Tonight’s YouGov/Sun poll has topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 38%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 11%. The three point Labour lead is typical of this week’s YouGov polls, which have all shown 3-4 point leads.

A couple more things to flag up, earlier in the week YouGov repeated their question asking people to put the parties and their leaders on a left-right spectrum. There isn’t much change since it was last asked. Labour are still seen as more centrist than the Conservatives, Cameron a little more right-wing than Miliband is left-wing. Cameron is seen as marginally to the left of his party, Miliband bang in line with his. In that sense Ed Miliband isn’t seen as some wild left winger (certainly not compared to the right-wingness of the Tories), but note that he is seen as far more left-wing than his predecessors: Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were both seen as significantly more centrist than the party they led. There are some very nice graphs of the data here.

While it’s not really about polls regular readers will know my sideline in boundary changes. While the boundary review for the coming election was cancelled the changes the government made weren’t repealed, just delayed. The process will start again automatically in 2015, so the issue will inevitably raise its head after the next election with either the Boundary Commissions starting a new review under the new rules, or the government legislating to change the rules again. Johnston, Rossiter & Pattie – the foremost scholars of British boundary redistributions – have published a new paper aimed at informing that debate, looking at whether slightly increasing the tolerance from 5% to 8%, encouraging the Boundary Commissions to split more wards, or sticking with 650 seats would reduce the level of disruption (spoilers: the first two would, the latter wouldn’t). It’s summarised here, and the full report is here.

253 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 35, LAB 38, LD 8, UKIP 11”

1 4 5 6
  1. @Shevii

    The poll could be a genuine change because of improvements in people’s view of their personal finances/the economy


    if the Lab lead is on low side of MOE – Lab number slighly too low, Con number slightly too high, then because Con voters are extremely positive about the economy and Lab very negative then that skews all the economic questions

    Lol Colin, yet does sound slightly daft when i read the sentance back to myself

    I only meant that tihs is the week that people get paid – last week of the month, i said some, because the rest will get paid on the last day of July which is next week

  2. Thinking about Ed M’s “geekiness”, I don’t recall it being an issue at all during the Leadership election and I was pondering where it has really come from.

    The “Ed is weird” notion is one that the usual suspects (Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun) have collectively pushed fairly relentlessly for some time now, successful as that line of attack has been I am not sure how deep-rooted it is.

    Interestingly I read an article yesterday stating that a group of leading Tory women were advising Lynton Crosby to lay off that line of attack as it was turning off female voters. I think polling has already demonstrated that Cameron has a problem in that area.

    I suspect those voters with a more passing interest in politics than we have will really make up their minds about Ed M during the campaign, when he will get a lot more exposure and they finally get to take a closer look at him.

    They may well conclude that his persona is indeed as “weird” as a sections of the print media keep telling them it is and that will hurt Labour’s chances. Alternatively they may wonder what all the fuss is about.

    Ultimately it will come down to whether Ed M’s “geekiness” is a big enough turn off amongst the 38% of voters regularly inclining towards Labour. Polling shows Cameron clearly out performs the Conservative Party whereas the Labour Party outperforms Milliband. Be very interesting to see which turns out to be of greater significance.

  3. “violence in CAR after ceasefire agreed”

    A sort of ironic, “1984” BBC news headline that seems to sum up most of the world’s religious/ethnic conflicts.

    Mad and sad and with no end in sight – possibly for ever.

    Has anyone who’s good at stats worked out the probable number of dead people in heaven by the way?

    I suppose it depends when the system started: be a bit odd if it only happened when we were told about it but, even assuming that to be the case, and a 50% entry rate, 2000 years of angels means it must be jolly busy “up” there by now.

    Maybe its like the Newcastle Metrocentre and has an overflow carpark.

1 4 5 6