We have details of two more polls – YouGov‘s poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures, with changes from yesterday, of CON 35%(+1), LAB 27%(-2), LDEM 28% (-1). BPIX in the Mail on Sunday have figures, with changes from a week ago, of CON 34%(+3), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 30%(-2).

Taking a wider look at the polls, the Conservatives do seem to have recovered slightly over the week. After the first debate the pollsters seemed to be consistently putting them in the 31%-33% range, the polls conducted over the last two days (seven of them!) all have the Conservatives between 34%-36%.

The Lib Dem surge looks as though it may have peaked too. The Ipsos MORI poll showing a huge drop is probably meaningless, it looks like a rogue, and a lot of the fall will just be down to the sample being less-Lib Dem inclined (10% of the survey reported voting Lib Dem in 2005, compared to 13% in MORI’s previous poll. Unlike most other companies MORI do not weight by past vote, so it varies from sample to sample). However, the other polls still seem to be showing a slight drop – after four polls in a row showing them over 30%, YouGov have now had them below 30% for three in a row… not, of course, that we don’t still seem to be headed towards the Liberal Democrats best ever performance.

There is also a OnePoll survey in the People which has figures of CON 32%, LAB 23%, LDEM 32%. I do not have any information on whether OnePoll surveys use proper sampling or appropriate weighting, so cannot vouch for whether this is meaningful at all.

UPDATE: The YouGov poll figures have been corrected – the Lib Dems are actually at 28%, not 29% (I’m having a weekend off, so only got the official figures at 9pm like everyone else!)


728 Responses to “Sunday Polls 2 – YouGov & BPIX”

1 11 12 13 14 15
  1. I have just read PK article on-line. It makes good reading. However, I am a little unclear about what period he is comparing with which. He talks about BC and AD periods, and he talks about combining the total of one week’s polling. So, is he talking about one whole week BC, and then another whole week AD – in which case it includes the post Murdoch Attack (MA) period. For, if he is only using the figures of one week which straddles the First Debate, then he is comparing BC with the three day Clegg honeymoon period……not the slightly Clegg dented period thereafter. Which is it please??

  2. @amber star

    I think you need to check your maths!

  3. Eoin – I was thinking F & ST for the 1

    (Apologies to everyone else who won’t understand a word!)

  4. @Roger,

    Unlikely…

    The South B SF cand. stood down, this guarantees SDLP TV for SF in F & ST. SF already have a good sized majority and turnout is notoriously high. The demographic means that every five years that majority gets a little higher. Blame the second encyclical for not budging on birth control ;) .

  5. “It would be “preposterous” for Labour to have its leader remain in Number 10 if it came third in terms of votes, says Nick Clegg” (current BBC news website from Andy Marr interview).

    Note that Clegg does not rule out being PM with Labour support.

    At the moment the ONLY two scenarios I think will happen IMHO are either a Conservativer majority (as they can no longer rely on DUP if minority) or a Lib-Lab coalition with Clegg as PM.

    Clearly this can all change in the next few days let alone by election day but- today- these two scenarios are for me the only two *current* possible outcomes…..and a few percent either way will swing it….via differential votes by region and by socio-economic class !

  6. @ ITS MY MONEY

    I think you need to check your maths!
    ———————————————-

    Please elucidate….. I did say I am open to corrections by those who disagree. I’d love to see your calculations – please post them asap.

    Thanks.

  7. Amber

    It did work yes it did. :-)

  8. Not sure about OnePoll atm. I am on their panel and have been put up for a GE survey three times. Maybe that reflects the siZe of their panel? They also differ from Yougov in that OnePoll don’t send out email for surveys but relies on members to log on and see if there are any surveys offered to them. I suppose this might this might result in some self-selection bias. Obviously my thoughts of the validity of Onepoll’s poll is pure speculation but it’s their fault if they don’t publish their methodology!

  9. @Jack C,

    Thanks for that…. out of curiousity who did you vote had the nicest bum? :)

  10. @amber star

    could be wrong – but if lab have current maj of 48 and lose 57 seats to tories. Then you need to count the lost seats twice to get how many lab would be short of a majority.

    so 48-57-57=66 short

    I think!

  11. I cannot see either Con or Lab supporting PR i.e. real PR. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I hate too say it but a Lab/Con coalition is likely.

  12. Jack C

    Informative -that’s the equivalent of those tick boxes on newspaper front pages ‘instant reaction’.

  13. :) @Its My Money.

    I am not sure that that is correct. If you have 350 and lose 50 you are at 300. That leaves you 23 off a majority or there abouts.

    I think you would be right to say maybe if you gain 50 eg… 400 seats then your majoirty would increase at a higher rate.

    Does that make sense? :)

  14. @ Oliver Collinge

    Oliver, I have just looked at your chart. I have no criticisms of it at all. It is incredibly useful, and telling, thank you!

    Tony

  15. @ ROB SHEFFIELD

    I noticed that NC doesn’t rule himself out & imagined the scenario:

    GB: How about Harman?
    NC: No
    GB: Darling?
    NC: No
    GB: One of the Millibands?
    NC: Ed? No
    GB: David?
    NC: Actually, No.
    GB: Then it’s yourself Nick…
    NC: That sounds fine to me.

  16. @Amber Star

    ”GB: How about Harman?
    NC: No
    GB: Darling?
    NC: No
    GB: One of the Millibands?
    NC: Ed? No
    GB: David?
    NC: Actually, No.
    GB: Then it’s yourself Nick…
    NC: That sounds fine to me.”
    ———————————————

    NC: “On second thoughts I only scored 30% so 70% don’t want me – so I really couldn’t , thanks all the same”

  17. @Amber star

    Oh yes!

    But I think ti will be something like this:

    GB: We have more seats then you
    NC: Yes but we got more votes then you
    GB: So did the Conservatives
    NC: Yes but we are diametrically oppsed to their economic policies
    GB: So back me, er, I mean us then.
    NC: Sorry- you got less votes than me, er, us.
    GB: So what are you saying?
    NC: You want to stay as PM? Well in that case I’ll back Cameron.
    GB: I am hearing there another option
    NC: Yes you are- ask yourself Gordon “what is it that I really really want”…….
    GB:….um….for the Conservatives to be out of power and for Cameron and Osborne to feel the wrath of their party
    NC: So…….
    GB: OK Cle, er, Nick I’ll go with you to the palace and say to her majesty that our two parties have a workable government and that you are the PM- she will then kiss your hand…metaphorically
    NC: Ik hou van het geluid van die :-)

  18. lol cozmo

    altruism lives!

  19. Oliver
    I too found your chart and it shows the disastrous Conservative manifesto launch like a naked singularity – ghastly to behold. Will you keep it going as I have logged its reference page?

  20. @ COZMO

    Yes, Nick’s really causing confusion with the PM thing; I can’t see what he expects to achieve from this :-)

  21. Re Cameron on the Regions

    This may not resonate among many posters but I thought it was useful that Cameron clarified what he said (or what he meant rather than how it has been spun) about the NE, it’s certainly been debated here all day.

    BBC Election Live was just in Stockton in the North-East to hear him explain that it’s about the *balance* of the economy and that the “NE and other areas are too dependent on the public sector so we need to get the private sector moving again; not job cuts but re-balancing the economy”.

    Wouldn’t a few in the NE or NI welcome a private sector job rather than only a chance of a public sector one? Isn’t this a blindingly obvious thing to aim for, given our national debt? Wouldn’t it therefore attract Tory votes rather than put people off?

  22. @ Amber

    Apologies for what I said about Clegg and the Times last night! I’ve just been on the website looking for the very well-hidden Kellner article and had to wade (or possibly Wade) though reams of “Nick Clegg will eat your hampster” stories.

  23. Amber, Cozmo & Rob

    To coin a phrase “Get real!” – you must all be getting a little bored?…..let’s have some of tomorrow’s polls please someone!

  24. @Éoin
    I think that’s right.

    If a party has 300 seats and need 325 for a majority then they’re short by 25, but for every seat over 325, they add one to their tally and take one away from others, so the numbers go up x2 for each seat.
    In other words 330 seats would be a majority of 12 (not 6)

  25. Observer today talks of CON letter to nurseries- after election they will be allowed to charge top up fees- thus free places will go. This will affect many working mothers. Surely a bad move by CONs.

  26. @MikeP,

    Sorry but logic such as that won’t come into it. The Northern Echo has run it continuously since he said it. Local blogging forums are full of nothing but it. As the postla votes are sent off, expect a knee jerk switch to red. I cannot imagine who advised him to go for this.

    Aside from that, a flourishing private sector in the NE would be very welcome. look what it has done for Leeds.

  27. @MikeP

    “Wouldn’t a few in the NE or NI welcome a private sector job rather than only a chance of a public sector one? Isn’t this a blindingly obvious thing to aim for, given our national debt? Wouldn’t it therefore attract Tory votes rather than put people off?”

    I think the genie is out of the bottle on that one- whether he meant it as old-skool politics or it was another one of his unscripted gaffes rowing back from it now won’t cut it IMHO.

    Especially when the principal organisation that massively assists in raising ‘entrepreneurial-capacity’ via grants and training and in attracting (private) inward investment- the North east RDA- is targeted for ideological abolition (!!)……that is a circle he just cannot square….

  28. Roger Mexico

    That’s right! I could not find the PK article either. I had to come back to this thread, page through and paste in its reference when I found the post. Thanks whoever it was.

    I supose it enables them to claim balance in the event of complaint – tricky dickies.

  29. @Percy,

    I agree completely. If this is the trend of stories until polling day, the get real mantra will resound on ever doorstep. I really cannot believe what a strategic shambles we are witnessing at the final hurdle.

  30. @ ITS MY MONEY

    Thanks for your post :-) That’s exactly why I asked for corrections – my electoral math is not what it should be. I appreciate your tact in waiting until I specifically asked before posting your correction.

    @ Éoin

    Thanks for your tact, too – “I support your analysis” was the part you wrote “but your math is rubbish” was the bit you tactfully didn’t write ;-)

  31. @Tony Dean

    “To coin a phrase “Get real!” – you must all be getting a little bored?…..let’s have some of tomorrow’s polls please someone”

    We were discussing the balanced parliament permutations- STILL the most likely GE result BTW.

    I fail to understand at all what you mean ! Obviously tomorrows polls make change the potential complexion….but that’s tomorrow as you rightly say.

    If you have no view on what might happen in a balanced parliament then I cannot see the point in commenting ;-)

  32. @ Eion
    @ Amber star

    AS wrote LAB at 48 working majority includes all changes to date.

    LAB lose 57 seats to CON => 9 seats short of a majority (all else being equal).

    345 – 57 would give 288

    326 is needed assuming everyone shows up! So lab under this outcome would need another 38, not 9 short even if SF dont ever turn up.

  33. Thanks Eoin

    Wouldn’t it help LAB for a women minister to hightlight this sort of thing.?

  34. @ amber star

    No problem i was wrong too it seems and i’m rubbish at English as well!

  35. @ TONY DEAN

    We were just having a little fun :-)

    If you are a LIBDEM, in 2 out of 3 Nick gets the PM slot & the 3rd shows him altruistically declining it.

    We didn’t imply he’d eaten anybody’s hamster ;-)

  36. the kellner article

    makes for very interesting reading

    how much sway ( if you pardon the pun ) are the bods on here putting on that ?

    if what he says is correct andf the marginals swing simply isnt there in enough numbers , then the tories are going to be panicking

    still think they will make largest party with some room to spare though

    kellner was certain of a tory majority not that long ago

    hes changed his view on this article

  37. IMM and Amber and Eoin

    That’s why Lab needs LD to take a few Con seats and not just hold what they’ve got, as well as minimise the Lab to LD factor of course. But that’s asking too much so largest party is the extent of Lab’s rather hopeful ambition at this stage.

  38. Yes Amber, I realised you were! As to being a LibDem, well perhaps – as an old-fashioned National Liberal I am still floating between DC and NC – I just find the press action very distasteful (I don’t like hamsters either yuk!) – thus my posts!

    Tony

  39. its my money
    @amber star

    could be wrong – but if lab have current maj of 48 and lose 57 seats to tories. Then you need to count the lost seats twice to get how many lab would be short of a majority.

    so 48-57-57=66 short

    I think!
    —————————
    @Its my money and Amber.

    Sorry. Both wrong. Amber was half way right but she is leaving out Labour losses to Lib Dems, PC, SNP etc.

    Still it would be a remarkably good figure. Something like 30/40 short. I think the Tories will take more than 57 seats.

  40. WW

    Kellner push polling? Not very effective if he is on page 1001. Besides which he doesn’t do that.

  41. Actually the prospect of regional cuts is a problem for all the Parties – it’s only Cameron who is (shall we say) naive enough to air it.

    Everyone is pledging to defend “front line services”. By definition these are spread throughout the country depending on population.

    Back office administration has been moved over the years to high employment areas in the regions. This actually makes a lot of sense: easier access to high quality employees, less staff turnover; cheaper office costs and so on.

    But if your talking about big cuts without affecting the NHS, education , police etc – this is all you’ve got left to go at.

    Incidentally a lot of these cuts even make no sense in their own terms. A lot of jobs already gone from Revenue & Customs may be reducing government revenue per person cut by much more than you save in staff costs.

    Cameron won’t lose much in terms of potential wins in the NE and Scotland, but if Wales and the North West pick up they will be affected too, he’s got problems.

  42. Labour Party web site is running with regional cuts. Expect it to feature in Debate.

    BTW, debate clashes with football again.

  43. @Jamie: No-one can know whether the trend will continue. All we can know is whether or not there is a trend which is statistically significant (most of the alleged “trends” in the media turn out not to be) and if this trend continued what the result would be.

    Steve. Thanks. And I think your comment on GB is a little unfair. Burger King AFAIK is a highly ethical company and if they seconded a marketing manager to be in charge of an childhood obesity centre I’m sure they would not double the childrens’ calorie intake, part fund it by a tax on their parents pensions and jobs and then cover the rest by off-balance sheet transactions and borrowing 25% of the total revenue.

  44. @ Rob

    Hi Rob. “The genie would be out of the bottle” if Cameron didn’t also believe that the Government and its agencies don’t have to be the only agents of change and economic development.

    I had an excrutiating meeting with the Dept of BIS once about the RDAs, they didn’t even know how the grants were being spent or how to hold each RDS to account to explain what benefits had arisen around the country. Had I been a journalist I could have had a field day, so I think we can do better than this. I know this is a partisan point but it began life a possible polling upside for Conservatives.

  45. @ Rob Sheffield
    As I have said to Amber I realised you were having fun. In an oblique way I was giving the response “The Great Leader” might give to your hypotheses by saying “Get real” (his current mantra of choice). This is the problem with written comments, the inflection in the voice is lost. I meant it as a bit of a counter-joke.
    I believe because of “usual channels” that they already all know what they will be saying to each other given different scenarios?

  46. Back office administration – an observation

    Former head of the Office of Government Commerce, Sir Peter Gershon, told the Conservative Party to outsource all of its back-office functions if it wins the GE.
    Whether the Cons would do this…

  47. Er, just to be clear re my last post, it’s the gov back-office admin and not the Con party admin….

  48. This might seem a silly question, but when people calculate seats based on UNS or whatever, do these calculations take into account new boundaries, or is it on the old boundaries?

  49. Please could someone post the link to the Kellner article? I tried but couldn’t get link to work.

  50. @MikeP

    “I had an excrutiating meeting with the Dept of BIS once about the RDAs, they didn’t even know how the grants were being spent or how to hold each RDS to account to explain what benefits had arisen around the country. Had I been a journalist I could have had a field day, so I think we can do better than this. I know this is a partisan point but it began life a possible polling upside for Conservatives.”

    Well I deal with them almost every week (rather than “once”) and my expereince is completely different. Their contribution to (private sector generated) increases in GVA is significant both in terms of advice and also money in the form of training and grants to small business.

    But clearly you take the Conservative (ideological) position.

1 11 12 13 14 15