This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun also had their latest European election voting intention figures. The topline figures continue to show Labour and UKIP battling it out for first place, with the Conservatives off in third – CON 22%, LAB 30%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 27%, GREEN 6%.

By my reckoning on a uniform swing this would translate into 15 seats for the Conservatives (down 11), 25 seats for Labour (up 12), 5 seats for the Lib Dems (down 6), 21 seats for UKIP (up 8), 1 seat for the Greens (down one) – the BNP look almost certain to lose their two seats. Full tabs are here.

148 Responses to “YouGov European polling”

1 2 3
  1. Wes,

    You forgot National Liberals!

  2. I’m interested in this idea of choosing a party name and/or surname that can confuse voters into erroneously voting for you, and I do remember somebody standing against Roy Jenkins many years ago who changed his name by deed poll to Roy Jenkins. Can’t remember how he got on and I’m not sure you’d get away with a similar stunt now.

    That said, I wonder if I could change my name to Nick Farrago and stand in a Tory held marginal somewhere next May. It’s worth a thought, isn’t it?

    (Definition of “farrago”: a confused mixture!)


  3. @Pete B

    “Whatever that particular lady ended up voting, that is the type of person moving to UKIP.”

    I’m pretty sure she voted Labour in the end but I see your point.

    At this stage I’d still make sure I had a concession speech prepared if I were only 3 points ahead of UKIP. Though I think YouGov were only a point off (for UKIP) when it got down to the wire in 2009 so it’ll be interesting to see what they come up with closer to the vote.

    I also notice the Ukraine election will be held on the same day the Euro results are out so any potential ‘earthquake’ may be quickly overshadowed. Perhaps Barroso put in a request…

  4. There are similarities between the reaction to UKIP and the reaction to BT in that the negative campaigning points from politicians and the mainstream media do not seem to stick and if anything increase the UKIP or Yes %.

    It is a puzzle but I think this is linked to the general distrust of politicians and the media. It doesn’t necessarily mean that UKIP or Yes are more trusted (although the YouGov did show that Yes was more trusted) but rather that it is really hard to run a negative campaign when no one believes anything you say.

    A lesson for Pressman and his mates if they think going negative on EM will work.

  5. Interesting to me that a friend (who used to be) in the SWP has put £40 on Yes. Given his record in predicting the revolution I translate that into a sure fire win for No. Probably in the region of 90:10…

  6. Could have some fun in Hallam with a few extra candidates…

    Dick Clegg – Literal Democrats
    Mick Clegg – Litoral Democrats
    Not Clegg – Listerine Demogogues
    Rick Clegg – Linoline Alleycats
    Nick Clogg – Libertine Demigods

    Come on Mr Nameless, make it happen…

  7. @Carfrew
    You might think that’s a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.
    Somebody else might think it’s partisan…

    [And some might think it’s a discussion about whether government policy is any good or not, which people who’ve been reading this for years know is against the comments policy as it inevitably leads to pointless party-partisan back and forth. Bad conversation drives out good – AW]

  8. Alec,

    Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has been very consistent (and I think correct) on the question of growth and austerity, even if he has deviated from the Telegraph editorial view. If you think, as he does, that monetary policy can be effective in a particular context, then austerity vs. growth is a false dichotomy: you can offset the effects of taxes/spending cuts on growth by boosting private sector demand using monetary policy.

    Had Osborne shown the initiative of Gordon Brown in 1997 and changed the Bank of England’s mandate away from inflation targeting (which doesn’t work well when there are things like VAT rises and oil supply problems going on) to something like a nominal GDP target, then I think we could have done much better at getting the public finances in good order.

    Also, contrary to his public image, Obama has hardly been a ravenous Keynesian for most of his term. In fact, the past three years have been the first time since at least the 1940s that US federal spending has fallen in real terms in every year-

    Like in the UK, there was an early shot of higher spending in 2008-2009, followed by a period of austerity. However, for a number of reasons the US central bank was able to get away with more offsetting monetary stimulus. Then again, even in the US, they could have done better; US nominal GDP growth has remained below its pre-crisis trend rate-

    On the debtor-lender relationship, there was a recent paper from an economist the LSE by Kevin D. Sheedy, who argued that a nominal GDP target (by smoothing out fluctuations in average income) would produce a better relationship between debtors and lenders, which would contribute towards greater financial stability. I don’t think it’s coincidental that severe financial crises tend to follow big falls in nominal GDP; the latter is not the single causal of the former, but it doesn’t help if debtors end up with nominal incomes falling while their nominal debts stay at the same level.

    We agree on investment incentives. I think the problem is a very persistent and debilitating problem for the country and so my views on the matter are quite radical: I would like to see the income tax replaced by a progressive consumption tax, which would be very similar to our current income tax system except with nothing paid on income from saving. (Except for capital gains tax and inheritance taxes, the former of which is a battle for another day.) The tax would have to become more progressive on paper to account for different saving rates among different income groups, in order to retain progressivity, but otherwise it could be done fairly simply by just removing the limits on ISAs.

    However, the difficulties of a change are immediate and the advantages would manifest over decades- a similar collective action problem to environmentalism. To move the discussion back onto polling: there are a lot of changes that almost all economists agree would be good (a revenue neutral carbon tax, no taxes on capital investment, free trade, radical reform of narcotics laws etc.) but which suffer from the problem that there are influential groups who would immediately feel their costs, whereas their benefits would be gradual and usually dispersed across society.

  9. @OLDNAT ‘You really don’t understand dry humour do you?’

    Au Contraire – that and irony too.

    One really shouldn’t underestimate one’s opponents old chap – if opponents we be, for I heartily wish what you optimistically call ‘independence’ upon you – in a Moldovan-Transdniestan kind of way.

    @AW In other matters; didn’t want to be the one to point it out -but unless it was the poetic sense of ‘loosing’ their support like an arrow, the BNP will ‘lose’ their support. This has perplexingly become a common usage in the past year, so maybe I’m just not down with shtreet speak. (Feel free to delete this part without getting castigated for censorship)

    Dry you see?

    BLUEBOB took that test. The top 3 were parties i’ve never voted for and the three I have were way down, makes you think.


    “@Carfrew You might think that’s a statement of the bleedin’ obvious. Somebody else might think it’s partisan…”


    Well you can’t stop people thinking allsorts. But if they want to prove otherwise they’ll have a job, trying to show that until the housing stimulus, we didn’t see any falling tax revenues, extra welfare costs and poor investment…

  11. @Mr Beeswax – did @Oldnat really say “You really don’t understand dry humour….”

    I’m thinking pots and kettles here if so.

  12. MrBeeswax
    Those of us who take a voluntary interest in things Political come from 4% of the population , the entry point for being politically active is putting up a poster at election times. I believe there is a correlation between this 4% and the similar percentage identified by educational psychologists amongst pre-school children, who are the organiser , the dispute settlers , those who feel impelled to take an interest in the well-being of the Group, as opposed to the majority , who are content to look to their own affairs. I am of the opinion that we of the 4% are inclined towards being authoritarian , regardless of which way we vote.

  13. Alec,

    I’ll register my appreciation of your comment before it’s stricken from the site.


    I’d love to, but £500 is a bit out of reach. Plus I’m already standing as Michael Garage of the UK Independents Party.

  14. I’m thinking of standing as Davy Boy Diamond Geezer Cameron (Con Party) in Witney to take advantage of Pressman’s campaign to make the real David Cameron a man of the people.

    Hopefully, he’ll make such a good job of it that everyone will be very confused and vote for me.

  15. @”How about a candidate for the Clitoral Democrats?
    Some would say he’s a right [email protected]

    That plumbs a new depth in my time here.

    The tendency for one side or the other of the political divide to predominate on UKPR has often been discussed.

    It is a fundamental feature of the site-and the greater the predominance, the greater the tendency to that sort of contribution.

    AW’s closing remark to Guymonde is very true.

  16. @colin – Please don’t misunderstand me – my post was intended purely as a word play, and it shouldn’t be taken to mean anything in terms of what I think of the Lib Dems or otherwise.

    As it happens, I don’t share the left’s loathing of them at all. Centre ground parties always get kicked by everyone, and because they are closer to both ends of the spectrum, and the biggest hatreds are always reserved for those closest to you, the kicking tends to be quite violent.

    I think Labourites fundamentally misunderstood the Liberal Democrats, and arrogantly assumed they were both effectively two branches of the anti Tory tribe.

    I have also always predicted the Lib Dems will do better (in terms of seats at least) in 2015 than people think.

    I did ponder whether to post my joke, and probably shouldn’t have done, but only because of the rudeness – it really isn’t intended as a political attack on my part.

  17. This is actually rather a significant development –

    I’ve long suggested that one straightforward way to ease the deficit issue is to tackle pension tax relief – a very large budget item that is also very heavily skewed towards the wealthy.

    Now, the free market Centre for Policy Studies has backed these ideas with a suggested scheme of 50% relief across the board, but limited to £8,000pa contributions. Meanwhile, Steve Webb has suggested a 30% rate with no limits, lifetime or annual, and I think it is very clear that post 2015, all the main parties will be looking at this as a key cost saving measure.

    Any support for saving naturally tends to favour those with wealth, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. There are many good social reasons to promote savings. Personally, I think the lifetime allowance should be capped at a much lower level, but at least we are now seeing some better thinking all round on what has been a very significant transfer of wealth from low to high earners.

  18. Mote and beam Colin, as AW would say…

  19. Colin
    Re Alec’s ‘near the knuckle ‘comment , l first heard a variant of it told as a joke by Jim Davidson , (I think) , so yes, l agree, a bit inappropriate for UKPR.

  20. Mr Nameless

    I’m sure we could club together. Compared to Thorium it’s cheap, and could even be better value…

  21. Oh dear. Now I’m being bracketed with Jim Davidson, it’s clear that I really did overstep the mark!

    In all seriousness, I do apologise for any offence I may have caused. Humour doesn’t excuse everything, context is all, and I was out of context and inappropriate.

  22. It just occurred to me, that on the Austerity thing, there wasn’t much “back and forth”. It was mostly just a bit of “forth”, ‘cos it was just a simple fact about tax revenues etc. You tend to get “back” as well as “forth” when either issues are naturally complex (e.g. Scots Independence), or someone is losing badly and trying to wriggle. If you follow the conventional practice of modding the wriggling (ad hominems, misrepresentations, broken-record rephrasing of previously despatched points, straw men etc.) then you don’t get much nonsense wriggling…

    [No one should ever be “losing”, as it’s not a political debating venue to start with – AW]

  23. Very interesting to see the Tories election pledge on wind farms. This will, in effect, kill the onshore wind industry, for a while at least, as is the next chapter in what has been a perpetual cycle of uncertainty in the industry.

    This is frustrating, as at long last we are beginning to see some real interest in small, community owned wind developments. The blanket statements issued today are likely to damage this sector as well, even as the government is putting in money to kick start it.

    One other observation is that the announcement pledges that local councils will have the final say on wind farms. How odd then, that a proposal for a small wind farm in Cumbria has just been called in after receiving 1,400 letter of support (mostly local) and getting approval from the county council.

  24. @Bill Patrick

    Interesting, however I’d like to add some other perspectives.

    I believe I have read recently that the UK savings ratio is not as low as reported but is skewed into saving via housing. Certainly the received wisdom in England (and I presume the UK) is that you can’t go wrong by investing in bricks and mortar. This view is reflected in the banking sector where mortgages are viewed as ‘safe as houses’ – even the language backs it up – and marketed very aggressively and with, I think, much narrower margins than other loans.

    In the meantime, it’s increasingly difficult for productive businesses to get premises in certain areas (London for a start) because landowners are cute enough to realise that residential land values are vastly higher than retail which is vastly higher than industrial and that by wielding a modest amount of dollars in the direction of financially strapped councils they can get industrial land rezoned. Kerching.

    As a result, I suspect any increase in savings without other reforms will merely contribute to continuing property price inflation: either people will ramp up their ‘savings’ by taking a bigger mortgage or they’ll put a little more in the bank, who will then lend it out to housebuyers. Oh, or maybe they’ll put it in a pension scheme. Most of these are oriented towards safety – particularly in recent years – and will thus be primarily invested in govt bonds or real estate.

    To the extent that any of these savings find their way into investment in the productive economy they will tend to fuel other unhelpful behaviours. Corporates are under extreme pressure to deliver quick returns in terms of divis and share price, both from an environment rich with predators in the shape of hedge funds, overseas investors etc, and very often from their own personal incentive schemes. Hence only a mug CEO will invest in R&D or new factories unless they will provide eps benefits within a year or two: if they take longer, it will be someone else reaping the benefits.

    I believe the most urgent reform we need to make is to remove all the incentives that are provided for real estate, primarily private housing. I’m much attracted to a land value tax but a removal or capping of the CGT exemption and some variation of the mansion tax idea (I saw someone suggesting a 0.6% annual value tax somewhere?).

  25. I thought Colin’s response was subtle humour meself.

    Very proud of the gurls today: they were yapping

    “WUFF OFF !!!!”

    to a Tory poster delivering leaflets and then ran around the hall chewing them up.

    [The leaflets, not the poster. He buggered off sharpish.

  26. Welsh EU Election Poll (YouGov):

    Labour 39%
    UKIP 20%
    Conservatives 18%
    PC 11%
    Libdems 7%

    Would give two Labour seats, one each for Cons and UKIP. Plaid would lose their seat.

  27. @Bill Patrick

    Just as a note with regards to Obama and Keynes. The US constitution makes it the role of the House of Representatives to initially propose any budget, and the House of Representatives is under control of the Republicans. There were harsh fights, as the Republicans wanted to cut everything to the bone (except military spendings and subsidy for oil companies of course). They even went as far as threatening the US’s credit rating with a default. Before that, they did so by filibustering in the Senate. Obama only had a slim window where the Senate Democrat majority was beyond filibuster, and he used that to get healthcare reform passed.

    Obama is a Keynesian, but simply can’t get a Keynesian budget passed by the current House of Representatives. He has otherwise directed Keynesian spending programs as much as he could.

  28. @CROSSBAT11

    I’ve been told that one of the first bits of legislation enacted by the Tony Blair government was to prevent other parties using a similar name to an existing parties… always seemed very ominous with regard to his intentions.

  29. Any support for saving naturally tends to favour those with wealth,
    It doesn’t have to there can be an upper limit an exclusion of those on the 45p tax rate or a tapering limit where those with the lowest pension pots getting the most support

  30. Syzygy,

    I seem to recall that was done as a result of Richard Huggett (the Literal Democrat) standing as “Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament” in the 1997 election.

    Anyone seen this EU octopus roaming around London, courtesy of We’re-Not-UKIP-But-Please-Think-We-Are?

  31. @Syzygy

    But Tony Blair used the old name ‘Labour’ for his party….
    I suppose he wasn’t allowed to use ‘Conservative’

  32. @ Guymonde

    My thoughts precisely .. although Democrat or Republican might have equally well fitted his Washington consensus/transatlanticism fetish.

  33. @Wes / Barbazenzero


  34. I’m changing my name to Aaron Aaronson and will campaign in 2015 as leader of the Aardvark Party.

    The winner!

    Charts updated to yesterday. All partisan commentary and evaluation, I leave to others.

  35. “[No one should ever be “losing”, as it’s not a political debating venue to start with – AW]”


    Absolutely. But some, if they perceive they are losing, will resort to nefarious means, prolonging needless back and forth. Problem is, polling isn’t just a system of measurement, but is also used to promote parties and agendas. Anyone who thinks it is more important their party gets elected than your site runs smoothly, for example, may see it as “losing” and thus resort to the nefarious.

    Sometimes it isn’t a party or ideological thing, it’s just an over-developed need to preserve the ego. Not liking to be seen as being wrong. Personally I’d rather just cede, since to me, self-delusion is the greater threat… even if it is a bit embarrassing, like the time Lefty pointed out I’d left gravity out of what was, in essence, an ‘O’ level physics calculation concerning energy storage…


    In government where/when?

  37. Ahh, I thought you were referring to ‘elected’. I thought of the MEPs.


    I was just adding to WES’ list at stated.

    National Labour also springs to mind


    “elected” would add many ……

    Scottish Greens
    …… just for starters

  40. @ALEC
    @Mr Beeswax – did @Oldnat really say “You really don’t understand dry humour….”
    I’m thinking pots and kettles here if so.

    Yes he did, but it was St. George’s day, maybe that’s like their April fool’s day?

  41. Syzygy
    They just gave a definition of your name on R4 as I was reading your last post, tides and the Moon and Sun, how splendidly romantic !

  42. Mr Beeswax

    Glad you spotted the irony. That has to be dry, or it gets rusty.

  43. New thread

  44. BNP lose their seats – what an excellent 100% poll I hope happens (well, at least that bit).

  45. ‘I’m changing my name to Aaron Aaronson and will campaign in 2015 as leader of the Aardvark Party.’

    Some years ago in Australia this alphabetical issue was dealt with by replacing alphabetical order by names out of a hat for each seat; an idea worth repeating here.

    (Oz noted basically that MP surnames after G didn’t exist; given compulsory voting they reckoned alphabetical order was worth up to 5%)

  46. ‘Compulsory voting’ technically that’s wrong, sorry – compulsory attendance at the voting booth and getting your name ticked off for the pedantic…

  47. A non of the above box needs to be added or it becomes the norm to spoil your ballet. If people are voting for parties in protest at the main parties it will cause more issues than it is worth.
    How many people polled about UKIP fully understand the policies or history of the party?

  48. Remember that in Scotland there are huge amounts of folk who have never voted in their life but are currently highly politicised due to the upcoming Indy ref and these euro elections will see a huge return for snp and an overall higher turnout than the rest of the uk.
    I’d say 3 snp seats is a possibility.

1 2 3