Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%. This follows on from a four point Conservative lead in yesterday’s YouGov poll and a one point Tory lead in their Sunday Times poll at the weekend.

Earlier on today there was also a new YouGov poll of Welsh voting intentions for ITV Wales and Cardiff University. Topline Westminster voting intentions in Wales stand at CON 25%, LAB 39%, LDEM 5%, PC 10%, UKIP 14%, GRN 6% – Roger Scully’ analysis of it is over on his Elections in Wales blog here.


524 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33, LAB 31, LD 8, UKIP 15, GRN 6”

1 8 9 10 11
  1. ‘ANDY SHADRACK
    @ CATMANJEFF
    I agree with your 11.45 PM post in terms of statistical trends from the pollsters, I get the same numbers, but also remember that pollsters were wrong for the 2014 EU elections.
    They overestimated UKIP, Labour and LD and underestimated Conservative and Green.’

    Do you think so, opinion poll results here
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections

    Actual results were
    UKIP 26.6%
    Labour 24.4%
    Conservatives 23.1%
    Green 6.9%
    Liberal 6.1%

    Looking at the polling results from a month out they were pretty close, perhaps a very slight over estimation of UKIP and the Liberals from some polls.
    Obviously the further back you go on the polls the greater the variance, but you would expect it, still fairly close even then.

  2. Re above post, meant to say ‘Looking at the polling results from a month out they were pretty close, perhaps a very slight over estimation of Labour, UKIP and the Liberals from some polls, but the Green and Conservative vote was pretty close. perhaps a very slight over estimate of the Green vote. The results seem to be within statistical variance’

  3. @Unicorn

    You have to be careful about interpreting CUSUM plots. @CMJ will no doubt explain it more fully himself, but measure requires that each party must start and finish at zero. This means that what appears from the graph to be a fall may not be a real fall. If the VI were to drop steadily for the first half of the time period and then stay fixed at that level for the second half, then this would show as initial rise (as the early scores would be above the overall mean). This rise would then be followed by a fall to get the CUSUM score back to zero. So, they are a bit tricky to interpret.

    Or, “Icebergs” as an earlier comment put it..

    If consecutive CUSUM values are going down, it means that original VI data point was less than the mean for the period.

    All the different segments the graphs, when looking at groups divided by the high and low CUSUM values, are significantly different (p<0.05) when compared by T Test.

    They are different.

    What the chart shows is performance vs the mean for the period. A data period can show an overall rise, but the data in the middle can rise and fall.

    At the end of this period charted (proved by statistical testing to a 95% CI):

    -the Conservatives, Labour and LD are significantly higher from the start of the year.

    -UKIP and the Greens are significantly lower than the start of the year.

  4. If, as some have said the Lib Dems and the DUP will support the party with the largest number of seats does this amount to a “winner’s bonus” of 30-35 seats?

    If so then Cameron’s target is about 290.

    Latest forecasts

    May 2015 286
    Election Forecast 295
    Elctions etc. 286
    Guardian 279

    That’s an average of 286.5

    And, there is a “winner’s bonus”, what does this mean for the argument that it doesn’t matter how the seats are distributed in the Lab/SNP bloc?

  5. Quick correction:

    Labour were significantly higher than the start of the year, up to the 5th March.

    The current trend forming is unclear.

  6. @ NeilJ

    TNS, Survation, Comres and Opinium all had UKIP on 32% and only YouGov had them on 27% for their last four polls.

    YouGov and Survation had LD on 9.3%, whereas TNS, Opinium and Comres had them accurately on 6.7%

    YouGov had Green on 9.8%, while Survation, Comres and Opinium had them on 5.3%. None were right. TNS refused to report Green.

    ICM was the most accurate and had Green on 6% and LD on 7% – but the position was reversed.

    So I think the pollsters were all over the place.

  7. If, as the polls are suggesting, the Liberal democrats are well down on their 2010 result, I suspect the Lib Dems will be reluctant to go in a coalition with the conservatives again. They can justify it as their policies are much closer to Labour than the Conservatives.
    Also if we have a situation with the Conservatives having 286 seats, even if the Liberals manage to hold onto 34 seats, which seems unlikely, the conservative/Lib coalition would have 320 seats, so they would still need to bring in the DUP and the couple of UKIP M.P.’s that may be elected, Not a marriage made in heaven for the Liberals.
    On the other hand a lib/lab coalition is a much better fit as regards policies, coupled with the fact the SNP, although unlikely to be a formal part of the coalition, will be likely to support, or atleast not vote against, most of their legislation.
    Any lib/lab coalition will be very reluctant to introduce any legislation that is likely to cause an SNP back lash, so the situation is unlikely to occur.
    Of course the above is predicated that the polls will stay the way they are, even a couple of percent rise for the conservatives will not make much difference. To form the next Government the conservatives will need to do much better in the polls and ultimately in the Election itself.

  8. Bramley

    “@RandD
    Delighted to see you have posted again today.
    Noticeable too that it’s only us ‘gurls’ that have welcomed you back :-)
    March 11th, 2015 at 10:47 pm”

    Not so! I welcomed R&D back yesterday afternoon.

  9. I can’t see UKIP going into any formal coalition with the Conservatives if Douglas Carswell is re-elected. One of the main reasons he resigned from the Conservative Party is he doesn’t like being told what to do, i.e. taking the Party whip. He wanted to be free to criticise the Government and vote against if necessary. I really can’t see him meekly going back into a coalition with them and have the same problems all over again.

  10. @HAL

    Might counteract the Scottish affect on the Tory vote, i.e. driving the left to Labour.

  11. It was a 6.41 p.m.

    Though I doubt anybody noticed……. (walks away sadly and sits in a corner to sulk…….)

  12. Strange Poll ?
    Tonight’s will be interesting.

  13. @NEILJ 7:01

    I agree. Neither Lab nor SNP would be very happy in coalition together. If Lib+Lab > Con+UKIP, I think Lib and Lab will coalesce, tolerated as you say by SNP.
    The LibDems would restore their centrist USP by showing they might work with either side (and stay in ministerial limos – are the famed limos a myth, BTW?), Lab would find life much easier with a majority within England+Wales. So I think Cameron has a higher bar to clear because he has to find a combination that would not need SNP tolerance.

  14. Eddie – 8.22

    Yes, Labour must gain a majority in E&W, otherwise they will not have the moral mandate they need to deliver greater powers to Holyrood and regain the trust of the Scots. A Labour party which cannot win in E&W is of no use to Scotland….. as I have explained previously on this site……

  15. ‘Labour must gain a majority in E&W, otherwise they will not have the moral mandate ‘

    Moral mandate? No-one will care. It’s about the seat numbers. If Tories win but have no seats in Scotland would they have a moral mandate to govern or would they say no as they don’t represent Scotland? And neither Tories nor Labour have a moral mandate in NI…

  16. TOM CHADWICK
    It is an odd argument that the SNP should not be allowed into a govt coalition..why not..?…This is a westminster election…why shouldn’t the millions who vote for the SNP be represented?

    They’re a party whose sole purpose is the breakup of the United Kingdom. Why would any unionist or internationalist party not have serious concerns about them being involved in the UK government?

    The ‘millions’ of SNP voters will be represented: they’ll have MPs.

  17. @Neilj
    “If, as the polls are suggesting, the Liberal democrats are well down on their 2010 result, I suspect the Lib Dems will be reluctant to go in a coalition with the conservatives again. They can justify it as their policies are much closer to Labour than the Conservatives…..”

    I think you’re oversimplifying by treating the Lib Dems as a homogenous grouping.

    A lot depends on the outcomes in particular seats because it will determine which personalities force the issue. If the Orange Book MPs are able to maintain their grip around the leadership, the Conservatives will remain their natural allies. Also, meltdown in the LD MP count is more likely to prompt a lot of angst and change of direction than a relatively good showing.

    A lot could depend on whether Mr Nameless is successful in his efforts, which would force a change of leadership, with the most likely new leader (Farron) being very likely to seek a change of alignment. If Clegg hangs on in Hallam I don’t think they’ll change their spots.

  18. @ Jack

    ‘Labour must gain a majority in E&W, otherwise they will not have the moral mandate ‘

    Moral mandate? No-one will care. It’s about the seat numbers.

    You are right it has nothing to do with a “moral mandate”. But it doesnt have that much to do with seat numbers either.

    So long as no party has a majority, is not very close to a majority, then it will all come down to ‘politicking’. As simple as that.

    There is no constitution.

    What the press say is irrelevant.

    And what folk think on the Clapham omnibus makes no difference whatsoever.

  19. I find it astonishing David Cameron was lambasting EM over his refusal to rule out some sort of deal with the SNP while Cameron has not even hinted so much as whisper that he will rule out a deal with UKIP.

    I know a lot of politics are at play but the attack on EM was rather vicious and I think if there are any backlashes from the public then it might come from any deals between the Tories and UKIP.

    Some of the proposals UKIP are putting forward are horrific and have shifted from BNP light to BNP medium.

    The opposition parties really should highlight the threat of UKIP and the dangers Farage presents to race relations within the UK. That is not the sort of stuff DC should be teaming up with in the event of a hung parliament.

  20. @Colin
    ‘Strange Poll ?
    Tonight’s will be interesting.”

    If we just take YG’s March average (to date) the Tories still lead Labour 34-33, which is a 1.5 Lab-Con swing from the average for February (Lab 34, Con 32).

    What happens next is anyone’s guess.

  21. Folks, I’ve not posted on here for some time but am a keen observer. Your debates are measured and often intelligent but I feel that there is a huge BUT with these recent polls.
    UKIP- we don’t actually know how firm their vote is. I appreciate that all you experienced statisticians have greater knowledge than I,but what about the human element? How many Tories (or labour) defectors are going to actually vote UKIP when they are in that booth. Knowing that by doing so they could be letting the other party in.

  22. @Colin

    That should read “…a 1.5% Lab-Con swing…”

  23. Given how unhelpful blair and mandelson have been thus far I am sure one of the gang will go on about moral mandates afterwards [snip]

  24. “Moral mandate? No-one will care. It’s about the seat numbers. If Tories win but have no seats in Scotland would they have a moral mandate to govern or would they say no as they don’t represent Scotland? And neither Tories nor Labour have a moral mandate in NI…”

    Absolutely right….nobody cares about this stuff, apart from people like us.

    it’s all about seats in the house of commons…

  25. Ah, whataboutery.

    The sole purpose of UKIP is to leave the EU but I didn’t notice any of them refusing their seats in the EU Parliament or indeed competing for seats there in the first place.

  26. @BristolianHoward

    Maybe they’re trying to change the system from within.

  27. @Graham

    “@Phil Haines
    I agree and cannot see what Milliband has to lose from ruling out any deal with the SNP. If he forms a minority government he should simply dare them to bring him down.”
    ____________________________________________

    What Miliband has to lose from ruling out a deal with the SNP is probably Labour support in Scotland to the SNP. What he has to lose from not ruling out a deal is Labour support in England to the benefit of the Conservatives.

    But I agree with you and think Miliband should rule out a deal, that is say that Labour will govern on their manifesto and that if the SNP didn’t like it would be their choice to bring Labour down (and probably suffer the consequences at the subsequent GE which I think would follow regardless of the FTPA).

    What matters more for the colour of the next government is the total of Labour and SNP seats (or conversely the number the Conservatives don’t win) rather than whether Labour holds off the SNP in Scotland in the first of the 2015 general elections.

  28. @RAF

    You could almost call UKIP a ‘fifth column’

  29. PHIL HAINES
    ” bring Labour down (and probably suffer the consequences at the subsequent GE which I think would follow regardless of the FTPA)”
    _______

    I really get the impression some in Labour are hedging their bets on a Labour minority government governing all by themselves and at the same time pointing a finger over towards the Tories and reminding the SNP, that’s what you will get if you vote against us.

    So basically Labour are expecting the SNP to win 40 to 50 seats and just sit there and shut up while they get on with the job of governing as a minority administration safe in the knowledge that the SNP (who get absolutely nothing) will back them because on the hypothesis that if they don’t then there will be some sort of backlash in Scotland?

  30. Allan,

    Yes, that’s a plausible Labour strategy. The SNP will get Labour policies, which is what they claim to want, I believe.

  31. Allan

    What those of us who have put forward that viewpoint are saying is this: the SNP could vote against Lab on all sorts of legislation, and Labour would need to work with them or the other opposition parties on a vote by vote basis. But on key issues like budgets and confidence votes Labour could probably rely on the SNP’s support because of the heavy electoral disincentive without the need for a formal C&S agreement..

  32. SNP are likely to stay away from Scottish Labours pitfalls of being obstructive (this is the entire reason we have a SNP majority imo; Labour might moan that the SNP and Tories worked together in Holyrood but the public chose to end this not by voting Labour but by moving their vote to support Alex Salmond’s government of the time) to everything the Labour party propose at Westminster.

    I think Trident will be an issue even though both parties are trying to reduce the difference. I suspect if Labour and the Tories try and push it through – the SNP will attempt to block the budget. Current Trident might be fine but the renewal as it stands is too expensive and the argument can easily be made that the cost is hitting the rest of our capabilities.

  33. @Allan Christie

    If we are to believe what we are told here about the SNP being a party on the left, and also that most of their new found support is from people whose political allegiance is on the left, then I don’t think that either the SNP or their supporters would have too much difficulty with general SNP acquiesance with a Labour minority government that insisted on putting through its programme.

    Moreover, Labour and the SNP might also be able to reach some accommodation on genuine political issues of principle – that is, for example, whether the renewal of Trident should be go ahead or be put off.

    However, Scotland should not get any special favours in terms of funding or whatever at the expense of the rest of the UK, just because its electorate has chosen to vote in a particular way, contrary to what you seem to be saying. That would represent a descent into US-style pork barrel politics at its worst. It’s akin to saying that if Cornwall votes overwhelmingly for Mebyon Kernow, it has a right to demand special favours, but if it doesn’t, it shouldn’t. My view is that the West Midlands should in principle get a fair deal from the UK government regardless of how I or others living here vote. If I see representatives of other parts of the UK trying to hold our government over a barrel for sectional gain, I would take a very dim view. And that is how a lot of English voters are coming to view the antics of the SNP, as a result of which Cameron feels that he can score points by playing on those fears.

  34. @JOHN B

    ‘It was a 6.41 p.m.
    Though I doubt anybody noticed……. (walks away sadly and sits in a corner to sulk…….)’

    Come out of your corner – I noticed which is why I wrote “It’s true, the pups and Paul are back.” Apologies for lack of citation :(

  35. @Allan C

    “I find it astonishing David Cameron was lambasting EM over his refusal to rule out some sort of deal with the SNP while Cameron has not even hinted so much as whisper that he will rule out a deal with UKIP.”

    PS. I’ve found something to agree with you on!

  36. @Allan Christie 8:58
    “The opposition parties really should highlight the threat of UKIP and the dangers Farage presents to race relations within the UK.”
    Personally, I’m not so sure that works. I remember the Nick Griffin Question Time – with everyone pointedly ganging up on him, it gave the misleading impression that he represented, as it were, half the argument. UKIP thrive on having the mainstream parties “running scared” and sounding “all the same”.
    Trying to maintain (or create!) a reasonably civilised and evidence-based level of national debate would hopefully allow everything its fair chance in the marketplace of ideas, where bad arguments can sink on merit. I can dream.

  37. Dear Little Red Rock,

    Thank goodness, somebody else accepts this.
    If Con are the largest party, then they get first go at forming the government.
    And THEY WILL do this.

    SNP and LAB seats in Scotland are NOT interchangeable.

  38. @JohnB

    Whoops, I missed your post.

    In my own defence, this thread has become rather unwieldy with some very long posts that I sometimes skim over because they debate things that we have gone over umpteen times before.

    Can I get up off my knees now ? ;)

  39. Clarification has been provided on electoral registration in Scotland.

    1. No one on the current register will be removed before May 7th

    2. The new IER requirements of DoB and NI number are currently being collected, and the register will be updated later in the year,

    Much needless concern has been cause by people (like me) checking the Gov.UK site, and being told that we weren’t on the electoral roll, when we had received confirmation that we were.

    Clearly the UK govt. is incapable of telling whether a particular postcode is in Scotland!

    Consequently, the high certainty to vote figures in Scotland, being reported by the polls, should be reflected in actual turnout.

  40. Andyo

    Do we really have to go through all this nonsense again?

    Regardless of the election result, the sitting PM has “first go” at creating a government that commands the confidence of the House.

    That would be true, even if s/he was the only remaining member of their party!

    If it is clear to the PM that they haven’t a hope in the proverbial of doing that, s/he tenders his/her resignation to Brenda.

  41. Ashcroft publishing labour tory marginals next week -hasnt said which day- budget day ?

  42. ANDYO
    Thank goodness, somebody else accepts this.
    If Con are the largest party, then they get first go at forming the government.
    And THEY WILL do this.

    Sorry if I missed it, but I have not seen a single post on the many threads where this has been brought up which denies that after every GE the “sitting” PM gets first go at forming a government.

    What actually matters is whether that PM can survive a confidence vote in the HoC, which is virtually certain to follow if Brenda’s speech is not carried.

    A block of 325 [the speaker doesn’t vote] or fewer [depending on SF] voting against in a confidence motion will boot him or her out and let someone else have a try.

  43. ANDYO
    Thank goodness, somebody else accepts this.
    If Con are the largest party, then they get first go at forming the government.
    And THEY WILL do this.

    —-

    What will happen (as things stand) is the following:

    1. Cameron will announce that the country has not elected an alternative and that it therefore wants things to carry on as they are.

    2. Sure of DUP and UKIP support he will then have to go to the LD and ask them for their support.

    3. This is where the maths (seat numbers) come in to play… if the figures are such that nothing else is plausible, then so long as LD are happy to have a referendum on the EU, it will be a continuation of the current government.

    If, on the other hand, the maths offer an alternative.. or if LD do not want that referendum, then DC may fall.

    If that happens.. Ed will talk to the SNP and LD and a deal will be forged between those parties.

  44. 07052015

    Hopefully they will be tory labour marginals and not labour tory ones, if you follow me.

  45. Little Red Rock

    If, as some have said the Lib Dems and the DUP will support the party with the largest number of seats does this amount to a “winner’s bonus” of 30-35 seats?

    No, because neither of them have said anything of the sort. Both have been quite clear that they will put their support where it will give them the most influence. Which is exactly what you would expect politicians to do.

    I’m not surprised that people are scrolling past repetitive comments of the like of AndyO’s asserting that there is some magic ritual that politicians are bound to follow in the case of a hung parliament. Especially when what they specify as inevitable is not only contradicted by what happened in 2010 but actual procedures are now laid down in law which don’t match either.

  46. Barbazenzero

    What actually matters is whether that PM can survive a confidence vote in the HoC, which is virtually certain to follow if Brenda’s speech is not carried

    This almost certainly wrong, because it is unlikely that such a government would actually get as far as a Queen’s Speech without facing a confidence vote – which could well be a vote of confidence they put forward themselves – after they have put together an administration and the votes to support it.

    The Queen’s Speech is likely to take place a month after the election (at least) and the Commons will have met several times in the interim (initially to elect a Speaker). In that time it is likely that the legislative programme will have been decided and a majority for it obtained. Of course it could all go horribly wrong, but that’s more likely to happen further down the line with rows about details.

    It’s possible a PM could try to force a programme through without solid support, but in that case they will be hit with a no-confidence motion before Her Maj has decided what coach to come in.

  47. Even if the Conservatives could cobble together another Con/Lib pact which got them 325-330, it wouldn’t do them any good.

    Any proposal would have to simultaneously satisfy the Peter Bone/Philip Davies wing of the Tories and the Norman Baker Tim Farron wing of the Lib Dems. It would be mayhem, even before the inevitable by-election losses started to kick in.

    That’s before even thinking about the 1950s throwbacks in UKIP and the DUP.

    As for who gets first dibs, it is irrelevant. Brown had first dibs last time but him carrying on was never, ever going to happen.

  48. Roger Mexico

    Brenda might well decide to repeat her decisions in 1959 and 1963 to appoint the Lords Commissioners to open Parliament and the Lord Chancellor to read the speech.

    On those occasions she was pregnant, but this time could reasonably claim to be “pregnant with foreboding”.

  49. By-election losses are nowhere near as big a factor as they used to be, because MPs tend to be younger and healthier nowadays. The coalition have lost a few by-elections in this parliament, but the “vacancies” were mostly caused by people quitting (Mensch and the two Kippers) rather than dying.

1 8 9 10 11