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 12 13 14 15
  1. RE: Regional cuts, as perceived by voters.

    Of course every voter would like the choice between a public sector job or a private sector one.

    But Cameron has made government cuts ‘real’ whereas private sector jobs are merely hoped for in the future.

    This will cost Cameron votes – & even seats, IMO.

  2. Pam F

    I found an extensive quotation summary on the New Statesman front page.

  3. @ Signifficant

    All are based on new boundaries – that’s why the models can differ quite a bit. They all have revised figures for what the result “would have been” in 2005 on the new boundaries and there’s a lot of guesswork involved based on local election results, socio-economic factors etc.

  4. PAM F:

    Peter Kellner article in the Sunday Times..

    timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7107265.ece

  5. Try this for the hidden Kellner

    w w w.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7107265.ece

    Closing up the gaps between the W’s.

  6. “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.”

    What about a Conservative minority government?

  7. ‘AMBER STAR
    RE: Regional cuts, as perceived by voters.
    Of course every voter would like the choice between a public sector job or a private sector one’

    Really? I think most people dont care who their employers are; they’d just like a job (or a choice of job). Many prefer public sector jobs as the company wont go bankrupt…

  8. “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.”

    What about a Conservative minority government?

    Sorry didn’t see comment on DUP but don’t understand it anyway. Please explain. I now see Conservative minority as most likely. Hence my query on the control minority governments can exert on the legislative agenda. Can anyone elucidate on this?

  9. These are the demographical swings based on the last YouGov poll:

    Voting Intentions:

    2005: 32.4/ 35.2/ 22.0/ 10.4
    Now: 35 / 27 / 28 / 9
    change:+2.6/-8.2 / +6 /-1.4

    Regions
    London:

    2005: 31.9/ 38.9/ 21.9 /7.3
    Now: 34 / 25 / 36 /6
    Change: +2.1/ -13.9/+14.2/-1.3

    Sccotland:
    (Con/Lab/Lib/Snp/Others)
    2005: 15.8/ 38.9 / 22.6 / 17.7 / 5
    Now: 16 / 35 / 22 / 23 / 4
    change: +0.2/ -3.9 / +0.6 / +5.3/ -1

    North: (Includes East&West North + Yorkshire)
    2005: 25.8/ 47.2 / 21.8 / 5.3
    Now: 32 / 31 / 29 / 8
    change: +6.2 /-16.2/ +8.2 / +3.7

    Midland&Wales: (Includes East&West ML+Eastern)
    2005: 34.3/ 37.6/ 19.3/ 9.0
    Now 33 / 34 / 24 / 9.0
    Change: -1.3/ -3.6 / +4.7/0

    South:
    2005: 41.8/ 23.6/ 29 / 5.7
    Now: 45 / 19 / 28 / 7
    Change: +3.2 / -4.6 / -1 / +2.7

    Sex:
    Males:

    2005: 34/ 34/ 22/ 10
    Now: 35/ 27/ 28/ 9
    Change: +1/ -7/ +6/ -1

    Females:

    2005: 32/ 38/ 23/ 7
    Now: 35/ 28/ 28/ 9
    Change: +3/ -10/ +6/ +2

    Age:
    18-34

    2005: 26.5/ 38/ 26.5/ 9
    Now: 34 / 26/ 35 / 6
    Change:+7.5/ -12/ +8.5/ -3

    35-54:

    2005: 29/ 38/ 24/ 9
    Now: 32/ 30/ 30/ 8
    Change: +3/ -8/ +6/ -1

    55+

    2005: 40/ 33/ 20/ 7
    Now: 40/ 26/ 22/ 13
    Change: +0/ -7/ +2/ +5

    Social Grade:
    ABC1:

    2005: 37/ 30/ 26/ 7
    Now: 35/ 26/ 30/ 9
    Change: -2/ -4/ +4/ +2

    C2DE:

    2005: 29/ 44/ 18.5/ 8.5
    Now: 36/ 29/ 26 / 9
    Change: +4/ -15/ +7.5/ +0.5

    Some assumptions mights be wrong but i am very certain of the numbers. I will try to find time to make a post assessing these numbers, but I think they would be an interesting read for all so i put them up. I am also working on a similar chart, this time based on the last 7 days of YouGov polls. Might put those up too.

  10. @ Eoin

    Thanks for your reply earlier.
    I’m learning !

    @ Amber Star

    I think Alan answered for me earlier, I’ve just got back in.
    Remember – for every seat you lose to the opposition, your majority reduces by 2.
    So if Labour currently had a majority of 48, they would only have to lose net 24 seats to no longer have a majority.

  11. Look forward to it Xiby and many thanks for carrying out that which you promised.

    I don’t know where or how you got this stuff but presumably all will be revealed.i

  12. @ Xiby

    Do these figures mean that despite the fact that the LDs are showing significantly higher poll ratings than the vote in 2005 nationally, their rating is actually down -1 in the South as a whole? (I take it the South = South East and South West regions?) If so, this would be very, very bad news for them in southern and southwestern seats given the Con rise of +3.2

    or am I barking up the wrong tree?

  13. From PK’s article LD could support either CamCon or Lab to provide for ‘working maj’.

    IMO it would be a radical deviation to support CamCon.

    There may be some mileage for Lab to distance from Ld & CamCon and let them ‘cosy’ up to each other and form what most likely would be a dreadfully inefficient govt.

    At a relatively short time in the future – maybe a year or so – a second GE would sort the wheat out from the chaff and Lab may well benefit. Particularly as GB would have been replaced by then.

    Not saying GB is entirely at fault but he has not gelled the public into giving Lab significant support.

    It would also be one (of a number) of outcomes that would not leave the public sector at the unfettered hands of Thatch MkII

  14. Thanks for posting the links.. interesting isn’t it?

  15. @ Andrew Holden and others

    The ‘notional’ Labour majority is 38 (344 seats). A loss of twenty means a notional minority (324 Lab, 325 Others, Speaker = 650). Of course as others have pointed out Sinn Fein don’t take their seats but the SDLP will back Labour (as will Sylvia Hermon if re-elected). Assuming five SF are elected, that means the total minus SF and Speaker is 644.

    If there are three SDLP plus Hermon voting with Labour then Lab need 319 to guarantee a majority (319 + 3 +1 = 323 pro-Lab, 321 anti-Lab).

    Therefore Labour can lose 25 seats and retain an effective majority.

    However the chances of Labour losing only 25 seats are so slim as to be almost non-existent.

    Also, remember not to count expected Labour pick-ups from bye-election losses in your figures. These are already included in the notional 344. Thus if Labour defeat the SNP in Glasgow, as they should, then it’s a hold, not a gain.

    Hope this helps.

  16. It would appear that the Conservative lead over the Lib Dems isn’t critical. In order to get a majority the swingometer suggests that the Conservatives seem to need about an 11 point lead over Labour, and that seems to be the figure to watch. At the moment they have about 8 point lead.

    In 1983 the Conservatives had about a 15 point lead over Labour, although you’ll also notice that their vote was well over 40%:
    Conservative 43.51% / Labour 28.28% / Liberal SDP Alliance 26.02.

  17. @ Howard

    The numbers for 2005 are the official election numbers. The YouGov numbers are obviously from their site, and they are the numbers from last night.(Thx to EOIN for directing me to the right place.)

    @ Tony Dean

    According to last nights YouGov, yes that would be correct.

  18. Extracts from the YG poll:

    North: (Includes East&West North + Yorkshire)
    2005: 25.8/ 47.2 / 21.8 / 5.3
    Now: 32 / 31 / 29 / 8
    change: +6.2 /-16.2/ +8.2 / +3.7

    Midland&Wales: (Includes East&West ML+Eastern)
    2005: 34.3/ 37.6/ 19.3/ 9.0
    Now 33 / 34 / 24 / 9.0
    Change: -1.3/ -3.6 / +4.7/0

    Massive swing to the Tories in the North including Yorkshire.

    However, only a 1.2% swing in the Midlands and Wales

    Where are the Tory/Lab marginals ?

  19. Xiby’s post shows some interesting trends.

    the Tories aren’t doing as well as they were anywhere, but for Cameron to be PM he is now reliant on votes from northerners on low wages aged 18 to 35!

    I think Brown needs to somehow reconnect with them to keep his job, if my analysis of Xiby’s figures is right.

  20. What i find very interesting are the London numbers. According to YouGov the LibDems will carry London, now isn’t that just fascinating?

  21. Rumours: a bit too early !!

    YouGov: Con 34% (-1), LD 30% (+2%), Lab 28% (+1)

    Simply a correction from yesterday, I think.

  22. @Islandradical

    “What about a Conservative minority government?”

    Yes- if GB refuses to hand PM to Clegg then Clegg would support Cameron.

    If GB realises that this situation is bigger than himself (i.e. if Cameron is in opposition after May 6th then its civil war and catastrophe for the Tories) he’ll give Clegg PM…..as long as the result gives a Lib-Lab coaltion a majority.

    Which it currently does.

    Though that probability has been decreasing- based on the daily poll averages- for the last four days…..

  23. @ Xiby,

    Those are interesting numbers – good effort! Presumably if it is just based on one YouGov poll then the numbers in each region are no more than 200, and the moE will be pretty big (?6%)?

    Also when Anthony talks about regional polls he is always at pains to say “properly weighted”. Are you able to do this in your analysis?

    Andrew

  24. @ Scotleag.

    Thanks for your reply – much appreciated.

    I totally agree Labour will certainly lose alot more than 24 or 25 seats – I was merely pointing out that this is all they have to lose before they lose their majority.

  25. @XIBY

    Yes. It could be seats like Brentford & Isleworth, Hammersmith, Ealing which the Tories were banking on. Now could have gone straight to the LD.

  26. @Surbiton

    “Rumours: a bit too early !! YouGov: Con 34% (-1), LD 30% (+2%), Lab 28% (+1)”

    *IF* so- that is VERY bad news for Cameron…..

  27. Xiby

    Yes I found it but beware sample size!

  28. @ Andrew McCaig

    The numbers are already weighted by YouGov, but you are correct on the margin of error, that is why i am working on a similar number assessment but based on the last 7 YouGoV polls. That should reduce the margin of error by a fair bit.

  29. is it just the yougov poll that’s out tonight?

  30. Surbiton,

    Rumoured YouGov would be an interesting “trend”. Look forward to all the views on it if true….

    My view is that it would show the Tories failing to break the 35% barrier and the Lib Dems consolidating second place on 29% – but what do I know!

    Andrew

  31. @Surbiton

    if that’s true and replicated on May 6, then election night is going to be a long and fun evening!

  32. @Percy,

    Harriet Harman was sidelined a couple of months ago by Mandleson.

    It was a strategic disaster. She is competent, honest and principled. I think women voters would have correlated well. A tactic Bill and Hilary used was to split up and campaign. I am surprised Brown has not used this tactic with his wife sarah…

    surrogate campaigning works.

    Uk campaign staff have still a lot to learn.

  33. If the YouGov rumour is right, it is all MOE, however, it will add emphasis to the current stability of support for all three at these levels.

  34. If the rumours are anywhere near correct, I feel that is where the needle[s] currently point anyway.

    Labour at 28 – largest party. I am now assuming no special marginal swing to the Tories because of LD advance. The swing in the Midlands and Wales is now down to just over 1%.

  35. Rumour is being “withdrawn” or “deleted”.

  36. XIBY

    That’s a huge swing Lab-LD in the North acc to those figures – 12% or so, enough to do some real damage in some of those urban seats I would ahve thought.

  37. @Gary E

    Am today in haltemprice & Howden and a big swing from Lab to LD would be the only way to unseat DDavis – but it could be done with a big enough shift

  38. Libdems may start to suffer in the polls thinking they can dictate who would lead the largest party as price for coalition support. They claimed they did not want to be king makers?

  39. Labour would lose 25-30 seats to the LDs in the North on that swing, there are even some potential wins from third place on the basis of a double digit swing. Has there ever been an election that has seen such fascinating regional variations? That swingometer needs to be in 3D really!

  40. @Surbiton

    Did it come from ConHome? There’s nothing on the site about it. Twitter is abuzz wit this rumour, but it all goes back to a link that no longer works!

  41. @Neil – agree, and have been saying this for days. Clegg announceing his criteria for what he defines as a mandate to govern was very arrogant and would only alienate supporters that wouldn’t want coalition with Cons or Labour for that matter.

    Basically he’s now saying he is kingmaker

  42. @Eoin

    Thanks. Samcam has done one.
    Sarah would be fine

    It would be good to see a LAB press conference with just Gordon and Harriet and Yvette on stage!

  43. @Percy,

    Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blear and Ruth Kelly were three bad losses. It looks a bit man-heavy on the front bench.

    It is a real pity.

  44. Why is it arrogant of Nick Clegg to want to be PM in an alliance between the second and third placed parties, if his party is in second place, but not arrogant for Gordon Brown to want to be PM in an alliance between those parties if his party is in third place?

  45. Xiby

    Thanks for that work. The only problem is that by only using one day’s figures your sample sizes get a bit small.

    You may still get a plausible answer – the Scotland percentages on a sample of 123 (weighted) are exactly the same as the latest full Scottish poll, but if you look at the London poll for the previous day the figures are 35/30/29 (sample size 177). Still indicative of something very interesting going on, but you really need to add several days together to have larger samples for more accurate figures.

    Of course that means your sampling dates are spread over a longer time (as face to face sampling is) so it’s always swings and roundabouts.

  46. Evening all,

    Éoin, I agree that to lose three female cabinet members is a shame, but I for one don’t mourn the loss of Smith or Blears. Furthermore, very unusually for me, I agree with Anne Widdicombe – being a senior politician, or indeed any politician, is a status that should be reached on merit and there is no place for positive discrimination.

  47. @ Christopher

    What is arrogant about saying that a party coming third in the popular vote has no moral authority to provide the PM?

    I don’t think anyone could argue that it is arrogant to argue that that would be laughably obscene!

    This is England after all, not Zimbabwe!

  48. @Mitz,

    Good evening

    That is true but on merit some of the women are more competent than their male superiors. Sue cited a good example once MP for Cawley. (Moffat).

    I can understand the annoyance with Blears, but what did Smith do?

  49. TONY DEAN / XIBY

    Actually the swing Con-LD in the south is only small and imperils fewer than 6 LD seats by my reckoning. Of course ‘South’ is a large area and includes some relatively weak LD territory too, esp in the southeast, Con will need a larger swing than that to make it to overall majority territory. It has to be said one or two of those imperilled LDs are specialists in small majorities and not easily unseated!

    The London picture is fascinating Xiby! All bets off in London with those relative swings anythign could happen and some well known MPs could be on the way out.

  50. @ Rob

    No Rob, I’m happy to concede that you have more uptodate insight into what the RDAs do, I’m delighted, if a little surprised, that they’re doing a good job

1 12 13 14 15