YouGov London poll

I’m a little late with this, but just to flag up that yesterday’s Times had a new YouGov poll of London. Topline voting intentions there are CON 34%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 9%, GRN 6% (tabs here).

I sometimes hear a sort of London as the weathervane of the country argument, as London goes so the country goes. It doesn’t, despite a Tory mayor it’s Labour leaning compared to the country as whole, and it doesn’t necessarily swing in the same way as the rest of the country either. In 2010 while the Conservatives were seven points ahead in the country as a whole, Labour won in London by 2 points, and the Conservatives managed a smaller swing in London than elsewhere.

This poll suggests a 3 point swing from Con to Lab in London, the equivalent of a 1 point Conservative lead in national polling, so actually a little less than national polls are currently showing. It could be the Tories are doing a little better in London, or it could just be ordinary sample error – as ever, it’s just one poll and shouldn’t be overinterpreted. A three point swing in London would net Labour three or four gains from the Tories – Hendon, Brentford and Isleworth, Enfield North and, right on a knife edge, Croydon Central.


396 Responses to “YouGov London poll”

1 3 4 5 6 7 8
  1. @Raf

    Another model with built in swingback

    As @Guymonde has just pointed out this is not true. In the Methodology section they write:

    It’s important to note this is not a prediction of what will happen on voting day. Instead, it’s a model of how parliament might look if the nation votes exactly like the average of the latest polls. It does that by looking at national polls, sub-UK data, and constituency polling, plus some historical context.

    I am not totally sure what to make of the last phrase. It could just mean that they are making use of 2010 vote shares. The critical phrase, though, is that the seat tallies are based on the “latest polls” and not on some swingback assumptions.

    That all said, I can’t quite see how the latest polls could end up giving the Tories a five seat margin over Labour. Other models using the latest polls (e.g., May2015, Electoral Calculus, the EF Nowcast (as was) and indeed the UKPR Advance Swingometer) all put Labour in a rather stronger position.

    It seems a bit pointless having a model without explaining how it reaches its conclusions. I don’t imagine @AW will be adding these particular projections to the lists he includes in his weekly summary.

  2. Interestingly the Guardian model which attempts to combine Constituency polling, as well as the Scottish and GB polls projects 6 more seats for SNP than the pure Scottish Voting Intention model of Prof Curtice.

    This is made up of an additional 5 LiS seats the Guardian anticipates falling to SNP as well as Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale which they expect will move from Con to SNP.

    Both models project Lib Dems losing to SNP everywhere except Orkney & Shetland.

  3. Populus (sample of 2064) asked : “To what extent, if at all, do you trust each of the following media outlets to report fairly and accurately?”. They were given the options: Trust completely, trust somewhat, neither trust nor distrust, distrust somewhat, distrust completely.

    The most read newspaper in the UK – the Sun – is also the least trusted.

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/poll-suggests-sun-least-trusted-newspaper

  4. …or is panic beginning to set in?

    Not that I’m aware of. Everybody involved expected this.

  5. The Guardian projection includes factors such as incumbency effect, explaining why it has produced a better result for the Conservatives than the current polls predict.

  6. The Guardian model has the SNP on 51, Gaining 34 from Labour , 10 from the Dems and the 1 Tory seat.

    All scenarios the Guardian have come up with in the event of a hung parliament look precarious but I’m interested in what Nick Clegg defines as the largest party? One with most seats or one with most votes?

    It’s quite plausible the Tories could win the popular vote and win less seats than Labour but the parliamentary arithmetic has Labour and the SNP wining more seats than the Tories and the Lib/Dems who between them won more votes.

  7. JOHN PILGRIM
    ALLAN CHRISTIE
    “If YouGov can find SNP voters in England Survation can find Cornish Nationalists on the Isle of Wight.. There’s Mrs Trepolpen in Ventnor for a start.”
    ………..
    “And many Grauniad readers who have retired to Tresoddi”
    _______

    Now that’s taking it to the extremity. ;-)

  8. @Unicorn

    Just a bit of further information on UKIP VI, Jan vs Feb.

    I looked at You Gov data only. There are lots of samples, and it isn’t usually prone to big variation. I think it’s quite a conservative (in the non-political sense) set of data.

    When you do a standard T Test, p = 0.031, showing a statistical difference.

    However…….

    The datasets for Jan and Feb are not normally distributed – the Anderson-Darling test gives p = 0.0364 for Jan and 0.0018 for Feb. There are no outliers, so the comparison of the medians requires a Kruskal-Wallis test. This test handles non normal datasets without outliers. (Non normal datasets with outliers requires a Mood’s Medians test).

    When Jan vs Feb YG VI scores for UKIP are compared with a KW test, you get a p = 0.063, not significant to a 95% CI.

    I know this just more confusion to a not very important issue, but it’s another view.

    :-)

  9. Catmanjeff

    To be hyper-thorough, you need to account for the design effects. Do YouGov provide a design factor number?

  10. Good piece in The Times this morning concerning Police Scotland (an awful name).
    Since the merger into one police force covering the whole of Scotland in 2013, response times and police morale has, apparently, declined.
    It’s interesting that on the day the parties are due to announce increased powers for the Welsh Assembly, this story comes along.
    When you look at the major devolved areas such as Policing, Health and Education, it cannot be seriously argued that the devolution experiment has been a success in either Scotland or Wales.
    The problem in pointing out these things is that you are immediately seen as “anti Scotch or anti Welsh” as any right thinking person couldn’t possibly object to decisions being made “closer to the people” – as if the location of a building makes any difference!!.
    This will change, I think, as time goes on. After all, the Nationalists will only be able to “blame Westminster” for so long before the people – the vast majority of whom don’t follow these things closely – will realise the great con that has been done in the name of them but for the benefit of the professional politicos/legal eagles/single issue pressure groups who inhabit the Edinburgh/Cardiff bubbles.

  11. Based on people reporting being polled by Populous with Constituency specific questions there seem to be at least 3 seats in Scotland where Lord Ashcroft is polling at present:
    Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
    East Renfrewshire
    Ross, Skye and Lochaber

    This seems to fit with his general pattern of polling seats held/contested by the big names but where else might he want to poll as well?

    Frankly all the Lib Dem held seats are interesting but I guess he’d be particularly interested in the ones where Conservatives might come through to sneak first place ahead of both Lib Dem and SNP. In order these would probably be:
    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
    West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
    North East Fife
    Edinburgh West
    Argyll and Bute
    East Dunbartonshire
    Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

    Ashcroft may also be interested in Labour held seats which have some Conservative strength if Labour collapsed where could Conservatives come through the middle.
    Edinburgh South West
    Dumfries and Galloway
    Stirling
    Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
    East Lothian

    Then there is the 1 Conservative held seat. What is the SNP surge doing there?:
    Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale

    The rest of the Edinburgh seats are all idiosyncratic and could be showing anything from big Labour leads to SNP sweeping the board:
    Edinburgh East
    Edinburgh South
    Edinburgh North and Leith

    Then we have the pure SNP vs Lab contests. Ideally to get an idea of what’s going on you’d want to poll one from each of these groups:

    Dunfermline and West Fife
    Glenrothes

    Rutherglen and Hamilton West
    East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
    Lanark and Hamilton East

    Central Ayrshire
    Kilmarnock and Loudoun
    North Ayrshire and Arran

    Aberdeen North
    Aberdeen South

    Linlithgow and East Falkirk
    Livingston
    Midlothian
    Falkirk

    I wonder if Ashcroft will go for the city wide poll again and do all 5 Edinburgh seats plus the 3 we know he’s polling and maybe Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.

    Those 9 would be a very interesting set to look at.

  12. @Catmanjeff

    What does that mean in non stats language?

    If p<1 does that mean no statistically significant movement in UKIP support from Jan to Feb?

    I agree this is not an important issue, really just trying to work out how we can say "there has been movement" when/if the polls do start moving. How many polls do we need to wait for/ how significant do the movements need to be/ what if one pollster says x and another says y, how do we separate the noise of MOE from real movement, etc…

    I remember you mentioned control charts, but we seem to have moved into other tests now – what tests are best?

  13. @CMJ

    Hmmmm. It keeps happening, doesn’t it? Sometimes there. Sometimes not quite there. I think we can probably all agree that we are teetering on seeing a Ukip drop since Jan 1.

    (I presume you used a two-tailed test, as a one-tailed test would be doubtful).

    On departures from normality, I wouldn’t be that concerned about the t-test. Large-scale Monte Carlo simulations have shown that provided that the N in each of the groups are roughly equivalent (as they must be here with a month’s worth of polls in each group) the test is very robust with respect to departures from distributional assumptions. Even with radical distributional violations (e.g., using highly skewed or multimodal distributions) the Type 1 error rates still don’t move far away from the target values. (That said, however, with a calculated p-value of 0.033 even a tiny distortion could compromise the result.)

  14. @Jasper

    I don’t have access behind the paywall but I’d say that hasn’t been my experience of Police Scotland.

    The professional dealings I have with them post merger have seen a more localised approach at local authority level than before the merger.

    I work in an area that was a peripheral region of one of the regional forces previously but now has more local autonomy and freedom to operate than it did under the previous system.

    Just anecdotal positive feedback from the polis I work with but it’s certainly not doom and gloom here about Police Scotland. I hear the ex HQ staff in former regional fiefdoms are less enamoured with the new situation. Ex big fish in small ponds syndrome perhaps?

  15. NORTHUMBRIANSCOT

    Looks like our wish has come true with regards to East Ren being polled. :-)

    It would be very interesting if Ashcroft polled the Edinburgh seats because unlike Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, it’s more of a mixed bag for the parties and the votes are more evenly spread between the 4 main parties , well 3 plus the Lib/Dems.

    Although during the tartan rampage of 2011 where the SNP picked up 5 of the six seats in Edinburgh, their actual vote share was quite low.

    I wonder if it will be easier for the SNP to pick up a seat from a Labour stronghold where it’s a one to one fight or in seats where the votes are more evenly distributed between all parties?

  16. @northumbrianscot

    Hopefully Ashcroft will be helpful and just poll every seat in Scotland, that way we can all be happy :-)

  17. @Bramley

    Not that surprising really on trust in media organisations. Isn’t necessarily the same people reading it who say they don’t trust it. Crude example, but when you see entertainment polls of “best” and “worst” you often get the same people on both lists. Just, different people voted for them.

  18. @Bramley

    The second thing to note is that article/poll is 3 years old…

  19. Allan Christie
    “I’m interested in what Nick Clegg defines as the largest party? One with most seats or one with most votes?”

    Andrew Marr asked Danny Alexander that exact question last Sunday.

    ANDREW MARR:
    Post-election you have said as a party that you will go to the party which appears to have got the strongest mandate.

    DANNY ALEXANDER:7
    The strongest mandate, exactly.

    ANDREW MARR:
    Now what does that mean? Does that mean votes or does that mean seats?

    DANNY ALEXANDER:
    Well we’ve said that whichever party has the strongest mandate should have the first chance to form a government.

    ANDREW MARR:
    I just don’t understand what it means, that’s all.

    DANNY ALEXANDER:
    Well the point is that of course in our system you need to be able to have a parliamentary majority. That’s what we and the Conservatives between us have in this parliament. But one also has to look at you know who’s got the momentum in the election, which party has been more successful. So you know I think there is a …

    ANDREW MARR:
    So you could go either way? It’s going to be who appears to have won will get your first …

    DANNY ALEXANDER:
    (over) Well you’ve got to … Look the thing that motivated us in this parliament was how do we make sure that the country has a government which is strong enough and stable enough to deal with the economic problems. That required a parliamentary majority, but it also required a coalition agreement that delivered those Liberal Democrat priorities to make that possible.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22021501.pdf

    So there you have it – it’s whatever they decide they want it to be !

  20. Of course, it is very unlikely that Danny Alexander will be deciding anything after the election!

    It think it is probably safe to assume that the remaining LDs will do what they consider to be in their own self-interest (just as any other party would do).

  21. An academic question perhaps, although maybe some polling anoraks can answer it, but has a Government with 51% of the electorate disapproving of its record, this close to an election, ever then gone on to win it?

    Put another way, wouldn’t you expect a Government that was well on course to be re-relected in two months time to be well into positive approval territory by now? I know it’s been slowly improving from the depths of 18 months ago, but -17% is a bit grim, isn’t it, at this stage in the electoral cycle?

    @JimJam
    The Tim Sherwood reference is a bit too gnomic for me, so I’ll pass on that if you don’t mind, but I understand your view about imminent crossover and certain events probably boosting the governing party’s VI ratings in the polls.

    I understand it, but I’m not sure I agree with it, mainly because it appears to be predicated on a rather outdated view of the voters pavlovian responses to economic stimuli.

  22. @Northumbrianscot

    In addition to the SNP quirks the new Guardian model seems to be biased in favour of the LibDems. (in line with editorial policy??).

    With LD VIs around 8%, other seat calculators based on current polls give LD seat counts in their teens. The Guardian boost might be traced back to constituency polling (which obviously doesn’t play a role in UNS-type models).

    However, Electionforecast gives a current tally of just 19 LD seats in the Interpreting New Polls section of their site. All the tests indicate that the EF database is the most accurate and best maintained, and so I would question how the Gusrdian model finds an extra eight seats for the LDs on the basis of the same current polling data.

    Of course,swingback could still increase LD seat counts, but this is explicitly not a feature of the Guardian model. So I don’t understand where their projections come from.

  23. BRAMLEY

    Thanks for that……Yes so basically they will define the largest party after the election as the one which suits them best.

  24. Alexander deserves to get the boot purely on the basis of those answers alone. What a heap of wishy washy, opportunistic drivel.

  25. Roll A Hard Six

    “So, is 2015 the year when the ”Scots vote differently at Westminster compared to Holyrood” mantra finally ends?”

    I doubt it.

    There seem to be a large number of voters who are happy to vote SNP or Lab according to circumstances. We probably do them a disservice by classifying them as “SNP” or “Lab” voters.

    In 2010/11 they voted differently for the different Parliaments. It is conceivable (though currently unlikely) that in 2015/16 they could do the same – but the other way round!

    Keeping politicians unsure about what will happen is a damn good thing!

  26. @ON

    Living as I do in West Lothian – one of the tightest Lab v SNP council areas (the 1 Conservative has been Provost for almost ten years now, so he remains neutral) – I agree that keeping the politicians guessing as to how we might vote produces good results: councilors who actually work for us!

  27. Ipsos mori has an archive of ‘Satisfaction with government’ polls which is a similar question:

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/politics/trends.aspx

    Looking at your previous posts I suspect your query is an example of looking for reassuring data to fit pre-existing bias but I think you will probably find the findings disappointing.

  28. @Unicorn

    It looks to be a combination of the Constituency polling, Incumbency bonus and extrapolating those to other Lib Dem seats that is keeping the Lib Dem seat count high in the Guardian.

    The projections assume 10/11 Scottish seats lost to the SNP which is quite aggressive, assuming even Charlie Kennedy loses his seat.

    They also predict 10 losses to Labour. There were only 11 Lib Dem held seats in England & Wales with Labour in 2nd place in 2010:
    Norwich South
    Bradford East
    Brent Central
    Manchester Withington
    Burnley
    Birmingham Yardley
    Redcar
    Hornsey & Wood Green
    Cardiff Central
    Bermondsey & Old Southwark
    Bristol West

    There are a further two Lib Dem held 3 way marginals on Labour’s 106 Battleground seats list.
    Cambridge
    Leeds North West

    I’ll also throw in Sheffield Hallam to keep Mr Nameless happy and Camborne & Redruth as an outside chance for Labour.
    Sheffield Hallam
    Camborne & Redruth

    So of the 15 semi plausible Labour targets to gain from Lib Dem in England & Wales the Guardian is projecting 10 gains.

    Again this is aggressive when Constituency polls have shown people like Simon Hughes and John Hemming holding on.

    So their relatively strong performance for Lib Dems appears to be based on predicting that left leaning voters in Conservative vs Lib Dem marginals will “hold their noses” and vote Lib Dem to keep out Conservative. Based on Constituency polling so far and historic ABT patterns this may not be an unreasonable assumption.

    I think English Lib Dem vs Conservative seats will be amongst the most interesting and idiosyncratic results in this year’s election.

  29. @john b

    ”keeping the politicians guessing as to how we might vote produces good results: councilors who actually work for us!”

    When myself and my Mrs still lived in Livingston – we are down in East Yorks now – I remember voting Labour in 2010 as I would have preferred a unionist candidate to win, then voted SNP in 2011 as Labour would have put my mother out of a job in the NHS if they had won. In both elections my preference would have been to vote Conservative, but I only did so in the Holyrood regional list.

    Such are the vagaries and permutations of individuals voting choices, but by my voting record I would be classed as a Westminster Labour voter and a Holyrood SNP voter (if we still lived in Scotland) despite me not identifying with either party really.

  30. Sorry my post above was a response to Crossbat’s query.

  31. Green/LibDem crossover not imminent

    Just to return to another recurrent topic of debate, I think we can be fairly confident that the Greens are not going to overtake the LibDems any time soon. (My trend calculations originally predicted crossover on March 14 so, I have been watching this with some interest).

    The reason for saying this is that the 36 national polls reported so far in February still show the LDs (at 7.6%) being reliably ahead of the Greens (6.5%). (The two-tailed p-value is less that 0.005). Test based on YouGov polls alone might tell a slightly different story. But it is safer to base conclusions on a range of pollster reports and not just one one.

    Obviously before crossover occurs the initially lower VI must first move up close enough to the higher for the two to be statisticslly indistinguishable. This hasn’t happend over the first 27 days of February and this won’t be changed by any further polls in the remainder of the month, and so the preconditions for crossover have not yet been met.

  32. Meant to say that means the Guardian are projecting that of the 34 Lib Dem held seats in England & Wales where Conservatives were second in 2010 they are projecting around 24 holds for Lib Dems and only 10 losses (although they may be assuming some/all of Cambridge, Leeds North West or Sheffield Hallam falls to Labour)

  33. Re swingback and the Graun

    It seems to me that many of the pollsters build in a swingback assumption into their ‘raw’ results because of reallocation of DKs etc to their previous recalled vote.

    I’m not sure how much of an effect this has and perhaps someone can enlighten me. And if I’m right, is there a danger of double swingback – or at least partially double – being built into some prediction models?

  34. Some interesting analysis of the student vote here

    http://www.youthsight.com/media-centre/announcements/student-voter-registration-and-party-preference-february-2015/

    “It is likely that the main outcome of the Individual Voter Registration for students is an increased proportion becoming registered to vote in their home constituency, rather than their university town”

    That may be the reason for the large drops in registration numbers in university towns in that electoral commission report I linked to earlier?

    So that should add some uncertainty to projections, a less concentrated student vote. And if these students are registered at home, are they really going to vote (I assume the election is during term time)?

  35. Do all pollsters currently include a propensity to vote factor? Or, do they, line YouGov, include it in the month or so before the GE?

    Other than the ‘normal’ swingback occurring, the inclusion of this factor may well see Con VI move ahead of Lab VI for YG polls.

  36. typo – ‘line’ should be ‘like’

  37. @AC “Thanks for that……Yes so basically they will define the largest party after the election as the one which suits them best.”
    Fortunately there are limits to that. I can imagine a party having both more votes and more seats than its closest rival, but not an overall majority, while the LibDems might well prefer to be dealing with the closest rival.

  38. @Guy Monde

    On the issue of double counting swing back:

    Do pollsters only reallocate Don’t Knows back to their 2010 vote? And, might we expect the number of Don’t knows to decrease as the election draws nearer?

    If so, we ought to see the “built in swingback” diminishing as the election draws near (and the number of D/Ks falls)?

    And, if there is less time for swingback to occur might we expect less swingback to be built into projection models?

    If that is right (someone please tell me if it is or isn’t) Then, without a single person changing their mind we ought to see a slight Labour increase at the expense of Lib Dem but a decrease against SNP. And a slight Conservative decrease to the benefit of UKIP.

  39. Jasper
    The position of Police Scotland is indeed dire. Given earlier debate on here it is probably best seen in the context of the regional devolution debate in which Manchester has been central. All the devolved administrations have problems in addressing the key agenda of city regions. This is touched on in the UK Competitiveness survey.
    In Aberdeen’s case, there is a much diminished police presence with only one police station open to the public in a city of 220 000 people. The control room is closing and control will be from central Scotland. As significantly, with reduced resources Police Scotland guide much policing by statistics which in Scotland’s case means a huge weighting to Glasgow where around half of all Scottish crime takes place dominated as viewers of Taggert will appreciate by local criminals.
    Aberdeen though has no strong local gangs and is highly internationalised in crime as much else. So crime here is not much noticed. As an anonymous local police officer said “We only catch them (international criminals) when they speed in their Porsches.”

  40. I suspect the graun are using different incumbency fudge factors for each party which accounts for the high LD performance when compared to the Lab wipeout in Scotland.

    Needless to say I don’t think their assumptions re: LD incumbency reflect the circumstances of this election.

  41. Still no workable 2-party coalitions possible, according to various predictions (methodology explained or not). It’s going to be a good time to be a smaller party: most elections throw up such big majorities for the two main parties that your 1 or 4 seats is irrelevant.

    On Fisher’s site, the probability wheel has a new pie slice “SNP king-makers or wreckers 13%” – amusing.

  42. Labour are announcing changes to personal pensions.
    1. Maximum pension pot
    2. Limits on annual contributions
    3. End tax relief for 150+K earners (cry)

    To pay for student fees.

    This is proper Labour stuff, taxing the rich and about time.

    This does draw a sharp distinction between Labour and Cons (who have just pledged to protect free benefits for rich pensioners)

    I am interested to see how this plays in VI will Labour capitalise or will the Cons paint this as the ‘politics of envy’ ‘hitting hard working families’ and point to Gordon Browns pension policies.

  43. Jasper22

    Good piece in The Times this morning concerning Police Scotland (an awful name).
    Since the merger into one police force covering the whole of Scotland in 2013, response times and police morale has, apparently, declined.

    […] When you look at the major devolved areas such as Policing, Health and Education, it cannot be seriously argued that the devolution experiment has been a success in either Scotland or Wales.

    Hmm. So if centralising functions doesn’t work, it shows there should be more centralisation. Presumably on the same argument you’ll be wanting to abolish all these ministries and legislatures in London and have everything run from Brussels.

    Health and education have always been separate in Scotland of course, so all devolution meant was all of the people making the decisions sitting in Edinburgh, rather than most of them. And the problems of the NHS in Wales are partly being exaggerated for political reason, partly due to allocation to Wales and mainly the trans-UK problem that people are thought to be unwilling to pay enough for the service to make it work[1].

    For what it’s worth I think merging the Scottish police forces was a mistake. Though I’ve even wondered if the Met should be split up in the past. As with the Met the danger with a large centralised force in the capital is politicisation – not so much in Party terms but concerning things being done to look good in the papers, fit passing fads and so on. As NorthumbrianScot says it’s the amount of local autonomy and how it’s used that is important[2].

    Though of course if they were going to merge them, the official name should have been “The Polis”.

    [1] Actually polling shows that they are, but politicians are unwilling to listen. Still you’re not going to get five grand a day off your local health board are you?

    [2] There was also the problem that the old regional structure was based on the pre-1996 regions, so that one Force (Strathclyde) had nearly half the population.

  44. @Northumbrianscot

    You may be right that part of the Guardian models’s generosity to the LibDems may be based on incumbency. However, there is no mention of such adjustments in their methodological description.

    Eyeballing the EF current state of play list suggest they calculate with the single exception of the Hughes seat, the LDs would lose every one of the seats you list (and more). Interestingly, the EF model already builds in incumbency benefits – especially for the LibDems. This happens because they adjust Ashcroft-polled constituencies to CVI and not SVI figures.

    So, the Guardian model looks a good deal more LD-friendly than the EF model is, and this – in turn – is already using CVI figured to boost LD prospects.

    So, for reasons that are beyond examination (because we don’t know exactly how the Guardian model works) it seems to be biased in favour of the LDs.

  45. Populus [email protected] · 2 mins2 minutes ago
    Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (+1), Con 31 (-1), LD 9 (-), UKIP 16 (+1), Greens 6 (-), Others 5 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/sVI270215

  46. @Unicorn

    ‘So, for reasons that are beyond examination (because we don’t know exactly how the Guardian model works) it seems to be biased in favour of the LDs.’

    It could be that the Guardian is a LibDem supporting paper and they don’t have to adhere to any pesky rules of a professional body.

  47. Unicorn

    In addition to the SNP quirks the new Guardian model seems to be biased in favour of the LibDems. (in line with editorial policy??).

    If you look at their methodology statement[1], they seem to give priority to constituency polling, though they then adjust them for more recent poll of poll changes. This tends to help the Lib Dems of course.

    Their results seem to resemble the May2015 most. In fact I suspect their model is basically that one with a few extra tweaks.

    [1] You’ll have to search for “UK election 2015: The Guardian poll projection methodology” because I can’t link to it.

  48. @Allan

    It has to be the most seats. Votes are meaningless once the seats are decided. What counts is the target of 326 or more. I assume Danny’s answer is designed to put people off moving away from Lib Dem in the marginals. It’s not ironic that some of the main ‘No’ campaigners will probably lose their seats (current polling being the 7th May reality).

    @Northumbrianscot

    Which seats to poll? Personally I would prefer Glenrothes. Yes it’s my own seat, so I’m really curious, but also because I hear that Glenrothes has the highest incidents of child poverty outside of Glasgow (38% in some wards).

    Lindsay Roy was surprised, and promptly blamed the Scottish Government…so for me it would be nice to see if the safe seats of Fife can shift or not. That would be a litmus test of sorts. We’ve already had Glasgow, but Fife was moderately leaning to ‘No’, so it’s a different kind of test.

    Having said that, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath is sort of similar. In the past, where the K&C voters go, Glenrothes voters tend to follow (and Lindsay was generally following Gordon – they turn up at events together – Fife BOGOF deals :)).

  49. For what it’s worth, my own prediction North of the Border is 45-55 SNP seats, so I don’t find the Guardian’s prediction at all strange. I think that is very achievable, based on the polls over the past 2-3 months. Ashcroft’s polling went a fair bit to making that look more likely.

  50. Statgeek,

    “BOGOF” – Bring Own Gordon Or Fifer”?

    Has there been any polling for Ross, Skye and Lochaber? Unless there’s constituency polling putting the SNP ahead of the Lib Dems in that seat, I shall struggle to believe that Charles Kennedy would lose that seat.

1 3 4 5 6 7 8