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 5 6 7 8
  1. . In this Labour-centric world of UKPR, it’s often easy to swallow hook line and sinker the drumbeat message of why the Tories must lose and Labour must win.

    Lol.

  2. Amazes me that people view the media as Tory centric – always seems very left leaning to me, especially the BBC and Nick Robinson

  3. Have a nice day all, off to the garden to finish the work I started at the weekend.

  4. The following link has an interesting take on the Welfare Cap:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/will-george-osbornes-welfare-cap-stand-test-time

    Why would the Labour leadership expose themselves unnecessarily to the spite and bile of the right wing press (the party for scroungers and skivers ring a bell) when they can dodge and weave, agree that welfare costs need to be controlled but suggest they might apportion funding differently.

    Should they be elected circumstances would doubtless mean changes might need to be introduced. Lets face it both parties in the coalition have experienced the odd damascene conversion since moving from opposition to government.

    When faced with Osborne’s political jiggery pokery, taking the moral high ground (from Labour’s pov) might be a noble gesture but given welfare is one of the three key Tory issues why not just cover the your bases. Politics is a dirty business but you can’t change it sat on the opposition benches.

  5. Aston Martin Sheds Colin.

    If “They are all Toffs” is your main political stance-at least get the caricature right. :-)

  6. ALEC

    @”That SSE move will allow Labour to claim an impact from the opposition benches, ”

    Mmm-this one apparently :-

    “SSE says it will pay for the move by cutting 500 jobs and postponing plans for three offshore wind farms. ”

    Politics Home

  7. Colin Davis,

    There is no practically possible welfare system that will neither (a) give benefits only to those in need and (b) not deny benefits to those who need them. The challenge of a welfare state is to find the optimal balance between these ills.

  8. @Colin

    “SSE says it will pay for the move by cutting 500 jobs and postponing plans for three offshore wind farms. ”

    Good to see them finally grappling with improving efficiency rather than relying on oligopoly pricing.

  9. @Adam
    “Amazes me that people view the media as Tory centric – always seems very left leaning to me, especially the BBC and Nick Robinson”

    Was that tongue in cheek?

    For the avoidance of doubt, here’s Wikipedia on Nick Robinson:

    “At university he was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association;[6] in 1986, he spent a year as national chairman of the Young Conservatives,[4] and earned the nickname “Blue Robbo”, in reference to Derek Robinson, a trade union spokesman who was known as “Red Robbo”

  10. I see Miliband has better ratings than Margaret Thatcher as potential PM (-14 Miliband, 2014; -15 Thatcher, 1977).

  11. Agreed, Bill P. All I was saying was set a cap in advance and you make the all but impossible even less possible.

    The only way to run a benefits system that won’t permit fraud or arouse resentment is a benefit for all, the so-called citizen’s wage. You need decent taxes to finance this, of course, and that means a realistic wealth tax levied through banks and insurance companies, as opposed to sticking the odd penalty here and there on big houses. The economists will shake their heads and say “Fantasy!” at this, but their prediction record is zilch, by and large. The small state wallahs will say, “Oh, but the rich will go away and we’ll lose their talents, but their talent is also a fiction.

    As Kahnenberg points out (and the last time I referred to him I called him Hahnenberg, which at least meant that, once corrected, I read him again!) the best paid financial; expertise is demonstrably on a level with monkeys throwing darts at a dart board. We can afford a civilised society and have no reason at all to fear the nodding heads of the sages.

  12. BILL PATRICK
    “There is no practically possible welfare system that will neither (a) give benefits only to those in need and (b) not deny benefits to those who need them.”
    I have just driven into Edinburgh with a close relative whose main remit is the support of families with severely handicapped children, and currently involved with a working group on social housing. Our discussion was around the 800 adult children in Scotland currently trapped in full-time hospital care and the congruence of this problem with that of aged people with dementia caught, at huge cost, in hospitals for the lack of either family or institutional care, including the patent need for social housing with constant warden and medical care At heart this is a prohlem of housing policy and resources, as well as of social and medical care.. It is a policy which will continue to be driven by the need for the affordable cost and effectiveness of “welfare” which such an integrated approach would achieve, and for relevant institutional arrangements, of the kind which are afforded when major housing programmes, such as in regional development programmes come around; not primarily in terms of welfare cuts.

  13. @Colin

    Interesting comment in that link:

    “Since it is the teachers on strike, not the public, what the latter think is irrelevant.”

    Hmm. So customers on the tube are irrelevant if the tube workers strike, and patients are irrelevant if nurses strike, and so on.

  14. Like having a cap on the fire-fighting budget.

  15. ROBBIEALIVE
    I think the factors have changed. It was Tony Blair’s New Labour party policy to encourage the selection of candidates from among smart young men and women in suits, a policy followed or maintained by the Tories and the LDs. At the 2010 GE, Old Etonians were the only people in the UK still wearing suits.

  16. STATGEEK

    It was .

    I think there is a big issue here. As we have seen in the awful NHS cases recently, there can be a culture in the Public Sector which is “producer orientated”.

    Potentially this is a wedge for Cons to use .

    I get the impression that EM has not yet been able to settle his stance on Public Service Provision. I have read articles recently of lobbies for va more “customer orientated” Public Services policy under Labour. If that were to emerge ( & it certainly gels with his stance on Private Sector “monopoly” provision ) it would shoot DC’s fox to some extent.
    But the tension with Public Sector Unions on this issue will, I think stymie EM if he moves too far in that direction.

    Today’s Teacher’s strike is a good example of this.

  17. Cons glee at thinking they have ‘trapped’ Labour on the welfare cap

    Lab dismay that the Opposition will be voting for it

    Both should realise that it means nothing – nada – zilch.

    The ‘cap’ is an amount of money that, if it looks to be going over budget, has to be brought back to Parliament for a debate & vote on whether it can be exceeded for whatever reason was putting it over budget.

    A majority govt will will that vote ! If they can’t win a financially related vote, they won’t be in power for very long.

  18. @Adam
    “Amazes me that people view the media as Tory centric – always seems very left leaning to me, especially the BBC and Nick Robinson”

    Oh puhlease – don’t start all that again.

  19. @Alec
    “One of Blair’s best moments was when he told his conference that having a high welfare bill was not the mark of a progressive government – it was a mark of failure.”

    And one of Attlee’s best moments (amongst very many) came with the introduction of child allowances (later to become the now capped child benefit) in 1946.

  20. The welfare cap will not cap spending which will be pushed into other budgets – arguably where it should be anyway. This may well give something of a push to other budget holders to do something about some of societies more intractable problems which up to now they have been able to ignore. As usual some things will change for the better, some won’t.

  21. @ John Pilgrim

    Yes, Blair must have banned beards & open-necked shirts & now all male politicians look like tailors’ dummies.

    The media scrutiny & security have also intensified enormously. Politicians are sealed-off from the rest of us. (Atlee in 1945 was driven to election meetings by his wife, while he sat in the back doing the crossword.]

    Reasons perhaps why, if they do appear in public, they are often abused by non-deferential bystanders gleefully reported by a sensation-seeking media.

  22. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who started the anti-beard crusade. Apparently she once declared she “”wouldn’t tolerate any minister of mine wearing a beard”.

  23. @Colin (and other students of financial stuff))
    We discussed the Budget ‘giveaway’ (£5.5 billion) a while back. Since then, have you perchance come across a breakdown of that sum anywhere? I would have thought the lion’s share was income tax threshold raising and some higher tax band loosening, rather than any future possible favours given to annuity subscribers, (those being mainly, er, in the future :-) ), but I wondered if you had seen any rough figures?

    Most grateful if you have anything. My googling was unsuccessful so far.

  24. Mr Nameless
    I am full of useless info. In the RN, if you want to grow a beard (no moustaches allowed in the Andrew) you have to appear before ‘Captain’s Request Men’ and get ‘permission to grow a full set Sir’.

    The skipper then weighs up whether you are still in the ‘fluffy’ stage before granting the request.

  25. @ Mr Nameless

    Well she got her way! I cannot recall a single minister with a beard.
    Tories went in for moustaches. Supermac, Eden, Powell, etc: perhaps that’s why Enoch never received the call.

  26. I can’t help but wonder if this welfare cap will go the same way as the US debt ceiling.

    It sounds like a reasonable idea until it hits the limit, then there’s a big squabble over it, then it gets raised again. Repeat until it becomes plain the idea is useless if it’s never adhered to. Welfare needs a complete rethink, not just a cap which can be voted into irrelevance.

    It goes without saying that those who receive it will not worry that much if there is a cap or not. It’s whether the cap is taken seriously or not that might sway opinion.

  27. @ Howard

    & finally. You also need captain’s permission to shave it off?

  28. I guess Michael Heseltine looked at the regulations and though well it doesn’t say anything about long wavey hair. Still I suppose he knew he couldn’t get away with that forever and surprised he lasted as long as he did.

  29. Just to get back to polling for a nanosecond, how do telephone polls allow for the vast number of Conservative and possibly UKIP supporters who are on the tps lists. From canvassing duties in the past it seemed that it was only possible to phone Labour and Libs.

  30. MrNameless – it used to be that there were few beards on the Tory benches because Thatcher hated them and wouldn’t promote people with beards, and that there were lots of beards on the Labour left because Tom Driberg hated them and wouldn’t make passes at people with beards.

  31. RMJ1 – by ringing them up!

    TPS applies to sales and marketing calls, market research doesn’t count as either, so telephone polling companies ring people who are on TPS.

  32. @Mr Nameless

    Presumably Thatch’s hatred of beards was the reason that Norman St John Stevas didn’t bother getting married!

  33. I’m on TPS and if rung by a ‘canvasser’ I just tell them they are l*ing and of course they could be. I think the only time I have been telephone-canvassed, i am afraid i gave the girl from Populus an unjustified flea in her ear and I feel ashamed of that, as I suspect now that she was genuine.

    Had she opened by giving the telephone number for a return check (they always press 141 at their end ) I would have stuck with it.

  34. Thanks Anthony. I wonder why I was never allowed to ring them.

  35. @AW
    Nice joke, but is it true? I thought “rough trade” was his thing, especially when it was anonymous. Today’s Labour party would definitely not appeal.

    “The sort of person who gives s*domy a bad name”, according to WC.

  36. @Anthony W

    “…and that there were lots of beards on the Labour left because Tom Driberg hated them and wouldn’t make passes at people with beards.”

    What do you need to do to repel Nigel Evans, or is too late for that now!?!?

  37. Postageincluded – I doubt it is,

  38. Its interesting, Mr Wells, that you note that Tom Driberg was well known for making passes at men (I believe it was also noted that much loved comedian Frankie Howard was notorious for similar – even more robust – actions).
    Yet here we are with a deputy speaker of the Commons being up in court for – making passes at people. Oh I know the charge is one of rape – but all the associated evidence being provoided is of tittle tattle (alleged) of ‘passes’.

    Signs of the times. I leave it to your readers to determine of things have improved. Myself I suspect if the depuity speaker had been a socialist he would not be in court now.
    I see another famous comedian has been recently exonerated.

  39. @Colin and ToH – Thanks for comments on my post. The rights and wrongs of Labour’s economic behaviour when last in office are clearly debatable as are the degree of freedom they had to regulate more. (As I remember even Osborne was for a time signed up to their spending plans and heavy touch regulation was probably not the flavour of the month). What disappoints me about Labour’s performance is that the debate on their legacy is so one sided. Personally, for example, I think that they did rather well in responding the crisis once it struck. Obviously you would disagree, but I don’t think it is an argument that anyone can clearly win, and I just feel disappointed that Labour have let it go by default. And while in a sense this is water under the bridge, I am even more disappointed that it seems to have robbed them of the confidence to say what they do think needs doing and how they would do it.

  40. Charles

    Thanks for coming back to us.

    On your point “Personally, for example, I think that they did rather well in responding the crisis once it struck. “.

    I actually agree with you on that, as I do with the earlier point about Osborne and spending plans. Where of course we disagree is on GB’s spending bonaza based on borrowed money, as Colin pointed out.

  41. HOWARD

    If you are really wanting to worry about the Public Finances, forget the Budget-read this :-

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2014/gb2014.pdf

    If you’re pushed for time Pages 22 & 23 will do.

  42. @Crossbat
    I’d think that all you’d need to do is age.
    @Hookslaw
    I think you need to distnguish “making a pass” from “touching up”. As far as I’m concerned the first is only verbal, may be embarassing but isn’t an offense. The second is an assault and should be treated as such.

  43. Colin
    Thanks very much. I had actually done quite a bit of homework but had not divined sufficiently that which I sought. I’ll devour it now although I am not sure a thicko like me will be any the wiser.

    (holder of Intermediate Cost and Management Accountants from forty years ago – probably not in your league :-) )

  44. Where of course we disagree is on GB’s spending bonaza based on borrowed money, as Colin pointed out.
    ———-
    That’s how fractional reserve works. Banks create money to lend to people, this results in profits for the banks on which they pay taxes. The taxes are recycled into the economy. Were the money not recycled into the wider economy, people wouldn’t have the money needed to repay the loans which the banks have made based on fractional reserve!

    Therefore, it would be incredibly difficult to have fractional reserve lending without the counterbalancing government action (i.e. government spending). As it happens, the Labour government didn’t tax & spend enough. That’s why the ‘car’s engine seized’ (as opposed the more dramatic ‘crash’ analogy).

    The incoming Tory government ‘greased the engine’ with £375Bn of government (rather than bank) ‘fractional reserve money creation’ aka QE.

    Had Labour spent that £375Bn whilst in office, the engine would probably not have seized… but the press would’ve had a seizure! I’m sure you can imagine their likely reaction to a Labour government printing itself £375Bn of spending money…

  45. Hookeslaw

    “Myself I suspect if the depuity speaker had been a socialist he would not be in court now.”

    Why’s that then?

  46. Hookeslaw
    ” Myself I suspect if the depuity speaker had been a socialist he would not be in court now.”

    Strikes me as an incredibly silly thing to say.

    Anybody making unwanted sexual advances on another deserves to be in court, regardless of their politics.

  47. As a matter of fact, Amber, I understood the QE decisions were taken by the BoE independently?

  48. @ Howard

    As a matter of fact, Amber, I understood the QE decisions were taken by the BoE independently?
    ————-
    independently I like your kind of humour, Howard – LOL! :-)

    The Chancellor instructs the Governor to make the proposal to the MPC, the MPC votes for the Governor’s proposal, job done.

1 5 6 7 8