Opinium have a new poll in the Observer today (I think it’s the only poll in the Sunday papers, at least, it seems to be the only voting intention poll). Headline voting intentions are CON 41%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 6%. Fieldwork was Thursday and Friday and the full tables are here. The four point lead echoes the YouGov poll that came out on Thursday, which had toplines of CON 41%, LAB 37%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 4% (tabs.

As well as their usual trackers, the Opinium poll also had some questions on the Brexit deal and what comes next. Asked how likely they think it is that there will be a “satisfactory” deal by March 2019, 26% think it is likely, 50% think it is unlikely. Satisfactory is, of course, in the eye of the beholder – some people presumably think there will be deal, but that it will be an “unsatisfactory” one, as the next question asked what people think is the most likely outcome – 30% expect us to leave with a deal next March, 33% to leave without a deal, 16% that we will not leave in March 2019.

The poll also asked what should happen next if there is no deal, or Parliament does not approve a deal. In the event of no deal at all, 14% think there should be a general election, 23% a new referendum, 13% an extension in order to continue negotiations, and 32% that Britain should just leave without a deal. In the event that a deal is struck, but Parliament rejects it, 12% think there should be a general election, 10% a deal vs no deal referendum, 20% a deal vs remain referendum, 14% that the government should return to negotiations, 25% that Britain should just leave without a deal.

1,211 Responses to “Opinium/Observer – CON 41, LAB 37, LDEM 8”

1 23 24 25
  1. Interesting analysis of swing voters in the event of a second referendum:

    People’s Vote analysis: 40% of the public up for grabs by either side



    The case for speculative land banking isn’t absolutely made it would seem :-


    Here’s an interesting analysis of the causes. It has the ring of common sense to me. In a nutshell-on a small island with limited land supply & tight planning regs there is no free market in land-so builders make sure they have enough of it to continue in business.


  3. @EOTW

    thanks for that; a very interesting read. It seems to show that the result of a second referendum would be up for grabs, if this kind of result is being seen in private polling and focus groups it would explain the reluctance of the Conservatives for a second referendum and the Labour Party’s concentration on a General Election, the former not wanting to undermine its base and the latter seeing that as a means of expressing the “equality” aspect.

  4. @Millie

    Lol Millie, if you just tell yourself the evidence is “murky” does that mean you can just dismiss the natural tendency for capitalists to try and accrue more and more capital? Or for the state to distort markets for their own ends?

    For Land banks, Shelter don’t use convenient figures, they cite the developers’ own figures! And as I pointed out, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee their own study and came to a similar conclusion.

    If that isn’t enough, there is also the Guardian’s OWN investigation, cited in the article, that found over 600,000 in the bank, again from the developers’ own disclosures.

    Now, when it comes to the extra dimension of strategic land banks – the ones they don’t have to cede so readily if they don’t build on them – they are more able to hide, of course it’s going to be murky if they can hide it! That rather shows the extent of the problem, if they can in fact hide it.

    But even there, as Shelter explain, they can simply use what the companies just happen to disclose.

    The reporting on these Option Agreements is murky, as there is no requirement for developers or landowners to register them publically (something we want to see changed). But you can get some sense of the scale of strategic land banks from the financial reporting of some of the main developers.

    These estimates are almost certainly on the low side, because some of the developers don’t report on their strategic land banks or only report those plots with a ‘positive planning potential’ in the short term. However even this shows an additional half-million plots controlled by the top 10 builders, which is another 6 or 7 years’ worth of housebuilding. In 2008 the OFT found that the ‘vast majority’ (82 per cent) of land held by builders was strategic land, and these strategic land banks were an average of 14.3 years long.”

    So, if it’s murky, it’s in my favour as the real figure is likely to be higher.

    At this point, I should say, that your own evidence for the view that it’s just down to planning isn’t just a bit murky, it’s pretty well absent!

    And the fundamental problem Millie, is that there are too many drivers serving to incentivise land banking.

  5. GARJ

    I have been trying without success to post a reply to your post to me.

    If you are interested there is some research on the effect of the political system adopted by a country on the health outcomes in the country. You can access the article here if you wish.


  6. @Garj

    “If the market is placing a higher price per square foot on 1BR flats then that’s a concrete demonstration of greater need.”


    Well, even if that were true, it isn’t necessarily ideal. The market could in theory place a really high price on saving the life of you or someone you love, but we try and arrange for this not to happen. Because you’d probably give up your house to save that life, and do we want to everyone to have to do that every time they get seriously ill?

    In the States, the market is often able to charge a lot more, and often does. Some people wind up close to bankruptcy as a result. It is an important role of the state to try and REDUCE the price of essentials and try and counter the tendency to profiteer from them. Markets work better for none-essentials.

    And it isn’t necessarily true, the market does not necessarily address what’s most needed, but often, what makes most money. E.g., investing in treatments rather than cures. So you might EXPECT them to sell smaller homes for a high price rather than big ones because it’s more profitable, and people have no alternative.

    It was the same with education. The private sector was not able to provide universal provision. It needed Church and then Stae to provide that.

  7. @Millie

    “Half a million permissions is not a lot, when we are building 200,000 units per annum.”


    As pointed out, twice as many are granted as used, BUT that’s without the STRATEGIC land banks that add at least ANOTHER half a million!!

    Then there’s the property banking that we don’t have full figures for. But so far I’ve managed to establish some kind of initial benchmark…


    “More than 200,000 homes in England with a total value of £43bn were empty for at least six months during 2016 despite the desperate shortage of properties to rent and buy.

    According to official figures, Birmingham was the worst affected city outside London with 4,397 empty homes worth an estimated £956m, followed by Bradford and Liverpool.”

    …these were collated from “the latest Department for Communities & Local Government figures”.

  8. @Mille

    My apologies, when I said this, “At this point, I should say, that your own evidence for the view that it’s just down to planning isn’t just a bit murky…”

    It should have been that there’s a lack of evidence for there not being much Land banking, not the planning thing!

  9. In Ireland, landlords “will effectively be banned from renting their properties on a short-term basis in Dublin and other areas of high housing demand from June”

  10. New thread

1 23 24 25