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 4 5 6
  1. @Laszlo

    I think we’re on the same page then… when people say ‘federal UK’ they don’t actually mean a strict federation.

  2. Good Afternoon All; very sunny and windy now here in AFC Bournemouth land.
    JACK SHELDON; The A Level Examiners want students to use the phrase Quasi Federal and also Quasi Codified to describe the evolving UK Constitution.

    I have just heard about the SNP ex leader’s comments which have distressed many good people.

    My thoughts and prayers are with and for him and his loved ones.

  3. @TOH

    Thanks Colin, we English are a tolerant lot but there comes a point where we should stop putting up with the nonsense. There are more important matters to deal with like the deficit, the European question, ISIL etc, etc”

    Really! This arrogant nonsense does no-one any good! If the English have somehow convinced themselves that they are ‘a tolerant lot’ it must be because they refuse to listen to what anyone else is saying, on the basis that only the English can be trusted to say anything worthwhile!

    I expected a bit better of you!

  4. @Jack and Laszlo

    Actually, it seems to me that this new government is pushing for a lot of devolution of powers to the major English cities. This might be termed ‘federalisation by stealth’!

    As for Popeye’s point, I would have thought that, for example, a marriage break up is not a matter only for the one thinking of leaving. It would have a major impact on all in the family. Or don’t those other members of the family care?

  5. @John B

    What is the arrogance to which you are referring?

    As I understood his comments he is not frustrated at Scottish self-determinism and he is not frustrated at appropriate Scottish representation on a UK level. He is only arguing against Scottish special pleading (over-representation) at UK level, or the imposition of national level issues onto UK-level politics.

    If my reading is correct, I fail to see the arrogance in those arguments.

    Surely the future of Scotland in the union is a national-level issue and is a major topic if that community (i.e. the Scots) feels it to be? And surely the political arrangements of the UK is a UK-level issue and is a major topic if that community (i.e. the UK populous) feels it to be?

  6. Re Salmond on Kennedy

    Bad timing; AS has made no friends by his remarks, even thought they be mostly true, if you read the entire content of what he said.

    CK’s heart was not in the coalition and he did not want to campaign with the Tories on any issue, even that of keeping Scotland in the UK. Like many of us, CK took the view that the UK is in need of major constitutional reform. He was also strongly pro-European. He enjoyed Westminster, but his background and the make up of his constituency made it impossible for him to become part of the ‘establishment’ which now mourns his passing.

    But AS ought to have kept his views to himself for a while….. as ought I, perhaps!

  7. Popeye

    “why do you insist that this must necessarily be of importance to those of other nations in the UK? ”

    I don’t.

    I suggest that those who wish to see the UK continue as a state in international terms, should look at a reconstruction of the internal governance of the UK that satisfies the greater part of its citizens in its constituent parts.

    Not that I mind Westminster’s usual inertia in these matters.

    It has long been my view that reconfigured UK could be successful, the disinterest of many in England, and Westminster’s inability to take the long view makes the disintegration of the UK the most likely outcome.

  8. @Popeye

    The arrogance is seen in the phrase ‘we English are a tolerant lot’. It is easy to be tolerant if you think you’re the only one who has anything to say!

    The point I am trying to make is that Scotland, like England, is a partner in the makeup of the UK. Looking back over the past three hundred years it is obvious to anyone who looks at the history of the Union that the Scots have been, and continue to be, far more tolerant than the English! Just look at the teaching of ‘history’ in UK schools, for example, where English history and British history are regarded more or less as the same thing, or were for the vast bulk of the past three centuries….


  9. THere is plenty more where that came from, from Salmond-its what he does.

  10. John B

    “I expected a bit better of you!”

    And I of you John. I was not being arrogant in the least, a term that the Scot’s always use about us English when we don’t agree with them. The only group I can think of as being arrogant in the current situation is the SNP who cannot seem to accept the result of the referendum and want to dictate to the rest of the UK about how the country is run despite, as I said earlier, being on the losing side in the recent GE.

  11. POPEYE

    Many thanks for explaining to John that there was clearly no arrogance intended in my posts.

  12. Chris Lane et al

    I think Derek Bateman has the correct stance on the issue you raise

    “All this contrived apoplexy, remember, on the very day Kennedy’s death is announced. Even if the conspiracy-minded were suspicious, couldn’t they wait 24 hours before turning mourning into controversy? Have they lost all respect as well as reason?”

  13. Allan Christie – “It goes on and on and on but if Cameron just sat down with NS and gave her control over most stuff then it really would put any indy ref off for a generation ”

    I’m not sure it would, because the SNP case is based on grievance and blame of the “other” rather than on anything rational.

    For example: the SNP always claimed that the reason they couldn’t use their tax varying powers was because a) it only applied to basic income tax and b) they could only vary by 3%.

    So now the Scotland Bill proposes to give them complete control on income tax and they can raise it to 98% if they want…

    But they’re already getting their excuses in. There are only 19,000 people in Scotland who earn more than £150,000, (and the more zealous SNP supporters are intent on chasing all of them out of Scotland). Raising the higher rate tax won’t yield much for the simple reason that there arn’t many rich people in Scotland.

    And they are loathe to raise the basic rate tax (despite pretending to be more left-wing than England). Even a raise back to John Major’s rate (25%) is making them blanch!

    So the excuse will then be, if only other stuff was devolved.

    So say VAT gets devolved next and they raise it to 25%. All that will happen is super-malls open in Newcastle to sell the Scots ipads, electrical goods, white goods and anything else VAT-able at a lower English rate. (Note that VAT cannot be cut from the current 20% due to EU rules).

    So then they’ll complain that it would all be fine if only corporation tax was devolved. But cutting corp tax would be instantly matched by Osborne (who dearly wants an excuse to cut) and raising corp tax will send businesses south.

    As for the oil, the price has collapsed and won’t be rising any time soon.

    Basically Scotland doesn’t have a powerful enough economy to support the SNP’s plans. It can support a small lean state but not a big one.

    The only region in Britain that could have a big welfare state and still have money to spare after independence is London (they’d save on not having to send money to the rest of the country).

    Of course SNP supporters won’t be told. So we have to let them find out through experience. Which will take about a decade judging from Quebec.

    In the meanwhile the rest of us are just getting on with life :-)

  14. Candy

    Excellent post, says it like it is. Good for you.

  15. Blatter to resign

  16. Zepp Blatter has sort of resigned, but replacement won’t be chosen for 6-9 months. Also Blatter will be overseeing wide ranging reforms. Strikes me as putting the fox in charge of the hen house

  17. @ John B

    My problem with the devolution in England (well, the North) is that I don’t see people wanting it. Certainly not in the form of devolution to the cities.

    The integration of the economies between Liverpool and Warrington and Manchester and Warrington is quite remarkable, and then small places like Daresbury with separate (business) linkages to Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester. How would devolution to the cities help this? Is anyone going to admit the error of 2010 of abolishing the regional development agencies?

    It is also quite remarkable that in spite of being on the left of the Labour Party, how pro-business both Liverpool and Manchester councils are.

  18. Lazlo

    “It is also quite remarkable that in spite of being on the left of the Labour Party, how pro-business both Liverpool and Manchester councils are.”

    Why should it be seen as “remarkable” for people “on the left” to be pro-business?

  19. OldNat

    “Why should it be seen as “remarkable” for people “on the left” to be pro-business?”

    Because there are plenty of examples of the left imposing additional red tape and taxes.

  20. @ OldNat

    Because of the narrative that is served up as the daily bread. A LibDem like LK is served up as the right of LAB, Burnham, a centrist, as left, the talk about Labour anti business, anti-aspiration (or perspiration, I do get confused about it). This is why it is remarkable.

    Even more remarkable was an article in today’s FT on the comments page about Labour and taxation.

    That’s enough of remarkable things for today.

  21. @ OldNat

    You just had it for ToH.

  22. For – from …

    I’m so annoyed by tablets, but they are so convenient…

  23. LASZLO

    @” Is anyone going to admit the error of 2010 of abolishing the regional development agencies?”

    I shouldn’t think so.

    GO is busy implementing Heseltinian devolution is fast as he can.

  24. @Candy

    “Allan Christie – “It goes on and on and on but if Cameron just sat down with NS and gave her control over most stuff then it really would put any indy ref off for a generation ”
    I’m not sure it would, because the SNP case is based on grievance and blame of the “other” rather than on anything rational.”

    Exactly right. It’s essential the negotiating team from RuK (basically the PM & co) see this crystal clearly (should that be ‘crystally clear’??). By definition there’s no such thing as satisfying SNP’s demands. They are far too wily, whatever is given will always be twisted to be less / different to that promised, good faith will not be in operation from their side like you normally get on both sides of a mutual deal. They also have all the airtime in the world from the media in Scotland (understandably in a sense) up there compared to the ‘other party’ round the negotiating table (i.e. ‘London’).

    Scotland cannot be ignored, some further devolution is required, and they need lots of love from rUK. However, the framework should be clear and unambiguous, and Cameron should be clear what is not going to be given and be prepared to make plenty of visits to Scotland over a long period to restate the case, and re-show the love! (which is genuine from rUK’s side by and large, despite a minority of indifferent and antagonistic people).

    People will get tired of SNP’s ‘We rule the world’ and, even more so, divisive tactics in the end. The PM needs to deal with Sturgeon civilly, but also speak direct to all the Scottish people for whom he is governing.

  25. @ Colin

    I didn’t mean the bureaucracy and alike with the RDAs, but the immense knowledge and data that they had …

  26. @TOH – yours of 5.10

    I hardly think that winning 56 out of a possible 59 seats constitutes being ‘on the losing side’, do you?

  27. Lazlo

    I saw ToH’s response.

    I do love the logic of some – “there are plenty of examples of X doing bad things (or at least things I don’t like), so all people supporting X do that too.”

    News about a new bit of “red tape” today from the EU though. A child dies every day due to biting into a brightly coloured wash tab. Now tabs will have to have a bitter tasting coating.

    Disgraceful interference with the rights of business to make profits!

    I blame that left wing swine Disraeli and his Adulteration of Food Act!

  28. @Far Easterner and Candy – and probably TOH as well

    I think you make the mistake of conflating the SNP and the Scottish people. The SNP will not be satisfied until there is independence. The Scots are divided as some would be happy enough with much more devolution. The point I am trying to make is that if enough devolution (much more than Smith, for example) were offered, this would take the wind out of the SNP’s sails. Basically I am at this point still of the opinion that the Union can be saved, provided enough people south of the Border see sense. Unfortunately, I see little evidence from your input to support my hopes!!

  29. Apologies to Far Eastener: you don’t conflate the SNP with all Scots. However, you still fail to see the SNP as a viable partner for political progress, preferring (it seems to me) to insist that everyone plays by rules established south of the Border. DC will come north and tell us what is and what is not ‘possible’. This is not a good start to saving the Union!

  30. @ OldNat

    Uh, so many associations.

    Anyway, just one.

    From1st of January 2016, the well-know leftist, oppressing federal state of Australia changes some of its welfare laws and connects them to the vaccination of the child.

  31. LASZLO

    I guess LAs taking the Heseltine route also have immense knowledge of their own area & circumstances.

  32. @ Colin

    I genuinely hope so, but I know (at least for one RDA) that computers were wiped, files recycled, and good staff moved to private (concentrating on EU funding applications).

    But let’s hope. I had only one chance to talk to Heseltine, and I was very impressed (which is not particularly important). I think his ideas in the mid 1980s, and at around 1995 were very good.

  33. Anthony,

    Where has the Conservative support come from in the YouGov Poll? Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green seem roughly what they got on Polling Day.

    Please explain.



  34. John B

    I really respect your views and see your point on this, at least to some extent I believe.

    However, you are putting your own interpretation on what English posters on here are saying which may or may not be correct (and often isn’t tbh). This is totally understandable and reflects, I believe the way that SNP have been setting the agenda (they are very astute as I’ve already said) in Scotland and that you, like many others who don’t even want Independence, have swallowed their lines of argument regarding ‘us southerners’, hook line and sinker.

    You need to fight back and not accept that SNP have the sole right to do this. They have a voice that should be respected of course; that’s quite another thing. But you don’t need to be completely afraid of everyone from England falling into their traps all the time. The fact is, they will always move the goalposts of any argument anyway, so you will always be chasing your tail if you do that.

    Instead, stop fighting on the Nats territory, and make a strong and positive case for rUK (the people I mean, your friends!, not just the economic arguments), and your deeply held and cherished Scottishness within it. You might not feel listened to at first, but slowly but surely – hopefully quickly at times too – our good brothers and sisters up there in the North of the UK will realise that the Nats don’t have a monopoly on the received wisdom for Scotland – or, imho, much wisdom for Scotland at all (in the longterm I mean, not talking about their ability to lead at Holyrood more generally here). They’ve got a ruddy lot of determination and wiliness though, and are to be respected and talked to as partners as you say.

    We can avert the disaster of a fragmented UK between us!


    Your advice to JohnB is good.

    But one of the things which it doesn’t address is SNP’s elision of “Unionism” and “Toryism”. And since their lexicology has Toryism as the root of all evil, they have branded any Unionist ( aka Toryist) movement with that mark.

    Is it possible to mount a truly all party , a-political Unionist initiative in the face of this SNP ploy?

  36. @Laszlo

    “My problem with the devolution in England (well, the North) is that I don’t see people wanting it. Certainly not in the form of devolution to the cities.”

    Fine if people don’t want it. But why should only the Scots and Welsh be the ones ever offered a choice? (I don’t count the Geordies, there were never any real devolved powers being offered to a North East regional assembly.)

  37. Jack Sheldon: Federation “would be hard to achieve because England is so large.”

    Not if London becomes a city state within a 5-state federation. The population dominance of England would be much reduced and it’s a moot point whether London or Rest of England would be the more powerful player in a federation.

    The RoE Parliament would be in Birmingham or Manchester, eliminating at a stroke government by the ‘Westminster elite’.

  38. Regarding Charles Kennedy, RIP. Had he been on the Labour leadership ballot I would happily have supported him over any of the current contenders.

  39. On Charles Kennedy, I hope AW doesn’t mind a link to Steve Bell’s cartoon.

    Beautiful, simple, moving, no words needed….

  40. John B
    We all know the Scots and Scotland are just plum wonderful. You are all far to good for us. So, for the sake of God just go. And take Alex Salmond with you.

  41. ROLY

    If only-we can dream :-)

  42. Far Easterner

    “We can avert the disaster of a fragmented UK between us!”

    Very eloquent, but you focus on the wrong issue (and arguably 60 years too late).

    Along with two million others, my parents signed the Scottish Covenant in 1949. You may find the text of interest –

    “We, the people of Scotland who subscribe to this Engagement, declare our belief that reform in the constitution of our country is necessary to secure good government in accordance with our Scottish traditions and to promote the spiritual and economic welfare of our nation.

    We affirm that the desire for such reform is both deep and widespread through the whole community, transcending all political differences and sectional interests, and we undertake to continue united in purpose for its achievement.

    With that end in view we solemnly enter into this Covenant whereby we pledge ourselves, in all loyalty to the Crown and within the framework of the United Kingdom, to do everything in our power to secure for Scotland a Parliament with adequate legislative authority in Scottish affairs.”

    Had a Scottish Parliament been granted then (and not 50 years later) the political history of the late 20th and early 21st century would have been very different.

    For the last 30 years or so, it has been obvious that what around two thirds of Scots want / would settle for is actual “Devo-Max” [1]. That Westminster [2] hasn’t (and still haven’t) come anywhere near that level of devolution is what has persuaded half the electorate to support the SNP, and about the same proportion to support independence.

    Waiting until my grandson is my age now for what his great-grandparents asked for all those years ago is unlikely to persuade my daughter and her friends to resign from the SNP. They might be persuaded to accept a Devo-Max solution now – they definitely would have embraced that a couple of years ago.

    The political mood in Scotland has moved on since 1949. Sadly Westminster only seemed to notice and respond when the SNP gained Westminster seats.

    [1] Devo Max is a term coined by ScotCen to mean only Foreign Affairs, Defence and Macro-economic policy being reserved to UK level. It does not mean any marginal addition to devolved powers as the term is often used on here and in the London media.

    [2] I use “Westminster” in that context to mean the totality of the Queen in Parliament, and not in any political partisan way.

  43. Very sad news about Charles Kennedy. RIP. I joined the LDs under his leadership and left under Clegg. The story of many, I guess.

    CK’s success was a salutory reminder that party political leadership is largely founded on having a connection with both colleagues amd the electorate. How many current party leaders have that kind of connection with the electorate?

  44. RAF

    “How many current party leaders have that kind of connection with the electorate?”

    I’d suggest Ruth Davidson, Pat Harvie, and Nicola Sturgeon already demonstrate that connection with their electorate. Kez Dugdale shows signs of developing it if she becomes the leader of her party too..

  45. “Fine if people don’t want it. But why should only the Scots and Welsh be the ones ever offered a choice?”


    Easier for a nation to threaten to leave than a region, especially if being a nation means you might get the oil.

    And RIP CK.

  46. Phil Haines

    “But why should only the Scots and Welsh be the ones ever offered a choice?”

    Those in Northern Ireland had a referendum on their future too.

    Presumably, “England” wasn’t offered the choice of an English Parliament because they didn’t vote for parties which demanded that they get a voice.

    Sitting back and whining about how unfair life is seldom achieves change.

    The same would apply in the regions of England. While their are movements like Mebyon Kernow, Yorkshire First and the North East Party, they get few votes for Westminster.

    Consequently, having voted for all decisions to be made in Westminster/Whitehall, folk in the English regions will get the level of administrative devolution decided for them by Westminster/Whitehall.

  47. ComRes delaying their VI poll till tomorrow out of respect for Kennedy would have been one thing – but to do it because Blatter has indicated he will resign once someone else has been elected?

    We need a poll on the ability of ComRes to behave like intelligent human beings!

  48. Really sad to hear about Charles Kennedy today. A thoroughly decent and honourable man.

    If things had things worked out differently in 2005 and Lab hadn’t quite managed a majority and had to go into coalition….well, who knows.

    It also reminded me of two other tragedies, John Smith and Robin Cook. Honourable politicians lost before their time.

    It’s still remarkable to think that 10 years ago there was a Labour majority of 60+, less than 200 Tory MP’s and a phalanx of 62 Lib Dem MP’s recently elected to the HoC on a left-wing platform.

    From having 2/3 of the seats in parliament and a combined vote share of nearly 60%, the centre left has been decimated by a combination of the Tory revival, the demise of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP.

    It does show how quickly things can change.

  49. @JOHN B

    Regarding Alex Salmond’s comments about Charles Kennedy and Better Together and their being ill-timed, it is well to keep in mind that they were in response to a direction question in an interview. Had he refused to answer it, that would have been interpreted as some sort of disrespect as well, I have no doubt. Only someone with a memory as short as certain journalists will have forgotten Mr. Kennedy referring to Better Together as ‘stupid’ and ‘insulting to Scots’. It is hardly any wonder he distanced himself from it.

  50. Pew Research Centre has a survey of attitudes to the EU in European countries.

    Those interested in opinion outwith their own wee patch can see a report on it here.

    For the rest –

    In 2013, the British public was divided on the issue, with 46% wanting to stay and 46% expressing a desire to leave. In the 2015 Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Brits (55%) say they want to remain in the EU, while just 36% say they want to go

1 2 3 4 5 6