YouGov London poll

Yesterday there was also a new YouGov London poll for the Evening Standard (full tables are up on the YouGov website here).

The topline voting intention figures are CON 32%, LAB 45%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9% – this reflects a swing of 5.5% from Con to Lab since the general election, pretty much in line with that YouGov’s current GB polls are showing.

Boris Johnson continues to enjoy positive ratings – 64% think he is doing his job of Mayor well, only 27% badly. Looking to his future, 43% think it would be reasonable for him to stand for Parliament at the next election, 39% think it would not be reasonable for him to stand until after his term as mayor expires in 2016. A majority (52%) think it would not be acceptable for him to be an MP and mayor at the same time.

Looking towards the Labour contest, YouGov asked who people would be the best Labour candidate for mayor in 2016. At this stage this is probably largely a name recognition exercise and the there was a sizeable chunk of don’t knows, but Eddie Izzard came top amongst Londoners (which at least shows people think he would be a serious contender, not a joke candidate) and joint top with Tessa Jowell amongst Labour voters.

146 Responses to “YouGov London poll”

1 2 3

    Con 34.6
    Lab 39
    LD 9.2
    UKIP 11

    Lab Lead 4.4

  2. Both parties up at the expense of the smaller ones, it seems.

  3. @ Raf

    “Museums are still free (although many now have a large number of pay exhibitions).”

    What museums are those then? Which ones fall under Boris’s jurisdiction?

  4. LDs on 8%.

    That very generous 1/3 on bet that they’ll hit 14% with YouGov before the end of 2013 has been withdrawn by Paddy Power.

  5. Latest YouGov in line with the last two.

    Two interesting pieces in Labour Uncut. The first covers a Fabian Report which indicates that Labours ceiling is actually 32% not 40% and another by Rob Marchant which suggests the next election is too close to call. Doubts creeping in?

  6. Just wondering if we could persuade Opinium, Ipsos and YouGov to collaborate on a big London poll.

    Then we could have an Oi Guv! London poll.

  7. ToH – not quite right (or, you’re entirely right, but your comment reads a bit wrongly!) the Fabian Report is the one about how Labour could win 40% at the next election, the article on Labour Uncut is Atul Hatwal critiquing that Fabian report.

  8. AW

    Sorry about that, I read it in a hurry, as you say it is Atul Hatwal’s critique of the report in Labour Uncut not the Fabian report itself.

    I shall ignore Chis’s comment in the spirit of non-partisanship.

  9. The IPCC seems determined to upset top cops.

    At the end of the transcript of the Surrey Police “interview” of SAville, the latter reveals that he sends letters of complaint to a friend in the Yorkshire Police. This officer contacted Surrey on Saville’s behalf prior to the interview .

    IPCC want to talk to him.

    IPCC have also revealed that the West Mids Police report clearing the interviewers of Mitchel of any misconduct was a second draft of a report which concluded that there was a case to answer.

    Keith Vaz , who’s SC is calling them all in, wants to see both versions.

    Nick Robinson’s report concludes that a cross party concern about the Police is developing :-

  10. @The Other Howard

    There are always doubts (and unexpected events).

    Tory MPs in marginal seats will doubt whether they can be re-elected if a substantial number of 2010 LD voters decide to back Labour next time, Lord Ashcroft shares those doubts. Labour candidates will be having their doubts… can those LD voters be relied upon to do what they are now saying they will do?

    There are also doubts about the impact of UKIP… will they make it even more difficult for Tories in marginal seats? If so, would local pacts risk alienating centre-right voters?

  11. So, now we’ve got those two rather distracting outliers out of the way, it looks as if we’re back to a consistent pattern of circa 5% Labour leads. There has been an improvement in the Tory VI, although nothing very dramatic, but what’s intriguing is that it appears to have come about at the expense of he smaller parties (and “don’t knows”, perhaps?) and not Labour. Whilst that’s obviously good news for the Tories, although we need to remember that they’ve been on 27% in a poll conducted as recently as only five days ago, they will know that they’re going to have to eat significantly into Labour’s VI in order to have any chance of getting an overall majority at the next election.

    So, in a nutshell, it seems to me that the outcome in May 2015 will hinge upon how successful Labour have been in hanging on to this 37-39% support that, it has to be said, seems to have stuck quite adhesively to them for the thick end of three years now. The longer it sticks the more this question will have to be asked; how on earth do the Tories get 5 to 6% of it to come to them?

    The clock ticks on.

  12. @Crossbat,

    I love the way you breezily dismiss two “good” polls for the Tories as outliers and then segue two paragraphs later to a “bad” poll for them, to which you ascribe importance without any apparent sense of irony!

  13. The 1992 election has a long shadow in the Labour Party. Commentators within Labour & the media had doubts about Labour winning in 1997 & 2001 & 2005. With hindsight it’s easy to say they were being wilfully stupid (especially in 1997).

    And, until the last weeks of 2010, ‘everybody’ thought that Labour would be down to an all time low in votes & seats; the LibDems would have loads seats more seats than 2005 & the Tories would have a healthy majority. It was the 11th hour before ‘they’ began to acknowledge that a hung parliament was even a possibility, never mind likely.

  14. @Neil A

    “I love the way you breezily dismiss two “good” polls for the Tories as outliers and then segue two paragraphs later to a “bad” poll for them, to which you ascribe importance without any apparent sense of irony!”

    I merely try to add to the gaiety of the nation!

    In my defence, the TNS and YouGov polls were clearly out of kilter with what had gone on before and, in YouGov’s case, what has gone on since, while the Survation poll was pretty much in line with what they’ve been picking up consistently for some time, albeit I accept that they do poll more infrequently than most other pollsters.

  15. Tristram Hunt’s been granted an urgent question on Al-Medinah. Should be fun for fans of Parliamentary tussles.

  16. Morning Everyone,

    @NEIL A – simply because some people on here just can’t seem to give a balanced view of things as they stand.
    There are some on here that can’t even bring themselves to admit that the Labour lead has actually narrowed at all which is ludicrous!

  17. CB – the cons will need 2-3% of current Labour VI by 2015 once the UKIP vote is dispersed at the GE with a net 3% or so lift for the Tories v Labour.
    The cons will gain with a few more DKs/WVs returning as well but not as much imo for the LDs whose vote we know from evidence is more transient.
    Although they may push 15% with a small lift a few returnees from Lab and a modest number from DK/WVs and some tactical voting which could push Labour down.

    As I see there is little between Lab and Con in underlying Vote share with perhaps a slight Lab advantage. I agree with you that the key in terms of vote share is how much of the current Labour support can the Cons attract?

    Of course marginal are important for actual seats and FPTP boosting Lab.

  18. That Labour uncut article is interesting.

    I don’t understand a lot of the argument. Lets take this for example:
    “Based on YouGov’s research for Uncut, 1 in 5 2010 Lib Dem voters say they will not support the party in 2015.
    This would put the Lib Dems on roughly 18% at the next election.”

    But if I go to the tables for today’s Yougov, it says that only 33% of 2010 LD voters will vote LD. That seems a pretty consistent trend. So where on earth is that one in five figure coming from? And where does that 18% come from when we see the LD’s polling in single digits for a long time now, and failing in local by elections outside of areas where they are traditionally strong?

    So we have Labour uncut supporting Reeves and Hunts move to the ‘centre’. We have the Fabian’s saying they need a core vote strategy to get those stay at home 2010 :Labour supporters out to vote this time.

    Who is right? Well just from looking at trends, Labour were drifting down earlier this year, then they appeared to move back to a core vote strategy over the conference season, their share seemed to recover back into the low 40’s, then they adopted Tory policies on welfare, immigration and schools over the weekend, and they are below 40 again.

    Still need to see that settle to confirm that, but if we see a continual drift down to the mid 30’s over the next month with a corresponding increase in 2010 Labour don’t knows, if I were Labour I would listen to the Fabians at least on the evidence to date.

    But they can’t afford to chop and change all the time either otherwise they will just end up losing both extremes of the people they are trying to attract.

    Agreed, the Chinese media, or even their leadership, may comment and even make mild criticisms of the US lack of political unity or of a loss of credibility as the world currency manager. They will not in reality change their investment in US assets, because they have bought into a system in which the US are the major player and are the long term sheet anchor.
    My conjecture was more specific, based on wider commentary, including credit rating agency comment, which has come across in the immediate aftermath of the deal: that the threat of a debt repayment failure and the apparent instability of government will affect interest rates,. That will repercuss in US and other domestic economies, including jobs; if this does happen and the Republican Right are blamed, it will fuel a fight already taking place in the Republican Party, and a schism between moderates and the Tea Party.

  20. Colin

    Just for you

    Crime against households and adults in England and Wales fell 7% to a record low in the year to June, official figures have revealed.

    The headline crime figure is the lowest since the survey began in 1981, and is now less than half its peak level in 1995.

    So maybe the Police aren’t totally crap at everything after all!


    @”Tristram Hunt’s been granted an urgent question on Al-Medinah. Should be fun for fans of Parliamentary tussles.”

    It was-great fun; and the predictable screech of tyres from a handbrake turn received the predictable response.


    @”So we have Labour uncut supporting Reeves and Hunts move to the ‘centre’.”

    ummm-re Hunt’s direction of travel-they need to catch up with this mornings performance in HoC

  23. Neil A

    I love the way you breezily dismiss two “good” polls for the Tories as outliers and then segue two paragraphs later to a “bad” poll for them, to which you ascribe importance without any apparent sense of irony!.

    Well said, I’m always slightly suprised when we get a very close poll how quickly people post how it’s an outlier even when it’s completely within norm, usually accompanied with a comment about the consistant 5% labour lead which infact is anything but consistant over the last 18mths or so having dropped from 10-11%.

    The other comment that appears is how on earth can the Tories gain a lead over Labour when the Labour vi is 37-38% forgetting of course it was 40-42% and the Tories who were consistantly at 28-30% have moved to 33-34%.

    I’m not saying it will be easy for the Tories to overhall Labour but when the oppositions lead is just below 5% it’s certainly not impossible, will the extra votes come from Ukip or LD’s maybe,but by far the largest swings come from those who dont give politic’s a second thought until the GE looms.

    Those things we sometimes obsess about like RM, energy prices, free schools, immigration and so on although important issues will take a back seat to the economic picture and the closely lnked employment figures.

    IMO people will understand that economic growth is link to standards of living and you can’t seperate the two things out.
    I also think people understand that during the most serious recession perhaps for a hundred years living standards would have to fall, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise, so it will be the party that has the best policy ideas on how to run the economy that prevails.

  24. Richard – good summary and the dilemma is real as had stay at homes come out in 2010 Lab may even had more seats just and most likelt enough to make a LB/LD deal plausible.
    My hunch is that the leadership will calculate that the stay aways will regret doing so due to (as they would see it) unfavourable coalition policies and many will come back with a few scraps to entice including the genuine policy of reversing the bedroom tax.
    As such securing as many 2010 LDs and therefore as big a gain in that splintering as possible over the cons (20% + of LD vote in Lab/Con marginals enough) will be the focus.

    I think where is diverge from you a little is this does not necessarily mean a shift rightwards as many 2010 LDs would consider themselves on the left particularly on civil liberties issues.

    Whilst many stay away Lab leaners in 2010 were traditional Lab voters who may want left of centre state intervention the Economy but right wing social policy.

    FWIW – Ed should have policies he thinks are right and only allow tactical considerations to guide presentation and focus. When pushed defending what you actually believe must be better.

    The Cons have their own dilemma of course in securing back many erstwhile UKippers while not deterring more moderate supporters or potential supporters.

  25. @Jim

    Milburn appears to have done a good job, but the issues he identifies and potential solutions are all very difficult and different administrations will not have to stomach for some of them because of who they will affect.

  26. Steve
    I am sure our policemen are wonderful, but I have pondered for some time whther the more generous social security payments situation over the last decade may have reduced the need for those in that situation to go and steal? If you can pay for your drugs and satellite TV without leaving your armchair (so to speak) what’s the point of getting out of it to go and thieve?

    Is there any social research data on that point?

    Thanks for your reply (I thought they were bendy buses,and not ‘trolley’ buses). It seems that the Mayor job is what you make of it, but I suspect you need a favourable LA majority, plus a supporting government, which BJ does not have.

  27. Completely out of line with most recent opinion polls and not at all in line with trecent yougov polls.

  28. Alec

    Very good, (Oi! guv) keep them coming.

  29. Billy Bob

    Of course your right to say there are doubts on both sides of the political divide. There’s a piece on Conservative Home today by Tim Montgomerie which makes equally dismal reading for the Tories.

  30. STEVE

    @”So maybe the Police aren’t totally crap at everything after all!”

    Did I say they were?

    Clearly they are not.

    But equally clearly, there is/and or has been a “tendency” -perhaps in certain Police Forces-who cling to the Gene Hunt school of policing:-
    You are accountable to us mush-but we ain’t accountable to anyone.

  31. @JimJam

    There’s much in what you say although, me included, we’re all basically speculating on which votes may go where in 18 months time, basing our electoral prognosis on what we think might happen rather than what we know may happen. Human nature being what it is, we may all even sometimes stray into making predictions on what we WANT to happen. Some may call this wishful thinking, but perish the thought!

    I base my speculation on what current polling evidence is suggesting, in Rumsfeld-speak, are known knowns. We had an extensive poll some two years ago that told us the potential pool of voters available to each of the main parties. We have some recent information from the marginals thanks to Lord Ashcroft and yesterday’s poll from London. We have regular YouGov polling that, to my eyes, suggests a fairly static and entrenched state-of-play, albeit with some glacial narrowing occurring, based on a small increase in Tory VI and a small decrease in Labour VI that has occurred over a four month period. We also have local elections and parliamentary by-elections that give us a bit of an insight into the state of public opinion too. In all of this, there’s been absolutely no sign of shifting tectonic plates at all and, in my view, that sort of degree and scale of change is required for an outright Tory majority.

    I take less notice of the oft-peddled nostrums that say no government has ever increased its vote share from one election to the other and no opposition has ever done this that or the whatever; we live in utterly different political times, but I’m trying to base my predictions on what the existing empirical evidence is telling us.

    As I say, the clock keeps counting down and, in my view, the political kaleidoscope seems stubbornly reluctant to change.

  32. RAF
    Of course the London boroughs are not an insignificant influence on policy and implementation of it. I was curious about your comment on social spending, as I thought the Mayor’s office was not influential in this area.

  33. @Oldnat, partisan.

    You did seem to suggest that the main parties, excluding yours, were in favour of bringing the world to the edge of destruction. And/or had policies that would result in such.

  34. CB – agree,

    I think I am suggesting though that 2-3% Lab – Con would be enough for the Tories.
    Needs some doing though as you say.

  35. @ Richard

    You beat me to it!

    Lab 35 Con 35 LD9 UKIP 10


  36. Economic boost?

  37. “Crime against households and adults in England and Wales fell 7% to a record low in the year to June, official figures have revealed.”

    Perhaps @Neil A could comment on the extent to which police recorded crime figures are a fiction? The police(wo)men that I know say that the figures are continually being ‘massaged’ downwards to a greater and greater extent.

    The sudden drop in the Crime Survey data, which had previously been flat, seems highly suspect. It’s noticeable that these are the first data based on the 2011 census, and the first year that the ONS have been responsible for the analysis. Also, the results are now subject to substantially more error, since the number of individuals surveyed has been reduced.

  38. The headlines around that Mori poll are misleading.

    Just over half, 56%, say they are ‘absolutely certain to vote’ in an immediate General Election.

    Of that 56%:

    Conservative 35
    Labour 35
    Liberal Democrats (Lib Dem) 9
    Scottish/Welsh Nationalist 5
    Green Party 4
    UK Independence Party 10
    British National Party *
    Other 1

    When the undecideds or refused are added into the pot, the picture changes to:

    Conservative 33
    Labour 38
    Liberal Democrats (Lib Dem) 11
    Scottish/Welsh Nationalist 4
    Green Party 4
    UK Independence Party 9
    British National Party *
    Other 2

  39. “The headlines around that Mori poll are misleading.”

    Surely not?

  40. Chordata
    The Standard putting a pro-Tory spin on things? Surely not!
    (Especially things they have paid for).

  41. RnD
    Who is this Shirley Nott?

  42. I would like to read Anthony’s view on Mori. I expect we shall.

  43. @Robin,

    There is certainly a lot of manipulation of police data, although I have to say I don’t think this is entirely sinister.

    A natural consequence of any performance culture based on statistics is that employees have an incentive to alter their behaviour slightly so as not to fall foul of the targets.

    Faced with a genuine, subjective decision about whether the damage to a patio door is an attempted burglary (thereby pushing your burglary rate up by 0.1% taking it over this year’s target and earning your station an accusatory red-coloured “up arrow” on the noticeboard) or a criminal damage (making it a beat crime, and therefore irrelevant as they are not a “government priority”) you can see how an officer, or police staff member, might edge towards the choice that “works better”.

    There are also wide differences in reporting policies between forces, despite national guidelines. The Met, for example, is far more likely to record something as a substantive crime at an early stage, whereas some county forces would wait until they were well into their investigation before deciding whether to “crime” it.

    But my point would be – these issues have been going on for at least two decades (and in a cruder form, with “arrest figures” for much longer than that). I think it is hard to justify looking at a 7% reduction in figures as a fiddle. What new skills of jiggery pokery have the police just acquired to make their fiddling so much more effective?

    Although the NCS data may have been collected differently this year, it is still by far the best guage of the direction of travel of crime. So long as the police numbers move in relation to the NCS figures, I am reasonably confident that nothing “dodgier than normal” is going on.

    Personally, I think the fall is probably explainable by the increasing dedication of boys and young men to computer consoles, keeping them off the streets, and to improved security measures making items from cars to mobile phones less attractive targets for theft.

    And don’t forget our record prisoner numbers. Prison works!

1 2 3