Tonight’s YouGov poll has topline figures of CON 38%(-1), LAB 31%(-1), LDEM 19%(+1). The lead remains at seven points and there is clearly no significant change from yesterday. The increased Tory lead post budget does seem to be genuine, though as I said yesterday, we can’t tell if it will last.

While they are up one there is no vast Lib Dem boost from the Chancellors’ debate, though I as I said yesterday, it wouldn’t necessarily show up until tomorrow. Personally I doubt there will be – the media coverage this morning wasn’t particularly substantial and already seems to have moved on to Tony Blair’s speech and elderly care. The main leader debates are far more likely to impact the campaign.

483 Responses to “Daily YouGov poll – 38/31/19”

1 8 9 10
  1. Richard O
    Groan. It’s fish and chip paper already Richard. We are onto neighbourhood ‘be nice to each other’ policies now . None of this will interest swing voters an iota as is revealed by previous polls.

  2. @ Sven ….and all

    Sorry, others 17 on Harris

  3. For Angus Reid to change its results in hour is downright unprofessional.

    For harris to conduct fieldwork over a week is as bad.

    Harris published a poll on the 24th March, was any of the 23rd’s feildwork in that?

    Are these two April fools jokes ?

    Stick with ICM/YouGov/Ipsos/Populus…

    Even our Indian friends can do better than that

  4. 38/32/19 on YouGov tonight

  5. Have you seen the “misuse” though?

    He stated the 2007 figure as 237,000, and referred to the 2009 as provisional.

    4000 out, and the 2009 figures are unfinalised.

    Technicalities. Ridiculous to try to paint this as a sleaze story.

  6. Roland

    Spot on. Polls are converging and the Tories are now in outright win territory – or close to it. However, beware YouGov – wouldn’t surprise me if they went back to 4% – 5% tonight and we might have to think again!

  7. Looking at the details on the YouGov site, it’s interesting that the Conservatives are also now back ahead 36/30 on who is best to run the economy

  8. So , 3 polls out, and 2 have the Tory lead down. The Harris poll is at least in part rather old. Has Labour begun a very slight strengthening again?
    Does anyone know what change in methodology Angus Reid have brought in?
    Ken – you were wrong about the YouGov poll. :)

  9. Harris have others on 17%
    AR others = 16%
    YG others = 11%

    They need to sort that out….


    YG hav epretty much always had the tories leading on the economy… the darling in front story was a dodgy Comres poll last week- it had millionaires voting for tax rises….

  10. Eoin, Al J
    We seem to be living in parallel space time to some of the posts on here (or back to the future / groundhog day) comments.

    New thread required sharpish I hope!

  11. @Howard,

    yes I think so,

    AR results are now not worth the paper they were written on. I used to credit them for consistency…..

    Harris? … Harris?

    Has there ever been a precedent for results to be changed like this?

  12. Barnaby

    Overall the range is now a lead of 7% to 10% which is considerably wider than it was a couple of weeks back. I am not sure you can say that Yougov have the lead “down” ie 1 point from yesterday! In the last few days yougov has widened and stabilised. The fact that there have been recent polls at 9% and 10% will worry Labour and they need to peg that back quickly.

  13. So AR finally come into line and YouGov have stepped up a bit too. Convergence.
    the Tory vote seems to be up though, steadier around 38 and Labour need to push against that 34 again.
    A very slight erosion of the budget bounce (or baby bounce?) , will it drift back towards Labour or strengthen the Tories in days to come?


    It keeps on getting worse for Labour!

  15. Does this mean that all previous AR polls are now discredited?

  16. @Sue,

    I would try to make head nor tail of Angus,

    they changed their mind after an hour……

    The YouGov is perhaps a solid piece of news that the labour post budget rot has stopped….

    Labour Strategists will feel very confident that they can add 2% throughout the campaign. If I was a betting man, which I am, I’d say due to incumbency alone the lead will close in the final weeks..

    has there ever even been a party ejected from office where the lead enjoyed by th eopposition did not close in the final weeks?


    Unfortunatley you have fallen head long into the Labour/Conservative partisan trap where you dismiss each and every poll you simply don’t like the look of.

    I support the SNP. I am impartial in the Con vs Lab. Labour are loosing ground in the polls and loosing credibility on several key issues.

    I will state in all honesty, given current trends (more Labour failings than Tory triumphs), the Conservatives will will a majority of around 20-30. I also believe, given the polling trends, Labour will make life hard for the SNP in Scotland in the Hollyrood elections, especially with a Conservative govt in Westminster. Dont know how compatable a very potential Con/Lab UK/Scottish set up would work, probably completely disfunctional.

  18. Strange summary of the news Andrew Noorman – I’m amazed it was let through. I could post 10 articles that are terrible for the Tories, but I didn’t think this was the place?

  19. @Colin -“Don’t worry Alec.
    If they get in , it will happen-it’s what everything is about.-it’s 42.
    It will be transformational.”
    Oh dear Colin – for a moment there I thought you were joking, but then i realised…
    There are some interesting ideas, and I do try not to be overly cynical about any of our politicians, but if you refer to some of the equally good policies floated by New labour in 97 that should give you an idea what to expect. Wait until some lesbian/Muslim/radical left community group starts doing something with public money the Daily Mail doesn’t like and suddenly big societies aren’t quite so appealing. bear in mind sweden, where the school reforms have cost more and dropped standards. It’s no panacea for good government, even if there is the kernel of an idea for doing things better.

  20. @Steve,

    I respect your views but I can honestly say that I have not…

    Angus have changed their result over th espace of an hour….
    it went from 12% to 9%….. that is some strange behaviour

    HArris conducted their fieldwork pre bdget, post budget and then managed to tak ein george osborne’s NI tax cut… that is some crazy behaviour….

    wouldnt peoples opinion have changed over this time?

    I have serious procedurla concners for both polls. It has nothing whatsever to do with the result….

  21. Eion – I wouldn’t worry too much about the change in Angus Reid’s poll tonight. It’s because Mike Smithson was out at his drinks in London – he hurried out the figures, but then almost as soon as he had Andy Morris mailed to say they weren’t ready yet. Mike would have been in transit though, so didn’t realise until later.

    Sorting out a new weighting system is complicated, and things go wrong – presumably in the hurry to get things out very quickly, it got out before a mistake was noticed. It happens to the best of us.

  22. @AW,

    Ahhhh….. the trials and tribulations of a blackberry.


  23. @Yakobs – “Overall the range is now a lead of 7% to 10% which is considerably wider than it was a couple of weeks back.”

    Not sure I agree.
    12 days ago, Yougov had the tory lead at 7% – tonight it’s 6%.
    2 weeks ago, AR had the tory lead at 13% – tonight it’s 9%.
    And 2 weeks ago, Harris had the tory lead at 8% – tonight it’s 10%.

    So overall, I wouldn’t say there’s much change.
    If you remove the Yougov polls, I would say most other polls have had the tory lead at around 8% for quite a while.

    Or maybe I’m just clutching at straws !

  24. Surely the imporant thing about AR is that the correction was made fairly swiftly. It may look unprofessional to release the wrong figures, but is extremely professional to correct the error within the hour.
    What AR has let slip though is that their unweighted data shows a larger tory lead. I believe the same is true for YouGov (we’ll have to wait for the tables).
    In summary, successful polling for the GE may well be determined on the methodology used to calculate the labour vote.

  25. Barnaby,

    Your apology graciously accepted. May I return the compliment and say that I find your contributions informative and balanced – both on these poll threads and on the constituency section.

    (Incidentally, I think I still owe Smokey Jones an apology on Colne Valley)

    Life in the city has been quite hectic of late, hence I have not posted as much as when we were all twiddling our thumbs while sitting on our lending hands waiting for liquidity to return.

    I shall probably only post sporadically over the next five weeks as I have an MP to return and two new Councillors to get elected on 6th May (one of whom is my good lady wife so she can keep an eye on me in the chamber).

  26. @ ALEC

    ” It’s no panacea for good government”

    It’s a panacea for bad government -the BG sort Alec.

  27. @colin – I don’t wish to be negative and hope the ideas work. It’s just that I spend years working in the third sector in a similar role to a community organiser. In the end our organisation had to drop the use of volunteers in favour of a return to paid staff as the volunteers were too unreliable, lacking in consistancy and costly to train and manage. There are great roles for volunteers and community groups, but its a patchy existance prone to falling over at times and although it is worth promoting I would be very wary of basing public services on such systems – these need a robustness that the third sector often struggles with.

  28. @ ALEC

    ” I would be very wary of basing public services on such systems”

    I think that is probably going further than they mean.

    It will be an evolution I expect.

    It’s more than just a change in provider-it’s bottom-up vs top-down. It’s linked with sink estates, feral children, crime, drugs , schools, welfare etc etc.

  29. Colin – who are the expected volunteers? The people from those areas or people who have money and time on their hands to contribute?

    Aren’t we heading for the put-upon to help in the same disproportionate way they tend to donate to charities (ie much more than the very well-off)?

    I think I remember Cameron saying civil servants will be expected to do voluntary work and be judged by their commitments in their appraisals. how many steps away are we from forcing voluntary work in return for benefeits, say.

    Getting More for Less is fine, but who is expected to do the extrea work? The well-off? Or the responsible skint?

  30. John,

    The “responsible” will always do their bit (and then some). What this policy is about is making the less responsible do at least a part of their bit, in the hope that we can change the underlying culture of the irresponsible who – when they eevn tink about the consequences of their recklessness – assume that the responsible will pick up the pieces.

    This is about attitudes – not money. There are responsible paupers and irresponsible millionaires – and vice versa.

    Twas ever thus, but if we can somehow swing the pendulum back towards responsibility being seen as a personal thing instead of the role of the state, we have a chance of changing our country for the better.

    Note that teh Brown response is to launch distraction activities – including puerile attacks on the people on whom this country will rely to drag us back into economic growth. But he dare not even acknowledge the existence of Cameron’s proposals, still less try to pick holes in them.

  31. Alec,

    I think that you will find the bigegst turn-off for volunteers is the gruesome burden of nanny-state regulation which prevents people from behaving in a rationale and realistic fashion towards “risk”.

    Secondly, this government’s fascination with regulating and recording things that are none of its business, with the widespread presumption of guilty unless proven otherwise, makes many people ask – why bother ?

    It comes back to the point in my post to John above. The government needs to get out of the way and let the people who know and want to help get on with teh job.

  32. Paul – who do you see as irresponsible and what do you consider to be their recklessness? Presumably they whoever they are are the ones you expect to “be made to” fix our broken society.

    Are you talking about people who gambled the taxpayers’ money away on bad financial instruments, or about people who failed at school, got themselves into trouble and are sponging off the state?

    If the former, fat chance of there being much voluntary desire!

    If the latter, I can’t imagine them feeling motivated in the numbers that would be necessary.

  33. @Paul HJ – the real problem in relation to risk is less government regulation rather than private insurance companies, spurious legal actions and over interpretation of regulations at local level. ‘Nanny statism’ is a cheap jibe that while it does have some merit oversimplifies a complex move towards risk a pointlessly risk averse society, but I do appreciate your point.

    To both you and Colin – I don’t think we disagree much on this issue, except that I don’t believe there is a magic bullit to cure these problems. One point to note however, is that the Tories (including under Cameron) have a long track record of attacking community groups (especially grant aided ones) that disagree with their world view. Communitarianism is fine, but when a Tory government sees a Muslim lesbian group wanting to run a school I can see some problems arising.

1 8 9 10