YouGov London polling

Over the last couple of days the Evening Standard have been reporting the contents of a new YouGov London poll – yesterday here and today here.

YouGov found London voting intentions of CON 35%(nc), LAB 45%(+3), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 8%(-2), GRN 4%(nc). Labour are up three since June, but this poll would still suggest Labour doing slightly worse in London than elsewhere (a ten point lead for Labour in London is a 4 point swing since the general election, whereas GB polls are currently showing a 5 1/2 point swing to Labour.)

YouGov also repeated a batch of questions about Boris Johnson returning to Parliament. 37% of Londonders now think it is reasonable for him to seek to return to Parliament in 2015, but 43% think he should not consider doing so until he has completed his term as mayor. If he were to be elected as an MP in 2015 50% think he should stand down as mayor immediately, 34% think it would be okay for him to do both for a year.

Finally today’s poll looked at the possible Labour candidates for London mayor. Tessa Jowell comes top… but only on 12%, narrowly ahead of Diane Abbott on 8%. Amongst London Labour voters Jowell also comes top, but still only on 16%. I think the reality is that questions like this are largely just a recognition contest… and none of the candidates are particularly well known (I haven’t seen anyone even bother asking who should succeed Boris as the Conservative candidate!)


454 Responses to “YouGov London polling”

1 8 9 10
  1. 18-24yr olds

  2. Labour income seems to include £7m of public funding (“short money”) for research compared to £0.5m for the Tories. I am assuming this discrepancy is because the Tories being in government can do their own research as part of the government?


    All opposition parties get this.

    The Conservatives benefited when in opposition to a similar amount Short money was introduced in 1974 and doesn’t actually mean it is only available for a Short time but is named after Edward Short who proposed the idea.

    The idea being that much of the expenditure a governing party does is completed by civil servants and is financed by the exchequer.

    The scheme has three components:

    Funding to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business
    Funding for the opposition parties’ travel and associated expenses
    Funding for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office

  3. JIM JAM
    I am also not sure how you factor in or out the opinion making of specific campaigns designe for that effect in the press in influencing responses of poll responders on the opposite wing of politics to the politician about whom “popularity” is asked.
    If @Pressman and his mates don”t like left wing policies and EM is seen as more socialist than others, propagandising to the effect that he is “deeply unpopular”, e.g. because he has been photo’d awkwardly eating a bacon sandwich or “looks like Wallace”. It’s regrettable that we hear eminences such as Paxo and Marr repeating the mantra.

  4. I think the opinions of the press are, contrary to the views often expressed on this site, extremely important and this relates to AW’s comments re supermarkets/margarines. No-one is likely to say that they are influenced by certain factors – probably because we all like to think that we take decisions after careful consideration of policies/prices whatever is relevant but, actually, we are probably all subject to manipulation. In this context I think the press can still set the background agenda – for example by creating the narrative that EM is weak/weird or whatever and then this is repeated by mainstream commentators e.g. Paxman, Marr and it becomes a truism: EM is weak/weird and, because it has to be confronted or rebutted or engaged with in some way it IS the agenda. It doesn’t mean that the press always wins – not by any means – but it does mean that it is still extremely important and, therefore, EM’s decision to take the stance he did on the press was either brave or foolish, depending on your views.

1 8 9 10