Two new voting intention polls out today, one from ICM in the Guardian and one from YouGov in the Times.

Topline figures from ICM are CON 39%(-1), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 6%(+1). Fieldwork was Friday to Sunday, and changes are from a fortnight ago. Clearly there is no significant change from the previous poll, and Labour and the Conservatives remain extremely close. Tabs for the ICM poll are here.

YouGov meanwhile have topline figures of CON 39%(+1), LAB 35%(-3), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 7%(+1). Fieldwork was a little more recent, between Wednesday and Thursday, and changes are from last week. The 35% figure for Labour here is their lowest since the general election. The usual caveats apply – it’s a single poll, so while that could be an indication that the ongoing Labour infighting over antisemitism has knocked their support, it could also just be normal sample variation. Wait to see if other polls show a similar drop before getting too excited. On best Prime Minister May leads Corbyn by 36%(+4) to 22%(-3), with 39% of people saying not sure. YouGov’s regular Brexit tracker found 42% saying Britain was right to vote to Leave, 45% saying it was wrong.

668 Responses to “Latest ICM and YouGov voting intentions”

1 12 13 14

    .”The Welsh cross break was 48 people……relying on single cross break of that size is realms of accuracy comparable to Mystic Meg”

    This is very true and cross breaks are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt but I can’t ever mind ol Mystic having the Lib/Dems on 0% in Wales!

    Sometimes cross breaks can (hint) at what is happening so I’ll keep an aye on the Welsh cross breaks in the meantime to see if there is a trend or not.

  2. Tables for that Sept 2016 Scottish poll

    Results by 2015 GE Party vote
    An independent Scotland within the EU : SCon 2%, SLab 18%, SNP 55%
    An independent Scotland outside the EU : SCon 3%, SLab 5%, SNP 20%
    Scotland inside both the UK and the EU : SCon 38%, SLab 46%, SNP 11%
    Scotland inside the UK but outside the EU : SCon 54%, SLab 24%, SNP 11%


    “Well dunno about the tree hugging thing Allan, not too much tree hugging going on since students rather comprehensively saw off LDs round my way, (you could see them plotting in the pub before the election), but I’m not sure about the wisdom of LDs who are constantly having at Labour if they need to convince voters that LDs are no longer for enabling Tories. Still, whatever floats their boat”

    I reckon it will be at least a generation before the Lib/Dems are partially relevant again in UK mainstream politics. The Tories were out for the count in Scotland and were toxic for a very long time and it’s only recently they have made a comeback.

    Dirt tends to stick in politics and ol Vince in the eyes of the students has a dirty face but I also think the Lib/Dems have a wider credibility issue across the country.

    Cant quite put my finger on it but the Lib/Dems are borderline fruit cakes.

  4. It occurs to me that @DANNY may be right about the effect of the single customs zone amendment to the Customs Bill, but for precisely the opposite reason.

    Per WB61, the almost limitless powers in the Withdrawal Act are how the Government gets its detailed legislative compatibility with the Withdrawal Agreeement.

    Since these include a general power to amend other legislation to the extent that is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreeement and Act they presumably include the power to amend that bit of the Customs bill, if it has by then passed into law. I see no reason why this should not be so anyway, so wide ranging are those powers.

    So the provision of the prospective Customs Act that purports to prevent a separate Customs deal for NI is a hollow gesture not so much because Parliament retains the power to legislate on whatever the Withdrawal Agreement says but because it has given it away.

  5. WB

    Thanks for dealing with Danny’s comment. I missed it and have kept on going.

  6. Peter W

    That’s an intriguing suggestion!

  7. @Carfrew
    You can accuse the Lib Dems of many unfortunate things when in government, but enabling Brexit is not one of them.

  8. ABDREW 111
    I think Clegg’s campaign for a referendum was a major error.
    I also think The LD support for a discredited Tory Government made them less credible in the eyes of some Labour people who were inclined to vote Remain, but could not bring themselves to go with with Lib Dem policy.
    In addition they were very scathing v G Brown; so there was less chance of a bi partisan Referendum approach. In contrast with 1975, Wilson allowed ‘Jim’ to run an emollient campaign.

  9. PTRP
    I pointed out that in 2001 when the Lib Dems were not considered “toxic” Labour got more votes in Richmond Park than in 2017, when you think they ARE “toxic”. And despite the Labour national vote increasing considerably between 2015 (when I agree 1OO% that the Lib Dems were being punished for the coalition by the electorate) and 2017, the Labour vote in Richmond Park went down to a level which is actually below the norm for a national Labour vote above 40%. Everything in that data shows that where the Lib Dems are considered to be the main challenger to the Tories, ABT voters are once again ready to lend them tactical votes. That worked in Twickenham, Kingston and Carshalton, but not in RP where Goldsmith is objectively still popular and the Tory vote naturally high..

    In the SW, yes, Labour have moved into second place in many seats, which is very good news for the Tories, who know they can always beat Labour in most of them.. But where the Lib Dems are still second I predict they will squeeze the Labour vote lower at the next election. Whether they win any back will depend mainly on how the Tories are doing.. I did not bother to comment on your cherry picking of a local by-election. I read very little into local by-elections in terms of General Elections, but since June 2017 the Lib Dems have made net gains of +23 seats in such by-elections, and Labour +8. (Data from UK polling report)

  10. Sorry! Data from VoteUk forum!

  11. PETE B

    One little nugget I spotted in the Number Cruncher poll referred to above, is that the more politically engaged are more likely to vote Conservative, and the less engaged Labour. If I’ve understood it right, that’s the opposite of the stereotypes that I for one have been assuming – i.e. Conservatives live in sleepy villages and vote out of habit whereas the young firebrands in the cities vote Labour!

    What the Number Cruncher poll:

    does say is that it’s political attention not political engagement and it’s self-assessed – ie the pollster asks people how much attention they normally pay to politics, which you can do anywhere. I’d actually expect it to be higher for Conservatives because the sort of person who most likely to say they pay a high level of attention – our old friend the elderly middle-class Scotsman who never says DK, for example – is also more likely to be be a Tory voter.

    Those less likely to be so certain – the young, women, non-whites, working class, renters – tend to be more likely to vote Labour. Whether they do also pay less attention to politics may or may not be true (maybe they’re working too hard keeping those pensioners in luxury), but they are more likely to say they don’t. So the figures look plausible and as JamesB pointed out there isn’t that much difference.

    The real question is whether the lower level of declared political attention predicts a lower willingness to vote, or just a more modest assessment of whether people actually will. Clearly there will be some link, but assuming that it is completely predictive may cause problems – this is why YouGov decided to try to recruit more low-interest members on to the panel (after the failure of 2015) and why the age adjustments went so badly wrong in 2017. And someone being low-interest now might not still be true when an actual election campaign comes along.

  12. @ANDREW111

    “You can accuse the Lib Dems of many unfortunate things when in government, but enabling Brexit is not one of them.”

    They gave the Tories the keys to power, so that’s a contestable view.

    Had the LibDems decided to support a rainbow anti-Tory coalition, would austerity have been implemented?

  13. @AndrewIII

    “You can accuse the Lib Dems of many unfortunate things when in government, but enabling Brexit is not one of them.“

    On your planet maybe. On our planet they backed the Tories and hence allowed the referendum.

    On your planet you can divorce what the Tories did from LDs part in that happening, on your planet you can back the coalition and pretend to have no responsibility for the results.

    This planet is different. You put them in power so you own what they did. You own the bedroom tax and all the rest.

    New thread.

  14. @DANNY

    despite the polls rolling in favour of remain albeit slowly there is a large number of Labour Leave and Tory remain which have a conflicted existence (worse than TW for example ;-) )

    The point being is that Corbyn know he needs to keep every vote he has and more and to that end Brexit is ultimately a distraction in his view. In the same way May is paralyzed in terms of action, so is Corbyn he faces the identical challenge

    1. Whist there may be a small majority in favour of a new referendum until it make for something over 65% consistently I believe no one would touch it like a barge poll.

    2. Both Parties are holding together coalitions which have huge variances in what they believe is best for the country.
    In the Tories you have the free marketeering,low regulations, low tax versus for want of a better word the centrist In the Labour party you have a similar problem. but from the left against those same centrists. In some sense Brexit is a proxy battle over control of each party. In Labour it is the only sign that the centrist are relevant and in the Tory party is has been a proxy for a battle between economic philosophies. Neither side in the battle will give up but I suspect that the bigger bloodier battles are occuring in the Tory party because they at the present own brexit.

    3. the electorate does not have a clue what to do many are disengaged because the story they were given has just not come true. The EU were much more ‘stubborn’, we did not have the right card or play them well or we may just not have any cards, it point is difficult to ascertain from the average voter.

    Nothign suggets that this slow realisation has reached a crescendo as of yet and in my view we have about another year to go before people either give up and say yes it was a bad idea or just accept it through sheer fatigue.

    leave needs a set piece battle or else the slow drip drip will just undermine them further. The real problem of a set piece battle is battle ground has changed and as such the fear is that they lose some of the people they had managed to capture. The point has always been for Leave was to be a vague as possible since any leave can be claimed as leave if it turns out good and not what we would have done if it turns out bad it is why I think May will not be deposed even after the 29th March because all that will have been agreed and voted on will be the fact that we have left nothing else will be decided.. My view is for anyone not really interested is to check back when a metric hits 65% because then every politician and their dog will be on it whether it is for LEAVE or REMAIN. until that point no politician will make the call

  15. passtherockplease,
    “The point being is that Corbyn know he needs to keep every vote he has and more and to that end Brexit is ultimately a distraction in his view”

    Many of the 2017 labour votes only happened because labour was perceived as the remain party with a chance of power. If the party ceases to be remain – for example because it has accepted soft brexit, or because brexit is over as an issue – the it will lose these voters. On balance labour is gaining more than it is losing by being a remain party. If it has to choose, and as you say risk losing some soft leavers, then it has to choose remain.

    Presumably labour’s opponents share this view, and that is why they keep attempting to portray it as a leave party.

    The choices of action of the two parties are different, because there is every indication from polling that voters who consider brexit the decisive issue have already divided tory remain/labour leave. Therefore each has completely different policies which might keep those voters onboard.

    Both parties have to consider what happens once aspects of Brexit become settled (it isnt going to be fully over, if ever, for decades). I have argued already that in the medium term tories best chances might lie in a total about face upon Brexit, calling for remain. Obviously they need remain support to build as much as possible before doing this.

    Labour has a clear remain base already and is unlikely to be hurt much by going remain. But it also benefits by keping its options open as long as possible.

    The agreed strategy by both sides is fudge for as long as the EU will permit.

  16. er I mean tory leave/labour remain.

    Whats in a name?

  17. Had a look at the BBC website, and see an item where jermy Hunt is reported as saying a no deal brexit is a mistake we would regret for a generation.

    At the same time he is still pushing the chequers deal, and arguing the EU needs to compromise, though the Uk can too.

    But the overall effect of this is that a government minister is telling the public, under the guise of trying to make a plan for Brexit, that he considers certain Brexit outcomes intolerable for Britain.

    Currently the government is divided into teams, each saying they support Brexit, but each attacking one or other possible Brexit. Between them, they are eliminating all possible Brexits.


  18. Davwel

    I am not interested in covering up anything. It did occur to me that the shortfall in teacher numbers in Scotland might not be equally distributed. You provided no figures in your earlier posts complaining about the effect on Aberdeen.

    That Aberdeen has around 20% of the total number of shortages may well be related to the wealth of the city.

    I have not looked at other areas but I do not hear the same complaint in my relatively area of Scotland.

    It looks to be a matter for the Council/s to address.

1 12 13 14