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 5 7
  1. # it

  2. STATGEEK

    Cheers for the second link. Yip backs up that Labour haven’t won over 50% of the vote in Scotland.

    Oh well.

  3. Talking of moving the goalposts, can’t see England brining them back after their world cup draw.

  4. What is this weird fixation with 50% – does anyone really care?

  5. ac

    “Talking of moving the goalposts, can’t see England brining [sic] them back after their world cup draw.”

    What is all this distasteful anti-English stuff?

    At least they will be there to compete.

  6. Oh I’m so sorry lets go back to the topic on hand.

    Tunnock’s tea cake anyone?

  7. amber

    I raise you a tin of shortbread and also bet that Cameron and Clegg will both be gone by the party conferences in 2015.

  8. @ Tinged

    “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”

    We’d need someone better than me to run the figures (RogerMexico maybe- unless you’ve already done it!) but I don’t see what you say stacking up.

    Let’s say there are 100 LD hopeful seats (which in itself seems a bit extreme). That leaves 5/6th of the national vote totally unaffected by your scenario. There are probably more than 100 seats where the LD’s are second but so far away from becoming LD that no one would be influenced in a tactical LD vote.

    Of the 100 I suggested above, there are only going to be 57 where the LD’s will work it hard- maybe a handful of others to even put the suggestion into the voters minds that it is “two horse race” and a “Lab vote is wasted”.

    Based on Ashcroft polling in LD seats we know that a lot of this incumbency/tactical vote is already factored in (eg- Sheffield Hallam LD’s on 32% rather than 10%). Say Clegg ended up with 40% then at maximum that is an increase of 1/3rd on what the national polls are telling at us the moment. I’m doubting Clegg will end up with 40% anyway.

    So basically 60 seats out of 650 seats the LD’s may be underperforming by a maximum of 1/3rd. 1/3rd of 1/6th is not going to be much on their national vote share (1%?) and this is the absolute best case scenario for them.

  9. Will the possible continuation of tactical votes for LDs not be compensated for by the numbers who don’t vote for them – as many did including moi – in seats where they have no chance anyway, come the GE?

  10. AW

    Please can you read my comment

    “Talking of moving the goalposts, can’t see England brining them back after their world cup draw”

    December 8th, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    And if it is in anyway “distasteful anti-English stuff” then please can you remove it?

    I wouldn’t like my account to be permanently moderated like some individuals.

  11. Some tactical Labour voting will still happen – but it will be on a reduced scale. In seats where Labour polled 5 – 10% in 2010 it must be likely that the shares in 2015 will be more like 10 – 20%.

  12. @ Tinged

    Also I forgot to say that in 15-20 of those 57 seats Lab will be the challenger so no tactical vote there- just a possible incumbency bonus.

  13. @Graham
    Not sure what you mean about tactical votes, or where you get your numbers. Hasn’t Ashcroft polled on this, and not produced very memorable results?

    My own feeling is that we have to make that calculation much nearer the date, because tactical voting depends so much on how the electorate view the probable result. So if the Tories are riding high in 2015 the Lab to LD tactical vote might hold up well; if Labour look to be a shoo-in the tactical voters may not bother, or may vote with their hearts. All stages in between have their own wrinkles, including how well UKIP are holding up and the result of the Scots’ referendum. It seems to me to be less guessable than anything else about 2015.

  14. Re the LD fortunes (or should that be misfortunes) in 2015.
    I have to agree with SHEVII (3.46) rather than Tinged (2.42).

    In terms of share of the vote I would not expect them to increase beyond 13% (unless we have the improbable situation of the leadership being removed before the election). I base this on the fact that in the vast majority of seats, the LD share will be less than 50% of their share in 2010. Even where there is a Con/LD close contest I do not see Lab supporters voting LD unless the candidate is of proven LOC persuasion (how many are likely to be critical of their party’s performance in government?). Similarly in LD/Con contests it will only be those such as Farron & Hughes who will attract a significant number of Lab votes.

    In terms of seats, I would suggest an almost total wipeout in Scotland and NE England and in the rest of England only those with large majorities (unfortunately probably Clegg) and with a LOC agenda retaining seats. I suspect 25 seats will be a reasonable achievement.

  15. RE: Lib dem incumbancy effect.

    For the likes of Clegg, Laws and Alaexander the incumbancy effect could very work in reverse.

  16. To repeat my point: far fewer people in “obvious winner” seats will vote LD just to add to their % tally and there is surely going to be less tactical voting also – albeit still some.

    Ergo Libs Dems will be around 13% and Amber will owe me tunnocks wafers [thereafter to be called MY wafers] a pint of Irn Bru [which I shall use to clean the drains] and a tin of shortbread [which I shall eat the contents of.]

  17. Incumbency (with an e).

    I think it works for a few thousand votes but if Labour voters are convinced the holder is a sham Tory (the Labour hopeful will be reminding voters in banner headlines in his leaflets of voting records, where this helps his cause), then tactical voting will have a lesser role than previously. This ‘hopeful’ will have to deal with immigration-concerned voters though, as there will be similar tactics from the UKIP candidates (if there is one – secret deals with suitable Con candidates perhaps).

    Yes a bit of a mish mash all round!

  18. We get this rubbish about tactical voting all the time. Does anyone have ‘any’ solid evidence?

  19. @ Statgeek

    That’s taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers that did not vote for the Labour Party.
    ————–
    It’s the MP’s & MSP’s money after it’s on their salary slip!

  20. Why do some left bloggers CONSTANTLY go on about the tactical ‘anti-conservative’ vote as if they are on a Crusade when in many more cases there is a strong or stronger anti-labour Tactical vote. I know some on this blog encourage their perception but let’s put this into a more realistic bigger picture.

  21. It”s not just tactical voters who are possibl defectors though. There are surely some who voted LD in 2010 because they saw the LDs as more leftish than Labour, not to mention the anti-NewLabour voters who deserted Labour in 2001 or 2005. These are not tactical voters, but are definitely antii-Tory. The Lds will find them more difficult to recover than the tacticals.

    The LD loss to UKIP -which I understand as a protest-voter switch – is also difficult to regain.

  22. Marco

    Why do some left bloggers CONSTANTLY go on about the tactical ‘anti-conservative’ vote as if they are on a Crusade when in many more cases there is a strong or stronger anti-labour Tactical vote
    _____

    Amen…

  23. @postageincluded

    I agree with you that this question is more a 3 or 4 dimensional than a single Party issue. As you say key will be LDs and UKIP Voters.

  24. @Marco
    Because polls in the past suggest the opposite of your assertion – Lab2Lib tactical voting is more common than any other sort. (Don’t ask which, though, I haven’t the mind to remember stff like that. Perhaps you have some evidence of your perception to counter the general opinion?)

  25. PI

    Could just be that Con/LD are now regarded as two sides of the same coin.

    [Ah-ah-ahhhhh-meeeeehn].

  26. @Postageincluded
    ‘There are surely some who voted LD in 2010 because they saw the LDs as more leftish than Labour, not to mention the anti-NewLabour voters who deserted Labour in 2001 or 2005. These are not tactical voters, but are definitely antii-Tory. The Lds will find them more difficult to recover than the tacticals.’

    That is really the point that I was trying to make!
    You are quite correct that many former Labour voters went LibDem in 2005 and 2010 as a result of genuine disillusionment with Labour rather than seeking to cast the most effective anti – Tory vote.
    I am vaguely familiar with Norfolk North – Labour held until 1970. In 1997 Labour polled 25% and denied Norman Lamb the seat.The LDs squeezed Labour to 13% in 2001 and just managed to snatch it from the Tories. Labour fell further in 2005 and 2010 to 9% and 6% respectively.. My own expectation is that Labour can reasonably think in terms of 10 – 15% there in 2015. Many Labour voters who in the last 10 years or so voted on a tactical basis will no longer be inclined to support a Tory-friendly candidate.

  27. @postageIncluded

    That was when the LDs were the UKs third Party of Government and Vote share.

  28. @RosieAndDaisie

    That is a good beneficial point when one Party is in opposition but if you really believe that then when the Election comes you will be fighting two debating Voices rather than being the usual two voices against one on issues.
    That makes it a different dynamic.

  29. marc
    e won’t be fighting anyone at he next eltin

    But I am certainthat the LDs vots shae won’t go up uch from current VI.

    They seem to be detested by both sides.

  30. Cantankerous

    adjective: cantankerous

    bad-tempered, argumentative, and uncooperative.

    “he can be a cantankerous old fossil at times”

    synonyms: bad-tempered, irascible, irritable, grumpy, grouchy, crotchety, tetchy, testy, crusty, curmudgeonly, ill-tempered, ill-natured, ill-humoured, peevish, cross, as cross as two sticks, fractious, disagreeable, pettish, crabbed, crabby, waspish, prickly, peppery, touchy, scratchy, splenetic, shrewish, short-tempered, hot-tempered, quick-tempered, dyspeptic, choleric, bilious, liverish, cross-grained.

  31. Marco

    In the last few elections at least it is much more likely that the tactical voting will have been between LibDem and Lab to keep the Tories out as both parties were seen as “of the left”. There’d be no point in Conservative voters voting LibDem to keep Labour out if they thought they were just as “bad”.

    How wrong tactical voters were!

  32. ROSIE

    What’s up with your last comment? Half the fe#king letters are missing fae it.

  33. @RosieandDaisie

    I admire your strong beliefs but why do you have to detest or hate anyone’s political views, unless they are extremist and violent ? This tribalism in UK politics is a disaster for all of us.
    The LDs have made their choices and so let them be judged in the political arena without hatred.

  34. MARCO

    “@RosieandDaisie

    I admire your strong beliefs but why do you have to detest or hate anyone’s political views, unless they are extremist and violent ? ”
    ____

    See my post at 5.35pm. Might explain a little.

  35. marco

    “I admire your strong beliefs but why do you have to detest or hate anyone’s political views, unless they are extremist and violent ?”

    No idea why you are personalising this: I don’t detest anyone which was why I said I wouldn’t be fighting anyone.

    What I am doing [quite clearly I thought] was commenting on how the LDs are regarded by many in both main parties and I don’t think it is going too far to say that many DO detest them.

  36. Guymonde,

    Actually, people were saying conflicting things, debating about Labour’s share of the “popular vote” and the proportion of people not voting Labour, as if these were two sides of the same coin. That’s why I intervened into a debate in which I am otherwise indifferent.

  37. a Christie.

    My 5.33 pm post re the LDs

    “They seem to be detested by both sides.”

    That is clearly an observation and a comment on the feelings of others as I see them: My view is arrived at by reading what other people write and listening to what they say.

    It is not a statement about any personal animosity, and the fact that Marco assumed it was does not excuse you from checking my own words before contributing yet another of your silly posts,

    You seem pleased with your “post” of 5.35 – which says rather a lot about you and absolutely nothing about its intended target.

    Paul Croft

  38. In FPTP, it is always a groundless assumption to declare that those that did not vote for one particular party all voted against them. They simply didn’t select them on a ballot, no more no less.

    It certainly does not indicate anything about what second preferences might be, who is the ‘most hated’, or who has ‘natural support’. Attempting to build a basis of public opinion on votes not cast is arguing on quicksand.

    I hope that the quality of discussion raises above this.

  39. Rosie

    “You seem pleased with your “post” of 5.35”
    __________

    So much so I’m going to treat myself to a Tunnocks tea cake or shall I have some shortbread?

    Listen you can dish out plenty (not tea cakes) so spare me the drivel.

  40. @Allan Christie

    I spotted:

    “synonyms: bad-tempered, irascible, irritable, grumpy, grouchy, crotchety, tetchy, testy, crusty, curmudgeonly, ill-tempered, ill-natured, ill-humoured, peevish, cross, as cross as two sticks, fractious, disagreeable, pettish, crabbed, crabby, waspish, prickly, peppery, touchy, scratchy, splenetic, shrewish, short-tempered, hot-tempered, quick-tempered, dyspeptic, choleric, bilious, liverish, cross-grained.”

    I must print this out and present it to my gf’s mother. :))

    (She’s actually a gem, but the gag was there for the taking)

  41. @R&D
    “…two sides of the same coin…”

    Actually no, I wouldn’t say that. They’re the same side of one coin, and voters have to call heads or tails. The option “edge” hasn’t been available since the demise of the thrupenny bit, and (pace Marco) won’t be available in 2015.

  42. @Pups

    drivel?

    We only manage drizzle with the teacakes up here in Scotchland. We tend to wash down the haggis and DF Mars Bars with a few pints of it (if you believe all those nasty man stereotypes).

  43. STATGEEK

    Oooh a brave man lol.

  44. STATGEEK

    Do you ken you have just put me in the mood for one of my favourite cravings..Deep fried mars bar.

    Drivel
    nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo

    Might have one them too ;-)

  45. @AC
    “Gibberish” was, perhaps still is, the word for the slang of Scots travellers. Look up the song “Barry Gadgie” for an example. The singer is how I imagine Old Nat.

  46. PI

    ““Gibberish” was, perhaps still is, the word for the slang of Scots travellers. Look up the song “Barry Gadgie” for an example. The singer is how I imagine Old Nat>
    ___________

    My lips are sealed. ;-)

  47. ac

    “spare me the drivel.”

    Bloody hell, do we have to put up with this every post? Its like being in a kindergarten.

    Try answering points occasionally.

  48. “We only manage drizzle with the teacakes up here in Scotchland. We tend to wash down the haggis and DF Mars Bars with a few pints of it (if you believe all those nasty man stereotypes).”

    Right, Ta for that Statso.

  49. I had Old Nat a little more mature but with better teeth than Jimmy MacBeath
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9qfvIfsZs

  50. ROSIE

    “Bloody hell, do we have to put up with this every post? Its like being in a kindergarten”
    ________

    Only brining myself down to your level of debate.

    Lets be honest here I don’t like you and you don’t like me so lets just ignore each other from now on and that way other people can get on with debates without having to endure our commentary in between.

    Now what was it again? Tunnocks anyone?

1 2 3 4 5 7