We’re heading into Summer and the silly season now, so don’t necessarily expect much polling (August tends to be quite anyway…the month after a general election even more so). This is just a quick update on the latest YouGov voting intention figures, which are CON 41%(nc), LAB 44%(+1), LDEM 7%(+1). Fieldwork was Monday to Tuesday and changes are from a fortnight ago. Full tabs are here.


891 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 41%, LAB 44%, LDEM 7%”

1 2 3 4 5 18
  1. CR

    I love the way you guys produce these “what abouts” when it gets a bit difficult.

    Has a British Politician ever said The House of Saud shows us a different & better way of doing things ?

    We have been here before with the Socialist Nirvana overseas which shows us The Way- The Great Russian Famine. The Great Leap Forward. Cambodian forced collectivisation.

    Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez-after the British Left have fallen into silent embarrassment its always the same story-starvation , bloodshed & loss of liberty.

  2. CR
    The article you linked to was a very interesting reminder of history. Thanks.

  3. Recent poll in Venezuela, 79% of respondents thought Chavez was the best Venezuelan President ever. Madoura is unpopular but is still more popular than the presidents in Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina.

  4. @S THOMAS

    “on such a hypersensitive site as this where every view and nuance is explored it is sometimes hard to understand that the electorate in the main would not even know what we are talking about let alone care.

    A number of posters took umbrage about the reporting of the corbyn tuition pledge or non pledge.The fine details are lost in the main but the electorate simply register that corbyn is against tuition fees.And that is that.”

    ————

    Well you might characterise it all as umbrage, as opposed to amazement at the crude selectivity of some, but anyways, while it’s true some may pay little attention to such details, you need to be aware that we operate a first-past-the -post system whereby only a few need to be persuaded in marginal seats to have quite an impact on the overall electoral outcome.

    Also, polling suggests many people might be aware of the nuance in the tuition fee argument concerning what Corbyn meant.

  5. “CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    Recent poll in Venezuela,”

    That’s sure to be accurate then.

  6. carfrew

    I wouldn’t worry about JC. Like his namesake he is walking on water at present. But Easter is coming.

  7. Paul croft

    It was a multi country poll, can’t remember which company

  8. Colin,
    “I’m disappointed in this-but I guess it demonstrates the nature of the damage Cons inflicted on themselves. It is sticking for now.”

    What do you consider was the damage? The two big issues are surely the wildcard of Brexit and the conservatives record on the economy over 7 years now. Both of these have pretty firm conservatives policies which would be quite difficult to change without potentially upsetting more voters than they would please.

    “Top 4 most important issues-Cons “best” for three of them”

    If cons are showing best on 3/4 ‘most important issues’ yet are still losing, maybe those arent the 4 most important issues?

    Roger Mexico,
    “One odd little thing about recent YouGovs is that the raw figures have more 2017 Lab than Con voters. This suggests a reluctance to take part in polls which may indicate a certain shakiness – and a growing confidence from Labour supporters.”

    Or perhaps if yougov use panels of the same people, more of their respondents have switched to labour so now make up more of the panel?

  9. COLIN
    “the Socialist Nirvana overseas which shows us The Way”

    I wasn’t aware of any belief, “on the left” or elsewhere else, in this phenomenon -perhaps you can give us a reference or two, I’m Allright Jack, I suppose,, but I can’t think of any others.

    You cite a very mixed bag. Of the East Asian and Southeast Asian examples, I’m best acquainted with Cambodia,where the evidence is of the degree to which land tenure and farming have been subject of adaptation to global development, including urbanisation and internal migration
    driven by internal and market dynamics rather than the State.
    You may be interested in a paper on the currrent situation of land management in Cambodia which documents the changes from the eventual settlement of the Khmer Rouge driven conflict in the 1993 Peace Accord up to the present and agrarian change in which peasant small farm systems and related land tenure has predominated over state driven large scale or collectiivised systems – but the latter was never attempted in Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge driven land reforms – and wouldn’t have been feasible in the predominantly peasant paddy based rice production systems common throughout SE Asia. See http://www.researchgate.net/profileJean_Christophe_Diepart/publication/305808433_They_will_need_land

  10. S Thomas,
    “Corbyn is set in his views . This bodes ill for those who think that he will become a supporter of the EU”

    It seems the latest attempt to attack Corbyn is by undermining remain confidence in voting labour. A much more sensible attack than many, because Labour is floating on a sea of Remain votes. But it has the same weakness as other attacks on Corbyn, that while he might not be as keen on view X as you might like as a voter, at least he is more keen than are the conservatives. Moreover, the labour party as a whole has far more maneuver room to take a remain position and actually increase its vote share by doing so, whereas the conservatives would certainly lose votes if they did so. The conservatives might be seen as sitting onboard the holed titanic, with their only hope the captain of a nearby ship who however is blind to their calls for help.

    S. Thomas,
    ” i do not think a referendum could be avoided.”
    yes it could, but that would have meant the conservatives adopting either a leave or remain position without the backing of a referendum, and then the normal electoral pattern following its course. UKIP would have gained MPs and formally split the right’s support within parliament. The matter could have been fought within parliament, but tories judged they had a better chance trying to pass the matter to voters. But the result was a draw and voters passed it back.

    Cameron’s problem on immigration has been inherited by the current conservatives. The party was and still is in favour of immigration. They are simply dressing it up under the guise of a different scheme, but in reality the talk is of new ways of assessing how important immigrants are to the economy, not about halting it.

  11. @sea change

    I am.well aware of the reference you were making. The fact that you were.quoting a politician who has been dead for over half a century rather reinforces the point, don’t you think?

  12. @sthomas

    Simple descriptions are not extreme they are merely factual.

  13. Danny

    It is easy to blame Cameron for the referendum but that is like blaming the symptom and not the cause. Posters say that the referendum was set up to save the tory party from uKIP.That might be true but then w e need to look as to why UKIP became a threat.They became a threat because of unrestricted access and its effects on the CD economic group and the failure to apply resources to meet the increase in population.The blame for allowing such an increase in population without increasing the schools and medical services in areas where the population increase was going was new labour and Blair.
    The irony of this is that Blair is now railing against the consequences of a policy he himself encouraged and which played a large part in bringing about the referendum.
    Properly managed immigration is on balance a good thing but one has to be honest about the consequences. There is a pressure on domestic wages because the availability of Labour is greater and one cannot have a net gain of 300k per annum without funding a new general hospital every year plus any number .of schools and houses. It is the failure to deal with the consequences of mass immigration rather than mass immigration which has caused the problems.

  14. @Hireton

    I simply don’t get your point or the argument you are attempting to make about something I didn’t say. I didn’t quote anybody. I simply referred people to a speech that was made in 1962 that discussed many of the issues that are still unresolved and are being raised today. Just because somebody is dead doesn’t invalidate the points they raised when they were alive.

  15. So what is in the newspapers today that might feed into polling.

    Brexit divorce bill to cost UK E40 billion according to several sources. Denied of course by Government.

    Senior Brexit Tories want Philip Hammond sacked.

    Former BoE governor Mervyn King warns that Government does not have a plan B for Brexit negotiations.

    Nigel Farage tells audience in the US that UK Government is backsliding on Brexit and appears to be heading for the softest form of Brexit possible.

    Amber Rudd positioning herself for a leadership bid, if a vacancy arises.

    Energy price review to be set up following British Gas recent price increase. ( another review ?)

    Seems to be a lot of negative media for the Tories and Labour are enjoying a quieter period, where Corbyn or his party divisions are not being discussed much.

    I thought the Tories might regain a polling lead, as Labours position on Brexit was put under a spotlight, as well as analysis of costs of Labours manifesto started to look totally unaffordable. But this has not happened yet. The Tory supporting print media seem to be more concerned about whats happening with Brexit and splits in the Tory party.

  16. @S Thomas
    ”.The blame for allowing such an increase in population without increasing the schools and medical services in areas where the population increase was going was new labour and Blair.”

    Plenty of blame to go around if you want to start down that line. Would have thought the primary cause was the Thatcher and Major Governments campaign to enlarge the E.U. and succeeding in getting the former Eastern Block countrIes admittance.
    The Blair Govt could have put temporary controls on but this would have only delayed the inevitable for a couple of years. Lots of the people from those countries would have still wanted to come here because English was widely spoken as a second language and the family connections with those that settled here after the war, especially Poles.
    Agree that the problem was not developing the infra structure, which all Governments have been guilty of.

  17. Caught a mention on Radio 4 papers review that the EU talks were “deadlocked”, in the opinion of those shadowy folk, senior Govt sources. This is what is causing them to suggest putting an actual figure on the Divorce bill apparently.
    Not heard the term “deadlocked” used before in relation to the Brexit talks, maybe I don’t read the right newspapers.

  18. DANNY

    @”What do you consider was the damage? ”

    *TM not appearing on TV, then doing so & not empathising with the Nurse.
    *TM announcing a redistributive care funding & retiree welfare policy without properly explaining it, then allowing Labour to attack it as a “tax”
    * Trying to correct the damage whilst saying “nothing has changed”
    *Hoping “Strong & Stable” would compensate for lack of non-Brexit Policy.
    *Not defending Cons’ economic achievements.
    *Not attacking Labour’s Tax & Spend policies.
    * Not giving some recognition of weariness over belt tightening & producing some policy aleviation.
    * Failing to understand the changing mood of the Electorate.
    *Focusing the whole Campaign on TM -who was plainly a poor campaigner.
    * Fox hunting.

    I expect there was other stuff too.

    @”If cons are showing best on 3/4 ‘most important issues’ yet are still losing, maybe those arent the 4 most important issues?”

    They are the ones in the Poll. Arriving at your final VI decision is clearly a complex amalgam of things-including stuff you like about a political party & stuff you don’t like about it.

    It is a lesson for Politicians-tick box campaigns & vacuous mantras don’t cut it when there are multiple concerns out there.

  19. JOHN PILGRIM

    I was thinking of Marx’s apologists & supporters. They haven’t gone away you know ( as someone once said :-) )

    But pleased you are not among their number.

  20. Sorry, should have read, senior Tories, not Govt sources.
    Welcome to the modern Byzantium!

  21. Regarding the attack on Corbyn as a “leaver all along”, I agree that its primary impact on voting intention will be significantly blunted by the ultimate truth that even if Corbyn’s Labour isn’t for remain, it is rightly perceived as less “hard” on the issues that tend to matter to remainers.

    Of course, if you can move some of your opponent’s supporters into the “both as bad as each other” box that still has some impact.

    But where it might play secondarily into VI is in picking at the scab that is the labour split. The whole Corbyn as a “leaver all along” theme, especially when taken to its conspiracy theory conclusion of “and he blew the campaign on purpose” was originally a cry of his internal opponents. It still resonates most there.

  22. @ Colin

    Re comparisons between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The latter is strongly implicated in the terrorist activity that causes us most concern and most affects our daily lives. Most people couldn’t point to Venezuela on a map. That is why I suspect our cosying up to the Saudi’s is potentially the more damaging electorally though I suspect neither will shift many votes.

  23. For what its worth I think the “Corbyn was a leaver all along” line is overplayed and smacks of conspiracy theory.

    It’s not a necessary explanation for a lacklustre campaign. Few are suggesting May blew this June on purpose. And Labour had good reason to distance itself from the Cameron-led campaign on a one bitten twice shy basis after the Scottish referendum.

    Nor am I even that convinced it was a campaign that badly fought. It was nuanced certainly, with the notable 7/10 comment for instance. But given clear polling evidence that the overplayed hype of the Cameron-led campaign failed to resonate with voters and ended up putting them off, eschewing that for something more nuanced isn’t necessarily playing a bad game.

    But the main reason it doesn’t ring true for me is that Corbyn has a track record on a number of issues of being at odds with his party’s policy, with a majority of his supporters, and for that matter (which he wouldn’t be as a leaver) with a majority of the country.

    And a track record of awkwardly and to his electoral disadvantage at times sticking to those personal positions even as he presents party policy. We saw this specifically during the election campaign with his views on Trident replacement and his republicanism, and at other times under his leadership over his views on Ireland, and over his record of opposition to all Blair’s wars and not just the currently unpopular ones.

    A proposition that a man who has a record of being stubbornly open to a fault about his unpopular views wasn’t this one time needs better evidence than that presented if it’s going to stick with those less instinctively inclined to believe negatives uncritically about him, which includes a much bigger chunk of the electorate now than it did before the election.

  24. COLIN
    “I was thinking of Marx’s apologists & supporters”

    Well, actually…..
    Most of the reference to Marxist supporters on here and elsewhere is, for example, Milleband’s dad or John McDonnell, releates to adherence to his social and economic theory, not to its application by the Russian Communist Party or, in other totalitarian states, to collectivisation of the land. It has been the great theoretical debate of much of the 19th and 20th Centuries, including those around the basis of the rise of capitalism in the Protestant ethic, and about the origins of the class system in the distribution of wealth and power, and thus also the basis of history of the unions and the cooperatie movement and of Keynesian economics as a means of using government management of resources to control the markets in the interests of social welfare and justice. The debate still plays out in development theory and economics, including that of agrarian systems and their reform,which you allude to,, so that to ignore or not recognise the importance of Marx is illustrative of the illiteracy which sometimes rears its hoary head on this thread as in the UK thread and US politics.

  25. Peterw

    your conspiracy theory smacks of a conspiracy theory.

  26. sorry – “as in the UK press…”

  27. OLLY1
    ” I suspect our cosying up to the Saudi’s is potentially the more damaging electorally ”
    Partly because it is in fact vicious and corrupt.

  28. @S Thomas

    Perhaps I overanalysed.

    It comes down to: politicians lose elections; my usual presumption is that they don’t do it on purpose; I have seen no evidence to rebut that presumption in this particular instance.

  29. The fox hunting commitment was utterly stupid for a party trying to shed tge “nasty party” tag.

    Not much for the JAMS apart from your inheritance disappearing to pay for parents care home costs, but toffs in red coats shouting “Hoorah” looked after!!

  30. @JONESINBANGOR
    Isn’t it ‘Tally Ho!’?

    Good post from @PETERW: I had rather lazily half-believed the JC outer story without giving it much thought. Your arguments are cogent, and I agree with you.

    @S.THOMAS whilst there is a kernel of truth in what you say about infrastructure, if that was the real driver behind UKIP, its success would have been in those of working age in areas of high immigration, rather than pensioners in areas where there is little immigration

  31. COLIN

    “Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez-after the British Left have fallen into silent embarrassment its always the same story-starvation , bloodshed & loss of liberty.”

    Exactly so, will they never learn?

  32. Guymonde
    The reason that UKIP tended to have less traction in areas of high immigration is simply because on the whole it didn’t appeal to immigrants.

  33. @PETE B

    “The reason that UKIP tended to have less traction in areas of high immigration is simply because on the whole it didn’t appeal to immigrants.”

    Very True.

    Also, it didn’t appeal to people who had met immigrants.

  34. @ Pete B and GuyMonde

    “it didn’t appeal to immigrants”

    “Also, it didn’t appeal to people who had met immigrants.”

    Difficult to say which of those is dominant, I’d like to think the second – remember, there aren’t so many recent immigrants (of the EU influx say) that will be able to vote in the GE, though they may be able to vote in local elections. I know several EU citizens in the UK who are in that position.

    This brings up another nagging question in my mind. It seems well established that at least some of the UKIP voting motivation was driven by immigration worries. But I wonder who these people think of as immigrants? Difficult question for polling companies to ask, but I’d love to know the answer. Is it just the relatively recent EU arrivals, or were these UKIP voters thinking of the more long term immigration from 70s onwards (eg commonwealth countries), most of whom are probably UK citizens by now, and certainly their children/grandchildren are likely to be so, so not really immigrants any more.

  35. @Colin

    “Has a British Politician ever said The House of Saud shows us a different & better way of doing things ?”

    No but they have authorised the sale of an awful lot of weaponry to the regime, not to mention the shady and unspecified role British forces are playing supporting out Saud Arabian partners in the war on Yemen.

    Some would suggest that active material support for a regime outranks statements of support from the backbenches in terms of complicity, I on the other hand wouldn’t presume to comment.

  36. @Trigguy
    Apocryphal I know, but I had discussions with a couple of staunch UKIP/outers in the run up to the referendum and they were both focused on reducing the flow of or even removing the ‘P*kis’ – whether that is typical I do not know; I suspect views on this topic are many and varied…

    @PeteB
    The meme that anti-immigrant sentiment is low in areas with high immigration because most people there are immigrants is commonplace, but not really supported by evidence. Even in outer London, immigrants (defined as those not born in the UK) make up only 20% of the population, yet in the constituencies of that description around where I live UKIP did comparatively poorly in 2015 and most voted to Remain.

    Compared to – say – North Thurrock, Croydon South has around 14% more immigrants, yet the UKIP vote was 15% lower (10% v 25%). Logically you would assume the proportion of the non-immigrant vote for UKIP would be constant, or even higher in areas of higher immigration, but in fact it falls from 27% to 12%.

    This pattern is repeated across much of the country.

    The most logical inference from this pattern is that exposure to immigrants in general makes voters more tolerant of immigration.

    It appears to be impossible to construct a model that makes the variation in UKIP votes meaningfully dependent on constituencies having more or fewer non-immigrant voters.

  37. @TRIGGUY

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/immigration-immigrants-british-people

    actually there have been numerous studies about immigration and idea of people being different and unknown to them. But this is true of many policies you can create a generic answer to an issue and then look at the details and see something entirely different.

  38. @ GUYMONDE
    “Isn’t it ‘Tally Ho!’?”

    Indeed. Or not given the election result!

  39. TOH

    @”Exactly so, will they never learn?

    Some of them-Johns McDonnell & Pilgrim for example-think there is still much to learn from old Karl.

  40. S Thomas,
    “Posters say that the referendum was set up to save the tory party from uKIP.That might be true but then w e need to look as to why UKIP became a threat.They became a threat because of unrestricted access and its effects on the CD economic group and the failure to apply resources to meet the increase in population.The blame for allowing such an increase in population without increasing the schools and medical services in areas where the population increase was going was new
    labour and Blair”

    interestingly then, Blair was increasing spending on schools and hospitals whereas Cameron has been shrinking it. If you are right, and assuming the conservatives wanted to do something about it, then they should not have spent 5 years cutting schools/education spending. But equally, EU migrants are not a big drain on schools or health services. There might be a better argument abour housing shortages, but really that one has been caused by the cessation of government housebuilding ever since Thatcher.

    However, I dont think the referendum result reflects any deep seated desire to leave the UK. Before UKIP got going polls showed great disinterest in whether we were members or not, and I think fundamentally this view carried through into the referendum. I assume people were disinterested because they felt it made no difference to them. The two camps at the referendum sharply divided on remainers believeing it would harm then personally if we left, and leavists believing it would make no difference or even benefit them. With the exception of a minority of leavists who thought they would be harmed economically by leaving, but it would be worth it for other reasons.

    Truth is, the political parties were all scared to stand up and say they disagreed with UKIP, for fear of scaring away leave supporters. This still applies, though equally the reverse. The conservatives have pretty much come off the fence (though they are still fighting to keep the soft and hard brexit groups), but labour is very much seeking to hold both remain and soft brexiteers.

  41. No, Tories did not ‘lose’ the election but they had a Pyrrhic victory* because, to the delight of most Labour supporters, they mis-read the mood of the electorate.

    One is often told that really England is a conservative country, and the Brexit result and subsequent polls confirmed the belief of many Tories that the electorate was yearning to return to an era where the sun never set on the Empire and everyone had honey for tea.

    Hence they felt they could focus their campaign on a hard Brexit, with a dash of foxhunting and grammar schools, and they would be home and dry.

    But, alas for them, we are living in the 21st-century.

    * A Pyrrhic victory is one that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat

  42. Colin,
    Many of the failings you see in the conservative campaign, I see as strategy aimed at making this into a referendum on hard Brexit. Yes, such policies might be unpopular but the point is to test if that is what voters want. I think the conservatives are savvy enough to have understood that while they had a poll lead, it was potentially very fragile. If I could spot the big number of former labour undecideds, so could they. This whole brexit business for conservatives is not about hoodwinking the public into getting it through, but following the will of voters. UKIP might want Brexit at any price, but conservaives want to remain in government.

    TM might not be the ideal leader, but she was plainly a compromise candidate based on her acceptibility to the party factions for carrying through Brexit, not on her charisma.

    Re the conservatives apparent lead on several polled issues, I checked the figures and brexit is still scoring twice as high as most other issues. Immigration scored high amongst conservatives but nowehere amongst labour. Some of these issues are ones where there would be cross party consensus on the aim, but not on the means of carrying it out. But others like Brexit are marmite. You just need one marmite issue, and thats all that counts.

  43. @John pilgrim

    I have to agree with you about the calumny that is heaped on Karl Marx. It is funny how people are unable to distinguish between him and ‘Marxists’ and often use the two terms as if they were interchangeable.

    I reckon it is laziness rather than the illiteracy. After all there is so much information about Marx on the Internet, which people posting here are clearly able to use.

  44. @[email protected]

    Many of the failings you see in the conservative campaign, I see as strategy aimed at making this into a referendum on hard Brexit.
    ——————————————–
    This is your opinion but I think you’re wrong.

    Most people view the Conservative campaign as a ‘c-ck’ rather than a well thought out conspiracy. The latter would involve tactical nous which I think was in short supply.

  45. Apparently Theresa May has been doing a lot of thinking on her walking trip in Italy and will be making an announcement in Downing Street on her return !

    Another general election, standing down as Tory leader/PM or cancelling Brexit ?

    Interesting.

  46. danny

    “However, I dont think the referendum result reflects any deep seated desire to leave the UK. ”

    Good point………… I’m definitely happy here.

  47. VALERIE

    @”This is your opinion but I think you’re wrong.
    Most people view the Conservative campaign as a ‘c-ck’ rather than a well thought out conspiracy. The latter would involve tactical nous which I think was in short supply.”

    Couldn’t agree more with you.

    ( I think the phrase you intended is “c*ck-up” ? )

  48. @COLIN @VALERIE

    I think they had convinced themselves they couldn’t fail to win big so were extremely self-indulgent. To be fair, not many people disagreed with them, and even up to polling day the vast majority of us geeks who frequent this dodgy watering hole thought they would win comfortably, having merely downgraded the landslide as the campaign unfolded (me included, though I didn’t post any predictions).

  49. To anyone looking at modelling polls, especially in view of the success of Yougov’s MRP model.

    That model utilised Monte Carlo Simulations, and part of what I’ve been researching post-election, I came across this:

    http://richardcharnin.com/MonteCarloPollingSimulation.htm

    It outlines the use Monte Carlo Simulations during a US election, and was written in 2009.

    Worth a read in my view.

  50. Trigguy
    “Difficult question for polling companies to ask, but I’d love to know the answer. Is it just the relatively recent EU arrivals, or were these UKIP voters thinking of the more long term immigration from 70s onwards (eg commonwealth countries), most of whom are probably UK citizens by now, and certainly their children/grandchildren are likely to be so, so not really immigrants any more.”

    Probably a bit of both. It’s hard not to think of people as immigrants when many of them have English as a second language (if at all) and adhere to customs foreign to this country, such as wearing the burka, FGM etc and some of them go to fight for Isis. There is also the problem of illegal immigration which has been poorly controlled for years.

    As no major political party showed any interest in these problems, some voters took the opportunity to vote UKIP and Leave in the hope that the message might get through.

1 2 3 4 5 18