Following on from last night’s YouGov poll showing the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck on 36%, tonight’s again has them very close. The topline figures are Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dems 11%, UKIP 11%. I rather expected that last night’s figures would turn out to be an outlier and we’d be back to a three or four point lead today, but it looks like something might be afoot.

It is, of course, conference season and 11% is at the top end of YouGov’s recent range for the Lib Dems. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a slight Lib Dem conference bounce at Labour’s expense (or perhaps the conference of one of the two governing parties has helped them both!). Either way, polls during conference season go and up down and it rarely pays to get too excited about them. The faltering lead is hardly a good start for Labour’s conference, but next week they’ll probably get their own boost from their own conference publicity.


370 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 11%, UKIP 11%”

1 5 6 7 8
  1. raskey

    “I think you can see where this is going.”

    Indeed; and very tedious it is in getting there.

  2. HBTONE

    @”a U turn or at least some back tracking with the charge being pegged to refusing an offer of a smaller property.”

    I think that is sensible advice to the Government.

    I hope they take it up-it would be a more rational response than saying -we can’t do this it’s too difficult-let’s scrap it.

  3. RAF

    @”Not odd at all. If I am the pubblisher, I want for my time to be serialised by a major national newspaper for a six figure sum at a time of maximum exposure. Job well done, i’d.say.”

    Well a job well done in purely mercenary terms-and I think you are right -it looks that way rather than maximising embarrassment to former colleagues.

    But I almost prefer the latter-your explanation just emphasises what an unprincipled bag of ferrets that cabal was.

  4. colin

    Why are you being rude to ferrets?

  5. Surely we want everyone to work, so we can win the Global Race™?

  6. @Rosieanddaisey

    You cut me madam…

  7. COLIN DAVIES

    @”(while the debt that policy is meant to address continues to rise) ”

    Debt ( as opposed to annual Deficits) will rise until Deficits stop adding to it-be they Con/LD Deficits, or Labour Deficits.

    IFS have calculated, following ONS’ August Public Finances numbers, that Deficit for 2013/4 could be £13bn less than the current OBR forecast of £120bn.

    If that turns out to be true , Annual Deficits **will have fallen from their peak as follows :-

    2009/10 £157bn actual
    2010/11 £139bn actual
    2011/12 £119bn actual
    2012/13 £ 116bn actual
    2013/14 £107bn IFS forecast

    ** All excluding APF transfers, & Royal Mail Pension Fund transfer.

  8. @ Alex Harvey

    Now you have just made me waste the whole morning e-mailing everyone I know with the appropriate site for their interests! You expect it of the Guardian but some of the language on the DT site is just appalling :-)

  9. @Colin

    More marketing than mercenary. Every publisher does it. I don’t think the timing would have been any great surprise to Labour strategists.

    As far as matters of principle are concerned, these are,issues, that should probably have been kept confidential by those involved. Every government has rifts and internal rows. What was probably unique about the Labour government,wasn’t the Chancellor’s ambition (most at no.11 believe they should,be,at No.10), but the attempt by a New,Labour clique to completely takeover control over policy. However, being a matter of substance rather than personalities, this issue does not appear to be of major media, interest.

  10. RAF

    Thanks for the Brownite perspective.

    The rift is deep an lasting isn’t it ?

  11. In my dayjob as a motherf’n gangsta to which it ain’t no thang, I am often asked why more sites ain’t talk right. I just point my homies to gizgoogle. fo’shizzle

    * h ttp://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
    * h ttp://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://www.theguardian.com/uk
    * h ttp://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://www.telegraph.co.uk
    * h ttp://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://www.politicalbetting.com/

    rgdsm. Keeping it real…:-)

  12. @Colin

    Ahem. Not a Brownite at all. I think you’ll find that policy in the Blair era was made by a small clique without a great deal of consultation. If you recall, even on the decision to go to war in Iraq, Cabinet was not provided with the Attorney General’s full Opinion. That’s a matter of, public record.

    I wouldn’t know the situation now. I don’t follow Labour’s internal workings. As I have said on countless occasions, I haven’t voted Labour, since 1997. I really don’t see why it’s so difficult to grasp that most New Labour advocates are more popular,in,the Tory party than anywhere, else.

  13. Re parents should look after their kids, negativity

    When I was littler mum had to sneak out of the house before we woke up to do a paper round. Probably be considered some kinda abuse/neglect these days, but duck that to hull.

    The thing with stuff like this (and the ‘if I had a 350k mortgage 60k wouldn’t be much’) is it opens up divisions in society. The white people on UKIP brochure is the same…I don’t think for a second that whoever doing that had a whites only policy, they just lacked the thought “we must find a black guy for this or it’ll look bad”.

    I live barely outside leicester these days, but could easily see 250 all white in a row, just ‘cos that’s the demographics. Parties aren’t necessarily trying to be negative, I’m sure UKIP never wanted anyone to even mention it, but these are the things that get traction all on their own because the human mind wants to divide people into groups, us & this them & that them & the other them….and for different sections of society all these things are major on that. I don’t like the phrase ‘not living in the real world’….as if being rich, unemployed, living in a town, the country, etc….is alien….but it sure does seem that way sometimes, and I’m sure it seems the same from the other side too. And it’s dangerous, ‘cos you put these three examples together and you get the less thinky thinking they ain’t got no choice but the BNP.

    @Colin, et al, debt, deficit.

    There was a depressing bit on MTW lately. Round “If this is the answer what is the question: ‘5 pence’ ”

    One answer given, as a joke, was “after all the austerity & cuts how much have the government managed to reduce the debt by so far”.

    Audience laughter.

  14. @Martyn

    Thanks for that. Reminds me of the lingua franca at school.

  15. Colin Davies

    If Labour are serious about cutting the benefit bill which they say they are, then reversing a benefit cut will leave a whole to fill by a cut elsewhere, or you raise the level of benefit paid back to what it was.

    As I havan’t heard any Labour politician say what if any cuts will be made then the assumption is they will raise benefit payments to reverse the cut.

    What is it you don’t understand about that.

  16. @Wood

    I don’t think I was blaming parents for not looking after their kids, at least not exclusively. More the economic reality that means most parents don’t have a choice other than to both work full time.

    As far as the black issue/UKIP brochure is concerned, the real issue,is, that Farage claims that his party is inclusive and representative of the UK as a whole in 2013, and is not just a right wing party with 1950s values and attitudes. Yet Bloom exemplifies these, very values and,attitudes. Are these values still popular? They may well be. But with,these, values,UKIP will find it difficult to break into metropolitan areas, and therefore will always remain a minority party.

    What Farage wants is for UKIP to speak for the economic and political concerns of all UK citizens. To do this,they need a,more,inclusive,approach,to marketing – at the very least.

  17. Colin (09:03)

    You’re forgetting the people who didn’t give a VI for the four main Parties (it’s also a simpler calculation):

    Total sample= 1903 x 48% opposed = 913

    Labour voters opposed = 538 x 74% = 398 = 44%

    (So I rounded 43.59 wrong! It was late).

  18. @RAF, yeah…I wasn’t thinking of you in particular, just some comments seem to assume that for starters everyone has two parents, and that ya can choose which hours to work.

    Re UKIP, I get your point….but, weird as it sounds….the fact that this didn’t occur to whoever made the leaflet endears me to the party….makes me think they’re less sanitised & by default more honest, even if only via foot in mouth. I don’t _want_ them to hire anyone who even uses the term ‘marketing’….they ain’t trying to sell anything.

    I do know that’s completely out of touch with reality….but it’s a gut reaction these days, to spin, presentation, media management….

    Yeah, Bloom is not an advert for anything…..but there hasn’t actually been a ‘majority’ party since the 1930s. You can’t speak for the concerns of ‘all citizens’, they’re contradictory.

  19. Roger

    Sad that so many people don’t give a “VI” for any of the 4 main parties

  20. RAF

    Apologies for misconstruing.

    I feel sure you wouldn’t want to be associated with the stuff which McBride is owning up to.

  21. ROGER

    I missed the fact that DK. were included-unlike the VI calculation.
    Doh!

  22. Colin Davies @ 1:48

    If you are saying that the Coalition focus on debt/deficit has not worked because debt is still rising, then are you:
    a – arguing for a much tighter fiscal policy ?
    b – suggesting that the level of debt can be ignored ?

    Gross government Debt can only be reduced if there is a fiscal surplus. So long as there is any deficit, then total debt will continue to rise. Sadly, this has been the case for all but a few years since the war (WW2 that is).

    If total debt is allowed to increase, then the debt service burden will continue to rise inexorably. That is why some Mediterranean countries still end up with a net deficit even though they have been running a primary surplus (fiscal position before debt service costs) for several years.

    There can be a legitimate debate as to how fiscal tightening should be implemented – i.e. which programmes to cut, or by how much – and the mix between spending cuts / tax rises.

    However, to argue against the principle of austerity is irresponsible for any party aspiring to be in government.

  23. COLIN DAVIS

    I see where your coming from:- it is familiar territory:-

    The Deficit/Debt is unimportant.
    We must stand up to International Finance.
    We must tax income to pay for whatever we want-and when that gets difficult, we must tax wealth to make up the shortfall.

    It’s not a philosophy I subscribe to.

  24. Could someone explain why a comment is to be found a few places up on this board asking what ”I failed to understand” about a partuclar poster’s point of view, whilst my response, scrupulously – and politely – avoiding a ‘reply in kind’ has been moderated away?

    I have no interest in flouncing away from a discussion, or from a site, but if this site is from time to time – I can see it isn’t on a regular basis – party political in bias, then that should, surely, be explained?

  25. There’s a pretty strong arguement that so long as the deficit isn’t too large, economic growth is the best way to reduce national debt. Thatcher got it down to, IIRC ~18%….but mostly ran deficits…

  26. @CD moderation is automated until anthony checked, ya probably just used the wrong word. For a fair while you couldn’t type socialism without getting hidden because the filter detected ‘see our liz’ for floppy older men in there.

  27. Hi Colin,

    I hope you can. See where I’m coming from, that is!

    Of your 3 points listed:

    1: It’s not unimportant, given the system, for sure.
    2. and 3: if we don’t radically access the world’s wealth base, then before too long the system implodes, and on the way to that the poorest and most vulnerable suffer.

    It’s familiar, to use your word, simply because the problem is age-old. There are limited resources in the world, and very few people take the lion’s share of them. Something tells me you’re not one of those, but you subscribe to a philosophy that seems unwilling to consider how we might break out of the bind. Well, we won’t bell the cat unless we can agree it needs belling, so a discussion is long overdue.

  28. To Paul H-J,

    I have to go out, so hopefully I don’t seem like I’m dodging a debate I stirred up.

    But, for now, I’m certainly not advocating tighter fiscal policy. Nor am I suggesting debt can be ignored. I am saying that the policy chosen in 2010 was one which guaranteed pain, without best prospect of tackling the debt problem. This was made worse by loading the pain of it onto the most vulnerable shoulders.

    Given the ‘system’, the best any country can hope for is for its debt to remain as a manageable proportion of its GDP, but I suspect (I can’t be sure, of course) that that battle is lost. Far from trickling down (in good times) all resources gravitate to those who already have them. There is no stopping that, it’s an iron law, and eventually countries have to abandon any pretence of helping their vulnerable and allow the jungle law to run. There is but one way to stop this inexorable process, which is to tackle the wealth base and recycle from that. The wolf is closer than we think, sadly.

  29. @Amber

    “Latch-key kids were a ‘scandal’ back in those days.”

    Why?

    Speaking as someone who was a latch-key kid, I thought it was great. I came home before 4pm, opened a tin or packet, cooked it up, then watched the kids telly until the folks came home.

    They had more house security. I was dry and warm, and they knew I wasn’t out, roaming the streets.

  30. @R Huckle

    “I picked 1992, as this is the year that Major took over the Tory party, it became more pro-EU and modernisation of the party started. ”

    Pedantic, but JM took over in 1990, just as Gulf War 1 was getting ready to kick off in early 1991. Agree with the rest of the quote though. Major was a realist.

  31. @CD, the split of the pie has got less fair last few decades….but the pie’s got a lot bigger, everyones getting more than they were. The wolf chews my shoes, but these days I have spare pairs. And a widescreen telly. And some pesto.
    This might cheer ya up.
    wimp.com/goodnews/

  32. Wood

    The pie really hasn’t got much bigger, it was growing faster before the late 70s

  33. Wood

    And the bottom third are getting less than they were in the 70s

  34. @ RiN, I dunno where you’re getting that from, but it ain’t true by a long shot.

  35. TURK,

    “If Labour are serious about cutting the benefit bill which they say they are, then reversing a benefit cut will leave a whole to fill by a cut elsewhere, or you raise the level of benefit paid back to what it was.
    As I havan’t heard any Labour politician say what if any cuts will be made then the assumption is they will raise benefit payments to reverse the cut.
    What is it you don’t understand about that.”

    Literally the next paragraph in EdM’s announcement was how he would pay it.

    “So we will scrap that tax. And what’s more I can tell you how.

    We’ll scrap the bedroom tax by abolishing the shady schemes of tax loopholes for the privileged few which the Tories keep inventing. Tax cuts for hedge funds, the billion pound black hole created with a scheme for workers to sell their rights for shares, and by tackling scams which cheat the taxpayer in construction.”

  36. @Wood

    The Gino coefficient measures incime inequality. Here is the chart for the UK from 1960 to 2010…

    h ttp://www.progressorcollapse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gini-index-uk.jpg

    The higher the coefficient, the greater the income inequality.

  37. Haha, I love this website. Turk’s comment becomes:

    If Labour is straight-up bout cuttin tha benefit bill which they say they are, then reversin a funky-ass benefit cut will leave a whole ta fill by a cold-ass lil cut elsewhere, or you raise tha level of benefit paid back ta what tha f*** it was.

    As I havan’t heard any Labour sucka say what tha f*** if any cuts is ghon be made then tha assumption is they will raise benefit payments ta reverse tha cut.

    What tha f*** iz it you don’t KNOW bout dis s***.

  38. Correction

    @Wood

    The Gino coefficient measures income inequality. Here is the chart for the UK from 1960 to 2010…

    h ttp://www.progressorcollapse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gini-index-uk.jpg

    The higher the coefficient, the greater the income inequality.

  39. I think tomorrows YG is going to show something a little different to recent YG polls.

    My prediction.

    Labour 39%
    Tory 32%
    UKIP 12%
    LD 11%

  40. I might be getting the wrong impression, but it seems to me that conference polling bounces have been generally quite small this parliament, I don’t know if it’s true or not, and if true what the underlying reasons are.

    I just read an article in the Telegraph about Ed Miliband promising to bring back socialism to Britain. I don’t think it ever really went away (perhaps cowering in the shadows during the 1980’s?)

    Perhaps by strengthening the minimum wage he might be seen as seeking to broaden rather than deepen socialism, trying to include those who aren’t in a union and cannot thus lever higher pay? (Maybe that point is too nuanced for a decent headline).

  41. I saw a report that inequality in the states has reached levels last seen in 1913, I don’t know if we have got there yet but certainly we are at pre war levels of inequality and the pace seems to be accelerating

  42. @R Huckle

    Interesting.

    Maybe poll VI is like a piece of elastic…the more it pulls from it’s normal position, the more it snaps back to compensate.

    The argument probably has merit. Given the mean is based on data above and below it, if you have observed data points skewed to one side, you ought to see more on the other (just like card counting in Blackjack.)

  43. AW,

    Just gone in mod for no reason…not links, no bad words??

  44. @RIN,

    We are supposed to feel richer, but are we?

    Before the crash we felt great, but it was because we had massive debts in reality (big mortgages etc).

    Housing booms are odd to me. We feel great, yet in truth we need a much bigger debt to buy the same thing…

  45. @R Huckle

    I will also be surprised if Labour does not reestablish a significant lead of at least 5%, but think that’s more likely to be seen in Tuesday’s YouGov poll. Bear in mind that the data for Sunday’s YouGov is from responses on Thursday and Friday, which means the poll will pick up some but not I think all of the shift in the news agenda over the past 36 hours or so.

  46. @R Huckle

    PS. Given that I was well over in the prediction competition, feel free to ignore those words of dubious wisdom.

  47. @RiN, Catman.

    Don’t think I made myself clear, I know inequality is getting worse, but the poorest are better off despite this. Like I said, smaller slice of a much bigger pie.

  48. re my previous post, I was not hoping to begin a discussion on socialism per se, more whether the electorate can be persuaded that some (or some more?) is a vote winner.

  49. @CatManJeff

    It’s the Gini coefficient. Got me thinking of Dexy’s though!

  50. @TheSheep

    Nostalgia. That was when they could write good tunes….

1 5 6 7 8