The first of this week’s YouGov daily polls for the Sun has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%, Others 11%. While YouGov’s daily polls are producing slightly more narrow Labour leads than narrow Conservative ones, for the time being at least we do seem to be settling into a position of having the two main parties around about neck-and-neck.


124 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 41%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%”

1 2 3
  1. Colin
    I think you missed my feeble attempt at humour.

    Tim Worstall’s site carries quite a few highly critical posts of himself.
    Clearly doesn’t take himself seriously…unlike Eoin. And I can’t figure what purpose Tim’s blog serves.

  2. LIZH

    @”Maybe Academics are used to working almost 24 hours a day ”

    Glad they get some sleep Liz :-)

  3. @ Alan

    “What the hell is going on in the republican primaries?”

    You’re following the race and just starting to ask?

    “It seems the Rick Santorum has taken a huge leap in the polls and is likely to take minnesota and missouri?”

    For some reason this year there are two Missouri contests, a primary and a caucus. I don’t remember which one this is but I think it’s non-binding. Gingrich isn’t on the ballot for this particular contest. The only polls of the races today have been done by PPP, admittedly a very good polling firm, but it’s only one poll. So while Santorum looks like he may win Missouri and Minnesota and maybe even Colorado, I’ll believe it when I see it. Caucuses are hard to poll and don’t always reflect the true intention of the voters.

    “Have the conservative republicans declared Noot to be a dead duck and throwing their weight behind a new figure?”

    I’m not sure. In Minnesota, the answer is probably yes. Newt had an 18 point lead there in the same poll two weeks ago. Then a week ago, Romney led. Now Santorum is ahead. So definitely there have been some changes there that suggest Newt is getting tossed. Missouri and Minnesota are both adjacent to Iowa though which Santorum won. A lot of the Conservatives there are Christian fundamentalists. Santorum is just a closer fit to them than Gingrich, who’s more of an angry, white, racist Conservative. If Gingrich looked like he was beating Romney, they’d probably vote for Gingrich. But as Gingrich isn’t, I think they go with the guy who they like the best, Santorum.

    “This race seems to have more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing. I’m intrigued as to how it will pan out as for now it doesn’t seem like the republicans have a clue about what they want.”

    It’s been a rollercoaster ride to watch.

    “If this race goes on and on without people dropping out and delegates are split 3 ways what happens to a persons delegates at the point they drop out? Can they nominate who their delegates go to (possibly in return for a VP pass) or does it wait until the convention when the delegates themselves choose who to align themselves with?”

    I honestly don’t know the answer to that question. My understanding is that delegates remain pledged to a candidate, even if the candidate drops out, until the candidate chooses to release them. That usually happens before the Convention but could occur during the Convention.

  4. SoCalLiberal

    “You’re following the race and just starting to ask?”

    Point taken, this race has taken so many twists that I should cease to be surprised at the latest one. I suppose I was expecting the highly volatile ebb and flow between Newt and Romney to continue for a while before settling down once a winner became clear(er), more fool me!

  5. “According to the leaks as reported on Eoin’s website, the main risks are of costs becoming unaffordable as private companies siphon off profits and GPs lacking the expertise to control costs.

    I sense a political car crash in the offing.”

    Er, why? You call these leaks? Surely to anyone who’s even understood even 2% what this bill is all about , this is stating the two things that have been well-known all along. (hence the amendments by the government, which have addressed exactly these two issues – although concerns may well remain and always will until we see the proof in the pudding).

  6. @Alan
    @Socalliberal

    Colorado Polls

    Poll 1 Dec 11 Poll 6 Feb 12
    Newt 37 21 (-16)
    Santorum 4 27 (+23)
    Romney 18 37 (+19)
    Paul 6 12 (+6)

    In Colorado Newt is falling back whilst ALL the other three have advanced.

    The problem with comparing these polls is that the Dec poll included DKs and also had Bachmann, Cain etc in the mix. The poll on 6 Feb excludes DKs and of course those candidates that have dropped out. Currently Romney is +10 over Santorum, a sizeable lead.

    Minnisota Polls

    Poll 21 Jan 12 Poll 6 Feb 12

    Romney 18 Romney 24 (+6)
    Santorum 17 Santorum 33 (+16)
    Newt 36 Newt 22 (-14)
    Paul 13 Paul 20 (+7)

    Again the poll on 21 Jan had DKs at 15 whilst the poll on 6 Feb excludes DKs, so not quite the same basis for comparisons. However again Newt is dropping back whilst ALL the other 3 are picking up votes. Santorum seems to be picking up more than either Romney or Paul

    IMO the more conservative voters are deserting Newt and casting around for another to challenge Romney, something they have looked to do throughout the whole of the primary season. Each candidate they have selected has blossomed and then faded, whilst Romney has plodded away.

    A possible Republican ‘Dream Ticket’ would be Romney with Santorum as his running mate. Romney to take the centre votes and the vital independants, with Santorum to woo the Republican right and the Tea party bunch.

  7. Smukesh –

    For the 2010 election, see the last section in this post
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2695

  8. The polls have been more or less stuck for months now – which (only) in part is why I have not posting on this site recently.

    Perhaps one reason is that it has become manifest that the UK’s state, particularly financially, is mainly in the hands of large powers than the Westminster parties, so there is no reason for people to vhange their allegiances. Particularly now that the LIbDems have lost support now that they are part of a Coalition, which not least shows up their heavy international connections, as opposed to grassroots ones.

    One cannot help but think that there will be some shift, not least when a Scottish referendum, and I suspect an English backlash about our democratic deficit, becomes more politically salient. At the moment, I cannot see this as helping either Labour or the LibDems, who cannot go into a straight forward oppositional position over constitutional change like the Nationalists. Nor can they be straight forwardly anti change like the Tories/Unionists.

    A likely scenario, as things stand, at the next election is a swing from Conservative to Labour, but a Conservative overall majority becasue of a collapse in the LibDem vote. This could be a major political problem if Cameron is pushed far to the right by COnservative backbechers, as on present performance appears likely.

  9. Frank G,

    “Dream-tickets” (two of the main candidates running together) seem to be pretty rare in US politics. The main example that comes to mind is Reagan-Bush, which admittedly was a pretty effective team because the more moderate Bush* helped make Reagan acceptable to “Reagan Democrats” in 1980 and 1984.

    * Bush Senior, of course. The last moderate Republican president- if you don’t count Bill Clinton!

  10. Nick P,

    If Mandelson can come back, we can all come back!

  11. @ Bill Patrick

    ““Dream-tickets” (two of the main candidates running together) seem to be pretty rare in US politics. The main example that comes to mind is Reagan-Bush, which admittedly was a pretty effective team because the more moderate Bush* helped make Reagan acceptable to “Reagan Democrats” in 1980 and 1984.

    * Bush Senior, of course. The last moderate Republican president- if you don’t count Bill Clinton!”

    Um, I must disagree. Bush didn’t make Reagan more acceptable to Reagan Democrats. Reagan Democrats were disillisuioned Democrats (usually white, middle class Dems who weren’t liberal) who felt Carter was weak and that the country was going astray. They liked Reagan because Reagan presented a strong, forceful image to the public that was optimistic and reassuring.

    Bush on the other hand was never very strong with Reagan Democrats. He didn’t naturally relate to them and needed Reagan to help him win over those Democrats. That gave Clinton his opening in 1992.

    Clinton was not a moderate Republican. Bush Sr. really wasn’t a moderate either but far more moderate than his predecessor, his son, and any of the current crop of extremist wackos and hack losers. The last true moderate Republican was Gerry Ford.

  12. SocCalLiberal,

    I suspect on “moderate” our differences are purely semantic, though of course describing Bill Clinton as a “moderate Republican” was in jest. Comparing these things over time is very difficult: Barry Goldwater was very much out of place amongst hardline conservatives by the 1990s, but was hard-right in 1964. After all, it was Goldwater who delivered the classic line concerning homosexual soldiers-

    “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”

    – a position that put him to the left of many Democrats on that issue, let alone Republicans.

    I don’t think that having Bush Snr. on the ticket was the only factor and I’m not denying the importance of Reagan’s personal qualities. There’s a parallel universe where Reagan picked John B. Anderson or Phil Crane as VP nominee and Carter didn’t lose anywhere near as badly, and maybe even one where Mondale won in 1984.

  13. Oh yeah, I forgot the best Goldwater quote on homosexual military service-

    “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight!”

  14. BTW SocCalLiberal: Obama wins in November. Because I say so, and because I think he’s going to be able to win on a “green shoots” line against anything the Republicans can offer at this point.

  15. @ Frank G

    “A possible Republican ‘Dream Ticket’ would be Romney with Santorum as his running mate. Romney to take the centre votes and the vital independants, with Santorum to woo the Republican right and the Tea party bunch.”

    Not really. I don’t think either one of these guys fits into “dream ticket” category. They’re both lousy Presidential candidates through and through. I don’t think the two of them running together helps bring people on board who otherwise wouldn’t be. And one reason that Romney is bleeding independent voters right now is because he’s had to swing to the right.

  16. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

    This news should help Santorum do well today and motivate his conservative fundamentalist base to turn out and caucus for him.

  17. Yet ANOTHER comment: I meant just Phil Crane, not John Anderson. I had them a little mixed up.

  18. @ Bill Patrick

    “I don’t think that having Bush Snr. on the ticket was the only factor and I’m not denying the importance of Reagan’s personal qualities. There’s a parallel universe where Reagan picked John B. Anderson or Phil Crane as VP nominee and Carter didn’t lose anywhere near as badly, and maybe even one where Mondale won in 1984.”

    Oh please. If anything, Anderson took votes away from Reagan by running third party. Only if unemployment in November 1984 was as high as it was in November 1983 would Mondale have had a chance of winning.

    As for Goldwater and his position on gays in the military, I don’t think one or two positions change one’s overall ideological position. He was a hard right winger even by today’s standards.

    And as for his position on gays in the military being far to the left of most Democrats, if you can find me a single Democratic Senator who voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, I’ll offer to sell you the Balmoral Hotel. The last polling showed that while close to 90% of Democrats favored the repeal of that law, 74% of Republicans did as well.

  19. @ Bill Patrick

    “Obama wins in November. Because I say so, and because I think he’s going to be able to win on a “green shoots” line against anything the Republicans can offer at this point.”

    We’ll see. The election is a long way off and these things have a habit of changing fairly quickly.

    “Yet ANOTHER comment: I meant just Phil Crane, not John Anderson. I had them a little mixed up.”

    I think Bush was to Reagan what Biden is to Obama, a nice accessory but ultimately replaceable and not that significant electorally. I don’t think Phil Crane or John Anderson would have made that much of a difference by being on Reagan’s ballot instead of Bush. And as for Phil Crane, assuming he had had his affair with the teenage House page (cause’ if he was vice president, he wouldn’t have been near her), he probably would have been dropped from the ticket in 1984.

  20. @ Alan

    “Point taken, this race has taken so many twists that I should cease to be surprised at the latest one. I suppose I was expecting the highly volatile ebb and flow between Newt and Romney to continue for a while before settling down once a winner became clear(er), more fool me!”

    What you have is an angry and dispirited party that’s been taken over by radical right wing fringe groups. You have an extremely unpopular party that’s losing members too. Combine that with a clown car of candidates who are highly unlikeable and you have a primary electorate that’s going to shift fairly quickly. I’m sure you’ve also heard the saying that Republicans don’t fall in love, they fall in line. I think one reason we keep seeing massive poll shifts is because when one Republican gains momentum and looks like they might be the nominee, Republican voters switch over “oh he’s going to be the nominee, I’ll vote for him.” That only adds to the volatility.

  21. SOCALLIBERAL

    ” I’m sure you’ve also heard the saying that Republicans don’t fall in love, they fall in line.”

    John Dick has given us links before to the idea of “Authoritarian Followers”. Speaking of whom, I do hope his operation went well yesterday.

  22. SoCalLiberal,

    It’s true that the Democrats have now woken up on DODT. However, I’m not sure that was the case 18 years ago, which was when Goldwater was making those statements. 18 years is a long time in politics.

    I don’t think that Goldwater ever really fitted on the standard left-right spectrum. He was a classical liberal- the last to win the Republican VP nomination.

    Obama could still well lose if he does something very stupid and there are plenty of opportunities e.g. Iran. However, while I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I don’t think that Obama’s problem has ever been stupid judgement and he seems to be notably clear-headed in crises.

  23. Twittering suggests Latest YouGov/Sun results 7th Feb CON 37%, LAB 42%, LD 9%; APP -23

  24. YG Tables

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/txt9bt9127/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-070212.pdf

    SNP/PC 5% : UKIP 5% in England. Nothing else of interest. :-)

1 2 3