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. On the bullying topic, the overt anti-Semitic aspect to mass criticism of how an ethnic Jew eats bacon was particularly repulsive.

    Report comment

  2. I’m going to resist the Guardian-bashing, if you don’t mind. There are many people who write for the paper who I disagree with and many others I find an absolute delight to read, but I’m not entirely hung up by its political stance, to be honest. Sure, I’ve been irritated by some of its editorials and guest/resident commentators in the past, but its a good newspaper that often contains some excellent journalism, much of it nothing to do with politics. For example, I bought the paper for years just to read the sports writing of Richard Williams and Frank Keating. Whether it backed the SDP or the Lib Dems at the time was neither here nor there for me.

    What other newspaper could you buy today and read something as trenchant as this (written by Michael White when discussing Paxman): –

    “The same charge could be levied today against the Rothermeres and Murdochs, against browbeating editors, phone-hacking hacks, pompous or populist columnists, many of them paid much more than the average MP for churning out 1,000 glib words once a week to undermine public confidence in politics, the NHS or state schools – but rarely in tax-dodging bankers or paedophile celebs.”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself.

    Report comment

  3. LBJ meant “goofy”…the use of the word “dumb” in 1960s southern parlance didn’t refer as narrowly to general intellectual & cognitive abilities as it does now…. LBJ meant that Ford couldn’t multi-task and might struggle performing basic functions, like eating a bacon sandwich.

    It’s hideously politically incorrect, i know, but that’s what he meant.

    Report comment

  4. @Spinner99

    I thought LENR was a train to Newcastle….

    Until I discovered UKPR

    Report comment

  5. Ashcroft poll:

    Fairly good for the Tories with them on course to gain 7 of the 11 LD held seats Ashcroft polled. That said, there is evidence of a constituency effect with Paul Burstow getting a 4.5% swing towards the LDs in Sutton and Cheam! They are also down to hold Cheadle narrowly and Eastleigh comfortably.

    Remember these are only LD/CON seats so tell us nothing about LD/LAB seats, and are only the very closest LD/CON seats from 2010.

    Report comment

  6. @Alec

    One of the advantages of Thorium is the ability to shut it down and restart it at will. The guys running the molten salt reactor in the seventies used to shut it down over the weekend and restart it the following Monday. You can just drain the coolant into a passively cooled tank, then heat it up and pump it back in to restart. Try doing that with a conventional reactor, which takes a lot longer to shut down and restart, and which also needs to be shut down for lengthy periods to replace and reconfigure the fuel rods.

    But with a molten salt reactor there are no fuel rods, so that’s not a problem either…

    Report comment

  7. No good news for Clegg…
    ————
    It seems relatively good news:
    “My [Ashcroft’s] latest polling in 17 marginal seats closely contested between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives suggests that in some places Nick Clegg’s party may indeed defy the national trend. But according to this snapshot, the party risks losing a dozen or more seats to the Conservatives.”

    Based on UNS (only 16 LD seats for all UK), I’d expected the LDs to lose all their CON/LD marginal seats. Retaining 5/17 probably doesn’t seem too bad from their perspective.

    Report comment

  8. @SPINNER99

    “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.”

    ————-

    Ah yes, cold fusion. Well, if they get it to work reliably without controversy maybe. But for Thorium they have already proven the molten salt reactor… they just need to perfect the Uranium extraction bit, which is an simply a case of doing the engineering, it’s not in doubt conceptually as to whether its possible.

    And Thorium reactors have other virtues, e.g. burning up toxic nuclear waste or creating useful by-products…

    Report comment

  9. Interesting results about Labour and EM’s ratings.

    at the risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious (which someone has probably already stated anyway) there is a major difference between this situation and the WH/IDS/MH in that their party was roundly disliked. I suspect that an amalgam of the best bits of Mandela, Ghandi, Churchill and Jesus Christ would have struggled to lead the Tories to victory in 2001.

    And I keep coming back to the fact that Thatcher as LoO was seen as a massive drag on the Tories, even during the 79 election campaign, after the advantage of the WoD.

    Report comment

  10. PC
    Ed M and the Rubik’s Cube ?
    I heard it on BBC Radio 4, recently, not sure when precisely .
    Still, that’s a pretty geeky thing to be good at isn’t it ?

    Report comment

  11. @CrossBat11 – White’s article also contained the incisive line:

    “[Miliband’s] other pressing problem is that the Tory press, already on a full election footing, is busy throwing stones at him and paying pollsters to throw bricks by getting them to ask voters “when did Miliband stop beating his wife” questions designed to generate hostile headlines.”

    Report comment

  12. ALEC

    [Snip]

    I assume what you were really pointing to was whether a carefully research policy statement to the IPPR gains any publicity other than Grant Schapps’ “same old” comment:
    In this case I think it did. One of the most interesting questions over the next ten months will be on both sides how much straight reporting there is of policy statements intended to go into party programmes and commitments.

    Report comment

  13. From previous thread…

    Carfrew/Statto, Holyrood is refunded its geographic share of oil revenues in the block grant (Barnett covers this) so there’ll be no multi-billon bonus post-Yes. It is then spent.

    This is why BT and friends repeatedly ask where Salmond is going to find the £1bn a year to put in his Oil Fund.

    Report comment

  14. Those are worse findings for Clegg than I thought. 12 losses to Labour also looks likely which would leave them with 33 seats although we’ll see what happens in the Lib Lab poll.

    However, the news isn’t that good for Cameron either. The Conservative 40/40 strategy involves them holding their 40 weakest seats and taking their 40 easiest targets. The Con/Lab poll showed they aren’t managing the former and on this they need another 28 gains, which include seats like Oldham East and Saddleworth and Gedling. I don’t see it happening.

    Report comment

  15. I’d expect them to lose more seats to Labour than to the Tories. It’s their left-wing supporters who will have jumped ship.

    Report comment

  16. 90 seconds to solve the cube? Rubik’s cube solving algorithms have improved a lot over recent years, and the world record has come down a lot. Surely the headline has to be “EM is stuck in the past with old fashioned ways.. “

    Report comment

  17. @STEVE2

    “Carfrew/Statto, Holyrood is refunded its geographic share of oil revenues in the block grant (Barnett covers this) so there’ll be no multi-billon bonus post-Yes. It is then spent.”

    ——-

    If they get most of the oil after Independence, they won’t be getting just their current share, but also much of the rest that is currently shared out among the other nine tenths of the UK population…

    Report comment

  18. New thread

    Report comment

  19. Phil Haines

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

    With “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.”

    Which ones, Phil? 17.6.2014 was 4%, the last previous to that with Greens at 4% was 30.5.2014, if I have got my records right. That is hardly “fluctuated between 4% and 5% now in several recent YouGov polls.” 12 on 5% since the 4% before last.

    Report comment

  20. @Ben Foley

    Many thanks for the Ipsos MORI link. I just wish they would provide things like this in some machine-readable format to make it easier to play with the numbers!

    Report comment

1 2