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 3 4 5 6
  1. @OldNat

    There may have been a Blatter/Fifa question.

  2. RAF

    Good point – though it’s difficult to see why such a question would mean delaying publication – unless, for some unfathomable reason, ComRes would be embarassed by the question.

    Of course, if they publish no such question, then UKPR can start a new conspiracy theory that ComRes did have one, but suppressed it! :-)

  3. [My first post following a period of post-election mourning.]

    I feel genuinely and truly sad about the death of Charlie Kennedy. I’ve only felt this once before, for Roy Jenkins. He was at least a ripe age and achieved a great deal more, but at 55 Kennedy still held promise.

    Martin Kettle in the Grauniad has summarised it wonderfully. Substitute England for Scotland (and grammatical derivatives), and London for Highlands, and he could have been describing me.

    “His early political career as a member of the SDP was a consistent thread through the rest of his career. Charles was a Highlander and a Scot and all the rest of it, but he was also an anti-Tory. His political comfort zone as a Liberal Democrat was on the left of the spectrum, not the right. This never made him a great flirter with Labour, not least because as a Scot he was a lifetime witness to Scottish Labour’s authoritarian and now ultimately self-destructive ways.”

  4. @John B

    I think that your comments indicate a certain conflation of national (Scottish) level issues and UK-level ones, which maybe happens unconsciously for a Scot (with obvious interest in both levels) who therefore may be confused when the population of the rest of the UK don’t seem interested in certain points which really lie in the former category.

    “Winning 56 out of 59 seats”
    The election was a UK election, not a Scottish one. The SNP didn’t win 56 out of 59 seats, they won 56 out of 650 seats. They won 56 out of the 59 they contested, true, but that’s not really relevant to the UK result. Sylvia Hermon won an even greater percentage of the seats she contested!

    “rules established south of the Border”
    The UK-level rules are not established by the views from North, South, East or West of any borders. They are decided on a pan-UK basis. David Cameron is Scotland’s Prime Minister as much as he is England’s, Wales’ or Northern Ireland’s. Scotland voted for him just the same as England did, but in a democracy obviously not everyone gets their wishes (I know I didn’t get mine!). The community that agrees to be bound by their collective will in the case of the General Election is the UK in its entirety, and if Scotland as a sub-entity doesn’t get the government it would like, then this is no more fundamentally unfair than if Sunderland Central doesn’t get it’s preferred outcome, or if Mrs. Miggins of 57 High Street, Snozzlewick doesn’t get hers. The sub-community of Scotland is in a far better position in that it recently had the option to choose no longer to be bound by the collective will of the UK: Sunderland Central and Mrs. Miggins never got the chance to secede!

    I don’t think any great number of people seriously question the authority of the Scottish collective will to be respected on national matters (devolved matters to Holyrood, the independence question). The issue of how the UK relates to its constituent nations however is not a Scottish national matter, it is a UK-wide matter. I would have thought it logical for most to understand that there should be no specific “Scottish will” to take into account on UK-wide matters (although obviously it would be in the vested interest of a Scottish nationalist if there were one!). The important view there should be the settled will of the people of the UK as an entirety.

  5. Popeye

    “I don’t think any great number of people seriously question the authority of the Scottish collective will to be respected on national matters (devolved matters to Holyrood, the independence question). The issue of how the UK relates to its constituent nations however is not a Scottish national matter, it is a UK-wide matter.”

    You put your finger accurately on the core of the difficulty.

    If the elected representatives of the whole of the UK are unwilling to embrace a constitutional structure for the UK that satisfies the “Scottish [and English and Welsh and Northern Irish will(s)”, then there is little reason for its constituent parts to continue in that Union.

    The difficulty for the continuance of the UK is not the dominant size of England within the Union [1], but the unwillingness of its representatives to cede more power, than they think they can get away with, away from Westminster.

    A more imaginative approach seems more likely to attain the objectives that they profess.

    [1] The size of England in the Union is not an objection to a form of Federal Union. Legislative Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together with a Federal Parliament for reserved matters makes sense. Within each of the nations, “appropriate” levels of administrative devolution are obviously required. England is of such a size that an intermediate layer between s national government and local government may be thought appropriate – but that is a matter for the people in the English regions to determine – where they have an identifiable collective will.

  6. @TOH

    “End of story.”

    Alas, the beast that is Westminster will not deliver on its promises. When it does…end of chapter.

    Another chapter to follow. :))

  7. JOHN B

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

    Yes I do because Scotland has chosen to remain part of the UK and therefore English , Welsh & Northern Ireland seats count as much as Scottish ones. The Conservatives have an overall majority in the UK.

  8. Popeye

    Re your 1.38 post to John B. As you will have seen from my last post I totally agree with your splendid post. I must say you and Candy earlier have summed up the situation splendidly.

  9. “Another chapter to follow. :))”


    Only one? But we were just getting into it…

  10. Funny how Nationalists end up trying to dictate the fate of other peoples “Nations” .

    Is there some link; some natural progression from Nationalism to Imperialism ?

    Perhaps there have been studies ?

  11. Yawn –

    The sense of entitlement to votes expressed by some Labour supporters is truly bewildering. .


    Thanks for the reference, a truly amazing piece. I can almost hear the command “blinkers on!!!”

  13. JACK :-)

    He seems a bit confused :-

    ” Yet they treated the party’s( UKIP) policies, including its anti-immigrant stance, with undue sympathy.”

    “Unless Labour comes to terms with the fact that many of its former voters are concerned about immigration and about the EU’s open borders policy, the party’s discussions about its future direction, and about its choice of leader, will be irrelevant.”

    ……….so……….Labour lost because the “Right Wing Press” gave “undue sympathy” to ideas for control of immigration-a matter of concern to “former” Labour voters.

    Eh ? :-)

  14. Hi all,

    Wanted to let you know some exciting election news. My hero and my friend John Heilman has been been re-elected to the West Hollywood City Council. Yes, after being unceremoniously dumped by the voters in March, after 31 years of outstanding public service, he has returned via a special election just three short months later. It was a landslide too. Won every single precinct and is hovering near 50% of the vote. I feel relieved and very happy. Like all is right with the world again.

    Spent the day helping the independent expenditure on his behalf. Now I feel like, if he can come back, why can’t Jim Murphy? JM can still run for Holyrood! He can have a dramatic return. Besides, he should also imitate John as well by returning to dyeing his hair (I always suspected he did). In any case, it’s been a long day and an exciting night.

    I really enjoyed the victory speech he gave. “I want to say, as a gay man, I still love Cherilyn Sarkissian. That’s Cher for those of you who don’t know. I always will, no matter what sides we are on.” That was, without a doubt, one of the best election night speech lines I have heard.

  15. Apparently Cookie thinks we can still win the Ashes.

    Is there gonna be any polling on summat useful like whether peeps agree with Cookie or not?

    We could have sub-questions like… How many catches do you think Belly will flub? Will they figure out that if you get flayed when you pitch it up, and flayed when you bowl short, it’s better to pitch it up as there are more modes of dismissal? It’s quite hard to be out bowled or lbw from a bouncer. And that anyway, if you pitch it up to tailenders yes they prolly will flay it if you don’t give the bowler some protection and push mid-on and mid-off back…

  16. You want to know the most amazing thing of all about this election today?

    John’s absolute strongest voting base were the Russian voters. The precincts in West Hollywood that contain the most Russian voters gave him his most overwhelming margins. When you think about Vladimir Putin and today’s extreme homophobia in Russia, that’s pretty amazing really.

    Other interesting side notes. This special election served as a proxy pop star war. John’s closest rival, Heidi Shink, was endorsed by Cher. John, in turn, was endorsed by Belinda Carlisle.

    @ Old Nat

    You will be pleased with me that I explained to John recently that the SNP were not right wing nationalists and not nationalists in the term that we Americans think of it as. He was concerned viewing the results of the most recent UK election from afar.

  17. Js and toh -bet you and the conservatives would just love it if the boot was on the other foot.

    Its a different process compared to the heyday of the papers ,now the four stooges print the line from cchq which then influences coverage on sky news and that then influences the bbc and itv.

    Messina has already commented on this -noting the broadcasters are partisan in the states but split between red and blue.Here it makes it a uphill struggle for any party on the left.

    Not saying it was the sun,times torygraph and mail what won it or that they were key in shifting labour over to ukip but like the tories extra spending in marginals ,individual registration etc it was and always will be a factor.

    It aint a fair fight and never has been but it was ever thus.

  18. @SocalLiberal

    Jim Murphy made a huge mistake in running for the Labour in Scotland job. His ideas, history and political space are anathema to most Scots.

    He would have been better advised to stand for a parliamentary seat in the South East of England (outside London).

  19. @OldNat

    I think it’s a very valid point that the constitutional direction (or lack of it!) at a UK level may impact in a important way on national level issues, particularly in Scotland.

    I would however question the idea of English representatives being unwilling to cede power away from Westminster. Fundamentally, all Westminster representatives are UK representatives, not national ones, whichever nation they happen to come from or their constituencies happen to lie in. Even if we accept that a kind of national will may be expressed by the UK representatives from that nation, I think that simply isn’t the reality. I think the idea that there is an single coherent English polity with the UK representatives is quite laughable to be honest! Scotland, in the current climate, is the oddity among the four nations in having something of a national will as expressed within the UK-wide representation.

    Given that, if we talk of UK representatives rather than English ones, I completely agree that there seems an unwillingness to cede power from Westminster which may well have ramifications!

    That doesn’t mean that I’d be surprised that non-Scots view UK-constituent nation relationships as a minor issue though. That constitutional question is a UK one and not uppermost in most people’s priorities in the UK. Any potential ramifications of that UK constitutional question on a national level, in contrast, is much more likely to be seen as something outside of the remit of any non-Scot and therefore less likely to weigh in their thinking (even if the potential ramification: Scotland’s continued membership of the UK, excites them more than the constitutional issue itself).

    (For what it’s worth, I speak personally as an Englishman who has always wanted to see a more formally federal accommodation between the nations of the UK. And one who changed his view on Scottish independence about a year before the vote from hoping for a “No” to hoping for a “Yes” on the basis that such an outcome seemed more likely to occur by Scotland leaving the UK and re-negotiating a new relationship at a later date from scratch than by any reform of the present system!)

  20. SoCalLiberal

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

    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 –

    “For we hae faith in Scotland’s hidden pouers
    The present’s theirs, but aw the past and future’s oors”

    I explained that, in the 1930s, McDiarmid had been expelled from the National Party for being a Communist, and expelled from the Communist Party for being a Nationalist.

    They were incredulous, seeing the two ideas as being mutually exclusive in Russia – “You can’t sit on two benches with the same arse” was the Russian proverb quoted.

    However, being intelligent folk, they soon realised that in Scotland political nationalism simply meant running our own affairs, and neither term necessitated the other aspects that they associated with the political structures in their own country.

  21. @Colin

    “……….so……….Labour lost because the “Right Wing Press” gave “undue sympathy” to ideas for control of immigration-a matter of concern to “former” Labour voters.”


    In determining the press influence on voting, the questions are: were the voters influenced by the press, thus increasing concern over immigration than that which existed before, and whether the press line was fair or not.

    It’s likely the press had an impact given the rise in Ukip that occurred when the press got hold of it, a campaign that was also synced with those vans etc.

    Whether voters got an accurate picture… Well, I don’t recall as many press headlines over the positives of immigration, and there were no vans promoting these positives that I can recall…

  22. Popeye

    We are not in any particular disagreement.

  23. “Scotland leaving the UK and re-negotiating a new relationship at a later date from scratch”


    Dear God. Is this an idea for a new chapter??

  24. Tributes to Charles Kennedy now on TV Parliament Channel.


  25. @Anthony Wells

    I had until now assumed that using “….whining about….” when commenting on someone else’s contribution contribution was the sort of tone that should be out of order here.

    Could you clarify please.

  26. I know popcorn can be a bit iffy, not sure about whining…

  27. Phil Haines

    I’m sorry that you imagined that the phrase was directed at you personally, and not the political position you appeared to be describing.

    For most of my adult life, large numbers of Scots whined about the dominance of Westminster in Scottish issues, but continued to vote for parties that advocated the continuance of that.

    Unsurprisingly, that whining achieved nothing. Voting for a party that threatened the political power of the establishment is what brought about action.

  28. ‘OLDNAT
    Unsurprisingly, that whining achieved nothing. Voting for a party that threatened the political power of the establishment is what brought about action.
    June 3rd, 2015 at 1:58 pm’

    Nice tribute to the Labour Party, but not sure if Tony Blair really threatened the establishment:-)

  29. @Old Nat

    Thanks, my apologies also for a reaction based on my misinterpreting of your comment.

    In my view the appetite for properly structured regional devolution within England is greater than is generally recognised, and that a party that picks that baton up and runs with the offer of a referendum on meaningful devolution from the UK to regional government for every English region will eventually gain electoral dividends. Not immediately, but the principle of taking power back from Westminster for the North-West or the (wider) West Midlands has the potential to grow in salience over time, especially when the reality of EVEL and/or SNP abstinence on English votes hits home. Osborne’s proposals just scratch the surface and are piecemeal and undemocratic to boot, but are nonetheless trying to buy into that appetite for decisions to be taken away from Westminster. Miliband’s similarly piecemeal proposals for city-regions likewise came nowhere near in terms of coverage (i.e. shire areas?) or powers, and he frankly missed a trick in terms of making a powerful offer in response to EVEL.

    If people in a region wish to reject the offer of regional government in favour of being governed by a UK parliament (as even the Welsh so nearly did) then that is fine, but I’d like the choice. In England, the option of voting in a GE for a small regionalist party is never going to be a realistic one, so the question is how quickly Labour and the Lib Dems might move further towards that agenda. For various reasons, I think they will.

  30. @ OldNat

    “I explained that, in the 1930s, McDiarmid had been expelled from the National Party for being a Communist, and expelled from the Communist Party for being a Nationalist.”

    But then he rejoined the UKCP in 1956 (I wonder which month, or rather: because of the 20th congress, or because of the intervention against the Hungarian uprising. Hoping for the latter, though I doubt it), and his nationalism was tolerated.

  31. Sorry, the last bit was cut off. Considering the number of people who left the UKCP after 1956, the tolerance is not that surprising.

  32. JACK SHELDON and ‘[email protected]
    Hello to you; as Summer sun comes to AFCB land.

    I think that the article was not nonsense; pointing to Labour’s need to have a leadership team which is media-savvy, as Harold was 1964 and 1966, and Tony Blair was 1994-2007.
    Secondly the voters’ antipathy to Immigration and the implications of EU border policy are (is) analysed well.

  33. Like many others who never met the man I feel really sorry about the death of Charles Kennedy. He came across as principled, funny, self-deprecating, dedicated to his constituency and his constituents – and above all genuine.
    There have been lots of tributes to him as a real normal human being who spoke the language of ordinary people so it is also worth remembering that he was that presently much maligned individual – a career politician! It’s always been my view that it really doesn’t matter too much if someone goes directly into politics or not – what matters is what kind of person they are and what they want to achieve – and I think Kennedy, a full-time politico from the age of 23, illustrated that.

  34. @Neil j

    Nice tribute to the Labour Party, but not sure if Tony Blair really threatened the establishment:-)

    Cherie Blair delighted in being rude to the Queen though.

  35. Miserable old git

    Isn’t it amazing how our opinions differ. I would have had Roy Jenkins
    shot. I am not being partisan, because I would have had Ted Heath shot as well. A very great shame about Charlie Kennedy however.

  36. Interesting new thread:

    The politicians I would have had shot…

    I love the idea that its a non-partisan discussion.

  37. Something quite odd about the debate EU immigrants using social services (like schools).

    If the child is born in the UK and the parent(s) lived in the UK in the previous five years, the parents can ask (and it is automatic) that the child would have a British passport.

    So, some the arguments seem to be against British citizens …

  38. @ Millie

    Yes, it would be a challenge … But I couldn’t participate as I’m against capital punishment. However, a discussion of sending people to the Gulag …

  39. Something very odd in methodology. I have no clue how reliable it is (but they have been around for some time, and they are reputable, but a Hungarian polling company in their polling they actually attempt to identify shy voters. Not only that, but they split it between “shy government changers” (5%) and “other shy voters” (16%), DK 12%.

    Sorry, I haven’t found an English version.


    I actually think that the 21% shy is a bit low considering the Hungarian circumstances.

  40. Sorry, the DK (12%) is actually not DK, but won’t vote. So they allocated the DK in one way or another. Still interesting.

    The word “rejtôzködô” literally means hiding, but it it is “shy” in this context.

    But there hasn’t been 78% turnout in Hungarian elections for some time, so …

  41. @Roland H

    Sounds like you would have got on famously with General Pinochet.

  42. 78% meant to be 88% … Time for a break or an edit button …

  43. Jeremy Corbyn is running for Labour leader -the snp coalition is on !!

    What I enjoy about left wingers on the site, is their terrific sense of humour. 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.

    Trust you to make a mis speaker of me, Jeremy Corbyn for leader of a Labour-SNP coalition, now that’s funny. The 63,000,000 English and Welsh will go for that.

  45. @Roland

    Actually I didn’t really think that, just pulling your leg, but given your response……..

  46. Miliband undone -the inside story by patrick wintour

    Labour believed snp and tories were deliberately eching each others lines -well they need to prove there was contact ,eg osborne and salmond ,that would be toxic especially for nicola and the 56.

  47. @ Sunreada

    Thank you.

    It is a bit too straightforward narrative to my taste, but there are many good bits in it.

    Yes, not taking on Scottish nationalism in the most uncompromising (it’s not the right word, but I don’t want to revisit the discussions during the campaign) way was a major issue. But how do you politically do it when so many MPs north of the border depends on it?

    But the article also shows that EM is a decent fellow who has no stomach to become a PM. Sad really.

  48. @ Sunreada

    Or perhaps they should just focus on blaming the SNP for the Ed Stone. ;-)

    “The only reason it got through 10 planning meetings was because we were all distracted, looking for a way to punch through on the SNP,” one adviser said.

  49. Sunreada

    Thanks for that link

    If it is true (and I’m always reluctant to have complete faith in a journalist’s report of insider anonymous interviews!) then it’s a very depressing picture of the higher echelons of Labour as being directionless, confused, divided, lacking in vision and purpose – indeed incompetent may not be too harsh a term.

    For that reason alone, the account is probably partial and over-hyping problems for journalistic effect.

  50. Really good read that. I very much enjoy the ‘insider accounts’ of election campaigns, and it does tend to be the loser’s version that comes out in the wash first.

1 3 4 5 6