The usual two regular polls from Populus and YouGov this morning. YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun had topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13% (tabs here) Populus’s twice-weekly poll meanwhile had figures of CON 32%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 16% (tabs here).


284 Responses to “Latest YouGov and Populus figures”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. CROSSOVER ALERT! CROSSOVER ALERT!

    It’s true

  2. R&D

    You do not make it clear which “you”, you are referring to in your latest offering.

    Quite why, Scots phrases (that must not survived assimilation in the UK Union – otherwise your post is simply nonsense) should suddenly reappear in an independent country, is something that is not immediately apparent.

  3. Jack R,

    “Don’t think Labour will be too dissatisfied with the two Westminster polls there, with one or two being a bit closer during the week.”

    Really? Labour aren’t too dissatisfied with 33%, despite the implosion of the Lib Dems and austerity? Labour are currently within MOE of their 2010 disaster.

    I recall when people were saying “Look at the level, not the lead”, i.e. Labour were in the 36-40% range and couldn’t lose in such a scenario. Now, naturally, the hopes of Labour supporters are shifting to the lead.

    Don’t get me wrong: I still expect a solid Labour majority in the GE. But it will be with a whimper, not a bang, if the polls accurately predict the sort of result we’ll see in 2014.

  4. RAF,

    Where did you get that 40% from?

  5. Bill Patrick

    But polls don’t “accurately [or even inaccurately] predict the sort of result we’ll see”.

    They don’t predict anything. However, it does look as if English voters are currently less than entranced by any of their main parties.

  6. UKIP’s two best Westminster scores seem to have been 22% (Survation, 18.5.13) and 21% (Opinium, 31.5.13), so they are currently just a little short of that.

  7. Jack R
    ‘Just flicked through the TImes app to try and see if I can find news on the ST poll, and who did I find quoted in an article on Ed – Mr Wells himself!’

    Will you be giving clues about what he said to those of us that choose not to donate cash to RM ?

  8. @Bill Patrick

    Labour have not dipped below a minimum of 35% on YG, and even if they are falling on Survation and the very curious Populous (whose raw data shows much higher Lab numbers) it is because of the support afforded to minor parties in PR election campaign.

    If Lab are still at 33% on Survation after the Euros, that will be a different matter.

  9. RAF

    In what sense (other than the archaic language used by Ofcom etc) can any GB party be described as anything other than “minor”?

    Some of the minority parties (Con & Lab for example) have a larger minority share than other parties (depending on the election being contested), but the use of an archaic FPTP system, which allows disproportionate representation for those bigger minorities, does not make them “major”.

  10. Just to add to my previous comment, tonight’s 16% from Populus is their highest ever from that pollster. Taken as a precise rather than rounded figure, a weighted to unweighted conversion brings it up to 24.8% (Con 29.5, Lab 37.5, LD 7.1). Electoral Calculus couldn’t cope with it!

  11. ole nat

    “your post is simply nonsense”

    mmm….. well spotted: what’s your point?

    amber

    The gurls still demand much greater clarification.

    And by the way, her name was Lola – she was a showgirl.

  12. ………… helicopter surveillance.

  13. Oldnat,

    It’s too late for poor pedantry.

    RAF,

    I’m not sure if I expressed my question correctly. Why do you say that Labour are in a 35-40% range, rather than a 33-38% range?

    Labour’s VI figures may go up after the Euros. Or they may go down due to UKIP being boosted by winning the Euro elections for the first time, which seems increasingly likely. Similarly, Labour may improve between now and the GE due to a double-dip recession, or they may fall due to a typical switch back to the government. Who knows? What is certain is that Labour no longer always poll at 35% or over.

    PS: I wouldn’t mind if mention of raw data was banned. No-one talks about it unless they don’t like the headline results.

  14. Old Nat

    I use the term ‘minor’ in a relative sense to mean those parties (such as the Greens) who experience a spurt of support before a PR election, which may also boost their Westminster VI numbers; only for this support to return whence it came once the PR election has been held.

  15. @ Rosie’n’Daisie

    I’d have trotted off to bed ages ago, were it not for wanting to see what Rosie’n’Daisie would say next. :-)

  16. I love Jackson Browne. He is on a par with Joni Mitchell.

    En el otro mano Donavan is utterly bonkers with total delusion and self-conceit. He is giving a lecture on the Beatles’ White Album as “Dr. Donavan Leith” based on the fact he spent little time in India with them when they wrote some songs. His website is the most self-aggrandising thing I have ever read.

    I was in the ward at 7 am yesterday and the only kip I’ve had was when they bored into me knee crying “osteo-athitis!!!” but I never heard them.

    Now I can’t sleep and its still drunk hour.

  17. Amber

    Well, now you know.

    G’nite, don’t let the bugs bite and don’t let the buggers get you down.

    Listen to some Jackson Browne: I’ve just got his double “Acoustic” CD and he is really a wonderful musician and writer. didn’t realise he co-wrote Take It Easy and I am working on For A dancer – one of the best songs ever written or my name is not Murdo McTosh.

    Poorly Paul.

  18. @RAF

    “Labour have not dipped below a minimum of 35% on YG”

    Yet / Recently

    Two 35% polls this week is pretty close.

  19. Bill P

    “It’s too late for poor pedantry.”

    True; but that was award winning stuff – yet made to look so easy. Its never too late for that.

  20. statty

    that’s like replying to someone who says “My footy team haven’t lost all season”

    by saying

    “Yes: but two 3-2s were pretty close.”

    Anyway Pedants ‘Award is closed.

  21. Bill Patrick

    Pedantry may be many things, but it’s only “poor” if inaccurate.

    RAF

    I understand your use of the term. “Major” as meaning greater in importance is a reasonable use of the term. My objection to its use in classifying political parties is the connotation that only those so labelled are worthy of serious consideration.

    Pollsters have long been complicit in that set of assumptions by grouping everybody else as “others” – even when some of the “others” actually poll more highly than an officially recognised “major” party.

    Pedantic, of course, but choice of language does communicate wider connotations than the literal meaning.

  22. statty

    that’s like repl ying to someone who says “My footy team haven’t lost all season”

    by saying

    “Yes: but two 3-2s were pretty close.”

    Anyway Pedants ‘Award is closed.

  23. “Pedantry may be many things,”

    That’s not what it says in my dictionary – dunno about the Scotch ones to be fair, they might say that I suppose.

  24. Oh – and with that post I claim tonight’s Pedant Award.

    I shall wear it with pride.

  25. @Bill Patrick

    My allusion to Labour’s floor being 35% (and being in the 35-40% range) was in clear reference to YouGov polls.

    Of those who have them below 35% for Westminster, Survation has only done so during the Euros campaign, which being a PR election encourages votes to vote with their conscionsces rathat that the lesser of 2/3/4 evils. In a FPTP system people just don’t do that – they tend to vote for an individual representing a Party with an actual chance of forming a Government, or at least a large number of seats. the reason why I am suspicious of Populus is that they show the lowest leads for Labour, despite their raw data consistently showing 7-8% Lab leads.

  26. R&D

    If you are to wear it, you may require an additional “n”. I suggest inserting it between “e” and “d”, but feel free to insert it anywhere in your good self. :-)

  27. I wonder why one or two of the regular posters here seem to take no notice whatever of AW’s regular advice about the non-partisan nature of this site. I followed tonight’s exchanges and have no doubt that at least two of you were basically heckling Amber Star for utterly partisan reasons, posting again and again to try and win an immensely trivial point about what voluntary role someone or other played in the BT campaign. And you have done it many times before too. You would be the first to complain if E & W posters ganged up on you to attack your Party or it’s beliefs. Why do you think it is acceptable to behave like this ?

  28. @R&D

    Teams? We have a different perspective on the polls. 34% will happen. Maybe in 2014. Maybe in 2015. Maybe in 2030. Matter of time.

  29. Bang goes my recently stated theory that weekend polls are worse for Labour than weekday ones. There hasn’t been much evidence anecdotally that the Tories were strengthening but these polls will still be a relief after some very narrow leads during last week.

  30. @Oldnat

    Money is tight at present. I’ll buy the fifth.

  31. Good early Morning All.
    Quite brisk outside today, on a weekend of red-favouring poll leads, which makes a change.

  32. “@ Red Rag

    Tonights Yougov – labour 7% in front

    Lab 38%
    Tory 31%

    The rest ….who cares

    Shoot the rumour mongerer”

    Please don’t shoot ! You know I like to wind people up occasionally. I was imagining the anxious wait for those on either side of the political fence, looking out for the poll. Come on guys the only poll the counts is on 7th May 2015. It will be very close and could be more exciting than 2010.

    Here are the tables.

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/45cxqhtvw7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140509.pdf

    Looking at the tables, a much larger lead in the below 60 age groups. Possibly people like Labours policy on rent, offering tenants more rights and they also like the thought of renationlisation of the railways.

  33. The Colin Rallings/Michael Thrasher local government election prognostications have been published in the LGC. Andrew Rawnley has perhaps had a peek behind the paywall, because today’s comment piece contains the following:

    ” … psephologists at Plymouth University project the cull of a further 340 Lib Dem councillors. That would be going on for half of the seats they are trying to defend and more than double the losses expected to be suffered by their Conservative coalition partners.”

    A “further” cull would be on top of the loss of 124 councillors in 2013, 336 in 2012 and 748 in 2011.

  34. *Rawnsley*

  35. BILLY BOB.
    Good Morning to you; you have not been here for some time, I think.
    This would be very hard news to take, for me, if the Lib Dems were culled to this extent.

    Rallings and Thrasher have been going for a very long time now, I think.

  36. @chrislane1945

    Good morning to you. I have been dropping in with the odd post from time to time.

    Agreed, very sad prospects for the LDs… one of their ever-hopeful local candidates was sighted yesterday pounding the pavements with a somewhat downcast mien.

  37. Party leader perceptions from Survation.

    Cameron comes top on: Phony, Bully, Sanctimonious, Remote and Cruel.

    Miliband “wins” on: Wet, Sexless and Thick.

    Clegg comes out as the most Naive.

    Farage beats out Cameron for Cocky.

    Would have been nice to have some positive adjectives too, but oh well! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnTnp5PIgAE7Cb2.jpg:large

  38. MR NAMELESS.
    Good Morning to you.
    The Survation Poll findings that show Ed M as thick reveal much about the poll panel, IMO.

    The polling figures this weekend have helped with the last minute revision work I am doing for my Upper Sixth.

  39. “@ mrnameless

    Party leader perceptions from Survation.

    Cameron comes top on: Phony, Bully, Sanctimonious, Remote and Cruel.

    Miliband “wins” on: Wet, Sexless and Thick.

    Clegg comes out as the most Naive.

    Farage beats out Cameron for Cocky.”

    These polling questions are pretty silly.

    These negative views could be interpreted in a different way

    Cameron – Phony, bully etc could be people thinking of the tough measures the government have introduced and doing it as if it were their mission.

    Miliband – Wet etc, I think this is purely a reaction based on appearance. Wet could mean that he thinks of the concerns of ordinary people and how government policies affect them. As for thick, perhaps they don’t think policies have been thought through, with answers to questions that are likely to be raised.

    Clegg- Naive means that they think he has allowed the Tories to dominate the government agenda, rather than the Lib Dems being equal.

    Farage – Cocky means that he is seen as liking his popularity ( man of the people) and he does not mind offending opponents he disagrees with. Has total confidence that what he says is true.

  40. This morning’s You Gov looks normal (based on 2010 voter ID), except for the 2010 LDs supporting the Conservatives. That is a statistical outlier (8 vs 16 the previous poll).

    Labour’s 2010 LD number has gone from 30 to 35.

    I have also looked into the chances of a crossover.

    I looked at the last 10 YG polls, and looked at the mean and standard deviation. When looked at over a decent sample size, VI data is close to normal distribution, so I made that assumption.

    Based on these distributions, I looked at the chance of Con get X % and Lab getting Y, % so all the possible integer variation were covered.

    When done, the chance of a Labour lead in a YG, given the last 10 polls, is 98.65%, a tie 1.15% and a Con lead 0.20%.

    I know that various assumptions have been made here (as is the case with any analysis), but even with a generous error factor built in, a genuine crossover looks unlikely unless there is a further degradation of the Labour VI, and/or an upturn in Conservative VI.

    If YG produced a Conservative lead in one poll soon, then I would have to consider it to be a genuine outlier, and if not followed up by further evidence of a poll shift, worth ignoring.

  41. Not good for UKIP, which seems to have slipped back a couple of points to where it was three weeks ago. Doesn’t look like it’ll ever amount to more than an English protest vote for the Euros.

  42. BILL PATRICK
    Jack R,
    “Don’t think Labour will be too dissatisfied with the two Westminster polls there, with one or two being a bit closer during the week.”
    Really? Labour aren’t too dissatisfied with 33%, despite the implosion of the Lib Dems and austerity? Labour are currently within MOE of their 2010 disaster.
    I recall when people were saying “Look at the level, not the lead”, i.e. Labour were in the 36-40% range and couldn’t lose in such a scenario. Now, naturally, the hopes of Labour supporters are shifting to the lead.
    Don’t get me wrong: I still expect a solid Labour majority in the GE. But it will be with a whimper, not a bang, if the polls accurately predict the sort of result we’ll see in 2014.

    Agree with this. If Labour do win, it will be with a whimper and probably a tiny majority. From my point of this is good as it will restrict the extent of any radical left wing policies.

  43. I’m sure there have been elections where the general public were less interested but I can’t remember when. Cameron seems to be making a habit of getting on the wrong side of public opinion. Miliband seems to think too much money is being spent on the railways subsidizing the middle class – can’t help thinking, especially in Wales and Scotland that railway closures would release funding for better and more cost-effective bus services.

  44. Bill,

    For me the Lab VI is the key measure but even a Lab pessimist like me is not perturbed by the Euro-related ephemeral lower scores on YG.

    As for Survation and Opinion- frankly ignore except an askance glance at any trend.

    BB – yes Roger M and I both suggested in crossover posts (so no me tooism) that Anthony’s otherwise excellent final lap piece had a serious omission in not including the upcoming council election results.

    In particular how will the LDs fare where they are strong and the impact on GE foot soldiers and morale.

  45. Three separate polls this weekend showing the Tories in the 28-31% range, suggesting that the figures may be pretty accurate and that by examining them we can’t be accused of obsessing over an outlier and rogue poll.

    So that said, and notwithstanding Labour’s underwhelming performance, these are unspeakably awful ratings, aren’t they, for a party of government going into the last year of a Parliament?

    Mr Micawber used to be fond of saying “that something will turn up” to change his fortunes. I wonder what that something may be for the Conservatives? Things come and go, or turn up as old Micawber would say, but nothing ever seems to change for them.

    It seems clear to me; this remains Labour’s election to lose.

  46. “Labour are currently within MOE of their 2010 disaster.”

    But even closer to their 2005 success and 60+ majority. Leads of four, five and seven points on top of a built-in electoral bias aren’t to be sniffed at.

  47. I see the Sunday Times rich list is out again. There are 104 billionaires based in the UK, mainly in and around London. When you start looking through the list, you actually realise that most don’t reside permanently in the UK, but have a home here and some of their businesses headquarters. This must be down to the UK’s relaxed tax system and I suppose a decent legal system. if they have children there are some of the best private schools in the world.

  48. AW or someone else can you help me out.

    There is a YouGov poll in the Mail on Sunday – on the Scottish Referendum – being reported as either a 6% swing to No OR an increase in the Yes vote from the previous poll from the same pollster. Does anyone know the truth?

  49. Rough Average Poll Ratings One Year Before Election:

    April 1991:
    C:39 L:40 LD:15
    April 1992:
    C:42 L:34 LD:18

    May 1996:
    C:28 L:52 LD:15
    May 1997:
    C:31 L:43 LD:17

    June 2000:
    C:32 L:45 LD:15
    June 2001:
    C:32 L:41 LD:18

    May 2004:
    C:35 L:35 LD:22
    May 2005:
    C:32 L:35 LD:22

    May 2009:
    C:43 L:26 LD:18
    May 2010:
    C:37 L:30 LD: 23

    So what does this tell us? Basically that the election is a known unknown. Polls can move a lot (1992, 1997, 2010) or they can hardly move at all (2001, 2005). What I was specifically looking for was government VI shifts. Sometimes it goes down during the campaign (2001) and sometimes it doesn’t move (2005) but it tends otherwise to increase 3-4 points during the “long campaign”.

    Similarly, opposition VI can change in unpredictable ways, although it has tended to go down by anywhere between four and nine points.

    The difference in 2015 will be the coalition effect. The tearing down the middle of the Liberal Democrats and the rise of UKIP surely represent the biggest shifts in public opinion since Black Wednesday or the start of the SDP.

    We’re in uncharted territory, people! (apart from Statgeek’s charts).

  50. Interesting to see that despite the scorn heaped upon Labour & Ed Miliband, in today’s poll even the Con & LD’s give majority support to Labour’s policy announcements.

1 3 4 5 6