Forum menu
Asking about policy questions in isolation will always get you different results.
"Do you think you should pay more tax?"
"Would you pay more tax to fund social care?"
Is it loaded? Or is it asking people about how policies should be balanced?
Of course it is a loaded question. It isn't simply asking if International Aid just be cut, it is asking whether it should be cut to pay for defence.
But it is asking a question about what the government has actually done. Unlike some of the other questions you quote such as the one directly linking foreign aid wth Covid prevention
EDIT A loaded question in this context would be "Would you rather not cut International aid even if it means that Russia would mount an invasion of this country."
That's not a loaded question.
The poll you've linked to was conducted well over a month ago. Which might as well have been ten years ago as far as the issue at hand is concerned.
Of course it is a loaded question. It isn't simply asking if International Aid just be cut, it is asking whether it should be cut to pay for defence. It is not giving the person being asked the question any other choices, as if there are no other choices. - which is clearly not the case.
And the poll was concluded less than a week before the government announced the 40% cut in the International Aid budget, so it is perfectly topical and it took place during the time that the government were discussing the issue.
Or do you think that Keir Starmer just got up one morning and decided to cut the aid budget?
Two weeks before the announcement of the cut in the International Aid budget the UK Foreign Secretary was giving interviews arguing that cutting aid was the wrong thing to do and that the Tories had been wrong for cutting so when in government. That is clear and overwhelming evidence of hypocrisy.
It is literally the sort of thing that the word "hypocrisy" was created to describe.
A loaded question is one which contains an implicit assumption about the respondent's beliefs. The yougov question simply asks if they support or oppose the government's decision. It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question. If the respondent believes another option is better, they would answer that they oppose the government's decision. In fact, most people supported the government's decision.
Your poll concluded on the 5th Feb. The aid budget reduction was announced on the 25th Feb. That's nearly three weeks, and the events that took place in those three weeks were of such magnitude that they've been described by various news outlets along the lines of having "shook the world". Events of such magnitude forcing a change of policy isn't hypocrisy.
Pretending its defence or aid with regards to an actual government budget is entirely fictitious.
There is NO lack of money. Labour are just trying really hard to sell this to everyone so we can't have the nice things.
If this was the really case Starmer wouldn't be able to keep promising funds for Ukraine.
Stop with the bogus spending limits.
Have you noticed how we never get anywhere because of all this nonsense?
If the respondent believes another option is better, they would answer that they oppose the government's decision.
There's your 'implicit assumption about the respondent's beliefs' right there.
It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question.
Oh come on. The phrasing makes appear as though the latter is necessary to achieve the former.
Blimey, His Majesty doesn't look a well man !
And why is he wearing badly applied lipstick, was he angry when he put it on? It makes him look like the Joker.
I hope he looks more presentable for Donald Trump's state visit
It contains no assumptions, therefore it's not a loaded question.
Oh come on. The phrasing makes appear as though the latter is necessary to achieve the former.
Not for me.
A loaded question which implies the latter is necessary to achieve the former would be something like, "do you support the government's responsible approach to ensuring national security by reallocating the necessary funds from less critical overseas aid programmes".
But as it stands they're simply asking if people support or oppose the approach. I don't know how you would make that question any less loaded tbh.
Not for me
It is for me, and for at least one other on this thread. If that's how it comes across to a reasonable percentage of those asked, it skews the result.
But as it stands they're simply asking if people support or oppose the approach. I don't know how you would make that question any less loaded tbh.
There is an agree/disagree acquiescence bias towards agree, especially with little information available on the subject polled.
Substituting agree/disagree you get, "Do you agree or disagree with the Government increasing defence spending by reducing spending on overseas aid?"
YouGov is an international business and they'll want to provide the most accurate poll results possible if they want to make money. I'd guess that their own survey experiments show that "support/oppose" is more accurate than "agree/disagree", which is more accurate than a loaded question.
Blimey, His Majesty doesn't look a well man !
Yes I fear we will have to tolerate more pomp and ceremony before too long. Considering how much the death of the Queen cost the country Rachel Reeves will be hoping he hangs on for a few more years yet.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
Not a Royalist by any stretch but some of the above is rather distasteful, IMO.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
Very similar to my FiL, who was dead a few year later. Can a Rachel Reeves managed economy afford the death of two monarchs in one or two terms? Probably not, but then she'll probably pay for it by withdrawing school dinners or something.
Not a Royalist by any stretch but some of the above is rather distasteful, IMO.
I think it's called black humour and/or satire, you should try it sometime.
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy
He's also standing next to a guy widely regarded as a hottie (by politics standards, anyway).
The guy's 76 and up until recently, maybe still, was having regular (weekly?) radiotherapy.
What on earth has that to do with him looking like the Joker? A very close friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer several years ago, she has had radiotherapy and regularly has chemo, the next lot is in a couple of weeks as it happens. Her makeup, including her lipstick when she uses it, is absolutely fine.
He's also standing next to a guy widely regarded as a hottie (by politics standards, anyway).
Tbh that is a fair comment. After the original shock of seeing how unwell His Majesty appeared my next thought was that the fact he was standing next to a tall handsome ****er with French genes wasn't helping.
Good for your friend. Not all people suffer the same side effects but red mouth and mucous membranes along with skin pallour can be side effects.
OK black humour, I just found it rather distasteful -> IMHO <-
The doubling down responses are IMHO more distasteful, FWIW.
but red mouth and mucous membranes along with skin pallour can be side effects.
So this isn't a sign that the King is particularly ill then, just a normal reaction to the treatment he is recieving?
If that is the case you would think that they would organise a bit of makeup for a photoshoot for the global media. And if it is something to worry about and it is a sign that he is very ill I don't understand the necessity of him having a photoshoot with Trudeau.
Whatever the explanation the King posing for photographs looking like death warmed up isn't particularly reassuring imo.
Here's the distasteful part of politics.
The Treasury has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments amid expectations the chancellor's room for manoeuvre has all but been wiped out.
The department will put the proposed cuts to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the official forecaster, on Wednesday ahead of the Spring Statement later this month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpjqg2mp5o
Bean-counter general is gearing up again with her spreadsheet and insistence in using made-up fiscal rules derived from a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
We are going through the cringe-worthy motions as the right-wingers pretend there's a limited stock of money that comes from the BoE. (Funny that; BoE and its agents paying interest income is an approved part of government spending that is not controlled by fiscal rules - wealth to the wealthy) so something has to be cut.
(On the other side of the pond the daft musk mob wants to remove government spending from GDP - government spending in the USA makes up 22% of GDP plus multiplier effect. What do you think will happen to the GDP now in the USA? All that growth they have is going to be hammered by an idiot that doesn't understand one drop of government finances. And worse services too. The National Parks are already falling apart in no time with staff cuts.)
The monetarists' belief that money comes from the private sector is an insane and ruthless disease that ideologically destroys everything around us that makes society what it is.
Labour are part of the same game.
(Let's not worry though as McSweeny's gameplan in a last ditch attempt to save Starmer's polling is to give him war-footing for popularity. Every sucker will buy into it including Paul Mason whose transformation is complete into fully fledged Twitter general along with Dunt, O'Brien and the rest of LBC.)
Here's the distasteful part of politics.
The Treasury has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments amid expectations the chancellor's room for manoeuvre has all but been wiped out.
The department will put the proposed cuts to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the official forecaster, on Wednesday ahead of the Spring Statement later this month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpjqg2mp5o
Bean-counter general is gearing up again with her spreadsheet and insistence in using made-up fiscal rules derived from a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
We are going through the cringe-worthy motions as the right-wingers pretend there's a limited stock of money that comes from the BoE. (Funny that; BoE and its agents paying interest income is an approved part of government spending that is not controlled by fiscal rules - wealth to the wealthy) so something has to be cut.
(On the other side of the pond the daft musk mob wants to remove government spending from GDP - government spending in the USA makes up 22% of GDP plus multiplier effect. What do you think will happen to the GDP now in the USA? All that growth they have is going to be hammered by an idiot that doesn't understand one drop of government finances. And worse services too. The National Parks are already falling apart in no time with staff cuts.)
The monetarists' belief that money comes from the private sector is an insane and ruthless disease that ideologically destroys every around us that makes society what it is.
Labour are part of the same game.
(Let's not worry though as McSweeny's gameplan in a last ditch attempt to save Starmer's polling is to give him war-footing for popularity. Every sucker will buy into it including Paul Mason whose transformation is complete into fully fledged Twitter Army General along with Dunt, O'Brien and the rest of LBC.)
Duplicate for some reason. Apologies.
YouGov is an international business and they'll want to provide the most accurate poll results possible if they want to make money
Just a reminder that yougov was formed by Nadhim Zahawi... Not a man of great morals. Yougov is perfectly able to make money whilst directing questions to get the answers they want (if anything, more so). I think it's naïve to say otherwise.
a made-up institution created by George Osborne to again slaughter the economy and people's lives. (do Labour have any nonsense institutions of their own or are they all Tory cast-offs?)
Their slavish commitment to Tory strategies is quite remarkable, they really can't claim to be a 'Labour' government in any real sense of the word, they are Tory in everything but name.
The ridiculously named "Office of Budget Responsibility" was a gimmick created by the Tories to firstly drive home the myth that the last Labour government had been "irresponsible" in their handling of the global credit crisis.
And secondly to help the Tories make the case for austerity by portraying it as the "responsible" thing to do...... the "independent" OBR whose members are handpicked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove that.
Now 15 years later New Labour on steroids, as Starmer likes to see it, are enthusiastically embracing the Office of Budget Responsibility to help them make the case for their own austerity programme and to also pretend that it has the backing of a so-called independent organisation which was specifically created by the Tories to be an anti-Labour tool.
Never was the term "two cheeks of the same arse" more appropriate.
Labour are going to ban criminals from going to pubs and other 'social' events. I'll be interested to see how they're going to enforce that one considering they don't have enough police to prevent shoplifting, burglaries and muggings. Or are they going to expect landlords to do the job?
The radio silence is deafening.
Christ I posted that last comment nearly 12 hours ago and it’s only just appeared. No wonder there’s radio silence. Good way to kill a forum though if that’s what the plan is. 🙄
Well, given that the kind of 'social event' that crims are normally drawn to often has a police presence, it might not be as difficult as first thought.
As for the pubs, again - the ones that crims usually frequent will be well known to the police. We're hardly talking about a quaint country pub with flowerbeds in the beer garden in most cases. Plus the quaint country pub is usually on high alert for anyone a bit shifty and will be on the phone to the Dibble the second anything looks like kicking off.
We use prison too much. Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Wide support for cutting international aid to fund increased defence spending according to yougov, including among Labour voters.
It seems that most people understand that being forced to change your plans by the occurrence of unforeseen events doesn't mean you are displaying "hypocrisy". Phew!
It'll be interesting to see how much of a boost Starmer gets in approval ratings and election polling after displaying such impressive global leadership this weekend.
Well it seems to have worked, slashing the international aid budget to boost defence spending (it will probably all be spent thousands of miles away in the Chaos Islands to keep Donald Trump sweet and nothing to do with defending the UK) as championed by Nigel Farage, Labour are now 1% in front of Reform UK :
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51714-voting-intention-lab-26-ref-25-con-21-02-03-mar-2025
Obviously on only 26% Labour need to do considerably better than that if they stand any chance of winning the next general election. So perhaps they need to see what other ideas they can pinch from the Reform UK's election manifesto and Nigel Farage?
Btw I can't quite believe that Labour being on only 26% doesn't appear to be causing Keir Starmer's leadership any problems. Imagine the outrage it would have caused the previous Labour leader. Starmer/McSweeney really have the Labour Party in their pockets.
Obviously on only 26% Labour need to do considerably better than that if they stand any chance of winning the next general election
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is, it’s likely it could deliver a result not too different from the recent landslide.
You know there’s not an election for another 4 years, right?
Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Completely agree, but the alternatives have to be both enforcable and effective. How are they going to enforce banning people from pubs? My local has trouble keeping out the people who have been barred or are on pub watch without having to worry about a whole load of other people serving community orders.
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is
Two problems with that. Firstly reform is also splitting the labour vote. Secondly any govt needs a clear mandate to do anything, and 26% is a long way from that.
You know there’s not an election for another 4 years, right?
Yep, I see what you mean - another 4 years and there will be no difference between Reform and Labour the way Labour are going.
Still thinking about actually going through with the £30 bet you offered on Labour not losing the election in 4 years time?
Looking at improving the alternatives seems essential to me.
Completely agree, but the alternatives have to be both enforcable and effective. How are they going to enforce banning people from pubs? My local has trouble keeping out the people who have been barred or are on pub watch without having to worry about a whole load of other people serving community orders.
You may be misunderstanding what is being proposed (and tbf the report hasn't been written yet!).
Bail conditions are imposed on people charged with crimes pending trial so they don't have to be kept on remand. Common examples are no drinking, no going back to scene of alleged crime, curfew etc.
What this is about is giving judges more latitude to order similar MEASURES AFTER conviction to keep offenders out of trouble without imprisoning them (which is expensive and often counterproductive).
No-one is suggesting that pubs should be response for barring convicts from going there.
Still thinking about actually going through with the £30 bet you offered on Labour not losing the election in 4 years time?
Well seeing as it was me who offered the bet in the first place… yes. But the bet wasn’t Labour not losing. I wasn’t the one who made the confident assertion that the next government will be a Tory or Reform one or a Tory/Reform coalition. That’s the bet. I think it will be none of those things and am prepared to risk a lot of steak bakes on it
Not really. With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is
Two problems with that. Firstly reform is also splitting the labour vote. Secondly any govt needs a clear mandate to do anything, and 26% is a long way from that.
Just 6% of last years labour voters would vote reform now according to the yougov poll, compared to 22% of Tory voters who would vote reform.
I don't know what the threshold is for "splitting the vote" but I don't think 6% does it for me. The Lib Dems at 9% and Greens are 5% are also "splitting the labour vote" if that's how you define it. Yet it's fair to say we can expect some of those to back Labour again if the realistic alternative if tories or farage.
With the Tory/Reform vote split as it is, it’s likely it could deliver a result not too different from the recent landslide.
With the current figures as they are it would deliver a result totally different to the recent landslide. Not only would there be no landslide victory for Labour but there wouldn't even be a Labour majority.
In fact it's likely that the Tories and Reform could form a coalition government with a working majority.
The most recent seat prediction from an MRP.poll a week ago puts the Tories the largest party but 148 seats short of a majority. However it gives Reform UK 175 seats so the Tories could go into coalition with them and they would have a comfortable majority.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20250207.html
Polling 4 years out from a GE is fairly meaningless
Locals will give a slightly better indication and I expect Lab to get a thumping there, but with Farage looking weaker atm on Ukraine/Trump, it will be interesting to see what gains Refuk might make, theyd be a good bet to take a lot of Con & Lab seats and a lot of opinions & colum inches will be spun off that. While Starmers & Labs approval has ticked up lately, mostly off his handling of Ukraine/ Trump
https://bsky.app/profile/electionmaps.uk/post/3ljnaatbsqc2e
but if you check out the data tables, 53% say they Dont Know, as i said this far out polls are poor indicators
Ultimately the thing that determines the next GE will be the same thing that determined the last one, whether people feel better off, how quickly they can see a GP, A&E, whether their kids can get on the housing ladder, whether they feel secure in their jobs etc, a Trumpcession & trade war could well see things looking grimmer (and see labour punished come the locals in May too if its kicking off and prices are rising)
The Con/Reform rivalry is still undecided, I wouldnt even like to guess who will be leader of either party come the next GE
Polling 4 years out from a GE is fairly meaningless
I actually remember you kimbers celebrating in 2020 when under Starmer's Labour first started to ease in front of Boris Johnson's Tories by 2%. 😉
I remember it because I was criticised for not being in a celebratory mood, TJ in particular accused me of deliberately ignoring the opinion polls. I wasn't particularly impressed because 2% is within the margin of error. I was massively impressed though when Labour established 20+% leads.
Anyway Starmer and McSweeney clearly don't think the polls now are meaningless which is obviously why they are trying to steal Nigel Farage's thunder. And all the elections, local, national, mayoral, and by-elections, between now and 2029 will build the momentum for the next general election. Endless poor election results will damage Labour long-term.
Betting-wise, I reckon Reform either not existing at all by the next election, or still limping on with Dicky or 30p Lee as leader but with Farage having set up yet another vehicle for his enormous ego, is probably worth a punt
The bickering has started already. ‘Splits within the party’ and there’s only five of them? 😂
Reform faces split as Farage hits back over ‘messianic’ criticism
Polling 4 years out from a GE is fairly meaningless
Dunno about that - Starmer is trying as hard a possible to react to polling (now - badly) because they plan a long time ahead. (Nuclear War enthusiasm will only play out so much.)
Betting-wise, I reckon Reform either not existing at all by the next election
The trajectory as we all know over the last few years of this type of party is gathering momentum and not going away.
Reform will exist either as it is or under a new identity but I think their branding is so strong I'd bet against you there.
In-fighting (blah blah) will just probably morph into another version at worst possibly with a different logo but the essence of this type of party is getting stronger not weaker.
Why would it? Until the there is a force to fix the things that drive Reform's success it's only going to get worse.
First thing spreadsheet Labour could do *tomorrow* which is both pragmatic and and carries polling weight - Nationalise at least water as a start.
Not happening though is it?
Edit remove duplicate post.
One version is enough.
So the utterly nasty double act of Kendall and Reeves are sharpening their right-wing Tory based ethics of needlessly punishing the vulnerable unnecessarily for the sake of fiscal rules / black holes / balanced budgets.
6bn is a half percent of the total UK budget.
All lies, every single drop of it. Can you see how following the fabricated budgetary requirements of a government house-hold analogy is poisonous beyond belief? It only works if we don't educate ourselves against it. Even if you don't believe that running a bigger deficit is a good idea because - *spooking markets* then go and take a hard look at yourself and understand how markets are secondary to government choices. You are choosing accounting over lives.
PIP is a difficult benefit to get. And there's little fraud so what is there to gain?
Diverting the debate about getting people into work is an excuse. A Tory manicured excuse for cuts.
This would be bad enough if Labour weren't doing this after 14 years of crushing the vulnerable.
I really hope this sinks Labour never to come back again in this form and I'm damn happy I didn't vote for them.
I don't doubt there will be a stream of marginal benefits that Labour might offer over the next few weeks - free passes to go into Libraries or new coloured wheelie bins or something that Libs can find amongst the ruins.
But we got the Tories out.
What a shit show. The McSweeney puppet that is Starmer hopefully will get stamped on by domestic affairs just before the elections.