Tonight’s YouGov figures for the Sun are CON 31%, LAB 45%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 7%. Labour’s lead is back up to fourteen points, although that’s not necessarily any more meaningful than the unusually low eight point lead we had yesterday. As ever, be wary of big shifts in polls as more often than not they turn out to be just random sample error.

I also missed Ipsos MORI’s regular Scottish monitor yesterday. That had voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament constituency vote of CON 12%(-1), LAB 32%(+9), LDEM 6%(-4), SNP 45%(-4). Changes are since January.

104 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 31, LAB 45, LD 9, UKIP 7”

1 2 3
  1. Michael Gove is a genius.

    Which is an anagram of –

    Evil maniac’s ego is huge
    This interaction between 2 Cif’ers made me LOL. I am in awe of the anagramista, so I thought I’d share the :-) with UKPR.

  2. 32/43/10

    Ho Hum.

  3. John B Dick

    ‘BBC On Line had big article about Tony Blair’s ideas about becoming PM again.
    Many nationalists were hoping he would lead the “No” vote.’

    If he was so vilified then why did 39% of Scots still vote Labour in 2005, hot on the heels of Iraq (not down that much on 2001 and only 3% less than in 2010) and remember that Labour only just lost power in 2007 by one seat. Personalities do matter to an extent, given that ‘Brown Bounce’ in Scotland in 2010 and simultaneously, David Cameron’s failure to have any impact north of the border. I believe that, in the long term, the SNP’s rise to power has been more due to Conservative failure than that of the Labour Party.

  4. Calum Smith

    Labour in 2001, 2005 and 2010 benefited under FPTP because their vote was concentrated in the populous West and SNP and SLD split the rest between them. Also a SLAB MP can make a difference to the CON/LAB balance. To prevent a conservative government is the main aim of the Scottish voter, who isn’t picky what other party to vote for.

    PR gave the SNP a chance to present themselves as a possible party of government, even the larger party of a coalition. Labour put their best candidates forward for Westminster and had some really weak ones for the SP. Their unremitting negativity did them no favours.

    Safe from the risk of electing the abhorrent Cons, the choice in 2007 was between SNP and Tory-lite and some stuck with the principle and voted for a different party. Others followed in 2011 even in the West. This was offset by Ex-SLD voters elsewhere though the overwhelming majority of them opted for the SNP when the LD’s self-harmed by sacrifiicing the Scottish Party for power at Westminster.

    All this has very little to do with LAB or SNP, and nothing at all to do with CON. It is the effect of differing voting systems, power at Westminster and theelectorate geting used to split voting. Green or Socialist voters have no option but to split their vote for the for the two FPTP ballots and the List.

    The Conservative failure has happened during the same half century as the SNP rise at all but they are not connected as cause and effect, only that a decline in one party leaves room for some other party(s) to fill the gap.

    The formerly dominant (Presbyterian) Christian Democrats were taken over by English Nationlists and fundamentalist free marketeers and their share of the vote faded away sooner and faster than the SNP rose.

    The promiscuous anti-Con voter learning to use the different voting systemsand the LD’s failure to do anything to preserve their anti-con credentals are the whole explanation.

    DC’s failure to make an impact is due to his irrelevance. When he made a fleeting visit just over the border, he enthused about the English changes in education and urged Scotland to follow the lead.

    If you are campaigning to save a school with four pupils, or on an island where a school recently re-opened for one pupil, to talk of “choice”, of free schools, or faith schools is seen to be unhelpful.

1 2 3