The full tables for the YouGov/Sunday Times poll are now up on their website here, covering the economy and taxation, planning and Libya.

The public are very evenly divided on the government’s economic strategy and the balance between prioritising the deficit or growth. 38% think the government should stick to its present strategy of cutting the deficit, even if this means growth remains slow, 36% think the government should change strategy to concentrate on growth, even if this means the deficit is cut more slowly or gets worse. Unsurprisingly the answers fall largely along party lines.

On the 50p tax rate, only 27% of people would like to see it abolished, with 60% supporting its retention. Only 18% of people believe that it is damaging the economy, with 39% thinking it makes no difference and 25% thinking it helps the economy. People are far more uncertain about whether it actually brings in any more money – only 38% of people think it brings in more cash, 35% of people think it does not. However, this doesn’t mean they necessarily oppose it – when we asked how people would feel if the 50p tax rate did not bring in any extra money, 42% of them would still keep it anyway, agreeing that it is morally right for the rich to pay more regardless. 45% of people would abolish it if it didn’t bring in more money. If we assume that the 45% includes the 27% who don’t support it anyway, it suggests public support for higher taxes for the rich is driven more by a belief that it is right that the rich pay more regardless, than it is because people think it is financially necessary.

The public remain strongly in favour of banking regulation. In our question on timing, 51% thought it should be done as soon as possible, compared to 26% who thought it should wait until the economy was stronger (8% said no extra regulation was necessary).

Turning to planning, support for the government’s proposals have dropped slightly since we last asked a fortnight ago. Then the broad thrust of their policy (simplifying the rules, giving more power to councils and presuming in favour of development) was supported by 54% to 21%, that has shifted to 49% to 28% – perhaps a reflection of increased media cover over the last couple of weeks. Asked about their understanding of the proposals, 38% say they think it would lead to more building in the countryside, 8% less and 31% no difference.

YouGov then asked people whether they thought there should be presumptions for or against development in different types of land. For Green Belt land, 80% thought that the presumption should be against development (including 39% would said planning permission should almost never be given in greenbelt land). For Brownfield sites, there was strong support for a presumption in favour of development – 41% thought planning permission should almost always be given there, 44% that it should normally be given there unless there was a good reason to stop it.For Greenfield sites opinion was slightly less one sided – 21% of people thought planning permission should almost never be given for greenfield sites, 45% thought there should be a presumption against development. 21% thought there should be a presumption in favour, and 5% thought permission should almost always be given.

The Conservatives continue to be seen as the party that best reflects the interests of the countryside, by 29% to Labour’s 12%. However, 33% of people do not think any party reflects the interests of people in the countryside, and 19% of people think that the Conservatives represent the views of the countryside less well than in the past.

Finally on housing, people overwhelmingly support the criminalisation of squatting (by 80% to 14%), and just as overwhelmingly think the government should be doing more to bring empty houses into use (by 80% to 13%).

Looking last of all at Libya and the secret services, 46% of people thought that it was sometimes justified for the secret services to use information obtained through torture, compared to 34% who thought it was never justified. On relations with Libya, people remain divided on whether it was right at the time for Britain to re-establish diplomatic relations with Libya under Gadaffi – 36% think it was right, 39% think it was wrong. However, they are significantly more accepting of the government exchanging information with the Gadaffi regime on Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda: 49% think this was right, 24% think it was wrong.

The SNP are also reporting a there is an Angus Reid poll in the Sunday Express showing Holyrood constituency support at CON 13%, LAB 29%, LDEM 5%, SNP 49% (a similar SNP post election boost to that shown by MORI) – there is nothing yet on the AngusReid site or the Express’s website, which only mentions a question on what the Scottish national anthem should be!


28 Responses to “This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll”

  1. First post. Get in!

    Damn … now need to think of something to say. Err … umm …

  2. Chris Neville-Smith

    First post. Get in!

    Damn … now need to think of something to say. Err … umm …
    ______________________

    How about..”Great poll for the SNP?” ;)

  3. Whatever the rights and wrongs, unlikely that the information coming out of Tripoli will be so very bad for Labour in terms of polling, as some posters were confidently predicting last week.

    On squatting it will be interesting to see if the Conservatives are any more successful in their attempt to outlaw the practice than they were in the 1970s and 1990s. Is there a good summary out there of the legal reasons why they failed?

    For some background:

    h
    ttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/home-truths-squatting-is-the-perfect-example-of-the-big-society-2288870.html

  4. Anthony

    Have YG changed the mix of people that are polled ? e.g increased the number included for the south of England.

    Without spending hours looking through the data from the various polls, there appears to be a shift in voting within various groups. Is this due to a change in what data is sampled ?

  5. @R Huckle

    Looking at the 25-39s (Con 33%, Lab 49%), and the 40-59 age group (Con 36%, Lab 41%) there does seem to be a shift since the last time I studied these breakdowns.

    Also 16% of the LD 2010 vote going to the Tories is a high figure.

  6. Scottish YG-30 poll:

    Lab 41.7
    SNP 28.2
    Con 19.4
    Lib 6.3
    Other 4.4

    Scotland Votes:

    Lab 43 (+2)
    SNP 8 (+2)
    Lib 5 (-6)
    Con 3 (+2)

    Using a SD of 1, we get:

    Lab 41.8
    SNP 28.1
    Con 19.1
    Lib 6.2
    Other 4.8

    with no change in Scotland Votes seating predictions. Quite close, which shows while there are swings:

    Con 14-27
    Lab 34-49
    SNP 23-36
    Lib 1-10

    …the outliers don’t necessarily affect the results by very much. Or perhaps the outliers at either end cancel each other nicely. :)

  7. Also interesting:

    Overall popularity:

    Cameron -10
    Miliband -26
    Clegg -45

    Scottish popularity:

    Cameron -26
    Miliband -39
    Clegg -53

    Very interesting to see a Conservative leader more popular than a Labour leader in Scotland. An SNP side effect, or do people just rate Cameron more than his party?

  8. I see there are reports in the press today that the Coalition is likely to want to speed up further the increase in the retirement age – the suggestion being that the State Pension Age will rise to 67 in 2027. How damaging might this be for the Coalition in electoral terms?Moreover, is Labour likely to spot an open goal here and commit itself , if elected in 2015 , to abandoning the Coalition’s existing plans by reverting to its own timetable – ie not raising retirement age to 66 until 2026?Could be quite a vote winner!

  9. A large majority in gavour of more bank regulation, albeit 1 in 4 prefer to postpose until when the economy is stronger.

    There really is no justification for the gov delaying reform.
    Some stats and info:

    “…last year the taxpayer subsidised the big five banks (Barclays, Lloyds, RBS, HSBC and Nationwide) to the tune of £46bn through government guarantees that allow them to access finance at significantly lower rates than would otherwise be possible. Yet during the same period, the banks made just £25bn in profit.”

    “With markets knowing the government will not let the banks go bust, banks are able to borrow money much more cheaply than if they were not ultimately underwritten by the public. In 2009, Andrew Haldane, a chief executive at the Bank of England, put the value of this subsidy at £100bn, which he pointed out “is roughly what we spend on our National Health Service”. The £46bn subsidy of last year covers more than a half of the government’s £81bn cuts programme.”

    It will be interesting to see whether any dilution of delay of the implementation of bank regualtion will affact DC’s standing and also VI. There is also the possibility of DC’s family banking connections proving awkward.

    Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/11/zombie-banks-taxpayer-subsidy

  10. gavour = favour ((thick ginfers)),

  11. @Graham – re the pension changes. I’m furious, as this would affect me. There is an increasing volume of sound medical evidence that increases in life expectancy will slow, with some research suggesting the with the effect of diet and alcohol and the gradual shrinking of the relative benefit from reduced smoking rates, that life expectantcy over the next ten years will actually fall. Look around you and count how many fat children you see. Many of these people won’t make it to 75, and obesity has exploded in recent years – it’s just that this hasn’t yet fed through into life expectancy figures, as we are still feeling the positive benefits of things like antibiotics, better nutrition and medical care for those generations born before the war.

    In addition, the penalising of the basic state pension disproportionately affects the disadvantaged, with clear evidence that those living in the most deprived post code areas have not seen any significant increase in life expectancy. In effect, this policy is redistributing wealth away from the least advantaged.

    Where I would feel more comfortable with this policy would be if it was combined with a much more serious attempt to deal with the two main pension inequities – namely the city fees on private pensions and the massive state spending going to pension contribution tax relief.

    On tax relief, the state still contributes vast amounts of tax relief, with the upper limits to this being annual pension contributions of £50,000 and a lifetime allowance of £1.5m.

    Earlier this year the average lifetime pension pot at 56 was around £30,000 (although within this women only had £9,000) so why are we still spending huge sums of money to people who can dump a lifetime’s average pension contribution in a single year? The lifetime allowance also means that people who have already got a £90,000 annual pension are still being subsidised by the taxpayer.

    On city fees, private pensions in the UK are around 30% less productive than elsewhere in Europe due to high fees within the city – something governments have refused to tackle, aside from Brown’s limits placed on stakeholder pension fees.

    If we saw a fair allocation of resources used for pension tax relief and regulation on the city to prevent billions in pension payments being creamed off to pay for unnecessary bonuses, than I might be happier to do my bit and work a year longer. We won’t, so I’m not.

  12. Chris Neville-Smith
    First post. Get in!

    “Err … umm …”

    Nice to see you quoting my old friend Donald Dewar’s most frequently used catch phrase apart from Um, ..um um umm”

  13. Anthony

    “33% of people do not think any party reflects the interests of people in the countryside, and 19% of people think that the Conservatives represent the views of the countryside less well than in the past.”

    I’ll try to hang ont to these data gobbets as a benchmark.

    A comparison with Scotland,or the two northern regions or Moray or best of all all three would tell you all you need to know about LibDem-SNP churn.

  14. alex

    “In addition, the penalising of the basic state pension disproportionately affects the disadvantaged, with clear evidence that those living in the most deprived post code areas have not seen any significant increase in life expectancy. In effect, this policy is redistributing wealth away from the least advantaged. ”

    this is what bugs me, many low paid workers will see very little of their pension if anything. i don’t know what the answer is but it does seem a bit of a rip off

    i have never invested in a private pension for 3 reasons

    1) considering the types of work i do and my addictions to chocolate caffeine and nicotine my odds of living long enough to enjoy a pension are not great the maths suggests that i would be out of pocket

    2) pensions are a very long term thing, to have trust in a pension company for 40 years or more is a big leap of faith. if the pension company goes bust you could lose everything, even if it is bailed out it is unlikely to be 100% compensated(i read something a few days ago saying that pension companies are in danger of insolvency if the footsie goes down to 2000 and stays there as i belive it will)

    3) the whole idea of providing for your own old age goes against tens of thousands of years of moral norms, it has always been the case that he young had a moral obligation to look after their elders, i am uneasy about breaking that intergenerational link, I’m not quite sure why, it must be my conservative nature

  15. Anthony

    “The SNP are also reporting a there is an Angus Reid poll in the Sunday Express showing Holyrood constituency support …”

    That’s not what we need. It’s Westminster VI.

    …..the AngusReid site or the Express’s website, which only mentions a question on what the Scottish national anthem should be!

    I posted what it shouldn’t be here

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3996/comment-page-2#comment-733522

    but the 1919 peace version would do.

    Seriously though I’m with OldNat

    Then let us pray that come it may
    (As come it will for a’ that)
    That Sense and Worth o’er a’ the earth
    Shall bear the gree an’ a’ that!
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
    It’s comin yet for a’ that,
    That man to man the world o’er
    Shall brithers be for a’ that.

  16. Finally on housing, people overwhelmingly support the criminalisation of squatting (by 80% to 14%), and just as overwhelmingly think the government should be doing more to bring empty houses into use (by 80% to 13%).

    And how many of that 80% understand the word “ironic”?

  17. Alec

    You will be further incenced to know that I was forced into early retirement over 20 years ago on my 51st birthday on an index linked half final salary pension when the last Conservative government wanted to buy out ordinary employment security conditions for senior NHS staff and replace them with yes-men.

    I’m not a “yes-man”, I’m a “yes, but … man” so I didn’t fit in.

    My ambition now is to be murdered by a hard working octogenarian doctor determined to prevent me reaching my 100th birthday having once too often said what I’ve just said above.

  18. @ Anthony

    The VI intention is the only part of a poll which gets weighted, is that correct?

    Because I did notice that actual respondents seemed to be even more heavily over-represented by older, RoS/ London, professionals than is usual.
    8-)

  19. Weekly polling numbers-
    Unweighted weekly figures –
    Con – 37 (-0.5)
    Lab – 41.6 (+0.85)
    Lib – 9.2 (-0.8)

    Weekly figures weighted against the past 4 weeks –
    Con – 36.8 (+0.3)
    Lab – 41.8 (-0.4)
    Lib – 9.4 (-0.1)

    Approval figures
    Cameron -10 (-1)
    Miliband -26 (-2)
    Clegg -45 (-3)

    Latest poll weighted against past 30 days (vs last week) –
    Con – 36.6 (+0.3)
    Lab – 42 (-0.3)
    Lib – 9.4 (nc)

    Weighted against past 7 days –
    Con – 37.1 (-0.4)
    Lab – 41.3 (+0.4)
    Lib – 9.3 (-0.5)

    Not entirely sure about the figures, but it looks like we’re settling at Con 37/38, Lab 41/42, Lib 9.
    Miliband is speaking soon at the TUC, which gives the Cons a very easy ‘The Union’s Man’ talking point so I’m expecting a dip for Labour.

    But conference season starts soon, so who knows where figures might end up – my gut feeling is that the Tories, for a while after conference season, will be at least a few points ahead of Labour until the next big upset (probably Q3 growth figures).

  20. Amber – hell no, all results are weighted. Otherwise all the other answers would be worthless!

  21. Amber

    As far as I know the same weighting is applied to the answers to all questions, not just VI. So the views of Londoners and Scots (there are always too many Scots :) ) will always be downgraded a bit.

    Apologies for answering for Anthony, but I reckon he’s got a bootleg copy of the BCE report and we won’t hear a peep out of him for 24 hours.

    statgeek

    As far as I’m aware YouGov are still not weighting their Scottish responses separately by Party allegiance. That means that you really can’t trust any of the Scotland columns where Party might be a factor in answering. This obviously applies to Party leaders as well as VI.

    In particular you will find that, because the Conservatives only have half the support in Scotland that they do in Britain as a whole, that support for Cameron could be doubled* by the weighting process.

    That’s not even taking into account all those SNP voters who think he is a good British PM because he is the one most likely to lead to an independent Scotland. ;)

    * I know it’s not as simple as that because of other weightings which are not independent of Party, but the principles the same.

  22. Curses – typing too slow again!

  23. @ Anthony & Roger

    Thank you :-) I guess I was mixing up taking out the DKs v keeping them in.
    8-)

  24. Roger – ” I reckon he’s got a bootleg copy of the BCE report and we won’t hear a peep out of him for 24 hours.”

    Chance would be a fine thing! No leaked copies of that which I’m aware of. Talking to journalists at the end of last week they weren’t expecting any leaks in advance, I spoke to Rob Hayward who is looking after it for the Tories last week and he wasn’t expecting anything to get out in advance either.

    Should anyone have any advance copies of course, my email is anthonyjwells (funny squiggly a) googlemail.com. I’ll be getting my first sniff when tame MPs send me info after noon tomorrow… so any tame MPs reading this, you know where to send it!

  25. @ Anthony

    When will the Scottish boundary changes be communicated to MPs?
    8-)

  26. “42% of them would still keep it anyway, agreeing that it is morally right for the rich to pay more regardless.” But if it is bringing in less tax revenue than before they aren’t paying more in actual cash terms. Do these 42% want to pay more in tax or accept cuts in services just to keep income tax at a symbolically higher level?

  27. @Edward
    Couldn’t your argument also be used for cuts in benefit. If more effort was concentrated on collecting taxes that were evaded/avoided rather than cutting benefits, the revenue would increase and maybe even wipe out the deficit. Unfortunately our governments don’t always do things for the right reasons.

  28. Amber – Scottish provisional boundaries aren’t due until 13th October. I would expect MPs to get a day or so’s advance notice in the same way as the English MPs did, but I’m not certain it’s been confirmed (and the Scottish boundary commission’s decision may be informed by how well the embargo holds tomorrow afternoon!)