A wrote a few weeks ago that in the past the boost enjoyed by a Prime Minister taking over mid-term has often only lasted a month or so. The latest YouGov poll suggests that Theresa May’s honeymoon is following the same pattern and has now started to fade. Topline figures are CON 38%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%. It’s still showing a healthy Tory lead, but not the towering double-digit leads we’ve seen in the last few polls. This is, of course, just a single poll and we should wait to see if other polls shown the same trend, but it’s the first sign of the May honeymoon beginning to wane (tabs here)

UPDATE: TNS also have new voting intention figures out and they have the Tories still enjoying a double-digit lead. Topline figures are CON 39%, LAB 26%, LD 10%, UKIP 11%, GRN 7% (tabs are here). Fieldwork was over the weekend, so a little older than the Mon-Tues YouGov data, but not by much. A couple of interesting methodological notes here – looking at TNS’s tables, it looks like they are including the names of the party leaders in their voting intention question (just the GB leaders in the English question, but also the Scottish and Welsh leaders in their respective areas). Based on the tables, they are also asking preferred party on the economy and preferred leader before asking voting intention.


664 Responses to “Latest YouGov and TNS voting intentions”

1 11 12 13 14
  1. OldNat

    There is no constitutional consequence of CLP endorsement. It is largely electoral PR. Having said that, it is a kind of indication, and more importantly an education in democracy (sorry, all my information is second hand).

    The only reason (well, the real reason is the complete quietness of the LP people on this disenfringement – the most is a shrug of the shoulder – I haven’t heard of an uprising against it) I brought it up because the woman concerned told me the process while walking the dog this afternoon. Then I tried to check her account, and found a blogpost that confirmed it.

  2. Syzygy

    I saw one petition.

    There is an odd rumour – many of the supporters who are excluded are SaveLabour ones …

  3. Sygszy/Laszlo

    Thanks.

    I enjoy conspiracy theories (though they are seldom accurate).

    Currently, the one that is most believable is that Andy Murray deliberately delayed most of the match until Nicola Sturgeon had completed her official duties! :-)

  4. @ Laszlo

    ‘There is an odd rumour – many of the supporters who are excluded are SaveLabour ones ‘

    Wel, it did occur to me that the shadowy ex-MP who funded SaveLabour would not be best pleased by the cut off date :) However, I don’t think anyone knows quite how many Owen Smith supporters may be affected. Approximately a third of the £25 payers are supposed to be disenfranchised Corbyn supporters but the remaining two thirds is anyone’s guess.

    ‘ the complete quietness of the LP people on this disenfringement – the most is a shrug of the shoulder – I haven’t heard of an uprising against it)’

    No uprising but my contacts on social media are incandescent … and the new members who joined after 12th January despondent as well as angry.

    You are quite correct. The CLP nominations play no significant part in the leadership contest… other than as PR.

  5. Syzygy

    Thank you.

    The fog of war (yes, I mean it) is thick, and there are desperate attempts to maintain it when it seems to break up, so it remains set. It is good to have the clarity of your views, even if occasionally I disagree with them.

  6. Syzygy

    Quickly adding: not this time.

  7. @ Laszlo

    That is a high compliment from you and I very much appreciate it.

    There is a fog of war and I keep being reminded of Adam Curtis’ film ‘Oh Dear’. None of it has to make sense because it’s the process and not the content which is important.

  8. Laszlo @ Syzygy

    ” It is good to have the clarity of your views, even if occasionally I disagree with them. .. Quickly adding: not this time.”

    Some of us enjoy the clarity of both of your views – as well as those of TOH and Colin and others.

    It is the real delight of UKPR.

  9. Laszlo

    When the ballot papers are sent out an information pack is included. In that information pack is a list of supporting nominations for each of the candidates. It may well be that many voters will be swayed by that information pack so CLP nominations could be influential.

    Luke Akehurst certainly thinks so, he sent out an email to CLP Executives implying that that where possible nominations should be decided by General committees or failing that they should decide not to have a supporting nomination. Worth noting that many of Smith’s CLP nominations have come from General committee votes rather than membership votes.

  10. CR

    Sorry, I gave your post less attention than it deserved, as I watched the tennis!

    Pleased that the BBC commentator referred to Andy going over to some “English supporters”.

    The ability of the BBC to ascertain the home location of crowd members is utterly impressive!

    Why would anyone suspect that they were other than totally impartial in UK politics?

  11. The DM debate: I have never understood why a section of Labour believes that a possible marginal upgrade on Ed Miliband is the solution to Labour’s electability.

    And listening to both Labour leadership campaigns there seems to be a distinct disconnect with both camps on Labour polling.

    Clearly Corbyn has never lead in the polls against the Tories and for his campaign to suggest otherwise is mendacious. However the Smith camp seem to gloss over the severe damage the actions of the PLP have been to the Labour VI, trying to pin the slump all on Corbyn, which is equally mendacious.

    Press briefings over the weekend have also ramped up. Momentum are apparently the equivalent of SA Stormtroopers (how ridiculous is that?) and then there’s the whole Len in Monte Carlo non-event. Man seen in expensive restaurant shocker. It will be interesting whether all this palava filters through to the next set of polls.

    The real question is what is the long-term damage.

  12. CR

    Sounds like the Labour Party work on the same way as the BBC do – portray support on the basis of limited, or no evidence, at all.

    And some wonder why some of us want to dump such corrupt, bigoted, biased practices to the dustbin that they are so appropriately suited to?

  13. Great Britain is 17th in the Olympic medal table so far this year, though medals today might bump them up a few places. New Zealand leads!

    http://countrydigest.org/olympic-medals-per-capita/

  14. Sea Change

    “The real question is what is the long-term damage.”

    Perhaps it’s only marginal, but the long-term damage of London BBC talking about Murray going over to “English supporters” shouldn’t be under-estimated.

    Still, if London BBC HQ wants to alienate Scots – who am I to complain about their ineptitude and stupidity?

  15. @OLDNAT

    Interesting change of subject but I’ll bite. I suspect seeing Murray playing a full role in a very successful Great Britain team will have a far greater binding effect on the Union than some silly BBC pronouncement (especially given the way the country voted in the recent Brexit referendum despite the way the BBC wanted the country to vote).

  16. Im sorry, my last post was incorrect, its actually North Korea which is leading in medals

    http://www.medalspercapita.com/#medals-by-gdp:2016

  17. Sea Change

    “I suspect seeing Murray playing a full role in a very successful Great Britain team will have a far greater binding effect on the Union than some silly BBC pronouncement”

    That suggestion does support my thesis that governments support elite athletes (though not in tennis) for their own political ends, and not primarily for the development of individual sporting skills.

    As I’ve said previously, I deprecate such attempts by UK, Scottish, or any other governments to deploy public finance in support of nationalist agendas.

    However, your assertion that Andy being part of a GB Team bolsters UK nationalism, as opposed to Scottish nationalism, or not giving a bugger about any political consequences would require something like evidence.

    Have you any?

  18. Talk of Brexit being stalled for 3 years. That’ll go down well with UKIP/right wing Tories.

  19. SEA CHANGE

    @”Len in Monte Carlo non-event. Man seen in expensive restaurant shocker.”

    Perhaps this encapsulates the essence of these sort of messages a little more clearly for you ? :-

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734017/Union-chiefs-pose-Turkey-commuters-battle-rail-strikes.html

    If not , then you appear to be as unintelligent as the union leaders in question .

    The general public can recognise two fingers as well as one finger-even in a metaphorical portrayal.

  20. @OLDNAT about as much evidence as your assertion about the BBC pronouncement. However you’d have to have listened to that bit of BBC broadcast to be swayed versus the medal table and general GB Nationalistic hubris in every paper, all the time. I know where my money lies. But don’t worry, we’ll have another Indy Poll no doubt after the Olympics and we’ll see if there has been any movement.

    @Pete1 – There was talk, however Downing Street are making it known that May will “push full steam ahead” and invoke Article 50 at the beginning of next year. “She is not taking her foot off the pedal.” The govt have announced they are covering all the funding for science and farming that will be lost when we exit the EU. This does not sound like a plan to (a) hold up A50 or (b) stay in the single market

  21. @colin

    Len McCluskey is not involved in any action at the moment and did not post pictures lording it up. It was just reported he had a dinner at an expensive restaurant and that Union funds were not used. So that is a non-story which is my point.

    The story you posted is under quite different circumstances and will go down with the public like a lead balloon. But let’s face it I doubt they give 2 hoots about public opinion anyway.

  22. @Laszlo – “There was no reason for disenfranchising 130,000 members (cf the article I linked earlier on grassroot). Difficult to find a word for it.”

    Not sure about finding a word for it, but there is a reasoning. The view was taken that there were campaigns that were serving the interests of groups outside Labour to flood the party membership system in order to sway the result.

    It’s a difficult one, but there is evidence for this. Whether this is valid really comes down to a political judgement. Either way, it can be agreed that the rules are farcical.

    I would be very angry if I was on the end of the ‘storm trooper’ jibe – very unpleasant and unnecessary. Equally, Corbyn calling Watson wrong for suggesting there are extremists trying to enter and influence the Labour party are also misguided – we know that this is happening, with only the extent open to question.

    Another week, another Labour mess.

  23. SEA CHANGE

    “This does not sound like a plan to (a) hold up A50 or (b) stay in the single market”

    Exactly, a point i made on the day of Hammond’s announcement re funding projects.

  24. syzygy

    “disenfringement” is a good word, but do you mean “enfringement” – dubious use of legal process to secure an interpretation of the rules of voting rights to enfringe those who are likely to vote for a candidate that the caucus concerned wish to oppose.

  25. @Oldnat
    mentioning a suspicion (suspicions may be aroused by very little hard evidence, and may prove unfounded) is hardly to assert (= state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully)
    “spin” is currently the polite word for distorting another’s post into a form you can use to pursue your own ends.
    You can do better than that.

  26. Further news on the Brexit implementation plan.

    On Friday, Liam Fox’s new department of International Trade issued a press release. It was admission that there was no chance that the UK would retain “access” to the EEA without being in the EEA, and that “if the UK leaves the EEA” then WTO Tarrifs would apply.

    This did not go as un-noticed as the department would have liked. And comments were made about the economic implications of even a few years of having to import from the EU at WTO tarrif rates.

    The Department reacted by retracting the press-release and deleting it from their website.

    There’s still a google cached version available.
    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YoceInHKMdgJ:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-export-opportunities-remain-strong-after-eu-referendum+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

  27. Good morning all from a very warm Central London.

    SEA CHANGE

    @Pete1 – “There was talk, however Downing Street are making it known that May will “push full steam ahead” and invoke Article 50 at the beginning of next year. “She is not taking her foot off the pedal.” The govt have announced they are covering all the funding for science and farming that will be lost when we exit the EU. This does not sound like a plan to (a) hold up A50 or (b) stay in the single market”
    ___________

    Yes that was very good news for farmers and science. The reality is that there are some peeps who are still clinging on for dear life in the hope Brexit doesn’t actually happen.

    May despite being for Remain is treating Brexit as Brexit and I have every confidence in her she will get us the heck out of the EU and article 50 will be triggered by early next year.

    Who knows, by 2020 she might even have earned my vote if the Brexit negotiations sees us out of the single market, a big reduction on immigration and much more autonomy for Scotland.

  28. OLDNAT
    @SEACHANGE
    “However, your assertion that Andy being part of a GB Team bolsters UK nationalism, as opposed to Scottish nationalism, or not giving a bugger about any political consequences would require something like evidence”

    “Have you any?”
    _________

    This is just anecdotal but when Brigette Whitfield won gold for team GB against Germany at Tiddlywinks I went Brit crazy and started shouting “Hurrah Hurrah pass me the cheese Jeeves” so SEACHANGE might have a point. ;-)

  29. @AC – you need to be a little careful in interpreting Hammond’s statement on the underwriting of EU project finance.

    Firstly, this would, if implemented in full, cost around £6.5b pa, which would effectively wipe out any financial gain from leaving the EU. Our net contributions are something like £10b, and we would still need to pay in a fair bit if we are to remain in a Norway type arrangement, so on this basis it seems likely that leaving will increase the direct costs to the Treasury. If that is the case, then Brexiters need to explain how this will be paid for, and the clear implication is that cuts will need to be made.

    Secondly, agriculture is only guaranteed until 2020. This might only be a year or so after we actually leave, so the promise may not be worth much. Again, with around 1.5% of the country being farmers, lots of subsidy money going to environmentally damaging practices, and wealth of other competing pressures that affect many more voters, if I were a farmer I would be anticipating cuts to subsidies after 2020 based on both financial pressure and electoral calculations.

    In terms of guaranteeing structural spending and science grants, this only applies to funding agreed before the Autumn statement this year, so really isn’t very helpful.

    Overall, either the Treasury underwriting means we lose any financial advantage from Brexit, or it’s trimmed so as to not actually have the calming effect intended. Either way, the sectors affected are not going to come out of this very well.

  30. ALEC

    Like with every policy, funding and financial announcements there is always the small print at the bottom. Of course any shortfall on farming subsides post Brexit will have to be explained in any upcoming Tory manifestos and farmers being mainly blue noses will lobby ministers hard on any future subsidies post Brexit.

    In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ is at about £8.5 billion. Surely some of the savings can cover farmers and science funding?

  31. @Allan Christie – I agree with that. Deliver on the referendum. A sensible, sustainable immigration policy. A concerted effort to increase social mobility and a more devolved federal UK.

  32. JAYBLANC
    There’s still a google cached version available.

    Thanks for the link. An interesting read. The reference to the WTO may be part of the reason why the press release was pulled, given that the UK is now an EU member rather than a member in its own right, given the warnings from WTO officials that reverting to full membership will require negotiating.

    Also in the news is an article from yesterday behind the Murdoch paywall reported on some other news websites. The best I’ve seen seems to be the Indy’s Brexit ‘could be delayed until late 2019’ with Whitehall departments not ready to trigger Article 50. I’d be interested in what the original Sunday Times article said re sources.

  33. PS to my previous posts, if A50 isn’t triggered until next June or later, presumably the EP elections in 2019 will be held as normal.

  34. Alec

    “Either way, the sectors affected are not going to come out of this very well.”

    Why? I am really puzzled by that post. especially as for the reasons I have given in the past, there is little likelihood of our being in a Norway type agreement, as it would not meet the immigration criteria that May has set herself.

  35. ALEC

    @”, if implemented in full, cost around £6.5b pa, which would effectively wipe out any financial gain from leaving the EU.”

    Surely if our net contribution is struck AFTER deducting all the EU funding Hammond refers to ; from our Gross payment-then there is no additional cost involved in maintaining those payments.

    ie Some of our Gross Contribution will continue to be paid to existing recipients direct from UK Treasury, rather than from UK Treasury via Brussels.

  36. @ToH, Alec
    2015 data:
    Contributions – £13bn
    Direct receipts – £4.5bn (mostly regional and agricultural)
    Private receipts – £1.4bn (mostly research)
    Net – £7.1bn

    There may be enough cash freed up by leaving the EU or not; it depends on two open questions:
    – what if any fee is the UK going to pay to reach a preferential agreement with EU?
    – what, if any economic impact will Brexit have on the UK economy?

    In reality the latter is the most important – the UK’s estimated relationship between tax and GDP growth (‘tax bouyancy’) is almost exactly 1.0, i.e. a 1% increase in GDP generates 1% more tax; therefore the net ‘saving’ from leaving the EU will be lost if long-term GDP is impacted by 1.3% over the whole process.

    However the relationship between GDP growth and money actually available for government discretionary spending is more negative than that, as much government spending is in areas with built-in cost inflation aspects (mostly pensions and the NHS).

    This adverse effect diminishes as GDP growth moves above 2.5% as higher inflation means that the largest cost-inflationary segment (pensions) moves from being above inflation/GDP growth rate to being aligned with inflation – bluntly the syphoning of revenue off to pensioners above what can be naturally afforded by the economy is at least reduced.

    So either of you can be right about whether continuing grants can be afforded post Brexit – it critically depends on what happens to economic growth in the wake of Brexit.

  37. @ToH

    It’s sort of clear that the ‘funding guarantee’ is a very limited one.

    As the FT have pointed out, Hammond’s statement actually turns out not to be much at all. He’s only “protecting” funding up till 2020 and infrastructure/research spending already agreed to. Should the UK leave the EU in late 2019, the EU would still have paid up all those commitments and spending to 2020.

    After that, there’s no guarantees.

    https://www.ft.com/content/65fc3248-6099-11e6-b38c-7b39cbb1138a

  38. Re the Victims’ campaigner taking the UK to court over Brexit which we discussed earlier on this thread, the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast have scheduled a Judicial Review on 2016-08-19 at 09:00 UTC. The “Proceeding ID” is 16/070763/01, which may help to track the case.

  39. Astonished at how quickly assorted indy peeps can reduce the Olympics to some nationalist gripes, showing once again how the much-vaunted “civic nationalism” is more theory than practice. Was amazed too by how quickly Godwin was invoked. Murray wins back to back gold, Kenny wins his fifth gold, Bolt wins his third 100m and Johnson’s longstanding record gets broken, but that’s all swept aside as things are progressed straight to Hitler. Still, I suppose it gives Corbyn a bit of a break…

    Given the Beeb’s “get inspired” campaign, it’d be interesting if there’s polling on whether peeps think they’ll be inspired to do more sport, and down the line, how many actually did…

  40. “So either of you can be right about whether continuing grants can be afforded post Brexit –it critically depends on what happens to economic growth in the wake of Brexit.”

    ———–

    Which to some extent depends on how much immigration we continue to allow, or foster…

  41. “there is little likelihood of our being in a Norway type agreement, as it would not meet the immigration criteria that May has set herself.”

    ——-

    Well yes, it’s possible a Norway-style agreement may not provide sufficient immigration…

  42. Those figures that bigfatron quoted don’t include the benefit that we get from the European agencies that work on behalf of all of Europe. We have already seen that we don’t have any trade negotiaters, now we will have to employ our own and that will be an ongoing expense. There must be other areas like this, is it really possible to accurately calculate net cost of membership?

  43. BBC reporting on “squabbles” and “in-fighting” between the Foreign Office, Ministry of Brexit and Ministry of Foreign Trade. I start to wonder if May is hewing to that old management adage, If you want something done as slow as possible, create an entire new bureaucracy to do it. If you want it never done, create two.

  44. JAYBLANC

    Thanks for the FT link – interesting reading.

    Also interesting reading is today’s installment of the BBC’s daily Brexit Watch, which includes:

    At a briefing for reporters, the prime minister’s spokesman insisted that triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, starting the two-year process for the UK to leave the EU, “won’t happen before the end of 2016” – even when asked whether it may or may not be triggered at any time in 2017. If the process does not begin in 2017, that could mean the UK does not actually leave the EU until 2020. The spokesman also said Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is the senior minister on duty in London this week, while Theresa May is on holiday in Switzerland, but he insisted the PM “is still very much in charge”.

  45. @CR
    You’re right, they are not comprehensive; however they are the EU’s own figures and endorsed by the ONS as the most accurate available, so they are pretty sensible to work from.

    My main point is that any amount of saving is likely to be dwarfed by the economic impact – a change of 1% of GDP over the medium to long-term is a pretty small cumulative impact, but is enough to nearly double or almost eliminate the ‘saving’.

  46. JAYBLANC
    If you want something done as slow as possible, create an entire new bureaucracy to do it. If you want it never done, create two.

    Poetic. You beat me to it re the BBC info.

  47. CARFREW

    You’re doing a heck of a lot of moaning these days. I’m not sure what’s tormenting you and I’m trying really hard to diagnose your problem but I’m at my wits end to what the problem is.

    Have you tried fruit harvesting at you nearest fruit farm? Not only would it be beneficial for your well being and blood pressure you would also be doing the country a great service by being a productive pensioner and helping to drive down immigration.

  48. @TOH – the reason I say that these sectors will face difficulties are as follows;

    1) As BFR says, we have a net contribution of £7.1b, so assuming we leave and the Treasury assumes responsibility for everything that we get back from our gross contribution (something they haven’t promised) it seems likely that the deal will include some form of payment into the EU to retain access to the free market or tariff free trade. If this doesn’t include free movement, I would naturally assume the EU negotiators would up the amount of money they want for us to have tariff free trade – this is, after all, a negotiation where two sides want the best for their people.

    If the fee for access is worth anything at all, it will eat into that £7b saving.

    2) Farming I expect to be pretty badly hit. This is because very few people farm, it is an unpopular recipient of taxpayer subsidy (particularly so in the rural areas) and there are huge pressures elsewhere in the economy.

    In our part of the world, we have a seriously defective ambulance service, and continuing cuts to A&E services. Once this becomes a Westminster responsibility, faced with voter pressure on say, the NHS, or the choice of pumping billions into farming, I expect farmers to lose. At present, they are protected by Brussells, but this will shortly be removed and they will have to make their case to the UK electorate.

    3) Science and infrastructure is already suffering, and Hammond’s underwriting of funding does not apply from next year. Under ERDF funding, for example, bidders for structural funds have to be robust enough to underwrite the grant in the event that things don’t work out and the EU wants it’s money back. This is normally over things like misuse of funding, states aid rules etc, so bid hosters do dur diligence to avoid these risks.

    Under Hammond’s statements, from 2017 bidders will also be liable if Brexit goes ahead, and no one will want to take that risk as due diligence can’t ascertain the risks.

    Similarly with science, where UK researchers are already losing jobs, and will continue to do so after Hammond’s cut off.

    So, in conclusion, I expect long term loss of income for the agricultural sector, and short term disruption, and possibly long term disruption also, for the other areas.

  49. BIGFATRON

    Yes good points on Post Brexit Britain’s economy and tax receipts etc but at the moment our exports are actually doing quite well due to the weaker poon, House prices in a lot of areas have fallen post Brexit (not sure if my own has suffered) but that has to be great news for first time buyers who are having a right ol miserable time trying to get on the property market.

    So my overall analysis on UKPLC post Brexit and post article 50 is one of mixed fortunes with short term pain for some and long term gain for others.

1 11 12 13 14