The Times this morning has the latest YouGov voting intention figures – CON 42%(+3), LAB 28%(-2), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 11%(-2). While the size of the lead isn’t quite as large as the seventeen points ICM showed earlier in the week, it’s a another very solid lead for the Conservatives following their party conference, matching the lead May had at the height of her honeymoon. Full tabs are here.

While I’m here I’ll add a quick update on two other recent YouGov polls. First some new London polling, which shows extremely positive ratings for Sadiq Khan. 58% of people think he is doing well as London mayor, only 14% think he is doing badly. Mayors of London seem to get pretty good approval ratings most of the time (both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson normally enjoyed positive ratings), I don’t know if that’s down to the skills of the individual politicians who have held the job so far or whether the public judge them by different standards to Westminster politicians. Never the less, it’s a very positive start for Khan, with net positive approval ratings among supporters of all parties except UKIP. Full tabs are here.

Finally, since the subject keeps popping up, some polling on the Royal Yacht. The public oppose replacing the Royal Yacht with a newly commissioned vessel by 51% to 25%. They would also oppose recommissioning the old Royal Yacht Brittania, but by a smaller margin (42% opposed, 31% support). The argument that the cost of the Yacht would be justified by the its role in promoting British trade and interests oversees does not find favour with the general public – 26% think the cost can be justified, 57% think it cannot. Full results are here.


607 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 42, LAB 28, LDEM 9, UKIP 11”

1 8 9 10 11 12 13
  1. @Colin

    In fairness, Free Movement of People isn’t the same as open borders.

    We currently have the first but not the second. Denmark is asking to be pre-Brexit Britain (for a bit longer) not post-Brexit Britain.

  2. Mystic Col

    I thought Stephen Woolfe was supposed to be a threat to Labour. Why is Theresa May supposed to be celebrating?

  3. Worth noting:

    1. Parliament decided that the Referendum should not have mandatory status, that it enjoys indicative status only.

    2. Two of the four UK nations voted one way, two voted the other.

    3. Overall the vote was a very small majority.

    4. There was not a majority for a hard brexit, assuming only the smallest of leave voters were soft leave voters.

    5. Economic events have moved on since the vote.

  4. 6. There was a protest element to the vote.

    7. We do not have a tradition of direct democracy in this country.

    8. Most well educated people did not vote for Brexit.

    9. Most people with the longest to live did not vote for Brexit.

  5. NEILA

    Free Movement of Labour isn’t “free” if Border Controls are reinstated………….is it?

    Anyway-thats a technical point-note the other parties to this plea to The Commission for an extension of closed borders-Germany is one.

  6. Jayblanc

    “No one can look at this with all honesty and say this is competent democratic government working correctly.”

    I don’t really think they have put a foot wrong so far IMO. You see it’s just your opinion again others don’t necessarily share it.

    Carfrew

    :-)

  7. HAWTHORN -The last YouGov Poll showed 2015 VI retention by UKIP at 66%. -30% lost to Cons & 4% to Lab.

  8. PROFHOWARD

    Don’t think those two posts are either wholly correct or even relevant. Your just another remainer who cannot accept the democratic will of the people as expressed in a referendum.

    Your point 3 is nonsense, as has been poited out several times over 421 constituencies in England & Wales voted to leave. A landslide.

    Same old arguments from remainers, what a bore. Good night all.

  9. Barbazenzero

    Thanks for the links to the E&W High Court case.

    Interesting to note that the Attorney General says that the Government position is that tabling of Art 50 would be irrevocable.

    It seems an odd position for any Government to take (on anything) – no matter how unlikely the need for something might seem at the moment, blowing up the bridges behind you, to cut off a possible necessary retreat, appears to be rather poor judgment.

  10. @Valerie & Hireton

    Firstly why do ascribe a gender to me which you don’t actually know?

    An why Hireton do you change the original statement when I answered your specific post?

    You might not regard a couple of million as a lot of money, but to most people it is.

    Seeing as you changed the goalposts here is another link to an FOI request which shows the BBC borrowed £141 million in ‘loans’ from the EU which it ploughed into ‘commercial subsidiaries’ which fall outside the FOI.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/eu_funding

  11. @colin

    “Free Movement of Labour isn’t “free” if Border Controls are reinstated………….is it?”

    Yes it is. Checks to see you have a right to enter as an EU citizen is perfectly compatible with free movement ( and its free movement of all citizens not just Labour). After all the UK has border controls as does Ireland.

  12. @thoughtful

    Here is the relevant sentence from your original post:

    “Remember that the BBC receives a lot of money from the EU to promote it.”

    This is demonstrably untrue as indeed your link to the Telegraph showed. Again your link showing that the BBC has borrowed to develop.commercial subsidiaries shows it has not received a lot of money from the EU to promote the EU. All credit to the BBC for using as many sources of funds as possible.

  13. @The Other Howard

    In your opinion, do you believe that the entire population of Leave voters support a hard brexit, and that was their unequivocal vote on the day of the referendum?

    If you concede that not all Leave voters support a hard brexit, do you think that enough of them do that there is still a mandate?

    And do to believe that your and others opinion that this is a continuing mandate does not need to be tested or examined?

  14. YG poll of UKIP members –

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/woolfe-would-probably-have-won-if-hed-stood-ukip-l/

    First time I’ve seen YG change their geographic crossbreaks. Scotland & Wales (not necessarily appropriate given the electoral votes for UKIP in these two polities) combined with 60/1007 polled.

  15. Thoughtful

    None of my business but could you clarify which gender you identify as? I can understand it can be annoying to be misgendered

  16. Millie

    I think it has – but nice to see the total lack of self-awareness in a Tory councillor called “Christian” who tweets complaining that the BBC is hiding that “Mohammed” is ‘the most popular boy’s name’.(only true for London & the West Midlands – as BBC England point out in their report).

  17. LOL CAMBRIDGERACHEL I don’t identify as, I am female.

    Although I believe feminism has moved so far from its original aims & objectives as to be unrecognisable, I still get annoyed when women with opinions whose gender is not identified, appear to consistently be assumed as male.

  18. People can post what hey like within the rules regardless of their gender or orientation and give as much or little information as the wish….

    I make no assumptions about the gender of anyone here and don’t care either way.

    If some women do post under male names it’s probably a sad reflection on the fact that, as in victorian times, a women sometimes needs to adopt a male persona just to get read!

    Anyway my general assumption is that everyone who posts here is bonkers!

  19. OLDNAT
    It seems an odd position for any Government to take (on anything) – no matter how unlikely the need for something might seem at the moment, blowing up the bridges behind you, to cut off a possible necessary retreat, appears to be rather poor judgment.

    Agreed, especially as at least one of the judges commented on how useful it would be for the A50 to be confirmed reversible. I suspect that’s legalese for “if you won’t compromise there’ll be no option but to send it to the ECJ for determination”.

  20. The court had better tread carefully …the people have spoken on the EU and there is nothing to argue about.
    The country is leaving the EU.
    The people are watching the judges.

  21. MILLIE

    Thanks for that. The problem does seem to be growing.

    The beginning of this morning’s transcript from the High Court has:

    THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Before we start, there is just one observation I would like to make. The court was informed that the principal claimant in this case has been, again, subject to various emails and other communications. We have in this country a civilised way of dealing with things, and it is simply wholly wrong for people to be abusive of those who seek to come to the Queen’s courts. If this conduct continues, those who do it must appreciate that the full vigour of the law will be used to ensure that access to Her Majesty’s courts are freely available to everyone.

    I did like the Standard’s:
    And Jo Forage wrote: “Not quite grasping this whole democracy thing is he?”

  22. JASPER22
    The people are watching the judges.

    Yes, but apparently not listening to them.

  23. Jasper22

    “The people are watching the judges.”

    Indeed they are – the judges on “Strictly” to be precise.

  24. On a lighter note to end the evening there is a new political craze sweeping America – the Trumpkin.

    Poking fun at politicians has long been a staple but this is a new and fun way of doing it.

    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a5631873/trumpkins-donald-trump-pumpkins/

  25. Japper22,

    “The people are watching the judges.”

    No doubt with Torches, Pitchfork and Noose in hand!

    Your not by any chance one of those people who bangs on the side of police vans going to court, before the person inside has been found guilty.

    Peter.

  26. TOH,

    I tend to agree with you that a lot of irrelevant stuff is being quoted by both sides on this board, but your oft-repeated argument about the number of constituencies that voted Leave is significant (as if it was a General Election!) really does take the biscuit!

  27. Interesting that the Government lawyer has admitted that Article 50 is an irreversible guillotine clause. I recall that being disputed by the pro-leave lobby, who claimed we could back out of it if we were unable to get favourable terms.

  28. “The court had better tread carefully …the people have spoken on the EU and there is nothing to argue about.
    The country is leaving the EU.
    The people are watching the judges.”
    @Jasper22 October 17th, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Woo hoo! We are definitely leaving the EU. That’s what the country wants. So the EU can get on and integrate, 450m people no longer prevented by that troublesome state. Thanks guys.

    Brexiters seem not to understand that the EU is political. Oh dear, we are so important they’ll cave in and the EU will fall apart. If you think that you’ve been smoking the funny stuff again (Utrecht, that’s the place to go) and you’ve been reading that Ambrose dude again. He clearly smokes the stuff.

    Meanwhile our currency is going down the pan — unless you have assets outside the pound. My portfolio’s grown nicely. But we all know it’s not really grown; it is just our less valuable notes and coins means someone would give me more for my shares. Well I’m not for selling. That would be silly.

    Anyway we are free now to talk to the rest of the world. We couldn’t do that before because these EU folks stopped us (apparently), but now we can. So instead of Poles, and Romanians and all the rest, we can replace them with Chinese and Indians.

    What’s that? You don’t want Chinese and Indians? Oh dear. But I thought you wanted to trade with the rest of the world. Oh well, never mind. We still can have these Europeans; they’ll come in via Ireland. Ireland hasn’t left the EU, and they are a sovereign nation, so they will continue to allow anyone in Europe to travel there. And then there’s that border thingy. The one between Dublin and Belfast. I’m told that’s not going to close. And as I can go to Belfast without any documents, just as I can go from Manchester to Leeds without having to show any papers at the border (pity).

    Hmm. Bit of a mess this Brexit isn’t it.

  29. OLDNAT “the Government position is that tabling of Art 50 would be irrevocable.”

    a. IIRC the EU officers have said that. Article 50 says it is always possible for a member who leaves, to apply to rejoin.
    b. The government may mean “UK will be out before the next election” and we do not intend to try to revoke it.
    c. it may simply be that it is irrevocable both by the way it is framed, and by the intent of those involved in it. That a judge commented on how useful it would be for Art50 to be confirmed reversible seems irrelevant if it isn’t, and irrelevant to who has power under current law to trigger it.
    If May gave notice under Article 50 tonight, would there be an action for contempt of court?

    @BZ “the full vigour of the law will be used to ensure that access to Her Majesty’s courts are freely available to everyone.”
    Hmm… http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-rape-victim-who-fled-9067052

  30. Colin: “Free Movement of Labour isn’t “free” if Border Controls are reinstated………….is it?”

    Congratulations! You have just argued that the UK – which of course has had border controls all along – isn’t subject to free movement of labour.

  31. Jayblanc

    I’m not sure that “admitted” is the correct term. The Attorney-General stated that that was the UK Government’s position, but that might just be a short-term tactic in the court case – in order to strengthen the power of the executive over the UK Parliament.

    In any case, neither side in the case nor the E&W High Court nor Supreme Court can make a definitive ruling on that.

    The interpretation of Article 50 is determined by European law so, consequently, any interested party with appeal rights to the ECJ can have the matter raised there for final determination.

    I can see an argument for someone doing just that, in order to eat into (or extend) the 2 year negotiation period following May’s “tabling” of Article 50.

    Whatever the UK decides to do, Article 50 won’t actually have been tabled, if the ECJ were to rule that it hadn’t been done within the constitutional procedures of the UK.

    Yet again, the incompetence of the Brexiteers (as well as the Remainers in the Government) is amply shown by their inability to understand (or even attempt to clarify) the process by which the UK could leave the EU.

  32. DAVE

    The case you link to is certainly unpleasant but it does seem to have been the police who were at fault rather than the courts. Perhaps May should have done something about it in her long stint as Home Sec.

  33. JASPER, when you say the people are watching the judges do you mean in like a stalking way? Scary.

  34. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “Don’t think those two posts are either wholly correct or even relevant. Your just another remainer who cannot accept the democratic will of the people as expressed in a referendum.
    Your point 3 is nonsense, as has been pointed out several times over 421 constituencies in England & Wales voted to leave. A landslide.
    Same old arguments from remainers, what a bore. Good night all.”

    No my friend, the bores are people like yourself who live in a world of your own. And why do you keep harping on about constituencies when only the voting matter in a referendum? Constituencies are irrelevant in a referendum.
    And to even suggest that 51.9% of the vote represents ‘democratic will’ is risible.

  35. @Popeye

    “The question is not what size mandate is best. If everyone wants the same thing, great! We don’t unfortunately get to choose that bit. The question is what ought to prevail where you have a slim mandate (say 50% + 1) and a slimmer one (50% – 1)?”

    ———-

    Well apparently the question is quite a quicksilver thing. I have addressed a number of your concerns, including whether a rerun will ensure the status quo, to whether going for bigger margins is against democracy… now apparently it’s not about what size mandate is best, but what ought to prevail on a slim mandate.

    And should you treat slim margins differently. Well that’s a whole can of worms right there. It might, for example, depend on what is being voted on. Someone up for the death penalty might wish for a bigger margin. The greater the import, one might argue, then the greater the margin one might require. Or if not a bigger margin, then some might argue for a bigger turnout…

    Another way you could look at it though, is that if tight, you go with the majority, but not hell-for-leather. You take the views of others into account and maybe do soft Brexit, for eggers.

    It’s not unusual for a minority government to return to the people to try and get a bigger mandate, for example. Sometimes political leaders give up if they win but it’s only marginal.

    And so on. I’m just putting a few examples up for consideration. But the original concern is whether there should be a rerun. And you have to take practicality into account too, not just what’s more democratic. It might be more democratic to poll peeps regularly on whether to join or leave the EU, but peeps might not thank us for it.

  36. @ANDREW111

    “TOH,
    I tend to agree with you that a lot of irrelevant stuff is being quoted by both sides on this board, but your oft-repeated argument about the number of constituencies that voted Leave is significant (as if it was a General Election!) really does take the biscuit!!”

    I think that TOH’s obsession with constituency support, which is also shared by several other Brexiteers such as Candy, is based on the concept of Brexit as being a political movement. This might make sense if you are a UKIP supporter, but is ultimately not true at all given that Brexit was voted for by supporters of all parties. Unfortunately the penny hasn’t dropped with many Brexiteers.

  37. @SORREL

    “I wonder if a narrow vote, say 52 – 48, in a subsequent Scottish independence referendum would be considered by the UK government as not a decisive enough vote for a ‘hard’ independent Scotland?”

    Personally, I think that any constitutional change should require a minimum of 55% support to carry the day. A smaller majority should be considered a ‘score draw’ and automatically force a new referendum (rematch) in five years’ time. This rule would make sense in a modern democracy and stop spurious and vexatious calls for referenda when there is no burning need.

  38. @Tancred,

    You’re quite right that only the voting matters. The UK wide voting. Which was clearly in favour of Brexit.

    And how does 48.1% represent democratic will if 51.9% doesn’t?

    To be honest, I don’t always see the logic in every Brexiteer’s position. But the arrogance of Remainers in assuming they are the super-smart ones and any Brexit argument must be born from utter dumbness is quite wearing too.

  39. DAVE
    a. IIRC the EU officers have said that. Article 50 says it is always possible for a member who leaves, to apply to rejoin.

    Clause 5 of A50 states:
    If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

    The words “has withdrawn” strongly implies that it refers to the situation AFTER the former member has exited, and A49 is the process whereby applicant states become members.

    OTOH, If A50 is reversible, then a member state who has issued it but not yet withdrawn could simply revoke the A50 and remain a member on the existing terms it enjoys.

    As OLDNAT says, it’s only the ECJ who can determine whether it is reversible or not.

  40. @BARBAZENZERO

    “Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum is the only one authorised by Westminster where a quota was required – in that case in addition to a majority it was required that 40% of the entire electorate vote for the assembly. That was put in by Lab’s awkward squad [including Skinner] and supported by the Cons, leading in turn to the slightly early demise of Callaghan’s government. I suspect that won’t be repeated.”

    The problem is that people are conditioned to see a referendum as a sports match – who scores the most points wins, irrespective of margin. In truth, this is nonsense and not remotely democratic. Public opinion is fickle and open to be influenced by the media and unless support for any constitutional change is overwhelming then we are opening the door to revolving door decisions about very important issues that affect the very existence of the nation. This cannot be a good thing.

  41. @NEIL A

    I am not denying that the leave camp won the vote, what I am saying is that it was not as decisive a victory as the government seems to make out and that the government should aim for a compromise between the two camps if it is to truly reflect the democratic will of the British people. My concern is that all the noise from the government so far is tending to be in favour of a ‘hard’ Brexit – and this is not reflective of public opinion.

  42. Tancred

    “Constituencies are irrelevant in a referendum.”

    True. They are only relevant as subdivisions of a polity – of which the UK has four.

    ToH was careful to include only English & Welsh constituencies in his response to Prof Howard (whom I assume is Northern Irish) – so a strange form of “rebuttal”!

    The combined vote in those two polities produced a 6.6% Leave majority (6.8% in England).

    I don’t think I am misrepresenting ToH’s position if I say that he is primarily concerned with what happens to England, as a consequence of a vote in England.

    In the same way, those of us who live in polities which had an 11.6% Remain majority (NI) or a 24% one (Scotland) are equally entitled to want what our polity (even more strongly) voted for.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with a requirement that a constitutional referendum should need 55% of those voting for the winning side to be considered binding.

    Neil A

    “You’re quite right that only the voting matters. The UK wide voting. Which was clearly in favour of Brexit.”

    Clearly, those who understand that there are different polities in the UK, and not just “England writ large” will take a different approach.

    If Nissan, the finance sector, possibly NI? are not to be excluded from the Single Market, then the idea of the UK operating as a single unit that must suffer the consequences of majority UK votes, is defenestrated.

  43. NEIL A @Tancred
    And how does 48.1% represent democratic will if 51.9% doesn’t?

    IMO neither side represents the democratic will, which is the point at which a compromise should be made, or at least offered to the people.

    They might moan for many reasons, but the 48.1% would almost certainly accept a downgrade to EEA status to shut the leave side up.

    Some leavers will have wanted just that – for example those whose ire was against the CAP & CFP – and if you have say 4% of them being happy with EEA then you have a majority for EEA “soft” Brexit.

    In addition, although the Belfast Agreement will need revisiting the key island of Ireland issue will go away, probably making even the hardline NI unionists accept it. The SNP will almost certainly moan about the downgrade to EEA but will likely postpone indyref2 into the 2020s.

    Any other solution seems unrealistic or certain to create substantial rifts amongst May’s minions sooner rather than later.

  44. Oldnat

    Im getting confused, it seems like its brexit for those that want it and bremain for those that don’t. I see a future where this island is riddled with border posts, it might even get as silly as having borders within households where part of the house is brexit and the other part is remain.

  45. TANCRED
    Public opinion is fickle and open to be influenced by the media and unless support for any constitutional change is overwhelming then we are opening the door to revolving door decisions about very important issues that affect the very existence of the nation.

    Good post and fair comment. I do think that Cameron’s behaviour over Leveson was feeble in the extreme and that a real regulatory body is needed for all the commercial media, in which proven lies can be remedied in full. It needs to apply to the broadcast media including the BBC.

  46. @Barbazenzero.

    Surely the only way to prove something is a lie is in court?

    Still, at least your proposal would prohibit the broadcast of Russia Today in the UK, which would be something.

  47. Thoughtless
    You’re right. As I didn’t know what sex you are I should have typed s/he.

  48. CR

    ” it seems like its brexit for those that want it and bremain for those that don’t”

    But as the BBC might put it – “Except for viewers in Scotland” :-)

    There are arguments for and against a

    1. single unitary UK state with common rules that apply to all, and

    2. federation (along the Danish model) of an association of territories that can have very different relationships with the rest of the world and

    3. dissolution of the states created by 18th & 19th century nationalism, and the creation of a new EU based on current “sub-state” nations/regions.

    None of them is “the” answer, but the status quo (pre or post Brexit) isn’t it either.

  49. Al Urqa
    “Brexiters seem not to understand that the EU is political. ”

    I think most of us did, that’s the reason we voted to leave.

    Tancred
    “And to even suggest that 51.9% of the vote represents ‘democratic will’ is risible.”

    I’d just point out that no individual party has won more than 50% of the vote in a GE since 1931. Does that mean that all governments (except coalitions) since then are somehow illegitimate?

    “…unless support for any constitutional change is overwhelming then we are opening the door to revolving door decisions about very important issues…”

    Only if some people don’t accept the original decision and somehow overturn that decision.

    IMO of course

    G’night all.

1 8 9 10 11 12 13