We have our regular glut of Monday polls today, with new figures from YouGov, Populus, Ashcroft and ComRes. Topline figures are:

Populus – CON 32%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%, GRN 5% (tabs)
Ashcroft – CON 30%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 6% (tabs)
YouGov/Sun – CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%
ComRes/Indy – CON 28%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 18%, GRN 7% (tabs)

A week ago we had a clutch of polls showing an increased Labour lead following Rochester and Strood. Populus had a couple of polls with 5 point leads, as did Lord Ashcroft, YouGov’s poll on the same day produced a four point Labour lead. This week they’ve all gone back to more typical numbers – it was either a short term effect, or just pure co-incidence. We will never know.

Note that there is a change in ComRes’s methodology. As with their online and constituency polling, they have introducing UKIP into the main voting intention prompt. UKIP are down one point since the previous ComRes poll so this does not appear to have had any radical effect.


533 Responses to “Monday polling round-up”

1 9 10 11
  1. @Carfrew

    Yep, if you are in one of the groups that tends not to vote, then you can be sure the politicians will target you for the worst treatment

  2. It would seem that the good headlines of today are now being overwhelmed by
    the IFS and theOBR aka prophets of doom etc.

  3. Graham – I don’t know if it would have been done under Barber, but Healey should have – the requirement for it is set out in the Industry Act 1975. It is essentially the same thing as the Pre-Budget Report, just under a different name,.

  4. @Ann in Wales

    I seem to remember that the Con vote dipped after George O’s speech at their party conference, which contained a lot of mentions of cuts, although the IFS stuff today dwarfs all that

    What the IFS is saying is quite shocking, to me anyway

    Here is a link to all the IFS presentations

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget/498

  5. Carfrew & Floating Voter

    Having read the IFS I guess I can smile, but do I believe he will make the cuts he will actually get the size state down to the levels forecast? As I said earlier, not unless he removes the ring fencing. Still IMO [snip]

  6. @Howard

    yes I was very careful in my post, not to label any one political party, all the parties should have to explain how they will deal with the situation

    Because the IFS has shown the reality

  7. Floating Voter,
    Thanks for the link.I wonder if the good news will cancel out the bad,or vice versa,so that polling wise we will end up exactly where we were?

  8. Ann in Wales

    That can only be measured accurately in polling if the entire package of measures was to be reported.

    We all know how the newspapers select what to put to their readers so it’s unlikely that the post-grad 50% tax rate on income up to £43,000 and 60% after that or that in cash terms the biggest gains go to higher income households re: changes to tax allowance will be making much of a dent in the coverage of stamp duty changes.

    I’d be amazed if the Cons didn’t get a polling bounce but whether it lasts until May 2015 & equates to a x for the Con candidate in the polling booth is quite another matter.

  9. Bramley,
    Agreed.However I think that UKIP will be quietly chuckling here.Far from costing their policies,they change them or do not even know what they are.
    Doesn’t seem to do them any harm though!

  10. @ANN IN WALES

    I’m glad that I’m not the only one :)

  11. @newforest

    “Sounds like someone who would not be affected enormously if this were to happen!”

    Hmm. I notice that the more well off are increasingly criticising the ongoing costs of the NHS, and my instinct is that they pay for private healthcare, and wish to opt out of paying their taxes (assuming they actually pay their taxes, rather than avoid them) for the lesser tier that they no longer need.

  12. NEWFORESTRADICAL

    I would probably not be affected much these but that’s hardly the point. I had the same views when I was young and poor, starting out with virtually nothing. IMO for years Governments of all persuasions have increased the size of the state as if politicians know best how to spend our money for us. By and large they don’t. This has been coming for a long time now as I have posted many times the European model of the large state is doomed. It seems it is coming to pass quicker than I though because of the size of the World Crash.

  13. Thanks Anthony!

  14. STATGEEK

    It was actually Farage who let slip that we should be moving to an insurance based system with some state help for the less well off in Society. [snip] IMO but of course none of our major parties have the b***s to say so and he backed off as soon as challenged.

    [As a general rule thumb for all, if you type IMO about something, it’s probably outside the comments policy and you shouldn’t post it at all – AW]

  15. Unlike so many on the site, I do not pretend to be the next Milton Friedman or Maynard Keynes. However, why it is so difficult for people to get their head around the damage debt does, is beyond me.
    George Osborne has not been aggressive enough in his “austerity”,
    there will be more to come because there is still far to much borrowing. Everyone on this board is well aware of the deficit acquired in 2008, what makes it so hard to see that only very hard decisions will reduce and repay it. And all this with a strong economy, with the French economy it would be a dissaarster daarling.
    Those who still support the premise that objecting to all and every cut is the “human” thing to do, are plain wrong.

  16. Jeremy Thorpe has died.

  17. @Ann in Wales – “It would seem that the good headlines of today are now being overwhelmed by
    the IFS and theOBR aka prophets of doom etc.”

    For the avoidance of doubt, as they say in legal circles, neither of these organisations has approached me to ask for permission to adopt the ‘prophets of doom’ mantle.

  18. “the European model of the large state is doomed”

    If people are forced to choose between the Cuba version of poverty or the Brazil version they’ll choose the Cuba version.

    So people who think creating a plantation economy and mass poverty will lead to a smaller state are deluding themselves imo.

    The way to get a smaller state – if that’s what you want – is to increase average prosperity instead i.e. increase the percentage of people who feel “comfortable” (by their own standards) as that is the only way a is going to happen.

  19. Richard

    Survation don’t usually weight their polls politically – except for some reason in Scotland. There is some justification for this because of the problem of false recall and some other pollsters such as MORI don’t do so either, though MORI do weight by many more socioeconomic factors than Survation do (at least in the poll where it was just age,sex and ward).

    As it happens we’ve got another poll for Camborne and Redruth from Ashcroft back in June:

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Camborne-Redruth-June-2014-Full-tables.pdf

    which had figures[1]:

    Con 28% (27) {34 (30)}

    Lab 24% (25) {18 (22)}

    Lib Dem 12% (9) {13 (6)}

    UKIP 28% (30) {28 (28)}[2]

    Green 5% (8) {6 (7)}

    Other 2% (*) {1 (1)}

    It’s interesting that UKIP’s figure has remained constant despite Ashcroft’s poll being take the week after the Euros when it was thought they would be on a high point. Otherwise the main difference seems to be in Labour’s VI, which may indeed have slipped since early June.

    If you compare the percentages of 2010 recalled votes in Ashcroft (weighted), {Survation}, [Actual]:

    Con 40% (37) {44} [38]

    Lab 27% (19) {24} [16]

    Lib Dem 26% (36) {14} [37]

    UKIP n/a% (n/a) {11} [5]

    Others 8% (9) {3} [4]

    it’s clear that both found far too few Lib Dems. Clearly some of this is people saying they voted Labour or UKIP when they didn’t, but the Ashcroft re-weighting may not have had much effect because even many for those who say they did vote Lib Dem are now choosing Labour or UKIP, so the boost is evenly spread. There do seem too many Conservatives though and it could be that the Survation poll has them too high and Labour too low.

    [1] ‘Constituency ‘ questions, Survation in {} with equivalent general VI in () for both. Ashcroft percentages before reallocation of DKs etc as Survation doesn’t do it here.

    Ashcroft oddly enough doesn’t seem to weight by ward or ward group, though you would think it important in some constituencies made up of a number of disparate communities – particularly if telephone number selection for the area had an inbuilt bias. All the reports say is For each constituency, results were weighted to be representative of all adults living in the constituency. so it might be he does, but there’s nothing explicit in the tables.

    [2] Survation also named the Party candidates, but got the name wrong for UKIP with the 2010 candidate – though at least they didn’t use the name of the next one selected who’s just been jailed for cruelty to sheep.

  20. “However, why it is so difficult for people to get their head around the damage debt does, is beyond me.”

    Possibly because they’ve had 30 years of being told easy credit and consumer debt is good?

    (when it is just as bad long term as government debt)

  21. Mr Jones

    Agree your last post, it’s just as bad as government debt.

  22. MRJONES

    “The way to get a smaller state – if that’s what you want – is to increase average prosperity ”

    [snip] IMO.

  23. Thanks Roger

    So what do you think – can we rely on the Survation figures even though the weighting looks all wrong, because the final results match the Ashcroft poll, or does the weighting problem mean the poll is too imprecise to really tell us anything, other than that UKIP is doing well in the seat and taking Conservative votes.

    (I’m not one of the many stats boffins on here ,so interested in your thoughts – when can we rely on a poll with apparently incorrect/not applied party weighting, and when not?)

  24. We already have an insurance system, National Insurance is intended to pay for Unemployment Benefits, Pensions and Healthcare. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

    Consider government spending in 1928, there was a very rudimentary system of entitlements available, nothing on the scale of current government disbursements and government spending was still 29% of GDP.

    In the current situation we find Government spending at 43% of GDP but with a massively expanded pension system, state health provision, expanded education system.

    Even a rudimentary state is going to take up close to a third of GDP and the goods that come from an expanded state are delivered, on the whole, more efficiently than a patchwork of private providers could.

    There is no magic ratio of debt to gdp, or deficit spending to government spending. Current interest payments on the whole national debt for the current year will be 3% of GDP, in 1984 it was 4.3%. The National Debt may seem huge, daunting, impossible to deal with, it is anything but and any appreciation of historical precedent shows this.

    If you want a small state because you want to pay less tax say so, don’t pretend it’s out of some kind of concern for the good of the nation.

    [But DON’T say it here, as it’s not a political debating society – AW]

  25. ALEC
    You have predicted doom from the instant Labour lost the 2010 GE.
    In reality things have not hit the rocks as you predicted, on the contrary, we have much to be thankful for. IMO [snip]

  26. GAZPROM

    You could not be more wrong,

    “If you want a small state because you want to pay less tax say so, don’t pretend it’s out of some kind of concern for the good of the nation.”

    I am comfortably off, I pay all my tax in good time and I do not think current rates of income tax are unfair thanks to the Lawson budget. Before that tax rights for high earners were unfair, one of the many reasons why I thought the 60s and 70s such an awful period in our history.

    I am very concerned for the Nation, for my children and grandchildren.which is why I post as I do.

  27. GAZPROM

    Should read “tax rates”

  28. Sorry AW but I felt it necessary to reply to what I consider a personal attack.

  29. I’d just suggest that you look at the GDP to National Debt ratio over the last century if you think that the current National Debt is too high.

    Also look at the absolute levels of the National Debt over the last fifty years.

    Draw your own conclusions.

  30. Alec,
    I humbly apologise.

  31. @TOH

    “Sorry AW but I felt it necessary to reply to what I consider a personal attack.”

    Just dipped into the thread as I occasionally do, but when I read comments like yours, it suggests to me that it’s another one of those “discussions” left well alone.

    Sadly, they are becoming the norm and not the exception on UKPR, and when you quickly read up through the names of the repetitive contributors, the tone you’ve described doesn’t surprise me at all.

    I hope the offensive post you’ve alluded to wasn’t up for too long before Anthony got to it.

    I’ll await the publication of tonight’s poll before I visit again

  32. New thread

  33. May be too late for this thread – hopefully Anthony may pick it up. Has the news that the SNP will be fielding a candidate in Berwick (Alan Beith who is retiring) reached South of Hadrian’s Wall yet? Nice to know how that will affect the marginal polling.

    The reason is that it is to get the SNP National TV coverage, but now the idea is out it seems a lot of folk in the English Borders are seriously interested in this opportunity.

1 9 10 11