Survation have a poll in today’s Mail on Sunday. Topline figures are CON 37%(-1), LAB 45%(+1), LDEM 6%(-1). Fieldwork was Thursday and Friday and changes are since early October.

The eight point Labour lead is the largest any poll has shown since the election, so has obviously attracted some attention. As regular readers will know, Survation carry out both telephone and online polls. Their telephone method is unique to them, so could easily explain getting different results (Ipsos MORI still use phone polling, but they phone randomly generated numbers (random digit dialling), as opposed to Survation who phone actual numbers randomly selected from telephone databases). However, this was an online poll, and online there is nothing particularly unusual about Survation’s online method that might explain the difference. Survation use an online panel like all the other online polls, weight by very similar factors like age, gender, past vote, referendum vote and education, use self-reported likelihood to vote and exclude don’t knows. There are good reasons why their results are better for Labour than those from pollsters showing the most Tory results like Kantar and ICM (Kantar still use demographics in their turnout model, ICM reallocate don’t knows) but the gap compared to results from MORI and YouGov don’t have such an easy explanation.

Looking at the nuts and bolts of the survey, there’s nothing unusual about the turnout or age distribution. The most striking thing that explains the strong Labour position of the poll is that Survation found very few people who voted Labour in 2017 saying they don’t know how they would vote now. Normally even parties who are doing well see a chunk of their vote from the last election now saying they aren’t sure what they would do, but only 3% of Labour’s 2017 vote told Survation they weren’t sure how they would vote in an election, compared to about 10% in other polls. Essentially, Survation are finding a more robust Labour vote.

Two other interesting findings worth highlighting. One is a question on a second referendum – 50% said they would support holding a referendum asking if people supported the terms of a Brexit deal, 34% said they would be opposed. This is one of those questions that get very different answers depending on how you ask it – there are plenty of other questions that find opposition, and I’m conscious this question does not make it clear whether it would be a referendum on “accept deal or stay in EU”, “accept deal or continue negotiations” or “accept deal or no deal Brexit”. Some of these would be less popular than others. Nevertheless, the direction of travel is clear – Survation asked the same question back in April when there was only a five point lead for supporting a referendum on the deal, now that has grown to sixteen points (50% support, 34% opposed).

Finally there was a question on whether Donald Trump’s visit to the UK should go ahead. 37% think it should, 50% think it should not. This echoes a YouGov poll yesterday which found 31% think it should go ahead, 55% think it should not. I mention this largely as an antidote to people being mislead by twitter polls suggesting people want the visit to go ahead – all recent polls with representative samples suggest the public are opposed to a visit.

Tabs for the Survation poll are here.

1,082 Responses to “Survation/Mail on Sunday – CON 37, LAB 45, LDEM 6”

1 16 17 18 19 20 22

    thanks for the Brecht poem. It’s rather apt.

    The East German party was actually vehemently against the increasing of the norms (hence working more in the poem), but Khrushchev threatened them with replacing the whole Politburo, so they did it, which then led to the revolt.

    Khrushchev was a member of the Trotskyist faction in the 1920s. There are letters from Kaganovich to Stalin assuring him that Khrushchev Mendes his ways. Well, he learnt about it in 1957.

    Audience’s speech in the 1961 party congress was the most Trotskyist that one can imagine (promising everything (well, then the things people wanted: good and roof, peace reduced repressions, and “everybody according to their needs in 20 years), and doing nothing, this undermining any trust). JC has a similar tendency.

  2. Spellcheck… It’s Khrushchev’s speech in the 21st party congress in 1961…

  3. Somerjohn

    I’m pleased for you, actually I have no idea what my Danish daughter in law voted at the referendum or what she thinks of Brexit now. I know about her views on her own position, because I asked her having seen all the stuff by people who are worried for some reason.

    As to the HoL Report as I say I skimmed enought to be put off with the obvious bias in much of the evidence collected and the sources from where it was collected. Even skimming was a waste of my time.

  4. @ BALDBLOKE – we’re not at war with Europe but if you want a WW2 analogy then after 1946 it was clear that Communism was a new, possibly larger, global threat.

    CON have moved a little to the centre (not enough IMHO) but Len+Lansman’s party have moved and keep moving further to the left. It wouldn’t work. As others have pointed out there is a lot more going on than Brexit and on those topics Len+Lansman have very different views.

    We know Corbyn, McDonnell, etc are eurosceptic but they need the Remain faction so being very smart in keeping quiet on Brexit. IMHO they will wait until after Mar’19 before trying to bring HMG down – this is why I want Corbyn’s bluff flushed out. Not that I expect May has the backbone to risk it.

  5. @Trevor warne – “£50bn is around £25bn more than we need to pay – we should be spending that money at home”

    Just to be clear, are you saying this as an opinion, or is there any factual basis for this assertion?

  6. THE OTHER HOWARD: Small point but even though i suffer from mild dyslexia is it good English to start a sentence with “But”?

    Equally, is it good English to finish a sentence with “But”, like you did?

    Actually, if you look at what I wrote, it is English [according to google translate], but it is not a sentence. But not because of the but.

  7. Jim jam and others,

    yes despite the obsession with Brexit here and the very interesting analyses on how it will change VI I remain certain that beneath there is a gathering tension as domestic issues are neglected and regressive moves are hidden behind euro posturing.

    The only people I know with strong views on Brexit are my two ex ukip supporting friends and people here.

    As mentioned above iirc Brexit will be the setting event for the conservatives but I am sure the next election will be fought on domestic issues as was the last.

  8. @Alec Thanks for post on upsides and downsides – a lot of work obviously went into it and no one seems able to build on it at all. My fear is that the government also knows all this and Is similarly unable to make anything of it.

  9. I wonder if this guy posts on here under a different name? :-)

    Quote:“most serious issue any country in the world has ever had to face”

  10. MARKW

    “The only people I know with strong views on Brexit are my two ex ukip supporting friends and people here.”

    I guess you are trying to irritate if that was meant for me. I have never supported UKIP as I do not like many of their policies like Rail nationalisation.

  11. Trev, your reply to me,

    “To think the current generation of Brits are the first to know poverty (relative 1st World poverty, not absolute 3rd World poverty!!!) shows how out of touch Momentum are with any appeal to those outside their bubble”

    I did not claim that so stop putting up false claims to support your frail argument.

    Now Trev, if you were right and that those in poverty and those advocating for them did think they were the first in generations to have no shelter or food they still wont have what they need will they?

    I fail to see how knowing some people suffered like them will help them eat or find a home?

    Your allusions to the 70s again, falsely framing them as you do just informs me of how poorly informed you are of British history.

    Your attempt to draw a comparison between degrees of suffering is also clearly another gambit from the sixth form debating club and relies on the idea that if others are suffering more then those suffering less are lucky and shouldn’t complain.

    The only logic I can see in your post is that because others suffered those in hell now should put up with it.

    Oh, and I as I have told your other operators, I am not a member of momentum of the Labour party.

  12. TOH, to me “I guess you are trying to irritate if that was meant for me. I have never supported UKIP as I do not like many of their policies like Rail nationalisation.”

    No Howard dear, no.

    I really do have two ex ukippers as friends, but we avoid Brexit.

  13. TOH: I have no idea what my Danish daughter in law voted at the referendum

    If she voted at the referendum, then she must have UK (or Irish or Commonwealth) citizenship. Which explains why she can be relaxed about her position here.

    Hardly convincing evidence that EU residents here without dual nationality have nothing to worry about, though, is it?

  14. PETE B

    “Quote:“most serious issue any country in the world has ever had to face”

    To be honest people like that do the Remaind cause no good at all. Clearly he thinks that Brexit is worse than the Black Death or the 1919 Flu pandemic.

    I have tears from my laughter running down my face as I post. We need the van and the gents in the white coats for him.

  15. Nick p

    Your underestimating of the moggster is exactly the same kind of hubris that led to 17GE disaster for the Tories. He may be a figure of fun for those of us on the left but it’s entirely possible that he’s the only Tory who can beat Corbyn in a new GE.

  16. MARKW
    ‘Oh, well, I would prefer May to Davis.
    Maybe Boris Johnson has been drowned out in the Brexit clamour, but he does seem very quiet, I do wonder if promises have been made to him about his leading the tories soon.’

    He seems to be picking up the pace, now want’s us to take our place back in pursueing war in the middle east.

  17. TOH
    Not to mention the Mongol invasions, World Wars etc etc. The man is either very ignorant or very stupid or possibly both. How do such people reach such powerful positions? Pure BS?

  18. @ MARKW – in the past you’ve told us your mum+dad help you buy a house in the 1980s. Cava Communist. ‘nuf said!

  19. TOH, PETE B:

    I can’t find the quote “most serious issue any country in the world has ever had to face” in the actual speech.

    Guido is not a reputable source, it’s tabloid gossip. So I wouldn’t believe it until you get a proper citation.

    Meanwhile, what do you think of the rest of the content of his speech?

  20. Trev, you are loosing it mate.

    Yes my mum and dad, who both passed away about nine months ago, did indeed lend me 1500 quid in 1986.

    At the time I was on the council house list but the waiting time was three years and as I am sure you realise private renting is often fraught, I had moved every six months for the last four years or so due to landlord decisions.

    My father told me that he thought my future in council housing would be less secure and that buying a house was the way to go. He also foresaw the property price explosion and this was another reason for his urging.

    My Dad rarely gave advice so when he did I listened.

    My house is now paid for and I don’t regret taking my Dad’s advice.

  21. TW

    That’s a low blow, Mark has had the good fortune to have parents that can help him, good luck to him. It’s fantastic that in his good fortune he doesn’t forget about the folk who don’t share his good fortune.

  22. neilj

    “want’s ”

    Blimey, that must win an award for the worst apostrophe s I have ever seen!

    It’s not even one of those sneaky plurals like panini’s…..

  23. PR, TW, My Dad also insisted I pay it all back within three years, made me sign a contract, hardly silver spooning as you TW attempt to portray.

  24. Martin Schulz went all in on Europe today, I don’t think Merkel can go this far and might just have to opt for minority rule:

    “I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition,” he said.

    “A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.”

    Mr Schulz was speaking at the SPD’s convention in Berlin, where delegates will vote on whether to start coalition talks.

  25. @ SJ – thank you for posting the HoL link. I’ve only had time to skim it but would note the following:

    In general it considers the dramatic no deal outcome not a outcome. It also relies on ‘testimony’ and hence introduces bias (lobby groups in particular will be expressing a vested interest). Details:

    “19…. in order to have adequate time to prepare for a no deal scenario, we ought to declare before Christmas that we are moving to WTO13 in March 2019.”14 This was because, in his view, the benefits of leaving the EU “can only be crystallised if we leave the single market and the customs union. The longer we delay doing that, the more the costs rack up”

    This is the point a few of us have been making and the only testimony I saw from anyone from a Leave side. We are rapidly running out of time. A will in itself require some time. A 2y transition (as the report notes) is very important.

    Box 3 – an example of false analysis. We are self-sufficient in dairy – I know someone who has input to the “missing” DD studies on this and let a bit of that out of the bag in the past (cheese issue aside!!). Agri-food however is one of the key industries that we do have major issues to resolve but its not to do with prices. I also note no analysis of the almost certain shift in supply chains (this is huge issue in agri-food where we are nowhere near self-sufficient and a would enforce a full Minford response to prevent us starving – to use the dramatic terminology!)

    Most of the other boxes relate to a very dramatic no deal – not a

    Bare bones (34-38). Example of biased testimony IMHO.

    Stop the clock (39-41). The deadline is MEP elections and 2020 EU budget. I can’t see this working (similar to 41)

    Contingency planning (42-47): generally agree, we’ve wasted time and are still wasting time although we do need that 2y transition and will have to pay for it.

    #56 and other points re: no deal versus bad deal.
    We are leaving from a position of perfect regulatory alignment. The report seems to totally ignores this fact. This in particular is the issue in NI as we saw on Monday!

    As i’ve mentioned before this “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” worries me greatly. The whole phasing of talks has turned out to be a disaster. Even if we get past phase1, the EU have legal right to hold off the detail on transition until “it is all agreed”. Business can’t wait for this but the flow will be very 1-way to begin with as UK business enact “worst case plans” but EU businesses do not (IMHO).

    I note there are no actual numbers in the report.

    Anyway, thats my critique and why I think we need to exit from Brexit negotiations and reset the talks based on a up approach. If EU say no to that, as they probably will, then let’s at least use the next 15mths to get some stuff in place. The alternative is to be strung along until the last moment and get really scr4wed over (as fig.1 points out) while businesses do indeed start enacting their worst case scenarios (which are not as bad as lobby groups make out but still bad)

  26. Francis Irving: Guido is not a reputable source, it’s tabloid gossip. So I wouldn’t believe it until you get a proper citation.

    Absolutely. The credulousness of eager-beaver brexiters when presented with a bit of juicy tittle-tattle ion a dodgy website s a wonder to behold. But we know that the need for evidence to back assertions – or alleged quotes – does not loom large in brexitland.

    Meanwhile, in the real world Drechsler had some important and alarming points to make about the alarm of British business at the course of brexit events, and the imminence of irrevocable relocation and investment decisions. But what’s that compared with a hearsay remark?

  27. I do wish posters here wouldn’t bring up odd bits of personal information that others have disclosed and use it to attack them.

    Increasingly I can understand why so many people have left the site over recent months.

  28. Has this had a link already?

    Poll by Lucid Talk

    “The level of support for Irish reunification is noteworthy, I cannot remember a poll in any recent years that in a certain context had support levels so high for unity. Whether this can be sustained is another thing, but those of us who would like to see this happen now have some narrative to build upon to make a different case to those who might not have looked at this issue before.

    Whilst, Nationalists have to adjust to some new realities, it’s clear that Unionism has to as well. In her conference speech, Arlene Foster referenced the fact that the positive case for the Union has not always been put out there. Evidence from the past week shows there is still a lot of work to do and that simply shouting “stop supporting Dublin” is not a forward strategy.

    Meanwhile back on the ranch, the support for the DUP/Sinn Fein is holding firm. From those number neither have much to fear from another election whilst the other parties continue to decline in support within the polarised environment. It is worth noting that Sinn Fein and the DUP’s support alone is more than the SDLP/UUP/Alliance Parties combined.”

  29. @TW

    Good to see you had a look at the HoL report. And interesting that you highlighted the evidence from Leave is Leave, which adds a poignant light to ToH’s dismissal of the report as “biased and not worth the paper it’s written on.”

    I took the HoL’s ‘bare bones’ agreement to be roughly equivalent to your ‘min deal’ and I agree with them that it would be essential to stop the works seizing up. Also important, I think, is their finding that in itself it would be complex and time-consuming to negotiate, and so would need to be started quite soon, either if phase 2 never started, or was not looking like agreement in time.

    Re ‘stop the clock”, their point is that there is no mechanism to do this – just the A50 agreement to extend membership, requiring unanimity. So we can’t rely on a last minute fudge and extension.

    Re perfect regulatory alignment, that’s only relevant if we agree to continue with it; but freedom to diverge is a brexiter redline. Something has to give!

    But, as I said, good to see you engaging on this. Those who contemptuously refuse to do so, do their cause and credibility no good at all.

  30. @ RACHEL – I was foolish to take the bait. As I’ve mentioned to you before I do quite a bit more than just pay my taxes.

    I’m going for a self imposed time out for the rest of the day.

    I appreciate it when yourself or JIM JAM give me the yellow card – I’ll take myself to the sin bin to avoid a red card from AW!

  31. “Brexit has shone a light on a lot of long hidden corners of the British psyche, none so alarming as the anti-Irish sentiment that has appeared since Taoiseach Leo Varadkar expressed a concern that perhaps Brexiteers hadn’t thought the border issue all the way through (1)”

  32. paul croft,
    “I should have added that, as you implied, the larger majority are utterly detached from what goes on in government generally and utterly disinterested in any if the finer detail.”

    Yes. But. Not if the government truly messes up. There really never was a problem about executing Brexit if the government had a plan and a will and an expectation of a successful outcome. Looks like 0/3.

  33. Trev, You set yourself up, I didn’t bait you, I just laughed a little bit.

  34. @ SJ – I’m putting myself into a time-out but I am glad that the two of us are on a more civil tone.

    Although we disagree on Brexit I think we can agree that both sides are getting increasingly concerned with May+DD’s handling of the process.

    My apologies for over reacting to some of your posts in the past.

    Now, I’m off to the sin bin – maybe chat later in the week.


    Yes of course, she could not have voted, sorry if I was misleading. My point remains valid though. I haven’t got the faintest idea what she thinks about Brexit. All I know is she is not in the least worried about her own position inthe UK.

    As to Guido he is usually correct, even if it is tittle tattle. As to Dresler in my view he is a rabid Remainer I would take no more notice of him than you would of a piece in the DM.

  36. @Danny

    Could I add to your comment re PC’s : “the larger majority are utterly detached from what goes on in government generally and utterly disinterested in any if the finer detail.” a plea in aid of ‘uninterested’ instead of ‘disinterested’?

    As fellow sticklers will know, ‘disinterested’ traditionally means without an axe to grind, as in “the judge was commendably disinterested.” Possibly a lost cause by now, but like most of these things, its misuse grates.

  37. I suppose the possibility of hard Brexit has disappeared since the Irish and the EU say so. That leaves soft Brexit or no deal. Canada off the table?

    If it is soft Brexit a lot of people will wonder, “Why bother?”

    If it is no deal ….LISN bud LISN

  38. @TW

    Thanks for those gracious remarks, which I’m happy to reciprocate.

    Actually, I detect signs of hope in your posts. To me, the disaster that a hard brexit will cause is so frightening and so obvious that I always expect intelligent people who take the trouble to engage with the evidence to start to have doubts about brexit. I think I see that happening.

    “Captain, there’s an iceberg ahead”

    “Nonsense, there’s nothing but clear blue water ahead.”

    “Captain, it’s huge. Can’t you see it?”

    “Ah, well, it’s nothing we can’t handle. We’re unsinkable.”

    “Captain, it’s time to go hard astern!”

    “Hmm, well maybe a touch on the wheel is called for.”

    To be concluded….

  39. Somerjohn

    The slogan of “politics doesn’t interest me” is a music to cover up hidden cowardice and bad conscience (whether the person knows it or not) – surrendering his or her rights to a few tens of thousands activists, demonstrators and a few thousand politcians.

    The best thing in the JC phenomenon in the Labour Party was that it made the factionalism open in a way that a large number of people could engage. It is democracy (and hence the current state of the UK as a country is not democracy – if it is transient or permanent, we will see).


    I should have added that I prefer the views of the previous holder of the position.

  41. @Francis Irving – Hello.

    “I can’t find the quote “most serious issue any country in the world has ever had to face” in the actual speech……

    Guido is not a reputable source, it’s tabloid gossip. So I wouldn’t believe it until you get a proper citation.”

    Thankyou for taking the time and trouble to check this. I think everyone, on all sides, needs to be careful that when they recite ‘factual content’, they are not spreading fake news. There is a lot of it about, and somewhere, someone needs to check it and call it out.

    @Trevor Warne – “My apologies for over reacting to some of your posts in the past.”

    That’s very good to see. I speak as someone who can also over step the mark, but there’s no harm done if we are quick to recognise our own failings.

  42. @Laszlo

    I’m a democrat to my core, but…

    We are used to democracy led by an elite of active participants. That may be good (well-educated people able to make informed judgements and not easily misled) or not so good (powerful interest groups bending ‘the will of the people’ to their own ends).

    I suppose you’re right that the best antidote to the manipulation of the apathetic is the building of a mass movement to counter those powerful interests. But then, we’ve seen mass movements led astray before now.

    It’s a simplistic analysis, I know, but it leaves me constantly on guard against the all-too-easy hijacking of mass sentiment.

  43. Francis Irving and others

    The problem with castigating Guido is that he is only reporting what others are reporting:-

    “Brex in the City: POLITICO’s Cat Contiguglia was at a City of London Corporation bash last night to see CBI President Paul Drechsler give his starkest warning yet on Brexit. She emails in to report how, as guests dined on roast breast of pheasant and cured sea trout, Dreschler threw down his prepared notes and let it all out. Calling Brexit the “most serious issue any country in the world has ever had to face,” he raged at Theresa May’s stuttering approach”.

  44. A lot of “low level” violence in NI but the introduction of border posts would increase it. according to PSNI evidence to HoC Committee

  45. I don`t suppose the problem of arbitrary delivery charges has had any airing in Southern England via the so-called “national press” despite a debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday.

    But if crossing the border between Somerset and Devon caused a tripling in the price of purchases, or worse, then there would be an outcry.

    What is so annoying is the unpredictability of these charges, and how after doing the labour of filling the basket and entering card numbers, then suddenly the bill goes up from £4.95 to £32.99.

    For many private companies in Southern England this is clearly a rip-off aimed at upping their profits, being that people in Scotland are a small minority so their voice doesn`t matter, just like in the EU referendum.

    These companies could use the Post Office which doesn`t have extra charges except to islands, and often the delivery is actually by the PO, but the companies pretend they have to pay more.

    This problem has increased greatly in the past 10 years, which to me is clear evidence of a rip-off or even a punishment for political views.

  46. The introduction of bread rationing in 1946 is a great example of how trade, international relations, economic matters etc all interplay.

    The history of it should be mandatory reading for any politician who actually believes in the simplistic slogans they utter.

    For those interested, I recommend this –

  47. @TOH, that’s a better citation! And it gives a source. Thank you.

    I agree it is a hyperbolic, untrue thing for Paul Drechsler to say.

    As an aside: Still, no link to that citation from you or Guido, and I can’t find it even with substantive searching. And no sign of the copy of the actual email that Cat wrote… I can’t see any mention of the speech in her section on the Politico website.

    Wouldn’t meet my standards to blog about.

    I feel like an old man, complaining that standards on the web aren’t as good as they used to be. In the age of fake news though, I have to.

  48. ToH

    No hysteria amongst Remainers. We are merely pointing out the very many flaws within the Leave campaign. Time will tell who is right but let’s be clear here. Many of us will fight for our return to the EU post Brexit. I accept we will be the outsiders much like Farage has been for many years. Just like Farage we will not give up.

    For those wanting Rees Mogg to become next Tofy leader you need to be more circumspect. I think he may well beat Corbyn.

1 16 17 18 19 20 22