There are two new voting intention polls tonight, ComRes in the Indy and YouGov in the Sun (tweeted by the Sun Politics team here).

The YouGov/Sun figures show another small Labour lead, CON 36%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%. This comes after the Labour lead shrinking to one point in YouGov’s weekend poll for the Sunday Times.

The ComRes/Indy poll on the other hand has figures of CON 31%(+1), LAB 36%(-2), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 11%(nc). Compared to last month’s poll it does actually show Labour’s lead falling by three points, but that may just be because last month’s lead was a bit larger than usual. The average lead in ComRes telephone polls over the last nine months is five points – just like today’s.

So where does that leave us? Well, the reality is that because polls have a margin of error the messages will usually be a bit contradictory, that’s why it’s best to wait a bit and look at the averages. The Populus, Survation and YouGov polls do suggest a reduced lead, ComRes doesn’t. Even if there is one, it doesn’t mean it will last. Time will tell.


366 Responses to “New YouGov and ComRes polls”

1 6 7 8
  1. HOWARD

    Yes they were.

    This being the timeline:-

    “In March 2009, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) announced that it would reduce Bank Rate to 0.5%. The Committee also judged that Bank Rate could not practically be reduced below that level, and in order to give a further monetary stimulus to the economy, it decided to undertake a series of asset purchases.

    Between March and November 2009, the MPC authorised the purchase of £200 billion worth of assets, mostly UK Government debt or “gilts”. The MPC voted to begin further purchases of £75 billion in October 2011 and, subsequently, at its meeting in February 2012 the Committee decided to buy an additional £50 bn. In July the MPC announced the purchase of a further £50bn to bring total assets purchases to £375 bn.”

    Bank of England website.

    Report comment

  2. As ever, can we steer clear of discussing ongoing court cases.

    Report comment

  3. @ Colin & Howard

    The Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee has devolved responsibility for managing monetary policy. The Treasury has reserve powers to give orders to the committee. You can read all about it in the Bank of England Act 1998 which is also available via the BoE website.

    Report comment

  4. does that mean I cant post about my dodgy parking fine if I decide to take it to court?

    Report comment

  5. Amber

    To make myself clear I was talking about the spending bonaza before the crash. It was not necessary to increae governemnt spending. A good proportion could have been used to reduce the national debt.

    Report comment

  6. Ann Clwyd’s battle in Wales is getting quite nasty.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-26754300

    I wonder how much the NHS Wales issue is resonating with Westminster voters there?

    Are there any local polls ?

    Report comment

  7. @PETER CRAWFORD: “Brown ran deficits in every single year between 2002-2007″

    Whereas the Tories ran a deficit every year except two from 1979 to 1997:

    http://alandix.com/academic/teaching/Promise2012/images/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

    Report comment

  8. Colin

    Thanks for the link. I think that is absolutely outrageous. I feel really sorry for Ann Clwyd on this issue.

    Report comment

  9. Roger H,

    Who said the Tories were great custodians of public finance? Thatcher managed to balance the books in 88-89…the tory deficits of the 1990s were countercyclical because we were in recession.

    Brown’s run of 6 years’ deficit financing while the economy was expanding was one of the worst pieces of economic management in any developed country since the war. I accept that the tories, with a few exceptions, cheered him on.

    Report comment

  10. Ahem – comments policy please. This is not a venue to debate if past governments (or present governments) were any good or not.

    Report comment

  11. I’ve always been suspicious of men with beards. Even more so of women with beards, but maybe I’m old fashioned. :-p

    Report comment

  12. @Statgeek
    Funny, I always imagine you with a beard. Perhaps it’s the name….

    Report comment

  13. @ AW

    “As ever, can we steer clear of discussing ongoing court cases.”

    In the absence of the two pups as top snitches you probably need to tell that to the Ribble Valley thread posters. Do I get a Brownie point Sir?

    Report comment

  14. @ TOH

    To make myself clear I was talking about the spending bonaza before the crash. It was not necessary to increae governemnt spending. A good proportion could have been used to reduce the national debt.
    ———————
    Reducing the national debt either slows down the velocity of money circulating within the economy or even decreases the money supply – which would’ve been the exact opposite of what was needed to counterbalance what the banks were doing.

    But I’m guessing you’d have preferred the banks not to be doing what they were doing; if so, your position has merit for being consistent – although some might say that it would have been a significant barrier to ‘growth’.

    Report comment

  15. Pluswhich, if the government takes money out of the economy, that can slow down growth. Whereas a bit of borrowing to put money into the economy can assist with growth, whereby you get the money back plus more on top.

    Govt. borrowing in this context is not “spending”, but investment.

    Report comment

  16. Peter C

    I’ll bend over backwards to keep this non-partisan and technical.

    That line about running a deficit at the height of the “boom” (sic) has become the common sense received wisdom. But it’s not necessarily borne out by the economics.

    There’s a detailed debate going on among senior economists over whether we have had a systemic problem over the last 25 years, whereby stagnation can only be fended off by some form of stimulus to the economy. The argument is that we’ve had a series of stoked bubbles over that time, but with no obscenely out of line growth, and no inflation. Which raises the question: without the bubbles, wouldn’t we have dropped into outright deflation? Or at least had far lower trend growth?

    Look at Labour’s spending through that prism and it suddenly looks like the stoking of the economy by deficit spending in the early-mid 00s was part of what was necessary to keep growth on its long term trend. Take that deficit spending out and it’s arguable that we’d have seen much lower growth and higher unemployment.

    Report comment

1 6 7 8