YouGov’s weekly poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 43%(+1), LAB 38%(nc), LDEM 9%(+2). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Wednesday and changes are from last week. While the changes themselves are insignificant, margin-of-error stuff, it’s worth noting that this is the fourth YouGov poll in a row with a Conservative lead of 4 or 5 points, so it looks as if, beneath the noise, the Tories may have genuinely opened up a small lead over Labour.

The same movement is apparent in the best Prime Minister rating. Following the general election Jeremy Corbyn had cut Theresa May’s lead on the measure down to single figures, but it has gradually inched back up again, and in the last couple of months Theresa May seems to have had a steady double-digit lead.

Full tabs for the latest figures are here.


558 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 43%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%”

1 10 11 12
  1. Alan,

    “I certainly see Germany as the lower risk option, I pretty much know what that will involve, yes there is the “cost” of refreshing (ok, more like relearning) my German but I’ll treat that as a marketable skill and if it leads to opportunities for higher wages in the future, then it will be as valuable a skill as the others sitting in my toolbox.”

    To be honest, I was thinking more about Corporations making billion Euro investment decisions than you standing outside the Bundestag handing out your CV!

    Peter.

  2. Alec

    “You are a bit of a numpty at times. Quite how holding a point of view can ever be undemocratic is beyond any logical explanation – it’s the central point of democracy!”

    I think you are the numpty, I was very specific to say some Remainers, not all by any means. There are some Remainers who post here, who I respect and I try hard not to offend them.

    Of course a point of view can be undemocratic, the referendum is a classic example. We voted to leave in a clear democratic vote of the people. Those trying to stop are us leaving are therefore by definition undemocratic.

  3. Peter Cairns

    Yes, I did mean it in terms of where corporations (or research funding) go, I follow. I’d be awfully flattered (but pleased) if it worked the other way around!

    What’s “Giz a job” auf Deutsch?

  4. garj,
    “it’s the people who arrived under the Blair government who make the least economic contribution”

    you are in danger of flling into a trap here. The amount someone is paid is not their value to the Uk economy. Their value is whatever the value is of the product they make for us.

    So, for silly example, man cuts diamonds and gets paid £50 per week. Value of diamonds he works on increase 50% and he gets through £10,000 worth per week.

    On your reckoning of how much he is paid, we should send him home because he is clearly not benefitting the Uk. so lets send him back to India to ply his trade.

  5. garj,
    ” The point is that under freedom of movement you have none of that nuance and have to let in anybody who can find work, regardless of whether their presence represents a significant economic contribution.”

    However, this is not how it has worked. The Uk has not been swamped with immigrants. Rather, they have met demand which has not been satisfied by UK workers.

    I have posted this twice, but when the Uk started to crack down on workers from outside the EU in recent years, then more started coming from the EU. The added demand which could no longer be met from outside the Eu, pulled in more from other EU countries. This came from a government analysis someone posted of immigration figures.

    It would seem that UK employers have to be somewhat pro-active, advertising abroad and encouraging people to come here. They do not come unless assured of a job first.

    Ironically, leave branded the rise in immigrants from the Eu as evidence of a flood about to pour over the Uk, when it was nothing of the sort, and was really evidence there is no great tide trying to come here, but us sucking them in.

    Logically then, if the Uk wants to limit immigration even within the EU, all it has to do is manipulate the employment market in the Uk. Increase minimum wage, for example, to simply price out badly paid jobs from the economy. Introduce different minimum wages in different sectors (or localities), now there is an old idea. But successive governments have preferred to keep people coming and wages low.

  6. garj,
    ” We should be seeking to increase the average skill level and wage of workers in the UK”

    I strongly suspect that these workers have plenty of skills, but they are not valued highly in employment terms. This is of course because there is a plentiful supply of such people, not least as immigrants.

    As i posted above and i see others have too, their contribution to the economy is not well measured by their wage, which has been artificially depressed as compared to 9say) company directors.

    The UK has benefitted from a huge pool of immigrant workers being paid less than the real value of what they do for the UK. Sure, we can redress this, but it must mean the rest of us getting less wages so this group can get get a fairer share.

  7. Alan,
    “..unless it goes REALLY bad”

    Chances of that seem to be rising with every passing day.

  8. Trevor Warne posted @ May 14th, 2018 at 3:03 pm (Page 9 of the comments)
    “An old but very good piece on why LAB have the bigger Brexit problem than CON but got away with the ambiguity in the 2017 GE”
    Trevor referred to a piece I wrote in May last year, looking at estimates of the EU Referendum vote shares by constituency (produced by Chris Hanretty) with the 2015 election results.
    I have now compared EU Referendum vote shares with the 2017 GE results. The data gives some interesting insights.
    https://manicbeancounter.com/2018/05/17/did-brexit-influence-the-general-election-2017-result/

1 10 11 12