YouGov’s first voting intention poll of the year looks very much like the polls at the end of last year. Topline figures are CON 40% (nc), LAB 41%(-1), LDEM 9%(+2). Fieldwork was on Sunday and Monday and changes are from mid-December. For the record, the nine point share for the Lib Dems is the highest that YouGov have shown since the election, though I would urge my usual caution about reading too much into that unless it is echoed by other polls. Full tables are here.

Most of YouGov’s regular trackers in the poll show a similar lack of movement: Theresa May continues to have a modest point lead over Jeremy Corbyn on who would make the better Prime Minister (37% to 31%), a majority (59%) of people think that the government are handling Brexit negotiations badly, and slightly more people think that Brexit was the wrong decision (46%) than the right decision (42%).

The one striking change since the last poll is how health has risen up the political agenda. 53% of respondents picked health as one of the most important issues facing the country, up fourteen points since the last YouGov poll (though still behind Brexit on 60%). It is by no means unusual for health to rise up the agenda at this time of year on the back of media coverage of the NHS struggling to cope in the winter months, but this is an unusually large rise and the 53% figure is the highest YouGov have recorded since they started asking this question in 2010.


99 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 40%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%”

1 2
  1. Thanks Roger,

    That was my expectation based on experience but as we know we tend to talk to people who have similar outlooks to ourselves.

    It is clear that LP voters and members, including the new often younger recent joiners, were overwhelmingly remain and in favour of as close ties as possible to the EU post Brexit.

    IMO, whatever Corbyn’s owns views he is a democrat and will represent the view of the party and secondly he knows that most of his ‘loyal’ supporters in the party have (for want of a batter expression) a pro-EU outlook.
    Of course Labour have different views within the leadership but talks of constant disagreement (Gardner aside) is imo wishful thinking by opponents with even McDonnell on-board now I believe.
    The challenge for Labour as others have said is keeping the leave part of their 2017 vote on board especially in the North and Midlands. Here the Starmer dance (I liked that) of technically honouring the referendum result but doing the bare minimum to do so may not play well.

    Knowing how strong Brexit sentiment is for these key voters and how salient for them is the unknown. FWIW I think many Labour leaners for whom Brexit is the No.1 priority lent their votes to the Tories already in 2017 (maybe UKIP in 2015 for some).

  2. Looks to me that people are finally getting the idea that Corbyn is not going to change his views on Brexit. We shall have to wait a few weeks to see whether the the LibDems recover any more. Personally I hope not, but it’s a big danger for labour.

  3. Strabilla,

    Not being obtuse but which Corbyn views do you mean specifically he is not going to change.

    Moreover, as above as Party leader he will represent the parties views and in my opinion not try to move the parties position as this risks losing some of his new younger support base.

  4. @ OLDNAT – New EU Ref question.

    My points mentioned that is it vital that the 2nd ref is in fact a new ref – a ref on the terms (minor but important detail). Most pollsters ask the “hindsight” style question or phrase it as a “re-run”. IMHO the EU do no want us back in – at least not on the same terms. They will be quite happy with how negotiations are going steering us into slow progress to their perfect outcome (Norway-). We pay a big divorce bill, ongoing payments for the 100bn trade surplus they pump into us every year but then have no access for services and no voice on future regulations whilst being limited in ability to sign new trade deals and have ongoing ECJ jurisdiction and FoM. Why would they want us back when they can impose that on us!

    UKPR comments have gone through this before but happy to go through it again. IMHO a new ref on terms would need to be:

    – accept the EU proposed deal
    – leave the EU with a minimum new relationship

    A lot of ifs, buts, maybes to get there.

    @ PETERW – above should cover most of reply to you. The DUP messed up the situation as we now need CON to split internally to cause a situation where Brexit legislation is stuck but CON-Remain rebels avoid a confidence vote. HoL could help and take the blame. The issue for me is time. My preferred scenario would be May+DD setting out two offers to the EU by March: Canada+++ and min.deal
    EU would hopefully respond saying no to Canada+++ and offering Norway-. At that point the UK electorate could come into play but we’d need the parliament situation to force it (most likely CON-Remain rebels but possibly HoL). At that point we have the 2nd ref but importantly by that point we hopefully have scoped out min.deal from both sides (EU want a 2y transition as much if not more than we do – we’d be paying for it in full and they’d consider it time to poach more UK business!)

    @ PTRP – If I get time I’ll reply later, enjoying the discussion just prefer to talk about the future than the past when I’m busy.

  5. P.S. While LAB VI discuss the move closer to Remain there is a quiet battle going on in CON regarding the slow progress and the ticking clock. Even Hammond acknowledged a transition deal was only worth it if we knew what we we’re transitioning to. Barnier has made it clear that Phase2 has been split to parts a/ transition and b/ future relationship with b/ potentially not starting in ernest until after Mar’19 when Norway- (permanent transition in political purgatory) gives then no incentive to move forward or offer anything other than a very punishing future relationship.

    May is too weak to force the CON party to unite or break but as time passes by she will have to do that. As I’ve mentioned many times, the maths within the party suggest she will side with min.deal Leave when the time comes.

    I might be wrong. Corbyn will probably survive the push to force him into Remain (3 more cronies coming on board today but official result Monday, potential loss of Len might be concern though) – the benefit of opposition is not having to make decisions and hiding under ambiguity!
    May has to make decisions but might continue sleep walking towards a Norway- outcome until it is too late to change course (DANNY’s view). IMHO the CON-Leave MPs will not let her do that but picking the event and timing is guesswork – sooner the better from my perspective as time is against us.

  6. @ JIM JAM – my guess is Stabilla is refering to Corbyn’s statemens that Brexit is “settled” (ie we are leaving and we will not have a new ref). As you know Corbyn stated this again on Monday at PLP – we will be leaving the SM. That earned him an empty chair at the Stop Hard Brexit cross-party talks.

  7. A second referendum is a dead idea. Unless the Conservative Party actually splits (which it shows no sign of doing at the moment) the membership and voter views on Brexit would militate against any Conservative leader introducing the second referendum as a policy.
    If a split were to happen, it would surely be more likely that there would be a parliamentary withdrawal of the Article 50 notice (see the legal opinion expressed in a letter to the PM from a group of QC’s) because of the timeframes involved. If that were to happen then the question is would any of the 27 take the issue of the UK’s ability to withdraw notice to the ECJ or would it be left as a status quo situation.
    I remain of the opinion, much to my personal disappointment, that Brexit in some form will go ahead; whether that will be in a form to satisfy the Brexit purists I very much doubt and, as a consequence, I see this as being a running sore in our politics for many years to come.

  8. @TW

    I agree, if the EU refuses to talk about the future framework until after the 31st March 2019 then May will need to make a decision on a WTO-barebones and drop the transition. It certainly will make for an interesting few months come March.

    I still think the real ace-in-the-hole for Brexit is Jeremy Corbyn (I may even buy a Jez T-Shirt!) There is no properly united opposition to it. Mainly sniping from the sidelines from Blairites who have no real power.

  9. It seems to me that we are back to a two party system, with both Labour and Conservatives being pretty much as high as they can be. I really cannot see either party going much higher in the polls.
    The question is which party, if any, will lose support.

    Can not see much chance of a straight swop between the parties so any change is likely to be because party voters sit on their hands or change to UKIP or Lib/dems (not forgetting Scotland and the SNP)

    I do think Corbyn is in the stronger position, he does not need to do a lot at this time and just wait for final Brexit deal. I think whatever the deal is it will upset one side of the debate or the other, and it will be completely owned by the Conservatives.

  10. @NeilJ

    It is interesting – when people say that Labour should be further ahead, what I think most actually mean is that they would expect the Tories’ faltering performance to have lost support to LDems/UKIP, leaving Labour with a bigger lead, rather than that Labour should be heading toward 50% of the vote under its most left-of-centre leader in ages.

    Historically when either of the two big parties performs badly, marginal voters have swung behind an alternative (usually Libs, Alliance, LDems, but post-coalition it was UKIP) rather than transitioning straight across.

    My impression is that wavering Tories that you might expect to move – e.g. pro-Remain, London/South East based – are very worried about Corbyn and will stay put while he is in place as Labour leader.

    The moderate Tory -> LDem leakage that hasn’t happened really is the polling dog that hasn’t barked…

    From the detail of this poll (although a single poll, so full caveats apply) it looks like we might be seeing a reaction to Corbyn’s vey lukewarm opposition to Brexit.
    The move appears to be concentrated amongst 25-64 year old Remainers in London and the South-east, which sort of makes sense I think if that lukewarm opposition of Corbyn’s is becoming a settled thing in voters’ minds.

  11. Trevor Warne,
    “Why would they want us back when they can impose that on us”

    Thats a good question, and why we need to exercise our right to withdraw leaving in good time.

    I think the most obvious reason to allow us back in otherwise would be as an object lesson. That the UK decided to leave, and then realised it was better off in.

    But it is also true the EU is a members club where everyone has equal rights, and while members might prefer an unfair advantage, they might also fear one day finding themselves on the wrong end of the disadvantage. Everyone has a vested interest in safeguarding the full rights of all other members. So if we accept the rules, they are happy for us to join as full members.

    However, I can imagine some EU idealists favouring a middle way. The Uk leaves, the EU changes itself without taking into account the interests of the Uk, because it left. The UK rejoins and has to accept the new terms.

    I see the legacy of leave being a worse position for the UK, that is already guaranteed now. It is a question of how bad.

  12. @BFR
    It occurs to me that the modest upsurge in LD (yes, one poll, I know) could easily be disgruntled laboury remainers or indeed Tory remainers who round here in W London have moved surprisingly strongly to Lab because Brexit has more salience than anything else.

    @Jim Jam etc
    I agree the vast majority of Lab members of all ages are remainers but reportedly there is a set within Mo’mentum that interpret remainers within their ranks as [email protected] (and formally denounce them as such)

  13. Trevor Warne,
    “May has to make decisions but might continue sleep walking towards a Norway- outcome until it is too late to change course (DANNY’s view).”

    No. My view is the tory MPs have had an affirmative decision to negotiate a very soft Brexit (ie closer than Norway), and then invite a choice between that and remaining a member. WTO has been replaced as a backstop position by soft Brexit. It may be this decision was taken even before the story about the assurances made to the car industry of business as usual, though I expect there was still some hope amongst the leave faction at that time for a harder result.

    WB,
    “A second referendum is a dead idea.”

    It seems leave are trying to revive it because they foresee parliament overturning the first one unilaterally. Wonderful how positions reverse!

  14. Danny: It seems leave are trying to revive it because they foresee parliament overturning the first one unilaterally. Wonderful how positions reverse!

    If that really is the case, it will be fascinating to see whether those hard leavers who have been proclaiming that holding a second referendum would betray the will of the people (including those sadly now deceased), maintain that position.

  15. Somerjohn

    I wouldn’t have any problem at all. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the first referendum and that should be implimented by Parliament. Any action by Parliament that doesn’t do that is clearly against the will of the people. It really is so straightforward.

  16. Brexit deal

    when all the smoke clears:

    1. The UK and EU will do a trade deal and we will not exit on WTO terms; this is confirmed by Barnier.

    2. The base line deal is the canadian style deal. Sensible planning should be based on this. this is the very minimum.

    3. We should enter transition on the basis of moving to that.

    4. we should use the time up to transition and transition itself to extend the canadian model into mutiually beneficial areas.

    5. No trade deal needs to be set in stone and isa creature that can be developed over time.
    6. So ,bank the canadian deal and talk about the add ons like financial services. If the EU wishes to charge for passporting then provided they do so for all nations then let the banks pay it. I see no reason why the taxpayers of northern England for example should subsidise American bank profits

  17. @ Somerjohn @ Danny: It seems leave are trying to revive it because they foresee parliament overturning the first one unilaterally. Wonderful how positions reverse!

    Its not surprising to me: each side believes that the best future for UK is the one they espouse, despite protestations about “democratic will” and “principled positions” both sides will use any tactic to achieve their aim, call me cynical but that’s how politics works. The reason for the Remoaner label and the settled will of the people is Leavers trying to silence opposition, similarly references to the poor economic outcomes, democracy being fluid and the public being allowed to change their mind are vehicles by which Remainers try to achieve their objectives.
    Personally, I wish those in favour of remain would stop using economic arguments as the means of attacking the Leave project. Economics, British opt outs, British ministers intransigence in dealing with our neighbours has been the narrative of the past forty years, continuing an “us v them” mentality. It has been the way in which, over forty years, the narrative has played into Leavers hands. Instead I wish the narrative was about the high ideals of a European Project which espouses human rights, equality, the rule of law and other democratic values as being the reasons for embracing European Union.
    I have concluded that the doldrums in the polls, insofar as it is connected to Brexit, is because no side “loves” the EU and therefore although they are remainers a large group of voters are critical remainers and are prepared to accept Labour’s ambiguity on Brexit over the Conservatives apparent lack of ambiguity because they see this as a purely economic argument as to what Brexit is least damaging. This is in contrast to my own view which is that the UK is abandoning one of humanity’s greatest attempts at creating a large, economically secure but more importantly democratic and kindly state.
    I have said before as I have aged I have come to feel that political choices are more a matter of aesthetics rather than rational choices, I believe that the “aesthetics” of the European Union have been distorted in the public imagination because of the narrow “rational” arguments that have been presented by both sides.

  18. AW

    Please could you provide a list of automod words, I have just spent 20 minutes composing, what I thought was a thoughtful post, with no obvious triggers to be put into moderation, it becomes very frustrating.

  19. WB @ AW

    The word which trips me up most is l!ar when embedded inside a longer word. You probably have this or a similar “trigger” word accidentally inside a more complex one.

  20. TOH: I wouldn’t have any problem at all.

    Wouldn’t have any problem with what, Howard?

    Do you mean you would have no problem in U-turning and supporting a second referendum if it became clear that that was the only way to save brexit?

    Or do you mean that, in that situation, you would be unfazed by the prospective loss of brexit and stick to your guns in opposing a second referendum, even if the certain result was the withdrawal of A50 and our remaining in the EU under current terms?

    Normally I would expect a fudge reply along the lines of, “it’s not that simple'” or “I don’t answer hypothetical questions,” but this time you should be able to give an unequivocal answer as “It really is so straightforward.”

  21. Somerjohn

    I can see why you were confused. My post in reply should have included this from you.

    “If that really is the case, it will be fascinating to see whether those hard leavers who have been proclaiming that holding a second referendum would betray the will of the people (including those sadly now deceased), maintain that position.”

    and my response was:

    “I wouldn’t have any problem at all. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the first referendum and that should be implimented by Parliament. Any action by Parliament that doesn’t do that is clearly against the will of the people. It really is so straightforward.”

    There should be no second referendum, and Brexit should not be overturned in Parliament. Both would be against the will of the people as expressed in the first referendum and would be undemocratic IMO.

    You are right i don’t usually answer hypothetical questions bur in this case it really is very simple.

  22. @WB – “A second referendum is a dead idea. Unless the Conservative Party actually splits (which it shows no sign of doing at the moment) the membership and voter views on Brexit would militate against any Conservative leader introducing the second referendum as a policy.”

    I read this kind of thing alot on here and elsewhere, and I’m always puzzled by the certainties some display.

    In truth, no one knows. At present, no party leaders are openly calling for a second vote and such an outcome looks unlikely given the polling attitudes. But if there is one thing we know about public opinion, it is that it’s fickle.

    We already have some evidence that the public are in favour of remaining. This isn’t cut and dried by any means, but the margin may be as high as 10%. Remain sentiment may go higher. It might not, of course, but conventional wisdom seems to be that a lengthy negotiation and transition phase presents greater risks to leavers than remainers, as it increases the length of time during which a change of heart might occur.

    There is a fundamental point here, that politicians really don’t like sticking their necks on the block for a policy that they know the public don’t support. May was always a remainer, albeit one who wanted to hide away and make best use of the post referendum political landscape for her own personal advantage. She wouldn’t be the first politician who kept quiet or signed up for something she didn’t really believe in for her own gain.

    The fact of the matter is that nothing can be ruled in and nothing ruled out. It could transpire that May picks up Farage’s call to settle this once and for all once she has a deal on the table, both to cover her own backside and also to try to engineer a climb down from something she suspects could be damaging for the UK and terminal for her party.

    Alternatively, she may look at Labour under Corbyn and feel there is little threat to her from Brexit going wrong, or genuinely think that the deal will be OK, or that there isn’t sufficient interest in a second vote.

    The bottom line is that if politicians are nervous about Brexit, and if they see growing public support for remaining, they have the ability to find ways to start conditioning the public for a second vote.

    Few politicians have sufficient courage to knowingly go against majority public opinion, and I simlpy don’t see a second vote being a dead idea. Everything depends on what comes next, and no one really has a clue what that will be.

  23. @ S Thomas

    It’s refreshing to be able (almost) to agree with you for once. That’s because you are essentially outlining the EU negotiating position: when we leave, a Canada-style deal is the best we can negotiate if we stick to our red lines (no ECJ, no FoM, no SM/CU membership). That sort of deal has always been on offer, subject to negotiation.

    You add to that the hope that we can, during the transition period, negotiate some form of enhanced access for services, maybe on the basis of additional payments. We can certainly aim for that: exactly why the EU would wish to pass up the opportunity to give its own members’ financial services industries a big boost at the expense of those based in non-member states is, though, unclear.

    (I know that in answer to that question, Hammond and Davis in their Frankfurt newspaper article suggested that loosening London/EU finance ties risked a re-run of 2008, but no-one seems to have taken that suggestion seriously: as an argument, it smacked of desperation.)

  24. @TOH

    OK, so in the event that Parliament decided to revoke A50, but was willing to make that decision subject to confirmation or rejection by a second referendum, which would presumably be binding, you would oppose such a referendum.

    I’m glad we cleared that up. As you say, ” it really is very simple.”

  25. From the Indy this morning: Brexit: Voters would favour Remain in second referendum, finds poll:

    The ComRes poll, for the Daily Mirror, found 43 per cent of voters backed the prospect of a second referendum while 51 per cent opposed the idea.

    Among Brexit supporters, the survey found 95 per cent were opposed to a rerun of the 2016 vote, while 77 per cent of Remain voters were in favour of another referendum.

    Two thirds of people lacked confidence that Theresa May can secure a good Brexit deal, with 30 per cent very or fairly confident.

    The poll of more than 1,040 people laid bare the divisions over the EU by political party, as 64 per cent of Labour voters backed a second referendum, with 31 per cent against.

    In contrast only 18 per cent of Tory voters want a second poll with 79 per cent dismissing the idea.

  26. SOMERJOHN

    Yes it is isn’t it, glad you agree. As I made clear if Parliament revoked Art 50 that would be undemocratic IMO.

  27. ComRes Article plus tables here.

  28. ComRes: Remain v Leave by age group

    Age Group, 18-24, 25-34, 35-45, 46-54, 55-64, 65+
    Remain, 77%, 61%, 66%, 55%, 51%, 33%
    Leave, 23%, 39%, 34%, 45%, 49%, 67%

  29. Pete B

    “Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning ballots on one issue (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning things to be referred, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.” (Wiki – among many other sources)

    Someone will no doubt remind us of the penalty for making a false challenge under Quibble rules.

    IIRC, in the Icelandic version, the other players could nominate which of your gerunds should be surgically modified.

  30. TOH: As I made clear if Parliament revoked Art 50 that would be undemocratic IMO.

    Maybe in your opinion, but as parliament unaccountably forgot to make the referendum binding, I’m afraid you’re stuck with the sovereignty of parliament. Which, IIRC, was a rather big plank in the Leave platform.

  31. @Barbazenzero

    ComRes: Remain v Leave by age group

    Age Group, 18-24, 25-34, 35-45, 46-54, 55-64, 65+
    Remain, 77%, 61%, 66%, 55%, 51%, 33%
    Leave, 23%, 39%, 34%, 45%, 49%, 67%

    So we at point where if not for one demographic group (albet a large one – the 65+) all other age grouping are remain.

    No wonder it feels like a generational difference in our politics at the moment.

  32. Colin

    Thanks for the response, but I was asking questions about the extent to which public perceptions of issues relates to media coverage, as opposed to their personal knowledge.

    Making assertions that public concern is created mainly by their experience, or by the media, would seem somewhat premature, unless they are based on the kind of evidence that I was suggesting should be looked at.

  33. The confusion on a new ref is simple:

    Remain: want a re-run
    “Purist” leavers: happy to hold a ref on the terms once we know them as a clean Brexit is better than a dirty Brexit

    The COM-RES asks a re-run question and hence:
    should: 77% of Remain’16 v 4% of Leave’16
    should not: 16% of Remain’16 v 95% of Leave’16
    DK:7% Remain’16 v 1% Leave’16

    As AW has pointed out before, it is difficult to phrase a question on unknowns but it is easy to attempt to measure “Bregret”. The major unknowns are:

    For Remain:
    a/ is A50 revokable and would EU27 allow us (see WB and responses but also lots of info on BrexitCentral)?
    b/ do we ask about revoke before a new ref or try to bluff voters into believing they’d want us and that they’d believe Tusk (good cop) over likes of Junkcer, Verhofstadt, Macron, etc (bad cops) – remember we just need one bad cop to say “non”?
    c/ convincing voters that Project Fear 2.0 is bigger and badder than the failed Project Fear 1.0
    d/ convincing voters that we’d Return on the terms DC agreed (ie with rebate, vetoes and all the small concessions DC won valid)
    Any slip on the above would hit Remain VI as they see it as a re-run (ie the current Remain VI is exaggerated versus the future reality)

    For Leave:
    a/ what are the terms that EU would accept and what is the default (Norway- and min.deal IMHO)
    b/ when will we know those terms and how much time is left on the clock to prepare for WTO (Khan’s reports show WTO on a per capita basis same as Remain so no teeth to Project Fear 2.0 but I’d rather have some time to prepare)
    These unknowns are why we only see 4% of Leave wanting a “re-run”. IMHO b/ works against Leave VI and you could argue we are seeing that already.

    Given the different questions asked by pollsters my example is:
    – Voted Leave
    – In hindsight I’d be DK (based on the May shambles)
    – Do not want a re-run (as too divisive and suspect Remain would lie about what Remain really means at this stage and the terms of Leave are still unknown)
    – Very happy to have a new ref on the terms once we know them (I think min.deal would win and strengthen HMG allowing UK to get on with Brexit and HMG to focus on domestic issues and Brexit implementation, however, if Norway- wins then we get LAB govt constrained by ongoing ECJ and then in due course CON can win a future GE and finish Brexit cleanly)

    A re-run with no clear idea of what either Remain or Leave terms are would be horrible to put the country through. The last one was very toxic and with neither Remain or Leave terms known the next one would probably be even worse. Once we know the EU’s offer terms and the fallback position terms a ref would be less toxic as both sides would have genuine terms that voters could honestly chose between.

    NB – although they obviously want to stop Brexit, LDEM have moved to new ref on the terms (they have to at least pretend to respect democracy!). I hope their VI continues to grow so that Corbyn is flushed out. Similarly I’m very glad to see Farage, etc keeping the pressure on May.

    @ S THOMAS – Barnier has mentioned Canada but IMHO his aim is to attempt to bank the divorce bill (codify phase 1 before moving on) then push UK to Norway- via dragging out future arrangement talks past Mar’19. He has made it clear we can’t finalise the future arrangement until after Mar’19 at which point he has the UK over a barrel. We should have offered take-it or leave-it terms back in Oct – time is running out!

  34. Somerjohn

    “Maybe in your opinion, but as parliament unaccountably forgot to make the referendum binding,”

    Fortunately both Labour and the Conservatives accepted that it was in effect binding. Quite correctly IMO.

  35. @BIGFATRON

    I think it is much more simple than that. Firstly I believe that the when you look at the polls. Labour voters key items of concern were pretty much matched with the manifesto. if you look at Labour voters concern about immigration for example it is never in te top three whereas in Tory voters concerns it alway is in the top three. Indeed for tories education and and other coail services are actually well down on the list.

    So the issue of what sort of brexit. I do not think will be a break for Labour supporters in the same way that Tory remainers will remain Tories. I fear we are overegging the brexit debate and underflouring the what about other policies and more importantly what about the tribal aspect.

    simply put tories voted for may despite May in the same way the GOP supporter voted for GOP despite trump hell GOP supports almost voted in a suspected pedophile. just to show how toxicity has no real bearing on tribal loyalties.

    So I am expecting both Labour and Tories to at or over 40% with labour being a shade ahead in the moving averages. i fear that any blibs will be short lived as they will have no real effect on every day life. No one will notice the plastics ban or the cleaner environment or the like in the real noise of life. It may create mood music, in the same way the Camerons hug a hoddie and husk ride was more a shop window of we have changed ( but not really) My view is any real change will need to be big and it is not sure that the Tories are going to do big. I reckon the NHS funding could be a big event but I fear that even then the peopel may just be now too cynical.

    What was interesting was a comment i read in this comment in conservativehome.com

    Again I as with labours tribalism, I am finding the conservative parties tribalism really interesting.

    “It struck me some time ago whilst campaigning around the country and outside of metropolitan areas that it is often rural, traditional conservative voters who have more in common with their views on economic issues with the Labour party than with Margaret Thatcher. They often advocate nationalisation of the railway and are big fans of the welfare state. It is only their views on social matters like law and order and immigration that have previously put them in the tory box. A deregulated, individualist driven economy would be of no interest to them”

    What I think is funny is that if you offered GOP and Democratic voters similar policies without reference to political parties they would love it. There are many peopel whom hate Obamacare but look all of the features. Indeed there are several famous cases of people saying they loved the ACA but hated Obamacare not realising they were one and the same. I think we have reached the same level of tribalism. I have been of the opinion that in the main it is not about policy it is about tribe. I believe the NHS can fall apart and May’s personal standing may go up and down like a yo-yo but the tory vote would still hover around the 40% mark. I feel that Labour may have the same leeway too but Corbyn does not want to test it. he does not need to.

    it is why that you see both side having frustrations, if you are thatcherite for example the world has moved from the idea of deregulation as much as the Tories are still selling that meme. Indeed they voted to be protected. They voted for free trade competition until they lose and then they want the government to help, I remember one person that voted leave saying quite rightly in my opinion if Nissan wants to leave the government will do everything to stop it they give them money. There are no thatcherites now I personally believe we will settle on an Ed Miliband style economy with more state intervention than we would ever though but 2 year ago when we resoundly rejected the agenda

  36. @ Jim Jam
    Corbyn has been repeating his very sceptical approach to the EU in recent days, and I believe that he is in self denial if he thinks that he can win a majority without giving in to the majority view of Labour members. It may be that this poll represents the first signs of despondent remainers giving up on Corbyn. Brexit is a deal breaker for some, even though they would otherwise support Corbyn’s policies.

  37. @Somerjohn – yes, it really is that simple, I think.

    Even if they have changed their minds once the details of Brexit are known, and even if it is clear that the public’s opinion will be binding once they have voted on any Brexit deal, the public can’t be trusted or allowed to update their democratic decision in a second vote.

    Only in some form of parallel universe could the chance to have a vote on the specifics of an issue be labelled as less democratic than a historic vote on the general issue, but that’s where we are.

    The really simple fact in this is that leavers would be quite happy to have a second vote had the first result been the other way round and opinion or circumstance had shifted since then, but the really, really simple fact is that they don’t want another democratic vote because they’re scared they might lose. Everything else said about this is just dressing up.

  38. CATMANJEFF @ BZ

    The age groupings are certainly fairly clear although, to be fair, the regional preferences are not.

    Wales now ahead of both Scotland and London presumably regretting their original vote is encouraging as well as Yorks/Humber now for remain but both the NE and NW still being pro-leave suggests there is some work to do there. OTOH, UKIP’s Eastern strongholds and the whole of the South going remain is interesting, to put it mildly.

    ComRes: Remain v Leave by region:

    Region, Scotland, NE, NW, Yorks/Humber, W.Mid, E.Mid, Wales, East, London, S.East, S.West
    Remain, 63%, 39%, 46%, 52%, 59%, 52%, 66%, 52%, 65%, 51%, 52%
    Leave, 37%, 61%, 54%, 48%, 41%, 48%, 34%, 48%, 35%, 49%, 48%

  39. TOH: Fortunately both Labour and the Conservatives accepted that it was in effect binding.

    You really do like to have the last wriggle, don’t you?

    In our parliamentary system, for better or worse parliament is sovereign. What construction political parties choose to put on parliamentary votes is neither here nor there. Parliament is free to go its own way, or change its mind as often as it cares to vote to that effect.

    The fact is, parliament had the opportunity to make the referendum act binding, and chose not to take it. So however much you, or political parties, may say they regard it as such, it isn’t until parliament chooses to make it so.

    That’s parliamentary sovereignty. A concept we are led to believe you hold in high regard.

  40. BARBAZENZERO
    ComRes: Remain v Leave by age group
    Age Group, 18-24, 25-34, 35-45, 46-54, 55-64, 65+
    Remain, 77%, 61%, 66%, 55%, 51%, 33%
    Leave, 23%, 39%, 34%, 45%, 49%, 67%

    If I was a Conservative Party chief I would be very worried about those figures.

  41. @ PTRP – ne0liberalism has a good write up on Wiki. Expressed in the EU this has created a problem as countries compete with each other. Examples highlight the devil is in the details:

    Tax haven: GAFA+ (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, +other similar companies) base there paying v.little tax. Minimal trickle down via high paid workers paying some tax and some local service companies benefiting (restaurants, estate agents, etc), risks reflating property bubbles. Compare this to a parasite. A large beast (EU) can have a few parasites and it drains but does not kill the beast. Obviously not every country can adopt this approach but RoI and Luxembourg chose this route out of the Great Recession. What should also be clear is that not all GDP gains are “good” – tax havens have minimal trickle down with the major benefit going to GAFA+ shareholders.

    Bully: believe they are “role models” and everyone should be like them (run a tight ship, low budget deficit, low debt, austerity, trade surplus, etc). Not everyone can be a Swabian housewife. Trade must equal out. Germany’s trade surplus is another countries trade deficit. Those that already have low debt can keep debt low, those with high debt and higher costs on that debt fall further behind and if locked in Euro are robbed of devaluation and default to help them. However, the bully wins in the short-term as their banks get repaid and their economic power grows. The bitter irony is that WW2 came about largely due to the punishing Versailles Treaty terms that when hit by the Great Depression placed Germany into an impossible economic situation. As above, not everyone can take this role. For a bully to exist their must be those being bullied and they can be found in Club Med!

    I’m very happy to concede UK is not perfect but to compare UK regional differences to EU national differences does beggar belief! Also of critical importance is UK voters can kick out HMG every 5yrs. Greek voters can do little to effect their plight – even if they vote to leave the Euro or the EU they have a massive debt in Euros and hence are now effectively serfs in a Brussels/Frankfurt colony. RoI voters can however work out when the time to switch beasts is right – they’ve done well from the EU (with mild issue of Troika bail-out and the massive increase in govt debt that came with it, they went from 20% of debt/GDP to 120% but thanks to GAFA+ and min.trickle down GDP that ratio is now around 70%)

  42. @ The Other Howard

    It really isn’t that straightforward, otherwise the government wouldn’t be in such a pickle.
    48% (the largest single group) made a clear unequivocal choice to remain. The rest were all grouped together and your guess is as good as mine what they thought would happen. Its’ pretty certain that there was no overall majority for a hard Brexit. I’d hazard a guess on around 20% hard Brexit, 20% soft Brexit (though that encompasses a number of preferred solutions), and 10% who weren’t awfully bothered but wanted to show their dissatisfaction with the establishment.

  43. @TREVOR WARNE

    I believe the UK tried the take it or leave it approach hence the no deal is better than a bad deal. the problem was that could not know how to pitch what a good deal would be for UK and one that the EU could accept.

    In my view the problem has always been that a no deal was the baddest of he bad deals and the my view is that May and Davis know this but are not able to shre that knowledge. it is also why Hammond and Boris are buttting up against each other.

  44. @ BZ – CMJ and I discussed the regional issue a few days back. FROSTY had some good input as well and had run the numbers on YouGov data. You are quite right that Leave has dropped in some higher Leave areas. AW pointed out the main change is 2017 LAB voters who did not previously vote having boosted Remain. CMJ points out the Leave hindsight DKs. All correct and added together explain the change.

    The regional issue could be vote stacking in safe seats (more of an issue in a GE than a new ref) or could be widespread view due to NHS, inflation or slow progress in the talks – or a combination of all of those things. The new LAB voters will be stacked in Uni seats (I’ve previously sent the maths showing Remain would need to be at 60% if every MP had to represent their constituents – ask again and I’ll resend).

    I don’t think we’ll have a GE until 2022 unless CON lose a new ref. The reason I put a new ref at higher probability and prior to a GE is that CON (and especially May) would prefer to stay in power and if and only IF we have a gridlock situation in Parliament then the least bad option for May will be to throw the issue back to the electorate. It would be hard to see May surviving losing a ref but we saw that play out with DC – CON would try to hold on to power saying they accepting Norway- (or whatever it is) and limp on until 2022. IMHO.

  45. Strabilla: @ The Other Howard

    It really isn’t that straightforward, otherwise the government wouldn’t be in such a pickle.
    48% (the largest single group) made a clear unequivocal choice to remain. The rest were all grouped together and your guess is as good as mine what they thought would happen. Its’ pretty certain that there was no overall majority for a hard Brexit. I’d hazard a guess on around 20% hard Brexit, 20% soft Brexit (though that encompasses a number of preferred solutions), and 10% who weren’t awfully bothered but wanted to show their dissatisfaction with the establishment.

    Point well made. Of course, ToH does not recognise soft or hard brexit, only a version of brexit which everyone else would call hard, although bothwere encompassed by the leave option in the referendum as no one had actually defined brexit. As such, taking your guesses at face value, only 20% voted for what ToH calls brexit.

  46. @ SJ / STRABILLA – In Feb’17 HoC voted to trigger A50. 494 v 122 voted to trigger A50 with both main parties formally backing it (some LAB MPs rebelled and lost their shadow positions). HoL then also voted approval.

    Gina Miller might have forced this but the result was clear. With a majority of 372 and support of Corbyn and May our elected representatives voted to trigger A50.

    We also more recently had a GE where 85% of voters voted for a party that supported Brexit.

    Of course parliament can change their mind, maybe they will, but lets try to ensure in any new ref we know what we are voting for – currently we do not know what either Remain or Leave would look like. Remain are encouraging EU to give us a very bad deal IMHO and vastly increasing the chances of an eventual min.deal exit to WTO terms. Nicky Morgan putting the auditors onto the bill could end up being the kind of pyrrhic victory that Gina Miller scored in 2016! if we can’t pay the bill then great, no need for a new ref and we can leave with a clean exit and some time left to implement min.deal and WTO future.

  47. NEILJ @ BZ

    It certainly doesn’t bode well for their future.

    OTOH, from p4 of the tables, their own voters are 68% Leave with only 3% DK, which may be enough to keep them in office, albeit perhaps not in power.

    Of course that could change if they want to capture da yoof any time soon.

  48. New thread

  49. AW thank you for pulling my post of 11.12 out of moderation so quickly.

1 2

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)