Back at the start of November I did a post looking at the level of support UKIP had in the polls and the widely differing results from different pollsters, at the time ICM and ComRes had them as low as 3% or 4%, while Opinium and Survation had them up on 10% or 12%.

Well since then UKIP have increased their support across the board, so here’s an update of the same graph I used then, again taking the three last three months or so of data:

As you can see, while everyone except MORI have UKIP higher (the drop in UKIP’s support from MORI is because of their November poll, which had UKIP on only 3%. Their December poll had them at 7%), there continues to be a big spread between different polling companies, from around 7% all the way up to around 14% to 16%.

Apart from Populus (who only had one poll in the period), the divide continues to be between online and telephone polling, with telephone polls averaging at around 7% for UKIP, and online polls averaging at around 11% for UKIP (although even within those groups, there is significant variation – YouGov, for example, tend to show figures closer to telephone pollsters, Survation tend to show the highest levels of UKIP support due to prompting)


185 Responses to “How much support do UKIP have… an update”

1 2 3 4
  1. Toh

    “@Chris Neville-SmithStill cannot see why being sensible is contemptible. If a Government chooses to set obscene tax levels then it makes sense to leave that country until a better government is elected. I get really fed up with attacks on the wealthy, seems like sour grapes to me.”

    Well being a drug dealer is sensible, if you want to make lots of money and of course the more successful you are, the more access you have to senior civil servants, politicians and bankers and Hence almost no chance of being caught. I’m guessing that because they are making lots of money it’s not contemptible even though they are destroying the lives of thousands

  2. @RIN

    Cannot understand your comment at all. As far as i know the actor in question is not in any way a criminal. He is just avoiding obscene levels of tax which makes sense to me. I certainly do not approve of criminal activity of any kind and how you draw such a conclusion is totally beyond me.

    Of couse if you are a communist “property is theft”. Is that where you are coming from?

  3. Not that I’ve “attacked the rich” myself but it’s not necessarily the best plan to project negatives like envy onto others when they are clearly concerned with fairness. And one can say one is unconcerned with money, but then it’s a bit odd if nonetheless remarkably concerned to defend the rich for keeping as much as they can, which is nice and all but I’m not sure they need all that much defending. They can go where they please as Monsieur Deppydoo has done. It’s generally the vulnerable that need defending. Like all the disabled being passed fit for work even when some are dying. Strangely that doesn’t evoke the same concern as for the rich…

  4. CHRIS

    Thanks.

    I see which way you’re thinking Chris.

    Just a few of responses :-

    I think you will find that Private Sector employment increase still exceeded Public Sector reductions , even after the re-classification.

    Of course part-time jobs are not as good as full time jobs. But they are better than no jobs at all. It seems a consensus view that UK employers have retained headcount in exchange for lower hours where they felt able to do so. You probably feel that employers should have kept everyone on full time-or the government paid them to do so-or some other magic solution at “creating jobs” .

    RE Lord Heseltine-I rather got the impression that he endorsed the Government’s Regional Development Fund , since that was very much his style. Other than that , Tarzan’s big thing was always to give the money & the discretion to LAs & bypass Whitehall & their agencies . I’m afraid no Treasury minister-or official is ever going to buy that one.

    I’m partial to the odd non-sequitur myself when the occasion demands-and so much enjoyed your “Good ways NOT to do this would be continually refusing to adopt an industrial policy, ”

    By the way , I smiled at your “a social work job is not equivalent to a part-time job in Tescos.” -it seems that the default example of a BAD job from critics like you is always a job at the third largest retailer in the world. And I was interested that your default GOOD job is in “social work”.

  5. @RIN

    Just to make myself totally clear when I say I am fed up with attacks on the rich I am talking about those whose wealth comes from totally legitimate means. There is nothing wrong with being rich, indeed if achievied by the sweat of their brows the rich are to be applauded.

  6. Carfrew,

    “If you’re a “small state Tory”, if your priority is to see what’s left of the State hived off to the private sector, and cutting what you can’t sell off (e.g. welfare) then you are liable to be really rather pleased with this government.”

    I’m a “small state” person, albeit not a Tory. I’d be satisfied if the state was as proportionately large as it was at the end of the first Attlee government in 1950, i.e. 36% of GDP. It’s at about 45% now, higher than during the Blair years. The Coalition isn’t going to get remotely close to that, partly because of failing to control public spending and partly because of throttling private sector growth by squeezing the money supply with recapitalisation. So even small state people can be alienated by this government, though we might think that the alternative would be even worse.

    For that reason, UKIP are attracting quite a few libertarian types, who previously saw the Tories as the least bad option and who see the EU as an otherwise insurmountable barrier to radical change. (In that last respect, they’re much like radical socialists, but I don’t think there are many socialists who vote UKIP somehow.)

    However, I find UKIP weak (or weaker) in exactly the same places that the Tories are weak: immigration, homosexual rights, the environment, drug policy, and foreign policy. My wait for a national UK classical liberal/libertarian party goes on, and shall go on in all probability until and if we have PR.

  7. @carfrew

    I suspect i am as caring as you about those less fortunate than myself. What I get fed up with is the constant attacks on the wealth creators in our society Without the efforts of those wealth creators this country will go down the plughole very fast indeed.

    Before you tell me i fully understand that not all the wealthy are wealth creators.

  8. CHRIS

    Slight correction having revisited Heseltine.

    He proposed the dosh be given to Pickles’ LEPs and local Chambers of Commerce. ( LAs are of course partners in LEPs)

    He also proposed that all LAs should become Unitary Authorities.

  9. @toh

    Ok but I don’t see that anyone has “attacked” wealth creation. I haven’t seen anyone having a pop at Mister Deppydoo for making his films…

  10. BILL PATRICK

    @”The Coalition isn’t going to get remotely close to that, partly because of failing to control public spending and partly because of throttling private sector growth by squeezing the money supply with recapitalisation. ”

    As a matter of interest-do I assume your alternative to “recapitalisation” is to relax regulation on bank liquidity cushioning?

    Given the outcry over the post credit freeze disaster which resulted from our banks lending long & borrowing short from each other-wouldn’t that fall into the category of “courageous decision minister” ?

  11. Richard in Norway,

    “Depardieu should be treated by the French the same way they treated the collaborators after WWII. Same crime, same punishment!!”

    Or just build a guarded wall across the French border.

    I’d say “Different crime, different punishment”, but I don’t regard choosing one’s government as a crime.

  12. Colin,

    Ideally yes, with the proviso of removing deposit insurance to create market incentives and having as much of a free market in banking as in anything else. In practice, countervailing monetary measures to offset the effects of recapitalisation would be the lesser of evils.

    Though this is increasingly yesterday’s battle, as the money supply recovers and the monetary squeeze on households & non-financial businesses eases-

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/PublishingImages/fm4/2012/Nov/CHART3.GIF

  13. Toh

    I wasn’t making a legal comparison but a moral one. It’s my veiw that tax exiles represent a threat to national security and the state does have the moral right and indeed obligation to eliminate threats to national security

  14. Of course it’s preferably to eliminate folk secretly and anonymously, ie make it look like an accident

  15. @billp

    You’ll wait a long time for a state small enough to satisfy you, of the kind you would like (e.g. much less to do with Europe). Big business won’t allow it. They like a state to bolster their affairs, just not necessarily in the way that the rest of us might like.

    That’s one of the numerous paradoxes of the Libertarian view. Shrink the state and hand over more and more to the big business and they maintain government to their own ends, only less accountably.

    Was the same in the neoliberal Victorian era though the state machine was more focused on Empire of course. Huge resources devoted to empire and protecting business while a quarter lived in poverty. But we don’t have an Empire any more. So we get regulatory capture, entrenchment in Europe, held to ransom over utilities and banking, etc.

  16. Oh, and all those big juicy public sector contracts, big business likes those too!!…

  17. I can understand the interest in UKIP because of polling and the fact that they may be marginally more interesting to write about than the usual main parties in England. However, let’s keep some sense of perspective. The idea of them even coming close to winning in my constituency North Devon is pure fantasy. The LD vote contained a substantial number of left leaning anti-Tories who wouldn’t waste it on a distant third Labour Party. They won’t go to UKIP (except in European elections). As one person on this thread pointed out, UKIP can’t get activists out in any sort of numbers to leaflet and canvass – it has to rely on opening a shop in Barnstaple High Street for the election period, dishing out a few leaflets on Saturdays and funding large bill posters. As for candidates in local elections, well in the last District Council elections in North Devon (2011), they stood one candidate in one ward! And this in an area they’re supposed to be strong in.

  18. Well,that went down a bomb then,not!

  19. @ Ann in Wales

    Well, that went down a bomb then, not!
    ——————
    Are you talking about the ‘Ronseal’ re-launch?

  20. Is “Cammy” sponsored by Ronseal?

  21. Amber,how did you guess!

  22. @ Doug

    Fenland (seats like Boston & Skegness and NW Cambridgeshire) probably has the best prospects for UKIP winning a parliamentary seat. This area has a very large East European population (Poles, Balts and others) working particularly in arable agriculture, and their substantial influx following the enlargement of the EU a few years ago has unfortunately aroused substantial local antagonism.

  23. Actually that’s another wizard wheeze from me: poitical parties to be sponsored [e.g. “The New Emirates Labour Party”, with logos on their suits and so on. A great aternative to pubic funding and everything out in the open.

    ” The Old Eton Tory Party” sounds great

  24. DAODAO

    Do the locals object to their crops being picked then?

  25. @ PC

    The population influx in Fenland has put a great strain on local public services and changed the character of Fenland towns such as Wisbech. Unlike big cities such as London and Manchester, which have always been magnets for immigrants, Fenland is unused to such a change.

  26. @Paul

    Like it. Not sure who should sponsor UKip though. Eurostar, probably…

  27. Carfrew:

    “UKIP, sponsored by the Champions League”

    Has a definite ring.

  28. I do believe that Boston and Skegness and Cambridgeshire North West will have UKIP MPs at the present rate in 2015. In Cambridgeshire North West they have been polling near my figures in recent elections. The County Council election would be a great indicator. Also in regard to my vote shares, they are not high for winning candidates. If the Tory and Lib Dem vote is split enough (like in Devon North) there are enough people there willing to vote UKIP that they could sneak in. Bournemouth does seem perfect for them though. Their vote share is more concentrated than initially meets the eye in these areas. They were on about 10% in Boston and Skegness in 2010 after all.

    I do think that the UKIP support in the shires hasn’t been clear yet but the elections in May will change that. My relatives live in a strong UKIP area and the momentum can be felt. Also my figures are based on 2010 vote shares,

  29. Carfrew,

    I quite agree. The same goes for protectionism: the biggest constituency for “stomach taxes” (i.e. tarriffs) are businesses, including farmers.

    As Milton Friedman put it, “The biggest enemies of capitalism are businessmen and intellectuals.” The latter tend to want a free market, but only in ideas; the former often support a free market in principle, but can always think up special excuses for themselves.

    You also make a good point about the Empire. I think that much of it can be explained as aristocrats creating substitute feudal empires after capitalism resulted in an increasingly independent urban working class, who could choose their employers to a much greater extent than farmers can choose their lairds.

    I don’t use the term “neoliberal” if I can avoid it. It’s as least as ambigious as “socialist” (e.g. Tony Blair and Friedrich Hayek are both called “neoliberals”) but without the benefit that socialism at least has some clear, non-pejorative uses.

    That said, I think one can at least say that the Victorian era was a small-state period, even though that state often had unjust powers and an unjust franchise. In 1862, public spending as a percentage of GDP was 12%. I think we had the balance roughly right about 100 years ago, after the Liberal reforms, and we were able to do that with total government spending (public and private) at just 6.8% of GDP. Spending on Social Security was about half of spending on education then; it’s nearly 130% today.

    Paul Croft,

    Surely the Democratic Unionists have been missing out of a lot of money by not getting a sponsorship with Orange?

  30. Or, to complete the open-ness agenda

    “UKIP, sponsored by Her Majesty The Queen.”

    and, perhaps

    “The Liberal Democrats, sponsored by the Conservative Party.”

  31. BILL PATRICK

    THanks.
    Always enjoy your take on things.

  32. Yep, it does have a ring to it. Probably rather better than my alternative candidate: UKip, brought to you by the Rumanian Tourist Board…

    Lib Dems won’t be needing much sponsorship in future will they?…

  33. DAODO
    @”The population influx in Fenland has put a great strain on local public services and changed the character of Fenland towns such as Wisbech. Unlike big cities such as London and Manchester, which have always been magnets for immigrants, Fenland is unused to such a change.”

    A restrained & informative response to a trite piece of ignorance.

    If the major parties won’t respond to fears & uncertainties generated by such rapid changes , UKIP are bound to do well.in those areas.

    I suppose we can be relieved that it isn’t a certain other party involved.

  34. @billp

    I like the feudal empire thing and it may well have played a part though one has to acknowledge business was nonetheless a big part of it.

    Yes the state was smaller in Victorian times, in part because in comparison to now we were still a developing economy but also as I say, because business did not need as big a state. They had empire etc., protected markets to sell into.

    There’s rather more to it on top, however. Firstly, back in those days, we didn’t have the rivals economically we have now. A modern economy competes on things like the education and health of its workforce, and also investments in research, infrastructure, aid for business and so on.

    Also, the neoliberal approach is not all that effective even these days. Take a look at GDP-per-capita for the more neolib Anglo-Saxon nations and it’s not that impressive. Even the US doesn’t do very well and they have a huge internal market and a continent of resources.

    Historically the Anglo-Saxon neolib nations had a lot of resources (including of course Aus and ourselves via Empire, more recently North Sea oil etc) and this has helped to make neoliberalism kinda work and hide its shortcomings.

    Even then it still fails dismally on spreading the wealth around, on the trickle-down thing…

    And of course, it remains a problem for libertarians that business is not going to go back to a 12% state in a hurry…

    Finally, free markets only naturally exist in certain circumstances, say with certain crops and commodities because hard to get a monopoly on land. In other sectors it’s all too easy to get a dominant market position and keep it…

  35. Colin,

    I think you malign Chris in his comparison of the relative value of a social worker and a part-time Tesco employee. Obviously he was suggesting that the latter is clearly of more economic benefit to the country than the former.

    Tens of thousands of Tesco (and Asda, Co-Op, Morrison and Sainsbury – not to mention Aldi, Iceland, Lidl and Netto) employees will surely agree.

    ;-))

  36. Colin:

    “A trite piece of ignorance”

    As pleasant as ever Colin.

    Fairly simple point I was implying: if the indigenous population are not prepared to take on such hard work because it is “beneath them” then someone else has to.

    Or do you wish to see a complete end to arable farming?

    Rather than insult me you could consider debating a serious problem. My own answer is quite right wing: anyone unemployed and unwiling to do such work should have their benefits stopped.

  37. Differential pay and benefits – sorry I was away this afternoon.

    I watched Ed Balls on Sky News (the international edition) yesterday and he was advocating differential pay and benefits. He said it levels would have to be set properly by a commission.

  38. Of course, other problems with the neolib thing include insufficient regulation leading to crashes, capture of the media by corporate interests, and piecemeal, cherry-picking of service provision for the public, too much demand pricing thus profiteering from essentials like energy, rent etc., hoarding resources (land banks etc.) and much, much more! !

  39. Bill Patrick (at 7:40),

    Ironically, Mr Clegg may deliver you the party closest to that which you are seeking as the reality of achieiving a balanced budget focuses government minds on the need to reduce the state rather than just tinkering at the edges in restraining its perpetual growth.

    I sense that at some stage this year it will be clear that the government needs to be more radical in its approach in order to deliver lower spending, and that will cause a proper look at what government should be doing, as opposed to trying to continue doing everything it currently does, but for less. The changes in child benefit are the first example, but there is still much to do.

    There is limited polling up-side in this for Tories as the short-term pain will only deliver a long-term economic gain well the other side of 2015. LDs on the other hand may be able to re-position themselves as a truly “liberal” party rather than quasi social democrats. This may not win them back many of the 2010 votes lost to Labour, but will secure them new support, and could make them more attractive to tactical votes from small-c conservatives in many urban seats.

    In that respect UKIP is not in the same league

  40. @ Bill Patrick

    “My wait for a national UK classical liberal/libertarian party goes on, and shall go on in all probability until and if we have PR.”

    When you find that party can you please send me the memberships papers.

    Actually skip that and I’ll just hire a tardis that takes me to a UK with PR.

  41. @ Paul H-J

    “There is limited polling up-side in this for Tories as the short-term pain will only deliver a long-term economic gain well the other side of 2015. LDs on the other hand may be able to re-position themselves as a truly “liberal” party rather than quasi social democrats. This may not win them back many of the 2010 votes lost to Labour, but will secure them new support, and could make them more attractive to tactical votes from small-c conservatives in many urban seats.”

    Or perhaps, manna from heaven, a split in the post 2015 Conservative party? With one half going off with UKIP who they are clearly more in synch with…and the other other going with Clegg’s newly branded Libertarian Liberal Party, shorn of ex Social Democrats, and good luck to them trying to re-integrate with the Labour party they once departed.

    Well I can dream, can’t I,

  42. Doubt that split in the Tories you seek will happen, because there’s a market for a big business party of the right. It’s a dream for Libertarians that big business will somehow fade away but business is rather interested in accruing more and more capital and all the power and influence that comes with it. It is indeed rather the whole point of capitalism. ..

  43. @ Couper2802

    I watched Ed Balls on Sky News (the international edition) yesterday and he was advocating differential pay and benefits. He said it levels would have to be set properly by a commission.
    ————————–
    Is there a link to this, or to a transcript?

    I believe I found a transcript but in it, Ed Balls is advocating a London weighting for any benefits cap because housing is so expensive there.

  44. YouGov
    Con 32 Lab 41 LD 11 UKIP 9
    :-)

  45. I do believe that —Skegness — will have UKIP MPs at the present rate in 2015.

    -Ho hum will have to find another Butlins to take the kids to then.

  46. Boston and Skegness will be a very interesting result next GE. In 1997 it was neck-and-neck although strongly Tory recently.

    Early prediction…Lib Dem voters to Lab and Tory voters to UKIP could make this a shock Labour gain.

  47. @Amber Star

    Not a policy that will win many votes outside the London middle class.

  48. Meanwhile back in the real world…

    Skegness is as likely to go to UKIP as Beijing is to be won by the Republicans!

    The Tories got almost 50% of the vote and a 12k+ majority (over 25%).

    The Tories would still win if the chose Fred Goodwin as their candidate.

    The figure for Cambridge North East are even better for the Tories. Poland could invade the Fenlands and it would still vote Tory.

    This kind of self deluding amateur nonsense is why UKIP probably won’t win a single seat.

    Immigration is big issue in these areas and therefore that is where UKIP will do well….. Rubbish.

    To win seats UKIP need to identify where an opponent is weak and where they can exploit that.

    In the current climate that is LibDems who get in on the back of Labour votes to keep the Tories out.

    In these seats immigration may not be a big issues but there will be Labour tactical voters looking to keep the Tories out while wanting to kick the LibDems.

    UKIP shouldn’t be looking for people who want to vote for them they should be looking for people who don’t want to vote LibDem.

    Backing Scottish Independence might be a step to far but they could try abolishing the Barnet formula and redistributing a few billion a year to Devon and Cornwall while making keeping South West waters free of French and Spanish fisherman.

    That’s a strong LibDem area with votes to be had.

    The one thing everyone is pretty sure of is that the LibDems are in for a bit of a kicking and that they will lose seats.

    That is where the low hanging fruit is.

    That is what the SNP will be after in Scotland.

    Peter.

  49. petercairns

    In 1997 and 2001 there was a hairsbreadth between Lab and Con in Boston/Skegness. I agree it won’t go to UKIP but it won’t necessarily stay Tory.

  50. Interesting changes in this mornings YouGov OP:-

    Cuts “good or bad for the economy” ?

    Net Bad-5 down from 17

    Cuts “Having an impact on your life” ?

    Net Yes-30 down from 41

    All MOE I expect ??

1 2 3 4