A quick update on two polls released today. The regular ICM poll for the Guardian has topline voting intentions of CON 43%(nc), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 12%(+1), GRN 5%(-1). Changes are since mid October. Fieldwork was conducted over the weekend, and the full tabs are here.

BMG also released a new poll, though this is actually less recent than the ICM one (fieldwork was done between the 19th and 24th of October, so just over a week ago). Topline figures with changes from September are CON 42%(+3), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 12%(-1), GRN 4%(-1). Full details are here.

Both polls show the Conservatives still holding a large, robust lead. Note also that UKIP support is pretty steady in both – the drop in UKIP support that we saw in MORI’s poll does not appear to have been echoed in anyone else’s data.


707 Responses to “Latest ICM and BMG voting intention”

1 12 13 14 15
  1. @ RHuckle, Andrew111
    I agree absolutely – May is taking a huge risk in my opinion, trying to ride the populist nationalist tiger.

    From what I hear indirectly the judiciary are absolutely livid about what has happened, and been happening – there is already a Law Society investigation into ongoing threats against judges from nationalist extremists, and this latest episode has aggravated existing tensions.

    In a fight between the judiciary and the executive I suspect there are few winners…

  2. @bantams and Top Hat

    The referendum bill would have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel acting on Instructions to Counsel approved by the responsible Minister or possibly the Cabinet as a whole.

    If anybody wanted to make it “binding” then that could have been done by amendment but as Top Hat says the complete legal sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament makes that somewhat academic.

    The AV referendum is instructive. The vote was on a very specific proposition with an entirely clear and predictable outcome and path to implementation completely within the control of the UK authorities. So Parliament could make it binding with complete certainty as to what would ensue. As we have seen leaving the EU – without a defined and detailed proposition as to what that meant – raises many more issues of policy and also involve external negotiation which will impinge on th outcome. As a result it seems to me entirely right that the EU referendum was advisory.

  3. BFR

    @” threats against judges from nationalist extremists, ”

    An unpleasant spectacle indeed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/alex-salmond-scotland-supreme-court

  4. Is there any evidence that the extremist reaction from some commentators and redtop papers is May’s fault?

  5. COLIN

    Yes it seems when emotions run high, peoples of all nations within the UK are capable of abusing Judges. Not to be condoned at all of course and like most who post here I have been appalled at some press reaction to the judgement this week. Whether we like it or not the judges are only doing their job.

    One or two of the Scots who post here sometimes appear to think (from their posts) that their nation is superior to the English in some way. In this respect at least they are clearly not.

  6. No – but it is her job as PM, and even more so the job of her Home Secretary and her Justice Secretary to stand against it – something they have all spectacularly failed to do.

    Instead they appear happy to allow it to continue, presumably because they don’t want to become the objects of antagonism for the popular nationalist press and their cheerleaders.

    Has there been one single public word from May to rein in the excesses of her own MPs? Nope….

  7. Valerie

    I see you have joined some others of the Remainers who like to be unpleasant to other contributers here who happen to want Brexit. I must say standards really do seem to have fallen down badly on this site since the referendum.

    You need to be more tolerant of others opinions.

  8. Was rather funny reading the Sun banging on about foreign billionaires interfering in UK politics.

  9. Valerie

    Call me An economic migrant if it suits your narrative. After taking early retirement my wife and I have run a business which has generated a small French pension. Every little helps and yes, you are correct, now is the time to convert euros into Sterling. As my grandfather said to me once, buy when others are selling and sell when others are buying.

  10. Valerie

    Lay off the economic migrants!

    If people want to move here because their Dollars/Euros go further, that’s up to them.

    I’m be heading the other way for the exact same reason. To be paid in Euros which will go that much further.

    …and to avoid the impending civil war.

  11. Robert Newark
    I think your posts contribute to a narrative I have about people who are ROC:
    They feel entitled to privileges which they seek to deny to others.

  12. @BFR,

    I have seen the newspaper headlines, which I agree are unpleasant, inaccurate and inflammatory.

    I am struggling to find any quotes from pro-Brexit Tory MPs about the judgement. The most “offensive” I can find is IDS saying that it was “an appalling subversion of the will of the British people”. I’ve also found Jacob Rees-Mogg saying that he was surprised by the ruling as Cameron had made it clear the referendum vote was intended to be irreversible.

    I have seen quotes from Gina Miller criticising politicians for attacking the judgement, but she doesn’t name or quote them.

    Obviously UKIP politicians have been intemperate, but I am curious as to which Tories need to be reigned in, for what and by how much?

    It’s very possible that I’ve missed something of course.

    As to media coverage I think that’s a tricky issue. I would support the PM or Justice Secretary making a statement that it’s wrong to make personal attacks on the judiciary for their decisions (although noone seems to mind when a judge is been attacked for giving a s*x offender a non-custodial sentence etc). But I can understand the awkwardness of trying to order newspapers to change their coverage.

    I’d also say that the misrepresentation of the judgement isn’t all from the Leave side. Many Remainers are potraying it as a humiliating political defeat for the PM, rather than just a technical legal judgement.

  13. Neil A

    “Is there any evidence that the extremist reaction from some commentators and redtop papers is May’s fault?”

    No, but the deafening silence from her and her government could suggest that she is using the mob rule for the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. She seems to be fond of this tactic (cf her vans).

    Where have all those nice bits of her speech on becoming PM gone? Or as Villon put it “Oh, where is last year’s snow?”.

  14. Alan
    As I’ve said before, you seem to be a long time going. I feel like coming to the airport to see you off!
    But of course, like Tancred, you don’t seem to “do” irony.

  15. @Valerie,

    It’s seems a little odd to accuse TOH of ad hominem attacks on the same page as effectively accusing Robert of being venal and self-interested, whilst also making generalisations about ROC people.

    I for one have nothing personally to gain from Brexit, nor really from having a Tory government. Like you I am public sector to the bone. I have no assets beyond modest equity in my terraced house. No international interests (other than foreign relatives). No stocks, shares, currency hedges or anything else.

  16. Valerie

    I believe I’ve already made the point that I’m doing an MSc in order to rebuild my life. Sadly, I can’t compress it down into a few months.

    I also meant to come across as jovial so maybe it’s the format of a message board that doesn’t do irony…

    I quite like the term “economic migrant”. I equate it to “valued more than in my original country”. A state of affairs that seems quite likely for the next few years.

  17. @Laszlo,

    It “could” suggest that, if you were determined for it to do so, based on pre-decided opinions about the government, Brexit etc.

    Or it could simply be caution both in relation to issues of press freedom, and in relation to weighing in to an argument about a legal case in which the government is the main participant.

    And I don’t think it has anything to do with her speeches, really. She was indicating that she would advocate for the people who get missed out. Those people, on the whole, want to leave the EU (whether they’re right to want that, and whether it is actually in their interests, in another matter).

  18. @Alan

    There is nothing wrong with seeking to be an economic migrant. However there is also nothing wrong with the intended destination of that migrant wanting a say in whether that economic migrant should be permitted to migrate.

    Do you believe you have an absolute moral right to move to, say, the USA and work? Or do you think the American government has the right to deny you that?

  19. VALERIE

    If I use the occasional ad hominum dig, then I certainly I get far more than I give. All I want is for this site to get back to how it used to be with everybody being polite, which is perfectly possible even though we all have strong personal opinions.

    Yes of course Robert is perfectly capable of defending himself. , I was concerned about the tone of your posts to him and was just sad to see you appently joining the others who post unpleasantly.. If you not, then that’s fine, perfectly happy to accept you are not intending that.

    “” I thought you had excelled in the cut and thrust of business.”

    I did indeed and was very successful at it, thank you.

    As to your comments about your father and great grandfather, you should be very proud of them.

  20. Should we all be worried by rise in nationalistic politics which seeks division, rather than forming unions that join countries/people together to share mutual interests ?

    Personally, i think a divided world is more dangerous and may lead to consequences we had never really taken seriously. Part of the appeal of Trump to some Americans relates to immigration and border control. Brexit has similar appeal to Brits who don’t like population increases, increased demand on services and changes to culture. It is the same in Australia where they also have a government that believes the public want extremely tough immigration controls, with offshore migrant detention centres.

    One of the reasons i favoured staying in the EU is that as a continent we are stronger together, even though they can be a pain in the *ss. The EU is being pulled apart by those political parties seeking to put their national interests first. Putins Russia would love to see the EU fail and is allegedly funding the French Nationalist party, as well as others across Europe who want out of the EU.

  21. Neil A

    I believe that as an EU citizen I have the right to work in EU countries. It’s not a moral right but a legal right. Morality doesn’t come into it at all. I have no idea where you get the impression that it does. I intend to leave before this status changes.

    Just as if I meet the requirements of any other countries definition of a high skilled worker, I would have a right to be granted such status under their laws. These are usually clearly defined as most countries wish to attract skilled foreign labour.

  22. R HUCKLE

    ” The EU is being pulled apart by those political parties seeking to put their national interests first.”

    Clearly you can see that is happening, as I can, probably the difference between us is that I think it’s inevitable. Interestingly there are quite a number who post here who cannot see this yet, which surprises me.

  23. JAYBLANC

    Nice quote cannot see the relevance to any of today’s discussion i’m afraid.

  24. TOH

    Yes its always amusing to read /listen to an SNP supporter lecturing others.

    On our sensitive Judiciary. We will see what the Supreme Court think about the High Court judgement. If it supports it, then that should settle the legal position & the Government must comply.

    But two things are worth saying:-

    The first is set out in a letter to today’s Times by David Owen ( HoL):-

    “The government must ask ( The Supreme Court) for judgements on all legal aspects of using Article 50. Is it sufficient for Parliament to vote on a motion to use A50?.Does it require legislation? Can the legislation preclude disclosure of the government’s negotiating position?”
    Owen’s last point , for me, is key because an awful lot of Remainers in HoC seem determined to use the HC ruling to publicly debate our negotiating preferences , which will be prejudicial to the Government’s chances of success.

    Meanwhile The Judges should not see themselves as above criticism. Personal abuse is not acceptable , but since we all have to obey their rulings , they must expect critical comments on them from time to time. This is not the first time that popular opinion has not aligned with Judicial rulings & it won’t be the last.

  25. Neil A

    Yes, I put the “could”, as I don’t know, but her actions in the past would allow such a probability.

    Her speech is not irrelevant in this – there is a rather sharp contrast between that speech and her intent of depriving a large number of left behind people from their subsistence, her authorisation of further degrading the NHS, and subjecting teaching principles and the well-being of the pupils to (false) economic considerations. And that’s just the recent ones.

    She is as hard right (in economic policy and political ideology) as one can be within the boundaries of democracy.

  26. Alec

    Thanks for the correction re the CJEU.

  27. @ COLIN
    “I agree-which is why May expresses her objective as the best available “Access to & Trade within The Single Market”.
    Like Alec, I think a deal such may well be available , if some compromise on immigration categories is made. Alec is also right to remind us that May has a very large sum of money to bargain with-though to start “debating” that in HoC would completely destroy her hand of cards.”

    The outcome of the Supreme Court Appeal will be interesting.

    At the minimum, some sort of confirmatory motion accepting the result of the referendum will be required in the House of Commons / Lords, and I see no reason why the Government can’t build that motion into the basis of their appeal.

    One thing is certain, a running commentary to Parliament on the Brexit process negotiations is not feasible. However, I suspect that May will need to involve the Leaders of the devolved adminstrations as well as Mr Corbyn far more in the exit process.

  28. Colin

    Thanks, interesting letter from David Owen and I totally agree that the Remainers seem determined to weaken the Governments negotiating position. Why is obvious, they don’t accept that the people of the UK have the right to vote to leave the EU. They believe only the EU leaning Metropolitan elite should have that power and of course they would never use it.

    As to the sensitive Judiciary I’m afraid I thinks it’s all part of the attempt to undermine the government and reverse Brexit.

  29. Thank you Howard. I am indeed proud of my father. He died 50 years ago – a week before England won the World Cup. He was only 54. I think a result of too many Senior Service and Players.
    I never see a programme about Dunkirk without shedding a tear.
    Truce ? :-)

  30. robert newark,
    “The only answer then would be a GE fought on the issue of Brexit and HoL reform.”

    The problem with this is that the government does not wish to reform the house of lords. Probably the lords WANTS reform of the house of lords. Reform could only mean democratically electing it, and then it would become more powerful, not less. Lords reform was halted precisely because of this problem that the commons does not want a stronger rival.

  31. @Jayblanc,

    None of the comments you quoted from Rees-Mogg appear to me to be about the judgement.

    An election would be a way to achieve (if the voters wished it) a HoC that would support the government’s desire to trigger A50, thereby complying with the judgement.

    A purge of Europhiles seems a bit vague but in context I presume he means the deselection of anti-Brexit Tories in the run up to the said election, and/or a decapitation strategy for anti-Brexit MPs generally. Not very honorable, and not all that feasible, but not an attack on the judgement.

    The creation of 1,000 peers is clearly a reference to the prospect of the Lords blocking A50 legislation that the Commons had passed (either the current HoC or the one post-GE). Again, an extreme measure, but not without precedent, and not an attack on the judgement.

    I am sure there is a Tory MP somewhere who has made an unacceptable direct attack on the High Court, as several commentaries have said as much. I’d just like to know who and what they said, so I can read their comments and decide for myself whether I think the PM should take action against them.

  32. “”The first duty of the Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss, is to protect the independence of the judiciary, and to be frank her silence on this is embarrassing, and she’s letting down the British judiciary and the British legal system.
    “Giving judges a roasting isn’t part and parcel of any healthy democracy.”

    Richard Burgon MP-Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Shadow Lord Chancellor.

    …………………………….

    http://heatst.com/world/corbyn-supporters-cry-conspiracy-over-israeli-appeals-judge/

  33. And of course, my father, having experienced at first hand the horror of battles, believed in Europe although he couldn’t stand de Gaulle

  34. JONESINBANGOR

    I just hope the Government Lawyers ask the correct & relevant questions this time-so that they get a ruling without gaping holes in it.

    Lawyers eh? :-)

  35. @Valerie,

    Sorry to hear you lost your dad so young. I lost mine when I was 26, although he was an old father so he was 71 at the time. Mine was in Africa and Burma I believe, although he didn’t really tell any war stories (whether that was because nothing exciting happened or because he didn’t want to share I don’t know).

    There is a Dunkirk film due next year from the amazing director Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia, Inception, Interstellar). I’d be surprised if it were anything other than exquisite so gird yourself x

  36. JonesinBangor

    ” suspect that May will need to involve the Leaders of the devolved administrations as well as Mr Corbyn far more in the exit process”.

    That does seem likely – only the use of the Royal Prerogative could have prevented that necessity (or the UK Parliament amending the current devolution settlements).

    It would also mean creating a settlement that would secure the passing of an LCM in each of the Parliament/Assemblies – which might be even more difficult than getting the FMs on board.

    Potentially, it might also be the case that the irrevocability of tabling Article 50 is raised again. If the tabling is revocable, then the ability of the devolved nations to block legislation in the UK Parliament might be significantly weakened.

    As far as I know, if the UK government loses its appeal in the Supreme Court, there is nothing to stop them changing their collective legal mind, and arguing in the ECJ (thanks Alec) that they now believe that tabling is not irrevocable! :-)

  37. @BFR,

    Thanks for the quotes. I knew they’d be out there somewhere.

    I agree that such comments aren’t helpful, but I don’t think they’re “reprehensible” – I’d reserve that for the language of the DM and other tabloids.

    Javid’s comment seems to me a statement of fact, assuming that he is referring to the people bringing the case rather than the judges themselves (it’s a bit ambiguous, but his fuller, fairly measured comments are here http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/regional/worcestershire/14845054.Bromsgrove_MP_criticises_High_Court_ruling_on_Brexit/?ref=rss).

    My personal view is that when any matter, criminal or civil, is before the courts the best policy on all sides is to shut the heck up about it and await the outcome. Sadly that’s not a commonly shared position, especially by the press.

  38. @neila

    David Davies Tory Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee said that unelected judges were calling the shots, this was precisely why “we ” voted out and “power to the people. “. A populist call to undermine an independent judiciary IMO.

  39. oldnat,
    “As far as I know, if the UK government loses its appeal in the Supreme Court, there is nothing to stop them changing their collective legal mind, and arguing in the ECJ (thanks Alec) that they now believe that tabling is not irrevocable! :-)”

    Indeed. I wondered if they might even change their minds at the supreme court if they believe the case already lost. In any event I would imagine this matter will eventually be raised by someone before the two years is up. Could even be the europeans.

    I am minded that May needed this case brought, and will need the issue of irrevocability also settled in due course. But whichever way, it seems likely to upset her timetable of squeezing everything in before the 2019 EU elections, which will become a national referendum on what has been decided.

  40. The reason for the very real outrage that many people feel towards the Judges in Brexit case is that one at least had a very clear and powerful conflict of interest. In the mind of the man in the street, Judges should not take such cases.

    It seems likely, that they have a good explanation for that which justifies their position; but they have offered none. If one of the most senior Judges in the country does something which appears to many people to be simply wrong, and then offers no explanation, it looks like supreme arrogance and makes the situation far worse.

    This is underpinned by the common view that the people are sovereign, and Parliament derives its authority from the people, although that is not the legal position (Cromwell certainly didn’t agree with it). Ergo, when the Courts obstruct the PM in acting upon the ‘sovereign’ will of the people (correctly or not), and do it badly, people get annoyed.

  41. Valerie

    Truce ? :-)

    Of course.

    Sorry to hear your dad died so young, many who served did, and interesting to hear that he was pro Europe. My own father was very pro German, despite being wounded twice in WW1 by German shrapnel but almost pathologically anti-French, so I can’t say he was pro European. I think he voted to join Europe as I and my wife did but like us he voted to leave when given the chance by Wilson, as soon as he understood the direction it was taking.

  42. The High Court case was launched, according to the BBC, by three individuals:-Guyanan Investment manager Gina Miller , London based Spanish hairdresser Deir Dos Santos , the People’s Challenge group.

    The Peoples Challenge group was set up by Grahame Pigney a British citizen living in France, who ran the Say Yes 2 Europe grassroots campaign against Brexit. Pigney Crowd Sourced finance for the case & its webpage is most interesting.

    https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/peoples-challenge/

    I note that :-

    “The campaign builds on pioneering work by Jolyon Maugham QC via his Crowd Justice campaign on how to challenge the Government over who triggers Article 50 ”

    Hmmm-impartial Judge?

    and that Mr Pigney considers that the ” the individual rights and benefits of ordinary British (UK) Citizens ” which he believes are at risk following the Referendum include these “important personal freedoms” :-

    “to study;to work;to live;to retire,anywhere in the EU, provided you are not a burden on the country you live in.”

    “We all have these freedoms.” says ex pat Mr Pigney.

    I think I can see where he is coming from :-)-or rather where he has gone to :-) :-) :-)

  43. COLIN

    ‘Guyanan’ Gina Miller has lived here since she was 10. Not very Guyanan then.

  44. Colin

    Well researched, but no surprise for either of us i think.

  45. @Hireton

    I don’t think Mr Davies’ comment is what you say it is.

    I don’t agree with him, but I don’t think he’s undermining anyone.

    I am more worried by comments like Rodger’s, which effectively accuses a judge of corrupt practice. That is not acceptable, and Rodger please don’t repeat that. If AW still visits (I can understand why he might not!) then that comment might need some shearing.

    Let’s be clear, there is no longer any bar in this country to criticising the decisions made by the country’s judges. It happens all the time (look at Vera Baird and the Evans case). I don’t see anything the Tory Brexiteers are doing as amounting to any more than criticism. The redtops are rabble-rousing, and should stop. But I am not sure what the mechanism should be for making them, and am really not sure that government sanction would be the most appropriate mechanism.

    I expect there will be a complaint to the new regulator at some point and we’ll see if it has any grip.

  46. @Rodger

    Good point. Ms Miller’s place of birth is irrelevant. She was perfectly entitled to bring her case, and even if the Supreme Court overturns it, the High Court judgement amply demonstrates that it was not frivolous. I have been quite impressed by her public statements, and I agree with her that the judgement is about process not politics. I wish other partisans on both sides were as clear-headed about that.

    It is very sad, but tragically inevitable, that she has been the target of the usual s*xual, racial and other harassment online that anyone who puts their head above the parapet seems to get these days.

  47. Thanks Neil. I’ll look out for the film. I was 13 when he died. Have only vague memories. He was a benign figure on the periphery of family life. I think like lots of men at that time.
    I’ll stop waffling – new thread :)

  48. Valerie

    I think your posts contribute to a narrative I have about people who are ROC:
    They feel entitled to privileges which they seek to deny to others.”

    Oh I could make a similar quip about LOC people always seem to have a chip on their shoulder and feel that life, ‘owes them’. I have a brother and a brother in law like that.

    But my dad was also at Dunkirk and therefore we have something in common. He also died quite young -65, and that was certainly too many free Woodbines during and after the war. Likewise he didn’t like de Gaulle and was always disparaging about the French and the Italians always marching the wrong way. I don’t know if he was in favour of the Common Market, probably, as he liked Heath.

    I look forward to seeing the Dunkirk film, I just hope it isn’t a Hollywood production.

    Incidentally, if you want to know more about his service, you can apply to the army for his service file.

  49. NEIL A

    I did not accuse Judges of corrupt practice. I described how their conduct is seen by many (hardly a matter for debate surely?), and criticized their inept handling of the inevitable backwash.

    Please read my posts properly before you make accusations.

  50. Rodger – “This is underpinned by the common view that the people are sovereign, and Parliament derives its authority from the people, although that is not the legal position (Cromwell certainly didn’t agree with it). Ergo, when the Courts obstruct the PM in acting upon the ‘sovereign’ will of the people (correctly or not), and do it badly, people get annoyed.”

    The whole “Crown in Parliament” thing is because Edward III invented the Commons. So it is believed that the Crown delegates authority directly to the Commons. But of course it was at his insistence that the Commons be elected, and no-one can sit in it without being elected. So really, the Crown delegates authority to the voters who delegate authority to the Commons.

    The question is, is the power delegated from Crown to voters only at general elections, or during referendums as well? The Court seemed to think only at general elections (which require a dissolving of parliament for the duration), and hence the current parliament is in pole position and where power lies.

    The easiest way out is to call a general election, and have the new parliament vote to trigger A50 and everyone is thus happy.

1 12 13 14 15