We have two new GB polls today, plus YouGov polls for London & Wales.

Firstly, the weekly YouGov poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 42%(-1), LAB 39%(+3), LDEM 7%(-2), UKIP 4%(nc). Fieldwork was Tuesday and Wednesday and changes are from the YouGov/Sunday Times poll at the weekend. The trend continues to be towards Labour and, given YouGov tend to show the most favourable figures for Labour, that’s now heading into hung Parliament territory. Tabs are here. YouGov also have a new election model on their site here, providing a seat estimate – currently that is also showing a hung parliament, with the Conservatives on 317 seats.

Secondly we have this week’s Panelbase poll. Topline figures there are CON 44%(-4), LAB 36%(+3), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 5%(+1). Fieldwork was conducted between Friday and today, and changes are from their poll conducted at the start of last week. A sharp narrowing of the Tory lead here, and Panelbase now weight their voting intention figures to the age profile of 2015 voters, not the whole adult population, so they are using a method that we’d expect to show a big Tory lead. When they changed their method last week it increased the Tory lead by seven points, so without the change they’d presumably have been showing a very close race indeed.

YouGov’s London poll for Phil Cowley at Queen Mary University London has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 50%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 3%. In 2015 Labour had a nine point lead in London, so this would reflect a swing of four points from Conservative to Labour, and would likely produce several Labour gains. That’s better for Labour than even the most favourable GB polls, but isn’t necessarily unfeasible. Given the different demographics in the capital the swing in London is increasingly divorced from the rest of Britain – there was also a sizable shift towards towards Labour in London in 2015, despite there being relatively little movement in England as a whole. It is also younger than the rest of England, and more anti-Brexit than the rest of England. Tabs are here. (For what it’s worth, there are actually two YouGov/QMUL London polls today – there was a YouGov London poll coming out of field at the time of the Manchester bombing, which given the timing was held back to release both together today. Not that there has been any real movement between them… the Conservatives are down one compared to last week. That does, at least mean we can be confident that the big shift towards Labour in London happened around the time of the manifestos, rather than in the last week).

Just out, there is also new YouGov poll of Wales, which has topline figures of CON 35%(+1), LAB 46%(+2), LDEM 5%(-1), Plaid 8%(-1), UKIP 5%(nc). I’ll update with Roger Scully’s commentary and the tables when they appear.

Finally, I have a longer piece over on the YouGov website about the differences between the polls, implied turnout figures, what is likely to happen at the election.

710 Responses to “Latest Panelbase poll and YouGov polls for Britain, London and Wales”

1 13 14 15
  1. When the GE was called I thought the result would be much the same as 2015 with a 6.5% gap between CON and LAB.

    I expect another GE in about 2 years when there will be splits about agreeing a Brexit deal.

  2. @BobInNorfolk

    Re. “Well if you want a crash in the pound high inflation falling house prices crippling national debt – companies and the rich moving aboard the EU riding all over us you will get it.”

    I am not sure what point you are making with this post, or who to, but just wanted to ask whether you are aware that while that list seems intended to detail predominantly “bad stuff”, the prospect of falling house prices looks very different depending on where you sit? For those invested in housing (either their own or other people’s), it may be perceived as a signal of doom along with the others listed. For increasing numbers of non-homeowners, or homeowners keeping their non-homeowning children/friends/fellow citizens in mind, the hope of falling house prices may be the one, overriding thing that gives the future prospect of a somewhat decent life. Some fewer number, I am sure, would even go as far as to perceive the rest of that list as an acceptable price to pay for any significant crash in house prices that came along with it.

  3. The last week has been helpful to the Tory Party
    in ensuring we get our vote out, one of the risk factors was
    complacency amongst our support base, definitely no longer
    the case.

    I would expect Labour polling to being to show signs of weakening
    by Monday, Tuesday at the latest.

    What we are heading for is a tack back to the incumbent,
    just my personal take.

  4. “When the GE was called I thought the result would be much the same as 2015 with a 6.5% gap between CON and LAB. ”


    The polls were showing Con leads of 17-20 points at the time.

  5. @ROOPS

    I was responding to lambethgreen who had been canvassing in several left leaning London constituencies (presumably the 3 Lambeth council constituencies) and claimed that the response to the canvassing was 80% Labour, 10% Liberal and 10% Green and 0% Conservative.

    My point was that the if the canvassing results were genuine and assuming there had been some serious canvassing done of a decent sized number of people (as was made out by the fact that canvassing had been done in several constituencies) then there must be a reason why no-one was saying they were voting Tory. The 3 constituencies in the Lambeth area averaged a 25% conservative vote in the last election. Is it realistic that this went down to 0%? What do you put the response reported by lambethgreen down to?

  6. @Paul White

    I assume Tory Central Office are busy writing new gaffes and blunders for Teresa to ensure even more ‘tack back’ next week?

  7. It seems to me the principle strategic failure of the Tory campaign was failing to anticipate that this election would/might become a traditional “Santa Claus” election between spending promises and spending restraint. I think the assessment was that the polling lead and the relative perceptions of the Tory leadership vs the Labour leadership would be enough of a buffer to keep such considerations at bay.

    Tories will always fair worse than Labour on the “what are you going to give people like me” front because of their commitment to deficit reduction and “fiscal prudence”.

    In a studio audience full of people who want more money, it is easier to be the politician who says “have more money” than the one who says “you can’t have more money”.

    The Tories essentially had three alternative options. Make false promises of their own, conceal any plans to implement policies that might cost people money, or accept that people would be worse off in the short term under the Tories but concentrate on the need and benefit of deficit reduction and spending restraint (the 2015 strategy).

    Polls suggest that for all their love of the individual spending promises, the public are still worried about the deficit and the risks of overspending, and still trust the Tories more than Labour.

    If I were May and I were challenged by a nurse on pay restraint, I would have empathised, expressed my desire to improve the incomes of all working people, especially nurses, but pointed to the fact that the UK has more debt than ever and that even though we’ve had many years of austerity, we are still living beyond our means. I would have highlighted the danger that if we began to borrow even more now to fund things like pay rises, we might trap ourselves into an even bigger fiscal problem down the line and face another period of harsh austerity then, which would also affect today’s young people who would have to shoulder the lion’s share of the consequences.

    Now, of course many of the left will disagree with that entire hypothesis, arguing that there’s no such thing as money, that we can double everyone’s pay and still reduce the deficit etc. My point isn’t whether this line is actually correct, but whether it would be an effective shield against the “santa claus” approach – as I would argue it was in 2010 and 2015.


    Thanks for your response. I accept that the concern may be genuine though I think you could equally have said fear of a brick through the window or something less by way of explanation.

  9. @Sorrel: ‘I still expect to see a neck and neck or a Labour ahead poll (probably from YouGov) in the next five days.’

    That might have an interesting consequence: from the outset of the campaign, the Conservatives, with their “coalition of chaos” slogan, have been trying to persuade a large section of the electorate that they should, above all, be horrified at the prospect of a hung parliament and use their votes to ensure an overall majority for one party. In other words, a major objective of the Tory campaign has been to create a late swing in favour of whichever party is slightly ahead in the polls that are published on Tuesday and Wednesday. Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony if that Tory campaign succeeded, but Labour turned out to be the beneficiaries of the late swing in question?

  10. A third incident, Vauxhall, that has been confirmed by the police
    as some do not like speculation.

1 13 14 15