This morning’s daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 37%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 14%, very much in line with the recent average. The average figures in YouGov’s daily polls so far this month are CON 33%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 14%. Tabs are here.


378 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 37, LD 7, UKIP 14”

1 2 3 4 8
  1. AW
    How difficult would it be for you to ‘poll’ the users of this site? After all it always seems so balanced in it’s opinions of the parties?

  2. @Peter,

    If the EU intends to have a directly elected president, they should say so. (I suspect they do, but know this will frighten the horses and need to suck us in gently).

    As things stand, the president is appointed, with heads of government giving their views and supporting or opposing candidates. Perhaps the official UK position should be “We will support whoever France, Germany and Italy want” but I don’t think that would go down very well.

  3. Alec

    I was talking about Merkel and others who said one thing to DC’s face and then acted against him behind his back. It makes him look very principled to me, and I suspect many of the UKvoters (we will see over the next week or so).

    I also don’t agree that Cameron is being “roundly trashed” far from it.

  4. I think DC has a point; were voters all round Europe really choosing from the candidates for President when deciding who to vote for in the Eu Election.

    No of course not, the strong showing against governing parties across the EU shows this.

    His tactics, though, questionable to say the least.

    Peter – interesting that DC feels a democratic deficit of being a minor part of a big body who often acts in a way the smaller body would not themselves?

    can we think of any other examples?

  5. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    “Bizarre by even your standards!”

    When people make personal comments I feel it’s because they feel they are losing the argument and don’t like it, but feel free if it pleases you.

  6. Jayblanc

    ““Easily flustered Cameron puts his foot in it again”

    I’m not a fan of Cameron, I hated his gay marriage legislation like a large minority of voters but I think that is partsan nonsense.

  7. John B

    “There’s a lot more hanging on this meeting than simply whether the Kippers can be stalled a bit.”£

    I don’t think Cameron is making his stand because of UKIP, I think he is acting on principle because he genuingly does not think Juncker is the right man for the job, a view apparently held in private by many in Europe.

    As to the effect of our leaving the EU I believe that will be good for us economically after a period of adjustment and we will avoid the massive problems the EU countries will face as the EU falls apart which I believe is inevitable.

  8. As the views of other leaders were expressed in private, we really only have Cameron’s say that they have broken their word.

    If it was ever given in the first place then I suspect the most was ever said would be along the lines of;

    ” Of course, if you can find another candidate, who can command greater support amongst other leaders and the Parliament, we’ll certainly take a look!”

    Probably given as a subtle hint that they knew he couldn’t and that he would be best not to press the issue. Clearly subtlety was lost on Cameron.

    Just out of interest, does anyone know who Cameron’s alternative candidate is or how much support they could gather amongst leaders and the Parliament.

    Also on another issue;

    I wonder how Cameron losing on Junkers will play in the referendum given that one of the “Better Together” key lines is that with it’s seat at the”Top Table” Britain has more influence and punches above it’s weight.

    I wonder what odds you can get on Dave “Boy” Cameron in tomorrow’s bout against Jean “Sugar Ray” Junkers!

    Peter.

  9. @Neil A
    “As things stand, the president is appointed, with heads of government giving their views and supporting or opposing candidates”
    That doesn’t to me look quite like Lisbon Treaty Article 17.7
    “Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council [Heads of Government], acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.”

  10. @Jim Jam – “were voters all round Europe really choosing from the candidates for President when deciding who to vote for in the Eu Election.”

    There was a widely publicised debate between the parties’ candidates for president – widely publicised across the rest of Europe, that is. The insular British media ignored it almost completely. So yes, in most countries the presidential candidates were known when people voted.

  11. For another view, see
    https://gobbledegooked.wordpress.com/tag/article-17-7/

    Note especially
    “There is an informal agreement among the parties that the one that wins the most seats can put forward its candidate for the EU Executive.” This BEFORE the election, and it is the largest GROUP that is nominating the candidate.

    In 2015 “Vote UKIP get Miliband”. In 2014 Vote UKIP get Junckers.

  12. @Dave

    presumably you mean that had the British Conservatives stayed in the PP Grouping they could have ensured that Junkers would not have been the candidate.
    Possible……

    But that just goes to show, yet again, how cackhanded DC has been on the European issue.

    FWIW my view is that we ought to decide whether we’re with the EU or not and act accordingly. To wait for the EU to be with the UK government position (whether DC or EM) is a waste of time.

    TOH – the whole thing (EU) may fall apart as you suggest, of course, but it has survived a massive challenge to its existence over the past five years (Eurozone crisis) and come through it. Once the economies start to pick up again (when?) it will become apparent to all that there is no workable alternative to the EU as it now. IMO.

    And I was rather hoping for a game of ‘Mornington Crescent’ which, sadly, failed to materialise. It is in such games as these (e.g. also ‘Just a Minute’) that our true identity lies, not in faux democratic haverings!

  13. @Chris Green
    It was made very clear by the candidates towards the end of that debate, that the Parliament would not accept (and can vote down) any candidate other than one first put forward by the Parliament – a significant variation on past practice and the Lisbon Treaty, (and certainly on previous treaties) but one not needing the wording to be changed if that is taken to be what is meant by “taking into account the elections and after appropriate consultations”
    What would happen if the Council continued to put forward other candidates is not clear, but we are not in that state this time.

  14. “in 2015 vote UKIP get Milliband” (Dave)

    Well, who knows, but with multi-party a perverse result is always possible. Another example was the success of the German CDU-CSU (Cons) who were almost too successful at the expense of their preferred FDP (Liberal) coalitionists. The result was that the German Liberals failed to enter the national parliament, and the German Conservatives were forced into an alliance with the SDP (Socialists).

    Not that the polls predict that particular scenario in UK in 2015 at the moment.

  15. Of course as this is a direct consequence of the Lisbon Treaty if Cameron had stuck to his guns when it was being negotiate and said a Tory Government will repeal it or call a referendum we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Although we probably wouldn’t be in the EU either.

    That or Gordon Brown would still be PM.

    Talk about a rock and a hard place!

    Peter.

  16. @ TOH

    I did read your posts but didn’t really see much in them that explained how this would be an electoral positive for the Tories. I read them more as “this was the right thing to do” and perhaps that the electorate would recognise this or that this might just push Cameron to support an out vote.

    Personally I can’t see any of that. The logical conclusion for anyone currently saying they will vote UKIP is to carry on voting UKIP because a Tory government (so far) has not seemed likely to have much success in re-negotiation and unlikely to support an out vote.

    Sure they have offered a referendum, which I believe they will do, but current UKIP voters already know this and it is factored into their polling preference already. So I don’t understand why you think that apparent failure to re-negotiate would improve this position.

  17. @Peter Cairns

    Other candidates had been discussed before the election, when it didn’t look at all likely that EPP would emerge as largest party.

    The alternative candidate being pushed in the Tory press has been Christine Lagarde… but no one seems to have taken the trouble to ask if she was interested in a new job so soon after taking charge at the IMF(after lead candidate Gordon Brown was blocked by Cameron).

  18. Billy Bob,

    “The alternative candidate being pushed in the Tory press has been Christine Lagarde”

    And did she command the support of a majority of the leaders and the Parliment.

    Farage must be rubbing his hands in anticipation of the ructions UKIP can cause when his appointment is debated in the European Parliament!

    I am thinking, “God Save the Queen” flags banners and a symbolic walk out.

    Pity there’s no such theme as “March of the Fruit Cakes” for them to leave too!

    Peter.

  19. @John B
    No, I did not mean that, though it might be true.
    What I meant is that the federalists proceed by small steps towards their goal. It is certainly true that for whatever reasons, the UK politicians do not give at home appropriate full, clear and truthful accounts of what it is clear the EU authorities (including the Council) intend. It seems to me very doubtful whether what is intended is a) in the interests of the citizens of UK; b) in the interests of the majority of European citizens; c) workable; but we should not aim to be IN for half of what the EU stands for, while still trying to overcome the other half. The only principled and sensible course IMHO is to be OUT and negotiate mutually satisfactory trading arrangements. Cameron’s approach seems to be to stay in and try to save the Europeans from themselves as he sees it, while getting enough support at home to get re-elected.
    It’s doubtful if they see it that way.

  20. the ukip question to cameron after juncker’s appointment will surely be, “you failed to get your way on juncker, so how on earth do you think you’ll be able to renegotiate the treaties to win key powers?”… it seems a difficult question to answer.

  21. So-when the headlines anticipated here appear :-

    Council of Europe disagrees with Cameron-Juncker appointed…….

    what will be the reaction of the British voting public ? :-

    * Oh no-the EU are upset with us again !

    or

    * Why the f**k do we bother with this organisation

  22. i am from austria
    and here on the continat it was clear that the candidat from the biggest party(group of parties) will have the first shot at forming a majotity in the eu-parliament
    there have been several tv-discussions between the candidates of the big euparties

    i didn’t vote for junker/epp
    i think he is a flawed candidate

    BUT
    he was the candidate of the winning group – the epp
    that’s democracy

    p.s.:
    cameron is not seen as principled in the rest of europe
    more as a sore looser or a spoiled brat (not that this is important to dave c.; he is only playing to his domestic audience which is why he is willingly damaging the future of gb in the eu)

  23. Peter,

    If they’re going for the other half of Cameron’s quote they could go for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSMOrBpbvZM

    Might attract the support of the more “swivel-eyed” faction of Tory MEPs too. And could head out the door with a triumphant “That’s All, Folks!”

  24. @ T’Other Howard,

    I don’t think Cameron is making his stand because of UKIP, I think he is acting on principle because he genuingly does not think Juncker is the right man for the job, a view apparently held in private by many in Europe.

    In that case, he’s an incompetent diplomat, because he’s gone about raising this objection in a way almost guaranteed to ensure Juncker gets the job.

    This is a rare instance where I give Cameron more credit that you do: I think he wants to be seen to be “standing up to Brussels”, and has achieved this fairly handily. What he’s forgotten is that, as in the case of the so-called veto, this buys back the Kippers for a few weeks at best (since he will be clearly seen to fail in Juncker’s case, this time it may not gain him even that), and then he’s back to Eurosceptic square one.

    (Plus, if I were you, I’d be concerned that he’s made a personal enemy of the guy he needs to negotiate with to repatriate powers. I doubt he’ll ever be in a position to do so, but if he does win a majority there is good reason to believe he will campaign for ‘In’ no matter what the result of the “renegotiation” is, and he will be likely to carry the vote. Therefore it’s in Eurosceptics’ interest for him to have as strong a negotiating stance as possible so you can at least get something out of the referendum before you get trapped in the EU for another generation, and this toys out of the pram stuff really does not help.)

  25. PETER CRAWFORD

    @” it seems a difficult question to answer.”

    I suppose that, having squared her domestic politics with a Juncker appointment; Merkel might concede lots of goodies in a fit of remorse & anxiety to hang on to UK’s net contribution to EU coffers.

    On the other hand-as I was idly musing the other day-DC may have a dramatic card to play :-

    “A government source said on Wednesday that giving Mr Juncker the job would be “profoundly wrong” and a “huge mistake”.
    The source said the Prime Minister would soon announce Britain’s response to being outvoted and that the EU “should be worried” about the “consequences”.
    “It is a big issue and, if it happens, we do not want to minimise it,” the source said.
    “The Prime Minister has been reflecting a great deal on it, there have been a lot of discussions and in terms of his own agenda, the reforms he wants to see in the EU, this is a significant step in the wrong direction.””

    DT

    ???

  26. @Alister 1948.
    My point was that “Vote UKIP get Miliband” has had much publicity, but almost none has been given to the irony that voting for parties dedicated to leaving the EU (a pattern common across Europe) has helped lead to a noted federalist for President.

  27. JOHNB

    @” the movement towards a strong Federal EU has been utterly open and honest ”

    “On April, 21st, 2011, Juncker explained his understanding of political integrity at a conference: Referring to the way he and the EU deals with the Euro crisis and the financial market, he said: “I have to lie. I’m a Christian democrat and a Catholic, but when it becomes serious, you have to lie”.

    Europeandignitywatch,

  28. @ Dave
    Absolutely. Life is full of similar ironies.

  29. @Dave – “It was made very clear by the candidates towards the end of that debate, that the Parliament would not accept (and can vote down) any candidate other than one first put forward by the Parliament”

    Exactly. It was always clear that the winner of the European Parliament elections would be the president. There was never any doubt about it.

  30. @TOH

    Fair enough; no political agonizing then :P

    @Colin

    “On the other hand-as I was idly musing the other day-DC may have a dramatic card to play ”

    ‘You see these toys? Every single one of them is going to come hurtling out of this pram.’

    @JohnB

    “And I was rather hoping for a game of ‘Mornington Crescent’ which, sadly, failed to materialise”

    Well we can’t play a game of ‘Mornington Crescent’ until the letters have been read. And hearing a distinctive and heavy thud, I note that a brick has been hurled through my window. And attached to it is a letter from a Ms Trellis in North Wales who writes:

    ‘Dear David,

    ‘I, like you, can’t understand why the European Union wants to elect Juncker president. How are they going to get a bomber into the parliament?

    ‘Yours sincerely Ms Trellis’.

  31. The way things are going, I can see UK relations with Europe being a much more significant factor in the 2015 general election than anyone imagined before the present shambles – significant in labelling the parties and their leaders as capable, trustworthy, right in their predictions, consistent and commonsense in approach etc etc. … or not.
    “Renegotiation? Cameron can’t get it and Miliband won’t try.”

  32. @Colin – 4.24

    All politicians lie! That’s the only way they can get anyone to vote for them. To tell the truth would be catastrophic, as the press – left or right wing or whatever – would always say that they were lying anyway. Or being ‘economical with the truth’. The public doesn’t want the truth, no matter what it claims to want. The public want people in power who can get what they, the public, want – the best of a bad deal. The last thing the general public wants is to be forced to look at the truth!

    And what, exactly, was Juncker lying about? A bit of context, please!

  33. @AU

    You may inform Mrs. Trellis of North Wales that the bomber will be in there, whether DC spits fire or not!

    Turnpike Lane

  34. Can we really imagine a situation where Cameron, assuming of course that he is still PM, returns from his negotiations with the rest of the EU and says, in terms, ‘Sorry, I didn’t really get anything – I’m now campaigning to leave’? I just can’t see it. I think that whatever he achieved, no matter how small, would have to be presented by him as a significant victory and, ironically, whatever he achieved, no matter how great, would be insufficient for a large chunk of his own party.

  35. toh

    A “small” majority, which you expect is NOT a workable majority for the leader of the Tory party which is what I said they will not have, especially with direct relation to the EU issue.

  36. @Clin 4.24 again

    Yes, the context was the Euro and so on, but which particular lie had he in mind? The one about Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal being up to the job? If that was it, no-one of my acquaintance ever believed a word of it – and that includes a lot of Italians. Political necessity was the winner there – and the gamble almost failed (though huge proportions of the population in Italy and Greece might say that the jury is still out on that one).

  37. I hope no one thinks that if he loses Cameron will threaten to back a “Out” vote.

    That would make it the number one issue in the next general election with UKIP all but guaranteed more PR than ever before in a Westminster campaign, and that gift from a Tory party that they get the most support from.

    Sooner than that we have the referendum with a UK government threatening to leave while “Better Together” is claiming we’ll stay.

    Cameron can’t be that incompetent can he?

    Peter.

  38. @Chris Green
    “Exactly. It was always clear that the winner of the European Parliament elections would be the president. There was never any doubt about it.”

    But in the EU Parliament elections we vote for parties, not individuals. The individuals were listed as members of particular parties, but the name put forward is put forward by the largest group. Suppose that after the elections the various eurosceptic parties obtained enough votes and had sunk their differences, attracted support from reformers, and been in a position to be the largest group and to nominate their candidate who had not even been present at the pre-election debate?
    This might seem unlikely, but it is an allowable consequence of the procedure now being followed, which moreover has the possibility of deadlock within the rules. Beppe Grillo for President?
    There would then be two ways for him not to be appointed
    1. The Council would nominate someone else
    2. The Council would nominate him, and the Parliament could vote him down, if the largest group supporting him did not have an overall majority.

    What cannot be claimed in any of this is that the President is democratically elected by popular vote, whether by individual candidature or by representing the party with most votes – for Juncker is the candidate of the main centre-right EPP group in the parliament. EPP is the largest group, but the votes went to its constituent parties in the various countries: The EPP includes major parties such as the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), French Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Spanish People’s Party (PP), Polish Civic Platform (PO), but has member parties in almost all EU states. It has no member party in the United Kingdom, as the British Conservative Party does not agree with the EPP’s federalist policies. [That means no-one in UK could vote for Juncker, though some might well have done so in an individual ballot. Suppose Schultz’s party had been largest, but that everyone in UK would have preferred Juncker to Schultz?]
    In short, Duff Cooper’s contribution to modifying the procedure for the appointment of President now enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty has produced a dog’s breakfast. Cameron is in effect seeking a return to earlier procedures (clearer though no more democratic) arguing that this is what Lisbon actually means, and that the Spitzenkandidaten system does not warrant the the candidate it produces necessarily being the one put forward by the Council.

  39. It has been quite clear on the continent that the EU elections would affect the provost Commission President

    Just because the Brits had an immature and uninformed debate doesn’t mean everyone did

    The Parliament only makes a proposal that then has to be ratified…..which then gives the HoG of the member countries a say. This is how it was done before and so, in effect, a layer of democratic accountability has been added

    If you don’t like the EU or think it is not something we can work with then fine but complaining about this change which is has an added level of accountability is a bit rich

    There was even a debate between the main candidates….we couldn’t even be bothered to show it though

    And talking about a democratic deficit….how many people who voted LD last year knew that their vote would lead to a Coalition with the Tories…..does that ignorance mean that the Coalition is ‘undemocratic’?

    Jim Jam – I fail to understand what you put….just because us Brits are ignorant of something doesn’t mean others didn’t know. They may not care or let it influence the vote but is was understood by most of my European friends…do you have any evidence for your assertion?

  40. I think Cameron’s been comprehensively outmanoeuvred and made to look weak and ineffective,

  41. ROSIEANDDAISIE

    I think the Tories will get a small majority and it will be workable.

  42. Too much news this week- can’t help feeling Suarez and Savile will beat the stories we are talking (or would like to talk) about on here if Anthony asks the “what news stories have you noticed this week” question.

  43. SheVii

    “why you think that apparent failure to re-negotiate would improve this position.”

    I don’t see a failure to re-negotiate.

  44. “I think the Tories will get a small majority and it will be workable.”

    What voting percentages do you predict which will enable that outcome?

    I can’t feasibly see a way for it to happen. It would require the Tories to do better than in 2010, and for Labour not to do better. Both scenarios incredibly unlikely.

  45. SHEVII

    We agree for once. The great British public are much more interested in football and stories about celebrities.

  46. Dave,

    Eh, David Cameron was elected by popular vote and both Major and Brown became PM, a position with far more power than head of the commission, mid term through party decisions without any election.

    As to not being able to vote for a Party because no UK Party is part of thegroup that has Junker as it’s leader, no one on mainland UK can vote Ulster Unionist, so we can’t support Peter Robinson for PM.

    Is that a flaw of the process for choosing the PM or down to the policies of the Ulster Unionists?

    Oh and just a reminder, at the last Holyrood election top of the ballot paper was;

    “Alex Salmond for First Minister”

    Peter.

  47. ROGERH

    “I think Cameron’s been comprehensively outmanoeuvred and made to look weak and ineffective,”

    I think Cameron is making a principled stand and will be well respected for it.

  48. Shevii – it’s Populus who ask that question every Friday – we shall see the result.

    RogerH/OtherHowsrd – which is exactly why this is NOT the place to discuss what each other thinks of how well the government are doing, how good their policies are, etc. We should just take it as read that Labour partisans think all that the government do is rubbish and vice-versa and move on.

  49. Colin

    Your reply to John B says all that needs to be said about Juncker, from the mans own mouth. Why some on here seem to want Juncker I really cannot conceive. I can only suppose they would rather have the UK as a minor part of an undemocratic, vastly corrupt federal EU than another Conservative government.

  50. AW

    Sorry point taken, although I am not, as you must know by now, a supporter of DC and this government. I just prefer it to any left of center alternative.

    Other things to do tonight so have a good evening all. Sundays YouGov will be interesting.

1 2 3 4 8