The Sun had fresh YouGov voting intention figures today, fieldwork conducted straight after Jeremy Corbyn’s speech. Topline figures are CON 37%(-2), LAB 31%(nc), LDEM 7%(+1), UKIP 17%(+1) – changes are since YouGov’s last poll in mid-September, just after Jeremy Corbyn became leader. Tabs are here.

The rest of the poll repeated some of the questions YouGov asked just after Ed Miliband became Labour leader, five years ago. Corbyn’s figures are worse than the ratings Miliband had at the time and as I wrote in relation to the Ipsos MORI poll earlier in the week, while Corbyn’s ratings aren’t that bad at first glance, brand new leaders normally get some leeway from the public, so they are bad when compared to the ratings new leaders have usually got.

YouGov also repeated the bank of party image statements they normally ask at conference time, testing positive and negative lines about the Labour party. The figures are (remarkably) close to what they were five years ago when Labour first entered opposition – 71% think Labour need to make major changes to their policies and beliefs to be fit for goverment (up 2 from 2010), 58% think they have lost touch with ordinary working people (down 1), 56% think they haven’t faced up to the damaged they caused to the economy (down 4), 44% think they care about helping all groups, not just the few (up 2), 39% think their core values and principles are still relevant (down 2), 42% think they would cut spending in a fairer and more compassionate way than the government (up 1).

The only areas* where there is a significant shift since 2010 are the claim that Labour are a party only for immigrants, welfare recipients and trade unionists (49% agreed in 2010, now only 42%) and the claim that if Labour returned to government they’d get the country into even more debt (47% agreed in 2010, 53% agree now).

Afrer five years in opposition, Labour don’t really seem to have made much progress at all in nullifying their perceived weaknesses. There is still an underlying strength in their brand – a large chunk of the public do think their heart in the right place, that they care about the many not the few, that they are more caring than the Tories. The big weaknesses though remain those negative perceptions about the economy and the belief they’ve lost touch with their ordinary supporters – the challenge for the next five years is to address those.

(*There was also a big shift in a question about whether Labour will be ready for a quick return to office after a short period in opposition. We debated whether to keep that statement from 2010, given Labour have now been in opposition for five years. We decided to keep it because it can still make sense if you interpret it as being a short period from now, but given we’re assuming people will interpret it differently I wouldn’t really compare 2010 and 2015 on that one)


633 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 37, LAB 31, LDEM 7, UKIP 17, GRN 2”

1 2 3 13
  1. I knew this would happen. After waiting for Anthony to post, as soon as I got tired and put my comment up, he finally does. Anyway you’re getting it again (I don’t know if he pinched my footnote [2] or it’s just ‘great minds’)

    I’ve no doubt the headline that will be promulgated will be on the response to Do you think Jeremy Corbyn will do well or badly as leader of the Labour party? (Asked about Ed Miliband in 2010) where ‘total well’ drops from 50% to 36% and ‘total badly’ rises from 24% to 44%. But such polling on what people ‘think’ will happen tends (logically enough) to reflect the media rather than people’s own feelings, and coverage of Corbyn hasn’t exactly been positive or optimistic on the whole.

    In fact it, and the other questions, show a similar picture to other polls. The level of support is actually about the same as for Miliband, but the number undecided is very much less than it was five years ago[1]. The big increase is in ‘Very badly’, almost entirely from the supporters of other Parties (and you suspect the more diehard ones).

    Similarly the number who are ‘delighted’ with the the prospect of the new leader as PM is similar (18% v 20%), but the rise is in ‘dismayed’ (28% to 44%) again nearly all from other Parties. And the increase in those saying that “Labour has moved to the Left” under its new leader and that this is “a bad thing for Labour” comes from don’t knows. Contrariwise the increase in those say it’s true and a good thing (21% to 32%) comes from a decrease in those saying it’s untrue. Which is probably true enough.

    There also a series of ten statements about the Labour Party and it’s notable that the majority of them only vary from 2010 by a few points. There are only two significant changes[2]: a drop in agreement with Labour these days are mainly a party for immigrants, benefit claimants and trade unions – indeed more now disagree[3]; and an increase in If Labour returned to government they would put the country into even more debt.

    The second of these probably explains why McDonnell and Corbyn unexpectedly decide to tackle the deficit theme so early, though most of the change may have happened before the last election (it’s the change over five years) rather than because of Corbyn. But the overall picture is one of little change.

    Of course Labour needs to do more than just stay in the same place and there are a few worrying hints in the minutiae of the poll. But the main picture is of stasis rather than a disastrous collapse caused by the election of Corbyn.
    [1] There is also technical reasons for this in this particular poll, which was exactly five years after the 2010 one. That was only taken after Miliband had been leader for three days, Corbyn was elected 16 days before his and of course was seen as the front-runner from late July. Ed’s election was a surprise to all except, well, the UKPR gang.

    [2] The biggest drop is in agreement with After a short period in opposition Labour will be ready for a quick return to office, but given that Labour has already had five years in opposition, people presumably felt that was a logical impossibility.

    [3] There seems some evidence that Labour is winning the argument on benefits, perhaps as more people realise that they, or those close to them, may be affected by the cuts as well. The ComRes poll showed that 42% would now trust Labour more on benefits and only 33% the Conservatives. Recently the area had been more of a Tory plus because being seen to be ‘tough’ on benefits is considered important.

  2. AW suggests answers indirectly to my question FPT about why there’s been no ‘new leader’ nor ‘conference’ bounce. At all.

    Introspection and a ‘base strategy’ has never worked under FPTP (if you aspire to govern: a genuine question for the timebeing). Labour need to concentrate on convincing people outside of their own bubble- in doing so moving the debate on. They need to win over the voters of other parties: in particular the governing party. Every vote LAB takes directly from CON is worth 2 new voters (assuming all ‘new voters’ only vote LAB: quite an assumption).

    I am surprised that there does not seem to have been much discussion on here about these damaging failures. Having said that many of our regular ‘commentators’ only managed to accept EdM was a loser when they woke up the morning after the election last May: for 5 years he was the best (and most refreshing) thing in politics!

  3. Hi AW,

    Can you explain where The Sun got their comparative initial leader of the opposition ratings from? Obviously there were no YouGov polls for anybody before IDS.

  4. Jack – Gallup.

  5. @Omni (FTP)

    Remember the Conservatives were polling low to mid 20s for months at a time before the GE (dipping below after the referendum).

    Also remember they managed 14% in the Election in Scotland. So if there’s a Con surge, it’s probably more a return to previous norms.

  6. @statgeek

    I wouldn’t have called it a surge at any rate, just some gains. You’re right though they are coming from a low base.

  7. So one thing is clear. If anyone thought the Corbyn surge–huge rallies, massive coverage, even a big swing amongst Labour Members in Yougov’s own polls–would transfer to the wider electorate in any way at all they can now forget it The effect is quite clearly zero. My guess is , where he has recruited from Labour (from say the greens) he has turned off others. , leaving Labour in as big a ditch as they were before. I believe he could make a little headway in Scotland and that will be it. (Note that this poll did not cover the row over the deterrent)

  8. According to a Guardian piece entitled “Zac Goldsmith named as Tory candidate for London mayor” the figures for selection of the Conservative candidate are:

    Zac Goldsmith 6,514 votes (70.6%)

    Syed Kamall 1,477 (16%)

    Stephen Greenhalgh 864 (9.4%)

    Andrew Boff 372 (4%)

    the only surprise is that Goldsmith didn’t do even better, based on polling, but that was based on the general public and you would expect Tory members and supporters to have a higher level of knowledge of the alternatives.

    Wintour points out:

    A total of 87,884 voted in the Labour London mayoral primary and 9,227 in the Conservative equivalent, suggesting at least in theory Khan has a larger army of party doorstep activists on which to call than Goldsmith.

    and given that the Conservatives also offered a Vote for £1 scheme, it’s clearly not because of a more select electorate. I suppose with the unflagging support of the Standard, they feel a mass membership is not really needed and things such as leaflet distribution can be bought in, but it’s still a potential weakness.

  9. Labour seems completely stuck in 30-33% range. Although the Tories have lost some lead in recent weeks, almost all of it is voters switching to UKIP and the Lib Dems. I expect that UKIP vote would crumble quickly if there were a serious chance of a Corbyn government.

  10. John
    “Note that this poll did not cover the row over the deterrent)”

    It will be very interesting to see what effect that row will have on VI. I suspect it could drop Labour by 5 percentage points.

  11. The questions about debt and ‘not facing up the damage they caused to the economy’ are pure push polling – were in 2010, still are now.

  12. @Wood FPT

    The small chance fortnight since comes on the back of similar change since before the migrantness though.
    Yougovs Con/UKIP, May to Oct
    41/13
    39/16
    37/17
    There’s many reasons for Cons to change, fewer for UKIP. I’m not up for triple regression statistical T tests or whatnot, but if we really must talk about polls, that _looks_ like a change.

    Based on three Yougov polls, you simply don’t have the data to say it has changed. The three polls lay between the mean +/- 1.96 x the standard error. This represents a 95% confidence interval.

    If more data points were available, then other forms of analysis might help, but I would only begin that with 7-10 data points.

    These forms of analysis are too sensitive to group polls by different methodologies together.

    There may be a change occurring, but the data isn’t strong enough to that with confidence. It’s a waiting game to see if the three poll trends remain, or go back to blipping up and down around the mean, indicating ‘no change’ and simple normal poll variation

  13. Correction

    @Wood FPT
    The small chance fortnight since comes on the back of similar change since before the migrantness though.
    Yougovs Con/UKIP, May to Oct
    41/13
    39/16
    37/17
    There’s many reasons for Cons to change, fewer for UKIP. I’m not up for triple regression statistical T tests or whatnot, but if we really must talk about polls, that _looks_ like a change.

    Based on three Yougov polls, you simply don’t have the data to say it has changed. The three polls lay between the mean +/- 1.96 x the standard error. This represents a 95% confidence interval. ignore this…..

    If more data points were available, then other forms of analysis (time based) might help, but I would only begin that with 7-10 data points.

    These forms of analysis are too sensitive to group polls by different methodologies together.

    There may be a change occurring, but the data isn’t strong enough to say that with confidence. It’s a waiting game to see if the three poll trends remain, or go back to blipping up and down around the mean, indicating ‘no change’ and simple normal poll variation.

  14. I commented on the recent Comres poll that the report of 12% UKIP support was sufficently different from the previous Ipsos Mori report of 7% UKIP support as to be on the boundaries of possibility for chance variation. It was just possible but not very likely,

    Now we have this YouGov poll reporting UKIP as being on 17%.

    It is just not credible that two polls, presumably taken within a couple of weeks of each other, have a difference of 10% in the reported level of support for a party.

    Have Conservative voters read the Ashcoft articles in the “Daily Mail” and decided en masse to desert the Conservatives?! It doesn’t seem likely.

    Somebody posted that the difference in UKIP support between the polls might be due to difference between telephone and on-line polling. This is more like it, However, if methodological differneces are this big something seriously needs to be sorted out.

    I would suggest that thre three polling organisations concerned voluntarily report this set of polls to the current Britsh Election Survey commsion for inclusion in their investigations.

    By the way, I don’t find it very plausible that the Green vote has suddenly dripped to 2% either.

    The pollsters need to come up with a professional explanation as to what has just happened.

  15. @frederic stansfield

    The Green vote was only 3.8% in the general election. Losing 1.8% to a Labour party which has become closer to the Greens isn’t that hard to imagine.

  16. @Frederick

    Throughout the last Parliament, pollsters really struggled for consistency with UKIP VI.

    It looks like they haven’t resolved it yet….

  17. Tory+UKIP is pretty consistent at around 54. Could be explained by wavering UKIPpers thinking about the EU referendum rather than a true VI.

  18. Bearing in mind that the Scottish sample is different from the other geographic crossbreaks, due to being weighted to some Scottish, as opposed to simply GB factors [1], and thee respondents operating within a different political system, it might be worth keeping an eye on those from YG [2], for hints as to changes which may (or may not) be confirmed when we sit down to examine the offerings on the plate for a Full Scottish.

    Samples are, of course, very small – less than 200 – so subject to all kinds of statistical variations!

    But FWIW, the Westminster VI at 18 Sep, at 30 Sep and the changes are as follows, for the 3 main parties –

    SNP : 44%, 47%, +3
    Lab : 28%, 17%, -11
    Con : 21%, 26%, +5

    [1] I am assuming Anthony would have told us, if they had gone back to treating the Scots sample in the same way as the English regions.

    [2] All other pollsters’ Scottish crossbreaks are as useless as any other geographic sub-sample – unless their methodology specifically weights for Scottish demographics/politics.

  19. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34423897

    The SNP council by-elections were 5 holds of seats which were already SNP & 1 gain from an independent, as far as I can tell from the BBC’s report of the results.

  20. @Catmanjeff @Frederick

    Yep, something that will hopefully not go forgotten in the review (in the final analysis pollsters were about right with UKIP, but that might have been more luck than judgement…).

    @Roger Mexico

    Of course, a large part of the difference between the number of participants in the primaries can be explained by the fact Labour’s was run alongside a leadership election, as it was in 2010. The fact the Tory contest was seen essentially as a foregone conclusion was also surely a factor – people probably thought why bother getting involved in any of the other campaigns. But it is a tad worrying that the numbers are significantly down on 2008 – also a very one sided contest. It suggests (not something new or very surprising) that the Tories are struggling for active members that do much more than pay their subs.

    Does any of this make a difference going forward? I don’t think so really. We know that London mayoral contests are highly personalised affairs which rely less on the party machines than other types of elections. Zac will want to be a virtual independent anyway. Plus, even Labour’s number of participants is only a tiny portion of the overall electorate.

  21. CMJ: The small chance fortnight since comes on the back of similar change since before the migrantness though.

    Translation?

  22. So the media – *all* media, save maybe the Mirror and the Morning Star – ‘Unleash Hell’ and Corbyn survives. A big drop in VI might have triggered an early leadership challenge, but it hasn’t happened (yet). No bounce, though, either (churn, surely). Stating the obvious, if Corbyn’s Labour is to win it will either be through slow burn or an event that seriously damages the government. Attrition in the 65+ age bracket (to put it bluntly) and solid recruitment of the under-24’s over the next 4.5 years may help Corbyn but may not be enough in itself. (I note Corbyn is in the 65+ bracket himself, of course, but appears pretty robust for a man of advancing years – must be all that healthy living). The popular assertion that everyone gets more right-wing as they get older has been challenged by YouGov’s own analysis conducted earlier this year.

    If there are no major stumbles – though there are opportunities aplenty for those – I am expecting a bit of a ‘delayed’ bounce as some of the Labour vote that has deserted to the hinterlands of Don’t Know / Won’t Vote reaches the acceptance stage of grief and they decide that Corbyn’s not such a bad bloke as they’d been led to believe. I wouldn’t like to say things can only get better for JC, but there is a chance they can in the short term through some potential vote that can be tapped into quite rapidly.

    The final thing I shall add is that the various discussions I have read asserting that Labour cannot possibly win an election without stealing votes from the Conservatives, all seem to assume that Labour must win an outright majority to form a government. They also tend to assume that the only way the Conservatives can lose vote share is by Labour taking it. Neither of which are true.

  23. I think people are getting a bit too carried away about the media

    Perhaps most of the media are simply reflecting the scepticism the many in the public feel about Corbyn’s positions?

  24. If we’re on Corbyn: for all his qualities, because he has strong principles he will automatically alienate a very large proportion of the electorate. His anti-monarchist, anti-Trident, pro-IRA, pro-Hezbollah etc positions will mean that many people would not ever consider voting for a party that he leads.

    His supporters may not like this, but he is a sort of mirror-image of Farage. His supporters love him, but he is anathema to many more. That’s not to say there is no place for leaders like that, just that their supporters should not get carried away by euphoria that they are about to sweep the country.

  25. Oldnat,

    Seems as fishy as a Hemingway novel to me.

  26. I really don’t know if the new politics is feasible in England (and Wales), in spite of studying Tom Watson’s speech (which is now available on the video channel). But if it is, all the comments related to Corbyn above are meaningless (with the greatest respect). If it is not, Labour has a problem.

    If the answer is yes, then the next question is: can it be translated to policies. Again I don’t know, but there are some characters there who seem to be quite capable (for ideological and/or personal reasons), but it may get lost in translation.

    There is a time difference between the two tasks. And while the second is dependent on the first, a fake version of the second can be created without the first.

    The first one is very time consuming, and the threat of impatience is a threat, but seeing Kinnock’s performance, Reeves’s tantrum, etc, it may just be feasible to gain time.

    Still, I don’t want to sound like Cato, but some purge, even if for warning, is inevitable. The deputy leader seems to be quite capable of organising it.

  27. It looked more eloquent, differentiating and discerning as I was writing it – compared to reading it … Apologies.

  28. @Roger Mexico

    I guess the London Mayoral Election will be a definitive test as to whether having lots of activists is important or not.

    If Goldsmith wins, it’s conclusive proof that wide appeal to non partisan voters is more important than having a lot of activists sign up for your primary.

    We can then extrapolate from the London Mayor’s contest to Corbyn’s ultimate fate.

  29. Bill Patrick

    Fishy?

    Keeping an eye on things seems sensible – unless you are the intended prey of an angler fish, of course

  30. @Candy

    I agree with your general point, though I’d be wary about extrapolating much from a London mayoral election where personalities rather than parties dominate the campaign and past evidence suggests voters are willing to put aside usual tribal loyalties.

  31. @Pete B

    Superficially, Corbyn may appear to be a mirror image of Farage, and there are some apparent similarities (to wit: Farage calling for a ‘People’s Army’ – Corbyn frequently invoking the will of ‘the People’). However, there are also some very significant asymmetries.

    There is a tendency to characterise Corbyn’s supporters as activist fanatics. I would caution against making this asumption. It may be true of the bolshier elements on social media, but it is not universally so. There is a lot of quiet Cautiously Corbyn support out there as well that tends to be overlooked. Though to be fair, this may also be true of Farage – perhaps his supporters’ love of the Caps Lock key deceives.

    @omni

    “Perhaps most of the media are simply reflecting the scepticism the many in the public feel about Corbyn’s positions?”

    It is without doubt that *most* of the media are reflecting the scepticism that *many* in the public feel about Corbyn’s positions. I salute you on your use of spin ;-)

  32. @Lurking G
    With respect, you are being inconsistent. You suggest that there are quiet supporters of both Corbyn and Farage, and I would agree, but then you attack Omni for effectively saying the same thing, and avoiding putting all Corbyn supporters in the same group.

    You can’t have it both ways. can we all agree that in all parties there are some supporters more enthusiastic than others, though there tend to be more energetic activists in those parties further away from the hypothetical centre – e.g. Labour under Corbyn, and UKIP. And also any statement suggesting that all of the electorate or media have a particular opinion is self-evidently false?

  33. Re: London Mayor race

    Most of you lot probably already know this, but for those who don’t: Crosby’s back. He’s going to be helping Goldsmith’s campaign.

  34. ‘they haven’t faced up to the damaged they caused to the economy’

    Seriously?

    That was a real question? From a serious polling company?

    Mate.

  35. @Pete B

    I wouldn’t have said I was ‘attacking’ Omni. Teasing, maybe. My emotes are there for a reason, you know. :-)

    Let me clarify my point. The fact that *most* of the media are reflecting the scepticism that *many* (a rather loose word, hence my ‘spin’ comment) feel towards Corbyn, does not mean that the extent of the media’s hostile coverage necessarily reflects the extent of the public’s hostility towards Corbyn’s positions. The one, is not necessarily representative of the other.

  36. @Pete B

    “And also any statement suggesting that all of the electorate or media have a particular opinion is self-evidently false?”

    You do make a fair point here, because of course any given publication carries a range of opinion, with an editorial bias one way or another. Yes, I did say *all* media in my original comment with ‘maybe’ a couple of exclusions, and I know that is a slightly contentious exaggeration. I won’t fight hard in its defence. Or at all, even. I was really referring to the dire warnings made that Corbyn would be sunk by a media blitz before he got out of the starting gate (mixed metaphor apology).

  37. LurkingGherkin

    ” would be sunk by a media blitz before he got out of the starting gate (mixed metaphor apology).”

    No need to apologise, as your metaphor was pristinely accurate.

    In rowing a starting gate is “a structure at the starting line of the race. The shell is “backed” into the starting gate. Once in the gates a mechanism, or person lying on the starting gate, holds the stern of the shell.” (source Wiki – the fount of all knowledge! :-) )

  38. LurkingGherkin

    You will be aware of the old line – “I’m not always correct. I once thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was right after all.” :-)

  39. @oldnat

    Not being much of a rower myself, I was unaware. Thanks for correcting my incorrect assertion of incorrectness.

    I’m trying to be less self-deprecating, but I’m really bad at it.

  40. Oldnat,

    I don’t think of Sturgeon as predatorial, anyway…

    I agree it’s a good plan to keep an eye on such figures, but to state the obvious, if something seems very unlikely, it probably isn’t true!

  41. Although salmon have acquired a perhaps undeserved reputation…

  42. (Any Pollocks in the SNP?)

  43. Bill Patrick

    ” to state the obvious, if something seems very unlikely, it probably isn’t true!”

    I’m unclear as to why you think that the YG Scottish samples are “very unlikely” to give indications of possible changes which might show through in a Full Scottish. Those pre-election samples proved reasonably accurate.

    Of course, if anyone was daft enough to try to draw a conclusion from the two samples that we have so far, then they probably have difficulty in distinguishing truth from fiction anyway!

    Surely you didn’t do that?

  44. Oldnat,

    My point is that, as snapshots, they are probably well off the mark.

  45. While we’e on the subject of rowing, Corbyn’s red hordes have seized the strategically crucial seat on Cherwell District Council! It’s probably more significant than Napoleon occupying the Pratzen Heights at Austerlitz.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-win-marginal-ward-on-tory-controlled-cherwell-district-council-a6676766.html

    A 6% swing from Conservative to Labour.

  46. @Lurgee

    “A 6% swing from Conservative to Labour.”

    Having found some recent council by-election results “interesting” where they’ve shown some decent results for the Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP and the SNP, I think we can safely dismiss this Cherwell result as an irrelevance. Corbyn is a complete liability, as we all know, and if Reeves had been elected Labour leader instead, then this would have been a 20% swing and the party would be opening up big leads in the national opinion polls by now.

    :-)

    By the way, why on earth would anyone expect an opposition party, six months after a heavy election defeat, and with the quarter century novelty of a Tory majority government enjoying a honeymoon, and overseeing a continuing rise in living standards for many, to be bouncing in the polls, new leader or no new leader?

    My rather counter-intuitive take on these things is that 5-8% Tory leads are on the low range of where I would expect them to be at this stage of the electoral cycle. My sense is that their fairly modest poll leads are down to the lingering and inherent weakness of the Tory brand rather more than anything Labour is or is not doing.

    Frankly, I see very little in these polls that tells me anything much at all about whether Corbyn is doomed or not. It tells me little about the next GE result either. I’m a bit old fashioned about GE results anyway. If the Tories, under our present electoral system, are residing over a growing economy in 2020, where living standards are rising for the majority, then a combination of Nelson Mandela and Tsiprias wouldn’t save Labour from another defeat. The Tories would be a shoo-in.

    However, if things aren’t like that at all in 2020, and four and a half years is a very long time, then any half decent opposition is in with a shout.

  47. @Joe

    YouGov will have asked that in the full knowledge that it is a provocative/leading statement. The reason will have been to tease out the extent to which this Tory message is believed by the public.

  48. I was, for many years, a councillor in a ward where for Council elections, where no general election was involved, my activist base was one (me). At General elections this all changed of course. It did cause me some problems because my main opponents were the Lib Dems who were desperate to win anything.

    At present there will be an enthusiastic band of Corbinistas, desperate to do something who will be very active in council by -elections and this may well give local Labour councillors a boost. Whether this will continue much beyond the point where the new wears off, is hard to know. Incidentally, I spent years watching Conservative councillors gain seat after seat only for the party to be soundly trounced at the next general election so i don’t take them as much of a guide.

  49. @Jack Sheldon

    That’s not correct: there is no answer that enables you to say ‘I don’t agree with the question’ so how are they ‘teasing’ anything out. It is a very prejudicial question (a push poll question) and I am surprised it is allowed.

  50. Looking at Scotland my hunch is that the unionists have started to coalesce around the Tories. This makes sense

    In Scotland the Labour vote is very centrist and mainstream, the Left are pro-independence and have generally gone to a Left wing party. Corbyn may attract some of them back in particular if LiS allows support and campaigning for independence. But, this will be offset by the Royalist, Daily Mail reading Labour voter being ‘less likely’ to stick with Labour.

    Scotland has re-aligned around the constitutional question and given the Better Together campaign and the fact the Tories and Labour are on the same side in the constitutional debate, it would be easy for these centrist Labour voters to move to the Conservatives.

    Also, these voters have chosen Westminster over Holyrood and with the Conservatives in power at Westminster and the union under threat they might feel it is safer to side with the powerful Tories against the SNP.

    It looks like the end-game is starting with SNP + Independence Movement versus Conservatives + British State…. game on :-)

1 2 3 13