The Polls thread...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Please put all poll results on this thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

YouGov seem to be doing a tracking poll...

Lab: 36 (-)
Con: 35 (-1)
LD: 21 (-)

MoE: 2%

According to Electoral Calculus this would result in a Labour majority of 60 seats

Interestingly, Peter Kelner (is it one or two "l's"?), who's judgement I respect more than his polls, has said he doesn't think that the Labour vote is overestimated in published polls anymore.

One interesting thing about YouGov's polls is that both Labour and the Tories have moved up this year.

[afleitch]

''Last Nat Standing'' screams the Daily Record

Scottish Poll MORI for Scottish Television's Politics Now

Labour 43%
Conservatives 21%
Lib Dems 15%
SNP 13%

Theoreticclly this would leave only Alex Salmond in Westminster, with the Tories taking 3 seats away from them. Unlikely. The SNP are in decline, and the support for the Lib Dems looks too low. The Conservative's have been polling highly and probably will take 20% this time round. I remember in 2003, polls were putting them at 9% or something ludicrous like that. The Tories always poll far better on election day itself and will probably take Angus from the SNP and at a push, Perth and North Perthshire. Labour will hold up well in Scotland, especially if the SNP vote slumps. They look very shaky in East Dumbartonshire and in East Renfrewshire, the old Eastwood seat, they are not as strong as they seem, but Jim Murphy is a popular MP and should just about hold on. Dumfries and Galloway is a foregone conclusion really, a Tory gain.

As for my own seat, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Labour will hold on easily, though Tommy McAvoy is not particularly well liked in the 'Hamilton West' part of the constituency

[Filuwaúrdjan]

''Last Nat Standing'' screams the Daily Record

Scottish Poll MORI for Scottish Television's Politics Now

Labour 43%
Conservatives 21%
Lib Dems 15%
SNP 13%

Theoreticclly this would leave only Alex Salmond in Westminster, with the Tories taking 3 seats away from them. Unlikely. The SNP are in decline, and the support for the Lib Dems looks too low. The Conservative's have been polling highly and probably will take 20% this time round. I remember in 2003, polls were putting them at 9% or something ludicrous like that. The Tories always poll far better on election day itself and will probably take Angus from the SNP and at a push, Perth and North Perthshire. Labour will hold up well in Scotland, especially if the SNP vote slumps. They look very shaky in East Dumbartonshire and in East Renfrewshire, the old Eastwood seat, they are not as strong as they seem, but Jim Murphy is a popular MP and should just about hold on. Dumfries and Galloway is a foregone conclusion really, a Tory gain.

As for my own seat, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Labour will hold on easily, though Tommy McAvoy is not particularly well liked in the 'Hamilton West' part of the constituency

The possibility of the SNP doing very, very badly is an appealing one, but I'm a pessimist as far as they go...

[Democratic Hawk]

''Last Nat Standing'' screams the Daily Record

Scottish Poll MORI for Scottish Television's Politics Now

Labour 43%
Conservatives 21%
Lib Dems 15%
SNP 13%

I've just put this polling data into the BBC seat calculator and it came up with:

Labour 45 (-1); SNP 0 (-4); LD 9 (n/c) and Conservatives 5 (+5)

On this basis all the SNP-held seats would go Conservative along with Dumfries and Galloway from Labour

Afleitch, if the SNP vote is haemorrhaging, where is it going? The Tories seem to be benefiting (in that they pick up 4 seats) so the question follows, why would nationalists support the least nationalist (i.e. the party, which opposed devolution for so long) party? I'm not complaining an SNP rout is good for Labour too, especially in Dundee East, Ochil/South Perthshire and the Western Isles - where they are vulnerable

Re - Dumfries and Galloway - I assume Labour strength must be the town of Dumfries itself and little where else. Do you think Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale seat could be a potential three-way fight or will Labour strength in Clydesdale be enough to see any challenge off?

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Dumfries & Galloway is notionally Labour by a tiny amount. There's an arguement that Labour's position is understated due to tactical voting in Stranraer (a ferryport in Galloway) last time round.

We'll find out soon enough.

[Democratic Hawk]

Dumfries & Galloway is notionally Labour by a tiny amount. There's an arguement that Labour's position is understated due to tactical voting in Stranraer (a ferryport in Galloway) last time round.

We'll find out soon enough.

I'd love to see it stay Labour - it's a canny sized red chunk on the political map

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No new polls today... so I'll post a warning about reading too much into them.

1. Polls in the U.K have a habit of exaggerating any swings or trends... especially those that result from yesterday's headlins.

2. The incumbent party usually does better than the polls suggest (2001 was very much an exception to this rule) because, unlike the U.S, undecideds usually break towards the incumbent.

3. Don't read much into demographic or regional results. The samples are just too small to be useful.

4. Always read more than the headline figure

5. Always average MORI's two polls

6. Remember that different pollsters often measure different things.

7. Remember than just because in the past few elections party x has been under/over represented in the polls, it doesn't mean they are this time round.

8. Three little words: Margin of Error

9. Remember that most U.K polls would be regarded as junk polls in the U.S

10. The only poll that counts is on May the 5th

[Filuwaúrdjan]

News polls today:

ICM gives a Labour lead of 4pts, YouGov 2ps and MORI 7pts (not sure whether this be a certain or a normal poll).

I've not found the actual figures yet, so wait a sec...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Found the MORI numbers:

All absolutely certain to vote:

Lab: 40%
Con: 33%
LD: 19%
Oth: 8%

All naming a party:

Lab: 41%
Con: 30%
LD: 21%
Oth: 8%

Unusually they're both basically the same if adjusted for MoE... certain to vote turnout is at 61% which might explain summet.

First poll gives Labour a majority of 138 on the BBC's uniform swing thing... but I suspect that Labour would still lose at least 20 seats even if that were the numbers: this poll indicates a higher turnout than 2001 and seems to indicate that this apparent rise would be in Labour seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Still can't find the ICM or YG figures. Nuts.

[Silent Hunter]

No new polls today... so I'll post a warning about reading too much into them.

1. Polls in the U.K have a habit of exaggerating any swings or trends... especially those that result from yesterday's headlins.

2. The incumbent party usually does better than the polls suggest (2001 was very much an exception to this rule) because, unlike the U.S, undecideds usually break towards the incumbent.

3. Don't read much into demographic or regional results. The samples are just too small to be useful.

4. Always read more than the headline figure

5. Always average MORI's two polls

6. Remember that different pollsters often measure different things.

7. Remember than just because in the past few elections party x has been under/over represented in the polls, it doesn't mean they are this time round.

8. Three little words: Margin of Error

9. Remember that most U.K polls would be regarded as junk polls in the U.S

10. The only poll that counts is on May the 5th

Good list, Al. You might want to add that some polls weight past vote recall, others don't.

[Democratic Hawk]

In addition to Mori, there were two other Sunday polls:

1) ICM (The Sunday Telegraph): Lab 38%; Con 34%; and LD 20%

2) YouGov (The Sunday Times): Lab 37%; Con 35%; and LD 21%

Today (11/4),

1) ICM (Daily Mirror/GMTV) Lab 38%; Con 33%; and LD 22%

2) YouGov (The Daily Telegraph) Lab 36%; Con 36% and LD 20%

All would produce Labour majorities ranging from 44 to 116 seats (www.electoralcalculus.co.uk)

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thanks for finding those numbers

[Democratic Hawk]

NOP (The Independent, 12/4):

Lab 38%; Con 32%; and LD 21% - Lab majority of 136 (www.electoralcalculus.co.uk)

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

www.pollingreport.co.uk has reported on the first face-to-face poll of the campaign

Commissioned by Mori it is in today's Evening Standard and the figures are:

Lab 39%; Con 35%; and LD 22% - overall Labour majority of 112 (www.electoralcalculus.co.uk)

It also has voting intentions for London and the South-East:

1) London: Lab 43% Con 29% LD 22%

These figures contrast sharply with that of YouGov's meta-poll (data January to March), which had Labour on 36%, the Tories on 33% and the Lib Dems on 21%

2) South East (exc. London): Con 38% Lab 30% LD 24%

In YouGov's meta-poll, the Tories were on 42%, Labour 30% and the Lib Dems 21%

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

ICM (The Guardian 14/4/05):

Lab 39; Con 33; and LD 21 - overall Labour majority 136 (www.electoralcalculus.co.uk)

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

YouGov (The Daily Telegraph, 15/4):

Lab 38 (+2 on Monday); Con 33 (-3); and LD 22 (+2) - overall Labour majority of 116 (www.electoralcalculus.co.uk)

Previous YouGov polls have had Labour and the Tories neck-and-neck - this poll is more in line with recent polls from ICM, Mori and NOP

Wonder what story the next Populus and CommRes polls tell?

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New polls out today:

YG/Sunday Times: Lab 36, Con 35, LD 23

ICM/Sunday Telegraph: Lab 40, Con 30, LD 22

CR/IoS: Lab 40, Con 34, LD 20 (if Brown Labour leader: Lab 45, Con 31, LD 16).

My guess is that Labour's rise in the polls is down to raised turnout as a result of those polls at the start of the campaign (on reflection that MORI poll has been the worst thing to happen to Howard so far) while the slight bump for the LD's is probably due to socially liberal suburbanites being turned off by "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?"

Turnout, turnout, turnout

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CR/IoS: Lab 40, Con 34, LD 20 (if Brown Labour leader: Lab 45, Con 31, LD 16).

Why don't they dump Blair?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why don't they dump Blair?

Who? The Labour Party?
First off, there's no need; Blair will resign at some point in the next four years (he's made that official) and Brown has basically sown up the leadership election (the deputy leader election will be very interesting though). Secondly it's very, very had to just get rid of a Labour leader; the Party has a complex quasi-legal system which makes it difficult to challenge the leader. No Labour leader has ever been sucessfully challenged by another member. Ever. It's possible that if Jenkins hadn't procrastinated in the late '60's he could have beaten Wilson, but thankfully for the Party, he was too cautious and never made his move.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Excuse my ignorance, but the Times is a larger paper than the Telegraph, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Excuse my ignorance, but the Times is a larger paper than the Telegraph, right?

In terms of influence and real readers, yes. In terms of circulation, no; the Telegraph flogs off a lot of cut price papers to commuters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, look at the "is honest" and "shares my values" numbers. The LibDems are totally kicking the other two parties' asses. I predict the LibDems gain some more.

http://pollingreport.co.uk/libDems.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You really don't understand how things work here do you?