ITV’s Peston show had some fresh ICM polling this morning. Topline voting intention figures were CON 48%(+2), LAB 26%(+1), LDEM 10%(-1), UKIP 8%(nc), GRN 3%(-1), so don’t show any significant change since their snap poll on the day of the election announcement, fieldwork was Wednesday to Thursday.

Thre was also a poll in the Sunday Express. Voting intentions were reported as CON 42%, LAB 26%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 8%, GRN 6%. The poll was conducted by Norstat – a company that normally polls in Norway and Denmark, but who I don’t think have previously released British voting intention figures. There are not yet any details of methodology, how it was sampled or weighted, how turnout was dealt with and so on.

Finally, the YouGov/Sunday Times poll from last night is now up on their site here.


256 Responses to “ICM/ITV – CON 48, LAB 26, LDEM 10, UKIP 8”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Chris Riley

    “We ought to be reflecting on that as we negotiate.”

    Since TM seems to me to see Brexit as I do then she will be expecting hard negotiating anyway. All the Dutch and French votes do as far as i am concerned is make a fudge more difficult and I don’t want a fudge anyway I want us out totally. You talk about a “wave hitting us, if it does it will hit the EU as well”. It’s still a price worth paying in my view, and that of an increasing number of others if the polls are to be believed. Look at YouGov on Sunday:-
    A Brexit deal where Britain leaves the EU but retains a close relationship, meaning we retain membership of the single market and tariff and custom free trade with the EU, but still have to follow some EU rules, make a contribution to the EU budget, and allow EU citizens to live and work in.……………………37%
    A Brexit deal where Britain leaves the EU completely, meaning we have control over immigration from the EU, don’t have to follow EU rules or pay into the EU budget, but have only limited access to the EU single market and face tariffs or limits on some British imports and exports………………. 44%

  2. Joseph1832,

    Don’t worry, the French are very pragmatic!

    Why would you want to punish someone who has just “taken back control”

    Of a rowing boat 100m above Niagara Falls…..

  3. @Somerjohn
    Exactly – you have globalists on both sides of the Brexit debate, and neither the pro-Brexit globalists (Davies, Lawson, Gove, etc) or the Remainer globalists (Blair, Osborn, etc) have given any coherent explanation whatsoever of how they are going to help the poor benighted souls who have suffered ten years of falling/stagnant living standards.

    It’s like Brexit lets all of them off the hook of dealing with the real problem…

  4. BigFatRon – “Do you really think every Brexit voter thought “you know what, I really really want Parliament to be sovereign and damn the consequences”?”

    Yes – because everything else flow from it. You can influence your MP in a way you can’t influence a Commissioner who doesn’t even know you exist. Even nine-year-olds understand that, which is why it is a puzzle that Remainers are struggling to get their brains around it.

  5. Somerjohn

    Exactly! We have voted to be a leaf floating in a big river, rather than having our own cabin in a sizeable ship capable of deciding whether to head upstream or downstream..

    Cayman Islands hear we come! (good model for a tiny country, but not for £65 million…)

  6. ExileinYorks

    An excellent summary.

  7. Pete B,

    “If I’m right, Corbyn’s letter would be completely useless because no orders would ever be given.”

    Wrong.

    Given the situation is they have lost contact with command there are really three options;

    Option 1,

    Do nothing, sail to America and see whats left. If there’s nothing left then there is nothing to fire at then don’t fire or if there might be a bit left fire in a fit of vengeance at the dyeing or even if there are some of them left why bother, just keep the missiles safe to deter the next armageddon!

    Option 2,

    Fire, retailiate to show that even though deterrence has failed it should have worked and this proves it or indeed fir e even though the targets are probably gone anyway or fire and destroy the targets although it won’t change the outcome and indeed it might even be that some kind of ceasefire has been agreed which your about to break.

    Option 3,

    Hold fire and wait and see if some kind of command is reestablished or make a judgement when you make contact about how to react to whatever authority if there is any emerges.

    Of the three the corny option is most like the last one and for me seems like the most sensible.

    Waiting to find out what id left and what the outside world is doing seems a better option that firing blind.

    Trident is a deterrent and by definition by the time the Captain opens the letter it’s failed!

    Peter.

  8. @Somerjohn

    “globalisation in spades”

    Absolutely. It’s frequently (conveniently) ignored that there are TWO globalisations. There is the rise of multinationals, which move capital and profits around the globe as suits them. And there is political globalisation, in which smaller nations (in which I include the UK) combine together so that they have enough clout to place controls on the multinationals. Only the truly large (or potentially large) economies, such China, India, US, Brazil, can hope to go it alone.

    Brexit amplifies the first, while abandoning the second.

  9. Good afternoon all from a sunny central London.

    CATMANJEFF
    @AC
    My own prediction for the Lib Dems is very close to yours.
    Here are mine (main GB players):
    Con 389
    Lab 169
    Lib Dem 12
    SNP 55
    …..
    In fact, I’m very good at predictions because none of my posts are over engineered but tend to go along the lines of how a voter would think. Nothing complex about my posts….No sir!
    …..
    “Funnily enough that approach is opposite to how I got to my prediction, but there we go!
    Funnily enough
    ____________

    I’m glad we agree on the Lib/Dem outcome but I’m not predicting the rest of the election in terms of seats or % just yet. My thought process is going through a little recalibrating fine tuning but I think we all can agree that the Tories will win an overall majority and the SNP will hold onto most of the seats in Scotland.

    What I would say, based on current polling I don’t think the SNP will win 55 seats but this far out before the 2015 election the SNP were polling in the low to mid 40’s and they ended up with 49’8%.

    Maybe the Tories in Scotland have peaked too early and a late SNP mini surge might be on the way..Who knows??

  10. ICM poll for Guardian
    Con 48
    Lab 27
    LD 10
    Uk 7
    Grn 3

  11. Candy

    Your last post to Chris Riley. Spot on i totally agree with every word.

  12. @Peter

    I think the rationale is that the letter of last resort forms part of the deterrent. A pre-emptive strike to eliminate command structures will not prevent a retaliatory strike.

  13. BIGFATRON

    “but most) of those who voted Brexit thought that they would be economically better off – in due course – as a result.”

    and many think they will be correct – in due course.

  14. @Bigfatron

    Just so. I don’t think it’s a tough point to grasp and I know a lot on the Right do get it.

    It’s just that they don’t want to face the implications – they’re next. Why wouldn’t they be? But they’re convinced they’re special, smarter and better than everyone else.

  15. @ToH

    “Your last post to Chris Riley. Spot on i totally agree with every word.”

    Shame, because she’s completely wrong in every aspect.

  16. Candy,
    “Well voters have already decided on a direction – they want to return sovereignty to Parliament which then frees the current Parliament and all future Parliaments to make decisions based on the conditions of the day. They feel this is the most flexible arrangement for the long term survival of the nation.”

    What happens if a post-Brexit fully-sovereign Conservative-dominated Parliament with a massive majority, deprived of any meaningful opposition, shorn of any possible scapegoats, fails to reduce immigration? How will Leave voters react?

    Will Leave voters, perhaps buffeted by economic turbulence, simply accept more immigration year after year, or will a significant percentage of Leavers feel betrayed and turn to a more explicitly anti-immigrant party?

    Surely you can at least see a potential for BNP-style parties to experience a FN-style rise in support?

  17. Colin,

    “Responding on Trident that he would not use it in a “first strike” is , at best dissembling evasion ; & at worst, a damning failure to understand the purpose of a Nuclear “Deterrent”.

    The purpose of a Nuclear Deterrent is Not To Fire First.
    It’s supposed to stop the use of Nuclear weapons.

    We aren’t the US, we have never full had and have long since abandoned any attempt to assemble an escalatory ladder with a range of nuclear weapons.

    We never had nuclear artillery shells, tactical missiles and have given up our freewill bombs and depth charges.

    What part of the word Deter don’t you understand!!!!!

    Peter.

  18. CHRIS RILEY

    We agree to differ.

  19. @Candy

    You are too blinded by partisanship to get the point, it seems.

    Why would it stop at Brexit? Just because it’s *your* issue doesn’t mean it’s everyone else’s.

    It was a proxy for other issues in most cases, to do with economic and social dissatisfaction. If Brexit doesn’t fix them (SPOILER: IT WON’T), then voters are not going to turn around and say, ‘oh well, never mind’.

    They’re going to come after the next remaining political institutions. That’s you.

    That you’re all sitting on your high horses gloating and lecturing everyone else means they’ll enjoy it all the more.

  20. Robin,

    “A pre-emptive strike to eliminate command structures will not prevent a retaliatory strike.”

    A pre-emptive strike to eliminate command structures might not require a retaliatory strike. by responding with a strategic attack against a limited surgical strike to take out command functions you risk a similar strategic stake or one of even greater size against yourself!”

    Peter.

  21. Peter Cairns
    I’m not wrong. This from
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36824917/trident-what-are-the-letters-of-last-resort

    Quote from Matthew Seligmann, Professor of Naval History at Brunel University

    ‘”The submarine has to make a judgement that the UK has been hit by a nuclear strike,” according to Prof Seligman. “The commander does that by trying to make contact with the UK via Naval Command or listening out for radio signals.” It’s thought one of the key tests is whether the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 is still broadcasting. If all the checks fail, the commander will go to the safe, remove the letter and find out what the orders are.’

    Therefore Corbyn’s proposed letter, in which he will tell the commander to wait for further orders is completely useless. This is but one detail in the muddled defence policy of Labour at present, which I believe means that they cannot recover more than a point or two in the polls (IMO).

    This does not of course mean that there are not many sincere people who share Corbyn’s views.

  22. MarkW

    I would agree that JC would have bad press whatever he says. So, it is one more reason for behaving like a leader of a party rather than just a private individual.

  23. @ToH

    I see, like Candy, you think you can read minds.

    Yes, I think we’re going to have to differ on that.

  24. @Chris Riley

    Who is “gloating”? Most of us know that the huge Conservative leads are temporary (or at least we think they’re purely down to people wanting to get a Double Democratic Lock on Brexit and will dissipate afterwards).

    What is interesting is that you think they are permanent and are getting a bit hysterical about them.

  25. Couper2802
    ‘However a day of reckoning will come, the Tory MSM and BBC can only keep punting the line that Brexit will make Britain strong and a world power again for so long before the truth becomes obvious…’

    I am less confident than you that the consequences of Brexit will be correctly attributed and blame (assuming blame is appropriate) laid at the right doors. I think the groundwork is already being laid for an attempt to blame a negative outcome on the EU’s intransigence/ meanness/ desire to punish/ bloody-minded cutting off of its economic nose to preserve its political face.

    In some ways the 2008 crash is instructive. Although the bankers were reviled, I think governments have shouldered more of the blame. The public outcry certainly didn’t lead to much substantive action against the sector.

  26. BIGFATRON
    @AC
    Funnily enough I agree with you about LDem voting prospects – I’m guessing 14-15%.
    That would be a 4-5% increases over the campaign, which would normally be viewed as a success; however it will not produce the return in terms of seats that they really need. To have a real influence on parliament they need to be at least 18-20%.

    I think they will pick up a few more seats than you do, but I expect them to lose one or two as well (Southport for instance) – I’d guess about 16-18 seats in total.
    .
    LDems need something that will kick-start their campaign and get them noticed; the first big event that might do this will be the locals on 4th May – they need to have a night that is either highly successful (which to me means 100+ gains) or can be sold as such…
    __________

    There is no doubt the Lib/Dems will increase their vote share from 2015 and all current polls have shown this to be the case. I know I tend to bash the Lib/Dems quite a bit but it’s for good reason. The party just doesn’t seem to be tapping into the anti-Brexit vote and there are a lot of moaning voters out there to be had.

    If the LibDems do well in the locals and I’m sure they will then that will give them some momentum and it may see their VI increase in the national polls, however, polls nearer polling day tend to overestimate the Lib’Dems as witnessed in the previous two GE’s.

    Even if the party wins 20 seats, that’s still well down on their 2010 election success and would still put them in 4th place in terms of bums on seats in Westminster.

  27. Edge of Seat – “What happens if a post-Brexit fully-sovereign Conservative-dominated Parliament with a massive majority, deprived of any meaningful opposition, shorn of any possible scapegoats, fails to reduce immigration? How will Leave voters react?”

    They’ll just switch to another party. It might even be Labour! After all, five years who could have predicted Corbyn, and who can predict the shape of Lab five years hence?

    They’ll likely shape their policies to take advantage of govt weakness – in other words politics as normal. Lab has done plenty of U-turns in the past, after all they used to be the anti-EU party once upon a time.

    Views shift and politics shifts to reflect those views. It’s only when politicians get rigid and try to emulate Canute that they get into trouble.

  28. The appropriate response from Corbyn would be to say:

    A key part of nuclear deterrence (and other aspects of UK defence policy) is that potential foes are uncertain about how or when one will react. To answer questions about whether or not one would press the button in particular circumstances, or what ones orders of last resort would be, would fundamentally undermine UK security. He will not participate in attempts to damage UK security by answering such questions, and so must politely decline to answer this or any other similar questions.

    He expects that Mrs May (should she ever consent to give a proper interview during the campaign) would give an identical answer, and he would condemn any attempt to get her or anyone else to damange UK security, and would also condemn any statements by e.g. Fallon that also have that effect.

    This has been the correct response from all politicians (of all colours) for as long as I can remember.

  29. Anthony: A constitutional question.
    In the unlikely/it won’t happen event that Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister, could the new cabinet/parliamentary Labour party remove and replace him?
    In other words could he remain as the theoretical leader of the party but not as PM?


    [Yes – the Queen can ask whomsoever can command a majority of the Commons to form a govt. So, for example, say Labour won 370 seats, but 330 Labour MPs decided they didn’t want Corbyn as PM and instead wanted, say, Hilary Benn, then Benn could be invited to form a government. Last time it happened was Churchill from May-Oct 1940, Chamberlain remained leader of the Conservative Party but with Churchill as PM until Chamberlain’s retirement due to ill-health in Oct 1940 – AW]

  30. @Lazlo “I would agree that JC would have bad press whatever he says. So, it is one more reason for behaving like a leader of a party rather than just a private individual.”

    Hit the nail on the head! I go from being gobsmacked with my head-in-my-hands all the way across the spectrum to contemptuous joy watching these deep self-inflicted wounds.

    It’s conflicting. On the one hand, I want to ensure Brexit happens and that the Government has a strong mandate. On the other hand, our system needs a competent Opposition to hold the government to account.

  31. @Graham – Have you a link to that ICM poll please?

  32. Pete B,

    “Therefore Corbyn’s proposed letter, in which he will tell the commander to wait for further orders is completely useless.”

    Far from it.

    The commander is in no position to judge anything other than that communication has been lost, he knows little or nothing about why. Waiting for further orders really just means continuing to patrol.

    If you think Firing blind, sailing for Brazil (to perhaps make them the emerging new worlds first superpower) or scuttling the sub are better options say why.

    Waiting for orders won’t make things worse, firing might well do, if despite devastation, it has stopped short of a full exchange.

    This conversation is another confirmation of why I am against Trident.

    Many of it and deterrents advocates, including most who would control it, seem to have a poor understanding of it’s implications.

    Peter.

  33. Robin

    I like that answer (not even Sir Humphrey could have invented a better one). But yew, if he wanted to avoid the question, that would have been one good answer.

  34. @Sea Change

    It is on Political Betting site and Guardian’s own site. No tables yet.

  35. @ Colin

    A little disingenuous saying that the Socialists were wiped out and an independent won. Macron was the Finance Minister in a Socialist Government and had Hollande’s backing, something that would be very well known to French voters.

  36. ICM, full figures:

    Con 48% (+2)
    Lab 27% (+2)
    LD 10% (-1)
    UKIP 7% (-1)
    Greens 3% (-1)

    The changes are from last week’s Guardian poll.

  37. Peter C
    We’re obviously not going to agree about this, but I would just point out that I was talking in terms of VI for the election, rather than my own views. Like others, including apparently some Labour MPs, Corbyn has shot himself in the foot again over the most important function of a government. In my opinion, Labour under Corbyn will do extremely well to get to 30% in the GE.

  38. Candy,
    “They’ll just switch to another party. … They’ll likely shape their policies to take advantage of govt weakness – in other words politics as normal.”

    They would indeed switch to another party, but how normal would the party be that they turn to? If the BNP started showing up in the polls on a similar scale to FN in France, would that not worry you?

    The danger is that unfulfilled implicit promises made during the Brexit campaign (such as the “Breaking Point” poster) will provide ammunition for extremists in post-Brexit elections.

  39. @Edge of Seat

    You are assuming that current parties are frozen in their policies for all time.

    It’s quite possible that a future labour party decides to be tough on immigration – after all Justin Trudeau decided to block unmarried Syrian males from getting refugee status in Canada and no-one accused him of becoming Marine Le Pen.

    Why do you believe that Lab, LibDems, Greens etc will rigidly hold their current positions forever more, forfeiting any chance of getting elected and that the only alternative will be the BNP?

    (The other possibility is that the govt does indeed manage to get immigration down – after all prior to the entry of the eastern europeans into the EU, net migration into the UK never exceeded 50,000 a year, so they’ve done it before).

  40. Robin
    I may have dreamt it but I seem to recall that May was asked whether she would push the button if the UK was under nuclear attack, during a PMQs some months ago and by an SNP chappy. She answered unequivocally, ‘yes’.

    On DP this lunchtime, the shadow defence secretary went out of her way to make clear what Labour policy was, is and will be but the irony of having the leader of the party openly disagreeing with the official party policy and refusing to carry it out, on such a critical issue, will not be lost on voters.

    His implication on Marr was that he would rather invite the aggressor round for a chat and a cream tea, (i.e. Surrender) before responding in kind.

    For Labour, the more they allow him on TV, the more of a disaster it will be for them on June 8th.

    Candy
    Agree with your post. I posted yesterday that on average it takes 15 years for Labour and Tories to go from near annihilation to back in power. 2032 GE will be Labours, under Starmer, or a fellow centrist. By which time, the SNP will have declined and Scotland will also, once again be a battle between Labour and Tory. The start of the SNP decline is this coming election.

    All in my opinion of course.

  41. “Anthony: A constitutional question.
    In the unlikely/it won’t happen event that Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister, could the new cabinet/parliamentary Labour party remove and replace him?
    In other words could he remain as the theoretical leader of the party but not as PM?

    [Yes – the Queen can ask whomsoever can command a majority of the Commons to form a govt. So, for example, say Labour won 370 seats, but 330 Labour MPs decided they didn’t want Corbyn as PM and instead wanted, say, Hilary Benn, then Benn could be invited to form a government. Last time it happened was Churchill from May-Oct 1940, Chamberlain remained leader of the Conservative Party but with Churchill as PM until Chamberlain’s retirement due to ill-health in Oct 1940 – AW] ”

    Thanks Anthony and that was as I had assumed.

    Looking at it in the longer term, and the other way around, when the Labour Party get rid of Corbyn I envisage that they will still be liable to right wing attack, on the basis that a “sensible” Labour Prime Minister could be replaced, at any time, by a combination of Labour Party members and members of parliament.

    I imagine that, in practice, that would be difficult to achieve as the members of parliament would be vital to it’s success. Neveretheless, it seems to me that the mere threat of it happening will be a burden for the Labour Party long, long after Corbyn has gone.

  42. Anthony
    Got a post in moderation, not quite sure why. Could you give it a poke and delete any offending word (I can’t see what it might be).

  43. Labour’s poll ratings at the moment are pretty close to where they were during Cleggmania in the 2010 election and the last week of the 1983 campaign. Some signs of a slight uptick in their vote share.

  44. PETER CAIRNS

    @”The purpose of a Nuclear Deterrent is Not To Fire First.”

    I know-I was pointing out that Corbyn doesn’t appear to.

    @”What part of the word Deter don’t you understand!!!!!”

    I don’t think you have understood my post at all!!!!!-suggest you watch the Marr interview !

  45. Pete B,

    “Like others, including apparently some Labour MPs, Corbyn has shot himself in the foot again over the most important function of a government.”

    Oh there is no doubt that Corbyn will get hammered for what he said, but that’s the important issue here.

    The UK is wedded to Nuclear Deterrents as the guarantee of our security and when a politician who is critical of that position gives an answer that in most respects is logically more consistent than his critics he gets attacked.

    It’s all very empowered new clothes, questioning Trident even when the question is legitimate and well reasoned is treated as heresy to be condemned.

    Anything other than we’ll fire back is seen as weakness and undermines deterrence, even when it is talking about when deterrence has actually failed.

    Be it Russia in Syria or the US strikes last month as well as both gold wars, we now know that a swift targeted conventional cruise missile attack and severally disrupt command and control, so there is the real possibility that our subs could be out of communication without nukes being fired.

    If the Letter says retaliate we could actually be the ones starting WW3.

    But we can’t even openly and rationally discuss that or any other aspect of Trident and how to adapt because it’s Unpatriotic and borderline sacrilege to question the Supremacy of UK Nuclear Doctrine.

    Peter.

  46. OLLYT

    @”A little disingenuous saying that the Socialists were wiped out and an independent won. Macron was the Finance Minister in a Socialist Government and had Hollande’s backing, something that would be very well known to French voters.”

    In terms of Party allegiance it is factually correct.

    In terms of Mr Macron’s POLICIES-when they at last appear-it certainly remains to be seen & is the subject of rolling discussion on the excellent France 24 news channel.

    My own impression is that he is most certainly not a Hollande Socialist-thats why he resigned. Tony Blair might be a better example.

    Anyway I will watch with interest his clash with French Unions as he tries to cut the Public Sector Headcount & relax Labour Employment Laws-then we will both know whether he is a Socialist or not :-)

  47. Peter C
    You’re still missing the point. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of particular policies, this site is about polling and elections, and my opinion is that Corbyn’s statements on defence will negatively affect Labour VI.

    Though there are those who agree with his position, do you think it will actually gain many votes? I suppose we shall see in the first poll where the fieldwork took place after his latest statement.

  48. Peter Cairns SNP

    I have watched this little debate with some interest and there is something in your reasoning. However it matters not, it’s how the voters view the arguments which matter most in the election and I suspect they would see it as Corbyns approach at best as muddled at worse as unpatriotic.

  49. Graham – the challenge for Labour is getting that element of their usual voters who don’t want a Corbyn led Government to still vote for their local Labour candidate (mainly sitting MP). I don’t think many will move right over to Tory, although some of the 2005/10 vote have/will via UKIP.
    I could never vote Tory or LD but I can’t vote Corbyn so I am staying at home is the target group in E&W. In Scotland they can vote SNP.

1 2 3 4 5 6