the 2005 GE was called, thus making impossible a proper selection process and the parachuting in of Blair’s political secretary by the party machine. The former MP was rewarded by being made a Lord. (Much more sinister than any goings on in Falkirk, surely.)

    That support for the Greens in the Euros is partly on account of their having an approach to the EU that I’m far more comfortable with – sceptical on issues I care about whilst constructive also. But it’s also been reaffirmed by the Labour machine seemingly having come up with seven apparent New Labour clones for the West Midlands for members to “choose” from, so similar that the order in which they appear on the list seems irrelevant. Another party machine fix.

    And just to confuse matters further, Colin will no doubt be most concerned that I agree with him on quite a few issues.

  25. @NICKP

    Fair point Nick – I will take that on the chin :)

  26. @NICKP

    Having looked at my post again – are you telling me its a partisan comment or incorrect?


    “The White Queen is very good. I am a big Richard III fan so very interested in that period anyway.”

    Me too. The unfortunate subject of Tudor propaganda put about by their lackey, William Shakespeare. I wonder what the opinion polls said at the time. I would think that in 1485, they would have been something like York: 60%, Lancaster 30% ,Tudor 10%. Sadly they settled things in battle in those days though so no-one cared what people actually wanted.

  28. @AW
    “I have hilariously seen some comments on constituency pages being quoted in the press as being from local Tory party activists, when it was in fact from a Liberal Democrat from another part of the country”

    Is that a partisan dig at the post-2010 LDs?

  29. @ Crossbat

    Very much agree with your post about need to analyse the Lab vote in more detail.

    A year into the parliament the issue was about Lib Dem to Lab defectors and how solid they were. I think as time goes by we can now assume they are pretty solid but maybe this solidity only comprises 5-6% on the Lab vote taking them to around 35%. The other 3 or 4% that would give Lab their majority is less obvious- most of the time they seem to get this but some polling organisations have them regularly scraping 35% but not clear if this is false methodology or genuine uncertainty from the people polled as to who they will end up voting for.

  30. AW “Paul – I’d always recommend ignoring people like that.”

    What – ignore Amber & Nick ? I’m shocked…shocked I tell you ;-))

    I can honestly say that there are some whose political leanings I genuinely don’t know & I do try very hard to hide my own but if you have guessed which way I vote then I obviously haven’t been trying hard enough.

  31. Today’s YG would make one think that Con voters cannot make up their mind between UKIP and Con (compared with the day previous). That is, if you believe two successive polls are sufficiently significant, which I don’t. I did opine that Falkirk would have little effect on polls and I think we are far enough down the line to conclude that it didn’t. It didn’t stop the endless anorakish type discussions though did it?

    Hand of History indeed (remember some of you?)!!

  32. Rather nice and thoughtful discussion/points about partisanship. I think there are five archetypes here on UKPR. The two extremes (fortunately rare): the football fan (because “my” party says it’s King Solomon’s wisdom, the other side points are meaningless pile of vowels and consonants or not even that. I call it football fan, because of the type that insists that there was no fault, even though the slow motion clearly shows that the player, probably be cause of love pain, kicked the opponent in such a way that his boot had to be operated out from the shin of the opponent). The other is simply reciting data (it can be useful as it could call attention to something important and can be partisan simply because of the selection) – often quite unnecessary and boring.

    When data is analysed, it’s always partisan as the analysis is done from a perspective and babies who have a relatively clean sheet don’t post here, while the rest of us have predisposition. However, partisanship in this case can be objective and more often than not, it is.

    And there is the fourth type a kind of cousin of the third, where the predisposition consciously drives the structure and function of the analysis, thus often biased, but when the bias corresponds the real processes, it is objective.

    The fifth archetype focuses purely on the data and attempts to draw patterns or trends from it. While the mechanics of it is non-partisan, the verbalisation is inevitably partisan for the same reason as in three above.

    While the latter three can be overtly partisan, yet in spirit they follow the comments policies – but it’s obviously just my opinion.

    Finally, the last three archetypes can put forward arguments in a way that invites genuine responses, hence polite; or rudely by employing various fallacies or by pre-closing a still open discussion. I suppose this is an easy choice.

  33. “a mature and measured debate [on party funding]”

    Aw, Crossbat, you sweet, innocent little lamb.

    Regarding the movement in the polls, it’s pretty straightforward, at least for YouGov. Tory -> Ukip is back where it was in February, so the Tories are back up in the 30-33 range. Labour/ex LD -> Ukip was almost non-existent before March, but it seems like the Eastleigh/local elections media exposure revealed Ukip to these non-Tory protest voters as an option. Even though that tide has receded a bit it’s not down to nothing, so Labour are still down from their 40-43 range of February.

    These are the only significant changes that have happened in the YouGov polls since the beginning of the year. Tory -> Lab and Lab -> Tory flux have stayed almost constant.

  34. Still, it would be brilliant if Lord Ashcroft would do one of his in-depth single-party polls on the basis and solidity of Labour support, because while we know it’s barely moving we have no idea why. Specifically, now that the leadership are starting to come out with concrete policies, it would be interesting to know what Labour’s constraints are- which positions would be so rightwing or so leftwing that they start driving off supporters? Or is the ABT vote so solid that nothing they do actually matters?

    (Such polling would be very much in the Tories’ interest as well, since they have to peel some of these people away if they’re going to win the election.)

  35. Spearmint
    I agree with all that in your first and agree that your second post’s wish would be interesting if fulfilled (Ashcroft poll).

    Let me speculate that ‘leftish leaning’ voters are now fixed in the same way that they were in about 1995 onwards. They just observed the Major government as ‘going through the motions’ and were just waiting patiently for 1997.

    That’s how i regard the situation now and i don’t think a slight improvement in personal economy and prospects will alter anything much, in just the same way that it didn’t from 1995 to 1997. Voters are decided at present.

  36. Nick

    “sine nomine

    I’m genuinely curious. Would you consider the following to be cheeky rather than snide, then?

    “Problem for Labour is the age group that would well remember the awful 1970s when the Unions thought they ran the country or wanted to are the ones more likely to vote in 2015”


    To be fair to SN that would have been fine had he not forgotten his traditional "cheeky smiiie" – which cerianly always makes me chuckle with ight-hearted amusement whatever the comment it follows.

    I find you can say anything to anyone provided you add at least one of them plus, perhaps, a LOL and a !

  37. Anthony

    “NickP – you could be the poster boy for pleasant and not snide comments”

    I’d ask for a photo first.


    Have any polls been done on insults/rudeness in politics?

    I remember Tony Blair using the “weak, weak, weak” line at Major and feeling very uncomfortable with it at the time. Not sure how other peope feel but I think the personal is – obviously – too personal.

    It can also rebound if it turns out not to be true [LOL !!!! smilies etc etc]

  38. From he G-spot (that’s the Grauniad, btw)..

    “The Hansard Society’s recent Audit of Political Engagement recently found that 20% of the population say they are now “absolutely certain not to vote”. That’s double the figure from two years ago. Another sustained bout of publicity about real or supposed sleaze could drive that figure even higher.”

    I don’t recall seeing this report mentioned here, but I may have missed it.


    LOL – very cheeky assessment Paul – but you do make me laugh!! :)

    By the way I see you are assuming that I am male -lol

  40. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF RED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  41. SN

    Well very few women are that batty – but I could be wrong.

    Send me a picture.

  42. @Paul – do you know what Sine Nomine means? :)

  43. SN

    Yes, obviously – its something to do with insane or gurly choirs or………………

    No, I don’t.

  44. @Paul – Google it! :)

  45. You are Emma Kirkby and I would like to accompany you with some Dowland if you have the time.

  46. Check my website and you will see I am jolly good.

    I did write it myself I s’pose.

  47. I thought Sine Nomine meant the author or publisher was unknown. I assume you do know who you are, you just don’t want to say (understandable enough).

    Can Anon sign him/herself as much, or is it the LACK of signature that makes a work anon?

  48. My “no” was a joke. I am familiar with “sin” and “senza” and “nomme” so can put one and one together.

    I am not a fan of no names but each to their own I guess.

    I prefer to know who I’m “talking” to most times.

  49. “I thought Sine Nomine meant the author or publisher was unknown. I assume you do know who you are, you just don’t want to say (understandable enough).”

    i shall essay a lol………….here it comes >>>>

    LOL !!!!!!

  50. @ PAUL & NICK – all good fun gentlemen.

    Paul, you are indeed quite bright if you can put Emma Kirkby and John Dowland in the same sentence! -lol – :)

    Hope that makes you laugh.

    Sine Nomine – is also a slight nod towards the musician in me!

1 2 3 4 5