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 18 19 20 21 22
  1. TOH
    Thanks for looking up the references to back up Guido. I had to go to chess (and probably wouldn’t have bothered anyway).

    I do like to think one of the differences between Remainers and Leavers (IMHO) is that Leavers are more in the buccaneering spirit of Grenville, Drake, Nelson, Winston Churchill, Jack Churchill, David Sterling etc etc, whereas Remainers are risk-averse accountant types who are afraid that their incomes might be slightly adversely affected by Brexit. I expect to be howled down or pompously ignored, but there it is.

    As this is a polling site, I would note that despite all the difficulties of the negotiations, the polls show that opinion is still pretty equally divided, but Leave did win the referendum. I don’t believe that the British will stand for the Multiple referenda inflicted on Holland, France and Eire when they gave the ‘wrong’ answer in the past.

  2. I’m a bit surprised that Martin Schulz’s speach calling for a United States of Europe and threatening expulsion from the EU to any state that refuses to sign up to this seems to have failed to provoke a reaction from anyone on UKPR. If Merkel wants a deal with the SPD she’s going to have to move towards his position somewhat so it’s a pretty big deal!

  3. David
    Ok, I’ll reply. Schultz embodies the reason we must leave the EU. There is a constant pressure to become a United States of Europe. I believe that a very small minority of UK citizens would want that.

    G’night all.

  4. Looks like we got a deal that Arlene is happy with. I

  5. Looks like we got a deal that Arlene is happy with. I

  6. Looks like the Irish have been thrown under the bus but the EU has got everything it wanted on citizens rights

  7. ALEC
    “And there’s the rub. I can say with total confidence that if the Great British public is faced with a unionist paramilitary campaign blowing up Irish people in order to affect a reunion with the UK…”

    Would such a campaign genuinely be unionist, in representing or being instigated by any genuine and legitimate unionist politics or political party? The evidence us rather that where continued violence occurs (not just in ROI or NI) it is the work of a tiny group of dissident and criminal people, unattached to legitimte or mainstream politics.
    Is it not far beyond time to treat it as criminal, and not to continue to confer any recognition of violent acts whether against the forces of law and order or against the civil populationm, but to treat it as what it is – criminality?.

  8. Danny

    I think your theory has been tested to destruction … and has been found wanting.

    I think TM hit the DUP with the classic: if you want to be part of the uk you will do what the uK government agrees in the interests of the UK as a whole

  9. I think getting to phase 2 shows that both parties are desperate avoid no (min) deal and can be ‘flexible’ when required,

    Next test – agree transition, by end January latest business is saying.

  10. I just looked at the BBC website which posts an excerpt from what I take to be the agreement. It states the Uk guarantees that the UK will mainatin full alignment with all the rules of the customs union and common market.

    While I am currently listening to Theresa Villiers on the radio denying that this means the rules will be the same, I really dont see how the EU would interpret it as anything except a guarantee the Uk will still operate on identical terms. I dont see how anyone reading it at face value would do so either. It appears to be a guarantee in perpetuity that the Uk as a whole will continue to operate a parallel regime identical to the CU and SM.

    All N. Irish citizens to retain their full current EU citizen rights.

    Brexit means Brexit means the Uk will continue to operate the rules of the EU, but will rewrite them all to achieve the same effect with different wording. The Uk is to remain.

  11. Danny

    We will stay in the SM & CU until we come up with a solution to the Irish border.

  12. @DANNY

    holly sh1t, If that is true then I reckon the FTA will mirror this and we are leaving the EU but will be in its fixed orbit.

    Interestingly I reckon that LEAVERS will state this as a victory. and REMAINERS will say saying you voted for this?


    Schultz is argument about the USE is a debate that will be had he needs to have countries willing to join it and it would mean fiscal transfers to those lesser countries something that the uK would not do, considering the enlish are unhappy doing fiscal transfers to the Scots and London is unhappy doing fiscal transfers to anyone.

    I think that is where it breaks down. Will there be increase co operation increased coordination better economic rule structure I would suggest yes to all of those thing indeed as a nation we are going through the same issues local government grants have basically seen a cash flow from poor northern cities to the shires for example that has been a cause of much of the angst about lack of resources for example and If we are failing to come to terms with fiscal transfers as a nation then a supranational authority will not do much better.

    Lastly since we have left it gives those that want to an opportunity to try but I don’t think they have enough votes to do so. Indeed Schultz may be a minority in his own country.

  13. I suppose this document is not formally binding as an official treaty, so I suppose we can simply turn around and deny we agreed to it, but the implication of the Uk guaranteeing to maintain the SM and CU would seem to be we accept in advance any terms the EU imposes to bring this about. So presumably we continue annual payments.

    There seems to be reference to only consulting the ECJ rather than its judgements being binding, but I dont see how a commitment to follow the rules of the CU/SM, part of which includes judgements made by the ECJ being binding, could be interpreted in any way except that ECJ judgements remain binding on the Uk in pepetuity.

  14. Princess Rachel,
    “We will stay in the SM & CU until we come up with a solution to the Irish border.”

    Well, no. It goes further than that. The Uk guarantees theentire Uk will shadow the SM/CU in all respects, regardless of agreement by the irish (north or south) that we dont have to.

  15. This is pretty depressing, I’m not a Brexiteer but it pains me that we have been so thoroughly humiliated. Looking at the text we seem to have capitulated to the EU, the Irish and the DUP.

  16. @S THOMAS

    I find some of what DANNY has proposed sound. May is trying to square the circle of pleasing a very strong leave base yet understand that a no deal is a disaster as she has placed the no deal in peoples mind she has to sell a deal which looks better than a no deal to the voter.

    The advantage of a no deal is that it is easy to understand from the voters perspective.

    1. We don’t pay anythign
    2. We can do what we like

    Whereas any deal will mean

    1. We pay money
    2. We Can do what we like

    I understand this is a simplification but it is a simplification that many voters will perceive.

    it is why I have thought that a no deal while being bad is much more sellable than any other deal I could think of I accept I have not put any economics in the consideration of a bad deal but if you look at what the polls are saying Leavers still want to leave, remainers to want to remain. everyone is just more pessimistic about the results of everything

  17. @DANNY

    stupid typo

    1. We Pay Money
    2. We can’t do what we like

  18. Passtherockplease,
    ” I find some of what DANNY has proposed sound.”

    It isnt my plan! I’d remain a member, crucially maintaining control of future developments of the EU, and require that any changes such as Schulttz wants are accompanied by a twin track arrangement to suit the UK, and any others who want less tight union.

    What this agreement says is we will end up with a similar staus as we could have achieved as a member, but lose control of the rest of the EU. It might end up as a perfect solution for the EU, with of course the UK pushed out of its controlling vetoes within the EU. Absolute insanity if you are concerned about UK world power.

    Juncker hugged Farage in the parliament after Farage ‘won’. People who want a united states of Europe see Brexit as a massive step forward.

    As to my argument the Uk government wants to remain…well…with the help of the DUP it is planning to.

  19. SCHULZ
    For the former president of the European Parliament to adopt such a dictatorial tone is really quite outrageous though. Basically he’s arguing for Germany to cobble together a deal with Macron and present it as a fait accompli before 2025: ‘countries who refuse must AUTOMATICALLY leave the EU’. That’s incredible.

  20. David Colby,
    ” That’s incredible.”

    Yes, it is. All members have a veto on changes, so it is not believeable that this could happen. But the Uk while still following all the rules, will no longer benefit from that veto.

  21. Did Trevor Warne, say he was off for a month in anticipation of the deal?

    Gove up now arguing its a great result. Fancy getting him to support following all EU rules but relinquishing our power to make those rules. wow. Wonder how this will go down on polling. Its basically a remain deal on the economy.

    Now I wonder who will be appointed as final arbiter of whether this agreement has been satisfied? If it isnt the ECJ, then who? It seems to be folowing a revised EEA/EFTA model, where ultimately the ECJ is always binding.

  22. So we go from half-in the EU to half out.

  23. I can see Little Nell now, stepping down from the aeroplane to make yet another gracious speech, pulling out a small onion with one hand and a piece of paper with the other, as she announces with great clarity, strength and stability that there will be Brexit in our time.

    Freedom of movement will cease, although it will continue, we will leave the single market and cu, while creating identical vehicles to join with different names, and mr Mercedes has promised that we will still be able to nip over and buy his wares as long as we build a new and special trading relationship which is exactly the same as the one we have already, which we will call something else.

    Readers of Messrs Murd*ch and Desmond give a mighty cheer at the glad news that we have given those foreigners what for, Moggzilla turns puce, remainers scratch their heads and consider what a colossal waste of time and money that would have been better spent lifting people out of, and preventing people getting into, poverty this has all been.

    Win-win all round, then.

  24. That really is amazing. Gove is showing complete unity with the government position. My suggestions that the government is united in wanting to remain are confirmed. There seems to be a glimmer of hope for the future of the tory party.

  25. @DANNY

    Your argument was that May was feigning incompetence and stupidity in order to get to a point where she would have a deal similar to this. My view is that they are stumbling in the dark and scared sh1tless of a no deal having bluffed that this was their prefered solution

    My feeling is that May misstepped several times and only in the last 2 months has realised that she cannot win the bluff as the EU were happy to walk away.

    The DUP were not helpful at all and there are some that are rumbling on that they are not happy with the deal. which says that the NI border is guaranteed to be seamless. I am not sure that there is going to be customs officers with jedi mind sskills at the border so it means we have to be compliant with EU rules and future EU rules which pretty much means that our FTA will essentially piggyback of the EUs.

    As I said I agree that we basically had two options basically no deal or literally stay in the EU orbit. I think May was looking for anyway out of the orbit which worked but literally ran out of time or ideas

    Remember the dinner with Juncker and Barnier where DD TM said that they owed nothing and they needed us more than we needed them. I believe they truly believed it. Indeed May said that she said that she had miscalculated and that the negotiations could have been much smoother. This is why I believe they have gone through a massive learning curve. Their behaviour matches that of someone whom has changed their viewpoint but is now trying to save face

  26. Presumably diehard leave consider they have averted the UK withdrawing its notice to leave, and still have hopes for a breakdown of negotiations in the future, and simply tearing up this agreement. Critical for them to get past the two year deadline for changing our mind, and I dont see this being fully setled within that timescale. I can see talks going on for decades on a temporary arrangement of the current rules.

  27. @Pete B – “I do like to think one of the differences between Remainers and Leavers (IMHO) is that Leavers are more in the buccaneering spirit of Grenville, Drake, Nelson, Winston Churchill, Jack Churchill, David Sterling etc etc, whereas Remainers are risk-averse accountant types who are afraid that their incomes might be slightly adversely affected by Brexit. I expect to be howled down or pompously ignored, but there it is. ”

    I’m not going to pompously ignore you, or howl you down. I’ll just say that I think you are completely wrong, both historically and in your characterization of the current situation.

    We aren’t being led by ‘buccaneering spirits’ but by people who are so lacking in confidence and frightened that they fear the alliance with the friendly and culturally similar EU. It takes openess and self confidence to agree to share sovereignty for the common good, but what Brexit is about is the culmination of 50 years of whinging from people who so lacked confidence that they believed we couldn’t use the EU to our advantage. Winston Churchill would die of embarrassment if he knew his party was behaving in such a way (and if he wasn’t already dead). He was an internationalist, and he would have been telling leavers to get off their emotional knees and get exporting, like Germany.

    If you are looking for historical analogies, the best I can think of is Lord Cardigan and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Well intentioned, brave, but lacking in intelligence and planning, heading full pelt to disaster without even realising it.

    It’s also true to say that you shouldn’t kid yourself about the modern day buccaneer’s. If we leave the EU, they won’t be out there buccaneering – they will continue as they have for the last five decades, blaming everyone else for everything and whinging endlessly about this, that and the other (mainly ‘the others’, I suspect). This has already started, with people like @TOH whinging about the EU ‘punishing’ the UK. It won’t stop, because these people are fundamentally frightened and lacking in confidence in UK’s ability to compete within the EU. They still need someone to blame.

    I would agree that some remainers are a bit like worried accountants, while others are much more philosophical, but even for the accountants, they do have a point. I have been trying to get a clear understanding of what could happen if we really do suffer a small 0.2% drop in annual GDP growth. That’s a bit of accountancy for you, but to my mind, by 2030 that means we are closing down government departments becasue the losses are so huge.

    Fundamentally, I believe the flaw in your historical analogy is that it’s based on at best a partial reading of history, and one that has been created and mythologized beyond recognition by a certain type of British nationalist. If you really want to know why Great Britain is great, I would argue that top quality administration and management was the key – those bloody accountants! That was what build Britain’s future back in the golden years, and it was because planning, thinking and analysis was desperately needed to keep the buccaneers in check.

  28. PRach
    This is pretty depressing, I’m not a Brexiteer but it pains me that we have been so thoroughly humiliated. Looking at the text we seem to have capitulated to the EU, the Irish and the DUP.”

    You must be a far nicer person than I am, to me this looks like the best possible result for both what the Brexit bunch refer to as “our side”, and for the EU, who will be able now to regulate finance and human rights without the UK vetoing everything.

    My powers of prediction are poor, but I shall be going to work shortly with a smug inner glow, having predicted to my family and friends weeks before the referendum that this is precisely what would come to pass.

    I shall also be reflecting on your more empathic approach and use it to inform whether residents of Skaro might be better daleks if we followed your example.

  29. @DANNY

    Gove and Johnson cannot say anything or else they will bring the government down if they bring the government down then Labour just picks up this deal and runs with it. basically all of May red lines are turning pink it is going to be a hilarious in parliament. labour can not say anything since this is the sort of deal they wuld have struck. Brexiteers can not say anything because they bring the government down. the voters cannot do anything because we don’t really want to know.

    So everybody will say they are pleased.

  30. @David Coulby – “I’m a bit surprised that Martin Schulz’s speach calling for a United States of Europe and threatening expulsion from the EU to any state that refuses to sign up to this seems to have failed to provoke a reaction from anyone on UKPR.”

    Just catching up with this. I don’t know the full context, nor the translation, but this is the kind of thing that puts me off a certain type of EU supporter.

    It may be that we are missing what Schulz actually means by a United States of Europe, but as I have long held, my feeling is that the EU could make a good start at solving many of it’s problems if it agreed on it’s limitations.

    Drawing a line under endless geographic expansion, replacing extending membership with developing good trade relations with nations outside the EU would be a good start, but they also need to agree where the limits to EU competencies l!e. Once we know what the target end point of the EU really is, people can deicde if they are happy with this.

    By the way – he didn’t threaten anyone with expulsion. He called for a new EU treaty, to be democratically voted on by all member states, with rejection being a choice to leave the EU, taken by the people. Countries would leave if they weren’t happy – no one would be expelled.

  31. Danny
    Wasn’t part of what the Brexit bunch were kicking off about earlier in the week that even if talks collapse later that the Irish border stuff would remain binding regardless?

    If so, then they’ve been completely and utterly sold out and stuffed, it would appear.

  32. Looks like May has done a good deal.The UK leaves in name only . SM & FOM ,CU continue with a change of name.NI parked to a later date.

  33. The Daily Telegraph reporting the European reaction to the deal; – “Now we can move on to the next stage of humiliation”.

    Wry smiles all round.

  34. DANNY
    Schulz is making a grand coalition with Merkel very difficult with this so it really is extremely significant.
    His choice of words were outrageous though.

  35. Passtherockplease,
    “Your argument was that May was feigning incompetence and stupidity in order to get to a point ”

    hmm, not feigning incompetence as a strategy. This was simply a side effect of the necessary steps. The basic plan was put brexiteers in charge and see what a mess they make. Let them try to leave until they realise it isnt possible without politically unacceptable pain. And I think they have realised this.

    It was not a misstep for may to figurehead the remainers demands, but necessary to the strategy. She always had a caveat that she would do her best for the Uk, and oddly (because of her past record) I believe her. If that requires she appears an idiot, so be it.

    The DUP have been wonderfully helpfull. The tories will blame them for insisiting that England continues to accept the SM/CU rules. The DUP have been out maneuvered by the people who destroyed the libs. Never forgtting UKIP looks like a spent policital force too. Tories not out of the woods yet, but leaving the EU in reality is what has to be avoided, and they have a path which could get us there. Sacrificing Uk sovereignty along the way wont matter, its the money which counts.

    ” I think May was looking for anyway out of the orbit which worked but literally ran out of time or ideas”
    But thats the plan. Give brexiteers free rein and they will prove there is no way out of that orbit, bcause fundamentally we WANT to be in that orbit.

    The question will be, what will hard brexit voters do when the penny drops? I assume the tories have decided that the old maxim holds true, the fight is for the middle ground, and this is a plain call to soft brexiters to stay with the tories.

  36. Struggling to catch up with the details, but it does sound quite encouraging and helpful.

  37. Alec

    Your 8:28.

    As a historian myself, may I say that post is absolutely spot on.

  38. ALEC
    You say Schulz didn’t threaten anyone with expulsion…
    Shulz said: “Countries who refuse to sign up to a new federal Europe should automatically lose their EU membership.”

    That does not offer the option of retaining the status quo and is a threat of expulsion if you don’t agree. For a former EU parliamentary president and leader of Germany’s second largest party (which is currently in government in a caretaker roll by the way) is OUTRAGEOUS.

  39. Danny , May said Brexit means Brexit but now in reality it does not.I suppose some Conservatives have picked the wrong leader to obtain their ultimate goals.

  40. David Colby,
    “Schulz is making a grand coalition with Merkel very difficult ”
    Internal German politics. Indeed internal EU politics, because there has always been a tension between those wanting a united europe and others wanting only a limited union. I agree the EU should clarify its scope, but its difficult when inevitably it will change with time. The US created a cast iron constitution, but has since ‘bent’ it to allow greater unification.

    EU unionists will see this as a great victory, because they still have the UK as part of the market, but have drawn its politcal teeth to control the future of the EU. Brexit will be a massive defeat for Uk interests, but most will not see this and be content to have rescued the economy from disaster. In the long run, we will probably rejoin as a full member on less advantageous terms. (though we might end up in the position of the Isle of Man to the UK, Quite a fall from a place on the high table.)

  41. @David Colby – “That does not offer the option of retaining the status quo and is a threat of expulsion if you don’t agree”

    As I say, I haven’t read the full text, but my understanding is that he is proposing a new treaty. This would have to be unanimously agreed by all 27. Within this treaty (presumably) I thought he was arguing for a vote in each nation to either accept the new treaty or reject it, with rejection being a choice to leave the EU.

    I may have misunderstood his detail on this, but whatever he did say, he cannot call for the expulsion of anyone from the EU. This is not permitted under EU law. Only if everyone agrees to a new treaty could this happen.

  42. @Norbold – thankyou. I’m a casual historian, with limited knowledge, but enough to understand that national myths can be invented and abused.

  43. Princess Rachel,
    “Looks like the Irish have been thrown under the bus”

    Not really, Irish wanted soft border and that’s what they’ve got.

  44. Dez,
    “.I suppose some Conservatives have picked the wrong leader to obtain their ultimate goals.”

    No. All the polling beforehand suggested the majority of tory MPs are remainers. I dont know how many are EU unionists, wanting a wholly united Europe. But it is beginning to look as if the winners from this will be the faction wanting the Uk to be part of a fully federal state of Europe.

  45. Soft border with no hard border in Irish sea means there will have to be some kind of UK-EU customs union, otherwise deal is impossible to implement.

  46. Looking more and more like EFTA with each breakthrough.

  47. Very pleased to see that there is a specific agreement to sort out nuclear regulation.

    @Edge of Seat – that’s what it looks like to me as well.

  48. First reaction from someone in the middle ground Brexit-wise;

    1. I have previously posted that we should ‘lock ’em in a room until they come out with an agreement’. This seems to have happened. In other words, get on with it, rather than relentless sparring, and ‘tactics’.

    2. A deal that leaves Britain out of the EU, but still operating within many of its procedures will have quite wide appeal. Many leavers were concerned about continued EU integration and a USE ( lots of remainers also ), so many will be happy with this outcome.

    3. There is fudge in this agreement, and that’s a good thing. This is how the negotiations should have been conducted from the start – get the broad parameters agreed quickly, and then let the officials argue the details afterwards. I repeat what I have said previously: this is not an agreement. It is an understanding of how things will subsequently pan out, subject to other elements of the overall agreement being negotiated.

    In housing terms, we have agreed a sale subject to contract, but either side can still withdraw, renegotiate, ‘gazump’ or ‘gazunder’. Nothing has been signed.

    Just my preliminary thoughts.

  49. Phew!

    But no Transitional period agreed yet. That has to be agreed in January.

    ECJ jurisdiction over Citizens rights a good compromise -half way between their 10 years & our 5,

    Financial Settlement cash flow excellent-RAL as the projects are signed off by Court of Auditors , and funded in an EU Budget.-project by project presumably !
    Nom specific mention of unfunded future pension payments. I presume :-
    “Payments arising from the financial settlement will become due as if the UK had remained a Member State. In particular, the UK will not be required to incur expenditures earlier than would be the case had it remained a Member State unless agreed by both sides.”

    which is a very good general principle-means we fund our share of pensions for pensioners in place as at 2020 , over their remaining lifetimes -as they are paid !!

    This general methodology means :-

    * It will take years of relatively small payments to settle the post 2020 liability.
    * UK voters will probably never know the value-or be dead by the time historians calculate it.

    Pressure on the avoid “No Deal” because of the fall back of Irish cross border “alignment” in that event. But “Alignment” is not the “No Divergence” which Varadkar wanted-and whatever he may say , is not the same thing.

    A good compromise to move forward-but it gets tougher from here.

    Noises from the Tory Party /DUP are encouraging for May.

    She deserves a little credit now after the well aimed brickbats.

1 18 19 20 21 22