Prorogation polling

Three polling companies – YouGov, Ipsos MORI and Survation – have so far released polling on the government’s decision to prorogue Parliament in mid-September.

YouGov polled on the issue twice – a snap poll on the day of the announcement itself, with the same question repeated overnight. The on-the-day figures were 27% acceptable, 47% unacceptable, 26% don’t know. The follow-up poll had a similar split, but with the number of don’t knows dropping off as people became aware of the story – 31% said it was acceptable, 53% unacceptable, 16% don’t know. Tabs are here)

Ipsos MORI did an unusual online poll (almost alone among pollsters these days, most of their polling is done by phone). They found 30% thought the decision to prorogue Parliament was right, 46% thought it was wrong. Tables are here.

Finally there was a Survation poll for today’s Daily Mail. This found a closer result, with the public fairly evenly split – 39% were supportive, 40% opposed (note this is rounding the totals for support/oppose after they’ve been summed, hence the apparent discrepancy with the tables). Tables are here.

Overall it looks as if the public are opposed to the prorogation decision – though it is unclear to what degree. Whether that really matters or will make any dent in the government’s support is a different matter. Opposition to prorogation is concentrated among Remainers (in YouGov 82% of Remainers think the move is unacceptable, but only 24% of Leavers, in MORI’s poll 74% of Remainers think it was wrong, only 20% of Leavers, in Survation 74% Remainers, 14% leavers). If most of the opposition to the move comes from people who are opposed to the government’s policy anyway (and I expect the more fervent opposition comes from those who were most fervently opposed already) the government are hardly likely to worry too much over losing the crucial “people who hated us anyway” vote.

Both YouGov and Survation included voting intention in their surveys:

YouGov’s topline figures were CON 33%(-1), LAB 22%(nc), LDEM 21%(+4), BREX 12%(-1), GRN 7%(-1)
Survation’s topline figures were CON 31%(+3), LAB 24%(nc), LD 21%(nc), BREX 14%(-2), GRN 3%(nc)

Changes in the YouGov poll are from a poll earlier this week, before the announcement. In Survation changes are from a poll three weeks ago. There is a little movement up and down, but certainly nothing that suggests the announcement has done immediate damage to Conservative support.


3,389 Responses to “Prorogation polling”

1 52 53 54 55 56 68
  1. Bantams

    “Are the Remainers in the HoC starting to look like a big bunch of playground bullies?”

    No.

  2. RJW

    “the advice given to the Queen was given in Scotland.
    Therefore, surely the Scottish court should get precedence as to its judgment that that advice was unlawful.”

    Lots of folk on twitter have suggested that, but the legal opinion I’ve seen says that the place where the UK Privy Council tendered their advice/instruction to the head of state is immaterial. Under Scots Law it would have been an illegal act, no matter where the advice was tendered, just as the High Court of E&W judged that it was legal.

  3. @Colin

    “I don’t suppose this will get any plaudits here…”

    Nice font. Nice, dark text on a white background. Can’t fault it.

    “Claire Fox is the Brexit Party MEP for North West England”

    And that will be the crux of it. For balance, some snippets from her wiki:

    “She became co-publisher of its magazine Living Marxism,[10] which closed in 2000 after it falsely accused ITN of faking evidence of the Bosnian genocide.[11] In 2018, Fox refused to apologise for suggesting evidence of the genocide was faked.”

    “…and denying that there are any natural limits to human activity on the planet with her suggestion that everyone could have the same equivalent wealth as a multi-millionaire.”

    “She has also attracted criticism for her support for the Provisional Irish Republican Army in the past.”

    Not withstanding the false accusations, and unwillingness to admit being wrong, and the links to the IRA (heard that one levelled at Corbyn), I have to wonder, with the world all as multi-millionaires, who’s going to do the laundry?

    But I’m sure the article was good. :D

  4. Alec,
    “Secondly, whatever the reason, it’s another defeat. ”

    While I do keep arguing the aim is to be defeated, the playbook would call for a re-run of May’s attempt. To justify calling it, the government has to have an impresive lead when it does so. This then bleeds away during the campign…but of course by then the government was committed so nothing it could do. But the delays to getting an elections mean the mantraps which were always going to erode the tory lead (and I argue were intended to) have taken effect before any campaign. By the time we get to calling an actual election, it might aready be very clear the conservatives will lose badly, and then the question arises why they would call an election at all.

    In particular, how they justify to leave supporters throwing away their existing (albeit weak) position when it is clear the outcome would be an even weaker one. If they end ups tarting in a bad position, many leavers could leave the sinking ship for BxP, which wouldnt benefit given the nature of election mathematics, but the conservaitves could be slaughtered.

  5. STATGEEK

    Right-Marxist-say no more.

    :-) :-)

  6. Danny

    I only comment on typos when they seem very appropriate.

    Your “tarting in a bad position” matches my criterion very well.

  7. @BANTAMS

    Could this happen in the UK:

    The simple answer is yes (and in the more complex answer is in this case I dont think we have the same sort of compensation system for death in service benefits ).

    If you are on a business trip for a company you are essentially being sent on instruction and this are at your place of work the company is paying for your food, lodging and you’d most probably get a stipend for being away from home

    There was a case where a two people were on a works trip and had sex in a room and their was an accident and they claimed compensation from the company for an injury sustain form having sex.

    I have always on works dos made sure that people were gotten taxi or had were provision hotel accommodation rather than drive since their journey to and from work can be deemed as works responsibility

  8. Alec,
    “I for one am very worried about Speaker Bercow’s moves. While he has taken actions which suit my outlook, I am of the view that politicizing the Speaker’s role has been a very dangerous move,”

    It has been argued that whatever she thought, the queen had no choice but to agree to prorogue parliament.

    But similarly, if approached by MPs representing a majority of the members, the speaker really had no choice but to agree to what they wanted. Had he refused, the next step would have had to be impeachment of the speaker.

    I’m not saying Bercow wasnt sympathetic, but a hard leave speaker would have ended up in the same position the PM is now. The speaker has to accept the will of MPs over the will of the government.

  9. So if someone commits a murder while on a business trip, can the victim’s relatives sue the employer?

    Seems a little strange. I’d have wasnted to countersue for breach of contract. Paid to work, not have fun, or taking pay for having sex, local prostitutions rules etc. (or moonlighting at the very least). :D

  10. The lawyers for the successful petitioners in the Cherry case have written to HMG pointing out that “unless and until” the UK Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Inner House, Parliament is not prorogued, and continues to be in session.

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1171825341540831233

  11. @STATGEEK
    In the extreme yes if your company is deemed to have provisioned ‘help’ you could be liable. In the same way in your duties of your work you assault someone you and the company is liable. The point becomes when does your duties in work end. So they end depending of circumstances when you get home or when you leave the place of work.
    So going out on a Works Christmas Party you are deemed to be at work since it is an event that is paid for by your work and thus all the relevant HR laws appl. If you are away from home due to work then again you are deemed at work.

    yes I know it sounds mad but it is the law in the UK and I have had to deal with some instances of it

  12. Times reporting Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming president of the European Commission, has said that Boris Johnson will have to nominate a British European commissioner as part of the EU’s terms for a further delay to Brexit

    Nose being rubbed in the mess Johnson has left on the carpet?

  13. Looking at the official record for Monday, I see that the House was not adjourned before prorogation. The Court of Session has ruled that both the advice to the Queen and the prorogation were unlawful and therefore null and of no effect. It seems that the UK Government have not sought to stay the order pending the Supreme Court hearing. So it appears that as it stands at the moment Parliament is neither prorogued nor adjourned and the Crown or UK &does not need to recall Parliament as it is still in session.

    The lawyers for the petitioners have just written to the UK Government (and the Speaker) saying that the legal effect of today’s ruling is that Parliament is still in session and requiring them to confirm that publicly.

  14. The Trevors,
    ” I’d like Indy Scotland so anything that puts a wedge between Scotland and rUK suits me.”

    I wouldnt. The Uk is far better together, and together inside the EU too. But I certainly would support a proper federal solution for Scotland.

    “I dunno but I’m not uncertain of the flip-side “spin” given Boris is clearly running a “People v Elite” GE ”

    Thats not clear at all. He is running a campaign which on the one hand is intended to satisfy leavers he is working for them, but which is actually demolishing the chance of Brexit happening. Which is a very difficut thing to do. And it isnt going too well. There has been a major derailment over timing because of no election.

  15. @bantams

    Whom are the remain MPs bullying? The shy and retiring UK PM, the reticent and unconfident Leader of the House, the oh so nervous Dominic Cummings?

  16. @ turk

    “I wonder it that criteria applied to the Scottish Court in a fiercely remain Scotland.”

    Ah. so Scottish Courts are unreilable and English courts are to be trusted. Presumably, Scottish courts are wee, pretendy courts not really courts at all and Scottish judges aren’t really worth the name stall. Best let proper judges in proper courts sort it all out. Thank heavens you have clarified that. Thank God for England.

  17. [email protected] Trevors: I’d like Indy Scotland so anything that puts a wedge between Scotland and rUK suits me.”

    I wouldnt. The Uk is far better together, and together inside the EU too. But I certainly would support a proper federal solution for Scotland.

    Scotland and rUK together in the EU is close enough for me. I don’t think England can sort out its constitutional issues while it is shackled to Scotland

  18. “BANTAMS
    Are the Remainers in the HoC starting to look like a big bunch of playground bullies?”

    Assuming your definition of a “bully” is someone who picks on the big kids I’d say you have a jolly good point.

  19. So UK Government minister goes on air to question the impartiality of judges while denying thst he is doing that.

  20. Technicolour October,
    ” they will effectively have to overthrow the Law in either Scotland or England to give a single ruling.”

    No, I dont think they will. The two legal systems differ, so it perfectly possible for something to be valid in one and not in the other.

    As to the implications of a split decision, the English decision was simply there are no grounds to overturn prorogation in English law. Fine, settled. (assuming the appeal court agrees in English law). Nothing happens.

    On the other hand the Scots court decided under scottish law the prorogation is disallowed. The appeal court might decided they erred under scottish law. But if not, then the complaint is upheld and the legal sanction is applied, the prorogation is cancelled.

    It isnt really different to someone bringing a case under one administration where they present two different arguments on different grounds why something should happen. Argument A might fail but argument B upheld. So here.

  21. The people versus the elite is such a fatuous misnomer.

    Are we *really* supposed to classify Johnson, Rees-Mogg and all the other millionaires as the opposite of “elite”?

  22. The last 4 polls as follows

    YouGov Con 9% lead
    Kantar Con 14% lead
    Comres Con 1% lead
    Deltapoll Con 3% lead

    I’m sorry but these polling companies are useless.

    It would appear that they are no better than a random number generator.

  23. Yellowhammer: I’m assuming the redacted point 15 refers to shortage of medicines for humans…and surely Yellowhammer documentation should run to more than 6 pages?

  24. artemis

    It looks like something I might have knocked together in a hurry to satisfy my boss.

  25. Nick – I doubt your boss would have been satisfied with such lack of detail?

  26. Laszlo,
    “The Yellowhammer papers are published.”

    All, or selected highlights? (like last time).

    Artemis,
    “surely Yellowhammer documentation should run to more than 6 pages?”

    Seriously? They spent billions of pounds and got six pages for it?

  27. “lawyers for the petitioners have just written to the UK Government (and the Speaker) saying that the legal effect of today’s ruling is that Parliament is still in session and requiring them to confirm that publicly.”

    ——

    Hopefully it’s legal for them to write to the UK Government…

  28. @nickp

    Yep. My 15 yo could do a better job of evaluating risks associated with no deal. And I was wrong about medicines – mentioned in a couple of lines in point 6 with a meaningless assurance that ‚DHSC is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate risks.

  29. jim jam

    You’d be surprised what I get a way with, sometimes

  30. It could come down to this:

    – one side posits that the Claim of Right was given force in England by section 2 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706;

    – the other side posits that, since no-one litigated to stop the controversial prorogation of 1963, the Claim of Right is in desuetude and can be set aside.

  31. Lovely comment by the DUP chap being interviewed by Ch4. ”The Titanic was fine when it left Belfast. Until the british took control of it”

  32. &Danny

    LOL

    And as it’s topical, just mentioning (again) that Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem.

  33. I’d like to return to a point I raised last night. Unfortunatey, I chose to introduce a light historical aside into the post, and the only responses I received were patronising and wholly unneccesary history lessons. Nobody has addressed the substance so far.

    The notion that referenda can’t be overturned is as ludicrous as the notion that general election results can’t be overturned.

    As far as I’m concerned, referenda are anathema, and wholly in contradiction to representative democracy (note: representative, not delegate!).

    When we see sense and write a constitution they should be ruled out. Of course, our glorious unwritten constitution relied on conventions and precedents followed by gentlemen (and women), and there are no longer any gentlemen in politics. A constitutional convention should be the first task of whoever wins in October (but obviously won’t be – the self-interest of the two largest parties in maintaining their duopoly makes sure of that).

  34. @ VARIOUS (@ BANTAMS)

    ““Are the Remainers in the HoC starting to look like a big bunch of playground bullies?””

    Well I have a poll for that[1] ;)

    “Just one-in-five Brits think Parliament is in touch with the public on Brexit”

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/09/johnsons-popularity-wobbles-third-say-hes-out-touc

    We’ll have to see if YG run a new poll asking something of the lines of

    “Would you go to work on a day when the office was shut?”

    “Would you agree that anyone who did go to work on a day when the office was shut is a sad l0ser?”

    NB We know about the “agree” bias of +ve affirmation but I’m not sure RW press readers are.

    Also has anyone answered this simple question for “outraged” Remain MPs and VI?

    “If parliament is reopened to discuss Brexit then what exactly are you going to debate and vote on that you haven’t debated and voted on over the last 3yrs?”

    Or in simples terms

    “If skool reopens early (or technically never closed[2]) then what do you want Bercow to cook up for you?”

    We’ve had two FTPA-1 votes but Boris “bottled out” of a VoC (which is not technically the same as a VoNC FTPA-2
    (deliberate or accidental mistake or tactical I dunno – I had at p=possible but then I’m not calling the plays so can’t do p=0 or 100)

    [1] OK some wording issues for sure and its all off a few days old but if we’re heading into a “People v Elite” campaign (E+W) then its close enough IMO (I’m sure pedantic Scots will think otherwise but then it’s a very different campaign up there – different polity ‘n all ;)

    [2] CIM posted an excellent point about that earlier regarding whether or not this is still the 2017-19 session or a new 2019-? session as it has lots of implications.

  35. Artemis,
    “And as it’s topical, just mentioning (again) that Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem.”

    one billion of the money they spent probably went on getting that anagram sorted.

  36. @TO
    ” they will effectively have to overthrow the Law in either Scotland or England to give a single ruling.”

    @Danny

    “No, I dont think they will. The two legal systems differ, so it perfectly possible for something to be valid in one and not in the other.”

    While Danny is correct, I think the UKSC being the constitutional court for the UK as a whole will try to reconcile the two decisions. Also, I don’t believe there is a significant difference between Scots law and English law interpretations on this point; merely that Scots law judges are more willing to interpret the the UK constitution and its associated laws and practice in a more flexible way.

    If I am correct and the UKSC does look to reconcile the decisions, they
    will need to adopt a flexible approach, and even if they decide to overrule the Scots law decision, I suspect they will make it easier in future to challenge the prerogative power to prorogue. (Of course it would be better for parliament to legislate to control the PMs discretion in this area.)

  37. According to the Times journalist to whom the report was leaked, the only changes are:
    1. The redaction
    2. The title was “Base Scenario” not “Worst Case Scenario.”

  38. Miserable old git,
    “The notion that referenda can’t be overturned is as ludicrous as the notion that general election results can’t be overturned. ”

    I dont generally respond to posts I agree with, since I reckon the point has been made.

    Program on R4 this lunchtime, series about inventions which have changed the world. This one was about the ‘like’ button on internet posts. Created a revolution in propagating a message, apparently. And created an industry whereby the bad guys can perfectly categorise all your likes, dislikes, personal charcteristics, whether you are gay, coloured, everything. And then you can be targetted to make you do what they want.

  39. @ R&D – Welcome to “post truth” politics in the Real World ;)

    It’s called “spin” and IIRC then LAB had some chap Dr-Spin Campbell who turned that into a bit of an art (ie we didn’t start that)

    With so much news going on then what was one of his phrases?

    Something about a good day to bury bad news?!?

    NB I fully accept the “outrage” of Remain folks and dog whistle politics so don’t be a hypocr!te if two play that game

    Sing song time me thinks.

    Bobby Brown: Two Can Play That Game (chorus)

    “I hear what your saying
    Two can play that game
    Your game
    Two can play that game
    Two can play that game”

  40. @Artemis

    surely Yellowhammer documentation should run to more than 6 pages

    I agree. This doesn’t seem much more than a list of things that may go wrong with varying degrees of probability. There’s nothing very concrete about the priorities for action, what the actual plans are, etc. The main thing that I gathered was that they do not expect most of the lorries to be ready for the French customs, that is going to gum up the ‘short crossings’ (or whatever they are called) and there is nothing much they are proposing to do about it. Who is this document for?

  41. Sunday Times reporter has published the redacted para 15 in the Yellowhammer report –

    15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans.
    This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000).
    Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.

    Also that What did the version I had say? BASE SCENARIO
    Now what does the new one say? HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions

    HMG just can’t help being deceitful.

  42. There’s so much that should be mentioned and isn’t.
    – Run on the pound
    – Loss of European arrest warrant/access to European databases
    – Likely slaughter of sheep/cattle due to export tariffs
    – possible exodus of European nationals leading to staff shortages in various sectors e.g. NHS, social care

    I’m sure everyone can add a few more.

    And I’m thinking of that doctor who had the showdown who had written some of the Yellowhammer stuff and how various problems on the medical side couldn’t be overcome. Where’s that level of detail?

    We’re all being played for fools.

  43. Why do people currently care about CON lead over LAB?

    Many folks on here have pointed out:

    Sum(Leave) = 44ish
    Sum(Remain+NATS) = 56ish (and stable for donkeys)

    ie the “Inter” Brexit vote hasn’t changed and is not likely to change until AFTER Brexit (“demographic drift” not withstanding)

    Hence it is the “intra” stuff that matters and clearly each side needs to unite its vote under one banner per polity[1] (as best they can and assuming they want to) and do what they can to split the other side – simples ;)

    [1] At a seat level of course but clearly SNP are going to win most/all of Scotland, DUP will probably be 9(-1) so E+W is where the “action” will be.

  44. Showdown *with Rees-Mogg* I meant to say .

  45. @Artemis

    – Run on the pound – at least we control interest rates!
    – Loss of European arrest warrant/access to European databases – pure scaremongering
    – Likely slaughter of sheep/cattle due to export tariffs – if you are unfortunate enough to be a lamb or beef steer, expect to be slaughtered whether we remain or leave
    – possible exodus of European nationals leading to staff shortages in various sectors e.g. NHS, social care – maybe in a mad “no deal” scenario, EU national’s status is cemented by the deal.

    Stop scaremongering!!

  46. Starmer: “It is also now more important than ever that parliament is recalled and has the opportunity to scrutinise these documents and take all steps necessary to stop no deal

    Errr… what was the purpose of Bill#6 (Remain now calling it the Benn Act)

    Has this chap still not read Article 50?!? You can’t STOP No Deal unless you ENABLE something else and FFS how much time did we spend trying to ENABLE Mayb0t deal (3) or find an alternative (2 batches of IVs)

    So Keir (or any Remain VI) what exactly do you want to debate and vote on that you haven’t spent the last 2+yrs debating and voting on?!?

    PS and do Remain really want MPs back (especially LAB-Remain)? Think it through….

  47. @colin
    “I don’t suppose this will get any plaudits here”

    No, it’s claire fox for goodness sakes. She’s several clowns short of a circus. Gone from bonkers marxist to bonkers libertarian.

  48. The Trevors,
    “(ie we didn’t start that)”

    I’m sure not. But who are the ‘we’ you are part of?

    Oldnat,
    “BASE SCENARIO”

    There is plainly a spin campaign in effect to downplay brexit effects. One wonders what the real worst case scenario looks like. ‘Base scenario’ simply sounds like a starting point…and looks like it.

    None of that is surprising, and presumably the mantrap if there is one is the fun parliament will have extracting more documents…if it gets the chance.

  49. [email protected] October : ” they will effectively have to overthrow the Law in either Scotland or England to give a single ruling.”

    No, I dont think they will. The two legal systems differ, so it perfectly possible for something to be valid in one and not in the other.

    Well, yes, but you are truncating what I said to fit your objection. I actually said:

    Effectively, if they vote without being able to find one [and only one] of the lower court rulings wrong in Law, they will effectively have to overthrow the Law in either Scotland or England to give a single ruling.

    IOW, they could well find themselves with different rulings for the 2 jurisdictions, exactly as you say. The crucial part which you not picking up on [even in your full post] is what they would have to do to get a single ruling.

    RAF: While Danny is correct, I think the UKSC being the constitutional court for the UK as a whole will try to reconcile the two decisions. Also, I don’t believe there is a significant difference between Scots law and English law interpretations on this point; merely that Scots law judges are more willing to interpret the the UK constitution and its associated laws and practice in a more flexible way.

    First point, there is a cost to reconciling the 2 decisions, which I outline again above.

    Second, the Scottish result is nothing to do with Scottish Judges interpreting more flexibly. The Scottish claim was based on pre 1707 Scottish Law, which presented in the High Court in London

1 52 53 54 55 56 68

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)