The first Sunday of the election campaign, and as you expect, several polls in the Sunday papers:

The Telegraph have a poll from ORB. Topline figures are CON 36%, LAB 28%, LDEM 14%, BREX 12%. Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday. While they’ve published some trackers on support for Brexit, the last time I recall seeing a voting intention poll from ORB was back in April, so changes here aren’t really relevant.

ComRes in the Sunday Express have topline figures of CON 36%(+3), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 17%(-1), BREX 10%(-2). Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday, with changes from mid-October, at the time of Johnson’s deal.

The regular Opinium poll for the Observer has topline figures of CON 42%(+2), LAB 26%(+2), LDEM 16%(+1), BREX 9%(-1), GRN 2%(-1). Fieldwork was Thursday and Friday, and changes are from last week.

YouGov in the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 39%(+3), LAB 27%(+6), LDEM 16%(-2), BREX 7%(-6). Fieldwork was Thursday and Friday, with changes from midweek.

Finally, Deltapoll in the Mail on Sunday (they’ll be running weekly polls for them for the campaign) have topline figures of CON 40%(+3), LAB 28%(+4), LDEM 14%(-5), BREX 11%(nc). Fieldwork was Thursday to Saturday, with changes from mid-October, just after Johnson’s deal.

All the polls continue to show a sizeable Conservative lead, though as ever this varies somewhat from pollster to pollster. The eight point leads that the ORB and ComRes polls show would be quite tight between a Conservative majority and a hung Parliament on a uniform swing (not that I’d expect a uniform swing); the 12 and 16 point leads that YouGov, Deltapoll and Opinium show should give them a solid majority.

Note that all the polls are showing the Conservatives gaining support (so did the Survation, Panelbase and MORI polls published on Thursday and Friday), and most of them are showing the Labour party gaining too – suggesting perhaps that now an election is a reality, some wavering voters are moving their support behind the two main parties after all (something we also saw in the 2017 election, when UKIP support fell off a cliff almost as soon as the election was called).

Note also that the fieldwork for the YouGov, Deltapoll and Opinium polls was conducted on and after October 31st, when Britain had obviously not left the European Union on time. It does not appear to have either damaged the Tories or boosted the Brexit party. That looked like the case anyway, after all, it’s been very obvious for about a week and a half that Britain was not going to leave on the 31st, but there was always that small chance that there would be an impact when the date actually passed. There wasn’t. (And I told you those hypothetical “How would you vote if Britain hadn’t left the EU by Oct 31st” questions showing Tory support slumping didn’t have any predictive value. Next time people do them – and they will – please do remember that they don’t work!)


536 Responses to “A summary of the five voting intention polls in Sunday’s papers”

1 9 10 11
  1. STAYING PUT
    In a fire drill aren’t you supposed to get out ASAP even in your pyjamas?
    In hotels there’s a fire department plan on the back of every door showing you how to get out in an emergency.
    If Grenfell had been a hotel instead of an apartment building would the fire department have told the guests to ignore the instructions on the back of the door? (Instructions they wrote and that are there by law.)

    On a personal note, I was in nyc, three blocks away from the World Trade Center on 9/11 and after the first plane struck I went onto my roof with friends. The NY fire department told everyone to stay put in tower one, that they would come in to get them, and that it was not necessary to evacuate the second tower. We all commented that this was crazy advice and that if we were in either of those buildings we would be ‘out like a shot’ – and then we watched the second plane.

  2. “Tories to block Royal Mail staff from striking:
    Mon/Wed/Friday deliveries + ONCE A WEEK for RURAL AREAS. – ZERO HOUR CONTRACTS – why isn’t this all over MSM. No wonder Royal Mail staff are going on strike.”

    Tweet by Carole Hawkins. Anyone know if this is fact or fiction?

  3. Peter Cairns
    “If the Tories do get returned on this where are we going;
    No Deal Brexit, Conscription, bring back hanging?”

    I do hope so.
    ———————–
    ChrisLane1945
    “In contrast we looked at the ruthlessness of the Tory Party in picking winners and ditching losers from 1922 to the present day, and we concluded that on the Left ‘they’ seem to prefer the romance of protest and the sense of railing against unfair odds when they lose.”

    Absolutely. Blair now seems to be despised by many in the Labour Party and he was their greatest ever winner!

  4. @ JAMES E – “What do you mean by the ‘dodgy question’?”

    As per 5:51pm, look at Q3

    Oh what the heck, I’ll copy+paste it to save you the bother.

    “Q3. Imagine that the result in your constituency was expected to be very close between the Conservative candidate and the Liberal Democrat candidate, and none of the other parties were competitive . In this scenario, for which party would you vote, or would you not vote?”

    the “dodgy” bits highlighted (see also AW’s thread about hypothetical polls being “rubbish” but the above question is a level beyond “hypothetical)

    Below is GE’17 result:

    Con 53.3
    Lab 27.7
    LDem 19.0

    Again emphasis added.

    Now, I’m quite happy to agree with anyone who wants to say LAB are “non-competitive” under Corbyn in loads of seats but it’s still a “dodgy” question to “imagine” that the 2nd placed party in last GE should be ignored.

    Agreed? YES/NO

  5. @ David Colby

    I’m not really sure what you are getting it, unless you are suggesting that you know far more than the fire services do. It most cases, it saves lives to ensure people are kept in the building. Grenfell had a unique set of circumstances which led to its rapid escalation which made the judgement difficult – people did try to flee against advice and died in the stairwell anyway due to smoke inhilation. As far as the WTC – it wasn’t the fire.that killed them; it was the collapse of the building. They didn’t think the buildings would collapse but it is also wonderful with the benefit of hindsight. In most instances, with regard to high – rise office/ residential buildings, it is safer to stay in the building lest be caught up in a stampede in a smoke filled stairwell and suffocating. Maybe I am being overly deferential but I am pretty sure the fire services actually know their stuff.

  6. Pete B

    I think it would be quite sad if you were conscripted and hanged, but if that’s what you want …….

  7. @Trev w I can accept that Labour’s position is currently seen as unclear. In practice it seems to me a great deal clearer than anyone else’s with the possible exception of the SNP’s which seems much the same as labour’s.

    At present we have the Liberals promising to revoke. As no one believes they will win this is much the same as promising the moon, They will not do what they say and they had better spend time saying what they will do if the conservatives or Labour are the largest parties.

    The conservatives are saying that they will deliver the Boris deal and the following trade deal in a few months, will not extend and will not be forced into no deal or a humiliating deal with the US. Anybody who believes this needs their head examined. It is based on the bluster of a man who began by getting sacked by the Times for making up quotations and has continued to shamelessly make things up from now on. Where that not the case he would now be flat under some bulldozer or dead in a ditch or the happy recipient of all the millions painted on the side f the bus, and the DUP would have no fear of a border down the North Sea and so and so on. Boris delivers Trump style B*ll*cks and anyone who seriously thinks one can see clearly what he will do needs their own head examined.

    So essentially there is a choice – a shabby deal delivered through a surrender document that may already be in place in Boris’s leading tank or a sensible choice between a Brexit that will return some sovereignty to the country without costing jobs and influence or a proper buy-in to a decent alliance with our nearest neighbours. We will only get the latter through a referendum and that seems like grown-up politics to me.

  8. @ TW

    Thank you for providing the actual ‘dodgy’ question.

    I think it should be noted that the figures for South East Cambridgeshire that you quote in your 5:51pm post are those for a standard ‘who would you vote for’ question; you’d (rightly) ignored the dodgy question.

  9. I live in a retirement complex. We are advised that if there is a fire, our doors are supposed to keep it out for 20 minutes. I do not regard this as infallible advice but when my wife was alive it would have been difficult to get her out and I would have obeyed it.

    As to RM, it seems to me that cleverness and stupidity are sometimes conjoined. In addition those who are rich are often seen as out of touch and so need to be very careful with what they say and concerned about what they may be believed to have said (“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” was not apparently said by Marie Antoinette) I see RM as probably clever, certainly rich, almost certainly arrogant and probably out of touch. He should have been very careful and he may well be stupid.

  10. Having watch some of Corbyn’s speech today I must say that it’s not often you hear such a lot of nonsense being spouted .

    He still continues with the lie of the Tories are about to sell of the NHS then he waffles on how it’s going to cost the tax payer 500 million a week for something the Tories and Trump have said are not on the table.

    Then he’s got the bare faced cheek to say Johnson’s not to be trusted . Maybe someone should tell the old duffer it looks pretty silly to accuse PM of being untruthful when every time you open mouth a obvious untruth is spouted.

  11. @Turk

    I burst out laughing reading that. Thanks. I needed it.

  12. turk is the local idiot

  13. Another one bites the dust…

    ”All Mothercare UK stores to close”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50309542

    Chances that inflated property prices and business rents and rates will get a proper airing in the campaign?

  14. Nick P

    Your comment is wholly inappropriate for this site.

    Turk is not “local”. He lives in Texas, USA.

  15. Rees-Mogg and Bridgen seem to proving Danny’s thesis that the Tories are desperate to lose the election.

  16. @ CHARLES – Thank you for confirming you’ll be voting LAB in the GE ;)

    I hope Corbyn gets the chance to explain to the 65% of folks who think LAB’s Brexit policy is unclear. I’ll relink the article although I’m not sure any LAB VI are bothering with polling any more and seem to think they’ll win the GE by “playing the man” – bon chance!

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/05/most-brits-uncertain-labours-brexit-policy

    and here’s (edited) Starmer one more time…

    https://www. facebook.com/conservatives/videos/399805414261833/

  17. You know that facebook thing of Starmer was doctored, don’t you? I think this might become a dirty election.

  18. “TURK
    Having watch[sic] some of Corbyn’s speech today I must say that it’s not often you hear such a lot of nonsense being spouted .”

    I think we are all a bit shocked to see that you have written the above.

  19. Bantams

    “What a load of total BS! People DON’T die in crushes caused by fires all the time,”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wcizhnIU2lI

  20. Bantams

    “What a load of total BS! People DON’T die in crushes caused by fires all the time, ”

    A different one from the previous.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7oguguIZE

  21. bedknobs and broomsticks,
    ““Jacob it’s Danny.”

    And I was wondering if anyone was paying attention…

    There seems to be a continuing spate of predictions on here of how an election result might look if one or another conservative poll lead continues to hold on polling day.

    While I’m sure that is one way to practice our mathematics, it isnt really helping anyone. Anyone posting such a prediction knows it is created by a simple model which has a certain rough validity in predicting the result, but only if that percentage lead continues to apply. So the posters all know it is basically bunk, because the thing we do not know is what the relative positions will be on the day.

    All we can really do at this point is note current polling, maybe look for emerging trends, and speculate on what is pushing or might push voters into the various camps.

    The most likely outcome is that a pattern will take place similar to the last election where labour closes on con, and maybe overtakes them. To what extent this happens or fails to happen, and why, will be a great source of more posting after the fact.

    It strikes me that someone has had the bright idea that if this is an election which will be decided by tactical voting, then the best thing to do for their side is to so confuse voters they have no idea how to vote tactically. And what better than to start by utterly confusing the issue on a respected and usually informative website.

    Now, in the Danny universe, if I was a politician whose future relied on voters not realising I had deliberately lost an election, what I would certainly need to do is confuse everyone to death to try to prevent anyone noticing that my loss was guaranteed from the start.

  22. Glen Cinema, Paisley 1929

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Cinema_disaster

    70 children died.

  23. I lived on the 10th floor of a tower bloc. We had a fire in the foyer. I was woken by a firefighter at 3 am who told us to stay in our flats (the stairwells were full of smoke). This was – and is – the correct advice.
    Tower blocs are designed so that fire cant spread between floors (concrete cellular walls – fire doors on every landing).
    This didn’t work at grenfel because criminally negligent contractors put flammable cladding on the outside of the building. The fire brigade did not know this – their advice was entirely correct according to what should have been the case. They – and the tenants – bear no responsibility for what happened. The blame for the tragedy lies squarely with the those responsible for managing the tower and the contractors.

  24. Corbyn is holding a rally in my closest town (Macclesfield, approx 7 miles away) tomorrow, so I’ll be there with my daughter, and even my husband, who was a staunch Tory voter up to 2015 and now swears he will never vote Tory again.

    (I always yearned for one of those Never kissed a Tory T-shirts but it would have been a lie!)

  25. Reggieside – well said.

  26. new thread

  27. David Colby,
    “We all commented that this was crazy advice and that if we were in either of those buildings we would be ‘out like a shot’ ”

    I am reminded of the safety assessments made for nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster happened because its designers failed to take into account the possibility of massive waves inundating Japan. Chernobyl designers failed to take into account that some prat might ignore the operating instructions and therefore do something which a bright spark on the original design team could have explained would create the outcome observed.

    Fire regulations failed to contemplate airliners crashing into the building, or indeed coating the outside with wax, like a candle. It was beyond their conception that such things might be done deliberately and they didnt allow for it.

    Statistically, the advice to wait might still be sound, but I cant help thinking getting out would be the obvious thing to do.

    I had a meeting yesterday, in which someone spoke the truth. Very tactlessly. But I preferred this to the rest of the room which was very busy thinking before it opened its mouth.

  28. @Jonesy
    “Never eligible for the Bullingdon Club and all that, although the pig head initiation would be enough to put me off.”

    My recollection is that Piggate was alleged about the Piers Gaveston not the Buller.

    Merging the two arguably lets him off lightly. One such piece of ridiculousness might be stumbled into by accident. More than one betokens a character trait.

  29. Sam,
    “Mon/Wed/Friday deliveries”

    I had noticed that mail tends to arrive nothing…nothing…nothing…big bundle together.

    Charles,
    “he may well be stupid.”

    Being pictured lying down on the front bench wasnt too bright either. But you must commend his loyalty when he said he would vote to support the PM even if doing handstands in the chamber. (That would be PM May)

    Turk,
    “it’s not often you hear such a lot of nonsense being spouted ”

    Many might say its quite often we hear nonsense spouted.

  30. Reggieside,
    “This didn’t work at grenfel because criminally negligent contractors put flammable cladding on the outside of the building.”

    Sorry, but the contractors did something entirely lawful using certified materials. The negligence was in the regulations which permitted unsafe materials to be passed acceptable.

    Otherwise, you might as well blame a bank for causing a world recession when all it did was follow the regulations.

  31. @DANNY

    ”“Mon/Wed/Friday deliveries”
    I had noticed that mail tends to arrive nothing…nothing…nothing…big bundle together“

    ————

    That’s what they want you to think, Danny. It’s a conspiracy…

  32. @VARIOUS on minor party pacts

    Ta for all the considered responses.

    @NEILJ, @CROSSBAT11

    On “the maths”, I guess with B&R we’re talking about something fundamentally unknowable without the equivalent of a BES. I seem to remember in either 2010 or 2015 AW posting about how adding the UKIP votes onto the Tory ones to determine how many seats the Tories had been “cost” by UKIP candidates was fallacious, as most of the people voting UKIP would have simply not voted had there not been a UKIP candidate?

    Whether the LibDem vote in B&R went up by more or the same as it would have gone up had Plaid or the Greens stood is a matter of conjecture rather than maths. As the clear challenger in a government by-election they were always expected to do pretty well, after all.

    And as @MILLIE pointed out, the circumstances of that by-election were also quite unusual in a number of ways, not least the incumbent candidate!

    @CHRIS IN CARDIFF makes the point about there being very few of these voters in many seats and I think that makes it even less likely to be significant than simple maths suggests. When you’re down to a few hundred voters for a particular party in a seat, especially one that may be marginal between other parties, it seems intuitive that they are most likely to be the very people who would only ever vote for their chosen party, and that those willing to go LibDem would already be voting for them.

    Of course, if Wales experiences anything like the Labour/Tory squeeze that occurred between the start and end of the last GE campaign then these considerations will be irrelevant almost everywhere anyway…

  33. @TW i will vote Labour at the next election but that is because of where I live. if I were in North Devon I would vote LibDem and were I in a position to help Dominic Grieve /i would do so.

    I entirely agree with you that the Labour policy is seen as unclear. I also agree that Johnson’s position is seen as clearer. It is, however, also apparent that the latter belief represents a triumph of hope over experience. How can someone who swore blind that he would never put a border down the Irish sea have struck that deal a month or two later? The only way Johnson can strike a deal within a few months is by agreeing to anything the EU wants and the only way he can shut up Farage is by saying that he will be out deal or no dale by the agreed date. This dilemma means his policy must be in reality unclear.

  34. ON
    “I think it would be quite sad if you were conscripted and hanged, but if that’s what you want …….”

    Too old to be conscripted (but only just missed National Service), and never killed anyone so I’m all right Jack.

  35. DANNY

    The cladding that was used on Grenfell tower was not used in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines that it is not suitable for use above heights of 10 to 15 metres because of the fire risk.

    “What the regulations say
    Building Regulation part B in England requires that all insulation and filler materials – a term that is not defined – in the wall of a high-rise building are of limited combustibility. The ACM panels do not fulfil the role of insulation and have no particular insulative properties. It is commonly argued, then, that they are not fillers. This confusion and the resulting loophole in the regulations mean that polyethylene core ACMs have been used on high-rise buildings ostensibly in compliance with Building Regulation B, as is the case at Grenfell Tower.

    Approved Document 7 of the Building Regulations requires that: “Materials are of a suitable nature and quality in relation to the purposes and conditions of their use.” This fitness-for-purpose is not well defined in the regulations. However, the manufacturers of ACM state that the PE version is not suitable for use above ten to 15 metres on a building because of its fire risk and also make mineral core alternatives that are suitable.”

    https://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-the-type-of-cladding-used-on-grenfell-tower-actually-banned-in-britain-79803

1 9 10 11