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 2 3 4 5 17
  1. @assiduosity and others

    The Scottish GE did not appear to show any positive Corbyn effect for SLab.

  2. Assiduosity
    I was very interested in tour discussion of the “three pillers of support for May and the Tories. You make a good case for them but I would comment as follows:-
    Brexit
    “People are – inevitably in my view – going to be disappointed.”
    As one who wants a complete withdrawal from the EU, I have always thought that this is likely to be true for those at either extreme of the Brexit debate. However I pose this question, would not getting what I want on Brexit make me any more likely to vote for a change of government bearing in mind my economic views? I would argue most people have never had a government that totally satisfies them but they still vote for particular parties. I believe GE’s are generally decided on two parameters, economic competence and leadership ability.
    Economic management
    As you know I am one of those who think the Brexit process will lead to a downturn before the next election so I go along with you there. I also agree that people who voted to leave generally believe that departing the EU will either improve our economy or have no discernible impact on it As you say the polling has not identified how many are willing to endure ‘short term pain for long term gain’ to use your phrase.
    AW please help us with this in future polls!
    You are assuming that some level of economic downturn will dent May’s and the governments standing in the polls. It probably will, but by how much, and will it be blamed on Brexit or not? If it’s an economic downturn that can readily attributed to Brexit the right wing press will be shouting “it’s all the fault of the nasty EU, you can never trust Euriopeans etc etc,”, you get my gist I’m sure. In addition the normal economic cycle being what it is we are likely to be entering a period where there is a down turn in the major economies anyway. So other economies will be suffering as well as the UK, especially the Europeans in my view. In these circumstances economic competence comes into play again. Will the voters turn to left wing economics instead of the ”safe hands” of the Tories. From current polling although some movement would happen I would suggest, not enough. Of course I accept that all bets are off if the Chancellor makes a major economic blunder.
    Leadership
    As you say he “Corbyn factor”. As it happens although I accept he has improved somewhat I do not think he has the better of May generally face to face and I have watched most of their exchanges. Yes she occasionally appears flustered but I think that will improve, she is very new to the job. Of course if he goes and is replaced with somebody better then things might change. However if he goes I suspect it will just lead to more Labour infighting and voters do not like openly split parties. The Tories are split on Brexit but I would say they have demonstrated their usual pragmatism and are seen as much more united than Labour by the voters..
    Finally you say “Given the extraordinary turbulence in politics around the world, the biggest mistake that anyone could make is to assume the result of and election 3.5 years away!”
    Wise words I said the same myself just after the referendum. I found it relatively easy to forecast the last election but the next one will be much more difficult. Having said that, for the reasons I give above and at this moment in time only, I think a Tory win with an increased majority is the most likely outcome.

  3. @LizH

    ” I agree the polls don’t look good at the moment but the answer we wish to believe in as to the reasons for it determines how we think Labour should proceed. Coupled with that is what kind of a party you want Labour to be. So for me it is not worth supporting a party if it is not the kind of party I want it to be. For too long I have supported the least worst option. I don’t want to do that anymore.”

    That is a perfectly reasonable position.

    In my view, if we had a system of proportional representation, more parties would flourish and gain parliamentary representation and more people would have the opportunity to vote for parties they truly believe in as opposed to ‘least worst options’, with a genuine prospect of people having their actual views rather than a very vague approximation of them represented at Westminster.

  4. @Colin

    ‘re May’s CBI remarks No 10 did issue a statement later in the day saying that her remarks should not be taken to indicate that the Govt was proposing a transitional agreement with the EU. The first example.of a PM slapping themselves down?

  5. HIRETON

    :-)

    I missed that.

    Much more like this to come I think-wait till we are actually talking to the other side!!

    I am more & more intrigued by Blair’s intentions on Brexit-and how the public will react .

  6. So much for the government ‘not providing a running commentary on ‘Brexit’… Boris Johnson has announced to parliament that despite leaving the EU (which coordinates the event, which, in turn, is open to member states), the UK would still like to host the European Capital of Culture in 2023!

    At last – clear direction on the most pressing issues of the day.

    Next week perhaps the Foreign Secretary will announce our withdrawal from the International Olympic Committee at the same time as launching a bid for Aviemore to host the 2026 Winter Olympics.

  7. Afternoon folks. I hope everyone is doing well regardless of political persuasion.

    I haven’t posted in a long time, for two main reasons. Firstly, after the EU referendum, I was fed up of the vitriol that existed across the political spectrum. I thought then, and still think, that Brexit is a bad idea, but the referendum happened, and the choice was made to leave. The division and downright hatred that emerged with the referendum (and to an even greater extent in the US elections) was something which made the UK (and US) look like a newly-emerging democracy, rather than one with well-established traditions of freedom of expression and openess to opposing ideologies. Secondly, I changed occupation, and, I’m now afraid to admit, have become that most hated of species in 2016, a polling analyst! I can’t say which firm it is – only that I’m not involved in UK election polling (phew).

    I have one or two (or maybe eight) thoughts about the current status of the polls. The current Conservative lead is large, and although I haven’t looked at the geographical cross-breaks of the vote, it would appear that Labour are a long way off being able to force even a hung parliament. To make an analogy to the US political scene, it appears that Labour, like the Democrats, are struggling to maintain a fragile coalition of working class voters with liberal-minded urbanites, while apparently making no inroads into a large chunk of suburban “aspirational” voters. While hoovering up lost Lib Dems and unhappy UKIPpers might help shore up northern strongholds and add a few seats here and there, Labour have to provide some sort of message to Tory-leaning voters, in order to make serious gains in seats. Because of the losses to the SNP in 2015, Labour probably need to lead the popular vote by 2-3% in order to be level with the Conservatives in seats (and that’s before any boundary changes). It’s an awful lot easier to win seats if you’re taking votes off the direct opposition, rather than depending on tactical voting.

    For the Conservatives, the numbers, particularly the favourability and economic credibility scores, are very positive, but that can change quickly. Although May has had a longer-than-usual honeymoon period, her term in office has been thus far best defined by how little has been done. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – when the government are constantly in the news, it’s usually because something is going wrong. However, on the key issue of Brexit, May and the Cabinet as a whole have been guilty of giving mixed messages to the general public, trying to keep everyone on board. That only works for a short while, and at some point, actual decisions on trade, freedom of movement, customs union, economic realignment, debt reduction, health and education reform, etc, etc, have to be made. I don’t think anyone expects the next four years to go perfectly smoothly – that would be unrealistic – but for Brexit to be successful, I think a bit more transparency and honesty about the Government’s thought process would help. Nobody (apart from a few anarchists!) really wants the UK to fail hopelessly, but if the UK is to retain its eminence as a major international entity, it would seem to me a better idea to have an open debate (maybe even in Parliament!) about the nation’s future, where the full spectrum of ideas can be discussed, rather than hushed whispers in backrooms.

    A final thought: one of the worst features of 2016 has been the decline in mannerly discourse. Debate seems to have been reduced to ad hominem attacks, and there seems to be an inability for people to realise that their political opponents are not their enemies. The campaigning to win elections has become far more significant than the ability to actually govern, and the idea of consensus politics is now abhorrent. I know I’ve been guilty of crossing the line at times, but one thing I realised over the last year, is that no single one of us has all of the good ideas, and that I think we’d be a lot better off as a society if we did a bit more listening than talking (and I say that after a very very long post!).

  8. @Assiduosity,

    It is also open to “potential member states”, which I suppose we would technically be in 2023, on the current timetable…..

  9. CON 40/LAB 30/OTHERS 20? How very GE 2010…

  10. @ TOH

    A thought provoking response as always.

    Taking some of your points in turn:

    “would not getting what I want on Brexit make me any more likely to vote for a change of government bearing in mind my economic views? I would argue most people have never had a government that totally satisfies them but they still vote for particular parties. ”

    I agree for many voters this is and will continue to be the case, There are ‘remain’ Conservatives who would never countenance voting for Labour, particularly if they perceive it to have moved to the left under Corbyn. For these people their core economic beliefs are much bigger than a single issue, no matter how significant that might be. Similarly there are leave inclined Labour voters for which neither UKIP nor the Conservatives are an option.

    However, there are factors at work which lead me to believe that Brexit could be different for a swathe of the electorate. Firstly, the BES study indicating identification with ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ is more important to voters than political party affiliation.

    If that continues to be the case, some people may – temporarily perhaps – suspend traditional party loyalties for what they perceive to be a greater cause. Now, this is one survey, and we would need to see more evidence, but in a sense, the existence of UKIP is just such a phenomenon.

    As such it is easy to envisage a situation where a Conservative administration which fails to deliver a ‘complete Brexit’ starts to leach votes to a renewed UKIP. Likewise if the UK appears to be heading for a a complete exit from the EU, Single Market and all, there may be conservative (and Labour) remainers who are looking for an electoral home to vent their disapproval. This might be the LibDems, it may well be the kind of centrist ‘apolitical political party’ that Blair seems intent on creating. No one should write off Blair, if Nixon can come back anything can happen in politics.

    Every so often there come along issues – the Corn Laws, the extension of the franchise, the creation of the Welfare State – that dissolve party boundaries, it is just possible that Brexit could prove to be such an occurrence. Indeed the referendum campaign provided the framework for that with its cross party cooperation (after a fashion) on both sides.

    Compounding this is the increased volatility of the electorate as we can observe in patterns of voting in the last few UK-wide elections and within the national parliaments and assemblies of the UK. Voters seem to be more prepared to vote for a ‘best deal’ than stick with brands they know – they have become consumers of politics.

    Finally, much depends on the extent to which Brexit remains the dominant issue in the media and politics between now and the next election – if it does, everything will be seen through its prism. Which leads to my – and your – next point:

    “You are assuming that some level of economic downturn will dent May’s and the governments standing in the polls. It probably will, but by how much, and will it be blamed on Brexit or not? If it’s an economic downturn that can readily attributed to Brexit the right wing press will be shouting “it’s all the fault of the nasty EU, you can never trust Euriopeans etc etc,”, you get my gist I’m sure.”

    I absolutely get your gist.

    Apart from agreeing we need much more data on exactly what hardship people will tolerate for their principles (though expect we only really find out when the crunch comes) you are spot on when it comes to the ‘blame’ question.

    In times of economic woe, governments stand or fall on whether they are able to deflect the responsibility for recession, unemployment, sluggish growth or otherwise adverse conditions or if they are blamed for it.

    Under Mrs Thatcher we endured ‘global recessions’ whereas John Major’s government was held responsible for ‘Black Wednesday’. Uniquely in the UK the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 was successfully framed by the Conservatives as a domestic economic failure of Gordon Brown’s administration.

    If Mrs May and the supporters of Brexit are able to lay any downturn at the door of the EU or worldwide difficulties (which may well be the case) then they might well preserve the Conservative position.

    However, if Brexit continues to be at the forefront of the political debate and say a former Chancellor and PM, remain business luminaries, the Governor of the BoE, head of the IMF and others were on hand to declare that it was the inevitable consequence of which they had warned… well it might be a different kettle of fish.

    Much will depend on the political acumen of those seeking to to hold the government and the policy of Brexit responsible for the economic difficulties. Which takes us to point three…

    “As it happens although I accept he has improved somewhat I do not think he has the better of May generally face to face and I have watched most of their exchanges. Yes she occasionally appears flustered but I think that will improve, she is very new to the job. Of course if he goes and is replaced with somebody better then things might change. ”

    I don’t disagree with you. I find most of their encounters end in rather unsatisfactory no score draws. May is too transparent when evading questions and her attempts at humour are too obviously scripted and flatly delivered, Corbyn lacks the mental acuity to spot and prosecute a weakness so misses the obvious follow up question and seems detached from the issues of the day, too concerned with his personal agendas, regardless of whether they are of public interest.

    Neither are made for the modern media age and share a certain stiffness, a distance and froideur, many mistake this for seriousness, but I believe it’s simply nerves.

    Of course May might get better, so might Corbyn – he has improved already, let’s not forget she has been on the front bench over six years. But Labour’s best hope resides in his voluntarily leaving the leadership. Anything else would break their party,

    This would only happen if he believes he has remade and re-positioned Labour and those around him are convinced they can secure a succession which ensures his ‘legacy’.

    One might think that would mean no change to the political dynamic, but as Trump and le Pen demonstrate, it’s not necessarily left wing economic policies that define how a candidate is perceived on the political spectrum or their electoral appeal.

    Finally, for all this…

    ” for the reasons I give above and at this moment in time only, I think a Tory win with an increased majority is the most likely outcome.”

    I think we find ourselves in agreement once again, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if the boundary change is lost somewhere in the wilds of this parliament and that majority isn’t very much bigger.

  11. @ NeilA

    “It is also open to “potential member states”, which I suppose we would technically be in 2023, on the current timetable…..”

    No. That is incorrect.

    Following the rule change in 2014, eligibility is only open to cities in the member states and the following:

    “Cities in candidate countries and potential candidates which participate in the Creative Europe Programme or in the subsequent Union programmes supporting culture at the date of publication of the call for submission of applications referred to in Article 10(2) may apply for the title for one year in the framework of an open competition organised every third year in accordance with the calendar.”

    You can find the full text here:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.132.01.0001.01.ENG

    Firstly ‘potential candidate’ is not a lay term but has specific meaning in this context and is a designation to states who have been ‘promised the prospect of joining when they are ready’.

    The current potential candidate states to the EU are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.

    So unless the UK had decided to start on the path to rejoin the EU by that point this is not a status that would be open to it.

    Then again given how much Boris flip flops on this issue – perhaps that is what he had in mind.

    Notwithstanding this, it would be too late to re-apply for 2023 even if the UK made an immediate application to re-join the EU after Brexit as the deadline for award would have passed.

    Secondly, 2023 is not a year in which a potential candidate states are considered, so the UK would need to be a full member and 7 years after its accession – so even if we hastily re-joined it wouldn’t be a possibility.

    As much as one might hope that our Foreign Secretary knew what he was talking about, even on seemingly minor matters, I’m afraid that little hope is too much.

  12. @Colin

    “NEILA
    Looks like old news anyway, with at least two precedents :-”

    Actually there are three precedents: Bergen 2000, Stavanger 2008 and Istanbul 2010.

    Unfortunately the rules were tightened in 2014. So, as I pointed out to @NeilA above, unless the UK is a member state or the city matches the following eligibility criteria

    ““Cities in candidate countries and potential candidates which participate in the Creative Europe Programme or in the subsequent Union programmes supporting culture at the date of publication of the call for submission of applications referred to in Article 10(2) may apply for the title for one year in the framework of an open competition organised every third year in accordance with the calendar.”

    Which would involve us applying to rejoin the EU and bidding for the status in another year. Then I’m afraid we appear to be out of the running.

    It appears who ever wrote that article hadn’t bothered to consult the ‘old news’ of the 2014 agreement on the management of the competition.

    Maybe someone should let them and our Foreign Secretary know.

  13. GRAHAM.
    Hello to you.
    Bournemouth, Kinson North is a formerly safe Labour seat, one of the few; a working class seat, still with many Council House. Lab vote rose by 10% but Tory Hold, in a Core Lab area.
    Apart from a big increase in Lab % in Wansworth the November by election results on Local Council have seen large Labour % drops, for example in Greenwich, Galloway and in Aberdeenshire.

    Lab seems to be doing well in some safe seats, just like in Parliamentary By Elections.

    In terms of GE Campaign, Corbyn probably ought not to get his PR people to refuse to answer questions as he did two weeks ago outside Party HQ

  14. @LouisWalshVotesGreen

    Great to see you posting again and congratulations on the new job!

  15. Afternoon all from darkening skied Peoples’ (Socialist) Republic of London.

    Whilst not wishing to dwell to much on Labour’s position, if this was to be reflected in a GE given despite the fact that their leader is unpopular with the electorate and lags so far behind on economic competency their showing wouldn’t be too bad. Due to the nature of our electoral system if Labour gets approx. 30% of vote (on the current boundaries) they are unlikely to fall much below 200 seats. In ’83 with 27.6% of the vote Labour got 209 seats, in the GE.

    How May is interpreting these polls is the critical question. If she is assuming the above holds true then there also a number of other considerations that would lead her to conclude it was not worth the risk:
    a) Its looking unlikely that UKIP would be able to take many seats off Labour.
    b) If an LD revival occurs it is more likely to take votes from the Conservatives with MC pre-remain voters in the SE expressing their discontent by voting LD. The more Hard Brexit is seen as unavoidable the more likely this will happen. Also if Labour looks unlikely to win then this section of the electorate are more likely to ‘rebel’ at the ballot box
    c) Scotland is likely to remain in the grip of the SNP.
    d) It’s not clear what the swing in the Con v Lab marginal would be
    e) It would most likely result in Corbyn being replaced as leader post the result which potentially shortens the period that Labour is deemed unelectable
    f) How markets / business will react to the actual triggering of A50 in uncertain.

    So why would she fight an election on the current boundaries for at best a moderate increase in her majority at worse risk a lib dem revival and possible hung parliament? Given that Labour are unlikely to obstruct Brexit in any explicit and meaningful way (fear of fuelling a UKIP surge in its heartlands) and that there is little opportunity for major reforms / legislation given the requirements of manging Brexit, why risk it? In my opinion the time to do it would have been back in the summer when Labour really was in complete disarray.

    Better to keep Corbyn as your opponent, be seen as successfully steering the country though troubled times etc, wait for the new boundaries and weep the rewards in 2020. Obviously events could change all of this, but given May’s risk averse nature and her public commitment about not holding an early election I think it unlikely we will have one before 2020.

  16. ASSIDUOSITY

    Many thanks for a detailed reply to my comments.

    “Every so often there come along issues – the Corn Laws, the extension of the franchise, the creation of the Welfare State – that dissolve party boundaries, it is just possible that Brexit could prove to be such an occurrence.”

    I like your argument here, and certainly the posts on both sides on this blog show that is possible. However I tend to dismiss us all as political geeks, not typical the voters as a whole. Still you may have something here and it will be interesting to see if your correct about this.

    “However, if Brexit continues to be at the forefront of the political debate and say a former Chancellor and PM, remain business luminaries, the Governor of the BoE, head of the IMF and others were on hand to declare that it was the inevitable consequence of which they had warned… well it might be a different kettle of fish.”

    Again you might be correct, but don’t forget that the G of BoE, the IMF have had to apologise recently for getting it wrong in the immediate post referendum period and the IMF and many others have called “wolf” many times now on the British economy and been wrong. Indeed you could say that was the striking economic “truth” of the period 2010-2016. How much do the public take notice of them now? I think your economic argument is much more valid if the downturn is a lengthy one. Then I think it is really valid and the Tories would be much more likely to lose the 2025 election.election.

    Finally I accept that the Boundary changes may get lost in which case the margin could remain relatively narrow. I hope not as I think a boundary review is long overdue and I like the idea of a reduction in numbers. I am quite cross May has backed off reforming the HoL’s, that really is long overdue.

    Basically although our stances are nuanced by our politics, we are in agreement that an early forecast of the next election, and I mean anything earlier than late 2019 is fraught with unknowns.

  17. @TOH

    “However I tend to dismiss us all as political geeks, not typical the voters as a whole.”

    I too would dismiss those of us who congregate on places such as this as geeks, but I do hear Brexit talked about – at the gym, in shops, at neighbouring tables at restaurants, in the pub with a vigour and passion I can’t recall of for any other issue for such a sustained time in the recent past. That polling lead it has over all other matters in terms of importance seems significant too.

    As you say, only time will tell.

    “How much do the public take notice of them now? ”

    Indeed. A very fair point. I suppose they would be pointing out a downturn that had materialised rather than predicting something going to happen. Equally though, no one likes people gloating with ‘I told you so’.

    You are, I think, spot on with the dangers for the government of a prolonged period of downturn or even stagnation. This could result from not grasping Brexit, if and when it comes, not having a strategy. Failure to put in place satisfactory trade deals, diversify our trading offer and sell, sell, sell will have dire consequences, which will be visited on whoever is in No 10 in 2025.

    “I hope not as I think a boundary review is long overdue and I like the idea of a reduction in numbers. I am quite cross May has backed off reforming the HoL’s, that really is long overdue.”

    My personal preference would have been for boundary review and any contraction in the HoC to have been considered as part of a broader set of reforms – including the HoL. It seems to me that one of the lessons of the Blair years is that tinkering with parts of the constitutional settlement separately without having regard to the whole only creates assymmetries and problems down the line. One needs to have a clear view as to how the system will function in its entirety.

    On the HoL, I am somewhat agnostic on the benefits of a totally elected upper chamber as I feel the expertise brought by the non-politicians is invaluable and would be lost. It’s just how to manage what has become an ungainly institution.

    “…we are in agreement that an early forecast of the next election, and I mean anything earlier than late 2019 is fraught with unknowns.”

    Agreement indeed. Nothing sooner than late 2019 from me – though if the Labour Party continue to operate as though their defeat is assured that may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  18. @ Redrich

    “30% of vote (on the current boundaries) they are unlikely to fall much below 200 seats. In ’83 with 27.6% of the vote Labour got 209 seats, in the GE.”

    Worth remembering that 41 of those Labour seats came from Scotland and are not coming back anytime soon.

    An England and Wales Labour Party with boundary changes on 28% of the popular vote could be diminished significantly, depending on how those votes were distributed.

    However, I don’t think that takes anything away from the rest of your analysis of May’s thinking. If Labour could hold steady the ship in a snap election and the LibDems resurge in seats that voted remain and have previously been LibDem (or LibDem vulnerable) and are now Tory (of which there are a few), then that thin majority could evaporate.

    As you say, why take the risk?

  19. Chrislane
    ‘Apart from a big increase in Lab % in Wansworth the November by election results on Local Council have seen large Labour % drops, for example in Greenwich, Galloway and in Aberdeenshire.’

    Not quite accurate.Although Labour lost a seat in Greenwich it saw an increase in its vote share of 9.6%. The Tory vote increased by 10.4% and won the seat on the back of a collapse in the UKIP vote there.2014 was the only occasion that Labour had won that ward – having failed in 2010,2006 and 2002. To come so close to retaining a seat not even in Labour hands at the time of Blair’s second landslide was actually a pretty good reult!

  20. On a GB basis – which is what the polls measure – Labour’s vote share in 1983 was 28.3%.

  21. @Redrich
    There is also some evidence from both poll crossbreaks and local by elections of a bigger swing to the Tories in Scotland than in GB as a whole. To that extent the swing implied by the national polls might well be exaggerating the number of likely Tory gains – simply because the swing in England & Wales would have to be correspondingly lower.

  22. Anybody watch this cringe-worthy interview on the Sunday Politics?

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/watch-james-mcgrorys-car-crash-interview-sunday-politics/

    I don’t understand why Mr Mcgrorys thought he could get away with such blatant attempts to falsely portray Leaver’s statements on membership of the single market.

    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot when you get found out.

  23. A boundary review is clearly needed and equalising the size of seats more than in the past was a good idea.

    However reducing the number of seats was a foolish knee-jerk response to the expenses scandal, and as the Tories have shown by increasing the House of Lords, the cost saving argument was a sham.

    Most MP’s actually work hard for their constituents and need more time, not less to devote to them. Giving them more is not the answer..

  24. SEA CHANGE

    And with Brillo too! He must have been mad.

    I have seen some spectacular disemboweling by Andrew Neil-that was up there with the best.

  25. November 10, 2016

    Conservative 1335 [42.2%; -8.4%]
    GRAHAM: Hi The ALDC site has the following figures:
    Conservative 1335 [42.2%; -8.4%]

    Labour 1297 [40.4%; -8.9%]

    LD Sam Macaulay 279 [8.8%; +8.8%]
    UKIP 160 [5.0%; +5.0%]
    Green 110 [3.5%; +3.5%]
    Majority: 38
    Turnout: 31.33%
    Conservative gain from Labour
    Percentage chance since 2014
    NB Multi-member ward that elected 1 Conservative and 2 Labour in 2014

  26. ““We now face the task of creating a New Britain from the fourth industrial revolution – powered by the internet of things and big data to develop cyber physical systems and smart factories.”

    JC
    Labour Party Promo.

    That will get the VI up for sure . :-)

  27. Sea Change,
    Yes I agree it is embarrassing for Remain supporters like me.
    Mcgrory should have stuck to the people like Daniel Hannan (several times in the referendum campaign) and Farage ( in the past) who really did try and convince voters we could have our cake and eat it!

    Meanwhile the key thing is now to keep pushing the video remorselessly even now it has been shown to be untrue, as Leave did in the referendum with the £350 million and all those Turks…. We Remainers have been shown the way by Leave and Trump and must up our game from now on!

  28. On the unreliability of forecasts about the economic consequences of Brexit…

    I suspect that if voters experience a harsh economic downturn they won’t be too concerned about the niceties of timing. They are likely to conclude that the Remainers who warned about economic fallout were broadly right and to punish the Brexiting government unless it offers a convincing narrative about return to growth on a timescale they can live with . And at that point Brexiters’ forecasts will be taken with the same hefty pinch of salt as everyone else’s. (I suppose the other scenario in which they get away with it is if the EU is doing as badly or worse.)

    I don’t think the government will be able to sell the idea of a temporary downturn, to be followed by Boriscake tomorrow, unless it starts laying the groundwork now and sounding as if it has a plan. To the extent that the plan depends on other governments offering us sweet trade deals they need lots of helpful noises and photo opps from foreign heads of state and these have been signally lacking so far.

    I deplored Osborne’s dreadful analogy between the national debt and a household budget, but there’s no denying that it was effective. Because it used terms and concepts that everyone could grasp: the argument made sense to the average voter and in political terms it didn’t matter that the analogy was deeply flawed. I reckon the government would need to find a similarly effective ‘folk narrative’ to convince people that the Brexit pain is temporary and worthwhile.

  29. Colin

    Was that produced from a random word generator?

    He’d have been better off talking about “quantum stuff”

  30. Assiduosity

    Re Opinium’s Net Approval of party leaders

    “These are incredibly stark numbers. May +40 with leavers and -2 with remainers. Is Brexit the ‘Corn Laws’ of the 21st century?”

    That was why I posted those numbers, and deliberately omitted the views of those who didn’t vote in EUref.

    The starkness seems more polarised among Leavers than Remainers.

    Leavers only approve of 2 party leaders May (+40) and Farage (+13).

    Their disapproval of the others is huge – Farron (-41, Corbyn (-44) and Sturgeon (-44).

    Remainers, on the other hand, only hugely disapprove of Farage (-55), while their views of other UK-wide (or at least parts of it) leaders is somewhat muted – Corbyn (+4), Farron (0) and May (-2).

    That the largest level of support is for the leader, whose party 90% of them can’t vote for [1], seems to indicate a very large vacuum at the top of E&W politics for these folk.

    I agree with your “in part the differential has to do with party affiliation and the large numbers of LibDems and Labour voters in the remain ranks, but there are plenty of Conservatives – especially in the South – that continue to support EU membership. There are many factors that are involved in approving/disapproving of leaders including that both Remain and the SNP are very popular in Scotland.

    However the “Sturgeon factor” seems to confound party affiliation as a major factor in this case. I had wondered whether lack of recognition/ignorance of might be an issue, but (other than Farron) those opting for “Neither Approve/Disapprove” were much the same for the leaders –

    Neither Approve/Disapprove (Remainers : Leavers)

    Farron (52, 47) : Farage (20, 37) : Sturgeon (35, 30) : Corbyn (31, 32) : May (30, 29)

    So Sturgeon having the greatest approval from UK Remainers, and the highest disapproval from UK Leavers continues to be surprising.

    [1] Opinium didn’t give geographic crossbreaks, so I don’t know the actual polity weightings. It is, though, a UK not a GB poll.

  31. @LOUISWALSHVOTESGREEN

    Labour’s problem is that it is now far removed from what it was under Wilson, let alone Attlee. Labour has failed to see that the typical working class voter is patriotic – even nationalistic – and while believing in socialism is also keen to support ancient national institutions like the monarchy. Labour has lost itself in a tangle of Marxism, libertarianism and political correctness, thereby alienating traditional working class voters. In order to win them back Labour needs to combine economic fairness with social conservatism. Under Corbyn this will never happen, so there needs to be a new leader who can put in place some radical new policies. This is Labour’s only hope.

  32. @ANDREW111

    “However reducing the number of seats was a foolish knee-jerk response to the expenses scandal, and as the Tories have shown by increasing the House of Lords, the cost saving argument was a sham.”

    A better way of saving money would be to cut the funds going to the royals. Cutting the number of seats damages democracy and makes the Commons even less representative than it already is under the FPTP system. If anything, we need more MPs, not less.

  33. Chrislane

    The figures you have for actual votes cast look correct – but not the % vote shares. Here is the data from the Vote UK forum

    Greenwich, Eltham North – Conservative gain from Labour

    2016 Vote % Change from Change from
    2014 (Top) 2014 (Average)

    Con 1335 42.0 +10.4 +12.0

    Lab 1297 40.8 +9.6 +10.1

    LD 279 8.8 +5.5 +5.3

    UKIp 160 5.0 -14.5 -15.6

    Grn 110 3.5 – 6.0 -6.5

    BNP -4.9 -5.2

  34. Chrislane

    Apologies that my ‘Headings’ are somewhat messed up in previous post. I tried to show % change from 2014 calculated for each party’s Top’ candidate as well as the ‘Average’ in 2014.

  35. ALAN

    @”Was that produced from a random word generator?”

    Yes-he calls it Jeremy.

  36. Seachange
    “I don’t understand why Mr Mcgrorys thought he could get away with such blatant attempts to falsely portray Leaver’s statements on membership of the single market.”

    Yes saw that. One of the most entertaining interviews I have seen in a long time. If you go onto his group’s Facebook page though you will see this video posted, minus all the Andrew Neil bits. In other words it shows how great he is repeating the same lies.

    He reminds me of Francis Urquart. Political and without principles.

  37. @Andrew111 “Meanwhile the key thing is now to keep pushing the video remorselessly even now it has been shown to be untrue, as Leave did in the referendum with the £350 million and all those Turks…. We Remainers have been shown the way by Leave and Trump and must up our game from now on!”

    I think both sides of the Ref Campaign were pretty reprehensible. Yes the 350M a week was a gross figure and not the Net figure. But remember we had the so called “punishment budget”, the 4300 pounds per family worse off, the immediate recession and world war 3 flung about by Project Fear.

    Let’s not continue to disseminate lies from either side. Mcgrory should delete that video and admit he has been found out.

    @Colin @Robert Newark

    Brillo was on fine form, it must be said.

    @Colin ““We now face the task of creating a New Britain from the fourth industrial revolution – powered by the internet of things and big data to develop cyber physical systems and smart factories.”
    JC Labour Party Promo.”

    Just unbelievable. Awful quasi-corporate speak, they missed throwing in synergistic to round it off.

  38. @ALAN

    “Colin

    Was that produced from a random word generator?

    He’d have been better off talking about “quantum stuff””

    ———

    yeah, you gotta watch out for those. You also gotta watch out for those who snipe at others without attempting to offer much themselves!! its not good for board relations!!

    which reminds me, you mentioned summat about someone bikng a crybaby but as usual declined to say who. Wondered if you could clarify…

    —————

  39. “I don’t think the government will be able to sell the idea of a temporary downturn, to be followed by Boriscake tomorrow, unless it starts laying the groundwork now and sounding as if it has a plan. To the extent that the plan depends on other governments offering us sweet trade deals they need lots of helpful noises and photo opps from foreign heads of state and these have been signally lacking so far.”

    ———-

    To be fair, there is a kind of a plan. Which is, to invest in the economy to try and mitigate any ill effects that might arise from Brexit.

  40. Sea Change,

    In the referendum I thought the Remain side tended to introduce some extrapolation of the worst case scenario, then it would be challenged, and then they would apologetically stop mentioning it… Whereas the Leave leaflet I got on the eve of poll was still pushing the £350 million to the NHS 5 weeks after it had been comprehensively trashed by every independent observer. And a few days after June 23rd it was quietly ditched…

    Meanwhile the £4300 worse off was a projection far into the future as I recall, based on what was predicted for growth AFTER we left, and therefore remains in the mists of prophecy, never to be proven or disproven since we will never know what growth would have been down the other trouser of time…

    Still, water under the bridge… As for McGrory, I agree he should edit the video to retain only the truthful bits (Hannan, for example) and apologise to those he misrepresented…

  41. @Tancred

    “Labour’s problem is that it is now far removed from what it was under Wilson, let alone Attlee. Labour has failed to see that the typical working class voter is patriotic”

    ———-

    Finkelstein was on about this, in the context of the SDP. David Owen had noticed how typical working class Labour voters felt about things like Suez, and therefore concluded that SDP were constrained because Jenkins’ Liberal direction would cost the SDP in the North…

    This wad

  42. Carfrew

    Are you asking me if I could do a better job of leading the Labour party? I can honestly say I’ve never considered that as a future career. I suspect I wouldn’t be very popular with momentum if I happened to find myself in that most unlikely of positions. If I did, I can assure you I’d think about what I wanted to say rather than just unleash a torrent of meaningless drivel.

    I’m more that happy to ridicule those who engage in technobabble from whatever part of the political spectrum they might be. How can I take him seriously when his plan for the future of Britain comes from flicking though a glossary of technical jargon and mashing them together into an utter monstrosity of gobbledygook.

    I’d mock whoever said those words, so it’s nothing to do with Jeremy. I’m sure he has talents somewhere but it certainly isn’t envisioning the future of technology. He should keep off a subject where he is so clearly out of his depth.

    As for your other question, could you supply the context?

  43. @Alan

    “Are you asking me if I could do a better job of leading the Labour party?”

    no, I just noted you were still having a go at “quantum stuff”.

    And the context was you complained about crybabies right after I posted, and did the upwards ^^ thing too.

    Helps to be explicit rather than alluding and stuff, avoids confusion

  44. Carfrew

    I’d include “Quantum stuff” as another example of technobabble, I think in that exchange I actually provided a fair bit information about the sort of techniques that would be used to mine the data and that quantum mechanics would not be at all relevant.

    It’s another example of people making press releases while not having a clue what they are talking about.

    BTW, ^ ^ is just a smiley, it translates roughly as :). You seem to have gotten the wrong stick there.

  45. Carfrew,
    “To be fair, there is a kind of a plan. Which is, to invest in the economy to try and mitigate any ill effects that might arise from Brexit.”

    Interesting, that. It seems rather to contrast the view of much the same people in 2010, where they announced the solution to a national economic crisis was austerity and investment cuts. I draw the conclusion from this that conservatives never believed ther was a real crisis in 2010, and quietly agreed that labour had already taken the necessary steps to deal with 2008. Rather, the fear of national disater was used as cover to push through a reduction in the size of government, which had long been conservative policy.

    In contrast, conservatives now think there is a real economic crisis which must be managed, and so are reaching for the historic solutions of increasing spending.

    What is not at all clear is whether this can be successful. Trump’s election is probably more a consequence of the times than a game changer from what he might do. However, globalisation and international trade will not save any western economy. International trade has always benefitted most the party with an edge, and this is no longer us.

    My problem with Brexit has always been the lack of a viable alternative to the current arrangements. Today’s news seemed a case in point, where improving government revenue was heralded as good news, whereas the reality seems to be that it is below expectations, and the most likely reason is Brexit. May has developed a good political smokescreen, aguing about keeping her real position secret to help negotiations, but its nonsense intended to stave off having to admit to an absence of any solution. The nation may have voted for brexit, but it may yet prove to be an impossible thing to deliver.

    The catch 22 remains as ever, that until there is cast iron proof of the harm of brexit, Brexiteers will not accept this is the case. So maybe it was always inevitable that the Uk would suffer massive decline because of the brexit campaign, and this conclusion must have reached conservative high command some time ago. The question then was how best to position the party.

  46. Sorbus
    “…they need lots of helpful noises and photo opps[sic] from foreign heads of state and these have been signally lacking so far.”

    Apart from the USA?

  47. Tancred
    “Labour has failed to see that the typical working class voter is patriotic – even nationalistic – and while believing in socialism is also keen to support ancient national institutions like the monarchy. Labour has lost itself in a tangle of Marxism, libertarianism and political correctness, thereby alienating traditional working class voters.”

    Spot on. I don’t always agree with you, but this is absolutely on the button.

  48. @Danny

    If Brexit is impossible to deliver, then we’ve already lost our independence and have been subsumed into the superstate of Europe.

    Brexiteers rather hope it isn’t too late, but if it is it rather proves their point I think…

  49. Tabcred
    “A better way of saving money would be to cut the funds going to the royals.”

    And this is where we disagree. The Queen is paid from income from the Crown Estates, which were handed over by George III I believe. The Queen normally gets 15% of the income from that land, though it is going up to 25% to repair Buckingham Palace. It could be argued that the Queen is actually subsidising the country.

1 2 3 4 5 17