This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%.

All very normal, but worth noting a slight update in methodology. As regular readers will know, YouGov’s political weighting is based on panelists recorded party identification in May 2010, meaning they don’t have to worry about changes in party ID over time – they weight people’s 2010 ID to 2010 targets. However, over the years new people join the panel, so the target weights need to adapt to this and reflect to some proportion that Lib Dem ID has fallen and UKIP ID has grown – hence once a year YouGov update the weights to reflect this. The changes this year decrease the target weight for Lib Dem ID and increase the target for Other (primarily UKIP) ID.

The end result is that the new weights tend to show UKIP 1 point higher, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems very slightly lower (less than a percentage point in all cases).

345 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33, LAB 37, LD 8, UKIP 13”

1 2 3 7
  1. Surprised there is no Scottish poll so far?

  2. Nice to get a poll that is almost smack on the UKPR Polling Average. Seems to suggest that 37, 33, 9, 12 is more or less where things currently reside.

    And have done for quite some while.

  3. @Anthony – Do you weight UKIP separately or as part of an Other bloc?

    [Part of a block (though since 2011 the SNP&PC have been done separately, so the majority of the block is UKIP!) – AW]

  4. @AW

    Are you able to explain the process used to decide how you change the weights? (Apologies if you’ve done this before!)

  5. @Anthony – Thanks for replying so quickly!

    Do you / YouGov believe then that UKIP voters are demographically and attitudinally similar to other Other voters, such as Greens and Socialists?

    Is separating out a UKIP weighting on your horizon for next year, assuming that UKIP maintain their polling and maybe gain several seats?

  6. If they’re done as a block, isn’t there a risk that (for example) a rise in UKIP party identification therefore helps the Greens in the poll (for example)?

  7. Labour tell Wright to go.

    UKIP’s Rotherham candidate speaking pretty bluntly.

    Rich-you wondered if there would be a political reaction.
    One to watch in 2015 .

  8. Chris – nope, as the name implies, they are just all the others. I think it’s pretty likely they’ll be weighted separately after the next election when the anchor point becomes 2015, rather than 2010, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. The post-general election review tends to be the biggest and most comprehensive one.

    Wes – actually its the other way round, a rise in UKIP identification amongst new panellists would depress the level of Green support unless the weighting targets were updated to accommodate it. Now they have been, Green support should also increase marginally (though again, less than 1% difference)

    TheSheep – trade secrets ;). Actually it’s a case of determining what proportions of the working panel are people who joined since the last review, and tracking party ID changes at the individual level to come up with notional national figures for party ID now, them combining them together to come up with new targets.

  9. It strikes me that if such review makes so little difference, we can conclude that previous YG results for the last year have been reliable in that regard.

    One thing about these daily results also strikes me. It would be advisable to take an average of the last fortnight prior to the GE and take that as being the best forecast, rather than get excited about an unusual result one day before.

  10. @Colin

    A 2015 election campaign in Rotherham based on the recent report would become extremely ugly and be based on grotesque stereo-typing, and what would amount to be a racial slur.

    Abusers exist in all communities, regardless of skin colour, religion or any other factor. The fact that abusers examined in the report from Rotherham came from one part of society tells us that abusers stick together within their communities.

    It does not tell us that abusers always come from that community, or that this community has more abusers proportionately within it.

    The failure of the authorities to deal with what has gone on requires action, but I know with a sinking heart how a campaign at the next GE based on this will rapidly turn into a disgraceful racial slur.

  11. @AW

    Thanks! Thought it might be… Secret sauce and all that…

  12. Catmanjeff – Yes, there is a danger that this issue (horrendous though it is) could become the major part of local politicking in 2015.
    It seems to me that the right response (morally and politically) is for all those senior figures implicated – not just R. Stone, but Shaun Wright (PCC), the key Police senior officer, and the RMBC senior officer for childrens issues – to resign or otherwise leave their posts. Wright was the Cabinet member for childrens issues from 2005-10 so cannot escape responsibility IMHO.
    I accept what Catmanjeff says about ‘perps stick together’ ; but there clearly IS a particular problem within the Asian community – possibly cos young/single women are so unavailable within that society for ‘normal’ relationships. The community itself needs to acknowledge the problem and to be at the front of efforts to stamp it out – politically correct handwringing from white middle-class “small l” liberals (like me) won’t resolve it.

  13. The methodological change is not much of a surprise because what has been very clear over the Summer is that while YouGov used to score UKIP quite a bit higher than the phone polls, the latter have been catching up.

    YouGov’s average for July was 12%. The same month ICM gave 12%, MORI 12% and ComRes 17%. Some of this is undoubtedly the disappearance of a ‘shy UKIP’ factor, but the new joiners problem may also mean that YouGov have been reducing the ‘core’ UKIP vote too much.

    The new joiners problem doesn’t just apply to UKIP though. It’s even truer of the Greens because their vote is very strong among the under-25s (15% in today’s poll) and so a large number of their identifiers will have had to have joined since 2010 (and all pollsters make strenuous efforts to attract young voters to keep their panel balanced).

    It may not matter so much when both Greens and UKIP are rising or falling together and regular adjustments are being made to the targets. But as Anthony says if they’re not alteration in one will give an artificial boost or suppression to the other. I suppose you can make some allowances using ‘trade secrets’ but it’s still a problem.

    While we’re looking at methodology, I’m also curious if YouGov have tried out putting UKIP into their main list recently on test runs and if so what were the results? I suspect not much difference but it would be interesting to see what would happen with a large split sample.


    With an equally sinking heart I disagree with you.
    The Report is categoric about the ethnic dimension-both in the perpetrator group & the councillor group.

    The Report also makes it absolutely clear that the desire to suppress the whole thing , in order to cover up the ethnic factor, was a key reason for the continued abuse.

    Yes the campaign may be brutally honest-I hope it is.

  15. On the subject of the Rotherham report, anyone who is interested can download it in full from here:

    It’s fairly long (159 pages) but worth reading and not filled with unexplained social worker jargon. As usual not much has been covered in the media except the Executive Summary, but the detail is very revealing and those trying to blame the whole thing on political correctness are saying more about their own desires than the actual situation. Indeed the real problem may stem from too little PC not too much. The general attitudes to women and girls is particularly shocking – and we’re talking about councillors, police and other officials, not the ‘Muslims’ that some are so keen to blame everything on.

    You also need to be careful about allocating blame because many of those currently involved may have been those trying to solve things. The very length of time the revelations have been going on means that there have been previous interventions and improvements, but it’s also quite clear that not everything is working as it should be yet.

    It’s quite clear why the Council leader had to go though. From p8 of pdf:

    In 2013, the Council Leader, who has held office since 2003, apologised for the quality of the Council’s safeguarding services being less than it should have been before 2009. This apology should have been made years earlier, and the issue given the political leadership it needed.

  16. I’d probably better add that the remark about blaming things on PC was not aimed at Colin, whose comment I didn’t see before posting. But some of the things said in even the Guardian’s comments are horrendous – heaven knows what the Telegraph is like.

  17. The atrocity visited on the children of Rotherham, sacrificed on the altar of political correctness should definitely be a part of the campaign. This happened on Labour’s watch, indeed the climate created by that shoddy excuse for a council allowed these monsters to feel they acted with impunity.

  18. @AW

    “The end result is that the new weights tend to show UKIP 1 point higher, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems very slightly lower (less than a percentage point in all cases).”

    Could you be a bit more precise as to the impact on each party comparing methodologies before and after please? The change on each to the nearest decimal point would be good. I think you’ve done this for similar changes in the past.


    I noted this in particular from the Report :-

    ” In the broader organisational context, however, there was a widespread perception that messages onveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to ‘downplay’ the ethnic dimensions of CSE. Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as ‘racist’. From a political perspective, the approach of avoiding public
    discussion of the issues was ill judged.There was too much reliance by agencies on traditional community leaders such as elected members and imams as being the primary conduit of communication with the
    Pakistani-heritage community. The Inquiry spoke to several Pakistani-heritage women who felt disenfranchised by this and thought it was a barrier to people coming forward to talk about CSE. Others believed there was wholesale denial of the problem
    in the Pakistani-heritage community ”

    Section 11. p91

    I have just seen an impressive young Muslim Youth Community activist interviewed. He said he was shocked by the extent & timescale of the abuse, and that trying to suppress it for “politically correct” reasons was “ridiculous”.


    You will recall that this was the Council which , intervened in the lives of a foster couple who were providing a good, stable home to foster children, because they were members of UKIP. .

  21. From the Jay report:

    “There was too much reliance by agencies on traditional community leaders such as elected members and imams as being the primary conduit of communication with the Pakistani-heritage community.”

    In fact the “agencies” made no attempt at engaging with ordinary members of that community over a long period. This strikes me as not being “PC” at all but a perpetuation of the British Imperial policy of governing through “Native Authority” – a form of collusion that allowed the Empire to rule without getting its hands too dirty.

  22. I am disgusted to be completely right. As I alluded yesterday in a reply to Rich, the usual suspects cannot be moved from their PC multicultural worship, even by these unspeakable crimes against 11 year old girls.

    The fact is, we are at the tip of an iceberg, with currently only Oxford, Derby, Rochdale and now Rotherham, at the forefront of this appalling scandal. As time goes on, it will be very interesting to see if news breaks in any cities and towns who do not have a Labour council and police commissioner. At the moment it looks very much like the fear of rocking the Labour boat and losing Labour ethnic votes has enabled this monstrous behaviour to thrive and grow. I think the mealy mouthed excuse’s and pathetic platitudes up page are a total disgrace.
    Thinking Ed Balls would make a better chancellor than Osborn, may strike me as odd, but it does not make the believer a very sick human being. Excusing this behaviour to support the multicultural dream does.


    I think a version of tyour idea is more likely:-

    That those Councillors , Police Officers etc who liased with “traditional” leaders knew that those leaders , unlike the Women’s Groups , or the younger generation would share their conservatism & desire to turn a blind eye for fear of facing an awful truth.

    I have been reading that a similar problem lies at the heart of the radicalisation problem-ie older , less educated, more traditional imams & community “leaders” are simply not listened to by the young hotheads.

  24. In addition, if I state; “some whites in the Southern states of the USA, still persist in racist attitudes towards American black people”. Who will disagree with me?

    If I say ; “some Muslim men think young white underage girls are such sluts they have no rights whatever”. Who will disagree with me?

    Well lets see the excuses pile up, despite the complete proof who and what, these men are.

  25. Postage Included
    Yes lets blame the British Empire, for the next white youth who rapes a girl or kills with a knife, we can blame the Roman Empire.

  26. Who’s making excuses?
    Nobody I’ve seen.

  27. @Roland Haines
    “As time goes on, it will be very interesting to see if news breaks in any cities and towns who do not have a Labour council and police commissioner.”

    I don’t for one moment buy your theory that this is all about the colour of political control, nor that the failings of senior professionals (as opposed to politicians) are somehow secondary in all this. Of the specific examples you cite, I think you’ll find that in Oxford, the responsibilities for children’s service lie with Oxfordshire County Council and for policing with the Thames Valley Police. The political masters of both are Conservatives, not that I think the political colour of either is relevant.

  28. Guymonde
    Well you have not read Catmanjeff up page then, someone else is blaming the British Empire for heavens sake.

  29. @Guymonde

    I am assuming that is aimed me.

    I care not.

  30. Mr Haines,

    In which lines do I excuse the crime?

    Please repost them for me, if you please.


  31. Good Afternoon All.


    Mark Easton has written a very good piece on the BBC website.

    He points out that RSPCA research shows that 1 in 10 children under the age of 11 are sexually abused.

    Thousands of children have to be removed from home every year.

    Physical abuse is equally prevalent.

    The evil is in our midst regardless of class, religion or race,

    The number of children on the At Risk register in school is very high, and will be the tip of the iceberg.

    I note the political dimension in Yorkshire, and of course there should be resignations.

  32. Phill Haines
    Well I would not expect you to agree with me on this matter. Oxford City is as left wing as Liverpool and it is within Oxford City that these things occurred.
    The whole dreaming spires bit somewhat annoys me, much of Oxford is an unpleasant hole and can certainly be compared with the other dumps that have finally owned up to what is going on.

    Dont watch to much Young Morse on the Idiots Lantern.

  33. These were men who had businesses & connections. The girls were written off as ‘riff-raff’ from ‘bad families’.

    The report is clear: the problem arose from a culture which tolerates violence against women; a culture which considers a witness’s credibility as being dependent on social status, gender & age; a culture which has normalised victim blaming & encourages victims to blame themselves. This time there was a racial element too… this time.

  34. Catmanjeff
    You in no way excuse the crime, but typically you attempt to excuse the perpetrators. At what point will you be prepared to see that there is a problem ? My guess is never.

  35. AMBER
    I agree with every word you say, but why add “this time”.
    We all know that true born anglo saxons and even hielan laddies can be wicked, drunken, violent bastards towards women. But this is the fourth major town where a Muslim group of men have systematically raped threatened and abused very young girls. I am not indulging myself in a Pakistani hate fest, but this is a Pakistani thing and your guys have got to stop pretending it is not.

  36. Sad to see that even in this place there are some sticking with party political nonsense to point fingers at the horrific abuse in Rotherham.

    Sure, it happened under a Labour council but was Savile just the fault of the Tories ? He was after all, a loyal supporter of Mrs Thatcher.

    Where were the media in all this ? A child abuse scandal perpetrated in a Labour controlled council in large part by Asian men & our right-wing media chose to ignore it ?
    Not like them to ignore the kneejerk response to Asians, child abuse & a seemingly useless police force.

    What a scoop it would have been for press types like the News of the World / Sun / Mail. Wonder why they didn’t bother reporting any of it until yesterday…..or are they too lazy to do any real journalism instead choosing to wait until a story is dropped into their laps ?

  37. I am not sure how much involvement the above commentators have actually have with dealing with the victims and perpetrators of assaults on children but as someone who has I would point out that assaults on children occur throughout society and the most likely perpetrators by far are parents or close relatives irrespective of their ethnicity.

  38. I still maintain that a better baseline for weighting past vote would be the 2005 General Election rather than 2010. The economic crash skewed Labour’s base support, with a large group moving to the Lib Dems. They have now returned, but Labour’s vote is still being adjusted to reflect 2010, possibly leading to an underestimation of the likely Labour vote. Not huge, but in an election where the difference between 3 and 6% could make the difference, possibly crucial.

  39. I’m about halfway through reading Prof Jay’s report, and therefore have mostly read the summaries and chronologies, rather than anything very specific.

    The “headlines” are I think a bit misleading. You’d be forgiven for believing that 1,400 children suffered exploitation without anyone doing anything, when in fact a great deal was done. From the criticisms I’ve read so far I don’t think there’s anything unusually poor about Rotherham’s staff and systems, and I think the same yardstick applied to other authorities would measure pretty much the same failings everywhere.

    I also think that there is something a bit odd about the “estimate” (although as I say I haven’t got to the bottom of the report yet so there may be more substance to their methodology). I worked until recently in a similar line of work in a city almost exactly the same size as Rotherham, and I’d estimate that the number of children suffering CSE (in the sense that most people actually mean it) is probably in double figures.

    Therein lies the rub of course, because “Child S**ual Exploitation” is such a loose term that it can cover virtually any activity from all s*xual abuse, to all underaged relationships, to internet s*xting and everything in between. Quite a number of things that are classified as CSE under the government’s guidelines aren’t even criminal offences.

    In a city the size of Rotherham, you’d expect the total number of victims of s*xual abuse over 15 years to be substantially higher than 1400, and the total number of strictly CSE cases to be a fraction of that. Either Prof.Jay’s estimates are roping in a very broad fraction, Rotherham has a very specific and unusual problem with CSE, or they’ve overestimated.

    Judging from the examples in the report I’ve read, at least one refers specifically to internet-only offending. That is a massive and only barely-scratched problem that we’re struggling to find ways to tackle, so if the 1,400 includes all the victims of that in Rotherham then the headlines are a gross distortion and quite unfair to those involved.

    I also think there has been some cherry picking of the “examples”. Prof. Jay states that not all of the most serious incidents were included in the examples, but virtually every one listed includes some sort of penetration. If it were a representative sample I’d expect to see a lot more lower level assaults in there.

    The last thing I’d say (for now at least – I may have more once I’ve finished digesting it) is that it is very easy for a reviewer to come in and pontificate about the quality of the evidence that was available in a sort of theoretical guesswork exercise, especially if you do it with your social worker hat on. You try getting a CSE case through the UK courts. I had to drop one a couple of weeks ago, and have three more in the pipeline none of which I have much optimism about.

    The University of Oxford was not such a nice place to study, for me, anyway, in comparison with Manchester, where I ‘did’ my PGCE in days of old.

    I think Oxford is pastorally better now though, judging from my children’s experience.

    ‘In my time’ the Labour Party there was a bit strange.

  41. @Roland Haines

    Lets just stick to the facts. Oxford is not an area served by a unitary local authority and thus Oxford City Council has as much responsibility for children’s services as your local parish council – that is to say, none. The same responsibilities for children that are vested in unitary councils such as Rotherham in a metropolitan area are in non-unitary shire areas the responsibility of the county council – i.e. Oxfordshire County Council in this case. And as for the Oxford City Police, they were abolished in 1966 when the Thames Valley Police were created.

    Who introduced PC to this country ? Who had (and still has) its membership shrieking “RACIST” at any Tory like me, who dare question the wonders of open door immigration or multiculturalism?

    It was not Mrs Thatcher
    It is not UKIP.

    You may think the press is right wing, I think the BBC is a disgrace. No point in discussing it.

  43. @ Bramley

    I’m usually 100% behind your comments – but the media did report some of these stories over the years. It seems to have made little difference; the public seemed uninterested. Possibly this was due to the victims & their families not being ‘people like us’. Once a political & race slant was added to the reports, the stories gained more traction.

  44. I see Anthony has helpfully posted links to some of the stories to which I referred.

  45. PHIL Haines
    I am well aware of the details, I live 15 miles from the place. It has (Oxford City) always been a very soft touch for immigrants.

    I am not surprised you found Manchester more fun. I am no expert on the Labour party, but in the old days it was a mixture in Oxford, of car factory shop stewards and PHD’s in French Dramatic Art 1600 to 1745. The latter of course not knowing what day it was.

  47. Neil A
    Good to hear from you again, but to be honest, I don’t see why this thread should be hijacked in this way by some opinionated people. I have no interest in the various posters’ opinions on this CSE issue, only those expressed by voters in a poll which doubtless is being organised by a pollster right now.

  48. Thanks Anthony and Amber.

    I don’t subscribe to the Murdoch coffers so wasn’t aware of this particular journalist’s work.

    @Neil A

    Interesting post – it’s good to have some comment from somebody experienced in these matters.

  49. @STEVE
    What a wonderful PC comment. Are you a policeman?
    It also misses the point by a million miles.
    Why should we have qualify everything by stating that there are bad bastards in every sect, race, religion, colour ect ect ect. These are organised gangs who are Pakistani’s.
    Like Al Capone’s boys were mostly Italian.

1 2 3 7