Political polling

[Onket]

Is there a site listing who is standing at the May elections?

 

[brogdale]

Is there a site listing who is standing at the May elections?

Not really, but the top PDF on this page lists the areas that are having an election, thereafter you'd have to go to the relevent LA website for a lists of the nominated candidates. I think; unless anyone knows bettter?

 

[butchersapron]

CON 31%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11% in the weekly ST/YG. With some good an bad personal ratings for Farage - i.e lots of people like him but not that many think he would be a good PM.

Terrible result buried in there for lib-dems - when asked to imagine all the parties candidates had a genuine chance of winning in their constituency next time who they would then vote for: Lds12%/UKIP 18%. Heightened expectation that they will lose is going to drive people away from them i.e collapse of anti-tory tactical lib-dem vote.

Tables here (pdf).

 

[ymu]

I'd like to see some shading - i think the article overplays labour's problems in the south - 97 showed they are not fatal, in fact a good chunk of seats are within the swing range. Not so for the tories outside the south.

I'm not sure '97 means much any more. Labour's problems in the '80s and '90s were primarily caused by the SDP. Eastleigh suggests that SDP types are flocking to UKIP. They got virtually all the protest vote there whilst Labour made more or less zero gain on 2010, which is a pretty shocking performance for the opposition in a by-election.

Some of those seats will still be up for grabs of course, but UKIP is nicking a lot of votes from fucked off Labour voters in the south. The Greens, Respect, SNP and Plaid are all out-flanking Labour on the left and should do well in the Midlands, the North and outside England

There's been an ongoing shift towards 4th parties since the 1990s but they've only just started to get close to winning seats. The detail of how the pundits are coming up with their predictions matter here. I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not sure '97 means much any more. Labour's problems in the '80s and '90s were primarily caused by the SDP. Eastleigh suggests that SDP types are flocking to UKIP. They got virtually all the protest vote there whilst Labour made more or less zero gain on 2010, which is a pretty shocking performance for the opposition in a by-election.

Some of those seats will still be up for grabs of course, but UKIP is nicking a lot of votes from fucked off Labour voters in the south. The Greens, Respect, SNP and Plaid are all out-flanking Labour on the left and should do well in the Midlands, the North and outside England

There's been an ongoing shift towards 4th parties since the 1990s but they've only just started to get close to winning seats. The detail of how the pundits are coming up with their predictions matter here. I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.

UKIP (or any of the other non big-three parties) are simply not going to be winning seats on the national level. Their only electoral effect will be on which of the those three big parties (well, it'll be mostly be two) do eventually win. In the south and midlands their vote will from the other parties will be higher from the tories and damage them directly opening the door to labour victories in swing seats, labour voters will not be going over to them en masse. In the north there will be a more even split but the end result will only effect the size of labour victories, it won't put those victories in doubt.

1997 is very relevant as it shows that under what looks like a blue and yellow blanket there are many seats prepared to swing to labour (if not have the sort of traditional commitment of other areas), whereas eastleigh had a set of conditions that will at best only happen in 3 seats tops, more likely 2 - and was a by-election, where people are prepared to vote against what they would do in a general election. And a strong UKIP vote in the south/midlands is only going to benefit labour - no other party.

 

[ymu]

i didn't say they could win seats. I said they took nearly 100% of the protest vote in Eastleigh whilst Labour made no gains. Labour should take some low hanging fruit in the south but more than that is wishful thinking. They're not winning back the SDP types and they're not appealing to their mostly non-voting base. UKIP is.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't matter to my point if you said UKIP would win seats or not (though you clearly said they were best placed to win seats off the back of the ongoing rise in 4th party votes which you expect to continue rising).

They took the protest vote and a tiny amount from labour in eastleigh precisely because it was a by-election and not a general election - and just as importantly, they took their vote from the tories and lib-dems (combined loss of 27%, UKIP rise: 24%). In many many many more seats ion the south and midlands this being repeated would let labour through.

But eastleigh does not represent the mass of seats, never mind the mass of swing seats - it had a very specific set of conditions that are not repeated elsewhere. It's eastleigh that is not relevant, not 1997 - and even if the eastleigh situation was relevant it would mean something different nationally than you imagine, it would mean many many more labour victories as UKIP open the gate for them.

 

[ymu]

One independent and two 4th parties in England have won parliamentary seats (one of them twice). None of those are UKIP.

I don't think memories are short enough for 1997 to be relevant even without the shift towards 4th parties over the last couple of decades. If UKIP don't implode by 2015 they might take a couple of head-banger seats off the Tories, but mostly they'll just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south. The Greens. Respect, SNP and Plaid are bigger direct threats to Labour. They could easily lose as many seats as they gain.

 

[butchersapron]

One independent and two 4th parties in England have won parliamentary seats (one of them twice). None of those are UKIP.

I don't think memories are short enough for 1997 to be relevant even without the shift towards 4th parties over the last couple of decades. If UKIP don't implode by 2015 they might take a couple of head-banger seats off the Tories, but mostly they'll just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south. The Greens. Respect, SNP and Plaid are bigger direct threats to Labour. They could easily lose as many seats as they gain.

Well why say:

I think UKIP's 11% is a lot more geographically concentrated than the LD's 11%, and of it is it will be a lot more efficient at converting votes into seats.

if you don't think it? And why say that you don't think they'll win seats in the post after that if you think they might?

Memories of 1997 have nothing to do with it - the electoral map not having changed enough to alter the general number of swing seats across the south and midlands that are open to labour - as shown by 1997 - is what it's about.

UKIP will not be nicking labour votes in the south - they'll be nicking them in the north where it won't have any effect. In the south they will be primarily taking votes off the tories and so helping labour to victory.

That last line is just crazy. The Greens and RESPECT are utterly irrelevant and no threat whatsoever to labour who are going to comfortably increase their total number of seats and are in no danger of losing total seats. Where do you get this stuff from?

 

[ymu]

Geographical concentration of votes is all about conversion of votes into seats. Spread too thin and you're the Lib Dems, ghettoise too much and you're the Tories. It doesn't make any difference whether they actually do convert into seats, it matters how many you're nicking off the parties that can win.

And of course memories of 1997 matter. People might be desperate to get rid of the Tories but they were desperate to get rid of Labour 3 years ago. Whatever happens in 2015, there won't be many people cheering about it. Especially if Labour win by sucking up to the south again.

There are four fourth parties outflanking Labour to the left. Don't pretend I only mentioned two of them. It makes you look dishonest.

 

[William of Walworth]

Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.

I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.

 

[butchersapron]

Geographical concentration of votes is all about conversion of votes into seats. Spread too thin and you're the Lib Dems, ghettoise too much and you're the Tories. It doesn't make any difference whether they actually do convert into seats, it matters how many you're nicking off the parties that can win.

And of course memories of 1997 matter. People might be desperate to get rid of the Tories but they were desperate to get rid of Labour 3 years ago. Whatever happens in 2015, there won't be many people cheering about it. Especially if Labour win by sucking up to the south again.

There are four fourth parties outflanking Labour to the left. Don't pretend I only mentioned two of them. It makes you look dishonest.

Yes, and you said that UKIP were best placed to convert geographical concentration into seats - as well as benefiting from an ongoing rise in 4th party voting. Then got annoyed at me even daring to suggest that you may actually have said that UKIP might win seats. Despite you saying it and then going on to say it a second time.

And yes, what matters in this case is what parties you'll be taking votes off in swing seats - that's exactly why i argued it'll be off tories more than labour and in the south and midlands. You, for some odd reason (that as far as i can tell is based on your bodged misreading of eastleigh which you then extrapolate) think they will be picking up votes off labour voters in the south thereby helping the tories. I wonder why the tories don't share this opinion?

It doesn't matter if they're cheering or not - the polls indicate and have indicated for an extended period that this is what's going to happen. Lib-dem collapse with labour picking up the leavers, tactical anti-tory non-labour voters shifting to labour, and the tories losing votes to their right to UKIP.

It doesn't matter how many parties there are outflanking labour politically to the left when this rhetorical outflanking isn't going to win them extra seats - esp seats off labour. I mentioned the first two because the other two are clrealy going to hold some of their traditional seats - that goes without saying. But the idea that the Greens and RESPECT offer a threat to labour through winning seats is crazy, an amazing piece of out-of-touchness and dressing up what you would like to see as what may happen.

And don't tell people that doing something makes them look dishonest when you actually do think they are being dishonest. It makes you look dishonest.

 

[butchersapron]

Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.

I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.

There will be no labour loss to UKIP in the north. There will be no labour loss in the north full stop.

 

[William of Walworth]

I worded that badly, I guess -- I agree. The Lib Dems being steamrollered will help that even more.

 

[ymu]

Neither have you have made much mention just above of the likely collapse or near-collapse of the Lib Dem vote, in the North especially. There, a large proportion of ex LibDem votes will surely go Labour. Could well outweigh any Lab to Ukip loss in the North.

I speculate here, but you see where I'm coming from.

Well, that's the point really. The Tories stand to win more seats directly from the Lib Dems because 2/3 of the Lib Dem seats are Tory marginals. But Labour could benefit more overall from the collapse of the Lib Dem vote where the Lib Dems are third, or in three-way marginals.

But only if Labour can actually get that collapsed Lib Dem vote to vote for them instead of a 4th party and/or get their 2010 abstainers to turn out. I don't see much evidence yet that either of those things will happen.

 

[butchersapron]

South shields this week will show what UKIP in the north are capable of with a good wind - a 2nd at best but a clear clear labour victory.

 

[ymu]

Because I said that UKIP would do well in the North, Midlands, Scotland, and Wales, right?

 

[Delroy Booth]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n0mnvjaab7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290413.pdf

This here says 22% of those who voted Tory in 2010 are thinking of voting UKIP, compared to 9% of Lib Dem voters and 5% of Labour voters. Interesting, even though it's an isolated yougov poll. Tories have the most to lose from UKIP but I reckon North Shields will show UKIP can do well in a Labour area, especially if they're taking a chunk of the ex Lib Dem support Labour is going to need to win a majority in those Lib Dem/Labour areas.

 

[Balbi]

If they count South Shields Thursday night, then expect lots of wailing about UKIP.

Will be a false result for the county council elections though, as turnout'll be different in South Shields than the wider uk.

 

[ymu]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n0mnvjaab7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290413.pdf

This here says 22% of those who voted Tory in 2010 are thinking of voting UKIP, compared to 9% of Lib Dem voters and 5% of Labour voters. Interesting, even though it's an isolated yougov poll. Tories have the most to lose from UKIP but I reckon North Shields will show UKIP can do well in a Labour area, especially if they're taking a chunk of the ex Lib Dem support Labour is going to need to win a majority in those Lib Dem/Labour areas.

Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO. But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.

 

[Balbi]

UKIP avoiding many urban centres in Northants as far as I can gauge - hitting the Tory rural seats where other parties dare not tread.

 

[butchersapron]

Because I said that UKIP would do well in the North, Midlands, Scotland, and Wales, right?

What?

 

[butchersapron]

Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO. But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.

You have, of course, something to back up this seeming, beyond your bodged eastleigh analysis?

Look at the thing that you're replying to ffs. It just kicks away any sort of point you think that you were making.

 

[ymu]

You'll need to explain that one a bit more clearly, prof.

 

[butchersapron]

You'll need to explain that one a bit more clearly, prof.

Which one? Not like you to used your academic credentials to undermine a competing point. Oh well.

 

[butchersapron]

Its been about 4:2:1 (Tory:LibDem:Labour) defecting to UKIP in lots of Yougov polls so it's a fairly solid result IMO

but mostly they'll [ukip]just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south.

eh? You go on to say:

But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.

Show how or why you think that it's different. Say why in the south in particular labour voters are looking at UKIP more than tory or lib-dem voters - and don't base it on your misreading of eastleigh - where i think you believed the NHA candidate was going to win or at least be in serious contention.

 

[ymu]

Which one? Not like you to used your academic credentials to undermine a competing point. Oh well.

I have never used my academic credentials. I have repeatedly said that academic credentials are not worth the paper they are printed on. There's a whole fucking thread on it, started for me to explain why, ffs!

I have more than an amateur interest in applied statistics. You have more than an amateur interest in political science. The fact that I had better educational opportunities than you does not excuse your rank hypocrisy.

but mostly they'll [ukip]just nick enough Labour votes to prevent them making large gains in the south.

eh? You go on to say:

But that split is a national average. Per constituency it will look very different. UKIP are attracting a lot of non- or never- voters, many of whom would be Labour or BNP otherwise and, down south, they seem very attractive to the types that abandoned Labour for the SDP.

Show how or why you think that it's different. Say why in the south in particular labour voters are looking at UKIP more than tory or lib-dem voters - and don't base it on your misreading of eastleigh - where i think you believed the NHA candidate was going to win or at least be in serious contention.

Of course it's bloody different. There's a reason the Lib Dem vote does not translate into the same proportion of seats, and why the Tories need 10% more of the popular vote than Labour to secure a majority. The Lib Dems are spread too thin for FPTP and the rich ghettoise themselves too much for electoral efficiency in a constituency-based FPTP system. This is why the proposed boundary changes are so fucking weird. Equalising the number of voters only addresses a tiny fraction of the Tory 'disadvantage'.

I think it's different because I pay attention, how else could I have a thought worth expressing? From Ashcroft's Eastleigh exit poll:



The south in is different from the north shock!

I've posted all this before. Sorry of it's news to you. I wrongly assumed you were not too arrogant to read stuff. It's that heroes and villains thing again, isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

Well, you've accused me of dishonesty hypocrisy and arrogance in a few short posts. Whilst posting the above. Whilst posting that yes polls say UKIP are winning votes from tories and lib-dem hand over fist but not from the seats that i'm on about. In those seats it's the opposite. My evidence? Well, it seems that way as i think (wrongly) that's what happened in one seat in a by-election.

Sorry, you're just simply too out of touch to do this stuff. Pay attention all you like. You are worthless in terms of electoral analysis. All you have is shouting outside chances confidently. I at least shout things that will happen confidently. Enough of you.

 

[William of Walworth]

Latest local election poll from ComRes (as reported on Huffington Post (UK)). No idea how reliable :

Support for Ukip has surged to 22% ahead of tomorrow's local elections, according to a poll published on Tuesday evening.
The latest ComRes survey suggested Nigel Farage's eurosceptic party is on course to receive a sizeable chunk of the vote tomorrow, stoking Tory fears support for the party could cost them the next general election.
The poll put the Conservatives on 31%, Labour narrowly ahead of Ukip on 24% and the Lib Dems a distant fourth on 12%.
More than 2,300 council seats are being contested tomorrow across England and Wales including the Tory heartland in the south. The ComRes poll is of these areas and is not a not a national survey.

Here the ComRes page its from. You have to download a PDF to get the actual data.

 

[brogdale]

Latest local election poll from ComRes (as reported on Huffington Post UK). No idea how reliable :



Here the ComRes page its from. You have to download a PDF to get the actual data.

Thanks for that.

YouGov's blogger Anthony has put some flesh on those figures...

(They are) NOT comparable with normal voting intention polls. It only covers the areas with local elections on Thursday, which are most rural Conservative shires and doesn’t include any Metropolitan counties… hence the fact the Conservatives are ahead. Neither is it comparable with the shares of the local election vote that the BBC and Rallings and Thrasher will calculate (the “Projected National Share” and “Equivalent National Vote”). These are both projections on what support would be across the whole country, not just where local elections are happening.
To understand the figures we need to know the votes last time round, which including the two councils (Durham and Northumberland) that actually last voted in 2008 were:-

Con 44%, Lab 13%, LDem 25%, UKIP 5% – so the changes are...

Con down 13, Lab up 11, Lib Dem down 13, UKIP up 17.

This suggests considerably bigger swings than Rallings and Thrasher have predicted.

and he even goes on to make (ever so tentative) seat predictions on the basis of this polling....

By my estimates it would produce getting on for 500 Conservative losses and 250 UKIP gains, if it is giving an accurate picture… and local election predictions are not something that there is much track record for. We shall see....

UPDATE: Peter Kellner and I have been pondering the number of UKIP seat gains if they do get 22% (the joys of the YouGov office on a morning before an election!) and how on earth you model gains when they are tripling the number of seats they contest. It’s very difficult, but I suspect I have overestimated it a bit… though even assuming a higher base level of support in the areas they didn’t contest in 2009 (and therefore a lower swing in the seats they did) if they do get 22% they should still be looking at well over 100 seats. Suffice to say, how many seats UKIP will get on Thursday is still incredibly hard to predict.

Hmmm...who'd have thought that the locals could be so interesting!

ps Fraternal May Day greetings to one and all!