The full details of YouGov’s weekly Sunday Times poll are now up online here. Topline voting intention figures are CON 36%, LAB 37%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%.

That means two polls today, from YouGov and Survation, both show a reduced Labour lead of just one point. As ever when you get a couple of polls indicating a shift straight after an event it’s tempting to conclude the event has had a big impact. Be a bit cautious – the YouGov and Populus polls conducted Wednesday night and Thursday morning didn’t show a narrowing, it’s these two polls conducted from Thursday to Friday that show narrower leads. They aren’t necessarily contradictory (many people in those initial polls wouldn’t have seen the details of the budget or the media reaction yet), but it means the evidence isn’t all one way. Wait a bit to see if this pattern continues into the week.

The details of the YouGov poll don’t add much to the YouGov post-budget poll for the Sun. Confidence in the government’s handling of the economy and George Osborne’s ability is creeping upwards, but people themselves still aren’t feeling the improvement. 42% of people think the government is handling the economy well (the second highest score since 2010), 41% of people think George Osborne is doing well as Chancellor (up from 26% last April). But only 19% of people expect their own finances to get better over the next year, 38% worse. While this is one of the least negative scores since the general election it is still very negative!

The YouGov poll also asked again about Ukraine, continuing to find little support for any intervention beyond economic sanctions, though 44% would support personal asset freezing and travel restrictions against Vladimir Putin himself.

Looking at some other polling today, the Survation/Mail on Sunday poll also included European voting intention, which now stands at CON 28%(+5), LAB 32%(nc), LDEM 7%(-2), UKIP 23%(-3), GRN 3%. European election polls so far are here.

There was also a new ICM Scottish poll in the Scotland on Sunday. They have topline figures of YES 39%, NO 46%. Without don’t knows it would be YES 45%, NO 55% – a 2 point increase in YES compared to ICM’s February poll, but less than the 46% in their January poll. John Curtice’s take on the new ICM poll is here and referendum polls so far are listed here.


237 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 36, LAB 37, LD 9, UKIP 11”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. Amber says:

    “The Together with Labour campaign has just begun & stay with the UK is 10 points ahead, despite the nationalists having thrown everything but the kitchen sink at it; I think that the eventual ‘no’ vote will be bigger than current polls suggest.”

    I think must people in Scotland would regard the No campaign as the ones who had “thrown everything but the kitchen sink at it;”

    So far as I can see “Yes” have only just started to deploy their substantial funds on billboard advertising etc.

  2. I vote for the Conservative party Chris, but I do not read The Mail.

    I also can list, in my eyes anyway what I think they have been wrong on in the past.

    But I am sure that you could would not be able to make a similar list for your chosen party.

    As you stated, Ignorance is indeed bliss, for some.

  3. @Colin

    The US reinforced it’s air deployments in the Baltic states recently. From four to ten fighters. Doesn’t sound like much, but the Baltic states are NATO members. Four million active personnel.

    I doubt Putin is that silly.

  4. @ToH

    Which inefficient parts of the Public Sector would this be, ATOS, Capita, A4E, or G4S? Or any other of the literally hundreds of private companies and corporations that parts of the welfare system have been privatised to?

  5. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “We will have to beg to differ on the definition of neoliberal. None of the mainstream parties are neoliberal. I understand that Labour are to sign up to Osbornes welfare cap so presumably you will then say Labour is neoliberal.”

    ———-

    It isn’t really a debate about the definition of neoliberal, unless you are keen for it to be so.

    In absolute terms, it is certainly possible to be more neoliberal than is currently the case. But when people ascribe the term “neolib”, they often mean an economic approach that is on that trajectory: that over time, they will be implementing more neolib policies.

    Like Labour were never really socialist, but they did follow a path towards it for a while.

    I doubt the full-blown neolib nirvana is likely in practice these days, as business finds the state quite handy for contracts and stuff, and ensuring global trade agreements and the odd bailout etc.

  6. STATGEEK

    @”I doubt Putin is that silly.”

    I hope you’re right.

    But I think Obama & EU have totally failed to understand his mindset.

    I must say that the nationalistic jingoism coming from the Duma & Putin has shocked me. They seem to have deep grievances over the loss of the Soviet Empire.

    Putin is looking like a man on a mission & I think we are being naive about it.

    Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO.
    Don’t think Moldova is either ?

  7. The election would normally be the government’s to lose. They after all are the only ones who can actually change things rather than just talk about it. The Lib Dems being part of the government does muddy the waters somewhat but perhaps not as much as one would think. It seems from the budget reaction that people are looking for reasons to vote Conservative having previously said they wouldn’t. This might snowball or with one small gaff it might be instantly reversed.

  8. Best leave this to one side I say now. Polls next week will be fascinating – sure we all can agree on that

  9. @ Jayblanc

    What a great link [one overlooks the less/fewer error.]

    On welfare it shows that while Local authorities are spending less overall, their welfare bill is much higher. No wonder they are feeling the pinch.

    The only areas registering large total increases are pensions & interest payments.

    On public net debt, it shows the total increasing slowly 1997-2008 & then booming.
    The increase since 2010 is astonishing.

  10. @BLUEBOB

    “Well my last comment seemed to touch a nerve, or several.

    I do not pretend to understand the benefit system in its entirety, but when you see the size of the cuts being made it would be a pretty fair assumption to say maybe just maybe we over extended ourselves with the odd benefit or two?”

    ——-

    The problem comes when benefits are seen simply as the cause of the problem, rather than a symptom.

    So, they make cuts to benefits, yet the benefit bill goes up. Then some conclude “OMG, we are still spending too much on benefits!! Cut some more!!…” and… the benefit bill goes up again.

    This is partly because benefits recycle money in the economy, assisting with growth. Cut benefits, and claimants will have less money to spend in shops, supporting business and the wages of others. So more people in work have hours reduced and have to claim more benefits.*

    Which takes us to the other reason: the reason people are on benefits in the first place: insufficient, decent-paying jobs. Cutting benefits does not solve this problem. In the days of close-to-full employment, despite considerable benefits opportunities, most didn’t take them.

    * There are other reasons. Sell off social housing without replacing and watch the housing benefit bill go up. Ramp up house prices and consequently rents and watch the benefit bill go up even more.

    Until we ensure more decent-paying jobs, and more affordable housing, benefits are liable to be an issue.

  11. Would inflation not then become rampant Carfrew ?

  12. Looking at the European numbers it seems that the big movement since last time is from Lib Dem to Labour. UKIP are probably picking up the old BNP vote such as it was but the Conservative numbers are similar to 2009 now. Things may change a lot before the election but the expectations of UKIP may be over optimistic if these numbers are confirmed by other polls. Whilst a good third place would still be quite an achievement I doubt if UKIP supporters would see it that way.

  13. Also if increased claimant numbers can actually help with growth and cost the government less over time then why do they want to bring these numbers down?

    I am not saying you are wrong, just that there must be a catch as it sounds all to easy.

  14. @Carfrew

    ‘I doubt the full-blown neolib nirvana is likely in practice these days, as business finds the state quite handy for contracts and stuff, and ensuring global trade agreements and the odd bailout etc’

    This is actually a core element of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that it simply it support whatever is in the interests of the rich & powerful. If laissez-faire is in the interests of the wealthy, it supports laissez-faire. In a situation where the wealthy perceive state intervention to be in their interests, neo-liberals will support state intervention.

  15. re the benefits debate. Well it would really great if there was full employment and everybody could afford to pay for their outgoings, without any state help. But this is never going to happen.

    At the moment we have about 30 million people in work, with about 5 million receiving out of work benefits. There are apparently 500,000 jobs available in the market at anyone time, but this figure is thought not to be accurate, as there is duplication and some of the jobs are not actually currently available. Recruitment agencies place fake ads to gain details of people looking for work, with the aim to find jobs for them. In the press today, there is a picture showing 1000 people queuing up to apply for 40 jobs with Aldi in the West Midlands.

    At the moment, there are more people that the economy requires. This is not a good time for a young person starting out and many are choosing to stay in education or training. There are also a large number of young people being supported by parents and who are not claiming benefits. People should read about the non participation rate, where people are not working and not seeking employment. It is rising in many countries.

    Then there is the issue of ‘in work’ benefits, which is a massive issue because employers don’t pay a living wage that can cover current living costs. This is particularly the case in the south east of England. If you work earning average wages in many parts, you would not cover housing costs and other basic living costs. If you live outside of London and have to commute to work, it costs a fortune. It is not right for government to subsidise employers, by paying these ‘in work’ benefits, but if government forced employers to pay a lot more, many jobs would be lost.

    My opinion is that it is going to take an awful long time to build the amount of houses it would need to have any affect on housing costs. Because of constant increases in population, it would be very difficult to even catch up with current demand, let alone deal with future needs. Wages will never be enough in parts of the country to support basic living costs, so government will have to accept paying ‘in work’ benefits. They can reduce this, by enforcing a increase in minimum hourly rates, but I doubt this would be a living wage in some areas of the country.

    There is also the change in employment, with many more part-time roles, short term and zero hours contracts. There may be 30 million in employment, but how many are actually stable full time jobs. Many people within the 30 million are underemployed and want to earn more, but their employers don’t need the additional hours. Modern technology will reduce the need to employ people in the way they once were.

    If government had the £30 billion of tax that is currently avoided per year, then the spending on necessary benefits to support people in the economy would be much more affordable.

  16. @Bluebob

    If claimant numbers reduce because people are getting employment that increases their discretionary spending, then that’s good. It’d mean more money circulating at the bottom of the economy, where it does the most work.

    If claimant numbers reduce because people are getting employment with zero or negative discretionary spending, then that ’employment’ is not productive for the general economy. Particularly when it results in an increase of in-work benefits, which simply shifts the benefit burden to a more inefficient system.

    People being in drudge work that does not pay a living wage is not merely bad for them, it’s bad for the rest of the economy and the state too. It may seem ‘moral’ that people should work, but not all work is economically productive, and we should not be forcing people into forms of employment that are actually economically destructive.

  17. DRUNKENSCOUSER

    I think your history might need a little polishing up :-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

  18. @BLUEBOB

    “Would inflation not then become rampant Carfrew ?”

    ———-

    You haven’t said by which mechanism… if you mean by getting close to full employment, then yes, that can cause an inflationary pressure. It is usually manageable though, as it was in the sixties… it only got out of hand in the seventies when oil prices quadrupled, then doubled again.

    There is another side to the inflation thing, however, which is… inflation of what, exactly. If Aston Martins go up in price, that is different to whether food and rents go up. If the government acts to keep the price of essentials down, by ensuring more competition, introducing productivity efficiencies, building more houses etc. etc. then it matters less if the less essential go up.

    Currently we have the opposite situation, whereby allowing business to hoover up essentials, they can keep prices higher or even raise them in a downturn. Thus, inflation overall is low, but within that, many are hammered because essentials are expensive, and they don’t have much left for the stuff that is falling in price.

  19. Report from (really really) Oop North – Aftenposten (Norway’s largest circulation paper) says it has confirmation from central sources that Jens Stoltenberg, ex-Norway PM, will be named next week as new Nato sec-gen.

    Poor Mr Barosso ;-( After all his work to get that job.

  20. @BLUEBOB

    “Also if increased claimant numbers can actually help with growth and cost the government less over time then why do they want to bring these numbers down?

    I am not saying you are wrong, just that there must be a catch as it sounds all to easy.”

    ———

    Paying the under-employed benefits is not necessarily an ideal. It is just better than paying them nothing. It is better to provide them with better-paying jobs which will do more for growth and the deficit.

    Whereupon, anticipating what may be your next concern, we have the thorny issue of the State creating jobs. Sometimes we have not been that good at it, but other countries do it better. State funding in the US assisted the computer chip market, and also the development of the internet, for example. We have tended to give stuff away, or give up after having done most of the work, to watch others reap the rewards.

    Sometimes it’s a case of preserving an industry through a downturn. We gave up on the car industry when oil prices gave it a hammering… the Americans preserved theirs. We did preserve the banks though!!

  21. Going back to my point about the OBR and its statement that it does not see where the funding for the cost of the 5.5 billion giveaway is coming from, I am somewhat surprised that Labour has not made a big point about this.

    One does get the impression that the Opposition is not entirely against what has been proposed?

  22. I could see the price of essentials rising though as the people who were targeted for the wage increase, extra money, would not be buying expensive cars, they would spend a little more at the supermarkets each week amongst other things.

    Also when the sky high interest rates hit of the late eighties-early nineties was it not to deal with inflation?, I only just recall it so you are welcome to put me right on the reasons. But if that happened again that would really cause some damage.

    You must agree that someone must be paid at a lower rate, it is impossible for everyone to earn a high wage and what would be a liveable wage for one year could quickly turn to minimum wage the next.

  23. Little article on the news just now about help to buy. A young childless (I think) couple in Chorley(?) took advantage of the subsidy so they could ‘get on the ladder’ with a 5 bedroom house rather than the 3 bedroom one they could have afforded without it.

    This is my first recorded case of the Bedroom Subsidy.

  24. @Bluebob

    Yes, that is an important point. Wage rises alone may not automatically result in an improvement in the standard of living, when business can simply soak up the wage rises by putting up prices on essentials. We have already been seeing this, before wages have gone up much!!

    Hence governments have to act to offset this where possible.

    Yes, there was inflation in the era you speak of, but it was only in the range of 5 – 8%. Some of the interest rate policy was to do with the housing boom, but some was about controlling the value of the pound… interest rates affect the value of our currency… the government joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism in which countries try and keep their currencies broadly in line with each other.

    (The German Mark had quite a big influence on this, and they had high interest rates themselves in order to deal with inflation caused by reunification, forcing us to raise ours further. Investors bet against the pound, calling the governments’ bluff, which forced the government to put up rates again to defend the pound… which resulted in Black Wednesday…)

    I do agree that not everyone can be paid the same. Nor should they: a paramedic saving lives is worth more to us than someone making a packet misselling stuff to the vulnerable, or bankers buying toxic debt and taking down the economy. The important thing is that there are enough jobs that pay a decent wage, and that business can’t just hoover up markets in essentials and soak up the wages.

  25. Guymonde

    “Bedroom Subsidy”

    Beautifully put! :-)

  26. To TOH, above:

    I know you feel moral and I know you don’t want to debate morality, but morality really isn’t a matter of feelings. It’s something people justify rationally, and generally, when they try to pin down what the bases of their morality are, there is agreement. The devil lies in the consistent application of those principles, but it’s something we all have to try to do if we actually want to think and behave morally – and by and large people do want to do that. It’s not at all easy (as Carfrew pointed out awhile back) but if you want to be able to say “I’m as moral as the next guy,” you have to be willing to clarify (to yourself as much as anyone else) what you mean by saying that.

    Political parties can behave morally or immorally, just as people can, and whilst no party is essentially more moral than another, some political policies and philosophies are inconsistent with those moral principles on which people do tend to agree. (And we can happily leave the Tories out as an example of that: Blair’s justifications of his Iraq adventure will do screamingly well in that capacity.)

    My hypothesis (no more than that) is that Labour’s consistent 38% average VI could be explained as the moral consensus among a core of people that neo-liberal policies are inconsistent with widely accepted moral principles. I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis, because Labour’s 38% appears to be immune to the popularity or unpopularity of anything the Labour party proposes, but there may of course be other. simpler explanations, and the hypothesis could be wrong.

    I doubt there’s much wrong with the moral argument, however. I’d enjoy attempting to demonstrate why I think it holds, but I know it’s not allowed here, so I won’t.

  27. PS to Carfrew:

    I agree that reference to morality is problematic, especially on this site. The problem with fairness as an alternative is that fairness is a far more fluid concept than morality, and can (in extremis) be used to justify blatant immorality. It’s way up there among the buzzwords IDS uses, for sure.

  28. @ Thomas Robinson

    So far as I can see “Yes” have only just started to deploy their substantial funds on billboard advertising etc.
    ————–
    I was talking politically, not about campaign spending. The (publicly funded) white paper left no stone unturned…

  29. @ Bill C,

    Has Better Together ever looked like a campaign not in trouble? I think ‘No’ is still likely to win, but it’s not going to be because of Better Together’s fantastic campaigning, that’s for sure.

    @ Bluebob,

    I also can list, in my eyes anyway what I think they have been wrong on in the past. But I am sure that you could would not be able to make a similar list for your chosen party.

    Er, are you…. at all familiar with the Labour Party? Every supporter past or present has a list of things they think the party has done or is doing wrong that is long enough to encircle the globe. It’s practically a prerequisite for membership. Perpetual frustration with the leadership and internecine warfare between internal subfactions are the Labour Party’s defining features as a political organisation.

  30. @DRUNKENSCOUSER

    “This is actually a core element of neo-liberalism.”

    ———-

    I don’t know that it’s a core element in principle, but it can be co-opted that way in practice.

    There really are peeps who genuinely believe that the State thing is not much cop. And indeed, there are many concerns. But leaving everything as much as possible to Capital is no panacea, and as Capital gets more control it likes to have a State to help it out anyway.

    The earlier economically liberal era of Empire was much the same, except State action was directed rather more outwards, to capturing and maintaining colonies for all those protected markets and resources for business to enjoy. But we don’t have an empire any more, so it’s more inwards now…

  31. @ Colin Davis,

    a) Dear God, let’s not start this again.

    b) In politics as in life, everyone thinks they have morality on their side. Most of the conflict arises because of conflicting moral principles.

    To take your Iraq example, the prime minister has a moral duty to defend the UK from terrorists armed with WMDs and possibly also a moral duty to protect foreign civilians from people who would harm them, weighed against a moral duty to respect the self-determination and territorial integrity of foreign nations and a moral duty not to take actions that will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees. The problem was not that Tony Blair was not trying to act morally- if anything, it was that he was so overwhelmed with crusading zeal that he was blinded to reason.

    IDS can- and would- give you a moral justification for every policy he’s implementing. It’s not a question of inconsistency, it’s a question of people disagreeing about which moral principle should trump.

  32. Amber

    The White Paper was publicly funded. so were all the UK Government papers attacking independence, the work of the Foreign Office briefing the Spanish and other foreign press, the entire Scotland Office etc.

    It’s inappropriate to imply that only one government is deploying its resources in pursuit of its policies.

  33. @COLIN DAVIS

    PS to Carfrew:

    “I agree that reference to morality is problematic, especially on this site. The problem with fairness as an alternative is that fairness is a far more fluid concept than morality, and can (in extremis) be used to justify blatant immorality. It’s way up there among the buzzwords IDS uses, for sure.”

    ———–

    I don’t know that I’d agree that fairness is more fluid than morality… both can be used to try and justify all manner of things. They are different: fairness concerns a lack of favouritism, morality a code of conduct.

    Fairness has the advantage of polling data though. Until maybe AW arranges for some data on morality!!

    ToH has expressed before now a Darwinian take on things… so there’s possibly quite some ground to make up between you… I can see why you are bothered about it… it’s quite normal for matters to boil down to a few tricky fundamentals once they’ve been thrashed out for a while.

    (I tend to try and bypass such things… eg, find an argument such that even if their morality differs somewhat, the argument still stands. Or else point out a contradiction if there is one, in the consequences of their code, without actually having to debate the code of conduct itself. For example, I did this in the SSM discussion…)

  34. ICM Scottish Euro poll in the Scotsman.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-to-trail-snp-in-pre-referendum-election-1-3351111?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    “The poll, conducted by ICM Research, came after another survey by the same polling company earlier this year showed Labour trailing the SNP by 19 points and set to win just 24 per cent of the vote in the European Parliament elections on 22 May.

    However, the 12 per cent gap between the two main parties in Scotland would still see the SNP win the most number of MEPs and add to its tally of two Euro seats, with Labour retaining its two Scottish representatives in the parliament.

    Backing for the Liberal Democrats plummeted from 6 per cent earlier this year to just 5 per cent in the latest poll of 1,000 voters – a result that would see the party lose its only MEP George Lyon, who won his seat at the last Euro elections in 2009 with 11.5 per cent of the vote.

    Support for the Conservatives fell by one point to 13 per cent, although the party would retain its sole Scottish representative if the polling results were replicated on 22 May. “

  35. Missed the first part of that quote!

    “The new survey for The Scotsman shows Labour on 29 per cent of the vote with 41 per cent of those polled intending to back the SNP. “

  36. Not sure that going from 6% to 5% counts as a plummet, particularly when UKIP’s and the Tory vote merely ‘fell’ by one percentage point.

  37. RogerH

    Hey! It’s the Scotsman. They have never been known to avoid a ridiculous exaggeration.

  38. “Every supporter past or present has a list of things they think the party has done or is doing wrong that is long enough to encircle the globe.”

    ———–

    I’ve got a list for all the parties. I’ve even got a list for things they’re liable to get wrong in the future.

    I didn’t see the storage thing coming though…

    (p.s. yes Guymonde’s subsidy comment was quality…)

  39. RogerH

    Describing the SLab plans as “radical” is another example of the Scotsman’s inability to report much accurately. ;-)

  40. @Amber Star

    “There was a comment about Scotland earlier which said that Better Together was seen as being a Labour campaign. I don’t believe that’s how it’s viewed in Scotland. The Together with Labour campaign has just begun & stay with the UK is 10 points ahead, despite the nationalists having thrown everything but the kitchen sink at it; I think that the eventual ‘no’ vote will be bigger than current polls suggest.”

    Oddly, I’ve heard several Scottish Labour supporters express unhappiness that Labour went into coalition with Tories to form BT and they are much less inclined to vote No because of it. They would have preferred each of the major parties to have set out their individual stalls. Polling would suggest that it’s not accurate to assume that only supporters of the SNP plan to vote Yes but the structure of the BT and Yes “parties” (for want of another word) makes it look that way. Indeed I often wonder why the Scottish Tories aren’t promoting independence as once severed from their toxic Westminster parent a truly Scottish Tory party could be brought in from the cold, so to speak.

  41. HOWARD

    @”Going back to my point about the OBR and its statement that it does not see where the funding for the cost of the 5.5 billion giveaway is coming from, I am somewhat surprised that Labour has not made a big point about this.”

    Possibly because it is not significant Howard:-

    “Overall, the Budget is neutral: a modest net stimulus in the next two fiscal years (£1.11bn) offset by a net contraction in the following three years (£1.26bn). The total tax “giveaway” is £5.6bn over five years, less than 0.1 per cent of cumulative GDP.”

    FT

  42. Shariet2,

    The stigma against the Tories in Scotland is too politically profitable for the left to give up simply because of a name change, separation from the UK party, or outright independence.

    However, from a Westminster Tory POV, I imagine they would secretly be keen on making it very hard to Labour to win majorties. (Yes, Labour won majorities in 1997 and 2001 without requiring Scottish MPs, but those were atypical elections for Labour. And appealing back to elections before the 1970s is hopelessly anachronistic.)

  43. @ Shariet2

    I’ve heard several Scottish Labour supporters express unhappiness that Labour went into coalition with Tories to form BT and they are much less inclined to vote No because of it. They would have preferred each of the major parties to have set out their individual stalls.
    —————–
    I have also heard several Labour supporters say they’re not happy about the BT ‘coalition’; & that they’d have preferred the Parties to each make their individual case for staying in the UK. Labour will be doing that over the next few months; it’ll be interesting to see what difference it makes.

  44. BILL PATRICK

    @”However, from a Westminster Tory POV, I imagine they would secretly be keen on making it very hard to Labour to win majorties.”

    The logic seems compelling.

    A majority for YES , condemns an essentially Labour lead BT campaign as a failure & permanently jeopardises their prospects at Westminster.

    Where is the downside for DC ?
    Would EM survive?

    Reading the critical Guardian letter from Labour “intellectuals” , and looking at polling trends for the Scottish Referendum , you get the feeling of a shared flaw in the key Labour stance for both Westminster & BT.

    Too much reliance on Bad News.

  45. @ Old Nat

    The White Paper was publicly funded. so were all the UK Government papers attacking independence…
    ————–
    Which UK government papers ‘attacking’ independence are you referring to?

    Because I’ve only seen ones which are laying out possibilities, were Scotland to vote Yes. This seems to be an acknowledgement of the SNP policy rather than an ‘attack’.

    Personally, I think it warrants an ‘attack’ but the UK government don’t appear to have made one, so I’d appreciate a link to the ‘attack’ papers which you mention.

  46. Too much reliance on Bad News.
    ———-
    Opposition is always difficult; but No still leads the polls in Scotland & Labour still leads for the UK.

    The Yes camp in Scotland don’t want a referendum tomorrow; they want as much time as possible. The Tories wouldn’t call an election tomorrow, even if they could. I expect both are waiting for the ‘good news’ to arrive… whilst Labour deals with the world as it actually is!

  47. Carfrew

    “I doubt the full-blown neolib nirvana is likely in practice these days, as business finds the state quite handy for contracts and stuff, and ensuring global trade agreements and the odd bailout etc.”

    I agree that I am never going to get the Government I want, unelectable in a democracy these days, but like you I can dream.

  48. @Oldnat (from your link)

    “Backing for the Liberal Democrats plummeted from 6 per cent earlier this year to just 5 per cent”

    Is that a typo, or are we now getting 1% ‘plummets’. :))

  49. We don’t normally bother with decimal points in polling given margin or error. But given all the “lead down to 1%” headlines, maybe we should.

    Sunday Times YouGov figures were:
    Con 579
    Lab 610
    LD 152
    UKIP 172
    plus Others at 7%
    So allowing for Others (total divided by 0.93), that makes a sample of voting respondents of 1627 plus or minus 9 (given that the 7% will be in the range 6.5% to 7.5%).

    With a gap between Lab and Con of 31, I make that a
    difference of 1.9%. The “1% gap” is a consequence of cumulative rounding error.

    Exact figures:
    Lab 37.49%
    Con 35.59%
    LD 9.34%
    UKIP 10.57%
    Others 7% (assumed 7.00%)

  50. Carfrew

    Re your reply to Colin Davis. Nicely put if I may say so. If I really wanted to post on morality as Colin seems to want I would start with several pages outlining my utter contempt for modern ideas of sexual morality before I even got onto other issues. I’m sure nobody, including myself and AW wants a debate on morality on this site.

1 2 3 4 5