ICM and Ipsos MORI both published their latest voting intention figures last week. Topline voting intentions were

Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 39%(+2), LAB 42%(+3), LDEM 9%(nc)
ICM/Guardian – CON 41%, LAB 41%, LDEM 7%

Fieldwork for MORI was over last weekend, changes are from November. The ICM poll was part of a larger than usual sample of 5000, conducted between the 10th and 19th of January. I have not included changes since the previous ICM poll, as this one was actually partially conducted before ICM’s last poll. Full tabs are here for MORI, and here for ICM.

ICM also asked some questions about a second EU referendum. Asked how people would vote in a second referendum 45% said they would vote to Remain, 43% to Leave. These figures are broadly typical of most recent polls asking about a second referendum, which tend to show a very small lead for Remain. As in most other cases this is not really due to people changing their minds (the number of Leave voters switching to Remain is pretty much cancelled out by Remain voters switching to Leave), but down to people who did not vote in 2016 disproportionately claiming they would now vote Remain. The referendum question in this poll was not weighted or filtered by likelihood to vote.

ICM found 47% of people agreeing with a a statement that “I think the public should have the chance to take a final decision on whether or not to leave the EU in another referendum when the outcome of the negotiation is known?”. The Guardian have strangely written this up as a rise in Labour support for a second referendum, when ICM don’t appear to have ever asked this question before to compare it to. As all regular readers will know, how you ask a question can produce very different results and questions on a second referendum seem to show particular variation depending on how the question was asked (see an example here from Lord Ashcroft, asking the question in four different ways). In this case the question was asked as an agree/disagree structure (a question format that tends to produce a skew in favour of the statement), and characterised it in terms of “giving the public the chance to take a final decision”. My guess is that the higher support for a second referendum here may well be down to wording rather than a change in support, though as ever, we’ll only really know when we see repeats of questions that have been asked in the past.

Turning to other questions in the MORI poll, they asked a question on whether Donald Trump should be invited to Prince Harry’s wedding. Asked straight, 23% of people thought that he should, 69% that he should not. Half the sample saw an alternate question asking about inviting both Donald Trump *and* Barack Obama – this produced a slightly less negative response with 39% in favour, but still 54% against.


233 Responses to “Latest ICM and Ipsos MORI polls”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. danny: I have always thought independence within the EU was a good model for Scotland. It grants the necessary economic independence, but guarantees freedom of movement as currently within the Uk. Such freedom is no guarantee of success: we have seen the Greeks delude themselves into collapse. I do think if brexit proceeds it undermines the UK and makes a reorganisation of the british Isles more likely in the long term

    I would say that the Scots are in no way comparable with the Greeks and thus far less likely to risk crossing the line of fiscal irresponsibility. Scotland and the EU are I think a good match.

    I don’t think that brexit has so much undermined the UK as highlighted the glaring structural deficiencies of the constitutional settlement which were beginning to become quite apparent before WW1.

  2. Ipsos survey of the largest 500 companies found low confidence in the government’s economic policy and especially in its ability to handle Brexit.

    79% don’t think the government can achieve the best deal for them, and 86% think the transitional period is necessary. 60% have contingency plans for hard Brexit. They consider that free movement of labour, capital and goods are the most important objectives of the negotiations. 98% think they can cope with are Brexit although with sacrifices.

    https://www.ft.com/content/017fb636-0288-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

  3. TO

    I wouldn’t disagree with your suggestions as to why a cantonal Ireland couldn’t be achieved.

    Of course, I also remember 1979 & 1997 and the British Nationalist arguments as to why devolving any legislative powers to Scottish and Welsh politicians would lead to disaster!

    Not that I would put you in to their camp!, but politicians can sometimes bend their principles to the exigencies of reality.

    Of course, that course is so much easier among the large number of politicians whose sole principle is having their party in office – even though they have no principles (other than self-advancement) to implement once they get there.

  4. @OLDNAT
    “Without arguing about the accuracy of that comparison, doesn’t it strike you that such an imbalance’s main causes would be that NI is in a closer political union with GB than it currently is with the rest of the island, and that GB is a bigger market than RoI?”

    Of course. The economic status quo is a consequence of the political status quo. How could it be otherwise. And for what it’s worth (nothing as regards this point) I regret the political status quo.

    “If you are saying that GB wouldn’t buy anything from NI, unless it was part of the UK, then that takes the British Nationalist argument in a somewhat new direction!”

    No, but I am saying that if a tariff barrier is harmful to trade (as it surely is) then it is most harmful where it impedes most trade.

    So the pure trade interests of Northern Ireland based on the status quo of current trade are, in order of preference:
    no barrier to trade in these islands at all;
    a barrier to trade in Ireland but not with GB;
    a barrier to trade with GB but not in Ireland.

    So what I really take issue with is the tendency to suggest (as I think the poster I initially replied to did) that only those with a Unionist political agenda in the DUP or the Tory right that trumped economic common sense could oppose a sea border.

    In fact, economically, the politically neutral would oppose one too.

    It would be truer to argue that only those with a Nationalist agenda in Sinn Fein or the Labour left that trumped economic common sense could propose a sea border.

    Based, I accept, on the status quo. But that’s what we’re working with.

  5. oldnat: I wouldn’t disagree with your suggestions as to why a cantonal Ireland couldn’t be achieved.

    Post brexit, with a UI, I think it would be possible and may be even a good thing

    Obviously, the system is successful in Switzerland and it would be my prescription for England, once ‘unshackled’ from Scotland. Not that, as a new Scot, I should be prescribing anything for England.

  6. Peter W

    “Based, I accept, on the status quo. But that’s what we’re working with.”

    But the status quo will soon be a thing of the past, if the British Nationalists finally have their way (as seems likely).

    The actual status quo is Ireland and the UK in the EU.

    When that status will be no longer quo, then it makes sense to re-examine all the other constitutional arrangements, to see if they are still fit for purpose, or can be better altered to suit the new reality..

  7. S Thomas,
    “Do you think that tM could survive that?”

    I dont think anyones objective is to maximise the time TM remains PM, not even hers.

    Polling suggests to me that a hard brexit has the least popular support, and remain the most. This is because, despite claims by leavers to the contrary, there never was a clear single defined Brexit, and both soft and hard were considered by some leave voters as what they expect. But as you point out, these expectations are mutually incompatible. There are three main options, whereas unfortunately the referendum had the effect of lumping together two irreconcileable groups.

    Technically, of course the Uk could go the hard brexit route. Clearly (from its actions) the government does not believe this is practicable. The recent elections sought a mandate to push through hard Brexit despite the difficulties which the government had presumably already identified. They needed massive support, because to carry out a harmfull policy without support would be a political disaster. The government has never needed a further mandate to carry out a policy it believed would work and therefore retrospectively be popular. It only needed the mandate because it believes it wont work.

  8. OldNat

    Perhaps.

    Personally I think Brexit is complicated enough without revisiting the question of Ireland’s constitutional settlement, and those who opportunistically see it as an to do so are playing with fire. Now is not the time.

    But both of the ethnic identities and national aspirations in Ireland are legitimate concerns to the people who espouse them so if you want to reopen that one, good luck.

  9. Peter W

    “The economic status quo is a consequence of the political status quo. ”

    Vice versa. It may appear as a direct impetus, but it’s really the economy that drives political perceptions

  10. Peter W

    “I think Brexit is complicated enough without revisiting the question of Ireland’s constitutional settlement”

    I can understand that some in England may be so concerned about the complexities of Brexit, that they can’t be bothered tl think about the problems they have created for others in these islands – and would prefer if these matters weren’t raised at all.

    Good luck with that!

  11. Peterw, (polling brexit question)
    “The above comment concerning the proportion of Lab voting intention that was Leave. The ICM data for this thread has Lab VI on the how did you vote in the Ref question 59 Rem, 32 Leave, 8 DNV, 1 DK. About a third of current Lab VI was leave.”

    Ok, I’ll try to reproduce my thought process.

    The last yougov has a question where respondents are offered a choice of important issues and asked to pick the top three. Only 54% of labour voters picked Brexit. 71% of conservatives did so, and 77% of libs. I am guessing the libs and cons felt it important with precisely opposite aims. But this figure says 46% of labour dont care about Brexit.

    On the right to leave/wrong to leave question, 68% of labour said wrong to leave, 7% dont know, 25% right to leave. So 75% would be happy with a remain policy. But we already have more labour supporters thinking it wrong to leave than say they care about Brexit at all.

    A lot of traditional labour voters jumped ship to UKIP some time ago when it was founded, similarly con. UKIP voters then collapsed in the last election, mainly to con but some to lab. The two votes lab and con became very highly polarised to the remain/leave teams. This suggests to me that the people who think leave is decisively important left some time ago. There are indeed some left who think leaving is better, but my conclusion is they do not regard this as decisive in their choice of party. Or they would be gone already.

    Thus labour might have nothing to lose by going remain, and potentially still some to gain from hard remain stragglers who voted lib or didnt bother voting for a half hearted remain labour party.

    Now, there has been a leave attempt to portray labour as a leave party, but this was not the public line of the conservatives at the election. They clearly campaigned on the basis of being the only leave party. Labour avoided saying anything about brexit whenever it possibly could. Tories sought to draw everyone leave inclined to them. There was not at that time this concentration on hard/soft but instead ‘brexit means brexit’ and hard and soft mean nothing. The lib vote collapsed to labour as the only viable remain vote.

  12. @S Thomas – “But the canadian deal allows free trade in goods does it not and 93% of agricultural produce together with a commitment to compliance.Surely that is capable of being the basis?”

    I really do think there is a staggering complacency among some Brexiters when they keep flagging up CETA as some form of model on which the UK can get a ‘free trade’ deal post Brexit. I continually scratch my head on this one, and have come to the conclusion that most of what is written by them about CETA is on the basis that they completely fail to understand what CETA actually is.

    There are a number of points of note. Proximity and scale of impact are critical points. We export around ten times more to the EU than Canada does, and we are a far bigger abd closer economy. Under CETA, the EU and Canada remain free to set their own environmental legislation, which allows for divergence, from a divergent starting point. Becasue of proximity and scale (we have more trade impacts on the EU than Canada) the EU have already said they won’t agree to this, as this would let the UK undercut standards and therefore production costs in the EU. In a host of areas that affect business, while the EU says CETA can form the basis of an agreement, it won’t replicate CETA – there will be tougher restrictions on the UK, because of proximity and scale.

    CETA will mean Canada has to change it’s laws. Under CETA, the intellectual property laws in Canada are gong to have to be upgraded to match the EU, if they are going to benefit from this – which is one of the key elements of CETA.

    Most tariffs will go, but here’s the killer – the tariff free trade is only relevant in many sectors to the agreed quotas. CETA retains quotas. If Brexiters really want CETA, then it means restrictions on exports via a quota system. Do they actually understand that this is what they are talking about?

    CETA means that Canada has effectively accepted EU rules of origin, which define whether something is actually deemed to be made in Canada. If is isn’t, then it isn’t part of the deal. For the UK, this means suppliers with complex supply chains wouldn’t be covered by the deal, and all suppliers will be required to undertake complex and bureaucratic compliance checks – a huge step backwards. And we have no say if the EU decides to change those rules that we have to apply to.

    In services, while CETA commits to liberalisation, there are literally hundreds of pages of sectors listed that are exempt from this where they aren’t even trying to free up trade.

    I think if people like Boris actually understood what CETA represents, they would stop pretending that it’s the basis for a good ‘free trade’ deal for the UK. It’s the most comprehensive trade deals the EU has struck to date, but it’s a million miles from where the UK is now in terms of EU trade.

    A Canadian style deal would be a massive step backwards for the UK, yet this is being spoken of as a model for Brexit? There really is a rude awakening coming, and I fear for the reaction when people actually start to realise what it is they’ve been talking about all this time.

  13. Peter W

    Incidentally where did you get the nonsensical idea of “ethnic” identities with regard to Ireland, or any of the population of Europe, for that matter?

    I can just about understand using “ethnicity” to describe the main human population groups, where there is a degree of physical differentiation, based on physical adaptations to different environments.

    Recognizing these in official statistics may be a useful way of identifying racist discrimination against “other” groups”.

    Other than that, it seems to be a way of emphasizing (and misdescribing) people who have some differences from your own.

    It would be as sensible to suggest that the differences between loyal Conservative and Labour supporters in England wad a “ethnic” difference.

    Reasonable political dialogue is always confused by words being used in different ways, but your use of “ethnic” seems simply bizarre.

  14. @ PeterW and ON

    Re: Ireland, NI, et al “Now is not the time.”

    At the risk of both insulting ON and agreeing with him at the same time, let me stress ON’s point. If you think for a moment that any of the political parties in NI is going to think “Now is not the time”, you know nothing about their politics. Any time, any issue is the right time to kick up a fuss, and the fact that the DUP are currently supporting May only makes the situation worse.

    On the other hand, it might be reasonable to say that SNP would be being opportunistic in trying to use Brexit to forward other agendas in the current situation. They haven’t the land border problem or a GFA to stick to. But just imagine how that dynamic would change if it were SNP propping up the government.

  15. alec

    The “problem” is that the UK has voted to leave the EU. The question is what if we cannot be in the single market and customs union is the best deal that we can hav? you admit that the CETA agreement is the most comprehensive and it fufills all of the brexit criteria.

    it is a refusal to accept that we are leaving that does not allow some to move on. They are ,i fear, stuck in 2016. But i am certain of two things:

    a. the UK will leave the EU on march 29th of next year; and

    b. TM will make dogs breakfast of what follows.

  16. Peterw,
    “So as regards the Brexit platforms of the three GB wide parties goes the 2017 election was a trial run for your HL/ SL/ Rem election. Funnily enough, I don’t recall Farron’s mob getting 50%, though I might have missed it.”

    Its interesting you see it that way. I didnt. The collapse of the lib and UKIp votes and boosting of con and lab above what they might have expected was evident in the media. Voters knew labour was remain and conservative leave (whether this was true or not, that was the message). Farron’s mob did not get 50% precisely because their potential voters saw labour as the main remain party.

    I recognise that you and I interpret this rather differently. You think it means many labour voters are really soft leavers and thus leave has a majority, whereas I think they are remainers and thus remain has a majority.

    ” Labour can only capture additional votes from remainers who aren’t currently voting Labour.”

    No. They can capture leavers who are curently voting tory, if those leavers believe social issues are more important than Brexit. They can attack the grounds leavers have for being leavers. On the yougov figures, they can pick up the 16% of leave voters stating no current intention to vote, or 25% of remain voters doing the same. Thats a lot of people who were sufficiently motivated to turn out for the referendum yet who are undecided now. Despite no one currently making the case to remain, still they are wavering

  17. S Thomas,
    “it is a refusal to accept that we are leaving that does not allow some to move on”

    The labour manifesto clearly stated they place the needs of the economy ahead of the result of the referendum. They do not unconditionally accept we are leaving. Legally, the referendum was advisory only and a very narrow result. And then there is the problem that what leaving means was never defined. Its only clear legal definition would be ceasing to be a member of the EU, and a soft Brexit, still conforming to all the market rules, immigration, ecj and all, would meet the only definition implied by the actual question. Leave won by deliberately being unclear, but now may lose for the same reason.

  18. Dispatches had some interesting catches today. Do these ministers never learn (are they all descends of the Bourbons?)?

  19. Trig guy

    “On the other hand, it might be reasonable to say that SNP would be being opportunistic in trying to use Brexit to forward other agendas in the current situation. They haven’t the land border problem or a GFA to stick to. But just imagine how that dynamic would change if it were SNP propping up the government.”

    It seems probable that your information sources are restricted to London based media, so I won’t be too critical!

    Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments and Parliament/Senedd are deeply concerned about what they describe as a “power grab” by Westminster which reverses the current devo-lution settlement, and ensures that Westminster can impose a “common post-Brexit frame-work” (which they all agree is required) as opposed to one that is negotiated between partners in a union.

    The SNP and the SGP have a common agenda as to the best course for Scotland. As Mus-catelli and the other ”experts” have pointed out, it’s pretty much a no-brainer – Preferences are

    1. All of UK remains in the EU
    2. If we are forced to leave, then EEA membership next best
    3. If that is unacceptable to Westminster MPs, then equivalent CU & SM comes next
    4. Scotland continuing maximum access to EU markets (even if E&W go off in a huff).

    Obviously, a small polity can’t tell its larger neighbour what to do, so we have to adjust our policy in accordance with their decision. That doesn’t mean compliance – though that is an option. It’s just the eternal problem of every small country as to whether the best strategy is to affiliate with your neighbour’s rivals, or just “do as you’re told” by the the guy next door..

    I have a suspicion that many E&W politicians and voters still thought that they were “the big guy”.

    Welcome to being wee!

  20. Laszlo

    ” (are they all descends of the Bourbons?)?”

    England/GB fought hard to defeat Revolutionary France, just as England had fought hard previously to defeat monarchical France.

    Obviously all that fighting to replace the new leadership of England’s enemy with the old one, was a victory for English policy.

  21. Al Urqa (6:54)
    “The future, and peace, has to be co-operation. The Germans know this more than anyone. ”

    I know you say you don’t read my posts, but the obvious reason why the Germans now believe in peace is that they tried to use force twice in the last century and it didn’t work.

    Trigguy
    re your analysis of the polls and likelihood to vote, I wonder if there is a ‘cautious’ factor at play? For instance, I have voted in every national and local election when I was eligible, except the first EU Referendum, but I would never put my likelihood to vote as more than 9/10 because of possibilities such as illness, family emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances. I am sure I’m not alone in this caution. There may well be others who put their likelihood to vote at perhaps 7/10 when in reality they’ve voted 90% of the time for instance. Now the key question would be whether such cautious responders break more to Tory or Labour or another party.

    My own guess would be that Tory responders would tend to be more cautious, on the grounds that they are older and more pragmatic on average than the younger, more idealistic Labour voters. So perhaps Tory voters giving their likelihood to vote as 8/10 would actually turn out 85% on the day, and Labour were 75%. That might explain some of the polling anomalies.

    Alec (4:45)
    “This is what they are frightened of, and their reaction to his Davos speech shows elements of panic amongst the hard Brexiters – they know they are losing.”

    No, it’s annoyance at his divergence from the official government position.

    danny(5:17pm)
    “There is significant polling evidence that a proportion of leavers believe hard Brexit would be bad for the economy, and I expect hard Brexit MPs are of like mind. ”

    Perhaps, but the economy is not the point.
    ————————————-
    Couldn’t invest the effort to read yet more Brexit debate after that.

    G’night all.

  22. trigguy

    “Even if she stood in her current constituency, you could argue that it’s a bellwether constituency now. If the Tories win well and need a PM, then it’s likely it will anyway stay Tory. If she fails to hold it, then likely the Tories are not going to be in power anyway (and looking for a new leader)”

    To have lost your party leader in a general election is not a good look and would have enormous long term impact, I can’t see any party strategist taking that chance. Of course there are other risks, like a hung parliament when you have just lost your leader, ditto with a narrow win with single digit majority.

  23. trigguy

    “Even if she stood in her current constituency, you could argue that it’s a bellwether constituency now. If the Tories win well and need a PM, then it’s likely it will anyway stay Tory. If she fails to hold it, then likely the Tories are not going to be in power anyway (and looking for a new leader)”

    To have lost your party leader in a general election is not a good look and would have enormous long term impact, I can’t see any party strategist taking that chance. Of course there are other risks, like a hung parliament when you have just lost your leader, ditto with a narrow win with single digit majority.

  24. BBC analysis of newly released data from the BES

    “The myth of the 2017 ‘youthquake’ election”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

    “Labour was more popular among young people than old people in 2017 and its share of the youth vote did increase.

    But winning the support of more of the young people who vote is not the same as a surge in youth turnout.

    It is also worth pointing out that in 2017 Labour’s popularity increased among all ages, except for those over 70.

    Among older age groups there was also a big shift in the probability of voting Conservative, as many UKIP voters switched following the Brexit referendum.
    Another reason the idea of a surge in youth turnout took hold is that the constituency-level data appeared to support the claim.

    However, drawing conclusions about the behaviour of individuals from this bigger picture is risky…”

  25. Also…

    “Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters.

    For every percentage point increase in 18 to 29-year-olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared with 2015.

    However, this relationship is not as straightforward as it appears.

    For every percentage point increase in nought to four-year-olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points.

    Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of toddlers voting.

    What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up among toddlers, but that turnout went up in the sorts of places with lots of toddlers.
    The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout.”

  26. @Carfrew

    Interesting, surprisingly then it appears Labour’s increased popularity was spread out across most age groups (except the over 70’s) .

    I was under the impression polls after the last election showed an increase in the youth vote, will be interesting to hear AW’s take on this
    .
    What this will mean for the next election who knows, but I suppose it does mean the youth vote who still failed to turn out is there for the taking, if you can just get them to vote.

  27. Good Morning All.
    Many rumours yesterday about Theresa May being forced out. I wonder whether we may have a new PM and GE by the Summer.

    Exciting and perplexing times, especially so since Labour is not enjoying a big lead.

  28. We know from YGs post GE survey that Labour’s support grew strongly among 25-40 year old women (I think those ages but younger women certainly).

    I wonder if the Toddler correlation is their mothers voting in greater numbers?

  29. Chris,

    I cant believe the Tories would be so careless as to call another GE any time soon.

    I think you and I have agreed that 2022 still seems most likely.

    My only caveat is those unpredictable DUP bods who might give the Tories no choice, although I doubt it personally.

  30. @NeilJ

    Yes, the article offers an explanation as to the discrepancy…

    “So how did people get it so wrong?

    One reason is that measuring turnout in surveys is tricky – and people who don’t vote also tend to be more reluctant to take part in them.

    This means we can end up with too many voters in surveys, which become insufficiently representative of the general population as a result.

    Second, some people will tell you they voted when they actually didn’t.
    Third, many surveys are conducted over the phone or internet, again attracting more people who are likely to vote.

    The British Election Study face-to-face survey is designed to be as representative of the country as possible – including people who didn’t vote in the election.

    People are chosen randomly from thousands of addresses across the country and doors are knocked until as many of those selected as possible participate.

    And people’s survey answers about turnout are verified by the checks against the marked electoral register.

    Of course, the BES face-to-face survey isn’t perfect, but the results are as close to the truth about who turned out to vote as we can get.”

  31. @ToH

    “Yes indeed there is always cricket. I thought the Aussies made an awful mess of winning yesterday having done the right thing by winning the toss. Tomorrows game should be interesting.”

    ————–

    Indeed, it was interesting, Howard! Quite the nail-biter. And oh the relief at our one day prowess following the Test debacle. T20 tri-series next…

  32. re BES data,

    Its a reiteartion, but labour increased their vote share in all age groups up to 75. Some yoof vote!

    What might be interesting is that they had a minimum of support in 2015 at about age 68, but in 2017 this was 76. Dont know what the errors are on all this, there might be a lot fewer older people in the sample, so it might not be real. But one could argue that as the population aged, this minimum moved up. (might be testable from other data?)

    Tories increased their vote share only in ages 55+. In both 2015 and 2017 they had a peak of support around 78/80, which is people born 1940-ish. I have questioned before whether experience of the war was a watershed in world view and therefore voting pattern.

    As to turnout, the results were that it was up to age 75, down thereafter.

    Maybe one should not lose soght of the issues at the two elections re Brexit. The first was on the idea of having a referendum. The second on implementing hard Brexit. Different issues, different result.

    The results could be expressed in a different form. The longer before or after WW2 you were born, the more likely to vote labour. The closer born to WW2, the more likely to vote tory. This would leave tories dying out, and support for them would not be an aging thing, but a result of conditions when growing up.

  33. Oh, it also occurs there would be an implication that as voters die and are replaced, tories would continue to suffer for being the party which pushed through Brexit.

  34. Jim Jam,
    “I cant believe the Tories would be so careless as to call another GE any time soon.”

    It wouldnt be careless. it would be a life safer. They cannot afford to make the decisions on Brexit. But equally, they cannot afford to be seen to just hand in the towel. They need to be defeated, and if labour will not oblige, then thay have to defeat themselves. The DUP deal was already a big self inflicted black eye, in the name of keeping the show on the road.

  35. 25-40 women:
    School cuts were extremely unpopular and well worked by Labour. Women more Bremainy. ‘WASPI’ women – not this age group but perhaps a cut through about gov being mean to women. Austerity acknowledged to have hit women disproportionately hard. Housing crisis particularly bad for this age group (can’t really continue to live with mum and dad and can’t afford own place)

  36. It does seem that the old adage that as people get older they are more likely to vote conservative maybe breaking down. Yes of course more older people vote conservative than younger people, but the age they start to do that, or certainly do that in significant numbers, appears to be being pushed back further.

  37. A GE this year is definely a reasonalbe possibilty.

    It looks to me like May is going to get pushed over the side. A confidence vote is looming and the brexiteers in her party are getting increasingly frustrated with the direction of travel (BINO)
    A poor result in the may elections (odds on IMHO) will likely see her ousted.

    This time the vote will almost certainly go to the membership – there is no unity candidate whom both wings can agree on as there was last time.
    That means – thanks to the party members choosing the winner –
    that the next leader of the party will be from the brexit wing. (gove is my bet – cos mps will manoeuvre to keep johnson and ress mogg from the final cut)

    A change to a harder brexit policy could then see the tory remainers resign the whip – or defect. It could also cause trouble with the DUP as their commitment to no “sea border” pretty much ensures BINO.

    Throw in a few by-election defeats and you no longer have any sort of workable majority.

    Brexit and europe is such a touchstone issue for many in the tory party that i can totally see some of them being happy to “win” their version of it even means a GE and the a probable labour government.

    Not saying this will happen – but over the next 6 months the brexit brown stuff is going to meet the fan of reality and it is not going to pretty.

  38. @pete B – “No, it’s annoyance at his divergence from the official government position.”

    That’s the point. Hammond was simply restating the government’s position, established by the phase 1 negotiation that has already been agreed. The fact that Brexiters are claiming that he is saying anything new is telling. When this agreement was finalise, Brexiters (in government and on UKPR, it must be said) made all sorts of false claims and pretended that remainers were unhappy as progress on Brexit was being made. Remainers were happier only because the agreement pointed very much a ‘steady as she goes’ Brexit. Leavers either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand this. Hammond repeated these sentiments again, but Brexiters still don’t seem to understand what their government have already agreed to.

    @S Thomas – yes, I can appreciate what you say. My point is really that we are being told that CETA is a ‘free trade’ deal, with the implication that it will protect everything we have now in terms of trade with the EU. This is extremely misleading – relicating CETA, or anything like it, will cause real problems. We know we aren’t going to get anything better than CETA, so there is a reckoning due.

    I can accept you are confident that we are leaving the EU, but frankly this confidence is misplaced. Non one knows where this is going to end up, but with polls showing most people wish to remain, there are no certainties.

    As they say, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and so at present, nothing whatsoever is agreed – including whether we will leave at all.

  39. Strikes me the BES survey is actually not so bad for the Tories. Because, it seems to me, the results are consistent with the their failure being more associated with their terrible campaign/manifesto than a resurgent Labour party than perhaps was thought. And, obviously, they are not likely to make the same mistake twice.

    That said, what with the latest grumblings from Tory MPs breaking out I’m having a distinct feeling of deja vu with 20+ years ago: Conservative party moving to tear itself limb from limb over Europe with a resurgent Labour party playing the waiting game.

  40. @ Pete B

    “My own guess would be that Tory responders would tend to be more cautious, on the grounds that they are older and more pragmatic on average than the younger, more idealistic Labour voters. So perhaps Tory voters giving their likelihood to vote as 8/10 would actually turn out 85% on the day, and Labour were 75%. That might explain some of the polling anomalies.”

    Thanks for picking up the point. The problem with trying to analyse which side is more likely to go for 7, 8, 9 etc is that these two polls, at least, point in two completely different directions, and by quite a big factor. Probably still in the MOE of course. But it makes you wonder if it’s more an effect of exactly how the question was asked.

    Anyway, if no-one else has pointed it out yet, the BES study looks interesting. I’ve only seen the BBC write-up so far, would be interested if anyone has looked deeper.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

  41. This might be of interest

    Shaking the magic money tree
    tonight 20:00 Radio 4

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66b

  42. Reggieside,
    “That means – thanks to the party members choosing the winner –
    that the next leader of the party will be from the brexit wing.”

    Will it? Just what are the numbers? Do remainers and soft brexit have the numbers to force two final candidates from soft and remain?

    Presumably we will expect shenanigans such as strategic withdrawals of leading candidates, just like last time.

    Remainers could even allow a brexiteer to win unopposed (rather than ask the members), and then simply refuse to cooperate over anything.

    Foreseeing all these possibilities, they have opted to keep May. But the rules might allow a minority to unseat her.

  43. I think it likely May will get the heave-ho and an acrimonious contest will then follow.

    People do need to consider the distinct possibility that the new Tory leader’s first action in the Commons could well be to face a confidence vote.

    Which they may well lose.

  44. Ooops, clearly lots of people have already comment on the BES data. Sorry.

    It depends what you call ‘youth’ of course, but the first plot suggests that the real increase in turnout was in the 25-45 range, and though they are not quite so Lab leaning as the University age-group, they’re still favour Lab quite heavily. The Tories are really going to have to work on converting that age-group in the next few years.

  45. @danny

    If the vote goes to the party members then they will vote for the most brexity of the two. Even if its Rees Mogg. (remember IDS vs Ken Clarle?)

    I cant see that the remain mps will manage to get two remainers/soft brexiters on the final cut and i can see any sort of “unity” candidate emerging – everyones colours have long been nailed to respective masts.

    It will surely be a “soft” (rudd? hunt?) vs “hard” (gove?)

    its could get very bloody.

  46. @Trigguy

    “Anyway, if no-one else has pointed it out yet, the BES study looks interesting. I’ve only seen the BBC write-up so far, would be interested if anyone has looked deeper.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

    ——

    Lol, you know you were complaining earlier about JimJam not reading posts?…

  47. @Trigguy

    “It depends what you call ‘youth’ of course, but the first plot suggests that the real increase in turnout was in the 25-45 range, and though they are not quite so Lab leaning as the University age-group, they’re still favour Lab quite heavily. The Tories are really going to have to work on converting that age-group in the next few years.”

    ——–

    I think some have put the cut-off point as being in the early Fifties age range.

    Which roughly coincides with when the ladder started getting pulled up behind the boomers…

1 2 3 4 5