Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov asked people to predict what the national voting int
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov asked people to predict what the national voting intention figures would be at the end of 2014. Here are the results
YouGov recently ran a competition, open from January 17th-31st, that asked participants to estimate the end-of-year voting intention figures to win a prize, after Steve Thompson won last year’s competition by guessing each party’s position exactly (except for UKIP – he was 2 points high). The same question was then asked to the general public in a nationally representative survey.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That would mean we were on about 80% of the vote in our respective countries. IMHO it is a measurement of how the SNP (sorry PC) are playing way, way above our weight in the minds of respondents outwith Scotland: they perceive us as much bigger than we actually are. Someone can Google, but IIRC we only have about 25,000 members, which is a heck of a lot more than any other Scottish party (guesstimate: SLab 12,000, SCon 10,000, SLD 3,000, SGrn 1,000, SUKIP 1,000), but is a tiny number of people within the context of the UK's population. Err... you only need to substitute the odd word to see how daft that attitude is. If voting Yes is a vote for "Emperor Eck", then by the same logic voting No is a vote for Emperor Dave.
* Not me, I recognise that there are a lot of believers in Emperor Dave's chance of immortality, even though they might have many different views of how to celebrate and then mould North Britain to their own belief on how the province will be run.
Con: +6
Lab: +8
LibD: +6
UKIP: +15
On this basis the Con voters are most "realistic" about their parties prospects (with Labour not far behind) and by some margin, UKIP most "optimistic". A phenomenon not unobserved on here......
From last night's thread, while quite a few who expected "no" to prevail in the Indy referendum were willing to put their name to their predictions, rather fewer who expect "yes" to do so did. Kudos to those who did, and we know who didn't.....(yes, McChicken.....you......)
Allan Massie:
The truth is of course that the Yes Campaign is calling for a divorce, and in any separation the one choosing to go his or her own way doesn’t call all the shots and usually has to make concessions. Meanwhile the party being deserted will naturally feel aggrieved and resentful, and in that mood, will usually strike a hard bargain, protecting his or her own interests. Which is why, for the time being anyway, Westminster has ruled out a currency union. It has no interest in smoothing the SNP’s road to independence, and why on Earth should it have?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/allan-massie-currency-talk-more-than-bullying-1-3311176
OA (among VI)
Con: 31 (35)
Lab: 35 (38)
LibD: 10 (15)
UKIP: 10 (21)
Nat: 5 (n/a)
Green: 5 (n/a)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/o57kkc6s05/YG-Archive-140214- Predictions.pdf
Not a million miles from where we are today for the larger parties
Not great news for the tories in my case though.
Why on earth this should give the slightest surprise or be of the least interest I cannot say.
Rod Crosby has predicted it by May 1.
I am most interested in Rod's forecast, because it is based on mathematical modelling rather than hunch or spin. If it is proved wrong, Labour could be in business. It's ~70 days away.
They must also show splits by party support - do they show the same pattern?
@YOkel said:
"Ukraine
I have to say it looks like a very heavy Belfast night of the past, just with larger number in one place.
The tactical situation on the ground at the epicentre of trouble is not good for the protestors as it stands. Its a space that can ultimately be choked by the authorities and the street -based opposition movement will need to maintain channels. It is, bluntly, a man's fight. You look at the protestors now, its overwhelmingly men, often younger. The opposition movement has left its street fighters out which doesn't bode well for peace in the very short term.
At this point at street-level, the advantages lie with the authorities. To that end the opposition needs:
1. a loss of nerve on the political front by the President. He himself is slightly shaky and has been for a bit. Plenty of others around him are most definitely not at this point.
2. Assuming this requires being on the street to get their way, what the opposition needs is to launch out elsewhere, both in Kiev and around the country. So far this has not happened to the degree it needs to.
As a result the authorities could crack down in the one major location and finish this stage of protest. The bloodshed may be mighty but within that space the authorities have the ability to cycle resources and do a mix of holding the line and upsurges to exhaust the protestors, over days if necessary, before moving in.
The authorities do have more tools here and haven't used them . It is, believe it or not, an element of restraint or alternatively the subject to a stiffling internal debate that is stiffling the full on crackdown.
No sign of the army yet. If the current government had full control and/or direction it wouldn't need a law to bring them in, it would need an order. It hasn't come even though a significant number of military personnel have been moved closer to the action.
It is delicately poised. From the armchair, and sadly for the protestors, it looks as if they have some policy and civil affairs wonks in suits from the EU to advise them. The Ukrainian government has Putin and a fairly (it isn't 100%) solid security apparatus. Doesnt sound even does it? In reality there is somewhat more robust and dirty tactics type contacts coming from at least two EU countries. The Russians say the Europeans are stoking. On this they are correct."
On several occasions now I have found YOkel's contributions to this site more informative and to have greater insight than anything found in the MSM. I fear this is another example. Many thanks.
You've got to admit that of the two, Our Beloved FM is the only one trying to run a one party state.
Let’s see, centralisation of the Police, major changes to Scot's legal system, cutting funds to local government. All, of course, done in the best possible way of cutting costs!
And, again you've got to admit that the supporters of the SNP come from every spectrum of political opinion from far right to the mirror image of the left. I really don't think that they will all be following the Salmond line when Scotland does become Independent. They are only behind, and keeping quiet, Salmond at the moment because he is the only and best bet for their dreams of how Scotland will be, once they are in charge.
It should give Miliband a working majority.
Despite the almost complete lack of evidence of any benefit so far I find it hard to believe that a year in which the BoE is forecasting 3.4% growth and we will see a return to real wages on any measure (they are already growing on some) will not do the tories some good.
If I am anywhere near right we should have quite an exciting election campaign. In that campaign I think UKIP will be squeezed somewhat but probably not by enough and some Lib Dems will return from Labour giving the tories a win in votes but largest party being very much up for grabs.
Tsk ....
I'm less hopeful that you'll agree that SNP supporters' grasp of political reality has been found wanting again.
In the latest ICM Guardian poll 17 Conservative 2010 voters said they would now vote UKIP compared to 8 switchers from Labour and 10 from the Lib Dems. This is not a differential that makes a Conservative lead impossible with a ~10% UKIP vote.
In fact, the differential of 9 net voters in Labour's benefit is only slightly larger than the net 8 voters they gain from direct Tory-Labour swing voters*. If the Tories can win the electoral battle with traditional swing voters they can still come out ahead on votes.
ICM data tables: http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_feb_guardian_poll.pdf
* And, because these voters are both lost to the Tories and gained for Labour they count double in the electoral arithmetic, so they are worth 16 Tory-UKIP switchers.
Thus the direct Tory-Labour swing voters are more important in the latest Guardian ICM poll for creating a Labour lead than are Tory voters lost to UKIP. They're also more important than Lib Dem voters who switch to Labour, who only give Labour a net 13 voters over the Tories.
Testing's already underway in Bahrain. Not much to report. Alonso had a red flag on his installation lap (happened to Ferrari a few times in Jerez too). The Lotus is out and running.
9% in Jan 2014 = 18% in Dec 2014 = 20% in May 2015?
Crisis, what crisis?
We wouldn't want it any other way, tho' ...
So, for the two big parties the votes for 20/25/30/35/40 were:
Con: 7/8/19/11/12
Lab: 7/5/16/13/12
For the smaller parties: 5/10/15/20
LibD: 12/25/11/12
UKIP:15/19/9/10
Nat: 24/15/4/4
Green: 24/11/2/3
To date I have issued two projections - last month 77% and yesterday 79%.
Part of my modelling is based on the 2 Quebec sovereignty referenda of 1980 and 1995. Essentially they remain the only two that broadly conform to the Scottish vote whereby a well established region within a long term western style democracy seeks to secede.
1980 - Yes 40.5% .. No 59.5% .. Turnout 85.6%
1995 - Yes 49.5% .. No 50.5% .. Turnout 93.5%
Oblitus's comments are interesting, but quite dependent on ICM's methodology (which dampens swings from the LibDems and to UKIP by assuming a partial reversion to past behaviour). The same calculations using YouGov show Labour's lead much more dependent on LibDem switchers than on either direct Con switchers or UKIP's effect. FWIW, my impression is that Con<->Lab switching (either way) is almost negligible, but LD->Lab switching at GE level is huge and highly-motivated. I can't judge Con->UKIP switching as anti-Lab voters are not usually chatty to me, so "No, sorry" might mean anything except Lab.
Hmmmm.
I believe the substantial difference here is the previous Scottish referenda have been over devolution which was clearly the settled will of the Scottish people and where the result was not in doubt.
A sovereignty referendum involving full scale secession and the formation of a new nation involves an entirely different level of mind set on so many levels for the voter. Accordingly IMO turnout will be substantially higher and if the result appears close then more voters will flock to the polls.
If anything some may argue that my projection is a wee bit low even allowing for a more depressed turnout in recent elections in the UK.
*admittedly no-one cares about the elections, but they do exist
That will change in September.
Actually, scrub that. Nothing will change in September. The Scot Nats will still be blaming lying, thieving England for crushing their dreams..... They still won't be on speaking terms with reality.
And your inevitable ensuing jibes about me being a Scot-hater will again cause my wife to roar with laughter.
My Scottish wife....
@NicoHines: David Attenborough's alternative commentary on the Olympic Curling. Brilliant http://t.co/WyuV4Rxjly (via @Alex_Ogle)
Bonds Expected to Be a More Costly Form of Borrowing Than Through British Government
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391240345983078?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303945704579391240345983078.html
Won't the SNP be pleased?
It would be much more democratic to require each commissioner to be individually ratified by the parliament annually.
Clegg is told where to go again by Scotty_P and Carlotta's economic guru Ed Balls.
For all its faults the EU does have a democratic structure. Too much gets decided by heads of government and the commission rather than the parliament, but all heads of government are elected by their own peoples. The commission is not, and too often commissioners are decided by internal political machinations rather than who would best represent the interests of the nation or EU. Perhaps it would be better if commissioners had to be chosen from MEPs rather like ministers are in Westminster.
I hope that events in Ukraine settle down, but the future of that country lies to the west, the past to the east.
If nothing else then the rating agencies will give Scotland a good idea of the likely price (not completely accurate of course) of debt of an independent nation and that should inform the indy debate.
Oh and here I am commenting on Scotland again. Will I never learn...?
How close to 7% ?
The other day, you were warned about swearing at other posters, calling someone a richard head is unacceptable.
Can you please stop using such language, or stronger action will be taken.
Scotland can issue bonds - but they'll cost more
The Treasury has given Edinburgh permission to issue up to £2.2bn on the international bond markets but has warned that it will not be able to borrow at the UK's low borrowing rate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10647244/Scotland-can-issue-bonds-but-theyll-cost-more.html
We really don't want to have to do that with you.
LOL
YouGov may give different results, but it is hard to do a direct comparison because they only give the internal figures in terms of percentages and not in absolute numbers. Even so, one has to be careful to net out the figures and to realise that the large percentage of the Lib Dem vote swinging to Labour is of a smaller vote in 2010 than the smaller percentages of Tory/Labour 2010 voters who are also swinging. And, of course, the direct swing-voters count double in Tory-Labour marginals.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
Employment up to 30.1m
BBC News
Wonderful Labour market statistics this morning with employment up to an all time record high and unemployment crashing down in all segments.
Is there no height St. George cannot scale?
The key findings from this months ONS bulletin:
For October to December 2013, compared with July to September 2013:
• The number of people in employment increased by 193,000 to reach 30.15 million.
• The number of unemployed people fell by 125,000 to reach 2.34 million.
• The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 8,000 to reach 8.93 million.
Comparing October to December 2013 with a year earlier:
• There were 396,000 more people in employment.
• There were 161,000 fewer unemployed people.
• There were 23,000 fewer economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64
Will there be any shirkers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?
I'm sure there are other features of a democracy that are more important than elections - can pbers think of any that the EU is lacking?
I would think the EU is reasonably okay on free speech and equality before the law, but its clear many people think its democracy is lacking in some respects.
* They will probably tend to lead to a wide franchise as a consequence, but the ability to vote in elections does not have as powerful an effect in the other direction.
Read those numbers and weep, Labour... For they are your unemployed we are now employing.
Labour said it couldn't be done... As usual, they knew feck all about the economy.
(cue the miserable scrotes!)
Though of course if you are fine with posters using it now that is certainly your decision to make.
Although in practice I think where this ends up heading, since meaningful treaty change is very hard, is that the president gets indirectly elected via the parliamentary elections, then they leverage their democratic legitimacy to prod the member states into nominating the Commissioners they want in their administration.
2) The word leftard is prohibited on PB.
"Before 2010, different parts of the Lib Dem voting alliance had different expectations, many of which turned out to be contradictory. That is why that alliance will be so hard to recreate. As I noted in my research last year (provocatively but not entirely facetiously titled What Are The Liberal Democrats For?), Nick Clegg has perhaps the biggest challenge of any leader in defining his party’s purpose."
To be fair though YouGov and other pollsters have also shown very clearly that under Clegg the 'what do liberal democrats stand for' type of question has been extraordinarily bad for them for quite some time now.
Tory: 5%
Labour: 6%
Lib Dem: 8%
UKIP: -1%
This compares with the overall average for Others of 16%.
Is it possible that the supporters of the Nationalist parties were giving percentages within their individual nation, rather than for the UK as a whole? Or do they simply not realise how big the population of England is? I would hope that Green voters aren't quite so absurdly optimistic as otherwise implied...
Your St. George has got a Dragon by the tail but it is biting his arse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26230410
UK unemployment falls by 125,000
The number of people out of work in the UK fell by 125,000 to 2.34 million in the three months to December, according to the latest figures.
The rate of unemployment now stands at 7.2%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26255696
Now unemployment falls by 125,000 to stand at 7.2%.
Who's kidding who?