This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 17%. Seventeen percent for UKIP is the highest YouGov have shown since May 2013, also in the aftermath of a strong performance for UKIP at the ballot box. Looking at the poll in the context of the Lord Ashcroft and Populus polls yesterday it looks to me as if Labour’s lead may have opened up a bit in the aftermath of the European elections as UKIP get a boost from their strong performance. If last year is any guide, we should expect UKIP support to subside a bit after the immediate impact of the election success fades from people’s minds, but time will tell where it settles at. Tabs for the YouGov poll are here.

Yesterday there was also a new Scottish referendum poll from Ipsos MORI. Their topline voting intention figures were YES 36%(+4), NO 54%(-3) – changes are since MORI’s last quarterly poll. A movement towards YES, though MORI generally show one of the largest leads for NO, so even with that movement it leaves NO a chunky lead. Full details are here.

574 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 30, LAB 36, LD 8, UKIP 17”

1 10 11 12
  1. Polls have shown UKIP to be the most disliked party so it seems least likely to receive any tactical votes.

  2. RogerH

    I don’t understand the point of your selective quote?

    I am with Postageincluded – it is a fairly dull result

    All the interpretations seem to be following a narrative to say this is bad for Labour and good for Tory but I have seen no argument for that apart from a lot of speculative assumptions over UKIP and tactical voting

    UKIP are playing a role that the LD did previously but I am not convinced the consequences are the same.

    I am really surprised that Curtice made such a sweeping comment on Labour’s chances based on this result

    I think my take from all the discussions is that UKIP are affecting all elections at the moment but no-one has a clue what that means for 2015 so we will just theorise with not much evidence

    On a personal view though, I hope the predictions of a significant move away from UKIP are correct as I think they are a deeply unpleasant party – the point NickP makes bout them detoxifying even this lot of Tories shows how bad they must be in reality!

  3. @Phil Haines
    I think you are being a bit hard on Labour here. Had the decision been made to mount a really intensive campaign on the scale we saw from the Tories I suggest – given the actual outcome – there is a fair chance that Labour would have held on to second place and polled 25 – 30%. Whether it would have been worth the effort is another matter! I am also inclined to the view that the fairly high turnout – by the standards of the last 15 years – benefitted the Tories who appear to have had the resources on the ground to get their vote out.

  4. This blog seems to have got it right:

    “Labour cannot win back Newark barring a freak landslide. The boundary changes in 2010 were relatively minor over all but harmed Labour here: the Labour inclined town of Retford was transferred northwards to the safe Labour Bassetlaw constituency whilst the Rushcliffe territory around Bingham was added.

    “Labour took 48% of the vote across Retford this year, to the Conservatives’ 26% and UKIP’s 23%: an edge of 1,300 votes. In contrast, the last elections in Rushcliffe (2011) had a Conservative vote of 47% with Labour on 28%, a Conservative lead of 1,500 votes. That is a net change in the Conservatives’ direction of 2,800 on a lower local election turnout…

    “There is little evidence to show that the ground has shifted enough for UKIP to win through here, although their current media coverage pretty much guarantees them a strong second place.”

  5. BTW since this is a Scottish thread and we’ve had numerous postings on it on all things Scottish, it’s noticeable how many recent items of interest have apparently passed the Scottish commentators by.

    So, just to fill in those gaps, this is what I mean:

    1. The IFS joining the cross-continental Unionist conspiracy by downgrading its calculation of the already poor fiscal position of an independent Scotland. And when challenged, stating that it had still erred on the side of optimism when using predictions of future oil revenues.

    2. Any mention of substance of the findings of the YouGov poll for Better Together, as opposed to attempts to criticise AW’s methodology. Findings such as Scots being in favour of a uniform rate of corporation tax throughout the UK by 71% to 21%, and so on.

    3. The recent pattern of Scottish crossbreaks in YouGov polling, which have been rather different from the pattern that usually prompts a lot of comments.

    4. The outcome of the other by-election last night, in which Lab gained a seat off the SNP on the back of an 11.3% SNP to Lab swing.

    Can anyone spot a pattern?

  6. Well, it would have been phenomenally bad for the Tories to lose, so I think they can be quite happy with the result.

    Labour’s result fell into the “probably barely adequate” bracket that all their polling and election results have fallen into since last spring.

  7. @BCROMBIE: “I don’t understand the point of your selective quote?”

    It wasn’t intended as a selective quote, just as a reference to the subject– which was the likelihood of people voting tactically against UKIP next year. I don’t think UKIP will be seen as being contenders in 99.7% of constituencies.

  8. Well, my criteria for assessing the Tory performance in Newark on the basis of their vote share suggests that a 9% drop fits them just within my “OK “range. Anything over a 10% drop, I’d said would be pretty bad in a safe seat (their 44th safest in fact) and at this stage of the Parliament. So, being consistent with my criteria, I’d say it was an OK to borderline poor performance for them.

    Tiptoeing through the treacle of post result spin can be tricky, and it’s always worth remembering that the purveyors of the most outrageous spin don’t believe a word of what they’re saying themselves. It’s not even self-delusion, it’s the attempt to weave a favourable narrative. Best to take it all with liberal doses of salt.

    An interesting by-election in many ways, but not a decisive or highly influential one. A UKIP win and then we might have been discussing political earthquakes and Cameron’s future, but the Tories have earned the right to live to fight another day. A bit of a score-draw, if you like, with bigger games to come, but it was a decent night for the Tories in the context of the current polls and recent local and Euro elections. It would be a little churlish to deny that.

  9. “@ Jamie

    @ rhuckle: “Does parliament properly serve the British public, by holding the executive to account ? I don’t think it does and as a result decisions are made whichare against the interests of most people.”

    Don’t you think we get the politicians we deserve. If we accept un-truths we get them, if we punish party disunity we get bland scripted opinions…….It’s messy old democracy”

    Yes some good points, but I don’t think the British public are willing to accept the status quo for much longer. Scottish independence vote, UKIP surge, Some English MP’s wanting England only votes, are all signals that change is wanted.

    If the 2015 election outcome is no overall majority, I think it will be much more difficult for two parties to agree some form of coalition. There are senior Lib Dems who would not want to do a deal with Labour and certainly there are many Tories who don’t want another coalition with the Lib Dems. So we could end up with a minority government and a more powerful parliament from May 2015.

  10. balbs

    Being stated that 1,004 votes represents LD’s worst performance in a post-war English by-election.More pressure on Clegg or will he just bat it away?

    No one’s picked up on this yet, but both in votes and percentage terms (2.6%) the Lib Dem performance was ‘better’ than at South Shields (352, 1.4%), though they have to go back to 1924 to do worse:

    Incidentally a local Independent also got around 5% in South Shields – perhaps a good home for disgruntled Lib Dems.

    Rotherham was also worse for the Lib Dems (451, 2.1%), so I don’t know who stated this ‘fact’, but it shows the same disregard for easily verifiable information (both these were in the last two years) that we have become used to in the media.

  11. The current Parliament has already blocked a war with Syria, Lords reform and the boundary changes, so it’s already more powerful than the last one.

  12. @ Roger Mexico,

    Aww, look, they’re recovering after all!

    Lord Oakeshott didn’t even need to worry.

  13. For anyone to suggest that Ukip taking over 25% of the vote in a high turnout by election is a sign of their decline just shows how far they have come in a year.

    Wasn’t Wythenshawe supposed to be the high water mark?

    Newark was never fertile territory for Ukip, an analysis of the council election results would not have put it on the top half of seats to target in a general election.

    There are many many MPs who would be in serious danger from Ukip if this happened in their constituencies.

  14. @Spearmint

    “Aww, look, they’re recovering after all!”

    They’re heading for a landslide never mind a recovery.

    (n.b. Labour did worse at Winchester in 1997)

  15. The problem for the LibDems is they look very powerless and ineffectual in the Coalition. It would have been totally different if they had gone for confidence and supply, the Cons would have had to court Clegg, Alexander etc and they could have played hardball. Maybe the idea of being in government was too enticing but they really are ‘in government but not in power’. But choosing coalition over confidence and supply had been a disaster.

  16. @Spearmint

    The current Parliament has already blocked a war with Syria, Lords reform and the boundary changes, so it’s already more powerful than the last one.

    I don’t think Lords reform counts, since that *always* gets blocked …. with you on the other two, though.

  17. Phil

    “Can anyone spot a pattern?”

    Yes, I can: I’m not sure which Billy Goat you are though….Bully, Bluff or Bluster.

  18. @MR BEESWAX: “There are many many MPs who would be in serious danger from Ukip if this happened in their constituencies.”

    This won’t happen, though, because it’ll be a General Election rather than a by-election.

  19. On the coalition… actually I thought the LDs did the right thing going into coalition – I buy the argument that we needed a stable govt – and I suspect that they knew it was high risk VI-wise, as it has proven. I also think it has naff all to do with ministerial cars/salaries: much more to do with the feeling of power – pretty seductive, and they do genuinely have (a bit of) power.
    I think the problem they have is much more tactical – the way they have played it and appeared to be Tory lap-dogs. That is largely down to Clegg – a natural lap-dog – and Alexander – way out of his depth and way up his own orifice.

    On Newark: OK for the tories, OK for UKIP, disappointing for Lab and b awful for LDs. Signifying nothing: polls steady; UKIP irrelevant in a GE other than effects on relative share in a few marginals; LD still likely to hold a few fortresses (though rather fewer than I would have thought 2 months ago); Lab heading for largest party and maybe a small OM.

  20. You can argue about the public benefit of a coalition rather than a minority government but it was suicide for the LibDem as a party. I don’t think that’s just with the benefit of hindsight either. I believe the political harm was predictable.

  21. @Roger H

    I completely agree, and I think they went into it with their eyes at least partially open.
    I still think it was the right thing for them to do, and I respect them for that decision, if not for what came after.

  22. What Sir Humphrey would have described as a ‘courageous’ decision.

  23. John Curtice is no longer independent in my eyes, just like majority of pundits and journalists he has sold out to self interest right wing cause

  24. Amusingly (to me) I have just spent a couple of hours editing a Wikipedia article, which happened to be on an aspect of the Normandy Landings. Wanting to find out what was happening in the world of polling I came here. And was momentarily very confused. (It doesn’t take much.) I shall repair to bed and can only hope that by the morning my Wikipeda site hasn’t been over-run by edits concerning the state of UK polling.

1 10 11 12