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 5 6 7 8
  1. @shevii

    Further to Guymonde’s mention of Malcolm Rifkind, on the airwaves in the last week:

    Laura Sandys…Thanet South Conservatives are said to be seeking a eurosceptic replacement for Laura Sandys MP (she is standing down in 2015), Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) and Ken Clarke (Rushcliffe).

    Laura Sandys launched a new European Mainstream group last year, which appears to have maybe a dozen members.

    FT reported a pro-EU backbench letter recently… only 15 of the 25 signatories were prepared to have their names published.

    Tory MPs apparently sat in silence when Robert Walter (North Dorset) made a pro-EU speech in October 2011.

  2. Thanks for that Amber Star.

    I think i read an estimate EFA migrants made a £25Bn net contribution to UK finances over that period… no doubt other studies come out with different figures.

    Are you saying that the pension factor entirely negates this?

  3. How can many on minimum wage who pay little tax, be net contributors of tax? What Tosh. What about the strain on the nhs? Congested roads? Increased pollution? Shortage of school places? Loss of green belt? Increased anti social behaviour?
    IE they put little on now and take lots out especially when ill or retired.

  4. @HOOF HEARTED: “How can many on minimum wage who pay little tax, be net contributors of tax?”

    Those on the lowest wages generally pay the highest proportion of tax – just not income tax (which accounts for only 30% of government revenue).

  5. @ hoof hearted

    “How can many on minimum wage who pay little tax, be net contributors of tax? What Tosh.”

    There you go, then. Employers should pay them a bit more so they can pay more income tax and have more money to spend and raise more VAT.

  6. @Amber Star: “Nor did the calculations which I’ve seen in previous research account for the past contributions of UK pensioners when showing that UK people are net takers.”

    Immigrants tend to be young adults so are likely to have as many years of pension contributions ahead of them as any future UK-born pensioner. And since they generally arrive ready-educated and fully-grown the UK will have already avoided all the costs of their upbringing.

  7. More than a day and about 100 posts since my request for people to give me a list of specific powers they want back from Brussels, why and what if anything they would replace it with.

    Still no takers even though many here believe we should bring back powers!

    [Perhaps they are following the comments policy, leaving their own views at the door and concentrating on polling and wider public opinion? As ever, this is not supposed to be a venue for debating each others political views – AW]

  8. “Perhaps they are following the comments policy”

    Lol. A guddun Anthony.

  9. @Hoof hearted

    I presume you are talking about immigrants? An RGS study shows immigrants, on average, earn higher than average wages. So the answer to your question is that they are net contributors of tax because more of them are paying higher-rate tax. The idea that immigrants are all minimum wage earners is just a myth.
    It is also true that a greater proportion are working-age rather than children or retired, which further increases their net contribution.

  10. HAL

    @”It is also true that a greater proportion are working-age rather than children or retired, which further increases their net contribution.”

    It depends where you strike “net contribution”.

    Taxes pay for public services-so you need to establish whether immigrants have a greater or lesser per capita consumption of taxpayer funded services, before you can speak of “net contribution”.

    To do this you will need to know things like comparative partnership/marriage birth rate/number of children, comparative health levels/use of NHS , comparative use of social housing, comparative demands on teachers & schools , comparative use of social services , etc etc etc.

    And presumably you will need to do this for each “bloc “of immigrants . ie do the largest groups of foreign-born people in UK-ie Indians, Pakistanis, Poles, Irish -have differing patterns of public service consumption.

    It is complicated

  11. Anthony,

    I am just trying to clarify just exactly what it is that people want renegotiated?

    I wasn’t looking for a debate, but rather to focus on something you have often raised, namely that people aren’t particularly good at explaining or even clear as to why they want certain things.

    Is it, as a suspect, just a general feeling of unease that people can’t articulate or are their specifics.

    I am not really interested in the particular merits of any specifics they give, just whether or not there are any.

    If it is just a general malaise then it could indicate that public opinion will be unmoved regardless of what is renegotiate and if it is more an anxiety, then people might be placated by any bone that is thrown, seeing it as a move in the right direction.

    The governments dilemma is that if it keeps in general it can claim victory but if it is specific it needs to win, which is what went wrong with Junckers!

    [Then perhaps ask “what do we think people who want powers returned want to see brought back”. From polling, the answer is immigration policy, though given freedom of movement is a core part of the single market that won’t be happening – AW]

  12. Jonathan Freedland in today’s Guardian has an interesting article on the growing influence of Gordon Brown on the independence vote, finishing up with “They all laughed when Brown accidentally claimed to have saved the world. But , who knows he might just save the union.”
    Nice change for it not to be knocking copy in the G. Well worth a read, but I am sure the Nats wont agree.

  13. Stephen Fisher (Oxford) has updated his GE2015 probabilities:

    Con Largest Party: 55% (-4)
    Labour Largest Party: 45% (+4)
    Hung Parliament: 49% (+2)
    Con majority: 29% (-5)
    Lab majority: 22% (+3)

    Changes are on June 20th. These results show the highest probability of both Hung Parliament and Labour Largest Party since Fisher started predictions in October ’13 – however, we’ve previously criticised him for having an incredibly wide range, so be careful.

  14. I wonder if Fisher’s predictions will magically gradually change towards the election as it becomes clear his model was nonsense?

  15. (Actually it looks like his model has convergence built in, so he can’t lose – he can make headline grabbing nonsense forecasts further out then his model magically adjusts to predict the actual result by the time of the election)

  16. Fisher’s model basically amounts to saying “Well, in the past the opposition polling has always slumped and the government support increased”. If you question the fundamental assumption, then Fisher’s model falls apart.

    And of course, it’s trivial to do so. Because even if you accepted that “incumbent parties always gain” there is no incumbent party of government, because the Conservatives didn’t actually win. It would be miles better to make the assumption of “reversion to previous value” than “it will increase”!

    I think that it’s also a hefty dose of good old “I reckon” producing a very naive model. The reason why there’s such a big history of “Incumbent recovery” is because mid-term polling was very low quality in the 70s and 80s, not taking good samples and using differing methodologies from election period polling. So obviously the mid-term polling from that era has a big offset from the election it’s self. But Fisher glosses over this by just ignoring the quality of the data at all, and treating it all the same.

    Fisher’s model currently predicts not only that current polling will invert between Labour and Conservative, but that they would increase their share of the poll by a substantial margin. Both of which are inconsistent with past elections. So clearly, there’s a conflict, and it just happens to be the past history that Fisher chooses to base his model on benefits the Conservatives.

  17. Fisher’s model has also predicted that the next election will be sooner now than it was before….Brilliant academic work!


  18. @ Billy Bob

    I think i read an estimate EFA migrants made a £25Bn net contribution to UK finances over that period… no doubt other studies come out with different figures.

    Are you saying that the pension factor entirely negates this?
    What I’m saying is: That £25Bn figure will be based on assumptions; these assumptions may, or may not, stand up to scrutiny.

    My point is: I am objecting to the way that assertions about economic contribution are considered to be facts. But we know that these ‘facts’ do not win the debate because they don’t really address people’s concerns about employment & opportunities for UK citizens.

    Let’s say I decided to do some so-called factual research & I began by assuming that there were a fixed number of jobs during that period… another whopper of an assumption, this time by me. Then the £25Bn which was ‘contributed by immigrants’ could perhaps have been matched – or even exceeded – by the existing population having jobs rather than being unemployed or underemployed.

    Alternatively, I could assume that immigrants bring their jobs with them i.e. without these immigrants, the jobs which they do would not (have) exist(ed). Then their ‘contribution’ might exceed £25Bn.

    Which assumption is correct? We simply don’t know. There are no definitive facts which we can use to prove the case for or against immigration.

    I will say: For people who believe that immigration benefits the UK, I think the case is not helped by framing the debate in terms of immigrants being ‘contributors’ & UK citizens being ‘takers’. It increases the impression that politicians favour immigrants (because they contribute) & dislike UK citizens because they are ‘takers’ (many UK citizens believe they would get the opportunity to contribute more if politicians stopped favouring immigrants!).

  19. Wouldn’t politics be more exciting if both parties just did a penalty shoot out to decide who won? [insert joke about it being unfair if Eric Pickles is the Tory goalie]

  20. While I don’t have a tremendous amount of respect for Fisher’s model*, I think the convergence is mildly interesting to us from a “Is the Labour lead enough for them to win?” standpoint.

    The reason the model is converging is because the current polling trends aren’t following the model’s predictions from last year: either Labour are too high or the Tories are too low. As we near the election the model takes into account the fact that there is less and less time for things to change and modifies its prediction accordingly, and the lead would have to have narrowed more than it has over the last six months for the model to continue producing the results it was giving last year.

    Of course, it’s still predicting a big Tory win, but Labour is doing better (or the Tories are doing worse) than the model predicted based on last year’s vote shares. In other words, polling in this Parliament isn’t behaving like Fisher’s model of an average Parliament.

    * With the apparently necessary caveat of “The way we learn things is by academics making bad models, testing them, and discovering they are wrong. Fisher’s model is informative even if it turns out to make bad predictions; how and why it makes bad predictions will tell us important things. He is contributing to the science of psephology by building this model, and we should respect that contribution and not call for his resignation if his predictions turn out to be imperfect.”

  21. @BFEILD

    Even stranger George Galloway is the new darling of the right wing press with articles praising him in the Spectator and Daily Mail, on how he will save the union. I haven’t heard Galloway’s pitch but the tweet I saw said ‘defence of the British State’ the mind boggles. GG is a self publicist so will say anything to get some notoriety but this seems well out of his comfort zone.

    On Gordon Brown he is very respected but he seems to be fighting an election as opposed to the referendum. Also there was a highly scientific Courier ‘ping pong poll’ in North Queensferry where Gordon Brown lives which was a win for Yes.

  22. @Amber Star

    I agree, framing the debate in terms of immigrants being ‘contributors’ & UK citizens being ‘takers’ was an unfortunate implication of the quote I plucked from the ether, it would have been better to delete that and leave in the [claims about benefits tourism] disconnected from reality bit. It was earlyish and I’d taken umbrage over a post which claimed “the UK has become the dumping ground for immigrants the other countries don’t want.”

    It’s a big topic. Generally I tend to think that even when it’s measureable the economic factor is only one component to the contribution people make… having said that, it occurs to me that places I’ve lived where there are high levels of diversity/immigration do seem to generate types of economic dynamism not found elsewhere.

  23. George Galloway has been magnificent in the Scottish Referendum battle – and I am by no means an uncritical supporter of him. He has injected some much needed passion into the anti-separatist debate.

    It’s all very well arguing about currencies and public sector pensions ( important thought those arguments are ) but it has taken GG to remind people of Britains’s magnificent stand in 1940 – a divided Britain would have meekly surrendered to Nazi Germany ( no doubt to the delight of the Scottish Separatists ) whereas a united Britain saw them off and helped fight another day!

  24. Couper2802
    According to the article he is attracting large audiences when he speaks. We never near about this south of the border. Maybe you don’t north as well.

  25. “a divided Britain would have meekly surrendered to Nazi Germany ”

    My goodness, that’s a whopper of an assertion. No doubt some people thought the loss of Ireland would similarly undermine British resolve, but Eire’s faintly embarrassing neutrality didn’t make much difference. And who’s to say Scotland wouldn’t have come out fighting alongside England and Wales?

  26. PaulA

    Very much agree with you re Galloway. Strikes me those of the Nat persuasion don’t quite know how to cope with him, and are reduced to saying he is “outside his comfort zone”, wot ever that means. Play the ball, not the man.

  27. @Spearmint

    If it were phrased as an experiment to demonstrate if there is or is not a strong recurring behaviour in polling, then sure… But it’s not, it’s presented as an attempt to predict the next election.

    Now, even if it were an experiment. It’s an experiment that basically asks, “Is this premise based on an assumption using bad data sets worthwhile?”, and the problem is that it produces a sample set of one for test results and no indication of if the prediction model was accurate or just coincidentally correct.

    I’m sorry, but it’s not very scientific at all.

  28. Eire’s neutrality was not merely “slightly embarrassing ” but led to the vicious persecution of those Irishmen who chose to fight against the Nazis. I know , my father in law was one such who was driven into virtual exile by the tinpot nationalist Devalera. The only head of state who sent condolences to the Germans upon the death of Hitler.
    As to whether the Scots Nats would have rallied against their fellow nationalists, that’s a hypothetical , thank God.

  29. “Even stranger George Galloway is the new darling of the right wing press with articles praising him in the Spectator and Daily Mail,”

    Two rabidly Anti-Independence publications portraying someone opposing Independence as a hero……What exactly is strange about that.


  30. @ Jayblanc,

    It’s a model! It would be useless if it didn’t make predictions; that’s what models do. That’s how you test them to see whether they are good models! In fields where you can’t perform controlled experiments this is the standard methodology for hypothesis testing.

    Elections only happen every five years and he used all the previous ones to train his model, so we can’t really blame him for only having a sample size of one. I agree the huge margins of error make his model a little hard to falsify, but I think we can still learn things from it- the fact that it’s converging has already told us something about how this parliament differs from other parliaments (or at least the bad polling data obtained during other parliaments).

  31. ” the tinpot nationalist Devalera. The only head of state who sent condolences to the Germans upon the death of Hitler.”

    In calling Eire’s WW2 neutrality ‘faintly embarrassing’ I was soft-pedalling it because I didn’t want to score cheap points against Ireland. Being charitable, it was perhaps understandable that Irish nationalists would retain sufficiently strong anti-British sentiments to warp their appreciation of the wider picture. Being uncharitable, they probably thought Britain was going to lose and saw no point in leaping aboard a sinking ship.

    But I hadn’t realised that De Valera, having signed the condolence book for Hitler, refused to do so in 1965 for Churchill.

  32. Hadn’t realised, that is, until I googled De Valera Hitler Condolences and found a very illuminating piece in the International Business Times – well worth a read.

  33. @ Billy Bob

    I completely agree with you. People’s perceptions regarding immigration are incredibly important – more important than faux facts which boost one side to the detriment of the other.

    I am in favour of immigration; but I think there is a point where people can begin to feel they are having too much of a good thing! I think that it harms all of us (both existing citizens & new comers) to ignore these feelings.

  34. @Ewan Lightfoot et al

    It is extremely annoying that anyone with a pro-Yes viewpoint is dismissed as a Nat. I am in the Labour Party and tending towards a Yes.

    Galloway is some one I particularly dislike he was MP for Dundee and very dodgy and I haven’t forgiven him for the campaign he ran against Oona King. The fact that Labour are now hailing him as a hero because he is the only good Orator on the No side is total hypocrisy and desperate.


    If you want packed meetings the Yessers are packing them out with Tommy Sheridan, Jim Sillars, Lesley Riddoch, and a host if other speakers. There are meetings almost every night with hundreds in attendance. And there is still nearly 3 months to go. It is very exciting the involvement on ordinary folk, writers and musicians in the campaign.

  35. Johnkay
    Yeah, Devalera was a stubborn bugger, he never forgave Churchill for his friendship with Michael Collins.

  36. Couper
    Still playing the man re Galloway.
    How a Labour member can vote Yes is beyond me, what you gonna say if they win ? ” We’re alright up here Mate ! “

  37. @Ewan Lightfoot

    It is very simple Ewan in my lifetime Scotland has never voted Tory yet more than half of my life had been spent under Tory governments. Basic democracy entitles Scotland to the government it votes for which can take decisions in the best interests of Scotland.

    And I am not risking my children and grandchildren living under another Thatcher or Osborne.

    Relating to polling this probably explains why more than 30% of Labour voters say they will vote Yes.

  38. Good Evening All.
    De Valera’s reply to Churchill about the reasons for Irish neutrality needs to be read carefully
    He did not forgive Churchill’s attitudes towards Ireland.
    EWEN: The persecution of the Irish soldiers by the ‘Irish Free State’ was appalling.
    In terms of voting intentions in 1939, I think ‘Dev’ feared that he would be unpopular with his public.

  39. nickp earlier today (and a touch prematurely) asked the question on my mind now …
    “Shouldn’t there be a Yougov/Sunday times?”

    anyone know where we can find (clues about) the numbers?

  40. Couper2802,
    I can understand your enthusiasm for going it alone, hope it won’t be misplaced. Seems an evenly split vote. In either case a significant minority will feel disappointed,which is not a good omen .

  41. Couper
    So you concede you are just playing the man as far as Galloway is concerned?

    My concern as a Labour member in a post-yes Scotland would be that I would never see any other Govt than one headed up by Salmond and his Nationalist successors.
    Yes, IMO the Irish state’s pro-Axis stance only moderated after the US entered the war and told them firmly which side their bread was buttered on.

  42. @couper

    Has the north of England voted Tory in your lifetime? Should they split too? And the South doesn’t vote Labour, create another country their too? Wales and NI.don’t vote Tory either!
    At least Scotland gets a parliament, what does the north get? Even Labour are biased towards the South these days and the north is left to wither.

  43. If sufficient powers are devolved to Scotland it shouldn’t matter that much if the UK does elect another Thatcher (which is pretty unlikely anyway with the way the Tory vote has declined over the years). And while I’m no fan of Galloway I thought he gave one of the more convincing speeches of either side of the debate.

  44. Come off it Hoof, the last time Labour was in power the North certainly got a
    ‘fair suck of the sauce bottle’ .

  45. Couper2802,

    Then you must have been born during the end of 1979 or the first half of 1980, or between 1955 and 1957. Anyone else would have had less than half their lifetime under a Conservative government, or before that would have been in Scotland when it voted Conservative.

    It seems a very selective argument you are making. Can’t you find a better reason?

  46. Sorry for lowering the tone, off to bed now.

  47. Couper2002,
    Galloway was never MP for Dundee – He represented Glasgow Hillhead after defeating Roy Jenkins in 1987.

  48. @Coupar2802 – I’m afraid making constitutional arrangements to suit temporary electoral geographic issues isn’t, in my view, the brightest thing.

    Presumably, if you end up with a government post independence that you don’t like, while the UK elects one you do, you’ll start to campaign for a union?

    Perhaps you should consider a union with France – they’ve got quite a left wing government at the moment.

  49. I’ve been watching Fisher’s forecasts too: although I don’t give the basic assumptions much credence, there’s some chance he might be right (but so might anyone with a bit of educated guessing).

    Any chance of polling on “what powers would you like returned to the UK?” and “would returning these powers influence your vote in a referendum?”
    – that’s assuming voters know which could be returned. Possibly a bit premature at this point, since
    DC needs to get re-elected. It does not seem likely that a Miliband premiership would be pursuing such a course unless forced to.

  50. @Ewan Lightfoot

    Galloway doesn’t even have a vote in the referendum so he is an irrelevance.

    But you shows a remarkable lack of confidence in a Scottish Labour Party. There is no reason why Labour shouldn’t win a Scottish election. By your logic because Scotland votes SNP we must stay in the union so that we can be governed by WM which for obvious reason will not have an SNP gov’t.

    Don’t you think that the Tories are a bigger problem than the SNP who if anything are to the left of Labour?

1 5 6 7 8