politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft becomes the third pollster in a row not to support the YouGov 4% LAB lead poll
There’ve been three published polls since the Sunday Times YouGov LAB 4% lead poll. ComRes had 4% CON lead last night, Populus had the parties level pegging this morning and now Lord Ashcroft has a 2% CON lead.
TSE skewered the YG weekend poll re. the 5% watched the tv debate & 20% of YG Vi did = YG online polls are done by politically active people so not representative. Treat with due caution.
With Scotland heading the way of the Scottish Nutcase Party those figures for England are hugely significant.
Having said that I regard the polls in general as completely useless and if I didn't know better I would say they are sponsored by the bookmakers as a way to sucker people into stupid bets.
Yet again, His Lordship publishes a LibDem figure at variance from what's in his tables. I make the LibDems on 7, like the Greens.
Have you seen this, Sunil?
Ashcroft
Lord Ashcroft commissions a regular weekly poll, carried out by other polling companies but on a “white label” basis. The methods are essentially those Populus used to use for their telephone polls, rather than the online methods Populus now use for their own regular polling. Ashcroft polls are weighted by standard demographics and by past vote, adjusted for false recall.
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
If the mini-trend to the Tories is backed up by further polling, can't help but feel it is partly due to Mr Salmond. Was chatting to some colleagues today and there was definitely some concern about a Miliband government being under the thumb of the SNP
If the mini-trend to the Tories is backed up by further polling, can't help but feel it is partly due to Mr Salmond. Was chatting to some colleagues today and there was definitely some concern about a Miliband government being under the thumb of the SNP
It's almost as if that's what Mr Salmond wanted to happen.
There's a "Super-ELBOW" for all polls with field-work end-dates in March due in a few days. With just two days left, Labour are only 0.2% ahead, compared with 1.2% in February!
I can't believe I've reduced myself to such a level of geeky, autistic, obsessive, male dominated behaviour (which befits the vast majority of my comrades on pbCOM) but looking at the longer term trends of the polls shows the Tory doing significantly better using weekend samples.
Do these make these polls more accurate? I really don't know- perhaps Tories are more likely to be at home then, which sadly, means that perhaps they are more realistic than the weekly polls when Labour do better.
YouGov at the weekend had a big fat sampling error that impacted their numbers. 20% plus of their sample had seen the TV interviews vs. only 5% in the real world.
They should have produced a set of numbers weighted by actual TV viewing which would have been far more realistic.
Non-viewers had the Tories 6 points ahead if memory serves.
I can't believe I've reduced myself to such a level of geeky, autistic, obsessive, male dominated behaviour (which befits the vast majority of my comrades on pbCOM) but looking at the longer term trends of the polls shows the Tory doing significantly better using weekend samples.
Do these make these polls more accurate? I really don't know- perhaps Tories are more likely to be at home then, which sadly, means that perhaps they are more realistic than the weekly polls when Labour do better.
Have you done the same experiment for Easter or school holidays?
Yet again, His Lordship publishes a LibDem figure at variance from what's in his tables. I make the LibDems on 7, like the Greens.
Have you seen this, Sunil?
Ashcroft
Lord Ashcroft commissions a regular weekly poll, carried out by other polling companies but on a “white label” basis. The methods are essentially those Populus used to use for their telephone polls, rather than the online methods Populus now use for their own regular polling. Ashcroft polls are weighted by standard demographics and by past vote, adjusted for false recall.
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
what would be particularly delicious is if Cameron manages to get an overall majority on May 7 and effectively go down in history as the man who destroyed the Liberals, destroyed Labour in Scotland, and put UK Labour out of power for a decade. Probably just a wet dream but you never know, if they have a 2-3% lead now, and a good campaign its doeable
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Ladbrokes have UKIP @ 3.50 in the 5-10 % and @ 2.37 10-15%.
I want to even out my potential gain in the 5-15% band.
What ratio should I bet as between the two?
I know you've already answered this one yourself but for the viewer at home with decimal odds and only two options it's nice and simple - the ratio of money is exactly that of dividing one set of odds by the other.
Or even more intuitively you'd place £3.5 on 10-15% and £2.37 on 5-10%
Toxic Tories now at an 'impossible' 36% in 3 polls over the last few days. Amazing how even those commentators one would normally associate with balanced commentary displayed such a knee-jerk reaction to the single YouGov poll on Sat. night.
Half the over 50s I know would never use an online anything never mind a poll so I don't see how that could be more representative.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
Toxic Tories now at an 'impossible' 36% in 3 polls over the last few days. Amazing how even those commentators one would normally associate with balanced commentary displayed such a knee-jerk reaction to the single YouGov poll on Sat. night.
Half the over 50s I know would never use an online anything never mind a poll so I don't see how that could be more representative.
Anyone else smelling the coffee?
Feel free to pop over to betfair, where you'll get 7/1 on Con Maj.
Toxic Tories now at an 'impossible' 36% in 3 polls over the last few days. Amazing how even those commentators one would normally associate with balanced commentary displayed such a knee-jerk reaction to the single YouGov poll on Sat. night.
Half the over 50s I know would never use an online anything never mind a poll so I don't see how that could be more representative.
Anyone else smelling the coffee?
Feel free to pop over to betfair, where you'll get 7/1 on Con Maj.
YouGov at the weekend had a big fat sampling error that impacted their numbers. 20% plus of their sample had seen the TV interviews vs. only 5% in the real world.
They should have produced a set of numbers weighted by actual TV viewing which would have been far more realistic.
Non-viewers had the Tories 6 points ahead if memory serves.
I would ignore any debate-comissioned polls - their purpose is more to generate interesting headlines of the moment - most voters are in another place entirely.
Afternoon all and hurrah, OGH has given us a "Tories may not be entirely fcuked" thread. Tomorrow morning's ARSE will be very interesting.
Am I correct that LA's England only figures show a 2% swing to Labour in England rather than the 6.1% being trumpeted only 24 hours ago by Peter Kellner?
Have been looking across the polls. Of the 8 pollsters making up the SKY Poll of Polls in the top corner of the TV screen, currently 4 have Tories in the lead, 2 have Labour in the lead and 2 are tied.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Assuming 10 seats 'lost' then 310 might work for Tories (LD coalition or tacit support?) Its probably the tories who have the key issue to put to the commons which is EU referendum. If that were voted down then most other parties would suffer in the subsequent general election. Could tories get their cuts and budgets through? Possibly if linked to tax cuts.
Yet again, His Lordship publishes a LibDem figure at variance from what's in his tables. I make the LibDems on 7, like the Greens.
Have you seen this, Sunil?
Ashcroft
Lord Ashcroft commissions a regular weekly poll, carried out by other polling companies but on a “white label” basis. The methods are essentially those Populus used to use for their telephone polls, rather than the online methods Populus now use for their own regular polling. Ashcroft polls are weighted by standard demographics and by past vote, adjusted for false recall.
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
For the Conservatives in office, yes. For a Conservative government able to do blue-blooded things such as cut IHT and raise 40p threshold, profit making free schools etc. and an EU referendum guaranteed they need 315+ seats.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Mr. W, not sure I buy that comparison. Then, SNP were (I think) on single figures, Lib Dems were much lower (ok, that might be the same), not sure if Plaid had any seats, the Greens didn't, UKIP didn't really exist and Labour had tons of seats.
Toxic Tories now at an 'impossible' 36% in 3 polls over the last few days. Amazing how even those commentators one would normally associate with balanced commentary displayed such a knee-jerk reaction to the single YouGov poll on Sat. night.
Half the over 50s I know would never use an online anything never mind a poll so I don't see how that could be more representative.
Anyone else smelling the coffee?
Feel free to pop over to betfair, where you'll get 7/1 on Con Maj.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
Been looking at most recent poll numbers for both main parties: ICM 36 Tories 35 Labour Populus 34 Tories 34 Labour Survation 32 Tories 33 Labour ComRes 36 Tories 32 Labour Opinium 34 Tories 33 Labour YouGov 32 Tories 36 Labour Ashcroft 36 Tories 34 Labour Ipsos Mori 33 Tories 34 Labour TNS 33 Tories 32 Labour Panelbase 34 Tories 34 Labour
So Tories have 3 x36, 3 x 34, 2 x 33 and 2 x 32 Labour has 1 x 36, 1 x 35, 4 x 34, 2 x33 and 2 x 32
Of course things could change later this evening if the much hyped Sunday Times YouGov is not repeated given it is the only current score of 36 for Labour.
Wonder what people think about possibility of Tory vote exceeding the 2010 score and Labour falling below its 2010 score?
Mr. W, not sure I buy that comparison. Then, SNP were (I think) on single figures, Lib Dems were much lower (ok, that might be the same), not sure if Plaid had any seats, the Greens didn't, UKIP didn't really exist and Labour had tons of seats.
The greater fragmentation makes the situation very tricky.
The Saturday ARSE had Lab+SNP on 281 -well short whereas the only viable Con combination is with the LibDems at 342.
We shall await the morning ARSE to appraise developments.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
No...I wasn't saying that at all...I was saying oldies absolutely do vote across the country, hence why politicians wont take an axe to their bribes, I mean perks.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
The borough is very divided between rich and poor; look to all the noise surrounding the spare room subsidy and the closure of local authority facilities in places like Sands End for reasons why Labour won.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
If you lived here then you would realise it does. Labour offered their ill thought out rent freeze just before then. The local Tories all thought they would scrape through and hold on but they got smashed to pieces.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
If you lived here then you would realise it does. Labour offered their ill thought out rent freeze just before then. The local Tories all thought they would scrape through and hold on but they got smashed to pieces.
I did live there until a couple of years ago. Greg Hands was my local MP.
Traditionally it is a Labour held borough too, Cons only holding office for three terms, since 1964. And how can we forget the ill fated multi-million pound swaps losses under a previous Left administration. That was pure genius.
Given the tories poor position in london a majority looks v unlikely, but a I suppose its possible Dave could be in a position where he gets to choose his coalition partner...ie DUP or Lib dems?
@PickardJE: Warning from Balls' ally: “If you remember what happened last time Ed tried to sideline him it didn’t work out well.” http://t.co/ZgQ9Y8DgNj
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Assuming 10 seats 'lost' then 310 might work for Tories (LD coalition or tacit support?) Its probably the tories who have the key issue to put to the commons which is EU referendum. If that were voted down then most other parties would suffer in the subsequent general election. Could tories get their cuts and budgets through? Possibly if linked to tax cuts.
Is there really any chance the LDs can support Cameron this time? Cameron has stated categorically he will only be PM if we have an EU In/Out Referendum. Clegg (and any other LD leader is likely to be even more anti) says he won't play footsie with EU membership - which must translate to a line in the sand of no referendum ??
I'm surprised that Salmond is such a bogey-man for English voters. I'd be horrified if we get Labour back so soon, but I'd rather Labour led by Salmond than Labour led by the Son of Brown.
Given the tories poor position in london a majority looks v unlikely, but a I suppose its possible Dave could be in a position where he gets to choose his coalition partner...ie DUP or Lib dems?
I wonder which way he would jump...
Depends which of them has most MP's I guess.... The Orange Minibus - or the Minibus of Orangmen?
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Assuming 10 seats 'lost' then 310 might work for Tories (LD coalition or tacit support?) Its probably the tories who have the key issue to put to the commons which is EU referendum. If that were voted down then most other parties would suffer in the subsequent general election. Could tories get their cuts and budgets through? Possibly if linked to tax cuts.
Is there really any chance the LDs can support Cameron this time? Cameron has stated categorically he will only be PM if we have an EU In/Out Referendum. Clegg (and any other LD leader is likely to be even more anti) says he won't play footsie with EU membership - which must translate to a line in the sand of no referendum ??
If Clegg is still leader and the number stack up the LD will support a second coalition with the Tories. First, though, he's got to hold Hallam.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
If you lived here then you would realise it does. Labour offered their ill thought out rent freeze just before then. The local Tories all thought they would scrape through and hold on but they got smashed to pieces.
I did live there until a couple of years ago. Greg Hands was my local MP.
Traditionally it is a Labour held borough too, Cons only holding office for three terms, since 1964. And how can we forget the ill fated multi-million pound swaps losses under a previous Left administration. That was pure genius.
Given demographic changes and gentrification H&F should have been an easy hold for the Tories, but Labour have recognised that a generation of renters is unhappy in centralish London. The Tories haven't and that is why they are not doing well with private renters in London.
Hardly surprising considering some private landlords rent out some properties to 10 or so single people when they should only be letting them to 3 or 4.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
And when you have got 23 idiots who think that a government defeat is the ideal thing to achieve on the last day before an incredibly tight and unpredictable election you in practice need a lot more than that. I suspect Cameron would be quite keen to have the more reliable Lib Dems on board again. Unfortunately I don't think they will be so keen.
Comments
I just hope the media aren't as ridiculous as 2010 when they over-egged the polls (especially YouGov).
Hell no! I mean Yes!
Anyone but Labour.
Although I'm more disappointed about the wish involving Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde, to be honest.
Cup 25% full not 3/4 empty
Having said that I regard the polls in general as completely useless and if I didn't know better I would say they are sponsored by the bookmakers as a way to sucker people into stupid bets.
Ashcroft
Lord Ashcroft commissions a regular weekly poll, carried out by other polling companies but on a “white label” basis. The methods are essentially those Populus used to use for their telephone polls, rather than the online methods Populus now use for their own regular polling. Ashcroft polls are weighted by standard demographics and by past vote, adjusted for false recall.
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281
Just wondering when that 10k 11/2 bet was put on ... Before or after this poll release.
Com Res London Poll
North London: Con 40 Lab 38
South London: Lab 42 Con 38
West London: Lab 41 Con 37
East London: Lab 54 Con 24
Central: Lab 48 Con 36
White: Con 40 Lab 31
Non White: Lab 68 Con 21
Home status
Home owner: Con 46 Lab 34
Rent (LA): Lab 65, UKIP 16 Con 11
Rent (Private): Lab 68, Con 17
The 55+ break clearly for Con, the under 45s for lab, the middle aged is just about labour, but close.
Do these make these polls more accurate? I really don't know- perhaps Tories are more likely to be at home then, which sadly, means that perhaps they are more realistic than the weekly polls when Labour do better.
Only 11% non white
They should have produced a set of numbers weighted by actual TV viewing which would have been far more realistic.
Non-viewers had the Tories 6 points ahead if memory serves.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/30/labour-give-hated-atos-special-accesst-to-plans-for-government/
http://blog.paddypower.com/2015/03/30/damian-mcbride-my-501-outside-bet-to-be-next-labour-leader-if-ed-miliband-gets-the-bullet/
Paddy Power blog by Damien McBride.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Or even more intuitively you'd place £3.5 on 10-15% and £2.37 on 5-10%
Half the over 50s I know would never use an online anything never mind a poll so I don't see how that could be more representative.
Anyone else smelling the coffee?
Con = 206 + (50% of 20 DK/refused) = 216
LD = 34 + (30% of 18 DK/refused) = 39
total sample = 573+10+10+5 = 598
Con = 36.1%, Lab = 34.3 %, LD = 6.5%
Con 35.9, Lab 34.1, LD 7.1
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
I'll be laying the other side of that bet.
Tories = F***ed in London.
Am I correct that LA's England only figures show a 2% swing to Labour in England rather than the 6.1% being trumpeted only 24 hours ago by Peter Kellner?
Have been looking across the polls. Of the 8 pollsters making up the SKY Poll of Polls in the top corner of the TV screen, currently 4 have Tories in the lead, 2 have Labour in the lead and 2 are tied.
Sorry but it can't be done.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Pray for a Tory lead tonight
So it's true - somebody has shoved you a bung?
ICM 36 Tories 35 Labour
Populus 34 Tories 34 Labour
Survation 32 Tories 33 Labour
ComRes 36 Tories 32 Labour
Opinium 34 Tories 33 Labour
YouGov 32 Tories 36 Labour
Ashcroft 36 Tories 34 Labour
Ipsos Mori 33 Tories 34 Labour
TNS 33 Tories 32 Labour
Panelbase 34 Tories 34 Labour
So Tories have 3 x36, 3 x 34, 2 x 33 and 2 x 32
Labour has 1 x 36, 1 x 35, 4 x 34, 2 x33 and 2 x 32
Of course things could change later this evening if the much hyped Sunday Times YouGov is not repeated given it is the only current score of 36 for Labour.
Wonder what people think about possibility of Tory vote exceeding the 2010 score and Labour falling below its 2010 score?
The Saturday ARSE had Lab+SNP on 281 -well short whereas the only viable Con combination is with the LibDems at 342.
We shall await the morning ARSE to appraise developments.
The borough is very divided between rich and poor; look to all the noise surrounding the spare room subsidy and the closure of local authority facilities in places like Sands End for reasons why Labour won.
Traditionally it is a Labour held borough too, Cons only holding office for three terms, since 1964. And how can we forget the ill fated multi-million pound swaps losses under a previous Left administration. That was pure genius.
I wonder which way he would jump...
@kiranstacey: EdM wanted anyone except EdB to be shadow chancellor. Considered Burnham - "but Andy can't do maths". By @PickardJE http://t.co/PDNQUulOYx
@PickardJE: Warning from Balls' ally: “If you remember what happened last time Ed tried to sideline him it didn’t work out well.” http://t.co/ZgQ9Y8DgNj
Populus: Conservatives up 3%
Ashcroft: Conservatives up 3%
Tell me again how Miliband won the first debate.
I think the DUP would be much more pliant than the libs.
A few quid and bob's your uncle.