Seeing more consist single digit figures for the Liberals now
Political polling
- Thread starter brogdale
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Mad outlier (YG have the gap at 11 as did at least one other company over the weekend, the others on 8%), The guardian doesn't have the best record on reporting surges. The three other weekend polls had UKIP on 18, 19 and 20%.
Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls
Tories draw neck and neck with Labour as Ukip support falls
They're now using it as a stick to beat Labour with. Jonathan Freedland has already written a piece linked to it entitled "This poll is bad news for Labour, however you spin it"
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
ICM has a good recent track record though?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you asking me or telling me? What are you judging on? Predictions for locals?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Almost certainly a rouge poll. But will be used by the blairites and co to further wed labour to neo-liberalism ('labour must capture the middle ground - as blair did so brilliantly' etc)Interestingly Labours dip in the polls over the past few months coincides with them loudly signing up to austerity and going quiet about the vaguely left of centre stuff.
JimW
支那暗杀团
I agree with other comments -- huge outlier.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I saw this on UK Polling Report and thought it needed a mention it's a bit late though. Some polling on Trade Unions. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7862 Worth reading both the links he cites from IPSOS-MORI.
If you look at the recent poll, it's a really encouragng set of data for a trade unionist in Britain, especially seeing as it was done directly after the Unite/Falkirk scandal. But less comforting if you're a Labourist.
On the question "Trade Unions are essential to protect workers interests" the survey said 78% agree and 14% disagree with a huge 44% saying strong agree comapred to 6% strongly disagree. The questions "Most trade unions are controlled by militants and extremists" (which is a bit of a leading question I think) and "Trade Unions have too much power in Britain today" both show a clear majority disagreeing with the question. This backs up other polling data that I've seen which puts Trade Unions comparatively highly in terms of which public institutions are trusted and which ones aren't.
Contrast that with research done in the past by Ipsos-Mori and you'll see just how positive these public perceptions of unions are.
The only questions that come back with more negative attitudes are ones related to the Labour party. "It is a good thing for Trade Unions to play a role in selecting Labour candidates." was 28% agree and 55% disagree, strongly agree at a dismal 8%. Of course this is coming off the back of the Falkirk thing but still, it seems to have worked for now. And "Labour should not be so closely linked to the unions" scored similarly 53% disagree and 28% agree. So 28% is broadly in favour of the Labour-Union link as it is, and 53-55% are broadly against it. However it might be worth noting that at least some of those will be people who don't like the union link to Labour because they dislike Labour rather than the unions having political influence in general. The question doesn't make any specifications about this. But still, shows what a weak position McCluskey and the other unions are in when it comes onto clinging onto their status and influence in the Labour party.
If you look at the recent poll, it's a really encouragng set of data for a trade unionist in Britain, especially seeing as it was done directly after the Unite/Falkirk scandal. But less comforting if you're a Labourist.
On the question "Trade Unions are essential to protect workers interests" the survey said 78% agree and 14% disagree with a huge 44% saying strong agree comapred to 6% strongly disagree. The questions "Most trade unions are controlled by militants and extremists" (which is a bit of a leading question I think) and "Trade Unions have too much power in Britain today" both show a clear majority disagreeing with the question. This backs up other polling data that I've seen which puts Trade Unions comparatively highly in terms of which public institutions are trusted and which ones aren't.
Contrast that with research done in the past by Ipsos-Mori and you'll see just how positive these public perceptions of unions are.
The only questions that come back with more negative attitudes are ones related to the Labour party. "It is a good thing for Trade Unions to play a role in selecting Labour candidates." was 28% agree and 55% disagree, strongly agree at a dismal 8%. Of course this is coming off the back of the Falkirk thing but still, it seems to have worked for now. And "Labour should not be so closely linked to the unions" scored similarly 53% disagree and 28% agree. So 28% is broadly in favour of the Labour-Union link as it is, and 53-55% are broadly against it. However it might be worth noting that at least some of those will be people who don't like the union link to Labour because they dislike Labour rather than the unions having political influence in general. The question doesn't make any specifications about this. But still, shows what a weak position McCluskey and the other unions are in when it comes onto clinging onto their status and influence in the Labour party.
Oh yeah on a similar note, this is a poll Lord Ashcroft has done of Unite members of who they would vote for.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/07/len-is-right-unite-members-are-not-queuing-up-to-join-labour/
Some interesting result but at the same time should be treated with a little bit of caution, when someone commissions a poll about their political opponents it's a very different thing to when they commision a poll into their own party. Some of the questions are leading questions too, phrased in such a way to elicit a certain response, but still Ashcroft's poll are generally accurate and trustworthy so worth taking seriously.
It suggests something I mentioned above - that a lot of Labour voting Unite members object to the current political levy and the amount of money that gets spent on bankrolling the party. 49% of Unite members said they'd vote Labour, compared to 23% Tory, but when askeed about funding Labour he writes "Only just over a third (35%) of Unite members – including only two thirds of those who said they would vote for the party in an election tomorrow – agreed that donating to Labour “is a good way for unions to advance the interests of their members”. Nearly two thirds thought “unions could do more to advance their members’ interests by using the money elsewhere” and on Labour in general he notes "Only 42% said the Labour Party was doing a good job of representing the interests of ordinary working people in Britain, while 47% said it was not."
Labour aren't going to be able to win the support of the unions and their millions of members if they don't have anything to offer them politicall. They thinking that the opt-in system won't matter because even though there'll be a reduced number of affiliates there's ways around the gap in funding that would cause, and they'll still get the one-off payments at election time but if that's what they're banking on they're fucked because the TU's aren't going to do that. Miliband's making a right mess of this. The Unions and Unite know that the opt-in system is going to be introduced, I presume they were fairly nonplussed about it because they figured there'd be some way around it, but reducing their influence at conference and trying to force them out of the party will have a different affect.
Progress know if that Ed Miliband make a mess of this not only are they going to lose the affiliation money, but also the one-off donations as well, and there isn't a replacement for that. Progress know this and don't care because even if they cripple the party financially and they lose the general election coz of it, it doesn't matter to them, because the LP will be utterly dependent on Lord Sainsbury and co for it's funding, and that's what Progress is trying to do, make Labour dependent upon big rich individuals for it's money so they can control it's policy and have the final say.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/07/len-is-right-unite-members-are-not-queuing-up-to-join-labour/
Some interesting result but at the same time should be treated with a little bit of caution, when someone commissions a poll about their political opponents it's a very different thing to when they commision a poll into their own party. Some of the questions are leading questions too, phrased in such a way to elicit a certain response, but still Ashcroft's poll are generally accurate and trustworthy so worth taking seriously.
It suggests something I mentioned above - that a lot of Labour voting Unite members object to the current political levy and the amount of money that gets spent on bankrolling the party. 49% of Unite members said they'd vote Labour, compared to 23% Tory, but when askeed about funding Labour he writes "Only just over a third (35%) of Unite members – including only two thirds of those who said they would vote for the party in an election tomorrow – agreed that donating to Labour “is a good way for unions to advance the interests of their members”. Nearly two thirds thought “unions could do more to advance their members’ interests by using the money elsewhere” and on Labour in general he notes "Only 42% said the Labour Party was doing a good job of representing the interests of ordinary working people in Britain, while 47% said it was not."
Labour aren't going to be able to win the support of the unions and their millions of members if they don't have anything to offer them politicall. They thinking that the opt-in system won't matter because even though there'll be a reduced number of affiliates there's ways around the gap in funding that would cause, and they'll still get the one-off payments at election time but if that's what they're banking on they're fucked because the TU's aren't going to do that. Miliband's making a right mess of this. The Unions and Unite know that the opt-in system is going to be introduced, I presume they were fairly nonplussed about it because they figured there'd be some way around it, but reducing their influence at conference and trying to force them out of the party will have a different affect.
Progress know if that Ed Miliband make a mess of this not only are they going to lose the affiliation money, but also the one-off donations as well, and there isn't a replacement for that. Progress know this and don't care because even if they cripple the party financially and they lose the general election coz of it, it doesn't matter to them, because the LP will be utterly dependent on Lord Sainsbury and co for it's funding, and that's what Progress is trying to do, make Labour dependent upon big rich individuals for it's money so they can control it's policy and have the final say.
tbtommyb
Well-Known Member
Interesting how strong the support for the benefit cap is in Ashcroft's poll
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/
That's not surprsing at all, any poll that uses the term £26,000 without qualification on what that can potentially include comes back with the same result. The use of the figure £26,000 implies that anyone who's signing on get's £2000+ a month direct into their bank, when in actual fact Housing Benefit makes up the biggest part of that. Ask the question "should rent controls be introduced to lower the Housing Benefit bill and reduce living costs or should there be an arbritrary cap" instead and see what sort of result you get. When polls have been more specific and avoided using politically loaded terms the picture is a bit more mixed. Hence what I said about leading questions, remember this is a poll that's been immediately published in The Sun and The Mail and is part of a concerted Tory party PR campaign so should be treated with a little bit of caution.
Delroy's analysis above (which is great IMO 
) makes me wonder whether there's been any polling on the benefit cap specifically, where the questions actually explain it properly? Questions that actually outline how few claimants/claimant families actually see £26,000? And why they do, (insane housing costs etc.) if they do ...
) makes me wonder whether there's been any polling on the benefit cap specifically, where the questions actually explain it properly? Questions that actually outline how few claimants/claimant families actually see £26,000? And why they do, (insane housing costs etc.) if they do ...butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Remember the Guardian going crazy over this poll of theirs, headline of the site for 36 hours, numerous attack on Ed Miliband launched off the back of it etc Their latest poll (well the Observers, and diff pollster but the point is the papers reaction) is New poll gives Labour 11% lead - not given quite so much prominence.
So after all that shit about falkirk, all the blairite hysteria about Labour's poll ratings collapsing along with the cries of "we're gunna lose coz Lynton Crosby!!" and yet here we are, a few weeks down the line, and Labour are steady away on 38-40, just like they've been for the best part of 2 years.
Labour's vote went down a bit during the falkirk episode but now all that's slipped off the front pages it looks a bit like a return to the previous trend. Look at how they operate though, the Labour right. They manufacture a scandal out of some arcane selection process bullshit (in this case a union steward going around his local pub and workplace having the temerity to get people to join the party they pay for and founded) working in perfect unison with the Tories and their PR machine, that temporarily gives Ed Miliband a slight reduction in the Labour polls. This is then spun, in both the Telegraph and the Guardian alike, as proof they need to cut the union link and save Labour from Len McCluskey, who they're desperate to turn into the new Arthur Scargill. They undermine their own party and work with the Tories, even if it means damaging their election chances, and why do they do this? Because they read the polls just as avidly as we do and they know that in 2015 Ed Miliband, much to their chagrin, is on course to win the next election, with a new batch of Unite sponsored MP's with him, and then they're fucked. That's what they're scared of. I said it a while ago they'd rather bring the temple down on their heads than allow there to be 40-50 Unite backed MP's in the Parliamentary Labour Party, that's the holiest of holies you don't want that rabble getting rid of the PLP gerrymander. It's desperate shit, fight to survive stuff.
I'm not saying it's certain Labour are going to win the election though, which is what I was about suggesting a year ago when they were polling 15 ahead, this little episode has shown how weak the lead is for Labour. But if the polls are right, and if the by-election and local results are right, then it's goodnight vienna for the Tories in 2015. If the Lib Dems collapse in the Labour marginals, if UKIP can get a respectable general election performance and hurt the Tories in their heartland and as long as Ed Miliband doesn't fall over into the see whilst out taking a stroll with his wife during the election campaign Labour should be easily capable of getting the 35% they need to get a majority.
Labour's vote went down a bit during the falkirk episode but now all that's slipped off the front pages it looks a bit like a return to the previous trend. Look at how they operate though, the Labour right. They manufacture a scandal out of some arcane selection process bullshit (in this case a union steward going around his local pub and workplace having the temerity to get people to join the party they pay for and founded) working in perfect unison with the Tories and their PR machine, that temporarily gives Ed Miliband a slight reduction in the Labour polls. This is then spun, in both the Telegraph and the Guardian alike, as proof they need to cut the union link and save Labour from Len McCluskey, who they're desperate to turn into the new Arthur Scargill. They undermine their own party and work with the Tories, even if it means damaging their election chances, and why do they do this? Because they read the polls just as avidly as we do and they know that in 2015 Ed Miliband, much to their chagrin, is on course to win the next election, with a new batch of Unite sponsored MP's with him, and then they're fucked. That's what they're scared of. I said it a while ago they'd rather bring the temple down on their heads than allow there to be 40-50 Unite backed MP's in the Parliamentary Labour Party, that's the holiest of holies you don't want that rabble getting rid of the PLP gerrymander. It's desperate shit, fight to survive stuff.
I'm not saying it's certain Labour are going to win the election though, which is what I was about suggesting a year ago when they were polling 15 ahead, this little episode has shown how weak the lead is for Labour. But if the polls are right, and if the by-election and local results are right, then it's goodnight vienna for the Tories in 2015. If the Lib Dems collapse in the Labour marginals, if UKIP can get a respectable general election performance and hurt the Tories in their heartland and as long as Ed Miliband doesn't fall over into the see whilst out taking a stroll with his wife during the election campaign Labour should be easily capable of getting the 35% they need to get a majority.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
"Labour are steady away on 38-40, just like they've been for the best part of 2 years."
38 to 40 in what is essentially mid-term is not that good at all. It's probably not enough to get an overall majority even now, and that's before the tory bribes and other bollocks have kicked in. It's easy to see why people might be worried for them, and they deserve it. They've been very disappointing as a functional opposition. Their sole strategy seems to have been to do fuck all for 5 years, cross fingers and hope that the Xs fall the right way one Thursday. It's dismal, if we had a democracy rather than a corruptocracy it would be insulting to it.
38 to 40 in what is essentially mid-term is not that good at all. It's probably not enough to get an overall majority even now, and that's before the tory bribes and other bollocks have kicked in. It's easy to see why people might be worried for them, and they deserve it. They've been very disappointing as a functional opposition. Their sole strategy seems to have been to do fuck all for 5 years, cross fingers and hope that the Xs fall the right way one Thursday. It's dismal, if we had a democracy rather than a corruptocracy it would be insulting to it.
No, that's enough for a landslide. If Labour gets 40% or close enough to it then they've won handily.
Bribes and handouts, listen to yourself. Look at the long term trend. It probably will get narrower at the election too, but that just means a small labour majority instead of a big one. Hung parliament is possible, but a Tory victory? Very unlikely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23551323
Tories hire Obama's campaign chief/polling guru, Jim Messina, who apparently is a genius and razor sharp, a gamechanger?, apparently L/P tops are going ballistic even while on holiday, etc.
Tories hire Obama's campaign chief/polling guru, Jim Messina, who apparently is a genius and razor sharp, a gamechanger?, apparently L/P tops are going ballistic even while on holiday, etc.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I would never say Tory victory was likely, though by now it should totally off the cards.
But I was wrong about the 40%, though not a landslide I was thinking old days when about 42 was needed to guarantee OM (maybe slightly less for Labour) Now with "others" doing better (not least UKIP) that stat has probably come down.
JHE
.
What a tart! I must admit, I don't quite get it. Do shits like Messina do it for the money? The challenge? The profile? The hell of it?
Anyway, no, I don't think it's a game-changer. The Tories already have plenty of people - not least Cameron and his chum Osborne - who know a thing or three about political campaigning.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course he does it for money - or maybe his infamous gay-baiting ad expressed his real views? Sometimes money and views coincide. What's to get?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Here we go again with the Guardian's dishonest reporting Thus time:
Labour in trouble as public back Tories over economy:
This is beyond naked.
Labour in trouble as public back Tories over economy:
This is beyond naked.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Here we go again with the Guardian's dishonest reporting Thus time:
Labour in trouble as public back Tories over economy:
This is beyond naked.
Yeah, the headline does not reflect the 'headline' numbers. They needed to be much clearer about the economy sentiments if the article was to stack up.
So, unsurprisingly, as a result of the onslaught of recovereh stories, the improved 'confidence' will obviously disproportionately benefit the incumbents.
So debt is good now?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Almost like of a series of figures (labour leading on NHS and all sorts) they picked one to present a false picture in order to support it.
Speaking of recovery, I noticed this graph from this article from liberal conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/0...y-not-if-you-look-behind-the-topline-figures/ if you want to get a sense of how much recovery is going on.
Also worth pointing out that what little growth there's been is still below the rate of inflation and below the cost of living, so that in real terms we're still in recession and things are still getting worse for most working people. Real value of wages is still in decline, share of wages as a percentage of GDP still in decline, a real fucking mess tbh.
Also worth pointing out that what little growth there's been is still below the rate of inflation and below the cost of living, so that in real terms we're still in recession and things are still getting worse for most working people. Real value of wages is still in decline, share of wages as a percentage of GDP still in decline, a real fucking mess tbh.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That Guardian piece is an astonishing piece of reporting - it manages to equate unhappiness at the current economic situation with anti-labourism. It's a an absolute disgrace from word one. Julian Glover used to write these open lies, now we get Rajeev Syal, Rowena Mason and Simon Neville to smear it around.
Similar threads
