A quick update on three new voting intention polls in the last day:

Survation for the Daily Mail have topline figures of CON 38%(+1), LAB 37%(-4), LDEM 10%(+4), UKIP 4%(+3). Fieldwork was done wholly on Friday, after the news of Boris Johnson’s seperation from his wife had broken and changes are from their poll earlier this week which had shown a four point Labour lead. The changes are from their poll at the start of the week that showed a four point Labour lead – obviously given the closeness of fieldwork those changes are more likely to be noise than a sudden surge in Lib Dem support within a matter of days! Full details are here.

BMG for the Independent have topline figures of CON 37%(nc), LAB 38%(-1), LDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 7%(+2). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Friday and the (insignificant) changes are from last month. Full tabs are here.

Finally YouGov‘s weekly poll for the Times had headline figures of CON 39%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 5%(nc). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday, and changes are from last week. Full tables are here.

All three polls obviously show Labour and Conservative relatively close. Worth noting is that all three have the Liberal Democrats sneaking up into double figures, something that does seem to be part of a wider trend of the Liberal Democrats very gradually starting to recover support.


327 Responses to “Latest YouGov, BMG and Survation voting intention”

1 2 3 4 5 7
  1. I think John McDonnell is usually a very good performer.

    But he revealed the dangers of the business of pretending to get offended. Yesterday he claimed to be offended that Chuka asked his leader to “call off the dogs”. Today it emerges that John McDonnell asked Gordon Brown to “call off the dogs” 10 years ago; the exact same phrase.

  2. Pete

    There are no worries, although the army is not big enough to do the proposed dutiy, there will be a special visa programme for foreign soldiers.

  3. @ LEFTIELIBERAL – I’m not trying to defend FPTP just dubious about throwing it out for something supposedly “better” – ie change for the sake of change.

    I see what you mean but I think your placing a lot of confidence on the voter having the time and interest to research/listen to each candidate option and being able to differentiate within a party, although happy to concede that might be because I’m “conditioned” to FPTP. I think most concede STV takes a bit of getting used to on the part of voters.

    The issue in UK though is neither main party wanting it. I can’t see it being high on SNP’s list of concessions as FPTP works for them in GEs and they’ll have one over-riding goal for C+S (which is fine by me!). LDEM and Greens would obviously want it and could make it a condition of C+S perhaps?

    I think you/others are also missing what is going on in many EU nations with STV type systems. Issues such as 5% threshold and historic “enabling” of centre-coalitions is like a dam holding back discontent and it is bursting in many countries resulting in a reflexive move to the extremes.

    I’m not sure how long M5S and LN will hold but they seem united on a common foe and that is a powerful bond. How many other EU countries might have similar fates?

    STV v FPTP discussion feels a lot like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. IMHO the important constitutional debate would see power delegated to the lowest appropriate level and “political footballs” that require long-term solutions (NHS, infrastructure, etc) retaining ministerial accountability but be set up as long-term enabled independent entities (as we have done with BoE). For me those are the problems in UK and I’m very aware that CON for sure will not be the party to make those kinds of change!

  4. @TRIGGUY

    “Interesting theory, hadn’t thought of that. So now the LibDems have whatever is the opposite of the Midas Touch. You could be onto something there.”

    ————

    Yes it’s unfortunate for Labour that in pretending to be more left wing, LDs might agree with Labour on some things and hence possibly reduce their appeal. Still, it makes a change from the days of “I agree with Nick”.

  5. @Leftie Liberal

    Thanks for your kind comment/prod :-)

    I’ve run up some charts for You Gov headline VI for Con, Lab, LD and UKIP, since the last election:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ThPGIeuwSzrf4kosqoqwdzYeFOVIXTsj

    The data points on the graphs refer to the rank in the data table.

    The Conservatives

    Their VI increased steadily since the Election Horrablis in 2017, peaking in June. Thereafter, there is a clear mini-collapse coinciding with the Chequers Agreement.

    After a few weeks of bumbling around, they are picking up a bit.

    Labour

    This has been a story of a slow and steady decline. April to June plateaued a little, but August has seen a drop off again/

    Lib Dem

    They have been flat post GE, but since the turn of the year have been slowly picking up.

    UKIP

    Flat and on the floor until the Chequers Agreement. A sharp boost has flattened off.

    Correlation

    I don’t usually run these, but I did for a change.

    The Con to Lab and Con to LD show no significant correlation, not meeting the 5% or 1% significance thresholds. This shows the rise or fall of these data pairs are probably unconnected.

    The Con to UKIP and Lab to LD correlation coefficients are strong (-0.72 and -0.75), and pass easily the 1% significance threshold. Being negative it shows that if Con goes down, UKIP goes up, and if Lab goes down, LD goes up.

    The Lab to UKIP correlation meets the 5% significance level, but looks quite weak. It suggests that a Lab drop boosts UKIP slightly.

    The LD to UKIP correlation is interesting. It shows to a 1% significance level that in one goes up , so does the other. I think this is explained by the both benefiting from Lab and Con falling respectively. Seeing as Con and Lab have dropped off since the GE, this vote has moved to UKIP and LD at a similar time.

    ——————————————————————-

    This is a rough and ready analysis, but I think ‘smells’ right to what has occurred since June 2017.

  6. @ DANNY – “Corbyn, who is an immensely successful politician”
    Really? What has he done? What did I miss him actually doing as a politician?

    IMHO 5+ factors “boosted” LAB % and seats in 2017 (you identify two):
    1/ Remain boost
    2/ Corbyn Effect

    The other 3 are IMHO
    3/ Mayb0tch – failure to show up, own goal on triple punch to pensioners and combining the worst parts of UKIP anti-immigration with the worst parts of Osborne2.0 austerity.
    4/ ABC tactical vote in E+W (which links with #1)
    5/ CLPs selling the manifesto policies, not the person who would deliver (Mayb0t doing the opposite and CON MPs paying for it, see #3)

    Some of these interact (1 and 4), some contradict (2 and 5).

    It is good to see you using polling info for a change although you are clearly cherry-picking on behalf of the absolute boy!

    Good luck in LAB Conf getting Corbyn to fully back Remain in a 2nd Ref. Thick as Vince Cable gave him a massive bar of fudge by saying a new ref could be drawn up in a week or so and aside from the 2-3% move from LAB-Remain to LDEM I expect most LAB-Remain will buy that fudge and wake up on April Fools day 2019 believing if Corbyn had be PM he’d have done it differently!

    Corbynites know Corbynistas are kids (as in baby goats who will swallow anything). May is the handmaiden of a Corbyn extreme Brexit – why I want a GE before 29Mar’19 not soon after!

  7. @Andrew Myers

    “I’m not denying a proportion of the electorate would fall into that category but I doubt very much that there was such a monumental shift to the left since May 2015.”

    ——

    Well it’s true there may not have been a shift – check the polling on things like nationalised utilities. People have been in favour of such things for years.

    The media trash the parties they don’t like on COMPETENCE, when they know the POLICIES are quite popular.

  8. @R Huckle – your 1.42pm is concise to the point of brilliance.

  9. A bizarre rant from Johnson today. Great news for those against Brexit I would have said, as the boat rocking and weakening of the Tory party probably makes it ore likely that we’ll eventually extract ourselves from the process.

    The logic behind Johnson’s article is clear, but the ambition behind it also shows the very worst of he author. Johnson was foregn secretary when the Irish backstop was agreed in principle, and he was fully signed up to the £45bn payments being made before the trade deal was sorted out. Indeed, he agreed and backed everything in the WA and May’s entire negotiating strategy – until such time that another pro Brexit minister resigned, and suddenly he found there was a genuine alternative leader of the Brext ultras.

  10. “My second (major) point is: would it deliver a better outcome (ie would an STV elected govt make better decisions and have the ability to deliver)?
    In this regard I think not. In a few cases you have an “enabler” situation (e.g. SGP enabling SNP in Holyrood….”

    A pity that the Scottish parliament is not elected by STV. Still at least the FPTP system has produced such an effective UK government not “enabled” by a smaller party.

  11. “I think you/others are also missing what is going on in many EU nations with STV type systems. Issues such as 5% threshold and historic “enabling” of centre-coalitions is like a dam holding back discontent and it is bursting in many countries resulting in a reflexive move to the extremes.”

    That has happened in fptp systems as well, only rather more dramatically, see trump, Corbyn, brexit (and the very messy way in which it came about, with a party not supporting a change calling a referendum for that change).

    With a proportional systems those voices actually get heard earlier and if you look at Northern European countries rather than Greece/Italy etc for which political instability seems to come naturally it generally has worked, radical parties get some seats and the other parties are encouraged/forced to adjust position accordingly. The benefit of a proportional system is it puts a fairly concrete number on support for a position so prevents it either being ignored too long or the reverse; paid too much attention to when it’s actually only driven by a noisy minority.

    Ultimately though that’s rather esoteric, the more fundamental issue to me is how, under fptp, my vote and many others of people in my situation is worth a fraction of residents of places like Dartford and Basildon etc and it shows in the volume of campaigning in each seat, marginals get leaders and senior party members like a rash. I barely got a single leaflet from each party. I cannot understand how anyone who claims to support democracy can support such a system.

  12. Actually Anthony’s wrong – the Survation changes are from last week (31 Aug – 1 Sep). Given that most polling is done at the start of the fieldwork period, it’s about a week between polls – similar to YouGov. But the poll wasn’t published till the following Tuesday without any commissioner’s name.

    This all reinforces my suspicions that this is about the internal politics of the Mail group. The previous editor of the Mail on Sunday, Geordie Greig, has just take over from Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail, while Dacre’s former deputy, Ted Verity, has moved across to take his place at the MoS. The MoS used to employ Survation to do polling and these were normally done Fri/Sat as the previous one was.

    But the DM only very rarely used ‘proper’ polls and I suspect that when they received that Survation, Verity told them that they weren’t interested – especially in a poll with a Labour lead. However the old MoS Political Editor, Simon Walters, has also moved to the DM with Greig[1] and it looks as if he has decided to continue using Survation – hence the latest poll done on Friday for Saturday.

    The headline VI is:

    Con 38% (+1)

    Lab 37% (-4)

    Lib Dem 10% (+4)

    SNP 3% (-)

    Plaid Cymru 1% (-)

    UKIP 4% (-3)

    Green 1% (-1)

    Another Party 5% (+1)
    (as usual with Survation this includes NI Parties)

    Labour actually lead by 3 points before LTV is applied, perhaps because Labour’s demographic (younger, more female) is more ‘modest’ – ie less likely to say they they will vote when they’re not sure.

    Nonetheless this latest Survation does look a bit more plausible, despite a few oddities in the unweighted sample (eg more under 45s and fewer over than you would normally expect) which are maybe due to the short fieldwork period. As you can see, there weren’t that many extra questions and they were mainly about Boris[2] I’m afraid:

    https://www.survation.com/boris-johnson-theresa-may-leadership-survation-for-daily-mail-september-8th/

    the question about his marital breakdown was ‘prepped’ by another one asking It is [un/fair] to judge a politician on the basis of his or her private life (interestingly women were more likely to say unfair). I’m not sure it made much difference because Boris’s inability to keep his pants on (or use contraceptives) must surely be ‘priced in’ by now.

    The polling also suffers from a high level of DKs. Asked whether May or Johnson has the “better plan for Brexit” 38% say Don’t know, which given that it’s a choice between magic bureaucracy and waving your arms about and shouting, is probably 62 points too low. But the general impression from this poll is that Johnson is no threat to May or a threat to the Conservatives if they are daft enough to elect him.

    What support Boris does have is mainly from from younger (under 45) voters and most of those will probably not vote Tory in any case. Over 44 about twice as many voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if he were Leader as say more. It’s a similar proportion among women and even among 2017 Con voters, he only is ahead by 29% to 26% – normally you would expect Party loyalty to produce a better result.

    [1] A lot of other similar moves will probably follow. As Private Eye notes, Verity has already sacked Boris’s sister from her column, so that Gove’s wife can be given her space. Yes Greig was at Eton at the same time as Boris (why did you ask?). Truly the British Press is a meritocracy.

    [2] Whose latest stupid and meaningless metaphor in a desperate bid for attention, has once again led to all sorts of indignation, outrage and pearl-clutching from politicians and journalists. Thereby giving him exactly what he wants and also getting his critics noticed for getting outraged. It’s all so tedious and artificial, but I suppose it stops them having to think about anything serious.

  13. TW

    The fact that you apparently think there are 5% thresholds in STV shows that you need to do a bit more research to talk about it. As far as I aware only Ireland has an STV system for parliamentary elections in Europe. It is very popular there.

    Thresholds happen in list systems where the effective “constituency” is the number of people elected from the list. If that is 100 then a Party would only need 1% to get an MP. Hence thresholds.

    In STV the largest constituency size is generally 6, and often 5. An effective threshold of about 15% applies in a 6 member seat but it does depend how “transfer friendly” you are. The smaller the constituencies the less proportional STV is, and the less real choice voters have. The three member seats in Scottish local elections are too small, IMO, but it is still much much better than FPTP

  14. @Colin


    @”The monster has been created, escaped from its cage and is running amok, completely out of control.”

    A bit dramatic perhaps………”

    Do you know what Colin, I thought so too when I re-read it until I happened upon the cartoon on Page 16 in today’s Sunday Telegraph (which I never usually read). I have only just stopped laughing!

  15. CMJ

    Nice analysis as always. Looks like the Lib Dems are up 3% in 8 months. At 4.5% p.a. I confidently expect 28% at the 2022 GE and Prime Minister Moran with a large majority in 2027.

    Isn’t stats great?

  16. Roger,

    Did you manage to find tabs for the Survation poll?
    The website says tabs are here” but the link goes elsewhere.. I want to see if the demographic adjustments are as large as in the one before..

    Interesting about the editorial changes at the Mail. In the next referendum we can presumably now expect rabidly pro-Remain stories for 6 days a week and then a desperate pro-Leave story 1 minute after midnight on Sunday…

  17. ROSIEANDDAISIE

    Posted on previous thread as promised.

  18. “@R Huckle – your 1.42pm is concise to the point of brilliance.”
    @Alec September 9th, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    My thought was that it was to the point.

  19. Andrew111

    Sorry, I thought that Anthony’s link went straight to them, but it actually linked to the same article that I did. The link is actually hidden on the fourth line and you have to click on the very, very marginally darker word “here”. Survation have always done this – I assume it’s some sort of in-house joke. It opens as an Excel table:

    https://www.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Survation-Mail-Poll-Sept-7-2018.xlsx

    which is odd because last week’s were a pdf, but they had more time to sort it out. The weighting required isn’t particularly unusual in scale, it just struck me as odd as normally it’s younger age groups that have to be weighted up and older ones down, not vice versa. It’s also unusual for Survation to have to down-weight Remainers and Leavers up, though most other pollsters have to regularly.

  20. The Other Howard: Incidentally I notice that the Governments plans for “No Deal” are known as Project “Yellowhammer”, a delightful bird with call that sounds like “a little bit of bread and no cheese” very appropriate for me as cheese in any form make me quite violently ill.
    Sorry, I think Boris up-staged you today. He should stick to Mondays for his bombshells, because I think we all agree, you have first claim to Sundays.

    I see the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out with a lot of rubbishy (IMO) socialist solutions to our economic problems. I suspect he has managed to reduce the Anglican congregation yet again with his ramblings. Not a problem for me as I have never suffered from religion.

    But the Christians are singing from your hymn sheet. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians-and-brexit-did-god-command-the-uk-to-leave-the-eu/89427.htm

  21. ALEC
    @R Huckle – your 1.42pm is concise to the point of brilliance.

    Totally agree, best thing R Huckle has ever written!

    Danny
    As a conservative member my view on the likelyhood of no deal are unchanged by Javed’s commentstoday.

  22. @ ANDREW111 / HIRETON – you get to share the pedantic prize for today unless ALEC wants a crack – he usually does!

    In my reply my first line was “PR, mixed (STV, etc), FPTP”

    OK, you got me, I should have then continued the reply using “mixed” not STV

    As usual totally missing the big picture and focussing on minor details – great work, well done, really adding to the discussion!

  23. @ JAMES B – well if we had had a “mixed” system (such as STV) then we might well have had Brexit earlier. If we had adopted refs on major changes to EU treaties we might never have signed Maastricht.

    Is Sweden one of your Northern European countries? Let’s see what happens there, in there last parliament they had issues. Belgium has been a mess at times. Germany is likely to be a mess next time (close call this time!)

    No system is perfect.

    As for:
    “I cannot understand how anyone who claims to support democracy can support such a system”

    Seriously? I thought you supported the EU which has a democratic deficit that dwarfs the mixed v FPTP system. Pot and kettle springs to mind!

  24. If we could have an English parliament then I’d be quite happy for it to be based on a mixed system. I’m also fairly indifferent to whether we get an English parliament due to “rightsizing” UK down to just England (and Wales if they want to stay) or actually having an English parliament in current UK and adopting a Stability and Growth Pact for other nations that want to share the single currency.

    Some issues are just way more important than FPTP v mixed systems.

  25. “My thought was that it was to the point.“

    ——

    Well it could have been shorter tbh.

  26. The Ch 4 documentary shown last night about the murders at Ballymurphy is just being discussed over at Slugger’s place.

    I watched this last night. It struck me that, though living in Belfast at the time, I heard nothing of it.

    The press officer attached to 1st Paras was the young Captain, Michael Jackson. Watching the documentary it seemed to me that the 1st Paras did not have self control or command control from officers. Those in charge said enough in public for a tough response to be adopted towards Ballymurphy. by soldiers on the ground. Six months later 1st Paras were in Derry and there was Bloody Sunday.

    The “legacy issues” of NI have been discussed recently. From the top people at MOD have been calls for amnesties..

  27. “In my reply my first line was “PR, mixed (STV, etc), FPTP”
    OK, you got me, I should have then continued the reply using “mixed” not STV”

    STV is not mixed and mixed is not STV.

    As usual, only loosely acquainted with facts and reasoning.

  28. TW,

    STV is as different from a list system as a list system is from FPTP, and it is more a triangle than a line.

    Accusing me of attention to detail is a bit rich coming from Mr “trees with no discernible wood”. I guess it must be a “typical Brexiteer defence when caught engaging in lazy thinking”, or something. Not sure, you are the expert in typecasting, after all!

  29. @CMJ

    Many thanks. I do appreciate the fact-based contributions to UKPR.

    @Andrew111/Hireton
    Thanks for answering TW over STV. IMO STV would work very well in most parts of the UK. Cities are no problem; in London, for example, the London Assembly constituencies (14) would suffice. Rural areas are more difficult, one might have to make the whole of Cornwall a single constituency. The hardest issue is dealing with the Highlands of Scotland, it might even be necessary to accept AV (i.e. the single-member version of STV) for the couple of island constituencies that already receive special treatment in terms of electorate.

  30. ROSIE & DAISIE

    @”What occurs to me most about the “members decide policy” principle is that it, theoretically at the least, leaves any party that accepts that completely open to a takeover and a complete change of direction.”.

    But isn’t that what Momentum is for-to ensure that Corbynite Policy is injected into Lab constituency MPs . Its neat trick really-all that “local democracy” stuff is just the Momentum lead imposition of the Corbyn Project agenda at local level.

    Corbyn stands back & says-look local democracy. He never mentions Lansmann & Schneider’s storm troops-who belong to an organisation outside the Labour Party.

    Its the old Praetorian Guard trick every Autocrat uses-the Private Army who do the dirty work.

    Presumable Momentum will ensure that JC’s successor follows the approved path.

    The whole thing is very interesting & does prompt the question-who IS actually pulling the strings & calling the shots?

  31. “Enabling” a govt (and not)

    2010 (% UK, seats)
    CON 36.1%, 307
    LDEM 23%, 57
    Total 59.1%, 364

    In 2010 LDEM enabled CON to form a govt

    2017 (% UK, seats)
    CON 42.4%, 318
    DUP 0.9%, 10
    Total 43.3%, 328

    In 2017 DUP enabled May to stay as PM but are NOT enabling HMG to govern!

    Instead of NI having “special status” we now need a Brexit for whole UK dictated by the need to please 0.9% of the voters – something EC were quick to understand!

    There is an enormous difference between a nationalist niche party propping up a leader and a nationwide party putting the whole country first– something LDEM learnt the hard way and something Corbyn will get to experience if he has to rely on SNP!

    In simple terms the DUP tail is wagging the Mayb0t dog where as LDEM were DC+GO’s b1tch!

  32. @ Colin

    Did you see the photos of that Enfield North vote of no confidence courtesy of Iranian TV? Did they really look like stormtroopers to you?

    I actually agree with Profhoward on the McDonnell criticism. To be honest I’d have gone with I didn’t need any dogs until your ones started turning up on my lawn. Corbyn has faced 3 years of nothing but attack dogs.

  33. SHEVII

    Its a figure of speech known as Metaphor.

    They certainly knew how to jump with joy -and I admired the ability to do so without falling on top of the glum faced people in front of them.

    :-)

  34. TO

    Good to see the Christians supporting what is right for Britain.

    I don’t mind Boris upstaging me on Sunday. It sure it cmoes as no surprise to you that Iagree with what he said today.

    Have a good week all. England over 150 ahead of India in the test with 8 wickets in hand.

  35. At the same time as their weekly poll[1], YouGov also asked some of their irregular ‘Favourability’ questions:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oa8jqtgot4/Internal_180905_Boris_W.pdf

    as was mentioned briefly in the previous thread. Mostly these were comparing ratings with those taken just after the disaster of Chequers and the subsequent resignations. Both May (up 11 to -26) and Boris (up 7 to -26) have improved (or rather got les worse) in general favourability since then, but comparision questions asked on a number of qualities show a different profile:

    Competent: May -3 [+63]; Johnson -26 [+19]

    Decisive: May -29 [+5]; Johnson +2 [+33]

    Trustworthy: May -11 [+58]; Johnson -32 [+7]

    Strong: May -29 [+15]; Johnson +6 [+25]

    Likeable: May -20 [+44]; Johnson +4 [+49]

    Up to the job of PM: May -22 [+35]; Johnson -36 [-7]

    [] = figures for current Con voters

    It a study in contrasts. Boris does well compared to May on what are conventionally seen as ‘leadership’ qualities: decisive, strong, likeable. And yet asked if he is actually up the job it’s a decisive rejection even from his own Party. It suggests yet again that May is actually the Conservatives’ strongest card at the moment and maybe that of the Leavers as well.

    But it also suggests something deeper. That the conventional wisdom about what political leadership the public want is wrong. Rather than some loud, ‘charismatic’ Oxford Union-style grandstanding, people actually prefer quiet competence and reliability. Of course that undermines the entire ethos of the political class and media. It may also explain why Corbyn’s manner went down so well last year during the election.

    [1] As usual this was Mon/Tues, f/w 3-4 Sep in this case. The favourability poll is the same dates, but a smaller sample size, so whether it is a subset or a different poll you can’t say.

  36. Trevor Warne,
    “My first (minor) point is that STV v FPTP probably wouldn’t make much difference”

    I doubt this. I think the changes would be very profound. Parties are held together by the need to have more votes than any other so as to get any representation. You see how much both tory and labour are fighting internally. Under a proportional system there might still be deals, but the parties themselves would have clearer narrower positions, and lab and con would no longer dominate all the rest. Right now we might have four major english parties, lab con lib and UKIP, with significant special interest parties like SNP and green potentially holding critical influence.

    I think, if we had proportional voting, then the tories would never have become officially a leave party because there would not have been a referendum. But UKIP would represent leave directly as MPs.

    The final result might not be so very different in policy, but it would change the careers of a lot of politicians. Parliament would be stronger.

  37. Swedish exit polls for the blocks of parties

    Red/green – 39.4%
    Blue – 39.6%
    SD – 19.2%

  38. Catmanjeff,
    “I’ve run up some charts for You Gov headline VI for Con, Lab, LD and UKIP, since the last election:”

    I see these are the grossed up figures, not the percentages of the total electorate supporting the parties.

    Which is fine until some issue causes the other 50% of voters to turn out, and then predictions go straight out the window. As we saw happen to the huge conservative victory predicted in 2017.

    Trevor Warne,
    “What has he done?”

    Why Trevor! Did you miss his becoming leader of one of the big two political parties which rule the UK? Not many politicians manage to do that!

    I see you also suggest labour benefitted in the recent election from telling people about its policies, which they liked. That would be Corbyn policies?

    “Good luck in LAB Conf getting Corbyn to fully back Remain in a 2nd Ref.”

    It is something of a judgement call when would be the best time for labour to declare for remain. The only risk in coming late to this is that the tories might declare for remain first. But even then, labour could probably attack the credibility of their conversion, and their track record on dealing with Brexit.

    Labour do not want to upset their leavish supporters, any more than do the tories, so both sides agree it is better to try to convert as many as possible to remain before switching sides. Something of a war of brinkmanship.

    Calls at conference to go remain are probably highly beneficial to labour in that they will reasure their mostly remain supporters. If it goes through, probably wont be much harm now, and Corbyn will retain a degree of leave cred from only changing when forced into it. If it doesnt happen, then he retains freedom to pick his moment, but still with added confidence there is a movement already in place asking for the change.

    Catmanjeff’s figures confirmed my own eyeball view that labour has lost remainers to the libs. These are available to be won back. More important in my view are the dont know/WNV, who do not see any remain party they could vote for which might change anything, so are currently sitting on their hands.

  39. Exit polls from Sweden (although to a different degree) suggest that the Sweden Democrats fauled. Big breathe…

  40. @Danny

    “Labour do not want to upset their leavish supporters, any more than do the tories, so both sides agree it is better to try to convert as many as possible to remain before switching sides. Something of a war of brinkmanship”

    They really do need to get a move on, as we’re about to leave. I’ll note down your prediction though….

    I interpret it thus; both main parties will be advocating full remain by….. Christmas?

    Jingle bells….

  41. Roger Mexico

    “But it also suggests something deeper. That the conventional wisdom about what political leadership the public want is wrong. Rather than some loud, ‘charismatic’ Oxford Union-style grandstanding, people actually prefer quiet competence and reliability.”

    Roger, what might the approval rating of minus 34 for the Chequers plan say to the public about the competence of the May government?

  42. Swedish election count is live here but keeps falling over:

    https://data.val.se/val/val2018/valnatt/R/rike/index.html

    With 10% counted (701/6004) SD on 19.4% and Greens on 4% which is the exact cut off for them getting seats.

  43. Trevor Warne,
    “… the EU which has a democratic deficit that dwarfs the mixed v FPTP system”

    I would be interested if you could explain in what ways you think the EU is less democratic than the UK? (Because I dont see where this is).

  44. The churn of the Sweden Democrat vote

    https://mobile.twitter.com/WulfThewolfage/status/1038858906242637826

    Still early, but the “extremisation” didn’t seem to happen in Sweden (even if the kind of Marxist doubled their vote to 10%)

  45. Roger,

    Thanks for discovering the link. Survation have very big differences between sample and target in many of the demographics (much bigger than YouGov). For example they interviewed 50% more 25-34 year olds than the target, and 46% less 65+. Level 1 education is 36% below target and level 4 is 40% above.

    Now I am no statistician, so I asked last time for an answer from someone on here who is! It seems to me that if you are an 25-34 year old with level 4 education your views on voting intention and Brexit will be weighted down compared to an 25-34 year old with level 1 education. If you have income £40k. Because the weightings are all combined the actual contribution of each individual to the results will be different. In the first poll the demographic changes were also large, an sometimes in the opposite direction! For example the sample contained 31% less 25-34 year olds than the target

    One of the big differences between the two Survation polls is that in the first they only found 0.7% of Labour voters and 0.7% of Con voters who had switched to Lib Dem. In the second poll the figures were 5% and 2% respectively. This is the main reason for the apparent 4% swing between Lab and LD. I was thinking the reason might lie somewhere in these demographic shifts (downweighting somehow the TYPE of Labour voter who might have switched). However so far I cannot find a set of differences that seem to make any sense.

    And statistically I may be barking up the wrong tree anyway! I am reading stuff about weighting on the web, and it works pretty much as I imagine but no-one seems to see any problems..

  46. Still Sweden, but also the UK…

    According to exit polls among the under 29 The Left is roughly the same as the Sweden Democrats – but most of them supported the Moderates (right of the centre).

    If the over 65 – the social democrats are the winners, but the Sweden Democrats are far the most popular second party.

  47. Roger Mexico
    “Asked whether May or Johnson has the “better plan for Brexit” 38% say Don’t know, which given that it’s a choice between magic bureaucracy and waving your arms about and shouting, is probably 62 points too low.”

    Brilliant!
    ——————————
    Carfrew
    “I’ve told you once”

    No you haven’t.
    —————————

1 2 3 4 5 7