FEW things unite Conservatives more than their love of power.

It’s an admirable trait in politics. You can only change things if you are in power; something the disciples of Jeremy Corbyn too often forget.

So yesterday’s new opinion poll, putting Labour in the lead by five points, will have caused Conservative MPs to splutter over their breakfast.

It may yet turn out to be an outrider, but the utter chaos engulfing the Tory party suggests the findings are a reflection of voter anger with the current government.

And whether they are on the Dominic Grieve wing or the Jacob Rees-Mogg wing of the party, Tories don’t want to lose power. For that reason, a General Election looks like an increasingly unrealistic path out of the Brexit mess.

READ MORE: Brexit: DUP will continue to vote against Theresa May's deal

It always sounded like sabre-rattling from the Prime Minister anyway. A ploy to generate easy headlines about the possibility of a snap election and terrify Tory MPs on wafer-thin majorities.

They would much rather wait, choose a new leader, and hope to regain a healthy lead in the polls before even contemplating going to the country. The fact that Labour came from 20 points behind to deprive the Conservatives of a majority in the last election has not been forgotten.

Jeremy Corbyn himself no doubt relishes an election, but many in his party do not. The party’s manifesto would promise to negotiate a "better" Brexit deal, as if there is anything better than the current deal the UK enjoys as a member state with our ridiculously generous opt-outs.

The manifesto process itself could lead to deeper splits within the party.

And does the SNP really want to gamble on holding on to those Central Belt seats with majorities of under 100?

So, despite the rhetoric, few in the Commons really want a General Election.

For the Prime Minister, it is just yet another blunt tool in her armoury as she tries to get her deal through at the fourth attempt later this week.

But before then, today sees the latest round of indicative votes.

Talks have taken place behind closed doors over the weekend in the hope of finding a proposal that can command a majority in the House.

On paper, the most likely winner is the Ken Clarke amendment for a "minimum" of a permanent customs union with the EU. It fell just eight votes short last week, with SNP MPs choosing to abstain.

READ MORE: MPs to take back control of Brexit agenda

That decision mystified many in Westminster and triggered something of a backlash against the Nationalists. Whatever the SNP’s motives in private when it comes to Brexit, its behaviour in public until that moment had won admiration from many in England.

The argument that Clarke’s amendment doesn’t include the single market falls flat given it was deliberately worded to ensure a customs union would be only a "minimum".

Suitably chastened, there are hints that the SNP’s MPs will today back a separate proposal put forward by Tory MP Nick Boles, known as Common Market 2.0, or Norway Plus.

It’s a compromise that comes closest to single market and customs union membership, making it the softest of Brexits. This idea was advocated by Labour for the single market campaign group well over a year ago, and it's similar to the compromise suggested by the Scottish Government.

Crucially, it would allow for freedom of movement to continue, but could pave the way for regional – or national – variations.

However, based on last week’s votes, not even the support of 35 SNP MPs will guarantee it a majority.

Another amendment likely to attract more support is the "revocation" amendment put forward by Nationalist MP Joanna Cherry. It’s a clear and sensible safeguard, but it too faces an uphill struggle to secure a majority.

So today’s results could once again resemble a Scotland football qualifying campaign: played eight; failed to reach the knockout stage.

Not that today will be the end of the matter as we’ll go through it all over again on Wednesday.

Surely that is the time to change the rules of the game, and adopt a voting system based on preferences, rather than straight yes/no answers. That might provide some much-needed clarity.

If Brexit is to happen, one of these compromise solutions is surely preferable to Theresa May’s withdrawal deal.

But the problem is that the Prime Minister can just ignore these indicative votes. And, despite comments yesterday from Justice Secretary David Gauke who said it would "not be sustainable" to ignore MPs, May will probably do precisely that.

Her stubbornness does have some advantages: the prospect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, and the catastrophe that would bring, remains slim.

She is unlikely to countenance something that is clearly opposed by the Commons, and so a lengthy extension is arguably the most likely outcome at the end of this two-week period leading up to April 12.

Thanks to the court battle pursued by six Scottish parliamentarians, we know the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 to generate a much-needed delay.

But Theresa May’s stubbornness also has disadvantages. Mystifyingly, she remains firmly opposed to the option of a ratifying referendum.

It is, by some margin, the best way to solve this crisis.

In her own words, if we have "reached the limits" of what Parliament can achieve, how about we see what the public can achieve?

The Prime Minister could put her deal to the voters, and give them the choice between a clear Brexit proposal that is supported by the EU, or remaining in the EU. What does she fear?

There is absolutely no guarantee that Remain would win this time around, and if Leave emerged victorious once again then Parliament would be duty-bound to accept the verdict.

There is a poison in our politics today, with words like "traitor" used to describe those who are working hard to solve the crisis. The country is being torn apart.

Tom Watson, the man who has done so much to hold the Labour Party together in recent weeks, yesterday said a people’s vote is now the "only way we can bring the country back together".

He’s right. MPs don’t want the chaos of a no-deal Brexit, but can’t agree on a compromise Brexit - so let’s ask the people to choose.