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 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Well, the dismal scientists seem to have taken over the place this afternoon.

    Back to a bit of speculation on the Kremlinology that passes for national politics.
    Judging by today’s events the Tory Brexiters have captured Mrs May, Gove for Chancellor, and full steam ahead for a rigorous Brexit, “the ball is in the EU’s court”.
    Hammond and Amber Rudd on the sane Brexit side have the numbers, but do they have the bottle to re-capture Mrs May?

  2. CARFREW

    @”The Bank rescue programm addresses solvency, fine. I agreed with that,”

    Alleluliah !

  3. @Colin

    The Bank “Rescues” stopped the beneficiaries from going Bust-going into Liquidation. Thats why they are described as “rescues”.
    Institutions engaging with BoE in its periodic purchase auctions for their Gilts are NOT being “rescued”-they are being helped to be more liquid. They could still go Bust, whether they swapped a few Gilts for cash with BoE-or they didn’t. Their SOLVENCY is not affected by the BoE Asset Purchase Facility ( QE)

    ———

    This is a quibble over the meaning of the word “rescue”. The banking crisis was in considerable part a liquidity crisis. It required immediate injections for solvency and to provide liquidity, and further injections of liquidity to assist recovery.

    If you want to say that assisting recovery is something very different to “rescue” that’s up to you, but it doesn’t invalidate the point of the use of QE to inject liquidity to help the banks.

  4. Gove as CoE = all out war in the Tory party

  5. TM, the brexit ball is in the EU’s court.
    EU, this isn’t a ball game.

    Oh dear.

  6. @Colin

    Yes we know, but it still doesn’t invalidate my point because contract or not they can decide to write off the debt. You’re not contesting my point. You keep saying lots of things that while true, don’t invalidate my point.

    And even if they don’t write it off, they can roll it over till inflation erodes, something you agree with.

  7. @PAUL CROFT

    “Again-for hopefully the last time ”

    I wouldn’t bank on it…

    ———

    Colin likes to explain the details of the QE thing, whether required or not. Enjoy!

  8. CARFREW

    @”The banking crisis was in considerable part a liquidity crisis.”

    I think that suddenly discovering that a great chunk of your Balance Sheet Assets ( marked Mortgage Backed Securities) are so impaired that neither you nor anyone else has any idea what they are really worth is a “liquidity crisis” like a failure of all four tyres at once is a “puncture crisis” .

    It was a failure of Bank Reserves-and has ( allegedly) been addressed since..

    ://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/sep/12/banking-basel-capital-requirements-raised

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III

  9. cf

    Yes, I’m sure you’re right about it all.

    And if you’re not, then at least you’re sure that you are.

  10. PR and MarkW
    So who’s for the drop, Mr Johnson or Mr Hammond, or conceivably, nobodaddy?

  11. CARFREW

    @”contract or not they can decide to write off the debt.”

    The Treasury could decide NOT to repay some of its Gilts?

    And what effects do you imagine might flow from that for ant Government which decided to do it?

    @”they can roll it over till inflation erodes, ”

    Gilts are always replaced by new borrowing-rolled over. The Treasury is constantly funding the National Debt.

    A bout of high inflation could have an eroding effect-but if, as would be normal, the Gilt market demanded higher interest rates to compensate for inflation, then The Treasury would see no gain from it.

  12. rjw

    I like the sound of nobadaddy so not him please.

  13. @RJW

    They are all going to stab and poison each other like in the last scene of Hamlet.
    Then Corbyn wanders in like Fortinbras shaking in his head dismay (whilst trying not to laugh).

  14. deuce

  15. @COLIN

    “@”The banking crisis was in considerable part a liquidity crisis.”
    I think that suddenly discovering that a great chunk of your Balance Sheet Assets ( marked Mortgage Backed Securities) are so impaired that neither you nor anyone else has any idea what they are really worth is a “liquidity crisis” like a failure of all four tyres at once is a “puncture crisis” .
    It was a failure of Bank Reserves-and has ( allegedly) been addressed since..
    ://www.theguardian.com/”

    ————–

    Lol, you think if I say liquidity CRISIS you’re going to claim that’s like saying you have a puncture?! Bizarre.

    You can take it up with the BoE if you like, they do liquidity crunch stress tests now.

    Sure, more reserves would have helped but as you know it was a failure of many things, liquidity, sub prime market, regulation, etc.

    But the crisis came to a head when banks stopped having the confidence to lend to each other. I.e. A liquidity crisis. You actually mentioned this the other day!

    Not that any of this alters that QE has been used to inject liquidity. It gets used in different ways… in the U.S. They used it to support the mortgage market more too because they had the dub prime thing. It’s quite flexible really.

  16. Difficult really to understand what May is trying to achieve here.

    It’s the UK that has placed themselves outside the EU, so there is no point in expecting the EU to devise what it is that we want.

    As Barnier said with regards our obligations, in Florence, May said she would meet our obligations, now the EU nees May to tell them what she thinks these are.

  17. @Colin

    “The Treasury could decide NOT to repay some of its Gilts?
    And what effects do you imagine might flow from that for ant Government which decided to do it?”

    ——–

    You know that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that they might come to some arrangement with the BoE who might forego repayment.

    But like I said, there’s always rolling it over, which you agree they’re doing.

    And sure there are scenarios where there’d be no gain if interest rates rose high but they haven’t have they.

  18. @Paul Croft

    “Yes, I’m sure you’re right about it all.
    And if you’re not, then at least you’re sure that you are.”

    ———

    Thanks for that but I’m quite happy to cede a point, like I just did about the amount of QE.

  19. alec

    I wrote previously that, much though I hate the “divorce” analogy if they insist on using it that term then the payments issue clearly fits right into it.

    In a divorce YOU WORK OUT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES and then divide it up as equitably as possible [minus a large chunk to two solicitors if you can’t do this amicably.]

    What you don’t do is come up with a stab-in-the-dark figure and say: “I’m definitely not paying a penny more than that – whatever the estate agent says the house is worth,”

    As I understand the impasse the EU would like to go through the liabilities stuff from previous agreements whereas the UK seem loath to agree as to what they might be.

    Which seems a bit daft.

  20. alec

    I wrote previously that, much though I hate the “divorce” analogy if they insist on using it that term then the payments issue clearly fits right into it.

    In a divorce YOU WORK OUT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES and then divide it up as equitably as possible [minus a large chunk to two solicitors if you can’t do this amicably.]

    What you don’t do is come up with a stab-in-the-dark figure and say: “I’m definitely not paying a penny more than that – whatever the estate agent says the house is worth,”

    As I understand the impasse the EU would like to go through the liabilities stuff from previous agreements whereas the UK seem loath to agree as to what they might be.

    Which seems a bit daft.

  21. RJW,

    I think Reggieside has described it well.

    I still think Boris J will go, but after that I have no idea.

  22. cf

    ” I’m quite happy to cede a point ”

    oooo !!! Advantage Colin…… or was it Rachel?

    [Are we bovvered??]

  23. @Paul

    It was both of them. Obviously you’re bothered, you keep mentioning it!

  24. @trevorwarne

    Re Scotland trade figures, we have been through this before but let’s do it again: a declining share of a growing absolute amount of trade going to a mature market with an increasing share going to rapidly developing countries is to be expected. It also demonstrates that the UK can trade effectively with the rest of the world while being in the EU. It does not demonstrate that the EU market is somehow expendable.

  25. Amused more than bothered actually – and “ceding a point” when you have just been demonstrated to be wrong is probably not that noble.

    [Which is why it was amusing.]

    Anyway, tata for now – as a friend of mine says:

    “I have better things to do.”

    [viz: cleaning the bathroom for plumber tomorrow].

  26. Amused more than bothered actually – and “ceding a point” when you have just been demonstrated to be wrong is probably not that noble.

    [Which is why it was amusing.]

    Anyway, tata for now – as a friend of mine says:

    “I have better things to do.”

    [viz: cleaning the bathroom for plumber tomorrow].

  27. Blimey ! Dunno why I’m in stereosound.

    I only pressed once Guv.

    I shall press VERY gently this time.

  28. CARFREW

    @”I’m saying that they might come to some arrangement with the BoE who might forego repayment.”

    So you propose a partial default on Gilts held under QE.

    Do you foresee any danger that the Market for UK Gilts might lose confidence , & fear that a Government which did such a thing, might do it to the Gilts which it is being invited to purchase?

    @”but they haven’t have they.”

    Yes-they have ( choose “Historical” “Max” ):-

    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/interest-rate

    Interest rates over the last decade have been a product of the ultra loose Monetary Policy which we have been discussing.

    Financial commentary about this policy increasingly sees it being would down on both sides of the Atlantic as inflation creeps back into the system.

    Can you be certain that Interest Rates will last forever at these levels?

    And what do you think a policy such as you advocate on partial Sovereign Default would have on the rates demanded by Gilt purchasers?

  29. @Paul Croft

    Amused more than bothered actually – and “ceding a point” when you have just been demonstrated to be wrong is probably not that noble.
    [Which is why it was amusing.]
    Anyway, tata for now – as a friend of mine says:
    “I have better things to do.”
    [viz: cleaning the bathroom for plumber tomorrow].

    ———

    I didn’t claim nobility. I just pointed out you were wrong with the ad hom about me being always convinced I’m right.

  30. Hooray, back to brexit again. So professor Ddavis is going to look sternly over his specs at Blofeld and his cat and tell them we’ve had enough of this messing about and that our position is perfectly clear, we want a red white and blue strong and stable having cake and eating it brexit. We have told them what is to be done regarding the rights of our people on their side of the pond, been very clear about Ireland, and are determined to tell the 27 our demands for continuing trading with them in future. And little gove is be for. Yes, that should work.

  31. @Colin

    It’s not a default if it’s arranged. Again you’re wrestling over words needlessly.

    You’re missing the point about interest rates. Sure they have been high in the past but inflation was high. It’s not whether they are high or not, but whether they outweigh the gains from inflation, which is unlikely. Interest rates are usually set below inflation. Even in the oil crisis.

    If the BoE wrote off the debt owed to them then how would other gilts purchasers be very affected? But this is a sideshow, when they can keep rolling over.

  32. Looking at the YouGov Scotland poll a couple of interesting details.

    Raising higher rate tax is, as you’d expect, very popular with the ‘left’ vote. Net Support v Oppose:
    CON -8
    LAB +52
    LIB +21
    SNP +59

    I expect we’ll hear more later in the week on the details but it seems like a very obvious vote winner for SNP.

    The ‘loyalty’ section on VI has some interesting parts.

    Comparing Holyrood to Westminster you can see LIB’s churn voters tactically like CON for Holyrood but split more evenly CON/LAB for Westminster. I was surprised to see LAB lower for Holyrood than Westminster but the LIB churn does explain a few % of the difference. Hard to calculate how much the lingering concerns of IndyRef2 explain the rest of LAB VI, the timing of IndyRef2 shows surprisingly low partisan splits (IMHO)

  33. Be for? To be CoE.

  34. @ HIRETON – I’m not saying EU market is expendable, just the growth opportunity is larger in non-EU markets – as I’ve said every time we’ve had this discussion.

    @ SOMERJOHN – ?? You are aware of the huge growth in UK car exports to non-EU markets (even ignoring the Netherlands port effect). We even run a trade surplus with non-EU countries as you’d have seen if the read the official data that I posted.

  35. Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 41% (-1)
    CON: 41% (+1)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-) I

    via @ICMResearch, 06 – 08 Oct

    Interesting, seems that the dramas that used to move polls no longer do. Is this the result of moving from managerial politics to ideological politics?

  36. TW: You are aware of the huge growth in UK car exports to non-EU markets

    Indeed. Just shows what you can do while an EU member, based on the economies of scale achieved through having a large home market.

    Once you lose much of that home market, those economies start to disappear.

    And closed factories don’t export. Remember who the decision makers are behind the five principal actors: 2 Japanese companies, 1 Franco-Japanese, 1 German, 1 Indian. These aren’t sentimental anglophiles, just hard-headed international businesses who will locate production where it’s most profitable to do so.

    That doesn’t mean instant closure on Brexit; just a gradual run-down as old investment is amortised, new investment withheld and new models produced elsewhere.

    BTW, you sound surprised that Ford doesn’t produce any vehicles in the UK. Which perhaps indicates the depth of the knowledge-base underlying your confident assertions.

  37. @Princess Rach?

    “Interesting, seems that the dramas that used to move polls no longer do. Is this the result of moving from managerial politics to ideological politics”

    ——–

    Maybe. It’s also possible that some things currently dominate so much for some that it trumps other events or policy developments. E.g. immigration, or cost of living/wage issues for the younger, or preserving assets for boomers etc.

  38. Ex~D
    If Mr Gove makes it to CoE that’s when the sh!t will really hit the walls, according to Princess Rachel, and I think she’s right. Can’t wait.

  39. @ SOMERJOHN – I’m fully aware of the nationally of the principle actors behind the lobby group SMMT. I agree fully they are not sentimental anglophiles and that new investment and models will be produced where the economics make most sense – that has always been my entire point.

    Anyway, enjoying the comedy in HoC at the moment so last word over to you.

  40. Carfrew PR
    I think it’s cos potential supporters of Lab and Con are aware that the dross (LD the UKIP) have been swept aside.

    In the words of the hymn :

    Let courage rise with danger
    And strength to strength oppose.

    Both sides mean it this time.

  41. TW: last word over to you.

    Nope. I think we’re done here. Happy to leave that to you.

  42. UKIP have split, new party is ‘For Britain’ led by Anne Marie Waters

  43. CARFREW

    @”It’s not a default if it’s arranged.”

    Call it what you like-you still have to convince Gilt purchasers you won’t do it to them.

    Try funding the National Debt after you have “arranged” not to repay “some” of it.

  44. Alec

    You keep implying that the UK has in some way acted outside the EU treaties. On the contrary we have simply followed A50 a provision inserted for this precise eventuality. So the UK is acting within the EU constitutional framework.
    A50 does not allow the EU to simply sit on its hands but imposes a duty on both parties to negotiate the leaving terms and the future relationship. By some Irony perhaps the UK ought to seek a declaration from the ECJ that the preconditions imposed by fellow EU members are unreasonable and unlawful.

  45. The new HMG white papers on Brexit issues are available:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

    I didn’t spot anything new, just further details, but they do invite feedback, see the bottom of the ‘Preparing for our future UK trade policy’ for topics, email address, etc.

  46. Unsurprising but readable new article in the Indy’s Britain’s ‘naive’ plan for open Northern Ireland customs border ruled out by Ireland’s customs authority, which starts with:

    A report drawn up by the Republic of Ireland’s customs authority has ruled out an open customs border with the North – effectively pouring cold water on UK plans for the frontier.

    The unpublished report, drawn up after the Brexit vote and obtained by Irish broadcaster RTE, spells out the huge logistical difficulties Britain leaving the EU will cause for trade on the island of Ireland.

    The UK says a “unique” solution can keep the customs border, which is currently not policed, frictionless – despite the UK’s intention to leave the EU customs union, which would ordinarily see checks placed there.

    Why anyone, let alone HMG, would think that enough progress has been made on the 3 exit areas beggars belief. Let’s hope we hear something from the DUP soon that goes beyond their “no irish sea border” demand.

  47. TREVOR WARNE

    Thanks for the heads-up, but a better URL for the DExEU is here.

    Notably, there seems to be no mention, clarification or update of the Irish border situation.

  48. @Colin

    @”It’s not a default if it’s arranged.”
    Call it what you like-you still have to convince Gilt purchasers you won’t do it to them.
    Try funding the National Debt after you have “arranged” not to repay “some” of it.”

    ——–

    Lol, the whole point is they have a get-out: when the BoE buys the debt off them before writing it off. The BoE could offer them a juicy incentive in the process, buying it off them at very favourable terms, since the money is magicked up anyway. You’re just imagining negatives and not seeing how they would benefit from the arrangement.

    They might benefit indirectly too since if the Govt. doesn’t have to repay, that money can serve the economy instead, assisting growth and confidence. Your approach might well affect confiden e more negatively.

  49. shock poll

    In a “shock” iCM poll labour have failed to gain any advantage from the worst tory conference in living memory which follows the worst tory campaign in living memory.This cannot be so. The media tell us that it is all up for the Tories. One more push and they are toast And yet…
    The Tories have mysteriously crept back to 41 and labour have eased back to 41. They are neck and neck. One startling analysis of this could be that far from collapsing the Tories are holding up very well indeed and that in fact it might be that Jezza and labour are at their high water mark. All to play for.

  50. @RjW

    “I think it’s cos potential supporters of Lab and Con are aware that the dross (LD the UKIP) have been swept aside.
    In the words of the hymn :
    Let courage rise with danger
    And strength to strength oppose.
    Both sides mean it this time.”

    ——–

    Yes, that’s another way of looking at it. You might say it chimes with what Rachel said, there’s a kind of ideological switch, both Tories and Labour more polarised than before. And liberalism being driven aside more, though there’s still plenty left. But while the parties might be being a bit more ideological, I think the voters might be being a bit more pragmatic.

1 2 3 4 5 6