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 8 9 10 11 12 13
  1. @Oldnat

    Did you hear PM today (radio programme not Mrs May)?

    Interesting chat about the Russian issue…

  2. CMJ

    No. If I’m listening to radio at that time of day, it’s more likely to be Radio Scotland (partly because their traffic and weather reports are relevant to me).

  3. Most of my day has been spent in the garden, now that the worst of winter is past.


    I understand the point you are making but at no stage did the left wing within Labour try and openly destroy either Blair or Brown. It seems the Labour right wingers would rather have the Tories in power than Corbyn. They are an absolute disgrace and should be kicked out of the party.

    The over reaction to this spy story is absurd. A spy gets poisoned. Big deal. As the Princess says hundreds possibly thousands of people in THIS country are dying in impoverished conditions every year. Perhaps all of this suits the Tories as a distraction from the Brexit shambles. A bit of flag waving always does the trick. National crisis. My arse.
    Besides where is the conclusive evidence the Russians have carried out this attack? Innocent until proven guilty unless it suits.


    If you recall the rough time the Russia bit started it would help anyone interested to listen to it on the web or the radio iPlayer.

  6. Just going through the OPCW



    1. States Parties shall consult and cooperate, directly among themselves, or through the Organization or other appropriate international procedures, including procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter, on any matter which may be raised relating to the object and purpose, or the implementation of the provisions, of this Convention.

    2. Without prejudice to the right of any State Party to request a challenge inspection, States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of any two or more States Parties to arrange by mutual consent for inspections or any other procedures among themselves to clarify and resolve any matter which may cause doubt about compliance or gives rise to a concern about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. Such arrangements shall not affect the rights and obligations of any State Party under other provisions of this Convention.

    So it looks like the twenty four hours given to the Russia doesn’t meet the treaty requirements.


    Of course, the actions of the UK are not part of the treaty.

    So the question is, will this issue be dealt by the OPCW in any way?

  7. @Barbazenzero

    I think about 1735.



    Thanks – will listen later.

  9. The New York Times (13th March 2018) quotes the Russian scientist, Vil Mirzayanov, the man who co-developed the poison Novachok who now lives in the USA. He says that the Novachok was manufactured only in Russia and that tons of it were produced.

    “”Novichok was invented and studied and experimented and many tons were produced only in Russia. Nobody knew in this world,” Mirzayanov said in an interview Tuesday at his home in a leafy suburb 35 miles (56 km) southwest of New York City.”


  10. Good Evening all from a cold and windy Bournemouth.
    Since this is a site about polling I have a question:
    ‘Will the fact that the UK PM’s briefing of Jeremy Corbyn about UK intelligence concerning Russian murder attempts in Salisbury have any impact on the polls in the light of the fact that JC and his cadres have apparently rejected this briefing’s analysis?

    IMO. Yvette spoke well today in the House.

  11. Despite what the New York Times reported yesterday about the place of manufacture of Novichok being only in Russia it was reporting something different in 1999.

    This year the source of the information is said to be 83 year old Vil Mirzayanov. In 1999 the source of the information was Vil Mirzayanov..

    “Vil S. Mirzayanov, who worked for more than 25 years in the Soviet chemical weapons program, has told them and later said publicly that the plant [Nukus, in Uzbekistan] was built to produce batches, for testing, of Novichok.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/world/us-and-uzbeks-agree-on-chemical-arms-plant-cleanup.html binary weapons designed to escape detection by international inspectors.”

    So why did Mr Mirzayanov say in 1996 Novichok was manufactured in Uzbekistan and then in 2018 say it was only manufactured in Russia?

    The NYT did not check the files it seems.

  12. @ Crofty

    I also take your points on board but it is more a case of measuring the disloyalty than it is about having a different opinion. As Mike Pearce says the left in Blair’s days, perhaps because of numbers as much as anything, never seemed to be plotting and scheming the way that some Labour rebels have done and are doing today over a relatively small issue. At the end of the day so far we have 23 diplomats expelled and royals not going to the footie as the difference between the Tories and what Labour might have done if Corbyn was Prime Minister. In neither case is this a game changer. So they are getting stroppy over a holding position of more information/certainty and a different approach as to how to go to the international community.

    “What our once great Labour Party has become” was one of the quotes I saw today from a Labour rebel. On the Tory benches I really only ever see Anna Soubry showing this sort of disdain and she is actually just being her honest self. While there is plenty of spinning and general naughtiness from other Tories it is all carefully controlled so as not to undermine the leader (too much!).

    In his rebel days, Corbyn tended to just make a speech in the commons and vote. It feels to me like Labour rebels are doing much more over less.

    Also you hint at the Corbynites being in control of the Labour Party, but actually this seems a lot less than what Blair was up to and the control freakery that went on with his government. No de-selections to date and less imposed candidates. The new democracy for members also means if members change their views then so will the direction and leadership. This is very different from the Blair days when it seemed pointless being a member if you had no influence on what he chose to do. Labour “centrists” have every opportunity to convince the members, recruit, win arguments and may do so in the future- I just think the issue is the way in which they are going about it.

  13. From Scot Goes Pop on the MORI Scottish poll
    A technical point that will only be of interest to geeks [1]: you may remember that during the indyref campaign we assumed (but didn’t know for sure) that Ipsos-Mori were only contacting telephone respondents by landline, which could have meant they were interviewing a disproportionately small ‘c’ conservative sample. They now seem to be conceding that point by noting: “Our sample now includes a small proportion of mobile numbers as well as landline.” I’ve no idea when exactly they made that adjustment, or how much difference it’s making to headline results.

    [1] That’s us!

  14. @Alienated Labour
    Sorry for taking a while to respond – been busy with work…
    First up, I am not a right winger – mildly left of centre economically and strongly liberal in terms of individual freedom according to Political Compass.
    I am talking from some experience of dealing with, working in Russia and with Russians; what ordinary russians genuinely believe to be true is scary.

    You can put together a cult of personality around the leader, a commitment to nationalistic expansion, the promotion of capitalism as a tool to be used to strengthen the ‘nation’, ethnically-based exceptionalism, a complete disregard for the welfare of ordinary people, for the truth or for international opinion except as it serves the leaders’ purpose, suppression of free media and outright manipulation of elections up to and including murdering the opposition, and decide that it is not fascism,

    Fair enough – maybe my definition of fascism is incorrect; personally I think the Meriam-Webster definition fits precisely:
    ‘a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.’

  15. Just to point out that a young policeman [not a spy I’m sure] and a young woman, who just happens to be the daughter of of spy, have been caught up in this, with potentially life-changing alterations to their lives.

    So “it was just a spy so who cares?” isn’t really the point.

    I must say that I can’t see how a major fall-out with Putin, at a time when we are isolated in Europe and pretty friendless in the USA, greatly benefits the UK.

    However, international relations and espionage are not my specialities – thank goodness. What a life that must be.

  16. CROFTY

    Many people are dying in this country in impoverished conditions. They are far more worthy of the hysteria and gross over reaction than this alleged Russian attack.

  17. Bigfatron

    While I don’t particularly like the definition of fascism by the 7th congress of the Comintern (too late and not giving enough actionable points), it’s still better: “the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”

    Togliatti’s lectures on fascism give a very Italian specific definition (the alliance of the owners of latifundia and finance and industrial capital with the support of the middle classes) – the lectures are quite interesting.

    The whole point is bringing together the commonalities of different parts of the world while preserving differences (like fascism in the Baltic state, Pilsudski in Poland, Horthy in Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Italy and of course the third Reich. Not ve r successful, but it is essentially the alliance of the privileged using particular methods (which is important) of creating a coalition behind their own interest, which culminating in sustaining the power at any cost (after all, the German finanzkapital agreed with the Western Allies what can be bombed and what cannot).

    On this basis Putin’s regime is not a fascist one – there is massive ploughing of the social conscious (trying to avoid automod), but it is more like an autocratic system, in which the privileged classes are dependent on the state (unlike Germany where Himmler kissed Krupp). It is not pleasant at all. Also, Putin doesn’t have his own movement, so it’s a highly fragmented society rather than the Ein Volk, ein Reich, eith Führer.

    SO, more like the Tsarist stuff.

  18. MIKE

    I don’t disagree.

    But I don’t see that outrage at one excludes outrage at any others.

  19. I have resisted to comment on the chemical attack (that’s actually the one that should be in the centre), and will do so, but just three small points:

    1) they are alive, so it suggests the method of administering it
    2) it is reinforced by the fact of traces in the restaurant but not in the bar
    3) it couldn’t be done person in the restaurant (we would know it by now) thus it was either somebody on the street before arrival, or a person administering it whose action wouldn’t be obviously suspicious in the restaurant (which gives two likely options), or something happened that is not disclosed to the public (perfectly understandable).

  20. CROFTY

    Being a spy is high risk. You take your chance. I just don’t see this as remotely the national crisis that it’s being made out to be and once again the right wing rags ably supported by treacherous Labour MPs see fit to attack Corbyn for having the temerity to suggest due process take place.


    Thanks again. Well worth a listen and you were right on the timing.

    Goodish coverage in the Indy, particularly their Corbyn likens evidence Russia behind nerve-agent attack to WMD dossier. Astonishing that his colleagues seem to want to repeat their folly.

  22. Emily Thornberry has written, well in my opinion, about the validity of the evidence she has seen; that the Putin Govt was behind the attacks in Salisbury and she offers her full support to UK Government.

    Brave woman.

  23. @Alienated Labour – not in Leicester West they wouldn’t; and I would dearly like to give Liz Kendall my vote!

  24. Rather like the Russians Corbyn has no interest in so called due process taking place.
    Corbyns only interested is not blaming the Russians for this incident,like the other groups he has supported down the years from middle eastern terror groups to the IRA to hold any of them to account would be to go against the view he holds of Socialism.
    He is a an appeaser who’s actions today were disgraceful he has been quite rightly chastised by members of his own party for his weasel words sadly very little of this will be noted by the public but heaven help the U.K. if this man ever gets the reins of power and the U.K. comes under threat from a foreign power no doubt there will be pictures of him waving a piece of paper just as nato is attacked.

  25. @Barbazenzero

    No problem.

    I know the place in the programme from when I hit the M62 coming off the A1(M).

    Like clockwork most nights :-)

  26. “CHRISLANE1945

    Emily Thornberry has written”


  27. CMJ

    Just listened to that too.

    I’m disappointed that May is only expelling 23 Russian diplomats. Had she expelled a further 34, that would have matched Sir Humphrey’s advice to Jim Hacker as to the correct response.

  28. Crofty


    Possibly on the wall of a toilet cubicle in the HoC?

  29. “OLDNAT


    Possibly on the wall of a toilet cubicle in the HoC?”

    What do you know about chrislane1945?????

  30. @ MP

    “[various] see fit to attack Corbyn for having the temerity to suggest due process take place.”

    While I’ve never been fully convinced by Corbyn, I have to say that he does seem to get criticism from all the expected sources whatever he does. One moment it’s “He is not providing strong opposition to the government” and the next it is “He shouldn’t question the government about this”.

    At some point, whoever is doing all this mud-slinging is going to realise that it may actually be boosting his popularity, rather than reducing it. Brits do love an underdog.

  31. TrigGuy

    “Brits do love an underdog.”

    A common meme – but is there any evidence to support the idea?

    When the UK was topdog, they didn’t appear to demonstrate such an attitude.

    Is this yet another manifestation of UK exceptionalism? How does it square with the attitudes of the Brits in NI?

  32. @ OldNat

    76 diplomats was the magic number for Sir Humphrey:


  33. James E

    Thanks for the correction. So May is an even greater failure than I thought! :-)

  34. I’ve found this on Kevin Maguire’s Twitter feed:

    Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire
    Labour’s Emily Thornberry says there’s “prima facie evidence” against Russia and “supports all the measures announced by the Government in response to it” – stronger than Corbyn

  35. Thanks for that post Turk @9:39 I needed a laugh.

    By the way, the real story here (apart from this being the firing gun for another attempt to remove Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership) is that Theresa May refused to a) hand back the hundreds of thousands of pounds given to the Tories by Putin’s oligarchs and henchmen and b) her refusal to support the magnitsky act, which would prevent London being used as a safe haven for these criminal oligarchs.

    Ironically, although the pathetic excuse we have for a press barely mentions is, Corbyn’s position is by far the more punishing of the two. Sending home diplomats is a slap on the wrist, but going after their money laundering operations is far too much for a party so deeply in thrall to corrupt Russian billionaires

  36. @ ON

    “A common meme – but is there any evidence to support the idea?”

    Good point. If true (and it’s far from proven, as you say), maybe it’s something that developed in the 20th century, as Empire waned and the UK psyche had to console itself with being a plucky underdog, no longer a major power. So it sympathises with others in the same position.

  37. CMJ

    Though “prima facie” does just mean “at first sight”.

    It’s hardly sufficient to mount a diplomatic war, though governments in deep trouble do love wars (of any kind) to divert attention from their failings.

  38. @Oldnat


    Every case that goes up to a court has prima facie evidence against the defendant.

    Not all are found guilty.

    If prima facie evidence was all that was required, there would no need for courts, or an independent review of all the evidence.

  39. Emily Thornberry has written, well in my opinion, about the validity of the evidence she has seen; that the Putin Govt was behind the attacks in Salisbury and she offers her full support to UK Government.

    Brave woman.

    From the quotes from Kevin Maguire, I think that she isn’t saying anything much different to Corbyn really.

  40. Well heres a thought, people asked about the Russians motivation. Stir up the nationalistic elements in the Uk and distract from the government’s failings with Brexit, to boost the chances of Brexit going through.

    Certainly getting lots of publicity, which was clearly an objective for the attack, whoever carried it out.

  41. The most likely scenario is that it was the Russians who did it , but a great many of us simply aren’t prepared to take the security services word for it (after all they have a long history of party political interference and undermine the Labour party, not to mention sheer incompetence) and would instead prefer some sort of process and investigation with evidence that can be publicly verified before making any conclusions.

    Anyone who believes a word the British security services say is a fool as far as I’m concerned


    Spot on. It’s also amusing that Turk attacks Corbyn yet keeps his mouth shut about all the money the Tories have received from Russian oligarchs. The hypocrisy is laughable

  43. @Alienated Labour, @Mike Pearce

    …and would instead prefer some sort of process and investigation with evidence that can be publicly verified before making any conclusions.

    Can I suggest an investigation by the OPCW, after they have had time to test a sample and interview the Russians and any other person/organisation they see fit to investigate?

    That should be based on evidence and more independent?

  44. Just a question, if neither the Queen or the PM are going to the World Cup will England have to play three at the back?


  45. Peter

    Presumably the BBC will loyally decide not to broadcast the English games against Tunisia and Panama, so we may have to rely on reports smuggled out by fearless couriers – or maybe from the English team themselves, when they fly home on 29 June.

  46. Without wanting to play down the worrying and serious nature of the latest developments, I wonder if this ‘event’ is big enough for the electorate to take notice and perhaps we might finally see a shift in the polls. Though I’d be hesistant to predict a direction.

  47. Anecdote time

    Overheard lots of talk about the Russian spy thing at work today. Sounds like mostly people don’t care about the Russian spy getting poisoned and lots of micky taking of May, her response seems to have made her a laughing stock. It got bigged up far too much, now she looks incredibly weak.

  48. What a strange day that was.

    Corbyn asks perfectly reasonable questions of the Government by quoting what Theresa May said on Monday when she said she didn’t know if it was Russia or a rogue Russian gang operating in the UK. He condemned the attacks only for May to get up and say he didn’t …that was bonkers.

    The Sky falls in, with ‘Team Tantrum’ Labour’s usual suspects rushing to support the Tories because of their baseless outrage in a ‘get Corbyn’ moment, followed by an attempt to put down an early day motion supporting the Tory Government….that was bonkers.

    Laura Kuenssberg and the BBC start suggesting that there is some unwritten protocol between the parties that in cases of security both sides of the house are meant to blindly follow each other in some kind duty where awkward questions must be left for another day…and Corbyn broke this….that was bonkers by the BBC.

    Then, just to top this whole farce off, we have President Macron of France (that centrist darling of the said Labour ‘moderates’) not only coming down on Corbyn’s side, but going further still by pointing out
    “We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made.” ….so surreal that it barely was reported.

    It must have been national Squirrel pointing day.

  49. “It must have been national Squirrel pointing day.”


    It’s possible that it’s like that most days. There are lots of squirrels, you see…

  50. @OLDNAT

    “Brits do love an underdog.”
    A common meme – but is there any evidence to support the idea”


    Yes, this is a worrying development, people thinking positive things of Brits! Good job you’re on hand to stamp it out!

    (Anyway, for evidence, look no further than Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards…)

1 8 9 10 11 12 13