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 5 6 8
  1. @Jack Sheldon – “LAB and even the LD support the reform principle”

    We hear a lot about reform. At the elections EPP (221 MEPs), S&D (191), ALDE (67) and Greens-EFA (50) all ran heavily on a reform agenda… the party groupings who specifically back Juncker’s candidacy.

    Cameron, from the perspective of heads of state, is in a minority for the type of reforms UK Conservatives want to see. These are not so much reforms as the withdrawal from whole sections of the EU project.

    Where reform is necessary it’s begining to look like the EU can only proceed as 27… as in the case of the fiscal pact in 2011.

  2. Sometimes you highlight the green percentage sometimes not. Why the inconsistency?

  3. JOHN PILGRIM

    I think the founding fathers of EU perhaps had reason to fear the worst excesses o f “the nation state”.

    But I get the impression that the justified fear of conflict between states in Europe, and the need for some overarching counterbalance, has morphed over the years into a desire to eradicate the very concept of the European Nation State.

    The hidden agenda ( & not so hidden as some have said here) is political union. It is after all, the missing bit which allowed monetary union with fiscal independence to crash the EZ economies.

    But it is a hard sell to real voters in real countries.

    The power struggle between the Council & the Parliament over the Commission Presidency is but an early skirmish in the attempt to give the EP primacy over national parliaments. Remember that if the principle of the majority EP political bloc appointing the President of the Commission becomes accepted-then we have moved to a politicised Commission.

  4. @BillyBob

    Yes, but in turn LAB in particular support a type of reform that goes beyond that of the majority of parties in their groups.

    You are right, of course, to remind us that the caricature of the European parties as arch-federalists that wish to defend, or even extend, the status quo isn’t the truth.

  5. @Colin

    The Council nominates a candidate for Commission President and the EP votes to ratify or reject that decision. It therefore makes sense for the Council and the EP to effectively “agree” on a candidate before any official recommendation from the Council.

    It is simply inaccurate to suggest that the EP have sought to overreach their constitutional powers on the Juncker appointment.

  6. Colin,

    Dear me, it really is paranoia time again.

    That some people think greater cooperation is a good thing and will benefit all is a opinion not an agenda, secret or otherwise.

    There are a fair number of people in the UK particularly on the right who favour the death penalty, but that doesn’t make it an organised plot to bring back public lynchings.

    As to the Power struggle between the Council and Parliament , how can the majority of the Parliament and vast majority of the Council agreeing the want the same man be portrayed as a power struggle?

    Peter.

  7. @Jack Sheldon

    Then again, if European parties were not in favour of reform within a federalist context, they’d be joining the hotch-potch of nationalists contained in ECR (70 MEPs) or EFD (48)?

  8. JOHN PILGRIM

    You have missed what I think is far and away the most important aim of the EU – to prevent a recurrence of war in Europe.

    It may be coincidence but it has been spectacularly successful in that aim, in contrast to the Athenian League which seems to have been catastrophically unsuccessful!

    The EU has also done well on the first three of your four listed main aims and not too badly on the last.

    The problem from a UK perspective is largely that we (or many of us) have too inflated a view of our own importance to share our sovereignty in the way that a successful EU demands. The problem from a wider perspective is that coordination of 28 sovereign nations is by its nature a bureaucratic nightmare, and democratic control of the bureaucracy is pretty nominal, not least because nation states are reluctant to give EU organs any democratic legitimacy for fear of threats to their own sovereignty.

  9. @FV

    “The personal finance part of the report is the most important one for polling IMO”

    ———

    And it’s possible the extent of this may get disguised in polling. For example, in MORI’s issue tracker, it may get broken up into bits, e.g. Housing, inflation, low pay, poverty are all in the top ten, and unemployment – which has a bearing on wages/income – is third.

    The economy, of course, is still number one but immigration was close behind in the most recent April report, and it is possible that people may put what they perceive as the cause ahead of the symptom. Thus, if they think immigration is the cause of numerous ills, including cost of living issues (e.g. pushing rents up and wages down), they may see immigration as more salient issue ahead of cost of living.

    Like if lots of people start popping clogs due to antibiotic resistance, folk may put antibiotic resistance as a big concern ahead of clog-popping…

  10. @ROSIEANDDAISIE

    “Changing the subject I’m doing a lovely arrangement of the other Paul’s “Here, There and Everywhere” for 7-string guitar and voice.

    One of his best songs I think.

    I want to pair it with “For No One”…”

    ————-

    It’s a bit obvious and not sure it admits of sufficient challenge… besides, these days it’s all about mash-ups and stuff. You could try pairing “Here, There and Everywhere” with an arrangement for guitar and voice of The Beatles’ “Revolution #9” instead, or if you want to get the old dears rocking in the aisles, maybe look beyond the Fab Four and do “Kick out the Jams” by the MC5.

    For something a bit more modern you could try mashing up “Here, There and Everywhere” with “Blurred Lines”. You might have to change the theme a little bit tho’…

  11. “You have missed what I think is far and away the most important aim of the EU – to prevent a recurrence of war in Europe.”

    ——–

    Oh, so it isn’t cheap booze then? That was a bit of a swizz, wasn’t it…

  12. the unwind of some of ukip’s support to labour after the eu elections was predicted by some posters on this website. ukip’s rise in the two months or so before the eu election this may seemed to be at the expense of labour. farage was clearly courting that vote and there were even suggestions from his team that ukip had got as many conservative votes as they were likely to get.

    After the election, ukip’s vote is unwinding and those labour voters who said they would vote ukip in the may elections appear, I stress appear, to be saying they’ll vote for labour.

    With labour on a 3 point lead, and with the tories needing to beat labour by 3 points to have a chance of staying in government, Dave will have to be on great form if he hopes to stay in downing st.

  13. The excitable Europhobes need to be realistic. The Tory backbenches are important, but the Tory donors are far more so, and they want Britain in the EU.

    By all means let the Tories run on a platform of leaving the EU, as long as they’re willing to do it with no money and campaigning against the people who used to fund them.

    I don’t see it happening, and they certainly wouldn’t win that fight as they simply don’t have the wherewithal. At some point, the Tories have to lance this suicidal boil in their ranks.

  14. @RogerH – All of George Galloway’s speeches are stirring. He’s one of the best public speakers I’ve heard.

  15. He’s very good on cats…

  16. As the second largest net contributor to the EU budget I actually foresee Merkel doing everything in her power to placate DC after the Junker vote, to keep the Uk in the EU. Therefore I see his stance as increasing the likelihood of success in his negotiating the return of powers, ready for the 2017 vote, rather than the opposite. In my view he is playing a very clever game. It would be easy to capitulate to a bribe here and a bribe there, as the Dutch and the Italians have done. No surprise with the Italians of course, they have previous on running away from a fight.

    The Times today reports that the UK population is now 64million and increasing by 400k per year. This is likely to be an underestimate as it doesn’t take into account greater longevity. The only possible way to control this is to have full control of the borders again, restrict benefits for immigrants and other such measures and reduce the magnetic attraction of the UK to the world and his brother. Also, it should be possible to throw out undeseables without continued interference from the EU. As it is, the infrastructure cannot cope, roads are gridlocked, green belt is under pressure for housing, no one wants new train lines, schools are oversubscribed etc etc. what will it be like when the population is 100million or more?

    The referendum in 2017 is the perfect opportunity for the British people to have their say and whilst Dave may want the UK to stay in, unless he comes back from his negotiations, with some powers returned, the people are likely to vote to exit. Hence mrs M would be well advised to ensure that he gets most of what he demands in his re negotiation, or Germany will be left funding the EU on its own.
    As it is the EU is desperate for reform. It is an over bloated corrupt organisation, whose accounts have not been signed off for nearly two decades. The whistleblower who tried to expose it all was duly sacked by a chap called Kinnock, now a multi millionaire thanks to the EU gravy train.

    If the ruling elite do not listen to the message sent by the electorate in the last election, then the next time round, the gains by the euro sceptic parties will be even greater at the next election. Euro scepticism doesn’t just exist in the Uk. It is throughout the EU. The only difference is that a euro sceptic press only exists in the uk. The anti’s in the rest of Europe don’t have a mouthpiece.

    In summary, it is reform or die and if Junker is not intelligent enough to understand that, he is most definitely the wrong man.

    And because the only chance of a referendum in 2017 is if Dave wins an overall majority, the kippers will return next May [snip]

  17. Even if all the kippers returned the Tories wouldn’t have enough for an overall majority.

  18. ROBERT NEWARK

    Great piece Robert, I wish I could be as eradite as that..

  19. I often see references to “Ulster Unionists” on this site. The Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) has no MPs in Westminster – it once was the dominant Unionist party in Northern Ireland but has been eclipsed by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in the last decade. It is the DUP that has 8 MPs in Westminster and that shares power with Sinn Fein in Stormont.

    The current Westminster seats breakdown in NI:

    DUP 8
    SF 5 (don’t attend Westminster)
    SDLP 3 (loosely take Lab whip)
    Alliance 1 (sister party of LibDems)
    IND 1

    While only a small number of SDLP seats, if things are VERY close between Lab & Con next year – with Lab a seat or two behind Con, will Lab claim that SDLP seats should be included in their tally when determining who has most seats in Westminster?

    Either way, the SDLP/SF positions make it slightly easier for Mr Miliband to win – Lab need 320 seats for a technical majority – because they can count on 3 SDLP votes and without SF the actual Westminister winning line is 323 seats.

  20. I thought it was a good read too, but eclipsed by Martyn’s piece the other night, sadly modded in the morning. And Martyn was a trifle provocative, to be fair, but it was a quality rant and there should be a public interest defence or summat for such things…

    [Please don’t praise people for flagrantly ignoring the comment policy, if people would like to put up partisan rants there is a whole internet out there where one is free to do it – AW]

  21. The above in response to ToH’s post about Robert’s post about Peter’s post etc…

  22. Robert –

    I point out in Italy the Eurosceptic party was thrashed and the federalist party won hands down.

    Dont assume everyone is against the EU – note 80% of people in the UK voted against UKIP.

    Migrants? Dont forget more British people live overseas than migrants here (OECD) – migration is a two way street so if migration was stopped then the UK would be more crowded.

    I could go on – your piece lacked evidence. Dont forget the key issues of UK withdrawal from the EU would be the destruction of the British economy as the first thing the EU would do is slap tariffs on our exports and so make our goods unsellable. And the car industry has already said it would go to mainland Europe and so destroy the economy of Manchester.

    Nothing particularly wrong with the Eu – like all organisations (including Westminster) it has some problems but I am more than happy to have some laws from them. After all we live in a world of regional issues (pollution, crime, health and safety, unions) so it’s totally sensible to me that we have a regional parliament.

    JUnker? Why am I meant to be upset when the Parliamentary group with the largest vote gets to choose who is boss? I actually believe in democracy. If Cameron had been sensible and stayed in the centre-right group he could have argued for someone else, but no, Cameron choose a much more right wing group full of more questionable non-mainstream parties…

  23. Robert Newark,

    “This is likely to be an underestimate as it doesn’t take into account greater longevity. ”

    Yes they do, the net figure includes longevity, life expectancy, birth rate and immigration.

    As to Merkel’s need to placate Cameron, that will depend on the extent to which Germany sees the UK and the city of London in particular as a danger to the stability of the EU.

    If we learned anything from the financial crash it is that the amount of money traded in the city dwarfs the UK’s contributions to the EU.

    No one in Europe wants to go through the last few years again which is why they want far tighter banking controls and financial regulation.

    So far we seem to be at best dragging our heals on that if not blocking it.

    Most European leaders now seem to see poorly regulated and controlled markets as a danger and London is the biggest.

    As Cameron, Osborne and Johnston still seem to see the UK’s interests and the City’s as one and the same the battle to come may well be over being in Europe with Europe regulating the city or being outside with Europe increasingly restricting the City’s ability to operate in Europe.

    What Britain seems to want is the City free to be the financial capital of Europe and free of European over site or control.

    I am not sure we are going to get that.

    Peter.

  24. @SWebb – “While only a small number of SDLP seats, if things are VERY close between Lab & Con next year – with Lab a seat or two behind Con, will Lab claim that SDLP seats should be included in their tally when determining who has most seats in Westminster?”

    Given that Brown, Adonis et al made exactly that claim in 2010 during the coalition negotiations, I think that we can take that as a given.

  25. Classic Gorgeous George, the lefts Nigel Farage!

    If you Shout a slogan loud enough it will turn into a fact.

    Like Farage these speeches are full of passion but read it rather than listen to it and it is really just a list of unsubstantiated claims and accusations.

    He’s a great showman and orator but that doesn’t make him right. History is full of great orators who weren’t just wrong but dangerous!

    I have no doubt this will go down great with committed “No” voters but it won’t win over any “Yes” supporters.

    As to don’t knows, I suspect few if any will here it and most who do will say “Oh no not him again!”

    Peter.

  26. @Peter Cairns – “Classic Gorgeous George, the lefts Nigel Farage!”

    Absolutely. Both are very persuasive, charming public speakers; neither is like that when up close and personal; both have an unsavoury desire to divide humanity from itself. One could include Alex Salmond in the same category. But to deny thereby that they are persuasive characters would be a mistake.

  27. @RosieAndDaisie – For No One has been my favourite Beatles song since I was a teenager.

  28. ROBERT NEWARK

    It will be very interesting to see if a Juncker appointment result in a placatory stance from Merkel. You could be right.

    GUYMONDE

    @”The problem from a UK perspective is largely that we (or many of us) have too inflated a view of our own importance to share our sovereignty in the way that a successful EU demands.”

    The “problem” is that UK is not in the EZ.

    It will not be long, in my view before ever closer union-which is a Eurozone imperative with which to eliminate the risks associated with fiscal sovereignty – renders membership of the EU , without membership of EZ, a meaningless , impotent & economic disadvantage.

  29. ROBERT NEWARK

    @”. It would be easy to capitulate to a bribe here and a bribe there, as the Dutch and the Italians have done. ”

    According to reports-“relaxation” of EZ fiscal constraints.

    I rest my case. If you are in EZ, there are deals to be done -if you’r not there are none .

  30. @Peter Cairns: “I have no doubt this will go down great with committed ‘No’ voters but it won’t win over any ‘Yes’ supporters.”

    Not a representative sample by any means but some of the audience appear to have been won over:

    “Before proceedings began 119 members of the audience agreed with the motion that ‘Independence is the greatest threat to Edinburgh’, 27 disagreed and 36 did not know what they thought. Two hours later opinion had hardened: 169 for the proposition, 19 against and only 6 poor undecided souls.”

  31. ROBERT NEWARK

    “The Times today reports that the UK population is now 64million and increasing by 400k per year. This is likely to be an underestimate as it doesn’t take into account greater longevity.”

    And your evidence for this is…?

  32. @Robert Newark: “…what will it be like when the population is 100million or more?”

    That’s not going to be before 2079 on your estimate so we should at least have jet packs.

  33. @RAF “Most of the power over key decisions still rests with the Council sometimes together with the European Parliament.” Like the power to appoint the President of the Commission? If that position is not a powerful one, why over the decades of the EEC/EU existence has the Parliament sought to increase its influence over who is appointed? Do look at Article 17, which shows the ‘direction of travel’.
    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-3-provisions-on-the-institutions/86-article-17.html
    If you are in agreement with the formation of a federal European state, with concommittent diminution of the powers of national governments, all that is perfectly logical, if Art3 “Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations” is taken to mean “adopt the candidate proposed by the party with most MEPs”
    As you say “The Council nominates a candidate for Commission President and the EP votes to ratify or reject that decision. It therefore makes sense for the Council and the EP to effectively “agree” on a candidate before any official recommendation from the Council.”

    The current approach, with nomination from the largest party and with debate between candidates before the election of MEPs has been represented as giving democratic legitimacy to that appointee, as though that were the purpose of the MEP elections. You might consider that the EPP promoting Juncker got 24.23% of a 43% overall turnout, or about 10.5% of the ‘electorate’. The EPP vote was 8% down on 2009, and the party with the second largest number of MEPs actually got more votes (24.38% up 1.7%). So, IF the elections to decide which parties got MEPs were in fact also to decide which party puts forward a candidate for President, arguably it should have been Schultz (or a vote between the two). Note that the nearly equal vote shares got the EPP 222 seats and the Socialists 184. Also that Juncker is promised the support of the second largest party providing him with a majority when the vote goes back to the EP. Interestingly, in the Spitzenkandidaten debate, Schultz seemed quite confident of getting the nomination, though it did seem more important to the participants that the EP candidate, whoever it was, should be elected, and implied that any other candidate (however worthy) put forward by the Council would be rejected. (Read Article 17 again on the suitability of members of the European Commission)

    In short, if you believe that replacing the nation states of Europe by a single European State is the right way to go, all of this supports you. But it puts you a long way from influencing who runs it and what it does by your individual vote and by representations to your MEP at a local surgery.
    See you again in 5 years when Juncker comes up for re-election.

  34. Populus:

    LAB 35 (-2)
    CON 34 (+2)
    LD 8 (-1)
    UKIP 13 (=)

    Out of line with recent YouGovs. Time will tell!

  35. Within Moe of 3 pt lead which is comparable to 5-6 on YG.

  36. @MrNameless

    Out of line with recent YGs but not that far from the Populus norm (they last had 1 point on 8th June I think, and 2 on 19th June).

  37. Maybe worth reading the Spectators account of the full debate;

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/spectator-debate-independence-is-the-greatest-threat-to-edinburgh/

    I particularly liked the fact that GG used very different arguments in working class Coatbridge to upmarket Edinburgh….ah A Man of Principle!

    Peter.

  38. @BB – yours of 8.35

    Cameron is seeing things from the perspective of heads of state now, is he? Is he plotting a republican revolution with himself as the Great Leader?

    @Robert Newark – yours of 10.07

    Who doesn’t want new rail lines? They’re exactly what this country needs in order to get more people off the roads.
    Also, and not for the first time on this site, I wonder which UK people are talking about when they say it is ‘overcrowded’. Some parts are – such as the south east of England – but no-one is forcing anyone to live in overcrowded parts of the country. Plenty of room up here in Scotland….. and probably in much of northern England as well, come to that.

    Also, in general, some of you are forgetting that EM has also promised a referendum if the EU demanded more powers for Brussels. The way things are going, that seems to be an inevitable part of our future. So it’s not only DC that can provide the Kippers and their strange friends with a way out of the real world and back into the 19th century…… (IMO) (joke!) (in support of Guymonde and – strange as it may seem to some, given spats over the past month – CG)

  39. @Peter Cairns – Oh come, be fair. Knowing your audience is not a lack of principle. I don’t discuss politics in the same terms on here as I do with my colleagues, or with my politically-minded friends.

  40. I must say I don’t get the congested roads thing. Maybe in central Sheffield at 5:30 on a Friday but that’s as much poor road layout as anything else.

  41. But not CG at 11.02 regarding AS, who is nothing like as bombastic as GG or NF.

    What AS needs is a big hitter to challenge him in the Edinburgh Parliament. That could happen if Murphy gives up his Westminster career (which seems to have hit its peak a while back) and stands for election to Edinburgh in 2016.
    What AS and the SNP also need is a time in opposition to re-group and plan for the future. Not that periods in opposition automatically lead to positive results, of course……

  42. @John B – “Plenty of room up here in Scotland”

    Supply and demand and all that, I suppose! ;-)

  43. @John B – Fair enough: AS is the one of the three I’ve not met, so I will take your word for it that he’s not in that category, though he certainly seems to be from an external perspective.

    Historically, though, I’m unconvinced that he would thrive with a strong challenger against him. Nationalist leaders don’t tend to take kindly to challengers to their power. Look at the Night of the Long Knives, for example, or the suppression of dissent in the BNP.

  44. Chris – I am sure you did not mean to categorise the SNP and BNP together, or AS with Griffin.

  45. Apologies AW… to be fair Martyn is one of the last people I would accuse of being partisan. Rightly or wrongly his coruscating wit has been directed in all manner of directions over the years.

    Perhaps he went about it the wrong way, so I look foward to him maybe rephrasing his critique of UK tactics.

    If he can’t tie that to a discussion of polling and elections then it should have no place here… any more than the glowing tributes to cleverness/genius of the UK position, jibes about bribes/corruption/alchohol problems etc directed at politicians and our nation’s allies which we are seeing on this site.

  46. The immigration debate up here is being linked to pensions and Independence. Better Together are arguing that Scotland’s ageing population makes pensions less affordable because of our lower population growth.

    Now to off set that which they estimate at a 5% population growth over about 20 years or so ( I can’t find the exact figures but it is from the current 5.3m to about 5.6m) we would need to raise it to about 8% an extra 200k over twenty years.

    For me that isn’t a difficult or dangerous task, given that we have handled it so far fairly well and that, although most Scots live in the central belt, we have 30% of the UK land mass and less than 10% of the population.

    However when you take Scotland out from the UK projections and account for the low population growth in Northern Ireland and Wales you get a population growth for England over the same period of close to 25%.

    The UK’s cheaper pensions seem to be based on a largely immigration driven growth of about 1 in 4 over a quarter century, which would seem to make a mockery of anyone’s claims to be controlling immigration in years ahead.

    Indeed even if Scotland doubled population growth and the UK Halved it’s the UK would still grow faster.

    What’s more if we stick with the projected 5% and 20%+ Scotland over that period would drop from over 8% of the population to under 7%, or from 59 to 45 MP’s.

    If we were Independent wouldn’t it be ironic if lots of retiring Ukippers moved To the “White North”……

    Peter.

  47. @Jim Jam – Why wouldn’t one link two nationalist parties from the same region together? I suppose, in fairness to them, the BNP didn’t support Hitler during WWII – that was the SNP. So I can understand why some BNP activists could be offended at being compared to the SNP and its pro-Hitler history. But the taking of offence has precisely zero relation to the truth-value of a statement.

  48. Chris Green,

    ” I suppose, in fairness to them, the BNP didn’t support Hitler during WWII – that was the SNP.”

    I suppose that explains why the Tories are going easy on Putin over Ukraine, after all didn’t Churchill sit and have drinks with Stalin!

    Peter.

  49. @Peter Cairns – “If we were Independent wouldn’t it be ironic if lots of retiring Ukippers moved To the “White North”……”

    That is a very interesting insight into the kind of society that Scottish nationalists hope will result from independence.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8