A year since the election, we have two new GB voting intention polls (from YouGov and Survation) and a new Scottish poll (also from YouGov) today.

Looking at the YouGov/Times GB poll first, voting intentions are CON 44%(+2), LAB 37%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1). The seven point Conservative lead is the largest since the election but normal caveats apply – it is only one poll. Over the last two months YouGov have been showing a steady Conservative lead of around 4 or 5 points, so normal sample variation alone is enough to explain the occassional 7 point lead. Watch the trend, rather than getting excited over individual polls. Full tabs are here.

Survation‘s topline figures are CON 41%(nc), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 9%(+1). Changes are since mid May. Like YouGov, Survation have shown a steady position for the last couple of months, but there’s an obvious contrast in terms of what that position is – YouGov have a steady small Tory lead, Survation are showing the parties steadily neck-and-neck. As I’ve said before, there’s not an obvious methodological reason for this (while Survation have a very distinct sampling approach to their phone polls, this is an online poll and their online polls use broadly similar methods to YouGov, ICM and other companies, so there’s no obvious reason for differing results). Full tabs for the Survation poll are here.

Meanwhile YouGov’s Scottish voting intentions are

Westminster: CON 27%(+4), LAB 23%(-5), LDEM 7%(+1), SNP 40%(+4)
Holyrood constituency: CON 27%(+1), LAB 22%(-1), LDEM 6%(-1), SNP 41%(+3)
Holyrood regional: CON 26%(+1), LAB 21%(-1), LDEM 7%(nc), SNP 32%(nc).

Changes here are since the previous Scottish YouGov poll, way back in January. There is very little movement in Holyrood support, but in Scotland the Conservatives have moved back into second place. Full tabs for the Scottish poll are here.


759 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Survation voting intentions”

1 14 15 16
  1. @Alan

    On a basis what is good for the individual, I would have done the same!

    All that faced him was a no win position, a position bequeathed to Mrs May, and if her politicsl fortunes go pear shaped, it may be passed to Mr Corbyn.

  2. It is just increasingly obvious that there should never have been such a binary choice referendum, given that the option of leaving was so incredibly complex. And if there had to be one then it should have required a much higher trigger to activate a change from the status quo – probably 60% – in order to ensure the country was behind it.

    Whatever people like Howard and Farage say the truth is that, as a country, we are hopelessly divided on this issue.

  3. Andrew 111

    I’ve read a lot of self-serving crap in my time, but that LD spiel takes the biscuit!

    Since you can’t be arsed to “get to grips with the issue” you very effectively demonstrate why Westminster governance does not suit Scotland.

    Additionally, that the LDs have never actually tried to bring about their supposed preference for a Federal UK, both their words and actions amply demonstrate why in Scotland, you are simply a minor appendage to the Tories.

    You are, of course, correct in suggesting that theatrical gestures (and most of Parliamentary business is precisely that), by themselves, do not achieve changes in government direction. However, they can alter the political narrative and that affects votes.

    The LD walkout from the Commons in 2008 achieved nothing because few even noticed. Your party didn’t matter enough then to affect matters, and even less now.

    As to membership figures, your cautionary tale about the rise in LD membership is rather irrelevant. Agreed that there is no direct relationship between that and voting numbers. Indeed, a number of the “new” SNP members are those renewing lapsed memberships, just as you describe having happened to the LDs.

    But the LDs could have quadrupled their numbers (did they increase in Scotland, do you know?) and the party would have remained an irrelevance.

    Will the Scottish polls show an immediate pro-indy bounce? Possible, but I doubt it. Much more important is the shift in perception by a section of the formerly No voting population (see my post at 5:22pm).

    Folk like Alec may well still consider that remaining in the UK is the least worst option or make the relatively small switch to thinking that indy is the least worst.

    The Unionist parties (yours included) are helping some to make that relatively small switch. Like Murray Foote they won’t be doing that enthusiastically but just giving up on the idea that the UK Union can ever reform itself sufficiently to be a reasonable system for Scotland.

    Most of us who support indy previously thought that the UK could be sufficiently transformed to work effectively for all its component parts (especially if they were seen as partners in a joint enterprise). Over the months ahead we will find out whether the behaviour of the Unionists has nudged more in the direction of indy. It seems highly unlikely that it will have nudged others in the opposite direction.

  4. CMJ

    Hanging around waiting to be knifed wouldn’t have any better for the country either really.

    I agree that it’s likely to be a poisoned chalice for the next few terms, although it won’t put off people who think they can make a success of it only to be dragged down like their predecessor.

    It certainly looks like being Conservative leader is going to be even more difficult with two awkward squads. Where that ends up, who knows?

  5. New thread

  6. OLDNAT: Most of us who support indy previously thought that the UK could be sufficiently transformed to work effectively for all its component parts (especially if they were seen as partners in a joint enterprise). Over the months ahead we will find out whether the behaviour of the Unionists has nudged more in the direction of indy. It seems highly unlikely that it will have nudged others in the opposite direction.

    Scottish Independence is exciting. It is an idea whose time has come. The ‘Union’ on the other hand has manoeuvred itself into a deep hole where the only excitement it can offer is a ‘global Britain’ which is perversely cutting itself off from its nearest neighbours.

  7. @Oldnat

    “So, with all the power that it needed already in place, why would the UK choose to create this confrontation?”

    I’ll try and think about that one.

  8. @chrisrey:

    The EU says, “We cannot do X because it is against our rules, but if wanted to do D then we would change our rules.”

    So the rules are irrelevant. All the talk about respecting the EU as a rule driven organisation is irrelevant. It is about what the EU wants. And the EU avoids justifying what it wants, because it says it has no choice. To plead the impossibility of changing internal rules, but only when it suits you, is not defensible save as an act of power. In which case, say it as is. The EU should be open about dictating terms – and you can be open about supporting that.

    To me, when you are out of the EU there are things we can’t have because they are necessarily predicated on a common rule book. The European Arrest Warrant is one, but the Galileo stuff is not. Equally, they have to respect that they cannot demand jurisdiction over the U.K.

  9. Like Alec, I think the idea that the EU will not pass on information about terrorist activity to the UK is nonsensical.

    Are UKPR Brexiteers becoming increasingly paranoid? It’s very worrying.

1 14 15 16