More Brexit polling

A year on from the EU referendum there was some new YouGov polling for the Times this morning. The country remain quite evenly split over whether Brexit is right or wrong, 44% think leaving was the right decision, 45% the wrong decision. There is not much optimism about negotiations – only 26% expect the government to achieve a deal that is good for Britain, 31% expect a poor deal, 15% expect no deal at all (that said, most don’t think Labour would be doing any better – 24% think they’d get a better deal, 34% a worse deal, 20% that it would end up much the same).

Asked to choose between Britain having full control over immigration from Europe or British businesses having free access to trade with the EU people preferred trade by 58% to 42%. As I wrote in my last post, there’s a lot of variation in questions like this depending on the specific wording, but the overall picture suggests that when people are pushed to choose they do think trade is more important than control of immigration (though among Conservative voters the balance is the other way round).

On other matters, on the question of who would make the best Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn now leads Theresa May by a single point – 35% to 34%. This is the first time that Corbyn has led in the question – this is partially because of a sharp drop in Theresa May’s ratings (before the snap election she was consistently in the high 40s), but is also due to a significant increase in Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings. Again, if you look at the longer term ratings he used to be consistenty down in the teens.

Full tabs are here

I should also add an update on polling about the second referendum. In my last post I mentioned the Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday which found that the balance of opinion was in favour of having a second referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal. This was the first time any poll had shown this, and I said it was worth looking to see if other polls found the same. Well, so far they haven’t – Survation also had a poll for Good Morning Britain on Monday, that also had a question on a second referendum, and it found 38% of people supported it and 57% were opposed. Tabs for that are here.

451 Responses to “More Brexit polling”

1 7 8 9 10
  1. @Matt126

    Don’t pay too much attention to what was said on Peston on Sunday. Losing deposits is more of a psychological loss than a real financial limitation on campaigning. If you only publish a single election freepost leaflet (A4, full colour, unaddressed) for delivery by Royal Mail, the cost will be more than more than twice the deposit. Even a pretty minimal election campaign will push spending to over three times the deposit.

    When the Electoral Commission puts the political parties’ spendings for the election on line, you might be surprised at how much is spent even by ‘small parties’ like the Lib Dems and Greens.

  2. Regarding the survation Scottish sub sample, could the extraordinary high labour and low conservative recalled votes be an extreme example of false recall. I seem to remember that after an election the winning party usually gets a boost in recalled vote which makes weighting difficult for polling companies

  3. Guess its more to do with National vote share such as e. Even if they pick up 2/3% of the vote in a seat it helps VI and means more representation on shows such as Question Time. The Greens crave their moment on the Leaders debate

  4. Does anyone know where the panel base tables are?

  5. @Turk

    “Whether the UK stays or leaves the EU is of no further interest to me as I no longer live in the UK my real point is there is a strong left wing bias in some sections of the media who believe those views that differ from there own view that some how a bunch of poorly informed people largely apparently unable to think about any of the likely consequences of leaving made the huge mistake of voting out.”


    That’s not left wing though is it. Many left wingers don’t want to be in the EU because it inhibits state investment etc., and free movement can hamper employee wages and conditions. Joining the EU was a largely Conservative project and many in Old Labour weren’t keen. Nulab were, but they were more liberal than left.

  6. Turk
    Plus anyone who posts things such as

    “There is a strong left wing bias in the media”

    The media is what it is. They are businesses, and pander to there own readership/audience prejudices to make money.

    Any left wing biased media is compensated for by the plethora of right wing media publications,

    If you’re that worried about bias, listen to, and read, a wide range of sources and then use your ‘judgement’ to form your own opinion based on the available or evidence.

    Please stop moaning about media bias. Everyone is a political animal and there is no such thing as an entirely unbiased source.


    Exactly. The Corbyn surge could be fueling greater false recall… combined with bitterness/embarrassment at the Tories still being in government on the back of Scottish MP’s … but how can companies check if responders are lying to them?

  8. Margin of error for each of those figures in that small Scottish sample is approx 5%, assuming that is weighted correctly.

    As far as us all being ‘political animals’ I would say that most UKPR contributors are Questing Voles, busily digging into the available data to get some grip on what’s going on!

  10. @ Voice of Reason

    “Margin of error for each of those figures in that small Scottish sample is approx 5%, assuming that is weighted correctly.”

    If it’s a sub-sample it won’t be weighted at all, will it? The respondents will contribute to the overall weighting, but could be totally unrepresentative on their own.

  11. @Kitsune

    Probably not. AW regularly cautions against looking too closely at regional subsamples in polls for precisely that reason.

  12. Having said that it was Scottish crossbreaks that gave the first clues of the SNP surge pre-2015 election – so it can be fun to watch them and try to spot any patterns.

    However more data required than any single poll.

  13. There’s a Panelbase poll, which has Labour 46% Conservative 41%. Approval ratings Corbyn +17%, May -17%. Can’t find the other tabs though. Can anyone else?

  14. And in other statistics… so far a 100% failure rate in the cladding that has been tested which doesn’t exactly bode well. This is going to cost a lot to fix.

    And that’s just public buildings. Who knows how many private buildings affected as well?

  15. @Barnaby

    no i don’t think they’re up yet for Panelbase

  16. @ VoR

    “And in other statistics… so far a 100% failure rate in the cladding that has been tested which doesn’t exactly bode well. ”

    Not good at all, but it is possible (likely?) that the buildings getting the earliest attention are those where there are reasons in the building records to suspect that there is a problem. It will only be when the strike rate drops below 100% that we will start to get an appreciation of just how widespread the problem is.

  17. @Sea Change

    “@Carfrew – our discussion a week ago on Corporation Tax. I do agree that you raise some interesting ideas when it comes to the possible uses of that. However, I still contend that it is inefficient. AW has made it pretty clear that he doesn’t want us to expound at length on economic theories on here so I will not re-ignite that debate out of respect for his dictum.”


    That’s ok, agreement is not an essential by any means*, it’s good to have one’s views challenged, it was interesting, had me digging around, figuring out stuff.

    * except on things like Storage taxes, you know, important stuff…

  18. Not sure if anyone already linked to it, but Ipsos Mori have released their “how they voted in 2017”

    Well worth a read

    Striking for me was how the turnout of people who didn’t vote in 2015 are what caused the upset in this election.

    Page 17 shows the Conservatives mostly held onto their 2015 voters, and Labour held onto theirs.

    UKIP went 60% to Cons, 16% to Labour, so the Conservative theory 2015 Cons + UKIP worked perfectly.

    But what they missed was the 2015 Lib Dem going 30% Labour, and only 15% Cons

    And the HUGE “did not vote in 2015” that turned out.

    And who were those 2015 did not vote people? They have some great turnout graphs

    – the 18-34’s learnt how to vote in the EU referendum, and they kept the habit – large increase in turnout there compared to 2015 – still lower than the oldies, but the days of pensioners dominating politics is over. (page 21).

    – the private renters showed up. In 2015 only 45% turned out, in 2017 that was up to 53%. Still much lower than the house owners, but they are starting to make their voice heard.

    – Ethnic minorities turned out. 47% in 2015, 53% in 2017. We could see that in the number of seats with large Muslim populations, they all turned red with a higher swing than average.

    In summary, those the politicians have ignored have started to turn up at the polls. I’ll leave it to the reader to understand what in the Labour offer appealed to those new voters (we know they voted 66% Lab vs 23% Con from slide 18)

    Will they go back into their non voting habits for the next election, or is this the start of an ever increasing turnout amongst those groups? They are still massively underrepresented in turnout, Labour should be focussing on the 3 groups above to build their coalition for a majority in the next election – get them registered, get them engaged.

    Labour should just ignore Brexit, it looks like a complete dogs breakfast, no vote winners there, only losers, and focus on keeping their 2017 vote and getting the ‘stay at homes’ amongst their new voters out to the polls the next time round.

    Stick to the lack of affordable housing, rip off agency fees, opportunities for the young – that is their base, build on it and get more of those groups to vote next time.

    And then pickup the votes from the losers from Brexit – because there will be losers, and I really can’t see any winners, at least in the short term.

    I think its already becoming clear the next election will be a labour landslide – the Tories will be too focused on Brexit to deliver anything to the groups above – unless the whole thing crashes, and houses suddenly become affordable again, but then they will have bigger worries. The concerns of this group of voters is not going away, and they only have one party on their side.

    Unless…hello Tories..there are other people besides pensioners in this country – and they can’t afford housing. And Brexit is not going to solve that by the time the next election rolls around.

  19. Richard
    “Will they go back into their non voting habits for the next election, or is this the start of an ever increasing turnout amongst those groups?”

    They may well turn out for the next election, particularly if it is soon. However if it turns out that the promised land does not materialise as expected, they’ll probably revert to non-voting.

    G’night all.

  20. Agreed, Richard.

    I’m hearing lots of people saying things along the lines of ‘look how badly May is doing, if Labour are only 5 points ahead now, they’re doomed’. I think, actually, this is exactly where you’d expect Labour to be. If you look historically, never has a government which just won the election taken a consistent lead in opinion polls so soon after the election. Usually the governing party maintains a lead for at least several months. Voters are rarely so quick to abandon the party they backed just a week or two ago because that requires a degree of humility – you essentially have to admit you were wrong. Also, after the election people start to switch off a bit – engagement falls, and people don’t think about every single event in the news with respect to their voting intention in the same way they might during a campaign.

    At this point, I would not expect many to have changed their minds. Yet we’ve gone from a 2.5 tory lead at the election to a 3-6 labour lead, in just a week or two (in terms of fieldwork dates for the polls). Sure, it’s been a bad few weeks for May, but although she handled Grenfell badly, frankly few people will vote based on such events as it just doesn’t affect most people personally. It’s the sort of thing that the pundit class cares about. Not your average citizen.

    The key point is this: one of the major challenges facing the government have been faced yet. We still have Brexit to go. Living standards have just started to fall and will likely continue to for the next few years. Dissatisfaction with public services is growing, and, if present trends persist, things will continue moving in this direction – which will foster support for anti-austerity policies.

    And then you have the point that no governing party since 1945 has ever started losing seats in elections, only to make gains in the next one. The only way has ever been down for the governing party after they’ve peaked, and I find it doubtful that there is anything the Conservatives could do to bring home those more liberal, remain-voting tories who went red this time, given they’ll be carrying out Brexit and will be responsible for all its consequences – which, even if you consider to be long-term positive, almost everyone agrees will be negative for a few years, probably until the next election frankly. On the other hand, there’s the possibility that Labour voters who went blue this time around to support May over Brexit, will have a multitude of reasons to come home.

    If things continue to go badly for the Conservatives, and Labour don’t increase their lead to at least 10 points in the polls within (say) a year, then they might want to worry. Until then though, I reckon Labour should be happy with how they’re doing. It’s hard to see the Tories winning the next election.

  21. Oops, in the first paragraph I meant to say “never has the opposition taken the lead in opinion polls so soon”.

    Looking specifically at those parliaments which ended in a change of government: after 1992 it took about 6 months for Labour to take a consistent lead (this actually happened just before black Wednesday); after 2005 it took a year; after 1974 (Oct) it took 2 years.

    Corbyn has broken several of our conventional assumptions about elections so using the past as a proxy for the next election could turn out badly. But given the historical circumstances and the challenges ahead, it’s a bleak outlook for the Conservatives in my view.

  22. @Richard

    I think you gloss over the real problems that still face Labour. There has been no entente cordiale between him and the PLP, just the current tenuous ceasefire. Let’s see what happens when he pushes for the change in Leadership rules and tries to change the policy on Trident which he said he was going to scrap as soon as possible after he becomes PM according to the Glastonbury organizer.

    A well fought campaign but still a decisive loss to the Tories with 262 seats is one thing, let’s see his leadership skills over the next few months with his party.

  23. Pete B,
    ” However if it turns out that the promised land does not materialise as expected, they’ll probably revert to non-voting.”

    I think that is wrong. They have turned out for the usual reason, dissatisfaction with the government. If the government can disspiate that dissatisfaction it can recover, but it seems locked on course where changing would upset a completely different group/groups. So they cannot.

    The promised land might not materialise, but before that can happen the labour party has to have an opportunity to succeed or fail. Pressure will grow until it gets that.

  24. PETE B, the promised land for many will be affordable housing and rent controls (the price of renting can be more than a mortgage). Any party that grabs this nettle imo will win the next election.
    Often you hear how as you get older you are more likely to become more Tory. Does anyone know if this is because we have more owner occupiers in this age group?
    As it’s getting harder to get on the housing ladder will people still be so keen on moving towards the Tory party as they get older?

  25. Danny,

    I think Pete B meant the one after that so turnout will increase at the next GE and until Labour Elected. If they don’t deliver once in power then turnout may well fall in the first GE standing as a Government.
    Happened in 2001 with a big fall and again in 2005.

  26. Thatcherite housing policy finally came home to roost. Its in the Mori analysis, the growing group of private renters now going labour. Thatcher was right to argue that home ownership helped the tories, but the party has not followed through. Slashing council house building has simply cut the supply and made ownership more difficult. Rising prices has finally started pricing out potential tory voters from home ownership.

    While the policy raised the value of owned property, it benefitted the tories who were making money. If they now cannot get onto the ladder, they are losing money. ‘Its the economy, stupid’. Always. Pensioners are the biggest group who own their own homes and they remain resolutely conservative.

  27. Richard – thanks for posting the Mori stuff.
    Very Interesting and frankly I am surprised the UKIP vote split that much for the Tories, maybe in seats without a UKIP candidate most ended up Con and intuitively those that wished to stay with UKIP but had no candidate would be more likely to vote Con as Brexit was the driver.

    Also, I thought the gender gap would have moved more from 2015 based on the young profession women numbers from YG.

    You suggest labour need to increase their vote from the pool of non-voters in groups likely too favour them but improving amongst C2s would help as well. It could be argues Labour have a coalition with leads with of the worse off and the much better off who don’t mind paying more Tax but are less popular amongst the middle group for whom higher taxes, or worries about higher tax, can be a dissuader.

  28. Jim Jam (et al),

    Both parties had a historic bias in support from different class groups. The changes this time in fact generally acted to cancel the existing bias one way or the other, both parties making ground where previously they did badly.

    It could be argued the result is class is less important than previously in determining vote.

  29. From the Times, the wonders of capitalism…

    “Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons are running trials of electronic labels which allow them to change prices at the click of a button. This would let them react to events and remove or introduce offers, increasing the price of ice cream during a heatwave, for example.”

  30. I get than Danny,

    I think the issue for Labour is where, in addition to retaining the 2017 voters, do they get the extra needed to become at least the largest party in the HOC? Are there enough DNVs or do they need some Tory-Lab switchers and if so how do they get them?

    Triangulation is out and it can’t just be goodies. They could just wait for the Tories to lose some support but there is no guarantee of this despite their current travails and I don’t think it is the current LP leaderships way to hold tight and wait for Tory support to wane.

  31. Like low cost airlines Carfew and train operators just on FMCGs.
    As long as pricing is clear and competition is genuine what’s the problem.
    Might to be to shift stock as well so can be for cheaper goods.

  32. @JimJam

    Well they’ll be able to update prices in twenty seconds, and in the article it talks of prices changing as you shop. Buy if you’re sure there can’t be any downsides…

  33. Buy = but

  34. Competition is the key Carfew.
    I recall the petrol station in Bristol that exploited the blockade in 2000 (I think) by virtually doubling prices as they were the only place for miles around with any fuel left.

    They made oodles but months later they went out of business as customer exacted revenge.

    If Supermarkets increase prices at short notice to customers detriment as long as alternatives are available they will lose business over time.

    Natural monopolies are different of course.

  35. Another big day in politics. DUP deal/no deal and EU expat info.

    DUP deal/no deal (odds from betting markets)
    1/ C+S deal (90%)
    a/ BAD deal – CON cave in with big spending promises that trigger Barnett formula and upset SCON and Wales. IMHO should have walked away, GBP might not react but sets a bad precedent for Brexit talks
    b/ GOOD deal – CON use it as a “get out of free” card and agree on mild drop in austerity and chance to shift to Centre in budget. Specific spending confined to Brexit related issues and hence does not upset SCON or Wales. IMHO good for GBP and good for Brexit talks

    2/ No deal (10%)
    a/ DUP asked for too much and were turned down but still abstain in QS. IMHO not as bad as likely reaction would suggest. LAB will find it difficult to lure DUP on terms that even CON could not except without offering same/more to SNP and WLAB so they won’t be able to form a govt and a CON zombie govt survives for a while.
    b/ DUP asked for too much and LAB lure them to join them in forming a govt (probability of this is IMHO so low that hardly worth discussing but its not 0%)

    Once we have the info I hope YouGov do a ‘Live’ poll to see the reaction.

  36. I think labour just need to keep doing what they are doing – campaigning and arguing their case. Winning people over.
    Doing this – getting people to come to you rather than going to where you think people are – has seen them significantly increase their vote share.
    If it ain;t broke .. etc

    A big part of labour’s problem was not their policies but how they were perceived on issues of credibility and competence.
    I suspect that this is still an issue suppressing their vote share – but a combination of corbyns transformation into calm and compassionate uncle and the tories travails has reduced this as a factor – also corbyns success has spiked the guns of his opponents witin the PLP – so they come across as more united and corbyn more authoritative.

  37. EU expat deal. Similar outcome branches

    1/ Deal
    a/ Our terms are generous but not a cave-in and EU meet us with some mild compromise from there side fairly quickly – GOOD
    b/ We cave in – BAD

    2/ No deal
    a/ EU instantly turn down a fair and generous offer – V.BAD
    b/ EU like the way it is going but need to discuss further – ominous/OK

    Again I hope YouGov do a ‘Live’ poll to measure response and other polling companies ask more detailed question as/when the dust settle and initial emotional reactions can be discounted.

  38. @ SEACHANGE / BBZ – thank you both for your informative and helpful replies y’day.

  39. reggieside – agree totally with
    ”getting people to come to you rather than going to where you think people are”

    It is useful to know though why some people who on the face of it people who should be with you already aren’t and increased credibility and greater unity may be enough. Addressing directly any misconceptions they may have is not moving to where people are it is just explain where you are differently.

    Learning what these misconceptions are is important.

  40. @JimJam

    “competition is key”


    Yes, which is why they have a habit of thwarting competition. If price of ice cream goes up in a heatwave, this is not competition keeping prices down is it…

  41. My typing carp so re-posted

    It is useful to know though why some people who on the face of it should be with you already aren’t and increased credibility and greater unity may be enough. Addressing directly any misconceptions they may have is not moving to where people are it is just explaining where you are differently.

  42. @Reggieside

    “A big part of labour’s problem was not their policies but how they were perceived on issues of credibility and competence.”


    That’s half of it, the other half is the promotion of “crises” to trump normal policy concerns, whether immigration, austerity, SNP holding balance of power etc.

  43. @MarkW

    “This continued under New Labour indeed, reducing our state housing resources and fueling rising rents and the current issues with a shortage of good affordable housing.”


    With proceeds of growth not being redistributed as effectively as before, wages stagnant etc., restricting housing supply and the resulting house price rises allowed home owners to keep gaining in some way and hence willing to vote for whoever was in when house prices rose. But of course over the longer it has issues we are now seeing…

  44. Carfrew, and land banking, an expolsion in BTL by non professional landlords, rip off renters fees, reduced tenancy security.

    In 1987 my Dad told me to buy a house and lent me 2000 deposit and said I should be quick or houses will go up fast. I am so glad I took his advice.

  45. @MarkW

    Some of that, land banking, BTL, is leveraging the government policy on housing supply. Expecting prices to keep rising is what justifies land banking. So it becomes a bit of a self-fuelling cycle, the more so when rising prices attract foreign investors, bidding prices up further etc.

  46. JimJam
    “I think Pete B meant the one after that so turnout will increase at the next GE and until Labour Elected. ”

    That’s exactly what I meant. I should have expressed it more clearly. Thank you for elucidating.


    Not sure if anyone already linked to it, but Ipsos Mori have released their “how they voted in 2017”
    Well worth a read

    Colin mentioned in a previous thread and it’s very interesting indeed, but it’s worth warning about its limitations. MORI’s figures, as they are the first to remind us, are based entirely on their own polling on the run up to the election. So it isn’t really How Britain Voted, but how some people said they might vote, spread over the seven weeks before.

    According to the commentary:

    the sample is based on 7,505 GB adults aged 18+ (of whom we have classified 5,255 as likely voters, using the same definitions as in previous election estimates), interviewed by telephone and online between 21 April – 7 June 2017. I reckon 4397 were from their published phone polls and combining phone and online polls is rare (though not unknown, Ashcoft’s was also mixed mode) and may have hidden problems. The total sample is smaller than either Ashcroft or YouGov, both of which are of actual reported votes and it means that the figures from some of the subsamples will be based on a few hundred respondents if that.

    Also turnout is based on whether the likelihood to vote of those polled[1] which has then been calibrated to match the final actual results and turnout at a regional level, which should make them a more accurate guide to how different sub-groups voted. So that’s also a bit artificial. There doesn’t seem to be any input from the BBC Exit Poll, which MORI helped with.

    The great thing about this exercise though is that MORI has been carrying out this every election since 1979, without a lot of change in methodology. So when you’re comparing changes over time (as Richard did) it can be quite useful despite all the reservations. But there is a tendency for journalists to quote the MORI figures as if they were gospel and you do need to understand the limitations, which MORI do make clear.

    [1] Of course, as I said in a previous thread, if MORI had actually just done this on polling day rather than apply all sort of corrections, they would be up there sharing the smugfest with Survation.

  48. @ROGER

    It sounds like they normalised it relative to the actual result, so it seems unlikley that they could have predicted the result without the correct weightings! Whatever survation are doing must be more on the money. Even pollsters have cognitive biases, but as many have said, developing better sampling techniques is the main solution. Perhaps the further we get from the census the harder that becomes?!

  49. Thanks Roger for that advice and clarification.

    Personally I would be surprised at UKIP 2015 going 60% Can and 16% Lab in the end, it maybe that early responses skew the average. Nearer 50/20 would be my take.

  50. From the Mori analysis linked by Roger Mexico, this bit struck me:

    ‘Only around one in eight of those who did not vote (excluding those who were too young) in 2015 or in the 2016 referendum voted this year, but around six in ten of those who did voted for Labour.’

    This corrects an impression that some people had (including me) that a large part of the Labour surge was because they enthused non-voters to an overwhelming extent. Clearly they did gain from this group, but not so massively as I’d imagined.

1 7 8 9 10