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 4 6
  1. AMBI

    I think that is there clear commitment under Clegg’s leadership.

    That is what makes any currently foreseeable result in 2015 providing the means for a repeat of this coalition as unlikely.

    Whether Lab will actually need the LD MPs for a working maj, we will have to see. If they do, Clegg’s personal position in the party will become very interesting.

    The labyrinthine LD constitutional set up will make the decision making process headlines for weeks.

  2. TOH

    You seem a nice bloke but I really feel you need to deveop more sympathy and empathy for people less capable intelectually, emotionally and so on than you are yourself.

    I simpy highlighted the silliness of saying “some may be criminal” as a reason for denying ALL who don’t join the electoral roll for being considered worthy of counting.

    “Can’t be bothered” implies they make conscious, thoughtfu decisions in such matters in the same way as you and I. But they don’t so they need help, encouragement and information – not sidelining. So yes: I disagree with you very much.

    I like to think you you would be one of the first in the good samaritan queue to help others though.

  3. Sorry about my LLLLLs again.

    By the way, Richard III seemed more up to date in the 15th C with his citizens’ courts.

  4. Peter

    Does that mean that if I do nor register I will not have to pay tax & Nat Ins? I can imagine lots of well off people not registering.

  5. Clegg’s largest party/vote mantra is flawed.

    A smaller party should have two things to concern them:

    1/ Do the combined figures stack up

    2/ Which party do we have most in common with.

    He has, sadly in my view, gone with his “dispassionate” idea but then come over as strongly pro-Tory/anti-Labour: this will come back to bite him as the Tories stil hate him anyway. Probably the first party leader to be unpopular with all parties, including their own.

  6. @Ambivalent

    And if Labour has one more seat than the Tories, but the Tories have a 3.5% lead in votes? Do the LDs and Clegg turn their backs on everything they’ve said for the previous 5 years for one seat? What about a simlar position but Labour have a handful more seats? Where is the dividing line? We just don’t know. Coalitions outisde the UK often continue despite the major players losing seats or even the plurality. There’s no reason, given the right circumstances that this shouldn’t happen here.

    That’s why, IMO, Labour need to have some policies, like electoral and HoL reform, that are just irresistable to the LDs.

  7. Prediction for GE result according to mystic Megg

    6% lead in the polls down from 9-10% a few months ago with an unpopular leader.

    6% behind in the polls from being behind 9-10% a few months ago with a not quite so unpopular leader.

    Meggs prediction “It’s all going to end in tears for somebody”.

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

    ————-
    Ed Miliband supported AV in 2011 If Labour had won in 2010 they would apparently have introduced AV without a referendum and had a referendum on PR instead.

    Possibly the rise of the extreme right UKIP might have put them off the idea bit.

  9. @ PeterCairns

    “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.”

    From personal experience I certainly have some sympathy with that. I live in Clacton which is by far the largest town in Tendring with its own clear urban identity as opposed to a mostly rural district. There are three County Council wards covering Clacton – East, South, West. But then there are two district council wards left over and they have been lumped in with a whole swathe of rural Tendring to form Tendring Rural East – rural these two wards are not and they have nothing whatsoever in common with the rest of the County Council ward whereas they have everything in common with the other three Clacton wards.

    The main road near where I live is divided down the middle, so that one side of the road is in [urban] Clacton East, the other in Tendring Rural East. It’s a complete nonsense.

  10. (what possessed the Lib Dems to initially agree to the boundary changes, I cannot begin to imagine)

    -I suspect because they were offered a non contested referendum on AV and guaranteed PR in an elected second chamber.

    I can’t think why else can you?

    Just goes to show you shouldn’t believe everything you are promised.

  11. TOH

    The fact that you do not like the idea gives it great appeal to me I will see if it is to late to discuss at conference.

  12. @Turk

    Surely, following the Cameron “Veto” at the end of 2011 it was all over bar the shouting anyway.

    That was sarcasm, BTW,

  13. The chance of the LDs having a real choice must be slim.

    Even with 57 seats they only had one realistic option and chances are next time they will have 40 or less.

    It is just about possible for the other 2 to have 286+ each and the LDs 40 but highly unlikely.

  14. Wasn’t Clegg’s pledge last time to talk to whichever Party got the most seats first? In practice negotiations took place with both Labour and Conservatives, though the arithmetic (and Labour’s reluctance) meant that only a coalition with the Tories was doable. I really can’t see it being any different next time if there is a hung parliament.

  15. toh

    Given the following language you chose I hardly think I was putting words in your mouth anyway:

    “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.”

    So clearly you wish to exclude POTENTIAL criminals [not sure who judges that] and the “not bothered” [viz – lazy to use my word] In other words – everybody not on the roll! [unless you have further sub-categories??]

    To make it worse you don’t want to actually exclude them from “something”, you just don’t feel they shouldn’t be counted as fellow citizens in your own, or other constituencies.

    It’s really hard for me to understand that rationale.

  16. turk

    I don’t think Dave is the blubbing kind.

  17. @RogerMexico

    Can’t argue with any of that. If there’s a clear-cut winner, or a pretty nearly clear-cut coalition there’s nothing to discuss.

    I’m on record as saying that the chance of a hung parliament is low in 2015. But nevertheless the Conservative and Labour parties need to prepare for the possibility by adopting some policies useful for horse trading. For Labour, HoL and voting reform are easy and compelling offers to the LDs.

    At the risk of opening a hornets’ nest I should add that party funding reform – which is the subtext of the recent Miliband announcement – is also a policiy which could be traded in for a Coalition with the cash-strapped LDs.

  18. Roger – Clegg deliberately left it very vague last time, saying he’d talk to the biggest party first but dodging questions about whether he meant seats or votes.

    I have a vague recollection that quite late in the campaign he might have come off the fence and said seats, but I’m not sure if I imagined it!

  19. I think as regards electoral reform, the minimum next time round would be single transferable vote for local elections.

    That way, the Lib Dems get people used to it across the UK and it will do away with any redundant arguments about the supposed unfairness of preference voting. It would be a significant stepping stone to the eventual goal of a more representative HoC.

    However, even as a party supporter, I have to say the prospects of a coalition after 2015 look slim. Labour can get a majority on 35% and they would have to be doing really badly not to achieve that. Still, the economy may start to roar into life later this year and into 2014, at which point all bets are off. Also, Labour may spontaneously combust with leadership and trade union problems, but I don’t think so.

    The very worst case would be if there is a carbon copy of 2010’s result, but with fewer LD MPs. That really would plunge the LDs into an existential crisis. The thought of another five years tied to the Tories would drive most of us into deepest despair. Cameron would be defenestrated for not winning outright again and who knows who they would put in his place.

  20. @Paul Croft

    The “you can’t have benefits if you don’t register” idea is pretty fatuous, and won’t happen; no government will ever risk having little old ladies turned away at the hospital gates becasue they didn’t stick the stamp on their registration form properly.

    The real argument for using the census rather than registration for boundaries is that by not registering I effectively deprive my neighbours who do of full representation. i.e. if 50% don’t register in my area it’s number of MPs will be halved, and each MP will be representing the issues of constituency of twice the size. I think it’s entirely unjustifiable that one group of people, even by inertia, can deprive another group of half of their vote.

  21. @AW

    I think your memory serves you well.

  22. AW

    Clegg’s whole ingrained feeling would have been for ‘most votes’ because under PR that is what would rule, which is how we LDs think. I grant that under FPTP he might have allowed himself to deviate -their fault not his..

    Had Labour got more votes (how?) he may have had a problem but as both criteria were satisfied, it was a no-brainer.

    Postage Included
    I am astonished (well, not really) at you thinking that my critique of LD deserters to UKIP being described as (whatever insult I used) is strange.

    I don’t do partisan – can you comprehend this?

    RinN

    We still have intellectual contact. I am so glad that someone understands what real work is.

  23. @ToH

    “Big Government is over”?

    Imagine if you will what 2009 would have been like had Governments not been big enough that they *could* perform bailouts and economic stimulus. Imagine if it had all been left to the distorted marketplace, and every over-leveraged bank faced a hard-landing.

    At a minimum, Government needs to be big enough to regulate the market by punitive and regulative taxation. And doing so results in enough income that you’re going to spend that a welfare state and improvement of the nation is the best place to spend it.

    Even the relatively minor reduction of commodity market regulation in the 90s, fed by “reducing the size of government” demands, has had disastrous economic results. The argument that “Small government” has won the argument is… Problematic.

  24. @Howard

    You described those voters who now prefer UKIP to your own party as “bumpkins”. I would say that was pretty partisan. Your attempt to be supercilious about it doesn’t wash.

  25. @AW

    Does YouGov get paid for its input to the Telegraph? I only ask because at the moment its “YouGov/Electoral Calculus” predicition shows LibDems at 0 MPs in 2015, which seems a bit unlikely.

  26. @Paul Croft

    Sorry but in no way do I accept that in any way was my comment silly. It was factual IMO. Yes we do agree fundamentally.

  27. @Jayblanc

    The point I was making was that Big Government will not continue in the long term because it is unaffordable.

  28. @Paul Croft

    If you cannot understand I cannot help you. It’s blindingly obvious to me. Let us just agree to disagree. I see no rationale in your argument.

  29. @PaulCroft

    I meant to say disagree obviously!!!

  30. Anthony

    That was my vague recollection too. But my point was rather that in the end it didn’t matter and discussions were had with both big Parties, even though the numbers weren’t really there for a rainbow coalition. It can happen – look at Norfolk CC – but it’s not easy.

    But any Party with the balance of power is always going to talk to both sides so as to increase its bargaining power. The minor etiquette of who you speak to first doesn’t matter to anyone, except possibly the person who books the meeting rooms.

  31. ANTHONY

    @”I have a vague recollection that quite late in the campaign he might have come off the fence and said seats, but I’m not sure if I imagined it!”

    I thought he did too-and he has spoken about it since 2010 in tv interviews-though I can’t trace precise wording as yet.

  32. PI
    I was not being anything other than very serious. Anyone who migrates from LD to UKIP (or vice versa) has clearly not thought about it.

    I would imagine most here would agree (but who knows?).

    My point to you is why do you think that anything we write on here has the slightest importance? Why do the partisans, (most) continually push their views as though putting them on here could actually affect the outcome of elections?t

  33. For instance, look at TOH’s contributions (6.31 an example). What on earth is he trying to achieve?

  34. My vague recollection is different and that NC was never specific and maintained his talk first to the party with the ‘biggest mandate’ line to the end… but I could have missed it of course.

    I doubt the media will let him get away with it this time.

  35. Howard

    It probably is a bit unfair to automatically dismiss those who switch from Lib Dem to UKIP as bumpkins because of the wildly differing attitude to the EU of those Parties. People vote for a Party for a range of policies and reason, and may pick one as the ‘least bad’ option even if they disagree with a major part of the programme. The mmost recent poll on a potential EU referendum:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bq20ecsm1p/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-080713.pdf

    not only showed 19% of current Lib Dems voting to leave, it even showed 7% of UKIP supporters voting to stay in.

  36. @Howard

    Just putting a point of view. It’s still a free country , at least more or less. Skip my posts if you do not like them.

  37. toh

    “If you cannot understand I cannot help you”

    Oh dear, poor old me. Not that it’s me that needs help in understanding – it seems that, as ever you are confusing that with agreeing.

    Read this from PI and try again, but harder:

    “The real argument for using the census rather than registration for boundaries is that by not registering I effectively deprive my neighbours who do of full representation. i.e. if 50% don’t register in my area it’s number of MPs will be halved, and each MP will be representing the issues of constituency of twice the size. I think it’s entirely unjustifiable that one group of people, even by inertia, can deprive another group of half of their vote.”

    ………………………………………………………………………………..

    Now, you may not agree with the above but I would find it hard to believe that:

    1/ You don’t “understand” that simple yet powerful argument and

    2/ You still think “criminal elements” or the people who “can’t be bothered” argument [the only one I’ve read from you] is a better one and that, just perhaps say, we should instead include them and encourage their involvement in the democratic process.

    If you feel your argument outweighs mine and PI’s a “because” would be very welcome indeed. Sadly I expect any such to be rather like the “proof” of the existence of god – viz: “I know I am right”.

  38. Howard – Nick Harvey has been anti-EU for a long time so why can’t some of your 2010 voters who perhaps figured that neither of the other 2 where much more Euro- Sceptic in practice and voted LD for other reasons. Given an apparently credible anti-EU party to choose they now say the UKIP in polls.

    The other explanation is that some of these voters chose the LDs as a protest but now see them as part of the establishment.

  39. Roger Mexico

    Indee, ‘bumpkins’ the lot of them. :-)

    Have we lost our SOH here? Did we ever have it?

    Everything I write 9(part from questions about polling method) is designed to be at least faintly amusing or interesting.

    Sorry if I fail, but to accuse me of partisanship, because I, as an LD member, describe 2010 LD voters as bumpkins does take some imagination.

  40. I wish we could correct typos. Hopefully they were obvious.

  41. howard

    “Why do the partisans continually push their views as though putting them on here could actually affect the outcome of elections?”

    It is a bit weird really. As I may have said before, spending your time digging up tiny nuggets of news that may put the party, not-of-your-choice, in a bad light is a particuarly odd use of one’s time.

    But then, so is what I have just written.

    We need a silent forum with the odd puppy or footy anecdote [other sports if Engand are winning I suppose]

  42. @Paul Croft

    We agree to disagree as always.

  43. JIM JAM

    @”I doubt the media will let him get away with it this time.”

    I agree-and with the prospect of half the seats he had in 2010, he really won’t have a hand to play.

    TRying to keep the existing Coalition in power , with Labour clearly largest party at Westminster, when the voters have taken half your seats away is not credible.

    I don’t think he would even attempt it.

    His voters have walked to Labour in large numbers, his Party members do not want another tie up with Cons.

    He will have all on to survive as leader, let alone try to influence political power at Westminster.

  44. JimJam
    Of course you are right but for goodness me, when someone makes a jokey comment about LDs, how on earth is that to be described as ‘partisan’?

    I bend over backwards to do the opposite and the partisans, being so blinkered, still can’t see it. It’s deliciously pathetic.

  45. Don’t think I ever called you partisan Howard?

    I do think how votes can shift from LD-UKIP is a worthwhile topic to discuss.

  46. @”We still have intellectual contact. I am so glad that someone understands what real work is.”

    Have you ever considered the Marxists Howard -I’m sure they would welcome someone with your outlook.

    I mean-aren’t LibDems supposed to be intellectual-thoughtful-you know -brainy types who read a lot & wear sandals.

    Just a thought-and I don’t know many LibDem supporters I must confess-well none actually.

  47. toh

    Nice to see you took the trouble to clarify your argument…..**

    “@Paul Croft

    We agree to disagree as always.”

    Anyway, speak for yourself – I’m agreeing to nothing.

    ** Have you ever done debates?

  48. AW/Colin

    In possible answer to your question.
    On Gleggs Wikipedia site it mentions what he said about supporting the Tories about three quarters of the way down the page on the day of the election results. If it’s any help to you.

  49. @Paul Croft

    Why should I bother to clarify my argument, it really is quite clear, and yes I have done debates usually with a successful outcome IMO of course.

  50. TOH – prosecuting counsel to the jury.

    “Ladies and gentelemen of the jury! It is is clear to me that that viian dunnit and is definitely guilty as charged.

    If you cannot see that then I cannot hep you.”

    Judge:

    “Have you any question to the accused TOH?”

    “No m’Lud”

    “Would you like to make your closing statement to the jury now then?”

    “I just did m’lud. I said he was guilty.”

1 2 3 4 6