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 2 3 4 7
  1. @ Rosie&Daisie

    A pint of irn bru and a pack of tunnock’s wafers sez yer wrong about 18% LDs
    —————
    I’ll see your irn bru & tunnocks; & I’ll send you a pack of dog treats, if it’s actually yellow 13. ;-)

  2. I’m thinking Labour MPs & MSPs will be expected to donate their increase to the Party rather than to charity but I could be wrong.

  3. Good opportunity for a party (Lab would be a good one) to mandate all its MPs to donate their rise to a specific cause. Trussell Trust might be a candidate. Sounds like a gift that would keep on giving, both politically and practically.
    In the past I would have said they should pocket the money, as they are not particularly well paid compared with comparable roles. But all that is out of the window now.

  4. @Amber

    That’s taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers that did not vote for the Labour Party.

    Sounds a little like a director putting his unpopular bonus into the board’s Christmas kitty, despite not giving his staff a raise.

  5. I see much speculation as to what Clegg would want to do in the event of another hung parliament. Even in terms of his own party I am far from convinced that it would actually be his call. He might well wish to continue in coalition with the Tories, but next time – unlike 2010 – I suspect that many in his party – MPs and members – would invite him to ‘go forth and multiply’. Difficult to imagine the LDs just meekly rolling over and simply accepting a dictate from him. Much more likely is a scenario in which the party membership presents the membership with different options – Clegg, Laws ,Alexander, Brown arguing for continuing with the Tories – Farron, Kennedy, Sanders,George, Hughes wanting to go with Labour.. If Clegg tried to push his own preference too hard it would not be surprising if a good third of his parliamentary colleagues refused to go with him and decided to sit on the Opposition benches – reminiscent of the Samuelites and Simonites in the 1930s.

  6. ???????????? ]????????
    ???????????????? ?/ l???????????????????].
    ???????????????..

  7. Och well that never turned out. Was meant to be a tank.

    Anyway back to polling. Not much has changed considering the autumn statement.

  8. Correction – should have said ‘party membership presented with different options’

  9. @Norbold
    “Though I have to say I think it more likely that in the event of no overall majority, Labour would govern as a minority government and dare the others to defeat them and precipitate another election.”
    ________________

    I fully agree.

    As far as the Lib Dems are concerned, in many seats Labour could look to replace them as the main challengers to the Conservatives in a post 2015 general election, were the LDs foolish enough to once again align themselves with the Conservatives in order to bring down a minority Labour government. Such a confirmation of the LDs’ true colours would kill off a lot of whatever remained of residual tactical voting in 2015.

    And as far as the SNP are concerned, it wouldn’t be the first time that they would have aligned with the Conservatives to bring down a Labour government. In 1979 they suffered a severe electoral penalty and it took them a long time to get over the “tartan Tory” label.

  10. @Howard
    Stupidity.

  11. Barring major foot in mouth events in the interim, I doubt very much the Labour 38 per cent will budge come May 2015. Nothing has shifted it to date. The Tories and UKIP can fight over points, therefore, but it will make next to no difference. That’s a prediction therefore, and I’ve been making it for months. What I’d love to believe is that the Labour 38 have decent reasons for their choice, but I’m not in a position to argue that.

  12. Why do people think that the lib dems are going to increase their poll rating by any significant amount come 2015?

    They have been nailed on 10% for three years now with no fluctuation beyond margin of error.

    This is not fickle ‘swing voters’ being blown by sound bites and day to day headlines – that is a fundamental desertion mostly by voters who saw them as a left of centre alternative to labour. The only way to bring them back is to ditch clegg and bring down the coalition – and that is not going to happen.

    Yes they will still benefit from a degree of tactical voting in tory/lib dem contests, but they will suffer significantly where labour are in contention.

    What on earth is going to give the lib dems a 50% plus boost in their poll ratings in the next 18 months?

    Given this – I cant imagine that clegg will be leader after 2015, and in the fairly unlikely event of a hung parliament they will have fewer mps – so they would probably not be strong enough to push for a coalition agreement with labour.

  13. I think Reggieside is pretty well spot on!

    Re- SNP. Given how reviled a figure Thatcher clearly remains in Scotland, I am surprised that Labour does not put more effort into reminding voters there of how the SNP helped to get her into office by bringing down the Callaghan government.

  14. I’m with Mr Nameless on his prediction but if I’m allowed a second guess I’ll offer up a scenario of:

    Lab 37
    Con 30
    LD 10
    UKIP 15

    This is based on Alec’s, albeit untimed, predictions (with which I agree) that the economy does regress again and that this happens before May 2015.

    Re LD- I still expect them to pick up 35-40 seats based on UKIP eating into the Tory vote and the LD’s totally focused on the seats they hold but just cannot see any scenario where their current polling would change. Any additional votes based on tactical or incumbency in those seats adds very little to national polling numbers.

  15. GRAHAM

    But Labour have never been popular in Scotland at anytime when you consider the vast majority of Scots have never voted for them at anyone time.

    At least the Tories managed to win over 50% of the popular vote in Scotland, something Labour are very unlikely to achieve..

    And in any case, is that the best you can do, bring up grievance politics from the past?

    Typical negative Labour.

  16. Statgeek
    “That’s taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers that did not vote for the Labour Party.”

    Umm, it will be the MP’s money to do with whatever they please…..

  17. Postage Included

    The only Principal that every interested me was Victoria – she’s a dish. I just read up her stuff on WP.

  18. Postage Included

    The only Principal that every interested me was Victoria – she’s a dish. I just read up her stuff on WP.

  19. Typical surly Allan.

  20. Allan Christie

    “At least the Tories managed to win over 50% of the popular vote in Scotland,”

    And you talk about Graham living in the past!!!!!

  21. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Labour was not far off a majority of the Scottish vote back in 1964/1966. The Tories only managed 50% in 1955 because there were then effectively only two parties in the field – very few Liberal and SNP candidates. As more parties began to contest seats in the 60s and 70s it,of course, became more difficult for any party to win a majority of votes cast – whether in Scotland or Great Britain as a whole.
    As for daring to ‘ bring up grievance politics from the past’ perish the thought! I can’t imagine the SNP bringing up grievances relating to events dating back centuries.
    By the way, I last voted Labour at a General Election in 1992 – and will not do so in 2015.

  22. norbold

    Allan Christie

    “At least the Tories managed to win over 50% of the popular vote in Scotland,”

    And you talk about Graham living in the past!!!!!
    ___________

    Yes I know it was decades ago but I’m just making a point.

  23. With spin like that Allan Christie you should be a Tory.
    In 1955 the Cons got 50.1% of the vote, the only occasion in the last 62 years (at least) that the Cons have had 50%+ (ish) of the popular vote
    ‘The vast majority of Scots have never voted for [Labour] at anyone [sic] time’ – that ‘vast majority’ was 50.1% in 1966

  24. GRAHAM

    I don’t dispute for one minute that Labour are now more popular in Scotland than the Tories and yes I also agree that when the Tories won over 50% of the vote it was really a two horse race, one which Labour lost.
    …….
    “As for daring to ‘ bring up grievance politics from the past’ perish the thought! I can’t imagine the SNP bringing up grievances relating to events dating back centuries.

    ____

    Well that’s beyond me I can’t say I have ever seen the SNP (In their manifesto or policies) brining up grievances from centuries ago but there again anonymous OTT cybernats are usually mistaken conveniently for mainstream SNP spokespeople.

  25. “Why do people think that the lib dems are going to increase their poll rating by any significant amount come 2015?”
    Tactical voting will increase the LibDem vote by a large proportion over current polling.
    In seats where it’s Con first, Lib second or Lib first, Con second and either with Lab far behind, Labour voters will tactically vote LibDem to keep out the Tories.

    Lord Ashcroft’s polling shows this effect repeatedly.

    Although it’ll make absolutely no difference in Lib/Lab or Lab/Lib seats, it should make enough difference in Con/Lib or Lib/Con to boost the national poll rating by a ‘significant’ amount.

    Enough for the LibDems to run with a narrative of ‘The country has rewarded us for responsible government’ as opposed to it being a reflection of tactical voting.

    Either way, it distorts the national support/FPTP support problem even more than it currently is.

  26. I suspect that any 2015 LabLib coalition agreement would insist on the removal from positions of power of any LibDems who held senior positions in tho coalition. That could be interesting

  27. GUYMONDE

    “The vast majority of Scots have never voted for [Labour] at anyone [sic] time’ – that ‘vast majority’ was 50.1% in 1966”
    _______

    Care to show a link or proof for that and if it’s correct I will admit I was wrong.
    ….

    “With spin like that Allan Christie you should be a Tory”
    _

    Thanks I’m humbled.

  28. Lefty,
    The Express are obsessed with the weather.Their headlines are almost invariably a dire weather prediction or a cure for arthritis.

  29. ac

    “Thanks I’m humbled.”

    That’ll be the day.

  30. @Howard
    Don’t know about her fiction, and American glamour vever appealed, but without her wrinkle cream that stops me looking like the aged W H Auden, so I won’t knock.

  31. Statgeek,

    Is what an MP does with their salary (rather than expenses) accountable to the taxpayer? Because by that logic police officers, librarians and teachers shouldn’t be allowed to donate to political parties either (I should keep that quiet in case I give Cameron ideas).

  32. ….
    ? Obviously incapable of coherent thought today let alone spelling
    You get my drift I hope.

  33. Statgeek

    I would think that MPs already give part of their salary to their party. Local Councillors normally do.

  34. Let’s face it there are too many Politicians in most Countries, unfortunately a hang-over of massive spending over the last 15 Years at the height of the boom. I think the whole ‘fat’ parliamentary system requires complete reduction and improvement. Why does a Country our size require so many Politicians and Government. The only people who feel we require more politicians/Government are Politicians.

  35. STATGEEK

    Has Labour ever won over 50% of the popular vote in a UK election in Scotland?

  36. Just to add quasi governmental bodies should also have Currency control taken away…too many mistakes and pain has been caused to ordinary people by foolish bubbles and errors. One mistake to make up for the last one…

  37. @All applicable

    “Is what an MP does with their salary (rather than expenses) accountable to the taxpayer?”

    Yes, if the elected are preaching austerity to the rest, pocketing their money and still preaching. They should not have the cash at all. If they have any decency, they will refuse it completely.

    “I would think that MPs already give part of their salary to their party. Local Councillors normally do.”

    My earlier analogy stands. In this case, the directors are adding to the Christmas kitty. It really is pathetic.

  38. Allan Christie

    “STATGEEK

    Has Labour ever won over 50% of the popular vote in a UK election in Scotland?”

    I’m not STATGEEK but I can tell you that the highest vote Labour achieved in Scotland was 49.9% in 1966.

  39. Allan Christie,

    “Care to show a link or proof for that and if it’s correct I will admit I was wrong.”

    Statgeek might provide you with this link-

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-037.pdf

    – which notes that Labour got 49.9% of the vote in 1966. However, since turnout wasn’t 100% in 1966 (or at any other time), it’s still false to say that only 50.1% of people in Scotland didn’t vote for Labour in 1966. UK turnout was 75.8% in 1966; I don’t know the exact figure for Scotland, but I imagine that it wasn’t much greater (and was probably less) than 75.8%. So we’re still talking about a considerable majority (“vast majority”, if you like) not voting Labour in 1966.

  40. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “Care to show a link or proof for that and if it’s correct I will admit I was wrong.”

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf

  41. NORBOLD

    Thanks that’s the figure I have and although impressive it’s still not over the magic 50%.

  42. STATGEEK

    “My earlier analogy stands. In this case, the directors are adding to the Christmas kitty. It really is pathetic.”

    No, it’s not the same analogy at all. Councillors who belong to a party normally have to rely on that party to help get them elected. They have to rely on the members and paying for election literature and all the other expenses that go with it. If they get elected why should they not be expected to contribute some of their “salary” to support the party that got them elected and for the next round of elections?

    It’s not used for a Christmas knees up.

    It’s not

  43. BILL PATRICK

    Thanks for your analysis and spot on.

  44. @Allan Christie

    Not according to this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#Pre_1979

  45. @Norbold

    Of course not. ;)

  46. “- which notes that Labour got 49.9% of the vote in 1966. However, since turnout wasn’t 100% in 1966 (or at any other time), it’s still false to say that only 50.1% of people in Scotland didn’t vote for Labour in 1966. UK turnout was 75.8% in 1966; I don’t know the exact figure for Scotland, but I imagine that it wasn’t much greater (and was probably less) than 75.8%. So we’re still talking about a considerable majority (“vast majority”, if you like) not voting Labour in 1966.”

    Hmm we were talking about popular vote.
    I know Scots like to pinch the goalposts so I suppose just moving them is fair game.

  47. I think there would be constitutional issues if the government tried to dictate what pay MPs should receive. The government employs public sector workers but not MPs, who are meant to be independent of the government.

  48. GUYMONDE

    Thanks for the link but it only backs up what others are saying.
    See table 13
    General Election Results: 1945-2001: Scotland
    …..

    “Hmm we were talking about popular vote.
    I know Scots like to pinch the goalposts so I suppose just moving them is fair game”
    ____

    LOL well what other indicator would you use? Those eligible to vote? I would only depress the Labour vote and I’m not Scottish but have lived here most of my life.

  49. statgeek

    “Sorry…wrong link:”

    I’m confused because the first link seems to be the correct one and the second one the wrong one!

1 2 3 4 7