politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling UKIP: The recent record shows that YouGov got close

Here are the full polls for the euros

As I say it is not that meaningful to compare the final polls with current GE polls. It should be th pols 6-9 months out

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day

SandyRentool said:

So macisback and me have differing views on Luffy.

I suppose I am projecting what I want to happen - Nicky Morgan to give us the 'Portillo moment' of GE2015! However, now that she is in cabinet, Labour are likely to throw more effort into taking a high profile scalp and I anticipate an above-average swing.

I think there is too much for Labour to do to take Luffy as it stands. My feeling is Edwards appeal is not deep enough in the East Midlands to take seats other than those where Labour should win most of the time, given the overall demographic. That may be different further North.

Unless the economic news turns again of course. If that happens Labour will take seats like Luffy

Panelbase last sample - the most favourable to "Yes" I think...

Raw numbers:

Yes (389)
No (446)

Undecided: 106

Lets just assume undecided won't vote...

Gives an 89% turnout - quite optimistic

Yes 46.5%

It's OK but still not over 50.

They weight the numbers to 397/425 but I'm not sure its THAT close.

"No" wins, it'll be narrower than some expect but can't see it for "Yes"

isam said:

Here are the full polls for the euros

As I say it is not that meaningful to compare the final polls with current GE polls. It should be th pols 6-9 months out

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day

Labour has big GOTV problems in anything other than marginals on General election day I reckon.

Ishmael_X said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?

Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%

Good point on AIFE impact.

No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.

The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.

The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.

Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.

People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so

I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM

In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20

So the next time Mike or I write a Dave is crap thread.....

The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog.

David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to tackle al-Qaida-inspired terrorists, rightwing extremists and dissident Northern Irish groups.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/22/uk-definition-terrorism-political-journalists-bloggers-watchdog

@Richard_Nabavi
We can't find out about the present governments possible fiascoes yet, as despite Cameron's pledge to "transparency", some departments have developed almost terminal shyness.
Still, we both can make educated guesses as to where the problems lie.

"The Centre for Economics and Business Research reckons whoever wins the next UK general election will have to make "sharp public spending cuts". (Guardian live blog)

Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.

TOPPING said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****
Con 309 (+2) .. Lab 278 (-4) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1

Jack W I do think your ARSE is underestimating the SNP. Their renewed ground force allied to their current poll ratings that have been consistently up on GE2010 and the decline in the SLDs and SLAB, should bring the SNP into double figures.

Earlier projections had the SNP edging into double figures before more recently dropping back slightly.
A figure of eight for Westminster would be a very good return for the SNP who do tend to lose out somewhat to split-ticketing at wider UK elections. The number would have them close to their heydays of 1974.

But their two biggest rivals are running at lower polling than the GE2010 results. The SNP could be at tipping points in a lot of constituencies. If the voters reject (as expected) independence, they may go with the SNP at Westminster at the GE. The SNP may also campaign harder at the GE, recognising that they have to reduce SLAB MPs and take the opportunity to remove a lot of SLD MPs.

Only people in the south of England with no clue to reality expect it to be no.

Unfortunately the polling of those in northern Britain give lots of indications to a NO vote. But do you think that the SNP will (after a No vote) have the energy to campaign hard at GE2015?

I believe the polls are wrong , this is not a GE and polling weighted to GE and parties is not going to cut it. regardless of September the SNP will go from strength to strength. If they do manage to frighten enough people to get a no vote it will be very close and soon turn ugly when they start to slash and burn and renage on all the jam being promised by the union. Even the gullible will finally get it.
It may be delayed , I personally doubt it , but it will happen.
The union is finished.

Interesting new tack, Malcolm; it's essentially the Kipper argument.

Cam says he will do something, but we don't believe him. And we want your vote on the premise that he won't do it. But of course as we can't prove a negative today then you will just have to trust us on this one.

Topping , we have past proof that they are lying cheating toads though. They will act to form, their only weapon is fear. Regardless of that the whole crux is that we will be better making our own decisions, even if not better off financially.

''Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.''

Wherever Labour says the cuts will fall, nobody will believe them.

Labour might just as well promise to stop breathing.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****
Con 309 (+2) .. Lab 278 (-4) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1

Jack W I do think your ARSE is underestimating the SNP. Their renewed ground force allied to their current poll ratings that have been consistently up on GE2010 and the decline in the SLDs and SLAB, should bring the SNP into double figures.

Earlier projections had the SNP edging into double figures before more recently dropping back slightly.
A figure of eight for Westminster would be a very good return for the SNP who do tend to lose out somewhat to split-ticketing at wider UK elections. The number would have them close to their heydays of 1974.

But their two biggest rivals are running at lower polling than the GE2010 results. The SNP could be at tipping points in a lot of constituencies. If the voters reject (as expected) independence, they may go with the SNP at Westminster at the GE. The SNP may also campaign harder at the GE, recognising that they have to reduce SLAB MPs and take the opportunity to remove a lot of SLD MPs.

Only people in the south of England with no clue to reality expect it to be no.

Unfortunately the polling of those in northern Britain give lots of indications to a NO vote. But do you think that the SNP will (after a No vote) have the energy to campaign hard at GE2015?

I believe the polls are wrong , this is not a GE and polling weighted to GE and parties is not going to cut it. regardless of September the SNP will go from strength to strength. If they do manage to frighten enough people to get a no vote it will be very close and soon turn ugly when they start to slash and burn and renage on all the jam being promised by the union. Even the gullible will finally get it.
It may be delayed , I personally doubt it , but it will happen.
The union is finished.

Has "Yes" been ahead in any raw sample from any pollster yet ?

Panelbase last year.

http://www.panelbase.com/news/SNPPollTables020903.pdf

We do not know the results of the polls that Tories used £300K of taxpayers money for, they were obviously not good for NO or they would have been published though.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Shadsy

The five Scottish seats set to change hands in 2015

http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/the-five-scottish-seats-set-to-change-hands-in-2015/

I'd agree with his assessment, I think SNP gain Danny's seat or at least I bloody hope they do over Labour...

I'm balls deep on Labour in East Dunbartonshire, think SNP have an outside sniff there so covered on that one.

Interestingly he has now pushed Conservative to 3-1.

That is a perfect 100% book with Betfair's 3.85 once commission is factored in. It is not an arb, but basically you can lay precisely the same odds as Shadsy is on Con Majority right now - which doesn't often happen.

Smarmeron said:

Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.

Well, the Conservatives will lay out at least the overall plans. Labour will try desperately not even to do that, and the Tories will attack them on that basis.

The politics of this are entirely in the Tories' favour. Whether voters like them or not, at least everyone agrees that they do what it says on the tin. Under a Tory government, spending will be cut. We know that, we can believe it, and, what's more, the experience of this parliament shows it can be done without damaging public services.

As for Labour - who knows? They keep making vague noises to the effect that they too would cut spending. Fine, but if you want that, why not vote for the real thing, and why would leftish voters want that in the first place? And then in the next breath they commit to a whole load of spending increases, and they deny they plan to increase taxes, thus contradicting what they've said on fiscal probity. It's a complete mess, which satisfies no-one, and which is a strategic dead-end.

As a result, Labour's vote share will fray as the election approaches. I don't know by how much, but I'm very sure it will drop back.

@Richard_Nabavi
You don't use public services much do you?
In fact, as long as your portfolio grows you don't even give a flying frogs fornication about what happens to anyone else.
This is why capitalism is eating itself.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Smarmeron said:

Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.

Well, the Conservatives will lay out at least the overall plans. Labour will try desperately not even to do that, and the Tories will attack them on that basis.

The politics of this are entirely in the Tories' favour. Whether voters like them or not, at least everyone agrees that they do what it says on the tin. Under a Tory government, spending will be cut. We know that, we can believe it, and, what's more, the experience of this parliament shows it can be done without damaging public services.

As for Labour - who knows? They keep making vague noises to the effect that they too would cut spending. Fine, but if you want that, why not vote for the real thing, and why would leftish voters want that in the first place? And then in the next breath they commit to a whole load of spending increases, and they deny they plan to increase taxes, thus contradicting what they've said on fiscal probity. It's a complete mess, which satisfies no-one, and which is a strategic dead-end.

As a result, Labour's vote share will fray as the election approaches. I don't know by how much, but I'm very sure it will drop back.

Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:

" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."

And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).

SandyRentool said:

Ashcroft marginals polling points to Labour overall majority:

"A nine-point fall in the Tory vote share in these seats since 2010 (from 40% to 31%) points to a 4.5% swing to Labour, whose score is unchanged at 38%. This would be enough for Labour to win 53 Conservative seats if repeated across the board at the general election – which, combined with the 17 seats my recent polling suggested they could gain from the Lib Dems, would be enough for a small overall majority."

Didn't you read the next bit?

"But as we have seen throughout my series of battleground polls, swings are looking anything but uniform. In this survey the swing from the Tories to Labour ranges from 2% in Stockton South to 9% in Wolverhampton South West. And as we see in this survey, localised UKIP performance could scupper Labour’s chances in seats that Ed Miliband might otherwise hope to take.

Despite Labour’s overall lead in voting intention, fewer than three in ten voters in these seats said they would rather see Ed Miliband in Number Ten than David Cameron, including only 64% of Labour voters. Indeed only just over half (53%) of those switching to Labour from another party said they would prefer to see Miliband as Prime Minister. This could mean that they intend to vote Labour despite its leader. Alternatively, it might suggest that these new Labour voters are “soft” and could be persuaded back to their previous parties when it comes to the crunch. Future rounds of this tracking study will help to establish which is true."

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

Ishmael_X said:

isam said:

Ishmael_X said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?

Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%

Good point on AIFE impact.

No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.

The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.

The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.

Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.

People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so

I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM

In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20

But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.

I think people who aren't into politics could have made a simple mistake, I would nt call them a thicko. But to vote for a party deliberately thinking you were hurting a party you disliked, when in fact you were aiding them is a bit thick

No, the "spite Farage" vote could be rational on a cost-benefit analysis if you think an AIFE vote hurts Farage ten times more than the loss of your vote damages your party.

Why would you think that? What if ten conservatives voted AIFE in the SE to spite ukip, and Ukip beat the conservatives by 9 votes, to gain a seat, with AIFE getting 2%

All you are doing is splitting the anti ukip vote

If Thanet South goes, Thurrock goes, but if Thurrock goes, Thanet South may not neccesarily.

In Thurrock the "correct" anti-UKIP tactical vote is extremely difficult for anyone to work out. Hence the man on the street simply won't.

In Thanet South Conservatives may well be able to get a few Labour voters to "lend support" for GE2015 (On the face of it looking at GE2010 results the COnservatives are along way ahead... - that is useful for a "Newark squeeze" tactic)

Thurrock I think is UKIP's best chance for a seat in GE2015 now.

NickPalmer said:

Broxtowe Ashcroft poll:
General preference Lab 39 Con 31 UKIP 20 LD 4 Green 5

Prompted to think specifically about local candidates and constitutency:
Lab 40 Con 29 UKIP 18 LD 7 Green 4.

Incumbency bonus...er...

Haven't checked the other seats yet to see if the pattern varies greatly.

LibDem voters almost doubles with A N Other as candidate as opposed to generic nobody.

Titter ....

@Richard_Nabavi
Linking to that survey proves my point. The people who rely heavily on public services are a minority of the population, the rest only notice when things go wrong in their personal lives .
Other than that, it is "perception" rather than "reality" the survey is measuring.

Smarmeron said:

@Richard_Nabavi
Linking to that survey proves my point. The people who rely heavily on public services are a minority of the population, the rest only notice when thing go wrong in their personal lives .
Other than that, it is "perception" rather than "reality" the survey is measuring.

LOL! Wrong kind of voters, wrong kind of poll respondents, wrong kind of growth, wrong kind of jobs, wrong kind of NHS patients, wrong kind of fall in crime.

It is so transparent: you are convinced it's some kind of trick, it simply DOES NOT COMPUTE that the Tories could be right.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:

" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."

And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).

I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.

Just what I was thinking - it would be a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" counter-factual fest.

But.

If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.

If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.

NickPalmer said:

Broxtowe Ashcroft poll:
General preference Lab 39 Con 31 UKIP 20 LD 4 Green 5

Prompted to think specifically about local candidates and constitutency:
Lab 40 Con 29 UKIP 18 LD 7 Green 4.

Incumbency bonus...er...

Haven't checked the other seats yet to see if the pattern varies greatly.

Do you really think though UKIP will hold 18 to 20% of the vote in Broxtowe on polling day. You know the seat more than anyone but I don't see it, all to play for I reckon.

This seat in my opinion is very hard to call, probably more than any of the others in the East Midlands.

@Richard_Nabavi
If you don't use a public library, it's closure does not effect you in the slightest.
Same goes for other services, so it becomes obvious that the majority of the people are replying not through experience, but by what they get told.
"Every unemployed person has a 42" TV, and cosmetic surgery on demand"
It's not just the Russian media who post propaganda in favour of their governments.

@Richard_Nabavi
By the way? that LOL? Was it "lots of love"? ( I doubt I can borrow a police horse to go riding with you unfortunately)

4.5% Con to Lab marginals swing is pretty much in line with what the national polls are showing?

Twice as many girls and women in England and Wales subjected to FGM as previously thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/22/parents-allow-female-genital-mutilation-prosecuted-cameron-law

Smarmeron said:

@Richard_Nabavi
We can't find out about the present governments possible fiascoes yet, as despite Cameron's pledge to "transparency", some departments have developed almost terminal shyness.
Still, we both can make educated guesses as to where the problems lie.

"The Centre for Economics and Business Research reckons whoever wins the next UK general election will have to make "sharp public spending cuts". (Guardian live blog)

Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.

There is no secret about the continuing need for cuts. Osborne has given figures in various speeches. The place where these cuts can fall are pretty limited if you exclude welfare. Labours notion that they can produce nice cuddly cuts is just a load of lying propaganda. Likewise the fact that it can produce some brilliant and joyous spending plans.
All labour can do is unbalance the economy again.

New Thread

Flightpath said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:

" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."

And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).

I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.

Just what I was thinking - it would be a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" counter-factual fest.

But.

If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.

If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.

History points to the fallacy of that argument.
It seems not unnatural for voters to punish a party for failure, but strange that it should punish it for success and vote for the party that is responsible for the economic hangover in the first place.
Who opened our borders in 2004? Who ruined the economy in 2008? Who is trying and mostly succeeding in correcting these mistakes?

If the perception solidifies that "they are all the same" and that, as you say, further cuts are required, which no one is denying not even Lab, then all that is left is the personality of those cuts and on niceness Lab undoubtedly wins.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with all you say and logic dictates that it should be the case but, as various family members have said to me down the ages: now is not the time for logic....