This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%. The four point lead is lower than we’ve seen of late, and comes after a series of five and six point leads this week . In comparison Labour leads were averaging 7 points last month. Tabs are here.

YouGov also asked people if they thought the economy would be doing better or worse if Labour had won the election, and if they thought their own personal finances would be doing better or worse. 21% thought the economy would have been doing better if Labour had won in 2010, 42% that it would be doing worse, 26% thought that it would be much the same. On their own finances, 25% think they would have been better off if Labour had won, 32% worse off, 31% much the same. Tabs are here.

Meanwhile Populus’s twice weekly poll has a similar Labour lead, with topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 13%, UKIP 9%. Tabs here.

UPDATE: Ipsos MORI’s monthly poll for the Standard is also out, and it also has a four point Labour lead. Topline voting intentions are CON 33%(+1), LAB 37%(-1), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 10%(+2)


196 Responses to “Latest YouGov, Populus & MORI figures”

1 2 3 4
  1. “Oh, it was a dolly zoom, he called it “Bruce” after his lawyer, the full-size model kept shorting out so it was rarely seen, the Indianapolis speech was written by John Milius…”

    It’s not even that interesting. I’m specifically searching for references to the representation of colour in the film. The worst part is I’m not even a film student, this is a favour!

    Report comment

  2. @ Statgeek,

    Basically what Mr. N said: John Major is a Nice Neoliberal, although probably on the socially conservative side of the party.

    Gordon Brown as he governed was definitely a lefty Nice Neoliberal, but I can’t tell if that came from ideology or fear. Without the historical legacy of the Labour Party being run into the ground by the TUSN faction and New Labour’s rightward lurch to make the party electable, what does Brown actually believe? Is he genuinely in favour of the Blairite “stealth redistribution/trickledown from the financial sector” economic model he promoted in government, or would he have liked to restructure the economy but didn’t have the guts to do it? I can’t tell.

    The really tough placements are Osborne and Gove. Gove is too neocon for the Thatcherites but he’s too negative about the EU to be a Nice Neoliberal, and Osborne’s basically a Thatcherite but he’s pro-EU. (Then again, the EU splits the RL Tories in half, so I suppose my rightwing parties can have internal divisions as well…)

    Salmond is quite tricky too- he’s too pro-nationalisation to be a Nice Neoliberal and too pro-financial sector to join the TUSN, and he doesn’t really have Guardianista priorities.

    Report comment

  3. Salmond is indeed hard. You can’t just have a “Nationalists Coalition” because, as was pointed out, Leanne Wood is a Guardianista and Salmond has miles of clear water between him and the EngDems or BNP. Maybe Mebyon Kernow?

    Report comment

  4. @ Guymonde,

    The RL parties are very broad tents. Labour includes the Blairites as well, who are Nice Neoliberals, and some of the Old Labour types are pretty Back to the Future-y. (Which explains why Labour has such a large voter pool- as the leftish statist party it can draw from everyone but the Thatcherites.)

    Boris is a quintessential Nice Neoliberal. I don’t think he’s even genuinely anti-EU as long as the EU doesn’t regulate the financial sector too much; he loves free movement of labour. He’s just using Euroscepticism to play to the Thatcherite and BFP wings of the Tory base.

    Report comment

  5. marco

    Mouse over image to zoom

    Mouse over image to zoom

    “You really should be less politically tribal and critical of everyone else and spend less time on blogs all day ”

    Marco.

    I tire of your attacks. How my post you quoted could be described as “tribal” escapes me – it was a fairly mild joke.

    As for your previous comment on a previous thread I did ask you for examples – of which you have provided none – of my daily “partisan” comments – or suggest you report them to Anthony.

    Alternatively just give it all a miss please.

    Report comment

  6. Blimey!

    an attack of mouses as well as marcos.

    Report comment

  7. @MrNameless

    The early scenes of the film with Brody and his family are primary colours to emphasise a warm child-friendly domestic feel. Blue is used for the sea in order to reduce the use of red: Red will be reserved for the copious blood gushing later in the film. Yellow (a colour said to be most visible to sharks, altho I’m not sure that’s an urban myth) is used to denote danger (spectators on the beach scene wearing/using yellow will die). The Brody/Quint/Hooper team later change into all black to denote acknowledgement of danger

    Colour choices will also be dictated by the different cameras used for the early scenes on land and the later scenes filmed at sea.

    Spielberg’s director of photography on Jaws was Bill Butler, the camera operator was Michael Chapman

    See also

    h ttp://www.empireonline.com/features/jaws-filmmaking-101
    h ttp://sharkwithscarf.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/jaws-1975/
    h ttp://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2012/DVDPlayback/page1.php
    h ttp://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb04/sub/page2.htm
    h
    ttp://directorsseries.tumblr.com/post/56826361080/steven-spielberg-jaws-1975

    Report comment

  8. Spearmint

    I don’t disagree. I suppose I have always seen Blair and a few of his mates (Mandelson, Milburn) as not really Labour at all but sailing under a flag of convenience.

    I suppose you’re right about Bozza, but it brings the flaw in your naming convention to the fore, because I regard Boris as anything but nice.

    Perhaps ‘Disguised Neoliberals’ would be more appropriate name because whilst I think your characterisation of what they stand for is about right (and if it walks like a duck…) most if not all of them would dissemble from that agenda and be horrified to attract the neolib tag.

    Report comment

  9. Martyn,

    Will keep trying to look up academic sources for that stuff! Didn’t know about the yellow being visible to sharks thing though – could be good to add.

    Report comment

  10. @MrNameless

    You’re welcome.

    Now about the use of colour on “Masque of the Red Death” (who was the DP on that?), or “A Matter of Life or Death” (or “Black Narcissus”, “The Red Shoes”), or the colour-coded armies in Kurosawa’s “Ran”, or any Michael Mann film…

    Also note that colour choices are/were dictated by the film stock used and you could get different effects using fim stock with tungsten, with silver, and film that captured ultraviolet/infrared film (see day-for-night)

    Sorry, this isn’t helping…:-(

    Report comment

  11. Actually, it’s all going into my notes – some of it might not be useful now, but later in the year it might come up (for my girlfriend, of course – I’ve handed in all my work for Journalism and now have nothing to do, hence why I’m helping).

    Report comment

  12. @Martyn

    I’m fascinated – please continue to help Mr N’s girlfriend. Very impressed too!

    Report comment

  13. @Szyzygy

    Um, thank you, but you’re either referring to the use of colour in Jaws (in which case I’ve gone as far as I can), or the use of colour in fim generally (in which case the subject is too big!)

    The bits about Jaws are sourced so MrNameless is free to use them with confidence. The other bits are from memory, so may not be accurate. Anyhoo…

    When asking questions about the use of colour, find out who the director, the director of photography, the ncamera operator and the lighting director are. They will have their hobby horses and the nteraction between them dictats the look of the films. The DP on “Masque of the Red Death” (a film with colour-coded scenes) was (from memory) Nicolas Roeg, and the one on “The Devils” was Derek Jarman.

    Yes, Kurosawa colour-coded the armies on “Ran”. Michael Mann also uses colours to indicate emotion on his films, sometimes to good effect (e.g. Manhunter), sometimes not (I thought he used it too obviously on “The Insider”)

    The reference to “AMOLAD” was due both to its use of black-and-white for Heaven and colour for Earth, and a remark of (from memory) Marius Goring saying “we are starved of colour up there”. Black Narcissus *really* overdoses on this, with a pivotal scene hinging on the colour of a lipstick. Powell/Pressburger (individually and collectively) used colour well.

    Prior to digital filming, the choice of film stock was crucial, with silver film in the mid 90′s (Alien: Resurrection) allowing different colour choices (did this enable the desaturated palette of “Saving Private Ryan”?). Tungsten film and film that captures ultraviolet or infrared can be used in filming day for night. Oliver Stone used multiple different film stock to good effect in JFK, and to bad effect in Natural Born Killers.

    And of course, there’s Technicolor…:-) Hello, Wizard of Oz

    In these digital days, I think a lot of this is now done in post and new tropes (see “Orange/Blue Contrast”) are kicking in.

    I shall now shut up…:-(

    Report comment

  14. I think those looking to pigeon hole Salmond are making the mistake that the English media constantly make. They try to categorise him according to their own known categories, fail and therefore dismiss him and his policies as alien (or that’s how it seems). He doesn’t conform, therefore, his ideas can’t work.

    The closest they have to the UK in recent memory is the Republic of Ireland, and with that you get Sinn Fein, so many dislike it out of hand.

    A simple Google of ‘left-wing nationalism’ simplifies it a lot.

    As a ‘piggy in the middle’ onlooker, I can’t understand why the more left-wing folk of Scotland don’t hitch on to his bandwagon (as being more left-wing than New Labour). Some do, but most don’t. Maybe they did in 2011.

    In my humble opinion, the SNP walk a line of socially left, economically centrist (or as many things to as many people as possible). Not a bad stance, but it can’t last.

    Report comment

  15. They did the shark black and white to show it also had a nice side.

    Not many people know that – not even ole Martyn.

    Report comment

  16. Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 13th December – Con 32%, Lab 38%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%; APP -30.

    Report comment

  17. Good Morning All from Bournemouth beach.
    Labour seems to be holding to its lead, which is not large, but seems solid at the moment. Approval rating seems to be fluctuating.

    Report comment

  18. Latest Yougov Poll I expect is about right though the Cross break for the Conservatives in London seems a tad high and that for Labour in the rest of the South a bit low.

    Labour continues as it has for the Last 3 Years to hover around the high 30′s/low 40′s and the Conservatives appear stuck in the low to mid 30′s.

    I can’t see any particular predictable reason for the situation to change in the next 18 Months so we are down to “events”.

    Report comment

  19. @Spearmint
    I guess that I’d have to vote for your Guardianistas Party, but where’s the love for the left that have the goals of TUSUAN but without the methods of it?
    Those on the mutualist/syndicalist/anarchist left are always forgotten by these sorts of things.

    I guess that we’re still left with tactical voting. ;)

    @Martyn,
    If Tim just grabbed the European level parties, why did he still lump the European United Left, the Green-European Free Alliance and Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats together?
    While European Freedom and Democracy is his ‘Freedom Party’, the EPP and ECR are lumped together to form his ‘National Party’ and ALDE is his ‘Liberal Party’.

    It seems like he effectively said, ‘I know all of the right-wing factions in British politics and err.. then there’s the lefties’.
    As if the left is one homogeneous blob where we all believe in traditional big-state social democracy.

    And if you think that the centre-left’s antagonism to the left (and vice versa) is big, you should see the factionalism on the far left.
    I would say that the libertarian/anarchist-left probably hate the SWP/Marxist-Leninist-left far more than their antagonism goes to the centre-left.

    Ashcroft Poll Alert (20,062 people), since we’re discussing factions, it’s perfect timing.

    He splits the population, in terms of immigration, in to 7 categories -
    Universal Hostility (16% of the population), Against all Immigration.
    Cultural Concerns (16% of the population), Against immigration due to concerns about public services and changes to culture.
    Competing for Jobs (14%), Against immigration due to concerns about unemployment or wages. (This would be the Old-Labour Eurosceptic view).
    Fighting for Entitlements (12%), Against immigration due to concerns about public services and benefits being priorities toward immigrants.
    Comfortable Pragmatists (22%), Neither for nor against Immigration but seeing the costs and benefits of both.
    Urban Harmony (9%), Neither for nor against immigration necessarily, but on balance feel that immigration adds to the culture of the nation.
    Multicultural Militancy (10%), Overwhelmingly positive about immigration.

    So an anti-immigration coalition could effectively have 58% while a pro-immigration coalition could have 41%.

    But if you were to try to unite the anti-immigration vote, you’d probably have to focus on the cost to public services rather than a general cultural or anti-immigration view.

    VI for Each Group (May 2013) -
    Universal Hostility -
    Con 18%, Lab 28%, UKIP 42%, Lib 3%
    Cultural Concerns -
    Con 37%, Lab 25%, UKIP 27%, Lib 6%
    Competing for Jobs -
    Con 23%, Lab 45%, UKIP 19%, Lib 7%
    Fighting for Entitlements -
    Con 31%, Lab 33%, UKIP 22%, Lib 6%
    Comfortable Pragmatists -
    Con 32%, Lab 41%, UKIP 6%, Lib 12%
    Urban Harmony -
    Con 32%, Lab 45%, UKIP 6%, Lib 11%
    Militant Multicultural -
    Con 13%, Lab 56%, UKIP 1%, Lib 15%

    Compared to an overall VI of -
    Con 27%, Lab 38%, UKIP 18%, Lib 9%

    And for those who’re interested, since it’s a subsample of 2647 -
    LibDem 2010s -
    Con 9%, Lab 32%, Lib 35%, UKIP 15%

    Report comment

  20. Lindsay Anderson used to joke about the academic interpretations of his use of black & white film in ‘If’, saying it was simply a matter of saving money.

    Report comment

  21. What I find interesting is that economic competence usually swings behind a party – yet that does not seem to be helping Cons as much as it should. The latest economic good news, plus the gap of perceived competence between Lab & Con is not delivering a strong surge for Cameron et al (I note that the Observer poll today still has a 7 point lead for Lab).

    Could it be that the only group who are changing their minds on economic competence are Cons, who would have voted that way anyway – and not defectors from Lab or Lib Dem

    As for Scotland, living in Berwick upon Tweed if they go I think we will have to campaign to be returned to Scotland too! London is a long way away

    Final comment, why is all the press coverage of us being over run by Bulgarians not helping UKIP?

    Lots of odd things happening

    Report comment

  22. I wouldn’t count out a Lib Dem resurgence. If Rawnsley in the Observer is to be believed (and, to be fair, it’s not a negligible ‘if’), the Lib Dems and the Tories are getting more and more fractious with one another.

    If the Tories start getting very angry with the Lib Dems about some of their more right-wing policies being blocked, I wouldn’t rule out some of the more left-wing Lib Dem defectors to Labour returning.

    Report comment

  23. Eric

    The reason why the improvement in the economic situation is not helping the government is because more people feel excluded than included. The UK has lost the social cohesion that came about due to the external threat and two world wars.
    For many outside of M25 land the government is looked upon as totally London centric that doesn’t give a toss about anyone who lives outside of the gilded South East. That will lead many to vote Labour, (not with any feeling of hope) and UKIP out of a desire for revenge.

    Report comment

  24. Have enjoyed the discussion about different types of political parties. Borgen has a lot to answer for!

    When you realise the range of views within our existing parties, almost coalitions within themselves, then it is remarkable how friendship, loyalty and sheer habit must keep these groups together over the years.

    I would only say that there were even fascinating political differences between factions of the ruling party in an era and country we must not talk about, between nationalists and socialists.

    Strange, I think, considering what this country has been through in the last five years or so, that there is not more interest or passion for politics – outside the virtual portals of UKPR that is. Hope this vacuum will be filled with one of the nice parties…? It’s a bit too quiet I think – or maybe that’s just East Anglia?

    Report comment

  25. Yes there has not been much discussion about how solid Labours polling appears to be. I presume the assumption by many commentators is that as soon as the election starts, any Labour lead will vanish, as people have to decide who they want to run the country.

    Can the Tories get above 35%, if UKIP run a full campaign in 2015 ? If UKIP do very well in the 2014 EU elections, they may use this as a springboard to try to win a number of Westminster seats. I would think that UKIP will concentrate their efforts in say 50 seats, which they have a chance of winning. I am sure they will field candidates in other seats, but not where the current MP is a Eurosceptic.

    Report comment

  26. I have quite a large post in moderation, but I can’t figure out what triggered it…

    Report comment

  27. [Snip]

    @Chris Riley

    “I wouldn’t rule out some of the more left-wing Lib Dem defectors to Labour returning.”

    You’re sensible not to rule anything out, only a fool making unfounded assertions would do that, but I think one should also examine the balance of probabilities that lie behind the various potential scenarios. If you do that, then the likelihood of outcome can be put into some reasonable perspective.

    Let’s take the possibility of the Lib Dems recovering some of their lost voters and let’s look at this in the context of the certainty, with FPTP, of tactical voting boosting their percentage share anyway at the General Election. That inevitability is a different hypothesis to the one that suggests that voters will swing back to them for positive reasons. For that to happen, quite a few will have to forgive and forget why they deserted them after they went into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010. That was the trigger for the one truly plate-shifting event of this Parliament. These people will ask a simple question, won’t they? What’s changed and why should I give them another chance to do exactly the same again?

    It seems to me that the Lib Dem voters who jumped ship to Labour in 2010 did so for breach of trust reasons and I think they may take an awful lot of persuading to do the deal with Clegg, Alexander, Laws et al again, no matter what bones and volte faces are thrown in their direction by drowning Lib Dem leaders involved in life-saving manoeuvres in May 2015.

    Will they want to risk getting fooled again?

    Report comment

  28. UKIP’s objective may not be to win a lot of seats, but to secure a lot of second places, so they gain the status in those seats as “the alternative”.

    Where the Referendum Party and BNP failed to break through was the inability to look like anything more than a protest vote because they had no serious prospects of gaining anything[1].

    With UKIP, it’s entirely reasonable that they could win as many as 100 second-places. The problem is that these might just be safe Tory seats where people feel “safe” to vote UKIP.

    [1] Of course, in the case of the Referendum Party, it didn’t help to have their founder and main financial backer die two months after the 1997 election. For the BNP, it was because they looked like scary nutters. UKIP have managed to put a marginally more respectable and a touch less extreme look to the whole thing.

    Report comment

  29. @ Crossbat11
    “It seems to me that the Lib Dem voters who jumped ship to Labour in 2010 did so for breach of trust reasons”

    No, they did it because although they were warned that cuts had to be made, no-one likes cuts and now the prefer to opt for a party that pretends cuts don’t actually have to be made.

    Sadly, a large chunk of floating voters (of which Lib Dems have a very large share) will go for whoever promises to take the pain away.

    People had ridiculously high expectations of what one party with 57 MPs can do in the midst of a crisis in the public finances and an economy that was in a terrible state. The felt let down that the party they voted for wasn’t able to deliver on every single thing they promised.If you call that “breach of trust” then feel free, but the Lib Dems did not “breach trust”, there just wasn’t any money or enough MPs to do the stuff they wanted to do. I call it the “disappointment factor”.

    I don’t think people make up their minds on how to vote in any rational way anyway. It’s whoever is able to appeal to that irrationality in particular ways that wins.

    Report comment

  30. CROSSBAT11.
    The Reds are coming to the Villa later.

    Report comment

  31. @ Tingedfringe,

    The Cooperative Party can run joint candidates with one of the larger leftwing parties, like usual. ;)

    @ Crossbat11,

    I agree. I think the key question for most of the Lib Dem -> Lab defectors is “Would they form a coalition with the Tories again?” Until the Lib Dems can answer with a firm “No”- and that’s impossible with Clegg still in charge- I doubt they’ll be coming home. (Barring some hideous Labour implosion.)

    @ Mr. Nameless,

    Ukip are very likely to rack up some second places in safe northern Labour seats as well, I’d bet.

    Potentially we’re going to see substantial reductions in both major parties’ vote shares without it making any difference to the overall result, as Ukip soak up Tory votes in Tory and Labour heartlands and the Lib/Lab tactical voters return to the Lib Dems in the South.

    Report comment

  32. “Sadly, a large chunk of floating voters (of which Lib Dems have a very large share) will go for whoever promises to take the pain away.”

    A rather patronising view. Maybe they just have different reasons for supporting a particular party.

    Report comment

  33. @ RC,

    People had ridiculously high expectations of what one party with 57 MPs can do in the midst of a crisis in the public finances and an economy that was in a terrible state

    I know, right? They assumed a party that campaigned on an “austerity would be an economic disaster” platform and very publicly pledged to vote against any increase in tuition fees would not back austerity to the hilt and vote through a tuition fee rise. Silly voters. What were they thinking?

    Report comment

  34. And really, to be fair Clegg and Cable just said austerity would be a disaster for the country- they never said they wouldn’t implement it. So you can’t even accuse them of breaking a promise there.

    Report comment

  35. Bit like Howe saying he didn’t break his 1979 promise not to double VAT as he’d only increased it from 8% to 15%.

    Report comment

  36. New thread available!

    Report comment

  37. @ RC

    ‘@ Crossbat11
    “It seems to me that the Lib Dem voters who jumped ship to Labour in 2010 did so for breach of trust reasons”

    No, they did it because although they were warned that cuts had to be made, no-one likes cuts and now the prefer to opt for a party that pretends cuts don’t actually have to be made.’

    I have spoken to many LD defectors on the doorstep and other places since the GE. I can assure you that from my experience, Crossbat is absolutely correct.

    What they hadn’t bargained for was that their own left of centre vote would go to prop up a right wing Government. They believed the LDs when they said they wouldn’t put up tuition fees, when they said they would oppose an increase in VAT, when they said they would protect Sure Start. They have also been incensed by the LibDem support for the NHS reorganisation and the bedroom tax.

    I really can’t see the vast majority of those I have spoken to coming back to the LibDems before the next election.

    Report comment

  38. @ Spearmint

    “They assumed a party that campaigned on an “austerity would be an economic disaster” platform”

    When did they say that? They didn’t, did they? Clegg said there would have to be massive cuts. Everyone did.

    As for tuition fees, they made a promise they couldn’t keep because there wasn’t enough money to fund higher education tuition through general taxation. That’s not betrayal, it’s not having enough money to do something. Betrayal is when you could do something, but choose not to, which clearly is not the case.

    I think, however, that like you, a lot of voters choose to see things in a way that forgets the reality of the public finances and numbers of MPs because it suits them to pretend there aren’t massive limits on public spending. It’s a message people just don’t want to hear or to accept and they’ll switch their votes to someone who pretend money exists to fund things they like.

    Report comment

  39. RC

    As a Labour Party member in 1983, I fully appreciate the warm, comforting appeal of the refrain, “it’s not OUR fault, it’s the voters’”.

    Doesn’t help in either the short or long runs though.

    Report comment

  40. @TINGEDFRINGE

    “…If Tim just grabbed the European level parties, why did he still lump the European United Left, the Green-European Free Alliance and Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats together? While European Freedom and Democracy is his ‘Freedom Party’, the EPP and ECR are lumped together to form his ‘National Party’ and ALDE is his ‘Liberal Party’. It seems like he effectively said, ‘I know all of the right-wing factions in British politics and err.. then there’s the lefties’. As if the left is one homogeneous blob where we all believe in traditional big-state social democracy…”

    I agree with you. I think that’s exactly what he did, and that may be exactly what he thinks. In fairness, by definition grouping people together results in the ungainly lumping you describle, and seeing as I did a series of graphs with only four groups (Lab/Lib/Con/Other) I’m hardly in a position to complain…:-(

    Report comment

  41. @ RC,

    When did they say that?

    Saturday, the 13th of March 2010.

    Nick Clegg:

    “George Osborne and David Cameron… seem to think that one should start pulling out the carpet from under the feet of the British economy the day after the next general election… I think it would be an act of economic masochism for us to start as a country cutting big time in a few weeks time when the economy can’t sustain it… So if anyone had to rely on our support and we were involved in government, of course we would say no, do it sensibly.”

    (So actually, I gave him too much credit- they did promise not to back austerity.)

    You can watch him say it right here if you like: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/lib+dems+aposwill+not+back+early+spending+cutsapos/3578857.html

    Report comment

  42. @Fringe

    Being pedantic, but:

    “He splits the population, in terms of immigration, in to 7 categories -
    Universal Hostility (16% of the population), Against all Immigration.
    Cultural Concerns (16% of the population), Against immigration due to concerns about public services and changes to culture.
    Competing for Jobs (14%), Against immigration due to concerns about unemployment or wages. (This would be the Old-Labour Eurosceptic view).
    Fighting for Entitlements (12%), Against immigration due to concerns about public services and benefits being priorities toward immigrants.
    Comfortable Pragmatists (22%), Neither for nor against Immigration but seeing the costs and benefits of both.
    Urban Harmony (9%), Neither for nor against immigration necessarily, but on balance feel that immigration adds to the culture of the nation.
    Multicultural Militancy (10%), Overwhelmingly positive about immigration.

    So an anti-immigration coalition could effectively have 58% while a pro-immigration coalition could have 41%.”

    Shouldn’t that be 58 % and 19%, with 22% neither for or against?

    Report comment

  43. StatGeek
    You’re correct.
    Perhaps I should have been clearer – 41% wouldn’t be interested in being united by anti-immigration policy. But only 19% are for immigration.

    I do find the most interesting bit to be the diversity in opposition – you could generally lump the first two groups as the ‘right-wing’/UKIP stance (32%) and second two (26%) as the ‘left-wing’ anti-immigration stance.
    The small-c conservative view is the largest, but still not a majority.

    Report comment

  44. RC
    “Look, the decision on how we govern this country and how people vote shouldn’t be driven by fear of what the markets might do. Let’s say there was a Conservative government. Let’s say a Conservative government announced, in that sort of macho way: “We’re gonna slash public spending by a third, we’ll slash this, we’ll slash this, we’ll do it tomorrow. We have to take early, tough action.”

    Just imagine the reaction of my constituents in south-west Sheffield. I represent a constituency that has more people working in public services as a proportion of the workforce than any other constituency in the country. Lots of people working in universities, the hospitals and so on.

    They have no Conservative councillors. They have no Conservative MPs. There are no Conservative MPs or Conservative councillors as far as the eye can see in South Yorkshire. People like that are going to say: “Who are these people telling us that they are are going to suddenly take our jobs away? What mandate do they have? I didn’t vote for them. No one around here voted for them.””

    Report comment

  45. @TingedFringe

    Ireland cut public sector pensions drastically and now they are allegedly about to boom.

    Report comment

  46. wolf

    In the UK the coalition has:

    Frozen public sector pay while inflation has roared (effective and growing pay cut of quite a bit)

    Increased pension contributions by 3%plus

    For pensions in payment reduced inflation protection from RPI to CPI

    Changed the pension scheme from final salary to career average

    Ended “contracting out” another 1 and quarter percent pension contribution increase when the 3%plus has worked through.

    Please don’t assume we are not taking our licks.

    Report comment

1 2 3 4