YouGov’s regular voting intention poll this week has topline figures of CON 40%(-3), LAB 41%(+2), LDEM 8%(nc). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday and changes are since last week. Full tabs are here. The movement towards Labour here is likely to be just a reversion to the mean after an unusual outlier last week. As ever, one shouldn’t put too much weight on unusual movement in voting intention polls when there is no obvious reason to expect a change, more often than not they’ll turn out to just to random sample variation.

And, for the benefit of the weird 500 post mumsnet thread about why Labour are losing women, based on a crossbreak in last week’s poll than showed Labour dropping six points among women, Labour are back up by five points among women this week. Demographic crossbreaks in polls have smaller samples, hence are more volatile and can bounce about a lot from poll to poll, often producing strange things. In something as subtle as voting intention where a difference of a few points can change the picture completely the crossbreaks in individual polls are best just ignored. If you really want to look at the demographic breakdown of voting intention, look for trends across a large number of polls over a period of time and look for consistent change – don’t jump on a figure in a single poll that fits a convenient narrative.


1,008 Responses to “Latest YouGov poll is back to normality – CON 40%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%”

1 19 20 21
  1. Turk,
    “Corbyn is hardly anti establishment just your normal hard core socialist much beloved of yesteryear.
    To be fair for someone who has sucked up to the UKs enemies over the years from the IRA to verious middle eastern groups ,the fact he spoke to our Cold War enemies years ago comes as no surprise but it hardly makes him a spy just somebody that shouldn’t be trusted in a moment of national crises should such a incident occur.”

    That was a long post to quote, but I thought I needed to because it seems to me you just contradicted yourself. Establishment figures do not ‘suck up to the UKs enemies’, ‘spoke to our cold war enemies’. Whether this might have been right or wrong or indeed ever happened, it is not establishment behaviour.

    But politically I would lump together Blair’s labour and Cameron’s tories as ‘the establishment’, with little to choose between them. Blairite MPs have kicked and screamed against their member’s choice of leader, Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he is not of the political establishment.

    Arguably he does represent what was once the labour establishment view, and the current popularity of such policy is what made him labour leader. Time was, his position was rather closer even to tory establishment policy, building council houses, free universities, nationalisation and expanding the NHS were once tory policy too.

    What he potentially represents is a huge shift in national policy consensus, where the tory party would shift leftwards to coalesce a new establishment view around him. Individual MPs presumably would change their views or resign and be replaced by a new establishment with a different outlook.

  2. OLDNAT

    When reporting on health inequalities in Scotland, Audit Scotland does not consider the impact of political decisions in Westminster on those inequalities in Scotland.

  3. “You’ll understand that I don’t find your ignorance convincing.”

    Nor I yours, shootist.

  4. @OLDNAT

    Politics fails because of the electoral cycle. In one of my last conversation on the FT comments. I a journalist that was hyper critical of Ed Miliband in 2015 because of his policies pointedly said that his policies were now the way to go now that the Tories were in power. I believe the problem with the SNP 2017 election platform is that they decided to do the things they are doing now after they they got a hurt by losses. I did not follow the scottish part of the GE2017 closely but it seemed that the SNP was trying to be all things to all men when really they needed to to pushing the agenda that sturgeon is now pushing.

    I kind of think that Ed Miliband was ahead of his time and the FT journalist actually wrote that. Indeed Ed himself felt he was not radical enough which I also agree with.

    Our politics is dominated by winning the cycle as TREVOR WARNEs argument on Corbyn seems to suggest that it is not what their policies are but what negativity you can attach to the politician. Sometimes politicians do not help themselves. For me independence for scotland will happen if they are seen to be attempting to resolve the issues that ail the country. that would be a couple of election cycles away. I believe leavers failure is that they believe that leaving will make the changes, rather like indepence will make the changes. My believe is that changes will make independence happen not the other way around.

  5. @OLDNAT

    Politics fails because of the electoral cycle. In one of my last conversation on the FT comments. I a journalist that was hyper critical of Ed Miliband in 2015 because of his policies pointedly said that his policies were now the way to go now that the Tories were in power. I believe the problem with the SNP 2017 election platform is that they decided to do the things they are doing now after they they got a hurt by losses. I did not follow the scottish part of the GE2017 closely but it seemed that the SNP was trying to be all things to all men when really they needed to to pushing the agenda that sturgeon is now pushing.

    I kind of think that Ed Miliband was ahead of his time and the FT journalist actually wrote that. Indeed Ed himself felt he was not radical enough which I also agree with.

    Our politics is dominated by winning the cycle as TREVOR WARNEs argument on Corbyn seems to suggest that it is not what their policies are but what negativity you can attach to the politician. Sometimes politicians do not help themselves. For me independence for scotland will happen if they are seen to be attempting to resolve the issues that ail the country. that would be a couple of election cycles away. I believe leavers failure is that they believe that leaving will make the changes, rather like indepence will make the changes. My believe is that changes will make independence happen not the other way around.

  6. Nick

    I am not the person you think I am and your argument is emotional and personal, that’s not an effective way to make good laws. You call me shootist as a perjorative but the gun owners of either America or Europe no more wish to see dead children than you do. To imply otherwise is both insulting and counter productive. If this is something you really believe strongly in then I suggest you visit your local gun club and talk to the members. You will see they are not the demons of your imagination but predominantly decent law abiding people.

  7. alberto

    Maybe I’m being a bit rude. Sorry.

    Point is, I understand the argument that citizens need guns to protect themselves from their own governments – and also the theory than gun laws wouldn’t apply to big cheese bodyguards.

    But here in the UK we don’t arm ourselves against the cops, nor do private arms tool up to defend Newspaper owners (although they might have to do so if the smears continue) – it’s all a bit of a paranoid dystopia fantasy. Bit like needing a lot of weapons in case of a zombie apocalypse.

    If guns were banned then they would be banned for some tycoon’s bodyguard too. Simples.

  8. Hi Nick,

    No hard feelings, I’m sure you’re a decent guy. I’m not saying we need no controls or that I think nonsense like arming school teachers is needed. I’m just saying it’s a complex issue with complex solutions. You may be amused to know I have been similarly abused as an anti by gun owners still bitter at old legislation for suggesting there might be some ground for compromise.

    So, I still think your argument about a blanket ban being a simple solution is niaive. UK firearms law was introduced in the aftermath of the Russian revolution for control not crime prevention and has never been properly assessed for purpose or effectiveness. You’re right that private security are not allowed firearms in the mainland UK but establishment figures are provided state armed protection much more readily than ordinary citizens, while corporate capture of government and establishment cover up are not only the stuff of dystopian fantasy. Para-militarisation of the police continues apace on both sides of the pond as we speak. In the US private security is obviously commonplace. Further, if you look at when rights were won for the common people, it is no coincidence they were usually after wars or under threat of civil unrest. The US founding fathers knew that military oppression was a threat to their new republic and legislated to prevent it. I hasten to add I’m not a trot advocating taking to the streets but I do feel the state should be denied a monopoly on firearms. See the Orwell quote in the article.

    Turning to crime, less than 1% of UK firearms crime involves the legally held rifles that look so scary whilst about 19%, from memory, involves illegal hand guns. None of the UK mass murderers required the type of guns that were later banned to commit their atrocities and in most, if not all, cases the police failed to act on the warnings provided before the event. Recording of firearms crime has been subject to methodology changes over the years and it is far from clear that successive bans have reduced gun crime at all let alone in a significant or cost effective manner. Firearms deaths are also usually suicides, a fact that is often misrepresented. In the US most gun related homicides occur in urban areas with the strictest gun laws and there is no simple correlation between gun numbers and gun crime. Other nations have similar numbers and types of guns without the associated mass shootings or gun crime. Etc etc.

    So, a very complex situation which will need carefully thought through legislation based on research not hysteria. I’ll leave it now as things have moved on and this isn’t really the place.

    All the best.

1 19 20 21