YouGov’s latest poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 42%(+2), LAB 41%(nc), LDEM 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Sunday to Monday, and changes are from last week. While the movement from the last poll is well within the normal margin of error, it’s worth noting that this is the first YouGov poll since the election to show a Conservative lead.

Looking at some of the other results it does suggest a small boost for Theresa May from the progress on Brexit last week, but one that still shows the public judging the government’s negotiating efforts very negatively. 26% of respondents now think the government are doing well at negotiating Brexit (up five points), but 57% still think they are doing badly (down seven points). Asked who has the upper hand in the negotiations so far 50% think the EU are doing better and Britain are accepting their demands, 26% think there has been give and take on both sides and just 4% think Britain has the upper hand.

Of course, this is just one poll done just after some good news for the government. It remains to be seen whether it is replicated in other polls and, if so, whether it lasts or rapidly fades away.

The Times story is here, tabs should be up on the YouGov site tomorrow.


560 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 42, LAB 41, LDEM 7”

1 10 11 12
  1. @COLIN

    “You don’t seem to have understood. Have you read the Spiegel article ?”

    I read the original German language version of “Der Spiegel” every week, but I fail to see the relevance of your quote. I can assure you that in order to pass any legislation in the Bundestag you need a majority. If you don’t believe me then look it up.

    Since the combination of CDU and CSU have never enjoyed a majority, they have always had to compromise and negotiate one. This is pretty much par for the course at all political levels other than in Bayern where the CSU are used to having majorities.

  2. David Colby

    “England hasn’t been enduring at all! It disappeared as a legal entity and became part of a larger country in 1706/1707”

    Oh, goody! Constitutional history.

    You appear to be conflating “England” with the “Kingdom of England”, as the former incorporated Wales, and so “England”, then, as now, existed as a legal entity within a larger state,

    It was the “Kingdom of England” which united with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. In some respects, that Kingdom retained its pre-1707 legal entity – for example the Peerage of England includes Welsh peers and excludes both Scottish and UK peers. Your legal system (which is a legal entity in itself) is also a legal entity which continues, uninterrupted, through unions and their dissolutions.

  3. @TOH

    “We were both very clear what we were voting for.”

    Can you let us know the details of what that was then please?

  4. The Other Howard: – Alec – We were both very clear what we were voting for.

    No, you were not. You were only clear what you were voting against.

    If you claim know whether you were voting for in or out of the CU or SM or a Canada deal or Norway or Switzerland, you had not a clue. You voted to depart but you did not vote for a destination. And when we come to a destination, that all remains for you to fight over with all the others who voted to depart.

  5. tonybtg @TOH

    To be fair, a number of Leavers (whether they have since changed their mind or not) have been clear as to what they were voting for.

    The fact that other Leavers voted that way for very different reasons, nor that what they desired was not mandated either by the referendum or the UK Government’s choice as to how they would try to implement it (and couldn’t be for them all, since the reasons were so disparate) doesn’t invalidate their reasoning at the time.

    The comparatively small number of people who voted Leave to attain whatever the final outcome turns out to be, will be well content, but that seems likely to be a matter of luck rather than wisdom.

  6. Blimey, Celtic are rubbish at footy.

  7. Allan Christie,
    ” when TM decided to put her career and party before the national interests of the country by calling for an opportunistic early election”

    But she didnt. She understood she had a policy of hard brexit, but no referendum mandate for it, so she asked the country. The country said no. I dont see how that put her career first for anything, though in the long run establishing there is no national will for one of your policies with far reaching effects is important to know for a party’s future.

  8. Some confusion here, I think.

    The point is that @TOH (and other leavers) are correct in that they knew what they were voting for. In his typical debating style however, @TOH deliberately evaded the point.

    The issue is not whether leave voters knew what they were voting for – it’s whether they knew what they are going to get. They didn’t, and still don’t – that’s the point.

    As with many things Brexit, the issues have been simplified to the point of meaningless. @TOH believes that ‘leave means leave’, so that any arrangement that involves single market, customs union, ECJ, or acceptance of EU regulations means we haven’t left. It’s an open question how such views could be compatible with, say, a new customs union, with a different oversight body, and no divergence. We just don’t know what they think of these.

    Others take a different view of what leave means, including (it seems) Theresa May, who has promised not only a transition under existing terms, but also no divergence in regulatory systems, possible future payments, a role for the ECJ until 2030, etc etc.

    What I think we have now is a situation where remainers are, on the whole, feeling a bit happier, as the headbangers have been seen off and a more cooperative, softer Brexit now appears to have been accepted by May. Remainers, by definition, would largely want to remain, but are less frightened by a softer Brexit, ergo a bit relieved at present.

    Some leavers are also happy, as they can see we are now leaving, on the terms that they understood this to be defined. This is largely leaving but without noticing too much change in those areas where they didn’t want change.

    Finally, we have the hard Brexiters, who are now rather concerned that they aren’t going to get what they voted for. Whether they admit this concern is up to them. There is a sense of whistling to keep the spirits up, as the June 2016 certainties meet the realities of negotiations, but many are realising that there is little public support for a hard Brexit, nor even within their own government.

    To admit this concern in public is too difficult for some of them. Nigel Farage has – very openly. He believes we are not now really leaving the EU and May has betrayed the country. Whether @TOH follows Nigel’s lead will be interesting to watch – he hasn’t to date, but instead has insisted that HMS Brexit is sailing on serenely as planned, despite all the climb downs and compromises he told us would never happen under May.

    An alternative reading would be that some leavers are still very happy because they are too stupid or uninformed to understand what is actually going on. I think it was Betrand Russel who suggested that happiness was easier to attain by those who think less, and there certainly seems to be some misunderstanding of what May has already agreed to in some quarters, but only leavers really know what is inside their own heads.

    And all the while, the opinion polls show a creep towards a remain majority. At what point does the defiance of the will of the people by leaving the EU become a serious political crisis?

  9. @oldnat

    And England retained its established church as well.

  10. New thread (on which to discuss old ground!)

1 10 11 12