UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[EPG]

Though on the issue at hand, the fun part is that there are clear geographical differences. In and around London I doubt that many people (although there will still be some) who voted LibDem in 2010 will have even considered toying with UKIP. The situation is rather different out here in the provinces.

None of the other online panel pollsters (Survation, Populus, ComRes, Opinium) have much of a track record.

With these two posts in mind I decided to check out a few of the more recent polls from a variety of pollsters. I just wanted to share with everyone here that ComRes believes the UKIP are leading in Wales with a four point margin (check page 12 of the pdf)

The margin of error for Labour and Ukip is 15%. This is not a defect of the poll, but a standard feature of the statistics of small samples.

[Bacon King]

Though on the issue at hand, the fun part is that there are clear geographical differences. In and around London I doubt that many people (although there will still be some) who voted LibDem in 2010 will have even considered toying with UKIP. The situation is rather different out here in the provinces.

None of the other online panel pollsters (Survation, Populus, ComRes, Opinium) have much of a track record.

With these two posts in mind I decided to check out a few of the more recent polls from a variety of pollsters. I just wanted to share with everyone here that ComRes believes the UKIP are leading in Wales with a four point margin (check page 12 of the pdf)

The margin of error for Labour and Ukip is 15%. This is not a defect of the poll, but a standard feature of the statistics of small samples.

I know, but it's still amusing IMO.

I'd consider it terrible design for ComRes to even list a crosstab with such tiny subsamples on the ballot- misleading data is worse than no data. every other pollster appears to combine Wales with the South West or the Midlands to prevent it, similar to how the regions in northern England get grouped together. In the US, most good pollsters just leave parts of their crosstabs blank when the subsample MoE is too high.

[EPG]

I see your point. My opinion is that the people who start looking at page 12 of a crosstab PDF should be responsible for knowing about the meaning of a sample population of 38. Once they see that 9 is not significantly different from 11, it's not misleading.

[You kip if you want to...]

By the way, I didn't mean to suggest that UKIP weren't getting any 2010 Labour voters, just that the scale of the movement of formerly Labour voters to them in historically strong Labour areas like Doncaster North is exaggerated.  I suspect that most "white working class" voters who fit the stereotype have never been particularly reliable Labour voters.

The idea that Labour is losing its base up North in droves comes from the London-media (left and right) which uses the term 'traditional Labour voter' as weasel words for "thick, backward bloke from the provincial North". This obviously isn't a true description by any stretch though.

The idea that most old Labour voters (in age and faction) are ripe for UKIP's picking isn't true and to say that Old Labourers would be so easily tempted by racists like UKIP is a rather offensive assessment which, unfortunately, has become an enduring narrative in the media.

[EPG]

To be fair, this narrative is partly self-inflicted. It doesn't help when your party's frontbench publicly reflects on the symbols of the white working-class in the manner of an anthropologist. And, of course, that coup for Ukip was not in the North - which itself suggests that the Conservatives have much to lose, as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...

[Phony Moderate]

Scotland should become independent!

[KingSweden]

If there's a minority government or coalition government in Britain after 2015 that collapses at some point, do they hold an election to complete the term (until 2020) or does a new five-year fixed term start then (say if it collapses in 2017 the next election is 2022, or if in 2018 the next term ends 2023, etc.)? Just curious for my Timeline I'm writing.

[YL]

This week's YouGov polls:

28 Nov: Con 31 Lab 31 UKIP 17 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 5
30 Nov: Lab 34 Con 32 UKIP 15 LD 7 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 5
2 Dec: Lab 32 Con 32 UKIP 15 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 5
3 Dec: Lab 33 Con 32 UKIP 16 LD 7 Green 7 SNP/Plaid 5
4 Dec: Con 32 Lab 31 UKIP 17 Green 7 LD 6 SNP/Plaid 5

[Joe Republic]

I honestly can't wait to see how 36-29-23-3 in 2010 would translate to 32-31-6-17 in terms of seats now.

[joevsimp]

otherwise the current general election polling would mean a swing of Lib Dem voters directly to Ukip.

What's so absurd about that possibility? Of course a very, very significant percentage of the electorate are not really 'Party X Voters' at all, and then will be people who voted in 2010 who will not do so in 2015 and vice versa...

It's much too large. Half of 2010 Lib Dems have not become Ukip voters, but that is what naive credence of the figures would suggest. As for churn, it doesn't help that 2010 old people were not particularly Lib Dem, nor will 2015 young people be particularly Ukip (unlike similar parties elsewhere in Europe).

Somewhere around 10% seems correct for Lib Dem -> Ukip. But, by the same token, somewhere around 10% seems correct for Labour -> Ukip, too.

UKPR posted this churn graphic based on YouGov's crossbreaks a few weeks ago

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049

[andrew_c]

If there's a minority government or coalition government in Britain after 2015 that collapses at some point, do they hold an election to complete the term (until 2020) or does a new five-year fixed term start then (say if it collapses in 2017 the next election is 2022, or if in 2018 the next term ends 2023, etc.)? Just curious for my Timeline I'm writing.

A new 5 year term would most likely begin.  Under the law, a parliament expires 5 years after it is initially elected.  If the government falls before expiration of parliament, parliament is usually dissolved.  A dissolution ends the current parliamentary term, even if it is not complete.

[Bacon King]

After a general election, the resulting parliament will sit for five years unless it is ended prematurely by either a successful motion of no confidence or a motion for an early election date passes with two thirds of the total membership

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Stupid law, let's hope it's repealed.

[Lurker]

Good law, IMO (though it should be four years). Prevents the sitting government from having an "unfair" advantage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well yes and no; it can give the incumbent government unfair advantages of a different sort.

[DL]

I believe the intention of that law was to protect the LibDems from Cameron calling a snap early election if he thought he could get a majority - it was an insurance policy given to Clegg in the coalition negotiations. But isn't it kind of a bogus law since the Crown has reserve powers of dissolution so any PM can simply ask the Queen to dissolve and there is no way that a toothless law can prevent that.

[Lurker]

Well yes and no; it can give the incumbent government unfair advantages of a different sort.

I'm sure it can - but in what ways?

I would have thought that the absence of such a law gives the incumbent PM a bigger advantage, as he could then call an election at whatever moment is more favorabe to his chances of victory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The main issue here is that although Parliaments could last for as long as five years it was often vaguely understood that they 'ought' to last for just four; governments that stuck around for the full five years were generally ones that expected to be defeated. Often governments that try for five rather than four years were accused of stalling, which could be politically damaging. Snap elections have also become very rare, largely due to Ted Heath's woeful miscalculation (i.e. it has become received wisdom that the electorate will punish a Prime Minister who calls an election the moment the political situation seems favourable).

[joevsimp]

yet people still think that Gordon Brown should've gone for it in 2007 when he could've won

[YL]

Not exactly the world's best kept secret, but Alex Salmond is now officially trying to be SNP candidate for Gordon.  (I was hoping for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey...)

[afleitch]

Not exactly the world's best kept secret, but Alex Salmond is now officially trying to be SNP candidate for Gordon.  (I was hoping for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey...)

Well he's MSP for Aberdeenshire East and Gordon before that and Banff and Buchan before that. He turned down safe seats to contest Gordon in 2007. It makes sense that he will stand for an area he knows well and that knows him well.

Given that he could potentially be, unofficially at least, leading the third or fourth largest party in the Commons come May he is of course Westminster's worst nightmare.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Stupid law, let's hope it's repealed.

Imagine February 1974 Parliament remaining for five full years.

[DL]

Stupid law, let's hope it's repealed.

Imagine February 1974 Parliament remaining for five full years.

The law doesn't have to be "repealed" - the PM's ability to ask the monarch to dissolve parliament cannot be superseded by a simple act of parliament. I realize that Canada and the UK are not identical 9to say the least) but we have the same parliamentary system and monarch and in 2006 PM Harper passed a law calling for fixed election dates every four years - two and half years later he thought he could get a majority so he simply ignored his own law declared parliament "too dysfunctional" and called an early election in Oct. 2008 - while he did not get his coveted majority in that election - he did gain ground and no one made much of an issue of him breaking his own fixed election law.

If Cameron or any other PM wanted to call an election in less than 5 years - they might have a political problem in justifying it - but they would have no "legal" problem since NOTHING can stop the PM from requesting that the monarch dissolve parliament and it is virtually inconceivable that the Queen would refuse a PM's request for a dissolution since it would politicize the monarchy.

[EPG]

I read on Political Betting that Lord Ashcroft has second-preference polling: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/12/08/ukip-move-up-3-to-19-in-latest-lord-ashcroft-phone-poll/

There things to say.
First, the figures seem intuitively credible, with nothing clearly going wrong, so speculating on it is not a complete waste.
Second, it confirms that Ukip voters are more sympathetic to the Conservatives than Labour, on the whole, though the proportion is less than 2:1.
Third, AV would actually have turned the screw on the Lib Dems, as Ukip second preferences would turn the tide in favour of Conservatives in the C/LD contests which characterise most of their seats.