This evening’s daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7%

After a couple of days with the Greens equal or ahead of the Liberal Democrats, today’s poll has them behind. These little variations between one poll and the next are mostly irrelevant of course, the broader picture remains that YouGov show the Greens and Lib Dems essentially equal, but that’s because YouGov tend to show some of the highest support for the Greens and some of the lower figures for the Lib Dems. TNS and Ashcroft have also shown the Greens in fourth place, but other companies are still show them consistently behind the Liberal Democrats.

On that issue, today OfCom published their consultation on which parties should be treated as major parties at the general election – more specificially, they are classifying UKIP as a major party along with the usual big three, but not the Greens. This has been widely reported through the prism of the leaders debates, but I think that’s missing the bigger point – the debates will or won’t go ahead depending on the political realities of what the broadcasters can get the leaders to agree to. The more important impact is probably that broadcasters are required to give due weight to all the major parties in their editorial coverage come the election campaign, so UKIP are now ensured an appropriate level of TV coverage, the Greens less so.

From this blog’s point of view it’s also interesting because the polling plays such a role in OfCom making their decision. It’s not one I envy. In making their decision OfCom take into account both past support and current support. In the past this must have been a comparatively easy exercise for OfCom – there were clearly two and a bit main parties (Con, Lab and LD) and this was always the same for both past and current party support. The difficulty now is that past and current support are different – in the last two elections the main parties were clearly Con, Lab and LD. In the last couple of years opinion polls have put UKIP as clearly the third most popular party, with the Liberal Democrats in fourth place and the Greens advancing. One can easily see how the Lib Dems would qualify as a major party on their past support, how UKIP could qualify through their recent support in polls and in local elections, and how the Greens could fall between two stools. It still just draft guidance of course, the consultation is open until next month.

165 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33 LAB 33 LD 8 UKIP 13 GRN 7”

1 2 3 4
  1. Chris in Cardiff / Roger Mexico

    Oops! Read off from the wrong table. Ta.

    It was the wishy washy liberal Weimar politicians that let the NSPD into power. Do you seriously think that there is an Adolf Hitler waiting in the wings.

  3. RAF


    AQ in YEMEN say they ordered the attack.

    Hollande is organising a big demonstration in Paris-I think Cameron is going.

  4. Reading the weedy responses to the appalling punishments carried out in Saudi Arabia for someone convicted of “cybercrime and insulting Islam” I long for a serious response.

    We should have nothing to do with such regimes in my view.

  5. “The BBC is revising its guidelines on depicting the prophet Mohammed in its programming.

    Following discussion on the issue on last night’s Question Time show, the BBC has now said that its editorial guidance is “old [and] out of date”.

    The taxpayer-funded corporation also said it “does not reflect the BBC’s long standing position that programme makers have freedom to exercise their editorial judgement with the team… on a case-by-case basis”.

    It confirmed that the guidance was currently being revised, and it has removed the guidelines prohibiting depictions of Mohammed from its website.”

    Politics Today.

  6. @Colin

    Unsurprising but probably a mistake. Depicting Prophet Mohammad in any visual representation is insulting to Muslims and people do feel strongly about this. Making it open season on artworks of the Prophet would be counterproductive.

    Just because a person has the right to offend doesn’t mean it is always sensible to exercise it. We now have some people in France who never thought of the matter before saying they will draw such works to show they will bow to no-one. Now It’s fine to say that you won’t let anyone affect your way of life but strange if you then alter your behaviour in the guise of defending your lifestyle.

  7. Actually, the geometric patterns seen in Mosques (I understand) are an abstract representation of Muhammed. The theological restriction only applies to figurative depictions.

    Happy to be corrected if mistaken.

  8. @RAF

    I agree. If someone made, say, a serious bio-pic about early Islam and included a portrayal of the Prophet, Muslims would be incensed but it could be considered a legitimate exercise in bringing a better understanding of history to the public. Drawing a crude caricature of the Prophet posing naked with his back passage exposed has no particular value. It should still be “allowed”, but certainly not encouraged.

    One of the tragedies of events like Paris is that suddenly we feel obliged to support something which we might actually prefer to oppose, because we need to show solidarity and not appear cowed.

  9. @Lurker

    I’m no expert but I’m sure I once read that Islam discourages the depiction of living beings in general, and that’s why geometry predominates in Islamic art. The gripping beasts, gargoyles and gryphons rampant of Western tradition would be unacceptable, not to mention the Ikons and Madonnas-with-Child.

  10. Neil A

    It just strikes me that creating abstract impressionist artwork in the middle ages was rather sophisticated.

  11. RAF

    Sorry, but I don’t believe that the taboos of a particular religious group or faith about idolatry should be imposed on the rest of society.

    I am also increasingly wary of accepting statements that this that or the other is “forbidden” by the Qran.

    I think it best if religion stays in its proper place-in the hearts, minds & churches of its own adherants.

  12. @RosieandDaisie

    Only just saw your response to me on the last thread. Your reaction to the events in Paris is an entirely human and understandable one; outrage, anger, bewilderment and frustration and you shouldn’t chide yourself for being confused by what causes such events and how best, as people and societies, we should react. In these circumstances it’s easy to be attracted by the instant slackjaw certainties that fill the discussion space in the immediate aftermath. That’s why Alec’s thoughts were so well received on UKPR, advising us against being tempted into extreme over-reaction and, in effect, playing the terrorists game. If the terrorists have any strategy beyond finding ways to vent hate and facilitate killing, then its to escalate their cause and mire us all, eventually, in their deluded war. It isn’t a war in any true meaning of the word and it’s the last description we should use to describe their squalid and hate-filled barbarity.

    I read a wonderful piece by an author called Hari Kunzru yesterday. Here are a few of excerpts that exactly encapsulate my own feelings now that my immediate anger and outrage has subsided somewhat: –

    “I would have said nothing, had I not felt that – on this, of all days – it would be an admission of defeat. Freedom of expression is empty if it is not used, but I can barely bring myself to sit down at my desk and read the commentary, let alone add to the pile of hopeful platitudes, lofty sentiments about liberty, calls for solidarity and compassion and moderation, or firmness, or bloody, bloody revenge. Why did this happen? Multiculturalism, drones, Guantánamo, the inherent viciousness of Islam, the inherent viciousness of religion more generally. Take your pick, whichever one suits your politics, whatever tin drum you want to bang on.”

    and then this: –

    “But the attack was also intended to sharpen contradictions, to harden positions and polarise opinion, pushing France (and the rest of the world) away from complexity, from nuance, from the recognition that one can be, for example, a believing Muslim and a loyal French citizen, towards the simple binary opposition between “us” and “them”, the binary of war. Why, asks a friend, did they do this, when they must surely realise that ordinary French Muslims would pay the cost? Because that was their intention. Serious repression by the French state will complete the circuit of the Charlie Hebdo attack, widening the gap between the poles. It would be a sort of collusion with the terrorists, a collaboration. In Britain we have only to think back to the disastrous consequences of internment in Northern Ireland. In the United States, the Bush government’s authorisation of torture has, far from keeping anyone or anything safe, been the most effective jihadi recruiting sergeant imaginable.”

    to conclude: –

    “If I have anything hopeful or uplifting to contribute, this is it – that anyone who tries to fit the world into binaries is necessarily fragile. The slightest hint of complexity, and their brittle self-identity may shatter. To refuse the jihadi’s logic of escalation without becoming mired in grubby pleading, we have to say – and keep on saying, keep on writing with our pens that are supposedly so much mightier than their swords – that life is not so simple, that our many problems do not have single, total solutions, that utopia is a dead place, without life or change, without air.”

    Wisdom, and beautifully written too. Shamefully, I hadn’t read Kunzru before but I’ll seek him out in future now.

    @Neil A.


    Why, for pity’s sake???????

    (question posed by a self-avowed Francophile, admittedly :-))

  13. @Crossbat

    “If the terrorists have any strategy beyond finding ways to vent hate and facilitate killing, then its to escalate their cause and mire us all, eventually, in their deluded war.”

    The specific strategy is quite clear – use violence to create a de facto blasphemy law for Islam. A strategy that is succeeding because the current political class are as psychologically incapable of dealing with the problem as they are of dealing with the grooming gangs.

    The more general strategy is to remove outside support for non-islamic regimes in the middle east so that jihadist forces in the middle east can topple them and create Islamic states.

  14. @Neil A

    “I’m no expert but I’m sure I once read that Islam discourages the depiction of living beings in general”

    Yes. By the strictest definitions it’s all representative art.

    Obviously that would only be a problem if the strictest definitions were the ones being funded by the Saudis for 30 years.

  15. MR JONES

    @”The specific strategy is quite clear – use violence to create a de facto blasphemy law for Islam.”

    I agree.

    Remember though, that there were two sets of murders in Paris. The second one had nothing to do with blasphemy -just killing Jews.

1 2 3 4