There are only two voting intention polls in the Sunday papers – the regular weekly Opinium and YouGov polls for the Observer and Sunday Times respectively.

The Opinium/Observer poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 33%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%. This is the first time that Opinium have shown a Conservative lead since back in 2012, just before the Omnishambles budget. As ever though, it’s just one poll – taking a broad average of the polls suggests that the actual position of public opinion is a very small Labour lead, so it’s inevitable that normal sample variation will spit out some Tory leads from time to time. Doesn’t mean much unless they start getting more frequent. Tables are here

The YouGov/Sunday Times poll has toplines of CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%. The one point Labour lead is very much in line with YouGov’s average. The 13 percent figure for UKIP is equal to the party’s lowest from YouGov this year, but a lowest we’ve already seen a couple of times, so again, not necessarily anything new. Tables will be on the YouGov website tomorrow.

428 Responses to “Latest Opinium and YouGov polls”

1 5 6 7 8 9
  1. RAF
    Robin Cook resigned, why didn’t Jack Straw? I think the Telegraph story is your answer

    Oh what’s a wee bit of cash on the side? They’re all all at it.

  2. Allan Christie

    Not true Canada under Liberal Chretien and New Zealand under Labour, both refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq.

    You cannot find two governments more entwined than Canada and the US, yet occasionally even Canada says no and so could Blair have done so.

  3. @ AC

    :-) but I think you know that I meant SNP MP’s votes in Westminster. And Old Nat doesn’t live in Jim’s constituency anyway.


    As far as foreign policy goes we are at the mercy of the Americans.

    Canada and the USA need each other economically because without each other both would be basket cases.

  5. Did anyone watch Meet The Kippers tonight it was on BBC 2. If it was any other party then they couldn’t survive such an exposé but maybe its priced in to the UKIP VI.

    But if their is any decency amongst the voters then their VI must fall back. It wasn’t just what was said, it was the acceptability of the views and it was obvious UKIP were
    Ok with the views just didn’t want them on camera.

  6. Scotland have taken a wicket.

    Bell c Coetzer b Berrington 54

    England 172-1 (30.1 overs).

  7. @Couper

    I didn’t see it but based on your summary I think it’s unlikely to make much of a difference.

    Much if the Ukip vote is based on disenchantment with the Tories and also to a lesser extent with Labour. I don’t think too many Kipper voters care too much about the views of their PPC’s as long as they wear a Kipper rosette.

  8. RAF

    Peter Hain is flying out to NZ as we speak, to dig up the wicket and have the game abandoned. :-)

  9. @OldNat


    There were a couple of people in the crowd who unfurled a white banner with blue lettering that simply read “Freedom”.

  10. RAF


  11. @RAF

    It was very racist.

  12. @OldNat

    Quite possibly Maoris dressed up as Scots. I never thought if that ;)

    @ Couper
    “It was very racist.”

    The views in the documentary or the banner at the cricket?
    No, seriously. I agree with you. There will be many who vote Ukip out of desperation without a clear idea of what many in the party consider acceptable.

    Another wicket! Moeen Ali c Coleman b Haq 128. England 201-2.

  13. 203-3. Scotland on the charge!

  14. Another one. 203-4. Root gone.

  15. @Couper2802
    As a UKIP member that is part of two groups (including most of the senior members of YI) , I can assure you that [they] were as disgusted as much as any decent person would be at Duncan’s views. Racism has no place in UKIP. To suggest that there should be a drop among “decent” people voting UKIP based on the comments of one person is just silly. Considering the two people she aired the views to resigned from the party because of her , I don’t think you can say that her views were “accepted” , she was kicked out months before the show was aired , what more can people expect of UKIP?
    In real terms I don’t think we’ll see a drop in the polls for UKIP-at least not because of this.

  16. Fun policies to party tool, with a mapping tool, that shows your position on a similar (if reversed) political compass when complete:

  17. Amber

    I believe advocating voting for another Party when a candidate of your own is standing, in whatever circumstances, is usually a grounds for expulsion in most Political Parties. Presumably for an office holder the offence is taken even more seriously. Apparently this is true even when people don’t use twitter, though I realise most politicians these days are unable to communicate in more than 140 characters.

    It also doesn’t make any sense in this case. Voting so as to return a Conservative MP is always going to be worse from the viewpoint of parliamentary arithmetic for a Labour voter than any other alternative. The probability of a Tory MP supporting a Conservative government is always going to be 100%. For a SNP or Lib Dem MP it’s always going to be less. True you might need to factor in the probability of victory between the non-Con alternatives, but voting Tory is always going to be the worse option.

  18. @Thorshammer

    I have never believed UKIP to be racist I thought it was just a media line. Looking at the voters in the polls their voters seemed to be more insecure than others – so I thought the immigration issue was pressure on wages, services housing rather than any racism.

    I was expecting to see eccentrics in the documentary as a lot of political activists are eccentric but was quite shocked. The fact that the press lady didn’t say anything to her when she was talking I thought strange but some people have difficulty with confrontation.

    I think UKIP did all they could but most parties would be crucified in the media if they had a similar issue
    Luckily for UKIP the Straw Rifkind story will keep discussion to a minimum.

  19. @thorshammer

    UKIP is widely perceived as a party that attracts racists – both as voters and activists. They certainly seemed to have inherited a lot of former BNP voters.

    [Snip – no one here is a representative of any party or should be treated as one – AW]

  20. @ Roger Mexico

    I believe advocating voting for another Party when a candidate of your own is standing, in whatever circumstances, is usually a grounds for expulsion in most Political Parties.

    You’d need to define what constitutes “advocating” as opposed to just gossiping about tactical voting on twitter.

    And you’d need to take into consideration e.g. SNP activists saying e.g. ‘Vote SNP for Holyrood constituency & Green in the regional then’ to Greens. Does this count as advocating against your own Party? Do you think the SNP should expel members for doing that?

    “When you’re joined at the hips with the Americans which we have been sine the end of WW2 then you do as they say.”

    Syria demonstrated that that is not unequivocally the case, and won’t be in the future.
    Joined at the head, at the point of the Iraq intervention, yes, because of crap intelligence and the interests of the US defense and intelligence industries. Read John Gray “Black Mass” for an insight into the skewed philosophies which drove the Bush-Blair axis, thank God no longer with us but a history changer in our relationship with the ME and Islam.

  22. @Amber Star

    There is an old adage in politics, that I believe may have originated in the Middle East, about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    When you have been in politics for over 50 years like me you’d be amazed at what happens and why

  23. @Allan Christie

    To add to John Pilgrim’s point, Harold Wilson declined to joinf the Americans in their Vietnam adventure, though under strong pressure to do so.

    The Yanks are allies, but we can, and have, said no.

  24. Jack Straw certainly seems to have become a straw man. Rifkind too.

    There’s always been this relationship between politicians and money/power. Right back to Roman times (and probably well before). An Israeil once said to me that he always voted for rich men because poor men were to easily corrupted (I think I replied that the Rich Men were already corrupted, but I was young and glib).

    How do so many of these career politicians get so rich?

  25. It seems like things got a bit out of hand last night.

    Can we focus on polling now?

    […Seizing the moral high ground to which I am probably not entitled….lol].

  26. @postageincluded

    I tend to think that political parties gain most from results that give them the most power to influence future events. A clear Tory win (if not an overall majority) in the election would give the SNP practically no power, even if they won most seats in Scotland. A Labour win, short of a majority, would potentially give the SNP as much power as they could hope for within the UK structure.

    But maybe I’m just old-fashioned.

  27. The Electionforecast team have just posted a useful tutorial on interpreting new polls. This doesn’t cover much that will be new to UKPR denizens and, indeed, includes a cross-link to one of Anthony’s posts. But there are some graphics that help to make certain points very clearly. (An example is the fact that MoEs are doubled when you are talking about margins as opposed to VIs themselves.)

    The piece ends with the sensible statement:

    The only way we can be confident that change has occurred is if we see evidence from many polls, each taken in the context of what the corresponding pollsters had found in their previous polls.

  28. @Unicorn
    “The only way we can be confident that change has occurred is if we see evidence from many polls, each taken in the context of what the corresponding pollsters had found in their previous polls.”

    Provided that there has been no intervening change by the corresponding pollster of their methodology.

  29. Where the heck is Anthony? This is not up to the usual UKPR standards of posting.

  30. @RAF

    More advanced tutorial, that. But I’m sure they wouldn’t demur.

  31. @Reggieside
    The reason for my name is simply that my surname (Turton) translates to “Thor’s Hammer” nothing more sinister than that. I try to avoid the BNP-types , indeed I have had some quite vicious abuse thrown at me by the Far-Right when I have confronted them. And on more than one occasion there have been tense situations involving BNP activists and UKIP ones (Specifically the PCC byelection)
    @Cooper2802 –
    Yeah I think you’re right that this news about Jack Straw will help the story be buried. I still don’t think it should effect VI.

    Nice to see he’s keeping himself busy. Hopefully he’ll be scrutinising legislation on House of Lords reform shortly…

    Would anyone expect anything different?

    The story currently can only help the SNP narrative, but if Lab’s HoL dinosaurs behave then your closing suggestion could be a bonus to the Lab campaign, at least outwith Scotland.

  33. Populus:

    Lab 32, Con 32, UKIP 15, LD 9, Green 6, SNP 4.

    First time in a while that Populus have not shown a Labour lead…

  34. How do so many of these career politicians get so rich?

    they are not particularly wealthy. the really rich ones have made money elsewhere…

    the house of commons will soon remind me of bernard shaw’s line about leaving the parish council, “the councillors should be millionaires or labourers” and as he was neither he had better quit.

  35. Populus:
    Lab 32, Con 32, UKIP 15, LD 9, Green 6, SNP 4.

    labour are limping home to a very inconclusive result.

  36. Interesting situation we have developing. Polldrums for a while, continuing tiny Lab lead with no sign of swingback to Tories despite endless predictions on here and elsewhere. Overall polling and marginal polling both supporting the prediction models’ suggestion of a virtual dead heat. And yet the betting markets are still moving towards a Tory victory – as low as 8-15 with some bookies to be largest party, with Lab out to 13-10.

    Does anyone think there is any polling evidence that these market moves are justified or is it just in reaction to more money being piled onto Con by the sort of people who just think they will win on gut feeling?

  37. @James

    But the raison d’etre of the SNP is inedpence for Scotland. As Rawnsley points out a Tory win, folloowed by an EU referendum in which England votes for out and Scotland for in (as, I think the polls suggest could happen) would give the SNP a pretty unanswerable argument for another independence referendum, and a very good chance of winning it. Which would Sturgeon rather have, a little power in the UK or a lot in an independent Scotland? Even by your own lights that question can surely have only one answer?

  38. @ Fareham Grecian,

    At this point in the last election cycle the money was on a working Conservative majority despite the polls, so I’m not sure we can trust the wisdom of markets on this one.

  39. Populous points to more Polldrums.

    Has there ever been a run up to an election with less poll movement than this year?

    Every party seems rooted to their current position.

  40. @ Fareham Grecian,
    At this point in the last election cycle the money was on a working Conservative majority despite the polls, so I’m not sure we can trust the wisdom of markets on this one.

    Good point. I used to be a market fundamentalist, and then smithson pointed out that the markets had been touting a clear tory majority in Feb/march 2010, when the tories fell far short. the polls in feb/march weren’t that different from the actual results…

    i also remember one of the spread betting companies quoting labour on about 223 seats on the day of the election itself, so I am quite a sceptic. I think the tories get massively over-hyped from their fans in the city and the media, a combination of complacency, contempt for the opposition, wilful thinking and delusion…so this time i expect that the markets will be again disappointed by the tories’ actual performance

  41. @postageincluded

    There’s quite a number of assumptions in that scenario, all of which have to happen:

    1. The Tories have enough votes to pass a referendum bill (probable, but not certain, if they have won the election).

    2. That the whole of the UK would vote to leave (possible)

    3. That Scotland would vote to stay while the rest of the UK votes to leave (possible)

    4. That the SNP has overall control of the Scottish Parliament after the 2016 election (possible)

    5. That opinion poll support for independence is running at a significantly higher level than September 2014 (unknowable)

    I would take the guaranteed win and try to make the best of it, rather than lose now and hope that everything breaks the right way in future.

  42. I missed this tweet from Survation on Friday “We’ll publish a batch of large sample seat polls next week.”

    Have they been mentioned on here?

    Seems safe to assume that they aren’t for Ashcroft! :-)

  43. @ Reggiside
    My surname translates to Thorshammer , that’s the only reason why I chose it. Now away from partisan politics.
    I honestly don’t think the Tories will have the majority (even if one includes UKIP) to achieve a referendum. The SNP surely know that it would look ridiculous to hold another referendum so close to the previous one. I somehow doubt that they would be so silly. They’re going to have a strong presence in Westminster , I think electorally that’s all we can expect for the next 5 years from them.

  44. @ James,

    Surely #4 is the most probable thing in that list! (Either the SNP or an SNP + Green pro-referendum bloc?)

    I think the advantage for the SNP though is that they sort of win either way, although I doubt they’ll get their way on Trident even if Labour are relying on their support.

  45. Re: polldrums. Is this partly a perception caused by the fact that we now have many more polls? E.g. With Yougov polling daily any movement within their results is likely to be less dramatic than (say) monthly polls.

    If there is a slow drift from one party to another it will hardly be noticeable from daily poll results, but on a monthly interval it might show a jump of several percent.

    I’m not saying that polldrums don’t exist, just that we might have an exaggerated perception.

  46. @ Fareham Grecian

    Does anyone think there is any polling evidence that these market moves are justified..

    If there is, it is either (a) evidence that is not reaching this site or (b) evidence that we have been misreading to date. In the former case it just about conceivable that leaked results of private polling could prompt a few punters to have a flutter. But it is unlikely that this would shift the odds very much. On (b) if there were a polling-based case for predicting a Tory victory, then there would be contributors here advancing that case (as opposed to simply stating that they expect swingback to kick in some time soon).

    If anything has happened recently it is the sense that Ukip is looking increasingly disorganised and amateurish. If the bookmakers and their clients take this as a signal that Ukip support will now drain away at increasing rates (itself a risky assumption), then they might also conclude that this will be of advantage to the Tories. UKPR contributors wouldn’t necessarily buy this but it may be a partial explanation of the drift in odds.

    As Rawnsley points out a Tory win, folloowed by an EU referendum in which England votes for out and Scotland for in (as, I think the polls suggest could happen) would give the SNP…….

    He does indeed mention that, but he pursues the untruth, comprehensively debunked on this thread yesterday that:
    If Mr Miliband were the runner-up in seats it would be a helluva a lot less likely that he could form and justify a Labour-led government. At every UK election fThat wor nearly a century, the party with the most seats has won the keys to power.

    That has been an LiS claim [now apparently withdrawn] and is also James Landale’s theme on his latest BBC blog.

    Voters will have make up their own minds whether SNP statements that they would not support a Con minority government are true or not, but arguments that are easily disproven are unlikely to increase faith in the “establishment” parties.

    The vagaries of the plurality system do mean that Con could have some chance of a couple of additional MPs in Scotland, but if Con do end up with an overall majority it will not be Scotland or the SNP that facilitates it.

  48. The dates for the debates have been announced this is exciting they are actually going to happen.

    April 2nd – 7 way
    April 16th – 7way
    April 30th – head to head

  49. @spearmint

    I’m very wary of reading anything into 2016 Holyrood polls after the experience of 2010/11. At the very least we need to wait and see what comes out of the WM election before making any kind of assessment of what will happen.

    For an example of this, look at the guess-timates given for Scottish seats in the election guide during 2013 / early 2014. I suppose those were perfectly reasonable at the time, but they made no provision for the possibility that the referendum would shake things up. Equally, assuming that the SNP will win easily in 2016 because they’re well ahead now is unsound.

  50. Dates for debates announced – tried posting them but went into moderation

1 5 6 7 8 9