A quick catch up of this week’s polls so far, and an update on polling on a Con-UKIP pact.

The first of this week’s two Populus polls had figures of CON 34%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%, GRN 3% (tabs).
Monday’s Lord Ashcroft poll had topline figures of CON 28%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 8% (tabs). Note the Green score there – up to eight points and one point ahead of the Liberal Democrats. The fact they are up in fourth place is probably just a blip – it’s one poll and no one else is echoing it – but it’s a symptom of the genuine rise we’ve seen in Green support over recent months.
Meanwhile this morning’s YouGov/Sun poll had topline figures of CON 31%, LAB 33%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6% (tabs)

Stepping back a couple of days, at the weekend YouGov also released an updated version of polling first conducted last year asking how people would vote if there was a Conservative/UKIP pact at the next general election (tabs). There is sometimes a lazy assumption that because the Conservatives and UKIP together have a very healthy level of support a pact between the two parties would be a winner. That is not necessarily the case – parties do no own their voters. If two parties agree to stand to together it doesn’t follow that their voters will go along with it. The usual voting intention in the poll showed Labour four points ahead of of the Conservatives, but with UKIP on 18%. Asked how they would vote with a Conservative/UKIP pact the Labour lead grew to six points. The reason is that only about two thirds of current Conservative voters would back the joint ticket – some would flake away to Labour or the Liberal Democrats, others wouldn’t vote or aren’t sure what they would do. At the same time only just over half of UKIP supporters would follow their party into a deal with the Tories, others would go to Labour, find an alternate “other” party or not vote. This probably paints an artificially bleak picture because many of those don’t knows would hold their noses and vote for the joint-ticket, but it should still serve as an antidote to those thinking a pact is a panacea to Tory woes.

Asking about the specific circumstances of seats where there is a Conservative standing on the joint ticket or a UKIP candidate standing on the joint ticket sheds a little more light on the don’t knows. Essentially just over 10% of Conservatives and UKIP voters are lost anyway if there is a pact, even if a candidate for their own party is standing locally – presumably people totally opposed to co-operation with the other party. If a candidate for the other party is standing locally, only a minority (36-40%) of the other parties support is transferred across.


200 Responses to “Latest polls, and how people would vote with a Con-UKIP pact”

1 2 3 4
  1. BFIELD…………….Olé !

  2. Anthony

    Thanks, I think. :-(

  3. Oldnat a gentleman of impeccable manners – I bet he never burps!

    (He’s not a heathen like me)

  4. Roger Mexico

    36% – probably due to insider knowledge again. Better than anyone, they know how totally pointless they are.

  5. Poll of Polls currently indicates a Labour overall majority.

    A 5% Lab-Con swing from the current poll of polls would give the Conservative’s an overall majority on UNS.

    And there are three further outcomes that require lower swings.

    A lot can happen in 7 months.

    Harold Wilson was doing fine in 1970 until Ramsey substituted Charlton.

    The outcome of the next GE cannot be predicted at this stage IMO. Five results are possible.

  6. Catmanjeff

    We heathens need to stick together – or we’ll be overrun by the religious fanatics in white robes sitting on red benches in the HoL.

  7. CMJ 1927
    If your ‘G’s B’ was on the penultimate day, then it might do it. However, I am aware that late swings are not likely in the run up to a GE. The 1992 polls were simply wrong (we are told).

    I think rabbits out of a hat are less likely nowadays, as information is more widely available and less susceptible to intended bias or sensation, where political considerations are at stake. (Actually, I just hope that).

  8. @Chouenlai

    “So you are saying that over 7 months, the Tories under no circumstances can gain 5 or 6 points?”

    Never say never. Anything’s possible – the LibDems may sweep to power on a landslide but, like a Tory victory, I regard it as improbable. I’ve always said that I expect Labour and UKIP to improve on 2010 and the Tories and LibDems to perform worse. Everything continues to point that way – precedent, polls and betting odds.

    (And I would hope that my expectation is not dictated by my preferences. I may not be a Tory but the last time I voted Labour was in 1992.)

  9. STATGEEK

    Looking at the Scottish trend lines there appears to be a lot of seismic activity starting from around mid September of this year.

    Now I know Jackie Baillie likes a good shindig but surely there is another explanation for this seismic activity?

    Interestingly on the UK trend graph Labour look to have taken a bit of a dip in the same period as the unexplained seismic activity in Scotland!

    It’s all very strange. Think I might give the professor of Seismology at Edinburgh University a call to see if he can shed some light on this.

  10. @Howard

    The really big unknown is what will UKIP’s voters from the Conservatives and Labour do.

    If they stay purple (while being told endlessly by DC vote UKIP and get Lab, and EM saying vote UKIP and get Con) it will be a very exciting election night. I have spreadsheets and popcorn nearly ready.

    In my lifetime (I remember from 1979 onwards), this one really is the hardest to call, and with loads of unknown factors.

    Given the result I suspect (close and uncertain), there will be a long lasting massive aftermath to deal with too.

  11. Allan Christie

    I think I can help you out

    http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html

    Since 19th September, there have been 8 notable occurrences of seismic activity

    5 in Scotland, 1 in Jersey, 1 in Wales, and 1 in Shrewesbury (whose most famous resident, Cadfael, was Welsh so it really shouldn’t count as England anyway).

    The previous ones were largely in England when Nigel Farage dropped a full pint glass on the pub floor, causing massive activity in the BBC Newsroom.

  12. Howard

    Spain, 2004. Events.

    UK 1992, shy tories.

    Heywood and Middleton 2014 – actually not sure how they got that wrong.

    Elections can still produce unexpected results and they can certainly produce results that were not expected more than 6 months earlier.

    IMO Catmanjeff’s analysis is correct. The election result will be determined by how many Kippers DC can persuade and how many Greens and “yes voters” EM can persuade. If both fail then we will have a minority government or a stalemate.

    My guess, is that DC will persuade a few Kippers to vote Conservative but not enough for an overall majority

  13. OLDNAT
    .

    “Since 19th September, there have been 8 notable occurrences of seismic activity”

    “5 in Scotland, 1 in Jersey, 1 in Wales, and 1 in Shrewesbury (whose most famous resident, Cadfael, was Welsh so it really shouldn’t count as England anyway)”
    ______

    Thanks for that info and it has cleared things up. STATGEEK’S graphs are very sensitive to have picked up the 5 seismic occurrences in Scotland. Wonder if his graphs will continue to show seismic activity in Scotland over the next 6 months or so?
    ………..

    “The previous ones were largely in England when Nigel Farage dropped a full pint glass on the pub floor, causing massive activity in the BBC Newsroom”
    ______

    Ha, everywhere that man goes causes massive activity. ;-)

  14. CATMANJEFF
    @Howard

    “The really big unknown is what will UKIP’s voters from the Conservatives and Labour do”

    “If they stay purple (while being told endlessly by DC vote UKIP and get Lab, and EM saying vote UKIP and get Con) it will be a very exciting election night. I have spreadsheets and popcorn nearly ready”
    ___

    Salted or toffee flavour?

  15. I am not sure if this comment will be accepted on this site. It is about UKIP. There is a video with Mike Read singing a political song with a false West Indian accent. Now he has apologised for it after accusations that it is racist.

    Just two things occur to me, and I may be wrong. First the comedian Lance Percival has sung calypso songs in a false accent for years and nobody said that they were racist. They have been played on the radio many times.

    Second, a West Indian accent does n’t mean that someone must be black. I have heard Tony Cozier the cricket commentator, and many others must have heard him. He has a West Indies accent, but he is white.

    Anyway, I don’t see where the racism charge comes in. I may have it all wrong. I welcome being corrected on this.

    I am not a UKIP supporter, but I just wonder if this is an unfair attack on them. Obviously it may just be a bad record.

  16. @Little Red Rock – “The outcome of the next GE cannot be predicted at this stage IMO.”

    Well you’re wrong. It can be predicted, remarkably easily.

    Predicting it correctly – now that’s altogether more difficult.

  17. ADGE3

    I don’t criticise UKIP for this daft song (still less Mike Read for his cringe-inducing West-Indian accent) it is just that once again UKIP end up being attacked for this silly reason while deflecting attention from the more sinister one of joining up with a neo-nazi party in the EP.

  18. Ah! The joys of immigration hysteria.

    What a sad wee country is the UK.

    http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/music/musician-who-played-with-bowie-faces-deportation-1-3580928

  19. @ Rosie&Daisie

    Re the eulogy about your old posts earlier on, owr Dad said not to tell you – but – he has ALL of your posts copied out and stuck on the wall………
    ————-
    That’s adorable! I think your dad is the funniest poster on UKPR (except when his knee is giving him gyp, I hope it’s getting better). His ‘attempts’ to arrange a meet with Colin at a Lidls in Hastings (IIRC) had me rolling in the aisle. :-)

  20. @ADGE3
    I’m not sure where you’ve been where people don’t get implied to be racist over pretty much anything. Sounds nice there though.

    “Obviously it may just be a bad record.”

    Think ya might be being overcautious there. Someone linked it here a few days ago, truly awful.

    “I am not a UKIP supporter, but I just wonder if this is an unfair attack on them.”

    As opposed to all the fair attacks political parties make against each other?

    Mike Read used to do pretty much exactly the same thing at conservative conferences, up to his run for mayor in 2008, but now he’s wearing purple they’ve changed their opinion of it…

  21. @ Little Red Rock

    ‘My guess, is that DC will persuade a few Kippers to vote Conservative but not enough for an overall majority’

    Spot on I think – and my expectation is most certainly not dictated by my preferences!

  22. Regarding election refreshments, as some here are aware, I shall have to go abroad to sit up on the May 7th 2015, because that’s the only place I can buy paprika flavoured crisps.

    Not that I shall be sitting up because I sell in May and go away and will have voted postally in late April (not that such action will bring about even the earlier cited gnat’s burp).

  23. CMJ – I agree every GE since since 1979 it has been clear who would get most seats.

    Only 1992 and 2010 when the issue was OM or not for the Tories was there any uncertainty even 6 months out.

    (Yes even 1992 to Labour party members, it was clear after the small Lanbaurgh swing).

    I guess it is possible for a dicisive move in the next 3-4 months but for once the actual campaign might be meaningful as 2-3% extra for one of the parties could be crucial.

  24. N F R

    I hope that my preferences are undetectable, since I hope that they are irrelevant.

  25. LRR
    Disappointingly, I don’t think anyone on here lives in a marginal.

  26. Howard, others,

    I live technically in an ultra-marginal (Sheffield Central) and when I’m home a semi-marginal (North West Leicestershire). I’ll do my best to tell you all the way the wind is blowing if I can detect it.

  27. I live in Norwich North and will vote Green because Labour has selected from an All Woman Shortlist.

  28. It seems that Ed Miliband, just the same as anyone has to assess his strengths and weaknesses. He has one weakness which perhaps no one has mentioned. He became Labour Party leader in 2010. Clegg became Lib Dem leader in 2007 and Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005.

    Therefore Miliband has less experience as a party leader than the other two – a difference of five years compared with Cameron.

    Therefore it seems that he may need to make an extra effort. That 1 per cent lead in the latest Yougov poll may be an outlier. However, no party can be completely confident of success at the General Election.

    However, I would predict that the next Yougov poll will see a higher Labour lead.

  29. @ Little Red Rock

    ‘N F R
    I hope that my preferences are undetectable, since I hope that they are irrelevant.’

    Sorry, I was referring to RogerH’s comment (7.43) above yours.

  30. @ Graham

    I live in Norwich North and will vote Green because Labour has selected from an All Woman Shortlist.’

    That’s a bit bizarre – I should imagine the Green Party is strongly in favour of all-women shortlists, so why should they benefit from your opposition to Labour’s use of one!?

  31. ^ I was about to say the same thing.

    Anyway, Rochester and Strood by-election poll:

    UKIP 43
    CON 30
    LAB 21
    LD 3
    GRN 2

  32. @Newforestradical
    The Green candidate was not selected from such a list.

  33. Thanks Roger Mexico and Old Nat for the clarification.

    I thought the query implied a Westminster byelection for which an opinion pollster might conceivably have been commissioned to publish a survey, hence my confusion. They do ask unlikely things… labradors, poodles, snakes and their resemblance to party leaders, but who will win an election for hereditary peers? Never to my knowledge.

  34. @Howard

    Wolverhampton SW. Ranks 15th in terms of Con-held marginals. So I imagine that a lot of you will be jealous, at least for the next 7 months.

    This must be one of the very few sites where people might be jealous of someone who lives around here, not that the place is half as bad as its reputation.

  35. Billy Bob

    “but who will win an election for hereditary peers? Never to my knowledge”

    Given that some people seem to make a fair amount of cash by betting on the most bizarre things, a betting market on which aristocrat will out poll his privileged peers might not be far off.

    In which case, expect pollsters to start influencing the odds, and then cleaning up – since Anthony tells us they are free to do so.

  36. I live in a Scottish marginal – something like a 1% lead by SNP over Labour will swing the seat here.

    ie Labour had just a little under a 10,000 majority in 2010.

  37. @Phil
    1.7 Con over Lab, with 16 of lib-dem presumably evapourated. Can’t see that being close. Perhaps typical of just how much of an advantage lab are at in a lot of places, despite the tiny overall lead.

  38. MRNAMELESS

    Rochester and Strood by-election poll:
    UKIP 43
    CON 30
    LAB 21
    LD 3
    GRN 2
    ____________

    Looking at this poll in a analytical way it appears a lot of Greens have shuffled over to the lib/Dems.

    Apart from that……zzzzzzzzzzzz

  39. @oldnat

    Is there a new (published) poll?

    My correspondents in Rochester and Strood assure me that they are being pestered by telephone polling. The stock response so far has been “None of your business!”

  40. @Wood

    If we had a half decent system of electoral registration, rather than the lousy new and untested one about to take effect, I would be inclined to agree with you.

  41. PHIL HAINES……….Wolverhampton is the future engine manufacturing hub for JLR, huge investment, creating, ultimately, thousands of direct and spin-off, jobs. Might there be a bit of a feelgood factor and a reluctance to hand over to a potentially damaging new government, will they prefer to support the status quo ?

  42. @mrnameless / Allan

    (RE: Rocherster & Strood) – Mike Smithson Tweets:

    “Mike Smithson [email protected] 18m18 minutes ago

    28% of those backing Mark Reckless in the UKIP-donor funded ComRes poll were non-voters at the 2010 general election.”

    Make of that what you can / will.

  43. MrN
    Thanks, who’s poll is it?

    Reckless has apparently taken substantial vote share from all three previously leading parties and in turn Labour has taken a good proportion of LD voters to compensate. That latter probability, coupled with a UKIP win, will bring a smile to EM’s face, as long as it happens on the night, of course.

  44. @Catmanjeff:
    And of course that messaging has both parties implicitly encouraging the other side’s defectors that a protest vote is safe and won’t result in the non-desired party getting in.

  45. New thread

  46. Phil H and Ken
    If EM can’t bag Wolves SW back again, it’ll be like 1992 with that grinning bloke in Dagenham, or 1997 with that grinning bloke in Portillo’s constituency.

  47. Regarding all-women short-lists, the reason that the proportion of women in the House of Commons has been raised to its present still pathetic level is through the use of all-women short-lists.

    What do others propose for increasing the proportion of women MPs when they reject all-women short-lists?
    I don’t think that there is an effective alternative proposed by other parties. However, let me suggest one.

    Going back to the year 1911, the House of Lords had power to reject the wishes of the House of Commons. Therefore, as people know, the Parliament Act 1911 was introduced to reduce the power of theHouse of Lords. Why did the House of Lords agree to have its powers reduced?

    The reason is because the government had obtained the agreement of the King that, if necessary, he would create the necessary number of Liberal peers to overturn the blocking majority of the Conservatives in the Lords. Therefore the Lords backed down.

    Now, the same method could be applied to forcing constituencies to select more women candidates. In other words, if you don’t select a woman, then an all-women short-list will be imposed.

    The number of women in the House of Commons is so laughably small by international standards, and by comparison with other elected assemblies in Britain, that drastic measures are needed to increase the number of women MPs.

  48. @ADGE3
    Last I checked (which may not be up to date with recent elections), the proportion of women in HoC was actually greater than the proportion of women standing/applying-to-stand for parliament.

  49. @Paul A
    ” the more sinister one of joining up with a neo-nazi party in the EP.”
    To be accurate UKIP haven’t. The Polish CNR has four MEPs. If I have understood it correctly, only one, Mr Iwaszkiewicz, has joined UKIP’s EFDD Group, his reason being ‘I joined the EFDD Group because of two important values – opposition to EU bureaucracy and support for free markets so firmly supported by the Ukip delegation,’
    I can’t see Mr I. having much influence on UKIP policy in UK, while keeping the EFDD Group active does mean that 4.3 million UK voters will have the same degree of representation in the EU parliament as those 4.0 million who voted Labour and the 3.7 million who voted Tory. Politics is a rough business.

1 2 3 4