There are two new European election voting intention polls out today, both showing substantial leads for UKIP.

TNS-BMRB have European figures of CON 18%(-3), LAB 27%(-3), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 36%(+7), Others 9% (tabs here). Changes are from their last poll in early April.

ComRes/ITV have European figures of CON 18%(-4), LAB 27%(-3), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 38%(+8!), GREEN 4%. Full tabs are here and changes are once again from a previous poll in early April.

Note that both polls are based on only those certain to vote. This tends to boost up the support of UKIP, who have the most enthusiastic supporters in the European elections – if ComRes had taken those saying they were 5+/10 likely to vote it would have decreased UKIP’s lead to four points.


205 Responses to “Two new European election polls”

1 2 3 5
  1. I wonder how closely local election voting will mirror European election voting – I suspect quite a bit. It could mean considerable changes in some LAs.

  2. So the more parties are accused of racism the more people today want to vote for them.

    That says a lot about modern Britain.

  3. Julian – YouGov London poll a week or two back asked European and Local VI on the same survey. Quite a contrast:

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n4ojuqo0a6/YG-Archive-140411-Eveningstandard-London.pdf

  4. “So the more parties are accused of racism the more people today want to vote for them.

    That says a lot about modern Britain.”

    I’m not a UKIP supporter but it seems a bit daft to refer to that as cause and effect. The reasons are much simpler than that.

  5. Looks to me that Labour voters are now turning to UKIP as a protest vote too. It’s looking like the largest party in the European parliament for Britain, will vote against everything, regardless of is it improves britains standing.

    That’s what is sad about all of this.

  6. If the latest reported (OldNat on previous thread) YG Scotland Euro VI poll is right with UKIP at 10%, the political fault line between Scotland and England seems to be widening.

  7. If these Tories lending their support to UKIP don’t go back to the Tories in 2015 in sufficient numbers, we could have Labour with a majority, after winning a third of the votes. That would be a peverse outcome and could well be the final nail in the coffin for FPTP.

  8. On the face of it, this would appear to be better news for Labour. Even now, after eating into Tory votes for a considerable time, if this UKIP surge is taking votes 50/50 from Lab and Con (more heavily from Con under ComRes) then the deepest problems are with Cons.

    However, I don’t think any of them will be very pleased with this. As I said previously, it’s back to the joke about the constipated elephant, the cork and the three monkeys. They are all deep in it, but one of them is laughing.

    @Hireton – “the political fault line between Scotland and England seems to be widening.”

    Yes and no. Numerically, yes it would seem so. But that 10% for UKIP in Scotland is quite remarkable. It shows that perhaps the much vaunted differences between Scots and UK voters are perhaps not as great as some would have us believe. I don’t think many Yes voters would have predicted UKIP could get so many supporters in Scotland.

    @David in France – “So the more parties are accused of racism the more people today want to vote for them.”

    I’m with R&D on this. Perhaps UKIP’s swift responses was viewed positively, perhaps voters discount an element of loons and fruitcakes when they come to UKIP, or perhaps voters understand that there are issues, and there are the way these are presented, and that tarring all of UKIP with the R word is the lazy way to avoid addressing the substantial challenge UKIP are posing.

  9. Ukip is in Scotland where it was in rUk last year, give it time. A few months ago they were being hounded out by a rent-a-mob with no condemnation from the first minister because they apparently speak for no one north of the border. Well they speak for 10% here and may even win a seat.

    In modern Britain unlike medieval Europe an ‘accusation’ is not sufficient for proof. I wouldn’t dream of extrapolating the accusations against Cyril Smith to a whole party and its supporters.

    When I first came on this site I was about as sniffy about Ukip as the next man, but the constant slurs and vilification have moved me to stand up for them.

    It says a lot about modern Britain that the so called ‘far-right’ are represented by Ukip rather than Golden Dawn and Jobbick. Britain is great and those that constantly knock it deservedly IMO drive support away from their parties

  10. Just looking at what these latest numbers do to seats, the dropoff in LAB and CON votes in favour of UKIP is actually making things better (well, less terrible) for the Lib Dems. As I’ve said several times, it would be difficult for them to lose their seats in SE and SW (SE because the large number of seats makes it more proportional and SW because of the relatively low LAB share there). But additionally, they are now looking more like getting one of the 8 seats in NW.

  11. Mr BW

    “Britain is great ”

    In fact we should call it Great Britain: that’d show ’em.

    Actually, when one looks at the rest of the world I do think [and the pups agree] this IS a great place to live. In fact, even if you don’t look at the rest of the world its still jolly good.

  12. It seems no matter what the media says or does, UKIP just increase their support.

    They probably won’t change tactics either.

  13. Just as an example of what I wrote above, taking these two polls and applying a UNS would give NW constituency vote shares of:

    UKIP 34.8
    LAB 30.2
    CON 13.3
    LIB 8.3

    Giving these seat totals:

    UKIP 4 (+3)
    LAB 3 (+1)
    CON 1 (-2)
    LIB 0 (-1)
    (BNP would also be wiped out)

    But if the Lib Dems could get to 8.7% in NW (comfortably within the MoE) then they’ll get a seat, which would be three nationally

    To repeat: This are example numbers to show the maths, not a model or a forecast or my opinion of how NW will play out. Nor am I saying the swing will be uniform although the last two times, UNS did a good job in the NW>

  14. Interesting that Clegg’s poor debate performance may provide benefit anyway. A smart tactical move or serendipity for the party? Either way, it seems although minimal – it was always going to be win win.

    And I don’t know how we can have a final nail in the coffin in FPTP – I feel like the system was buried a long time ago and has zombied on ever since. We need PR.

  15. “So the more parties are accused of racism the more people today want to vote for them.
    That says a lot about modern Britain.”

    I don’t think it’s got anything to do with racism. British people have never been less racist than they are today. People are just sick of Joe Bloggs being accused of this,that and the other for no particular reason in order to suit the political elite.

  16. Following up on my last point, I actively admit to being in unknown territory for myself but is there an even outside possibility of UKIP complaining about unfair voting systems in Europe from within the EU, if they do do as well as intended?

    Is there not an argument that under FPTP, not everyone’s votes are equal and that’s a matter of intervention for the European Parliament to discuss with me member states? I suspect I’m in cuckoo land as the irony of UKIP utilising the EU to make a legislative electoral change in the UK seems a step too far….

    When I think about UKIP’s fortunes though, stranger things have happened.

  17. As Anthony suggests ComRes’s Euro figures based on 5-10 likelihood to vote rather than the strict LTV=10 filter (in brackets) are rather different:

    UKIP 32% (38)

    Lab 28% (27)

    Con 20% (18)

    L/D 8% (8)

    Green 5% (4)

    SNP 4% (3)

    PC 1% (1)

    BNP 1% (*)

    Only 39% of those responding said they would definitely vote[1] and although that might seem a plausible turnout for a Euro election, this is an online poll and we know that in the past that online panelists are much more likely to vote than average.

    In a comment a couple of days ago I pointed out that while 59% of those asked four weeks before if they would vote in the AV Referendum gave LTV=10, 79% later said they had voted. So using LTV=5-10 (though weighted accordingly) which gives 76% of the sample, might be a more accurate way of picking up on the sort of people who will vote in the Euros in the end.

    [1] Oddly 10% of the sample replied didn’t know how likely they were or preferred not to say – not options normally given with LTV questions. We can probably assume that such people would have a fairly low LTV though. In addition 7% of the LTV=10 didn’t know who they were going to vote for.

    Incidentally ComRes are still doing that irritating thing of not giving the full LTV breakdown for Party voting intention, just putting in a line for LTV=10. Why?

  18. @alec

    That seems to be stretching fine analysis to breaking point.
    10% v 30% plus, fourth place v first place looks very different to me.

    @Mr Beeswax

    I think you will find the “rent a mob” was led by an English socialist ( you can google it). They heckled him. Not sure why the First Minister should make any comment on that but there we are

  19. @Andy JS

    “People are just sick of Joe Bloggs being accused of this,that and the other for no particular reason in order to suit the political elite.”

    Not to mention the not so elite, politicos, who tend to refer to ‘Political Correctness 101′ when analysing others’ posts/comments online.

    One wonders what point UKIP have to rise before these people realise that there can’t be that many racists in the UK. :))

  20. “One wonders what point UKIP have to rise before these people realise that there can’t be that many racists in the UK.”

    You would be surprised. Shocked, even.

  21. Number Cruncher

    Just looking at what these latest numbers do to seats, the dropoff in LAB and CON votes in favour of UKIP is actually making things better (well, less terrible) for the Lib Dems. As I’ve said several times, it would be difficult for them to lose their seats in SE and SW (SE because the large number of seats makes it more proportional and SW because of the relatively low LAB share there).

    I’m not sure that it does help the Lib Dems that much, in a lot of regions all it will mean is that UKIP join them in the scrum for the last seat. It’s also not true that Labour are doing that badly in the South West. The combined March Populus (admittedly for Westminster) showed Con 39%, Lab 30%, Lib Dem 12%, UKIP 14%, 30% isn’t bad for a Party with only four seats in the region.

    The SW figures in this ComRes Euro poll (LTV 5-10) are UKIP 35%, Lab 29%, Con 20%, L/D 7%, Green 6% (on a sample of only 103) which would give 3 UKIP, 2 Lab and 1 Con. If the Lib Dems can get into double figures they will have a chance, but not otherwise in a six-seater.

    The real question for the Lib Dems is whether they can hang on in the seats they have where the current Labour vote is minimal (there is some evidence from the Ashcroft poling that this may happen).

  22. @Nick

    That would suggest you have data. Throw us a bone then.

  23. statgeek

    The rise in UKIP support (and the reported views of their candidates) linked with the rise of far right parties across Europe.

  24. RHuckle is absolutely right.

    a strong ukip vote leads almost inevitably to a labour majority with barely a third of the votes cast.

  25. It is interesting to see the number of local authority candidates. I suspect that if the minor parties are absent on the LA ballot paper this will also affect their showing in the EU vote. Lab and Con have almost full slates, whereas LD and UKIP are at about 50% coverage.

  26. The number of candidates also has an impact on actually turns out, which could also help the big two.

  27. Roger

    When I say better, I mean improving their chances of getting more than two seats. You are right that UKIP will join them in the scrum for the last seat in some places, but in some of those places LAB and CON will drop out of that scrum.

    Re the SW, I’m not LAB are doing badly this time, I’m talking about the LAB share relative to other regions (SW had the lowest LAB vote share in GB in ’09). On those Populus Westminster numbers you quoted they are 9 points behind in SW but leading nationally. Hence my “relatively low LAB share there” comment.

    If they actually got 7% in SW, yes the Lib Dems would lose that seat, but that sounds very low indeed… As you say, it’s a crossbreak of 103…

    On the last point I agree and SW is exactly that sort of place…

  28. Looks like Ukip may have peaked too early!
    Lib Dems at the last GE comes to mind.
    They are, however approaching the level of support I mentioned last year following the County results.
    Second place in the last Euros with a Labour Govt, with the Tories in power 1st place looks a given.
    It of course is not a majority of MEPs for Britain due to the slightly proportional counting system.

  29. Again the TNS figures are based on ‘definitely vote'[1] which is 39% of the sample[2], which ties in nicely with ComRes’s figure. And of course the same objections also apply as above – in an online poll this is probably excluding a lot of people who will vote.

    If you include the ‘Probably will vote’ people as well it raises the ‘turnout’ to 55% and gives you a revised Euro VI of:

    UKIP 32%

    Lab 30%

    Con 21%

    L/D 10%

    Nats 3%

    Green 3%[3]

    BNP *%

    This is not that different to the revised figures I gave above or the YouGov one in the Sunday Times where the headline figures weren’t the LTV=10 ones. So we need to be careful before seeing a further switch to UKIP in the last few days.

    The main change seems to have happened a week ago when UKIP went in the lead at about 32%. And a lot of that switch seemed to come from Tory voters still rather than Labour or elsewhere.

    [1] Rather than use an LTV scale of 1-10, TNS give options of “Would not vote for a party” and “Prefer not to say” in their VI question and only if people then choose a Party do they ask their LTV question with the four ‘Definitely/Probably’ plus ‘will/will not’ combinations. At that stage they also get the chance to say they ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Prefer not to say’ (how likely they will vote) but there doesn’t seem to be any way you can say you will vote but haven’t decided who for yet.

    [2] As the total sample is 1199 this means the headline figures Anthony quotes are based on sample of only 464, which mean MoE will be quite high. ComRes’s initial sample is larger at 2052 so reducing it down to 808 doesn’t have quite this effect.

    [3] For some reason TNS do not include the Greens and BNP in their initial Euro VI question, even though both had MEPs elected last time – you to pick ‘Other’ and go to a second question. This might account for the low Green rating.

  30. @ David in France

    “So the more parties are accused of racism the more people today want to vote for them.
    That says a lot about modern Britain.”

    What if they’re not actually racist?

    That could be a turnoff depending on how people actually evaluate the parties.

  31. @NickP

    None of that gives us concrete data on how much of the UK is racist.

  32. R&D

    ” “Britain is great ”

    In fact we should call it Great Britain: that’d show ‘em.”

    I think you’ll find that it’s already called Great Britain – by geographers. So, when you next hear the question “Who put the Great in Great Britain?” you can confidently answer ” It’s the geographers, stupid!”

    (Warning! We cannot accept any responsibility for any physical violence suffered due to calling people “stupid” even if they are known to be so as proven by the fact that they ask stupid questions such as “Who put the Great in Great Britain?”)

  33. When was the last time any party other than Lab or Con polled more than 35% nationwide for any election? Was it the old Liberal days?

  34. @R Huckle

    “That would be a peverse outcome and could well be the final nail in the coffin for FPTP.”

    Final nail? I doubt it. A major problem with getting a consensus around changing from FPTP to any, even minor, modification, let alone full PR, is that the MPs who have to start the ball rolling are the very ones who have got there thanks to FPTP, however small the overall national share of the vote was for their party. Indeed, the bigger the “ehancement in representation” that FPTP gives, the more they will want to keep it with a shrug of the shoulders and say “Well, its the same for anyone who stands”

    I agree that FPTP is inheritantly unstable in terms of giving accurate/fair results when taking into account overall national share of the vote by party, but there is no urgent mass movement demanding its change, and therefore it won’t happen until there is an urgent mass demand for change which can browbeat the beneficieries of FPTP to commit political suicide – unlikely in my lifetime I suspect!!!

  35. @Wes

    2011 – SNP: 45.4%

    You didn’t say which nation(side). :-p

  36. I thought it was a little strange that we’d gone a whole day on the UKIP Advent calender™ without a dishing of dirt…

    @MichaelLCrick – Tonight at 7 on #c4news: another astonishing exclusive on Ukip. More later.

  37. @1286trev

    “Looks like Ukip may have peaked too early!”

    Could be – or they are headed for a landslide!?

    Either way, irrelevant on GE polling day 2015 IMO!

  38. Hireton

    Can’t see any more on that Scottish Euro poll by YouGov (it seems it was for IPPR & the Unis of Cardiff & Edinburgh).

    However, the tables are now up for the YG poll of English voters on Euro VI & standing up for the interests of England.

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0ykhwztjoq/UniversityofCardiff_FoES_England_140422_website.pdf

  39. Survation have a GB “flash poll” conducted today on Farage & Newark for the Huffington Post.

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Newark-Reactions-Poll.pdf

  40. I seem to remember that the LDs peaked after Clegg’s debate before the GE, and then they bombed out at the GE. So UKIP may also have peaked too soon, as the teflon coat cannot last. Intersting too that 32% of voters consider UKIP to be racist, that must given time erode their support. So I would not be looking to buy Farage a beer yet.

  41. @ Ewen Lightfoot (from the previous thread)

    “Love your ‘Letter from America’ as always.”

    Thank you.

    “There have been boundary changes since Lab took Newark in ’97 , but it should be a fascinating three-way fight and a lot will depend on the calibre of the UKIP candidate. If there is the slightest whiff of a racist past the media will pounce.
    I think Labour will squeak in, but then I would say that wouldn’t I ?”

    Hey, if you’re an optimist like I am, you always envision and predict the best possible outcome even if it’s not quite reality. Nature of sports and politics I think. There’s a lot of theorizing that UKIP is taking votes from dissatisfied Labour voters so a strong UKIP performance might not necessarily cause’ the Tories to lose this seat.

    @ Roger Mexico (from the previous thread)

    “Yes, Newark was Labour 1997-2001. There have been minor boundary changes since and Newark constituency used to be even more winnable for Labour before 1983 when it contained (now ex-) mining areas.
    However the winning candidate in 1997, Fiona Jones:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Jones
    then got into problems with election expenses and it all ended rather sadly, as has Mercer’s career, so maybe it’s a seat you don’t want to win”

    It was one of the few Labour losses in 01′. That is sad what happened to her. I actually wonder if some seats are actually cursed in that way. It’s sort of like getting elected to any office in New York, corruption all around.

    “Thanks for the update on the latest goings on in the various races and the NYT article on District 33 you linked to a while back (the author did enjoy writing that, didn’t he?). Actually I’d always envisaged District 33 as a thinly-disguised fictional mini-series. These people are far too media-savvy for reality TV – if they are going to be followed round by camera crews those are going to be ones they have control over.”

    What amazes me actually is how un-media-savvy these candidates all are. Shocks me really. I mean, what is Betsy thinking? She’s going to call up an organization to get some kid fired cause’ he wouldn’t back her? Doesn’t she have donors to be calling? Actually the second speaker to speak the other night against her endorsement got up in any angry and unexpected huff because one of Betsy’s supporters labeled one of her opponents, a loyal Democrat who’s relatively progressive, “an awful, self-funding, conservative Republican” and got up to defend the woman even though he was backing another candidate in the race altogether!

    Didn’t you get the feeling reading that NY Times article that none of the aforementioned candidates are going to serve more than a few terms if they actually win?

    Kanuth impresses me though (I’m backing him) because he’s a guy who’s a former public defender and he’s not just raising money, he’s raising record amounts and leading the entire field! It’s unheard of!

    @Carfew (from the previous thread)

    “Yes they are rather good. A nice late-night treat, a reward for working through the post-midnite Independence stuff…”

    Thank you for the kind compliment. You know what’s cool about having a half-British candidate in this race, I have finally found people who understand my David Dimbleby-Vin Scully reference.

  42. @Wes – “When was the last time any party other than Lab or Con polled more than 35% nationwide for any election? Was it the old Liberal days?”

    No, the Liberal-SDP Alliance polled over 35% in the early 80s.

  43. Roger – your maths out re SW for the first time I can recall.

    ukip 35, lab 29, con 20 gives the 6th seat to con as 10% is higher that 8.75%.

    Your main pint about the LDs is valid of course they need 10%ish for a seat, although they could get lucky with just under in 6 seat regions.

  44. @oldnat

    Thanks. Interesting that a majority of the respondents saw themselves as equally or more British than English.

  45. Farage is far too cute to stand for an anagram as obvious as Newark. ;-)

  46. Jim Jam

    Roger – your maths out re SW for the first time I can recall.

    ukip 35, lab 29, con 20 gives the 6th seat to con as 10% is higher that 8.75%.

    Nope. As far as can see it goes:

    #1 UKIP – quotient now 35/2 = 17.5

    #2 Lab – quotient now 29/2 = 14.5

    #3 Con – quotient now 20/2 = 10

    #4 UKIP – quotient now 35/3 = 11.7

    #5 Lab – quotient now 29/3 = 9.7

    #6 UKIP as 11.7 is more than 10. Quotient now 8.7

    If the Lib Dems are really at 7%, it would be at least #10 before they got the chance of a seat.

  47. Voters know they can elect as many UKIP MEPs as they like and it really won’t make any practical difference to their lives. It’s a safe way to moan about everyone’s favourite scapegoat, the EU. It says nothing about how racist or right-wing the electorate is or isn’t becoming.

  48. Roger M
    The SW cross break is way too small, unless you know otherwise.

  49. According to the Survation poll, Farage is a right turn off for women.

    Now there’s a surprise.

  50. This is beginning to look and feel rather like the Scottish elections all over again….the thing being if UKIP surge spills into the local elections then both the Labour and Conservative leaderships will have questions to answer….and if Scotland drifts in the opposite direction in the EU elections it may well give a fillip to the Yes campaign if the electorate see themselves saddled with UKIP &/or Conservatives south of the border…a sort of perfect Tea Party storm in a refined UK political teacup…

1 2 3 5