So far we’ve had three polls conducted since the end of conference speech – YouGov in Friday’s Times, Opinium in today’s Observer and ICM in the Sun on Sunday. The first two included voting intention figures.

The YouGov/Times poll was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday after Theresa May’s conference speech. Topline figures there were CON 40%(+1), LAB 42%(-1), LDEM 7%(nc) and changes are from immediately before the Labour conference. Tabs are here.

The Opinium poll for the Observer was conducted between Wednesday and Friday (so once again, after Theresa May’s speech) and had topline figures of CON 40%(-2), LAB 42%(+2), LDEM 5%(-1). Changes are from just before the Labour party conference began. Tabs are here.

The two polls show identical two point leads for the Labour party, suggesting that Theresa May’s disastrous leader’s speech hasn’t radically changed levels of party support (the changes since the previous polls are in opposite directions, but neither are statistically significant, so I expect we’re just seeing noise there). Perceptions of the Prime Minister herself may be a different matter, though the public do still seem to be divided on her future.

Opinium did pick up a fall in Theresa May’s own ratings, with her net approval down to minus 16 compared to minus 11 before the conference season. Jeremy Corbyn’s figures were up, from minus 10 before conference to minus 5 now. Theresa May had a three point lead over Jeremy Corbyn on preferred Prime Minister.

YouGov asked about the future of Theresa May as Tory leader and found the public split down the middle – 39% think she should stay, 38% think she should go. As ever, answers like this fall out along very partisan lines – 68% of Tory voters think she should stay, 55% of Labour voters think she should go. Her ratings are mediocre across the board though, her lead over Jeremy Corbyn as best PM has shrunk to only three poonts (36% to 33% – 32% of people said don’t know, suggesting a fairly large chunk of people aren’t enthused by either of them.) 59% of people now think she is doing badly as PM, 31% still think she is doing well.

A third poll by ICM for the Sun on Sunday doesn’t appear to have voting intention figures (or at least, I haven’t seen them yet), but did ask what people thought Theresa May should do now. 29% wanted her to just continue as she is, 32% wanted her to confront her party opponents (18% by having a big reshuffle, 14% by making a “back me or sack me” demand), 13% want her to go immediately, 13% want her to name a future date when she will go.

There was also a BMG poll in the Independent today, but the fieldwork was conducted prior to the Conservative conference. Figures in the newspaper were CON 37%(-2), LAB 42%(+4).

256 Responses to “Post conference polling”

1 4 5 6
  1. Great guy-wonderful insights.

    THats both Kahnemann & Thaler now as Nobel Laureates.


  2. @TURK

    I think you mis understand the issue I believe we have with brexit.

    lord Ashcroft wrote a book about the referendum and the key line was this: “whatever was printed on the ballot paper the question large numbers of voters heard and the answer they gave had nothing much to do with the European Union … ultimately, the question many saw was: ‘Are you happy with the way things are and the way they seem to be going?’ And their answer was: ‘Well, since you ask … no'”

    Ashcroft is a brexiteer so I was surprised at his conclusion because If I was a brexiteer I could see the argument for sovereignty something that Ashcroft believe the UK would have to take a view on when the rest of the EU integrates further if we would have remained, and something I believe we would have stayed on the outskirt of.

    Basically for some people this is a way to get back at those people whom are winning in the competition stakes. This is not the metropolitan elite but basically if you think about a city like Bristol that voted to stay and Stoke a city that voted to leave if you had a £1M to invest which would you invest in? I asked a VC this exact question and he said it was a no brainer and basically that is why we are so divided. if you live in Boston it is not that you immigrant per se. It is just that you are tired of being on the losing side every week.

    Now will it change Boston or Stoke? I think that they have given up what they are now happy to see is London become as successful as Stoke to teach those metro elites a lesson. Brexit is the only way you can kick those that are doing better, What is scary is that they do not care that it means everyone getting worse

  3. new thread

  4. Trevor

    I said debt, not one subsection. Private debt is just as important as govt debt, indeed perhaps more important given that the interest payments are higher

  5. passtherockplease,
    “She’s basically asking for what what works economically and politically for the UK. Which is essentially no real change in the business relationship but no immigration.”

    Except that the formula which at least appears to be working now includes the immigration.

    I say ‘appears’, because I agree with you about the consumer debt and housing part of the current model being a recipe for disaster. Neither of these has anything to do with the EU, unless perhaps they are consquences of our current success as members which has allowed them to happen.

    It has been argued that being a member of the EU allowed Greece to run up debts which eventually became unsustainable, and the UK seems to be in much the same position. There the 2008 crash precipitated a crisis, whereas here it didnt quite do so. Looks to me that Brexit will.

    “once we’ve created all these wealthy property holders, they might not be so keen to vote for more housing, despite the need, because it might reduce property values. ”

    Except that most people never benefit from higher property values, because they cannot both sell up and continue to live there. Most of the profits are paper ones and never ever realised. Even those who inherit are like as not to spend the money on purchasing more property of their own and never get a windfall to spend. The bottom line for most people is that if property is twice as expensive, Then they will have spent twice as much of their own earnt money on buying it.

    The one exception to this is buy to let, so the only real people gaining are those turning rising property values into a business model.

    Banks, of course, get their percentage on all the money loaned to buy property, which is an ever increasing sum as prices rise. And the threat of falling prices and defaults is a massive risk to them. The Bof E warned of this risk before the 2008 crash, during the crash it affected their policy on interest rates, and it may well be why the bank is pushing up interest a little now. If we have a couple of years left of EU membership, that is a couple of years to try to depress the property market a little ahead of the expected post brexit crash. And then throw anything they have left at propping it up when the crash comes.

  6. I had a look at the government paper on trade. Two paragraphs into Fox’s introduction, oh dear. Didn’t Keynes propose that a ‘fair’ (but also functional) system for world trade would be one where all countries are forbidden to create a trade surplus?

    It says, “The Prime Minister also underlined that the people of the UK have decided to be a global, free-trading nation”.

    Which ballot paper was that on?

    Seems to be trying to make a case for globalisation and free trade by making a number of assertions of belief in free trade. Absence of the counter arguments. Its a propaganda piece. Wonder what the civil servants thought about its lack of balance.

    States need to create a new Uk based organisation to enforce trade rules.

    Interestingly it takes a line rather similar to the labour manifesto, arguing to put the economic interests of the Uk first. Which logically might mean being a member of the EU. Though this is in the third introductory section I have now read.

    Mentions an intention to adderss people who feel left behind in the prosperity brought by free trade, but doesnt say how.

    It says, “Pursue economic prosperity for the UK…through …pursuit of free trade’. Not recognising that these two might be in conflict.

    They are asking for suggestions on how to do all this.

    The government plans to sign up to the GPA (or stay signed up). New one on me, but seems to be yet another organisation like the EU or WTO, which we seem now a little ambivalent about.

    Westminster to have the last word on any trade related issues being repatriated, not the devolved parliaments.

1 4 5 6