Two new polls in the Sunday papers. This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times results are here – topline figures are CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 16%, GRN 7%.

The YouGov poll also had questions on the end of the Parliament: the majority of people (56%) think that MPs have now started to concentrate on the election rather than concentrate on bringing in laws (7%). Not withstanding that there is little support for an early election – most people think the next election should still be in May 2015 as planned. The principle of having fixed term Parliaments has majority support (56% to 29%), though those who support it are split between agreeing with the current five year set up and preferring a fixed term election every four years. Asked about the fate of the coalition, 25% of people want it to end now (17%) or in the next few months (8%). 33% think it should continue up until the start of the formal campaign in April, while 28% want it to continue until polling day itself. The vast majority of Tory and Lib Dem voters want the coalition to continue until at least April.

MPs themselves continue to have a poor reputation. By 55% to 12% people think they are poor value for money and by 45% to 33% people think they are lazy rather than hardworking. 43% think that the reduction in Parliamentary business towards the end of the Parliament is just being used by MPs to do less work, rather than for constituency work.

Meanwhile a new ComRes poll in the Independent on Sunday has topline figures of CON 33%(+3), LAB 34%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 18%(-1), GRN 2%(-1). Changes are from their November online poll and tabs are here. A quick aside about that very low score for the Greens – as regular readers will recall, ComRes recently made a change to their methodology. They started including UKIP in the main prompt for voting intention, but also made some changes to their likelihood to vote weighting – this is not quite clear from the tables, but as far as I can tell from reverse engineering the tables in their online polls they now apply a more harsh turnout filter to UKIP and the Greens than for the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems. The end effect of the combined changes looks to me as if UKIP support is largely unchanged, but Green support will be decreased.

ComRes also asked people to put the parties on a left-right scale, with a surprising result. The average scores for Labour was 4.13, the Lib Dems 4.87, UKIP on 6.61 and the Conservatives 6.91 – so the Tories seen as more right wing than UKIP. This is in contrast to a similar exercise by YouGov earlier this year which found UKIP and the Conservatives the other way round. There are months between the polls, so opinion could simply have changed (especially since UKIP have been putting in an effort to appeal to Labour voters), but there were two significant methodological differences between the polls – YouGov asked people on a verbal scale, ComRes on a numerical scale and, probably more importantly, YouGov included a don’t know option and ComRes did not. In the YouGov poll over a quarter of people said don’t know to the questions (ordinary people don’t necessarily think of parties, policies and so on as being “right” or “left” wing!), so it could just be that lots of people said 5 when they weren’t offered don’t know as an option. That said both versions found people positioning the Conservatives and UKIP in a fairly similar place in the political spectrum, so probably not worth getting too excited over the difference.

157 Responses to “Sunday YouGov and ComRes polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. Bramley – yeah, it’s bollocks. Health quite often comes up third or fourth in the unprompted MORI issue polls (it’s second in the latest one). The trick to getting it to appear to be first is not to include the broad economy as an option and specify *local* issues, thereby hobbling immigration which is seen as more of a national issue.

  2. @Couper

    “So although I am no longer working class I still feel I am and feel that Labour was set up to represent people like me.”

    The Labour party does represent the people who made it into the middle class.

    That’s their problem.

  3. alec

    It is polite to spell people’s names the same way as they do [viz coupEr] and especially easy here when they can be seen in big letters before you respond with your own variation.


    I thought your response to couper2802 was unnecessarily unpleasant – especially given how much we know about, for example, TOH’s background and admiration for Thatcher and so on.

    It’s the season to live and let live.

  4. It was not just the health of the Poles in Katowice that began to improve in 1992. So did the health of the Czechs in Moravia and East Germans in Saxony. The Iron Curtain collapsed in 1990, of course.

    The Chief Medical Officerof Katowice attributed the rise in life expectancy in Katowice to the strength of Polish cohesion.

    The World Health Organisation says that it is bad politics that leads to health inequalities. The link I pointed to earlier says that what is needed to address health inequalities is to re-distribute power, wealth and income.

    Assuming the academic research into health inequalities is correct in its conclusions, lower life expectancy in a country or a region might serve as a proxy for useful socio-economic policies.

    Politicians in Holyrood and Westminster are well aware of this research. None of the parties is interested enough to do anything about this. I am interested in why this might be so. There are plenty of social benefits as well as costs in reducing health inequalities.


  5. PAUL

    Naturally-I expected that you would.

  6. ROLY

    @” But were does one go?”

    Indeed !-the eternal question for us all :-)

  7. Well Colin Paul was right,.

1 2 3 4