There have been two new voting intention polls today from Panelbase and Kantar.

Kantar has topline figures of CON 47%(+3),LAB 29%(+1), LDEM 8%(-3), UKIP 6%(-2). (tabs)
Panelbase have topline figures of CON 47%(-1), LAB 33%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 5%(nc) (tabs)

Once again, the broad picture appears to be a hefty Tory lead, Labour creeping upwards (Kantar still have Labour in the twenties – like ICM and ComRes they have a turnout model that is based partially on demographics, in the case of Kantar they base part of their turnout model on respondent’s ages and the historical pattern of turnout by age), UKIP and the Liberal Democrats being squeezed.

The 33% that Labour have in the Panelbase poll is the highest the party have scored in the campaign so far. Along with yesterday’s polls this has provoked some comment – how can Labour be polling at about the same as 2015 given their division, Corbyn’s poor ratings and so on? Part of this seems to be that substantial numbers of voters who don’t like Jeremy Corbyn do seem to be holding their noses and voting for Labour anyway. For example, 17% of current Labour voters would like the Conservative party to win the election. Presumably they are Labour supporters who don’t want a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn, but are voting for the party – perhaps through party loyalty, support for their local candidate, to ensure an viable opposition, or to give Labour a bigger base to recover from. That combination of holding onto some unhappy Labour voters who don’t like Corbyn and gaining some new voters from the Greens and non-voters mean the Labour vote may not be collapsing in the way some expected.

Of course, it may also be that the publicity of the manifesto leak and launch is giving Labour a temporary boost, that the Conservatives and the hostile media have not yet turned their full cannons upon Jeremy Corbyn, or that the polls haven’t done enough to address over-estimates of Labour support. We shall see.

616 Responses to “Latest Kantar and Panelbase voting intention”

1 11 12 13
  1. @ DAVE – I agree voting against what people don’t want (protest vote) can be important in many votes and that is why IndyRef, Brexit, etc had high turnout and why pretty much everyone expected LDEM to be in the mid teens possibly higher now. However, if people accept the expected outcome (or just don’t care) then turnout drops (e.g 2001 GE, most local elections)

    I’m sure a few people will be pointing out a low turnout does not give a “mandate” for Brexit but I think the opposite. A low turnout means people are happy with the expected outcome (simply the flip side of not being so upset about it that they got out in masses to vote against the expected outcome). If a certain party only gets say 8% of the vote on say a 60% turnout, clearly not many people want to stop Brexit (less than 5% of electorate to be precise!)

  2. Exile – I guess Darlington going Blue too in your opinion?

    Current UNS (15% lead) puts it right on the cusp and Bishop Auckland would just hold.

  3. For those thinking that the Social care policy will go down like a “lead balloon” in rich tory areas there is a series of interviews on the BBC “Live” election thread which provides a very different reaction. Voters in May’s own constituency don’t seem to have a problem with it or the means testing of the winter fuel allowance.

    Many of course have already experienced coping with the cost of dementia. Both my father and father in law required social care at home and then residential care before they died. It was paid for out of their estates quite rightly in our view. The State should not be expected to look after us from “cradle to grave”

    “Are you happy taking doctors from countries where they have endemic malaria and rickets? Because you’ll need the other half of the foreign population to look after the first half you stole.”

    Not particularly, Neil, but out of the 3,000 doctors which the NHS enlisted from overseas last year, only about a quarter came from half a dozen developing countries, so that UK doctors and nurses going under the overseas aid programme and the likely half a billion going into medical training and aid, probably make up for this transfer.
    The answer to this problem lies, however, mainly in the funding of the NHS and particularly in training within the UK, as Dr David Rosser, medical director of University hospitals Birmingham, one of England’s biggest trusts, said to the Guardianonon on this question::
    “The NHS doesn’t have the number of doctors it needs. The shortage is real. We aren’t training enough doctors in this country, and so we are dependent on foreign-trained doctors.”

  5. @WB “Guardian says the Conservative manifesto has slipped in that the honours system will be reformed, but without further detail: stocking the House of Lords anyone? Lord Sea Change perhaps.”

    I’d be happy to oblige, but only for a hereditary Dukedom.

    @TOH “I think you will find that no modern election has been won by a leader and party that are well behind on both leadership and running the economy.”

    I think you are right, I cannot remember any election where that has happened.

  6. New thread

  7. @TOH

    I think that a majority of 100 seems about right.

    For 150+ majority would require a Labour collapse in their heartlands, which I suspect won’t happen for several reasons:

    1 – The Labour Manifesto contained a lot of policies that appeal to Labour’s core vote.
    2 – It’s quite obvious that TM will get a good majority, so if a Labour voter likes their local MP, but isn’t too hot on JC, they can vote Labour safe in the knowledge that JC won’t be PM.
    3 – There is an argument that given a solid TM majority, beefing up the opposition a bit makes sense.

    Therefore I think that the Labour vote may hold at around 33%.

  8. @ Jim Jam

    Darlington has been Cons in the not too distant past so in some ways a Cons win would be less shocking than in seats like Hartlepool. It looks like another good prospect for Cons.

    All of these seats have a sizeable UKIP vote for Cons to squeeze, and very little Lib Dem or Green for Lab to squeeze. What was a 3 way contest is now a straight fight between Lab and Cons.

  9. JOSEPH1832
    “Does the availability of migrants with under utilised skills provide employers with an opportunity to cut local training? Does actual production of value increase and by how much? Does the availability of cheaper labour lead to bosses not investing in technology – as was the case when our millls when importing Asians who they paid less? Do you factor in how much is sent home? How many retire home? Is that losing a health care cost, or sending pensions to be spent abroad?”
    Yes, these are all factors which need to be taken into account.
    The UKCES 2016 is quite good on showing that overall the employment of migrant labour, including the tendency to employ people with experience and skills above those of the available domestic workforce, raises both productivity and wages – only in the lowest level of elementary labour having a minor depression on wages. It is this, and the stress on public services and housing which Government needs to address at local levels where there is high immigration, as in the horticultural industry in E.Anglia, if net migration continues at the present level.

  10. Catmanjeff

    I assume that your prediction relates to the Yougov crossbreaks – rather than the universal application of the national headline figures. On the basis of the latter ,Labour would lose just 26 seats to the Tories on a swing of 3.2% – leaving them with 206 seats. In addition, Labour might claw back a few of their 2015 losses to the SNP.

  11. David West,
    ” But as you say, there is still time………….”
    The election isn’t over until it is over, but I didnt mean to imply I think it likely labour will win. I dont.

    Lots of people have commented they think conservatives are saving up for an attack in the last week, or as it was, in the manifesto. Sure, they might, but its difficult to see after so many attacks on Corbyn not least by his own side, what else they could do. It looks increasingly that they are happy to coast to victory on the one issue, while preparing the ground for hard times ahead. Part of that is making no promises to anyone.

    I think this strategy is at least as much about the problems they expect in the future as about trust in a victory already won.

  12. The Other Howard,
    “For those thinking that the Social care policy will go down like a “lead balloon” in rich tory areas there is a series of interviews on the BBC “Live” election thread which provides a very different reaction. ”

    Why would it go down badly in tory areas? It is a very tory policy. It transfers the cost of care on to individuals and away from the state. It will not cost the rich any more than care does now, but it will relieve them of having to pay taxes to support others. Anyone with total assets less than 100,000 might be better off, but how many people have 100,000 in the bank but no house? At the moment homes are largely protected. The poorest will not benefit from the raised allowance. The people hit will be the sort of homeowners Mrs T sold council houses to and the middle classes.


    NW Durham at 4:1 is interesting!.

  14. @Redrich

    No, there was lots of social liberalism. Free movement is more to the extreme, but then you have all the anti-discrimination, the identity politics, quotas, academies and the free schools thing etc. etc…

    This is before going into the stuff like the whole “rubbing noses” diversity thing.

    It’s just that liberals don’t necessarily realise this stuff is Liberal, or that they indeed are liberal, and bits are accepted by the left, esp. anti-discrimination.

    The left cautiously adopt some bits of social liberalism, even the Conservatives do now e.g. SSM.

    Similarly, since the rise of socialism threatened to wipe them out, the Liberals have adopted some redistribution. Beveridge went more down this line after hanging out with the Fabians and liberals not unnaturally then try and claim it as their own.

    Point being, bits of liberalism are accepted as sensible by other parties and voters, just as bits of socialism and Conservatism are. Liberal politicians unfortunately tend to want to take it too far, ditto socialists and Conservatives etc.

  15. People thinking Tories have got loads more manifesto lined up. Well, they may have. On the other hand, it may be that we are seeing good old fashioned Conservative gradualism, rejecting too much change, as opposed to the radicalism of the Liberals who took over previously.

    In classic Conservativism, too much change is considered potentially destabilising.

    Repeat after me… “Strong and Stable, Strong and Stable…”

  16. Danny

    “For those thinking that the Social care policy will go down like a “lead balloon” in rich tory areas there is a series of interviews on the BBC “Live” election thread which provides a very different reaction

    I live in the North, my house is worth £150,000, if I needed social care for the long term my understanding is that even if the care bill was lets say £100,000 I would still pass £100,000 to my daughter ? That’s £77000 ish more than at present and it would come from my estate not the sale of my house whilst im still on this earth…

    So I believe that I will be better off , am I correct ?

1 11 12 13