Two new polls out this morning – both showing things ticking along pretty much as usual. The daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11% – the six point lead is pretty representative of the average in YouGov’s polls over the last week or so. Full tabs are here

Meanwhile the latest Populus poll has very similar figures – their topline voting intentions are CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 10%. Full tabs are here.


274 Responses to “New YouGov and Populus polls”

1 2 3 6
  1. Both have similar overall figures but the age cross break for the under 24’s certain to vote of 22% Tory 59% Labour 8LD 4UKIP and 6 Green in the Populus Poll seems far more likely than the True Blue 39% for the second time in a row showing in the YouGov Poll.

    Any idea what’s going on (wrong) Anthony

  2. Labour on the,

    um,

    bit of a stand around doing nothing.

  3. In reply to Richard on the last post

    For all,the hullabaloo about Clegg mania, it’s still a fact that compared to Charles Kennedy in 2005 Clegg only added.a few votes and lost 5 seats,

    -Of course it wasn’t his fault that Half a Million (not that few) more votes got 5 seats less.

    If they had 5 seats more then we might be talking LD/Labour Coalition.But that’s FPTP for you

  4. @all

    Quick question: are populus doing regular weekly polls now?

    rgdsm

  5. Anthony,

    Picking up on a sort of question I asked earlier, is their poling evidence of volatility our wider variance in polls over the summer holidays?

    Peter.

  6. Steve – small crossbreak with a very large margin of error. Wacky results sometimes are to be expected. As ever, crossbreaks in individual voting intention polls are best ignored.

    Martyn – quick answer, yes!

  7. Afternoon everyone:
    As you were eh?

    swinging backwards and forwards so to speak.

    Although overall the Labour Lead has dropped to an average 6-7% well clear of the double digit they were enjoying only a few weeks ago.
    Will it narrow even more over the next couple of weeks or just stagnate now over August until things heat up during the Party Conference season – only time will tell.

  8. PeterCairns – not that I’m aware of.

  9. @ Steve,

    They’re crossbreaks. They’re not meant to be “right” – the poll is only weighted to balance the topline figures.

    If you want an accurate age breakdown you either need to average crossbreaks from a lot of different polls together to iron out the high variance, or wait for Lord Ashcroft to decide he wants an in-depth look at VI by age group.

  10. Anthony,

    Well there goes that theory!

    Peter.

  11. @ Martyn,

    Yep. Maybe bi-weekly. So far it seems to be one on Monday and one on Friday, although I’m not sure if they’re just establishing a baseline or they’re planning to keep that up long-term.

  12. What was odd about the proposed new equalised (and reduced number) of constituencies was that based upon the 2010 vote the LD would have got even smaller proportion of the seats for their vote.

    yet everybody still insists that the new boundaries have to be introduced to take away Lab’s advantage over Con. what about the fact the new boundaries are more unfair on the third party?

    i don’t think we’ll ever see those new constituencies. if you want fairness then you need some form of PR. If you want FPTP you gonna get Labour!

  13. NICK.
    Labour and Lib Dems could just change the system, to AV plus.

  14. Some odd crossbreaks on the Yougov poll: somehow, I doubt that the Tories are ahead of the SNP in Scotland or ahead of Labour on 18-24 year olds!

    Yet another reason to focus on trends, not polls: these oddities even-out over time.

  15. And here was me saying the Referendum debate is yet to heat up!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23464421

    Doesn’t say which side he was on!

    Peter.

  16. I don’t think Lab would want AV what with UKIP and Con likely to choose 1st and 2nd.

    I reckon some form of PR…or maybe reduce the number of seats per head in the over-represented South? Maybe make some extra big mega-Shire communities, and multiply the little highly populated London boroughs. Hackney North, East, West, South, Central and Hackney General. There’s 6!

    Merge Reigate with Epsom & Ewell. They don’t need two MPs…they believe in small Government and have lots of money. Whereas in poorer areas they need MORE representations. It’s obvious!

  17. Colin and others who replied – thanks for the views on Carney. I still think it’s a soft number (and I don’t mean that they don’t do real work like lifting, digging or humping) . You’ve got 9 colleagues on whom you can lean later (‘well we all thought’) . Not that you have to worry either as you will get a magnificent golden goodbye.

    The opined lift for Con did not emerge permanently, did it, so we are still in Lab landslide territory. I regard 50 plus as a landslide, effectively, and perhaps easier to manage.

  18. @Spearmint, @Anthony Wells

    Thank you.

    rgdsm

  19. NickP,

    “I don’t think Lab would want AV what with UKIP and Con likely to choose 1st and 2nd.”

    I’m not sure about that, given the apparent churn of left-wing party voters and UKIP. Insofar as a UKIP vote is an anti-establishment vote, their voters are as likely (under normal circumstances) to vote LD as a 2nd preference as to vote Tory.

  20. Peter

    When you do talk to people you tend to get string of questions and by and large if you give straight honest answers and ask them what they think they really seem quite open to the idea.

    In the words of a famous song

    And when you tell them how wonderful thing will be. they’ll never believe you.they’ll never believe you.

  21. But how much do you actually know about BoE & what it does Howard-including it’s new regulatory bodies ?

    The new Governor is certainly well paid-wouldn’t argue with that at all-Pension rights are certainly comfortable ( cushy !)but that’s just par for the course in the really top UK Civil Service jobs.

    ( I include BBC too, where it seems you leave under a cloud, you get a new job-and then they send you a cheque for half a million quid-now that’s what I call “cushy”..actually I call it other things too)

  22. @NickP

    What’s wrong with small Government, it’s the only way this country will survive in the long term. large Government is a thing of the past as far as the Western Democracies are concerned.

    I’m sure your post was tongue in cheek but we do need to remove the undemocratic advantage Labour has in the current system.

    As for PR do you really want more coalition government?

  23. @ Nick P,

    The boundary commission is independent, so the next government can’t just draw up constituencies however they like.

    The trick is to create overall rules that benefit your own party. Reducing the total number of seats helps the Tories because it allows them to swamp out localised Lib Dem strongholds in the South (what possessed the Lib Dems to initially agree to the boundary changes, I cannot begin to imagine) and because it forces the boundary commission to do something about the ridiculously tiny Welsh constituencies.

    If Labour want to redraw the boundaries in their own favour, they need to come up with a cunning plan to justify it. (I recommend basing constituencies on census data rather than the electoral register. It would be more consistent with international norms, it can easily be justified in terms of balancing constituent-to-MP ratios since non-voters still require constituency services, and it would benefit Labour enormously. They can even say it’s a reaction to the problems thrown up by individual voter registration and blame the Tories for it.)

  24. Anthony

    The Unweighted Populus poll gives UKIP 19% compared to 10% in the final weighted version. It seems that UKIP are the only party to have been “penalised” so severely by the Populus weighting process. Do you know why, and do YouGov and others do the same?

    Although I’m not a UKIP supporter. the unweighted polls look a lot closer to the only current real elections ie Council by elections where UKIP are regularly in the high teens or twenties and where of course only the determined bother to turn out anyway.

    My impression is that UKIP are actually ahead of where the polls say they are nationally and all the other Parties should beware (even in Scotland!) as the 2014 Euro elections may well solidify a higher core vote once they demonstrate they can win a lot of seats.

  25. Yes I want more coalition govt, just not this coalition

  26. Anthony – I was away last week but checking in via a weak i phone signal when I could and seem to you remember you wrote something about Populus changing their DK/WV reallocation.

    Is this right and how will it roughly impact?

    I guess makes old Populus polls for trend analysis more difficult unless they can re-hash old headline results inline with their new methodology

  27. “I’m sure your post was tongue in cheek but we do need to remove the undemocratic advantage Labour has in the current system.”

    I would agree with the need to have a system without any inherent inbuilt advantage, and in that light I would also completely agree with @Spearmint regarding the need to represent a population, not an electoral role.

    Indeed, I was extremely surprised to find that constituencies are based on the electoral role numbers, not the far more accurate census data. This greatly favours Tories, as those sectors that vote Tory tend to have much higher registration proportions, with Labour by far and away the biggest loser.

    From an entirely neutral and non partisan standpoint, it’s completely illogical to base constituencies on the electoral role, as MPs are expected to represent the population as a whole – including non voters such as those not registered and children. This simple factor is something that is never mentioned by Tories when they complain about bias in the system, which I find odd.

  28. Looking at the Populus tables, it looks a ‘nice set’ to me with no eyebrow-raising sub breaks. I do wonder at the apparent bumpkins who voted for a pro EU party in 2010 but have now wandered over to UKIP! Perhaps they applied for an EU job and were turned down. Alternatively perhaps they were burgled and it turned out the perp was a Pole.

    Colin, I don’t think this is a place to discuss the BOE Governor’s job description. Suffice it say that I regard all clerical jobs as a soft number (at any level) except dealing with the public (e.g. Booking clerk or receptionist). All you need is brains and this inbuilt inherited feature saves you having to be down a dusty hole in the road wielding a pneumatic drill. Now that’s what i call a real job. My drift is clear I hope.

    I don’t expect Anthony thinks he has a soft number (but it’s better than being bent double picking cabbages – we leave that to those dreadful Poles). :-)

    Have a good weekend all.

  29. @Alec

    I understand where you are coming from but why should the electoral system take account of those who cannot even bother to go on the electoral role. There are many reasons for not wanting to be on the electoral role, some of them criminal i suspect.

  30. This is interesting – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/10203829/History-hints-at-euro-survival-so-time-to-buy.html

    I’m tempted to say that now that analysts are saying buy Euros, this might be the time to dump them. Lol, as they say.

    I’ve only rad the article, and I haven’t bothered to check whether this is a summary of a more detailed research paper, but it is interesting to note that the author talks of successful and unsuccessful currency unions, and then appears to imply that the Euro may end up in the former category, eventually.

    What I found interesting is that the only examples of successful currency unions quoted were each predicated on political union, and the article is shot through with the assumption that for the Euro to succeed, fiscal, monetary and political union is required.

  31. @RIN

    I agree, a Tory/UKIP coalition makes more sense to me.

  32. @Spearmint
    Agree totally with your analysis there. But I don’t think of it as a Labour ruse, but as a real improvement. I can see no reason at all for using registered voters for assessing boundaries, especially if there is no compulsion to register; in effect this allows people to opt out of democracy entirely, not just out of voting.

    To counter Tory objections of a fix, Labour could also include a reduction in Commons seats and a greater equalisation of the new census-based constituencies, to offset their likely gains.

    As an inducement to the LDs, Labour could easily offer the Supplementary Vote in the Commons (as currently used for electing Mayors and Police Comissioners) and a reformed and PR elected HoL.

    It’s my belief that given the choice again in 2015, Clegg would again back Cameron in LibCon Mk 2 – even if the Tories had few seats than Labour. But a package of democratic “enhancements” like this would be near impossible for the LibDems to decline following another hung parliament.

  33. Hows this for an idea!

    Just for a change a suggestion; We let the people decide how they want to be governed.

    Let the public from parish/ community council to draw up their boundaries. Let these parishes decide what Council wards they want to be in and how big they should be.

    Then let the wards decide what Council they want to be in how big that Council should be and how many Councillors in should have or indeed just have an elected Mayor instead.

    Then they can decide what constituencies they want, how many and how many MP’s there should be. They can even have their elected Mayor (with or instead of a Council) as their MP.

    I kind of suspect it would see Westminster with a lot less than 600 MP’s.

    Peter.

  34. @TOH – “I understand where you are coming from but why should the electoral system take account of those who cannot even bother to go on the electoral role. There are many reasons for not wanting to be on the electoral role, some of them criminal i suspect.”

    By this logic, MPs shouldn’t bother with anything to do with children.

    No – I think you are completely wrong, with respect. We don’t make registration or voting compulsory, so we have no right to expect citizens to enter into that kind of contract. There is no part of our rights as citizens that is contingent on being on the electoral role, so it is completely unreasonable to suggest that political representation should be restricted in such a way.

    I don’t think your stance is a particularly logical one to start with, as there are many reasons why you might not be on the register anyway (prison, age, administrative failures etc) but unless we base our entire panoply of rights on being registered, I don’t think we should base political representation on this flawed system either.

  35. @ToH

    Because basing constituencies on the electoral roll creates incentives for parties to discourage registration in the strongholds of their political opponents, whilst the census creates incentives for parties to reach out beyond their natural constituencies and for them to encourage registration in those regions where they hold sway.

    Basing constituencies on the population of those of voting age is the only democratic thing to do in the age of universal suffrage.

  36. Alec,

    I tend to agree with you that census is best, but there is the counter argument along the lines of no taxation without representation or in this case no representation without taxation.

    Under this system You would only qualify for representation and indeed anything else from the state from benefits and pensions to NHS treatment if you are registered.

    It would effectively turn your combined national insurance NHS number into your election number.

    Peter.

  37. @Howard

    A bit harsh to talk about your party’s voters as “bumpkins”, especially if you want them to come back and vote for you again.

  38. @Postageincluded – “It’s my belief that given the choice again in 2015, Clegg would again back Cameron in LibCon Mk 2 – even if the Tories had few seats than Labour.”

    Very difficult to see that in political terms. Clegg established the precedent in 2010 that he would talk to the ‘winner’ first anyway, but your scenario means that LD’s could get a majority with Lab (as Lab has more seats than Con). I really cannot see them propping up a Con party that has lost seats, where Lab have more. Just don’t think it would happen, whatever the deal on the table was. There would be uproar, in my view.

    The only scenario in which this could happen would be if Labour so obviously rejected any potential coalition compromise with the LDs, but in reality, in these circumstances Labour would be calling the shots.

    One way of looking at this is the long term positioning of LDs. If they really did keep a Tory party in power rather than opt for a larger Labour party, the message would be crystal clear – Lib Dems are now Tories. there would be no way back to the centre ground for them, and they could never again play the centre party card.

  39. Howard

    I don’t agree, being down the bottom of a dusty hole with a pneumatic drill is not hard work, even when it starts filling up with water which is usual and your ankle deep in crappy smelly mush its not a hard job, I’m sure the governor of the BoE has it much harder

  40. @PeterCairnes – where the blazes have you dreamed that load of tosh from Peter.
    The would never work.

    All it would do is disjoint communities/towns.
    Our Parish system holds communities together and usually have a strong identity.
    Most people really don’t give a toss about the administration system that has been constantly messed around with – the worst example of that being the dreaded 1972/74 reorganisation of Local Government that wrecked the identity of many Towns, Cities and districts up and down the land and still hasn’t really recovered in some areas.
    Your idea sounds like one long nightmare to me -sorry!

  41. @Petercairns – that’s a much more logical position, so does deserve some attention. It makes sense, and equates citizenship and all that flows from it, with participation in the political process.

    Arguments against; the key ones are on health. We know that measles epidemics kill children unless we achieve 85% immunisation rates, and that having unregistered residents carrying things like TB or aids that remain untreated also kills registered citizens, and so for this reason we largely divorce health provision from residency rights. It protects citizens better than denying treatment to sick people who are unregistered.

    Your approach is logical, but brings a whole new set of issues.

  42. toh

    “There are many reasons for not wanting to be on the electoral role, some of them criminal i suspect.”

    ……………………………………………………………………………………

    Mmm… so the idea is we work out what the worst possible reasons could be, add “feckless and lazy” to that and base entitlement to see an MP on that prejudiced criteria?

    They could of course just be poor, un-involved because their life is hard, have moved addresses through no fault of their own etc etc etc.

    As others have said it is completely logical and neutral to say that a constituency should be based on the number of constituents any MP might be responsible for – not just those than “can be bothered” to sign onto the elecoral roll.

    [not “role” Alec, and I am shocked and saddened with your spelling which had shown some improvement over the term.]

  43. Peter

    Be very careful, there is an internet campaign happening seeking to remove voting rights for those that don’t pay tax, I know everyone thinks it can’t happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did, of course it won’t be all at once it will be step by baby step but the missionaries are already out there in cyberland

  44. SINE NOMINE,

    “Our Parish system holds communities together and usually have a strong identity”

    If that is true and like you I believe it is then people would choose these basic communities as there building blocks.

    They would then group themselves into wards and Councils which if you are right about72/74 would resemble what was replaced.

    Giving people a say from the bottom up would let people reset abolish the local communities that various political parties have dismantled for electoral gain.

    The danger is that we have lots of little Councils each with their own MP and more MP’s, but if that is the consequence of letting the people decide who are politicians, particular the beneficiaries of the system the public want to replace, to deny them?

    Peter.

  45. ‘t’s my belief that given the choice again in 2015, Clegg would again back Cameron in LibCon Mk 2 – even if the Tories had few seats than Labour.’

    Clegg might well want that , but I don’t believe for a moment that his party would permit it. Moreover, if he seriously tried to push it he would be replaced as leader.

  46. HOWARD

    @” My drift is clear I hope.”

    Certainly is Howard-must confess I hadn’t got you down as a horney handed son of labouring stock.

    Your right about “brains” though-I mean who needs them?

  47. @Peter – I can see partly where you are coming from Peter but I just envisage utter chaos as everything is unraveled but I have to admit I like the idea getting our former local government area we lost in 1974 which was submerged in a huge new Metropolitan Borough Council. -lol

    So you see – after all that I am partly with you! :)

  48. @Alec

    You’re right, it seems entirely unprincipled for Clegg to do it. Nevertheless the meme that “it’ll be the votes that count in 2015” is doing the rounds in LD circles, and has been since the LDs refused to back the boundary changes (a very suspicious coincidence).

    An excuse can always be found. For example, “We believe in PR so it’s the votes that should count”, or “Labour haven’t learned their lesson yet”, or “We just can’t agree with Labour over policy X”, or “Miliband is kind of funny-looking and we preferred his brother”. There would be uproar from the Labour side of course, but the I wouldn’t expect much fuss on the Tory benches about getting back into power. Remember, by negotiating first with the Tories in 2010 Clegg has already re-written constitutional precedent, and without any other reason that he wanted to. I can’t see why he shouldn’t do the same again.

    Of course he needs to be in a position where he has a choice, that is, a parliament so “balanced” that support from minor parties would be needed for any coalition. But given the current electoral arithmetic Labour only need a lead of about 0.5% in votes effectively prevent another LibCon alliance. By basing his first choice on national vote he gives himself, in reality, only the freedom to opt out of a more obvious LibLab pact.

    Why would Clegg want to do this though? Well, his head would be the price of any LibLab pact, and not only because Labour would want him out – the OED sized mountain of words he’d have to eat to form an alliance with Miliband would dwarf the few he’d need to swallow to resume his affair with Cameron. I don’t like the man, but I do think would be unwilling on matters of principle to stay leader of his party under any terms that Labour could offer it.

  49. @Paul Croft

    So you are making up what i think again! If you don’t agree with me just say so.

    “They could of course just be poor, un-involved because their life is hard, have moved addresses through no fault of their own etc etc etc.”

    As I say if they are uninvolved why should we worry about their representation. IMO my stance is just as logical as the point put forward by others above. It’s just that you don’t like it. What a surprise we seldom agree on anything.

  50. The Libs would more than likely go with whoever has the most seats. If it’s Labour, I can’t see them sticking with the Tories.

1 2 3 6