There were five GB voting intention polls in the Sunday papers (and the latest Panelbase poll appeared on Friday).

BMG/Independent – CON 41%(+4), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 18%(+2), BREX 3%(-6). Fieldwork Tuesday to Thursday, with changes from last week. (tabs)
YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 42%(nc), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 16%(+1), BREX 3%(-1). Fieldwork Thursday and Friday, with changes from mid-week. (tabs)
Opinium/Observer – CON 47%(+3), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 12%(-2), BREX 3%(-3). Fieldwork Wednesday to Friday, with changes from last week. (tabs)
Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday – CON 43%(-2), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 16%(+5), BREX 3%(-3). Fieldwork Thursday and Friday, with changes from last week. (tabs)
SavantaComres/Sunday Express – CON 42%(nc), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 15%(nc), BREX 5%(nc). Fieldwork Wednesday and Thursday, with changes from midweek. (tabs)
Panelbase – CON 42%(-1), LAB 32%(+2), LDEM 14%(-1), BREX 3%(-2). Fieldwork was Wednesday to Friday, changes from last week.

Five of these were conducted wholly after the first leaders debate and two of them were conducted after the Labour manifesto had been released, so it is the first opportunity to see any impact from these events.

There does not appear to be any consistent trend or impact from the debate. The four point increase for the Conservatives in the BMG poll is likely the pact of starting to prompt by candidate names and, therefore, removing the Brexit party opinion for half of respondents (so far as I can tell, all polling companies apart from ComRes are now doing this). Setting BMG aide, the average change across the polls is no change for the Tories, less than a point change for Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Neither of the two polls that were conducted wholly after the publication of the Labour manifesto (YouGov and Deltapoll) show any sign of a manifesto boost for Labour. Both the debate and the manifesto launch were events that could potentially have had an impact on the race… thus far, neither appears to have done so.

Moving on, there has been an almost complete absence of Scottish polling during the campaign so far. While ITV Wales have commissioned specific Welsh polling and Queen Mary University of London have done a specific London poll, Scottish polls have been completely absent. The Sunday Times today have a Scottish poll from Panelbase, with topline figures (which changes from the general election) of CON 28%(-1), LAB 20%(-7), LDEM 11%(+4), SNP 40%(+3), BREX 1%(-4). On these figures the Conservatives would hold all but one of their current Scottish seats – rather a turnaround from assumptions at the start of the campaign that the Tories were set to lose many of their Scottish seats and would need to make up the deficit elsewhere.

1,690 Responses to “Sunday polls (and the first Scottish poll of the campaign)”

1 32 33 34
  1. Bantams

    “I’m not a big fan of Boris but he’s my ticket to Brexit. ”

    Well that could turn out to be the most expensive ticket anyone ever bought.

  2. “This debate tonight should have been represented by experts from each party, you can’t expect the leaders to know this subject intimately which is why we have Government departments delegated to do this. I want to listen to people who really know what they are talking about.

    Michael Gove was in the building waiting to go on and Channel 4 prevented it happening. Childish!“


    The problem is, you see, that conventionally, the buck doesn’t stop with the experts, or even Gove, but with the leader.

    It is the leader who will ultimately preside over the decisions, and decide which experts to listen to or delegate to.

    It’s not a documentary to inform us about climate change, it’s an attempt to find out how much the leaders know about it and how they will approach it.

    You can see this because they invited the leaders!

    If you send an expert who might know more about it but who isn’t going to be leader, this kinda frustrates the process of finding out about the leaders.

  3. OK, perhaps not then! I will reply to people who have responded to my posts in that case! Just didnt want to waste time replying and posts not appear as was the case earlier

  4. @ADAM

    It’s a conspiracy, Adam. Anthony Wells is nothing more than a grubby, little commie!

  5. Bantams

    “not always somebody they would want to necessarily share a pint or glass of wine with!”

    I’d happily associate with Rabbie Burns

    “Gae Bring To Me a Pint O’ Wine”.

  6. Crossbat11,
    “A quite extraordinary personal and political achievement.”

    I dont really agree. The background is maybe 55% remain 45% leave. It isnt that leave have done well, but remain are faffing about.

    And I still say the only good outcome for con is to lose, which isnt how you think this is going.

    I suppose on his history BJ has a habit of getting the wrong result.

    “Whilst it’s true that some elements of the Tory party have delayed brexit it’s also true to say all the opposition parties aided by Bercow have also contributed to delaying brexit.”

    yes, but labour, libs, green, Snp, etc are remainers so that is what you would expect them to do. Conservatives claim to be leavers.

  7. One possibility to keep in mind is that Mr Johnson will have done research into his demographic. Perhaps he has found that his voter base will not worry about the things that people are discussing such as the environment, islamophobia in his writing, the attitude to women, the homophobia in his writing, etc. In a similar way to the way Mr Trump proceeds he may have decided its better to confront the media and create an atmosphere of mistrust of them, hoping that his supporters will dismiss the criticism as fake news etc.

  8. John33

    Maybe you’re right!! If posters on here were reflective of the electorate then Lab would have about 500-600 seats in Parliament! Good nature debate between people of different views is good and healthy. Most on here is fine, despite the political imbalance.


  9. “I’m not a big fan of Boris but he’s my ticket to Brexit. ”

    If only Ryanair will take you there, question the quality of the destination.

  10. I thought there would be some polls out tonight – I’m seriously clucking at the moment.

  11. Carfrew

    “If you send an expert who might know more about it but who isn’t going to be leader, this kinda frustrates the process of finding out about the leaders.”

    An excellent point.

    It’s also the case that, in the UK, there are only 3 polities [1] in which the leaders can be quizzed on which climate emergency policies they have actually presided over.

    One was there, one represented by a block of ice – did Corbyn outline what the Welsh Government had done, and link it to his ideas on applying them to England?

    The “mainstream” opposition parties in E&W were also there to explain their aspirational demands – and quite right too.

    [1] NI having no leaders in office, partly due to “Cash for Ash”, so it might have been reasonable to have had the former NI FM on the programme too.

  12. Tom Watson – the Labour Deputy Leader – says Mr Johnson’s threat to take away Channel 4’s licence is is “deeply concerning”.

    He goes on to add: “Boris Johnson has banned the Daily Mirror from its battle bus, ducked the Andrew Neil interview and now attempted to bully Channel 4. It’s simple. If the Prime Minister didn’t want to be embarrassed by being replaced with an ice sculpture, he should have turned up to the debate. The truth is, Boris Johnson is in hiding because his record of failure on the climate emergency is indefensible.”

    Now what Mr Watson says may or may not be true, and Mr Johnson’s base may not agree with him, but it is surely new territory in the UK that we are getting to the point where a Prime Minister is are threatening to take away a broadcaster’s licence because of disagreements such as this.

  13. @Carfrew

    ““Tonight simply because Johnson refused an invite to a leaders debate and was empty chaired the Tories are threatening to review C4’s broadcasting remit.”


    Well it might not be that bad if the Tories decline to do it themselves and they send one of the other parties to review it instead. (Or maybe outsource it to the Ruskies)

    Very good, Carfrew. Very good.

    Speaking of the climate change debate, did anyone mention Thorium?

  14. Danny

    Your wrong the electorate expected all parties to respect the brexit vote like they all promised to do at the time.

    The fact the opposition parties became remain parties or fence sitters /remain parties ,simple means they were were lying when they said they would respect the decision. It’s that fact the public see.

  15. @ profhoward

    Ryanair FFS! No chance, you might like this gag:

    After arriving in a hotel in Manchester, Michael O’Leary, Chief Executive of Ryanair, went to the bar and asked for a pint of Guinness. The barman nodded and said, “That will be £1 please, Mr. O’Leary.” Somewhat taken aback, O’Leary replied, “That’s very cheap,” and handed over his money. “Well, we do try to stay ahead of the competition”, said the barman. “And we are serving free pints every Wednesday from 6 pm until 8 pm. We have the cheapest beer in England”. “That is remarkable value”, Michael comments. “I see you don’t seem to have a glass, so you’ll probably need one of ours. That will be £3 please.” O’Leary scowled, but paid up. He took his drink and walked towards a seat.

    “Ah, you want to sit down?” said the barman. “That’ll be an extra £2. You could have pre-booked the seat, and it would have only cost you £1.” “I think you may be too big for the seat sir, can I ask you to sit in this frame please”. Michael attempts to sit down but the frame is too small and when he can’t squeeze in, he complains “Nobody would fit in that little frame”. “I’m afraid if you can’t fit in the frame you’ll have to pay an extra surcharge of £4 for your seat sir”. O’Leary swore to himself, but paid up.

    “I see that you have brought your laptop with you” added the barman. “And since that wasn’t pre-booked either, that will be another £3.”
    O’Leary was so incensed that he walked back to the bar, slammed his drink on the counter, and yelled, “This is ridiculous, I want to speak to the manager”. “I see you want to use the counter,” says the barman, “that will be £2 please.”

    O’Leary’s face was red with rage. “Do you know who I am?”

    “Of course I do Mr. O’Leary.”

    “I’ve had enough! What sort of a Hotel is this? I come in for a quiet drink and you treat me like this. I insist on speaking to a manager!”

    “Here is his e-mail address, or if you wish, you can contact him between 9.00 am and 9.01am every morning, Monday to Tuesday at this free phone number. Calls are free, until they are answered, then there is a talking charge of only £1 per second, or part thereof”.

    “I will never use this bar again”.

    “OK sir, but do remember, we are the only hotel in England selling pints for £1.”


    When the fun stops – STOP

    Of course Remain MPs should have taken May’s deal when they had the chance and kept her in #10 to turn the PD into a Super Soft BrINO but oh, no they put all their chips on hoping LDEM (and CON Inds) would be “kingmakers” in next HoC and Corbyn would allow someone other than himself to be PM – even though they had that opportunity from early Sep right up to 22Oct.



    You keep saying the rmainer should have taken May’s deal because it was BrINO.

    it was not she was forced into the situation because of the C&S with the DUP. remember the original backstop was to have just NI in the CU and SM as the backstop basically as the DUP characterised it as the border down the Irish Sea. The DUP opposed it and said that NI needed to be treated in the same manner as the rest of the UK.

    So she decided to essentially postpone NI situation by putting the whole of the UK in the backstop as a temporary measure.

    The conversation I had with an Irish civil servant in the know said they were surprised that she agreed to this since they were adamant that Uk will go it own way for at least services and more likely wanted a different deal for some goods such as cars but essentially like most of the tory party they were wedded to a what was a large level of divergence.

    So the view from ireland was that NI would be parked until transition period. What each side had though was a lack of trust. May did not have her party’s backing and did not have a way to get thing through parliament. For the Irish all they wanted was for there to be no border checks between NI/RoI. They kept restating this and even the ERG realised that unless you ended up with what the DUP did not want and would not agree to then there would need to be checks.

    That said when all the political parties went to meet May. She stubbornly stuck to the WA and did not want the CU or SM additions to be permanent she never envisioned them to be permanent. An Cox ever the lawyer pointed out that the UK could be in the EU indefinitely but they could not be in the EU permanently (that is the ECJ would rule that they UK could leave under reasonable circumstances).

    In the end the reality was the EU gave May the concession that she can stay in the CU and SM after all that would have been a deal better than every member has at the moment. Since the WA does not include any payment terms beyonf the transition period we would have had SM and CU access for free basically if both sides had accepted this as the ‘backstop’

    What Labour had asked for was to formalise this into something that was permanent rather than indefinite. (and yes there is a difference legally)

    So had remainers agreed to the May’s deal we would have in my view left with a deal but I suspect it would not have been that much different to the one the Boris will try and strike. In the end as Barclay has said we will have to play off LPF with access and will have to accept that we may not get the access that many business wanted.May basically said the same thing it is why the Labour Tory meetings came to nothing she would not have agreed to a softer brexit because in simple terms she could not sell it to the party.

    remember it is Tories who care most about Brexit and it is Tories who care most about the detail of brexit. May understood that it was going to be painfu. Indeed in response to Vince Cable pointing out that her deal would be painful her retort was “People voted for pain!!!”

    So all that would have happened is that the DUP would have been thrown under the bus later and we would have been in a mess.

    Where Boris is right is that parliament need to make it mind up and where I think the problem is that now he has got away with throwing the DUP under the bus I believe he needs a crushing victory to get any deal through. remember part of the argument as to why Johnson was chosen was not that he could get brexit sorted. it was that he could win an election and thus it was hoped that that made brexit easier. However the same problems exist you have to agree what the future relationship is and the devil is in the detail and at some point MPs have to agree to it.

    it is why I think that no deal is still in play since after all you can only throw so many people under the bus


    And paradoxically both those who want a hard Brexit and those who want a soft one should fear Boris, although at least one of these groups will end up being relieved. His strategy is to keep his hardline supporters on line by threatening no deal until the last moment and then give the EU everything it wants. We are basically up the creek without a paddle eiher way but at the moment we have no idea how it will go.

    In the end his real problem is that he needs enough votes to bury one or the other but I actually think it is more nuanced than that. In terms of who get thrown under the bus ( you may find the left behind towns, costal town, fishing, NE with it dependency on the EU and the basic problem of the idea that what money that came from the EU needs to get redistributed)

    The point is Johnson has already thrown the DUP under the bus, the argument becomes whos nextand I think that is the most fascinating part of this. As I said above the reality was that May did not want a soft brexit or BrINO because in truth she would not have got it through parliament. her biggest issue was trying to keep the Tories form splitting. Now tories will be more euroscpetic but also have enough seats that are marginal that means despite the rhetoric the resultant failure would be down to them. How many would put their preservation ahead of the party remains to be seen. Since no one trusts him I think Johnson has the same problem that may has….The got both of the in because they looked like winners (May was the second coming of thatcher remember)

    So IMHO I have constantly said that the WA is the easy bit there were two choices either checks between NI/RoI or checks between NI/GB. The next set of decision are mult faceted, just think of the simple issue of fishing rights reciprocation and the like. Yes it is not a huge proportion in terms of GDP but it will be an emotive subject. For many of those left behind towns.

    As TREVOR WARNE has already lost his make the polluters pay already as the US has said no Climate Change bb0ll0x in the deal anthe UK have not taken NHS off the table I fear we are going feel that red hot poker we’ve bee heating up heading closer to our collective rear end whist we we start chomping on a smorgasboard of sh1t without any fancy crackers.

    It may be the political answer to all of this is WTO for now and accept that we will easy the pain slowly by making sure the poker does not tickle the tonsils but but ends up only half way up our collective rectum.

    Oh the joy of it all


  17. I have been searching for the origin of “for the many not for the few” as it was familiar.

    Well, it is from Pope Gapon… I hope it is merely the usual carelessness.

  18. This thing with the Neil debate. Perhaps the BBC should play at the Tories level.

    Johnson has offered to do the Andrew Marr show, so book him – no problems! Then, as his interview starts, just switch Andrews and bring in Mr Neil.

    The BBC haven’t got the bottle, but imagining Johnson’s face, live on air, is entertaining enough.

  19. In another quarrel with the media – this time the BBC – the Conservative party are using highly edited clips from BBC reporters in their facebook advertising. When challenged by the BBC that this was a wrong thing to do, the Conservative party have denied doing anything wrong:

    Now the Conservative party may be tecnically right that they have done nothing illegal. But the rules on internet advertising seem very loose. The question to ask is whether what they are doing is respectful to those journalists at the BBC whose words they have taken out of context?

  20. New thread

  21. Who is advising the Tories on media and internet strategy?

    They don’t need to do any of this stuff. They have a good lead All they need to do is be patient and wait for unforced errors from others. Some of the approaches they are taking are Trumpian, but much as I dislike Trump there was method in his madness. He was so far behind, his team clearly felt they had to think way out of the box to get back on terms. The same with the Australian Liberals. The Tories are not in the same position.

  22. “Just watching the climate debate now from recording.
    They all seem on top of the detail.
    I can see why Boris the Bottler bottled.
    He doesn’t do detail and he would have been useless at this.
    The melting sculpture made more sense than he would.”


    To be fair to Boris, they are being rather narrow in their questioning, asking him about the climate emergency and stuff.

    If they had asked him about summat more contemporary like the Iliad, he ought to have had more detail on that and might not have needed to send Gove at all.

    (I doubt Andrew Neil would be asking him about Caesar’s Gallic Wars either. Neil was tutored by Vince Cable with a focus on American history, apparently).

  23. new thread

  24. Prof Howard

    To paraphrase the words of the Speaker of the English Parliament in 1707, the Tories might say “We have catched the BBC, let us clasp her tight!”

  25. Not sure why people are making such clear assertions about what “should” and “shouldn’t” have happened tonight, given that these debates are based on nothing but mutual political expediency and media/PR pressure.

    There are no rules, there’s no established convention, it’s literally made up based on what people can agree to, from election to election and indeed from week to week.

    And that’s why these never used to be a thing at all isn’t it? Until 2010 there was always one major party who saw no political advantage to taking part, only risk, and so someone always refused and it didn’t happen. And that pattern reasserted in 2015 from what I remember.

    Yes I’d agree with those saying it’s bad politics by Johnson to be seen to be avoiding scrutiny, but at the same time why on earth should we just expect him to agree to every grasp at publicity and airtime that his (generally like-minded) opponents want? Cos it’s somehow unsporting if he doesn’t?

    Just cos most of the other parties wanted to send their leader to a climate change debate, so what? As some folk here like to point out from time to time, hardly anyone is actually being given the chance to vote for Johnson or Corbyn or Swinson. Literally no-one in this GE can vote for Sturgeon, Price, Farage or Berry. So in a single-theme debate, how does it matter at all which party spokesperson presents their party’s position?

    Like I say, I think coupled with appearing to be unwilling to commit to the Andrew Neil interview, it’s a bad look for Johnson, just as I thought May sending Amber Rudd to do that debate last time around was a tactical error.

    But I think @ADAM has made a good point very consistently this evening, that C4 should have accepted the senior and qualified contributor that the Tories provided and let everyone else mock him all evening because “his boss is too scared to come himself” etc. By refusing Gove I think they’ve actually let Johnson off the hook a bit.

  26. Is Johnson’s failure to show up on the c4 programme evidence that he is a cowardly, bluffing buffoon and completely unfit to lead the country. Yes.

    Unfortunately that should be already clear and any difference it makes is priced into the polling. Posters on UKPR are, on the whole, impressively intelligent, logical and well-informed. As far as I can see this latest evidence has not made any difference to any of their opinions. So I don’t think it is going to make much difference in the country at large,

    Personally i agree with Bantams. These debates should take place between the party ‘experts’, We should also have more of them. That said, you cannot have one expert (Gove0 against generalist leaders. That would be completely unfair.

    Ditto with Johnson refusing to meet Andrew Neil. Corbyn would have a reason to do so – Andrew Neil’s period at central office. In Johnson’s case his behaviour is morally outrageous but may clever politics nonetheless,

  27. @Freddo

    Maybe it was timed to have at the postal voters.

  28. @Danny

    “broadcasters responsibility is to be impartial to parties”

    Which contradicts what Boris said in an interview when nipped about the debate where only he and Corbyn appeared. He said that it was just for the people likely to become PM.

    So not about parties. He wants it to be about two men.

  29. @Dandelionwine

    “I find him an uninspired speaker and debater but I consider him competent enough not to say something stupid or inflammatory in a many sided, fairly technical debate.”

    That’s the crux. He is not up on technical details. He prefers to guff and bluster through everything with general impressions, rather than details. He’d get mauled on the details.

  30. @Crossbatt

    “I think it will be a disaster for the country, but if he pulls it off, then we have to hand it to him.”

    No we don’t! He will have been the beneficiary of Cummings’s refusal to allow leave to spell out what it would mean in practice and the ERG’s success in putting across the ludicrous notion that it could only possibly mean a very hard Brexit indeed.

    It will be a political triumph if he succeeds, as I think he means to do, in double crossing leave and acceding to any EU demand that’s needed to get a deal. He will, however, have been very lucky and may well ‘succeed’ in scuppering the country and quite possibly the conservative party as well,

    But let us not go there. We have not lost yet.

  31. “The complaint is made stronger by the fact that the Tories offered up Gove.”
    @Adam November 28th, 2019 at 7:17 pm

    Then he should have been chosen as the leader. I don’t see the problem. I thought BJ was supposed to be the bees knees when it came to talking to the public.

    He just looks scared to me.

  32. @ProfHoward

    “I think Johnson does poorly with women voters and those who are educated past GCSE.”

    Just for balance, I recently spoke to a woman who hasn’t been educated past GCSE, but nobody’s fool. She runs circles round qualified folk in her chosen field of employment.

    She’s not particularly political (similar to Mrs Statgeek in that regard, and being her friend, that sort of makes sense), I mentioned the potential no-show for Neil’s interview to both of them.

    I paraphrase, but this was the crux of her reply.

    “That’s no surprise, is it? He’s just a blithering verbing noun.”

    Never heard her swear before. It was delightful. :D

  33. @Chrislane Shouldn’t ‘ad hominem’ be paired with ‘ad mulierem’ (or possibly not paired at all since the primary meaning of ‘homo’ is ‘human being’ not ;male’ for which the word is ‘vir’)? Anyway, its always nice to see a bit of Latin about and you taught me that muliecula exists as a Latin word which i did not know before.

  34. @Bantams

    Scottish Labour loved the BBC in 2013/2014, and they probably still do, compared to other outlets.

  35. @AL URQA

    I have never understood why Johnson is seen as the bees knees. He was rather luck to be London Mayor as Labour infighting put paid to them. Although the also lost the assembly but the one it back the next time. At best Johnson was seen as harmless and at worst ineffectual. nobody really cared

    I don’t think the trail of sh1te he left helped though and I’d reckon that he’d not get close now

  36. @EoR

    “But I think @ADAM has made a good point very consistently this evening, that C4 should have accepted the senior and qualified contributor that the Tories provided and let everyone else mock him all evening because “his boss is too scared to come himself” etc. By refusing Gove I think they’ve actually let Johnson off the hook a bit.”


    Is it really fair to send someone who is a specialist and who has been more able to continuously prep for that particular debate, while the leaders of other parties are having to prepare to answer questions across the board in various interviews and debates in all the different formats. (Assuming they’ve been invited etc.)

    If leadership debates are reduced to fielding a series of specialists who aren’t the leader, it has issues.

    It’s no more fair than sending a specialist on your behalf to each part of a job interview, (and in BJ’s case also being able to opt out of bits of the process even if possibly having agreed up front!) while the other candidates have to cover it all themselves.

  37. Edge of reason,
    “Just cos most of the other parties wanted to send their leader to a climate change debate, so what? ”

    The ‘so what’ is the the conservatives are cheating.

    Its dirty tricks politics. Which means they believe they have no credible arguments. It means politics is taken further into disrepute.

  38. GAH! Just spent ages writing a lengthy post, only to get “connection timed out” – again.

    Anthony – you need far more bandwidth.

  39. Just out of interest, (haven’t posted on here since the 2017 election),

    Do we know what weighting the pollsters are giving to the “Shy Tory Vote”?

    I seem to remember last time out they over estimated it, having come unstuck in the previous general election.

  40. Just out of interest, (haven’t posted on here since the 2017 election),

    Do we know what weighting the pollsters are giving to the “Shy Tory Vote”?

    I seem to remember last time out they over estimated it, having come unstuck in the previous general election.

1 32 33 34