We’ve had three voting intention polls in the last couple of days:

  • Ipsos MORI‘s monthly political monitor had topline figures of CON 43%(+4), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 6%(-3). Fieldwork was over last weekend (Fri-Wed), and changes are from January. Tabs are here.
  • YouGov/Times on Friday has toplines of CON 41%(nc), LAB 43%(+1), LDEM 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Mon-Tues and changes are from last week. Tabs are here.
  • Survation/GMB, reported in the Sunday Mirror, has CON 37%(-3), LAB 44%(+1), LDEM 9%(+1). Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday, and changes are from the tail end of January. No tabs yet.

There is no clear trend – Labour is steady across the board, Survation have the Tories falling, MORI have them rising. MORI and YouGov show the two main parties neck-and-neck, Survation have a clear Labour lead.

The better Labour position in Survation is typical, but it’s not really clear why. As regular readers will know, Survation do both online and telephone voting intention polls. Their phone polls really do have a significantly different methodology – rather than random digit dialling, they randomly select phone numbers from consumer databases and ring those specific people. That would be an obvious possible explanation for a difference between Survation phone polls and polls from other companies. However, this poll wasn’t conducted by telephone, it was conducted online, and Survation’s online method is pretty similar to everyone else’s.

Survation’s online samples at the general election were much the same as everyone elses. The differences were down to other companies experimenting with things like demographic turnout modelling in order to solve the problems of 2015, approaches that ultimately ended up backfiring. However, polling companies that got it wrong have now dropped the innovations that didn’t work and largely gone back to simpler methods on turnout, meaning there is now no obvious reason for the difference.

Meanwhile, looking at the other questions in the surveys the YouGov poll also included their all their regular EU trackers, following Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn’s speeches. Neither, unsusprisingly, seem to have made much difference. 29% of people think that the Conservative party’s policy on Brexit is clear, up on a week ago (25%) but still significantly down from January (37%). 36% of people say they support May’s approach to Brexit, barely changed from a week ago (35%). For Labour, just 18% of people now think their Brexit policy is clear (down from 22% straight after Corbyn’s speech), 21% of people say they support the approach that Jeremy Corbyn is taking towards Brexit.

640 Responses to “Latest voting intention polls”

1 11 12 13
  1. Sam

    Thanks for the RTE link.

    I’m going to hazard a guess as to the eventual WA agreement.

    1. UK will fold on the EU families (numbers unlikely to be that great)
    2. EU will find a form of words that would allow the transition period to be extended by mutual agreement/financial safeguards etc, and allow Davis to claim a huge victory
    3. On the Irish border, the fall back provision will remain in place, but the UK will be able to trial their technological solution during the transition to demonstrate it can work.

    I disagree that “that Mr Davis does not realise”. I’m quite sure that he knows only too well what a weak hand he has, and that his blustering is only designed to stop the pack behind him tearing him to pieces – in a Micauberish way.

  2. @ Alberto
    Shall we ban stupid people?

    V funny. No I don’t want to ban the people, just the guns. Few people in GB — outside game-bird blasters, farmers, etc — have much if any interest in guns & support strict gun laws. A restriction on our liberty is more than compensated for by a sense of public security.

    It has been said that the young kids protesting against guns in US are being manipulated: some have been disciplined by their schools. While children are in a position of diminished responsibility, they have a right to Ist Amendment protection where their interests are at stake. I am always struck by the fact that kids have an acute & accurate sense of justice/injustice.

  3. @ Alberto “This I find a selfish act and the antithesis of patriotic virtue.”

    Yes, there is something rather repugnant about well-off types applauding Brexit whilst insuring themselves against its economic risks: leaving those unable to do so in the lurch.

  4. @BigFatRon

    “It’s the same line as Carfrew takes, only more extreme…”


    No t isn’t, you’re just a bit confused about Liberalism.

    You pointed out in the past a different take on Liberalism. That it is about doing whatever is consistent with allowing people to be more free.

    If that means more socialism, more controls on the free market, so be it.

    This is an interesting take on Liberalism, derived in the era of Keynes, when the problems of traditional Liberalism became clear. To try and rescue things, folk like Beveridge tried tacking on a load of Socialism.

    Traditionally, however, Liberalism was very much about the METHODS, notably ensuring rather limited government involvement in the market, etc,

    And in the Sixties, things reverted to a more traditional approach to Liberalism again, where it was about pressure to keep freeing up the market etc.

    In all this, one accepts you have a different take on what Liberalism is, where you can even be socialist so long as it helps people be more free in the long run.

    (I should add, that one accepts your point when you point to folk like Blair being more authoritarian than a typical Liberal. It’s just that few politicians are purist and so it’s about what does the overall balance lie).

  5. Laszlo

    Have you seen the reports of the Irish courts referring an EWA case to the ECJ before coming to a decision?


    Contrary to the views that some have expressed on here, it is extraordinarily difficult politically for the EU to take effective action against states that flout EU principles.

    The courts have previously been more effective, and this case looks interesting.

    It may also have an effect in Catalunya, where the Spanish use of courts to jail people for their beliefs, and refuse them medical treatment is in clear breach.


    “No I mean liberalism, and that’s not a definition of liberalism I would accept”


    Yes, after giving BFR’s definition of Liberalism careful thought, it’s clear it doesn’t really stack up, it’s a Liberal apologia really.

    For example, BFR’s definition was that Liberalism was to be defined as a GOAL, to make men more free, whatever that requires. As opposed to Liberalism being about the MEANS, markets with less government action etc.

    But if you take that key tenet of socialism, that the workers control the means of production, this fits BFR’s maxim. Because if the workers control the means of production, that increases their freedom.

    Thus Socialism is Liberalsm! Or else BFR has been eating cake.


    Only the truly mad would suggest that the state should be running a public construction firm. Issues with the AWPR are an indication that the Scottish government made a poor choice of contractor, not evidence that procurement as a whole is a bad idea. It’s a bit like concluding that because the cowboy you hired has done a bad job you should have built your house extension yourself (and indeed that everybody should be obliged to build their own extensions in future), when the reality is that you should have picked a different builder.


    Productivity is a measure of how much additional value is achieved from a given input. If you lend someone £100, they make £110, and pay you back £105 then you have both profited to the tune of £5. You will have provided the input of capital needed in the equation, and even if their productivity may not have increased as a result, their output has and the relationship can still be mutually beneficial.

    The output, as it were, is GDP. You can still have productive investment and growth in the economy as a whole, even if productivity is flatlining. Even, indeed, if GDP is flatlining or falling, as your investment might be creating growth while other areas of the economy are contracting. It’s not a zero sum game where the proceeds of investment must have somehow been stolen from the pocket of someone else.

  8. Davwel

    “So our papers are also telling us that a section of the B979 linking the AWPR will be closed from Friday evening till Monday morning with not even walking allowed. But residents stranded in their houses can apply for taxying out for urgent matters.”

    That may not be a wholly accurate account.

    According to Transport Scotland “For safety reasons, it will not be possible to permit through access for pedestrians or cyclists on the B979 Netherley Road; however, a taxi service will be available to provide transfers to the other side of the closure via the diversion.”

    As a matter of interest, from that birds eye site that you have mentioned, how many houses are between Mains of Ury and the junction with Glenury Road (that’ll be the bit under the viaduct?) I used to know the area reasonably well, but there has been a lot of building since my day!

  9. @ ALEC – I did chuckle at your 5:21pm, I do laugh when you chastise others for the very thing you do! Your “I’m not the one claiming near certainty in my views” :-) :-)

    So, OLDNAT’s link is the EC’s 15Mar updated draft of their 28Feb draft not a set in stone final agreement. Phase 1 was a fudge and we all agree those matters are still outstanding. Your “Ergo” seems to have either forgotten both the remarks and c96 in the Joint report or assumes we’ll capitulate and agree to everything in EC’s updated draft

    It would be interesting to see what has changed since 28Feb – it is 4pages longer!! Personally I’ll wait until UK has replied but if anyone wants to compare the two then the old version (which didn’t go down well with the home team) is here:

    Obviously EC want us to legally commit to the payments and obviously we don’t want to do that until we’ve (from c96 in the Joint report) ” tak(en) into account the framework for the future relationship, including an agreement as early as possible in 2018 on transitional arrangements”.

    While we wait for UK response perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly how and when the UK side would be legally committed to payments. I’ve suggested the ‘triggers an timings’ and you did seem to accept that concept, however, please offer the timings and triggers as you see them.
    NB I know Remain and EUphiliacs find UK democracy repugnant but please try to include the role of UK (and EU) parliaments in your ‘triggers and timings’. I would also add that Leave side have lawyers ready to respond if required (although I hope and doubt it will come to that).

  10. OldNat

    Thanks for the link. Yes, it is very difficult for the EU, and because of political considerations, they are even more constrained.

    The legal route may work, although the ECJ is not what it was 20 years ago (which is both positive and negative).

  11. @ OLDNAT – your 7:17pm sounds reasonable to me. Having seen the contortions and amount of rule bending that ECB and EC went through to “stick to the rules” (Maastricht, SGP, etc) in the bail outs then I’m hopeful they’ll find some way to bend the rules on Brexit – preserve the integrity of the SM whilst hopefully giving something May can sell to HoC towards the end of the year. It might well be some inefficient botch on customs arrangements but we know they can do bespoke and rule bending when they want to!

    I’m more than happy to let ‘economics’ solve the net immigration issue as it already is (finally some life in most of EU27 so job opportunities there at last and also the currency moves making UK less attractive). If you take out students (as IMHO you should) then the latest ONS data shows we’re under 100,000 net immigration already.

    Let May+Rudd make a show of adopting the Belgium approach to FoM (workers not people) and settle for some of the tweaks DC had previously negotiated and I reckon the immigration issue wouldn’t be something ERG folks would ‘nit pick’ over. I hope so anyway!

  12. Carfrew

    The basic principles of liberalism are derivatives of the Declaration of Men and the Citizen, the idea that the role of the citoyen and the bourgeois could be united permanently and not only in exceptional situations.

    It’s extreme version – the Vienna School – drives it to its logical conclusions which also exposes its inadequate answers. Social democracy actually starts from the critique of it, so it inevitably shares a lot of points with liberalism.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by socialism (as far as I know none of the social democratic parties have a programme point of giving the means of production to the direct producers as a collective.

    As a matter of fact even communism shares many facets with liberalism (for example the attempt to define “responsible citizen).

  13. Laszlo

    Judges are, of course, wholly devoid of emotion, and the members of the ECJ won’t let the Polish attack on the Irish judge influence them in even the smallest degree.


  14. OLDNAT

    You may be right that a fudge will allow Brexit talks to move to Stage 2. I think a standoff more likely. Both sides want an orderly Brexit. That said think the EU has had enough of the UK approach to negotiations. This has been characterised by bad faith. In these circumstances the EU will be reluctant quickly to go down the road to a hard Irish border. I think there will be hardball from the EU.

    And this …?


  15. @oldnat

    Re the Irish border, technology and the transition it appears that the DExEU Minister Suella Fernandes said in Parliament today that the ideas in Smart Border 2.0 document was not sufficient to meet the UK Government’s objectives and commitment on the Irish border. So the UK Government is looking for a solution which doesn’t exist to start trialling in 12 months time. And how can it be trialled in a period which is intended to keep things as they are?

  16. “Laura Matthews from the charity Women in Sport says girls think sport is not for them when they hear boys being told they “throw like a girl”.”

    I shouldn’t think it does a lot for the confidence of the boys either.

    [Not that I’m suggesting that there’s anything wrong with throwing “like a girl” of course – some times you don’t want things to go too far.

  17. Laszlo

    What is your info re the Gen Sec?

  18. @Laszlo

    All sorts goes into the agree that makes up Liberalism. Most ideologies are a complex of things. The British view of it also built on the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill for example.

    To define an ideology in terms of some declaration of freedom is a bit problematic however, in that many ideologies claim to be enhancing people’s freedoms and opportunities etc.

    It is no surprise when different political doctrines have some commonality. Look at the discussion over authoritarian communism and fascism for example.

    BFR’s view of a the Liberal will share many things in common with other ideologies.

    Yes, Social Democracy has stuff in common with Liberalism and one wonders if BFR isn’t really a bit closer to Social Democracy.

    The important point, in trying to navigate the thicket of the things ideologies have in common, is to distinguish between goals and means. That’s what naturally happened in the authoritarian communism/fascism discussion.

    Because the goals of each differ rather. But the methods and hence outcomes are rather similar.

  19. Sam

    At this point, I suspect that both the EU and the UK understand the reality perfectly well.

    The side that has the power (EU) knows that it has hardly had to deviate at all from its game plan, the unprepared wee contestant knows this as well.

    It is always wise to offer the loser a face saving way out.

    Trialling the UK’s technological solution (during transition, when it is simply a trial exercise) loses them nothing.

    If (as most expect) it doesn’t work, then the back stop applies. If it does, then it becomes a model to ease trade restrictions around the world.

    Setting a date for the end of transition but (as with A50) allowing an extension by mutual agreement again loses the EU nothing at all.

    As to the DUP, any arrangement that shifts the actual implementation of those aspects of the WA to the end of the transition period (thus close to, or after, a UK GE) would be to the general benefit, as it marginalises the DUP even further.

    What are they going to do in the HoC? Vote down a Tory Government? And on what issue?

    EVEL prevents even a complete alliance of all other parties imposing anything on England. All such an unlikely alliance could do would be to prevent English Tory MPs legislating for England on some matter.

    The behaviour of a number of Lab MPs suggests that even in a vote of confidence, an outbreak of undiplomatic flu might mean not all Lab MPs were able to troop through the lobbies, as they might pass on the infection!

  20. Democracy and Brexiters bringing back control to Westminster:


  21. agree = brew

  22. Hireton

    Is that the same Adam Biekov who use to be known as “Tory Troll” always nice to hear a balanced view .

  23. Hireton

    “So the UK Government is looking for a solution which doesn’t exist to start trialling in 12 months time.”

    That’s not the EU’s problem! If the UK isn’t able to demonstrate that its idea works, then the back stop applies.

    “And how can it be trialled in a period which is intended to keep things as they are?”

    Trialling something, needn’t change practice. Existing rules apply, and all the UK has to do is to demonstrate that their putative systems work in parallel.

  24. @Turk

    Are you disputing that Davis said this? If so please link to the reference.

  25. It was perfectly reasonable thing for Davis to say, my point is you quote somebody who is not only anti Tory but anti brexit so whatever he states and you post is from a particular point of view with a particular spin.
    That’s why I rarely post quotes I find on line because like you I would only post quotes that suit my particular view regardless if its heavy dosed with spin and taken out of context.

  26. @Turk

    No it was a simple post of fact without any spin. The vest of your post says a lot about your attitude to facts and discussion.

  27. New YouGov poll gives stories 3 point lead:


    No doubt @Turk will feel that Sam Coates is biased and unquotable!

  28. Times reporting

    Amongst *Labour voters* in this week’s YouGov poll, how did they judge Corbyn’s handing of the aftermath of Salisbury incident
    38% well
    18% badly
    44% dk

    Of course, we don’t know if some of that 18% were disappointed that Corbyn hadn’t sworn undying support for Putin, others that he hadn’t sworn undying support for May, while others might have wanted him to offer undying support to “that actress, What’s her name? In that film. You know the one. What’s it called?”

  29. Hireton

    Please don’t throw your toys out of the Pram because somebody challenges you .I personally couldn’t care less what you consider to be the truth that’s a matter for you. Asto Sam Coates whoever he is ,I assume he is just passing on a genuine fact that this particular poll shows a Tory lead, in case you don’t know that’s the difference between a fact and a opinion.

  30. @Trevor Warne – “Your “I’m not the one claiming near certainty in my views” :-) :-)”

    Indeed. That’s why I gave the example of us all waiting for the TMO’s decision and said only that I ‘suspected’ that I knew what the result would be. I am willing to accept that I may be wrong, and in time we will have the definitive judgement. I was just pointing out that @TOH is being a bit premature in celebrating a goal as he doesn’t yet know the outcome.

    “Your “Ergo” seems to have either forgotten both the remarks and c96 in the Joint report or assumes we’ll capitulate and agree to everything in EC’s updated draft”

    Again, you appear to conflate clause 96 and the ‘future framework’ with a full trade agreement. This is incorrect, and is a misunderstanding of A50. This is where your misunderstanding seems to crystalise. The WA is not contingent on a trade deal, nor will it be possible to reopen the terms of the WA once signed as part of trade talks. The UK’s only options are to sign a WA and get the transition period (that May asked for) or not sign the WA and crash out next March. Once signed, we have accepted the legal requirements to pay the money as agreed.

    You are correct in pointing out that the draft hasn’t yet been agreed, but it is worth noting that no objections have been raised by HMG to any of the clauses related to the money.

    Anyway, I’m happy to stop boring everyone else with this and await the results. You believe the WA will remain unsigned until a trade deal is agreed, which will be well after we enter the transition period, and that therefore HMG can renege on agreements already made on the money if we don’t get the trade offer we want. [Can’t quite get my head around the logic of a WA that defines the transition period not being signed until the end of the transition period, which is what you seem to be suggesting, but hey ho].

    I believe that we’ve already agreed to the EU’s timetable, which is to get a WA signed by October 2018 at the latest so it can be ratified by March, and that once signed we can start the transition and get on with trade talks, after having made binding commitments on the money.

    Our respective positions are clear, so perhaps best to await the TMO’s decision?

  31. New thread up on the latest Yougov.

  32. OLD NAT

    “Amongst *Labour voters* in this week’s YouGov poll, how did they judge Corbyn’s handing of the aftermath of Salisbury incident
    38% well
    18% badly
    44% dk”

    You omit in your comment – rather oddly for a Scots rationalist – the probably high proportion of the 38% who thought that his refusal to react without having the evidence, and to point to the possibility that this was a rogue element in the Russian system, was politically both brave and astute in response to May’s seizing of her Falklands moment.

  33. New thread

    John Pilgrim

    I also didn’t mention the loyalists who would have said his response was good – whatever it had been – or the 44% who may well have felt it was a bloody stupid question.

  34. ON:

    If you mean the ground NW of the railway on the Ury Estate, I would think its about 200 houses now, but I haven`t been in there for 12 months or so. The AWPR construction is best avoided!

    The house sales are being used to finance the reconstruction of the derelict Ury House, a Victorian mansion, which will function as hotel and clubhouse for Jack Nicklaus` golf course. But the mix of house types has been getting changed in response to the depressed housing market, so maybe there will be smaller houses but more of them.

    The Ury developments have been controversial, and I think I told you before that the estate was proposing a different route for the AWPR and a better design for the B979 junction. I got called in by the estate to comment on the botanical impact, and found their argument on the AWPR route and junction design compelling.

    However, I haven`t approved their proposals for chalets and prestige villas in the woodland up the hill. This was called ancient woodland by many conservationists but we couldn`t argue the case too vigorously because it wasn`t primary ancient woodland but a secondary recolonisation of moorland centuries ago.


    The Scottish Government aren`t the only body who chose Carillion – it`s not easy to predict collapse, nor to distinguish between the capabilities of quite similar big construction firms.

    But operating by having consortia of 3/4 companies to safeguard against collapse also has its problems.

    Some local council capacity to build small bypasses and do repairs is surely a good thing, but I certainly recognise major work is for the private sector.

    When 2 years ago the Dee flooded and nearly swept away Abergeldie Castle, c. 100 m of the A93 collapsed into the river. The children in Braemar couldn`t get to their secondary academy in Aboyne. But Aberdeenshire Council in 2/3 weeks got a new length of road built c. 400 m long to go round the collapse, using their own staff and equipment.

    This winter a landslip has cut off about half the houses and the harbour in Gardenstown village. Three months on, the road is still blocked except for very short openings to allow refuse collections. I think the Council`s abilities have got so run down due to the cutbacks that they are struggling to deal with the situation.

  35. @Garj

    That might be the idea but it isn’t the reality. The problem is that the returns on capital investment have been more than the increase in output for some time. Asset bubbles and chasing rent revenues give better returns than real productivity increasing investment so naturally that’s where the capital goes.

    So with flatlined productivity there are no more real goods and services produced but the capital owners have more of the money. That means they have control of more of those finite goods and services, and those without have less. So it is a zero sum game without growth. The small amount of growth we have had is mostly due to immigration so doesn’t increase standards of living.

    You are certainly right that some investment is better than others. However the wealth of the capital owners is growing not stagnant. So simple churn isn’t what is happening.

  36. OLD NAT

    “I also didn’t mention the loyalists who would have said his response was good – whatever it had been – or the 44% who may well have felt it was a bloody stupid question.”

    Yes you might have.
    This atrocity was certainly symptomatic of a vicious and irresponsible Russian dirty warfare capacity, but the action of elements in the system running a side-show. There will be plenty to hang around Putin’s neck without incurring the costs of,an almost certainly unsubstanable accusation against the Russian state.

  37. crofty,
    “Are you suggesting we would have looked better by doing nothing?”

    I dont know what we could do. However, it looks to me exceedingly likely we will threaten Russia and then be unable to carry out the threats. So we show we are powerless and he is not. Or, Putin wants us to impose sanctions, because it then allows him to portray himself as the saviour of an embattled nation. Sounds like win-win for him whatever we do. That being so, the right strategy would be not to play his game.

    “The Russians feel the can do things like this in the UK because they believe we are too weak to respond”

    Yes, but it is worse to prove them right by trying and then failing to retaliate than to hold back.

    Putin did well in the Crimea. So now he will try again in the UK. Do we, soon to be outside the EU, have any response we can make?

    “Only the truly mad would suggest that the state should be running a public construction firm. Issues with the AWPR are an indication that the Scottish government made a poor choice of contractor, not evidence that procurement as a whole is a bad idea.”

    But is it possible to make a good choice of contractor? Didnt the government prop up Carillion because it was already a very limited choice of contractor for these jobs, and would have (has?) become even more of a monopoly without them? That there are few contractors means the government is forced to accept what it gets, but even then they may be operated so ineptly they go bust. Didnt I hear Carilion was brought down by debt, which went back to the founding of the company by loan backed acquisition? The market model failed.

    It wasnt a construction company, but a financial speculation company betting on being able to rip off the government more than turned out to be the case.

    ” If you lend someone £100, they make £110, and pay you back £105 then you have both profited to the tune of £5. You will have provided the input of capital needed in the equation, and even if their productivity may not have increased as a result, their output has and the relationship can still be mutually beneficial.”

    But in Carillion’s case, capital was simply used to purchase assets which already existed, and presumaby went into the pockets of the sellers. No investment took place. These same assets previously valued at rather less and making a return on the previous owner’s investment, then failed to make a higher return to cover the larger valuation. Unsurprising, some might say.

    Most capital is never used as an actual investment in equipment or material which might enable greater production, so of course productivity isnt going up. Quite possibly, although the new owners of carillion had new bigger debts so more money had allegedly been invested, they were actually starving the company of investment into its operations so as to extract money to service the bigger debts.

    A case can be made that so long as the Uk continues on the financial trading model, it will never improve productivity, because the money is made from trading assets, not developing them.

  38. @Garj

    “Productivity is a measure of how much additional value is achieved from a given input. If you lend someone £100, they make £110, and pay you back £105 then you have both profited to the tune of £5. You will have provided the input of capital needed in the equation, and even if their productivity may not have increased as a result, their output has and the relationship can still be mutually beneficial.”


    Just because someone made a profit, doesn’t mean output must have increased.

    If you define output in monetary terms, then maybe. But if you define it in terms of how many cars produced, then maybe not.

    Even if you define it in monetary terms, there is still a problem. They could have just charged a bit more for the product for example. And if the money supply doesn’t increase that just means that money isn’t being spent elsewhere on someone else’s output. Your output in money goes up but someone else’s goes down so overall no increase in output.

1 11 12 13