The weekend papers have the first two polls with fieldwork conducted after the New Year – BMG in the Independent and Survation for yesterday’s Mail. Voting intention in the two polls is:

Survation: CON 38%(-1), LAB 41%(+1), LDEM 10%(+2), UKIP 4%(nc)
BMG: CON 36%(-1), LAB 36%(-2), LDEM 12%(nc), UKIP 6%(+2)

Survation’s poll was conducted on Thursday and Friday, changes are from their big Channel4 poll at the end of October. BMG was conducted between Tuesday and Friday and changes are from last month. Neither poll shows any real significant movement. As you would probably expect, the bulk of both polls focused on the looming issue of Brexit.

On the Brexit deal itself BMG found that 29% of people think MPs should approve the deal (up 3 points from December), 37% think it should be rejected (down 6 points). Survation found 36% of people wanted MPs to approve the deal (up 5), 40% wanted it rejected (down 6). Both polls show some movement in favour of passing the deal, but still more opposition than support.

BMG asked whether people would support or oppose various alternative Brexit options. By 46% to 28% people would support a second referendum. By 45% to 39% people would support reversing Brexit and just remaining. Further negotiations were supported by 45% to 34%. A “Norway-style deal” was supported by 40% to 36%. Leaving without a deal was opposed by 45% to 35%.

Survation’s poll included questions on how people would vote in various referendum scenarios – in a deal vs no deal referendum, 41% would prefer the deal, 32% no deal. In a referendum between no deal Brexit and remain, people prefer remain by 46% to 41%. A deal vs referendum vote would be neck-and-neck: 40% deal, 40% remain.

Tabs for Survation are here, BMG aren’t up yet.


908 Responses to “Latest BMG and Survation voting intentions”

1 17 18 19
  1. Trigguy

    “a second referendum …… will take place if, and only if, it is politically expedient to do so.”

    Agreed. It’s always important to separate political expediency from the rhetoric that politicians use to pretend that their decision is based on principle.

    If Starmer today was stating official Labour policy (always hard to know) –

    “We are now at the third phase of our policy. Make no mistake about it.”

    then the completely inevitable failure to force/persuade May to adopt (them negotiate) a “close economic relationship” with the EU based on permanent customs union, strong ties with the single market, and robust workplace and environmental standards, only leaves EUref2.

    Not that Labour, or any other party supporting a 2nd referendum, have a specific proposal for what form that referendum should take.

  2. DAVID IN FRANCE
    “I don’t recall voting on specifics such as customs union, free movement etc..”

    Indeed. What’s more I doubt that more than 5% of the population at the time had much idea of what a “Custom’s Union” even was, and how it differed from “The Single Market”. I doubt most politicians or journos did either. A lot of them still don’t.

    We hear less from May these days about the ECJ. Could that be because she has finally realised it is a different body from the ECHR ? (which as Home Sec she hated)

  3. 2 new polls!

  4. Oops, meant new posts…

  5. ON and TriGuy – agree with your analyses.

    Second week of Feb before scheduled recess is my forecasts for when Labour move to supporting ref 2, was always the likely time.

    Of course if A50 has been or looks like being extended the time for Labour to explore other options will be longer.

  6. New thread!!!

  7. The problem is that MP’s cannot agree on what sort of system they would support.
    Since both the main parties stood on a manifesto to leave then their needs to be a series of choices put first to parliament.
    WTO rules plus those aspects of May’s agreement which are excepted by the EU.
    May’s agreeement as it stands.
    Agreements by specific industries to maintain supply chains.
    The problem arises because agreement is required by Europe on a backstop before they will discuss the remainder of any agreement yet they said that nothing was agreed until all was agreed which cannot be the case if we sign a legally binding agreement before the final negotiations.
    Labour could find it hard to win seats in middle England if they ignore their leave voting supporters the conservative MP’s who are fighting to remain my also be under pressure from the largely Leave voting membership.
    Another electing forced by a stalemate in parliament might cause a complete realignment in politics in the U.K.

    .

  8. @COLIN

    From the article, he believes that May could have removed the Irish border from the discussions, but I feel the problem that the UK Government had was that of credibility.

    The problem was the UK wanted to link it’s withdrawal to payment and that was the view of each minister that made a pronouncement on the issue. It was because the UK linked the payment to a Future agreement which meant that the EU basically had to stick to their guns. The Irish question may not be resolved with a future agreement such that the border is frictionless. Indeed part of the problems with May’s red lines is that it makes it impossible since the UK wants to diverge and be able to take no account of the EU.

    I suspect taking the Irish border out of proceeding may have helped the UK but in fairness half the Tory party does not really care about a border between the NI and RoI. It is more of an afterthought.

    His view was rather interesting and was actually rather polite

    Brussels felt that in order to proceed responsibly in the negotiation process, the British needed to start with a firm resolution to honor its commitments. The first phase, ultimately, was about three issues to be decided on principle, not pragmatism. Before the discussion turned to fisheries and cheese and banking services, Brussels decided, moral principle should rule.

    Basically that says the EU did not trust the UK government
    Without trust their could be no give and take and I suspect that the pronouncements of UK Government ministers: “USSR and N4zi name calling did not help one iota

1 17 18 19