I am a little cautious of the value of voting intention polls at this point, we can expect the appointment of a new Prime Minister to have a significant impact on political support, so voting intention polls right now seem a trifle redundant. However, for what they are worth there have been two new VI polls this week so far.

YouGov for the Times had topline figures of CON 22%(+2), LAB 20%(nc), LDEM 19%(-2), BREX 22%(-1), GRN 10%(+1). Fieldwork was Monday to Tuesday, and changes are from mid-June. Tabs are here.

Ipsos MORI‘s monthly political monitor in the Standard had topline figures of CON 26%(+1), LAB 24%(-3). LDEM 22%(+7), BREX 12%(-4), GRN 8%(-1). Fieldwork was over the weekend, and changes are from last month. Full details are here.

Both the polls have the Conservatives and Labour at similar levels of support, both have the Liberal Democrats close behind them and doing far better than in recent years.

There is a significant difference in levels of support for the Brexit party – 22% or 12%. Some of this may be down to one survey being online, one by telephone, with all the potential differences that leads to in terms of sample and interviewer effect. However at the European Parliament elections YouGov and MORI had the Brexit party at pretty similar levels to each other (YouGov had them 2 points higher than MORI), which doesn’t suggest that’s the main reason.

The more likely cause appears to be prompting. YouGov now include the Brexit party in their main prompt when they ask which party people will vote for, Ipsos MORI have not, so as not to upset their trend data. How much difference this makes is unclear… and indeed, it may have a different impact on online polls (where the answer options are there in front of people) and telephone polls (where people may be prompted with options, but can say what they like). MORI note in their write-up that it remains under review, and they may add the Brexit party to their main prompt in the future.

135 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Ipsos MORI voting intentions”

1 2 3
  1. Shevii,
    ““Sure, Labour lost more remain voters during the course of recent elections; but the party has lost more voters of the kind who voted leave over the course of a generation.””

    Thats all vey well, but it doesn’t mean going leave will get back those voters either.

    The result of the last election was that leave voters failed to turn out in support of con in a way which copied the referendum result, labour gained ground, even in leave areas. I dont really see what has changed from that national picture. Sure, individual seats might be diferent, but being the remain party in 2017 worked.

    In Peterborough, apparently 62% leave in the referendum and 38% Bxp in the euros, labour won. Leave split fairly evenly con and Bxp, while libs seem to have disappeared compared to the general share at that time. presumably lib remainers went tactically lab and got the win.

    Yes, remain can win in a 62% leave area.

    Just how realistic is it to think any leave motivated voter would vote labour, whatever labour said?

    ” What would be a long term disaster for Labour is yet another generation of deprived areas moving to will not vote or far right if Labour is seen as the party responsible for blocking Brexit.”

    Hmm. I recall some polling evidence that old people are leave and young remain. Whether lab or con. The difference between the parties being exaggerated because con has few young voters.

    So for con, their natural voters are leave, at first glance this explains their adopting leave. But for labour, to seek to appeal to leave voters is to appeal to part of the age demographich least keen on them anyway, and to alienate the young who are most inclined to labour.

    So to go brexit is to appease people who will not in the future vote for them anyway, and to alienate those who might. Just exactly the opposite of what they need to do if they are losing traditional solid supporters.

    “This is precisely the dream scenario for the Tories who have boxed themselves into a corner by promising undeliverable Brexit possibilities and have a get out of jail clause by being Labour’s fault that Brexit could not be delivered”

    The alternative is to help deliver a brexit which is then perceived as what no one wanted. Not remain and not leave. You just said the promises made about brexit are undeliverable, so its a guaranteed electoral failure to let it happen.

  2. Jonathan Stuart Brown,
    “Alas it is not just the Labour Party moving in this direction.”

    I havnt read the linked article but I can see why seriously going green utterly undermines the current capitalist model. Which is based on throwaway goods and not factoring in pollution costs.

    But capitalism has always required regulation and government intervention to make it work. Its about allowing people to gain disproportionately from innovation and effort, not specifically about what overall rules are in place.

    We are long overdue for tax on aviation fuel, and perhaps something like VAT levied on the basis of the pollution costs of goods. Which would be fascinating in the context of WTO and introducing higher taxes on goods the further they have travelled. Plus the fun of boosted taxes on anywhere they make their electricity from coal instead of renewables.

  3. Problem is, JONATHAN STUART-BROWN. the Tories winning back hard-core right-wingers and swelling membership numbers to 200k isn’t going to win them a general election.

    In the last 32 years they’ve only won two general elections outright – both with small majorities. 1992 where John Major was seen as a safe pair of hands and a man of the people (working class, soap box and all that). 2015 thanks to 5 years of a fairly liberal social agenda, promising an EU referendum, the weakness of Labour and total collapse of the Lib Dems (domination in Scotland by the SNP helping the last two).

    You could say they face a weak, divided opposition still, but the liberal social agenda and cautious membership of the EU seems to have gone.

    So William Hague-era Tories returning to the fold may make the party more ‘pure’, but moving it rightwards will be a disaster electorally and would lose them more centre-ground voters than they may gain from BXT/UKIP and ex-Cons (an appropriate phrase!).

  4. Carfrew,
    ” I mention it as something others have talked about.”

    Yeah, thats the thing. Fake news. No actual facts, just repeated propaganda. Thats why i dont believe it. I’ve given leave is it four years now to find some facts and they havnt. You yourself are just saying you heard an idea somewhere.

    All logic says the world out there outside the EU isnt welcoming unicorns but ravening wolves.

  5. @ Old Nat To me
    “As to your suggestion that I frequently chide others for not adhering to the Comments Policy, I can quite understand why you wouldn’t want to look that up, as it is but a creation of yours.”

    @ Old nat @ Prof Howard
    “In any case, isn’t such hagiographic praise for some (but not all) commentators a breach of Anthony’s Comments Policy? :-)”

    Obviously you were being ironical. V funny.

    I described Davwel’s praise of Sturgeon as hagiographic in the last thread: I think justifiably, I’m not sure describing a commentator as influential falls into that category.

  6. Shevii

    I think that has the dilemma for both parties covered pretty well.

    Labour have a strongly remain membership, supporter base, and parliamentary party, but will almost certainly imv be best off electorally if they fail to achieve that, provided the other side gets the blame.

    The Conservatives have a strongly leave membership and supporter base (parliamentary party, not so sure, making leave noises just now, but …) but will almost certainly imv be best off electorally if they fail to achieve that, provided the other side gets the blame.

    Hence on both sides the conflict between the can-kicking of those who put the bigger tactical picture before the Brexit issue while they wait for the other side to blink, and the increasing attempts by those who put the Brexit issue before the bigger picture (or argue that it is the bigger picture I guess) to get their side to blink first.

  7. @ JimJam
    “The upcoming By-Election is unlikely to tell us anything we don’t know ..”

    You said exactly the same thing prior to the Peterborough by-election. Did the result of the latter come as a surprise in any way?

  8. Just a question for all you clever people on here:

    Why is it we think that the news media – even the left leaning media – continually savage Labour – quite rightly of course – over anti-Semitism?

    But the Conservative Party get a relatively easy ride over Islamaphobia.

    Is anti-semitism considered a more serious issue than Islamaphobia. If so, is this also inherently racist (or at the very least discriminatory)?

    IMO both main parties (and perhaps others too, who knows) are guilty of equal crimes in these matters.

    For the first time I can remember, both main parties seem unfit for office if they don’t deal with these issues decisively.

    Labour’s crass stupidity and incompetence yet again comes to the fore by re-instating Williamson. While at the same time the Tories reselect an MP forced out by a vote of no confidence.

  9. @ Jim Jam

    I think “doing what is right” in politics is slightly more complex than it is in everyday life.

    I don’t entirely hold with the politicians’ view that you have to be in power to change things, but there is an element of truth in this- the problem being the level of compromise to the point at which that power becomes meaningless.

    So I can understand the viewpoint of someone who absolutely believes remaining in the EU is the biggest issue for a generation and must be done at all costs regardless of the consequences electorally or otherwise. Equally I don’t see the point of Labour campaigning on this if they can’t win a binary General Election on the issue or offer remain plus because they are not in government. The Labour stance is sufficiently blurred that we won’t leave on terms other than the undefined lexit and that is not a bad position to be arguing from. ie- Labour only sanctions leave if it is better for places like Stoke.

    I’m being glib here (especially as Stoke may not be where the factories are set up) but leaving the EU and Tariffing up pottery at 500% on WTO would probably be the right thing for Stoke. 500% is probably what they would need to be competitive.

    Beyond the glib, we clearly have an imbalance in the country now because working class jobs have been offshored. Obviously we get things cheaper but that only superficially benefits people in low paid work if that low paid work is a consequence of the world opening up to allow cheaper goods to come into the country in the first place.

    So doing the right thing for places like Stoke (ie remain) on its own does not make Stoke any better off and arguably no worse off if staying means even more jobs go out to cheaper areas of Europe in due course.

  10. @ JAMESB – Fully agree we’d need a massive investment and that would need to be upfront. I’m keen of a Green QE fund and a separate infrastructure fund (not exactly the LDEM version but close enough). You would have overlap between the two when it came to town/cities.

    Thanks for the input on Netherlands. They have LOADS of good ideas we could copy (vertical farms is one of my favourites).

    @ CARFREW – Boris is a fan of conventional bikes but e-bikes would certainly be a good idea in towns/cities. Do you remember the Sinclair C5 (from 1985!!!)


    Pretty sure battery tech, etc has come a long way in the last 34years. They cost £399 back in the day. Pretty sure you could produce a better, modern version for under £1k[1] and if you make them free of road tax, congestion charges, etc and even provide a local govt “loan-to-buy” scheme then you could have phase out combustion engines in towns/cities over a say 5yr period using the “carrot + stick” approach.

    [1] Designed and final assembly in UK with HMG assistance in R&D, State Aid bung and tax code “incentives”. Tesla/Dyson/etc are producing very expensive vehicles as they are trying to copy the size and capacity of the car. I appreciate Londoners like their “Chelsea Tractors” (eg Audi Q8) but a vast amount of car travel is single user and there are certainly plenty of examples around the World (eg US) that use camera tech to see if your driving a whopping monster around all by yourself and then prevent/fine you if you use the “Green” lanes. It would fairly easy to add that feature to a UK town/city congestion charge system and if Gina Miller types want to drive around in Audi R8s then they have plenty of cash to help subsidise “Green” users.

  11. PS At some point the not too distant future then I hope they’ll be a societal social stigma for drivers of diesel/petrol vehicles in towns/cities but we have to start by making the alternatives cheaper and more readily available for “early adopters” and then start ratcheting up the cost to reach a “tipping point” where the “laggards” as seen with societal contempt


  12. @tonybtg

    Of course, where the tipping point is depends on how well the other parties are doing. Con, Lab, LD and Brex on 20% each probably still gives Con and Lab far more of the actual seats. Con and Lab on 20% each with LD or Brex on 40% would give a very different result. One of Con and Lab on 20% while the other has 40% would be a landslide.

    A switch to PR would probably require the Lib Dems to get either largest party status (unlikely) or be in a position where they could demand it in exchange for C&S from Labour. A hung Parliament where LD+Lab or LD+Lab+SNP has a majority would probably lead to PR … if it remained stable for long enough.

  13. @SHEVII

    Nail on the head I think. It’s not about Labour “doing” what’s right whatever you believe right is, as there is no conceiveable circumstance where the change of policy that is tearing Labour apart will make any difference. It’s about making an ideological statement of belief.

    Because the only possible circumstance in which the current policy doesn’t unambiguously require a referendum is in the case of that ill-defined Lexit.

    Which isn’t happening in this Parliament. And won’t happen in another Parliament without the policy for this Parliament being superseded.

    So there is no conceiveable circumstance where the policy currently adopted can still be applicable in a case where it would lead to Labour faling to back a referendum on a Brexit deal. Not a one.

    That’s in some ways why it makes the debate toxic. It’s a debate of inconsequential principle. A debate whose outcome has no direct practical consequences in any conceivable circumstance. You can’t compromise pragmatically on an issue that has no practical consequences.

    Labour has plenty of history of self-immolating over angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin pointless gestures that have no practical consequences. Although it’s more usually an obessively purist left that’s doing it.

  14. @Carfrew
    Good memory.
    Before the Isle of Wight my friends and I hitched to the festival at plumpton racecourse. Black Sabbath were playing.

    I remember we slept in a bus shelter on Brighton seafront. I can’t remember taking a tent :-)

  15. @Trevors – re vertical farming.

    It’s trendy, but not that great an idea in environmental terms. In a UK comparison and compared to traditional heated glasshouses, vertical farming production takes around 15 times more energy per square meter of growing area.

    Much better to use waste heat and waste combustion CO2 in conventional glasshouses to increase production at maximum environmental efficiency.

    Or just have fewer babies and stop eating so much and getting fat.

    Around 50% of the UK population is fat or obese through overeating, and we apparently throw away at last 30% of total food production. This means that is we just get organised (and a bit slimmer) we could get rid of 50% of the cultivated land and return it to a more natural environment with no net food supply impacts whatsoever, even if we didn’t tackle overpopulation.

  16. @Danny

    I thank you sincerely for taking the time to reply.
    For what it is worth my favourite government was (Unorthodox choice I know) the Callaghan-Healey 1976 to 1979 one. I think they were the last government which actually gave people the honest facts and true data. Since then all the three parties of government in England and the Celtic parties elsewhere have ‘massaged’ the figures.
    It is literally impossible to know how many people are unemployed in the UK now unless we use the exact same basis of calculation as in 1976. The true figure may be 7 million or higher. But the absolute politically acceptable limit of 3 million was decided upon by Westminster and Whitehall in the 1980s. So it will not go higher (officially). Pravda came to the UK like the boiling frog.

  17. I pray for accurate polling. Well designed and well executed. But I think certain political future events are written in stone. This will affect VI.

    Again non-partisan to understand my politics and crucially of polling and VI then you have to read Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21 and Mark 13 plus the Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Takes about an hour to do this. I would throw in an overview of Jeremiah and Isaiah warning a nation on the course we seem on, to put the brakes on, or get the same outcome.

    The most staggering claim of the Bible is to be history written in advance.

    I recommend to anyone interested in seeing where VI and the nation is heading politically to read or watch on video on the internet Bill Salus (especially on Iran, Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 and 39), David Reagan on The Destiny of The USA (and parallels with the UK), John Hagee ‘The Final Game of Thrones’ and John Hagee on Israel and Jerusalem, Derek Prince ‘Where are we in Bible Prophecy’ a six part series recorded in Malvern in 1995.
    Anything by Jan Markell such as Hidden in Plain View.

    I think that Jeremiah 16 verse 16 and Ezekiel 36 is why despite everything we may be getting Corbyn or a Corbyn type government in the UK soon and an extreme Democrat government in the USA no later than 2025 but it could be 2021. The likes of Williamson will not be leaving UK politics.

    I think David Hathaway is broadly correct in his videos ‘The Rape of Europe’. Further excellent short videos by Stephen Green of Christian Voice ‘The European Union’s Woman on The Beast’ and ‘The European Union’s Tower of Babel’.

    I anticipate some very volatile VI.

  18. @Pete / Colin / Whoever

    I wrote -75 or -66 because I did not know. It was a guess. I did not go looking for the answer, because I could not be arsed wasting my time on something that cannot be proven.

    I am not, and have never been a statistician. I’m a geek who liked to have the stats represented in a more eye-catching manner than reading them as text. If anyone took a forum name as some form of employment status, I suggest you have a bit of fun with:

    http://www.spinxo.com/?search=funny+twitter+names (I didn’t bother with a name generator)

    Consider Con seats + Lab seats in the elections since 1945:

    1945 – 92%
    1950 – 98%
    1951 – 99%
    1955 – 99%
    1959 – 99%
    1964 – 99%
    1966 – 98%
    1970 – 98%
    1974(Feb) – 94%
    1974(Oct) – 94%
    1979 – 96%
    1983 – 93%
    1987 – 93%
    1992 – 93%
    1997 – 89%
    2001 – 88%
    2005 – 86%
    2010 – 87%
    2015 – 87%
    2017 – 87%

    Current GE prediction on current VI (Electoral Calc + Scotland data):

    20xx – 52%

    So the VI is in no way a two party system with four parties each having 19% to 22% each. In the last election, the big two had an average of 80% of VI in polls, got 85% of votes, and secured 87% of seats. Now they’re on 42% combined, but no one knows if that’s going to happen in a GE.

    Ergo it was always a 2 party system until now (2.5 some of the time, if being pedantic). Only one of two parties could form a government. Current VI suggests we could be in a four party system now, with it taking at least two parties to form any government.

    Now factor in AW’s warning of leadership rating partisanship and the other usual silly factors (media agenda, age, good looks (or not), inability to eat bacon sandwiches etc). Any leader has to fight from a lower base in the current VI climate.

    If we trust seat predictors, we’re looking at a 4 party VI system, and 3 large + 2 small party seat system (if any of these can actually be termed a system).

    I would guess (haven’t looked) that the Greens leader gets ok ratings in comparison, and way beyond party VI, because he/she doesn’t annoy too many people too often, and also gets slightly better ratings because it’s a ‘good thing to be politically green’. He/she isn’t going to be PM, so it’s safe to speak of them nicely. Too low to be a threat, and their heart in in the right place etc.

    Hope that’s helped to make my point(s) clear. ;)

  19. There seems a touching faith from some that the LDems are irredeemably tainted by their participation in the Coalition, whereas Labour or Tories can change policy on/deliver Brexit and recover from any damage sustained over the previous three years.

    I think this is hugely misplaced:

    Parties that have committed a major sin in the eye of the electorate take many years to recover, that is true; Labour’s Iraq war issue was only substantially resolved by 2015/17, the Tories paid for the Major government’s perceived weakness until at least 2006/7, so roughly ten years in each case.

    But another way of looking at this is that they paid the price until the other parties made an equally serious faux pas, at which point they tended to be forgiven. The Tories recovered after the Iraq War and financial crisis, Labour’s main recovery came after the debacle of the Referendum.

    My perception is that the LDems still carry a stigma from Coalition and would be sensible to try to deal with it openly; but the great majority of people will gloss over that if Tories and Labour are still perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be screwing up Brexit and/or led by incompetents.

    So I really doubt that Labour or the Tories get a free pass because the LDems were in Coalition – their own problems provide a considerable amount of whitewash to apply to the LDems’ Coalition graffiti…

    Brecon & Radnor will be fun!

  20. @PeteB

    Just re-read your post.

    If base of approx. +25 for own party, and -75 from the rest, then -50 is what I would expect as the default, with net below -50 as less than ideal.

    My point with Colin was that Foot had those ballpark ratings at a time when the two party system was still the default mindset, with the SDP being electoral usurpers. As it was, the two parties still took 93% of the seats with 70% of the votes. Hence the 2.5 party references.

    In Foot’s day, anything below net -20 would have been less than ideal (40 – 60), as both of the two parties would have been expecting 40% or more to win. In that sense, Foot’s negative ratings were very bad, while Corbyn’s are less so, imho.

  21. Can people stop going on about the Brexit Party Ltd getting lots of seats – it’ll never happen! UKIP regularly polled in the high teens/twenties in the 2010-2015 and 2015-2017 parliaments and they achieved 12.6% and 1.8% in the following elections, and won just 1 seat at the first one. Nothing has changed – except now BXP doesn’t have 20+ years of traditional party infrastructure.

    The opinion polls themselves may not be wrong, but people change their minds in a general election campaign where lots more issues that affect their lives come to the fore than just Brexit.

  22. @JamesB

    “This sounds rather like those protests that acutely demonstrate the space inefficiency of single occupancy cars…”



    Yes, I did enjoy that pic of the bikes with frames around them, and think it might even be an idea to consider making such a frame mandatory. This could help keep those forced to use bikes from getting crushed against the railings by errant lorries, and help pedestrians in city centres like me avoid having to keep jumping out of the way of all those demonically possessed Deliveroo riders who like to ride on pavements.* (You could even hang your washing on them, but not if it rains, obviously).

    Speaking of rain, I do think they’ve missed a few tricks though to help remove the considerable downsides of the biking experience. Firstly, why not hang a metal skin around the frame, to keep the rain out? With doors so you can get in and windows so you can see out etc.? If you fitted a floor too, then you’d be able to carry more stuff, like a few synths, more shopping, and with more seats, some extra passengers.

    Taking this idea further, you could fit wheels at each corner, so it’s more stable than just a bike and you don’t fall over and hurt your elbow when you hit a patch of ice. Then if you fitted motors to power the wheels you could go a lot faster. (Make it autonomous and you could do something else instead of having to drive!)

    Might seem a bit fanciful but it could catch on!

  23. @ Danny

    I understand your arguments well and in the back of mind my mind I acknowledge that you could be right. I don’t think Peterborough is a good guide though because obviously under a binary choice with Tories committed to Brexit one way or another, the Tories would have won it. By elections with protest votes are never good examples.

    The stereotypical working class Sun reader will be difficult to shift but the biggest issue for Labour is not the pure leave vote so much as it is the leave leaning (who may well have bothered to vote leave when they normally don’t) who normally do not vote. With the right motivation they will vote but not if they see the one time they did vote completely ignored. You see it in the turnouts in deprived areas- often not a million miles off 50% lower than the turnout in middle class areas. In certain marginals (Stoke again!) this is where a Lab MP can miss out because these people don’t believe politics makes any difference. This is why Labour MPs in leave areas are flagging up those “I’m never going to vote again” comments.

    Ultimately voters are either voting on pure self interest or at least on their own life experiences. Labour switching to increasingly rely on middle class voters means they end up following a middle class agenda. I thought they were making progress in 2017 but because of Brexit that progress risks being lost.

    @ PeterW

    The problem for Labour though is that that in spite of the no direct practical consequences they’ve lost votes. I suppose it is possible that when push comes to shove that incumbency kicks in and Labour have a similar climb to 2017 but it seems unlikely it will be as high as last time unless remainers are so scared by a potential crash out that they hold their noses. It still relies on Lib Dem and SNP gains in Tory areas to offset any tick up in “wasted votes” and it still leaves Labour short of any gains in places like Mansfield and Stoke.

  24. RobbieAlive @ 10.38 am

    You were quite right to correct me as being too fulsome in listing Nicola Sturgeon`s attributes, and in not putting in an “in my opinion….”.

    I was trying to show that some of us here can value politicians even when we don`t accept their main policies.

  25. @DANNY

    “Yeah, thats the thing. Fake news. No actual facts, just repeated propaganda. Thats why i dont believe it. I’ve given leave is it four years now to find some facts and they havnt. You yourself are just saying you heard an idea somewhere.

    All logic says the world out there outside the EU isnt welcoming unicorns but ravening wolves.”


    But it’s not fake news though is it. That’s being overly dismissive. It’s speculative, unproven, but it’s a very real possibility that we might do other trade deals that might be of benefit.

    Why do you think it will necessarily be impossible to do any trade deals of some benefit if we leave the EU?

    It’s like I can’t prove that an asteroid big enough to threaten an extinction event will definitely 100% strike again, or when. But it would be folly to then conclude that the possibility of such an asteroid strike is just fake news.

    It’s also notable, that you guys like to stay in the terrain of debating the more reliable advantages of the EU, and the more speculative aspects of Leave.


    Loved your: It’s speculative, unproven, but it’s a very real possibility that we might do other trade deals that might be of benefit.

    Absolutely true, but somewhat different from the various leave campaigns, if I recall correctly.

  27. @ ALEC – Or we can leave with “No WA” and folks will rapidly adapt to being less reliant on imported food and becoming fitter and healthier in the process! Thank you for providing some of the numbers to show how feasible that would be.

    Re: Vertical Farms. You jumped in on conversation that was concerning urban (town/city) issues. I didn’t say it was the ONLY solution but it could provide PART of the solution – specifically in urban areas for certain, not all, types of food. Agree greenhouses should also be PART of the solution (locations issues in link below). No idea where you get your 15x from though. Could you try to make the effort to provide sources.

    I encourage you to read this one which tackles some of the myths and shows how to opitmise and integrate vertical farms as PART of the solution.



    I’ll have what you’re having ;)


    Very good points. I think seat predictors are pointless (even in a 2 party system – far more so in a 3, 4…). Perhaps Con+Lab will = 42% in the next election, but I think not. So opinion polls, while not necessarily incorrect, may be a bit pointless…

  29. @TW
    ‘Or we can leave with “No WA” and folks will rapidly adapt to being less reliant on imported food and becoming fitter and healthier in the process! ‘

    Why don’t we just tax food and then all the poor people will eat less and get less obese? I mean the logic is exactly the same.
    Th views espoused in this place get more bizarre by the minute…

  30. @Lewblew

    Your premise is that viz Westminster, The Brexit Party will fare as did UKIP. Total failure.
    You may be right. 400 Silver medals in FPTP equals zero seats.

    The Brexit Party will not win Westminster seats without the following:

    1. Conservative Party activist base in local areas complete with vital VI data defecting to Brexit Party. This was never ever possible during UKIP golden age 2013-2015 but it is now. It depends whether Boris delivers Brexit.

    2. The Brexit Party get regular significant finance on a par with Conservative and Labour. For the first time it could be on the cards from Tory donors and some Labour donors.

    3. Labour split and/or The Conservatives split. Unthinkable 2013-2015 but now it is possible (not certain, not highly probable).

    4. They win by-elections.

    5. Conservatives and Labour combined poll below 40% in VI (box ticked on that one but would never have looked like it could in 2010 to 2017 which was the rise and fall of UKIP).

    6. A huge group of 50 plus MPs defect to Brexit Party (ERG have issued Boris a Brexit by October 31st or else warning).

    You may be proved right. The Brexit Party have UKIP’s old weaknesses. No local data. Party candidates and donors really just wanting Conservative and Labour to sort themselves out so they can return. No agreed policies except Leave the EU. Not clear whether a big government, small government, high tax, low tax, pro or anti NHS, etc

    The big difference with Westminster GE is the biggest question has been ‘Do you want to stop A, then you must vote B or you will get A in power’.
    B reverse the question.
    A and B with 90% advertising budget in previous elections both emphasise that voting C,D,E etc is a wasted vote.

    But if there is No Brexit before GE, if Labour are full blooded Remain, if the Tories do a deal, if Tory constituency parties move over to Brexit, if Tory MPs defect in very big numbers, if Tory donors switch off the £30 million cash to finance the election campaign etc

    Time will tell. You may be right but we are not in 2010 to 2015 territory.
    Most people believed that Conservative and Labour manifestos in 2017 were going to lead to Brexit by now. Their trust in manifestos may be really damaged. Only a new GE will show if it is.

  31. @ BFR

    @TW appears to apply what I would describe as “Silver Bullet” thinking (it was a problem in the pharmaceutical industry for years) the development of chaos theory for complex systems has generally led away from this type of analysis being undertaken, it is, however still (and some may argue an increasing) approach in UK politics. To some extent I blame spin doctors and soundbites but a far more corrosive aspect was the creation of legislation to appease the “something must be done” situation as a form of spin, in other words legislation would be passed, the problem would be dealt with except of course it never was and further problems arose from the legislation itself.

  32. @JSB
    ‘Most people believed that Conservative and Labour manifestos in 2017 were going to lead to Brexit by now’

    You are slightly wrong on this – I agree that most Brexiteers believed Tory & Labour manifesto commitments to honour the |referendum, but most Remain voters (rightly or wrongly) believed Labour was opposed to Brexit.

    Labour did a fantastic job of facing both ways in 2017, but that is a really hard trick to repeat with a Remain electorate a decent chunk of which feels that it was conned in 2017.

    In some ways the Tories have it easier to claw back some of their core vote…

  33. @ BFR: 12:20 post, Agree that parties do have a certain duration of being punished by voters before this gets overtaken by the big issue of the day. Normally though its the party in power that get’s punished, so Labour might get away with their fence-sitting on Brexit whilst they’re in opposition, though parts of their voter base are starting to lose patience.

    My own take on the Lib Dems is that due to the pre-eminence of Brexit as an issue their toxicity is on the wane – however, I do feel there is substantial residual feeling in larger urban areas about their role in austerity during the coalition.

    Brecon & Radnorshire though will be a byelection the Lib Dems will certainly be looking forward to.

  34. @Billl
    I agree re LDems – I think that there is a portion of the electorate that have gone from Labour to LDems because of Iraq and then from LDem to Green because the Coalition, and are unlikely to come back for a good while.

    However I do think Brexit may be a similar toxic issue for Labour – I know quite a few 20-somethings who feel conned by 2017 Labour and are going to take a lot of persuading to return to the fold from Greens or LDems.

  35. @Carfrew – “It’s speculative, unproven, but it’s a very real possibility that we might do other trade deals that might be of benefit.

    Why do you think it will necessarily be impossible to do any trade deals of some benefit if we leave the EU?

    …It’s also notable, that you guys like to stay in the terrain of debating the more reliable advantages of the EU, and the more speculative aspects of Leave.”

    I’m wondering here whether we are dancing on pin heads again?

    I think that what @Danny is getting at (in general terms at least) is that we won’t get as good a set of trade deals on our own.

    You are saying something slightly different – that we might get advantageous trade deals when we leave the EU.

    These aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I think also your claim that the focus is on the ‘speculative aspects’ of leave has possibly missed a point. We have quite a lot of hard evidence that trade deals when we leave will be worse than those we have now, in the form of many of the ‘roll over’ deals.

    Many of these are significantly deficient, when compared to the current EU deals, although the government does rather try to hide this fact. Some parts of them are contingent on the UK signing the WA, and won’t apply if we exit with no deal. None of them appear to be more beneficial, wider or deeper than the deals they are superseding.

    I suspect that the desire amongst many remainers to focus on actual data rather than speculative future possibilities is because this gives us a sensible evidence base on which to compare potential futures.

    Indeed, asking people to consider speculative future possibilities is something of a two edged sword. Can’t we consider the speculative future that the EU will strike more and better trade deals and commit to much internal reform that benefits the UK?

1 2 3

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)