This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun had topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. Tabs are here. The twice-weekly Populus poll also had a one point lead today, CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%. Tabs are here.

Polls do seem to be showing some narrower Labour leads this week, though really too early to tell if it’s anything meaningful. YouGov definitely seem to be picking up less UKIP support post-Juncker (last week they had UKIP in the range 13%-15%, this week 11%-12%), but the same trend isn’t obvious in Populus’s polls this week.


217 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Populus figures”

1 3 4 5
  1. With changes on June 27th included for those interested:

    Approximate probabilities of key outcomes
    Con largest party = 57% (+2)
    Lab largest party = 43% (-2)
    Con majority = 31% (-3)
    Lab majority = 20% (-2)
    Hung parliament = 49% (N/A)

    But as we’ve pointed out before, to be taken with a few grains of salt because of the very wide (but narrowing all the time!) prediction range.

  2. Moreover what happened to the press’ notions of objectivity? I understand it’s a long tradition which we’re used to but when you think about it it’s sort of odd for an outlet supposedly dedicated to news reporting to make itself into a cheerleader for one party or another. Yes I’m referring to the Mirror/Graun/Morning Star too before anyone mentions them!

  3. Mr Nameless

    “but narrowing all the time!”

    Exactly so.

  4. @OZWALD

    2 actually. I cancelled too, though I’m still reading it till my prepayment runs out!

  5. @Guymonde
    “2 actually”
    —————-
    Well done. Losing both of us should really rattle their cage!

  6. mr n

    Agree re bizarre “news” papers and their agendas.

    Imagine if the Sun was a Liverpool supporting paper [yeah, I know that’s tricky] and the Telegraph was more Aston Villa [yeah, I know that’s tricky.]

    Anyway, they shouldn’t be allowed to be called newspapers as they peddle propaganda.

    I noted that that bloke who writes for the Telegraph was quoting un-named sources [and only two of the buggers at that] to prove that Labour are in deep trub.

    They may well be, I dunno, but that was not a “news” story or even very convincing propaganda.

    What I like about Rawnsley is he gives HIS opinion and backs it up with some sort of logical thinking.

  7. Found this very droll when I went to log in on one of my many intellectual sites:

    “You are already logged in. If you want to log in again you will have to log out first.”

    I LOLLED out instead.

  8. ALEC

    @” Piketty’s central thesis is that tax havens have been allowed to flourish following deregulation, enabling the returns on wealth to soar.”

    No it isn’t.

    His central thesis is that returns on capital ( r) ( the name of his book being Capital in the 21st C) will always exceed the rate of economic growth, and so inequality in income is in built.
    Further, he argues that in periods of low growth, the gap between r & labour cost rises will increase-thus increasing “wealth” .

    Apart from technical criticism, and concerns on data validity, there has been criticism that he-like you-conflates “capital” with “wealth”.

  9. “Colin @ ALEC

    @” Piketty’s central thesis is that tax havens have been allowed to flourish following deregulation, enabling the returns on wealth to soar.”

    “No it isn’t.”

    Yes it is.

    Not that I’ve read it. Anyway, wasn’t s/he made up by ole Dickens?

  10. @OZWALD: “Does anyone know what % of the population / electorate actually buy or read a newspaper these days ? I was under the impression that more and more people get their news from sources other than the traditional newspapers.”

    I was on a busy commuter train last week at about 8.30 am and noticed that apart from one person with a Metro no one in the packed carriage was reading a newspaper; most were studying their phones or computers.

  11. @TOH: “In your opinion…”

    It’s quite widely acknowledged that his critics (such as the FT’s Giles) ignored undeclared wealth in the US and UK. Here’s Paul Mason, for example:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/26/thomas-piketty-economist-ft-attack-rising-inequality-bling

  12. While there’s this analysis if Giles’s view by Howard Reed, director of the economic research consultancy Landman Economics:

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/29/piketty-chris-giles-and-wealth-inequality-its-all-about-the-discontinuities

  13. Southampton seem to be selling more players than they’ve got.

  14. @RogerH
    Newspapers. Thanks for the info. I thought that newspaper buyers/readers were a small minority these days. But the YG sample seems to have only around 25% with “no newspaper”, which seems very low. Or, put the other way , I doubt whether 75% of voters read/buy a newspaper.

    The YG sample is heavily skewed towards Mail/Express readers. OK the figures are then weighted but it seems a big ask to rely on weighting to arrive at accurate figures from such a starting point. Also the sample has no folk with UKIP party ID. Like they have been written out of the script. Very odd since they regularly score twice as high as LibDems.

  15. If anyone is still reading this thread the figures are here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/may/09/abcs-national-newspapers

    so excluding free papers like Metro I guess 7m-ish and maybe more where those are shared out among more than one person.

  16. @postageincluded

    Thank you very much for your detailed reply. iwill have a try at working with the numbers

    i am sorry i am so late in replying i had to work today

  17. At one time I couldn’t get through a day without one but I now rarely buy a newspaper (and even when I get a free one at Waitrose it often goes unread) but I read them online, including articles linked to by other people. Whereas previously I’d generally have read either the Guardian or Independent I’ll now not only read both but may dip into the Telegraph or even Mail. So maybe those circulation figures are doubly misleading and online readers need to be included.

1 3 4 5