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 2 3 6
  1. In terms of the England World Cup boycott, I’d be interested to know if they asked only respondents who identified themselves as English. Otherwise a fair number of Welsh, Scottish and Irish football supporters might well have thought an England boycott a great idea as it wouldn’t impact on their enjoyment of the tournament.

  2. I think that it’s overegging it to dismiss the Labour leadership polling on the grounds that the dominance of the DKs is mainly down to just name recognition or lack of it. Apart from Creagh, all of the candidates have had a reasonable amount of media exposure in the last couple of weeks. It’s plausible also that many of the don’t knows have heard something of the candidates but are having difficulty in telling one from another in terms of where they stand politically.

    The polling does give some indication of where Labour members and registered supporters might be likely to cast their vote, using the sub-break of 2015 Labour voters who divide as follows:
    Burnham 29%
    Cooper 15%
    Kendall 6%
    Creagh 2%
    Don’t know 49%

    For all the promotion of Kendall by the Blairite ultras, it’s worth noting that she’s also behind Burnham amongst each of 2015 Conservatives, LDs and UKIPs.

    One other snippet from the polling: 2015 UKIP voters REALLY DISLIKE Tony Blair:
    i.e. “Do you think Labour’s next leader should…
    Try to build upon the legacy of Tony Blair and lead a Labour party
    with similar economic and social policies (or) Try to distance the Labour party as much as possible from Tony Blair and his policies”
    General public split 22:42
    2015 Conservatives split 24:44
    2015 UKIP split 10:60

  3. That’s what I call an opinion poll. I wish we had had this information before the election.

    But, does it mean that the REAL VI is actually

    CON 49%, LAB 20%,?

  4. @Phil Haines

    I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that Labour have lost significant amounts of support on both ends of their spectrum, i.e. “aspirational” types (who liked Blair) to the Tories and “traditional Labour” types (who did *not* like Blair) to Ukip and SNP. Takes some doing.

  5. @Leon

    The % in the Scottish cross-break who think England should boycott future World Cups is slightly lower (50%) than the GB population as a whole (54%).

    Maybe this is because Scots would miss the entertainment that the England team regularly provides.


  6. Maybe Putin will do England a favour and blacklist all the England supporters from traveling to Russia. And when it comes to boycotts the Scotland leads the way, they have been doing it for most World cups. ;-)

    I just wonder if the 2018 World cup was to be hosted by America or Germany then would all of the investigations had taken place?

    FIFA is no more corrupt than those who are investigating them.

  7. #the Scots..

    Scottish cross break…seems ages since I posted one.





    Scotland votes has the SNP on 58 seats. +2 Labour would lose all their seats along with the Tories.

  8. @James That is interesting. Though, as a Welshman, I appreciate that schadenfreude is a passable Plan B when faced with your own failure :-). I’d love to see some follow up questions as to why they broke that way.

  9. For the second time in two sitting days Bercow has granted an urgent question on FIFA… I’m yet to be convinced of why this is an urgent matter for the UK government but hey.

  10. @Leon

    I suspect the (slightly) greater dislike of FIFA in England is motivated by the FA losing out on various World Cup hosting bids (2006, 2018). The events of the last week would have been reported rather differently if England were due to host the next World Cup.

  11. I’ve been waiting ages for a poll on a World Cup boycott to come along. As a passionate football fan with lots of football fan friends, I don’t know one fan who things we should be going to this World Cup. It’s interesting that Anthony says the figure seems to high – I am surprised it is that low to be honest.

    I’m glad there is finally polling because frankly I’m sick of hearing excuses from the FA about punishing fans by pulling out when it always bugged me that they surely cannot have ever canvassed any opinion from fans because if they did they would find there is great support for a boycott. Football fans love the World Cup that is true – doesn’t mean they are willing to put up with anything to have one.

  12. I for one was surprised about how high the vote was to boycott, I do suspect as AW points out that was atleast partly caused by the number of rather negative questions, such as
    ‘And do you think this corruption is widespread or does it mainly involve a few people at the top of FIFA?’
    It is a little like asking if some one still beats their wife.

    That said I agree with many who say England should work with Uefa to bring change and or a boycott of the next world cup. But I would not be in favour of England going it alone, it would serve no purpose except to make us look like sore losers (as some above have already intimated)
    Also am surprised as I think this was a UK wide poll why the other home countries were not included in the question. If we are to boycott it would mean from the start of the qualification process, which fro UEFA teams is in 2016. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England will be part of that process.

  13. James – but you being a Scotland International makes you biased?


    Regarding Labour Leader polling, with two thirds of those polled reporting DK I am going to go by the recent experiences of the General Election assuming they’re mostly ‘Shy Kendall’ voters.

    At least as a Labour party member I hope so.

    Also interesting to vote the questions on what Labour’s new leader should do, i.e. move to the political centre or move left and try to recapture lost voters or try to attract swing voters pretty much every subtable broke for “move to centre” and “try to attract swing voters”.

    Well, except Scotland who favour moving left and recapturing lost voters, sort of what one would expect.

    The North, surprisingly, most favoured ‘attract swing voters’.

    This should advantage Kendall (who is about as Blairite as Cooper to me, and possibly even Burnham. They’re all Blairites) who is both a fresh face and the most obviously centrist in her rhetoric and positioning.

    I don’t think we can read much at all into what the individuals are polling at this point, but reading the runes on what people think the new Labour leader *should* do I believe we’ll break for Kendall. Two thirds of those polled not knowing doesn’t translate into a coronation for Burnham.

  15. Managing Director of Lucid Talk suggests that the success of polling in the Republic and Northern Ireland is due to using a Wisdom of Crowds approach to get round the problem of “shy” voters.

    So watch out for the big name GB polling companies increasingly using our Opinion Panel Index polling method and the ‘Wisdom of Crowds’ approach in future polling. If it had have been used in GB at the recent general election it may have connected with those ‘shy Tories’ who came out on election day and put Cameron back in Downing street. It’s a methodology that has proved its accuracy and proved its worth.

  16. Foreign affairs debate in the Commons today… Hilary Benn a clear improvement on Douglas Alexander for Labour

  17. In the Scottish crossbreaks “Other” (ie SNP) are ranked as the top party to deal with every one of the “problems” asked about – whether a devolved issue or not.

    A year out from the election, that’s a powerful position to be in.

  18. @Oldnat
    An interesting idea that can only work as long as the lying electorate don’t realise the pollsters are onto them. So if a voter knows in advance that saying “I’m voting Green though my mates reckon Farage has some interesting views” will get them allocated as UKIP then they will modify their answer accordingly!

  19. I know it’s a small sub-sample but ouch at the Lib Dems only holding on 69% of their 2015 vote. How low can they go?

  20. mikeinsdevon

    It may be more an indication of the number of people who voted tactically for the LDs in some constituencies – and perhaps won’t do so again, if it didn’t work?

  21. surprised only 57% think Blatter is corrupt.

  22. Geoff – I am the very opposite of a football fan, so consider my surprise a reflection of my ignorance of football fans, rather than anything about the results!

    Barnaby – it’s because the Don’t knows were higher for Blatter, very few thought he *wasn’t* corrupt.

  23. @Bubblehubbub

    “This should advantage Kendall….. the most obviously centrist in her rhetoric and positioning.”

    Centrist? Closer to Tory from what I’ve heard from her so far.

    I hope that other Labour members aren’t going to follow you and effectively throw in the towel.

    “Centre” is in any case a pretty meaningless term since we know from polls that people tend to view the political “centre” as being closer to their own views than the median definition of the population in general. You might as well choose an issue that a person agrees with an ask whether Labour would win or lose support by moving its position to agree with it.

    The question on “swing voters” also doesn’t really amount to much because the question is how. 2/3rds at least of UKIP voters are by definition swing voters, since at least that number must have voted for a different party in 2015 than in 2010. They clearly can’t stand Blair, so it does not follow that the idea that appealing to swing voters and appealing to the “centre” (in your terms) is necessarily the same. Likewise, a lot of the SNP and Green voters supported a different party in 2010 than 2015, and Labour could likewise kiss goodbye to winning them back if it seeks to become a pale shadow of the Conservatives.

    In my view, for Labour to choose an openly Blairite leader, backed by Progress, Mandelson and all the baggage of the Blairite past would amount to anything but a clean break from the past.

  24. Good Afternoon All, very windy today in our Premier League Town by the sea.
    I have some thoughts on the YG poll.
    1. Lib Dem figures seem high.
    2. Swing back will kick in IMHO, so Tories will be pleased at this time of the electoral cycle.
    3. Labour is further behind now than under Callaghan in 1979 after that GE.
    4. Tories are probably under estimated in these figures.
    5. Labour’s core vote strategy is not successful, IMHO.

  25. Maybe it’s Blair’s looks rather than his policies that the Blairites are seeking a return to.

    In which case, here’s a compromise candidate for Labour leader who could run on a unity ticket:

  26. @Chris Lane

    7% think that Liz Kendall would make the best leader of the Labour Party.

    That figure seems a bit high too.

  27. All else talks about perspiration … Oh, sorry, aspiration …

  28. Else = these …

  29. YG poll also asked about likelihood of Scotland becoming independent within 10 years.

    The % thinking it was almost certain/ more likely that Scotland would stay in the UK was much the same in E&W (31%) and Scotland (30%)

    The % thinking it was almost certain/ more likely that Scotland would become independent was rather different – E&W (51%) and Scotland (65%), but that was largely down to the much greater number of DKs in E&W (18%) compared with Scotland (5%).

    Usual caveats about the wee Scottish sample.

    Hello to you.
    In school today we looked at someLabour leaders past.
    Hardie; Macdonald; Henderson; (Adamson.); Macdonald; Lansbury; Attlee; Gaitskell; Wilson; Callaghan; Foot; Kinnock; Blair; Brown.

    Men of stature;most of them.

  31. ChrisLane1945 said, “3. Labour is further behind now than under Callaghan in 1979 after that GE.”

    I’m not really surprised. From what I remember of the 1979 election no one had too many negative thoughts about Callaghan, not even right-wing Tories. He was seen as a friendly father figure but lost the election because the Labour government was seen to have been incompetent. This time round I think that the electorate was friendlier towards the Labour Party than its leader. Also, I think this modern tendency to resign immediately upon losing an election is harmful to that leader’s party in the short-term. If I remember correctly, Callaghan remained leader for a few months to allow the Labour Party to regroup a bit.

    As a Tory, I like today’s poll and hope that it’s accurate. I think that Cameron handled the creation of his all-Conservative cabinet rather well and his visits to European leaders seems to have been quite effective. It’s interesting that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are only down marginally but that the Conservatives (and SNP) are up significantly. I think that there is a strange phenomenon showing where people like to be seen to be on the winning side.

  32. Charles Stuart

    “I think that there is a strange phenomenon showing where people like to be seen to be on the winning side.”

    I’m sure there is. That’s one of the reasons that weighting to recalled 2010 vote was of limited value after the 2011 election in Scotland – too many people “remembering” that they voted SNP in 2010 as 2011 was such a big SNP win.

  33. Up and running again Anthony – good show old chap!!

  34. It looks as if the Pollsters are still finding their way on a dark dark night. Tory =41% Lab=30% and yet 44% think the new government is doing it all wrong ! As for Don’t Know being the most popular Labour leader, is this a nom de guerre for Sepp Blatter?

  35. Further to LouisWalshVotesGreen’s post on the last threat, and the reference to a possible merger of the LibDems and the Greens, I have just come across this:…/jem…/towards-liberal-green-alliance

    It very much chimes with something I posted a couple of days ago. With Farron and the ‘left’ of the party now in the ascendency, and the Orange Bookers in disgrace, the door is wide open to cooperation at least with the Greens.

    I can see it happening. Some would argue that Gladstonian liberalism was abandoned by the Lib Dems long ago, and so a tie-up with the ‘socialist’ Greens is not so problematic as might first be assumed.

    In purely tactical terms, it makes sense.

  36. Charles Stuart
    Glad to meet you, nice to have some allies on the site. I must say however, I always regretted Dudley not getting Bess pregnant, your father was not a bad old stick when he came south, but you were a bloody disaster.

  37. While there is nothing new in the observation that Con lead Lab amongst the over 60’s age group, the latest YouGov poll serves as a reminder that Labour’s recovery strategy has to address their problems with this age group.

    The full poll result of Con 41 / Lab 30 narrows to Con 35 / Lab 33 when the over 60s are excluded. Con lead Lab on every single issue among the over 60s – even on the NHS. Lab have to do something about this.

  38. Nice to have a poll, even if we’re uncertain it’s particularly accurate.

    Having said that, with both Labour and the Lib Dems in leadership limbo and the economy seemingly still buoyant, we should fully expect the Tories to be slipping into the low 40s.

  39. @Roland

    You’ve got the wrong one. Charles is a serial philanderer and It was his brother that messed up.

    Hello to you, and I hope you do better than did the later Stuarts.
    If Callaghan had resigned immediately in 1979, it is likely that Denis Healey would have become leader, rather than Michael Foot, with all the consequences which followed from that pivotal moment.
    Giles Radice’s book about Friends and Rivals- Crosland, Healey and Jenkins is well worth a look.

    Yes I agree, at least you have got 5 years to start something more worthy. My comments regarding the leadership, are treated as malicious, they are not. However as you quite rightly say, big change is essential if you want government this side of 2030.

    Oh I see, he must have tried it on with Colonel Cromwell.

  43. Phil Haines @Roland

    You may both be wrong. Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart (Charles III) may be a better candidate – not only a serial philanderer, but a worthy predecessor for the current crop of applicants for the Labour leadership.

    Charles recognised that he could not hope to rule the United Kingdom with his set of beliefs, so he happily abjured them, and converted to the belief system of the ruling clique – not that it did him any good either!

  44. One of Callaghan’s many misjudgements was to hang on far too long after the 1979 election. Whilst there were quite a few people who wished to see him continue to fight another election as leader , given that he had no such intention he made a serious error in staying until October 1980 – almost 18 months after his defeat. I have always considered him to have been a very poor party leader – having also messed up the timing of the election. He compares very badly with Harold Wilson.


    As an over 65, can I suggest Labour start by adopting policies we like. Might not appeal to current Labour party members mind.

    By definition we have lived along time, and so far survived the ups and downs of life including bonkers policies from parties of several persuasions.

  46. I see that the YouGov poll is already a week old and that if the headline figures were based on the weighted data – as happened with earlier polls – the headline figures would be Con 39 Lab 32 LD 8 UKIP 13.

  47. The Other Howard

    Sounds a bit too radical – it will never catch on.

  48. @Phil Haines

    You write “For all the promotion of Kendall by the Blairite ultras, it’s worth noting that she’s also behind Burnham amongst each of 2015 Conservatives, LDs and UKIPs.”

    However without knowing the *reason* for their choice, this information is useless. Are they (1) choosing the best leader for the Labour party, or (2) choosing the worst leader for the Labour party – i.e. the leader who the Tories, the LibDems or the Kippers would do beast against?

    As a Tory / LibDem swing voter (I even voted Labour in 1997), if I was asked this question, I would choose Cooper or Burnham, as both carry fatal baggage from the 2005-2010 administration.

  49. I have been looking at Labour’s performance in England at recent general elections at which it was defeated and have come up with the following data:

    2015 % share seats won

    Con 40.9 318
    Lab 31.6 206
    LibDem 8.2 6
    UKIP 14.1 1
    Grn 4.2 1


    Con 39.5 297
    Lab 28.1 191
    LibDem 24.2 43
    UKIP 3.5 0
    Grn 1.0 1


    Con 45.5 319
    Lab 33.9 195
    LibDem 19.2 10


    Con 46.2 358
    Lab 29.5 155
    LibDem 23.8 10


    Con 46.0 362
    Lab 26.9 148
    LibDem 26.4 13


    Con 47.2 306
    Lab 36.7 203
    Lib 14.9 7

    Some commentators have implied that Labour’s performance last month was a disaster comparable to the 1983/1987 election results. From these figures it is clear that ,at least in England, that is quite an exaggeration. In terms of seats Labour is more than fifty ahead of its position in the 1980s, whilst the Tory lead in % share was lower in 2015 than in both 1992 and 1979.
    Labour’s disaster in Scotland has served to somewhat distort the impression of its performance more widely.

  50. GRAHAM.
    Hello to you. Alan Watkins of New Statesman fame once wrote about ‘Jim’ Callaghan that every major decision that he took was a disaster for the Party and the Country. Ken Morgan tries, and in my view, fails to put up a defence.

1 2 3 6