UK Opinion Polls Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:51:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK Opinion Polls Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
Author Topic: UK Opinion Polls Thread  (Read 68638 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2008, 02:37:03 PM »

Seems more-than-a-little implausible (and I don't buy it), except as confirmation that the government isn't exactly in a good shape right now... which is obviously true.

Fwiw another polling firm had something like 40, 29, 20 the other day (don't recall the exact figures, can't be bothered to check). Which is probably, more or less, what a General Election held today would look like if me readings of the local results is right.
I do hope we don't get another silly rush of rushed-polls in sunday papers... though I suspect that we will, just to piss me off.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2008, 02:39:20 PM »

I'm wondering if YouGov were smoking something in that poll Wink.

The Man From G.O.P.- I'd say the 1983 period, but it's a guess.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2008, 02:46:17 PM »

The Man From G.O.P.- I'd say the 1983 period, but it's a guess.

The answer is the early years of the Blair premiership. Except that that isn't the answer really; the methods YouGov use are totally different from those used by other firms *today* let alone a decade ago.

The answer is that there is no answer as there's nothing we can compare to.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2008, 02:49:58 PM »

Seems more-than-a-little implausible (and I don't buy it), except as confirmation that the government isn't exactly in a good shape right now... which is obviously true.

Fwiw another polling firm had something like 40, 29, 20 the other day (don't recall the exact figures, can't be bothered to check). Which is probably, more or less, what a General Election held today would look like if me readings of the local results is right.
I do hope we don't get another silly rush of rushed-polls in sunday papers... though I suspect that we will, just to piss me off.

Oh it's definately an indication and that's it; it's similar to the crazy polls of the '94-'97 period. However, if it is history repeating itself then it tells us two things. Including 'swing back' to Labour the Tories are heading towards government. Secondly, they may be heading towards a landslide. Which gives us two years, at the most of a lumbering and flaking government. If 10+ point leads for the Tories continue if I were Labour I'd dump Brown in the autumn; there's nothing to be lost or gained in keeping him.

What makes today different from 1995 is that we are in an economic slowdown, not a boom. The upswing in the economy post 1993 was one of the strongest the UK had experienced since the war and the Tories had 4 years of it but they still lost big. Secondly, post-devolution Labour have lost power in Scotland and now London. If the SNP honeymoon lasts, or 'anyone but Labour' syndrome kicks in, Labour could suffer a significant blow in Scotland. The SNP ideally say they want to win 20 seats at Westminster which is not as fantastic an idea as it sounds.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2008, 02:53:08 PM »

I'm wondering if YouGov were smoking something in that poll Wink.

The Man From G.O.P.- I'd say the 1983 period, but it's a guess.

Late 1981 to early 1982, when the Alliance was over 50% in the polls, maybe, although some of the polls in 1995 might have had Labour that far ahead.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2008, 02:55:51 PM »

I'm wondering if YouGov were smoking something in that poll Wink.

The Man From G.O.P.- I'd say the 1983 period, but it's a guess.

Late 1981 to early 1982, when the Alliance was over 50% in the polls, maybe, although some of the polls in 1995 might have had Labour that far ahead.

Labour last had a 26% lead in April 1997. The Labour showing; 23% is the lowest since late 1981. It is the Tories highest lead since 1968
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2008, 03:02:53 PM »

I'm wondering if YouGov were smoking something in that poll Wink.

The Man From G.O.P.- I'd say the 1983 period, but it's a guess.

Late 1981 to early 1982, when the Alliance was over 50% in the polls, maybe, although some of the polls in 1995 might have had Labour that far ahead.

Labour last had a 26% lead in April 1997. The Labour showing; 23% is the lowest since late 1981. It is the Tories highest lead since 1968

Note that polls back then (and until quite recently) weren't weighted for turnout and so on, unlike now. No need to spell out the implication of that.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2008, 03:15:11 PM »

Oh it's definately an indication and that's it; it's similar to the crazy polls of the '94-'97 period. However, if it is history repeating itself then it tells us two things. Including 'swing back' to Labour the Tories are heading towards government. Secondly, they may be heading towards a landslide. Which gives us two years, at the most of a lumbering and flaking government.

Agree with most of that (you can probably work out which bits I don't Smiley). Btw, I actually think a General Election next year is more likely than most people are assuming. If economic indicators, poll numbers and the like are at least moving in the right direction than the pressure to go for it would be immense and probably overpowering. But that's a long way off now (and yet isn't...). What it certainly is is idle speculation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would not be happy if he were forced out as PM. I wouldn't mind if he chose (or "chose") not to be the Prime Minister candidate; there are some sorts of politics he's good at, elections don't seem to be one of them.

Personal opinion, nowt else.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2008, 04:34:05 PM »

Let's see how far we've come since I last asked this....



How long till Brown is gone?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2008, 05:10:58 PM »

Let's see how far we've come since I last asked this....



How long till Brown is gone?

I think Labour will stick with him until the election; they don't really have any good replacements, and few will want to put their careers on the line.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2008, 05:13:57 PM »


No one knows for sure, not even him (unless he's a very strange surprise planned). A more interesting question would be how much it matters, really.

Anyway, he's not going to go because of a poll that look a little odd and has been published in the Sun, we can be sure of that.

*awakes next morning to discover that the opposite is in fact the case*
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2008, 05:19:13 PM »

Let's see how far we've come since I last asked this....



How long till Brown is gone?

I think Labour will stick with him until the election; they don't really have any good replacements, and few will want to put their careers on the line.

I would like Brown to stay, simply because at the moment he is the Tories best electoral asset, more so than David Cameron.
Logged
jeron
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 662
Netherlands
Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2008, 06:14:13 AM »

Let's see how far we've come since I last asked this....



How long till Brown is gone?

I think Labour will stick with him until the election; they don't really have any good replacements, and few will want to put their careers on the line.

Yes, I think other candidates sense that Labour will probably lose the next election anyway. The party leader who loses the election will have to stand down. On the other hand Labour doing this bad seems to be more out of dissatisfaction with Labour. Brown did do rather wel in the polls for a while last year. So, if there is a new party leader/PM who knows what might happen
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2008, 09:08:52 PM »

I've given up commenting on UK polls, I'm depressed enough

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2008, 05:44:23 PM »

Take it or leave it but YouGov report Labour on 23% which is apparently the lowest rating the party has had in the history of opinion polling. Question is...can they go lower?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2008, 06:38:12 PM »

Take it or leave it but YouGov report Labour on 23% which is apparently the lowest rating the party has had in the history of opinion polling.

You mean other than the one by the same company three weeks ago with the same number?

In any case, apples and oranges. Under the old ways of doing opinion polls it would have been quite literally impossible for a poll to come up with a Labour figure that low, newer methods mean that it is possible with the methods of some polling companies. If that makes sense.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this is a post by-election poll (and they're always dodgy) so maybe not. But of course the current whining about petrol and house prices could cause all sorts of odd things to show up and the Silly Season is almost on us now so, who knows. Such numbers, if they happen, won't be "real" (in the same sense that this one isn't) except insofar as they would be (and this one is) an indication that the government is somewhat-less-than-popular.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2008, 07:17:06 AM »

Such numbers, if they happen, won't be "real" (in the same sense that this one isn't) except insofar as they would be (and this one is) an indication that the government is somewhat-less-than-popular.

Numbers like these for the Tories in '95 weren't real of course. But it did indicate they were going to get humped. We only know that 30% was the low water mark for the Tories after the landslide election. Some have presumed Labour is somewhere between 26-30%, but we've never had a Labour government for this long before. So again, we won't know until after the votes are counted (presuming they do get humped)

The only saving grace for Labour is the performance of the Lib Dems. A more capable leader and firms like YouGov (who poll Lib Dems on the low side) could have showed Labour in 3rd.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2008, 09:30:30 AM »
« Edited: May 30, 2008, 09:39:25 AM by Teacake »

We only know that 30% was the low water mark for the Tories after the landslide election.

That's true, but then that isn't really saying a great deal; there was no chance that the Tory number in an actual General Election on that sort of turnout would be any lower than that. Easier to say with hindsight than at the time, perhaps, but still true.

What I'll note here is the stability of local election results over the course of the present Parliament; true there was a noticable swing to the Tories this year compared to 2006 and 2007 but it wasn't massive or in any way dramatic (now some of the results it produced were a little dramatic, but that's because in the world of low turnouts in local politics if you lose a few hundred votes in every ward you can easily end up losing most of your seats. It doesn't take much actual movement to produce huge changes in local elections) and the general voting patterns broadly fit those of 2006 and 2007. And yet over this period there have been huge swings in the opinion polls, almost every few months or so. The polls show an incredibly volatile electorate, something which does not fit in at all with the relative stability of local elections. I've come to the conclusion that most of the movement in polls over the past few years has not been "real" and would not have been reflected, much, in a hypothetical General Election held at just about any point over the course of the Parliament.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2008, 04:32:30 PM »

We only know that 30% was the low water mark for the Tories after the landslide election.

That's true, but then that isn't really saying a great deal; there was no chance that the Tory number in an actual General Election on that sort of turnout would be any lower than that. Easier to say with hindsight than at the time, perhaps, but still true.

What I'll note here is the stability of local election results over the course of the present Parliament; true there was a noticable swing to the Tories this year compared to 2006 and 2007 but it wasn't massive or in any way dramatic (now some of the results it produced were a little dramatic, but that's because in the world of low turnouts in local politics if you lose a few hundred votes in every ward you can easily end up losing most of your seats. It doesn't take much actual movement to produce huge changes in local elections) and the general voting patterns broadly fit those of 2006 and 2007. And yet over this period there have been huge swings in the opinion polls, almost every few months or so. The polls show an incredibly volatile electorate, something which does not fit in at all with the relative stability of local elections. I've come to the conclusion that most of the movement in polls over the past few years has not been "real" and would not have been reflected, much, in a hypothetical General Election held at just about any point over the course of the Parliament.

So just out of interest, where do you believe things stand at the moment? Level pegging with 2005? I don't quite understand what you mean when you say the movement in polls over the past few years have not been 'real', particularly when we have had results that broadly reflect such poll movements. Polls for both London and Scotland never quite hit the mark (and that goes without saying, considering the methodology), but they did  reflect the trend that produced results that roughly matched the direction of the polls (i.e an SNP and Boris win from Labour) I would certainly think that much can be gauged by the trends in poll movements as opposed to the raw figures. Raw %'s can be thrown to the wind, but there has certainly been noticeable trends that the polls have picked up.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2008, 06:09:48 PM »

So just out of interest, where do you believe things stand at the moment?

Tories likely to win, at least, a stable majority. I suspect that little now can change that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

God, no. No, no, no, no, no, no.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mean that there has been no "real" movement. I just mean that the huge movements (the "s" is important!) that have occured all the time in polls over the past few years have, for the most part, not been "real". The polls have shown an extremely volatile electorate, capable of swinging in all kinds of directions, while local elections (and to an extent also local by-elections) over the past three years have been curiously stable. Swings have happend, yes (the consistency of the *pattern* of the Tory swing this year is very interesting) but nothing dramatic that can't be pinned on local factors of one sort or another.

Not sure how clear that is; will elaborate more if it's not clear. Actually, I'll dig up a few examples.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. But *what* are the trends that they show; do they say more about party motivation than how people would actually vote [qm]. Their volatility, in contrast to actual elections, is the thing that makes such a question legitimate.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2008, 07:07:41 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2008, 07:18:11 PM by Teacake »

Some Coventry wards...

Westwood (suburban area, fairly typical in most respects if a little more working class than average, includes part of Warwick Uni)

2006: Con 1566, Lab 1374, BNP 473, LDem 383, Ind 120
2007: Con 1426, Lab 1326, BNP 456, LDem 374, Ind 161
2008: Con 1713, Lab 1389, BNP 425, LDem 277, Green 165

Holbrook (almost the very stereotype of a blue collar inner suburb, pity about the lack of a LibDem candidate in 2008)

2006: Lab 1673, Con 833, LDem 481, BNP 451
2007: Lab 1658, Con 871, LDem 544, BNP 469
2008: Lab 1821, Con 1077, BNP 509

Earlsdon (middle class (esp. professionals) urban area)

2006: Con 2520, Lab 1073, Green 805, LDem 670
2007: Con 2364, Lab 1241, Green 652, LDem 427, BNP 189
2008: Con 2515, Lab 1155, Green 698, LDem 440

Edited-in notes: wards chosen on a semi-random basis, the choice of Coventry not random at all; there have been city-wide swings in all directions there, the same basic set of candidates tend to contest each ward each year and while local politics there can be odd, it isn't as quirky and personality-driven as other places. And of course the point isn't the swings (whatever they may be) but the relative stability of voting patterns. More soon from other places.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2008, 10:53:19 AM »

What are your views on Electoral Calculus?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 03, 2008, 07:25:26 PM »

Thought I would revive this. A new ICM poll this weekend, a 16 point Conservative lead, with the Liberal Democrats down.



http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpKVQmyJeIJ2yLISA8HAXPjAQ6TA
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM »

Have any polls broken down the "Others" category?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 03, 2008, 07:43:23 PM »

I guess I can add the other poll here.

Angus - Reid says...





Funny how both polls have it at a sixteen point lead.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.