Two new voting intention polls today. The first by Survation for Good Morning Britain had topline figures of CON 48%(+1), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 4%(nc). Clearly there is no substantial change since their poll a week ago. Fieldwork was conducted on Friday and Saturday, after the leak of the Labour manifesto, and doesn’t show any sign of any impact.

The second was the weekly ICM poll for the Guardian. Topline figures there are CON 48%(-1), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 6%(nc). As many have noted, ICM are now are, along with TNS, one of only two pollsters still showing Labour support below thirty points (MORI last poll did the same, but that was several weeks ago when everyone showed Labour that low). It’s not that ICM haven’t shown Labour support rising a little. ICM have been showing Labour recovering slightly, it’s just they’ve been doing so at a slightly lower figures: at the start of the campaign ICM had Labour at 25-26% and they now have them at 27%-28%.

This seems to be a consistent methodological difference. The methodological differences between pollsters are complicated and various, and some of them work in opposite directions (ICM, for example, also reallocate don’t knows in a way that helps Labour) but the most obvious one at the moment is probably the approach to turnout. Traditionally British pollsters have accounted for people’s likelihood to vote by getting respondents to estimate their own likelihood to vote – put crudely, they ask people to say how likely they are to vote on a scale of 0 to 10, and then either weight them accordingly (someone who says they are 8/10 likely to vote is only counted as 8/10ths of someone who says 10/10), or apply a cut off, ignoring people who rate their chances below 5/10 or 9/10 or 10/10. Since 2015 several companies, including YouGov and Ipsos MORI, have also factored in whether people say they have voted in the past, weighting down past non-voters.

ICM and ComRes have adopted new approaches. Rather than basing their turnout model on people’s self-reported likelihood to vote, they base it on their demographics – estimating respondent’s likelihood to vote based on their age and social grade – the assumption being that younger people and working class people will remain less likely than older, more middle class people to vote. This tends to have the effect of making the results substantially more Conservative, less Labour, meaning that ICM and ComRes tend to produce some of the biggest Tory leads.

Full tabs for the ICM poll are here and the Survation poll here.

263 Responses to “Latest ICM and Survation voting intentions”

1 4 5 6
  1. @ Trevor

    Ironically the Corbyn manifesto will resonate better in Scotland than Dugdale’s mainstream PLP stance. There may be some shift back to Lab as a result – would be interesting if the manifesto is a poll question to see the cross tables from Scotland

  2. I’m going to post this again, as I think it is quite important but didn’t get much comment at it was posted late last night.

    Key observations –

    1. Labour is not doing as badly as it appears
    2. The Lib Dem demise is not all down to a terrible campaign, a lot of it is their voters are lining up behind Labour in Tory/Labour marginals

    With no progressive alliance, voters are creating their own.

    I expect Labour to continue to climb, they will poll better percentage wise than 2015, Lib Dems will continue to drop.

  3. @Trevor

    Re bias: I did not detect any but we all have our own inbuilt bias one way or another.

    The concluding part of the article interests me. How long can the SCons keep the votes of former SLabs ?

    There are no easy choices for Mrs May over Brexit. It seems clear to me that the EU position is that there will be no “deep and special” relationship with the UK. We will become a third country on leaving. That will cause many problems, not least in NI. Mrs May cannot choose the EEA because that would mean free movement of people and cost the Tories many votes, reviving the zombie, UKIP. There is a chance that a break-up of the talks will be managed early -just after the election.


    Thanks for reminding me. With IndyRef1-2 and Brexit it’s easy to forget that Scottish voters also need to consider the traditional Left-Right split in politics as well – the 3rd dimension!

    Looking ahead to 2021 Holyrood that is going to be a very complex set of decisions for each voter to make and probably result in a very fragile coalition – Labour as kingmaker in either a SNP “left” coalition or a CON-LDEM “union” coalition?

  5. @Richard

    “I’m going to post this again, as I think it is quite important but didn’t get much comment at it was posted late last night.”


    Yep, good spot, and interesting that rather more people have been contacted by Labour. One wonders how many messages are being carefully crafted and targeted by Tory campaign without actually being attributed to them…

  6. Looking at a regional level

    If Lib Dems start getting squeezed like we are seeing with UKIP and as that ‘in your constituency’ poll suggests

    Add a large chunk of the remaining Lib Dem/PC vote to the Labour score in each region, and suddenly Tory whitewash becomes even match outside of the South of England (Tory) and London (Labour/ Lib Dem)

    This is not over yet….

  7. @ RICHARD – I read it, good article.

    I agree. In all but a handful of S.W.London seats the progressive alliance tactical vote should be to vote LAB. LDEM was a “momentum” play that never gained any momentum. With such high churn I think they risk polling less than 2015. Some potential voters may switch (or switch back) to Green party (eg Bristol West) but LAB should get the most benefit (many of them simply returnees). Only about 50% of LDEM VI is a loyal voter from 2015!

    I think there are 20-25 seats where a tactical vote could stop CON gaining the seat from LAB. I still tend to think the leap from LDEM to LAB is a large one. It might work better for younger voters who don’t have much party loyalty.

    The challenge for LAB will be to get good turnout. Relying on the “Macron factor” to get people to vote for you as a vote against someone else is not a great way to achieve high turnout.

  8. @Trevor

    Yes, I think we all expected the Lib Dems to do well in the locals, and then surge into the GE. (At least I did)

    Instead they sank without a trace in the locals, and I think many that voted Lib Dem were then dismayed to see a Tory elected.

    We know the current Lib Dem voters are mostly hardline remain voters – Brexit is the most important issue in this election, they know their vote won’t make a difference in their constituency, the Tories are certainly not going to stop Brexit, Labour is wishy washy, but the best of a bad bunch, they are at least making promising sounds about staying in the single market?

    All sounds like fertile ground for a big Lib Dem to Labour swing in seats where the Lib Dems are not competitive.

    The media got lost in impact of the UKIP demise but have missed the Lib Dem parallel that we are seeing unfolding day by day.

  9. Are there any polls that show results by employment sector eg education, civil service, finance, manufacturing, retail etc etc

  10. @Gavin Hartwell

    Your reply to MarkW is misleading. The only version of the electoral register that is publicly available for purchase is the edited register that does not contain either all the people who are on the electoral register, or any record of who has voted. The marked register is a copy of the full register, which includes those who have opted out of the edited register and contains the marks made by the presiding officer at each polling station, recording who has voted. There are some serious restrictions on who is entitled to this and what they can do with it. I suggest that you go to the Electoral Commission web site and read their guidance on it.

  11. @Trevor Warne

    Con: 52%
    Lab: 29%
    LD: 6%
    UKIP: 3%
    Oth: 10%

  12. @LeftieLiberal

    Thanks for clarifying about the marked register. (I understood it was available to research organisations as well as political parties – but as you have explained commercial polling wouldn’t count.)

  13. Sorry, posted above in the wrong thread. :(

1 4 5 6