Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft’s Newark poll: Tories set to win easily
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft’s Newark poll: Tories set to win easily
The by election poll is just out
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins
I like Lord Ashcroft. But his weekly national polls are all over the place at the moment. Something wrong with the methodology there.
George Eaton @georgeeaton
Tories on course to win first by-election in power since Richmond in 1989 (Hague). But nine points behind Labour in Ashcroft national poll.
From what I can see 25% is the lowest vote share the Conservatives have had in a national opinion poll since December 2001;
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
So Con effectively at a 13 year low with less than a year to go to a general election.
Not ideal, to say the least.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/06/tories-set-hold-newark/
Con 42%, UKIP 27%, Lab 20%.
Last week's YouGov average was a Lab lead of 4.0. Week before was 2.0. Week before that 1.8. Before that 3.0.
Today's Populus is Lab lead 5. Now Ashcroft says Lab lead 9.
Bit strange as I'm not sure what has happened in the last week that would cause such a move - OK we've had the Euro results but is that sufficient explanation? I don't really think so - especially as UKIP is also taking votes from Lab.
So far the Ashcroft poll have been all over the place from a lead of 2 for the tories to a lead of 9 for Labour in 15 days. I mean, really?
Unless they can settle down a bit they really are not going to be much use.
Not a good strategy but might explain the disconnect a bit.
He said UKIP would target "two dozen, three dozen seats" at the GE.
Now if UKIP is saying to OFCOM that it must have "Major Party status" at the GE then he might have made a massive own goal - because if UKIP are actually a "Major Party" then they should be targeting a far, far higher number of seats.
Of course we all know in practice that winning even one dozen seats would be a huge ask - but in terms of lobbying OFCOM there is a massive inconsistency.
It could be that the Ashcroft Poll is given you a genuine measure of the uncertainty, and the other polls are erroneously damping the variation via some adjustment.
Hopefully I will get around to this at some point, but I would caution that even with a perfect opinion poll you would expect a large amount of variation from poll to poll, and none of the opinion polls available are perfect.
I'm sure UKIP will STAND in a huge number of seats, possibly all of them. But they will TARGET their limited resources at the much smaller number they think they might win. Their other candidates will be running a DIY campaign locally.
18-24: 36%
25-34: 22%
25-44: 28%
45-54: 31%
55-64: 29%
65+: 30%
(table3, p.4)
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Newark-by-election-poll-Full-tables.pdf
I think the improvement for Labour is to be expected given:
1. The implosion of the Lib Dems in the last week - this may have pushed more switchers to Labour.
2. The UKIP publicity boost from the Euros is likely to have pushed Con to UKIP switchers.
3. The fading of the Euro boost for the Greens may be helping Labour.
The comforting thing for the Conservatives is that these are generally likely to be short term effects - so would expect to see the polls drift closer again particularly if Newark bursts UKIPs bubble.
Con 36.0%
UKIP 34.2%
Lab 20.6%
LD 5.6%
On a 50% turnout, a Con majority of 667 votes...
OK, Con has a decent margin for error in Newark but if, say, Con is overstated by 5 and UKIP is understated by 5 then we have Con 37, UKIP 32 which could be still close on the day with some tactical voting.
However Con will be pleased that Lab figure is still good enough that there is unlikely to be massive tactical voting at the last minute - though there may well still be a fair bit.
The Ashcroft polls are a bit of an embarrassment to him.
Will vote Lib Dem, and will definitely vote Lib Dem in a year's time: 16 respondents of 1000.
Of course they may pick up from other parties, and it could be an outlier, but that is a dreadful internal.
Tories down to their core vote.
If UKIP got 20+ seats that would be staggeringly good for them, but I do think it's quite incredible.
2 . Populus showed no change in Con to UKIP switchers
3 Ashcroft showed no change in the Green figure
But that's not the point. If you are saying to OFCOM you are a "Major Party" that means you should have a reasonable expectation of winning a substantial number of seats.
I suspect that the established polling companies adjust and adjust after each election to reflect the discrepancies between their findings and the actual result. I think this is entirely sensible when your objective is to get as close as possible to an accurate prediction but I agree with you that it probably dampens their volatility considerably as well.
The change in the weighting when you can't find enough of a particular class of voter probably underplays the fact that some of that kind of voter is now so ticked off they won't admit who they voted for previously and by simply scaling up those who will admit it you are distorting the group.
I understand that Lord Ashcroft has got an established polling company doing his work. It is therefore curious that his results are not similarly tempered. No doubt next week will see a remarkable tory recovery. I am afraid that will not be very convincing either .
Dangerous times for Con this. Newark MUST be held!
Labour have a bit of a dilemma in Newark though, do they try and GOTV or soft pedal
Is there anti-UKIP Lab -> Con switching going on also ?
UKIP are far far worse than the Conservatives according to some of my more left wing friends.
Lab 370
Con 220
LD 31
UKIP 0
Oths 11
NI 18
Lab maj 90
Farage!
"Thanks for everything Nigel."
There was also a baker selling buns with different colours of icing. I forget the exact figures but his tory figure and lead was pretty close to this poll!
The Tories may win in Newark, but I bet that the UKIP vote is much closer to the Tory total than the good Lord predicts.
Conservatives have held themselves together remarkably well, but if Newark is lost and more pollsters (especially YouGov or ICM) start taking them into the mid 20's all bet are off in terms of another bout of Con blood-letting.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIRhvDIYAAVdAq.jpg
Start with UK, Sweden, Holland and Hungary, then find another large country, the obvious ones being Italy (who are being a bit vague) and France (who want their former Socialist finance minister - not sure Cameron could sell that one as a win...)
The reason I still like Shadsy's 4/6 odds is that Juncker gets multiple shots at this. Not only is he clearly odds-on for the first vote, if the heads of government vote for somebody else the first time the parliament are likely to vote them down and tell them to try again.
They actually had a 10 point lead (35-25) before the spiral of silence adjustment.
As Neil points out the Greens are on 7% - which gives a sizeable vote still left to squeeze in the run up to the GE.
It also matches virtually every other poll this parliament showing very little switching between Lab and Con.
The main movement is being caused by 22% of 2010 Con voters going to UKIP and 34% of 2010 LD voters going to Labour.
For the LDs to be only keeping 22% of their own voters really is dreadful. They have to hope that they can at least recover to 10 - 12% once the negative leadership stuff dies down otherwise next year could turn into an extinction-level event - regardless of the incumbency factor.
(Table 3, page 4)
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Newark-by-election-poll-Full-tables.pdf
No, it suit's Farage to have Labour win the the election with a thumping majority. It will mean he might have another decade at least to carry on throwing stones at LibLabCon.
It also confirms what I said this morning - only the Tories have run a decent campaign in terms of voter contact: the LibDems have operated on a shoestring, Labour have been disappointingly poor at it, and UKIP has concentrated on leaflets rather than canvassing.
At least it makes it easier to know which way to do the postal vote.
Populus vs Ashcroft raw figures:
Unweighted base 1000 164 250 40 141
Ashcroft: (1000)
Con 164
Lab 250
LD 40
UKIP 141
DK 176
Populus: (2062)
Con 392
Lab 572
LD 129
UKIP 332
Populus/Ashcroft as %s:
Ashcroft Populus
CON 16.4 19.0
LAB 25.0 27.7
LD 4.0 6.3
UKIP 14.1 16.1
Difference seems reasonably consistent...
We have two polls taken at the same time with differing results . pointless hypothesising with assumptions that the Ashcroft poll is the correct one .
There again today for the 4th time. Would he really be doing that if they were not expecting a result at least as good as this poll? It may prove beyond them but the tories are desperate not just to beat UKIP but hammer them so that they can use the wasted vote argument again. It is on a shoogly peg at the moment.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.113986228
I'm going to hold my position of a small Conservative profit with stakes laid off from here to the poll.
I think it'll be closer than the Ashcroft poll though - for sure.
Very nice GOTV operation by Conservative HQ - Congratulations Grant Shapps.
Con Majority 1500 is still my guess !
Daft? Or shoved into a dead end job, with pay increases of circa 1% being the norm for most of the rest?
The rise in "average" remuneration is dependent mainly on which side of the line you fall, and is skewed towards those who were already comfortably well off, or in many cases, fabulously wealthy.
Ho hum...
The figure that jumps at me from the national numbers is the combined Labour/Conservative voter share at 59% - first time below 60% in a poll since when ?
For a seat they won in 1997, it's rather embarrassing.
I understand from talking to two other parties that they think a chunk of 2010 Labour voters are going to vote UKIP with one set of fingers crossed (that they can beat the Tories) and a clothes peg on their nose (because they're really not UKIP voters).
It seems a long time since our host was making a coherent argument that Labour ought to do well here.
"For a seat they won in 1997, it's rather embarrassing."
They didn't win that seat, they won one with the same name but different boundaries.
You should strive to be more cynical about bland statements.
Yeah pull the other one, it's got bells on.
2010 Con -> Con 69%, Lab 2%, LD 0%, UKIP 27%
2010 Lab -> Con 7%, Lab 63%, LD 2%, UKIP 22%
2010 LD -> Con 13%, Lab 16%, LD 22%, UKIP 28%
One needs to be a bit cautious about these figures, because the sample sizes are small, but three points stand out: (a) LibDems not in a good place, (b) UKIP attracting support rather evenly from the other three parties, (c) Little evidence of overwhelming LibDem->Lab switching here at least, indeed LD->Con and LD->Lab are fairly similar, but LD->UKIP is twice as big.
The fact that UKIP seem to be taking vote share from three contradictory directions suggests the NOTA protest component dominates.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Newark-by-election-poll-Full-tables.pdf
Table 3, Q2
I have derided other pollsters for showing the Tories in the 20s, publicly, on this very forum.
You just make yourself look like a childish idiot when you misrepresent other posters, whether they be kindred spirits or political opponents.
Someone make it stop.
CON HOLD: 2,000-3,000 majority.
Though the Crossover-gasm was over cooked somewhat.
Only three pollsters have shown crossover, and only once, and all bar one have now reverted to Lab leads.
IIRC
Even with a Labour candidate who had been found guilty of "corrupt practices" and disqualified (until that was overturned on appeal) with the local Party split for/against her, they still came within less than 4,100 votes of keeping the seat in 2001.
They should be doing a lot better than that in a by-election caused by the fallen Tory MP being worse.
You cannot expect wages to rise dramatically following the economic crisis this economy has gone through, but at least they are gradually increasing and jobs are being still being created.
There are a million less public sector workers now since 2010. What jobs were these people doing? My bins are still collected,the roads are still repaired, the hospitals are still open. If Labour get back in they will do the same. Create pretend jobs in the Public Sector which the country cant afford, it will destroy the work ethic that the coalition have developed in the country and they will start with their benefit handouts again to show how "fair" they are being. This policy simply does not work, people need an incentive to work, if you give people the opportunity to do less with the same money through benefits they will take it. This will again kill the economy and the tories will have to rebuild it again. It really confuses me why people want to go through the same old cycle.
Surely looking at what is happening in France would give a clue as to what will happen here if Labour get back in.
People hated Alex Ferguson, but it didn't mean that his management style was wrong, people hate the tories, but it does not mean their policies are wrong.
2010 Con -> Con 63%, Lab 1%, UKIP 31%
2010 Lab -> Con 2%, Lab 75%, UKIP 16%
2010 LD -> Con 18%, Lab 24%, UKIP 30%
(table 5, page 9)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Newark-Poll-Sun-Tables.pdf
The NEV of 17.5 for UKIP may well be close to the mark as calculated by Rawling & Thrasher at the locals.... THey ain't on 11.
Similiarly Lib Dems benefit from generous upweighting alot of the time.
Note the lack of weighting in phone polls compared to online. Yes, I won't be ditching my UKIP (~ Nil) & Labour Green for silly prices on Betfair now...
Pretend jobs? Stacking shelves for dole money? Becoming "self" employed" as a way of avoiding ever more stringent JSA requirements, while still being funded by the tax payer?
Working for the minimum wage while companies are subsidised to employ, and shoving the bulk of their tax liabilities off shore?
As for the much vaunted increase in wages you seem so keen on, even a cursory glance at who has become richer since the crash, and those left behind, points to the reason you would be daft to vote for TINA, and more of the same.
Unless of course these policies advantage yourself personally?
Was it anything like this ?
UKIP seem to be doing the SDP role in this one.
Sure, in terms of media stories that may be so. And perhaps, at the margin, there are people who are just following a bandwagon in supporting UKIP / perhaps there will be some fair weather friends who get dispirited by the lack of progress.
But the fundamental reasons why people are supporting UKIP still exist. It will make it harder to grow, but why should the numbers deflate massively post a Newark loss?
The Tories are doomed. Doomed I tell you based on the National poll.
The much delayed flagship of "Universal Credit" will have massive impact on the future viability of "start ups" and small businesses unless there are reforms to it before full implementation.
But who cares really? As long as it remains hidden for the moment
http://ibasecretariat.org/lka-blog.php#a73
Firstly there's a wasted vote element, where they won't vote for someone if they don't think they have a chance of winning.
Secondly, there's a kind of crowd enthusiasm thing where people feel more positively about a party because of the sense lots other people seem to feel positive about them.