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 5 6
  1. Sorry about my beeding LLLLLLLs

    They only work with a mallet

  2. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what Clegg might want and what his party would be prepared to go along with. I have a strong sense that today his authority is already much diminished within LD ranks when compared to 2010 , and would be further eroded by loss of seats in 2015. In other words Clegg could easily be overruled.

  3. TURK

    THanks.

    That seems to suggest some equivocation- not a view shared in this recent article, which claims he/they meant “most seats”:-

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/lib-dems-promise-back-largest-party-do-they-mean-votes-or-seats

  4. @Paul Croft

    How childish, you seem to have a very odd sense of humour. You seem unable to understand that other people can have views which are very different from your own.

    I gather you have a painful condition at the moment. I was sorry to hear it and i sympathise. I suspect it has something to do with the levels of irritation you feel about my posts.

  5. toh

    “Why should I bother to clarify my argument, it really is quite clear”

    I suppose it is really. Trouble is it’s just not very good and can be summed up as

    “If they can’t be bothered sod them.”

    Not very generous or forward thinking really in my view.

    What I meant [of course] is can you COUNTER the suggestions that they should recieve help to be “bothered” and counted meanwhile as actual citizens and potential voters?

    Sorry about banging on about this but I must have been norn with too many logic genes and you are all emotion it seems to me.

  6. TOH

    “How childish, you seem to have a very odd sense of humour”

    Well, more satirical in my view if your idea of debate is toe repeat your central belief and say “we must agree to disagree”.

    Still, I’d rather be called childish than other things.

    I shan’t bother you ahain but, as I explained above, probably badly I have an irrationa hope that ogic can prevail. In your case that woould have involved you, at the very least, of accepting the validilty and sincerity of opposing views rather than your, frankly, rather patronising “if you can’t see I can’t help you” mantra with no back-up.

    Tata.

    Paul

    ps : your posts don’t irritate although they certainly puzzle

  7. @Paul Croft

    I cannot see that your argument is more logical than mine. Emotion has nothing to do with my views as expressed above.

    AS I said before i do not think your argument is very good which is why i said many posts ago Let us agree to disagree. We must be boring the pants off everybody else. Just leave it. I’m happy to believe you believe you are right and i believe i am right.

  8. Populus has a strange methodology.

    The headline figures are based on 612 men, and only 471 women.

    Somehow they lose the women between the raw figures and the headline figures. Either because they are less likely to vote, or more ‘don’t knows’?

    Women seem to take less interest in politics day to day, but on the day I think they turn out in similar numbers?

    Also most other polls show women far more labour inclined than men to a significant percentage. So I think when you look at ‘house effects’ populus is going to be firmly in the Tory biased column over time.

  9. @Howard

    So…. We must assume that when you refer to voters who switch from LibDem to UKIP as “bumpkins” this is “just a joke”, but you reserve your right to assume there is no humour in my response – merely because my joke was at your expense!

    And no, I doubt if everyone posting here thinks the same as you do about those previous LD voters who are saying they’re voting for UKIP.There is nothing inconsistent, stupid or bumpkinish about it. All the polling evidence suggests that these voters weren’t particularly interested in the EU as an issue then or now. I would suggest that many of them voted for the LDs as a positive way of saying No both to the Government and to the Opposition. They are doing the same thing by switching to UKIP now. This is a very useful constituency for UKIP as, unlike many of their supporters they have a tendency to vote.

    Of course UKIP will declare these supporters as the staunchest of Eurosceptic free-marketeers. But we both know otherwise, don’t we. After all, your party claimed them as civil-libertarian Europhiles, and look how that turned out.

    BTW Only joking.

  10. Switch from the LibDems to UKIP is quite reasonable actually for two reasons.

    Firstly if what you object two is the duopoly of Labour and Tory governments especially if with triangulation they seem to you difficult to tell apart then voting for whoever is most likely to upset their mutual apple cart makes sense.

    Usually the LibDem’s but currently perhaps it is UKIP.

    Secondly as Anthony has made clear people really aren’t always that clear on who is best and why the vote. Recognition of most politicians is poor and their identification of which party has what policy is often worse.

    Politicians like to talk about the way the public are reacting to a particular policy and may even believe it but most of the public really don’t do the detail.

    If you watched the NHS policies of the last Labour government with the current coalitions not only would the average voter not be able to tell or indeed notice the difference Labour would still lead on the NHS because people believe that it is better on the issue than the Tories.

    Odd but true.

    Peter.

  11. I was looking on the net for a home made apple pie recipe and stumbled over this from early June.
    …..
    “The Labour group at Northampton Borough Council has been thrown into further disarray today with the sensational defection of another councillor, this time to UKIP”

    “The announcement comes only a few days after borough councillor for Abington, Iftikhar Choudary, defected to the Tories and the Chron’s columnist Aufona revealed deep divisions within the Northampton party in the aftermath of the county council elections when Labour won just four seats in Northampton borough and only 11 out of 57 overall”
    ______

    What’s that word they shout in the Commons? More More More..

  12. Oh and just for clarity;

    Are they bumpkins for switching to UKIP, were they bumpkins before they switched to UKIP, did they become bumpkins for some other reason and then switch or were they just always generally bumpkins as show by the fact that they are willing to vote for either.

    We need to know and the nation waits with baited breath!

    Peter.

  13. TOH

    “We must be boring the pants off everybody else”

    A strange image which I shal try to dispel. Where’s Allan with his REALLY funny posts when you need them? Something like “Ed’s got a big nose” would be perfect just now.

    “I’m happy to believe you believe you are right ”

    Fairy Nuff.

    We should have a poll to decide: we can each have 1000 words….. it that enough?

  14. @Peter Cairns

    Thank you for your support, and even greater thanks for your slow response, as it allowed even my snail’s pace to beat you to the point.

    All you need to do now is change your view on independence and you’re the man for me.

  15. PAULCROFT

    “Where’s Allan with his REALLY funny posts when you need them? Something like “Ed’s got a big nose” would be perfect just now”
    ______

    Now now Mr Croft I would never poke fun at someone’s misfortune and that includes ..quote “Ed’s big nose”

  16. The Other Howard

    @Paul Croft

    “I’m happy to believe you believe you are right and i believe i am right”
    ______

    For what it’s worth I believe both of you are wrong and believe I am right.

    Even a clock that does not work is right twice a day.

  17. @PC

    “They only work with a mallet”

    You mean a maet surely?

  18. “The announcement comes only a few days after borough councillor for Abington, Iftikhar Choudary, defected to the Tories and the Chron’s columnist Aufona revealed deep divisions within the Northampton party in the aftermath of the county council elections when Labour won just four seats in Northampton borough and only 11 out of 57 overall”
    ______
    What’s that word they shout in the Commons? More More More.

    How’s that for stupid Tory partisanship, Anthony? Get this irritating child into pre-moderation and save my blood pressure from killing me.

  19. iananthonyjames

    “How’s that for stupid Tory partisanship, Anthony? Get this irritating child into pre-moderation and save my blood pressure from killing me”
    __________

    Oh dear someone has to get out more and for about the 100th time I am not a Tory.

    Nice to get a reaction though!!

  20. It seems clear that the Labour lead has fallen from about 10% to about 6% in about 2 months. All this really proves is that NOONE knows what will happen at the General Election in May 2015.

  21. Do you know the reaction you get from some people on here because of a comment you have posted would have me believe that my views/comments can really have a profound effect on the outcome of the next GE.

    Maybe I really can shift the polls.

  22. AC

    “What’s that word they shout in the Commons? More More More..”

    Or as they shout about your rather silly posts:

    “Less, less less.”

    Anyway shouldn’t you be out playing in the streets with yer little gang instead of making such erudite political statements?

    ………………………………………………………………………………….

    “@PC

    “They only work with a mallet”

    You mean a maet surely?”

    I did Statty: nearly wrote it in fact but then thought:

    “Who on this site would get it it apart from the Statster?”

  23. IMO, assuming that Tories and Lab are neck and neck in 2015 and LDs have a reasonable number of seats, say 30+, then the process within the Lib Dems will be significantly different cf. 2010.

    In 2010 I was a Lib Dem member and although I was very very uncomfortable with the idea of a Con/LD coalition, I felt it was the only option due to the need for urgent stable government at a time of financial crisis. I am sure many other LDs felt the same way. Hopefully 2015 will see the UK in a much more stable situation and therefore I would suggest that any formation of a coalition or conf & supply situation could be arranged over a period of weeks allowing much greater discussion within and between parties. This is what tends to occur following elections in Europe and there is no reason why it can’t occur in the UK.

    Under such a situation I doubt whether the party would allow Clegg to make the same decision again. If he tried then I could see Farron ousting him as leader. I base this on the assumption that the LDs still have a majority of left of centre members. Although many like myself have resigned, many of the comments on LDV suggest that this left majority still exists.

  24. Here is the contemporary LibDemVoice discussion:

    h
    ttp://www.libdemvoice.org/votes-or-seats-why-nick-clegg-wont-cant-and-shouldnt-answer-that-hung-parliament-question-18907.html

    Fwiw, when repeatedly pressed by a journalist late in the campaign, my memory is that Nick Clegg gave the answer “both” to the shouted question “votes or seats?”
    Logically that answer would have to be interpreted as meaning “either”.

  25. AC

    “Do you know the reaction you get from some people on here because of a comment you have posted……………”

    Do you mean like when AW moderates you for contravening regerlayshuns?

    That’s about as much political impact as you are likely to have – unless, sensibly, the pokiticians bring back capital punishment specifically for very silly boys.

  26. PAULCROFT

    Yes I’m off up to the the Rutland for a few with my gang.

    I’m off before I upset anyone else…or worse give them heart failure.

  27. @Colin

    Richard Morris in the New Statesman (whom you link to) is hardly a disinterested opinion, rather a Clegg groupie, so I think on this occasion Turk’s Wikipedia entry is likely to be more reliable.

    What that implies is that “most votes and most seats” gives a party the right to attempt forming a government. In effect, constituency boundaries being as they are, Labour has no right to seek government if they don’t have most votes, and the Tories have no right to govern if they have fewer seats than Labour. If Labour has more seats and the Tories have more votes it’ll presumably be a Lib-Dems’ “excuse-me”. (No apologies for antique slang here, look it up if you don’t know it).

    That was the position in Feb 1974, of course. Heath invited Thorpe for talks. It was clear that Thorpe couldn’t get his party to prop the old tar up, so they came to nought, so the story goes. Or maybe Ted’s heart wasn’t in it, given, as we learned only recently, that he knew from the secret service about the emerging story of the male model and his dog.

  28. PAULCROFT

    But my posts receive a bigger reaction from you than from anyone else.

    Even when I’m not posting you can’t but help mention my good name.

    I must be doing something right??

    Food for thought!!

    Have a tipple on me old bean!!

  29. Almost forgot..

    Anytime I have been moderated by AW has been over my views on IDC and his welfare reforms. I have never been moderated for a view regarding Labour but have earned a snip.

    More food for thought.

  30. #IDS

  31. @Steve – “If Labour had won in 2010 they would apparently have introduced AV without a referendum and had a referendum on PR instead.”

    My understanding is that changing the electoral system without a referendum (LD manifesto) was an LD demand which was turned down in no uncertain terms… specifically by Ed Balls during negotiations.

    There is a persistent rumour that Tory MPs were told that Labour had offered this (as a way persuade them of the neccessity of making the AV referendum offer perhaps) – as to where that rumour originated, I can’t be sure.

  32. @ AllanChristie, PaulCroft

    Heavens, boys. Get a room.

  33. @BillyBob

    I thought the rumour was that Labour had offered AV Plus? I do remember Peter Mandelson denying that any such thing had ever happened, and, strange to say, I believe him because it would have been impossible to get approval from the party for it.

    If you’re looking for the source of a rumour you should “follow the money”. The LibDems had most to gain from the rumour as far as I can see.

  34. pi

    “@ AllanChristie, PaulCroft

    Heavens, boys. Get a room.”

    I find him irritating enough in cyber-space, ta for the offer.

  35. @Postageincluded

    Apparently the Con/LD negotiations took place in a room with a view over the back garden of No 10… so near!

    Another possiblity is that Con negotiators weren’t sure whether Lab might offer something to trump them – so sealed the deal with an AV referendum. They then had to somehow sell the unacceptable to backbenchers.

  36. It’s a sad day when the leader of the free world has to offer Russia assurances that if they extradited Edward Snowden that he would suffer neither torture or execution

  37. The Other Howard/Paul Croft

    I find your discussing interesting, especially the humour in Paul’s posts – makes me smile.

    TOH

    I am sorry to say that Paul is right – you have said that only the people on the electoral role are eligible to vote, this argument has been challenged with reasons and your response has been weak to put it kindly.

    I think you have been ‘done up like a kipper’ as they say in these parts

  38. @Steve, @BillyBob

    I really wish I could archive my posts, because I’ve answered this one before.

    During the negotiations it was reported by the BBC that Labour had offered AV without a referendum *and* a referendum on PR (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8644480.stm )

    Some time after the coalition had been formed, Clegg and (I think) Straw explictly denied in Parliament that the offer had taken place.

    If we assume that politicians don’t deliberately lie in Parliament if that lie can be easily found out, then I further assume the offer did not take place.

    rgdsm

  39. I seem to remember that the view in Westminster was that Labour had offered just about everything to stay in Govt and get the Liberals on board. Wasn’t it Adonis, Campbell and Mandelson involved? Anyway, I love how all the harder left posters have now had a damascus conversion on PR given the thought of UKIP getting seats, sort of runs against the narrative. lol

    Whatever was offered, the Liberals did the right thing. Keeping the Conservatives out of power would have been an affront to democracy (and I would say the same if roles were reversed with Labour). You can’t have the party that was most popular in the country, won the most seats, and most votes by a couple of million deliberately kept out of power on the basis of a phoney liberal left bloc position. We saw a similar argument have a horse and cart ran threw it when it was shown many SDP voters had the Conservatives as a second preference during the 80s.

  40. RiN

    “It’s a sad day when the leader of the free world has to offer Russia assurances that if they extradited Edward Snowden that he would suffer neither torture or execution”

    True – but coming from them it’s also a bit of a cheek.

    …………………………………………………………………………………..

    BC

    “I am sorry to say that Paul is right ”

    Ta – but no need to apologise.

    Actually I do feel as though I am unfair to Howard as we come at things from such different angles but, as I said before, there is a stubborn part of me that feels that someone should, at the very least, engage with the substance of an differing point of view and, in fact, woud want to do so on a reasonably intelligent internet forum [like wot this is]

    pAul

  41. rich

    “Anyway, I love how all the harder left posters have now had a damascus conversion on PR”

    Rich, you do write some odd things. Where is your evidence for that and why does everything have to be placed in a “left/right” situation anyway?

    I have read many posts from people on all sides for and against simple PR. I have been for it for decades and regard it as the ony way to estabish an honest system which is devoid of tactical voting and therefore produces a parliament that represents the people and therefore encourages them to think very seriousy about who they vote for.

    To my mind there is no counter argument that matches the weight of that – and my view has absolutely nothing to do with which party I might vote for under the current system.

    As an aside, “it makes me laugh” “I am amused” “I love how” etc etc etc, used as a precursor to a statement like yours, come across as someone affecting the high ground, whether intentionally or not. I can’t see the necessity for it really.

  42. @Anthony Wells

    Sorry for repeating the my question from the previous topic: is the DK figure has the same MoE, hence confidence level as the headline figures? I ask it because I want to have some analysis for it – to post here probably Tuesday or Wednesday, but since the headline figures are cleansed I don’t really want to waste my time (if DKs are residual after all the stat manipulations).

    Thanks.

  43. Does anyone know why David Bowie is so popular?

    I haven’t liked anything since oe Major Tom. Lyrically I loved the way the words melted from “can your hear me Major Tom ….” to “Can you………… here am I, sitting in a tin can.”

    I also thought that explained the failure of the mission.

  44. There’s a fly in my room.

    Problem with laptops rather than newspapers is you can’t whack the buggers with them.

  45. @Paul,

    I am amused by your post…lol

    I saw a huge weight of evidence of a big change in the appeal/morale high ground around wanting PR the minute UKIP were polling around 20%.

    The fact of the matter, is that when it didnt fit the narrative, and started to hold political risks, PR as that bastion of fairness suddenly had the shine taken off it. It made me laugh…

    rich

  46. @Martyn

    Thanks… “BBC understands from Lib Dem sources” doesn’t sound absolutely authoritative.

    Steve Richards did a series for BBC R4 later in that year, talking to all those involved. Everyone agreed that Balls sent Ed Miliband out to get the coffees… hold on… that’s not the bone of contention here.

    Let me see… Balls said “no way, not in a million years” in response to the LD suggestion that Labour could legislate for a change in the election system without a referendum. I’m guessing Richards cross referenced that before including it in the programme.

  47. rich

    “@Paul,

    I am amused by your post…lol ”

    bleedin’ cheek.

    Anyway, what weight was it [bear in mind that a litre of water’s a mile and three quarters if you are doin’ metric.] and can we view it per favore?

    ‘Cos I don’t believe you – I think you are making it up.

  48. @paul,

    Ok, let’s put it this way, a poll of say liberal/labour leaning voters on PR would generally poll far better if it looks advantageous for them, rather than because morally it has a strong argument. I take the point you might be the exception, but I guarantee PR was less appealing when UKIP were polling high, or even say the thought of a far right party like the BNP getting a few seats under PR. I did see posts on here saying PR became less attractive when UKIP were polling around 20%, not that I imagine anybody will back me up. lol

    It just says to me politics overrides everything, that’s all. Maybe I am cynical. Perhaps PR is good for the Tories now if UKIP voters choose them as a second preference, who knows.

  49. I don’t think PR has a second preference does it?

  50. @Rich

    Ok, let’s put it this way, a poll of say liberal/labour leaning voters on PR would generally poll far better if it looks advantageous for them, rather than because morally it has a strong argument.

    Being honest, most voters of all parties would support something that benefits their own party.

    Trying to suggest otherwise is being, well rather provocative.

    (of course you would never do this, would you?)

1 2 3 4 5 6