Political polling

[brogdale]

Two thirds of Tory joiners supported the lib dems

At risk of being superficial....I haven't got beyond the front page of the Full Report yet....I've been laughing too much at that Clegg graphic to make sensible progress...

Cover image: collected answers to the question
“what is the first word or phrase than comes to mind when you think of......Nick Clegg"

(C)Ashcroft might be a nasty, corrupt, criminal banker tory....but he does appear to have some sense of humour!

Think I might post this in the LD shit thread as well.

 

[brogdale]

Some new polling....

......there were two polls with new fieldwork out in the Sunday papers. The fortnightly Opinium poll for the Observer had topline figures of:-

CON 30%(nc), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 17%(+1) (tabs here).

A Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday had topline figures of:-

CON 31%(+2), LAB 35%(nc), LDEM 11%(-2), UKIP 16%(-1)

and European election voting intentions of:-

CON 23%, LAB 32%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 26%.

 

[brogdale]

Assuming that (C)Ashcroft shares his polling with Dave before we 'mere mortals' get access, this explains a great deal of what passes for politics so far this year....

 

[Kaka Tim]

First You gov Poll of 2014:

Lab 40%
Tory 32
Lib Dems - 9%
Ukip 12%

 

[William of Walworth]

In response to the Yougov poll that Tim posted :

Interesting thought-exercise would be to imagine how that UKIP 12% would divide if UKIP didn't exist (or were on the absolute fringe of irrelevance -- say 1% or 2% )

Let's guess : Add 8% to the Tories, and 1% each to Labour and Lib Dem figures?

Various other permutations possible, including other non mainstream parties getting benefit to a small degree. But I can't see many realistic ones that wouldn't have around half (?) or more of their figure reverting to the Tories' benefit. I appreciate butchers' consistent argument that UKIP are picking up from all parties, but surely disproportionately from the Tories -- at the moment at least.

Anyway UKIP are there and quite strong, so the above is only a thought-exercise.

 

[mk12]

If the polls continue in this way until 2015, surely UKIP will have to participate in the televised debates (assuming they will happen again)?

 

[Kaka Tim]

In response to the Yougov poll that Tim posted :

Interesting thought-exercise would be to imagine how that UKIP 12% would divide if UKIP didn't exist (or were on the absolute fringe of irrelevance -- say 1% or 2% )

Let's guess : Add 8% to the Tories, and 1% each to Labour and Lib Dem figures?

Various other permutations possible, including other non mainstream parties getting benefit to a small degree. But I can't see many realistic ones that wouldn't have around half (?) or more of their figure reverting to the Tories' benefit. I appreciate butchers' consistent argument that UKIP are picking up from all parties, but surely disproportionately from the Tories -- at the moment at least.

Anyway UKIP are there and quite strong, so the above is only a thought-exercise.

Not sure that the tories would get as much as that if UKIP didn't exist. They are sucking up a lot of the protest vote - people who hate both the main parties and many who never usually vote. Weird as it may sound - they may also be getting a chunk of votes from people who previously voted lib dem (as well as a few percent from former BNP voters). UKIP can make an emotive argument that tickles a large chunk of the electrote's clarkson zone - bloody foreigners, bloody bankers, bloody politicians, bloody europe, political correctness and health and safety nazis. The political establishment parties cant do this as they have to deal with reality - not the world according to disgruntled of Essex.

The fact that the tories have never got close to 40% of the vote since 1992 suggests that the UKIP vote are is not coming from tory voters to the extent you suggest. Maybe the tories could gain 5% from UKIP if they suddenly ceased to exist - but the tories have to appeal to a wider consituency to have a hope of winning again - and that alienates their traditionalists.

You have to laugh really.

 

[Kaka Tim]

If the polls continue in this way until 2015, surely UKIP will have to participate in the televised debates (assuming they will happen again)?

Well there's no hard and fast rules - and we've only had one set of these debates so precedents haven't been set. Seeing as none of the three other parties will want farage on the platform I cant see it happening.

 

[William of Walworth]

Taking in your points about UKIP there KT <thinks about it further>

 

[Quartz]

At risk of being superficial....I haven't got beyond the front page of the Full Report yet....I've been laughing too much at that Clegg graphic to make sensible progress...

If you were to label it Cameron or Miliband it would work just as well.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Well there's no hard and fast rules - and we've only had one set of these debates so precedents haven't been set. Seeing as none of the three other parties will want farage on the platform I cant see it happening.

I agree I suspect they will use the lack of sitting MPs as the excuse.

 

[butchersapron]

If you were to label it Cameron or Miliband it would work just as well.

No it wouldn't.

 

[killer b]

I agree I suspect they will use the lack of sitting MPs as the excuse.

and everyone will know it's an excuse. damned either way.

I suspect they'll try to avoid it happening at all this time. Dunno who'd push for it...

 

[brogdale]

Not exactly polling, but hey ho...

In his blog, Tim Wigmore of the Telegraph explores the likely electoral impact of the announced retirement of growing number of older LD incumbents. As Wigmore states, in seats with senior sitting LDs retiring...

...more than any other party, the Lib Dems rely on the incumbency factor. In 2010, the party gained 6.7 per cent from this, three times the gains for the Tories and Labour. That advantage will now collapse....that is the real disaster for the Lib Dems. Without their sitting MPs, strongholds built up over decades could collapse.

Article

 

[shagnasty]

Not exactly polling, but hey ho...

In his blog, Tim Wigmore of the Telegraph explores the likely electoral impact of the announced retirement of growing number of older LD incumbents. As Wigmore states, in seats with senior sitting LDs retiring...



Article

Add to that the lack of people to put up as candidates

 

[brogdale]

Another "Straw in the wind" moment....

Dramatic council by-election boost for UKIP in Suffolk
January 10th, 2014
Huge UKIP GAIN from CON at Haverhill East on St Edmundsbury DC UKIP 529 Lab 240 Con 157 LD 54

If this is the shape of things to come all the main parties are in trouble

Vote share changes from 2011 in the Haverhill, Suffolk, district council by election:-

UKIP 54%, (+54) LAB 24.5%, (-12.7) CON 16%, (-31.9) LD 5.5%, (-9.4)

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) January 10, 2014

The one qualification was that the turnout, at 18.5%, was very low. Even so it says something that in such circumstances it is UKIP that is makng the weather.​

 

[brogdale]

Latest Populus (online) polling:-

Lab 40%, (+3), Con 33%, (-2), LD 11%, (-1), UKIP 8%, (-1), Others 8%.

This follows the first week of YouGov daily polls which has had the Tories solidly on 32% with LAB ranging from 37% to 40%. The LDs have been on 9/10% while UKIP has been in the 12-14% range.

All of these surveys have been online and I’m hoping we’ll get the first phone polls next week.

So overall no real sign of any softening in the LAB position or improvement in the CON one. Things very much as they were.

Both YouGov and Populus weight by party ID which I believe compresses the UKIP position and helps the main parties with the Tories getting the best of it.

Thus in today’s Populus survey 196 people said they identified with UKIP – their views were scaled down to just 20.

 

[butchersapron]

Those UKIP figures look more solid by the week.

 

[brogdale]

..... this morning’s daily YouGov poll has figures of-

CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%.

Full tabs here.

 

[William of Walworth]

That byelection result in Haverhill is such a rock bottom low turnout that I'd be very cautious about making too much of it -- if anything.

 

[brogdale]

That byelection result in Haverhill result is such a rock bottom low turnout that I'd be very cautious about making too much of it -- if anything.

Oh aye, but the 'kippers could be arsed to turn out; that means something.

 

[brogdale]

The first weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is out this morning. Topline voting intention figures are:-

CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%.

Nine points is a larger Labour lead than YouGov have shown so far this week, so normal caveats apply.

Interesting stuff about economic 'feel-good' perceptions possibly showing that more folk are seeing through the neo-liberal notion of the benefits of economic 'growth'?

17% of people expect their financial situation to get better in the year ahead, 36% expect it to be much the same, 41% still expect it to get worse – a net “feel good factor” of minus 24. While other polls show people starting to think the economy as a whole is improving, they are still pessimistic about their own economic fortunes. That said, they are increasingly less pessimistic. This minus 24 is actually much less bad than most of YouGov’s polling over the last four years, only once last year did they show a less negative figure (-23 in September 2013).

 

[ferrelhadley]

"The voteless recovery"

But that recovery is far from 'baked in', lots of hints the economy may not be all that and many people are putting the current growth down to a housing bubble, a housing bubble that is putting ownership out of the reaches of the kind of people who are swing voters. A recovery that never turns up in your pay packet. A recovery that 'feels' like its for the South. Osborne and co seem to act as if everything they do is crafted to meet a tactical political need (weaponisation) but all those tactical manoeuvres are bereft of a genuine strategy to engage people outside their home turf. Its great to attack welfare claimants and immigrants, always going to get a good reception in the tabloids and easy popularity. But when it becomes a repetitive theme: when you are not looking you start coming across as the bully in country where many of the voters are wondering when it will be their turn to be picked on.

And the economy may yet wobble.

 

[mk12]

The Guardian is at it again.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/support-labour-shrinks-economic-recovery-icm-poll

Support for Labour shrinks as faith in recovery grows, ICM poll finds

Labour drops two points to 35% - three points ahead of Tories – as more people express optimism about their financial position

 

[William of Walworth]

35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, 14% Lib Dem?

Rogue poll surely.

 

[shagnasty]

35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, 14% Lib Dem?

Rogue poll surely.

Another of tonights poll as CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 9%.

 

[brogdale]

35% Labour, 32% Tory, and even less plausibly, 14% Lib Dem?

Rogue poll surely.

They could be onto a narrowing in the Lab lead, and the ICM economic confidence polling might correlate with that, but it is important to remember that ICM's polling is based upon a relatively small sample size of phone responses.(Remember that (C)Ashcroft's marginal poll was 12,000!

ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 10-12 January 2014.

 

[brogdale]

Posted in 'Shit LDs' thread as well...

Smithson seems to have regained his senses a little today with this post, outlining the unrealistic nature of LD hopes of joining Lab in coalition. Smithson assumes that, if Lab found themselves in a position of needing the LD rump, they'd have come second in terms of the popular vote...and the LDs would have some problem "in principle" with joining the party coming second in the popular vote.

The psephology looks reasonably sound, but the assunption of any principled position from the LDs is somewhat laughable. If a result like the one envisaged did pan out, I'm damn sure that any surviving LD ministers would jump at the chance of retaining their ministerial car, even if it did mean hooking up with the 'second choice' of the voters.

...what sort of result would lead to such a move. Featured below is a seat projection from Electoral Calculus on what happens on a uniform national swing if LAB gets 34% of the GB vote and CON 36%.

As can be seen although the Tories have 2% more votes Labour are closest to a majority in terms of seats.

In fact the table above flatters the Tories because the chances are that they would secure nothing like the 21 gains from the Lib Dems that the projection envisages.

With Labour apparently doing so much better in the key battlegrounds according to all the marginals polling the bias towards it is likely to be even greater.

1. 
   I’ve been playing about with the numbers and it is hard to see LAB falling short on the number of seats to secure a majority if it has come top on votes.
   The system just works in its favour so much and this is likely to be more so if there’s a disproportionate swing in the marginals.

So if there was a LD-LAB coalition it would involve the yellows teaming up with the party that was second in terms of votes to form a government. That would seem a bit odd given all that it has said over the years about electoral reform.

 

[Quartz]

I'm damn sure that any surviving LD ministers would jump at the chance of retaining their ministerial car, even if it did meaning hooking up with the 'second choice' of the voters.

Quite right.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

The Libs, will of course fudge a coalition is necessary by deciding retrospectively whether they consider the party with the most seats or the most votes to have a mandate to form a coalition.

They will also act like they are the only party that truly understands what a coalition is, and that their own self-serving reading of the situation is the only logical one and that they are bound to enter into some kind of coalition, not because they want to but because 'the electoral calculus was such that we had no choice'.