I’ve been a little bit run off my feet this week, so here’s a brief rundown on polls over the last three days.

In terms of voting intention, the Populus poll on Monday and the three daily YouGov/Sun polls so far this week are below, and show things still trundling along with a Labour lead of seven points or so (the interesting spike in UKIP scores in the YouGov polls at the end of last week looks like it was just a blip after all).

Populus (29th Nov-1st Dec) – CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 9%
YouGov/Sun (1st-2nd Dec) – CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%
YouGov/Sun (2nd-3rd Dec) – CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%
YouGov/Sun (3rd-4th Dec) – CON 34%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%

This morning two more of Alan Bown’s Survation constituency polls were published, this time of Great Grimsby and Dudley North. These two are both Labour held marginals with the Conservatives in close second place in 2010, presumably picked because they were also the two Lab-Con ultra-marginals where UKIP performed most strongly in 2010 (UKIP got 6.2% in Great Grimsby, 8.5% in Dudley North). Both seats found a swing of 9 percent from Con to Lab – so slightly larger than that suggested by Survation’s national polling in recent months.


120 Responses to “Polls so far this week”

1 2 3
  1. @Chris Riley

    Seconded. As a generation ‘x’er that has never used a credit card, and has little chance of a decent pension, I don’t deserve any criticism. Some might, but not all do.

    Maybe I can trade in my ZX Spectrum for a few groats in my dotage.

    Report comment

  2. @Bill P

    Lol, you are ignoring key points in my argument. Instead of “imagining” things, deal with what actually happened:

    - The oil price was massively inflationary. Not just for us, but countries like Italy. Explain how Italy’s inflation was Heath’s fault.

    - the timing of the peaks correlates with the inflation peak

    - explain how the second peak in particular, as the Seventies came to an end, was Heath’s fault, when Labour had already gotten inflation down to 8% from 25%

    Incidentally, Labour didn’t manage to get unemployment down much… How could they facing nasty stagflation. The point was to preserve jobs and industry which they did a lot better than Thatch. And they did this while bearing down on deficit and inflation, until the second oil peak hit. You haven’t mentioned their performance in this regard.

    I agree Labour were rather less keynesian and more monetarist. Keynes recipe for stimulating demand is challenged when you have inflation along with recession, since spending to stoked demand stokes inflation further. But Labour’s recipe worked.

    Is nominal a good measure in an era of 25% inflation.

    Linking inflation to GDP growth is rather suspect. You can have massive inflation without much growth, as in the case when oil prices balloon stoking inflation while causing recession.

    Regarding the oil rises in the noughties, there are various differences. Were they as sudden? Prolonged? Was oil as big a part of the Electric energy mix? Weren’t countries more prepared this time? We had our own oil too. Also, a part of Labour’s response was to bear down on wages to control inflation. Less need to do that with big unemployment, which does that naturally for you…

    Report comment

  3. Nominal GDP, I meant…

    Report comment

  4. “Ultimately our common interest is served by all of the world’s countries lifting their people up to decent and comparable levels of health, education and employment opportunity. The right would argue that the market is best placed to (eventually) reach that destination, so long as there is enforcement when companies and individuals attempt to fix the markets. ”

    In my experience, [some people on] the “right” are very often rabidly against the free movement of labour especially when heading this way. In fact it is apparently access to welfare, health and schools for immigrants that most exercises their wrath.

    So when they talk of free markets they presumably don’t mean that part of the market. They mean rather freedom to pay peanuts without the freedom to move elsewhere to earn more.

    Report comment

  5. @Carfrew,

    Isn’t Bill’s point that headline GDP growth figures are index-linked? So that GDP is completely affected by the inflation rate, as it is adjusted for it? So that if your headline growth figure is 5% when inflation is 15% that you’ve actually managed 20% growth in “old money”?

    Report comment

  6. @Alec

    You forgot option 3.

    Osborne has just talked a lot of guff, and then Balls did the same. Just like Clegg and Harman yesterday.

    Report comment

  7. The March 2014 is clearly the key budget for Osborne. He has to give away sweeties that will actually be capable of being enjoyed between then and the GE in 2015. It’s no good doling them out as, tomorrow, the Dutch Black Peters will be doing (Feast of Saint Nicholas – “Santa Claus”, the real one) in March 2015 when it’s too late. Nor will it be any use promising to doing so in that budget of March 2015 with only a month or so to go.

    So expect a big giveaway budget in March 2014. It’s all that’s left now for the coalition now, IMO.

    The Lib Dems will not benefit in any scenario, as those who abandoned Gordie in 2010 have returned to Labour and any gratitude of others under the above circumstances would only go to the Tories, always assuming any such will be forthcoming.

    Report comment

  8. @Neil A:

    Which of those couldn’t have been paid out of the tax uncollected through the award of tax relief to some of Jo’s activities?

    Report comment

  9. @Chris

    “I do not think the ‘State knows better’, but I think it’s better at acting in the public interest than individuals are.”

    Here we must sadly disagree. If the state knows better, why is it culpable for so many financial collapses of sections of society, while the individual can only bankrupt the individual or his/her circle (or the company worked for)?

    The state does not know better. It takes from all to suit the few (if it were to suit the many we would all be happy, and getting a good deal, and there wouldn’t enough money anyway). All it knows is how to budget, cost, analyse and spend. I do not count the military on the ground, seas, air in this. They are exceptional people mostly, and deserve credit for achieving more with less, while the rest of the state achieves less with more.

    Report comment

  10. Incidentally it was stated on the news earlier today that the Coalition’s abandonment of the fuel duty accelerator had reduced tax revenue by £22bn.

    Report comment

  11. That’s a very partial view of the state Statgeek.

    The (largely state) UK health system (as an example) delivers healthcare to a generally good standard for the whole population for less than 40% of the cost per capita than the (private sector) US health system delivers for (IIRC) about 80% of its population. The US system delivers slightly better outcomes and has less waiting time for specialists (though longer waiting time for primary care)

    Report comment

  12. “I do not count the military on the ground, seas, air in this.”

    Why not? If your argument had validity it would apply equally – to the military as much as anything else.

    Report comment

  13. There’s a counsel of despair running through these posts which I find deeply depressing.

    “We can’t compete with low wages in developing countries”. Well, Germany seems to be managing and so can we in car manufacturing, which is hardly a fringe activity. BMW, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Tata are all investing heavily in this country and our production is increasing despite well-established competition in low wage countries from Eastern Europe to S.Korea.

    “There’s no point voting because the politicians don’t have any power – it’s all down to international capital” Our politicians are in the G8 and on the UN security council so have a big opportunity to set the international weather. We are also approx the second equal economic power in the largest trading bloc in the world: we could have major influence there if we chose to, instead of fannying about with referendums and joining the lunatic fringe grouping

    “There’s not enough jobs for all the people, while people have to work till they drop before they get a meagre pension” That’s a political choice; do the math.

    Nobody sensible denies that the world presents big challenges but actually the UK (having Scotland as part of it is a big help) has an excellent track record of overcoming challenges when we put our collective minds and energies to it. Deciding it’s all too hard will lead to an inevitable result.

    Report comment

  14. Guymonde
    Speak for yourself please. I’ve never been so happy with my new pajamas.

    Report comment

  15. Hi Statgeek,

    ”The state does not know better. It takes from all to suit the few (if it were to suit the many we would all be happy, and getting a good deal, and there wouldn’t enough money anyway).”

    Not enough money depends on what you take in tax. Tax income (principally) and you will always (naturally) be under pressure to take less. It’s very hard to collect efficiently anyway. So why tax income? There’s a constant left-right debate here (and everywhere else) as to the size of the state, what it collects, and (your issue) who it favours. I would suggest we squabble over details, left and right, all of us.

    The wealth in the world massively outweighs every country’s debt position, and a tiny ‘windfall’ percentage of it would remove all debt at a stroke. A serious attempt to tax wealth is the only way to raise sufficient taxes to please the many, and even [snip]

    Report comment

  16. As manufacturing becomes ever more automated and technologies such as 3D printers develop perhaps it’s the countries with labour-intensive industries that have most to fear.

    Report comment

  17. @RogerH

    I stated why at the end of my post.

    @Colin Davis

    I saw the attempt to ‘tax wealth’ and the ‘snip’, and have decided the limit has been reached. We won’t agree.

    Report comment

  18. Carfrew,

    Imagination is essential to clear causal thinking.

    “- The oil price was massively inflationary. Not just for us, but countries like Italy. Explain how Italy’s inflation was Heath’s fault.”

    I never said it was his fault. I did explain why other countries tended to have higher inflation than normal during this period.

    Incidentally, German and Japanese inflation rates were much lower during this period than in the UK and the US, despite their not having any significant domestic oil production. If the oil price was the main cause of the 1970s inflation, shouldn’t the Japanese and Germans have had high inflation as well?

    “- the timing of the peaks correlates with the inflation peak”

    Actually, the inflation peak in the UK was in 1975, whereas the oil price peak was in 1979-1980.

    “- explain how the second peak in particular, as the Seventies came to an end, was Heath’s fault, when Labour had already gotten inflation down to 8% from 25%”

    I never said it was his fault. 1977-1978 saw a brief boomlet when Labour cut interest rates so far that real interest rates were extremely negative in late 1977; there was a brief housing boom and period of growth, followed by a rise in inflation that again started before the January 1979 oil crisis.

    “Linking inflation to GDP growth is rather suspect.”

    It makes perfect sense: demand = spending, spending = nominal GDP growth; demand over the economy’s capacity to produce results in rising prices.

    “Regarding the oil rises in the noughties, there are various differences. Were they as sudden? Prolonged?”

    Yes and yes-

    http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif

    “Was oil as big a part of the Electric energy mix?”

    I don’t know. It probably depends on the country, but energy prices in general rose dramatically in the period.

    “Weren’t countries more prepared this time?”

    If they had been, it would lower oil prices, but oil prices were very high in the noughties. It’s just that prices in general weren’t high.

    “We had our own oil too.”

    We had oil in the 1970s. And countries like Germany and Japan still didn’t have big domestic oil industries in the noughties, yet Japan even experienced inflation.

    “Also, a part of Labour’s response was to bear down on wages to control inflation. Less need to do that with big unemployment, which does that naturally for you…”

    Unemployment rates in the UK during most of the noughties were almost identical to the mid-to-late 1970s.

    What was different? In the noughties oil price spike, we had an inflation-targeting independent central bank and nominal GDP growth averaging about 5.5%.

    Report comment

  19. Globalisation, developingl countries and low wage labour are all a bit of a blancmange on here. To sort out the components of a penetrable global market place, on which others will be better informed than I, it might be good to recognise a major divide in the Far East, between China and SE Asis and South Asia.. China seems to be leaving behind the labour market model of the latter, where very low wage labour, making Howard’s pajamas, has one foot in the countryside which soaks up welfare costs and provide zero value added cost of food, leaving garment workers in Bangladesh and Cambodia to earn $70 a month, and send a chunk of it home.
    China which is turning, in its investment programme and long-term consumerist policy, into – I should have thought – the natural market for a UK style and services and related training and skills development drive, will send us its umpteen zillions of Chinese students to fill our under-Stated funded universities and its middle class housewives to buy our handbags.

    Report comment

  20. under State-funded, before Alec sharpens his wit on my Malapropisms.

    Report comment

1 2 3