Survation have a post-budget poll in the Mail on Sunday tomorrow with topline voting intention figures of CON 34%(+4), LAB 35%(+1), LDEM 9%(-3), UKIP 15%(-3). Changes are from their Sky News poll in January.

The one point Labour lead is the smallest Survation have shown since 2011 and Cameron’s bounce from the Europe “veto”. As ever, don’t get too excited over one poll: it may be a budget reaction, or it may be normal variation within the margin of error. Wait till we see some more polling before jumping to judgement, we should still have at least the YouGov/Sunday Times this weekend (as well as a Scottish ICM poll).

UPDATE: That was quick, the front page of the Sunday Times appears to show the weekly YouGov poll reporting the Conservatives on 36% and Labour on 37%. Presumably we’ll have to wait until tomorrow morning to see the full details of the poll.

120 Responses to “Survation/Mail on Sunday – CON 34, LAB 35, LD 9, UKIP 15”

1 2 3
  1. Good to see Danny Alexander on Marr explaining the hard choices they’ve had to make, which he characterised as cracking down on tax avoidance and transferring the responsibility for public sector pension deficits away from the treasury.

  2. “@ bluebob

    I am not sure they will be able to R Huckle, the public will be reminded every day in the run up to 2015 of the state Labour left the country in.

    The worst is yet to come for Labour, in my opinion of course.”

    The next 14 months are going to very uncertain for UK politics in general. We have the EU elections, which may see the Tories in third, behind Labour and UKIP. We then have the Scottish referendum which will be very close. If Scots vote for independence, this would be a nightmare for Labour and Lib Dems, but not so much for the Tories.

    I am not sure the pension changes will be as positive for the Tories, as currently seems to be the case. There is quite a lot of risk attached to the new policy, because people will want access to cash to spend. Whatever advice people receive, there will be temptation for people to use the money to help out families with debts or house purchasing. There was an article in the press, that house prices may rise by 30% due to the pension change, as money is put into property instead. This just makes property more unaffordable to many.

    Labour will no doubt campaign using the polling evidence that people see the Tories as being out of touch, with the lifes of most people. The cost of living strategy that Labour is using is a strong one and I think they will come forward with more proposals to make markets work better for consumers.

    Remember that the boundaries were not changed. Labour will win more seats in and around major populations centres. e.g London, Birmingham, Manchester. The Tories/UKIIP appear to be anti-immigrants and in the major population centres, there are large numbers of people who would not like this. Labour could well pick up these votes.

    Will Labour win about a third of 2010 Lib Dem votes ? If they do, this should help them win a number of seats. Will UKIP stop the Tories winning some seats and even cause them to lose some seats ?

    In my opinion, as long as Labour do not make a huge mistake, they should gain enough seats, so that they are at least equal to the Tories in terms of seats. I don’t think Miliband is currently seen as a Kinnock and I don’t see him at a pre-election conference making it look like he had won before a vote was cast.

  3. Cash in your pension at 55 and buy a property to rent out. Along with the extension of Help to Buy, is Osborne banking all on a house-led recovery?

  4. @ToH

    “What nonesense, the current Government is not neo-Liberal”


    Lol, so why have wages not been going up in real terms despite recovery?

  5. @NICKP

    Not if you are paying 40% tax on your windfall it wont.

  6. @RogerH

    There aren’t the state assets to sell off to compensate for economic policy, so now it’s a case of compensating via property and liquidating pension assets early.

    Of course, once again, under a neolib approach this will push up prices. One wonders what else there will be to liquidate in future. That will probably give pointers to future strategy…

  7. It’s amazing what a couple of opinion polls can do to put a smile on people’s faces. Shame AW can’t bottle it. He’d make a fortune. Might be a dead cat bounce tho’ although ugh I don’t want to spoil the party.

  8. “Not if you are paying 40% tax on your windfall it wont.”

    Most of the new mandatory workplace pensions won’t be for 40% taxpayers.

    I have no fears over 40% taxpayers ability to arrange their affairs. It’s when you are on £20-odd grand with kid(s) it gets a bit harder to plan for a pension or resist cashing one in as soon as you can.

  9. Charts updated folks, and little post regarding today’s poll:

    Hopefully it’s reasonably neutral.

  10. @ R Huckle

    I think there will be some seats that Labour will pick up from the underlying stance of the conservatives on immigration, but the conservatives will also pick up seats because of that stance.

    If people spend any money they received from pulling it out of their pension then I am sure it will be spent on something they think is worthwhile/wanted so they will get a feel good factor from spending said money.

    If that money is invested in property and that in turn pushes up house prices so young people struggle more then you could say the young are lost to Labour anyway so it would not in fact be a loss, or you could point towards help to buy.

    As for Miliband being seen as a Kinnock, he may be not, but he is seen as weak which is worse I think.

    After saying all that, it will still be very hard for the cons to get a majority, just not as hard as most people here think.

  11. Valerie

    Just came in and there does seem to be an outbreak of ‘well said’, ‘jolly good’ ‘spot on’ comments and from the usual sources, but understandable in the circumstances, so generosity of spirit is required from Labour supporters, and has been forthcoming, congratulations to those who post here.

    I’ve got around to looking at the Budget summaries. I predicted the giveaway a few months ago, (as March 2015 would be too late, I reasoned).

    According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, if you add up the tax rises and the tax cuts in this budget, it all adds up to a £5.5 billion giveaway. The money for it has to ‘arrive’ after the election. With 64 million of us, that is about £86 each, not to be sneezed at, I suppose. The question is, will all these bullish expectations last through to May 2015?

    If Labour takes over in 2015 it has to get all that back again from somewhere. I assume that OBR, in reporting that it does not see where this is to come from (” detailed plans have not yet been set”) has taken into account that this amount of savings is after the benefits of forecast growth has been achieved, so it looks that Labour winning in 2015 could be a poisoned chalice rather than if the Conservatives win, who would naturally be pleased to cut further, as necessary. I am not sure where the LDs figure in all this, probably nowhere.

    Will voters actually feel the benefit between now and May 2015? It depends entirely of course on which age and income group you are in. The £86 is not of course, an even spread, so for electoral advantage, it depends, it seems, chiefly on whether the older UKIP voting people can change (back) to Conservative.

  12. carfrew

    What have wages got to do with neoliberalism?

  13. TOH
    I’ll start again.
    Presumably your opposition to Govt’s spending money means they should have kept out of supporting banks in 2008 and let them find their own level?

  14. @ToH

    Lol, you don’t think an approach to the economy might impact on wages and prices??

    Neoliberalism, as its name implies, is an approach that favours economic liberalism. Freeing up business to do more of what it wants.

    One of the things business quite often likes to do, is make profits.

    To this end, it can be quite handy, to lower wages, while putting up prices.

    The extent to which they can do this, depends on things like unemployment and how much time they’ve had to capture markets. It’s harder to drive down wages and put up prices when people have sufficient alternatives. Unemployment, and capturing markets, reduces options for employment and consumption.

    Given a bit of time, we start to see what has indeed been happening to wages and prices…

  15. @BLUEBOB:

    The Conservatives won’t pick up any seats. It’s more a matter of how few they will lose.

  16. Valerie

    I can only answer a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer. If we had been living in a neoliberal economy for many years then the answer is probably not. However in 2008 our economy was the reverse of neoliberal so I would have rescued the banks but cut much much harder in 2010 in the early years of the new Government

  17. Always have a wry smile when looking at the media’s coverage on the 2 polls this weekend…. Nothing when polls were showing 10 points lead a week or so ago – also predict no coverage when a massive ‘swing’ back to labour by mid week settling back to a 5-6 point lead…. This is what labour is up against more than anything else

  18. I am having difficulty understanding where the increase in the Tory vote has come from. In the YouGOv poll there seems to be an universal gain across the regional cross breaks that may be explained by DKs firming up for the Tories, but in the Survation poll it seems to be the cross break for the North VI where the huge difference appears. I realise that we should not attach too much importance to cross breaks but can someone explain why the Survation poll for the North is so different to other polls? Is this because their definition of North is different or has there really been a seismic shift in North VI after the budget?


    “I can only answer a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer.”


    She didn’t ask you about something hypothetical though. She asked you about the Crunch, which happened, and the bailout, which happened, and whether you agreed with the bailout.

    You then introduced a hypothetical, talking about what you would have done in a different situation that didn’t actually happen. Though it has in the past. We’ve had even more liberalisation before now: the poverty that ushered in welfare and the unions in response, and also the Crash that ushered in the Great Depression, which is why we regulated the banks in the first place.

    We started deregulating banks under Heath, we had the Secondary Banking crisis. We deregulate some more, and get the Crunch. This economic liberalism and banking crashes… who knew?

  20. carfrew

    I answered both the hypothetical question, and your question thus “However in 2008 our economy was the reverse of neoliberal so I would have rescued the banks but cut much much harder in 2010 in the early years of the new Government”

    “who knew” Well although a little early I did anticipate the crash and sold my portfolio for cash in 2006. Since reinvesting so that the portfolio is worth considerably more now than it was in 2006.

1 2 3