Today’s Sunday papers have the first polls conducted since the local elections, from Opinium and ComRes.

Opinium for the Observer have Westminster voting intentions of CON 22%(-4), LAB 28%(-5), LDEM 11%(+5), BREX 21%(+4), GRN 6%(+2), ChUK 4%(nc), UKIP 4%(nc). Fieldwork was between Wednesday and Friday, and changes are from late April. Full tables are here.

ComRes for BrexitExpress have voting intentions of CON 19%(-4), LAB 27%(-6), LDEM 14%(+7), BREX 20%(+6), GRN 5%(+2), ChUK 7%(-2), UKIP 3%(-2). Fieldwork appears to be all on Thursday, and changes are since mid-April.

Both polls have Labour and the Conservatives rapidly shedding support, with support growing for the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit party. I suspect we are seeing a combination of factors at work here, most obviously there is the continuing collapse in Conservative support over Brexit, a trend we’ve been seeing since the end of March, with support moving to parties with a clearer pro-Brexit policy. Originally that favoured UKIP too, now it is almost wholly going to the Brexit party.

Secondly there is the impact of the local elections and the Liberal Democrat successes there. For several years the Lib Dems seemed moribund and struggled to be noticed. The coverage of their gains at the local elections seems to have given them a solid boost in support, more so than the other anti-Brexit parties – for now at least, they seem to be very much alive & well again.

Third is the impact of the European elections. People are obviously more likely to vote for smaller parties in the European elections and in current circumstances obviously appear more willing to lend their vote to a different party in protest over Brexit. To some degree this will be influencing other voting intention figures as well, so I would treat Westminster voting intention figures with some scepticism in the run up to the European elections (and probably in the immediate aftermath as well, when those parties who do well will likely recieve a further boost in support).

In short, these are startling results – but we have seen startling results before (look at the polls at the height of SDP support, or just after the expenses scandal broke, or during Cleggmania). These are indeed very unusual results – the combined level of Con-Lab support in these polls are some of the very lowest we’ve seen, the Conservative share in the ComRes poll almost their lowest ever (I can find only a single Gallup poll with a lower figure, from back in 1995). What we cannot tell at the moment is whether this portends a serious readjustment of the parties, or whether things will return to more familar patterns once the European elections have passed, the Conservatives have a new leader and (assuming it ever happens) Brexit is in some way settled.

Both polls also had voting intention figures for the European Parliament elections

Opinium Euro VI – CON 11%, LAB 21%, LDEM 12%, BREX 34%, GRN 8%, ChUK 3%, UKIP 4%
ComRes Euro VI – CON 13%, LAB 25%, LDEM 14%, BREX 27%, GRN 8%, ChUK 6%, UKIP 3%

Both have the Brexit party ahead, though they are doing considerably better with Opinium than with ComRes. In both cases the Liberal Democrats have recieved a post-local election boost, putting them above the Conservatives in European voting intentions.


760 Responses to “New Opinium and ComRes polls”

1 9 10 11 12 13 16
  1. @TRIGGUY
    For those that are still a little unsure about D’Hondt (surely no-one now), there’s a nice graphic here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

    The Telegraph has certainly dropped it’s standards in recent years, their headline
    ‘European elections polls latest: Brexit Party forecast to win majority of UK seats’
    Perhaps some one should point out their factual mistake?
    Also bearing in min d UKIP got 24 seats in the last EU election it is hardly a meteoric rise, also usef to note at the next General E

  2. @TRIGGUY
    For those that are still a little unsure about D’Hondt (surely no-one now), there’s a nice graphic here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

    The Telegraph has certainly dropped it’s standards in recent years, their headline
    ‘European elections polls latest: Brexit Party forecast to win majority of UK seats’
    Perhaps some one should point out their factual mistake?
    Also bearing in min d UKIP got 24 seats in the last EU election it is hardly a meteoric rise, also usef to note at the next General E

  3. @TRIGGUY
    For those that are still a little unsure about D’Hondt (surely no-one now), there’s a nice graphic here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

    The Telegraph has certainly dropped it’s standards in recent years, their headline
    ‘European elections polls latest: Brexit Party forecast to win majority of UK seats’
    Perhaps some one should point out their factual mistake?
    Also bearing in min d UKIP got 24 seats in the last EU election it is hardly a meteoric rise, also usef to note at the next General E

  4. @TRIGGUY
    For those that are still a little unsure about D’Hondt (surely no-one now), there’s a nice graphic here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

    The Telegraph has certainly dropped it’s standards in recent years, their headline
    ‘European elections polls latest: Brexit Party forecast to win majority of UK seats’
    Perhaps some one should point out their factual mistake?
    Also bearing in min d UKIP got 24 seats in the last EU election it is hardly a meteoric rise, also usef to note at the next General E

  5. @TRIGGUY
    For those that are still a little unsure about D’Hondt (surely no-one now), there’s a nice graphic here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

    The Telegraph has certainly dropped it’s standards in recent years, their headline
    ‘European elections polls latest: Brexit Party forecast to win majority of UK seats’
    Perhaps some one should point out their factual mistake?

    Also bearing in min d UKIP got 24 seats in the last EU election it is hardly a meteoric rise, also useful to note at the next General Election they got only 12.6% of the vote

  6. Apologies for multiple posts, no idea how it happened

  7. @ NEILJ

    Thanks for the voluminous response. Agree that poll reporting is generally awful, headlines even more so. Probably best not to read the text and concentrate on the numbers.

    Yes, you’re quite right that if BXP got 24 MEPs, that would indeed indicate little progress from 2014 for essentially equivalent parties. I made that point a week or so ago here. However, it should be added that it would probably still be sold by the media as a great victory. Also 24 is at the lower end of current polling predictions – it could around 30, which would reasonably be described as significant progress. But we shall see, much depends on whether the polls are right, particularly on motivation and turn-out.

  8. WHY BXP ARE HERE TO STAY

    Using actual polling to explain, not wot me mate told me down the pub or wot the Torygraph or Graun are preaching to their already converted voters.

    “Most voters have only become more sure about their EU referendum vote”

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/16/most-voters-have-only-become-more-sure-about-their

    We’ve also seen in most new ref questions that there has been very little “churn” between Remain and Leave. Some “demographic drift” and a GE’17 “reweighting” boost to Remain but very few signs of Br-Regret (Leavers switching to Remain).

    Hence it was hardly a surprise that “BrINO” parties would be “hollowed out” into the EPs.

    The magnitude and timing was harder to predict but clearly the polls show us that BXP are succeeding in coalescing the majority of the “Leavers” (say 47% of voters are Leave and 2/3rds now showing as BXP VI for EPs)

    47% x 2/3 = 31%

    Back to the poll then we see that most voters are MORE sure about their EURef vote (LAB-Leave the only notable group with a bit of doubt)

    So unless/until a “proper”[1] Brexit is delivered then Leave is not going to go away. Revoke or losing a new ref won’t change that. BrINO won’t change that.

    If folks check the age x-breaks then sure more Leavers will die off (see “demographic drift”) but with so many parties then BXP could win most seats in next GE (England+Wales) on 30% of the E+W vote (ie 2/3 of the Leave vote). To do so they need to make the EP VI “stick” or gain more of the “market share”of Leave in a GE.

    Fun DIY Exercise

    Tools: 1 piece of paper, a ruler and 7 colouring pens

    X-axis: “old divide” of LoC v RoC
    Y-axis: “new divide” is Remain (at bottom) v Leave (at top)

    Now draw shapes on the paper to show “position” of each party with area of the shape roughly equal to VI

    using actual polling info then you’ll probably draw something like:

    1/ UKIP will be a small triangle in the top-right (Arch-Leave, Far-Right)
    2/ ChUK and LDEM will be overlapping triangles centred on the x-axis but in the lower half of y-Axis. Green sadly a small dot just to the left of ChUK and LDEM.
    3/ CON a triangle starting at Centre and extending to the right (skewed slightly upwards, towards Leave)
    4/ LAB a triangle starting at Centre and extending to the left (skewed slightly downwards, towards Remain)
    5/ Now a light blue pen to shade in the large gap in the upper section (I’ve posted info on the “gap” in the market before – a gap vacated by CON and wide open for Farage to fill)
    6/ NATS (if applicable) is a 3rd axis and for Scotland then it is probably the “primary” axis. For Wales the 3rd axis is not dominant so IMHO just stick with 2D and wedge PC in the bottom left, squeezing into where LAB, Green, LDEM and ChUK exist.

    Now CON and LAB want the x-axis to be “primary” (view this as making it 2x length of y-axis). LAB are more successful with this approach as Brexit is not their mess, their VI weight Brexit as less important relative to other parties and they have some other policies to market. CON are in severe trouble as Brexit is their mess and they don’t seem to have anything else to sell (or the sales people to do so).

    LDEM, ChUK and BXP want the y-axis to be “primary” (view as making it 2x length of x-axis). By keeping the focus on Brexit then the salient defining axis for VI is Brexit position.

    Brexit isn’t going away after the EPs. The mess lingers on. The y-axis is likely to stay “dominant” and if CON and LAB shift their positions further towards Remain (eg via adding a CU or new ref) then redraw the diagram with more space at the top (ie higher VI for BXP)

    [1] “Proper” is obviously subjective for every individual but plenty of polling on the current deal and what would be even more unacceptable (recent PV poll showing BXP would gain further in a “CU” deal – which should be fairly obvious).
    4/ LAB a triangle starting at Centre and extending to the left (skewed slightly downwards, towards Remain)
    5/ Now a light blue pen to shade in the large gap in the upper section (I’ve posted info on the “gap” in the market before – a gap vacated by CON and wide open for Farage to fill)
    6/ NATS (if applicable) is a 3rd axis and for Scotland then it is probably the “primary” axis. For Wales the 3rd axis is not dominant so IMHO just stick with 2D and wedge PC in the bottom left, squeezing into where LAB, Green, LDEM and ChUK exist.

    Now CON and LAB want the x-axis to be “primary” (view this as making it 2x length of y-axis). LAB are more successful with this approach as Brexit is not their mess, their VI weight Brexit as less important relative to other parties and they have some other policies to market. CON are in severe trouble as Brexit is their mess and they don’t seem to have anything else to sell (or the sales people to do so).

    LDEM, ChUK and BXP want the y-axis to be “primary” (view as making it 2x length of x-axis). By keeping the focus on Brexit then the salient defining axis for VI is Brexit position.

    Brexit isn’t going away after the EPs. The mess lingers on. The y-axis is likely to stay “dominant” and if CON and LAB shift their positions further towards Remain (eg via adding a CU or new ref) then redraw the diagram with more space at the top (ie higher VI for BXP)

    [1] “Proper” is obviously subjective for every individual but plenty of polling on the current deal and what would be even more unacceptable (recent PV poll showing BXP would gain further in a “CU” deal – which should be fairly obvious).

  9. @ Triguy/NeilJ

    No need to apologise- I enjoyed pressing the “simulate” button for each region and I’m sure it could be turned into some sort of drinking game with a bit of thought. If we had live results like with the London Mayor elections it would make count day a lot more fun.

    I guess their poll numbers could be significantly out but it is interesting to see how much variation within the regions it makes to the national voting intention. It feels to be like a concentrated vote is of more benefit than an average vote across the regions.

  10. Danny: the proper compromise to adopt is REMAIN!

    Regardless of individual brexit preferences, the polling evidence suggests a majority want closure and to move on.

    The difficult part is finding a mechanism to achieve this without leaving the losers – on whichever side – feeling cheated. And, in practical terms, it has to be a solution that doesn’t spell disaster for either major party.

    The clear solution, it seems to me, is a three-way AV referendum. That gives everyone who’s interested a vote that counts. By providing a choice of brexits, it would function as part 2 of the 2016 referendum. And it would check to see if brexit is still what a majority of voters want, in view of the somewhat greater understanding of what it might entail.

    A 3-way referendum passes the decision from Parliament – which has shown itself unable or unwilling to do the job – back to the people. And it lets the Tories off the hook of having to bear the electoral consequences of a bad brexit.

    I can’t see that anyone could reasonably complain. Even the objection that the 2016 vote must be implemented rests on the surely hard-to-defend assertion that the 2016 version of the ‘will of the people’ is more important than the 2019 WOTP.

    As a staunch Europhile, I would have no problem if one of the brexits won. We would have a chance to digest the consequences of brexit; the EU27 would be freed of a recalcitrant foot-dragger. And if remain won, maybe we could finally come to terms with membership and play a positive part in our continent’s success in an increasingly dangerous world.

  11. DANNY
    So you agree that the two sides are not far apart and you are willing to offer nothing to resolve things?

  12. @Crossbat11
    As I mentioned a few days ago, there are some interesting ideas being generated by centre-left social and economic think tanks at the moment,

    I recently read Utopia for Realists (Bregman, 2017), and agree there are some very interesting ideas emerging. An interesting fact he mentions, is that radical proposals around giving money directly to the poor as the best measure to deal with poverty came close to being adopted by the Nixon administration. Often the problem with ‘selling’ such polices is that they are open to attack from ‘populist’ sloganism. I remember Reagan attacking people on the dole in designer jeans.

    @Somerjohn

    For sometime I have thought the solution you propose to be the ‘correct’ one, and logical is you are a Tory or Labour strategist that want to mitigate against your party splitting. However, there are some powerful force (Right Wing Press, key conservative leaders, perceived risk of alienating voter) at work preventing this course from being taken.

    Whilst I personally don’t think it would be undemocratic (I would have been surprised if the likes of Farage would have given up if they had lost), I can see that a large section of the electorate would genuinely see it as a betrayal and completely lose faith in our democracy. Where ever we end up, their will be a cost to be paid.

  13. @somerjohn

    We had a referendum on the use of AV and voted against it, by a considerably wider margin than the Brexit referendum was. So it would have to be a 3-way referendum by some other voting method, if you wanted to reflect the “will of the people”.

    And the voting method makes a major difference: AV guarantees a loss for May’s deal and a close second round between No Deal and Remain … while Condorcet practically guarantees a win for May’s deal as both sides regard it as the second-best option (even if a very distant second) compared with the other extreme … First Past The Post is of course an easy Remain win by splitting the Leave vote between options … and so on.

    There is no plausible way that a 3-way referendum (or the alternative of two 2-question referendums, which resolves to the same thing in practice) could be regarded as “fair” by the losers, when the people picking the voting system to use would have such a strong ability to choose who the losers were.

    This *also* applies to a 2-way referendum where Parliament are more open about picking losers by not putting them on the ballot in the first place, of course.

    There was a good bit of polling on preference orders for the options and the consequences of this recently.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/04/23/the-crazy-polling-of-soft-brexit

  14. @CIM

    STV?

  15. [email protected]: We had a referendum on the use of AV and voted against it, by a considerably wider margin than the Brexit referendum was. So it would have to be a 3-way referendum by some other voting method, if you wanted to reflect the “will of the people”.

    Eh? The proposition that for Westminster Elections was voted down. The question has never been asked in respect of referendums. And if you did ask whether they should be conducted FPTP, AV or Condorcet, would you use FPTP, AV or Condorcet to conduct that referendum ???

    And the voting method makes a major difference: AV guarantees a loss for May’s deal and a close second round between No Deal and Remain … while Condorcet practically guarantees a win for May’s deal as both sides regard it as the second-best option (even if a very distant second) compared with the other extreme … First Past The Post is of course an easy Remain win by splitting the Leave vote between options … and so on.

    For me, I think May’s deal genuinely comes third, so Condorcet is not relevant to me, but it looks like there is scope for tactical intimidation of those who might compromise for May’s deal, but who don’t want No deal, by assembling an alliance of Remain supporters who would put No Deal as second choice.

  16. SOMERJOHN

    Absolutely agree with your 11.00 am post.

    What I find so weedy about the Labour core leadership [leaving aside the dissembling and the fact that many just won’t admit that they want out] is the continuous assertion that a referendum would “betray the will of the people” when, in reality, a sensibly constructed second referendum does precisely the opposite: it builds on the will of the people and also clarifies it.

    It would be incredibly easy to argue for it politically and the sooner that had begun – at a high level – the better it would have been.

    As it is the apologetic, almost embarrassed, way they are going about it is rather pathetic.

    Unless they come off the fence very soon then it will be too late for many people to have faith in them even if they do so later.

  17. @trigguy

    Probably the Telegraph are using the most recent Comres poll (since they commissioned it), and Comres have been generally predicting higher CHUK, lower LD, and lower Brex, higher Con than the other companies.

    Most other polls are showing enough consolidation around the Lib Dems for them to do pretty well in most English constituencies – which tends to cancel out the higher Brexit polling, as the Brexit rise puts BREX/3 or BREX/4 into play, and then the LD consolidation gives the seat to them instead.

  18. IPOS MORI Poll

    NEW @IpsosMORI / Standard. Westminster VI.

    Conservatives 25% (-13 pts)
    Labour 27% (- 7 )
    Brexit Party 16% (+15)
    Lib Dems 15% (+7)
    Greens at 7% (+3)
    UKIP on 3% (- 4)
    ChUK at 2% (nc).

    Changes from March
    BP, Greens, UKIP, ChUK unprompted
    1,072 GB adults interviewed 10-14 May

  19. Britain Elects
    ?

    @britainelects
    7m
    7 minutes ago

    More
    Westminster voting intention:
    LAB: 27% (-7)
    CON: 25% (-13)
    BREX: 16% (+16)
    LDEM: 15% (+7)
    GRN: 7% (+3)
    CHUK: 2% (-)

    via @IpsosMORI, 10 – 14 May
    Chgs. w/ March

  20. @ CIM

    Agreed, on the more LibDem friendly polls, I reckon they have a good chance to get 1 MEP in most constituencies (all but NE England and Wales) and a possibility of 2 in places (eg London). Mostly at the expensive of Con.

    New IsposMORI out, get it while it’s hot.

    Westminster voting intention:
    LAB: 27% (-7)
    CON: 25% (-13)
    BREX: 16% (+16)
    LDEM: 15% (+7)
    GRN: 7% (+3)
    CHUK: 2% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI, 10 – 14 May Chgs. w/ March

    From Britain Elects, apologies for lack of SNP/PC, not my fault gov. Presumably there’ll be a EP version along in a moment.

  21. David Colby “FACT: Hardcore Brexiteers don’t really want a hard Brexit, they only think they do. When asked, point by point, they support continuing almost everything as it now is: Military cooperation, intelligence, the space program, university access, a borderless Ireland, roaming fees, you name it, they want to keep it.”

    I am not sure the polls show that. I do agree that words like Brexit can mean almost anything right from just signing off membership and leaving almost everything unchanged to aiming to eliminate any links with the EU at all. It’s all in code, as when people say they are looking for a ‘good’ school – and this could cover a multitude of sins.

    I usually do look for compromise by instinct, but in this case I think the compomise is worse than the two more extreme options, even the one I profoundly disagree with.

    Anyway I think we may have to agree to disagree, as it is really a matter of opinion or perhaps symbolism. I will look in later.

  22. PS sorry for repetition, though at least I got the UKIP extra.

  23. compomise – compromise !

  24. [email protected]: … What I find so weedy about the Labour core leadership [leaving aside the dissembling and the fact that many just won’t admit that they want out] is the continuous assertion that a referendum would “betray the will of the people” when, in reality, a sensibly constructed second referendum does precisely the opposite: it builds on the will of the people and also clarifies it.

    It would be incredibly easy to argue for it politically and the sooner that had begun – at a high level – the better it would have been.

    Yes, it is a signal failure to set expectations. Before or even shortly after the referendum, Cameron or May should have said ‘Because brexit is not defined, we require a confirmatory referendum on the outcome of negotiations’

  25. @technicolouroctober

    Yes, technically, voting down AV was for GEs rather than 3-option referenda. But both are a “pick the best (or least bad) one of this list” question, and it’s hard to see why the public would like AV for referenda but strongly dislike it for GEs.

    The problem is that there’s no long-standing tradition of what voting system to use in 3-option referenda, and without that precedent, how do you decide? Holding recursive referendums on what voting system to use for the next referendum is as you point out absurd – but the equivalent process is one that Parliament ultimately must go through to pass the legislation to hold a referendum at all.

    But the more decisions – with likely impact on the final outcome – you require Parliament to make … pick a voting system, decide on the options, etc. … the less chance of getting the actual referendum legislation through it.

  26. Owen Paterson apparently saying that if TM does not go now she will destroy the Tory party: hyperbole, maybe, but it does show the extent of division when compared to reports of some TM loyalists are suggesting a VONC in the 1922 executive if they try to change the rules onleadeship challenges!
    Where is the Cobra strike from Labour at this point, pulling out of talks and supporting “confirmatory” vote

  27. From the link Colin provided about Labour’s energy plans

    “Installing solar panels on social homes and those with low-incomes is part of Labour’s plan to “usher in a Green Industrial Revolution in housing, transport and industry – creating over 400,000 jobs and tackling climate change”.

    Labour said the solar panels would reduce fuel bills, and that it would also offer interest-free loans, grants and make changes to regulations to help an additional 750,000 properties install solar panels.

    Unused electricity would be used by the National Grid, which would be nationalised.

    “Energy networks that are owned by the public and responsive to the public interest will be able to prioritise tackling climate change, fuel poverty and security of supply over profit extraction, while working with energy unions to support energy workers through the transition,” Labour said.”

    And…

    “Labour is committed to generating at least 60% of the UK’s electricity and heat from renewable and low-carbon sources by 2030.

    It would take the four licensed and regulated electricity and gas transmission companies, including National Grid Electricity and National Grid Gas, back into public ownership and “replace existing private monopolies with publicly owned and locally run institutions”.

    Mr Corbyn said: “Our Green Industrial Revolution will benefit working-class people with cheaper energy bills, more rewarding well-paid jobs, and new industries to revive the parts of our country that have been held back for far too long.”“

    The bit I put in bold looks a bit another form of locally run municipal socialism, that Syzygy talked of earlier that the EU was stymying in Spain. Which might help explain Corbyn’s EU reticence.

  28. The Trevors,
    ” it was hardly a surprise that “BrINO” parties would be “hollowed out” into the EPs.”

    It might not have been surprising, but you did not show why. You cite a yougov analysis of april 2019. I read this, but it says nothing about whether leave supporters favour hard or soft brexit. On the basis of that paper alone, they would be just as likely to have flooded to support Brino.

    The breakdown suggests that conservative remainers and labour leavers are the two groups most likely to have switched their brexit vote, ie both lots moving towards the party line. Only about 12 % moving towards their party line for either party, compared to 2% of lab and 4% of con supporters who have moved away from their party line on brexit.

    But! These figures are for start of April, and are a month out of date. In this time lab and con have lost supporters so the current picture might be significantly different. Presumably con have lost hard leavers, and lab hard remainers, and the most recent poll I saw had them moving closer to the national roughly equal balance of support.

    But also! What do you mean by a con or lab voter? If the pollsters are taking their declared VI now, then this starts to become meaningless, bcause the block voting con or lab is fluid and subject to voters moving in or out. So it could be no voters had changed their view, they just changed their party.

    Considering the remain and leave groups as a whole, 4% of remainers have changed their minds, and 7% of leavers. Looks like an additional 2% of remainers are having doubts, and 5% of leavers. Similarly 64% of remainers are more sure they made the right decision, and 57% of leavers.

    On the whole, leave are a little less confident they made the right choice in each category than are remain. But of course, leave only won by a little bit, and so the result has been reversed.

    These figures do not discuss the other observed phenomenon, that more who did not vote in the referendum have now declared for remain than for leave, and this has been written up elsewhere as another source of new remainers.

    You argued this shows why BxP is here to stay. Unfortunately this paper also fails to say how important brexit is to these people. For example, it could be 100% of voters are today more certain they voted the right way than on the day. Yet it could also be true that 100% of voters consider voting lab/con/whatver as they always do is more important than brexit, and therefore none of them would switch party because of Brexit. No doubt the proportion placing brexit as the most important decider is somewhere between 0% and 100%.

    “The magnitude and timing was harder to predict but clearly the polls show us that BXP are succeeding in coalescing the majority of the “Leavers” ”

    i dont think they are! Yougov 8-9 May has 22% of voters expressing an intention to vote BXP. Assuming your figure of 47% of all voters are leave supporters, that means more than half of leave votes have not committed to voting for BxP.

    “Brexit isn’t going away after the EPs. The mess lingers on. ”

    I’m sure it will. Whichever side loses will probly be the more motivated to vote accordingly. But that still doesnt mean it will necessarily dominate voter choice. However, if only 10% of voters continued to vote based on EU membership, this could flip an election. Especially if these are highly motivated. But how they might change the result is quite complex and also depends how split voting blocks are.

  29. Somerjohn,
    “Regardless of individual brexit preferences, the polling evidence suggests a majority want closure and to move on.”

    Well of course they do. I do, don’t you? But that doesnt mean I will get what I want, and as far as rmainers are concerned, likely a leave result does not end the matter because it is the wrong result….and vice versa.

    The only way to end the matter quickly is for leavers to live in a country which leaves, and remainers to live in a country that remains…and somehow both these countries will continue to co exist in the same physical space within the UK. Maybe every person should choose to be remain or leave, and pay different taxes or prices for goods, have different rights, get different doctors..and so on? Only a minority will get what they want…whatever happens.

    “The clear solution, it seems to me, is a three-way AV referendum.”

    it would not be a solution. Leave promised before the referendum that if they lost, they would continue to campaign. I’m sure remain would too. Politicians might accept any outcome so long as it is settled, but voters will not accept it. Or a sufficienty big block to continue to upset election results and threaten exisiting parties will not.

    The 1975 referendum settled the matter because 75% voted one way. 52% isnt enough.

    David Colby,
    “So you agree that the two sides are not far apart and you are willing to offer nothing to resolve things?”

    The two sides are fundamentally utterly divided, leave is the antithesis of remain. And the government deal has shattered on this reef.

    Worse, the reasons why remainers see membership as good, are frequently the same reasons leavers see it as bad.

    As to labour and con MPs, on the whole I think they are close together and are pragmatic, skeptical, remainers.

    I think we are heading for revoke, because a second referendum would be too difficult for the politicians, and might still give the wrong answer. The conservatives only held a referendum because they expected remain to win. It was never intended as an exercise in democracy, but a confirmaton of a decision the MPs had made.

  30. @wb61

    When there’s only one option which can win, STV gives identical results to AV. Though the idea of allowing two of the three options to win, and letting Parliament figure out how to simultaneously implement “No Deal” and “Remain” does appeal.

    @trigguy

    Even in the North East potentially – they had one in the 2004 and 2009 elections, and a little more consolidation might get them ahead of both Lab/2 and Brex/2. I’d say probably only a 10% chance or so on current polling, but if they continue to gain voting intention from Green/CHUK over the next week it could happen. Much more likely than in the pre-locals polls which were basically “no chance”.

  31. @ CIM – Fully agree your 11:27am

    I’d add in the HoC maths aspect as well (usually ignored by the LDEM Glee Club on Planet Remain)

    MPs can’t agree anything right now with a 2nd ref losing twice in the IVs (even with CON cabinet abstaining).

    IV2 (div #399) info attached:
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2019-04-01&house=commons&number=399

    CON would almost certainly split if we had a new ref and LAB would be under severe risk as well (as we saw in IV2)

    You would need some form of “Cooper-Letwin” pact with at least 30+ CON prepared to split their own party (in Div#399 new ref lost by 12 with 14 CON-Remain already voting against (cabinet would IMHO net split against by some margin with only 4 backing a new ref).

    Now that “pact” might just about win a vote in HoC but that is the start of a long tortuous process to get to actually holding the ballot and seems v.v.v.unlikely that kind of “pact” would survive the process before collapsing and forcing a GE.

    I’m not going to open myself up to tr0llbot#42 and go back over all the ways we could get to a GE via route2 of FTPA but it seems v.v.v.unlikely we’d get to the point of this “zombie” govt agreeing to a new ref, then the exact form of a new ref, followed by the lengthy process to approve the new ref, followed by campaigning for new ref and holding a new ref before HoC hit a VoNC2 or another brick wall that forced a GE (which is quicker and “easier” to hold).

    May has quietly managed to waste 2mths of the new 6mths extension and by the time the WAB comes to HoC then she’s not far off being able to kick the can past Summer (house rises on 20July, returns 5Sep).

    Unless your “Thick as Mince” (Cable) [1] then a new ref will take several months even once MPs agree to the format, etc.

    I’m not going to go all George Clooney and say “never gonna happen” but a GE seems a far more likely “Peoples Vote” than a new ref.

    Of course EC-EU27 might keep offering extensions and if Remain want to put all their faith in Macron then fine by me ;)

    [1] Of course it is in LDEM’s interest to allow the can to be kicked as they hope to “poach” Remain VI and have set the lofty goal of 15% and 30MPs for the next GE. If you look v.closely at polls you’ll see the “surge” which might swallow the remainder of ChUK but is struggling to push Left or Right into LAB Remain or CON Remain VI

  32. “The 1975 referendum settled the matter because 75% voted one way. 52% isnt enough.”

    The prospectus in 1975 was a Common Market, not a Federal Superstate.

    Whatever you look at it, 48% isn’t enough to be a member of that.

  33. YG poll for EPs – WALES

    BREX: 33% (+33) = 2 seats
    LAB: 18% (-10) = 1 seat
    PC: 16% (+1) = 1 seat
    LDEM: 10% (+6)
    GRN: 8% (+3)
    CON: 7% (-10)
    CHUK: 4% (+4)

    Chgs. w/ 2014 result.

    Tabs are up as well:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/9qcd2nbbdy/PlaidCymruResults_190515_EuropeanElection_W.pdf

  34. R&D

    @”Unless they come off the fence very soon then it will be too late for many people to have faith in them even if they do so later.”

    It is confusing them at present-no doubt about it :-

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1128671675548147712

  35. Not related to polling, and only tangentially to Brexit (the wine comes from France) but this amusing story has some illuminating aspects that illustrate how modern life has gone awry – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48292972

    It’s a tale of comedic value, where customers at a Manchester restaurant ordered a £260 bottle of 2001 Chateau Pichon Longueville Contesse de Lalande, but were served in error a bottle of 2001 Chateau le Pin Pomerol, which was priced at £4,500.

    Happily (for the diners) the restaurant accepted their error and have made light of the incident on twitter, but the questions I would have is to ask why anyone would be prepared to spend £4,500 on a bottle of red, and why, even when only ordering a £260 bottle, were the diners incapable of appreciating they had the wrong wine.

    This says to me that these kinds of wines are sold by the price, not the taste, which goes to the heart of much that is wrong with modern luxury culture.

    I have a reasonably sophisticated palette, but Mrs A is, in medical terms, what is known as a ‘super taster’, with many more taste receptors on her tongue that the average person. Typically, such people can often get work as food industry tasters, due to the sensitivity of their senses.

    While this career option is of absolutely no interest to Mrs A, together, for various familial reasons, we have on occasion been exposed to the odd expensive bottle of wine and upper end luxury food products.

    Mrs A is very clear in her belief that, in the main, the people buying and consuming such expensive goods haven’t the faintest idea about taste and quality, and don’t actually understand what they are tasting – only what it costs. It’s a bit like the fat but rich middle aged balding bloke who buys the £15,000 carbon frame Audio Sport Complex bike.

    Indeed, there are many classic examples of blind taste tests where even professional tasters select products like the Aldi champagne as ‘the best’, leaving the thousand pound bottle as an also ran. The tale of oysters is instructive, which used to be a staple food of poor Londoners and were shunned by those of good standing, then when becoming rare – and expensive – transformed into a ‘delicacy’ for the wealthy.

    It’s all about show and cost, where taste is not understood and value ignore by the crass desire to parade wealth.

    Lessons here for many areas of life, I feel.

  36. Carfrew

    In Germany over a hundred towns/villages/regions set up their own municipal grid, and cut themselves off the Eon operated national grid (using a kind of association company) in the last 8 years.

    It is in not against the EU rules (but as Corbyn doesn’t know about devolved matters in the UK, I don’t expect him to know much about the EU).

  37. Kudos to CHRIS IN CARDIFF!!

    Looking at PC they are 1% up on EP’14 but looking fairly comfortable to win a seat.

    If we look at their “flow” against GE’17 then:

    PC’s 16% is made up from:

    65% loyal PC’17 = 65% x 10.4% =6.8%
    17% of LAB’17 = 17% * 48.9% = 8.3%
    others/rounding = 0.9%

    Total 16%

    Whether “on loan” or not is TBA as sadly YG didn’t ask for GE VI.

    Worth also seeing “outflow” from PC

    65% are “loyal” but 21% are going to vote BXP

    Clearly the main finding in this poll is the collapse of LAB (for EP at least)

    Looking at their “flow” in the 2017 x-break

    LAB loyal 34% (that is very low compared to England)
    PC 17% (obviously not relevant in England)
    BXP 16%
    LDEM 14%
    Green 13%
    ChUK 4%
    UKIP 1%

    Such a shame YG didn’t also ask for GE VI. Perhaps they did and will come out soon?

  38. @R&D

    Even Paul Mason is calling on Corbyn to come off the fence:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/05/labour-s-refusal-oppose-brexit-killing-it-doorstep-it-should-quit-talks

    @Alec
    I think that I can tell the difference between wines up to about £20/bottle (shop prices, not restaurant prices where there is a multiplier of up to a factor of 5), but I could never imagine ordering a £260 bottle and I would have no idea if I could tell any difference between it and a £4,500 bottle. Most of the best wines I have bought have been at vineyard tastings in France and Germany.

  39. @TW an interesting Welsh poll. I’d have thought PC would be disappointed not to have hovered up more Remain vote but although it’s obviously a good sign (it’s a poll not a result) for the Brexit party, ironically it’s also good for the cumulative forces of Remain who lead Brexit 38-33 (UKIP having disappeared).

    Awful for both Lab and the Tories even though the former will win a seat on these indications

  40. Combining @Alec’s story of £4,500 wine with this

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/15/britons-get-drunk-more-often-than-35-other-nations-survey-finds

    Which reckons we are a bunch of binge drinkers, maybe they are confusing binge spending on four grand bottles of vino with binge drinking?

    Or does a £4,500 get you 900 times more drunk than a £5 bottle of plonk.

    I must confess to finding the attitude in this country to drinking strangely at odds with smoking and drugs. I am sure alcohol costs the state far more than smoking (and maybe even drugs) but there is no war on alcohol just a “Drink Responsibly” notice in the corner of the adverts.

    Just for clarification, I am a non-smoking, drinker.

  41. @TW
    ‘[1] Of course it is in LDEM’s interest to allow the can to be kicked as they hope to “poach” Remain VI and have set the lofty goal of 15% and 30MPs for the next GE. If you look v.closely at polls you’ll see the “surge” which might swallow the remainder of ChUK but is struggling to push Left or Right into LAB Remain or CON Remain VI’

    Well this is plain wrong; averages of the seven polls since the Locals v the eight immediately before:

    Tories 26.5 -> 23 -3.5
    Brexit 14 -> 17.5 +3.5
    UKIP 4 -> 3.5 -0.5

    Lab 31.5 -> 28 -3.5
    LDem 8.5 -> 13.5 +5.5
    Green 4.5 -> 5 +0.5
    ChUK 4.5 -> 3.5 -1.0

    It’s pretty clear that the bulk of the LDem gains have come from Labour Remainers; ChUK are down a bit but that is only 20% of LDems’ gains.

    I don’t think you looked closely enough at those polls after all… :-)

  42. Not sure if anyone else on earlier pages has posted the link here to Peter Kellner’s YouGov analysis on what is happening with Labour

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/16/labour-brexit-remain-voters-european-elections

    The evidence here should answer any remaining queries about fence jumping for them unless they are committed to Brexit on grounds of respecting the referendum despite disagreeing with the result and impact (which would make them the only party to do so) but I guess that’s their choice and very much their funeral

  43. Rosieand Daisie,
    “It would be incredibly easy to argue for it politically and the sooner that had begun – at a high level – the better it would have been.”

    Except the business of blame. i think more important to labour than keeping remainers on side, is to create a rift between con and leave. A permanent split of the right wing vote. that is what they have been aiming at, which could with FPP mean that despite a dwindling vote share, if their opponents share is even less – then they win.

    The way to do this was to refuse to come out for remain or revoke or re-vote. As soon as they do this, then con could disagree, but somehow lose to the will of labour. And then it is labour which has taken the action leavers hate.

    Wheras if next month Theresa May as duly elected leader of the conservative party revokes article 50, then it is the conservatives defying the will of leave voters.

    Or, of thersa May somehow fails to revoke article 50 and the Uk sufferes a disastrous no deal brexit, or even a disastrous deal brexit, then again it is the fault of the conservative party.

    Labour plan is to make sure con get the credit for whatever happens, and are hoping it will bury them.

  44. @Colin – “Sensational. It really is …”

    Is it?

    In the 2014 EPs, UKIP got 27.5% in Wales, so now BREX has added just 5.5% to this, while Cons have lost 10.5%.

    Meanwhile, LD, PC, Green and CHUK have gone from 23.75% to 38%.

    Is this near 15% surge for unalloyed remain parties what you refer to as ‘sensational’?

  45. @CHRIS IN CARDIFF
    Not sure if anyone else on earlier pages has posted the link here to Peter Kellner’s YouGov analysis on what is happening with Labour
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/16/labour-brexit-remain-voters-european-elections
    The evidence here should answer any remaining queries about fence jumping for them’

    Agree, that is certainly the position for me and many people I know but it is all to easy to live in a bubble and anecdotal comments of friends and family
    This shows very clearly with polling evidence that Labour need to move to a clearer remain stance

  46. Even Paul Mason does not say when the jump to ref 2 should occur, although he does advocate exiting the talks with HMG.

    I think the week of the votes in HOC is time for Labour to unequivocally back as a main option something along the lines of Kyle/Wislon.Would be better if high profile Tory MP co proposed with a similar Labour one. I think an official LP amendment would be harder for Tory back benchers to vote for.

    Paul – I agree it is wrong to talk of betraying the will of the people but saying that some people will feel betrayed is accurate and presages attempts to assuage those voters (particular Labour ones).

  47. As it happens, UK wide, the 2014 EPs gave Con + UKIP 54%, while LD, Green PC + SNP garnered 17% all told.

    The polls seem to be suggesting that the combined anti EU vote has fallen by around 10 – 12% or a fifth, while the committed pro EU vote has surged by a factor of around 250%.

    Indeed, I do wonder whether the fact that UKIP won the EPs last time around really has sunk in with the media. Come results night, there is a reasonable chance that the real story is going to be one of a massive surge in the pro EU parties and a falling back of the leave supporting groups, although it’s a fair chance that the media message gets obsessed by the Farage winning story.

  48. Rosieand Daisie,
    “It would be incredibly easy to argue for it politically and the sooner that had begun – at a high level – the better it would have been.”

    People did argue for a two-stage process right from the beginning. On here and at the highest level. There was an amendment to implement the process in two stages tabled on the Referendum Bill. Others argued for a one stage in principle only.

    And that view, perhaps unfortunately, prevailed. Overwhelmingly in fact, thanks to a mixture of hubris on the part of the PM and folly on the part of the then Labour interim leader in supporting him.

    That, for me, is where the breach of trust argument can find substance.

    Having a two stage referendum process is not inherently undemocratic, and not inherently a bad idea. Indeed, I argued at the time and would argue still that if you must do something like this by referendum, a two-stage “in principle” and “in practice” vote is the lesser of two evils.

    So it’s not the twin referendum concept per se that is a breach of trust.

    What can legitimately be presented as a breach of trust though is to choose a one stage process, as Parliament overwhelmingly did, and then seek retrospectively to revert to another process because you don’t like the result it has produced.

    And that breach of trust is not mitigated by making the other process another referendum. If you accept the proposition that there is a breach of trust inherent in resiling from the original decision to settle the issue with a one stage vote, it is inherent in doing anything other than a one stage vote, whatever that anything other is.

1 9 10 11 12 13 16