We’ve had three new voting intention polls in the last four days. ICM‘s regular poll for the Guardian came out earlier today, with topline figures of CON 42%(-1), LAN 28%(+1), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 11%(-1), GRN 3%(-2). Full tabs are here.

Opinium had a new poll in the Observer at the weekend. Their topline voting intention figures with changes from a fortnight ago are CON 41%(+1), LAB 29%(-3), LDEM 7%(+1), UKIP 12%(-1). Full tabs are here.

Finally YouGov at the tail end of last week had topline figures of CON 42%(+1), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 8%(-2), UKIP 11%(nc). Full tabs are here.

All three polls show the Conservative lead still up around 12-14 points, suggesting that the narrowing in the Ipsos MORI poll last week was indeed just a reversion to the mean and that the polls are settling into a consistent position of the Tories up around 40% and Labour marooned around 30%.

Ahead of the Autumn statement both Opinium and ICM asked economic trust questions – Opinium found May & Hammond with a 26 point lead over Corbyn & McDonnell on who they’d trust to run the economy (44% to 18%), ICM gives tham a 33 point lead on which team would be better able to run the economy (48% to 15%).

827 Responses to “Latest voting intentions”

1 15 16 17
  1. I’m really mesmerised that the Brexit debate is still going on, when quite clearly, the whole issue is now in the hands of the General Synod (and to be honest, the debate there would not be less fruitful than the one that is going on).

  2. Laszlo

    ” quite clearly, the whole issue is now in the hands of the General Synod”

    A reference to May being guided by “being a member of the Church of England, and so forth”? (what the hell does “so forth” mean? – the Womens’ Institute?)

    Anglican Imperialism! :raises its head :-)

    Back in the days of the Claim of Right, the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland would have been even more incensed by that, than their gentler descendants were outraged by the Sermon on the Mound).

    Now that we are looking at 17th century legislation


    The debate will continue until the day the UK is officially no longer a member of the EU, and then for a few months more following that. Come the 2020 GE campaign I wholly expect ‘Look at the mess the Tories made of Brexit’ to be one of the main themes, while they seek to defend whatever deal May walks away with.

  4. @S Thomas

    You are conflating two things:
    – respect for someone’s vote and decision
    – awareness that having access to accurate or inaccurate information can lead to different decisions

    So, to be clear, I respect everyone’s vote, and all votes should absolutely be accorded the same value, educated or not, old or young.

    What Somerjohn and I are pointing out is that people took their voting decision in the context of the long-standing publication of massively misleading information from certain elements of the press, over a long number of years, to the extent to which they had no idea of the real, boring facts.

    As regards the propaganda on both sides of the actual campaign, it was disgraceful and I am as appalled by Osbourn’s distortions about ’emergency budgets’ as I am about the £350m ‘pledge’ and the ‘millions of Turks waiting to flood across the borders’.

    But what we are pointing out is the deliberate provision of inaccurate information pedalled over a long period of time by certain media interests. And that this MAY have influenced people’s decision in a particular direction that they would not have gone if they had factually correct information (which is pretty obvious if you ask WHY those papers printed naked propaganda over a long period – what else was the point other than to persuade people to an anti-immigration perspective?)

    It’s not (at least in my view) any fault of voters that they didn’t know the truth if they were l-i-e-d to by those that they should able to trust. Most people have better things to do with their lives than become internet fact checkers.

    Also worryingly, since the cost of health tourism is minimal, there will not ever be savings to plough back into the NHS as implied by the DM; since there are a fraction of the immigrants here that people think, reducing their number will not have the impact that many expect, etc.

    Given the total lack of faith in politicians at the moment, further failures to deliver on expectations will only make the political atmosphere more toxic IMHO, and these expectations cannot remotely be delivered on simply because they are founded on false premises.

  5. @OLDNAT

    Seems like the Scots want to have their cake and eat it. The real world doesn’t work like that.

  6. @S THOMAS

    because we are a member but our membership is not subject to those conditions because presumably we were in the EU single market so it was a not condition of that membership. Take away the EU and we remain a member of the EEA with no conditions attached but with membership of single market. At least that is what the supporters of 127 were saying this morning.”

    Strange – it would be nice if someone much better versed than me in these matters could confirm this. If it’s true it would be extremely odd – an anomaly.

  7. @LASZLO

    “I’m really mesmerised that the Brexit debate is still going on, when quite clearly, the whole issue is now in the hands of the General Synod (and to be honest, the debate there would not be less fruitful than the one that is going on).”

    Maybe what we need is Putin invading another country – that would change the subject.

  8. Tancred

    “Seems like the Scots want to have their cake and eat it.”

    I’m not sure whether that is meant to be a reference to what BMG/Herald call “a poll”, or my comments to Laszlo.

    Not that it matters – why shouldn’t the Scots want the “best of both worlds”? It’s clear from polling that most in England want that as well in terms of the EU.

    That those are people’s preferences are “the real world”. That they don’t usually get them is entirely another matter!

    However, since my first vote in 1966, Unionist politicians have been telling me that we not only could, but did, enjoy that enviable status of owning the “Horn of Plenty [cake]”.

    They were lacking in truthfulness, of course, over the last 50 years, but they’re still at it now.

    When people are told such fibs so consistently, by so many, over such a long period of time, you can hardly blame them for believing that such must be the case.

    Of course, there is a wee problem for the Unionist argument. If Scotland can’t enjoy the benefits of being a different country (eg if it’s constitutional status is reduced to facilitate the varying reasons for E&W folk being Brexiteers), while being part of the UK Union then what is the point of that institution?

  9. @Tancred

    “Labour’s slimy Tom Watson now backtracking and coming out as a newly converted Brexiteer. Labour truly deserve all they are going to get – what a pathetic lot. Still chasing the flat cap and whippet vote after all these years of ‘New Labour’ liberal democracy. Pitiful.”

    Arch triangulator Blair wasn’t immune from using the dog whistle when it suited him. Nor were members of his cabinet, in particular John Reid and David Blunkett. Watson is merely a standing on the shoulders of his peers.

  10. Tancred

    You may have noted, from this report in the Independent, that the UK Government also seems to want “to have its cake and eat it”.


    With all that cake-gobbling, it’s surprising that the average age of death in the UK isn’t lower than it is!

  11. @Oldnat

    I saw that. Very amusing!

  12. Tancred

    To be honest, I would choose Brexit over Russia’s invading another country.

    The reason I mentioned May’s interesting (?) comment was that she just simply joined in an already baseless debate (I mean, rationality has long gone). Really weird.

    However, I have to congratulate you on beating both the Independent and the G. Now, what’s the next step for the Leavers and Remainers, and more importantly what will be the lottery numbers at the next draw?

  13. Tancred

    That was not my argument about it but the one being put forward by supporters of EEA membership.It seemed a rubbish proposition to me as well. However this much it seems to me is correct:

    1. we are a seperate contracting party to the EEA agreement .what i am not sure about is whether that creates a new independent status outside our EU treaty obligations.
    2. my judgement is that it does not because there is both conflict and overlap with concurrent EU obligations;
    3.A contracting party can leave the EEA upon giving 12months notice.Full stop.Therefore one could theoretically leave the EEA but remain subject to EU treaties or ,i suppose, leave the EU but continue to be a member of the EEA until A127 is triggered. But i cannot believe that the contracting parties meant to establish concurrent and co-existing membership of both the EU and the EEA for some contracting states but only EEA status for others. Further, the EU itself is a contracting party and therefore, if some are right, the EU itself is a member of EEA and can independently serve notice to leave it ! this does seem a bizarre interpretation.If the EU broke up the EC would remain a member of the EEA!

    4. But Assuming they are correct and the UK has both concurrent membership of the EEA and the EU and the UK activated A50 and 2 years elapsed it is argued that the UK would remain a member of the EEA internal market.

    5. That internal market excludes the customs union ,ag ,fisheries and is not subject to the ECJ but is subject to a similar mechanism.ie we could negotiate free trade agreements with the US and India etc.we could even import some of their spin bowlers.!

    6. However, the free movement of people is by no means clear.

    a.article 23 talks of the free movement of “people”;

    b. But A28 only refers to the free movement of “workers”;applying the EC definition of worker it excludes someone who is not seeking to pursue effective activity(see case law for full definition)

    c.In the EEA this can be further restricted by a state on the grounds of ” public policy…” and does not apply to the public sector (art 28);

    d. it can be further restricted by A112 subject to A113 on other grounds as well.

    e. Public policy can be defined as the “means by which a
    government maintains order or addresses the needs of its citizens by acts defined by its constitution”

    f.So under the A28 a contracting party can by act of parliament as a matter of public policy restrict the right of free movement of workers into the contracting state.Welcome to the EEA . That is specifically excluded from a ruling by the ECJ

    g. Is that what this pro -remain group were trumpeting this morning.If i were the government there might be a lot to like in such a package as a transition measure.

    h. just as the EEA was viewed as an entry lounge for full EU membership perhaps its real function is to act as a departure lounge for those leaving the EU.

  14. Neil A

    Obviously those notes should have been deposited in the “secure Brexit reading room” and not displayed to this new-fangled technology of “cameras” – dangerous things!

    In the reading room, it would have been safe from all prying eyes (other than the Pentagon, the Kremlin, Mossad, every EU country [including Malta] and the Chinese).

  15. S Thomas (also BZ and everyone else who has posted on Article 127 of the EEA)

    Thanks for the info and ideas. I haven’t had time to have a look at it (decorating the back bedroom is much more important!)

    Few of us on here are lawyers (and even those who are hadn’t picked this up), so we rely on “experts” to identify issues, and alert us to them – most of these hadn’t spotted this either!

    I do get the impression that the UK Government employs some fairly poor lawyers!

    Presumably, one of the first things that the UK Government did was to get legal advice on the what were the barriers to implementing Brexit..

    If they didn’t then they are far more useless than anyone could believe!

    It is looking increasingly likely that these “apology for lawyers” spotted the role of LCM’s, didn’t bother looking any further, and came up with a “clever wheeze” to get round that via the Royal Prerogative.

    Consequently, the UK Government has ended up in this legal quagmire.

    It was said of Nixon that his downfall was caused by the poor legal advice he received (much of it from himself!).

    Future historians may concentrate more on the incompetence of the UK Government’s lawyers, rather than of its Ministers.

  16. Paul Nuttall is a great choice for UKIP. Labour should be worried .

  17. old nat

    Whilst I agree that the government lawyers have been poor i think blame must go fairly and squarely on David Cameron. He so arrogantly assumed victory he would have dismissed any serious legal advice on the subject as unnecesssary and that sort of culture seeps into the system.If he had concentrated on angry voters rather than angry birds we would not be in this mess.

  18. OldNat

    “Future historians may concentrate more on the incompetence of the UK Government’s lawyers, rather than of its Ministers.”

    I observed some of the UK negotiations about Maastricht, and the current one is indeed very similar in apparent incompetence, but both ministers and lawyers (the latter didn’t see that the working time directive would be brought out under H&S after the Major government vetoed it under the social chapter, hence it was a simple qualified majority). I suppose it would would be much better for everyone if Brexit didn’t end up in the same incompetence as the Major government had (having said that, I proudly opiniated to the press then that the UK would return to the ERM … there you are,,, So with a second thought I won’t express my opinion about the decoration of the back bedroom relative to the front one :-).)

  19. Fun fact:

    Owen Jones retweeted and direct messaged me for information regarding overhearing Paul Nuttall discussing, with friends, crossing the floor to the Conservatives.

    Must say, my phone’s never buzzed so much in an hour.

    Worrying state of journalism – though it’s absolutely true in my case, any person could have made a similar (but false) claim and had it picked up in the same way.

  20. Colin

    Nuttall’s speech on the NHS should be enough for Labour to protect themselves, even take voters from UKIP.

    Having said that, they seem to be even less organised than during the summer, which is quite an achievement.

  21. LASZLO

    Positive attitude-I like it :-)

    We will see. Polls & a few By Elections is what we need !

  22. Colin

    This was my most positive remark for some time looking around in Europe, observing the various social democratic parties.

    It would be interesting if a no-excuse loss of a by-election comes onto the LP. Would they try to do something? Up here in Merseyside the mood is really strange, but then here the surprise would come from the LD here, although Labour will still hold (In spite of the referendum on council tax). But talking to the Corbynista … well, it is nothing here in terms of action, even if there are many of them. They don’t define anything, and hence they are neither here nor there. Still, Liverpool is safe for Labour (for the time being).

  23. Actually, it just came to my mind from my previous comment – considering the enormous amount of money the LP has made, why don’t they spend it on training their people, finance weekly meetings with voters (some sandwiches thrown in), buy in academic research on demography and sociology of the England and Wales, hire journalists who could write it up in 300 words, etc …

    It’s just so obvious …

  24. New thread started on boundary changes

    And news alert, leaked pictures show government has no Brexit plan.

  25. S THOMAS

    I still think Cameron was a lazy PM who engaged in nepotism of the old school tie probably because it was the easiest route.

    His meeting with Lord Hall Hall of the BBC followed by an immediate renewing of the licence fee charter, and unremitting pro remain bias when they had a legal duty to be impartial begs the question of what exactly was discussed in that meeting.


    I go with S THOMAS in that the main blame is on CMD and his ministers. That said, it was hardly the finest hour of HMG’s lawyers, but if they weren’t asked about the subject they can hardly be blamed. OTOH, I’m surprised that May doesn’t seem to have replaced them, or at least hired a few well qualified reinforcements.

    Given how often the judiciary seems to complain about the quality of the drafting of laws, perhaps they’re all moles trained by the Bar Association in the art of sloppy and ambiguous drafting to ensure plenty of work for their colleagues.

  27. From today:

    Senior Labour MP Dan Jarvis: Brexit deal must control immigration

    inisters should “secure greater control over immigration” as they negotiate Brexit, a senior Labour MP says today.

    In a coded warning to party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Dan Jarvis says the thorny issue is “a crucial test” for Labour. …

    He adds: “Any attempt to ‘out-UKIP UKIP’ won’t work. …

    “Our task is not only to listen, but to provide the answers. That includes on immigration because the (EU) referendum result means that a further public debate on this is now inevitable.”

    The Government “must bring forward proposals to secure greater control over immigration, while securing the brightest economic future which supports jobs and investment”, he says.

    Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry told the BBC the UK has too many people coming in because Britain “has a skills shortage” and “we’re not training enough people in this country”.

    I have to say I remain unconvinced that Jeremy Corbyn shares their concerns !

1 15 16 17