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. Thanks, Anthony. Saw this thread on twitter.

    Brilliant, as usual.
    Still a close race; for first and second; and for third/fourth place in popular vote.

  2. @Jim Jam (FPT)

    “…hence why left leaning voters in such seats have a decision to make.”

    It’s a fairly easy choice for left leaning voters who want a left leaning UK government capable of lasting 5 years, rather than one dependent on the votes of a party that could withdraw its support (if it gives it at all) at any point and prompt a further general election in which the Conservatives could return to government.

  3. Good to see we have four more peers in HoL today. We don’t have nearly enough Lords in the UK.

    Fortunately, lots of departing MPs will add to the numbers next May.

  4. Genuinely enlightening that there’s so much distrust between what look (from over here on the Left) like two very similar right-wing parties. I suppose I know the arguments (“UKIP are racist knuckle-draggers” vs “Tories are Notting Hill liberals”) but I’d always thought that, when push came to shove, one bloc of supporters would be happy to merge with the other.

    So a Conservative standing on a Con-UKIP ticket could expect to get 90% of the Con vote and 40% of the UKIP; a ‘kipper could expect to get 90% of the UKIP vote and 40% of the Tory vote.

    Assume the YouGov national figures of 31% and 18% respectively, and you get

    Con candidate: 27+5=32%
    UKIP candidate: 16+12=28%

    If that is the way the arithmetic works, it’s only going to be worth the hassle in seats where UKIP are running a strong second to the Tories – and those are precisely the seats where the Tories won’t want a pact (incumbency) but UKIP won’t either (one more heave). On that basis I don’t think it’s a runner.

  5. From Anthony’s post

    “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”

    So does that follow that Cameron’s lurch right recently to try and recapture his UKIP losses leaves his left seriously exposed?

    More reasons for Labour to take the Rochester by election seriously and offer an alternative to Tory=UKIP? But they are just going to sit this one out by the looks of it and let UKIP and the Tories frame the debate for the next month?

  6. What a muddle. It seems that a retrograde Labour party with. if lucky, 1/3 of the votes could form the next government. 2/3 of the voting public will be displeased. A recipe for much disappointment and continuing anger with our politicians.

  7. I’m thinking a Con/UKIP pact is the equivalent of a Labour/George Galloway pact.

    Yougov poll is very interesting in Scotland. The Lib/Dems are down to 5% so even them two bastions of the Northern Isles might just fall.

  8. Well, well, well.

    Baseline data
    76% of 2010 Lab voters now support Labour, with 11% supporting UKIP, 5% supporting Con and 7% supporting LD/Green/Nats

    Con/UKIP joint slate data
    86% of Lab10 now support Lab, 7% support UKIP/Con and 7% LD/Green/Nats

    So, if the Red-Kippers think that UKIP is in league with the Tories, 9/10 of them go back to Labour. Who’d a thought it? I guess Labour’s election strategy is a no-brainer.

  9. @Anthony

    “This probably paints an articifically bleak picture……”

    Bleak? For whom and in who’s eyes? Some may think it rather a reassuring picture.

    :-)

  10. Labour do seem to have lost a lot of momentum over the last month, though obviously the Tories haven’t gained either.

    The 35% strategy looks increasingly overambitious…

  11. ‘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.’
    Is this more evidence that the vote UKIP get Labour may not be as effective as some hope?

  12. Allan Christie

    Remember Roger Mexico’s strictures on the last thread. The relative strengths of the Unionist parties in Scots crossbreaks is subject to all the usual problems of their being weighted according to GB party ID.

  13. CB11
    You could have put AW’s typo right for him.

  14. OLDNAT
    Allan Christie

    “Remember Roger Mexico’s strictures on the last thread. The relative strengths of the Unionist parties in Scots crossbreaks is subject to all the usual problems of their being weighted according to GB party ID”
    __________

    He does have a good point because Labour are on 24%. Am just thinking that figure could be bloated if using Roger Mexico’s formula.

  15. Surely the two sets of figures in the YG poll aren’t comparable?

    In the “normal” data set, party percentages are of those intending to vote for a named party.

    In the “Coalition” set, percentages are of all respondents – including DK & Wouldn’t vote.

  16. Ooops. Should have looked at p2 !

  17. Still not right AW but thanks for the attempt. :-)

  18. @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour lead drops to one point: CON 32%, LAB 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%

  19. CON 32%, LAB 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%

  20. YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour lead drops to one point: CON 32%, LAB 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%

  21. @Howard

    “You could have put AW’s typo right for him.”

    I only noticed it after I cut and pasted the quote. If I’d led a blameless typographical, grammatical and syntactical life myself, I might have mentioned it, but people in glass houses…..:-)

    To the polls. Populus, increasingly inhabiting a polling world of their own, now seem the only pollster suggesting a 70% or more combined VI share for Labour and the Tories, regularly under-cooking UKIP and the Greens. Meanwhile, as predicted, good old Lord Ashcroft, heads below 60% for the two main parties and YouGov is going in that broad direction too, recording the combined VI in the low 60s. This seems to be where most of the pollsters are now converging and if I was either Cameron or Miliband, I’d have a pint of whatever Populus have been drinking!

    The good old traditional Labour/Tory slugfest, beloved of us Over 50s, goes on in an increasingly virtual world, blows traded in an echoing and rapidly emptying old hall. If it wasn’t for our electoral system it would be more or less game over.

    Still, as it is, the two tired old pugilists are on course for one last punch up in May 2015 where I have a feeling, bearing in mind a 60-65% turnout is likely, we’ll see them attracting the combined support of less than half of the adult population of the UK. Still, whoever is still standing at the end of what is likely to be an unseemly and dispiriting brawl will get the main prize.

  22. The greens have been making a very big deal about the Ashcroft though. Not that I don’t share in the enthusiasm, but nice to see the more rational response as usual from AW.

  23. All else pales into insignificance after a brilliant night at the Bridge, 6-0 for the Blues, I couldn’t hang around for a drink because I have an early start in the morning, however, the polls are moving along nicely to reflect an outright Conservative victory next May, thank goodness the knuckledragging faction of UKIP will return to Labour as well. Overall, a very good time for us Tories. :-)

  24. @Lefty Lampton

    What is also interesting is the 2010 Lab to LD/Green/Nat doesn’t change.

  25. Tonights Yougov

    CON 32%, LAB 33%, SNP 9% LD 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5%

  26. Funny how, even if Lab and Con could be regarded as roughly equal, within MOE, Lab still nearly always edges that little lead. I have not counted the instances but it seems uncanny to me.

  27. As outlined in the previous thread… the “best” resolution would be for a few more more Tory MPs of to defect, ones best placed to hold their seats at the GE. Con chooses to go down the path of Clacton as opposed to Rochester and Strood.

    Ukip would then concentrate their resources on key target seats and stand down their candidates in the Con/Lab marginals (polling now beginning to show this as the more fertile ground for a pact).

    It’s just possible that could lead to a Con/Ukip coalition government. If the result is an EU exit, then Ukip folds back into Conservative.

    Alternatively, Con/Ukip falls short of a majority. Conservative Party membership then votes for a leader with a clear mandate to heal the rift with Ukip and campaign for the Brexit.

  28. Hang on to that Howard-its all you’ve got at the moment.

    Does a 30% strategy work for anyone ? :-)

  29. Allan Christie

    :-)

  30. So tonight’s poll showing 35% of voters are not backing Tory or Labour.

    At this rate the only pact I can see is a Tory/Labour one.

  31. @CB11
    “The good old traditional Labour/Tory slugfest, beloved of us Over 50s, goes on in an increasingly virtual world…”

    Forgive me, but as an Over 50 I remember similar sentiments being expressed by all and sundry following the laughably named Limehouse Declaration. I remain sceptical that the Two Party System is defunct just yet.

    “If it wasn’t for our electoral system it would be more or less game over.”.

    Any electoral system can develop a two party system, and most do in one way or another. eg, Fine Gael v. Fianna Fail in the ROI; SPD/CDU in Germany, Likud/Labour in Israel etc.

    The difference between most of these systems and ours is that the result of the election is decided by leaders of parties after the election instead of by electors during it.

  32. Postage

    “The difference between most of these systems and ours is that the result of the election is decided by leaders of parties after the election instead of by electors during it.”

    You mean like 2010?

  33. Just for fun and only that I put the Scottish numbers from the link in Anthony’s post into his Advanced Swingometer

    Con 14%, Lab 24%, LibDem 5%, SNP 49%, Others 8% gives;

    Lab 4 seats, LibDems 1 seat, SNP 54!!!

    If only!

    Peter.

  34. @Howard

    Regarding Lab/Con crossover, there is quite a good reason for crossover not quite getting there very often.

    Based on the last 30 polls, Labour should be ahead 76% of the time, and the Conservatives 12% of the time (the other 12% should be a tie).

  35. Peter

    I see both Stewart Hosie and Angela Constance have advocated negotiating with others in the Yes movement to form some kind of coalition for May 2015.

    Any views on that?

  36. @Howard

    I’ve just checked and in the last 30 YG polls, the Conservatives led in 10%, so 12% isn’t too bad a prediction.

  37. Any polling on tomorrow’s by election for Westminster?

  38. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    “Just for fun and only that I put the Scottish numbers from the link in Anthony’s post into his Advanced Swingometer”

    “Lab 4 seats, LibDems 1 seat, SNP 54!!!”
    ______

    I used the Scotland votes website and it shows…

    SNP 55 LAB 3 CON O LIB 1

    Looking at both sets I think Labour would probably take a lot more comfort from your set of seat projections .

  39. Oldnat,

    Personally I am not in favour for a few reasons;

    I am old fashioned in thinking you should vote for what you believe in and if you are a Green you should vote Green first. If you think they can’t win then feel free to vote for someone else.

    However deciding not to vote for your favoured party should be your choice, not a Partys.

    I don’t like the idea of Parties doing deals that restrict people’s choices and given reactions to the coalition and the LibDem poll numbers I think you can make a good guess that the public don’t either.

    What came out strongly during the referendum was that there is also a large dislike of Westminster politics and parties doing deals seems to be part of that kind of politics.

    Thirdly even with the Greens doing well post the Referendum it is hard to see them or the socialists winning any seats even with SNP backing so what we would effectively be asking for is them both to step aside which although it would maximise the chances of my Party doing well removes choice from the voters by artificially depriving them of the chance to vote for their own favoured party.

    It might be good Party Politics but it is bad politics and I have a feeling that right now in Scotland people want more politics and less party politics.

    IN an odd way not doing the Smart thing from a Westminster point of few might be the smart thing to do!

    Peter.

  40. CLOUD SPOTTER

    “Is this more evidence that the vote UKIP get Labour may not be as effective as some hope?”

    I imagine that ‘vote X, get Y’ is the most ineffective election slogan whoever tries it.

  41. @OldNat

    “I see both Stewart Hosie and Angela Constance have advocated negotiating with others in the Yes movement to form some kind of coalition for May 2015.”

    Makes about as much sense as the parties in the No movement forming some kind of coalition for May 2015.

  42. Peter

    Thanks. That’s a persuasive argument.

  43. @ROSIEANDDAISIE

    “Well, actually it’s because, like jelly, water is wobbly but people like to say stuff that makes them sound clever.”

    ——————–

    It isn’t the wobbiness of the water that was salient, but the movement of the pollen. People knew water was wobbly, they couldn’t explain why the pollen jiggled, even when the water wasn’t moving or wobbling, was just sat still in a container. Einstein didn’t just note that water was wobbly but did calculations to infer stuff about the atoms, including their size and weight. Einstein wasn’t doing it just to sound clever…

    (The reason they jiggle, is random fluctuations in the atoms striking the pollen. In that sense it’s a bit like Margin of Error. So it relates to polling…)

  44. CMJ
    Thanks for your trouble
    Colin
    I could not understand your comment. I’ll look tomorrow nitol.

  45. Roger H

    Peter’s arguments against it are principled, so persuasive.

    Your suggestion that an electoral pact between Lab & Con, in the context of a Westminster election, would be similar shows, alas, a lamentable lack of understanding.

  46. @OldNat

    On the contrary it highlights the delusions of the Yes side.

  47. Roger H

    So let’s deconstruct your suggestion.

    “Makes about as much sense as the parties in the No movement forming some kind of coalition for May 2015.”

    The Westminster election in May 2015 is one where Con & Lab are competing with each other to become the largest party, while the LDs are hopeful that they can be Coalition partners to one or another of them.

    Those who supported a Yes vote, however, will not be campaigning to be the governing party of England. They could, conceivably form a coalition to present a united Scottish voice for more rather than less powers to be devolved.

    In what alternative universe do you imagine that the GB Con/Lab/LD parties would agree to present a single common candidate in the 59 Scottish seats?

  48. @OldNat et al

    I read Stewart Hosie’s statement and I don’t think he means that the Greens or SSP should stand aside or the SNP stand down in any seat. What he wants is the various campaign groups RIC, Women For Independence, Business for Scotland etc as well as the local Yes groups – should be co-ordinated to campaign for the pro-Independence candidates at the GE.

  49. I think Labour’s 35% strategy might have to be a “whatever we can get as long as it’s more than the Tories” strategy.

    Or perhaps it was always that?

  50. Hahahaha, good luck trying to corral RIC into doing anything in conjunction with the others. It was all well and good campaigning for that vague slogan “YES” but electing candidates requires a policy platform and vision for the future where many of those groups fundamentally disagree.

1 2 3 4