YouGov’s regular poll for the Times this week shows another Labour lead, with topline figures of CON 36%(-1), LAB 41%(+2), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 7%(+1). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday, and changes are from the middle of last week. We’ve now had four polls with fieldwork after the Davis/Johnson resignations – two from YouGov, one each from Opinium and Deltapoll – and all four have shown the Conservatives falling back behind Labour.

YouGov also found 40% in favour of a referendum on whether or not to accept the final deal, 42% of people were opposed – the highest level of support for a second referendum that YouGov have found so far with this tracker.

There was less support for Justine Greening’s idea of a “three-way” referendum between remain, Theresa May’s deal or no deal: only 36% thought that should happen, 47% were opposed. In the event it did go ahead, people said they would vote to stay – on first preferences support stands at Remain 50%, Leave with the deal 17%, Leave without the deal 33%. Once leaving with the deal has been eliminated and second preferences reallocated, the final figures would be 55% remain, 45% leave with no deal.

1,819 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 36, LAB 41, LDEM 9, UKIP 7”

1 35 36 37
  1. Laszlo: Some might be interested in.the mathematical take on a multi-choice referendum (as in the YouGov poll).

    It is the Condorcet method (if you look up his life – he wasn’t particularly successful in applying his theory in politics, but it is a different question).

    Condorcet AFAICS is not so very different from Transferable vote. The main difference I can see is that you can put in a nonsense vote – eg in a 3 way choice
    A>B, B>C, C>A which would lead to a null vote which has no influence. I would call this a preference loop, which is an inherent contradiction.

    3 ways is as far as we need to look for a second referendum, but with 4 ways, you could have a first choice and a preference loop or a preference loop and a last choice or a 4 member preference loop. With 5 or more, I am not up to thinking what you could have in the way of preference loops, but I suspect that the scope for contradictions by preference loops will begin to dominate as voters fail to identify and deal with the contradictions.

    I would prefer the transferable vote scenario which inherently forces voters to rank the choices explicitly. Condorcet seems to me to attempt to take raw data from the voter and derive a ranking without acknowledging that the voters’ raw choices may be contradictory when the voters do not do their own explicit ranking.

  2. I’ve noticed that the words “sneering” or “to sneer” has been more or less co-opted into the lexicon of the political right. Maybe not exclusively, but it’s a word now beloved of right wing polemicists and a vice of which they regularly accuse the left of being culpable. So Emily Thornberry was “sneering” at the “white working class” by taking a photograph of a white van and a St George’s flag. The “metropolitan liberal elite” are always “sneering” at good old English values like patriotism. The BBC doesn’t report, it “sneers”, as do all Labour politicians when making observations about the state of the nation. Remainers “sneer” all the time. Why, if you ever doubted the wisdom of the EU Referendum, you’re sneering at our democracy.

    This has started to fascinate me so I looked up the OED to see its definition. According to them, to sneer is to: –

    “smile or speak in a contemptuous or mocking manner.”

    Crikey, just about sums up every word that people like Boris Johnson, Richard Littlejohn, John Humphreys, Rod Liddle, Paul Dacre, Simon Heffer, Stephjen Glover, Nigel Farage etc etc have ever uttered.


  3. JJB is a returnee who used to frequent these pages prior to 2010 but mainly on constituency threads.

    Something must have riled him as he used to be courteous even if he had differing views to mine.

  4. I find the serious discussion of a 3 question Brexit referendums a little amusing.

    Before the UK Government insisted on a binary question only being allowed, the Scottish Government suggested such a model for the indyref.

    On here, the idea was characterised as impractical and frankly ludicrous.

    I suspect, though I can’t be bothered checking back, that some of those comments might have been made by people who now seriously entertain the concept for themselves.

    Whichever sauce is chosen, they are equally applied to male and female ducks – at least in kitchens (which normally display less self-interested hypocrisy than in politics!)

  5. This presents the problems both sides face with the Irish border. A number of possible solutions are analysed.

  6. Forcibly changing the locks of houses in Glasgow in which the Home Office believes illegal immigrants are living, does not look a wise policy.

    I have not read all the details, but have seen that at least one of those targeted has appealed against eviction from the UK.

    The SNP government and a Glasgow Labour MP are fighting against the policy, and very likely all the Scottish parties bar SCON will join in. In my opinion immigration ought to be a devolved matter – it`s much more important to have the Scottish government and parliament deciding who should live here than that they have absolute control over conservation, farming and fishing.

    So if the lock changing boils over, and genuine residents are stuck in their properties and there`s a fire, the London Tory government will surely get punished by Scottish voters.

  7. Davwel

    !00 of those targeted by Serco for eviction have permission to remain in the UK.

    Govan Law Centre have raised a legal action against Serco (at first sight it looks like Serco/Home Office didn’t understand Scots housing law).

    GCC have welcomed support from SNP, SGP, SLab and SLD. As you surmised SCon have been silent.

  8. Is this the tip of the iceberg in local government, as many are now warning it is? Truly shocking account of the disastrous situation in Northamptonshire: –

  9. Davwel,

    “In my opinion immigration ought to be a devolved matter.”

    In principle yes and the different needs of the economy in Scotland suggest it, but the fly in the ointment is the logistics of making sure that those given leave to live in Scotland don’t just drive South looking for work.

    The back Door into England has popped up from time to time in the UK tabloids with reference to Independence and while pre brexit we could assume that anyone legitimately in Scotland or England could travel and work freely in both now things are more fluid.


  10. Good evening all from a very warm Winchester, England’s capital.

    “Typical sneering remain supporters on this thread, just like Tim Jones on the constituency threads”

    Regardless of political persuasion you’ll probably find most posters on this website post well thought out comments and do quite a bit of research before posting.

    Please don’t insult their intelligence and I’m saying this as someone who voted Brexit.

  11. OLDNAT
    “Before the UK Government insisted on a binary question only being allowed, the Scottish Government suggested such a model for the indyref.”

    As you will of course recall, the 1997 Scottish Parliament referendum was a three-option two-question referendum, which is one way of doing it of course.

    I have my reservations about a three-option referendum though not because there is no practical method but because there are several, with variants in the method of asking and the method of counting.

    The real trouble with a three-option referendum is that the result may depend on the method chosen.

    We have seen what happens in this area of politics even when an unambiguous two-option question is put, at least if the result is close. No-one could argue that 2016 put the matter to bed (!).

    Since the question/ counting issue makes a three-option referendum immeasurably more vulnerable to cries of foul by the losers, I dread to think how many more years of whingeing (from whichever side or sides are in that position) it would produce, and I fail to see how it will settle anything.

  12. ON:

    Presumably most of those targeted for lock changing in the first tranche have not appeals in progress, otherwise the Home Office contractors are behaving even more foolishly than is being reported in UK newspapers.

    This would be a good issue for the SNP government to have a full stand-off with TM`s government. They could employ another firm of locksmiths to change the locks after Serco have acted, citing safety reasons or some devolved matter.

    Just like TM is trying to show her “effectiveness” by introducing lanes for UK citizens at custom controls, so the SP government needs newsworthy fights to expose how the Tory government is wilfully ignoring our democratic vote in June 2016..

  13. Peter W

    One can prefer forcing a binary choice in a referendum (omitting options that have long commanded significant support is one way) or (if Parliamentarians are as incompetent as in Westminster) adopt a multi option approach.

    My point related to the hypocrisy of those advocating a Brexit 3 option referendum (because it suits them) while having argued against such an option in 2014 (when polls showed that Devo Max would have been a clear winner).

    I’m not surprised by such hypocrisy.

  14. Davwel

    “citing safety reasons or some devolved matter”

    As the UK Government had made very clear, any exercise of a devolved power that, in any way, interferes with what they want to do, will be struck down.

    Those who thought that “taking back control” only referred to the EU was sadly mistaken. Taking back control from those pesky devolved countries was just as important.

  15. I find the best way to avoid being sneered at is simply not to post anything.

  16. Peter SNP:

    I think the problem of immigrants to Scotland moving down into England could be solved fairly easily by making employment in the geographically quite small areas where excessive immigration has overwhelmed facilities, to be subject to permit control.

    The present Home Office policy ignores that over most of the UK we need and want more capable immigrants, and businesses and public services are being damaged because of the restrictions. Crops wasted, children untaught, NHS waiting lists swollen, etc.

  17. Well played Aberdeen.

  18. In Scots (though the usage is now rather restricted) to sneer meant “To snort, to twitch the nose, to snuffle, to inhale or exhale heavily and noisily”.

    I rather like the idea of responding to a post by twitching my nose at them (sounds very Shakesperian)

  19. Barnier’s op-ed does seem to create openings for some kind of reasonable Withdrawal Agreement and an FTA to follow.

    Whether the Tories will want to protect Irish or Scots interests in order to allow a deal is another matter.

    Quite why the UK wants to portray itself as not protecting either those interests or the devolution settlement is rather less clear. That the EU is more protective of our interests than Westminster may not pass unnoticed.

1 35 36 37