The daily YouGov poll for the Sun tonight has topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 38%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%.

We also had the monthly Ipsos MORI political monitor earlier on today – details here. They had topline figures of CON 31%(nc), LAB 34%(nc), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 14%(+3), GRN 8%(nc). An increase for UKIP following the European elections, but very little change elsewhere (though note the Greens equal with the Lib Dems).

MORI also asked some questions on whether Labour and Ed Miliband were ready for government. 35% of people think that Labour are ready for government, 22% that Ed Miliband is ready to be PM. The Ed Miliband figure is very similar to the YouGov question in the past asking if he looks like a “Prime Minister in waiting”, but MORI have been about for longer than YouGov, so in their case we can look at some historical comparisons here and here.

Looking at when MORI asked the same questions about oppositions a year or two out from an election (as opposed to immediately before an election when they score better), in 1996 58% thought Labour were ready for government, 56% thought Blair was ready to be PM. In 2000 23% thought the Tories were ready for government, 18% that Hague was ready to be PM. In 2003 21% thought the Tories ready for government, just 16% that IDS was ready to be PM. The government question wasn’t asked in 2004, but 31% thought Michael Howard was ready to be PM. In 2008-2009 between 41-58% thought the Tories were ready for goverment, 43% that Cameron was ready to be PM. On these measures at least Labour and Miliband are in better shape than the Tories under Hague and IDS, but worse than under Cameron and Howard.


71 Responses to “Today’s YouGov and MORI polls”

1 2
  1. Evening All.
    As the weeks pass, Labour seems to be holding its nerve, and staying ahead.

  2. Phew, a break from the footy to check the latest polls. Farewell Spain and (I say this through gritted teeth), bad luck to the Aussies who played splendidly against the Dutch. Chile were good tonight and what a wonderful atmosphere inside the majestic Maracana with thunderous support for the Chileans. This tournament just gets better and better and has me thoroughly gripped to the point of obsession. Retreating to the pub for tomorrow night’s denouement for England in Sao Paulo. What I would give to be in Brazil now.

    Tonight’s two polls suggest not much, if anything, is changing on the political front, although YouGov appears to point to both the two main parties rallying a little. Still no sign of any Labour up/Tory down symbiosis. All gentle MOE fluctuations, I suspect, with underlying position unchanged. Nothing much to report really. Disappointingly serene and peaceful.

    What could change things? Miliband speech on welfare tomorrow, global crisis triggered by Iraq implosion, NHS funding crisis, sudden rise in living standards, England winning the World Cup.

    Or Miliband pictured reading a Fred West biography?

    Only musing.

  3. And yet, and yet…. Labour and Miliband’s ratings are so low – roughly equivalent to IDS. Of course, with a new party likely to get 10% in the GE, and the Libdems likely to hold some seats albeit on a lower percentage vote, it’s very difficult to make valid comparisons with earlier elections.

    It could be the most interesting election for years!

  4. Thanks, Anthony for including GRN 8% in the topline for the MORI – its too easy for a remarkable result like that to go unnoticed if it is hidden in the tabs. Any chance you could reveal the Green share in the topline for YG, so those of us interested don’t have to wait until 6am to ferret through the tabs on the YG site?

    Thanks, also AW for the ‘change since last month’. I’d forgotton about this poll from a month ago, because at that stage I was more interested in Euro VI and regional breakdowns of it. But now looking back at the thread (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8798/comment-page-1#comments), I see lots of other people taking views like ‘its people confusing Euros with Westminster’ or ‘its an outlier’ (what I suspected at the time). Well, given this month’s results, neither explanation seems anything like so sustainable as people thought they were.

  5. I wonder if the popularity of the Greens is part of a general swing from the usual parties of government to anyone else (which would help explain the UKIP situation).

    It does seem to echo the situation mid-1970’s. At the February election, the Liberals managed a 13% swing from Cons+Lab. Now we might have the same sort of swing, except from 3 parties who are either in or not so long ago government, to anyone who hasn’t been in real power ever.

  6. Guardian citing that YouGov showing voters allegedly want Ed replaced by David. First, I think it actually showed only 15% wanted David – 59% didn’t know who should replace EM. Secondly, what a pointless statement to make! I could run a poll and find a majority of voters want Harold MacMillan leading the Tory party but it’s just as likely to happen.

  7. Ed Milband leading the Tories would be interesting.

    Or Farage leading Labour!!

    Clegg leading the LibDems would probably top both of those though…

  8. Introducing the MORI thread a month ago, AW said “I don’t have a decent spreadsheet of historical trend data for the Greens, but that is likely their highest level of Green support for some time”. At http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/103/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-1976present.aspx there is a useful series of MORI westminster VIs of “all respondents who name a party that they say they intend to vote for, whether or not they are certain that they will vote”: that shows Greens at 8% in the July 1989 poll, then not 8% again until last month’s poll.

  9. The main eleven GB/NI party leaders should get together and play musical chairs for their positions. The results would be hilarious – David Cameron leading the Green Party, Farage trying to make a conference speech in Welsh, Clegg hanging out with Gerry Adams…

  10. Chrislane,
    Do you still adhere to the view that the Tories are likely to get a second term?

    Re- Ready to be PM
    I think it would be interesting to compare Ed’s ratings with those of Ted Heath back in 1969.

  11. How long did the Greens take to fade after previous Euro elections? Are there any graphs available that show historical VI that include the Greens?

    I think we may be seeing something different this time round, many ex-LD voters seem to be moving to the Greens. Is this the start of the emergence of a UKIP of the left?

  12. Re Ed

    Not helped by the unlovely Mandelson on Newsnight

  13. Thanks Ben, did not see your post before I posted.

    So looking at that the Greens were on 7% in May 2009, still on 6 in August 2009, then faded away in Sept. So we need to wait a few months more to see if this is just a Euro effect, or something more.

  14. @Mr Nameless

    The G******n has always been a Liberal rag. It’s no friend of the Labour Party, as shown by the fact is has several commentators who constantly take digs at Labour.

  15. Plus the G******n is as much ‘in the bubble’ as the rest of them, and as such they subscribe to many of the same orthodoxies and obsess over many of the same trivialities as the rest of the political class.

  16. Richard,

    The Greens got 0.5% in the 1992 GE, after polling 8% during 1989. They stood in 258 seats, slightly less than half.

    I seem to recall (probably here but can’t find it) that Green VI basically halved every year until the 1992 election. However, this was as the Lib Dems recovered and the SDP dissolved, the Tories changed leader and the Gulf War happened.

    In the next year I don’t think we’re going to have nearly so many VI-shifting events so it’s hard to predict the Greens. Personally I think a combination of insufficient candidates and two-party squeeze puts a cap of about 2% on them this election but there is a possibility of a UKIP of the left emerging.

    Of course if it does, expect endless coverage of the slightly nuttier parts of the Greens as has happened to UKIP, and a lot of focus on B&H council. Given the Greens have nowhere near as charismatic and ubiquitous leader as UKIP and general left-wing tendencies for infighting, things could get a bit splitty.

    Much will depend on who wins the next GE.

  17. graham “Chrislane,

    Do you still adhere to the view that the Tories are likely to get a second term?”

    I am confident that Chris stands by all his predictions and even more confident that one of them will be right.

    The bugger is knowing, in advance, which one: but that is just a minor quibble.

  18. There’s one thing of which Chrislane will always be sure.

  19. Editorially, the G******n has a position to defend.

    They claim to be left-leaning, but having gone all-in on Clegg in 2010, they effectively put Cameron, Osborne, G*ve et al in Government.

    So they have to shore up the line that this outcome is/was inevitable because….well, because, just LOOK at Labour. It’s not the Labour that WE want.

    Left-leaning? Ha! There’s a special circle reserved for them in Hell. It’s coming closer, every day.

  20. CB11
    Ed looked and sounded v. prime ministerial on PMQ’s re Iraq and ISIL. More please on domestic policy issues, and less reliance on the COL mantra.

  21. Lefty

    D’you not like the Guardian?

  22. The Guardian hasn’t been the same since Glover left. Cif had a field day with his articles…

  23. @SYZYGY

    New thought for Thorium! Gerald Celente says it’s the way to solve the nuclear power-Iranian wrangle… so not just good for Mars but still think renewable makes far more sense.
    Report comment
    June 18th, 2014 at 1:22 am

    ———

    Thsnks for the heads up… I bought his Trend Tracking book when it came out years ago… Influenced me a fair bit, actually.

    And yep, Thorium is a safer bet because when you try and turn it into something suitable for weapons, a by-product is a lot of high energy radiation, which…

    – means it’s hard to nick or hide as it’s much easier to locate with sensors
    – and said radiation is also rather deleterious to the life prospects of those working with it in the vicinity

    … Which is why they decided against using Thorium for the Manhattan thing in the first place.

    As you know, I think renewables have their limitations, chiefly…
    1) Not all nations are blessed with an abundance of renewables
    2) Inefficient and expensive to pipe renewables from places of abundance to elsewhere
    3) Can take up a fair bit of land and resources including rare earth elements
    4) unlike Thorium, will not burn up existing waste from traditional reactors
    5) Will not generate high-value by-products eg isotopes for medical uses
    6) Do not offer the extreme energy abundance of Thorium that would transform things majorly
    7) Or the compact, extreme power density of nuclear fuels
    8) Or allow the displacement of current nuclear reactors for those without the same level of proliferation concerns
    9) Will not allow constant baseload supply like Thorium, requiring significant investment in energy storage
    10) No moonbase etc. 

  24. KEITHP
    I wonder if the popularity of the Greens is part of a general swing from the usual parties of government to anyone else (which would help explain the UKIP situation).

    -The Latest Yougov indicates a 9% swing to the Labour party compared with the General Election and only a small reduction in Conservative support.

    The Swing in Reality is away from the Lib Dems the biggest beneficiaries being Labour the Greens and UKIP.(In that Order)

    I would expect that those with Centre Left inclinations who have switched to Labour and possibly the Greens are likely to stay until at least after the next GE, the protest vote element switch to UKIP could end up any where other than I would imagine with a Government party.

  25. “9) Will not allow constant baseload supply like Thorium, requiring significant investment in energy storage”

    Just to throw in a quick point – current UK nuclear has a capacity factor of around 50 – 55% – ie it is off stream around half the time. Thorium probably wouldn’t be any better than this, but this doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good way to go for energy supplies.

    There is something of a myth that nuclear is far more reliable than renewables. It is in some ways, but wind power generates something for around 80 – 85% of the time (not capacity) while nuclear is a bit more on/off, and the overall capacity factors of c 30% and c 50% aren’t nearly as divergent as pro nuclear people would have us believe.

    A little of everything, as my Granny used to say.

  26. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10910642/Ed-Milibands-welfare-plan-five-years-in-work-could-mean-extra-benefits.html

    Some years ago I proposed a benefits system with differential payments to reflect work record and whether people were going into or out of work.

    This sounds like something similar.

    [Snip – as ever, it isn’t a place to discuss if government or opposition policies are any good or not – AW]

  27. @Lefty
    “They claim to be left-leaning, but having gone all-in on Clegg in 2010, they effectively put Cameron, Osborne, G*ve et al in Government.
    So they have to shore up the line that this outcome is/was inevitable because….well, because, just LOOK at Labour. It’s not the Labour that WE want.”

    Alternatively, the Guardian could have said that with hindsight they got it wrong in 2010. It’s the absence of any contrition that rankles and which makes it so clear that they’re a Lib Dem paper at heart.

  28. Tabs show that last night’s YG showed Greens back at 5%, so the one 24 hours before looks like it was the outlier.

    As for the Greens post 1989 decline: iirc David Icke’s pronouncements had a lot to do with it. Unless something from that far left field happens again, its reasonable to expect that such a sharp decline won’t happen this time.

  29. I’ve been keeping an eye on the BBC’s reporting of opinion polls over the past few days, since the ICM poll came out.

    Unlike last month’s, the recent ICM poll wasn’t worthy of mention, since it didn’t show Labour behind. This morning’s YouGov poll was reported on Radio 4, but in terms of Miliband’s low leadership ratings alone. (That followed an earlier in the same programme piece on Paxman bowing out, when a barbed comment from Paxman at Miliband’s expense was selected.)

    Meanwhile, in a real rather than parallel universe, Labour is 4% ahead with YouGov and with vote share recovering to 38%.

  30. The unprompted who would you want to be leader instead questions don’t really seem to have worked with people just naming people linked in the media and past candidates. I guess this is a problem with polling people on what is essentially an internal party issue when people don’t know much about politicians beyond what they see on the TV. If it is useful perhaps it is in unmasking the fact that people generally, regardless of the specific leader and there recent performance, want politicians they don’t like to resign.

    22% does seem worryingly low but it is worth remembering a couple of things.

    First, he wouldn’t be the first to get into Downing Street almost by accident and despite low popularity. These figures don’t go back far enough but it is fair to say that Heath and Wilson (1974) weren’t wildly popular, even if increasing levels of general anti-politics and multi-partism mean their ratings would prob have been better than EdM.

    Second, the boundaries and the multi-party system mean that Ed may get into number ten with a vote share only marginally up on what Hague got through similar personal ratings.

    What is quite interesting is that the CONs are now leading in just about every supplementary (noting that this poll didn’t ask about the NHS and some other traditional LAB issues). That’s got to be promising, even if VI remains stubbornly in the low 30s.

  31. @Ben Foley

    “Tabs show that last night’s YG showed Greens back at 5%, so the one 24 hours before looks like it was the outlier.”

    No, it shows that after a consistent run of 5% a couple of weeks back, they’ve fluctuated between 4% and 5% now in several recent YouGov polls.

  32. LENR is likely to be far more disruptive to renewables than Thorium. It will also of course make much of the existing expensive oil (ie north sea) not worth recovering.Scots “yes” voters beware.

  33. Lefty & PH.
    “they [the Guardian] effectively put Cameron, Osborne, G*ve et al in Government.”
    Not enough people read the Guardian for it to put anyone in Government.
    Cameron et al were put in government by the millions who voted for them.

  34. Could the current debate about Miliband be considered a form of bullying ?

    In any other world, apart from politics, it would be considered bullying.

    We keep seeing polling about what people think about Miliband and there are constant media attacks on him as a person. Even in parliament we have had comments from political opponents, which some would not find acceptable in any other work place. Cameron I seem to remember even commented about Miliband stabbing his brother in the back. When in fact both brothers stood for the leadership of the party.

    If we accept that bullying of politicians and bullying between politicians, does this not set a very bad example to children and society in general ?

    My opinion is that it is not acceptable and the public in general will see through the personal attacks, trying to decide on the substance of any debate.

  35. The UK’s benefit system is, contrary to popular belief, not particularly generous and is designed to pay claimants no more than the minimum deemed necessary. Differentiating on work record will involve paying some people more, not less – increasing welfare costs further.

  36. “Unlike last month’s, the recent ICM poll wasn’t worthy of mention, since it didn’t show Labour behind.”
    ———————–
    Agreed. The constant anti-Ed campaign is predictable and yawn-worthy. I would like to know what ‘real world’ issues voters say will influence how they will vote in 2015. Give them a sensible and balanced list to choose from. Can’t see it happening though. IMO.

  37. “Differentiating on work record will involve paying some people more, not less – increasing welfare costs further.”

    The proposal to offset the cost is that the qualification period for contributory JSA is increased from two years to five.

  38. A study about poverty covering 30 years, so all parties share responsibility.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/19/poverty-hits-twice-as-many-british-households

  39. [snip] Miliband has big problems. I still think he is more likely to be PM in a year’s time than not, but [snip] the public thinks he doesn’t look the part and he has basic co-ordination problems.

  40. Latest YouGov / The Sun results 18th June – Con 34%, Lab 38%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%; APP -21

    Assuming this sort of score holds, then looking at the last 5 polls with Yougov, Lab have got back those ex 2010 LD.’s they had lost for a few weeks in May. they are slowly getting back their core 2010 vote, although still 1 point lost to UKIP or Others

    Cons have got back the 1% of ex 2010 Cons they lost to UKIP in May as well

    It is the LD’s who seems to have permanently lost 2% to the Greens – I can see why these voters might have left the LD’s in May, more election coverage for the Greens, maybe the read the policies and liked what they saw and so have decided to stay.

    Far from me to be rude about these new LD switchers, but i am wondering if they also like voting for a party that won’t have any power and so can keep their conscience clear

    Also I also note from the Best Prime Minister question that if the Lab supporters (35% DK) were as loyal to their leader as Con voters are (95%) to Dave C, then Ed M would be right on Dave C’s tail.

  41. as nauseam indeed Peter. Same old, same old.

    Interesting to see Miliband announcing a crackdown on benefits for young job seekers today who don’t have NI contributions built up.

  42. “he has basic co-ordination problems”

    What do you mean ?

  43. Despite the negative ratings for Labour being ready for Govt and EM’s personal ratings, Labour are maintaining a lead in the very same polls. So, presumably the Labour lead is depressed already by the aforementioned factors to the level that we see it at. Would all this mean that Labour’s lead would be much, much higher if the first two factors were more positive?

    I wonder if Howard and the Conservatives had these kind of leads in the general election question opinion polls when they had better results than EM and “Labour ready for Govt” questions now give?

  44. It is interesting to see some debate on social security payments

    Firstly, it has to be said that the UK social security system is not at all generous compared to the continent and so I am a little bit tired of hearing about crackdowns on who receives the pittance that we pay out.

    There is an issue with Housing Benefit but that is also liked to the housing shortages and it actually does not go to the recipient but the landlord.

    What is different about our social security system and others I have seen though is that the focus on training and getting back to work is so much more professionals. As the payments are higher there is an expectation that it is treated like a job….professional training courses based on need, demonstrated searches for jobs, having to request holiday absences etc.

    It will be interesting to see what Labour propose but I would like to see some empathy and investment in people looking for work rather than the pathetic rhetoric we normally see from politicians

  45. Key Ashcroft LD/CON poll out at 11am. 17 seats apparently.

    Two possibilities for me:

    1/ LD vote holds up as LAB are nowhere in these seats and the anti-CON vote stays with the LDs.
    2/ Big CON leads with anti-CON vote split down the middle

    This should also tell us more about UKIP and the Greens than the LAB/CON marginal polls did.

  46. re. Miliband’s problems
    The Americans put it well “He can’t walk and chew gum at the same time”.

  47. Actually that’s not what LBJ said – the American media sanitised it – he actually said Ford couldn’t fart and chew gum at the same time. He wasn’t actually talking about the same thing as you anyway, the comment wasn’t intended to suggest that Ford looked goofy and unco-ordinated (obviously, once you’ve taken the walking bit out), he was just accusing his opponent of being really dumb.

    Naturally, saying you think politicians are dumb here wouldn’t be within the comments policy, so you probably shouldn’t do it.

  48. Peter Crawford
    The original version, from LBJ concerning Gerald Ford was
    ” He can’t fa*t and chew gum at the same time ”
    Ed M , is apparently , a whizz at doing the Rubik’s Cube quickly, so your comment on his having ‘co-ordination problems ‘ as well as being very offensive to a whole raft of people, is demonstrably wrong.
    As wrong say as Cammo being portrayed as a bully in the Flashman mould.

  49. i put that in the original post the f*rt but you snipped that, anthony. who says mili is good at the rubik’s cube?

1 2