The Times have published their first YouGov poll since the general election. Topline figures are CON 38%, LAB 46%, LDEM 6%. This is the largest Labour lead we’ve seen in any poll since the election, though the vast majority of polls have shown them ahead. Fieldwork was yesterday and today.

Full tabs are here.

To provide the usual post-election methodology note, there’s not much change here – YouGov have gone back to removing don’t knows rather than reallocating, meaning this is pretty much the method they used earlier in the election campaign that tended to mirror their MRP model. The only significant change is that UKIP have been relegated out of the main prompt and back to “others”.


1,528 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 38%, LAB 46%, LDEM 6%”

1 25 26 27 28 29 31
  1. The Great Repeal Bill looks like a can of worms or grooming unicorns or something…

    http://eureferendum.com

    “In this centralised EU system, EU law imposes a common system on all Member States which have to work together as part of a whole. When a Regulation is “done in Brussels” and enters into force, it applies immediately to all 28 Member States, having direct effect without any intervention from national legislatures.

    The law that applies in one Member State simultaneously applies in all others. It is system-wide law aimed with the aim of integrating the Member States into a single administrative body. …

    Thus, in attempting to convert EU law when this Bill comes into force, the government is going to have great difficulty in separating out the functional aspects of the law and those dealing with the establishment of the EU systems, which are worked into the law. It will need to keep the one and remove the other. And that’s not as easy as it looks.

    As we’ve seen the fishing acquis, referred to earlier, where the core regulation does not just regulate fishermen but also sets up the Common Fisheries Policy, empowering the European Commission to perform certain functions, and imposing the duty of co-operation on (multiple) Member States.

    I have pointed out similar problems with the Lift Directive. This is also dual-purpose regulation Not only does it legislate for lift safety, it is one of the “New Legislative Framework” package which sets up a Brussels-based system of control over a wide range of products. As such, once again, it empowers the Commission and places cooperative duties on Member States.

    Other examples range from chemical regulation to Air Traffic Management, and there are many more. And so I was writing at the beginning of this year that the government had vastly under-estimated the complexities of repatriation. It was not at all geared up to dealing with the problems arising.”

  2. In 2014 the Indian government was, apparently, still repealing laws passed by the British in the time of the Raj

  3. NICKP

    @”But somehow that makes me a liability not an asset?”

    Nope.

    But your accrued pension rights are a liability of your scheme/employer-O feel sure you count it as an asset.

    If your bit of the State failed to use your contributions , together with its own, to aquire assets with which to fund your pension rights-thats their problem. It is still a liability & will have to be funded out of general taxation when you retire.

    ………….and I feel sure that you are considered an asset by the Civil Service Nick !

  4. “…and I feel sure that you are considered an asset by the Civil Service Nick !”

    Well the only pay rise I have had since 2007 has been when I got promoted. But I have had 3 increases in pension contributions and contracting out ended resulting in a 4th increase. So I don’t feel I am being treated like an asset, frankly.

    Me & the furious youth are looking forward to the next visit to the ballot box.

  5. One thing about that “unfunded pension” of ours (mine used to be”non contributory” because my pay was lower to take that into account – then it became contributory all of a sudden but my pay didm’t go up even in line with inflation).

    I strongly believe that if all the payments had been put into a managed central pot then in the eighties we would have seen a pension holiday and soon after that it would have been asset-stripped/ sold off or otherwise nicked under some carpet bagging legislation. Looked what happen to accrued rights in the civil service compensation scheme. Torn up.

  6. @Sam S

    “The additional benefits might happen as a secondary effect (as they very much did in the case of Ford), but this does not factor into the decision making of an individual firm with regards to wages. You ascribe too much to macroeconomic impact to a microeconomic decision.”

    ————

    the individual firm benefits if employees earn enough to buy a car in ways outlined, yes, since the firm can benefit not just from recruiting better and more loyal and productive staff, but secondary effects like the marketing of selling cars to employees etc.. So already, increasing wsges is economically rational beyond your original point about retention.

    But the additional point is that if Ford raises wages, this puts pressure on rivals to raise theirs, especially if the labour market is tight, as suggested by difficulties with retention. The more who do, the more that puts similar pressure on the remainder. Thus Ford raising wages doesn’t necessarily just impact wages of his own firm. And if wages rise elsewhere that means more people can buy Ford’s cars.

    Thus it can be very sensibly a decision for an individual firm to make. Of course some firms might not calculate the benefit to sales of rivals increasing wages, but they might still benefit whether they calculated it or not.

  7. NICKP

    I expect you are .

    Aren’t we all?

  8. @Sam S

    Or to summarise, the standard neol1b argument neglects all the advantages of employees buying the cars, and it neglects how raising wages in one place can raise wages elsewhere. (The same error is made when neglecting how paying decent public sector wages might help keep private sector wages higher).

  9. @CambridgeRach

    “There has been a lot talk and analysis on lefty sites about vote distribution. A lot of quite safe seats had an enormous amount of resources thrown at them while some labour marginals were abandoned. Of course Corbynista evaluation differs significantly from progress evaluation.”

    ———-

    Yes reading the comments, the suggestion is that the Blairite HQ funnelled more into the safer seats of kindred Progress members.

  10. “Aren’t we all?”

    ———–

    Well I’m a bit consumed by working out my future liabilities on kale smoothies at the moment. It’s not looking good…

  11. “It is still a liability & will have to be funded out of general taxation when you retire”

    ———-

    Assuming they don’t keep shifting the retirement age backwards…

  12. Carfrew

    I didn’t want to point that out, but yes the moderates were thinking more about future internal strife rather than winning the election. Of course for Corbynista’s a good result for labour generally was a good result for Corbynistas which is why they didn’t mind helping out progress MPs

  13. I can tell you that Croydon Central was swarming with red volunteers. The poor residents were hanging signs saying “leave us alone we’ve voted!”

    The reds have a lot, and I mean a lot, of willing ground troops. I suspect next time they’ll be knocking in places all over the land.

  14. @CambridgeRach

    Yes, once again it seems Corbynites being rather more accomodating than these nulabbers. Wonder what Syzygy makes of it?…

  15. @ CAMBRIDGERACHEL and
    Carfrew

    ‘I didn’t want to point that out, but yes the moderates were thinking more about future internal strife rather than winning the election.’

    There are so many examples … Luton was a good one. Luton North MP is pro Corbyn and had no funding or support from LPHQ. Luton South was a Blairite MP and had masses of support. Bedford was a marginal (Tory majority of 1097 in 2015) – no support from anyone except local activists and Momentum – scraped in with 789 Labour majority.

    A friend was with her Blairite PPC when the exit poll was issued … she says his horrified face convinced her that there was a deliberate intention for Labour to lose the GE whilst retaining the New Labour MPs. In fact, Private Eye reported that LPHQ was so sure of a new leadership contest that they changed the passes and emails of the Leadership team on the 8th June, such that John McDonnell et al couldn’t get into Southside after midnight.

  16. @Nick P

    “The reds have a lot, and I mean a lot, of willing ground troops. I suspect next time they’ll be knocking in places all over the land.”

    ———-

    And the young peeps are so much more keen to talk politics than I recall from my youth. And if one starts talking politics with you, others soon join in. I found it tricky at first, wasn’t used to talking politics much socially. Actually I still find it a bit tricky. But you’re overpowered by the enthusiasm, while they pick your brains clean. I don’t know Tories have any idea what they’re up against in the future. Household economics really ain’t likely to cut it.

  17. @NickP

    I also heard about the masses of red volunteers in Croydon Central. However even on a bad night for Labour this was a probable gain, though, so I wouldn’t necessarily say that this means anything in terms of Labour activists knowing more than the polls etc.

    As I’m sure you know, the majority was just 165, and Gavin Barwell was housing minister. And a London MP, in a seat with a not particularly high UKIP vote. Given this, Gavin may well have expected to lose his seat.

    Next time around those huge numbers of activists will be, to some extent, ‘freed up’ – if they’re polling well they won’t need to do much to defend a seat that already has a 10 point majority. By the way, this is the biggest majority Labour has had in the seat’s existence (second highest was 8.7 in 2001). Classic bellwether. Probably no longer nationally representative due to demographic change, though….

  18. @NICKP

    “Don’t know if I mentioned it but I joined the Labour Party. First time ever joined a party.”

    ————————-

    Well as someone who’s never joined a party myself, it’ll be interesting to learn of your experiences Nick. I like to live vicariously at times…

  19. @ Carfew

    Seems that I was answering before you’d actually asked the question :)

    The Labour activists were across a barrel. If they didn’t work to get all Labour PPCs elected, there was no prospect of Labour winning the GE. There is plenty of evidence that central funding was withheld from all but selected constituencies…. the argument being that the polls were so bad that they were only focusing on shoring up existing MPs. But (!) it must have been obvious within a few weeks that the polling was wrong …. Gavin Shuker in Luton South came away with a 14k majority from a vote of 29k.

    I simply don’t believe that LPHQ didn’t realise and that resources could not have been redistributed. There are stories of activists from unsupported constituencies grabbing handfuls of posters and literature when visiting the favoured candidates.

  20. @Syzygy

    Yes, we were wondering about the Private Eye thing a little while ago. Looking in from the outside nulabbers seem so out of touch don’t they?. Not Corbyn’s membership surge, not their pitiful attempt to unseat him, not even the GE result seems to cause much re-evaluation. Or Brexit for that matter. Quite a few don’t seem able to parse much of the reality.

  21. Local elections

    Note tories gain seat in scotland. snp second.Capped good night for .tories.It does not have the feel of a defeated party.
    Politically i think the uK has two armies staring with incomprehension at each other.Neither side seems ready to give. its like Game of thrones.

  22. Colin (8:33)
    Yes that link is interesting, but it’s only repeating one of the things i mentioned the day after the election.

    It is indeed the least ‘efficient’ result for Labour since the war (WWII for younger viewers!), but it’s also worth pointing out that of the 20 GEs since the war the Tories have been more efficient 11 times and Labour 9. This time it took 49,141 Labour votes to win a seat, but 42,979 for the Tories. This was the least efficient for the Tories since 2005.

    Some of these effects are to do with the rise and fall of smaller parties but it’s too late at night to analyse more deeply.

  23. @Syzygy

    It’s interesting to learn of what it’s like behind the scenes. I’m not surprised at what you tell me, I’m a subscriber to Roger Mexico’s view that for Nulab, having invested in the TINA thing it’s then kinda vital to stop evidence to show that no, actually it’s TWAA – There Was An Alternative all along.

  24. S Thomas
    “Capped good night for .tories.It does not have the feel of a defeated party.”

    I wonder if that could be because they were not defeated?
    ——————————————
    Oh, and I see that Analyst has already addressed most of the points in my previous post.

  25. I have tried to find out how many MPs are members of progress.

    In the NE decisions where made by Labour North where to direct volunteers not sure HQ got involved at all but then I am not close enough to know really.

  26. Blair saying he has it from senior E U officials that it may be poss that UK can stay in the single market and leave the EU.

    Also says he is tempted to return to politics.

  27. Carfew – I think Roger’s point is an interesting one but that an alternative may now get elected does not mean it could have done in ’97.

    The conditions for a possible left challenge to the consensus, either the prevailing approach leaving too many behind, where not there in 1997 imo and a more centrist Labour Party was needed to get Elected. Smith was ‘moderate enough I reckon and personally Blair too embracing of the neo-liberal economic framework.

    In short there is no conflicti n saying that trimming, triangulation was best in 1997 but a more left wing approach is now. Peeps may not agree but it is credible.

  28. “Also says he is tempted to return to politics.”

    ———–

    Oh I’m sure he’ll love it, all those armies of young peeps campaigning against him….

  29. “I have tried to find out how many MPs are members of progress”

    ——–

    Oh do they not say? Didn’t think these peeps insisting on everyone being accommodating would subvert that by acting secretively and stuff.

  30. Carfew – I think Roger’s point is an interesting one but that an alternative may now get elected does not mean it could have done in ’97.

    The conditions for a possible left challenge to the consensus, either the prevailing approach leaving too many behind, where not there in 1997 imo and a more centrist Labour Party was needed to get Elected. Personally I thought Smith was ‘moderate enough.

    In short there is no conflict in saying that trimming, triangulation was best in 1997 but a more left wing approach is now. Peeps may not agree but it is credible.

  31. In other news, the current PM told her Chancellor that she was taking his shovel away after he tried to elaborate on his view that train driving was so easy, even a woman could do it.
    What were they doing talking about trains at a cabinet meeting? Haven’t they got enough to concern themselves with?

  32. We may have an Ipsos Mori poll soon. I’ve just done one on VI (as well as car technology for some reason. Strangely, there wasn’t a question about starting handles.

    G’night all.

  33. @JimJam

    “– I think Roger’s point is an interesting one but that an alternative may now get elected does not mean it could have done in ’97.”

    ———

    Nah, as I keep pointing out, Labour got big leads following Black Wednesday well before Blair, and even under Brown, even following the Crunch, Tories still couldn’t win outright. On top of that numerous policies like those of the left like nationalisation are popular. And policies like ATOS, the extra privatisations, free schools, tuition fees etc., not so much.

  34. @PeteB
    Happy, happy, joy, joy !
    As far as the prospect of a poll is concerned.
    Labour north of 46% VI ?

  35. @ Carfew

    ‘Looking in from the outside nulabbers seem so out of touch don’t they?’

    Yes ….. but is that credible? Maybe for some but I can’t help but think that there might be another agenda. Roger might be right that it is a genuine belief in TINA and terror at the idea that it TWAA but I’m not totally persuaded.

    However, the extraordinary thing about both the Progress and Fabian conferences was the utter confidence in their world view regardless of outside events or plausibility … so maybe it’s a case of extreme group think.

  36. Jim jam

    Yes I could agree with that, I’m disappointed that Blair did the groundwork for tuition fees and the privatisation of the NHS. I’m furious that new labour didn’t rein in the banking industry. More constitutional reform would have been nice. There is absolutely no excuse for Iraq, that was just murderous vanity. What upsets me most is that corruption became almost as normal in the labour party as in the Tory party, the revolving door between politics, business and the media is a cancer eating away at the soul of Britain.

    But yes, a little more was possible but a real leftist agenda wasn’t possible and perhaps not even desirable. Some good things were done, more could have been done but it’s difficult to know how much. The worse thing is that new labour didn’t have a plan to limit the damage of a future conservative govt

  37. SYZYGY
    Utter confidence in their world view
    Makes ’em sound like Fifth Monarchy men or members of the Judaen People’s Front (Marxist/Leninist).

  38. @JimJam

    “The conditions for a possible left challenge to the consensus, either the prevailing approach leaving too many behind, where not there in 1997 imo and a more centrist Labour Party was needed to get Elected. Personally I thought Smith was ‘moderate enough.”

    ———

    Yes, this is different planet stuff JimJam. Corbyn isn’t moving things massively leftwards, he is mostly undoing the Post-Thatch policies of Blair and Major and some Cameron stuff like tuition fees, rail privatisation etc.

    He’s also planning to build more houses than Blair, of course, and isn’t necessarily as keen on free movement. Not sure where Maggie stood in Free movement but she did become more Eurosceptic of course.

    It’s not like Blair got elected on a sea of people clamouring for tuition fees and rail privatisation. Blair didn’t get elected because people wanted ATOS or were clamouring for mass immigration. It’s easy for Corbyn to gain votes undoing this Blairite stuff because they’re not popular and Blair got to do these things regardless because essentially unopposed.

  39. @Syzygy

    They confuse themselves because they don’t read the polling correctly. They think that because Labour kept failing in eighties and early nineties that therefore you had to have a Blairite platform to get elected.

    This is partly to misread the polling because the left vote was split. People didn’t necessarily want all those privatisations and ATOS and stuff, but the opposition was split. Secondly Tories had the press and their tails up with the eighties world boom, oil and privatisation receipts and so on.

    But after Black Wednesday, it was obvious Labour could get elected without tuition fees, ATOS, further privatisations, etc. etc.

    There’s a vague on how far left they could go but there wasn’t any need to go further right wards or liberalwards. A lot of that stuff was rather unexpected by Labour and other voters alike.

    Place I was working at the time was a pretty staunchly Tory college, and when Labour got in one member of staff wore a black arm band. Few weeks in he was celebrating on realising it wasn’t that much change really,

  40. @Syzygy

    I should add, that following Black Wednesday, the split left didn’t matter any more. However Corbyn has shown that even with a stronger Tory party and hostile press, if you are a good enough communicator, better than Blair, you can unite the party sufficient to rival a Tory party that prior to the election was riding high, not on the floor like after Black Wednesday. What did Blair do to get close to that? He also went along with whet the press wanted a lot more…

  41. or unite the left, I should say…

  42. @ Carfew

    My own view was that in 1997, a party of guinea pigs would have been in with a shout. However, as you know, there was a deliberate intent to transform Labour into a UK version of the US Democrats which has been well documented. As someone recently wrote (I forget who but someone credible), Blair was elected on a relatively left wing manifesto which he promptly ignored. The one that I remember was the promise to remove Margaret Thatcher’s NHS internal market.

  43. @Syzygy

    Yes, they added the Thatch-style economic liberalism to Jenkins style social,liberalism to get summat close to the American Liberals, I.e. the Democrats.

    And the abandonment of fundamentals like trying to ensure affordable housing and decent paying jobs meant long term difficulties that eroded their base as they either moved to Greens or even UKIP or whoever in response or else were too demoralised or burdened to vote.

  44. Syzgy

    I doubt that many Labour voters in 1997 outwith England were much influenced by any promise to remove the NHS internal market in England.

    Many (like me) were more persuaded by a UK party promising to finally deliver on a Scottish Parliament, and a Welsh Assembly.

    While I understand that those in England are motivated largely or wholly by matters pertaining to their polity, and the 2017 election result (as reported in the London media) may have persuaded them that the discontented Celts had happily returned to the fold of voting along GB/English lines, that may be a false presumption.

    I’m not really surprised that there was not a single response to my linking to a Welsh poll – after all, much of the London media ignored Carwyn Jones’ equal role in his joint declaration with Sturgeon – and simply stressed the latter’s role (with little or no explanation of the issues.)

    However, if 60% of the Welsh electorate now prioritises Single Market membership, then Wales is either diverging from England on this fault line, or are paralleling something that is also happening in England.

    Either way, that has the potential (I put it no more highly) to affect VI for Westminster, as well as devolved Governments.

  45. Oldnat

    Sorry I missed that Welsh poll, how far back is it?

  46. Cambridge Rachel

    I also referred to the FMs of Wales & Scotland making a joint declaration on the Bill to withdraw from the EU.

    I haven’t seen the actual text in the London Press, or the BBc site, so I’ll attach it here.

    https://news.gov.scot/news/eu-withdrawal-bill

    NI doesn’t have a devolved government at the moment, so we can only speculate as to whether the DUP and/or SF would have dissented from that statement.

  47. @ Oldnat

    ‘ much of the London media ignored Carwyn Jones’ equal role in his joint declaration with Sturgeon’

    Funnily enough, I heard the R4 report of the declaration and of their meeting with Barnier but in that report, the ‘London media’ ignored Corbyn’s meeting with the same.

  48. Oldnat

    Thanks, does seem to be a gradual move to a softer Brexit position. I think it will gather pace as the year goes on, but I’m not silly enough to put money on it. It’s good for carwen Jones, he looks like he in touch with the public mood. I think also that Nicola’s standing will improve over the course of the year as Scots see more of the Brexit process and perhaps regret throwing away their Indy ref leverage.

  49. Oldnat

    Thanks, does seem to be a gradual move to a softer Brexit position. I think it will gather pace as the year goes on, but I’m not silly enough to put money on it. It’s good for carwen Jones, he looks like he in touch with the public mood. I think also that Nicola’s standing will improve over the course of the year as Scots see more of the Brexit process and perhaps regret throwing away their Indy ref leverage.

1 25 26 27 28 29 31