YouGov’s weekly results for the Sunday Times are now up here. Voting intention figures are CON 34%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 11%, suggesting that Thurday’s odd 12 point lead was indeed the outlier I think most people assumed it was (the five point lead is itself a bit lower than usual, but I wouldn’t read anything into that yet either)

There is nothing suggesting a big impact from the Autumn statement itself, but attitudes to the economy and the government’s economic management remain on a longer term upwards trend – essentially the statement itself doesn’t seem to have done much (it was probably overshadowed by the death of Nelson Mandela anyway), but the growth of the economy is dragging up these figures anyway.

43% of people now think the economy is showing signs of recovery or is well on the way to recovery, up from 37% in August and just 14% in April. 51% of people still think the economy shows no signs of recovery or is getting even worse. Asked how much the government has contributed to this, 36% now think the government’s actions helped the economy (up 4 from August), 30% that they made it worse (down 4), 24% that they made no difference either way.

The coalition have a healthy lead over Labour on dealing with the deficit (by 35% to 21%) and improving the economy (35% to 25%), but trail behind Labour on keeping down living costs, where the opposition lead by 33% to 25%. Turning to Osborne himself, 26% now think he is doing a good job as Chancellor, 46% a bad job. This is little changed from when YouGov last asked in July, but far better than the public saw him last year, when his approval rating was down in the mid-teens. He leads Ed Balls on who would make the better Chancellor by 32% to 22%, though 46% say don’t know.

On the specifics of the statement, 31% of people think they will be worse off, 5% better off, 46% expect it to make no real difference – the answers appear to be mainly partisan, although people between 40-59 are most likely to say they’ll be worse off, presumably on the back of pension age changes. On that subject 32% support increasing the state pension age, 57% of people say they are opposed.


312 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 34, LAB 39, LD 10, UKIP 11”

1 5 6 7
  1. Re Kellner.

    Not sure about this question.

    “Q: Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

    ‘We should have started to raise the pension age years ago. Today’s recently retired people have never been as well of as they are today;¬†they are benefitting unfairly at the cost of younger workers who have to pay higher taxes as a result’

    Agree: 35%
    Disagree: 53%
    Don’t know: 11%”

    Problem is you can disagree with the first statement (re rising the pension age years ago), while agreeing with the second (re: recently retired benefiting unfairly.

    And vice versa.

    Also, since growth can come from productivity gains, requiring fewer employees, there’s a vague on whether we really should need to keep rising retirement ages etc. (Though we will if more of the growth gets siphoned off to the top…)

    Report comment

  2. @Alec

    Re Gold Sales. Don’t often say this but LOL.

    Report comment

  3. A cunning plan that I have nicked from Spike Milligan in the Goon Show, when he asked the time and then wrote it down, so that if anyone then asked him he could pass it on correctly is>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >>>>>> write down your very favourite, heartwarming 2015 GE prediction; keep it really handy and have a sneaky look at it a few times each day.

    Its a cracker.

    Report comment

  4. @R&D,

    It’s a principle of English law that only a jury* can decide what the facts are.

    It may be blindingly obvious that someone’s guilty. Actually it often is. But the jury are the only people who are entitled to conclude that it is blindingly obvious.

    A judge can (and probably will) make directions as to the law. He can tell the jury that as a question of law, there is no provision for a defence of “I was a soldier in a war between Islam and the West”. He can even make it absolutely clear to the jury in his summing up that the defence is complete baloney. There are even circumstances (usually with “absolute” offences) where he can direct a “Guilty” verdict. But ultimately the jury decide.

    Personally I don’t have too much of a problem with this, but I wish the media simply didn’t report it. That’s the best way to deny them what they want.

    Report comment

  5. *Except in magistrates courts, and in special “Diplock courts” and one or two other exceptions.

    Report comment

  6. Well I rather like Norbolds version of events.Much better than my gloomy
    Soothsaying.Rosie and Daisies version is a teeny bit extreme,the two for the Tories being over generous.

    Report comment

  7. Cheers Neil. I agree with your sentiments.

    I suppose I feel it should be possible to have a list of legally acceptable or non-acceptable “mitigating” factors set out in advance, and basically ensure a plea of guilty is made when it is – to quote you – “blindingly obvious.”

    Basically it is just taking the piss in my opinion.

    Paul

    Report comment

  8. ann

    true – undeserved also.

    Report comment

  9. new fred – largely about borin’ ole scotland

    Report comment

  10. My mistake – its just the first post which is about yer Jocks.

    I think that with no saltire at the top you can ignore it.

    Report comment

  11. @R&D,

    The payback for running a stupid defence is supposed to be in sentencing. In theory they miss out on the “discount” available for a guilty plea (of up to 30%) but as tariffs are so flexible it is sometimes hard to see this work in practice.

    And of course, these two really don’t give a monkey’s how long they spend in prison.

    Report comment

  12. Hi Howard,

    I’m partisan all right. I believe certain things politically are very wrong. But I don’t mark Labour VI up. I suggest it will get less than its current average, but not much, because that (I think) is what the polls have been telling us consistently for the life of this parliament.

    I think Reggieside’s prediction was on the button, therefore, but I wonder if maybe 35 is high for the Conservatives. The Guardian’s economics man, on the other hand, thinks the polls suggest that – despite Osborne’s policies being unpopular – the electorate is not convinced that Labour has a realistic policy alternative to austerity. I share that concern, indeed, I think there is a need for a far more radical taxation policy than anything on offer at the moment. However, the Labour VI appears to me to reflect a 38 per cent gut dislike of what the Coalition are doing and a focused yearning for something more ethical. The question then arises, does the Tory VI reflect a similarly firm belief that austerity is the only show in town? Or does it perhaps represent a mix of thinking, such as TOH’s ‘The state is too big’, and IDS’ crusade against welfare? I don’t know. But if the Tory VI is in fact a hotch-potch rather than a more focused vision, then 35 will be too high.

    Report comment

1 5 6 7