Two new European election polls over the last couple of days. A Populus poll for the FT shows Labour in first place, with the Conservatives and UKIP fighting for second place. Topline figures are CON 27%, LAB 31%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 25%, GRN 3%. It was conducted between the 4th-6th of April, so after the Clegg-Farage debate. Full tabs are here.

Meanwhile a new TNS-BMRB poll also has Labour in first place, but only narrowly ahead of UKIP with the Conservatives in quite a distant third. Topline figures are CON 21%, LAB 30%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 29%. Fieldwork was also post-debate, and tabs are here.

All the European election polling so far is collected here. Note that some of the variation is down to treatment of likelihood to vote. ComRes and TNS BMRB take only those people who say they are absolutely certain to vote, which helps UKIP. YouGov include all respondents and tend to show less positive figures for UKIP (but provide a crossbreak for only those certain to vote which is also very strong for UKIP). Populus weight by likelihood to vote, which is somewhere inbetween (everyone is included, but people who are unlikely to vote are weighted down).


168 Responses to “Populus and TNS European polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. This ipsos mori poll isn’t great for the blues…it takes you back to the pre-budget labour leads except that ukip is now riding high…

    one of the great things about this fantastic site is the historical polls anthony has…

    I did a very simple thing and took an average of all the polls in the 13 months from Dec 1 1990 to April 1992…the results were interesting. Thatcher was toppled in November 1990.

    The average of all the polls was: Con 39.7% Lab 40.4% LD 15.0%

    The tories got a good initial bounce after ditching maggie, but the polls were essentially neck and neck for about 15 months…

    The blues were simply performing better in the polls at the equivalent stage of the 1987-1992 parliament.

    Indeed for March 1991, roughly where we are now at the equivalent state of that parliament, the averages of all the polls in that month were:

    Con 41.0% Lab 38.4% and LD 15.2%

    Indeed, in the 13 polls taken that month, the tories were ahead in 8, labour in 4 and equal in 1.

    Of course, none of this proves anything… it is mainly of historical interest. It just shows that picture the polls presented at this stage was much more in the balance and much tighter than the equivalents today…

    Obviously a lot can change etc….

    Report comment

  2. sorry 16 months between dec. 90 and apr. 92!

    Report comment

  3. @Oldnat

    Quite frightening that 43% of undecided people have not sought any information. They think not seeking it will make the difference? :))

    Report comment

  4. @Peter Crawford

    I imagine (and have no basis for this other than a hunch) that there is always a small percentage of voters who opt for the existing government, rather than decide on change. maybe that was (part of) the difference in 1992.

    Report comment

  5. Stat:

    Which is why I say they will break NO.

    You need to be a bit more passionate – or at least interested in the subject – to vote “yes”.

    What do you think?

    Report comment

  6. @Geek/Nat

    I’m not convinced the ‘sought info’ question tells us very much. What is ‘seeking information’? Do you report listening to the news every now and then or talking to your mates in the pub/colleagues/family as seeking information?
    Many people would have the view that any ‘information’ put out by a yes or no campaign or pundits is merely propaganda and spin backing the info provider’s prejudice so should be ignored

    Report comment

  7. Statgeek
    I think that is born out by the 1975 EC referendum when ‘Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?’ was asked. Had the question been ‘do you think we should leave?’been asked we would then have got a No.

    Normally the question is put the other way e.g. should we change and have AV?’. So you get a No.

    If you look at the question for the Scottish referendum, the outcome is not difficult to predict. There are ‘events’ of course’

    Report comment

  8. Guymonde

    I don’t think it matters whether people’s ideas of what “Sought information” matches some objective standard or not.

    That isn’t really what polling measures, but people’s perceptions.

    What it does tell us that only 26% of Yes voters think that they have not sought information. 49% of No voters think that they have not sought information, while 43% of undecideds think that they have not sought information.

    Media are only a source for around a fifth of each group who do think they have sought information, while the internet (including sites like this) have been sources for far more of the Yes side than the Noes.

    Report comment

  9. Statgeek

    Since the suggested turnout seems unrealistically high, I suspect that many more people think that they should say they’re going to vote, because of the importance of the issue and its high profile.

    However, many of such people are likely to say “Undecided” and “Can’t be arsed finding out about it” and probably won’t bother voting.

    Report comment

  10. @ John B

    If I were Johann Lamont I would be very worried indeed.
    ————-
    You’re ‘concern trolling’ there, John – I’m thinking that you care as little for Johann Lamont’s worries as I do for Alex Salmond’s.

    Report comment

  11. OldNat
    Yes, I think you have a good point about disinterest being a reason for not voting. I don’t know what the postal percentages are in Scotland, but even with postal voting, you have to be keen, otherwise it pauses merely briefly on its way from the letter box to the recycling bag in the wash house.

    Report comment

  12. As a referendum don’t know myself I’d say that it’s likely the uninterested don’t knows (really Don’t cares) will break for No. However I suspect there is a second group of Don’t knows like me who are weighing up which is the least worst option: Namely Independence which we don’t really want 100% but think would be OK, or the Status Quo which we don’t like either. My vote will come down to whether I think anyone from the No camp is putting forward a plausible positive case for the future of Scotland in the next 6 months. Very little sign of it so far :-(

    2 years ago I’d have said I was a definite no voter (and indeed I did say that to Oldnat and Cllr Peter Cairns (does he still post? I know he’s not a Cllr anymore). I suspect I’m not the only one waiting to see what the Nos can offer me.

    Report comment

  13. If I was that uninterested in something, I would not vote. Can we draw solid numbers of those uninterested, but certain to vote?

    It would seem they are either fibbing, or are die hard ‘use the vote’ people, which is fair enough.

    I’m of the opinion that to be uninterested in this particular issue, you would have to know nothing about it, because it will affect everyone in some shape or form, regardless of the outcome.

    Report comment

  14. @northumbrianscot

    We seem to be two peas in a pod, with the exception of me being a definite ‘anything’ for any election. I always at least attempt to go into each one with an open mind.

    I can generally say that I won’t vote for party ‘x’, perhaps months or years before, but it’s harder to give a definite ‘yes’ to any party until the day of the vote.

    Bigotgate was a classic example, and I will never use a postal vote for the potential for the game to change before the day of the election.

    Regards the referendum, I’ll be torn between head and heart some days, and spitting nails at the ruling elite the other days. Devo-max or preferably federalism would have been better (in my humble opinion), but the ‘no-compromise’ attitude of both sides has meant that the people have, for once, to make a difficult decision that will make a difference to the nation (regardless of the outcome).

    Looking forward to the tingly feeling at the polling booth actually. :))

    Report comment

  15. I agree we shouldn’t draw firm conclusions from any Scottish Wesminster VI numbers this side of a referendum but I can see why Johann Lamont might be nervous.

    A net loss of 13 MPs on those numbers probably masks 15 Labour incumbents losing their seats as there are 2 of the 9 Lib Dem losses that would probably go Labour.

    On those numbers you’d be looking at folk like Russell Brown, Cathy Jamieson and even Douglas Alexander potentially in trouble. I suspect they’ll all be agitating for some firmer action by Scottish Labour to get their message across.

    Report comment

  16. @Statgeek

    @Anyone looking at UKIP in RoS:

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ukip_ros.png

    UKIP’s VI with 30-poll rolling trendline. Was expecting to things, but you really need to pull it down to 10-poll or 5-poll to see recent changes. It gets a little messy then.

    It quite nicely shows the long-term changes though.

    That’s the problem with rolling averages – the bigger the period taken into account, the flatter the line. You end up with a straight line eventually.

    If you want a chart that gets rid of the ‘noise’ lumps and bumps, without averaging genuine movements out, well that’s why I like CUSUM. It does that job really well.

    There are whole range of statistical tools out there, and it’s a matter of the right one for the right job.

    Detecting long term trends, rolling averages are great. Trends in the shorter term are not detected by that method well in my view.

    I would add that the post EU debate change to VI and the budget changes were perfectly clear using CUSUM, and detected above the usual noise.

    Just a personal view :)

    Report comment

  17. @Oldnat

    I take your point about the difference between what ayes and noes report, which is stark, and really about the internet – the differences in other sources are pretty insignificant.

    Any clues where the ayes are getting their internet hit from?

    Report comment

  18. New thread.

    Report comment

1 2 3 4