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. Allan Christie

    “The Lib/Dems will return to the Libs, creature of habits and UKIP’ers will return to the Tories.”

    As I said….


    “I just hope you are a Conservative party strategist”

    No no just stating my opinion and the way I see it. As ever all my comments come with health warnings, after all I’m not an expert.

  3. Norbold
    I suspect the Conservative Party is glad Allan Christie isn’t. Se my earlier post on the breakdown of the ‘worse’ ‘better’ under Labour polling. I suspect Allan hasn’t looked at the tables.

  4. Howard,

    I understand the point, and maybe it isn’t relevant to the national picture. But since we’re all here out of an interest in politics, they’re a bit of a fun sideshow to look at now and then!

  5. @Howard
    “I use asterisks for emphasis as I can’t find out how to use italics when replying on this site.”

    To use italics, you need to take the following sequence but don’t leave spaces between the characters either side of whatever you wanted to say..

    whatever you wanted to say

    The above should now read whatever you wanted to say

    If you wanted to use bold, the sequence is the same but replace the i with a b.

    In the absence of a preview function, I just hope to god this has worked…..

  6. I agree concerning the long term uncertainty caused to the Electricity generation industry.
    From just a political viewpoint I think Ed M showed his hand too early in the political cycle on this issue, maybe encouraged into it due to a poor Summer. Though I don’t agree with Politicians getting involved in any industry, (if history has taught us anything !) , I think his announcement would have gained much greater political advantage if it had been put forward at the end of 2014 and not 2013.

  7. @AW

    I have a post in moderation that was an attempt to explain to Howard how to get italics but since the post didn’t show the necessary information, please will you delete it because it is worthless.

  8. @Mr Nameless

    This earlier gem was worth repeating …!

    “Also, why do LDs run as “Liberal Democrat Focus Team”? It makes them sound like the least useful superhero team ever.”


    How kind. I suppose if one writes out the posting in another page and then does a copy and paste, one can achieve same, but it seems a lot of fuss.

    My last was not meant so unkindly as it came over but do look at the tables and see if you agree.

    Mr N

    I must admit one thing that came out did interest me, namely the pathetic turnout for a CC division. In my area that’s about 7000 electors on average.

  10. @ Howard

    Italics: to start & to end. Omit the spaces which I’ve had to put in so that it displays as text.

  11. @ Howard

    Spaces didn’t ‘fool’ it; I shall put X instead:

    Italics to start & to end. Omit the Xs (or replace with spaces!) & it should work.

  12. Nope, that didn’t work either but I see Chordata has posted a link which should show how to do it.

  13. @Rich

    If people were sceptical of Labour’s policy announcements, we’d see their VI going down. It’s holding pretty steady despite an exceptionally hostile media.

    What seems to be happening is the Tory VI going up, independent of what Labour does.

  14. Looking at VI objectively. whichever of the two main parties one prefers the a minimum of 60% don’t like them or want them and another 30% can’t be bothered or don’t wish to vote.

    Comments from either side banging on about what “the people” decide are really far off the mark.

    A tiny, tiny proportion in a few constituencies is what it is all about.

    Blair’s “landslide” was a trick of the FPTP system and, in reality, was no such thing.

  15. The figures don’t read well:

    I mean that of the 70% who vote, typically somewhere over 60% of them don’t vote for the winning party.

    That then leaves a further 30% who certainly aren’t bothered enough to vote for them – or anyone else.

    Out of the entire VI that means OVER 70% don’t vote for the winning party – either out of dislike or lack of interest.

    Hardly surprising then that we get negative figures about economic credibility or Health Service issues and so and it makes you realise how stupid it is to make too much of them, as the papers and “experts” usually do.

  16. This is quite interesting and will trigger some debate. Not sure I would see George Osborne as a Liberal.

  17. Chordata and Amber

    I am very grateful

  18. @Rosie and Daisie

    In 2005 Labour won a 66 majority when under 22% of the available electorate voted for them.

    I can’t think why the Conservatives and Labour want to keep FPTP.

    Any ideas anyone ;-)

  19. I presume that no one is aware that SPD members have voted for the grand coalition between labour and conservative (small letters chosen) in DE.

    This means a national minimum wage of €8.50 per hour. They already had many such sub-national implementations. it’s not a great one though is it? Still, it should deal with some exploitation.

  20. @Howard

    I wonder what Cabinet combination would a Conservative / Labour Party have !?

  21. Anthony I am trying very hard not to be partisan in my comments it is a shame we appear to have a number today which are little better than party political broadcasts.

    Saying I vote Conservative/Labour/LD etc. therefore my parties polices are always right and the others are always wrong doesn’t actually offer any insight on VI .

    It may not surprise too many but I will vote Labour forlorn as it is when the incumbent Tory regularly picks up 50% of the vote (He’s not a bad constituency MP actually) as a member of the Labour Party, but the people who will decide the next election are unlikely to be old gits set in their ways like me or the even older gits in the Tory Party it is those who may choose to change their opinions in marginal constituencies who are not likely to be impressed by the we are always right they are always wrong attitudes of the Tribal affiliates.

  22. Testing:


    Apologies to AW, but I wondered just how far this might go for polling data presentation purposes.

  23. Nope…html tables do not work. Worth a tray, as it would have been a good feature when adding polling / election info.

  24. @Statgeek

    I also find posting tables very tricky.

    If you find an easy way, please let me know!

  25. @Steve

    Here, here !

  26. @Steve

    I’ve looked back at today’s posts, and I don’t see many saying “I think x is better that Y” etc.

  27. @RosieandDaisie

    ” Out of the entire VI that means OVER 70% don’t vote for the winning party – either out of dislike or lack of interest.”

    It’s worse, much worse than that. The Tories secured the support of 22% of the people eligible to vote in the last General Election. That means 78% of the electorate either voted for other parties or didn’t vote at all.

    Staggering statistics that should worry us all and why it’s a nonsense to pretend we live in a functioning representative democracy. In that sense, Russel Brand was dead right.

  28. @statgeek

    Is a tray a posh way of saying try ( a bit like creche is a posh way of saying one has collided one’s Bentley?)
    I didn’t have you as posh.

  29. “@Steve

    Here, here !”

    There, there.

    [Its “hear, hear” actually by the way.]

  30. Looks like the gap is narrowing and we could be seeing a Tory lead very soon. Maybe a few points but nothing more I guess, until we get much closer to the election.

  31. ”The real interest lies in the difference between the two questions. While 42% say the economy would be doing worse under Labour, only 32% said the same for the finances of themselves and their family. So part of what Labour has to do is to convince people to vote in their own self-interest – not usually a difficult task, especially as austerity rhetoric may be wearing thin after five years.”

    Good point, R Mex, and you know what? I speak with a friendly smile (honest), but whereas all your posts are interesting, it’s great to read one without footnotes.

    Report comment

  32. ”Hi Rich,

    ”I just wonder if the small increase in Cons and reduction in Labour is realisation amongst some voters that some of Labours big policy announcements have real problems.

    Take the energy fix, since this was announced, energy firms have been knocked about and lost value, taking billions off pension fund values, therefore costing the tax payer billions. At the same time , it has added uncertainty to the industry, damaged green investment and taken around £10bn of windfarms investment off the table through cancelled projects linked to the uncertainty in the industry. Is this the business environment we want?”

    Small increase for Conservative is on the ball, ok, but reduction for Labour?

    The question re energy is, surely, have the companies been ripping off the customer? If so it’s about time we had uncertainty in that industry and that they were sorted out, isn’t it?

  33. rosieanddaisie


    Here, here !”

    There, there.’


  34. I can’t see Gordon Brown being in the “Solidarity Party” as they’ve called it (I would have gone for Progressive Party, since the people they’ve picked don’t sound that communistic).

    As for Thatcher as she governed being “supportive of immigration” and “permissive of personal lifestyles”, I refer them to Section 28 and her comment about people feeling “swamped”.

    Other than that, it pretty well captures the four major blocks in British politics. The Solidarity Party would be broadly social democratic rather than standing for “aggressive redistribution” (whatever that means).

  35. MrN
    !rather than standing for “aggressive redistribution” (whatever that means).”

    Its where you give people other people’s stuff, whether they want it or not, under threat of violence.

  36. The December ComRes online poll for the Indy on Sundday/S Mirror sees LAB lead up 1
    Con 29%=
    Lab 36%+1
    UKIP 18%+1
    LD 8% -2

    Opinium/Observer poll
    CON 30%+2
    LAB 37%+2
    LD 8%=
    UKIP 16%-3

    Both polls have Lab leads of 7 it will be interesting to see tonight’s YouGov

  37. StatGeek
    Sorry that I wasn’t very clear, but thanks for the answer you did give.

    R Huckle
    I assume that’s from Tim Montgomery’s article (Can’t view, due to paywall)?
    I would definitely put Osborne in the Liberal party that Tim has constructed.
    Osborne is clearly a classic liberal but pragmatic enough to understand that the public generally want strong public services.

    Personally I think that his theoretical parties are interesting but funny because it completely lacks any sort of diversity on the left.

    The left has been broadly divided between it’s various factions (while the right has been broadly united) for well over a hundred years.
    If we had a better electoral system and a reboot of the parties, we’d probably largely have quite a few leftist parties.

    Of course, if his model did come to pass, it would mean that the ‘solidarity party’ would have to be an ANC-style Popular Front party. Which would mean a perpetually united left and potentially near permanent left-wing government (especially if we kept FPTP).

    It’s interesting that also there’s a distinct lack of small-c conservative ‘traditional value’ representation in his model. And there’d definitely be plenty of those on both the left and right.

    So I don’t think he’s really unpicked the various factions that actually exist and then what coalitions would unify into parties.

    It is, IMHO, a discussion worth having though – even if it is only theoretical.

  38. It may also be time to rehash this polling work from Populus, if we’re talking about parties being coalitions of groups of parties –

    Rather than deciding which groups to put people in beforehand, they asked a series of political questions and then created the groups from the data.

    So according to Tim Montgomery’s model, the ‘Freedom Party’ would likely get the votes of the 9% classified as ‘Comfortable Nostalgia’. The Optimistic contentment (22%) would likely go to The Liberals. ‘Long-Term despair’ and ‘Cosmopolitan Critics’ would likely go to the Solidarity Party (15%+9%=24%).

    The ‘Hard-Pressed Anxiety’ would likely split between the Solidarity and National parties (13%) and ‘Calm Persistance’ (31%) would likely split between the Nationals, Liberals and Solidarity.

    So if we, for the sake of a very rough argument, split the Hard-Pressed and Persistant equally between each theoretical party, we’d get roughly –
    Solidarity – 41%.
    Liberals – 32%
    Nationals – 17%
    Freedom – 9%

    The Liberals wouldn’t work with the Freedom Party, so would likely flit between supporting coalitions with solidarity (as their numbers go up) or the Nationals (as their numbers do the same).
    So effectively you’d have perpetual coalitions with a centre-right Liberal party.
    It’s the things of Nick Clegg’s dreams. ;)

  39. I think it’s telling that in Montgomerie’s National party, only one of his putative candidates is British! Not sure how well a frontbench lineup of a Canadian, a German and an Australian would go over.

    And yeah, sharing Mr. Nameless’s lol at “Thatcher as she governed”. I guess it’s easy to see her as “permissive about personal lifestyles” if you’re a conservative straight white male.

  40. I find it generally pretty weird how much reverence Libertarians have for Thatcher, given that she moved local council powers to central government and placed pretty stringent moral regulations on people’s lives.

    For right-wing conservatives, yes, a hero – but not so much for Liberals, surely?

  41. If I was splitting everyone into new parties I think it would be more like:

    Trade Unionists and Socialists United Against Neoliberalism:
    (Len McCluskey, Dennis Skinner, John McDonnell, Tony Benn)

    Very statist, very redistributionist, very pro-workers’ rights. Anti-EU because it involves too much free movement of labour, and generally isolationist. Vaguely pro-green, but will always prioritise cost-of-living, employment or pro-manufacturing concerns over the environment; if there was still a coal mining industry they’d be the biggest champions of coal-fired power stations. Socially progressive, but not focused on it. They want to renationalise most public utilities and see the British economy become much more like the German one, a manufacturing-based economy in which unions work with the government to set wages.

    (Ed Miliband, Caroline Lucas, Tim Farron, Vince Cable, Leanne Wood)

    Also statist and fairly redistributionist, but their priority is living in what they define as “a civilised country” rather than defending the workers. They’re very pro-EU. The environment is a huge concern for them and trumps cost-of-living; they want to raise fuel duty and energy prices so people will consume less fossil fuel. They’re the biggest advocates of socially progressive politics and civil liberties. Internationally they are in favour of greater engagement, but not the nasty kind involving guns. They’re indifferent to the broad question of public vs. private utility ownership, but want to restructure the economy so it’s much greener and there is more localism.

    Nice Neoliberals:
    (Tony Blair, David Miliband, David Cameron, Ken Clarke, Nick Clegg)

    Their goal is to make the world safe for international finance. To that end, they favour opening up the public sector to competition and privatisation, but a moderate level of state investment in the poor so that the great underclass does not lose faith in unfettered capitalism. Internationally, they are pro-EU as a free trade agreement, and want aggressive neocon foreign policy to open up new markets in places like Iraq. They’re socially progressive and vaguely in favour of “green crap”, but not to the point of actually spending state money on it.

    Thatcherites Red in Tooth and Claw:
    (Peter Bone, John Redwood, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Farage)

    Very anti-statist and anti-redistribution. Their goal is to restructure the state so there is less of it and people can keep more of their earnings. They want to leave the EU primarily because they hate the labour laws, although they’re also concerned about national sovereignty. They want to privatise absolutely everything- if they could they’d abolish the entire welfare state including public education and healthcare. They hate “green crap” and generally dislike the government telling people how to live their lives, although they make exceptions when it comes to gay rights, drug legalisation or preserving the green belt. Lowering taxes is their highest priority.

    The Back to the Future Party:
    (Peter Hitchens, possibly Paul Nuttall? This group contains most Ukip voters but has almost no representation on the national stage.)

    Very statist, but rightwing. They want to renationalise the public utilities and bring back hanging. They’re keen to leave the EU and pursue an isolationist foreign policy, except when British protectorates are threatened in which case they want to send in the gunboats. They’re socially conservative and very concerned about immigration and cost-of-living. They hate political correctness and green policies, although in some areas they may want to preserve the countryside. They’re happy with current taxation levels and might even want to tax the wealthy more, but they want the proceeds to go toward military spending rather than benefits.

  42. @Spearmint

    I’d love to know where you think John Major and Gordon Brown would be, within those groupings you gave.

  43. The Back to the Future Party would, let’s not beat around the bush, include Nick Griffin and the BNP, since that description fits their ideology pretty well.

  44. Statgeek,

    Brown goes on the left hand side of Nice Neoliberals, John Major on the right hand, more traditionalist side.

  45. Saturday night. Lots of new parties to go to.

  46. My Saturday so far consists of posting on here and reading through endless academic writing about the movie Jaws. Let me tell you, there is no better way to ruin a film than to hear what academics think of it.

  47. @Spearmint

    Yep, good call: seems about right. I laughed out loud at your “They’re socially progressive and vaguely in favour of “green crap”, but not to the point of actually spending state money on it.” line


    You have to distinguish Thatcher as she was in parliament/government from Thatcher as she was after office, and from Thatcher as she has now become idolised. IRL she wasn’t the libertarian sans peur et sans reproche she’s now been sanctified as. Peter Hain had her right: she was a class warrior, who fought valiantly for the English upper-working class up to the lower-upper class, from about Lincolnshire down to the South Coast, and so constructed a coalition that won three (possibly four) elections. That this involved the alienation of the North of England, Wales and Scotland I suspect didn’t concern her overmuch and, since she was beating everybody who took her on, nobody pointed out it would cause long-term problems for the Conservative Party. This alienation from some constituencies that should be fertile ground was a concern of the – to make up a name – the Project for Majority Conservatism that used to post so often on ConHome but seems to have been sidelined as the Tory party now prefers to focus on immigration and Euroscepticism.

    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…:-)


    I suspect Tim Montgomerie just ripped off the political parties at European level (the Europarties). To be fair it’s not a bad technique: the Europarties exist, are defined, measurable in time and space and can be linked to other statistics, so from a statistical point of view it’s a very useful method. But in converting from the general to the particular he’s ignored the fact that the Labour party is subtly different from its European equivalents, being (ultimately) the party of the unions rather than social democrats (old warriors will remember the old democratic socialist/social democrat arguments)

    I did your Populus “what group are you” quiz and was classified “Calm Persistence”. Which seems about right.

  48. @rosieanddaisie

    Here, here !”
    There, there.
    [Its “hear, hear” actually by the way.]

    You really should be less politically tribal and critical of everyone else and spend less time on blogs all day ;-)

  49. Very good Spearmint.
    Alternatively you could take the first two groups and define them as ‘Labour’ (left and right wings of old labour) and the next two as ‘Conservative’ (Heathite and b*st*rd wings thereof).

    I’m not sure whether you have Cameron in the right place. Come to think of it, I don’t think he is either.

    And as a Londoner I have to ask…..
    Where’s Bozza?

1 2 3 4