The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is up online here. Topline figures are CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%. There is little change in the leaders doing well/badly figures – 37% think Cameron is doing well, 56% badly, a net score of minus 19 (from minus 18 last week). Miliband’s net score is minus 32 (from minus 28 last week), Clegg’s minus 54 (unchanged).

Most of the rest of the poll was mostly filled up with Christmas, though there were a batch of questions on immigration.. UKIP continue to lead the mainstream parties on the issue – 25% would trust UKIP the most, compared to 17% for the Conservatives, 13% for Labour. There is little difference in attitudes towards immigrations from inside or outside the EU, in both cases around 70% would like to see tougher limits.

Looking specifically at EU immigration, 22% of people think there is nothing wrong with EU immigration into the UK, 20% think it is damaging, but that Britain has no practical choice but to accept it. 42% think that Britain should act to limit EU immigration even if it means breaking EU law or British citizens losing their own right to live elsewhere in Europe.


364 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 33, LAB 39, LD 10, UKIP 12”

1 4 5 6 7 8
  1. rosieanddaisie

    Has it not occurred to you that – in a moment of madness – Ed may just have genuinely forgotten to comb his hair, end of story?

    Don’t be ridiculous. No one goes on television without being combed, made-up, rearranged, fussed over and (according to the season) poppied. It takes Boris ages to dishevel himself enough afterwards to get his image right.

    JUst be grateful it’s never happened to you – you’d probably get bows tied in your hair (and so might the dogs)

  2. Crikey I didn’t expect discussions about Leader’s hair on this site.

    Wonder if Cameron feels his masculinity is threatened by the taller chap with the full head of hair.

    IIRC there is polling to suggest that voters choose taller men over their shorter counterparts.

  3. @Howard

    Dear me, I didn’t expect you to address my points, but a base appeal-to-authority Howard… is that it? Yes, lets just defer to the all-knowing party strategists, the ones who pursued the “miserable compromise” of AV for the LibDems, the Omnishambles budget for Tories, and as for Labour, they are currently in the news rather comically for schoolboy errors over strategy.

    Loving the invocation to only work in a constituency “where your party has a chance”. If Libdems (and formerly Liberals) had followed that strategy, they would have been a lot less likely to build up support in constituencies where once they had no chance!!

    UKip are making headway ignoring your advice too…

  4. lead widens again tomorrow [well, later today]

  5. Seems to be an IT problem with latest yougov, lots of tweets about people giving up as too slow:

    https://twitter.com/search?q=yougov&src=typd&f=realtime

    YouGov Why has it taken me over 90 minutes to complete a survey & why have I had a “something went wrong please refresh” page 20+ times?

    @YouGov Well so far that was longest 25 mins of entire life. given up now, repetitive leading questions. Interesting but cr*

    @YouGov surveys are very slow to load tonight. Is it the new design #timewasting

    Current @YouGov survey takes 30s to change between questions. #ShootMeNow

    So if we have a strange poll either today or tomorrow it may just be that it reflects the opinion of the really patient voter.

  6. steve

    UKIP Came Second in the European Elections in 2009 with Nearly 18% to go on to score a Massive 3.1 % in the 2010 General Election.

    But although they had a boost in the polls in the lead up to the Europoll (as did the Greens) they never got anywhere near that in Westminster VI – maximum of 8 in MORI for example:

    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=107&view=wide#2009

    They then quickly reverted to their normal rating of 3-4% (which is what they then got in 2010).

    Now the polls may disagree on their true score, but most are showing them in double figures where they have been for most of the year. So they seem unlikely to fall away again any time soon.

  7. Latest YouGov / The Sun results 18th November – Con 32%, Lab 39%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; APP -26

  8. Some Tories are realisng the truth.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100246529/the-baffling-recovery-of-teflon-labour-and-unpopular-ed/

    Obviously deranged analysis but he’s right about the result.

  9. NickP,
    Just read the article,chuckle,and some of the comments.
    They really do not like Mr Cameron do they!

  10. The right’s hatred of Cameron is blood curdling, ain’t it? And he tries to appease it with personal attacks on Miliband and marriage allowances and welfare freezes…but they just don’t like him, and it all makes him look petty and nasty.

    Crosby and the courting of the right are big mistakes, if you ask me.

    But what do I know?

  11. Nickp

    If you start from an assumption that your opponent is stupid and weak ,then you are often proven to be wrong.

    For what ever reason the Conservatives settled for a policy of personal attack on the leader of the opposition, if you do so your success is dependant on the victim living down to your expectations.

    They have only themselves to blame for the policies failure.

  12. Glad to see a 11% reversal in You Gov’s lead for the Conservatives in the 18-24, not bad in a day.

    Actually the cross breaks all look about right today apart from London being a little high for Labour and the rest of the south a bit high for the Tories

  13. Nickp,

    Great article you link to. The Sweetshop Theory of Politics does explain a lot.

  14. @NickP – always makes me smile at articles such as in Telegraph – they just don’t get it do they?

  15. Well, some of us have been saying for a (very) long time that Cameron lacks strategy, and now his own supporters seem to be agreeing. I think the sweetshop analogy is very apt.

    I also think the characterization of Labour’s mini revival as ‘baffling’ is off the mark. Households feel worse off and are losing confidence, as the savings generated spending spurt is petering out as wages continue to fall behind inflation. It’s all very obvious, and again, predicted by a few on here.

  16. I think many in the general population who don’t follow economics and politics as avidly as we do feel intuitively that after an Economy has been struggling for many years eventually there will be an uptick.

    In addition to the cost of living and declining real wages thrust is there an element of parts of the Electorate accepting growth has returned but giving the Government little or no credit for it, a bit like ’97?

  17. Nick P

    Thanks for the link to the Torygraph article it is always nice to start the day off with a laugh.

    In part of the article there is a comment relating to the long list of reasons why people shouldn’t vote Labour, so long apparently that instead of listing any of them the writer produced a list of pretend reasons instead.

    You are correct they really don’t get it.

  18. @Jim Jam

    But by 1997, the Tories had been in power for 18 years. It had been they who had taken the UK into the ERM pegged to too high a level to the DM, they who were pushed out of it, and they who raised interest rates by about 10% in one day to pay for the fall-out precipitating the housing market crash. The public threrefore blamed them for this fiasco.

    At the moment the public still blame Labour more that the Tories for the economic situation. And as you say, the Tories can point to growth.being on an upward trend. You rightly point out that this is not yet feeding through to wages which is a problem for them. But 1997 it is not.

  19. For a negative campaign to work there has to be an element of truth in it. Weak is the last word that would work against EM. Anyone that would stand against their older and ‘expected to win’ brother in a leadership context is manifestly not weak.

  20. @RAF

    I remember Thatcher used the words ‘world recession’ over and over to deny responsibility for one of her recessions with far less justification. Don’t you think that people know the cause was a world wide banking collapse caused by toxic loans in the US?

    Rarely if ever do ‘who do you blame’ questions include ‘The Bankers’ option if they did I would imagine most people would choose ‘The Bankers’

  21. “@ Raf

    @Jim Jam

    not yet feeding through to wages which is a problem for them. But 1997 it is not. ”

    The reason for wages not increasing is that as soon as they go above a certain level, companies will be think about outsourcing or offshoring. UK companies face stiff competition locally and from foreign companies.

    For these reasons, whatever the rate of growth is, I think wages will continue to be pretty stagnant for most people, with cost of living increasing by more than inflation. Most people see increases in their household spending, above the rate of inflation, making the inflation figure irrelevant to most people. Probably about time the ONS updated the way they calculated inflation.

    I don’t think you can compare the run up to the 2015 election, with any other period. We are in unchartered territory, due to the coalition, possible decline in Lib Dem vote and UKIP. I think it is possible that Labour might slip back to md 30’s polling, with the Tories increasing to mid 30’s by May 2015. But I cannot see the Tories getting near to the 40% it would take to achieve a majority. I think FPTP with no boundary changes will prove to be pretty cruel to the Tories, due to tactical voting and lost votes to UKIP.

  22. @Couper2802

    I don’t really think that the cause is that relevant to the average voter. They blame the government in charge at the time – provided that they haven’t just been there for a few years and inherited the problem.

    And the “world recession” line may be true, but it could be argued that all those alleging it were largely following the same or similar macroeconomic policies – at least as far as the financial services sector is concerned.

  23. Rosie&Daisie

    I think Grant Scapps and Ed Miliband have a great deal in common.

  24. “I think Grant Scapps and Ed Miliband have a great deal in common.”

    Gay marriage coming up, you think?

  25. NickP

    I was actually making a serious comment.

  26. @RAF

    I think most people know it was the bankers and that is why the Cons trying to pin all the blame on the last Lab gov’t isn’t credible and isn’t working.

  27. @ RAF

    But 1997 it is not.
    —————
    According to the UNS calculator, it very nearly is.

    371 seats may not be as exciting as 418 but it would certainly get the job done!

  28. @ R Huckle,

    ” Most people see increases in their household spending, above the rate of inflation, making the inflation figure irrelevant to most people.”

    I don’t know if you’re right about this. If you are right then I suggest that the calculation of the inflation figure would have to be faulty, as ‘increases in household spending’ is exactly what it is intended to measure.

    It would be a bit like saying “The average speed of motorway driving has increased by 5mph but most drivers haven’t increased their speed at all”.

  29. Telegraph article – LOL (as they say).

    Anyway, I don’t think this election can be compared to 1997. Unusually, the 1997 wasn’t really about the economy stupid, so the fact it was on the up was really irrelevant.

    It was all about sleaze and a tired incompetent looking Government seriously divided on its own back-benches that looked completely out of touch with everyone not just the working class or the middle class or any particular section of the voters but everyone. In 1997 many people were just voting anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour or pro-LibDem just to get shot of them.

    There was the added “attraction” of a new young charismatic Labour Party leader who had rescued the Labour Party from itself, but even that wouldn’t account for the size of the humiliating defeat suffered by the Tories.

    No, we are not in that position today.

  30. Well the reason for the downward drift in Conservative VI seems obvious to me. The Tories have spent 2 weeks talking about trade unions – no one cares about that except Westminster people.

    If they want to turn their fortunes around, try looking at what people are saying are the main issues that need to be addressed, and start coming up with policies to address those. Quite simple really, connect with the voters and their concerns.

    I look at what policies have been proposed by mp’s recently, examples being scrap stamp duty up to £500,000. I haven’t seen a single poll saying that is a main issue for people, MP’s seem to live in their little bubble and promote their own pet policies, and then wonder why people think they are out of touch!

    Some politics today – get elected by saying the other lot are terrible. Once you get elected, ignore the public, promote your own pet policies. Dig up dirt on your opponents all the time, and make that your main communication plan.

    Then wonder why we are all turned off and are not rushing out to vote for them again?

  31. Agree there are so many factors that make this election nothing like 1997 my narrow point was about the Government not getting that much credit for Economic Growth as a chunk of voters think it is inevitable after a long period of contraction/flat lining.

  32. JimJam,
    You may well be right,especially amongst older people who have lived through
    Recessions before and know that sooner or later the economy picks up who ever is in charge.

  33. “But 1997 it is not.”

    Maybe it’s 1995.

  34. Another consistent result from YouGov and Populus. I know that Amber will feel becalmed but I suspect she will just be enjoying the lack of political breeze at present while she enjoys the present sunshine.

    That’s today’s metaphors from me and I promise to say nothing more about targeting (but it is the secret – honest).

  35. Anne – yes this notion thaty GDP would be the same by now if we each parliament had the other main party in power is interesting and has some credibility imo.

    Of course the spread of that GDP may well have been different but even then with the nature of incentives and high marginal tax rates etc probably not as much as we politicos like to think.

    In this context the Jenkins social reforms alongside those in the Blair/Brown years could be seen as a more specific Labour achievement.

  36. The range of results will, I’d predict, be somewhere between 1974 (Feb.) and 1966 in terms of seat share for the big two, perhaps with a bigger Liberal share.

  37. JIM JAM

    @” a chunk of voters think it is inevitable after a long period of contraction/flat lining.”

    I don’t see any evidence of that JimJam.

    On the contrary , from YouGov POlls :-

    Over 50% ish of respondents still think the state of the economy is “bad” .
    40% ish of respondents still think their household financial situation will get worse in the next 12 months.

    Also:-
    40% ish of respondents still think the cuts are bad for the economy ( though perversely , over 50% still think they are neccessary)

    I don’t think the electorate as a whole, and particularly outside London , believe that there IS a recovery yet.

    The fact that EM has stopped criticising the lack of recovery indicates that he, however , does believe it.
    His switch to “cost of living” is a pre-emptive strike to dampen any emerging belief in the electorate, that Government policies , which the electorate still see as “neccessary” , are in fact helping to produce an economic recovery.

    So my view is that any dividend from demonstrable economic recovery is yet to arrive for Cons.

    If and when it does ( & I think it will) , however, EM has tried very hard to ensure that it will be muted , and converted into a desire by the voters for a contest between the parties about which can offer the most attractive basket of “goodies” for the hard pressed voters.

    The tactics & party stratagems as next year progresses, the economy grows & the campaign proper begins, are going to be fascinating.

    It is not too difficult already, to sketch in the main policy platforms which will emerge.

  38. @ Howard

    Indeed, polldrums. And I am fine with that, assuming it delivers a Labour majority of 92. I think that’s a good number. Not so many that a party can lack unity & still not lose a vote in the house; not so few that a small back-bench revolt can cause havoc.

    I also agree with you about targeting activists into winnable seats. Some MPs disagree though. They want to better their majority, even in a safe seat. IMO, They don’t make it through selection etc. without having a competitive streak & have difficulty switching it off.

    Some have made the sacrifice, e.g. Cammy Day cut short his campaign in 2010 & took himself + activists to EN&L; Mike Crockart (LD) might not have won, had Labour fought that seat all the way to the election. When the votes were counted, we were sick as parrots because it was much closer than we’d thought it would be (11.4% swing to Labour)! That’s an example of when we got our targeting half right because Mark Lazarovic held EN&L but there’s a lingering feeling that we could’ve won West as well.

    Despite that, I still agree with you. Targeting winnable seats is absolutely necessary & you just have to hope your canvassing returns are accurate enough to allow correct decisions to be made.

  39. Colin – you know I have held the view throughout this parliament that a recovery of some sort was inevitable and that there would be VI reward for in particular the conservatives.

    I actually said the same as you the other day that if the poll you referred to had a high number for thinking growth underway it would make the current VI polls worse for the Tories so slightly paradoxically the negative numbers are some comfort for the Tories.

    Labour has for now successful shifted the debate enough for the time being at least to be around cost of living and who is benefiting and my expectation is that by the last 1/4 2014 at the latest and through to the GE average earnings growth will be positive in real terms which will nullify the attack to a degree.

    My speculation (for want of a better word) is to what extent is/will the growth be seen as little to do with the Government rather than just part of the Economic cycle or worse still despite the Government not because of it.

    IMO there will be some voters who will take the first stance less so the second but Labour still has to convince enough undecided that they will not jeopardise.

  40. Saddened me Amber that I was one of the few Cleveland activists to focus on Stockton South which we lost by less than 300 votes whilst others stayed in their safe seats for the duration.

    We could have held on with a little less selfishness from others in the region as the Cons targetted S South vacating other seats and it worked.

  41. @ Jim Jam

    Yes, your example is exactly the kind of seat which I had in mind. :-(

  42. “@ Neil A

    @ R Huckle,

    ” Most people see increases in their household spending, above the rate of inflation, making the inflation figure irrelevant to most people.”

    I don’t know if you’re right about this. If you are right then I suggest that the calculation of the inflation figure would have to be faulty, as ‘increases in household spending’ is exactly what it is intended to measure. ”

    The point I was making is that the ONS make assumptions for a range of household spending. If you asked most people they would say that their personal cost of living has increased by more than the rate of inflation that the ONS publised.

    People can calculate their own personal rate of inflation, using this tool.

    http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc14/

  43. @Colin

    “The fact that EM has stopped criticising the lack of recovery indicates that he, however , does believe it.”

    Well, in fairness to him, he can’t criticise a lack of recovery when, statistically at least, a recovery of sorts is manifestly underway. I don’t think either he or Balls ever claimed that an economic recovery wouldn’t occur at some stage in this Parliament; it would have been absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary if it hadn’t, but what he is entitled to do is to move the debate on the to the time it took to recover and its strength and sustainability.

    Balls was developing this theme on Bradby’s programme last night and I thought he did it rather neatly. Of course it was good to see the economy growing again, he said, but it had taken three unnecessary years of further contraction and damage before it had come about. He made the point that the economy had started to grow again in 2010, only to be choked off by Osborne’s austerity measures. By dampening down demand and economic activity this had also delayed the reduction in the deficit and borrowing. He also developed the theme of what sort of recovery was taking place and how its fruits were likely to be shared, as well as the pain caused by stagnant wages and rising prices. In other words, he and Miliband are moving the debate on from the prolonged recession, and whose fault that was, to a more widely based discussion about future economic policy in a growing economy. This then inevitably moves us on to different terrain where the debate becomes one about what sort of capitalism do we want to create. We clearly can’t persist with, or go back to, the old model and I think Miliband is fairly well placed should that debate gain traction.

    Growing economies have provided the backdrop to most post-war governments and, to some extent, all that’s happening now is that normal service is being resumed after an extraordinary hiatus. The key to all this is in terms of any likely political dividend is rising living standards for the many, not cold macro and micro economic statistics.

  44. Richard

    Quite right.

    Oddly enough the same Union Tories love to Hate, Unite get on reasonably, professionally and constructively with the reasonable, professional and constructive management in our resurgent Auto industry, not a Giant Rat in Sight.

    Odd that almost like maybe someone else other than the Unions might be the root cause for the problems at Grangmouth.

    On a more poll related issue I think this plays into the fairness issue if the Conservatives are seen rightly or wrongly as always taking the side of the rich and powerful then it means almost by default Labour are placed in the position of defenders of the weak and poor.

    In general Slagging off the Unions only plays well with those who would vote Tory anyway.

    Perhaps it’s time for Crosby to produce something a bit more constructive for His £10,000 a Week.

  45. Activists think that what they do on the ground is the critical thing shocker!!

    It’s seriously missing the point. Targeting has its place, but it’s an admission of defeat if you rely on it. Targeting is what you have to do if your credibility and policies are insufficient to garner seats without all that targeting.

    Look at the rise of Ukip, without the activist base of a party like the Libdems.

    Relying on activists is something of a chicken-and-egg thing anyway, since if you don’t have the policies and cred., you bleed activists.

    Meanwhile Labour have hired Arnie Graf to train up a thousand in his methods… this will allow them to set up community-based networks across-the-board over time, in constituencies currently off the radar, but at low cost.

  46. If the Ancient Egyptian’s measure of economic activity included slaves building pyramids for zero wages, then their GDP could be rising like anything & the slaves would be no better off; in fact they’d likely be knackered as well as skint. The pharaoh would be delighted; he’d have a socking great pyramid to look forward to.

  47. Activists think that what they do on the ground is the critical thing shocker!!

    It’s seriously missing the point. Targeting has its place, but it’s an admission of defeat if you rely on it. Targeting is what you have to do if your credibility and policies are insufficient to garner seats without all that targeting.

    Look at the rise of Ukip, without the activist base of a party like the Libdems.

    Depending on activists is something of a chicken-and-egg thing anyway, since if you don’t have the policies and cred., you bleed activists.

    Meanwhile Labour have hired Arnie Graf to train up a thousand in his methods… this will allow them to set up community-based networks across-the-board over time, in constituencies currently off the radar, but at low cost.

  48. At least the Coalition have got xmas to look forward to, followed by council and euro elections in May, so its not all doom and gloom.

    Why is SHAPPS such a difficult name to spell by the way?

  49. Richard

    Well the reason for the downward drift in Conservative VI seems obvious to me. The Tories have spent 2 weeks talking about trade unions – no one cares about that except Westminster people.

    I’m not sure that that is the reason for the drift down, but they certainly seem to be giving the impression that they are concentrating more on trying to find someone to blame than trying to put things right. If you spend all your time shouting “Look scary monsters!” people are going to get impatient.

    There was a good example recently over the prolonged kerfuffle over the Falkirk selection – something simultaneously so complex and unimportant[1] that even a geek like me can’t be bothered to discover the details. YouGov asked various questions on it for the Sunday Times two weeks back. Asked if they thought the enquiry should be reopened 39% said that they simply didn’t know[2].

    The following week, after more fulminating in the media, YouGov tried again with another batch of questions. The DKs had risen to 44%.[3]

    [1] Of course candidate selection is quite important. But we know that in all Parties the central organisation pulls all sort of stunts to get some favourite or other selected in safe seats. So there’s also a lot of hypocrisy going on here – “How dare you subvert local democracy – that’s our job!”.

    [2] These are YouGov panelists remember. They have views on everything – that’s why they joined. As a rule of thumb any DK rating over 20% means the question is confusing, the options are insufficient (or people feel they are being forced into a false choice) or the topic is of pretty low salience. Over 30% no one really gives a monkey’s.

    [3] The percentage saying it should be reopened again rose too, even among some non-Labour supporters. You suspect they silently added “And I never want to hear another word about this incredibly tedious thing again”.

1 4 5 6 7 8