Two new polls today:

Survation for Good Morning Britain this morning had topline figures of CON 43%(nc), LAB 37%(+3), LDEM 9%(nc), UKIP 4%(nc). Fieldwork was on Friday and Saturday and changes are from the previous week. Tabs are here.

ICM for the Guardian had topline figures of CON 45%(-1), LAB 33%(+1), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc). Fieldwork was from Friday to Monday and changes are from the ICM/Sun on Sunday poll at the weekend. Tabs are here.

Both of today’s polls continue to show movement in Labour’s favour, thought the overall lead is different. A six point Tory lead would represent a small swing towards Labour, a twelve point Tory lead would still give them a stonking great majority.

The key difference between polls showing large and small leads is, as I wrote at the weekend down to how pollsters are treating turnout. There are lots of differences between different polling companies methods: they sample differently, weight by different things, do different things with don’t knows and so on. However, right now the one really huge difference is turnout. Weighted with all its normal demographic and political weights, ICM would have shown a Tory lead of only 3 points – that was transformed into a lead of 11 points by the turnout model, which predicts how likely respondents are to vote based on the estimates of turnout by age and class at the last election (the change from 11 to 12 points was the reallocation of don’t knows). That’s a big change, but given the errors in the polls in 2015 that may be necessary. On the other hand, if Jeremy Corbyn has managed to enthuse young people and there is a higher rate of turnout among younger voters than in 2015 then it risks understating Labour support. We shall find out next week…


1,134 Responses to “Latest ICM and Survation polls”

1 2 3 4 23
  1. What I don’t understand is this:
    (1) Survation haven’t changed their methodology,
    (2) YouGov *have* changed theirs,
    (3) Yet heir figures barely differ.

    To add to the mystery, their figures were often very similar in the few weeks leading up to the 2015 election as well. The final published Survation poll (4-6 May) had Con-Lab tied; the final published YouGov (same fieldwork dates) also had a tie. The YouGov before that likewise had a tie, while the Survation (same fieldwork dates as YG again) had a 1-pt Lab lead.

    Survation didn’t change their methodology because their unpublished poll got the actual result correct. But if they were correct that this was due to late swing then it would imply that YG’s 2015 methodology was also correct – which YG concluded it wasn’t.

    Finally if YG’s changes to methodology are correct, how come they are still giving much the same Con leads as Survation? Perhaps because YG think (based on their revised methodology) that youth turnout will genuinely be higher this time?

  2. AlexW,

    IIRC the data from last summer suggested that whereas polling showed the young to be heavily remain, of those who actually voted, the split was more even.

    Some vocal elements may have felt robbed. But I don’t think that is a majority, still less a universal, position.

  3. The last BBC article I saw on the 18-30s turnouts (at the last election and possibly at this one) is that the 18-30s are still as por-Labour as they’ve always been (no more) and as likely to turn out as they have always been (which is not much).

    It is a Labour mirage that we always hope is going to turn up, to make up for a chronic unpopular leader and it never works.

    We need to face facts – the “don’t vote” wont vote; the young will not vote in great numbers; and the media will be negative to a crap leader. So, even though many seem to be deaf to this idea, WE NEED TO PICK A LEADER WITH THE BASIC ABILITY TO BE PM.

  4. Adrian B

    Excluding all the “We” bits (Who are We? am I a we?) I fully agree with what you have just said.

  5. Has polling replaced economics as “the dismal science”?

  6. Patrickbrian, I agree. It’s vulgar .

  7. looking at the possibility of a huge grass-roots swing for Corbyn. Isnt it the case that most of the people in these cases are in labour seats anyway? So all that will be happening is increasing the labour majorities. Its not like the leadership election where it was a single vote. So what labour really need to do is to galvanise the young people in the seats they wish to gain. No good enthusing people who are voting for you anyway….
    The beauties of FPTP

  8. I think I just argued that the pollsters are not asking the right people their questions.

  9. @ikcdab

    It looks like Labour could make some gains in the South, and hold the Tories off strongly in Labour areas.

    The single worst place where Labour look like not making progress is Scotland.

    Labour losses could be in single figures only.

    Unless the Tory lead improves, we may find the result really close to the result.

  10. If the polls remain as they are but the result is a Tory landslide I will still not blame the polling companies.

    In 2015 YouGov had it very close, even the exit poll, and we all know what happened there. People lie, it cannot be the fault of the polling company if people are telling them one thing but doing another.

    It seems to me that polling for elections has become increasingly harder to find the real state of play unlike say a referendum.

  11. Correction

    @ikcdab

    It looks like Labour could make some gains in the South, and hold the Tories off strongly in Labour areas.

    The single worst place where Labour look like not making progress is Scotland.

    Labour losses could be in single figures only.

    Unless the Tory lead improves, we may find the result really close to the 2015 result.

  12. @Adrian B

    All the evidence we have shows a significantly more activated younger generation at present. Both via polling and other anecdotal evidence.

    For example this is Corbyn appearing at the libertines gig a week ago.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cant-stand-may-now-jeremy-corbyn-appears-on-stage-before-the-libertines-at-music-festival-a3544431.html

    Can you think of any prior politician that has been treated like this before by the under 30’s? I can’t.

  13. @DANNY: “Mate of mine suggested this could end up as a 1945 landslide, against the government which apparently had just been the victor.”

    The losing PM may have been ‘the victor’ but the government was a coalition, including Attlee as deputy PM.

  14. @Danny

    I think I just argued that the pollsters are not asking the right people their questions.

    I believe that was the essential finding of the 2015 GE polling post-mortem.

  15. “So what labour really need to do is to galvanise the young people”

    As you say, it’s all about the the marginals, but I’m not so sure it’s about the young people (for all the turn-out reasons people have mentioned). For labour to do well in the marginals, I think the critical thing will be how well they can re-capture ex-Labour voters who’ve gone to UKIP. I have no idea if JC is the right person to do this.

  16. On Peston’s ITV show they said that you seem to get a more accurate prediction of the election result (i.e which party wins the election, rather than the share of the vote) by, instead of asking people who they are going to vote for, asking them who they think is going to win.

  17. Catmanjeff,
    indeed, I read that too. But have they figured out who are the right people to ask?

    There is a lot of chat above about turnout, and I recognise why. But this says nothing about why the conservative lead has dwindled steadily. The same turnout factors have been applied to raw data throughout as far as I know. It might explain why final polls fail to match the actual result, but has nothing to do with the collapse of the conservative lead, which many on different threads have described as unprecedented.

  18. The sex splits are intriguing – in Survation, Labour are leading for females, whilst the Conservatives are way ahead for the males. In the ICM poll, Conservatives are actually leading Labour for females more than for males!

    How can this be?

    Could it be that the complexity of this election means that samples sizes of 1000 (Survation) or even 2000 (ICM) are too small? Or that the sampling methodologies that have served them in the past are not working (for one of them at least?)?

    The only thing I feel sure about is the swing to Labour over the past three weeks. What the final result will be is just a guess… and I’m not willing to make it, as the data is all over the place…

  19. I wouldn’t want to be a polling company this time. Anecdotally it feels as if young are much more motivated than usual. As per my post to Helen on the last thread, it really is now down to movement trajectory amongst different cohorts.

  20. Good evening all from a muggy Winchester.

    “On the other hand, if Jeremy Corbyn has managed to enthuse young people and there is a higher rate of turnout among younger voters than in 2015 then it risks understating Labour support. We shall find out next week…”
    __________

    There is a lot at stake in this election for the yoof. Soaring house prices, exorbitant rents, student debt and the list goes on. My other half is 24 and this will be her first election that she’s going to be voting in.

    I have to admit ol Corby enthused her to go out and use her vote. Personally, for me, this is a strange election because I’ve always been far more Tory-leaning than Labour but I don’t like my vote been taken for granted and above all, I don’t like the treatment from some quarters towards ol Corby.

  21. @Jamie Stewart,
    Perhaps the gender crossbreaks have a 6% margin of error which could easily explain the differences.

  22. PHILOTES

    That’s the “Wisdom of Crowds” model.

    AFAIK most of the supporting evidence for it comes from the USA (where, unsurprisingly, the closer to the election itself, the prediction seems to be quite accurate).

    One pollster (I forget which one) tried that in GB, prior to 2015 election – but I never saw any analysis of whether they were better than the others.

  23. This is beginning to look like a turnout game to me. In 2015 the 18-24 had a 44% turnout. If it stays below 55% it will be a Con Maj prob 40-50. If it gets above 65% it could push this into Hung P territory.

    The other big question is have the polls over corrected, if no or haven’t corrected enough then as above CON maj of at least 40. If yes and the gap is 4 points rather than 8 then again we head towards Hung P territory.

    If we get both >65% 18-24 turnout and LAB over correction in polls then JC maybe PM by 9am Friday.

  24. Something I brought up in the last thread, but didn’t get much of a response to: I don’t get how a Tory lead that’s the same as in 2015 would end up with a result like 2015. Just because there hasn’t been an enormous swing between the two parties, it doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been an enormous swing full stop. The Tories in particular are up by a fairly consistent 8-10%, with Labour enjoying a similar boost in some polls (though less in others). The last time we had the two main parties capturing over 80% of the vote (admittedly quite some time ago) 6% leads routinely delivered 100 seat majorities. Leads of just a few percent resulted in majorities of more than 30. Now that we seem to be returning to two-party politics, is there a good reason that wouldn’t happen this time around?

  25. I’m a little confused with those turnout weightings.

    Quoting AW’s summary of the findings of the 2015 polling enquiry:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/date/2016/03

    “Turnout models weren’t that good, but it didn’t cause the error”

    “The main cause of the error was unrepresentative samples”

    Don’t get me wrong- there absolutely should be a fudge factor. If Lab is continually getting overstated and Con understated in the polls then a good starting point would be 3 points off the Lab headline figure and 3 on the Tory one so in a sense maybe ICM are more or less doing that along with other stuff they have previously done anyway.

    So maybe the ICM figures turn out OK, but surely not because they have corrected the errors in 2015 by any logical means that address that failure to reach a certain percentage of the electorate.

    Also Brexit polling (I think) seemed to underestimate leave because they assumed people who never used to turn out wouldn’t for Brexit either. If the same thing occurs this time and we see some irregular voters turn out to see Brexit through then that might cause an underestimation in the Tory vote- same applies in reverse for Labour and 18-24 are assumed not going to vote when maybe they will ior a double whammy where the 18-24’s they can’t contact turn out to be Brexiters.

  26. @JAMIE STEWART: “Could it be that the complexity of this election means that samples sizes of 1000 (Survation) or even 2000 (ICM) are too small?”

    In a word, no. Size really doesn’t matter. Who you sample does, though.

  27. Conservative in 40s, Labour in 30s looks right. Polls again broadly accurate.
    The Brexit vote is swinging it for the Theresatives even though lifelong Conservative voters and activists are doing so through gritted teeth because of the Theresative hijack of the manifesto without any consultation with MPs and party workers.
    If Corbyn and the Labour MPs were a really credible passionate Brexit team, then it might be a contest.
    Corbyn can not signal passionate full blooded Brexit because 25 of his 50 safest seats are rock solid Remain and could still LibDem or Green.
    Corbyn can not signal full blooded Remain because 25 of his safest seats (up North in the heartlands) are rock solid Leave.
    The LibDems may have reached rock bottom.
    Ditto Ukip because their voters want Brexit sealed urgently and can only see Theresa May as the option from poor choices.
    Only the Ukip hardcore totally distrust flip flop Remainer Theresa May to go through with it.
    Labour canvassers in Midlands and North reporting deep apathy or hostility from heartlands vote as regards Corbyn. Could be a lot of no shows.
    A vote is a vote. The polls can not measure intensity, depth of conviction, etc

  28. When engagement was highest – at the start of the snap election – we got the most accurate poll.

    The fundamentals are clear.

    1) Corbyn is a deeply unpopular leader.
    2) May is perceived to be the best for Brexit negotiations.

    The first polls painted an entirely expected picture of expectation basis the fundamentals. Now most people have moved on with their daily lives.

    Only the most politically active are left in this “debate” and I would argue that would be biased to the left.

    Hence the apparent shift in the polls.

    There is no hard evidence other than guesstimates and estimates of the perpetuated assumption that the young people heavily support the left. Young people vote according to their parents persuasion.

    I am sticking to my initial view and that is the tories get a historical landslide and the left once again argue they lost because they weren’t left wing enough and the young people who love them didn’t bother to vote. Wrong on both accounts.

    And I suspect polling companies get another tongue lashing.

  29. catmanjeff

    @ikcdab

    It looks like Labour could make some gains in the South, and hold the Tories off strongly in Labour areas.

    The single worst place where Labour look like not making progress is Scotland.

    Labour losses could be in single figures only.

    Unless the Tory lead improves, we may find the result really close to the result
    ___________

    I don’t think the Tories are going to make the sort of gains they have been shouting about in Scotland. The SNP have finally fired the opening salvos big time with their campaign after their manifesto launch. It looked more like a party conference than anything else judging by the number of people in Perth city hall. They will be fired up over the next week and I expect the polls will move in the SNP’s favour.

    Anything less than 5 gains for the Tories in Scotland will be a disaster for mini May.

  30. Danny and James,

    One thing evident from all the polls, including raw data before any filters are applied, is that the Conservative vote has held fairly steady throughout.

    What has changed is the number of DK / WNV who have been attracted to Lab. Many, but not all, of these are former Lab “supporters” (but may not be actual “voters”). This probably has more to do with positive perceptions of Corbyn’s campaign than either manifesto.

    I don’t think it is accurate to say that either there has been a “collapse” in Con, or even a Con->Lab swing

    What it also probably means is that the Lab vote is soft. It may therefore be the case that turnout is higher in “safe” Lab seats, thereby boosting Lab share, but still leaving Lab well adrift in terms of seats.

  31. By Age the voting for elections since 1997 as never been so polarised

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-1997
    In 1997 Blair victory the votes across all ages very similar.

  32. Thanks RP. 6% margins of error are pretty huge, but make sense for 500 sample sizes of 30 million!

  33. @Adrian B
    “…..and the media will be negative to a crap leader.”
    “We need to pick a leader with the basic ability to be PM.”

    Presumably, the WE refers to fellow Labour members such as my wife and I? We heard all the arguments you now make back in the 90s – yes we got three Labour wins, but not one droplet of Socialism that has embedded irreversably. As soon as we get a leader that the capitalist media are nice about, by definition such a leader will not implement Socialism. There is no point in Labour winning just to do a few temporary welfare tinkers within a globalist-capitalist values environment. What’s the point?

  34. “I don’t get how a Tory lead that’s the same as in 2015 would end up with a result like 2015”

    It was a good question, and I don’t think I’ve got a good answer, but I’ll try to make a start, and see if others have better ideas. It seems to me that both Lab and Con have lots of ‘banker’ constituencies nowadays. That is, you have to change the vote share by quite a lot for the really safe seats to change colour. Conversely there seem to be relatively few seats in the marginal area. Now I have no idea why this should be different to the past. Maybe it’s another ‘imponderable’ for the pollsters, and the return of many LibDem and UKIP votes to the two-party fold will generate lots of unexpected results.

    So my conclusion would be, if we really are in the small swing territory, it could be a very interesting and unexpected night on the 8th. But it’s still quite possible that the Tory lead is too big for things to get ‘interesting’.

  35. I am a novice to interpreting polls. That said, surely the best poll would be to target voters only in the key seats – those that are marginals, or those with a strong Brexit factor. I was recently phoned at random by ICM. I live in leafy Surrey, as blue an area as Sunderland is red. Asking people in Surrey how they will vote is pointless really.

    Could one of the pollsters just focus on key areas in Wales, marginals in Scotland and the swathe of seats in the Midlands. It is in these areas that the election will be won or lost.

  36. The BBC led on the Corbyn childcare interview..

  37. News at 10 I mean.

  38. @Jonathan Stuart Brown,
    “Conservative in 40s, Labour in 30s looks right. Polls again broadly accurate.”

    I’d agree but… that’s not necessarily going to be accurate enough to satisfy the press or the public.

    There’s a big difference between, say, 43-38 and 47-33.

  39. Do they account for the fact that UKIP are not standing in a large number of areas and the Tories are the most likely beneficiary.

  40. The polls which matter start from Friday. These are the snapshots which can be validly compared with the June 8 vote.
    No one is going to buy a 10% swing in the last six days unless war, earthquake, big bank crash, or resignation of either Corbyn or May before June 8.

  41. @GARJ

    SNP mess this up a bit, lots of seats for a small national vote share.

    More than ever before, the amount of engagement the young have in this election is crucial. Obviously those who fill in the questionnaire are politically engaged and mostly on the left, but how representative are they. Engaging the disengaged is hard to do and possibly futile because you have then made them engaged.

  42. Evening in Bournemouth has got more interesting after a tweet about the TIMES tomorrow; saying Tories may have no overall majority as things stand in their poll.

    ‘I don;t believe it’

  43. @chrislane,

    Evidence?

  44. I would love to know where these labour gains are going to be in the south.. I can’t see on these figures if the tories poll anything near 44 or 45, percent which seats they may take from the tories. As for labour losses.. I live in the West Midlands .. labour is going nowhere here. No bounce nothing. They may lose 11 seats across this region alone.

  45. @RP
    “Conservative in 40s, Labour in 30s looks right. Polls again broadly accurate.”
    I’d agree but… that’s not necessarily going to be accurate enough to satisfy the press or the public.
    There’s a big difference between, say, 43-38 and 47-33.
    ………………………………………
    You are of course correct.

    BTW have people seen George Osborne’s stunning Evening Standard editorial about May’s misguided personality cult North Korean style and dreadful manifesto. I think he is preparing to push MPs for leadership challenge before say September 23.

  46. Am surprised the times is running with that. I suspect some other motive. Not sure what. It doesn’t look anywhere near right based on average of current polls.

  47. George Osbourne has just done an editorial hatchet job on the Tories manifesto.

  48. @AC

    I kind of have seven Tory gains pencilled in for Scotland.

    It looks like the best region for gains for the Tories to me.

  49. Its possible in the south, Labour eating into Lib Dem votes and taken 2nd place in several constituencies

1 2 3 4 23