More Brexit polling

A year on from the EU referendum there was some new YouGov polling for the Times this morning. The country remain quite evenly split over whether Brexit is right or wrong, 44% think leaving was the right decision, 45% the wrong decision. There is not much optimism about negotiations – only 26% expect the government to achieve a deal that is good for Britain, 31% expect a poor deal, 15% expect no deal at all (that said, most don’t think Labour would be doing any better – 24% think they’d get a better deal, 34% a worse deal, 20% that it would end up much the same).

Asked to choose between Britain having full control over immigration from Europe or British businesses having free access to trade with the EU people preferred trade by 58% to 42%. As I wrote in my last post, there’s a lot of variation in questions like this depending on the specific wording, but the overall picture suggests that when people are pushed to choose they do think trade is more important than control of immigration (though among Conservative voters the balance is the other way round).

On other matters, on the question of who would make the best Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn now leads Theresa May by a single point – 35% to 34%. This is the first time that Corbyn has led in the question – this is partially because of a sharp drop in Theresa May’s ratings (before the snap election she was consistently in the high 40s), but is also due to a significant increase in Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings. Again, if you look at the longer term ratings he used to be consistenty down in the teens.

Full tabs are here

I should also add an update on polling about the second referendum. In my last post I mentioned the Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday which found that the balance of opinion was in favour of having a second referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal. This was the first time any poll had shown this, and I said it was worth looking to see if other polls found the same. Well, so far they haven’t – Survation also had a poll for Good Morning Britain on Monday, that also had a question on a second referendum, and it found 38% of people supported it and 57% were opposed. Tabs for that are here.


451 Responses to “More Brexit polling”

1 5 6 7 8 9 10
  1. @Trevor Warne “I’d consider myself a “central” voter on a left-right scale but since LDEM are Remain and LAB are far-left I have to go with CON until Brexit is delivered. Red Tory or Blairite (without Blair) will get my vote in next GE if that is an option – provided they honour the EU referendum of course :)”

    I find it amazing that any Brexiteer is considered a foaming right-winger! It needs to be repeated – 36% of SNP voters voted Brexit. 37% of Labour Voters did (and a clear majority in their Midland and Northern heartlands), 30% of Lib Dems did, even 25% of Green voters did!

  2. SEA CHANGE @ BZ

    Fair enough. My own guess would be that the Speaker would determine whether the two votes could be sequential.

  3. BARBAZENZERO
    “The UK GE this month happened because Corbyn thought he could increase his seat numbers or perhaps even win. That’s why he supported the main form of the motion [“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”] and whipped his MPs to provide the two-thirds majority for it.”
    I disagree. He supported it because he had to: no leader of a party in opposition can ever credibly pass up the chance of gaining power through an election, no matter how remote the chances might seem at the time. I really doubt if he ever believed at the start of the campaign that Labour stood any chance at all of gaining seats. That only became possible because of the disaster of everything Tory. Had they ran an effective campaign and with a sensible manifesto Labour would have been very, very lucky to have even got close to saving all their MPs.

  4. @ SEA CHANGE / BBZ – appreciate your constitutional expertise. Can I check the following.

    1/ Speaker can allow up to 4 amendments to be voted on for QS. In the past some have succeeded and QS can be amended. If opposition amendments are included does this impact how opposition parties would vote on the final QS?
    2/ Once amendments have been voted on the QS is de facto a confidence vote as failure for CON to pass the QS would mean LAB get a chance to form a govt?
    3/ However, if LAB also can’t form a govt (fairly obvious from the numbers) a 2nd GE would still need FTPA so we could exist with a zombie CON govt (not sure zombie is the correct technical term) until
    4/ Next budget in Spring 2018 which is de facto a confidence vote as it is essential to pass a budget.

    I don’t see CON engineering a confidence vote by choice when they are down in the polls. Even without DUP C+S, could they limp through to Spring 2018? The backlog of Brexit related legislation and Brexit timetable would start to create a problem but given LAB’s manifesto stance on Brexit they would be breaking promises if they frustrated every piece of Brexit legislation – sensible amendments not withstanding!

  5. Bald bloke

    You are giving Corbyn zero credit here. The Labour manifesto resonated with huge swathes of the electorate. Corbyn also came across as a decent man and not the devil incarnate as projected by the right wing press.

    It wasn’t just about the failure of the Tory campaign.

  6. “Labour will want a trade deal with the EU. Con may be willing to depart without one.”

    Both Labour and the Tories positions are the same. Free frictionless trade with the EU.

    That is just soundbites, however, because there are two sides in the negotiation. If the EU refuses or puts unrealistic demands – what then?

    Is Labour going to back a bill of £100 Billion? (I think not – political suicide!)
    Is Labour going to back continued Freedom of Movement in return for a FTA? (I think not – also political suicide!)
    Is Labour going to back subjection of UK Law by EU law? (possibly but pretty toxic IMO)

  7. My post above was @Mike Pearce

  8. Out for the rest of the day. Forgot to add link to last post. I’m no expert on constitutional protocol so based my guess of what happens next on info from:

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7163

  9. Trevor Warne, some background on the term ‘ corbynista’.

    http://hannahkate.net/corbynistas-vs-corbynites-the-power-of-a-suffix/

  10. Seachange. All valid questions. The key point is that Labour can just sit back and await the outcome of the Tory Brexit negotiations. As of yet we do not know what the divorce bill will be.
    We also need to factor the performance of the UK economy over the next year. If there is little economic growth the desire for a trade deal will become ever more important. This will be reflected in public opinion. I have a gut feeling immigration control is going to become far less important.

    Interesting weeks ahead.

  11. Mike Pearce
    “It wasn’t just about the failure of the Tory campaign.”

    Quite true. Corbyn did spectacularly well, by enthusing sections of the electorate who don’t usually vote. Let’s not forget though that despite the Tories’ poor campaign they actually gained nearly 2.5 million votes compared to 2015. This is the most votes they have gained from one GE to the next since 1979. So the campaign can hardly be said to have failed, even though it could have been far far better.

  12. Trevor Warne & Mark W

    I’m totally fine with the term Corbynista, proud to be one!

  13. Regarding the Panelbase poll, I believe the only other time Labour hit 46% in any poll was an IpsosMORI one back in November 2012.

    Before that, you have to go all the way back to the halcyon days of Blair in June 2002 when they hit 48% with MORI!

  14. Cambridgerachel,

    Yes, I would be fine with it’s use in certain contexts, but not in others.

    From what you say, and looking at the history of other words, it may be about to be claimed by the mocked group as a positive term.

    It has certainly lost it’s sting recently.

  15. @Trevor Warne

    “1/ Speaker can allow up to 4 amendments to be voted on for QS. In the past some have succeeded and QS can be amended. If opposition amendments are included does this impact how opposition parties would vote on the final QS?
    2/ Once amendments have been voted on the QS is de facto a confidence vote as failure for CON to pass the QS would mean LAB get a chance to form a govt?
    3/ However, if LAB also can’t form a govt (fairly obvious from the numbers) a 2nd GE would still need FTPA so we could exist with a zombie CON govt (not sure zombie is the correct technical term) until
    4/ Next budget in Spring 2018 which is de facto a confidence vote as it is essential to pass a budget.
    I don’t see CON engineering a confidence vote by choice when they are down in the polls. Even without DUP C+S, could they limp through to Spring 2018? The backlog of Brexit related legislation and Brexit timetable would start to create a problem but given LAB’s manifesto stance on Brexit they would be breaking promises if they frustrated every piece of Brexit legislation – sensible amendments not withstanding!”

    1) All votes are separate, so if amendments are agreed in the committee or report stage and then voted upon in the final 3rd reading of the bill stage that would be a matter for the Opposition parties.

    2) No. The QS can be amended and passed. Very rare, but there are precedents. Gladstone springs to mind.

    3) Yes. The FTPA makes zombie governments marginally more probable.

    4) Yes/No. Confidence and Supply (budget) votes are conventons. However the FTPA has thrown all that in the air somewhat. Politics will likely bypass it and I truly believe our constitution needs the FTPA to be repealed or significantly amended for it to function as it usually has.

    I agree with your final statement. The Tories/DUP are unlikely to voluntarily relinquish power unless there are major extenuating circumstances with the EU negotiations.

  16. I prefer the sound of ‘ Corbynite’ , sounds much more exciting, probably why the media stuck with other terms.

  17. Watching Corbyn’s extraordinary Glasto. gig & contemplating his no less extraordinary personal poll ratings , I wondered…

    How much of Labour’s current VI is derived from JC personally?

    I imagine that very little Con VI is now a function of TM’s leadership.

  18. Colin

    A high proportion would be my answer. His Blairite colleagues need to understand this.
    Despite all of their travails the Tory share of the vote at 41% is still healthy enough despite May.

  19. Colin
    “How much of Labour’s current VI is derived from JC personally?”

    That’s a good point. Corbyn is 68. He looks quite for for his age but would he still be around if this government manages to last for five years?

  20. Theresa May and the Holy Grail, a bit of light relief…

    http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2016/s4691365.htm

  21. @Mike Pearce “The key point is that Labour can just sit back and await the outcome of the Tory Brexit negotiations.”

    I don’t think it is that simple for Labour at all. They will need to enunciate their position whenever the EU try to demand something politically toxic to the UK (which you can almost guarantee happening).

    They will also have to form positions on legislation to enable Brexit to happen, starting with the repeal of the EC 1972 Act.

    It is a total minefield for Labour! Even more so than for the Tories as there are significantly more voters in the Labour coalition who want to Remain yet 70% of their constituencies voted out!

    The PLP want to Remain, but Corbyn/McDonnell want out.

    The only parties that can realistically sit back and say “told you so” if it all goes pear-shaped are the Lib Dems & the Greens.

  22. Further to my last post, the oldest Labour Prime Minister was MacDonald, at 69 (but he was leading the National Government by then). Other than that it was Attlee at 68 when he lost in 1951. Of course records are made to be broken.

    Also, is Corbynite related to Kryptonite which nearly finished off Superman?

  23. @BZ

    Agreed, the Speaker might well have to rule on that. Nothing stopping the Government immediately calling a vote of confidence though. It would be semantics at that stage. Political reality would take hold.

  24. PETEB

    It was the young people cheering him at Glastonbury which made me wonder. It mirrors my own grandchildren who are Corbyn supporters first I think -which just translates into Labour.

    I wonder iff all this hero worship by the young is an achilles heel for the Party given JC’s age?

  25. MIKE PEARCE
    “You are giving Corbyn zero credit here. The Labour manifesto resonated with huge swathes of the electorate. Corbyn also came across as a decent man and not the devil incarnate as projected by the right wing press.
    It wasn’t just about the failure of the Tory campaign.”

    I dont mean to give Corbyn zero credit. He had a great campaign. But it was the comparison between him (coming over as a decent man as you say) and TM (coming over as quite the opposite of what her presidential style campaign claimed ie weak and wobbly not strong and stable etc) that made him look good. Had TM’s campaign+manifesto been consistent with being s+s and ‘bloody difficult’ and not appeared chicken to debate, that difference would not have been there.

    Which is why I think the current JC mania and Labour’s spike in the polls will prove to be a blip – if the Tories can get their act together and start to appear credible that is. They need to wake up and realise that in much of the country TM is a laughing stock, reputation damaged beyond repair, and replace her without further ado. They must know this. Presumably they are just waiting to get past the queens speech and finalise the ‘deal’ with the DUP first.

  26. Colin
    Who have Labour got who is 10-20 years younger than Corbyn who would be likely to enthuse people in the same way? Presumably it would have to be someone with a track record of opposing war (by the UK) and of espousing nationalisation and ‘soaking the rich’? I can’t think of anyone, but I’m sure that those more familiar with the Labour party could come up with some names.

  27. My last comment went into moderation for some reason, but the gist was that I couldn’t think of anyone in Labour who was 10-20 years younger than Corbyn who would be likely to enthuse people in the same way.

  28. Baldbloke

    It certainly helps Labour if May remains as PM. A new leader will potentially help the Tories but it will need to be an outsider. Someone fresh. So I agree with you that here.

    However I do not see why Labour’s current polling will be a blip. Huge numbers of voters feel a connection to Corbyn. There is also a real anger at austerity. We have a family friend suffering with breast cancer. She can barely walk but is supposedly fit to work. Her doctor is fighting her case but she is going to have to go to a tribunal to try and restore her welfare benefit. This is happening right around the country and many are tired of it.

  29. I don’t understand why Corbynite isn’t used? Thatcherite, Blairite, Brownite… …Corbynista. Yeah that makes total sense.

  30. Pete B,
    Life expectancy in the twenties for a man when MacDonald was PM was about 55.

    Your comparison is not a valid one.

    Health and ability are the important indicators.
    Age is irrelevant.

  31. What about Corduroy? ;-)

  32. @MarkW “Your comparison is not a valid one.
    Health and ability are the important indicators.
    Age is irrelevant.”

    Agreed. Also, the biggest shift in average age is the fact that the overwhelming majority of mothers and babies survive childbirth and that children now make adulthood to a very large degree. Whereas before they dragged the average age down by a huge amount.

  33. @PHILOTES

    But it’s Corbynista – having entered the vernacular. You have Momentum to thank for that.

    Likely to be listed in the next edition of the OED.

  34. Sea change, not a huge amount, by about 6 years in the 1800s so appreciably less by 1920s.

    Infant mortality improved by the twenties so I would guess that by then the figures for life expectancy would only be reduced by a few years in the 20s.

    Details here: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/

  35. Sea change,

  36. sorry. mispost.

  37. Sea change, see my link earlier for the etymology of the term.

  38. @Philotes

    Thinking more on the issue. Blairites and Brownites were typically used when discussing the loyalties and beliefs of factions in the PLP. Since most of the PLP is decidedly not pro-Corbyn, the Corbynites label probably does not make much sense! But Corbynistas does, as it is an epithet given to the people in the protest movement he has successfully engendered.

    It definitely has some negative connotations unless you read the SWP I would imagine.

  39. Sea change, well another view would be that the PLP were the protesters against the elected leader.

  40. I like Corbynista because it is similar to Sandinista, a popular movement that overthrew a brutal dictator and survived a very long covert war with the US.

  41. Corbynite or Corbinista.

    http://hannahkate.net/corbynistas-vs-corbynites-the-power-of-a-suffix/

    Crude summary:

    -ite suffix is used for people who have their own identifiable ideology.

    – ista suffix is given to those who ferociously stick to a doctrine. So a negative term to describe those who were unwaveringly loyal to Corbyn despite the arguments of those of the Blarite wing of the PLP who argued that Corbyn was electoral suicide. Originally USC by Labour Uncut, which is not a Labour supporting rag.

  42. Sorry USC should say used.

    Not sure how the IPAD auto correct did that.

  43. @MarkW

    Not sure I understand your point. If you look at the graph the average age since 1921 has increased by almost 25 years (until 2011).

    Going back before that average age in men was almost 15 years less in 1891 than in 1921.

  44. BALDBLOKE @ BZ
    I disagree. He supported it because he had to: no leader of a party in opposition can ever credibly pass up the chance of gaining power through an election, no matter how remote the chances might seem at the time.

    There’s little or no doubt that the intention of the LDs in insisting on the FTPA was because they didn’t trust the Cons to keep their promises in 2010, but I don’t think that there are no circumstances when the largest opposition would not automatically facilitate an early UK GE.

    A possible example would be at the time of the Liberal split between home rulers and unionists. Had neither faction had a leader like Jo Chamberlain, then neither faction would have wanted a fresh GE and both would have refused it.

    Equally, an opposition leader who had recently come close to winning but knew that the government had trouble in getting its own MPs onside over international negotiations, might offer a coalition instead, defining the positions in government that it would require to work in the kingdom’s interests.

  45. Labour uncut is not a Corbyn supporting rag I should have said,

  46. There is no need to find a replacement right now for Corbyn. Given how people are living longer healthier lives than they used to, and with Corbyn living an active healthy lifestyle I can readily see him lasting into his mid-70’s as prime minister. That is plenty enough time for him to skip the blairite generation and groom a younger left-wing successor who appeals to the growing coalition of future labour voters (current under 45’s).

    Looking at what is happening politically among the young, Corbynite labour is currently in the process of creating a left-wing voting generation that will shift the political window to the left for decades to come. It may blow it of course, but then again it may not, and the current conservative party is seemingly doing everything in its power to make this conversion process succeed. Something similar did after all happen with Margaret Thatcher and the then under 45’s boomer generation which shifted everything to the right, and labour certainly helped with that, so the opposite shift is equally possible, if not probable even.

  47. @ TONYBTG

    “-ite suffix is used for people who have their own identifiable ideology.”

    So why was it used in relation to Tony Blair?

  48. Philotes

    You may or may not like Blair. But I think even the most fervent Blair hater would recognise that Blair brought a very distinctive set of centrist views to labour – as manifested by the creation of New Labour.

  49. @Baldbloke

    “I really doubt if he ever believed at the start of the campaign that Labour stood any chance at all of gaining seats. That only became possible because of the disaster of everything Tory. Had they ran an effective campaign and with a sensible manifesto Labour would have been very, very lucky to have even got close to saving all their MPs.”

    ———

    Nah, the evidence suggests a degree of denial here. Corbyn clearly picked policies that would be popular, regardless of Tory implosions. A big part of the reason Labour vote struggled in the eighties was that the SDP and then the LDs split the left vote, not because the electorate had suddenly decided to a man or woman that everything must be privatised.

    And in turn, that’s what caused the Tory difficulties in the election, why it was hard to run a good campaign. Because if the majority don’t necessarily want continued Austerity, shrinking the state more and more, it’s difficult to come up with a compelling manifesto if you’re committed to more Austerity.

    (And if you ditch Austerity while the debt is increasing, you have some awkward explaining to do, if the argument was Austerity until the debt comes down…)

  50. @TonyBTG

    “You may or may not like Blair. But I think even the most fervent Blair hater would recognise that Blair brought a very distinctive set of centrist views to labour – as manifested by the creation of New Labour.”

    ——–

    Difficult to make the case it was centrist. Economically even more liberal than Thatch, even more privatisations, and more extreme in terms of social liberalism too, Championing free movement.

1 5 6 7 8 9 10