Two new GB voting intention polls over the last couple of days. Opinium in the Observer had topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 32%, LDEM 5%, UKIP 17%, GRN 4% (full tabs are here). Meanwhile BMG released some new GB voting intention figures today: their toplines are CON 36%(-2), LAB 31%(+1), LDEM 7%(+2), UKIP 16%(nc), GRN 5%(nc), and full tabs are here.

The last few polls we had (from ICM, YouGov, ComRes and Ipsos MORI) all had Labour and the Conservatives within a few points of each other. Opinium show a very similar picture, but while BMG do show the Conservative lead falling a little, they’ve still got a five point lead. At first glance I considered whether this could be due to fieldwork dates – perhaps as the negative coverage of the budget and IDS’s resignation faded the Conservatives were recovering? It’s not that though, the Opinium fieldwork is actually considerably more recent that the BMG fieldwork, which took place over Easter. Perhaps it’s a methodological difference, or perhaps it’s just normal random sample error – looking at the broad picture across all the pollsters it still looks as if the gap between Conservatives and Labour has closed right up to a few points.

There was also a new Opinium poll on the London mayoral election. First round voting intention figures are KHAN 35%, GOLDSMITH 27%, WHITTLE 3%, PIDGEON 3%, BERRY 2%, GALLOWAY <1%, DON'T KNOW/WNV 30%. Without don't knows that would work out at Khan 49%, Goldsmith 39%, Whittle 4%, Pidgeon 4%, Berry 3%, Galloway 1% - a solid lead for Sadiq Khan. After reallocating second preferences and taking only those 10/10 certain to vote, Opinium's topline figures are KHAN 54%, GOLDSMITH 46%. Full tabs are here.


132 Responses to “Latest GB and London voting intentions”

1 2 3
  1. @Alun

    Bill Hicks on Kennedy, and peeps having a pop over the conspiracy thing…

    http://youtu.be/8aaqN7SqLpU

    BTW, I didn’t get back to you over the thing you said about the young being “idealistic”.

    I’d been meaning to say summat about this, because others had been on about the young being idealistic. But the point of the survey I cited is that, if anything, youngsters are rather cynical about how things are. About both their future, in terms of jobs and debt etc., and about how it isn’t much of a meritocracy but more about who you know etc.

    Also, in the main they aren’t pressing for some utopia, but for things that we used to have and which peeps benefitted from. Full employment, no tuition fees, affordable housing, affordable bills, banking more supervised and so on…

  2. CARFREW:
    “If your interest in politics is to generally make stuff better for peeps, it doesn’t really help to see people being tribal and putting parties first ahead of what’s right.”

    I get what you’re saying, although I disagree: collective action is an efficient way of working towards wider strategic goals. I think parties are a hindrance to getting small individual decisions right, but a help to getting larger, macro decisions right. Perhaps that trade-off is sketchier at the council level but I still see the benefit. And as a naive youngster I dreamed of doing away with parties: the tribalism was horrifying to me. In some ways it still it, but I’ve since found that multi-party democracies tend to “feel” a little more grown up. Certainly my experience of living in Denmark and Scotland have led me to see Westminster as an oddity.

    In any case, none of this proves the case that party loyalty is an important factor in council election turnout. We’ve reached a point where data should decide the issue. If it exists, we can settle this, if it doesn’t we should agree to disagree :)

  3. Meanwhile the Icelandic PM has resigned over the Panama thing.

  4. @Alun

    I wasn’t arguing against collective action. And there are lots of peeps who’ll campaign on an issue. Single issue politics is preferred by many than joining a party,

    The problem comes when the success of the party in its own right takes precedence over collective action for worthwhile stuff.

    It Isn’t just the tribalism, but self-serving bollox. Eroding democracy for party gain, etc. etc.

  5. @Alun

    “In any case, none of this proves the case that party loyalty is an important factor in council election turnout. We’ve reached a point where data should decide the issue. If it exists, we can settle this, if it doesn’t we should agree to disagree :)”

    ———–

    For many things, there isn’t data. So you have to infer and reason from the circumstantial and tangential.

    We already have data that the young don’t vote as much. So if we also see that they can be politically engaged, but don’t care for the party thing, that needs some explaining. And there’s a reasonable possibility if they reject party involvement then there might be summat unsatisfying about parties…

  6. CARFREW:
    “the young […] can be politically engaged, but don’t care for the party thing”

    By extension, the older do care more for party politics? In which case, you could argue (and I’ll stop short of this myself, it’s plausible but too strong for my tastes) that they learn that without parties, translating engagement into policy is nearly impossible.

    In any case, without hard data to back this up, we’re arguing our opinions. I’ve already said that I understand yours, and I don’t find it foolish or absurd. I happen to think differently, but I’ll be ready to change my mind should some convincing data (not just a narrative explanation that can’t really be verified) be put forward.

  7. @Alun

    Yeah, you’re totally not getting the data thing.

    Firstly, like I said, there IS data. There is enough data to see there might be an issue. Firstly, we know the young don’t vote as much.

    And I already gave data in that survey, whereby we can start to determine why. Their concern for authenticity, and preference for politicians who aren’t as disingenuous.

    RMJ’s hypothesis about parties chimes with this. But the point is, quite often one needs to establish the hypothesis before you can look for data.

    The fact that data is not forthcoming immediately is not grounds for closing down the issue, it simply now makes the issue live and if anyone comes across any data shedding light on the matter they can post it.

    Like I came across some data pertinent to the idealistic thing a few days later. It’s just that you didn’t take enough note of it. That’s the irony…

    In truth, this us an example of what can be wrong with parties. It is the overly party political who tend to look for reasons to needlessly close down discussion on something they don’t like. I don’t have to go through this with others.

  8. @Alun

    “By extension, the older do care more for party politics? In which case, you could argue (and I’ll stop short of this myself, it’s plausible but too strong for my tastes) that they learn that without parties, translating engagement into policy is nearly impossible.”

    ————

    Well that’s one hypothesis Alun. One that paints the elders in a nice light.

    An alternative might be that the elders are pandered to in policy as a more powerful voting block, and hence put up with the party bollox more readily.

  9. @Alun

    But also, oldies might put up with it as it may be all they have. If younger people have created their own networks for action, they may bypass party politics.

  10. @Alun

    If I mention Thorium on here, the party political buggers tended to go “uh??”

    Out in the real world, to my surprise younger peeps just bring it up unprompted. Someone blogged about it. The other day do one I met just dropped in the concentration in the earth’s crust.

    But they’re not necessarily active in parties. It’s a different thing, it would seem. With slaves to parties, Thorium isn’t on the party menu so they just go “uh..”

  11. “The other day someone I met…”

  12. Carfrew

    “Meanwhile the Icelandic PM has resigned over the Panama thing.”

    The Finance and Interior Ministers were also named in the Panama papers, and the Finance Minister has refused to resign.

    Although, the PM had asked for new elections, the President refused the request, so we’ll need to see if a new coalition can be cobbled together.

    Who knows? there may be enough MPs, who buried offshore cash in Brit owned tax havens via other lawyers, to form a government.

  13. @AnthonyJWells

    Due to other committments I’m not here as often as I’d like. But I’d just thought I’d pop in and say “thank you” for your 31st March post regarding the final version of the report. It is useful, thank you.

  14. @Oldnat

    “Who knows?”

    ————

    Indeed. Is this it? Or is there more to unravel?…

  15. I realise this is very low down anyone’s list of political concerns, but I watched Labour’s PPB tonight and they appear to have changed their fonts.

    Not worthy of mention, you’d think – only I think I’ve figured out why. After the replacement of the truly grotesque Neo Sans and Neo Tech (the old bubbly font) in 2014, the Party started using Open Sans.

    Not only is Open Sans a really nice font for both display and copy, it’s also free. The problem is that the Labour Party has been very critical of Google’s tax arrangements – and guess who commissioned and distributes Open Sans? Yes, Google.

    Now I can’t verify in any way whether this is why they’ve stopped using it, but it’s one of those things you’d only know as a designer and it’s rather smart of them if so.

  16. Carfrew

    A lot more! This is only one leak from one company in one tax haven – and even that is being somewhat rigidly controlled by the media firms who control it.

  17. @oldnat

    Might not happen in Norway, where everyone’s tax details are published and everyone knows what everyone’s earning….

  18. Carfrew, Alun, RMJ1
    “If your interest in politics is to generally make stuff better for peeps, it doesn’t really help to see people being tribal and putting parties first ahead of what’s right.”

    I’m old enough to remember when many if not most candidates in local elections were independents, particularly in rural areas. I don’t know how to get back to that, but it might be nice. I can’t see why party politics should be involved in collecting bins, fixing potholes etc.

  19. Carfrew

    The deterrent effect of publishing tax returns in Norway has probably increased since they were all put on the internet in 2001.

    Research which compared municipalities which had more and less easily accessible tax records prior to that showed “approximately 3 percent higher average increase in reported income is found among business owners living in areas where the switch to Internet disclosure represented a large change in access”

    Mind you, the ridiculously complex tax codes in the UK would still probably allow lots of wealth and dividend income to remain hidden, even with such open disclosure here. That is, after all, how the rich like it to be!

  20. @MrNameless

    I haven’t seen the PPB yet, the website is still all Open Sans though. Interested to see what they’ve gone with…

    On a related note, even though Labour have stopped using Neo Sans, it’s still being used in political campaigns elsewhere: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce5zvtRVAAA0fax.jpg:large

  21. Roger Scully links to a Welsh “alignment with Welsh parties” poll.

    http://www.walesvote16.com/#!/

    Non Welsh voters can participate. Unsurprisingly, I most closely align with Plaid and Greens. :-)

  22. @Pete B

    “I can’t see why party politics should be involved in collecting bins, fixing potholes etc.”

    ————–

    Or storage taxes…

  23. @oldnat

    “Mind you, the ridiculously complex tax codes in the UK would still probably allow lots of wealth and dividend income to remain hidden, even with such open disclosure here. That is, after all, how the rich like it to be!”

    ———–

    Ah yes, the confusopoly thing again…

  24. CARFREW:
    “The fact that data is not forthcoming immediately is not grounds for closing down the issue”

    Quite. Luckily I wasn’t shutting anything down. I was politely suggesting that your putative data didn’t prove the narrative explanation offered. I also detected that you seemed to be getting animated about something and there was a risk of me being sucked into an argument I don’t want. The tone of your recent slew of replies confirms that, so now I will say explicitly that I don’t want to talk about this with you more. And again, that’s not me shutting anything down, that’s me saying I’m out. Talk about it with whomever may be interested. I don’t owe you an argument, so when I said let’s agree to disagree, you should read that as my stance, not as an invitation to follow me out of a discussion trying to keep it going.

  25. Conventionally, if people don’t want to talk about summat, they can just not talk. You don’t have to keep talking about how you don’t wanna talk.

  26. “Luckily I wasn’t shutting anything down. I was politely suggesting that your putative data didn’t prove the narrative explanation offered.”

    ————–

    No, you went further, claiming only data would now suffice and otherwise agree to disagree. At least I had some data for my stance, you didn’t provide much for yours…

    My point was that data wasn’t necessarily required but even when provided you ignore it anyway. Getting your knickers in a twist needlessly.

  27. I am inclined to agree with CARFREW that party politics has no obvious place in the running of a local authority. Unfortunately, many decisions seem to be taken purely for party advantage. The national party campaigns, which hardly mention local issues at all, compound the problem because good, diligent local councillors often lose their seats to completely useless party choices.

    My original point was that effective local government needs a degree of cross party working which is unfortunately frowned upon by the party memberships (who select the candidates). Up to about ten years ago I had thought that we were getting somewhere with this but we have gone backwards since.

    All of this is bound to put people off voting IMO. National parties deliberately try to Hogg the agenda and the public are left unsure as to what local government does.

  28. @RMJ1

    “All of this is bound to put people off voting IMO. National parties deliberately try to Hogg the agenda and the public are left unsure as to what local government does.”

    I’m intrigued by your use here of “Hogg” with a capital “H” and an extra “g” rather than the word “hog” with its porcine connotations. Are you referring to Quinton Hogg? If you are, I wasn’t aware that the old boy’s name had entered the English language, but, remembering him and his rather eccentric personality, I rather like it. So to Hogg an agenda is probably to fill it with overblown gestures and to make a Hoggish speech would be to use flowery rhetoric and hyperbole. We could go on.

    Mind you, if you were referring to Quinton’s son, Douglas Hogg, then I think the verb to Hogg would mean less noble things like claiming expenses for the maintenance of moats and such like.

    :-)

  29. @CROSSBAT11

    Simply the vagaries of predictive text (which I can’t switch off on this machine). I spot most of them but I don’t get them all and even when I do they sometimes revert back when I press send.

  30. @CROSSBAT11

    I should also mention that I rarely comment on people’s smelling mistakes or tryping errores because I am only too aware that there but for constant vigilance, go I.

  31. RMJ1

    @ the public are left unsure as to what local government does.”

    An OP on this would be very interesting.

    My impression would be that knowledge about which “services” are paid for with Council Tax is scant.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the satisfaction levels were pretty low in general-whether the LA actually provided the service or not !

    LA Councillors just seem to go on forever. Thats bound to breed complacency & arrogance.
    There hasn’t been an election for our Parish Council that I can remember. Who in their right minds wants to stand for membership of a cabal of local know it alls in order to spend countless hours learning about meaningless Rules & Regulations wielded by some overpaid officious Parish Clerk?

  32. @Colin

    I used to live in very small town.

    It had a Town Council, who responsibilities seemed to consist of organising ‘Britain in Bloom’.

    One member, a very senior chap was famous for having a number of tipples prior to meetings, and then fall asleep during then.

    He remained a Councillor until he died at an age not far from Methuselah.

    Goodness knows how he kept getting elected.

  33. Correction(s)

    @Colin

    I used to live in a very small town.

    It had a Town Council, whose only responsibilities seemed to consist of organising ‘Britain in Bloom’.

    One member, a very senior chap, was famous for having a number of tipples prior to meetings, and then falling asleep during them.

    He remained a Councillor until he died at an age not far from Methuselah.

    Goodness knows how he kept getting elected.

    I really wonder if this tier of Government has any place in the modern world.

  34. CARFREW:

    Right, let’s sort this out.

    You said:
    “We already have data that the young don’t vote as much. So if we also see that they can be politically engaged, but don’t care for the party thing, that needs some explaining.”
    Great. I agree that young people don’t vote as much as old people. Granted. So what? What’s this business about “don’t care for the party thing”?

    “And I already gave data in that survey”
    I have no idea what survey you’re referring to. You’re remembering a conversation that I don’t remember. If you’ve some interesting data for me to look at, post a link and I’ll have a look. Based on your precis, it either doesn’t refer to the question I was addressing, or you’ve described it in a clumsy way that gives that appearance.

    We were talking about low turnout in local elections. I was expressing doubts that party politics was the cause of that, citing awareness and reporting as seemingly more likely explanations. Suddenly you’re talking about young people not voting. Well, I haven’t followed the logical connection and, combined with the data you think I’ve seen which I can’t remember seeing, the whole thing seems to be quite disconnected from the point I was trying to make.

    It seems that what you need to demonstrate to me is that:
    local elections have lower turnout (I agree)
    young people don’t buy into party politics as much as older people (I don’t know)
    youth turnout as a percentage of those who vote in local elections is lower than youth turnout as a percentage of turnout in national elections (plausible, but I haven’t seen such evidence)

    Based on all that, I would agree that the narrative explanation you offered had merit. That is, connecting the relative distaste for party politics to a relatively lower turnout at governance levels where, you claim, party politics has a more pronounced negative effect, that is, the council level.

    And here’s where agreeing to disagree comes into it: my narrative explanation that the reach and depth of coverage of local vs national issues is what drives turnout convinces me, but I don’t have the data for you. I merely offered it up gently as an alternative to the idea that “councillors are useless, therefore folk don’t vote” idea. If you don’t like my narrative, I’m prefectly comfortable with that. Frankly I never cared enough about this issue to research it robustly and apply statistical models to competing hypotheses. That’s why I was saying we should just agree to disagree. Since that seems to be disallowed, I offer you my open mind and the time for you remind me of this data you think I’ve seen. I’ve set out clearly what will convince me that your tangent has merit, but also remember that this is not as issue I particularly want a fight about. I tried politely to back out of a conversation that had already turned weird, but I was annoyed and affronted at your tone: “Yeah, you’re totally not getting the data thing… It’s just that you didn’t take enough note of it… needlessly close down discussion”
    Later:
    “a hypothesis… that paints the elders in a nice light.” (which I specifically said was not what I thought)

    That’s what got my “knickers in a twist”. Your manners, and your assumption that I’m ignoring something. I was, in fact, being too polite to say “I don’t know what conversation we had”. I made a mistake in trying to deal with what you were saying as is, but clearly this conversation we previously had is apparently quite memorable and important to you. I’m sorry that is appears to have slipped so easily from my mind. I didn’t want to leave you with the impression that you matter far less to me than you think you do, but that would appear to be the case. Looking back quickly over the past few threads on this site, I still can’t find what conversation you’re referring to. At least I will remember this conversation, and at least I know to think carefully before indulging in another with you in future.

  35. COLIN

    Unfortunately there are a lot of what amount to rotten boroughs in Local government. I was once subjected to a torrent of abuse for canvassing in an opposing councillor’s home area and trying to confuse “his people”.

    I’m a great believer in parish councils being non political. I was a parish councillor for over 20 years and I honestly could not say what the political persuasion of some of the members was. Even those who like me had obvious party affiliations, stood as independent. Of course this does not stop some people from pushing their own narrow agenda but they usually don’t last.

    I would advise participation, if one has an interest in the public good and has the time.

  36. Tables now out for the new TNS Scottish poll at:
    http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/large-preference-scotland-remaining-eu-many-still-unsure

    On EU: 51% remain 19% leave 29% don’t know

    Holyrood Constituency:
    SNP 56% Lab 19% Con 15% LD 6%

    Holyrood Region:
    SNP 47% Lab 21% Con 15% LD 6% SGrn 8%

  37. Good afternoon all from a slightly damp and breezy Clarkston in East Renfrewshire.

    The national polls are quite interesting but the EU polling is very exciting.

    Britain Elects [email protected] 24m24 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain 44% (-1)
    Leave: 43% (-)
    (via ICM, online / 01 – 03 Apr)

    The EU bolt is still strongly on the cards.

  38. BARBAZENZERO

    That’s another stunning poll fro the SNP.

    In terms of seats..the following

    ScotlandVotes [email protected] 1h1 hour ago
    Holyrood prediction: SNP 72(+3), LAB 27(-10), LIB 6(+1), CON 16(+1), UKIP 0(=), GREEN 8(+6)

  39. ALUN009

    CARFREW:

    Right, let’s sort this out.
    You said “£$%^&&$$&*^%$£”

    “That’s what got my “knickers in a twist”
    _______

    It was quite a fascinating exchange between the both of you but I think I’ll stick to mud wrestling for my entertainment. ;-)

  40. ALLAN CHRISTIE
    That’s another stunning poll fro the SNP.

    Not bad, indeed, but as usual the 4th estate looks on the bright side…. The Herald headlines it as: Second ballot support for SNP plummets as fight for list votes hots up

    Plus ça change, and all that…

  41. ALLAN CHRISTIE:
    “I’ll stick to mud wrestling for my entertainment”

    You think that would be better entertainment? Let’s agree to agree :)

  42. BARBAZENZERO

    “Plus ça change, and all that”
    _______

    Aye the scot’s term for that is… “Yer bum’s oot the windae, Whit’s fur ye’ll no go by ye!”

    Actually the fact the SNP are polling over 50% on the constituency ballot then that alone will almost certainly hand them another majority especially as Labour are set to lose all of their constituency seats but of course we’re back to “Plus ça change, and all that. :-)

  43. ALUN009

    “You think that would be better entertainment? Let’s agree to agree :)”
    _______

    AW…Consensus at last on UKPR, when do ALUN and I pick up our Lollipops? :-)

  44. ALLAN CHRISTIE:
    “our Lollipops?”

    But which flavour?

  45. A clear SNP meltdown. They’re barely scraping a majority of the total votes! Will Nicola’s career survive?

  46. @Allan C

    I was gonna suggest you stop stirring, but if you’re fantasizing about the mud wrestling thing you might have bigger issues. (Alun seems to like it though…)

  47. @Alun

    Right, you’re capable of throwing in all kinds of unnecessary curved balls in a single post, so I’ll try and be as efficient about this as possible.

    The paragraph on this complaint of yours… ” So what? What’s this business about “don’t care for the party thing”?”

    And this one… ” I have no idea what survey you’re referring to. You’re remembering a conversation that I don’t remember.”

    And the paragraph on this… ” Suddenly you’re talking about young people not voting.”

    …are all utterly bewildering in light of the fact that earlier in the thread I referred back to your post to me of a couple of weeks ago, your post in response to data on a survey about todays teenagers I posted and their interest in the likes of Sanders, when you brought up the idea they might be being “idealistic”.

    I was simply pointing out that the data in that survey actually suggested otherwise and then also referring to some data in it concerning politicians and authenticity to provide some context for our current discussion.

    That’s what I meant when I said you ignore data. You didn’t make much use of it at the time when I first brought it up and even now you act like it never happened.

  48. @Alun

    “And here’s where agreeing to disagree comes into it: my narrative explanation that the reach and depth of coverage of local vs national issues is what drives turnout convinces me, but I don’t have the data for you. I merely offered it up gently as an alternative to the idea that “councillors are useless, therefore folk don’t vote” idea. If you don’t like my narrative, I’m prefectly comfortable with that.”

    I know. I know you don’t have data. Then you complain that I don’t have any. Even when I do provide data you act like it never happened. Then you say you don’t wanna talk but go on and on making complaints that make no sense.

    (You don’t do any of this to Allan, you just chat about mud wrestling…)

  49. I care so little about this issue, but you’ve really wound me up with the way you’re talking to me. I’ll tell you how this feels to me. Like I’m standing on the street and I having a conversation where I casually mention the fact that I’m an atheist. All of a sudden, a preacher leaps from the bushes and starts to lecture me about how the ontologocal argument proves the existence of god. Oookkayyy, that’s nice, oh is that the time? Thanks, I’ve got to be getting going. But no, you (for it is you) decide to follow me down the street citing conversations we apparently had in 1993 about something tangential and how I somehow have to stand my ground and prove my point or change my mind.

    Listen up, mate, I’ve been too tolerant of you already. Stop grabbing at my jacket. Stop spitting as you talk. Leave me alone. I shouldn’t have replied after your bizarre salvo of messages that culminated in something impeterable about thorium. I won’t repeat my mistake again. We are done here.

  50. What are you going on about? You asked what data I was referring to, I reminded you, and simply pointed out your complaints were needless. They still are…

1 2 3