This morning’s daily YouGov poll for the Sun had topline voting intention figures of CON 33%, LAB 39%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%. Full tabs are here.

Meanwhile today’s twice-weekly Populus poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 7% – a low Labour lead compared to their recent averages. Tabs are here


71 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Populus figures”

1 2
  1. I deliberately didn’t intervene on lots of back and forth on Scotland yesterday that under normal circumstances would not have been within the comments policy (this is not the place to debate if it’s a good or bad thing, if the SNP’s arguments in the white paper are good or bad), so please don’t let it infect this thread.

    If people want to continue it in yesterday’s Scottish thread feel free, otherwise, if it’s not got a Scottish flag at the top, no discussing Scottish independence (otherwise it infests *everything*)

  2. As a culprit of the Blue Mist, I’d like to say thank you for allowing us the grace to let rip.

    On polls; I wonder if the mini Lab bounce is unwinding a little? YG seems to have eased back a little, and now Populus. Perhaps as the energy price rises fade we might get an idea if these were the immediate spur for some polls twitches?

    On badgers; Much celebrating down in the woods as the all clear sounds and they take off the tin hats.

    I’ve heard from a couple of fairly senior staff in the ministry that they are dismissive of Owen Patterson’s cull policy and there is much mirth within at the result. This was widely predicted, and apparently he was informed on numerous occasions that it would fail.

    It won’t move polls a jot, but it is a depressing glimpse into how dismal the business of politics really can be at times.

  3. AW

    I’m afraid I don’t understand why my last post was moderated. It definitely wasn’t partisan or against the Comments Policy. It was concerning Scotland and Westminster seats in Scotland but not independance or Holyrood. It was no different to me discussing the number of seats a party will get in the South-East at the next election. Sorry if I am missing something.

  4. Reg
    It’s on last thread. See first post of this one. Hope that helps.

  5. “If people want to continue it in yesterday’s Scottish thread feel free, otherwise, if it’s not got a Scottish flag at the top, no discussing Scottish independence (otherwise it infests *everything*)”
    ___________________

    Och aye the noo

  6. “Meanwhile today’s twice-weekly Populus poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 7% – a low Labour lead compared to their recent averages”
    _______

    Not just a low Labour lead but a rather flat looking UKIP VI.

  7. No choice but to agree Allan Christie. The Labour lead is low – provided this isn’t a ‘margin of error thing and the gap remains that way. But the lead isn’t relevant, so ,long as Labour keep hitting their 38, or just over – is it?

  8. @ Allan,

    Yeah, I reckon that Ukip reallocation is where the Con 35% is coming from.

    @ Alec,

    We need Catmanjeff for a solid statistical analysis, but I’ll put up the YouGov graph now. Let’s see if we can see a meaningful unwinding on that.

  9. @Allan Christie

    “Meanwhile today’s twice-weekly Populus poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 7% – a low Labour lead compared to their recent averages”
    _______

    Not just a low Labour lead but a rather flat looking UKIP VI.

    But on the YouGov poll UKIP is 14%…and that’s despite still being categorised as ‘other’ and therefore not prompted like the LibLabCon

  10. Allan Christie

    “… a rather flat looking UKIP VI”

    Well, I suppose it would be if like Populus you reduced the unweighted VI figure by half or more.

  11. Here’s one from the annals of really stupid polling questions: “Which party leader are children most able to identify- the one (nominally) running the country, or one of the other ones?”

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/29/cameron-most-identifiable-party-leaders-10-14-year/

    FFS, YouGov.

  12. Here are the YouGov 5-day averages:

    http://i.imgur.com/H6gHFJy.png

    Maybe a tiny smidgen of an unwinding for Labour, but actually the Tories have fallen by more from their unnoticeable micro-peak in the first week of November. Basically it’s all flat. I wouldn’t read too much into it unless either trend continues.

    It will be interesting to see if there’s anything in the Autumn statement that can shift the polldrums. The Week of U-turns suggests the Tories are getting skittish, so presumably Osborne has something up his sleeve?

  13. @Spearmint

    I would expect Osborne to have something up his sleeve. It’s clear from the politics pages that he’s been very busy briefing press allies and that he is most definitely on manoeuvres. The whispers appear to be that he saw Johnson’s speech this week as a salvo in the leadership race and that the Chancellor sees he and Johnson as the two main runners.

    But, interestingly, one of the first people to come out and disagree with Johnson was one of Gove’s advisers.

    I keep saying, forget the General Election. That isn’t half as interesting as the next Tory leadership campaign and arguably the latter has started before the former.

  14. @ Chris,

    Oh, please, please let the frontrunners for the Tory leadership use the general election campaign as an soapbox to prove their conservative credentials by giving “Greed is good!” speeches and telling us all how we should be grateful to bankers for paying taxes. Please let that happen.

    It is all I want for Hanukkah this year.

  15. Well, that and some more Ashcroft polls.

  16. Chris Riley,
    Interesting that Osborne And Johnson are staking their claims when we are told that Cameron is the Tories greatest asset electorally.Today a total
    Disaster for the Tories on Energy.What has happened to the coordinated
    Crosby Campaign.

  17. @ Ann,

    I think the barnacles have risen up and taken over control of the boat.

  18. Labour now challenging BT line rental charges,a substantial part of most peoples land line phone rental charges.Osbornes autumn statement will have to be good.

  19. Phone charges,not rental.

  20. Spearmint,
    Meltdown .

  21. Labour are attacking the government on many issues payday loans, energy prices, now line rental charges. It is as if they spent the first 3 years building up a policy arsenal and are releasing them in concerted attacks. I really hope they have this all planned out till May 2015.

  22. spearmint

    @ Allan,

    Yeah, I reckon that Ukip reallocation is where the Con 35% is coming from
    _____

    Absolutely and probably a few wee Greens too.

  23. Alec,

    I agree on the polls analysis, with the proviso that the past two months or so weren’t entirely irrelevant: the momentum that the Tories had in the summer has vanished. However, the actual lasting shift in Labour VI may have just been from 38% average to 39% average, which is potentially crucial as regards minority/small majority vs. big majority, but which doesn’t give us much of a hint as regards the 2015 outcome.

    My expectation right now is a small Labour majority comparable to the 1955-1959 parliament: enough to do four years easily, but things might get testy towards the final year, especially since the Labour party is out of practice with being disciplined in a small-majority situation.

  24. ANDREW

    “But on the YouGov poll UKIP is 14%…and that’s despite still being categorised as ‘other’ and therefore not prompted like the LibLabCon”
    ___________

    Yes you’re correct but I was only mentioning the other poll because of its variance on the Labour lead and UKIP VI.

  25. Stutter

    Allan Christie

    “… a rather flat looking UKIP VI”

    Well, I suppose it would be if like Populus you reduced the unweighted VI figure by half or more
    _______

    Well I think you might find Populus are the more accurate of pollsters regardless of mythology.

  26. @Allan

    spearmint

    @ Allan,

    Yeah, I reckon that Ukip reallocation is where the Con 35% is coming from
    _____

    Absolutely and probably a few wee Greens too.

    Without being partisan, why on earth would any Green vote Conservative?

    Total polar opposites.

  27. SPEARMINT

    From your link

    “Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are less well-known among 10-14 year olds. When shown a picture of the Labour Party leader, just over half (56%) gave the correct name, with similar numbers (53%) identifying the Liberal Democrat leader”
    _____________

    That’s not too bad considering some of the kids could had easily mistaken one of the leaders for a well known animated TV character..

  28. CATMANJEFF

    “Without being partisan, why on earth would any Green vote Conservative?”
    ________

    I did say a fee wee Greens. I think some of the more educated Greens may have a streak of blue running through them.

  29. @ Allan,

    Teals, we could call them. There is Zac Goldsmith inhabiting a point on the Blue/Green boundary, although I don’t know how many of him there are.

    @ Catmanjeff,

    Without being partisan, why on earth would any Green vote Conservative?

    10% of 2010 Lib Dems have gone to Ukip, so people defecting to parties completely inimical to everything their previous party stood for is not unprecedented…

  30. @Allan

    So those Greens who don’t have streak blue in them are likely to be less educated?

    I won’t take it personally ;-)

  31. @Ann in Wales
    ” Labour now challenging BT line rental charges,a substantial part of most peoples land line phone rental charges.Osbornes autumn statement will have to be good.”

    About time too. Competitors of BT find it very difficult to compete with their Line Rental charge (to any appreciable degree) due to how line rental costs are comprised.

  32. I’m trying not to be partisan when I say this, but I really can’t see any potential leaders other than Cameron among the current Conservative flock.

    That said, sometimes they come from nowhere. In 2009 very few people could have told you who Ed Miliband was.

  33. CATMANJEFF

    I won’t take it personally ;-)
    _______

    Good for you ;-)

  34. “That said, sometimes they come from nowhere. In 2009 very few people could have told you who Ed Miliband was.”
    ______

    And so it remains according to 44% of 11-14 year olds in Spearmints link.

  35. I read a really sad news story today about a man called Isa Muazu. Apparently he has been on hunger strike for 90 days, and can no longer stand or see. We hired a private jet and flew him out of the country. I have no idea if he is an illegal immigrant or not, but it seems to be a rather horrific way to deal with a fellow human being.

    Politicians need to take a long hard look at their rhetoric and the impact it has on vulnerable people’s lives. Illegal immigrants are human too. We should always remember that.

    Equally embarrassing is how the mainstream media have not really covered this story.

  36. @Richard – I saw that story too. It’s hard to comment. The man’s asylum application was refused, and he made himself intentionally ill by refusing to eat in protest. Without knowing the case in detail, it really is difficult to know what to think.

    If his case was sound, he should have been accepted to stay and the case is indeed tragic. If he didn’t meet the required criteria, then allowing him to stay effectively shuts the door on another more needy case, and if the qualifying factor to gain UK entry is to go on hunger strike, then that also is not something I would be very happy to see.

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case itself, I am grateful that I live I a country that is so good, people are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to be let in. I just hope the correct decision has been made in this case.

  37. I would agree that the governments line on energy costs hasn’t been handled well – slightly surprisingly, given that they had a good run of messaging over the summer, but as with previous spells of more focused politics from Cameron’s team, this appears to have relatively temporary.

    The media management of the changes to Eco et al has been really quite poor, but I also suspect they might now come under some criticism for the substance of the changes, and the way these have been brought about.

    A ‘Letter of Comfort’ is a technical Whitehall term apparently, but writing to the Big 6 explaining how you will ease their burdens doesn’t look like you are putting the consumer first. Reducing the number of poor households helped also has it’s problems, but the bigger issue will probably come if and when prices rise, or if there is any perception that energy companies don’t pass on the full benefits.

  38. Bill Patrick
    ‘My expectation right now is a small Labour majority comparable to the 1955-1959 parliament: enough to do four years easily, but things might get testy towards the final year, especially since the Labour party is out of practice with being disciplined in a small-majority situation.’

    1955 – 1959 saw the Tories with a 59 majority – hardly small!

  39. Mr Nameless

    “I’m trying not to be partisan when I say this, but I really can’t see any potential leaders other than Cameron among the current Conservative flock. ”

    Maybe William Hague, but unlikely to get two chances. Sometimes parties elect their leaders in the wrong order.

  40. @ Mr. Nameless,

    Arguably there weren’t any potential leaders on the 2010 Labour leadership slate either, although Mr. Miliband is growing on me.

  41. And the government’s “lead Non-Executive Director” (whatever that is) isn’t helping matters:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/29/browne-fracking-not-reduce-uk-gas-prices-shale-energy-bills

  42. Isn’t a governing party’s majority over the main opposition party what can matter more, since it’s less likely to face the votes of a united opposition? In 1955 the two main parties held 622 out of 630 seats; in this parliament it’s only 564 out of 650.

  43. spearmint

    Here’s one from the annals of really stupid polling questions: “Which party leader are children most able to identify- the one (nominally) running the country, or one of the other ones?”

    FFS, YouGov.

    The really worrying thing is that, according to the cross-breaks, of these 10-14 year-olds, 70% are working full-time and 70% are married. I’m waiting for Colin to come on and blame Jimmy Saville and the BBC.

    PS Anthony the link from the archive goes to a different survey of what they wanted for Christmas. Nobody mentioned Davis Cameron.

    PPS Actually half of them will be old enough to vote in the next Manx General Election in 2016.

  44. Allan Christie

    Well I think you might find Populus are the more accurate of pollsters regardless of mythology.

    No, they’re rubbish. UKIP’s vote is half of what YouGov says it is in the Populus poll because of the ridiculous way that Populus weight their figures.

    If you look at the tables:

    http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Online_VI_29-11-2013_BPC.pdf

    The unweighted figures are:

    Con 33% (35%)

    Lab 35% (38%)

    Lib Dem 8% (12%)

    UKIP 17% (7%)

    Assuming minor Parties unaltered by weighting. The reason for the big difference on UKIP is that to weight politically they ask the question Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely? but they use the answer to adjust to fit people’s Party ids as they were in 2010.

    So UKIP whose support has gone up massively since 2010 will have its vote downgraded a lot because it is assumed there should only be the same percentage of ‘core’ UKIP voters as there were in 2010 when only 1% of voters would have answered ‘UKIP’ to that question. Populus’s calculations assume that they must have found far too many UKIP by mistake and down-weight their votes accordingly to the extent that the vote of a UKIP identifier is only given a tenth of the weight of the other people polled.

    It’s actually even worse than that. Because as the UKIP vote solidifies, and more people become more firmly identified with them instead of casual protest voters, then their VI according to Populus’s method will go down rather than stay the same.

    There is uncertainty over exactly what UKIP’s real VI is – telephone based polls are still lower than online ones. But everyone agrees that Populus is doing it wrong.

    (Mostly reposted from previous thread)

  45. Richard, above, I so agree. An almost dead man, weighing less than 50 kg, and we hire a jet to take him back to a place where he knows he is in danger. The jet-hire alone will have far outweighed any likely cost he might have caused to the UK state.

    Of course moral issues aren’t black and white. Sometimes you find yourself in a position where all you can do is the least wrong. But it’s hard to find an ‘ends forgive the means’ argument in a case such as this, I suggest.

  46. Sad as it is, it would not be a good idea to allow hunger strikes to be a foolproof method of circumventing the asylum system. To let him remain would be to create greater net suffering than to return him.

  47. Barroso’s statement at the EU Vilnius meeting, made to heads of state, is of relevance to the Scottish question, but he is attempting to reel in a much bigger fish in tackling the Russian Government’s intervention in proposed accession of Ukraine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25154618).

    His statement that the EU would not accept the intervention of third party countries in bilateral negotiations over accession, and specifically “would not accept” a Russian veto on Ukraine’s accession, appears to be intentionally relevant to Spain’s threat of a veto on and the accession of an independent Scotland. The message to Russia, however, to back off threatened sanctions against Ukraine (we’ll raise your gas prices!), and particularly that the time of “limited sovereignty is over in Europe” – that the EU does not recognize a residual Russian “sphere of influence” in Ukraine and the rest of former Soviet Eastern Europe – is of a different order.

    It also raises a question, which I imagine Russia won’t fail to notice, of the authority of the Commission President. To quote wiki:

    “The President of the European Commission is the head of the European Commission ? the executive branch of the European Union (EU) ? the most powerful officeholder in the EU……………..
    The Commission President also represents the EU abroad, although he does this alongside the President of the European Council and, at foreign minister’s level, the High Representative (who sits in his Commission as Vice-President). However the President, unlike a normal head of government, does not form foreign policy…….. largely outside the remit of the EU.”

  48. Actually the fact that the Commission does engage in foreign policy – e.g. the PHARE and TACIS programmes, largely created to prepare E European and CIS countries for entry to the EU, and its intervention to repatriate the Boat People, crossing the bows of the US embargo on aid to Vietnam, hardly marries up with the idea that its President “does not form foreign policy”.

  49. JOHN PILGRIM

    I can’t see any immediate relevance to Macbethian matters (which are banned as being over dominant), but the “association agreement” (not a new process, of course) does resonate with the “associate membership” concept that I posted about yesterday.

    That whole concept of “associated” rather than “full” membership may have significance, however, for the UK’s relationship with the EU (an equally over dominant issue – but one that Anthony, whose site this is, is happy with).

    It now seems unsurprising that Cameron abandoned his own St Andrew’s Day bash to be in Vilnius! :-)

  50. Actually the fact that the Commission does engage in foreign policy – e.g. the PHARE and TACIS programmes, largely created to prepare E European and CIS countries for entry to the EU, and its intervention to repatriate the Boat People, crossing the bows of the US embargo on aid to Vietnam, hardly marries up with the idea that its President “does not form foreign policy”, so maybe wiki has nodded on this one.

1 2