This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 43%, LDEM 9%. It looks like the post-election narrowing of the polls may be fading, though conversely the government and David Cameron’s approval ratings are still comparatively good in this poll – government approval is at minus 19, David Cameron’s approval rating has edged back into positive territor on plus 2. We’ll have to wait and see how things settle.
In the rest of the poll YouGov re-asked some Libya quesstions, but with little change from the last few months. People were marginally in favour of the intervention in Libya (by 42% to 36%), but opposed further intervention to remove Gaddafi by 56% to 24%. Asked how long they though the West should continue to give military support to the rebels, 20% said it should stop immediately, 30% that it should continue for as long as necessary (6% said up to a month, 12% 3 months, 8% six months, 4% a year).
More generally YouGov asked if people though Britain should or should notbe prepared to take military action against leaders who posed a threat to their own people, but no direct threat to Britain – broadly whether people supported liberal interventionism or not. 32% thought Britain should intervene in such cases, 44% that she shouldn’t.
YouGov also re-asked a question from 2005 on whether people wanted Britain to have a stronger relationship with Europe or the USA. Back then in the Bush era 48% said both equally, 22% Europe, 15% USA. This year the positions of Europe and the USA have reversed – 13% now say Europe, 21% the USA, both equally 46%.
There were also a series of questions on injunctions. Broadly speaking people continue to think that the current use of injunctions has gone too far, with 63% thinking John Hemming was right to break the injunction on Ryan Giggs. In principle 53% of people think the freedom of the press to report things they think are of interest to the public is more important than protecting the privacy of people in the people eye, 21% think the opposite.
YouGov also asked whether it would be legitimate or not for the media to report if various people were having an affair. People were most likely to say it was legitimate to report a politician was having an affair – 71% said it would be legitimate to report a senior politician having an affair, 65% a backbencher, and 62% a local councillor. This last one was, perhaps surprisingly, higher than people who were much more prominent in the public eye, but outside politics, such as “a senior executive of a major corporation” (58%), “a top professional footballer” (59%), “a well known actor” (56%).
Also very high up was “a local clergyman” – 64% of people think it would be legitimate for the press to report them having an affair. Lowest of all, of course, was “a normal member of the public”… but even there 30% of people thought it would be legitimate for newspapers to report them having an affair.
(I have limited internet access all this week, so won’t be checking the site very often)