There were two new voting intention polls yesterday, plus ICM’s fortnightly poll this morning. Topline figures are

ICM/Guardian (22nd-24th): CON 40%(-2), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 8%(+1)
Survation/Mail on Sunday (22nd): CON 38%(nc), LAB 42%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1) (tabs)
Opinium (19th-22nd): CON 42%(+1), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 6%(+1) (tabs)

Changes are from a fortnight ago for ICM, last week for Opinium and the start of September for Survation.

One Conservative lead, two Labour leads and no consistent trend in either direction. Survation and ICM were both conducted after Theresa May’s Florence speech, so give us the first chance to gauge reactions to it. Survation asked about whether people supported or opposed paying £20bn to the EU during a transition period when Britain had access to the single market – 34% of people said they would support it, 47% said they would be opposed. ICM asked a similar question, but found 41% of people supported the idea and 31% were opposed – the ICM tables aren’t available yet, so I don’t know what the particularl wording was and whether it might explain the difference.


665 Responses to “Latest voting intentions from ICM, Survation and Opinium”

1 11 12 13 14
  1. Somerjohn.

    The Uk sets it’s defence priorities and then should buy the kit that suits it. If it wants a top of the line MPA it should buy it and right now in terms of capability that’s the P-8 Poseidon.

    If it wants something less capable in particularly i terms of sensor suite then buy the C-295 Persuader. but don’t by the Persuader because your in the huff with Boeing and pretend it can do what the Poseidon can, that just makes you look stupid.

    likewise if you need a Heavy lift helicopter buy one don’t try to do it with a plane and if you need both don’t try to do them both with a First generation Tiltrotor.

    “This isn’t the place for a detailed military discussion.”

    i don’t see why not; we discuss everything from medical ethics to a Thorium future!

    PTRP,

    Having no worse safety record as the Seaknight doesn’t mean the sea knight had a good safety record. I am more than happy to say that the current in service osprey is a lot safer than the first ones, but for me it will always have a bit of the Concorde or comet about it.

    A great piece of ground breaking engineering and ahead of it’s time but just pushed the envelope a bit further than should have been. It will always have question mark and so if you can do the job you need with something else cheaper….why take the risk and incur the extra expense.

    The next gen TR’s look like a better bet but overall as a class TR’s have had a long difficult development history.

    Peter.

  2. peter cairns

    I have now read somerjohn and ptr on the merits of aircraft. Perhaps i was a little rash in being impressed by your knowledge. Still you talk the talk i will say that for you.

  3. @ PTRP – I’m sure you are aware who created the European Convention on Human Rights and why ! :)

    Anyway lets pick item #28 on comparison of EU and UK position on citizens rights.

    #28: Administrative procedures – criminality checks

    EU: criminality checks cannot be conducted systematically.

    UK: systematic criminality checks on applicants necessary to assess criminality/conduct criteria in application. UK intends to ask applicants to declare criminality.

    I’m pretty sure you’ll know an example or two of where this has been a major issue for HMG in the past – May is certainly aware of it having been Home.Sec!

  4. MONOCHROME OCTOBER

    As I have said many times although I do read the D Mail, I get it for my wife as she likes it, especially the female orientated content. I do read the politics in it as I do the Guardian, still available free on line. I do not read the DE which I consider a rubbish newspaper. I also occasionally read the Times, Daily Telegraph and FT. So whatever you mean about DM tendency does not apply to me in the way you are trying to make out.

    I assume you actually mean people who have a different view about human rights and responsibilities. That’s life we often disagree.

  5. @ WB – sorry, I saw your first one bashing TOH so ignored the others. your longer post makes sense. I did state we could creep further – curious of your view on how far we can creep without fully caving in – ie is compromise possible or does one side have to cave in?

    What is your view on the red box #28 item I posted above?

  6. Trev – ??????????????

    Well, it’s lost amongst the copters, I was trying to respond to your implication ( maybe I was wrong), that no one wanted to invest in Venezuela, I assumed your question to Peter was a rhetorical flourish not an actual question.

  7. @S THOMAS
    @PETER CAIRN (SNP)
    @SOMERJOHN

    I will say I only caught the bit about the fact that Peter would get into one, I believe that the poor flight characteristics of the Flight control systems had a big hand in the early crashes the other issues were how operationally used for example the fight control systems did not take into effect differential ground effect where one propellor was over a a landing craft and one was not creating a differential lift that the flight control system was not very good at interpreting. so they changed the way they approached their carrier ‘sidesliding’ to convention over the stern landings until it was fixed,

    That said I am not sure why it would be chosen over a Chinook in terms of what the UK needs and having a complex mix of craft.

  8. TREVOR WARNE

    I am glad somebody other than PeterW can see the simple point I am making about the ECJ.

    I think in the 1st round of the negotiation the UK offered a new court with representatives from the EU and the UK with a neutral chairman I assume with a casting vote. An eminently sensible solution IMO as I said at the time. What it cannot be is the ECJ for the reasons I have given.

    If the EU don’t move then there is no deal which i have been saying for a long time. I cannot believe the Government would cave in. If they did they would be crushed at the polls. I suspect my red line is supported by most who voted leave. We need polling on it.

  9. MarkW,

    No so much rhetorical flourish as red herring.
    My point was you can hardly point the finger at the alleged inaccuracy of some credit agencies when you disagree with them and then uses them as vindication when it suits you.

    The response was to try, rather poorly in my view, to switch the debate from cherry picking facts to suit yourself to being about the economics of latin America.

    It takes a while to get used to peoples styles

    TOH makes seemly knowing proclamations but when challenged pontificates.

    TW, seems to like the frog approach, he gives long lists of his personal assertions that he presents as far more factual than they actually are then jumps to another topic when they are challenged.

    Far more content but not really any more logic.

    Peter.

  10. @toh

    Polling would be helpful but I don’t recall the ECJ appearing as a major issue in post referendum analysis.

    My expectation would be that most people.who.voted in the referendum have only the haziest notion of what the ECJ is and does and probably think it is the ECHR. I also expect you are projecting your red line on to others.

  11. @WB

    is it then not up to the judge to take account of the relevant ECJ ruling or to state why they are not in play as per ruling. I am not sure how this is implemented in a piece of legislation as that seem more tricky than just saying the ECJ has jurisdiction but I can understand why ECJ is seen a san issue for certain things as we would be subject to laws we have no say in unless which does not make sense on British soil as a third country. My view of the problem is that EU just does not trust the UK to treat EU citizens fairly or that the politics of all of this make treating the EU citizens fairly look like a lottery and as I said it not help by the Home office defying a court regarding the expulsion of an individual.

  12. TREVER WARNE

    I love the idea of me being “bashed”. Suggests the “school playground” which I must say some of the posts I get remind me of as well. Somebody tried to bully me in the playground when I was five, nobody has since. The outcome of that playground battle, a bloody nose for me and a black eye for the other boy. We both got the slipper for our pains. I was friends with him for more that fifty years but he’s dead now.

  13. Hireton

    Sadly your probably correct about that. I may be that I am projecting my own views onto others, but all I can say is that all the Leavers I know (mostly middle or upper middle class retired people) feel very strongly about the issue. Hence my wish for polling on it. My son certainly feels the same even though his wife is Danish. He voted remain but is now a Leaver. Don’t worry I have not tried to influence my children one way or the other.

  14. Peter Cairns

    “TOH makes seemly knowing proclamations but when challenged pontificates.”

    Make two of us then Peter.

  15. Peter Cairns, oh yes, I recall the Moodys thing now. I was on my first coffee.

    Trevor Warne, it is quite a challenge to follow your multiple engagements.

  16. Does Germany’s constitutional court accept the supremacy of the European court?
    As I understand it they have the power to declare a European law ‘unconstitutional’ and came close to doing so over ECB bonds before deciding to ‘allow’ the ECJ to rule on the issue.
    Am I wrong about this?

  17. Helicopters, what about the EH101 ? Is that too small?

  18. @ TOH – some issues might be simple enough to split jurisdiction on – lots of green in the boxes on the citizens rights progress. ECJ’s role as a (very) persuasive authority with UK’s voluntary acceptance of future law and regulations should IMHO be a fair compromise if we give a little elsewhere (money I’d assume!) but some of the red boxes (e.g. #28) are fairly fundamental up front discussions.

    EFTA+ court would be my middle ground on trade. Take what is there during transition but add a + later by mutual agreement between EFTA/EEA and EU. Agreeing an end to CET is the priority IMHO and why EFTA won’t work as it currently operates after a transition period. Not UK’s preference but fair compromise and important if we consider the legacy of Brexit might fall to a far-left govt.

    New bilateral court on human rights aspects possibly but neither side would really want that if they can avoid it. Again, it really depends on the future relationship. If it is a Canada model (either agreed upfront or after a period of separation) then no need. If it is a Swiss (or even Norway) model then we’ll have to cave and hope for some compromise by requesting some of the EU law change (e.g. criminality checks) but that is a bit of cake and eat it.

    I’m not that familiar with the non-trade parts. I just see items like #28 as very contentious. Barnier has a strict mandate and wants all the boxes turned green. At some point we have to say we think it is sufficient progress and get the organ grinder (EU council) to give the money a new song sheet.

    We’ve discussed timing before and I think Dec meeting is when we make the big push. After Repeal bill, budget, etc.
    Business lobby in EU starting to get anxious as well – not a big deal but should indirectly put Barnier’s toes to the flame!

  19. What I find slightly weird about the Tory objections to the ECHR is that the convention under which it operates was written almost in entirety by a 1950’s Tory MP.

    Have we regressed so much that what a Tory MP considered to be natural human rights fifty years ago are no longer acceptable? Really?

  20. MarkW,

    It depends what you want to do.

    Roughly speaking their are utility types that can carry about a dozen men and up to 2 ton, medium lift which can be about 5 ton and say two dozen men or Heavy lift that can lift near 10 tons and up to four dozen men.

    The EH101 is the middle category with the NH90 a bit below that but above things like the EC-135 or Blackhawk.

    Like I said there are really only two or three in the heavy class. So if you want a heavy the EH101 doesn’t fit.

    It would be perfectly acceptable to look at your requirement and say that most of the time you don’t need a chinooks full load potential so why not rationalise the fleet and standardise on more EH101’s effectively giving up a top end capability from a few heavies for a larger more flexible fleet.

    Much like the MPA argument it depends what you want to do.

    You can Keep the aircraft and what you want to do, you can change aircraft and what you want to do but you can’t keep the same objective and switch to something that can’t do it.

    Peter.

  21. @ TW
    the red box item No. 28 appears to me, legally speaking, to sum up the problem I referred to. Currently it is not lawful for EU citizens criminality to be checked under the freedom of movement rules, the UK is looking, therefore, for a modification under the treaty terms. If an agreement is reached on that point where the UK states it will only check on criminality if it has a reasonable suspicion (what Americans call probable cause) of criminality then that will be an EU right, the EU will want the ECJ to define what amounts to a reasonable suspicion under the treaty, the UK will want the UK courts to deal with that. The UK courts have, under the common law, significant case law dealing with the question of reasonable suspicion which they will turn to as precedent in making the their decision. The ECJ in contrast operates under the civil law approach which treats precedent in a different way (it is far too complex for me to explain that difference in detail, but a quick and dirty explanation is that where as UK precedent is binding unless you can distinguish it, in civil law precedent is only binding if it makes sense in that particular case).
    @ PTRP
    This ties in to some extent with the issue of the meaning of “consideration” of ECJ judgments: in general terms you are right, when the requirement is contained within statute an explanation for departure would have to be given, however if there is a later Act of Parliament which, even indirectly, affects that particular point e.g. if reasonable suspicion was given a statutory definition for some other purpose in a later Act, that would be more than sufficient to justify departure. Further, Lord Sumption (Supreme Court judge) has said in a speech, dealing with ECHR rather than ECJ, that consideration was to be given to ECHR decisions by the Court, according to statute, but he argued that the decisions were not binding but advisory.

  22. It’s perfectly clear – the Brexiters don’t like Human Rights especially enforced by an international court because they want to tap phones without showing good reason, render for torture, imprison people without trial and kick out anybody they like out of the country, regardless of the consequences – and the costs.

    See any of the last decade.

  23. @ TOH – I sent you a long reply but its in moderation (some dodgy word i suspect).

    DD is taking the beatings for now with admirable dignity and biding his time I suspect. I can see a jab giving Barnier a black eye at some point ;-)

    A little ‘slipper’ for the economy in 2018-19 perhaps but let’s hope it isn’t Corbyn being given the cane in a GE :<

    I expect the future relationship of UK and EU will be similar to your past experiences as well ;-)

  24. @ NickP

    I am sorry but you, as a remainer, are simply repeating a mistake that leavers often make. The ECJ does not make decisions on human rights (save that the European Declaration of Human Rights is embedded in EU law via the Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Law is interpreted with the decisions of the ECHR in mind).
    The European Court of Human Rights makes such decisions and we will remain a signatory to that convention despite leaving the EU:

  25. @DAVID COLBY

    As I understand it yes but no but yes, If their rules differ from the EU then German law is supposed to take precedence but the Laws are supposed to be the same and therefore it is open to interpretation of the interpretation of the law:

    ;-)

    From the Telegraph article whom seem disappointed at the German Judges stance.

    The German judges stated that EU law has its limits and can never take precedence over the Grundgesetz. “The legitimacy given to state authority by elections may not be depleted by transfers of powers and tasks to the European level,” it said.

    The court ruled that “the principle of sovereignty of the people (Volkssouveränität)” is violated if EU bodies trespass on democracy. It said the German state is required to “use legal or political means” to revoke or block measures if “institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU exceed their competences in a manifest and structurally relevant manner or violate the constitutional identity in other ways.”

  26. @TREVOR WARNE

    I understand that the UK wants to have different rules to that of ECHR my point was does that mean that the ECHR should be disbanded as everyone would want different rules and therefore it makes no sense to have such organisations, By definition the point is if you want sovereignty ultimately you could argue there is no need for the UN etc.

  27. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    Thanks for that answer. It would seem the German Court considers itself to be supreme over the European court but loathe to exercise its supremacy.

  28. TREVOR WARNE

    “DD is taking the beatings for now with admirable dignity and biding his time I suspect.”

    I suspect his hide is like mine.

    “I expect the future relationship of UK and EU will be similar to your past experiences as well ;-)”

    I’m afraid I doubt it myself, as normally I am optimistic but if as I suspect we leave without a deal due to EU’s inability to negotiate sensibly then i think there will be a lot of bad blood on both sides.

    WB

    Thanks for explaining to Nick P I was about to do the same so you have saved me the trouble.

  29. Talking about helicopters always makes me think of Heseltine

  30. Princess Rachel.

    Same here, I thought after all that fuss we might be able to use the heli that he fought to keep British (and Italian), but out of US hands.

    Well I think that is what happened.

  31. Re: Germany

    Actually it is not the German Court which is said to have supremacy but that German Constitutional Law has supremacy over legal decisions of the ECJ where they are in conflict, the court decided they were not in conflict on that particular case. In UK law the problem does not arise at present because there is no written constitution and the our relationship is governed by the European Communities Act 1972, and, as I set out earlier, because Parliament is sovereign, that Act specifically sets out that European Law will have precedence over UK law in the designated competencies, and why The Repeal Bill if it becomes an Act will supersede that authority and return it to Westminster save where Westminster gives that authority to any other organisation.

  32. Sorry, I am starting to feel I am lecturing a bit, I’ll stop now!

  33. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/28/jeremy-corbyn-policies-yougov-centre-ground-labour

    Interesting commentary on polling re: centre ground from Chris Curtiss of yougov

  34. “It’s perfectly clear – the Brexiters don’t like Human Rights especially enforced by an international court because they want to tap phones without showing good reason, render for torture, imprison people without trial and kick out anybody they like out of the country, regardless of the consequences – and the costs.”

    My general impression is that this behaviour is not the preserve of Brexiters and indeed was at its height under Blair, and still significant under Brown and Cameron, remainers all.

    It is true that only the current PM has gone so far as to advocate our withdrawal (although she was still at least in public a remainer too when she did so)

  35. @ WB – thank you for the reply and indeed all your posts today.

    I’m vaguely familiar with the differences between civil law and case law so your analysis makes sense. A long-term solution might be for some very small changes in EU law that HMG could accept but I don’t think we have the time for EU to change the law to something we could agree to – even assuming they wanted to that is – no more cake and eat it as they say!

    Again, this cries out for the need to accept sufficient progress IMHO. Some of these issues are quite minor and we’re keeping 3mm+1mm people in total darkness – give them some light and sort out the tiny issues like criminal’s rights later.

    Do you see any give from the EU side? Surely they should be aware of the UK case law system and if all ECJ case law is copied over and a voluntary commitment made to accept new laws would that be enough on minor issues for them to give us a little wiggle room? Given the rest of EU law is civil law, no other country should really be able to take any bespoke UK arrangement into case law for their own use?

  36. @TOH – “I assume from what you say that you cannot name one country that would accept the ECJ in respect of Citizens Rights but you craftily side step by saying it is unique.

    So a third question:
    3. Name one country that is not a vassal state that accepts another countries courts as supreme in matters relating to that other countries citizens when living the first country. ”

    Fundamental misunderstanding: The ECJ isn’t ‘another countries court’ – it is a supra national legal body established as part of the EU. It would be perfectly in line with many other treaties and commitments made by the UK to have such a body act as the legal supreme court over specified matters if we so chose to do this – as we have done with the ECHR, the ICC, the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc etc. Signing up to ECJ rulings after leaving the EU might look on the face of it as a bit odd, given the nature of the EU/ECJ relationship, but in reality it is no different from many other arrangements we have already made.

    Answer to the third question – no of course they wouldn’t, because we are a single country and they are a supra national treaty organisation. That would be just silly.

  37. @ WB – thank you for the reply and indeed all your posts today

  38. “I am sorry but you, as a remainer, are simply repeating a mistake that leavers often make. The ECJ does not make decisions on human rights (save that the European Declaration of Human Rights is embedded in EU law via the Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Law is interpreted with the decisions of the ECHR in mind).
    The European Court of Human Rights makes such decisions and we will remain a signatory to that convention despite leaving the EU”

    Ha! Not quite a straw man, but a patronising squirrel indicator at least.

    It’s not me that keeps publishing diatribes suggesting that human rights prevent us from deporting rapists, murderers etc!

  39. @Peter Cairns

    Re the MPA/helicopter discussion.

    I’m most interested in the political dimension. May is huffing and puffing over Bombardier, but without a credible alternative to buying from Boeing, it is “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

  40. By the way, although I voted to remain in the EU, I am not a “remainer” – I am happy to leave and let Jeremy & Co renationalise our utilities and assets.

    That’ll be the best revenge on Boris, Gove, Davies et al as well as the Tories who held a vote that has resulted in such an enormous waste of time and money in pursuit of illusory rewards (unless you are a carpetbagger or profiteer).

  41. WB
    That’s a moot point really as the court interprets the constitution.
    It goes to show though that the European Court isn’t sacrosanct and that when it comes to circumventing it ‘s jurisdiction, for Germany at least, ‘where there’s a will there’s a way.’

  42. Alec

    “Fundamental misunderstanding: The ECJ isn’t ‘another countries court’ – it is a supra national legal body established as part of the EU. It would be perfectly in line with many other treaties and commitments made by the UK to have such a body act as the legal supreme court over specified matters if we so chose to do this – as we have done with the ECHR, the ICC, the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc etc. Signing up to ECJ rulings after leaving the EU might look on the face of it as a bit odd, given the nature of the EU/ECJ relationship, but in reality it is no different from many other arrangements we have already made.”

    That’s where the UK Government and I disagree with you and the EU. Nothing new, as I have said the Government has not moved on this specific since the negotiations began, quite correctly IMO.

  43. @TOH – “I quote from D. Davis this morning:”

    As is your wont. And previously he has said (as you helpfully reminded us) “We also recognise the need to ensure the consistent interpretation of EU law concepts.
    We have not agreed the right mechanism for doing this yet but discussions this week have again been productive.”

    Davis and May have already promised that future ECJ rullings and interpretations will be applied on this matter in the UK – only the mechanism for doing this remains to be agreed.

    EU citizens in the UK before Brexit will still have their rights decided and interpreted by the ECJ, with those interpretations being applied by British courts, subject to some form of supra national oversight. Davis has said this.

  44. @ PTRP – the way I see the problem is that you can’t simply tweak the ECHR (c=convention, not court), you have to repeal it, photocopy 99% of it and tweak the 1% (e.g. criminal’s rights). WB seems to be the guru on this subject and has provided excellent input today.

    Peeps get freaked by ‘repeal’ but from what I understand HMG don’t have issue with 99% of ECHR or any other EU law that we intend to copy over and I really wish HMG would make this known to both the UK public and the EU council – parts of the Lancaster House speak were OTT and have overly spooked both the UK public and EU Council/Parliament.

    I have no handle on the time aspect. From experience I would expect the legal aspects are going to take a lot longer than we really have time for if Barnier wants all the boxes turned green.

  45. @PETER CAIRNS
    There is another factor in choosing helicopters (or any other category of military aircraft) and that is the number of different types in service. For each type, you need to have spares and also people trained in servicing that type, which costs money.

    The need for different helicopter capabilities will be based on SAG Scenarios (MoD models of conflicts that could occur) which inform procurement decisions. If enough of them show that a Chinook load-carrying capability is required, then that drives procurement. So, once you have decided that you need a heavy-lift transport helicopter, like Chinook, you can also use it for similar missions that could be performed by EH101 (Merlin), but not (as you note) vice versa.

    Also, there are examples of rationalisation between the Services. For example, the Royal Air Force’s fleet of Merlin HC3/3A were transferred to the Royal Navy, which was already operating earlier marks of Merlin, from 2012 onwards.

    Similar reasoning led to UK taking the Harrier out of service, because it was a choice between it and Tornado in the ground attack role and using only one type of aircraft produced major savings in maintenance costs..

    I don’t always agree with MoD’s decisions, particularly when they are based on the needs/affordability of a single Service rather than a pure Joint approach, but I can understand why they made them.

  46. @ NICKP – judging by this poll that is a view shared by 18-19% of Remain voters :)

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/britain-nation-brexit-extremists/

    I have faith that enough of the 71-72% will see the options at the next GE, post Mar’19, and make the right decision!

  47. Alec

    ““Fundamental misunderstanding: The ECJ isn’t ‘another countries court’ – it is a supra national legal body established as part of the EU. It would be perfectly in line with many other treaties and commitments made by the UK to have such a body act as the legal supreme court over specified matters if we so chose to do this – as we have done with the ECHR, the ICC, the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc etc. Signing up to ECJ rulings after leaving the EU might look on the face of it as a bit odd, given the nature of the EU/ECJ relationship, but in reality it is no different from many other arrangements we have already made.”

    Whilst technically I understand the point your making, in reality the UK Government and people like myself see it differently, and it is a red line. It is easily resolvable as I posted above and as the UK suggested, I think at the first round, but the EU seem to see it as a red line also. hence my long held view that we are likely heading for no deal.

  48. @Sea Change, our post 26th sept 12:39pm

    It is politically impossible to give EU Citizens greater rights than UK Citizens in the UK after Brexit. Plus the idea that the ECJ would hold sway over the rights of non-citizens in the UK after we leave is also politically impossible.
    ——————————————————
    Have I miss understood your point?
    Are you saying once we leave the EU we will have less rights than those still in the EU?

  49. Dream on, Howard. May started off telling us we will be free of the ECJ, and then she told the EU that we would find a way to ensure we would follow ECJ rulings. Her position has changed, as I expected.

    If you want to fall for the spin, that is your prerogative. I don’t.

  50. Trevor

    I think you’ll find the majority of voters in ALL polls are in favour or renationalising transport, water and energy (as well as funding NHS better) – brexit may well be much more of a side show for voters than you think.

1 11 12 13 14