ICM have resumed polling for the Guardian. Topline figures for their first post-election poll are CON 41%(-3), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 3%(+1) – changes are from the election result.

In terms of methodology, ICM have dropped the turnout model that produced such large, but ultimately incorrect, Tory leads as well as their political interest weighting. This isn’t going all the way back to their 2015 methodology (ICM also made a change to how they reallocated don’t knows who refused to give a past vote and, of course, switched from telephone to online), but it’s a long way in that direction.


310 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 41, LAB 43, LDEM 7, UKIP 3”

1 2 3 4 5 7
  1. As an aside from whether Labour-supporting remainers will be disappointed or not, I see no-one has yet mentioned the stark collection of UK economic indicators released this morning:

    • Services PMI down, completing hat-trick of falls with Manufacturing and Construction.
    • Labour productivity fell 0.5% in Q1 (ONS)
    • Car sales down for the 3rd month running

    Meanwhile, the eurozone just posted its best quarter since 2011 (likely 0.7% growth in Q2).

    If the perception takes hold that the UK is busting while the eurozone is booming, those Leave/Remain polling figures could soon reach 40/60. It’s all absolutely fascinating to watch (especially from the detached perspective of a convinced europhile who is relaxed about brexit, as being probably in the best interests of the EU, albeit disastrous for the UK).

  2. @Danny – “Unbelievably poor tactics which led to a big increase in the labour vote and more MPs? ”

    I disagree, Corbyn might not have started from such a low base if there hadn’t been a knife-fight in the Labour party after the Referendum due to his performance and statements post result.

  3. Regarding Corbyn,

    Someone mentioned that this could be the highest he reaches. This may well be true – he was not exactly the most impressive leader pre GE2017 – indeed, even one Owen Jones wanted him to step down at one stage.

    Question is, spurred by the election result and with the party more behind him than ever before, will he be able to do things differently this time around?

  4. @SS Simon

    “* Nobody got SNP correct or even close.”

    Ahem, please check BT Says… prediction, I’m 99% certain that the estimate was in the 30s (think the actual number predicted was 36 seats but might be wrong).

    Also, to blow my own trumpet slightly again, I also got the turnout correct at 69% and Tory vote share also.

    However, I underestimated Lab by about 2-3% and therefore the number of gains I predicted for them (at least I predicted gains). Consequently, I also predicted a net gain of 9 seats for Cons so was way off there.

    It was quite clear to me that:

    a) the youth surge was real; and

    b) that the likes of ICM were not employing any method that picked up genuine changes in eg specific groups’ enthusiasm levels during the campaign from which to adjust their starting assumption. The idea that you took a specific arbitrary vote % for different age groups, for example, and that no events, policies, evidence of any kind, or anything, could change it, was manifestly bonkers.

    As I posted at the time pretty much, but just to reiterate . . .

  5. @Alec

    Apologies for not spotting your economic indicators post. I started mine a while ago then had to go off and do something, came back and finished it and posted without refreshing.Bad practice!

    However, interesting to see the new narrative from brexiters: UK economic downturn nothing to do with brexit, but rather (insert explanation of choice).

  6. Somerjohn

    Your not correct, Alec commented and I replied to him.

    Glad to see at last that you are relaxed about Brexit, that’s good to see, me too, although the 24th March 2019 cannot come fast enough IMO.

    Yes the Eurozone is doing very well at the moment and about time too, they were way behind the UK in recovering from 2008.

    I wish the EU well, although as you know i believe it will all end in tears.

  7. Analyst

    I was not a Corbyn fan prior to GE2017 and would probably describe myself firmly in the Blairite tradition.

    However, an inspiring Manifesto and more time to see Corbyn in action has converted me.

    Now we are seeing a more confident Corbyn, safer in the knowledge that when he speaks in Parliament he has more enemies in front of him than sitting behind him.

    I think public opinion towards him has clearly changed and the political pendulum of change has swung. When the pendulum swings its takes an awful lot of effort to turn it back.

    However, events dear boy, events… it’s a long time to the next election.

  8. @Somerjohn “If the perception takes hold that the UK is busting while the eurozone is booming, those Leave/Remain polling figures could soon reach 40/60”

    Definitely possible, but events, dear boy events!

    What happens if the EU comes back with a £100 Billion demand?
    What happens if there is a push to Remain but we have to sign up to £20 Billion p.a (with no rebate)?
    What happens when the public is told there will be no reform of freedom of movement?
    What happens if we have to agree to an EU Army?
    What happens if we have to agree to adoption of the Euro?
    What happens if we have to agree to central EU taxation and harmonisation?

    It’s all well and good postulating a change in sentiment due to poorer economic outlooks but there are far greater issues at hand that will rapidly come to the forefront in any charge to Remain.

  9. Somerjohn

    Of course brexiters would say it has nothing to do with Brexit what else would they say. However I believe that’s partially true, the bulk of it was already baked in before the Brexit vote, oddly the Brexit vote might have delayed the start of an overdue slowdown.

    I’m thinking about how waves interact, when two troughs meet. That’s what’s about to happen with the UK economy I fear.

  10. SEA CHANGE

    Exactly, it’s why I posted I was relaxed to Somerjohn’s post.

  11. What happens if we have to agree to central EU taxation and harmonisation?

    As far as I can see that would be a good thing in moderate doses. Perhaps start with a single EU wide corporation tax, to be collected from companies with over 5 million euros in turnover by the EU itself instead of having budget contributions. Though that’s likely to be more than is needed for running the EU so the rest could be distributed back to the member states on a per capita basis.

    Solves the race to the bottom problem that we have with corporation tax at the moment. Solves all the arguments of who contributes what. And sets up a neat system for fiscal transfers to help countries that are struggling.

  12. @Alec @Carfrew

    “Post crash, banks needed liquidity or the economy would face melt down. The government ultimately provided this by creating money (£375bn I seem to recall, in the end) and injected this into the banks by buying government bonds, with the idea that banks would then be able to create more loans to boost the economy, while QE still kept interest rates low.

    Unfortunately, the leaching out from the domestic economy did occur, as you suggest, but not from consumers – from the banks. Those new loans were made in China, stoking inflation over there, increasing stock prices globally and not doing a great deal for the UK economy.”

    Sorry for the delay in responding. I was not aware that the UK banks increased liquidity in the financial crisis was largely deployed non-domestically as you suggested. If so, surely we should blame Gordon Brown for that particular oversight on his watch in failing to set suitable terms.

    However the current budget deficit that has run say since 2010 (after the banking crisis) is exactly what Keynes prescribed. The domestic recipients of the net budget deficit funding less the international interest (e.g. NHS, education, council workers etc) should in Keynsian theory spend their money in the domestic economy reflating it from a depressed state by the money then recirculating yet further within the economy.

    If Keynesian theory actually still applied then the UK economy should surely have been overheating 3 or 4 years ago with continued large deficits. It isnt and so increasing the deficit further will simply stack up problems even more rapidly for the future if the proponents of increased deficit spending are actually wrong in their assessment that “austerity” is holding the economy back.

    There are no easy answers. Personally I dont think the left wing mantra of “austerity” is actually very helpful. Large swathes of the public have very little understanding of the seriousness of the deterioration of the public finances over the last decade . The very term austerity trivialises the current large deficit that needs to be addressed if far more serious real austerity measures are to be avoided further down the line. IMV the term austerity creates a false and misleading narrative.

    @Danny
    I do agree that the race to the bottom in taxation of large organisations is a serious problem for all but the smallest nations and this is another negative effect of globalisation. How many far left wing people buy their goods on Amazon for example without a second thought because it is cheaper. Multinationals tend to shift their profits to lowest tax jurisdictions they can get away with. I know of situations where products are manufactured in the UK, shipped to a UK retailer and sold domestically to UK consumers, never leaving the UK and yet where large parts of the resulting profits are moved offshore by intermediate virtual sales to and from offshore subsidiaries of the manufacturer, the retailer or both! The G7/G20 really need to get their act together and clamp down on this IMV so that fair taxation is not so easily avoided in the country where the profits are actually generated.

    @CambridgeRachel
    Re the negative UK growth in real wages. Personally I think this is not so much a result of government spending restraint but rather is largely due to the increased labour supply in the UK created by free movement. IMV this has created a huge imbalance of power in employers favour for many jobs in the UK. The end of free movement should hopefully help to redress this imbalance.

  13. @TOH and @Cambridgerachel – to be honest, I think it’s beyond sense to not blame much of the current UK economic woes on Brexit.

    The devaluation has, directly, led to the drop in household disposable incomes, which is the major driving force behind the slow down. There was a time when some posters tried to claim that our inflation was the same/worse than the EZ, so the devaluation must have been a good thing, but that ship has sailed and there is a general recognisiton that UK inflation is creating ainful adjustments for consumers.

    The other overwhelming impact of Brexit, and once again, this is a fundamental and direct impact, is on business confidence. Business has less and less confidence that the government knows what it is trying to achieve, and the number of companies preparing alternative strategies for expansion/moving to the EU is notable.

    These things were not going to happen without Brexit.

    @Martin L – I think where you may be making a mistake is in thinking that just because we have had a large deficit for a good few years and the economy hasn’t exploded into inflationary excess growth, Keynsian theory muxt be dead.

    Economies operate on multiple factors. A better way to assess your thinking might be to ask what would have happened if the government refused to run any deficit at all since 2007? Clearly, by removing c £700bn from the economy at such a sensitive time would have had a catastrophic impact.

    From this, we can almost certainly conclude that the prolonged government deficit has indeed provided a healthy Keynsian boost over this time. However, the fact is that it came against the backdrop of the worse slump since the 1930’s, so has not been sufficient to generate the capacity growrth that could lead to hefty inflation.

    Indeed, had this occured, in classic Keynsian terms, wages would inflate, activity would increase, the tax take would rise, benefits would fall, the deficit would drop sharply, and the effective stimulus would end.

    That this didn’t happen doesn’t disprove Keynsian theory – it only demonstrates what an unholy mess we were (are) really in.

  14. With regard to slashing public expenditure, I wonder how much could be saved if local authorities scrapped allotments and sold off the land for much needed social housing?
    Any polling on this ?

  15. With regard to slashing public expenditure, I wonder how much could be saved if local authorities scrapped allotments and sold off the land for much needed social housing?
    Any polling on this ?

  16. Alec

    “Indeed, had this occured, in classic Keynsian terms, wages would inflate, activity would increase, the tax take would rise, benefits would fall, the deficit would drop sharply, and the effective stimulus would end.”

    You forget the most important side effect…. .. That household debt as a proportion of income would have fallen sharply

  17. @ Martin L

    From 2008-2010, Gordon Brown countered the crash with a huge, Keynesian boost to business activity, and was instrumental in persuading the rest of the world to do likewise, thus almost certainly avoiding a far worse global recession.

    By 2010, the result was that the UK economy had resumed on-trend growth of around 2%. After previous recessions, that sort of growth had been maintained for several years, with the effects described by Alex.

    Instead, Osborne came along and withdrew massive amounts of stimulus with his cuts. The effect was as immediate as it was unnecessary. The elimination of growth stopped the recovery in tax revenue and reduction in unemployment spending in its tracks, so all the cuts did was to reduce expenditure and receipts equally, thus leaving the deficit no lower than it would have been on the previous trend. Thus, austerity was absolutely pointless. It just made us worse off.

  18. @Somerjohn

    Absolutely. I dread to think what would have happened if Cameron and Osborne had been at the helm in 2008 instead of Brown and Darling.

  19. “While fully aware of many of the faults of the EU, I was also aware of many of its successes, and what the UK stood to lose by leaving.”
    @Alec July 5th, 2017 at 11:08 am

    And this is one of its biggest successes. As Trump may say, it’s bigly big.

    The EEC/EU was/is about much more. It was about making it much easier for cross-country activities to happen. That means that, rather like velcro, as you try to peel off the UK there are thousands and thousands of links that have to be unpicked at all levels. The EU is a stunning success, as will be proved when we don’t leave.

  20. @Alec

    “From this, we can almost certainly conclude that the prolonged government deficit has indeed provided a healthy Keynsian boost over this time. However, the fact is that it came against the backdrop of the worse slump since the 1930’s, so has not been sufficient to generate the capacity growrth that could lead to hefty inflation.

    Indeed, had this occured, in classic Keynsian terms, wages would inflate, activity would increase, the tax take would rise, benefits would fall, the deficit would drop sharply, and the effective stimulus would end.”

    I accept that the deficit has helped the economy to avoid meltdown, even if it has largely been standing still. But just for arguments sake say the deficit had been doubled to 1400bn in the same period and your expected Keynsian results failed to materialise? Perhaps due to my belief on the propensity for funds to leech out from the domestic economy to buy foreign goods and services. Perhaps partly due to the international markets losing confidence in the viability of the UK economy resulting in higher interest rates to service our rapidly increasing debt causing yet more of a drag factor on the economy.

    Neither of us knows for sure the precise degree to which you and I are both correct but isnt there a greater risk of things going even more pear shaped if expansionist spending policies are tried and fail than the other way around? Greece have historically run the greatest deficits of them all and look where they are now that such an abrupt halt has been placed upon them.

  21. @ Valerie

    My allotment siteis on absolutely prime land The 60 plots — many sub-divided & worth say £200,000 each– rent at £40 per annum, 2/3rds of which goes to the Council landlord. Sites can be sold only with permission from the Sec of State. Even Pickles rejected nearly all Council applications for sales.

    Any attempt to increase rents is howled down by the (largely) v prosperous tenants, who wallow in local taxpayers’ subsidies.

    Compare School playing fields, which are sold off at an alarming rate, with the DOE often over-ruling local councils’ objections. These sales were accelerated by Gove – of course! – now self-reinvented as the Teachers’ friend.

  22. @ BT Says…

    Sincere apologies. I think it’s because you lumped SNP and PC together as 3.9% and 39 seats. Consequently I lumped them into ‘Oth’ category.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9909/comment-page-11#comments

    Assuming you thought PC would get 3/4 MPs, that would indeed make you SNP prediction very prescient. And your other predictions were also good :-)

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9909/comment-page-11#comments

    My predictions were shamefully hopeless, aside from turnout lol.

  23. Valerie

    Is this a blairite plot to take JC’s allotment off him?! How could you be so cruel, two years of insults and plots and then just when he’s turned a corner you take away what matters most to him. Lol.

    What’s next, nationalisation of Arsenal football Club and run it into the ground? A ban on jam making equipment?

  24. @Somerjohn

    “Instead, Osborne came along and withdrew massive amounts of stimulus with his cuts. The effect was as immediate as it was unnecessary. The elimination of growth stopped the recovery in tax revenue and reduction in unemployment spending in its tracks, so all the cuts did was to reduce expenditure and receipts equally, thus leaving the deficit no lower than it would have been on the previous trend. Thus, austerity was absolutely pointless. It just made us worse off.”

    But we did return to growth under Osborne. Actually one of the fastest growths in the G7 and G20 IIRC. Perhaps that was due to the deficit appearing to be more carefully managed than under Brown. Perception counts for a lot.

  25. @MartinL

    “If Keynesian theory actually still applied then the UK economy should surely have been overheating 3 or 4 years ago with continued large deficits.”

    —————-

    This is a common and big misconception. It is entirely possible to spend money and receive not much benefit. Deficit does not automatically equal stimulus. Much of the money has been spent covering the shortfall following the Crunch. It wasn’t new money, hence wasn’t a stimulus. The shortfall came about because we lost seven percent of the economy, losing tax receipts and ramping up welfare costs. This was over a hundred billion. Only about 30 billion of Labour’s deficit was stimulus, but was enough to see us back into growth. Then the stimulus was cut of course, and then later Osborne compensated with the Help-to-Buy stimulus.

  26. Sea Change,
    “My point was that they voted for control”

    My point is, they voted to be better off as leave promised they would be. As events play out we shall see who has the right of it, but support for Brexit is falling and the emphasis amongst those who are still leavers is increasingly on ensuring the economy is not adversely affects. All sounds like the economy matters most.

  27. @MartinL

    “Eut we did return to growth under Osborne.”

    ———-

    Eventually yes, as I say, with the Help-to-Buy stimulus that cleverly, didn’t require much money. Meanwhile, we still had the deficit from before…

  28. CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    What’s next, nationalisation of Arsenal football Club and run it into the ground? A ban on jam making equipment?

    The Government could compulsory purchase people’s gardens to build on, would not even have to compensate them as we would be saving them paying the Garden Tax – every one wins????

  29. TonyBTG
    “it’s a long time to the next election.”
    maybe, maybe not. If support for Brexit keeps falling, the conservatives might choose to hold another as a confidence vote on leaving altogether. That could set the cat amongst the pigeons again.

    Sea change,
    “What happens if…”
    Ah well there is the irony i see here. UKIP set in motion an attempt to persuade the UK population to leave the EU, which frankly was an issue of little interest to most in the Uk when they started (see polling). UKIP failed. Yes, they got a slim majority in the referendum, but it was a dismal campaign which failed to get across the realities of Brexit. There is every possibility that the national view could reverse to a substantial majority to remain or rejoin…on any terms.

    It may be in the end that what UKIP achieve is to firmly cement the UK as a fully opted in member of the EU.

  30. @Carfrew

    “Eventually yes, as I say, with the Help-to-Buy stimulus that cleverly, didn’t require much money. Meanwhile, we still had the deficit from before…”

    So, if we have had a continuation of the the deficit from before, how come the left still claim it was and is “Austerity” then?

  31. @Carfrew

    “This is a common and big misconception. It is entirely possible to spend money and receive not much benefit.”

    It’s been a while since I studied Keynesian theory but I’m pretty sure he just stated that pumping deficit money into the economy pretty much anywhere would in itself result in a significant and recurring boost.

    Anyway I shall treat getting an admittance that spending public money can be wasted from a left winger as a small victory. LOL!

  32. Martin L,
    “the current budget deficit that has run say since 2010 (after the banking crisis) is exactly what Keynes prescribed. The domestic recipients of the net budget deficit funding less the international interest (e.g. NHS, education, council workers etc) should in Keynsian theory spend their money in the domestic economy reflating it from a depressed state”

    This is getting too economicsy to be discussed here. However, net government spending fell after the crash, net company investment fell and net private spending fell. How could that not result in a recession, and Keynes would have predicted it. He didnt prescribe a deficit, he prescribed sufficient additional borrowing to replace the spending being lost. Right or wrong, this hasnt happened.

    Valerie,
    ” I wonder how much could be saved if local authorities scrapped allotments and sold off the land for much needed social housing”

    One of the difficulties I have with planning regulations is a preference for building on amenity land inside towns and cities which has a high social value to residents instead of on worthless open countryside on the edges of towns or in creating new towns. farm land is effectively worthless without planning consent, so there is great scope for local authorities to generate revenue if changes to the planning system facilitated their doing so. Perhaps a scheme to grant permissions only for construction of social housing, for example.

  33. @Danny

    “This is getting too economicsy to be discussed here”.

    Agreed. I have made my points and others hold alternative opinions. I shall desist.

  34. Martin L: “But we did return to growth under Osborne.”

    Yes, after he eased off on austerity in 2012.

  35. SSSimon

    No worries, we can forgive you for a couple of slips given all the data you had to ‘process’, plus the fact they were all randomly made in over hundreds of pages of threads!

    Thanks for taking the trouble to do all that, it was a great way of teasing out of people what they believed would happen as well as a bit of fun.

  36. Corbyn’s economic and social world view is incompatible with the EU. It’s a belief system in a benevolent capitalism (rather close to the Fabians), in which the duty of the politicians is to compensate the losers of the socioeconomic system without changing the system.

    The economic policy basis of it is the control of the balance of payments (hence the Bennite root – a kind of reformed Bretton-Woods) – protecting the domestic economy and treating government interventions as if these took place in a closed system. Of course, any closed system is subject to entropy, nut the way in which is dealt with is the discretion of the government policies. Corbyn clearly don’t believe in the objectivity of social laws (so much for the accusation that he is some sort of Marxist).

    The EU or even the EEC are incompatible with this as the control on the BoP is not there.

    Kaldor criticised this perception of government policies both in academic papers and public speeches showing that the entropy (he doesn’t call it as such, more as inertia) is the declining competitiveness of the British economy.

    Although Corbyn’s policies tend to respond to challenges in isolation and his narrative lacks any kind of systemic view, one can detect some elements of Kalecki’s and Oskar Lange’s influence.

    Whether it could cause voting intention changes (Remainers) – I doubt.

  37. @MartinL

    “So, if we have had a continuation of the the deficit from before, how come the left still claim it was and is “Austerity” then?”

    ———

    It’s tricky stuff, hard to do briefly, but just quickly… Like I said, you can have a deficit without stimulus. If you rack up debt to cover costs without securing sufficient additional stimulus, you can surely see the problem? Summat to reflect on any road…

    Regarding Keynes pumping money in, you may get benefit from it, but you have also taken a hit already from the collapse in demand due to recession. Thus to get out the hole, your stimulus has to be powerful enough to both offset the collapse in revenues and increased costs, and THEN you need more to also get significant additional growth to recover the lost ground.

  38. Thanks for the gong :)

    My early prediction in terms of percentage was based on two things

    1. Voters seeing Jeremy Corbyn UNFILTERED and taking to him. When I made my prediction, it was clear that this was already starting to happen.

    2. A huge campaign to get people to register and then to vote coming almost exclusively from Labour/the left.

    In terms of where we are now, I see a fair few posts on here saying that Corbyn supporters are being duped by his stance on Brexit.

    For me, while the Brexit issue is important, like (I’m sure) many other Corbyn supporters/voters, my vote was for saving a publicly owned and publicly funded NHS, a much more progressive taxation policy, for fair wages and workers rights, for an end to austerity, for investing in infrastructure, for not saddling young people with massive amounts of debt.

    In short, for a fairer, more equal society. In other words, for many of the things that Corbyn has campaigned on for decades.

  39. @ Mark

    “In terms of where we are now, I see a fair few posts on here saying that Corbyn supporters are being duped by his stance on Brexit.”

    Agree with you, was going to say something similar earlier. I suspect many remainers that voted Labour in June had already given on any ideas of escaping Brexit, and voted Labour for other reasons. So Corbyn going along with Brexit is not going to change matters for them, it’s what he already said in the campaign.

    I’m surprised at how many people are saying Brexit will still definitely be done and dusted in 2 (ish) year’s time, and even more surprised at those that are saying it definitely won’t happen. Nothing’s certain, but it seems unlikely now that there won’t be some form of Brexit, but the story has many years to run yet.

  40. Good afternoon all from an unseasonably hot PSRL.

    After being away from the site for a couple of weeks (recovering from all the excitement as awell as being busy with work) its good to see all the old favs – Keynesian ADM, Socialism and Brexit (can someone please mention the state of British universities).

    Looking at the polls after the election, given the apparent weakness of May and the govt, the deal with the DUP and other events the resilience in Tory % share at around 41-42% seems to indicate that Tory support is relatively hard. Conversely I am not sure how soft/solid Labour support is atm – but its current high polling does seem to driven by anti-Brexit sentiment and growing concern over public services. The extent to which these two factors will be drivers of VI at the next election is uncertain, but the resilience of Tory support indicates that the next election will be far from walk-over for Labour.

  41. Danny

    Unlikely. As long as the polls are unfavourable it would be suicide for the Tories to force another election. That’s mostly why we have no leadership challenge.

    My feeling is that he govt will limp on until at least 2019.

    That’s two years.. an eternity in politics.

  42. DANNY

    I think the evidence remains wholly consistent that labour is winning now because it is seen as supporting remain, and if public opinion swings further towards remain, labour must follow. Otherwise we will be back to three party politics with a big growth of libs as the only remain party and conservatives winning again on the determined hard brexiteers plus hard right. We just saw a mini revolt of labour MPs demanding remain, and this will likely grow. But Corbyn’s personal supporters are pro remain too and he has to deliver on this.

    Actually the evidence is pretty clear that supporting Remain had very little to do with Labour’s result in June, except perhaps in the negative sense. If they had been hard-line either way it might have put some people off, but most Labour voters say they voted for them for other reasons.

    Asked by YouGov Which, if any, of the following issues were most important to you in deciding how to vote in the general election last week? Please tick up to three:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dshbf0izzj/TBResults_170615_Brexit_W.pdf

    only 35% of Labour voters chose “Britain leaving the EU” while 51% picked “Health”. The corresponding figures for Conservatives were 72% and 12%[1]. The profiles are very different with Labour voters concerned with a whole range of domestic issues while Tories mainly considered linked (and to some extent dogwhistle) topics: Brexit, Immigration and Asylum, Defence and Security.

    Even more extreme in the Ashcroft post-election poll:

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GE-post-vote-poll-Full-tables.pdf#page=42

    where they asked about the most important issue when it came to deciding how to vote in the general election 48% of Conservatives chose “Brexit/ making sure we get the best deal with the EU/ making sure we leave the EU/ making sure Brexit happens on the right terms” but only 8% of Labour[2]. “NHS/ hospitals” got 33% with Labour, but only 3% from Tories[3].

    Indeed you could argue that Labour’s success was mainly due to concentrating on other things that mattered to people, rather than obsessing over the relationship with the EU.

    This may start to shift, but the official Labour line has left enough options open that they can move with an alteration in public opinion towards hard remain as was hinted at in the Survation poll. But trying to anticipate this as the Lib Dems and part of the PLP[4] want would be dangerous because it risks looking anti-democratic and associating the Party with the sort of high-handed London elite attitudes that were a big part of the reason many voted Brexit.

    [1] Despite the image, Lib Dems were not as obsessive about the EU as the Tories. Their figures were 57% and 36%. It seems Remainers seem more convinced of the failure of Brexit that Leavers are with its success, but Leavers are more obsessed with it.

    [2] For Lib Dems it was 31% – much stronger but again showing a larger range of interests. Amusingly the UKIP remnant only scored 33% for what should be their main reason for voting,, but this was because Immigration and related topics gained 37% with them.

    [3] Despite all the media babble about the election being about leadership, Ashcroft found only 4% of Labour voters giving “Having the right leadership / choosing the best team / having the best PM” as their main reason, though 13% of Con voters did. So the Tory campaign may have been right in seeing this as a nett positive for them – but it just didn’t matter to enough voters. As for all those denouncing the cult of Corbyn and its bewitching of the young, only 3% of the under-25s said leadership was most important to them – as opposed to 12% of the over-65s. As the young people would say “Projecting much?”.

    [4] Obviously I’m referring to the genuine hard Remainers here, rather than those for whom all that matters is attacking Corbyn irrespective of any other effect.

  43. @Redrich

    Definitely agree at the moment that Tory support generally seems ‘hard’. But let’s not overstate things in that it’s been less than a month since the election – I don’t expect many people would be changing their mind so quickly after investing themselves in their vote – especially when for many Tory voters, that vote was about Brexit.

    Question is all about how things will change in the coming months and years and ultimately comes down to why people vote the way they do. Consider a series of propositions:

    If people vote Tory because of Brexit? Well, this is probably the last GE that will be fought over Brexit. Therefore, many people who lent the Tories their vote this time over Brexit might not be so keen next time around.

    If people vote Tory due to economic credibility? Well, economy looks like it might be heading for a downturn – what if their apparent reputation for economic credibility is destroyed? They’ll lose one of their strongest arguments to not vote Labour.

    Or do people vote for them purely because of their values? I’m sure there’s a lot of people who vote on this basis – probably mostly older voters. But as with Labour, the Tory ideological core is probably no more than 25-30% of voters. Beyond that, the rest are up for grabs.

    Obviously none of these events are inevitable – if things go in the positive direction, and Corbyn starts underperforming, we may well revert to the same kind of polling situation we saw in late 2016 and early 2017 with those eye-watering Tory leads in VI (not that they really did much for them come the election, mind…).

    Ultimately, people respond to events. But not in the way people on this forum often think. I would have been amazed if we saw consistent 10 point leads for Labour at this point because it would imply that so many Tory voters would abandon them at the slightest hint of problems. In reality, it’s the drip, drip, drip of bad economic news, political blunder after political blunder, declining public services, and often simply the length of time any single party has been in power (the feeling that it’s time for a change) which sways voters.

    This stuff takes time. Most people are rational and understand that things go wrong in government. The 2005-10 Labour government wasn’t exactly brimming with competence but it took them a whole year for them to start consistently falling behind in the polls by a decent amount. Then shortly after, the recession hit and they were suddenly behind by 10-20 points.

    It’s all about events. We just have to let it all unfold…

  44. @Roger

    Great post. However I do have a lot of sympathy for Danny’s view. Whats interesting in the Ashcroft data is that in the under 45’s (who we know tended to break for Labour) Brexit scored relatively highly (2nd or 3rd) and as a demographic they tend to favour remain. So I thinks its fair to say for a key section of Labour’s current support this is a driver in VI, I would also add that their loyalty to Labour is not that tribal.

    Interestingly today I was reading a report Ipsos did for the British Council which found that amongst G20 countries British Youth are far more negative about the impact Brexit has had on the UK’s reputation that their counterparts in other countries,

  45. CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    I think Valerie was aiming her comment at my allotments. Sorry Valerie, it’s not going to happen, the ground is in a situation totally unsuitable for building and allotments are popular here and we have a Ratepayers Council.

    :-)

  46. Mark/Triguy – can I do a meetoo please?

    Of course a modest number of remainers would have switched to labour to make a point to TM about her Hard Brexit plans.

    How many? Well we don’t know until detailed post-match analysis has been conducted and even then would some switch back with the current positions of the 2 main parties (E&W) being different in tone even if not that much in substance as Lab clearly aiming for softer Brexit.

    LDs would have got some of these in seats where Labour no hopers but not elsewhere as why waste a vote; I don’t see this changing any time soon.

  47. Alec

    I think it’s beyond sense to blame much of the current UK economic woes on Brexit.

    So we have the usual disagreement. It’s why I’m not bothering to post much at the moment, it’s all so boring, as we both have clear and totally opposed views, whats worth discussing?

  48. @Analyst

    Broadly agree, and it will be interesting to see what happens post Brexit.

    What I have been pondering over the past couple of weeks is the extent to which Labour’s vote share was the culmination of a perfect storm (which may be unlikely to re-occur) or driven by a genuine shift towards a different political consensus. Jury still seems to be out on this.

  49. Back home – after a month in the USA.

    Hopefully, I’ll be better able to understand what is happening in politics in Scotland/GB – but I doubt it!

    My hypothesis is that, tribalism has reduced (especially among the young [1]), while most adults have developed particular sets of political attitudes, these are not necessarily linked to particular parties – or even voting at all.

    Turnout at elections will, of course, be important; but what will decide elections are which group(s) are sufficiently exercised by particular parts of the political narrative to bother voting.

    If some issues are seen as exciting by some, then they might vote, but even important ones can quickly become boring to many.

    When there is an immediacy about something (Scots indy, Brexit, Corbyn, etc) that can engage folk, but interest can fade all too quickly.

    The only point in pollsters using turnout in their models would be if they are trying to predict an election outcome – but that doesn’t square with their portrayal of polls as snapshots of current opinion.

    Surely better to measure opinion among the whole population while developing better methods of measuring the strength of those opinions?

    [1] The “young” include those who, were once described as “middle aged” – ie all those who have not yet reached their 7th decade!

  50. Redrich

    I was at a party Saturday, my boyfriend was taking the piss out of me for ohhhh jeremy Corbyn chants which I’ve only been doing to wind him up. What surprised me was the enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst the rest of the people there, people aren’t usually political. I don’t know what it means but it’s beyond politics, it’s a mood rather than an ideology.

1 2 3 4 5 7