This morning’s Times has a new YouGov poll with topline figures of CON 28%(-4), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 11%(-1), BREXIT 8%(+3), UKIP 6%(-1), GRN 5%(+1), Change 3% (new). Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday and changes are since the start of April. This is the first standard YouGov poll that’s included Change UK – now they are in the process of registering as a political party I expect we’ll start to see them included in most polls.

The Conservative score of 28% is the first time YouGov have shown them dropping below 30% since 2013. While one can never be certain about what has caused changes in voting intention, it is hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that they are shedding support to more unambiguously pro-Brexit parties like UKIP and the Brexit party.

As ever, one should be cautious about reading too much into any single poll, but this is pretty much in line with other recent polling. A BMG poll last week put Labour 2 points ahead and the Conservatives down at 29%, a Survation poll this week (unusually of England & Wales only) produced a four point Labour lead. Kantar’s latest poll produced a three point Labour lead (and a startling 9 point drop in Tory support, though I suspect that was at least partially a reversion to the mean after an usually high Tory lead in their previous poll). Across the board Conservative support seems to be falling away.

The YouGov poll also included voting intention for the European elections. Initial headline figures there are CON 16%, LAB 24%, LDEM 8%, BREXIT 15%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%, Change 7%.

I should add some caveats here. It is, obviously, very early – the European elections have only just been announced and people are unlikely to have put much if any thought towards who they will support. This early measure however suggests that the Conservatives will, as widely predicted, suffer badly. As yet they are narrowly in second place, but I would by no means assume that will hold (not least, the Brexit party will still be largely unknown and many respondents will be unaware that they are now the party of Nigel Farage, rather than UKIP, and I’d expect them to gain support as they gain publicity. Equally, it remains to be seen what impact there is on Change UK support once they officially launch as a party.

Full tabs for both questions are here.


1,689 Responses to “YouGov voting intention for Westminster & the European elections”

1 32 33 34
  1. I suspect Yougov long ago changed its agenda from attempting to accurately reflect public opinion.

  2. @PeteB

    I was referring to parties mostly, who are/were willing to discuss options, but the big two keep ploughing their own furrow. It’s not about Brexit; It’s about two parties who wants to be the only ones to fight over the ball.

    Now we have polls that have sub-60% VI for the two of them, and still they can’t spot the problem. They try to be all things to all people*, and they just [bleep] off the electorate, bit by bit.

    * That is to say, all things to enough voters to secure 326 seats.

  3. Pete B,

    According to Peter Kellner’s calculation, 900,000 of those 2016 leave voters have died already. So there’s only 16.5 million of them left to reach out to.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html

  4. @PETE B

    As a LAB Remainer I think Brexit should happen, for democratic reasons, but we think Brexit should be softer than TM’s deal and we are very worried that TM will soon be replaced by a harder Brexiteer who may take the country to a harder Brexit or even a crash out. TM will have to give some ground to get LAB support, but I think the votes are there in parliament for a softer Brexit.

  5. ALEC
    It’s true that the GB-wide Lab compromise (or fudge if you prefer) might not sit well at present for SLab, but the alternative scenario, that a GB party could have multiple contradictory policies on non-devolved issues merely based on what plays best locally, might raise as many problems as it solves.

    If next time, say, as might be possible, SLab is remain, WLab is Ref2 and ELab is soft leave, its an open goal to any opponent.

  6. @REGGIESIDE

    “i would say that a big chunk of remain supporting voters are still voting labour – partly because they agree with them on many other issues”

    Yes indeed. There was some polling a while back which showed that Brexit was of marginal importance to Labour voters, and was the most important issue for Con voters. But I can’t remember if that polling was about all Labour voters or just Lab Leavers or Lab Remainers.

  7. @steamdrivenandy

    “Scotland’s Future” dealt with defence: NATO membership, defence budget of about £2.5 bn, armed forces building to about 15000 regular and 5000 reserve personnel refocusing on maritime capabilities and special forces to protect Scotland’s coast and to contribute to collective security in the North Atlantic, and the option of shared infrastructure with rUK forces.

  8. Steamdrivenandy,

    Any RAF base in Scotland is a non starter and only popped up here as one of the Trevor’s many bizarre notions.

    Scotland would almost certainly have it’s own forces, I guess somewhere between that of it’s east and west neighbours rather than it’s southern one.

    Budget, size and shape, like the UK’s will ultimately be decide by what Parties or Government the public elects…that’s how democracies work!

    The left and Greens would favour the Irish model, Labour probably more like Norway and I suspect the Tories would favour your integrated model!

    Personally I don’t see any integration as a starter, if nothing else you could make the same argument about our Western Coastline and how integrated are we with the Irish Republic?

    Peter.

  9. @STATGEEK

    Moderates = “I was referring to parties mostly, who are/were willing to discuss options”.

    But which parties are they? The LibDems, Greens and TIG just want to Remain at all costs. The Brexit parties are hardly moderate. That just leaves LAB, CON (and SNP) to do the actual talking.

  10. Hal

    Kellner fag packet assumptions seem to be based on he’s assumption that all the people who have died since 2016 actually voted leave and that all those who have reached a age of being able to vote are either going to vote dispite what they say or are indeed going to vote remain.
    He also assumes that only people who voted leave are likely to change there minds.
    However the one thing he states without saying, if we are to believe what he says is that since 2016 there has been a majority for leave I note he makes no reference to that only the usual pro remain propaganda stating things as fact because it suits your cause.

  11. @ DAVWEL – English taxpayers are very happy if Scots rely on SNP sources for how amazing the Scottish economy would do outside of UK. Please continue to ignore ONS, GERS, etc. I’ve posted those before and boring to keep posting the same stuff but

    IfS one I’m not sure I’ve posted before:
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13287

    Also great to see SNP is a members party and has over ruled exec view on trying to keep using our currency (that will save you needing to call the police when English shops refuse to take your Scottish tenners)
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48069470

    I’m sure you’ll do amazing as an independent country – the new Norway with immigrants flocking to Scotland to pay higher taxes to fund everything the English have been funding for the last few years (and projected to fund forever unless we scrap Barnett formula or you become Indy).

    Good luck and good riddance. Love England, love the SNP ;)

  12. TURK

    You must have skipped over the key figures Kellner quoted in the article by accident:

    Back to the calculation. YouGov’s figures suggest that each year 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters join the electorate.

    Let us bring the two sets of figures together.

    The annual change in the number of Remain voters: add 395,000 people reaching voting age; subtract 160,000 voters who die. Net effect: an extra 235,000 Remain voters

    The annual change in the number of Leave voters: add 60,000 people reaching voting age; subtract 320,000 voters who die. Net effect: 260,000 fewer Leave voters

    With the Remain vote rising by 235,000 a year and the Leave vote falling by 260,000 a year, the overall effect is to reduce the Leave majority by 495,000 a year. This works out at 1,350 per day. (The precise figure is actually 1,356, but I have rounded it down.)

    Hardly rocket science.

  13. Opinium have freshened up their Brexit questions as the date changes have made the old trackers useless.

    There’s something for everyone in there.

    Remainers will like V206
    (key word in the question being “imagine”, hindsight folks will also like V200, 200b and 201)

    “Dealers” will like V207
    (slightly surprised BXP are only net 11 against May’s deal, possibly suggests they’ve taken most of what they might get from CON[1]?)

    “No Dealers” will like V208 (which is close to the old tracker question of leaving on 29Mar then 12Apr and shows plurality for Brexit asap Deal or No Deal)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-9th-april-2019-2/

    [1] They split CON by Remain and Leave for VI so you can see where CON are losing their 2017 voters. For CON-Leave they are still keeping 42% with 34% going to BXP, 12% to DK and only 5% to UKIP. 73% of BXP VI is from CON 2017 only 14% from LAB-L 2017.

  14. Pete B

    I see your point (though I don’t agree with it), but I’m quite sure that, as a former Labour supporter/voter/donor, if they do what you want i won’t ever vote Labour again under present leadership.

    My vote by itself doesn’t matter at all, of course, but I think that this is a major electoral problem for them. Many more votes in 2nd Ref than Brexit deal with Tories, methinks.

  15. Just – is it the future?

    WhatsApp banned Podemos 4 days before the elections. The channels of other parties weren’t banned.

    I’m not particularly keen on this party, but WhatsApp didn’t give any explanation. Considering the importance of these sorts of apps to keep contact with voters is quite interesting.

  16. @Turk

    “However the one thing he states without saying, if we are to believe what he says is that since 2016 there has been a majority for leave I note he makes no reference to that only the usual pro remain propaganda stating things as fact because it suits your cause.”

    You are a strange chap. You have said quite often that you were a Remain voter in the 2016 Referendum and yet you appear to now be singing the same songs as the most ardent Brexiteer. No way should the public be consulted again, reference to “remain propaganda” and an attempt to rubbish a reputable pollster’s suggestion that the 2019 electorate may have changed it’s mind from 2016. This is straight out of a Brexiteers playbook.

    Are you no longer convinced of the Remain case at all and have you now decided that we must leave the EU at all costs? Or, and I say this as diplomatically as I can, have your Remain views always been a little elastic?

  17. @ PETER (SNP) – “Any RAF base in Scotland is a non starter and only popped up here as one of the Trevor’s many bizarre notions.”

    Trident was heavily discussed back before 2014 (loads of sources people can find with 30secs on google). I can’t remember RAF getting as much focus but it did get some.

    However, I’d have thought you smart enough not to go 100% certain on something that is one the very few cards SNP will have in negotiations.

    I’ll post a more recent analysis suggesting calling them “NATO” bases rather then English or rUK bases (ie drop the RAF label). It covers a range of views but concludes with SNP spokesperson:

    “The SNP is absolutely clear that we should get rid of costly nuclear weapons and instead invest in conventional defence.”

    Well airforce is generally considered “conventional”. Earlier on Crawford talks about the previous held view (ie circa IndyRef1)

    “an air force with approximately 50 aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with some 2000 personnel”

    That is potentially a “downsize” but maintaining room for “war time” increase and might be a “middle ground” option (along with calling them NATO bases)

    I doubt you speak with the full authority of SNP policy but if SNP take air bases (and Trident base) off the table then what are hoping to get from rUK? I assume you want a good trade deal (given I assume your now the flow of trade and trade balance)? Common Travel Area (CTA)?

    Personally I’d go WTO from a rUK negotiating perspective and we’ve discussed the potential for a Scottish immigration policy on UKPR before so Scots can join rWorld for work visas etc as well (too many debt free Scot grads coming doon ‘ere nicking all our jobs innit)

    NB May is unlikely to be PM leading the discussion when the time comes, a different RoC PM will not be the push-over she has been – and your not the EC-EU27! Comrade Corbyn probably would use Indy as an excuse to scrap Trident and maybe give up the RAF bases as well so from rUK side a lot will depend on who is PM at the time.

  18. TW,

    If the Crawford you are referring to is the ex-army SNP member who once suggest Scotland have it’s own Scud type mobile nuclear deterrent, then I can tell you hos views are his own and not SNP policy or ever have been.

    There is a difference between having an airforce and being in NATO and having a foreign base on your soil.

    Technically all bases of NATO members are “NATO” bases, it’s a fact of membership!

    Conventional defence instead of nuclear in no way initials closer cooperation with the UK than any other ally.

    Peter.

  19. I mentioned “lack of confidence” (of political factions) in an earlier comment.

    Andrew Tickell (Peat Worrier) has an interesting take on that as an endemic factor in British politics, and also introduced me to a new word –

    “gelotophobia: the pathological fear of being laughed at”.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/17602787.andrew-tickell-heres-the-common-thread-running-through-british-politics/?ref=twtrec

    It’s an interesting idea, and possibly is a more nuanced view than the “traditional” ideas used to try and explain current trends – “populism”, “xenophobia”, “loss of empire” etc etc. All of which exist but may be symptoms rather than causes.

  20. The Trevors,
    “I was OK with the NI only backstop as I never wanted the DUP pact (back before the Mayb0tch GE disaster I expected NI to get “special status”) – we’ve discussed that is v.v.unlikely while CON rely on DUP C+S (but see my post to JIB for more info). I’ve been keen for a redo of the 2017 GE to help resolve that ”

    Hmm. Its true that the alliance happened before the impasse over N. Ireland developed, but I am not convinced we would not be in precisely the same situation had the election never happened.

    There is a problem that the UKs commitments to Ireland in the peace agreement are fundamentally incompatible with Brexit. The peace agreement requires the consent of Ireland to changes, and it does not consent.

    So even without the DUP we would have a crisis that the UK had to choose between breaking its international commitment or Brexit. And it seems highy likely parliament would have split on this regardless.

    Especially, of course, if I am right that the conservative’s aim is to be narrowly defeated over Brexit. They would arrange a sufficient number of rebels for this to happen.

  21. In other news –

    Kez Dugdale, former leader of SLab, is expected to leave front line politics for another job at the end of this parliamentary session.

    No by-election, as she is a list MSP, so the next placed SLab member on their list would normally be expected to take the MSP position.

    That would be Sarah Boyack – a former MSP (and contender for SLab leader) for whom I have a very high regard – but would she be willing to resign her current job to become a SLab MSP for a couple of years till the next election?

    I hope so, as she would provide great input to Holyrood on housing, and a range of other social issues.

  22. CROSSBAT11

    To be fair to TURK, his first post here did say that he only voted remain to preserve his CAP subsidy rather than believing it was a correct thing for others consider.

  23. @PETERW (@ALEC)

    It’s true that the GB-wide Lab compromise (or fudge if you prefer) might not sit well at present for SLab, but the alternative scenario, that a GB party could have multiple contradictory policies on non-devolved issues merely based on what plays best locally, might raise as many problems as it solves.

    If next time, say, as might be possible, SLab is remain, WLab is Ref2 and ELab is soft leave, its an open goal to any opponent.

    I’m not sure it’s that much of a weakness, particularly when compared to the impacts of a one-size-fits-all national policy, namely accusations of trying to avoid having a policy at all, or of obfuscating what that policy actually is.

    As long as it were understood in the campaign that voting SLab MPs were going to vote for Remain in Westminster divisions regardless of what Corbyn was doing, and as long as they actually did do that,

    It might even make things easier for Labour… “Our MPs are simply respecting that the will of the Scottish people is clearly different to that of the English”

  24. @CROSSBATII, BARBAZENZERO

    @TURK can speak for himself on the particular point but… in general it’s a bit of a stretch to imply someone criticising an argument whose conclusions favour one side of a debate must therefore be a supporter of the opposing side, especially in a place as open-minded as this.

    If you find an argument for one side to be weak or flawed, of course the great bulk of the other side are likely to agree with you.

    On the actual point – I don’t know, when Kellner writes under his personal byline these days he does seem to have a penchant for very headline-friendly conclusions, and whilst the data quoted above is probably the best we have to work from at the moment, not taking into account either the trustworthiness of stated turnout intention from the young or the potential for people who haven’t changed their mind from Remain but think Brexit should go ahead anyway…I think those together make saying the electorate has flipped quite questionable.

    Unless/until one side opens a polling lead large enough that the questions of methodology, weighting, question wording and so on become irrelevant then I don’t think we’ll be able to say what people now want without actually having a vote.

  25. EOR

    It might even make things easier for Labour… “Our MPs are simply respecting that the will of the Scottish people is clearly different to that of the English”

    More deeply, that would cause existential problems for a Labour Party which still clings to a British state identity, in which the folk in Dundee, Doncaster, Derry and Denbigh are equally to feel the ministrations (if not all the actual Ministries) of the UK State, as opposed to those foreigners in Dublin, Douglas or Dusseldorf.

    Devolution was fine, as long as Labour ruled at Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh, but tolerating Difference is another matter altogether!

  26. New thread

  27. New thread

  28. @ DANNY – “There is a problem that the UKs commitments to Ireland in the peace agreement are fundamentally incompatible with Brexit.”

    Please substantiate that claim with some facts please (eg the specific articles in the Belfast Agreement (GFA) that are “incompatible”). I’ll even provide you with the link you need:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement

    PS It’s 21yrs old and although I’m not expecting a “fact based” reply from you I’ll add a preemptive second reply that we probably should “update” it. EU regularly update treaties etc (usually as a “power grab” of sovereignty but sometimes simply to “keep up” with events). This has been discussed many, many, many times – very old news but since you chose to pick up the spade, let’s see how deep you wanna dig.

  29. EDGE OF REASON @ CROSSBATII & BZ

    Kellner’s article, which I read and commented upon [with my real first name] at the time includes:

    Now to new voters and the latest YouGov research. Within the past fortnight, YouGov has questioned 1,645 adults under 25, of whom 450 were too young to vote in 2016. Among those who have become 18 since Jun 2016, 65 per cent say they are absolutely certain – on a scale from 0 to 10 – to vote in a fresh referendum. I have counted only these people: if I were to include all new voters who express an opinion, the decline in the Leave majority would be even faster, and Crossover Day even earlier.

    The number of people reaching voting age is 700,000 a year. A 65 per cent turnout implies an extra 455,000 young voters each year. YouGov’s poll finds that as many as 87 per cent would vote Remain, and 13 per cent Leave. It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on those numbers. On an issue that splits Britain down the middle, we have a demographic group that divides by seven-to-one in favour of one side. I have seldom seen such a gulf between a particular group and the electorate as a whole.

    He does seem to have used YouGov published data to establish the proportions of remainers and quitters coming of voting age.

  30. @BARBAZENZERO

    Thanks for the reply, and the heads-up in the new thread.

    So he is taking their stated turnout certainty at face value then, and accepting that they would in fact vote at levels way higher than previously.

    That may of course turn out to be valid, but it’s such a radical change (65% voting rather than the usual c45%) that I think I’d want to see it happen before accepting it as fact, especially given all the problems with modelling young turnout before and after the 2017 GE.

    I don’t think the point about softening the turnout filter making the effect stronger addresses that concern either – if young people are overstating their likelihood to vote then adding those who say they’re less certain would logically extend the error.

  31. EDGE OF REASON @ BZ

    I’d agree that the 2nd para of Kellner’s article above could at a pinch be said to be ambiguous, but he specifically states in the first para that it is only the 65% claiming they would CERTAINLY vote in a confirmatory referendum he uses in his calculations.

    An article in the Observer – EU referendum: youth turnout almost twice as high as first thought – states:

    About 64% of registered voters aged 18-24 went to polls, study reveals, but 90% of over-65s voted.

    Do you have a source for your c45%?

  32. @BZ

    My reference was to the GE turnouts as projected by the BES as being “the usual c45%”.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

    A commercial pollster asking a group of people whether they voted or not after that group has been nationally pilloried for not voting enough, there could be three explanations there. Maybe they did actually vote in those numbers. Maybe being stung by the criticism has made them more engaged, and more aware of the power they could exercise if they voted and thus they will do so next time. Or maybe it’s the same problem that the polls could have now in that these people understand that them not voting was specifically seen as Bad and are telling the pollster that they did vote, just as they’re telling them they will next time.

    This isn’t a case of trying to explain away results that are inconvenient to my POV, I’d actually much prefer it if turnout were as age-consistent among young and middle-aged people as the LSE found from the Opinium data, I think elections would give us a better balance.

    But as the only subsequent data point we have is the 2017 GE at which the BES says there was no behavioural change at all, I think we’d need another referendum in order to know whether behaviour really is different when voting on Brexit, or which of our conflicting ways of modelling it is more accurate.

  33. Sam,
    “Meanwhile, the Conservative party has decided not to put out any leaflets for the EP elections. ”

    If any position you take is likely to upset some group of voters, maybe better not to say anything?

    Or perhaps more charitably, they might still feel it better to keep options open and await events. whatever the result of the EU elections, it will not affect the UKs power relationship with the EU or the composition of the Uk government. So maybe better to ignore it.

    Tobyebert,
    “As a LAB Remainer I think Brexit should happen, for democratic reasons, but we think Brexit should be softer than TM’s deal and we are very worried that TM will soon be replaced by a harder Brexiteer who may take the country to a harder Brexit or even a crash out.”

    As an unaffiliated remainer, i think it shouldnt, and my and I think a lot of others votes are up for grabs by any party who agrees.

    As to TM being replaced, i dont see her resigning untill brexit is settled. I can see her lesing into another election, if for some reason one has to be called this year. If she does resign, then the MPs will try to arrange for two remain candidates t be presented to the membership, and I would not be surprised if one withdrew at the lst moment. I wouldnt even be surprised if one remainer and one leaver got to the last round, and the leaver made an excuse to withdraw.

    I think that if the members did choose a leaver leader, the scale of rebellions would dwarf what we have seen under May. And knowing this would be the case, no leaver would want the job, which is how a remainer would, most likely, get chosen before it came to this.

  34. With all this Brexit chit chat etc.
    What’s happening to good old Aaron these days? Wouldn’t want him to be forgotten.
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/theresa-may-accused-of-major-cover-up-over-brexit-do/

  35. @ Pete

    I have no time for Banks but I always have to laugh that “opendemocracy” is the name that the publisher uses as in reality they’re anything but :)

  36. BANTAMS. go head, explain some more?

  37. Ok up thread a number of people commented on the result in Washington South where the Greens won.

    It was not a good night for me as Chair of the Washington South Labour Party. We lost to the Greens by 3 votes!

    Some background helps to understand how this came about might help.

    On the doorstep it was clear from the off that there was a hostility towards politics and anybody involved in politics. However there were two other local issues. By far the biggest was the green belt which appears to have been has also been a national issu which both the Greens and independents used to kick whichever party was in power. At the route of this are the local strategic plans which all councils have to produce identifying where possible new houses can be built. We had that as a major local issue in the ways and this really hurt us. But the underlying issue with this is that central government have imposed this system on local government and all across the country local groups of independents have exploited this. The nimby votes has been empowered in large sections of the electorate who have felt left out as national politicians focus on a single issue.

    The second local one was the the Labour Councillor who was elected in 2015 has been locked up following a conviction for grooming young girls on line. He did not resign when he was arrested and stayed in office as an independent for six months after he was expelled from the Labour Group and then the Party. However the public view was that there should have been a by election and Labour were blamed for not holding one by by voters who assumed that the local party have the power to sack him as a councillor. Not understanding that councils don’t have that power.

    So we ended up with a super marginal seat where five parties stood and the Greens won by three votes with a vote share of 24.97%. The fifth placed LibDems on 14%.

    A seat to keep an eye on.

  38. Ok up thread a number of people commented on the result in Washington South where the Greens won.

    It was not a good night for me as Chair of the Washington South Labour Party. We lost to the Greens by 3 votes!

    Some background helps to understand how this came about might help.

    On the doorstep it was clear from the off that there was a hostility towards politics and anybody involved in politics. However there were two other local issues. By far the biggest was the green belt which appears to have been has also been a national issu which both the Greens and independents used to kick whichever party was in power. At the route of this are the local strategic plans which all councils have to produce identifying where possible new houses can be built. We had that as a major local issue in the ways and this really hurt us. But the underlying issue with this is that central government have imposed this system on local government and all across the country local groups of independents have exploited this. The nimby votes has been empowered in large sections of the electorate who have felt left out as national politicians focus on a single issue.

    The second local one was the the Labour Councillor who was elected in 2015 has been locked up following a conviction for grooming young girls on line. He did not resign when he was arrested and stayed in office as an independent for six months after he was expelled from the Labour Group and then the Party. However the public view was that there should have been a by election and Labour were blamed for not holding one by by voters who assumed that the local party have the power to sack him as a councillor. Not understanding that councils don’t have that power.

    So we ended up with a super marginal seat where five parties stood and the Greens won by three votes with a vote share of 24.97%. The fifth placed LibDems on 14%.

    A seat to keep an eye on.

  39. So regarding the seat projections at a GE Would CHUK on 6% stand in every seat. Most likely not. Will their poll ratings become so bad that some sort of pact with the Lib Dems with them not standing against existing CHUK MP’s
    Would the Brexit Party contest against Brexiteer Tories or not or instead would brexiteer Tories defect to the BP.

1 32 33 34