A YouGov poll of a thousand Conservative Party members is in today’s Observer.
- David Davis leads it with the support of 21 per cent of respondents. He led our Next Tory leader survey last month with the backing of 24 per cent of respondents.
- Boris Johnson is second with YouGov on 18 per cent. He was second in our survey on exactly the same figure.
- No-one else scores double figures in the YouGov poll. No-one else scored double figures in our survey.
- YouGov has Philip Hammond on five per cent; ConHome had him on seven per cent.
- YouGove has Amber Rudd on four per cent; ConHome had her on six per cent.
- Davis may be the top named candidate with both YouGov and ConHome, but he is behind “none of the above” with both – 26 per cent with YouGov, 29 per cent with us.
The Observer‘s poll is the first to seek the views of Party members about the next Tory leader since the election. These are early days. But, on these findings, those curious to know who will succeed Theresa May should scrap the expensive commissioning of polls – and simply read the ConHome survey each month, which they can do for free.
As readers will already have clocked, the two sets of findings mirror each other very closely indeed. The Observer doesn’t seem to have published a full table of results but, according to its report, YouGov asked respondents “to nominate their preferred candidate”. We presented readers with a list of possible candidates and a write-in option for others.
YouGov’s approach has its pluses, and also its minuses – such as the risk of Party members nominating candidates who have no intention of standing. This happens in the Observer poll in at least one case. Six per cent of its respondents opted for Jacob Rees-Mogg. But, as he told Andrew Gimson on this site last week, he will not run.
A fair question for our monthly survey is: how can one know its results are representative? YouGov must also grapple with it. “Unlike national opinion polls that are adjusted to reflect the electorate as a whole, the survey of Tory members could not be altered in the same way,” the Observer reports.