I'd probably put an extension of Article 50 and a second referendum at about 70%

[Burney]

What's to stop a new law being put forward to avoid No Deal, by the way?

Well there is the nice legal question of what 'No Deal' would actually mean for a start and how one defines that in law. Then there is the fact that, constitutionally, Parliament may not bind its successors, so you cannot make it perpetually impossible to leave the EU on whatever terms you choose.
And finally, there's time. It would require an Act of Parliament that repealed the existing EU Withdrawal Act. That would take months to achieve - since it's unthinkable that such a significant Act of Parliament would be accelerated in such a way as to skip the committee stages.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

No Deal might damage them in the short term (but, btw, the UK electorate doesn't vote Labour when the economy's in serious trouble - Labour govts are an indulgence set aside for good economic - or at least optimistic - times. Voting Labour during an economic storm would be like a shipwrecked sailor choosing to cling to the anchor rather than the wreckage).

By contrast, extending Article 50 and a second vote would betray their base destroy them forever. Which would you choose?

. . . . . . . . .

[Burney]

. . . . . . . . .

Our economy is currently outperforming the rest of Europe, h. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario whereby No Deal wreaks short-term economic damage.