Two polls tonight – Opinium in the Observer have topline figures of CON 34%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7% (tabs). All par for the course, and fieldwork was on the 24th and 25th March, so prior to the Paxman interviews on Thursday.

More intriguing is YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times. Fieldwork for this was done on Friday and Saturday, so was wholly after the Paxman interviews. Topline figures there are CON 32%, LAB 36%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%. A four point Labour lead. I’ll write more tomorrow, but I’ll leave you with the usual caveats, it’s just one poll, it could be boost for Labour from the interviews or it could just be normal random variation, only time (and subsequent polling) will tell…


177 Responses to “Latest Opinium and YouGov polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. First?

  2. On YouGov……

    It’s the sort of poll that looks very interesting, which of course means that it is almost certainly an outlier. Doesn’t help the Carp Ed meme in the papers though.

  3. Interesting that the 4 point gap is exactly what the ICM post “debate” poll suggested would happen.

    Won’t last.

    Probably…

  4. Serious post this time….I’m not overly surprised by this. I suspect that Milliband did indeed get a bonce from the program. The question is, if he did, was it sustainable?

    Two points, while, on policy, Paxman had both men on the ropes, the last 5 minutes saw Paxman get very personal with Ed. Ed actually got passionate and fought back. That is the first time many will have seen him do so.

    Cameron delivered peretty much what anyone watching would expect, and was neithor a great or a disasterous performance, and while Milliband was initially on the ropes, he showed many of those watching something new.

  5. IF replicated at the election, IF, then would probably mean Labour with a small majority or just short.

    Only one poll though and suspect its an outlier but it makes Ed’s bluster about achieving an overall majority a bit more credible.

  6. Debates questions in yougov reported by sky,of those who watched.

    Who came across best ?

    Miliband 49 Cameron 34

    Who was most honest and clear ?

    Miliband 49 Cameron 28

  7. Jim Jam (FPT)

    I would believe a four point lead three ties in a row or a three pointer four times in a row. Oh, and from the same pollster of course.

  8. Laszlo

    Labourlist.org

    The top 100 Ukip leaning seats: Ford and Goodwin, ‘revolt on the right’.

  9. Slight bounce for Labour but I’ll still say the Tories will win the election.

  10. And the clocks go forward tonight.

  11. @Mark
    “Serious post this time….I’m not overly surprised by this. I suspect that Milliband did indeed get a bonce from the program. The question is, if he did, was it sustainable?’

    Almost certainly not. But it helps Labour morale and EM’s own confidence.

  12. Anyone started a book on how long K Burley’s career will last?

  13. @ David

    It’s a hopelessly designed website and I tried it when you said it earlier. I will try with the Fabian keyword.

  14. @allan christie
    “And the clocks go forward tonight.”

    Bad news for Labour – it means Crosby’s Easter Surge is one hour closer

    (this is a joke)

  15. Surely, since the fieldwork started Thursday teatime and ended on Friday afternoon; thus it could not include only those voters who watched it or reacted to comment about it. If the bounce is due to that factor, it must mean that the lead is now actually even greater?

    (Yes I am chuckling.)

  16. Has the change in the clocks been factored into the swingback models?

  17. Its only one poll but the odds on a Lab maj offered by bookies still remain incredibly generous.

  18. @bristolianhoward

    Number Cruncher is saying fieldwork was 10:30am Fri to 8:30am today

  19. @Lazlo

    I’ve downloaded the PDF, and it’s a index of a number of factors.

    There is no data you can compare to any other VIs, for example.

  20. @David

    Thanks for the Fabian.

    They could be right, but using local and EU elections to approximate the GE2015 is a bit.dubious (also it’s summer 2014).

    They could be right, but I think the seats concerned will go to Labour.

  21. Odds on a Tory maj are currently 9 /2. Odds on a Lab maj 14/1. Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

  22. The interesting polls tend to be wrong. So I need a couple more polls to show this (and a Full Scottish as soon as possible).

  23. FPT,

    This is well within MOE of 34% a piece.

    Need the ‘Original’ Howards 4 in a Row before I get excited.

    Even if this proves not to be a outlier it may not last that long.

    CB posted about a morale boost for Labour from the (non) debate and I mentioned Labour having a foot soldier advantage (in E&W) and no doubt this will give a lift to the many activists out tomorrow canvassing.

    As per BH above (the Original Howard)

  24. @ CMJ

    Indeed. I don’t want to make guesses why it was done. It could be anything.

  25. @Charles (FPT)

    & @Peter Crawford, @Spearmint, @Reggieside et sl

    On balance the polls seem to make Labour and Conservative neck and neck or Labour slightly ahead. Why then do all the projections put the Conservatives on most seats.

    Point 1: The presupposition underlying your question is false. It is simply not true that all the projections currently put the Tories ahead. Polling Observatory still have Labour 20 seats ahead. Electoral Calculus is posting a solid Labour lead. Also the ElectionForecast Nowcast has Labour comfortably ahead. If you average the various published projections, it is as close as you can get to a neck-and-neck seat count. So nothing much to explain, despite people saying they are bewilderd by what is happening.

    Point 2: Two of the models (EF and Electionsetc) do assume that swingback/regression-to-mean will take place. Since this pushes seats to the Tories, these models would not be expected to mirror the present state of the polls.

    Point 3: (This just repeats an accurate observation already made by @Alan earlier today). A margin of just six seats (as for example in the current May2015 projections of Con – 276; Lab – 269) is as close as you could sensibly get to describing a neck-and-neck seat tally. If you look at the top of the list of Tory seats, you will see that there are three that would change hands if the margin dropped by just 0.3%! Given this, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the seat tallies flip around when they ouch in the YouGov poll that Anthony has just posted. It is routine for UKPR folk to think in terms of MoE for polls. But exactly the same caveats apply to seat projections (and indeed some of the teams publish the 90% confidence limits for their projections).

    So, in short, there is nothing to be surprised about in the overall pattern of the projections.

  26. Didn’t they have a book to sell ?

  27. Omni

    Thanks. Sensible explanation then, although even then, one is surprised. Perhaps most filled it in after a TGIF session.

    Just one other thought – could it be that David Cameron obtained advance knowledge of it and would that explain the content of his speech? Or possibly the result was emulated in focus surveys that his spin doctor ran?

  28. One thing we have to remember about the debate is that it won’t have been about the 4m who watched on the night- it will be about the 30m who saw clips on the news the following day or from their favourite website, tempered of course by the write in in the majority sales of the right wing press.

    It may of course still be down to seeing the clips your favourite online newspaper chose to show and getting an inbuilt bias, but I did get the feeling that the Paxman grilling on Cameron seemed to be more prominent.

    The worst I remember on Ed was the tough guy “hell yeah”- personally I’d have gone with taxi driver and the “you talking to me??? Well I’m the only one here!”

    With Cameron it was probably easier for Paxman as he had a string of government actions and comparisons with the 2010 manifesto. Much more difficult to pin down someone who doesn’t have a record of government.

  29. Mikey
    Thanks for the advice, I shall log in to betfair forthwith. And if enough of us do so, the odds will shorten. AP Mcoy apparently would have cost me a loss if I’d bet on every ride of his career in which he was favourite.
    Seriously, many people vote tactically. How many seats have been decided by one vote,ever? If none, then surely a tactical vote by an individual has always been a wasted vote.

  30. One fact that can’t be denied: the rumoured ‘March crossover’ touted by Lynton Crosby and co. hasn’t happened.

    Note that this result equals Labours highest VI total of the year, and equals their biggest margin. It’s also on the back of improving average polls anyway – a few weeks ago the Tories were mildly ahead, then drawing level, now Labour in front again.

  31. Laszlo & Catmanjeff

    I guess the real point is that Ukip are fighting their chosen marginals as By-elections, putting a lot of time and resources into those seats – in the same way that the Libs have done for years. Therefore, the general polling of around 14% doesn’t quite give the true picture.

  32. Allan Christie 10.17 & 10.18

    Well you got one out of two correct and its not the first comment :)

  33. Mikey

    Can only assume the 14/1 for Labour is the punters factoring in the Scotland effect. Not sure that explains why the Tory majority odds are so short though, unless its overly optimistic supporters laying down big bets and moving the odds. Tory supporters tend to be wealthier than Labour supporters, on average.

    However if Labour do obtain a 4-5% lead in the UNS then what happens in Scotland becomes irrelevant because they can win enough seats (just) for a majority without the Scottish seats.

  34. Unicorn
    “it wouldn’t be surprising to see the seat tallies flip around when they ouch in the YouGov poll that Anthony has just posted”

    Ther’es something Freudian about your typo there!

  35. John TT

    Indeed. Clearly there are punters who think Con will win the election hence their odds shortening but I would have thought the bookies would be starting to take account of current polls. I don’t think Lab will win a majority but even so 14/1 seems very generous.

  36. @profhoward

    I dunno about a Full Scottish, but I believe there is a Full Welsh to be published on Monday.

  37. @ David, UKIP may be fighting target seats as by elections but unless they are fighting in seats with at least 2 other serious contenders they may well provoke tactical voting against them> They are, according to all the research clearly the most disliked party, so many voters may hold their noses to keep UKIP out. This was rarely a challenge that the LDs during their more popular period faced

  38. You could get 2/1 Labour largest party yesterday (skybet).Thought about a treble with Rory(Masters) and Wolves for promotion to the Prem.

    Wish I had now.

  39. @ David

    I live in a dead sure Labour constituency. Only the Greens campaign. The whole thing is odd, because.both in the local elections and EP elections UKIP inherited 3/4 of ex libdem votes. But it counts nothing.

  40. @james
    Do you know when the fieldwork was done? (Full Welsh)

  41. Mikey
    I think you need to accept that betting is decided by where the money is being laid. Clearly there is a relationship with polling but this is likely to be a delayed one I don’t know much about this (thankfully) but I must be right about the delay (Einstein told me so). .

  42. 07052015

    I was with you until you mentioned Wolves being promoted and then I knew you were joking.
    Yes the odds on Lab having most seals are pretty tight but they are seen as rank outsiders on achieving a majority compared to the Tories.

  43. Mickey
    Thanks for that and I agree the bookies have qualitative experts in the office as well as quantum analysts
    I have a vague memory of a fairly recent USA political campaign being affected by betting activity. Party Funds were applied to betting markets in order to affect the odds and therefore have some effect on polling.
    I’m sure our funding system doesn’t allow such extraordinary interventions, but it is a fact that bookies exert a bit of leverage on behaviour, just as polling companies do in their independent findings

  44. Sorry Mikey not Mickey!

  45. The funding system might not allow it, but there’d be nothing to prevent a wealthy supporter putting a lot of money on for the reason you suggest. It seems a bit of a convoluted method though.

  46. ” I suspect that Milliband did indeed get a bonce from the program.”

    We’ve never had a two headed prime minister in modern times.

    Quite a few two faced ones, but never a second head.

1 2 3 4