The YouGov/Sunday Times poll this morning has topline voting intention figures of CON 49%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 3%. As with most other recent polls, it shows a very large Conservative lead, Labour creeping up slightly and the smaller parties being squeezed. This is the first time YouGov have shown the Lib Dems in single figures this year and the first time UKIP have been as low as 3% since early 2012.

Labour’s manifesto promises are, once again, individually popular, but overall the party’s platform is not. 65% thought a cap on rents was a good idea, 58% increasing taxes on those earning over £80,000, 49% the abolition of tuition fees, 46% the nationalisation of the National Grid, Royal Mail and railways. Asked about their policy offering overall however, by 50% to 25% people think Labour do not have a sensible plan for how they would run Britain.

By 59% to 22% people support the Conservatives’ aim of cutting net immigration to the “tens of thousands”. While a clear majority, this is substantially down from when we asked the same question in 2014 when 76% supported it. Only 25% of people thought that May would be able to hit the target, though again, it has changed significantly from 2014 when only 9% thought that Cameron could do it. By 59% to 28% people do NOT think that students should be included in the immigration target.

Finally, in the light of the CPS decisions this week there were some questions about limits on election spending. 77% of people think that there should be a spending limit at elections, and the Conservative party are perceived as being worse than the other parties at obeying the rules. 44% think the Tories often break spending rules at elections, compared to 24% for Labour, 19% for the Lib Dems, 24% for UKIP.

Full tabs are here.

409 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 49, LAB 31, LD 9, UKIP 3”

1 7 8 9
  1. BARDIN1

    Corbyn said well before May’s announcement that he wanted the election – it is all about internal party politics.

    No, he doesn’t have any policy as he got rid of all the advisers and think tanks. He has ideas that have been around as long as I can remember. I think it’s a distinct difference. It may appeal to the faithful as mobilising slogans, but to me these “policies” are not the question. If I wanted to nationalise some utility, and make it an election promise, I would say that we will, and X.Y wil’ be the CEO. I would certainly not promise 37 billion, when my think tank that I fired said that 56 billion is needed, or less if there was reorganisation (the reason why they were dismissed).

    I still think that the refusal of the debate was his only good move. I remember Ed …

  2. “Blair had left Government before Free Movement became an issue”

    Not quite true. Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in January 2007. Gordon Brown didn’t take over until the summer of that year.

    Almost immediately upon Romania and Bulgaria joining, elements of the press and of public opinion were concerned about the potential numbers of people coming across and asking why the UK was not imposing the transitional controls it was entitled to under EU law.

    It would be interesting to speculate whether public opinion shifted so much during this period that, if the UK had imposed those controls, we might never have voted to leave.

    Now that I think about it, even before Romania and Bulgaria joined, there were concerns in some quarters about the levels of East European (Polish etc) immigration to the UK.

  3. I don’t know what will happen with the Co-op party but the obvious question that would arise is whether the Co-op membership is further to the right (or to the centre, depending on your preferred terminology) than the Labour membership. If they aren’t then they might not take kindly to being taken over.

    The current set of Co-op MPs do look to be mostly on the anti-Corbyn wing of the party, although Jon Ashworth might be an exception; the late David Taylor (d.2009) was formerly a significant exception. Of course, as we’ve seen with the PLP as a whole, it might be a question of the membership as a whole, not just the MPs. So I’ve no doubt that people have studied the Co-op Party’s rulebook (and the makeup of its ruling committee) to try to work out how things would play out.

  4. Bardin1

    I doubt that Labour would have fallen any further in the polls – they were pretty well at rockbottom and election timing is not an issue that would have switched votes.May doubtless would have shouted ‘frit’ , but as the months passed her own problems would have accumulated at a time when her honeymoon with the electorate was waning. By pushing any election into 2018 Corbyn could have expected to fight such a contest on much more favourable ground .
    This of course ignores the possibility that May might have tried to go ahead with her election plans anyway via the No Confidence route. As discussed here a few weeks back that could have made Corbyn PM for the election period! Why did he not give that a try?

  5. Newish thread.

  6. The difficulty for Labour, is that they are pointing at the problems, but nobody, well at least very few, believes that they have credible solutions. I am sure that TM would offer to raise wages and lower taxes for all and sundry and put zillions into public services, if she thought it was deliverable. The reality is that TM is mindful that she is likely to have to deliver her promises while Corbin, despite his protestations to the contrary, is not.

    Incidentally, the idea that Mrs May is very right wing, is quite absurd. She is the one who risked her political career by drawing attention to the nasty label and has sought to ensure the party loses that tag. Having met her twice, albeit some time ago, I found her to be a one nation conservative but definitely a pragmatist. For her I would guess, what matters is what works and if that means using some Labour ideas, so be it.

  7. @RMJ1

    “I am sure that TM would offer to raise wages and lower taxes for all and sundry and put zillions into public services, if she thought it was deliverable.”


    Well on this much hinges of course. And it’s often central to elections, and polling, how money gets spent and its efficacy. There was plenty of QE for the banks, of course, hundreds of billions which stoked South East ecomomy and house prices. (Technically it has to be paid back many years hence when inflation has eroded it but you can roll it over anyway for another decade or two). And as we’ve seen, and the Bank of England study showed, inflation wasn’t much of an issue. It’s an ideological divide whether to spend in this way on banking and SE economy, as we have so far, or whether to do it more broadly as Corbyn suggests, (e.g. some think it’s a bad idea because even if it works economically, they consider a smaller state preferable). Which obviously I shan’t delve into, but you can check it out it if you like!!

  8. @RP

    “Not quite true. Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in January 2007. Gordon Brown didn’t take over until the summer of that year.”


    Lol, ok then, he left government just as it was becoming an issue. Quelle surprise…

  9. @Rich

    Well your grandparents must have led pretty charmed and sheltered lives if the 70s was their worst decade. Where were they in the 30s depression, World War II?

1 7 8 9