The weekly YouGov poll for the Sunday Times is now up online here. Topline voting intention figures are CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%, showing the six point Labour lead that has been typical in YouGov polls of late. As well as regular trackers, today’s poll also has some questions on Syria and on the whole Edward Snowden, GCHQ, David Miranda, Guardian affair.

There is still minimal support for any intervention in Syria (if anything there is slightly less support than when YouGov asked the same questions back in May). While 77% would support sending humanitarian supplies to civilians in Syria and 41% would support sending protective clothing to troops fighting against Assad, a majority would oppose any other type of intervention – 58% would oppose sending small arms to the rebel troops, 74% would oppose sending British troops in Syria itself (just 9% would support military intervention on the ground).

A batch of questions on Edward Snowden and GCHQ show people pretty evenly divided on the principle of GCHQ’s behaviour, 41% think it is right that GCHQ should be able to listen into internet and communication data, 45% think it’s wrong. People are still split on whether the Guardian was right to publish stories about it – 40% think it right, 45% think it is wrong.

As the questions move onto the government and security services’s response, the destruction of the Guardian’s hard drives and the holding of David Miranda at Heathrow the balance of opinion moves slightly towards the security services. In questions about the Guardian hard drives people are, on balance, supportive off their destruction – by 54% to 23% they think it was sensible, by 41% to 34% they reject the idea it was pointless. Finally on the question of David Miranda’s treatment at Heathrow airport, 46% think the police were right to use anti-terrorism laws to detain David Miranda, 36% that they were wrong. 49% think it was a sensible use of powers to protect national security, 34% think it was a misuse of powers to interfere with legitimate journalism.

Also in today’s Sunday papers was an ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph. The Telegraph article doesn’t make it clear, but I think this is actually one of ICM’s “wisdom index” polls (that is, rather than asking people how they would vote they ask people to guess what the percentages will be at the next election and average them) – the figures look more like ICM’s wisdom polls than their regular polls, and ICM don’t do standard voting intention online. For the record the poll has the Conservatives on 30%, Labour on 32%, Lib Dems on 16%, UKIP on 12%.

There is also an Angus Reid Scottish poll in the Sunday Express, already well written up by John Curtice here, which found current referendum voting intention standing at YES 34%, NO 47%.


366 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 32, LAB 38, LD 10, UKIP 13”

1 6 7 8
  1. statgeek

    Attitudes to Syria so far are amazingly uniform across most demographics so far, including regionally (actually the Scots look most in favour, but not by much). When and if ‘intervention’ starts we might expect to see the usual shifts, eg women more against, government supporters more for, but nothing yet.

    But then the profile of UKIP supporters – older, maler, more C2DE, not Scottish might be thought to be the groups more in favour. But UKIP-ers are those most against.

  2. richard in norway

    We can’t afford not to get further involved, we need a friendly reliable Syrian govt if we are going to have a gas pipeline from the gulf to europe. The costs will be more than earned back in lower gas prices and greater pan European energy security

    Well let’s face it with Iraq and Afghanistan now made perfectly safe for the transmission of natural resources, we might as well go for the hat-trick.

  3. Martyn

    Well no one else will make the realpolitik argument in public, it’s all this pansy humanitarian stuff everyone is hiding behind

  4. Hard to keep up, but it looks like there’s been a lively discussion and lots of interesting points made.

    @Petercairns – thanks for your reply re airstrikes etc (some time ago now). It seems that we basically agree, but may have differing levels of faith in our military’s abilities to hit the correct targets. I think another point worth noting is that tactics evolve, always. Middle East states will now have lots of intelligence on how to fool drones, particularly in the ways to persuade them to strike against civilian targets made to look like military ones. For countries who are prepared to sacrifice their own people, this is quite straightforward, making the idea of a clean war more difficult to achieve.

    I also note that recent events in Afghanistan have shown that UK troops are no longer safe in their most advanced troop carrier, after several died after their Mastiff was blown up by a home made bomb.

    On the issues in general;

    I heard Cameron today on radio 4 admit there can never be 100% proof in war, but then go on to say in effect that we can be 100% sure Assad has used CW. Logically odd, but Hague seems to be using the same Little Book of Logic.

    I think @Colin, @thesheep and others are correct – opposing war because you oppose war is to wash your hands of the responsibility of finding a solution. Inaction is easy, but people still die. I don’t know what the answers are, but equally I have yet to hear anything remotely like a case that any form of military intervention will make things better.

    I’m wondering whether the west’s welcoming of a military coup on Egypt will be of much assistance here. We struggle with consistency in foreign policy, other than the most consistent approach to strategic energy assets.

    @Colin – did you hear the one about the UN weapons inspectors who couldn’t revisit the CW attack site because rebel forces wouldn’t guarantee their safety?

    This whole thing is a mess, and while it’s very uncomfortable, sometimes doing not a lot is the best option. Unless and until there is a credible plan, with a reasonably well thought through outcome, military action will remain very dangerous.

    We may well get that plan, but British and US foreign and military policy in recent times has been woefully inept in terms of identifying problems and planning outcomes, so my faith remains at a low ebb.

  5. I take it you are all not so concerned about HS2 any more or how cr*p Ed is?

  6. @ Howard

    “I take it you are all not so concerned about HS2 any more or how cr*p Ed is?”

    Quite! Since Wilson said “A week is a long time in politics” back in the 60s everything in life has speeded up since then I fear? Perhaps we could now say “Five minutes is a very long time in politics”…..?

  7. @MrNameless, @RiN and others

    There is a lot of argument in thi debate concerning the lives of our troops, and I appreciate that as we must preserve their lives in every way possible (not least because I have a son in the army and two nephews in the navy). There is another side to it, however, and that is the view of the troops themselves; they, in most cases, joined the forces for excitement and adventure, they knew the risks and they knew the disadvantages. In short they knew they could get killed and were willing to risk it. I speak for my son now, not myself as I do not think on quite the same wavelength, he not only doesn’t mind going to Syria but he actually wants to go out there. He has seen the coverage of the attacks there and he believes that it is only right that he should use his training to actually support a worthy cause. He believes that is his job and he should do it.
    The fact that we are largely unaffected by the conflict in Syria is oft repeated on here, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t help suffering civilians who have no wish to be involved in a kind of war that we, as a country, have condemned alongside many other countries in an international law. What I compare it with is a burglary. If the neighbour down the road was being burgled or assaulted and you happened to see it, would you not try to help him or would you not bother because your not being burgled and your more friendly neighbours in the house next door are not being burgled.

  8. As far as I know the SNP position this morning is that the UK government should recall parliment and outline it’s objectives before we can agree military action.

    Peter.

  9. RICHARD

    @” As far as I’m concerned they are guilty until proven innocent”

    With the honourable exception of Bashar al Assad -eh Richard?

    You really didn’t need to explain your view of the world. You have communicated it very effectively in many posts on UKPR

  10. The Indy is calling Cameron ‘The Heir To Blair’ over this. Not sure it’s a fair comparison but since Cameron gave that name to himself I guess he shouldn’t complain.

  11. “You need to reduce the political risk to Obama, and that means repositioning the opposition as humanitarian, rather than Islamist. It’s difficult,” said a diplomatic source.

    Given the full moon over Damascus at 4.45 am on August 21st, there’s an element of synchronicity to this June 18th article:

    Saudi role in Syria driven by fear of Shi’ite ‘full moon’

    h
    ttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/us-syria-crisis-saudi-analysis-idUSBRE95H0WY20130618

  12. New thread.

  13. Regarding Syria, we are looking at a nation at civil war, burning with enmity

    Non-humanitarian assistance is a proverbial bucket of petrol in our hands.

    Is it better to not throw it on the conflagration?

  14. Reg

    I don’t see why we shouldn’t help suffering civilians who have no wish to be involved in a kind of war that we, as a country, have condemned alongside many other countries in an international law. What I compare it with is a burglary. If the neighbour down the road was being burgled or assaulted and you happened to see it, would you not try to help him or would you not bother because your not being burgled and your more friendly neighbours in the house next door are not being burgled.

    The trouble is that you don’t usually help people by dropping bombs on their heads, which is effectively what is being proposed. ‘Surgical’ strikes are heavily dependant on intelligence and likely to go wrong in an mainly urbanised country such as Syria And, different from Libya, Syria has allies you can supply all sort of covert support.

    It’s less live helping out a neighbour you know, than intervening in a pub fight where you’re not quite sure who’s on which side, who started it, who is fighting dirtiest and if anyone will thank if you try to help out (especially those you think you are helping).

  15. latest YG
    Con 33%, Lab 37%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -26

    Another Lab 37% – meaningful? not yet need 3 in a row at least roll on ST/YG.

  16. sorry went on old thread somehow this is Friday mornings!!!

1 6 7 8