There have been two new voting intention polls today. A new Kantar poll has topline figures of CON 44%(-4), LAB 28%(+4), LDEM 11%(nc), UKIP 8%(+1). The Tory lead has narrowed significantly since their previous poll a week ago, but this is likely to something of a reversion to the mean after very large 24 point lead in their previous poll. Full tabs are here.

There was also a Survation poll for Good Morning Britain. This had topline voting intentions of CON 47%, LAB 30%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 4%, GRN 3%. The Tory lead is in line with other companies, but the Lib Dems on just seven is lower than we’ve seen in other recent polls. Note that the poll was conducted by telephone, meaning there are now phone polls from Survation and Ipsos MORI, with all the other companies polling this election using online methodologies. That said there don’t seem to be any obvious difference between the Tory leads in telephone and online polls (though the two phone companies are showing the lowest UKIP figures). Tabs for Survation are here.

150 Responses to “Kantar and Survation voting intention polls”

1 2 3
  1. @Jim Jam

    Would be really interested in her views, thank you.

    Whilst talking to her would it be possible to ask if she confirms my evidence of a dramatic decline in the number of window posters and garden boards for the LibDems here as well?

  2. I read Kent file was delayed to CPS, hence the delay in decision. I don’t think it infers more chance of a prosecution?

    We’re some of these allegations politically motivated?? That’s a key question we probably won’t ever know.

    Agreed the boundary on national and local funding is very blurry!

  3. Rich – the lack of an announcement on Kent is indeed just because the CPS got it later, but the actual details of the case are different there. The other seats are generally about battle bus expenses only, in Thanet there were also issues around staff hotel and office expenses connected to the Tory party’s anti-UKIP campaign, and whether part of that should have been declared as local spend.

  4. No election expenses charges (except, possibly, one in S Thanet – still under consideration).

  5. TOH,

    “the rest of your post is a bit speculative, I put it kindly.”

    You want to post that to Anthony too, because he is essentially saying the same thing. If HQ said it was Okay then they can’t reasonably be held accountable.

    If those at HQ didn’t consider it might be unlawful and or didn’t check then they are either incredibly naive, negligent or incompetent and on the balance of probability and how they ran the overall campaign and their experience I findd that unlikely.

    I know you like to bask in the sunshine that you believe eminates from the backside of the current Government but yet again I make decisions on the basis of the available evidence.

    From a narrow partisan point of view I’d have loved prosecuitions, but that would be unfair and unjust.

    As ever you make one of your posts with your mock piety knowing pretending to be some sage full of wisdom, but your actually one of the most narrowly partisan posters here.

    Your not being clever your being transparent!


  6. @ THE OTHER HOWARD – thanks for posting new poll

    I think we might see more of that LDEM drop. Looking at previous polls we’ve seen LDEM have been say 10 but that is made up from:
    Loyal 5
    switch from (+), to (-)
    CON +1 (remain?), -2 (leave?)
    LAB +3 (remain?), -1 (leave?)
    Green -1 (tactical remain?)

    (and shown very well at a national level in Martin Baxter’s Guardian piece)

    If the switch-in voters start to believe LDEM have no chance and that LAB have the best chance of softening Brexit or at least want to defend their specific seat via tactical voting then I think we may see some of the inward switch to LIB reverse

    This obviously reduces LDEM chance of winning seats (I agree with @ CMJ and yourself on their seat prediction) but has a hidden bonus advantage for LAB, especially in high Remain areas like London.

    We’ll know tomorrow where UKIP are going to post candidates but if we assume they will post candidates anywhere they have a high previous presence (denying some potential votes to CON) and add to that a switch back/tactical vote for LAB then the swing threshold protects a lot more LAB seats that would have been lost if large numbers of Remain voters had voted LIB and large numbers of UKIP voters had voted CON.

    You can get 10-3 on LIB getting <10% of the vote (down from 8-1 at end of April but still more to go I think)

    P.S. Sadiq Khan seems to be playing the Brexit card perfectly – big advantage for him is making statements rather than being asked difficult questions but "standing up for London" while pushing the "Soft" Brexit line and not openly attacking Corbyn might further help London LAB holds.

  7. Now the election expenses issue is effectively killed, the last possible obstacle to a significant Theresa May, sorry Conservative, landslide has been removed from the campaign.

    The Conservative strategy will continue to be to say relatively little, and let Labour shoot itself in the foot on a daily basis (latest example Angela Rayner’s car crash interview today on LBC), and then attack Corbyn hard in final week (on IRA/Hamas support, Defence position, Brexit lack of clarity, general fitness to be PM etc). Labour is now losing ground in London based upon Evening Standard poll today. You can see in the body language of most Labour MPs when interviewed that they know they are going to lose big.
    I sense that whatever Labour says or does, the voters aren’t really listening to them and the polls are only going to shift one way between now and June 8.

  8. Peter Cairns SNP

    Your perfectly entitled to your views Peter and of course I don’t agree with your comments about myself. You seem to have taken offence for some reason, none was intended as was clear from the fact that I actually said I agreed with you.

  9. @ CATMANJEFF – agree on London, I’m beginning to think the Brexit factor won’t make much difference there now we’re seeing LDEM slip in the polls. I note that Electoral Calculus is making adjustments for known seat withdrawals (eg Ilford North). Very good news for anyone like myself that likes to check their own model!!

    Does anyone know if MB will update his model once he has the full candidates lists (due tomorrow). It will save me a lot of time if I can just run through one of his predictions and sort for the zeroes!

  10. Curious if this CPS decsion will be used by Corbyn as part of the rigged system approach. If there had been a decision to prosecute as someone said above the contept of court rules would come into play: but now a narrative that the Tories can breach ellctoral law spending much more money to win the electiion and all that happens is a fine. It would certainly play into the approach he has begun to take thus far!

  11. sorry about the spelling left my glasses in another room

  12. Alec,
    ” the leadership’s assumption that people will vote for them because they are Labour are breaking down”

    Most people seem to think that the conservatives will probably get a majority from this election and there is little the opposition can do to prevent this. The clear reason for this is Brexit. While it is labour that has lost out because the nation has switched to leave/remain instead of labour/ conservative, this will not necessarily be the case in the future. What will happen is that eventually Brexit will cease to be a determining issue. It then remains to be seen whether the conservatives have any more tribal loyalty remaining than do labour.

  13. Good morning all from a beautifully sunny People’s (Socialist) Republic of London

    On the topic of London – tis my patch after all – I tend to agree its one of the areas you are more likely to see tactical voting play out and actually have an effect.

    There is a very strong anti-Tory element within sections of the electorate (which tends to intensify as you get closer to the centre of the city) – announcements on policies such as re-legalisation of fox hunting will help to re-inforce this; however many of these voters are also hostile to Corbyn and are put off from voting Labour due to the position that he will stay on come what may (pun intended).

    FWIW I am a life long Labour voter, and was a party activist and member until Corbyn got re-elected. My instinct and gut are to vote Labour – however longer term I sincerely believe Corbyn has to go. Conversely genuinely if push comes to shove I would rather him than any Tory as PM. My tendency therefore is to think that London is one area where Labour will hold out against Tory surge (with some gains for the LD’s as well mostly against the Tories) due to voters sticking with Labour despite any reservation they have concerning Corbyn.

    Whilst the type of voter I refer to above does exist outside of London, particularly in metropolitan areas, in other parts of the country I don’t think they exist in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

  14. CPS, will prosecute and imprison you if you steal a bottle of water but it seems it’s not Tory MPs fault if they over spent.
    I always thought not knowing the law wasn’t an excuse?

  15. Danny,

    Far more important that Labour take the position they think is right for the country (Economy ahead of immigration as the drivers for Brexit negotiations) rather than the one they believe will garner most votes in this GE.

    They may (or may not) benefit from being perceived as being right in 2022 or 2027?

  16. @Pete

    Labour were also fined for overspending in the 2015 election so your argument could also be applied to them too. I don’t recall any charges being brought against Labour by the CPS.

    As usual, we see the same double standards when it comes to the left. If a Labour MP overspends and fails to declare it that is ok and it should never be questioned or condemned, and yet if a Tory does it they should be imprisoned for a long time.

  17. Perhaps it’s wise to not comment to the CPS decision now?

    It’s done and dusted.

  18. JULIUS, I’m quiet happy for a Labour MP to get done if they broke the law. In this case though the police took Tory MPs to the CPS. Still as I said, steal a bottle of water……

  19. @CL45, Alec
    Anecdotally I do hear many Labourites saying the same sort of thing, but the polls have Lab at about the same percentage as 2015. So, either I’m not talking to the right people or the polls are wrong.
    I suspect many will hold their nose and vote JC as he won’t be PM anyway.

    I think ABT do seem to be swinging behind Labour. It’s not going to prevent a landslide though.

  20. @Pete,

    Don’t fall in to the trap of all the angry left wingers on Facebook!!

    They strongly support the independent CPS, judiciary etc, until of course they don’t get the decision they want, then they go parabolic and hate the CPS and it’s all the Tories fault!

    We have to have faith in the CPS, and I actually do at the moment, probably as they have had to learn after some high profile mistakes in the last few years.


  21. @ Danny

    What will happen is that eventually Brexit will cease to be a determining issue. It then remains to be seen whether the conservatives have any more tribal loyalty remaining than do labour.

    A good point with which I agree with. My concern is that too many voters that previously voted for other parties may increasingly see themselves as Tory voters by default making it harder for Labour to get them to switch back. Also if the next GE is in 2021/22 It will have been 16/17 years since the last time Labour won a GE – and you will have the usual issues of lack of experience in govt etc.

    Only time will tell, but unless a major event occurs (World War, major Econ crisis etc) the mountain Labour has to climb looks like it will be substantial for some time.

  22. RICH, cheers, got anything for angry right wingers?

  23. Predicted impact of a drop in LIB (assuming it is switch Remainer voters going back to their 2015 vote party so -4 LIB = +3 LAB, +1 CON):

    Virtually nothing for LIB, makes it more likely they will lose Richmond Park, less likely they will win Twickenham or any other London seats. Takes then down from a prediction of 12 to 8

    Hold 5 (poss 6)
    Gain 1 (poss 2 with extra +1-2 in Scotland)
    Total 8

    Much bigger benefit for LAB where they get to hold 20+ seats they might have lost due to Remain switch voters (16+ they might have lost to CON and 4 they might have lost to LIB)

    As I’ve mentioned before every seat LIB gain due to Brexit switch factors results in roughly -5LAB, +4CON (it’s non-linear but that is a good quick tweak to Electoral Calculus results). Since it looks like that factor is waning then the Electoral Calculus model becomes much closer to mine and if “no candidates” get zeroed out then my model should become pretty much identical.

    Obviously where you think the %s will end up by 8June and what turnout (by seat and by party) we get will still create a difference in predictions but those are subjective measures.

    My guess on change in polls between now and 8June:
    UKIP slip further UKIP -2, CON +2
    LDEM slip further (from a start of 10) LDEM -4, LAB +3, CON +1 (maybe 0.5 of the LAB +3 goes to Green)
    Manifesto switchers : CON +2, LAB -2

    Add those up and:
    CON +5
    LAB +1 (maybe a little of that for Greens)
    LDEM -4
    UKIP -2

    I’m aware that as CON get near/above 50% we might seem some complacency/sympathy vote issues but I think this will be counteracted on the day via a generally low turnout for all parties but having a greater impact on LAB and LDEM (over and above the existing Labour bias tweaks that most polling companies now do). My guess is a lot of CON voters (loyal voters and new recruits will want to get out and vote, LAB and LDEM less so).

  24. @Pete

    “CPS, will prosecute and imprison you if you steal a bottle of water but it seems it’s not Tory MPs fault if they over spent.
    I always thought not knowing the law wasn’t an excuse?”

    Your analogy is very poor a less partisan one would be as follows:

    You get some help from your neighbour with some job and you give him a £100. He fails to declare the £100 on his tax return because he mistakenly believes he only has one proper job and it was just a favour. The Inland Revenue takes a different view and says the £100 was earnings from self-employment. In this circumstance they would charge him the tax and fine him for making an incorrect tax return, they would not suggest he be prosecuted and sent to jail.

    I can’t think of a less partisan and more fiercely independent organisation than the DPP.

  25. If we go around pre-judging what we think organisations like the CPS should be doing when we are not in possession of the facts, then we should not complain when organisations like the Daily Mail act similarly.

    Likewise if we counsel that the law is the law and should be respected, we ought to apply that to everyone and not just when the judiciary produce decisions which we find politically palatable.

    The CPS have stated no charges will be brought and to my mind the matter is now closed.


    The CPS have stated no charges will be brought and to my mind the matter is now closed.

    Totally agree with you.

  27. @Chris Riley


    There was a very good series of tweets this morning from election law expert David Allen Green.

    He explained that the real issue here was not the potential liability of MPs and/or agents, but the inadequacy of the law in this area. In particular the manner in which the law treats entirely separately national campaign spending (enforced by the Electoral Commission) and local campaign spending (enforced by the Police/CPS).

    The simple fact of this matter is that given the inadequacy of the law, prosecutions against MPs and/or agents should never have been contemplated in the first case. It was always likely to be impossible to prove dishonest intent on the part of those under investigation.

    In the circumstances the MP’s/agents that were under investigation have been vindicated. They are and always were innocent of any criminal offences.

  28. Closed legally yes but opposition parties would be within their rights to try to use as part of a wider meme if they thought beneficial.

    Personally, I think their is little mileage (Kilometrege for the LDs) in doing so but it would be legitimate for them to try to use.

  29. CPS impact on betting markets – none!

    For a chart on CON seats click here:

    Since the GE was called CON seats have drifted up from low 370s to mid/high 390s with a little spike above 400 after the LE results.

    As several posters have mentioned a high 390s result is broadly consistent with average on recent polls

  30. Does anyone think there might be a new phenomena of ‘shy labour’?

  31. The lengthy analysis I posted last is in moderation still, but here is a link to it.:

    Lot of seat by seat details etc.

  32. @Redrich
    I’m a slightly opposite Lab supporter to you, having rejoined in 2010 after a long hiatus because I wanted a more left wing leader than D.Miliband.
    That didn’t quite work out as planned, but I became a passionate activist for the 2015 GE (where we won in our seat) and have remained that way.
    This GE is going to be tricky to say the least. The strategy is to big up our (excellent) candidate because that’s whom people are voting for and stress local issues and anti-Tory sentiment. I have come across a few LDs who will be voting for us on that basis.
    Problem is our canvassing sessions are beset with Corbynistas – never seen on the stump before but flatly refusing to talk about the MP, only about Corbyn (they even have their own stock of posters to prevent us getting re-elect the MP ones out.)
    They blame shortfalls in the NHS on PFI (and therefore brown and Blair) and shortfalls in the polls on the PLP- they hate mainstream Lab far more than the Tories.
    It’s frustrating, but the doorstep suggests we have a fighting chance, with the anti-Tory message quite powerful.

    As to the election expenses news, I guess we don’t have to worry too much about the DPP being summarily fired :)

  33. The ES appear to be making too much of their London GE poll.

    There has been little change between the Tories and Lab since the 2015 GE (Tories +2, Lab -2). The ES say this means Labour will lose at least 4 seats. However, the poll is a general one and there is no supporting evidence to back up the claim that these figures will result in Lab seat losses. They may, or may not depending on how uniform the Lab-Tory swing happens to be.

    There is also considerable uncertainty as to whether there will be any swing to the Tories at all come June 8th.

  34. CMJ,
    Is your data for all 2017? Is there any trend if you apply your usual method?

    Yougov did a 12000 person sample which included London cross-breaks last month (it probably just repeated voting data from other polls, but there were other questions about swing voting etc… Good to compare though..

  35. CMJ,
    Is your data for all 2017? Is there any trend if you apply your usual method?

    Yougov did a 12000 person sample which included London cross-breaks last month (it probably just repeated voting data from other polls, but there were other questions about swing voting etc… Good to compare though..

  36. Only a 2% swing in London suggests a bigger swing than current polling UNS in the rest of E&W while a bigger swing in Scotland pulls the arithmetic the other way.

    Anyone capable of doing the maths?

  37. @Andrew111

    The data is based on regional breakdowns post referendum to now. The weighting value has been set to 0.4, putting a slightly higher emphasis on the most recent polls.

    I wasn’t looking for breaking upper or lower limits, but a moving average, so the EWMA value was used.

    If tactical voting is strong, it does make a generalised swing hard to predict.

  38. Old Nat,

    I’ve been sceptical about commentors who say they’re switching parties in the past, but this time I think that Tafia is very credible, and I know lots of other people here who think the same!

  39. All the evidence points to lots of 2015 Lab voters (including even activists, as reported on this thread) staying at home this time, but lots of ‘more enthusiastic than ever’ Corbyn Lab voters.

    I think there is, in effect, straight churn between 2015 Lab and 2015 WNV which leaves Lab roughly where it was in 2015.

    Though the danger is that lots of their disillusioned 2015 voters switch rather than stay at home, which no doubt many Leave ones (who don’t tend to post on UKPR) are.

  40. @Trevor Warne

    So you are predicting:
    Tory 51%
    Labour 29%
    LDem 6%
    UKIP 4%
    Other 10%

    If you turn out to be right that would be a pretty earth-shattering result; you could also make a fortune at the bookies. You are pretty much alone forecasting the LDems at 2% below their 2015 result.

    I’m slightly puzzled though by why you have posted what is essentially the same long post predicting a Tory landslide about six times!

  41. Redrich,

    I agree with your analysis. I’d add that there is not a big UKIP vote for the Tories to squeeze in London, so that’s another reason to expect relatively few Tory gains in London.


    They blame shortfalls in the NHS on PFI (and therefore brown and Blair) and shortfalls in the polls on the PLP- they hate mainstream Lab far more than the Tories

    That’s the main problem unfortunately. I also always suspected the influx of new members / Corbynistas, who may not have the inclination or personas to campaign in a manner that appealed to swing voters could be problematic, however conversely it is heartening that they are actually turning up to campaign.

    ‘It’s frustrating, but the doorstep suggests we have a fighting chance, with the anti-Tory message quite powerful’

    Which I find tends to chime most with my generation 38/55 year olds who grew up and remember the Thatcher/Major years – however I don’t think they have been in power for long enough for that sentiment to regain the potency it once had. Anyway good luck with the campaigning and hope you win.

  43. New Fred.

  44. @BT Says

    I think there is, in effect, straight churn between 2015 Lab and 2015 WNV which leaves Lab roughly where it was in 2015.

    It does look that way atm. – but some of the recent polling would suggest recently that there had been shift in the 2015 Lab voters who until recently were saying DK back towards Labour. Not clear to what degree Corbyn’s recent comments about staying on irrespective of the result could halt or reverse this. Also if 2017 does follow the pattern of 83′ and ’87 in terms of difference between local and GE then Lab % will be around 23- 25% which would indicate that the churn rate was unfavourable.

    In every election there are groups of the electorate that face a dilemma between lesser of two evils – in this one it seems be effecting moderate Labour voters/

  45. I like old Fred. great character.

  46. @Phil Strauss
    Attention has understandably focussed on Corbyn’s position after his almost certain defeat on June 8, but what would a poor result for Farron look like? I can’t imagine Farron being forced out, but the fact is with 48% of the country having voted Remain, with one of the most left-wing leaders the Labour Party has ever had, a Tory party generally reckoned to have shifted to the Right since Cameron resigned… the circumstances could not be more favourable for the Lib Dems, and yet their share of the vote is likely to increase by 3 points max, maybe less.

    Not 48% of the country – 48.11% “remain” of 72.21% who voted = 34.7% of the country (or at least of the country’s electorate). 51.89% “leave” of 72.21% who voted = 37.5% of the country. The other 27.8% of the country were not sufficient exercised about the issue to vote – in effect, they were content with whatever the rest decided. Also many of the 34.7% who voted remain may now just think “so be it; that’s the majority verdict, let’s just get on with it” without wanting a re-run of the whole hoo-ha and even more uncertainty. And finally hard-line remainers would still have to be convinced that voting LD would achieve a useful purpose in other respects.

  47. KEHU, mine wasn’t an analogy, mine actually happened, as well you know.

    CHRIS RILEY, with due respect that’s rubbish, there’s difference between the CPS and a rag like the Mail…..or there is supposed to be. As I’ve said you an cheat in an election and all is OK in the world, nick a bottle of water?

  48. Sooty,
    what happns to the libs is quite a knotty problem. Anyone who votes lib regularly must understand it is unlikely to result in an actual government. So why do it? presumably in order to achieve something. So lib voters are the sort of people who vote tactically, its bred into them.

    I think the libs managed to badly alienate many of these people in the miserable lib con coalition, which achieved little or nothing that the voters wanted. This is certainly not all forgiven. But tactical voters will continue to do what they have always done. While they might answer in abstract they would vote lib, in reality what they do will depend on the choice presented to them at an actual election.

    A long winded way of saying a falling vote intention for libs could correspond to a rising support for the party.

  49. Looks as if UKIP have reached their bas level with the early fall going to the Tories and the later leavers moving to Labour.

    Still not sure about Lib Dem support which looks patchy and might well be supplemented in certain seats in which they have a chance by anti Corbyn Labour voters my best guess is probably a loss in Richmond Park but enough gains elsewhere to give them about 18 seats.

    As no one seems to be mentioning the Greens I would think her profile and personal vote seems to point to Carolyn Lucas retaining Brighton Pavilion and tactical voting deciding Bristol West.

  50. As I write, the last 20 polls on your right-hand column show the Conservatives polling within a 6-point range, bar two — the 42 and 49 (7 points apart). This is well within polling expectations of basically no change over the period of 45 +/- 3. All the rest is noise.

1 2 3