There’s normally a somewhat quite period in terms of voting intention after an election. There’s just been an actual vote, newspapers have blown all their polling budget during the campaign and even pollsters have to have a holiday. Sample quotas and weights all have to be rejigged as well (that applies even when polls have got an election correct – most polls’ quotas or weights include voting at the previous election, so 2015 targets all need replacing with 2017 targets).

We’ve had two Survation polls earlier this month, both showing Labour leads. Yesterday’s Sunday Times also had a new Panelbase poll, their first since the general election, and also showed Labour ahead. Topline figures there are CON 41%(-3), LAB 46%(+5), LDEM 6%(-2), changes are from the actual election result (or at least, the Great British vote share at the general election – the vast majority of opinion polls cover Great Britain only, not Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

It’s an interesting rhetorical question to ponder how much of the shift in public opinion since the election is because of the general election result (Theresa May’s figures have dropped now she is the PM who called a snap election and lost her majority, Jeremy Corbyn’s have shot up now he is a leader who deprived the Tories of a majority when he’d been so widely written off), and how much is the continuation of trends that were already there in the general election campaign? In other words, if the election had been a week later, would the trend towards Labour have continued and would they have been the largest party (or the Tories less able to form a viable government?). We’ll never know for sure.

605 Responses to “Panelbase/Sunday Times – CON 41%, LAB 46%, LDEM 6%”

1 11 12 13
  1. Danny

    “because it was true?”

    No, because, just as the last 1% shows lack of understanding of real processes. But I’m glad that you want the restoration of the 12-hour working week.

    Anyway, Capital, Chapter 9, Section 3, the critique of your claim was made in 1867.

  2. Not week, but day.

  3. Laszlo,
    I do love chasing points so found a link discussing it.

    Marx argued that costs occur equally throughout time worked, so simply eliminating one hour from the day might eliminate a proportion of production but eliminates an equal proportion of costs. That isnt really the sitution here, but also Marx was likely wrong. The 2008 recession caused UK productivity to fall, which essentially means people are sitting about being paid but producing nothing, costs did not fall in proportion to production. Similarly, marx was probably wrong at the time that costs would be wholly proportionate to the time in which work was taking place. I’d guess that the less industrialised something is, the greater is the proportion of labour cost, rather than machines lying idle. So probably more true then than now.

    But even if Marx is right and earnings per hour worked are maintained as the total volume of work falls, that still implies a fall in income for everyone. Personal finances also work on the principle that the first tranche goes to housing, then food, car, fixed necessary costs, and only the overtime on that last extra hour is available for leisure. The first slice of production lost is always the profit and hits people immdiately.

  4. “It’s easier for Germans, Dutch and French and so on to snaffle our jobs since so many of them speak our language too. But we can’t all learn all their languages to compete…”
    @Carfrew June 29th, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    Dutch, German and all the Scandinavian countries — I agree. (And many in Spain and Italy, too.)

    But definitely not France. Of all the countries I’ve visited in Europe, and I have been to many (but not all) of them, English is widely spoken everywhere except France. They seem to have a similar chip on their shoulder to the British.

  5. Back to the boundary review in London. Electoral calculus had Labour up 1 and conservatives down 5 with 5 less seats.

    Can see why looking at the electorate

    If you sort by electorate all the larger constituencies are Labour and higher number of lower electorates conservative.

    Is this because more are now enrolled in the Labour constituencies.
    Also Kensington/ Cities of London/ Chelsea Fulham/ Putney lowest. Is this due to land banking?

1 11 12 13