The Sun this morning have YouGov voting intention figures – their first since the election – of CON 41%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4%. Note that in terms of methodology, the figures are past vote weighted to the election result for the time being, obviously the pollsters are all still looking into their methods in the light of the pre-election polling and there will be presumably be more changes once the different companies’ internal inquiries and the BPC external inquiry are complete.

The YouGov/Sun poll also had a question on people’s preferred Labour leader, currently Andy Burnham leads the other candidates, but is a mile behind “don’t know”. As was the case a couple of weeks ago, we’re really seeing a race between candidates who have extremely low public profiles, so the figures are pretty much just name recognition.

The YouGov/Sunday Times results from yesterday are here, and largely covered the issue of British perceptions of FIFA and corruption. There is a broad consensus amongst the British public that FIFA, the decisions on Russia and Qatar and Sepp Blatter himself are all corrupt (83% think FIFA corrupt, 78% the hosting decisions, 57% Blatter personally). A majority think the corruption is widespread throughout FIFA, and 46% now think the problem is so deep seated that FIFA is beyond reform and should be disbanded and replaced (a shift from a year ago, when people tended to think FIFA was corrupt but could be mended).

Looking forward people think the Russian World Cup should be cancelled and held elsewhere by 50% to 19%, and think the Qatar World Cup should by cancelled by 67% to 7%. 78% think that Blatter should stand down. There is, however, very little expectation that any of these things will happen – 73% think the Russian World Cup will go ahead, 53% that the Qatar World Cup will go ahead and 51% that Blatter will remain in office.

54% of people think that the England football team should boycott the World Cup if FIFA is not reformed, 18% of people disagree. This is not just people who don’t care about football – even amongst those who say they are interested in football 62% of people would support a boycott of the World Cup. This sounds a little high to me – after all, we’d just asked people lots of questions about what rotters FIFA and Blatter are, which probably disinclined them to say “let’s go along anyway and do nothing about it” but I expect we’ll see some more World Cup boycott questions in days to come.


281 Responses to “YouGov VI and polling on FIFA”

1 4 5 6
  1. @CANDY

    So it doesn’t occur to you that if you cannot lower the income tax you don’t actually have control of it.

  2. Roly

    “With regard to Pinochet, I did not know the man, but a lady I admired enormously, reckoned he was a big help in defeating a fascist junta.”

    Sadly not his own though.

  3. Still no publication of ComRes VI poll?

    What’s the excuse this time?

  4. @ Norbold

    Roland will never admit that the British fleet was saved by the Vichy collaborator and later “socialist” president of France who gave the means of defence against the Exocet to the British (although the intelligence service would have got it anyway).

  5. @OldNat

    Re: ComRes. It will be published later this morning.

    From Tom Mludzinski of ComRes to MS – 8.03pm 3/6/15:
    “@MSmithsonPB Mike, prepare to build up a bit more tension. Poll will now be released tomorrow am’

  6. @Sunreada

    Re the Patrick Wintour article:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

    What it does show is that there was nothing inevitable about Labour losing the election and the Conservatives obtaining a six seat majority. There are enough errors of judgement highlighted in that article to suggest that with Labour running on a similar policy platform it could all have been very different. So much for Kendall’s assertion that it was “simple” to understand why Labour lost.

    So what if:

    – Miliband had listened to Campbell and Baldwin and had made a concerted effort to counter the Conservative narrative on the deficit early in his leadership (or later for that matter)
    – Miliband had delivered his 2014 conference speech as planned, rather than overlooking any mention of “the deficit”, or the Labour digital team had checked against delivery before sending the originally planned version to the media
    – In the short campaign, Labour had persisted with the tax avoidance narrative rather than shutting it down after being distracted by Fallon’s attack, recognising Crosby’s need to resort to a dead cat as a mark of its potency
    – The polls had been right rather than wrong, so that the focus was on fears of what a Conservative majority government might have done rather than on the tail wagging the dog of a Labour minority government
    – The Conservatives had not “stumbled upon” the fact that the SNP’s toxicity in England would work for them, persuading a claimed 2.5% of the electorate to return to the Conservative fold from UKIP
    – The SNP had not fed this narrative, such that (in the view of the quoted adviser) “the party of the union and the party of separation were deliberately echoing each other’s lines”
    – Miliband had listened to Campbell, Baldwin and Alexander and acted to lance the boil of the deal with the SNP much earlier, rather than when it was too late.

    And add to that Miliband’s difficulties of personality in terms of engagement with voters, regardless of his policy position.

    There are numerous other potential “what ifs”, beyond all those arising directly from the article.

    The revelation that Alistair Campbell was involved behind the scenes is interesting. But it seems that the most important difference between Blair and Miliband had nothing to do with their very different policy stances, but rather that the former was prepared to act on Campbell’s advice whereas the latter didn’t at some critical points.

  7. PS.
    Add to that list:
    – The campaign team had not been so distracted that idea of the “Edstone” was not knocked on the head

  8. @ Old Nat

    “You show more awareness of “nationalism” in its Scottish context than some considerably closer to us!”

    Well thank you. I mean I’ve been honest that I do sort of want your side to….(well I don’t want to say lose, maybe not fully win). But I dislike intellectually dishonest conversations or at least uninformed ones. And there are a lot of people who are uninformed about Scottish Nationalism. The irony is actually that Scottish Nationalism is not part of an anti-EU movement or a movement that seeks to divide Europe, it really stems from the acceptance of the EU.

    “Your mention of Russians reminded me of taking Russian friends to Calton Hill in Edinburgh, and looking at the Democracy Cairn with its inscription from Hugh McDiarmid –”

    What are the Calton Hill Russians like? We were worried all day long over at the independent expenditure campaign that we were not seeing the Russian turnout that we needed. Many of them were confused actually because we’d literally just had an election three months earlier. But they voted late in the day. And last night at the Here Lounge, you should have heard the roar that went up when some of the heavily Russian precincts on the eastside reported with massive numbers. I drove some people myself yesterday (one octogenarian didn’t realize there’d been an election in March that John had lost) but there was a whole operation going.

    It’s just ironic to me that the strongest supporters of the longest serving openly gay elected official in America are Russian immigrants who are naturalized citizens. In fact, to protect them and their voting rights, the current Mayor had to dispatch sheriff’s deputies to a handful of polling stations around the city yesterday.

  9. The long-awaited ComRes poll has been published

    Tories 41, Labour 29, Ukip 10, Lib Dem 8, SNP 5, Green 5.

    Some drop in Ukip due to the Farage hokey-cokey?

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/daily-mail-political-poll-4th-june-2015/

  10. The tory political/election machine is also based on trust and consensus and by comparison very few have an influence or input -osborne seems to do strategy with cameron the song and dance man at front of house.Crosby did the message and messina the polling -noone else mattered.

    Cameron is underes

    As stated in the article miliband used a lot more people but manipulated things to clarify his thoughts and get his own way.

    Despite the mistakes he nearly pulled it off -34/34 even with the snp would have put him in charge and he would have played balls versus nicola

  11. @Old Nat

    I’ll tell you too, it’s quite a Council they’ve got. I mean the newly installed Mayor is both an outspoken Catholic and a regular performer in the Vagina Monologues. The Mayor Pro Tempore (who’s sort of a local neighborhood crazy) sells s*x toys for a living. Then you’ve got a Councilman who was supposed to become the Mayor but had to give up his rotation amidst an investigation into accusations of sexual harassment of his Council Deputy (who’s suing both him and the city) who he hired off of Grindr (you know what that is right?). And as for the other Councilman and former Mayor, I won’t even begin to tell you what he gets up to.

    I almost feel like voters and activists in the city had this instant buyer’s remorse after the March election, this collective moment of “oh no! What did we do?” from the voters. And I say that half-jokingly because a number other other candidates who ran against him were the first ones in line to sign his nomination papers that week. One who even ran in the special election showed up at his election party last night!

  12. @ “So what if:”

    @ ” he nearly pulled it off”

    Sad really .

  13. Miliband was in a really difficult position, because up against things where difficult to find a response.

    It’s all very well saying he could have gotten Scots peeps back by offering lots more devolution etc., but even under those circumstances, SNP could still say vote for us instead and if we hold the balance of power, we’ll make sure Labour do it. And if you get Tories in power, they may give more devolution anyway because they want to lock Labour out via EV4L.

    Which not only means difficult to stop losing votes to SNP but also allows Tories to campaign against Labour owing to potential Scots hegemony. Miliband can say no deals, but he couldn’t convincingly say he could control SNP if they held the balance of power.

    And Immigration is hard to counter also, since hard to stop without leaving EU. This applied to Tories too, but they knew they could hope for their kippers to return because they had another motive: preserving assets etc.

    Red kippers with less to protect had less of such an incentive. Miliband in theory could have offered some largesse for the poorer, but then he would have been hammered over the deficit. So he couldn’t respond.

  14. EV4EL

  15. So COMRES have decided where they went wrong:-

    “At ComRes our review has uncovered that much of Labour’s backing was coming from groups that were less likely to actually turnout and vote than others. We’ve used this, along with official turnout data to build a Voter Turnout Model which more accurately predicts who is more and less likely to vote, to ensure we’re getting the most accurate reflection of the voting public. ”

    !!

  16. THe Lucy Poweell complaint to the Beeb in that G article is one of the funniest things I’ve read :-)

  17. You can argue that things like the Mansion Tax were a mistake by Ed M., not because it cost Labour votes, but because it encouraged Blue Kippers to return to Tories. (And then there’s Levenson…)

    The Tory campaign wasn’t so much about gaining votes for themselves, as trashing and splitting Labour’s vote, and harnessing other parties – SNP, UKIP, Greens etc. – to that end.

    When money’s tight, or perceived to be tight, you can’t campaign on largesse for the poor or tax cuts for the better off. Then it becomes instead about other things. About preserving and inflating assets, immigration, devolution and all that.

  18. An additional difficulty for Labour is that they were fighting several parties at once. SNP, Greens and UKIP all cost Lab votes. Tories only had to worry about UKIP.

  19. @Carfrew

    What would have encouraged blue Kippers to return to the Tories would have been if Labour had campaigned not on using the mansion tax and the 50p rate to fund its programme, but if it had proposed raising council tax in general and income taxes in general to do so.

    That is, if Labour had campaigned on policies that would have hit the pockets of many rather than very few.

    The reasons why blue Kippers returned to the Tories had nothing to do with the mansion tax etc. Those quoted in Patrick Wintour’s article feel that it had something to do with the English reaction to the prospect of the SNP dictating terms.

  20. @Colin

    You remind me of Father Noel Furlong (Graham Norton) in that episode with the caravan in “Father Ted”. He laughed at just about anything too.

  21. That said, Tories did have LibDems seats to take, but they took LDs out early on. Via the irony that being associated with Tories would cost LDs seats.

    They got Lab the same way, by associating with them over Independence. Then they turned the ensuing SNP rise against Lab. in England.

    Tories used their own toxicity against Lab and LDs, then used SNP against Lab.

  22. Strangely, SNP working with Tories in Scotland doesn’t seem to harm them much. Possibly because the desire for more devolution, or Independence, trumps other concerns…

  23. @Colin
    “So COMRES have decided where they went wrong:-
    “At ComRes our review has uncovered that much of Labour’s backing was coming from groups that were less likely to actually turnout and vote than others. We’ve used this, along with official turnout data to build a Voter Turnout Model which more accurately predicts who is more and less likely to vote, to ensure we’re getting the most accurate reflection of the voting public. ””

    Let me translate: “younger voters talk the talk but don’t walk the walk (to the polling station)”

  24. @Roly

    “I did not know the man, but a lady I admired enormously…”

    ————-

    Louise Mensch?
    Priti Patel?
    Esther McVey?

    Wait a minute, I know!!

    Katie Hopkins.

    Obvious really…

  25. CARFREW

    Roly and I have great admiration for the same lady and as you well know she is not on your list.

  26. @Phil

    Yeah, I mentioned the impact of SNP on Lab votes South of the border. Just trying to be comprehensive and consider additional factors.

    Don’t know you can rule out impact of things like Mansion Taxes, because of knock-on effects: may not just impact boomers but their offspring down the line, and some may fear the threshold may be lowered over time.

    Unlikely to be a dominant factor, but Labour’s vote was being salami-sliced away by various bits here and there. They had quite a big lead at one point, Lab needed attacking on numerous fronts to change that…

  27. @ToH

    Yeah, as I keep saying, unto the partisan, all are partisan. As it happens, I do have quite a bit of admiration for the Lady who broke through the ultimate glass ceiling etc.

  28. Colin

    “THe Lucy Poweell complaint to the Beeb in that G article is one of the funniest things I’ve read :-)”

    Me to, really funny.

    Guardian article by Wintour was interesting.

  29. J.R.Tomlin – “So it doesn’t occur to you that if you cannot lower the income tax you don’t actually have control of it.”

    Where have I said you can’t lower income tax? Read back what I wrote.

    The Scotland Bill will give the Scots complete control over income tax, to raise and lower it.

    But to increase benefits, (to offset Osborne’s cuts) the SNP will need to raise income tax. Unless all their talk about benefits is just rhetoric and tax cuts are more important to them. Fine – just say so, don’t lead the poor Scottish voters on!

    (The only tax on the books that can’t be cut is VAT due to EU rules).

  30. I hate to drag you away from your maggiolatry but I am spitting tacks about the new ComRes poll. They”ve adopted new weighting to reflect differential turnout proportional to wealth. Their approach is exactly what I said it’d be: weight the responses slightly differently until you get the right answer, then pretend you’ve fixed the problem. “If people react this way going forward then our model will work. Until they don’t, then it won’t. Um.”

    AAARGH!

  31. I enjoyed watching the re-run of the EEC referendum results programme on BBC Parliament last night. Highlights included:

    – Psephologist James Millar criticising the extrapolation of opinion poll cross-breaks in a way that had been misleading.
    – An MEP from Luxembourg saying that this result would end Britain’s difficult relationship with Europe.
    – Michael Meacher’s appearance as a junior Industry minister supporting the out campaign. You wouldn’t have guessed it was him if they hadn’t named him!
    – A trade union leader accusing the press of being biased towards Europe
    – The same trade union leader proposing that a referendum should be held on the introduction of a £10,000 per year earnings ceiling!
    – Enoch Powell coming on to the show to point out that this will remain an ongoing debate and comparing it to Munich 1938… he pledged to keep on fighting for Brexit in Parliament.
    – David Dimbleby mentioning that the Wiltshire counting area ‘included Stonehenge’. Known Europhiles, those stones.
    – Cutting away for Play School with about half the results in. Oddly BBC Parliament only showed the bit before then (lost tape?)

    On the actual results it was striking how different the geography is likely to be this time round. The south of England, including Kent and Sussex, was then the most pro-European part of the UK with Scotland the most-anti. It would be an interesting question as to whether this reflects changes in the nature of the debate (now less about markets and more about sovereignty and immigration) or of the respective positions of the parties (Labour’s left-wing and the SNP called for a no on that occasion).

    —-

    Back in 2015 this Conservatives for Britain group looks interesting. Particularly that they are being led by the relatively unknown Steve Baker – probably reflects concerns that well known sceptics like Owen Paterson, John Redwood and Bill Cash are seen as eccentric right-wingers and wouldn’t be able to carry the country. Officially they are saying they support comprehensive renegotiation and will decide whether to back a Yes vote afterwards but as Philip Hammond pretty much admitted on Marr it will be extremely hard to satisfy them.

1 4 5 6