The Times this morning has the latest YouGov voting intention figures – CON 42%(+3), LAB 28%(-2), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 11%(-2). While the size of the lead isn’t quite as large as the seventeen points ICM showed earlier in the week, it’s a another very solid lead for the Conservatives following their party conference, matching the lead May had at the height of her honeymoon. Full tabs are here.

While I’m here I’ll add a quick update on two other recent YouGov polls. First some new London polling, which shows extremely positive ratings for Sadiq Khan. 58% of people think he is doing well as London mayor, only 14% think he is doing badly. Mayors of London seem to get pretty good approval ratings most of the time (both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson normally enjoyed positive ratings), I don’t know if that’s down to the skills of the individual politicians who have held the job so far or whether the public judge them by different standards to Westminster politicians. Never the less, it’s a very positive start for Khan, with net positive approval ratings among supporters of all parties except UKIP. Full tabs are here.

Finally, since the subject keeps popping up, some polling on the Royal Yacht. The public oppose replacing the Royal Yacht with a newly commissioned vessel by 51% to 25%. They would also oppose recommissioning the old Royal Yacht Brittania, but by a smaller margin (42% opposed, 31% support). The argument that the cost of the Yacht would be justified by the its role in promoting British trade and interests oversees does not find favour with the general public – 26% think the cost can be justified, 57% think it cannot. Full results are here.

607 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 42, LAB 28, LDEM 9, UKIP 11”

1 11 12 13
  1. Carfrew

    As to Popper – had he thought over his own argument, he should have stopped writing and talking, as that argument leads to pure solipsism. So, he argued from a purely moral stance (i.e. the whole falsification notion, beyond common sense is just an intellectual straw man.

    Just to be pedantic :-)

  2. New thread, could get heated

  3. Neil A

    “The legislation should be UK wide”

    While the UK Parliament can throw aside the devolution settlements (as you propose), it might not be a wise thing to do.


    “It is not reasonable to assume someone who supports one alternative would support the other.”

    I wouldn’t disagree. However, the current polarisation of opinion concentrates on Border Control v Single Market. That probably motivated most voters in the referendum (though who knows?).

    My point was that the referendum question was incompetently constructed to allow a decision, on what seems to be the underlying issue, to be arrived at.

    But then, if you have a PM willing to let the likes of Farage to set the parameters of the debate, then y sensible outcome is unlikely.


    Delightful (if very silly) rhetoric. Aberdeen voted Remain ; Ceredigion (which includes Aberystwyth) voted Remain ; Belfast voted Remain. But I agree – from Brighton to Brighton, the people have broken free from something or other – it’s just not clear what that was.!

  4. @popeye

    “A large mandate itself doesn’t introduce bias, but any *requirement* for a larger mandate before action were taken would introduce bias away from the democratic balance. It’d be biased towards whatev
    er it was determined *would* happen instead if the winning mandate came out as between 50% + 1 and the predetermined threshold, even if that decision was: “We won’t do owt!””


    You are just presuming that a lesser vote is more democratic without actually having established that.

  5. @POPEYE

    “I have to say I am starting to doubt the willfulness of your misunderstanding!

    Neither of those are what I said. I said that if you didn’t treat a slim mandate (i.e. 50% + 1) as you did a large mandate (100%), you would be usurping the democratic will for some other consideration…”

    Nah, you’re changing it again. In your last post which I was responding to, you weren’t on about treating a slim mandate the same, you actually wrote…

    ” That’s all I have really ever been saying. If you require a more onerous mandate for action than the simple 50% + 1 in this type of decision, you are necessarily prioritising other issues (for instance, conservatism, a bias towards enacting the status quo) over the democratic will.”

    Which is what I disagreed with. Because a bigger mandate can be seen as more democratic. And those other issues can also be part of making things more democratic. anyway, Eg compensating for turnout. So you’re wrong there too.

  6. Oldnat,
    re consistency of vote in wales. I do not have enough time even to keep up with this blog, never mind study all the polls which are out there. I have also seen polls and pollsters which argue they see a small trend to reverse the decision. But a small change is all that is needed to reverse the decision, it was never a convincing result. Perhaps what is most convincing to me is that leave plainly sees and fears a trend to reverse the vote, which is why they have launched a massive propaganda campaign to try to reinforce the existing result. I am sure they spend a lot more time studying polls than I do. No one need fear a re-run if they believe they are winning and it would serve to confirm it as settled. The poll you linked shows clearly that those who liked the result want to stick with it, whereas those who did not want another go.

    Yes,there will be a confounding factor from those who are simply sick of it all and therefore do not want another polll. I am not clear from the figures in the link what is being done about the 1/3 or so who did not vote but who may also be influenced.

    I saw an interesting interview of some Leave voters who were asked if they were worried about some of the bad economic data lately, and they were completely not. They seemed to me to be wholly in denial that anything bad was happening to the economy. To me, that means they had not taken on board such information. Maybe they never will, but equally it may take a while to sink in. It is difficult to admit you are wrong about something very important. If people are in denial, that means if the events become sufficiently bad there is still scope to break through.

    I have no doubt that Leave see the small trend and the potential for it to become a very big one, and they plainly fear that the economic argument will yet sway voters against them. Its very far from over.

  7. neil A,
    ” The UK managed to reach an almost stable population, but then the Eastern European accession treaties pushed us into a rapidly accelerating population again.”

    i think this would be difficult to prove. The question is causality, did the state of the Uk economy attract immigrants because it needed labour, or did immigrants come because suddenly they could and displaced local workers. The reality is that the immigrants have been absorbed into the economy and their employers are all crying out they could not manage without them.

    Given the chronically low productivity in the UK and terrible record at educating people with needed skills, it seems we did need these workers. I expect we could have managed without if efforts had been made at home to correct the shortages, but plainly successive Governments have felt the simplest solution is to encourage immigrants. Actual private citizens (and indeed arms of government) making their own decisions about who to employ have chosen to get in foreign workers in preference to Uk ones.

    I see no evidence of a surplus of immigrants to the UK over and above the demand from the Uk economy. This suggests the problem is not a free supply from europe, but the demand from UK industry sucking them in.

    “A smaller UK population would present major challenges, particulary in the short term, with health and pension provision for the elderly. But in the long term it would be, in my opinion, a massive boon.”I dont disagree at all. But the problem is not the EU or available labour from there, it is policy inside the UK. The government has not changed its mind that, leave or remain, it still plans to let in just as many workers as now.

1 11 12 13