Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. All this week YouGov’s daily polls have been showing Labour leads of between 3 and 5 points, suggesting that there has been a definite change from the neck-and-neck position we were seeing at the beginning of the year. Reasons for poll movements can never really be more than speculation, but as I wrote last month, my guess is a combination of a fading of the “veto effect” from December, less negative perceptions of Ed Miliband than back in January, and perhaps the increased prominence of the issue of the NHS. I’ll update on the YouGov poll tomorrow once the full tables are out.

Yesterday we also had new figures from Angus Reid. Their topline figures with changes from January were CON 32%(-3), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 10%(-1). An eight point Labour lead is the largest any pollster has shown since before the veto, though it’s worth noting that Angus Reid have tended to show some of the larger Labour leads of any polling since the election.

There is also an ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll on gay marriage. I don’t yet know if it also had voting intention figures but will update as and when.

67 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 37%, LAB 42%, LD 9%”

1 2
  1. JIM JAM

    @” less successfully, “waitress” for the ungainly “waitperson” or ambience-free “server.”

    Says it all .

    You are welcome to your “gender -neutral” bubble.

    I’m happy in the real world thanks.


  2. @Colin

    The Academy Awards are as relevant to the Film Industry as the MCC are still “in charge” of Cricket.

  3. Ed Davey

    Oh dear, oh dear oh dear

    Appallingly bad interview on Marr.

    This ‘Tycoon Tax’ seems to have been made up on the hoof. Surely the ‘Tycoon Tax’ is also known as ‘Income Tax’ and the rates to be paid are already defined? Is he (or rather Clegg as Davey has no clue about it) saying that the rich should pay a much lower income tax than currently they should do?

  4. @Steve

    “People want change. You could put a Miliband (unlikely face of reform?) in charge of the Labour party and they’d still get elected.”

    With some caveats, I tend to agree with you. A lot of the Tory commentariat are hanging their hats on Miliband’s unelectability, and they’re being given strong succour my some Labourites too, but if the coalition is deeply unpopular in May 2015, then Labour will get elected. Far too much is being made of “unpopular” leaders scuppering their party’s chances at General Elections, but the reasons that people like Gaitskell, Kinnock, Hague, IDS and Howard never made it to the promised land, and Brown, Major and Heath were ejected from it, were much more to do with the parties they led and those that they opposed at the time. Party leaders are important, but they rarely determine the outcome of Parliamentary elections. We don’t live in a Presidency quite yet.

  5. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to call Shirley Williams “one of the lords”. If you know her exact rank, then use it, if you don’t (and frankly I think it is mostly irrelevant as her responsibilities are the same if she was a baroness, countess or any of the other ranks of nobility) I doubt she would be too upset if you called her “Shirley Williams”.

    If actresses, stewardesses and waitresses get upset at having a job that has a common feminine form I think they need to gain a sense of perspective.

    What should a female Maitre d’hotel be called?

  6. @leftylampton – even assuming SRS the confidence interval on that 13% of LibDems (WSS=125) is +/- 6%. You could probably add a1 or 2 more % to that for variance inflation because of weighting, let alone any other errors/biases down to the vagaries of YouGov method. So: a basically meaningless statistic.

  7. LD Conference has voted against the proposal to support ‘The Bill’

  8. Just thought it worth highlighting last week’s council by-election results ,in two seats the LDs did not put up a candidate, even though they had done respectably last time up.
    In the third their candidate helped the Tory home in the teeth of a strong Labour swing.

    I only mention this on this august site because LD supporters tend to say that their woeful poll numbers are not reflected in the real world

  9. The veto effect is fading. Cameron’s botched attempt in rescuing the British and Italian hostage to regain that effect has failed as well.

    The realisation that the NHS is not safe with the Tories is hitting people. The Tories can massage figures to do with waiting lists etc, but on the ground people are suffering.

    On Ken’s interview today. My opion was he answered the questions quite well, and the fact that Boris has done the same was pointed out.

    I think the NHS is Cameron’s Poll Tax!!

  10. Ewen – we can probably do without it sounding like a dig at Lib Dem supporters, but it’s worth flagging up that issue.

    Rallings & Thrasher have said that it’s an increasingly problem in their model projecting national support from local by-election results that parties who expect to do badly simply don’t contest the by-election to avoid humiliation, giving fewer data points where the 3 main parties contest both the by-election and the previous election and biasing the “sample” of by-elections.

  11. Interesting point from that poll:

    “Have you personally ever experienced dishonesty or corruption when dealing with the police?”

    UK: 16
    Lon: 15
    RoS: 16
    Mid: 15
    North: 14
    Scot: 23

    Of no surprise is that younger people have not experienced dishonesty as much as older folk. Men, C2DE grade and Scots seem to have seen more dishonesty though.

  12. Various issues to ponder this morning.7

    I haven’t seen much more on this, but I understand that the Information Commissioner has ordered the publication of the NHS Risk Register. Civil Servants are quoted privately as saying this will be an absolute bombshell. If these factors are true, then I suspect the Lib Dems will look foolish for trying to bury this at their conference, and Cameron/Lansley will take a more substantial hit.

    The YG polling in Scotland is pretty remarkable and should give Labour real cause for optimism. The biggest threat to Labour was to be pounded by the SNP in Scotland, while simultaneously failing to recover in the southern and midland parts of England. If the 7% bounce back in Scotland is true, then a large part of Labour’s nightmare scenario recedes, although many things could yet happen of course.

    Is Ed Milliband cr*p? The clear answer to this is yes, if people say he is. Another couple of months of positive poll news for Labour and struggles for the government, and we will start to see first a trickle, and then a flood (if the mood continues) of media articles that fall into the category of ‘Maybe Ed isn’t quite so much of a dork as we thought’. This is what the media does best – read a story that someone has made up, and then follow it.

    I would fully agree with @Rob Sheffield that Labour do need to start some level of policy development at some stage – may be not just yet, but at least start some outline thinking – but the end is not necessarily nigh for Ed, although he still faces a very substantial credibility challenge. However, I would suggest that it’s quite likely that Cameron’s credibility starts to head south soon anyway, making Ed’s task a bit easier.

  13. Interesting that both ICM and Yougov showing big support for gay marriage – if you actually ask a question where you have two answers (rather than one).
    ICM/Telegraph shows a 45% supporting vs 36% opposing gay marriage.
    Yougov showing a 43% vs 30%.

    And people continue to support the 50p tax over a mansion tax.

    Interestingly is the laffer curve argument – while slightly more think it should be dropped if it brought in no more money, almost as many think that the rich should pay it anyway.
    I find the polling odd – if the 50p tax brings in no more money, the tax is absolutely pointless.
    But it could show that scrapping it could be politically damaging, even if scrapping it is the economically right thing to do.

    I think the best thing that the government could do is seek an independent review on the 50p tax and then go with whatever that finds – it’s politically neutral and not something anybody could really argue with.

  14. Colin,
    In all seriousness I think there are alot more important aspects to gender inequlity than people using phrases such as waitress (although server is neutral and fit for purpose).
    I asked my 15 year old daughter who has done some TV acting whether she was an actor or actress and she said both and told me that it was not important and depended on what the circumstances were. She says knows she is eligible for any job and would not be put off applying by it being described using a term implying it was normally for a man.

    20 years ago language was far more important as a means of highlighting inequality as the notion that certain jobs/positions where normally for men so we have a seperate word for the occassional woman needed challenging.
    Clearly this is less relevant now but imo insisting on gender specific terms when there is no need does indicate a rather old fashioned mindset; maybe it is me, however, not being post-modern enough to realise it does not matter anymore?

  15. JIM JAM


    I am happy to respect what people / institutions themselves wish to be known as.

    It is coercion by self appointed arbiters of language usage which I object to.

    It is International Womens’ Day 2012 today-I heartily approve.


  16. “It is International Womens’ Day 2012 today”
    Not to be pedantic and unless you’re actually a TimeLord, IWD was on last Thursday. ;)

  17. TF

    Thanks :-)

1 2