This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun had topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 37%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%. The five point lead is right at the bottom of YouGov’s current range – we had a couple at the beginning of July, but other than that it’s the lowest this year. That said, it’s within the normal margin of error for a lead of seven points or so, so don’t read too much into it. Full tabs are here.

YouGov also asked some questions in response to Ed Miliband’s announcement on the Unions. They are pretty cutting about the situation now, but much more positive about his proposals.

The announcement hasn’t yet made people see Miliband as being any stronger – he’s still seen as weak by 47% of people, strong by just 10%, the same figures as YouGov showed at the weekend. Neither has he distanced himself from the Unions yet – 36% think he is too close to Unions, up from 29% at the weekend. Asked who they think is currently more powerful within the Labour party, 36% say the leaders of the large trade unions, 33% say Miliband and the party leadership.

More positive for Miliband was people’s reaction to his proposals on trade unions and donation caps. 50% said they reflected a weakening of Labour’s link with the Unions, and most thought this was a good thing. 22% thought it wasn’t a weakening of the link… but most of them thought it was a good thing too, so initially at least it looks like he’s managed to keep both sides happy! Overall 52% think his proposals are a good thing, 20% a bad thing, 28% don’t know.

So a thumbs up for the specifics, but no positive movement yet general perceptions of Miliband. Remember it’s perfectly possible for people to like the specifics and it to have no effect simply because most people won’t have paid the slightest attention to them…they gave an opinion in the poll because YouGov told them what Miliband had proposed, and then asked people what they thought. In reality most people will be blissfully unaware of them. What probably matters more in the longer run is whether people pick up a broader perception of Ed Miliband being a stronger and more effective leader, stamping some authority on his party, or a perception of Labour having some internal row or other, and Ed Miliband being pushed around by the Unions.


206 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 37, LD 11, UKIP 12”

1 2 3 5
  1. Read my lips, no new tax rises!!

  2. Hi all,

    Discussion on here yesterday was refreshingly sensible and non-partisan… I expect because we had a thread that didn’t involve any polling about party politics. Today we do. Can I remind people what I said yesterday, and try and keep the same spirit of non-partisanship going today?

    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 visiting the site for the first time what party people supported.

    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.

  3. I don’t suppose Miliband will get any traction on his personal ratings unless and until his proposals are seen to be implemented. If they are then this poll suggests he might well benefit personally.

    I made a comment about this poll on a previous thread but I’ll repeat here that the narrowing gap is down to a particularly low Labour VI and has nothing to do with a Tory revival of any sort. It’s either a bit of MOE variability or Labour have taken a hit. We need more polls to be sure, but there’s no sign of the Tory VI bumping up. They’re two points down from Sunday yet 1 point nearer Labour!

  4. Overall 52% think his proposals are a good thing, 22% a bad thing, 28% don’t know.

    Doesn’t that add up to 102%?

  5. This is the best new thread since the last one.

  6. AW,

    Can you answer this please?? Your advice would be welcome..

    I’m interested in the standard error.

    If Labour are polling at 40% on a poll of 1000 people, is the SE based on the square root of (p*(1-p))/n.

    ie the square root of (0.40 * (1.00 – 0.40)) / 1000

    = SQRT ((0.40 * 0.60) / 1000)

    = SQRT (0.24 / 1000)

    = SQRT (0.00024)

    = 0.015

    Is this right??

    And the 95% confidence interval is 1.96 * 0.015 = 0.0303 ??

    So at a 95 % CI, it’s would be 40% +/- 3.03% ??

  7. “Are a weakening of Labour’s links with the Unions…”

    – and this is a good thing: Lab 24%

    – but this is bad thing: Lab 22%

    Very interesting, and probably gives Ed key info on how much Labour voters are supportive of the unions.

    @PC

    “This is the best new thread since the last one.”

    Terrible statement. The sampling hasn’t finished yet.

  8. Catmanjeff

    Are you really interested or are you having a laugh?

  9. Catmanjeff – While it looks right to me I’m not the right man to ask, I’m no statistician. YouGov’s got proper maths people for that!

  10. MrNameless – it can happen (it’s the sum of five figures, so rounding can have them come to 102%).

    In this instance though, it was just me adding them up wrong. Corrected now.

  11. Thanks AW.

    @Steve

    I really am interested.

    I use statistics at works (not these very often), but understanding this is not only helpful but also professionally good.

    I think that anyone looking at polls should have some understanding of the processes. This allows to you spot dodgy polls, or when dodgy claims are made of polls.

  12. @CMJ

    I tend to use this for MoE:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm

    Also worth remembering that the ‘population’ is closer to 46 million, but it doesn’t tend to matter in a 1,000 sample, unless the population is below 400,000.

    As for the fancy formulae, no idea.

  13. @ Catmanjeff

    This is not how I calculate standard error/deviation. Anyway Excel or Calc are your friends.

  14. @ Catmanjeff

    Normally you assume normal distribution (doubt that YouGov uses it), then you need the individual observations.

  15. @Statgeek @Laszlo

    Thanks for the help.

    The complexity is that you are not dealing with individual observations (for example, the mass of something), it’s about proportions. Therefore you don’t have individual observations, just an overall proportion.

    Anyway, enough of this statistical nonsense, I’m sure it isn’t helping AW keep readers!

    Thanks guys.

  16. In the spirit of recent non-partisanship, I actually also believe the lead is around 7 points with this 5 point lead probably on the margins.

  17. @Crossbat,

    Interestingly I draw the exact opposite conclusion. If you scroll back a couple of months to May, the Tories had a pronounced dip in support, which led to jibes about whether they would get back up to 30% again.

    They have bobbed back up a few points and seem to be at around 32% now. Labour are more or less where they were 2 months ago.

    I think we’re largely seeing the unwinding of some of the UKIP surge (at least on YG’s figures – I struggle to see any kind of trend at all elsewhere). Nothing much to worry about for Labour, other than perhaps the prospect of UKIP disembowelling the Tories to Labour’s advantage has receded.

  18. AW

    “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 visiting the site for the first time what party people supported”
    _______

    Absolutely agree with this and even your good self had me down as a Tory a few days ago and I’m 100% not a Tory.

    Okay back to todays poll.
    …..
    “More positive for Miliband was people’s reaction to his proposals on trade unions and donation caps. 50% said they reflected a weakening of Labour’s link with the Unions, and most thought this was a good thing”
    ____

    He really needs to go further and cut the apron strings with the Unions. I’m sure Labour can find some cash in the biscuit tins in the many social clubs up and down the county to fund them.

  19. #country

  20. @ JimJAM
    ‘At some point the 2010 LD- Lab will imo fall further and I guess the 35% min Lab figure is based on maintaining more or less thei 2010 voters plus 1/4 of 2010 LDs.’

    I fail to see the logic of 2010 LD – Lab voters being likely to return to LD.They are unlikely to have been regular LD voters – much more likely to have been former Labour supporters who switched to LD over Iraq in 2005 or 2010.. If I am reading that correctly, these people have simply now gone ‘home’ as it were, and are -on the whole -more leftwing than voters who stayed with Labour in 2005 and 2010. Why should such people want to vote for a party that has been part of a right of centre Coalition – whether now or in 2015?

  21. From a previous thread a week ago (sorry folks, but it;s about polling/stats)…

    @Richard

    “You need a way to differentiate between old data that is needed to smooth out MOE, and old data that should be ignored because there has been an underlying event that has shifted VI.”

    Yes, it’s not easy getting a balance between data age and data value/weight, and it’s harder if we’re trying to eliminate outliers from a data set. I don’t so much look to use ‘old data’, so much as not disclude it, if that makes sense. YG have five polls per week, so I prefer multiples of five. Due to how I setup the original spreadsheet, I tend to use 30s, and while I could probably shift to 20s, there’s a certain roundness to 30 (divisible by five, six, ten and so on). What’s more, from time to time the YG poll for a Sunday rounds off a calendar month, and even better, it occasionally happens at the end of a group of thirty on the spreadsheet. Neatness, if you like.

    In fact I just had a peek, and noticed that over 30 polls, the average total samples is 53,000, which provides MoE of +/- 0.43%

    Comparing the MAD data versus the simple average for the grouped 30s for the same period, dated 31st May (Party / MAD / 30s):

    Con: 30.0 : 30.4
    Lab: 39.2 : 39.4
    Lib 10.2 : 10.2
    UKIP 14.1 : 13.6
    Green 2.0 : 2.3

    So arguably, we could just group the polls by 30s, average them, and apply the 0.43 caveat, and most of those values are within MoE (UKIP are not, but they are regionally different, and we’re into crossbreak MoE there).

    @AW

    There’s a thought. Can we even do that? If I have two polls of 1000, can I apply MoE on the average of the polls based on the total samples, or should it be the average of the samples (in this case 1000)?

    @JimJam

    Yes, I like the way it can prevent temporary blips from becoming the focus of things, but as we’ve seen recently with UKIP, blips can become trends, and it takes 2-4 weeks for the MAD method to catch up, which sometimes seems self-defeating.

    I have considered creaking them to two-week and one-week sets, but as you say, this becomes problematic. There’s a chance that in a week’s worth of data, you’ll get no outlier, where ti would be over six weeks. Or worse, there’s a big variation in a particular week and values within MoE for the previous week are now excluded, due to the MAD being calculated over a small data set.

    I have considered adding in a Margin of Error for a given set (see question posed to AW), but I would need to ensure the total samples excluded the samples for outliers (for a given party). Not easy without adding to the confusion. Ultimately we get to a point where there’a an awful lot of data manipulation, just to go from say 30.0% to 30.5%. There comes a point where it’s a pointless exercise.

  22. @AW

    Sorry, but I’d like to know which word(s) popped my post into moderation please (or am I on the naughty step?).

    I inadvertently posted the same post in the thread which originated the quotes. My mistake.

  23. Will another G4S scandal have an effect on VI?Will skeletons tumble out of this government`s cupboard or the previous one?

    Btw,interesting use of terminology by Chris Grayling.`Overcharging` is what I would use when someone charges me more for doing some work.It seems in this case the government were charged money for no work being done.

  24. Smukesh
    Of course the circumstances in this case could be perfectly honest but_>>>
    Casting my mind back to my time as a Met Police Officer Knowingly charging for something you haven’t done could be construed as Criminal Deception.

    Still G4S are investigating themselves so that’s all right then

  25. @STEVE

    That`s why I am surprised that the government are claiming there were `overcharged` and the media seems to have accepted it .The allegations are that `they were billed for monitoring people already in prison and tags had been removed and dead people`

    Would the government consider it overcharging if the son claims his dad`s benefits after his father`s dead?

  26. I imagine a minister in the Home Office has to be a little bit careful before he starts using the word “stealing” in public.

    Calling it “overcharging” is safe territory, as the companies involved have admitted they were paid more money than they were due.

    Ministers don’t have the same leeway the rest of us have draw between the dots, before the evidence of exactly where the dots are has emerged.

  27. As an occasional poster and admittedly serial offender on this website re rules of partisanship, I would like to apologise for losing my cool with what I perceive to be Tory partisanship e.g. comments like “the Tories are going to win by 40% to 34%”, “Miliband is going to lose the election for Labour” “Labour only wins because of Scotland” etc.

    When I see Tories here continually getting away with partisanship like that, it is like a red rag to a bull. I promise to restrain myself in future – at least until 2015.

    Anthony’s policy is the only way to stop this site descending into a permanent slanging match – like so many other political sites.

  28. Neil A

    Cabinet ministers are not so careful to assemble all the evidence before making other claims. I’m thinking of some of the IDS’s recent claims that have led to reprimands from the ONS for example. Or the PM’s branding of welfare claimants as “shirkers”. There’s been some pretty direct and perjotative language used in those circumstances. Strange that they decide to be so careful with their choice of language when their contractors fall short of the expected standards.

  29. Over charging is like that mis selling label, it’s Orwellian double speak

  30. G4 is probably to big to prosecute, it would cause a stock market collapse, at least that’s the excuse they use nowadays

  31. @RICHARD IN NORWAY
    “Over charging is like that mis selling label, it’s Orwellian double speak”

    ————-

    Overcharging, Community charge, spare room charge…

  32. RICHARD IN NORWAY
    G4 is probably to big to prosecute, it would cause a stock market collapse, at least that’s the excuse they use nowadays

    ———-
    True. We had to have austerity cos Greece was gonna collapse…

  33. Telegraph poll tracker: if election held tomorrow, Labour would win with a majority of 64, two fewer than Blair’s 2005 Government.

  34. Because YouGov’s question on the Miliband proposals is both framed in positive language, and is also very complicated (see below), I’d be very cautious about reading anything into the findings.
    ———————–
    “Ed Miliband has said that he wants to reform Labour’s relationship with the Unions by ending the way members of trade unions affilated to Labour automatically pay a fee to Labour unless they opt out, saying that in future only trade unions members who made a deliberate choice to join Labour would pay a fee.
    He also said there would be a new code of conduct for party selections and said he would support a cap on donations to political parties

    Do you think these changes…
    Are a weakening of Labour’s links with the Unions, and this is a good thing
    Are a weakening of Labour’s links with the Unions, but this is bad thing
    Do not weaken Labour’s links with the Unions, and this is a good thing
    Do not weaken Labour’s links with the Unions, and this is a bad thing
    Don’t know”

  35. WOLF MACNEILL

    I doubt if it was a telephone poll one could put questions like that with confidence.

    ‘Say that again dear?’

  36. @Leftylampton,

    Because of course there is no difference between making comments about a general type of offence, and making comments about a specific individual or company.

    I don’t hear IDS saying “Bob Brackett, JSA Claimant from Kettering is a cheater and a shirker and should go to prison”.

  37. Neil A
    I do hope Bob does not read this. he was a pretty angry type IIRC.

  38. Neil A

    I know Bob brackett and he’s a good man and definitely not a cheater or a shirker

  39. Howard

    He don’t read this blog but I posted a screen shot of Neil’s comment on facebook

  40. He’ll probably read it later when he gets back from his plumbing job….

  41. Neil A

    Fair point.

    This Bob Brackett? Plumber? Is he a Polish immigrant as well then?

  42. NEIL A
    @Leftylampton,
    Because of course there is no difference between making comments about a general type of offence, and making comments about a specific individual or company.
    “I don’t hear IDS saying “Bob Brackett, JSA Claimant from Kettering is a cheater and a shirker and should go to prison”.”

    ————

    Well, the general statement is rather more sweeping and may have a lot more impact.

    For example, it might be harder to justify sweeping welfare reforms based on identifying a single shirker, as opposed to damning loads of them as shirkers as a group.

    It’s yet another winner for private sector provision of public sector services anyway…

  43. @ NeIl A

    the pot calling the kettle black

  44. Posters might enjoy this – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

    Gives some fairly frightening numbers on population figures. It turns out that since I first appeared on this earth, the world population has doubled, and it’s gone up 3 1/2 times since my Dad was born.

  45. alec

    “since I first appeared on this earth”

    I thought there was something mystical about you from your writing.

  46. Nadine Dorries has met her match… Charles Walker (Con, Broxbourne and member of Amicus*) absolutely blasts Cameron and Clegg (over MP’s pay, and other discontents) on R4 at 10pm, plus some withering comments about Michael Gove.

    One assumes he has already sent a letter to Graham Brady.

    *Is he a Unite member since the 2007 amalgamation? We should be told.

  47. Is there an BNP of kitchen equipment now?

    (Or should that be UKIP? United Kitchen Implement Party..)

  48. @Alec,

    For me population growth is pretty much the motherlode of all issues – and ways to control it pretty much the only thing that matters.

    Most of the world’s other problems, from hunger, to pollution, to immigration and poverty are merely its handmaidens.

  49. Call me old-fashioned, but one solution to the population problem would be forced sterilization of everyone with an IQ under 100. :-)

  50. I have started a “Bob Brackett Is Innocent” petition.

1 2 3 5